Available on your computer, tablet or any mobile device

We vote Republican for many different reasons as individuals. As a club we vote Republican because we understand “broken windows” works, and because we understand the responsibility of not only joining together with the community in unity to make our streets safe but also to hold residents accountable to a standard of behavior which makes us a free people. Please remember voting matters and elections have consequences.

Read moreLeave a comment

By Robert Golomb 

Editors note: Doug Wead is a New York Times bestselling author and former adviser to two American Presidents.

The life of Doug Wead, 73, the author of 31 non-fiction books, including 4 biographies of presidents and presidential families, was turned into living hell during the days and weeks surrounding November 26^th 2019. The latter was the day that Wead’s widely previewed and highly laudatory, 2 years in the making book on the Trump presidency, “Inside Trump’s White House: The Real Story of His Presidency,” was released.

Wead, whom I interviewed last week, repeated to me what I had already learned from reading past news reports. “The days leading up to November 26^th, I received a multitude of anonymous death threats, many writing they hated President Trump and wanted to kill me and even my family for my writing positive things about him.   One person warned me that if the book was sent for distribution my entire family would be ‘bathed in blood’. Another wrote, ‘Wead needs a f—ing bullet in his head’ he chillingly recalled.   “Law enforcement officials” he added, “told me that they believe these threats could be coming from leftwing extremists.”   

 Fearful for the safety of Wead and his family, the book’s publisher, Hachette Book Group, offered to rescind their agreement to release the book.  Wead explained why he chose not to accept his publisher’s offer. “I believed that if I gave in to the thugs who made those threats, I would be encouraging them and others like them to threaten other writers whose views they opposed. That would be the opposite of what our great nation is all about. So I knew I had to remain strong,” he explained.                 

Still Wead, who with his wife of thirty years, Myriam, has 5 children and 8 grandchildren, told me that he possesses a deep sense of personal guilt concerning the dangers these threats, which even 6 weeks after the book’s release continue to reach him by email every day, present to his family.  “At 73, I have lived a long life and don’t worry about the threat to my own personal safety.  But I feel responsible for the danger that now faces my wife, children and grandchildren,” he lamented.

 That danger which now confronts the entire Wead family is over a book which I, as someone who read its 439 pages from cover to cover, believe that, rather than inciting the vile death threats from his despicable enemies, should be respected, if not celebrated, by all fair- minded Americans, regardless of their political views. Or, as Wead himself told me, “I cannot understand where this hatred is coming from. In this and all of my other works, I have always attempted to provide my readers with first-hand accounts of news and historical events that any person, regardless of his or her political affiliation, would find honest and fair.”  He has indeed.      

 For his previous 3 books on presidents and presidential families, Wead had interviewed 6 presidents and first ladies and 24 children and 12 siblings of presidents.  Similarly, for “Trump’s White House” Wead conducted lengthy, recorded interviews with the president himself, Trump family members- including, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Eric and Lara Trump- as well as top aides- including Chief of Staff Michael Mulvaney, then Press Secretary Sandra Huckabee Sanders and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.         

Wead, who in addition to his writing career, co-founded in 1979 and served as one of the original board members of Mercy Corps, a charitable organization which has distributed more than $2 billion worth of food and medicine to famine and natural disaster plagued nations throughout the globe, explained why he felt that access to such primary sources makes his book on Trump fair and accurate, unlike, he contended, other writings on the president.

“Most of the authors of the many other books written on President Trump relied heavily upon anonymous sources, usually offering anti-Trump fabrications” he stated, “For ‘Inside Trump’s White House’, I did the direct opposite.  I conducted recorded interviews with his top advisors and his closest aides. And from those interviews, I received,” he added, “an inside first-hand account of how President Trump has achieved- in the economy, foreign affairs and a host of other issues- more successes and accomplishments than any president before him within a comparable first 3 years of his presidency.”                

 Citing one major multi-faceted economic accomplishment documented in his book, Wead stated, “ Because of President Trump’s pro-entrepreneur, pro-worker and pro-energy independence policies, our  economic growth exceeds 3 percent annually, more than 6 million new jobs have been created, the numbers of blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women in the workforce have hit new highs, wages have risen for white-collar and even more so for blue-collar workers, and the soaring stock market has hit historical highs.”

Wead, who sounded more relaxed as the interview continued, and we were no longer discussing the threats he and his family has had to endure, was no less laudatory of Trump’s foreign affairs accomplishments.  “As I write in my book”, noted Wead, “A succession of recent presidents had made campaign promises to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Then candidate Donald Trump made that promise too. But unlike his predecessors, President Trump delivered on that promise.”   

