Ossoff’s Defeat is a Win for America!

Did the Russians hack the Georgia election? Leftists are all over media creating straw-men to disguise the simple truth that voter’s have rejected their treasonous Trump resistance movement. Jon Ossoff losing in Georgia is the 5th election Democrats have lost since Trump’s shocking crashing defeat of Hillary. Losing the Georgia race has to be particularly painful because once again, Leftists lied to themselves and their base that Ossoff would surely win just like they did with Hillary.

My question is how crazy will Democrats’ official Resistance Summer domestic terrorism become after their devastating loss in Georgia? Thus far, Leftists have mock beheaded Trump; mock put a bullet in his head; mock stabbed Trump, dreamed of beating Trump with a golf club; talked about blowing up the White House, physically attacked Trump voters; kidnapped/tortured a Trump supporter and gunned down Republicans while practicing for a charity baseball game.

Leftists are disappointed, desperate, deranged and overflowing with hatred for our president and his supporters; an extremely dangerous mix of emotions. How much lower will Leftists take their depravity and violence?

My fellow Americans, I wish to express my deep heartfelt thanks for your help stopping Jon Ossoff, “Nasty” Pelosi’s latest anti-Trump minion. A handful of Hollywood Leftists spent mega-millions to help their Great Leftist Hope candidate win the Georgia congressional seat. Ossoff could not vote for himself because he does not live in the 6th district. Masters of deception, Democrats pretended their national Leftist push for Ossoff represented the thinking of Georgia voters. They lied.

My wife Mary and I spent months in Georgia with the Conservative Campaign Committee in their boots-on-the-ground effort to inspire Georgia voters to “drop the remote and vote.” We ran radio ads on major stations, conducted numerous sign waving sessions at busy intersections, sent out mailers, organized phone-from-phone, produced videos and tons of social media. We left no stones un-turned to get votes for Republican Karen Handel.

Brothers and sisters who love America, we cannot let up. Rest assured, Leftists will triple down on their insane efforts to remove our president. We must stay engaged. Republicans must continue to vote in large numbers, not taking any of the upcoming races for granted. Again, thanks for you help carrying Karen Handel across the finish line. God bless.

A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism

The question is why did so many people on the ‘left’ (Democrats) become anti-Semites? Yes there is a small number of alt-right anti-Semites but they do not represent the main stream Republican Party.

The real threat to Jews and Israel is the growth of Antisemitism on the left. Dershowitz attributes this rising antisemitism primarily to the hard left. He is wrong as it is pervasive in the mainstream Democrat Party and University campuses largely composed of left wing Democrats. Below he points out that the deputy DNC Chair Keith Ellison is a long time anti-Semite. You don’t become Vice Chair of the Democrat Party without substantial support of the mainstream Party.

This overt antisemitism is even more perplexing when you consider that a majority of Jews are Democrat supporters even though antisemitism and anti Israel behavior has substantially increased over the past eight years .

Partial Quote from Dershowitz article:

“On university campuses, the absurd concept of “intersectionality” — which has become a code word for anti-Semitism — is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist, Linda Sarsour — who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation — is a case in point. A co-organizer of the Women’s March on Washington in January, she has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: “You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it.” And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation) the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: “I wish I could take away their vaginas.”The irony is breathtaking. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour — who is also a staunch supporter of trying to destroy Israel economically — cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does.

Sarsour supports Islamic religious law, Sharia. If taken literally, this would presumably mean that she also supports punishing homosexuality by death; amputation for theft; death by stoning for “adultery” (which can include being raped); women being valued at half the worth of a man, being flogged for drinking alcohol, and above all, slavery (see here, here and here).

Yet, Sarsour has emerged as a champion of the hard-left. Both New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and Bernie Sanders have sought her endorsement. Moreover, Deputy DNC Chair, Keith Ellison — who himself has a sordid history with anti-Semitism, stemming from his association with Louis Farrakhan (who publicly boasted about his own Jew hatred) — has come out in support of the bigoted Sarsour. When it comes to Ellison, an old idiom comes to mind: a man is known by the company he keeps”.

Read more.

Contrast the above with the position of Trump’s UN Ambassador NIKKI HALEY and her support for Israel and the Jewish people which is currently under attack by so many liberal Democrats.

Haley to Netanyahu: “I Have No Patience” for UN Attacks on Israel

Nikki Haley Calls UN a ‘Bully’ against Israel during Meeting with Netanyahu

Nikki Haley, the American ambassador to the UN, arrived in Israel on Tuesday. She called the UN a “bully” against Israel, during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Netanyahu thanked the envoy for “standing up for Israel” in the UN.

“You know, all I’ve done, is tell the truth, and it’s kind of overwhelming at the reaction,” Haley said in response. She called Israel-bashing at the U.N. “a habit.”

“It was something that we’re so used to doing,” she said. “And if there’s anything I have no patience for is bullies, and the U.N. was being such a bully to Israel, because they could.” She added: “We’re starting to see a turn in New York. I think they know they can’t keep responding in the way they’ve been responding. They sense that the tone has changed.” (JTA)

RELATED VIDEO: Slavery in Arabia – 1964

Cosby and Leftists’ War on Non-Victim-minded Blacks

The Bill Cosby sexual assault trial ended in a mistrial. I will not address the case because I am clueless regarding his guilt or innocence. I am going to address the insidious campaign to destroy a black American icon.

I remember hearing black relatives trash the Cosby TV Show, claiming it was unrealistic and misrepresented the black American experience.

Democrats have relentlessly worked to convince blacks that America is a hellhole of racism where whites, Republicans and conservatives plot 24/7 how to keep blacks down. Therefore, it is not surprising that my relatives believed the TV show “Good Times” about a struggling black family living in the projects painted a truer portrait of black life in America. The truth is the Cosby Show was accurate. Blacks have pursued and achieved their American dreams since slavery. As a matter of fact, the first self-made female millionaire in America was Madam C. J. Walker, a black woman born in 1867.

It puzzled me why my relatives had a problem with a TV show exposing black youths to bigger and better things, inspiring them to pursue their American dreams. Football superstar, Deion Sanders lived in the projects. Going to a cook-out at his coach’s home changed Deion life. It was the first time Deion visited a home with a driveway.

As a black kid living in a Baltimore ghetto, my dad drove me through upscale neighborhoods. Dad said, “If you work hard and get an education, you can live like this.”

I find it incredible that Hollywood and the civil rights mafia turned on Cosby when he began speaking out; encouraging blacks to stop blaming whitey and take responsibility for their lives. Relying on someone other than yourself, weakens you. Therefore, Cosby offered real black empowerment. Outraged, Leftists launched war on Cosby when he instructed black males to pull their pants up, learn to speak English, stop having babies out of wedlock, stay in school and so on.

Black comedian Hannibal Buress trashed Cosby, accusing him of talking down to blacks.

Buress even criticized Cosby for not cussing on stage. In other words, Buress suggested that Cosby is a sell-out for speaking out against the I’m-from-the-hood persona.

Why do we do that to our fellow blacks? White people are free to pursue whatever paths in life they please. Liberals, black and white, try to keep blacks in their little black box of what they decree to be acceptable black behavior. Pro football quarterbacks Robert Griffin, III and Russell Wilson have been accused by Leftist sports writers of not acting according to their dictates of acceptable black behavior. My brother loves country music. I prefer sushi over KFC. Does this make us less black? In the minds of liberals, yes.

We have witnessed Leftists’ bring-down-Cosby campaign repeated numerous times against successful high profile blacks. The crime of these blacks is not viewing themselves as victims of racist America and achieving success the old fashion way — by earning it. How else can you explain Leftists’ visceral hatred for world renown retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? All these extremely successful and inspiring blacks have endured major campaigns by Leftists to destroy and silence them.

Cosby was a powerful black role-model trailblazer, funny without being vulgar or telling black jokes. He achieved remarkable success and earned great wealth. Cosby’s life testifies that America truly is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it.

What really landed Cosby atop Leftists’ excrement list was inspiring black youths to follow the road he paved to success. Leftists in essence said, “Cos, your black derriere is goin’ down.” Truly unfortunate.

Mark Steyn: ‘Demography explains most of everything’ [video]

Mark Steyn tells Tucker Carlson: “I’m a demography bore”

That comment was in response to the latest (this time failed) terror attack in a Brussels train station yesterday.

He went on to say: “Demography explains most of everything.”

Yes, agreed Carlson.

Steyn related his comment as  well to the close Georgia House race yesterday to explain that demographic changes in Georgia made it possible for a progressive to even think he had a chance to pull off an upset there.  (Georgia is a leading refugee resettlement state, btw).

Steyn told Carlson in a two minute portion of a longer segment that when your city (in this case Brussels) is 25% Muslim because your country has made the fatal mistake to think that you can replace an aging population with a hostile culture, the country will see increased tension and chaos.  In my view, it will ultimately collapse into an Islamic state.

Carlson asked about Japan, and Steyn told him that Japan has chosen to NOT invite in the third world, that saving their unique Japanese culture was more important to them.  Only time will tell if the Japanese (and the Poles, the Czechs and the Hungarians) can do it.

As I have said repeatedly, only one way to save western societies (and countries like Japan), in addition to limiting immigration, encourage our women to have babies—lots and lots of babies!

Here is the video from last night’s show:

For the Steyn demography segment begin at the 8:20 mark.

If you have never read America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It  by Mark Steyn, you must. Steyn’s 2006 predictions are coming true.

Hillary 2.0

Hillary Clinton’s political career is finally dead (we hope)…..but now we brace for the rise of Chelsea Clinton. More Clinton corruption guaranteed.

Today is the UN-designated World Refugee Day

The first World Refugee Day was held on June 20th, 2001 (3 months before 9/11) and it is used as a focal point, for open borders activists and leftwing media, around which to organize a political message.  So, you have probably noticed many stories in the last few days about the need for more third world peoples to be admitted to the first world.

Just to give you an idea, there are pages and pages of World Refugee Day logos like these around which to build propaganda campaigns (to guilt trip the West, especially the US, to take in more third worlders).

You likely know, but here (below) is a handy graphic to confirm that the US takes the majority of the refugees that the UNHCR is selecting for western countries from their camps. (BTW, recently a Somali man wrote to me to tell me about the fraud in a UN camp in Africa where people were being paid off to move certain applications to the front of the line. Of course, I have no way of verifying this.)

If you are scratching your head and saying, but doesn’t Germany take the most? the answer is that Germany is being flooded by ‘asylum seekers’ and economic migrants who have gone there on their own steam.  They are not considered third country refugee resettlement cases.

Germany will presumably sort through the hundreds of thousands of Africans and Middle Easterners and make a determination about how many will be given permanent residence as legitimate refugees and ultimately citizenship.

Favorite Open Borders talking point: small neighboring countries (to Syria) take more refugees.

When you see stories about Turkey (I’m posting one shortly) and their millions (?) of Syrian refugees, remember those are NOT people going to be granted permanent resident (citizenship) status in Turkey, likewise those in Lebanon or Jordan will not become voting citizens of those countries.

Resettled UNHCR refugees will be given citizenship in the country in which they are placed, so for this the United States is destination number one!

See here, from IRIN:

According also to IRIN yesterday, Canada is going to take up some of the 2017 slack that meany Donald Trump is supposedly responsible for.

Go for it Justin, let’s just make sure our northern border is secure!

Only One Political Party Incites Violence

In response to a radicalized Leftist domestic terrorist shooting Republicans at a baseball practice, fake news media said both sides of the political aisle are guilty of inciting violence and should tone down their rhetoric. Disturbingly, in an attempt to sound bipartisan, conservative voices are parroting fake news media’s lie.

This both-sides-are-guilty-lie offends me folks. I have been a black Tea Party activist since 2009; spoken and performed my “American Tea Party Anthem” at over 500 rallies on 14 nationwide bus tours.

Never, I repeat never, have I witnessed language inciting violence coming from the stage or spoken in the crowds. The attendees were hard working salt-of-the-earth Americans. Many of them voted for Obama, but did not vote for him to drive us down the road to socialism.

As a matter of fact, rally organizers were extremely sensitive not to take our disagreement with the president too far. While performing on stage at a rally, I spotted a gentleman in the audience wearing an Obama vampire mask. I thought it was funny and pulled the guy on stage. Immediately, rally management escorted the guy off the stage and later reprimanded me.

While black attendance at Tea Party rallies grew over the years, in the beginning my black face was rare. Attendees repeatedly apologized to me explaining that they opposed Obama’s agenda and not his skin color. Bottom line, Tea Party attendees were good people who loved their country. They simply were opposed to Obama’s vow to fundamentally transform America away from her divinely inspired founding.

And yet, for 8 years, fake news media successfully branded the Tea Party the new KKK in the minds of low-info-voters.

In life there are good guys and bad guys. As a kid, I babysat my siblings after school until mom and dad came home from work. Jerry played in our bedroom building things. Just to be annoying, David would break whatever Jerry built which led to them fighting. Hearing mom’s key in the front door, they would greet her pleading their case. Tired, mom would punish both boys for fighting. I’d say, “But mom that is not fair. Jerry was minding his own business. David is the bad guy.”

Leftists are the bad guys who relentlessly spew hate 24/7, generating violence upon the America flag, whites, cops, Republicans, Conservatives, the rich, achievers and Trump supporters. Trust me folks, conservatives simply do not do that. For 8 years, the GOP was for the most part silent; submissive to fake news media’s ruling that negative comments and opposing Obama was racist.

Leftists’ radicalization begins as early as preschool. Public schools teach white kids that they are born racist, that they owe blacks and they should feel guilty because of their “white privilege“.

Black students are taught white Americans are instinctively racist, the deck is stacked against them and cops murder them practically on sight. Remember Democrats’ despicable ad telling blacks to vote or buy bulletproof vests for their kids to protect them from racist cops?

For far too long, anti-American 1960’s old hippies have dominated public education, teaching our kids that patriotism is racist and America is the greatest source of evil on the planet. 

After decades of filling American’s heads with hate-filled lies, Leftists act shocked when their disciples act-out violently; gunning down Republicans, Black Lives Matter assassinating police and attacking people for wearing “Make America Great Again” caps and t-shirts. 

It is not the nature of conservatives to disrespect our laws. Leftists routinely protest outside of the law, cuss-out and physically attack anyone who disagrees with them.http://bit.ly/2aWycvp

As a seasoned black Conservative activist, it has been my experience that our side desires equal rights for all Americans. We conduct orderly respectful protests, leaving rally sites cleaner than we found them. To divide Americans into angry voting blocs, Democrats tell women, homosexuals, minorities and underachievers that they are victims of America. At Leftist protest events, they f-bomb Trump from the stage and routinely destroy private property. They typically leave mountains of trash after inciting their attendees to commit violence. Leftists outrageously marched on a NY street chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!” Conservatives could never conceive of doing such an evil thing. That is not how our side rolls.

It is foolish for Conservatives to nod in agreement with Leftists that say both sides are guilty of inciting violence and must modify their tone. This lie is another case of Leftists exploiting a tragedy to demonize and silence conservative speech. Conservatives must continue fearlessly telling the truth in love to educate low-info-voters and help Trump make America great again.

PROJECT VERITAS VIDEO: Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

GRADUALISM: The Strategy of the Tortoise

London’s Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan believes that terrorist attacks are part of living in a big city. REALLY? Why should Western cities and societies accept the barbarity of jihadis determined to conquer the West and impose Islamic sharia law? Mayor

Khan’s attitude of submission is extremely troubling. Is Mayor Khan part of Islam’s gradualism strategy that seeks to lull the West into a false sense of safety? Is Mayor Khan’s bizarre statement “I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world“ part of Islam’s tactic of taqiyya? Or is Mayor Khan simply out of touch with objective reality and living in the politically correct dreamscape of subjective reality?

Whatever the answer, Mayor Khan’s attitude will never keep Londoners safe and this is why.

The Tortoise and the Hare

an Aesop Fable

One day a hare was bragging about how fast he could run. He bragged and bragged and even laughed at the tortoise, who was so slow. The tortoise stretched out his long neck and challenged the hare to a race, which, of course, made the hare laugh.

“My, my, what a joke!” thought the hare.

“A race, indeed, a race. Oh! what fun! My, my! a race, of course, Mr. Tortoise, we shall race!” said the hare.

The forest animals met and mapped out the course. The race begun, and the hare, being such a swift runner, soon left the tortoise far behind. About halfway through the course, it occurred to the hare that he had plenty of time to beat the slow trodden tortoise.

“Oh, my!” thought the hare, “I have plenty of time to play in the meadow here.”
And so he did.

After the hare finished playing, he decided that he had time to take a little nap.

“I have plenty of time to beat that tortoise,” he thought. And he cuddle up against a tree and dozed.

The tortoise, in the meantime, continued to plod on, albeit, it ever so slowly. He never stopped, but took one good step after another.

The hare finally woke from his nap. “Time to get going,” he thought. And off he went faster than he had ever run before! He dashed as quickly as anyone ever could up to the finish line, where he met the tortoise, who was patiently awaiting his arrival.

Slow and steady wins the race.

The Tortoise and the Hare is the story of gradualism and is a cautionary tale for Western societies interested in preserving their democracies and freedoms. The moral of the story is the essence of gradualism – Slow and steady wins the race.

European societies lead by left-wing liberal globalist leaders (the hare) are bragging about their tolerance, virtue, humanity, as they continue the mass importation of Muslim immigrants with cultural norms hostile to their own. The Europeans (the forest animals) are excited about the race and support their leaders   by welcoming the hostile immigrants to their forest. The Europeans believe in the superior abilities of their leaders and laugh with derision at the idea that the immigrants (tortoise) could possibly pose a threat.

Western societies are driven by speed – they believe that faster is better. Faster cars, faster computers, faster airplanes – speed equates with success in the West. Islam is not driven by speed. Islam is driven by ideology and plays the strategic long game of gradualism. 

Since the 7th century Islam has been a socio-political expansionist ideology with a religious wing. Islam has expanded and contracted over the last fourteen centuries depending upon its successes and failures but its mission remained unchanged – world dominion and the imposition of religious sharia law worldwide. The Ottoman Empire, carrying the mantle of Islam, lost most of its European territories until it finally collapsed in 1922 and the former empire was transformed into the nation of Turkey.

In 1938 the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia changed everything. Islam was back in business and on the march again.

Oil wealth exponentially increased Arab buying power and its ability to bring Islam to the West disguised as a “religion like any other.” Islam went on a buying spree. Islam began buying political influence through lobbyists paid to ignore the blatantly anti-Western tenets of Islam embraced by the Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its hundreds of offshoots. Islam began buying academic influence through enormous donations and the purchase of endowed chairs and endowed professorships that allowed Islamists to influence curriculum and hiring practices. Islam began buying properties and building mosques and Islamic centers to advance itself. Islam began buying media outlets, television stations, movie studios, and then finally the Internet gave Islam the final vehicle it needed to spread its message worldwide to a generation of Western young people easily manipulated by the disinformation they were receiving.

Islam plays by the rules of gradualism and taqiyya – lying in the service of Islam. Islam is a supremacist ideology and considers “peace” to mean when all the world is Muslim. Islam also teaches that conquering non-Muslims (infidels) is an act of altruism because the infidels will then be brought into the superior light of Islam. Taqiyya has its own anti-infidel language and anti-infidel norms that the Middle East understands.

The West, dangerously ignorant of Islam, has been ill-prepared to oppose the Islamic campaign that seeks to conquer the West through gradualism and taqiyya and replace Western secular constitutional governance with religious sharia law.

Raymond Ibrahim of the Middle East Forum explains the language of Islam and the dilemma it poses for the West:

“Whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of ‘war and peace’ as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of ‘war and deceit.’ For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God’s will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam ‘until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.’ Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end.”

Central to understanding taqiyya and the principles of deceit is Muhammad’s famous utterance “War is deceit.”

According to Islam the world is still at war so deception is fully endorsed and has extreme implications for our new President Donald Trump. If President Trump intends to make America-first decisions in the Middle East he needs a translator because the Arab leaders speak “Islamic” English and not the same English that President Trump is speaking. Words like peace, terrorism, and extremism have very different meanings in the West than they do in the Middle East.

Former FBI counterterrorism special agent John Guandolo gives a brilliant explanation of the challenges President Trump is facing in his report:

“In his speech, which preceded President Trump’s comments, Saudi King Salman made many references to “terrorism” and “extremism” and the need to eradicate it from the planet.  Specifically, he said the world must  “stand united to fight the forces of evil and extremism whatever their sources are in response to the dictates of our Islamic religion…Terrorism is a result of extremism.”

When Muslim leaders use words, those words must be understood as they are defined in Islam, not as they are understood in the West.

“Terrorism” is defined in Islam as “killing a Muslim without right.” Under sharia Muslims may be killed if they apostatize from Islam, kill another Muslim without right, or if they violate any other law under sharia for which there is a capital crime. Otherwise, to kill a Muslim is to be a “terrorist.”

“Extremism” in Islam is to exceed ones ability – to move the Islamic Movement ahead too quickly, thus putting the Muslim ummah (global Muslim community) in danger because this risks losing muslims who do not understand their duties under sharia and exposing Islam’s true intentions to the non-Muslim community thus bringing violence upon Muslims – terrorism.

Saudi King Salman spoke at the summit yet he sent two messages:  one for the Muslims and one for the non-Muslims. Americans and the rest of the non-Muslim world heard the King say he is going to eradicate “terrorists” from the planet and thought he was talking about ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Muslim world heard that the United States was providing hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons to support the Islamic world’s effort to destroy anything on the planet that stands in the way of the complete implementation of sharia – a command from Allah in the command and reflected in the words and actions of Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

Therefore, since President Trump has already killed Muslims without right under sharia by ordering the U.S. military to launch strikes against Syria and elsewhere, Islam views him as a “terrorist,” and the Saudi King is speaking about the U.S. President and the United States when he says “Terrorism” must be eradicated.

The Saudi King was not referring to Muslims who bomb an arena in Manchester, England or kill Americans in an Orlando, Florida bar or Muslims who fight on battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan when he uses the word “terrorist.”

Understanding this necessarily completely changes America’s perspective of what took place in Saudi Arabia last weekend.

The President of the United States is being given counsel and advice from U.S. officials who appear to lack any understanding of any of this, which will lead America’s to defeat. Exactly the Islamic world’s objective.”

Understanding Islam’s gradualism and taqiyya’s stealth jihad as it is practiced against the West exposes the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe as the Islamic war tactic called population jihad. Former radical Muslim Isis Abla identifies 8 distinct jihads being waged against the unsuspecting West: Population jihad, Media jihad, Education jihad, Economic jihad, Physical jihad, Legal jihad, Humanitarian jihad, and Political jihad.

While the West brags like the hare about its speed, tolerance, and moral superiority, the slow-moving tortoise speaking Islam’s deceptive language of taqiyya is confident his gradualism and creeping stealth jihad will win the race. The Tortoise and the Hare is a cautionary tale.

What You Should Know about My Good Friend, Republican Bill Coleman

William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. died on March 31, 2017 at the ripe old age of 96. He was the most famous and most accomplished person you have never heard of and he was also a good friend of mine. I used to affectionately call him “my oldest son.”

I was told early in my life, “Never try to explain your vision to anyone, but rather invite them to stand beside you and see for themselves.”

That’s what Bill gave to me. Yes, I called him Bill, because he insisted that I do so. I knew Bill for almost half of my life.

This is why most people have little to no understanding of me and who I am. I have sat at the feet of some of the biggest names in sports, entertainment, politics, business, and religion, etc., and to be able to call people like Bill Coleman, Bob Mosbacher, Kenny Gamble, Dave Steward, Oral Roberts, Bona Malwal, Bill Duke, Bishop Macram, and Max Gassis friends is nothing short of amazing.

So, as I scoured the Internet and various media sites upon being notified of Coleman’s death, I was dismayed that neither the White House, nor the Republican Party’s leadership reached out to the family; or, at a minimum, issued any public statement of condolences to the family.

Adding further to my dismay was the silence of Black Republicans who have a media platform.

Unfortunately, most Republicans and most Blacks have no idea who Coleman was, but I did have the pleasure of him honoring him with the first Black Republican Trailblazer Award back in 2013. I think my event was his last public appearance.

Bill Coleman was born in Philadelphia in 1920. Though he had a middle-class upbringing, that didn’t shield him from racism and discrimination that every Black faced during that time. But, like most Blacks, he overcame.

His family, on his mother’s side, came from a long line of Episcopal ministers and was an intricate part of the Underground Railroad. Growing up, it was not unusual for the likes of W.E.B. DuBois and Langston Hughes to drop by the family home for dinner.

As these luminary figures of the Black community took time out for Coleman, he returned the same by making time for people like me.

According to his 2010 biography, “Counsel for the Situation: Shaping the Law to Realize America’s Promise,” Coleman graduated summa cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania in 1941. He then attended Harvard’s Law School, but left to join the Army Air Corps; after his service, he returned to Harvard and graduated first in his class magna cum laude in 1946. He was the first Black to work on the Harvard Law Review.

He went on to become the first Black to clerk for a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Felix Frankfurter.

He accomplished all this after being suspended for a few days for cursing at one of his Germantown High School teachers who said to him, “Someday, William, you will make a wonderful chauffeur.” This is one of my favorite stories from him.

He was the second Black and first Black Republican to serve as a cabinet secretary for a president. President Gerald Ford chose him to be Secretary of Transportation in 1975.

Of all of Coleman’s accomplishments, the work he did with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, will always be the most important to me.

Most people know about and celebrate former Justice Marshall; but most have little knowledge of Coleman.

Marshall was the first Black to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but prior to that he worked with the N.A.A.C.P., when they were a “legitimate” civil rights organization. He was the face behind the historic legal case, Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) in which the Supreme Court ruled separate but equal was unconstitutional.

But, liberal Blacks have totally erased the role of William T. Coleman in this case. As a matter of fact, he actually wrote the legal briefs and put together the legal strategy for the case.

Coleman and Marshall were very dear friends, law partners and both lifetime members of the N.A.A.C.P; Both Black, one Republican and one Democrat.

I wrote a column in 2014 excoriating the civil rights community for insulting Black Republicans like Coleman, Bob Brown, Art Fletcher, Judge Sara Harper, etc., by leaving them out of the 50th anniversary celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bill was signed by then president, Lyndon B. Johnson. The event took place at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas.

I was once asked by a reporter to define a trailblazer. A real trailblazer is like a candle. He consumes himself to enlighten the way for others. The more light a candle gives off, the less it becomes. That’s the essence of a trailblazer.

Coleman was one of America’s true candles of light. He spent a lifetime giving of himself so that America could live up to its promise of equality for all.

Though Bill’s candle was extinguished, his light still shines in the glow of the legacy he left us with.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

Mainstream Media is the Public Relations Firm for Russian Intelligence

The mainstream media has become obsessed with the made up story of “collusion” between Trump and Russia, though there has been absolutely no evidence presented to substantiate such intense coverage.

In a lot of ways, an objective observer could make the case that mainstream media (MSM) is actually colluding with the Russian government.

But before I lay out my case, let’s set the stage.

So-called journalists that work in MSM argue that they are the arbiters of the truth and the guardians of our democracy. Their mission from God, in their narcissistic view, is to protect American’s free speech and keep the government in check.

Let me make this perfectly clear: MSM is not an integral part of our democracy; MSM journalists are not the arbiters of truth. The American people are the only integral part of our democracy and the final arbiters of the truth. We don’t need a biased middleman.

I graduated from Oral Roberts University with a degree in tax accounting. When I worked in corporate America, I was bound by the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); those standards were my Bible for all things accounting.

Likewise, journalists are “supposed” to be governed by the principle established by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). But of course, journalists in MSM believe they are not bound by the standards delineated therein.

I wrote about this last October, when I critiqued MSMs coverage of the presidential campaign last year. It was discovered that journalists from CNN, New York Times, POLITICO etc., were shown to be aiding and abetting the Clinton campaign and were never pulled off the campaign beat. This was proven through emails sent from the reporters to the Clinton campaign and revealed by WikiLeaks; not with “anonymous” sources.

Recently, I have written several columns explaining how Russia has unleashed a psychological operations (PSY-OPS) campaign on the American people and the mainstream media has been in direct collusion with them.

MSM has been using Russian officials as some of their anonymous sources. Yeah, you heard right, Russian officials. This is how ridiculous Russia’s pys-ops campaign has gotten. The Russians are good.
The story goes like this: MSNBC reports that The New York Times is reporting that an anonymous source tells their reporter, that Jared Kushner is a person of interest in the FBI probe into possible collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia.

Do you have a headache yet? I do. Furthermore, there is absolutely no such legal term in law enforcement as a person of interest! Either you are under investigation or you are not.

More importantly, MSM and their sanctimonious reporters are in total violation of their own code of journalistic ethics, not that MSM ever had any.

According to the SPJ, “The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.” Their four principles are: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent.

How many journalists can say with a straight face that the mainstream media has lived up to these standards?

Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy issued an interesting study in May. The center analyzed coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in the MSM.

A few of their findings were: CNN’s coverage was 93 percent negative, NBC was 93 percent negative, and CBS was 91 percent negative. The New York Times was 87 percent negative, The Washington Post was 83 percent negative, and The Wall Street Journal was 70 percent negative.

Juxtapose that with other facts from the study. Obama got 41 percent negative stories during his first 100 days; G.W. Bush received 57 percent negative coverage, and Clinton received 60 percent negative.

The study didn’t survey any Black media outlets, but I know from personal experience that many of them are far worse than the mainstream media.

Radical leftist Black media like The Root, The Grio, TV One, The Tom Joyner Morning Show are all part of the Democratic National Committee for all practical purposes. Did you know that The Root is owned by Univision Communications and that the company’s chairman is an ardent Clintonite?

Yes, you heard right, The Root—a website which is supposed to be the quintessential platform for Black intellectual thought from the diverse perspectives in the Black community—is run by a company that largely caters to Hispanics.

So, we now have empirical data the supports Trump’s theory of a “dishonest media.”

This whole debate about alleged Russian collusion with Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton is simply the Russians showing everyone that they control the American media, when it comes to how the media covers the Trump Administration. MSM has become the personal public relations firm of record for Russian intelligence.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

Science comes to march in lockstep for Earth Progress!

As the world community senses the looming destruction of our planet by Trump’s imperial knowledge-rejecting regime, scientists all over the globe stand up and say No pasaran!

On April 22, and the battle cry of Earth Day resounding through the canyons of our metropoles, Science will march in the front row!


(all pics in this report show Science March rehearsals ongoing now all over the world.)Female-gendered scientists designed a Brainy-hat, and keenly knit it during breaks in rehearsals :

Collectives of scientists in all basic research disciplines announced elaborate programs of historically unprecedented sophistication, aimed to finally establish Environmental Justice for Gaia.

Physicists – Relentlessly Smash Inequality of Atoms!

Everybody knows: each atom has a Z (zhe Atomzahl aka proton number). That Z varies wildly: for hydrogen (evil!) it’s 1, for oxygen (People’s Element!) it’s 8, for gold (bankers!) it’s 79. That’s a scandalous inequality.

And so, the Gaia Program in Physics is: Make all atoms equal! Redistribute protons, and make all atoms have a common, universal Z. Say, Z = 59. This is a monumental effort, given that there are really many, many atoms. Spare particles – protons, electrons etc. – freed from liberated atoms will be used as clean energy fuel.

Physicists present models of proton-wise equalized atoms.

NOTE. FBI started an investigation into the origins of protonic atom inequality. All traces lead to… RUSSIA! The evidence so far points to an individual with a suspicious name – Mendeleyev. Zionist?

Chemists – Boldly create New Matter out of Equalized Atoms!

As atom-equalized matter will soon bubble up in retorts, fascinating questions arise. Will water (H2O) become gooey? Will iron (Fe) be gaseous? Finally, will equalized gold (Au) be simply made from equalized stones (St)?

Chemists proudly present an equalized atom in Science March.

New Matter in a peaceful laboratory flask, with proletariat watching.

Even more contentious, the Gaia Program in Chemistry demands a protonic exception: Carbon (C) to be stripped of protons altogether! This is the direct way to boldly decarbonize our Planet.

Chemical activists for de-protonizing Carbon (and thusly decarbonizing Gaia).

    Mystery item No. 1

Mathematicians – Progressive Gender-Awareness NOW!

Mathematics is extremely gender offensive. One single blob of genderific macroaggression.
This is aggressively explicit when doing Math in Romance languages (le/la, il/la, der/die/das).

See German:

der Punkt – (he) point ; die Linie – (she) line ; das Dreieck – (it) triangle.

Gender is pressed on any mathematical object, leaving no room at all for self-determination.

And it’s not just Romance languages – the Slavic ones have it too, implicitly.

Say, Russian:
(она) точка – (she) point ; (оно) пространство – (it) space ; (он) треугольник – (he) triangle.
Or this: (он) куб – (he) cube ; (она) вершина – (she) vertex ; (оно) ребро – (it) edge.

All research must be immediately stopped! The struggle must focus on total language revolution!
Only after the victory in that battle can gender-autonomy return to now victimized Math objects!

Mathematicians in Science March, expressing their resolve for Math Gender Revolution.

Climatists – Seize the Rudder in the Glorious March of Science!

The world collective of marching science decided (to be announced on April 22) the following:

1) The Queen of All Sciences is no longer Math, it is Climatism.
2) Climatism is administered, supervised, and directed by UN/IPCC.
3) UN/IPCC defines its innermost core UN/IPCC/IMC (abbrev. IMC).
4) What Climatism is, is – at any time – predetermined by IMC, the innermost core.
5) Who a Climate Scientist is, is defined by IMC’s rigorous Axiomatic Recursive Model, as follows:

A1. Members of IMC are Climate Scientists.
A2. Anyone deemed by a troika of Climate Scientists a Climate Scientist, is a Climate Scientist.

Corollary.

Whoever, in absence of a promoting troika (see A2), claims to be a “Climate Scientist”,
is thereby a scientophobic white supremacist contra-gendered Nazi denier (and RRRAAAAAcist!).See gloriously turgid Science Marches all over the Globe on April 22, The Gaia Day!

SCIENTISTS OF THE WORLD – UNITE!

RESIST WE MUCH!

MARCH FOR GAIA! MARCH FOR FUTURE!
MARCH FOR PROGRESS!

And unscientific denier Nazis will get a treatment they richly deserve :

EDITORS NOTE: This scientific political satire by Genosse Dummkopf originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

American Pride

Here we are in the month of June.  June represents a month of pride for many.  The Islamic holiday of Ramadan is this month.  This is also Gay Pride month.  Rather ironic that the two would cross paths on the calendar.

But, obviously Muslims and LGBTQ people are not proud just one day or one month per year.  They exude their pride all year long.

So I wondered, how about a month of plain old, good natured, old fashioned American Pride?

Across this land we have a number of communities, ranging from apartment complexes to various kinds of condominium complexes to municipal ordinances that limit the showing of American Pride to just a few days per year.

You may tell me that is not true.  I would then direct you to a plethora of rules, regulations and laws that dictate that the American people can fly the American flag only on a few days.

Memorial Day.

Independence Day.

Veterans Day.

Flag Day.

I count four, just four days.  That is not even a week.  Obviously far short of a full month.

How did we let this happen?  How did it come to be that Americans were shamed in their feeling and showing pride in their nation?  How?

It is due to a relentless attack on all things American.  Don’t doubt me.  We have a political party all geared up to oppose all things great about America.  We cannot feel special.  We cannot feel exceptional.  We are told over and over again by the Democratic Party that we are not great and that we never were great.

They even go so far as to tell the American people that the only way for America to be great is to drop this sill notion of American Pride and join the world community as citizens of the world.  A one world government.

When America joins this one world government, then we can feel pride.  Not the pride of being an American but the pride of capitulating that kind of pride to the false pride of being a citizen of the world.

Donald J Trump campaigned for President of the United States on American Pride.  His slogan was, and still is “Make America Great Again”.  Make America, not the world.

Mr. Trump ignited the fire of American Pride in many.  He instilled the values that have been attributed to “Traditional America”.  He made is safe to feel Pride in America.  He made it cool again.

I don’t know about you, but I get puffed up with pride, American Pride, every time I see the great American Flag waving on someone’s house or business.  I give a silent salute to the driver of that pick-up truck that has the American Flag flying high and free in the truck bed.  I am brimming with pride when I see a motorcyclist with an American Flag on his bike.

I giggle with delight and pride when I see a child with a flag on their bicycle or Big Wheel or peddle car.  I tear up with pride when I see flag after flag on the graves of the fallen heros who bravely defended our flag.

Make no bones about it.  I am full of American Pride and I will be damned if I am forced to admit and show that pride only four days out of the year.

If gays get a month, America gets a year.  Every year.

There is no shame in American Pride.  There is no room for apology for having American Pride.  Negativity does not reside with having pure, unadulterated American Pride.

So the next time someone tells you that you should limit your American Pride, simply respond “I am a Proud American every day of the year.  Period”

Any questions?

The 2016 Election & the Demise of Journalistic Standards by Michael Goodwin

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion. The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that. The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign. But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.” Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

I say this with great sadness. I was blessed to grow up at the Times, getting a clerical job right out of college and working my way onto the reporting staff, where I worked for a decade. It was the formative experience of my career where I learned most of what I know about reporting and writing. Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Looking to the Future

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

But the future of journalism isn’t all gloom and doom. In fact, if we accept the new reality of widespread bias and seize the potential it offers, there is room for optimism. Consider this—the election showed the country is roughly divided 50-50 between people who will vote for a Democrat and people who will vote for a Republican. But our national media is more like 80-20 in favor of Democrats. While the media should, in theory, broadly reflect the public, it doesn’t. Too much of the media acts like a special interest group. Detached from the greater good, it exists to promote its own interest and the political party with which it is aligned.

Ronald Reagan’s optimism is often expressed in a story that is surely apocryphal, but irresistible. He is said to have come across a barn full of horse manure and remarked cheerfully that there must be a pony in it somewhere. I suggest we look at the media landscape in a similar fashion. The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena. That would be a great thing. So again I urge you: join the side you’re on.

ABOUT MICHAEL GOODWIN

Michael Goodwin is the chief political columnist for The New York Post. He has a B.A. in English literature from Columbia College and has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Post in 2009, he was the political columnist for The New York Daily News, where he served as executive editor and editorial page editor and led its editorial board to a Pulitzer Prize. Prior to that, he worked for 16 years at The New York Times, beginning as a clerk and rising to City Hall Bureau Chief. He is the co-author of I, Koch and editor of New York Comes Back.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Inprimis Digest.

Tennessee: World Relief accused of not taking care of their refugees

When refugees were initially being placed in the county where I live (now more than 10 years ago), our community’s first impression was that the ‘Christian’ resettlement agency—the Virginia Council of Churches—was basically dropping off a couple hundred refugees, placing them in deplorable housing, and then not providing them with some of their basic needs.

I wanted to know what sort of program was this.  Did the government allow this? But, of course as we know now, nine major federal resettlement contractors (including World Relief)*** are federal government contractors who oversee a network of over 300 subcontractors.  The nine sign agreements with the US State Department laying out what services they will provide refugees in their care. Indeed the contractor is paid by the head for each refugee it is assigned.

Over the years, we have reported on many cases like this one being made in Tennessee that the contractor is not fulfilling its end of the bargain.

Abdou Kattih has been an outspoken critic of efforts by the legislature to keep Shariah law out of Tennessee and to rein-in the refugee industry in the state.

From The Tennessee Star:

During the March “Murfreesboro Muslim Youth” (MMY) meeting soliciting help for refugees brought to Rutherford County by federal resettlement contractor World Relief, it was disclosed that goods and services that the government paid for were not provided to the new refugees.

Abdou Kattih

According to Abdou Kattih, founder and president of MMY, were it not for his organization, special emergency needs such as getting medical care for the refugee who arrived with a broken jaw or simply providing household essentials and even clothing, would not have been addressed, explaining they had taken care of “someone that does not have literally anything but the clothes they had off of last month.”

Melissa Sohrabi, who merged her group “Roots for Refugees” with MMY, was more direct in detailing the deficiencies of the government contractor in this talk she delivered in March:

“There is an expectation of what should happen and there’s reality of what really does happen. . . Why didn’t World Relief give them a table and chairs? Why didn’t they bring them a couch? What’s going on? . . . Not only did it not happen but if it did happen, those families are charged for every belonging, every item that is donated to World Relief, the family is then charged for, for having it delivered to them.”

World Relief (WR), based in Baltimore, is one of nine national refugee resettlement organizations that sign a “Cooperative Agreement” with the U.S. State Department to receive federal funding to resettle refugees. This is taxpayer money allocated for each refugee brought to a community; the funds are split between the refugee and the agency. In addition, the resettlement agency is required to provide the goods and services as detailed in the signed agreement.

Between fiscal years 2016 -17, WR was paid over $40 million by the federal government to resettle refugees in communities where they operate local offices which also receive federal funding through grants administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Continue reading here.

One of several things that came to mind when I read this, is something I have been wondering about for some time.  Five of the nine resettlement contractors are ‘Christian charities’, one is Jewish and three are secular.

They all eagerly resettle Muslim refugees, but I have wondered when will some Muslim charity demand to get in on the federal gravy train? Laying the groundwork in this story?

Here are the nine federal contractors that monopolize the US Refugee Admissions Program:

VIDEO: Act For America Power

Bill salutes the number one organization in America that is taking on Islamic oppression.