Follow Dr. Waddy

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018

All the (Fake) News That's Fit to Print

Friends, it can be hard to figure why the Left hates Trump as much as it does.  Their loathing seems off the scale.  We must keep in mind, though, that an extraordinary constellation of propaganda and "fake news" undergirds this Trump-hatred.  The drumbeat repetition of anti-Trump narratives, including the Russia collusion conspiracy theory, makes an impression, drip by drip.  To me, the miracle isn't that so many people hate Trump -- it's that, given the establishment's universal detestation of the man, he still retains the loyalty and respect of a high percentage of ordinary folks.  That's a testament to his fortitude and ingenuity, yes, but also to the reduced influence of the traditional media.  If everyone was watching CNN, as they once were, we'd be truly lost.

This story puts into perspective the media's anti-Trump obsession.  Imagine if you were getting your "news" from these people...  How warped would your worldview be?  Thus, have some sympathy for the poor slobs on the Left.  Most of them mean well, but they've been thoroughly duped.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

There but for the Grace of God go you or I...

Patriots, conservatives, and even students of human nature will want to pay close attention to the downfall of John Schnatter, a.k.a. "Papa John" of pizza fame.  Not so long ago Schnatter committed the barely-pardonable sin of remarking that the NFL's brand had been harmed, and his pizza sales had fallen, because of the controversy over NFL players' decision to kneel during the national anthem.  Schnatter was, of course, only stating the obvious, but that didn't stop the NFL from terminating its relationship with Papa John's, even after Schnatter had resigned as CEO.

All of that is small potatoes compared to the recent dust-up.  Schnatter, in a marketing conference call, unwisely used the n-word, but not to denigrate blacks -- he was using it to illustrate the profound changes that have occurred in people's racial attitudes.  He also referred to past instances of lynching targeting "African-Americans" -- not in a way that implied his approval, but his disapproval.  Nonetheless, some people participating in the call were offended, and...Schnatter is toast.  Papa John's has severed all ties with him, and it is attempting to erase even his memory at the company (he's the founder, inconveniently).  But that's not all.  Not happy with destroying the image and career of a man not even accused of racism, but mere insensitivity, the Left is demanding that Papa John's, even after its disavowal of Schnatter, must be punished as a company.  Numerous NFL and Major League Baseball teams are ending their relationships with the pizza chain.  Every single employee of Papa John's, it seems, must suffer for John Schnatter's sins.  Wow!

And what is Schnatter's principal sin?  Being white, naturally.  The n-word is offensive, yes, but let's not kid ourselves -- black people use it often.  Comedians use it.  Leftist social critics use it.  Assuming you have the right pedigree, you can use the word without undue risk to your reputation or your livelihood.  Schnatter, though, is a white male who appears to harbor some glimmerings of patriotism (thus his insistence that NFL players should stand for the anthem), and he may even be -- gulp! -- a conservative or a Republican.  Clearly, he must be destroyed at all costs.

Why does any of this matter?  Personally, I don't know John Schnatter from Adam, nor have I so much as sampled his pizza.  That isn't the point.  The point is that a man, even a powerful one, can these days be scorched simply for failing to abide by PC values and injunctions with sufficient care and thoroughness.  As a white male, if you step out of line, even for an instant, the leftist horde is done with you.  Have you performed a litany of worthy deeds throughout your life?  Who cares.  Are you, 99% of the time, subservient and reverent towards the twin gods of Diversity and Inclusion?  Not good enough!  The Left demands total compliance -- or annihilation!

The other reason that these stories matter is fairly obvious: Schnatter's fate will intimidate, as it is meant to, other corporate leaders into towing the line of leftist orthodoxy.  If we allow this sort of nonsense to continue, well, we can kiss the idea of winning the "culture wars" good bye, because our fate is sealed.

Friends, the inmates are running the asylum.  Don't put a foot wrong -- that's my advice, because the PC crowd is taking no prisoners, and you and I are already on their naughty list.  Watch out!  And, if you can (without taking direct fire from the PC goon squad), fight back!

Read more about the Schnatter saga here:

Thursday, July 12, 2018

To Kavanaugh, Or Not To Kavanaugh? That Is The Question

Friends, my latest article addresses conservative criticism of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's latest pick for the Supreme Court.  I believe this criticism to be overblown, as I explain in my latest article, coming soon to American Greatness.  Will Kavanaugh be the firebrand reactionary zealot that you and I pine for?  That I can't guarantee, but I do believe he'll be a distinct improvement on Anthony Kennedy, and that's my personal litmus test.  Kavanaugh passes!  My hope, though, is that the Supreme Court is only starting its journey down the Golden Road of Trumpism.  Time will tell.
Brett Kavanaugh Isn't Defined By The Swamp That Spawned Him

Conservatives all across America are asking themselves: who is Brett Kavanaugh, and what kind of Supreme Court Justice will he make? The answers are myriad and mostly speculative.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for FoxNews, has written an article about why he is “deeply disappointed” in President Trump's decision to nominate Kavanaugh. While some of his concerns may be valid, Napolitano's main argument – that Kavanaugh is tainted by his associations with the DC swamp – makes little sense.

First, Napolitano defines the swamp as “the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington.” Conveniently, therefore, Napolitano excludes the media from the swamp, although surely the Washington establishment relies first and foremost on its “enablers” in the mainstream media to keep it in power. Napolitano himself, as a FoxNews analyst, could be accused of swampiness. My first reaction to Napolitano's denigration of Kavanaugh as a swamp monster, therefore, is: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Furthermore, we should understand that “the swamp” is ill-defined. As Napolitano admits, it seems never to include anyone we like. For conservatives, an outspoken liberal politician or a Trump-hating bureaucrat or FBI agent is a creature of the swamp, surely, but a right-minded old hand in Washington is instead a “seasoned veteran”. This just means that “the swamp” is a largely pejorative concept, and often those who employ it are engaged in plain, old-fashioned name-calling.

Now, if there is any objective, literal meaning to “the swamp”, it describes a Washington elite that is interconnected, resistant to meaningful change, and corruptly uses governmental power and federal largesse to protect and reward allies and punish and undermine perceived enemies. DC politicians vary in the degree to which they might be identified with such swampy behaviors and attitudes, but one thing is clear: both parties are equally befouled. 

We must further acknowledge that there are very few people in positions of influence in our government who are utterly divorced from the swamp, or who could be described as moral purists or true political newcomers. President Trump appointed several DC outsiders to his cabinet, yes, but even he – the swamp monster's mot-feared natural predator – had to add many “seasoned veterans” to his administration. Without them, and their experience, the Executive Branch simply could not function. Does this mean that Trump's criticism of the swamp is disingenuous? Not necessarily, because, from a practical standpoint, no swamp can be drained unless you enter it first...