“More importantly, as I also describe in the book”, Wead continued, “ Within Trump’s first 18 months in office, our military had practically wiped out ISIS, saving hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in parts of Africa and the Middle East from almost certain  slaughter; and by defeating ISIS we also eliminated the then real threat that its followers  would commit lethal terrorists attack against the West, including here in America.  And as I reminded my readers,” he added, “ISIS had carried out their genocidal crimes with almost total impunity during the Obama Administration.”

In addition to what we had already discussed during the first 50 minutes of our schedule 1 hour interview, there remained many other examples of Trump’s accomplishments that I had read about in the book that I wanted to question the author on. Those accomplishments included the president persuading our NATO allies to increase their defense spending by  $140 billion; using the threat of tariffs to coerce Mexico to crack down on illegal immigration; appointing to the federal bench a historic number of strict constitutionalist judges, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh; initiating crippling economic sanctions against Iran, thus forcing that terrorist sponsoring state to dramatically reduce its funding for its terrorists proxies, which include Hamas and Hezbollah. But time would not allow for that discussion.

 Nor would there be enough time remaining in the interview for me to question Wead on his moving depiction of the loving family relationship shared by Trump with his 5 children, 10 grandchildren and wife, Melania.

But there remained one key, not yet discussed topic that I knew I had to explore. That topic, highlighted in his book, would always be the elephant in the room anywhere, any time or with whomever the Trump Presidency was being discussed.   

That elephant in the room, as you probably have already guessed, is the seemingly never- ending process of the on-going impeachment of President Trump, or, as Wead calls it in the book, “The Impeachment Game.”  “It is a vicious game that the Democratic Party in alliance with the national media are playing against President Trump as well as against the almost 63 million Americans who voted to elect him president,” stated Wead. “As I explain in the book, the ugly truth about that game, which they first infamously named ‘Russian Collusion’ is that even before Trump’s inauguration and even before the launching of the totally fabricated Russian conspiracy theory, his enemies were calling for his impeachment.  

“The reality is that”, Wead elaborated, “as special Counsel Robert Mueller determined after his staff reviewed 1.4 million pages of White House supplied memoranda and after they interrogated Trump’s personal lawyer for 70 hours, the articles of impeachment against President Trump have no basis in fact or law. But that finding does not appear to change the minds of his political opponents, who seem indifferent to how the entire dishonest impeachment process is tearing America apart.”

Wead remained seemingly intentionally silent when I told him as the interview was about to end that I also blamed Twitter for contributing to “tearing America apart”: finding common cause with the pond scum who had threatened the life of Wead and his family, Twitter had recently announced that they would ban “Inside Trump’s White House: The Real Story of His Presidency” from being advertised on their platform site.

I didn’t say this to Wead, but I hope that this insidious ban will convince all those regardless of political affiliations who believe in free speech to take a trip to their local bookstores to purchase this terrific book. I now plan to go to my own and buy a second copy of it (which I will give as a holiday present to my anti-Trump brother), and I just might see them there.

Robert Golomb is a nationally and internationally published columnist. Mail him at MrBob347@aol.com.    

This article by Mitchell Langbert, is an opinion piece in The College Fix, a higher-education news website of veteran journalists helping beginning journalists committed to the principles of a free society.

Professor Langbert will be speaking at the QVGOP New Years Club Meeting on Academic Freedom, a free event, open to the public, on Thursday Jan. 2nd. More information.

Editor’s note: Late last year, throngs of angry leftist students and social media warriors demanded that Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, be fired for joking on his personal blog about the Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations. Today his fall 2019 semester classes are overbooked and during the last 10 months he’s juggled several scholarly projects. The effort to ruin him failed. Here’s his story.

‘Indeed, you haven’t lived until you’ve been burned in effigy’

I spent my early life in left-wing neighborhoods in New York City and Woodstock, NY, but by the time I attended Sarah Lawrence College in 1973 I was questioning collectivism. I witnessed one corporate headquarters after another exit New York City because of high taxes and regulation. As well, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago opened my eyes to the blood-drenched shadows of socialism. In my twenties I read all I could about the Austrian economists and the Founding Fathers while I pursued a corporate career that ended because so many New York firms were moving to Atlanta.

So, after nine years in corporate America, I decided to get a Ph.D., but I realized that a career in academia, especially in the Northeast, required strict adherence to left-oriented ideology. Unfortunately, having landed a few academic jobs, I was unsuccessful at cloaking my views.

More recently, having read de Jouvenal’s On Power, I concluded that decentralization of federal power will be crucial to the rejuvenation of individual liberty. One concern is the living Constitution theory. Hence, the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh last fall was a wonderful, miracle-on-ice moment, courtesy of President Trump. When the left and its media attacked Justice Kavanaugh, I made a joke about the allegations on my blog.

Someone was trolling my blog, and in response, there were campus protests. They also pounced while I was at the podium. The New York City-based newspapers (see here, here, here and here) joined in. I had been receiving publicity for work I had been doing on the absence of Republicans from higher education, but the intense media interest was a surprise. I received about 200 hate emails, including several threats. These were paradoxical because the writers were outraged that I had made light of the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations, so they threatened me with sexual assault. One leftist named Carol D wrote: “Sir, I relish the thought of a gang of boys becoming men at your assholes expense. History will pull back your lizard skin and your pathetic attempt at being relevant will be exposed as nothing more than a losers fame grab.” The left-wing concern about words that harm is evident in Carol D’s work.

My initial response to the media phone calls and left-wing hate speech was, of course, stress, as well as some fear that I might lose my job. Within a few days, these were alleviated by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which told me that not only do public employees have First Amendment protection but also that any contact from the college, such as an investigation, would justify First Amendment litigation. As well, I was referred to an attorney who told me that I should retain his firm only if the college administration broke the no-contact rule, which it didn’t. There were a couple of additional protections that frustrated protesters: First, the City University of New York has an academic freedom provision in its bylaws. Second, I have academic tenure.

One of the distortions in the media coverage was the implication that a large number of students supported the protests. In fact, only a couple of hundred out of 18,000 students at the college participated in the protests. About two or three percent of the college’s student-and-faculty body signed an online petition to have me fired. The other 97 percent did not spend a minute on the question. Many students were on my side, but because CUNY’s left-wing administration suppresses conservatives, these students were silent.

In thinking about how to respond to authoritarian attacks, practical concerns are important. The best defense against suppression is private resources. Back in the 1970s I knew a couple who had worked at the U.N. but was fired from the U.S. Embassy during the McCarthy era. They took their resources and founded a retail store that built on their international connections. Since I am close to retirement, I was not worried financially. Dissenters in an authoritarian climate need to strategize how to accumulate resources that enable them to remain independent.

I made one major gaffe: an apology. When I wrote the blog, I meant it as humor. A friend convinced me to write that I had meant the blog to be satirical in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” I later discussed this with a libertarian economist who had been attacked in the Las Vegas newspapers, and he agreed that one should never apologize. Apologies give the pro-Antifa media an additional wedge. (See this.) When the mainstream media attacked Stephen Moore in the context of his Fed appointment, he kept apologizing, and I wish he hadn’t.

Survive the attack I did. Within six months a Wall Street Journal editorial cited my work; a Texas public policy foundation hired me to do a study of a back-to-work training program; I continued to work on a project with friends at Heterodox Academy and the University of Maryland; Lou Dobbs of Fox Business put my name on the TV screen when discussing one of my articles on faculty political affiliation; and the National Association of Scholars, for whom I have written in the past, asked me to write an essay about the student protests at Sarah Lawrence College. As well, the Glazov Gang asked me to do a series of podcasts (and here and here), which have each gotten a couple of thousand hits. My classes have filled to the brim for the past two semesters, and this fall semester my courses are overbooked with waiting lists.

There were, of course, some adverse reactions as well. A young representative of a famous conservative foundation said that he did not want to work with me anymore, and a couple of people I had worked with or corresponded with in the past became cool. On the other hand, one of my friends, a well-known Austrian economist, was envious that the students had lumped me in with Kavanaugh and Trump in the protest. Indeed, you haven’t lived until you’ve been burned in effigy. On balance, the event enabled me to separate the cowardly chaff in my network from the imaginative wheat.

Having gone through the experience unscathed and better off, I am concerned that many others who have been outed by the left-wing, authoritarian mob lack defenses. My case is exceptional because of my public university, First Amendment, and tenure protections.

I have contacted a number of leading conservatives and suggested that steps be taken to organize a support-and-activist group. Such a group could include a response group that might overwhelm media and corporate Antifa sympathizers with protest emails as well as an advisory group that could provide guidance to victims. So far, I have heard nothing back. Unfortunately, conservative and libertarian leaders continue to suffer from a political wimpiness that ensures failure. Ultimately, we need to ask whether the moral compass of a media based in New York City is of value or relevance.

Mitchell Langbert is associate professor at Brooklyn College. He lives in West Shokan, New York.