Friday, February 15, 2019
Friends, my Valentine's Day gift to the world was this article, appearing in American Greatness. I'm quite proud of it. It explores the contrast between the sunny, optimistic outlook of Trump and his supporters, and the dark, sinister outlook of liberals. The liberal worldview is especially unfortunate when you consider how many things in America and the world are currently going right (pun intended). Read on, and see what you think.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Friends, today I bring you a cornucopia of wisdom and insight...
First, check out this article about a college student who wrote an op-ed about the ignorance and outspokenness of "white boys". Now, I support free speech -- don't get me wrong -- but the author of this article is venting prejudice and stereotypes about a group defined by their skin color and gender. Would Dickinson allow the article to be published, if it was similarly biased against blacks or women? Duh. The double standard on "racism" and "sexism" lives on.
This is a great blog post by someone very knowledgeable about the climate change debate. He argues convincingly that the idea that the world is on its last legs is mere hype:
And here's another great article about the ongoing migration of Americans from high-tax states to low-tax states. Hardly surprising. You'll note that many red states are due to gain in Congressional representation after the 2020 census. Unfortunately those changes won't benefit President Trump in 2020, however. The changes don't take effect until 2022.
I'm no great admirer of Nate Silver and his ilk. These election prognosticators basically read the polls, opine that the polls are probably right, and collect the accolades. Big deal. However, Nate makes an important point towards the end of the article. A very large Democratic field of presidential candidates in 2020, combined with new rules that require the proportional allocation of delegates, makes it possible, maybe even probable, that the Democratic nominee won't be chosen by the time of the Democratic National Convention. It could be a floor fight, in other words, and horse-trading, which determine who the Democratic candidate will be. In short, it could get ugly! Hooray!
Finally, this is a must-read. It looks as though the Trump administration will drive a stake through the heart of "disparate impact," a truly odious legal doctrine that basically says that, if the arbitrary racial quotas concocted in the minds of liberals aren't fulfilled by any institution or business, racism can be ASSUMED, regardless of whether it's actually present or provable. I sincerely hope the Trump administration, and the Supreme Court, will end this very common form of reverse discrimination once and for all:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Friends, on this week's Newsmaker Show, Brian O'Neil and I cover a lot of ground. In addition to talking about the hot issues of today -- Matt Whittaker's appearance before Congress, the politics of the "New Green Deal" and the specter of socialism, whether the moon landings were "necessary", the behavior of journalists and their detractors, the Senate's conclusion that there was no Trump-Russia collusion, the source of Democrats' antipathy to all things wall-like, how to judge the polls -- we also discussed the 1945 British/American firebombing of Dresden, Germany, a city filled to the brim with refugees. How much of a stain is civilian bombing on the legacy of US participation in World War II? Don't miss it!
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Friends, first I would like to wish godspeed to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is officially running for President. This phony Indian and crypto-socialist is -- you can tell -- President Trump's dream opponent, and I happen to agree with him that she would be a train-wreck as a national candidate. Let's hope the Dems really are dumb enough to choose her! Fingers crossed.
In other news, check out this interesting analysis of the Left's campaign of slander against D.C. Circuit Court nominee Neomi Rao:
Note the use of a -- commonsensical -- article written when she was a college student. Next, liberals will be trolling through the pictures that their political enemies drew in kindergarten... "What? None of the astronauts you drew when you were five years old were transgender? You MONSTER!!!"
And this article also commits the unforgivable sin of applying common sense...in this case to the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. In fact, the case for Dem/Clinton collusion is much stronger:
Keep fighting the good fight, people!
Friday, February 8, 2019
Friends, Tuesday night's State of the Union address confirmed why you and I voted for Donald Trump in the first place. He respects American traditions and values, yes, but he's also ready and willing to shake up the system, to challenge entrenched interests and break up decades-old political logjams. I meant what I said in the title to this post: the SOTU made Trump seem larger than life and infinitely more mature and visionary than the Dems, who came only to scoff and to snicker. He challenged both parties to act together, to compromise, in the national interest. My latest article considers whether the Democrats might heed his call, even in a small way. Check it out:
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Friends, don't miss my latest appearance on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480. Brian O'Neil and I discuss a wide range of issues, from the curious implosion of the Democratic Party in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to Governor Cuomo's cluelessness about New York's high taxes, to the rank brutality of Marxism and Marxists, to the moral calculus of withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan, to the historical legacy of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II. Check it out!
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Friends, for the umpteenth time Democrats are tied up in knots over an essentially trivial, symbolic matter. Now it's because one of their own, Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia, may or may not have posed in a racist photo more than three decades ago. Northam has not handled the controversy with the greatest of finesse, it's true, but the fact remains that no one should be judged solely based on a faux pas committed in their misbegotten youth. Does Ralph Northam hate black people? If he does, he has a funny way of showing it, because his political career has been dedicated to racial "justice", at least as liberals define it. What we can learn from this incident, in any case, is the ease with which Democrats will turn on each other, if their political interests are served by doing so. Republicans -- or so I like to believe -- are more judicious, more loyal, and more forgiving. The political takeaway is this: Democrats have an almost limitless capacity for self-destruction, and we are going to see a lot more of this silliness in the coming months, as the various Democratic contenders for the presidency vie to paint one another as bigots of one sort or another. The mean-spiritedness of the liberal movement is about to be front and center! Gird yourselves.
See what the irrepressible Laura Ingraham has to say on this topic:
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Friends, I attended Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, and I did so partly because the institution had a reputation for conservatism. As a whole, of course, academia leans left. That's a truism that we have all come to accept. "Leans" may be an understatement, though, because in recent years conservatives have become even rarer on college campuses, especially at elite institutions. W&L is part of that elite. It's ranked among the top liberal arts colleges in the nation. Happily, it still educates many aspiring conservative leaders, but the faculty is almost uniformly liberal. This article, in W&L's Spectator magazine (to which I contributed in days of yore), proves the point:
The bias is not a slight one either, as you can see. Now, there are two obvious problems here. First, academia thrives on debate and broad-mindedness. How can colleges and universities foster a vigorous, freewheeling discourse on the issues of the day, though, if major belief systems are excluded? Academia is always bragging about how much it embraces "diversity". Figures like these make this claim laughable. Modern academia seems at least as dedicated to exclusion and it does to inclusion. The second problem with academia's leftist bias is more serious, though. One might reasonably ask: how are conservatives to survive and prosper in America if they are excluded from, or at least marginalized by, higher education -- not to mention elementary and secondary education, Hollywood, the media, government bureaucracies, corporate America...and the list goes on. Sad as it is to admit, the dominant culture these days is LIBERAL. We conservatives are part of a counterculture -- a besieged, despised, and probably shrinking counterculture. It is very hard for us to get our message out, and nurture the next generation of conservatives, when so many powerful cultural institutions regard us as contemptible and dangerous.
My view is that the flagrant leftist bias in academia, and in many of these other institutions, simply CANNOT stand. If it does stand, and if we conservatives tolerate it or get used to it, we will, sooner or later, go extinct. The stakes really are that high.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Friends, it's beginning to look like the Mueller team is getting mighty frustrated. Unable to pin "collusion" on anyone, they've decided to charge everyone and his brother his "lying" and some version of obstruction of justice. Gee, I wonder how many Clintonites ever "lied" for their boss? And how many will ever be prosecuted? We'll have to wait and see...
On this week's Newsmaker Show with Brian O'Neil, we talk about the Roger Stone arrest, the politics of the shutdown and the wall negotiations, the potential independent presidential candidacy of Howard Schultz, the historical importance of assassinations, the parallels between President Andrew Jackson and President Donald Trump, and more! Don't miss it.
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Friends, President Trump is not alone in questioning the relevance of NATO in the post-Cold War era, when Europe faces no serious external threat, and European governments insist on cutting their military budgets to the bone. The truth is that, if NATO has a future, it lies in a growing commitment to multilateralism. That is, NATO shouldn't be a blank check given to Europe by the United States -- it should be a joint effort to promote peace and security, WITHOUT unnecessarily antagonizing other global actors, like Russia. Trump is often seen as anti-NATO, but I see it differently: Trump is giving NATO one last chance to redefine itself in a way that will work for everyone. Read all about it in my latest article, soon to appear in the Daily Caller:
President Trump: NATO's White Knight?
Consumers of the drivel produced by the mainstream media will be well aware that, according to the New York Times, President Trump allegedly discussed with aides the possibility and ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. They will also be aware that President Trump has harshly criticized some of our NATO allies, mainly for under-funding their own militaries.
All this feeds into a narrative that the media has been fabricating since before the 2016 election: Donald J. Trump is a wrecking ball laying waste to the international order. He threatens America's traditional allies while empowering our enemies. No one is safe, in short, with such an impulsive “man-child” at the helm of the ship of state.
The party line in the mainstream media, however, could not be further from the truth.
For one thing, the press and the “experts” ignore the fact that NATO has for years been on shaky ground. Our European allies have consistently allowed their military capacities to whither, while they ink agreements that make Europe dependent on Russia for its energy supplies. NATO nonetheless persisted as an “alliance” propped up entirely by U.S. military power (and massive U.S. defense expenditures), and by the alleged strength of U.S. resolve to defend our allies against any threat.
President Obama's ignominious retreat when the government of Syria crossed his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons, however, exposed the threadbare nature of U.S. resolve, as did Obama's retreat from Iraq. Not surprisingly, Russia has increasingly viewed NATO as a paper tiger. Putin's aggression in Ukraine (as well as his interference in U.S. elections) was an expression of his contempt for NATO, and for the West in general.
Truthfully, though, NATO had always, since its inception in 1949, been hamstrung by a fatal flaw: many doubted that the United States, if pushed to the wall, would ever sacrifice the blood of its precious soldiers to defend tiny nations in Europe from attack. Luckily, the Soviets never tested our sincerity during the Cold War. Neither has Putin in recent years, despite the palpable weakness of America's strategic posture in the Obama years.
And then along came President Donald Trump.
Trump unceremoniously lambasted the governments of a long list of NATO member states for entrusting their security to an alliance to which they contribute virtually nothing. He demanded that NATO members take seriously their stated commitment to spend two percent of their respective GDPs on defense. He declared his support for the alliance, but he asked our NATO partners to get serious about sharing the burdens of maintaining international peace and security.
The international press and the diplomatic elite naturally expressed outrage. NATO leaders simply don't speak to one another in these frank terms! Surely, they declared, Trump's criticism of other NATO countries would be interpreted by Russia and other potential adversaries as a signal of dissension and irresolution. These enemies would be emboldened, and the world would be increasingly unstable and unsafe.
The truth, however, is that, although the leaders of other NATO countries were clearly irritated by Trump's straight talk, they responded to his criticism precisely as he would have wished: by upping their military expenditures. The logic and justice of Trump's argument, that NATO is a reciprocal alliance binding all member states to contribute to the common defense, could not but bring shame on the heads of European leaders who, under the unimaginative, internationalist leadership of President Obama, had grown used to taking advantage of American strategic lethargy. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently announced, the fruits of Europe's Trump-induced shame are no less than an extra $100 billion in defense spending. That's a pretty impressive achievement for a blundering hothead, no?
The strength of an alliance, of course, cannot be measured purely in dollar terms. What is more significant about NATO in the Age of Trump is this: no longer is the organization a unilateral expression of America's commitment to defend Europe from whatever may happen to threaten it. Increasingly, under Trump, NATO is taking shape as a multilateral alliance designed to achieve collective security through the sharing of burdens and the coordination of vast, polyglot military forces. To put it another way, NATO will no longer serve as a mere propaganda arm of the Pentagon – it will become again what it was during its glory days in the midst of the Cold War: a vigorous coalition of great powers dedicated to deterring aggression and keeping the peace.
Put yourself in Russia's shoes. Which NATO would you prefer to pick a fight with: a polite, self-satisfied, ossified organization totally reliant on American military power, with the proviso that such power will be sparingly used by timid and casualty-averse U.S. leaders...or a dynamic military and diplomatic partnership backed by the robust armed forces of dozens of powerful states, eminently capable of defending themselves with or without the assistance of the United States? The question answers itself.
The next time the media informs you that President Trump is “undermining” NATO and the international order, therefore, enjoy a good laugh at their expense.
NATO was dying on the vine under the languid leadership of Barack Obama and his European cronies. Donald Trump, by contrast, has breathed new life and purpose into the organization, giving it a chance at relevancy in the 21st century.
We are safer now, without a doubt, than we were when President Trump took office.
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 in the Daily Caller:
And here it is in the Daily Caller:
In other news, please spare a moment to take pity on poor Tom Brokaw, who is a solid liberal, but not quite PC enough for this intolerant day and age. He dared to attempt some constructive criticism of American Hispanics, some of whom are indeed closed off in a "multicultural" ghetto, and who liberals encourage to spurn assimilation. Brokaw had a point, and as usual the Left doesn't want to hear it.