Nike’s Tasteless Fourth of July Publicity Stunt

by Christopher Paslay

Nike’s Air Max 1 USA is a fake sneaker designed for fake outrage. 

Something stinks about Nike’s recent “Betsy Ross” sneaker debacle.  It’s not just that the whole episode – from the planned release of the Air Max 1 USA to the supposed pulling of it from retailers – happened in less than five seconds (faster, even, than the fishy 36-hour hunt, capture, and public humiliation of the MAGA Bomber), but that it involved none other than aggrieved activist Collin Kaepernick, whom Nike is paying millions of dollars in endorsement money.

Think about this for a moment.  Why would Nike, an athletic company that jumped into the political fray on the side of a quarterback who refused to respect the American flag and stand for the National Anthem, wake up one morning and decide to put – get this – an American flag on their sneakers?  Seriously?

I don’t buy this for a moment.  I don’t think Nike ever intended to release the Air Max 1 USA “Betsy Ross” sneaker in mass quantities, and that they’re coordinating with Kaepernick to not only push their politically correct revisionist politics on Americans, but to create a huge controversy over the Fourth of July weekend in order to score a ton of free publicity.

In short, it’s a genius plan that will allow both Kaepernick and Nike to stay relevant in the public eye, and market their other sneakers – like the Air Foamposite One – in the process. After all, Kaepernick was recently paid an estimated $10 million by the NFL to keep his divisive, anti-American whining to himself, which basically blew his nonsensical “believe in something, even if it means sacrifice everything” ad campaign with Nike all to pieces.  

So Nike may have used a new approach to market Kaepernick and continue to cash-in on their multi-million dollar endorsement with him: they created a bogus “Betsy Ross” sneaker slated to be released during the Independence Day holiday, only to pull the product once Kaepernick raised objections.  The whole thing is a fantastic joke, really.  You’d assume Nike’s shoe designers would have consulted with Kaepernick before releasing the sneaker, since his opinion is apparently held in such high regard by Phil Knight, or maybe done some product research among the demographic of millennials Nike is so terrified of offending.      

But it seems this bit of research slipped their minds. 

Now the easily offended millennials and perpetually outraged liberals, are, well, offended and outraged. Somehow, some way, the once highly revered Betsy Ross flag is now the new coded symbol of hate by white supremacists, although the evidence of this is pretty much nonexistent.  Which is not to say, even as I write this, that liberal, America-hating malcontents aren’t out there spinning their web of revisionist propaganda in an all-out effort to equate the flag – once a symbol of freedom and independence – with hatred and racism.  

Rolling Stone magazine had this to say about the flag:     

But as many on social media pointed out, the American flag sewn by Betsy Ross is not a symbol of early American history that is totally devoid of meaning. It has been used by some extremist groups as a means of telegraphing a return to more traditionalist (re: predominantly white and male) American ideals. “Under the guise of ‘heritage,’ symbols of early U.S. history have long been adopted by hate groups set on returning to a time when all non-white people were viewed as subhuman and un-American,” says Keegan Hankes, research analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “Historically, these symbols have been used by white supremacists, both to hearken back to a time when black people were enslaved, while also painting themselves as the inheritors of the ‘true’ American tradition.”

So there you have it. Kaepernick, some sensitive millennials on Twitter, and a member of the ultra-left SPLC say it’s racist, so that’s that: the Betsy Ross flag is now off limits for everyone.  

What a sad state of affairs.

Nike can keep their goofy sneakers, and Collin Kaepernick can spend his holiday weekend outraged and offended.  I, for one, will be celebrating the privilege of living in the best country in the world. And I’ll be doing it in a pair of New Balance running shoes, thank you very much.  

Media and Big Tech Are Misinforming Our Students About Trump

by Christopher Paslay

Inaccurate and misleading information on Trump abound.  Positive stories on the president and his policies are nearly nonexistent. 

Students doing research papers on President Trump and his policies may be hard pressed for objective information that shows both sides of important issues.  Since he won the presidency in 2016, media coverage of Donald Trump has been overwhelmingly negative, leaving teenagers with an unbalanced view of the president and limited access to his achievements and the merits of his policies.  A according to a study from Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project: 

Two-thirds of news stories about Trump from his first 60 days in office were negative — more than twice the negativity seen in stories from the first 60 days of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama’s presidencies.  Meanwhile, only 5 percent of stories about Trump were positive, compared to 42 percent for Obama.

Amazingly, network news (ABC, NBC, and CBS) was 91 percent negative from January of 2016 to March of 2018.  “Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent,” the Washington Times reported.  “The rest — 647 comments — were negative.”

If this wasn’t bad enough, big tech companies continue to set their search engine algorithms to bury the positives about Trump even further.  Paula Bolyard, the managing editor at PJ Media, performed a Google search for “Trump” using the search engine’s “News” tab and analyzed the results using Sharyl Attkisson’s media bias chart to test this premise:  

I expected to see some skewing of the results based on my extensive experience with Google, but I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today (the last two outlets on this list could arguably be considered more centrist than the others).  Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results. 

Incredibly, 96 of the first 100 sites were from liberal media outlets; PJ Media did not appear in the first 100 results, nor did National Review, the Weekly Standard, Breitbart, the Blaze, the Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State, or any other conservative-leaning sites except the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.  

In January of this year, I required my 10th grade English students to write a research paper on a current event related to a policy of Donald Trump.  To my astonishment, my students were met with the same pattern of search engine results as Paula Bolyard.  In particular, students were having trouble finding relevant information on the pros of Trump policy, and were inundated with results highlighting only the cons. This, of course, hindered them from presenting both sides of their chosen issue, which was one of the requirements of the research paper.        

Information on Trump’s enforcement of illegal immigration at the border, for example, was completely one-sided and misrepresented. Articles talking about Trump’s heartlessness kept coming up, like Time magazine’s article, “Here Are the Facts About President Trump’s Family Separation Policy.” 

The inaccuracy of this article was mind-numbing.  Trump’s approach to illegal immigration on the border was simple: unlike Obama, he chose to fully enforce immigration laws.  Specifically, his policy was called “Zero Tolerance,” which meant people who broke the law and crossed the American border illegally would be prosecuted and detained.  Unfortunately, because the law stated that minors couldn’t be held in adult detention centers (or be released into the custody of anyone except a parent or relative), children had been getting separated from their families.  Trump didn’t write this law, of course.  It wasn’t his “policy” to remove kids from their parents.  In fact, he issued an executive order to try to mitigate these separations, although in some cases it couldn’t be helped.

In June of 2018, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen explicitly tweeted that there was no family separation policy. “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period,” she wrote. She also stated, “This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.”

(See the Heritage Foundation’s article,“Who’s Responsible for Separating Alien Kids From Their Parents? Many People, but Not Trump” for a clear analysis of the issue.)  

So Time’s headline, “Here Are the Facts About President Trump’s Family Separation Policy,” was totally misleading and irresponsible. Again, Trump never had a policy to separate children from their families; it was simply a law that was already on the books concerning minors and detention centers.  But Time, through advocacy journalism, was not only fighting for relaxed/open borders, but was also trying to malign Trump, so the news organization felt it could misrepresent the truth; currently, Wikipedia has an entire entry titled The Trump Administration Family Separation Policy, which insists it is an official aspect of Trump’s immigration policy. 

But the challenges with the research paper didn’t stop with Time or Wikipedia.  Several of my students writing about Trump’s border policy wanted to know about Obama’s policy to serve as a comparison.  But when they Googled “Obama immigration policy at border,” an interesting thing happened: they were given more links to anti-Trump articles.  It’s true (Google “Obama immigration policy at border” and see for yourself).  The first four results linked to articles which stated “Trump falsely blames Obama for family separation policy,” or something similar (nine out of the 12 links on the first page did the same).  What did Obama’s border policies have to do with Trump being a liar?                 

Needless to say, when my students wrote their papers, some lambasted Trump for being a heartless creep intent on separating little children from their parents, which was exactly the goal of magazines like Time. It’s not that I wanted my students to agree with Trump’s policy on illegal immigration and border crossings – not at all.  I just wanted them to have accurate information.  If they advocated for open borders, or argued Trump should use catch and release, or even called for decriminalizing border crossings, that would be fine.  It would be factual, which is what true education is all about. 

But unfortunately, their research included a healthy dose of anti-Trump propaganda.  To use a cliché, I try to teach my students how to think, not what to think.  It’s a shame the mainstream media and big tech can’t do the same. 

Trump Should Be Awarded 2019 Nobel Peace Prize

by Christopher Paslay

Trump’s historic work to end North Korea’s illicit weapons programs and bring peace to the region is worthy of a Nobel Prize.

Earlier today, Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to visit North Korea.  He made history by stepping across the border during a meeting at the demilitarized zone with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Trump shook hands with Kim at the Panmunjom border village, and the two men walked across the military demarcation line separating the two Koreas. 

“Good to see you again,” Kim told Trump. “I never expected to see you in this place.” 

“Stepping across that line was a great honor,” Trump said.

Trump’s efforts at getting Kim to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons has been ongoing, and although he’s had limited success, many lawmakers believe Trump’s done more on the issue in the last 18 months than Obama did in eight years.    

“President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace,” South Korean President Moon Jae-in said last year, referring to Trump’s efforts to end the standoff with North Korea.  

Former President Jimmy Carter agrees.  

“If President Trump is successful in getting a peace treaty that’s acceptable to both sides with North Korea, I think he certainly ought to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize,” Carter told the American press. “I think it would be a worthy and a momentous accomplishment that no previous president has been able to realize.”

Trump’s official nomination for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize has already been made.  According to the AP:

Two Norwegian lawmakers have nominated President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize after the Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Christian Tybring-Gjedde and Per-Willy Amundsen, lawmakers with the populist Progress Party, told Norwegian news agency NTB on Wednesday that Trump “had taken a huge and important step in the direction of the disarmament, peace and reconciliation between North and South Korea.”

A group of 18 members of Congress — all Republicans — sent a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, nominating Trump to receive the award for his work to “end the Korean War, denuclearize the Korean peninsula, and bring peace to the region.”

They officially wrote:

Since taking office, President Trump has worked tirelessly to apply maximum pressure on North Korea to end its illicit weapons programs and bring peace to the region. His Administration successfully united the international community, including China, to impose one of the most successful international sanctions regimes in history. The sanctions decimated the North Korean economy and have been largely credited for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table.

There are a total of 301 candidates nominated for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize – 223 are individuals and 78 are organizations.  The winner will be announced Friday, October 11.  

“If President Obama received a Nobel Prize for nearly nothing,” said Harry J. Kazianis, director of Korean Studies at the Center for the National Interest, “then I think there is only one obvious thing to do, and that’s to make sure Donald Trump receives the award as well.”

I couldn’t agree more.  

Red State vs. Blue State Hate

by Christopher Paslay

When it comes to hate crime, Crooked Hillary and the Democrat’s constituency wins hands down.

Liberals have a fetish for hate crime.  Ever since Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act in April of 1990, which required the Attorney General to collect data “about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,” Democrats love to celebrate how victimized we all are.

The irony, of course, is that liberals are the biggest perpetrators of hate.  Sure, the Left does its best to project its poison onto Southern and Midwestern red state conservatives, but a quick look at the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics shows just who the true haters are – where they live and how they vote.  

Let’s start in the South. Guess how many hate crimes were documented by the FBI in 2017 in the state of Alabama, where 3.3 million white people live among 1.2 million blacks, a state Donald Trump won by nearly 30 points? Nine.  That’s right.  Nine hate crimes in the heart of Trump Country, where Klan cross burnings are said to light-up the starry sky like sparklers and black churches are rumored to burn like wildfire.

Next state: Arkansas.  How many hate crimes were committed in the state Trump won by 27 points, a state historically known for lynching and segregation? Seven.  Yes, you heard that correctly: seven total hates crimes in Arkansas in 2017, the first full year of Trump’s presidency.

How about Mississippi, the state where Andrew McClinton, a 45-year-old African American, burned down his own church and spray painted “Vote Trump” on the charred remains days before the 2016 election?  Guess how many hate crimes were committed here (real as opposed to hoaxes)?  One. Yes, my friend, one.  In a diehard red state Trump won by nearly 20 points, where there are 1.7 million whites and 1.1 million blacks, there was only a single hate crime reported in 2017.

Guess how many hate crimes were committed in Louisiana in 2017, an historically red state Trump won by 20 points with a population of 2.9 million whites and 1.4 million blacks?  A very poultry 26.  

In Georgia, a state Trump won by 6 points and where Stacey Abrams insists there’s widespread voter suppression against minorities, there were 28 hate crimes in 2017.  Not bad when you consider there are 6 million whites living among 3 million blacks.  Total hate crimes in the 13 Southern states carried by Trump was 1,244; interestingly Texas, with a population of 28.7 million people, recorded only 192 hate crimes, while Kentucky, population 4.4 million, was by far the worst Southern state with 379 incidents.                         

The same pattern played out in the red states in the Midwest, the other region known as “Trump Country.”  There were 11 hate crimes in Iowa; 15 in North Dakota; 17 in South Dakota; 45 in Nebraska; 46 in Wisconsin; and 55 in Indiana.  All told, hate crime in the 10 Midwest states won by Trump was 1,194, with Michigan and Ohio carrying the lion’s share of the incidents, which committed 456 and 380 hate crimes, respectively; it’s true that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. 

And speaking of bad apples, how about the blue states?  The regions of America populated by “woke” liberals who bad-mouth Trump supporters and tirelessly lecture conservatives about compassion and social justice?  In just California, a state that’s home to Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris, a state that Hillary Clinton won by 30 points in 2016, there were a whopping 1,095 hate crimes committed in 2017. Incredibly, 263 of these took place in Los Angeles alone, a city that is overwhelmingly populated by progressive liberal Democrats and Hollywood celebrities.

Then there’s the diehard blue state of New York, where 552 hate crimes took place last year, 318 in New York City, where blacks and Latinos make up over half the population, and where Clinton beat Trump by a healthy 21 points.                       

How about the very liberal progressive (and lily-white) state of Washington, where people drive electric cars, eat organic vegetables, and “vape” their favorite strains of marijuana while enjoying a vanilla latte from Starbucks?  Guess how many hate crimes were committed here in 2017?  No less than 513.  And speaking of Starbucks, little old Seattle was host to 234 of these hate incidents, which is 30 times as many as all the hate crimes committed in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi combined (and 42 more than the entire state of Texas).

The overwhelmingly blue state of New Jersey, home of Cory “Spartacus” Booker, had a ton of hate crimes in 2017 – 495 to be exact.  Clinton beat Trump here by 14 points.           

Massachusetts, the dyed-in-the-wool blue state of John Kerry, Elizabeth Warren, and the Kennedy’s, had 441 hate crimes.  And you can’t blame it all on drunkards from Boston, because they only committed 141 of these acts.  And yes, Clinton won this state by 27 points.  The other New England states carried by Crooked Hillary combined for a total of 203 hate crimes (Connecticut 112, Vermont 35, Maine 32, New Hampshire 13, Rhode Island 11), bringing the grand total of New England hatred to 644 – which is 161 times the amount of hate found in Sarah Palin’s great state of Alaska, which only had 4 recorded incidents in 2017, and which Trump won by 15 points over Clinton in 2016.

Then there’s the District of Columbia, which had 193 hate crimes in 2017, and which Clinton carried by an insane 89 points.  Virginia, which was blue in 2016, also had 193 hate crimes.  Other notable blue state hatred: Minnesota 148; Oregon 146; and Colorado 108. 

Amazingly, the amount of hatred based on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation found in the 20 liberal blue states won by Hillary Clinton is nearly 1.5 times greater than that found in the 30 red states won by Trump.  When it comes to hate crime, Crooked Hillary and the Democrat’s constituency wins hands down, out-hating Trump and his red state Deplorables, 4,258 to 2,969. 

A Refuge For Those Who Support Our President

The gatekeepers of our culture—academia, the entertainment industry, and the establishment media—are hell bent on smearing Trump 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and on silencing and/or humiliating anybody who dares to publicly support him. Amazingly, over 90 percent of the broadcast coverage of President Trump has been negative, and it just keeps getting worse.

Regardless of how you feel about President Trump, the fact that teachers, parents, students, and administrators in the Greater Philadelphia education community cannot openly voice their support for the POTUS without facing hostile blowback is a cause for concern. It’s bad enough Trump supporters are ostracized in public, but the existence of such behavior in a learning environment should not be tolerated.

This blog is dedicated to conservative educators and Trump supporters in Philadelphia and elsewhere, and serves as a refuge from the constant bullying and harassment we face whenever we choose to openly voice our politics and values. As Winston Churchill once said, “A society where men may not speak their minds cannot long endure.”