Transcript of Victor Davis Hanson: Letitia James Indictment Is Just the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’

A pattern of fraud committed by LaTisha James.

The bottom line is that what they've actually charged her for is the tip of the iceberg. The better question is, do you want to deport illegal criminals in general. I still think it would have been positive. Yes. I mean, I liked it, but it was just compared to what most people have to do. I look at all these professors that are so angry. They don't understand. And then they say, Well, we got a PhD. It's very hard to get a PhD. No, I got a PhD. I got it in basically four years. It's a joke.

Hello, and welcome to the Victor Davis Hansen's new show, and it's called Victor Davis Hansen in his own words. This is our Saturday episode, and we'll do something a little bit different in the middle segment, and that is to look at a historical topic. And Victor wants to talk about fighter planes in World War II. Before that, we'll talk a little bit about the Ukraine, Tom Holman, and Latita James. Latita Latisha. Latisha James. Excuse me. Stay with us, and we'll be right back after these messages.

Right is still right, even if you stand by yourself. Chief Justice may have placed the card. This is Hans von Spakowski, host of the Case in Point podcast, which looks at the hottest cases affecting politics, culture, and everyone's daily lives. But we talk about them without confusing legal jargon. And we have interesting guests, like former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich. And we end with reviews of classic Hollywood movies relevant to the topic. Case and Point, the podcast available everywhere you won't want to miss.

Welcome back to the Victor Davis Hansen Show. Victor is the Martin and Neely Anderson Senior Fellow in Military History and Classics at the Hoover Institution and the Wayne and Marsha Busky Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College. You can find him at his website, victorhanson. Com. And the name of the website is the Blade of Perseus. Please come join us there for ultra material that is exclusive to subscribers for 6: 50 a a month or $65 a year. And we'd love to have everybody come join us. So, Victor, before we get to the middle segment and the history, I wanted to talk a little bit about a subject that I was going to do for the Friday show, but I didn't have time. And that is that there's in the news currently, or at least General Keen has been saying that he thinks the Ukraine is going to use Tomahawk missiles to hit a Russian drone plant. And the only way they could use Tomahawk missiles is if the United States gave them to them.

Yes. So there's two questions here. There's the strategic question and there's the geo strategic question. The strategic question is that Russia has been nonstop hitting Ukrainian power plants, hospitals, staging areas, factories with impunity because it's re-engineered the Iranian drone that it bought, the Shahid drone. It's got huge factories, and they're sending hundreds of them at once. So if Ukraine were to stop that, it wouldn't be enough to hold the Russian army back at the front, which they're doing. They would have to do what Russia is doing to them, trying to have a strategic campaign to either limit their weaponry or their income. So that would be justified. And a Tomahawk missile is the most accurate missile, short range, 100 or so miles. And they could at least, or even longer, excuse me, I think it's much longer. I don't know what I was talking about. But they could stop a lot. I think they've already destroyed about 18% of Russian oil refinery, and they're even importing some refined gas from other countries. So That's the only thing that keeps the Russian military going is oil sales to India, China, et cetera. If the United States were to give them sophisticated Tomahawk missiles and the intelligence, how to use them, and here's a qualifier, they would have to have United States American technicians.

They wouldn't say they were there, but they would have to train the Ukrainians, and they would have to guide them and service them and calibrate them. So you would have American de facto on the ground in Ukraine, helping target Russian strategic targets. That would be justified, and it would help Ukraine win the war. Then there's a geo strategic reasoning. As I said earlier, under the Cold War protocols, which we still follow because it's Russia versus the United States versus the Soviet Union versus the United States, but it's the same thing. There There were a lot of proxy wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East. But there was a general rule that in a proxy war, the nuclear rival did not itself participate and hit the homeland of its rival. So in Vietnam, Russia did not go in there. They went in there with advisors. You can fight in that war, but they didn't hit the homeland. We didn't either. We didn't do it in any of these wars. The one time they came close to it was 1962, when Khrushchev put missiles that were capable of hitting the Southeastern United States with nuclear weapons. We went to Defcon I think we went to Defcon 4.

We almost went to the nuclear level, and that was a taboo. So we said to Khrushchev, You can't do that. Now, we weaseled out of it and said, take missiles out of Turkey. But what we're doing, if we were to give them Tomahawk missiles, then basically we were using a proxy to attack the homeland of our nuclear rival. And that's when Putin said that would be intolerable. And Trump said he might do it. I don't know why we just didn't do it and keep quiet. I think Trump wanted not to do it, but wanted to threaten, but he'll have to follow through if he's threatened, and it's going to escalate. So bottom line, what is justified strategically and morally because of what Russia is doing to Ukraine is not justified geo-strategically because it puts us at a threshold of a whole new game.

Well, let's then turn to the home front as it were, or to the domestic issues. And there was this really very good interview on Newsmax of a Sam Antar, who is a forensic economist, and he unveiled a pattern fraud committed by LaTisha James. And so that's very significant in the case against him on her loan applications for buying houses, so real estate deals. What are your thoughts?

The bottom line is that what they've actually charged her for is the tip of the iceberg. And there could be additional charges brought to the grand jury at any time. They are saying that to achieve a lower interest loan and lower property taxes, she said that this property of hers was a second home and would not be rented out. And yet it apparently was, and she has a niece, a grandniece or somebody living in the property who has a long felony record, and then who has skipped bail. And so immediately you say, is it a felony to allow family member that you know is under arrest and wanted an escape bail to use your facilities to be shielded from law enforcement. That's very tricky legally, but for the attorney general of New York, it's devastating. Then this accountant brought up a number of other things that in 1983, going way back, she may have said that this was a family occupied property she bought in the New York area by listing her father as a spouse. Then there's another question of whether she at one time listed a property, this second property, as her primary residence, which, if that were true, would have disqualified her for being attorney general of New York.

The bottom line is these documents have all been signed. She has never said she didn't do it. She said that it was racist, it was sexist, it was lawful. The problem she's having is a good lawyer will get a good prosecutor in this case, will get into the... They will try to have some of her testimonies. I don't know how they'll get them in, but if they get any of those testimonies where she said, I'm going to get you down from, I got my eye on Trump Tower, I'm going to bring you down, then juries being human, they'll want it emotionally as well as the evidence they'll want to convict her. I don't know why all people that I respect, like Andy McCarthy and all these people, say it was a weak case. It's either true or false. And then the question is, well, they wouldn't know. There's only 3,000 cases of mortgage fraud. That's not how it works. If you are a high-level official, especially one who's a top law enforcement officer in New York, then you're expected to meet a higher standard. The question that I would say to Andy McCarthy and others who question this, well, if she wasn't this person, she would have not been looked at.

They'll say, Well, there's only 3,000 people who have been convicted of this per year, something like that, lying about the status of a property to get… But how many attorney generals? That's the real question. How many attorney generals have done this and gotten away with it? We don't know, but I have a feeling very few of them have. She He knows what she's doing. It's the same thing with all of these cases with John Bolton. He either transmitted the stuff or he didn't. Somebody said, Well, they wouldn't have looked at him if he hadn't have crossed Trump. Well, he would have never been exposed, except he brought himself into the political arena by trying to write and publish a book in the 2020 campaigns cycle when he was warned by a federal judge who allowed him to publish it, but warned that he wouldn't have allowed him if it hadn't have gotten that far. He didn't want to stop the actual... The book was printed. He didn't want to stop the dissemination. But he did warn him that you are now subject to... You're subject to yourself You subjected yourself to criminal and civil exposure.

And the only reason he was not indicted because Joe Biden thought he owed a debt of gratitude because he felt the Biden, the Bolton memoir had weakened Donald Trump. It's a little bit more complicated. But ultimately, all these things will be adjudicated. The fact that it wasn't a federal prosecutor who made that decision, but they brought it before a grand jury as often happens in federal cases. And these are liberal states, Virginia, DC. It's hard to get an indictment from a East Coast court or a jury, and they did, a grand jury. So it shows you that there's something there.

Yeah, I guess we all know that in terms of the law, some of us drive faster than the speed limit, but we don't all get caught. But the one that does can't say, Well, there's other people out there.

That's a good point because Mr. Jones, the attorney general candidate in Virginia, everybody's talking about the horrific things he said about the speaker of the Virginia legislature when he said he wanted to kill him or assassinate him. He wanted his kids to die in his spouse's arms. That's all true, but it was rhetorical. What they don't really talk about is two things that should have been disqualifying. He drove 116 miles an hour. That's hard to do. That put everybody on that road, anywhere near him in danger. More importantly, when he was sentenced, he was not jail for that, but he was sentenced to community service, I think, 500 hours. He defrauded the government by using his own political action committee to hire himself as a nonprofit. But that should have been disqualifying. So he had a lot of stuff that was disqualifying. And in the case of Latita James, she's already said they're playing the race card. Of course, she played the race card. She talked about Donald Trump being white. When she went after him. And that was how she got reelected to the attorney generalship. And that was the subtext. And now it's quite ironic that she's playing the race card and saying, I'm only being attacked because I'm Fannie Willis, fill in the blanks, proud black woman.

But she I know that you and Jack talked about it, but what do you think the chances of that Virginia governor who wouldn't, disown him, I guess, from her ticket? What do you think her chances Yeah, I get it.

It's almost even now. And some of the posters, Trafalgar and Rasmussen that had the best reputation in the 2024 election and 2022, have them almost dead even. It's very funny about how all these people call... They use a race card. Then you have Winsum Sears, who's an African-American woman, and a renowned white columnist makes a cartoon about her where she's portrayed not just with thick lips, but in a menstrual type, kicking her heels and just gesticulating as if she's on a menstrual show in the cartoon, and then they publish it without any thought. So the left has a long history of being racist, and they project that racism onto other people, and they call them that. I don't care what color you are, but Latita James has been a racist, and she is now claiming she's a victim because she's projecting what she has done and used race against Trump. These cases, in the case of the attorney general, they have a black challenger and a Cuban-American incumbent in the attorney general. Then they have a open race between a black woman and a white woman. The left is flummox because they have been using racist attacks in this cartoon against a black woman at the same time claiming that J Jones is a victim of racism.

I think what's the comment on it? Everybody's tired of it. They're just so sick of the view, Kennedy Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coat, blah, blah, blah, race, race, race. And then without any discussion of class, that we're talking basically about the elite class of America, the Obamas, the Eric Holders, the Ta-Nehisi Coates, the Hycom Jeffries, Very privileged, highly educated, very wealthy, high income, all talking as if they're victims. It's time to look at class as far as privilege and not race.

Okay, let's then look at the Tom Holmes case that he's been accused of taking a bribe, is how the left puts it, that the FBI recorded him. However, he wasn't a public official. He was in a private business. So I'm not sure how anybody distinguishes between a business deal and a bribe.

This is going nowhere. It was filed. The investigation was started by the Biden administration for obvious reasons. He is guilty or not guilty as a general that goes to work for Lockheed or General Dynamics or Northrop. You cannot tell me that they do not discuss their future employment after they leave, and they are hired quite legally because they have a whole retune of former high officers in procurement. And they call up and they said, Hey, bud, remember me? Yeah. Oh, General so and so, General Smith. Yes. Well, we got a superior product over here at Lockheed. It's better than Ray Theon. That's what happens. So he's a private person, and he is a lobbyist, basically. And somebody comes up to him and says, I will give you... He says, Someday I'll have influence, and I have influence right now. I used to work for it, and I know a lot about it. If you want to give me money, I can further your efforts to get a government contract. That's the worst, if that's all true. He took $50,000, and he was trying to get it. Then you get to the next point of view that now he is the head of ICE.

And did he then go back to the people that he got $50,000 for consultants consulting our advice on how to, just like a general tells General Dynamics, how to get a contract in the Pentagon. And is there a quid pro quo? They don't seem to have any. So Cash Patel said this was the prior investigation. It went nowhere, and now you want to dig it up only because he's very successful in deporting people. It's not going to go anywhere. Would I have done it? Not that I'm a moral exempler for anything, but in my limited experience, anytime some affluent person has called me up and said, I'd like to give you some money, if you would mention my product in a column or on a podcast or That's happened a couple of times, not so explicitly, I've said no. But you have to do it in a very polite way so you don't come across sanctimonious or self-righteous because you don't want to say, I'm so much better than you. You just say, I don't think that's a wise idea. I'd like to help you, but I can't because I can't endorse a product on a...

You can buy an ad, and here's the name of our ad sponsor. Just buy a 30-second ad that's above board. But I can't just incidentally mention things. I can mention people, what I like, but there's gray areas, but everybody knows you can't take money and then do something you otherwise would not, I don't think. It's very important. I'm a little worried that I really like the idea that Jared Kutner and Donald Trump and Wytoff are all businessmen, and they cut through the diplomatees. But they create a climate we have to be careful about. There are a lot of Americans doing business in the Middle East in general, but in particular, they see the Trump administration as business-orientated and the the golf billionaire economies flush with cash and lacking Americans now and wanting to do business. I'm a little worried when I hear stories, and the Wall Street Journal ran with one, that there are people claiming they speak for Trump or the Trump family, and they're making millions of dollars suddenly. It's an old rule of thumb. Would anybody talk to me if I didn't know so and so? If the answer is no, you got to be careful.

Well, the last thing on immigration. J. B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, has said that when Donald Trump is gone, these ICE agents that are there may may face prosecution. He seems to be threatening them. And I thought that was a horrible thing. They're just doing- He's really getting close to legal exposure.

You should read the supremacy Clause, Article 6 of the Constitution says, in matters of federal jurisdictions, like enforcing federal law or protecting federal property, the federal government has supremacy over all local and state jurisdictions. Basically, what Pritzer is saying to ICE is, the federal government does not have a right to come into my state or Mayor Johnson's city and protect federal property from attacks, and they are throwing stuff in there and harass our federal employees from filling out a federal task. He's going to lose, lose, lose. As I said earlier with Jack, Jan Brewer thought she could do the right thing and say, I'm going to force the Obama administration to to, as federal stewards, enforce our federal law by acting on the state level. And they sued and said, This is a federal matter in your state. You have no business going down to the border and enforcing federal law over our decision not to. And they won. This is what caused the Civil War when South Carolina shelled a federal fort sooner, and federal forces were there. There were armories all over the south. They were federal post offices, there were federal property.

Once the Confederacy said that they were going to succeed in 1861, no one knew what to do because there was nothing in the Constitution. There was a lot about in the Constitution how you admit a state, but there was nothing how a state is free to succeed. Nobody knew what to do. Lincoln did not want the Union to be torn apart. So they came up with a rationale, the Southern states are expropriating federal properties, federal weapons, federal forts, and we have a right to go in there He was going to supply the troops at Fort Zoomer and protect federal property and force them to do the same thing. And we did the same thing with Eisenhower. Somebody was a real ignoramus. It George Stephanopoulos. How did we get that name again? Sixteen Million Dollar Big Mouth. He said on a recent his show that Donald Trump was thinking about doing the Insurrection Act. That's the use of federal law superseding, going into an area of chaos and insurrection and using federal law to override state law. He said it's never happened that he ever overruled a governor who didn't want him to come in. Come on, man.

