Follow Dr. Waddy

Submit your email address below to receive updates on new articles, videos, and posts. Don't miss out!

Monday, March 19, 2018

Journalistic Integrity...and Other Myths

Friends, there are few subjects on which I am more passionate than the pure loathsomeness of the mainstream media.  The lack of balance and breadth in their coverage, the plain ignorance of many reporters and editors, and the blatant partisanship and runaway Trump-hatred is enough to drive any decent American batty...and quite a few have already succumbed.  Our excellent President has an approval rating in the 40s.  Russia's President Vladimir Putin has an approval rating closer to 80%.  What's the difference between them?  There are plenty, but from a public opinion standpoint the principal distinction is that Putin controls the Russian media, which fawns over him, while the American media works in overdrive to undermine our elected President.  One simply cannot discount how important this is, since constant toxic media coverage destroys confidence with spectacular effectiveness.  True, there are now alternative media outlets from which Americans can, and sometimes do, get high quality news and analysis, but most alternative media sources are even worse, and less professional, than the mainstream crowd.  Fake news flourishes in the alternative media, and the big networks, newspapers, and popular websites are, to a large degree, throwing journalistic standards out the window simply to stay competitive with the no-holds-barred muckrakers that dominate talk radio, social media, and other popular forums.  The point is this: our country's cynicism, quarrelsomeness, and self-hatred will never be healed until we obtain a more responsible press.  Bad and biased reporting is killing our democracy, I firmly believe, and time may be running out to reverse the downward spiral.  After all, we're already in a situation where most Americans assume the amorality of our political elite, and they take for granted that, if their chosen candidate didn't win an election, then his/her opponent must have cheated.  You simply can't sustain democratic institutions for long under these circumstances.  We need to change course! 

You can read all about it in my latest article:

Burying the Lead: The Media Ignores Trump's Victories

It's no secret that the mainstream media loathes President Trump. The coverage of the Trump administration has broken all records in terms of consistent, vitriolic negativity. (One study found that the coverage on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts was critical 90% of the time.) This leads the media to devote ample column inches and airtime to arguably trivial smears, like the alleged Russian ties of low-level campaign aides and volunteers, the dirty laundry (real and imagined) of the President's family members, and unverifiable non-claims of past affairs made by professional strippers. Essentially, the media has long since been weaponized in the war on Trump.

The other side of this sordid coin, however, is the media's indifference to important, positive stories far more worthy of the public's attention. In particular, journalists eschew any mention of President Trump's successes and breakthroughs. The list of these political victories is a long one, although you won't read about them in the Post or the Times.

Lest we forget, the economy is booming. All indicators, including economic growth rates, unemployment rates, manufacturing growth, and stock market gains, are pointing to a level of dynamism unknown in the Obama years. The relaxation of bureaucratic regulations and the achievement of a historic tax reform package certainly have played a role in this economic renaissance. Whether President Trump deserves the credit for all of this good news is debatable, but the simple fact is that, if he were a Democrat, the media would be crediting him much more often than it is.

Recently, thanks to President Trump's unapologetically aggressive policy towards North Korea, including harsh rhetoric and biting sanctions, Kim Jong-un expressed a willingness to consider denuclearization, and the U.S. announced an upcoming summit between Kim and President Trump. Had President Obama achieved a diplomatic breakthrough of this magnitude, his (second) Nobel Peace Prize surely would have arrived by priority mail the very next day. Trump's hard-won progress, though, is ignored and slighted.

Likewise, the administration's successes in protecting U.S. technological and industrial preeminence, by preventing the foreign acquisition of critical American technology companies, and by shielding our steel and aluminum industries from unfair overseas competition, is ignored, or worse, undercut with wild speculation about possible retaliation. In both cases, Trump's actions have clear precedents in the moves of previous administrations, including that of Barack Obama, but the media always frames Trump's actions as entirely novel and abjectly foolish. The inconvenient truth is that real, tangible American jobs, and American workers, are safeguarded by these actions, but those stories are simply never told.

In yet another example of the media's selective coverage, the Trump administration's unprecedented success in reducing illegal immigration, which every administration since that of President Eisenhower has at least claimed that it wanted to achieve, is completely subsumed by the media's focus on anecdotal accounts of allegedly virtuous illegal immigrants facing deportation. The media could, of course, tell the story of the crimes committed by the many thousands of violent illegal immigrants who no longer prowl America's streets, thanks to President Trump. It won't, naturally. It literally can't, since any reporter who spoke of those crimes would be besieged with charges of “racism!”

The list of Trumpian achievements goes on: a stronger military, improved services for veterans and the firing of many incompetent VA employees, ISIS on its last legs, reams of useless regulations obliterated, an increasing realization among our allies that they must solve their own problems and provide and pay for their own defense, dozens of sterling conservatives appointed to our nation's courts, etc. And the media's attitude to these triumphs is invariably the same: denial, dismissal, obfuscation.

When it comes to all things Trump, the media is hopelessly blinkered. Unfortunately, their acidic commentary on the Trump presidency has had a cumulative effect on public attitudes, and it is almost certainly responsible for Trump's artificially low approval numbers, which make no sense given the basic strength of America itself.

Years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared to his fellow Americans that they “had nothing to fear but fear itself.” What he meant is that perception is critically important, and it can even create, by its own power, new political realities. 

I would argue that the media, with its relentless and intentional efforts to undermine the Trump administration, is actually reducing confidence in America itself and its political institutions. The negativity has reached such a crescendo that the stability of our democracy is under threat.

President Trump has his faults, yes, but the irresponsibility and lack of professionalism in our media knows no bounds. It is time to turn off the mainstream media and start over. Alternatively, it is time to reconsider our libel laws in order to hold the worst journalists accountable for their fabrications.

