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:


  1. Speaking of heads of state (Presidents in this case), it will be 47 years ago this Friday, that the Chilean Army had enough of their Socialist President (a close buddy of Fidel Castro), and launched a coup which established a right wing dictatorship over that country for 20 years. It was Chile's 9/11.

    I am NOT an advocate of that sort of thing for this country, and I doubt such a thing would ever happen here. However, it is worth mentioning that not all countries think the way we do, or are willing to put up with The Left and its nastiness for as long as this country has.

    1. Oh Ray, but a near coup did happen here. I might remind you that Mattis and some others were in deep with a way to overthrow the current occupant of the WH. Just read what he/Mattis had to say (and I don't say this lightly; Mattis was my husbands' former boss).

  2. With regard to that "degree of sacrifice required of the American people in World War II" I hope it is not forgotten as time goes by, that it was The United States of America that saved the world (literally) during that conflict. The Europeans started it (as usual) and we finished it.

    With regards to The Pacific we carried the burdens of that theater almost entirely alone, with some help from The Australians and The British, but it was mostly The United States of America who won the war there.

    Wonder what would have happened to Great Britain without that lend lease, and even to that vicious dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

    So my point is that if The Russians and The Germans lost all of those people then too bad. Don't forget that both of those countries were allies when the war started, and they divided up Poland.

    Sorry, but I really don't give a damn how many people Europe lost in World War I or World War II. Both World Wars started there (No, I have not forgotten Japan) and then The United States of America was dragged into their carnage, and a great deal of it because our stinking Lefties wanted to help Mother Russia.

  3. Ah, Ray. I should have known you'd be marking the anniversary of Allende's overthrow... Ha! Let's hope it won't come to that in the U.S. of A.

    You're right that we saved the world's bacon in WWI and WWII. Truth be told, though, there's an argument to be made that the world would have been better off had Germany prevailed in WWI, and in WWII we dodged the Nazi bullet, yes, only to inflict 40 years of communism on half of Europe. That's more of a wash than a "victory". Undoubtedly, though, many Europeans have good reason to thank us!

  4. Given that Trump is on tape knowing that COVID was much more serious than he stated in public and that he acknowledged purposely downplaying the impact of the virus, I don't think anyone should be celebrating Trump's handling of the crisis. His lying to the American people resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths.

    1. Oh for the love of Pete (whoever that is) get over it Rod. I just had this argument with a former professor who decided since he didn't like the reality of facts being thrown at him, that I was a racist, white privileged, deplorable child (never mind we are the same age). I really like him and respect his views, he even sponsored my Internship and Directed Study.

      The hate for the current occupant of the White House is so unbelievable, and frankly, the hate is really for the American people. Again, for Pete's sake, these series of interviews were done in Feb into March AND for the record, Pelosi, the so called Experts and such were telling the American people the same thing. Good grief, your a professor, you should know facts before you spout off the mouth.

      Please excuse me, Dr. Waddy. I have been visiting here, just not replying. I think in all honestly, a lot of folks who are in academia need reality checks.

  5. I don't know how you can live in Rochester during this time. I am afraid though, since our Republican mayor here has already allowed a BLM march, it (riots) will soon come here, 70 miles south of you. The wave of violence and fear is very real.

    Atlantic Story: As a daughter of a Vietnam Vet, I can tell dad often states "I was a sucker who got suckered into a war that couldn't be won." Very bitter and often says such things. So, did Trump say this? Well, after intense research (you know, because I have so much time on my hands) I found out that the top military brass (Mattis, etc.) were chewed out by Trump and he did say this to them; Trump called them-the top brass SUCKERS and idots and worse. He did NOT call the military men/women as such. This was a hit piece, plain and simple. The author even admitted it and has sort of backtracked. I agree, pretty depressing. Oh, if anyone is interested, you can find this for yourself on the WH notes.

    Mask Wearing: Enough of the mask mandates and lock downs, open up. I am all for herd immunity, like you didn't know my thoughts on that, wink. (chanting Sweden, Sweden, Sweden lol)

    Covid 19: You really don't want my opinion on Cuomo, do you? ((grin))-the truth is indeed what you stated. BTW, I will be voting in person, got my blue card today. I am very surprised that King Cuomo will allow us to vote in person.

    That's all the commentary/comments I have. Ray pretty much said what I wanted to say.


    By the way, I am a college professor also. However, I don't get neurotic about my academic titles the way you did with me one time. (I teach history and political science). I also had to endure years of leftist professors in graduate school who failed to convert me to their Marxist nonsense.

    Anyway, quit the anti-Trump rants. I already know you hate him.

    Instead, why don't you tell me what Biden is going to do for this country if he is elected, that is so great, that maybe I should vote for him. Yes, I have been in his presidential site, but like all politicians (both parties), a lot of it is hot air promises. About as worthless as dog poop in a public park.

    So tell me 1, 2, 3 and so on, what it is that makes you pro-Biden, seriously.

    I challenge you to convince/persuade me why Joe is such a wonderful and capable leader. Frankly, in my opinions, all he is running on is his so called record as Obama's "errand boy".

    1. I like to hear this too, Ray. Well, Rod...what say you?

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. For those upset with the facts I presented about the documented lies Trump told about the virus, it appears that I have hit a nerve. I understand why -- these revelations, on tape, are going to harm Trump's re-election chances.

    As for three things Biden would do:

    1) Biden, upon learning the seriousness of COVID, would alert the American public. You can play straight with the American public without sending them into a panic. Governor Murphy of NJ said had he known what Trump knew on February 7, he would have taken stronger measures more quickly.

    BTW, Trump had all sorts of lies today about President Obama's and Biden's response to H1N1 (swine flu). Here's all you need to know. Less than 17,000 people died in the United States from swine flu. Today, we have had 191,500 COVID deaths and growing.

    2) Biden will appoint people to the cabinet who actually know what they are talking about (unlike, say, DeVos and Carson) and won't leave under a cloud of scandal (Pruitt, Acosta, Price, Zinke). His appointees will also follow ethics rules, and his Attorney-General will represent the interests of the United States, not just be the personal lawyer of Donald Trump.

    3) Biden won't engage in disastrous tariff conflicts that contributed to the 24% increase in farm bankruptcies in 2019, and which continued into 2020. Biden also wouldn't lie and say that the tariff payments come from the Chinese. Tariffs are actually a tax American consumers end up paying. So, when Trump says that the money he collected from tariffs went to the farmers, that money did not come from the Chinese, but the American taxpayer.

    That's three.


    1. DR. CARVETH

      Not upset at all by your previous comments. It's what I expected from someone on The Left.

      As for the things you say Biden would do, I'm not that impressed. All you do is more Trump baiting about COVID.

      Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.

    2. DR. CARVETH

      Let's start over, okay? What would you do if you were elected President of The United States of America, about Border Security between Mexico and The United States? Fair enough? Then I will pose other questions, okay? This is all about YOU as president, and not Biden or anyone else.

  9. Dr.Waddy et al: Last mentioned things first: Linda: I agree with you completely in that, as I read what you maintain, these insane attacks on the President are essentially attacks on the real America he exemplifies. Rod: The dem candidate is a front for incipient far leftist totalitarianism (by definition of course, they can be no other). I would submit that people of good will like you are being used and would be summarily suppressed upon the ascension of those we oppose. Their history, their behavior, their doctrine (including that of Alinskyite deception and misrepresentation), their actions in power ( both in the 20th century when they imposed their murderous dreams on hundreds of millions and in the dictatorial mien of the now most executively empowered American far leftist, Cuomo ) are very solid basesfor a determination not to afford that faction any further sway. That is why anyone who values our blessed freedom must stand firmly against Biden and all those many cadre(including his extreme leftist running mate) he would obsequiously admit to executive power sans the knowledge or approval of the despised real America.He is a doddering fool, as is supported by his feckless reliance on Dukakis worthy cliches such as the assurance that his executive power would be guided by those who believe this country is in fundamental need of complete transformation from it's centuries long condemned reality,on a model mass murderously condemned by history.Rod, considerthe astounding change, so much of it dysfunctional, that side has forced on the US.

