Triad Today

Back in the dark ages when I was in elementary school, we used to play a game called musical chairs. Since many of my readers weren’t alive back then, here’s how it works. Let’s say there are 20 kids in the class. The teacher arranges 19 chairs in several orderly rows, and asks the students to begin the game by standing near or in front of a chair. She then drops the needle on a record and music starts playing, at which time the boys and girls are told to walk around and through the rows of chairs. Suddenly the teacher lifts the stylus, the music stops, and everyone is supposed to scramble to find a chair and sit down. The person left standing is SOL. As it turns out, musical chairs is the perfect metaphor to describe the congressional re-districting in North Carolina that has led to next week’s primary.

Congressional districts are supposed to be drawn in such a way as to insure that each district has about the same population. Here in North Carolina, that’s about 700,000 people per district. So far, so good. The problem is that many southern states used to gerrymander their districts so that mainly white candidates could win. In other words, when the music stopped playing, the black guy was left without a chair. The Supreme Court then stepped in and ordered that we re-draw our districts to give black voters a chance to elect black representatives. The Supremes put us on a sort of probation so they could monitor our progress, and for a while, candidates of color were able to grab a chair every two years when the music stopped playing. But once the probation was over, our General Assembly re-arranged the chairs again, so once again we ended up with gerrymandered districts. This year’s primaries were scheduled for March 15 and candidates started lining up in front of the chair they wanted to occupy. But on February 5, before the music could begin, the US Court of Appeals ruled that our 1st and 12th district borders were unconstitutional. State lawmakers were ordered to re-draw those boundaries, and that, of course, affected the adjoining districts. Votes cast for Congress on March 15 were invalid, and June 7 was set aside for us to vote in the newly formed districts.

The problem is that dozens of candidates were suddenly thrown into newly re-drawn districts, many of which they no longer resided in, or wanted to run in because of stiff competition that hadn’t existed when they first filed to run.

Incumbent Alma Adams of Greensboro for example, was a shoo-in to recapture her seat in the old 12th district, but her home was moved into the new 13th that would not favor a Democrat. And so Alma moved to Charlotte to run in the newly drawn 12th, which serves Mecklenburg County. Incumbent George Holding of Raleigh had represented the old 13th District, but decided to try his luck in the 2nd when his district was re-drawn to include Greensboro, High Point, Lexington, and other Piedmont voting areas. Former Guilford County Commissioner Bruce Davis and newcomer Jim Roberts had both filed to run in the old 6th district, and challenge Republican incumbent Mark Walker. But when the music stopped, Davis ended up running in the new 13th, and Roberts is now running for a chance to unseat Virginia Foxx in the 5th. Not surprisingly, most Republican incumbents faired pretty well when the chairs were re-arranged this time. Foxx remained in the 5th, and Walker, who was going to be displaced from his old district, was saved by the good old boys in Raleigh who made a last-minute change to the map in order to keep Mark’s residence in the 6th.

Of all the newly drawn districts, the 13th is the most wide open. With Holding deciding not to stand for re-election there, a total of 22 candidates filed for his seat, including 5 Democrats and 17 Republicans. Still, the Republicans are favored to win this race thanks to how our General Assembly drew the lines. The question is, which Republican will lap the field? The stakes are high because there will be no run-off allowed in any of the June 7 primaries. That means you only have to win by one vote to secure the nomination in any race. Until recently I would have expected Sen. Andrew Brock of Mocksville, Sen. John Blust of Greensboro, Davie Commissioner Dan Barrett or Rep. Julia Howard (also of Davie), to win their primary. But recently Ted Budd of Advance has become the odds-on favorite to capture the 13th, both in the primary and in the general. That’s because a PAC named “Club for Growth Action” is expected to pour nearly a half million dollars into Budd’s campaign coffers this year. As of last week, they had already bought $150,000 worth of TV ads for Budd, which is three times the amount spent by Barrett or Howard. It’s also 100 percent more than any other candidate of either party has spent on TV advertising. Of the Democrats running in the 13th, Bruce Davis stands as good a chance as anyone to get the nod. But it will be difficult for any Democrat to win in November unless they raise a ton of money, and pay GOP voters to stay home.

Josh Brannon will most likely win the Democratic nomination in the 5th, but it won’t matter because Virginia Foxx (who is opposed by Patty Curran in the primary) is unbeatable in that district. Just ask her last opponent in 2014…Josh Brannon. Pete Glidewell is unopposed in the 6th district Democratic primary, and, in any other election year could give Mark Walker a run for his money. But Trump has surged ahead of Clinton in North Carolina, and if that trend holds, Walker will benefit from the Donald’s coattails.

Despite the confusion over who is in which district, I encourage everyone in the 5th, 6th and 13th to get out and vote next Tuesday. If nothing else, it will be a lot of fun to watch 30 adults scrambling to occupy six chairs once the music stops.
 
 

Throughout history, a number of presidential candidates have had personal baggage which, in modern times, might have ended their political career.

For example, it was lucky for Thomas Jefferson that FOX News wasn’t around to grill him on his affair with his slave Sally Hemings. And Lincoln probably wouldn’t have been elected had TMZ reported that honest Abe had once shared a bed with his male roommate. What would CNBC have said about Andrew Jackson being married to a bigamist? And I’m certain that had CNN been around in the 1950’s and ’60’s, they would have derailed the political aspirations of JFK and LBJ, both who were serial philanderers. But scandals are not nearly so common as are verbal gaffes, which, today, can sometimes do just as much damage to candidates as can a sexual indiscretion.

In a 1976 debate with challenger Jimmy Carter, President Ford (who assumed that mantle after Nixon resigned) remarked that Poland was not under Communist influence. That single comment cast doubts on Ford’s ability to deal with foreign affairs, and together with his pardon of Nixon, lost him the election. In 1988, George H.W. Bush made a pledge of “No new taxes”, then proceeded to break that pledge after being elected. It cost him a second term. In 2012 Texas Governor Rick Perry boasted that he had a plan to cut the budget by eliminating three federal agencies. However, during a televised debate, he forgot the name of the third agency. “Oops”, he said. And just last month, Ted Cruz tried to impress the voters of Indiana by re-creating a scene from the movie “Hoosiers” and referring to the basketball hoop as a “basketball ring.” It was the beginning of the end for “Lyin’ Ted.”

In a sense we’ve come to expect such missteps from presidential candidates, and that’s why network and cable reporters follow them around 24/7, just in case they might say something that could end a campaign. But what we don’t expect is for candidates’ wives to make the kinds of gaffes that might do serious damage. Yet, 2016 is replete with such spousal slips.

Anita Perry, wife of former Texas Governor Rick Perry, earlier this year announced that she was pro-choice. Rick, a born again Christian, hoped to put his 2012 “oops” moment behind him, and demonstrate to the Party faithful that HE was the most conservative candidate in 2016. Naturally he had to apologize for Anita’s remark, but the damage had been done.

Chris Christie’s wife Mary Pat never actually SAID anything to hurt her husband’s 2016 run for the White House, but if looks could kill, then Chris’ new BFF Donald Trump would have been dead last month. That’s when the Donald told a campaign rally that Hillary is playing the woman card, and that if Clinton were a man, she wouldn’t even get 5 percent of the vote. Mary Pat, who was standing directly behind and to the side of Trump, and was in plain view of the cameras, was visibly pissed by Donald’s sexist slur. It was a look of disdain that seemed to say, “I can’t believe my husband sucks up to this boar.” Her disapproving glance has done nothing to slow down the Trump train, but she was big news for a week, and Donald doesn’t tend to forget things like that.

Perhaps Heidi Cruz has had the roughest campaign season of all the candidate spouses. First her wacked-out husband Ted had his minions release a photo of a near nude Melania Trump, and implied that Americans can’t afford to have that sort of woman as First Lady. Trump countered by releasing a split screen image containing an unflattering photo of Heidi on the left, and a sexy photo of Melania on the right. The message was clear. Ted the wacko married an unattractive woman who wouldn’t make a very good impression as White House hostess. Poor Heidi was the victim of an internet war, but it wasn’t her fault. Nevertheless, it thrust her into the limelight, so naturally the news media started hanging on her every word. That turned out to be a bad thing for Ted because Heidi is a gaffe machine.

After spending more than a year trying to convince the public that his Cuban heritage and Canadian birth still made him a natural US citizen, Heidi told a gaggle of reporters that her husband “is an immigrant.” Ouch! Then, last week, Heidi compared Ted’s campaign to Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. By this time, Cruz had already suspended his campaign, but Heidi’s idiotic analogy only reinforced to voters that Ted’s life partner was as wacky as he was.

And finally we come to Jane Sanders, wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders. With all due respect to Bernie, Jane is a friggin’ big mouth buzz kill. Until a few weeks ago, Bernie’s movement was unstoppable. In addition to attracting thousands of new voters to his rallies, he was raising money to the tune of $45 million per month, all from average donations of $27. If he continued on that pace, he would become the first independent to have a real shot at the Democratic nomination, because Hillary’s super delegates would have to acquiesce to Bernie’s steamroller campaign. But all that came crashing down last month when Jane decided she wanted some face time on the networks. She opened her pie hole and out came these fatal words, “Bernie will not be a spoiler, and he’s definitely not going to run as a third party candidate.” In less than 30 seconds, Jane Sanders had done what Clinton couldn’t do in 10 months… she destroyed an entire movement. Days later, campaign contributions fell off, and the following week, Bernie announced he was laying off over 100 campaign workers. He also admitted that he would not be able to advertise as planned in most of the remaining primary states in order to save up for California. Thanks a lot Jane ! You broke the sacred rule of poker and politics. Never show your cards while the hand is still in play. If Mrs. Sanders had just kept quiet until the convention, it would have given Bernie more time to consider a third party run while he continued to keep his army engaged, and donations flowing. At the very least, he would have had much more leverage to influence the Party platform.

According to Libby Copeland of Slate.com, UVA political science professor Larry Sabato tweeted the following during the 2012 election, “Spouses please voters, but don’t change votes.” Maybe that was true four years ago, but in 2016, candidate spouses HAVE changed votes, just not in a good way. In any event, the primary season is almost over, and soon it will be up to Melanie Trump and Bill Clinton to do their worst. Maybe the pair will hook up in a debate. Or perhaps they will just hook up. Either way, I predict one or both of them will have an effect on the outcome of this year’s election. It remains to be seen just how.
 
 

Ever since HB2 was passed, the transgender lobby and the national news media have succeeded in bringing dishonor to our state by misleading and misinforming the public. Now, President Obama and his drama queen Attorney General have made matters worse by misapplying two historic acts to this controversy, and by circumventing two other branches of government in order to dictate policy to states and schools.

It is no coincidence that this mess sprung up just as Gov. McCrory’s approval ratings were rising from his leadership in passing a bi-partisan, $2 billion bond that will strengthen the very schools that Obama now seeks to harm. It is also no coincidence that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is running to unseat McCrory this fall, was MIA during the bond campaign, while fellow Democrats like former Lt. Governor Walter Dalton actively supported McCrory.

And it is no coincidence that Cooper has tacitly approved of companies and entertainers who have boycotted North Carolina over HB2. Cooper’s political motives can be addressed in another column. For now, it’s more important to review how and why the so-called “Bathroom Bill” came about, and what happens next.

Earlier this year, Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts pushed through an ordinance that would require all private businesses to accommodate transgender demands for access to bathrooms according to their gender identity. In doing so, Charlotte City Council overstepped its authority under the State Constitution, and by threatening to put their ordinance into effect on April 1, forced the Governor and General Assembly to respond with warp speed to block the illegal act. The result was House Bill 2. Unfortunately a handful of far-right-wing Republicans hijacked the bill and inserted discriminatory language and nut job provisions into it (like denying fired civil employees the right of redress in state court). McCrory, who only wanted to preserve privacy rights, was outflanked and outnumbered, so he signed HB2 figuring that a federal court would eventually clarify the privacy issue for all 50 states. Nevertheless, McCrory, a former seven-term consensus-building Mayor of Charlotte, and architect of the aforementioned education bond, was now painted by transgenders and the media as an intolerant villain. Meanwhile, a parade of hypocritical companies and entertainers began to boycott North Carolina. They threatened not to do business in our state until HB2 was repealed, even though they do business in other states with the same law as ours, and in foreign countries where gays and transgenders are routinely imprisoned and worse. Eventually this mess would have been sorted out, but instead of waiting for the courts to resolve the matter, President Obama poured fuel on the fire by directing his Attorney General to start issuing threats.

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, an African-American prosecutor born in Greensboro, threatened to rescind billions of dollars in federal funding for North Carolina schools if McCrory tried to enact HB2. It was a cruel threat which, if carried out, would impact most on students who could least afford the loss of funding. She gave the governor three days to bow to her threat, and the governor responded by suing the Department of Justice. Lynch who “identifies” as God, then countered with a lawsuit of her own. Obama humanely promised not to cut off any school funding while litigation was pending, but last Friday he, Lynch, and the Department of Education, fired another salvo. They issued a letter to 13,000 school districts across the country, telling them, in effect, to start allowing transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower areas in accordance with the gender to which they identify, OR ELSE. In doing so, Lynch overstepped her authority. The Attorney General is the President’s top cop, but cops don’t get to interpret the law. That’s the role of a judge. And cops don’t get to change laws. That’s the job of Congressmen. Speaking with FOX News, Judge Jeanine Pirro said, “The White House threat does not have the force of law. They cannot force the schools to do this. This is a local issue. This is a state issue. This is not about discrimination, it’s about accommodating students.” But Lynch thought she had legal standing by hiding behind Title VII and Title IX. In fact, she has no such standing.

