The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The Friedersdorf Charade

By on 4.22.11 @ 12:51PM

One of the annoying aspects of the success of the conservative movement, that success brought to mind by the recent passing of legendary conservative founding father William Rusher, has been noted by our founder and editor in chief here at The American Spectator. Discussed in some detail in R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s book After the Hangover: The Conservatives Road to Recovery.

Mr. Tyrrell notes that there is a clique inside the conservative movement — and here he quotes James Piereson, formerly of the John M. Olin Foundation — who “try to establish their bona fides by attacking other conservatives, which will make them well-liked by Liberals, which is the point.”  

The latest one of these types to appear on the scene is Conor Friedersdorf over at that well-known non-conservative publication the Atlantic.

From his perch as the designated conservative in this branch of Liberal Land, Mr. Friedersdorf quite deliberately although not especially skillfully plows this thoroughly plowed ground by showcasing his ability to do precisely as Messrs. Tyrrell and Piereson have noted of others. In Friedersdorf’s case, he has decided that what will get him extra strokes from approving liberals is to go after the William F. Buckley, Jr. of today — that, of course, being Rush Limbaugh. A man Buckley himself took under his wing, featured in glowing terms on the cover of National Review and in other instances blessed as his successor and great friend, if in fact there could ever be such a figure to replace the irreplaceable Buckley.

Out of curiosity I googled Friedersdorf and discovered he has almost an obsessive penchant for this kind of thing, this being the latest to catch my attention. He has previously in quite vivid terms called Mr. Limbaugh a “race-baiter” for whom he has “contempt” and …well… yada yada yada. With all the fury of a barking poodle at an 18-wheeler (and with as much effect), on he rattles.

That he does it is his business. Clearly he fits the Tyrrell profile like a glove. But for somebody who clearly wishes to be noticed for his brains one is utterly baffled at his willingness to be taken in on all this race business, which he has used repeatedly to go after Rush.As detailed here and here, liberals have right from the very beginning of their political history in America built what one might call the House of Race and State. Race is always used to build the liberal/progressive state.  

Rush Limbaugh has been absolutely fearless in taking on liberals — that is what he does, to the great good fortune of the rest of us. He believes in a color blind society — and he walks the walk. His personal friends, his charitable contributions, his show — all of them speak exactly to the idea of judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. In doing this — of challenging liberals with content serious and humorous in a color blind fashion he has drawn fire from those who are mired — willingly trapped? —  in the liberal House of Race and State. Purveyors of “skin color liberalism” always demanding to judge by race and not ideas. And he has paid a price in doing this — taking massive amounts of heat in challenging liberal dogma and its phoniness/hypocrisy on this issue.

Friedersdorf with his typically liberal attacks on Rush seems genuinely clueless that he has allowed himself to ask for a bed in the House of Race and State. A house firmly located on the Liberal Intellectual Plantation. Then again, in his latest broadside he winds up going after Rush because Rush is rich, a fire-bell-in-the-night sign of class warfare, the kind regularly indulged in by President Obama and company.

Thus showing his true feelings on race and redistribution of wealth (his envy of Rush’s financial success — something his listeners have long known was both late coming and hard-won — is breathtakingly obvious), Friedersdorf apparently hopes no one will get where his real political soul is, in spite of his “I’m really a conservative, don’t ya know” routine.”

The proof is in his words. I’ve read them. They are the Tyrrell point writ large. For good measure, he doesn’t like Mark Levin either. No, I’m not going to bother linking…Google away.

The real point here is that Conor Friedersdorf is not only not serious, he’s sad. This kind of stuff is by now older than dirt. This isn’t (Tyrrell again) James J. Kilpatrick dialoguing with Buckley or Russell Kirk on conservative ideas. This is “Look ma…I took a shot at Rush Limbaugh on a liberal magazine site on the Internet! And they printed it! Whoooooooo-ha! Did MSNBC call yet???”

