Saturday, July 28, 2018

Piercing the Illusions of the Eco-Left

Friends, I recommend to you this excellent article, courtesy of FoxNews. Unlike the author, I don't doubt the reality of climate change, but his broader argument is a very important one: environmentalist rhetoric should not be confused with environmentalist action. Many politicians, celebrities, and corporate leaders talk a good game when it comes to climate change, carbon emissions, alternative energy, etc. The truth, however, is that, for all the blather, global emissions keep rising, and it is largely developing countries like China that are driving the trend. Emissions are modestly down in most developed countries, but that isn't because of alternative energy. It's largely because of fracking (which environmentalists hate), and the increased use of natural gas instead of oil and coal. The bottom line is that all the much-ballyhooed climate change agreements and pledges that you've heard about have produced real world consequences that are negligible in terms of the big picture of climate change. And, as this article points out, some of the countries that are the most holier-than-thou about protecting the planet are emitting more and more carbon. In the end, I predict the following: there will be climate change, and we will survive it. In addition, you can rely on the fact that few people will ever be willing to compromise their quality of life in the service of abstract ideals. Again, talk is cheap. Never forget that.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

The China Factor: "Foreign Meddling" Reconsidered

Friends, it annoys me so end that the Left, which so often takes the side of foreigners over Americans, has twisted the issue of "foreign meddling" into one that casts Trump and Republicans as lacking patriotism.  What cheek!  My latest article shows how foreign meddling in elections is a very widespread phenomenon, and the laser-like media and Democratic focus on Russia-related meddling is self-serving and deliberately misleading.  In particular, I draw attention to one way in which China is engaging in egregious election meddling as we speak -- and the media and the Left couldn't care less...  Read all about it:

Worried About “Foreign Meddling”? Then Throw the Book at China!

Every day for the past 18 months, we have had to endure legions of news reporters and liberal lawmakers appearing on our television screens, pretending to deplore “Russian meddling” in America's 2016 presidential election. Never far below the surface of this tedious moralizing is the implication that (evil) Trump wouldn't be President if it weren't for Russia's skulduggery, and, since he surely worked hand in glove with the Russians all along, he ought to be booted from office.

The truth, as many conservatives have pointed out, is that a) Russia's “meddling” was irrelevant to the central dynamics of the 2016 election, which was lost by Hillary Clinton – a truly dreadful candidate – more than it was won by Donald Trump, and b) “foreign meddling” in American elections, and American meddling in foreign elections, is nothing new or particularly outrageous. Indeed, every election is imperfect, and yet, despite these imperfections, those who truly believe in democracy readily acknowledge that, broadly speaking, electoral results still encapsulate the people's will. This is why Richard Nixon, despite his well-founded concerns about election rigging in 1960, never contested John F. Kennedy's victory. He foresaw that this would lead to endless electoral hair-splitting and a field day for lawyers, all of which would damage the country he so loved. He thus swallowed his pride and waited his turn to run again. If only Democrats were as patriotic and far-sighted!

“Foreign meddling”, in any case, comes in many forms, and it is by no means the Russians who are solely, or even primarily, responsible for it. Aggressive “influence campaigns,” of the sort waged by Russia in 2016, were waged by the United States throughout the Cold War, and we still “meddle” from time to time. The Obama administration, for instance, gave money to a group that campaigned against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's 2015 election. Moreover, the U.S. actively intervenes in Iraqi and Afghani politics. Influence campaigns are also standard operating procedure for China, Israel, Iran, and various wealthy Persian Gulf oil states.

It's not merely governments that “meddle”. Foreign citizens may be forbidden from donating to U.S. political campaigns directly, but their (paid) lobbyists in this country are not. Foreign lobbyists gave millions to candidates in 2016. (The Russians, by contrast, laid out only $100,000 for their famous Facebook ads.) The top recipient? Hillary Clinton, of course. Senator Chuck Schumer was third. The enormous foreign contributions made to the Clinton Foundation are also a matter of record – some of them made during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – and it is not hard to imagine that these overseas donors may have expected some backscratching in return for their largess. 

Corporate donations to political campaigns and Super PACs represent another way for foreigners to “meddle” in U.S. elections. Corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to organizations promoting political causes, rather than specific candidates, and, lest we forget, the stockholders of these corporations are very often foreigners, espousing foreign, or “globalist”, agendas. Evidence is also mounting that wealthy foreigners contribute to Super PACs directly. Safeguards to prevent this are pitifully weak.

