Friends, we here at WaddyIsRight wish a hearty congrats to all the socialist devils in the U.K. who today are celebrating a big win for the Labour Party, which trounced the Conservatives. Interestingly, in the popular vote, Labour's victory doesn't look nearly as decisive, but in seats the Tories got walloped. Oh well. Better luck next time. Nigel Farage's Reform Party got at least four seats, and Farage himself got elected to Parliament for the first time, meaning he'll be a thorn in the side of both Labour and the Conservatives. Interesting times ahead! What's more, Britain's fiscal picture is mighty bleak, so Labour may rue the day it won the right to govern the country... We shall see. In any case, my main interest is in seeing a fundamental realignment of the British right, such that its goals of maintaining Britain's sovereignty and territorial integrity, its traditional Christian culture, and the people's rights, are properly served. That process begins...today!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nglegege1o
And heartfelt apologies for not posting this week's Newsmaker Show sooner, but I was busy yesterday taking in the action at Wimbledon! You know how it is: noblesse oblige... Anyway, it's a great show, which considers in detail the Dems' predicament re: Biden, in the wake of his miserable debate performance (and his scatterbrained remarks since then). Brian and I also ponder the Supreme Court's ambiguous immunity ruling, the disbarment of Rudy Giuliani in New York State, whether the Left is trying to engineer a financial and cultural collapse, the rearguard efforts by the French establishment to maintain its grip on power, the decline and fall of the Chevron doctrine and the new balance of power in the federal government, and the primary defeat of Jamaal Bowman. Not a bad lineup, eh?
https://rumble.com/v559x4a-wlea-newsmaker-july-3-2024-dr-nick-waddy.html
https://nypost.com/2024/07/04/us-news/biden-loses-train-of-thought-in-fourth-of-july-speech-to-vets/
Dr. Waddy from Jack: "Woe! Woe for England. . ." Long denied socialists with a mandate no less! "Aye, that hath a frosty look to it. . ."
ReplyDeleteBut you are there and with your characteristic common sense and rectitude afford us a measured tentative view of what I greatly fear a catastrophe for that hallowed country.
Wimbledon! What a glorious experience. Let us hope that, in a frenzied onslaught of forced "equity", Labour does not dictate that such elitist pastimes be required to eliminate winning and losing for the hubris and oppression they generate.
Is Britain experiencing relatively mild weather? It's hard to imagine a wooly civilization like that of the UK enjoying cloying heat. But then, the Brits did flock to sultry places when the sun did not set on their realm.
I hope your wishes for this transformation are realized. I'm glad Farage is in Parliament. Churchill in the wilderness is brought to mind in
a sense.
"Aye that hath a frosty sound. . . " not look. Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Re your latest Newsmaker broadcast: Wow, this is getting to be commenting on history as it happens and our outlook at the stages of this critical evolution will be fascinating to view in retrospect. The Immunity decision: the court confirmed "absolute immunity "for
ReplyDeletea President for actions in accordance with his "core Constitutional" powers. It denied that it obtained for actions pursued in that individual's private interest. It did note that at in an indefinite outer reach of the President's duties may lie actions which may need to be adjudicated as in the public or private interest. These it confirmed as bearing "presumptive immunity", meaning they could be challenged but only with compelling legal authority( a term which I believe is understood by lawyers to be firm support from primary law - eg statutes, case or administrative law and sometimes common law; or: secondary law - highly creditable commentary and construction). That is, I think, characteristic of this principled and law abiding Court.
Just imagine how a Hillary court would have decided this case. It would have been as Dear Leader Clinton would have it and would have depended entirely on arbitrary whim fully dismissive of the rule of law. I expect she would have dictated a very comprehensive immunity for Presidents who satisfied politically correct parameters.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Lets go back to the origin of the dem's support of Biden. I don't know how he persuaded the Dems he could win in 2020 but they knew how he would be in office. He was easily sized up as a kneejerk liberal, a type the grimly determined marxist leninist antiamerican left had long since learned to harness: "just convince them of your 'compassion' and they'll go for anything you say".
ReplyDeleteIt appears probable that he is a factotum for someone (s)of far left intent: the Obamas, his Jr. Hillaryesque wife, a coterie? That and the fact that he did depose the loathed Trump when their darling was unable to do it, are his only uses to them. They correctly surmised that he was far too hapless to recognize or forbid their ehh, "improprieties" in the 2020 election.
If I'm right on this, where does it put him now? I think its where he has always been: he is a foil, a shill for people determined to force "fundamental transformation" on a country which does not need fundamental transformation ( save of course for their separation from the appalling power they have garnered ). Antiamerica will do with him as it pleases. What is that pleasure? ANY MEANS NECESSARY to resume their march to totalitarian sway free of any interference from Americans. Does he still have any use in this? The answer may be close at hand.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: So! The Feds spend like "drunken sailors" ehh? Having been a member of that merry band for several years I can confirm that we spent far fewer taxpayer dollars than they do but yes, with similarly dreamy abandon. Your metaphor is approved.
ReplyDeleteYour simile, not metaphor. Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: From the Newsmaker broadcast: I do think that the far left, which is now firmly esconsed in vital settings in our civilization, is very well organized and firmly resolved to "fundamentally transform" our country. That they sincerely champion justice, compassion, fair play in all settings , righting of historical wrongs the effect of which they hold persist to this day, is creditable on its face. But they embrace antidemocratic marxist doctrine at their core and that conviction has been given a thorough test in complete control in many "diverse" settings in the 20th century. It is historically proven an unimagined , incalculable catastrophe exceeding any imagination. It has consistently empowered ruthless monsters who think any action justified by the rationale of eventual beneficial results and who enrich themselves while hundreds of millions of unfortunates
ReplyDeleteconsequently suffer beyond measure.
This is not 1917; the experiment is now complete, documented and proven a tragic failure. So, when today's antiamerican leftists extol marxism (in effect at least, probably most of them don't know from Marx or his acolytes) and devote themselves to imposing it on America, though their stated goals face manifest facile good intent, their actual effect is EVIL. In the power they have already garnered (eg. the American academy, the MSM etc) they demonstrate obvious devotion to dictatorial and intolerant imposition. They should know better and perhaps many of them do and just think they can succeed where totalitarian sociopaths failed. They want another chance, they do. Deny it them!
Rather above, simply". . . an incalculable catastrophe exceeding any imagination." Marxists maintain that their doctrine is the historically proven inevitable culmination of humanity's painful progress to justice and well being. Before the Bolshevik takeover, this could be plausibly considered. Today, after the murderous 20th century, its advocacy is either madness or consummate malice and is demonstrated so most recently by the overt reprise of execrable Soviet antisemitism at our immeasurably disgraced "universities". Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Yes, the possibly monumental Chevron decision presents some fascinating possibilities. As a conservative I celebrate its restraint of a Federal bureaucracy indoctrinated in the shamefully antiamerican leftist degraded American academy. Their ever increasing presumptuous and aggressive overreach is an essential element in the antiamerican left's strategy for neutralizing the power of a national legislature which "Constitutes" a pesky democratic roadblock to their incipient totalitarianism. Why even the hellhound jungle hardened Cambodian commies, who quite handily depopulated an entire capitol city at their summary will, still required government factoti to formalize their monstrous administration over time.
ReplyDeleteYou hit it on the head by observing that the decision transfers much of the decision making power necessary in carrying out the details of legislative will, to the courts. I think that just now that provides much needed balance in restraining an increasingly independent Federal bureaucracy. But harrowing hazards are purposely inherent in abundant antiamerican leftist jurisprudence which empowers "Justices" to mandate case law sprung Athena like from their "creative" minds presumptuously deigned free from past , painfully evolved standards of legal integrity (eg. precedence and the cumulative wisdom of judgements building on both the reasoning and the consequences of past decisions).
Early on America enabled its Federal courts to construe Congressional legislative wording and intent and in doing so, to make law. Relatively recent decisions however, very much limited the Federal courts' exercise of similar authority in the formation of administrative law. This was probably a leftist power grab to which our lawful DJT established Scotus has rendered a possibly far reaching setback.
You are right too in noting Biden's widespread esconsement in the Federal judiciary of "jurists" who purpose only advancement of antiamerican leftist intent in their decisions. All the more reason then to give DJT the power to help alleviate right this wrong with principled judicial appointments and advance the good done in the Chevron decision in bringing an until now alarmingly presumptuous and dictatorial young Federal administrative corps to heel. Let them be taught a little respect for inconvenient democracy !
". . . alleviate. . . " not ". . . alleviate right. . . " Jack
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Just read a review of Winning America's Civil War : Progressivism's Authoritarian Threat: Where it Came From and How to Defeat It by one Jeffrey Paul.
ReplyDeleteHe maintains that in the late 19th century many American doctoral students chose to study at greatly respected German universities. But there they were introduced to the precepts of Germany's "Progress "Party, which held that government must lead the way to national well being by authoritarian measures. I've read that some historians maintain that Germans have craved strong rule ever since the catastrophically murderous 30 Years War in the 1600s
I believe late 19th century Germany, newly reunited ,was "feeling its oats" and its ambitious Kaiser eagerly harnessed this enthusiasm to advance industrial feats which sought, for example, to challenge the supreme British fleet ( and provide myriad jobs). Its example might well have been inspiring to newly minted PhDs returning to the US to teach.
I have always blamed the appalling far left outbreak in the 60's on academics who thought the Depression condemned free enterprise and America, together with the tragically naive faction of the multitudinous boomers who, when they flocked to the campuses so unexpectedly made available to them courtesy of the WWII generation, were shamefully seduced to hatred for our country by those long suppressed leftists. But that their obvious dictatorial mien may have derived from an influence which ironically complimented marxist totalitarianism, I mean those German indoctrinated academics who may well have tutored the leftist profs who seized on the silly radical boomers, I had not considered.
Paul suggests tax reform as a tool to fight counterintuitive American progressives. I lack the knowledge of economics prerequisite to an informed opinion on this.
Jack, you'll be glad to hear that, so far, Labour has not put the bourgeoisie to the sword. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Labour has BECOME the bourgeoisie. They appear determined to reassure the nation that precious little will change. You raise an interesting point, though (as always): how much wokeness will these democratic socialists foist on their fellow Brits? I dunno. Too much for you and me, to be sure, but one suspects their economic stewardship will be decisive of their political fortunes.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point that the Dems would have an utterly different perspective on presidential immunity if it were one of their own hallowed leaders who was being peppered with lawsuits and prosecutions. Someday soon it may be!
You are so right: the ONLY thing that matters to the Democratic Party, re: Biden, is whether he can win the next election. They could slot in hundreds of ideologically indistinguishable "progressives" in the Oval Office and achieve the same policy outcomes. What they need is a figurehead who carries them over the top and banishes Orange Man Bad for all time. Biden's present political weakness has nothing to do with senility. It has everything to do with polls.
Darn right -- the Chevron decision makes it all the more imperative that we elect a Republican president who will appoint solid, conservative judges. Lest we forget, the judiciary is, so far, the ONLY institution in this country that leftists have yet to dominate. For that reason, if we have to choose a doctrine that could be our nation's salvation, "judicial review" is as good an option as any other!