Follow Dr. Waddy
Tragically, Google has suspended the service that allows blog readers to subscribe by email to the blogs of their choice. This means that, in order to keep up with all the WaddyIsRight excitement, you might want to add "WaddyIsRight.com" to your favorites and visit this site OBSESSIVELY! I can't think of any better use of your time, can you? Alternatively, send me an email at email@example.com and I will try to get you subscribed from my end.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Friends, Frank Miele at RealClearPolitics has a habit of churning out very thought-provoking, insightful articles. Check out his latest:
Miele makes a very good point that few pundits have raised: impeachment, like everything else Congress does or may do, is subject to judicial review. There's an old saying that a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich," which is a way of making the point that indicting someone (usually via a grand jury) is easy -- but convicting them in a court of law is hard. Impeachment is like an indictment. Congress can, by all appearances, impeach the President for ANY reason. Then there would be a trial in the Senate. As we all know, the Senate is virtually certain to lack the two-thirds majority required to convict President Trump...but the likelihood is that the matter will never get that far. First, the House Democrats would have to keep their nerve and pass articles of impeachment. Don't bet on that! Even if they did, as Miele points out, their actions would be subject to judicial review. The Trump administration could argue that the impeachment vote is null and void, because Congress did not impeach based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," but based on a strong dislike of Donald Trump, or based on a flawed process. Would the Supreme Court agree? Who can say, but it's possible, and given the dynamics of the court it would probably be the Left's bete noire, Brett Kavanaugh, who would cast the critical vote in any impeachment case... Wouldn't that be...poetic justice? Stay tuned!
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Friends, you can criticize the Democrats on many levels, but no one can say that they're not creative. They've been beating the impeachment drum based on Russian collusion and obstruction of justice for years now, but along comes a story about Ukraine and -- what do you know -- all of a sudden, before the Democrats even see any of the underlying evidence*, it's the impeachment headliner! I guess that tells you how thin the evidence was for all the other charges... To say that the Dems are "desperate" to get Trump would be an insult to desperate people! Be that as it may, the question arises: how seriously should we take the latest push to impeach the President? Is he in any danger?
You already know my views on these questions. There's virtually zero chance that Trump will be removed from office, and, despite the fulminations of Nancy Pelosi, AOC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, there's very little chance that the full House will ever vote on impeachment, let alone approve it. I explain it all in my latest article, coming soon to American Greatness:
On Impeachment, the Democrats Are All Talk and No Action
This week we've seen much breathless speculation in the media about how close the Democratic House of Representatives may be to impeaching President Trump. The answer to that question is straightforward: about as close as they were last week, and the week before — that is, not close at all.
How can this be? Didn't Speaker Nancy Pelosi declare in solemn tones that an “impeachment inquiry” is now underway? Don't White House reporters suddenly have a gleam in their eye that wasn't there a week ago? Yes, but...
In Washington, D.C., nothing is as it seems.
True, the Democrats practically wet themselves in their excitement over the news that, according to a so-called whistleblower, Trump may have “pressured” the Ukrainian government to investigate his potential opponent in the 2020 election, former Vice-President (and one-time Ukrainian policy supremo) Joe Biden.
Finally, the Democrats seemed to cry out collectively, we caught Trump in the act!
Indeed, they were so giddy that they decided not to wait for any of the underlying evidence to emerge before selecting the nuclear option of impeachment. Strike while the iron is hot, right? Better yet, strike before the iron is even chemically identifiable as iron.
Of course, the facts of the Ukraine matter do not, well, matter to Democrats nearly as much as the perception of wrongdoing that their bellyaching and finger-wagging can generate. By that inexact measure, indeed, Trump's conversations with the President of Ukraine are somewhere on the scale of malevolence between the Nazi terror bombing of Guernica and NBC's cancellation of Star Trek — in other words, really really bad.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, their brand of amateur political theater has long since worn thin. The American people are increasingly apt to view all politicians as self-interested and dishonest, including Democrats. Will a plurality of Americans support the impeachment of Donald Trump, therefore? Most assuredly. But a comparable number would probably support the impeachment of Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer — which is merely a reflection of how polarized and embittered voters have become.
The point, though, is that this week's Ukrainian brouhaha changed nothing fundamental about American politics, or about the standing of Donald Trump in the eyes of the electorate. Trump's approval ratings are holding steady, or even ticking upwards. Support for impeachment is significant, but nowhere near a majority. Democrats are still salivating at every opportunity to give Trump a black eye, or worse, but independents and Republicans either like and admire the man, or they think Democrats should take a deep breath and let him get on with his job.
Likewise, Nancy Pelosi's bloviating about impeachment and how “No one is above the law” should be seen for what it is: it gives her seal of approval to yet more investigations of the President, but it does not make inevitable by any means actual impeachment proceedings. Impeachment, were it ever to come to pass, would involve the House Judiciary Committee considering and approving specific articles of impeachment, and the full House then voting on whether or not to approve them. If the House passed any one of those articles, then President Trump effectively would have been indicted by the House, and he would next be (assuming Mitch McConnell's cooperation) tried in the Senate. There is no reason, however, to believe that the Democratic leadership in the House is anywhere close to pulling the trigger on impeachment by bringing it up for a meaningful vote.
This may come as a surprise, when the media is reporting constantly that X number of House members “support” impeachment. What they mean, however, is that many House Democrats support...an “impeachment inquiry,” to borrow a phrase from Ms. Pelosi herself. In other words, Democrats can agree that they dislike Trump, and that they want to subject him to constant scrutiny and abuse, but beyond that any consensus on what should be done to or with the President breaks down. The number of House Democrats who would vote — today, on the basis of what is already known — to impeach the President is small. None of the developments of the last week have changed that simple fact.
President Trump and his supporters, therefore, should breathe a sigh of relief. The talk of impeachment has always been mostly hot air.
The Democrats will get only one chance to remove Donald Trump from the White House — in November 2020 — and, if they keep up their hyperventilating and their steady drift to the left, they will almost certainly blow that opportunity too.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.
And here's the American Greatness version:
And here's the American Greatness version:
*I encourage everyone to read the whistleblower's complaint. That it was written by a team of anti-Trump lawyers is patently obvious. That the man who nominally wrote it actually knew nothing of the events he describes -- and offered no evidence to support almost all of his charges -- is also clear. The best response to this memo would have been to fire the Swamp Monster who wrote it.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show features an analysis of dueling U.N. speeches by President Trump, who defended national sovereignty, and Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who whined about our alleged climate emergency. No contest, right? In addition to covering the action at the U.N., Brian and I talk about tensions with Iran, the British Supreme Court's anti-Brexit moves, plus the phony scandal over Trump and Ukraine (and the real scandal involving Democrats and the 2016 election). Historically, Brian and I talk about the Bill of Rights (especially the Tenth Amendment), the integration of Little Rock High School in 1957, and the leading personalities of the Eisenhower era.
Don't miss it!
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Friends, there was a remarkable confluence of events today. One, President Trump's approval rating reached a two-year high.
Trump has shown a remarkable ability to prosper politically even as Democrats and the media hit him with everything they've got. Case in point: the phony whistleblower scandal, which is currently the talk of the town in D.C.
Nancy Pelosi today announced the start of a formal impeachment inquiry, and the main justification appears to be the whistleblower's accusations. Keep in mind that Congress has not yet seen the whistleblower's complaint, it has not yet spoken to the whistleblower, nor has it read the transcript of the all-important phone call between President Trump and the President of Ukraine. Nevertheless, Congress is already prepared to launch an impeachment inquiry, and to imply strongly that Trump must be guilty. Ridiculous!
Before you get too worked up, however, keep in mind that the House has arguably been engaged in an "impeachment inquiry" ever since January 2019, when the Democrats took control. Pelosi has shied away from calling it that, but other Democrats have been clear that impeachment is in play. Pelosi is under great pressure, moreover, to move ahead with impeachment. It is an immensely popular idea with Democratic voters and with liberal Democrats in Congress. Even if the Democrats know that the removal of President Trump is unlikely, most of them would like to impeach him anyway -- for the sake of tarnishing his reputation, one assumes, and demonstrating Congress' contempt for him. You would think, however, that moderate Democrats would want no part of impeaching the President, since such an extreme move could easily backfire, especially given the unpopularity of impeachment with independent voters.
So what's happening here? Do the Democrats really believe that the President's conversation could be the "smoking gun" that will finally win over Americans, including Republicans, to the idea of removing Trump? Maybe, but they would have to be rather naive to believe that Trump, who has survived a thousand slings and arrow up to now, is suddenly vulnerable.
The other possibility, which I believe is more likely, is that this impeachment announcement is yet another fudge on the part of the Democratic House leadership. Under pressure to breathe the word "impeachment," they finally did so, but without any firm conviction that Articles of Impeachment will or ought to be passed by the House Judiciary Committee, and without any intention of bringing the matter up to the full House for a vote. In this scenario, various House committees will investigate the President ad infinitum, and they will lavishly consider impeachment, but they will never quite get around to taking any action. The smart money still says this is what will come to pass.
Make no mistake, however -- the Democrats are playing with fire. The American people are increasingly sick and tired of a strategy of endlessly attacking and investigating President Trump. Democrats are risking the very real possibility that a full-blown "impeachment inquiry" will help President Trump win re-election, and it may well help Republicans retake the House as well. For that reason, today's announcement, although it may not seem so, is a win for the GOP -- and for America.
Lost in the shuffle of all the huge stories breaking today was this gem: major progress in reasserting control over our southern border. Will the media give the President any credit? The question answers itself...
Monday, September 23, 2019
Friends, my latest article explores the hypocrisy and downright kookiness of our esteemed Govenor Andrew Cuomo. I've written before of Cuomo's vendetta against fossil fuels. He's still hard at work trying to deprive you and yours of power and heat. No one can fault him for lying down on the job! So far New York politicians' ability to stymie the energy industry and utility companies has been minimal, but don't count them out. If the Greta Thunbergs of this world have their ear, you can bet the attacks on our economic lifeblood will intensify.
Meanwhile, check out this article on the decline of the coal industry:
Coal's long-term decline is, as the article suggests, mainly due to economic factors, especially the cost-effectiveness of natural gas, but political factors still play a role. Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of thinking up ways to torpedo whole industries and hundreds of thousands of American jobs, we spent just as much effort trying to reduce the carbon emissions and other pollutants those industries produce? Then we could have our cake and eat it too. The truth is that "clean coal" is closer to becoming a reality than it's ever been, but liberals seem determined to drive a stake through coal's heart, regardless of changing circumstances. I can hear the nuclear industry saying, "Tell us about it!" Above all, we need an energy policy based on reason, not on mass hysteria.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Friends, several recent polls are confirming what political soothsayers have been predicting for a while: Elizabeth Warren is becoming the woman to beat in the race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020. Two polls now put her ahead in Iowa. That's big! Iowa is the first caucus state in the nation, and it sets the tone for the rest of the race. A win there can give a candidate the precious momentum to triumph in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and beyond. Note to the Democratic establishment, therefore: if you truly want a moderate like Joe Biden to be the nominee, then you had better start sharpening your knives, because you're going to need them. So far as I am aware, no candidate or outside group has yet run a negative ad in this race. That tells you something, because negative ads are, whether we like it or not, the lifeblood of American politics. You can't win any race without taking it to your opponent and driving up his or her negatives, especially when your opponent is the darling of elite journalists, as Liz Warren is, let's face it. Pete Buttigieg recently observed that Warren's expensive proposals are not backed by a realistic plan to pay for them. Duh. That's an understatement, Pete. Warren's ideas are all pie-in-the-sky. Biden started to make this point as well in the last debate. What's more, Warren has embraced a whole series of far left positions -- essentially out-flanking even Bernie Sanders, the socialist -- which will make her vulnerable as a general election candidate. No wonder the national polls that show Biden trouncing Trump show Warren under-performing. She's a dreadful choice for Democrats...which leads me to wish her all the best!
