Milo Yiannopoulos slimed as ‘white nationalist’ by The Hill as mainstream media learns to love the outright lie


The 2016 U.S. presidential election exposed the mainstream media as a corrupted behemoth. Ronald Reagan had a “trust, but verify” policy with Soviets during the Cold War, and now citizens must do the same with American reporters.

WikiLeaks exposed how political networks and top pundits coordinate to undermine opponents, and voters rejected attempts by a cultural elite to label independent thinkers as a bunch of knuckle-dragging racists. For some odd reason, however, The Hill’s Julian Hattem refuses to accept reality. He used the website’s megaphone on Tuesday to blatantly lie about Breitbart News’ Milo Yiannopoulos.

He wrote:

“The retired lieutenant general President-elect Donald Trump has selected to be his national security adviser recently praised Milo Yiannopoulos, a well-known figure in the white nationalist “alt-right” movement.

The weekend after Election Day, Michael Flynn called the Breitbart News technology news editor, who was banned from Twitter this year for inciting racist and sexist attacks, “a phenomenal individual.” …

He has compared the Back Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan and previously set up a scholarship dedicated to giving money ‘exclusively to white men.'”

Lie. Distort. Shamelessly omit necessary context (i.e., lie by omission). That is the modus operandi of men like Mr. Hattem.

Mr. Yiannopoulos is an openly gay man who does not hesitate to talk about how much he loves black men— in bed. He openly rejects identity politics, and mocks it with things like scholarships for poor white people.

Mr. Yiannopoulos’ “white” scholarship, which he has publicly talked about, was created to shine a spotlight on the silliness of race-based scholarships when poverty does not discriminate.

The point (and 60 million of Donald Trump voter know this), is that poor and predominantly white towns in Michigan or Tennessee or Alabama are sick and tired of being lectured to about their “privilege.”

Websites like The Hill would rather not acknowledge uncomfortable electoral feedback, so instead they have decided that tiny gatherings of racists and losers featuring Tila Tequila (who I genuinely feel sorry for because she has psychological problems), somehow represent tens-of-millions of Americans.


The Hill, like CNN and the Anti-Defamation League, would rather wallow in a worldview that allows them to turn Pepe the frog into a “designated hate symbol,” than to counter valid concerns by men like Mr. Yiannopoulos.


If you asked 10,000 Pepe-loving Reddit kids before the election about obscure nonprofits headed up by a guy named Richard Spencer, perhaps ten of them would have known what you were talking about. Regardless, media outlets like NPR now give an inordinate amount of fear-mongering free press to white nationalists.

Saying the “alt-right” is synonymous with white nationalism is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church and its clan of about 50 people somehow represent roughly 230 million Americans who identify as Christians.

These kinds of tactics, which are part of a larger strategy to demonize opponents, are cheap, despicable, and come from the very same people who will tell you not to generalize about Muslims after terror attacks on American soil.

If you want to fight back against corrupted media outlets, then you must make a concerted effort to look for the truth, call authors out on their lies, and spread the word that they cannot be trusted. Then, with each election cycle, punish the media’s lies with your vote as tens-of-millions of Americans did on Nov. 8.


Milo Yiannopoulos’ Twitter ban exposes selective rules enforcement

Twitter has given conservative “provocateur” Milo Yiannopoulos a lifetime ban. The reason: Some of his followers sent Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones racist messages. Given that your friendly neighborhood blogger was once banned from Twitter after calling out the company for not punishing the guy who threatened to kill me, I figured this story might be worth a YouTube video.

Check out the video below and let me know what you think of Milo, Twitter’s selective enforcement of its own code of conduct, online trolls, and Ms. Jones. I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Update: Twitter refused to verify my account despite the fact that I’ve worked with a major newspaper in Washington, D.C., for years. Classic!

Twitter verify

Et tu, Rubio? Marco stabs NeverTrump, twists knife

Marco Rubio Clinton tweet

Throughout the 2016 Republican primary season, there was one man who consistently warned that nominating Donald Trump would signal the death knell for the party of limited government: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

He called the billionaire a “con artist” who was not fit for office.

