Saturday, June 29, 2019

And Then There Were...Twenty?

Friends, as is my duty as part of the conservative commentariat, I watched every minute of the Democratic primary debates.  I found the experience very educational, and I will share some of my thoughts with you today.

First, I was struck by the fact that not a single Democrat expressed any concern at the scale of illegal immigration currently taking place, with the abuse of our asylum laws, or with the fact that poor people are now coming not just from Central America, but from all over the world, to worm their way into this country.  The Dems were overwhelmingly concerned not to stop illegal immigration, but to facilitate it and to make the illegals feel more welcome.  They all pledged to give illegal immigrants free health care.  This Democratic acceptance (I won't say "advocacy", because the Left is a little more subtle than that) of open borders could be a hugely important wedge issue that could drive moderates and independents towards Trump in 2020.  Of course, there's also socialism, abortion-on-demand, climate extremism, reparations fantasies, and a host of other issues on which the Democrats have become downright scary.

I was also struck by the field's seeming lack of interest in President Trump, who one might think would dominate the debate, and in impeachment.  In the general election, it might well be smart for the Democratic candidate to take the high road and let the media do the job of trashing the President.  At this stage, though, it strikes me as odd that more candidates aren't tearing into Trump, who the vast majority of Democratic primary voters believe is a thousand times worse than Hitler.  So much the better, though, because the more they attack each other instead of Trump, the better our chances will be in 2020.

Now, as for Biden, I wasn't impressed by his performance.  Of all the twenty Democrats on stage over two nights, he was the least articulate.  He seemed old and somewhat overwhelmed.  He was subjected to attacks on his civil rights record that I would regard as silly, and to his credit he defended his record and didn't apologize.  He also wrapped himself in the flag of Obama-ism, which given the nature of his party is probably a smart move.  To me, he looks like a fading prospect, but I don't believe he'll fade quickly.

Elizabeth Warren was angry and passionate, but I didn't see any sign of her legendary intelligence and total grasp of intricate policy details.  Of course, there was no time for her to do anything other than deliver sound bytes, and she did so.  She appears to have done herself no harm, but she didn't make a strong impression either, especially towards the end of the debate, when she faded into insignificance.

Cory Booker and Julian Castro put in strong performances, but I doubt very much that it will matter, because neither candidate is likely to prosper in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I don't believe that a candidate who is blown out of the water in those two early states can recover later on.

Pete Buttigieg performed well.  It was the first time I had ever seen him speak, and I can understand why people believe he is so articulate and bright.  Having said that, he doesn't have the heft to become the Democratic nominee, in my estimation.  He's a sideshow who will be, at best, the V.P.

Sanders was Sanders.  I personally find his endless tirades against big corporations tiresome, but since most of the Democrats on stage were repeating his talking points and seem to buy into the idea that the average American is groaning under capitalist oppression, perhaps he's on to something, in that bizarre alternate reality that we call the Democratic Party.  I have never believed that Sanders would be the nominee, and I don't now.  He has staying power, though, and he might just gum up the progressive works long enough for a non-progressive, like Biden or someone else, to become the nominee.  Warren needs him gone, but he's not going anywhere soon.

Kamala Harris was a firecracker, sure, but her aggression against Biden was a factor of her desperation.  Her standing in the polls is nowhere close to where it needs to be.  I don't count her out, but generally speaking the first candidate to target the frontrunner isn't the long-term beneficiary of those attacks.  She may help to destroy Biden, but I doubt that she will save herself in the process.  She also seems ill-suited to Iowa and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of also-rans, but most of them haven't a prayer.  I say "most," because I don't discount the possibility that, if Biden craters, some new moderate will emerge as a real contender.  Someone like Hickenlooper, or Bennet, or Bullock, might be able to swing it, or maybe even Klobuchar.  At least there are a few Democrats who realize that abolishing private medical insurance is a political no-hoper, and that "socialism" isn't the bees' knees.  The party seems paralyzed on the issue of illegal immigration, but on other issues moderation is not a totally dead letter.  It will be interesting to see the battle for the soul of the party play out, especially as the stakes become higher, and the attacks become more vicious!

