Apparently there is a law in Florida against “paramilitary training.” That’s absurd and just plain wrong. If this guy is guilty of conspiring to commit a crime, then charge him with that, but to make paramilitary training per se a crime is outrageous. In fact, since we unfortunately no longer have “well regulated” state militias as we should have, responsible upstanding citizens should be encouraged to paramilitary train. I thought Florida was better than this.
The Daily Beast, like its neoconservative counterparts at the Free Beacon, is a thought-control site that aims to ferret out unapproved opinions. We are supposed to confine ourselves to the McCain/Obama box where the Daily Beast is comfortable. Anyone with opinions outside that box is by definition an “extremist,” and probably kind of crazy. Why else would someone hold an opinion that can’t be found anywhere in the whole three inches separating McCain from Obama?
So I actually laughed out loud when I read this classic thought-control headline: “Exclusive: GOP Senate Candidate Caught Saying States Can Nullify Laws.” (Thanks to Per Bylund for sending the link.)
So wait a minute! You mean someone asked a fundamental question? She must be destroyed, citizen!
Here is the comment I posted at the Daily Beast:
Ummm … the only problem with this article is that states CAN nullify laws. What the “mainstream” thought enforcers here need to ask is did the Framers intend nullification to be an option, and the bulk of the historical evidence suggest that they did. See Tom Woods’ book on the subject.
Below is a Georgia SCV press release:
(Atlanta – June 30, 2014) This month the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans held their 117th Annual Reunion in Columbus and approved the most aggressive heritage platform since the Georgia flag fight more than a decade ago. Coming off several months of increases in membership and finances following the announcement of the Division’s new specialty license plate in Georgia which was featured on every major news outlet in the nation in February, the Sons had the largest attendance in recent history at this year’s reunion. With a membership in Georgia of more than 3,000 men, the Georgia Division is the largest state organisation in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the oldest national heritage organisation in America.
One of the measures adopted at this year’s annual meeting was a new slate of monuments to be erected across the state during the final year of the Sesquicentennial, or 150th anniversary, of the War. For the last several years, the Sons of Confederate Veterans have been actively restoring the original monuments erected in memory of the Confederate soldier around the turn of the twentieth century from one end of the state to another. Now, as restoration of those original monuments continues, new monument projects have been planned as well. Newly elected Georgia Division Commander, Ray McBerry, said, “The new monuments are intended as a reminder to the world that the Southern people have still not forgotten their heroes who withstood a formidable invader even though 150 years have passed and as a promise that they will still be remembered by our people after another 150 years have passed.”
The officers, both elected and appointed, to serve on the Division’s Executive Council met briefly following the Reunion to outline plans to actively engage both supporters and opponents of Southern heritage in Georgia. Topping the list was a plan to bring the idea of a youth summer camp to Georgia, citing the success of the national camp hosted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in one or more states each year. The new proposal will create an annual Southern heritage youth camp to be permanently hosted by the Georgia Division in addition to those hosted by the national headquarters. Other projects that are sure to be popular among Southern heritage enthusiasts include a continuation of the “Flags Across Georgia” project which has produced a number of large Confederate flags along some of Georgia’s most traveled highways and an online grave registry which will catalogue the grave of every Confederate veteran no matter where they are buried.
Finally, the boldest decision announced by the Executive Council is the decision to change the name and scope of the Heritage Defense Committee to the Heritage Action Committee. Bolstered by victories in the last twelve months against both individuals and corporations who have attempted to remove Confederate flags or desecrate graves and monuments, the Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans are now publicly announcing their intention to take the heritage fight to schools, corporations, and government officials which discriminate against Georgians for their display or celebration of Southern heritage, citing both freedom of speech and state and federal laws which not only protect Confederate monuments but also require that the flags and memorials to Confederate soldiers be afforded the same protection under the law as those to any other American veterans.
For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans, please call 404.271.8473 or email via the Contact page at www.GeorgiaSCV.org
Go Venice … Go Venice … (Picture me saying this as I do a happy dance.)
Once upon a time, the meaning of the term “constitutional” was understood as “what powers the federal government is given.” But thanks largely to the legacy of the president whose birthday it is today, that term now means “what subjects of the United States are permitted to do.”
Think I’m wrong? Check out this story on yet another DC power grab:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not provide an abortion-rights alternative was unconstitutional.
The ruling is the third time one of the Republican-led General Assembly’s abortion laws has been struck down over the past three years.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina.
“Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’” Wynn wrote.
Now there are certain extremists (me, for example) who think the First Amendment, like all the Bill of Rights, defined clear limitations to federal power. Those dangerous extremists would argue the sovereign State of North Carolina not only has the final say on what it puts on the license tags it issues, but would go on to say that North Carolina can adopt any slogan it wants, no matter who in DC disapproves. These days, however, all reasonable and moderate people know the Constitution makes DC sovereign. So it’s only natural that DC tells the people of the States what they can and cannot do.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a private Catholic school is being sued by a cafeteria worker claiming he should be allowed to work at that school despite his homosexuality. He’s in a “same-sex marriage,” and the school, which upholds traditional Catholic values, does not want to be seen as endorsing that man’s lifestyle.
But as NPR reporter Tovia Smith observes in her story, “Ultimately the question of how much leeway religious organizations have in hiring will be answered by the Supreme Court.”
Get that? We must look to the federal government to learn “how much leeway” will be permitted.
Notice that the political doctrine being enforced here is that DC views “rights” as belonging to the individual, not to the States or religious institutions.
So when libertarians claim their ideology is the best weapon in resisting an authoritarian federal government, ask how that is possible when they hold the same central belief that justifies that government’s endless expansion into our lives.
Here is a Mike Church column from the Daily Caller. Recall that we reported below that Church now has a regular column with the DC. The essay’s primary point is about the nature of the “Union,” which Church correctly points out is no longer the type of Union the Framers had in mind. But he also throws in a couple of shots about enumerated powers and moral decline, the latter perhaps distinguishing him from some more libertarian types. This is all quite subversive by mainstream conservative standards. I told you Mike Church is one of the good guys. We’ll see how long he can keep his job.
Today is the birthday of a great man, Robert E. Lee, a man whose birthday used to be widely celebrated in the Southern states and beyond. Here is an excellent article from the vault on the politically correct attack on a true Southern hero and gentleman.
Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:
This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.
Here is a tweet from Mike Church, a Constitutionalist radio host on Sirius/XM. (I don’t know how to post one of those pictures of a tweet, so this is just cut and pasted.)
Mike Church?@TheKingDude 26 Nov
The subjugation of @jackhunter74 aka The Southern Avenger is complete after Politico apologia & now http://www.southernavenger.com is shuttered
This is enlightening. I knew Mike Church was a strict Constitutionalist and advocated nullification and secession, but I didn’t know that he resists PC. This is good to know.
Here is a column by Alexander Hart on Jack Hunter’s recent Politico apology. Unfortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, but based on what you can view for free, he doesn’t think much of Jack’s attempt to re-enter polite mainstream con company. If anyone here is a premium member of VDARE, let us know the details.
Update: An old friend sent me the whole article. The article links to this PC movie review that Jack did prior to the Politico mea culpa.
Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies. Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.
I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.
So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.
I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.
When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.
I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.
That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence. I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.
His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”
My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.
So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.
I can’t make this stuff up. Michael Cushman, to prove that America is a proposition nation, quotes George W. Bush.
Since everyone won’t be able to see the link here is the George W. quote he is using. It is from Bush’s 1st inaugural address.
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens.
It really don’t know what Cushman is trying to prove. Does he really think citing George W. Bush helps his case?
For those who don’t follow these matters, there has been an ongoing feud between what I am calling the “New Direction Caucus” in the League of the South and some of us who have been alarmed by some things about this New Direction. I have been planning to address the issue here, but haven’t had the time recently, but I now see that Michael Cushman, who is the clear leader of this New Direction Caucus, has engaged me by name at his website. This is a good thing. These issues need to be debated openly. I will work on a reply. For now I will let the Cushman’s article stand on its own. Please read the article, read my comments, and then read the entire comment section of the post where my comments were taken from to understand the argument.
I don’t want to go into a lot of details about what the debate is about, since I plan a separate post (several really) on the issue, but briefly at issue is whether the US was conceived as a deliberate Enlightenment egalitarian experiment from its inception. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Cushman believes it was. I say it wasn’t. (There is more to the problem with the New Direction Caucus than just this. There are a suite of interrelated issues and attitudes, but more on that later.)
I think my position stands on its own if you read the comment section. I don’t have any issue with the way Cushman characterizes my position. In fact, oddly, he doesn’t really attempt to counter my position. He doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that my history is faulty and his is accurate. He simply states his alternative. He seems to be primarily motivated by the fact that he believes that his conceptualization is more useful, not more accurate. He calls it a position of strength. But it’s not a position of strength if it’s wrong.
Please read the links and then give me your thoughts.
Here’s my report on the Nullify Now! conference held over the weekend in Raleigh. What fun!
This American Spectator review of Rich Lowry’s recent on Lincoln starts by saying:
Rich Lowry answers the question all Republicans should be asking: What would Lincoln do today?
Yeah Rich and the rest of the Lincoln syncophants, what would Lincoln do today? He would send troops to arrest his political opponents like Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center which advocates nullification, and Tom Woods who wrote a book about nullification, and the League of the South secessionists who will be protesting immigration in Tennessee next month, and all those Red State residents who signed secession petitions after Obama was re-elected, etc.
Check out the comments. I love how you can no longer write pro-Lincoln propaganda on conservative websites any longer without getting called out. Unless the “conservative” site tightly supresses dissent. We are making progress.
