Governor Moonbeam Strikes Again

Friends, my latest article, well, must be read to be believed.  I wrote it at the intersection of Californian lunacy, illegal immigration, and women's and transgender rights.  Intrigued?  So was I!  Enjoy...

Governor Moonbeam: Slayer of Genders

By now the American people are well-accustomed to the unmitigated kookiness that emanates from the Golden State, a.k.a. California. Governor Jerry Brown, affectionately known as “Moonbeam,” is naturally entitled to be recognized as Bedlamite-in-Chief, and he seldom disappoints in terms of the absurdity of his remarks, which is to say nothing of his policies (the less said about these, the better).

Recently, Governor Brown uncharacteristically agreed to President Trump's request that troops of the California National Guard be deployed to assist in enhancing security along our country's border with Mexico. He was careful to observe that these National Guardsmen would not be used to enforce immigration laws, however – they would instead focus on other criminal activity on or near the border, including drug smuggling and human trafficking. "This will not be a mission to build a new wall," Brown declared. "It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life."

The proviso “It will not be a mission to round up women and children” passed without any great furor in the press, but it is precisely this throwaway remark that I wish to analyze, because it cuts to the quick of casual Democratic/leftist bias on matters of sex/gender, and as such it merits our full attention.

The only possible interpretation of Governor Brown's remark is that any immigration policy that leads to the “rounding up,” i.e. detention, of “women and children” is wrong, or at least highly suspect. Consider that attitude and its implications. If children are not to be “rounded up” at the border, what this means is that all children worldwide have what amounts to an entitlement to U.S. residency. Already, children are entitled to preferential treatment upon their apprehension by immigration authorities, based on the protections they receive under U.S. law, but no law currently on the books insists that it is out of bounds to detain children, or to deport them. Governor Brown is making such a claim, albeit not on legal but presumably on moral grounds. Undoubtedly, this will be an encouragement to children who may be considering hopping the border. After all, Jerry Brown is saying that, not only are they presumptively entitled to residency, but even to detain them, or to impede their passage into the United States, is unacceptable. Extraordinary.

Governor Moonbeam goes further, however, and opines that “women and children” (emphasis added) should not be “round[ed] up”. Now, in doing so, it must be noted that Brown is using a time-tested formula, “women and children,” which presents these two categories together, based on the historical assumption that they are vulnerable and thus deserving of greater protection than that offered to men. “Women and children first!” was one of the last announcements that many passengers on the ill-fated Titanic heard. Its officers and crew were following the then standard practice of offering places on lifeboats first to women and children, and only later (if some places remained) to men. This was an act of chivalry, as well as an observance of the “Cult of Domesticity,” which seemed entirely appropriate at the time, but it cannot be denied that the ideology that undergirded it was patriarchal. Why should women receive places in lifeboats before men? Because women were presumed to be the “weaker sex,” and it was men's duty to protect them. In our allegedly more enlightened age, such an attitude would ordinarily be considered patronizing at best, and sexist at worst, but Jerry Brown invokes it without batting an eyelash. Presumably, he does so because he knows that, as a liberal Democrat, he can be as racist or as sexist as he likes, without meaningful consequence to his reputation. In any case, Brown is certainly not the first Democrat to dust off this patriarchal trope and deploy it for leftist purposes, but his invocation of the old attitude is one of the more arresting modern examples, simply because of its sweeping policy implications.

For, lest we forget, liberals no longer consider gender a fixed category, as certainly the officers and crew of the Titanic did. One's “gender identity” in this day and age, according to the left, is purely a matter of personal preference. To put it another way, Governor Brown presumably meant to say that the California National Guard would not “round up [people who identify as women] and children”. We will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was saving time by referring only to “women,” but, as a believer in transgender rights, it is inconceivable that he meant to exclude those who are transitioning, or have transitioned, or may someday transition, to femininity.

Consider, then, the full implications of Governor Brown's reimagining of immigration law and policy. The deportation of “[people who identify as women] and children” is unimaginable; even to detain them is abhorrent. Therefore, what is to stop anyone, anywhere on the globe, from relocating himself/herself/?self to the border and surrendering to the Border Patrol? If this imaginary “immigrant” had the misfortune to be born a man, this presents little difficulty, because he could simply redefine himself as a woman. Could this be seen as opportunistic? Surely, but the left has made its position clear: no legal or social standard can be imposed that limits a person's ability to define, or redefine, their own gender identity. Presumably, therefore, our imaginary male/female immigrant could, if he/she wished, reacquire his masculinity after receiving permanent residency. Why not? Not that we would count this as likely, however. After all, since Jerry Brown and people like him have already decided that men ought to possess inferior rights, who in his/her right mind would willingly embrace manhood, when there are so many more attractive categorizations, including femininity, at hand?

In such a way, Governor Brown may have found the silver bullet that can produce the abolition of all policies of border enforcement. Indeed, he may have found the formula for the left to eliminate international borders and men simultaneously! Brilliant! The world will never be the same.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com.

You can also find the article at Townhall.com:

https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2018/04/16/governor-moonbeam-slayer-of-genders-n2471318

The Rule of Law

Friends, I strongly recommend to you this article by Carl Cannon about the recent raid on President Trump's personal lawyer.  Cannon is right -- we have arrived at a place where the rule of law and our constitutional/democratic order is under threat.  The law itself is being weaponized and twisted in the effort to destroy a duly-elected U.S. President.  Ultimate responsibility for this fiasco rests with liberals, who are adding fuel to the fire on a daily basis, but some responsibility must also reside with Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein, who hired the attack dog Mueller in the first place.  We should probably take seriously the possibility, however, that Mueller is trying to bait Trump into firing him, or Sessions, or Rosenstein, or otherwise to overreact in such a way as to bring about his own downfall.  Our response should therefore be measured and carefully considered.  Nonetheless, I think we need to confront the likelihood that Mueller will, by whatever artifice, create a pretext for impeachment.  Hopefully, a Republican Congress will see that pretext for what it is: a coup in disguise.  The best way to ensure that outcome, moreover, is to keep the House in Republican hands.  That must be priority one.

You can read Carl Cannon's analysis here:

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/14/raid-on-trump-lawyer-crossed-the-line-into-special-prosecutorial-abuse/

Beware the Corporate Lefties

Friends, leftists are smart, as they never tire of reminding us.  They're very good at achieving their aims, and by no means is the ballot box the primary means they employ.  They have our education system, the media, Hollywood/popular culture, the courts, and very often corporate leaders on their side.  How did we go from a nation that wouldn't tolerate "gay marriage" and which consistently voted against it, to one in which gay marriage is the law of the land and the media won't even dignify opposition to it as a defensible position?  It wasn't "democracy".  It was a subtle and gradual recasting of the issue in the media, and a steady erosion of support for traditional marriage in corporate America and the courts.  Drip, drip, drip -- and, before you know it, everything has changed.  The lesson is simple: we cannot assume that, just because Republicans win elections, the left has been contained.  Far from it. 

On the question of gun rights, Tucker Carlson has exposed yet another leftist tactic to undermine the 2nd Amendment.  He's right -- denying loans to companies that manufacture guns may in the end prove more destructive to your gun rights than any incremental change in the law ever could be.  Corporations, including banks, are led by men (and very occasionally women) who often share a social/cultural worldview with liberal elitists.  In addition, corporations are scared of liberal activitsts, who use assorted bullying tactics, including social media campaigns, street protests, and boycotts, to pressure them to tow the line.  Don't underestimate the power and importance of these tactics!  If conservatives don't learn that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease," then they better get used to losing, because that's what will happen.

Here's what Tucker had to say:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/12/tucker-carlson-monologue-companies-vs-gun-rights-danger-corporate-power

Circling the Wagons

Friends, in my latest interview with Brian O'Neil at WLEA in Hornell, we discussed a number of topics, including the raid on the office of Trump's attorney Michael Cohen (pictured above on the far right), "catch and release," and trade.  You won't want to miss it!

On a side note, I wish to convey my good wishes to House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is retiring and refocusing his life on his family.  Frankly, I don't blame him.  Washington is a cesspool, and being the Speaker of the House has got to worse than herding cats.  Ryan has served his country well, and I sincerely hope we haven't seen the last of him.

https://wlea.net/newsmaker-april-12-2018-nickwaddy/

Tooth and Nail

Friends, I'm seeing some signs that President Trump is playing nice with China, and it makes me nervous. I believe that we need a trade war with China, and we need to solve the inequities in our relationship once and for all.  This would ultimately be best for both sides.  A deal that only tweaks our trade deficit in order to create the illusion of progress, however, would be kicking the can down the road...  Here's my latest analysis of where we stand:

President Trump: Give No Quarter to the Chinese

Recently, President Trump tweeted: “President Xi and I will always be friends, no matter what happens with our dispute on trade. China will take down its Trade Barriers because it is the right thing to do. Taxes will become Reciprocal & a deal will be made on Intellectual Property. Great future for both countries!” The upbeat, conciliatory tone of the President's message surprised many observers, since the media is trumpeting a looming “trade war” with China, and Trump himself has condemned abusive Chinese trade practices in very strong terms.

I respectfully submit that the President's tweet may be counterproductive to his aims. His goal is to pressure China to make meaningful concessions on trade. That is, China needs to open its market. It needs to stop strong-arming U.S. companies into surrendering their proprietary technology and know-how as a cost of doing business in the world's largest emerging market. It needs to stop using punitive tariffs and other more subtle measures to freeze out American manufactured goods. It needs to stop violating U.S. patents, trademarks, and copyrights with impunity. It needs to stop subsidizing and sheltering many of its industries. It needs, most of all, to stop putting Americans out of work, as a result of all of its other trading shenanigans.

These are not minor adjustments in our relationship with China. They are not concessions that it will be easy to extract. And yet they should be non-negotiable demands for U.S. trade representatives. If they were met, the U.S. trade deficit with China, which currently stands at $375 billion per year, would contract rapidly. It has not contracted in a long time. On the contrary, it has grown inexorably – and previous U.S. presidents have sat idly by as it did so.

Mr. President, it seems as though you are trying to reassure the Chinese, the markets, and the American people that we will not, in fact, have a trade war with China. You have directed your Secretary of Agriculture to make sure that U.S. farmers do not suffer if we do. You have promised President Xi your friendship no matter what. However, you have also threatened to level the biggest set of tariffs in history against the Chinese. These are mixed messages, at best.

As a negotiator, you must know that, to extract maximum concessions from a negotiating partner, you need to apply maximum pressure. In fact, you need to be willing, and you need to be seen to be willing, to walk away from the negotiations entirely. Your adversary, in short, must believe that he needs you more than you need him.

By telegraphing your reasonableness, Mr. President, and by reassuring all parties that real pain and conflict will be avoided, you may make it impossible for the U.S. to “win”. Perhaps your goal in threatening China with tariffs is to obtain incremental changes – to win on a small scale and claim victory. That would be unfortunate, because a $375 billion trade deficit, compounded over years, even decades, equals millions of American jobs. It means that our economy is bleeding freely, and, if any body bleeds long enough, it dies.

I suggest that you take the opposite tack. I suggest that, instead of reassuring the Chinese, the markets, and the American people, you tell them that a trade war is actually coming. I suggest that you give a primetime address to the nation, and that you spell out the seriousness of China's trade violations, and the horrendous human cost in terms of unemployment and economic dislocation in this country. I suggest that you declare that America demands radical, permanent changes in Chinese trade practices. I suggest that you instruct your foreign affairs and national security teams to assemble a coalition of nations around the world to join with us in a broad-based effort to punish China for its trade manipulation. Most of all, I suggest that you ask the American people to ready themselves for sacrifice, which a trade war will surely require.

The Chinese believe that they can win a trade war, for the simple reason that they believe Americans are weak, selfish, decadent, and incapable of sacrifice. They are wrong. The media may be unwilling to contemplate paying a few cents, or a few dollars, more for certain products, to save the American economy and the American worker from a slow but inexorable decline. The American people, however, will gladly take on this burden, if it is explained to them that they do so for a just and honorable cause, and ultimately for each other.

Mr. President, now is the time to right the wrongs of the unfair trade deals that you made a central theme of your campaign. Unfortunately, this can only be done by risking a full-blown trade war, which will inevitably hurt many Americans, at least in the short term. Hopefully, a united front and a strong negotiating position will cause the Chinese to back down quickly. If not, they will soon learn that the “sleeping giant” of America, once roused, can defeat any foe.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com.

You can also find the article here, courtesy of American Greatness:

https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/11/trump-should-give-no-quarter-to-the-chinese/

California Dreaming?

Friends, you may not know it, but I'm a California native.  It's nothing to be proud of these days, but once upon a time California was a red state.  It was the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.  It was a state with affordable housing, reasonable gun laws, low crime, excellent schools, and low taxes.  Well, times have changed.  Since 1992 California has voted blue in every single Presidential election.  Moreover, the stories of leftist lunacy that come out of the Golden State have become a staple of the news cycle.  Right now many California communities are in revolt because of the state's radical "sanctuary city" laws, which make virtually any cooperation with federal immigration authorities a criminal offense.  While it's tempting to give up on the California Republican Party altogether, Newt Gingrich makes a compelling argument for why we shouldn't.  While I'm not optimistic that we'll win the governorship, let's not give up on the large minority of Californians who remain, well, sane...  Some of these embattled patriots are my relatives, after all!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/07/newt-gingrich-california-may-elect-republican-governor-incredible-as-that-sounds.html

In other news, this New York Times analysis of the impending "trade war" with China is pretty perceptive.  Truthfully, the proposed sanctions, even if fully implemented, would barely dent the economies of either China or the U.S.  China is playing a dangerous game, in my opinion, trying to blackmail red state Americans into betraying their President and his nationalistic trade policies.  Let's hold together, America, and fight on to victory!  I fear Trump won't get as much support as he should from either party, but if you're tired of the Chinese pushing us around, then please stand with President Trump!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/world/asia/china-trade-war-trump-tariffs.html

Hyper-Excellence in Broadcasting

Friends, I've recorded another interview with Brian O'Neil for the Newsmaker program, and you won't want to miss it.  We discuss sending troops to the border with Mexico, David Hogg, continuing complications with Brexit, and other topics.  So, gather the family 'round the old wireless (or follow the link below), and be amazed!

Unfortunately, we continue to experience challenges with the audio.  Could the Russians be responsible for the interference?  The Chinese?  Obama?  A Russian-Chinese clone of Obama?  These are all possibilities that I take seriously, and you can rest assured that we will get to the bottom of it!

wlea.net/newsmaker-april-5-2018-professor-nick-waddy/

Constructive Criticism for El Presidente

Friends, I think we all know how important it is that the Trump presidency succeeds. Moreover, I think we all know that the margin for error is incredibly small.  That is, with so many powerful interests combining to destroy Donald Trump and all he represents, it behooves the President and his supporters to make a maximum effort to succeed, and to make as few mistakes as possible.  My latest article is an attempt to offer President Trump some constructive criticism on two key areas in which his administration could improve.  See what you think...

An Open Letter to President Trump

Dear Mr. President:

To begin with, let me congratulate you on a long list of achievements in your first 15 months in office. I will not be exaggerating when I say that your presidency has been a dream-come-true for many conservative patriots like myself. What makes your successes even more impressive is that, during your campaign for the presidency, the Democratic Party, the Obama administration, the FBI, intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, and many foreign governments plotted to undermine you...and they failed. Now that you are President, most of these establishment figures are still plotting against you, and they are doing their best to poison the minds of the American people. Nonetheless, your popularity has recently surged to its highest level in almost a year. Your ability to persevere and prosper in the midst of these extraordinary headwinds is nothing short of miraculous.

Nevertheless, Mr. President, given your successes, a strong case can be made that your approval ratings ought to be much higher. I believe this is partly due to self-inflicted wounds and missed opportunities, and I wish to tender some advice that may help you to flourish politically, even more so than you already have. I hope you will take my constructive criticism to heart.

First, I cannot stress enough that timing is critical in politics, as it is in most fields of human endeavor. Occasionally, you have not shown the patience or forbearance to wait to speak your mind, or to take action, until the moment is right. Your decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, while unquestionably correct, was timed poorly, insofar at it occurred when Democrats and the media were frothing with (phony) outrage over “Russia collusion”, and you were due to meet with the Russian Foreign Minister the next day. This was poor planning, to say the least. Arguably, much of the heartache you have experienced dealing with the false narrative of Russian collusion (including the appointment of Robert Mueller as special prosecutor) could have been avoided had you fired Director Comey at a more propitious moment.

More recently, your administration announced the firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the same day as a critical Congressional special election in Pennsylvania. This meant that the news cycle that day was dominated by a (thoroughly contrived) media narrative of “chaos” in the White House. This was a foreseeable problem. Had you foreseen it and delayed the firing by 24 hours, the outcome of the election could have been altered. This is because the Democrat Conor Lamb won that election by only .33% of the vote (less than 800 votes). It is very plausible that a positive news cycle on that day, instead of a negative one, would have made the difference. This is important, because Democrats' victory in the special election bolstered their claim that a “blue wave” is building that may devastate Republicans in November.

I applaud the fact that General Kelly, as your Chief of Staff, has brought greater discipline and order to the functions of the White House. Many leaks also appear to have been plugged. Nonetheless, I believe that the timing of your administration's public statements and actions could be further optimized. I ask you to consider holding off on moves that are destined to be controversial until the right moment arrives.

Second, I believe you are missing crucial opportunities to speak directly to the American people to circumvent the toxic effects of media bias. I can illustrate this point in a simple way. 

 

Twice, you have delivered State of the Union addresses to the country. In both cases, while the media was hostile before, during, and after your addresses, the public reacted very positively, and your approval ratings rose. The reason is fairly evident: for a brief period, your public image, instead of being filtered through the biased media, was sculpted by you personally, based on your ability to engage with the American people. These opportunities are precious indeed for any president, but especially for you, because of the degree of media antipathy that you face. 

 

Therefore, Mr. President, I advise you to make greater use of the presidential bully pulpit by more often speaking with the American people. Other than the State of the Unions, you have delivered only one prime-time, nationally-televised address, in the classic sense: a speech about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. This is a drastic under-utilization of a forum for political rhetoric that has historically served many U.S. presidents very well. 

 

To cite only one example of a missed opportunity, your recent actions on trade, including the imposition of tariffs on China, are vitally important (and frequently misunderstood) initiatives that unquestionably serve U.S. national interests. You could easily justify giving a prime-time, Oval Office address to the American people explaining why the short term pain that tariffs and a “trade war” may entail are necessary because of China's long-time abuses, including the theft of U.S. intellectual property. The chance to make this case directly to the American people, I would add, is infinitely preferable to allowing the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times to spin your policies as they please. In fact, you owe it to Americans to make your case as effectively and as forthrightly as you can.

Again, Mr. President, I do not mean to minimize the difficulties and challenges you face, nor the singular triumphs you have won by a great deal of hard work, boldness, and granite resolve. Nonetheless, there are always ways to improve, and I hope you will bear in mind my suggestions. The stakes are simply too high for you not to make maximum use of the opportunities at hand to make America great again.

Sincerely,

Nicholas L. Waddy

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com.

P.S. You can also read the article here, at Townhall.com: https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2018/04/05/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-n2468034

Double Standard?

Friends, many of you have expressed disappointment in Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has so far refused to appoint a special counsel to investigate FISA abuses, the phony inquiry into Hillary Clinton's emails, and FBI/Deep State collusion against the Trump campaign.  I too find Mueller's microscopic investigation of Trump/Russia "collusion" and the "hacking" of the 2016 election, coupled with the lack of focus on the misdeeds of Clinton supporters, very frustrating.  Perhaps, though, just perhaps, Sessions is playing a long game here.  Maybe he wants to set the stage (methodically) for a second special counsel and ultimately hold the left accountable.  Maybe he believes that prosecutions need not come out of a special counsel.  Maybe he's got a slow metabolism.  Who can say.  This article, though, makes the case that we shouldn't condemn Sessions out of hand.  Maybe, in fact, a thorough investigation of these leftist outrages is already underway -- but we simply don't hear about it in the media, because a) the media doesn't care, and b) unlike Mueller's team, the team(s) investigating Clinton, the FBI, the Democratic Party, etc. don't leak like a sieve.  In any case, it pays to consider what this man has to say:

https://nypost.com/2018/03/31/the-real-reason-behind-sessions-special-counsel-decision/

In other news, will the U.K. soon introduce a waiting period and a licensing system for those who wish to buy cutlery?  Stay tuned...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/01/london-murder-rate-beats-new-york-for-month-as-stabbings-surge.html

Hannity Obsolete?

Friends, now that the airwaves are saturated with the honeyed murmurings of Waddy, is it possible that all other conservative commentary is...redundant and unnecessary?  A fine question, to be sure, but we'll reserve judgement for now.  All we know for certain is that the link below will take you to my latest appearance on WLEA's Newsmaker program.

https://wlea.net/newsmaker-march-29-2018-professor-nick-waddy/

Apologies, as before, for the imperfect audio.  We're still working on a way to improve it.