If you’re not familiar with OANN’s Emerald Robinson, congratulations. You’ve managed to make it this far in life without being subjected to her reliably awful takes on basically everything.
Generally speaking, the only thing she’s worth is ignoring. But we’d be doing everyone a disservice if we didn’t call her out for her latest B.S., a baseless garbage attack on National Review’s David French, who’s been engaged in a sometimes contentious back-and-forth with New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari. After French had the temerity to suggest last week that the government shouldn’t be used as a weapon against the First Amendment:
What I appreciate most about @DavidAFrench's response to the Ahmari attack is his explanation that Ahmari flipped out over Americans engaging in—GASP—free speech and association. Does Ahmari wish to repeal the First Amendment? What is the ask here? https://t.co/84tSAgi4ij pic.twitter.com/EvGA9Ga0pG
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 31, 2019
Set aside the broader dispute about conservatism here—this is about constitutionalism. Is Ahmari so horrified by Drag Queen Story Hour that he wants the state to suppress free expression? Apparently so! And does really he trust the state to suppress only expression he dislikes?
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 31, 2019
This is the key question. To ban drag queen story hour, you have to adjust the law, and adjusting the law would involve intruding upon 1) local control of the library; 2) freedom of association; and 3) freedom of speech — and that's just to start.
— David French (@DavidAFrench) May 31, 2019
Right. And you would then have to trust enforcers of the law to target only speech and association of which you disapprove. Which history suggests is a bad idea!
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 31, 2019
The other thing that mystifies me . . . if the culture is allegedly lost in a rout, how do these conservatives propose to win and control the levers of power indefinitely?
— David French (@DavidAFrench) May 31, 2019
Robinson chimed in today with her characteristically completely wrong take on the situation:
It's important to recall how this Ahmari-French debate started: with French's bizarre defense of "drag queen story hour" at the local library. So "David French-ism" is the perfect name for the surrender of the public square by clueless Christians to the pagans and the perverts. https://t.co/5rV4wO74w0
— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) June 5, 2019
Imagine being proud of churning out that kind of verbal vomit.
A must-follow if you want to be consistently mislead https://t.co/aDWqACNtWX
— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) June 5, 2019
No kidding. She tweeted this about Jonah Goldberg over the weekend:
A year ago, @jonahnro dismissed my idea that the #NeverTrumpers were finished and their influence gone. A year later, Jonah's been thrown out of the National Review. Who was right, and who was wrong? https://t.co/FJA9ofFWoc
— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) June 1, 2019
Goldberg wasn’t “thrown out of the [sic] National Review”; he left his position on good terms to pursue a new project with Stephen Hayes, formerly of the Weekly Standard, and will remain a fellow at National Review Institute — and remains friends with his former colleagues. So to answer your question, Emerald, you. You were wrong. Just as you’re wrong about David French.
This is completely and utterly false. https://t.co/XIcAO2YJdo
— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 5, 2019
"Completely and utterly false" is her forte. https://t.co/XP69ZHVeZw
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) June 5, 2019
It’s the one thing she’s good at.
Just here to ratio this reprehensibly intentional falshood.
— Rich King (@RuggerBaba) June 5, 2019
It's not a bizarre defense of the act, it is a clear defense of the law.
— Wesley B. Hartline (@WesHartline) June 5, 2019
Bizarre defence of freedom? Liberty? What do you stand for?
— Katie Kearns (@kkearns) June 5, 2019
It’s almost like @DavidAFrench thinks that EVERYONE, not just his ideological allies, should have free speech. What a bizarre cuck. https://t.co/HMUCJlNar9
— Rachael Larimore (@RachaelBL) June 5, 2019
One either believes in freedom or you don't. I guess we can see which side you've chosen, @EmeraldRobinson .
— Burt Likko (@burtlikko) June 5, 2019
Color me crazy but I'll stand with Pagans, Perverts, & David French (What a sentence! @DavidAFrench ) over letting the Government dictate what can & can not be in the public square. I prefer the 1st Amendment over what ever goofy arse Theocracy this crazy person envisions. https://t.co/KXj7gmR1d3
— Lone Pats Fan (@LonePatFan1) June 5, 2019
You are the problem.
— Paul (@puremi66) June 5, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member