BREAKING – Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns From Breitbart

When it rains, it pours.

Milo Yiannopolous–tech editor at Breitbart, but more widely known as an agent provocateur of the “alt-right” movement–tendered his resignation to Breitbart today in the wake of inflammatory videos that recently surfaced of him seemingly excusing pedophilia between grown men and young boys as a rite of passage rather than serious abuse.  This comes in the wake of several Breitbart employees reportedly threatening to resign if Milo wasn’t forced to leave, and on the heels of CPAC rescinding its invitation for him to speak at its annual conference and Simon & Schuster canceling his upcoming book Dangerous.

“I would be wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting,” Milo said at a press conference, “so today I am resigning from Breitbart, effective immediately. This decision is mine alone.”

“When your friends have done right by you, you do right by them,” he continued.  “For me, now, that means stepping aside so my colleagues at Breitbart can get back to the great work they do.”

There’s been some speculation that Evan McMullin’s group Stand Up Republic footed the bill to dig up opposition research on Milo that it put out as a high-profile political hit job on the unabashed Trump supporter, whom Milo has referred to as “Daddy” in interviews.  McMullin, never one to shy away from publicity, only seems to be stoking the rumor personally:

So is that McMullin’s knife sticking out of Milo’s gut, or is he just twisting it a little for fun?  Who knows?  While it’s obvious that the #NeverTrump holdouts are still angling for scalps, exactly how much value there is in taking out Milo is debatable.  He’s not affiliated with the Trump Administration in any way, and even among mainstream Trump supporters he’s considered more of a liability than an asset.  As for the alt-right, they still only represent a small fringe of the Trump base–so if McMullin thinks that killing off their poster boy will wound Trump somehow, he’s engaged in some wishful thinking. Then again, perhaps McMullin is just hoping this will make him look like a tough guy.  In politics, anything is possible–no matter how strange.

Either way, Trump is better off not having guys like Milo around to muddle the message.

Shaun King Needs Treatment For Dementia

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, goes the saying. And when black-acting, “white African American” (like a white Hispanic) social justice pimp Shaun King accuses the entire GOP of perversion because of Milo Yiannopoulos, that’s proof he’s suffering from dementia. King clearly needs treatment after coming up with the garbage he wrote at the New York Daily News today.

I won’t spend any more words on Yiannopoulos. More than enough has been written about him than I care to read. One silver lining of this sordid affair is that it exposed a hugely under-reported issue in the LGBT community: that young barely sexually “woke” kids get their first taste of intimacy by older men, forever sealing them into the “you’re gay and always have been” camp.

Read Robert Oscar Lopez‘s excellent piece as a good primer here. Or Michael Brown‘s. Or Chad Felix Greene‘s soul-crushing story at HuffPo.

Back to King and his shallow, partisan, dehumanizing attack. Yes, Yiannopoulos spewed his worst venom on King and his social justice elitist ilk, who reflexively protect their P.C. world like a schizophrenic protects his delusions. Yes, people have been doxxed and threatened by Milo’s Twitter fans. Yes, it’s horrible.

But King takes it way, way further. He calls Milo “the most visible spokesperson” for the so-called “alt-right.” Umm. Maybe if you’re a Twitter addict or on a college campus. Otherwise, not even close. I suppose one could claim that the entire “alt-right” movement is nothing but an invention of Twitter and college campuses. I’d be more inclined to believe that.

Writing that Steve Bannon is Yiannopoulos’s “longtime boss” is a lie. Milo only started working at Breitbart in late 2015. Bannon left Breitbart for the Trump campaign on August 17, 2016. So even if Milo worked directly for Bannon (he didn’t), it was for less than 10 months. That’s hardly “longtime.”

That’s not the most grievous deception. Somehow, King ties Milo, and his pederast-friendly remarks, to President Trump, with only the most tenuous threads. Skipping any real evidence that Milo and Trump ever had a single conversation, he heads for the conclusion.

But here’s the thing — this is who the Republican Party is. The President of the United States has more than a dozen women claiming they were sexually assaulted by him. His first wife said in a sworn deposition that he brutally attacked and raped her (she later said she did not want the word rape to be interpreted in a criminal sense). He was recorded bragging that he forces himself on women and grabs their genitalia whenever he feels like it. And after our nation heard that recording, he was still elected.

King concludes: “Donald Trump is a pervert. Milo is a pervert.”

This, my friends is proof of dementia. He totally forgot about President Bill Clinton, who, by physical evidence, was proved to have had carnal knowledge of a White House intern, in the Oval Office. Clinton had more women with solid accusations of molestation than Trump–although not by Hillary.

Calling the GOP a “party of perverts” simply ignores–or by physiological damage to higher brain function, forgets–evidence that the Democrats have plenty of perverts of their own. That’s dementia.

How about Anthony Weiner‘s ongoing sexting relationship with a 15-year-old girl? (Ironically covered by the New York Daily News, the same publication where King works.) Then there’s the late Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, Mel Reynolds (who Clinton pardoned for 12 counts of sexual assault against a 16-year-old). There’s no shortage of Democrats caught with their pinkies in the pushka, so to speak.

Republicans also have no shortage of sex scandals. In fact, sex scandals and politics go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

But none of that even remotely matters. Milo is not a Republican. He’s not even American. He’s a Brit. Trump should have his green card revoked and send him back there–I’ve seen people deported for less than what he did. Milo is not a conservative. He was not a part of Trump’s campaign, and he’s not associated with the Trump administration.

The only connection between Milo and Trump is the fact that Milo calls Trump “daddy,” and professes admiration for him. That’s it.

This dementia that King’s suffering from won’t let him acknowledge history or break his own fabulous narrative that the GOP is perverted and Democrats aren’t. I can’t believe that NYDN editors are so blind and permissive as to let King publish such blatant garbage.

Apparently, garbage sells papers.

We Need To Talk About Milo

If you have an interest in politics that borders on obsessive–and let’s face it, if you’re reading this site you probably do–then it’s doubtless that you’ve heard about all the brouhaha surrounding Brietbart editor and resident social media troll Milo Yiannopolous.  Typically this isn’t a problem for Milo, who courts brouhaha the way Harry Reid courts shady real estate developers, but in this case his antics have come back to bite him pretty hard.  As in Sharknado hard:

Employees at Breitbart News are reportedly prepared to leave the company if controversial senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos is not fired.


Another senior editor at the publication told Washingtonian Monday that “at least a half dozen” employees are prepared to leave to organization because of remarks Yiannopoulos made about pedophilia that gained attention this weekend.

At first glance, you might think, “Aw, geez.  What kind of fake outrage are the social justice warriors throwing at Milo this time?”  This is, after all, the guy who got banned from Berkeley when rioters there burned half the place down rather than let him speak.

But, as it turns out, there’s more to Milo’s free speech than any of us wanted to hear:

This arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys the understanding that many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. People are messy and complex, and in the homosexual world particularly some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and, sort of, a rock.

I’m the father of a 15 year old daughter and 12 year old son.  To me, the idea of consent isn’t arbitrary, and it sure as hell isn’t oppressive.  To me, the kind of moral equivalency at the heart of this statement is stomach-turning.  Underage boys, by virtue of being underage, cannot give consent.  And an adult man who would take advantage of a confused young boy at a vulnerable time isn’t loving–he’s a predator.

There really isn’t any other way to spin this–which is why CPAC withdrew its invitation to have Milo speak, and why Simon & Schuster have canceled publication of his forthcoming book.  This is a line neither one of them wanted to cross, apparently.  But is this a setback for free speech?  No doubt, Milo will attempt to cast it as such.  When even his fellow travelers at Breitbart are demanding his ouster, though, you have to know there’s more to it than that.

Free speech, after all, is a right to speak–not a right to be heard.  And it isn’t encumbent upon the conservative movement or its institutions to provide a forum for Milo Yiannopolous just because he tweaks liberal pieties.  More than that, the conservative moment has its own right to associate with whomever it wants, and even to shun others.  If CPAC no longer wants to be associated with Milo’s brand, they’re under no obligation to host him.  Distancing itself from his speech is not nearly the same thing as censoring it.

It’s also smart thinking, and maybe an opportunity for conservatives to reevaluate themselves a bit.  The Era of Trump has led to a lot of confusion as to what we are and what we want to be–primarily because we’ve been coasting on a lot of emotion, whereas before our tradition has been mostly based on ideas.  The emotional side is still reveling in the victory last November, and taking great satisfaction in the rolling back of Obama’s excesses.  It’s also the first time in a long while that they’ve  felt ascendant, and they want to keep that going.  The intellectual side, meanwhile, is still exploring the why of what the administration is doing, and how–or even if–it fits into the traditions of conservative philosophy.  They wonder where all of this will end up, and whether we’ll like what we find when we get there.

Both sides are correct, in their own ways–and if we can find a way to bring them together, I think we can build some powerful momentum for the reforms that America desperately needs.  In the meanwhile, though, perhaps Milo’s tale can be a warning to avoid our own excesses.

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.

ACU Rescinds Invitation to Milo Yiannopoulos

The American Conservative Union has decided to rescind its invitation to Milo Yiannopoulos due to his remarks some have perceived as endorsing molestation, but which he denies do so.

I think it goes without saying that he should not have been invited in the first place and ACU is now in the ironic position of having invited him in the name of free speech, but now rescinding the invitation in the name of some speech going too far.

Whoever made the initial call should probably also have their employment rescinded for having put ACU in this position in the first place. That invitation struck many conservatives as poor judgment before the videos even came out and now sets ACU up to be hypocritical on the defense of free speech.


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.

Conspiracy News Network: Lemon & Reich Say Conservatives Behind Berkeley Riot


There’s no way liberal students at UC Berkeley would destroy their own campus, along with a Starbucks, to protest a half-Jewish, gay Brit whose entire schtick is to provoke violent reactions from the left. So it had to be a conservative plot to make the riots look like liberal students did it.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Conspiracy theorists Don Lemon and Robert Reich delved deep into tin-foil hat territory Tuesday with this exchange:

LEMON: “I’ve been wanting to have this conversation because this has been a big issue about free speech on campus and conservative voices being heard. Mr. Reich, my first question to you is, there’s a violence that we saw at Berkeley. We had it live here on CNN last night. It ultimately plays right into the hands of the right-wing white supremacist, someone like Milo Yiannopoulos.”

REICH: “It absolutely does, Don. And I want to be very, very clear. I was there for part of last night and I know what I saw. Those people were not Berkeley students. Those people were outsiders, agitators. I’ve never seen them before. There’s rumors that they actually were right-wingers. They were a part of a group that were organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event. So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn’t respect free speech rights, that’s a complete distortion of the truth. I mean, Berkeley opened its biggest auditorium to this right-wing Breitbart News character, this hateful odious person. They said, ‘Free speech is the most important thing we stand for,’ and it was these outsiders who caused the police to finally come in and have to cancel it.”

LEMON: “You think it’s a strategy by Yiannopoulos or right-wingers? They put this on in an effort to show there’s no free speech on a college campus like UC Berkeley?

REICH: “I wouldn’t bet against it, Don. Again, I saw these people. They all looked almost paramilitary. They were not from the campus. And I’ve heard — again, I don’t want to say factually, but I’ve heard there was some relationship here between these people and the right wing and the right-wing movement that is affiliated with Breitbart News.”

LEMON: “It is interesting because there have been protests but nothing this violent. We haven’t seen anything to this level.”

Let’s get this straight, for clarity’s (and sanity’s) sake.

  • Robert Reich claims to know what Berkeley students look like. Or he personally knows every student there, and can positively identify who is and isn’t “from the campus.”
  • Reich claims that the “paramilitary” somehow infiltrated Berkeley under orders from President Trump to riot so a conservative Trump supporter couldn’t speak there.
  • Don Lemon asked the loaded question considering that conservatives need to stage a riot to prove that there’s no free speech on college campuses like UC Berkeley.

What utter rubbish. There’s so much proof that free speech is shut down like a shell shocked WWI trench veteran that a riot would actually be counterproductive.

This entire conversation makes CNN seem like a FAKE NEWS organization. Worse, it puts them in the same boat as Alex Jones and Infowars. Even worse, it makes blowhard Milo Yiannopoulos seem absolutely righteous and unselfish in comparison.

No points awarded here. Leon and Reich need to go back to the cave where they hatched this plot and rethink their lives.

Night of Anarchy on Berkeley College Campus Should Lead Us to Honest Conversations About Free Speech

Milo Yiannopoulos, a commentator with Breitbart News, is no stranger to protests.

The violence that broke out on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley is not the first time he has had a scheduled speech disrupted or canceled by professional protesters.

According to CNN:

The university blamed “150 masked agitators” for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor’s speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus “amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety.”

Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.

Reports are that six people were injured when the 150 anarchists mingled with the approximately 1,500 peaceful demonstrators.

Supposedly, the group calls themselves the “Black Bloc,” and they’ve got a reputation for inciting trouble and violence in the Oakland, California area.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives,” UC Berkeley said in a statement.

“While Yiannopoulos’ views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus’s Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective,” it stated.

The irony is that among those peaceful protesters were signs that said, “No safe space for racists,” and “This is war.”

So anarchists brought war to the campus. Was it all you guys imagined?

Things change quickly when you’re simply trying to shout down and crowd out dissenting opinion, then someone who actually shares your point of view steps it up by throwing a Molotov cocktail at your head.

Such irony – Berkeley is said to be the campus where the Free Speech movement began, and they have chosen to honor that legacy by making sure “free speech” only consists of speech they’re comfortable with.

Yiannopoulos was an early and avid Trump supporter. It’s highly possible that that’s all many of the protesters needed to know about him.

In response, Trump took to Twitter to go at the college.

No doubt, Berkeley, along with most every other liberal indoctrination center of higher education has a real problem with diversity of thought. However, Yiannopoulos’ speech was scheduled by the school and would have proceeded as planned, were it not for the violence that unfolded.

In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as “an expression of political violence.”

“I’m just stunned that hundreds of people … were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs.”

Again, this isn’t the first time, so I’m not sure why he was “stunned.”

Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter last year, after the social media site decided he’d incited racial harassment of “Ghostbusters” remake actress, Leslie Jones.

These truly are precarious, disturbing, and depressingly violent times.

I suspect there are varying views over whether canceling Yiannopoulos’ appearance was the right thing for the college to do, or not.

I equally suspect that this won’t be the last time we have an issue arise on one of our nation’s campuses, because it wasn’t the first time.

The question we need to ask now is how do we find our way back to a place where people of opposing views can have a civil dialogue, rather than everything breaking down into utter chaos?