All errors should be reported to

Friday, January 11, 2019

Who gave National Review the power to excommunicate?

The Ana Navarro conservatives at the National Review showed their Fake Conservative side again today in a silly, virtue-signaling editorial, "Dump Steve King."

The publication's officers remain unaware of their intellectual impotence even after ineffective "Against Trump" issue.

Today, the publication called for excommunicating Republican Congressman Steve King because he drew criticism from liberals over something he said.

Who gave National Review the power to excommunicate?

From what moral high ground do these people stand? The publication called the most conservative presidential candidate since Reagan a "witless ape" in the headline on its news story about President Donald John Trump's entry into the race. They also had an issue where they called him, on the cover, "The Father-Führer."

Such name-calling disqualifies a person or a publication from ever clutching the pearls over language. I notice President Trump does not whine about name-calling. He dishes back what he has been served.

Congressman King said something liberals don't like? Too bad.

When was the last time liberals excommunicated one of their own? A Muslim congressman called the president an MF.

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to condemn her.

Shove the objection to King's words then.

Make no mistake, Donald John Trump is the No. 1 conservative in America. He earned that title not by words but by action.
  • Tax cuts.
  • Better free trade agreements.
  • Rolling back regulations.
  • De-nuking North Korea.*
  • Leaving the Paris climate accord.
Real conservatives wanted this. Fakes said they wanted this.

President Trump's judicial appointments are better than either President Bush. I remember National Review writers mocking Trump supporters with their "But Gorsuch" tweets during the occasions when the Fake News media tried to convince us Trump was going back on his word.

That has not happened.

At this point, either you are with President Trump or you are not a conservative. It is that simple. His actions speak louder than his words. I find his words entertaining, but I respect the objections of those supporters who are uncomfortable with his talk.

But real conservatives favor substance over style.

Fakes don't.

National Review is as fake as Stormy Daniels's chest as its staffers file their nails and cluck their tongues at Steve King's words.


* Kim Jong Un loses face if he goes back on his word. He would rather die than lose face.


  1. Congressman King pissed off some liberals? Good.

    1. Says me too. I don’t even care what he said. If the result is crying LibCommies, excellent.

    2. Doesn’t take much to piss off a lib, but fun nonetheless. I guess National Review will be wanting to dump most conservatives as they are ruining their con game.

  2. Love Steve King - Iowa US-4 has so much to be proud of by him. Meanwhile what is in the downstream water in Utah???

  3. To what Steve King said: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Harry S Truman

  4. 2020 Primary season (King vs Feenstra) has started. I think collusion (for all the perfect timing) to hurt King, a true Conservative. @SteveKingIA Twitter is on it: he fights! Jeb! and Sen Tim Scott (R, SC) are among those piling on. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King said in his interview with the Times. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?” is all that Rep Steve King said, yo. Which Jeb! and Sen Scott portray as an "embrace of white supremacy." Smear. Sad.

  5. This PA resident mailed $500 to Steve King today.
    A little too new Yawkish for my taste, but his heart is in the right place.
    Plus, he pisses off leftists

  6. If Jeb Bush is against Rep. King then King has to be good.

    Time to excommunicate Jeb 'loser' Bush....

  7. King said something hat pissed off libs. Color me shocked. If he said something that didn't piss off libs, I might be concerned, but not if it was only one thing.
    Libs say all kinds of things that piss off thinking humans. That's okay, water off a ducks back. In Nony the niny's case, it's the meth talking.

  8. Every thing pisses off libs they are only happy when the bong is lit..

  9. William F. Buckley gave National Review the power to excommunicate, is the answer to your question. But they should check the expiration date.

  10. I read his comments. Sounded like how the kid in My Cousin Vinny said "I shot the clerk" compared to how the transcript was read on the stand by the Sheriff. Spare me.

  11. National Review needs to take note of what recently happened to The Weekly Standard.

  12. This gal is a dandy, all right:


  13. I do hope that NR realizes we (conservatives) don't listen to what they say like we used to. I read it knowing that it doesn't really believe in conservatism just in that it and it's writers should lead the parade. Sort of like a thicker Weekly Standard (RIP).
    We're not going to reject someone because some liberals feelz are hurt. Or some DNC propagandist has decided that what they said was bad think. Or that they decided to interpret what they said that way.

    We actually recognize that the Left/Democrats/The Media are actually our enemy and are no longer working FOR the US but AGAINST the US. Does that include NR? Sometimes when they decide they just can't even and we're better than that.
    Such a shame but luckily Trump has magically swept the wool from our eyes and periodicals that used to be taken seriously are now seen to be no more than shills for those who are our and the Nations enemies.

  14. WFB and National Review kicked out the Birchers sixty+ years ago. If you want to hang out with them, go ahead. In the meantime, you're welcome to think that you can't be conservative and not support Trump, and I will go on thinking that you're completely full of dung because Donald Trump is in no way conservative, neither are you, and the only reason the Trump Presidency hasn't gone down in a gigantic ball of flames (yet) is that Ted Cruz has been whispering in his ear, and Trump has actually been smart enough mostly to listen.

