Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil will scratch each and every political and historical itch you may have. For starters, we break down the Vice-Presidential debate, the polls, progress in battling COVID-19, and the prospects for Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. We also ponder the Democrats' flirtation with the concept of court-packing. There's a very good chance that, if the Dems win the White House and the Senate in November, the independent judiciary will be no more. The consequences for our constitutional system of government would be grave, to say the least!
Historically, Brian and I cover the Battle of Hastings, the Normans' contribution to the English, and the English contribution to America; we consider the legacy of Martin Luther King, and how it might have been different had he lived beyond 1968; we ponder the strains on U.S. servicemen created by modern wars, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq; we exult in our good fortune in escaping the Cuban Missile Crisis un-irradiated; and, finally, we lament the demise of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, who was compelled to commit suicide after the failure of the plot to kill Hitler in July 1944.
Whew! From 1066 to 2020...in 25 minutes or less! Where else can you get that?
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-october-14-2020-dr-nick-waddy/
***
While you're at it, check out this article, which exposes a critical flaw in the Dems' reliance on mail-in ballots in this election cycle:
And here's some good news on early voting, which you certainly won't see in the MSM:
And, finally, when the polls and the election prognosticators fail us, we turn...to the cookies! The cookies shall light the way:
https://www.foxnews.com/travel/pennsylvania-bakery-cookie-sales-predicted-presidential-elections
El Professor Waddy from Jack: Que pasa? I was worried there. A veritable feast of substance in this post: Cuban Missile Crisis: I WAS there and we knew that things were getting very dicey indeed but it was very hard to imagine a real possibility of present immolation. OK, even the leadership didn't know of the proximity and readiness of nuclear torpedoes and tactical nukes. First, if the torpedoes had been used on a destroyer or destroyer group and a real possibility of that came very close to reality,it might not have set off a general nuclear exchange. Some measure of US retaliation would have been certain but sans an attack on a carrier, it might have been localized at sea. Perhaps an all out conventional assault on all Soviet subs (which were under constant surveillance) might have resulted. My understanding is that we were but one day away from a landing in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: A very key question: did JFK have ANY intelligence which might have expressed the possibility that there were battlefield nukes on Cuba? If he knew of the possibility, then what? It is relatively certain (some retro accounts from high ups said they thought their lives at an end) that he meant to invade within, at one point, a day. If he knew of the nukes, had he contemplated a limited response if they were used? And what about the hardliners in Moscow? Had they yet, as the did later, theorized that a nuclear war could be won? Could they have deposed K, who had seen war at it's worst at Stalingrad?
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Hastings: So much food for amusing speculation! The melding of French and Anglo- Saxon culture proved to be a fortuitous blend of much of the positives from both civilizations. But if Harold had won? He probably would have been termed Harold II the Great and the his Godwinson dynasty might have flourished. Much like Alfred, he would have defeated two very threatening invasions. How can we speculate how a continued Anglo Saxon nation might have fared? What if Norman feudalism had not been introduced? Was it a precursor of the dynamic which created Parliament? Would there ever have been Magna Charta? A look a German history might provide guidance and it's not promising. And then, what about the benevolent influence of the British way on vast stretches of the world?
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack:I never knew about the involuntary 2nd tours in Vietnam. But I would ask: was it done to draftees? They served two years in the military and a normal Vietnam tour was one year. For a draftee (and the Marines did draft during that war) such a revelation after his having survived his expected year in country,would have been devastating.It might have added much fuel to the anti draft movement. I believe enlistees went in for 3 or 4 years and it might well have been reasonable for them to look to the possibility of another tour.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: I don't much care whether or not the left goes for our throats in an amiable manner or not. It should be obvious by now to all on our side that they mean our destruction. I think Justice Barrett will be another Justice Scalia and as such, the left's worst nightmare. If the Dems attempt to pack the court using legislation, would it not be subject to judicial review?
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Dr.King's monumentally heroic career made him a most exemplary recipient of the Peace Prize, back before it was determined by political correctness. What would Dr.King have thought of busing and of affirmative action?I would guess that with his influence they would, if enacted, have been enacted in a far less vindictive manner.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Should a Dem Congress and President seek to pack the court they may need to craft legislation which can survive judicial review from a lawful Scotus, which would be by definition not their toy. And that may be at least partly why Biden/Harris are mum about their very obvious intention. The right of Congress to change the number of justices probably cannot be challenged. But, INTENT could be the basis of a very solid challenge to such legislation. Legislative intent is routinely considered in the judicial construction of statutes and there is probably much evidence of intent for the implied right of Congress to determine the number. It could be found in English law, the deliberations leading to our Constitution, the legislative histories of the statutes which did determine the number of justices and in the terms of tenure for justices. If it could be legally established that the Dem effort is the obvious ploy it would be to capture Scotus for the Dems and thereby destroy it's independence, then their legislation could fail.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The very intent of the founding fathers in vesting the Federal judicial power in a separate Supreme Court and not in the Executive or Legislative branches might be germane in such a case. Doctrinal parallels to Congress's authority to determine the number of justices can be found elsewhere in the Constitution (eg. Executive veto of legislation). It might be found that previous successful changes in the number of Justices were made on relatively narrow and circumstantial bases and not with the intent of capturing Scotus and making of it a rubber stamp. Madame Pelosi's fevered prerorations on Dem intent to negate the consequence of elections make clear, in their shrilly bumbling way,what might not pass Constitutional muster even if the Dems get the power to try it; the chutzpah to do it? Oh they have that!
ReplyDeleteJack, you're right, of course (as you so often are), that the use of a nuke in one location would not necessarily have produced general, all-out nuclear war. In fact, your observation is very perceptive, because both sides would have an overriding interest in deescalating, some way, somehow. MAD is just a theory, after all, and calmer heads always can prevail.
ReplyDeleteYou ask some excellent questions. Did Kennedy have any inkling of battlefield nukes in Cuba? I dunno, but where there's 40,000 Soviet troops, you have to be prepared for anything, no? And what was K's position in Moscow? Could he have been removed if he behaved too aggressively or too pusillanimously? Probably even K himself didn't know the answer to that one.
Oh my, a world without Norman domination of England? I daren't speculate! I don't even know how much of England the Anglo-Saxons truly ruled...
Did multiple (involuntary) tours help to produce the massive reduction in morale we witnessed in Vietnam after 1968? Maybe. I blame the hippies and reefer madness, myself!
Excellent question about whether a court-packing scheme would be subject to judicial review. Technically, everything is, so why not... I would hope the Supremes would stand in the Dems' way. Of course, precedent says the number of justices CAN change, but perhaps if the motivation is clearly political, as you suggest, the gambit can be quashed? I would hope the Dems couldn't muster the numbers in the Senate anyway. I think they would struggle. Incidentally, whether the Founders really intended the Court to play the outsized role it does now is questionable. The Court itself invented "judicial review". I'm personally not crazy about having all or most major questions settled by unelected know-it-alls, but if they're the only thing standing between us and neo-Marxist oblivion, I guess I'll take SCOTUS's side!
Jack, I suspect King might have supported busing and affirmative action. His shift from non-racialism to anti-poverty and anti-war activism suggests a move to the (modern) left, but this is not my field of expertise.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: I had the chance to spend several hours in one on one conversation with the former head of what was then termed Afro-American studies at a major university. He had worked closely with Dr.King and he told me that in understanding Dr. King it is necessary to understand what he termed "his essential Christianity". That makes me think MLK would have been sensitive to the injustice of putting people at disadvantage today who had no part in past injustices. I think he would have cautioned against that for both Christianly generous reasons and because his politically sophisticated mind would foreseen the counterproductive backlash which did occur.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Though I was not in country in Vietnam, I would guess that the factor most damaging to morale was the truly vicious excoriation of combat vets embraced by far too much of my Boomer generation, to their everlasting disgrace. Its still shocking to think of it! After all they had gone through, to have THAT done to them; abominable! Imagine doing that to the WW II guys; unthinkable. The leftists who perpetrated this outrage are now bidding for national domination.
ReplyDeleteJack, as a rube when it comes to MLK studies, I won't advance an opinion. I will say, though, that plenty of super-leftists and Marxists have been "Christians", of one stripe or another, so that in itself proves little.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Could the scorn shown to soldiers returning from Vietnam explain the low morale of those still in the field? In part, sure. Fragging, drug use, dereliction of duty -- these are all signs of a lack of belief in the mission, and that could reflect popular opinion back home. I would assume, though, that servicemen in the field were bombarded by propaganda emphasizing the nobility of the war and the strong support of their sweethearts and family members back in the States, no? How much men serving on the front lines knew about the "news", I'm not sure.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: We freely received news papers and magazines from home and those often featured account of "anti-war" hurly burly and attacks on returning veterans. What were we to think? We were under military command and often were ordered not to retaliate to leftist assault in the US. Of course those issuing such orders had not had to face the spitting! That is where the big veterans' groups should have stepped in, physically, to aid us. They didn't and the general public let us swing in the wind. We will never forget the whole thing!
ReplyDeleteVeterans
I'm sorry you had to go through that, Jack. It's heartening that respect for those who wear the uniform seems to be bipartisan these days. And there's more good news: the Left will respect the military even more once they've coopted it! Oy.
ReplyDelete