Wednesday, September 30, 2020

American Symbiosis


Friends, my latest article is all about why we need Amy Coney Barrett and President Trump both to succeed in October and November.  One without the other puts our country in grave danger.  See if you agree...

Will Ginsburg-Barrett Be a Turning Point for America?

Most political observers understand that the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a reliable “progressive” voice on the Supreme Court, and the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, seemingly a strong conservative and constitutionalist, to replace her, represents a seminal moment in the history of American jurisprudence. We could be setting up the conditions for many well-established legal doctrines, among them the constitutional right to an abortion, to evaporate in the years ahead. The relentless expansion of federal powers could also be stymied.

Changing the direction of the Court, however, may not be as consequential as it once seemed. That's because all of our political institutions, including SCOTUS, have undergone a steady process of delegitimization in recent years.

Democrats and progressives have long claimed that the existing conservative majority on the Court is anti-democratic, retrograde, and obnoxious. The Left's speculation about court-packing may have accelerated of late, but it's been percolating for years, along with its penchant for impeaching any and all federal officials who stand in its way. Moreover, the electoral college and the Senate are also on the progressive chopping block. And states' rights? They don't stand a chance in the “New Order”.

The sad fact is that Democrats and liberals increasingly foresee a time — and not far in the future, either — when the Republican Party will have sunk beneath the waves of demographic oblivion, and they, the enlightened ones, the paragons of political virtue, the harbingers of enforced equality, will be in a position to push through any change they like.

Hallowed institutions like SCOTUS, in this scenario, if they dare to resist, will be contorted into whatever new shapes the historical moment calls for. The Supreme Court, therefore, in its current sense of a court of last resort that it is meaningfully independent of the executive and legislative branches of government, may not endure more than a few weeks, should Democrats take full control of the White House and Congress in January 2021. Audacious reforms, like abolishing the filibuster and packing SCOTUS, which seemed like plot elements in dystopian fiction not long ago, are now relatively easy to imagine becoming the law of the land.

And this brings us to what could be Amy Coney Barrett's real importance in American history.

Since Democrats seem determined to undermine the current system of separation of powers, or any other political contrivance that stands in the way of their hegemony, securing a temporary conservative majority on the Court, or a larger such majority, fades into insignificance. After all, the Court is just one election away from collapsing in a heap, like every other institution we hold dear.

What will perpetuate this newly fortified conservative majority, then, and maintain our current system of democratic and constitutional government in good health, is not winning the current nomination fight — it is keeping the Democrats out of the White House and denying them a Senate majority. This is what ultimately will determine the fate of our Republic, for, if we empower those who want to “transform” America, by undermining its traditional institutions, we can expect those institutions to be destroyed. Indeed, we will have voted to destroy them.

When Judge Barrett appears before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate in October, therefore, her immediate and most obvious task will be reassure the Senate sufficiently to ensure her confirmation and get her on the Court. Her more fundamental task, however, will be to create the conditions for Republicans to win the 2020 election. For, increasingly, the latter seems a necessary precondition for the former, in the sense that a Democratic President and Congress would soon make mincemeat of the judicial norms that undergird the integrity of SCOTUS itself. Justice Barrett, without President Trump to back her up, would soon find herself spinning her wheels in a “reformed” judicial system whose purpose is to rubber-stamp the dictates of leftist politicians and bureaucrats. She might as well retire the moment she takes up her gavel, for all the good she will do.

What this means, therefore, is that, as the nation teeters on the brink, as the polls tighten, and as both sides await the verdict of the American people in November, everything may hinge on the woman whom fate has made the inevitable centerpiece of our political discourse in the closing weeks of the campaign. Either she will acquit herself well, and both she and Trump will sail to victory, or she will falter, and the executive-judicial axis of conservative constitutionalism that currently stands as a sentinel against leftist overreach will soon collapse.

Make no mistake, winning a Supreme Court seat, but losing the White House and the Senate, is tantamount to winning nothing at all. Barrett must be made to understand these stakes.

Can a 48-year-old mother of seven deliver — can she be the savior our nation needs in this, its moment of peril? I believe she can.

Already she has distracted the Democrats and the Left from following their preferred playbook for the terminal phase of the election campaign. Instead of focusing the attention of the voters on an endless string of invented Trump scandals, now the Democrats face the unenviable prospect of engaging in verbal fisticuffs with an intelligent, courageous conservative woman. Assuming Barrett can stand up to the punishment that the Left will surely inflict, she can and will emerge on the other side of this melee victorious.

In doing so, she will find that she has accomplished far more than merely advancing her judicial career and the narrow cause of originalism. She will have bought America four more years of sane, responsible government. She will have held the fanatical forces of leftism at bay. She may even have planted the seeds for a civil war within the Left that will lastingly disrupt, or even permanently disable, the threat it poses to America itself.

Judge Barrett may well hold the fate of our nation in her hands. Let us hope and pray that she is up to the challenge.


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 1480/106.9.


And here it is at American Greatness: 

The Home Stretch


Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil was taped before the epic presidential debate, but we still managed to cover a plethora of timely topics.  Brian and I discuss the state of the race, the New York Times' allegations of tax avoidance against President Trump, ballot harvesting in Minnesota and the potential for a contested election, the Democrats' no-win situation in opposing the SCOTUS nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the nature of "libertarianism", and where Rand Paul stands on the political spectrum.  Whew!  What a lineup, huh?

Historically, Brian and I talk about the signing of the Munich Pact in September 1938.  My view is that Neville Chamberlain was not the dolt that history has portrayed him as.  Hindsight is 20/20.  In addition, we cover President Wilson's embrace of female suffrage in 1918.  In fact, many states had already granted women full voting rights even before the 19th Amendment was passed.  One could make the case that the extension of the franchise to women was an inevitability by that stage.  The consequences, as I point out, were myriad, including giving a big shot in the arm to the prohibition movement.

Check it out!  Free speech may not be around for much longer, so we might as well make full use of it while we still can, right?

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

No Holds Barred


Friends, we always knew Trump was a warrior, and he proved it tonight!  No one could say he lacked for courage, or bombast, in his assault on Biden and the Democrats.  He threw dozens of punches, and in my view he landed plenty.  He also refused to let Biden have a moment's peace.  Was he scrupulously polite and observant of the rules?  Well, no....but he was Trump!  What else can we expect of the man after all these years?  

My overall impression of the debate is that it will change remarkably few minds.  For those who find Trump abrasive and arrogant, it will confirm for them that they have always been right.  For those who believe that Biden is confused, corrupt, or evasive, they will find plenty of ammunition in the debate as well.

There were certainly questions that I wish Trump had answered differently or better.  I've always felt that Trump could make a much stronger case on race.  He ought to call out the Dems and the Left for playing the race card endlessly and shamelessly.  He ought to point out the Republicans' superior record on racial justice and equality, compared to the Democrats.  He ought to talk about how left-wing policies have failed people of color time and time again.  But he generally doesn't make these points, and it's a shame.

Trump tried his best to tie Joe Biden to the radical left.  He tried to force Sleepy Joe to choose between moderation and appealing to progressives.  Of course, Joe won't choose.  He'd prefer to triangulate.  He'd prefer to deflect.  In many cases, he'd prefer not to answer at all, as on questions about court-packing and who he might nominate to SCOTUS.  Biden has gotten away with a lot.  At least, when Trump is in the room, Biden gets called on his sophistry and his sly machinations.

In the end, those who expected Biden to fall flat on his face in the first debate were disappointed.  The Biden campaign will be alive and well after this tumultuous tête-à-tête. Probably the polls won't shift much in either direction.

The ball, in my view, is now clearly in Amy Coney Barrett's court, and in that of the Senate Democrats who must decide how aggressively to oppose and criticize her.  I suspect that will be the deciding factor in November.

There is one chance that the debate could fundamentally alter the race, however.  Trump stridently pursued the issue of Hunter Biden's dirty dealings with a variety of foreign actors, in Ukraine, Russia, and China.  The media has been utterly silent on that narrative for many months now.  Can they continue to ignore the story, when Biden is advancing the transparently false claim that Hunter never took any money from anyone?  We shall see.

Buckle up, America!  A contentious election just got...contentious-er!

Plus, Trump made it clear that the drama won't end on Nov. 3rd.  He expects a "rigged election", and that means that this knock-down-drag-out fight may not be over until Jan. 20th.  And even that may be optimistic!  Just sayin'...


Here's an independent analysis of the debate, with which I would mostly agree:


 It's true that Biden faced a very low bar in terms of expectations.  He cleared it.


And another analysis -- this one way more Trump-friendly:

And, in other news, there's a suspect in the attempted murder of two Sheriff's Deputies in Los Angeles County.  If the suspect were a white supremacist, you better believe the media would be all over it.  Unfortunately, he's a person of color and a gangbanger -- so, in other words, just the type of violent criminal that the media stridently asserts doesn't exist.  Expect a total press blackout, therefore.

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Beep, beep! Beep, beep!



What's that sound, you ask?  It's the insistent screeching of the Soviet Union's trailblazing satellite: Sputnik 1.  Less metaphorically, it's the sound of ME, as I'm extensively quoted in an outstanding Sputnik News Agency article about the Black Lives Matter movement.  Take a gander at what I had to say about BLM and its prospects in the post-election period:


In other news, President Trump, as expected, has named Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.  The consensus is that she'll be a solid conservative, and she'll be very hard to beat in terms of the nomination fight.  The Dems are struggling to find narratives that they can deploy against her...but how hard they try to tarnish her good name remains to be seen.  The upshot: SCOTUS is about to get measurably greater, better, and more faithful to the Constitution. 

Finally, President Trump recently made a stop in Virginia, and it has me wondering whether that state could be in play in November.  Democrats are inclined to scoff -- almost as much as they scoffed at the idea that Trump could win in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania in 2016...  Personally, I say we should play on as big a map as possible.  Win 'em all, Mr. President!  The momentum is moving in our direction, and this nomination struggle, combined with the upcoming debates, means the dynamics are growing more favorable by the day.  I'm optimistic!

