Thursday, October 31, 2019

The Johnson-Trump Axis of Victory?

Friends, my latest article considers the implications of the coming U.K. general election...for the U.S. presidential election in 2020. Specifically, I argue that Republicans and conservatives can learn from the resiliency and political resourcefulness of Britain's Tories.  Could Boris have found the key to banishing leftist loons from the halls of power for good?  See what you think of my analysis, coming soon to Townhall.

Springtime for Boris...and Its Lessons for Trump

After much procrastination and evasion, this week Britain's Parliament finally relented to the request of Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a general election. For the first time since 1923, Britain will have an election in chilly December. And yet, for Boris, this would appear to be springtime for his political prospects. Why? His Conservative Party is heavily favored to capture a solid majority, confirming Johnson's premiership and almost inevitably approving his renegotiated deal with the EU over Brexit. In short, by the end of 2019, it would appear highly likely that Boris will have solidified his grip on his party, on Parliament, and on a newly independent United Kingdom. That sounds a lot like total victory, from Boris's perspective.

Why am I so sanguine about Boris's chances? Because for months the British political establishment and the media have heaped contempt on poor Boris. They have pilloried him, whittled away at his majority in Parliament by encouraging defections and rebellion, and questioned his decency, integrity, and even his sanity. Boris has been given the Trump treatment, in other words, and yet he's still standing — unbowed, undaunted, and ready for more. Boris has proven his mettle in extraordinary fashion, and that makes it likely that he can endure — nay, prosper — in the midst of a tough general election campaign. After all, he's used to incoming fire.

Even more tellingly, despite all the slings and arrows that have come Boris's way, his party is soaring in the polls. The latest snapshots of voter sentiment in anticipation of the upcoming general election put the Conservatives ahead by 16, 13, 17, 14, 8, and 15 points, respectively. Can circumstances change before December 12th? Absolutely. But what fresh assault on Boris and the Tories can be contrived, when the opposition has already thrown everything at them but the kitchen sink? Stay tuned on that front.

Given the bright prospects now contemplated by Boris Johnson and the Conservatives in the U.K., it seems reasonable to ask the obvious question: why is the political right thriving in Britain at the same time that a similarly conservative, populist, nationalist leader in the U.S. is struggling? Why is Boris almost certain to win re-election, while most polls in this country show Trump losing to electoral lightweights like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders?

The answer lies in a key difference between U.S. and British politics. In the United States, the two-party system, while manifestly unpopular, has proved surprisingly durable. In the U.K., on the other hand, eight parties captured seats in the last Parliamentary election, and this time approximately ten parties have a legitimate shot at doing so. Moreover, as recently as 2015 the two main British parties captured only two-thirds of the vote. In 2019, the average of current polling shows the Conservatives capturing about 36% of the vote and Labour about 25%. In other words, 40% of the public is either undecided or plans to vote for another party. In the U.S., polling averages show less than 10% of the electorate uncommitted to either of the two main parties.

And therein lies the secret of Boris Johnson's success. Make no mistake: the constant media onslaught on Boris has had an effect. According to YouGov, 48% of Britons view him negatively, and only 34% view him positively. In a political system in which a party that can gain 35-45% of the vote is likely to be a clear winner, however, Johnson's unpopularity scarcely matters. All he needs is for the anti-Boris vote to be scattered between the various parties opposing him, meaning primarily Labour, the Liberal-Democrats, the Scottish Nationalists, and the Greens. Since it would appear that the Conservatives' challengers to the right — Nigel Farage's Brexit Party — are considering an electoral strategy designed to help Johnson secure a majority, his chances of victory rise even further.

The lesson for Trump is a straightforward one, but one not easily acted upon. Trump is, to be frank, an unpopular figure, and an unpopular President, in a country where it is hard to win an election if you gain less than 50% of the votes. That's bad news. 

To win re-election, therefore, Trump must do one of three things: he must improve his own popularity (very difficult, given the media's undisguised loathing), he must drive up his opponent's negatives (somewhat more achievable, given the poor quality of the Democratic field and the vast resources available to the GOP), or he must divide and fragment the opposition, making it possible to win in 2020 with less than 50% of the vote.

The last possibility is seldom discussed in American politics, given our strong proclivities for a two-party system, but in fact previous Republican candidates have had success with this stratagem, even if it was seldom a conscious one. George W. Bush famously won in 2000 with less than 50% of the vote, partly because many left-leaning voters supported the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. Donald Trump himself won in 2016 with only 46% of the vote, in part because many Americans supported the Libertarian or Green Party candidates. Moreover, as we have seen, because support for the two main parties in the U.S. is so even in most election cycles, even a small degree of support for a third party candidate can have decisive consequences.

Keeping all this in mind, President Trump, his advisors, and his supporters might want to pursue the strategy of fragmenting the opposition as much as possible. They could seek to exacerbate internal divisions in the Democratic Party by adding fuel to the fire of incidents like the Hillary Clinton-Tulsi Gabbard feud. They might focus their opposition research on potential opportunities to foster dissension between progressives and centrist Democrats. They might encourage speculation about third party or independent bids for the presidency, like that of Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks. If all else fails, Republican and conservative donors might even consider contributing to campaigns like that of the 2020 Green Party candidate for President (yet to be determined). Whether that candidate receives half a percent of the national vote, or one percent, or two percent, could easily determine the outcome of the 2020 election. For a conservative, wouldn't that justify cutting a check to an eco-radical? It surely might.

Boris Johnson already understands the desirability, even the necessity, of keeping his opponents divided and off-balance. By doing so, he can thrive in the context of U.K. politics. 

Someday, Republicans and conservatives in this country may reach the same conclusion.

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

And here it is at Townhall: 

P.S. Good news on the impeachment front: the battleground states are leaning against it.  Democrats are, as we all know, playing with fire! 

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Donald Trump: Breaker of ISIS

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is a tour de force.  Brian and I talk about the fate of Brexit and the seeming inevitability of a December election in the U.K., political divisions in Canada, the politics of deficit spending, the evisceration of ISIS and the death of its leader al-Baghdadi, the state of play in the Democratic race for President, the latest moves in the impeachment fiasco, as well as historical themes like the Great Depression and the legacy of Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.  In short, it's no stone left unturned this week on the Newsmaker Show!  Check it out.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

It's Official -- Britain is Going to the Polls!

After months of dithering and obfuscation, MPs have finally voted to give the British people a say: there will be a general election on December 12th.  It appears that Prime Minister Boris Johnson will put his new Brexit deal on hold until then, and he will count on the British people to deliver him a strong majority so he can pass it with ease.  As always, an election is a gamble -- one never knows how the mood of the public will shift -- but all signs point to a victory for Boris and for Britain.  Take heart.  The long nightmare of elite sabotage of Brexit may be coming to a close.

Why am I so sanguine?  A little thing called polling!

Diagnosing the "Collectice Psychosis" of the Eco-Left

Friends, no one disputes that proper stewardship of the environment ought to be a priority for society, and for each of us individually.  The radical agenda of the leftist environmental movement, however, starts with this amply supportable premise and quickly soars to otherworldly heights of wackiness.  Simply put, the eco-left has turned mankind itself into the enemy, and their strategies for restoring "climate sanity" involve the unravelling of human civilization, including, as this excellent article suggests, many of the pillars of Western democracy.  Bottom line: the sky isn't falling, Chicken Little, so take a deep breath, and let's see if we can't make the environment cleaner and more livable in a way that doesn't cost jobs, untold trillions in additional taxes, or the mental health of children and young adults...