The most important point is this: long-time Washington ties, and even the occasional lapse into swampy attitudes and behavior, do not and should not exclude a politician, or a judge, from recruitment into President Trump's campaign to reinvigorate America. The over-hasty denigration of political figures who are deeply embedded in the Washington establishment risks the loss of their knowledge, influence, and experience, and it neglects the obvious fact that, while they can be powerful enemies when provoked, they can also be invaluable allies when harnessed to a noble cause. Mitch McConnell, for example, may be about as swampy and sly as a Senator can get, but he has also overseen a successful strategy to prevent the judiciary from falling into liberal hands. We owe him a huge debt of thanks. I, for one, will gladly hold my nose and overlook the vile emanations of the swamp to achieve historic victories like these.

Judge Napolitano goes on in his article to suggest that Kavanaugh will be a disappointment as a Supreme Court Justice because he is infected with the “values” and the “culture” of the swamp. Kavanaugh believes, for instance, that Americans' rights to privacy should be weighed against the imperative of national security. He believes that the President should be shielded from some types of lawsuits while in office. Napolitano interprets these views to mean that Kavanaugh will support an unchecked, potentially totalitarian “deep state”. Napolitano even suggests that Kavanaugh is somehow complicit in deep state efforts to undermine Trump himself, but all of this is a gross over-reading of the few signals we presently have regarding Kavanaugh's mindset and his legal and constitutional philosophy. Simply put, Kavanaugh has never ruled on most truly momentous issues, nor has he enunciated clear views on most of them. We should suspend judgment, therefore. 

We also shouldn't assume that, because Kavanaugh sometimes associates with swamp monsters, he is captive to their “values”. Does Judge Napolitano, who teaches classes at Brooklyn Law School, accept and practice, for this reason, the radical PC “values” of academia? Of course not. It would be silly to suggest that he does. No one is defined exclusively by the company he keeps.

It might also be prudent to consider the possibility that, if Kavanaugh is in any sense a swamp monster, with a predilection for establishment “culture”, the experience of the next few weeks and months, when large parts of the swamp will be working furiously to malign and destroy him, may cure him definitively of his swamp fever. Who can say? In any case, Kavanaugh's “values”, and the degree to which they may change over the years, are largely unknowable. His decisions, on the other hand, are a matter of record, as are his partisan political leanings, and these ought to make conservatives pleased and confident.

In the end, the fact that President Trump has nominated an experienced, mildly swampy jurist with connections to the Bushes should not concern conservatives and lovers of liberty as much as Napolitano suggests. Every objective reading of Kavanaugh's record has tended to indicate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice considerably to the right of Anthony Kennedy, who he will replace. It is hard, therefore, to see his elevation to the Court as anything but a win.

Conservatives, therefore, should support Kavanaugh without misgivings. They should also keep in mind that, if they would have preferred a more forceful, fervent conservative judge like Amy Coney Barrett, she may yet get her chance. 

When it comes to Trumpifying the judiciary, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are a good start, but arguably the best is yet to come.

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

And here is the American Greatness version: 

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Boris Strikes Back!

Friends, the WaddyIsRight empire is once again pulsating with life, now that I'm back from a brief hiatus in southern California.  I plan to reflect on the current social/political state of that region -- my ancestral homeland -- in the coming days, but in the meantime I notched another Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil, and you won't want to miss it.  This week we naturally discussed President Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  I give my analysis of Kavanaugh, and more importantly I rate his chances of confirmation as, well, very high.  America, therefore, is about to get Trumpier (like it or not)!  We also discussed the bombshell developments in Britain, where Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a dynamic oddball, has resigned in protest of what he perceives as Prime Minister Theresa May's lukewarm pursuit of Brexit: British exit from the E.U.  For those who believe in national sovereignty (and if you follow this blog you probably do), the fate of Brexit is critical.  Could Theresa May be on the way out?  Could the Conservative Party redefine itself along nationalist lines?  Stay tuned, and enjoy the broadcast:

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Happy Birthday, USA!

Best wishes for a highly enjoyable Independence Day for you and yours!  We certainly are lucky to live in the USA, although much work remains to be done to make America as great as it can be...  We're getting there!

When you get a chance, listen to my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480.  We discussed the wave of anti-ICE sentiment, the Mexican presidential election, and perhaps most importantly the golden opportunity we now have to reshape the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

A Supremely Delightful 4th of July

Friends, let me be the first to wish all of you a very happy July 4th, and to wish the U.S. of A. the very happiest of birthdays! This Independence Day, we have more than usual to be thankful for, because, if President Trump follows the Neil Gorsuch playbook, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is about to get a whole lot greater...  Sure, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was okay, but we can do better, and we will, I feel sure, very soon.  My latest article discusses what a historic opportunity this Supreme Court pick is.  America will never be the same, and the lefties are...apoplectic.  Clearly we're doing something right!

A Supreme Triumph for Trump Supporters

When thoughtful conservatives and Republicans voted for Donald Trump in 2016, they did so in part because they knew that he would be among the nation's most consequential Presidents, regardless of his occasional lapses in decorum or the steep learning curve he might face. This is because conservatives knew that the next President would be called on to fill the huge backlog of judicial vacancies that accumulated during the last years of Barack Obama's presidency. In addition, many other federal judges were approaching retirement age, so it stood to reason that the opportunity to remold the judiciary would be vast. Most importantly, given conservatives' narrow 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, whomever was elected in 2016 would literally decide, on his or her own, the country's fate, at least in a legal and constitutional sense. The stakes could not have been higher.

Trump won, and the American Right breathed a collective sigh of relief. One could even argue that Donald Trump, by slaying the Clintonian dragon, saved American democracy. Why? Because, if Hillary had prevailed, she would have appointed judges who would have interpreted the law and the Constitution in a typically leftist fashion – that is, they would have disregarded precedent, twisted the Founders' words, and conjured new legal standards out of thin air, if need be, to achieve their goals of “social justice” and leftist primacy. With a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, future elections in America would arguably have been irrelevant, because no conservative electoral success would have changed the fact that the country would have been ruled by black-robed radicals. These power-grabbing judges would have quickly quashed any conservative law or policy (or election result?) that offended them. That would have been the end of liberty and government by the people. Trump saved us from this miserable fate, and that is to his eternal credit. 

In his first foray into judicial nominations, Trump choose Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court – a fantastic pick in every sense: ideologically, in terms of his youth (and thus his staying power on the Court), and because of his professionalism and poise. 

Happily, Trump's positive influence on the Supreme Court won't end there. With his latest pick, Trump can actually reshape the Court, as opposed to merely maintaining its long-standing moderately conservative bent. He can meaningfully reorient the federal judiciary towards fidelity to the law and the Constitution, as well as a literal and historically-sound interpretation of their meaning. We have an opportunity, therefore, to overturn the innumerable legal travesties that have emerged from the Court over the last several decades. 

Time and again, the Court has expanded the authority of the federal government, especially the judiciary, and flouted the will of the people and their elected representatives. It has further eroded the powers of the states, and dictated the legalization and normalization of immorality in ways that would have appalled the men who wrote the laws, clauses, and amendments from which the Courts' rulings allegedly stem. We simply cannot overstate the importance of reversing this execrable trend and promoting a renaissance of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Ultimately, the health, well-being, and even the survival of our Republic depends on it. Assuming that President Trump eventually gets to appoint even one more additional Supreme Court Justice – say, a replacement for one of the four liberal Justices still serving – then the reorientation of the Court would become not only profound but practically irreversible.

The Left appears to understand the dangers it faces. A recent article in The Daily Beast entitled “Anthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America” (!) confirms this. The author, Michael Tomasky, acknowledges the extremely slim odds of the Senate rejecting Trump's nominee. As he observes, the playbook for judicial confirmation has long been clear: assuming a judge says as little as possible, and nothing of substance, during his or her confirmation hearings, Senate approval is a foregone conclusion. Moderate Senators, including red-state Democrats, will have no obvious reason to deny the President his constitutional prerogative of selecting judges for the high court. Ergo, barring a dramatic error on the part of the administration or Trump's nominee, the Supreme Court will soon include two “Trump conservatives”. Hallelujah!

One further result may be, as Tomasky perceives, that the Left's crusade to remove Donald Trump from office may definitively falter. Why? Because it is difficult, if not fanciful, to imagine that the House of Representatives would vote to impeach him, and two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict and thus eject him from the Oval Office. In all likelihood, such machinations would only stand a chance of success if special counsel Mueller was aided in his efforts by the Supreme Court itself. Just as unfavorable Supreme Court decisions ultimately spelled the end of Richard Nixon's presidency, so too could a stern rebuke from a conservative-leaning high court be the (theoretical) deathblow to President Trump. If Anthony Kennedy is replaced with a hard-line conservative, however, that scenario will become even less likely than it is now. In short, it appears that anti-impeachment forces will for the foreseeable future enjoy clear control of two of the three branches of government (the presidency and the judiciary), and they may well maintain their dominance in the third, the Congress, if the much-ballyhooed “blue wave” fails to crest. Thus, the slow-moving coup against President Trump may peter out into nothingness. Good!

Tomasky forecasts other ramifications of an additional Trump appointee on the Supreme Court, including the overturning of Roe v.Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, meaning that the sensitive issues of abortion and gay marriage would once again be addressed by the individual states as they see fit. To liberals, this is the stuff of the End of Days: they insist that we must have total national conformity with leftist dogma on these issues, or else we will be plunged into abject medieval darkness. For those who remember what life was like in the pre-Roe and pre-Obergefell eras, however, the future will not look so dire. In fact, it could look decidedly brighter, depending on one's moral compass.

All this can be credited to President Trump, yes, and to Justice Kennedy, who wisely chose to retire at this specific moment. More accurately, though, it is the American people who deserve plaudits and gratitude at this seminal moment in our country's history. It is they, after all, who elected Donald Trump as our President in 2016 (against the “advice” of the mainstream media), and it is therefore they who saved us from legal/constitutional oblivion, and created the potential for a rebirth and rediscovery of the first principles and foundations of our Republic.

For years, conservatives have only dared to hope for one thing from the Supreme Court: that it would cease to do further damage to our nation, its system of government, and to American society and morals. Now, we can hope for more: we can aspire to point the U.S. in a new direction, one of our (and the Founders') choosing. It is, without a doubt, an exciting and triumphant moment.

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

And here's the Townhall version: 

Saturday, June 30, 2018

ICE, ICE Baby!

Congrats to Kirsten Gillibrand, one of my home state Senators, for becoming the new semi-official Ice Queen!  Why do I say that?  Because Gillibrand is now the first Senator to call for the abolition of ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  That's rapidly becoming a litmus test on the Left, you see.  Back in Obama's day, ICE's main task was to provide free bus travel to recently arrived "refugees", so they could settle in anywhere in the U.S. they pleased.  Now, President Trump is allowing ICE to perform what has always been its essential function: to enforce our immigration laws, including those that call for the deportation of illegal immigrants.  Lefties find these laws, and all law enforcement officials who execute them, offensive, so, they reason, let's abolish ICE!  You have to admire their moxie.  Even President Trump, who finds the missteps of the FBI highly annoying, has never suggested that we abolish the FBI.  The Dems have no such qualms.  And what would be the result of such a calamitous decision?  For that, I give you the sage words of Tucker Carlson.  Read on:

And what, you ask, does any of this have to do with a picture of Gillibrand and Bill Clinton campaigning together?  Oh, nothing much.  I just thought it was worth reminding you that, before Gillibrand was the fiercest #MeToo anti-sexual harassment activist around, she was a HUUUUGE admirer of Bill Clinton.  The times they are a-changin'...

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Just When You Thought the Left Couldn't Get Kookier

Friends, you won't want to miss my latest interview on WLEA 1480's Newsmaker program.  We discussed the wave of harassment that liberals (led by firebrand Trump-hater Maxine Waters) are now directing at Republican elected officials and Trump appointees, including Sarah Sanders, Pam Bondi, and Kirstjen Nielson.  (Funny how Republican women are always in the firing line.)  We also considered the Supreme Court's vindication of President Trump's travel ban, Brexit, Europe's migrant crisis, and Hillary Clinton's latest grousing about the results of the 2016 Presidential election.  Check it out!

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Child Exploitation: A Guide for Liberals

Friends, have you noticed how the Left's talking points are increasingly reliant not on rational arguments but appeals to crass emotionalism?  The critique (if it can be called that) of President Trump's "family separation" policy was a notable case in point.  How the mighty are fallen, I say.  It's inconceivable that Walter Cronkite or even Dan Rather in his prime would have hidden behind a crying child instead of making a rational argument about the issues of the day.  No more.  It's a race to the bottom, and the bottom, it appears, is replete with bawling youngsters.  Expect to see a lot more of them in primetime.

Read all about it in my latest article, coming soon to a news website or a newspaper near you...

The Left's Last Resort: Crying Children

It seems that, having exhausted all rational and pseudo-rational arguments – without having made even a small dent in Republicans' support for President Trump – leftists are increasingly reducing their talking points and their life philosophy to one simple idea: Donald Trump is despicable because he makes babies cry. How, you may well ask, did we get to this point in our national discourse? It is particularly remarkable given how fond liberals are of reminding us of their superior intelligence and unfailing devotion to “logic”. Both points are belied by what we have seen in recent weeks.

One could argue that, when the great machine of leftism can only continue to function by lubricating itself with children's tears, this is a sure sign that the movement has become truly desperate. This may be true, and yet the recent fixation with (misleading and even staged) images of miserable kids at the U.S.-Mexican border is arguably just a further elaboration of a long-dominant theme in leftist politics: the cult of the victim. Surely, liberals opine, whomever has suffered is entitled to our sympathy, and to some kind of restitution. (You can see why trial lawyers lean left!) Since, moreover, leftists invariably think in terms of groups, for them the primacy of victimhood means essentially this: they should have a monopoly on deciding which groups are most deserving of compassion, indulgence, and gratification, based on their relative positions in the hierarchy of suffering and oppression. Now, if one buys into this spurious logic, then needless to say it becomes extremely important for each group to make its claims to victimhood as loudly and as emotively as possible. And so we find ourselves witnessing, to our universal consternation, a nightly parade of crying babies in our “news” broadcasts. Nothing could make greater sense, from a leftist perspective.

But why illegal immigrants? Surely the Left could find a group better suited to victim/hero status than a mass of people united by no common bond except their failure to adhere to U.S. immigration laws... Not necessarily!

Illegal immigrants have long appealed to the Left as an aggrieved minority. The fact that they are potential voters and usually reliable Democrats doesn't hurt their cause, of course, but it is their robust victimhood and sheer downtroddenness that really earns the liberal's respect. Nonetheless, the Left's current position – that no illegal immigrant parent should ever be separated from his or her child, when U.S. servicemen as well as Americans charged with crimes are accorded no such accommodation – is an extraordinary logical leap, even if, like a good liberal, one assumes that “victims” should have superior rights to “oppressors”. Again, though, one must understand that it isn't logic that sustains this thinking in the first place. It is instead the drumbeat repetition of images (and even audio clips) that drive home the fundamentally emotional message: Trump's policy at the border is different, and obscenely wrong, because it produces the palpable effect of sobbing children. People who choose to make children sad, moreover, are monsters. Thus, Trump is the worst of the worst and the lowest of the low. The evidence of bawling toddlers only confirms what leftists already know to be true.

The natural rejoinder to this strange species of sentimentality is this: lots of things make children cry, and lots of children are crying, both in this country and in others. Why, then, does the suffering only of the children who can credibly be called victims of Trumpism merit our attention and remedial action? 

As “Angels Moms” demonstrated on Friday, June 22nd in an event hosted by President Trump, a strong case can be made that illegal immigrants can just as easily be the cause of misery, both for children and adults, as they are victims of mistreatment. Angel Moms are U.S. mothers who have lost children to illegal alien criminals. Surely they, who have been permanently separated from their kids (at least in this life), have an even greater claim to public sympathy than those temporarily detained at the border, no? No, indeed, as the mainstream media sees it, because crimes committed by illegal immigrants are a non-issue. Why? Because to mention them makes advocates of “undocumented immigrants” sad and/or angry, and clearly we can't have that. Some tears, it seems, are worthier than others.

The broader implication of the Left's politics of despair is, of course, that conservatism, Republicanism, and nationalism all yield an aggregate quantity of crying children (and adults) far greater than that produced by, say, liberalism, political correctness, and socialism. In fact, though, there is not a shred of evidence to support this generalization. There are actually plenty of reasons to speculate that the opposite might be true. 

The 100 million people killed by Marxism in the 20th century, for instance, presumably engendered a fair amount of despondency among their loved ones. On a lesser scale, the job losses and economic and social dislocation fostered by the waves of illegal immigration and one-sided trade deals beloved by liberals have also, one assumes, caused more than a few Americans, including children, to bemoan their fates. And yet, for some strange reason, the raw negative emotions produced by left-wing fiascos has never been considered newsworthy. C'est la vie.

To argue the same point from another perspective, how many Americans, including children, have been cheered by Donald Trump's election and its innumerable positive ramifications? How many children on the Korean Peninsula, and beyond, may sleep more soundly, may shed fewer tears, because of President Trump's decision to pursue denuclearization and a rapprochement with Kim Jong-un? How many children, adolescents, and young adults have been heartened to see job prospects improve, both for them and for their parents, because of the booming economy that Trump presides over? How many children walk to school or play in neighborhood parks with a greater sense of safety and well-being, because the Trump administration is vigorously deporting MS-13 thugs, instead of making excuses for them and shielding them from immigration authorities, as liberal “sanctuary” mayors and governors do every day? How many children have been liberated from stultifying, crime-infested public schools, and instead were able to attend private or religious schools, or be home-schooled, because of the farsighted policies of this administration? And, at the end of the day, how many children may, if Trump gets to appoint even one more Supreme Court Justice, experience the joys of life itself, because they were saved from abortion-on-demand?

It is not hard, as we see here, to argue that it is liberals and the Democratic Party that are the true enemies of children, and the more reliable instigators of their tears. In truth, though, these are still the arguments of sentimentalists and hucksters. They carry little weight, rationally speaking, because they are overwhelmingly based on anecdotes and emotional manipulation, not hard evidence and a balanced consideration of pros and cons. They are, in other words, the arguments of children, and those who think like them, not mature adults.

Which party, then, is the true champion of happiness, and which is the architect of torment and grief? That is a question best left to philosophers and theologians, not pundits and reporters. They may be experts at exploiting human emotions, including grief, but when it comes to identifying the true sources of joy and fulfillment, and of gloom and agony, they are at best only as insightful as all the rest of us mere mortals. Let us hope, therefore, that, in future they will stick to reporting the facts and keep their preaching to themselves.

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

And here's the American Greatness version! 

Friday, June 22, 2018

When All Else Fails, Liberals Turn To..."Demons Of The Infernal Realms"???

Friends, if there's one thing I love about liberals, they're just so adorably absurd! Witness this article about a planned campaign to rid the world of President Trump by a mass invocation of witches' curses against him. React as you deem suitable: guffaw, pray that God may protect and guide our President, shake your head at the lofty heights of self-righteousness to which the leftist mind can ascend... What a world we live in, eh?  I'll say this for Donald Trump: his detractors are a rogue's gallery of wingnuts, demagogues, and socialists. That makes me doubly glad I voted for him, and doubly thankful that he won!

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

No Child Was Harmed In The Production Of This Radio Broadcast

Friends, you won't want to miss my latest interview on WLEA's Newsmaker program hosted by Brian O'Neil.  We talked about the family separation controversy at the U.S. border, tariffs against China, Facebook, Governor Cuomo, and more!  Prepare to be amazed...

