Saturday, December 28, 2019

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Friends, as we approach the new year, we should reflect, as always, on what could be better in our lives, and on what is already good, and thus worthy of our thanks and praise.  The truth is that we stand on the shoulders of past generations, almost all of which had to struggle much harder than we do to survive and prosper.  The article below makes a very persuasive case that, for the vast majority of humanity, the decade we are now ending has been the best ever, in a material sense, and the 2020s portend even more progress.  I defy anyone to read it and not feel a sense of renewed optimism about the future of humanity.

On the less savory side, I recommend this article about the FDA's move to raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21.  As you know, I'm not a fan of taking away people's rights, especially when it's done for no better reason than their age.  Expect an article in the near future about this travesty, to which I regret to say many Republicans have contributed.

Friday, December 27, 2019

Will 2019 or 2020 Be Remembered As Trump's Annus Mirabilis?

Friends, every day in Trumpland is better than the last, and, we assume, that formula might hold true for every year as well.  My latest article, soon to grace the electronic pages of Townhall, recaps some of the greatest triumphs for Trumpism in 2019, and it looks forward to some wonderful opportunities in 2020.  I would argue that, in 2016, we put the Left on the ropes.  We had a chance to finish them off politically in 2018, and sadly we blew it.  Winning the House was enough to put the wind back in their sails.  2020, though, could be the coup de grace.  Now, don't get me wrong: the Left and the Democratic Party have tremendous advantages, especially in their domination of the culture, but there is still a realistic path to their permanent marginalization.  Simply put, it's the path of self-marginalization.  We conservatives can't defeat the Democratic Party and its ideological handmaidens, but it and they can defeat themselves.  That process begins with Americans falling in love with Donald Trump all over again in 2020 and reelecting him.  That, in itself, would probably be enough to cause the Dems to lose their marbles.  They already have, you say?  True, but not so much as to delegitimize their cause for the majority of voters.  We need the Democrats to embrace their vindictiveness, their intolerance, their anti-social tendencies, their lionization of anti-state violence, their hostility to capitalism and Christianity, and all those horrifying qualities that make the modern Left so contemptuous.  We need these qualities to be trumpeted day and night by a media that is either cleansed of its bias (unlikely) or so captivated by the spectacle of leftist self-destruction that they can't help but cover one of the greatest news stories of our lifetimes.  And it all begins, as I said, with the reelection of Donald Trump in 2020.  Decision Day is now roughly ten months away.  My resolution for 2020, therefore, will be to make a maximum effort to win the presidential election, and hopefully the House as well, so we can finally put left-wing extremism to bed and make America whole and wholesome again -- or great, if you prefer.  Are you with me???

2019 Was Great; 2020 Ought To Be Greater

2019 was a year of phenomenal accomplishments for President Trump and for the conservative movement.

First and foremost, our economy continued to surge ahead, the stock market soared, and job and salary growth drove unemployment rates lower and the standard of living ever higher. Joe Biden may have tried to make the case in the last Democratic debate that the middle class is getting “killed” in this economy, but only the most starry-eyed of partisans could believe that...uh, malarkey. The state of our economic union has seldom been stronger.

In foreign policy, President Trump resisted the siren song of the warmongers and neocons, avoiding new military entanglements and setting us on the path of eventual withdrawal from Syria, Afghanistan, and West Africa. He continued to extend an olive branch to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, which may or may not be accepted someday. He successfully challenged our NATO allies to shoulder more of the burden of our common defense. Above all, Trump has been true to his word: he has been an “America First” President, who involves the United States in foreign conflicts only when our vital national interests are at stake.

On trade, President Trump achieved major new free trade agreements with Japan and Canada/Mexico, and he stood firm in our trade war with China — the first American President to stand up to China and its trade manipulation in the post-Cold War era. America's willingness to play hard ball on trade even had the important consequence that Mexico stepped up its efforts to combat illegal immigration. A year that began with a tidal wave of irregular migration, much of it from Central America, is ending with many miles of new border fortifications in place, and illegal crossings way down.

President Trump secured record levels of funding for the U.S. military and for veterans, keeping his promise to maintain our national security and to do right by the brave men and women who fight, and have fought, on our behalf. Moreover, Trump added a new branch to the U.S. armed forces for the first time in more than 70 years: the Space Force. America is thus well-positioned to be a leader in both the civilian and military exploitation of space, the “Final Frontier”. Will the United States of the Milky Way someday herald Donald J. Trump as one of its founders? It would be foolish to scoff.

Perhaps most consequentially, in the medium term, President Trump, in cooperation with Mitch McConnell and a solid Republican majority in the Senate, maintained a steady flow of conservative, originalist judges onto the federal bench. This is the Trumpian accomplishment that inflicts the most consternation on liberals, and, not coincidentally, it is the accomplishment that patriots and conservatives should most prize, because it guarantees that those who believe in and cherish our Constitution will have a powerful voice in debates about our country's future for decades to come.

Perversely, we have the Democrats to thank for another potentially salutary development in 2019: the partisan, political, and unpopular impeachment of President Trump. The chances of Trump's removal from office are zero — but the chances that this farce of an impeachment will represent, in effect, a donation-in-kind to Trump's reelection campaign, and to Republicans trying to unseat swing-district Democrats in the House, are substantial. Thus, the albatross of impeachment, hanging around the necks of so-called moderate Democrats, combined with the stupefying weakness of the Democratic field of presidential candidates, may be the necessary preconditions for conservative and Republican wins in 2020 and beyond, portending even more Trumpian progress in the years ahead.

All in all, 2019 was a banner year for President Trump and for all those who believe in the values and goals of his popular, conservative movement. We have much to be thankful for, and ample reason to believe that 2020 will be a year filled with opportunity and optimism for our great country.

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

And here it is at Townhall: 

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

The Christmas Factor

Merry Christmas, to one and all!  It's worth remembering that Christmas, although it has plenty of ancient and modern pagan connotations, is first and foremost a holiday celebrating the birth of Christ, who most Americans acknowledge as their Lord and Savior.  And the beauty of Christianity, I've always felt, is its message of infinite and inclusive forgiveness: God offers everyone, warts and all, redemption and salvation.  That's why we call the message of the New Testament "good news," right?  The birth of Christ is just one of many ways that God tells us, "I value you, and I want to know you better."  So...give and receive presents this Christmas, sure, but remember that the greatest gift of all has been sitting under your proverbial tree all along: God's love.

In other news, the Newsmaker Show featured a guest even more famous than me last week, if you can believe that: Bill O'Reilly!  I've always liked Bill.  He's a voice of reason in these dark times of sensational journalism, although the Left certainly doesn't see it that way.  They went gunning for old Bill, and to a point they got him.  His star has faded, but he's trying to make a comeback, and he's still got plenty of great insights on American politics.  You'll find them in the second half of this program:

Incidentally, I don't agree with 100% of Bill's analysis.  I think Donald Trump was won over to conservatism partly because of the opportunism that Bill describes, yes, but I believe that the "push factor" of the Left's disdain (to put it mildly) has to have played a major role too.  Trump doesn't like criticism -- that much is clear -- and the relentless and scurrilous attacks on him and his family must have been powerful motivation to break completely with liberals and Democrats.  I also disagree with Bill in his assertion that Trump has no core beliefs.  Everyone does, to some extent, and it's obvious that his moral and ideological compass is better suited to the Republican Party than it is to the Democrats.  Above all, Trump is a nationalist -- and nationalism has no place on the Left, unless it's in knee-jerk Russophobia, and, as I've said before, that's mostly for show, as far as I can tell.

Lastly, if you're looking for the perfect last minute Christmas gift for your favorite conservative commentator of all time, might I suggest this incredibly handsome Trump-Space Force-themed Christmas sweater?  I'm usually a medium.  Thanks a million!  😉

Saturday, December 21, 2019

Impeachment Surprise

Friends, I was so impressed by one of my own blog posts this week that I decided to turn it into an article.  It's about the three most surprising developments to emerge from the impeachment charade.  You'll find that I made some minor enhancements to my already stunning analysis, so it's worth a look.  Thanks to the good people at WND for publishing it!

Friday, December 20, 2019

L.A. Story: Sparks Fly Between Warren and Buttigieg at the Democratic Debate

Friends, I know many of you can't stomach the Democratic debates, but you can rely on me to do opposition research for you.  I watched with great interest as the Democrats, by and large, bored the nation and each other, but there were, believe it or not, a few moments of genuine entertainment.  In particular, while the national front-runners, Biden and Sanders, escaped unscathed, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar made a decision to let Mayor Pete Buttigieg have it.  Neither Warren nor Klobuchar has been particularly aggressive in the past, so this is a sign that both are feeling vulnerable, and it's Buttigieg who they seem to regard as the greatest threat to their respective candidacies.  All are competing, one assumes, for the same educated white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who have an outsize influence on American politics.  Buttigieg and Klobuchar are ideologically moderate, while Warren is progressive, which adds to the intrigue.  In any case, I've found it interesting recently that the mainstream media is increasingly focusing on the disdain that many progressives feel for Buttigieg.  My guess is that the progressives don't like his policies and values, while the Bidenites don't like the fact that he's stealing some moderate votes from their guy.  All in all, I thought Buttigieg parried the attacks last night very effectively.  He's a smart guy, and, if the polls are to be believed, he's still in front in Iowa.  Thus, we can't count him out.  It amazes me, though, that the national front-runner, Joe Biden, would be essentially ignored by his competitors in a major debate.  Are they inclined to dismiss him?  That would be a mistake, in my opinion.  The oddsmakers, by the way, now have Biden ahead again, but nowhere close to a cinch.  This race is a long way from over, and a brokered convention is still a decent possibility.

In other news, Jeff Van Drew is officially a Republican!  Welcome to the GOP, Jeff!  What took you so long?  Tell all your friends about us, huh?

And, in news that will bring joy to many a conservative heart, the U.K. Parliament has voted in favor of Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement.  That means...sayonara, E.U.!  Hello, sovereignty.  Hooray!

Thursday, December 19, 2019

The Impeachment Anticlimax

Friends, it's official: Donald J. Trump is only the third U.S. President to be impeached by the House of Representatives.  It's big news, and yet you could be forgiven for saying: "Ho-hum."  We've all seen this coming for a long time.  The only suspense was in the question of whether swing-district Democrats would stay on-side and vote for impeachment, despite the danger it places them in for the 2020 election.  Almost all of them did.  That doesn't mean that Trump is guilty as sin, of course.  It means those vulnerable Democrats are more afraid of a primary opponent picking them off from the left than they are of losing in the general election in November.  For many of them, a vote for impeachment is therefore simply a vote for self-preservation -- the prime directive of politics, if you will...

There are only three surprises, therefore, in this whole mess.  First, the Democratic Party is shrinking.  New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew, formerly a Democrat, is joining the GOP because of his opposition to the articles of impeachment, and because he knows that an opponent of impeachment is not welcome in today's Democratic Party.  That's excellent news!  Let's hope many free-thinkers and independent-minded centrists and liberals will be similarly disgusted by the campaign of persecution and vilification that Democrats have unleashed against our President.

Second, Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii and a candidate for President herself, voted "present" on both articles of impeachment.  Her reasoning was straightforward: she doesn't think a partisan impeachment is in the country's best interests.  Naturally, she's right, but consider the courage it takes to buck the impeachment obsession among Democrats.  Gabbard will be, and in fact already has been, viciously attacked by her fellow Democrats for her refusal to endorse impeachment.  The question that will inevitably arise in the wake of her votes is this: if the Democrats thoroughly alienate her, might she make the journey to the GOP -- or might she run as an independent centrist in 2020?  The latter move would be a game-changer -- not because she'd have a prayer of winning, but because anything that splits the Democratic/left-leaning vote will almost certainly help Donald Trump win re-election.  Tulsi's iconoclasm could therefore have world-historical consequences.  Stay tuned.

