Wednesday, February 22, 2017

On substance, in principle, and strategically,
I’m a hundred percent for Milo Yiannopoulos

The so-called controversy about Milo Yiannopoulos is an easy call for me, and should be for you. Feel free, like I do, to joyfully support Milo 100%, without reservation, without conflict, and without hypocrisy.

Now, this position requires the following: That you know how to read; that facts interest you and you can discern them autonomously; that you know what pedophilia is and what it isn’t; and that you have a moderate, firsthand familiarity with Milo’s body of work in print, on stage and video, and in interviews. It would also help if you are honest and humble about your own flaws. For some, this may be asking a lot.

If you cannot attest to the above, I don’t think I can help you. Before reading further, I urge you to stop and do some homework. To begin, watch a few full-length, unedited videos of Milo from the past 18 months. There are a lot of them on YouTube. These performances will cover his ideas, his tactics, and enough of his personal history for you to be able to say you’ve held up your end as an informed judge. (As an added benefit, they are highly entertaining.) Then decide.

For the more informed among you, I am likely preaching to the choir. Milo makes his own defense easily, far better than I can. Just read his recent statements (here and here) and watch his press conference in light of his disinvitation to CPAC and lost book deal, and subsequent resignation as Senior Tech Editor at Breitbart.

So with that out of the way, let me enjoy singing his praises:

Milo Yiannopoulos occupies an extremely rarefied sub-sub-category in the worlds of conservatism (though Milo would prefer libertarianism) and homosexuality. It’s hard enough to find a prominent conservative-libertarian who admits to engaging in same-sex relations. But can you name even one other gay conservative (without Googling) who: A] openly admits that his practice of homosexuality goes against his firmly and sincerely held religious beliefs; B] comes down, when push comes to shove, on the side of his faith; C] would, all things be equal, rather be straight and isn’t ashamed to say so; and D] is perfectly willing to embrace such a life with the liberal use of prayer and jumper cables?

Of course you can’t. This illustrates Fact #1 about Milo: He is one of a kind.

Milo’s erudite, lightning-like discourse, his verbal wit and humor, and his scathing polemics are something to behold. He is informed. He is fearless. He is funny. He is fair. Milo is clever and nuanced, outrageous and poignant. His theses are sometimes inscrutable and even grotesque, like paintings by Bosch or Magritte or Dali. If you merely glance at them, you will miss their richness. You must take ample time, look at every detail (without averting your eyes), and then cohere them into a whole portrait. There just isn’t enough space in this essay to educate the casual reader about Milo; I may as well try to help you appreciate fine wines or John’s Book of Revelation in one article. Milo requires time and reflection.

It is in his many paradoxes that Milo stands apart. He is courageous while generous, scathing yet affectionate, brutal but forgiving.

Most important, of course, is that his message is true and needs to be heard in America today, especially on university campuses. This should be one of our strategic priorities.

What is exciting about this fellow is that he is only in the early stages of his life and work. He is growing in knowledge, wisdom, and skill. His ideas are cohering, ever-increasingly, to the point of becoming weaponized. Or, if that is too scary for you, they are becoming distilled into a miracle vaccine. Milo Yiannopoulos is doing for Political Correctness and freedom of speech what Jonas Salk did for polio and walking on two legs.

If you are a fan of Milo, cringe if you must at his current crisis. Mock him, haters, if it makes you feel better. But love him or hate him, do not make the mistake of being dismissive or counting him out. I shan’t.

Friday, February 03, 2017

Highlights of Ann Coulter’s book signing at the
Women's National Republican Club in Manhattan

The moment I saw the sprightly-suited ladies heel-stepping through the halls of Women’s National Republican Club last night, commanding their Midtown Manhattan space and welcoming guests with smiles and greetings, I felt at home. Actually, their dignified, business-like examples reminded me it was time to step up my game, join their cause, and earn a place among them as a contributor worthy of their association.

Ann Coulter and Paul Klenk, WNRC, Feb. 1, 2017
We were there to hear author Ann Coulter dish out her usual buffet of red meat, wit, and blinding sunshine, and she did not disappoint. We were also hoping to participate in the Q&A, buy her latest book, and get it signed with an “Ann & Me” photo op.

Ann smartly kept her remarks entertaining but short, to leave ample time for questions. Before I took my turn at the mic, I was reminded by the moderator to ask one question only, no speeches, and keep it short. My ‘Compliment, Compliment, Question’ format was shot down. Sorry, Milo.

Displaying FullSizeRender.jpg
I decided to ask Ann about the enormous task of deporting from the U.S. the millions of people here illegally, framed as a moral question of practical mercy: “Would you object,” I asked, “of giving all illegals a choice (as long as they register with biometric identification): Either self-deport and apply to enter legally, and earn entry and possibly citizenship in the same line as everyone else; or stay as permanent legal residents, but forever give up any possibility of citizenship and government benefits?”

“Yes,” she said, reminding me of a passage in “¡Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.” To paraphrase her, “That is a siren song for many, but it would be unfair to create a second class of people who are not citizens.”

She sold me. It truly is a siren song. A hard pill to swallow, but it must be all or nothing.

After the talk, I got in line and said hello to Ann. She was delighted to learn that she and I attend the same church. I left with a signed copy of “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!” and my Tweetable trophy photo. Success on all counts!

Other highlights of the night: Meeting Joe Q., Elliot, and Keith, three smart, affable gentlemen; and sharing time with friends John and Desmond;

Remembering life-defining moments at the club from years ago, including a speech by Ray Kelly I reported on which inspired one of my most significant pieces of writing, an article which not only got picked up by major papers and websites, but also was accessed by servers in Obama’s White House hours after publication, and the days and weeks that followed.

So glad I attended. Ladies, ladies, I hope to be back soon!

Paul Klenk

Thursday, February 02, 2017

Woman’s report of harassment by Trump supporter
merely for speaking Spanish on NYC transit, 1/31/17

Below is an account of the harassment of a Spanish-speaking woman by a male Trump supporter on a Manhattan train platform, posted on Facebook two evenings ago.

In the interest of creating awareness and bringing this matter to a just conclusion, I am posting the account verbatim, with identifying details redacted. I have have also offered my friend (who posted his friend’s complaint) to assist her in identifying the person, reporting it to the authorities, and identifying the individual in the report.

If and when I reach the woman, I have the law enforcement information I need to help her report the incident. — p.k.

Date of incident: Tuesday January 31, 2017
Date of initial Facebook posting and re-posting: Tuesday January 31, 2017
City: Manhattan, NY
Location: Train platform (unspecified)

FACEBOOK POST, January 31, 2017 at 10:39 PM

“This happened to a good friend, [occupation redacted], a woman, in Manhattan today. This is real, it is happening in America, and it is being done in the name of the President of the United States.”
"Ogre-sized dude in a MAGA hat with goddamned earflaps (EARFLAPS!) just got in my face while I was on the phone with [name redacted] because I was speaking Spanish. SPANISH! You'd think that it was an affront to God the way this angry neckbeard was wargleblargling in my freaking face while all of the people on this crowded train platform, the dozens of people around us stayed completely quiet. Not one person intervened while this giant man jabbed his finger in my face and stood over me. He was so up in my personal space that the toes of his boots touched mine. Not. One. Person.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

My dream to sing “The Star Spangled Banner”
at President Donald J. Trump’s Inauguration

Dreams don’t always come true, but you should dream them anyway. Much can result from pursuing our greatest desires.

As the 2015-16 U.S. presidential campaign kicked off, I dedicated myself early to helping my candidate, Donald Trump, in the primary and general elections (a challenge in New York City). This election cycle I combined my love of busking with my love of campaigning, as I had 16 years ago during George W. Bush’s run. In 2000, my efforts brought me from rallying by myself in Times Square each night during the recount (broadcasting to the world on live Web cams!), to Washington, D.C. on inauguration day in 2001, singing “God Bless America” in the front of the Supreme Court, the site where W’s victory was vindicated.

During Mr. Trump’s run, while I occasionally worked the phone banks in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in NYC, I also started to practice “The Star Spangled Banner,” knowing it may come in handy at political meetings and rallies. The anthem is a challenge to sing well, making it an excellent workout in the subway over my lunch hour.

As my tenor voice rang through the mezzanine at Grand Central, and I witnessed commuters break into smiles and goosebumps, I knew it was time to find opportunities to sing at volunteer events. From my first performance at a Team Trump 5k walk/run and picnic in Central Park, I won the hearts of workers and one of our amazing coordinators, Nicole, while discovering a purpose for my singing — to energize and electrify the hearts and souls of citizens supporting Donald Trump.

One volunteer who heard me after the election, Vlad, clued me into the power of singing. “Remember,” he said, “everywhere you go with your God-given gift, you can change the atmosphere.” He become a friend and my most ardent fan, but more important, he insisted on reminding me of the power of my voice each time we met, and nudzhing me to sing. His words were so compelling that I scheduled them to pop up on my iPhone each morning at 11:30.

I really wanted to sing at a ball or event on inauguration day, and told my fellow volunteers of this dream. I had given my vacation notice for that Friday, reserved hotel rooms, arranged transportation with a friend, and requested tickets to the Capitol swearing-in from my elected representatives in Washington. All I had left to do was pack my black velvet evening jacket and find a place to sing.

Monday, January 23, 2017

In honor of The Honorable Donald J. Trump:

My view from Green Section #12 Trump’s inauguration!
I personally witnessed the swearing-in of President Donald J. Trump last Friday in Washington, D.C.,  and enjoyed the weekend there with a good friend and many amazing volunteers from Mr. Trump’s campaign. The time spent in our Capitol brought the reward of many, many stories to tell, so many that when I arrived home here in Harlem, NYC, I realized I need to write them down.

LIFE OF A WRITER: It has been some time since I’ve published regularly here at When I wrote more frequently, some of the more ‘newsy’ items were picked up by major Web sites (see “Friends and mentions” at right). One in particular was read from White House servers at hours after I posted it (guess which one by leaving a comment!). And in fact, almost six years ago, long before I imagined Mr. Trump would run for office, I published a defense of him by documenting a malicious and erroneous attack on his reputation by The Smoking Gun (Donald Trump, “Death Dodger,” avoids war service by — gasp! — common, legal, and honest methods). 

Meanwhile, since putting this site on hold, I’ve enjoyed growing success as a writer, having numerous works of original creative non-fiction and poetry published by The New York Times. I’m ready to take things to a new level, and I have enough material to stay busy for months.

So it’s back to the keyboard! In honor of the first inauguration of President Trump; as a thank you to (and in support of) him for an inspiring weekend; and, most important, to document firsthand experiences in Washington, is now officially reinaugurated with new political commentary, media analysis and criticism, and citizen reporting.

I am honored by your visit to my Web site, and hope to enrich you with truth and insight. Please follow, like, share, comment, and subscribe. And look for more articles soon!

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Crown Forum Publicity Office alerted by e-mail
of alleged plagiarism by “author” Michelle Fields

Below is the verbatim e-mail I sent to Crown Forum’s publicity office* at Random House [] on Wednesday, August 10, 2016:

SUBJECT: Likely plagiarism by Crown author in form of “refactoring”

To the publisher of “Barons of the Beltway: Inside the Princely World of Our Washington Elite—and How to Overthrow Them”

Dear Sir or Madam:

In case you have not yet been alerted, serious allegations of plagiarism — in the form of the refactoring of others’ work without citations, in lieu of original work of her own — are being made on the Internet about the Michelle Fields book referenced above, which Crown Forum published and continues to market.

As a writer myself, I find this extremely offensive, as I know how difficult and laborious it is to originate good work, and even harder to get it published. When word of this gets out to your other authors, and it will, I can assure you they will not take this lightly. If true, as Crown Forum authors, their work and reputations will be diminished by their association with a publisher of plagiarism. If it is true, I hope Crown Forum will recall the book immediately and refund all purchases, regardless of how few copies have been sold.

To my best knowledge, this discovery was made, and news of it first published, by attorney Travis Miller, attorney Mike Cernovich of, and Charles C. Johnson, CEO of, two of whom are copied on this e-mail.

The evidence given of this alleged fraud (see links below) include numerous samples of Fields’ work side-by-side with the work of others.

As you will see, the samples do not show lengthy, wholesale “word for word” copying, but rather highly suspicious re-writing of the samples that strongly suggest:
  1. Fields did not originate the ideas in her passages;
  2. Fields is not conversant in the subjects she is writing about;
  3. Fields found passages written by others with the same ideas and often identical phrasing; and
  4. Fields merely re-factored these passages by restating others’ phrases using different words, but not enough to cover her tracks and hide her plagiarism;
  5. Fields passed off the work as her own, without credit to others.
I myself found such a passage on my first attempt. At, I found her book, clicked on “Look Inside” and “Surprise Me” to find random pages. I Googled phases from the first paragraph I found and discovered a paragraph in a Wikipedia article that was very similar, and included several of the same ideas and phrases in the same short passage.

Further evidence that Fields did not truly “author” this work is her complete lack of knowledge of her book when confronted on television by Steve Malzberg (view here:

I hope you will take these allegations seriously, and forward this e-mail to the appropriate officers and staff of your company, as independent associates and researchers of this story will surely be contacting board members, senior staff, and Crown Forum authors, and publicizing this story widely on social media, including news of Crown’s response to these allegations.

Thank you for your attention. You may contact me by reply e-mail.


Paul Klenk
[e-mail address redacted]


cc: Michael Cernovich, Charles C. Johnson

* Author’s note: This alert was sent to, an address widely published at official current Crown Forum and Random House Web sites and press releases. Delivery failed to that account. The e-mail to the address was sent successfully.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

What’s next for Citizen Zimmerman:
The Bad News and the Good News

Today, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey put into motion a seemingly baseless, unjust prosecution of an innocent man, or at best a very flimsy and unnecessary legal case, purely in response to pressure from an angry mob. And today, George Zimmerman learned that he has a grave fight ahead of him. This is all because the accused was unselfishly helping the police protect a neighborhood with a history of burglaries. He was, he claims, attacked by Trayvon Martin, a suspicious young man with an arguably thuggish personality, who was once found with a utterly suspicious cache of jewelry and a burglary tool which he himself admitted were not his own. George Zimmerman’s crime, it seems, was defending himself against serious injury or death, using a legal weapon and deadly force, in accordance with the law.

The bad news for George Zimmerman is not just that he has been charged with second degree murder today. It is also bad news for him that the person pressing the charges, Angela Corey, stated the following:
“Remember, it is Trayvon’s family who are our Constitutional victims.”
With this sort of mindset, it is hard to take Corey seriously as a justice-minded prosecutor.

Corey’s statement just isn’t true legally unless Zimmerman is found guilty; in fact, if Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman as claimed, Trayvon isn’t a victim, either. Remember: If, and only if, Zimmerman committed a crime, the victim would first and foremost be Trayvon, “constitutionally.” Corey’s statement signals that she took the steps she took not on behalf of Florida’s law and its citizens, but on behalf of the (possibly unwitting) family, its band of merry (witting) race-baiting, riot-inciting rabble-rousers, Sharpton and Jackson, and the easily aroused mob that is influenced by them.

Corey appears to be bowing to public pressure, notwithstanding her assertions to the contrary, which no prosecutor should have to make. If her case is compelling, it will stand on its own when presented to a judge. If it isn’t, no smiling assertion in a press conference can change that. In no circumstance should such a press conference be necessary, except to briefly relay the barest of facts.

It is also telling that Corey requested the public pray for Trayvon’s family, and for her team, but not for Zimmerman. If Trayvon was the attacker and Zimmerman the innocent defender, I would still ask (and do ask) everyone to pray for all parties. Why is the accused not worthy of our prayers?

None of this is good news for Zimmerman.

What is good news is that the legal process which Corey set in motion now shifts in favor of Zimmerman.

I base this on what looks like a well-researched, useful article at CNN breaking down the steps in the legal process, a process which will end in dismissal, acquittal, or conviction. (Please allow me a huge asterisk here; I am a lay person and not in a position to evaluate the work of Beth Karas and Jessica Thrill. Your informed comments or criticisms are welcome.)

Unless there is a bombshell that has been kept completely secret from the public, Zimmerman is in good shape when a judge looks at the charges and the defense asks for a dismissal (if the judge has more than half a brain, and one eye open). There are one or two main challenges ahead:

Challenge #1: Get the charges dismissed. If successful, George goes free.

To get the charges dismissed, the defense has the burden to prove (based on a preponderance of the evidence) in a pre-trial evidentiary hearing that Zimmerman is immune from those charges based on Stand Your Ground.

This means it must prove all three of the following to be true:
  • Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.
  • Zimmerman was attacked in a place he had a right to be.
  • Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life and safety were in danger.
This strikes my lay mind as a bit tricky. #2 is a piece of cake; of course he had the right to be there. #1 seems problematic, because the defense is asked to prove a negative. “Okay, George, prove you weren’t engaged in an unlawful activity, or the trial will move ahead.” Maybe this will be extremely easy; that is, perhaps the prosecution must claim a specific unlawful activity first. And #3 should not be so very hard. He was getting pummeled in his head, a vital part of his body without which he could not live or function. But not knowing as much about past Stand Your Ground cases as I’d like to, I can only speculate.

If the defense fails to get a dismissal, it moves on to:

Challenge #2: Defend George against the charge of second degree manslaughter.

To me, this would actually seem easier (or at least as easy) for the defense, because the burden of proof moves to the prosecution. Of course I’d rather see the charges dismissed. It would be better for everyone. If they are not, there will be a lot of hand-wringing by concerned Zimmerman supporters. (Based on everything that is being claimed by both sides, at this point I consider myself a supporter.)

From the CNN article:
“Florida law describes murder in the second degree as an act that is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
  • a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another,
  • and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent,
  • and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”
Here the prosecution has a seemingly insurmountable burden, one which, if Corey had her head screwed on right, she would not have undertaken.

Of course it is imminently dangerous to shoot another person. That’s a no-brainer. But how do you prove that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, demonstated a depraved mind? Well, without the aforementioned bombshell, you don’t.

After you prove his depraved mind, you still have a another three facts to prove (note the “and” after the first and second bullets). Again, it is easy to prove that a reasonable person would know that to shoot someone is certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to them. But Zimmerman must be proved to have done this from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and that he was indifferent about it.

In summary: The prosecution’s challenge is to prove the following to be true beyond a reasonable doubt: Zimmerman demonstrated a depraved mind, AND he did it from ill will or hatred, AND he was indifferent to Trayvon’s life.

All three. Let’s see how they intend to do this.

Today, Trayvon’s grieving mother, Sybryna Fulton, said with a broken heart that all she ever wanted was an arrest. Well, every indication is that she has been granted her wish.

But if Zimmerman is found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed, will Fulton let it rest? Or will she amend her wish to include both an arrest and a conviction? If the justice system gives her an outcome she doesn’t like, will she proclaim an injustice? With Sharpton at her side, the latter is more likely, but only time will tell. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but since she is hanging out with Sharpton, I just can’t swing that. She’s clearly a smart lady and should know better. All I can give her is my heartfelt sympathy. That is something she deserves.