Information is the lifeblood of democracy, and, sad to say, our country has never been so ill-informed.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

You can also find the article here, on the TownHall website:

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Defeating Climate Change with the Nuclear Option

Friends, I've written before about how leftists are now supporting lawsuits against energy companies to punish them for "causing" climate change.  The theory is that they should be held liable for anticipated damages that climate change will create in the future.  This is a mighty weak legal argument on any number of levels, but in my latest article I roll out what I consider to be a very intriguing counterargument.  Could environmentalists themselves be held responsible for climate change, based on their vehement and irrational opposition to nuclear power, which, if it had been allowed to reach its full potential, could have drastically reduced overall carbon emissions?  Consider the case of France, which produces 75% of its electricity via nuclear power, and which as a result posts very low per capita carbon emissions, and exports electricity to neighboring countries that eschew icky nuclear plants.  The key takeaway is this: if you want rational, balanced solutions to our need for energy, and our need to protect the environment, environmentalists are the last people who you should look to...  Their track record is poor, to say the least, and their predictive powers are miserable.

Read more about it in TownHall:

P.S. For those of you who are thinking about Chernobyl or Fukushima, consider the fact that, despite these alarming incidents, nuclear power, mainly by reducing pollution, has already saved millions of lives.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Lamb to the Slaughter?

Friends, there's a big election coming up tomorrow: a special election to decide whether Republicans will hold onto the seat in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional district.  Some polls give a slight edge to the Democrat, Conor Lamb, over the Republican, Rick Saccone, despite the fact that the district favored Trump over Clinton by 20 points.  The Democrats have put a maximum effort into stealing the seat, in the hope that they can feed the narrative of a cresting "blue wave" in 2018.  For those keeping score, there have already been four special elections for the House of Representatives since Nov. 2016, and Republicans have won every one.  In most cases, Democrats convinced themselves they could compete, only to come up short.  Now, we all know that lefties don't lack for ego, so let's not give them anything to crow about, eh?  My prediction is that Saccone will win, and Democrats will congratulate themselves for getting close.  How did they make it competitive?  Their candidate, Conor Lamb, is young and, according to endless fawning news reports, handsome.  He's also done everything in his power to avoid connecting himself to liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, or Trump-hatred, despite the fact that he's a member of the party which espouses all three.  If he wins, it will be a triumph of dissimulation, but...I doubt he can win.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, here's a fun story: Emperor Cuomo is sweating bullets, because his campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor of New York may not be the usual coronation.  He might be challenged from the (loony) left.  Let's hope this is a storyline that repeats itself a lot between now and November.  There's a good chance that many electable Democrats will be picked off by angry Bolshevists.  Wouldn't that be great?

In other good news, President Trump is wisely backing away from his bone-headed proposal to raise the age for buying some firearms from 18 to 21.  Unfortunately, legislation to that effect passed in the great state of Florida.  We must hope it gets overturned by the courts.

Lastly, just a little more good news: President Trump has blocked the sale of Qualcomm, a very important U.S. telecommunications company, to a foreign firm.  He has done so to protect U.S. national security, although, as I've written, even as a U.S. company Qualcomm is a menace, and further measures are needed to protect our national edge in high tech R&D and manufacturing.  Nonetheless, Trump has done more in a year to safeguard our technological preeminence than most Presidents do in one or two terms.  Bravo!

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Death and Taxes

Friends, if you're anything like me, you're relieved that Republicans managed to pass a massive tax reform bill (and tax cut) late in 2017.  Nonetheless, you also realize that much work remains to be done if we are to make our tax system, well, great, or even good.  Read more about it in my latest article, which discusses the need for further tax reform:

Thursday, March 1, 2018

WaddyIsRight Reports, You Decide

Friends, there are some interesting developments in the battle for America's soul.  First, the harpy you see above, who is Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, California, may be in hot water -- the hotter, the better!  The Department of Justice is looking into whether she can be charged with obstruction of justice.  Over the weekend, you see, she warned the good people of Oakland that ICE was about to conduct raids to apprehend criminal illegal aliens.  (Naturally, she would want to protect these model non-citizens from Trumpian tyranny.)  It's about time one of these lawless Democrats was held responsible for his or her criminal conduct!  I look forward to seeing her marched away in cuffs ASAP.  Read more about it here:

Next, it seems that the Senate, along with the House, is disinclined to act rashly to curtail Americans' 2nd Amendment rights.  Good!  Sometimes, the deliberate, cautious nature of the legislative process is a positive thing.  That's certainly what our Founding Fathers believed.  Public policy should be made thoughtfully, not off-the-cuff and in reaction to raw emotion.  The gun control crowd is trying its hardest to whip up people's fears, so I'm glad to see our elected representatives are responding with some backbone.

Lastly, the real story of how Nikolas Cruz was able to threaten his teachers, neighbors, and classmates with impunity is starting to come out.  It wasn't the NRA that made it possible for Cruz to acquire firearms -- it was the bleeding heart, soft-on-crime policies of the Obama administration.  This story has been brought to you already on this blog, but now it's beginning to go mainstream.  About time!

Keep your eyes peeled for further developments on all three fronts.  Above all, let's hold Democrats and liberals accountable!  They're masters at the art of deflection.  That's why we need to trumpet the facts every chance we get.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

If I Had a Nickel...

Friends, the capacity for self-delusion evinced by the left is truly breathtaking.  I can't tell you how many articles I've read by liberal talking heads opining that Trump's and/or Republicans' latest outrage will be the end of the Trump presidency, or the Republican Party, or conservatism itself.  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling," these leftists are always declaring...  Surely, America will wake up and realize that the lefties were right all along.  Here is the latest example of this extraordinary conceit:

Now, if you got through that drivel, I congratulate you.  Did you notice the compelling evidence offered for the author's key assertion?  Why will the Parkland, Florida school shooting be the end of Republicans, when they have survived every other political controversy since the 1850s?  Because, according to Mr. Linker, "this time feels different."  Ha!  You're right, sport.  It does feel different.  This time it feels like the left is truly off its gourd.  But I hate to break it to you: the Republican Party is stronger now than at any time since the 1920s.  President Trump won the last election despite the fact that almost the entire economic, cultural, and political elite of the WORLD was united against him.  And Republicans, conservatives, and President Trump are presently gaining in popularity, not tanking.

Ah, liberals.  Their smugness knows no bounds.  There's no point in grousing over it, though.  In fact, arguably, their complacency and arrogance make it that much easier to keep them in check.