Monday, October 28, 2019

Elizabeth Warren Will Feel Big Corporations' Pain...For A Price

Friends, I opined on last week's Newsmaker Show about how I would go about denting Liz Warren's front-runner status if I were a Democrat, and I believe I mentioned the fact that it would be surprising if in the past she had not allied herself with some of the very corporate interests she now derides.  In other words, when she claims to be siding time and again with the little guy, she may be blowing smoke.  This would be a very damning charge for progressives, because up to now Warren has been seen as radical, yes, but certainly not tainted by corruption or self-interest.  Well, along comes this investigative reporting by the New York Times.  Finally, Warren is being treated to some critical thinking by her fellow liberals.  She should expect a whole lot more of it.  Stay tuned.

Friday, October 25, 2019

Move Over, Woodward and Bernstein -- WaddyIsRight is the New Journalistic Powerhouse!

Friends, today the WaddyIsRight empire grows even larger.  Check out my latest article -- in the prestigious New York Daily News.  It relates to a case that New York State is pursuing against ExxonMobil, the latest in a long line of nuisance lawsuits filed by New York prosecutors against companies, organizations, and individuals that rub them the wrong way.  The Trump family knows all about this phenomenon.  The NRA is getting the message too.  If New York has its way, you may not be able to put gas in your car, or heating oil in your furnace, when all is said and done, so don't imagine that the fate of ExxonMobil is irrelevant to your lives.  Judicial activism and litigiousness are cornerstones of the liberal master strategy for total domination.  What they can't obtain with executive or legislative power, you can be darn sure they will try to obtain via the courts.  Keep your eye on the ball, America, because the Left is relentless and highly inventive!

In other news, the end game for Brexit is coalescing as we speak.  It looks as though Boris Johnson's government has accepted that Britain won't leave the EU on October 31st.  It also looks as though the EU has agreed to an extension, in principle, but hasn't agreed to its extent or terms.  Boris is once again seeking an election to firm up his mandate and achieve a working majority in Parliament -- and Labour is once again playing coy about whether it will permit an election to take place.  So, to make a long story short, everything is up in the air.  But to me the gist of the matter is this: an election is coming soon, which the Conservatives are likely to win.  A vote on Boris's new deal is coming soon, which Boris is again likely to win.  The anti-Brexit forces are playing for time, therefore, but in the coming months I believe victory will be secured -- for Britain, for Boris, and for democracy itself.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

O Canada -- What Were You Thinking?

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil focuses on some major developing stories: the fallout from last week's Democratic debate, the tensions at the Syria-Turkey border, Hillary Clinton's deranged attacks on Tulsi Gabbard, the political calculus of impeachment, and the disappointing demi-victory of Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party in Canada's federal election.

In addition, Brian and I make time to talk about the historical ramifications of the Great Depression, the anniversary of the Beirut bombing that killed 241 Americans in 1983, and the Soviet incursion into Hungary in 1956.

Brian and I were on a roll!  Don't miss a second of it.

Friday, October 18, 2019

Trump Has America's Back; We Should Have His

Friends, my latest article is a full-throated defense of President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeastern Syria -- and an encouragement to him to finish the job and get us all the way out of Syria's civil war.  See if you agree...

America First or Kurdistan First — Take Your Pick

Democrats, talking heads in the media, and even most establishment Republicans are united in their condemnation of President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the border area between Syrian Kurdistan and Turkey. Trump has “betrayed” a faithful ally, they say, destabilizing the region and emboldening dictators in Turkey, Syria, and Russia. How dare he?

The fact is, however, that the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. is wrong. U.S. intervention is not a panacea that can fix any international problem, and the time has come for U.S. forces to leave Syria and let the Syrian people decide their own destiny. 

President Trump's only mistake lies in the timing of his decision. A phased withdrawal from eastern Syria, begun when Trump first announced his decision to pull out in December 2018, would have mitigated some of the negative consequences we see now. But that America does not belong knee-deep in Syria's civil war has been clear from the start.

