It’s been nearly one week since National Review published their special edition magazine titled, “Against Trump,” a symposium of 22-diverse conservatives making a case against Donald Trump’s run for the White House.

I have a signed copy of God & Man at Yale on my bookshelf and copies of letters from William F. Buckley, Jr. written to my late great uncle tucked away in a drawer. The two were friends. In 2013, I went through the competitive National Review Institute program and had the privilege of learning from some of the conservative movement’s most influential thinkers and leaders. When I got a call from National Review Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry asking if I’d be interested in participating in the symposium, without hesitation I said yes.

Based on the punditry across the cable news spectrum over the past few days, it’s painfully obvious very few people, including many conservatives, Republicans and even straight news anchors, opining on “Against Trump” actually read the entire thing. This is a shame.

The outrage over a conservative opinion magazine publishing a well-documented case against Trump has been interesting, to say the least. Dozens of newspapers each election cycle endorse candidates running for public office. By default, an endorsement means being against the rest of the field. To some, what National Review did is outrageous and “offensive,” but do the same descriptions apply when other print editorial boards across the country endorse candidates? The answer is no.

What National Review published is no different than a single endorsement of a candidate and is simply an honest stance about which candidate the 22-author symposium is against. The difference here is that the subject was Trump and the substance of the piece was not favorable to him. Because of this, a predictable tantrum ensued.

Read the article “Katie Pavlich v. Trump Supporters” on townhall.com.