My suggestions for Mr. Friedersdorf? One, get a life. Two, read and go learn something about race and economics. And three:

A classy person would apologize to Mr. Limbaugh. And to Mr. Levin. And then get on with getting what those things would begin to provide: a serious education in a life of principle and respect for others. 

And the chances any of this will actually happen?

Naaahhhhhhhh. Never mind.

View all comments (34) |

Clint| 4.22.11 @ 1:26PM

Friedersdork is coattailing for negative attention off recognized starting media conservatives.

He's a bush league benchwarmer, looking for attention.

Doug| 4.22.11 @ 1:50PM

"He's a bush league benchwarmer, looking for attention."

...who apparently took lessons from John McCain.

Bill Grant| 4.22.11 @ 1:52PM

Good article, Jeff. This is just the kind of person RET would skewer with one hand tied behind his back.
I also enjoy Mark Levin. He and Rush have both built their followings by being honest and feerless in their outing of the liberals' incessant canards.

Conor Friedersdorf| 4.22.11 @ 2:23PM

Aside from the factual problems with this piece – I am emphatically NOT a member of the conservative movement, and do not claim to be – Jeffrey Lord's problem is his unwillingness to actually argue anything of substance.

He demonstrates that I attack conservative talk radio hosts. Very true. He lacks the discernment to see the difference between my criticisms and those typically offered by liberals. Fine. What's most objectionable – beyond his ungentlemanly unwillingness to link what he criticizes – is that he hasn't grappled with my arguments about talk radio and proven them wrong.

What is the point of this tribal rallying? Have some courage, Mr. Lord. Step out from behind the protection of the "you're a heretic" approach to political discourse and make a substantive argument. I've done so in the pages of The American Spectator before. So can you!

bobmontgomery| 4.22.11 @ 4:39PM

When you grow up, you will understand what 'discernment' is. Jeffrey Lord's got more of it in a sliver of his DNA than you and about a hundred of those like you out there could collectively scrape up if that was what you were about, which it's not.

Susan| 4.22.11 @ 9:14PM

Very well said Montgomery. This guy is simply jealous. Why did he even validate this 'right-on' article by responding? I guess hoping to be 'liked' by both sides. Precisely the voices that helped lead to the mess we're in.

BD57| 4.22.11 @ 10:08PM

"Discernment"?

You spout the same crap all the good little liberals do - the only "novelty" is you're (supposedly) not just another lefty unleashing the same old tired demagogic tripe.

And "link you"? Oh, yes, that's a must - - - because your stuff is all so original it just has to be seen to be appreciated ....

Say Conor - you wouldn't happen to have an ulterior motive to your "linky boo-hoo" routine, would you? Like, perhaps - - - - links = traffic = Conor pleasing his liberal/left massas???? Nah - -

Conor - if we've read one of your postings, we've read them all.

No one's calling you a heretic, Conor - nope, it's a much shorter word ... starts with "L" ... rhymes with "friar" ....

Clint| 4.22.11 @ 3:43PM

Apparently, Limbaugh gets The Big Bucks , because people like hearing Limbaugh's Non-PC, Non-Race Pandering take on politics.

And no BenchBoy, you can't have Limbaugh's jockstrap.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.22.11 @ 3:55PM

Conor....

Well if you're "emphatically NOT" a conservative then doubtless you have corrected Mediaite for saying of you:

"Friedersdorf, a former Sullivan intern, has made a name for himself over the last two years as one of the most promising conservative writers and thinkers. He writes at the American Scene, Forbes, Daily Beast, and the late True/Slant and was involved in the well-thought of, but failed, Culture 11.His take-downs of Mark Levin and Andrew Breitbart, as well as concern over conservatism’s “narrative” problem have given him a major following and reputation." That would be found at this link here:

http://www.mediaite.com/online.....vans-blog/

Of course, you are now admitting the obvious: you are NOT a conservative. Your criticisms of Rush Limbaugh were not only wildly wrong but crude, standard liberal fare. It is in perfect context if coming from someone who supports the standard liberalism race-and-state approach to life. First, scare the living hell out of race X...then use the results to expand the state. Rush Limbaugh is emphatically, in a now 2-plus decades careeer, opposed to this. He believes in a color blind society...and as mentioned, he walks the walk. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that in addition to his professionalism in this area, three of his good friends in his life are the man who married him - the Rev. Ken Huthcherson, the famous "Bo Snerdley" - James Golden - Rush's longtime call-screener and more - and Clarence Thomas, as in Justice Thomas. The fact they are black is important only to liberals like yourself. The fact they are good people is why they are friends of Limbaugh's. And more to the point - the fact that they are African-Americans who generally agree with Rush Limbaugh says they are conservatives for the same reason he is - because they too believe in a color blind philosophy.

So when you attack Rush as you did here:
saying you have "contempt" for a man who is clearly making a mockery of the Race and State philosophy (obviously over your head)...or when you uncleverly try to assail him as a racist here..
...frankly, someone needs to call you out. This is more baloney than a meat grinder can handle.

As to your views on talk radio....found here..

http://www.theatlantic.com/dai.....ut/176767/
allow me, since you've asked. Readers who follow that link will discovered your questioning of why talk radio would have been helpful in the Reagan era. Good question - and as someone who was there I can tell you. Let's take the famous episode with the Reagan nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Since his confirmation was job one for the Reagan staff, I know that we were desperate for fair treatment - not to mention serious support - to make Bork's case in the media. Not possible. No Rush, No Mark Levin, no Sean. No Fox, either. So at a time when this incredibly brilliant jurist was essentially unknown to the American public (as most lower court and even Supreme Court Justices can be) there was no way - none - to counter act the hatchet job being done by the mainstream media.

Flash forward to the Bush nomination of Harriet Miers. Conservatives thought this a mistake - a very big mistake. And thanks to talk radio - thanks to Mark Levin specifically who knows something from experience about Supreme Court fights - the opposition got heard, Miers was withdrawn, and Justice Alito is now on the bench. As someone involved in both episodes I can say with certainty that the lack of talk radio in 1987 - and its presence in 2005 - made the difference.

Conor, seriously. I don't care if you don't like talk radio. That's fine. Your schtick. But leaping forth with the media - presenting yourself as a conservative when you say, above, you are "NOT" (your capital letters, not mine) is building a career on a considerable untruth. Those of us who came into this at an earlier period recognize the trick - you want to be liked. That's not wrong or unreasonable. But be liked because you are a forthright liberal or a forth right "NOT" conservative. Don't play a game. Which you do - and some of us are on to you.

And when you get to the point in life where you have contributed as much to the lives of other people as Rush Limbaugh - regardless of race - than maybe, just maybe, you will understand that running around braying about your "contempt" and calling a good and decent man who has vividly walked the walk of color blindness in his life - not to mention making for himself at considerable risk of failure a stunning success professionally - then maybe you'll get it.

Hope springs eternal.

Best wishes....

Mark | 4.23.11 @ 2:31PM

Just that we have the Davids of the world (Frum and Brooks) as well as the Andrew Sullivans, pretty much sums up the argument that there does exist what I like to call Judas Goat-Conservatives like Conor among us. They seem to enjoy the sinecure of being the village idiot aka token conservative in liberal villages. But they have an annoying tendency to attempt convincing the rest of us to come in, the water's fine.

A. Thom| 4.22.11 @ 5:38PM

Mr. Lord, Thank you for this post and your further response to Mr. Friedersdorf. Many of us are working hard just to get by, and have neither the time nor the platform to defend ourselves from the constant demonization of our political ideas and views on race relations. Thank you sir for doing your small part to speak on behalf of the great silent majority. God bless this republic and you and your family.

A. Thom| 4.22.11 @ 5:38PM

Mr. Lord, Thank you for this post and your further response to Mr. Friedersdorf. Many of us are working hard just to get by, and have neither the time nor the platform to defend ourselves from the constant demonization of our political ideas and views on race relations. Thank you sir for doing your small part to speak on behalf of the great silent majority. God bless this republic and you and your family.