Meanwhile, the most potent form of “foreign meddling” in the 2016 election had nothing to do with financial contributions or hacking. It came in the form of repeated statements by foreign leaders that were designed to undercut the Trump campaign and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of victory. British Prime Minister David Cameron labeled Trump's call to restrict Muslim immigration “divisive, stupid, and wrong”. French President Hollande said Trump sometimes made him want to “retch”. China's finance minister called Trump's trade proposals “irrational”. Mexico's president baldly compared Trump to Hitler and Mussolini. Clinton, by contrast, earned international plaudits. The Italian Prime Minister declared he was “rooting” for her. 

All of these statements, naturally, were intended to influence public opinion, including the views of American voters, and they represented a departure from historical norms of non-interference. Was this “foreign meddling” roundly condemned by liberals and the news media? Of course not. Prior to Donald Trump's historic victory in 2016, concerns about “foreign meddling” were decidedly muted, because it was assumed that the “right woman for the job” would win.

Now, though, China is presenting us with a new and arguably even more provocative form of election meddling. Given its timing, and given Democrats' incessant hysterical warnings about the existential threat to American democracy posed by foreign interference, you would expect that these pillars of patriotism and rectitude would be screaming bloody murder. But no – as usual, it's only Trump-related and Russia-related “meddling” that merits their attention.

And how is China interfering with our democracy? In the most naked, shameless manner possible. In response to President Trump's tariffs against China, designed to combat Chinese trade manipulation and theft of U.S. intellectual property, China has retaliated with tariffs of its own. Those tariffs, however, have been targeted against states and regions that supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Texas and Louisiana top the list of affected states. Rural areas have also been hard hit, with China slapping steep tariffs on soybeans, dairy products, and meat. Rural voters, lest we forget, supported Trump in 2016 by record-setting margins. In other words, China's tariffs are designed to punish Trump's key constituents. In essence, they are designed to blackmail Trump voters into abandoning their support for Trump, and by extension for his economic and trade policies. China's actions are therefore a direct and purposeful form of interference in U.S. elections and in our system of governance.

Are Democrats (and Trump-decrying Republicans) reacting to this assault on American democracy and the integrity of our elections with sanctions, threats, and general outrage? Not a bit of it. They are blaming the whole debacle on President Trump, who had the temerity to challenge China's dishonest trade practices in the first place! In other words, given the choice of siding with American consumers and U.S. workers, or with the foreign countries and interests taking advantage of them, these two-faced politicians are choosing to undercut the President of the United States and give aid and comfort to our trade adversaries! Incredible.

The sad part is that we know that President Trump's hardball trade tactics can work. They did with South Korea, and just recently they produced a deal (in principle) with the E.U. Trump's aggressive pursuit of fair trade works best, however, when Americans project an image of unity. If instead our adversaries believe that Trump will be forced to knuckle under to a fractious Congress or a critical media, they will refuse to budge in trade talks. Trump's domestic enemies know this. They know their carping is undermining America's negotiating position and exacerbating our “trade wars,” and they don't care. They want Trump, and America, to fail.

The Left and the media's utter indifference to China's attempt to manipulate American voters proves, as nothing else could, that their phony outrage over “Russian meddling” is exactly that: empty, opportunistic, and undoubtedly temporary. Our political elites have stood by for years as foreign interests exercised more and more control over American democracy, and as U.S. economic independence was forfeited. They expressed not a whit of concern about these trends before 2016. Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States, however, these political charlatans are pursuing an utterly hypocritical strategy: in disputes between the Trump administration and foreign leaders and interests, they invariably side with the foreigners; simultaneously, they falsely accuse Russia and Trump of conspiring to rig an American election, and they thus elevate a contrived discourse about “foreign meddling” to the top of the public agenda.

It is time to call these hucksters on their deceit and duplicity. Either the media and Democrats should start taking all forms of foreign meddling seriously, even when they are designed to hurt Trump and Republicans, or they should cease their moralizing altogether. As things stand now, the disconnect between the feigned, chest-thumping patriotism and the actual globalist pusillanimity and treachery of these scoundrels is shocking to behold.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here's the American Greatness version: 

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Is the Left Coming for...You?

Yes, I know -- the title to this post is a tad provocative, but it's a germane question, I feel.  After all, the Left trumpets itself as "the Resistance" these days, and the Resistance (in German-occupied France) was a terrorist organization that killed thousands, mostly Frenchmen.  It was also a group staffed primarily with loyal Stalinists.  I kid you not.  And these are the people the modern Left is embracing as heroes.  The bigger point is this: if Trump=Hitler, and that's the clear implication of much leftist propaganda these days, then surely ANY means of resisting Trump, including violence against his supporters, is justified...  Thus far, most leftists, thankfully, have been either too dense or too cowardly to follow through on the logic of their own radicalism, but how long will this last?  Steve Scalise and Rand Paul know that liberal rage can break out into violence most unexpectedly.  All I'm saying is that we conservatives need to be on our guard, because we are HATED with a passion, and hatred can lead to violence.  Be prepared to duck, at the very least!

This is just one of many topics I discussed with Brian O'Neil on the latest Newsmaker show. We also covered the threat posed (or not posed) by Russia, the Mueller investigation, the wider phenomenon of "foreign meddling" in elections, Governor Cuomo's political prospects on the national stage, the rise of "democratic socialism", and attitudes to the death penalty.  Don't miss it!

Monday, July 23, 2018

There They Go Again...

Friends, the NFL seems to have a death wish.  It's clear that last year their inaction in response to players' decision to kneel (or otherwise to show disrespect) during the national anthem did considerable damage to the League's image and brand.  It seemed that they had wised up during the off-season and had instituted a new policy that would punish players who knelt on the field.  But not so fast.  Now, under pressure from the players' union, the League is backtracking, and the policy has been put on hold.  What will happen when you tune into the first NFL games of the season?  Nothing good -- that's my guess.  Even if the NFL stuck to its new policy, given how feckless it's been on the issue, I would be shocked if some players didn't kneel regardless.  Would the League actually punish, even suspend, black players for "protesting racism"?  It's almost inconceivable in this PC age.  The sad thing is that this whole kerfuffle could have been avoided, had the NFL acted with some backbone when the first player took a knee.  President Trump is right -- that player should have been tossed out on his ear.  That would have been that.  As it is, the NFL will have to twist in the wind for another season, victimized by its own cowardice.  C'est la vie.

In other news, President Trump is considering revoking the security clearances of people like ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who called Trump's press conference with Russian President Putin "treasonous".  I say: do it!  It's one thing to criticize an administration you don't like, but men like Brennan have been running a sophisticated campaign to paint the President of the United States as a foreign agent -- without any solid evidence of collusion or "treason" whatsoever.  President Obama gave "aid and comfort" to many traditional enemies of the United States, and he was never accused of a capital crime by responsible voices on the right.  Instead he was accused of being a bad President.  That's not enough for the likes of Brennan, however.  They insist on blackening the name of President Trump and trashing the reputation of American democracy to anyone who will listen.  Brennan has, in my view, ceased to be a patriotic servant of the American people.  He has become instead an enemy of the American people and of our government.  Let him spew his venom all he likes, but he should not have a security clearance, period.

Friday, July 20, 2018

The Russian Steamroller Has Run Out of Gas

Friends, as the media features wall-to-wall coverage of supposed Trump-Russia collusion, and waxes poetic on the perils of Russian imperialism and tyranny, it pays to remind ourselves just how far Russia has fallen since the heady days of Soviet hegemony. In my view, Russia should be taken seriously.  It should be respected, and its limited remaining sphere of influence ought to be avoided by Westerners.  All this is mere prudence, but it doesn't change the fact that Russia today is utterly incapable of world domination.  It can't control U.S. elections, it can't win a low-grade conflict in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, and it can't even begin to compete with the West on an economic or technological plane.  The Left's narrative that the Russians are at the gates is therefore pure drivel.  It should be seen as such, it must be seen as such, before our Russophobic hysteria drives us to provoke Russia in a truly regrettable and counterproductive way.  Russia is not our friend, it's true, but neither must Russia be our enemy.  I, for one, am glad that President Trump has extended the olive branch of peace to President Putin, and I hope that, despite the media's best efforts, he succeeds in improving relations with the Russian Federation.

My latest article addresses Russia's relationship with the West, and the degree to which it is being distorted and misrepresented by leftist propaganda.  Read all about it at

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Darth Putin Ensnares Hapless Trump? Hardly!