He helped spearhead the “NeverTrump” movement.

He was supposed to be the one principled man in the room. Now, like a modern-day Brutus, he has engaged in a betrayal that has left his supporters speechless.

Marco Rubio NeverTrump tweet

To add insult to injury, Sen. Rubio’s plan to help Trump win the White House comes the same week the billionaire said he wanted to turn the Republican Party into the “worker’s party,” (Yes, “worker’s party”).

Bloomberg reported May 26:

“I asked Trump what he thought the GOP would look like in five years. ‘Love the question,’ he replied. ‘Five, 10 years from now—different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry.’

Marco Rubio is throwing his weight behind a man who wants to fundamentally transform the Republican Party into a “worker’s party.” Let that marinate in your head for a few moments before moving on. Think about it. Turn it around. Consider the long-term implications…

Mr. Trump’s quote demonstrates precisely why “NeverTrump” exists: If the head of the Republican Party is someone who sounds like Karl Marx, never mentions the U.S. Constitution unless prompted, donated to Democrats for most of his adult life, and has literally changed positions on almost every serious policy issue, then “Republican” means nothing. 

Marco Rubio Bill Kristol twitter

Sen. Rubio is being disingenuous when he says voters must choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If Mr. Rubio was telling the truth about both candidates being unfit for office, then the principled thing to do would be to a.) write in an acceptable candidate, b.) vote for a third-party candidate, c.) not vote — because not lending your support to a field of unacceptable candidates is more honorable then voting for someone you called a “con artist” who is unfit for the job.

At this point it looks like I will be voting for “Giant Meteor” for president. At least Giant Meteor will never lie to me.

Giant Meteor 2016

Hannity: ‘Unite’ behind guy who gave Todd Akin-like abortion answer now exploited by Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Sean Hannity, Fox News’ perpetual Donald Trump apologist, took to Twitter earlier this week to beg conservatives to “UNITE” behind the billionaire if he wins the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. His plea came on the very same day that Trump actually answered a hypothetical question by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that hinged on 1973’s Rov v Wade being overturned and state legislatures then rushing to outlaw abortion.

Trump said there would have to be “some punishment” for women who had abortions under this magical scenario from every Planned Parenthood executive’s worst nightmares.

Writers like yours truly have said for years that principled and articulate conservatives are the key to changing American culture in ways that will reinvigorate the Republican Party. Meanwhile, guys like Sean Hannity now find themselves “uniting” behind a guy with no core principles — a guy who just says whatever pops into his mind at any given moment — who just gave an abortion answer that is worse than former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin in 2012.

For those who don’t remember, Mr. Akin said women’s bodies have a natural defense against rape that prevents them from getting pregnant under such circumstances. Democrats used that to bolster their bizarre “War on Women” campaign — as if all Republicans actually held such an embarrassing opinion and secretly hate their wife, sisters, grandmothers, etc.

Hillary Clinton, who spent a lifetime trying to destroy the reputation of every woman who had an affair with her husband or accused him of rape, is now exploiting Trump’s abortion answer as expected.

She told Business Insider on Friday:

“I think you have to take him at his word. And I think what we heard was a very unvarnished view that he has, and I for one have been very vocal in criticizing him and criticizing the other Republicans who are now embarrassed that he said what they all believe.”

Trump’s response is in many ways worse than Akin’s because he is the Republican front-runner for the 2016 presidential nomination. The media portrayed some random goof congressman from Missouri as the poster boy for the Republican Party in 2012, and now it gets to do the same thing with a man who could legitimately be the presidential nominee.

Who do we have to thank for all of this? There are many people who have brought us to this point, but it cannot be denied that pundits like Sean Hannity — who never saw an indiscretion by Trump that he couldn’t smooth over — shoulder a good chunk of blame.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to waiting for someone to ask Hillary Clinton a hypothetical question about the Second Amendment. I was hoping Chris Matthews would ask her how she would react if the Second Amendment was magically repealed tomorrow and states like California outlawed all guns.

Maybe Chris Matthews will ask her if she would support penalties for Californians who purchased guns anyway. Or not, because Democrats are almost never asked stupid questions like that.

Sean Hannity Trump

Matt Walsh calls out ‘conservative’ pundits on Trump sell-out

Regular readers of this blog know that I have taken time out of my regular comic book reviews to lament how so-called “conservative” commentators have jumped on a political bandwagon instead of sticking by principles when it comes to Donald Trump.

I have ripped Sean “I have evolved” Hannity. I have ripped Ann Coulter. I have ripped Eric Bolling. What I have not done is make out a comprehensive list as the Blaze’s Matt Walsh did on Tuesday.

Here are just a few choice snippets from Walsh’s piece. Read the whole thing and find the kind of courage that is lacking among many professional pundits:

“SEAN HANNITY: Although I’ve never found Hannity to be terribly interesting, now that his Fox show is nothing more than a ritual adoration ceremony for Donald Trump, it’s become intolerable. Hannity relentlessly fawns over Trump and refuses to challenge him on any of his myriad lies and inconsistencies. Trump has even used Hannity’s show as a platform to praise Planned Parenthood and repeat false, progressive claims that “abortion is a small part of what they do.” Hannity did not challenge him on those assertions. He does not challenge him on anything.

Meanwhile, as Trump receives no criticism from Hannity no matter how many times he mocks the disabled, brags about his adultery, smears his opponents, spews vulgarities, etc., Hannity has not held back in criticizing Trump’s Republican opponents for their “stunning” and “beyond the pale” critiques of Trump.

BILL O’REILLY: He pretends to be a tough and objective journalist, but his prostrations to Trump have been sickening to behold, never more than when he boasted about all the times he and Trump had milkshakes together or when he attempted to rationalize Trump’s plan to murder women and children.

FOX NEWS: All the other dull, blathering Trump sycophants on Fox News, like Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling and Kimberly Guilfoyle and other various Trump shills who’ve now taken to declaring that “principles don’t matter.” The Fox morning show team hands airtime to Trump whenever he demands it, and they sit in admiration listening to him blabber on like infatuated school boys pretending to be interested in what the pretty girl in class is saying.”

Donald Trump is currently cruising towards 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the Republican nomination. If that was happening with fair news coverage then it would be one thing — but its not. If the man even looks like he might say something outrageous, then cable news outlets cut to a live-feed of his campaign. When Trump refuses to condemn unacceptable behavior at his rallies, pundits like Bill O’Reilly are there to spin it in a way that won’t offend the man.

Ironic, isn’t it? Mr. “No Spin” is now the very essence of spin.

GOP delegates March 16

It is refreshing to see writers like Mr. Walsh, who care more about the truth than getting invites to appear on The O’Reilly Factor. I can not tell you how many people I met when I lived in Washington, D.C., who would demonize their own mother if they thought it could get them an interview with Sean Hannity or some other talking head.

I implore all principled conservatives to take note of the individuals who talked a big game for years, only to abandon everything they claimed to stand for when it really mattered.

Steve Ditko saga exposes industry bias: Liberal writers call artist ‘mad’

Ditko SpiderMan 33

Marvel’s upcoming Dr. Strange movie will undoubtedly attract mountains of media attention — and cash — for the company. What is not likely to get much traction, however, is the story of co-creator Steve Ditko.

Ditko (who also co-created Spider-Man), abruptly walked away from Marvel years ago like NFL-great Barry Sanders did with football. BBC did a documentary on the man titled “In Search of Steve Ditko” in 2007, which was fascinating for all the wrong reasons: The pompous attitudes displayed by men ruminating on why Ditko would leave answered the question, but their lack of self-awareness prevented them from seeing it.

Dr Strange Steve Ditko

Ditko’s love for Ayn Rand, his objectivist politics, and his character “Mr. A,” were explored midway through the documentary. His philosophy in a nutshell was explained in an issue from 1972:

“Only through black and white principles can a man distinguish between good and evil. The principles guide man’s basic choice of actions. Man can attempt to choose contradictions, grey principles, like man can choose to be dishonest, corrupt, but that choice only leads to evil — to self-destruction.” Mr. A, by Steve Ditko.