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Wackos on Parade

Friends, I have some captivating sideshows for you today.

First, ever wondered what became of that feminist professor who wrote the stridently anti-male WaPo op-ed that I posted a few days ago?  Seems she's an embarrassment even to her leftist colleagues.  That's heartening, but it's only because she states her prejudices so baldly.  Prejudice itself is quite normative on the Left.

And check out this story about a communist who tried to become an officer in the U.S. Army!  It takes all kinds, but this was never going to work...unless, I suppose, Hillary had won the election.  Then perhaps he would have been made a five-star general?

Lastly, consider this article, about a (lone) Democrat who laments the divisiveness of identity politics.  Of course, he's 100% right, which is a sure sign he won't win the Democratic nomination for Governor of Wisconsin.  In fact, expect him to discover he's actually a Republican within a few years.  Make no mistake -- the Dems are absolutely addicted to identity politics, as is academia.  You wouldn't believe the lunacy that this can sometimes engender.  The upside is that the Left can never agree on whose victimhood is the most excellent of all.  To put it another way, occasionally people of color, women, gays, Muslims, transgender folks, and the disabled don't all think the same way, and then what's a lefty to do?  Tie themselves in knots, naturally.

Monday, June 18, 2018

Star Wars, Episode X: Trumping the Resistance

Friends, although it may not be at the top of the news, this first story is a humdinger.  You may be inclined to scoff at it, but I believe President Trump deserves credit for understanding the importance of space not just to America's future, but to the future of our species.  It's symbolic that Barack Obama killed the space shuttle, and temporarily throttled our manned space program, but Donald Trump is breathing new life into it.  We may not be building death stars anytime soon, but a "Space Force" is definitely on the horizon.  In many ways, we already have one -- it's just a function of the Air Force at the present time.  Keep your eyes pointed heavenward, because we're going to see some amazing accomplishments in space in the next generation.  Trump won't be responsible for all of them -- the private sector is also pitching in -- but he is leading the way.

Lastly, some of you may be wondering what's going on at the border -- are we really separating children from their parents, and why?  The short answer is that, yes, many children of illegal immigrants are being separated from their Moms and/or Dads, but that's because the Trump administration is choosing to apply the law to illegal immigrants and prosecute them for illegally crossing the border.  The Democrats say, "Psh!  That's a choice, you monster.  We never would have done that."  Touche!  It's true: Democrats would simply have ignored that law, as they ignore so many others when it suits them.  Can you imagine the flood of illegal immigration we would be dealing with if Hillary had won???  It beggars belief.  At least the Trump administration is TRYING to discourage and punish this illegal form of migration.  I applaud their efforts to do so.

These three articles might help you to form an accurate picture of what's going on at the border.  As you will see, the truth is not all that CNN and MSNBC would have you believe.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Applying the "Big Stick"

Friends, it's "game on" with China, as President Trump has decided to pull the trigger on billions of dollars in tariffs.  Make no mistake: the goal here is not to isolate us economically.  It is instead to get the Chinese to wise up and start treating us fairly.  Give and take -- that's what a healthy trading relationship should look like.  Here's hoping these tariffs will achieve the desired result, and quickly too.

Read all about it in my latest article:

Thursday, June 14, 2018


Friends, today we celebrate, because the WaddyIsRight commentating empire has reached a special milestone: 10,000 page views!!!  I (literally) couldn't have done it without you.  Thanks to all of my fans, critics, and even those who stumbled across the page by accident, expecting to find waddling ducks or right-handed baseball gloves.  Every little bit helps!  In all seriousness, I've enjoyed getting to know each and every one of you, and our conversations are one of the best parts of my day.  Please know that when I call you "friends," it's not an affectation.  Onward and upward!

As a reward for your loyalty, please accept this link to my latest radio interview on the Newsmaker program of WLEA in Hornell.  Brian O'Neil and I talk about North Korea, the G7 summit, George Soros, and more!

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Men: An Endangered Species?

Friends, at the  risk of causing a few of you to blow your tops, you might wish to read this article, remarkable for its sheer outrageousness.  It argues that women are justified in despising men, and men better straighten up and fly right soon if they know what's good for them!  They should also prostrate themselves before the rising tide of feminism and give up all positions of power.  (Side note: all good progressives believe that gender is a social construct, not a fixed biological reality, but for some reason it still makes sense to denigrate "men").  Would such an article be published by the Washington Post if it were ruminating about the flaws and obnoxiousness of women, or gays, or black people?  Silly question.  Only the lowest of the low -- men, for instance -- get that kind of treatment...  Make no mistake: this is bigotry, dressed up as social commentary.

Also, you might want to read this article, which concerns CNN's Jim Acosta and his latest deviation from professionalism.  If we are EVER to get serious about holding the media to a higher standard, surely this man needs to lose his credentials, no?

Monday, June 11, 2018

The Incredible Shrinking Global Order

Friends, having already pushed Russia out of their exclusive club (turning the G8 into the G7), now the global elite wants to give the U.S. the boot as well -- all because Trump has the unmitigated gall to stand up for the American worker and demand fairer trade terms.  Well!  I say Trump's attitude is a breath of fresh air, and my latest article explains why.

Read on!

Trump is Right: The G7 Needs a Wake-Up Call on Trade

The recent meeting of the “G7” leaders in La Malbaie, Quebec ended dramatically, with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau harshly criticizing U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum and threatening to retaliate. President Trump then instructed U.S. negotiators not to sign the communique that was issued at the conclusion of the summit.

Predictably, global elitists have reacted with the usual horror, and with customary disdain for Trump. According to the New York Times, we are witnessing a “slow-rolling collapse” of our “fragile alliances”. Trump is frivolously up-ending the global order, we are told, and alienating countries that have traditionally been our closest friends and partners. The talking heads may have backed off on their threats of apocalyptic “trade wars” (perhaps because strong economic growth rates and the ongoing buoyancy of the stock market make their predictions of doom seem laughable), but they are still clutching at the idea that we are witnessing a “fundamental” shift in the prestige and influence of the United States, and a steady worsening of our relationships with almost all civilized countries. There is even talk that the G7 has become the “G6+1” as the U.S. goes it alone.

The problem with these arguments is that, first, they are entirely self-serving, insofar as the global elite always chafes at the effrontery of populists like President Trump, and it invariably seeks to defend its own privileges and prerogatives by labeling all criticism of the established international economic order “protectionist” or “isolationist”. In fact, seldom do the elitists even bother to address the substantive complaints made by Trump (and others like him) about the unfairness of existing trade deals – they simply wag their collective finger at anyone boorish enough to question the present regime of “free trade”. 

Trading relationships ought to be susceptible to criticism and revision, however, and, when the people of a sovereign state vote to empower a new leader who embodies such criticism and reformist zeal, his election should have consequences. The elite talks as if the vicissitudes of something as shabby as democracy should not be allowed to affect our sacred trade agreements. Nonsense! 

To add insult to injury, G7 members are actually targeting their retaliatory tariffs against the United States on industries and enterprises concentrated in states that voted for Donald Trump. In other words, they seek to manipulate democracy itself and foster political headaches for those who dare to question the world order. This is simply outrageous, and it ought to raise the hackles of any American patriot.

Second, the idea that President Trump is doing permanent damage to our relations with our traditional allies flies in the face of a mountain of evidence that Trump has formed productive, respectful working relationships with numerous world leaders, from President Macron of France to Prime Minister Abe of Japan. Moreover, we should keep in mind that our ties with other powerful, wealthy nations are always troubled by tensions and disagreements, and, in the post-WWII era as a whole, many of these differences of opinion have been far more serious and dangerous than the current spat over trade barriers. Lest we forget, Messieurs Trump and Trudeau are currently duking it out largely over the price of milk. It seems unlikely that U.S.-Canada relations will be permanently scarred by so trivial a dispute.

Lastly, the critique of Trump's performance at the G7 summit is misplaced because Trump is actually doing both the American people and the citizens of all the G7 nations a great service: he is drawing attention to the deficiencies of past trade agreements – deficiencies that have in many cases cost jobs, shuttered factories, and abetted many a populist backlash against elitist economic manipulation. Trump does so not because he wishes to curtail trade, but in order to build it up on a sounder basis. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he supports free trade, but not biased trade deals that require openness on the part of some and allow tariff and non-tariff barriers for others. 

The truth is that the leaders of the international economic order have long lived a lie: they pantomime unfailing devotion to “free trade,” while at the same time overtly and covertly carving out exceptions for their preferred industries. The result is a half-hearted form of free trade that rewards sly negotiation and punishes naive idealism. As Trump suggests, all too often it is the United States that has been the most naive, accepting a trading regime that institutionalizes massive trade deficits and millions of lost jobs. 

In 2014, the U.S. had a $142 billion trade deficit with the countries of the European Union, and a $35 billion deficit with Canada. Essentially no one believes that this is because American companies can't compete with their overseas rivals – it is instead manipulative, predatory trade practices that explain the imbalance. Why, then, should the U.S. not try to re-balance this equation in its own interests? 

More broadly, though, will it not benefit all the nations concerned if we find a new formula for trade that limits job losses and de-industrialization, and that finds favor with voters anxious about their economic futures? To achieve such a trading rapprochement, the U.S. should even be willing to make concessions of its own. After all, we too are sometimes guilty of using subsidies and non-tariff barriers to insulate our industries from foreign competition. If G7 countries believe their own rhetoric about free trade, surely they will be willing to meet us halfway and cooperate in the elimination of surviving trade barriers...unless, that is, they prefer to thumb their noses at Donald Trump on principle.

In the end, for seeking the amelioration of a broken trading system, Trump should not be seen as an enemy of the established order, but rather as its would-be savior. His suggestion to his fellow leaders in Quebec that he would ideally like to see the elimination of all tariffs throughout the G7 economies is a testament to his dedication to the principle of free trade, and his belief in the transformative power of capitalist competition and development. The fact that Trump is clear-eyed about the pressing need for reform in our trading relationships makes him a realist, yes, but not the protectionist boogeyman that the mainstream media, and its international fellow-travelers, portray.

The truth is that the global economic elite faces a choice: take Trump (and the tens of millions of voters he represents) seriously, and repair and refit the damaged infrastructure of “free trade,” or mock and ignore him, insuring that the wave of economic resentment and protectionist sentiment that has seemingly been cresting for years now will build into a true tsunami. 

In that case, the global bigwigs may someday look back and say, “Donald Trump? He was the least of our problems.”

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

And here is the American Greatness version:

Friday, June 8, 2018

In a Nutshell

Friends, this article is an excellent summary of "how we got here" in the Trump-Russia collusion delusion.  The mileage the Left has gotten out of this nonsense is extraordinary, but it's also a testament to how resourceful, inventive, and underhanded the Deep State and its liberal allies can be.  The miracle is that their machinations didn't work!!!  Why?  Frankly, I think one reason is that their Trump-Russia narrative got swept aside in October 2016 by the sexual harassment-Access Hollywood narrative, which at the end of the day was a he-said-she-said affair that didn't do enough damage to Trump to prevent his election.  Thank heavens!

Thursday, June 7, 2018

An All-American Radio Spectacular (Approved by the Ghost of Ike)!!!

Friends, this week I was privileged to be interviewed once again by Mr. Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480's Newsmaker program.  Since the interview happened to fall on the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy during WWII, we talked a bit about the success of that operation as well as the failure of U.S. strategy in the conflict.  What do I mean by that?  We won the war, yes, but we did so in such a way that we handed half of Europe over to Stalin.  Let's hope we never see another victory as costly as that again!

In addition to WWII, Brian and I talked about the assassination of RFK, Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky problem, the resurrection of the summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un, and much, much more!  Don't miss it.

Monday, June 4, 2018

Dissecting the "Trump Surge"

Friends, today you can think of me as Santa Claus, bringing the gift of good cheer to all the well-behaved little boys and girls out in Trumpland.  My latest article is an expose of the "Trump surge", which has seen steady improvement in the polling numbers both for President Trump and Republicans in Congress since December 2017.  To be sure, I never counsel complacency, but we now have a golden opportunity to WIN in 2018, and this would really put the lefties on their heels.  Read on, and tell me your thoughts...

Saturday, June 2, 2018

Justice on Trial

Friends, you might want to read this article, which is an explanation by Dinesh D'Souza of how his recent pardon came about.  If what he says is the straight skinny, it's a classic case of political prosecution -- nay, persecution.  It's also a good reminder of how easy it is to pervert the justice system and turn it against one's political enemies.  Granted, Dinesh broke the law, and he should have faced punishment, but the punishment must fit the crime, no?  And the prosecution itself should not begin with a political agenda.

Bill Clinton spoke long ago of the "politics of personal destruction", but in truth what is happening now makes the dirty politics of the 90s seem like child's play.  Make no mistake -- if you're a conservative, and you're outspoken, someone on the Left is gunning for you.  Stay on your toes -- that's my advice, and keep out of trouble, because the slightest infraction, for someone with the "wrong" politics, could be devastating.

I read one of Dinesh D'Souza's books, a long, long time ago, and I enjoyed it very much.  D'Souza is an intelligent, insightful conservative.  No wonder liberals hate him.  Of course, the fact that he's non-white only makes them hate him more...

The Official WaddyIsRight Endorsement in Colombia's Presidential Election: It's Duque!

Friends, as I travel through the beautiful land of Colombia, it strikes me that this country has made incredible progress since the bad-old-days of leftist rebellions and drug-related carnage in the 80s and 90s.  Violence is way down, tourism is way up, and people are fleeing to Colombia rather than from it.  These are all great indicators, but now all that progress is in jeopardy, because Colombia could elect a leftist leader on June 17th: Gustavo Petro.  Colombians are rightly fearful that Petro could inflict Venezuela-style chaos on the nation, and that is the last thing they need.  Duque, by contrast, is the candidate of the Centro Democratico -- the party that has led the nation away from violence and towards prosperity and progress.  Colombia has been a reliable partner for the United States as well.  In short, there is no need for Colombians to change course, and, even if they do want a fresh face and a candidate outside the corrupt establishment, Duque still represents a sounder choice.  Colombians -- say no to Petro, and yes to Duque!  A tough approach to crime and political violence, and an openness to capitalist development and international investment, have gotten you this far.  Stay the course.

You can read more about the election on June 17th, and why Duque is likely to win it, here:

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

More Grist for the Mill

Friends, President Trump's attitude towards China has been somewhat ambiguous of late, and perhaps purposefully so.  He wants to send the message that we can and will have a positive relationship with the Chinese, but he also wants to keep the pressure on China's government, so that, when we strike a deal, it will be the best possible deal, from the U.S. perspective.  Put simply, he wants to be tough, and yet he also wants to be conciliatory.  As he walks this tightrope, his key advisors are pulling him in opposite directions.  This article will give you some insight into where we stand.  My hope is that President Trump will ultimately go to the mat with the Chinese and force them to make major concessions.  As the saying goes, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, and I believe in the long run our relationship with China will be much stronger if we set the right tone now and prove to them that we will not be pushed around any longer...

The second article I would like to recommend is about the consistent liberal/mainstream media bias on race.  Not only do leftists feel entitled to be blisteringly racist themselves (hating white people is just common sense, after all), but they also report the news about race in very selective ways.  In a nutshell, if a story about race supports the narrative of the evils of white racism, then it gets blanket coverage.  If it doesn't, it will often be swept under the rug.  In this way, and in so many others, we are poorly served by the journalistic community.

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Is Trump Trumping Kim?

Friends, don't believe everything you read or hear -- in my humble opinion, we are still on track for an historic meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, and for peace on the Korean Peninsula.  Read all about it in my latest article:

Friday, May 25, 2018


Friends, did the Obama administration/the CIA/the FBI/theDOJ conspire to frame the Trump administration for colluding with Russia?  Did they gin up a FISA warrant, a dossier, and an FBI investigation so that they could use them all as an "October surprise" to stymie the Trump campaign?  Maybe.  Or maybe they all hate Trump so much that they find it hard to imagine that he's NOT in bed with Putin.  Certainly, when it comes to Trump, the Left's faculties of critical thought seem to have deserted them...  All this and much, much more was discussed in my latest interview on WLEA's Newsmaker program with Brian O'Neil.  Check it out!

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Why Employers Continue to Hire Illegal Immigrants -- In a Nutshell

Friends, for once, the Washington Post isn't 100% wrong.  This article neatly summarizes the reasons why President Trump, the Republican Party, and many state governments have not enthusiastically embraced the country's E-Verify system for preventing the employment of illegal aliens.  As you will see, only 10% of employers even use the system -- and virtually no businesses are ever punished for hiring illegals.  The conspiracy of silence is alive and well.  As the article points out, as the unemployment rate declines, the temptation to hire illegals -- and to ignore federal labor and immigration laws -- increases.  I suggest that this is a major test for how serious President Trump and Republicans are about cracking down on illegal immigration.  If we choose to give employers a pass, then we can justly be accused of a lack of seriousness, or even of dishonesty...  Let's commit to complete border security, national sovereignty, the rule of law, and a zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration, shall we?

Monday, May 21, 2018

Demography is Destiny

Friends, once upon a time the American dream was more than just home ownership and material success: it also involved marriage and child-rearing.  Today, Americans wait longer than ever to get married, and many people never do.  Meanwhile, our birth rate is reaching record lows, and increasingly people of means and education choose not to have children at all.  I recommend the following article to you, which discusses the social/cultural/political problem that this demographic slump represents.  A society that cannot even be bothered to reproduce itself is a unique problem in history.  Immigration can soften the blow, yes, but it is by no means a comprehensive answer to the predicament.  My opinion is that we should stop castigating "family values," stop beating up on men and suggesting that they are the enemy of womankind, and rediscover and respect the institution of marriage.  What's your view?

Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Future of the Electoral College

Friends, I recommend this very interesting article about the electoral college, and whether or not Republicans can rely on winning it, even if we lose the popular vote.

Now, personally I support the electoral college.  I do so partly because I support states' rights, and the college gives states an important role in selecting the President.  I also wish we would go back to allowing state legislatures to pick U.S. Senators, but that's a battle for another day...  Now, the gist of this article is the idea that, if Republicans increasingly rely on the electoral college to win Presidential elections, but steadily lose support in the popular vote, the legitimacy of Republican rule will be questioned.  I disagree, and for one overpowering reason: Trump-haters hate Trump, yes, and the Left hates the Republican Party, but frankly the fact that Trump won the electoral college and lost the popular vote is THE LEAST OF THEIR CONCERNS.  Collusion, emoluments, strippers -- you name it, they'll take any excuse to criticize, delegitimize, and hopefully destroy President Trump.  Increasingly, this kind of bare knuckles politics is common in the trenches too -- at the level of House, Senate, and even state and local elections.  To put it simply, more and more often, the two parties and their adherents have no respect for one another or for the "process".  They want to WIN, and they don't care how they do it.  Thus, in my opinion, just as it's unlikely for any real change in the electoral college to occur, it's also beside the point.  American politics has gotten ugly, and it will stay that way, unless and until the media environment, which stokes these animosities, changes.  In short, OF COURSE the legitimacy of Republican rule will be questioned.  Get used to it, because it will happen regardless of who wins the popular vote and/or the electoral college.

My belief is that the electoral college does, in fact, benefit Republicans, and it is likely to help our candidates win Presidential elections, just as the two-Senators-per-state formulation is likely to help us keep control of the Senate.  We could move to a system more oriented towards the popular vote, yes, but since this would only help the Left, which I do not see as devoted either to democracy or the U.S. Constitution, I don't believe this would be sensible or proper.  I say, therefore, keep the electoral college in place, and keep the presidency, the Senate, the House, most governorships, most state legislatures, and above all most judgeships, in safe, Republican hands.  The alternative is...bleak, to put it mildly.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Elon Musk's Latest Space Fantasy

Friends, I've written before about the American-Canadian-South African tech titan Elon Musk.  He has some great ideas, and he has some not-so-great ideas.  This article is about his "Starlink" project, which aims to provide global satellite-based broadband internet access.  Sounds nifty, right?  Perhaps not so nifty when you consider the technical challenges and expense -- and, I don't know about you, but I already have good internet access.  A few thousand more satellites floating in space won't change that.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Too Many Companies are in the Business of Breaking the Law

Friends, my latest article, coming soon to The Daily Caller in a more abbreviated form, takes on one of the most bedeviling issues related to illegal immigration.  Millions of illegals are working for a living in this country, despite numerous laws that are designed to make hiring illegal aliens impossible.  To solve this problem, we need an entirely new, and much more aggressive, approach to punishing employers who violate our immigration and labor laws.  Are you with me?  If we can eliminate the "job magnet" for illegal immigrants, I believe much of the problem will solve itself.  The illegals will simply stay home.

The Battle Over Illegal Immigration Will Be Won or Lost with Employers

Recently, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has stepped up its enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. More and more raids are targeting illegal immigrants, especially dangerous criminals, and sometimes these raids occur in the illegals' workplaces, much to the chagrin of “sanctuary” mayors and governors, who feel that these hapless “immigrants” are being terrorized. However, the fact is that these raids are still few and far between. Even with more vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws, and even with increased deportations of criminal illegal immigrants, the number of illegals in the U.S. has barely budged, and illegal aliens continue to stream into the country. Businesses also continue to employ around 8 million illegals. 

President Trump, and many Republicans, are apt to focus on the need for a wall on our southern border. Such a wall is indeed a necessity, in order to promote the security and integrity of our border with Mexico. The President should thus insist that Congress funds the wall before the midterm elections, as he has stated he will. 

The problem, though, is that even a wall will not solve the problem of illegal immigration. This is because many illegal immigrants, and possibly most of them, don't hop the border in the first place. They come to the U.S. as tourists, or on student or temporary work visas, and then they never leave. A border wall will do nothing to halt this species of illegal alien.

We should also consider the fact that, once an illegal enters the country, even if he/she is eventually identified by federal authorities, the average wait time for a hearing in our immigration courts is 718 days! This means many illegals are simply released pending a hearing, and, predictably, few of them choose to show up when their day in court arrives. In so many ways, therefore, the traditional immigration enforcement system is hopelessly broken. Merely expanding it won't fix the problem of illegal immigration. A more fundamental change in direction is needed.

As many in ICE realize, the ultimate draw for many illegal immigrants is the ability to work in this country, despite their “undocumented” status. Millions of illegal immigrants work for U.S. companies, large and small, and it is abundantly clear that most of these firms believe they can violate immigration laws and labor laws with impunity. It's easy to see why: very few employers are ever punished for hiring illegals, and very few companies pay fines for doing so, and when such fines are assessed, the amounts involved are laughably small. The result is that America is open for business, vis-a-vis illegal immigrant workers. It has been for decades, and it remains so today.

Why has the problem of illegal immigrant workers been allowed to fester? To Democrats, in essence there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. There are only “immigrants,” and they can do no wrong. Republican elected officials, though, are equally unlikely to tackle the illegal immigration problem at its source – with employers – because of their pro-business attitudes, and because such workers are cheap and pliable. In fact, illegal immigrant workers are subjected to systematically abusive and exploitative treatment by their employers, which neither party seems to mind. In addition, Republicans are generally afraid that any serious effort to enforce immigration laws will result in accusations of “racism!” The end result is what amounts to a tacit conspiracy in Washington, D.C. to ignore the rampant violation of our country's immigration and labor laws.

I would argue that the presidency of Donald Trump represents the best opportunity our country has had in the last several decades to tackle the problem of illegal immigration energetically and successfully. To do so, however, we cannot afford to target only the illegal immigrants themselves. We also need to target the government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and businesses that facilitate illegal immigration. As I have argued before, this means prosecuting public officials who implement “sanctuary” policies that are designed to obstruct the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. This should also mean the prosecution of NGOs that exist to harbor and protect illegal immigrants. Where the rubber meets the road, though, is with employers, and here we have much work to do.

Every year, hundreds of workplaces are raided by ICE, and millions of dollars in fines are meted out to employers. Under President Trump, these enforcement actions are multiplying, and more businesses than ever are being “audited,” but given the scale of the private sector economy – and the sheer numbers of illegal immigrants employed – this traditional approach to enforcement simply won't yield significant results. What is needed is a change in the culture of American business. As it stands now, frequently U.S. companies are more afraid of illegal immigration activists picketing or boycotting them if they cooperate with ICE than they are of federal authorities punishing them for violating the law. This is outrageous.

Two simple steps could turn this situation around. First, ICE should reward informants who provide tips about employers who routinely hire illegal immigrants. The flow of intel that this unlocks could be used to prosecute hiring managers who knowingly violate the law or conceal the “undocumented” status of their employees. Such white collar criminals should face serious jail time. This is what federal prisons are for, if you ask me. The mental calculus of hiring managers and HR departments across America would change overnight if this tactic were utilized. Presumably, the use of the federal government's E-Verify system, that aims to detect illegal immigrants and prevent their employment, would skyrocket. Under current law, use of the system is mostly voluntary.

Secondly, the fines assessed on companies violating immigration and labor laws need to be dramatically increased. If one were to add three zeros to the aggregate amount of fines collected by immigration authorities from U.S. businesses every year, one would thus add a serious expense for these companies that would undoubtedly change their attitudes and behavior. We would be hitting these rogue businesses where it hurts: their bottom line. Probably, though, this tactic would require Congress to reform our immigration laws, which, as we have seen, is apparently next to impossible.

Whether an enforcement crackdown of the sort I have proposed will emerge is uncertain. As vigorous as the Trump administration has been when it comes to tracking down and deporting criminal illegal aliens, it has shown remarkable restraint in other respects, and it has shown little appetite for making U.S. companies pay a price for their complicity in illegal immigration. We should not allow our desire to promote economic growth to undermine our dedication to the rule of law, however.

If we want to end illegal immigration once and for all, it's clear that not only illegal immigrants, but also their enablers, need to face justice. ICE understands this. President Trump may not, as yet, but let us hope he will come around.

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

And here's the published version!  My thanks to The Daily Caller.