Posted on 01/24/2016 5:57:51 AM PST by detective
Living legend and conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly slammed National Review for their efforts to take down GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump.
On Friday's program of The Laura Ingraham Show, Schlafly declared, "I don’t recognize National Review as the authority on conservatism." Schlafly blasted National Review for being more eager to fight Donald Trump than they are to fight the Republican donor-class, whom Schlafly calls the Kingmakers.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Mrs. Schlafly is honest and courageous today in her evaluation of the National Review and her defense of America.
Agreed.
It’s a shame Phyllis Schlafly has been conned into believing Trump is pro-life.
We'll see who's smiling when it's all over.
In their bulbous but useless brains, Conservatism is an abstraction that simply requires checking off a list of specific rules. The more check marks, the more conservative.
Intellectuals can play their academic games, while enjoying the cocooned lives of the chattering class, but we live in the real world. Its getting down right scary and depressing to be an American.
Conservative score cards are not the ultimate measure. America needs a Leader, a Fighter, a Winner. Donald Trump will lead fight and give us the best chance to win, and make America great again.
BOOM! Wonder which Trump haters are going to come out and claim Ms. Phyllis isn’t Conservative enough...?
Well at least Lowry admitted his journalism is about what he can create, meaning, truth isn’t always a paramount concern.
I still like NR. Here they made a terrible mistake. It's OK in politics to dislike Trump. It's not OK to ruin him in the national election if he gets the nomination.
I recall the divorce between NR and Mark Steyn. An editor told Mark he would stand on the ramparts to defend him but not this time.
Mark's response was, "No you wouldn't." There would always be a reason to push it off until the next issue.
Maybe that's what main stream conservatism or Republicanism is. We'll dig our heels in on the next issue.
Boy, I just can't see what makes Trump entrench the way he has. I guess the members who make up the party have had enough of "the next issue."
She dressed the National Review down for the phonies they've been for at least 30 years... and Trumps the phony? ... good grief.
Its sad you cannot recognize a lifeboat when on a sinking ship. Even when those around you can.
If the NRO is the conservative voice then I'm gone.
Michal Medved alone is pseudo-con radical maxist, turned radical conservative now rabid establishment - these are the zeolots of social engineering.
I'm in the life boat with Phyllis and we be rowing
Poll FReep: If the election were held today, who would be your first choice for President of the United States?
Nice!
Real conservatism is about looking to the principles and processes of the past that have been worthwhile, productive, and honorable. It is about honoring our spiritual heritage that has built our system...specifically, the Christian heritage.
How can George Will, an atheist, be a conservative? He cannot be. How can libertarianism or neo-conservatism creep into conservatism with their penchant for atheism/agnosticm and for modernism, idealism, and rationalism? They cannot be.
The national review is not conservative is the best sense of the word.
Kind of destroys some people’s argument that Trump is too liberal. Billy Buckley will be scrambling to squeeze some more anti-Trump articles on his website and publications to offset this criticism.
According to Ingraham, she called Lowry and invited him on the radio show to talk about his Trump position and he snarled at her. I guess he picked his spot, the Trump hating bimbo Kelly. BTW, I hope Trump does not appear at any debate where that bimbo is a panelist. He should say why go to the second team, put Hitlery on in her place so I can face the devil.
“It’s a shame Phyllis Schlafly has been conned into believing Trump is pro-life.”
Conned, huh?
Tell me, what proof - what reasoning - what data to you have to doubt Trump when he’s repeatedly said that he’s pro-life and explained the reasons why he changed his mind about abortion several years ago?
Is it that you just don’t believe anything he says, and therefore when he says he’s pro-life he’s really pro-abortion and it’s all really a “con”? Could it just possibly be your belief doesn’t have the slightest basis in reality?
Anti-abortion people (and I’m one of them) should be THRILLED when hearts are won over to our side - not casting doubt on their conversion just because of some political bias.
Amen. Great post. Bttt.
I've met, and had discourse with atheists who were pro-life, not anti-Christian, and held 90% compatibility with conservatism.
I've also met the and had discourse with the opposite: Christians who are off the chart in their liberal propensities.
Generally I agree, but that's a broad brush, perhaps a bit too broad.
I am enjoying the three schools of thought with Republicans and Conservatives. Trump has the best chance to change America, Trump has the best chance of beating Hillary, Trump is no different than any other RINO.
The only difference between Trump and Romney is people believe Trump will do as he says and not be beholden to special interests once in office. It’s a bold thought and a great risk. We heard it before, we seen it before and with conservatism’s last bullet, is this the person we want to pull the trigger?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.