My crummy, false, inaccurate, Wikipedia site. How the bullies won.

April 12, 2017

I have long been a defender of Wikipedia. The fact that it allows for instant correction makes it far more reliable than many Pulitzer Award winning books, who sometimes have errors on their first page.

And the way it maintains balance in the midst of recent national socio-political discussions is remarkable

But if that applies to the big stories, I have good reasons to know that Wikipedia can also be a tool for political bullies to target their personal enemies. That is exactly what has happened to me.

For many years now my own Wikipedia site has been controlled by competing trolls who seem to have different agendas. I am told by people in the publishing industry that it has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. Even when I get a contract I have to send links to publishers to show the accurate information.

Recently, a new Wiki editor has become involved and seems to be trying to clean up the site, for example, he (or she) has finally corrected my name, and this leads me to have hope that someone at Wikipedia will try to correct other mistakes that have been ongoing for years and, additionally, bring some balance to this article.

Here are some the issues.

#1) For years my name was incorrect.

#2) Even now, my birthday is incorrect. It is not May 19.

#3) The article has long had a qualifier at the beginning that implies it has been written as an “advertisement,” or by myself or persons directed by me, of for self-promotion, when in fact, I never asked for this article and attempts by anyone associated with me to correct obvious mistakes were always rebuffed.

#4) One of the trolls who has dominated this site uses it to promote a favorite member of congress.  Surely the congreewoman’s own Wikipedia article is the appropriate place to promote her. Persons who read my books or see me on television are not even aware that I ever ran for congress.

#5) It is said that I am credited for coining the phrase “compassionate conservative” but says a citation is needed. In fact, Wikipedia’s own page on “compassionate conservative” declares this fact and cites TIME magazine, books published and other sources. If Wikipedia’s own article on “compassionate conservative” is wrong about this, it should be taken down. If it is correct, then it should be accepted as a legitimate citation.

#6) The article says, “Beyond high school, Wead has no other formal education or college degree.” But omits honorary doctorates from two universities. (The article on Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, includes his honorary doctorates.)

#7) The article includes critical quotes from persons I have never even met, Bill Press and Bill O’Reilly, but refuses to include quotes from President Ronald Reagan, for whom I wrote a book and spent many days and hours with and George H.W. Bush, with whom I co-authored a book and for whom I worked for in the White House. Nor does it include quotes from former president Gerald Ford who was entertained in my home on two occasions and who worked with me on the Charity Awards.

#8) Most people who contact me, know me from television appearances, but this Wikipedia site ignores that and at one time, when one of my publishers tried to correct it, the Wiki supervisor actually contended in the talk section that there is no evidence that I am / or ever have been on television.

Even now it does not mention it. While Amazon, Hachette and Simon and Schuster all refer to interviews with Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Charlie Rose, Sean Hannity, Jake Tapper, etc. Not to mention earlier classics with all the top shows, from David Frost to Connie Chung and Dan Rather.

(You can subscribe to my YouTube Channel here. It captures more than 100 of my television appearances. You have to go directly to the networks for others. Most of the major networks do not allow clips on YouTube.)

#9) No mention is made of my recent book GAME OF THORNS, abut the 2016 election, which reached number 4 on Amazon and Barnes and Noble and drew widespread praise from Neil Cavuto and many others, and included information direct from candidate, Donald Trump.

My humble thanks to anyone who has any advice or knowledge of any legal help available to address these issues.

I have no ill will toward Wikipedia and continue to defend it to teachers and educators, because of its quick chance to correct mistakes. But sadly, my own personal experience has been disappointing.

If this site is not important enough to warrant supervision and rescue from persons who have a personal agenda, why don’t they take it down?

If it has to exist, then why should it be controlled by people who don’t even know my name or my birthdate and who only see it as a utility to hurt someone they imagine to be their political enemy?

If any of you have any similar experiences with Wikipedia, let me know. If you are afraid of reprisal you can write me privately at


Why Trump needs Jared and Ivanka? And why it is completely acceptable.

April 3, 2017

The fact that Donald Trump tapped his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to visit Iraq is provoking some in the national media to near hysteria. In fact, it is not unprecedented or unnatural. Nor is it big news that his daughter, Ivanka Trump Kushner, has been asked to help out in the West Wing.

jared and ivanka

Ivanka and Jared, following footsteps of history.

I’ve been answering questions all week from journalists, quite agitated over these events, asking me to confirm their narrative that this is unprecedented. You’ve heard of “fake news”? Well, they are intent on forcing on us their version of “fake history.”

Here are the facts. Presidents have always called on their families to help them when they could do so. It started at the beginning and has not stopped in modern times.

“If my wishes be of any avail,” George Washington wrote to his successor, “they should go to you in a strong hope that you will not withhold merited promotion from Mr. John Adams because he is your son.” His successor, John Adams, did indeed appoint his son, John Quincy Adams, as Minister to Prussia. John Quincy would go onto become the sixth American president himself. And he would appoint two of his own sons to his White House staff.

There would be eighteen sons of presidents who would serve in their father’s White House, most of them with the title of “secretary to the president.”

“Yes,” the breathless journalists will admit to me, “but not a daughter.”

In fact, as many as 14 daughters and daughter in laws,  assumed great responsibilities, running the ceremonial duties of the White House and sometimes more. Martha Johnson, daughter of the 17th president, set in place many of the protocols that are still used in the White House today. She also lobbied Capitol Hill for appropriations.

But until Jared Kushner, presidential children were not sent on foreign missions.

Wrong again.

The whole nation followed the colorful Alice Roosevelt on her outlandish tour of Asia but her shenanigans masked a more serious mission. She was carrying secret messages to the Japanese government from her father. Theodore Roosevelt would later win the Noble Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War.

alice roosevelt

Alice Roosevelt was on a secret mission

And some of these missions were not so secret. Before World War Two, FDR sent his son, Jimmie Roosevelt, on a tour of Europe where he met face to face with the British Prime Minister, the Pope and sized up Benito Mussolini for his dad.

Anna Roosevelt, FDR’s daughter, went to Yalta helping to supervise the historic meeting with her father, Joseph Stalin, Charles DeGaulle and Winston Churchill. The first lady stayed at home.

Yes, but Anna Roosevelt did not have a title and an office like Ivanka.

Well, that’s true, but she did have her own bedroom in the family quarters of the White House. As they say, the 3 keys to real estate are location, location, location.

No one should doubt the role that Anna Roosevelt played in the last year of FDR’s White House. Her mother, the first lady, was conflicted, at times proud of her daughter’s power and at other times resentful. In one entry, Eleanor writes about bringing her husband a tall stack of memorandums and papers. “Franklin,” she said, “You must read and sign every one of these tonight.”

The president, exhausted, shoved the stack over to his daughter, Anna, saying, “We’ll let Sis take care of this.”

Keep in mind, the reason we have a nepotism law is because John Kennedy appointed his own brother as Attorney General and his brother in law as Director of the Peace Corps.

Later, to circumvent those laws, Jack Ford was put on the RNC payroll while helping his father, while his sister, Susan, worked as a volunteer in the White House Photography shop.

Jimmy Carter constantly called on his son, “Chip” Carter, who helped run the Peanut business, was put on the DNC payroll during the campaign and headed up the Friendship Foundation when the Carter’s left office.

I worked personally for George W. Bush, and traveled with him in private jets, commercial planes, campers, Winnebago’s, car caravans and crummy motels as he worked for his father.

gwb and rdw ca

Doug Wead and George W. Bush, a lot younger.

After we won, we talked about him going into the White House but George H.W. Bush was adamant that it should not happen. I wondered how the staff would work without George W. there to guarantee loyalty.

Presidents have always called on their families to help them. They offer something no one else can give. Loyalty, candor and continuity. If George W. Bush had worked in his father’s White House, he would never have violated his campaign pledge, “read my lips, no new taxes.” The father probably would have been re-elected. But then, George W. would be forgotten by history.

What Jared and Ivanka are now doing for their father won’t make them any money or win them any applause but they will make America safer and stronger. I predicted it would happen in my new book GAME OF THORNS. Don’t fall for fake history. Jared and Ivanka are in good company. And they are following other famous footsteps of history.




Tucker Carlson confronts the defense attorney for alledged rapist

March 23, 2017

In one of the most powerful moments in television, Tucker Carlson confronted the defense attorney representing two young men accused of raping a 14 year old high school student in her Montgomery County, Maryland high school bathroom.

The national mainstream media, including ABC, NBC and CBS have ignored the story, presumably because the two young men, alleged rapists, are illegal immigrants.

Here is the dramatic moment on television.

Presidents and their daughters, it didn’t start with Ivanka.

March 21, 2017

Television is full of pundits talking about how unprecedented it is that Ivanka Trump would be working with an office in the White House. In fact, she is part of a long and storied history. Many presidents have been very close to their daughters and many put them to work.

According to one account, George Washington held his stepdaughter, Patsy, in his arms when she died as a teenager. She suffered from epilepsy. He was devastated.

Letty Tyler ran the White House for her widowed father, President John Tyler, and was stunned when he married a second wife, who was younger than she. Julia Gardiner, the new first lady had Letty thrown out. You can read all about the drama in my book All the Presidents’ Children.

Martha Johnson, the daughter of President Andrew Johnson, ran things for her politically challenged father, during his grueling impeachment process. Her mother was an invalid. Martha established much of the protocol that is still observed in the White House to this day. She also marched to Capitol Hill where she lobbied for appropriations. “Whatever you may think of my father, the White House is the nation’s property and it needs to be maintained,” she said.

Her brother, Robert, had his own office in the White House. He had seen tents full of severed arms and legs during the Civil War but he could not stomach the impeachment of his father. Most historians believe that he took his own life.

The story of Ivanka Trump, and the role she played for her father in the recent presidential election, is told in all its color, in my new book, Game of Thorns: Inside the Clinton-Trump election of 2016.

Ivanka would hardly be the first daughter to rise to power but she would be one of the most recent. Anna Roosevelt, daughter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, practically ran the White House, during his last year in office, from her bedroom in the private quarters. Among other things, she ran interference with the first lady while her father renewed his relationship with his mistress, Lucy Rutherford.

There is a scene in my book, All the Presidents’ Children, when first lady Eleanor Roosevelt begs her daughter to be put on the manifest for the trip to Yalta. Eleanor knew it would be historic. First daughter, Anna, says no.

It remains to be seen how powerful Ivanka Trump will be but keep this in mind, you can fire an assistant and a chief of staff but you can’t fire “daughter.” It is a title Ivanka Trump will carry for life.

Inside the media war to remove Trump

March 12, 2017

Okay, let’s get this straight. The mainstream media is hot. They are steaming. Because YOU and I voted for the wrong person and elected Donald Trump.

The nerve. We are racist, even if we are African American or Hispanic, even if we voted twice for Barack Obama. Even those who actually voted for Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump, are bad, if they are not in the streets burning things down, breaking windows, and shouting profanity at people. We are all an embarrassment to the mainstream media and their European friends and their business associates in the People’s Republic of China. Oh, and some of you are probably Russian spies.

That said, here is a way for you to make up for your shortcomings, your deplorableness.

Subscribing to these talking points below will provide you with some redemption and assist the mainstream media in their relentless crusade to undue the democratic election of Donald Trump and remove him from office.

Mainstream media talking points.

#1) Donald Trump is paranoid because he suspected his predecessor had wiretapped him. You are supposed to join in the outrage at such immaturity.

obama and trump

Obama and Trump

What can’t be discussed? The fact that the Clinton’s accused their presidential predecessor of the same thing. Yep, Hillary Clinton accused dear, old, George H.W. Bush of bugging the private family quarters of the White House when she and Bill moved in. (President Bush, Sr. had served as director of the CIA.)

According to Secret Service agents interviewed for the book GAME OF THORNS, Hillary had the Secret Service sweep for bugs she believed had been planted by her predecessor but was unsatisfied with the result. According to the sources, she had the FBI do the same thing.

When the Clinton’s became estranged from the FBI they created their own White House Personnel Security Office, run by trusted campaign staffers, and empowered them to access private FBI files of their political enemies. It became the subject of a Congressional investigation and was the scandal called Filegate.


Hillary thought she was bugged by George H.W. Bush and had the FBI sweep the White House.

Besides, only days after telling us that President Trump was being unreasonable for suspecting his predecessor of spying on him, the same mainstream media tells us that the CIA can watch us through our Samsung television sets.

Well, if they can watch you and me, it seems quite reasonable that President Trump would want to know the details of how they may have been monitoring him.

Talking point number two.

#2) Donald Trump is the person the Russians wanted to win the presidential election and they are the reason he won.

Wait a second, I thought it was Jim Comey’s fault. No, no, that is the old story and it wasn’t working. This Russian thing is better.

What can’t be discussed is that the Russians actually gave money, millions of dollars, to the Clinton Foundation and got the uranium deal and the Silicon Valley deal from Hillary in return. No, no, we can’t talk about that.

We must believe the story that the Russians put Donald Trump in power and then the first thing they asked him to do is increase military spending.

Talking point number three.

#3) Donald Trump is refusing to hold a press conference to let the MSM press him. One of the networks boldly counts out the days. “It is now day 5 and still no press conference!” Come on, help us, build the outrage, day by day.

What can’t be discussed is that Hillary Clinton went more than 300 days between press conferences, and this in the middle of a campaign for president. The Washington Post actually had a counter going. So it’s kinda disheartening to be asked to create outrage over day 5, but if the MSM says we have to do it, we better try our best.

#4) We the tax payers are spending a fortune to pay for security for the Trump children. This is a nightly news story, hoping to spark outrage.

I’ve traveled internationally with presidential children. Surely, they don’t want the Trump children to be murdered or kidnapped. We wouldn’t want that for Malia or Sasha Obama or Chelsea Clinton. It’s hard to see just where the MSM is going with this one. Are we supposed to demand that the Trump children remain confined at Camp David?

We are also supposed to be outraged over the cost of Trump flying to Mar a Largo for the weekend. But Johnson and Bush flew to Texas, Nixon and Reagan to California. Obama preferred golfing trips to Hawaii.

We know that we’ve been bad, that we voted for someone who was unapproved by the American nobility. We know we should accept our poverty with grace and honor the nation’s oligarchy, who, after-all, worked hard to earn their positions as members of the 1%, if they will just be a little patient with us.



How some at Google cheated for Hillary and why they may now help overthrow Donald Trump.

March 8, 2017

“It’s never wrong to do the right thing.” – Mark Twain.

My new book, GAME OF THORNS, details how Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, helped Hillary Clinton set up her campaign technology system. It is a riveting story.

Several others on Clinton’s senior staff came from Google, including the head technology officer, Stephanie Hannon and the chief product officer, Osi Imeokparia. Google bet heavily on Hillary’s win and may not be done.

Even now, there is apparently a battle inside Google between leftist techy purists, who want to keep to the original mission and lefties who feel a moral responsibility to manipulate the numbers to advance their own political cause. Google disputes this narrative.

Officially, publicly, Google is searching for a few conservatives, not too smart, willing to step into their toxic political environment and be their punching bags.

You don’t have to be a genius to see how partisans inside Goggle played with their own search engine to cheat for Hillary Clinton. Such a process would now be indispensable in overthrowing Donald Trump and reversing the results of last November. Let’s hope that saner heads prevail.

During the election, if you used Google and started typing in “Hillary Clinton crimes” you would be cut off early by respectable choices such as Hillary Clinton crime reform.

The New York Times denies all of this.

But hey, check for yourself.

Even now, with the election over and Google supposedly returning to normal, type in “Hillary Clinton cri…” and you will see Hillary Clinton’s criminal justice speech listed as the second choice, behind Hillary Clinton cries after losing the election. We are supposed to believe that thousands of people are actually still searching for this speech, even though Google’s own numbers apparently show that this is not the case and never was the case.

Now type in “Hillary Clinton cri…” into any other search engine and see what you get. You will find non political results based on actual numbers of searches. For example, Internet Explorer will list in order…

Hillary Clinton criminal, Hillary Clinton crime family, Hillary Clinton crime, Hillary Clinton cringe, etc. Neither her criminal justice reform, nor her criminal justice speech, is even listed on the SERP. It was the same on other search engines I tested, probably because they are not edited for political content, they are driven by actual searches.

According to GOT, during the campaign “Ted Cruz is quickly suggested to be called ‘Lyin’ Ted,’ there’s no hiding the fact that Trump is labeled a racist, and a quick search of Bernie Sanders immediately takes you to his socialist label.”

But you had to fully spell out “Crooked Hillary.” There was no help from Google, while all other search engines knew exactly what you were looking for. And, according to GOT, when you did completely spell out “Crooked Hillary,” on Google, letter by letter, all the way to the end, you got Bernie Sanders! (I now get Crooked Hillary No.)

I have visited in nations run by dictators and noticed how one had to be careful what was said and who heard it. We may be there now in America. But it is not a government that will punish us and banish us, it will be companies, that seek to control what we read and write and think. And they are watching us even now, poised to punish us for speaking truth to power?

When Bill Clinton became president, Hillary immediately appointed one of her best friends to be Director of the IRS. And they began to audit her political enemies. You can read it in GAME OF THORNS. Let’s hope that Google does not develop a list of enemies. Or you won’t be hearing much from me anymore.

To those in Google, who still cling to the idea that a search should be pure and meet the needs of the searcher, don’t give up. You can fight for Hillary and the Left, you can despise Trump and sill provide the world with an honest search.

“It’s never wrong to do the right thing.” – Mark Twain.

How White Evangelicals Won the 2016 Election

February 25, 2017

He is brash, uncompromising, direct and has no sense, whatsoever, of political correctness. He is convinced he is right and isn’t afraid to publicly proclaim it. Some argue that he, as much as any other human being, helped win the 2016 presidential election. I am speaking, of course, about David Lane, the man the New York Times refers to as the Field Marshal of the Evangelical Army.


David Lane

Of course this was Donald Trump’s victory and not many others can compete with what he himself achieved, against all odds and expectations. And of the supporting players there are many other architects that come before David Lane. There is the brilliant strategist, Steve Bannon, the wordsmith Kelleyanne Conway, the son-in-law, Jared Kushner. There is the early work, too easily forgotten, of Corey Lewandowski. Most of all, there is the steady hand at the helm, of Reince Priebus.

Then there is the day, years ago, when Donald Trump sat discouraged in his Tower, and a perky, attractive, Florida, televangelist named Paula White came on the screen.


Paula White

Trump was missing his old, positive preacher, Norman Vincent Peale. “Gosh, your’e terrific,” said Trump. He flew her to New York and she eventually showed him the Evangelical world.

“You know, I’ve been married three times,” the sinner Donald Trump admitted to the preacher. “Me too,” answered the preacher. They became unlikely friends.

I tell all of their stories in my new book, GAME OF THORNS: Inside the 2016 Clinton-Trump election contest.  But the short snippet of David Lane’s story is one of my favorites.

He did not start out supporting Donald Trump. In fact, he didn’t start out supporting anybody. He focused on organizing Evangelicals to be participants in the process, regardless of who won the nomination. He arranged for any candidate to meet and interact with Evangelical Christians.

In the process, over a 17 year period, he built an effective ground game of pastors and activists. And Lane achieved something more. He united the Evangelical leaders in a way that their competing trade organization and rival denominations could not. Lane just kept coming at them, letting petty jealousies and competition roll off him like water off a duck’s back. He became the Movement’s common denominator.

The numbers are stark. The Democrats built their coalition with Muslims, 1% of the U.S. population, African Americans, 12.9% and Hispanics, 17.6% But they virtually staked the Republicans the Catholic vote, 22% and the White Evangelical vote, 26%.

Only months before the election, the Catholic and Evangelical vote was up for grabs. Major leaders in both camps were openly sympathetic to Hillary Clinton. But leaked Democratic emails had Clinton’s staff ridiculing Catholics and derisively dismissing the Evangelicals. They spoke openly about a post-election plan to co-opt the Catholic Church and change its doctrines, a “Catholic Spring.”

When Bill Clinton insisted that Hillary speak at Notre Dame University for St. Patrick’s Day, her arrogant campaign staff laughed. When President Barack Obama warned that they were leaving Evangelical votes on the table, they dismissed his concerns as last minute jitters.

When the Access Hollywood tape emerged, Evangelical Christians rose up in righteous indignation. A student body president at one of their major universities declared that they could vote “down ballot” and ignore the presidential race. But evangelical leader, Tony Perkins, reminded the believers that the next president would pick the Supreme Court. Most agreed and quietly sat back down.


Tony Perkins

The coup de grace came in the final week. With Trump behind 14 points in some polls, the Hillary Clinton campaign pulled out all the stops and paraded a long list of Hollywood celebrities across the stage at her rallies and urged them to get out the vote on television sitcoms and in specially produced, star studded, YouTubes.

Using the F -word and taking God’s name in vain, the celebrities urged the undecided Catholics and Evangelicals to fall into line and vote for Hillary.

The celebrity talking points all seemed to reflect the same refrain. Trump was hateful, they said. He used foul language. He was racist. But communicating that message with hateful, foul, racist language was more effective to audiences in California and New York City than to audiences in the toss up states, where the election would be decided.

It was not clear how the Clinton campaign expected these entertainers to move voters. Would they use the name of Mohammed as a curse word in a video to appeal to Muslims?


Clinton vs. Trump

On November 4, 2016, a gaggle of celebrities gathered to create a video urging America to get out and vote. Referring to Trump as “garbage” and comparing him to Hitler, they sang, “Jesus f-ing Christ / Holy f-ing shit / you’ve got to vote.”

“If this video motivates one person,” the actress Rachel Bloom said, “especially in a swing state, to just get out there, then it will have been worth it. I just personally didn’t want to say I did nothing. I wanted to say I tried.”

She certainly did. White Evangelicals voted 81% for Donald Trump.