Socialist Journalism Is Mainstream

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, whose daughter works for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, doesn’t care about fair and balanced journalism. He is only concerned about representing his people. This is what journalism has become—news coverage that casts ethnic groups and special interests as victims of the white racist capitalist power structure.

Thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the socialist running for president, we are learning that one of the latest examples of victim groups are students, who freely decide to go to college and in many cases take on student debt to pay for it.

Of this victim group, black and Hispanic college students are suffering tremendously, according to a story appearing last Wednesday in The Washington Post. It claimed that blacks and Hispanics are “at a higher risk of financial instability based on their college majors…” The paper trumpeted the news in a headline, “Racial disparity in degree selection.” The news was this: “African American and Hispanic students disproportionately earn more bachelor’s degrees in low-paying majors, putting them at higher risk for financial instability after graduation, according to a new study from Young Invincibles, an advocacy group.”

This “advocacy group” has decided that representatives of certain minority groups are somehow entitled to be awarded certain jobs with certain pay grades. In the Post story touting this so-called study, blacks and Hispanics are considered victims of racism, creating wealth ‘inequality,” because of the college degrees and majors they have freely decided to pursue.

But wait: didn’t these blacks and Hispanics freely choose those majors and fields of study? Wasn’t freedom of choice involved?

In the eyes of the liberal media, such freedom does not exist. People are being forced into their choices in life by the forces of capitalism and white supremacy.

Here’s what the paper said: “There is no singular reason for the racial disparities within majors, but centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support contribute to the problem, said Tom Allison, deputy director of policy and research at Young Invincibles, and one of the authors of the study.”

In other words, the heavy hand of racism and the capitalist system somehow forced these students to choose these majors, in order to put them at a disadvantage.

Still, the story by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel left me in the dark about how these factors may determine the selection of majors. The explanation was offered in the next paragraph: “At the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, chemistry professor William LaCourse has seen his share of students of color with a lot of potential lose interest in science fields when they struggle in a course.”

Those science fields paid better than the majors and careers they ended up pursuing. The students gave up their “potential,” a subjective measurement, to go for the easier courses of study.

The phrase “when they struggle in a course” could mean they were goofing off, not smart enough, or just not interested. In any case, it seems hard to argue that this is because of some racist plot or budget axe. But that is indeed what the Post was implying.

The purpose is to depict minority groups as somehow victims of their own choices.

Could it be that blacks and Hispanics are giving up on the harder fields of study because they either require more work or because they have decided to pick a different major for some other reason? This fact of life has been transformed from a “study” into a Washington Post story attempting to blame everything and everyone else for this “problem” except the students themselves.

The whole point of the story is that the students can’t be blamed for their own decisions. They are victims of the system, by virtue of the fact that they are black or Hispanic. That’s why “centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support” have to be blamed.

This is socialist “journalism,” if you can call it journalism, based on the idea that people are members of groups victimized by the capitalist system, trapped into lower incomes and denied their right to make more money. This evil system forced them to “struggle” for higher grades.

It is this kind of “journalism” that also depicts students taking out college loans and going into debt as somehow being victims of capitalism. They are given an opportunity to go to college but they have to pay for it. What an injustice! The Young Invincibles says student debt has “exploded,” as if it has been inflicted on these young people through no choice of their own.

Since these students have been brainwashed into believing that taking on debt is not their fault, it is no wonder they are suckers for the Bernie Sanders brand of socialism which says that their burden must be lifted and a college education should be made available for “free.”

It is a sad commentary on what colleges are teaching that such a scheme is attracting thousands of students to the Sanders campaign.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Bolshevik Bernie And The Communist Spy

In a 1,500-word article about the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, The Washington Post waited until the 25th paragraph to note that the self-declared socialist faces an “obstacle” to winning the presidency. The paper said that “…Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience.” The authors, Philip Rucker and James Wagner, added, “Sure to follow his summer surge is an autumn of investigations that could reveal new details about his personal background and record.”

What these investigations would find is that Sanders was a collaborator, if not a member, of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the same group that backed Obama’s run for the presidency. DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.

There is a video showing Obama campaigning for him when Sanders ran for the Senate. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his Senate seat in 2006, called Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years.

One of the more interesting members of the DSA is Kurt Stand, a communist spy for the Soviet Union (and then Russia) and East Germany who was sentenced to prison in 1998 and released in 2012. He served over 17 years. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, attempted espionage, and illegally obtaining national defense documents.

Where is he now? Thanks to the DSA, we know that Stand has returned to the organization, which is campaigning hard for Sanders for president. Indeed, DSA has posted photos of Stand and his comrades promoting “socialist values” and the Sanders campaign at the Greenbelt (Maryland) Labor Day Festival.

Stand has himself posted an article about how the group called Progressive Maryland is working hard to mobilize left-wing forces throughout the state.

According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Stand and his comrades, Therese Marie Squillacote and James Michael Clark, were on a mission “to cultivate other spies” in the Washington, D.C. area. Stand allegedly received $24,650 for his recruiting and coordinating efforts, according to a summary of the case. The summary says Stand and his comrades apparently became enamored with socialism when going to college: “Clark, Squillacote, and Stand attended the University of Wisconsin in the 1970s where they were affiliated with leftist groups, specifically the Progressive Student Forum and the Young Workers Liberation League, the youth arm of the Communist Party USA.”

It appears there is quite a bit of overlap between the various socialist, communist and progressive groups.

When he was in prison, Stand came out in strong support of Barack Obama for president, saying, “The conversations I’ve listened to and taken part in over these past months have made me a stronger supporter of Obama than I otherwise would have been; have strengthened my perception that his election could be a critical part of building a movement of resistance to our country’s current direction, could help provide the space or framework in which more radical alternatives are again spoken and heard.”

At the end of his letter, dated June 2008, Stand said that “radicals and progressives ought to join those—including those in prison—who have already decided to back Obama, see where the campaign can take us, see what can then be accomplished.”

Bernie is now his candidate.

In the same edition that carried the story about Sanders’ run for the Democratic presidential nomination, The Washington Post ran a story, “The Bernie Sanders of Britain,” about the Marxist who has taken over leadership of the British Labor Party. The online version carried the softer headline, “Leftist Jeremy Corbyn elected leader of Britain’s Labour Party.” Corbyn “has previously called for Britain to leave NATO, favors unilateral nuclear disarmament and champions the nationalization of vast sectors of the economy, including the railways and the energy industries,” the paper reported. Corbyn admires Russia’s Vladimir Putin and excuses the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sanders, labeled by his critics as “Bolshevik Bernie,” told The Huffington Post that he was “delighted” to see that the British Labor Party had elected Corbyn as its new leader.

While Hillary Clinton has been sidetracked by her email scandal, Sanders has been popularizing socialism and expanding the Democratic Party base, noted Jeff Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager who was quoted in the Post. The unspoken assumption is that these new voters will turn out for whoever is the Democratic presidential nominee. This explains why Sanders has been spared media scrutiny. The media assume that he won’t get the nomination, but that he will bring more people to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Bill Ayers, the former communist terrorist and Obama supporter, is hopeful about what Sanders can do for the far-left. “Certainly among the Sanders supporters there are many who will flock like liberal sheep to Hillary once the Bern burns out,” he writes. “However, I believe that among the Sanders supporters there are thousands who are dissatisfied, who are disgruntled, but who do not have a coherent left analysis, who therefore are open to our ideas as they weren’t before they got involved in the Sanders surge. These seekers will be open (certainly many of them) to ideas from the Left of Sanders.”

Ayers adds:

We must think as organizers. Yes, demonstrate, fight in the streets but spend some time and energy going to places where the Sanders campaign has gathered a crowd or a meeting but go not to disrupt, disrupting there would show how true we are to our knowledge, to our anger, to our need to show ‘them’ us… So I think that we should jump in the water. After all, the anti-war multitudes of the 60s and 70s were only disgruntled, dissatisfied people and without a coherent left analysis, yet we jumped in. Why? Because a movement can only be built on motion. Motion is people open, people leaving their normal placid acceptance if only a little, if only briefly. So, things swirled. Liberal anti-war marches. My collective would go, stand alongside the marchers with paper Viet Cong flags and pins, encouraging people to wear the flags. We gave maybe a thousand away. A good left action. We also had leaflets with our analysis of the war on Vietnam. Many people took those. Good. Better than if we had stayed home.

This is how a pro-communist message was inserted into the “anti-war” demonstrations that convinced a Democrat-controlled Congress to cut off aid to a non-communist South Vietnam, paving the way for a communist victory in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia.

The Washington Post is correct that Sanders has a lot to explain.

Let’s take the USSR first. Sanders went on his honeymoon to the former USSR. He was a supporter of the communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. He was a collaborator with the U.S. Peace Council—a Communist Party front—against the Reagan military build-up. He worked with the Venezuelan regime of Hugo Chavez to distribute Venezuelan oil in the U.S.

The Post is right that Sanders deserves “media scrutiny” and “investigations that could reveal new details about his personal background and record.” So what accounts for the delay in the media doing their jobs? Would the results cast the Democratic Party in a bad light?

It’s no wonder, as we previously reported, that Sanders has been concerned that the NSA is conducting surveillance on links between American politicians and foreign regimes and movements. As I noted at the time, one of the NSA’s greatest successes was known as Venona, the code name given to the intercepted and deciphered KGB and GRU (Russian military intelligence) messages between Moscow and the Soviet espionage network in the United States. The project led to the apprehension of such spies as State Department official Alger Hiss.

Has the NSA been watching Bolshevik Bernie? This could make Hillary’s email scandal look mild by comparison.

Of course, Sanders would twist it against the NSA, arguing that he was just an innocent victim. The facts suggest otherwise.

Brought to you by 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Donald Trump’s Greatest Hits

Donald Trump has gotten popular, in part, by challenging the media. But he has praised journalists on occasion. His 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, said David Gregory was “doing a fine job filling some awfully big shoes over at Meet the Press.” It was a reference to legendary and highly respected host Tim Russert, who had passed away.

So-called “Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd,” who replaced Gregory, is a favorite Trump target. “The thing I find most offensive about Chuck Todd is the fact that he pretends to be an objective journalist,” Trump writes, “when in reality the guy is a partisan hack.”

In many ways, as Trump said, David Gregory was doing a fine job. Some of the criticism of Gregory’s performance as “Meet the Press” host missed the mark, such as when he interviewed Edward Snowden collaborator Glenn Greenwald. As we noted at the time, some in the media were aghast that Gregory asked Greenwald a perfectly reasonable question on “Meet the Press”: “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?”

Snowden, the NSA leaker, has been charged with espionage and still resides in Russia.

In his book, Trump takes on Jon Stewart, the host of “The Daily Show” on the Comedy Central network who is quitting after years of service to President Obama and the liberal-left. Stewart’s strategy is spewing curse words and invective toward conservatives and Republicans.

Trump recognized Stewart as Obama’s tool before it was recently revealed that Stewart was secretly meeting with people in the Obama White House, including President Obama, in efforts “by the president and his communications team to tap into Mr. Stewart’s influence with younger voters,” as The New York Times put it.

“I actually enjoy the guy,” Trump’s book says of Stewart, “but when he did a segment mocking presidential candidate Herman Cain, and used a very racist and degrading tone that was insulting to the African American community, did he get booted off the air like Don Imus? No. Where was the Reverend Jesse Jackson? Where was the Reverend Al Sharpton? Where was Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd to provide hard-hitting journalistic ‘analysis?’  Nowhere. Stewart should have lost his job—at least temporarily. But he didn’t and he won’t because liberals in the media always get a free pass, no matter how bad their behavior.”

Cain himself had noted that Stewart had mocked him using the racially-charged “Amos & Andy” dialect. He concluded that Stewart has a problem with black conservatives.

In other comments in his book, Trump discussed the journalists “who are obsessed with protecting Obama,” noting that ABC’s George Stephanopoulos is among the “big Obama fans.” He added that “it was incredible to see how overprotective reporters got toward Obama when I simply said what everyone in America was thinking: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’”

While he praises Fox News and Roger Ailes, the executive behind the popular channel, Trump faults the “disappointing behavior by people in the press” which “occurs on both sides of the aisle,” and singles out Charles Krauthammer of Fox News for special criticism. Trump said Krauthammer had attacked him on the air as a joke candidate, and that he was not given any rebuttal time.

Discussing a speech he gave to Republicans, during which he had used “strong language,” Trump admits, “I’m not a big curser but it did take place” and the controversial remarks were reported by the media. But Trump counters: “Of course, Joe Biden dropped the f-word in front of the entire media on a stage with the president. But Biden gets a pass because he’s with Obama, and as we all know, Obama can do no wrong in the media’s eyes.”

Other quotable comments from his book include the observation that The New York Times is Obama’s “favorite newspaper,” and that “The press constantly maligns, ridicules, and mocks the Tea Party folks.”

During the current campaign, Trump has not shied away from putting reporters on the spot.

Asked a question by Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart, who distorted his position on illegal immigration, Trump fired back, “You know what, that’s a typical case. Wait. That’s a typical case of the press with misinterpretation. They take a half a sentence, then they take a quarter of a sentence, they put it all together. It’s a typical thing. And you’re with Telemundo, and Telemundo should be ashamed.”

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, he said, “Anderson, you are not a baby, okay. You are not a baby.”

Asked by NBC’s Katy Tur if he had a gun and used it, he responded, “It is none of your business, it is really none of your business. I have a license to have a gun.”

After The Wall Street Journal attacked Trump and his conservative supporters in the media, the businessman responded by saying the paper had a “dwindling” readership and “is worth about one-tenth of what it was purchased for…”

After Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard said he was “finished” with Trump, he responded, “Bill, your small and slightly failing magazine will be a giant success when you finally back Trump.”

Fox News media reporter Howard Kurtz notes, “Look, Trump thrives on being attacked. He’s a great counterpuncher. He particularly relishes doing battle with the media. And this latest story hands him a big fat gift to do just that.”

That “latest story” was in The Daily Beast and concerned some allegations about alleged marital rape from Trump’s divorce proceedings. Trump’s ex-wife Ivana responded, “I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit.”

She added, “Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign.”

Since then, a story has surfaced about Trump criticizing an opposing attorney who wanted to breast-pump in front of him. Trump told CNN he may have said to her that it was “disgusting.” He added, “Bottom line. I beat her.” He said the judge had even awarded him legal fees.

For turning the tables on the media, Trump deserves the praise of those who are sick and tired of the liberal media setting the national agenda and demonizing conservatives.

I have a feeling that the Donald Trump hit parade will continue.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

America’s Enemies Are Laughing At Us

Time magazine is out with a colorful and glossy “Inside the New Cuba” special edition, featuring smiling Cuban kids wearing Communist garb on the cover. Page 64 has a photo showing “Cuban fans” holding up “their national flag” at a baseball game. It turns out that the really happy Cubans are those who have been defecting from the island “paradise,” as Time magazine calls the prison camp country.


Credit goes to Christine Rousselle of for covering these defections. They seem to be developing into a regular feature, with Rousselle providing regular updates about additional defections.

So far, eight players from the Cuban men’s field hockey team, four rowers from the Cuban national team, and two members of the Cuban soccer team have defected.

The defections completely undercut the chapter of the special Time magazine issue on Cuba that is titled, “The Big League Next Door,” which speculates that normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba could “stop Cuba’s top talent from fleeing…” This chapter is written by Robert Siegel, senior host of National Public Radio, and Eyder Peralta, an NPR reporter.

Washington Nationals infielder Yunel Escobar defected from Cuba when he was 21. The Washington Post covered his story in a May 7 article, noting:

Escobar’s love of baseball was fueled by television broadcasts and video games, both forbidden in Cuba. He paid to watch MLB games and favorite players such as Alex Rodriguez, Roberto Alomar, Omar Vizquel and fellow Cuban Livan Hernandez on a TV with a hush-hush antenna at a friend’s house. He also grew to love Ken Griffey Jr. because of a video game he played often in secret. A friend had smuggled in a console and charged the equivalent of 50 cents per hour to play.

The entire story is worth reading and there are many touching moments, such as the story of when Escobar spent two days at an immigration detention center in Miami “and kissed the ground when he was released.”

These are the immigrants we should welcome, since they have developed an appreciation of the struggle between freedom and totalitarianism. They want to enjoy and celebrate American freedom, not distort and transform the country into a Third World welfare state of cheap labor for corporations and paid-for votes for the Democratic Party.

In the Time magazine version of Cuba, we are told in the section, “Scenes from the Revolution,” that Fidel Castro “promised to clean up the government, restore democracy and civil liberties, and promote social justice.” Nothing is said about whether he fulfilled those promises.

By contrast, we are told that his predecessor, Fulgencio Batista, was a “ruthless dictator” who ran a system characterized by “economic and social inequality and a corrupt government.” The implication is that Castro changed all of that for the better.

A caption on a page of pictures of Cuban cowboys on the communist island informs us that “Before Castro nationalized all farms, almost three quarters of Cuba’s arable lands was owned by fewer than 3,000 individuals and corporations, many of them American, while most farmworkers were renters.” One of the Cuban cowboys proclaims, “It is no longer of Communism or no Communism. It belongs to us.”

You mean communism works after all? That seems to be the message of this special Time magazine Cuba edition.

It’s completely absurd but this is what passes for serious journalism. It reminds me of the old Ronald Reagan joke, reportedly told to Mikhail Gorbachev, about two men walking down a street in Moscow, when one asks, “Is this pure communism? Have we passed through the stage of socialism and reached pure communism? The other replies, “Hell, no. It’s gonna get a lot worse.”

Ben Lewis wrote an article, “Hammer & tickle,” noting that “Communism is the only political system to have created its own international brand of comedy.”

These days, Oleg Atbashian makes fun of the Marxists and their apologists on a regular basis, on his “People’s Cube” website. One of his latest offerings is the new poster featuring the “Rebel without a gender.” The People’s Cube proclaims, “Che is dead, long live Conchita: a new rebel icon.”

His tribute to the Museum of Communism in Prague is a lot of laughs, as he displays some of the posters from the old communist days, such as the one announcing that communist women would have burnt their bras like their sisters in the West, “if there were any in the shops.”

Another communist poster said: “Sometimes there was no toilet paper in the shops. Luckily there was not much food, either.”

Meanwhile, believe it or not, the comedian Jack Black is being featured in a video campaign from the group Global Zero to sell the Iranian nuclear deal. He previously starred in such films as “Shallow Hal,” “School of Rock,” “Nacho Libre,” and the Kung Fu Panda films.

A comedian as the face of the Iranian nuclear deal? This is where the laughing begins to die down.

The Iranians and their Russian sponsors are the ones laughing at us now.

So are the Cuban Communists.

They may lose some people through defections, but they get an embassy on American soil where they can base their spies and recruit agents inside the U.S. government.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama’s Horrendous Father’s Day Example

When Barack Obama campaigned for president in 2008, few Americans would have guessed that his administration would become the most anti-family force in U.S. history by celebrating gay marriage and the spectacle of men becoming women through the phenomenon of “transgenderism.” Obama had portrayed himself as a committed pro-family Christian who recognized the importance of male role models and fathers in the family structure. “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation,” Obama said in a “Fatherhood speech” in June of that year.

But in response to Bruce Jenner, a biological father of six, declaring he was actually female, Obama said, “It takes courage to share your story.” Nothing was said about the impact such a bizarre declaration would have on one’s children, or the condition of one’s mental state to bring that about. Obama seemed to be endorsing genital mutilation as a way out of mental confusion or mental illness.

Obama’s definition of family has certainly changed. Indeed, he was once in favor of marriage being between one man and one woman, and today he celebrates fatherless and motherless families. He lied about his commitment to traditional marriage in order to get elected. It was a big con, but only one of many deceptions from the candidate of “hope and change” whose lasting legacy, as noted in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book Takedown, could very well be cultural and not economic transformation. After all, parts of Obamacare could be repealed over time, and economic reforms could arrest our debt problem, which has accelerated under Obama. But restoring the traditional family is a mammoth undertaking that even Republican presidential candidates are generally afraid to talk about.

Speaking to the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago in that 2008 speech, Obama had quoted from the Bible and said to the congregation, “if we are honest with ourselves” they would have to admit that “too many fathers…[are] missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

But the fact that “Bruce” Jenner will go missing from that family is something that is now celebrated by Obama.

If Obama had told that black congregation that he would be a president who would go down in history as praising a man for dressing up like a woman, the audience would have probably laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Who could have anticipated that a man who once lectured the nation on the need for a strong father would later defend a father’s decision to quit being one.

Another major deception from Obama was his claim that he never really had a father who was part of his life. In a 2013 Morehouse College address, he said, “I was raised by a heroic single mom, wonderful grandparents—made incredible sacrifices for me. And I know there are moms and grandparents here today who did the same thing for all of you. But I sure wish I had had a father who was not only present, but involved. Didn’t know my dad. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home—(applause)—where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man.”

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert says that Obama’s comments about not having a father present in his childhood are 100 percent bogus, and that he had several fathers or father-figures.

Gilbert, director of the film, “Dreams from My Real Father,” examines Obama’s formative years and comes to the determination that the Communist Party member and suspected Soviet espionage agent Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s real biological father. He believes the Kenyan Obama was a “father in name only” who was used to cover up an affair between Davis and Obama’s mother. Gilbert added, “Obama’s problem was not a lack of fathers, rather it was that his biological father became his ideological mentor and radicalized him into an anti-American ideology.”

We broke the story in the U.S. that Davis was Obama’s childhood mentor, a fact that The Washington Post still will not admit. Obama himself admits Davis “schooled” him on white racism. “All my research has indicated that Obama visited with Davis about three times per week during his entire youth from age 10 to 18,” Gilbert says. “Davis gave him money, taught him to drink whiskey, took him to strip clubs, and indoctrinated Obama during those formative years with his Communist view of the world.”

In addition to Davis, however, Gilbert says Obama had other “fathers” or father figures. These included his grandfather, “gramps,” a constant father figure presence, and his adopted father, Lolo Soetoro, whom he stayed in touch with even after his mother divorced him. He adds, “Never one to be without a father figure, Obama enlisted a [Frank Marshall Davis] carbon copy ideologue, whom he said ‘was like an uncle.’” That was the notorious Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who functioned like a father to Obama after Frank Marshall Davis died. Like Davis, Wright was a vicious anti-American.

The idea that Davis is truly Obama’s “real father” is certainly controversial and could only be solved definitively by DNA analysis. However, Gilbert recently interviewed Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, who says that “Frank Marshall Davis and Barack look alike,” and that Barack does not look like his father, the Kenyan Obama. Comparison photos between Frank Marshall Davis and President Obama are indeed striking. Malik Obama says he would welcome a DNA test, and that this might explain why Barack dumped the Kenyan Obamas after he was elected president.

Once a strong proponent of the traditional meaning of Father’s Day, in order to get elected to the presidency, Obama will now go down in history for demeaning this national celebration honoring fathers and fatherhood.

Consider Barack Obama as the president who celebrated a man for acting and trying to look like a woman. At this rate, Father’s Day cards will one day be sold in the “he” and “she” categories.

The impact on our young people from this presidential “example” will be seen and felt in the years ahead: more sexual confusion, alienation from family, mental illness, and suicides.

This is what progressive “change” looks like.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth