January 31st is the new July 4th

Friends, now that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has put his "John Hancock" on the treaty that takes Great Britain out of the European Union, those of who supported Brexit all along can breathe a sigh of relief and pat ourselves on the backs.  We persevered, in the face of blistering excoriation, in our desire to see the people's verdict in June 2016 honored and upheld.  And now it will be!  It's a seminal moment.  Not only will the United Kingdom reacquire its full sovereignty and independence, but the US-UK special relationship will be strengthened, and the forces of bureaucratic-socialist impudence have suffered a decisive setback.  I could not be more pleased!  To the people of Britain, I say: congrats, and God bless you!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-withdrawal-agreement-signing-boris-johnson-picture-100004382.html

Trump Delivers Knockout Punch to Wimpering Schoolgirl -- Woo Hoo!

Friends, our fearless President showed his mettle again this week: he took on none other than Time magazine's Doofus of the Year for 2019: little Miss. Greta Thunberg, climate nag extraordinaire.  All kidding aside, I found the clash of ideologies between Trump and Thunberg at the Davos World Economic Forum highly instructive.  My latest article, soon to appear in American Greatness, tells the story.  See if you and I interpret it the same way...

A Tale of Two Planet Earths: Donald Trump vs. Greta Thunberg at Davos

In some ways, it hardly seems like a fair fight: the leader of the free world and the ultimate alpha male, Donald J. Trump, versus a slim, awkward 17-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg. Both swaggered into the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with equal self-confidence, though. Their messages could not have been more distinct.

Miss. Thunberg delivered her usual tirade to the assembled business and political luminaries. The “world...is currently on fire,” she declared, and it is well beyond time to “panic” because of the looming “climate chaos.” What's more, the grandees of global capitalism, who had gathered to congratulate themselves for taking climate change so seriously, are, in fact, according to Thunberg, part of the problem. Their much-ballyhooed targets for achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, are mere number-fiddling. Only an immediate cessation in all fossil fuel investment would mollify Greta, and she isn't holding her breath. “Act as if you loved your children above all else,” Thunberg intoned icily — strongly implying that the Davos elite loves money a great deal more.

President Trump struck a very different tone. Instead of berating his listeners and scaring the wits out of them, Trump cataloged a long list of indicators in the United States that are pointing in a positive direction. A 50% gain in the stock market since November 2016, and rising wealth for low-income families. Rising wages, especially for those without college degrees. Eight burdensome federal regulations scrapped for each one added. The cleanest and healthiest air and water in decades. Energy independence. A quarter of all foreign direct investment pouring into the U.S. 12,000 new factories. Millions of Americans liberated from food stamps and welfare. And, just recently, two important new trade agreements signed with China and our North American partners.

Trump, in short, painted a picture of a world in which living standards are rising, free enterprise is thriving, and technology is breaking through old boundaries and solving entrenched problems. The sky's the limit, if one buys this Trumpian spin. These are literally the best of times, and they're about to get even better.

What are we to make of these alternate realities, presented to the captains of industry, economic experts, and political opinion leaders gathered in the Swiss Alps?

First, it's worth observing that Trump's version of Planet Earth, as opposed to the Earth/Hell which Miss. Thunberg inhabits, is rooted in reality. The economic, environmental, and technological gains that Trump cited were, without exception, historically and statistically verifiable, even if they won't make the evening news because, well, good news is no news at all. People really are living “longer, happier, healthier” lives on a global scale, and standards of living have never been higher. Famine has been virtually abolished. The upward trends also show no sign of dissipating, except insofar as self-inflicted wounds, like depression and drug addiction, are taking a toll in the West. But humanity, in terms of its objective, material circumstances, has never had less reason to complain.

Trump also rightly points out the abysmal record that radical environmental activists — the “perennial prophets of doom” — have accumulated in terms of accurately predicting future environmental challenges. They are constantly declaring that “time is running out” and only extreme, massively expensive, bureaucratic, anti-market reforms can save us. How many times will the gullible swallow this bill of goods?

It's instructive how devoid of any factual or scientific basis Thunberg's remarks were. Her appeals to mass hysteria invariably take the imminence of doom as a given. Like so many environmental extremists, she posits a hypothetical global temperature increase of anything more than 1.5 degrees Celsius as the harbinger of the apocalypse. Why? Presumably, because the old figure, 2 degrees, wasn't approaching fast enough. The 1.5 degree figure allows Thunberg and her allies to argue that we have only 12, or 10, or 8 (do I hear 6?) years left before — pow! — the world will explode, or implode, or turn into molten lava, or something similarly bad. 

 

In the meantime, credulous minds can be won over with brazen emotional manipulation (why not weaponize the children?), combined with the cynical exploitation of every negative weather-related news story. The goal? To create the impression that, every time it rains, or doesn't rain enough, or every time the sun shines, or doesn't shine enough, “climate change” is out to get us! Even many committed climate activists balk at this armchair meteorological soothsaying, but no matter.

The truth is that, because of humankind's unprecedented prosperity and technological prowess, fewer and fewer people are suffering and dying at the mercy of the weather than ever before in history. The only rational perspective on humanity's relationship with our ever-changing climate, therefore, would be one infused with quiet satisfaction because of the tremendous progress already made — but don't tell Miss. Thunberg, who would surely be apoplectic at the good news.

In sum, Donald Trump and Greta Thunberg came to Davos to promote two wildly divergent impressions of the state of Planet Earth and its human denizens — one was positive, and one was negative; one was affirming, and one was accusatory; and one was true, while the other was a dark and sinister fantasy. 

As usual, it was Donald Trump who summoned the courage to tell the world's elite what much of it didn't want to hear: that capitalism, freedom, and good old Yankee ingenuity, which have brought us so very far, are still the answer to our problems and the path to a better world.

Hear hear!

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.

And here it is at American Greatness:

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/26/a-tale-of-two-planet-earths-donald-trump-vs-greta-thunberg-at-davos/ 

You may also wish to give this article a read.  It discusses a subtext to the impeachment brouhaha that few in the mainstream media are bothering to notice: the Dems are just as likely to bleed votes when all is said and done as Republicans are.  I believe that not a single Republican in the Senate will vote to convict Trump on a single article of impeachment.  Moreover, there's a very good chance that one or more Democrats will vote to acquit on one or more articles.  Once again, therefore, it could be the GOP standing firm, and the Dems showing weakness and indecision.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/23/6-democratic-senators-to-watch-in-impeachment-trial/ 

And, in case you needed a little more evidence that the Dems' case for impeachment and removal is falling flat in the heartland, here it is:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-ratings-soap-operas

Why Is Sadness and Pessimism Rampant Among the Young?

Friends, by no means is our country's bleak mood and its penchant for self-pity and depression concentrated solely among the young, but millennials are certainly on the leading edge of a harrowing trend.  We've discussed this anomaly before: life has never been better, by most objective and material measures, but people don't feel better.  In fact, a lot of them feel worse.  We can blame the media for some of this melancholy, perhaps even most of it, but more is at work.  Check out this article, which begins an important conversation about the emptiness afflicting so many lives these days.  This is just Part One:

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2020/01/21/why-are-so-many-young-people-unhappy-n2559793

What's your opinion on this psycho-social phenomenon?

Trump Haters' Plan B

Friends, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil. We dive deep into the impeachment quagmire. It's clear that the Dems won't succeed in ejecting Donald Trump from the White House, but they've decided to whine about the process and drag out the wrangling over evidence and witnesses so as to inflict maximum political damage on the GOP and the Trump White House. The American people, though, are rightly nonplussed.  Half of them want Trump convicted and removed, of course, but even they know the trial in the Senate is mere political theater. It's only realistic purpose, in fact, from the Dems' perspective, is to chip away at Donald Trump's legitimacy and support so as to alter the results of the 2020 election. Good luck to them! They haven't put a dent in Trumpland yet. I doubt they will now. The Dems would be better off concentrating on their own field of candidates for the Presidency. Somehow, from that crop of duds, they have to find someone who can stand up to President Trump. Impeachment, therefore, was the easy part. Winning the 2020 election will be much harder.

