Saturday, May 25, 2024

Happy Trails No More


Friends, I had no idea that Uvalde, Texas was the birthplace of Dale Evans.  How about that?  It's also now the birthplace of a massive class action lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook; Activision, a video game producer; and a gunmaker, Daniel Defense.  You can guess the reason.  A Uvalde resident and former student, aged 18, shot up Robb Elementary School and killed 19 children and 2 teachers there in 2022.  The lawsuit alleges that Meta, Activsion, and Daniel Defense have been "grooming...socially vulnerable" boys and young men by promoting first-person shooter video games and gun ownership.  Salvador Ramos, the perpetrator, was indeed a fan of "Call of Duty", which is an Activision game played by millions of people all over the world.  Now, reasonable people may question why so many boys and young men are spending so much time shooting fake people in virtual combat, but the fact of the matter is that this lawsuit is riddled with flaws.  First off, why not sue Ramos himself, or his parents, who are, quite obviously, much more directly responsible for this tragedy than Meta, Activision, or Daniel Defense?  The question rather answers itself: no big cash payout can be had from a convict or his penniless family members.  Second, if you ask me, one of the most odious features of modern American society is our monetization and commodification of suffering and victimhood.  We put on a pedestal almost anyone who can make a case that they're aggrieved -- and few of us can't make that case these days -- and we shower the "disadvantaged" and downtrodden with preferments, praise, and payouts.  It's disgusting, and, when it's done on the behalf of those who have died, it debases their memory to no end.  Indeed, it turns them and their legacy into a means to an end, and the end in sight is almost  It makes my stomach turn.  Frankly, it's extremely unlikely that any of these companies will ever pay a cent because of these lawsuits, and nor should they, but even if they did how would this serve the greater good?  Does anyone think that violent video games, or TV shows, or movies, or songs, are going to disappear?  Does anyone think "AR-15 style" guns (whatever those are!) will wink out of existence because a bunch of trial lawyers start keening about it?  Heck no!  At most, the Uvalde victims' relatives will get rich (if they aren't already, given the sympathy they've generated), and the companies in question will add little disclaimers to their products: "WARNING: Shooting actual people, as opposed to avatars, may be ill-advised."  If you ask me -- and you didn't, but bear with me -- the true cause of incidents like the shooting in Uvalde isn't social media applications, or video games, or even guns.  It's human frailty, exacerbated by atrocious parenting and a culture of entitlement and egoism.  This boy felt that nothing in the world mattered except his suffering, and he decided to take it out on anyone and everyone, without any concern for their lives and dignity.  Well, he's an extreme case, but a lot of modern folks have similar attitudes about themselves, the world, and other people.  They feel aggrieved, and they want payback, no matter what the long-term consequences may be.  In that sense, I'm sorry to say, Salvador Ramos and the relatives of his victims may have something in common: a very modern and increasingly universal fixation on their own pain, and an indifference to the interests of others and of society as a whole.  I deplore these lawsuits and the rampant victimology that spawned them.

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Mushy Peas


Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show covers much ground, as is always the case.  First, Brian and I consider the upcoming British general election, scheduled for July, which, alas, the Conservatives are very unlikely to win.  They jettisoned a populist conservative, Boris Johnson, in favor of a wishy-washy moderate, Rishi Sunak, and they're about to pay the price.  Chances of another Maggie Thatcher premiership are looking very dim.  Less than one-in-five, I would guess!  Brian and I also cover developments in the Trump trial in NYC, the state of the economy, Democratic doubts about Joe Biden, the ease with which "misinformation" can be replaced with...equally wrong but more politically palatable information, the criminalization of falsehoods, the ICC case against Netanyahu and the global scrutiny of Israel's operations in Gaza, and the running mate dilemma for Trump.

When we get to This Day in History, we look at the fascinating character that was Heinrich Himmler, and the role he played in the Nazy hierarchy.

From Trump to Himmler -- the lefties would say that our coverage of the news and history this week sticks to a pretty narrow range, but you and I know better!

Wednesday, May 22, 2024



Friends, Donald Trump and Nikki Haley have a long way to go before they could be called allies, but Haley's announcement today that she will be voting for Trump is highly significant nonetheless.  It begins the process by which anti-Trump Republicans, and Trump skeptics, may be reconciled to the prospect of voting -- one more time -- for the Donald.  It was always inevitable that the vast majority of Republicans would return to the fold.  It isn't inevitable, however, that enough Republicans will vote for Trump to seal his victory and propel him back into the White House.  Haley's rhetorical approach today could be the key.  She didn't praise Trump at all.  Instead she excoriated Biden.  And all Trump needs to do to win in November, after all, is capitalize on the huge number of Americans -- red, blue, and purple -- who are against Sleepy Joe.  Bottom line: anyone who's rooting for Trump should be very heartened by these developments.

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Party Poopers


Friends, it may not be immediately apparent, but the whole thrust of lawfare isn't really the law -- it's P.R.  It's about sticking it to your enemies and making them squirm, publicly and often.  Sometimes the lefties take this to a comical extreme, as with their Gestapo raid on Rudy Giuliani's 80th birthday party to serve him his Arizona indictment for election interference.  Talk about petty!  And the glee on the faces of mainstream media commentators says it all: this isn't about "justice". It's about payback!  The only question is...who will get the last laugh?  So far this blistering campaign of lawfare has generated a lot of headlines and made liberal reporters incandescent, but it hasn't moved the political dial much, now has it?  Maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of Americans tuned out this nonsense long ago... 

In other news, the President and Foreign Minister of Iran are missing, after their helicopter mysteriously crashed.  Suspicious???  Oh yes!  I won't pretend to know the story behind it, but I bet it's a good one!

Saturday, May 18, 2024

Mr. Tough Guy


Friends, our esteemed leader, President Joe Biden, has waxed poetic on many occasions about how he'd like to give DJT a good thrashing.  Well, pretty soon he'll get his chance -- rhetorically speaking, that is.  The two upcoming debates between Sleepy Joe and the Donald will be, make no mistake, MUST SEE TV!!!  I'm highly skeptical, however, that they'll amount to a hill of beans politically.  And that, no doubt, is the point, as the Biden campaign is one big exercise in risk management, in case you haven't noticed...

Here's my latest article, which is an enhanced, expanded version of the post I made on Wednesday.  Enjoy!

False Bravado: Joe Biden is our Debater-in-Chief?

Joe Biden came out swinging this week, agreeing to face off against Donald Trump in two debates and taunting the former president. Biden claimed that he already beaten Trump in both of their debates in 2020, implying that he was confident that he could do so again. “Make my day, pal,” declared Biden, as he playfully suggested that Trump might be “free on Wednesdays” – a reference to the schedule of the Stormy Daniels hush money trial in New York City.

Despite Biden's tough talk, however, the truth is that Democrats, including key Biden confidantes, have been hedging their bets for months about whether any presidential debates would be held. Biden backers have been advising the president against debating Donald Trump – including, most recently, Nancy Pelosi. Their stated reason has generally been that Trump is a lying sack of [expletive deleted], so no self-respecting person should ever talk to him. Lurking underneath this flawless logic, however, is a burgeoning leftist contempt for all forms of dissent, as well as strong doubts about Biden's ability to go toe-to-toe with the fast-talking Trump.

Well, the people who tell Joe Biden what to say and do obviously crunched the numbers, and they decided that he simply couldn't dodge the obligation to debate his major party opponent -- not without looking like he was lily-livered and senile, that is. What Biden could do, however, and has done, is frame the debates so as to give himself maximum advantage, particularly since Trump had already declared that he would debate Biden "anytime" and "anywhere". Biden thus took up the challenge and accepted specific invitations to debate Trump in June on CNN and in September on ABC. The timing is favorable to Biden, since few people will be engaged that early in the process, and, if he stumbles, he will have plenty of time to recover before the voting starts. The venues are even more obviously favorable to Biden, since there is no such thing as a Trumper who works at CNN or ABC.

Be all that as it may, the mere fact that Biden has begrudgingly agreed to debate Trump is highly significant. There can be little doubt that the audiences for both debates will be massive, and the stakes will be, or at least will seem, high.

Then again, we should bear in mind that neither Trump nor Biden is broadly popular, and very few people do not already have extremely fixed opinions about both men. In that sense, no debate is likely to move the political dial all that much. Indeed, one could argue that no development, period, is very likely to change the election landscape, given the fact that, over the last six months, based on RealClearPolitics polling averages, in a five-way race Trump has been consistently ahead of Biden nationally, by a minimum of one and a maximum of six points. Trump has consistently held similar, if modest, leads in most of the swing states. Only a very remarkable debate indeed could shift this race out of the narrow channel through which it's been flowing for so long...or so an objective observer might conclude.

One other notable corollary to the announcement of these two debates is the effective elimination of RFK, Jr. from the lineup, which appears to please both the Trump and Biden camps. It is extremely difficult to see a third party or independent candidate breaking through and claiming victory in a presidential election, when he (or she) is denied the opportunity to appear at, and participate in, the highest profile clashes between the major candidates.

One thus has to wonder whether, in the wake of this setback, RFK, Jr. might propose a debate between the also-rans, including himself, Cornel West, and Jill Stein – or whether he might find some other, inventive way of maximizing his visibility as a candidate. If he does not, then the likely trajectory of his support in the polls will be, as both Trump and Biden seem to want, down, down, down.

And that, in the end, may be the most significant aspect of the Trump-Biden debates: their exclusion of any and all alternatives to the two least liked major party candidates in history.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.


You can find it here at Townhall:




In other news, we're moving closer to the full House of Representatives holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt.  Gee, I wonder if the DOJ will prosecute Garland?  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! 

Thursday, May 16, 2024

Ike's Last Gasp


Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show reaches way, way back to 1960 to analyze President Eisenhower's failed summit meeting with Premier Khrushchev in Paris, which was scuttled by the U-2 incident and the perfidy of one Francis Gary Powers.  Who would have thought that the fate of the world, and the integrity of an elder statesman, could both be jeopardized by the unlikeliest of airborne mishaps?  Find out more in this week's broadcast.

In addition, Brian and I cover the blockbuster announcement that Joe Biden will consent to debate Donald Trump, the shocking assassination attempt against the Slovakian Prime Minister, the bold decision of the Biden Administration to apply severe sanctions against Chinese exports, the significance of recent Russian advances near Kharkov, the GOP veepstakes and the viability of Marco Rubio, and the startling appearance of a vigorous anti-Israeli movement in (of all places) the United States.


What does it all mean?  Simple: it means whatever I say it means!  Or at least it might...




In other news, here's a very perceptive analysis of Joe Biden's decision to debate DJT -- especially impressive because it comes from a leftist who (amazingly) acknowledges the weakness of Biden's position. 

Here's a thought-provoking exploration of the consequences of an "aging" society.  Will it be necessary to redefine our notions of education and retirement, for example, to accommodate legions of oldsters?  It may.


Finally, it hasn't escaped my notice, and I know it hasn't escaped yours, that much leftist rhetoric involves the repurposing of elements of the English language to fit neo-Marxist ideological and political imperatives.  "Democracy" is a great example of an idea, and an institution, that has been shamelessly perverted by those who claim to love it most. 

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Better Early Than Never


Friends, for months a litany of high-profile Democrats have been advising Joe Biden not to debate Donald Trump.  Their stated reason was usually that Trump is a lying sack of [expletive deleted], so no self-respecting person should ever talk to him.  Lurking underneath this flawless logic, however, was a burgeoning leftist contempt for all forms of dissent, as well as strong doubts about Biden's ability to go toe-to-toe with the fast-talking Trump.  Well, the people who tell Joe Biden what to say and do obviously crunched the numbers, and they decided that he simply couldn't dodge the obligation to debate his major party opponent -- not without looking like he was lily-livered (and senile), that is.  What Biden could do, however, and has done, is frame the debates so as to give himself maximum advantage, particularly since Trump had already declared that he would debate Biden "anytime" and "anywhere".  Biden thus took up the challenge and accepted specific invitations to debate Trump in June on CNN and in September on ABC.  The timing is favorable to Biden, since few people will be engaged that early in the process, and, if he stumbles, he will have plenty of time to recover before the voting starts.  The venues are even more obviously favorable to Biden, since there is no such thing as a Trumper who works at CNN or ABC.  Be all that as it may, the mere fact that Biden has begrudgingly agreed to debate Trump is highly significant.  There can be little doubt that the audiences for both debates will be massive, and the stakes will be, or at least will seem, high.  Then again, we should bear in mind that neither Trump nor Biden is broadly popular, and very few people do not have extremely fixed opinions about both men.  In that sense, no debate is likely to move the political dial all that much.  Indeed, one could argue that no development, period, is very likely to change the election landscape, given the fact that, over the last six months,based on RealClearPolitics polling averages, in a five-way race, Trump has been consistently ahead of Biden nationally, by a minimum of one and a maximum of six points.  Trump has consistently held similar, if modest, leads in most of the swing states.  Only a very remarkable debate indeed could shift this race out of the narrow channel through which it's been flowing for so long...but never say never!