Friday, September 25, 2020

Could CBS Be Next On The Chopping Block? Say It Isn't So!


Friends, the sad truth is that the America-haters are winning: they're pushing successfully for changes to school curricula, for the removal of "offensive" statues, and for the renaming of buildings, streets, football teams, and other cultural artifacts, all to advance the narrative that traditional America was a bastion of oppression and racism, and our country needs to transform itself before it can be redeemed.  Case in point: Columbus statues have been coming down by the dozen this year, and the rise of BLM explains much of the historical carnage:


My view: Columbus wasn't perfect, and he was implicated in some serious crimes, from a modern perspective, but our contemporary American society and indeed Western Civilization is predicated on Columbus's exploits.  It would be futile and hypocritical to disown the man who made our country and our world what it is.  What's more, blaming Columbus for "genocide" is absurd.  He had no intention of committing genocide, and didn't engage in genocidal behavior himself.  It was mostly European diseases that killed millions of Native Americans, and the LAST thing Columbus would have wanted to do was annihilate his work force.


What's the title of this post all about?  CBS is the Columbia Broadcasting System.  Its name thus perpetuates (and celebrates) the "genocide" of Native Americans.  I say, BAN CBS!  Burn it to the ground (peacefully, of course)!


In other news, is it possible that Mini-Mike has met his match in the Florida Attorney General?  Mike Bloomberg is spending millions to pay the fines and penalties owed by Florida felons.  That will allow them to vote, and he assumes they'll vote for Democrats (lawless desperadoes normally do).  This may, however, be a violation of Florida law...and it's certainly a violation of the spirit of the law recently passed by the Florida legislature, which mandates that felons pay off their debts to society before they regain the right to vote.  Bloomberg seeks to bypass that legal and moral obligation.  At the very least, those who benefit from Bloomberg's blood money SHOULD NOT be permitted to vote in November. 

And, you may well ask, how confident can we be that a vote cast for Trump will be duly counted?  This story puts that question in perspective:


The most secure way to vote, as always, is in person at a nearby polling center.

Thursday, September 24, 2020

A Narrow Escape


Friends, despite the seemingly decisive win for Trump implied by the map above, the 2016 election was darn close -- too close for comfort, if you ask me.  In the key states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Trump's margins were razor thin.  By the same token, Hillary's wins in Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Nevada were also very narrow.


My latest article isn't about electoral politics, per se, however.  It's about how the death of RBG brings into clearer focus why those of us who voted for Trump in 2016 did so, and why we were right to do so.  The fate of our country, had Hillary prevailed, would have been bleak indeed.  A liberal-dominated Supreme Court would have twisted the Constitution and the law out of all recognition, and you and I would have been lucky to escape with our lives and our liberty (that is, our ability to remain un-incarcerated).  Certainly the Left would have stacked the deck for all future elections, such that our chances of ever overcoming "progressive" tyranny would have been slim.

See what you think of my analysis, therefore, which appears in Townhall:

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Enough to Ruin Your Whole Day



Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil explores in depth the prospects for President Trump's upcoming nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.  We evaluate some of the leading candidates, and the likelihood that they would be approved by the Senate.  Equally importantly, we ask the question of how the politics surrounding the presidential election will be affected, and the role that a new Supreme Court Justice would play in potentially refereeing the election itself, if the result is contested, as seems increasingly plausible.

In terms of "This Day in History", Brian and I talk about the 1944 election and whether FDR was candid with the American people about his poor health (he would die in office just a few months later).  We cover the discovery of oil in the Persian Gulf region, as well as the Soviet development of atomic weapons under Stalin.  Once the Reds had "the bomb", the world would never be the same, and you and I would never again be entirely safe from sudden incineration!

Check it out.  It's top-quality analysis, as always!




In other news, it turns out that those ridiculous face shields that you see people wearing are about as useful as donning wool socks to protect yourself from the coronavirus.  Of course, that doesn't mean people will stop wearing them.  They're a potent form of virtue signalling, and that's what counts these days, right? 

Also, Republicans are starting to salivate at the prospect of a presidential campaign dominated by Dem/leftist assaults on a likeable, upstanding female Supreme Court nominee.  I must say, I'm inclined to agree that the Dems are between a rock and a hard place!


Are the Dems SCOTUS hypocrites?  You betcha!  Not that the media cares. 

And, in case you forgot, the border with Mexico was a mess when President Trump took office.  He's got it squared away now.  Do we want to go back to the days of no wall, and tens of thousands of phony refugees arriving in our communities every month?  I don't!

Monday, September 21, 2020

Stifle Your Hacking, America!



Friends, the gamesmanship over the Supreme Court vacancy continues apace.  Personally, I trust that President Trump will pick a superb nominee -- and I trust that Mitch McConnell will steer him/her, probably her, through the process, sooner or later.  The Dems are squirming for good reason.  We have them at a major disadvantage here!  Don't sweat it too much when some Republicans aver, "Well, maybe we ought to wait..."  Wily old Mitch knows what he's doing.

In other news, the CDC is confirming that the coronavirus is spread mainly through the air.  The findings, as reported in this article, are still vague, however.  Coughing is bad.  Close contact is bad.  Masks are good.  Ventilation is good.  Okay, but how do we calibrate our risk?  How do we know what situations are too risky, and which countermeasures are most effective?  The science is evolving, but not as quickly as I would like.


Speaking of which, some of the countermeasures we've been taking have clearly been effective, because influenza infections seem to be way down since March.  That's good news -- it means we haven't been chasing our tails -- but it would still be nice to know which mitigation strategies are the best.  I know the latest trend is to view masking as the be-all-and-end-all of coronavirus containment, but the experience of the Nordic countries would suggest that this generalization is off the mark. 

Lastly, check out this article.  It isn't remotely Trump-friendly, but it explores some intriguing scenarios that might unfold in a contested election.  The Congress could indeed be on the hot seat, but, as I understand it, it would be the present Congress that would certify, or not certify, the results produced by the Electoral College -- the next Congress would have nothing to do with it.  Any way you slice it, an extra Supreme Court Justice could really come in handy right about now!

Saturday, September 19, 2020

SCOTUS Pandemonium!


Friends, the speculation and gamemanship following in the wake of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has already reached a crescendo, and it hasn't even been a day since RBG passed away!  Hold on to your hats, America.

Here is some analysis from our good friends at Fox News.

Trump, for his part, seems determined to move forward ASAP:


Some Republican Senators, on the other hand, especially if they're facing reelection, might be more circumspect about the process: 

Democrats, meanwhile, are anxious, to say the least, and they're already contemplating extreme reactions, if a Trump nominee is confirmed: 

Finally, we still face the likelihood of a contested election, which the Supreme Court would be called upon to referee.  Now that court is down to just eight Justices.  What does that portend for the outcome of the election?


My take?  My preliminary reaction is that Trump and the GOP must choose a replacement for Ginsburg, but we need not be in a rush to fill the seat before the election.  Ramming a nominee through the Senate could complicate the reelection of critical GOP Senators, after all.  If the battle is over before the election takes place, moreover, it also removes the impetus for some Republicans and conservatives to vote.  The important thing is that we confirm a new and reliably conservative, constitutionalist Justice soon, meaning before any major cases involving a contested election are weighed by the Court.  What that means to me is that we can start the process ASAP, but a vote in the Senate need not come until the middle of November, at the earliest.


In terms of the election itself, obviously this turn of events raises the stakes -- as if they needed to be raised any higher!  In truth, though, I feel as though RBG's passing will energize Republicans and conservatives.  It seems to me that progressives and Trump-haters were already energized -- not by Biden, of course, but by the opportunity to "get" Trump.  Republicans and conservatives, however, are not united around Trump.  Most are, but some are clearly tempted to sit out the election or to hold their noses and vote for Biden.  This Supreme Court nomination battle should crystallize for them why, even if they don't always approve of Trump, we need a conservative majority, and hopefully an expanded conservative majority, on the Court -- and thus we need Trump to win!  My gut tells me that these unforeseen developments will help bring some malingering conservatives, reluctant to do their duty and vote for DJT, "home" to the GOP.  We shall see. 

P.S. You must read this great article about the widespread nature of BLM protests and the frequency with which they have degenerated into violence.  It really puts paid to the notion that BLM is pacific in its methods.

Friday, September 18, 2020

The Notorious RBG Gives Way To...DJT?



Friends, today we say good bye to one of the staunchest liberal justices in recent memory: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Although you and I would undoubtedly disagree with, oh, 99.9% of her rulings, we have to give her credit as a survivor, as a firebrand, and as a committed "progressive".  Her passing sets up what is sure to be one of fiercest nomination battles of all time.  How Republicans handle this remarkable opportunity -- to shape the Judiciary for a generation, and to guarantee conservative, constitutionalist rulings as far as the eye can see -- will dictate the future of the nation, not to mention the fate of Joe Biden and Donald Trump in November. 


Whoa, Nelly!  Get ready for some fireworks, America!

"Patriotic Education": 1619 versus 1776


Friends, you wouldn't think that honoring America's Founders and its history of freedom would be a partisan issue, but these days everything is partisan.  C'est la vie.  President Trump is doing his best, however, to defend our country's heritage and good name, and he's therefore hitting back at efforts by the Left to enshrine 1619, and arrival of the first slaves at Jamestown, Virginia, as the seminal moment in America's past.  He's proposed a "1776 Commission" to revive "patriotic education", as opposed to curricula that are designed to vilify America and our traditional heroes.  Lurking beneath all this is a campaign strategy that aims to give voters a binary choice: will they vote for a candidate and a party that loves America, or a candidate and a party that disparages and disdains America?  You would think that would be an easy choice!


In other news, the Department of Education is opening an investigation into Princeton University.  It's a cute maneuver, in point of fact: the ultra-left President of Princeton is on record saying that his institution is racist.  (Well, liberals are on record saying that every institution is racist.)  The problem is that they also claim, in their equal opportunity statements, that they're not racist.  So which is it?  If, indeed, proof exists of racist behavior by colleges and universities, then they could lose federal funding.  This could therefore be a backdoor approach to defunding left-wing higher ed!  Let's explore the possibilities, shall we? 

Meanwhile, Chicagoans are dropping like flies.  This year, though, they are being shot in alarming numbers, even by Chicago standards!  This article documents the phenomenon, but it never asks the tough questions: does liberal "criminal justice reform" have anything to do with the light sentences meted out to violent offenders?  Does the castigation of law enforcement have anything to do with the declining effectiveness of policing in the Windy City?  Oh no.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Let's just spend more money on "community programs".  In other words, let's enrich the activist class.  That'll do the trick.


Finally, take note of the fact that the Democratic majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is at it again.  Before 2018, they redrew the boundaries of Congressional districts in PA -- to favor Democrats.  Now they're messing with the 2020 election with similar alacrity.  They're extending deadlines for mail-in ballots, and perhaps more importantly they've thrown Howie Hawkins and the Green Party off the ballot altogether.  Excluding the Greens and Kanye West from the ballot is a nationwide Democratic obsession.  The Dems are desperate to keep 2020 as Trump v. Biden, because they know that many "progressives" would appreciate a third choice!  But no -- that can't be allowed in their version of "democracy". 

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

L.A. Homicidal



Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show delves into some of the most pressing issues of the day, including the state of the race for the presidency, as reflected in the polls; the escalation of anti-police rhetoric and violence, especially as seen in the attempted assassination of two Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies; the increasingly desperate efforts by Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren to hang on to her job by sacrificing other city employees on the altar of BLM; and the surprising edge for Trump and Republicans among small-dollar donors in the 2020 election cycle.

In terms of "This Day in History", Brian and I tackle the big distinction between non-violent activists like Gandhi and MLK and the bloody-minded insurrectionists in BLM and Antifa.  We also talk about the debate over whether American history is defined by freedom or by racist oppression.  We cover the institution of a draft in 1940, as well as the Mexican War of Independence versus Spain, starting in 1810.  It's a historical hodgepodge!  

The only question that remains is...why are you reading this post, instead of tuning in???


You might also enjoy these two articles, focusing on instances of "anti-racist" racism, which is becoming a major feature of modern American life! 

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

9/11: Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste



Friends, I live by a simple rule of thumb: do whatever Ray says.  Therefore, when Ray complimented my piece on 9/11 and the human tendency to blow recently-encountered threats out of proportion, I knew I had to revisit that post and turn it into a full-fledged article.  And so I did.  It's a little more fleshed out than it was, and certainly longer, but the message is still the same.  See what you make of it.  Granted, it's a bit philosophical, and, despite my disclaimer about cynicism, it really is rather cynical.  I hope it doesn't foster in any of you a fatalism about politics and the affairs of men.  That wasn't my goal.  Personally, though, I believe it always pays to recall our mortality and our foibles, lest we take ourselves too seriously, which is, after all, the greatest of all sins, and maybe even the only sin, when you get right down to it.  But don't take it from me: I'm the mortal-est of the mortal myself!

Monday, September 14, 2020

Donald Trump: Man of the People



Friends, an interesting dichotomy is emerging between the campaigns of President Trump and Sleepy Joe Biden.  Increasingly, Biden is raking in high-dollar contributions from the wealthy and well-connected, while Trump is reliant on giving from small donors.  This article makes that plain:


It's a story that you won't see in the mainstream media, because it conflicts with, well, several of their well-worn narratives.  It's true, though, that more and more wealthy Americans and captains of industry are supporting Democrats.  We're also seeing a long-term shift of highly educated professionals towards the Democrats.  Meanwhile, the middle class, and those with less education and fewer skills, are shifting rightwards -- at least, they are if they're white.  


We see this broad phenomenon in direct campaign contributions, but we also see it in the long list of billionaires who are lining up to support Biden and the Democrats, and the rather short list of billionaires who support, or used to support, Trump and the GOP.  Remember those demonic "Koch Brothers" who used to be the leading lights of the Republican Party?  Well, they've never cottoned to Trump and have largely faded away.  Sheldon Adelson?  Trump has expressed his disappointment with Adelson's stinginess of late.  The Dems, on the other hand, have Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg, and those are just the billionaire lefties who are household names.  There are plenty more.  Bottom line: Trump will be vastly outspent in 2020 by the Dems, the so-called party of the "little guy".  Trump was outspent in 2016 too, however, and it didn't matter in the end.  Nonetheless, if I were Trump, I'd reach into my wallet and splash out a little, because his legacy and the country's future are on the line.


In other news, two Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies were shot, execution-style, on Saturday, and afterwards BLM protesters arrived at the hospital where they're being treated to shout, "We Hope You Die!"  Sweet of them, no?  It's an ugly scene, but frankly right now we need leftists themselves.  It's the surest way to bury their accursed movement once and for all in November.

Friday, September 11, 2020

Like Lambs to the Slaughter



Friends, today is the 19th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I'm going to take the opportunity to reflect on what we can learn from those events.  


One of the fascinating things about the human condition, if you ask me, is just how much subjectivity it involves.  In my view, people are almost infinitely manipulable, and their fears are a point of special vulnerability.  Simply put, our perception of risk, and the reality of risk, need not bear any meaningful relationship to one another.

What am I talking about?  In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, terrorism, which had previously been only a modest concern of our government and of the American people, rocketed to the top of our list of priorities.  Our nation spent trillions of dollars after 9/11, and involved itself in two wars, because of our newly-hyperbolic anxiety level vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism.  While I don't wish to minimize the ghastliness of terror, nor excuse the nefarious deeds of terrorists, the fact remains that these fears were largely irrational.  Terrorism never posed a significant threat to most Americans -- not compared to other threats which we face routinely and with a light heart.  I could prove this claim to you statistically, but there would hardly be a point, since we all know it to be true. Nonetheless, despite the ethereal nature of the "War on Terror", it held all of us in its vice-like grip for months, and arguably for years.  Only gradually did terrorism-related levels of dread abate.  They rose again around 2014-2017, when ISIS briefly held sway over a large portion of Syria and Iraq, only to shrink again, virtually to the vanishing point, as, in 2017 to present, Americans were redirected to other threats: police brutality, the coronavirus, and the greatest scourge of them all: Donald Trump!

And what, pray tell, is my point?  It is that we, as humans, are fallible.  In fact, we may misperceive the world around us more often than we perceive it for what it is.  Politics is the art of persuading men (and women) to make sacrifices, to set priorities, to surrender their freedoms and their hard-earned assets, even to put their very lives on the line, for one cause or another.  Most of these causes, moreover, when you get right down to it, are bunkum.  They may have some basis in reality, and some semblance of justification, but savvy, smooth-talking elites have always known how to twist these causes, and our devotion to them, to promote their own selfish ends.  More often than not, they are the winners in these political machinations, and we, the huddled masses, are the losers.

My point, therefore, is that the phantasms which currently keep Americans up late at night -- bloodthirsty, super-racist policemen, killer viruses from China, and orange-haired tyrants -- are, even if vaguely based on reality, mostly fictional, and almost certainly harmless to the vast majority of the American people.  


So, I conclude, support and vote for whichever politicians you feel have the keenest sense of the threats that truly threaten us, and who will uphold the values that made our country great in the first place -- but don't kid yourselves: red or blue, conservative or liberal, most politicians and pundits are as befuddled and blinkered as the rest of us.  They only claim to know what they're talking about.  Most of it is just hot air.

Another thought, along the same lines: if most of the dangers that captivate us are largely fictional, then how many real dangers are we failing to notice at all?  And, in the end, might we, or might this country, succumb to them, while our backs are turned?

Probably, but fear not -- when one set of distortions has outlived its usefulness, another will soon take its place.  Because one thing never changes: we, the People, are always being played.

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

How Low Can You Go?


Friends, if you've ever attended or watched a Trump rally, you know that one of the President's signature appeals is to servicemen and veterans, whom he praises lavishly.  He's also very proud of his administration's record when it comes to caring for our "troops and vets".  That's what makes the The Atlantic's hit piece on Trump, which claimed, on the basis on anonymous sources, that Trump referred to Americans killed in World War I as "suckers" and "losers", so shameless and scurrilous.  In addition to being shameless and scurrilous, however, it's also brilliant, because, as a line of attack, it goes after one of President Trump's strengths: his patriotism, and his undeniable appeal to those who serve in the military, or who have served in the past.  Just as the Left insinuated that Mr. America First was a traitor, based on alleged ties to Putin and Russia, now they're asserting that Mr. Stars and Stripes is a closet peacenik and holds servicemen in contempt.  What can one say in response to such calumnies except that, well, we've come to expect this nonsense, and we'll surely be seeing more of it between now and November 3rd.

The Atlantic's special brand of yellow journalism is one of the topics that Brian and I cover on this week's Newsmaker Show, but wait...there's more!  We also discuss the BLM-inspired riots and demonstrations in Rochester, and why I support the Rochester Police Department.  We talk about Biden's retreat from a national mask mandate, as well as encouraging news re: the steady decline of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths related to the coronavirus.  As usual, the media isn't reporting it.

In our "This Day in History" segment, Brian and I give old Mao Zedong his due -- as history's greatest madman and butcher, but also as one of the motive forces behind the rapprochement between Red China and the United States.  We also talk about our country's name -- the United States of America -- and why it ought to inspire us to reaffirm our commitment to federalism.  Finally, we reflect on the degree of sacrifice required of the American people in World War II, which was infinitely less, as it turns out, compared to what Russians, Japanese, Germans, and Britons had to wager, and had to lose, in order to make it through the greatest and bloodiest conflict in human history.

Whew!  So much insight in just 20 minutes...  It defies belief, doesn't it?


And here's that good news on the pandemic that I promised you:

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

I'm Always Red, But Sometimes I'm Blue


Friends, my latest article addresses the hot topic in my hometown of Rochester, New York: whether BLM or the Rochester Police Department ought to rule the streets of the Flower City.  It will come as no surprise to those of you who follow this blog faithfully that I reject the race-baiting, the anti-police hysteria, and the undisguised Marxism proferred by BLM, and I support, unreservedly, the men and women of law enforcement.  The following article lays out exactly where I'm coming from:

Rochester Riots Prove Once Again that “Black Lives” Don't Matter to BLM

For almost a week, BLM and like-minded activists have been marching in the streets of Rochester, New York, protesting the death of Daniel Prude at the hands of police. BLM zealots even harassed diners and overturned tables at two restaurants located next to the apartment building in which I live, creating a social media firestorm. Events in Rochester have even attracted the notice of none other than President Donald Trump.

We Rochesterians are not used to playing a starring role in the national news cycle. Well, now we are, like it or not.

The curious thing? Daniel Prude died months ago, and under circumstances that hardly suggest that racial animus played any role in his demise. He was a mentally deranged man on drugs, whom the police had to restrain, as best they could. And restrain him they did, based on the policies and procedures of the RPD. Unfortunately, based on a variety of circumstances, some of them completely outside the control of the police officers who detained him, Prude later died. This makes the recent decision of the police chief and his entire command staff to retire baffling and unfortunate, since it will only reinforce the (false) perception that the RPD was culpable in Mr. Prude's death.

The facts be damned, however — the media and the anti-police outrage industry can turn almost any questionable incident caught on camera into an instant scandal. In fact, as we see in this case, a police “killing” need not even be fresh to excite “anti-racist” fervor. Nor must it be demonstrably racist, as events this summer have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The unfortunate truth is, however, that it is not just left-wing crazies who are being sucked into this maelstrom of anti-police rage and racial fear-mongering. It is also many well-meaning, compassionate Americans who are laboring under the misconception that there is a sudden epidemic in America of police slayings of innocent black men.

What is abundantly clear is that the loss of blacks lives, per se, is not what is driving public attitudes and media coverage. For one thing, there is zero evidence that the summer of 2020 has seen any more police-involved killings of black men than would be normal in a country of 330 million people — and nor, not that anyone is even bothering to ask the question, have police killings of white suspects (which are always more numerous) increased.

In fact, what we know for certain is that police departments, especially in big cities, have undertaken unprecedented efforts to improve training, reduce the potential for violent confrontations with suspects and with the public, and recruit new officers from historically disadvantaged communities. As a result, police forces, including the RPD, are more restrained in the use of force, and more representative of and respectful towards communities of color, than they have ever been.

What's more, BLM's, and the media's, raging obsession with police “slayings” of black men is an absurdity, if one's concern is, as the name of the movement implies, the preservation of black life. BLM shows no inclination to protest or draw attention to other scourges which routinely claim far more black lives. In terms of violence, domestic disputes and drug gangs are infinitely more likely to take black lives than the excessive use of force by the police. Statistically, this is beyond questioning.

Rochester, New York has a murder rate three times higher than the national average. In Rochester, just this year, dozens have been murdered, most in circumstances related to family violence or gang activity. Over the July 4th weekend, no less than 13 people were shot in Rochester — a city of just 200,000 people. But has BLM organized marches on the homes of notorious domestic abusers or on drug dens? No, certainly not. They would not waste their time with deaths, and with causes, so trivial — in their eyes.

We must also keep in mind that far more black lives are taken by natural causes, including heart disease, cancer, and the coronavirus, than by police violence. Most of these health threats impact communities of color and poor neighborhoods disproportionately. Do these dangers — statistically, far more menacing than the police — excite BLM's fury? Not in the least.

Moreover, the problems that people of color encounter are by no means restricted to dangers which end lives. Poverty, under-performing schools, shuttered factories and businesses, drug and alcohol abuse, and broken homes, to name just a few blights on many communities of color, are every bit as serious, in terms of their ability to erode quality of life.

These are all phenomena, I hasten to add, that are fostered, to one degree or another, by misguided public policies supported by the same kind of left-wing radicals and neo-Marxists who find a happy home in the BLM movement. They are also problems that find the most fertile ground of all in deep blue, Democratic-led urban centers like Rochester.

The only conclusion we are left with is that BLM, and those who march with it and lend it their support, no matter how well-meaning, are not motivated first and foremost by the preservation of life, black or otherwise. Instead, they are obsessed with the exploitation of death — in this case, the deaths of black men at the hands of the police.

Theirs, in other words, is a cause propelled not by caring, but by animus — animus towards law enforcement, certainly, and often animus towards white people, who are seen as being at the root of America's “original sin”: racism.

What is ultimately notable about Black Lives Matter, therefore, is how little black lives matter to those who wave its banners and shout its slogans.

We should call BLM what it is, based on the pattern of its beliefs and behaviors: it is a hate group determined to malign the police, white people, and America itself.

It cares not a whit whether, in a particular instance, the police, white people, or America have done anything wrong.

It is the cause of hate, in and of itself, that sustains the movement.

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 slightly edited form at American Greatness: 


And, while you're at it, don't miss this article about Hollywood's (unsurprising) embrace of quotas.  "Race-blind" is now history.  Granted, most Hollywood productions were already trash, but now that skin color and wokeness are prized more highly than competence and artistry, how much worse will American cinema get??? 

Monday, September 7, 2020

The Gathering Storm



Friends, as we look forward to the presidential election in November, chances are rising that the results will be contested and nebulous, surprise here...the Democrats have a plan for that!  They've been gaming various scenarios that would allow them to shoehorn their way, by litigation or agitation, into the Oval Office.  Virtually regardless of how Trump might win, they've got a stratagem for delegitimizing the outcome and demanding redress.  It will take real grit on our part to stand up to these machinations, especially since 50% of the population is bound to believe whatever the Dems, and their media allies, claim.  Brace yourselves!


In other news, the Europeans seem determined to prove that the spread of the coronavirus is not, in fact, Donald Trump's fault.  It turns out that even super-intelligent socialists can contract and spread contagious diseases...  Who knew?  What I find especially interesting about this article is its claim that the percentage of Europeans testing positive for the virus is about the same as the "margin of error" of the test itself.  No one has mentioned this here.  Could many of our "confirmed cases" be false positives?  And, if so, what does that say about the statistics that the media is using to frighten us? 

Saturday, September 5, 2020

The Thin Blue Line Is Taxed In Western New York


Friends, many of you are well aware that I live in Rochester, New York, close to downtown.  Under ordinary circumstances, it's a fun place to be, because there are so many things to do in the city.  Well, under these circumstances, i.e. during the coronavirus pandemic, it's a lot less fun than it used to be.  That's because "fun", in so many forms, has been cancelled.  

What's worse, though, is that Rochester is becoming a hotbed of BLM protests, and violence is depressingly common.  Check out what happened last night on my block!  BLM is becoming more and more brazen all the time.  They feel entitled to harass and threaten ordinary people -- white people -- who are bothering, and oppressing, no one.  Will these tactics backfire?  I sure hope so!  But that will only happen if most Americans know what's happening, and the media is determined to prevent that knowledge from spreading... 

In other -- and related -- news, President Trump is striking a blow against left-wing racism by banning classes on "critical race theory" in the federal government.  Now, if only we could sanitize higher ed in the same fashion!


And no, I'm not foolish enough to believe that President Trump really can compel federal bureaucrats to stop demonizing white people...but he can try and, if he's reelected, the racist "anti-racists" might begin to think about finding a new way to make a living.  Sooner or later, a Trumpian federal government will show left-wing radicals the door, if they don't scurry off to Canada on their own.

Friday, September 4, 2020

Not Smiling Anymore


Friends, many of you will be in mourning because federal law enforcement gunned down Antifa "freedom fighter" (and accused murderer) Michael Reinoehl.  It's a shame that he wasn't captured, if you ask me, because a high-profile Antifa trial would have been interesting!  No doubt Sleepy Joe and the Kamster would have stepped up to contribute to his legal defense fund.  Oh well.  We'll never know...


In other news, voting is underway!  As you'll see here, the pattern of voting in 2020 will look vastly different than in past elections.  Dems are voting EARLY and they are voting BY MAIL, as never before.  Republicans will have some catching up to do on election day and at physical polling places, therefore.  How will this effect the results?  Possibly not at all.  After all, the raw numbers of voters haven't changed appreciably.  You better believe both sides will do their best to spin preliminary figures into a tidal wave of support, however.  And, as of today, based on votes cast, the Dems are probably way ahead in North Carolina.  Luckily, the election isn't today!  Let's not lose focus, huh?


Finally, the pandemic continues to shrivel up and Sweden.  And so, you might think, would the rationale for lockdown measures.  But, as this story concedes, we have a long way to go before the "final report" on the coronavirus is written.  Things could get worse in Sweden, at some stage.  Things are already getting worse in most of Europe -- despite the fact that brilliant socialists are in the lead there.  Odd, no? 

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

The Elephant in the White House


Friends, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show, featuring a fascinating discourse on the massive success that was the Republican National Convention, the harsh reality of mail-in voter fraud, the political calculus of rioting and unrest in our biggest cities, and President Trump's very presidential and bridge-building visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin.

In terms of "This Day in History," Brian and I cover Japan's (unlikely?) surrender in August/September 1945, the career of Ho Chi Minh and the issue of his nationalism versus his Marxism, and the character and war record of George Herbert Walker Bush.

What a show!  You'd be INSANE to miss it!