CPAC Sunday

How about a bit more from CPAC? Well, why not.

Have to admit, I like the guy more as we go along. He fights.

Nigel Farage? But of course.

Steve Bannon, seeing him is pretty rare.

Rustbelt, Religion, and Realignment. Oh, my!

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt

CPAC 2017 – Rising Stars in the Conservative Movement

 

If you’re like me, you probably won’t them all, at least all the way through, but they’re all interesting.

Have a good Sunday.

 

Immigration, and some from CPAC

ap_16326009989758-640x442So, on Tuesday, General Kelly gave an order to his people on immigration. In short, it said this:

Henceforth, the United States shall be governed by the laws of the United States.

As said on warsclerotic.com, that it had to be said:

[…] owes to the Obama administration abuses of three legal doctrines: prosecutorial discretion, preemption, and separation of powers (specifically, the executive usurpation of legislative power).


 

 

I’m not as thrilled as I used to be with CPAC, but it does bring together some very good people, so let’s watch a few.

I always thnk Scott Walker has an idea of what to do.

Sen Ted Cruz and Mark Levin; it just doesn’t get much better!

The Vice President Mike Pence.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos

Senator Jim DeMint, now at the Heritage Center

And Dana Loesch, of course! 🙂

I’d guess we’ll have some more of these, as we go along. Some really good stuff gets said, and out loud too.

 

 

UK and US Stuff That Caught My Eye Yesterday: Enjoy

Ramirez:

w10565

One of the really fun things to do here is to feature people who are friends, or at least you get to interact with on a regular basis. One of the people in this video is somewhere on that spectrum. Let’s see if you can figure out which.

Since they’re Brits, the arguments are slightly different than they are here, but I doubt you have many doubts that I admire Laura a good deal. Quite something to watch her take on a couple of leftists (one of whom works for the BBC) and wipe the floor with them. Well done, Laura. And yes, this level of competence in writing and commenting, as well, is much of the reason I enjoy The Conservative Woman as much as I do.

Also from Britain come a very sad story of what happens when the government becomes too big for its britches. From politics. co. uk and that is somewhat unusual, they usually strike me as pretty much statists, at best.

Two elderly ladies in Birmingham have been threatened with fines for sweeping up leaves. They did this because the leaves were a slip hazard – one of them had already fallen over. They left the leaves neatly in bags and tried to arrange for the the council to collect them. But rather than collect them, council officers slapped the bags with ‘illegally dumped garden waste’ stickers and threatened ‘action’.

This is not the first case of this kind. Other people have been fined for putting swept up leaves in their recycling bins. Another man in southern England was told he had to pay for the leaves to be collected, after he and other residents had cleaned their estate for it to look ‘spick and span’ for Christmas (if he put the leaves back on the road, he was told, he would be fined for fly tipping). [essentially littering, I think. Neo]

The maintaining of the street outside your house is one of those traditional, community-spirited things to do, which has rather fallen away. I am always struck with admiration when I see the elderly lady opposite sweeping up her pavement or pulling out stray weeds from the cracks. This is not something that my generation does. Yet community-spirited actions increasingly come into conflict with official rules. The communal space has become something solely occupied by the official actor.

So, it is only for the public authority to sweep up – or fail to sweep up – leaves on the pavement. Any citizen’s action into the public realm appears as a violation and a disruption of bureaucratic order. Spontaneous public action messes up the categories: they put the leaves in the wrong box, in the wrong place, or in the wrong bags. The state cannot appear to manage the interrelations with public action, even though people who have been sweeping up leaves say that they have been doing it for 30 years, and the council never used to have a problem with picking up the bags. It’s not that complicated to pick up a bag.

Right up there with penalizing 8-year-olds for running a lemonade stand, isn’t it? It’ll likely get worse before it gets better, both there and here. It’s why we need to get control back of our government, at all levels.

And finally, we talk some here about echo chambers, and yes, we all have them. The Federalist had an article yesterday about: Here Are The Media Hottakes We’d See If The Chronicles Of Narnia Were Released This Year

The press has certainly taken its lumps lately—and they’re not altogether undeserved. As Federalist contributor Tom Nichols points out in his new book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge, a great deal of journalism currently exists more to confirm its audience’s preconceived notions than to inform them about reality.

Nichols’ book inspired me to reflect on how politically obsessed and ideologically sequestered our press has become, particularly when it comes to hot-button social issues.  To illustrate this, let’s take the debate into the world of counterfactuals: in the alternate history where C.S. Lewis’ classic children’s fantasy series is released this year and becomes a mega-hit, I think the hot takes would probably look something like these. 

The American Conservative: “Narnia and the Problem of Borders”
By not effectively maintaining border security, King Tirian ensured his nation would be invaded and plundered by the Calormenes. Also, Archenland should’ve been Narnia’s Benedict Option.

The Atlantic: “How World War II Shaped Narnia”
One of those very comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles that’s so long it’s divided up by roman numerals. […]

Including this, and quite a few more.

The Federalist: “17 Reasons Puddleglum Is The Most Hopeful Character In Literature”
We promise, there really is something good to be found in bottom-feeder mass-market material. Also, it has something to do with sex, gender, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Can’t we get that in the title?

Heh! Part of the reason I like The Federalist is that they occasionally laugh at themselves, as we all should. Read the whole thing™, I LOLed, likely you will as well.

A bit lighter today, because hey, why not.

 

 

The End Of Identity Politics

womens_marchFrom Victor Davis Hanson

Who are we? asked the liberal social scientist Samuel Huntington over a decade ago in a well-reasoned but controversial book. Huntington feared the institutionalization of what Theodore Roosevelt a century earlier had called “hyphenated Americans.” A “hyphenated American,” Roosevelt scoffed, “is not an American at all.” And 30 years ago, another progressive stalwart and American historian Arthur Schlesinger argued in his book The Disuniting of America that identity politics were tearing apart the cohesion of the United States.

What alarmed these liberals was the long and unhappy history of racial, religious, and ethnic chauvinism, and how such tribal ties could prove far stronger than shared class affinities. Most important, they were aware that identity politics had never proved to be a stabilizing influence on any past multiracial society. Indeed, most wars of the 20th century and associated genocides had originated over racial and ethnic triumphalism, often by breakaway movements that asserted tribal separateness. Examples include the Serbian and Slavic nationalist movements in 1914 against Austria-Hungary, Hitler’s rise to power on the promise of German ethno-superiority, the tribal bloodletting in Rwanda, and the Shiite/Sunni/Kurdish conflicts in Iraq.

The United States could have gone the way of these other nations. Yet, it is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals. […]

That is, in large part why this experiment has worked, it doesn’t matter who you are, you have got a shot. It may not be a fair shot, by any means, let alone your lights, but it’s a shot, all the same. It’s worked, and it’s worked pretty well, overall.

In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision—“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo.

A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states. […]

In doing so, she (and some before her) have gone far to negating the social contract that built America.

Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs.

The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power.

via The End Of Identity Politics

I’ve skipped a huge amount here, especially of his reasoning, which is sound. So, by all means, read the link. But what stands out here, is the idea of America, where we count the individual, not the group (increasingly, groups) to which he belongs. I think he’s correct, and I suspect we are going to be exploring some of the material we’ve written about lately, in more detail.

The Conservative Counterculture

Kind of funny, really. When I was a kid (in the 60s) I was a hopeless square, being conservative, and even believing in God, although I had my problems with Him, as most do. But, hey, look at us now.

Yes, I know, Infowars. But, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…

And you know, he’s right. I don’t especially like Milo, or some of his beliefs, what I do like is that he’s out there, doing it his way. Bookworm recently said this:

Milo Yiannopoulos — rude and crude, but also smart, brave, funny, and bitchy. He’s a necessary counterweight to Progressives’ lethal Political Correctness.

With a swirling debate about whether Milo Yiannopoulos will be a keynote speaker at this year’s CPAC, I have a confession: I didn’t like Milo Yiannopoulos when he first popped up on my radar. At a first, superficial, glance, he was everything that rubs me the wrong way: His humor seemed to rely on crude insults and too often to trade in racial and religious stereotypes, he relentlessly leveraged those insults and stereotypes into media face time which seemed to drag conservativism down not build it up, and he had that whole drag queen vibe. I have issues, which I’ll explain in a few minutes, with the drag queen vibe. Having reached these conclusions, I dismissed Milo. There. Done.

The thing is, if you’re a conservative, Milo is not a person who can be — or should be — dismissed. I first got an inkling of this from my teenage son. Sick and tired of being on the receiving end of misanthropic third-wave feminist tirades at his school (which cannot be challenged because doing so is an unacceptable manifestation of cisgender male privilege and domination), he headed to the internet looking for rebuttals to these feminists. Even if the school’s uber-liberal environment bans voicing the rebuttals, at least he had the comfort of knowing they were there.

My son’s research led him directly to Steve Crowder and Milo. He appreciated Crowder’s unflinching, and almost invariably funny, take Islam’s issues with the West and he was completely awed at Milo’s ability to (in my son’s words) “destroy those feminazis.” My son therefore insisted I watch Milo’s epic feminazi destruction in action. I agreed, somewhat worried that I’d get one of Milo’s unpleasant, uber-queenie, racist, shock-value moments. Instead, I got this:

I hope you see what I see: A young man in complete command of the facts, debating at a high intellectual level using arguments familiar to most conservatives, and politely, completely, and matter-of-factly destroying the feminist mantra. Without being in any way offensive, he left those two women looking foolish and uninformed.

Here was a young, hip, edgy, gay, Jewish/Greek/Catholic guy attacking the Leftist shibboleths that so irritated my son. Without my putting any pressure on him, my son regularly hunted down both Milo’s and Crowder’s videos. (Incidentally, my focus on Milo here is not meant to denigrate Crowder’s virtues. It’s simply that he’s a less controversial figure, so I don’t feel compelled to go to his defense.) No wonder, then, that my son, unusually for a kid his age in my “true Blue” county was remarkably sanguine when Trump won.

All very true, in my experience. So we had the kerfluffle yesterday when Milo supposedly defended pedophilia. But did he? I doubt it. Book updated that post, here is what she said.

[And timing is everything. The day after I wrote an encomium to Milo, who speaks forcefully about (among other things) gender dysphoria and the danger to children in bathrooms, PJ Media claims he supports gay pedophilia — or, at least, being a provocateur, provocatively says things he implies he does. Milo is certainly firm in his outrage against the accusation. His defense makes sense to me, especially given how familiar I am with gay culture thanks to growing up and working in SF. This new data point doesn’t change the main points below. Here’s the deal: gay culture is different and one of Milo’s strengths is that he says America should not subordinate itself to gay culture.]

UPDATE: Milo seems to have been destroyed. Despite his books status as a best seller, Simon & Schuster has dumped it. Breitbart is silent about him.

As best as I can tell, thanks to Stephen Green’s research, these are the two worst things Milo said that would lead to an accusation that he’s a pedophile:

Milo’s money quote, which was edited out of the video, is this:

The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

And this was edited out as well:

“You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty… That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

In other words, Milo never said that he had sex with little boys or that he intended to do so. What he did say was that older gay men often introduce younger gay men into sex. I certainly saw that enough when I was living and working in San Francisco. It was too common practice for sexually confused 20 or 22 year olds to be taken under the wing of a 30 or 40 year old gay man. It was not pedophilia, it was gay mentoring and it’s obvious that Milo is referring to that practice.

As for Milo’s comment about pedophilia being a perverted passion for children who have not gone through adolescence, he’s correct. He’s also correct that children mature at different speeds. In my neighborhood, one kid at 12 had a nascent mustache and a voice deeper than my husband’s. Another finally got his growth spurt when he went off to college, although he’s still not shaving. Having said that, Milo made it clear that, given this variability, he has no problem with the current age of consent laws.

It’s very disturbing that this take-down of one of the most effective voices for conservativism came from the #NeverTrump crowd having a petty pique fit over Milo’s invitation to CPAC. Having said that, the information was out there, and if the renegade right hadn’t published it, the Lefties would have and in a way that was even worse.

I’ve heard from friends that Lefties are already piling on to this man who did nothing wrong other than making observations about the realities of the gay world and the physical maturation process. More than that, I find it incredibly ironic that this tut-tutting comes from the Left. These are the same people who demand that condoms, birth control advice, and abortion information should be given to kids as young as 11 in their schools, and who insist that a child can get an abortion with an adult okaying it something that is, of course, the best possible way for a true pedophile to destroy any genetic evidence of his crime.

And by the way, if this seems familiar, you’re seeing the same takedown that the Left and #NeverTrumpers did to Trump. He observed accurately enough that, if you’re rich and famous, women will indeed let you do anything to them. He did not say that he took advantage of this reality, yet he was instantly called a molester and subjected to the harshest castigation. And of course, most of the screaming came from the same side that was fine with Clinton raping women and using the pressure of his fame and power to coerce a women young enough to be his daughter to engage in a sordid workplace affair.

This whole thing sickens and disgusts me. We are in a political sewer in our country.

Yep, and so here you see what happens, Book, a nice Jewish lady in her 50s and me, a conservative Christian in my 60s, defending a brash young Brit, because he was essentially set up – again. We’ve both seen it time and time again, and enough is enough. I don’t agree with anyone, all the time, but I’m not the guy, and neither are you, that has, or should have the power to tell them, “sit down and shut up”. It used to be a free country, and with luck, and people like Milo, it will be again.

Do read her post linked above. But here’s the thing, what’s happening to Milo is exactly what the establishment tried to do to Trump. Trump is a well-known quantity, and because of it (and his personality) is known well enough to withstand it, even thrive on it. Milo maybe isn’t yet. He’s the same sort of brazen, in your face guy, but he works in an area that causes discomfort to many of us older guys, me included. But, my discomfort is no reason for him to be silenced, by anyone, neither is yours. What we call “Freedom of Speech” would be better named “Freedom to Offend” because that is what it is. If Milo had done actual pedophilia (and his definition is correct, ages of consent are a modern thing, because not all mature at the same rate, and we have wished to protect those that mature slower) that would be one thing, one that objective law would deal with, saying things, even things we may find distasteful or wrong is not.

The fact that this happened is even more proof that the puritans of the left (including many Republicans) simply can’t handle dissension. That is why Freedom now lives on the right, and Milo is one of its spokespeople. The left has become ‘the Man’ and this is the sound of people speaking truth to power. Deal with it. Because conservativism, no matter what the pearl clutchers think (even the #never Trumpers), has become the counterculture.

Paul J. Watson wrote about this recently in Canada Free Press and you should read that as well.

James Delingpole recently observed that Ted Mallach believes that “the Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016…are the counter-reaction to the global takeover by the liberal-left in 1968.”  This long overdue counter-reaction is, in fact, (as Milo and PJ Watson note) the vanguard of a new counter-culture—conservatism.

Let me be quick to point out that I am not referring to “conservatism” as it has been understood in the past—and the new conservatism should by no means be confused with the so called “neo-conservatives” (neocons), who are, of course, left wing big government globalists posing as right-wing conservative Republicans.  (Many of the Republican #NeverTrumpers come from their ranks).

Although the new counter-cultural brand of conservatism that I am talking about carries with it many key elements of traditional conservatism—such as a passion for freedom, patriotism, capitalism, religious freedom, and tolerance—it tends to be more pragmatic and less ideologically obsessed, more open-minded and less dogmatic than traditional conservatism.  Sort of libertarianism on a leash, with a dash of brash impertinence.

The core word in the new conservative counter-culture is freedom.  As in free-spirited, free-thinking, free enterprise, free market, free speech—free, freer, freest.

By and large our college campuses are currently anti-freedom, and promote and preach fear, intolerance, divisiveness, and scorn—muzzling free speech and indoctrinating students to be passionately and self-righteously fearful and contemptuous of anyone perceived as being outside the officially sanctioned leftist thought box.  Academia has become, in a word, repressive.  Much more repressive than they ever thought of being back in 1968.

American academia has morphed into a purveyor of Draconian thought policing that is diametrically opposed to what the counter-culture of the late 60s purportedly fought for.  Perhaps the strangest of the leftist campus reversals is from a “If it feels good do it” hedonism to a type of hysterical pearl-clutching puritanism.  In any event, it is way past time for a radical shift in direction.  I believe that with a cutting edge conservative counter-culture leading the way, we won’t get fooled again.

The “long march through the institutions” created not [a] collectivist utopia, but privileged elites in media, academe, and government whose stock portfolios, bank accounts, affluent zip-codes, and tony life-styles [are] indistinguishable from those of the robber-baron capitalists they demonized.—Bruce Thornton “Leftism:From Bloody Tragedy to Therapeutic Parody”

via Hip Conservative Counter-Culture Vs. Repressive Liberal Establishment

It’s awfully late, but we’ve finally become the cool kids, just in time, I think.

Jane Rowe, RIP

norma_mccorvey_jane_roe_1989_cropped-269x300It has been announced that Norma McCorvey, who we all know as Jane Roe has died. We all know that her lawsuit, pushed all the way to the Supreme Court (mostly by feminist activists who used her) was the case that allowed abortions in the United States. What isn’t so well-known is the rest of her story. Gene Veith wrote the best I’ve found on it, which is far better than I could.

Norma McCorvey, who went by the name of “Jane Roe” in the infamous Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, has died at the age of 69.

After winning the Supreme Court case, McCorvey became active in the pro-abortion movement.  But the kindness of a pro-life demonstrator at an abortion clinic led to her conversion to Christianity.

She then became a pro-life activist, battling the abortions that in another life she made legal. […]

She became involved in a lesbian relationship, but after she became a Christian, they became celibate.  After her conversion, she was an evangelical, but she later become Roman Catholic.

Her life is a remarkable testimony to the grace of God, who redeems sinners and changes them.

via The death and new life of “Jane Roe”

I couldn’t agree more, the grace of God is very strong in her story. Gene also excerpted the AP obituary, which I’ll also copy.

Norma McCorvey, whose legal challenge under the pseudonym “Jane Roe” led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision that legalized abortion but who later became an outspoken opponent of the procedure, died Saturday. She was 69.

McCorvey died at an assisted living center in Katy, Texas, said journalist Joshua Prager, who is working on a book about McCorvey and was with her and her family when she died. He said she died of heart failure and had been ill for some time.

McCorvey was 22, unmarried, unemployed and pregnant for the third time in 1969 when she sought to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure was illegal except to save a woman’s life. The subsequent lawsuit, known as Roe v. Wade, led to the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that established abortion rights, though by that time, McCorvey had given birth and given her daughter up for adoption.

Decades later, McCorvey underwent a conversion, becoming an evangelical Christian and joining the anti-abortion movement. A short time later, she underwent another religious conversion and became a Roman Catholic.

“I don’t believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it’s still a child. You’re not to act as your own God,” she told The Associated Press in 1998.

[Keep reading. . .] 

Rest in Peace.

%d bloggers like this: