kevin williamson nro chief or decepticon chief?

kevin williamson nro chief or decepticon chief?

Kevin Williamson, NRO, Freedom News


Kevin Williamson- Decepticon In Chief At The NRO- Collier brothers


Kevin Williamson NRO Chief invokes summer blockbuster hit- FREEDOM NEWS:


The Transformers is a big hit and features groups of robots that transform from cars and planes and what-not into towering super-robots. One group, the bad guys, are called “Decepticons” because they deceive others and use that to get in close and either subvert or just destroy their prey.
It would appear that people who use the label “conservative” and who worm their way into conservative institutions  to then cloak their Progressivism in conservative lingo have taken their cue from this TV-show-turned-movie! Chief among them, from the high perch of what had been deemed the conservative voice of record, The National Review, is Decepticon In Chief, Kevin Williamson!
Take, for instance, Kevin’s recent stance on Gay Marriage:
Kevin Williamson NRO- “My own preference is to make marriage an entirely private affair and to remove the icy hand of politics from the marriage bed entirely. Marriage should be a strong, enforceable contract negotiated between the contracting parties; if the parties sought to have their union blessed by a religious authority, then the contract would have to comport with the rules spelled out by that authority. This would, incidentally, give the Catholic Church far greater actionable authority over the marital practices of Catholics than does the current system, and the same would be true for other religious congregations. If traditional modes of life really are self-evidently preferable to contemporary libertinism, then they should be able to compete in the marketplace of ideas.”
For Kevin “politics” should be “removed” from the “marriage bed.” Politics is simply policy, and if the state, which should be a creature of the popular sentiment, has no interest in upholding the sentiment and values of the People, then the state itself is perfectly useless and has no legitimacy. If the state is not able to protect, through laws if need be, the “way of life” of the People who form it, then what good is it to even have a state?
We’ll see that Williamson is saying one thing in public, and seems to be saying something else in “private” via Twitter. In public, Williamson is trying to sound reasonable, mature, and philosophical, and he seems to be trying to say “I am for traditional marriage, but I don’t think the state should be involved in defining marriage.”
In private, we will see, he treats those who use the Bible as the basis of their opposition to  gay marriage like they are stupid, he even questions the very notion that God can speak to us through the Bible and treats this long-held belief among Christians as something preposterous!
The long and short of it is that Williamson’s argument for an “anything goes” social agenda is NOT the conservative argument, as evidenced, for instance, by the following:
“The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side….
“The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than “newness”) and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).”
This is, in fact, the premise behind The National Review, not to bend to the “culture” but to positively state the conservative position, regardless of what the pop-culture elites or media pundits say, in a truthful, up-front, and unambiguous manner. Conservatives oppose so-called gay marriage as an affront to real marriage, as something that can and will lead to social ills (actions have consequences), as a corrupting influence on young people, and as an effort to compel people to “accept” a way of life that they genuinely see as immoral on human and godly grounds.
Look at how California, which now has “gay marriage” by judicial fiat, is pushing a curriculum in schools that teaches little kids about the gay and lesbian, even transgender, lifestyle. For those parents who genuinely believe such behaviors are immoral, dangerous, and godless, the state says “tough luck.” Why? Because, now that there is “gay marriage” it is as “unacceptable” to speak against homosexuality as a sin as it is to hold racist views!
Kevin seems to be trying to avoid being directly for gay marriage by making an argument for getting the state out of marriage, and argues that the culture wants gay marriage, so we have no choice. Williamson ignores the role that laws play in shaping culture and the fact that in every popular referendum gay marriage is defeated.
It seems to us that either Williamson is going weak at the knees on this issue and turning against the Conservative cause or, and we think more probably, he is not a Conservative at all and his presence as a deputy editor at the National Review indicates that the National Review has become apostate.
In public, from the very (virtual) pages of The National Review, Kevin seems to argue for “it’s gonna happen anyway, we might as well just learn to accept it” but he tips his hand and reveals his methodology of trying to “nudge” his agenda under the Conservative tent by his tweets to people who reacted to his proposal that we, Conservatives, reduce marriage and the very notion of marriage to a “free market” where “different” ideas on marriage “compete.”
When he thinks that nobody is watching, his approach to the issue of “gay marriage” sounds markedly different from his approach in his online article.
Even in his online article, we see a man who is writing with the imprimatur of the National Review and directly contradicting the purpose of that august conservative organ, especially where it comes to the “organic moral order” which William F. Buckley strongly defended, and which is, like it or not, a hallmark of conservatism. Kevin Williamson tweeted a link to his NRO piece which sought to undermine and de-legitimize traditional marriage: 

Kevin Williamson NRO: “KevinNR Gay marriage: Where do we put the sidewalks?  about 17 hours ago”
What we see later is that Kevin doesn’t like Christians as much as he likes taxes.
A respondent named “Sahar” is against gay marriage and said so to Kevin, who tried to act like he was sort of against it but not legally, or some such muddled thing, in his article-
sahar770 @McCormackJohn @KevinNR, I am so against it. We are really making God mad.
about 17 hours ago in reply to McCormackJohn
Our closet Progressive replied to this, thus revealing his REAL closet feelings about the issue-
KevinNR @sahar770 @McCormackJohn Do you hear from Him regularly? Does he regularly reveal His feelings to you? Presumption is still a sin, isn’t it?
So according to Kevin, it is “presumptuous:” and therefore “a sin” to repeat to others what God says in His Word about “homosexuality” (that it is a “sin”), while the ACTUAL act of homosexuality is not the real sin!

One wonders, would Kevin write that in the National Review and, if he did, would the powers that be over there condone it, and thus further tarnish their Conservative Bona Fides?


In short, does this sound like any real Conservative?
Sahar770 responds to Kevin’s cheap shot and Kevin is told that if you read the Bible it will speak to you, something most Christians embrace as a matter of course-
”sahar770 @KevinNR @McCormackJohn, read the Bible and know it’s essence and he will speak to you too.” Here is his nasty and rather dismissive response- 

”KevinNR @sahar770 @McCormackJohn I do, which is why I don’t think God can be simplistically and crudely reduced. But if you have some Lotto tips … about 16 hours ago in reply to sahar770”

Spoken like a true Decepticon, Kevin, a Decepticon In Chief!


Spoken like a true Decepticon!


More On Kevin Williamson NRO- FREEDOM NEWS:


Kevin Williamson NRO- From FREEDOMIST- expose on conservative champion of regulations and government planning

Kevin Williamson NRO- From FREEDOMIST- expose on conservative champion of regulations and government planning 0 comments Posted on 16th June 2011 by in Feeds |Tweets kevin williamson, Kevin Williamson NRO, national review online, nro Kevin Williamson NRO- the magic unicorn #kevin #williamson #nr

The False Prophet of the National Review Online Part 3- Kevin Williamson

Kevin Williamson says Supply-Siders believe in magic unicorns, but this latest photo of him as a magic unicorn touting the "managing for results" credo of Progressives has us puzzled.

Kevin Williamson, false prophet of the NRO, likes to call people, including his own boss it seems, “infantile” for rejecting the “managing for results” credo of Progressive elites in DC.


The False Prophet of the National Review Online Part 2- Kevin Williamson Exposed

Kevin Williamson as Leviathan- "Managing For Results"

Kevin Williamson of National Review is sussed out for his progressive underpinnings


The False Prophet of the National Review Online

Kevin Williamson of the NRO denies the Supply-Side Boom of the Reagan years!

Part One- The False Prophet of Doom? William R Collier Jr.- Has The NRO’s Kevin Williamson become a false prophet, falling for the trap laid by the Progressive machine? Here’s the gist of Kevin Williamson’s apostasy- we can’t reduce the deficit or the debt without raising taxes and to even try for a 5% growth […]


5% Growth: Not Magical Unicorns, The Return of Gazelles

Advocates of robust economic growth are very used to being ridiculed by those who say it cannot be done. Reagan was ridiculed (“voodoo economics”) for his prescription of lower tax rates and a strong dollar. That growth recipe, when adopted despite the ridicule, propelled the Dow Jones Industrial Average from around 900 (no typo) to […]