Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show considers whether the latest Democratic Party/leftist effort to render American democracy null and void -- by removing Trump from the ballot -- will succeed. In addition, we cover King Charles III's battle with cancer, Tucker Carlson's controversial decision to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin, Nikki Haley's awkward appearance on Saturday Night Live and what her next move might be, Elon Musk's support of a lawsuit against Disney that alleges it fired a conservative actress without cause, DJT's hints about who he might choose as his running mate, the bungled effort to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas, and the plausibility of Pentagon claims that we are bombing Iranian proxies in the Middle East.
When we get to This Day in History, Brian and I talk about the significance of the U.S. victory early in 1943 at Guadalcanal, and the plight of dissidents in the Eastern Bloc.
Boy oh boy -- what a lineup! What a show! What a history-making analytical feat! No wonder it's the highest-rated radio show in the entire world involving a guy named Nick Waddy...
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-feb-8-2024-dr-nick-waddy/
***
Will SCOTUS let Colorado (and other states) purge Trump from the ballot? Based on the skeptical questions asked by many Justices, there's hope tonight that sanity may prevail.
And here's a shocker: Joe Biden broke the law when he retained secret documents as Vice-President, but he won't be charged with any crime. That's the conclusion of prosecutors, who also pointed out that bringing charges against Biden would be futile, because, as a confused old man, he would likely be viewed sympathetically by jurors. Ouch! The bottom line: Trump and Biden arguably broke the same law, but only one of them will face any legal consequences. Justice ain't blind, folks. Not while Merrick Garland is running the show, anyway.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68245617
As we all know, Democratic lawfare against Trump, and other conservatives, is escalating, but the right-leaning majority on the U.S. Supreme Court serves as a check on the ability of leftists to crush their enemies underfoot, regardless of what voters think. Well, in Brazil, the political right enjoys no such advantages. In fact, the country's highest court is in the hands of backers of their new socialist president (who is also their old socialist president), Lula. Lula's tame judges have already forbidden the former conservative president, Jair Bolsonaro, from running again for the presidency. Now they're gearing up to prosecute him and many of his top lieutenants as "coup" plotters. Brazil looks more and more like a banana republic every day, but the truth is that we aren't far behind in the race to the bottom. We're a couple of retired, or seriously ill, or assassinated Supreme Court Justices away from the complete collapse of pluralistic democracy, if you ask me. I just thank heaven that DJT, when he was at the helm, guided SCOTUS sagely to its present configuration. It's not a body in which I repose complete confidence, but it's a million times better than the gaggle of progressive automatons that the Left wants to turn it into, and would have turned it into, had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election.
Finally, I know nothing about Joe Rogan, but I strongly agree with his views about the Biden Administration's stubborn refusal to afford RFK, Jr. Secret Service protection. I guess the Bidenist line is that you can't shoot a candidate who doesn't exist, but, with all due respect, RFK, Jr. continues to exist, and he continues to battle bravely for many of the principles on which this country was built, even if Democrats would prefer that he be eradicated, either physically or psychologically.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The brilliantly conceived Electoral College saved us from the guaranteed catastrophic consequences of a vindictively lawless Hillary Scotus. The Founding Fathers are "the gift which keeps on giving". A second DJT term might well seal the deal for a lawful Scotus for a very long time, perhaps enough time to make the frivolous"progressive" courts empowered by a progressively compromised dem party seem like a bizarre interlude. Believe me, freedom for E. Europe seemed an impossibility in the 60's and 70's. Living through the gloriously achieved deliverance of those countries was ASTONISHING to we who remembered that and how very miraculous it must have been for those counterintuitively relieved of unrelenting Great Russian supported and administered oppression!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I agree that the British monarchy is a very important institution, the continuance of which would greatly benefit Great Britain and those who wish her well. Some historians believe that the absence of a hereditary German monarchy left a void allowing the usurpation of German loyalty by Hitler. "Reign but not rule" is an intriguing concept; it is, I think, a vital part of the redeeming British essence, from which world civilization has derived much good. Too, their monarchy isn't entirely symbolic; I was reading that George VI favored Halifax and could have removed his peerage to clear the way for the entrance into the Commons (not as an MP though)which Halifax thought only proper when he persuaded Chamberlain not to nominate him for PM. PM Halifax would probably have capitulated and thereby guaranteed the thralldom of Great Britain and Europe to the onrushing Nazi monster, with unthinkable consequences for the world. "Dignity" (as you noted), "tradition", "stability", "integrity", "immeasurable worth", "glory ":all are terms rightfully accruing to the British sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: So some people are in a rare old snit because Tucker Carlson interviewed Putin. Ehh, could Tucker's unpopularity with those on the far left side of things be at all in play in this? Larry King interviewed the "Son of Sam" in person (and found him quite well middle and content). Was Larry castigated for that? What advantage might Nikki Haley think to gain from becoming the champion of the country club GOP set against the guache Magas. The Maga cat is out of the bag for good; DJT proved it can win and Maga will not again stand for being patronized. Rinos, well meaning in their way and daintily disturbed by their party's capture by one just as down and dirty as the antiamerican left, have nowhere to go. Surely they would not commit the political suicide of making "common cause" - a"united front" , with the incipient totalitarians of our polity(?).
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: "Ready from day one" (to ascend)is a very sound standard for any prospective VP. It is of course not the only one.But DJT has shown that a very competent President can come from outside high government or politics. A much wider field of persons so qualified is perhaps now considerable. How about the military(again), business management and enterprise , the health field, the judiciary, intellectually principled academia( including scientists), Mayors, law enforcement, heads of NGOs, the clergy, revered coaches, distinguished veterans, etc. Of course political viability is indispensable but again, DJT proved it can be developed outside traditional settings.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: A question: if Scotus were to , perhaps improbably, support Colorado's excision of DJT from its ballot as justified by the 14th Amendment, would that not make moot any further effort to elect him? He would be as Constitutionally barred as one not born in the US, yes?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Guadalcanal was a standup fair fight between Americans and the vaunted Japanese and was perhaps, our military's "finest hour" ever . Combined with the astonishing success at Midway (Admiral Spruance , who fought our carriers brilliantly and preserved the victory with laudable restraint, was not even a "carrier Admiral"; he was a cruiser man and a very wise selection by the great Admiral NImitz) it put the profoundly evil Japanese effort on defense for good.
ReplyDeleteDrs Waddy and Carveth: In scanning some recent posts I saw a dialogue between you in which the question was asked "what is an assault weapon". By definition, it is a firearm with both automatic (continuous fire as long as the trigger is held back) and semiautomatic (one shot only for each pull of the trigger) function enabled by a selection lever. It was developed in WWII by the Germans and Russians due to their view that the ordinary soldier was better off with a short range weapon capable of selected increased volume of fire than he was with a conventional one shot at a time rifle. Also, the ammo is smaller and the soldier can carry more. For 99% of Americans it has , for a time long preceding Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, been illegal
ReplyDeleteto own any automatic weapon. The term assault weapon is misused to describe any weapon lacking automatic fire capability. This misuse is sometimes done with unknowing but good intent but deliberate and disingenuous use is characteristic of the MSM and of those activists who purport to think that gun control generates crime control. The 70's and '80s effort to lock up more criminals; plus resolute support for energetic policing are the only ways to stop most criminals from victimizing the law abiding.
Jack, one more conservative SCOTUS Justice would be wonderful -- but it also might be enough to convince the Dems to shelve and/or subdue the whole institution once and for all...
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the only reason Halifax wasn't chosen to be P.M., instead of Churchill, was that Halifax himself demurred.
MAGA is in the ascendancy now, to be sure, but I wouldn't count on it always being so. I meant what I said last night about there being no clear line of succession after Trump. I would be shocked if the establishment types didn't make a strong play to reestablish their grip on the party.
I agree -- a president need not come from the Washington elite.
I would say: yes, if Trump is declared ineligible to run for president by SCOTUS, then logically he would be stricken from EVERY ballot, and no vote for him would count.
Anonymous, I thank you for that clarification -- and it proves, once and for all, that the Democratic/leftist blather about "assault weapons" is both semantically and factually misleading.