Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Friends, forget the Trump-Omarosa feud. 2020 could be dominated by a battle between Donald Trump and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo! If only. Frankly, I don't think even the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Cuomo, but you never know...
In my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on the Newsmaker program, we give you the skinny on New York politics, as well as the rise of "democratic socialism", the decline and fall of Trump-hating FBI agent Peter Strzok. and the leftist obsession with race-baiting. You'll get all this and more!
Hop on the truth trolley with Dr. Waddy (you'll like it way more than Bill Clinton's "peace train")!
Friday, August 10, 2018
Friends, my latest article addresses one of the least likeable traits of leftists: their loathing for America, the country that nourishes and protects them and guarantees their liberties. Why do so many liberals hate America? Why do so many of those who don't hate America nevertheless love it conditionally, and sometimes only when it gives them what they want? Read on, and see if you agree with my analysis...
Why Do So Many Leftists Reject America?
The United States of America is, among many other things, a nation, and the Left has long made clear its contempt for nationalism, patriotism, and other relics of what it considers to be humanity's benighted “tribal” past. It is partly for this broad ideological reason that many liberals reject the symbols of America – the Stars and Stripes, the pledge of allegiance, the Constitution, or a statue of George Washington, for instance.
Nationalism is not the only reason, however. Leftists also believe that America is not merely a nation, but a bad nation – a nation defined by oppression, which liberals see everywhere. It is telling that, as racism and sexism have ebbed in this country, by any objective measure, the Left nonetheless perceives an increase in prejudice and discrimination. No wonder, then, that many liberals feel justified in rejecting the most popular symbols of America. They have concluded that ours is a country beyond redemption. The election of Donald Trump as president confirms them in this belief.
The result has been a cratering of liberal patriotism: the gap between the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who are “extremely proud” to be Americans has ballooned to 42 points (74% compared to 32%) in 2018. Just 23% of self-described liberals are “extremely proud” of this country. (Incidentally, even during the Obama years, conservatives and Republicans were more patriotic than liberals and Democrats.)
Consider the anecdotal evidence as well: recently a government-funded charter school in Atlanta abandoned the pledge of allegiance in deference to the negative “emotions” it evokes in students and parents. A local elected official in Connecticut has begun to kneel during the pledge of allegiance, in imitation of the protests that recently swept through the world of professional sports. On Thursday we witnessed a renewal of those protests by NFL players, who seem indifferent to the lasting damage they are inflicting on “America's game”. Meanwhile, churches, municipal parks, schools, and universities are reconsidering their public memorials not only to Confederate heroes, but to Founding Fathers like Washington and Jefferson. The New York Times published an article on Thursday claiming that the U.S. Constitution is an “outdated relic” and that “the subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the Constitution's framers.” The American flag was recently desecrated at a demonstration in support of firebrand Congresswoman and Trump-hater Maxine Waters. The much-reviled “War on Christmas” is being replaced by a “War on America”, or so it seems.
One of the most telling pieces of evidence that anti-American sentiment is viewed as legitimate on the Left is the oft-repeated threat by liberal celebrities, and even ordinary Democrats, prior to November 2016 that they would leave the U.S. if it elected Donald Trump as president. Virtually none of them were foolish enough to follow through, of course, but the mere fact that they would give voice to such ideas is a testament to their lack of faith in American democracy, the American people, and the American spirit. Quite a few leftists are more loyal and devoted to their cherished ideals of political correctness and creeping socialism than they are to the United States of America as a nation and as a people. That is a sad thing to have to say about one's fellow countrymen, but it is inescapably true.
The last time that the symbols and basic institutions of America were under such sustained assault was during the Johnson and Nixon years, when the U.S. public was sharply divided by the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights era. The Left succeeded in ushering President Nixon out of office, yes, but it didn't succeed in pulling the wool over the American people's eyes.
Americans saw every night on their television screens confirmation of the extremism, spitefulness, and anti-American apostasy of left-wing activists. In those days, as is the case now, liberal rage boiled over and produced criminality and violence, usually on a small scale, but sometimes in the form of mass protests, riots, and terrorism.
The result was predictable: the American people recoiled. They increasingly turned to the right, to the voices of patriotism and “law and order”, and to the Republican Party, which flourished and achieved its greatest electoral successes since the 1920s in the ensuing decades. The ultimate product of the leftist descent into anti-Americanism and radicalism was therefore the election of President Ronald Reagan, a principled conservative, in 1980.
One has to wonder whether the American people's response to the stridency, extremism, and disloyalty of the modern Left will be the same as it was in the 1970s and 80s. President Trump says that the 2018 midterm elections will bring a “red wave,” and Americans will definitively reject liberals' hysterical Trump-hatred, their obsession with impeachment, their advocacy of open borders, their dalliance with socialism, their ill-considered embrace of identity politics and political correctness, and, perhaps most of all, their contempt for America itself.
The talking heads guffaw, but history suggests that Trump may be right.
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 program on WLEA 1480.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Friends, don't miss my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480's Newsmaker program. We cover a lot of ground, including New York politics and the prospects for Governor Andrew Cuomo and Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul, US relations with Iran and North Korea, the US-China "trade war", and the role played by non-citizen voters in "foreign meddling".
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Friends, feast your eyes on my latest article, which appears in Townhall. It's about the leftist critique of President Trump as childish and prone to bullying. I deconstruct this critique and show how it very often applies to...Trump's critics! I think you'll be amused and edified.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
Friends, I recommend to you two great articles today. The first is about the statements by Democratic candidate for New York Attorney General Zephyr Teachout (the name alone should warn voters to stay away) to the effect that she believes ICE should not only be abolished -- in addition, its officers should be prosecuted for unspecified crimes. Teachout says ICE has become "a tool of fear and illegality". Now, let's ponder this for a moment. What this leftist is saying is that enforcing the law can itself be a crime. In addition, causing those guilty of a crime to fear they will be arrested is, presumably, criminal behavior. In effect, she objects to our current immigration laws so much that she seeks to invalidate them by prosecuting those who execute them. Again, the contrast with President Trump's criticism of the FBI could not be more stark. Trump has attacked rogue FBI agents who abused their authority -- not the institution itself. He has not called for the abolition of the FBI. He has not suggested that FBI agents performing their normal duties are guilty of criminal acts. He has not called the FBI a "terrorist organization," as Cynthia Nixon has (she is challenging Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in New York this year). It all goes to show you -- radicalism is blossoming on the Left, and they are inching ever closer to declaring it illegal for President Trump, and perhaps Republicans and conservatives in general, to speak, or even to draw breath. To the Left, "the law" means whatever they want it to mean. That's a scary thought, and it's the number one reason why it was so critical that we avoided a Clinton presidency in 2016. If the Left had won that election, people who believe that it's illegal to enforce the law would have been...running the country! Incredible.
The second article is about the union movement's divisions over whether or not to support Trump, or, more realistically, over whether or not to treat Trump like a leper. Not surprisingly, there are many leftist union officials who see Trump as the devil incarnate. On the other hand, there are those who understand that some of Trump's actions, like his tariffs against China, help many American workers. As a union member myself (though perhaps not for much longer), it saddens me that unions have become so captive to the radical agenda of the Left. All too often, unions involve themselves in political issues and races that have nothing to do with advancing the interests of their members. Hopefully, the Janus decision will help change this, but in the meantime the debate in leftist circles, and union circles, seems to be largely one of: is Trump merely bad, or is he monstrous? Should we just campaign against him, as in days of yore, or should we ratchet up our "resistance" and seek to imprison, dismiss from employment, or pillory anyone who says a kind word about him? It tells you something about the Left that, these days, simply failing to excoriate Trump vehemently enough BY ITSELF can make you persona non grata. And yet these are the times we live in.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Friends, you may have noticed that there is increasing support in "blue" cities (is there any other kind?) for the idea of allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. Many Democrats believe immigrants, even illegals, should be allowed to vote in ALL elections. But here we are talking about changing the law. From the Left's perspective, though, why change a law when you can simply ignore it, and thus tacitly invalidate it? Evidence is strong that non-citizens are already voting, because the encouragements to vote are myriad, and the mechanisms in place to prevent non-citizen voting are often very weak. Probably we are only talking about small numbers of voters at this stage, but there are elections, like the Senate election in New Hampshire in 2016, where the result is extremely close, and fraud of various kinds could easily be responsible for determining the outcome. This is a problem that we need to keep on top of, if for no other reason than because it is part of the pattern of lawlessness that the Left seems to feel it is entitled to perpetrate.
