Daily Caller: George Hawley, a professor of political science at the University of Alabama and author of the new book “Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism,” talked with The Daily Caller this week about the Trump phenomenon and how it is affecting the conservative movement.
“The conservative movement would be in serious decline even if Trump had stayed out of this race,” Hawley told TheDC. “The movement simply does not know what to do in a world where big business is allied with the cultural left, secularism is on the rise, changing demographics are weakening the GOP’s base of support, there is no evidence that regime change and democracy are panaceas for terrorism, and we have economic problems that won’t be solved with another tax cut.”
In his opinion, Trump’s candidacy has merely exposed the already-present weaknesses of the conservative establishment, particularly GOP voters’ lack of concern for its continued health.
“All the major figures of the conservative intelligentsia denounced Trump and the public responded to their critiques with indifference. This demonstrated that huge numbers of voters, even those who regularly vote Republican, simply do not care about the conservative movement. Trump showed the world that the conservative movement is a Potemkin village. Or to switch metaphors, it is an army with many well-compensated officers, but very few grunts,” Hawley said.
…That ideological vacuum could be filled by a number options, according to Hawley’s estimation.
“Some will try to reassert the old conservatism, or a more progressive variation of the old conservatism. Others will push for a libertarian approach. Some will openly embrace some kind of white identity politics,” he remarked.
Posted inConservatives, Donald Trump|Comments Off on Political Scientist: Trump Is A ‘Wrecking Ball’ Against The Conservative Establishment
New York Post: This kid’s birthday bash looked more like a bachelor party.
Grainy YouTube video shows a stripper shaking her booty for a boy celebrating his eighth birthday.
One youngster is seen smacking the dancer’s backside, and another makes it rain dollar bills, during the age-inappropriate bash in Tampa, Fla.
Tampa cops received calls about the video last week, but cops didn’t act because nothing in the footage conclusively shows when and where the X-rated party happened, a department spokeswoman told The Post.
Reps for the nearby Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department said they were not aware of the footage.
Critics blasted the twerk-fest as child abuse, the Daily Star reported.
“The mother should be put in jail and the stripper should be fined,” one disgusted video viewer said. “Disgusting.”
Posted inSex|Comments Off on Black Mom Hires Stripper For Her 8yo Son’s Birthday Party
If you take the pro-life position seriously, you have to be for punishing women who get abortions. If you don’t want to punish them, then your “pro-life” position is only a scam.
Women who have abortions (unless they were raped) aren’t victims.
Richard Spencer: “We don’t take women seriously as rational independent actors. Women are always victims. They’re little delicate flowers that we have to care for.”
“Donald Trump has made fun of hundreds of men… But it is not a big deal. It is only if you criticize a woman, call her a pig, that that’s terrible. Mainstream feminism wants women to have equal rights but at the same time treat them like delicate flowers.”
“In any non-insane society, we would have double standards… Men should be treated differently than women. White people should be treated differently than black people. People of high character should be treated differently than people of low character. People who are leaders in society should be viewed by a different standard than people in the lower levels of society.”
Posted inAbortion, Feminism|Comments Off on Donald Trump Took Pro-Life Seriously
The fact that a major system is facing such monumental maintenance issues is stunning. However when you discover the hiring culture of Metro it all makes sense. It’s been a job program for blacks for years. So Steve while I do agree in the main that affirmative action should be targeted, it should not be used in critical areas.
* Is the DC Metro becoming a form of Atlanta’s MARTA: Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta? Pity that the system isn’t working; it was a good system when I was there between 1985 and 2004.
* I’m against affirmative action in any form. I am for every individual being treated fairly. AA is just another form of prejudicial treatment – this time directed against whites. Two blacks don’t make a white. It is not possible to make up for past transgressions by penalizing the present. Such actions simply create another class of aggrieved people who feel slighted by their government and/or officials.
* I think the libertarian objective of doing away with all anti-discrimination laws, whatever its intellectual merits, is politically unattainable in the short to medium term.
However, narrowing and targeting diversity laws to reflect “actual historic oppression” cuts back on those laws, and leads to some interesting debates with the Democratic demographics. Also, if we could change the scope, perhaps making them all applicable to business with 50 or 75 employees or more, it would take a huge level of red tape off the back of small businesses everywhere. If there is going to be red tape for small business, it ought to be in connection with a new national e-verify system.
From a GOP perspective, it would allow the GOP to set up a multiracial/ethnic coalition by targeting certain minority groups. I don’t see why there isn’t support on the populist side of the GOP for affirmative action for Blacks, because if you could make Black voters comfortable with the GOP, I don’t think they would care about immigration restrictions or lack of comparable favoritism for Hispanics (intersectionality being what it is).
You have to wonder where the Democratic party would be without being able to take out their White Racist Redneck Kachina Dolls every election cycle to frighten the children into compliance.
* It’s ironic that you choose Feynman as the poster boy for “competent white man”. When Feynman was applying to grad school at Princeton, a Princeton physics professor wrote to a colleague at MIT, ” Is Feynman Jewish? We have no definite rule against Jews but have to keep their proportion in our department reasonably small because of the difficulty of placing them.” MIT wrote back that he was in fact Jewish but that Feynman’s “physiognomy and manner, however, show no trace of this characteristic and I do not believe the matter will be any great handicap.”
* Determining who gets “reparations” based on past events cannot result in anything but a regression ad absurdam. Thomas Jefferson addressed the question of slavery in Notes on the State of Virginia and the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, and he argued that the British were to blame for slavery. He was right — slavery had been in existence in the colonies for 150 years before American independence. And it was the fault of not only the British, but the Dutch, Portugese, Spaniards, and French as well. Should they all pay reparations to blacks?
As far as the Indians were concerned, the U.S. government treated them as foreign nations, and concluded treaties with the tribes willing to do so. That was the situation until the 1920s, when Congress made the Indians citizens (which contradicts the principle of “Indian sovereignty.”)
In any case, world history is little more than one group of people killing others and taking their land. Those who win write history. Those who lose — well, they lose. Where do you draw the line? My ancestors were Polish. Am I entitled to ca$h in from the Austrians, Prussians, Germans, and Russians?
And how about the Jews of Israel? Should they pay reparations to Palestinians and Ottoman Turks? Or should Muslims pay reparations to them, since Jews lived in Israel for several millenia before Islam was even founded?
Or should the Italians pay reparations to the Jews, since it was the Romans who exiled the majority of Jews from Judea in the second century?
* Feynman pretty much admitted that he was prompted to do his little experiment by an Air Force officer on the commission. The truth was going to come out, but Feynman was allowed to be the public face of understanding the accident cause. And he really enjoyed being center stage!
Posted inAffirmative Action, Blacks|Comments Off on Black Countries, Counties, Cities Can’t Maintain Infrastructure
FAIR in 2006: In a New York Times article (9/5/06) on George W. Bush’s September 5 speech concerning terrorism and Iraq, reporters David Sanger and John O’Neil included a striking revision of Bush’s reasoning for going to war:
The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq.
Of course, the drive to war rested firmly on Bush’s repeated and emphatic claim that Hussein had already developed WMDs, which he possessed and was prepared to use—a bogus claim that the mainstream media, led by the Times‘ own Judith Miller, largely accepted as an article of faith and bolstered with credulous reports based on faulty information. (See Extra!, 7-8/03.)
Bush’s charges that Iraq concealed chemical and biological weapons were unequivocal. “Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons,” Bush told the U.N. (9/12/02).
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons,” Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati (10/7/02). “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” Bush said in a March 17, 2003 address to the nation.
The New York Times‘ editorial page unskeptically accepted these claims and incorporated them into the paper’s own arguments. In a September 18, 2002 editorial, the paper declared:
What really counts in this conflict…is the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons and the dismantling of its program to develop nuclear arms…. What makes Iraq the subject of intense concern, as Mr. Bush noted, is Mr. Hussein’s defiance of the Security Council’s longstanding instructions to dismantle Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program and to eliminate all its biological and chemical weapons and the materials used to make them.
After the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on inspectors returning to Iraq, the Times editorialized (11/9/02):
The unwavering goal is to disarm Iraq, enforcing a string of previous Security Council resolutions that Baghdad has contemptuously ignored. The cost of letting that happen has been diminished authority for the United Nations and a growing danger that Iraq’s unconventional weapons will be used in war or passed on to terrorists. Mr. Bush has galvanized the Security Council to declare that its orders must now be obeyed and those dangers eliminated.
When the inspectors returned, the paper stated (12/6/02), “Iraq has to get rid of its biological and chemical arms and missiles and the means to make them, and abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.” When the inspectors failed to find any evidence of banned weapons, the Times insisted (2/15/03): “The Security Council doesn’t need to sit through more months of inconclusive reports. It needs full and immediate Iraqi disarmament. It needs to say so, backed by the threat of military force.”
As the invasion approached, the editorialists endorsed (3/13/03) British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s six-point ultimatum to Iraq as the “last hope of forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily.” The first point: “Mr. Hussein would have to acknowledge that he has hidden unconventional weapons and pledge to stop producing or concealing such weapons.”
The New York Times‘ revision of the record, maintaining that Bush only presented Iraqi WMDs as a “possibility,” threatens to erase one of the most significant chapters of recent history, in effect clearing the Bush administration—and the Times—of their role in misleading the country into war.
Posted inIraq|Comments Off on The New York Times Pushed For The Invasion Of Iraq In 2003
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