First, we should consider the disingenuousness of many of the arguments advanced against Trump's withdrawal. Democrats and Republicans are saying that it is wrong to pull support from a trusted ally. Many of these Democrats, and some of the Republicans, were opposed to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War...and yet the U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam precipitated a bloodbath, and consigned many of America's closest friends to a miserable fate, sometimes worse than death! 
Moreover, the U.S. was fighting alongside the South Vietnamese for years, on a much greater scale than we ever fought in Syria, and almost 60,000 Americans died in the conflict. Surely, then, our moral obligations to the South Vietnamese, and to fallen American soldiers, greatly exceeded any duty we may now feel to help the Kurds maintain their autonomy on Syrian soil. But the cacophony of voices criticizing President Trump sees no hypocrisy in its support for withdrawal from Vietnam — and in many cases for the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq as well — versus its determination to stay put in Syrian Kurdistan.

Consider also that the media is showcasing civilian casualties in Turkey's new “safe zone” in northeastern Syria, in order to justify U.S. intervention to protect the Kurds. The fact is, though, that as many as half a million people have died in Syria's civil war. Over 12 million have been displaced. In terms of scale, therefore, what is happening right now on the Syria-Turkey border is a sideshow compared to the tidal wave of misery and death that has washed over Syria since 2011. The D.C. establishment and the media know-it-alls, however, never advocated large-scale U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war to end the bloodshed. That is because human suffering is not the real reason for intervention, either now or then. The powers-that-be are ganging up on Trump, and critiquing his decision to leave northeastern Syria, not to “save women and children,” but because it is a convenient way to buttress the agenda of interventionism, which many D.C. politicians and reporters believe in implicitly and unthinkingly. It is also a fun and easy way to make Donald Trump, super-villain, look bad. In other words, for the Washington elite, it's a twofer.

As weak and self-serving as the arguments against President Trump's decision to withdraw may be, we have to acknowledge that ending U.S. protection of the Kurds does subject them, and the region, to certain risks. Americans must weigh these risks, though, against the risks borne by U.S. servicemen every day in Syria, where a handful still serve. The battlefield in Syria is complex and extremely dangerous. ISIS was our principal enemy there, and it was — and is — notorious for its extreme brutality. Many of the other forces in Syria, however, including the Kurds, can be just as unsavory.

Moreover, every second that U.S. forces remain in Syria creates more potential opportunities for conflict between our servicemen and women and the armies and air forces of the Syrian government, of Iran, of Turkey, and of Russia. The Syrian conflict, in short, is a tinderbox, and we have been fortunate that we have not yet been burned, in a major and dramatic fashion, by our decision to wade into that quagmire. Make no mistake — if we stay in Syria, and especially if we stay there indefinitely, as the D.C. elite wants, we run the risk of being pulled into a much wider and deadlier conflict, and one which ultimately advances no vital American interest whatsoever.

The time has come, therefore, for the U.S. to pull out of Syrian Kurdistan, totally and permanently. Only if a global threat like ISIS reemerges should we ever contemplate returning.

Syria, then, will be, and should be, ruled by Syrians. The Syrian Kurds will need to make accommodations with the Syrian government, as they are now doing, and with the Turks. That is the only way that they can preserve their autonomy in the long run.

The days of the U.S. military fighting the Kurds' battles for them are over.

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

And here it is at Townhall: 

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Boris Back on Top?

Friends, Boris Johnson's Conservative government has struck a new deal with the EU.  If Parliament approves it on Saturday, then Britain could be in the position of leaving the EU on time on October 31st with a deal that will cushion the blow of Brexit.  Since Johnson's opponents have said all along that he couldn't strike a new deal, and didn't even want to, needless to say he has put them on the defensive.  Moreover, since most MPs claim to want to avoid a no-deal outcome at all costs, how can they justify voting "no" on Boris's new and improved deal?  The answer is that most of them hate Boris so much that they'll vote "no" automatically, and quite a few probably think the alternative to this new deal is yet another extension, so what's the rush?  The outcome is far from assured.  Nigel Farage is urging MPs to vote "no", because he believes a no-deal Brexit is still in the cards and would be preferable.  He may yet get his way.  If Parliament won't play ball with Boris, then Boris can legitimately say to the EU, "I may be legally required to ask you for an extension, but you would be crazy to grant it.  It's time to put this nightmare to bed and accept that a no-deal Brexit is the best we can do."  All he would need is one EU state to agree, and that's all she wrote...  In that sense, whatever Parliament does on Saturday, Boris Johnson -- and the British people -- may come out ahead.

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Best of Luck to You, Syria!

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil focuses on questions of war and peace.  President Trump has come under heavy (media) fire for taking U.S. troops out of northeastern Syria.  This sets up a clash potentially involving Kurdish, Syrian, Turkish, and Russian forces.  The press says that Trump has precipitated a humanitarian disaster, but the truth is that the U.S. has overstayed its welcome in Syria.  It's time to let local forces determine the country's destiny, and to acknowledge that we don't "own" other people's land.  Discretion is sometimes the better part of valor, and the longer we stay in Syria, the greater the risks.  I say: well done, President Trump!

Brian and I also talk about the feuding between the Bidens and the Trumps, the impeachment saga and the machinations of "Shifty" Adam Schiff, and the question of whether Mike Bloomberg, left-leaning know-it-all and billionaire, will insert himself into the Presidential race.

It's all pure gold, so listen in!

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Go, Liz, Go!

Friends, on behalf of the WaddyIsRight commentating empire, I want to wish Senator Elizabeth Warren all the best in tonight's Democratic primary debate.  Warren has taken on the mantle of "frontrunner," at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, and that means she may be subjected to unprecedented scrutiny.  On the other hand, we can expect the Dems to be talking a lot tonight about Hunter Biden and impeachment, so in that sense it might still be Joe Biden on the hot seat...  We shall see.  However you slice it, I'm still in Warren's corner.  She's straight out of central casting as a Presidential loser, if you ask me.  Just what the doctor ordered!

Friday, October 11, 2019

Liberals, Which Is It? Do You Love Communist China or Mother Earth More?

Friends, my latest article focuses on Chinese and liberal hypocrisy. Red China likes to claim that it is at the forefront of both technological innovation and every progressive cause.  The truth is very different.  In terms of protecting the environment, which is both a technological challenge AND a moral/political quandary, China is all bark and no bite.  China pollutes on a gargantuan scale -- and Western environmentalists barely notice.  Meanwhile, "woke" American and European liberals can't say enough complimentary things about China and its wonders.  They give the Chinese, and the whole developing world, a pass when it comes to labor protections, human rights, AND the environment.  I say: no more!  The article you're about to read focuses on Elon Musk as a prominent example of this eco-hypocrisy, but there are countless members of our political, economic, and cultural elite who are guilty of the same sins.  But we at WaddyIsRight are keeping score!

By the way, this article will soon be appearing at WND: WorldNetDaily.  That's an exciting new venue for the propagation of Waddyism!

When Will Liberals Wake Up to China's Environmental Hypocrisy?

Recently, in the context of a conversation about green energy, Silicon Valley icon and noted environmental nag Elon Musk observed that China “is the future. Either Musk is spectacularly naive, or he is purposely misleading his investors and the public (and not for the first time?). If anything, China is the future of pollution and poor global citizenship, not green energy.

True, the Chinese government is positioning itself, and scores of Chinese companies, to profit handsomely from rising global investments in green energy, including solar and wind power. It is also prioritizing the electric car market. Musk himself is planning to build more and more of his electric cars in China — no doubt tempted by China's low wages, lack of unions and labor protections, and loosey-goosey environmental standards. China, in other words, is brimming with profit potential, even if a serious commitment to conservation is lacking.

And that, as it turns out, is an understatement! As corporate America and the mainstream media fawn over China's green energy virtuosity, the truth about China and the environment is enough to turn anyone's stomach...literally, if you take a deep breath of Beijing's smog, or drink some of its toxic water.

But it’s more than that. For the PRC (People's Republic of China), environmentalism is merely a front. Political and economic power is China’s endgame, not green energy. That’s what makes Musk’s latest declaration all the more dangerous. In his quest for Chinese profits, Musk is legitimizing a regime that wants nothing more than to expand its influence across the globe. Musk’s decision to embrace the PRC is even more troubling in the light of his environmentalist rhetoric, coupled with China's record of complete indifference to environmental protection.

Consider the facts. China is the leading emitter of carbon in the world, and it isn't even close! China overtook the United States way back in 2006. Since then, U.S. emissions have declined, thanks in part to the rise of natural gas, while Chinese emissions have risen steadily. Why? China's economy is growing fast. That's one explanation. The other is that the Chinese are building dirty coal-fired electrical plants, and putting highly-polluting cars on the road, at a record pace. Although the Chinese brag about building solar panels, they actually use remarkably few of them. Those panels are for export to affluent tree-huggers in the developed world. Meanwhile, the Chinese economy is flying high on its carbon “fix.

Everyone has now heard of the veritable archipelagos of plastic forming in the Pacific. One “garbage patch” is reportedly twice the size of Texas. Eco-fascists wag their fingers at Americans for daring to use plastic straws, but the reality of marine pollution is that China is responsible for a much greater percentage of it than the United States. China is leading the charge when it comes to despoiling our seas, while the rest of the world buys its shoddy products and pumps billions of dollars into its relentless expansion. Do environmental activists care? Seemingly not, to their everlasting shame.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. political, economic, and cultural establishment — in blaming President Trump for a “climate crisis,” while at the same time holding China blameless for its rampant defilement of Mother Earth — is breathtaking. Musk, who goes hat in hand to beg for the PRC's tax credits even as he boycotts President Trump's advisory councils, is a prominent example of this hypocrisy. Just recently, in fact, Musk had the audacity to announce the launch of a new Tesla construction division in China. There, he will supply jobs and investment to the nation with the single worst environmental record on Earth, all while railing against President Trump’s climate policies in the United States.

Keep in mind, Musk and his companies receive millions of dollars each year in the form of federal grants, contracts, and subsidies. Even as he courts America’s foremost political and economic adversary with promises of factories in China, Musk works as one of the principal contractors for the U.S. government. In effect, American taxpayers are funding Musk’s escapades — and, when he gallivants off to China, handing out new factories like they were candy, the taxpayers are funding that as well. The question is: why?

Americans should hold Musk and his companies accountable. They should insist that Musk, and his fellow liberals, stop taking the side of the PRC's communist overlords, and stop doing business with the country most responsible for damaging the environment.

Unfortunately, at the moment, carbon emissions, marine pollution, and many other environmental problems are only getting worse, because the people who claim to be battling them are, in fact, in bed with the worst polluters of all.

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 on WND:

And, in other news, our illustrious Vice-President is touring the nation, visiting swing districts to drum up support for a Republican House takeover in 2020.  This is music to my ears.  We need a Trump win in 2020, sure, but it is very achievable to retake the House as well -- and this would drive the Left bonkers!!!  Isn't that our number one goal?  I'd say so!

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

To Impeach, Or Not To Impeach -- That Is The Question

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is even more mind-blowing than usual!  Naturally, Brian and I get caught up on the latest developments surrounding the effort to impeach President Trump.  We also ask whether Democrats are truly in earnest about impeachment, or whether they're hedging their bets.  We also discuss corruption and back-scratching in American politics, the NBA-China kerfuffle, the "extinction rebellion" destabilizing Europe's cities, Ellen DeGeneres's bold decision to defend her "friend" George W. Bush in the face of leftist attacks, and the end game for Brexit.

Historically, Brian and I wade into the death of Che Guevara in 1967, President Nixon's efforts to bring peace to Vietnam, and the bombing of St. Paul's Cathedral during the Blitz.

Be there or be square -- or, in other words, listen and be amazed!

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Elizabeth Warren Noses Ahead in Democratic Horse Race

Friends, the news is coming thick and fast!  Today, for the first time, the RealClearPolitics polling average has Liz Warren narrowly ahead of Joe Biden.  This is BIG!  Biden has been flagging for a while now, but if these trends continue he may have to get much more aggressive if he hopes to save his candidacy.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Warren benefits from the fact that NO ONE in the Democratic Party is currently bothering to attack her.  It's about time that Liz takes a little incoming fire, don't you think?

In other news, President Trump's tactics at the border are working -- and naturally the media is taking no notice.  When Trump runs for reelection in 2020, the wall will be only partially built, but he will certainly have done everything in his power to put our house in order, immgration-wise.  He has much to be proud of!

Over in Europe, the last chess pieces are being moved in the Battle over Brexit.  Will Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the EU bigwigs manage to strike a deal?  Gamesmanship is the order of the day right now, but time is running out.  British and EU leaders have about ten days to resolve their differences.  After that, Johnson is supposed to ask for an extension to the Brexit deadline, but swears no extension will happen.  In other words, matters will come to a head!  The best case for Johnson, and for Britain, is that the EU (meaning at least one country in the EU) will say a definite "no!" to further extensions.  Then it's a no-deal Brexit, whether Parliament likes it or not.  My fingers are crossed!

Finally, the bad news is that polls indicate that support for impeachment and removal of President Trump is distressingly high.  Democrats and the media have successfully hoodwinked about half of the American people.  The good news is that Democrats don't really care about the practicalities of impeachment, as this poll shows, and they may therefore pursue it even if its popularity sags, which I believe is likely.  Impeachment fatigue will set in soon enough.  By then, it may be too late for the Dems to back out.  Stay tuned.

Friday, October 4, 2019

Bang, Bang! You're Dead...And Other Flights of Fancy

Friends, one of the key differences between the United States and virtually every other "developed" country in the world is that here we still value and respect the right to keep and bear arms.  Other allegedly civilized countries believe that the citizenry cannot be trusted with firearms.

One reason why gun rights have been rolled back elsewhere, and why they are under constant threat here, is because the powerful, elitist gun control lobby masterfully uses emotional manipulation to delude the public about the danger guns pose.  That danger is real, but the perception of it is woefully inaccurate in important ways...and the Left wants to keep it that way.

My latest article examines the irrationality of the liberal case for gun control.  Since left-wingers routinely claim to be both smarter and more rational than conservatives, it's worth reflecting on just how irrational they can be!  Read on, and see if you agree.

And here are two other gems for you, if you have the time.

The first is an article by Eric Trump, in which he highlights how hostile and dismissive the media has been towards all members of the Trump family -- compared with how keen they are to shield Hunter Biden from any scrutiny.  Can you say "HYPOCRISY"???

And the second article details Joe Biden's dwindling fundraising totals.  I can't say I'm surprised.  Biden lacks energy, and so does his campaign.  As his aura of inevitability fades, his campaign may spiral down into irrelevance.  Then again, if he's got any fire in the belly, he may soon start taking shots at Warren -- and there's plenty there to attack, isn't there?

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Holy Schiff! Is This How Democracy Ends?

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil covers a lot of ground.  We consider the prospects for impeachment under Chief Inquisitor Adam Schiff.  We also ponder how many Americans will be fooled by the latest "witch hunt" against President Trump, and whether it has a potential upside for Republicans and conservatives.  In addition, we ask whether Presidential conversations with foreign leaders ought to be kept secret.  Historically, Brian and I talk about the anniversary of the creation of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the fate of the Warsaw Uprising in 1944, the choice of Thurgood Marshall to be the first black Supreme Court Justice in 1967 and the role of the court in American politics, and Operation Typhoon: Germany's go-for-broke attack on Moscow in Fall 1941.  It's a little of everything this week -- don't miss out!

Consider also this very interesting impeachment analysis.  The Dems are already wavering!  The appearance of party unity is just that -- for appearances' sake only.