Friday, June 30, 2017

You Saw it Here First...

Hello again!  I've been hard at work on my latest article.  This one is about Trump's travel bans, which as you may have heard were largely unblocked by the Supreme Court on June 26th.  They will rule on the larger issues at stake in October, but the signs look good.  I hope you enjoy the article, and I'll let you know when it appears locally and/or nationally!

Trump's Travel Ban Must Be Upheld
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy, Associate Professor of History, SUNY Alfred, blogs at
As most Americans know all too well, since the media has covered the so-called “Muslim ban” obsessively, if disingenuously, most of the elements of President Trump's travel bans (issued in January and in March) were blocked by left-leaning federal judges. On June 26th, we learned that the Supreme Court unanimously swept aside most of these injunctions. In addition, the Court signaled that it will decide the underlying issues in October – although several justices have already tipped their hand, indicating that they are very likely to support the President's position. All this is outstandingly good news, not only for President Trump, for conservatives, and for national security, but also for the constitution itself, as I will explain.

The travel bans in essence block refugees, visitors, and immigrants from six countries that the Trump administration believes are particularly infested with terrorists who wish to do harm to the people of the United States: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This action is intended to be temporary, and it allows for exceptions. Moreover, the President's authority over the admission of foreigners into the U.S. is well-established, by precedent and by statute. U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1182, states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens...into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens...or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” In short, the President has very broad authority over immigration matters. So why, then, would any federal judge even consider inteferring with the travel bans?

The injunctions issued by leftist judges rely on three primary assumptions: one, that the travel bans are not justified by any definable threat; two, that the remarks of President Trump and some members of his team indicate that the real motivation for the bans is religious prejudice; and, three, that the bans, in targeting people from the six countries already named, discriminate on the basis of nationality. All of these arguments have one thing in common: they are exceptionally weak.

First, it is absurd to suggest that federal judges, who do not have the requisite security clearances and who do not receive intelligence briefings, would be in a better position to judge matters of national security than the President of the United States. In addition, the list of six countries affected by the ban is a veritable terroristic rogue's gallery. No one in his or her right mind could deny that refugees, visitors, and immigrants from these countries are more likely to represent a threat to Americans than people from, say, Australia or Norway. Numerous recent terrorist attacks in Europe perpetrated by migrants from the Middle East help to prove this point. Moreover, do we really want unelected judges meddling in any policy, agency, or law when they feel that their judgment is sounder than that of elected officials? No! Such judicial overreach simply must not stand.

Second, with respect to the charge that the travel bans are essentially based on religious prejudice, we must admit that Donald Trump, as a Presidential candidate, made some foolish statements along these lines. Nonetheless, he has also long since ceased to speak in those terms, and he has explicitly stated that the travel bans do not constitute “Muslim bans”. It is also abundantly obvious that, if the intention of the bans is to prevent Muslims from coming into the country, they are monstrously ineffective means of achieving that objective, since the vast majority of Muslims live in countries unaffected by the bans.

But the more fundamental question that Americans ought to be asking is this: why are only the most incendiary words ever spoken (or tweeted) by President Trump ever accorded any weight by the mainstream media and leftist judges? Why are his innumerable condemnations of discrimination, by contrast, not taken seriously? Let us be honest: President Trump says a lot of things, some of them intemperate and unwise, and some of them mutually contradictory, and that is certainly not to his credit, but it is grossly unfair to him to assume that only the most egregious things that he says (and usually only a twisted version thereof) represent his real thinking. What would happen if the same “logic” was applied to the utterances of liberals and Democrats? Presumably, the courts would disallow any leftist who has ever said an unkind word about men, or whites, or police officers, or Christians (i.e. virtually every leftist alive) from ever executing policies, or voting on legislation, that could in any way be perceived as prejudicial towards those groups. Government would grind to a halt! Needless to say, however, such a nonsensical standard would never be applied to liberals. It apparently only applies to Beelzebub himself: President Trump. Ridiculous.

Lastly, with respect to the baseless charge that the travel bans constitute discrimination on the basis of nationality, the simple truth is that every country on earth uses nationality as a partial test to determine whether or not to permit entry to aliens. That is why visas exist: they grant special permission to foreigners to enter a country, when presumptively this permission would be denied, based more often than not on the person's nationality. Thus, for instance, a Canadian requires no visa to visit the U.S., but a Ukrainian, or an Afghan, or a Congolese does, and rightly so. To deny President Trump the authority to make such determinations in the interests of U.S. national security would be extremely dangerous, since it might create a new standard (and perhaps one secretly desired by liberals) that would allow access to our country to virtually anyone, at any time, and for any reason, since to deny them such entry would be “discrimination”. The Supreme Court is right: this is flawed reasoning.

In the end, therefore, while Americans are welcome to debate the wisdom of President Trump's travel bans, they are also obliged to accept the fact that Donald Trump is the President, and thus he has broad authority over immigration. The injunctions conjured up by activist judges represent, in effect, an effort to negate the results of the 2016 Presidential election, and to wrest control over immigration from the Executive Branch and place it in the hands of unelected (and on national security matters uninformed) leftist judges. As conservatives, but more so as Americans, we cannot allow this to happen. The separation of powers lies at the heart of the U.S. Constitution, and so it should remain.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

The Fake News Media is Shooting Itself in the Foot

Friends, it's rare to see liberal journalists admit that they're distorting the news to malign conservatives, but that's exactly what happened recently.  In an unguarded moment, a CNN producer admitted what of course readers of this blog already knew: that the Trump-Russia collusion stories are utter nonsense.  Check out this report:

And stay tuned for a new article about the Trump travel bans, coming soon!

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

We Did It!!!

Friends, we managed to defeat Jon Ossoff!  Could it have been my article that pushed Karen Handel over the top?  Who can say (I say yes), but the fact remains that the Democrats spent tens of millions of dollars to win a seat in a competitive district, to create the illusion that their anti-Trump campaign is bearing fruit, and that "the Resistance" is poised to conquer the earth.  And they failed.  Again.  Hooray!  All of you who did your part, even telepathically, to support Karen Handel and oppose Jon Ossoff, should give yourselves a round of applause.  This is a big win for conservatives, for Republicans, and for America!

In other news, my latest article on the Trump-Russia "scandal" has appeared in The Daily Caller.  Here it is:


Friday, June 16, 2017

Waddy Gives Wise Counsel to Republicans re: the Trump-Russia Brouhaha

Hello again, friends!  Dr. Waddy will be disappearing into the wilds of western Sicily tomorrow, and he may or may not find that the insidious internets have made it there...  In the meantime, he has written this analysis of the Trump-Russia "crisis", including some thoughtful advice for patriots and Republicans on how to handle it.  See what you think.  It should be appearing soon in The Daily Caller, FYI.

End Congressional and Media Obsession with Trump-Russia Hoax Now

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy, Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred, blogs at:

Up to now, I have not written extensively about the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia for the simple reason that the accusations are so specious, opportunistic, and defamatory that I did not want to dignify them by acknowledging their existence. In some ways, I wish President Trump had done the same. It is generally better to ignore baseless, incendiary claims like these than it is to show perturbation, and thus encourage your tormenters.

Today, though, I would first like to make two points, which I hope will help bring this “matter” (thanks to Loretta Lynch for this suggested terminology) to a close. First, President Trump was never under investigation by the FBI for colluding with Russia. Vast amounts of allegedly damaging material have been leaked about “contacts” between Trump supporters and Russians in the last few months. Absolutely none of it corroborates the central claim of Trump haters: that Trump, or anyone close to Trump, conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC or John Podesta, subvert the election, or otherwise act against the interests of the United States. Various figures associated with the Trump campaign talked to various Russians, true – but that is proof of nothing. If evidence to prove Trump-Russia collusion hasn't materialized yet, despite the best efforts of the intelligence community, the FBI, and the mainstream media to find it, it seems highly unlikely that it will appear in the future. Indeed, it is virtually inconceivable, since the allegations of collusion never made any sense to begin with. Even Democrats are beginning to acknowledge this fact by subtly pivoting from charges of collusion to charges of obstruction of justice. In other words, the well has run dry for those who believe that President Trump can be taken down based on phony charges of collusion with Russia. It is time for this leftist narrative to disappear into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Second, while we learned relatively little from former FBI Director James Comey's recent testimony in Congress, we did receive an intriguing summary of the left's new anti-Trump attack plan, based on charges of obstruction, and it is worthwhile to recap just how thin these accusations are. James Comey, who made it plain that he disliked President Trump from the beginning, kept notes allegedly based on his meetings with Trump. He then seriously compromised his professional ethics and broke the law by leaking those notes to the New York Times, in order to draw attention to pressure that the President supposedly placed on him to drop the investigation into General Flynn, Trump's former National Security Advisor. Comey alleges that Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go...” And that mild statement, vigorously denied by Trump himself, and uncorroborated by any third party, is apparently most of what a charge of obstruction would be based on – that, plus the fact that Trump fired Comey.

