Category Archives: Conservatives

Straight Pride Posters at Ohio University

image

The following is by Nick Vassar of the Huffington Post:

Students at an Ohio university say they were “blindsided” earlier this week after homophobic messages appeared around campus.

Signs advocating for a week of “straight pride” appeared on Ohio’s Youngstown State University campus earlier this week. The anonymously posted messages called for students to kick off finals week “by not annoying the shit out of everyone about your sexual orientation,” and not “telling everyone how ‘different’ you are.”

Smaller text at the bottom of the sign reads: “Brought to you by the students that are sick of hearing about your LGBT pride. Nobody cares about what you think you are, or what you want to have sex with. We have nothing against your sexual orientation. We just don’t give a fuck.”

YSU officials immediately removed the posters from around the campus, Ron Cole, the university’s public information officer, told The Huffington Post. He said the school has no sanctioned “straight pride week” and the messages were “completely bogus.”

“With the help of a bunch of students, we quickly went out to take them all down,” Cole said. “Reaction has ranged from concern to outrage. While we recognize the right to free speech, this is counter to our mission of being a diverse and accepting campus.”

News of the posters comes just a few days after a group of students organized an “Anti-Gay Day” at McGuffey High School in Claysville, Pennsylvania. The protesters chose to wear flannel shirts and write “anti-gay” on their hands to protest the Day of Silence, an event hoping to encourage discussion about anti-LGBT bullying in schools.

Some of the school’s students who openly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender had Bible verses written on their lockers, and physical altercations broke out in hallways.

Tim Bortner, president of Youngstown’s LGBT group, YSUnity, told HuffPost despite the quick removal of the posters on his campus, they’ve touched a nerve. He’s seen polarizing reactions across social media including on Yik Yak, an anonymous messaging app similar to Twitter.

“We’re getting a lot of negative comments toward our community,” he said. “There has been a lot of harassment and things [on Yik Yak]. Our members are seeing that and our communities are seeing it and it’s making them feel unsafe.”

Lisa Ronquillo, vice president of YSUnity, said that, along with safety concerns, the community is angry, particularly after the group participated in the Day of Silence. Some of the posters were pinned on top of YSUnity fliers advertising a rally for marriage equality on May 9, and she said they’re now wondering if they’ll have to deal with heckling and violence at the event.

“This feels like it came out of nowhere… and I honestly feel blindsided by it,” Ronquillo said. “It’s not something that I expected from our student body. Everybody for the most part, they’re angry, they’re confused.”

The YSU student government association released a statement after the incident criticizing the “straight pride” posters:

When individuals belong to dominant societal cohorts (Caucasian, male, heterosexual, etc.) it is very easy to state “We have nothing against your sexual orientation” and to claim that efforts to raise awareness are “annoying.” For minorities who every day face discrimination and marginalization, such efforts are necessary — without zeal and persistence, sociology teaches that minority concerns very easily go by the wayside. Thus, dismissing the efforts of LGBTQIA students to push for equitable treatment as unnecessary is dangerous because it catalyzes discrimination, whether meant to do so or not.

“There’s no room for this on a university campus. It’s unprofessional, it’s childish and we need to get people to see we’re just like you, we’re not trying to force an agenda,” Ronquillo said. “We need to pull together as a community.”

Language has been added to clarify that the YSU student government association was criticizing the views expressed on the “straight pride” flyers and not LGBT activism.

Hillary is feeling the heat: Clinton Foundation to refile tax returns going back 15 years

Clinton Cash

It was only several days ago that news came of a new book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, on Hillary and Bill Clinton having received millions of dollars in bribes from foreign governments and individuals in exchange for favors from the State Department when Hillary was the latter’s boss as U.S. secretary of state.

But this story not only has “legs,” the publicity is already having an impact on the poisonous couple.

Today comes news that the tax-exempt “nonprofit” Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative will refile their tax returns that may extend back as many as 15 years.

That’s because a Reuters investigation uncovered “errors” in tax returns filed by both outfits. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, the so-called “charity” organization is so brazen that, despite having received millions of dollars from donors, it reported it had received nothing from foreign and U.S. governments.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz is calling on the Clinton non-profits to return all of the money they’d received from foreign governments. (Read more here.)

Thank you, Peter Schweizer!

~Éowyn

Hillary and Bill Clinton got millions in bribes from foreign “entities” in exchange for State Dept favors

In his sarcastic post of April 20, “Coyote Ugly,” our Trail Dust made reference to 2016 presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton and her husband having “received massive amounts of bribe money from China’s bellicose military leaders and a variety of oil-rich, Christian-hating muslims, including the muslim brotherhood.”

Hillary April 2014

The source of that stunning information is a new book that will not hit shelves until May 5, but is already making news. As reported by Amy Chozick for The New York Times, April 19, 2015, Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich is 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities which “is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.”

The timing of Clinton Cash is problematic for multi-millionaire Hillary as she begins a campaign to position herself as a “champion for everyday Americans.”

Clinton Cash

Schweizer writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons. Schweizer is a research fellow at the prestigious Hoover Institution; the founder and president of the Government Accountability Institute, a team of investigative researchers and journalists committed to investigating and exposing cronyism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance; and a former speechwriting consultant to President George W. Bush.

The book, an advance copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Bill Clinton through high speaking fees, received favors in return from the State Department via then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the words of Schweizer:

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.”

The New York Times points out that although Hillary’s campaign aides have, in the past, been “adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda,” Schweizer’s Clinton Cash “is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The [New York] Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.”

Additionally, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including Rand Paul and Marco Rubio who have also entered the 2016 presidential ring, have been briefed on the book’s findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns.

In the wake of news of Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation belatedly revised its policy to prohibit “donations” by countries in the Middle East (read: oil-rich Arabs and Muslims) and to allow donations from countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain.

Ironically, Clinton Cash will be released the same day Bill and Chelsea Clinton will host the Clinton Global Initiative gathering with donors in the Islamic North African country of Morocco, the culmination of a foundation trip to several African nations. (A chapter in Clinton Cash is titled “Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa.”)

See also:

~Éowyn

When did liberals become such pansies?

Feminist Students Fear for Their Safety Because Conservatives Invited a Speaker to Campus

Fox News: Apparently, the simple presence of Christina Hoff Sommers on campus could be traumatizing.

The scary Christina Hoff Sommers...

The scary Christina Hoff Sommers…

Students at both Oberlin College in Ohio and Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., have been crying out that they fear for their safety because conservative groups invited someone who disagrees with their views on sexual assault and rape culture to speak on campus.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute and author of Who Stole Feminism?, spoke at Georgetown last Thursday and scheduled spoke at Oberlin.

As reported by Twitchy, Georgetown students placed a “trigger warning” sign outside of the speech, advising that it would “contain discussions of sexual assault and may deny the experiences of survivors.” A photo on Twitter shows a student holding another sign reading, “TRIGGER WARNING: anti-feminism” and advertising the location of a “safe space” for anyone who might feel traumatized by Sommers’s opposing views.

Spelling is tuff...

Spelling is tuff…

Apparently so is civility.

Apparently so is civility.

So someone with an opposing view speaking on campus scares you? You really don’t have to go to their presentations special snowflakes. When did liberals become such pansies?

baseball

obama bicycle

pajamaboy

How are these people going to survive in the real world without their safe spaces?

anti feminists1

DCG

Christie Bush

christybush

Isn’t that like saying,

“Top John McCain ally defects
to Lindsay Graham?”


Yawn…

Secret Republicans in California’s Silicon Valley and Hollywood

The two-party system is embedded in the institutional structural DNA of the United States. That’s why historically, third parties have built-in disadvantages and thus fare poorly in elections. Some of us still remember both the allure as well as the ultimate defeat of Ross Perot.

It is bad enough that at the élite leadership level, often there’s precious little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, despite the fact that a majority of Americans (62% in October 2010) identify themselves as “conservatives.” (Note: Conservative is not synonymous with Republican.) But in some states, California being a notable example, government has become the monopoly of the Democratic party, with all the attendant corruption and unaccountability endemic to single-party states. (See, for example, DCG’s “Shocker, not: Audit finds California departments break law, game personnel system for money“.)

Blacklist

Significant industries and sectors of America are also effective one-party states. Below is Rebecca Nelson’s article in the National Journal, April 8, 2015, on two such sectors that are dominant in forming and molding public opinion and popular culture — Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves. Working as programmers and software engineers, they don’t want the stigma that comes with revealing who they really are.

They’re the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area’s liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.

“It’s a liberal echo chamber,” Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of Lincoln Labs, which was started in 2013 to connect the right-of-center outsiders in Silicon Valley, told National Journal. “People have been convinced that Silicon Valley is reflexively liberal or progressive. And so their response is to conform.”

Silicon Valley has long been a bastion of liberalism. Since George H.W. Bush won Napa County in 1988, Republican presidential nominees have lost every county in the Bay Area. In 2012, President Obama won 84 percent of the vote in San Francisco to Mitt Romney’s 13 percent and raised more for his reelection campaign from Bay Area donors than from those in New York or Hollywood. Political donations specifically from tech workers follow that trend: Google employees collectively gave $720,000 to Obama in 2012, versus $25,000 for Romney. Crowdpac, a nonpartisan political analytics firm, found that between 1979 and 2012, tech companies have overwhelmingly favored liberal candidates.

Rather than ruffle feathers—or worse—Republicans who work there often just keep quiet. Rich Tafel, who coaches tech companies in politics and policy, understands the dynamic. The founder of the gay group Log Cabin Republicans, he’s had many Republicans in Silicon Valley confide to him their true political views.

“You just learn how to operate, if you will, in the closet as a Republican,” Tafel told National Journal. “You keep your viewpoints to yourself.”

One startup CEO who has worked in Silicon Valley for more than a decade says that while it’s popular to talk politics in the workplace, the underlying assumption is that everyone has similar views.

The CEO, who generally votes Republican and donates to GOP candidates—he spoke on background to conceal his right-leaning views—said that in 2012, “you wouldn’t want to say you’re voting for Romney in the election.” At the same time, openly expressing one’s support for Obama was “incredibly common.”

His opposition to raising the minimum wage is just one area where he diverges with most of his colleagues…. But he would never reveal his more conservative outlook on the matter…. “They can’t fathom that somebody disagrees with them,” he said. “And I disagree with them. So I’m not going to open up that box.”

Closeted Republicans aren’t just a phenomenon in the tech industry. In Hollywood, where acclaimed movie stars and directors throw lavish fundraisers for Democrats and unabashedly support liberal causes, Republicans are a rare breed. Friends of Abe, a GOP support group of sorts, caters to A-list conservatives in the entertainment industry. Only a handful of its members have made their affiliation known, and its roster is kept secret out of fears of a blacklisting reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

For some right-leaning techies, the GOP brand itself is a liability. The startup CEO stressed that there are “a number of ideas that conservatives have that I totally disagree with,” such as opposition to same-sex marriage, and he abhors the thought of being lumped in with Republicans who deny climate change or evolution.

“Republicans are regarded as assholes,” he said. “And I wouldn’t want to be associated with assholes.”

Another Republican who founded a small San Francisco-based startup told National Journal that he’s worried potential partners and investors would be turned off by his libertarian views. Recently, it seems like all of his peers in Silicon Valley have been outspoken about their opposition to the thwarted religious liberty law in Indiana, he said. He thinks business owners should be allowed to decide whom they serve, and if they discriminate against gays, people can choose not to patronize their business. He won’t discuss that view, though, or debate his left-leaning colleagues on Facebook or Twitter.

“If I were to speak out about something like that, maybe one of these companies wants to buy my company one day and the CEO is like, ‘Oh, I remember this guy saying all this stuff about this thing that I really disagree with.’ And that obviously could have negative effects,” he said. “Getting your point across isn’t worth it.”

The consequences for being outed for conservative views can be dire. In a highly public controversy last year, newly-hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepped down after critics attacked his 2008 donation to support Proposition 8, the anti-same-sex marriage law in California. Eich, who declined to comment for this story, faced an internal uprising from within the Mozilla community, as well as boycotts from other tech companies, and quit after just two weeks on the job.

Though Eich’s was an extreme case, some Republicans in Silicon Valley fear that if they go public, they’ll face subtler, less direct repercussions. The CEO who spoke on background keeps his conservative-leaning views to himself, he said, because he doesn’t want to risk people not liking him, which could hurt his job in imperceptible ways. As a leader, he needs to be able to inspire people to join and thrive in his company. If he’s “contrarian,” he said, he can’t build the necessary camaraderie to succeed.

Matthew Del Carlo, the former president of the San Francisco Young Republicans and the COO of the California Young Republican Federation, said that transparent Republicans can have a much harder time finding work in the Bay Area. “I’ve had people tell me, ‘If I found out that this person’s a Republican, their resume’s off the list.‘”

Prominent Republicans do openly work in Silicon Valley, and not all of them feel stigmatized for their political views. Billionaire Paypal founder Peter Thiel is a high-profile GOP supporter who has made considerable donations to presidential contender Ted Cruz’s 2012 Senate run and former congressman Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential super PAC. And Sarah Pompei, who handled Romney’s regional press in 2012 and now serves as Hewlett-Packard’s director of corporate communications, told National Journal she’s never felt denigrated for her conservative views.

Both Pompei and Thiel, who declined to comment for this story, prove success in the tech industry is possible for Republicans who are open about their political leanings. But they wield more power and cachet than the average start-up employee.

“There’s fearless people out there that don’t care, but those tend to be people that are in a better position financially. They’re secure in their job,” Del Carlo said. Those with more to lose, he said, often find it easier to keep quiet.

Still, Thiel’s attention-getting fundraising for GOP candidates and libertarian causes, along with other high-profile Republicans in the tech sector, show that the climate in Silicon Valley is—albeit incrementally—becoming more politically inclusive. Lincoln Labs, the group dedicated to connecting right-of-center techies in the Bay Area, has been a big part of that effort. Earlier this year, its annual conference, Reboot, brought libertarians and conservatives from Silicon Valley to Washington to hear Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul speak on deregulation, net neutrality, and other tech-industry priorities.

Throughout the year, the organization holds meetups and hackathons to build a “sense of community, so that people don’t feel like they are isolated,” Johnson said. He and Lincoln Labs’ other co-founders, Aaron Ginn and Chris Abrams, want to empower a true exchange of ideas within the tech community, without ostracizing any one view.

Silicon Valley purports to be a place where the best ideas win,” Johnson said. “If we are going to encourage diversity, let’s not just stop with gender and ethnicity. How about ideological perspective?

Conservatives and libertarians in Silicon Valley like Johnson are pioneering a new kind of Republican. With a distinctly libertarian flavor, they align with the party on the principles of liberty and limited government, but don’t necessarily lean right on—or care much about—social issues.

The entrepreneurs and techies of the Bay Area, said Tafel, are “very aligned to what could be a Republican party.” They just need to come out.

See also:

~Éowyn

Who will stand against the gaystapo?

Gaystapo

Who Will Stand?

By Robert P. George, First Things, April 5, 2015

The lynch mob came for the brilliant mild-mannered techie Brendan Eich. (See “Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Resigns After Backlash Over Support For Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Ban“)

The lynch mob came for the elderly florist Barronelle Stutzman.

The lynch mob came for Eastern Michigan University counseling student Julea Ward.

The lynch mob came for the African-American Fire Chief of once segregated Atlanta Kelvin Cochran. (See “Tyranny of the Gaystapo: Atlanta mayor fires Christian fire chief for biblical views on homosexuality“)

The lynch mob came for the owners of a local pizza shop the O’Connor family. (See “Bigot threatens to burn down Indiana pizzeria because of store owner’s Constitutional Right”)

The lynch mob is now giddy with success and drunk on the misery and pain of its victims. It is urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media. It is reinforced in its sense of righteousness and moral superiority by the “beautiful people” and the intellectual class. It has been joined by the big corporations who perceive their economic interests to be in joining up with the mandarins of cultural power. It owns one political party and has intimidated the leaders of the other into supine and humiliating obeisance.

And so, who if anyone will courageously stand up to the mob? Who will resist? Who will speak truth to its raw and frightening power? Who will refuse to be bullied into submission or intimidated into silence?

I’m not asking, which leaders? Though that, too, would be good to know. Are there political or religious leaders who will step forward? Are there intellectual or cultural leaders who will muster the courage to confront the mob?

No, I’m asking what ordinary people will do. Are there Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians who will refuse to be intimidated and silenced? Are there Latter-Day Saints, Orthodox and other observant (or even non-observant) Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs? Buddhists?

Oh yes, the mob came first for the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Latter-Day Saints; but do not be deceived: it will not stop with them. It’s true that many in the mob have a particular animus against Christians, but the point of destroying the reputations and livelihoods of the initial victims is pour encourager les autres [to encourage others]. If you believe you belong to a group that will be given a special exemption or dispensation from the enforcement of the new orthodoxy—by any means necessary—you will soon learn that you are tragically mistaken. No one who dissents will be given a pass.

We have seen how swiftly the demands have moved from tolerance to compulsory approbation of behavior historically rejected as contrary to morality and faith by virtually all the great religious traditions of the world. And now it is not only approbation that is demanded, but active participation. And do you honestly think that we have now reached the endpoint of what will be demanded?

Of course, some will say—indeed some are saying—that the battle is over, the cause is lost. All we can do is seek the best terms of surrender we can get, knowing that at this stage they will not be very good.

What should we say to that? Well, it is certainly true that the political, economic, and cultural power now arrayed against people of faith and their rights and liberties is formidable. No question about it: This is David against Goliath.

But then, we know how that contest ended, don’t we?

If we refuse to surrender, we will certainly be demonized; but everything will depend on whether we refuse to be demoralized. Courage displayed in the cause of truth—and of right—is powerful. And it will depend on whether ordinary people—Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, others—inspired by their faith to stand firm, will also be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, and arm-in-arm, with their brothers and sisters of other traditions of faith to defy the mob.

Below is a comment from First Things reader Frank McLaughlin on another case of persecution:

“And, as another instance of the lynch mob mentality, last summer in Massachusetts last summer the School Committee in the city of Lynn came out against Gordon College, and its President Michael Lindsay, because of Gordon College’s “Biblical stance on issues relating to human sexuality.” But, this week the Mayor of Lynn was informed by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the School Committee by its action was in violation of the “First Amendment rights of Gordon College, Gordon College students, and President Michael Lindsay.” And, the School Committee was called upon to reverse its clearly unconstitutional decision.”

See also:

~Éowyn