The Unbearable Shallowness of #NeverTrump Arguments, Part 2: Kevin Williamson

We continue our tour of #NeverTrump’s dangerous shallowness with National Review’s Kevin Williamson, whose work on the subject is particularly insufferable thanks to his wrapping profoundly stupid arguments in arrogant contempt for all who disagree.

Cruz and the rest should not be bullied into accepting the nonsense that refusing to go in for Trump is a vote for Mrs. Clinton. It isn’t. Declining to support Trump is an act of integrity and good taste. It isn’t anything Cruz or Bush has done that makes Trump unsupportable — that is Trump’s doing, and no one else’s.

I don’t know what’s lamer: the suggestion that “Trump’s doing” somehow negates NeverTrumpers’ free will in choosing not to vote for him, or the two-word denial that not voting Trump amounts to supporting Clinton. Presidential elections only have two viable candidates. The only way to make one lose is to get the other more votes. Of course deliberately withholding votes from the alternative to Hillary benefits Hillary. This is not complicated.

And “act of integrity and good taste”? To give Hillary Clinton the opportunity to effectively end the Constitution and the conservative movement via a one-two punch of establishing a 6-3 leftist Supreme Court (at best) and amnestying enough future Democrat voters to ensure we never win another national election in our lifetimes? Another 9/11? Fifty million more abortions? More persecution of Christian employers and conservative activists? More liberties and checks on government power erased? More disenfranchisement of the states and the people? Possibly sacrificing our opportunity to ever fix any of the crises facing America?

Meh, says Kevin to all of that. Hating Trump is more important to me than the suffering of millions of Americans.

Kevin did, however, elaborate on “it isn’t” in an earlier article, and good Lord is it worse than you’re expecting: Continue reading

Advertisements

New at Federalist Papers: Lefty Video Game Shamelessly Straw-Mans the Gun Debate

Nothing makes liberals happier than bragging about their imagined moral superiority to conservatives, no matter the facts. And a new left-wing computer game is making waves doing just that, exploiting the recent shooting in Orlando, Florida to push gun control.

Thoughts and Prayers: The Game is a 30-second-long game playable in your browser for free. It shows a map of the United States, with targets and death tolls popping up all over it to represent recent mass shootings.

The screen has three buttons: “Think,” “Pray,” and “Ban Assault Weapon Sales.” The first two do nothing, and the third just brings up sarcastic messages like “That’s Unamerican” and “You Don’t Have the Votes.”

The message is obvious: conservatives and Republicans offer victims of gun violence nothing but ineffective sentiments, while refusing to consider the one policy that would actually save lives. However, as usual, none of the facts back up the condescension on display.

Read the rest at the Federalist Papers Project.

New at Live Action: Cecile Richards Equate Abortion “Rights” with Fight Against Racism

Last week we covered Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’s condescending non-answers to pro-life students attending her speech at Georgetown University, but it turns out that wasn’t even the most outrageous highlight of the event. No, that would be the part of her speech when she said:

Our history with race in America is something that we all have to address, including Planned Parenthood. It’s important that we understand our collective history and the legacy that it leaves on those that are still living in an unjust system. Lack of access to healthcare and reproductive rights is a result of many factors—race, gender, sexual orientation, geography and immigration status. In order to build true equity in America we have to address it all.

Yes, that’s the president of the country’s largest killer of minority children comparing her side to the fight against racism.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

Bathroom Boycott-Mania: a Perfect Microcosm of Left-Wing Madness

As if we needed any more proof that liberals were pathetic sheep incapable of independent thought and unworthy of respect, just look at how quickly this transgender bathroom insanity became conventional wisdom on the Left that

The values of PayPal, Bruce Springsteen, and the fanatics, imbeciles, and scum that applaud them now include forcing women and girls to put up with men in their restrooms.

Never mind the entirely predictable result of straight male perverts exploiting the “enlightened” policy to try to snap pictures of women undressing.

No lightbulbs going off as to why these LGBT “heroes” can take this stand to boycott American states for requiring men to stick to male restrooms but have no problem doing business in countries where being anything other than hetero-normative is grounds for imprisonment and death.

Not a hint of self-awareness or shame about taking this as a grievous moral wrong while cheerfully supporting one of two presidential candidates who support the legal power to have your baby stabbed in the neck just months before he or she would have been born for the sake of convenience.

And yet these simpletons will still see no irony or hypocrisy in prattling on about how conservatives and Republicans are supposedly the ones perpetrating a “war on women.”

The Left is not a collection of equally rational, equally well-meaning people who have simply come to different conclusions about what’s best for the country. At best, these people are mentally unwell; at worst they are terrible people. If this swill of hypocrisy and moral blindness isn’t enough to finally wake the GOP up to the fact that they can’t reason with these people, nothing will be.

Rick Santorum Abandons His Own Principles to Endorse Marco Rubio

For a while in 2012, I enthusiastically supported Rick Santorum for president. He made some blunders that forced me to reevaluate his viability, and his blend of fiscal, social, and defense conservatism was largely obsolete this time around thanks to Ted Cruz, but I always retained a soft spot for Rick, thanks to him being a pro-life, pro-marriage champion, rock-solid on national defense, and having the strongest immigration record in the 2016 field.

Well, I’m sorry to say my respect for the man is gone for good, now that he’s decided to endorse Marco Rubio, and in doing so signaled that the values he’s spent his career fighting for aren’t so important after all.

During his latest (and hopefully final) presidential campaign, Santorum’s message was that he was the truest true conservative in the race, so much so that Cruz just wasn’t strong enough on same-sex marriage (the National Organization for Marriage disagrees) or immigration (Jeff Sessions, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King disagree) to measure up to him.

So what does he do once he drops out? Endorse the worst major candidate on both of those issues. Continue reading

Gee, Why Would Anyone Think John McCain Didn’t Support Reagan?

John McCain is throwing a hissy fit because Ted Cruz had the temerity to suggest that McCain didn’t support Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign. “It’s an outright lie,” McCain fumed to CNN.

Cruz’s actual comments weren’t as inflammatory as —he simply said in a speech, “Do you know if you define as a Reaganite anyone who supported Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primary, do you know that the Republican Party has never once nominated a Reaganite to be president since 1984?”—but okay, McCain was (tragically) among those nominees. McCain says he “worshipped” the Gipper at the time, but was prohibited from public endorsements prior to his 1981 retirement from the Navy.

I’ll take the Arizona senator at his word, but to hyperventilate that this was an “outright lie” or willful dishonesty on Cruz’s part requires one to ignore, well, everything else about McCain’s political career. Continue reading

Ann Coulter Has Sold Her Soul to Donald Trump

YAF 2009 - Meeting Ann Coulter 1For fifteen years, I was an enthusiastic, unapologetic Ann Coulter fan. I’ve expressed my share of disagreements with her, but on balance have supported and defended her many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, times—from Left and Right alike—as one of the most fearless and principled assets to the conservative movement. Her books were defining influences on my own political development. She regularly raised devastating, critical points that more than a few conservatives were too meek to say or too conventional to notice. Meeting her in 2009 (above) was one of the biggest thrills of my political career, and I counted my autographed copy of Slander as one of my most prized possessions.

So when I say that Ann Coulter has officially lost me, know that I didn’t reach this conclusion lightly.

For the better part of 2015, Coulter’s aggressive support for Donald Trump has been a source of major consternation on the Right. Contrary to what some demagogic charlatans would have you believe, her underlying rationale is entirely correct: the next president’s level of conservatism on other issues will be irrelevant if he allows mass immigration and amnesty to give the Democrats enough new voters to guarantee them a permanent national majority. If this were, say, a two-man race between him and Marco Rubio, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that Trump is more likely to do the right thing on the issue.

Where Coulter’s conclusion breaks down is that Trump isn’t the candidate with the most credibility on fighting amnesty—Ted Cruz is. Conservatives don’t have to make a last-resort choice between an immigration hawk and a conservative; we can get both. Continue reading