There are serious philosophical arguments that have been made over the course of thousands of years to back up Ditko’s claim. But yet, to liberal writers like Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore, Ditko is just a madman.

Gaiman told BBC host Jonathan Ross:

“You know, Steve Ditko obviously would like you to read these and see the light and step into the light and become an objectivist and become an Ayn Randian philosopher like what he is. And instead I wind up reading them as something closer to classic American outsider art. They move more into the realm of just sheer beautiful, wonderful straight-from-the-heart, American barking-madness.” — Neil Gaiman

When Neil Gaiman writes stories, they’re all apparently barking-sanity — according to Neil Gaiman.

Let’s take his 2001 short story, Foreign Parts, for example:

“Simon masturbated a great deal. Every night — sometimes more than that if unable to sleep. He could take as long, or as short, a time to climax as he wished. And in his mind he had had them all. Film and television stars; women from the office; school girls; the naked models who pouted from the crumpled pages of Fiesta; faceless slaves in chains; tanned boys with bodies like Greek gods…” — Gaiman, Neil. Smoke and Mirrors, 2001. Page 239.

When Gaiman writes of men who masturbate to school girls, slaves and tanned boys, it’s sanity. When Ditko writes about the duality of good and evil, it’s “barking madness.”

Telling, isn’t it?

Mr A Steve Ditko

Next there is Alan Moore, himself a bit of a recluse, who decided to take part in the pile-on.

“The most unpleasant right-wing character is Rorschach. He almost ends up certainly the character with the most ferocious integrity. Even if his politics are completely mad, he has this ferocious moral integrity that has made him one of the most popular characters in the book. Obviously, that ferocious moral draw of an integrity, that was kind of my take upon Steve Ditko.”

Mr A Ditko

Steve Ditko’s politics are allegedly madness, but yet in 2014 it was Alan Moore who said the following to Pádraig Ó Méalóid at Slovobooks:

“It looks to me very much like a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-least-still-finite ‘universes’ presented by DC or Marvel Comics. I would also observe that it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times.”

It was Ditko who said in the 1970’s that living in a culturally grey area was a recipe for destruction. He was laughed and ridiculed by Alan Moore in 2007, and then by 2014 Moore was admitting that grey-loving western society can no longer make sense of the world. He said western civilization was on the verge of a “culturally catastrophic” moment. Do you laugh or cry at the irony?

Perhaps the cherry on top came when Gaiman called Ditko, “Magnificently uptight, world-class uptight, impossibly-uptight” for his political clashes with Stan Lee.

Fans of Spider-Man know that Lee weirdly allowed himself to be referred to as the sole creator for years until Ditko finally spoke up. (How “uptight” of him.) Lee even tries to make the case that he really is the sole creator in the BBC documentary. His reasoning: He had “the idea.”

Note to Stan Lee: An idea without action is wasted potential.

Steve Ditko put an idea into action, and therefore he is rightfully the co-creator of Spider-Man. A man who has a crystal-clear understanding of right and wrong would not need to be prompted to call Ditko Spider-Man’s co-creator.

This blog covered the industry’s treatment of Frank Miller, Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche in 2014. At the time I questioned why there were no Captain America tales where Steve Rogers performs black ops in Middle East against Islamic terrorists. I said Iron Man was a character who begged for a Rand-inspired tale called A World Without Tony Stark, and the response by a liberal commenter was “readers don’t want to read Rand.”

Classic! Whether it is the activist-writers within the industry or their readers, they are unable to objectively step outside their own psychological “safe space” and make the differentiation between I don’t want to read ‘A World Without Tony Stark” and “Potential customers would not buy ‘A World Without Tony Stark.”

The comic book industry is dying because men like Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore sneer at those who politically disagree with them. They scoff at those who don’t subscribe to moral relativism, and then lament the morally-relativistic world they helped create.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to read that issue of The Superior Spider-Man where Dan Slott had Doctor Octopus masturbate to thoughts of Mary Jane. Then I’ll wonder if Slott was inspired by Neil Gaiman’s Foreign Parts, or if modern comic book creators just have a strange fascination with masturbation.

There are plenty of comic book readers out there who do not think Mr. Ditko is “barking-mad.” We just don’t have megaphones offered to us by BBC, Marvel, or writers like Messrs. Gaiman and Moore. This blog will continue doing its small part to defend the values of men like Steve Ditko until that changes.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hat tip to reader Nate Winchester for sending me the BBC documentary.

Cruz’s ‘Office Space’ attack ad against Clinton a work of genius

Hillary Clinton Office Space

For over five years this blog has focused on the intersection between politics and popular culture. On numerous occasions I have lamented conservatives’ inability to understand the “language” of popular culture and its potential to influence people. Now, at long last, there is a campaign that “gets it.”

The man who came up with the idea for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s new “Damn it Feels Good to be a Clinton” ad needs a raise. Period. It takes 1999’s cult-classic “Office Space” and parodies the “printer” scene to expose the corrupt nature of Hillary Clinton’s “home brew” email server as secretary of state.

In short, it is a work of pure genius. Some of the lyrics include:

“Damn it feels good to be a Clinton. A shameless politician always plays her cards right. Got a crew for the fight on the airwaves. Lapdogs in the press keep their mouths tight. ‘Cause a Clinton never needs to explain what, why it is what they done, or with who. A real Clinton knows that they’re entitled, and you don’t get to know what they do. … Damn it feels good to be a Clinton – a server full of secrets ain’t no thing. Damn it feels good to be a Clinton – nothing ever hits with a sting.”

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd’s response: “That was a little rough. That was a little uncomfortable to watch. That looked vicious.”

Chuck Todd

Do you know what was “uncomfortable to watch,” Mr. Todd? The PBS-moderated Democratic Party debate Thursday night from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff failed to mention breaking news from earlier in the day that State Department investigators subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last fall. (Note: Woodruff is a Clinton Foundation donor.)

It was “uncomfortable” to watch because it is sad to see the media protect a woman at all costs — even if a mountain of evidence indicates she should be prosecuted and thrown in a “federal, pound-me -in-the-a**” prison.

The Washington Post reported Thursday:

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

Yes, you read that right: Huma Abedin was simultaneously employed by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

No conflict of interest there, right? No problem with Mrs. Clinton emailing Mrs. Abedin the most highly-classified U.S. intelligence over a personal email server, right?

Objective observers know that if they did a fraction of the things Mrs. Clinton and her aide did that they would be wearing an ugly jumpsuit in a federal prison. But yet, Chuck Todd feels “uncomfortable” watching an “Office Space” parody that a.) skewers the former secretary of state for her corrupt behavior, and b.) nails the media for its, “Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along,” attitude.

Ted Cruz deserves credit for being one of the few Republican candidates in recent memory who has used popular culture to his advantage. His competitors would be wise to learn from his success.

Here is the original — a classic.

‘Trump Coalition’ skillfully explained by Limbaugh

Donald Trump has been the Republican front-runner since August. He has maintained his lead despite blistering criticism from Democrats, fellow Republicans, and cable news pundits on a daily basis. One of the few famous individuals who has a firm grasp of Trump’s appeal is Rush Limbaugh. On Thursday he offered one of the clearest, most concise and plain-spoken explanations of the “Trump Coalition” to date.

Limbaugh said:

The Tea Party was not the result of some strategic plan launched by somebody out of nowhere. It was a spontaneous eruption of mostly people that had never been professionally, formally involved in politics before. It dates to the Obama stimulus deal in 2009 but really began to coalesce with Obamacare. Those two things sent the big message to the Tea Party people, what would become known as the Tea Party people. That is, there was no longer any concern for what this government was spending. There was no longer any concern for the danger that that was going to cause. …

The Tea Party had a lot of Democrats in it. The Tea Party had a lot of minorities. The Tea Party had a bunch of people from a cross section, a demographic cross section. But you don’t know that because you were told it was nothing but a malcontent conservatives and disaffected Republicans and what have you, because it was easier to criticize ’em that way.

There’s so many missed opportunities for the Republican Party here. It’s actually frightening to make a list of ’em all. The Republican Party could be owning the show. …

I know the Republican Party mocked the Tea Party. They worked with the Democrats and the media to smear them, just like is happening now with the Trump coalition. The key point here is who they are. As I have been trying to say, the majority of Trump’s support base are not Republican conservatives. There are a lot of them, but it’s not the majority.

I was at the original tea party rallies in Washington, D.C., and Rush is 100 percent correct. I worked at a conservative nonprofit organization and got to meet the waves of people who were entering the political realm for the first time. They seemed to innately know that America was at a dangerous crossroads.

The tea party had many people just like me — individuals whose conservatism is shaped by an understanding of free-market economics, documents like The Federalist Papers, and a fidelity to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

However, the tea party also had plenty of people who have no time to be academics because they have two jobs to hold down, kids to get to soccer practice, and any number of other responsibilities. All they know is that powerful groups are trying to fundamentally transform America into something at odds with its founding.

Elitists in the nation’s capital scoffed at those they no-doubt viewed as “rabble.” I know because my job within Washington often brought me into contact with said elitists. One of my favorite stories involves getting into an argument with one well-connected Washington insider who said to me, “Do you know who I am?! I’m the maître d of the conservative movement!”

Ask yourself this question: How well has “the maître d of the conservative movement” and his friends done their job? I’d say, not too well.

The “Trump Coalition” is an odious group to Democrats and Republicans in Washington, which is ironic because they are responsible for its creation.

The “Trump Coalition” sees President Obama on the left saying things like the Islamic State group has nothing to do with Islam, and on the right they see Republican “leaders” who are really good at mumbling about the Constitution, but really bad at limiting the size of the federal government.

I wrote on Donald Trump in 2011 while people like “the maître d of the conservative movement” was heading panels at black tie events, which were little more than exercises in self-congratulation. It is now 2016, I left much of that world behind, and now sit with my popcorn as “the maître d” and his friends stew over the “Trump Coalition” they helped create.

White House: Stripping constitutional rights for gun control ‘common sense’

Trey Gowdy

The San Bernardino terror attack on Dec. 2 has caused gun-control activists to go into hyperdrive. President Obama and his administration have now latched on to using terror watch lists — those same lists once derided by his supporters — to strip Americans of constitutionally-protected rights. Yours truly and others have already mentioned just how dangerous of an idea that is, but it was perfectly illuminated Thursday during a House Oversight Committee hearing.

In one corner we have Kelli Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Quite a mouthful of a title there, so one would hope she would know her stuff…)

In another corner we have South Carolina Rep. Try Gowdy.

Here is how it all unfolded:

Trey Gowdy: Let me ask you a question about the terrorism list. What process is afforded a U.S. citizen — not someone who overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission — but an American citizen?  What process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?

DHS: I’m sorry, there is not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are and unduly placed on the list.

Gowdy: Yes there is. And when I say ‘process,’ I’m actually using half of the term due process, which is a phrase we find in the Constitution — that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process.

So I understand Mister Goode’s idea, which is wait until you’re right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea. My question is can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true of the First Amendment?

DHS: Sir, there are strict criteria before any gets put on the list.

Trey Gowdy:That’s not my question ma’am. That is not my question. My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? He’s fine when do it with the Second Amendment. My question is, ‘How about the First?’ How about we not let them set up a website or Google account? How about we not let him join a church until until they can petition the government to get off the list. How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite — how about the Eighth amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petitioned the government to get off the list. Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one? **pause** Can you think of one?

DHS:I don’t have an answer for you, sir.

She. Doesn’t. Have. An. Answer.


How is it possible for someone at the Department of Homeland Security, who is advocating on behalf of stripping American citizens of constitutionally-protected rights, to not have an answer to those questions?

As Rep. Gowdy points out, the Obama administration’s own logic dictates that if the Second Amendment can be stripped without due process, then there is no reason why any other rights can’t be taken as well.

Listen to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s comments on the issue Friday, and then ask yourself how comfortable you are with giving the federal government a blank check to do whatever it wants under the guise of national security.

Mr Earnest said:

“I think it’s common sense, the president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interest to prevent those who are deemed by the government ‘too dangerous to board an airplane’ that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun — until such time as they can resolve the concerns the government has about their  potential links to terrorism. There is a process administered by the Department of Homeland Security for those concerns to be considered and resolved. When it comes to gun safety, that seems like a pretty common sense step.

In response to Sen. Rubio, I guess I would simply say: Is he suggesting we should wait until someone who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun[store], purchases a firearm and kills a whole bunch of Americans before we pass a law preventing it? I don’t think that passes the common sense test either.”

To recap:

  • The Department of Homeland Security does not know how many of your constitutional rights can be stripped without due process.
  • President Obama wants to give women like Kelli “I don’t have an answer for you, sir” Burriesci the ability to deny you constitutionally-protected rights (The Second Amendment…for now.)
  • The Department of Homeland Security officials will “consider” not infringing upon your constitutionally-protected rights if you go through its petition process and it feels like changing its mind.

In the same press briefing where Josh Earnest created a giant Straw Man argument for Sen. Rubio, the White House Press Secretary admitted that none of the recent mass shooters were on the no-fly list. He also stammered and stuttered when a reporter pointed out that none of the current gun-control measures being talked about would have prevented the mass shootings in the first place.

Right now the federal government is asking for power that its own officials don’t know how to justify because they know that what they want to do is unconstitutional.

Whether you are a gun owner or not, it should terrify you that the same argument used in favor of stripping Americans of Second Amendment rights without due process can be applied to any right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 

If you cannot see the danger this poses to future generations of Americans, then I weep for your children.

CPAC denies Log Cabin Republicans again; 80 percent friends now 20 percent enemies

The Conservative Political Action Conference will be held Feb. 25th – 28th, and once again the Log Cabin Republicans have been given the cold shoulder. In the world of CPAC organizers, someone who is 80 percent your friend is 20 percent your enemy.

The Huffington Post reported Thursday:

WASHINGTON — The wave of progress on LGBT rights has yet to reach the halls of the unsuitably named Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland.

For yet another year, the Conservative Political Action Conference will exclude from its list of sponsors the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative group that advocates for gay rights. The conference has increasingly become an exhibition for the movement’s more bombastic characters, but it remains one of the more high-profile conservative events each year, providing a window into the id of the Republican Party at a given moment. Several potential presidential candidates, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), are slated to attend this year’s conference, which will be held next week.

Pro-gay rights conservatives who hoped they’d get to participate in CPAC in a more formal way this year were disappointed when the answer came back from the event’s sponsor, the American Conservative Union.

This blog has been consistent for years when it comes to shutting down debate — it’s a loser. It’s a loser when NPR and other media outlets shut down the comments section of controversial topics, and it’s a loser when conservatives at the ACU find weasel ways to deny the Log Cabin Republicans a voice at CPAC.

If an organization of gay men agrees with me on national defense, fiscal policy, education, and a wide range of social issues — but it disagrees with me on the definition of marriage — it would be incredibly strange for of me to make that group feel unwelcome in my company. Denying the Log Cabin Republicans a sponsorship at CPAC is just as tone deaf as Mitt Romney saying his ideal immigration policy would force Hispanic families to “self deport” (i.e., Maybe if we make your life miserable enough, then you’ll just go back to where you came from).

Note: Jesus didn’t walk away from troubled souls — he walked towards them. Social conservatives shouldn’t fight to exclude a group that agrees with 80 percent of the conservative platform — they should fight to have the booth directly next to them.

It’s a sad day when CPAC will welcome Ron Paul fans who push nightmarish foreign policy ideas into its annual conference, but then kick the Log Cabin Republicans to the curb.