Lastly, the big news tonight is that Nancy Pelosi isn't guaranteeing that the House will forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  Is this mere gamesmanship, or is Pelosi seriously considering dispensing with a Senate trial of President Trump?  It's true that Democrats have little to gain from such a trial, but, if there's to be no trial, then what was the point of impeachment in the first place?

And that, I would argue, will be the question on many a leftist's lips going forward.  Impeachment was a purely symbolic win for the Democrats and for the Left -- and it's a win that may well come back to haunt them in 2020.  Just ask Newt Gingrich how well partisan impeachments tend to work out for the party that engineers them...  This isn't over.  Not even close.


And, for good measure, here's some straight talk about the Democrats' baseless claims of "voter suppression":

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

All Roads Lead To...FISA Abuse and the Deep State Coup

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show involves a laser-like focus on the question of the Democrats' and the Obama administration's brazen abuse of the FISA court to spy on and essentially frame Carter Page and, indirectly, President Trump for "Russian collusion".  Brian and I explore where things went off the rails and how to fix the system.  In particular, we ask what role the courts should play in refereeing our political process...which seems increasingly necessarily, as bipartisan consensus breaks down about the rules of the game.

In addition, historically speaking, Brian and I tackle the arrival of the Mayflower at Plymouth Bay, the abolition of slavery in 1865 and the question of how to interpret America's checkered past, the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, the "Christmas Bombing" of North Vietnam in 1972, and the horrors of the Battle of Verdun.  Don't miss a single second!

And, if you have the time and the inclination, read this excellent piece by Attorney General Bill Barr, who eloquently praises those who work in law enforcement and encourages all the rest of us to show them the respect they deserve:

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

A Trump-Pelosi Smackdown!


Friends, you simply must read President Trump's no-holds-barred letter to Nancy Pelosi on the eve of the impeachment vote. Trump eloquently expresses the feelings of so many of his supporters in this muscular missive.  It's classic Trump, and should have every Democrat in Congress shaking in his or her boots:

Well done, and well said, Mr. President!

The Numbers Don't Lie

Friends, President Trump has good reason to be smiling.  Support for impeachment continues to tick down, even in polls that are modeled to give the mainstream media more or less what they want.  In fact, according to the RealClearPolitics average of impeachment polls, opposition now tops support.  The Dems seem determined to press on, despite flagging enthusiasm in the electorate, and we can only say: thank you, dummies!  You've just handed Republicans running for election to the House of Representatives in 2020 a golden opportunity.  Let's see if we can capitalize on it, shall we?

Since your appetite for polls has been whetted, look at these intriguing results from the recent U.K. election.  Young people, sadly, were thoroughly deluded by Corbynism.  That's a bummer, but older voters, who of course vote in much greater numbers, were solidly Tory.  Could a similar pattern emerge in the US in 2020?  Older voters could be turned off by many of the extreme proposals of the current crop of Democrats.  They may not always love Trump, but they're not socialists or PC kooks either.  That gives Trump and Republicans a potential...Trump card?

Lastly, for those of you who can't get enough analysis of that thumping Conservative win in the U.K., take a gander here:

Thanks, But No Thanks, Obama!

Friends, file this away under "amazing, but true".  Former U.S. President Barack Obama is officially on record claiming that women are superior to men.  Read all about it here:

Unfortunately, this kind of casual bigotry has become commonplace on the Left.  Men, white people, Christians, police officers, capitalists -- the list of scumbags, from the liberal perspective, is long, and it's often defined demographically rather than ideologically.  To put it another way, it's pure prejudice that Obama is venting, and he's far from alone.  Can you imagine if any Republican said something similarly disparaging about women???  We'd never hear the end of it.

Lefties, it's time to stop your divisive identity politics and instead judge every man, woman, and child on this planet by their abilities and their character, not their gender, race, religion, or any other such category.  We thought we outgrew your bigotry a long time ago.  Sadly, we were mistaken.

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Tories As Far As The Eye Can See...

Here's a little good cheer for all you Boris Johnson fans out there.  I'm not sure I would agree with the author that political correctness is dead on arrival now, but it certainly has suffered a reversal...

Friday, December 13, 2019

The Final Verdict on Impeachment

Friends, like you I'm sick of hearing about impeachment.  Lindsey Graham said it best: it's a "crock," and the sooner this country moves on, the better.  That being so, the House of Representatives, which sadly Democrats control, does have the "sole Power of Impeachment," and thus, if the House votes to impeach, we have to go through the motions.  My latest article, soon to appear in American Greatness, considers the merits of the Democrats' case through the lens of their two articles of impeachment.  I find the arguments for impeachment severely wanting, as you might imagine.  See if you agree.

The Democrats Want To Impeach President Trump...Because He Made Politics Political

As Democrats in the House of Representatives gird themselves to vote for articles of impeachment against President Trump — potentially booting him out of office and nullifying the results of the 2016 election — Americans should reflect on their audacity. 

Neither of the articles of impeachment references a specific crime in any statute book. Instead, the Democratic leadership has made up two brand new offenses: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”. What they have in common, in addition to their novelty, is their vagueness, which makes them profoundly unsuitable to serve as the grounds for the cancellation of the people's will, as expressed in the last presidential election.

With respect to “abuse of power,” while the media has obsessed over questions of a “quid pro quo” involving pressure on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in return for military aid, the truth is that the substance of the Democrats' charges relates to Trump's motivations, not his actions. Pressuring foreign governments to act in certain ways is absolutely normal in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. It is, therefore, the Democrats' charge, as stated in the article of impeachment, that Trump pressured Ukraine to “announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage,” that really matters. In other words, Trump acted “for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit...[He] compromised the national security of the United States...[and] ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.” That, at the end of the day, is the substance of the Democrats' case against President Trump; he betrayed the country and his oath of office.

The most obvious problem here is that the Democrats have advanced no proof that President Trump's Ukraine policy is or was guided by his desire to win the 2020 election. They consider this notion to be incontestable, since, by process of elimination, they can think of no other reason why anyone would suspect the illustrious Biden family of wrongdoing. This is a long way from proving President Trump's corrupt motivations, however.

But there is a deeper, more fundamental flaw in the Democrats' “abuse of power” case against the President. We should recall that every President, and every member of Congress, is subject to election and reelection. It is seldom the case that any elected official will make important decisions without reference to his or her “personal political” interests. Moreover, whether those decisions, taken in part to advance one's political career, ultimately redound to the benefit or harm of the nation is inherently subjective. 

The Democrats have thus advanced a new standard for impeachment — that no politician should ever behave politically — which is, on its face, impossible to sustain because of its ambiguity and its incompatibility with political reality. How many actions of President Obama, for instance, were derided by Republicans as motivated by “personal political” motives? How many, according to Republicans, “harmed” the nation? Democrats are plunging us into an impeachment maelstrom, wherein any federal officeholder could be, and perhaps will be, impeached on the slightest provocation, if the House of Representatives is ill-disposed towards him or her and suspects that their underlying motivations were “political”. 

The truth is, therefore, that this new, improvised, and ambiguous philosophy of impeachment is itself an “abuse of power.” It's propagators should be punished accordingly, but not through a politicized impeachment process. They should be evicted from office by the voters at the earliest opportunity: in 2020.

The same logic applies with respect to the Democrats' second article of impeachment, which charges President Trump with “obstruction of Congress.” The Democrats allege that Trump has “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its 'sole Power of Impeachment'.” They further allege that “no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate...”

The first flaw in this logic is that Congress could, if it sorely wished to compel the testimony of any administration official, or obtain any relevant document, litigate the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. If, as the Congress claims, it is unconstitutional to deny the Judiciary Committee, say, the testimony of Mike Pompeo or John Bolton vis-a-vis the impeachment inquiry, then why not solicit the federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, to issue an order compelling them to comply with their obligations? That is precisely how the standoff with President Nixon in 1974 was ultimately resolved: the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the Oval Office tapes, and he did so. Congress could pursue the same remedy now, but it refuses, because it is in a headlong rush to impeach President Trump — for what are transparently “personal political” reasons: Congress hates Trump, but it also wants to dispose of impeachment before the start of an election year.

Once again, though, there is a deeper, more fundamental problem with the Democrats' case against President Trump for “obstruction of Congress.” It is absolutely normal for presidents to refuse to turn over documentation to Congress, and to order administration officials not to appear at hearings. This is called “executive privilege.” The executive branch need not accede to every request of Congress for information, because there is a presumption that the proper functioning of the executive requires a degree of privacy and discretion. 

The Judiciary Committee's fig leaf to conceal this gaping hole in their rationale for impeachment is that Trump's non-cooperation with House investigations has been “unprecedented” and “comprehensive” — two more ambiguous standards that, once again, could arguably be applied to any President, in any era, failing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for any reason. A disagreement about the extent of executive privilege, however, should not constitute an impeachable offense. 

Take the “Fast and Furious” scandal of 2010-2014. The Obama administration decided to sell guns to Mexican criminals in order to obtain intelligence on the drug cartels for which some of them worked. The intelligence never materialized, but a Border Patrol agent was killed by one of the guns. Republicans in the House of Representatives understandably wished to obtain testimony and documents from the Obama administration about this travesty, but the Obama Department of Justice refused to comply, citing executive privilege. Ultimately, the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, and a federal court upheld Congress' right to receive the information. 

By the logic of the Democrats now sitting on the Judiciary Committee, this “unprecedented” failure to comply with a Congressional investigation should have been impeachable. The fact that a federal court found that executive privilege did not apply in this case suggests that the actions of the Attorney General, and presumably of the President, were unconstitutional — and yet neither man was impeached. This is because Republicans respect the gravity of impeachment and preferred to let the American people render a verdict on the fitness of President Obama and his Attorney General. Now, though, Trump-hating Democrats prefer to substitute their own judgment for that of the American electorate. They would happily impeach Donald Trump on any pretext, because it is what their infuriated electoral base demands.

In the end, the Democrats in the House of Representatives have invented two novel justifications for the removal of a president from office, and they have crafted these justifications in such a way that they can be used against any president, now and in the future, who rubs Congress the wrong way. By jettisoning Congress's traditional restraint on matters of impeachment, and seeking to remove President Trump for alleged wrongdoing that is not susceptible to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Democrats are opening the floodgates to a wave of “personal political” impeachments that may arise in the decades ahead. Future American politicians may thus view the results of U.S. federal elections not as determinative of the country's leadership, but as mere suggestions from the voters, which may be vetoed by our all-knowing political elite. By no means should this very real abuse of power by House Democrats be tolerated by the American people. 

To save our democracy, therefore, we must defeat the campaign to impeach and remove our 45th President, Donald J. Trump.

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

And here it is at American Greatness: 

Britain Is Right -- Righter Than At Any Time Since the Thatcher Era!

Friends, how sweet it is!!!  The Conservatives under Boris Johnson have triumphed in the UK's general election, earning a sizeable absolute majority in the House of Commons.  This is a repudiation of Corbyn-style socialism, but more importantly it is a vindication of British democracy, in the wake of the decisive vote for Brexit in 2016.  Now, we can count on five years of responsible, Conservative rule in Britain, a strong, close relationship between the US and the UK, leading in all probability to a fantastic new trade deal between our two countries, and, above all, BREXIT!  Britain will imminently leave the European Union.  British sovereignty will be restored and, with any luck, the European Union will be back on its heels, licking its wounds, and scratching its collective head for years to come.  Who knows -- it may even shrivel up and die.  We can only hope.

Well done, Britons!  And well done, Britain!

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

The Road Not Taken

Friends, on this week's Newsmaker Show, Brian and I review the latest developments in the impeachment saga, and we're aghast at the Democrats' tenacity and imbecility.  What else is new?  Brian and I also talk about the high stakes in the upcoming British election (it's tomorrow!!!), and we delve into two fascinating historical topics: the abdication of Britain's King Edward VIII, and Hitler's declaration of war against the United States.

Don't miss it!

In other news, consider this startling revelation: Joe Biden is considering softening the blow that is his presidential candidacy by promising the voters that he would only serve one term!  If you ask me, that's clear evidence that Biden considers himself "past it".  Such talk will, and should, devastate his campaign:

And, for those of you who want closure on New York State's case against ExxonMobil, which I've written about in the past, here it is.  New York lost big.  Will this stop the assault on the energy industry?  Not by a long shot, but it might slow it down a little.

Monday, December 9, 2019

Knives Out...For Swamp Monsters

Friends, today the Inspector General's report came out on FISA abuses and whether or not the investigation into Carter Page and the Trump campaign was a politically-motivated set up.  By and large, the report criticizes individual actions by DOJ and FBI personnel, but it doesn't conclude that the investigation was illegitimate or biased.  That's frankly not a huge surprise.  The DOJ doesn't often hoist itself on its own petard.  What's more interesting -- much more interesting -- is today's official statements from Attorney General Bill Bar and U.S. Attorney John Durham.  Durham is pursuing the criminal investigation into the propriety and the legality of the "spying" on the Trump campaign and the Trump administration relative to "Russia-gate".  If the Trump-Russia affair really was a politically-motivated set up, John Durham is the man who will find that out, and who will punish any wrongdoers.  Well, Barr and Durham are putting us on notice that they won't go along with the IG's whitewash of this scandal.  They believe that there's more to the story, and that the surveillance and investigation of a major party presidential campaign, and then of a president and his advisors, based on the "thinnest" possible evidence of alleged criminal conduct, is troubling.  Moreover, they strongly imply that the headlong rush in the Obama DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc. to believe the conspiratorial nonsense in the Steele Dossier begs the question of whether inflicting damage on Trump was the point all along.  Remember, Barr and Durham didn't need to issue any statement at all.  That Durham did so, and that he specifically called into question the "predication" of the inquisition against Trump, is big news.  It means, in a nutshell, that the forces of good at the DOJ have only begun to fight.  The Dems had better enjoy their impeachment sideshow while they can, therefore, because they may find themselves in the crosshairs very soon.

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Morning in America, Part Deux

Friends, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan famously won re-election in a landslide partly because of the country's economic strength in the wake of the "stagflation" of the 1970s.  The "morning in America" tv ad run by the Reagan-Bush campaign is worth a look:

Steve Cortes makes a strong case that, for essentially the same reasons, it may be "morning in America" again, and the economy may carry Donald Trump over the finish line in 2020 -- or at least it should:

In other news, there's more polling evidence that the Democrats have failed to win Americans over to their argument for impeachment.  Read these polling results carefully.  Note that, as usual, it's adults and registered voters who are polled, not likely voters.  Note that, as usual, the voters' acceptance of any of the Republicans' counter-arguments isn't tested.  Do Americans believe that the Bidens may have committed wrongdoing in Ukraine?  Do they believe that Ukrainian officials may have tried to interfere in the 2016 election?  Do they believe that the Democrats and the Obama administration were motivated by political calculations when they pursued allegations of Russian collusion in 2016 and beyond?  We don't know, because pollsters don't care.  These are non-issues to them.  The only thing they want to know is: can we "get" Donald Trump...  The answer, as usual, is no, you can't!

Friday, December 6, 2019

Donald and Boris: A Winning Combination

Friends, my latest article analyzes President Trump's savvy approach to the recent NATO summit in London, which I believe will go down in history mainly because it did no harm to the electoral prospects of Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, who are poised to win the general election on December 12th.  As you'll see, I believe that a Tory win could open up huge opportunities for Johnson and for Trump...

Thursday, December 5, 2019

Schiff Gets Orwellian

Friends, you'll want to read this story.  It's about the controversy surrounding Adam Schiff's subpoenaing of phone records from his fellow Congressman Devin Nunes, from White House staffers, and even from a journalist.  He included information in the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment report about their private communications!  Somehow the American people need to know that Devin Nunes and Rudy Giuliani had the temerity to talk on the phone!  Incredible.  And a journalist can end up in an impeachment report too, for no better reason than that the chairman of the relevant committee doesn't like the cut of his jib.  This is scary stuff.  As Nunes points out, though, it's part and parcel of the Left's conspiratorial mentality.  The "proof" for their outlandish accusations goes as follows: we know Trump and Giuliani are guilty, because we want them to be, so clearly anyone whoever spoke to them must be in on it.  And we'll destroy them too.  What nonsense!

And here's Rand Paul's take:

This is an interesting update on the energy-unfriendly policies of New York State.  If the author is right, we may be staring much higher energy prices in the face before long.  Maybe that would finally get the attention of Cuomo and state legislators and force them to stop persecuting the energy industry?  Don't hold your breath.

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

A Trump Tsunami Washes Over London?

Friends, with the British general election just days away, and Trump ally Boris Johnson comfortably ahead in the polls, President Trump's visit to London for the NATO summit couldn't come at a more sensitive time.  On this week's Newsmaker Show, Brian and I discuss whether NATO is up to the challenge, and whether Trump will be on his best behavior.  Much is at stake, because a Boris win would seal both Brexit AND, in all likelihood, a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement.  The "special relationship" could be special-er than ever!

Brian and I also talk about the latest impeachment machinations, the many permutations of what could happen after a hypothetical House vote to impeach the President, and the legacy of smog -- once a grave ecological and medical threat, and now a non-issue in most Western countries.

Listen in, and be enlightened!

Sunday, December 1, 2019

China: Pull Yourself Together, and Bow to Trump!

Friends, amidst all the news that doesn't amount to a hill of beans, there's this nugget:

The worst nightmare of the Chinese leadership is that the unrest in Hong Kong will spread like an infection to other parts of their communist domain.  And it could easily happen: many Chinese are frustrated by the lack of freedom the regime permits, and by the intractable social and environmental problems it ignores.  Frankly, I'm surprised that the Chinese bigwigs have allowed things to get so out of hand in Hong Kong.  That they have done so is a testament to how flatfooted they become when their usual techniques to control and manipulate public opinion come up short.  What is clear, though, is that China is sweating, and now is therefore not the time to pick a fight with the world's only superpower and its "America First" President.  China has been playing a long game with Trump, coyly refusing to seal a deal to end our trade war because they seem to assume that time is on their side.  My advice: it isn't, so get busy inking a trade agreement while you still can.  President Trump's signing of the recent pro-Hong Kong bills passed by Congress was a shot across the bow of the Chinese leadership.  The U.S. can do much more to destabilize China if it wishes.  But that isn't our wish, and it certainly isn't Trump's.  We want -- we demand -- trade fairness and reciprocity from China, but in return we will gladly offer China a free hand to resolve its own internal problems.  Think on that, Chicoms.  How many battles do you want to fight simultaneously?  How many PR headaches can one regime endure?  It's time to admit defeat on trade, while perhaps also claiming victory in a broader sense, since truly free trade between the U.S. and China will benefit both sides.  It will also bring stability and trust to the U.S.-China relationship -- a development that would benefit the whole world.  Stop dragging your feet, China!  Bow to the inevitable.  Bow to Trump.

Saturday, November 30, 2019

The Left Has Money To Burn

Friends, Democrats have to be taken seriously in 2020 and beyond.  Not only do they enjoy the immense advantage of billions of dollars' worth of free, positive media attention, thanks to the MSM -- they have also mobilized a robust network of wealthy liberals to fund their campaigns and movements.  We all know that leftists are supposedly offended by "dark money," and they claim to hate the fact that billionaires and plutocrats can "buy" elections, but the truth is that they are enthusiastic practitioners of both of these electoral strategies.  The Left outspent us in 2016.  It massively outspent us in 2018.  It may well do so again in 2020.  And we're not even talking about the hundreds of millions spent by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg to influence our elections.  That's on top of the Super PACs, the campaign committees, etc etc.  Republicans need to mobilize as never before in 2020, if we're to remain competitive.  Among other things, we need to convince wealthy conservatives and moderates that socialism represents an existential threat to their way of life, as it surely does!  Only by bringing them on board can we hold the Left at bay.

Friday, November 29, 2019

Nixon's ONLY Mistake?

Friends, you and I both know that Richard Nixon was a great President.  Buffeted by the counter-culture, vilified by the media, constantly undermined by the liberal-Democratic establishment, he nonetheless achieved tremendous things for our country -- most importantly, he drove a wedge between the Soviet Union and Red China, and, but for that masterstroke, you and I could be speaking Russian right now, or we could be radioactive dust.

Be all that as it may, Nixon wasn't perfect.  He erred, as is human.  No, I'm not talking about Watergate.  Nixon played the game of politics by the rules that were well-established at the time -- and the establishment decided to alter those rules in the middle of the contest, expressly to destroy Nixon.  And so they did.

When I say Nixon was flawed, I'm thinking in particular of his imprudence in expanding the reach and powers of the federal government.  The EPA, the EEOC, Title IX -- all were created under Nixon, and all mushroomed into forces for the imposition of (leftist) governmental dictates on the American people, whose liberties correspondingly contracted.  Nixon's greatest act of apostasy vis-a-vis limited government, however, came in 1971 with the imposition of price and wage controls.  That is the subject of my latest article, along with the parallel that I see to contemporary efforts to regulate prices in the health care system.

Believe me, it pained me to write an article critical of Dick Nixon, unheralded patriot and genius President, but intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that even our heroes can be wrong.  Nixon erred, Reagan erred -- heck, even Trump slips up every once in a while.  Let's learn from their mistakes, shall we?

Note that this article appears on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education.  I'm very honored to be featured there.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Thanksgiving Comes Early, and It's Filled With Newsmaker Stuffing!

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is implicitly thankful, insofar as Brian and I spend a lot of time analyzing the declining fortunes of the Democrats' impeachment inquisition.  It looks like the polling momentum has turned against impeachment and removal, and the Dems are starting to sweat.  Some are even talking about censure as an alternative to impeachment.  If they were smart, they wouldn't have boxed themselves in on impeachment, or raised its specter in the first place...but as we all know Democrats are capable of limitless self-mortification.

Brian and I also talk about the enforceability of Congressional subpoenas, why Democrats may fear a trial in the Senate, who President Obama may prefer as the Democratic candidate in 2020, the latest bouts of intolerance on college campuses, and the ongoing "climate strike."  And in This Week in History we cover the Chinese intervention in the Korean War, the First Crusade in the 11th century, and the legacy of the Alger Hiss trial and American Russophobia.

Don't miss a single second!

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment Movement

Friends, you've already seen how polling on impeachment is going south, from the Democrats' perspective.  Well, lefties aren't dumb.  They know a loser when they see one.  Now, liberals are searching for the exits, and the obvious alternative to impeachment is censure.  It's been embraced already by one Democratic Congresswoman, and now the Chicago Tribune is pushing the idea.  When the mainstream media starts balking at impeachment, and even Adam Schiff starts getting shifty about it, you know the Dems have a problem!  Stay tuned.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

The Bloomberg Factor

Friends, is there any doubt that what Democratic primary voters are pining for is a rich, old, white, male, centrist candidate who only recently became a Democrat?  Uh, yeah.  Good luck with that, Mike.  It amazes me that a well-educated and extremely successful man like Bloomberg could be this naive.  Be that as it may, he's in the race, I believe his only impact will be to draw votes away from Biden and Buttigieg, but mainly Biden.  In other words, he's effectively running to make Elizabeth Warren the Democratic candidate -- so thanks, Mike!  With your help, the Dems will nominate the biggest loser, and Trump might actually put together that landslide that his most fanatical fans have been talking about...  Hooray!

In other news, you heard it here first: the polling is trending against the Democrats' impeachment con job.  As time has gone on, Republicans have successfully muddied the waters with counter-charges, and they've convinced many Americans, especially independents, that the inquiry is a frame-up and the Bidens might just be guilty, after all.  Or, from another perspective, Americans have simply gone back to their partisan corners, as they always do, and half the country wants Trump's head on a platter, while the other half thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  In truth, though, there is a political center in America, and guess what: it's not crazy about impeachment!  Dems -- what's next?

Friday, November 22, 2019

Are the Dems Sleepwalking Off a Cliff?

Friends, my latest article considers the dynamics in the Democratic primary race, and why the timidity of the Democratic candidates may be their party's collective undoing.  See if you agree with my logic...  Enjoy!

Are the Dems Sleepwalking Towards a Brokered Convention?

Wednesday night's subdued Democratic presidential debate confirmed that no candidate is on a clear trajectory to the nomination. What is truly shocking, however, is that none of the top contenders seem to believe that the Democratic nomination is even worth breaking a sweat, or throwing a punch, over. They are politely asking for the support of the voters, yes, but if the answer is “No, thanks” or “Meh,” they are taking it in stride. 

Witness the fact that, aside from Corey Booker's “I thought you might have been high” dig at Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris's vicious but electorally pointless broadside aimed at Tulsi Gabbard, none of the “big guns” could bestir themselves to fire a shot. How such a flock of sheep is supposed to defeat the ultimate alpha male, Donald Trump, is beyond me.

A more interesting question in the medium term, however, is whether any of the Democrats currently (or, in the case of Mike Bloomberg, prospectively) running can defeat the rest of the field. The unsettled and inconsistent nature of the public polling in this cycle — which has alternately given the edge to Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Buttigieg, and occasionally to all or none of the above — has left the pundits and most voters scratching their heads. The candidates' wariness about attacking one another's records and policy proposals, and the dearth of negative ads run so far, has only reinforced the perception of an electoral stalemate.

It is worth recalling that the delegate allotment rules in 2020 on the Democratic side are broadly proportional. That is, any candidate who reaches a 15% threshold of support in a given state, or in a state legislative or Congressional district, will receive a proportionate share of the delegates. The only way for one of these Democratic candidates to receive his or her party's nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, therefore, is to scale up his or her support between now and March (when the lion's share of the delegates will be awarded) to greater than 50%. At the moment, that seems unlikely to occur. For a moderate to triumph, either Biden or Buttigieg would need to get out of the way. For a progressive to triumph, the same could be said of Warren and Sanders. The likelihood of a brokered convention, therefore, where no one wins the nomination on the first ballot, is high and increasing.

What happens then? Under the current set of rules, the Democrats' 758 “automatic delegates” — once known as “superdelegates” — only get to vote starting on the second ballot. That means that party bigwigs like Governors, Congressmen, and Senators would suddenly comprise 16% of the total pool of delegates. Could they throw the nomination to an establishment candidate like Biden? Perhaps, but many other scenarios would become plausible. A long, bloody floor fight could emerge between moderates and liberals. The party could embrace a “dark horse” candidate like Hillary Clinton to foster unity. The party could even fracture ideologically and produce an official candidate and an unofficial, independent challenger — a Pope and an anti-Pope, if you will, as in the Middle Ages. The potential for mischief, betrayal, and self-sabotage is limitless.

Democrats and liberals, who watch much more CNN and MSNBC than is good for them, have a tendency to scoff at the idea that Donald Trump could win reelection in 2020. After all, no one who appears at their sophisticated dinner parties inside the Beltway likes him! Based on that unofficial poll, his goose is cooked.

These Democrats and liberals should get out more. America is a country in which the fundamental strength of the two main parties is in something very close to equilibrium. This simple fact, combined with the Democrats' listlessness, ideological incompatibilities, self-satisfaction, and complacency, makes it not only possible, but likely, that Donald Trump will be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for many years to come.

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

And here it is at Daily Caller: 

In other news, ponder the revelations in this well-written article, which suggests that President Trump's concerns about Ukrainian corruption and interference in U.S. elections are well-founded.  Will there be a Senate trial of President Trump?  If so, we could see some startling twists and turns!  The Bidens, as well as the Obama administration, could effectively be put on trial as well.

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

The Impeachment Special -- Yum!

Friends, don't miss today's impeachment special, courtesy of me and Brian O'Neil -- it's all the impeachment you can eat for just $4.99.  You won't find a better deal in talk radio!

Brian and I cover the impeachment brouhaha in exhaustive detail, including the latest developments in the hearings, Democrats' political strategy, the polls, the Nielsen ratings, and the sheer madness of it all.  In addition, Brian and I preview tonight's all-important Democratic debate, which I fully expect to be the most vicious yet.  Brian and I also talk about Catholic theology, the Russian counterattack at Stalingrad, and the 72nd wedding anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.  Don't miss it!

Monday, November 18, 2019

More Waddy = More Power!

Friends, check out my recent letter to the editor of the Albany Times-Union, in which I come to the defense of natural gas as a source of power and heat for New Yorkers.  New York politicians and the "green energy" crowd seem determined to drive us back into the Stone Age, but I'm not having it!

In other news, check out this spirited analysis of the impeachment fiasco.  Note the low Nielsen ratings for the impeachment hearings.  I'm not surprised.  Surely, only the true believers could sustain interest in the latest farcical attempt to undermine President Trump.  Everyone with sense knows these hearings are a waste of time.  As the article points out, minimal public interest means it's unlikely the polling numbers for impeachment and removal will change much -- and in fact I believe it's more likely that support for these radical steps will gradually soften.  Mark my words!  Impeachment is going nowhere, and I give the House only a 50/50 chance of passing a single article of impeachment, at the end of the day.

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Democracy in the Balance

Friends, no doubt you've noticed that, ever since the 2016 election, many leftists have acted as though they live in a fascist dictatorship, and they've called for "resistance" against the horrors of Trumpism.  Attorney General Bill Barr recently gave a speech to the Federalist Society in which he called the Left on its own inflammatory rhetoric.  Liberals like to accuse Trump of violating democratic norms, and once in a while he does, but the truth is that leftists seem prepared to burn our democracy down to the ground if it means they can take Trump with it.  They have been crystal clear that they regard this President, and virtually everything he does and says, as illegitimate.  How can a democracy prosper, or even survive, under such circumstances?  Barr is right: the comprehensive "sabotage" and the campaign of slander waged against this administration is unprecedented, it's deeply unpatriotic, it's hysterical, and it's immensely dangerous, since it provides a precedent for disrespecting and undermining almost any electoral outcome that one deems unacceptable.  Not only the presidency is under attack, but other key elements of our constitutional system, including the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College.  Naturally, for his trouble, Barr will be vilified, but I say he should be cheered for having the courage to state some hard truths to the American people.

In other news, Senators are starting to speculate on what a trial of President Trump in the Senate might look like.  By no means is it certain that a trial will happen, or that the House will vote on or pass articles of impeachment...but it's still an amusing parlor game to imagine how Senators might tackle the high drama of a Trump trial.

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Dollars and Sense -- The Worst Pun Ever?

Friends, my latest article considers what stance President Trump should take on fiscal matters heading into the 2020 election.  We know where the Democratic candidate will stand: he/she will promise the moon and the stars to American voters -- a veritable bonanza of new federal spending.  See what you make of my advice on how Trump should respond...

President Trump: In 2020, Embrace Fiscal Responsibility, Not Tax Cuts

As Democratic presidential candidates stumble over one another in a headlong rush towards socialism and fiscal insanity — promising trillions in new spending on everything from child care, health care, and higher education for all, to “the Green New Deal,” to slavery reparations — President Trump faces a critical choice. 
He could try to match the Democrats and promise more expansive government programs; he could instead offer to put more money in Americans' pockets through tax cuts; or he could do neither and stress the theme of fiscal responsibility, holding the line on new spending and tax cuts in favor of reducing the federal deficit.

Although the last choice is the least exciting, especially in an election year when people expect to be offered a cornucopia of “free stuff,” it is the right choice for America, especially given the fiscal challenges we currently face. This year our deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the first time since the Great Recession. Now is not the time, therefore, to be spending wildly or to be slashing government revenues via tax cuts. Now is the time to tighten our belts and return government finances to long-term sustainability, especially given the fact that the aging of the U.S. population means that massive spending obligations are coming soon.

To date, President Trump's philosophy on federal spending has been ambiguous. On one hand, he touts fiscal responsibility and a commitment to reducing federal deficits. On the other hand, Trump has cut taxes and simultaneously presided over a massive increase in spending. Often, he boasts about his administration's “investments” in Republican priorities like immigration enforcement and defense. Arguably, Trump is playing the Democrats' own game, parroting their view that a politician's virtuosity and even his humanity can be measured by his willingness to spend other people's money.

Lately, there is some evidence that Trump's advisers want to double down on this high spending/low taxation strategy for currying favor with voters. Although the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act already lowered middle class taxes — albeit modestly — now the Trump administration is considering further reductions to the marginal tax rates that apply to the middle class. The idea seems to be to establish a 15% rate that will kick in for those who may now be paying 22-24%.

No one likes income taxes or the IRS, but the American people ought to be skeptical of such proposals. Already, our deficit has inched up to almost 5% of GDP, a level that economists believe to be unsustainable. Trump's previous tax cuts were close to revenue neutral, but cuts on the scale now being proposed could be far more serious. Keep in mind the broader context: Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare spending is all forecast to surge in the coming years. So far, inflation and interest rates have remained low, and the U.S. has been able to service its huge national debt with relative ease. If we were to depart totally from the path of fiscal responsibility, however, as Trump's advisers suggest, we have to wonder whether the wheels could come off of not just federal finances, but the overall U.S. economy. In that case, a negative feedback loop could lead to a severe recession, or even a depression.

President Trump should also consider the political optics of advocating for further tax cuts in an election year in which the eventual Democratic candidate will be promising the American people a laundry list of new entitlements, as well as tax breaks. Does Trump really want to compete with the Democrats for the job of Benefactor-in-Chief, or would he be better off drawing a sharp contrast with free-spending liberals? The Democratic candidate will be offering a vision of unprecedented growth in governmental power, unbridled hostility to job creators, and almost limitless federal spending. Presumably, it would be easy to argue in response that Democratic promises are empty and/or reckless. If Trump is making irresponsible claims and promises of his own, though, about either spending or taxation, his appeal as the economic voice of reason could be blunted. A socialist could then enter the White House by the back door.

My advice, President Trump, is to be honest with the American people. Tell them that, at this point in our history, huge new spending commitments are neither affordable nor prudent. In addition, given the future expenses that are already locked in, especially for Social Security and Medicare, it's clear that further tax cuts would be irresponsible.

If President Trump makes this his economic message going into 2020, he can frame the election as one of realism versus socialist fanaticism.

That sounds to me like an election that Trump can win. In fact, it sounds like an election in which only a fool would vote against him.

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

And here it is at American Greatness: