Japan to Host First Asia CPAC Conference

CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action Conference, is going global. It was revealed recently that the annual conservative confab annually held in D.C. every winter — with occasional regional stops— is being held in Japan from December 16-17, 2017.

Per translations, the conference touts the following principles: “Freedom and the Rule of Law”; “Security and Technology”; “Economic Growth and Deregulation”; “Intellectual Property”; and “Family Values.”

The main reason for holding Japan CPAC? Their website expounds on this:

During the eight years in the Obama administration, the situation in Asia has changed dramatically. China actively acts to expand its military facilities in the South China Sea while at the same time North Korea continues to conduct nuclear development and missile tests for nuclear warhead loading. On the other hand, the United States has greatly reduced its influence in East Asia. 

In Japan, strategic acquisitions of corporate stocks, etc. related to natural resources such as real estate by China capital and underground water source are continuing. Also, in the United States, acquisitions related to businesses from companies controlled by the Chinese government, from American pop culture such as theaters and movie production companies to industrial equipment, home electronics manufacturers and hotels are continuing.

 China’s attempt to acquire a foothold in the US financial market through the acquisition of the Chicago Board of Trade by a state-owned investment company is currently being investigated by the Trump regime. These acquisitions are not merely capitalistic transactions, but rather that China is not part of a big attempt to gain economic and military benefits to enemies, including the United States and Japan Cow.
During the presidential election campaign last year, Donald J. Trump candidates took a tough stance toward China’s unfair trade practices and illegal territory expansion. Immediately after winning the election, he broke the Protocol decades ago and President Trump has received a telephone call from Tsai Inge of Taiwan.

ACU believes that Japan plays an important role as the foundation of stability in Asia, and strong aggressive economic power of Japan and the United States and appropriate defense capability, especially China’s aggressive attempt to dominate worldwide We believe that it is important to develop defense capability to counterbalance against the situation.

At J-CPAC 2017 hosted by the Executive Committee of J-CPAC 2017, J-CPAC 2017 sponsored by these two themes focuses on freedom and rule of law, security and technology, economic growth and deregulation, intellectual property, families Focusing on five topics, such as prosperity, discussions will be held.

It was pointed out by Daily Beast reporter Betsy Woodruff, who tweeted the following:


If you’re curious to learn more about J-CPAC, follow them on Twitter and Facebook. Our CPAC will be held at the Gaylord Hotel and Resort in National Harbor, MD from February 21-24, 2017.

Could this coincide with President Trump’s visit to Japan and subsequent meetings with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe? Perhaps! This will be very interesting to and we at The Resurgent will keep tabs on this first non-American CPAC.


Glenn Thrush’s New York Times Article Distorts What Donald Trump Said

It may very well be that this was Glenn Thrush’s editor’s fault, but his article in the New York Times about Donald Trump’s CPAC speech really distorts something the President said. In fact, it distorts it in such a way that the only reason I know about it is that a friend who is a Trump critic sent it to me. Even he notes that though he does not care for the President, the change in the article is “shameful.” In fact, my friend wrote, “I hate Trump and his policies on immigrants but this is a bullsh*t rip quote by Thrush.”

Here is the article from Glenn Thrush, and this is the portion in question where you will notice what part is not in quotation marks from Trump’s speech.

His speech also included a promise to throw undocumented immigrants “the hell out of the country” and a recitation of his law-and-order campaign promises.

But that is not what Donald Trump said and, frankly, given all the concerns about Trump’s immigration position you would think that the New York Times would be noting accurately what Trump did say as a walk back from his past position.

Yes, it is true that in the past Donald Trump has said he was going to throw all illegal aliens out of the country. But at CPAC he did not say that. Here is what he actually said.

By stopping the flow of illegal immigration, we will save countless tax dollars. That’s so important because the dollars that we’re losing are beyond anything that you can imagine. And the tax dollars that can be used to rebuild struggling American communities, including our inner cities. We are also going to save countless American lives. As we speak today, immigration officers are finding the gang members, the drug dealers, and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country. And we will not let them back in. They’re not coming back in, folks. They do, they’re going to have bigger problems than they ever dreamed of.

I realize that the President started the speech with a reference to “illegal immigration,” but when it came to “throwing them the hell out of our country,” he was not talking about all illegal aliens. He was specifically talking about “gang members, the drug dealers, and the criminal aliens,” which is something more precise. It is a refinement of Trump’s campaign statements. It is what Barack Obama claimed he was doing.

Thrush sayins the President meant that about “undocumented immigrants” in general distorts what the President said and the focus of law enforcement right now. That matters because the media has perpetuated a bit of hysteria that Trump was rounding up grandmothers right now and tossing them from the country. Based on what is actually happening and by even what the President said, that is not true.

In an age where the media is concerned about fake news, precision matters more than ever. It was not precise to say Trump’s quote applied to “undocumented immigrants” when it pertained only to a specific class — those with criminal records.

Given that Glenn Thrush was twice discovered in the Clinton related email links and portrayed as a Clinton sycophant in the press among conservative media, on top of the distrust already shown to the New York Times by both Republicans in general and the Trump administration in particular, these sorts of distorted generalizations do nothing to earn back media credibility.

Arnn at CPAC 2017

At CPAC, Hillsdale College President Discusses Conservatism and Trump

There are few affiliations of which I am prouder than my relationship with Hillsdale College. Its small, beautiful campus in rural Michigan is juxtaposed by the enormous power it projects across the nation, especially within the conservative movement.

Yesterday, Hillsdale College President, Dr. Larry Arnn, addressed CPAC about the nature of conservatism and what he believes Trump must do to claim himself as a conservative.

Arnn is a personal mentor and friend of mine so I am far from objective, but I believe the content of his speech is incredibly important and deserves a full view.

Through his speech, Dr. Arnn lays out the argument that today’s administrative state poses a direct threat, possibly the greatest threat, to the conservation of America’s founding principles.

While he applauds President Trump’s antagonism towards that administrative colossus, Arnn also makes clear that his agreement on this area of policy does not constitute a blanket endorsement:

The college campus where I work is not really wracked by the politics of the day, but the Trump Campaign has presented special challenges. Because there’s obviously a lot of things that are really great about that guy, but we don’t teach our students at Hillsdale College to act the way he does on all occasions.

He also acknowledges that whether or not Trump is a conservative will be judged by the actions he takes as days go by.

So what is first, original, the principle, what would you conserve about America? I think you can’t understand the importance of Trump and what one hopes he’s going to do until he answers that question.

In describing the Declaration of Independence, Arnn discusses the nature of self-evident truths and true meaning of equality:

It says that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. What does self-evident mean? Does it mean that everybody agrees with it? What does equal mean? Look around in here, everybody is different, so in what way equal? Well, the document says, ‘all human.’ Different from every other kind of creature in that respect. That principle and shining respect. Some are taller, some are shorter. Some are darker, some are lighter. Some are smarter, some are dumber. Some are lazy, some are industrious. All Human. And in that respect, we have the same rights.

That equality and the constitutionally defined form of government our Founder’s gave us are then the two primary areas where conservatives must focus their conservatory force.

At the close of Arnn’s speech, he lays out the necessity of breaking up the power of today’s administrative state, details why he is hopeful about Trump’s promises to tear it down and what the President must do to be judged a conservative:

If you think all that. If you get up in the morning and you’ve studied that all your life, as I happen to have done, and you see all of these [agencies] and the things going on in them, that are not at all constitutional. If you see that, and you see somebody running for president, and even if he talks about himself too much, if he’s fearless in saying that he’s going to cut back that vast hedge that has come and overcome so much of our country. And if he does that fearlessly and is not afraid of political correctness, I think that guy’s a conservative. And I think we ought to be that too.


Pence: Time to Wake Up From Obamacare Nightmare

Vice President Mike Pence didn’t mince any words when he addressed CPAC on Thursday, making it clear that when it comes to repealing and replacing the Unaffordable Care Act, the Trump administration would not settle for any half-baked measures:

Let me assure you, America’s Obamacare nightmare is about to end, despite the best efforts of liberal activists at town halls around the country. The American people know better. Obamacare has failed, and Obamacare must go.


We’ll have an orderly transition to a better health-care system that finally puts the American people first.

If this all sounds familiar, it’s only because the GOP has been campaigning on repeal since this monstrosity was signed into law seven years ago.  It’s also a big reason why the GOP took back the House in 2010, followed by the Senate in 2014.

So why the urgency to bring it all up again at CPAC?  Well, with all the leftist astroturfing taking place at Republican town hall meetings across the country, some rallying of the troops is in order.  But it’s also pretty obvious that Pence fired a warning shot at the GOP-controlled Congress, which has been sending mixed signals about its own determination to repeal Obamacare.  That kind of wish-washyness was perfectly encapsulated by former House speaker and all-around surrender monkey John Boehner when he told Politico that no way, no how would Republicans repeal the law.

Thankfully, as Ted Cruz said,  “The last I checked, Boehner doesn’t have a vote anymore.”  But Boehner is still representative of that wing of the GOP that can’t quite get its head around the fact that they are in control.  Maybe it’s just because they can’t shake the loser mentality after eight years of Barack Obama–but I think it’s more likely that they’re just plain scared.  It was one thing sending the White House repeal after repeal, knowing that the president would veto every time. It’s quite another to send a repeal to Donald Trump, knowing that he’ll sign it.  Repeal means taking responsibility.  Certain factions in the GOP, whose default position is to cringe, are now balking at that.

Democrats, meanwhile, know full well that Republicans are toast if they don’t deliver on repeal.  That’s why they’ve been pouring so much effort into these town halls.  They figure if they can scare individual members enough, Congress will drag things out and water things down so much that voters will abandon them in disgust.  In this, the Democrats are correct.  That’s what makes immediate repeal and replace not only good for the country, but essential for the GOP as well.

Mike Pence knows that.  Let’s hope that Congress gets the message too.

What They Will and Will Not Accept

I have to be honest that I have never understood the Milo Yiannopoulos phenomenon. I just assumed there was a well paid PR person somewhere manufacturing a personality from whole cloth. But he has undeniably captured people’s imaginations, generated a storm of controversy, and gotten lots of attention for himself.

I opposed the American Conservative Union’s decision to let Milo speak at CPAC because Milo himself has said he is not a conservative and I do not think the values he represents in their totality reflect well on the conservative movement. Milo’s affiliation with the alt-right should have been enough to disqualify him from an invitation and while I applaud ACU rescinding that invitation, I still they think should rescind the employment of whichever staff members were involved in offering him the keynote.

We know now the line at which the ACU will rescind an invitation, but we still do not know at which point they will consider an invitation. Being a conservative should be the start of that conversation.1

Concurrently, Milo had a book deal with Simon and Schuster. There was a ton of controversy about the deal when it was first announced and I defended Simon and Schuster for publishing the book. I think it is stupid now for them to walk away. It is not like they didn’t know what they were getting.

To be clear, both ACU and Simon and Schuster are private entities. They are not engaging in censorship, but business decisions. They have every right to walk away and I am sure Milo will find another publisher.

In the book publisher’s initial statement, the company defended publication saying

“While we are cognizant that many may disagree vehemently with the books we publish, we note that the opinions expressed therein belong to our authors, and do not reflect either a corporate viewpoint or the views of our employees.”

They lost some of their authors, but I suspect they concluded that the bottom line would be offset by Milo’s book. I get the sense now that their position in canceling the book is not one of conviction, but one of profit. I suspect they now calculate that they will not be able to sell enough of Milo’s books to make back a $250,000.00 advance.

Simon and Schuster has courted controversy in its publications and has sponsored “Banned Books Week” to highlight controversial authors and banned books. But upon review, it appears they celebrate controversial left-of-center audiences, including publishing books about teenage gay relationships. With Milo cast as a figure of the right, the market for his book is already limited and outside the appeal of even many employees of his publisher. Now, with conservatives in an uproar over his remarks, his viable market is reduced even further.

The instructive situation here is what people will accept and not accept. ACU was perfectly willing to give a platform to a man who says he is not conservative and who has a history of highly inflammatory remarks about Jews, Nazis, etc. But they were not willing to accept someone who does all that and makes comments interpreted by many as endorsing pedophilia, though Milo denies that is what his comments amount to.

Simon and Schuster was willing to lose other authors and withstand negative PR all in the name of free speech until this latest controversy.

Both ACU and Simon and Schuster were perfectly happy to take the hits by welcoming a controversial figure who says controversial things, but both are now feigning shock and outrage by the same controversial figure saying something else controversial.

Let us not get confused and think there is any principle here. Both were happy to use Milo when they thought it would suit their bottom lines and both were happy to ditch him when they thought it would hurt their bottom lines.

In all of this, what is lost is that it is much easier these days to get attention, fame, and fortune from casting aside basic decency in favor of trolling and incendiary remarks. But that attention, fame, and fortune are all the more unstable and fleeting.

Milo got blown up by his own words and deeds. ACU and Simon and Schuster just hoped to cash in before it happened and now they cannot. Neither now are taking a heroic stand and neither need be applauded.

1. It is worth noting that my friend Ned Ryun, on the board of ACU, was vocally opposed to Milo’s invitation once it was announced and before any of the latest information came out. He was opposed for the reasons other conservatives were opposed and was later joined by folks like John Eddy from the ACU board. People making a principled stand should be applauded.

NEW: Trump Will Speak at CPAC

Now that Milo Yiannopoulos is out, we have learned that President Trump will speak at CPAC this year. The Hill reported Monday morning:

At the conference, Trump will join an already-full list of White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, as well as Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who will take the stage together on Thursday.

I’m still smarting from the decision by ACU to invite Milo to begin with. It was a bonehead move worthy of a group that decided suicide would be better than actual conservative thought.

We will now dispense with further discussion of Milo Yiannopoulos. He was banned from Twitter, and now he should be banned from all social discourse and political discussion. The man is a disgusting cipher, a sexual predator, and, as I wrote earlier, a self-aggrandizing ass.

The most interesting talk to me will be Steve Bannon. He’s the most enigmatic of Trump’s senior team–the MSM can’t seem to figure him out, other than to make a monster of him. I’ll definitely want to hear what Bannon has to say; hopefully it will be substantive on policy, not the anti-PC, evil media shtick he’s proffered so far.

