Friday, January 24, 2020

Trump Delivers Knockout Punch to Wimpering Schoolgirl -- Woo Hoo!

Friends, our fearless President showed his mettle again this week: he took on none other than Time magazine's Doofus of the Year for 2019: little Miss. Greta Thunberg, climate nag extraordinaire.  All kidding aside, I found the clash of ideologies between Trump and Thunberg at the Davos World Economic Forum highly instructive.  My latest article, soon to appear in American Greatness, tells the story.  See if you and I interpret it the same way...

A Tale of Two Planet Earths: Donald Trump vs. Greta Thunberg at Davos

In some ways, it hardly seems like a fair fight: the leader of the free world and the ultimate alpha male, Donald J. Trump, versus a slim, awkward 17-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg. Both swaggered into the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with equal self-confidence, though. Their messages could not have been more distinct.

Miss. Thunberg delivered her usual tirade to the assembled business and political luminaries. The “ currently on fire,” she declared, and it is well beyond time to “panic” because of the looming “climate chaos.” What's more, the grandees of global capitalism, who had gathered to congratulate themselves for taking climate change so seriously, are, in fact, according to Thunberg, part of the problem. Their much-ballyhooed targets for achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, are mere number-fiddling. Only an immediate cessation in all fossil fuel investment would mollify Greta, and she isn't holding her breath. “Act as if you loved your children above all else,” Thunberg intoned icily — strongly implying that the Davos elite loves money a great deal more.

President Trump struck a very different tone. Instead of berating his listeners and scaring the wits out of them, Trump cataloged a long list of indicators in the United States that are pointing in a positive direction. A 50% gain in the stock market since November 2016, and rising wealth for low-income families. Rising wages, especially for those without college degrees. Eight burdensome federal regulations scrapped for each one added. The cleanest and healthiest air and water in decades. Energy independence. A quarter of all foreign direct investment pouring into the U.S. 12,000 new factories. Millions of Americans liberated from food stamps and welfare. And, just recently, two important new trade agreements signed with China and our North American partners.

Trump, in short, painted a picture of a world in which living standards are rising, free enterprise is thriving, and technology is breaking through old boundaries and solving entrenched problems. The sky's the limit, if one buys this Trumpian spin. These are literally the best of times, and they're about to get even better.

What are we to make of these alternate realities, presented to the captains of industry, economic experts, and political opinion leaders gathered in the Swiss Alps?

First, it's worth observing that Trump's version of Planet Earth, as opposed to the Earth/Hell which Miss. Thunberg inhabits, is rooted in reality. The economic, environmental, and technological gains that Trump cited were, without exception, historically and statistically verifiable, even if they won't make the evening news because, well, good news is no news at all. People really are living “longer, happier, healthier” lives on a global scale, and standards of living have never been higher. Famine has been virtually abolished. The upward trends also show no sign of dissipating, except insofar as self-inflicted wounds, like depression and drug addiction, are taking a toll in the West. But humanity, in terms of its objective, material circumstances, has never had less reason to complain.

Trump also rightly points out the abysmal record that radical environmental activists — the “perennial prophets of doom” — have accumulated in terms of accurately predicting future environmental challenges. They are constantly declaring that “time is running out” and only extreme, massively expensive, bureaucratic, anti-market reforms can save us. How many times will the gullible swallow this bill of goods?

It's instructive how devoid of any factual or scientific basis Thunberg's remarks were. Her appeals to mass hysteria invariably take the imminence of doom as a given. Like so many environmental extremists, she posits a hypothetical global temperature increase of anything more than 1.5 degrees Celsius as the harbinger of the apocalypse. Why? Presumably, because the old figure, 2 degrees, wasn't approaching fast enough. The 1.5 degree figure allows Thunberg and her allies to argue that we have only 12, or 10, or 8 (do I hear 6?) years left before — pow! — the world will explode, or implode, or turn into molten lava, or something similarly bad. 
In the meantime, credulous minds can be won over with brazen emotional manipulation (why not weaponize the children?), combined with the cynical exploitation of every negative weather-related news story. The goal? To create the impression that, every time it rains, or doesn't rain enough, or every time the sun shines, or doesn't shine enough, “climate change” is out to get us! Even many committed climate activists balk at this armchair meteorological soothsaying, but no matter.

The truth is that, because of humankind's unprecedented prosperity and technological prowess, fewer and fewer people are suffering and dying at the mercy of the weather than ever before in history. The only rational perspective on humanity's relationship with our ever-changing climate, therefore, would be one infused with quiet satisfaction because of the tremendous progress already made — but don't tell Miss. Thunberg, who would surely be apoplectic at the good news.

In sum, Donald Trump and Greta Thunberg came to Davos to promote two wildly divergent impressions of the state of Planet Earth and its human denizens — one was positive, and one was negative; one was affirming, and one was accusatory; and one was true, while the other was a dark and sinister fantasy. 

As usual, it was Donald Trump who summoned the courage to tell the world's elite what much of it didn't want to hear: that capitalism, freedom, and good old Yankee ingenuity, which have brought us so very far, are still the answer to our problems and the path to a better world.

Hear hear!

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

And here it is at American Greatness: 

You may also wish to give this article a read.  It discusses a subtext to the impeachment brouhaha that few in the mainstream media are bothering to notice: the Dems are just as likely to bleed votes when all is said and done as Republicans are.  I believe that not a single Republican in the Senate will vote to convict Trump on a single article of impeachment.  Moreover, there's a very good chance that one or more Democrats will vote to acquit on one or more articles.  Once again, therefore, it could be the GOP standing firm, and the Dems showing weakness and indecision. 

And, in case you needed a little more evidence that the Dems' case for impeachment and removal is falling flat in the heartland, here it is:


  1. Dr. Waddy: Time for some good old leftist reasoning: " Oh but we MUST stop oppressing 16 and 17 year old murderers, torturors and rapists by holding them to account for their actions. They are too young to have well developed senses of responsibility and judgement!"

    Next breath: " Let us resolve to heed the clarion call of the irreproachable Ms. Thunberg and summarily DICTATE (of course) the entirety of her unassailable principles to all the economies which have in the last century advanced such unforgiveable human well being. How dare anyone direct "ageist slurs upon her tender years!

    Once again, our President says (and enacts) what we'd like to say.

    1. I still say her parents ought to be held accountable. She certainty does not look a 17 year old, nor does she act like one.

  2. Dr. Waddy: I'm also reminded of the onslaught of vicious leftist disdain directed toward the similarly young man who showed admirable composure when attacked for his Pro-life stance. The moral friability of the left is without limit.

  3. Dr. Waddy: I was struck by your insolent sarcasm in daring to question the good will of the left in "weaponizing children". Actually, they would mobilize the over 100 year old population of the world if they thought them usable (except people that old and wise would disdain them). Now any self respecting, obedient leftist would of course recoil in politically correct dudgeon at the suggestion that their frantic global warming thrashing merits the term "crusade"." Why, the very thought"; "the Crusades were the manifestation of by definition condemned Western culture on the completely virtuous Muslim world and is the very definition today of all who question Islamist and all other exalted peoples' strikes on the political infidel; do you dare label us so?"

    Uh, ok, but lets consider The Children's Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit in the Middle Ages. Is there not an analogy to the credit you leftists accord to a high school senior, who, in her undoubted sagacity, supports naively or due to misguidance (like that of Peter the Hermit) your views? Huhhh?

  4. Dr. Waddy: We have yet to see Jay Sekulow in action. I am glad the President reposes such trust in him ; I've always admired his assertive conservatism.

    Gardner in Colorado: Is Colorado lost? Its an interesting test of how presumptuous California liberal invaders can infect a state. But then again, this is still the MOUNTAIN WEST, along with the South, the most resolutely patriotic region of the country. Their reaction may be yet to be fully felt and may well be realized in November.I am personally aware of the outrage felt by longtime westerners in states being invaded by leftists fleeing the hell holes they themselves created in CA, Oregon and even now Washington. The reaction of the real American West may be yet to be felt in its entirety.

    Its well to consider that Collins did vote for Bret Kavanaugh. . Her tolerance for the totalitarian and implacable left is nonetheless maddening . We have seen in recent Senate votes the phenomenom of opposing party members voting with their opponents once the result is assured. I expect that Joe Mancin will vote for acquittal, even without that assurance. Why doesn't he come in from the cold before his next campaign (as he, a principled man, knows he owes his supporters in his last election)?

    1. When I saw and heard the presidents attorney's the other day, I said, "Oh snap!" The dems can spin it all they want, I have a feeling the presidents attorneys will give an awesome performance this coming week. I also think there will be no witnesses-Mitch is going to take a vote.

  5. Dr. Waddy: So the Dems' impassioned "arguments" are not much compared to the soap operas! I'm fascinated. When I retired 17 years ago I became a fan of certain soap operas. They are good fun but of course nothing more and that the Dems' frantic assertions should be eclipsed by them says it all. They are headed for a knockout punch in November!

    1. The democratic party is a soap opera. Thanks Jack for the laughs, smiles.

  6. Linda: I agree, her parents dropped the ball and the left disgraces itself even more by endorsing their irresponsibility.

  7. Jack and Linda, I certainly don't detest Miss. Thunberg. I feel sorry for her. She's a victim of shameless media manipulation. Having fallen into the gaping maw of the press, I very much fear she will be devoured by it.

    Jack, that's a devious thought you had there: the Left might want to consider deploying seniors 100+ to garner sympathy for their agenda. Everyone agrees that oldsters can be "cute". Not so cute as puppies and kittens, though. Could they be persuaded to accept jobs as mouthpieces for the Left? Hmm. A little creative editing might be necessary, but never say never...

    As for Colorado, I'm certainly not prepared to give up on it. I would put it and Virginia in the same category: achievable for the good guys, but a slight stretch. If Trump wins those two states, it'll be a TERRIFIC night for the GOP. On the other hand, Cory Gardner certainly has a fighting chance. I think he can pull it off even if Trump comes up short.

    Linda, thanks for keeping us up-to-date on the trial. I will only tune in if there are some high-stakes votes on witnesses. Hopefully we can put it to bed before that. I'd like to see a vote to dismiss the charges this week.

  8. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Apparently there are two main trains of thought: 1. The Dems derive increasing advantage from drawing this out as long as they can (with Primo RINO Mitt's support; I still think he will vote for conviction but Joe Mancin will cancel his vote out - does Mitt actually think the real America would nominate him again someday?)because it gives them ever so more opportunity to trash our President. 2. All they do thus is to infuriate and motivate President Trump's base that much the more! I think the latter to be more likely.

  9. It's a fascinating dynamic, isn't it, Jack? The Dems may regret their position, because "witnesses" could mean Bolton, or it could mean Hunter or Schiff, or it could mean all of the above. The real question is...are there enough votes for witnesses, and even if there are, would there be enough votes for a DEAL on witnesses? Would the Dems vote no on a deal that gave each party the chance to call one witness? I have no idea. It could get interesting...but on the other hand it's all smoke and mirrors. Trump will be acquitted come what may. And I disagree about Romney. He's being a contrarian now, and voting for witnesses is all well and good, but I believe he'll vote to acquit. Any Senator can say: Trump's actions were wrong, but it just doesn't rise to the high bar of removal... An easy out for a Republican.

  10. Dr. Waddy: You may well be right about Romney in this confrontation but I do not trust him: he will gall us at some point in the future.

  11. I agree, Jack, but we also need his vote, so if I were Trump or the GOP leadership, I'd treat him with kid gloves. He's still a conservative 90% of the time.