Follow Dr. Waddy

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

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Trump Brings His "America First" Road Show to the U.N.



Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show features an analysis of dueling U.N. speeches by President Trump, who defended national sovereignty, and Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who whined about our alleged climate emergency.  No contest, right?  In addition to covering the action at the U.N., Brian and I talk about tensions with Iran, the British Supreme Court's anti-Brexit moves, plus the phony scandal over Trump and Ukraine (and the real scandal involving Democrats and the 2016 election).  Historically, Brian and I talk about the Bill of Rights (especially the Tenth Amendment), the integration of Little Rock High School in 1957, and the leading personalities of the Eisenhower era.

Don't miss it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCOSWiJkvdw&feature=youtu.be

21 comments:

  1. I didn't forget this, I will be back to comment fully. Can't wait to hear about the Bill of Rights / 10th Amendment, grin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good! Yes, the Tenth Amendment is one of my favorites. Highly underrated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UN: I also fully support America First and National Sovereignty-no secret there.

    Thunberg/UN: Ah, Ms. Thunberg you are correct! You really should be in school. I'll say it again, her parents ought to be charged with child abuse. I have read her parents are activists, so truly the apple doesn't fall far from that tree.

    Whistleblower: The more the 'truth' comes out the more it looks bad for the democrats. I sure like to know who the spy is who informed the whistleblower. I had to laugh over Trump's comment about what happened to spies long ago and his comment over the "spy" who informed the whistleblower...not sure if you heard that. Just put it in the search engine--I think Breitbart has it as does Fox.

    Johnson/Brexit: You know, I keep thinking he is getting a raw deal--and now I know why the Patriots fought the Revolution (well, so many reasons) but its issues like this why Populism and Nationalism are making headlines. So, let me get this straight, they -the court pretty much thumbed their nose at the Queen as well because she fully supported Johnson. Interesting.

    Iran/Saudi Arabia: I do have believe Iran will have a rough winter due to the harsh sanctions. I happen to support President Trump's current stance.

    10TH Amendment: Ah, yes. We, the people, have given way to much power to the federal government. This brief and very concise amendment expressed federalism -the division between state and federal government. I do believe this concept of federalism fully supports what the Constitution is based on. However, many politicians have taken advantage of this--against the Constitution.

    Eisenhower: Hmm...wasn't Eisenhower one of those men that founded the CIA? Interesting, as it seems the CIA had a plant (spy) in the White House. I would like to think Ms. Gina Haspel should be getting a phone call soon, since the CIA serves at the pleasure of the President. So, yet again, the President is correct, the CIA is spying on citizens. Interesting. I really don't have much to say about Ike-I'm not a fan, I shall leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Waddy and Linda: What a fascinating dialogue! Here is my take, for what its worth:

    That young Swedish woman is a compelling speaker; what a beautiful voice. But equal to her in eloquence was that young man (can't recall his name) who publicly demonstrated his support for President Trump and in doing so showed monumental and COURAGEOUS restraint (equal to that shown by Atticus Finch in the leftist worshiped To Kill a Mockingbird) when he was directly and physically confronted and then publicly excoriated by left so much that he went to law for recompense. The contrast between his treatment and that of that Swedish youth says it all about the intellectual, moral and emotional corruption of the left.And it gives FULL warning of their conduct should they achieve ultimate power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Waddy and Linda: So Bill Weld thinks that President Trump ought to face the full traditional consequences of proven treason, ehhh? Even though the whistle blower was transmitting second hand info? I've been a whistleblower and even when potentially fatal consequences were not involved I was given to understand by one of the most powerful lawmakers in our State that I had better be right about my facts. Hey Bill, how about the Clintons, with their transmission of top military secrets to Communists or Jane Fonda and her ilk? No statute of limitation on treason that I know of.

    Biden, while VP, apparently bade Ukraine lay off his son lest it lose support from the U.S. And since his Marxist supervisor could reasonably be expected to resent Ukraine's exuberant rejection of Great Russian tyranny, Biden could well have expected to be backed up. What of that?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Waddy and Linda:I've been doing some cursory reading about the Supreme Court of the UK and some salient facts, as I see them, support your concerns about this action and its implications for the evolution of this new institution:

    It was established by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 (so the British, God bless'em and their history, are getting around to writing their constitution (?), in order to further separate the legislative and judicial functions. Its jurisdiction includes "points of law of general import". Its members bear Titles of Lord or Lady as honorifics only and new candidates are selected by several Commissions, one of which is composed of some of the sitting justices.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Linda: I share your concern as to how this court can strike down an action confirmed by the Monarch. Dr. Waddy: If I understand your interpretation, you have maintained that this decision is reflective not of law but of the Court's subjective perception of the nation's consequent benefit or harm. One of the objections in the Parliamentary debate on the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 was that this new Court might " to arrogate to itself" unintended powers. Your prediction of "much more business pending for this court" is lent more credibility by this concern. And unlike SCOTUS, candidates for seats appear not be subject to full parliamentary (and thus that of the people) approval. They may well have a freedom that the U.S. liberals you rightfully maintain have been trying for decades to usurp - that of the arbitrary rule of humans and not of law - would admire. Does the unanimous decision reflect a doctrinal, perhaps leftist uniformity on this court? Let us hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Ike - He's one of my favorite Americans. He was a good desk General, a fine staff officer. His army was mauled at Kasserine Pass and he was taken unaware at the Bulge. But: he was an excellent General/Diplomat; I'd call him the equal of Washington in that respect, though he might have been too accomodatng of Churchill and Montgomery in the "Bridge too Far" defeat.His overall command over an extended period did yield victory; he was able to overcome his setbacks. Stephen Ambrose has pointed out others of his faults in his excellent accounts of the 1944-45 campaign; I still say Ike got the job done.

    I think his personal manner was engagingly down to earth; essentially midwestern.He was conservative but it was a soldierly and pretty radical thing to nationalize the Arkansas Guard and send in regulars to Little Rock. I doubt that a President Robert Taft would have done it. It was to Ike's everlasting credit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Ike had a unique perspective on the Soviets. He had actually stood with Stalin and the dictator's factoti atop Lenin's tomb to watch a victory parade. He was being "influenced" and he knew it. He once asked a Soviet General how he dealt with minefields; the reply was "we just march over them" (la de da). Ike knew full well what monstrousness he was dealing with in the Soviets.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr. Waddy and Linda: MacArthur and Johnson; I can well understand Ike having found both of their personalities unpalateable. But MacArthur: I hate to say it but some people act superior because, well, they ARE superior; I've met people like that. MacArthur was fully the equal of America's greatest campaign and battlefield Generals - right up there with Scott, Lee, Grant and Schwartzkopf. He was a superb Brigadier in WWI, winning the Medal of Honor. His half of the Pacific War suffered fewer casualties than those of the Italian Campaign. He may have been undiplomatic in his wartime dealings but his stewardship of the occupation of Japan revealed in him manifest compassion and understanding of those over whom he had so much sway. And that may tend to indicate that he would have been a fine President. He was a very great man, as was, I think, Ike. Had they ever met on some imagined battlefield I don't doubt that MacArthur would have prevailed but the totality of their lives was equal I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Waddy: I agree with your observation that Johnson's bailout in 1968 left the country open to "antiwar" Dems. Johnson was literally fighting for his life, though. He knew he had a weak heart and he had been devastated by widespread excoriation over Vietnam. To him, an old southerner, his sincere stand for civil rights had been a noble and self sacrificing act. I recently read parts of Robert Caro's exhaustive biography of Johnson and it convinced me that Johnson, despite his tactical concessions to the old South in Congress, really did believe in the championing at the apex of power of the concerns of the wretched of the American earth. So, Ike's distaste for him was understandable but, they were, I think, on the same page when it came to true American justice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So many great comments!

    Linda, yes -- I heard about Trump's remarks about spies. He's right, insofar as his administration has been plagued by an unprecedented campaign of leaks, almost uniformly designed to discredit him. The "deep state" is real! Prosecuting leakers is the only antidote. That's why it's outrageous that Comey was allowed to escape justice. That's an interesting point that the CIA man who became the "whistleblower" was in effect using his spycraft against the United States. And why were the rules changed about secondhand information just days before? A tad suspicious, no? Who changed the rules, and why?

    I couldn't agree more that Boris is getting a "raw deal". Assuming Brexit ever happens, and he gets his expanded majority in a new election, I wonder what the "experts" will make of him then? Probably not much. Hatred is the media's specialty, and they can usually sustain it no matter what.

    Anonymous (who is probably Jack) -- welcome to the party! Ha ha.

    I believe you're referring to Nick Sandman, a minor who the media demonized because of his MAGA hat, whereas they have no compunction about deifying Miss. Thunberg. Clearly, the Left and media doesn't celebrate all children -- just the ones who parrot leftist orthodoxy.

    Jack, Bill Weld is simply unhinged. "Treason" is a word we're hearing a lot these days. Keep in mind that President Trump's actions vis-a-vis Ukraine (EVEN if they involved "pressure") can only be criticized if one ASSUMES Trump's evil, selfish intent. The transcript of the call contains no evidence of such ill intent (and no reference to the 2020 election). For the media and the Left, of course, Trumpian evil is always self-evident.

    Jack, I agree with you that the unanimity of the British Supreme Court's decision was its most troubling feature. They concluded, in effect, that there was "no good reason" for Johnson's prorogation. Do ALL the justices really think it is their function to determine which POLITICAL decisions are good and which are bad? The latitude they are giving themselves is massive!

    Jack, you certainly know more about Ike than I. A consummate diplomat (as Supreme Commander)? I can believe that. It was no easy task keeping Americans and Englishmen on the same page.

    Interesting perspective on MacArthur. You're right, Jack -- his stint in Japan reveals him in a completely different light than what we normally see in the history books.

    As for LBJ, it's funny, as in ironic, that such a force of nature ultimately became a pathetic figure, chased out of politics by his own partisans. Could ANYONE have prospered as President in the late 60s or early 70s? Nixon almost managed it, but only almost. Civil rights also strikes me as an endeavor that, while it might have brought credit to LBJ in the long run, in the short term was destined to bring him (and the nation) considerable grief...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wonder who Anonymous is? Maybe another college professor? I often wondered if it is indeed Jack, LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr. Waddy and Linda: In this post and in some others before, "Anonymous" is me - Jack. Don't know why it does this. Agree with you on the consequences of Johnson's well meaning (I think) actions. The Great Society was the fount of failure, unintended consequences, dysfunction and cynicism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jack, I don't blame you for occasionally engaging your cloaking device. If I was smart, I'd probably do the same. :)

    The expansion of social programs under Johnson, while well-meaning, was ultimately a disaster for American families. On that we're agreed, I expect. From a leftist perspective, though, LBJ has to be one of the greatest Presidents of all time. If expanding government is the name of the game -- and it is, for them -- he was a king among men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JACK!!! (thanks, whew, so glad it is you, lololol)--thanks Dr. Waddy for the laugh over "If I was smart", lol. I often thought about doing that-but at the same time, I am just too lazy to do so, lol. Rest assured you do have other readers, grin.

      Delete
  16. Linda, I often wonder who is reading this blog, besides you and Jack. The traffic isn't exactly brisk, but clearly someone out there is lurking... I'll keep fighting the good fight, regardless!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr. Waddy: Do so and'tis well. The stats seem to indicate theat many creditable people are reading.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I might add, just for clarity, when I said Ike's action over Little Rock was "soldierly", I meant this: I understand the Arkansas National Guard had been deployed by Gov. Faubus to prevent the attendance of black students at Little Rock High School. As a VERY seasoned military commander, Ike may have expected that had he not nationalized the guard, they might actually have obeyed orders to fight the regulars, ala the Civil War(?).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jack -- I'm torn, because I admire Ike, but I also believe in federalism. Anytime the feds dictate terms to the states, the Constitution is put under strain.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dr. Waddy: I think that a legitimate concern

    ReplyDelete