Those are my thoughts for now.  We'll keep an eye on those Dems, won't we?  Take note that President Trump's approval rating is creeping upward, and as long as the media is focused on the civil war in the Democratic Party, expect that to continue.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

The War on History Intensifies

Friends, you might think that deceased Hispanic priests would be given a pass by the PC crowd, as it trolls through our collective history to find people to malign and declare unfit for commemoration.  But no -- you'd be wrong.  Now the Franciscan friars who built California's missions are on the chopping block, and it's UC Santa Cruz that's taking the latest leap into Orwellian insanity.  Check out my latest article, which focuses on the removal of the El Camino Real Bell from the campus at Santa Cruz.  Needless to say, I'm not amused!

Even Hispanic Heritage Isn't Safe from PC Extremists

Friday, June 21st, marked an important milestone for the University of California at Santa Cruz. For decades, the school has been in contention for the coveted title of “looniest left-wing campus in America.” Now, its seat on that ivory throne is almost assured.

That is because UC Santa Cruz made the extraordinary decision to remove a monument known as the “El Camino Real Bell.” Residents of, and visitors to, California will be familiar with the string of 21 missions built by mostly Spanish Franciscan friars in the state in the 18th century. The bell was placed in Santa Cruz in 1906 as part of an effort to commemorate the role played by these missionaries in the creation of the diverse culture of California, which amalgamates Native American, Hispanic, “Anglo,” and other traditions. 
One would think that today, as California emerges as arguably the most Hispanic state in the nation, UC Santa Cruz would want to retain one of the few early nods to that Hispanic heritage that the state made during one of its most racist, white-dominated phases. But no — the bell has been deemed racist in itself, as so it has to go.

How can a bell be racist, you ask? Whom does its cadence offend?

The answer is that Native American activists view the Franciscan missionaries as oppressors of their ancestors. The missionaries brought Catholic Christianity, plus Western medicine, technology, agriculture, commerce, and education, to California, yes, but they also brought slavery and death to some. The legacy of the Catholic Church in Spanish America is indeed a checkered one, replete with innumerable instances of inhumanity. But it is also a fact that Catholic missionaries were among the very few voices in the New World calling for better treatment for Native Americans and African and African-American slaves. To condemn the Catholic Church and all its missionaries as “racist” makes about as much sense as dismissing all white people as “racist” — a mental leap which presumably these Native American social justice warriors would be equally comfortable making.

In the meantime, the victims of this latest example of historical erasure are not long-dead clerics, but California's massive population of Hispanics. They are undeniably a major part of their state's present and future, but all too often their role in California's past can be obscured by persistent racism and the biases of the historical record. To boot the Franciscan missionaries — some of the most educated and humane of California's early settlers — out of the state's pantheon of heroes adds insult to injury, therefore.

The same intolerant activists who pressed for the removal of the bell are now calling for its destruction — a wanton act of historical vandalism (capping numerous acts of actual vandalism against the bell). What is next? The bulldozing of the missions? After all, their mere existence causes angst in the turbulent psyches of social justice warriors. Why not turn these monuments to early California into reeducation camps, therefore, and kill two birds with one stone?

The fate of UC Santa Cruz's bell has particular resonance now for two reasons. First, efforts are accelerating across the nation to whitewash our history and our popular culture of any and all elements offensive to liberals. The recent removal of statues of Kate Smith proved that not even feminist icons are safe from the purity police. The obliteration of the El Camino Real Bell proves that Hispanics are similarly imperiled.

The other reason why this story ought to attract our attention is that America may soon have its first Native American President: Chief Elizabeth Warren of the Massachusetts “Wannabe” tribe. Chief Warren, affectionately known as “Pocahontas” in some circles, has already declared that her fellow Indians should be “part of the conversation” regarding reparations. She is thus sending a signal that the strongest possible measures should be taken to right the wrongs — real and imagined — done to Native Americans. We can only assume that few historical markers will survive the draconian purge that she will unleash.

Now is the time for the American people to stand up and say, “Enough!” If we do not stop this assault on our common heritage, we may find that the only shreds of history left are a delusional leftist pantomime of “inclusion” for the few, and permanent deletion for the many. 

I, for one, will not go quietly.

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: 

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

The United Nations: Purposely Pathetic Since 1945

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is well worth a listen.  Brian and I talk about the tense standoff with Iran, and the prospects for war, as well as the tense standoff in the Democratic Party over who will be the guy (or the gal) who loses to Trump.  High drama!  Historically, Brian and I also talk about the Berlin Airlift, the formation (and legacy) of the United Nations, and the role of the British Empire in World War II.  Check it out!

P.S. I'm painfully aware of the irony of the image above.  The "United Nations" started out as a powerful military alliance dedicated, not to "fighting for freedom," but to the defeat of a common foe: fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan.  Once that foe was vanquished, the major powers got back to squabbling, as per usual.  The United Nations never succeeded in keeping the peace, because its structure made it impossible for it ever to act against the interests of any of the five most powerful countries of the world.  In other words, the U.N. is frequently paralyzed -- and that, curiously enough, may be among its best features, because it's kept it going all these years...

Saturday, June 22, 2019

Donald Trump: Peacemaker

Friends, despite the fact that the liberal media reaction was (inevitably) disapproving, I support President Trump's decision not to bomb Iran in response to its downing of a U.S. drone.  Iran is a serious problem in the Middle East, and our number one adversary in the region.  It is a supporter of terrorism, a seeker of ballistic missile technology, and a potential nuclear power.  It is destabilizing Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and that's just the countries at the top of the list.  For all these reasons, Iran must be held in check, and actions like the attack on our drone merit a response, but not, as Trump tweeted, a "disproportionate" response that only strengthens Iran's hand.  The truth is that Iran is already writhing under tough U.S. and international sanctions.  It may feel that the destabilization of the Persian Gulf region, and consequently a higher oil price, is the only way to save its bacon.  Alternatively, the recent aggressive moves by Iran may be the work of a faction in the country's security forces that desires conflict with the West for ideological or strategic reasons.  The key, I think, is to keep the world as united as possible against Iran, and killing Iranians via airstrikes won't help matters, unless there is a clear and serious provocation beforehand.  Trump is wise to be judicious, therefore. 

On a personal level, let me just say how proud I am of the President for considering the lives of Iranians before he took action.  Trump was castigated as a warmonger before he took office, and still liberals claim that he will burn the world to ashes, if given half the chance, but in fact he's shown remarkable reluctance to involve us in foreign conflicts.  Good!  Trump is a man of peace, it would seem, and, when he says "America First!", he means it.

Here are a couple of stories about his decision to abort the attack on Iran.

And, for good measure, here's a story about the removal of yet another historical monument by PC extremists on a college campus.  Note that, this time, it's a monument celebrating California's Hispanic heritage.  But no -- Native Americans can't abide Spanish missionaries, so the bell has to go.  Shouldn't Hispanics be offended?  More importantly, will any of our history be left when these latter-day Puritans have done their worst?

Thursday, June 20, 2019

You Don't Say? Europe's Crackdown on Free Speech

Friends, the American Left is doing its best to silence all who oppose it, but they are limited by the U.S. Constitution, which grants all of us, even meanies, the right to free speech.  Thank heavens for that!  In Europe, by contrast, the right to free speech is limited by about a million caveats, and they grow more numerous by the day.  Political correctness is strangling public discourse in Europe, as a result.  We must not go down the euro-socialist path!  Even our most cherished freedoms are not safe.  That is the topic of my most recent article:

While you're at it, check out this encouraging news about U.S. companies moving their production facilities out of China.  It's about time!  Cost factors alone justify the move to places like Vietnam or India, but what's especially heartening is the trend for American companies to move their manufacturing back to the good ole USA.  Credit President Trump?  Oh no -- the media wouldn't dream of it.

Lastly, keep an eye on this story.  The wheels are coming off the Democratic Party.  And this is just the beginning!  Things will get far uglier.  I give Biden credit for not apologizing in this case.  He has nothing to apologize for.  Cory Booker really is the lowest of the low.  A rank opportunist and race-baiter.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Nixon and His Nemesis

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is a humdinger.  We cover New York's new law granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, as well as the bugaboo of "foreign interference" in U.S. elections.  In addition, historically, Brian and I talk about the origins of the Republican Party, the hopelessness of Japan's situation in the Pacific theater in World War II, the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the trials and tribulations of Richard Nixon.  Don't miss it!

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

The "Sanctuary" Myth

Friends, today I bring you an excellent article on the liberal myths about "sanctuary cities", written by a man who's in the trenches and knows the issue well.  The Left's refusal to enforce our immigration laws, even on dangerous criminals, is frankly an abomination, and a threat to the safety of every American -- and not just Americans, but other illegal immigrants as well!  For Democrats and liberals, the exigencies of ideology override common sense and even self-preservation.  For shame!

