Saturday, March 30, 2019
Friends, consider it a foretaste of what is to come in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lucy Flores, a Nevada Democrat, has leveled accusations of inappropriate touching against former Vice-President and current Democratic front-runner Joe Biden. Several of Biden's opponents have already declared that they "believe" Flores -- surprise, surprise! Will Biden be intimidated into withdrawing his candidacy? Will accusations of racial and gender bias, and inappropriate behavior, bedevil the Democrats, regardless of who is in the race? I say: probably yes. Destroying people's reputations and careers by accusing them of wrongdoing is a left-wing specialty. The rules of evidence? They're interpreted very loosely. Things could get ugly, folks!
I also recommend that you read this superb article by Donald Trump, Jr. He lays out for Democrats their two options: continue beating the drum of Trump-Russia collusion, or get a grip, move on, and start working for the betterment of the country. The latter option may sound far fetched, but some Democrats, the rational ones, actually would like to turn the page. One suspects their voices will be drowned out by the bitter-enders.
Lastly, America's success in achieving energy independence is often overlooked, as is our success in reducing carbon emissions. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is doing a fine job. I commend him.
Friday, March 29, 2019
One man, one vote -- that's the essence of democracy, right? Ha! Not American democracy. Not by a long shot. Liberal billionaires Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are making a mockery of the democratic process by plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign ads to elect tame left-wingers to Congress. And just wait til you see what they have in store for 2019 and 2020! Bloomberg intends to spend $500 million or more in 2020 to defeat President Trump. So you might say that the system he believes in is one man, 500 million votes. Changes the equation slightly, doesn't it? Read all about the evil machinations of these unaccountable tycoons in my latest article:
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Friends, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D -- in case that wasn't obvious) recently scored a twofer. Not only did he strike a blow against the rule of law in California -- by invalidating that state's death penalty statutes at the stroke of a pen -- he also gave the middle finger to California voters, who three times in the last decade have voted either to keep the death penalty in place or to make it easier to apply capital punishment to persons on death row. But who cares what the law says, right? And who cares what the voters think? And who cares that Gavin Newsom promised NOT to block the enforcement of the death penalty? None of these things matter, because Gavin Newsom feels that the death penalty is racist and wrong. And, at the end of the day, all that really counts in this life is liberals' feelings, right? To make a liberal shed a tear is the only true form of injustice that Newsom and his ilk recognize.
Read all about it in my latest article:
For Gavin Newsom, and Most Democrats, the Rule of Law is a State of Mind
Just a few months ago, Gavin Newsom, during his campaign for Governor of California, declared that the death penalty was the law of the land, and he would respect the clearly expressed will of California voters and would not therefore obstruct the enforcement of the death penalty.
Now, though, the election is over, Gavin Newsom is the Governor of our most populous state, and he reserves the right to have a change of heart. He has, as a matter of fact, put an indefinite halt to all executions in California — not on procedural grounds, but due to the dictates of his conscience. The California death penalty has been snuffed out, because California's Governor finds it odious.
Newsom gives two main reasons for his decision. First, he says that most of the people on death row are black and Hispanic. He says this calls into question the fairness of our criminal justice system. He omits to mention, however, that most murders and other capital crimes in California are committed by blacks and Hispanics, so their over-representation on death row reflects their over-representation in violent crime statistics generally. Newsom, though, would like to apply the tired liberal logic of racial quotas to the death penalty, and, since he can't do that, he'd rather throw out the whole system.
Newsom, curiously, isn't troubled by the fact that the overwhelming majority of death row inmates are men. A reflexive assumption of gender bias seems not to apply, in this case. Imagine that.
The other reason Newsom gives for scrapping the death penalty is its finality. The criminal justice system makes mistakes, he points out, and once someone has been executed by the state there is no way to make amends. In this respect he is right, but the same logic applies to long terms of imprisonment. Yes, a man or woman imprisoned for decades, but suddenly and miraculously found innocent in their sunset years, could be released, but their life, for all practical purposes, would still have been taken from them. Gavin's argument, therefore, could lead us to conclude that virtually any form of punishment is unfair, because it could potentially be inflicted on the innocent. That is no reason, however, to spare the guilty. Our legal system employs the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for excellent reasons. Most of the time, our juries and our judges get it right.
In the end, Newsom's rationalizations are mere fig leaves. He is blocking the enforcement of California's death penalty because he finds the death penalty itself immoral. Gavin Newsom, the great moral philosopher, is substituting his own moral compass for the letter of the law, for the lessons of decades of legal precedent, and for the judgment of the people of California, expressed in their decision to defeat two state propositions in the last eight years, both of which relied on the same specious arguments that Newsom is now advancing. The sheer egotism implicit in Newsom's position is jaw-dropping. “This is about who I am as a human being,” said Newsom. Who murder victims used to be, before they were murdered — that's clearly a lesser consideration.
Newsom, sadly, is not unique in arrogating to himself the right to decide what is just, and therefore what is lawful. (To Democrats and liberal jurists, there is no distinction between the two.) Democrats nationwide have essentially declared our immigration laws null and void, as they extend “sanctuary,” as well as legal assistance and generous benefits programs, to illegal immigrants. The Democratic House of Representatives practices a similarly selective standard of justice as it seeks to work backward from the premise “All Trumps are criminals” to discover which crimes each individual Trump may have committed. Meanwhile, almost every lawful action taken by President Trump is blocked by “Obama judges” and snarled in months of litigation.
To be fair, though, the ground was prepared for this sort of legalistic sophistry long ago by liberals on the Supreme Court, who rewrote the Constitution on the assumption that it was an “evolving” document. If, therefore, the Founding Fathers failed to insert a line in the Constitution about, say, the right to an abortion, the liberals claimed it was only because the right was implied — or, in a pinch, it could be conjured into existence, based on the supposedly self-evident moral case for abortion on demand. Less and less often was the strict wording of the Constitution itself, or the intent of the Framers, considered relevant.
The rule of law, in the hands of the current crop of Democratic governors, mayors, judges, Congressmen and women, and potentially even — gasp! — a Democratic President can by no means be considered secure. This is because, increasingly, Democrats and liberals refuse to enforce the laws they do not like, and they effectively rewrite (or re-imagine) the laws and constitutional provisions that are already in place to achieve whatever legal and social outcome they find congenial.
What is “justice,” to Gavin Newsom and his ilk? It is a world in which the law is a vehicle to permit liberals to reward those they like and punish those they hate. That is, by any conventional understanding of the rule of law in the Western tradition, the very abnegation of the law itself.
We simply cannot allow people who think like this to execute or interpret our nation's laws.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.
And here's the version you'll find in the Daily Caller:
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Friends, if you ask me, Senator Lindsey Graham is the man of the hour, because he's the one who is calling (not for the first time) for a second special counsel to be named to investigate the shady genesis of the Trump-Russia hoax. Republicans were put through the ringer and made to prove that they DIDN'T sell out our country to Russia -- isn't it time that the same scrutiny is applied to the Democrats who concocted and then disseminated the Steele Dossier on which claims of collusion were initially based? We know many of the characters who were involved in this silent coup, but what we don't know is how many of them were criminally conspiring or otherwise violating the law. There's only one way to find out: put a seasoned, ruthless prosecutor on their trail. Yes, the Senate Judiciary Committee will look into it, but that's no substitute for a special counsel.
We discuss this and much more in this week's Newsmaker Show. We go over the full ramifications of the Mueller report, and we also cover the Smollett let-down, the Cold War leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, the high drama of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the strategic rationale for the Vietnam War, and the travails of Michael Avenatti. Don't miss it!
Monday, March 25, 2019
Friends, by and large I'm not inclined to beat a dead horse and say "I told you so" in the wake of the Mueller report. Everyone with a grip on reason has known for a long time that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Mueller simply admitted it -- grudgingly, we assume. Nevertheless, good for him. He's more of a patriot than most Democratic politicians will ever be. They, after all, spent the last two years wishing, hoping, that the President of the United States was a Russian asset. How low can you go??? But I digress. This article by Michael Goodwin says it all about the Mueller fiasco, and about what should happen next. I'm particularly intrigued by what Goodwin says about the damage that these phony allegations caused over the last two-plus years. Trump has been repeatedly labeled a criminal -- a traitor, no less -- on utterly specious grounds. The U.S. media and its international accomplices speculated non-stop on how long it would take for Donald Trump to be led off to the gallows, and how many of his children would join him there. The relentless smears, based on the thinnest of evidence, are truly beneath contempt. But again, all that is over now. The country can turn the page. We must ask ourselves, though, what if the Democrats and the media HADN'T been peddling this toxic garbage for the last two years? How much more successful would the Trump presidency have been? How much higher would Trump's approval ratings be? How many more victories would Trump have won in negotiations with our friends and adversaries, given the fact that his credibility and his authority would have been enhanced? How many more bills would have been pushed through Congress? How much stronger might economic growth have been? How many casualties of the last two years -- from General Flynn to Steve Bannon -- might still be in the administration, if that administration had not been constantly pressed to the wall? These are fair questions, and we will never know the answers. They are the stuff of fiction now. The upshot is that the people who concocted the Trump-Russia hoax are not just enemies of Donald Trump and the Republican Party. They are, in truth, enemies of America, of the Constitution, of democracy, of justice, and of fair play. They are villains of the most despicable sort, who believed that the end justified the means, and the only end worth playing for was victory. They must be held to account. Lindsey Graham is right: the time to appoint a second special counsel is now!
