Tuesday, February 27, 2018

If I Had a Nickel...

Friends, the capacity for self-delusion evinced by the left is truly breathtaking.  I can't tell you how many articles I've read by liberal talking heads opining that Trump's and/or Republicans' latest outrage will be the end of the Trump presidency, or the Republican Party, or conservatism itself.  "The sky is falling, the sky is falling," these leftists are always declaring...  Surely, America will wake up and realize that the lefties were right all along.  Here is the latest example of this extraordinary conceit:

Now, if you got through that drivel, I congratulate you.  Did you notice the compelling evidence offered for the author's key assertion?  Why will the Parkland, Florida school shooting be the end of Republicans, when they have survived every other political controversy since the 1850s?  Because, according to Mr. Linker, "this time feels different."  Ha!  You're right, sport.  It does feel different.  This time it feels like the left is truly off its gourd.  But I hate to break it to you: the Republican Party is stronger now than at any time since the 1920s.  President Trump won the last election despite the fact that almost the entire economic, cultural, and political elite of the WORLD was united against him.  And Republicans, conservatives, and President Trump are presently gaining in popularity, not tanking.

Ah, liberals.  Their smugness knows no bounds.  There's no point in grousing over it, though.  In fact, arguably, their complacency and arrogance make it that much easier to keep them in check.

Keep up the good work, lefties!

Friday, February 23, 2018

Thinking the Unthinkable

Friends, much as it pains me, today I must beg to differ with President Trump.  Yes, you heard that right.  I expect much gnashing of teeth and rending of hair to result, since one of the constants of the universe is being upset, but sometimes a conservative has to say his piece.  If the ghost of Reagan sheds a tear as a result, so be it.  I'll make it up to the Gipper by writing plenty more articles in praise of all things Trump!

The source of my disquiet is President Trump's suggestion that the minimum age for some gun purchases should be raised from 18 to 21.  Why is that a problem?  Read on...

Conservatives Must Oppose Age Restrictions on Gun Purchases

In the wake of the horrific Parkland, Florida school shooting, President Trump has unveiled a number of proposals to increase school safety. His best suggestion is that a select number of trained teachers, coaches, and staff members should be permitted to bear arms in our schools, so that attacks can be deterred, and, if necessary, shooters can be promptly neutralized. Few conservatives will balk at the idea that guns can indeed promote safety, in the right hands.

Unfortunately, President Trump has also proposed that the legal minimum age for gun purchases should be increased from 18 to 21, although whether this would apply to so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic firearms, or all guns remains unclear. Regardless of Trump's intentions, any policy of this kind would be a grave error, and conservatives should work to dissuade the President and, if need be, to defeat any bill in Congress that incorporates such a change.

Why? First, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and as such should be subject to regulation but never to infringement. This is what conservatives have been correctly arguing for decades. A constitutional right cannot be denied to any person on the basis of sex, race, religion, or age. Indeed, even to attempt to infringe a constitutional right in this manner would be dangerous and un-American. True, federal law already prohibits some handgun sales to persons under 21, but this ought to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Second, in a country of 325 million people and a roughly equivalent number of guns, there is little reason to suspect that an age restriction, or any form of gun control, would succeed in depriving any would-be school shooter of the opportunity to kill.

Lastly, those who support raising the minimum age for gun purchases to 21 have clearly not considered the anomaly this would create: hundreds of thousands of young Americans would suddenly be serving in our armed forces, bearing not only guns, but howitzers, torpedoes, attack helicopters, and even nuclear weapons, but, as private citizens, they would be unable to purchase firearms. One word for such a predicament would be “unjust” – personally, I prefer the more apt term: surreal. Our nation simply cannot deny its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the full and unabridged constitutional right to self-defense.

President Trump has been a breath of fresh air, proposing and implementing innovative solutions to our country's problems, and literally saving the Republic, which would otherwise have been plunged into the Clintonian abyss. In this case, though, the President has not properly considered the full implications of his suggestion. 

Where the heartfelt desire to protect children from harm bumps up against common sense and the U.S. Constitution, it must be the latter that prevail. There are simply better ways to defeat school violence.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

You can find the article here, at Artvoice:

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Public Enemy Number One?

Yes, that's right -- the picture you see here is "fake news".  President Obama isn't really under arrest, but maybe he should be...  I'm learning that Obama administration policies, which pressured police departments and school districts around the country to reduce arrests of minority youth, may have played a part in allowing Nikolas Cruz to slip through the cracks and pursue his deadly rampage in Parkland, Florida.  Certainly the number of times that the police were called to deal with Cruz -- never once arresting him -- is mighty suspicious.  I've long thought that being a police officer in this country would be a truly thankless job.  After all, many Americans, and quite a few politicians, view the police as the enemy, and they view law enforcement itself as a form of oppression.  I say let's crack down on those who pose a real threat and who violate the peace -- but let's NOT infringe the constitutional rights of decent Americans.  Are you with me?

Good News All Around

Friends, with so much horrifying information saturating this fallen world of ours, it's always nice to report some good news for a change.

First, I saw today that one of my recent articles -- "Impeach the Democratic Party!" -- appeared on the front page of RealClearPolitics, which is where I generally get my own news.  That's always a pleasant surprise!

Second, as you'll see in this article, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is showing some signs of life in investigating those who have violated the law by leaking classified information that they believed would be harmful to President Trump.  As we all know, the list of laws that have been broken by Trump haters is a long one, and it would be nice to see one or two of them enforced!

Finally, what's bad for CNN is good for America, and it appears CNN's ratings are tanking.  Hooray!  Maybe "the Resistance" is getting tired, or perhaps it's gone back to watching PBS instead?  Who can say...

Keep hope alive!  All is not lost, and we've got a special election coming soon in Pennsylvania's 18th district, which I trust will also buoy our spirits.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Those Pesky Russians

Friends, while the only lesson that the mainstream media is taking from the recent indictment of 13 Russians for election meddling is that the 2016 election was invalid, the truth is that it is becoming more and more apparent that the real Russian goal was NOT to elect Donald Trump.  That may have been a secondary goal, but the primary goal was to pit Americans against one another and cause maximum chaos.  In that regard, the Russian campaign was stunningly successful, and Democrats and liberals have done more than anyone to make it so.  Why did the Russians sponsor anti-Trump rallies after the election?  Why did they boost support for Bernie Sanders?  Why did they pay for ads for and against Black Lives Matter?  Is it because they were in bed with Trump all along?  No!  It's because they were and are opportunists, who view a weak USA as an asset for Russia.  Thus, Americans who try to undermine confidence in our election system (which worked flawlessly) and our President (who had no involvement) are doing the Russians' work for them.  Stop the nonsense, I say!  Accept that Donald Trump won the election, Russians clumsily tried to interfere in it (as did many other bad actors, including the Democratic Party), and move on.  What do you think?

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Impeachment Wheels Are Turning...

Don't think for a moment that the left has forgotten about its medium term goal: the removal of President Trump from office.  Left-wing groups have been conducting polling analyses to test various arguments for impeachment, and Mr. Impeachment himself, Tom Steyer, has been busy too.  He's advancing the "mental instability" and "obstruction of justice" narratives simultaneously.  Only the diehards are clinging on to the Russian collusion illusion, but don't be heartened by that fact.  If the left can convince a majority of Americans to support impeachment for ANY reason, no matter how specious, they will pounce.  Given the level of anti-Trump hysteria they've already engendered, we can't afford to take this threat lightly.

You can read more about Steyer's malevolent machinations here:

Thursday, February 15, 2018


A tip of the hat to YOU, my friends, for the recent upsurge in comments on this blog.  Please know that I appreciate your input and reactions more than words can say.  Please don't be a stranger!

And here's a special treat for latest article.  It's an analysis of the (absurd) controversy over Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent remarks about our "Anglo-American heritage".  Enjoy!