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Friends, we used to take it for granted that politicians from both major parties would celebrate America, its Constitution, and its people and their traditional values. No longer. Constitution Day is a great reminder of all the blessings our system of government has bestowed on us, but it's also a time to reflect on how fragile that system is, and how much it depends on the character and judgement of the American people to sustain it. This is one of the topics that Brian and I cover in this week's scintillating Newsmaker Show.
In addition, Brian and I talk about the critical Israeli election, the last Democratic debate, the prospect of U.S.-Saudi retaliation against Iran, Washington's Farewell Address and its endorsement of isolationism, the latest shameless onslaught against Brett Kavanaugh, the credibility (or lack thereof) of the Democrats' anti-corporate rhetoric, the proper legal standard for "libel", and the life and legacy of Mao Zedong.
Check it out!
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Friends, the Democrats will use every trick in the book to try to get their way, but lately they may have gone back to the impeachment well one too many times. Democrats running for President jumped all over the recent (bogus) New York Times story about yet another unsubstantiated allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. These Dems were happy to throw Kavanaugh under the bus long before all the facts had come in -- they even suggested that he should be impeached for "lying". (Remember, all Republicans "lie" constantly, according to the Left. Are you a conservative? Did you open your mouth today? Then you're a liar!) My latest article tackles this outrage, and it suggests that misuse of the impeachment process could be more than just a toxic talking point -- it could be a threat to our way of life.
Democrats' Impeachment Obsession is a Danger to Democracy
Sad to say, but Tom Steyer, even though he's an out-of-touch and unlikable billionaire, may be the most representative face of the Democratic Party these days. That's because, almost since the day President Trump won the 2016 election, Steyer has been bawling like a toddler and insisting that Trump's prompt removal from office, via impeachment, is a moral and political imperative.
Steyer and his “Need to Impeach” movement offer a laundry list of reasons why Trump should be impeached, from alleged obstruction of justice to violations of the emoluments clause, Russian collusion, racism and bigotry, recklessness, “persecution” of political opponents and the free press, mistreatment of “immigrants”, and paying hush money to Stormy Daniels.
Or, to put it another way, Steyer's rationale for impeachment is so diffuse that it's utterly incoherent. Steyer presumably is bargaining that, if he throws everything but the kitchen sink at Trump, one of these charges — it doesn't much matter which one — will stick, and Trump will go down like a ton of bricks.
Tom Steyer, for all his malevolent fury, is just a private citizen, albeit one who has plowed hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money into a campaign to subvert American democracy. What's more worrying is that Steyer's no-stone-left-unturned approach to impeaching President Trump now seems to be the official strategy of the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Jerrold Nadler. Nadler has made it clear that any anti-Trump narrative, no matter how obscure, laughable, or deficient in terms of evidence, is potentially acceptable as a pretext for impeachment. Again, he doesn't much care why Trump is impeached, just so long as he is.
Now, though, Democrats are taking their impeachment obsession to the next level. Brimming with enthusiasm for the removal of President Trump from office, they are beginning to apply their convoluted impeachment “logic” to other political enemies. Their latest target is Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Even before Kavanaugh was confirmed in 2018, there were whispers among Democrats that, if this alleged abuser of women should be added to the nation's highest court, Congress would be entirely justified in impeaching and removing him. Never mind that the charges made against Kavanaugh were unsubstantiated — in fact, they were specifically rejected as untrue by many of the people who were present at the time of the alleged offense. No matter. The new standard of proof — for Republicans and conservatives only — is that, if someone says you did something wrong, you assuredly did. Moreover, if you deny it, or if you defend your honor publicly, you are merely compounding your sins with lies (the definition of “lies” being “that which Democrats and liberals do not wish to hear”).
The suggestion last year that Kavanaugh should be impeached because of Christine Blasey Ford's politically-motivated and uncorroborated accusations was outrageous, given the hallowed principle of American justice that we are all innocent until proven guilty. Now, though, prominent Democrats are doubling down.
Presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, among others, are calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment anew, because a biased news story appeared in the New York Times alleging another incident in which Kavanaugh is supposed to have mistreated a young woman. The Times neglected to mention that the woman in question has no recollection of her own mistreatment.
The truth or falsehood of the latest accusations against Kavanaugh are, of course, irrelevant to his tormentors. They know only two things about Kavanaugh for certain: that he is a bad man in the eyes of feminists, who have made him a poster boy for sexual assault, despite the fact that he has never been charged with or convicted of any crime, including crimes against women; and that he is a bad Supreme Court Justice in the eyes of progressives, who believe that the real function of the court is to mandate nationwide obedience to the agenda of the Left, whenever that agenda cannot be, for practical reasons, advanced through legislation or executive action instead.
The moral of the story seems to be this: in the banana republic or pseudo-democracy that leftists are trying to create, impeachment, like every other legal and constitutional tradition, exists for one reason only: to help liberals crush their enemies and conquer power. In other words, leftists want to transform impeachment from a tool to punish abuses of power into a tool to facilitate such abuses, and in effect to criminalize dissent.
The miracle, then, is that no one has yet called for the impeachment of Neil Gorsuch, or Mitch McConnell, or hundreds of other Republican and conservative judges and office holders. For they too are guilty of the only real crime that the modern Left recognizes: standing in its way.
Heck, from the liberal perspective, why stop there? Why not cut to the chase and impeach GOP voters too? After all, are not the 63 million Americans who put Trump in office ultimately responsible for the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that he commits on an hourly basis? Surely therefore the voters should share in his condemnation and his punishment.
Mark my words: it is only a matter of time before the impeachment dragnet is widened. The knives are already out for President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh, but liberals won't be satisfied until all of their enemies have been driven from the halls of power, and ultimately from politics itself.
Then, one assumes, the leftists will turn on each other, at which point some of them will rediscover the beauty of the phrase “innocent until proven guilty”...
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.
And here it is at American Greatness:
And here it is at American Greatness:
But that's not all! Check out this article, if you have the time. It discusses the spread of leftist "ethnic studies" classes in American high schools. Political indoctrination isn't just for higher ed anymore. Oh no!
Monday, September 16, 2019
Friends, I recommend to you today this thought-provoking article by Victor Davis Hanson. It reflects on the remarkable staying power of Donald Trump. For four years he has been hammered relentlessly, so much so that Trump-hatred has become an obsession for about half the country. And yet...he survives, even prospers at times! Hanson suggests that pillorying Republican leaders has become de rigueur on the Left. Any Republican, even one more "polite" and conventional than Trump, would be savaged day in and day out. He would be called a racist, a "Nazi", a dictator, and worse! Liberals would even fantasize about killing him. All this, sad to say, is now NORMAL in America. The question is, however, how would the Republican leader in question respond to these assaults? Would he smile and carry on? Would he turn the other cheek? Would he mouth some pleasantries about "compassionate conservatism"? Would he embrace elements of the Democratic agenda in order to seem more moderate? This is the conventional playbook, after all. Trump, however, plays by different rules. When someone throws a punch at him, by God he punches back! Could that explain the fact that he's still standing after all these years, and after so much adversity? It bears consideration, I'm sure you'll agree.
Friday, September 13, 2019
Friends, have you been following the ridiculous story about USAF aircrew staying at Trump's resort near Glasgow, Scotland -- and how this supposedly represents another attempt by Trump to profit from his office? Well, it was always malarkey. Here's the proof:
Anyone in the media or the Democratic Party who pushed this story ought to be ashamed of themselves. They were smearing the honor and integrity of the U.S. Air Force, after all, in addition to that of President Trump! These non-patriots ought to be asking themselves: do I really want to pick a fight with people who have B-52s at their disposal? I think not!