This one is also well worth a read:
Saturday, March 23, 2019
Friends, their images are all over the airwaves: impossibly good-looking old people, grinning like idiots, stewing in the euphoria that the Ford Motor Company, or Macy's, or Colt 45, inevitably conveys. Personally, I prefer my oldsters crabby and iconoclastic, but that's a matter of individual taste. The important thing is that every American dreams of retirement, and they imagine themselves as financially independent when they get there. Gov. Cuomo and the Democrats in New York's state legislature have a plan to chip away at those dreams, bit by bit. They want to subordinate the management of New Yorkers' retirement assets to the whims of their extreme ideology, generally, and eco-radicalism, in particular. They want, in short, to prevent the state's Common Retirement Fund from investing in "fossil fuels," which they consider to be icky. This is the thin edge of the wedge, believe me. Before long, they'll have banned fossil fuels, tripled the cost of energy, and impoverished hundreds of thousands of retirees. And do you really think they'll stop at divesting from fossil fuels? How many other vibrant American companies are already on liberals' naughty lists? Too many to name.
Check out my latest article, and see if you agree:
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Friends, like me you may be wondering: why are Americans so angry? Is it the fact that they live in the freest, most dynamic, and most materially blessed society in human history? No, that can't be it. There's little doubt that our intense hostility to those who disagree with us is cultivated, and it's easy to blame the media for much of this. I recommend the following article to you, though, which argues that political intolerance may be primarily a by-product of American higher education. In other words, it's professors (like me!) who may be to blame. I agree, to a point. It's hard to deny that intolerance thrives on many college campuses, especially at the elite level. Nuttiness seems to incubate with startling efficiency in academia, and then, like a cancer, it spreads to other parts of our body politic. Food for thought.
Please also read this essay by Florida Sen. Rick Scott. He talks about the reasons for the migration from high-tax states to low-tax states. Americans are voting with their feet for conservative, limited government, and they have been for decades.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Friends, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil. We get deep into the horse race -- excuse me: donkey race -- on the Democratic side, in which former Vice-President Joe Biden seems to have a distinct edge. We also investigate why Kirsten Gillibrand is such a no-hoper. In addition, we talk about the uncertain fate of Brexit, the public's growing skepticism about impeachment and the many investigations targeting the President, South Korean participation in the Vietnam War, the mental health of President Trump, the 100 Days of Napoleon as well as the fate of Napoleon's son, the legacy of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and AOC's unpopularity and whether FoxNews is responsible for it. Check it out!
Monday, March 18, 2019
Friends, the latest machinations over Brexit have me very worried. If the British elite succeeds in postponing Brexit for months or even years, it seems to me that Brexit is unlikely ever to occur, at least in any meaningful sense. Was this Prime Minister Theresa May's secret agenda all along? I'm beginning to think so. Read all about it in my latest article:
In other news, check out this fascinating poll, which shows that support for impeachment is dropping and more and more Americans are coming around to the view that Trump has been the victim of a "witchhunt" and a vendetta. Given the duplicity of the mainstream media on the issues of Mueller and collusion, it's a small miracle that so many Americans are clear-eyed. God Bless the good sense of the American people!
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Poor Christopher Columbus just can't catch a break. Not only is he dead -- long dead -- but to add insult to injury now the Left is insisting that statues of the "discoverer" of the Americas must be torn down. Why? Because Columbus reminds them of the agony of the American Indian, and liberals, in case you haven't noticed, can't abide being reminded of anything unpleasant. You don't have to BE offensive, bigoted, or cruel, in their view -- you simply have to rub them the wrong way, and...OFF WITH YOUR HEAD! Victor Davis Hanson has written an excellent article about why this trend is both dangerous and misconceived:
You may also wish to cast a glance at this superb analysis of the current state of climate change "science". "The science is settled," say the climate catastrophists. Is it really???
Lastly, let me add my voice to the growing chorus of Brexiteers who are immensely dismayed by the derogation of duty exhibited by Parliament last week. Parliament won't support ANY positive course of action on Brexit. All it can agree on is that MPs need more time to decide. More time, though, is inherently dangerous, because it will afford anti-Brexit forces more opportunity to hatch schemes to scuttle Brexit. I sincerely hope the EU says NO to an extension, and that a no-deal Brexit unfolds on March 29th. If it doesn't, British democracy will be in jeopardy.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Friends, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil. We cover some hot topics in the news, like the state of the Democratic presidential contest -- especially the prospects of the mercurial Joe Biden -- and Nancy Pelosi's startling admission that she's against impeachment, because Trump "isn't worth it". We'll see if the rest of her caucus agrees... We also touch on some fascinating historical topics, including the anniversary of Hernan Cortes' landing in Mexico in 1519, Mikhail Gorbachev's accession to the premiership of the Soviet Union, and the unmitigated tragedy that was Bolshevism. Don't miss it!
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Friday, March 8, 2019
Friends, this article is a must-read. It exposes many of the fallacies that are eating away at the modern environmental movement like a cancer. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Friends, you're probably aware that Stalin was a baddie. You may not be aware, however, just how much he was revered in the West, especially America, before and during World War II. FDR had something of a crush on the brutal dictator, and leftists the world over admired the Soviet Union for its socialist virtuosity and its rapid industrial and technological progress. The excesses of the Stalin regime were widely denied by liberals, in addition. We explore this anomaly in my latest Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil. Even today, while Nazism is universally despised, communism, for some strange reason, continues to be socially acceptable in elite, intellectual, and academic circles. Perhaps, then, President Trump is right: the battle against socialism/Marxism, which was joined in earnest in 1917, has yet to be won.
Other topics this week include: my recent anti-Cuomo article in the New York Post, the espionage threat posed by China's Confucius Institutes, the first deployment of U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam in 1965, the Rosenbergs and the "Red Scare", Russophobia and the modern Left, the importance of "original intent" in constitutional law, liberal chagrin at the booming Trump economy, and the increasingly wide-ranging Congressional witchhunt against President Trump and his entire family.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Friends, my latest article, appearing in the Daily Caller, explores Elizabeth Warren's struggling presidential candidacy. How is a woman who can't keep her own ethnicity straight supposed to capture the Democratic nomination? The answer: she isn't, and she won't. Read all about it...
The Primaries Haven't Started Yet, But Elizabeth Warren Has Already Lost
Although the titanic struggle in the Democratic Party between its moderate and liberal/socialist wings has yet to be decided, one thing is certain: the candidacy of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is going nowhere.
Warren is a darling of class-warfare-loving leftists. She inspired President Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and thus can take partial credit for the tepid growth of the Obama years (especially the tepid part).
Although her “progressive” economic philosophy bears a striking resemblance to the socialist vision of Bernie Sanders, Warren passed on endorsing Sanders in 2016. Instead, towards the end of the nominating process she embraced the stultifying candidacy of Hillary Clinton, assuming, no doubt, that she would surely triumph over Donald Trump. When Clinton fizzled, Warren got the worst of both worlds: Sanders supporters viewed her as a sellout, while her association with Hillary, a two-time presidential loser, paid no political dividends.
The bad news kept coming. In October 2018, Warren decided that, in preparation for a presidential run of her own, she had to preemptively defuse the charge that for years she had falsely claimed to have Native American ancestry. The method she chose was unfortunate: she trumpeted genetic test results that indicated that she is, at best, infinitesimally Indian — in fact, she may even be less Indian than the typical white American. Her claims to Native American heritage thus became laughable, whereas before they were merely suspect. President Trump's perceptive mockery of Warren as “Pocahontas,” and her inability to respond effectively, sealed the judgment of the mainstream media: Warren had been bested by the Belittler-in-Chief.
Nonetheless, Warren persevered, and on February 9th she launched her presidential campaign with great fanfare in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Weeks before, her stilted appearance in a campaign video, offering her bemused husband a beer, had elicited guffaws, but in Lawrence her fiery speech roused the liberal base. More than a few Democrats were wowed by her intellect and by her obvious passion for throttling Wall Street fat cats.