    You're so busy fighting the enemy that you don't realize that you're becoming the enemy. Some of us still have moral standards, and after we dig out of the crater of the Trump Presidency, we'll be the only ones who didn't bow the knee to Orange Obama. So, to steal from Happy Days: sit on it.

    1. You mad bro? Moral standards? You're fellow travelers wanted to get Hillary elected. How conservative would've that been or would be? Also a large number of you Morally upright never trumpers seem to be taking money from communist/leftist anti american billionaires. Some Standards.

      You've dug the hole that now you claim is Trump's crater. But you can't point to one thing he's done for the country that isn't conservative. He's a showman so a lot of what he SAYS is aimed at stirring up his enemies and entertaining the crowd. But what he DOES is promote and do things the MORAL STANDARD CONSERVATIVES have said they would do but never did for decades.

    2. Your moral standards would have allowed Hillary to flip the Supreme Court 6-3 liberal.

      You think I am full of dung? LOL. Language, boy, language.

    3. Finny, you might want to look up what happened to the Tories after the Revolution. They had a place to run to. Do you?

  15. As recently as four or five years ago, inane behavior by National Review's editors (especially Jason Lee Steorts) was flayed in their comment boxes. I see looking at this one that their residue of attentive readership is largely content with their current editorial line (which has multiple threads and includes people content with the administration and NeverTrump diehards).

    The median approval rating Trump has registered among self-identified Republicans in the last two years is somewhat north of 80%. If anything, he's doing slightly better with this subgroup than was Richard Nixon in ca. 1979 and than was Ronald Reagan ca. 1982; about the same as was the elder George Bush ca. 1990; and not as well as the younger George Bush ca. 2002. There is quite generally a bloc of soi-disant Republicans dissatisfied with the Republican president for one reason or another and there's generally a bloc of soi-disant Republicans who cast a ballot for the Democratic candidate (which last bloc is remarkably consistent in its dimensions - 9% of self-identified Republicans). There is little indication in our time that this bloc is any larger than it ever is. What that tells you is that self-identified 'true conservatives' of a sort which make up half of NR's contributors are too small a constituency to detect readily with conventional opinion surveys.

    Opinion journalism is not a growth industry and National Review has lost 40% of their paid circulation in the last 15 years. The Weekly Standard has closed. By some accounts, Commentary is kept afloat by two wealthy Jewish septuagenarians who evidently favor John Podhoretz understanding of American nationhood (which is rather incompatible with John Podhoretz understanding of Jewish nationhood; Americans don't deserve a wall, but Israelis do). The American Spectator AFAICT has no interest in NeverTrump Kool-Aid.

    What we've been seeing in the last several years has been a demonstration that 'conservative' opinion journalists are largely innocent of any rapport with conservative voters. In re the policy wonks at places like AEI, you do wonder if they've avoided stepping in it because they aren't so alienated from the rank-and-file or if they avoid stepping in it because the nature of their work circumscribes the amount of commentary they offer on the daily news cycle. I'm hoping the former. People with expertise you need. People like Jonah Goldberg are expendable.

    Half a generation ago, Richard John Neuhaus offered an idiosyncratic definition of the word 'defunct', using it to mean 'finished a course of life'. He thought the term apt for Union Theological Seminary, which was anything but a Christian outfit by 1999. As we speak, National Review and Commentary are defunct in this sense. Like Sears, the best course is liquidation, and the distribution of their assets to other parties, parties which can use those assets toward defensible and salutary ends. Richard Lowry is not that guy.

  16. National Review is free to say whatever they like about other strands of starboard thought. The thing is, they just do not have the standing with their readers or those active in Republican circles that Buckley's NR was able to acquire during the period running from 1955 to 1965. When Buckley said something was traffe, that mattered. When Richard Lowry says it, people may listed more respectfully than they would to David Frum or Rod Dreher, but that's all. Not compelling.

    There's nothing wrong with setting boundary conditions to your advocacy and saying person X is not working toward your ends. Buckley said this about Peter Viereck (a literary critic whose 'conservatism' was a contentless rhetorical affectation), about Max Eastman (a despiser of religion), about Ayn Rand (a despiser of religion whose social vision Buckley deemed 'dessiccated'; others would say 'industrial-brutalist'), about the John Birch Society (because they were peddlers of social fiction and paranoia), and about George Wallace ('a flagitious demagogue'). The difference now is their complaints about Trump are largely about aesthetics. What gets you about the Capitol Hill nexus and Conservatism Inc is how readily they play Charlie Brown to the Democratic PR operatives playing Lucy-with-the-Football. See Todd Akin, see Roy Moore, see Steve King. It's a contrived PR sh!tstorm and concerns nothing substantive. They ought to know better, and they do not.