The Trans-turian Candidate

Move over, Brianna Wu, you’ve got competition!

Will 2017 Be the ‘Year of the Trans Candidate’?

Virginia native Danica Roem is running for a seat in her state’s House of Delegates. Should she emerge victorious from the June 13 Democratic primary, the 32-year-old would challenge longtime Republican incumbent Bob Marshall to represent Virginia’s 13th district and become the first openly transgender representative in the chamber.

A win in the general election would also make Roem the third openly transgender state legislator to ever hold office in the U.S., and one of only a few openly trans elected officials in the world.
***
Despite facing three other Democrats in the primary, Roem is optimistic. She has received several endorsements, including one from the Victory Fund, a national LGBTQ political organization.

“We are making 2017 the year of the trans candidate,” Victory Fund President Aisha C. Moodie-Mills said. “We have more transgender people running this cycle than almost all other cycles combined.”

Roem is one of at least 20 transgender candidates currently running for office across the U.S., according to the LGBTQ Representation and Rights Initiative.

Dear old Brianna is also running against several other Democrats.  The party is so weak and degenerate that the crazies are coming out of the woodwork to eat it alive.

Buckley Should Have Listened

George Will notices that bad people are getting conservatism dirty.

Conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives

In 1950, the year before William F. Buckley burst into the national conversation, the literary critic Lionel Trilling revealed why the nation was ripe for Buckley’s high-spirited romp through its political and cultural controversies. Liberalism, Trilling declared, was “not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition” in mid-century America because conservatism was expressed merely in “irritable mental gestures.” Buckley would change that by infusing conservatism with brio, bringing elegance to its advocacy and altering the nation’s trajectory while having a grand time.

Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients. America needs a reminder of conservatism before vulgarians hijacked it, and a hint of how it became susceptible to hijacking.
***
[Buckley], to his credit, befriended Whittaker Chambers, whose autobiography “Witness” became a canonical text of conservatism. Unfortunately, it injected conservatism with a sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism. It is the screechy and dominant tone of the loutish faux conservatism that today is erasing Buckley’s legacy of infectious cheerfulness and unapologetic embrace of high culture.

Chambers wallowed in cloying sentimentality and curdled resentment about “the plain men and women” — “my people, humble people, strong in common sense, in common goodness” — enduring the “musk of snobbism” emanating from the “socially formidable circles” of the “nicest people” produced by “certain collegiate eyries.” Buckley, a Bach aficionado from Yale and ocean mariner from the New York Yacht Club, was unembarrassed about having good taste and without guilt about savoring the good life.

Of course a Yalie elitist is so much better than a back-to-the-land bumpkin farmer–regardless of said bumkin’s own “good taste” or education.  There’s a funny thing, however, about him attacking the “sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism” of Whittaker Chambers.  First of all, the idea that Witness is the “canonical text of conservatism” is absurd.  Chambers described himself as “a man of the right” explicitly stating he was NOT a conservative.  There are more than a few passages in Witness that struck me as being close to a proto-alt-right take on things.  All the more reason for Will to hate him.  But most interesting of all is a quote from Chambers included in the forward to the 50th anniversary edition of Witness written by Buckley himself.

[I]f the Republican Party cannot get some grip on the actually world we live in and from it generalize and actively promote a program that means something to the masses of people–why somebody else will.  Then there will be nothing to argue.  The voters will simply vote Republicans into a singularity.  The Republican Party will became like one of those dark little shops which apparently never sell anything.  If, for any reason, you go in, you find at the back an old man, fingering for his own pleasure some oddments of cloth.  Nobody wants to buy them, which is fine because the old man is not really interested in selling.

It’s a wonder Buckley didn’t write him out of the conservative movement–perhaps it is Chambers denial of the lable that saved him.  But it’s more the wonder that Buckley could have included this in his reminiscence and been completely unaware of its implication.  Even fifty years ago Chambers could see where the Republicans were headed.  They haven’t got anything meaningful for the masses and they will be replaced.  Buckley should have listened.

Then again maybe he did.  Maybe he simply didn’t care.  For as Vox Day, one of those scowling primitives, writes, Buckley “was, without question, a significant part of the problem; he was no true soldier of the Right, but rather, the treacherous captain of the Left’s Cuckservative Guard.”  He built up conservatism all right–a conservatism doomed to failure.

Because Islam

Terrorism, Islam, and Immigration:

Whenever a new terrorist attack is reported, I’m reminded of that LifeLock commercial about a bank robbery. After a group of masked robbers smash into the bank, the uniformed officer on duty explains to frightened customers that he’s not a security guard, only a security monitor. He notifies people if there’s a robbery, but he doesn’t do anything to stop it.

Over in Europe, people are beginning to understand that their local and federal governments aren’t going to do anything about the terrorist problem. Oh, sure, the authorities will investigate the latest attack, identify the perpetrator, and, if they’re lucky, break up the cell to which he belonged. But on the most basic level, nothing changes, nothing is ever done.

What are the basics that are being ignored?

Well, in the first place, it would be helpful to recognize that these acts of terror are committed by Muslims, not by Methodists or Mormons. Moreover, the higher the concentration of Muslims in a given society, the more likely that terrorist attacks will occur. In Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic which have strict immigration laws and few Muslims, there have been no major terror attacks. In Germany, Belgium, France, and England, which have liberal immigration laws and large Muslim populations, terror attacks have become an almost weekly occurrence.

One of the primary ways to prevent terrorist attacks is to put a halt to Muslim immigration or else to curtail it sharply. But Europe’s governing class is committed to open borders. They’re also committed to the narrative that all cultures are created equal. So if Muslims are acting up, it can’t, by their reckoning, have anything to do with Islamic culture; it must be because of racial hatred or intolerance on the part of the natives. Like the security monitor in the LifeLock commercial, European authorities witness the invasion of their territory, but they don’t do anything to stop it. Indeed, many deny that terrorism has any connection to immigration.

***

There’s a lesson to be learned here, but for Europeans the lesson comes late in the game. Once the Muslim population of a country grows beyond a certain point, it becomes very difficult to control the terror problem. Yes, of course, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But it’s become something like a mathematical certainty that a certain percentage are. Thus, as the Muslim population grows, so does the number of terrorists and potential terrorists. You can belatedly close the borders, but if you wait too long the damage will already have been done. It’s not a matter of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped, but of closing it after the war horses and Trojan horses have gotten inside.

It’s a different matter for the U.S. In America it’s not too late to tighten up the borders, to curtail Muslim immigration, and to develop sophisticated vetting procedures. It’s not too late to put Muslim communities on notice that they need to do more to purge the terrorists from their midst, and to eliminate from their culture those elements that foster radicalization. None of this will happen, of course, without a radical change of mind—a realization that we are not just fighting ISIS or lone wolves, but that we are also engaged in a do-or-die culture war with people who are determined, either by violence or by stealth, to replace our culture with theirs.

Across the Atlantic, the substitution of one culture for another is well under way, and the Europeans don’t quite know what to do about it. It’s difficult to know what to do when the enemy is already within your borders and when he is practically indistinguishable from the non-violent practitioners of his faith. Because of years of inaction, many parts of Europe are now in a place where all the options are terrible to contemplate.

The lesson for us is that we can’t afford to let the Muslim immigration problem grow to the point where—as in large parts of Europe—it is nearly impossible to deal with the consequences. Because, beyond a certain point, no amount of concrete barriers and bomb-sniffing dogs will be able to stem the terrorist tide.

Will the British finally wake up?

I was surprised to read that maybe, just maybe the British may have had enough of “tolerance.”  I was not surprised to read that America’s liberals are as hypocritical and insane as ever, refusing to learn the obvious lessons the recent terror attacks are teaching.

London Undone by Terror

An ocean away, another seven caskets tell the story of a war the West is desperate to end. For the British, who’ve watched the tide of terrorism swell to three attacks in as many months, the time for sensitivity is over. There’s been “too much tolerance” of Islamic extremism, Prime Minister Theresa May warned, as police searched for clues to another ISIS-inspired rampage. Just days after families put 22 loved ones to rest after the Manchester Arena bombing, three men slammed their van into a crowd of people while others hacked through a local market with foot-long machetes.

“It is time to say enough is enough,” May said of the lax attitude that’s given radical Muslims a foothold on their soil. “Right now, through weak policies, we have allowed the fundamentalists to spoil it for the majority,” intelligence sources explained. After three bloody months, British officials are putting every option on the table — including burka bans and new citizenship rules. As far as May is concerned, political correctness is a luxury the U.K. can no longer afford.

Three thousand miles away, that’s a point Donald Trump has been trying to drive home since the earliest days of his candidacy. After eight years of letting foreigners stream into our country — with the barest of background checks — U.S. leaders have watched ISIS’s infiltration of Europe with an anxious eye. In his first week on the job, President Trump rolled out an executive order designed to keep what’s happening in England from coming here. Liberals came unglued, accusing the new administration of religious profiling — or worse. Now, months into a vicious court battle that’s stopped the president from keeping America safe, the Left’s protests seem more ridiculous than ever. While the London police rush to put up concrete barriers across its most beloved landmarks, the world has a choice: it can learn from Britain’s mistakes — or repeat them.

We know where this White House stands. “In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe,” the president tweeted. “We need the courts to give us back our rights.” While the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case against the president’s “travel ban,” President Trump is already asking for a tougher version. And there’s good reason for it, as Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) pointed out over the weekend. “You’ve got some [terror] groups that are looking at a big play like taking down an airliner. You’ve got others who need very little support, very little planning, and can do incredible damage, which is actually in many ways almost more of terrorism because you go anywhere, do anything, you wonder what could happen at any moment. It could happen here.”

Perhaps the most maddening part of the liberals’ effort is that they’re trying to tie Trump’s hands, when he has the benefit of intelligence that most people don’t — including the judges deciding this case. As someone who worked in counterterrorism and law enforcement, I understand that there’s a reason the president is entrusted with screening protocols, especially when they’re in the interest of national security. As David French wrote in National Review, there’s nothing extreme about that.

“We know that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the ranks of refugees and other visitors. We know that immigrants from Somalia, for example, have launched jihadist attacks here at home and have sought to leave the U.S. to join ISIS. Indeed, given the terrible recent track record of completed and attempted terror attacks by Muslim immigrants, it’s clear that our current approach is inadequate to control the threat. Unless we want to simply accept Muslim immigrant terror as a fact of American life, a short-term ban on entry from problematic countries combined with a systematic review of our security procedures is both reasonable and prudent.”

“The stakes are indisputably high,” White House officials warned in its brief to the Supreme Court. “The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism.” Is the Left going to take responsibility if its lawsuit succeeds and people are killed on American soil because no one could look into these foreigners’ backgrounds? Will they hide behind black robes when Britain’s terror lands at our shores, ushered in by eight years of Obama’s indifference?

Meanwhile, liberal hypocrites like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are daring to criticize President Trump for not doing enough on terrorism. That’s ironic, since Schumer’s party is the one standing in the way of the White House’s security overhaul! “Rigorous vetting and tightening up wherever we have to is essential in this new world,” he argued. Of course, this is the same man who in January decried Trump’s stricter immigration policy, insisting, “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty.” Better the Statue of Liberty, British mourners would say, than thousands more grieving families who will never see their loved ones again because their government was more concerned about being politically correct than protecting their citizens.

Prager Explains Never-Trumpers

Denis Prager had an interesting response to the Never-Trumpers here:  Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

Prager was pretty generous in his interpretation of Never-Trumpers behavior and motivations — though honest enough to tick them off (if you want to read a lame response to Prager, see Jonah Goldberg’s).

Trump is too far from their ideal leader for some conservatives to support him.

When people you know well and admire, and who share your values, do something you strongly oppose, you have two options: (1) Cease admiring them or (2) try to understand them and change their minds.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking. I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president. With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016. To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

The Never Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative — one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries — is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true. Had any Never Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally Assad after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall; appoint a U.N. ambassador who regularly condemns the U.N. for its moral hypocrisy; restore the military budget; and work on lowering corporate tax rates, among other conservative achievements — that Never Trump conservative would have been jumping for joy.

So, why aren’t anti-Trump conservatives jumping for joy? I have come to believe that many conservatives possess what I once thought was a left-wing monopoly — a utopian streak. Trump is too far from their ideal leader to be able to support him.

There is also a cultural divide. Anti-Trump conservatives are a very refined group of people. Trump doesn’t talk like them. Moreover, the cultural milieu in which the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives live and/or work means that to support Trump is to render oneself contemptible at all elite dinner parties. In addition, anti-Trump conservatives see themselves as highly moral people (which they often are) who are duty-bound not to compromise themselves by strongly supporting Trump, whom they largely view as morally defective.

Finally, these people are only human: After investing so much energy in opposing Trump’s election, and after predicting his nomination would lead to electoral disaster, it’s hard for them to admit they were wrong. To see him fulfill many of his conservative election promises, again in defiance of predictions, is a bitter pill. But if they hang on to their Never Trumpism and the president falls on his face, they can say they were right all along. That means that only if he fails can their reputations be redeemed. And they, of course, know that.

But there is another way. They can join the fight. They can accept an imperfect reality and acknowledge that we are in a civil war, and that Trump, with all his flaws, is our general. If this general is going to win, he needs the best fighters. But too many of them, some of the best minds of the conservative movement, are AWOL. I beg them: Please report for duty.

Never-Trumpers, one might say, are too much like the leftist establishment; they are snobs, too far removed from the regular people, they are utopians and idealists (in the worst sense of the word) and they are convinced they are correct and everyone who disagrees in an uneducated moron.

Aside from their similarity to Pharisees (that I noted earlier), they are conceited, being so pathologically prideful they cannot bear to lose face by changing their position on Trump.  Prager, unlike many conservative establishment types, may have been wrong about Trump at one point, but is intelligent and humble enough to revise his opinion and wishes to convince others to do the same.  Sadly, it seems unlikely they will do so, preferring to cut off their nose to spite their face by opposing Trump and refusing to work with him.  Trump is caught between two sides, the Left and the “Principled Right,” which both work tirelessly to sabotage him.

People who criticize Trump for not accomplishing more so far in his presidency should rather wonder he’s been able to do anything.

 

Time to ditch modern universities

If Universities no longer actually educate, but have become institutions of “academic narcissism,” why are we still paying to attend them or send our kids there?  Places of indoctrination, lacking in critical thinking, aren’t exactly a good deal for the thousands people pay them.  University no longer equals place of higher learning.  These places are long overdue for being abandoned and replaced.

If you need another reason to ditch the contemporary college model, then there’s this type of student behavior, most recently demonstrated at Evergreen College but rampant on many (if not most) college campuses.

Students said they were protesting institutional racism.

A group of protesters sent the following statement in a news release to The Olympian last week: “What started out as anti-black comments on social media has turned into the dismissal of the rights of students and femmes of color, physical violence by police, and false sentencing of students protesting. Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly, police are refusing to explain their actions and harassment. Students will not stand for this anymore, as students of color have never felt comfortable on campus and have not been treated equally.”

Tensions reached a new high after the public airing of an email exchange between school employees over a planned Day of Absence event.

The Day of Absence, based on a play by the same name, dates back to the 1970s at Evergreen. The day is part of two days of race and equity-related events, and in previous years minority students voluntarily left for an off-campus discussion.

This year that event was swapped: White students were asked to leave and minority students remained on campus. But the event had space for 200 students – only a fraction of the roughly 4,800 overall student body, Powers said.

Rashida Love, director of the First People’s Multicultural Advising Services program, sent an email asking for some white students to volunteer not to be on campus for the event, to leave the college more open for students of color, Powers said.

Professor Bret Weinstein then sent back an email saying that asking white students to stay off campus is an “act of oppression in and of itself,” the Journal reported.

Some students have since protested Weinstein, calling him racist and asking the administration to fire him.

The protesters’ statement is so over the top it makes me wonder if it’s for real: “Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly.”  For real?  People get trolled and made fun of with stuff like this.  Did these dumb students really say that in all seriousness?!

Of course the professor that objected to their asking all white students to leave for the day is being called a racist.

Definitely time to seek education elsewhere.

Tigers = White Supremacy

LSU is the latest example of college insanity.  A petition is currently circulating to ban and change the sports team name and mascot, Tigers, because it is a symbol of “White Supremacy.”  Wait?  Isn’t it ok to shout about “black power!” and revere the Black Panthers?  Why not the White Power Tigers?

According to the author of the petition—a user going by the name “LaMallori LSU”—the nickname was chosen by “powerful white males” as an homage to the Confederate “Louisiana Tigers” regiment, whose members “were known for their propensity for violence on and off the battle field [sic].”

“It is incredibly insulting for any African American to have to attend to a school that honors Confederate militantism,” the petition declares. “It is already hard enough to be black at LSU, and these symbols must be changed.”

Almost as an afterthought, the author adds that “it’s also cruel to cage a wild animal for the amusement of privileged white people” who have “never been in a cage!”

It concludes by quoting Dr. Charles Coates, an LSU administrator from 1893-1939, who explained the origin of the Tigers mascot in a 1937 alumni newsletter.

Describing the school’s initial foray into college football in 1895, Coates does in fact directly attribute the team’s name to the state’s Civil War heritage, noting that he found it appropriate because the original Louisiana Tigers were known for “getting into the hardest part of the fighting and staying there, most of them permanently.”

Moreover, Coates recounted, the selection fit in with the contemporary custom of naming football teams after “vicious animals,” such as the Yale Bulldogs and the Princeton Tigers.

The petition presents this account as indisputable evidence that the mascot had racist undertones from the very beginning, labeling it a “symbol of white oppression” that must be eliminated.

“We must speak truth to power, and continue to march toward justice,” it declares. “That day is coming, the day when every symbol of white oppression is torn down.”

Yep. They want to destroy every symbol of “white oppression” in the country.  Good luck with that.  You’re gonna have to start destroying pretty much everything built by whites. And all those Europeans who founded our country?  Wipe them from the history books too and change the names on everything named after them (goodbye, Washington DC you rotten symbol of white oppression; hello, M. L. Kingstown).  Time to reprint all the money too.  Heck, even the Lincoln Memorial has to go because President Lincoln was actually rather racist in his views on blacks.

And while we’re at it, can we please just change all the names of all the sports teams in the US, everything from Little League to the Pros?  They’re all offensive and violent and white (either that or they’re culturally appropriating things like “Redskins”).  How about things like “the Butterflies” or “the Puppies” or “the Kittens?”  Oops, that’ll probably offend PETA or the environmentalists.  Oh, well, we’re just going to have to abolish sports entirely.  But that’ll put a lot of blacks out of work – no biggie they can just go on welfare like the rest.  But…

Once you start down this road of offense-taking insanity there is no end.