Phyllis Schlafly: National Review Is Not the Authority on Conservatism

Breitbart ^ | 23 Jan 2016 | Julia Hahn

[Georgia Girl 2]

Phyliss Schaffly knows of which she speaks. NR has been a GOPe hack rag for a long time now.

[Jane Long]

I’ve already seen your threadSpam, thanks.

[Pravious]

“He syas he’s pro-life, but he was on teh pro-abort side and says his sister, a strong pro-abort, would make a great Supreme Court Justice. (He won’t appoint her becauase she’s older than he is and you want someone thre longer. But that’s the KIND of justice he would appoint.)”

Again, just silly. He jokes about putting his sister on the Supreme Court, and anti-Trump people start digging into her record to find something to pin on her, even though the man was obviously not serious.

Would it make more sense to believe someone who professes to be pro-life would appoint a pro-life person to the Supreme Court? Nah... too logical.

Trump actually doing something you approve of (getting rid of Common Core)? No problem... criticize him for not spelling out exactly HOW he’s going to do it. Looks to me like you’re just spinning wildly, looking for reasons to justify your own belief.

Most of your other comments are simply wrong.

[Grampa Dave]

The National Review issue that attacks Trump will only inspire his supporters. In fact, it may wind up being the final boost in Iowa that gives Donald the nomination.

National Review just handed Donald Trump the Election

Republican Newswatch ^ 1/22/16 DOUG IBENDAHL
Posted on 1/22/2016, 8:39:33 PM by Amntn

National Review’s publication of the collective anti-Donald Trump missives from 22 self-appointed conservative potentates has caused quite a stir in Republican circles.

The nationwide responses range from, “Wait, I thought National Review went out of business years ago,” to “Ed Meese? Seriously?”

The Gang of 22 have officially become parodies of themselves. One would have to reach back to the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew to lift an adequate quote to describe them.
“Nattering nabobs of negativism,” “vicars of vacillation,” “pusillanimous pussyfooters,” “the decadent few,” “ideological eunuchs,” “the effete corps of impudent snobs,” or “the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history” - take your pick, because they all apply about equally well to each and every one of them.

So clueless is the Gang of 22 they can’t even see how they’ve stumbled right into the narrative Trump’s been communicating so successfully for months. Just like the elected officials from both parties, the Gang of 22 has been GREAT at complaining about stuff, year, after year, after year.

But getting anything accomplished? Not so much.

Many of the Gang of 22 have been hanging around and chattering for decades, and some are active cogs in the Conservative Entertainment Complex, deriving their income by pandering to conservative anger while offering no real solutions.

Donald Trump represents a threat to these ineffectual poohbahs in the same way he represents a threat to do-nothing public officials.

Jealousy is also seriously at work here. Trump is inspiring and exciting a broad spectrum of the country like no member of the Gang of 22 ever has, or ever will.

In just seven months of campaigning, Trump already has more Americans listening to a Republican message than the entire Gang of 22 could muster over decades.

Trump understands that before you can advance the ball, you have to convince people to take time from their busy lives to listen. No one on the GOP side since Ronald Reagan has accomplished that like Trump.

No one else has come close, and certainly no one from that “effete corps of impudent snobs” to which the National Review thinks we should defer.

The Gang of 22 had their chance. They’ve done a lot of bitching over the years, and it paid well for some.

But Americans care about results. They can plainly see that all of the empty talk from the Gang of 22 got us eight years of Barack Obama, and a loss in pretty much every conservative battle there was to lose.

At the same time when Americans look at Donald Trump’s life they get a lot of assurance that here is finally a man who shares their focus on actually getting results. And Trump returns the respect by recognizing regular hard-working Americans are a lot smarter than any of the “ideological eunuchs” in all of their pontificating glory.

The “pusillanimous pussyfooters” love to nitpick Trump’s words, but what voters are looking for this year is competence and accomplishment. Donald Trump has an actual record of delivering both in spades.

The Gang of 22 is right to be terrified. A President who could get things done would expose them as the irrelevant creatures they truly are.

It can’t happen fast enough.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3387420/posts

[G Larry]

It’s not “thread spam” when your position illustrates you haven’t read my earlier posts, disproving your position.

[goodnesswins]

Who is the “authority”? Just curious

[TBP]

Would it make more sense to believe someone who professes to be pro-life would appoint a pro-life person to the Supreme Court?

If would if that person ha a record of being pro-life. Trump does not. He was hte only Republican not to show up at a pro-life event the other day. He has trashed Scalia. His ideas about Supreme Court picks concern me. I'm more comfortable on this matter with other candidates who have demonstrated pro-life bona fides than with Donnid Come Lately.

Trump actually doing something you approve of (getting rid of Common Core)?

Will he? A lot of Republicans hvae promised to do that.

How is he going to do that from Washington? Curriculum decisions, mostly, are handled at the state and local level.

And somehow you object to my discussion of Trump's record, declaring it "simply wrong" when in fact it's completely accurate. But it';s not what you want to believe Trump is, so it MUST be wrong.

[GOPJ]

Yes, Schlafly’s right, but the National Review IS connected to the CHEAT LABOR EXPRESS... and isn’t that more important?

[biff]

For some reason I thought this ole gal was dead and gone as I haven’t really heard anything from her for years and I live in the same state as her.

To answer your question, I am my own authority, I have to make up my own mind what conservatism is. Nobody drags me around by the nose telling me what I should think or believe.

And yours?

[SunkenCiv]

• Huh? Glenn Beck Tells Iowa Crowd He Prefers Bernie Sanders Over Donald Trump
• Beck Pleads Cruz Rally To Accept Even 'Marxist Atheists' Because 'They Renew Us '
• Selective Outrage: National Review Trashes Trump, Rallies Behind Ryan

Senator Cruz -- Dump This Dumb S.O.B.!

Glenn Beck to Vote for Hillary if McCain is GOP Nominee

Glenn Beck - Why he would of voted for Hillary instead of John McCain

Glenn Beck: McCain would've been worse

Glenn Beck: I May have Voted for Hillary Clinton

Glenn Beck: 'I won't vote for Trump.' (Even if running against Hillary)

[petitfour]

How many children does Trump have?

[CAluvdubya]

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.

This is an excellent post! I've been at a loss as to why people are against Trump when he has said from the beginning his opinion on abortion has changed, he is definitely for closing the borders and building a wall, doesn't want to let in Syrian refugees, and wants the persecution against Christians stopped.

These are all in alignment with most of what we've all been saying for years!

[betty boop]

How can George Will, an atheist, be a conservative?

Indeed, dear brother in Christ, I'm scratching my head over that question, too.

Precisely, how can an atheist be a conservative? It seems that would depend on the answer to the question: What is it that an atheist conservative seeks to conserve?

I suppose the instant, emphatic atheist conservative answer might be: Why, the U.S. Constitution itself!!!

And yet, how can an atheist uphold a constitution that is ultimately founded in the Judeo-Christian tradition -- whose very foundational principle is that human liberty is a grant of God, thus completely inalienable by the recipient, which is to say, even if one wanted to give up such inalienable liberties, one could never do so. Because they are grants of God, and thus the foundational parts of human nature itself that no state may infringe.

How can an atheist defend the Judeo-Christian roots of American order, when the atheist thinks he can dispense of God Himself, Who framed this revolutionary novo ordo seclorum, this "new order for the ages," as understood in the imaginations and culture of the Framers as set down in the founding documents that constitute the very order of the United States of America? Signally, the Declaration of Independence; the Preamble to the Constitution; and the language of the Constitution itself, especially including the Bill of Rights?

I'd love to ask George Will that question. If he kills the root, what is there left to defend?

Probably George Will is unavailable to answer this question. But I'd be very glad if some other conservative atheist from around these parts would step up to the plate and explain this mystery to me.

Again, the question is very simple: What is it an atheist would like to "conserve?"

Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ! It is always such a pleasure to hear from you.

p.s.: My trial hypothesis: Kick the atheists out of the "conservative" category altogether, and call them for what they really are: Libertarians.

[marron]

The word “conservative” has more than one meaning. We use the word “conservative” to refer to constitutionalists, to people who hold to liberty rooted in the judeo-christian world view.

Then there is the other meaning, which is the person who holds to traditional views because they are traditional views.

The first has a moral and philosophical compass and destination. The second is the tail of the cultural dog, arriving 15 years late to every party... but arriving nonetheless. Where ever the dog goes, the tail arrives sooner or later.

The constitutionalist, though we call him a conservative, is actually a rather revolutionary character who tends to upturn the game-board from time to time.

So, George Will is in fact a conservative and we, the people he looks down on, are trouble in his world.

[marron]

Maybe where I said “revolutionary” a better word would be “counter-cultural”. In our meaning of the word “conservative”, what we refer to is counter-cultural in the way that culture with deep roots is in my metaphor the antithesis of the passing storm.

[xzins]

It makes more sense that someone has to win to appoint anyone.

Like of WF Buckley said, the most electable conservative.

[xzins]

ping to post #53

[TBP]

What is it that an atheist conservative seeks to conserve?

These are ten conservative principles, as described by one of the greatest minds our movement has ever known. They do not require belief in God, but it helps:

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-ten-conservative-principles-of-russell-kirk

[TBP]

That’s actually not what WFB said.

[xzins]

We’ll call it a working summary.

Now you’re going to get me started on the real definition of
Conservatism. Where do I start, and long articles or books aren’t possible given time demands. Shorter the better. Please ping Betty boop to each post. Hopefully, she’ll explain what I don’t get.