Wednesday, January 30, 2019

The Mueller Circus Comes to Town

Friends, it's beginning to look like the Mueller team is getting mighty frustrated.  Unable to pin "collusion" on anyone, they've decided to charge everyone and his brother his "lying" and some version of obstruction of justice.  Gee, I wonder how many Clintonites ever "lied" for their boss?  And how many will ever be prosecuted?  We'll have to wait and see...

On this week's Newsmaker Show with Brian O'Neil, we talk about the Roger Stone arrest, the politics of the shutdown and the wall negotiations, the potential independent presidential candidacy of Howard Schultz, the historical importance of assassinations, the parallels between President Andrew Jackson and President Donald Trump, and more!  Don't miss it.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Is Trump Just What the Doctor Ordered for Ailing NATO?

Friends, President Trump is not alone in questioning the relevance of NATO in the post-Cold War era, when Europe faces no serious external threat, and European governments insist on cutting their military budgets to the bone.  The truth is that, if NATO has a future, it lies in a growing commitment to multilateralism.  That is, NATO shouldn't be a blank check given to Europe by the United States -- it should be a joint effort to promote peace and security, WITHOUT unnecessarily antagonizing other global actors, like Russia.  Trump is often seen as anti-NATO, but I see it differently: Trump is giving NATO one last chance to redefine itself in a way that will work for everyone.  Read all about it in my latest article, soon to appear in the Daily Caller:

President Trump: NATO's White Knight?

Consumers of the drivel produced by the mainstream media will be well aware that, according to the New York Times, President Trump allegedly discussed with aides the possibility and ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. They will also be aware that President Trump has harshly criticized some of our NATO allies, mainly for under-funding their own militaries.

All this feeds into a narrative that the media has been fabricating since before the 2016 election: Donald J. Trump is a wrecking ball laying waste to the international order. He threatens America's traditional allies while empowering our enemies. No one is safe, in short, with such an impulsive “man-child” at the helm of the ship of state.

The party line in the mainstream media, however, could not be further from the truth.

For one thing, the press and the “experts” ignore the fact that NATO has for years been on shaky ground. Our European allies have consistently allowed their military capacities to whither, while they ink agreements that make Europe dependent on Russia for its energy supplies. NATO nonetheless persisted as an “alliance” propped up entirely by U.S. military power (and massive U.S. defense expenditures), and by the alleged strength of U.S. resolve to defend our allies against any threat.
President Obama's ignominious retreat when the government of Syria crossed his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons, however, exposed the threadbare nature of U.S. resolve, as did Obama's retreat from Iraq. Not surprisingly, Russia has increasingly viewed NATO as a paper tiger. Putin's aggression in Ukraine (as well as his interference in U.S. elections) was an expression of his contempt for NATO, and for the West in general. 

Truthfully, though, NATO had always, since its inception in 1949, been hamstrung by a fatal flaw: many doubted that the United States, if pushed to the wall, would ever sacrifice the blood of its precious soldiers to defend tiny nations in Europe from attack. Luckily, the Soviets never tested our sincerity during the Cold War. Neither has Putin in recent years, despite the palpable weakness of America's strategic posture in the Obama years.

And then along came President Donald Trump. 

Trump unceremoniously lambasted the governments of a long list of NATO member states for entrusting their security to an alliance to which they contribute virtually nothing. He demanded that NATO members take seriously their stated commitment to spend two percent of their respective GDPs on defense. He declared his support for the alliance, but he asked our NATO partners to get serious about sharing the burdens of maintaining international peace and security.

The international press and the diplomatic elite naturally expressed outrage. NATO leaders simply don't speak to one another in these frank terms! Surely, they declared, Trump's criticism of other NATO countries would be interpreted by Russia and other potential adversaries as a signal of dissension and irresolution. These enemies would be emboldened, and the world would be increasingly unstable and unsafe.

The truth, however, is that, although the leaders of other NATO countries were clearly irritated by Trump's straight talk, they responded to his criticism precisely as he would have wished: by upping their military expenditures. The logic and justice of Trump's argument, that NATO is a reciprocal alliance binding all member states to contribute to the common defense, could not but bring shame on the heads of European leaders who, under the unimaginative, internationalist leadership of President Obama, had grown used to taking advantage of American strategic lethargy. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently announced, the fruits of Europe's Trump-induced shame are no less than an extra $100 billion in defense spending. That's a pretty impressive achievement for a blundering hothead, no?

The strength of an alliance, of course, cannot be measured purely in dollar terms. What is more significant about NATO in the Age of Trump is this: no longer is the organization a unilateral expression of America's commitment to defend Europe from whatever may happen to threaten it. Increasingly, under Trump, NATO is taking shape as a multilateral alliance designed to achieve collective security through the sharing of burdens and the coordination of vast, polyglot military forces. To put it another way, NATO will no longer serve as a mere propaganda arm of the Pentagon – it will become again what it was during its glory days in the midst of the Cold War: a vigorous coalition of great powers dedicated to deterring aggression and keeping the peace.

Put yourself in Russia's shoes. Which NATO would you prefer to pick a fight with: a polite, self-satisfied, ossified organization totally reliant on American military power, with the proviso that such power will be sparingly used by timid and casualty-averse U.S. leaders...or a dynamic military and diplomatic partnership backed by the robust armed forces of dozens of powerful states, eminently capable of defending themselves with or without the assistance of the United States? The question answers itself.

The next time the media informs you that President Trump is “undermining” NATO and the international order, therefore, enjoy a good laugh at their expense. 

NATO was dying on the vine under the languid leadership of Barack Obama and his European cronies. Donald Trump, by contrast, has breathed new life and purpose into the organization, giving it a chance at relevancy in the 21st century. 
We are safer now, without a doubt, than we were when President Trump took office.

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 in the Daily Caller: 

In other news, please spare a moment to take pity on poor Tom Brokaw, who is a solid liberal, but not quite PC enough for this intolerant day and age.  He dared to attempt some constructive criticism of American Hispanics, some of whom are indeed closed off in a "multicultural" ghetto, and who liberals encourage to spurn assimilation.  Brokaw had a point, and as usual the Left doesn't want to hear it.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Mueller Time is Fast Approaching

Friends, the tea leaves are starting to align, and we may finally be approaching the end of Robert Mueller's inquiry into "Trump-Russia collusion".  By and large, that's good news, since this nonsense has been hanging over our Fearless Leader for almost two whole years.  My sense is that there's very little indication that Mueller has found anything close to "collusion" between the Trump camp and Russia.  In fact, his vindictive attacks on Trump associates like Roger Stone are more a sign of weakness than of strength.  That doesn't mean Trump is out of the woods, however.  Mueller could still try to make a case that Trump has lied or obstructed justice.  Both crimes can be opportunistically defined.  Luckily, whatever Mueller and his liberal prosecutors whip up will be sifted through the filter of the acting Attorney General, or possibly Attorney General Barr, if he's confirmed in time.  I suspect that Mueller, in the end, won't be capable of delivering the goods, and "the goods" means ending the Trump presidency, which has always been the goal of the Dems and the deep state.

This poll about the Mueller investigation bears out my thinking.  Whatever Mueller produces, many Americans will suspect his motives and will doubt his fairness.  That's all to the good for President Trump.

In other news, the deficit continues to be alarmingly high.  President Trump's stewardship of the economy has been good overall, but his free-spending ways, combined with his tax cut, have put us in a tight spot, fiscally speaking.  Of course, voting for Democrats is no answer: they'll spend money like it's going out of style.  My concern is...what happens if we have a recession?  Deficits are already high -- how much higher can they go???

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Does Mueller Wear a Six-Shooter on His Belt?

Friends, in yet another sign that the Mueller probe has become a bad parody of justice, a platoon of heavily-armed FBI agents recently arrested Roger Stone at his Florida home.  The drama was wholly unnecessary but -- lo and behold! -- CNN was there to catch it on camera.  In fact, Roger Stone's alleged crimes implicate President Trump and members of the Trump campaign in no crime whatsoever, but the purpose of Mueller's actions seems, as usual, to be to showcase the most tangential links between Trump and Russia so as to damage the Trump presidency.  What fictions will Mueller spin in his final report?  Stay tuned.

You may also wish to read this depressing article about the American Psychological Association's recent conclusions regarding masculinity.  Here's the brief version: gender is all in our heads, but masculinity is still dangerous and abnormal.  Figure that one out.  Please!  Remember when the APA thought that homosexuality was a mental illness?  Well, those days are long gone...but now being a man -- or at least a manly man -- is seen as similarly cuckoo.  My esteem for the psychological profession has reached a new low.

Saturday, January 26, 2019

America's Shutdown Fever Finally Breaks

Friends, I share the disappointment expressed by many conservative commentators re: President Trump's decision to end the shutdown without a guarantee of wall funding.  In my view, as I've stated previously, Democrats were beginning to fragment on the issue of whether to negotiate with Trump.  Some were saying it would be necessary to meet him halfway, or to make a deal to protect the Dreamers.  By ending the shutdown, Trump has handed the Dems a propaganda coup, and he has sacrificed much of his leverage.

Having said all that, the shutdown may resume in three weeks, if the Democrats refuse to play ball.  In addition, Trump has other cards to play.  Take note of this article in which Sarah Sanders makes the very good point that, if Trump builds the wall by declaring a "national emergency," the courts may well uphold his decision, and Democrats would get nothing in return for the wall, because they would have been sidelined.  She makes a lot of sense, no?  Perhaps, just perhaps, the Dems will behave rationally for a change, and we will see a deal by mid-February.

In other news, the Trump administration has begun returning Central Americans to Mexico, where they will remain until their (bogus) asylum claims can be processed.  This is a major development, in many ways MORE important than the wall.  Under current law, it is very hard to deport asylum seekers, and by the time their cases are considered they may already have been living in the U.S. for years.  If this new policy survives court challenges, it will be a game changer.  It will take away the incentive for these "migrants" to make the journey in the first place.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Now Kids Are Fair Game?

Friends, there aren't many better examples of the sheer viciousness of the modern Left (and the liberal media) than the way it treated Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann -- for having the gall to stand there and smile as a Native American activist banged a drum aggressively in his face.  The rush to judgement on these white, male, Catholic teens was something to behold, and we can take some satisfaction in the fact that at least a few leftist commentators have backtracked on their criticism.  Nonetheless, this episode should set off alarm bells regarding how reflexively venomous -- and racist! -- the Left has become. 

We talk about all this on this week's Newsmaker Show, as well as Brexit, the "big government" political legacy of the Lyndon Johnson administration, and more!

You may also want to take a peek at this superb piece of investigative journalism that examines one of the most successful con jobs in history: the Democrats' effort to frame the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia.

Monday, January 21, 2019

The Remaining Remainers Remain Recalcitrant

Friends, Brexit hangs in the balance in the United Kingdom, and so does democracy itself.  Will the people's voice be respected by the politicians, or will they try to sabotage Brexit at the 11th hour?  We will find out soon.

Here's my perspective on how Britain should move forward on Brexit, coming soon to the virtual pages of American Greatness:

The Time Has Come for Britain to Embrace a No-Deal Brexit

Ever since June 2016, when the British people voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union, establishment British politicians have been grappling with the consequences. With some notable exceptions, they have conceded that the will of the people would have to be respected, and some form of Brexit would indeed take place. Few politicians, and few ordinary Britons, however, understood or agreed on what precisely “Brexit” would mean. That Britain would formally leave the EU was fairly obvious, but the extent of the ties that would remain, and the degree to which Britain would still obey EU laws and regulations, was anything but clear. Not surprisingly, given the vehemence with which many Britons opposed Brexit, the “Remainers” worked hard from the start to manipulate the terms of Britain's divorce from the EU so that the practical impact of Brexit would be minimal. Some would like to stay in the EU customs union, for example, and allow for the free movement of EU and British citizens back and forth – calling into question whether “Brexit” would have much real meaning at all.

Now the British people are approaching crunch time: the deadline for Britain to leave the EU is March 29th. Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, struck a deal with EU authorities that would have scripted Britain's departure from the organization and kept most economic ties in place. That solution, though, was roundly rejected by Parliament, which is divided between those who want a fuller, more robust version of Brexit – something akin to a definitive break – and those who see even Theresa May's demi-Brexit as going too far. This large faction in Parliament would like to cancel Brexit altogether, or submit the matter to the British electorate anew, so that voters would have the option of reversing course. In addition to the pro- and anti-Brexit forces, some British party leaders are simply playing political games: they seek to destabilize Theresa May's Conservative government and precipitate a general election, although it is by no means clear that such an election would ease Britain's path to (or away from) Brexit in any way, shape, or form.

In a nutshell, the British political establishment appears hopelessly divided, dysfunctional, and paralyzed. Generating a workable plan for Brexit that will pass Parliament appears next to impossible. Under these circumstances, politicians usually fudge the issue: they decide not to decide (just yet) and give themselves an extension. This is indeed an option for Britain and the EU, but both would have to agree on the terms and extent of any Brexit postponement, and none of this would make sense if the deadlock in Parliament seemed irresolvable. Extending the deadline for Brexit would also be a profound humiliation to both the British government and the EU. They would be admitting that, after almost three years of negotiating, they are unable to move forward.

From Theresa May's perspective, however, the alternative to a postponement – a “no-deal Brexit,” which would abruptly sever all ties between Britain and the EU – may appear even worse. Economists, legal experts, journalists, and others have been warning for months that a no-deal Brexit would be deeply painful and disruptive, especially to trade. The status of Britons living in Europe, and Europeans living in Britain, would be jeopardized. The border between the Republic of Ireland and British Northern Ireland would once again become meaningful, and border crossings and cross-border trade would have to be, or might have to be, policed by customs officials and border authorities. Remainers have worked hard to convince the British people that such a “hard” Brexit would produce “chaos” and misery on an apocalyptic scale. Mrs. May, as a theoretical opponent of Brexit herself, may be inclined to give credence to these doomsday scenarios.

The truth, however, is that anti-Brexit propaganda has consistently attempted to play on the fears of British voters, and it frequently has exaggerated the ill-effects that a vote for Brexit, or actual Brexit, would produce. By and large, the British economy has performed well since 2016, despite the massive uncertainties surrounding how Brexit will be implemented. Indeed, the confusion regarding Brexit is arguably more harmful economically than Brexit itself. 

Remainers like to argue that the Brexit vote should be overturned, because some of the claims made by Brexit supporters were inaccurate. The same can be said about the claims of Remainers, however, both at the time of the 2016 referendum and today. No election takes place in a context of perfect honesty and intellectual clarity. 

The best and most balanced assessment of the situation Britain finds itself in today, then, is this: despite the hyperbolic rhetoric on both sides of the debate, nothing truly terrible has befallen the British people because they voted to leave the EU, and if they do leave the EU, even under no-deal conditions, in March, life will go on, and Britain will still be strong, prosperous, and free. Some suspect, and I am one of them, that it may even be stronger, more prosperous, and certainly it will be freer and more fully sovereign than it has been in decades.

The one option that any right-thinking person must reject is another referendum. The British people have spoken on the issue of Brexit, and it is high time for their political leadership to accept the legitimacy of the people's views. The attitude that elections are only valid when they lead to congenial results, which appears to be spreading throughout the West, and which certainly has a firm grip on the hard-left of the U.S. Democratic Party, is not one that can be reconciled with the integrity of the democratic process and the values that undergird it. Britons cannot be asked by their elitist, internationalist political masters to keep voting on Brexit until they get it “right”. Theresa May should disabuse the Remainers of this fantasy once and for all.

Increasingly, therefore, there is only one path forward for Britain that respects the democratic rights of her people: a no-deal Brexit. Whatever temporary “chaos” such a move generates, Britons and Europeans should have confidence that, ultimately, life outside the purview of EU bureaucrats is possible – as we in America can attest – and in truth it isn't so bad.

I strongly endorse the concept of a no-deal Brexit, and I look forward to welcoming the people of Britain into the family of truly sovereign nations, where in truth they have always belonged.

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.

Here is the American Greatness version: 

And, if you have a moment, you may wish to read this superb essay on the rank intolerance that prevails in today's artistic, literary, and entertainment communities: 

Consider also this recent Washington Post editorial.  The Left is trying to create a narrative indicating that Trump and Republicans are "losing" the shutdown, and that Democrats wouldn't even think of giving in to any of the President's demands.  This editorial suggests otherwise.  It suggests that some on the Left are willing to negotiate, and in the end Trump may just get his wall... 

Thursday, January 17, 2019

What To Do About Steve King?

Friends, the Republican Party and the conservative movement face a dilemma in dealing with outspoken "nationalists" like Steve King and Donald Trump.  Sometimes their rhetoric is widely condemned as "racist".  That's par for the course, and often these allegations are trumped up nonsense, but sometimes Republicans have to disassociate themselves from obviously offensive views.  The latest case is that of Steve King and his comments to the New York Times. (Note to self: NEVER, EVER talk to the New York Times.)  In my latest article, you'll find my take on how Republicans and conservatives should and shouldn't respond.

Stripping Rep. Steve King of His Committee Assignments is a Mistake

Iowa Congressman Steve King has been widely and rightly condemned for his recent remark questioning the offensiveness of “white supremacy”, “white nationalism”, and “Western Civilization”. From the context of his statement, and based on his strong denials, we can interpolate that King is not a white supremacist, nor did he intend to express support for white supremacism, but his wording in the fateful New York Times interview was nonetheless careless and, well, offensive. 
The GOP is right, therefore, to distance itself from this sort of racist rhetoric – rhetoric that frankly flourishes on the Left, where it invariably involves the demonization of white people and attracts little media interest. The hypocrisy of Democrats and liberals notwithstanding, the Republican Party is a party that believes in equality under the law, human rights, respect, and non-racialism. Indeed, one of the chief problems with King's statement was the fact that he grouped “white supremacy” and “Western Civilization” together. As an instructor in Western Civilization classes and as the author of a Western Civilization textbook, I know as well as anyone that Western Civ is not defined by white domination and racism; on the contrary, the true legacy of the West is our increasing acceptance of the dignity and rights of all people, regardless of race and other factors. King apparently needs to be reminded of this, and so the GOP should do its best to enlighten him.

Had Republicans in Congress merely lent their support to the motion to rebuke Rep. King for his offensive comments, they would have been in the right. Had the Republican National Committee or the Iowa Republican Party decided to expel King, that too would have been a legitimate, if extreme, course of action, consistent with the freedom of speech and freedom of association which Republicans have a right to exercise.

Unfortunately, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who leads Republicans in the House of Representatives, decided to take a different approach. He stripped Steve King of his committee assignments – specifically, his positions on the House Judiciary Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Small Business Committee. I strongly disagree with this decision, just as I strongly disagree with King's wrongheaded interpretation of Western values.

Late in 2018, House Republicans decided to deny two re-elected Republican members of Congress any committee assignments. These Congressmen were Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of California. The reason was that both men are under indictment for serious crimes. Now Kevin McCarthy has apparently decided to expand the list of reasons why a Republican Congressman can be kicked out of all committees. Steve King is to suffer the same fate – not because he committed a crime, not because he is accused of committing a crime, but simply because he said something that many people deem to be offensive. 

This is a terrible precedent to set for the obvious reason: who shall decide in future which remarks are sufficiently offensive to merit similar punishment? McCarthy has set House Republicans on a slippery slope. Undoubtedly there will be more calls – mainly from the Left – to strip more Republicans, and perhaps eventually most or even all of them, of their committee assignments, or even to expel them from Congress, because of statements that certain people find objectionable. We must not forget that, for many leftists, every Republican and every Trump supporter is presumed to be a racist. McCarthy's policy is thus not sustainable, and nor is it right, for two key reasons.

First, no American should be punished simply for stating his views, no matter how offensive they may be. The growing view, especially in academia, that offensive speech is something that must be suppressed, and that voices outside the (left-leaning) mainstream should be silenced, is not one to which Republicans should subscribe. Moreover, if they choose to placate the advocates of intolerance in one case, they will find that the demands for further concessions will be unending. One day, Republicans and conservatives could find themselves kneeling like supplicants at the high altar of political correctness, as Democrats already do, and that would be a tragedy and a national disgrace.

The second and even more important reason why Rep. King's committee assignments should be restored is that service on such committees is a vital function of Congressional representatives. Whether you like Steve King or not, the people of northwestern Iowa elected and re-elected him to the United States Congress. They did so because they wanted him to represent them, not only in votes on the floor of the House, but in Congressional committees, where many of the most important decisions are made about the future of our country. Arguably, therefore, stripping King of his committee assignments punishes his constituents, who are guilty of no offense whatsoever, more effectively than it punishes King himself. This is a travesty and an abrogation of the basic principles of American democracy. Simply put, Steve King may or may not be a Republican in good standing, but he is a United States Congressman, and he should receive all the powers and perquisites attached to that high office.

Let us hope that Minority Leader McCarthy will reconsider his penchant for shunning those members of his caucus who embarrass the GOP. There are other, better ways to reproach and discipline a member of Congress than by expelling him or her from all committees. 

When the House Republicans come to their senses, they should offer Reps. Collins, Hunter, and King committee assignments consonant with their experience and interests. After all, the democratic rights of the people who elected these representatives in the first place are on the line.

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.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Radio Free Waddy is Back on the Air...Bringing Hope to Millions

Friends, our great leader is hard at work -- battling Congressional Democrats, fighting for trade fairness, and even ordering from Mickey D's in legendary fashion -- and now that I'm back in town, Brian O'Neil and I have been able to discourse on all the latest developments.  This week's Newsmaker interview focuses on the fraught politics of Brexit, the Democratic Party's flirtation with socialism and its cynical appeals to class warfare, and the ongoing media/FBI/Congressional/deep state inquisition against President Trump.  We also cover the denouement of the Cold War. Don't miss it!

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

The Neverending Shutdown?

Friends, I'm back from my travels, and I can report one thing for sure: it's warmer in the Caribbean than it is in Western New York.  Arguably, though, this is old news, so let's move on to current events...

The shutdown grinds on.  This isn't a big surprise, because the Democrats seem determined to prevent President Trump from scoring a political victory on the Wall.  In the short term, it appears that more Americans blame Trump for the shutdown than blame Congressional Democrats -- hardly shocking, given the media's anti-Trump hysterics.  Support for the Wall is up, however, and Trump shows no sign of cracking.  Good! 

You may have heard that some conservatives are urging President Trump to declare an emergency at the border, and appropriate funds for wall construction based on his emergency powers.  That would invite a lawsuit, naturally, but since everything Trump does or says incurs the wrath of leftist lawyers, the idea has merit and should be strongly considered.  Would a future Democratic President potentially misuse his own emergency powers?  You bet!  But he/she will do that anyway, so in my view Trump should do whatever it takes to build the Wall.  The ideal, of course, is a legislative solution.  We needn't give up on Plan A, therefore, at least not yet.

Below you'll find a Washington insider's perspective on how the shutdown may make streamlining government and firing useless bureaucrats somewhat easier.  His arguments are persuasive.  Assuming Trump's poll numbers hold reasonably firm -- and so far the movement has been slight -- there may be some very good (unanticipated) reasons to keep the shutdown going.  I say: stay the course, Mr. President!

Friday, January 4, 2019

Bon Voyage -- To Me!

Friends, next week I'll be on a fact-finding mission to the Caribbean, so I'll be mighty scarce.  My hope is that the Democrats won't impeach and remove President Trump in my absence -- although they're awfully pro-active and motivated, so we can't be 100% sure.  I'll chance it, though.  Stay strong, stay skeptical, and I look forward to more great conversations upon my triumphant return...

Thursday, January 3, 2019

The Democrats: Sore Losers

Friends, my latest article focuses on the growing tendency among Democrats to reject the integrity of the democratic process.  The logical corollary is that Democrats and liberals increasingly reject the outcome of any election that they lose -- and they accuse Republicans of "cheating".  We've only seen the beginnings of this strategy, I fear.  The race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020, and the presidential race itself, will be replete with accusations of "voter suppression", "foreign meddling", "collusion", and general cheating, if my hunch is right.  It could get ugly, folks!  Gird yourselves.

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil is a humdinger!  We cover the biggest political story of 2018...and the likely top stories of 2019.  Get a sneak peek while you can!  In addition, Brian and I have an extensive discussion of the dynamics of the Cold War, in light of our country's recent decision to leave the battlefield in Syria.

In other news, here's some great reporting on how we got here, and by "here" I mean to a place where there is a special prosecutor investigating non-existent Trump-Russia collusion, and half the country thinks the President of the United States is a traitor.  Spoiler alert: it ain't Trump's fault!

Lastly, here's more detail on the sexual harassment allegations swirling around the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign.  Sounds to me like recruiting feminists to any presidential campaign is a recipe for disaster!  Even Bernie isn't safe from their ravages, for heaven's sake.  Then again, maybe the real message in all this is far simpler: the New York Times just doesn't care for Bernie Sanders.  That wouldn't come as a shock.  The Times undoubtedly wants an electable moderate to become the Democratic candidate in 2020.

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

1 + 1 = Racism!!!

Friends, as you are doubtless aware, "racism" isn't what it used to be.  Today's snowflakes are capable of discovering racism and other "isms" in the most unlikely places.  Take this article, for example.  It's about the drive to re-conceptualize mathematics in South Africa (and elsewhere) to make it less...Eurocentric and phallocentric.  The basic thrust of the proposed changes is to make social justice propaganda an integral part of mathematics education.  Great idea, right?  And this is just the beginning!

And here's a very intriguing analysis of the genesis of American anger.  Where does our modern sense of self-righteousness, and our contempt for opposing views, come from?  This article provides some perceptive answers.  It's written with a leftist bias (of course), but it acknowledges that anger flourishes, and is actively cultivated, on the Left and on the right.  Are YOU angry?  If the answer is yes, then that's not necessarily bad, but you should be aware that there are many ruthless people out there who WANT you to be angry, and who intend to profit from it.