Friends, the Left gets more and more addled by its Russophobic hysterics every day.  You'd think it was 1962 and we were at DEFCON 2!  Is Vladimir Putin really controlling the animatronic movements of President Trump-bot by remote control???  Find out in this week's Newsmaker interview, featuring yours truly and Brian O'Neil.  We get to the bottom of it.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

All the (Fake) News That's Fit to Print

Friends, it can be hard to figure why the Left hates Trump as much as it does.  Their loathing seems off the scale.  We must keep in mind, though, that an extraordinary constellation of propaganda and "fake news" undergirds this Trump-hatred.  The drumbeat repetition of anti-Trump narratives, including the Russia collusion conspiracy theory, makes an impression, drip by drip.  To me, the miracle isn't that so many people hate Trump -- it's that, given the establishment's universal detestation of the man, he still retains the loyalty and respect of a high percentage of ordinary folks.  That's a testament to his fortitude and ingenuity, yes, but also to the reduced influence of the traditional media.  If everyone was watching CNN, as they once were, we'd be truly lost.

This story puts into perspective the media's anti-Trump obsession.  Imagine if you were getting your "news" from these people...  How warped would your worldview be?  Thus, have some sympathy for the poor slobs on the Left.  Most of them mean well, but they've been thoroughly duped.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

There but for the Grace of God go you or I...

Patriots, conservatives, and even students of human nature will want to pay close attention to the downfall of John Schnatter, a.k.a. "Papa John" of pizza fame.  Not so long ago Schnatter committed the barely-pardonable sin of remarking that the NFL's brand had been harmed, and his pizza sales had fallen, because of the controversy over NFL players' decision to kneel during the national anthem.  Schnatter was, of course, only stating the obvious, but that didn't stop the NFL from terminating its relationship with Papa John's, even after Schnatter had resigned as CEO.

All of that is small potatoes compared to the recent dust-up.  Schnatter, in a marketing conference call, unwisely used the n-word, but not to denigrate blacks -- he was using it to illustrate the profound changes that have occurred in people's racial attitudes.  He also referred to past instances of lynching targeting "African-Americans" -- not in a way that implied his approval, but his disapproval.  Nonetheless, some people participating in the call were offended, and...Schnatter is toast.  Papa John's has severed all ties with him, and it is attempting to erase even his memory at the company (he's the founder, inconveniently).  But that's not all.  Not happy with destroying the image and career of a man not even accused of racism, but mere insensitivity, the Left is demanding that Papa John's, even after its disavowal of Schnatter, must be punished as a company.  Numerous NFL and Major League Baseball teams are ending their relationships with the pizza chain.  Every single employee of Papa John's, it seems, must suffer for John Schnatter's sins.  Wow!

And what is Schnatter's principal sin?  Being white, naturally.  The n-word is offensive, yes, but let's not kid ourselves -- black people use it often.  Comedians use it.  Leftist social critics use it.  Assuming you have the right pedigree, you can use the word without undue risk to your reputation or your livelihood.  Schnatter, though, is a white male who appears to harbor some glimmerings of patriotism (thus his insistence that NFL players should stand for the anthem), and he may even be -- gulp! -- a conservative or a Republican.  Clearly, he must be destroyed at all costs.

Why does any of this matter?  Personally, I don't know John Schnatter from Adam, nor have I so much as sampled his pizza.  That isn't the point.  The point is that a man, even a powerful one, can these days be scorched simply for failing to abide by PC values and injunctions with sufficient care and thoroughness.  As a white male, if you step out of line, even for an instant, the leftist horde is done with you.  Have you performed a litany of worthy deeds throughout your life?  Who cares.  Are you, 99% of the time, subservient and reverent towards the twin gods of Diversity and Inclusion?  Not good enough!  The Left demands total compliance -- or annihilation!

The other reason that these stories matter is fairly obvious: Schnatter's fate will intimidate, as it is meant to, other corporate leaders into towing the line of leftist orthodoxy.  If we allow this sort of nonsense to continue, well, we can kiss the idea of winning the "culture wars" good bye, because our fate is sealed.

Friends, the inmates are running the asylum.  Don't put a foot wrong -- that's my advice, because the PC crowd is taking no prisoners, and you and I are already on their naughty list.  Watch out!  And, if you can (without taking direct fire from the PC goon squad), fight back!

Read more about the Schnatter saga here:

Thursday, July 12, 2018

To Kavanaugh, Or Not To Kavanaugh? That Is The Question

Friends, my latest article addresses conservative criticism of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's latest pick for the Supreme Court.  I believe this criticism to be overblown, as I explain in my latest article, coming soon to American Greatness.  Will Kavanaugh be the firebrand reactionary zealot that you and I pine for?  That I can't guarantee, but I do believe he'll be a distinct improvement on Anthony Kennedy, and that's my personal litmus test.  Kavanaugh passes!  My hope, though, is that the Supreme Court is only starting its journey down the Golden Road of Trumpism.  Time will tell.
Brett Kavanaugh Isn't Defined By The Swamp That Spawned Him

Conservatives all across America are asking themselves: who is Brett Kavanaugh, and what kind of Supreme Court Justice will he make? The answers are myriad and mostly speculative.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for FoxNews, has written an article about why he is “deeply disappointed” in President Trump's decision to nominate Kavanaugh. While some of his concerns may be valid, Napolitano's main argument – that Kavanaugh is tainted by his associations with the DC swamp – makes little sense.

First, Napolitano defines the swamp as “the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington.” Conveniently, therefore, Napolitano excludes the media from the swamp, although surely the Washington establishment relies first and foremost on its “enablers” in the mainstream media to keep it in power. Napolitano himself, as a FoxNews analyst, could be accused of swampiness. My first reaction to Napolitano's denigration of Kavanaugh as a swamp monster, therefore, is: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Furthermore, we should understand that “the swamp” is ill-defined. As Napolitano admits, it seems never to include anyone we like. For conservatives, an outspoken liberal politician or a Trump-hating bureaucrat or FBI agent is a creature of the swamp, surely, but a right-minded old hand in Washington is instead a “seasoned veteran”. This just means that “the swamp” is a largely pejorative concept, and often those who employ it are engaged in plain, old-fashioned name-calling.

Now, if there is any objective, literal meaning to “the swamp”, it describes a Washington elite that is interconnected, resistant to meaningful change, and corruptly uses governmental power and federal largesse to protect and reward allies and punish and undermine perceived enemies. DC politicians vary in the degree to which they might be identified with such swampy behaviors and attitudes, but one thing is clear: both parties are equally befouled. 

We must further acknowledge that there are very few people in positions of influence in our government who are utterly divorced from the swamp, or who could be described as moral purists or true political newcomers. President Trump appointed several DC outsiders to his cabinet, yes, but even he – the swamp monster's mot-feared natural predator – had to add many “seasoned veterans” to his administration. Without them, and their experience, the Executive Branch simply could not function. Does this mean that Trump's criticism of the swamp is disingenuous? Not necessarily, because, from a practical standpoint, no swamp can be drained unless you enter it first...

The most important point is this: long-time Washington ties, and even the occasional lapse into swampy attitudes and behavior, do not and should not exclude a politician, or a judge, from recruitment into President Trump's campaign to reinvigorate America. The over-hasty denigration of political figures who are deeply embedded in the Washington establishment risks the loss of their knowledge, influence, and experience, and it neglects the obvious fact that, while they can be powerful enemies when provoked, they can also be invaluable allies when harnessed to a noble cause. Mitch McConnell, for example, may be about as swampy and sly as a Senator can get, but he has also overseen a successful strategy to prevent the judiciary from falling into liberal hands. We owe him a huge debt of thanks. I, for one, will gladly hold my nose and overlook the vile emanations of the swamp to achieve historic victories like these.

Judge Napolitano goes on in his article to suggest that Kavanaugh will be a disappointment as a Supreme Court Justice because he is infected with the “values” and the “culture” of the swamp. Kavanaugh believes, for instance, that Americans' rights to privacy should be weighed against the imperative of national security. He believes that the President should be shielded from some types of lawsuits while in office. Napolitano interprets these views to mean that Kavanaugh will support an unchecked, potentially totalitarian “deep state”. Napolitano even suggests that Kavanaugh is somehow complicit in deep state efforts to undermine Trump himself, but all of this is a gross over-reading of the few signals we presently have regarding Kavanaugh's mindset and his legal and constitutional philosophy. Simply put, Kavanaugh has never ruled on most truly momentous issues, nor has he enunciated clear views on most of them. We should suspend judgment, therefore. 

We also shouldn't assume that, because Kavanaugh sometimes associates with swamp monsters, he is captive to their “values”. Does Judge Napolitano, who teaches classes at Brooklyn Law School, accept and practice, for this reason, the radical PC “values” of academia? Of course not. It would be silly to suggest that he does. No one is defined exclusively by the company he keeps.

It might also be prudent to consider the possibility that, if Kavanaugh is in any sense a swamp monster, with a predilection for establishment “culture”, the experience of the next few weeks and months, when large parts of the swamp will be working furiously to malign and destroy him, may cure him definitively of his swamp fever. Who can say? In any case, Kavanaugh's “values”, and the degree to which they may change over the years, are largely unknowable. His decisions, on the other hand, are a matter of record, as are his partisan political leanings, and these ought to make conservatives pleased and confident.

In the end, the fact that President Trump has nominated an experienced, mildly swampy jurist with connections to the Bushes should not concern conservatives and lovers of liberty as much as Napolitano suggests. Every objective reading of Kavanaugh's record has tended to indicate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice considerably to the right of Anthony Kennedy, who he will replace. It is hard, therefore, to see his elevation to the Court as anything but a win.

Conservatives, therefore, should support Kavanaugh without misgivings. They should also keep in mind that, if they would have preferred a more forceful, fervent conservative judge like Amy Coney Barrett, she may yet get her chance. 

When it comes to Trumpifying the judiciary, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are a good start, but arguably the best is yet to come.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here is the American Greatness version: 

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Boris Strikes Back!

Friends, the WaddyIsRight empire is once again pulsating with life, now that I'm back from a brief hiatus in southern California.  I plan to reflect on the current social/political state of that region -- my ancestral homeland -- in the coming days, but in the meantime I notched another Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil, and you won't want to miss it.  This week we naturally discussed President Trump's selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  I give my analysis of Kavanaugh, and more importantly I rate his chances of confirmation as, well, very high.  America, therefore, is about to get Trumpier (like it or not)!  We also discussed the bombshell developments in Britain, where Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a dynamic oddball, has resigned in protest of what he perceives as Prime Minister Theresa May's lukewarm pursuit of Brexit: British exit from the E.U.  For those who believe in national sovereignty (and if you follow this blog you probably do), the fate of Brexit is critical.  Could Theresa May be on the way out?  Could the Conservative Party redefine itself along nationalist lines?  Stay tuned, and enjoy the broadcast:

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Happy Birthday, USA!

Best wishes for a highly enjoyable Independence Day for you and yours!  We certainly are lucky to live in the USA, although much work remains to be done to make America as great as it can be...  We're getting there!

When you get a chance, listen to my latest interview with Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480.  We discussed the wave of anti-ICE sentiment, the Mexican presidential election, and perhaps most importantly the golden opportunity we now have to reshape the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

A Supremely Delightful 4th of July

Friends, let me be the first to wish all of you a very happy July 4th, and to wish the U.S. of A. the very happiest of birthdays! This Independence Day, we have more than usual to be thankful for, because, if President Trump follows the Neil Gorsuch playbook, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is about to get a whole lot greater...  Sure, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was okay, but we can do better, and we will, I feel sure, very soon.  My latest article discusses what a historic opportunity this Supreme Court pick is.  America will never be the same, and the lefties are...apoplectic.  Clearly we're doing something right!

A Supreme Triumph for Trump Supporters

When thoughtful conservatives and Republicans voted for Donald Trump in 2016, they did so in part because they knew that he would be among the nation's most consequential Presidents, regardless of his occasional lapses in decorum or the steep learning curve he might face. This is because conservatives knew that the next President would be called on to fill the huge backlog of judicial vacancies that accumulated during the last years of Barack Obama's presidency. In addition, many other federal judges were approaching retirement age, so it stood to reason that the opportunity to remold the judiciary would be vast. Most importantly, given conservatives' narrow 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, whomever was elected in 2016 would literally decide, on his or her own, the country's fate, at least in a legal and constitutional sense. The stakes could not have been higher.

Trump won, and the American Right breathed a collective sigh of relief. One could even argue that Donald Trump, by slaying the Clintonian dragon, saved American democracy. Why? Because, if Hillary had prevailed, she would have appointed judges who would have interpreted the law and the Constitution in a typically leftist fashion – that is, they would have disregarded precedent, twisted the Founders' words, and conjured new legal standards out of thin air, if need be, to achieve their goals of “social justice” and leftist primacy. With a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, future elections in America would arguably have been irrelevant, because no conservative electoral success would have changed the fact that the country would have been ruled by black-robed radicals. These power-grabbing judges would have quickly quashed any conservative law or policy (or election result?) that offended them. That would have been the end of liberty and government by the people. Trump saved us from this miserable fate, and that is to his eternal credit. 

In his first foray into judicial nominations, Trump choose Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court – a fantastic pick in every sense: ideologically, in terms of his youth (and thus his staying power on the Court), and because of his professionalism and poise. 

Happily, Trump's positive influence on the Supreme Court won't end there. With his latest pick, Trump can actually reshape the Court, as opposed to merely maintaining its long-standing moderately conservative bent. He can meaningfully reorient the federal judiciary towards fidelity to the law and the Constitution, as well as a literal and historically-sound interpretation of their meaning. We have an opportunity, therefore, to overturn the innumerable legal travesties that have emerged from the Court over the last several decades. 

Time and again, the Court has expanded the authority of the federal government, especially the judiciary, and flouted the will of the people and their elected representatives. It has further eroded the powers of the states, and dictated the legalization and normalization of immorality in ways that would have appalled the men who wrote the laws, clauses, and amendments from which the Courts' rulings allegedly stem. We simply cannot overstate the importance of reversing this execrable trend and promoting a renaissance of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Ultimately, the health, well-being, and even the survival of our Republic depends on it. Assuming that President Trump eventually gets to appoint even one more additional Supreme Court Justice – say, a replacement for one of the four liberal Justices still serving – then the reorientation of the Court would become not only profound but practically irreversible.

The Left appears to understand the dangers it faces. A recent article in The Daily Beast entitled “Anthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America” (!) confirms this. The author, Michael Tomasky, acknowledges the extremely slim odds of the Senate rejecting Trump's nominee. As he observes, the playbook for judicial confirmation has long been clear: assuming a judge says as little as possible, and nothing of substance, during his or her confirmation hearings, Senate approval is a foregone conclusion. Moderate Senators, including red-state Democrats, will have no obvious reason to deny the President his constitutional prerogative of selecting judges for the high court. Ergo, barring a dramatic error on the part of the administration or Trump's nominee, the Supreme Court will soon include two “Trump conservatives”. Hallelujah!

One further result may be, as Tomasky perceives, that the Left's crusade to remove Donald Trump from office may definitively falter. Why? Because it is difficult, if not fanciful, to imagine that the House of Representatives would vote to impeach him, and two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict and thus eject him from the Oval Office. In all likelihood, such machinations would only stand a chance of success if special counsel Mueller was aided in his efforts by the Supreme Court itself. Just as unfavorable Supreme Court decisions ultimately spelled the end of Richard Nixon's presidency, so too could a stern rebuke from a conservative-leaning high court be the (theoretical) deathblow to President Trump. If Anthony Kennedy is replaced with a hard-line conservative, however, that scenario will become even less likely than it is now. In short, it appears that anti-impeachment forces will for the foreseeable future enjoy clear control of two of the three branches of government (the presidency and the judiciary), and they may well maintain their dominance in the third, the Congress, if the much-ballyhooed “blue wave” fails to crest. Thus, the slow-moving coup against President Trump may peter out into nothingness. Good!

Tomasky forecasts other ramifications of an additional Trump appointee on the Supreme Court, including the overturning of Roe v.Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, meaning that the sensitive issues of abortion and gay marriage would once again be addressed by the individual states as they see fit. To liberals, this is the stuff of the End of Days: they insist that we must have total national conformity with leftist dogma on these issues, or else we will be plunged into abject medieval darkness. For those who remember what life was like in the pre-Roe and pre-Obergefell eras, however, the future will not look so dire. In fact, it could look decidedly brighter, depending on one's moral compass.

All this can be credited to President Trump, yes, and to Justice Kennedy, who wisely chose to retire at this specific moment. More accurately, though, it is the American people who deserve plaudits and gratitude at this seminal moment in our country's history. It is they, after all, who elected Donald Trump as our President in 2016 (against the “advice” of the mainstream media), and it is therefore they who saved us from legal/constitutional oblivion, and created the potential for a rebirth and rediscovery of the first principles and foundations of our Republic.

For years, conservatives have only dared to hope for one thing from the Supreme Court: that it would cease to do further damage to our nation, its system of government, and to American society and morals. Now, we can hope for more: we can aspire to point the U.S. in a new direction, one of our (and the Founders') choosing. It is, without a doubt, an exciting and triumphant moment.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker program on WLEA 1480.

And here's the Townhall version: