A vast majority of Americans are pissed off about political correctness.

“Political polls and years of knife-edge elections have convinced many that our country has become a 50:50 society, divided into two opposing political tribes and trapped in a spiral of conflict and division. Our research uncovered a different story, one that probes underneath the issues that polarize Americans, and finds seven groups that are defined by their core beliefs, rather than by their political opinions, race, class, or gender,” according to More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British politician who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum.

“In talking to everyday Americans, we have found a large segment of the population whose voices are rarely heard above the shouts of the partisan tribes. These are people who believe that Americans have more in common than that which divides them. While they differ on important issues, they feel exhausted by the division in the United States. They believe that compromise is necessary in politics, as in other parts of life, and want to see the country come together and solve its problems.”

Most members of the so-called “exhausted majority” despise political correctness. Among the general population, 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24.

Read: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf

The study is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30, one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.

Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and African-Americans are tired to political correctness. Asians (82 percent), African-Americans (75 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and Native Americans (88 percent) are most likely to oppose political correctness.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

Compared with the rest of the polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are.

Nearly half of Latinos argued that “many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated,” while two in five African Americans agreed that “immigration nowadays is bad for America.”

Overall, only 9 percent of those surveyed classified themselves as progressive.

Simply put, this study demonstrates that all those people getting all that air time are NOT representative of what Americans really think.

That should give hope to those of us who think Donald Trump represents far more people than the media and progressives want to admit.

Academic publications don’t let the facts stand in the way of a good story, particularly when an article promotes a distinctly leftist line.

For the past year, several scholars sent fake papers to various academic journals they describe as specializing in activism or “grievance studies.” Their stated mission was to expose how easy it was to get “absurdities and morally fashionable political ideas published as legitimate academic research.”

The three scholars included Helen Pluckrose, who studies medieval religious writings about women; James A. Lindsay, an author and mathematician; and Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University.

“Something has gone wrong in the university — especially in certain fields within the humanities,” the three authors of the fake papers wrote in an article in the online journal Areo explaining what they had done. “Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields.”

The problem is particularly rampant in the social sciences where it is often difficult to replicate the “experiments” created in the articles. Moreover, social sciences tend to emphasize qualitative methods, which often use open-ended questions to investigate why people think the way they do, rather than quantitative methods, which use specific questions to investigate what people do or think. Also, social science researchers often engage in confirmation bias through which there is a tendency to ignore data that conflict with the core beliefs of the author.

These and other issues are what the self-described “liberal” researchers tried to uncover.

For example, Gender, Place & Culture, a monthly journal on “feminist geography” published one of the papers on how dog parks emphasized the culture of rape.

The paper claimed that dog parks are “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’” and issues “a call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.”

One paper, published in a journal called Sex Roles, said that the author had conducted a two-year study involving “thematic analysis of table dialogue” to uncover the mystery of why heterosexual men like to eat at Hooters, or so-called “breastaurants.”

Another, entitled “Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism,” included part of Mein Kampf.

One paper, which received positive reviews but had not yet been published, proposed a teaching method centered on “experiential reparations.” It suggested that professors rate students’ levels of oppression based on race, gender, class, and other identity categories. Students deemed privileged would be kept from commenting in class, interrupted when they did speak and invited to sit on the floor or to wear (light) chains around their shoulders, wrists, or ankles for the duration of the course. Students who complained would be told that this educational tool helps them confront “privileged fragility.”

You really can’t make this stuff up! Oh, sorry, I guess they did. In doing so, I hope people see how absurd academic research has become.

My experience of being wrongfully accused doesn’t compare with that of Judge Kavanaugh.

But I’ve also had outlandish charges made against me–charges that were false but almost impossible to defend against.

The first case occurred in 1996 when I was an associate professor at New York University.

As the faculty considered me for tenure, a colleague charged that I was guilty of plagiarism, which can be the kiss of death in both journalism and the academy.

Here’s what happened.

As part of a U.S. State Department grant, I was working with Russian educators who were trying to introduce Western-style journalism into universities there.

As part of that effort, I was tasked with preparing educational materials geared toward reporting and writing.

One NYU professor had created a series of writing examples that everyone used in the department.

As part of my package for tenure, I included these exercises, which were prepared for the Russians, as an example of service to the profession.

The professor who attacked me for plagiarism said I had claimed the work as my own.

That was utter nonsense, but it didn’t make much difference.

As a result, a stellar tenure package–a slam dunk in the words of some of my colleagues–didn’t make it through the process.

Why had he decided to attack me? When I was hired, his friend at The New York Times didn’t get the job. My attacker, a former columnist at The New York Times, vowed to get me booted from the university to avenge his friend.

I didn’t have any ability to defend myself against the accusation because tenure meetings are secret, and I was excluded from the discussion.

It’s worth noting that the professor whose work I had allegedly plagiarized defended me.

But the damage was done. An accusation without foundation carried the day, and I had to find another job.

More recently, an anonymous accuser charged that I had created a “hostile work environment” in my department.

We were hiring a documentary producer. Since I was the only person in the department who’d directed and produced documentaries, I thought my analysis would count for something. I was dead wrong!

One of the finalists produced short videos about illegal immigrants in California. The material was poorly produced and edited, but one member of the department thought the content was compelling.

The videos were so bad technically, I said, it would be like hiring someone to teach writing who didn’t know much about grammar.

My expertise, however, came across as “mansplaining,” and the accusation went to the dean.

Because of my comments, an investigation was launched, which found no basis for the claim of creating a hostile work environment. But I never got to confront my accuser. I never received an apology.

Today an accusation often carries more weight than the truth. Somehow the standard has become guilty until proven innocent.

Over the past two weeks, I have seen first-hand how academia continues to slide into the leftist abyss.

A panel discussion on 9/11 and a debate about Brett Kavanaugh underlined how the ivory tower can negatively affect young minds.

The Department of Journalism at Temple University organized the session on 9/11, which was attended by about 100 people. I initially agreed to participate in the panel because of my longtime experience as a reporter in the Middle East. But I relinquished my role when one of my colleagues objected to “three white men” as the only members of the group.

That’s academic logic. Expertise doesn’t matter; only diversity does except when it comes to diversity of opinion. Here is a report on the panel: https://temple-news.com/temple-community-remembers-9-11-at-panel-discussion/

The panelists also made the following points:

–More people died in the Puerto Rican hurricane than on 9/11, so there was no significant reason to commemorate the events surrounding the attack on the World Trade Center.
–The United States had slipped into “tribalism” because Islamophobia was rampant.
–Bush was bad; Trump is worse.

I have heard a lot of silliness in my time in the academy, but this group was near the top of the pops.

During the question-and-answer part of the program, I couldn’t resist trying to bring some balance to the discussion.

Evil people want to do bad things to the United States, I said. They’re planning them right now. Fortunately, security officials and the U.S. military had stopped most of the bad people from doing bad things.

Let me underline an important fact here. These are journalism professors who are supposed to be teaching future reporters about accuracy and facts. If the teachers believe this hokum, just imagine what they pass on to their students.

At least one student thanked me later for my comments. She intended to join the military upon graduation. At least I had touched one soul that day.

But there’s more. In my media law class, I initiated a discussion about the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.

For the vast majority of the students, it didn’t make any difference that the alleged incident may have occurred 35 years ago. It didn’t make any difference that the alleged incident happened when both were teenagers. It didn’t make any difference that the accuser couldn’t remember basic details. It didn’t make any difference that the accusations might be politically motivated.

Simply put, in most of my students’ eyes, Kavanaugh is a bad guy.

It’s tough being a conservative in academia, but I’ll continue to fight the good fight!

Bob Woodward is the Moses of journalism.

Every few years, he comes down from the mountain with a list of “truths” that all must worship.

Unfortunately, Woodward has a lot of cracks in those tablets, which much of the media chooses to ignore.

After Watergate, Woodward was the supervisor of the writer of a story about “Little Jimmy,”an eight-year-old heroin addict who allegedly lived in Washington, D.C., who was profiled in The Washington Post. The story provoked a national outrage that the nation’s capital was doing nothing to stop the drug trade.

The 1980 article, written by Janet Cooke, won the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Woodward, then an assistant managing editor for DaPost, submitted the story for the Pulitzer Prize.

The problem was that Little Jimmy didn’t exist.

DaPost gave back the prize, Janet Cooke got fired, and Woodward went back to writing books. Nothing stuck to his Teflon reputation as the guy “who brought the Nixon administration down.” See https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-case-of-janet-cooke/

Over the years, Woodward’s “truthiness” problem surfaced again and again.

Wired, the 1984 biography of actor John Belushi, apparently got a lot of stuff wrong.

“There were certainly things that he just got patently wrong,” Belushi friend Dan Aykroyd said. “He painted a portrait of John that was really inaccurate — certain stories in there that just weren’t true and never happened.”

Author Tanner Colby, in the course of researching and writing his own Belushi biography, said he found many instances in which Woodward’s account was inaccurate.

“The simple truth of Wired is that Bob Woodward, deploying all of the talent and resources for which he is famous, produced something that is a failure as journalism,” Colby wrote in a 2013 Salon article. “And when you imagine Woodward using the same approach to cover secret meetings about drone strikes and the budget sequester and other issues of vital national importance, well, you have to stop and shudder.”

Veil, Woodward’s 1987 book on the CIA, has long been a source of controversy.

Woodward claimed in the book that he was the sole witness to a dramatic deathbed confession from former CIA Director William Casey. Casey, as he lay dying in Georgetown University hospital, jerked up in bed and confessed to Woodward that he knew about the Reagan-era Iran-Contra deal, Woodward wrote.

“People close to Casey at the time said he couldn’t even speak, much less jerk his head up. They said details of Woodward’s account, such as the positioning of Casey’s hospital bed, did not even remotely match Woodward’s description. Casey’s daughter said the encounter never happened,” Tod Robberson, now an editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatchwrote in a 2013 Dallas Morning News column.

The Casey dispute made a Politico list of six “Bob Woodward controversies” in 2012.

Here are some of the others on that list:

–Woodward’s description of President Ronald Reagan’s recovery from an assassination attempt in 1981. Reagan’s doctor later said Woodward’s description of a frail, fragile Reagan was entirely inconsistent with reality, Politico noted.

–A disputed Woodward bombshell about former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan made the list as well. Brennan voted what he thought was the wrong way on a case in order to ingratiate himself to fellow Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Woodward and co-author Scott Armstrong charged in The Brethren, their 1979 book on the Supreme Court. The late New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, the acknowledged dean of Supreme Court reporters, dismissed Woodward and Armstrong’s accusation.

“It makes a serious charge without serious evidence—almost offhandedly, in two pages. It gets facts wrong. It gives the impression of relying on a conversation between Brennan and a law clerk that the law clerks of that term say never took place. If the passage was not meant to rely on such, a conversation with a clerk, then it grossly and deliberately misleads the reader,” Lewis wrote.

But none of these errors make it into the mainstream media’s praise of Woodward’s anti-Trump book. Moses wasn’t allowed into the promised land. Maybe Woodward shouldn’t get a pass either, or he should at least be held to account for his sins of omission and commission.

As the fall semester starts, I face the somewhat vexing problem of convincing many students that what they have learned is mostly wrong.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I try to keep my political views out of the classroom.

What I do, however, is point the class toward divergent points of view, such as conservative ones that they probably have never heard before.

In my media law class, for example, we talked about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, starting with term, “Borked.” It is somewhat ironic that Anthony Kennedy replaced Robert Bork as a nominee, and Cavanaugh will replace Kennedy.

Fortunately, the sound and the fury the Democrats mustered won’t stop Cavanaugh from getting to the prestigious bench. But I tired to tamp down the nonsense that the Democrats have put forward.

The class will analyze the role of a “free and responsible press”—something I hope they will take with them whether they go into journalism or not.

In my international reporting class, we discussed the role of immigration in American society—a topic the media and the Democrats have managed to muddle badly.

For example, I explained the various paths to temporary and permanent visas and the appropriate way to citizenship.

We analyzed the various immigrants who come to the United States and Philadelphia. I asked what is the largest group of immigrants coming to the city. The answer: China.

This week’s topic is terrorism. Unbeknownst to them will be what many conservatives know: the war on terrorism has been effective. Al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State are unable to mount any significant attacks against U.S. citizens and interests outside of the country.

I hope that the students will get some useful information from my years in the Middle East and China without the defeatist political slant they’ve heard elsewhere.

As always, it will be an interesting ride. It’s time to buckle up!

I’ve joined a growing number of conservatives who have been censored under Facebook’s community standards.

It is unclear what my crime was. My weekly column for DaTechGuy.com included an analysis that the Mueller investigation was not similar to Watergate—a constant refrain from the media. Here it is: http://datechguyblog.com/2018/08/28/it-aint-watergate/

“We have people in 11 offices around the world, including subject matter experts on issues such as hate speech, child safety, and terrorism. Many of us have worked on the issues of expression and safety long before coming to Facebook,” wrote Monika Bickert, vice president of Global Product Management wrote earlier this year in a post that accompanied the release of FB’s “27 pages of community standards. “I worked on everything from child safety to counter terrorism during my years as a criminal prosecutor, and other team members include a former rape crisis counselor, an academic who has spent her career studying hate organizations, a human rights lawyer, and a teacher.”

The standards are broken up into sections dealing with violence and criminal behavior, user safety, “objectionable content,” integrity and authenticity, copyright material, and content-related requests.

The only possible explanation for the censorship of my column was under the objectionable content standard. It apparently was objectionable because it was conservative. That’s awfully scary when you realize that FB is the largest provider of information in the world.

Facebook says it has censors working 24/7, including powerful algorithms, to make sure your feed is “safe.”

I’ve hardly the first one to note the chilling thought of these 1984 trolls pulling down material that people really should see.

But there’s more. A few days ago, a senior FB engineer posted a message on the company’s internal message board. Titled “We Have a Problem With Political Diversity,” it quickly took off inside the social network.

“We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views,” Brian Amerige, wrote in the post. “We claim to welcome all perspectives but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”

Since the post went up, more than 100 Facebook employees have joined Amerige to form an online group called FB’ers for Political Diversity. The aim of the initiative, according to Amerige’s memo, is to create a space for ideological diversity within the company.

For the moment that diversity doesn’t seem like it will come any time soon. I’m still waiting for a decision on my appeal of the censorship.

As a young reporter in 1973, I worked in Washington when the Watergate scandal started to unravel.

Despite numerous comparisons to the Watergate, the Mueller investigation isn’t anything like what happened to the Nixon White House.

Watergate centered on the illegal activities of Nixon and his aides while they were working for the government.

The Mueller investigation has focused on activities BEFORE Trump took office.

The Watergate activities included bugging the offices of political opponents and people Nixon or his cronies thought were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides also ordered investigations of activist groups and political figures, using the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS as political weapons.

The White House recording system also gave investigators evidence of a conspiracy in the conspirators’ own voices.

The scandal also resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were top Nixon officials. These included top aides John Ehrlichman and Bob Haldeman, former Attorneys General John Mitchell and Robert Kleindienst, White House Counsel John Dean, and myriad other government officials.

So far, the Mueller investigation has indicted four former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer.

That includes one, repeat, one Trump administration official: National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

So far, the only possible link to President Trump is whether he paid hush money to two hookers. Remember another president who actually had sex in the Oval Office?

With the guilt of two former allies of Trump, the media talked about impeachment on a continuing basis. By one count, CNN and MSNBC used the word more than 200 times in one day.

If impeachment happens, it will be purely political IF the Democrats take control of the House in the midterm elections.

The media have gotten so much wrong that MSNBC even gave an incorrect explanation of how impeachment works for two days in a row.

What most media magnates fail to mention is that it takes two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to convict. That means 67 senators must enforce the findings of the indictment. That’s never happened.

The constant drumbeat of comparing Watergate to the Mueller investigation is simply fake news.

UPDATE DTG: Just got an email from Christopher telling me that he put this post up on facebook and it was taken down. He put it back up there again so stay tuned.

If these guys are scared of something this mild then in my opinion it means they’ve decided to go all in on censorship


My pay and Christopher’s Pay for writing here comes from the voluntary contributions of readers.  If you think this work is worth your while and wish to support what facebook wants to censor please subscribe to the site below.


Choose a Subscription level


Of course one time tip jar hits are welcome as well



Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

The media want people to think that Donald Trump’s attacks on the press have been responsible for reporters being injured while covering news events.

Simply put, that’s just fake news.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which is frequently referenced in media reports, details attacks against media types. See https://pressfreedomtracker.us/physical-attack

The press apparently didn’t look very closely at the data.

In 2018, the data show that 31 incidents have occurred—nearly all of which had nothing to do with Trump. More important, leftists attacked journalists quite frequently, but that inconvenient truth goes unreported.

The worst incident occurred in Annapolis, Maryland, where a man armed with a shotgun killed five people at the Capital Gazette. The murders had to do with a longstanding complaint the killer had with the news organization.

Here are some examples of the left harming reporters:

–In an Antifa rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, two journalists were accosted by demonstrators on August 12.

–In March, a San Diego reporter and her photographer were attacked during an anti-Trump rally. Neither was seriously injured.

–A Texas reporter got smacked in the ear during a pro-immigration rally in Texas.

Several incidents occurred when journalists got too close to the action during demonstrations from the right and the left when cops pushed the reporters out of the way. One guy got hit with a water bottle and got a superficial head wound.

These journalists apparently hadn’t gotten much training into how to prepare to cover a demonstration. Note: You usually need to protect your head! It’s a bit more dangerous than riding your bike.

I found three incidents that could be loosely tied back to the president. That would be less than 10 percent of what I would consider a relatively small number of attacks on the press in the United States.

Here is the most serious incident:

–On May 22, 2018, security guards at the Environmental Protection Agency prevented a number of journalists from entering a building where EPA administrator Scott Pruitt was giving a speech. AP reporter Ellen Knickmeyer said that when she asked to speak with someone from the EPA’s press office about the denial of access, one of the security guards grabbed her shoulders and physically pushed her out of the building.

Seriously? That’s the most egregious example of Trump’s attacks on the press causing danger to reporters?

But there’s more.

On July 12, while sitting near the set of a pro-life movie filming in Washington, D.C., Daily Beast reporter Will Sommer had his notes stolen and then ripped apart.

“[A] man later identified by police as a member of the crew came over to where I was sitting in public space with a group of tourists and grabbed my notepad out of my hand by force,” Sommer wrote in an article about the incident.

Boo hoo!

I had to laugh at the third incident that could be loosely tied to the Trump administration.

Mediaite reporter Caleb Ecarma claimed he was shoved by former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka while attempting to interview him at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 22.

That would be a conservative shoving a representative from an even more conservative publication, Mediaite, which most journalists do not consider a news organization.

Nevertheless, nearly 300 “news” organizations recently published editorials condemning President Trump for creating a dangerous atmosphere for the media.

Let me say it one more time with feeling: Fake news!

As the Syrian civil war slouches toward its brutal end, it’s time to take stock of one of the most significant diplomatic and military failures in my lifetime.

More than 200,000 civilians have died, including more than 25,000 children, and many more have been critically injured.

Six million refugees have created havoc in Europe and the Middle East.

For the first time in more than two decades, Russia has a significant stronghold in the Middle East.

Shias have cut a swath of religious intolerance through Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Much of the blame can be placed at the foot of the Obama administration, which ignored the potential impact of the war that began during the Arab uprising of 2011.

In 2014, President Obama invited over a dozen  leaders from both parties to the White House to talk about foreign policy. Obama became visibly agitated when confronted by bipartisan criticism of the White House’s policy of delaying Syrian rebels’ repeated requests for arms to fight the Assad regime.

The president defended his administration’s actions on Syria, saying that the notion that many have put forth regarding arming the rebels earlier would have led to better outcomes in Syria was “horse shit.”

During the civil war, the self-proclaimed Islamic State gained a significant foothold in Syria. Obama once referred to ISIS as the “junior varsity.” It’s a comment he probably would prefer to take back, but he did little to root out ISIS, too.

Note: ISIS, which is Sunni, also fought the Assad regime, which is related to the Shia sect, for its own vicious reasons, including the importance of a piece of real estate to train terrorists.

It took President Trump to defeat ISIS in Syria because Obama couldn’t figure out what to do about Assad and/or ISIS.

As a reporter for ABC News and Newsweek, I spent a lot of time in Syria. Although a brutal dictatorship ruled the country, I traveled to many historic spots, such as Palmyra, which ISIS tried to destroy. The market in Damascus, Al-Hamidiyah Suq, was one of my favorite haunts as were the road where St. Paul found God and the Umayyad Mosque, which then-Pope John Paul II visited during a Middle Eastern trip.

I remember a visit to Lebanon in 2011, where I spoke on a panel with prominent reporters from The Washington Post and NPR.

I argued that the United States faced an important decision in Syria. I said that the U.S. needed to provide significant aid, including American boots on the ground. The other reporters, voicing the conventional wisdom of the swamp, said my position was over the top, although the mainly Lebanese audience agreed with me.

At a time when the media seem preoccupied with myriad issues, Syria, unfortunately, has dropped off their radar when we should look critically at what went wrong and what lies ahead.