Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is not to be missed! Brian and I talk about whether the U.S. government will ever pursue serious sanctions against China because of its role in spreading the coronavirus. I pronounce myself skeptical, because of the PRC's tentacles of illicit influence that reach virtually everywhere in our political system (and beyond). In addition, Brian and I analyze the Left's obsession with nailing Mike Flynn on what amount to trivial violations of the law. I put this in the context of the Democratic Party's subservience to foreign interests more broadly.
In "This Day in History," Brian and I discuss Charles Lindbergh's historic flight from New York to Paris and what it portended for transatlantic travel, "Hamburger Hill" and the politics of the Vietnam War circa 1969, and the Germans' lightning assault on France and the Low Countries in May 1940.
Don't miss a single second! Not even a millisecond!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxOL0WfRzfE&feature=youtu.be
The reality is that the Democrats are subservient to the companies that decided to pack up and move our industrial manufacturing base to China in the first place. In that regard neither the Democrats or the Republicans did much of anything to stop them. As you say, PRCs "tentacles of illicit influence reach virtually everywhere in our political system" and that would be regardless of party in my opinion. It's the same with the border where the cartels are paying off our politicians regardless of party in order to keep the drugs flowing. So even if Trump is reelected, what will change? Sorry, but If that sounds grim, that's because it is grim.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: General Flynn: I am reminded of the consummate political consequences of the Dreyfus affair in late 19th century France. I cannot sum them up (that is best done In Tuchman's The Proud Tower). But they did concentrate the fundamental cultural conflict in France at that time. So does this in ours!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy:Just as Dreyfus's case brought the two prevalent views of what France ought to be into direct conflict, so does the case of General Flynn. In his case, the left cannot let go, lest their Trump treason campaign hang fire. To them, this is all, especially with a Presidential election the results of which may sink them into the abyss of marginality and mirth.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: In the France of Dreyfus's time the fundamental conflict was between who held that the Revolution, in its murderous excess, condemned itself. We know much give and take between these views obtained in French history up to the Paris Commune. Once there we see once more the murderous potential of unleashed Marxism.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: And so we see in American Marxism's try for overwheening power now.
ReplyDeleteI fully endorse Rush's view that the left seeks to extend the Flynn controversy until the all important election.Of course they do, they are fully resolved and blindly motivated.
But they may have shot the wad (an 18th century reference all unknown to them but STILL applicable, yes!
now.
Dr. Waddy: I n having extended the Flynn case has not the Federal Judge invited upon himself charges of Constitutionally proscribed Double Jeopardy? So he appoints another Judge to seek other charges? After the Federal prosecutor drops the charges can the Judge lawfully command other processes which could result in new charges? Can he?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: All of this is redolent of leftist determination, due to leftist presumption. In their view, there need be no support.
ReplyDeleteEven if Trump is reelected this November 2020, the pissing contest between The Trumpalistas and The Bidenistas will continue as the DemoSocialists attempt to impeach him for "mismanagement" of the Corona Virus so called pandemic. The Great Whore China will continue to lie her way out of any responsibility for the virus, and her American pimps will continue to get their palms greased.
ReplyDeleteSadly, another Trump victory will not change the deteriorating character of America or stop the moral downslide of the this country. Nothing of substance will really change. An anti-constitutional, judicial activist mindset will still be promoted in our law schools. The government will not shrink significantly. The deficit spending that is bankrupting the country will not stop. Very few burdensome government regulations will be rolled back. The gay agenda will continue. There will be more school and mall shootings. The addiction to drugs will continue to spread. The Muslim goal of establishing sharia law will not slow down. The border will not be militarized as it should be. More fools will continue to elect radical leftists like AOC. The public school system will remain a huge humanistic indoctrination program. Higher education will continue to brain wash students with variants of Marxism. The murder of unborn children by abortion will continue no matter what. The two main left wing institutions that are destroying the country, the media and the film industry will thrive. Certainly the Christian churches have in many cases been infiltrated by atheists.
Sorry for the grim predictions but the "day is far spent."
Ray: You may well be right; I hope not, I do think President Trump has done much to get us back on track (eg. Supreme Court).
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Further proof of the Dem's complete lack of good faith in all phases of our political and legal processes is to be found in the consummate and insouciant hypocrisy of one of their chosen leaders, Schumer, who sneered at the impeachment of Slick Willie and who now plays Nemesis to General Flynn. Once again they show in unmistakeable terms, their complete contempt for our nation's fundamentals and give irrefutable notice of how it would be with America if they take over. We would lose all the rights of citizenship and would become subjects at their totalitarian and arbitrary pleasure.