DRed| 4.22.11 @ 5:39PM

"What some of Limbaugh's critics misunderstand is that he isn't someone who is prejudiced against minorities so much as a man who cynically plays on the racial anxieties of others in order to boost his ratings. Its arguably more odious than the rhetoric of an earnest bigot. "

That's not someone calling Rush a racist. He's calling him a cynic. You either didn't read the column you incorrectly linked to, or you just want to whine about the mean liberals calling poor old Rush a racist (again). Poor, poor Rush. He's been through so much, what with the 4 wives, the drug addiction and that terrible time the meanies in the NFL didn't let him into the club.

Matt X| 4.23.11 @ 2:45AM

Liberals are mean..that's why Conor's bossman Andrew Sullivan attacks Palin's kid with Down Syndrome, and Conor has nothing to say about that because he needs to eat, and his gig at the American Scene wasn't paying the bills.

Conor Friedersdorf| 4.22.11 @ 6:03PM

Jeffrey,

I have written repeatedly, and publicly, that I am not a member of the conservative movement. Here is but one example: http://www.theatlantic.com/dai.....sm/183408/

So the premise of your article is inaccurate.

Your inadequate research also failed to uncover the numerous instances when I've criticized those on the left who use race as a cudgel. Here, for instance: http://trueslant.com/conorfrie.....ws-column/

Then there is your defense of Rush Limbaugh. You've inaccurately characterized my position twice now, so let me spell it out for you: The problem ISN'T that the man is a racist. It is that he deliberately trades on the racial anxiety of his listeners.

You repeatedly note my piece that states that I have contempt for Rush Limbaugh. You don't address why. Here is what the talk radio host said:

"It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this."

Do you defend the notion that in Barack Obama's America, it's okay for black kids to beat up white kids on buses? Do you find that to be an accurate characterization of American culture? Or is there in fact widespread agreement on the left and right that black kids should not beat up white kids on buses?

You also deny that Rush Limbaugh race baits. Here is the case I make that he does:

--
Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates? "He's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "He's an angry racist."

Sonja Sotomayor? "She's a bigot. She's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive."

President Obama? He's "the biggest reverse racist in history." On another occasion: "Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism."On a third: "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people." So implicitly Mr. Limbaugh is labeling multiple figures within the administration as racists too.

Democrats generally? "The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign."

Liberals? "You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."

--

These days Rush Limbaugh throws the R word around more frequently than Al Sharpton. His attitude is that if the left is going to accuse conservatives of racism, he is going to accuse the left of racism. His ethical code is that two wrongs make a right. And that turnabout is fair play. I dissent from that position.

Disagreement is fine.

What I find telling is how deliberately you avoid responding to the actual arguments in my writing. Instead, you write around them, and try to win the day merely by characterizing me as insufficiently conservative.

It's an intellectual crutch.

Conor Friedersdorf| 4.22.11 @ 6:11PM

I'd also love to hear what those of you insisting that Rush Limbaugh is color blind think about his mocking imitation of the way Chinese people speak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Imagine that you were married to a Chinese man or woman, and that you were listening to Rush Limbaugh's segment with him or her. Would you find that offensive?

Matt X| 4.24.11 @ 1:49AM

I wouldn't find it offensive if a Chinese person imitated the English language. I actually would like to hear them imitate it, and I'm sure many of them do. I'm sure it sounds funny to them, and I see no reason to get upset about it.

Raoul Ortega| 4.22.11 @ 7:12PM

Imagine that you were married to a Chinese man or woman, and that you were listening to Rush Limbaugh's segment with him or her. Would you find that offensive?

I do love how some people care so much about the feelings of others, and know with certainty what should and should not offend. Offense by proxy anyone? Since your comments offend me, I guess that means you shouldn't be allowed to be heard, either, right? But I prefer that you keep talking, and keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Conor Friedersdorf| 4.22.11 @ 7:26PM

"I do love how some people care so much about the feelings of others, and know with certainty what should and should not offend. Offense by proxy anyone?"

The point is that although some people complain about Limbaugh's treatment of race merely to discredit them, others (myself included) think that it is wrong to, for example, mockingly imitate a foreign language.

