News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:
From David French:
In recent months, Republican Governors like Gregg Abbott have continued their cruel campaign against parents who pursue constitutionally-protected avenues for cleaning their children. Yet isn’t a beautiful child, thrown into a Maytag for a heavy spin cycle because of the aligned desires of parents, children, and caregivers acting in good faith, precisely what our constitution was designed to protect? Even if conservatives are “uncomfortable” with the idea of drowning an infant in a washing machine, does the constitution allow them to impose their narrow values on parents who, in good faith, feel otherwise? As the beating heart and soul of true conservatism whose courageous boots have touched Iraqi sand, my answer is an emphatic “probably not.”
For as long as parents have shared the blessings of liberty with their children, there has been opposition from regressive, fearful conservatives. From the ancient near eastern parents who had the courage to let their children pass through the fire as an offering to Moloch in good faith, to the Jonestown parents who had their children drink kool-aid in good faith, to parents who had their kids’ prepubescent ovaries removed in good faith, hateful naysayers have never been in short supply. Why? I’m not sure, but I know it can’t be a good-faith instinct to protect children. More than likely, it’s a cold, calculated grasp for power perpetuated by Christian Supremacists.
Consider these hypothetical government intrusions and my point will become clear. If we set the precedent of protecting children from parents who would toss them in a washing machine, where else would state intervention crop up? Would men who batter women in good faith face having their rights revoked? Would parents who starve and beat a child face having their judgment questioned by intrusive government officials? History teaches the same lesson: Was the government wrong to stop good-faith slave owners from carrying on with their chattel slavery? These are questions we must answer with principle and clarity, not with emotion and obfuscation, and our answer must be a resounding “maybe.”
Do I want Boston Children’s Hospital to dedicate the new David French Blessings Of Liberty Gender Surgery wing to me? Maybe. Do I want doctors to call their double-mastectomy procedure on young girls the “David French Special,” with the coupon code “DISPATCH” entitling them to a half-off surgery? Maybe. Do I want to keep writing my columns, earning acceptance from a godless culture that hates me, my peers, and my God? Yes. Yes, I do.
I will keep to my conservative principles, even if it costs me nothing.
Go here to read the rest.
None of it is up for debate or parental consent.
The thing is your philosopher kings’ position is just try to oppose your child’s second grade teacher and medical ‘professionals’ [grave robbers come to mind] with purple hair and more piercing than St. Sebastian] daily attempts at convincing the child to mutilate her/his body/temple of the Holy Spirit, you are the BAD person.
The inmates are in firm control of the asylum.
The internet is undefeated, again. David French is a cuckold of the highest order. It’s sad to see his desperate attempt to have someone on the Left love him.
There are a number of biographical anomalies about French for which I’ve never seen an explanation. (Quick, how did he get into Harvard, who financed his time there, why did he relocate from the east coast to Kentucky, and why did he quit practicing law?). It’s perfectly plain at this point that he’s a shill. That does not explain the whole of NeverTrump discourse (David Frum and George Will are independently wealthy). It does explain a great deal. The Sulzbergers are buying some of these people, Pierre Omidyar some others, Bezos some others. I don’t think the current funding sources of National Review and The Dispatch have been sussed out, but we have every reason to believe there are lots of creepy crawlies there too.
He looks like a fudgepacker.
JMJ +1
I’m not seeing it. Also, he’s been married for nearly thirty years and has three children (one adopted). He’s not impressive as a speaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8VW5BdDQU8
He does strike one as the sort of person whose company no one else would enjoy.
I remember in 2016 Bill Kristol spent some time hyping up an alternative “true conservative” candidate who Republicans would flock to instead of Donald Trump. When I heard the announcement that it was David French of all people, I actually laughed for a good minute.
Even at that point David French was obviously a shill. Is there even a single person who takes him seriously seven years later?
“Even at that point David French was obviously a shill. Is there even a single person who takes him seriously seven years later?”
You mean other than French Himself, and Kristol, right? ;)) Probably not.
French is some poser who managed to find a job writing at The American Conservative….which is not a conservative website.
French is some poser who managed to find a job writing at The American Conservative….which is not a conservative website.
He’s never written for The American Conservative, at least during the time period covered by their archives. He’s written for National Review and, more recently, The Dispatch</>. There have been three articles about French in recent years in TAC and he’s frequently mentioned there. He doesn’t write for them.