If it’s possible to capture the essence of everything wrong with America, the cultural cancer eating away at our colleges, government and moral foundations, Chelsea Manning has done it in under 140 characters.
— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) September 15, 2017
Let us unpack that pit at the center of the rotting plum.
- Manning is “honored” to be the first disinvited trans woman visiting Harvard fellow.
Harvard just decided to rid itself of all off-campus social organizations because they were too “male.” It would in fact be difficult to find a more transgender-friendly campus in America than Harvard. It was apparently less of an honor for Manning, who has no concept of honor, to be chosen as a token liberal transgender, than it was for her to be disinvited.
Remember, Manning received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army after being tried and convicted of violating the Espionage Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and disobeying lawful general orders under Article 92 of the UCMJ. Private Bradley Manning is a disgraced, convicted felon and failed former soldier.
The concept of “honor” is overturned in one tweet.
- They chill marginalized voices
Ben Shapiro’s speech at Berkeley cost $400,000 to keep Antifa from rioting and burning down the city. Who was marginalized?
Free speech isn't free. It costs over $600,000 thanks to Antifa.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 14, 2017
As far back as 1978, liberal Harvard was gobsmacked and filled with consternation (even boos) at Alexander Solzhenitsyn‘s takedown of the liberal west. It’s not liberal voices who are marginalized at Harvard, it’s anyone who doesn’t walk completely in lockstep with their worldview.
The narrative of victimhood must live on in Manning’s tweet.
- Under CIA pressure
Not in the least. Here it was the CIA who exposed Harvard’s dark smuggling of honor and endorsement upon a disgraced criminal. Douglas Elmendorf, Dean of Harvard Kennedy School, scrambled for cover in his mealy-mouthed statement withdrawing Manning’s fellowship.
We invited Chelsea Manning to spend a day at the Kennedy School. Specifically, we invited her to meet with students and others who are interested in talking with her, and then to give remarks in the Forum where the audience would have ample opportunity—as with all of our speakers—to ask hard questions and challenge what she has said and done. On that basis, we also named Chelsea Manning a Visiting Fellow. We did not intend to honor her in any way or to endorse any of her words or deeds, as we do not honor or endorse any Fellow.
This is total bovine excrement. Being offered a Harvard visiting fellowship is in itself an honor and endorsement. Twist it as you might, both the extension of the offer and its withdrawal have meaning.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo exposed Harvard’s honoring a criminal, and he was right to do so. Why should he share a title and a forum with someone who made his job exponentially harder by actively compromising U.S. intelligence?
CIA Director Withdraws from Harvard Kennedy School Forum pic.twitter.com/N7YKyGy9H4
— CIA (@CIA) September 15, 2017
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell also resigned in disgust after Harvard’s honoring her.
It wasn’t the CIA who pressured Harvard to dump Manning. It was Harvard that had to eat its own diseased words and divest the concept of “honor” in order to even justify its initial decision.
Former deputy CIA director Michael Morell quits at Harvard’s Kennedy School over Chelsea Manning’s hiring | Hanna Kozolwska, Quartz
In his letter of resignation, Morell says he cannot be part of an organization that “honors a convicted felon and leaker of classified information.” He called Manning’s hiring “wholly inappropriate,” stipulating however, that he “fully supports Ms. Manning’s rights as a transgender American, including the right to serve our country in the US military.”
“Pompeo , who has a law degree from Harvard, said he didn’t make the decision lightly. He wrote that he would betray the trust of CIA employees if he appeared.”
“We are withdrawing the invitation to her to serve as a Visiting Fellow — and the perceived honor that it implies to some people — while maintaining the invitation for her to spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak in the Forum.
Chase Strangio, a lawyer for Ms. Manning, wrote in a statement that the decision to withdraw the invitation “in the middle of the night without coherent explanation is disgraceful even for Harvard” and also accused the school of being beholden to the C.I.A.
“Ms. Manning betrayed her country,” Mr. Pompeo, who graduated from Harvard Law School, wrote in a letter to a Kennedy School official, adding that he commended Mr. Morell’s decision to resign.
Remember…Chase Stranglo is Manning’s lawyer.
— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) September 15, 2017
Which goes to show how awful you are. Simmer in that, for a bit.
— Susan_Wright (@SweetieWalker) September 15, 2017
the rescinded invite was due to it being incorrectly asked in first place. Trying to spin it as a transgender reason is ridiculous.
— Arthur S Arena (@A_S_ARENA) September 15, 2017
I am a fan but it's not because you are trans.
— Lora Achille (@Lora1069) September 15, 2017
I am a fan but it's not because you are trans.
— Lora Achille (@Lora1069) September 15, 2017
Chelsea Manning is no Alexander Solzhenitsyn. She did not suffer as a dissident at the hands of a repressive dictatorship. As Bradley Manning, he betrayed the uniform he wore, and the country he served. He was convicted and sentenced for his crimes. He was released only by the political correctness of Barack Obama in the last days of his term.
Mike Pompeo is a Harvard Law alum. He deserved the fellowship. He declined his own alma mater because what he believes in is more important than his personal honorifics.
There was no honor in Harvard’s invitation. There was no honor in Harvard’s disinvite. There is no honor in Manning’s outrage. There is no ring of truth in her cries of “victim!”
Everything that’s wrong with America right now can be seen in that one tweet. We better hope that they grow up.
It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump
One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.
As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.
It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.
Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.
This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”
Complacency is our enemy. Anyone that does not embrace the @realDonaldTrump agenda of making America great again will be making a mistake.
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) June 14, 2018
McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.
Mark Sanford has been very unhelpful to me in my campaign to MAGA. He is MIA and nothing but trouble. He is better off in Argentina. I fully endorse Katie Arrington for Congress in SC, a state I love. She is tough on crime and will continue our fight to lower taxes. VOTE Katie!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2018
Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:
“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”
Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.
Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).
“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.
As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Conservative Picks for the Nevada Primary
Nevada is full of competition. There are no shortage of quality candidates in Nevada, only quality politicians. Nevada isn’t a strong blue state or red state. It usually sides with the winner in a presidential election. In fact, given Trump’s upset, it was surprising Nevada wasn’t one of the states where polling was wholly inaccurate. Nevada is home of Las Vegas, the country’s fastest growing metropolitan area. So the future political leanings of the state are up in the air. This primary features vacancies which offer a nice opportunity to grow conservative ideals among the population.
Best Picks: Danny Tarkanian, Joel Beck
Worst Picks: Mark Amodei, Cresent Hardy
Best Race: District 3
Worst Race: District 4
Dean Heller is an incumbent Republican and in all likelihood will keep his nomination. Heller is running on a rather unimpressive Senate record showing that he is part of the problem, not the solution. There are four challengers but only a few are worth talking about. The first is Sarah Gazala. She is somewhat running as a conservative, but her emphasis on education shows that she isn’t the right fit for the Senate. A local office would be a better calling. Then there’s Vic Harrell. The only discernible fact about Harrell is his devotion to Trump. This zeal isn’t wrong but it doesn’t make him a good candidate. The strongest challenger is Tom Heck. Heck ran and lost in 2016 in a tight race. It’s very possible Heck could maintain the seat, and probable that he would do a superior job.
Conservative Pick: Tom Heck
Two challengers seek to red pill this district. The first, Joyce Bentley, has a decent platform and is like to side with Trump on several key issues. The issue is whether she will deviate when necessary. The second is Freddy Horne. He is likely the more viable candidate here having a history of running a campaign, but its a moot point in this district.
Conservative Pick: Joyce Bentley
Mark Amodei has held the seat for a while and is a RINO. He faces three challengers. Sharron Angel is the first. She was a failed Senate candidate in 2016 losing to Heck. She seems as though a strong Conservative. But she may be a weak candidate. Joel Beck is a veteran running on a solid small government platform. He has a more thorough understanding of veterans issues and immigration than most. Beck would be an outstanding defender of the Constitution.
Conservative Pick: Joel Beck
This vacated seat has caused a feeding frenzy of an election. but this race is between Scott Hammond and Danny Tarkanian. Hammond is a State Senator with a decent record and the backing of the NRA. But from this article which he promoted, he doesn’t seem to be a strong defender of liberty, though its hard to get a clear picture with the bias writing. In a rare instance of strategic planning by the Trump administration with regards to the 2018 race, Team Trump convinced Tarkanian to seek the House as opposed to the Senate. Danny Tarkanian, being a team player, obliged. Nothing wrong with that. Playing along earned him a Trump endorsement. And while Heller gets by with one less challenger from the right, Tarkanian has a better chance at reducing government spending as he campaigns heavily on. Overall, Tarkanian may be a sycophant, but Hammond is more likely a RINO climbing the ladder.
Conservative Pick: Danny Tarkanian
Congressman Ruben Kihuen will not seek reelection as the result of a sexual harassment scandal. This presents a golden opportunity to flip this blue seat. Many Republicans have entered but there is no clear frontrunner. First up is Jeff Miller. He’s running to prevent Nevada from becoming East California. With all the candidates, the Las Vegas Review-Journal made this one easy. The former Congressman refused to answer. If Cresent Hardy believes he’s too big to answer yes or no questions, he probably thinks he’s too good to talk to his constituents. The only thing that is concerning is the question on DACA recipients.
Conservative Pick: Jeff Miller
Conservative Picks in the South Carolina Primary
South Carolina is one of the nation strongest overall states for Conservatism. Out of nine representatives, eight of which Republican, only two are complete RINOs (Joe Wilson and Lindsey Graham). Conservatism is strong in South Carolina just as it is in North Carolina. This primary presents a good opportunity to maintain and grow. Trey Gowdy is exiting, presenting a good chance for an upgrade at the position. Since the GOP took the Whitehouse, Gowdy stopped being fiscally Conservative, and is an unfortunate voice of support for the expensive Mueller investigation.
Best Pick: Mark Sanford
Worst Pick: Katie Arrington
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: District 7
After five years, Mark Sanford has been a solid Conservative. He is being challenged. His main opponent is Katie Arrington. Arrington is a full blown Trumpist. If she had a shred of Conservatism in her she would be satisfied with the performance of Sanford. But instead she is challenging him because he, like most decent Conservatives, has been reasonably critical of Trump. Arrington’s fanaticism is not worth the risk of losing Sanford.
Conservative Pick: Mark Sanford
Joe Wilson is an unchallenged product of the swamp. He is running to complete his second decade.
Jeff Duncan is a steadfast Conservative who didn’t compromise under Obama and has remained strong under Trump. He is unchallenged.
There are numerous candidates seeking to fill Trey Gowdy’s shoes. The first of which was written about back in February, Mark Burns. I had a lot to say about Trump’s top pastor:
I remain optimistic about Mark Burns joining the ranks of Congress. Previously, Burns announced he was praying about challenging Lindsey Graham, a notorious warmongering RINO. But it appears either prayer or opportunism has landed him in a different race. Due to his political amateurism, not many of his positions are clear. Oddly enough, he has suggested Federal takeover of public school security. Though his heart seems in the right place, his position shows a lack of localism which small government believes in. It’s safe to speculate that Mark Burns isn’t all that fiscal conservative which isn’t unfamiliar.
On social issues, however, Pastor Mark Burns could be a strong tool for conservatives, so long as he can graduate from being a Trump surrogate. Burns has a more unifying persona than a lot of Republicans adding the possibility of broadening the base. On the issues of race and abortion, Pastor Mark Burns is a powerful voice. Though a strong personality does not make one the best candidate, Burn has tremendous potential to make a difference in DC.
I have a poll under Zakrey Bissell poll for June 7th 2018 to June 12th 2018 for #SC01 Republican Mark Sanford 70% Republican Katie Arrington 30% and poll for #SC04 Republican Lee Bright 50% Republican Mark Burns 30% Republican William Timmons 15% Republican Dan Hamilton 5%
— Zakrey Bissell (@BissellZakrey) June 8, 2018
Another formidable candidate is Lee Bright. He has the backing of Steve King (IA) and Thomas Massie (KY). Massie is a strong Conservative so this endorsement means something. Bright’s political career was put on hold when he got primaried in 2016. To be frank, he got voted out probably for being a nutjob. This guy is all rhetoric and no substance. He will maybe vote the right way, but he is not a leader on Conservative legislation. Furthermore he is a weaker candidate due to his propensity to act a fool. Bright isn’t likable but he at the end of the day, he wouldn’t be a RINO.
Then there’s William Timmons. He has the endorsement of Marco Rubio which indicate that he is the RINO in this race. Timmons campaigns on fiscal responsibility but champions Trump for it who has not been fiscally responsible this year. Either he’s pandering or misinformed. Either way, it’s an indication he will e a big spender. His attack ads on Dan Hamilton are baseless, though he is likely correct that Hamilton is not that Conservative. But Timmons record isn’t Conservative either.
Conservative Pick: Mark Burns
Ralph Norman is unopposed. He’s actually been solid in his brief tenure.
Gerhard Gressmann is the only Republican running.
Tom Rice has been a halfway decent Congressman but not without fault. He is being challenged by Larry Guy Hammond. Hammond is running from the right but not with a level head. Tom Rice isn’t fantastic, but populism won’t do the job better. And Hammond is more populist than Conservative. His website offers no real solutions. It merely trashes the state and asks for money.