And I stand by the assertion that many of the people defending Limbaugh would themselves be embarrassed by that segment if forced to listen to it with an Asian American spouse or coworker.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 4.22.11 @ 9:50PM

Hey, Concern Troll, err Conor. Step over to Ace of Spades. There are a lot of folks who would be happy to chat with you.

Seriously, this clown ought to Exhibit A in the Trollhunters Handbook: Act like a conservative for five minutes, then start wringing one's hands and trying to push all the other eggs out of the nest.

The likelihood that Concerned Conor will attack a prominent conservative is directly proportional to that conservative's apparent effectiveness at promoting conservatism.

Conor Friedersdorf| 4.22.11 @ 10:24PM

"The likelihood that Concerned Conor will attack a prominent conservative is directly proportional to that conservative's apparent effectiveness at promoting conservatism."

Yes, look at how "effective" Rush Limbaugh has been at promoting conservatism. Since his rise to prominence, after Ronald Reagan's re-election, we've seen the election of a Republican president who governed with majorities in both houses of Congress... and used that majority to significantly expand the deficit, blunder through a war, and leave office so unpopular that Barack Obama was elected.

Everything that Rush Limbaugh cares about has been trending in the wrong direction since he took to the airwaves. He is very effective at maintaining an audience and making lots of money. Can someone explain what the evidence is for the assertion that he is effective at promoting conservatism?

Mark | 4.23.11 @ 7:48PM

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc much Conor?

Matt X| 4.24.11 @ 1:47AM

Conor,

Where is the evidence that you have persuaded anybody that Rush is a racist or a race baiter? Why don't you take Rush on in the arena of ideas...you don't like conservativism, you support Obama, so defend Obama's politicies, rather than resort to the typical racial politics of liberals.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 4.22.11 @ 10:50PM

Oh, look-that other Concern Troll standby, the correlation is causation fallacy.

Should one apply his argument more generally to every conservative who has been prominent at any time since the late 1980s, or just those of whom he does not approve? If Conservatism has failed for thirty years, does that failure have only one father? And what, may I ask, does our esteemed visitor from the abode of America's most famous amateur OB/GYN believe Conservatism ought to have accomplished?

Joan of Argghh! | 4.22.11 @ 11:01PM

Allow the anecdotal to stand as it is. Rush says and does things that are open to interpretation.

Let's call into witness other anecdotal evidence to the contrary of Conor's conclusions. But first I'd like to know how many persons of color with a long-term friendship with Rush will it take, in Mr. Friedersdor's opinion, to successfully counter his argument? Will Walter Williams do? And if not, why not?

I should like to hear how he would allow for such a standing reproach to his evidence. I myself don't feel qualified to speak to it, myself being white. I can only submit that the testimony of a human relationship over the years must be considered as well. Himself having failed to explore the abundant and contrary evidence to his own premise, why shouldn't we denounce Conor's piece as so much political opportunism?

Matt X| 4.23.11 @ 2:28AM

It's hard to believe this Conor kid is human. He seems like a robot programmed to be obsessed with Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

Matt X| 4.23.11 @ 2:35AM

Conor obsesses over every thing Rush says on the radio, but then he asserts that Rush is not relevant and actually hurts the conversative movement. The kid admits he is not a conservative and it's obvious that he voted for Obama given how defensive is about Rush rightly criticizing the "wise Latina" comment and the Gates professor as a racist. I think most intellectually honest people think Gates is a racist.

Everybody knows Conor is an attention whore trying to piggyback off of Rush's name.

Matt X| 4.23.11 @ 2:39AM

Our hero Conny asserts that Gates is not a racist. But, alas:

A video has surfaced on YouTube of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. delivering a church speech in which he uses the N-word, rails against "racist historically white institutions in America" and accuses Newt Gingrich of attempting to block blacks from entering the middle class.

Gates became a lightning rod of racial controversy when President Obama defended the professor, who was handcuffed outside his home last week by police in Cambridge, Mass.

"We are trying to end what we call the one n-gger syndrome – you know, this place ain't big enough for more than one of us," said Gates in the video, filmed in 1996 in the All Souls Church in Washington, D.C.

"We in the academy have to know that our people, those of us who practice African-American studies, have to know that our people are under assault," Gates said.

He continued: "Newt Gingrich can come in, that Contract for America is serious. You know what those guys have said? 'Somehow, while we were asleep, all you white women and all you black people got into the middle class.'

"'We are not sure how it happened. But the first thing we are going to do is we are going to shake the tree and any of y'all who can't hold on, you're all going back. And the second thing, we are going to set up barriers so no more of you all can get in here.'"

Gates was speaking to the church about his book, "The Future of the Race," which he co-authored with radical black professor Cornel West. Gates was arguing for the continued employment of affirmative action.

"Without affirmative action we would have never been able to integrate racist historically white institutions in American society," Gates said.

"I was able to go to Yale University because they were trying to diversify themselves," he said. "Because of racism I never would have been allowed to compete on a more or less level terrain with white boys and white girls.

"What we're trying to do is end 'your mamma' and 'your daddy criticism,' which is what African-Americans quite frankly have mastered in for 250 years," he said.

In clearly racially divisive remarks, Gates blasted the state of North Carolina, drawing applause when he exclaimed, "I don't even like the airplane to fly over North Carolina."

One audience member pointed out American jazz icon John Coltrane was born in North Carolina.

"Oh, that's true. I'm sorry. I'm sorry," said Gates. "And they got good barbeque, too. So maybe it's OK."

Matt X| 4.23.11 @ 3:08AM

If I were a liberal like Conor F, and I wanted to persuade people that Rush plays on white people's racial anxieties, I don't think I would use Gates, a man that falsely accused a decent white cop of being a racist, as a prop to make this absurd charge.

The reality is Obama does not seem to be uncomfortable around black men like J. Wright and Gates who are racist and have a problem with white people. Even Hillary Clinton said that he wouldn't go to J. Wright's church.

Pete Brown| 4.23.11 @ 5:56PM

25 years ago, when I was 13 I was beat within an inch of my life by a large group of young blacks in DC. I went to a mostly white school in a black neighborhood.

There is much to be said of how the liberals who surrounded me (including my family) reacted to this, but "holding these teenagers accountable for serious, felony assault" was not on the agenda. There was little investigation, and no consequences (we knew who was involved.) For liberals, such behavior among blacks was (and is) just sort of expected (400 years, ya know?).

So when you say there is "widespread agreement on the left and right that black kids should not beat up white kids on buses", well, I'm not saying liberals WANT it to happen, but do they hold all people to the same standards? You're living in la la land if you believe so.

Peg C.| 4.23.11 @ 6:43PM

I followed the feud between Conor F. and Mark Levin for a time on Dan Riehl's blog but quickly decided it was a hideous waste of my time. Conor is no conservative (neither is Brooks or Frum) and the proof is conservatives pay no attention to what he says. It's all hornswaggle. Rush and Mark DEFINE modern conservatism. You either get on board or you throw a temper tantrum about their "raaaaaacism" and wealth and spend your time taking shots at them in order to advance your career. Rush and Mark live rent-free in all the lefties' heads from President Snarly on down.

Incidentally, just because a lefty rag designates a "token conservative" does not mean that person is a conservative. Toss Conor on the same heap as Brooks and Spitzer's Ditzer, among others.

These people are a waste of our time and energies.

Richard McEnroe | 4.23.11 @ 9:21PM

I'd be interested to hear Conor's opinion of the African-American man WHO SITS ACROSS THE DESK FROM RUSH IN THE STUDIO EVERY DAY working with him.

Matt X| 4.24.11 @ 1:53AM

Conor thinks Snerdly is an Uncle Tom. He has to think that, if he thinks Rush race baits white racists.

Peg C.| 4.25.11 @ 9:21AM

Snerdly, the Official Obama Criticizer. :-)

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/22/the-friedersdorf-charade

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|26 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.