Colin Powell spoke out forcefully Thursday against a sweeping new voting law in North Carolina, arguing that Republicans should be courting minority voters rather than driving them away from the polls. …
North Carolina’s Democratic senator, Kay Hagan, has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to review the law and a survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed that half of Tar Heel State voters are opposed to the measure.
Powell, who endorsed President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, has addressed his party’s problems with minorities before. In January, he said that he still considers himself a Republican but acknowledged the presence of “a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party.”
He revisited that theme in a big way on Thursday, arguing that measures like North Carolina’s voting law punish minority voters.
“What it really says to the minority voters is … ‘We really are sort-of punishing you,’” Powell said, as quoted by The News & Observer.
Kay Hagan, you may not know, is the junior senator from the District of Columbia, though her salary is paid for by the people of North Carolina. That may sound strange, but that’s how government “of the people” works. But then, thanks to the 17th Amendment, EVERY US senator represents DC’s interests.
I hope NC Governor Pat McCrory tells Holder to go jump in a lake should this most biased and blatantly agenda-driven attorney general decide to intrude into North Carolina’s affairs. But I’m not that optimistic. Pat’s a carpetbagger, as well as a country-club Republican, so I don’t expect much from him.
Well, it looks like the PC Thought Police have another scalp. I was just about to make a post on another development in the Jack Hunter saga (that post will follow). In that post I was going to predict that while Hunter might make it through this episode, he wouldn’t be on Rand’s staff by 2016. At that point I didn’t know he had resigned. So I guess he didn’t even make it through this episode.
More proof that the PC Beast can not be appeased so there is no sense in trying. The PC Beast must be resisted.
Hunter continues to backtrack even in his resignation. Not only is he resigning from Rand’s satff, he is also resigning from his Southern Avenger persona. I suspect he is trying to maintain his viability as a pundit.
Hunter told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he wanted to avoid being a distraction for Paul and to clear his own name, which he argues is now unfairly associated with racism.
A senior Paul aide confirmed Hunter’s departure.
“I’ve long been a conservative, and years ago, a much more politically incorrect (and campy) one,” Hunter said in an email. “But there’s a significant difference between being politically incorrect and racist. I’ve also become far more libertarian over the years, a philosophy that encourages a more tolerant worldview, through the lens of which I now look back on some of my older comments with embarrassment.”
The Jack Hunter fiasco fall-out continues. Now it has completely finished off Rand Paul as well. Someone please give Rand a Testosterone injection. He is clearly running low. For those who have argued that Rand Paul was just making rhetorical concessions as part of “playing the game” but was still stealthily one of us, I thought that argument lost credibility when
1) he babbled PC platitudes before a Howard University audience, or
2) spouted PC immigration boosterism before a Hispanic organization, or
3) offered Israel a security guarantee to placate the neocons (You see how well that worked out don’t you?)
“I’m not a fan of secession,” Paul told Fineman. “I think the things he said about John Wilkes Booth are absolutely stupid. I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.”
I actually don’t doubt that Rand Paul still stealtily holds views very similar to his father’s. That is the impression he gave when he stumped for his father in 2008, before he ran for Senate, but what good do those stealth views do for us? Does anyone think that Rand is going to stealthily get himself elected to the White House and then on day one declare “Ha! I fooled you!” and start vetoing all unconstitutional spending (almost all of it), or shutter the Fed, or grant the South a free pass to leave the Union? At best he is going to marginally tax less, marginally spend less, and marginally pull back on our foreign policy adventurism, because he has talked himself into a corner. So we pay slightly less in taxes and the country financially collapses in 2035 instead of 2030. Whoopee!
This is why I have such an aversion to rhetorical concessions. I don’t have a problem with stylistic concessions. I don’t have a problem massaging how you say certain things. I don’t have a problem with “playing the game” (competing in a GOP primary or being active in the party for example) to a degree. I don’t have a problem conceding the political reality as it actually is on the ground. In fact, I have always been very realistic about the sorry state of our present political reality.
It is partially because our reality is so sorry that rhetoric matters so much. Because at this point it’s all we got. Therefore we have to be willing to wage the rhetorical battle and make some headway there before the political battle will matter. When a national politician with Presidential aspirations can say to a HuffPo reporter “Darn right I think Lincoln was a tyrant and secession is a perfectly legal option! If I didn’t I wouldn’t be a propper conservative.” and the “right” doesn’t go into spastic denunciations, then we will have made some progress.
At this point, ours is primarily a rhetorical battle whether everyone wants to accept this fact or not.
Note: For those who say we are overdoing the Hunter story, you’re wrong. Fighting the PC Thought Police is the field of battle right now.
The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.
Here is the Washington Free Beacon
fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:
Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is email@example.com.
Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:
But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.
A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)
Salon piles on here.
What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.
Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.
I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.