Ben Shapiro Speaking at Stanford University (Calling Out the Woke Right)

                       

I am really grateful for Ben Shapiro's speech calling out the Alt-Right.

Six years later, we should call them "Woke Right."

Why Are You Asking Questions? -- Ben Shapiro

Why do people ask questions?

Some people just want to provoke a response.

Others wish to voice their unbelief or doubt in a position or view.

And yes, there is the vast majority of people who ask questions in order to get answers.

Here, Ben Shapiro confronts the false humility of those who are "just asking questions," when in reality they wish to cast doubt and aspersions on a person's mind and motives:

Every conservative “influencer” should have to watch this on repeat pic.twitter.com/anpoUBKFsL

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 5, 2024

When Zachariah the High Priest questions the Angel Gabriel, he was expressing doubt.

When Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus, questioned the Angel Gabriel, she was expressing doubt.

When Sennacharib questions King Hezekiah via a letter, he was ridiculing him and the people of Israel.

Right now, what we are seeing on the Right is lots of commentators wanting to promote themselves by "just asking questions" about Ben Shapiro and his support for Israel.

They are not asking questions, they are making allegations without having the courage to state those allegations. They are questioning his and other people's motives, without offering an evidence or reason for their assertions.

This is bad faith, and no one should take them seriously.

Christopher Rufo's Take on the Problems on the Right (Candace Owens)

This past week, Christopher Rufo waded briefly into the "intra-Right" conflict that broke out between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens, and which ended with Candace Owens leaving The Daily Wire.

Here's his extensive tweet:

I generally avoid intra-Right conflict, but the ongoing Daily Wire-Candace Owens dispute is an important moment for the Right, which, I believe, merits comment.

First, it's not a violation of "free speech" to let a multimillion-dollar contract expire, which is reportedly what…

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 5, 2024

Here's the full statement:

I generally avoid intra-Right conflict, but the ongoing Daily Wire-Candace Owens dispute is an important moment for the Right, which, I believe, merits comment.

First, it's not a violation of "free speech" to let a multimillion-dollar contract expire, which is reportedly what happened. The Daily Wire is not obligated to subsidize Candace Owens's speech, especially if she is deviating from the publication's editorial standard or causing problems for the business. DW is not an open platform such as YouTube, Facebook, X, etc., and the owners of a publication are under no obligation to subsidize someone whose trust and friendship they no longer enjoy. Owens spent months taking public shots at @benshapiro and @JeremyDBoreing, which is a tacit request to get canned and then play the martyr.

Owens is a gifted speaker, who has been able to turn controversy into attention—a valuable capability—but she does not advance a serious politics. She is clearly traveling down an ugly, but, unfortunately, well-trodden path. She has rationalized Kanye West's antisemitic rants, speculated about Jewish gangs murdering people in Hollywood, accused @BariWeiss of being a CIA asset, and claimed that Emmanuel Macron's wife is a man. There is an audience for this kind of material—Inforwars does a robust business in vitamins and emergency prep kits—but it's a political dead end.

Why does this matter? Because the Right faces an inflection point. There are serious people who are trying to advance a serious political movement with a vision for governing—I consider the Daily Wire to be among them. And there are unserious people who are willing to sell kayfabe and conspiracy, leading us nowhere. I care about politics because I believe we have substantive work to do for the country. This requires putting together a coalition that is capable of taking responsibility. The choice is ours.

First, let me state my views on Candace Owens:

1. She is very well-spoken

2. She is well-researched on a number of topics.

3. She is photogenic, which contributes to her charisma, her appeal

4. She is a strong self-promoter

5. She interviews incendiary people and takes incendiary positions to get attention.

6. Ultimately, she got lots of attention because she was an articulate black conservative, and conservative influencers lionized her for more likes, views, and shares.

I have lost a great deal of respect for Candace Owens. She is more interested in making a name for herself than making a difference. She was the face of a somewhat broad movement on the right, Blexit, but what was the result of this movement? Did black voters become Republicans? Did they vote Republican in larger numbers? Did they more strongly embrace our country's civic culture and history?

According to final data from Election 2020, regardless of how disputed the election results remain, the black vote did not shift considerably in Trump's favor. All the government handouts didn't make a difference, and all the diversity rhetoric didn't really matter.

As for Blexit, Candace O made lots of dough, but not much else was accomplished. How many black voters were registered? How many of them registered as Republicans? Do we have any data on these outcomes?

Recently, she began attacking the The Daily Wire and support for Israel. She had the audacity to accuse Israel of being an apartheid state, of resegregating the different ethnic populations in Jerusalem, when different ethnic quarters had existed in Jerusalem for centuries!

She also interviewed Andrew Tate and gave one of the most shameless softball interviews, similar to what Tucker Carlson had also done. Not once did she confront him on the sex-trade allegations. Not once did he push back on his insufferable arrogance. Not once did he really seek fact-finding in her interview with that very disordered man.

She wants to grift, throw bombs, engage in "engagement harvesting" to boost her profile.

And there is no better subject to stir up some populist dissidents on social media than to talk about, and talk badly about, Israel.

She jumped into that fight, she said things about Israel that are not true, Ben Shapiro corrected her, and then she played victim because he corrected her.

This is not serious conservatism. The country is not going to be saved with relentless clickbaiting and engagement harvesting. We need substantive policy achievements and true intellectual activism to turn the constitutional ship of state around.

Rufo's criticism is well-place. We need a robust cultural rebranding in this country. We need to articulate and advance key policies, not just engage in grimy grifting for a quick buck. This issue with putting profit ahead of purpose is particular to the Right, since people on the Right focus on money, economic growth, freedom, and an understandable revulsion to government power.

At this point in our history, however, we need to take back the levers of power and restore natural law and natural order in our country. Headlines, views, debates, relentless chatter are not going to fix what is ailing this country. A profound restoration of our Founding Values, and a commitment to advancing those causes, will restore this country. Candace Owens is not serious about this fight. I agree with Rufo: Shapiro and his team at The Daily Wire are more committed to this effort. Are their tactics and investments the best means for accomplishing these goals? We are still waiting to see those results.

Ben Shapiro's Take on Homosexuality, Stanford U Speech, November 7, 2019: A Reflection

"How does anal sex help us win the culture war?"

That's a question which one of the Groypers asked Turning Point USA at The Ohio State University in October, 2019.

Ben Shapiro responded to this question at the outset during his Stanford University Speech on November 7th, 2019.

Here's the entire speech.

Here's the Daily Wire upload of the speech, with the questions that followed. Click here.

Here's the portion of the speech that I wanted to focus on in particular:

"Criminalizing consensual activity without externality is by definition losing the culture war. What helps America win the culture war is freedom, and liberty, and the government not being involved in your life.

"And if you, like me, believe that certain personal activities are a sin, you know how you win that culture war?  By having people join your church, by engaging with your community, by teaching your children your values. That's the way you win a culture war.

"In fact, I'm bewildered by it, there's great irony in watching alt-righters claim that they should use the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others, while complaining that the left uses the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others. You can't really whine about using the government shutting down your viewpoint if you plan on using the government to shut down everyone else's viewpoint.

"But many folks on the alt-right are playing true believers by suggesting that social conservatives like me, people who wrote entire books on the evils of pornography in American society, or people like David French, who spend their days fighting for religious freedom, are standing ardently in favor of Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. 

"I also think that in governmental terms, if you allow the library to decide which speech to ban, it's much more likely to ban the Bible than drag queen story hour. I'm for limited government, because I do not trust the government to decide what kind of speech it wants to ban."

The biggest point of departure for me in this speech occured when Shapiro declared the following:

"Criminalizing consensual activity without externality is by definition losing the culture war."

This standard, this metric is deeply flawed. If we apply it fully, that means that prostitution should be legal. For many intents and purposes, prostitution is a consensual activity between adults, right? The externalities are not flagrant or manifest are they?

Actually they are, because fundamentally sexual conduct, even between two consenting adults, automatically has externalities. Sexual activity leads to the conception and birth of children, for example. There are the mental and emotional and psychological consequences which follow after two people have sex. The impact on human capital, the integrity of the family, the effects on public health--all of those outcomes are clear-cut externalities.

Yes, indeed, the government can, does, and should regulate what behaviors happen in the bedroom. The question is "which ones?" Again, prostitution should not just be regulated, but it is both necessary and proper to criminalize the conduct. The unintended society and cultural consequences cannot be ignored. Beyond the potential spread of venereal disease and unintended pregnancies, there is the degradation of the moral culture, the public health problems which ensue, and the inevitable rise of sex trafficking, human trafficking, and drug trafficking which ensues. Legalizing everything is not going to solve the problems. There are corrosive aspects of human nature which need to be confronted fully, not pandered to. 

Incest can also be construed as consensual conduct between adults. Yet too this behavior should be criminalized. Such abominable conduct has larger, initially unforseen consequences which cannot be ignored. Allowing for relentless sexual license does nothing but harm for a community. With the collapse of sexual mores comes the collapse of the entire civilization. This sad pattern has repeated itself from one empire to the next. The United States has fallen into that same pattern, as well.

So, prostitution should remain criminalized, along with incest. One can make the stronger argument for recriminalizing sodomy, as well. Shapiro was dismissing the notion that the state should take a stronger role in disapproving of this conduct because "consensual conduct without externalities." 

However, the normalization of homosexuality has led to all kinds of problems in the public sphere. As Paul Johnson documented in his autobiography "The Quest for God", homosexuals have been able to form militant lobbies that push their agenda into every facet of the public square. They are now eroding the natural rights of all while redoing the whole purpose of government to please themselves and grant them a place of prominence, at the expense of everyone else.

Indeed, it's time for conservatives to restore moral order in the public square, and it is appropriate to use government sanction to discourage and restrain evil. Consensual activities and their consequences do not stay in the bedroom, and it is wrong to believe in this libertarian "Live and Let Live" naivete as an answer to many of society's ills.

"Oh Brother, Where Do I Begin?" LGBT Youth Plays Victim (Again), Justifies His Own Bullying and (Self-)Hatred

"And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." (Genesis 19:9)

Jan Michael-Sanchez is one of a contingent of LGBT activists indoctrinated by perverse adults, who because of the bad reinforcement from those same adults are now mouthing off at other adults, harassing them, doing indignities to men and women in authority.

This kind of disrespect must be confronted, and confronted without respite.

Truth be told, I now DEMAND to speak with this kid's parents. And more adults, more individuals who care about faith, family, and freedom should not take a back seat to allowing this kind of disrespect and delusion to go unchallenged.

As expected, after I exposed and shamed Jan-Michael for abusing his body and shaming himself and others, he felt compelled to justify himself. He wrote and reposted a response on my blog FOUR TIMES.

Oh brother indeed--where DO we begin?!

Talk about obsessive. Here are his remarks (in bold), and here are the necessary responses:

 Oh boy, where do I even begin?

1) That was a Halloween filter that I had for my profile picture back in October. Are you insisting that I’m creepy, while you had a shirtless profile picture of me saved in your camera roll for 2 months?

Jan puts a "shirtless" profile picture of himself on the Internet, on line. That is his fault. Why does he go out of his way to talk about being shirtless? Why does he think it's OK to take pictures of himself "shirtless" and post them on social media in the first place, then get upset when the photo is shared? Where are the parents in this mess? The parents should be ashamed of themselves for letting him degrade himself in such a fashion.

2) There is no LGBT agenda and we do not force anyone to be LGBT. I have no mental health issues, and you need to stop stigmatizing it. Coming out lifted a huge weight off of my shoulders, and I have never been happier at any other period of time in my life. It is insulting that you assume that I have mental health issues without knowing me at all. I have never assumed any such thing of you, and I refuse to. I will not sink down to your level.

WRONG!

There is indeed an agenda. It's gotten so brazen, that the California state legislature just passed a law that will allow predators to prey on minors and AVOID the sex offender registry. The legislation was promoted by openly gay state senator Scott Weiner as a "pro-LGBT bill".

Two years prior, the state of California tried to pass legislation to criminalize reparative therapy, which saves lives. The original legislation was so broad, it would have banned the Bible, since that book and other holy talks about the right and goodness of natural marriage, life, and family, while discouraging harmful practices like homosexuality and other forms of sexual promiscuity.

LGBT activists push the lie constantly about being "born that way." The science, the research, the statistical evidence, the testimonies of men and women who have left those behaviors, militantly dictates otherwise. People are born with natural affection, which become distorted or suppressed due to sexual, physical, or emotional abuse.

"It is insulting that you assume that I have mental issues." It's not an assumption. It's a fact. Individuals who want to "flaunt their gayness", who want to normalize behaviors that are inherently destructive, indicate a mental illness.

What's truly insulting is that LGBT activists insist on playing victim. 

The tone and tenor of the language used in this post--"huge weight lifted off my shoulders"--implies that some activist adult wrote these remarks, and Jan Sanchez is merely copying and pasting them.

3) Why do you insist that I harassed the Hispanic woman? She came to us and tried running over my friend just because we had BLM signs. You saw the video. The lady was talking over us the whole time. I did nothing to provoke her generalizing me as Mexican. Then when one of my friends tells her that African Americans have been oppressed, the lady responds with “No they have not!” This isn’t an opinion, this is straight up ignorance and bigotry. I had 2 witnesses that day, yet you’re here lying to your base with your conspiracies and 0 witnesses. Make it clear that your base knows that you’re lying.

Check out the video, and anyone can see that the Hispanic lady did not threaten him or anyone else. More gaslighting. Once again, LGBT youth and adults alike are taught to make themselves perennial victims. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. They have been taught not take responsibility for their lives. And for this reason, by and large, people who struggle with LGBT behaviors suffer higher incidences of disease, dysfunction, and death.

4)Dox her? She had the phone number and name of her business on her car. It’s not doxing if the information is right in front of our faces. Anyway, it’s hypocritical that you suddenly condemn doxing after you doxed my friend earlier today.

Doxxing: sharing people's private information (home addresses) with the public in order to physically intimidate or cause violence.

Jan and Nico and other LGBT militants go out of their way to expose people to harm and danger by sharing their private information or to shame them so that they are forced out of their work.

I had every right to share the phone number of that abusive individual Nico Lyon. He called me and gave me vicious rhetoric. I had every right to correct him.

5)I only made my account private because I was freaked out by you stalking my account. I don’t want men 3 times my age to be stalking my Twitter for a 6 month old video. I’m even more compelled to keep it private now, because you feel that it is acceptable to keep a shirtless picture of me in your camera roll for months. Sounds pretty gay to me, Arthur.

It's really interesting how LGBT militants will use homosexuality as a slur or an insult: "Sounds pretty gay to me ..." So, Jan is finally understanding that homosexuality is not a good thing? It's almost as if they know that the behaviors are wrong. "Stalking" implies a physcial following. Social media is immediately available to the public, and it does not require physical, persistent following.

Perhaps a dictionary definition is appropriate:

To stalk: "to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly. to pursue persistently and, sometimes, attack (a person with whom one is obsessed, often a celebrity)"

I have not done that at all. Once again, LGBT militants, whether young or old, insist on playing victim. Jan talks about being "freaked out". The truth is he was "found out", i.e. more people in the public go to see the rude, abusive, hateful things that he does to other people just because they have a point of that he does not share.

6)Again with the hypocrisy. You call me ignorant when you tell lies about the LGBT community, demonize us, and disagree with our existence. You call me disrespectful when you write a dehumanizing article about me, a teenager, who did nothing but defend his best friend. If anything, you’re abusing me because I did not consent to you publishing an article about me. You’re completely contradicting yourself.

I would invite anyone and everyone to read MassResistance's book "The Health Hazards of Homosexuality" for a comprehensive compendium of all natural, biological, statistical, and epidemiological evidence which affirms that homosexuality and transgenderism are harmful behaviors.

The syndemic spread of venereal disease in homosexual populations is so well-documented, that even the local press has reported a number of times about the growing threats posed by the massive spread of venereal disease among homosexuals and bisexuals. Notice he keeps talking about a so-called LGBT "community". The truth is that sexual deviance and perversion cannot define a community, since the behaviors and the mindsets which foment those behaviors are inherently destructive.

Once again, Jan plays victim, and wants to portray Nico as a victim. In reality, we are living in a culture where there is so much homosexual privilege, that everyday people feel scared or face sanction for speaking out against this agenda.

7)I don’t appreciate that you brought my parents into this conversation when they have done nothing wrong. Honestly you’ve gone so low if you have to do that to prove a point. Don’t tell me that I’m “so given over to bigotry and hate” when you hate —or better said, DESPISE — me for absolutely nothing besides being gay. At no point did I disrespectful anyone in the slightest, and here you are humiliating and bullying me online for nothing other than my sexuality.

I reserve my most damning indictments for last here. On the contrary, Jan's parents do indeed have much to answer for. They have allowed their disrespecful, impudent son to behave in such a self-dishonoring manner. He thinks that he is born to abuse his body with other men. This is bad. This is wrong. I am more angry with his shameful parents for letting him act like an arrogant fool--and apparently he has not even graduated from high school yet.

When will people get it through their unthinking, thick heads: there is no such thing as "being gay". It is downright shameful that LGBT activists actively erase people who have abandoned the whole homosexual scene, break free of the emotional hurts, harms, and traumas, and they are set free.

YET AGAIN, Jan wants to play victim: "You are humiliating and bullying me online for nothing other than my sexuality." I must repeat, this retort sounds as though he copied it from an LGBT activist adult. The erudition of some of these respects does not come from a high school student ... necessarily. Of course, this should come as no surprise. LGBT activists take advantage of kids all the time to push their agenda, to plead for or play off of sympathies from others so that they can further their cause.

It's quite distressing and disturbing, to put it mildly.

And I will circle back to the parents. If they really did care about their son, they would help him #ComeOut of that destructive lifestyle and #ComeHome to the truth that he will not find what he is looking via consummation of same-sex temptations.

Last of all, I do not hate Jan-Michael Sanchez, nor do I despise him. Truth be told, anyone who supports and enables his LGBT activism, they are the ones who hate him. Furthermore, he engages in behaviors that are clearly self-harming. That is hate of the worst kind: self-hate. I feel sorry for him, all the more because it falls to me to give him a taste of his own medicine, since his parents never bothered to discipline him themselves, not to teach him to value his own body.

In conclusion Arthur, I am deeply disturbed that you have mistreated me this way. As the above person stated, you are acting in the exact same manner you claim to disapprove of. Doxing, ignorance, shaming, harassing, disrespect, and bigotry are all words that can be clearly attributed to you in this post. Please take down this article immediately and show some respect.

Jan-Michael Sánchez

No, will not take down anything that I have written. This remonstrance is necessary.

To paraphrase Ben Shapiro, I am punching back, twice as hard--and Jan-Michael Sanchez can't handle it, because he and other arrogant, insolent high school wannabe social justice warriors are not used to adults throwingtheir tactics back at them.

Too bad. When he can demonstrate some self-respect, stop abusing his body with the same sex, give up the lies that LGBT is a healthy, acceptable form of being, and come home to truth, then he can lecture others on respect.

MassResistance will continue to take a stand and make the difference, against bigotry, hatred, and lies from young and old alike.

Ben Shapiro Caved to LGBT, Fired Denise McAllister to Protect His "Brand"

I was so pleased to find Denise McAllister's Twitter feed promoted on my feed--at last.

Silicon Valley cannot silence righteous people speaking the truth.

Denise McAllister wrote some damning remarks condemning a homosexual's behavior.

Denise may have deleted the tweet, and perhaps the comments were a little crude.

But so what? Sometimes, speaking the truth makes us a little rough around the edges.

Here's the tweet that set off so many conservatives, as quoted by Yashar Ali, the gay, Catholic Iranian journalist (whatever):

I was bullied for being Iranian as a kid. But I never felt ashamed of my ethnicity. I came out on 8/17/2001 & while it hasn’t always been easy, I have always been proud of who I am. I’m Iranian, gay, and Catholic. Perhaps an odd combo, but I wouldn’t change who I am for the world pic.twitter.com/xGPzoDzM13

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) March 31, 2019

Let's not forget, however, that Ali had also attacked Denise's relationship with her husband:

I have defensed masculinity & have been ridiculed for it. Maligned for loving my husband as a man & celebrating my role as a woman. Yet I’m the devil in the eyes of many. I criticize a gay man who dares to mock my relationship. And I’m the devil. You do see how fucked up this is

— Denise McAllister (@McAllisterDen) March 31, 2019

She later commented the following about Yashar Ali:

Indeed, it is. Homosexuals need to get help. There is no need for them to live in bondage to a lie.

And then finally she related that she had been fired by "The Federalist":

I was fired when I criticized a gay man who mocked my heterosexual relationship. Yet no one defended me when I stood for masculinity and God’s design for sexuality despite outlets saying they represent Judeo-Christian values about sexuality, identity and purpose. What is truth?

— Denise McAllister (@McAllisterDen) March 31, 2019

For speaking for men, for masculinity, for marriage, and for calling out homosexual perversion for what it is, she should have been applauded and encouraged.

No man can find love in another man's anus. It's just not possible. A man's anus is not the place or means for communicating conjugal love. It's just that simple.

Where McAllister's comments a little crude. Sure. I would have avoided the curse words. It's not really necessary. But that does not obfuscate the larger points which she was making:

1. Homosexuals have no business criticizing men and women and their relationships. Their relationship dynamics are based on biological fact and Biblical truth.
2. Homosexuals are in bondage to destructive behaviors which should not be normalized

Instead, she was fired.

Well, Denise finally revealed to the public what happened, and particularly what happened in connection with Ben Shapiro, the Editor-In-Chief of the Daily Wire:

I’m posting my conversation with Ben Shapiro from the night he fired me. It’s important to do this since time has passed, people have had a chance to understand the context of my tweet and know more about what Conservative Inc really represents. Here are the screenshots 2/6 pic.twitter.com/c05IUDRPTz

— Denise McAllister (@McAllisterDen) November 23, 2019

Indeed, Conservative Inc. is not conserving anything.

In fact, why are we calling ourselves "conservatives" in the first place? I am a constitutionalist, a republican, and above a child of God who believes the Gospel!

It's time for us to go beyond merely conserving what we've got. It's time for us to expand the affirmation of what the Constitution so richly promises us, and the Declaration of Indpendence outlines that we have.

So, let's look at Ben Shapiro's remarks:

"We don't want our brand linked to the kind of gross attack you dropped on Yashar Ali today."

Really? So, for Ben it was all about protecting a brand? Whatever happened to advancing conservative, constitutional principles? Whatever happened to actually winning the culture war? Why does he care more about rhetoric than reality?

Then Shapiro writes:

"He [Yashar Ali] is not linked to our brand. You are. Please remove our brand."

Whose brand is that? It's more than just Ben's.

Then he chides Denise:

"You accused him [Yashar Ali] of finding meaning in another man's asshole. That's self explanatory beyond all boundaries of decency. Please remove us."

Denise added this final remark:

Yes, I apologized. The video I attached was my podcast explaining my anger and grief. This apology was the next day after I had been deluged with hate by literally millions and my friends at the Federalist fired me.

Judge between us. He had to protect his brand. 6/6

— Denise McAllister (@McAllisterDen) November 23, 2019

"Gotta protect the brand." "Must protect the brand." OK ...

One contributor writes something negative, off-color, heated, and

But the larger issue is that Denise McAllister called out homosexuality for what it is: a perversion. People have shared bad ideas, inappropriate remarks, even off-color statements on Twitter, Facebook, or other platforms without any real risk to the brands or programs that they work for.

But if someone crosses Big Homo or Big Tranny, everyone loses their minds! If you speak out against homosexuality or transgenderism, you are denigrated, decimated, and dismissed from the public sphere.

This tyranny is unacceptable. We should have the liberty to speak our minds, to speak freely, And printing groups, newsites, and other information organizations should not cut people because they misspeak once in a while.

For the Federalist and the Daily Wire to cave to the threatened labelings of "homophobe" or "transphobe" is just outrageous.

Denise McAllister should not have been summarily dismissed for calling out homosexuality for what it is: a destructive perversion. Instead, Conservative Inc. typermasters at the Daily Wire and the Federalist chose to cave rather than stand their ground. Sad. Sad indeed.

Calling Out their Cowardice -- Denouncing Conservative Media Silence Toward the LGBT Agenda

In the late 1980s, the LGBT movement introduced the subtle but false argument that homosexuals were “born that way.”  Today, they are forcing their agenda on us with relentless militancy. If anyone speaks out against these perverse behaviors, they are met with condemnation, de-platforming on social media, termination from their jobs, or even jail time.  The movement has become serious threat to a free country and the natural order.

Liberal and progressive politicians embrace this tyranny.  But where are the conservatives to “out” this massive problem?  Sadly, so-called conservatives have tried their best to avoid or have capitulated to this agenda.  Worst of all, conservative media leaders have remained silent on this sinister threat to freedom of speech and thought. Rather than rushing into the fight, they are hiding in the bushes.

More specifically, conservative leading lights like the editors of National Review, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham consistently refused to address the LGBT assault on Americans’ health, freedom, and culture.  These pundits will not even report on, let alone challenge, the horrific “Equality Act,” which marks a turning point of the LGBT Agenda: the culmination of the tyrannical thrust of this movement at the expense of the natural rights of all.

Why are these conservative media stars afraid to speak out against the LGBT movement?  After all, free expression has never been easier.  Competitive conservative journalism is on the rise, while the pro-gay mainstream media is in decline.  Sadly, aside from LifeSiteNews and some other Christian media sources, most pro-family and conservative media organizations refuse to confront the radical, abusive, and tyrannical LGBT agenda.  Drudge Report and The Gateway Pundit even portray the LGBT movement as laudable.

Dennis Prager, one of the most prominent conservative thinkers is no better.  His PragerU videos have educated millions of people on conservative issues, but his record on exposing the LGBT Agenda is terrible. Prager has produced videos on transgender movement’s threat to free speech (“Preferred Pronouns or Prison”) and the importance of biological sex differences (“Sex Matters”).  But he refuses to condemn the LGBT “rights” movement, especially the health hazards of homosexuality and  transgenderism.

In fact, on homosexuality PragerU has become quite accommodating.  In one video, “I'm Gay...Conservative…So What?,” PragerU features Guy Benson (editor of Townhall.com), who declares, “I am Christian, conservative, and gay.”  The video title itself is a total lie. Christian doctrine—and nature itself!—reject homosexuality.

Conservatism is defined by defending the essential institutions of natural marriage and family, which homosexuality by definition opposes.  The idea of “gay marriage” is another falsehood, and conservatives should reject any capitulation to that idea and the rest of the LGBT alphabet.  And yet another PragerU video addressing homosexuality, "Are Conservatives Anti-Gay?," bends over backward to try and prove that conservatives are not “anti-gay” or “homophobic” (employing the loaded language of the left). The video even advocates “decriminalizing homosexuality worldwide” through the U.N.

'

Then there’s Ben Shapiro, who refuses to confront the lies of LGBT “identity” politics.  His last column addressed this problem over four years ago.  Today, he retreats to arguments that children are better off with a mother and a father.  He doesn’t address homosexuality itself.  He avoids any discussion of its impact on society.  Recently, both Shapiro and The Federalist fired a contributing writer because she denounced homosexuality.  (Fortunately, that writer has returned to The Federalist, but there is no word that Shapiro has welcomed her back.)

What about Rush Limbaugh?  A fearless firebrand on family issues in the early 1990s, Limbaugh rushes away from discussing the LGBT Agenda today.  Conservative, populist-leaning writers like Victor Davis Hanson, Pat Buchanan, and Tucker Carlson won’t say anything.  The editors of National Review are in full retreat.  Alternative conservative media types like Mike Dice, Jack Posobiec, and Stefan Molyneux refuse to confront the issue. Even Paul Joseph Watson, one of the most confrontation and inflammatory commentators on social media, has all but caved to the LGBT agenda.  He even makes open appeals to “the gays” because of the militant rise of Islam in the United Kingdom. 

Why should these pundits care?  There are fundamental dangers embedded in the LGBT Agenda:  the massive health problems, the moral concerns, the psychological issues associated with these behaviors.  As for the live-and-let-live libertarians, they forget that a free-market economy cannot flourish without a stable society.  Homosexuality, transgenderism, and other paraphilias (sexual deviance) undermine the basic fabric of our culture, and conservatives are supposed to be protecting—read, conserving!—our culture.  As for the behaviors themselves, they can lead to high incidences of disease, dysfunction, and death, along with (for transgenders) infertility.

The conservative movement should not be kowtowing to LGBT identity politics.  Instead of running away, conservative media must stand up to the LGBT monolith and call out its lies.  Whatever is holding back the conservative and pro-family media – fear of being labeled a bigot, fear of being blacklisted on social media, fear of losing corporate sponsors – this cowardice is hastening the demise of our country.  The LGBT juggernaut is not stopping, because it’s a key weapon in the Left’s totalitarian assault.

So far, MassResistance has been the only international organization to denounce the LGBT Agenda in full, and today we are denouncing these conservative media leaders’ silence on these issues.

It’s time for them to discuss, debate, and establish some inconvenient truths:

·         People are not born gay.

·         People are not born in the wrong body.

·         It is not OK to be “gay.”

·         Homosexual and transgenderism are mental disorders.

·         It is not OK to encourage or protect these mental disorders as “civil rights.”

This declaration is meant as a “warning shot” to the silent, craven conservative media class.  They must now stand up to the LGBT Agenda and defend natural marriage and family as strongly as they defend  life, the Second Amendment, and other natural rights.  We invite every major media pundit on the right to take up our challenge.  If they refuse, they must then admit that they are not true conservatives.

Schadenfreude: Ben Shapiro on Trump's Take-Down on Steve Bannon

                     

Ben Shapiro goes off on Steve Bannon.

He also goes off on Breitbart, and still has strong, unsound reservations about President Trump.

Oh well ...

Still, these damning revelations about Steve Bannon are disturbing and unfortunate.

What are your thoughts?

Of course, you can tell that Shapiro is dancing on the grave of Bannon's public profile.

Conservative Pressure Forced Twitter to Go After Rosie O'Donnell?!

So, Rosie O'Donnell went after Ben Shapiro with some very offensive tweets and retorts.

For the time being, just take my word for it. At one point, Rosie said to Ben "suck my d--ck".

Does that mean that Rosie O'Donnell is actually a man? It would not come as a surprise, at this point.

At any rate, Shapiro reported Rosie's tweets to the Twitter authorities.

At first, they refused to do anything.

Then they sent a second message to Shapiro, and acknowledged that Rosie's tweets were, well, not so rosy:

Well, looks like Twitter had some second thoughts about @Rosie's obscene tweets pic.twitter.com/O036JB8Ego

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 24, 2017

The conservative backlash is working!

People on the right have every right to fight to ensure that they can speak freely and be heard on social media. The Left has gotten away with all kinds of hateful rhetoric and vulgarity. Enough is enough!

Conservatives Who Liked (or Never Did Like) Trump, But Not Now. Why?

It all started with a tweet shared by Dinesh D'Souza.

Bill Kristol, Editor in chief at the Weekly Standard was convinced that tax reform would never happen during the Trump Administration, and especially not this year:

Tax reform won't even get a vote in Congress this year. I'd be surprised if it made it through committee in either house. https://t.co/WMJBpwKrmZ

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) August 29, 2017

Kristol sounded off on this unlikelihood in August.

Here were are two days before Christmas, and tax reform has been signed into law. The biggest win is the lowered corporate tax rate, which has alarmed other countries who had induced business investment with their lower tax rates compared to the United States. Until the tax reform bill had been signed into law, the highest corporate tax rate stood at 39%! Ireland's tax rate is 15%, which explains why so many American businesses expatriated to the Celtic Tiger.

Yet Kristol's aminus for Trump goes deep. His flagship publication routinely belittles Trump, attacks his presidency, hounds him as illegitimate. Friends of mine on the East Coast informed me that they canceled their subscription to The Weekly Standard, because of his Trump Derangement Syndrome.

What's going on here?

Dinesh D'Souza offered his take on this deep disdain for the President:

Again Bill proves to be spectacularly wrong, qualifying him for a perch at mainstream media outlets where such ignorance is highly valued https://t.co/JI0tDGuXFL

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) December 23, 2017

Spectacular" is the word, since Kristol has displayed his opposition so frequently about the President. He even spoke on a key guest panel at the 2017 Politicon in Pasadena, CA, where I dressed him and his fellow panelists on their anti-Trump bias:

My immediate take on Bill Kristol's dislike for Trump:

@BillKristol is an arrogant snob who can't handle the fact that a non-intellectual (yet very intelligent) real estate broker and reality TV star is now President and his establishing conservative victories like no one else.#SheLost #HeWon Get over it, Billy boy!

— Arthur C. Schaper (@ArthurCSchaper) December 23, 2017

President Trump is not polished enough, not "graceful" enough for the country-club conservative set.

Trump talks in near monosyllables, at least in the opinions of his critics. He is boorish, unintellectual, not interested in the finer points of debating policy. But Trump has not only won over voters, but he enacted the very policies which Kristol and company have bandied about for decades. They could only accomplish writing monographs. Kristol comes from a stories literary and political tradition because of his father Irving. Yet Trump just showed up on the scene without a long-standing conservative pedigree.

And yet Trump has been the paragon of conservative virtue and success. Fundamentally, conservative intellectuals and talking heads don't like Trump because he is not "one of them."

Thomas Sowell

Ironically, the one who called the blinding snobbery of the political writing and chatting classes missed out what a success Trump would become.

Thomas Sowell described this Establishment sneering when the media turned their guns on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in 2008.

First, he established her intellectual profile as far exceeding the degradation from conservatives:

The conservative intelligentsia who react against her have remarkably little to say that will stand up to scrutiny. People who actually dealt with her, before she became a national figure, have expressed how much they were impressed by her intelligence.

Sowell outlines in one phrase first why the conservative chatterati did not like Palin:

Perhaps the best way to try to understand these reactions is to recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said when she first saw Whittaker Chambers, who had accused Alger Hiss of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Upon seeing the slouching, overweight and disheveled Chambers, she said, "He's not one of us."

Not one of us", but not just because he was not as well-dressed, as well-bred as the rest of the political elites in Washington DC at that time. He didn't belong to the Ivy League school pedigree. He wasn't one of the "cool kids" and he didn't get to sit at the "cool kids' table".

That pretty describes President Trump, but ironically enough describes George Washington and even our first stand-out Supreme Court Justice John Marshall. Some reports indicated that Marshall still ate predominantly with his hands, and Washington hated the fawning celebrity which party guests would place on him. The attitude and self-involved bearing of elitism didn't drag down Washington, Marshall, Palin, or Trump.

Sowell's last remark is particularly telling:

Whether Governor Palin runs for national office again is something that only time will tell. But the Republicans need some candidate who is neither one of the country club Republicans nor-- worse yet-- the sort of person who appeals to the intelligentsia.

That candidate ended up being Donald Trump, and yet Sowell savagely rejected the New York City real estate mogul and reality TV star. As far back as 2011. when Trump first appeared on the scene, Sowell worried that such a candidate would have ensured Obama's re-election.

But he had something that all the next winning Republican Presidential candidate needed:

What Trump has that so many other Republicans are so painfully lacking is the ability and the willingness to articulate his positions clearly, forcefully and in plain English. Too many Republicans talk like the actor of whom a critic once said, "he played the king like he was afraid that someone else was going to play the ace."

In other words, Trump was not an intellectual, but a down-to-earth pragmatist responding to people's individual needs. Sowell even drew a comparison between Trump and Palin, whom he had praised two years prior:

What electrified so many Republicans about Sarah Palin in the 2008 election campaign was that she was such a contrast to the usual mealy-mouth talk that was more common among other Republican candidates, including Senator John McCain. Whether you agreed or disagreed with her position on the issues, you didn't have to wave your hand in front of her eyes to see if she was awake.

Trump and Palin were real, visceral, in your face, and spoke to the heart not just the head of voters. And Palin endorsed Trump, but not Sowell.

Sowell went for Ted Cruz.

The African-American conservative intellectual from Stanford University outlined a long series of concerns which weighed on his mind. The chief concern was the Supreme Court, especially following the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in early February 2016. Foreign policy concerns had long worried Sowell, too, especially a nuclear Iran.

For him, the best choice was an intellectual with some political as well as government experience: Ted Cruz.

Isn't that strange, though, that for all of Sowell's protestations that Republicans needed to avoid another glib intellectual, he settled for one as the best Presidential pick?

Against this background, the frivolous rhetoric and childish antics in the televised political "debates" are painful to watch. If ever there was a time to choose a president with depth, rather than glitter or glibness, this is it.

Sowell basically feared that Trump could not win the general election, and the fact that he was only picking up a plurality of the votes in key primaries confirmed his fears. 

But the fact that Trump leads in the polls does not mean that he is electable in the general election this fall. He is ahead only because the majority vote among Republicans has been split among so many other candidates.

How could an intellectual have gotten it so wrong about Trump? Because even conservative intellectuals, and even when they understand the mechanics and metrics for someone to win an election, it does not mean they understand the incredible impact that the candidate has with voters, or that they understand the dire concerns facing Middle America voters.

Palin understood those needs, and so did Trump. What happened over the last 8 years, ultimately, is that the outstanding, outspoken conservatives could not see past their own intellect. I wasn't thrilled with Trump at the outset, either, since he had a long record of liberal statements and positions in the public eye. 

But Trump has exceeded expectations. It's astonishing to me how smart Trump really is, that he he not only doubled down against the corrupt media, but that he fooled Thomas Sowell, who for all of his opposition to Trump didn't recognize how well he measured up to the needed skill set to win as a Republican.

What's going on here? Is it that Trump is not "one of us" in Thomas Sowell's club, even though he clearly slammed the corrupt, out-of-touch elitism of the political class which overlooked Whitaker Chambers as an honest man and a true American?

Ben Shapiro

There's another conservative intellectual who actually lauded Trump, but ended up rejecting him when he became the Presidential candidate (then the winner) in 2016: Ben Shapiro.

Shapiros's glowing article of the New York real estate mogul appeared in April 2011, around the same time when Sowell, who praised Trump's ability to articulate major issues into plain English. For Shapiro, the winning PResidential candidate to challenge the abortive and abysmal Barack Obama needed strong name ID and lots of money:

In the last several weeks, that ideal Republican candidate has materialized.

His name is Donald Trump. His slogan is ready-made: "You're Fired." He does not give a damn what the media thinks of him -- he steamrolled Meredith Vieira during his NBC interview with her last week. He can self-fund to the tune of $1 billion.

Shapiro even predicted how strong his rise in the polls would be once he jumped into the race. The only problem was that Shapiro wrote about this four years earlier:

Pay no attention to the recent polls showing Obama crushing Trump by 20 points in a head-to-head matchup. That disparity is attributable to the public perception that Trump is a loudmouth with no true interest in running. The moment he declares in earnest and gets on the campaign stump, his numbers will rise dramatically.

Yes indeed. Here are other remarks about Trump's appeal, which are particularly revealing in their accuracy:

Trump has across-the-board appeal. 

Check.

His show, "The Apprentice," routinely draws nearly 9 million viewers per episode.

Check again.

Blue-collar workers identify with Trump's rough-and-tumble attitude. 

This factor was absolutely crucial to Trump's victory and Republicans' ongoing chances to retain majorities not just in Washington DC but throughout the country. Working Americans had been ignored, neglected, and decimated. Once a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, they found themselves in a political wilderness, where leaders in both parties had fallen into the clutches of corporate donors begging for easy tax cuts, corporate weflare, and cheap labor.

He even has union support -- he's made a political mint bashing outsourcing, and he recently told Human Events that he has made "many billions of dollars working with the unions," though he does not disagree that public sector unions bilk taxpayers.

Yes indeed. The union aspect is key not because of organized labor per se, since Trump praised right-to-work policies, but rather Trump's capacity to appeal to working-class, blue collar Americans on their terms and in their time.

He also talked about his contour and character as a candidate:

Obama directly. He's big enough to stand toe-to-toe with Obama and slug it out.

That's exactly what I liked about Trump before I liked Trump as the general election Presidential candidate. He also slugged it out with the corrupt media, which had created and propped up Barack Obama. Shapiro even called Trump Obama's "worst nightmare", and deemed him as someone who could win.

But then in March 2016, Shapiro would write: "I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump. Here's Why."

Well, why?

Because, in Shapiro's estimation, Trump was not conservative, and he would cause the Republican Party to drift further to the Left. Really.

Here are some of his remarks:

I stand with conservatism. Donald Trump stands against it.

I stand with #NeverTrump.

Strangely enough, Shapiro's remarks are not erudite or thorough. He does not provide information or cite reasons for rejecting President Trump. When I slammed Trump as a closet Democrat, I provided statements and records of his actions in the past.

Shapiro just blurts out some talking points and pouts with "Never Trump."

Charles Johnson outlined two articles that Shapiro tumbled into financial conflicts of interest, especially since Shapiro had written glowing statements about Trump even five months before the 2016 primaries.

Here are the two articles from GotNews.com:

BUSTED: Ben Shapiro Caught Shilling For Pro-CruzBillionaires Against Trump #GrabGate

and

Shilling Ben Shapiro Is Lying About Relationship With AndrewBreitbart & Brawler Steve Bannon To Hurt Trump

OUCH!

I find the above information to be particularly credible.

Shapiro stopped liking Trump because his "The Daily Wire" donors didn't like him. UGH!

With Sowell, he was the victim of his intellectual blindness, an honest reason nonetheless.

Peggy Noonan

Then there's Peggy Noon, who urged Republicans to get tough, "It's pirate time" following their unexpected defeat in 2012:

Now is the time to fight and be fearless, to be surprising, to break out of lockstep, to be the one thing Republicans aren’t supposed to be, and that is interesting.

Sounds like Donald Trump.

In political terms this means: Reorient yourselves. Declare for Main Street over Wall Street, stand for the little guy against the big interests. And move. Don’t wait for the bill, declare the sentiments of your corner..

Really, it’s pirate time.

People think the GOP is for the bankers. The GOP should upend this assumption. In this case good policy is good politics.

Republicans make too much of order and discipline. Sometimes a little anarchy is a good thing, a little disorder a sign of creativity and independence of thought.

Fight back with a renewed, populist conservatism. Show a strong stance with working people and not the rich". Be a little chaotic, a little disheveled and have some fun.

Again, that's Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, Noonan's suggestions in the rest of her article stressed that Republicans needed to the move to the left on key issues, like gun control and amnesty. Not winning issues at all. Once again, the intellectual Peggy Noonan, the former speech writer for Ronald Reagan, didn't get it. She would later confess:

"Republicans can't win with Trump, but they can't win without Trump's voters."

How wrong she was, just like Thomas Sowell. The intellectuals missed the intelligence of Ronald Reagan and his populist outreach. Perhaps like many journalists on the left and the right, they have become convinced that changing demographics made the all-American conservative of Ronald Reagan impractical and unwinnable.

They didn't realize, however, that Reagan is dead, and that the issues affecting this country are widely different from the early 1980s. They were still living in the past, not paying attention to the present, and completely out of touch with the hopes and dreams, the concerns and fears of working Americans.

Noonan expressed shock that Hispanic Americans were voting for Trump!

Final Reflection

Right now, I know that I have written an extensive if obtuse and rambling analysis of conservative intellects and writers who had either praised Trump, or praised his skills, or raised the importance of his kind of skill set--yet ultimately rejected him as a candidate.

I think that their stark inability to see him as a winning candidate and a winner President is pretty stark and profound, considering that they have been the conservative conscience for the reading American public for a number of years.

This kind of intellectual elitism has not only been a Democratic problem, but in other ways a very Republican issue, in that the desiccated governing class and the writing class had become more invested in political and intellectual talking points rather than winning elections, and winning those elections with a blunt conviction and confrontation.

No wonder Breitbart Editor John Nolte's latest article was so direct and refreshing about these Never Trump types:

Trump’sWildly Successful First Year Again Exposes #NeverTrump as Amoral Saboteurs

Indeed.

The Costs of Immigration to the United States: Russian-American Speaks

Thanksgiving 2017 was a holiday of great joy for me. I met with two different groups of friends to celebrate this season of Thanksgiving. All of us are Trump supporters, and we rejoice in all the reforms enacted and promises kept.

Maxin Sergienko

We also celebrate the fact that our country is returning to its Judeo-Christian roots, and that more of us have the courage to speak our minds and hearts to the true needs and dangers facing this country.

At one of the events, I met Maxim Sergienko, a Russian immigrant who now holds permanent residency with a green card. The subject of immigration has become an increasingly heated topic, but also the encroaching fascination with socialism among college students.

Here, I had the golden opportunity to learn from a former Russia resident what it was like living under communism, but more importantly the process he endured to become a legal resident (not even a citizen) of the United States.

I first asked him to explain the entire process to become a legal resident, including the time, energy, and costs to achieve legal status:

For starters, it has taken Maxim 21 years--years!--to achieve legal status the legal way.

You also need to hear about the costs and the stress he has endured just to achieve the current legal status as a permanent resident.

During our talk at the dinner table, he talked about his awe and wonder at visiting the United States for the first time.

What will it take for college students to learn the follies of socialism? His answer will shock you, along with his reaction to the country as a kid--and what he saw on college campuses that alarmed him.

White Privilege in Beverly Hills? In the United States?

The White Privilege has gotten bandied about so much, especially on college campuses and among black and Hispanic communities, that I want to challenge it once and for all.

I am fed up with people using my skin color as an excuse for their lack of character, prosperity, or accomplishment.

Here's a tweet from a left-wing activist in Cudahy, CA (a sanctuary city, and a de facto segregated community):

Try walking inside of a dealership in beverly hills in a brown or black skin body. You'll see that #WhitePrivilege exists

— Edin Alex Enamorado (@LEGITLGMT) November 17, 2017

Is it really true that auto dealers in Beverly Hills would discriminate against Black and Hispanic customers entering the dealership?

I connected with a friend of mine who lives in the area, and he found this accusation repugnant and offensive.

Why is that men and women with white skin are automatically targeted as beneficiaries of systemic racism?

This Asian Trump supporter smashed the "white privilege" lies and identity politics:

What do you think?

Here are two further debates on this issue.

First, from Brown University.

And here's another take:

Ben Shapiro shared a number of ideas on this topic:

And a response to Ben Shapiro's take on white privilege: