Mizzou president stepped down for ‘poo-swastika’ that no one can prove existed

Wolfe UM

University of Missouri system president Timothy Wolfe resigned on Monday after demands by football players and activists with Concerned Student 1950. It was claimed he didn’t do enough to address racism and bigotry and campus. One of the pieces of evidence in the circumstantial case against him was, bizarrely, a piece of human waste — smeared into a swastika. The only problem: No one can provide evidence it ever existed.

In the age where everyone has a cellphone, Twitter feed, Facebook account, Instagram and Tumblr page, not a single photo of the diarrhea-swastika left in a UM campus dormitory exists. Is there a group of college kids on earth that would allow such an event to escape without photographic evidence? Answer: No.

The Federalist didn’t think so, which is why it began to investigate the alleged Oct. 24 incident.

[Billy Donley, the president of Mizzou’s Residence Halls Association] noted that he only found out about the alleged vandalism incident “via a flyer posted on the walls” of the dorm.

Although Donley did not respond to repeated requests for comment prior to publication, The Federalist spoke with two RHA staffers while trying to get in touch with Donley. Neither had personally witnessed the poop swastika. When asked if there was any photographic evidence of the alleged incident, one staffer replied, “Not to my knowledge.”

Frankie Minor, the director of residential life at Mizzou, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on whether he personally saw the poop swastika or any photographic evidence of it.

The Federalist also attempted to contact Christian Basi, the associate director of the University of Missouri News Bureau, who previously told the Columbia Missourian on Oct. 30 that the incident had been immediately reported to Mizzou police. Basi did not respond to requests for comment prior to the publication of this article.

Calls to the University of Missouri Police Department, which responded to and investigated the alleged poop swastika incident, also failed to yield any evidence of the poopstika.

Here’s where it gets more interesting. The Federalist found online activists using an image as “proof” the incident occurred, but the photo has been floating around Reddit since November 2014. Perhaps racists and bigots have time machines…

The Federalist contacted Concerned Student 1950 for evidence and got nothing. Reporter Sean Davis was left with no other option but to use public records laws to file a request for all reports linked to the poop-swastika.

Now does it become clear why the student activists used “muscle” to force reporters out of their “safe space”? Lies, distortions, exaggerations and hoaxes are in danger of being exposed when questions are allowed to be asked.

And speaking of lies, did you hear the one about Mizzou’s student body president, Payton Head, riling up the entire campus with an imaginary KKK sighting — only to have to apologize hours later? Whoops.

“I’m sorry about the misinformation that I have shared through social media. In a state of alarm, I was concerned for all students of the University of Missouri and wanted to ensure that everyone was safe. I received and shared information from multiple incorrect sources, which I deeply regret,” Head wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday.

Payton Head

Imaginary KKK sightings. A refusal to share evidence of poo-swastikas. Both get national attention, which undoubtedly translates into random idiots who make threats. So then the movement is totally justified, right? Wrong.

Perhaps if we wait a few weeks, then we’ll hear how dead puppies were used to spell out racial epithets in Mizzou’s quad. Just don’t expect activists to take pictures and share them on social media. You’ll just have to take their word for it.

Corporate media crown Hillary debate winner — just like corporate media said Republicans want Jeb

Clinton CNN debateAn interesting thing happened after Tuesday night’s Democratic debate from Las Vegas, Nevada — corporate media talking heads declared Hillary Clinton the winner, even though the only thing she did was come across as a weirdly-calculating politician.

Progressive media watchdog FAIR.org reported:

The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,” Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to the Times.

What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.

As I told my wife after the debate, it’s too bad Bernie Sanders is a socialist, because he was essentially the only authentic person on stage.

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Web just came across as an irascible grump; former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee came across as a dazed child; and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley just came across as another run-of-the-mill politician.

The same media juggernaut that tried to convince Americans for months that a groundswell of support for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign existed — despite zero polling evidence to back such claims — now wants viewers to believe Mrs. Clinton trounced Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders

Here is an example of Clinton’s stellar debate skills:

Anderson Cooper: Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?

Clinton:Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.

Cooper: Is there a policy difference?

Clinton: Well, there’s a lot that I would like to do to build on the successes of President Obama, but also, as I’m laying out, to go beyond. And that’s in my economic plans, how I would deal with the prescription drug companies, how I would deal with college, how I would deal with a full range of issues that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign to go further.

Translation: Vote for me because I’m a woman! Seriously. I’m a woman. That’s important.

The former secretary of state offered zero differences between a future Clinton administration and the Obama administration — other than her chromosomes — and yet she was deemed the debate winner.

When it came to a very specific question from moderator Anderson Cooper — “Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” — Clinton simply didn’t answer the question. She went off on a tangent about the criminal justice system.

Sanders, however, answered the question.

Anderson Cooper: Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? Let’s put that question to Senator Sanders.

Sanders: Black lives matter. And the reason — the reason those words matter is the African American community knows that on any given day some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail, or their kids.

Is it rather repugnant to rhetorically elevate the lives of black Americans above the lives of all Americans? Yes.

At least Sen. Sanders, however, had the guts to give a straight answer in front of millions of viewers.

A woman who casts herself as qualified for the position of commander in chief because of her estrogen levels, while simultaneously refusing to answer direct questions, cannot be the winner of a presidential debate.

Corporate media pundits are less interested in telling the truth than they are with pushing their own specific visions for the world. That is why so many people rightfully do not trust what they see on cable news or what is served to them from the official Facebook news feed.

As the 2016 presidential campaign gains steam, it is always important to consume news with a discerning eye. The networks and publications telling you they can be trusted are often lying.

Romney’s chances in Colorado — our political FUBAR

Anyone who follows this blog knows that while I work in Washington, D.C., I’m generally not a fan of the overabundance of pompous, fake, know-it-all pundits who live there. Washington is just like Los Angeles, except the fakes in the nation’s capital want to play “director” with your life. They see you as a prop, and your tax dollars as the studio budget. Given my desire to stay as far away from cocktail parties and networking events as possible, I decided that when it came to figuring out what Mitt Romney’s chances were of winning Colorado, that it would be best to ask a really, really smart … Coloradan. Luckily, I happen to know one. (I’m keeping his identity anonymous since I’m not sure he would like his name out there.)

Here’s his analysis:

Colorado is a state made up of maddening political contradictions. You have uber liberal Boulder county up north, and uber conservative Colorado springs to the south. You have Colorado University (compared to Cal Berkley by many), and then you can find Focus on the Family. You also have the aforementioned home base of a powerful evangelical Christian organization with one of the lowest (by state) percentages of people who regularly attend church (11 percent). Then you have a massive influx of liberal Californians moving in, mixing with a massive influx of conservative Texans. You have a state screaming for gun laws in the wake of The Dark Knight killings and Columbine going up against a powerful NRA lobby with mountain hunters.

Then you have Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party polling at 4 percent, I believe the second highest behind new Hampshire in political polls by state. Basically, we are a perfect storm of political clusterf***.

Two of Romney’s biggest talking points get blunted here:

  • The economy is better than national average and we have thus far survived the economic downturn relatively well.
  • There are few Jewish people here, so only conservative Christians would consider relations with Israel a voting issue (remember 11 percent, and not all of them are conservative). Also, by far our biggest minority is of Mexican decent, and they are by and large not fans of Republican immigration stances.

I will say (though it’s hard to quantify) that the “excitement” for Obama is not at the fevered pitch it was in 2008, partly (just as we’ve seen nationally) because he’s been president and you don’t have that same euphoria of getting your guy in there, and partly because we didn’t host the DNC this time around.

To be fair, even though the economy is decent here, Coloradans recognize it can be better and that it is still nationally sluggish — there are no quick fixes. This being said, Obama is still very popular with the Democratic base, whereas Romney is liked, but not venerated by the Republican base.

It is a statistical tossup, and we really won’t know until Tuesday. If you forced me to bet, I’d say Obama wins by 2-4 percent. Sorry to have a wishy-washy conclusion, but that’s how I see it.

So there you have it. I really have nothing much to add. I devour news on a daily basis for work, and this is one of the most succinct, informative, non-wonkish breakdowns of Colorado’s political complexity that I’ve seen.

My only question would be for our Libertarian friends: Is there a particular reason why you don’t sink your resources into building a movement at a local and state level, first? Is it really helping anyone to put all your eggs into one basket every four years, self-righteously beating your chest about the “two party system” before disappearing into darkness shortly after the election is over? Good grief.

Anyway, thanks again to my eyes and ears on the ground in Colorado. Great job, my friend. Here’s to hoping that Independents break hard for Mitt.

2016: Obama’s America: D’Souza strikes a nerve

2016: Obama’s America is a movie that under normal circumstances wouldn’t exist. A documentary about race, the president’s past, his father’s Kenyan roots and Communist ties, and how it all shapes and guides Mr. Obama to this day would have your average filmmaker run out of town by pitchfork-wielding media. Thank goodness Dinesh D’Souza isn’t your average filmmaker.

The tagline for Dinesh’s movie is “Love him, hate him, you don’t know him.” People can have that debate about President Obama, but they can’t have that debate about D’Souza. A lot is known about him. He’s an immigrant from India. He’s an intellectual. He’s an excellent debater (watch old videos of him sparring with the late Christopher Hitchens and you won’t be disappointed). Two of his most impressive works that are not included on the movie’s website are The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values In An Age Of Techno-Affluence and Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. In short, he’s a very intelligent man, and his pigmentation and background make it impossible for cable news talking heads to distract attention away from his central arguments with charges of racism.

The thing that makes 2016: Obama’s America so piercing is that all of D’Souza’s conclusions are undergirded by Obama’s own words from Dreams From My Father. The central idea is that Obama, abandoned by his biological father, struggled for years to find his identity. His father’s ghost haunted him constantly, and it wasn’t until Obama went to Kenya to visit the grave that his identity was solidified:

“How to explain the emotions of that day. I can summon each moment in my mind almost frame by frame. It wasn’t simple joy that I felt in each of these moments, rather it was a sense that everything I was doing — every touch and breath and word carried the full weight of my life. That a circle was beginning to close so that I might recognize myself as I was — here, now, in one place. For a long time I sat between the two graves and wept. When my tears were finally spent I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was and what I cared about was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America, the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I had witnessed in Chicago, all of it was connected with this small of plot of earth an ocean away. Connected by more than the accident of the name or the color of my skin. The pain I felt was my father’s pain. My questions were my brother’s questions. Their struggle, my birthright,” (Barack Obama).

D’Souza says that moment for Obama was were he determined “not to be like his father, but to take his dream. Where the father had failed, he will succeed. In doing so, perhaps he can become worthy of his father’s love. The love he never got.”

If one buys D’Souza’s premise, then his interviews with extended family, as well as friends and academics close to Obama’s father end up constructing a convincing psychological profile of our current president. Obama’s core values then appear to include a third-world anti-colonialism that is anathema to America’s founding.

The conclusions of 2016: Obama’s America are, frankly, disturbing. Given that so much of D’Souza’s documentary pulls from the president’s own words, it would be silly to dismiss his claims as the desperate fabrications of a “right wing” lunatic. In fact, one of D’Souza’s strengths is his ability to ask a very specific question that he knows will elicit valuable information, at which point he sits back and lets the subject metaphorically shoot himself in the foot.

There is a reason media outlets have not covered this film and reviewers have largely ignored it. Luckily, moviegoers have not. Love D’Souza or hate him, he’s attempting to do the job reporters have not. If you have the time, check out 2016: Obama’s America. It’s a thought-provoking film that’s well worth the price of admission.

“The Road We’ve Traveled” ignores the road we’re on: Serfdom

The Road We've Traveled was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who said he couldn't find one fault with Barack Obama. Knowing this, viewers can understand why Guggenheim neglected to tell them the road we're on, which is The Road to Serfdom. Disagree? I can give you 15 trillion reasons why you're wrong and I'm right.

A friend of mine said he was looking forward to my review of the Obama campaign’s opening “Ode to Obama,” narrated by Tom Hanks, titled The Road We’ve Traveled. The request put me in an awkward spot, since reviewing a film directed by a man who couldn’t find a single fault in the president would mean I would have to watch it. I did.

The thing that strikes me about The Road We’ve Traveled isn’t that from the opening moments Tom Hanks tells the audience to ignore the newspaper headlines they’re reading (i.e., high unemployment, massive debt), but that it never mentions the road we’re on—The Road to Serfdom.

Barack Obama can spend $345,000 on a 20 minute film about how great he is, but for the most part he’s only throwing money away (what else is new?). It’s a blood clotting agent that will be given to middle-of-the-road Democrats to stop the bleeding of enthusiasm, and that’s about it. It’s a really expensive puff piece that might get Chris Matthews nostalgic for those “tingles” Obama gave him in 2008, if only for a moment.

Watch Paul Ryan look into the camera and speak directly to the American people about the road we’re on, and then watch The Road We’ve Traveled. If you’re an independent, you’ll find yourself angry and disillusioned with a president who has done nothing to seriously address the 15 trillion dollars of debt (and growing) that is on course to bring about economic pain the likes most Americans have never known.

Skeletons in the Pizza Box: Liberals Will Go Nuclear on Cain

How does the Democratic Party head off an existential threat? It will feverishly looks for skeletons...in a pizza box.

Herman Cain is an existential threat to the Democratic Party, and as such their operatives will go nuclear on him. I guarantee you that as I write, private investigators are traipsing around Cain’s home town, striking up conversations in bars, and looking for every piece of dirt he’s ever stepped in. Democrats have been beholden to blacks for decades, which have essentially voted as a monolithic block, and they will not allow anyone to change that dynamic.

Whether it’s The New York Times’ Charles Blow, Hollywood has-beens who mistake race baiting attention for relevancy, or democratic strategists on CNN, all indicators suggest liberals will metaphorically carpet bomb the political landscape to destroy Herman Cain. Reasons include (but are in no way limited to):

  • Conservative black man: Check.
  • Tea-Party favorite: Double-Check.
  • Self-made man: Check.
  • Comfortable talking about God: Check.
  • Private sector success: Check.
  • Gregarious: Check.
  • Self-deprecating humor: Check.
  • American Dream personified: Check.

Sadly, the people who always claim to envision a color blind society want no such thing. Even if only 15 percent of black Americans want a piece of Herman Cain presidential pizza pie, the Democrat machine would be in many respects decimated. If Herman Cain is given a large enough microphone, his voice will resonate long and hard within minority communities. The question: “What does it mean to be ‘authentically black’?” would take place at kitchen tables across the country. Old canards would fall away for millions of people.

The hard left of the Democratic Party will not stand for this. Men who are personally invested in keeping racial divisions perpetually raw will not stand for this. And so, they will attempt to destroy Herman Cain. The hunt is on for whatever rumor—or true, partially true, or frustratingly-ambiguous story—that can bring him down.

Man is fallible. Incredibly fallible—which is why putting too much faith in them is a dangerous proposition. We all have skeletons in our closet. What bothers me is the selective enthusiasm media have when it comes to exposing candidates, based on their political affiliation. Think about how close John Edwards was to winning the Democratic Party’s nomination. It was only after it blew up (like a pregnant mistress) that they begrudgingly gave it the air time it deserved.

Herman Cain is in a dicey position because his skeletons aren’t in a closet, per se—they’re in a pizza box. And no one likes skeletons with their pizza. Even in October.

When the stories come out, like they do for all candidates (e.g., Reverend Wright), I just hope Cain supporters factor in the malicious fervor with which the liberal media reports and embellishes them.