Our Western, “Anglo-American” Heritage Can't Be Wished Away By Liberals

As a history professor and long-time instructor in “Western Civilization” classes, I was dumbfounded by recent leftist attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions, at a meeting of U.S. sheriffs, innocuously observed that these highly respected police officials are part of our country's democratic and “Anglo-American” legal and law enforcement heritage. It was the term “Anglo-American” that stuck in liberals' collective craw, symbolizing to them the fact that U.S. laws and law enforcement are apparently made of, by, and for (you guessed it) white people. This interpretation of Sessions' remarks is not only grossly unfair – it also ignores the very real “Anglo-American” basis for our laws, constitution, and democracy.

Americans should understand that our legal system is founded on the British “common law” tradition, which distinguishes the legal environment in Britain and its former colonies, including the U.S., from that in almost every other part of the world. “Anglo-American” common law bases ideas of justice on precedents established in previous judicial rulings. Because of this, many of the assumptions of the American legal system actually predate America itself and hearken back to ideas of justice in medieval and early modern England. Many of our most important legal and constitutional principles – from presuming a person innocent until proven guilty, to allowing people to speak their minds freely, to consulting the people in matters of government – are directly traceable to the British political tradition, which nurtured the growth of similar sentiments in the 13 Colonies. Our Founding Fathers were under no illusions about the debt we owed to the British. Indeed, they borrowed freely from British political and legal traditions, and consciously copied the ideas and sometimes the language of men like the English political philosopher John Locke. And this is not even to go into the benefits that accrue from our use of the wonderful English language itself, which binds our country together, and the world-historical importance of the fabled Anglo-American “special relationship,” which won two World Wars, plus the Cold War.

Furthermore, when Jeff Sessions observed that the American institution of “sheriff” is an outgrowth of our “Anglo-American heritage,” he was likewise merely stating an obvious truth. Sheriffs were appointed by England's Kings in the Middle Ages to administer justice at the county level. As Sessions pointed out, our innovation in the United States was to make sheriffs elected officials, so as to maximize their representative character and to make them servants of the people rather than agents of royal authority. Simply put, we would not have sheriffs in America were it not for our Anglo-American heritage. This is precisely why, outside of areas once ruled by the British Empire, sheriffs do not exist.

Why do liberals consider Sessions' remark “racist”? Perhaps it is because they do not bother to distinguish between the meaning of the term “Anglo-American” in a legal or historical context, and the meaning of “Anglo” in the cultural context of the American southwest, where the word refers to a white person from a non-Hispanic background. If this is the case, liberals should consider that the New York Times Magazine published an article in November 2016 lamenting the decline of an “Anglo-American order” in the wake of Donald Trump's election. The New York Times, however, was not condemned as racist. Why? Because there was nothing racist about its position! The Times was merely trying to blame then President-Elect Trump for an anticipated decline in center-left bonhomie between Britain and the United States. Likewise, President Obama used the phrase “Anglo-American” in a legal context on several occasions, and he was never accused of racism. “Anglo”, therefore, does not always refer to “white people,” and, even if it did, acknowledging the powerful historical role played by white people in history is not “racist”. It is, once again, merely stating the obvious.

The other reason why liberals may be offended by the term “Anglo-American” is because it reminds them that this is a country that was largely founded by immigrants from Europe – the dreaded “white people” of which we spoke earlier. Moreover, there is an argument to be made, and I make it in my classes often, that this is still a nation that is part of “Western Civilization,” and the legacy that this civilization has bestowed on us is overwhelmingly positive. The fact that we are free to criticize our elected leaders, that we have elections in the first place, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law, that we live in the freest, most prosperous society that has ever existed – all of this is down to the political and social principles that Europeans, mainly Englishmen, bequeathed to us. Ironically, it is the (largely British) freedoms that we enjoy today that empower liberals to inveigh against the very civilization that birthed modern democracy as well as the competing ideals of Marxism, feminism, and “social justice,” among others. It would make more sense for liberals to acknowledge these contributions than to spurn them, since liberalism itself would make no sense outside of its clearly Western context.

Make no mistake, therefore: Attorney General Jeff Sessions' words, which honored our country's “Anglo-American heritage”, were no more racist than the words of the Declaration of Independence. The real racists, I would argue, are those who are so pathologically anti-white that they impute racial animus (even “white supremacy”) to every phrase, no matter how harmless and no matter how true, that escapes the lips of a Republican. Such race-baiting nonsense ought to have no place in our political discourse.

Furthermore, we should embrace rather than reject our heritage as a Western people. The West has achieved spectacular advances in every field of human endeavor, and is especially notable for advancing the cause of human freedom and dignity. That is a tradition of which we all should be proud.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

You can find the article here, at

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Decision 2018: The Death Knell for the Democratic Party?

Friends, I'd like to recommend this fine article, which comes to us courtesy of FoxNews.  Frankly, I think some of it is based on wishful thinking, but the core argument is sound: the appearance of a Democratic advantage leading up to the 2018 mid-term elections could easily be deceptive.  In addition, many public polls are biased in favor of Democrats, and no one should discount the level of mobilization (and expenditure) that Republicans will achieve by the Fall.  We Republicans and conservatives should take very seriously the challenge that energized Trump-haters represent -- and counter them accordingly.  I firmly believe that, if we keep our eyes on the ball, we can keep the House AND the Senate in 2018, and, if we do, the circular firing squad that arises in the Democratic Party will be a thing of beauty!  Let's make it happen, shall we?

Friday, February 9, 2018

Two Can Play At That Game

Friends, the drumbeat of calls (admittedly only from the truly desperate and deranged) for President Trump's impeachment has raised my hackles, especially given how little respect Democrats and liberals have for the law in the first place.  Here is my retort, which you can also find on the American Greatness website:

Impeach the Democratic Party!

On February 7th, the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, the epitome of a San Francisco liberal, treated America to an 8-hour lecture on why young illegal immigrants who benefited from President Obama's (unconstitutional) DACA program should be allowed to stay in this country. Her speech marked the culmination of the Democratic Party's bizarre pivot from its historical role of representing its constituents and (progressively-minded) U.S. citizens to representing illegal aliens instead. Pelosi reached a rhetorical crescendo when she recalled that her grandson had once declared that he wished he “had brown skin and brown eyes”. Seldom has the House of Representatives witnessed so touching an homage to the beauty and nobility (as liberals see it) of reverse racism.

The Honorable Congresswoman is entitled to her warped progressivism and her fashionable racism, however. This is still a free country, after all. What she is not entitled to, and what no Democrat is entitled to, is the active and purposeful subversion of U.S. laws. Democrats, lest we forget, are itching to impeach President Trump for allegedly obstructing justice in the course of the Mueller investigation into Russian election meddling. Trump's “obstruction”, however, consists of criticism directed at an inquiry that is demonstrably flawed and biased, whereas his administration has complied with all of its legal obligations and fully cooperated with the special counsel's office. Democrats, though, should begin to ask themselves: now that hurling charges of “obstruction of justice” is politically en vogue, could they be targeted too? The answer is yes, and the opportunity is close at hand.

The Democratic Party is pathologically obsessed with making excuses for illegal immigrants. Moreover, its reverse racism leads it increasingly to reject even the possibility that a single illegal immigrant could be criminally-minded or in any way “undesirable”. To make this suggestion even as a hypothetical is to invite derision and/or ostracism in liberal circles.

