Letter to Sharif El-Mekki, Principal of Mastery Charter School — Shoemaker Campus

Dear Sharif El-Mekki,

I recently came across your blog post headlined, “Philly Principals, Stop Supporting Trump,” where you publicly called out my father (Dr. Charles Paslay) and me (Christopher Paslay), for being racists and supporting “anti-Blackness.”  Before I respond to your writing, please allow me to correct some misinformation in your original post.  You state that my father, Dr. Charles Paslay, is somehow associated with “Philly Teachers For Trump,” a Facebook page and blog that I founded in July of 2018 and currently host.  For the record, Dr. Paslay has nothing to do with either, and the “familiar name and picture” you refer to in your post are both me; although I am over 20 years younger than my father, I do look a lot like him, so I’ll forgive you for mistaking me for a 69-year-old man when I’m only 47.  Still, you really should go back to your original post and correct the record, assuming you are an honest writer and journalist who cares about getting the facts straight.     

Because we have ties to the same neighborhood (my father was born and raised in Southwest Philadelphia, and I grew up in Southwest Philly and Yeadon), and we teach and mentor the same kids (my father taught and coached at Bartram for 36 years, and I’ve been teaching and coaching in the Philadelphia School District for over 22 years), and because ultimately, we are good, caring people who’ve dedicated our lives to helping our students succeed, I won’t take it as an insult that you suggested my father and I are racists, and that we support “anti-Blackness,” whatever that term is supposed to mean; I understand you are an activist in addition to being a principal, and that you are only trying to protect the people you care about.

But truth be told — and I say this respectfully — you don’t know anything about either one of us, so how could you possibly call us racists?  You’ve never observed any of the classes we’ve taught, and don’t know our passion for teaching, or how we’ve worked our butts off to raise scores on the PSSA and Keystone exams.  You’ve never seen us coach, or witnessed our athletes proudly bring home Penn Relays medals or PIAA State Championships in track, or watched either of us counsel our students in times of crisis, sometimes acting as a surrogate parent when these kids had nowhere else to turn.  

And speaking of parents, you’ve probably never spoken to the mothers and fathers of our students and athletes, who’ve consistently thanked us for doing all we can to help their children go to college or learn a trade, or to become responsible young men and women ready to enter the world as critical thinkers.  I’d bet you’ve never spoken to administrators, or coaches, or PFT leaders who’ve thanked us for our dedication (Jerry Jordan wrote me a personal endorsement when I published my first book on education reform in 2011, titled, The Village Proposal: Education as a Shared Responsibility).  I bet you haven’t read the dozens of Inquirer commentaries I’ve written over the past 15 years, articles fighting for the rights of Philadelphia teachers and students, especially ones from neighborhoods like Southwest Philly.      

In summary, you know nothing about my father and me.  Yet you publicly call us racists, and claim we support “anti-Blackness.”  Incredibly, you state the following: 

This situation is not new to us. We have police, teachers, and other public anti-servants who earn a living on the backs of Black kids despite hating them and their roots.

Wow, that’s a pretty serious thing to say about two teachers and coaches who’ve dedicated their lives to helping their students, many of whom are African American.  With all due respect, Sharif, you don’t know us well enough to publicly insinuate that my father and I “earn a living on the backs of Black kids despite hating them and their roots.”  

But I think we both know why you’ve drawn these very serious and very slanderous conclusions: because I’ve dared to publicly support President Trump, and host a platform for others to do the same.  That’s my crime: supporting the President of the United States.  This is intolerable to people like you, who demand diversity of race, gender, and sexuality, but not diversity of thought.  This is exactly why I started Philly Teachers For Trump: to serve as a refuge for those who support our president.  This is America, not a one-party system like North Korea or the old Soviet Union.  People should be free to support the candidate of their choice, not be bullied into silence or called names.  If you go back to the Philly Teachers For Trump Facebook page and blog and read my posts, you’ll see examples of all the positives Trump has done for America (or at least you’ll see a perspective on things you might not be familiar with). Trump is not a racist or a bigot or a white supremacist, and neither are his supporters.  If you take the time to look past the daily misrepresentation and mischaracterization of the man for five minutes, you’ll see he cares about ALL people.  

Trump believes in merit-based immigration over a random lottery, and feels that refuges seeking asylum should come through legal ports of entry, therefore he’s labeled a “xenophobe” who hates all Latinos; Trump supports Israel’s right to exist, scrutinizes countries with high populations of Islamic extremists, and sanctions countries like Iran who openly support terrorism, therefore he’s an Islamophobe who hates all Muslims; Trump cut taxes which stimulated the economy, energized the stock market and created jobs for all Americans, yet somehow he’s a greedy one-percenter who cares only about the rich; Trump reformed the criminal justice system via his “First Step Act,” giving many incarcerated minorities a second chance at life, yet he’s a racist white supremacist who doesn’t care about black lives; Trump deregulated the energy sector and is fighting to implement clean fossil fuels — bringing back the coal industry and saving small American towns — yet he’s an evil climate destroyer; Trump believes in restricting late term abortions, so that when a baby is born alive doctors should be required to save its life rather than end it, therefore he doesn’t respect women’s bodies or their right to choose; Trump was the first Republican president to celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month (and is currently fighting to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of countries in Africa and the Middle East), yet he’s a homophobe who hates gays; Trump loves America and all it stands for, putting the interests of its people first, yet he’s a “Russian agent” who’s in bed with Putin.  

I’m not going to debate Trump’s policies, or try to correct all the misinformation about him, but at least know this: he’s done more for African Americans in two years than Obama did in eight.  Just ask Candice Owens, or watch the video The Young Black Conservatives of Trump’s America.  Or better yet, ask BET’s founder Robert Johnson about Trump (he supports him).  Or Isaac Newton Farris Jr. and Alveda King, Dr. King’s nephew and niece, about Trump (they both support him).  Or Rev. Bill Owens, president of the coalition of African-American pastors (they all support Trump).  Or Dr. Ben Carson, or Kanye West, or Tim Scott, or Herman Cain.  Or Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, Stacey Dash, or Thomas Sowell.  Or Clarence Thomas, Col. Allen West, David Webb, or Ward Connerly.  Or Roy Innis, Niger Innis, Shelby Steele, or Sheriff David Clarke.  Are all these proud Trump-supporting African Americans “anti-Black”?  If Trump is such a toxic, bigoted, white supremacist, why do all these successful, exemplary, and God-loving Blacks support the man? Perhaps there’s another side to Trump all his critics refuse to see?

Again, I’m not here to sell you on Trump.  However, I do believe that in America, people should be free to support the president without fear of reprisal or threats of having their reputations destroyed.  If you don’t agree with Trump or his policies, fine.  But this movement to stereotype all Trump supporters as racist and bully us into silence is wrong, and educators of your experience and stature should understand this, Sharif. Over 108,000 people voted for Trump in Philadelphia in 2016, and they can’t all be bigots.  Neither can the parents and students in Philadelphia who back the president. Shouldn’t their voices be heard? Trump’s style is brash, and some of the things he says are insensitive, but he’s hardly the monster everyone makes him out to be.  Most Trump supporters are good, caring people.  And we want the same things you do: freedom, equality, and a decent quality of life for all people of all backgrounds.  If you really want to make a difference and grow as a person, try this exercise: shake hands with a Trump supporter and actually get to know him or her.  You might be surprised by what happens.  

God bless you, Sharif. May you find peace in the world and may your life go well.


Christopher Paslay


Teaching Students the Truth About Police

by Christopher Paslay

Spreading propaganda about law enforcement is no way to improve relations between communities and cops.

Recently, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors introduced new language for criminals, changing “convicted felon” to “justice-involved person,” and juvenile “delinquent” to a “young person with justice system involvement,” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”

“We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,” Supervisor Matt Haney told the San Francisco Chronicle. “We want them ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.”

Haney’s reasoning makes some sense.  From both a psychological and sociological standpoint, using words with positive connotations — or, by contrast, refraining from using words with negative connotations — does affect perception, and can have an impact on behavior.  

When it comes to social justice, the influence of perception on individual behavior is taken very seriously. This may explain why unfavorable facts and data about minority groups — such as father absenteeism and out-of-wedlock births — are regularly ignored by liberals and the mainstream media.  Putting forward mainly positive images of African Americans, the thinking goes, will limit negative stereotypes, thus creating a strictly positive social perception of the black community which in turn will influence behavior and help bring about equality and justice.          

Curiously, this same approach isn’t used when dealing with the challenges facing America’s police departments.  When it comes to cops, liberals and their media allies prefer using words with negative connotations, and surprisingly, do much to portray police in a negative light.  Apparently, trying to stay positive in order to prevent negative stereotypes and inflammatory misconceptions now takes a back seat to highlighting negligence and transgressions.  But the campaign to disparage America’s cops goes beyond simply pointing out their mistakes: liberals go the extra mile, using propaganda and flat out falsehoods to systematically smear our country’s law enforcement officers.       

On August 9th, the fifth anniversary of Michael Brown’s death, Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris tweeted, “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement.”  Elizabeth Warren did the same thing, tweeting: “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times.”

The fact that two high profile women such as Harris and Warren would so irresponsibly misrepresent the facts of Brown’s death is cause for concern.  Brown wasn’t murdered by a police officer.  After a thorough investigation by Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department, it was determined that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot Brown in self-defense; the DOJ didn’t prosecute and Wilson wasn’t indicted.  As cited in the DOJ’s official report, when Wilson tried to stop the six-foot-four, 290-pound Michael Brown (who was walking down the middle of the street after stealing a box of cigarillos and assaulting a store owner), Brown shoved Officer Wilson back into his patrol car, punched him in the face, and tried to take his gun.  The gun went off, hitting Brown in the hand, and Brown ran.  When Officer Wilson got out of his car and ordered Brown to stop, the 290-pound man turned around, charged at Wilson, and was ultimately shot and killed. 

Incredibly, the website PolitiFact, which won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for fact checking, refused to issue a ruling on whether Harris and Brown made a false claim when they used the word murdered.  “Because the significance of Harris’ and Warrens’ use of the word is open to some dispute, we won’t be rating their tweets on the Truth-O-Meter,” the fact check website wrote.

On August 16, the Los Angeles Times published an article with much of the same divisive anti-police undertones.  Headlined, “Getting killed by police is a leading cause of death for young black men in America,” the article proceeded to cherry pick data and misrepresent information to portray cops in the worst light possible.  As PJ Media writer Jack Dunphy pointed out:

Most readers of course will not delve beyond the headline, but even those who do will not encounter anything resembling journalism as it was once practiced. Rather, they’ll find more than 1,400 words devoted to the racial-grievance agenda that drives so much of what appears in the Los Angeles Times.  And worse, not only is journalism itself perverted with the story, but so is science, for the story is presented as such on the page and was written by Amina Khan, who is billed on the paper’s website as a “science writer.”

But there is little that is scientific about Khan’s article.  Although she provides a plethora of information to suggest that police are disproportionally violent toward minorities — and that such violence is a public health problem that has toxic effects on the physical and mental health of minority communities — Khan conveniently fails to fully explore the root causes of such violence, relying on the logical fallacy correlation implies causation, which is a favorite of liberals when trying to slander law enforcement and conjure up resentment against cops.     

But correlation doesn’t imply causation, and when taking all available information into consideration, the truth becomes clear: police aren’t racist. In fact, a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.  Amina Khan, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren would be wise to watch the PragerU video “Are the Police Racist?”, which, unlike the half-truths put out by dishonest liberals, gives the full picture of the issues facing cops and minority communities.  Amazingly, this video is currently on YouTube’s “restricted” list, which means it will be filtered from being watched in schools and libraries.  When Dennis Prager filed a formal complaint and demanded to know why, YouTube stated that this video wasn’t “appropriate for the younger audiences.”  Prager’s lawyers have in turn sued YouTube and Google.  (Click here to watch this 5 minute video.)    

Here are some factual excerpts from the video not mentioned by the mainstream media:

A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.

Or this eye-popping statistic:

An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops.

Or these statistics, which explain why minorities are disproportionally targeted by cops: 

According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the US, they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals.

Of course, Los Angeles Times “science” writer Amina Khan didn’t mention these statistics.  Social justice warriors like Khan never do. Why?  Because just like in San Francisco, labeling someone a “felon” is like “a scarlet letter that they can never get away from,” and may lead to negative stereotypes.  Better to silence those who bring up the other side of the argument.  Just ask Kathy Zhu, who was stripped of her 2019 Miss Michigan crown because she had the nerve to tweet this about black murder rates: “Did you know that the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks?  Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others.”

The real tragedy here is not that America’s police are being unfairly labeled racist, or that the divide between cops and communities may be widening as a result (or that people like Dennis Prager and Kathy Zhu are being silenced for speaking the truth), but that good, law abiding folks living in many minority communities are being harmed by the irresponsible rhetoric of the Los Angeles Times, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren.  As stated in the PragerU video about supposed racist cops:

Police officers are backing off of proactive policing in black neighborhoods thanks to the false narrative that police officers are infected with homicidal bias. As a result, violent crime is going up, in cities with large black populations, homicides in 2015 rose anywhere from 54 percent in Washington DC to 90 percent in Cleveland. Overall, in the nation’s 56 largest cities, homicides in 2015 rose 17 percent, a nearly unprecedented one-year spike.

If we truly want to save lives and improve relations between communities and police, it’s time to end the double standard and start holding both sides accountable in a fair, proactive manner. 

The ‘Anti-Hate’ Group That Is a Hate Group

Click to watch video.

by Karl Zinsmeister

The masterminds behind the Southern Poverty Law Center aren’t eliminating hate. They are fueling it.

Shutting down people you don’t agree with is about as un-American as you can get. Rigorous debate, honest discussion, open exchange of ideas—that’s the American way. But free thinking and speech are threatened today by a group with a sweet-sounding name that conceals a nefarious purpose. This group is called the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC.

Originally founded as a civil-rights law firm in 1971, the SPLC reinvented itself in the mid-‘80s as a political attack group. Every year now it produces a new list of people and charities it claims are “extremists” and “haters.”  Aided by glowing coverage from the establishment media, the SPLC’s hate list has become a weapon for taking individuals and groups they disagree with and tarring them with ugly associations.

The SPLC employs a two-pronged strategy: First,  find a handful of crazies with barely any followers, no address, and no staff, and blow them up into a dangerous movement— proof that there are neo-Nazis lurking everywhere. On their notorious “Hate Map,” the SPLC lists 917 separate hate groups in the U.S.! No one has even heard of more than a handful of them. The second strategy of the SPLC is to undermine legitimate political voices that they oppose by associating them with extremists like the KKK.

Take the charity known as the Alliance Defending Freedom. The SPLC lists them as a “hate group.” Is that fair? Well, the ADF has a network of 3,000 attorneys from all across the U.S. who’ve donated more than a million volunteer hours in defense of religious liberty. They’ve had a role in 49 victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. Putting the Alliance Defending Freedom on a list with 130 Ku Klux Klan chapters is not only wrong, it’s malicious.

According to the SPLC, one of the most influential social scientists in the U.S.— Charles Murray—is a, quote, “white nationalist.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, perhaps the most eloquent spokesperson for the rights of Muslim women, is, to the SPLC, a “toxic… anti-Muslim extremist.”

Scores of other individuals and charities active in mainstream conservative or religious causes have likewise been branded by the Southern Poverty Law Center as threats to society. Mind you, it is entirely fair to disagree with any of those folks. But it is utterly unfair to call them haters or extremists. The largest category listed by the SPLC as extremists—with 623 entries—covers groups like the Tea Party organizations that are wary of centralized government. Last time we checked, favoring smaller government was a mainstream and perfectly honorable American tradition.

What is not honorable is the course prescribed by a leader of the SPLC, Mark Potok, who was caught on video proclaiming the organization’s true intentions. He told a group of supporters, quote, “the press will describe us as ‘monitoring hate groups’…. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.” Portraying someone with political views different from your own as a public menace is bullying. And it’s a dangerous game. Instead of reducing hate and violence, the SPLC’s name-calling directly incites it.

In March 2017, Charles Murray was trying to discuss his acclaimed book Coming Apart at Middlebury College when he was violently attacked by protesters inflamed by the SPLC’s labeling of him as a racist. A professor escorting Murray ended up in the hospital.  In 2012, a gunman attempted mass murder at the Family Research Council, and failed only because the first man he shot managed to disarm him. The attacker told the police he acted because the SPLC had listed the Family Research Council as a hate group. It’s a vicious irony: while promoting itself as a monitor of “hate groups,” the SPLC has, in practice, become a fomenter of hate.

Yet the group rolls on, bigger than ever. What keeps them going? For one thing, the establishment media constantly quote them. Scare stories about right-wing storm-troopers are a sure way to attract eyeballs, and fit nicely with the media’s own preconceptions of the “dangerous reactionaries” lurking out there in middle America.

Second, alarmism is a great fundraising technique. Convincing people there are fascists everywhere has turned the SPLC into a cash machine. Last year, the group hustled $50 million dollars out of frightened liberal donors, adding to the $368 million dollars of assets they were already sitting on.

So, the next time you see the Southern Poverty Law Center quoted in the news, just remember: the masterminds behind the SPLC aren’t eliminating hate. They are fueling it.

Karl Zinsmeister is an author, journalist, and served in the West Wing as President George W. Bush’s chief domestic policy adviser. The above transcript was reprinted from Prager University.

Will El Paso Shooter Patrick Crusius Make The Cover Of Rolling Stone?

by Christopher Paslay

In 2013, Rolling Stone glorified Boston Bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev with a Jim Morrison-like cover shot.  Will the magazine do the same with El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius?  

All mass murdering terrorists aren’t created equal, especially in the eyes of the radical left.  As recent history shows, even a sociopath’s actions are subject to identity politics.  

Take, for example, the horrific events of September 11, 2001.  You’d think the mass killings of nearly 3,000 Americans orchestrated by Osama bin Laden would be universally condemned by Americans, but this wasn’t the case.  Amazingly, there were many apologists who publicly demanded that America rethink its foreign policy, suggesting the United States government not only brought the tragedy on itself, but that America may have even deserved what it got.

Celebrated civil rights activist and former Poet Laureate of New Jersey Amiri Baraka wrote the poem “Somebody Blew Up America,” which not only suggested 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy (Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed / Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers / To stay home that day / Why did Sharon stay away?), but also argued the real terrorists weren’t “some barbaric A-Rab in Afghanistan,” but racist Americans who’ve terrorized people all over the globe.  NPR called Baraka’s poem “controversial and achingly beautiful,” and venerated him as an activist and literary figure.   

In 2014, professor Emmit Evans at California Polytechnic State University assigned his political science students a text he co-wrote that called bin Laden a “freedom fighter” and the United States a “neocolonial power.”  The book, The Other World: Issues and Politics of the Developing World, noted that “the al Qaeda movement of Osama bin Laden is one example of an attempt to free a country (in this case, Saudi Arabia) from a corrupt and repressive regime propped up by a neocolonial power (in this case, the United States).”

To put this in perspective, imagine contemporary poet laureates and university professors analyzing the ideological beliefs of Patrick Crusius, and in turn, writing books and publishing poems both praising and apologizing for his terrorist attack.  Imagine a poem called “Somebody Shot Up El Paso,” which suggested the tragedy was a conspiracy by the radical left to forward the false narrative of white supremacy, and to lobby for stricter gun laws.  Likewise, what if a professor co-authored a book analyzing Crusius’ “manifesto,” theorizing that the white supremacy movement is one example of an attempt to free a group of people (marginalized rural whites) from a corrupt and repressive anti-white American culture, propped up by social justice propaganda?  

This would never happen, of course.  Apologizing for white nationalism isn’t as hip as making intellectual arguments in support of Islamic extremism, nor is it cool to look the other way when it comes to neo-Nazis.  When it came to labeling Muslim terrorism “Islamic extremism” for the better part of a decade, the left conveniently made excuses; Obama wanted to lower the political temperature and keep peaceful Muslims from being stereotyped and attacked.  The same philosophies don’t apply to so-called “white supremacy,” however.  Labeling all Trump supporters “white nationalists” is now the name of the game, and keeping the term and its apparent ideology in the public is the ultimate aim.  Does anyone seem to care that peaceful white people will be wrongly accused of being a part of a relatively small hate group?  Not at all.  Does anyone seem to care that continuing to fan the flames of supposed “white nationalism” will raise the political temperature and provoke more violence against both immigrants and Trump supporters?  Again, not at all.      

It’s not hip to make excuses for people like Patrick Crusius, or to try and understand his background or manifesto.  Unlike Boston Bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, Crusius won’t get his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone.  Tsarnaev was a self-radicalized Islamic extremist, which allowed the magazine to call him “a charming kid with a bright future.”  Sure, he used two pressure cooker bombs to blow up the Boston Marathon with his brother, killing two cops, three civilians, and injuring an estimated 264 others, 14 of whom required amputations. 

But Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev was a “charming kid,” if not for him becoming radicalized.  Rolling Stone wrote in their 2013 cover story: 

People in Cambridge thought of 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – “Jahar” to his friends – as a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor, soulful brown eyes and the kind of shy, laid-back manner that “made him that dude you could always just vibe with,” one friend says. He had been a captain of the Cambridge Rindge and Latin wrestling team for two years and a promising student. He was also “just a normal American kid,” as his friends described him, who liked soccer, hip-hop, girls; obsessed over The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones; and smoked a copious amount of weed.

Such a nice young boy “Jahar” was, with such great potential.  He was only a radicalized Muslim after all, not a white nationalist, so it was cool for America to see his human side.  As for Patrick Crusius, he’s too politically valuable not to trash and publicly demonize, and the left and the mainstream media will surely milk his sickness for all it’s worth.  The disturbed young man is a monster, make no mistake about it. But he’s a white nationalist monster, which won’t get him on the cover of Rolling Stone any time soon.  

Ironically, Trump’s ‘Opportunity Zones’ Are Helping Save Baltimore

by Christopher Paslay

A recent study ranks Baltimore a “Top Opportunity Zone for Smart Growth Potential.”

In December of 2018, George Washington University’s Center for Real Estate and Urban Analysis helped publish a study titled, “National Opportunity Zones Ranking Report.”  It’s executive summary began by stating:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 included a new powerful economic development tax incentive — Opportunity Zones — designed to encourage long-term private capital investment in America’s low-income communities. With over 8,700 Opportunity Zones — spanning the entire continental US, the District of Columbia and US territories — now eligible to tap into over $6 trillion dollars of unrealized capital gains to support redevelopment projects and new businesses, there’s enormous excitement amongst investors and local policymakers. Equally, there’s enormous concern among local policymakers and community groups who are afraid that this tax incentive will crowdsource unmanaged gentrification and displacement or accelerate climate change. 

To weigh the good against the bad, the report calculated which Opportunity Zones in which areas not only had the greatest potential for success, but also which areas had the most social equity — the highest access for the poor to participate and benefit. 

Ironically, Baltimore was listed #5 in the nation for Smart Growth Potential, behind only Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland.  This not only means the city is a wise choice for investors, but also that this investment has the best opportunity to directly benefit local residents who are struggling with quality of life issues.  

These findings are important, especially when critics of “opportunity zones” say gentrification is harmful to residents, and that the poor get displaced while wealthy investors get tax breaks and enjoy the benefits.  But this is not necessarily the case.  In fact, a recent working paper from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve sheds new light on the issue.  As reported by the City Journal:

Several previous studies have already cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that gentrification causes widespread displacement of poor, longtime residents. “The Effects of Gentrification on Well Being and Opportunity of Original Resident Adults and Their Children” goes further by recasting gentrification as a potential force for income integration and social mobility.

The first thing noted in the study is that gentrification displaces very few people. “An influx of college-educated residents into formerly lower-income neighborhoods—the accepted definition of gentrification—increases the probability that vulnerable, less-educated renters move to another neighborhood by about 3 percentage points,” the City Journal reports.

An even bigger surprise is what happens to low-income residents who stay put compared with those who do move out. “The stayers remain at the same poverty levels as before gentrification, but they see less poverty in their midst,” reports the City Journal.  “Homeowners enjoy a big increase in their home values, enough to offset the inevitable rise in taxes.”

Curiously, gentrification has a positive effect on children.  “Kids living in gentrified neighborhoods see less poverty and more educated neighbors, and they develop more advantageous networks,” writes the City Journal.  “Most strikingly, gentrification increases the probability that children of less educated homeowners will attend and graduate college.”

In short, Trump’s Opportunity Zones are having an impact on urban poor.  In a July 16th cabinet meeting, H.U.D. Secretary Dr. Ben Carson reported additional positives to President Trump.  Here are some highlights Carson mentioned:     

  • Opportunity Zones are home to approximately 35 million Americans — about 10 percent of our population.
  • Over the past year, property sale prices in Opportunity Zones have increased by 20 percent, which is about double the appreciation rate for eligible non-selected areas.
  • The National Council of State Housing Agencies announced that its Opportunity Zone Fund Directory has expanded to nearly $29 billion in anticipated investment.
  • In Salt Lake City, a big multi-family dwelling is being built with a center for helping autistic people enter the workforce. 
  • The Governor of Maryland is spending $56.6 million for training programs to supercharge Opportunity Zones in his state. 
  • In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant has approved a special Opportunity Zones cycle as part of the low-income housing tax credit program offered through the Mississippi Home Corporation. 
  • In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer has issued an executive directive that focuses state procurement practices on businesses located within Opportunity Zones.

“Opportunity has no color, but it colors everything,” Dr. Carson told President Trump. “Opportunity has no creed, but it gives people strength to believe. Opportunity has no religion, yet it gives us each faith. And I want to thank you for the faith that you’ve shown to the Revitalization Council as we have championed this incredible initiative across the country. This is a game changer. Major game changer in this country. And we look forward to building on this exciting momentum.”

“What’s happened with Opportunity Zones is somewhat of a miracle,” Trump said. “Nobody in their wildest imagination thought this could happen.”

America Wants Legal Immigrants

Click to watch video.

by Reihan Salam

By prioritizing immigrants with strong skills, we’d make the safety net much easier to sustain for those with low skills.

I am the proud son of immigrants from Bangladesh. I was raised in New York City, which has benefited enormously from the energy and ambition of the millions of people born abroad who’ve chosen to make it their home. But I also believe that America’s immigration system needs to work for America, and right now, that is simply not the case.

We need a new immigration system. So what should it be? We’re often presented with two stark choices: Severe restrictions or open borders. I think there’s a better way. But before I offer a solution, let’s look at the usual suspects. The case for open borders is, on the surface, pretty attractive. Tens of millions of people around the world would be grateful to come to America for the chance to live in peace and earn a decent living. The vast majority of them mean us no harm. 

Why not give them a chance to share in the blessings of liberty? The simple answer is that our country is more than just a marketplace. We’re a democracy based on a social contract. Americans pay taxes so that, among other things, the poorest, most unlucky among us can still lead decent and dignified lives. If you can’t work, you might be eligible for unemployment benefits or disability. If you do work but your paycheck doesn’t go far enough for you to afford medical care or food for your kids, we have a safety net designed to help you stay afloat.

Liberals and conservatives disagree on how extensive this safety net ought to be, but they all agree it needs to be there. The question is, how we far are willing to stretch it?

A century ago, immigrants who found they couldn’t make it in America had little choice but to go back home. That is no longer the case. These days, immigrants who can’t earn enough to support their families have access to many government benefits. That doesn’t make them bad people. In an age of offshoring and automation, wages for menial jobs don’t go very far. If we only admitted a modest number of low-skill immigrants—say, as political refugees—we could easily handle it. But over the past forty years, we have allowed millions of low-skill immigrants into the country, both legally and illegally. While highly-educated immigrants pay far more in taxes than they consume in benefits, the opposite is true of immigrants with less than a high school diploma

Immigrant engineers working for Google, Amazon and Apple do just fine without government help. The immigrant janitors and busboys who serve them struggle to afford housing and to give their kids a decent start in life. Without government aid, many would go hungry. If we were to open our borders, the number of low-skilled immigrants would skyrocket, and so too would the cost of meeting their needs. Ironically, this would only exacerbate the wealth disparity that so animates the open borders crowd.

Maybe the rich could wall themselves off in gated communities. But the growing ranks of the poor and even the middle class would have to deal with ever more strained social services. That could provoke resentment strong enough to set off real class warfare.

If open borders are a bad idea, so too is severely restricting immigration. For one, immigration has always been part of the American story. And it continues to be an essential source of talent, from Silicon Valley to medicine to pro sports. Why shut ourselves off from the dynamism and energy that immigrants can bring?

Thankfully, there isa way to fix this problem. We can modernize the system to give priority to those who have strong skills and job offers—people, in other words, who will pay more in taxes than they need in benefits. Today, we admit about two-thirds of immigrants on the basis of family ties and only 15 percent on the basis of skills. We need a course correction. We should limit family immigration to immediate family members—such as spouses and minor children—while greatly expanding the number of skills-based visas.

A skills-based points system would be a huge boon for people around the world looking to live the American Dream. It would give them a predictable, step-by-step guide for how to better their chances at a green card. Just as importantly, by prioritizing immigrants with strong skills, we’d make the safety net much easier to sustain for those with low skills—whom we’d still admit, albeit at a more modest level.

Let’s announce to the world that if you’re ambitious, if you have skills we prize, the golden door is open. If you can support yourself and your family, and add to our economy, we want you. If we aspire to an immigration system that works, this the most realistic—and idealistic—choice.

Reihan Salam is the executive editor of National Review. The above transcript was reprinted from Prager University.

Why the F.B.I. Should Be Watching Reza Aslan

by Christopher Paslay

The Iranian-American scholar’s threats to “eradicate” President Trump and his supporters should be taken seriously by the U.S. government.

On the morning of August 4thReza Aslan, an Iranian-American scholar, HBO producer, and recipient of the prestigious James Joyce Award, started off his day by verbally assaulting Ivanka Trump. When the First Daughter of the United States addressed the recent shooting tragedies by tweeting, “White supremacy, like all other forms of terrorism, is an evil that must be destroyed,” Aslan responded by tweeting, “Fuck you Ivanka. Seriously. Fuck you and your entire white supremacist family.”

Moments later Aslan turned his anger on White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.  Apparently, Aslan was annoyed that Conway called for unity after this weekend’s tragic shootings.  Here’s what Conway tweeted:   

We need to come together, America. Finger-pointing, name-calling & screaming with your keyboards is easy, yet… It solves not a single problem, saves not a single life. Working as one to understand depraved evil & to eradicate hate is everyone’s duty. Unity. Let’s do this.

Here is Aslan’s response: “You are ‘the depraved evil’ we need to eradicate.”  After conservatives called out Aslan for his threat, Aslan later downplayed his remarks, tweeting:

So then when @KellyannePolls said we need to “eradicate” this evil she meant shoot it in the face? She was threatening the El Paso shooter? We are all so fucking fed up with you racist GOPers and your bad faith bullshit. 

John Cardillo, a conservative journalist and political analyst, came to Conway’s defense, pointing out that Aslan’s tweet was indeed a threat on Conway’s life, tweeting:

There’s really no other way to interpret “eradicate” other than @rezaaslan threatening the life of @KellyannePolls.

Finally, Aslan went full throttle on Trump and his supporters, tweeting:

After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters – ALL OF THEM – are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.

This is the kind of language Reza Aslan, the New York Times bestselling author who was fired from CNN for calling President Trump a “piece of shit,” uses not even 72 hours after two tragic shootings left over 30 people dead.  Not only is his language extremely hateful and inflammatory, but it’s technically a threat against the President of the United States, which is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.  In fact, one could argue it even rises to the level of a terroristic threat, being that Aslan calls for Trump and all his supporters to be “eradicated from society.”  He even states that “there is no longer any room for nuance,” as if his words should be taken very seriously and very literally, because beating around the bush with suggestions and innuendo aren’t getting anybody anywhere; after all, Trump is still in office.         

This is how radical leftists like Aslan work.  Because the media serves as a shield for haters like Aslan — focusing on maligning Trump and his base by misrepresenting their intentions and making them into monsters — Aslan and his ilk are free to trash conservatives and incite division unperturbed, morning, noon, and night.  And then when things come to a head and tragedy strikes, well, everyone can conveniently point the finger at Trump.

Reza Aslan is an angry man, make no bones about it.  Last winter, he attacked Covington Catholic’s Nicholas Sandmann, tweeting, “Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?”  

Why was Nick’s face “punchable,” Aslan?  Because he was politely standing by as other activists — grown men, not high school students — were rudely invading his space and insulting him and his friends?  But we already know the answer to this question: Reza Aslan wants to punch Nick’s face because he’s white, and when Aslan sees young boys like Nick, Aslan projects his own bigotry onto them, coming to the conclusion that they are smug, spoiled, and privileged, and therefore must be taken down a notch.

Aslan’s cowardly attack on a high school kid aside, imagine if the things he said about eradicating Trump and his supporters were reversed.  Imagine if a conservative scholar and popular television producer tweeted the following about President Obama after the Fort Hood terrorist attack, where a Muslim army major shot 13 people dead (and where Obama refused to condemn Islamic extremism):             

After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a Muslim terror leader. His supporters – ALL OF THEM – are by definition Islamic extremist terror supporters. The Hope and Change poster is a call for Jihad. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.      

How fast would the F.B.I. and D.O.J. be involved?  Pretty fast, I can tell you. Especially from an Obama Justice Department that not only went after the Boy Scouts, but also destroyed the career of Tuffy, the rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask at the Missouri State Fair and was summarily fired from his job and banished from working in the state altogether.   

So far nothing has happened to Reza Aslan (other than Nick Sandmann’s lawsuit, which keeps getting dropped by liberal judges).  Maybe A.G. William Barr should make an example of Aslan by holding him accountable for verbally assaulting Ivanka (imagine if someone said of the Obama family, Fuck you Malia.  Seriously.  Fuck you and your entire Islamic extremist family), and for threatening a high schooler with violence, and for making terrorist threats against the President and his supporters.

Aslan’s inflammatory speech should not be ignored.  It’s time for the government to get involved and take a closer look.  

There’s No ‘White’ in Trump’s Nationalism

by Christopher Paslay

(Note: A version of this article was published on August 5th on the American Thinker.)

Predictably, Democrats and the mainstream media have wasted no time using the El Paso massacre to disingenuously inject the word “white” into Trump’s pro-American nationalism.

Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — ‘tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Donald Trump is a nationalist who supports all things American, and has admitted as much.  What he is not is a white nationalist — a detail that, like a decimal point, seems minor on the surface yet really is the difference between a lightening bug and lightening. Yet Democrats and the hard left continue to play with lightening, incessantly labeling Trump a white nationalist despite knowing how such language could be misperceived by legitimate neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups in America, possibly emboldening them to act out.

Predictably, Democrats and the mainstream media have wasted no time using the El Paso massacre to disingenuously inject the word white into Trump’s pro-American nationalism.  

“The President of the United States is condoning white nationalism,” South Bend Mayor and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said of the attack.  “White nationalism is one of the evils that is motivating and inspiring at least some people to go kill Americans. The president has a responsibility to nip this in the bud.”

Interestingly, it’s the Democrats that want to keep white nationalism alive in the White House, as Trump has nipped this in the bud, many times.  In August of 2017, when violence started to escalate during a white supremacy rally in Charlottesville, Va., Trump tweeted, “We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one!”  Later, after a 32-year-old female was hit and killed by a white nationalist’s car that ran into counterprotesters, Trump made the following statement: “We condemn in the strongest most possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”

Trump’s short impromptu response — made during televised remarks about a bill signing already underway — suggested it takes two to tango, and failed to specifically condemn white nationalism, although Trump and White House officials insisted this was implied in Trump’s original tweet. But this was not good enough for those Trump haters who so desperately wanted to see America’s highest office stained by white supremacy.  After claiming Trump was himself a white nationalist or at the very least a neo-Nazi apologist, Trump publicly condemned such hate groups and their sympathizers, stating, “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.”

A White House official even clarified Trump’s initial remarks. “The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred,” the statement said. “Of course that includes white supremacists, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”

What Democrats should have done at this point was back President Trump, forever putting to rest the ridiculous notion that white supremacist hate groups have an ally in the White House.  Instead they did the opposite.  They rallied together with the mainstream media to create the narrative that Trump was indeed a vicious racist, that yes, the President of the United States was a white supremacist, and that he welcomed — even encouraged — such displays of hatred and intolerance. 

Of course Trump did not, and Democrats and the hard left knew as much.  Trump is an American nationalist, not a white nationalist, the former being a patriot who puts the interests of America and all its citizens first, the latter being a bigot who uses violence and fear to preach and establish white supremacy.  Because Democrats have no solid platform of their own heading into 2020, they must use a scorched earth approach, bending over backwards to frame everything Trump says and does as “racist” and thus evidence of him being a “white nationalist.”  

“The first order of business to reduce white nationalism is to eliminate white nationalism in our White House,” Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee said after the El Paso shooting. “The sentiments of fear and division, and outright racism, that this president has emboldened ought to be sickening to anyone.” Inslee went on to say that fear and division are “Donald Trump’s stock-in-trade,” and that Trump owed it to the country to heal its historic racial wounds.    

But how can Trump or anyone else heal racial wounds when people like Inslee continue to rip these wounds wide open by constantly framing everything in terms of race, and by disingenuously referring to America’s president as a “white nationalist,” whereby providing legitimate hate groups with the misconception that they have a partner in the White House?       

Wajahat Ali, a journalist for Al Jazeera America and former consultant for the U.S. State Department under Obama, recently mocked the Republican party and slammed Trump as a white nationalist, too: 

“I think the Republican Party is the most diverse party on Earth. When I look at the Republican Party I see every shade of white under the sun, I see white men, old white men, young white men, white men with facial hair, some white men with fades. I even see some white women. What I don’t see are people of color. Why? Because Donald Trump is a racist. He’s a racist president and he’s promoting a white nationalist ideology.”

Of course it’s Ali who’s the racist, using skin color to stereotype Republicans and mock white people.  Still, what on earth is this “white nationalist ideology” that Trump supposedly espouses, anyway?  Trump criticizes The Squad for bad mouthing America, inviting them to go to struggling countries like Somalia — fix them up — and then come back and let us know how it’s done.  Yet somehow Trump is a bigot and white nationalist who told the congresswomen to go back where they came from, as if they weren’t welcomed in the U.S. because they weren’t white enough. Not only was race not mentioned by anyone except Democrats, but the invitation to come back was conveniently dropped.  

Trump criticizes Elijah Cummings because Baltimore is overrun with rats and urban blight, bringing attention to an area of America neglected by Cummings and the Democrats for decades, and Trump’s an intolerant bigot.  Again, no mention of race anywhere, except from liberals themselves. 

Trump calls for a merit-based immigration policy, one that accepts people who have viable skills and the ability to assimilate to American culture and values, and the left insists he’s a white nationalist, favoring white countries over nonwhite ones.  Who bought up skin color?  Not President Trump, but the race-obsessed left.           

Ironically, it’s the Democrats who want white nationalism in the White House, not Trump and his conservative supporters.  It’s high time they take responsibility for their dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric, before they embolden more hate groups to act out. 

The Charlottesville Lie

Click to watch video.

by Steve Cortes

President Trump never called neo-Nazis “very fine people.”  Tragically, the media spread a malicious lie that has poisoned our national dialogue ever since.

Politicians lie.  We all know that.  That is not an indictment of all politicians—it’s simply part of the game. It’s our job, as informed citizens, to figure out the truth. And that’s where journalists and the media come in. They are supposed to help us ferret out fact from fiction. So when they get a fact wrong, that’s bad.  When they get a fact wrong, know it’s wrong, and don’t correct it, that’s worse. That’s not getting a fact wrong; that’s a lie. And that’s journalistic malfeasance.

The best (or maybe worst) example of this followed a presidential press conference at Trump Tower on Tuesday, August 15, 2017. You remember what happened that previous weekend: A group of white supremacists held a “white pride” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The ostensible reason was to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. 

An Antifa group showed up to counter-protest. The mayor and the police were totally unprepared to deal with the violence that ensued. Tragically, a young woman, Heather Heyer, was run over and killed by a neo-Nazi.

The press conference itself was raucous. The media was antagonistic. The president was combative.  Out of it all, one phrase eclipsed the thousands of words exchanged: The media reported that President Trump described neo-Nazis as “very fine people.”  Only, he didn’t. In fact, he didn’t even hint at it. Just the opposite: he condemned the neo-Nazis in no uncertain terms. So then, who were the “fine people” he mentioned? The answer: He was referring to another group of Charlottesville demonstrators who came out that weekend—protestors who wanted the Robert E. Lee statue removed and protestors who wanted to keep the statue and restore the park’s original name. 

This is what President Trump said about those peaceful protestors: “You also had some very fine people on both sides. . . .  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of—to them—a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”  A few moments later, in case there would be any misunderstanding, he makes his meaning even more explicit.  “…I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally.”

Lest you have any doubts that good people were in Charlottesville to protest the removal of the

Robert E Lee statue, the New York Times confirmed it in a story they published the next day, August 16.  “’Good people can go to Charlottesville,’ said Michelle Piercy, a night shift worker at a Wichita, Kansas retirement home, who drove all night with a conservative group that opposed the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. After listening to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, she said it was as if he had channeled her and her friends… who had no interest in standing with Nazis or white supremacists…”

There’s another simple test that we can employ to prove that the president was not referring to the neo-Nazis as “fine people.” It’s so obvious, it’s painful to mention: The president’s daughter and son-in-law are Orthodox Jews. His grandchildren are Jewish.  And if that is still not enough to convince you, how about this: Does anyone believe that Donald Trump thinks there are “good” Antifa, the leftist thugs who were counter-protesting the neo-Nazi thugs? After all, if those two groups were the only ones involved, and there were “fine people on both sides,” that means the president believed that there were fine Antifa people.

Even MSNBC should have found that hard to swallow.

Again, the “very fine people on both sides” President Trump described at the press conference were the people who wanted to remove the Robert E. Lee statue and the people who wanted to keep it. Both of these groups were non-violent protesters—fine people with very different ideological views.  The scandal of Charlottesville is not what President Trump said about neo-Nazis. It’s what the media said President Trump said about neo-Nazis. It’s a scandal because news reporting is supposed to be about gathering facts, not promoting an agenda.

In Charlottesville, they got it exactly backwards. We have been living with the consequences ever since.  Plainly put: ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the others spread a malicious lie that has poisoned our national dialogue.  They should apologize to the American people for what they have done. 

Don’t hold your breath.  Actually, I have a better idea. Let out a big sigh of relief.  Because now you know the truth.

Steve Cortes is a CNN political commentator and columnist for Real Clear Politics.  The above transcript was reprinted from PragerU

America is Waiting for Your Apology, Megan

by Christopher Paslay

From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid women players $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and paid men only $26.4 million — not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that women’s players received but men did not.

Megan Rapinoe, star of the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team that just won their fourth World Cup, didn’t participate in the singing of the National Anthem, and excluded herself from accepting President Trump’s invitation to visit the White House (I’m not going to the f–ing White House, were her exact words).  The reason? Rapinoe was upset by the pay inequity of U.S. Soccer.

According to the National Review:

In the aftermath of an impressive World Cup win for the U.S. Women’s Soccer team, the players and their fans grew increasingly lurid in demanding “equal pay” with the men’s team — echoing the grievances aired in the team’s lawsuit against U.S Soccer for alleged sex discrimination. The gambit reached its height on Sunday, when Senator Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) tweeted out the following announcement: “I’ve introduced a #bipartisan plan to ensure equal pay for Americans who represent our country in global athletic competitions, like the World Cup or the Olympics. Currently, men & women can be paid differently for representing #TeamUSA in the same sport.”

Curiously, men and women are paid differently, but it’s not what folks like Rapinoe and Cantwell may have expected.  Recently, U.S. Soccer released a document detailing ten years of financials, which stated, “From 2010 through 2018, U.S. Soccer paid our women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and we paid our men $26.4 million — not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.”

The document also debunked Rapinoe’s hypothetical “20-friendly” season in which they would only earn 38 cents for every dollar earned by the Men’s Team in that same time frame:

The widely-reported claim that our women players currently earn only 38 cents for every dollar earned by our men is false. This claim is based on out-of-date numbers that do not reflect what our women’s players actually earn today. In particular, it overlooks the guaranteed salaries described above. The claim is also based on a hypothetical scenario — our men and women each playing 20 friendly matches in a year, which has never happened, and receiving the average bonus amount per game. That said, if the men and women ever did play in and win 20 friendlies in a year and were paid the average bonus amount, a women’s player would earn more from U.S. Soccer than the men’s player — the women’s player would earn at least $307,500 (WNT and NWSL salaries, plus game bonuses) and the men’s player would earn $263,333 (game bonuses only).

As noted in the National Review:

The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team, in other words, asked for something it didn’t actually want — “equal pay” — and demanded attention be brought to an issue that did not, by any conceivable metric, exist.

But the lack of such inequities matters little to Rapinoe, who lives in an alternate universe where she projects her own intolerance onto others and manufactures acts of oppression out of whole cloth.  Instead of being grateful for her incredible fortune and opportunity, Rapinoe instead chooses to spread misinformation in an effort to convince herself she is fighting against injustice, even if that injustice needs to be created by her.  

Like Rapinoe’s ridiculous notion that President Trump is a homophobe and is excluding people that look her.  In May, Trump became the first Republican president ever to recognize LGBTQ Pride Month, Tweeting:

“As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”  

In February of 2019, Trump even launched a global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality.  According to NBC News:

The Trump administration is launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of nations where it’s still illegal to be gay, U.S. officials tell NBC News, a bid aimed in part at denouncing Iran over its human rights record.

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday evening in Berlin. The U.S. embassy is flying in LGBT activists from across Europe for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean.

Trump also fought to protect the integrity of the U.S. women’s World Cup team by refusing to support H.R. 5, a bill that gave biological males who identify as females the right to compete in women’s sports, and gave males who identify as females the right to women’s spaces, which, according to Rep. Mike Johnson, “eliminates sex-based protections for women by forcing rape crisis centers, lady’s locker rooms, female prisons, women’s sports leagues and other sex-based organizations to admit biological males.”

Now that U.S. Soccer has conclusively demonstrated that the U.S. Women’s Team makes nearly 30 percent MORE than the U.S. Men’s Team, are Rapinoe and her teammates ready to take a giant pay cut to make things equal again?  Not likely. 

Still, a sincere apology to America and U.S. Soccer would be nice.