JACK
DeleteYes, President Trump has done much to get us back on track. But even if he is reelected this year, he will still have to put up with the b.s. from the left for another four years, and then the possibility exists that the DemoSOCIALISTS could get control of the government again in 2024, in which case they would eventually create a Marxist dictatorship, American style. The only solution to this is for the Republicans to gain complete control over everything, just as the left has done. This means control of academia, the media, and the film industry. The only way that could be done is through a dictatorship. Well, that is NOT going to happen, so I guess the die is cast for the future. The only other hope is that the end of the world will occur as preached by a number of Christian denominations. My point is, that unless the right has total control of society and culture, (like the left already has) the chances of not having a Marxist dictatorship by 2050 are slim to zero. Again, I think we are in for a bleak future. This is very very sad, to say the least. Our downfall will be the work of our own people.
Dr. Waddy: Its very plausible that the Dems are in foreign pay. Their 50 year campaign to force a foreign ideology violently opposite to our country's lawful essence carries on apace.
ReplyDeleteRay: Yours is an appalling vision, all that much more so because it is a real possibility. I often use the term real America and by that I mean that majority of our people who do not think that America needs "fundamental transformation" and believe it would be a profound mistake to try it. We showed our power in 2016 and a repeat could push the frantic, childlike radicals over the edge. They would do terrible damage still but they could themselves end any chance of their taking over. I still think it possible. Remember how things looked in mid 1864; that was a bleak time.
ReplyDeleteJACK
DeleteThe only thing bleak about 1864 should have been the knowledge that a devastating Civil War had been fought for nothing because some states decided they did not want to belong to the so called union. It was certainly never fought over slavery. All it really did was set The South back about 100 years and cause a lot over bitterness over forced integration. So what were the true benefits of fighting such a terrible war? Well, we did get leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Stacey Abrams. Right?
Dr. Waddy: Lindberg: a "sea change" indeed in his flight (he almost passed out from lack of sleep and got within 10 feet of the waves). You have crossed the Atlantic by ship and so have I and I would guess you too saw in it its majesty, power, enormity and danger. Imagine crossing it in anything much less than a big liner. I think perhaps even a majority of Americans resented the cultural changes of the '20's and saw in Lucky Lindy's feat a comforting return of frontier gutsiness.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I remember, on those endless watches out in the Tonkin Gulf,naively thinking "this isn't a real war". No Zeros coming at us! That, despite seeing our planes laden with bombs and rockets launching every day for 12 hours. I have long since been disabused of that misconception. For those pilots and especially the guys on the ground, it was INTENSE! Ah didn't know - war had always been history to me. I've been schooled on that long since.
ReplyDeleteVietnam was simple: communism is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind and the midcentury commies showed every sign of nickle and diming their way, ala Hitler, to world dominance. The lesson of WWII was more than enough for us to use our great power to thwart it. The result? Ask free South Koreans, Japanese, Malaysians and Singaporeans(via our like minded Brit allies ), East Germans, Poles, Czechs and Slovaks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Danes, South Americans, Hungarians and who else?
A Marxist faction empowered by US political tolerance and by its shameful university seduction of our dreamy giant baby boom generation and its subsequent degeneration of the profession of journalism, persuaded a significant portion of the American public that we could not win the Vietnam War, nonetheless rightfully, fully rightfully initiated in order to stop the sociopathic communist amoeba.
Dr. Waddy: You are very accurate in having contrasted the present partisan divide in America (due entirely, I think, to leftist aggression and presumptuousness)to the mid '60's. Support for commies? That was unthinkable in 1964 but by the late '60's the boomers had taken the cynically offered Marxist bait and their very multiplicity generated results which so very wrongly convinced them that they were unquestionably enlightened. Oh for a week in a "reeducation " camp in Cambodia. And their onerous legacy persists in the persons of Hillary and Biden and sets a screen for the truly dangerous rise of their children eg. AOC.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Oh Gawd, the Kennedys. What a strike against our country is the adulation of these silly sybarites! Camelot indeed (with the exception of Jackie, who was thoroughly noble). JFK did right in the Cuban Missile Crisis but sans certain knowledge of his voluptuary excess, K would never have put those missiles in Cuba. He would never have dared it against Nixon.
ReplyDeleteEdward Kennedy was a pitiful figure, so obviously consumed by guilt, food, drink and luxury . That he remained a viable Presidential candidate for so long is disgraceful. And his obvious quest to gain salvation by good deeds on earth motivated him to champion causes inimical to the vast American interior for which he held such ignorant contempt. He meant, of course, to rule them.
JACK
DeleteJust think of the Kennedy's in general, and JFK in particular, as serial fornicators and adulterers. They seemed to do that better than anything else, don't you think?
Dr. Waddy: We can count on the MSM portraying ANY President Trump reaction to possible Chinese responsibility for Covid 19, were it to consist of a general nuclear strike on China, as "inadequate". They are comppletely in the grasp of the far left, this is long since proven. Their interpretation of any measure he takes, no matter how responsive to current international or domestic matters, is guaranteed to be thoroughly anti Trump and therefore objectively discredited.
ReplyDeleteRegarding China (PRC) don't ever forget that it was a Republican President (Nixon) who opened the doors to this ruthless dictatorship. Henry Kissinger maintains a website, so go look in there and see what his "reasons" were for doing that were.
ReplyDeleteRay: If even half of what Seymour Hirsch says in his book the subtitle of which is The Dark Side of Camelot, about the Kennedy boys' reckless voluptuary adventures, is true, then they were unimaginably irresponsible in their personal lives, not to mention abominably unfaithful to their wives. It was disgusting and it almost got us vaporized. The earthy Russians, who had to know about it, thought it proof of weakness.
ReplyDeleteJFK and RFK did have their strengths but they were consummate elitists who thought themselves excused of the rules. Its a shame that we allowed them such veneration.
Dr. Waddy: Again, we are lucky that Hitler was as experienced German General Officers saw him; a relatively well informed apprentice/journeyman. To him, the conquest of France vindicated his most pressing desire: to reverse the unendurable result of 1918. His Army was well up to that task but it he took it thereby that they were ready for VERY much more assured success and he was wrong. Germany is a resolute and exceedingly competent military culture (I'm glad they are on our side now) and produced many very formidable military leaders for WWII but they all understandably feared the Gestapo and the tortuous sanctions it promised to any dissent, both for themselves and their families. We in the free world must rejoice at the (to them) obnoxious control the insane dictator exercised. I have read a serious psychological study of Naziism which defines it as a mental illness and says that Hitler was clinically and deeply insane.
ReplyDeleteThe Germans did pioneer many terrifying technological and tactical innovations. Their aggressive use of the tank was more than enough to better a France which had fought creditably in WWI. On the other hand, up to the end, their infantry and its supplies were transported largely by horsepower and their main infantry rifle was a WWI vintage bolt action. German Generals appreciated these faults as did their Admirals, who wanted the war to start no earlier than 1945, at which time they might well have closed the Atlantic, with decisive results.
But Hitler was a consummate gambler; he had been proved right in this so many times that he thought it guaranteed. In the end we were saved by his narrow vision of international realities. But what a price!
And that lesson was not lost on the free world. We applied it in a very forceful manner, from the Berlin Air Lift, through NATO's formation, through Korea, through the Berlin Crisis,the Cuban Missile Crisis and yes, our persistence in Vietnam. Hitler schooled us, yes he did. And Stalin and his successors were done to dirt because of that experience.
Man, 22 comments! It's not a record, but it deserves a round of applause, so here you go: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cOQ6Cp1hPZE/UKEMOTsTFhI/AAAAAAAAbgA/nPeZgqp8R2Q/s1600/Anim+Applause1016+%25282%2529.gif
ReplyDeleteRay, I agree with you that the GOP has been complicit in the deindustrialization of America and in selling us out to China, but there's one difference between the GOP and the Dems: TRUMP! The GOP has been, to a point, purified by Trumpism, whereas the Dems have only become more shameless in their Marxism and their America-hating. With the Republicans we have low to moderate hope of holding China's feet to the fire. With the Dems, we have no hope at all.
Jack, you're right -- both with Dreyfus and now with Flynn, the man himself and his crimes (or lack thereof) were irrelevant. Justice was subordinated to symbolism, and that's always, well, unjust!
Ray, even if you were right about ALL of your pessimistic prognostications re: America's future (and I don't think you are), a Republican presidency and judiciary can accomplish one thing for sure: they can SLOW DOWN the, as you see it, inevitable decline of America. Ask yourself: do you want to hit rock bottom in 20 years, or 2? I vote for 20!!!
Jack, I agree that Kennedy saved our bacon in 1962 only after jeopardizing it in the first place. He gets way too much credit, which is, I suppose, one of the very few upsides to being shot in the head...
Jack, I won't commit myself on whether Hitler's interventions did the German war machine more harm or good in WWII. It isn't an easy calculation to make. He was a gambler, yes, and as you admit many of his gambles paid off. He also made some enormous blunders...but then so did we. In the end, my view is that the outcome of the war was largely assured by the balance of forces: three great powers beats one great power, almost every time. It's a testament to the competence of German arms that Germany's powers of resistance lasted as long as they did, but diplomatically and strategically the Germans sowed the seeds of their own destruction.