Since illegal immigrants are now officially beyond reproach, Democratic politicians have taken the logical next step: they have implemented “sanctuary city” policies in jurisdictions nationwide in order to frustrate the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Just recently, it was reported that the NYPD, acting under orders from Democratic politicians, has refused to comply with federal requests to hand over 1,500 illegal alien criminals for deportation. This is but the tip of the iceberg. “Blue” cities, counties, and states have implemented policies that explicitly discourage cooperation with ICE and the Border Patrol, and which in fact punish such cooperation; they have funded legal aid and other forms of assistance for illegal immigrants attempting to evade deportation; and they have given every encouragement to present and future illegal immigrants, promising them sanctuary from federal authorities.

The purpose of all this policy-making and posturing on the part of Democrats is obvious: it is to obstruct the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws! By contrast, President Trump has never suggested that laws against electoral interference, espionage, or treason should not be enforced – he has simply stated that he is innocent of all of these crimes. Democrats, on the other hand, brazenly admit their contempt for the law, and they flaunt their efforts to stymie its enforcement. 
It is important to clarify the fact that harboring and giving assistance to illegal immigrants is already a crime in itself (see U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1324), but systematic Democratic efforts to subvert, even nullify, our country's borders and immigration laws seem to me like another form of criminality: they represent a conspiracy to obstruct justice much more shocking and elaborate than anything of which Republicans stand accused.

Long ago, I argued that the Department of Justice should prosecute Democratic politicians who openly violate Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The law specifies a penalty of up to 5 years' imprisonment. If these penalties were applied, presumably the Democratic penchant for obstructing justice when it comes to immigration laws would evaporate overnight. That would be good for America, and it would be great for the Democratic Party, the legitimacy of which might thereby be restored.

Until the Justice Department acts, however, the House of Representatives should consider pursuing the political remedy of impeachment against those who undermine our laws. Judges, federal officials, and members of Congress who seek to obstruct the implementation of U.S. immigration laws should be subject to investigation, impeachment, trial in the Senate, and removal from office (or, depending on the circumstances, expulsion from Congress might be more appropriate).

After all, surely the actual crimes of Democrats deserve as much attention as the imaginary crimes of Republicans. That is not asking for much, is it?

The Democratic Party sorely needs a dose of reality, and the only thing that is preventing Republicans from administering it is the fear of a public backlash. The maintenance of our constitutional system of government demands that we act to preserve respect for the law, however. And let's be clear: the law is, and always has been, on our side.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at:

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Connect the Dots, People!

Friends, the stories about the Democratic Party/FBI "collusion" against Trump are getting more and more interesting by the day.  Initially, I was inclined to give the left the benefit of the doubt.  After all, they're so disposed to self-delusion that maybe they all believed their own spin about Trump and Russia...  It wouldn't be the first time they scampered off to Never-Neverland.  Now, though, it appears that information was fed to British spy-for-hire Christopher Steele by a Clinton crony -- and President Obama was kept personally informed about the shenanigans.  The left-wing media's obsession with discrediting Nunes' FISA memo is starting to make sense.  They may be beginning to realize how much jeopardy luminaries like Clinton, Obama, and Holder are in...  I sincerely hope that the deceptions that the FBI and Justice Department engaged in are down to incompetence or wishful-thinking, but it is getting harder and harder to believe that.  This might be one conspiracy theory that turns out to be true!  The sad part is that, even if it could be proven conclusively that prominent figures in the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration criminally conspired to discredit their political adversaries, most liberals wouldn't believe it, and even if they did believe it they wouldn't care.  Stopping Trump is their prime directive.  Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, matters as much to them as destroying Donald J. Trump. 

Read on, and judge for yourself:

Monday, February 5, 2018

Sovereignty and the New (Trumpian) World Order

Friends, my latest article, about the importance of national sovereignty, is currently soaring like an eagle (a Philadelphia Eagle perhaps?) over the virtual pages of American Greatness.  It's not to be missed, because a reassertion of American independence is what lies at the heart of "America First".  Read on...

Sovereignty is Critical, Even in a Cloud-Based World

First and foremost, President Trump stands for (you guessed it) “America First”. This means putting U.S. interests and values ahead of the interests and values of people overseas, and of the internationalist elite. It means insisting on trade deals that are fair and that protect U.S. jobs and technological preeminence. It means avoiding pointless foreign military adventures and spending our money on domestic priorities instead. It means requiring our allies to pay their way and shoulder their share of the burdens of maintaining global peace and security. It means responding vigorously and decisively to any and all challenges to our power and our way of life. Lastly, it means upholding our territorial integrity, including our borders and our immigration laws.

Nationalist conservatives like me have been waiting for years for a conservative Republican President who would give voice to America First principles, and who would pursue an agenda based on U.S. sovereignty and self-respect. Now, in Donald J. Trump, we have such a leader, and not surprisingly the world is aghast. Good, I say! Shake the world order to its foundations. It's about time. Luckily, there are nationalists all over the world who share some of President Trump's goals, both for the international community and for their own countries. This will make it easier to build a new Trumpian world order based on sovereignty. Thankfully, progress has already been made.

There is, however, a wrinkle to sovereignty which many conservatives have not yet considered. We want the world to respect the United States of America, including its territory, its trade interests, and its laws. There is another side to this equation, however, and that is the notion that, while we insist on other countries' respect for our sovereignty, we must also be willing to respect theirs. Sovereignty, after all, is the idea that a nation-state (any nation-state) has the right, within its own territory, to make its own decisions. We cherish this right for ourselves. Thus, to be consistent, we cannot deny it to other countries.

In the past, Americans have been too quick to violate the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of other countries. We have projected military power globally, especially with airstrikes and drone attacks, whenever our interests demanded it, without regard to other countries' rights. We have lectured other nations on the form of government they ought to choose. We have used economic pressure, including sanctions, to punish those who run their internal affairs in a way that conflicts with our interests or values. We have even invaded and occupied other countries for a long list of reasons, but rarely, if ever, because our own national security necessitated it. 

In a hypothetical world that truly upheld the principle of sovereignty, all of these actions would be deeply problematic and would rarely, if ever, be the stated policy of the government of the United States. Rather, we would acquire the habit of minding our own business and holding our tongue when we disagreed with other countries' sovereign decisions – and in so doing we would be setting them a good example, and perhaps deterring them from seeking to interfere in our own internal affairs. If only we had learned this lesson sooner... Would the Russians, for example, ever have tried to manipulate our election process, if we had not first stuck our noses into their flawed democracy, praising dissidents and criticizing the conduct of Russian elections, as indeed we do in so many parts of the world? It is an interesting question.

There are innumerable steps we can take to rebuild trust and confidence in the key principle of national sovereignty worldwide, but as we speak Congress is debating whether to take an important step forward. It is discussing the CLOUD Act, which would create a framework for resolution of disputes between nation-states related to access to electronically-stored information. It may sound like an obscure issue, but it is integral to the future of sovereignty.

The need for something like the CLOUD Act arises in part from a case currently before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has been seeking emails from Microsoft stored in their servers in Ireland. The U.S government has taken the view that, if it desires data that can be accessed in the U.S. via the internet, it need not consider the privacy laws or the sovereignty of the country where the data is actually stored. This, however, is a typically imperious attitude on the part of the U.S. government, which tends to give short shrift to privacy concerns in general (see the Nunes memo for proof!), and which considers the sovereignty of other nation-states to be a secondary concern.

The CLOUD Act would seek to restore the balance in this equation by requiring the U.S. government to seek access to data stored overseas via bilateral agreements and negotiations with the affected sovereign state(s). In this way, both companies' and individuals' rights to privacy would be properly protected (we hope), and the sovereign rights of every country involved would be upheld. Clearly, this is infinitely preferably to a model whereby the U.S. government could blithely reach up into the global computing cloud and snatch whatever information it desired...

Data storage is but one domain in which the question of sovereignty is germane, and in which the U.S. has not taken the sovereignty of other countries especially seriously. Who, then, are the enemies of sovereignty?

Sometimes, they are deep state bureaucrats, who want no niceties of constitutionalism, rule of law, or international comity to interfere with their freedom of action. Sometimes, they are elite internationalists, who see national independence as an obstacle to their utopian striving for a New World Order. Sometimes, they are international capitalists, who prize uniformity and pliability in governments, rather than real self-government.

Whoever the enemies of sovereignty may be, they are, in the end, the enemies of the people of the United States of America, because, as President Trump said in his State of the Union address, we desperately need “reciprocity” in our relations with our countries. We need them to respect our rights and independence, yes, but we need to respect theirs in return. Any other formulation risks our freedoms and our way of life, putting them in the hands of globalists and foreigners. 

America First means, therefore, “we'll do it our way, and you do it yours.” That was what we fought for in 1776, and we should not surrender an inch of those gains today or in the future.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at

You can read a slightly modified version here, on the American Greatness website.

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Let's Follow the Evidence

Happy Superbowl weekend!  In-between wings, pizza, and beer, try to make time for another hallowed American tradition: the pursuit of justice!  It now appears that the FBI and Justice Department undertook serious efforts to undermine the Trump campaign, and they misled a federal judge in the process.  I strongly recommend that you read this excellent analysis:

I'm not sure whether I agree with the author about the proper fate of Rod Rosenstein, but one thing I am sure of is this: the allegations against high officials in the FBI and Justice Department are serious enough that a new special counsel is absolutely necessary (as I have written before).  Whether this trail of malfeasance leads all the way to President Obama and Hillary Clinton...remains to be seen.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Impeachment -- Could It Really Happen?

Friends, the voices on the left calling for impeachment are getting louder and louder, and the mainstream media is only too happy to give these calls an airing.  The sad truth is that all too many people will be suckered by the impeachment narrative...and quite a few of them don't even need a pretext.  They will take Trump down any way they can.

It behooves those of us on the right to take the impeachment business seriously, because I guarantee you that Democrats do.  We need to realistically assess the potential for impeachment, and plan accordingly.  My latest article looks at the possibilities, and, while I conclude that impeachment and removal of the President is highly unlikely, it won't necessarily be smooth sailing...

Thanks to TownHall for publishing this important piece.

Friday, February 2, 2018

This Guy Gets It!

Friends, I have always been a fan of Pat Buchanan, the ORIGINAL nationalist conservative, before nationalism was fashionable or popular.  Buchanan has been vocal in his support for President Trump, and, as a veteran of the Nixon White House, he knows what a media/establishment conspiracy against a Republican President looks like.  I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in this article, and in particular I believe the American people need to confront the fact that "Trump-Russia collusion" is a myth, but the DNC, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration, the FBI, the Justice Department, and various intelligence agencies DID collude to harm the Trump campaign, and later the Trump administration.  Make no mistake, THIS is the real outrage, and we cannot let it go unpunished.  It's no accident that the media is howling about the Nunes memo -- they don't want the lengths to which the left went to undermine Trump ever to be exposed.  "Democracy dies in darkness," WaPo?  It sure does, so we're about to shine a light on the corruption and the underhandedness of your liberal heroes...

Thursday, February 1, 2018

A Case Study in the Need for SCHOOL CHOICE!

Friends, "progressives" are adamant that school choice must be defeated, because they want public schools to have a monopoly as well as the opportunity to indoctrinate America's children in the values of leftism.  What's's working!  Millennials and those even younger are overwhelmingly opposed to President Trump and, just as their educators desire, they think they see a racist, sexist, and/or a homophobe hiding behind every bush.  As conservatives, we must call out ideological bias and brainwashing in the public schools whenever we can -- but we must also promote private schools and homeschooling as alternatives.  Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is doing her best along these lines.  Above all, we mustn't surrender the next generation to the depredations of "social justice warriors"!  Teach your kids sound patriotic values, I say, and don't allow conservatism and Christianity to be mocked or marginalized.  Fight back, as best you can!

Here is a chilling account of the leftist takeover of a Minnesota school district.  Let it be a warning to us all!