And it’s always good to hear from Ted Cruz, anytime, anywhere. Carry on, CPAC, but you’re on double-secret probation now.


I have been a critic of CPAC for some time. It is mostly driven by sponsors who pay money who then get to set an agenda that is not always conservative. It has become more the Republican Political Action Conference than the Conservative Political Action Conference. But because CPAC is so identified with the conservative movement, occasionally conservatives should stand up and speak about its controversies. CPAC is run by the American Conservative Union (“ACU”), which in the past has lobbied for non-conservative positions because people in its leadership were paid lobbyists supporting the liberal position.

Likewise, sometimes ACU is blamed for supporting a position because the head of ACU is lobbying for a particular position. It provides convenience for different groups in that they can hire the lobbyist running ACU at the time to support a position, note he is the head of the ACU so it must be conservative, but then everyone can say ACU didn’t actually endorse the position when conservative realize their movement is being scammed.

A good example was when the former head of ACU lobbied on behalf of UPS and its union arrangement against FedEx, which did not use unions. FedEx was able to compete more effectively and the head of the ACU at the time was arguing against FedEx taking advantage of the free market. Likewise, we have seen leaders of ACU support the “Marketplace Fairness Act,” which has been pushed by Walmart and other retailers to raise taxes on Internet-based competitors. We’ve even seen ACU stand with former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter in the past.

This year, CPAC has invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak. Matt Schlapp, the head of the ACU, notes that Yiannopoulos is being asked to speak because of all the controversies on college campuses where the left is trying to deny Yiannopoulos the opportunity to speak. The invitation is about rebutting political correctness and defending free speech.

But would CPAC let Kimberly Peirce be a keynote? Kimberly Peirce is the liberal director of the 1999 film “Boys Don’t Cry.” The movie starred Hillary Swank, who is not transgender, playing a transgender character. It was one of the first positive, sympathetic portrayals of transgenderism on film. Peirce has been shouted down at several college campuses, beginning with Reed College in Oregon, for having a non-transgendered actress play a transgendered person. The students have called Peirce transphobic for not hiring a transgendered person. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Despite being ridiculous, that is the standard ACU is using for Yiannopoulos.

Yiannopoulos has expressly said he is not a conservative. His entire schtick is about political correctness. He has championed the alt-right, despite claiming not to be a part of the alt-right. He has made more than his fair share of media attention getting incendiary comments, including about a Catholic priest and sexual relations between younger and older men, though he claims some tapes circulating were edited. The unedited bits appear problematic at best.

If CPAC’s criteria for inviting someone is just in opposition to political correctness, then Milo Yiannopoulos fits the bill. CPAC, like a lot of the right, has tended to have a harder time drawing crowds in eras of Republican dominance and this may be their way of filling seats.

The brand, however, should stand for something. If CPAC wanted to invite conservatives who have been targeted by opponents of free speech, they could have given the keynote to someone like David Daleiden, whose Center for Medical Progress was sued for exposing Planned Parenthood.

ACU knows that Yiannopoulos is not a conservative, or they should since he has said he is not repeatedly. The senior citizen core of ACU is now going to be targeted by ACU critics with Yiannopoulos’s own words on sex, Catholic priests, etc. And not a bit of this will advance conservatism.

This is just another year where ACU cashes in on conservative crowds without doing anything to really advance the conservative cause.

Trump’s New Inclusive GOP Doesn’t Include Conservatives

Ah, the troubles of being rich. You know, when you have a rambling speech about your hands and clubs and balls to give in Kansas, but CPAC is in National Harbor, Maryland. Choices, choices.


Gas up the old biz jet, or take the 757? It’s less than an hour from Teterboro or White Plains or wherever the Apfelstrudelfuhrer’s Luftflotte (credit to Kevin Williamson for Apfelstrudelfuhrer) is hangared to Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., and maybe 25 minutes from the airport to the Gaylord National Harbor by Secret Service-escorted limousine. Or 8 minutes by chopper, if you’re pressed for time.

But no, it’s just too much effort. Screw it, I’ll just go to Kansas like Professor Marvel descending under a tent of trapped hot air from Oz.

Or maybe it’s because actual real conservatives are in the audience at CPAC versus the mix of celebrity-hounds, Trumpcoma victims and Kool-Aid drinking true believers who would literally vote for the man if he shot a non-relative on 5th Avenue in Manhattan (New York, not Kansas, or maybe either).

The mix of new voters Trump is dredging in his bottom-dragging nets in very inclusive. The Bible says when you cast your nets into the sea, you pull up all manner of sea life. Trump throws his net wide and deep. But not at conservatives.

This is the new GOP Trump is touting. Inclusive, except for conservatives.