Thursday, April 2, 2020

The Front of the Line: How Can Your Charity Access the SBA Paycheck Protection Program?

The SBA Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a bold and timely reaction by the federal government to the present crisis. It provides $350 billion in relief to small businesses and nonprofits.

PPP will give you the resources to pay salaries and benefits even as charitable contributions continue to decline. I'm sure many charity leaders and board members are anxious to benefit from this program. They do not want to be left out of what may be a once-in-a-lifetime deal that will keep their churches, charities or schools alive.

After all, the loans that will be given out can be completely forgiven. It will be like having an ATM in the lobby of your institution spitting out money all day long.

For most of us, the problem is we are not sure where to turn for help, whether we are eligible, if we are too late, or how to prepare ourselves to secure PPP funding once the application process opens up on Friday, April 3, 2020. Even worse, we can be frustrated that only larger charities or small businesses with up to 500 employees will have the resources, connections or staff needed to be first in line to get this money.

I know what it's like. I'm applying for a PPP forgivable loan myself to protect Drew & Associates and our staff.

We are now working with a number of our non-profit clients to get them ready to apply later this week. As one of them reminded me it easy to put this off because you're afraid it is too much work, that it is a waste of time, or that it only goes to more established charities. I get it.

Frankly, it seems silly for me and my staff to work hard to win you grants when the SBA Paycheck Protection Program is coming on line. I can't think of anything more important right now that to help you participate in this program. The amounts and benefits will be amazing.

According to the SBA, your total loan amount will be equal to your annual expenses for labor - wages, salaries, benefits, and 1099s - divided by 12 and then multiplied by 2.5. We have a spreadsheet calculator that will help you figure out the exact amount you can request.

NOTE: If any of those 1099s went to people who were providing your with services, like your accountant or attorney, then you'll need to leave them out of the mix. They should be applying for this funding on behalf of their own businesses. 

As long as you maintain at least 90% of your current staffing, you can spend this money anyway you want as long as you focus on payroll, utilities, rent and interest expenses. If you do that, your loan will be completely forgiven.

I have put together a new service to help you quickly, easily and reliably access these funds with the assistance of our conscientious team. 

Personally, I've got years of experience in dealing with federal loan programs as a loan officer, a client of the SBA, and as a grant writing consultant. My skills will help you to get started and to secure this money. We will:
  • Save you time by screening your charity for eligibility.
  • Fill out the appropriate PPP paperwork for you.
  • Help you gather the necessary documentation.
  • If you do not have it, we will help you find it or create it for you.
  • Submit your application on time.
  • Answer any inquiries or requests for additional information.
  • Make sure you get paid quickly.
As far as we know, you should be getting your funding instantly after receiving your application approval from your existing bank or lender. Later, we will work with you to make sure you collect the exact receipts, records, and financial reports you need to qualify for the forgiveness of your loan.

One of the cool things about this process is that we will help you become one of the first community leaders to protect their employees and their non-profit by accessing PPP funding. You will be a hero.

On the other hand, I have to be real with you. If you do not apply for this funding it may be catastrophic for your charity.

We have no way of knowing exactly how long this crisis will last or how long this PPP funding will be available. Since this money is given on a first come, first served basis, it will eventually run out and some people will not be able to get it. Even if you manage to survive without the income needed to cover your payroll, utilities and rent, your charity will be threatened because it will emerge from this crisis damaged, living on a tighter margin and potentially even more vulnerable to continuing financial and pandemic shocks.

All it takes to get started is to pay a small deposit of $250.00 and set-up an intake phone call with me at 949-338-5921.

In that phone call, I ask you some questions about your charity, screen you for eligibility, and then make a recommendation on whether or not it makes sense to bring you on as a client for this PPP opportunity. If it is not a fit, then I will refund your money. If it looks like you are a good prospect, then we will move forward with the paperwork. I'll provide you with a list of needed documents, a loan amount calculator, urgent program updates, official SBA application w/ instructions, unlimited email and phone support.

Once we are ready to go we will charge you an additional $750.00 The total fee for our service will be a flat rate of $1,000.00

The final result will be astounding for you and your charity. Your employees will enjoy the peace of mind and security that you have wisely provided for them. You will be able to keep up your rent and utility payments. You will be able to put your people to work again doing useful things even if they are no longer meeting with your clients face-to-face.

You will also be prepared to go after a second round of funding too. This will most likely happen if stay-at-home orders, quarantines or marshal law are declared in your area. All in all, you will be appreciated for leading your charity in a crisis and protecting its capacity to complete its mission now and in the years to come. I'm excited to work with you to make this happen. To get started, use the Buy Now button below.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Laguna Niguel Nice: My Passive Aggressive Outreach to Moderate Democrats Addicted to Facebook

I've spent the last few weeks debating some of the last moderate Democrats in my life, mainly friends and acquaintances of business acquaintances and others. They are all older, white, mainly retirees with pensions from the public sector. If I have time, maybe this should be an article for American Thinker?

Some of what I'm doing is too good to lose track of completely, and might be useful in the upcoming campaign...especially if Bernie Sanders wins the next election. I'd feel sad, give what I've written, is suddenly blocked or erased. So, here's some of my best stuff, particularly my complaint about Bernie Sanders' socialist views and the naive faith of those who underestimate his dangerous views. For the sake of privacy, I'll only give you my written comments. I'll start with the simple statement that started the polemics as follows: 

Round One - You Don't Know What You're Talking About

I don't think you appreciate the degree to which the programs you are defending actually leave the most vulnerable worse off. You need to read up on the concept of moral hazard.

Round Two - Well, Yes...

Moral hazard applies just as well to corporate decision makers.

Round Three - Corporations Aren't Mean

A corporation is just a way of organizing human activity. It provides investors with limited liability and separate legal existence.

There are dozens of different kinds of corporations in the U.S. and they exist in multiple forms internationally based on the laws of each country. Modern life is inconceivable without the corporate form of organization.

Even a non-profit is organized as a corporation.

Personally, I'm extremely curious to learn what you think of a new national poll showing Bernie Sanders, a socialist, pulling ahead of Joe Biden.

For a moderate Democrat like yourself, I'm wondering to what degree, if any, Bernie's success is making you anxious about your party's future.

Round Four - Let's Read Hayek

As an ex-socialist, I may be in the perfect position to help you understand why you are being naive about the dangers of socialism. The one book that did the most to help me understand why socialism has never worked was Friedrich Hayek's book Road to Serfdom. The book explains why the idealism of my youth was both appealing and doomed to failure. You should check it out.

Round Five - Others to Read

No. I'm more of a fan of J.D. Salinger. The political scientists who have had the greatest influence on my thinking - particularly my rejection of Marxism and socialism - were Theodore Lowi, James Q. Wilson, Thomas Sowell and Charles Murray. If you want to understand my take on contemporary politics, rent the film The Enemies Within by Trevor Loudon. This is a documentary which gave me my best opportunity to share my political views. One of my former students, Ann Coulter, also has some outstanding books which will help you better understand conservative thought.

Round Six - Trust Me About Bernie Sanders, I'm an Ex-Socialist Myself

When I was in graduate school at Cornell University, I took courses in the field of political economy and studied countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Canada.

Two of the professors I took courses from later became presidents of the American Political Science Association.

I've taught political economy at Williams, our nation's most prestigious liberal arts college.

If I sincerely thought your take on socialism was correct, then I would tell you so.

I'm totally confident that if you had taken the same courses, hung out with the same international experts, and read the same articles and books that you would come to the same conclusions as me regarding the desirability of electing a socialist like Bernie Sanders.

One of the reasons why I recommended you read Hayek is because he explains how socialism starts with the innocent appeal of prosperity for all, but then - inevitably - drifts into a horrific system where threats of violence and persecution are the only way to obtain crucial information and to get things done.

A lot of people report that reading Hayek was a turning point for them ideologically. Part of the appeal is that Hayek was himself a former socialist.

If you are not interested in reading a book which has persuaded thousands of socialists to change their views, then I recommend you check out Trevor Loudon's movie, The Enemy Within. It is a documentary film which features my take on the attraction of socialism among young people. I understand you can rent it through Amazon Prime.

Round Seven - Can You Take Bad News? Socialism Makes People Worse Off, 
Not Better...Even in Sweden.

The per capita income of the USA is $62,606. This is above Sweden at $52,984, above Denmark at $52,121, way above Canada at $49,651 and incredibly above the UK at $45,606. Most Bernie bros do not realize that a socialist economy makes people poorer while at the same time taking away personal freedom, individuality and ability to make your own choices.

You didn't get my reference to scarce resources. Capitalist economies use markets to quickly and effectively allocate scarce resources. Typically socialist economies, say like Sweden, make poorer choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources. This inevitably creates a lower standard of living as measured by per capita GDP.

I think you are being a tad naive about how socialism limits your freedom. If you read Hayek's book, you will have a better grasp about exactly why socialism is incompatible with freedom of speech. There are now steep penalties for language which violates politically correct standards in Sweden or Canada or the UK. I don't think you would like living in any of these countries if you value being able to speak your mind.

Again, please read Hayek. You may be surprised to learn that Joseph Stalin was the wealthiest man in the world during the height of his power. In a similar manner, we see how African and Latin American socialist politicians betray their followers by stealing enough to become millionaires or billionaires. They enjoy their wealth in Swiss bank accounts while their people are starving.

The bottom line is that socialism in the USA would look less like Denmark or Sweden and a lot more like Cuba or Venezuela.

Round Eight - You Are Still in the Fight? It is Time to School You with Statistics

First, per capita income is the statistic typically used to measure the standard of living by political economists. Measurement theory helps explain why this is so. For example, as you add more measurements to assess the standard of living it quickly becomes increasingly difficult to understand what, if anything, you are actually measuring. This becomes a growing weakness in what is called the validity of a measure.

For example, in the survey you have shared with us, the rating system includes measurements for crime...a variable which makes Sweden appear higher in the ranking than the USA. Since crime has causes which have nothing to do with economics, it is inappropriate to include crime rates in an evaluation of a socialist economy.

Likewise, as you add additional terms to your measure, you reduce the reliability of your measurement. This is simply the degree to which we are confident that the measurement will produce the same results after repeated trials. Think of it as being a juggler. The more balls you toss in the air, the more likely you are to drop one or find one has inadvertently gone astray. Does this help?

Next, I would think the most typical errors in the allocation of scarce resources among socialist economies like Sweden are in the field of labor resources. In virtually all socialist economies it becomes increasingly difficult to hire skilled professionals. In many cases, skilled professionals will exit the country to find higher paying positions elsewhere. If you study the socialist countries you seem to admire, you will find they have great difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled professionals in their labor forces.

Your complaint about using Stalin as an example of socialism gone astray is what we call the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. You are basically trying to protect the general idea that socialist systems are good by saying that Stalin was not a socialist. If you want, there are plenty examples of socialism enriching its leaders and their families in contemporary Cuba and Venezuela.

It is interesting to me that you are not addressing my earlier point that socialist countries are less protective of freedom of speech. You may not completely understand that socialist countries are also less protective of private property, gun ownership, rule of law, and of course personal privacy. It is difficult for me to understand how you might measure the quality of life in a country separate from its built in protections for freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.

I think you are naive in your expectation that socialism in the USA would end up leaving us like Sweden. The demographics and political culture of a socialist majority-minority USA would have far more in common with Cuba or Venezuela than it would in largely white, Protestant Sweden or the five million white folks who live in Norway. I think that the more you educate yourself on these matters, the closer you and your ideological friends will come to agreeing with me.

After all, I am a former Democrat myself. I'm a former Marxist socialist who used to see the economic and social systems of Sweden as the goal for us all. I'm just sharing with you the facts which have changed my views over time.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Time to Chill - Nothing is as Black and White as You Suppose: Note to a Friend Regarding the Trump Impeachment

I've been a little surprised at the hostility to Trump I have seen among people I have known for a while. Their level of outrage seems out of proportion to what is actually going on. I took out some time in December to draft some detailed answers to a friend's questions. Maybe you can use my answers with your friends too?

I don’t have a lot of time. So please pardon the limits of my response. The most important thing to state is that the U.S. Department of Justice has determined that Trump committed no crime. 

Regarding you’re particular legal theory, I would only point out that it assumes a level of repression which would violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech.

Regarding you questions over Trump’s motivations, it looks to me like you are following Democrat party talking points and may not be familiar with the full story. I do not think that things are as bad or as black and white as you imagine. In many cases, the assumptions behind your questions have already been debunked. I’ll try to go through them all quickly.

Why did Trump not follow the protocols outlined in the Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine?

I think you are assuming that this treaty controls a president’s actions. This is just not true. There is nothing in the treaty which limits a president’s Article II powers.

Why did Trump never mention corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? 

I’m assuming your concern here is based on your belief that the Biden family was not involved in corruption. As I have stated earlier, Biden violated the Hobbs Act. Burisma was clearly a corrupt company and Hunter Biden was on its board.

Why did he wait until Biden had become a front runner to bring up his concerns about the former vice president? 

I don’t think you have the timeline right here. As I understand it there were concerns about the Biden family’s corruption long before the phone call with Zelenski.

Why did he only mention the Bidens when there are other Americans involved in potentially more nefarious activities in Ukraine (Paul Manafort, Igor Buzyukov to mention just two)? 

I double checked. I couldn’t find anything regarding corruption and these two individuals. Manafort was a political consultant and Buzyukov was involved in money laundering. I don’t think this question gets you anywhere.

Why did Trump ignore the DOD report that certified that Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption and was therefore eligible to receive the military aid that had been funded by Congress?

Again, you seem to assume this report was controlling. That was not the case. The report itself asserted that more investigations into corruption in Ukraine were still needed.

Why did Trump not go through the DOJ, but instead used his personal lawyer, and even directed Zelensky to talk to him? 

My understanding is that representatives from the government of Ukraine sought out Rudy Guliani because they felt they were being stonewalled by U.S. and Ukrainian bureaucrats. It is actually pretty normal for presidents to use alternative forms of communication and investigation. Historically, there is nothing nefarious about this element of the story.

Why did Sondland, a big Trump donor, believe that this was a quid pro quo, and that everyone was in the loop? 

Sondland’s testimony was not a clear cut nor as decisive as you think. At best, it was one man’s opinion. In other parts of his testimony Sondland makes it clear that Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

Why did Mulvaney also state that this was a quid pro quo? 

As I recall, Mulvaney walked back that statement indicating it was an error on his part.

Why ask Zelensky to make a public statement about opening an investigation into the Bidens? 

I don’t understand this either. I don’t recall Trump asking for this. Trump released the transcripts of the conversation. At best, this looks like a second-hand report.

Why did Trump wait until after the whistleblower was known to him and an investigation was imminent to unfreeze the military aid? 

This question has already been debunked. It appears that the release of the funds was caused by the passage of the budget in the Congress which made delays in the military aid perfunctory. Trump signed that budget. The decision had nothing to do with the whistleblower.

Why did Trump fire Ambassador Yovanovitch when she was highly regarded in addressing corruption in Ukraine? 

As I understand it, Yovanovitch was seen as being too close to George Soros. Her values and behavior were inconsistent with Trump administration policies. Finally, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Why does Trump still refuse to release documents? 

Trump’s actions here are pretty standard. Most presidents are reluctant to do this and seek to preserve their independence from the Congress through exercise of executive privilege.

Why does Trump still keep people from testifying? 

Again, there is nothing nefarious here either. Defense of executive privilege is a long-standing tradition. Normally, the Congress would appeal to the courts to resolve this issue. Congressional Democrats declined to challenge Trump on this in the courts, most likely because they know the Supreme Court would defend the president’s prerogatives.  For better or worse, allowing Congress unfettered powers in this arena would undermine the balance of power between the Congress and the president.

Once again, I am surprised to see the degree to which you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no crime committed. As far as I can tell, most of your questions are based in what is best referred to as fake news. They have been debunked by later investigations as was your earlier assertion that the investigation into Burisma was winding down prior to Joe Biden’s explicit quid pro quo demand. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, December 21, 2019

Right Sized: Pastor Jim Garlow Responds to the Attack of President Trump Launched by the Editor in Chief of Christianity Today


When the CT Editor’s Feelings Trump Facts
by Dr. Jim Garlow
Mark Galli has used his platform as Editor in Chief of Christianity Today magazine to demand that Donald Trump be removed from office. At one point in the article, Mark Galli compares Trump to Clinton, Strangely, Mark Galli avoided a key issue: Was a law violated?  Bill Clinton actually committed a crime. Donald Trump didn't. Galli fails to make the distinction.
Galli speaks of Clinton’s “immoral acts” in the context of our current President. He fails to note that the President’s acknowledged immoral conduct occurred a dozen years ago and not while he was in the White House, in contrast to Clinton’s conduct, while in the Oval Office, serving as President. Galli states that Clinton lied. Yes, but more than that, he perjured himself, which is legally serious. Trump didn’t.

Remarkably, Galli claims "the facts in this instance are unambiguous." The "facts" are "unambiguous?" Many in the House of Representatives - all 196 Republicans and two Democrats – who have access to key documents - don't see it that way. In addition, Americans who are not aligned with either party - Independents - don't view it that way.

The keys to understanding authentic facts in this case are the actual transcript of the call and the Ukrainian President’s recollection of the phone call. Galli fails to note those two critically important “witnesses” to truth. They might get in the way of his “facts.”
Galli further asserts that the President's phone call was "a violation of the Constitution." It is precisely at this point that so many strongly disagree with Galli.  Simply put, many contend that there was no violation of the Constitution. Again Galli chooses to state his opinion as “fact.” Even liberal Democrat Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz contends that there was no violation of the Constitution. Amazingly, the Democrats could not even get all of their own to vote for impeachment, let alone any of the Republicans.

Furthermore, those who know the President, with all his flaws, past moral failures and sins, have discerned and commented that he is a man who really wants to do what is right. This fact has been noted by many of the evangelicals who are closest to him. Godly discerning people around him see it and know it.

Galli writes "the impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see." There you have it, according to Christianity Today’s Editor in Chief.  Based on Mr. Trump's failure to model sanctification, he should be impeached? Hardly.

And while we are talking about character - which is one of Galli's key issues - it is important to point out that what Mr. Trump promised as a candidate is exactly what he has delivered as an elected official. It is indeed a rare treat for a politician to fulfill his word. That is a wonderful indication of character. It's called honesty.

Condescendingly, Galli lectures evangelicals who support Trump, saying that they "brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency." To my knowledge, I know every one of the persons who have served as the President's faith advisors. (In the interest of disclosure, I have been one of them.) Not one of these faith leaders "brushes off" anyone's immorality or behavior, including the President’s. Not one. They never have. Not one of them has ever said or believed that the (using Galli’s words) "bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end.” Not one. I could speak with specificity here, but I will not. In that one sentence, Galli is participating in character assassination, a favorite tool of many these days.

Closely related to that is the fact that Galli has no grasp of the kind of healthy spiritual input that is coming from evangelicals to our president. Admittedly, this is a side issue, not Galli’s key issue, but it is still important. The CT editor apparently has no knowledge of the internal meetings which have been constructively pastoral in nature. Numerous high visibility evangelicals have had opportunity to be with the President, to counsel him and to pray with him. Some have spoken truth to leadership. Wisely, they do not discuss the content of those meetings publicly. Nor should they. They are considerably more aware of the "heart" of the President than is Mr. Galli. If he knew what they know about Mr. Trump, Galli would not have written such an article.

Offensively, Mark Galli seems to invoke the name of Billy Graham to bolster and credential his viewpoint not only in the first sentence of the article, but again in the third paragraph. The only one who can use Billy Graham's name with integrity is Billy's son Franklin or daughter Anne Graham Lotz or one of his other children or grandchildren. Interestingly, Franklin Graham is standing 100% with the President. And he even felt compelled to reveal for the first time that his famous father – who knew Donald Trump – voted for him. Franklin Graham is more qualified to speak for Billy Graham than a CT editor.

While it is admittedly not of profound significance to Galli’s article, it still might be important to note that Christianity Today has been losing influence for some time. Why is this relevant? The Left will fall all over themselves loving this article, not knowing that CT’s influence among rank and file evangelicals peaked a long time ago. Had there not been outside funds to prop CT up, the magazine would likely have folded years ago. It is not the voice it once was. How do I say this nicely? It is rather "yesterday."

It is hardly news that CT is not a fan of the President. For purposes of transparency, it might be interesting if the editor – since journalists ought to acknowledge their bias - would reveal for whom he voted for in 2016. The once-solid magazine, like the National Association of Evangelicals, has moved leftward for some time. They once reigned. They were supreme. But ask the typical evangelical churchgoer today if he or she reads CT or knows what the NAE is. They don’t. These once prestigious organizations have now been displaced in influence by other groups, organizations, magazines and news sources.
But one thing is for sure: Mr. Galli will now be exalted by the Trump-haters. They now have a new hero. The Left loves CT's Trump-bashing.  CNN and New York Times, for example, were two of the first to run with this story on the national scene. Other disdainers of Trump will do the same. More hated of Trump has been fueled. The self-proclaimed pious ones will be eagerly casting stones at Trump. Mr. Galli has done our nation a great disservice.
Meanwhile, the President will continue saving the lives of preborn babies, helping families, supporting Israel, defending religious liberty in the US, trying to stop religious persecution globally, blessing the nation with a healthy economy - especially impacting the middle class and most notably Blacks and Hispanics with jobs, as opposed to Obama’s debilitating massive food stamps increase, reducing governmental intrusions into our everyday lives, advocating for healthy entrepreneurship-driven capitalism, rebuilding the Obama-era broken military, saving young girls from sex trafficking, appointing justices and judges that actually respect the US Constitution, leading in prison reform that is giving many incarcerated persons a new opportunity in life, defeating terrorist organizations like ISIS, stopping the transgender experiments that would destroy our military, stopping nations from taking advantage of America, arresting and removing MS13 gang members and making America truly a great nation. He will continue doing what the Bible admonishes a governmental leader to do: to protect the citizenry and to punish evil.

But to Galli, and his groupies who will Facebook post his article repeatedly, this does not matter. Why? Because according to Galli, Trump acts wrongly. He is bad. His personality is not that of St. Francis. Trump is not Mother Teresa. Trump, you see, is a bad man, and that qualifies as a “high crimes.” Trump – according to Galli – must be removed.
And in case you have not noticed, those advocating impeachment are not merely after the President. They are impeaching those of you who elected him – all 63 million of you. They are impeaching the values of those who voted for him.
It is interesting that Galli never once called for the removal of President Obama, who was responsible for supporting the mutilation of preborn babies more than any President in US history, who helped destroy the definition of marriage and who was the first to defend men dressed as women using women’s bathrooms.
How should we respond to all this? Is there a better response? Yes. For starters, how about a call to pray for our President? (I have followed politics closely, virtually every day since I was age nine years of age. I know that is strange, but I have.) I have never seen a national leader so castigated and attacked on a continual basis. I know few if any who could handle the pressure that our President is under.

What if Galli had interviewed some of the people who are on the “inside” (I am not one of them), who are helping to spiritually guide the President, and have inquired how believers could and should pray for the President in very specific ways at this time? How much better if he would have described ways to help our nation come through the massive divide.
But while Mr. Galli did not do that, you can. You and I can make a difference. We can do these things.
Will you pray for your President?  Right now? Will you pray for those who have the opportunity to speak and provide spiritual counsel to our national leaders? Galli condemns them. It might be better to pray for them.
Will you commit to try to bring healing to our severely divided nation? Will you pray that Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler would work with our President to address the greatest challenges in our nation?

Would you pray with me that there would be a massive release of scriptural truth to those in high government positions of our nation? Would you pray that there would be a Holy Spirit release of the biblical principles of governance to all of those in governmental authority? In doing so, you would help make American great – and good – again.
(Garlow, has a governmental ministry in Washington, DC, New York City and Jerusalem. You can learn more at )

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Chad Topaz of Williams College Begs You to Associate with His Stigmatized Charity, QSIDE, After Rebuke From Top Math Leaders

WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - Chad Topaz appears to be desperate for legitimacy now that his widely condemned plans to get a white female professor at UC Davis fired have backfired on him. As you may know, Topaz called for his Facebook and Twitter followers to subject Abigail Thompson to a merciless public shaming and to pressure her employer to punish her for expressing her personal opinions in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society.

In response to outrage in the mathematics profession, Topaz took both his Facebook and Twitter pages private. Bizarrely, he also began redirecting links to his QSIDE Institute website created by his critics over to the landing page of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The insinuation, of course, is that anyone who disagreed with him was a dangerous white supremacist.

One of Chad Topaz's Williams College colleagues, Colin Adams, created a petition condemning Topaz's efforts to censor and punish Thompson. This petition has attracted over 625 supporters including two famous Fields Medalists, former presidents of the American Mathematics Society (AMS), and math and biology faculty at Williams College including his own department chair Richard de Veaux. If you wish, you can sign the petition here.

In his most recent missive, which I have included below the break, he calls for his supporters to join QSIDE and promote it by including mention of it in their e-mails and other channels of community. Unfortunately for Topaz, anyone who joins his brand new, family-run QSIDE Institute will share in the stigma of his appalling effort to get a white female professor black listed and the negative publicity now associated with the QSIDE Institute brand.

Finally, the story of Topaz's campaign to get Abigail Thompson fired has come to the attention of a national news blog, The College Fix.

Among the comments are the following gems:
  • Say it with me, kids: "The university is no longer the place for academic discussion." Your degree is worthless.
  • The irony is she is AGAINST making a decision based on skin color. This makes her the anti-racist, yet they will say the opposite.
  • Those who support totalitarianism and loyalty oaths need to consider the consequences for their own future. Eventually, they will need to go out into the world. And, of course, there is always the possibility that they will some day find themselves on the wrong side of the "party."
  • Chad Topaz? Since when have 2nd rate porn stars become mathematicians?
  • There is no God but the Party, and the Dialogue is his prophet.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND. His pronouns are Master/Commander.

Most Popular Posts