Warren struggled vainly, however, to break into the double digits in nationwide polls of Democratic primary voters. In fact, since February 9th, Warren hasn't reached that critical threshold in a single poll, and her trendlines have been pointing downwards. Alarm bells are sounding in Taxachusetts, and with good reason.
The worst was yet to come, however, as Bernie Sanders announced his own candidacy on February 19th. This was a double blow to Warren. Not only did Sanders threaten to siphon off many affluent, educated white liberals who otherwise might have found a natural home in the Warren campaign, but in addition Sanders quickly surged to the top of the polls in the all-important New Hampshire Democratic Primary. For Warren to capture the Democratic presidential nomination, she absolutely must win New Hampshire (much of the state is essentially a bedroom community for Boston: the heart of Warren country). Bernie's star power in the Granite State makes that next to impossible. In fact, Warren is currently running in fourth place in New Hampshire — behind even Senator Kamala Harris of California. Ouch!
Additional revelations about Warren's “Indianness” may prove to be her undoing. The Washington Post unearthed evidence that she had, in 1986, listed her race on an application to practice law in Texas as “American Indian.” The persistent rumor that she had disingenuously claimed to be Native American in the formative years of her legal and academic career, in order to benefit from minority status, seemed to be confirmed. Her recent sop to Native Americans — a promise that they too should be “part of the conversation” on reparations — can't undo the severe damage to her credibility.
Warren remains a force in the Democratic Party, and she remains near the top of Democrats' vast field of Presidential candidates — for now. It appears very unlikely, however, that she can win the nomination. As more liberal and more authentic candidates steal her thunder, Warren may eventually come to the conclusion that the best she can hope for is the Vice-Presidential slot. Chances are rising that she will drop out of the race before a single caucus or primary vote is cast.
That would chagrin President Trump, who clearly relishes the idea of running against a “phony Indian.” Warren's tin-eared version of crypto-socialism would also have been a perfect foil for a President who has achieved massive economic and job growth.
Alas, Republicans will have to look elsewhere for their nemesis. Warren is a clunker.
She may not be the Democrats' biggest loser in 2020, but she is their first.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.
And here's the Daily Caller version:
Monday, March 4, 2019
Friends, there's much in the news. First, Vice-President Pence (a really decent guy, if you hadn't heard) has penned an op-ed in the Washington Post about the need for Congress to grant authority for the creation of the new Space Force, to be housed in the Air Force. One assumes many Democrats will oppose the Space Force simply because it was Trump's idea. Perhaps they will deny that space even exists? Oy.
We've just begun to see the ugliness that will develop on the Left as various Democrats -- some more "socialist" than others -- vie for the Democratic presidential nomination. Just today this Bernie supporter is complaining that MSNBC is plotting against his guy, and an article also appeared in the New York Times calling on Democrats not to go too far to the left, lest they scare away centrist voters. This tug of war will be fascinating to watch!
In what may prove ultimately to be the biggest news of the Trump era so far, the U.S. and China are nearing agreement on a new trading relationship. Will it fundamentally alter the commercial balance of power and reverse Chinese abuses? I have my doubts, but it will represent a major win for the U.S., and it will undoubtedly create many thousands of U.S. jobs. It will be hard for the media to sweep this one under the rug, folks...
As you no doubt saw coming, the House Democrats are positively giddy with anticipation about all the "dirt" on Trump, and his family, which they're intending to dig up. As usual, they can't pick a focus for their Trump-hatred, but they're sure that, if they attack on all fronts, he's bound to cry uncle. Ha! Clearly they haven't met the man. That Congress will drag the Trumps through the mud from now to November 2020 is certain. That the American people will be persuaded by any of these antics is doubtful. Democrats run the very real risk that their harassment of the President will backfire -- and that they will lose control of the rabid, impeachment-craving faction in the party. Pelosi and Schumer would love to keep a lid on calls for impeachment, but for those who watch CNN and MSNBC for a living, and there appear to be millions of these lost souls, nothing will suffice except summary execution for all Trumps.
Socialism is emerging as one of the key themes in the 2020 race, and there is every indication that this line of attack against Democrats could be a powerful and effective one. The American people don't cotton to socialism. The Dems have yet to figure this out, and some of them, like Bernie, could never change their spots, even if they wanted to.
Finally, you remember all that nonsense about how tax refunds were down, and thus the Trump tax cuts were actually a tax increase on "working families"? It was always a total fraud, and now we know it for sure:
Crazy times we live in, eh? It's only going to get crazier!