“But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.”

Dr. Seuss
How the Grinch Stole Christmas

We now have a Dr. Seuss two-fer here in Massachusetts. A couple of weeks ago, a librarian in Cambridge rudely refused, without the authority to do so, a set of 10 Dr. Seuss books, a gift from the First Lady, because the First Lady is married to President Trump. And just last week, three equally rude authors refused to participate in the inaugural Children’s Literature Festival at, of all places, The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum in Springfield, because – horror of horrors – the museum features a mural depicting a scene from Dr. Seuss’ first book, To Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street.
As a lifelong Seussophile, allow me to say that these people need to find real issues to worry about. The librarian, seeing an opportunity to lash out at Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos through the First Lady, belittled the gift as unnecessary, because her school has such a wonderful librarian (herself), and proceeded to lecture Mrs. Trump that she should have sent a completely different set of books to a different school. Keep in mind, the reason this school was selected was to recognize its excellence. The letter that accompanied the books encouraged the children that they “can accomplish anything you set your mind to,” and that “the key to achieving your dreams begins with learning to read.” Fortunately, the school district overruled the librarian – who, by the way, once dressed up as the Cat in the Hat to celebrate Dr. Seuss’ birthday – and graciously accepted the books.
Of course, there was more to it. The Big Problem, according to the librarian, is that the books themselves, including Green Eggs and Ham and Oh, the Places You’ll Go!, are – wait for it – racist. Even though these books weren’t racist when the Obamas read them to children, apparently, the three festival-boycotting authors agreed with the librarian. They claim that the Mulberry Street mural features a “jarring racial stereotype of a Chinese man, who is depicted with chopsticks, a pointed hat, and slanted slit eyes.” Here’s the image:


I suppose Dr. Seuss could have written “a nondescript Asian-American child who may be a biological male – but we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions – who eats with traditional Chinese eating implements” but that doesn’t really fit the rhyming scheme, does it?
As you might expect, the museum caved and is not only removing the mural – from, again, the first book written by perhaps the most popular and well-known children’s author in the history of the English language – but they cancelled the festival! Apparently, they felt it was more important to cater to the fragile egos of these authors that nobody ever heard of than to hold an event to celebrate Children’s Literature and encourage children to read, like the First Lady was trying to do.
In her ungracious letter to the First Lady, the librarian cited Philip Nel, a Kansas State University professor who wrote “Was the Cat in the Hat Black?” Professor Nel was also quoted in a recent Boston Globe article about the controversy offering parents and children’s librarians a choice to either skip Seuss’ more controversial works or read them to children “and be ready to have uncomfortable conversations about them.”
I don’t know about you, but I read these books to my children when they were probably four or five. Needless to say, I did not have any “uncomfortable conversations” with them about the pictures in any of these books. As Mrs. Trump points out, they are “the future of America” and I know that my children, having been given a foundation of faith, reason, logic and love, will be well ahead of their peers whose parents had “uncomfortable conversations” with them and taught them to see racism everywhere.

The Museum of Seuss, with a mural in back
shows whimsy and fun, not a racist attack.

But snowflakes won’t stop, since all they’ve been taught
Is that everything’s wrong and it’s never their fault.

That’s not true, of course, since all that they do
Is to whine and complain and they blame me and you

For not giving in and just going away
But fighting for good in the U.S. of A.

And don’t forget to hit DaTechGuy’s Tip Jar or, better yet, subscribe!

As you may recall, now-President Trump went to Mexico during last year’s campaign, and, after he took over the press conference, both Pres. Peña Nieto and he stated that NAFTA should be renegotiated.

If you look up the history of NAFTA, you find:

The United States commenced bilateral trade negotiations with Canada more than 30 years ago, resulting in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 1989. In 1991, bilateral talks began with Mexico, which Canada joined. The NAFTA followed, entering into force on January 1, 1994.

Considering the changes in technology and global markets that have taken place during the past 23 years, it’s not unreasonable to take a second look at the treaty.

The next round of talks starts today (emphasis added)

One provision designed with that objective is a “sunset” clause that would force Nafta’s expiration in five years unless all three countries act to renew it, said people briefed on the plan.

Other proposals, these people said, would weaken or eliminate the mechanisms aimed at settling disputes between the three countries and curbing the unilateral threats and sanctions that frequently roiled trade ties in earlier years.

More importantly,

None of the U.S. proposals would alter the specific trade terms that have spurred a quarter-century of commercial integration between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, such as tax-free trade across borders.

The Trump administration’s goal appears to be to reduce the incentive to outsource by watering down the pact and reduce its influence on American companies through measures such as undoing the current policy of treating the three economies – Canada, U.S, Mexico – as one, narrowing the amount of U.S. federal spending to the same dollar amount as the trading partners (“dollar for dollar”), and requiring that some products contain not just a certain level of Nafta-regional content, but U.S.-specific content.

This goal goes hand-in-hand with the administration’s deregulation strategy to improve U.S. manufacturing. And, as the WSJ said in the above article, “None of the U.S. proposals would alter the specific trade terms.”

Since the new round of talks starts today, this of course does not mean that is what NAFTA will look like at the end.

However, I would love to see – if only once – an international treaty with an actual sunset clause.

A woman can dream.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

An interesting followup to yesterday’s post suggesting that if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 Harvey Weinstein would not today be exposed as the man he has been for years.

Two days ago just as I arrived for work Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi hit a two run homer off of Astro Ace Justin Verlander making his first relief appearance ever giving the Sox a 3-2 lead in the bottom of the fifth of game 4 of their series. I walked in smiling and when I told my lead the score, at he confidently predicted an Astro win so we bet a candy bar on the result.

Yesterday I was running late and found myself, thanks to Houston’s late comeback rushing into Shaw’s in Leominster to buy the bar to pay off that bet. I found myself stuck in a line behind a woman who was visiting her daughter who had just had her first child. The conversation in the line and with the cashier was Trump vs Mexico. At this point I interjected, “Well consider this, if Donald Trump isn’t elected there is no way that Harvey Weinstein is exposed by the NYT as he was a vital ally and fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.” The cashier agreed that this was true but the woman ahead of me had a slightly different take, while she agreed with my premise she stated quite emphatically: “Still isn’t worth it.”

Given that Mr. Weinstein preyed on woman (which she was) I found that opinion interesting and as I was leaving it hit me that not only would her daughter be of the age that Weinstein would go after but there is no reason to believe that if that new grandchild of hers wanted a career in movies a Harvey Weinstein or someone like him, would in 15-18 years be making the same demands on her if she wanted to get ahead in the business.

This is how crazy the left has become, a liberal women so dislikes Trump that she would have been willing to not only let Weinstein’s crime be unexposed and unpunished but would have been OK with him being allowed to obtain new victims for the sake of keeping him Trump of the White House.

So for those who you Hate Trump but are outraged over Weinstein I have two questions for you:

Would the price of Weinstein never being exposed have been worth it to you if it meant Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in 2016?

If the answer to the first question is yes: At what number of new women victimized by Mr. Weinstein would that price become too high?

I think these two question really give this story the perspective it deserves don’t you and I’d love to see a roving reporter asking these question to a bunch of women’s studies majors at liberal universities across the nation wouldn’t you?

I’ll give the last word to Thomas Wictor


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

This video revealing deliberate bias at the NYT is likely the least shocking thing I’ve ever seen

But that being said the timing here is perfect. Right now the left is reeling from their silence over the Weinstein business, it will be a lot of fun asking those same people if they knew the Times was doing this kind of thing.

Final thought. Normally the MSM completely ignores these Project Veritas videos but once President Trump starting tweeting this out it will be impossible for the press to do so. And if he connects the silence in the newsrooms on Weinstein with the silence on this kind of bias, this could be the a permanent game changer.

I’ve interviewed James O’Keefe twice one in 2013 and again at CPAC 2017