Here is a FoxNews piece about the issue:
And here is my latest interview on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480 in Hornell. Brian O'Neil and I discuss the issue of our growing "trade war" with China, and I highlight China's attempt to interfere in our 2018 midterm elections. We also discuss the potential for violence against conservatives, as well as against the police and ICE agents. Don't miss out!
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Friends, I recommend to you this excellent article, courtesy of FoxNews. Unlike the author, I don't doubt the reality of climate change, but his broader argument is a very important one: environmentalist rhetoric should not be confused with environmentalist action. Many politicians, celebrities, and corporate leaders talk a good game when it comes to climate change, carbon emissions, alternative energy, etc. The truth, however, is that, for all the blather, global emissions keep rising, and it is largely developing countries like China that are driving the trend. Emissions are modestly down in most developed countries, but that isn't because of alternative energy. It's largely because of fracking (which environmentalists hate), and the increased use of natural gas instead of oil and coal. The bottom line is that all the much-ballyhooed climate change agreements and pledges that you've heard about have produced real world consequences that are negligible in terms of the big picture of climate change. And, as this article points out, some of the countries that are the most holier-than-thou about protecting the planet are emitting more and more carbon. In the end, I predict the following: there will be climate change, and we will survive it. In addition, you can rely on the fact that few people will ever be willing to compromise their quality of life in the service of abstract ideals. Again, talk is cheap. Never forget that.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Friends, it annoys me so end that the Left, which so often takes the side of foreigners over Americans, has twisted the issue of "foreign meddling" into one that casts Trump and Republicans as lacking patriotism. What cheek! My latest article shows how foreign meddling in elections is a very widespread phenomenon, and the laser-like media and Democratic focus on Russia-related meddling is self-serving and deliberately misleading. In particular, I draw attention to one way in which China is engaging in egregious election meddling as we speak -- and the media and the Left couldn't care less... Read all about it:
Worried About “Foreign Meddling”? Then Throw the Book at China!
Every day for the past 18 months, we have had to endure legions of news reporters and liberal lawmakers appearing on our television screens, pretending to deplore “Russian meddling” in America's 2016 presidential election. Never far below the surface of this tedious moralizing is the implication that (evil) Trump wouldn't be President if it weren't for Russia's skulduggery, and, since he surely worked hand in glove with the Russians all along, he ought to be booted from office.
The truth, as many conservatives have pointed out, is that a) Russia's “meddling” was irrelevant to the central dynamics of the 2016 election, which was lost by Hillary Clinton – a truly dreadful candidate – more than it was won by Donald Trump, and b) “foreign meddling” in American elections, and American meddling in foreign elections, is nothing new or particularly outrageous. Indeed, every election is imperfect, and yet, despite these imperfections, those who truly believe in democracy readily acknowledge that, broadly speaking, electoral results still encapsulate the people's will. This is why Richard Nixon, despite his well-founded concerns about election rigging in 1960, never contested John F. Kennedy's victory. He foresaw that this would lead to endless electoral hair-splitting and a field day for lawyers, all of which would damage the country he so loved. He thus swallowed his pride and waited his turn to run again. If only Democrats were as patriotic and far-sighted!
“Foreign meddling”, in any case, comes in many forms, and it is by no means the Russians who are solely, or even primarily, responsible for it. Aggressive “influence campaigns,” of the sort waged by Russia in 2016, were waged by the United States throughout the Cold War, and we still “meddle” from time to time. The Obama administration, for instance, gave money to a group that campaigned against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's 2015 election. Moreover, the U.S. actively intervenes in Iraqi and Afghani politics. Influence campaigns are also standard operating procedure for China, Israel, Iran, and various wealthy Persian Gulf oil states.
It's not merely governments that “meddle”. Foreign citizens may be forbidden from donating to U.S. political campaigns directly, but their (paid) lobbyists in this country are not. Foreign lobbyists gave millions to candidates in 2016. (The Russians, by contrast, laid out only $100,000 for their famous Facebook ads.) The top recipient? Hillary Clinton, of course. Senator Chuck Schumer was third. The enormous foreign contributions made to the Clinton Foundation are also a matter of record – some of them made during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – and it is not hard to imagine that these overseas donors may have expected some backscratching in return for their largess.
Corporate donations to political campaigns and Super PACs represent another way for foreigners to “meddle” in U.S. elections. Corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to organizations promoting political causes, rather than specific candidates, and, lest we forget, the stockholders of these corporations are very often foreigners, espousing foreign, or “globalist”, agendas. Evidence is also mounting that wealthy foreigners contribute to Super PACs directly. Safeguards to prevent this are pitifully weak.
Meanwhile, the most potent form of “foreign meddling” in the 2016 election had nothing to do with financial contributions or hacking. It came in the form of repeated statements by foreign leaders that were designed to undercut the Trump campaign and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of victory. British Prime Minister David Cameron labeled Trump's call to restrict Muslim immigration “divisive, stupid, and wrong”. French President Hollande said Trump sometimes made him want to “retch”. China's finance minister called Trump's trade proposals “irrational”. Mexico's president baldly compared Trump to Hitler and Mussolini. Clinton, by contrast, earned international plaudits. The Italian Prime Minister declared he was “rooting” for her.
All of these statements, naturally, were intended to influence public opinion, including the views of American voters, and they represented a departure from historical norms of non-interference. Was this “foreign meddling” roundly condemned by liberals and the news media? Of course not. Prior to Donald Trump's historic victory in 2016, concerns about “foreign meddling” were decidedly muted, because it was assumed that the “right woman for the job” would win.
Now, though, China is presenting us with a new and arguably even more provocative form of election meddling. Given its timing, and given Democrats' incessant hysterical warnings about the existential threat to American democracy posed by foreign interference, you would expect that these pillars of patriotism and rectitude would be screaming bloody murder. But no – as usual, it's only Trump-related and Russia-related “meddling” that merits their attention.
And how is China interfering with our democracy? In the most naked, shameless manner possible. In response to President Trump's tariffs against China, designed to combat Chinese trade manipulation and theft of U.S. intellectual property, China has retaliated with tariffs of its own. Those tariffs, however, have been targeted against states and regions that supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Texas and Louisiana top the list of affected states. Rural areas have also been hard hit, with China slapping steep tariffs on soybeans, dairy products, and meat. Rural voters, lest we forget, supported Trump in 2016 by record-setting margins. In other words, China's tariffs are designed to punish Trump's key constituents. In essence, they are designed to blackmail Trump voters into abandoning their support for Trump, and by extension for his economic and trade policies. China's actions are therefore a direct and purposeful form of interference in U.S. elections and in our system of governance.
Are Democrats (and Trump-decrying Republicans) reacting to this assault on American democracy and the integrity of our elections with sanctions, threats, and general outrage? Not a bit of it. They are blaming the whole debacle on President Trump, who had the temerity to challenge China's dishonest trade practices in the first place! In other words, given the choice of siding with American consumers and U.S. workers, or with the foreign countries and interests taking advantage of them, these two-faced politicians are choosing to undercut the President of the United States and give aid and comfort to our trade adversaries! Incredible.
The sad part is that we know that President Trump's hardball trade tactics can work. They did with South Korea, and just recently they produced a deal (in principle) with the E.U. Trump's aggressive pursuit of fair trade works best, however, when Americans project an image of unity. If instead our adversaries believe that Trump will be forced to knuckle under to a fractious Congress or a critical media, they will refuse to budge in trade talks. Trump's domestic enemies know this. They know their carping is undermining America's negotiating position and exacerbating our “trade wars,” and they don't care. They want Trump, and America, to fail.
The Left and the media's utter indifference to China's attempt to manipulate American voters proves, as nothing else could, that their phony outrage over “Russian meddling” is exactly that: empty, opportunistic, and undoubtedly temporary. Our political elites have stood by for years as foreign interests exercised more and more control over American democracy, and as U.S. economic independence was forfeited. They expressed not a whit of concern about these trends before 2016. Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States, however, these political charlatans are pursuing an utterly hypocritical strategy: in disputes between the Trump administration and foreign leaders and interests, they invariably side with the foreigners; simultaneously, they falsely accuse Russia and Trump of conspiring to rig an American election, and they thus elevate a contrived discourse about “foreign meddling” to the top of the public agenda.
It is time to call these hucksters on their deceit and duplicity. Either the media and Democrats should start taking all forms of foreign meddling seriously, even when they are designed to hurt Trump and Republicans, or they should cease their moralizing altogether. As things stand now, the disconnect between the feigned, chest-thumping patriotism and the actual globalist pusillanimity and treachery of these scoundrels is shocking to behold.
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 program on WLEA 1480.
And here's the American Greatness version:
And here's the American Greatness version:
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Yes, I know -- the title to this post is a tad provocative, but it's a germane question, I feel. After all, the Left trumpets itself as "the Resistance" these days, and the Resistance (in German-occupied France) was a terrorist organization that killed thousands, mostly Frenchmen. It was also a group staffed primarily with loyal Stalinists. I kid you not. And these are the people the modern Left is embracing as heroes. The bigger point is this: if Trump=Hitler, and that's the clear implication of much leftist propaganda these days, then surely ANY means of resisting Trump, including violence against his supporters, is justified... Thus far, most leftists, thankfully, have been either too dense or too cowardly to follow through on the logic of their own radicalism, but how long will this last? Steve Scalise and Rand Paul know that liberal rage can break out into violence most unexpectedly. All I'm saying is that we conservatives need to be on our guard, because we are HATED with a passion, and hatred can lead to violence. Be prepared to duck, at the very least!
This is just one of many topics I discussed with Brian O'Neil on the latest Newsmaker show. We also covered the threat posed (or not posed) by Russia, the Mueller investigation, the wider phenomenon of "foreign meddling" in elections, Governor Cuomo's political prospects on the national stage, the rise of "democratic socialism", and attitudes to the death penalty. Don't miss it!
Monday, July 23, 2018
Friends, the NFL seems to have a death wish. It's clear that last year their inaction in response to players' decision to kneel (or otherwise to show disrespect) during the national anthem did considerable damage to the League's image and brand. It seemed that they had wised up during the off-season and had instituted a new policy that would punish players who knelt on the field. But not so fast. Now, under pressure from the players' union, the League is backtracking, and the policy has been put on hold. What will happen when you tune into the first NFL games of the season? Nothing good -- that's my guess. Even if the NFL stuck to its new policy, given how feckless it's been on the issue, I would be shocked if some players didn't kneel regardless. Would the League actually punish, even suspend, black players for "protesting racism"? It's almost inconceivable in this PC age. The sad thing is that this whole kerfuffle could have been avoided, had the NFL acted with some backbone when the first player took a knee. President Trump is right -- that player should have been tossed out on his ear. That would have been that. As it is, the NFL will have to twist in the wind for another season, victimized by its own cowardice. C'est la vie.
In other news, President Trump is considering revoking the security clearances of people like ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who called Trump's press conference with Russian President Putin "treasonous". I say: do it! It's one thing to criticize an administration you don't like, but men like Brennan have been running a sophisticated campaign to paint the President of the United States as a foreign agent -- without any solid evidence of collusion or "treason" whatsoever. President Obama gave "aid and comfort" to many traditional enemies of the United States, and he was never accused of a capital crime by responsible voices on the right. Instead he was accused of being a bad President. That's not enough for the likes of Brennan, however. They insist on blackening the name of President Trump and trashing the reputation of American democracy to anyone who will listen. Brennan has, in my view, ceased to be a patriotic servant of the American people. He has become instead an enemy of the American people and of our government. Let him spew his venom all he likes, but he should not have a security clearance, period.