  10. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Of course many of those arrested in Rochester were from out of town.The far left apparently has a well organized rapid reaction force ready to repair with dispatch to any location ripe for dissolution. This is war against America and just as the original definition of treason was the disturbance of the King's Peace, this is an analogous offense against the American sovereign, the people,and deserves similar justice.

  11. Ray, a focus on border security is shortsighted. Border security works if you have a rational immigration policy. So, here are some things that I would do.

    1) Provide a fast-track to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants who are already here. Those individuals would be given six months to register with the federal government. Upon passing all the requirements for legal immigration (criminal background check, English language literacy, citizenship test), these individuals would become citizens, with one additional requirement. For the next 10 years, they would have to pay, in addition to their normal federal taxes, an additional $2000 per year fine for their living in the U.S. without documentation.

    The exception would be those who qualified under the DACA program.

    Before you go all off on this being so liberal, we need people. Whites are not reproducing to replace themselves (our birth rate is about 1.92, and we need to be 2.00 just to maintain). Blacks are down to about 2.35, which is about the same as Asian Americans. Latinos are over 5.00, but declining. We need workers, not only to get things done, but to contribute to programs such as social security. We used to have 4 workers for each person on social security. Now it is close to 1 to 1.

    That also increases our domestic marketplace.

    Plus, we can devote the resources attempting to locate and deport undocumented individuals who have been productive members of our society for years to monitoring our border (see below).

    2) Increase guest worker visas, particularly targeting Mexico. We don't have a problem with Canada because they have a strong economy. We do with Mexico because they have a weak one. We also need workers in areas (such as agriculture, domestic services, hospitality services) that have a hard time attracting labor. Money these guest workers get go to Mexico, which raises their standard of living, and improves their economy.

    3) Develop a rational and consistent immigration policy that deals with things such as asylum issues, percentage of immigrants from each country, etc.

    4) Surge for a year the number of immigration judges to deal with the huge backlog of asylum request cases at the southern border.

    5) Have "smart" border security. We don't have a fence across our Canadian border. Having a fence across our Mexican border symbolically says that Mexicans are considered to be "below" Americans and Canadians. We have the technology to prevent illegal crossings without disturbing important ecological areas and the burial grounds of indigenous people.

    That's what I would do.


    1. Rod,

      Thanks. I appreciate your comments, seriously. I disagree with you in one area. We need more wall across our border because of the drug cartels, whom I think you will agree are a very bad lot. I'm sure lots of Mexicans come up here to get away from that violence. We probably, in my opinion, need more ports of entry for those entering on a long or short term basis. Also, as you know, a lot of cartels are using and forcing decent people to carry drugs across. Yes, we have a very long border with Mexico, and longer with Canada. However, that northern border could stand a bit of scrutiny also. I'm for more ports of entry and good facilities to house people wanting to enter The United States of America legally. As it is, the ports of entry we do have are clogged, places like El Paso for example. Mexicans are hard working people. But a lot of that drug cartel problem is going to have to be fixed by the Government of Mexico. In the meantime, we do need a more fortified border to protect against the cartels, and more ports of entry for people with good intentions, and places that would be safer for them. In many cases people die crossing the deserts. If they had more ports of entry they would not have to do what they do now. But, the cartels are just plain evil and must be resisted and dealt with. And I'm talking about our cartels north of the border as well. Sorry for any typos. Thanks again.

  12. Dr.Waddy et al: Criticism of the President for alleged disrespect for the military by voices of the left is summarily dismissable. The dems will never live down their execrable treatment of our servicemen during the Vietnam war and afterwards. They didn't even try until draft dodging slick willy taught them his art of preemption.Hundreds of thousands of Vietnam vets are mentally ravaged to this day because of their vicious and profoundly ungrateful reception by these low life's. One was even elected President! No, leftists, let's hear no more disingenuous defenses of the military from you; you are utterly lacking in moral authority and credibility.

  13. Boy! I see our conversation here continues to thrive. Hooray!

    Rod, there's obviously a difference between "lying" and trying to project an attitude of confidence to the American people. Do you really think that if Trump had been more mopey about COVID thousands of people would still be alive today? No one assumed a graver mien than Gov. Cuomo -- and no Governor killed more of his own people. Your reasoning doesn't compute.

    Linda is right too that hindsight is 20/20. This virus has taken a much higher toll than most experts predicted, and certainly most politicians. Okay, Trump is fallible. So are most of us.

    Linda, for what it's worth, there's a case to be made that the Americans who died in WWI were "suckers" in a sense. Many Americans came to believe that we were duped by the British into joining the First World War to advance the cause of the British Empire. Many came to believe that American "merchants of death" wanted us in the war so they could make a profit. There's no question that many young American men had totally unrealistic ideas of what combat would be like. They romanticized the war as an adventure, when in truth it was more like a horror show. I'm not saying that Trump said what he's alleged to have said. I'm saying that, instead of getting the vapors every time someone in uniform is criticized, we could exercise a little critical thought...

    I too will vote in person -- early. Seems perfectly safe.

    Rod, your arguments for Biden are interesting. You say Biden would do a better job responding to future pandemics. That's easy to say and difficult to prove. The Dems have been keener on masking and lockdowns, and from earlier on, so if in the end those prove to be effective countermeasures, then you could make a case for your Biden preference. If, on the other hand, early international travel bans are key, then you'd have to go with Trump, wouldn't you? And your claim that "all you need to know" about COVID is that more people died of it than died of swine flu is...just plain ridiculous. They are two completely different diseases and different political challenges. The closest analogy to the Dems being in charge of our COVID response, federally, would be the socialists in Europe who were in charge of their nations' COVID response, and/or the Dem Governors who were in charge here. Neither analogy inspires confidence, Rod.

    So you say Biden's appointees will be...better? Again, a totally nebulous standard. Insofar as you will ignore their faults, well, I guess so.

    And you say Biden will end our trade war with China, along with many tariffs. Sure he will! He'll cave to his Red Chinese buddies on Day One! Everyone knows that. And will that temporarily reduce some prices for American consumers? It might. It also jeopardizes our country's future.

    Jack, I certainly agree that we need to get to the bottom of these networks of instigators traveling the country. I frankly don't believe they're agents of the Democratic Party, however. The Democratic Party stands to lose the election because of their antics. Then again, there may be some leftist grandees who feel destabilization is worth the risk.

  14. Rod, with all due respect, I'm not sold on your immigration policy. You say we need more people. Maybe, but that's what LEGAL immigration is for. If we need to increase the levels -- already at 1 million per year! -- then no one is stopping us... And your proposal to fix the problem of the mass arrival of asylum seekers is to be "rational" about it! Gee, great idea. Why didn't I think of that? We all know what "rational" means to most Democrats: let the vast majority of asylum seekers stay. And that encourages even more to come. You must know what your scrupulous "rationality" will lead to. Either you don't care, or you actually look forward to a flood tide of bogus asylum seekers.

    Ray is right that hauling down the wall will make it easier for cartels to smuggle drugs into this country. But I guess, since the Dems have decided our drug laws are just part of "systemic racism", perhaps they would let the drugs flow freely anyway? Honestly, sometimes it seems to me that the Democratic Party exists for no other reason than to make life a misery for poor people of color. Why else would you look the other way as thousands upon thousands of poor black and Hispanic people are attacked and/or killed by criminals...and pretend that the police are the real problem? But I digress. Incidentally, increasing the number of legal and illegal immigrants won't help poor Americans either. It would make it much harder for them to find work.

    Jack, I see what you mean about the disingenuousness of the Left's defense of the military. Really, they have no respect for ANY institution, if it gets in the way of their ideological quest to remake America and the world in their own image. Plus, we all know that the surest way to get the Left to turn on the military would be for Trump to use it, anywhere in the world, for any purpose, no matter how justified. The leftists would rediscover their inner peaceniks in a heartbeat!

  15. Dr. Waddy, I am disappointed in your replies in that you make charges with no evidence. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that Democrats want to accept the vast majority of asylum seekers. What the vast majority of Democrats do want is for asylum seekers to receive a hearing. Most asylum seekers are not going to succeed, but that doesn't mean that they should be denied a hearing. Surging judges to deal with the backlog means that asylum seekers will be given timely hearings.

    Again, you claim that the claims of asylum seekers are "bogus" with no evidence. Individuals can seek asylum "due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future 'on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion'” (1980 Refugee Act). There are some asylum seekers who are coming because of economic reasons (and whose asylum claims would be denied), and there are those who are coming out of fear of being victimized by drug cartels (who have undue influence with the countries' governments). Those claims are not bogus. But what is legitimate or not is a question for a judge, not you nor me.

    Once those asylum seekers coming for economic reasons learn that those reasons won't get them asylum, that will curb the number. As for those with "fear" claims, the burden is on them to prove it, so just saying you are afraid won't cut it.

    Tearing down the wall would have a marginal impact on drug smuggling, and I never suggested tearing down what is there anyway. The vast majority of drugs come through other ports of entry (ports, airports).

    To suggest there are no racial inequities in our criminal justice system is to willingly ignore discrepancies ranging from drug penalties (cocaine versus crack) to death row inmates (a far greater proportion of blacks receive the death penalty for capital crimes than whites do for capital crimes).

  16. Trump lied. There is no dispute about that. On February 7, he told Woodward that COVID was 5 times more deadly than the flu. On February 26, he told Dr. Sanjay Gupta that COVID was no more deadly that the flu, even pushing back on Gupta when Gupta noted that COVID appeared to be 5 times more lethal than the flu.

    Plus, Trump lied not to avoid panic, but to make sure that the economy did not get affected, and thus ruin his re-election chances. If Trump did not want to panic the public, then he would not be going around claiming that the cities will burn, the suburbs will be ruined, the stock market will crash and the Chinese will own the United States under Biden.

    You are right that I don't know for a fact that Biden would do a better job in a pandemic. I do know he could not do worse than Trump, so the probability is that he would do a much better job.

    Trump did not close off the U.S. from the virus with his travel ban. First, the virus was already here by the time he closed off travel from China. Second, thousands still came into the U.S. on flights from China during February. Third, his travel ban for Europe did not come until March 11. So, the one thing that Trump did to try and mitigate the crisis was relatively ineffective, largely because the time that could have been bought by the China travel ban was wasted by his not taking the virus seriously enough.

    Trump did not have to get "mopey." What he could have said is that the virus was airborne and that people should wear masks. That one measure would have slowed the spread, and allowed the U.S. to ramp up PPE production, test and develop therapeutics and vaccines, and establish an effective test and trace system. He failed to do that, and the result is that this crisis is deeper and more prolonged than it should be.

    The idiot still holds rallies and does not direct his followers to wear masks. He chides reporters for wearing masks.

    As for the "socialist" leaders in Europe, what is their countries' per capita deaths versus this country's?

    Here is the list of the 10 worst countries in terms of per capita COVID deaths


    140 countries have lower per capita COVID death rates than we do.

    Our country's performance hardly inspires any confidence.

  17. Some fair points there, Rod. Some.

    Okay, Trump's statements about the risks of COVID versus the risks of the flu were not consistent. The whole country was trying to figure out the disease at that point. Assessments were in flux. When Trump was "lying" about COVID, according to you, Cuomo was refusing to lockdown anything, and making Chinese and Europeans feel welcome in NYC. You are expecting a level of decisiveness and clarity from Trump, in February, that NO LEADER IN THE WESTERN WORLD displayed. Including Biden.

    You promote masks as the magic bullet to stop the virus. They appear to be effective, in some contexts. You also have to face the fact that the Scandinavians have contained the virus without wearing masks. We don't honestly know which of our long list of countermeasures is working the best. That's still a work in progress.

    As your list of countries with the worst per capita COVID deaths shows, there's no correlation there between political ideology and pandemic excellence. Plus, there's little consistency in how countries report their metrics, AND the pandemic is far from over. Right now, numbers are rising steadily in Europe and declining here. I guess that proves Trump is a brilliant virologist? Somehow I don't think that's a leap you're prepared to make.

    1. DR. NICK

      Come on now! You know that Dr. T. is the one who manufactured the virus in his secret labs, and then blamed it on the Chinese. I don't have the proof yet, but by the time I get it I will conveniently disappear.

      We must elect Dr. B. because he does have the cure for this mystical virus, which he and Dr. H. have perfected in their secret labs.

  18. Dr.Waddy et al: Mao: One of the most savage perpetrators of evil in history; it is meet to note though, that he was once a member of the human race. I think it certain that the American Taliban far left today embraces and advances several prospective Maos, aoc being the most obvious. Today they appear nominally lawful and civilized but given the totalitarian power that left may acquire, they would gladly bustle in murderous vindictiveness.

  19. Dr.Waddy from Jack: My above comment was beside your point above. That meeting was the most astonishing political event I had ever seen! In late '71 I had stood on the hill at Lok ma Chau in the section of Hong Kong closest to the border and was able to see about ten miles into a country absolutely forbidden to Americans. (Some of the farmland I was seeing is now a city of millions: Shen Zhen). I don't know what the monster's motivation was;perhaps to bamboozle the Russians. But I am so glad it led eventually to the deliverance of China from destitution. On President Nixon's part it was a brilliant and courageous act for which he deserves everlasting credit I think. The picture of him shaking hands with a hellish subhuman like that was bizarre but FDR, Truman and Ike had done it and it redounded greatly to the benefit of hundreds of millions. I hope Nixon is yet aware of how his stock is rising; it is especially germane when we consider the calumny another gutsy President is confronting today.

  20. Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: We've probably all imagined how much better things could have been if the Stalin's, Lenin's, Maos and Pol Pots had been discerned by enough in power to prevent their acquiring the sway they used to scourge their own countries. Except perhaps for Mao,they did give some warning of their sociopathy. (Perhaps Alinsky took note of this in enjoining radical leftists - no I don't think he was as nonpartisan as to have been sincerely coaching conservatives - to carefully conceal their intentions until their power is guaranteed). But the American far left has been as presumptuous and reckless as to have given us a very reliable picture of how things will be if they achieve totalitarian power. The American academy, a disgracefully antiintellectual swamp of bigotry, consequent now
    capital ignorance and life ruining intimidation ( oh no, no gulags or execution yards. .. yet); the MSM, captured by the far left and professionally shamed in their obsequious surrender to its doctrine; so many of the unions (that's an old story) and much of corporate America, as is exemplified by the NFL's appeasement of racial dictators. For God's sake, so to speak, the radicals are as contemptuous of the real America as to flout their hand! They will subject the totality (as totalitarians) of our public and "private" lives to their '60's dorm room smoky fantasies. We had a telling example of how their dreamy flower power inevitably ends in Seattle and now in Portland and in 1967 San Francisco when the bad asses moved in; it all went to hell. How much more do we have to see? Incipient dictators are knocking at the door to complete political power in a manner so open as to affirmtheir confidence that they are GOING to WIN! We must act now to marginalize them and assure the impossibility of their rise to the top. Long dead Russians, Germans and their WWII victims, Chinese, Cambodians, Ethiopians all cry to us "You can see who they are and what they are about: learn from us; while you can ,STOP THEM IF YOU WILL! Do you have the will? You would if you knew what we know." Mao the librarian, Pol Pot the student: no doubt they once entertained the company and discourse of people who did not know they were in the presence of things crept out of the abyss. But history and the American far left are giving us unmistakeable warnings and doing it with relish and withering disdain for us. We must disempower them starting in November.

  21. Ray, you jest, but the lefties really do seem to believe that, minus Trump, no American would have died of the coronavirus. They're that unhinged!

    Jack, the notion that incipient Maos may be percolating in America today is chilling...but of course it is also undeniably true. Our education system is designed to malign and dehumanize large portions of the population. All it would take is a gifted sociopath to seize on this vengeance-based ideology and translate it into mass murder, and -- presto! -- Mao might suddenly find himself in second place to an American practitioner of genocide. Is it likely? I won't go that far, but the potential for almost unlimited evil is always lurking in the shadows of human nature (unleashed and justified by utopian fantasies).

    Yes, what must it have been like to shake hands with a man like Mao? He was, to be fair, flesh and blood, and probably not a very imposing figure either when Nixon made his acquaintance. I've read accounts of Hitler that dwell on his physical shortcomings, his fastidious, bourgeois habits, and his awkwardness. It's extraordinary how mere mortals like these can engineer the deaths of millions, and perhaps the scariest part of it is that, in their youth, picking these monsters-to-be out of a lineup would have been darn near impossible. And so...equivalent monsters now walk among us! Of course they do. But are they named Joe, Kamala, Barack, Michelle, Alexandria, or...something else? That we can't be sure of. And, when we are sure, it might be too late.

  22. Dr.Waddy: But we have the astonishing, appalling history of the totalitarian ravaged 20th century to school us. The Edwardians couldn't have anticipated the depravity to come in the new century but we know what happened. To the best of my knowledge,western justice rejects the idea that behavior may be predicted; in principle it relies on objectively proven behavior as justification for remedial or preventative action. It may well be that in order to survive we must enforce reasonable assumptions of future radical behavior from present expression or deeds. How far must we bend to assume human good will when there is much good reason to think it unlikely? The radical leftist does not so and consequently enjoys much latitude in it's actions and does so with cynical delight and confidence. If we do not deprive them of this perhaps decisive tactical advantage they may casually crush us.

  23. Interesting thought, Jack. You're right -- we conservatives adhere to the quaint doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", and PROVING anyone guilty always has been a challenge. The Left increasingly, and unapologetically, advocates a standard of "guilty until proven innocent" (unless you belong to a "protected class"). One advantage of their approach is that it automatically places their enemies on the defensive!

  24. Dr. Waddy. You tend to make some sweeping generalizations. Could you provide a couple of examples where the left has adopted the standard of "guilty until proven innocent?"

  25. Sure thing, Rod.

    The best example I can think of is Brett Kavanaugh. The Left was happy to assume his guilt, based on a REFUTED allegation from one person, decades after the fact. Why? Because it was convenient, and Kavanaugh wasn't "likeable", from their perspective.

    Another great example is the whole concept of "implicit bias". The theory is that, if any system results in people of color (or women) not getting whatever share of life's rewards some liberal genius thinks is "fair", this proves that the system is "racist" (or sexist). No need to get into the weeds and demonstrate that anyone making decisions actually IS racist, or is acting based on racist intent. Guilt can simply be assumed.

    I could go on. And so I shall!

    It's pretty obvious that, for most lefties, every police officer in America who has an altercation with a black man, or ends up shooting him, is presumptively racist and bloodthirsty. The circumstances -- like, say, the black man in question is chasing you with a knife -- hardly seem to matter.

    And then there's the biggest presumptive malefactor of them all: Trump! Is there any negative story about Trump, no matter how far-fetched, that leftists are inclined to doubt, or to apply their critical faculties to? Is there anyone on the Left who will defend Trump from baseless calumnies, like the ridiculous notion that he works for Putin? I don't think so. Where Trump is concerned, the Left's thinking is totally beclouded by animus. It can't even conceive of the theoretical possibility of his innocence.

    Okay. There are some examples for you. I can't wait for the refutations that will surely follow. :)