Keep up the good work, lefties!

Friday, February 23, 2018

Thinking the Unthinkable

Friends, much as it pains me, today I must beg to differ with President Trump.  Yes, you heard that right.  I expect much gnashing of teeth and rending of hair to result, since one of the constants of the universe is being upset, but sometimes a conservative has to say his piece.  If the ghost of Reagan sheds a tear as a result, so be it.  I'll make it up to the Gipper by writing plenty more articles in praise of all things Trump!

The source of my disquiet is President Trump's suggestion that the minimum age for some gun purchases should be raised from 18 to 21.  Why is that a problem?  Read on...

Conservatives Must Oppose Age Restrictions on Gun Purchases

In the wake of the horrific Parkland, Florida school shooting, President Trump has unveiled a number of proposals to increase school safety. His best suggestion is that a select number of trained teachers, coaches, and staff members should be permitted to bear arms in our schools, so that attacks can be deterred, and, if necessary, shooters can be promptly neutralized. Few conservatives will balk at the idea that guns can indeed promote safety, in the right hands.

Unfortunately, President Trump has also proposed that the legal minimum age for gun purchases should be increased from 18 to 21, although whether this would apply to so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic firearms, or all guns remains unclear. Regardless of Trump's intentions, any policy of this kind would be a grave error, and conservatives should work to dissuade the President and, if need be, to defeat any bill in Congress that incorporates such a change.

Why? First, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and as such should be subject to regulation but never to infringement. This is what conservatives have been correctly arguing for decades. A constitutional right cannot be denied to any person on the basis of sex, race, religion, or age. Indeed, even to attempt to infringe a constitutional right in this manner would be dangerous and un-American. True, federal law already prohibits some handgun sales to persons under 21, but this ought to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Second, in a country of 325 million people and a roughly equivalent number of guns, there is little reason to suspect that an age restriction, or any form of gun control, would succeed in depriving any would-be school shooter of the opportunity to kill.

Lastly, those who support raising the minimum age for gun purchases to 21 have clearly not considered the anomaly this would create: hundreds of thousands of young Americans would suddenly be serving in our armed forces, bearing not only guns, but howitzers, torpedoes, attack helicopters, and even nuclear weapons, but, as private citizens, they would be unable to purchase firearms. One word for such a predicament would be “unjust” – personally, I prefer the more apt term: surreal. Our nation simply cannot deny its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the full and unabridged constitutional right to self-defense.

President Trump has been a breath of fresh air, proposing and implementing innovative solutions to our country's problems, and literally saving the Republic, which would otherwise have been plunged into the Clintonian abyss. In this case, though, the President has not properly considered the full implications of his suggestion. 

Where the heartfelt desire to protect children from harm bumps up against common sense and the U.S. Constitution, it must be the latter that prevail. There are simply better ways to defeat school violence.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

You can find the article here, at Artvoice:

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Public Enemy Number One?

Yes, that's right -- the picture you see here is "fake news".  President Obama isn't really under arrest, but maybe he should be...  I'm learning that Obama administration policies, which pressured police departments and school districts around the country to reduce arrests of minority youth, may have played a part in allowing Nikolas Cruz to slip through the cracks and pursue his deadly rampage in Parkland, Florida.  Certainly the number of times that the police were called to deal with Cruz -- never once arresting him -- is mighty suspicious.  I've long thought that being a police officer in this country would be a truly thankless job.  After all, many Americans, and quite a few politicians, view the police as the enemy, and they view law enforcement itself as a form of oppression.  I say let's crack down on those who pose a real threat and who violate the peace -- but let's NOT infringe the constitutional rights of decent Americans.  Are you with me?

Good News All Around

Friends, with so much horrifying information saturating this fallen world of ours, it's always nice to report some good news for a change.

First, I saw today that one of my recent articles -- "Impeach the Democratic Party!" -- appeared on the front page of RealClearPolitics, which is where I generally get my own news.  That's always a pleasant surprise!

Second, as you'll see in this article, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is showing some signs of life in investigating those who have violated the law by leaking classified information that they believed would be harmful to President Trump.  As we all know, the list of laws that have been broken by Trump haters is a long one, and it would be nice to see one or two of them enforced!

Finally, what's bad for CNN is good for America, and it appears CNN's ratings are tanking.  Hooray!  Maybe "the Resistance" is getting tired, or perhaps it's gone back to watching PBS instead?  Who can say...

Keep hope alive!  All is not lost, and we've got a special election coming soon in Pennsylvania's 18th district, which I trust will also buoy our spirits.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Those Pesky Russians

Friends, while the only lesson that the mainstream media is taking from the recent indictment of 13 Russians for election meddling is that the 2016 election was invalid, the truth is that it is becoming more and more apparent that the real Russian goal was NOT to elect Donald Trump.  That may have been a secondary goal, but the primary goal was to pit Americans against one another and cause maximum chaos.  In that regard, the Russian campaign was stunningly successful, and Democrats and liberals have done more than anyone to make it so.  Why did the Russians sponsor anti-Trump rallies after the election?  Why did they boost support for Bernie Sanders?  Why did they pay for ads for and against Black Lives Matter?  Is it because they were in bed with Trump all along?  No!  It's because they were and are opportunists, who view a weak USA as an asset for Russia.  Thus, Americans who try to undermine confidence in our election system (which worked flawlessly) and our President (who had no involvement) are doing the Russians' work for them.  Stop the nonsense, I say!  Accept that Donald Trump won the election, Russians clumsily tried to interfere in it (as did many other bad actors, including the Democratic Party), and move on.  What do you think?

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Impeachment Wheels Are Turning...

Don't think for a moment that the left has forgotten about its medium term goal: the removal of President Trump from office.  Left-wing groups have been conducting polling analyses to test various arguments for impeachment, and Mr. Impeachment himself, Tom Steyer, has been busy too.  He's advancing the "mental instability" and "obstruction of justice" narratives simultaneously.  Only the diehards are clinging on to the Russian collusion illusion, but don't be heartened by that fact.  If the left can convince a majority of Americans to support impeachment for ANY reason, no matter how specious, they will pounce.  Given the level of anti-Trump hysteria they've already engendered, we can't afford to take this threat lightly.

You can read more about Steyer's malevolent machinations here:

Thursday, February 15, 2018


A tip of the hat to YOU, my friends, for the recent upsurge in comments on this blog.  Please know that I appreciate your input and reactions more than words can say.  Please don't be a stranger!

And here's a special treat for latest article.  It's an analysis of the (absurd) controversy over Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent remarks about our "Anglo-American heritage".  Enjoy!

Our Western, “Anglo-American” Heritage Can't Be Wished Away By Liberals

As a history professor and long-time instructor in “Western Civilization” classes, I was dumbfounded by recent leftist attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions, at a meeting of U.S. sheriffs, innocuously observed that these highly respected police officials are part of our country's democratic and “Anglo-American” legal and law enforcement heritage. It was the term “Anglo-American” that stuck in liberals' collective craw, symbolizing to them the fact that U.S. laws and law enforcement are apparently made of, by, and for (you guessed it) white people. This interpretation of Sessions' remarks is not only grossly unfair – it also ignores the very real “Anglo-American” basis for our laws, constitution, and democracy.

Americans should understand that our legal system is founded on the British “common law” tradition, which distinguishes the legal environment in Britain and its former colonies, including the U.S., from that in almost every other part of the world. “Anglo-American” common law bases ideas of justice on precedents established in previous judicial rulings. Because of this, many of the assumptions of the American legal system actually predate America itself and hearken back to ideas of justice in medieval and early modern England. Many of our most important legal and constitutional principles – from presuming a person innocent until proven guilty, to allowing people to speak their minds freely, to consulting the people in matters of government – are directly traceable to the British political tradition, which nurtured the growth of similar sentiments in the 13 Colonies. Our Founding Fathers were under no illusions about the debt we owed to the British. Indeed, they borrowed freely from British political and legal traditions, and consciously copied the ideas and sometimes the language of men like the English political philosopher John Locke. And this is not even to go into the benefits that accrue from our use of the wonderful English language itself, which binds our country together, and the world-historical importance of the fabled Anglo-American “special relationship,” which won two World Wars, plus the Cold War.

Furthermore, when Jeff Sessions observed that the American institution of “sheriff” is an outgrowth of our “Anglo-American heritage,” he was likewise merely stating an obvious truth. Sheriffs were appointed by England's Kings in the Middle Ages to administer justice at the county level. As Sessions pointed out, our innovation in the United States was to make sheriffs elected officials, so as to maximize their representative character and to make them servants of the people rather than agents of royal authority. Simply put, we would not have sheriffs in America were it not for our Anglo-American heritage. This is precisely why, outside of areas once ruled by the British Empire, sheriffs do not exist.

Why do liberals consider Sessions' remark “racist”? Perhaps it is because they do not bother to distinguish between the meaning of the term “Anglo-American” in a legal or historical context, and the meaning of “Anglo” in the cultural context of the American southwest, where the word refers to a white person from a non-Hispanic background. If this is the case, liberals should consider that the New York Times Magazine published an article in November 2016 lamenting the decline of an “Anglo-American order” in the wake of Donald Trump's election. The New York Times, however, was not condemned as racist. Why? Because there was nothing racist about its position! The Times was merely trying to blame then President-Elect Trump for an anticipated decline in center-left bonhomie between Britain and the United States. Likewise, President Obama used the phrase “Anglo-American” in a legal context on several occasions, and he was never accused of racism. “Anglo”, therefore, does not always refer to “white people,” and, even if it did, acknowledging the powerful historical role played by white people in history is not “racist”. It is, once again, merely stating the obvious.

The other reason why liberals may be offended by the term “Anglo-American” is because it reminds them that this is a country that was largely founded by immigrants from Europe – the dreaded “white people” of which we spoke earlier. Moreover, there is an argument to be made, and I make it in my classes often, that this is still a nation that is part of “Western Civilization,” and the legacy that this civilization has bestowed on us is overwhelmingly positive. The fact that we are free to criticize our elected leaders, that we have elections in the first place, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law, that we live in the freest, most prosperous society that has ever existed – all of this is down to the political and social principles that Europeans, mainly Englishmen, bequeathed to us. Ironically, it is the (largely British) freedoms that we enjoy today that empower liberals to inveigh against the very civilization that birthed modern democracy as well as the competing ideals of Marxism, feminism, and “social justice,” among others. It would make more sense for liberals to acknowledge these contributions than to spurn them, since liberalism itself would make no sense outside of its clearly Western context.

Make no mistake, therefore: Attorney General Jeff Sessions' words, which honored our country's “Anglo-American heritage”, were no more racist than the words of the Declaration of Independence. The real racists, I would argue, are those who are so pathologically anti-white that they impute racial animus (even “white supremacy”) to every phrase, no matter how harmless and no matter how true, that escapes the lips of a Republican. Such race-baiting nonsense ought to have no place in our political discourse.

Furthermore, we should embrace rather than reject our heritage as a Western people. The West has achieved spectacular advances in every field of human endeavor, and is especially notable for advancing the cause of human freedom and dignity. That is a tradition of which we all should be proud.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

You can find the article here, at

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Decision 2018: The Death Knell for the Democratic Party?

Friends, I'd like to recommend this fine article, which comes to us courtesy of FoxNews.  Frankly, I think some of it is based on wishful thinking, but the core argument is sound: the appearance of a Democratic advantage leading up to the 2018 mid-term elections could easily be deceptive.  In addition, many public polls are biased in favor of Democrats, and no one should discount the level of mobilization (and expenditure) that Republicans will achieve by the Fall.  We Republicans and conservatives should take very seriously the challenge that energized Trump-haters represent -- and counter them accordingly.  I firmly believe that, if we keep our eyes on the ball, we can keep the House AND the Senate in 2018, and, if we do, the circular firing squad that arises in the Democratic Party will be a thing of beauty!  Let's make it happen, shall we?

Friday, February 9, 2018

Two Can Play At That Game

Friends, the drumbeat of calls (admittedly only from the truly desperate and deranged) for President Trump's impeachment has raised my hackles, especially given how little respect Democrats and liberals have for the law in the first place.  Here is my retort, which you can also find on the American Greatness website:

Impeach the Democratic Party!