In other news, last night was the third Democratic debate, and all the big guns were on the same stage for the first time. My overall view is that this debate will do nothing to alter the dynamics of the race. At times Vice-President Biden was fumbling and inarticulate, and at other times he was reasonably effective and apparently sincere. He's still uncomfortable answering questions about race, and honestly I don't see why. He has nothing to be ashamed about -- except his current endorsement of the Left's reverse racism masking itself as egalitarianism. Warren was her usual self. For a woman with a plan for everything, I must say her pronouncements in debates are remarkably vague. She hates corporations -- that much is clear. If anyone can prove that she's worked hand in glove with corporate interests at any point in her career, that could be a major blow to her "brand." Bernie was Bernie. Some of the other contenders put in good performances, but no one shone on stage. I suspect poll numbers won't budge in the short term. Frankly, it surprises me how passive many of the Dems have been to date. You would think that if you were languishing at 1-5% in the polls, and Biden, Warren, and Sanders were leaving you in their dust, you'd want to shake things up a bit, and you'd be willing to throw a few bombs to do it. But no -- the disagreements are mostly very polite, and no one seems to be in a big hurry to win over primary voters. I keep wondering when these candidates will take the gloves off... If the answer is never, then I'd say there's a good chance that the top three will all limp to the convention with a sizeable collection of delegates but with no majority, and then things could get really crazy! We shall see.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Friends, today I bring you a very interesting article on Dan Bishop's win on Tuesday in North Carolina's 9th District. As you'll see here, there was an interesting pattern indicating a combination of low minority turnout for the Democrat and higher than expected minority support for the Republican. Could this trend repeat itself in 2020?
One of the little-reported stories of the 2016 election was that Trump did much better among female, black, and Hispanic voters than many pollsters had predicted he would. This article suggests that, because of the strong economy, Trump could exceed those numbers in 2020 and confound his detractors once again. I will hazard a correction, though: it is a mistake to see the economy as the only issue that can allow Trump to improve his performance with black and Hispanic voters. Other issues, like the border, trade, an America First foreign policy, taxes, and abortion, to name just a few, can be a draw for some black and brown Americans. It's a mistake to view minority voters as monolithic.
The key question in 2020, as always, will be: how successful will the usual Democratic snow-job on minorities be? Democrats will try to convince black voters in particular that the KKK is at the gates once again, and Donald Trump is their honorary Grand Wizard. Will this nonsense carry the day? It has plenty of times before...but we must hope that minorities are growing tired of being played for fools.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show explores all the hot topics, including the dismissal of John Bolton, President Trump's erstwhile National Security Advisor, the ramping up of our trade war with China, the media's toxic fixation on President Trump, and the latest machinations in the political battle over Brexit. Brian and I also discuss the legacy of the 9/11 attacks -- on the 18th anniversary of that fateful day!
Check it out:
In other news, congrats to Dan Bishop, who won a critical House special election in North Carolina! The Dems spent millions, and they came close, but the good people of the Tar Heel state still did the right thing...
Finally, check out this article, which explores the relationship between conservatism and the environment. Chris Buskirk, a big wheel at American Greatness, makes some excellent points. Conservatives are caricatured as enemies of the Earth, but of course that isn't fair. We all have to live on this planet, at the end of the day, and we all want to protect the natural environment. Much of the time, we even agree on how to do it. What we don't agree on is the liberal assertion that anyone who questions their agenda of environmental extremism is, ipso facto, a monster. BTW, I like what Chris has to say about China. China is one of the worst environmental offenders around, and, as we limit our dependence on China for manufactured goods, we can look instead to companies and countries that engage in more responsible practices. You'd think this would be yet another argument for getting tough on China and supporting Trump's trade war -- but for some reason the Left has always had a soft spot for China and for the whole "developing" world. They can pollute to their hearts' content, because it's only Westerners who offend Mother Earth. Nonsense!
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Friends, we can only hope old Boris has some tricks up his sleeve, because the political establishment is uniting to stop him from delivering Brexit for the British people. Can it still be done? Will Boris and his merry band of Brexiteers have the last laugh? Stay tuned! In the meantime, check out my latest article, in which I proffer some advice to the P.M.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Friends, big news today! Check out this article, which demonstrates the real effects of the US-China trade war. At first, tariffs weren't even putting a dent in trade figures, including our massive trade deficit. Now, that's turning around. You could see this as searing agony for American exporters and consumers...or you could see it as a sign that Trump's pressure tactics are working. China's exports have fallen more than US exports. The trade deficit has narrowed considerably IN OUR FAVOR. Give Trump some credit? Oh no -- the MSM wouldn't think of it...but I just did!
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Friends, the political establishment in Britain is doing its best to throw Brexit into the dustbin of history, just as the "Swamp" is working hard to send the Trump family back to New York City (and preferably to Rikers Island). Boris Johnson, though, Britain's courageous Brexiteer P.M., has an ace up his sleeve: Britain is (nominally, at least) a democracy, and that means that the people get a say! Right now the rebel Conservatives, Labour, the Greens, the Scottish Nationalist Party, and the Liberal Democrats are all conspiring to prevent a quick election, because they fear Boris would win it. It will happen, though, probably by November, and all parties must begin to consider their strategy for victory. It would seem that the Conservatives are embracing Brexit more strongly than ever before, and as a result an opportunity has arisen to form an alliance between Nigel Farage's Brexit Party and the Conservatives. Such an alliance would be formidable, especially as the two strongest opposition parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, seem far apart on many issues and look set to divide the Remainer vote between them. I endorse a pact between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party wholeheartedly! Indeed, I would love to see old Nigel in Boris's next cabinet. Can you imagine the horror that would cause among the globalists and the elitists? I can! Bring it on!
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Friends, recent days have seen some high drama at Westminster. The opposition and 21 rebel Remainer Conservatives have taken over Parliament. They are close to passing a bill that instructs the Prime Minister to request yet another Brexit extension from the EU -- and it more or less requires him to accept it. The bill is designed to take a no-deal Brexit off the table, and thus, according to many Brexiteers, to sabotage Brexit itself. This is because, if Britain can never threaten the EU with a no-deal Brexit, the EU can say in response: okay, then take the Brexit deal we offered you (a very soft form of Brexit that effectively binds Britain permanently to the EU customs union) or cancel Brexit! It's a complicated picture, but in essence a Remainer Parliament has just pulled the rug out from under its own Prime Minister. They want to ensure that, either there will never be a Brexit, or it will be postponed indefinitely, and if it ever happens it will be so mild that no one will notice its effects.
Boris's response? He finds Parliament's actions outrageous, and totally at odds with the June 2016 referendum in which the British people chose Brexit. He believes that the government -- his government -- no longer enjoys the support of Parliament. It doesn't. He believes that the only solution is to have another parliamentary election, so the British people can decide, hopefully once and for all, whether they want to elect Brexiteers or Remainers. Based on the polls, in which the Conservatives have a solid lead, Boris expects that, if an election is held, he will win it, he will obtain a safe majority, he can repeal the law forcing him to seek another extension from the EU, and Britain can leave the EU on schedule on October 31st, either with a deal (struck by him, applying maximum pressure given the imminence of no-deal), or without a deal.
The opposition's position? They have sought an election for years, believing it would give them the opportunity to capture power. Now, though, in the face of the polls, they are hesitating. First, they say, let's get that precious extension, and then we can talk about elections...
The upshot, I believe, is that Parliament has steadfastly refused to implement the people's will. Now Parliament is undermining the Prime Minister. The best solution is an election. We must hope that the polls are right and that Boris will be the victor. Then Britain can have Brexit at long last, and the British people can get on with their lives. Hopefully, some decorum can also be restored to British politics.
The only question is: when will this election be, and how much mischief will Parliament get up to in the interim?
Also, apropos our discussion about leftist tyranny on college campuses, check out this shocking poll:
Those numbers ought to shame any liberal academic who dares to mouth the words "tolerance," "diversity," or "inclusion"!
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show addresses some major news items, as you would expect. First and foremost Brian and I tackle the Brexit fiasco. Will Parliament pass a law forcing the Prime Minister to accept endless Brexit extensions, thus potentially scuppering Brexit? Will P.M. Boris Johnson call a new election to obtain a safe, pro-Brexit majority? Will opposition parties try to obstruct an election, out of fears they might lose it? All this and more will be analyzed on this week's show. In addition, we cover the dangers of "gun control" and the news that James Comey, former FBI Director, will NOT be charged with leaking secret and confidential information to the press. This last development concerns me greatly, because, if no one is charged with a crime in connection with the plot to frame President Trump for "Russian collusion," these sorts of dirty tricks -- and worse -- will be perpetrated again. Here's hoping the DOJ had some very good reasons for showing mercy, and that it will come down hard on other big fish in the scandalous machinations to surveil and then smear a major-party candidate for President.
Brian and I also cover some fascinating historical items, including the 1957 integration of Little Rock High School and its constitutional and foreign policy dimensions, the anniversary of Britain and France's declarations of war against Germany in 1939, the pattern of recovery in Europe after the war, and the death of Ho Chi Minh in 1969.
Don't miss it!
Monday, September 2, 2019
Friends, I bring to your attention today a thought-provoking analysis of American higher ed and its many faults by Victor Davis Hanson. I disagree with many of his assumptions -- his romanticization of the academy in the 60s and 70s, his condemnation of tenure, and his suggestion that many student debts should be forgiven -- but I agree with his overriding points that higher ed has become bloated with administration, slavish to the fashion for (selective) "inclusion", and oblivious to the marketability of many of its degrees. I have little doubt that many who are in college don't belong there, and they could find better ways of establishing their credentials for gainful employment. Above all, Hanson is right that too many professors use their positions to indoctrinate their students in leftist orthodoxy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but writ large the academy is deluding millions of our best and brightest into supporting socialism, abortion on demand, environmental radicalism, reverse racism, anti-religious prejudice, Trump-hatred, and a host of other misconceptions. Higher ed may never be a hotbed of conservatism -- but it could at least be more dedicated to professionalism and even-handedness. That's not asking for too much, is it?
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Friends, it was 80 years ago today that World War II began with Germany's invasion of Poland. The world would never be the same. The Second World War was instrumental in creating the conditions for the Cold War (that decided the fate of tens of millions laboring under Marxist tyranny), fostered the technological innovations that would both kill millions and eventually improve and protect countless lives, and revolutionized mindsets, ushering in modernity, for better or for worse. Take a moment today to contemplate what an earth-shattering development Germany's offensive against Poland was. Ponder also the vagaries of fate. Germany looked invincible in the fall of 1939, and it very easily could have won the Second World War. And yet it didn't win. On the contrary, six years later Germany was shattered, and the Soviet Union and the United States were riding high.
In other news, the German "far-right" has won more votes than ever in regional elections in Germany. The AfD is a party that opposes immigration from the Middle East and has been labeled in consequence "radical," "extreme," and "far-right". Every other party in Germany has promised not to work with the AfD. In effect, it's been shunned. Now, I'm no expert on the AfD. I'm sure there are elements in it that are odious. Be that as it may, I also know that the Left is constantly working to de-legitimize the right. Conservatives are always, in their eyes, "far-right". From their perspective, you can't criticize immigration, or illegal immigration, and be anything other than a "white supremacist". As conservatives, we need to defend ourselves from these smears, and we need to be alert to the standard tactics of liberals. Above all, they want to paint everyone on the right with the broad brush of prejudice and hate -- and it simply isn't fair or accurate.
Finally, Sleepy Joe is at it again, generating "gaffes" at an alarming rate. His latest statements, though, evoke a common liberal assumption: that "immigrants", including illegal immigrants, are actually morally superior to American citizens. They work harder, they are more law-abiding, they cherish their families more, and they love this country more strongly. As a result, we mere citizens have no moral authority to criticize them or to deny them their "right" to be in this country. It's all nonsense, of course. Immigrants, and illegal immigrants, are people, not demi-gods. Some are admirable human beings, some are despicable human beings, but that was never the point. The point is that a country of laws has the right to decide who can and can't live and work here. We, the American people, get to make those decisions, not the "immigrants" themselves. Never forget that!