ConservativeBlog.org

While it may not have received a lot of attention, there was a recent major announcement in real estate and banking that could have a substantial impact on minority and working class homeownership.

United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM), a large home loan lender, made an aggressive move by announcing that it would no longer work with brokers who work with smaller lenders Rocket Mortgage and Fairway Independent. UWM is opposed to the direct-to-consumer models used by these companies.

In a Newsmax commentary, Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper calls this new policy “bizarre, anticompetitive – and unethical.” He also says it would have “discriminatory impact.” In making this case, Horace writes:

As a result, [brokers] will not be able to effectively shop rates and products from the entire pool of lenders. Fewer choices for consumers will likely lead to higher costs and rates and thus fewer homeownership opportunities.

Higher costs and interest rates are never a good idea, but this is particularly true for the working class and minorities.

Horace notes that disparities exist – such as low incomes, credit problems and a lack of overall wealth – that impact minority and working class households. This shrinks options, and raises the possibility of even those who qualify for loans risking foreclosure during an economic downturn because the best options were not available to them.

That being said, homeownership is not something that should be avoided:

Homeownership has historically been an important means for all Americans to accumulate wealth — in fact, at more than $15 trillion, housing equity accounts for 16% of total U.S. household wealth. Homeownership doesn’t just reflect wealth creation — it’s also associated with strong and stable communities.

Furthermore, home ownership corresponds with improved health for all members of the household, increased volunteerism and less crime in the community as well as the development of vibrant and well-adjusted families overall.

This is what makes UWM’s decision so troubling. Horace points out that “[t]he timing of this decision could not be worse,” considering that developments in artificial intelligence could “substantially reduce racial and class disparities in mortgage lending.” He explains:

These technologies do a better job of matching applicants with lenders than the traditional loan processes by being able to consider almost every conceivable lending option.

And this technology doesn’t require any reduction or lowering of underwriting requirements either.

The new UWM policy threatens to be an impediment to affordable homeownership and “could drive the housing wedge [between rich and poor] even wider.” Horace calls it an “anti-consumer policy.”

Opening up consumer choice to help find the best opportunities for a household’s particular needs is the most prudent strategy, and UWM’s new policy will have exactly the opposite effect. Horace advises:

With the right policies, the United States can return to the booming economy that lifts all boats — black, white and brown.

To read Horace’s complete commentary — “Mortgage Company’s Demands Will Do More Harm Than Good” — click here to go to the Newsmax website.

“Stakeholder capitalism” upends the traditional fiduciary responsibilities of the business community by placing the want of special interests on the same level as the need for a company to turn a profit.

Yet the corporate community – egged on by the radical left – has jumped on board the stakeholder bandwagon with enthusiasm.

One CEO who appears to be leading the charge is Brian Moynihan of Bank of America. In a Townhall commentary, Free Enterprise Project Deputy Director Scott Shepard reports how Moynihan “has established a set of metrics by which, he boasts, investors and the public would be able to gauge, and companies should be required to report, the efficacy of the conversion to stakeholder capitalism.”

Scott notes that Moynihan believes his woke measurements are “necessary to bring diversity and equity, and to save the environment.”

Yet Scott explains that the embrace of stakeholder capitalism is actually quite selfish:

In reality though, these metrics will merely instantiate his – and his CEO pals’ – own personal policy preferences and personal wealth-preservation strategies while asking no questions that he or his World Economic Forum colleagues would find personally troublesome.

For example:

[T]he metrics would require reporting of diversity by sex, age and other characteristics, but not reporting about diversity by – or even about minimum protections against discrimination on the basis of – viewpoint or political participation. And there are no reporting requirements about companies’ continued commitment to merit-based decision making, measures to ensure that surface-characteristic quotas are not established, or other barriers against active discrimination to achieve arbitrary numerical metrics.

Likewise, the metrics would require reporting about greenhouse gas emissions, but would not require reporting on comparative analyses of the emissions being created in jurisdictions and by corporations not amenable to these metrics, or about the creation and actual or potential effects of fuel substitutes. But overfocusing on greenhouse-gas production by western firms and polities ignores the fact that reductions in the west will be meaningless if they are swamped, as they are being swamped, by production increases elsewhere in the world. And they ignore the very real environmental concerns and reliability (and therefore health and safety risks, as illustrated by the cold snap that hobbled Texas this winter) that arise from the use of “green” alternatives.

Needless to say, there are no metrics that make any demands on CEOs or other executives like Moynihan and his friends themselves.

There are no requirements to report whether the companies have ridded themselves of all company jets, or refused to hire or retain any employees who live in homes larger than 1,000 square feet per person, or personally account for something more than some bare minimum of carbon production. Nor are there any metrics that would require companies to account for all the money that they take from government agencies in all forms; and what efforts they make to return such funds, with appropriate interest, to those government agencies; and what measures they take to avoid any contentious political positions while they remain in hawk to taxpayers.

BoA in particular would find those last questions particularly galling – and so of course they don’t appear anywhere in Moynihan’s grand plans.

This process of picking winners and losers is a house of cards. It’s easy to see the cracks in the façade, as Scott explains:

Stakeholder capitalism is just a front for Moynihan and his friends to make political demands throughout the corporate world and to protect themselves while pretending to work “for all.” Really learning what everyone wants would both show that stakeholder capitalism is incoherent and make it much harder to just do whatever they want while ascribing their actions to the Rousseauvian “general will” of stakeholders.

And, as politics affects bottom lines, the bigger companies – the same ones embracing stakeholder capitalism – will likely be eligible for bailouts while their smaller competitors and erstwhile startups suffer disproportionately.

In this instance, equity falls by the wayside.

At Bank of America’s annual shareholder meetings, FEP has challenged Moynihan’s political agenda on issues including guns and abortion.

Read Scott’s full commentary – “BoA’s Moynihan’s ‘Shareholder Capitalism’ Metrics Reveal the Ruse” – at the Townhall website by clicking here.

In the debate over the voting reform measure recently signed into law in Georgia, Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper said one factor must be the primary focus:

We should let self-government occur – and that’s letting real Georgians decide the elections.

As Horace pointed out during a segment of the Fox News Channel program “Fox News @Night,” this means creating election processes that protect lawful voters – “not ghosts, not convicts, not people who are not eligible because they are either not citizens or not residents in the community.”

But President Joe Biden perversely calls such protections “Jim Crow on steroids,” and the left has brought in its corporate muscle to try to pressure Georgia to retreat on its effort to protect legal voters.

“Coca-Cola ought to know better than to interfere with that kind of fundamental liberty and freedom,” Horace told guest host Kevin Corke. He added the American people are “rejecting” the current trend of companies becoming “woke” and trying to influence politics and governing in the promotion of a leftist agenda:

The numbers are in. And the NBA, Major League Baseball, NFL – the numbers are way down…

Delta’s gonna find out. So will all of the other voices that are attempting to do one thing – and that is to prevent real, bona fide Americans who live in Georgia from deciding who the elected officials of Georgia are going to be.

That’s what this law does. And, by the way, everywhere you look, when voter fraud is happening, it’s mostly minorities who have been the victims of voter fraud.

And Horace noted that the left-wing assault on voter integrity protections is likely to further harm America’s electoral processes:

The #1 reason people give for not participating in our election process is they say their vote ultimately won’t count. We need to do things that will ensure that their vote actually will count.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is part of a new conservative coalition, Back to Neutral, which is mobilizing efforts to return corporate America to political neutrality. This week the coalition launched StopCorporateTyranny.org. Click here to learn how you personally can help turn the tide against politicized big business.

During the pandemic, online meetings have provided countless funny examples of people exposing their true selves when they didn’t realize they were on a live feed. Sometimes, the result can be more graphic than at other times – but that’s another story.

The most relevant and poignant among these instances are when people have exposed their naked political agendas while forgetting they were on a “hot mic.” Nowhere is this more important – and shocking – as when it happens among taxpayer-funded educators.

Project 21 member Derryck Green calls this new window of public oversight “good news.”

Remote learning has exposed radicalism in the classrooms. For example, a teacher in Tacoma, Washington was caught admonishing a 10-year-old who picked President Donald Trump as someone he admired. A Philadelphia teacher complained about the “damage” that parents could do in preventing teachers from “destabilizing a kid’s racism or homophobia or transphobia.” The teacher called such work “messy.”

