Tag: National Review

RNC Strips National Review Of Debate Hosting Gig After Magazine Attacks The Donald

RNC Strips National Review Of Debate Hosting Gig After Cover Story Attacking Trump – ABC News


National Review will no longer be hosting a GOP debate in February after the RNC “disinvited” the conservative publication, the magazine’s publisher said.

The news comes on the heels of a harsh cover story from National Review, penned by 21 conservative columnists, calling Donald Trump a “menace to American Conservatism,” to which Trump and the RNC fired back.

“National Review is a dying paper, it’s got – its circulation is way down. Not very many people read it anymore. I mean, people don’t even think about the National Review, so I guess they want to get a little publicity, but that’s a dying paper,” Trump said Thursday night, speaking at the Outdoor Channel awards show, which includes the annual “Shot Show.”

“Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself,” National Review’s cover story out Friday reads.

Trump says, though, that the GOP is beginning to accept him. “I think they are warming up. I want to be honest, I have received so many phone calls from people that you would call ‘establishment,’ from people – generally speaking, conservative Republicans that want to come in our team,” Trump added.

And he may be right, as National Review publisher Jack Fowler wrote Thursday that his publication was being stripped of its hosting duties for a GOP debate with CNN in late February.

“Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our ‘Against Trump’ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald,” Fowler wrote.

RNC spokesperson Sean Spicer confirmed to ABC News that National Review will no longer be participating in next month’s GOP debate.

National Review was originally meant to share hosting duties for the debate with NBC, but earlier this month the broadcaster was also disinvited and CNN was given the debate.



*VIDEO* The IRS Hit List Democrats Don’t Want You To See

National Review media editor Eliana Johnson on new evidence that proves the government targeted conservative groups. Plus, when did Treasury learn of the abuse?


………………………Click on image above to watch video.


The Democratic Party defined?

A certain blogger, infamous for his love of bad beer, cool hats, driving Liberals crazy, and who likes to yell ROLL TIDE at inappropriate times, sums up the Democrats like this

The Filthy Rotten Party of Corruption, Treason, Fraud, Sodomy and Abortion

Now, personally, I would have left the whole sodomy thing out, what consenting adults do tends to be something I do not care about. Well, OK, I admit, Salma Hayek wrestling Alyssa Milano in baby oil MIGHT pique my interest, but that is beside the point. The real point is that as Stacy McCain writes, the problem is that there is a hate deficit between Democrats and Republicans

In a Twitter colloquy with Susan Cloud, producer of the Mark Davis radio show, I found myself compelled to explain and defend my previous criticisms of National Review. The problem, really, is that Republicans just don’t hate Democrats the way Democrats hate Republicans.

Most Republicans are born and raised Republicans, and are spiritually attuned to the sentiments of bourgeois respectability that are core values to the decent, honest people the GOP represents. By contrast, Democrats owe their power to the vilest dregs of humanity — corrupt union goons, Marxist academics, criminals, drug addicts, sexual perverts and race hustlers — who have no respect for the values of decent, honest people.

In politics, this represents a tremendous advantage to Democrats, who elect to high office vicious thieves like Charlie Rangel without any sense of embarrassment, and then applaud Rangel’s lies without shame. The Democrats are a gang of brazen criminals who have contempt for their victims — you, the respectable citizens who vote Republican.

Having been born and raised a Democrat, I was never taught to be embarrassed of my politics the way most Republican children seem to be taught. And these nice Republican types who grew up groveling and apologizing — “Please, Professor, don’t give me a bad grade for disagreeing with you!” — are the weak link in the chain, the essential cause of the Republican Party’s feebleness.

Nailed it! We are too nice, too timid, too afraid of causing offense. Of course, niceness is a virtue, but, many Republicans do take that too far. Our “leadership” seems to suffer from this timidity far more than the Conservative base does. what they do not get is this, the media, and the Left will label us extremists no matter what we say. So, we ought to accept that confidence, knowledge, and deeply held values expressed with conviction, and defended with passion are going to appeal to many Americans. I keep hearing Republicans ask how we can better deliver our message. the first step, I would think, is to BELIEVE in our message first, that tends to help the delivery greatly!

The John Derbyshire Derby?

I will admit that I cannot recall if I ever wrote one thing Derbyshire wrote. I likely did, but, that is beside the point. The bottom line is this, he wrote a column that touched on racial lines, and, as a Conservative,that can be extremely dangerous. Liberal columnists can get away with overtly racist words, Conservatives? Not even close. One of the biggest double standards, maybe the biggest, is what the Left and Right are allowed to say, or write about race. Derbyshire wrote some “controversial things” and now, National Review has booted him,which is their perfect right. My aim in this post is not to condemn The National Review, or Derbyshire.   My aim is to determine if, had Derbyshire written for this blog,would I have canned him for his piece. So,let us review the words that got Derbyshire 86ed.

I will comment as I see a need to

Bob Belvedere has a link to the column. Lets see what it says shall we? Here it is,in its entirity

“Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,” Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: “Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk,” Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Leonard Greene talks about the talk in the New York Post. Someone bylined as KJ Dell’Antonia talks about the talk in The New York Times. Darryl Owens talks about the talk in the Orlando Sentinel.

Yes, talk about the talk is all over.

There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.

“There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too.”

(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)

(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.

(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.

(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner.

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

This seems pretty racist at first glance, but, trust me most people, note I did not say most White people, but most people, regardless of race would avoid Inner-City neighborhoods. I am not sure what Derbyshire means by “heavily Black neighborhoods. but, I will assume he is referring to the inner city, where crime rates are generally very high.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

Does this seem racist to me, yes, I must be honest, it does

Again, this sounds racist. Is he advising his kids to avoid rap concerts? That would be pretty good advice, but that, to me anyway, has more to do with the gang/thug element, and there are plenty of non-Blacks that fit that decsription

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

Again, I would have to read Derbyshire’s mind to be certain of his meaning, but, I would advise his kids the same way. I managed a restaurant in downtown Dallas for several years. And, once  a year, the Hoop-It-Up event was held around this restaurant. Every year, toward the end of the day, as the games were ending, large groups of kids, almost all Black would descent on the area. The Dallas Police were there, in force, and talking to some of the officers, not all White by the way, I learned that there was reason to be concerned about gang violence.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

This one is, to me, just stupid. I might advise his kids not to live in heavily Democratic districts, but that has zip to do with race.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

Horse shit! Scrutinize EVERY politician, regardless of race. Maybe Derbyshire forgets that there are far more White Liberal politicians than Black Liberal politicians.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

I would advise this tactic, no matter who was accosting me.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

Yes, that is racist, no doubt. Now, I would say that the Left has targeted Blacks, and other minorities for decades. The Left has, to great effect, convinced Blacks that EVERYTHING revolves around their skin color, especially anything negative. The Left has done this to indoctrinate Black Americans. Their desire is to embitter Blacks, and convince them that they are perpetually victimized by racism, and that the only by voting Democrat can they ever move forward.

This indoctrination has, I believe, made Black Americans far too focused on their skin color. In my experience, White people are far less concerned about their pigmentation than are Blacks. I blame decades of Liberal propaganda for that.

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

Once again, give me a break! at this point, I would say that if Derbyshire wrote for me, he would be toast.

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.

(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.

As I said, the part about Blacks being “less-intelligent” is something I find offensive, and needless. Although, I will note that if this column had been written by a Black Liberal, and the column had been directed towards Whites, the “outrage” would have been non-existent. As I wrote earlier, the double standard on race in America is absurd. Liberals are ALLOWED to be openly racist, Hell, they are applauded for it many times.

That is my take, here is what others are saying

Stacy McCain notes the narcissism of many on the Left and their exploitation of race.

In a society where traditional institutions of moral authority are decadent or discredited, individuals engage in self-righteous political gestures to demonstrate (to themselves, if to no one else) their own superior virtue. Liberal policies appeal to such impulses, e.g., Dick Durbin: “I may be a corrupt swine, but I drive a hybrid!” or Alec Baldwin: “I may be a vicious bully, but I’m all about a woman’s right to choose!

Controversies that involve race, even indirectly, have often been hijacked by this sort of liberal crusader mentality, as in the infamousDuke University lacrosse team “rape” scandal, where certainty of the guilt of the accused was a kind of moral litmus test. People who had nothing to do with Duke University, people who had never been within a hundred miles of Raleigh, N.C., nevertheless presumed to know that the lacrosse players were guilty and excoriated anyone who did not join them in denouncing the perpetrators of this alleged atrocity.

What you learn, if you observe this tendency long enough, is that the people who delight in pointing the accusatory finger — racist! sexist! homophobe! — are generally engaged in an exhibition of moral narcissism, trying to fill the “hole in their soul” with self-righteousness by gestures intended to prove their own superior virtue. Not only are theynot racist (or not sexist, etc.), but they are anti-racist (or anti-whatever) and are courageously donning their shining armor and mounting their horses to lead a crusade against the Evil Menace.

Heroism on the cheap, as it were.

Stacy also has a nice round up as well

Donald Douglas wonders why Derbyshire put this piece out

Bob Belvedere defends Derbyshire as a good and decent man

Jeff Goldstein notes the racial fear mongering angle and defends Derbyshire as well. He also makes a couple of excellent points about the Left’s oft-spoken desire top have a “dialogue on race”

First, let me say this: Derb’s article is “controversial” in the same way Juan Williams’ noting that he gets a bit frightened on a plane when he sees Arabs in the row in front of him tugging at their vests was controversial. Meaning, it was honest — and as such, it was not sufficiently filtered for a media climate where political correctness still provides the parameters for what is and isn’t acceptable.

Eric Holder famously noted that we’re afraid to talk about race in this country. Derbyshire proved he, at least, isn’t. And his comrades are crawling over themselves to gain distance.

And the reason is, Holder, the left, the “pragmatic” right — they don’t really want to talk about such things. They only want to talk about the need to talk about such things, while simultaneously demonizing any real attempts to do so. An easier way to bank some cheap grace you won’t find in a PC-soaked society.

Some of what Derbyshire said in his article I didn’t agree with; some of what he argued I take no position on, because I’d need to see the evidence cited expanded on a bit and given a more rigorous test; and as a practical rhetorical matter, I think Derbyshire did himself no favors by singling out blacks. But what is indisputable is that the article is set up as a talk he’d have with his kids about race, and the opinions he’s formed — and that he’d pass on to his children — are his, while the reasons he’s developed them he sourced w/ links. That is, he tried (within the constraints of the format) to show his work.

Dan Riehl notes the Left’s misguided attack on Derbyshire

the left is always screaming racism, often even when it hasn’t been proven to exist – as in the recent case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Even the media falsely screamed it. So, along comes Derbyshire and, I don’t know, confesses it, on his part? And all the left can do is scream, get him! Silence him! He must be fired!! What does that solve? It’s as if the left wants it to appear as though America doesn’t still struggle with racial issues … except when seizing upon an incident, or issue they think they can exploit for political gain. Frankly, they’re even trying to do that here,

Sad that  the Left whines about a need to talk about race, when in fact they only want to have THEIR slanted view heard. As for me, maybe I am just different, but skin color means little to me, of the five closest friends I have had in my adult life one is Korean, one Fillipino, and one is Black. I never saw them as a “color” or an “ethnicity”. I saw them as people, nothing more. I truly believe most of us, of all races are the same way.

Perry for President?

I would welcome his entrance into the race!

Texas Governor Rick Perry is apparently polling voters outside of his home state to gauge his chances of capturing the Republican presidential nomination next year, reports National Review’s Robert Bryce.

Perry’s advisors immediately denied that they were gearing up for a White House run. “We have done no polling in any state other than Texas, period,” Perry aide Dave Carney told Politico. “Nor have we seen any polling that anyone or entity did in any other state. Unequivocally.” Still, Rick Perry, should he choose to run, could be a serious contender in what many have argued is a weak field.

A skilled fundraiser, Perry was picked to lead the Republican Governors Association last year, a move that raised his national profile considerably. He fended off a primary challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson before being re-elected a governor in a landslide last November. (He is the first Texas governor in history to be elected to a full third term.) Perry has a new book out, and with it a book tour, giving him a good excuse to go on television and make new friends around the country while still denying any presidential ambitions.

Perry can also win Texas and its 38 electoral votes. As Bryce notes, only three presidents have won the presidency since Calvin Coolidge without taking Texas: Richard Nixon (in 1968), Bill Clinton (in 1992 and 1996), and Barack Obama.

Some Republicans are just addicted to stupidity!

The leadership of the GOP wonders why so many in its base are so fed up? Explain it to them Mr. McCain, and please speak VERY SLOWLY

When she lost the GOP primary in August, she refused to concede, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee flew its top lawyer to Anchorage to advise her. When the absentee ballots were finally counted, Murkowski conceded the Republican nomination — but secretly continued her desperate intrigues to retain her Senate seat. In a shameful course of action that would make notorious Catilline blush, Murkowski’s Palin-hating henchmen John Bitney and Andrew Halco first sought to get her the Libertarian Party nomination. Rebuffed by the Libertarians, the Bitney/Halco faction then promoted Murkowski as a write-in candidate. Despite Murkowski’s perfidy, in a secret meeting last week, Senate Republicans declined to strip her of her status as ranking member of the Energy Committee. And now National Review is asking the important question: Which GOP Senators are protecting Murkowski, enabling her to tell Alaska voters that her Senate seniority is an asset worth retaining?

And of course, one of the Republicans bogarting the Crack Pipe of RINO Stupidity is the GOP’s answer to Lindsay Lohan

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Graham tells us that he is “OK” with Murkowski keeping her ranking status. “I want to look forward, not backward,” he says. “She got elected to serve out six years . . . If we start doing stuff like this (removing her position as ranking member) we are going to get off track. It’s about the future and not the past and the future is Mr. Miller. I expect him to come here and be a valuable team player the moment he gets here . . .  We want to stay focused on them, not us.

Let me try to understand the “Wisdom” of the RINO here. Murkowski, like other “valuable” establishment Republicans like Charlie Crist and Mike Castle, have done their damnedest to cost the Republican Party seats in Delaware, Alaska and Florida after Republican voters rejected them in state primaries. And for THIS, we should continue to accept and embrace them?