Follow Dr. Waddy

Tragically, Google has suspended the service that allows blog readers to subscribe by email to the blogs of their choice. This means that, in order to keep up with all the WaddyIsRight excitement, you might want to add "WaddyIsRight.com" to your favorites and visit this site OBSESSIVELY! I can't think of any better use of your time, can you? Alternatively, send me an email at nlwaddy@yahoo.com and I will try to get you subscribed from my end.

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!


https://wlea.net/newsmaker-september-23-2020-dr-nick-waddy/

 

***

 

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?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/plastic-face-shields-do-not-stop-spread-covid-19-study 


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!


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/23/a_circus_senate_hearing_gop_sees_gain_if_dems_act_up_144278.html

 

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

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-evolution-on-supreme-court-vacancies 


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!


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-chief-wolf-border-crossers-single-adults

17 comments:

  1. Dr.Waddy from Jack: In considering the vulnerability of President Trump's nominee I thought of Justice Thomas and the crucible to which he was so unjustly subjected.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: As a black male Clarence Thomas could have been expected to enjoy very much politically correct deference. But it availed him nothing. Today's exceedingly vicious and desperate far left: from them we should expect more,far more, ad hominem excoriation! But they have today to contend with a President as crafty and nasty as they are. Oh, they can dish it out but THEY CANNOT take it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack: I am very glad to have been mistaken about the certainty of Romney throwing his Rino monkey wrench in the works. If he sticks with his promise, one obstacle is cleared and it does suggest that other Rinos may be similarly chastened.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jack, I will disagree with ever so slightly: I think Clarence Thomas's status as a black man did avail him something. For one thing, he almost certainly wouldn't have been chosen in the first place, but for his skin color. For another, the Dems were forced to attack a black man for sexual aggression...and that's not a comfortable thing for them or for anyone in this society to do. They tried to manage it by framing it as a battle to defend the honor of Anita Hill, a black woman. They didn't succeed. 11 Dems voted to confirm Clarence Thomas. It was a different world back then -- the Democratic Party wasn't completely partisan and underhanded.

    Yes, it's great news about Romney! Maybe he figured out that Utah would never forgive him for surrendering SCOTUS out of contempt for Trump. Things are looking up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This battle between the DemoCRAZIES and the RePOOPlicans will NEVER be as exciting as the last battle scene in "March or Die" with Gene Hackman and a lot of other great actors. Nothing like the French Foreign Legion taking on hordes of charging Arabs. A great movie and one worth watching. So if you get bored with SCOTUS hearings and presidential debates, watch "March or Die"!

      Delete
  5. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Your comments about Justice Thomas make alot of sense!What's all this about Pelosi threatening impeachment? Of who; the President or the seated new Justice? She can't gum up the confirmation process, not procedurally at least.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr.Waddy from Jack: If a sixth lawful justice is seated, I wonder if the rump radical faction might resign out of picque and despair. They would have only to look at what it's like for NY conservatives: virtually complete impotence. The left pays grudging deference to democracy only when it empowers them; it seems never to occur to them that their outlook is wrongheaded and that flyover country is finally waking up to their totalitarian convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ray, thanks for the recommendation! "March or Die" sounds like a pleasant diversion from the horrors of presidential politics... Plus, we need to get used to bullets flying, right?

    Jack, I'm not sure that Pelosi has explicitly threatened impeachment. She's just referred ominously to using "all the arrows in our quiver". Since Democrats are about as adept at archery as they are at marksmanship, I don't think we have much to worry about.

    Mass resignation of liberal judges? That'll be the day! It's a pretty sweet gig, even in the minority. Plus, that would be giving up on their dream of a federal power grab for the indefinite future. Doesn't seem like their style. HOWEVER, if Trump wins reelection, I do think you'll see left-wing judges and bureaucrats resign and retire in dribs and drabs. That's consequential in itself. The Deep State is slowly bleeding to death...but if Biden wins it will recover its strength mighty quick.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack. Some incidentals after the broadcast:
    From Jack: the left, from the foo foos to the prospective Pol Pots, are always upset by any opposition or disagreement. Not only is it blasphemously incorrect, it is morally reprehensible because it dares to doubt that which their unimpeachable righteousness and omniscience decrees. Did the dem's despicable attack on Clarence Thomas cost them: a year later: the clintons and and a dem Congress. Not! They may well "feel" a real good ad hominem circus coming on for them. It may be Leyte Gulf and Okinawa time for them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: FDR in 1944: so many fascinating factors: He must have known he would likely die during a 4th term. Did he have reason to think a Republican (Dewey? Taft? Or?)would mislead us? Perhaps he was thinking of postwar and had hopes for a good relationship with Russia which he feared might be derailed by the GOP. Many, perhaps including FDR, feared a postwar return to the Depression and he might have thought the GOP would bring it on or otherwise repeal the New Deal. But then, one would think he'd see Wallace as an apt successor. But he didn't. He must have expected his choice to become President; why did Truman fill the bill? FDR was very good at sizing people up and bringing great leaders up from lower to be expected levels (eg Marshall, Eisenhower, perhaps King). Truman also maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: The Soviet bomb: imagine if THEY, not we ,had acquired it in 1945 ( perhaps from the German dissidents ) and that they had demonstrated it on Berlin . What if the traitors in the US and Britain had thrown monkey wrenches into the Manhattan project as we have to Iran's effort and our bomb was delayed? Soviet arm twisting on Japan? Red Army occupation of all of Germany and consequent Finlandization of Western Europe? In a more realistic vein; what about today's Rosenbergs, Fuchs and Hiss? Heck, they've had the key to the White House in recent history. They cannot count on the feckless Soviets to succor them now but they thrive in an atmosphere in which their cynical and disingenuous projected image of what amounts to treason has done them much benefit. That Jane Fonda has not worn Federal prison blue for the last 50 years tends to affirm that. The conviction of the atavistic scraggly America Taliban fool after 2001, does suggest some approach to a return to sanity which must continue, especially today, when scoundrel time tries us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Discovery of oil in Middle East: Just read a fascinating article about the consequent FDR - Saudi King Abdul Aziz meeting in Feb. 1945. It says the Roosevelt administration had strong concerns about an expected impending oil shortage and saw Saudi oil as the solution and also that they wanted to prevent the Brits from gaining control of it (?!). It said FDR, having learned about some of the liberated death camps sought from the King agreement that 10,000 Jews be settled in Palestine. I don't know how that went but the Saudis at least didn't participate in the hideous 1948 Arab onslaught on Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jack, I certainly don't believe that the Dems fear they will ever face real accountability for their misdeeds and distortions. Look what they've done to Trump...and gotten away with, scot-free! Moreover, they expect to be the ultimate victors in the war between left and right, so it's we conservatives who they think will face THEIR wrath.

    Jack, I wouldn't assume that FDR knew for a fact he would die during his fourth term. Acceptance of one's mortality isn't a human strong point. And I doubt he hated Republicans with the passion of an Obama or a Pelosi, but he surely can't have looked forward to a change in leadership. Probably he viewed himself (rightly) as the strongest candidate the Dems had.

    What if the Soviets had developed the bomb first? Egads! I don't like the sound of that. Luckily I don't think that was ever likely. It took huge resources, which arguably only we had -- during the war. The first bombs were few in number and not neatly as powerful, too. Arguably it wasn't until the hydrogen bomb that the strategic situation was greatly altered by atomic weaponry.

    Interesting about the FDR/Saudi meeting in 1945. It was just FDR's style to be trying to undermine British hegemony in the region. By and large, though, the world needed the Saudis' oil, so, whoever pumped it, I'm glad it was pumped.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Really like your observation that the deep state is slowly bleeding to death. Yes, yes! The President promised to drain the swamp and he may be succeeding. What a signal accomplishment for this resolute man; we MUST stand with him in November and help him finish the job of putting the far left on the ash heap of history where so execrable predecessors await it!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr.Waddyfrom Jack: What, though, if clandestine German Marxist scientists had defected to the Soviets early in the war? The Russians achieved prodigious feats of resource acquisition and production during the war. Even their actual creation of their bomb was an astounding feat for a nation so very wounded by war so recently. To this day we mostly speculate how a nuclear war might out. Hiroshima and Nagasaki give some evidence but. . . ahh, we really don't know. Combatants might survive. Apparently for years Soviet thinking tended in the direction that nuclear war is winnable. There has never been a general nuclear exchange: to what do we attribute that? Mutual Assured Destruction had to have been a major factor,yes. Luck too. It would appear though that the "nuclear wars are winnable " school never achieved decisive dominance and/or that it's day ever arrived? Really, it would take a lot to destroy the good old Earth and I don't think we have achieved that ability (sorry Al and how have you fared since democracy's unforgiveable denial of your due 20 long years ago and so many missed opportunities for dreamy meddling on your part?)







    ReplyDelete
  15. Quite right, Jack. President Trump has made progress against the Deep State, but it is painfully slow. Even eight years would not be enough to cleanse DC of all swamp monsters, in fact. Do I hear sixteen???

    Jack, my impression is that no nation in WWII made a serious effort at building "the bomb," except for us. Even had the Soviets obtained perfect knowledge of how to build it prior to 1945, I doubt they would have tried. They had their hands pretty full! Once we had the bomb, though, the Russian mind -- paranoid and jealous as it is -- would insist on duplicating it.

    Before hydrogen bombs and ICBMs/SLBMs, I'd say "winning" a nuclear war really was a possibility. In strictly military terms, we probably would have been wise to nuke the Soviet Union into oblivion any time before about 1965. But hey, we're softies at heart. That's long been clear.

    ReplyDelete