Brian and I also talk about the Trump-Thunberg rumble in Davos, Switzerland, the right-wing coup that failed to materialize in Richmond, Virginia, as well as the controversy over Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's secession from the royal family. Historically, Brian and I cover the arrest of Andrei Sakharov in 1980, President Carter's pardoning of Vietnam War-era draft dodgers, the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, and the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion.

We leave no stone unturned! Check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XtSVKGl8-Q&feature=youtu.be

America Strikes Back?

Friends, the only mythological character I love more than Darth Vader is Donald Trump!  I'm a little worried, though, that Trump isn't quite Vader-ish enough (ruthless, that is) when it comes to attacks on American servicemen.  My latest article takes Trump to task for letting Iran get away with missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq.  Sure, the media is howling, "War! War! War!"  The media howls.  That's what it does.  Nevertheless, we can't afford peace at any price, and I would hate to see the Iranians, or any other enemy, get the message that they can lob missiles at our boys (and girls) with impunity.  Check out my arguments and see if you agree...

Can A Direct Attack on American Servicemen Really Go Unanswered?

President Trump shocked the world — and mortified Democrats — when he authorized a lethal drone strike against Iranian General and super-terrorist Qassem Soleimani. The real surprise, however, wasn't that Trump suddenly found the gumption to target a high-profile Iranian — it was that it took America so long to rid the world of a man with so much American blood on his hands. Previous U.S. administrations, afraid of “escalation,” allowed the agents of Iran free rein in their murderous plots. Sooner or later, America had to push back.

What's odd, though, is that the entirely justifiable U.S. strike on Soleimani produced, in turn, a direct Iranian missile strike on two U.S. bases in Iraq. President Trump warned before these strikes occurred that America would not tolerate aggression against our servicemen and assets in the region — and a broad list of targets in Iran had been identified for potential retaliatory action.

The Iranians chose to avenge Soleimani in a particularly bold and provocative way. They launched ballistic missiles from Iran itself, targeting bases in Iraq where large numbers of U.S. servicemen are stationed. Iran could have used Iraqi proxies to do its dirty work; it could have attacked Israel or our allies in Iraq instead of U.S. soldiers. Instead it decided to go all out by mounting a direct assault on American personnel that left no doubt about who was responsible.

The missile strikes against two U.S. bases, as it happened, killed no U.S. servicemen. That is largely because Americans were able to take shelter as the missiles rained down. As recent reporting has shown, however, some soldiers were lightly injured by the concussive effects of the blasts.
 

President Trump chose to let sleeping dogs lie after the Iranian attack. He declared the cycle of retaliation complete, and he cheered the fact that Iran appeared to be “standing down”.

Given the apocalyptic reporting in the news media in the preceding days about an imminent “war” with Iran, Trump's restraint must have come as a surprise to Democrats and Trump haters. That Trump eschews involvement in foreign conflicts, however, has been obvious for a long time. Trump is willing to break the rules of diplomacy, yes, and even to use military force in unconventional ways, but he seemingly has no appetite for major military confrontations, and in fact he has been trying, with limited success, to disengage the United States from the grinding conflicts to which it is already committed, like the Syrian Civil War and the War in Afghanistan.

What ought to give the American people pause, however, is the strange precedent that President Trump has now set vis-a-vis foreign aggression. He punished Iran with lethal force for, as the administration described it, formulating plans to attack U.S. assets. When the Iranians directly assaulted U.S. bases, however, he demurred from retaliation.

What is the lesson here that Iran is supposed to learn? That the contemplation of terrorist acts against Americans may provoke us to violence, but the actual lobbing of sophisticated missiles at our bases, with the potential to kill dozens or hundreds of Americans, will only yield a yawn and a shrug? 

If anything, it would seem that Iran's missile strikes were what demanded a resolute response. Our failure to deliver it could embolden Iran, and other hostile actors around the world, to target U.S. military personnel and bases directly. The results could be tragic, on a human level, and deeply destabilizing on a political and strategic level, since a successful assault on American personnel would presumably produce a whirlwind of violent consequences.

The time for retaliation in the wake of Iran's dastardly missile strikes has now passed. Unfortunately, that means that President Trump missed a crucial opportunity to demonstrate his seriousness about fulfilling his number one responsibility as Commander-in-Chief: the protection of U.S. lives from foreign aggression. 

We can only hope that this oversight does not put more of our servicemen in harm's way.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.

And here it is at Townhall:

https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2020/01/19/can-a-direct-attack-on-american-servicemen-really-go-unanswered-n2559697 

And here's a tidbit for you WWII enthusiasts.  Could Germany have won the Battle of Britain?  These mathematicians believe the answer is yes!

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/mathematicians-battle-britain-what-if-scenarios/ 

Escaping From Royalty: The Definition of a "First World Problem"

Friends, my good will tour of Latin America continues.  Good news: I've successfully dissuaded Mexico from declaring war on Trumpland.  It was touch and go, but you can count on me!

In other news, I wish to register my strong disapproval of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's decision to "step back" from their royal duties.  Fie on that!  Royalty is duty, and this tragic turn of events can only prove that Ms. Markle was never fit for membership in the royal family to begin with.  I don't entirely blame her for that, of course.  Royals are, in my opinion, born and bred.  Much as we might like to imagine that royals simply sit around and eat bon-bons, the truth is that they have a very hard job.  A commoner, 99% of the time, won't be cut out for it.  Why Harry chose her, only he would know, but the couple's secession from the royal family, without even consulting the Queen in advance, is outrageous.  There's little else to say except that we should be thankful that Harry is the second-born son and not the first!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-royals/independence-day-uks-queen-agrees-grandson-harry-wife-meghan-can-exit-senior-royal-role-idUSKBN1ZC0KT

I also encourage you to read this excellent article, which puts into perspective how feverishly the mainstream media has been working to seal the deal on impeachment.  Clearly, the results have fallen way short of their expectations.  We are increasingly seeing, however, a situation in which half the country is permanently mortified by President Trump's unfathomable evil.  Simply put, the media exists for no other purpose than to sustain and magnify Trump-hatred.  As the article indicates, even the Democrats running for President barely register when what really matters to the gentlemen of the press is "nailing" Trump.  This begs the question: even though the coverage of Trump is so negative, can a Democrat really win in 2020, when Trump will dominate the campaign from start to finish?  Methinks, in other words, that the media may protest too much: its paranoid, obsessive anti-Trump coverage may, in some ways, only make him stronger.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/01/13/tvs-trump-news-three-fourths-impeachment-and-93-negative

Getting to Know Our Neighbors to the South

Friends, some of you may have noticed that WaddyIsRight has not been as active lately.  That's because your conservative hero is on a tour of Mexico.  Right now I'm in the charming colonial/indigenous city of Oaxaca.  It's been an education to experience Mexico up close and personal.  There's a lot about the country that I like.  It's got a fascinating culture, and the food is outstanding.  The climate also beats Western New York hands down!  Mexico is still a developing country, though, with plenty of problems, and, for now, a socialist president.  Needless to say, I wish the Mexican people well, and I have always wanted to see a solution to the problem of illegal immigration precisely because this will create the conditions for improved relations with Latin America.  Wouldn't that be nice?  Good fences make for good neighbors, in my opinion.  Fingers crossed!

For those of you who are my Facebook friends, you can follow along with my travels there...

The Beginning of the End, or the End of the Beginning?

Friends, that wide and deep field of winners (he said ironically) running for the Democratic nomination for President is nearing a critical juncture: the first actual voting in the state of Iowa.  It's less than one month away.  This week's Newsmaker Show, therefore, will get you all caught up on the state of the Democratic race, which, in a nutshell, is about as competitive and wide open as it could be.  This bodes well for a long (and grueling) contest!

Brian and I also discuss the nuts and bolts of the impeachment standoff, as well as the tensions with Iran.  I take Trump's side in the U.S.-Iran melee, as you might expect, and I explain why in detail.

This week we also cover Woodrow Wilson's un-finest hour: the Fourteen Points, which helped end World War I, at the cost of alienating the German people and sowing the seeds for another war.  We also talk about the conclusion of the Cuban Civil War in 1959, and why the rise of Castro didn't make a communist Cuba inevitable, but it was nonetheless a major blow to the United States and its strategic position in Latin America and beyond.

Tune in, why don't you?  It's broadcasting gold!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l_3iWCoeAE&feature=youtu.be

All Knotted Up

Friends, you may or may not be paying attention to the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but I am.  Whether or not Trump wins in 2020 is, whether we like it or not, as much as a factor of the strength (or weakness) of the Democratic challenger as it is of the President's record in office.  Therefore, the damage that the Democrats do to each other in the course of this campaign is crucial to the outcome, and if they can manage to choose a candidate who's a bonehead, well, things start to look up for Trump and for America!  And on that front there's good news: the most recent Iowa poll shows a three-way tie at the top between Biden, Buttigieg, and Sanders.  That's marvelous!  What I'm rooting for, and what you should be too, is maximum chaos in the Democratic Party.  The longer the race for the Democratic nomination goes on, the more damage it will do to the Democratic nominee.  So...I'm rooting for ALL OF THE ABOVE!  In essence, that means I'm also rooting for NONE OF THE ABOVE.  The very best case scenario is a contested, or "brokered," convention, in which the party would have no clear nominee, and the internecine fighting would become intense.  You know the old saying, right?  "I don't belong to an organized political party.  I'm a Democrat."  Well, that witticism might just describe 2020 perfectly!  Here's hoping...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YoVEJY6TBhHvfrmNoApfpvOHNtNM6t6O/view

In Praise of President Trump's "Big Stick" Approach to Iraq and Iran

Friends, we might as well admit the obvious: we really made a mess of things in Iraq when we invaded the country in 2003, toppled Saddam Hussein, and turned the social and political order upside down by installing a Shiite government in a historically Sunni-dominated nation.  We've been picking up the pieces, or trying to, ever since.  Under Obama, the Iraqi government foolishly showed us the exits, and ISIS swooped in to fill the void.  ISIS motivated the Iraqis, however, to rejoin the American orbit, as they needed our help to cleanse their country of those bloody-minded zealots.  All along, the influence of Iran in Iraq has been problematic, at best.  Iran supported many of the insurgents who were killing American soldiers by the thousands back when George W. Bush was President.  We got that insurgency under control, but Iranian subterfuge continued.  Iraq is full of Iranian-backed Shiite militias that wield immense political influence.  President Trump has seemingly decided that enough is enough.  Presidents Bush and Obama might have been content to wag their fingers when the Iranians abetted the murder of American servicemen, but Trump says, "No more!"  Good for him.

Now, I know many people are saying that World War III is imminent.  That's poppycock.  Our campaign of "maximum pressure" on the Iranians has already brought their economy to its knees.  They are thoroughly outgunned by us, and by our various allies in the Gulf region.  Virtually no one likes the Iranians and will do with business with them.  The Syrians and Russians are the exception.  Bottom line: the Iranians are pipsqueaks.  They pose no meaningful threat to the United States, and they never will.  President Trump's decision to dispose of General Soleimani is not the prelude to war, therefore.  It's a warning to Iran, and a reminder that their antics can be slapped down by us at any time.  They had better stay in their puny, retrograde lane, therefore, or we will inflict much greater carnage on their country.  I predict, in fact, that, although Iran may retaliate in some minor way, in the long term their behavior will be better, not worse, because of Trump's iron-fisted approach.

The other major upside to his recent actions will be seen in Iraq, where Iran wields influence precisely because many Iraqis don't believe we have staying power, whereas the mullahs next door do.  Anytime we stand up to Iran, our stock in Iraq goes up -- and the anti-Iranian forces in Iraq become stronger.  Make no mistake: Iraq, for better or worse, is an American protectorate, and it is likely to stay that way for a long time.  And a protectorate, after all, expects protection.  Trump just delivered it, and how!

Bravo, Mr. President!

And, if you feel so inclined, check out this article, written by a "socialist," about why Biden is not the best candidate to face Trump in 2020.  The author's underlying motivation may be to support someone like Bernie (who in my estimation would be an even worse candidate), but nonetheless he makes some excellent points about Biden's weaknesses.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/04/joe-biden-electable-trump-2020-election#maincontent