The Pulitzer committee gave a special award to fake journalist Julie Brown for her work on the Epstein matter. The committee knew, because I sent them documentation, that Brown made her career out of lying, exaggerating and failing to report facts that contradict her false narrative.

In her alleged reporting she relied on perjurers who she knew were making up false accusations. One example is Sarah Ransom, who had claimed she possessed sex tapes of Hilary and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Richard Branson. She also perjuriously claimed that I was lawyer and had sex with her. I never met her. She ultimately admitted she made up her false accusations.

The New York Post refused to print her lies but Brown relied on her as a credible source. 

In my letter to The Wall Street Journal, I documented instance after instance of deliberately false reporting by Brown. I wrote the following: “Pulitzer Prizes should not be given to journalists whose reporting places bias and result orientation over the truth.”

I wrote this letter when Brown was first nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in 2019. She was denied the prize back then, presumably because they credited my allegations, which were carefully documented and irrefutable. Now that seven years have passed, the committee apparently felt comfortable in ignoring the documented evidence of her mendacity and false reporting, hoping that no one would remember that she is a liar. I remember. And others should know the truth about her history of false reporting. 

Shame on the Pulitzer committee, shame on Julie Brown and shame on any reader who believes her false journalism.

I’m a consistently boring person.

Since my high school years, my politics, my principles, ideology and values have been the same.

I’m a traditional liberal, civil libertarian, and civil rights advocate. I support equality, meritocracy, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and intellectual diversity.

I have not changed.

But the world around me has changed dramatically, requiring me to switch from being a Democrat critical of the Democrats to becoming a Republican.

Even as recently as 10 years ago I couldn’t have imagine myself uttering the words “I am a Republican.”

But recent events have pushed me away from the Democratic party and toward what I regard as the lesser of two evils – the deeply flawed but far better Republican Party

I still support much of the Democratic platform, especially with regard to domestic and social issues, such as abortion, immigration, separation of church from state and fair taxation.

But I cannot abide the dramatic shift of the Democratic leadership and much of its base away from its support for Israel and other critical foreign policy issues.

So if I could put an asterisk next to my registration form for the Republican party, it would say “foreign policy Republican.”

But registration forms require selection of one party over the other.

After I announced I was leaving the Democratic Party in 2024, for a short time, I became an independent.

But I soon realized that it was something of a cop out.

Moreover as an independent I had no influence over either party.

As a registered Republican and contributing to its candidates, I hope to be able to exercise some influence over some of its policies with which I disagree.

This is a question of priorities – for me and for our country.

The Democratic party has become the most anti-Israel party in modern history.

It openly embraces antisemitism.

And this comes at a time when Jews are the most discriminated against and attacked group around the world.

Accordingly, anyone who regards themselves as a liberal, civil libertarian and civil rights advocate must prioritize opposition to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

You cannot join the crowds shouting anti-Israel and anti-Semitic slogans -- nor can you stand by in silence as these thugs gain more power within the Democratic Party.

Good people must prioritize support for Jews and their nation-state at this time.

That is why I have decided to register as a Republican, ending my long association with the Democratic party and no longer describing myself as an independent.

At this time of increasing attacks on one group and one nation, staying “independent” is not an option for me.

I will lose even more friends than I did for defending President Trump’s constitutional rights.

Already I am getting emails, texts and calls from people urging me to reconsider my affiliation with a party that advocates many positions with which I disagree.

But I have made a choice – a difficult but necessary one.

Until the Democrat’s gain their sanity, I will do everything in my power to try to prevent the current Democratic party from taking control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency.

And I will choose to join the Republican Party because today it stands strong on some of the gravest issues facing America and the world.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times editorial writer, Tom Friedman, says he is “torn” between his wish to have Iran defeated and his unwillingness to see Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, who he regards as “awful human beings,” “strengthened.” He worries that a victory over the nation he correctly describes as being “a terrible regime” would benefit the leaders of the two democracies that the mullahs regard as “Satans”.

Being “torn” between flawed democracies with duly elected leaders who Friedman regards as “terrible,” and an unmitigated tyranny ruled by unelected mass murderers is only the most recent manifestation of Friedman’s serious disease, namely Netanyahu and Trump “derangement syndrome.” More than 35 years ago, I began using the term “Israel derangement syndrome” to describe how the brains of otherwise intelligent people like Noam Chomsky become “scrambled” when thinking about Israel. This disease is highly contagious and spreading quickly, especially at the New York Times and other left-wing media. Its primary symptom is the double standard applied invidiously to the nation-state of the Jewish people. What is deemed to be self-defense when practiced by other nations, is called “genocide” when the IDF collaterally kills civilians who are being deliberately used as human shields. This is despite documented evidence that Israel has the best record of any army when it comes to the comparison between combatant and civilian deaths. collaterally kills civilians who are being deliberately used as human shields.

Critics of this insidious double standard derisively call it “what-about-ism”. But comparison is central to a single standard, and a single standard is an essential component of justice. All legal and moral judgements, demands that we ask the question “what about?,” of all the countries that are subject to comparative evaluation. Some are much worse and escape criticism, while Israel is singled out for unfair condemnation.

All criticism of countries should be comparative in our imperfect world, and a single standard is essential to all moral and legal judgments. Being torn between the victory or defeat of wildly non-comparable countries and their leaders is dangerous and wrong. Comparing Israel and the U.S., on the one hand, with Iran, on the other and being “torn” about who should win is like comparing Churchill to Hitler and being torn about who should have won World War II. Churchill was a deeply flawed colonialist, but Hitler was the worst butcher in history. Even if Netanyahu and Trump were both “engaged in anti-Democratic projects” (as Churchill had been) that would not justify being torn about defeating the most dangerous, anti-Democratic and anti-semitic tyranny since Nazi Germany.

By putting them in the same category and being “torn” over who should prevail, Friedman makes Iran seem like just another imperfect nation whose victory – which would entail its acquisition of a nuclear arsenal – would not pose an existential threat to Israel and a growing danger to the United States and its other allies.

Friedman knows better than to make such an immoral comparison, but his BDS and TDS (Bibi and Trump Derangement Syndrome) drives him to exaggerate his criticisms of Israel and America, while understating his criticisms of Iran. This is anti-“what-about-ism” with a sick vengeance.

No one should be torn about the preferred outcome of the Iran conflict. The ideal outcome would be total regime change and the substitution of real democracy for the cruel theocracy that now rules Iran with an iron fist. Short of such a change, Iran must be permanently prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal by removing all its enriched Uranium. The Strait of Hormuz must return to being an international waterway through which all shipping can safely pass. Iran must stop funding terrorist surrogates and must refrain from building and deploying rockets and explosive drones. Anyone who is “torn” about these admirable, peace-promoting goals cannot claim the mantle of morality. If Trump and Netanyahu can bring about these results, or anything close to them, deserves to be praised, even if that also strengthens them.

So keep reading Friedman’s often wise analyses of other issues, but when it comes to Trump and Netanyahu, put on a surgical mask to prevent you from catching his dangerous syndrome.