Monday, June 17, 2019

Reality Bites, Leftist-Style

Friends, today I bring you some great articles.  The first one is strongly tempting me to write my own article about the issue.  The British, it seems, are banning advertisements than include "harmful gender stereotypes".  This is a gross affront to free speech, of course, but we can also assume that, as always, it will be PC leftists who will decide what's "harmful".  Remember, to them, the notion of racism against whites, or sexism against men, is a non sequitor.  They happily enable hate and discrimination, in fact, when the targets are people they don't like.  We also face the very real possibility that true stereotypes -- like that of the male scientist, or the female nurse -- will become impermissible in Britain, and soon in America too.  There are very real differences in how male and female brains work, mind you, that explain why some of these stereotypes are partly true...which is why the Left may eventually need to ban any acknowledgement of reality itself.  Don't put it past them.

The next article is a fascinating and very insightful look at the latest bout of irrationality among leftist environmentalists -- their crusade against plastic bags.

Finally, this is a great piece about how Democrats plan to win a "demographic victory" over Republicans and conservatives.  A massive surge in the numbers of Latino voters is indeed the preferred liberal recipe for a "permanent majority" in U.S. politics.  It isn't racist to point this out...and it isn't racist to question the political desirability of a demographic transformation either.

Friday, June 14, 2019

It's Not That I Want To Make The F-35 Angry, You Understand...

Friends, no one loves the U.S. military more than I do, but while it excels in almost every sphere, let's be honest -- value for money isn't its strong suit.  My latest article is about the House Democrats' recent decision to purchase more F-35 fighters in the coming budget year than the Pentagon requested.  Think about that.  We're spending $750 billion/year on defense, and the Democrats believe it's a good idea to buy some spare stealth fighters.  You know -- for a rainy day.  And they pair decisions like these with endless sanctimonious lectures on fiscal prudence!  Now that takes moxie, doesn't it?

And here are two very provocative articles on what might happen in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.  One concerns how the Democrats might seek to subvert an electoral college loss by manipulating the electors themselves.  The other concerns how conservatives might "resist" if the Democrats win in 2020.  Frankly, I find it mostly fanciful, since conservatives would never be allowed to behave in the lawless way that liberals now do, and conservatives wouldn't likely be inclined to "resistance" anyway, given their fondness for order and discipline.  My prediction, should the Dems win in 2020, would be not a successful conservative resistance movement, but the Left's exploitation of fears of a "right-wing revolution" to enforce even stricter liberal control over our lives.  But let's hope we never have to find out.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

The Age of Rage

Friends, today I bring you two thought-provoking articles, courtesy of American Greatness.  The first deals with the question of why American and Western voters more generally are so angry these days, and why they seem to be turning against the elites.  I agree with almost everything Hanson says, BUT I also find the degree of rage and self-pity among voters puzzling, in the sense that, objectively and materially, middle class Western peoples have frankly never had it so good.  Incomes are up, the cost of many consumer goods is down, we have close to full employment, the social safety net is relatively generous, and crime is low, by the standards of recent decades.  These are factors that Hanson doesn't consider.  My take?  Yes, we have plenty of reasons to be dissatisfied with our elites, but we don't have much reason at all to be angry and deeply unhappy with our lives.  But perception is everything, and facts count for little.  The people who tell us what to think clearly benefit from cultivating extreme emotional responses in their audience, and boy do they seem to have elevated that to a fine art!!!

The second article is about impeachment, and again I agree with almost all of it.  Impeachment would be a travesty and an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party and the Left.  I beg to differ with Mr. Bardmesser is one critical respect, though.  He says that the result of an impeachment vote in the full House is a foregone conclusion.  I'm not so sure.  I believe that many swing district Democrats would hesitate to vote to impeach the President.  Granted, they might, simply to appease their liberal base, but they would risk angering moderate and independent voters in the process, and how can they win reelection without those votes?  I believe there won't, in fact, be an official impeachment inquiry, at least not one that ever leaves the House Judiciary Committee, because the Democratic leadership doesn't want to take the risks I've just outlined.  And remember -- if and when John Durham starts charging Democrats and liberals with crimes related to the Trump-Russia hoax, any impeachment inquiry against Trump will have to compete for the public's attention with trials of prominent left-wing figures.  If I were the Dems, I would investigate Trump like crazy, and I might talk about impeachment, but I wouldn't actually try it.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The Gipper Gives It To Gorby Good!

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show  is a tour de force (as usual).  Brian and I cover President Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin in 1987, Germany's Blitzkrieg campaign against France in 1940, the legacy of George H.W. Bush, plus the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1994-95. In terms of current events, we talk about John Dean's anticlimactic appearance before the House Judiciary Committee -- to bash Trump, of course -- and the struggles of the Biden campaign.  We also discuss AOC's plans to run for the U.S. Senate.  Don't miss it!

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Has Uncle Joe Lost His Way?

Friends, my latest article considers the travails of the Biden campaign, which seems to be foundering on the rocks of left-wing extremism and intolerance.  See if you agree...

Joe Biden: The Bloom is Off the Rose

Poor Sleepy Joe. He just can't catch a break. 

Recently he abandoned his decades-long support of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortions, in favor of a more fashionably pro-choice, anti-baby stance. A no-brainer, right? Throw some red meat to the left-wing party faithful and reap the inevitable rewards...

Only this time it didn't work. Once the grassroots got a taste of Biden's red meat, they promptly bit the hand that fed them. They rejected Biden's progressive overture as inauthentic, and they questioned why he hadn't been 100% pro-abortion all along.

Biden's problem is two-fold. First, he's essentially a moderate, and he's undeniably an elderly white male. The Democratic Party of 2019 doesn't cotton to any of these descriptors. Moderates are now castigated on the Left as sellouts, as enablers of corporate greed, reactionary social policies, and possibly even Trumpism. To the left-wing zealots, a moderate is someone who doesn't automatically spit in the face of all Trump voters, gun owners, churchgoers, and other “deplorables” — and to fail to despise these villains with sufficient fervor is to be complicit in their (imagined) crimes. 
Modern leftists demand total and unthinking submission to progressive values and to the left-wing agenda, along with the ostracism of all dissenters. Even under the best of circumstances, an elderly white male would be a contemptible figure to this crowd, but, if he fails to check every box in terms of ideology, he is most assuredly doomed.

Although Biden can't become any less old or white, he could theoretically become less male. That would be a start, in leftist eyes, but we can safely assume that Biden, at age 76, is too set in his ways to take the leap into transgenderism. 

That leaves only one alternative: in lieu of changing his identity, Biden must ditch at least a portion of his moderation. By migrating to the left, he can theoretically appease the Sanders-Warren wing of his party and rally more progressives to his side. But it's not so easy.

Not only do today's left-wingers demand total conformity with their radical views and agenda — they are also relentlessly historically-minded. That is to say, they consider it good sport to rifle through a person's past statements, past relationships, or past political positions and decisions, to try to root out any deviation from current progressive standards. This is why statues are being toppled willy-nilly on college campuses and in city parks across the nation — liberals can't abide the celebration, or even the normalization, of anyone who doesn't tow the line politically (the whole line, mind you). Being dead for centuries is no excuse. In Biden's case, being nearly dead elicits no sympathy either.

Simply put, liberals are out for blood, and even an act of abject submission or contrition, performed under duress or too late in the day, is liable to be rebuffed. Mercy is simply not a virtue that left-wingers recognize. This makes it hard for the Bidens of this world to migrate leftwards, when liberals are apt to see this as mere pandering and as a sign of weakness. Their haughty, dismissive reaction to Biden's abandonment of the Hyde Amendment proves as much. “Too little, too late” is their refrain.

So what is the lesson here for Biden? It may be that 2020 is just not his year. Biden was a useful source of legitimation and avuncular affection for the progressive superhero, Barack Obama, but those days are in the past. Biden's relevance in the age of #MeToo-ism, identity politics, intersectionality, gender fluidity, and “democratic socialism” is highly questionable. 

Biden's easiest path to the Democratic nomination was always along the lines of a coronation. By simply grinning away and becoming a somewhat more pallid, skeletal version of his old, charming self, while the progressive wing of the Democratic Party formed a circular firing squad and destroyed itself, Biden might have walked into the Democratic convention relatively unscathed and as the nominee by acclimation. The latest polls in Iowa, however, indicate that Biden's appeal is already waning, and the hard-left is gaining on him. And this is before any of the other two dozen candidates for the Democratic nomination have even fired a broadside in Biden's direction. No, if Biden can't keep his head above water even in this, the friendliest and mildest stage of the nominating contest, he won't do well at all in the no-holds-barred phase that is sure to come.

Poor Sleepy Joe. He just can't catch a break. He missed the presidential boat in 1988 and in 2008, and he seems destined to miss it again, and for the last time, in 2020.

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's the American Greatness version: 

Sunday, June 9, 2019

On the Left, Socialism is the New Capitalism (and Sometimes It Can Be Hard to Tell the Difference)

Friends, as always, Margaret Thatcher shows us the way.  She understood the power of free markets, and the stultification of socialism and central planning.  The Left, however, is not incapable of subtlety.  Sometimes they present their essentially statist, socialist agenda in competitive, capitalist terms.  In other words, they make room for private long as the government and an omniscient bureaucracy get to make all the key decisions.

Check out my latest article, which showcases an example of how the Left uses capitalist rhetoric to advance their own narrow, and fundamentally anti-capitalist, agenda.  Oh, and they aren't averse to making a few bucks along the way either.  That needn't surprise you -- there was never a more stratified, acquisitive society than that of Stalinist Russia!

And once you've admired that gem of wisdom, please read this article too.  It's an excellent analysis of the grossly irresponsible claims made by Democrats (like Stacey Abrams) that Republicans are "stealing" elections.

Friday, June 7, 2019

How A Virtual Leftist Mob Came to Dominate Social Media

Friends, you've just got to read this article, which exposes the slapdash, biased manner in which the tech titans are policing free speech.  The same rank intolerance that governs academia is increasingly prevailing in social media as well.  Conservatives should be more than outraged -- they should be petrified, because when we lose our ability to share ideas, we lose any hope of competing with the Left for both political and cultural power.  The stakes could not be higher!

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

1989: It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times

Friends, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil.  There's a bumper crop of historical analysis, including the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the legacy of President Ronald Reagan, the D-Day landings in Normandy, the Six Day War in the Middle East, the ending of the gold standard in the U.S. in 1933, China's role in WWII, and the bloody suppression of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy demonstrations by China's PLA.  In terms of current events, we cover President Trump's highly successful visit to the United Kingdom, and the Left's attempts to disrupt and discredit it.  We also explore liberals' tendency to see themselves as intellectually superior.

Monday, June 3, 2019

The Invasion Must End, Once and For All!

Friends, my views on the crisis at the southern border are no big secret.  There's little I wouldn't do, and wouldn't support, to achieve a solution to the slow-motion invasion our country has been enduring for decades.  Immigration -- yes!  But illegal immigration -- no, and never!  President Trump's latest tack, his placement of tariffs on Mexican exports, is a smart move.  He absolutely must follow through.  This is the subject of my latest article in Townhall:

Saturday, June 1, 2019

It's About Time!

Friends, it will come as no surprise to those of you who have read my articles faithfully that I fully support President Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Mexico to motivate that country to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border.  I suggested exactly that approach months ago.  Make no mistake -- the Mexican government will be offended.  The Washington establishment will be offended.  The corporate elite will be offended.  Naturally, the media will be incensed.  Trump will be under HUGE pressure to abandon these tariffs.  He should not.  They can and will work, if we stay the course.

Could Google be broken up?  I wouldn't be saddened if it were to happen.  "Big tech" is problematic both in terms of its monopolistic role in the U.S. economy and its stealthy (and sometimes not-so-stealthy) support of left-wing causes.

Lastly, this is an interesting analysis, if somewhat prone to hyperventilation.  I don't expect U.S. higher education to evaporate anytime soon, but the loony leftism of academia is jeopardizing its social utility, its credibility, and its relevance.  Either some semblance of non-partisanship and pluralism will need to be restored to American higher ed, or the decline of these venerable institutions will accelerate.  Sooner or later, Americans will question the wisdom of spending vast amounts of money on degrees that signify little other than elitism and political correctness.  The federal government too should rethink its practice of funneling billions to colleges and universities in the form of student loan subsidies and research grants.  Repent, academia, before it's too late!