 Okay, back to leftists. Andrew Jackson was as just as bad as Hitler. What is your rebuttal? Now, I'm not an expert on Andrew Jackson. But from all everything I know, he doesn't, he's nowhere near as bad as Hitler. He didn't attempt world domination. He didn't start a world war that killed millions and millions of people in an effort to you know, take over vast countries and engage in massive warfare. What is it that Andrew Jackson is accused of? I assume that what he's accused of is the slaughter of the American Indians and the taking of their, so suppose the taking of their land. So there's a whole argument about land. And I'm not going to go into all of it here, but I don't consider that anywhere near the equivalent to going to war. I don't think the Indians had land. They didn't have an idea that the land was theirs. The land was just there and they used it sometimes. To the extent that some Indians did have land, let's say there were some Indian communities or farmers and they did have lands, to the extent that Andrew Jackson and others took that land from them, that was bad and wrong and evil and should be condemned. But not everything that somebody does bad at evil puts them in the same category as Hitler. Just like the Coventry regime in China is nowhere near as evil as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, the evil, but they're not as evil as Hitler. Well, the same thing is true of Andrew Jackson. A lot of the things he did to the Indians were damn right shameful, evil, ignorant, horrible. The mass slaughter of Indians to the extent that they infected some blankets with bacteria and I don't know if that story is true, but if it's true, that's evil, that's wrong, that's horrible. So there's no question that what the American government did and still does in my view to the American Indians is a travesty of justice is wrong. But the idea that we invaded their land and took their land, that's just a complete and utter exaggeration. When you have relatively, not relatively, when you have primitive cultures that are nomadic, they don't have a claim on all the land that they happen to travel through. And if they're civilized people who come in, claim that land, use that land, build civilization around that land, then they property rights are defined by use. But you know, somebody says the American Indians are the oldest welfare recipients in the country. Yes, but they're not recipients because they want the welfare, they're recipients because the American government has forced them to accept welfare. The great, and I did a whole show of this a few years ago, the great tragedy of the American Indians in modern times, certainly, is we treat them like children. We give them no individual rights, we give them no property rights, no property rights. The tribe owns all the land in the Indian reservations, and even the tribal council can't decide what to do with that land without approval from the central government, from the federal government, the land and Indian, whatever, bureau. I would divide, I would take all those reservations, divide them up into parcels, give the parcels to the individual Indian families who live there, and let them do whatever they want with it, get rid of this, the reservation system, get rid of all of that. So we have treated the American Indian horrifically throughout American history. There's no question about that. And so there is some argument to be made that Andrew Jackson and other presidents of the United States acted immorally and were really, really bad in the way they treated Indians. But that is not the same as concentration camps. That is not the same with engaging in a world war for world domination. There's a huge difference between those presidents and Hitler. And again, you have to be able to argue that, yes, in this one specific domain, just like slavery, in this one domain, the founders and the early American presidents were all very, very bad. But you know what? In other domains, they were world leaders in how good they were. And you can't separate, you can't, you can't condemn them like there's no realm in which Hitler was good. Everything he touched was evil, everything. So it's not in the same ballpark. It's not in the same category. Again, slavery is horrific. And the fact that America had slavery in its early years is horrific. But that doesn't put it in the same categories, Communist China or Communist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Evil is not relative, but evil is a matter of degrees. Evil is clearly a matter of degrees, not everybody's equally evil. Man, people take what I say and they twist my words. A Harvard that would be preaching American ideas more specifically, reason, individualism, capitalism. If an institution of the intellectual prestige, which they don't deserve today, but they deserved it at one time, of Harvard, if an institution of that magnitude were preaching the proper ideas, that is the ideas on which America originally was based, or to say it briefly, the philosophy of Aristotle, which was the father of this country, who was. If they were doing that, you could have the biggest renaissance in the world, still not to late even now. You could have a better renaissance than the first one. This country would come back to life. But today, when all those institutions from Harvard on down are preaching collectivism, mysticism, and above all altruism, self-sacrifice of yourself, the giving up, the resignation, all the disgusting kind of ideas that the whole world has been nurturing for centuries. When they do that, this country can survive.