On February 7th, the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, the epitome of a San Francisco liberal, treated America to an 8-hour lecture on why young illegal immigrants who benefited from President Obama's (unconstitutional) DACA program should be allowed to stay in this country. Her speech marked the culmination of the Democratic Party's bizarre pivot from its historical role of representing its constituents and (progressively-minded) U.S. citizens to representing illegal aliens instead. Pelosi reached a rhetorical crescendo when she recalled that her grandson had once declared that he wished he “had brown skin and brown eyes”. Seldom has the House of Representatives witnessed so touching an homage to the beauty and nobility (as liberals see it) of reverse racism.

The Honorable Congresswoman is entitled to her warped progressivism and her fashionable racism, however. This is still a free country, after all. What she is not entitled to, and what no Democrat is entitled to, is the active and purposeful subversion of U.S. laws. Democrats, lest we forget, are itching to impeach President Trump for allegedly obstructing justice in the course of the Mueller investigation into Russian election meddling. Trump's “obstruction”, however, consists of criticism directed at an inquiry that is demonstrably flawed and biased, whereas his administration has complied with all of its legal obligations and fully cooperated with the special counsel's office. Democrats, though, should begin to ask themselves: now that hurling charges of “obstruction of justice” is politically en vogue, could they be targeted too? The answer is yes, and the opportunity is close at hand.

The Democratic Party is pathologically obsessed with making excuses for illegal immigrants. Moreover, its reverse racism leads it increasingly to reject even the possibility that a single illegal immigrant could be criminally-minded or in any way “undesirable”. To make this suggestion even as a hypothetical is to invite derision and/or ostracism in liberal circles.

Since illegal immigrants are now officially beyond reproach, Democratic politicians have taken the logical next step: they have implemented “sanctuary city” policies in jurisdictions nationwide in order to frustrate the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Just recently, it was reported that the NYPD, acting under orders from Democratic politicians, has refused to comply with federal requests to hand over 1,500 illegal alien criminals for deportation. This is but the tip of the iceberg. “Blue” cities, counties, and states have implemented policies that explicitly discourage cooperation with ICE and the Border Patrol, and which in fact punish such cooperation; they have funded legal aid and other forms of assistance for illegal immigrants attempting to evade deportation; and they have given every encouragement to present and future illegal immigrants, promising them sanctuary from federal authorities.

The purpose of all this policy-making and posturing on the part of Democrats is obvious: it is to obstruct the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws! By contrast, President Trump has never suggested that laws against electoral interference, espionage, or treason should not be enforced – he has simply stated that he is innocent of all of these crimes. Democrats, on the other hand, brazenly admit their contempt for the law, and they flaunt their efforts to stymie its enforcement. 
It is important to clarify the fact that harboring and giving assistance to illegal immigrants is already a crime in itself (see U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1324), but systematic Democratic efforts to subvert, even nullify, our country's borders and immigration laws seem to me like another form of criminality: they represent a conspiracy to obstruct justice much more shocking and elaborate than anything of which Republicans stand accused.

Long ago, I argued that the Department of Justice should prosecute Democratic politicians who openly violate Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The law specifies a penalty of up to 5 years' imprisonment. If these penalties were applied, presumably the Democratic penchant for obstructing justice when it comes to immigration laws would evaporate overnight. That would be good for America, and it would be great for the Democratic Party, the legitimacy of which might thereby be restored.

Until the Justice Department acts, however, the House of Representatives should consider pursuing the political remedy of impeachment against those who undermine our laws. Judges, federal officials, and members of Congress who seek to obstruct the implementation of U.S. immigration laws should be subject to investigation, impeachment, trial in the Senate, and removal from office (or, depending on the circumstances, expulsion from Congress might be more appropriate).

After all, surely the actual crimes of Democrats deserve as much attention as the imaginary crimes of Republicans. That is not asking for much, is it?

The Democratic Party sorely needs a dose of reality, and the only thing that is preventing Republicans from administering it is the fear of a public backlash. The maintenance of our constitutional system of government demands that we act to preserve respect for the law, however. And let's be clear: the law is, and always has been, on our side.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Connect the Dots, People!

Friends, the stories about the Democratic Party/FBI "collusion" against Trump are getting more and more interesting by the day.  Initially, I was inclined to give the left the benefit of the doubt.  After all, they're so disposed to self-delusion that maybe they all believed their own spin about Trump and Russia...  It wouldn't be the first time they scampered off to Never-Neverland.  Now, though, it appears that information was fed to British spy-for-hire Christopher Steele by a Clinton crony -- and President Obama was kept personally informed about the shenanigans.  The left-wing media's obsession with discrediting Nunes' FISA memo is starting to make sense.  They may be beginning to realize how much jeopardy luminaries like Clinton, Obama, and Holder are in...  I sincerely hope that the deceptions that the FBI and Justice Department engaged in are down to incompetence or wishful-thinking, but it is getting harder and harder to believe that.  This might be one conspiracy theory that turns out to be true!  The sad part is that, even if it could be proven conclusively that prominent figures in the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration criminally conspired to discredit their political adversaries, most liberals wouldn't believe it, and even if they did believe it they wouldn't care.  Stopping Trump is their prime directive.  Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, matters as much to them as destroying Donald J. Trump. 

Read on, and judge for yourself:

Monday, February 5, 2018

Sovereignty and the New (Trumpian) World Order

Friends, my latest article, about the importance of national sovereignty, is currently soaring like an eagle (a Philadelphia Eagle perhaps?) over the virtual pages of American Greatness.  It's not to be missed, because a reassertion of American independence is what lies at the heart of "America First".  Read on...

Sovereignty is Critical, Even in a Cloud-Based World

First and foremost, President Trump stands for (you guessed it) “America First”. This means putting U.S. interests and values ahead of the interests and values of people overseas, and of the internationalist elite. It means insisting on trade deals that are fair and that protect U.S. jobs and technological preeminence. It means avoiding pointless foreign military adventures and spending our money on domestic priorities instead. It means requiring our allies to pay their way and shoulder their share of the burdens of maintaining global peace and security. It means responding vigorously and decisively to any and all challenges to our power and our way of life. Lastly, it means upholding our territorial integrity, including our borders and our immigration laws.

Nationalist conservatives like me have been waiting for years for a conservative Republican President who would give voice to America First principles, and who would pursue an agenda based on U.S. sovereignty and self-respect. Now, in Donald J. Trump, we have such a leader, and not surprisingly the world is aghast. Good, I say! Shake the world order to its foundations. It's about time. Luckily, there are nationalists all over the world who share some of President Trump's goals, both for the international community and for their own countries. This will make it easier to build a new Trumpian world order based on sovereignty. Thankfully, progress has already been made.

There is, however, a wrinkle to sovereignty which many conservatives have not yet considered. We want the world to respect the United States of America, including its territory, its trade interests, and its laws. There is another side to this equation, however, and that is the notion that, while we insist on other countries' respect for our sovereignty, we must also be willing to respect theirs. Sovereignty, after all, is the idea that a nation-state (any nation-state) has the right, within its own territory, to make its own decisions. We cherish this right for ourselves. Thus, to be consistent, we cannot deny it to other countries.

In the past, Americans have been too quick to violate the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of other countries. We have projected military power globally, especially with airstrikes and drone attacks, whenever our interests demanded it, without regard to other countries' rights. We have lectured other nations on the form of government they ought to choose. We have used economic pressure, including sanctions, to punish those who run their internal affairs in a way that conflicts with our interests or values. We have even invaded and occupied other countries for a long list of reasons, but rarely, if ever, because our own national security necessitated it. 

In a hypothetical world that truly upheld the principle of sovereignty, all of these actions would be deeply problematic and would rarely, if ever, be the stated policy of the government of the United States. Rather, we would acquire the habit of minding our own business and holding our tongue when we disagreed with other countries' sovereign decisions – and in so doing we would be setting them a good example, and perhaps deterring them from seeking to interfere in our own internal affairs. If only we had learned this lesson sooner... Would the Russians, for example, ever have tried to manipulate our election process, if we had not first stuck our noses into their flawed democracy, praising dissidents and criticizing the conduct of Russian elections, as indeed we do in so many parts of the world? It is an interesting question.

There are innumerable steps we can take to rebuild trust and confidence in the key principle of national sovereignty worldwide, but as we speak Congress is debating whether to take an important step forward. It is discussing the CLOUD Act, which would create a framework for resolution of disputes between nation-states related to access to electronically-stored information. It may sound like an obscure issue, but it is integral to the future of sovereignty.

The need for something like the CLOUD Act arises in part from a case currently before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has been seeking emails from Microsoft stored in their servers in Ireland. The U.S government has taken the view that, if it desires data that can be accessed in the U.S. via the internet, it need not consider the privacy laws or the sovereignty of the country where the data is actually stored. This, however, is a typically imperious attitude on the part of the U.S. government, which tends to give short shrift to privacy concerns in general (see the Nunes memo for proof!), and which considers the sovereignty of other nation-states to be a secondary concern.

The CLOUD Act would seek to restore the balance in this equation by requiring the U.S. government to seek access to data stored overseas via bilateral agreements and negotiations with the affected sovereign state(s). In this way, both companies' and individuals' rights to privacy would be properly protected (we hope), and the sovereign rights of every country involved would be upheld. Clearly, this is infinitely preferably to a model whereby the U.S. government could blithely reach up into the global computing cloud and snatch whatever information it desired...

Data storage is but one domain in which the question of sovereignty is germane, and in which the U.S. has not taken the sovereignty of other countries especially seriously. Who, then, are the enemies of sovereignty?

Sometimes, they are deep state bureaucrats, who want no niceties of constitutionalism, rule of law, or international comity to interfere with their freedom of action. Sometimes, they are elite internationalists, who see national independence as an obstacle to their utopian striving for a New World Order. Sometimes, they are international capitalists, who prize uniformity and pliability in governments, rather than real self-government.

Whoever the enemies of sovereignty may be, they are, in the end, the enemies of the people of the United States of America, because, as President Trump said in his State of the Union address, we desperately need “reciprocity” in our relations with our countries. We need them to respect our rights and independence, yes, but we need to respect theirs in return. Any other formulation risks our freedoms and our way of life, putting them in the hands of globalists and foreigners. 

America First means, therefore, “we'll do it our way, and you do it yours.” That was what we fought for in 1776, and we should not surrender an inch of those gains today or in the future.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at

You can read a slightly modified version here, on the American Greatness website.

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Let's Follow the Evidence

Happy Superbowl weekend!  In-between wings, pizza, and beer, try to make time for another hallowed American tradition: the pursuit of justice!  It now appears that the FBI and Justice Department undertook serious efforts to undermine the Trump campaign, and they misled a federal judge in the process.  I strongly recommend that you read this excellent analysis:

I'm not sure whether I agree with the author about the proper fate of Rod Rosenstein, but one thing I am sure of is this: the allegations against high officials in the FBI and Justice Department are serious enough that a new special counsel is absolutely necessary (as I have written before).  Whether this trail of malfeasance leads all the way to President Obama and Hillary Clinton...remains to be seen.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Impeachment -- Could It Really Happen?

Friends, the voices on the left calling for impeachment are getting louder and louder, and the mainstream media is only too happy to give these calls an airing.  The sad truth is that all too many people will be suckered by the impeachment narrative...and quite a few of them don't even need a pretext.  They will take Trump down any way they can.

It behooves those of us on the right to take the impeachment business seriously, because I guarantee you that Democrats do.  We need to realistically assess the potential for impeachment, and plan accordingly.  My latest article looks at the possibilities, and, while I conclude that impeachment and removal of the President is highly unlikely, it won't necessarily be smooth sailing...

Thanks to TownHall for publishing this important piece.

Friday, February 2, 2018

This Guy Gets It!

Friends, I have always been a fan of Pat Buchanan, the ORIGINAL nationalist conservative, before nationalism was fashionable or popular.  Buchanan has been vocal in his support for President Trump, and, as a veteran of the Nixon White House, he knows what a media/establishment conspiracy against a Republican President looks like.  I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in this article, and in particular I believe the American people need to confront the fact that "Trump-Russia collusion" is a myth, but the DNC, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration, the FBI, the Justice Department, and various intelligence agencies DID collude to harm the Trump campaign, and later the Trump administration.  Make no mistake, THIS is the real outrage, and we cannot let it go unpunished.  It's no accident that the media is howling about the Nunes memo -- they don't want the lengths to which the left went to undermine Trump ever to be exposed.  "Democracy dies in darkness," WaPo?  It sure does, so we're about to shine a light on the corruption and the underhandedness of your liberal heroes...

Thursday, February 1, 2018

A Case Study in the Need for SCHOOL CHOICE!

Friends, "progressives" are adamant that school choice must be defeated, because they want public schools to have a monopoly as well as the opportunity to indoctrinate America's children in the values of leftism.  What's's working!  Millennials and those even younger are overwhelmingly opposed to President Trump and, just as their educators desire, they think they see a racist, sexist, and/or a homophobe hiding behind every bush.  As conservatives, we must call out ideological bias and brainwashing in the public schools whenever we can -- but we must also promote private schools and homeschooling as alternatives.  Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is doing her best along these lines.  Above all, we mustn't surrender the next generation to the depredations of "social justice warriors"!  Teach your kids sound patriotic values, I say, and don't allow conservatism and Christianity to be mocked or marginalized.  Fight back, as best you can!

Here is a chilling account of the leftist takeover of a Minnesota school district.  Let it be a warning to us all!

Wednesday, January 31, 2018


Friends, if you want to know what's wrong with America, consider these two stories, both related to President Trump's sterling State of the Union speech.  The first documents the strongly positive reaction by those who viewed the speech, including many Democrats and Independents.  The second chronicles the sad story of the Washington Post's initially neutral headline about the State of the Union, to which liberals reacted with rage and incomprehension...and then the WaPo changed the headline to suit its neurotically Trump-hating readership.  What's wrong with this picture?  I trust you can figure it out!

Friday, January 26, 2018

Keeping the U.S. On Top

TGIF!  You may recall that a while back I wrote an article about Qualcomm, and its dangerous tendency to rate chumminess with the People's Republic of China as more important than keeping U.S. technology secrets under lock and key.  This is a much bigger problem than Qualcomm: sadly, capitalism and national security do not always mix, since many corporations are far more interested in making money than they are in protecting the American people.  Under President Obama, moreover, standing up to countries like China, which are continuously trying to acquire our sensitive technology, was not a priority.  Now, happily, there are signs of progress, as the U.S. government, with President Trump in the lead, moves to protect our position as a technological powerhouse.  Keep it up, Mr. President -- and let's keep the pressure on Congress to follow his example.

Read more about it here, in Independent Journal Review, which I thank for publishing one of my articles for the first time:

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Shutdown Scorecard: Trump (and America) 1, Democrats 0

Friends, the defeat of the Democratic shutdown came as a very pleasant surprise to me -- and may be one of the best things to happen to America since Trump's victory in November 2016.  Why do I say that?  Democrats have been threatening a shutdown ever since, trying to extort concessions from Republicans, who control both Houses of Congress.  Now that their shutdown gambit has failed, they may have no choice but to COMPROMISE.  Astounding, no?  Congress might start getting things done!

Read my analysis of the shutdown here, coming soon to a newspaper or news website near you...

Democrats' Shutdown Fever Finally Breaks

Every shutdown in living memory, except the most recent one, has had one thing in common: Republicans got the blame. Of course, technically, no shutdown is ever the fault of only one side. A shutdown is caused by a failure to reach agreement, and both sides need to play their part to make that happen. Why, then, have shutdowns redounded so reliably to the advantage of Democrats, and to the disadvantage of Republicans? The answer is simple: the public's interpretation of every shutdown is sifted through the biases of the mainstream media, and the media invariably sees Republicans as the bad actors in every political drama. Thus, when Washington goes to war, it is, according to the press, belligerent conservatives who have blood on their hands.

The miracle is that, in the recent shutdown battle, this historical pattern was broken. It was the Democrats who sought a shutdown, believing that more Trumpian “chaos” would surely pad their already sizable lead in the polls – but it was Democrats who blinked, ending the shutdown in its early days, believing that to continue it would be dangerous to their political fortunes. Why? What explains this turnaround, which is frustrating leftist true-believers to no end? They wanted a twilight-of-the-gods showdown with the demon Trump, but instead they got...a promise that their chief goal, a DACA fix, will be, well, considered. Not surprisingly, this anticlimax has brought many leftists to the brink of apoplexy.

The explanation appears to be that the Democrats misjudged the zeal of the American people for protecting illegal immigrants from the consequences of their (illegal) actions. Yes, Americans want to see young immigrants who were protected by President Obama's DACA program allowed to stay in this country, but they see no need to shut down the government to obtain a resolution of the issue post haste. (Witness the poll published by CNN over the weekend, which showed that by 56-34% Americans think it is more important to keep the government open than to save the “Dreamers”.) The Democrats seem to have believed that their political position was so strong that they could insist that the DACA problem be resolved without any concessions on their part. No wall, no beefed up enforcement of illegal immigration laws, no budget adjustments in the Republicans' favor – just give us our DACA fix, said Democrats, or else! The “or else” was, of course, a shutdown, that Democrats assumed would wound Republicans.

In addition to their misjudgment of the public mood, Democrats were felled by several other factors. In an age of constant media panic about President Trump's alleged depredations/insanities, the fact of the matter is that a little ole shutdown hardly seems as arresting as may once have been the case. The main effect of a government shutdown is to deny government workers their paychecks – an eventuality that can hardly irk most anti-government conservatives. Most remarkable is the fact that the liberal media utterly failed to incite bogus fears that Social Security checks would not be mailed; Medicaid and Medicare recipients would die in the streets; and airliners would fall out of the skies, for lack of air traffic controllers. Instead, the impression that most Americans seem to have received about the shutdown is one startlingly similar to the truth: that it was all cheap political theater, staged by liberals who were unwilling to negotiate in good faith. Indeed, the fact that the shutdown was planned, executed, and briefly cherished by activists on the far left is undeniable. This is evidenced by the fact that, in the final analysis, it was only aspiring Democratic Presidential candidates who refused to vote to end it. They know where their bread is buttered, and they would not dream of angering the leftist horde that has been demanding that no quarter should be given in the struggle against Trump and his minions. The miracle, I repeat, is that the American people were ever permitted to perceive this obvious truth. The left's propaganda machine has never faltered so badly.

The upshot of the failed shutdown is this: Republicans not only “won” this round in American politics, but they may have gone a long way to permanently removing government shutdowns from the list of potential weapons in the arsenal of the party out of power. Republicans proved in this instance, after all, that, even with the connivance of a cooperative mainstream media establishment, Democrats were unable to make audacious and unilateral demands, shut down the government until they were met, and ultimately prevail. They proved, in fact, quite the opposite: that the Democrats are not united; that the longer a shutdown lasts, the more dangerous and unpredictable its effects may become; and, finally, that blaming Donald J. Trump for everything bad that happens will only get you so far in life.

With, we hope, the danger of future shutdowns receding, the truth is that Democrats are now in a remarkably weak position legislatively, and there is thus hope that they will show a new willingness to make deals with Republicans. Quite a few Democrats, especially the 10 (!) Senators running for reelection in states that Trump won, are clearly prepared to negotiate. With any luck, this will drive an even greater wedge between these moderate Democrats and the leftist ideologues and activists who dominate the party's grassroots. Conservatives can sit back and enjoy the resulting spectacle of a bitter, bruising battle for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer party.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

BREAKING NEWS: You can find this article at

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Trump vs Evil Washing Machines? Oh Yes. Victory is Assured.

Some of you may recall that, months ago, I wrote about the need to impose tariffs on imported washing machines.  Samsung and LG have been dumping these machines in the U.S., trying to destroy their American-based competitors.  Here is the original article:

Now the Trump administration is taking action.  Tariffs have been imposed to protect U.S. producers of solar panels and washing machines, who are being illegally harmed by unfair foreign competition.

 This is not just a good idea, in and of itself, but it also sends a strong message to Canada and Mexico that they should take the U.S. seriously as we renegotiate the terms of NAFTA.  It also puts China on notice: the conciliatory line that the Trump administration has taken thus far, to motivate the Chinese to put pressure on North Korea, may not last forever.  Here here!  Let's not allow foreign governments and companies to take advantage of us.  Free and fair trade, yes, but when governments keep U.S. exports out, and maneuver to flood the U.S. market with subsidized foreign goods, it's time to say: NO MORE!  Well done, Mr. President.  This is a good first step.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

A Waddyisright Expose!

Friends, I've written before about the nuisance lawsuits that environmental radicals and leftist politicians have launched against energy companies.  Now we have evidence of how little credence even these radicals and politicians ascribe to their own claims.  I'm grateful to TownHall for publishing this important article:

Thursday, January 18, 2018

It's getting interesting!

Friends, Democrats and Republicans are in the midst of a colossal game of chicken in Washington, D.C.  Both sides say they're potentially willing to shut down the government, if they don't get their way re: spending priorities, DACA, the Wall, etc.  In fact, neither side is sure it wants to take that risk.  Republicans are particularly exposed: they know that the media will surely blame THEM (and Trump, most of all) if a shutdown occurs.  My two cents: fortune favors the brave, and we can't let Democrats push us around forever.  Nor can we we pass endless continuing resolutions, putting off all the tough decisions for another day.  What do you think?  Should we shut down the government, and force Democrats into line?  I'd love to hear your views...

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Rural America and Trump: A Winning Combination

Friends, Donald Trump couldn't have won the Presidency without the enthusiastic support of rural Americans.  Likewise, rural America needs and relies on President Trump to make economic and social progress in the years ahead.  Check out my latest article, which appears in the Daily Caller.  I argue that the alliance between Trump and rural residents is already bearing fruit.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The "Prince of Darkness" Targets Your Pension

Hold on to your hats, New York retirees, because you're about to be flabbergasted by the political games New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to play with your pensions.  Liberals love "divestment," and the latest craze is the divestment of state pension funds from any company involved in the production of fossil fuels.  Of course, if one follows this logic all the way, and we eliminate all investments in state pension funds that could potentially offend leftists, well, all we may be left with is stock in minority-owned bakers who specialize in gay weddings...  Read on, and find out exactly what Cuomo has in mind.  Remember, this guy is angling to be your next President, so the stakes couldn't be higher!

Monday, January 8, 2018

Tom Steyer Alert

Friends, as I've said before, it's important to keep track of the activities of men like Tom Steyer, the California billionaire who is funding impeachment ads against President Trump.  Perhaps in recognition that the effort to impeach Trump is flailing, Steyer is now devoting vast resources to the 2018 mid-term elections, with a goal of taking control of the House of Representatives for Democrats.  (This could, of course, be a tactical move, since only the House can impeach anyone, and Democratic control of the chamber would vastly increase the chances that a Trump impeachment vote would happen.)  All of this underscores how vital an election the mid-term contest will be.  We can, I feel sure, keep the House AND expand our majority in the Senate, but we need to keep our eyes on the ball...  Read on to learn more about Steyer's strategy for the mid-term, and his decision not to run for office himself, for now:

Sunday, January 7, 2018

End the Plague of "Sanctuary Cities"

Hi, friends.  Those of you who have been following this blog for the duration may know that eons ago I published an article about how to defeat so-called sanctuary cities, which refuse to cooperate with federal efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens.  The gist of the piece is this: threatening federal funding of such cities is not enough.  The law specifies that those who harbor illegal aliens can be punished with jail time, and if you ask me a lot of Democratic politicians fit the bill!  Here is the article:

I was pleased to see that recently the Acting Director of ICE echoed my sentiments:

Frankly, I think such a move would be in the interests of the Democratic Party, which is in serious danger of creating the impression that it prioritizes criminals' rights over the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Let's end this sanctuary city nonsense once and for all, shall we?