Kennedy on Victor Davis Hanson Show: I was constantly shocked by Biden Judge nominees' ignorance of the Constitution and the US laws.

Why did democrats have 15 REPUBLICAN SENATORS under surveillance?

By whose authority did democrat Jack Smith declare himself independent counsel and prosecute Pres Trump?...and also deny Pres Trump a jury trial?

Why are democrats constantly breaking the law?

Senator John Kennedy

 

Beware of These Political Land Mines, President Trump

Victor Davis Hanson | November 18, 2025
|
Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and host of "The Victor Davis Hanson Show." His website, The Blade of Perseus, features columns, lectures, and exclusive content for subscribers. Contact him at authorvdh@gmail.com.
Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I think most of our listeners, I know I do, favor the current administration, what it’s accomplished.

Its miraculous achievements on the border, on energy production, reduction of crime. The “Big, Beautiful Bill” has a lot of good elements in it. Foreign policy has been spectacular. Denuclearizing for the present Iranian theocracy. Having achieved seven or eight ceasefires abroad. Trying to address the war in Ukraine. These are all positive developments. But there are land mines that the Trump administration has to be very careful of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of them is that, in his success overseas, President Donald Trump has naturally talked about achieving peace with Ethiopia and Egypt, or Pakistan or India, or what we accomplish by taking out the nuclear facilities in Iran, etc. But the elections are not won on foreign policy, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately. They’re won on economics.

And the Left, in that vacuum, and that lack of praise for the accomplishments of the Trump administration on energy, on gross domestic product, on the stock market, on deregulation, on tax reform, and what will happen in 2026 when, I think, foreign investment and these new technologies will help, in addition, spur the economy and relieve our worries about inflation and affordability—we have to talk about that.

Specifically, he has to talk about the comparison of the Biden administration with both his first term, but more importantly, with what he’s done in the first 10 to 11 months, and what will ensue in 2026 for the things he’s doing now.

Very quickly, a second land mine is, why would we want to increase the Chinese student population from the current near 300,000 to 600,000? That’s contrary to the MAGA agenda of “America First.”
There are 300,000 Americans that would love to come to college that either can’t afford it or can’t get in because of the competition with over 1 million foreign students—1 million foreign students welcomed by the universities because their governments pay the full bill and they can overcharge them by 10% or 15%.

And yet, we know that of the 300,000 students, roughly, here, that 1% or 2% or 3% or 4% engage in active espionage. That’s several thousand—2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000. We know that because when we look at the end result—sophisticated satellites, rocketry, aircraft carriers—they look almost identical to ours. And they are the results of skipping billions of dollars in investment, years of research, and leapfrogging to parity with us by appropriating our technology, in large part, and often, by the presence of so many Chinese nationals.

When we were in a race, an existential race, with the Soviet Union, we did not have Russian students here. That would’ve been seen as insane. So, we should be trying to gradually, without provocation, reduce the size of the Chinese nationalist population, not double it.

And finally, there’s this question, very controversially, of H-1B visas. These are the visas that are reserved for people with unique skills that, supposedly, Americans don’t have, but they would be integral to our prosperity, security, and national success. Ph.D.s in computer engineering. Master’s degrees in French language, as a professor. A high-stakes athlete or model, even, to enrich our culture.

And nobody objects to that. There’s about 500,000 of these H-1B visas already. But as part of the negotiations with trade and tariffs and our foreign relations with other countries, we have said that we would like to take in a lot more H-1B visas.

The problem with that is these countries don’t view it the same way as we do. They would like to send their students with bachelor’s degrees or the students themselves would like to come with no singular skills at all—any different than most Americans who graduate with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, finance.

In other words, we have plenty of Americans that would be able to do the things that foreign nationals would that we would bring in over the current limit of 500,000. And it’s contrary to the MAGA agenda of America First. So, it’s a contradiction in terms and it will hurt the president.

So, I would suggest, very humbly, that we take a second look at doubling the number of Chinese students. We take a second look at doubling the number of H-1B visas. I would take a second look at the public relations and the communications about the economy. And begin, right now, talking about how it is stronger than perceptions from the Left, especially, and the media. But more importantly, the things that are going on right now by the administration that will improve the economy radically in 2026.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Related posts:

1. Will Trump’s Economy Survive the Left’s Sabotage Ahead of Midterms?
2. Senate Confirms Miran, Trump’s Pick for Fed Board
3. Don’t Ignore This—Hitler Revisionism Is Growing Online

 

"Tim Walz SPIRALS and RUNS OFF MSNBC as his Scams BLOW-UP in his Face!!!" - Victor Davis Hanson

Hanson's Fan Club
3.49K subscribers


86,658 views Dec 2, 2025 #culturewars #2025elections #success
Victor Davis Hanson, a distinguished historian and classicist, is known for his deep analysis of military history, ancient civilizations, and contemporary political affairs. As a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, he offers sharp insights into the lessons of history, the decline of empires, and the challenges facing modern society. Through his books, lectures, and public talks, he explores the intersection of history, politics, and culture. If you found this video valuable, share it with a friend! Subscribe for more insights on history, politics, culture, and the lessons of the past that shape our future.

 

This was a highly orchestrated operation....to create suspicion as to whether the commander in chief had the right to give an order.

And of course, the fat women of "The View' are all legal experts.....or leftists in disguise.

DEMS Stunned as leftist Mark Kelly’s Hidden Strategy Collapses Under Fresh FBI Findings! - Victor D. Hanson

The Savvy Explorers
317K subscribers


377K views 2 days ago

Democrats Stunned as Mark Kelly’s Hidden Strategy Collapses Under Fresh FBI Findings! - Victor Davis Hanson

 

Judge Issues Bombshell Decision That Disrupts DEMS!

Adam Schiff got caught with the same BS lies as Pres Trump's first term...before....same plan as before.....Shifty, you blew it this time ! - Victor Davis Hanson

The Savvy Explorers
317K subscribers


20K views 1 day ago

Judge Issues Bombshell Decision That Disrupts DEMS! Schiff’s Plot Fizzles Out

 

Adam Schiff's BIGGEST Secret EXPOSED by Megyn Kelly

PensiunFocusID
1.48K subscribers


Dec 7, 2025 #AdamSchiff #MegynKelly #Politics
#AdamSchiff#MegynKelly#Politics Adam Schiff's BIGGEST Secret EXPOSED by Megyn Kelly Megyn Kelly recently highlighted claims related to Adam Schiff — but what’s the context, what evidence exists, and how solid are these allegations? In this video, we break down her statements, compare them with public records, and look at how major sources reported it.

This is a complete, research-based explainer with timestamps, key points, and source references. Disclaimer: This video analyzes publicly available claims, interviews, and media reports. All allegations mentioned here should be treated as unverified unless supported by credible evidence. We do not endorse or present unverified statements as fact.

If you believe any information is inaccurate, please reach out with sources and we will review it.

 

Victor Davis Hanson: ‘We Never Get Any Thanks for What We Do’.

Of course not, leftist socialist democrat-inspired illegals want you to work two or more jobs to pay the taxes to support their lazy a**es and continue to financially support their crimes against American citizens.

and........... thanks to democrats, taxpayers even pay for free lawyers to keep the terrorists living a life of luxury drinking Colt45 and binge-watching CNN all day.....

Until they go out to American whorehouses, to keep their own oppressed and mistreated women pure .......then they break into businesses, loot stores and burn them out as part of the democrat "burn it down, build it back better"........except their terrorist a**es don't know how to build anything.

But they know how to pronounce "Racist"

They can prove that you are a dumass because you continue to vote for democrats who buy their votes with free taxpayer money and you haven't got one bit smarter since you were born.

Why should they give thanks to idiots like you?

Victor Davis Hanson | December 16, 2025
|
Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and host of "The Victor Davis Hanson Show." His website, The Blade of Perseus, features columns, lectures, and exclusive content for subscribers. Contact him at authorvdh@gmail.com.
In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Jack Fowler discuss former President Joe Biden’s failure to make sure our adversaries in Syria paid a cost for attacking Americans, and the failure of so many immigrants to say “thank you” for all we do.

Editor’s note: This is a transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.

Jack Fowler: [President] Donald Trump tells ISIS we will retaliate after the ambush that killed three U.S. troops in Syria. Victor, anything you want to say about that?

Victor Davis Hanson: I don’t know if we have the whole story, but it seems to be somebody that was supposedly training with them, or they knew, or somebody in the government. That happened a lot in Afghanistan. It just raises the same question.
I think we have 900 soldiers in Syria. And I think the former ISIS members who have now flipped to get more money from America, and are trying to form a government in Syria and who ousted the Assad dynasty are supposedly pro-American, BS BS BS and they are supposedly, according to Trump, outraged at this and will punish them....as long as taxpayer money keeps flowing.

We lost deterrence in Syria during the Biden administration.

I’m not blaming comatose Joe solely, but for four years they staged over 130 attacks originating in Syria on American bases, security positions, and we didn’t do much of anything. And we basically established this principle that if you want to kill an American, nothing’s going to happen to you and you can collect money from both sides....no problem.
So, Donald Trump is going to have to find a way to disabuse people of that, and we’ll see what he does. But if he can’t, then you can’t put Americans over there as sitting ducks like we did in Lebanon. And [President Ronald] Reagan took everybody out of Lebanon. That probably was a bad sign, a reaction to the destruction of the embassy and the barracks in 1983.

But if you are going to put Americans over there, then you have to tell their enemies, “If you kill these people, we’re going to make life very uncomfortable for you.” We really should go in there and clean out the infestation and not say a word. Dead terrorists won't reproduce other terrorists

 

The Inconvenient Truths Within Trump’s New National Security Strategy

Victor Davis Hanson | December 15, 2025
|
Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and host of "The Victor Davis Hanson Show." His website, The Blade of Perseus, features columns, lectures, and exclusive content for subscribers. Contact him at authorvdh@gmail.com.
Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Recently, the Trump administration, as most administrations do at the beginning of their four-year term, issued a National Security Strategy—I guess we would call it a white paper—outlining the approach of the administration to foreign affairs and the protection of the security in the United States.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXYg...e_path=Mjg2NjY

It’s written in a different style than past reports, different than the first term. And it has a lot of emphasis, as most do, on sections of the world. But what has caused the most controversy are two things.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Abroad, the report tells Europe that it’s experiencing “civilizational erasure,” and gives advice to the Europeans about what they must do to correct that, but in a manner of brotherly love or help, which the Europeans, of course, will see as condescending and interference into their internal affairs, except they want us to do it in the NATO part of the equation, but not the EU part. And that’s caused a lot of controversy.

The other is, the critics feel that it’s not critical enough of Russia and China. But if you read it very carefully, the whole point of its Pacific discussion is to bolster the alliances of Japan and South Korea, and to warn China to keep away from Taiwan and Australia.

And then, when we get to the economic domestic aspects of the National Security Strategy, it’s all aimed at China. It’s all aimed at China. It just says that we cannot be a successful, dominant power in the world, and we don’t want any other power to be dominant. And by inference, that’s Russia and China. But on matters of trade, under matters of natural resources, under matters of the South China Sea, it’s aimed at China.

And it does say explicitly that the old paradigm that previous, both Republican and Democratic, presidencies had adhered to, namely, the more money you invest from us and put it over there in China, and the more that you import their products here, even though you’re dealing with an asymmetrical trade system—and I think the report uses the word that it’s free but not fair—don’t kid yourself. That ensuing prosperity will not create a huge consumer class who desires freedom and liberty and then will become a force for the democratization of China. That’s not gonna happen.
Instead, that foreign exchange extravaganza will be put into the largest ship-building—and I mean military ship-building—the largest aircraft production, and the largest small arms and major arms industry in such a short time that we’ve ever seen. And that’s what China’s doing. And that is outlined.

The other controversy is: Why didn’t the National Security Strategy be more condemning of Russian President Vladimir Putin? It says that the Europeans have promised to spend 2% of their gross domestic product on military matters and have promised to increase that to 5%, which would be extraordinary.

And of course, the paper says that they should and they must be watched to keep their promises, but it doesn’t really condemn Vladimir Putin in the strongest of terms.

Basically, it is saying that the Ukraine war must come to an end. But why is that controversial? It’s the largest war on the European continent since World War II. The dead now exceed Stalingrad. The Ukrainian military’s average age is approaching the late 30s, maybe even 40s. Ukraine has probably lost 300,000 dead, wounded, and killed. The Russians are probably at 1.3 million.
So, the inference of the strategic assessment is that war should end before Ukraine is overwhelmed, unless the Europeans suddenly get religion and they wanna spend 5% immediately, and they want to pour sophisticated weapons systems, without restrictions, into Ukraine. But I don’t think the assessment sees correctly that that’s gonna happen. So, it’s pretty common sense. Do you wanna have an ongoing, bleeding Stalingrad or Verdun or Somme right on the borders of Europe?

The other subtext is, they want some type—the people, the authors, it’s pretty clear by inference that they would like Russia to be strategically calculated as a foil to China and vice versa.

That’s getting back to Henry Kissinger’s we’re gonna be no better friend, no worse enemy to China than it is to Russia, than to Russia, than it is to China. A triangular type of strategic relationship that does not allow those two powers—one with 6,000 to 7,000 nuclear weapons and a huge amount of oil, the other with 1.4 billion people and probably the largest conventional military, other than our own, in the world—to combine, strategically, along with their subsidiaries like North Korea and Iraq.
Finally, two things, very quickly. It puts a lot of emphasis on the Monroe Doctrine, the new Monroe Doctrine. And it basically says, why have we allowed Panama to be colonized—the Panama Canal—by the Chinese? Why do we have Russians and Chinese and Iranians involved in narco-terrorism, in the case of Venezuela, maybe Colombia, maybe some other South American illiberal, totalitarian governments? Why are we allowing the Chinese to assemble products in Mexico to evade our tariffs, when Mexico is supposedly a friend, hand in glove is helping the Chinese cheat on tariffs when they’re running $171 billion trade surplus with us, $63 billion in remittances? Probably $20 billion in additional cartel revenues from human trafficking and fentanyl.

And then, of course, the main concern of the strategic assessment in the Western Hemisphere is, they’re killing 75,000 Americans a year. A year. And it’s not just a bunch of people who it’s their own fault, why are they taking drugs? It’s a lot of these drugs that are fentanyl and dangerous opiates are laced to look like prescription drugs and, you know, recreational drugs.

So, if you have a daughter or son who goes to a party and someone says, “Take a Valium,” that could be fentanyl and kill them. And that’s by intent, on the part of the Chinese.
So, it wants to rectify the presence of China, stop the narco-terrorism that’s sponsored by or occurs with the help of Russia and China. And in that matter, it’s a new Monroe Doctrine.

And then, finally, very quickly, it says we can’t do any of this if we don’t have a fast-growing economy with plenty of affordable energy that is not dependent on rare earth and other precious minerals and resources being imported by our enemies. And we need a low inflationary, high GDP economy, and we’re going to do that by deregulation, tax reductions, measured reciprocal tariffs, and, of course, much more oil and gas.

And the result of that, they feel, will be that the United States, being much more careful not to intervene explicitly—it says in the assessment not to intervene on the ground and get into a Middle East war. And that’s a reaction to $1.3 trillion spent in Iraq, another trillion-plus spent in Afghanistan 20 years later to the most illiberal government in the world, with some of its expatriates shooting and killing Americans here in the United States. And in the hands of the Taliban was what the Afghan misadventure ended up as, as we saw under the Biden administration in 2021, that terrible August.
And finally, the Iraqi misadventure, we don’t know how that will end up. It’s probably better than Saddam Hussein.

But the question is, we lost a lot of wonderful Americans, we spent a lot of money, and we don’t wanna repeat that. So, it’s not Fortress America in isolation. It’s Fortress America, much better to help its friends and hurt its enemies and be the dominant power in the world today.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Related posts:

1. Trump Is Shifting Strategy on Putin
2. From the League of Nations to the United Nations to Trump Global?
3. How Russia Could Escalate Tensions With NATO

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/12/...a27d017e92bc8c

 

The Political Meme That Destroyed a Presidency

Victor Davis Hanson | December 16, 2025
| Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and host of "The Victor Davis Hanson Show." His website, The Blade of Perseus, features columns, lectures, and exclusive content for subscribers. Contact him at authorvdh@gmail.com.
Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’ve talked about affordability, this new meme, this new theme that the Democrats are using against the Trump administration.



They have belatedly responded to it, as I pointed out earlier. Perhaps because they thought it was sort of absurd when the 21.5% aggregate inflation came under President Joe Biden. And their inflation rate that they inherited in the month of January was 3%—it’s already gone down. It’s 3%-2.7%. Gas is cheaper, etc.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

So, I don’t think they took it seriously that anybody would believe that the people who caused the problem would blame the people who are trying to clean it up. And four years the problem, 10 months the cleanup?

And then I think they thought their foreign policy successes would mitigate any criticism. In fact, they amplified it because the Democrats said: You’re all involved with these ceasefires or Ukraine, you don’t care about us.

And so, then they had all these initiatives, which will boom, I think, the economy in 2026. But they didn’t emphasize them, exactly how increased oil and gas will help us very quickly. How all this foreign investment, how all this new deregulation, how these new tax cuts, how the new trade policies, how artificial intelligence and the jobs they will create are going to boom the economy in ’26.

Could I go back in history just a minute to offer a warning? In 1992, George Bush was up for reelection—George H.W. Bush, the elder Bush. He was riding high because the 1991 Gulf War had finished, I think, a little problematically, with the survival of Saddam Hussein. But he had ended that threat, expelled him from Kuwait with a four-day ground war, following a brilliant air campaign. Very few American casualties. He was at the top of his game as an international diplomat, former war veteran.
George H.W. Bush came into campaign cycle 1992 as high as 90% approval rating. There had been a recession in ’90-’91, but by ’92, when the year started, that year would show 3% inflation. That’s not too bad. It would show 3.5% gross domestic product growth. The unemployment rate had gone down. It was still over 7% too high, but it was going down. And he was at 90%.

What happened? He had a lackluster campaign. I would not wanna speak ill of Fred Malek or Robert Teeter, who has passed away, or Robert Mosbacher. But that campaign team really lacked a Lee Atwater. He was the “No Prisoners” campaign director of 1988 that got George H.W. Bush elected.

I know a lot of you say, “Well, he did the Willie Horton ad. He did the Boston Harbor ad. He did the tank ad.” He did. And he was relentless. And he destroyed the Dukakis candidacy, maybe cruelly, but he destroyed it. And he got George H.W. Bush elected. He didn’t play by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. And he was gone. He had passed away.

He had a new Wall Street-type of team, and they played by the rules, and they didn’t take the Clinton-Gore campaign seriously, and they did not take the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot seriously.
Why didn’t they do it? Because—I hope this doesn’t sound eerily similar to the problem today—but they said: We had such foreign policy successes. We were polling 90%. They said: The recession is almost over. Look at all the GDP, the inflation. They’re all going in the right direction, and they’re not at recessionary levels.

Meanwhile, the Clinton-Gore-George Stephanopoulos team was saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” And they took that meme and said: This is the worst economy since the Great Depression. We have no jobs. Inflation is affordable. And then they got an amplification from Ross Perot. He was kind of like the never Trumpers of that age, although he was an independent third party.

And the result of it? Bush’s popularity went from 90% to 40% that election year. And he would lose that election, partly because of Ross Perot, partly because of a lackluster, complacent campaign, and partly because they created this meme, “It’s the economy, stupid,” and turned a recovering economy that they had, in a sense, inherited a recovering economy into the Great Depression.

I hope that doesn’t sound too familiar, but that’s exactly what is happening now. The economy is on the uptake. President Donald Trump is overseas with a lot of successes. And the same Democrats are saying: It’s affordability, stupid. And they need to get out in front of that issue and not discount it in the way that Republicans did in 1992.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Related posts:

1. Will Trump’s Economy Survive the Left’s Sabotage Ahead of Midterms?
2. Economy Shows Promising Trends as Trump Prioritizes ‘Typical Hardworking Family’
3. Beware of These Political Land Mines, President Trump