Eisenhower went in. Orville Faubus in Arkansas said, We're going to treat black people the way we want. They don't have to follow the Supreme Court decision. We're not going to let them in. Eisenhower said, You don't have a National Guard. We just federalized it. I'm going in. They did the same thing in Mississippi. He did the same thing in Alabama. So Stefanopolis is such a partisan. He doesn't even take one nanosecond to look it up, and he just spouts off. But Donald Trump is basically saying to Pitzer, Pitzer, Pitzer, yes. He's saying to him, You are a state official, and you are threatening federal employees and trying to impede them from doing their job, and now you're threatening to put them in jail or to prosecute them later on with implied threats. So you're in an insurrectionary mode. And if I declare the Insurrection Act, I can arrest you for trying to impede the enforcement of federal law, and more importantly, declaring that you're immune from it and that you're a sovereign body. I'm just going to federalize all of the Illinois National Guard, and I'm going, he could do that, and he hasn't done it yet.

So he's in bolding, and what he is doing is he is in a competition with Gavin Newsom to see which one can be the most outrageous and get through the 2000 '27, '28 Race and appeal to the base. And Gavin Newsom just put dumb and dumber ad. He put Jim Carrey and what's his name on from that crazy movie and said, this is Net Yahoo and Trump. And he did it at the very moment of their greatest success in getting the hostages back when the world was watching these half starved hostages being embraced by their family. And Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, as if he doesn't have enough to do with the Palisades fire, the gas, gasoline problem, the refinement, the whole thing. And what does he do? He takes time out to tweet that the people who made this possible and got the hostages back. And for the first time in 50 years, you might have a peace settlement is dumb, and Netanyahu is dumber. That lasted about what? Thirteen hours? He took it down?

I'm surprised it lasts that long, but I guess it shows how dumb- Well, then the dumb Sure.

Then he says, Well, I can outdo that. If Gavin is going to rile up the squad and AOC and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and the nutty people on campus, then I'm going to say I'm going to arrest ICE people. So these people are incoherent. And there's one philosophy, common denominator, one theme about all of the attacking Teslas, attacking ICE facilities, tweeting that you're going to beat people up in the mouth, the potty videos, Schumer using the F word, Kamala Harris saying, We're going to get those mother, all this horrible language. There's one thing. Create so much chaos, so much disruption, so much verbiage that the American people get sick of it. And as a collateral damage, they go and blame Trump. Not that they won't blame us. Their popularity is an all-time low, but they're not the presidency. So their theory is, Well, that's in the future. Right now, I'm going to be a suicide bomber, and I'm going to do so much damage by shutting down the government and tweeting these crazy things and using this foul language and calling him a fascist and Hitler, that I will bring down His popularity. I will stall and bleed out the economy.

We'll get into a recession, and then everybody will say, Oh, make it all go away, please. I'm in a futile position. I don't know if it's Trump's fault or not, but I just can't take it anymore. More. And then it'll be a whole new day in 2028. We'll all forget it, and they will run as builders and creators and positive statesmen. I don't think it's going to work.

I don't think it's going to work either. I think it's going to be their own electoral suicide. But in the meantime, Gavin is potentially facing another problem in his state, and that is that in San Francisco, they're dallying with the idea of bringing in federal agents to help with deporting illegals. There was a poll taken for specifically illegals who are selling fentanyl. And 80%-Who could be for that? 80% who couldn't be for that.

You'd run because they It's a little bit extreme.

But it did say the question was, do you want federal agents to help deport illegals who are selling fentanyl?

The worst people in the world would be people selling fentanyl that are here illegally. I The better question is, do you want to deport illegal criminals in general? I still think it would have been positive, yes.

But that shows something about San Francisco.

I think people who don't live in California, they got to realize that even though these people are crazy leftists that live there, if you went up there in 2007, '08, '09, '10, '11, '12, and I used to go up and speak at the Hyatt Regency a lot for various groups, It was in a renaissance. People in Silicon Valley, these youngsters, young hipsters, they were leaving. They didn't want to live in San Jose or Palo Alto. They wanted to live in the city. You would go up and speak. I'd go up and speak and go to a dinner, give a lecture, town hall or city building or something. Then it would be nine o'clock, and I would be staying somewhere like a mile away. I would just walk. It was perfectly It was lit up, and you see all these young people. As you pass the restaurants, they were packed. You would see the Twitter thing here. All these Silicon Valley had headquarters, and they destroyed it. Partly, it was COVID, partly, it was the administration of the double whammy of Gavin Newsom for eight years and London Breed for eight years, Liberals, and then the state at large.

Now, when you go up there, it's got a little better with mayor Loury, but it's a non-godly mess. I went up there, and last time I was there was last year in March. Each little store has a pressure washer. It was pressure washing the feces off into the gutter. You could see little splatters on the side of the lower walls. Then you see people walking around, screaming and yelling, whacked out. Then you see people defecating. It was horrible. It Then they'll say, Well, it doesn't affect me in Presidio Heights. It doesn't affect me in Pacific Heights, Nob Hill. Well, no, of course it doesn't. But that just means that you don't really live in San Francisco because you don't go downtown. The same thing with Portland. People I've heard say, Well, Portland's wonderful in the suburbs. You don't really... Well, yeah, if you never go downtown, then you're just a suburb of Portland. That's what It's funny about the left. Their attitude in Chicago or San Francisco and about ICE coming, I mean, ICE deporting people or Trump trying to stop the... It's never your line. It's safe. It's where I live, it's safe. I have money, and I have a good zip code, and we have a private security group, and I don't go downtown.

So why are you coming in? When you look at the people protesting, they're overwhelming. Overwhelmingly, not always, but they're overwhelmingly affluent white people. Which brings me up to an apology. As I said earlier, I had used the word Karen, and a person got angry at me, and I said I didn't use the word Karen right now. But the not to be spoken name of this demographic is often opportunity. They are the Martha Vineyard people who rush to get care packages and puff coats and all these nice accouterments for the illegal aliens. And then they got, C, you wouldn't want to be you. And they had a bus waiting within 24 hours to bus them to New York. Get them out of here. But let me be liberal and performance aren't my virtue signaling.

Welcome back to Victor Davis Hansen In His Own Words. These podcasts are available on Spotify, both in audio form and in video form, and they're available on YouTube as a video and also Rumbel. And you can find the audio version in Apple podcast. So join us there. And also come join Victor Davis Hansen's website, The Blade of Perseus. It's got lots of free stuff on it. His articles and links to these podcasts. And it has ultra-material. That's two articles a week on ideas Victor has, and then a video podcast on Friday. And you can join that for 6: 50 a month or $65 a year. So please come join us. So, Victor, I know that you want to talk about fighter planes in World War II, so take it away.

We're opening it up for inquiries about what you would like to discuss, and we had some on the Ted of Vinci, but I thought we talked about that during the Vietnam. I had a couple of people who said, Well, you talked about Fokwhiff 190s and World War II and which plane, and it was a not nerdy, but a person wanted to say, what's the best fighter plane? And it's a larger issue. Generally speaking, there's so many varieties of criteria that adjudicates that answer. What I mean by that is You just don't look at a fighter plane and say how fast it was, how high it could climb, how fast it could climb, how much. You have to take into consideration what was the kill ratio between it its opponents? How many planes were lost versus how many were killed? What period of the war did it come out? What different variety or model of that plane you're talking about? How many were produced? What was the cost? And what was the caliber of the pilot at that particular year. If you put all of those variables in, there's a general pattern that when the war broke out in 1939, the United States and France and other European countries were all about the same.

And it was generally a plane had about 1,000 or 1,100 horsepower prop plane. It usually had two machine guns, maybe a 20 millimeter cannon, and they could reach speeds, top speeds at about 300 miles an hour, and they could go up to 30,000 feet. And then quickly, the Japanese had been improving at a faster rate than peacetime America or peacetime France, or maybe even peacetime Britain. With one exception, they had created this spitfire, supermarine fighter that even during peace, they had kept up with this wonderful Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, liquid cool engine. And when the war broke out, it was essentially comparable to German's counterpart, the BF 109. It was a magnificent plane. They each only had a short range of four or 500 miles. Not even that, 300 miles. But it had a supercharger. When a plane gets high up and the oxygen gets thin, it loses its performance. And you can either do one of two things. You can make a mechanical pump, air turbine that will push air that you can't find in the atmosphere through the intake and just force it into the combustion process and then supercharge it so that you have a greater deal of oxygen, the fuel, as if you were down at sea level or you can turbocharge it.

You don't use an electric machine to pump the air, but the gas that goes out can be recirculated and turned around and pump back in and recycled. And that's a little better. Sometimes it takes a little bit longer to kick in. But the British had done that. So they were about comparable, and that's what one the Battle of Britain, the Supermarine spitfire, along with a hurricane, which wasn't as good, but they could dive and leave. The Americans came in watching all of this, and they knew some things were wrong, that their pre-World War II fighters, the 1939-1941, would not be comparable to either the German BF 109 or the Japanese Xero, which had come out in 1939 and had a huge huge range, like it could go 1,500 miles in one direction. It was very light. It had no armor plating for the pilot, and it had no self-sealing gas tanks lined with rubber. So if you shoot it, it doesn't blow up and it stops leaking the gas tank. And it was very light, and it had about a 800 horsepower engine, so it could turn and die better than anything else. So for the first, when When an American went in, they had to go in with what they had, the P-40, 41, the P38 coming out.

That was a two-engine fighter. It never worked very well. It was a good plane. But my point is, in 1941, in December, and all of '42, the American planes, the F-4 Wildcat, the naval fighter, they were not as good as the Xero. They developed ways to counteract that. They called it the Thatch Weave, and various formations, they could stop the advantages of the Xero. But more importantly, German pilots and Japanese pilots had been fighting for years. So you had all these young kids. But what saved the Allies were they had brilliant engineers, and they were working, working, working. And they came out with something called the Pratt-Whitney Double Wasp engine. It had 18 cylinders, and it was air-cooled. That's very important because an air-cooled engine will last a lot longer. If you shoot a liquid-cooled engine that has a radiator, and you hit a jacket, it'll heat up. It has no mechanism other than cool water. Now, it might be cool better, but it's much more vulnerable. But this double WASP engine was capable of being air-cooled, and it had It had a big induction on some models. And more importantly, it could produce 2,000 horsepower.

So they immediately in '42 said to themselves, This will be the American. We're going to put it in a carrier plane called the F-4 Corsure with the goal wings on carriers. We're going to put it in the Pacific with the Hellcat fighter, and we're going to put it in the P-47. It was used everywhere, and we made 16 1,000 P-47s. And it was a very, very powerful engine. An American idea, just like our big clunker cars, was we're going to make the most powerful engine, the heaviest plane. We're going to put armor behind the pilot. Preferably, they're going to be liquid-cooled, so they're not going to be easy to shoot down. They're going to be reinforced struts on the wings, and we're going to put six to eight machine guns in them, and we're going to have like 3,000 rounds. And in one second, you'll probably have four or five hundred rounds at one target. And we're going to get a turbocharger, supercharger. They can go up to 40,000 feet, and function very well. And then they're going to dive down and reach speeds of 460 miles an hour, and they're going to shred the enemy and then outline them and go up.

But what they're not going to do is getting into a dogfight, turning and and rolling with a zero and all of this. And so that plane was this. Well, it was the P-47 Thunderbort, the Hellcat, and the Corsaire. And once they got into the main carrier fleet in 1943, late 1944, when you had Hellcats that were land-based marines, marines used them, but so did the Air Force. And you had Corsaire goal wing fighters. They destroyed the Xeros. They just absolutely destroyed them. There was a new plane that Japanese came out. The Shinden, it was a very good plane, almost as good. But the pilots by then had all been killed. And by 1944, and remember what I said, these planes were updated. So the P-38 Lightning with two engines that didn't have originally the Pratt-Whitney Double Wasp, it was starting to be up. So you had suddenly the early models were being upgraded, the P-38, and then you had the Hellcat and the Corsaire, and then they got some Thunderbolts in the Pacific. And they just, Mariana's turkey shoot, the Battle of Philippine Sea, they just, the air battles, they wiped out the Japanese. They had kill ratios of 15 to one, whereas in 1942, they were losing, say, Wildcats or P-40s, those types of planes, Warhawk, except at 5: 00 to 1: 00, they were losing.

And their pilots were getting better and more experienced, and they had better fuels, aviation fuel, and the Japanese were getting less and less training. And then the Pacific, they made the P-47. It was the heaviest plane ever made as a fighter. They call it a jug. It was huge with this huge engine in it, and it could reach speeds of 420 miles an hour. And the weird thing about it was it was developed to be a fighter bomber. In other words, it would come down and blow up tanks with rockets and trucks and troops. But until the Mustang came out, they used it to escort bombers, even though you wouldn't want to get one of these big heavy duty planes, even though they were as fast as the BF 109 or the new Foc Wolf 190. It was a brilliant German plane, and you wouldn't want to get in a dogfight with them. But But they were used that way. And so finally people said, Well, we've got to be more specialized. The P47 is a really great plane, but its natural role is not to escort fighters into Germany. And then dogfight a lighter BF 109 or one of these new, just as fast, if not faster, Fockewith 190s and dog fights.

So we're going to use it more as a fighter bomber, and it destroyed thousands of trucks, tanks. It was wonderful, the P-47. But then to get a better escort, they took a P-51 that had a particularly designed wing. It was called a North American Mustang. But the problem was they put an Allison engine, and it was a good engine, but it wasn't up to the Pratt-Whitney double. And that engine is big, and they wanted a light maneuverable fighter like the spitfire. They that could dogfight the Germans. So they didn't know what to do. So then they put the new Pratt-Whitney that was in a spitfire, they put it in the American Mustang. And the American Mustang actually had a tougher frame and a more aerial dynamic than the original spitfire. Of course, original spitfires, the British being geniuses as they are, kept improving them, and so did the American. So at the end of the war, the two planes that were probably the fastest in major production You could always have a prototype, were the spitfire latest model and the latest model Mustang. So they put a liquid-cooled English. You could always tell they had the pointed nose, not the round flat.

And the P-51s then had dropped tanks, and they had enormous range, and they were lighter than P-47. They flew all the way to Germany, and then Doolittle came in and said, You don't have to stick next to the B-17s. Go out and dogfight. And these pilots then were young. They were getting 6, 700 hours. Luftwaffe were losing pilots. They didn't have enough fuel, and it didn't matter what plane they were in. The kill ratio of the Mustangs went from one to one, up to two Two, three, four to one in some cases. Then there was a big fight after the war. Well, we're in Korea, we don't have enough jets. What we're going to use for ground fighting, we should use the one that's a little faster, the P-51. Big mistake because in In the Korean War, when we still used prop planes, we should have used the P-47. It was indestructible. It had armor and it was heavily built and it had an air cool engine. There's stories of having three or four cylinders blown off and it could still fly 500 miles. But it's a story about these engineers at the Vaught Corporation, North American Corporation, Lockheed Corporation, Bell Corporation, and they kept making these brilliant engines.

And finally, you went from about 800 horsepower to 2000 or 2500 in some of the latest double wasp engines. And they did that in two years. And by the end of the war, we had produced about 60,000 Hellcats, Corsaires, Mustings, and Thunderbolt. And you could argue that they were all better than the Japanese models, and they were as good or not better than the BF until the very latest model, and just as good as the Falkwith 190. That won the war, really. That allowed them to stop the loss rate of B-17s in 1943. It's some of those missions at Swinefort and the oil fields in Romania, they were losing 7, 8, 9%, and they got down to 1% because of these fighter planes. Then they unleashed them at D-Day. You see those movies where, I think in Saving Fire and Rye, and they're all going to be killed in the end. And then those Mustings come in and they change, or maybe they were spitfires, I can't remember. I think they were American Mustang, and they had ground support. So they had a nine to one superiority in numbers by 1944, and they dominated the whole...

I think there were only two Luftwaffe planes on D-day that straved. That was in the longest day. That was an actual true story.

Did the Air Force often change the nature of the battle or the course of a battle? So it was very significant. Which one's more significant, your tank brigades or your Air Force?

The what?

Which is more significant, the tank brigades or the Air Force?

Well, the one who revolutionized everything was George Patty. And when he was ostracized for slapping soldiers, but he wasn't allowed to participate in D-Day. And he was planning all of June and July when he on ice. Then they activated the third army, about 600,000 troops, and they put him in charge. So he and Hodges were rival. Hodges had the first army. Pattyr had the third army. Bradley was the commander of them, along with Montgomery, and they reported to Eisenhower. But they were going to have Pattyr go, believe it or not, in the opposite direction in the Brittany Peninsula to clear it out. But that's going That's going West, not East. So he very quickly sent a division and said, Handle it. I'm heading East. And they said, George, you're south. Monty is only 500 miles from Berlin. Hodges is 800. You're like 1400 miles. You got to go into Czechoslovakia. So what he did was he had something that they didn't agree with, a narrow front. So he would send his tanks out in front and just envelop a village, go around a village, go around a German town or French town, and then cause panic, and then send in the infantry, and the artillery would soften it up and then send in the infantry.

Now, traditional German strategy was to outflank them because they were on a narrow front. They were just going as fast as they can, 50 miles a day to shock and awe them. But then he got the American Army Air Force to be his flank protectors. So he sent in P-47s and P-51s at huge numbers, Pete Quiseta, the air commander. And Patent would say, I'm going in here and I want the... And these planes would just act like, I don't know, Hawks or eagles. They would just go and anything that moved, they would shoot. And they prohibited or prevented the German Panzers from getting to the rear. So he didn't worry about it. He said, Blank the flanks. And he just kept going and going. He would have gone across the Rhine in 1944, but he ran out of gas. Every time he went 50 miles, they'd say, Oh, my gosh, it's going to take another truck. It's going to take 20% of the truck's fuel just to get the truck going to give you the fuel. And then it was 50% of the fuel is going to be used to transport the fuel. And then Monty wanted all of it for this crazy Bridge Too Far, Arnheim campaign, Market Garden.

But the Americans work the best with ground support. And the Germans, after the war, they were always asked, Would you rather fight the British or the Americans? And they often said, The Americans, as far as actual fighting. They thought the British were more professional. They'd been fighting longer. But then they got angry at the American way of fighting, because the American way of fighting wasn't to go engage the Germans necessarily. The doctrine was to use superior artillery. We had better artillery. Everybody talks about the 88. Well, we had the 105 and proximity fuses and everything. And what they call time on target, they would get a target and they would say, here's a German supply depot. And no matter what the caliber of the weapon was, 155 millimeter, 75 millimeter, 105. They all had different velocities. They had a computerized method that they could synchronize all of it to arrive in one place and just blast them apart. And then they used heavy bombers in Operation Coba to blast them apart. And so they didn't send any Americans in there to fight. So the idea was you blast them apart, then you bring armor, and we're going to produce more tanks.

And the Germans, they are much more reliable. They're not as heavy, and they don't have as powerful a punch, but they outnumber the Tiger and Panther 10: 1. And then they're going to be supported by air power. So the Germans, after the war, when they interviewed people, they said, Well, they cheated. We never really got in hand. We had better panzer files were better than the bazookas. Our handgranades were better. Our potato mashes, they had handles. We had better machine guns. But they cheated. They would just come up to us, and then they would call in air strikes, bombing strikes. Then when they started going, they straved us. Then we had our great Panzer Corps, and there would be 10 Germans for every Tiger. Of course, they won because we outproduced them.

They weren't playing according to the rules the Germans were expecting.

Well, the final thing is, if you talk about an army's efficacy, the United States fought for four years and they lost about 450,000 in combat. And the British who emulated our tactics, lost about 405,000. Germany lost over three and a half million, four million. Japanese The Russians lost three million. The Russians lost 20 million, probably 15 million soldiers. The Chinese lost 15. So how in the world did the United States win the Pacific Theater and the European Theater and lose Who's, and the British as well? And the answer was air power. Air power, air power hour. They had the best planes, the best bombers, and the most of them, the greatest number. But the point I'm making is, if you looked at the American plane, Arsenal, in 1940, when the war was raging in Europe, and you said, Is the P-39 Air Cobra or the P-40 Warhawk, P-36, are they going to be competitive? No. And the same thing with tanks. And then the word got back to these private companies that you need to double your horsepower in the engines, and you got design new types of machine guns. So when they made the...

It was typical American, like a heavy American car of 1970s, a clunker. But they weren't clunkers. They were really well-built, powerful. 56 Chevy type thing compared to a little Citroën or something. They weren't elegant, but man, they had the horsepower. They were hard to shoot down, and they had great pilots, and they had... They didn't really... The theory The story was, would you either have a 20 millimeter cannon or a 50 caliber machine gun? So a cannon was about the shell was this long. The shell was like that, but it had explosives. So if it hit a B7 it would blow up. But you could only shoot about one per second. And you can only... They were so heavy, you could only carry about 200 or 150. Or would you rather have machine guns, solid steel, this armor piercing this long. But each one of them could shoot 700 a minute, and you'd have eight of them with 3,000 rounds. So you push the button and those four guns on a Thunderbolt on each wing, eight, they were synchronized all to meet in the center. So when they hit that button, you would get a thousand pieces of less anti-armor steel, like a basketball, just solid lead going right into a plane and just blew them apart.

Afterwards, they asked the German, the Japanese, and they said, well, we always thought cannons were better, but actually the American emphasis on a 50 caliber with a lot of shells and a lot was a better idea.

So, Victor, I was wondering your thoughts on the Democrats these days are denying Antifa, as we know. And what I'm curious about is these young Antifa followers, how they must feel if they've been denied as existing as a group.

I don't understand that. They say they're Antifa. I mean, there's something on my campus where a professor said he had the Anti-Fascist League that he founded, and he winked and nodded and said, Well, I didn't use the word Antifa. Wink, nod. Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, said, There's no such thing. And then they have a picture of him. They're in the George Floyd holding the Antifa Okay. Manual. We have professors of Antifa studies. So antifascist. Yeah, it's a group, but somebody is telling them where to assemble. They all come with helmets and gas masks. Often, they're the same helmets and the same gas mask. They're funded by somebody. These people apparently don't have a job. And there's thousands of them. And so I think they're saying that for one reason. When you say, well, how do they feel when they're not given their due? Well, that was when they weren't subject to federal racketterian and conspiracy charges. So it was like, we're Antifa. What are you going to do about it during George Floyd? Oh, you're going to defund the police? You're scared of us. And now Donald Trump comes in and says, You're looking at 20 years in prison for a federal racketterian.

Oh, I'm not Antifa. Who had never said that? That's mean.

There's no such organization.

That's mean. I'm just a welfare organization. I'm an antifascist. I'm still fighting World War II against the Nazis. Come on, don't do this to me. That's mean.

I liked it better when they were the glitterati of protest.

I liked it better when they were honest about it.

Yeah, exactly. All right, let's turn to the bigger question, and that is the MAGA divide. I think it's either illustrated by or led by Tucker and Candace Owens, Tucker Kerr Carlson.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, too.

And Marjorie Taylor Greene. And it all blew up over Charlie Kirk's death. And they brought him in much-It was there before, but it crystallized. It did. And Charlie Kirk himself, I feel sorry because they're bringing him into it as though he didn't like the state of... This is the accusation and the theory out there, that he was beginning to not be pro-Israel, the state of Israel, and that the Israelis knew this, and that they... Candice, where she has evidence that one of these Israelis knew that the young assassin was going to assassinate Charlie Kirk on that day. So the implication that somehow the Israelis were connected to this-Yeah, I think what she's doing, from what I understand, I want to be very careful what I say.

I don't want to unfairly make allegations, but she's been very critical people who insinuated that, but she has said something like, I didn't say that the Israelis planned the murder of Charlie Kirk. What I did say was that Charlie Kirk wanted to break with the Netanyahu government, and they were upset about it, and you can make your own conclusions. We talked about this, and maybe we slightly We disagreed, but Tucker was asked to give one of the eulogies at Charlie Kirk's Commemorative Funeral Service. Okay. He said, I can just imagine. He was talking about the people who killed Charlie. Well, at that point in time, and nothing has changed since, we know who killed Charlie Kirk. His name was Tyler Robinson. He was in a relationship with a trans person. He had broken from his Norman family and was a hard leftist to the degree that he was... Anybody at that age knows anything. But he is communicating on a social network of pro-trans stuff, very radical stuff. So he's an American home-bred leftist, and he hates Charlie Kirk, and he's mad that Charlie Kirk is coming, and he said he's going to do something about it, and he shoots and kills him.

End of story. So during the eulogy, Tucker said, and I'm loosely quoting, so I'm not being verbatim, so everybody listening, make allowances up. He said, something to the effect, I can imagine a people in a lamp-lit room, i. E. Pre-industrial in the Middle East, eating hummus, Middle East food, happy about it. Well, people said, Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. The person who-You mean they were the people in the Middle East at the time, where it was Jesus's time, and you were happy that he-Yes. So what Tucker was trying to alert to that Charlie Kirk was a Christ-like figure, just like Christ, and he was saying things that upset the status quo. And the status quo, in Jesus's case, were the pharisees. But in Charlie's case, he was trying to compare the people who wanted him dead with the pharisees, I think. That's pretty fair analogy. The problem with it is Pontius Pilate killed, the Romans killed him. Now, the pharisees, you could argue, may have been happy about it because he was a challenge to their authority. But But I don't think you can make the concrete case that they brought evidence to Pontius Pilate and said, you're a pond of ours.

He had his own reasons, and it was political. He wanted stability in a Roman province. What a reasonable person could conjecture from what Tucker said was that he was saying that the modern counterparts of the pharisees were Jews in the Middle East, and they were happy that this modern Christ was killed. Or not so happy. The way he put it, they had a, What are we going to do about this problem? And the problem in his example was that Jesus threatened the supremacy of the Pharisey, Orthodox Jewish establishment. And in the modern metaphor he was using, simile, he was saying that Charlie Kirk threatened his establishment, orthodoxy in America of supporting the Israelis. That was what he said, and that's what got him in trouble. But it wasn't just that. He brought on Darryl Cooper and David Cullum. While they had some points, very few, you can say that Stalin was a mass murder, killed 20 million of his own people, and he caused this 50-year Cold War, and he was a horrible person. But that's a leap from saying that we had no choice or it was in our way to have fewer Americans killed by ensuring the Russians didn't surrender and have a huge Eastern front and supplying 30% of their material.

So they would kill three out of four Germans. But they went beyond that. He was basically these people on his show saying that the Russians were worse than the Germans and the people who engineered this alliance, like Churchill, was a terrorist. And it was in the case of David Column, that we might have been better, he said, even joining the Germans to fight. And think what that would entail. That would be basically saying this man who caused this war of 70 million dead and destroyed Western Europe and killed half the Jews in Europe was preferable to Joseph Stalin He didn't say we should just stay out of it. He said that David called him that we should ally with the Germans. The point of all this is, and then Marjorie Tarrolly-Green has been very outspoken that She wants to break from the Netanyahu government, et cetera, et cetera. And what I don't understand is this. On October seventh, Israel was attacked, 12. Just take that away, and there wouldn't have been any Gaza. There would have been nothing. I've been there before. That field, that wall, wasn't even a wall. They knocked it down in five minutes with a bulldozer.

It wasn't the Theodesian walls at Constantinople. And my point is that the Israelis were trying to work with Hamas and play them off against the Palestinian authority. 20,000 Gazans were coming in and making three times a wage into Israel. So if there was any problem, it was the Israelis misplaced magnuminy and naiveté about what these people were doing when they were coming in, working, scouting it out, planning this, getting their arms and money from Iran, and take all that away. All they had to do was say, I'm not going to do that. If they had just said, I'm going to call in the Emirates and gutter, and I'm going to call in the Saudis, and I'm going to promise that we're going to build a Gaza, Mediterranean, Southern France utopia, they would have done it for them. But they didn't want to do that. They wanted to kill Jews and be destructive. That's not hard to see. So I don't know what's going on. And I've always said that because I was on for six or seven years on Tucker I or my wife. But because I like him, I feel that he is headed in a direction that's not going to end well because I don't know what Candice is doing.

I don't know where they're. I met her before. She was pleasant enough when I met her. I met her husband before. But if you want to pursue the idea that Macron's wife has male genitalia, that's a demonstrable fact or not. Then you want to pursue this idea that maybe Charlie Kirk was killed by people or forces other than Tyler Robinson, and you're going to build your audience. But what are you building your audience on? You're building your audience on a conspiracy theory, and you have an obligation as a public voice to go by evidence and be empirical. So I don't know where they're headed, but Donald Trump is apparently headed in the other direction. He's never been closer. He was at the Knesset, and they said he's the best friend the Israel has ever had. So where do you go if you're Marjorie Taylor-Green or Candice? Are you fighting for And Banon, are you fighting for the hearts and minds of Donald Trump? His kids are Jewish. His grandkids on Kushner's side.

Ivanka converted.

She's converted. So you expect Donald Trump to like that? And when you say that hitting the Iranians is going to cause World War III? From a military historical point, there was no military defenses. And left. And that was thanks to Israel. So I don't know where it's all going, but part of it is that October seventh unleashed this idea that you could be anti... It was like the outbreak of a war. When you do something unthinkable and nothing happens. So the anti-Semitic West said, Wow, They just went in there and killed, raped, the worst day in the Holocaust, and people are happy. Wow, the taboo is broken. You can say anything you want about Jews now. You can revert to the old anti-Semitism. Everybody's on the campuses of Harvard. They're ruffing up Jews. Jews are running into the library at universities scared. The Columbia, MIT Jews, their persona non grata. This is, wow, at Stanford, they're tearing down the pictures of Jewish hostages. When that went on, that brought a momentum. It was like the George Floyd, but, wow, DEI, defund the police. You can riot. It's the new wave, and that's what happened. And nobody said, No, I'm not going to do that.

And everybody needed to. Each person, according to their station, if you're a historian and you see this Darryl Cooper going on there and spouting things like, Oh, they had no idea that they were going to kill Jews and Ukrainians. They went into the war, and they didn't know they were going to be so successful. And then you know that there's a hunger plan written by a German officer-professor about how to starve Ukraine and take all the food and what Babeliar was not a one-off, but it was a whole year of killing Jews, and that was the whole plan. Then When somebody says that, what's the purpose of saying that? I don't know. I know, but I don't want to say because I'm not going to accuse somebody of... Well, then the point is, well, I am going to accuse Darryl Cooper of fabricating history for nefarious reasons. And so same thing with David Colm. They know that's not true. They know that the German, that Churchill wasn't a terrorist, at least by standards of World War II, compared to the enemy. I mean, he approved the firebombing and all that, but that was only after the Germans started it.

I think anybody who's ordinary and has common sense can see that to be on the side of Israel is to be on the side of civilization.

I mean, regardless Well, as I said earlier, you're a hostage. Would you rather be a hostage under Israel's condition or in a tunnel under Gaza? Don't tell me, Well, they're poor. No, I'm just talking about, would you rather a hostage? Would you want to go visit? Do you want to go to the West Bank or stay in a hotel in the West Bank or in Israel? Do you want to stage a demonstration against the government in the West Bank or you want to do it in Israel? Do you want to wave an American flag? You want to wave any flag in Israel or in the West Bank or Gaza. Everybody knows the answer to that. Believe me, if a bunch of Israeli soldiers go across the border on October seventh on a preemptive attack, and they rape, kill, behead, commit necrophilia, they're going to face charges in the Israeli judicial system. They're not going to come back and have the majority of populations say, I'm going to join you. I'm going to go loot these. That's not going to happen.

Chair them on.

It's the same thing when people protest, the Jewish kids that protested, I saw them at Stanford. I don't want to use the word pathetic because I don't mean pathetic, but compared to the resources that the pro-Hamas kids had and the vial things they were shouting, you saw this little group of Jewish kids, and they were perfectly polite. They would close up shop at the end of the day and not stay overnight. In most cases, I talked to them. It was like night and day. They didn't know who I was. I would walk there. I said, What are you guys doing? Oh, Let me give you a talk. And then when you'd go by the pro-hamas, they'd scream and yell in your face. And if you said anything that they didn't like, it was day and night.

Scream and yell more. All right, Victor. So as we do always at the end, I have some comments from the... Again, this was from YouTube. And Susie 590 says, That is the basic philosophy the Democratic Party machine in 2025. They truly believe they are better than working class Americans, and they are frightened of the power the middle class is gaining by virtue of hard work following the law and adhering to traditional values and more. Basically, they are afraid of common sense. So thank you, Susie, for that.

That's true. They assume that the whole purpose of the progressive left is that the majority of the American citizens won't do what they do. In other words, that some poor guy will get up at 5: 00 in the morning, he'll go out and work, he'll clean the streets, he won't break windows. If he disagrees with somebody, he won't torch their car, he won't sit on the sidewalk with feces. He won't do any of that. And then if the majority do that, then society has a margin of error that allows some other people to burn the American flag, throw rocks, attack eyes, do all that stuff, shut down the government. But they always assume that the majority won't do that.

Yeah, they assume the majority will be lawful so that they can exercise their lawless.

And productive and keep the lights running and the food coming and grow food. The farmers don't do that. If they said, Well, the price of raisins was $1,440, and then it was $470 in one year, and where everybody's going broke, and these are because of that capitalist Sobeys, and I'm going to go not produce food. No, they don't do that.

All right. And I have one more comment here. Oh, I had an interesting one from Andrew Graham. This is a short one. Here from Edinburgh, Scotland, Thank you, Victor. You're a national treasure for your country. Scottish.

I've been to Scotland and Edinburgh. It was a very warlike, proud race. I I always read Sir Walter Scott novels. I'm being facetious, but- David Hume philosophy. Yeah. I never understood how the most bellicose, most rugged individualist area of Great Britain is now the most left wing. It doesn't make sense.

It does not make sense. All right. And just a person, D6W, writes, Other than Monday being Columbus Day, It was also a great day for the world. I look forward to hearing Victor's thoughts on the epic events that happened on Monday, which we got a lot of on your Friday edition. President Trump and his team made history, and President Trump will go down as the greatest President of all time.

Yes. I must say, I have to be very careful when I say this. I opened my email on Monday morning, and there were My Hoover blast. You know what it said? Happy Indigenous People's Day. I thought, wow, we are supposed to be the center-right think tank on the West Coast. I know we're at Stanford University, but who put that in there? I don't think it represents the majority of views. It's not the director's view, it's not the board, the overseer's view. It's not the majority of the fellows. It must be a staff or somebody. But when they say Indigenous People's Day, that means what? That it would be much better that right now there were no Europeans had never come to the North American continent? Is that it? It would be like the Amazon Basin. And AOC and the squad, Presley, she said that she felt that we were on occupied land. But she has a house in Martha's Vineyard, I think, or maybe it's on Nantucket. Why don't you just give it over to Indigenous people then? I'm reviewing a book that's going to come out in the New Criterion about a Classics book, and he won't use the author as a classicist, and he says he has to It was the Indigenous name of New Jersey until he identifies himself with all of his academic laurels.

He says, Professor of Classics, Princeton University, New Jersey. In other words, I'm not occupied land now because I want you to know about how I've got all these European laurels, European derived laurels. I went to a class and a guy asked me a question once at Stanford. He said, Aren't you happy that they changed Junipio Sara Court? I was outside my office. Are you happy or angry? We He named it the Stanford Court, Jane Stanford Court, the founder's wife. And I said, I don't believe in that, changing names for the whims. And he goes, It's not a whim, it was expropriated land. I said, Well, why don't you change the main Junipio, Sarah Boulevard, that all everybody uses and lives. That would be better. It would be more influential. Or better yet, Stanford, according to your own value system, which is not adjusted for time and space or conditions the 19th century, spoke ill of Asian people. So why don't we change the name of Stanford? And I would suggest Chumash University. And we give back, I don't know where your dorm is, we'll make your dorm into an Indigenous person's thing. And he got very angry.

The other thing I meant during the whole illegal alien thing under Obama, when all the campuses were protesting against They did. I wrote a column and I said, I got a solution for all where illegal aliens can stay. It's summertime. There's enough room for, I think it was 2 million people on American campuses. Stanford has room in the summer for 5,000 or 6,000 illegal aliens to stay on the campus. And just think of it. You've got Stanford law school right there, free legal help. You've got Stanford Medical School, free medical help. You've got graduate students, free tutoring, and let the campus is empty. It's got plenty of room for camping and everything. We could put 5 to 10,000. We don't have to bring them down to Southern Fresno County or Rio Grande Valley. We can put them at Stanford University. How long would that last? I think it would be about as long. We know the answer because the Nantucket, the Martha's Vineyard answer. We know what would happen. All these students with purple hair and rings on their nose and divest, all that. They would say, We love you. And then they'd say, We're going to have a big rally out in the oval tomorrow.

And then they would go out there and there'd be 50 busses waiting for them. And they say, You're going to go to Bakersfield. That's how the left thinks.

I know, exactly.

That's how the left thinks. It's really a psychological condition to square the fact that they're elitist, elitist, and they're materialistic, and they like nice things and their comfort with the guilt that they have over it, which they square that circle by projecting this whole cosmos of caring and demonizing anybody who's capitalist. But it's a psychological thing to justify their own selfishness and sanctimonious. It really is.

Well, they don't seem to even see their own illiberality. For example, your example of the flyer that came out, why wouldn't they just humor somebody and put half Columbus and half natives if that's what they wanted to do? They're not even as liberal as the pilgrims were who came over here in the 17th century. They at least brought the native Indians in. That might just be lore, but they brought them in that whole celebration of Thanksgiving.

I will bet you the people who did that fly or whoever they were, were the people who were the most bitter about getting bonuses and complaining about their work conditions and stuff. I noticed that. Good guess. Just to finish one last anecdote. 1983, as I just mentioned, the Sun Made Raising Cooperative collapsed. They owed us over $80,000. We were short 180 tons the year before, $1,000 less a ton. So there was $180,000 less income. That fall of '84, a year later, I went to work at Cal State, and they hired me for one class to teach Latin. I beg to have any class they could teach. No. So I went up there, and I had talked to these farmers at coffee shops that were all going broke. And it was weird. I knew a couple that blew their brains out. But they were like, It is what it is, and we're going to have to just cut back. We all were talking about how you cut back. You don't drive a diesel fuel as much. You get used staples or something, you buy used equipment, you make it do. They were tragic and philosophical about it.

They had miserable lives in the sense of what they had to live on. It was terrible. And then they thought, Well, we'll plant plums. And the price of plums went from $14 for 28 pounds down to $4. Everything collapsed. This was the Reagan readjustment before the boom in '84. But by the time the boom came, everybody was broken. The land was bought up by larger interest. But anyway, I went up to... So I hadn't been in academia for five years. I got my PhD for five years. So I walk up to this campus. I had never been there before. I lived here my whole life. I'd never been to Cal State. So I walked there and I go up there. And the first thing they tell me is, you're tracking in dirt on the carpet. And I was irrigating here. And then, I think I told you a week later that I had a gun in the back, a 16 gage to shoot scared coyotes. And somebody ratted me out. So I went there and the cops were surrounding my car. Luckily, it wasn't loaded. But anyway, it was a big adjustment. So then they said, Well, these are some professors, and they want to talk to you about your Latin class.

And so I go to coffee, I won't mention their names. And I thought, Wow. I actually said to them, We're not getting paid by the hour, are we? And they said, No. And I said, Wow, I'm making $600 a month, 40 hours a week. That's 80 A hour, 160 hours a month. I am making $455 an hour, even though I'm not teaching on a 40-hour week, and I'm losing money farming, and I'm all dirty, and I'm under the tractor with hydraulic fluid in my face, and I'm spraying diazonon and difend and dimethylate, and I'm all... You know what they were talking about? It was just... One professor was saying, I do make 65,000 a year, 1983, and I get really angry when they say that we get summers off, and we only work nine months. He said, We only get paid for nine months. I said, Well, does your check come every month? They said, Yes. But I said, What do you do? And he goes, Well, I go to Italy. I said, Well, you're not working then, are you? And then the other guy was telling me, I have a really tough schedule. I got to teach three classes.

We had to teach four classes a semester. It was a semester, it was a lot. But he said, I have to teach three classes on Monday. And I said, Well, what are they? I teach at 8: 00 and 10: 00 for an hour. I said, So you're over at 9: 00, and you teach them 10: 00 to 11: 00. Then what do you do? Well, I go home. What do you do? He said, I play tennis, and I go out to the club. I said, When do you come back? Well, I teach my third class from 6: 00 to 9: 00. And then I said, You do that every night? He said, No, I do it once a week, my three hours. So I said, Wait, you I said, I'll take one class, and then you get that whole thing? I thought we had to teach four classes. I only got one. I'll take that class. I need it. And he said, No, no, no, no. And then he said, I'm on release time. And I said, For what? He said, I have a research group. I said, What are you working? I said, I don't know yet.

I said, So you're only teaching. You get third off and you get all this. But the point I'm making is, here are all these people 20 miles away that were flat broke, losing their farms, and were very stoic and noble about it, like the middle class always is. Here were these elites with all these degrees, and they were around this coffee not working. I kept thinking, Man, I'm just sitting here. If I did this on a farm for an hour with coffee, everybody would call me a lazy SOB. Then I got home, my mom and dad, I went by their house and they said, How was your first day? It was only 25. I was 29. I said, It's so weird. I get paid, and I didn't do anything. Then my mom goes, Well, did you tell anybody that? I said, Yeah. They said, Well, don't do that. Do not do that. You want to be paid a lot up there for not doing anything, and don't worry about the farm. Then the next 20 years there, it was always the same thing. All these cry babies would say, all these little slites. I go to the faculty senate, I just want to say something.

And then the Daily Collegian, they used this word, and I felt personally offended. And then another person would say, I just think we have to have a proposition that we are going to form I'm going to go on record against the Reagan administration. And then it was like, okay. It was just a joke. It really was. I mean, I But it was just compared to what most people have to do. I look at all these professors that are so angry, they don't understand. Then they say, Well, we got a PhD. It's very hard to get a PhD. No, I got a PhD. I got it in basically four years. It's a joke. It was very hard PhD classical language because I tell you, if you had to get on a Massey Ferguson and use a tandem disk and plow all day long versus work on a PhD, or you were Wilfer like Martien, I saw on top of the house with 50 pounds of shingles tiptoeing along the Ridgecap. Bichter, look at me. 30 feet down on either side and he's an expert, or I see my friend Armando up in the attic with 110 degrees in the summer rewiring it.

That is work. And that's why I get so upset when I saw that clotting gay testifying all this psychodrama and all these professors. I'm not bashing academia. I love academia. I love the idea of a university. But come on, let's get a little real.

As long as they're doing what they're supposed to do, which is teaching. They don't. And enlightening, and inductive reasoning.

You should never even know what the political... I hope when I taught, I never brought politics, and I knew they thought I was probably conservative and got more so, but I never I had a student, just to finish, she was from this area, which is very left wing. I think I told you every time I would speak about Western Civ, she'd turn her back to me, and she'd go like this, and turn around. I said, Can you face it? She said, Well, you said I didn't even have to go to class. I said, You don't. I don't need you here. But if you're going to come to class, you have to show respect for the other students. You're just turning your back. And then she came up to me and she said, Well, I don't I really like this class, but I have to have it. So I'm not going to come to class. Do you don't take a role? I said, No, just do the work. I don't know how she did it, but she did pretty well. And she wrote these essays that were better than B plus. So I gave her, I think, an A minus.

She comes in and goes, You gave me an A minus? I said, Yes. And she said, Why did you give me an A minus? I hated you and I hated your class. She said that to me. I said, It's irrelevant. I don't care if you like me or not. You did A minus work. And that was it. That's what you're supposed to do.

That's what you're supposed to do. And they don't even understand that.

She was angry. She wanted me to give her a B or C and then complain to the dean.

Yeah, exactly. Well, Victor, we're way over time here. So let's go ahead and thank our audience. And thank you for all the wisdom today.

Thank you, everybody, for listening. Sorry, I went off on that last excursus.

It's okay.

It was wonderful. We'll see you next time, everybody.

We'll see you next time. This is Sammie Wink and Victor Davis Hansen, and we're signing off.

Thank you for tuning in to The Daily Signal. Please like, share, and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at victorhanson. Comen. Com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.