Now, is there plenty of evidence, from Trump's private and public statements, that he dislikes the Russia inquiry in general and considers it a politically-motivated sham? Absolutely. A charge of obstruction of justice, however, in order to stick, must be backed by more than this, and more than the biased testimony of an aggrieved, grandstanding Trump-hater. It bears repeating that there are multiple, ongoing investigations, in Congress, in the media, in law enforcement, and in intelligence circles, related to Russian interference in the 2016 election, and President Trump has taken no official action to impede any of them. Neither his (alleged) statements to Comey nor his dismissal of Comey had the slightest effect on any of these inquiries, except perhaps to add fuel to the fire of the left's Trump-Russia witch hunt. Yes, Trump abhors the selective leaks that have poured out of these investigations; he resents the false narrative that has been spun based on mere innuendo and often on inaccurate and sloppy reporting; and he strongly and rightly defends himself and his closest advisors from baseless accusations. None of that behavior, however, meets the legal or even the commonsensical definition of obstruction of justice. All of it, instead, is exactly the sort of reaction you would expect from an innocent man, exasperated by the underhandedness of his political enemies. Democrats would like to suggest that exasperation is proof of guilt. Far from it: it is proof that President Trump is a living, breathing human being with a normal instinct for self-preservation. And that, as far as I know, is not yet a crime.

The irony is that the inquiries into Russian meddling in the election, and the contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians, were encouraged by many Republicans in Congress at the outset. Perhaps they imagined that the investigations would be a convenient way to stigmatize the government of Vladimir Putin, which many in Washington seem to despise. Perhaps they harbored some resentment against President Trump himself, and took pleasure in his discomfiture. Whatever Republicans' motivations were for helping to open this can of worms, they must now face the fact that the Russia inquiries, as a whole, have become a fiasco, a travesty, and an unnatural obsession for the media and for the left. Months have passed, most of the juiciest morsels of information have long since been leaked, and we are no closer to proving collusion, or treason, or obstruction, than we were initially.

Therefore, I call on Republicans in Congress, and throughout the nation, to support:
      1. the termination of all Congressional inquiries into Russian meddling and the Trump-Russia connection
      2. a strict “no comment” policy from Republicans vis-a-vis these matters, with all further questions to be directed to the special counsel's office and/or White House lawyers
      3. the replacement of Robert Mueller as special counsel with someone free of ties to James Comey, and without any vested interest in the outcome of the investigation.
In other words, Republicans should unify and drive a stake through the heart of the ridiculous political sideshow that this “matter” has become. Let President Trump do his job; let Republicans and Democrats in Congress do theirs; and, if any law has been broken in connection with Russian meddling or obstruction of justice, let the FBI and the special counsel investigate and act accordingly. That, I daresay, is how this business should have been handled in the first place.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Two New Victories to Celebrate!

I just heard, friends, that one of my articles (on Trump and NATO) will be appearing in the Buffalo News.  That'll be my first exposure in the Buffalo market, as far as I know.  The hypnotic power of my truth-telling (so I like to think) is seducing media outlets far and wide!

In another sign of impending greatness, this blog got its first comment yesterday: a gratuitous insult from an angry liberal!  What clearer sign could there be that "Waddy is Right" is making strides and having a positive impact?  We will redouble our efforts accordingly!

Thanks, as always, for your interest and support.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Another Big Win -- for Waddy!

My friends, our brand of intellectually-rigorous conservatism is really catching on!  An expanded version of my article on Trump and trade appeared yesterday in the prestigious publication The American Conservative, where the likes of Pat Buchanan pontificate.  I'm honored!  What's more, RealClearPolitics (where I and many political junkies get their news) featured my article on its front page today!  (Granted, they misspelled my name, but we won't quibble.)  Can you imagine???  At this rate, I'll be in the cabinet in no time!  Stay tuned.

Here is the article:

Friday, June 9, 2017

Pat Buchanan Always Gets It Spot On

An editorial not to be missed:

Hot Off the Presses -- My Latest Article Focuses on the Special Election in Georgia

Behold, my latest article, which addresses the upcoming special election in Georgia on June 20th, which will be a key test for whether Republicans are holding onto their base, despite the relentless attacks on President Trump.  Expect it to appear soon in a newspaper near you -- and I'll keep you posted on its fate, needless to say.

Republicans: Circle the Wagons and Defeat Jon Ossoff in Georgia's Special Election

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy, Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred, blogs at:

On June 20th, a runoff special election will be held in Georgia's 6th Congressional district, featuring the Democrat Jon Ossoff and the Republican Karen Handel. Democrats are pouring money into the race in record-shattering amounts (as much as $50 million may ultimately be spent) in order to boost Ossoff and in turn their false narrative of a country united in its opposition to President Trump and Republicans. This is just one of many reasons why Republicans nationwide need to do everything in their power to defeat Jon Ossoff and keep Georgia's 6th district in responsible conservative hands.

Jon Ossoff is, on the face of it, a strong candidate: he is young, articulate, media-savvy, and cultivates a moderate image. He is also, however, a protege of Nancy Pelosi and a confirmed liberal. If elected, he will support the same big government, politically correct, socially “progressive”, and hysterically anti-Trump positions that the rest of the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives seems to have fallen for – hook, line, and sinker. He will thus be a member-in-good-standing of an avowedly disloyal opposition that seeks to obstruct President Trump's agenda and, if possible, overturn the election that placed him in office.

It's not just rich Democratic donors in San Francisco and New York City, and liberal politicians in Washington, D.C., who are supporting Ossoff, however. Hollywood has made its position equally clear. Samuel L. Jackson, in a radio message, referred to the “great vengeance and fury we have for this administration” in encouraging voters to back Ossoff. Ossoff's list of prominent contributors and supporters in Hollywood is, unsurprisingly, a long one. George Takei tweeted about the first round of voting in April: “Vote tomorrow if you're in GA 6th! Let's #UndoTrump”.

And that, after all, is what the Georgia special election is all about for liberals. For them, “undoing” the Presidential Election, which they lost, has become an obsession. Of course, if Democrats won a single special election, that wouldn't make President Trump go away – not by a long shot – but it would wound him and his party. More importantly, it would give Democrats a sense that they had finally “turned the tide” by electing a liberal in a district that was once safely Republican (but which voted for Trump over Clinton by just one percentage point). Undoubtedly, the mainstream media would agree, and it would spin an Ossoff victory as the leading edge of a Democratic surge and a Republican collapse. For this reason, more than any other, Republicans must get behind Karen Handel. She is, by all accounts, a solid, conservative, experienced candidate who would serve our country well. More importantly, though, she isn't Jon Ossoff, and she isn't an obstructionist, conspiracy-flogging, Trump-loathing Democrat, and that should be all Georgia voters need to know.

In the end, the stakes in Georgia's special election are simple: Do we want the American people, voting based on their interests and their values, to decide who will represent them in Congress, or would we prefer to entrust that choice to a shadowy “resistance” coordinated by liberal activists, wealthy Democratic donors, and self-righteous Hollywood actors? My hope is that the people of Georgia, who have chosen rightly so many times in the past, will do so again.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

The Official "Waddy is Right" Endorsement for the U.K. General Election is...Theresa May's Conservative Party!

For those of you who know the conservative bent of your visionary hero, Dr. Waddy, the fact that he supports the Conservatives in tomorrow's U.K. general election will not come as a great surprise.  After all, conservatives tend to like conservatives...  Truthfully, though, this blog advocates an unabashedly nationalist version of conservatism, and as such you might expect it to endorse the U.K. Independence Party, whose agitation for Brexit should be largely credited for laying the groundwork for Britain's decision in June 2016 to leave the European Union -- a truly earth-shattering event, and a very favorable one, as far as I am concerned.  Why, then, support, the Conservatives over UKIP?

The answer is that UKIP is rapidly ceasing to exist, a fate explained, more than anything, by its very success.  The EU was the bugaboo of UKIP since its founding in 1993.  It's highly unlikely that former Prime Minister David Cameron ever would have supported a referendum on the possibility of Brexit, which he opposed, if it were not for the consistent pressure that UKIP was applying to Cameron's Conservative government -- from the right, no less!  UKIP is also distinguished by the fact that it was the only major British political party to campaign in favor of Brexit in June 2016 -- and 52% of voters eventually supported Brexit in that referendum.  One would think, therefore, that UKIP would have reaped the political rewards of supporting a policy that the majority of voters embraced...but no, politics doesn't work that way.  This reminds me a bit of the fate of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, who succeeded probably beyond his wildest dreams in altering the terms of political debate in the USA (putting deficit reduction at the top of the agenda and helping to create the climate for a balanced budget a few years later), but who, as a political candidate, was a notable disaster.  This, I suspect, will be UKIP's role in history as well: on the issues, a world-historical success; but in terms of seats won in parliamentary elections, a profound disappointment.

This leaves right-thinking Britons with, I fear, only one choice: the Conservatives.  It is, however, a solid choice.  The Conservatives support a robust and genuine Brexit, with a turn towards improved bilateral relations with non-European states, such as Trump's America.  They support lower taxes.  They oppose Jeremy Corbyn's anachronistic penchant for nationalization and socialism.  They favor reduced levels of immigration.  They have proposed, albeit half-heartedly, some much-needed pruning of the welfare state.  In sum, the Conservatives aren't perfect, but they'll do.  I encourage all British voters to give Theresa May and the Conservative Party their vote, and a strong mandate to lead the U.K. in the next five years.

Will the "Waddy is Right" endorsement and seal of approval put the Conservatives over the top in tomorrow's election?  Now, that remains to be seen...

Friday, June 2, 2017

Waddy is Righter than EVER!!!

Behold, my latest article, coming soon to The Daily Caller!  It's about President Trump's desire to reimagine our relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which, as you will see, I believe is long overdue.  I'll post a link to the article as soon as it's published online.  "Waddy is Right" is going national, my friends!  This is just the beginning...

On NATO, Trump Gets It Right
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy, Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred, blogs at:
On May 25th, President Trump, during his visit to the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium, sharply criticized our European allies for, in effect, freeloading off the military dominance, and the military spending, of the United States. This is an accurate analysis, since only 4 of the 26 European countries in NATO currently spend the minimum level of GDP, 2%, judged by the organization itself to be sufficient to meet their obligations. (The U.S., by contrast, spends 3.5% of GDP on defense, and its defense budget roughly triples the spending of all other NATO countries combined.)

Moreover, the U.S. faces most of its military challenges in the Middle East, and European countries consistently lack either the will or the capability to contribute meaningfully to those missions. Ergo, Europe continues to rely on the United States to provide for its collective defense, but it fails to spend adequately to supplement and support U.S. forces, and it fails also to support U.S. operations elsewhere in the world, even when those missions are clearly relevant to European security (e.g. the struggle against ISIS). In a nutshell, the U.S. pays to defend Europe, and gets little or nothing in return.

Those who favor a continuation of this ruinous policy do so largely because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality, and, indeed, during the Cold War NATO made excellent sense to all of its member states, including the U.S. NATO's core mission was and is collective defense, achieved by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, penned in 1948-49 at the start of the Cold War. Article 5 states that, if a single NATO country is attacked, all NATO countries will respond as if they were themselves attacked, and consequently rush to the rescue. During the Cold War, this meant that, if the Soviet Union attacked any country in Western Europe, all of Western Europe, plus the United States and Canada, would go to war with the Soviet Union. Whether this pledge was genuine or merely a bluff, it succeeded in preventing Soviet aggression. And, in the tense atmosphere of the Cold War, although the United States bore the primary burden of defending Europe against Soviet assault, most NATO members took their defense obligations seriously and maintained militaries that could credibly have assisted U.S. forces. They also sometimes contributed substantially to anti-communist military operations around the world – during the Korean War, for example. In short, during the Cold War, NATO imposed great burdens and risks on its members, but those burdens and risks were shared, and no one disputed the seriousness of the challenge posed by communist aggression.

Today, though, the Soviet Union no longer exists. For those panicked by the latest upsurge of Russophobia (or, for the John McCains of this world, for whom Russophobia has always been a way of life), this may seem like a hollow declaration, since Russia still possesses powerful military forces, and has proved willing to use them against several of its neighbors. The fact, though, is that no country on earth, including Russia, poses a threat to Europe in any way analagous to that of the Soviet Union. European countries have the human, technological, industrial, and economic resources to defend themselves, with ease, from any credible enemy – and yet, unsurprisingly, they choose not to do so, because the United States continues to provide Europe with a blank check in the form of a security guarantee.

Europe's position is understandable, as is American resentment of European freeloading, but what is different about the Trump administration's position is that, 1) President Trump is pointedly insisting that European countries boost their defense spending, and 2) Trump has not explicitly endorsed Article 5 and the concept of collective defense. In other words, he is being cagey about whether, if a European country was attacked, the U.S. would uphold its treaty obligations and use armed force to assist it. He has not disavowed the North Atlantic Treaty, but he seems to regard its obligations as reciprocal – and therefore contingent on European nations paying their fair share. (They seem to be minimally receptive to this demand.) One can naturally criticize the message this policy sends to potential aggressors, since it calls into question NATO's reliability, but the only alternative is for the U.S. to fund Europe's defense indefinitely and without conditions. Surely, this is unacceptable. Something has to give.

For diplomatic reasons, President Trump has backed off the claim he made during the campaign that NATO is “obsolete,” but in many ways he was right. NATO was founded based on two presuppositions: that Europe's freedom was in imminent jeopardy, and that Europeans were incapable of defending that freedom by themselves. Neither of these assumptions holds water today. Thus, we should applaud President Trump for pushing NATO members to rethink their roles and obligations. His message may not have been a popular one, but it is ultimately in the best interests of Americans and Europeans to heed it.