The language in Title VII (Sec 703 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) is crystal-clear. It deals with discriminatory employment practices, not bathroom rules. It also does not extend protections to anyone who merely “identifies” with a particular race, color, religion, or sex. If it did, then why didn’t the Obama administration prosecute the Spokane NAACP for forcing out Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who “identified as black”? Moreover, Lynch should be ashamed of herself for comparing HB2 to the same kind of state-sponsored discrimination that blacks faced when whites were denying people of color, equal access to schools, restaurants, and housing. Her misplaced and selective outrage over civil rights rings hollow, including with members of the law enforcement community. While interviewed by Greta Van Susteren, David Clarke, an African-American sheriff from Milwaukee County remarked on “the cop-hating Department of Justice, led by a racist Attorney General.”

HB2 also does not violate Title IX, a law enacted in 1972 primarily to ensure female students that they would have access to educational and athletic programs on par with those of male students. The late Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana who led the charge for Title IX, was specific about the intent of the law, saying it would provide “an equal chance (for women) to attend the school of their choice…and to have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work.” Clearly transgender folks are already afforded those rights under Title IX, but they are not afforded the right to use gender-specific facilities according to whichever gender they identify with.

Apparently Ms. Lynch didn’t bother to actually read Title IX, or the ten criteria it established for determining if equal treatment existed among the sexes.

Criteria #7 deals with locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms which are defined as being “competitive facilities”. That means a transgender person is only guaranteed an equal facility, not the SAME shower as a student whose biological gender is one with which the transgender student “identifies.”

Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama are out of control and out of bounds by threatening to sue or cut funding to states who recognize biological gender as the rule of law. And they are out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who simply expect the right to privacy in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. If by some miracle our public schools are ever forced to let teenage boys shower with teenage girls, then I would urge all parents to pull their children out of public schools, and enroll them in private schools. I would then advise them to join a class action suit against the DOJ and DOE to reimburse them for the cost of private school tuition. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Last week a Virginia Beach pizza parlor erected a sign that says, “We have a men’s room, and we have a ladies’ room. If this confuses you, we can help.” Right now Obama and Lynch need a lot of help.
 
 

In one of his many inarticulate malapropistic moments, former President George W. Bush remarked, “[F]ool me once…shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.” No one knew exactly what he was trying to say, but the operative word here is “fool”. Bush was a fool who could be easily fooled, but that’s not saying much. The problem is that when Bush was fooled and manipulated by advisers, the American people then got fooled into thinking that what the President believed was actually true. This was especially true following the 9/11 attacks when neither the press nor the public questioned anything that the Foolin-Chief said.

At first we were told that al Qaeda terrorists acted alone on 9/11, and that no single nation was behind the attacks. Meanwhile behind the scenes, Bush was being advised that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown because he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and because he had supported the 9/11 terrorists, and was now ready to use his WMDs against America. Of course none of that was true, but even more disturbing is that one of the men advising Bush to invade Iraq was his close family friend, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States and later, the head of Saudi Intelligence. Bandar was so close to the President’s family that W. nicknamed him “Bandar Bush.” I’ll come back to Bandar in a moment.

And so, in 2003, Bush bombed, invaded, and occupied Iraq, and Hussein was deposed and eventually executed. But soon after the invasion began, Bush learned that Saddam never possessed any WMDs, nor did he ever pose a threat to anyone other than regional terrorists groups who he had ruthlessly kept at bay. Instead of halting the bombing raids and admitting his mistake, Bush doubled down, and expanded the war effort, saying that terrorists were operating in neighboring countries. The war continued in one form or another throughout the Bush Presidency, at which time over 6,000 American soldiers were needlessly killed, along with over one million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who the “Fool Me” man considered collateral damage. I considered it genocide, and called for Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes. That never happened. What did happen was a war that lined the pockets of Cheney’s former company and cost American taxpayers nearly$3 trillion to wage.

As if all of this is not disturbing enough, last year we began to hear about how 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report had been classified by Bush, and was not to be released under any circumstances. Only a handful of people, including North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, knew what was contained in those 28 pages of redacted material, and now they are calling for President Obama to de-classify the entire report. Sometime next month Obama, Congress, and perhaps the Courts will determine whether it’s in the best interest of America to make public the missing 28 pages. So what’s the big deal? Why did George Bush keep the 28 pages secret? The answer is “Bandar Bush”.

According to an article by New York Post writer Paul Sperry, a CIA memo that was leaked in 2013 found, “incontrovertible evidence that Saudi government officials… and intelligence officers employed by the Kingdom …helped the hijackers both financially and logistically…and implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington.”

Lawrence Wright of the New Yorker expanded upon that report when interviewed by Bill Maher on HBO’s “Real Time” last month. Said Wright, “That 28 pages is about the Saudi support network for the hijackers who came to America… and Prince Bandar and his wife are implicated in the report.”

Sperry is more specific about their support, writing, “Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Saudi agent Osama Bassman while he was handling two of the hijackers (after they landed in America).

“There are two reasons why those pages haven’t been released,” says Wright.

“One is it’s going to embarrass the Saudis, and the other is it’s going to embarrass the American intelligence community… the CIA found out about these hijackers when they arrived in Los Angeles in March of 2000.”

If analysis of the leaked memo and redacted pages is correct, then that means Prince Bandar was effectively acting as a double agent, pretending to be a friend of President Bush and advising him on military matters, while helping to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. VeteransToday.com goes one step further, writing that, “Bandar is believed to have been chief of operations for al Qaeda.”

This is shocking information on many levels. First it means that a foreign terrorist leader had unfettered access to the President, his family, and the White House. Second it means that Bush was responsible for the deaths of over a million people because his “godfather” Prince Bandar, had his own agenda, which included deposing Saddam and destabilizing the region. Third, the families of 9/11 victims were told there was no one they could seek reparations from, since the 9/11 attacks were not state-sponsored. If the 28 pages are made public, those families will finally be empowered to seek damages. Fourth, it means we should revisit the possibility of a war crimes trial of Bush, Cheney, AND Bandar.

And just to rub salt in our wounds, the flights that Bush arranged on September 13 for the bin Laden family members and other Saudi officials, now take on a whole new meaning. Just before those flights were authorized, Bandar was seen meeting with Bush in the Oval Office. After that meeting, coincidentally 142 Saudi officials and family members were allowed to leave America, while a ban on travel applied to everyone else. In 2004, Sen. Chuck Schumer told Judicial Watch, “It’s awfully strange that on September 13, the only plane allowed to fly was a plane with many high ranking Saudi nationals who might have known something about terrorism.” Not so strange when you consider that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

George Bush might have been fooled by Bandar and Cheney, but the rest of us can’t afford to “get fooled again.” It’s time to release the 28 pages.
 
 

In December of 2012, ESPN fired Rob Parker, a respected African American sports journalist, for relaying an observation he had heard about Redskins QB Robert Griffith III. Here’s what happened. It seems that RG3 had been asked by USA Today about being a black quarterback, and Griffith said, “You don’t have to be defined by the color of your skin…you want to be defined by your work ethic, your character, your personality.” The next day, while appearing on ESPN’s First Take show, Parker said, “The guys I talk to at the barbershop say he’s black, but that he’s not really down with the cause…he’s not the guy you’d want to hang out with. He’s a cornball brother.” That remark got Parker suspended for one month, during which time he made a public apology, and planned to return to work after his suspension was over. Instead, ESPN fired Parker, saying, “Rob Parker’s contract expired at year’s end. Evaluating our needs and his work, including his recent RG3 comments, we decided not to renew.”

As I pointed out in my January 19, 2013 column, ESPN’s decision to fire Parker was arbitrary and misdirected. Back then, First Take’s motto was “embrace the debate,” and that’s what Rob had done by offering two sides to the RG3 issue, specifically the old-fashioned, conservative black side. Rob’s older, barbershop cronies were none too impressed with RG3 being all about his brand, and not so much about his team, thus their “cutting” remarks (no pun intended). Also, not only did Parker do what he was supposed to do (debate), he was fired over a remark he didn’t even make. He simply repeated what he had heard in an African American barbershop.

The same day Parker was fired, ESPN’s PC Police also took aim at legendary broadcaster Brent Musberger. Why? While doing play-by-play for the Alabama/Notre Dame game, Brent noticed that the director had trained his cameras on Katherine Webb, girlfriend of Bama’s QB A.J. McCarron, and a former Miss Alabama beauty queen. Musberger said, “You quarterbacks get all the good-looking women. What a beautiful woman!” Musberger’s comment made an instant celebrity out of Ms. Webb, whose Twitter following went from 526 to 150,000 within minutes. The next day, ESPN’s Mike Soltys said, “We apologize that the commentary in this instance went too far, and Brent understands that.” The 73-year-old Musberger was made to apologize for doing nothing wrong. Even Ms. Webb came to his defense, saying, “It was kind of nice…for a woman to be called beautiful, I don’t see how that’s an issue. I don’t see why any woman wouldn’t be flattered by that.” Her message was lost on the ESPN brass.

And so what did we learn from the Parker and Musberger incidents? We learned that if you’re black, you can’t offer a conservative view of a black player, and if you’re a white man, you can’t call a white woman beautiful. Sounds ridiculous, but sadly, it appears to be indicative of how ESPN metes out justice.

In the intervening years, ESPN has continued to police the speech of its employees, including an attempt to make former Red Sox hero Curt Schilling drink their PC Kool-Aid. Last year, Schilling was suspended for writing the following comment on his personal Twitter page, “It’s said that only 5 to 10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?” Schilling’s comment was factual, and shouldn’t have stirred any controversy. In fact, his words would have been celebrated in Europe. According to Slate.com’s William Saletan, in Germany, for example, it is a crime to make comments that “minimize” Nazi atrocities. But here in America a sports announcer can get suspended for actually recognizing those atrocities. In any event, Schilling apologized, served his suspension, then returned to the broadcast booth—at least for awhile.

Last week, ESPN fired Schilling for posting a comment about North Carolina’s transgender “bathroom bill”. Tweeted Schilling, “A man is a man, no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, the men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.” Accompanying the quote was a photo of an overweight man dressed in women’s clothing, with the caption, “Let him into the restroom with your daughter, or else you’re a narrowminded, judgmental, unloving, racist bigot who needs to die!” Again, Curt did not create that photo, he only shared it. Ironically, though, his firing by ESPN only validated the humorous narrative that accompanied the photo.

On April 28, Schilling fired back at his former employer, telling SI.com that, “some of the biggest racists” he knows work at ESPN, but that they get by with it because their opinions reflect a liberal slant. He cited Stephen A. Smith, who once said that RG3 wasn’t playing QB because he was black. Smith still has a job at ESPN, but Rob Parker doesn’t because his RG3 comment reflected a conservative view. Schilling, Parker, and other broadcasters have learned that there’s a difference between free speech and fired speech.

Unfortunately the US Constitution only guarantees us the right of free speech insofar as governmental redress is concerned. In other words, the Feds can’t arrest Curt Schilling for his tweets, but ESPN is free to muzzle him while he’s in their employ. Let me be clear. I abhor hate speech, even to the point of calling for criminalization of internet defamation. But so long as what you say is factual and not malicious, then no employer should have the right to fire you for expressing an opinion on your own time, at least not without having first clarified their limited speech policy prior to hiring you. Otherwise termination becomes arbitrary. In this politically correct society of ours, it seems that only a powerful employer is allowed to utter hate speech, so long as it consists of just two words: “You’re fired!”
 
 

An article in last week’s Wall Street Journal suggested that if Bernie Sanders has any chance at all of securing the Democratic nomination, he must win over black voters in large numbers, and that’s something he hasn’t been able to do thus far. It’s a perplexing problem for a man who has spent his entire adult life fighting for civil rights.

The lack of African-American support in this year’s primaries has also baffled the senator’s leading black supporters, among them Spike Lee, Senator Bill Perkins of Harlem, Senator James Sanders of Queens, Representative Clem Smith of Missouri, former NAACP head Ben Jealous, Professor Cornel West, New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, and super delegate David Bowen. These and many other influential black leaders have worked hard to remind their constituents what Bernie has meant to the minority community, but their message has mostly fallen on deaf ears. Despite their efforts, it’s Hillary Clinton, not Bernie, who has sewn up the African-American vote in every primary to date, including in states like South Carolina where she out gained Sanders 74 percent to 17 percent.

Political pundits suggest that Hillary enjoys solid support among African-Americans because she and her husband have been perceived as civil rights advocates for over two decades. Moreover, the Clintons have been lifelong Democrats, and are politically savvy when it comes to nurturing their liberal base and raising money for fellow Dems. Having said that, however, I believe the main reason for Hillary’s lead over Bernie among black voters has more to do with political histrionics than it does political history. Simply put, Bernie has rarely sought out the cameras whenever he worked for the African-American community, while Hillary has made a career out of public pandering and posturing. Had Bernie been Bill Clinton’s running mate in 1992 and 1996, and had he been skilled at media relations, then Hillary would be the one trailing in black votes today.

But so much for theories as to why Ms. Clinton enjoys overwhelming minority support. Let’s turn now instead to some facts that Spike Lee and others are desperately trying to drive home to black voters.

In 1963 Bernie Sanders marched to Washington to hear Dr. King give his historic “I Have a Dream” speech. Afterwards, Bernie was inspired to activism, not the kind you talk about, but the kind you actually do. In fact, on one occasion Bernie found himself being assaulted and arrested by Chicago police because he participated in a protest against segregated schools.

In the 1980’s Bernie, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, opened his state’s first public day care center, reduced electric bills for low-income families, and was responsible for increasing voter participation by 250 percent.

When running for Governor of Vermont in 1986, Bernie was asked to speak to an annual meeting of Reverend Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, where Sanders inspired that group to pursue an aggressive political agenda. Then, in 1988 after Jackson announced his candidacy to become America’s first African-American president, Bernie invited Rev. Jackson to Vermont, and is credited with handing Jesse a victory in that state’s primary. It was no small feat considering that Vermont’s population is nearly all white.

Yet despite Bernie’s track record on civil rights, Hillary has managed to convince most African-American voters that she is their best hope, and she has done so by re-writing history. One example is Clinton claiming that she and President Barack Obama are BFFs. In fact Hillary and Obama were bitter enemies in their 2008 run for the white House. During that campaign Mrs. Clinton repeatedly called into question Obama’s experience and readiness to lead our nation. And when asked why black voters should choose her over a man of color, Hillary said that it took LBJ to enact Dr. King’s vision. It was Hillary’s way of saying only a white president can enact the black agenda. At another 2008 rally, Hillary told a mainly white crowd that she, not Obama, had the support of “hard working Americans—white Americans.” (source: HotAir.com, September 2015) And as if it’s not bad enough that Hillary now pretends to be President Obama’s closest ally, she is also re-writing history when it comes to her stand on important issues. This year she has painted Bernie as a shill for the gun lobby, while stating that she has been consistently for gun control. But back in 2008 Mrs. Clinton was so anti gun control that Obama referred to her as “Annie Oakley”. Now fast forward to 2016 and Hillary is telling her African-American supporters that most of the violent crimes committed in New York in 2014 were committed with guns from Vermont. But CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s fact check revealed that only 1.2 percent of the violent crimes in New York involved guns from Vermont. Also, in addition to lying about crime statistics, Hillary also doesn’t mind pandering to crime victim’s families, such as suggesting that Bernie’s refusal to make gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths is the reason for the Sandy Hook massacre.

It’s no wonder that Wendy Sejour, an African-American woman who grew up in inner-city New Orleans said, “I’ve never understood the appeal of the Clinton charm with the black vote.” Ms. Sejour isn’t the only one. Unfortunately, the truth about Bernie’s advocacy and Hillary’s pandering just isn’t resonating with minority voters. Professor West told Bill Maher that once black folks meet “brother Bernie”, learn about his activism, and listen to his message, they will gravitate to him. But time is running out, and Hillary is within striking distance of the nomination.

If the majority of African-Americans start voting for Bernie in the remaining primaries, then Bernie could pull into a virtual tie with Hillary for pledged delegates.

At that point, it would be incumbent upon Hillary’s super delegates to re-think their loyalty to the Party machine, and instead support the man who can best beat Trump or Cruz in November.

While speaking to an African-American audience recently about income inequality, Bernie paraphrased Dr. King, saying, “What good does it do to have civil rights and voting rights, if you can’t afford the price of a damn hamburger!” Clearly right now Hillary gets black votes, but Bernie actually gets black voters. It’s a shame they don’t get him.
 
 

A couple of weeks ago, an irate reader emailed me to say that I was a “moron” for suggesting that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump might run as Independents this fall. Well, I might just be half a moron because last week, Bernie’s wife Jane said that should Hillary get the Democratic nomination, the Sanders clan would support the Clinton clan. If that’s really a done deal, then I wasted my vote in last month’s primary, and I’ll be very disappointed in Bernie for abandoning his reforms in favor of party politics. Nevertheless, if Bernie loses the nomination and goes home to Vermont, there’s still one other candidate who might break ranks and run as an independent. If Donald Trump has the GOP nomination stolen from him, I still think he’ll bolt the party, and continue his quest for the White House as an independent.

In the meantime, and prior to Mrs. Sanders’ announcement, I spent some time researching what happens if we have three or four major presidential candidates running against each other in the general election. The scenario I suggested in my earlier column has Hillary and Ted Cruz winning their party’s respective nominations, and Bernie and Donald running as independents. I then studied all of the primary results to date, and assigned winners to the remaining states. Of course, each primary had a winner from each party, so I had to extrapolate my simulated vote margins based on which party winner had the stronger showing, and how that vote might be split four ways if two independents are factored into the equation on November 8.

Using this unscientific method, I awarded the states to candidates thusly:

• Clinton: Arkansas, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
• Cruz: Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
• Trump: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, and New Jersey.
• Sanders: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

That translates to roughly 178 electoral votes for Bernie, 154 for Hillary, 140 for Trump, and 66 for Cruz. Clearly, under this scenario, none of the four would amass the requisite 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. If that should happen, the matter of choosing our next president would fall to the House of Representatives. And so I consulted with two Congresspersons and their staffs, and asked them to explain the process that would be involved in this hypothetical dog fight. Here, then, in a nutshell, is what would happen.

According to the 12th Amendment, the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes would advance to the next round. Using my model, that would eliminate Ted Cruz. The House of Representatives would then order all 50 states to poll their electors and select the candidate they want for president out of the remaining three.

The catch is, each state would have only one vote regardless of their population, so whichever candidate gets 26 votes, would win the presidency. Here’s where it gets really interesting because with Ted Cruz out, then the six states who allocated their vote to him, would have to select from the remaining three candidates. Again, based on previous primary results, I think Trump would pick up Texas and Kentucky, while Bernie would grab Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. A review of the math would then give Bernie 25 state votes, Trump gets 14, and Hillary receives 11 (D.C. cannot be counted as a state in this round). At this point, the 12th Amendment isn’t clear on what happens next, so we have to assume that a second state vote would be taken and, in the interim, electors in one of Trump’s states would be persuaded to change their vote. If Trump persuaded all 12 of his states to switch to Hillary, she still wouldn’t have the requisite 26 votes (states) to win. But if just one Trump state switched to Sanders, then Bernie’s total would be 26, and he would win the White House. Trump loves to brag about his importance and influence, so that leads me to believe he would swing one or all of his states over to Bernie.

I know this scenario is convoluted, but it would actually be a more democratic way of selecting a president than what we usually settle for, i.e., larger states having more say than smaller states, the imperial Electoral College overriding popular vote totals, and, in some instances, the Supreme Court overruling everyone. So here’s hoping we all get to have a 3-way this fall, or maybe even a 4-way. It would be kinky, but fun.
 
 

Teddy Roosevelt did it. So did George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Ross Perot. So why not Bernie Sanders? I’m talking, of course, about men who have run for President on a third party ticket. True, none of them were successful in their bid, but there were a couple of close calls.

After having served two terms as President and hand picking William Taft as his successor, Teddy Roosevelt later felt betrayed by Taft’s politics and policies, so he challenged his former friend for the Republican nomination in 1912. Then, in a scenario that only Donald Trump could appreciate, Teddy won the majority of primaries, but fell just short of the delegates needed, opening the door for Taft and his party hacks to control the nominating process. Teddy and his delegates stormed out of the convention and TR ran as a third party candidate. In the end, Roosevelt finished second, and succeeded only in siphoning votes from Taft, thus assuring Wilson of the win.

In 1992, billionaire businessman Ross Perot launched a third party campaign for President because he felt neither incumbent George H.W. Bush nor his Democratic challenger Bill Clinton were committed to solving the country’s economic problems, particularly with respect to reducing the deficit. In the early going, Perot found himself in a virtual three-way tie with Bush and Clinton, even leading the pack in some polls. But after dropping out of the race, then re-entering it again, Perot’s numbers fell to about 19 percent. So why then, if he fails to win the Democratic nomination, would Bernie Sanders fare any better as a third party candidate than did Roosevelt or Perot? I’ll give you several good reasons.

First of all, Bernie is better funded than any other third party candidate has ever been, and will continue to be so. When he wins a primary he raises lots of money, but when he loses, he raises even more money. He constantly outpaces other candidates in terms of fundraising ($140 million total as of last week), and there’s no indication that the well will run dry if he launches a third party bid this summer.

Second, Bernie has an unprecedented following among young and first time voters. His message resonates with those supporters, and they, in turn, present him with a unique ability to attract thousands of people at his rallies, while reaching millions through social media. Bernie’s army will also come in handy should he need to collect petitions in order to get on the ballot in all 50 States.

Third, Bernie has time on his side. He can continue to participate in the rest of the primaries without depleting his war chest, while raising his popular vote totals to as many as 13 or 14 million by July. Then if party bosses and Hillary’s super delegates toss him aside at the convention, Sanders can bolt the hall, and formally launch his third party campaign with a well organized, loyal, and hard working operation already in place.

Clearly there are many reasons why Bernie would fare better than other independent Presidential candidates have throughout history, but the question is, why should he even try? The answer is because once Hillary is crowned in Philadelphia, Bernie’s forward thinking policy proposals will never be incorporated into the party platform. Instead, issues like Medicare for all, free tuition, and repeal of NAFTA will be swept aside like so much torn bunting and burst balloons. When that happens, I can’t see Bernie just giving up and going home, as if everything he’s worked for never counted for anything. That’s why I believe he will be compelled to continue his quest.

OK, so let’s say Bernie announces a third party run immediately after the Democratic convention. Does he then have a clear path to the White House? Absolutely. For one thing, Americans no longer fear outsiders, they celebrate them. In fact, a 2011 Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of us support the idea of a third party president. For another thing, Bernie wouldn’t just be a Hillary spoiler in a three-way race. Remember, he already beats Trump and Cruz in head to head match-ups by a wider margin than Hillary, so it’s more than probable that he could muster 34 percent of the vote in a three-way contest, and win the election by a simple majority. Of course, there’s always the possibility that Bernie won’t be the only major party defector this fall. If Republican bosses broker a candidate other than Trump, then the brash billionaire might launch his own independent run for the White House. With Clinton, Sanders, Cruz and Trump comprising a four-way contest, Bernie would again have an easy path to the Oval Office by winning just 26 percent of the vote. I’m not delusional, it could actually happen, and if Bernie makes history, he would fittingly do so the same way that he’s won other elections – as an Independent.

I sincerely hope Bernie will vow to stay in the race not just through July, but onto November. We need his vision, compassion, and conviction, not just as a media prop for the primaries, but as a template for real reform.
 
 

Late last month, Charlotte City Council opened up a can of worms about how men and women use the can. Specifically its new ordinance would have allowed transgender persons to use public restrooms based on the gender to which they identify. The ordinance was to go into effect on April 1. In response, the North Carolina General Assembly met in special session last week and passed HB2, The Public Facilities and Privacy Act, which, in effect, vacated the Queen City ordinance. Since then, a host of corporations, organizations, news agencies, columnists, and elected officials have criticized HB2. Some have even threatened to punish our State with bans, boycotts, and relocation.

The NBA issued a statement on March 24 which implied that it might not hold its All-Star game in Charlotte next year unless HB2 is repealed. Meanwhile, Facebook, Apple, American Airlines, PayPal, and other companies have publicly condemned HB2, implying the threat of moving their operations out of the State. Then there’s San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee who has banned his employees from any non-essential travel to North Carolina. Adding fuel to the fire was Greensboro News & Record columnist Susan Ladd who wrote that passage of HB2 “conflicts with Title IX gender equity law, possibly risking $4 billion in federal education funds.” The AP reported that the new law will “deal a blow to the LGBT movement,” while the Charlotte Observer said HB2 nullifies local ordinances that would protect gays from being fired due to sexual orientation. The problem is that all of these knee jerk threats and reactions are based on misinformation.

First of all, the Charlotte ordinance not only would have allowed transgender persons to use the public facility of their choice, it would have required private businesses to, for example, accommodate transgender men who identify as a woman, to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms. In so doing, Charlotte Council superseded its authority under the State Constitution. Thus, the ordinance forced the General Assembly to act, and it did so in a bipartisan fashion. Eleven House Democrats voted for HB2, and when a number of Senate Democrats were prepared to do the same, Democrat leaders staged a walk-out, claiming they had not been allowed to participate in the process. The walk-out was politically motivated and disingenuous.

Governor McCrory told the News & Record, “I empathize with (transgender) people on this issue, but that doesn’t mean that 99 percent of people have to adjust to empathize with a few people who are dealing with a very tough issue.” McCrory was right. Charlotte City Council acted irresponsibly, and demonstrated a brazen disregard for the privacy rights of the so-called 99 percent.

Now to the myths being propagated by critics of HB2. Contrary to what Ms. Ladd opined, North Carolina is not necessarily at risk of losing $4 billion in federal education funds because at least one federal court has already ruled against such action in a similar case. And what about all of the companies lining up to say how appalled they are by HB2? Perhaps they should have read the bill more carefully before taking a stand. The fact is that HB2 allows private businesses and universities to accommodate transgender employees and customers in any way they so choose, and they can adopt any non-discrimination policy they want. Moreover, HB2 allows private and public facilities to offer single-use bathrooms, where only one person (of any gender) can occupy the facility at a time. And HB2 places no restrictions on restrooms and locker rooms at privately owned sports facilities. In addition, the AP was wrong in stating that HB2 dealt a blow to gays and lesbians. And, the Charlotte Observer was wrong in reporting that HB2 would allow employers to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation. HB2 clearly states that North Carolina opposes discriminatory hiring practices, and affirms that the Human Relations Commission of the Department of Administration will review all charges of discrimination filed by the EEOC.

Much of the heated rhetoric and misguided ill will about HB2 stems from people who believe that gays and lesbians are somehow being targeted and discriminated against by the new law. It does not and they are not. In large part, it is a combative and uncompromising transgender movement that triggered this recent firestorm. Further, as I pointed out in my columns of June 15, 2013 and December 2, 2015, parents of Transgender students have largely been the driving force behind the movement’s vitriolic campaign for unrealistic reforms when it comes to use of public facilities.

When threatened with legal action by parents of alleged transgender students, school officials in Illinois, Colorado, Massachusetts, and other states have tried to accommodate the needs of those students by offering any number of compromises, none of which were acceptable to the parents. One Colorado principal offered a male transgender student the use of the school nurse’s private bathroom, but the boy’s parents demanded that their son be allowed use of the girls’ restrooms and locker rooms instead. Enlightened educators in those states are sympathetic to transgender students, but they also have a responsibility to meet the needs of and protect all children under their care. One District 211 school official told the Chicago Tribune, “The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy. Our responsibility as school administrators is to protect the privacy rights of all of our students.” In addition, Andrew Beckwith of the Massachusetts Family Institute told the AP, “Boys need to use boys’ restrooms, and we base that on anatomical sex, not some sort of internalized gender identity.” Beckwith also warned that policies being forced upon local schools by federal courts, “put transgender kids at higher risk for ‘peer ostracism, victimization, and bullying.”

LGBT advocacy groups in Charlotte and other cities have pushed their agenda on politicians who want to appear politically correct, but they’ve only gained traction when attaching their cause to those of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Frankly that act is wearing a bit thin. Roughly 60 percent of North Carolinians support same sex marriage, but that same percentage is opposed to biological men using women’s restrooms. Meanwhile many gays and lesbians are none too happy about having their fight for equal rights lumped into a battle over gender identity. Gays and lesbians are in a constant struggle to obtain and retain their basic rights, like the right to secure a marriage license from religious nuts in the magistrate’s office, their right to adopt children, their right to make medical decisions for each other, and their right not to be discriminated against in the workplace. In other words, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals only want the same rights as everyone else – no special accommodations, no special privileges. Nor do gays and lesbians make demands that will inconvenience or otherwise violate the privacy rights of others. The same cannot be said of the transgender movement.

No doubt the North Carolina General Assembly is riddled with a few backward thinking homophobes who will hopefully be replaced this fall, but threats from the transgender movement do nothing to advance the causes that are so crucial to a better quality of life for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. That’s why it’s time for the LGBT movement to jettison the “T” from their name, and focus on their singular cause, which should not be encumbered by the demands of persons who are no longer comfortable with their own gender.
 
 

Next Saturday the ACLU will hold its annual Liberty Awards ceremony in Chapel Hill. Darryl Hunt was scheduled to appear and be honored for his work in promoting justice and ending the death penalty. Sadly, that much-deserved award will now be made posthumously. Darryl died on March 12, at the age of 51.

In 1984 Darryl was wrongfully accused and later convicted of murdering Deborah Sykes, a former copy editor at the Twin City Sentinel. He spent nearly 20 years in prison, all the while professing his innocence. Finally on December 22, 2003, Willard Brown confessed to the murder and Darryl was released from prison two days later. His conviction was formally vacated on February 6, 2004. Several weeks later Darryl appeared on Triad Today for his first in-depth television interview since being freed. It would be the first of many visits he would make to our studio, mostly to talk about his Project for Innocence and Justice.

Over the past year, Darryl battled depression and stage IV cancer. On March 13, police found him locked inside of his car, dead from what they described as a selfinflicted gunshot wound. Those of us who knew Darryl were shocked and saddened by the way he left us, but thankful that he was finally at peace.

Much has been written about this quiet, humble man, but I thought it best to let Darryl speak for himself. As such, what follows are excerpts from some of the conversations we had on Triad Today over the years.

(March 3, 2004) JL: If I were in your place, I would be so angry at the system, at the
District Attorney, at everybody. Yet you seem to have this aura of inner peace about you. How is that?

DH: I just use my faith, My faith keeps me strong. It kept me strong while I was in prison.

JL: But you were locked up for nearly twenty years for something you didn’t do. What was going through your mind all that time?

DH: Well it’s human nature that you become angry, but I relied on my faith, and I truly believe that if you really believe in God, then you let God handle the difficult problems.

JL: Was there ever a time when you were ready to give up and say, “I might as well commit suicide because I’m going to be in here forever?” Did anything like that go through your mind?

DH: No, not suicide, but you get to the point where things just continue to go wrong, so you really have to draw on your faith. That’s what I used to do because it was just days of depression, and I was always asking God
“Are you listening?” Then it would seem like I would get a letter or card from somebody, and that would be His answer to my question.

JL: Some people, even some members of the Sykes family still think you had something to do with Deborah’s murder. How do you feel about that, and do you understand why they think that way? was told the same things for twenty years, you tend to believe that, and it becomes engrained in you. So when somebody comes up to you and says, “What we told you wasn’t the truth, now this is the truth”, now it’s up to you to let go of whatever it was. Truth is sometimes like that. The Sykes family lost their daughter, and that’s hard in itself. You can’t replace a daughter.

JL: How was it being married while you were in prison?

DH: The day that we was married was the day after the Supreme Court had turned me down for a new trial. So I didn’t think we was going to get married because the chances of ever getting out was looking slimmer.

JL: You thought you’d be in prison forever?

DH: Yeah. So she (April) told me I must be crazy. She said, “This is forever. If I don’t get you in this lifetime, I’ll get you in the next.”

JL: Pretty romantic.

DH: Yeah. She’s always been my rock.

The person that I always count on.

JL: Anything you regret about your life before all this happened? Anything you’ve tried to work on?

DH: My biggest and only regret that I have about my prior life is that I dropped out of school.

JL: But you’re going back to school now.

DH: Yes, at Winston Salem State.

JL: What do you want to do with the rest of your life?

DH: I want the Darryl Hunt Defense Committee to be changed to the Committee for Social Justice, to help guys who are in prison find a nice job coming out of prison.

(February 15, 2006) A documentary, “The Trials of Darryl Hunt” had recently been shown at film festivals around the country, and was

DH: Yes I understand it because if you scheduled for a screening at the Stevens Center in April.

JL: The documentary tells about how, at one point, the prosecutors offered to let you off with time served if you confessed to the murder. And you said?

DH: I told them I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t live with myself pleading to something I didn’t do, and it was wrong, and I thought Ms. Sykes’ family deserved to know (the truth).

JL: Did anything good come out of being in prison all those years?

DH: The way I was able to survive nineteen years in prison was I always think of something positive. I met my wife, my faith grew stronger. There were a whole lot of positive things.

JL: The Darryl Hunt project is up and running. Remind us what it’s all about.

DH: We’re working with other innocence projects around the State, trying to get
innocent people out of prison. The other thing is we work with otherorganizations to help people coming out of prison to really adjust. There are a lot of organizations out there, but they really don’t understand what people go through in prison, and how to break that cycle.

(November 17, 2010) On this day our discussion focused mainly on job placement for former prisoners.

JL: What are the misperceptions most people (and employers) have about someone who has just been released from prison?

DH: Most people think that they are violent, and are going to continue to rob and steal, and that’s not the case. Most guys coming out of prison want to be able to take care of their family and take care of themselves.

(February 15, 2012) JL: Give us an update on your Project for Freedom and Justice.

DH: We try to help who we call “Homecomers”, people coming from prison, coming back home. And we try to help them find housing, clothing, a job, offer financial literacy, job readiness classes and counseling. One of the biggest things is counseling, where we help those guys understand the transition from prison to life.

JL: How many men have you served since you began the project?

DH: Since we started the project in 2005, we’ve served almost 5,000 people.

JL: Do you have a handle on how successful the project has been?

DH: From the count I had a couple of weeks ago, we only had 10 people we know of who actually went back to prison for different violations.

JL: The services that you provide have really made a difference for these men.

DH: Yes. It builds self esteem to be able to have an opportunity for people to believe in what they’re doing.

Most people will remember Darryl Hunt as the man who was wrongfully convicted of a brutal murder. But to thousands of former prisoners, Darryl will be remembered as the man who helped them overcome adversity and start a new life. In the end, the only person Darryl couldn’t help was himself. It is a tragic irony, but one filled with the hope that his work will continue.
 
 

If ever there was an example of a pot calling the kettle black, Mitt Romney gave it to us earlier this month when he launched into an all-out verbal assault on Donald Trump. Speaking before the Hinkley Institute in Salt lake City on March 3, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee attacked Trump for a host of character flaws, calling the New York billionaire a “phony and a fraud,” among other things.

So why the speech? And why now? The reason is that Romney and the GOP establishment have become increasingly concerned that a Trump nomination would fracture the Party, and hand the White House right back to the Democrats. I understand their motive, and perhaps it was inevitable that someone from the Republican Party would step forward to expose “The Donald”. Unfortunately, “Mitt the Hypocrite” wasn’t the right man for that job. Here are a few reasons why.

ENDORSEMENT

During his Salt Lake speech, Romney said, “If Donald Trump is our nominee, the prospect for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.” Mitt then asked the audience a rhetorical question, “But isn’t Trump a huge business success? Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about? No he isn’t, and no he doesn’t. A business genius he isn’t.” The problem with those statements is that when running for President four years ago, Romney sought and received a ringing endorsement from Trump, and Mitt, in turn, showered high praise on Donald, saying, “Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works to create jobs for the American people.” Oops! Who’s the phony now?

SUCKERS

Another hypocritical statement Romney made is when he said Trump is “playing the American public for suckers.” Again, let’s go back and look at Romney’s own campaign for the Presidency. When appearing in public, Mitt pandered to all demographics, but when secretly recorded at a September, 2012 address to white big-money donors, Romney railed against disenfranchised people, using racist code language. Said Mitt, “There are 47% who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon government, … who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing…they will vote for the President no matter what.” And as if that bigoted statement wasn’t bad enough, Mitt the misogynist also played women voters for suckers. During one of his debates with President Obama, Romney tried to show how enlightened he was about women in the workplace. He said that as governor he sought females for his cabinet, so he sent his staff out to put together a “binder full of women.” The message was clear. Mitt didn’t actually know any qualified women. None. By the way, according to a story by Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post, 42% of Mitt’s initial gubernatorial appointments were women, but by his second year in office, the number of women in those high-level jobs fell to 27%. I guess he misplaced his binder.

BANKRUPTCIES

Earlier this month, Mitt took great pleasure in poking fun at some of Trump’s business ventures that had been forced to declare bankruptcy. He also said that Donald’s most recognizable personal quality is “greed.” In other words, Trump is just out to make money and doesn’t care who he steps on, or hurts along the way. Hey Mitt, look in a mirror, buddy. If ever there was a greedy job destroyer it is Mitt Romney. As head of Bain Capital, Romney constantly profited from the misfortune of others, making hundreds of millions of dollars by orchestrating leveraged buy-outs which resulted in plant closings and lay-offs. Kay Bee Toys is a prime example of Romney’s greed. Prior to being bought by Bain, Kay Bee was the nation’s second largest toy store valued at $305 million dollars. Romney and Bain put up just $18 million in cash, and borrowed the rest against Kay Bee’s assets. Romney the vulture capitalist then restructured Kay Bee and paid himself and his Bain buddies a staggering $85 million in dividends. Kay Bee soon went bankrupt and had to close 460 stores. Thousands of people lost their jobs, but Bain walked away with a 372% return on investment. And Mitt calls Trump greedy?

BULLYING

Romney characterized Trump as a “bully,” and he’s right. Donald has run off at the mouth and said some insensitive things about women, hispanics, and the disabled. No one is defending that kind of behavior. But as far as we know, Trump has never physically bullied anyone. The same cannot be said for Mitt the hypocrite. When he was eighteen years old, Mitt and a gang of his private school buddies terrorized a gay youth who had long hair. “He can’t look like that,” Mitt said to his homophobic friends. He then led the gang of five in a cruel assault on the student. They held the young man down against his will, and while he screamed for help, Romney cut off the man’s hair. To date, all of the attackers but Mitt have come forward to confess and apologize. Romney’s only comment? He apologized for “pranks he helped orchestrate that might have gone too far.”

I don’t support Donald Trump, nor do I condone his malicious bluster. But if you want to expose a political figure with character flaws, look no further than the racist, homophobic, misogynist, bully Mitt Romney.