And now the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow.com reports that administrators are just as bad as teachers.

During a meeting of the La Mesa-Spring Valley school board to discuss and vote on reopening the district’s schools, Charda Bell-Fontenot – the board’s vice president – suggested that reopening the schools was racist, and the superintendent was racist for supporting an opening.

When the board president sought to make this conversation private, Bell-Fontenot replied that “[r]acism doesn’t need to be private.” Doubling-down, she claimed reopening schools was akin to “white supremacist ideology,” forcing minorities to “comply and conform” while putting their health in peril.

Bell-Fontenot now faces a recall.

In his OneNewsNow interview, Derryck said that parents “don’t understand the depth to which using terms like ‘white supremacist ideology,’ and constant references to slavery and structural racism, the extent to which that is used in the classroom.”

“It’s good that they’re hearing this,” he added.

“Government-worker unions strive to fleece the public while maximizing government control of people’s lives. They are a cancer.”

This succinct, and absolutely sobering, assertion is made by Scott Shepard – deputy director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project – in his Townhall commentary on the problem of organized labor’s influence among public school teachers and other government employees.

Scott discussed the problem of unions in private industry in a previous commentary, but he warns in this one that government unions “are far worse.”

He explains that public sector unionism – opposed even by liberal legend President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – is inherently bad for the nation because the situation brings enormous risk to “taxpayers whose money is at stake” while leaving them “completely unrepresented.”

How does this happen? The fact that government unions are electing their bosses proves the inherent corruption of the process:

Consider how they are funded, and what they do with that funding.

The assets of a government-employee union come from taxpayers, because the taxpayers pay the salaries from which the union dues are drawn. The sole purpose of the unions, meanwhile, is to take as much more away from those taxpayers as possible. The taxpayers fund their own fleecing. And those funds are used to maximize that fleecing.

The way that the unions amp up the shakedown pushes the process from base to corrupt. They expand their influence by contributing massive amounts of money – directly and indirectly – to elect representatives of one party, nationwide…

Then, once they’ve elected the candidates from that party, they enter wage and benefit negotiations with the candidates they’ve just elected, and with their appointees (and sometimes with corruptocrats from the other party, to be fair, but the main mechanism remains).

The result is that all representatives at the “bargaining” table then share the same interest: to empower the government-employee unions who got the government officials into power, and who will continue to fund those officials, so long as the officials in turn continue to enhance government-employee pay and benefits, thus enhancing government-union officials’ power and pelf.

This does a tremendous disservice to taxpayers, and the resulting “whirligig of corruption results in the collapse of state economies, population bases, and representative government.”

Public sector union costs have also saddled governments with tremendous pension obligations, causing overwhelming budget problems for states and localities.

“What do the states in the worst economic shape have in common?” Scott muses. “Strong government-employee unions.”

And while Americans are allowed to travel with limited restrictions (for now), including moving away from labor-addled states altogether, Scott notes the problem of government unions under the Biden Administration and liberal leadership on Capitol Hill has made it an issue that will affect people no matter where they go in the United States:

Now the same scam is being attempted at the federal level, complete with state bailouts, so that taxpaying citizens have nowhere to run. But the feds can’t bail out the states to the extent required to subsidize this lifestyle even in the already corrupted states, much less to foster it nationwide.

The insane national money printing in response to COVID is already triggering inflation, which – no one seems to remember – is very hard to tame once unleashed and does cataclysmic damage to economies, countries, and people. Seeding Connecticut/New Jersey governance nationwide would trigger the “suddenly” part of how systems go bankrupt.

“Corruption, all the way down,” Scott remarks.

Click here to read all of Scott’s commentary – “Government-Worker Unions: A Conspiracy Against Free Society” – at the Townhall website.

Bonner Cohen

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has a recorded death toll of over 525,000 people. National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. asks: “But is it accurate?”

The number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 may be radically inflated due to a change in policy by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that did not go through the proper channels and could be in violation of the law.

Bonner’s news analysis for The Heartland Institute’s Health Care News summarizes and explains the findings of a new peer-reviewed study of the CDC’s COVID-19 reporting procedures. These procedures “willfully violated several federal statutes, including the Data Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act and the Administrative Procedures Act,” Bonner writes.

According to Bonner’s analysis:

[T]he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unilaterally altered the 17-year-old process by which it calculated disease-caused fatalities, creating a special procedure for tabulating COVID-19 deaths. This, the study says, enabled the CDC to produce inaccurate data which were widely disseminated by the media and served to justify a host of coercive measures to stem the spread of the disease.

Unlike the study of the CDC’s revised process, the CDC itself acted without the benefit of peer review and did not provide an opportunity for public comment, despite this being “a major rule change.” Bonner adds:

By law, the study notes, the CDC was required to submit such a change as a proposal to the Federal Register for public comment, which the CDC failed to do.

When revising the statistical reporting of deaths, the CDC allegedly skirted federal oversight and regulation, creating an apparent conflict of interest and a “general violation of ethical standards.”

The study’s authors concluded: “It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis.”

Dr. Jane Orient, MD, the executive director of the American Association of Surgeons and Physicians, told Bonner: “If this analysis is correct, the CDC is guilty of gross malfeasance causing devastating losses to millions, in violation of settled federal law.”

To read Bonner’s full analysis of this troubling report – “Study: CDC Manipulated COVID-19 Deaths, Violated Federal Laws” – click here.

Bonner is the co-author of the National Center report “Beyond COVID-19: Blueprint for Restoring Liberty, Rebuilding the Economy, Safeguarding Public Health and Responding to Crises.” This report provides 54 policy recommendations drawn from the lessons of the current pandemic response in which “[c]ertain, measurable harm was imposed on our civil liberties, on our economy and on our health so we could reduce the less-certain public health risk of COVID-19.”

Why is it that “Saturday Night Live” can push an anti-Semitic trope as funny? It did – and just recently. The punchline of the “joke” was that Israel was denying non-Jews the COVID-19 vaccine.

Project 21 member Marie Fischer isn’t laughing.

In a commentary published by The Hill newspaper, Marie notes that one possible reason why anti-Semitism is not treated with the same contempt as racism and other -isms is because it often does not fit the narrative for discrimination embraced by the left and the mainstream media:

Why do some anti-Semitic offenders get away with a slap on the wrist, while others never live it down and their reputations are tarnished? Anti-Semitism appears to be more acceptable and forgivable when the offender is not white, likely because the “white supremacy” narrative can’t be furthered.

To prove her point about the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism, despite the media’s relative silence about it, she gives a few examples from 2021:

There’s Marc Lamont Hill, an outspoken supporter of Black Lives Matter, who last month said that the organization supports the “dismantling of the Zionist project.” Marvel was embarrassed into removing anti-Semitic images from its latest Hulk comic book. Synagogues in Queens and the Bay Area were vandalized with swastikas. A Massachusetts school board member called a Jewish man the “K-word” on live TV.

Marie notes that where anti-Semitism is mentioned at all, whites are still pinned as the culprits. She writes that “[r]elying on the mainstream media, one would think that white supremacists are the primary culprits responsible for anti-Semitism,” but “[u]nlike media portrayals, perpetrators are very diverse.”

And there is evidence of disparate treatment based on the race of the offender:

[C]onsider the discrepancy in how Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) were treated for controversial social media posts. In 2018, before she was elected, Greene suggested in a Facebook post that a California wildfire could be blamed on space-based Jewish lasers. In 2012, before she was in office, Omar tweeted that Israel had “hypnotized the world” to ignore its alleged “evil doings.” Omar also tweeted, in 2019 while serving in Congress, an inference that American politicians were being bought with Jewish money.

Both Omar and Greene expressed regret for spouting either direct anti-Semitism or dog whistle comments, but the end results differed. While Greene was stripped of all committee assignments, Omar received a leadership post on the powerful House Committee for Foreign Affairs. These women should have been treated the same; they were not.

“We must call out such hatred no matter where or from whom it originates. We must acknowledge that anti-Semitism perpetrated by someone from a minority group is equally as atrocious as racism fostered by a Jew or a white person,” Marie writes. “Equal, colorblind justice is needed.”

To read all of Marie’s commentary – “Privileged Anti-Semitism? White Supremacists Aren’t the Only Culprits” – as published by The Hill, click here.

Scott Shepard

“If you’re reading this, Disney probably hates you and wishes you either silenced or destroyed.”

That’s how Free Enterprise Project (FEP) Deputy Director Scott Shepard kicks off his Townhall commentary.

He notes that this is “not hyperbole;” in fact, it’s the “only coherent way to interpret” what Disney CEO Bob Chapek said in response to an FEP question that was posed to him at his company’s 2021 shareholder meeting.

When FEP asked about Disney’s blacklisting of conservative actress Gina Carano, Chapek stammered that Disney is not political, but simply “standing for values… that are universal.” In his opinion, Disney is “reflective of the rich diversity of the world.”

Scott isn’t fooled. “Disney has imagineered its way from being the land where dreams are made into the fallow fields of dystopian nightmare,” he counters.

Carano was fired for making a political analogy on social media with a reference to Nazi Germany. Scott writes:

The universal values Chapek refers to cannot be forbidding people to bring Nazis into American political debate for the sake of decorum or sensitivity, since [Carano’s “Mandalorian” costar Pedro] Pascal retains his job. (Consider also that leaders of the NAACP have been comparing Republicans to Nazis for decades, but Disney responded to the protests – and riots – of 2020 by giving the NAACP $2 million. So Nazi comparisons themselves don’t bother Disney.)

Rather, the distinction between Pascal’s postings and Carano’s – other than the additional thoughtfulness of Carano’s – is that Carano criticized the left, while Pascal criticized the right. So, by fairly elementary process of elimination, Chapek’s idea of “universal values” has to be that conservatives must remain silent and must not criticize the left, and if they dare to, they must have their careers destroyed to create “a world that we [can] all live in in harmony and peace.”

I defy you to make any other interpretation of his statement.

And, as far as human rights are concerned, Disney filmed its “Mulan” movie in the same area of China where the Chinese Communist Party maintains concentration camps to imprison and enslave members of its Uyghur Muslim minority. “Instead of protesting, or relocating,” Scott points out, “the filmmakers simply thanked the provincial government for the privilege.”

What to do?

While Scott suggests he will not be spending his personal consumer dollars on Disney, he still advises buying stock in the company to become an influencer in the future.

“[B]uy Disney stock,” he recommends. “And then join [FEP] in putting as much pressure as possible on Disney to mend its ways. We need to save the House of Mouse from the dark army of occupation that has taken over its C-suite.”

With this investment comes responsibility. While the COVID pandemic has led most companies to hold meetings virtually in 2020 and 2021, the time may come to participate in person:

Once the world opens up again – very soon, please! – attending a shareholder meeting should once again involve travel, but for a plane ticket or some gas and a night in a hotel you can go to the meeting and make a CEO of a company that actively discriminates against those of us on the right explain themselves.

“We could very much use some allies,” Scott writes, “in bringing these moral monsters to account.”

To read all of Scott’s commentary – “Upset About Disney Cancel Culture? Buy Disney Stock!” – click here to go to the Townhall website.

Woe the free-thinking college student.

Davis Soderberg

“It is a mistake to blindly believe that a college degree is a sign of superior intelligence,” writes Davis Soderberg, a research associate with the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Often it’s just proof that yet another poor soul has been captured by the liberal mousetrap.”

In a commentary published by Issues & Insights, Davis recounts that he “envisioned open debate, learning and the sharing of ideas” when he got to college. In reality, he found “a woke-indoctrination machine with a pre-determined agenda by which students were meant to be hypnotized.”

As a means of helping right the wrongs that are now so prevalent on American campuses, and that affect countless young people, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) has proposed the “Freedom to Learn” (F2L) reform plan.

Davis writes:

Freedom to Learn calls on Congress to strengthen protections for students, to develop a detailed intellectual freedom charter, and to reform civics education – necessary steps if we are to cure the woke takeover of higher education.

Davis explains that there are three main consequences of the current climate of intolerance found in higher education:

• “One strain of thought is amplified, …making campus debate even more lopsided”
• “Shaming of disapproved opinions increases divisiveness”
• “[F]ear of being verbally shamed” causes students to “withdraw from dialogue” that results in “open discussion, intellectual freedom, and learning [being] crippled”

“I have unfortunately seen this firsthand,” Davis notes sadly, adding:

One of the biggest problems I have seen on campuses is a lack of understanding of American history and the values that have held our country together for nearly 250 years. Students no longer believe that the government’s sole purpose is to protect the rights of citizens, but rather, to be the holy gift-bearer to the people. Students’ increased love for big government and centralized social programs in part springs from a lack of knowledge and admiration for our principles, rooted in distrust of government.

The F2L proposal would amend the federal “Higher Education Act” to bring “a small but important step toward much-needed reforms of our higher education system”:

The federal government controls a massive portion of educational revenue and therefore university curriculums; it must be held accountable in order to enhance intellectual freedom and learning for students of all perspectives and ideologies.

To read all of Davis’s commentary – “An Escape Route from the Liberal Campus Mousetrap” – click here.

Issues and Insights was created by the former editorial page staff of Investor’s Business Daily. It describes itself as “unapologetically free market and for limited government.”

When Project 21 member Christopher Arps was a child, his parents told him he could “achieve anything that [he] wanted in this life” if he went to school, worked hard and did what was needed to be done. But they also explained to him that “you’re still going to have one strike against you always because you’re black.”

Despite this warning, he didn’t grow up with a chip on his shoulder. It has a lot to do with how his parents treated this problem:

They did not tell me that to make me feel oppressed, or for me to feel like a victim. They were giving me a reality check: This is how life is going to be.

They never let me use that as an excuse – ever.

Discussing race relations, the state of black progress and how to address the problems of the past with host Mike Slater on “True Story with Mike Slater,” Chris cited the perils facing those who did not receive the same sort of uplifting education he did. He cautioned against “inaccurate perceptions” that can “lead to bad actions.”

Asked to define the “1619 Project,” one of the most high-profile modern examples of the perpetuation of bad attitudes, Christopher described it “a propaganda tool by the New York Times and leftists to change the history of America.”

He told Slater about his participation in the 2020 annual meeting of New York Times shareholders, where he called out “all the fallacies and the lies.” Despite Chris’s compelling argument, Publisher A.G. Sulzberger essentially said “we’re good with it” as long as it provokes discussion.

But Christopher explained that the goal of the 1619 Project, if left to its vices, hurts kids:

They don’t have pride in their country.

And I think if you feel that your ancestors were oppressed and that the [boot] of the state and of white people are continually on your neck, then there’s no possibility for you to achieve in this country. And so why even try?

“I think it’s a big boot on the neck of African-American achievement in this country, especially with our schoolchildren,” he said.

And he added that it has a lasting impact:

It’s horrific to tell a child that, but also it becomes generations. If you’ve been told that, then you’re gonna tell your children that. And they you’re going to tell the succeeding generation. So it just becomes a never-ending cycle of poverty.

Asked if the study of black history should de-emphasize instances of horrible injustice, Christopher replied that there should not be a “whitewash” – but that there are many positive things worth noting:

I think it should be talked about, but I’d like to see it stress more of the accomplishments of American-Americans. And you show we can make it in this country. That we’ve been here 400 years – and it’s possible to succeed.

Examples of blacks “making it in life” include George Washington Carver and Madam C.J. Walker.

Christopher also lamented that children taught from the pages of the 1619 Project will be “steeped in negativity” that can impede their ability to seize on the opportunities America has to offer. Using the example of his own upbringing, when his parents made him work in the family business at a time when he wanted to be out with his friends, he recounted:

I learned such valuable life skills: how to talk to people, how to be a salesman, how to have a work ethic. The great pride that you have every Friday getting a paycheck and cashing that check knowing it comes from the fruit of your labor… I’m so glad I had that experience.

Slater concluded the segment by asking Christopher if he had any messages for black Americans with whom he has political disagreements. Christopher said:

I’m not your enemy.

Even though we have different political backgrounds, we still have the same goal in mind – which is to see African-American people advance. We just have two different views of going about it. Your method has a 50-plus-year track record of failure. Our record, as to paraphrase Donald Trump – what have we got to lose?

Let’s try something different.

Christopher’s interview begins at approximately 30 minutes into the episode. “True Story with Mike Slater” is regularly available at The First television network and through Audible.