P.S.  One other notable development here is the effective elimination of RFK, Jr. from the debates, which appears to please both the Trump and Biden camps.  Will Kennedy find some other inventive way to propel himself into the public eye?  Maybe.


In other news, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, who some compare to DJT, has been shot by a man who, it appears, hated him because of his populist/nationalist policies.  It's a sobering reminder that all too often in history assassins are able to exercise an absolute veto over the deliberations of the electorate.  Let us hope that our own presidential election will not be affected by any such sinister violence. 

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

EVs, Yes -- MSG, No!


Friends, President Biden has made a very interesting move: he's upped (in a big way) U.S. tariffs on a range of Chinese exports.  As this article makes clear, jacking up tariffs on Chinese-made electric cars doesn't matter much, because they aren't sold here anyway, but the tariffs on batteries, semiconductors, solar cells, and the like could be much more significant.  This is a pretty broad assault on Chinese exports in what purports to be a stratagem to protect unions and union jobs.  Of course, Biden cronies assure us that all this has "nothing to do with politics" (ha!!!), but one suspects that shoring up union support is mighty important to a Democratic president who is languishing in the polls.  What do I make of the tariffs themselves?  I'm sympathetic to the idea that the Chinese government may be tipping the scales and engaging in unfair trade practices -- but I also suspect that U.S. unions, and big American companies, would rather not face Chinese competition, mainly because the Chinese are darn good at producing the same things we produce, only better and cheaper.  Any way you slice it, Biden's actions are, and will be seen as, a major affront to China, and they suggest that we're moving away from the old, globalist consensus with respect to free trade.  The Dems, not so long ago, were castigating DJT because his (very small) tariffs on Chinese goods were allegedly "protectionist" and inflationary.  Well, now Joe Biden himself is doubling down on the very same strategy.  Intriguing!


Here's an analysis of the "veepstakes" on the GOP side.  The author argues that Trump does not need to pick a woman or a person of color as his running mate for the sake of "diversity".  I mostly agree.  Trump is unlikely to score many brownie points with the media or with voters simply because he picks an "inclusive" V.P.  On the contrary, if his running mate is a woman or a minority who is in any way, shape, or form a lightweight, you can bet that the Left and the Fourth Estate will rip said pantywaist to shreds.  I kinda like the idea of Marco Rubio as Trump's righthand man, because I like Rubio, and I think he has the experience, the intelligence, and the moral fiber to be a good Vice-President, and, someday, an actual POTUS.  Rubio isn't perfect, mind you, but it's not easy to come up with anyone who could even begin to fill Trump's shoes, as far as the GOP base is concerned.

Monday, May 13, 2024



Friends, the Left and its judicial acolytes keep hammering away at DJT, but the polls have been remarkably consistent in showing him with a small but potentially decisive advantage over the incumbent, Joe Biden.  The latest New York Times polls in the swing states give Trump the edge, and the RealClearPolitics average of swing state polls now puts Trump ahead in all the critical backgrounds, albeit sometimes by the skin of his teeth.  Bottom line: despite the circus in New York City, if the election were held today, it is highly likely that Trump would win.  That's a remarkable testament to Trump's resilience...and/or Biden's weakness!


In other news, more media outlets, and more politicians -- including Trump himself -- are drawing attention to the problem of mankind's declining fertility.  We're only beginning to see the practical effects of this sea change, but the medium- and long-term implications are revolutionary.  If you ask me, the defining feature of modernity is...ego.  People are less religious, less inhibited by morals, and generally less concerned about anything other than their own happiness and self-interest.  An inevitable concomitant is declining fertility, since, if one can't bring oneself to care much about one's spouse, or one's progeny, or one's legacy, then why invest time and energy in procreation when, instead, you could simply buy a jetski? 

Sunday, May 12, 2024

Kudos to All You "Birthing People"!


Friends, today is a day to show appreciation to all the mothers out there.  Traditionally, most of you are female, but these days we can't assume too much, except that, if you ARE a mother, that proves that you refrained from having an abortion at least once in your life, and that was mighty accommodating of you, to be sure!  All kidding aside, mothers make the world go 'round, and I and everyone else who loiters here at WaddyIsRight honor you, and we thank you for all your many sacrifices on our behalf.  God bless you!

Friday, May 10, 2024

Beware the Marxist Horde


Friends, it's become mighty fashionable in leftist circles to praise socialism and denigrate, well, capitalism, Christianity, Western Civilization, phallocentrism, cisgender ideology, the internal combustion engine -- you name it!  Today I repost for your viewing pleasure a rebuttal to this progressive sentimentalism, and an argument for why Marxism is, at bottom, a dangerous, totalitarian creed.  The author is none other than your favorite right-wing curmudgeon, John/Jack Stengel.  Enjoy!

P.S.  The title of this post is, coincidentally, the title of one of the first political articles I ever wrote...for my high school newspaper.  I'm a confirmed anti-Marxist myself, but I acknowledge the fact that Marxists and neo-Marxists are capable of a certain subtlety, and they come in variety of flavors.

And now, on to Jack...


Here is why I hold to my view: No doubt many reform minded people (progressives if you will) were cynically used by totalitarian monsters to gain power in so many unfortunate lands. The newly empowered Bolsheviks were quickly perceived by some who had supported them, as deceitful and barbarian: Trotsky led the way in summarily savaging them though he could not prevent the desperate attempt by the Whites to save Russia in the Civil War.

I think some Marxist fundamentals obtain widely on our left even among people of good will: eg the mechanical perfectability of human nature and the belief in the inevitability of that end; the ability of science to fully comprehend history and make irrefutable predictions thereby of its "progress; the atavistic evil of free enterprise due to its production of unequal results and freedom defined as "freedom from. . . "rather than "freedom to. . . . "


True, most progressives probably know little of the 20th century's theretofore unimaginable suffering caused by Marxism in power and by imposition of Marxist principles. But I do not doubt the totalitarian intent, inspired by and amounting to neo Marxism, of people with real power today: eg. the Squad; those who control pathetically "progressive" Biden ; those who have reduced the American academy to a swamp of perversely antiintellectual, now apparently murderous, reflexive disdain and bigotry ( and they DO know Marxism and its record in power); corporate powers who pusillanimously succor the far left while Madame DeFarge knits and waits for them; disgracefully compromised partisan "journalists"and silly voluptuaries who dominate entertainment and delight in playing with social fire.


Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot and Castro had to pretend to be human for awhile at least. But I cannot think of any regime indoctrinated by any of a wide range of Marxist convictions having governed without brutality, repression and catastrophic mismanagement of the comprehensive centralized control of both public and "private" life they mandate. I think our country harbors an appallingly assertive neomarxist faction which does purpose totalitarian "fundamental transformation" and is disastrously trusted by many of good will.


The recent manifestation of open Jew hatred on our far left provides fair warning of their ESSENTIALLY vicious nature. Advocacy of that ancient subhuman belief and support for those who EVEN TODAY, intend to bring it to physically annihilating consummation, opens a window into their barbarian hearts. Of course, they would be similarly murderous towards any who doubt them, in a manner fully exemplified by Marxists in power already.

 I think marxism is historically proven to be ineluctably totalitarian. It was famously said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and Marxism in practice confirms this.

Yes. historically the American left has brought about some beneficial changes. It also gave us Eugene Debs, the "International Workers of the World", Harry Bridges , a union commie who tried to shut down the San Francisco docks in WWII, AOC, Ilhan Omar, a President who before he succumbed to the perks of office meant to "fundamentally transform" a nation already painfully evolved into a prosperous, democratic and justly intended country. I knew a loyal working guy who was convinced of the "necessity "of Stalinist Marxism in a UMW school in the 50s. Imagine the vindictive far left imposition Hillary would have visited on us had she filled those Scotus openings with devotees of the Marxist Critical Legal Studies school of legal intent. When I worked in the NY Corrections Dep't taxpayer money was used to mandate the placing in NY prisons' law libraries of books by the far left National Lawyers' Guild which advocated and gave instruction in "justified" resistance to law enforcement. Today's American left is dominated by people like that and their intent becomes more open with alarming rapidity.




Thank you, Jack!  Jack awaits your comments -- and mine, of course... Stay tuned!

Thursday, May 9, 2024

Tourism Figures in the Red?


Friends, no one has been a more consistent critic of the Chicoms than me, but even I will admit that the current wave of Sinophobia washing over the West is at times excessive.  An example: Americans invariably ascribe Chinese economic success to underhandedness, state manipulation of markets, etc., when of course the truth is that, very often, the Chinese sell lots of goods to America and to the world because they work hard, pay attention to detail, and, quite simply, build things that people want to own.  There's no crime in that.  

Be this as it may, a worrying sign in Chinese-American relations is the huge falloff in international visitors to China since 2019.  The pandemic is responsible for much of this decline, but the steadily worsening image of China in the eyes of Westerners is also to blame.  Granted, the overlords of Red China bear a lot of responsibility for this P.R. calamity, but the fact of the matter is that, if Westerners and Chinamen don't talk to each other and strive to understand one another, relations are almost guaranteed to go from bad to worse.  Back in the days of the Cold War, the USSR was a closed society, and that made dealing with the Soviets, let alone conciliating them, extremely challenging.  It also meant that there was a constant danger of conflict and escalation based largely on misunderstandings.  Could the same toxic dynamics develop between Red China and the West?  I wouldn't discount the possibility.  We in the woke West like to give the cold shoulder to anyone we dislike, and that habit of disdain is already destroying our societies from within.  As much as we distrust the Chicoms, I would argue that, for the sake of world peace and the future of humanity, we have an obligation to get to know the Chinese and to accord them a modicum of respect.  That way we can be sure that, if ever a hot war does develop between our two peoples, we will have done everything in our power to prevent it.

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Stopping to Smell the Cordite


Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show marks V-E Day and contemplates the overall significance of WWII, in addition to President Nixon's decision to expand the war in Vietnam to neighboring Cambodia.  In terms of current events, we also ponder the game of chicken currently taking place between DJT, blabbermouth extraordinaire, and Judge Merchan in NYC.  In addition, we analyze the state of the war in Ukraine, Russia's resilient finances and energy sales, RFK, Jr.'s proposed "no spoiler pledge", Kathy Hochul's racial faux pas, and Mike Johnson's political gymnastics.

It's a good show, and as Grand Poobah of Radioland I invite you to partake of it!




In other news, the Biden Administration is "pausing" the delivery of certain types of armaments to Israel, in an effort to distance itself from the civilian casualties that Israeli operations in Gaza are producing.  In all probability, this is a stance that will irritate all sides, and please no one. 

The Kennedy factor in the 2024 election remains ambiguous, with both Democrats and Republicans sweating about his potential to play the role of spoiler.  The best evidence we have thus far, however, still suggests that RFK, Jr. draws support roughly equally from both major party candidates.


Finally, check out this analysis of the coming demographic collapse in East Asia, which, the authors claim, could make problematic China's ambitious plans to dominate the world, and could also breathe new life into the Pax Americana.  The key word here is "could".  Modern societies are already more geriatric than anyone could have imagined a generation ago, but that hasn't forestalled economic growth or continued improvements in the standard of living.  Plus, in a future in which wars are fought by drones, which are, in turn, manfactured by robots, does the number of human workers available to a major power even matter anymore?  Bottom line: we're about to find out!

Monday, May 6, 2024

It's All About the Orange Jumpsuit


Friends, it appears that we are inching ever closer to a pre-election incarceration of...the likely winner of the presidential election.  Judge Merchan in NYC keeps holding Trump in contempt -- for saying things that ought to be his right as an American to say -- and keeps suggesting that, if the violations continue, he will throw Trump in the slammer.  Trump, for his part, seems pretty keen on the idea.  He suggests that upholding his constitutional rights, and all our constitutional rights, would be worth some time in jail.  Frankly, he may anticipate that he would benefit politically from a brief stint of incarceration, and he may well be right.  Certainly nothing that has happened as yet in the trial has pierced DJT's popularity in the least.  My sense has always been that the Dems and their creatures in the justice system wouldn't jail Trump for mere "contempt" unless they were really on the ropes, because of the inherent risks in doing so.  Well, maybe they're closer to desperation than I thought!  Or maybe they feel like a brief jail term would serve to accustom the American people to the "new normal" that they've envisioned for us, i.e. a "democracy" in which all dissidents are promptly jailed.  Whatever the case, the next few months sure are going to be interesting!


Speaking of the "new normal", we now have a Republican House Speaker who is more enthusiastically supported by Democrats than he is by Republicans.  Who saw that coming?  I'd say, when a Republican gets the thumbs up from Nancy Pelosi, he's officially a RINO...and maybe even an AMINO -- that's an "American in Name Only", by the way.  Shame on Mike Johnson!  He really has blown up the GOP majority in the House, or rather the tattered remains thereof. 

Per Aspera Ad Astra


Friends, we at WaddyIsRight -- so, me, myself, and I -- hereby convey our good wishes to NASA and Boeing, as tomorrow marks the first scheduled launch of that company's problem-plagued and much-delayed "Starliner" craft.  The destination?  The international space station.  If all goes well, Starliner will duplicate the manned spaceflight services already provided by Elon Musk's SpaceX.  Why do we need Starliner?  We probably don't, but we've spent so many billions on it that we might as well get a little satisfaction from its first launch...  The outsourcing of manned space flight is, in itself, a major milestone, of course.  Above all, let's hope that this development will put wind in the sails of space exploration, in general, and the U.S. space program, in particular.  There is still much glory to be had by pushing the boundaries of man's knowledge of, and access to, space.  It's high time that we cut through the red tape and seized that glory for ourselves, before the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Indians, Japanese and others commandeer it and relegate us to the status of galactic pipsqueaks.

Friday, May 3, 2024

Presidential Spoilage


Friends, my latest article is hot off the digital presses, and you get to read it first!  Behold!  


The subject is the politics behind RFK, Jr.'s recent proposal of a "no spoiler pledge".  Basically, he's trying to make Joe Biden responsible (which in a sense he is) for his (Kennedy's) independent candidacy, which may well end up handing the election to Trump.  See what you make of my analysis...

RFK, Jr.'s Proposed “No Spoiler Pledge” is a Stroke of Genius

In case you missed it – and you probably did, because the mainstream media is determined not to cover him or his campaign – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. just announced a proposal for a “no spoiler pledge”. He suggests that he and President Biden both agree to cosponsor a poll with a massive sample size in mid-October, and for whomever of the two of them is then performing the worst in a hypothetical matchup against President Trump to drop out of the race. In other words, the country would have a straight up, binary choice between Donald J. Trump and an anti-Trump – and that anti-Trump would be chosen based on popularity and viability. In this way, says Kennedy, the country could be spared a purely negative choice between Biden and Trump, with the possibility that a more hopeful, optimistic candidate (like him) would replace at least one of them. In addition, Trump would not win by default, i.e. because the anti-Trump vote was split. He would only win if he was more popular than the most popular of his rivals.

Of course, there is precisely zero chance that Joe Biden will accept this intriguing offer. The Democratic Party would never agree, under any circumstances, not to field a candidate for president, even if fielding a weak candidate, as they are, makes it extremely likely that one Donald J. Trump, whom Biden and virtually all Democrats absolutely despise, will thus be gifted a second term in the White House. If preventing a Trump victory – and, with it, a “fascist dictatorship” – truly was the objective of Democrats and progressives, they would seriously consider taking RFK, Jr. up on his offer. Alas, the actual raison d'ĂȘtre of the Democratic Party is, and long has been, the conquest of power for power's sake – and, now, secondarily, the stroking of one octogenarian ego, in particular. If “democracy” burns to the ground in the process...well, Democrats are prepared to take that risk.

Ergo, Democrats will treat RFK, Jr.'s proposed “no spoiler pledge” with the same contempt with which they've treated him, and, indeed, everyone in their own party who has dared to question the unsurpassed leadership skills of Joe Biden, or the moral imperative of masking and vaccines, or the nobility of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, or the sacrosanct human right to abortion-on-demand. Straying from the approved narrative, running for office against an establishment-approved candidate, or any other sort of coloring outside the lines, is simply not allowed on the modern left – period. And surely no one has come to understand that better than Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who would by now have been stripped even of his Kennedy genes, if DNC scientists could only figure out how that could be done.

Having said all this, RFK's no spoiler pledge should be seen for what it is – a stunt, designed to insulate Kennedy himself from the charge that he is, in fact, a spoiler. In all probability, RFK, Jr. is much more likely to play the role of spoiler than he is to be President of the United States. He knows it, I know it, and you know it. By generously giving Joe Biden an opportunity to remove him from the playing field, however, Kennedy can claim that, if indeed he ends up handing the White House to Trump, he is not morally culpable, because he was willing to step aside to prevent exactly that – but Joe Biden told him to take a hike. And not only would this be true, but it would be, in a sense, doubly true, because Biden would have had two opportunities to dispense with Kennedy's candidacy in an honorable and direct fashion: by debating him and confronting him, as an equal, in the Democratic presidential primaries, or, later, by agreeing to his “no spoiler pledge”. Biden would have – will have – given Kennedy the cold shoulder twice, thus sealing his own doom. And RFK, Jr., presumably, will offer him no solace, except perhaps a well-deserved “I told you so!”

How much does any of this impress the voters themselves? Probably not much, because few of them will hear about Kennedy's pledge to begin with. What every American citizen has become very well-acquainted with, however, is the imperiousness that has come to define the presidency of Joe Biden, and the absolute contempt that Biden, and his fellow Democrats, have for the opposition party, for third party candidates, for the Supreme Court, for free speech, for political dialogue, for real journalism (as opposed to toadying), and for, broadly speaking, alternative points of view.

In the end, it will not be the Kennedy campaign that is Biden and the Democrats' undoing this November – it will be their own splendid isolation from political and democratic realities, scrupulously and scornfully maintained in the face of all opposition.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.


And here it is at Townhall:

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Not What We Bargained For


Friends, the Speakership of Mike Johnson certainly has not turned out the way that most Republicans expected.  He didn't extract major concessions from the Biden Administration on border policy.  He didn't keep his promise not to pass any bill that a majority of Republicans opposed.  He did, of course, send billions in aid to Ukraine and Israel -- and got nothing in return.  Well, not quite nothing, because, as Johnson's popularity has waned with Republicans and conservatives, House Democrats have embraced him!  They now say they will prop up his Speakership if he loses support among the GOP caucus, which he will, and which he has.  In other words, the House is now led by a coalition of wishy-washy establishment Republicans and Democrats, and hard-line conservatives will be frozen out.  One has to wonder what additional concessions Johnson might have made to Democrats to obtain their favors...  Has he promised no impeachment of Joe Biden, perhaps?  A blanket acceptance of Democrats' spending priorities?  We don't know, but the simple fact of the matter is that real Republican control of the House was always tenuous and, as of the Dems' announcement that they would back Johnson, it's now officially defunct.  That's a bummer, if you're a Republican, but will it affect the outcome of the presidential election?  Thar's by no means certain.  In fact, by freezing in place the current --rather ineffectual -- House leadership, it may even make it easier for Trump to win, by removing the potential distraction of yet another nasty fight over who will be the next Speaker.  In any case, Mike Johnson, who seemed like such a rock solid conservative a few months ago, turns out to be anything but.  D.C. sure is full of surprises, huh?

The Mike Johnson story is just one of the major themes in this week's Newsmaker Show.  Brian and I also discuss the Trump trial in New York, the somewhat ambivalent state of the polls, my recent trip to Delaware, whether the Trumps are "new money" or "old money", the fresh set of 2020 election-related prosecutions in Arizona, how much corruption afflicts U.S. politics, Susan Wiles' role in the Trump campaign, the degree to which a second Trump term will resemble the first, and the possibility that a four-day workweek will be become the law of the land.

Boy!  Even I am staggered by the sheer number of scintillating topics that Brian and I can cover in such a short period of time.  How do we do it?  Believe it or not, no performance enhancing drugs are involved!  Our acumen and our energy is all natural!  Incredible, no?




In other news, the Fed has decided to hold interest rates steady, which means that, in its infinite wisdom, the war on inflation has not yet been won.  Will inflation, or stagflation, be acute enough to influence the dynamics of the presidential race, though -- besides confirming Americans in their already-gloomy assumptions about the state of the economy and the nation?  We shall see. 

Hopefully you've already heard about how the AARP is compromised by wokeness.  Did you know that it's also, and perhaps more fundamentally, compromised by its cozy relationship with health insurance companies?  This is yet another reason to refuse to have anything to do with the AARP.


Finally, here's an article about the significance of Ron DeSantis's recent meeting with DJT.  It's a pretty thin article.  The interesting questions are the ones it doesn't raise: might DeSantis now campaign for Trump?  Might he be under consideration for the position of Vice-President?  Might he serve in Trump's cabinet?  Might Trump come to view him as a friend and ally again, as he did with many other former rivals?  Probably it is way too early to answer any of these questions, but it's still fun to ask them.  I would hope that the acrimony between DJT and the Florida Governor will fade quickly.  After all, it no longer serves either man's interests to dwell on it.