Slightly Offensive - Elijah Schaffer - Christian Conservatives BATTLE Pro-LGBT Republicans | C-TMZ

March 10, 2021 - Slightly Offensive - Elijah Schaffer

51:36

Christian Conservatives BATTLE Pro-LGBT Republicans | C-TMZ | Ep 134

These people agree that the radical Left is out of control, but how to defeat them is a different story. We ask the serious question: How do we overcome the woke cancel culture Left that has spread through our society like cancer? Do we return to traditional conservative, Christian values or create a bigger-tent secular party that turns a blind eye to degeneracy and immorality?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Dr. Carl here was the first one to celebrate me being Carlin.
	Carlin.
	Well, I celebrated that you were banned on Twitter because you repeatedly tweeted that my husband should be deported, Lauren.
	I don't really know how much you know about me, but I'm probably the most vocal anti-children transitioning person on the internet.
	It's what I'm it's well, I'll let you speak.
	The best thing you can do for us is grow out your mustache and tell people not to live like you.
	There's been a lot of arguments on Twitter recently where people cannot decide what it means to be right wing or what the future of the party is.
	If you don't know why that's important, well, just look around you at the radical leftism, all the insanity in the culture, and a president who borrowed an election and a country who wonders what is our future and who is going to save us from this absolute madness.
	Well, a lot of people seem to disagree, which is why I brought a panel of guests on to talk about what the future of the right wing looks like and how we win back our country.
	If we can bring on a screen, I went ahead and I invited on a myriad of people.
	I have Carlin, he's called Carlin Borisenko.
	Well done.
	Awesome.
	Commentator.
	We also have Lauren Witzke.
	She ran for Congress in Delaware.
	We also have Blair White, YouTuber as well, and John Doyle, YouTuber, and they're all here to answer these questions.
	So let's talk a little bit about this as we get into this.
	Starting with Lauren, how do you describe yourself politically?
	Okay, so I am socially conservative.
	I'm advocately, I've always been economically populist.
	Economic populism is the future of our party.
	However, preserving social conservatism within the Republican Party is a real passion of mine.
	I'm very pro-family.
	I'm very pro-life.
	My whole motto is I just like to win and save babies.
	So that's what I do.
	Awesome.
	Blair, go ahead and tell us where you lean politically.
	Yeah, every political quiz I've ever taken matches center right.
	So that's me.
	I don't have sort of the popular story everyone loves of like, I'm a former liberal.
	I'm a lifelong Republican, always voted that way.
	And yeah, that's me.
	I'm definitely a little bit less socially conservative.
	And that's where I land.
	John, go ahead.
	It's a pretty clear copy paste between Lauren and myself, I think, fiscally populist and socially conservative.
	Carlin, are you different than them?
	Yeah, I'm a little bit different in that, you know, some people say I'm a former liberal.
	I'm actually a current liberal.
	I have never stopped being a liberal, even though I did leave the Democratic Party.
	I politically, on my political compass test, I tend to be right in the center.
	And I frankly just want common sense people to come up with common sense solutions.
	Awesome.
	So as we get into this, I want to let you know something important.
	This is the first question we're going to jump into, which is what is the future of the right wing, right?
	If we're going to win a war, if we're going to fight the left, we've got to figure out who's on our side.
	And there's a split of trying to figure out if the future of the right is a conservative, moral Christian party that is a strong nationalist background, or if it's this big tent party full of liberals, libertarians, disaffected left, et cetera.
	Before we jump into that, I want to give a huge shout out to our sponsor for today.
	Guys, the world is getting crazy.
	And I'm telling you, it is not getting easy out there.
	Not only do you need to have defensive equipment, you need to own guns, but you need to have some way to conceal your guns, to carry them around, which is why I want to tell you about Northwest Retention.
	Northwest Retention has a few goals that are amazing.
	This is a company I love personally and own their products.
	Number one, they want to bring the greatest quality value and service to the marketplace.
	Number two, they want to be innovative and continue to build and provide the best quality lifestyle gear to the industry.
	And number three, and most importantly, is to show gratitude by helping their fellow men build relationships, train and educate.
	But if you go over to their website, you can see all they have to offer, guys.
	These are the most premium quality and satisfaction guaranteed holsters and belts that you can even find online with a lifetime warranty.
	They've got you covered with holsters done right.
	I'm telling you, these are amazing.
	Sav has them.
	I have them.
	And guys, the owner of this company is amazing.
	Even my wife, we wear their clothing, which is pretty awesome.
	It's really great.
	Check out what they have to offer.
	They even offer custom options as well.
	Go to nwretention.com.
	That's nwretention.com.
	Enter promo code offensive to get 10% off your entire order.
	That's nwretention.com, promo code offensive.
	Okay, guys, so let's jump right into this.
	So, my question is this: as we look to take back the country from the radical left and we seek to make it a stronger place, how are we going to do that?
	Is it A, by building a stronger, conservative, Christian moral party, or is it B, building a big tent party of libertarians, the disaffected left, conservatives, etc.?
	Like with the questions, we'll try to go in the same order.
	We'll start with Lauren.
	Yeah, so, you know, I'm really confused why this is a discussion about the future of the right when we have a liberal, actually, Democrat, with one good opinion.
	We also have a transgender on here.
	You know, I don't really think we should be giving a platform to this kind of degeneracy, which is a gateway drug to pedophilia.
	You know, I absolutely disagree.
	You know, we were the party of traditional marriage.
	We were the party that opposed gay marriage.
	We've always been that party.
	We've always been the party of family.
	We won-handedly in 2016 without the LGBTQ vote.
	We started losing when we started compromising.
	So I'm really curious why people who are libertarians, I mean, you have a party of freaks who love the free market that you can join, but don't come into our party and try to influence it because that is how we are losing.
	And in case you haven't noticed, we are losing.
	You know, they are now advocating for chemical castrations for children.
	We're spotlighting transgenderism at CPAC.
	And I am a traditional Christian conservative.
	I believe in family.
	I believe that family is the foundation of everything that this country was founded on.
	And no, I do not believe that we should be compromising our values and spotlighting a lifestyle that is a gateway drug to pedophilia every single time.
	And you cannot deny it isn't because it's here.
	Blair, would you respond?
	I think that there's a difference between you spoke sort of to gender ideology, which is definitely rampant on college campuses, definitely taking over culture.
	I think that's different than just people who, as individuals, may technically be gay, lesbian, bisexual, any of the above.
	And I think that it's possible to fight against gender ideology while holding true that there are going to be people that are just different in life.
	I definitely am not here to speak to the future of social conservatism because that's just not my lane.
	But as far as the party, I think that a big tent is most likely the future.
	I think that speaking, knowing my generation and a lot of people my age, which is mid-20s and Gen Z a little younger, I think that they voted for Trump the first and second time or just the second time because Trump kind of ushered the party into an era of a little more secularism.
	I don't think he was overtly religious.
	I think to an extent he was a little performative with religion and with prayer and things like that.
	And I think that attracted a lot of new voters.
	And I'm not sure that, you know, going full force religious social conservatism is really the future.
	John, can you respond?
	Yeah, I think that the concept of a big tent movement is basically this sort of intra-party democracy that prevents us ultimately from being effective at actually wielding power.
	And this could date back even to what's referred to as the Reagan coalition, where we tried to unite social conservatives with libertarians, with fiscal conservatives.
	And then we created something which ultimately didn't last in effect, where we're now on the back foot with things such as gender identity.
	And even now, we're trying it, you know, with pandering to different minority groups, different interest groups, which will never give us more than 8% of the vote, for example.
	So I think that to actually try something different would be to legitimately establish a strong party with the values that we're nominally in support of and actually wielding the power effectively when we are given the chance instead of getting into power and then doing nothing and trying to pander to these groups thinking that we're going to own the libs and take their voting base away from them.
	Yeah, Carlin, I'm interested to hear your perspective because obviously this would be a question that would pertain to you directly since you admit that you're a liberal and you just registered as a Republican.
	I mean, give us your thoughts.
	I did.
	Well, the fact of the matter is that MAGA is not a religious movement.
	MAGA is a political movement.
	And in order to win elections, you have to win votes.
	The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has never cared about gay marriage.
	It was never something that he was against.
	Dude hung out at Studio 54.
	Why would he care?
	And so I'm on the side of winning too, Lauren.
	I'm on the side of winning elections.
	The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump created a big tent strategy that brought 10 million more people to him in 2020 than he did in 2016.
	And if we go back and look at the history of the Republican Party and when they lost the culture war the first time, Ronald Reagan offered a big tent.
	He said, everyone is welcome in this big tent.
	He won two terms.
	George H.W. Bush followed him.
	The Republicans were in control for 12 years until what happened?
	The moral majorities tried to swoop right in and started legislating Christianity.
	And that is when they lost the culture war.
	That is when they started losing voters, when they started trying to legislate their religion the first time around.
	The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the prohibit, they're prohibiting the free exercise of their thereof.
	So it protects your right to practice your religion as much as it protects mine right to practice mine.
	This is not a question of religion.
	If you want to do whatever you want to do in church, that's fine.
	Go talk to your church elders.
	Go talk to your deacons.
	Exclude anyone you want from your church.
	But the fact of the matter is that I would really like if the Democrats didn't control everything.
	And in order for that to happen, we need to win.
	And that means building the broadest possible coalition of voters that we can.
	And that's what I think we should do.
	Lauren, that's pretty much the opposite of what you brought up and what you were saying.
	Could you please respond to that?
	Yeah.
	So, you know, Donald Trump, he did do things that made the church have to make excuses for him.
	His Globo Homo initiative ended up losing him a significant amount of the Christian vote.
	And we are the base of this party.
	We make up a huge portion of this party, a way bigger portion than the liberal, libertarian sector of the party, no matter how much they want to tell you.
	You know, so him making those compromises is probably a big part of why we lost.
	You know, we lost the House in 2018.
	You know, in 2017, we had the House, the executive branch, and the Senate, and we still failed on conservative issues.
	They refused to stand up for life.
	You know, they still passed a budget that actually made us force Christian taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood.
	You know, so every vote lost on social conservative consult social conservatism is, you know, we are significantly more.
	We are the party that was established in traditional marriage.
	So I'm curious when the liberals and the transgenders decided that it was their duty to come and infiltrate our party to make it successful because we were doing just fine.
	We started actually losing votes when we started pandering.
	We lost a significant amount of our base enough to make an effect and make a dent into the electorate by compromising our values.
	The only way forward is to stay true to our values that we've always been and established on and win with them.
	You know, it's the weakness.
	People value strength over anything else.
	And when we started showing weakness and compromise, that's when we started losing.
	And I don't think that is something that we should continue.
	I think that we should remain the party of Jesus Christ, the party of life, the party that celebrates family and makes it as easy as possible for Americans to get married and have children.
	Why would I celebrate a lifestyle that people can't reproduce?
	You know, you can't reproduce.
	You just can't.
	You know, so having families, that is the future of the party.
	We started losing when we started compromising.
	Big Tent is a lie.
	Let me jump in there real fast and give Blair a chance to respond to that.
	Sure.
	I think the concept of more people infiltrating a party isn't necessarily what has happened.
	I think that the modern left has shown its hand to such an extent that people are just being extremely turned off by it.
	I, again, being a lifelong Republican voter, I've never had a moment where I entered the party and then had plans to change it from within.
	I think that every American has a right to vote in any direction that they choose.
	And I think especially over the next four years of the Biden presidency, there's probably going to be a lot more people who are red-pilled, I guess, is going to be the term and wanting to vote, you know, in the opposite direction of how things ended up in November.
	And I also would say, you know, Trump got the most votes of any setting president in history.
	I think that's true.
	Right?
	That's right.
	And I think there's a reason for that.
	I think what I spoke to earlier was the push towards more secularism.
	And I think that while social conservatives and religious conservatives still voted Trump because it was the right direction, and like you said, they did make a lot of excuses and compromises on their beliefs.
	I think Trump really and Trumpism is the future of the party and the future of success.
	I'm also one of those people that, I don't know, this might have to be edited out for YouTube, but I'm not completely convinced that the election was won by Biden by completely legitimate means.
	So we can say it was borrowed.
	I think what?
	We can say it was borrowed.
	You can't say stolen, but you can say the election was borrowed.
	And so even though, yeah, Biden won, I still think Trump is the future of the right in general.
	So.
	Okay, John, why don't you jump in there?
	I think that's correct in that Trump is the future of the Republican Party.
	But what's interesting about that is that during his first campaign and even his second campaign, he really didn't touch on LGBT issues that much.
	I mean, you know, he held up the flag, I think, at a few events at the advice probably of people like Jared Kushner.
	But if you look at where his voters actually sit on the political spectrum, they're not the right-wing libertarians that a lot of big donors would like the party to be.
	They're actually basically authoritarian in the center.
	And so if you look at where they poll on issues such as like gay marriage versus traditional marriage or like transgender bathroom issues, like whatever, they're all like very, I guess you'd say authoritative and conservative in that, and that they're in support of traditional and socially conservative policies.
	And so that's where the momentum in the party is.
	And so if you're going to come over and vote for Republicans because you agree with their positions on foreign policy or fiscal policy or what have you, that's all and fine.
	But what we can't do is start to compromise and say that like you can come over here and we're actually going to pander to you as well and give you positions at CPAC.
	And I think it's interesting because a lot of people that are trying to join the Republican Party of the conservative movement and then bring to light more of these like LGBT issues are basically showing their hand in that they're not actually conservative.
	And I'm not speaking about you guys specifically, just like the rhetoric that I deal with online, because fundamentally the idea of like LGBT issues is about the enshrinement of total equality, which is fundamentally not a conservative idea.
	Conservatives believe in hierarchy and natural law and the idea that we can have total equality across the board for different types of relationships or different types of marriages, quote unquote, is just fundamentally not a conservative idea.
	And so if we want to have success in the future as a party, we have to actually like maintain a strong footing on what it actually means to be conservative, which we haven't done in the last 70 years, I'd say.
	Yeah.
	So I want to kind of tweak this a little bit to you, Carlin.
	As that question that he said, right, is like, this is the question a lot of people ask on the traditional right is that the right has been defined, the right has been defined as being a conservative party.
	And that has been traditionally what it has been.
	Now, you say that you identify as a liberal, but you are a Republican.
	I would say that's more of a new development in the party.
	I'd say that it is related to Trumpism, Tamaga, or as Lauren calls it, the Globo Homo movement, which I will spit out my coffee when she said that.
	I find all this stuff quite hilarious sometimes.
	But with that being said, if we're going to take the big tent party approach, right, and we're going to bring in all of these people that are of different viewpoints like yourself, what is this conservative party conserving?
	And how is it any different than, let's just say, being a liberal party from 10 years ago?
	Well, right now, it's not conserving anything because they don't have any power because they lost elections.
	But I do want to speak to John's point specifically in that he used the magic word, which is pandering.
	The left panders to the LGBT movement.
	Trump did advocate for LGBT policies.
	He did so by appointing the first openly gay member of the cabinet, which the left likes to forget about all the time.
	He did support this community.
	He just didn't do it in a way that was pandering.
	But again, like I'm a liberal because I believe in individual liberty, individual freedom.
	I'm very concerned with preserving specifically our First Amendment values and all the amendments specifically.
	But the First Amendment is really my jam, which again, does not allow for the state to legislate based on one religion's specific values.
	But if we want to talk about religion, we can talk about a verse from the Bible, which is 1 Timothy 2, verses 1 through 2, which says, I urge then, first of all, the petitions, prayers, and sessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and for those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
	And I bring that up because that is the only place in the New Testament that really touches on the relationship of Christians to government.
	And what does it say?
	It says they should pray for the people in leadership so that they may live peaceful and quiet lives in godliness and holiness.
	So what does that mean?
	It means that we should be working on electing a government that allows people to practice whatever religion they want and to live peaceful and quiet lives in godliness and holiness.
	And the only way that we can do that is by creating a broad coalition of voters who win elections.
	That's what we should be talking about first and foremost is how we win elections.
	Before we go, I'm going to go to John because John was sort of laughing during that.
	And so why are you laughing?
	I was humored by the biblical substantiation for having more gay people in government.
	I just thought that was kind of funny.
	But no, I don't think that like even you push back on what I had said about the pandering with, well, Trump appointed these people and he appointed these people.
	So he was actually like, you know, serving the interests of the community.
	It's interesting because as you noted, the left will still ignore that because they control the narratives and they control the media.
	And so really, no matter what Trump does to pander to that, however many percent of the, what is it, 3% of the voting demographic isn't actually going to serve interests.
	And I just don't think that the reason Trump didn't win in 2020, assuming the election was totally legitimate, was because he didn't serve the interests of the LGBT community enough.
	I mean, Trump won in 2016 because of immigration, because of free trade and because of foreign policy.
	It wasn't at all because of social issues as it pertains to like, you know, the interests of gays and transgenders or what have you.
	And then as far as the biblical substantiation for it, I mean, it's outlined, obviously, and not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, like very clearly, that sexual immorality, which under the umbrella would be homosexuality, is wrong.
	But you seem to be alluding to this idea of like the individual and their private home and things like that when you talk about, you know, people living in a free society to do what they want and not, you know, causing any problems.
	But what's interesting about that is that was the argument that during the movements in the 1960s and 70s, including the sexual revolution, that allowed a lot of this stuff to have a seat at the table, which ultimately would usurp power away from traditional Americans and traditional social conservatives.
	And I just think that that's basically a myth because there's really no such thing as a private individual in the privacy of their own home because you are one person.
	And so any actions that you take in your house are ultimately going to reflect you and how you conduct yourself in the real world.
	And then it's also kind of misleading because people don't want to be confided in the privacy of their own home or what have you, because that almost presupposes that it's something to be ashamed of.
	And people don't like that.
	And so what happens is then they start taking to the streets and they start having parades and they start to infiltrate education.
	They start to infiltrate institutions such as the American Psychiatry Association Psychiatry Association.
	And then, what was it, 2015, June of 2015, the Supreme Court decided that five minutes ago, marriage can be between two men.
	And now we're here on the back foot with issues like, hey, maybe kids shouldn't be taking prenatal hormones.
	Can we jump in at that?
	Elijah, I want to jump in there because I want you like John just fundamentally misrepresented something I said because I specifically chose Timothy or 1 Timothy 2 verse 1 and 2 because it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
	That's why I specifically chose that passage.
	It has to do with the relationships Christians have with their government.
	Now, if we want to talk about how the Bible deals with homosexuality, what I would like to focus on is the fact that there are multiple different arguments for different interpretations of the Bible.
	I'm not a Christian.
	I'm not a Bible scholar, but I do know that there are multiple different interpretations for that.
	And instead of getting into the nitty-gritty about what it says in that area, I want to focus on the fact that, again, this is an argument for the First Amendment for religion to not be the dictator of a political movement.
	If you want to talk about these issues in your church, do talk about them in your church.
	If you want to exclude people from your church, fine.
	If you want to exclude gays from getting married in your church, that is a conversation between you and your church elders.
	This is a conversation about a political movement.
	I think that all the arguments against the acceptance of homosexuality within the right are completely secular.
	It may just so happen to appeal to the base of that movement as Christians, but I think that Lauren and I could recite several arguments that are maybe even more compelling from a completely secular perspective.
	Let me hope you'll do it in church.
	Let me jump in.
	And, you know, I think it's really funny that she's quoting scripture as a liberal, thinking that she can use it against us as Christians.
	You know, it's like, oh, it doesn't apply to me, but maybe it'll work on you.
	And guess what?
	It doesn't work.
	Playing on our Christian compassion and making us be tolerant and acceptive of all this diversity, you know what that's left us with?
	Transgender pedophiles on Twitter saying that your daughter asked for it.
	Your little girl isn't actually a princess.
	She asked for it when I abused her.
	That is where we're at.
	So you're throwing scripture at me as a liberal is not going to work.
	You cannot play the Christian compassion card on us anymore.
	We are standing.
	We are taking a stand for social conservatism because it matters.
	Social issues matter.
	And using God's word and manipulating it to try to get Christians to agree with you is absolutely subversive.
	And that's what we're struggling with in our party is subverters.
	You know, how many kids saw Blair White, you know, giving one of her videos?
	You know, I know Trump is a cash cow.
	I know people love to talk about him to get their popularity, but how many children saw her and looked at her and said, you know what?
	She looks really good.
	I could do that too and started transitioning.
	This is about the children.
	They are coming for our kids.
	And we are at a point now where we're going to have to take a stand.
	Will the party go the way of the LGBTQ?
	Will the party, you know, we already have a transgender man, woman, it, I don't know, in California running the Federation for Republican Women.
	You know, are we going to let this stand or are we going to choose to stay with the nuclear family and support the nuclear family?
	Because from what I've seen from these LGBTQ activists, such as Richard Renault, who's an absolute pervert, he refuses to stand up for transgenders in the military, against transgenders in the military.
	He refuses to stand and make a public statement that, hey, men shouldn't be in women's bathrooms.
	That's because they're bought, sold, and paid for by these LGBT donors who have seen an opportunity.
	Trump was a cash cow.
	He was.
	If you talk about him and if you are, you know, had a different look or whatever, people would throw themselves at you because it's like, oh, look how inclusive we are, but we're sacrificing everything.
	And when it comes down to it, I choose the life, preserving the life of little children who are 15% of them are growing up, identifying as LGBTQ and transgender.
	And we should not be giving a spotlight to or a platform to people who operate in a lifestyle where 40% of them end up attempting suicide, you know, eventually.
	You know, one in four children growing up struggling with BTQ, I gender dysphoria end up with depression, drug abuse.
	I think it's 80% of men have a higher risk of HIV.
	You know, why would I support that lifestyle?
	Why would I even make excuses for that lifestyle or try to use it?
	What do you think to respond to your statements real fast?
	Because I know Blair has a hard out.
	We haven't heard from Blair.
	Just on the statement of Lauren said, Lauren is talking about, you know, the subversion in the party, the idea that your choice for transitioning is that you're not going to be able to do that.
	I just want to specifically address what Lauren said about children maybe watching my YouTube videos and thinking that they can be like me or transition or whatever.
	I don't really know how much you know about me, but I'm probably the most vocal anti-children transitioning person on the internet.
	It's what I'm it's well, I'll let you speak.
	The best thing you can do for us is grow out your mustache and tell people not to live like you.
	That is the best thing that you can do to help us.
	Christ love, Christ, love walking off Lauren.
	Christ love.
	Go at it, guys.
	I think actually to close on the biblical point, the last thing I did want to say is the vindication of Lauren's voice comes very clearly.
	And the fact that we have a liberal on here who is personally a liberal and ideologically liberal, though, feels as though she can manifest that by voting for Republicans.
	And so I think that really speaks to how far our party has deviated in the last 50 years to where now there are people who are personally liberal who feel as though their views can be reflected by voting for Republicans.
	And to close on the biblical topic, there's this misconception that like Jesus just said that we should be like vaguely nice to each other.
	As far as judgment goes, we are called as Christians not to judge people individually.
	Like we cannot look at you and make a moral declaration like you are good or you are bad.
	That's not our position.
	However, we are called quite explicitly to judge the actions of people so as to maintain a moral and civilized society.
	And so we need to keep that social pressure on people like you actually can't behave in this way or that way.
	And that's how we maintain a civilized and virtuous society.
	And we are called throughout the Bible to do that quite explicitly.
	Okay, Blair, can you please respond?
	I never finished my point.
	So I would just like to say, as I said earlier, whether anyone on this panel likes it or wants to acknowledge it, there is a really huge chunk of LGBT people who are very much against ideas like children transitioning, like trans women in biological women's sports, and all of the ideas that are, you know, hot talking points, but they're very real at the same time.
	So I don't think many kids would look at my YouTube videos and want to do anything like me because I explicitly have been very known for saying that it's not a glamorous lifestyle, that it's difficult, and that children shouldn't be allowed to transition because it can often be a mistake that really damages their life.
	So I don't know.
	I just felt like that was a false premise.
	And again, I would like to agree with Carla.
	It wasn't a false premise.
	Like I said, if you want to help us tell people not to live like you, that people would watch my videos and come to that conclusion when I say not to.
	And I advocate against it.
	I think that there are a lot of trans people online that you could argue.
	Maybe someone looks at their videos, children, and wants to do a certain thing, but I'm very much against it.
	If anything, people who support children transitioning or kids who want to transition hate me.
	So I also would like to say with Carlin in the sense that, you know, if you guys do want to wield power and enact the socially conservative changes that you want, you do have to win elections.
	And telling people that they don't have a place to vote in your direction or that they don't have a place in your party isn't the way to win elections.
	So I guess if the topic is the future of the right, I think the future of the right is already settled.
	It's Trump and that's not an ideology that tells people they're not allowed to come over.
	If anything, it's an ideology that welcomes people to come over.
	So it's kind of hard to jump over actually.
	Before we jump any further, I want to let you guys know something.
	It's very important.
	As you can see, a lot of people in this country disagree right now.
	We cannot seem to come to common ground on a lot of things, which is why people see the instability in the stock market.
	We had things like the power grid fail here in Texas, which is why I want to tell you about my Patriot Supply, which you can find at preparewithelija.com.
	You know, right now, no matter what you think, bad things can happen.
	We lost power at my house.
	The grocery stores got taken for all their food, which is why I really want my followers to know that more than your politics, please take your safety in regard and please get a personal storage of food that lasts up to many, many years.
	I think up to 25 years, absolutely crazy.
	If you're not well stocked with emergency food and clean water, you need to get started right away.
	And the company that I personally recommend is my Patriot Supply because their four-week supply of emergency food, yeah, it lasts 25 years.
	It's crazy.
	And you can never have to worry again.
	So please act now and save $70 off this life-saving food, guys.
	This is really important.
	Why take the risk of going without food or standing in government food lines?
	We're talking about the future of the right.
	Right now, we're losing.
	We don't know what's going to happen in the future.
	But if you go to preparewithelija.com today, you can get your emergency food will be shipped quickly and discreetly to your door.
	So people don't know that you're, I don't know, awesome prepper and you actually prepare for real world scenarios.
	Don't pass up the $70 savings.
	Go to preparewithelija.com.
	That's preparewithelija.com to get your savings and get your food today.
	Okay, so let's jump into this.
	You're saying it's the future is this Trumpianism.
	And John wanted to respond to that.
	Yeah, I was just going to say that as we talked about earlier with where the people who voted for Trump, that coalition sit on the political spectrum, Trump may or may not have touched on this issue to either side very much, but they still fundamentally sit at the center economically and authoritatively socially.
	And so if you look at where those people pull on issues pertaining to LGBT issues, they're all basically socially conservative.
	And so maybe Trump didn't come out and support those or be as against those as he should have been to really like wield those people in.
	But basically, it's ambivalent as far as that's concerned.
	And so what we do know is that Trump taking time to address those issues, thinking he's going to win those people over hasn't actually worked.
	I mean, even his support in 2016 or 2020 with LGBT people was not like statistically significant, nor was there a statistic improvement or statistically significant improvement.
	And so when any political operation is happening, you know, you have a certain volume of discussion and resources that you can expend on different things.
	And so if you're going to waste those resources, which it is a waste on people who aren't going to vote for you anyway, because they've basically been brainwashed into hating you because we don't control the narratives and we don't control the institutions, the place that you want to be pouring those resources into would be on the issues that you won the election based on in the first place, which would be immigration, which would be free trade, and which would be foreign policy.
	It has very little to do with appealing to different interest groups and hoping that they come over, whether that's black people or gay people or transgender people.
	These are all things that Jared Kushner lobbied for because he thought that they would be effective in creating the sort of big tent movement, which I mean, obviously didn't help him too much throughout the administration, but that also wasn't why he was elected in the first place, anyways.
	Because if you look, even demographically, the people who are most likely to vote for Trump are also most likely to be socially conservative.
	So it's very clear that if we want to keep Trumpism going, if we want to keep the Trump train going, then the way to do that isn't by appealing to these issues.
	It's by appealing to the issues that got him into power in the first place.
	And then when we take the country back, then we can have these other debates once we actually wield power.
	But right now, we're just getting totally crushed.
	So we don't have time to waste resources on anything that hasn't been proven to be effective.
	Carlin?
	Blair, Blair has her hand up.
	Blair has talked less.
	I was just going to say, I actually completely agree with John that pandering to minority groups definitely didn't do Trump any favors.
	I think that the media completely controls the narratives.
	It doesn't matter.
	He could save, like, I don't know, a little person of color who's also trans out of a burning building and the media would not care.
	But that's all the more reason to, I don't think you have to pander.
	I think you just don't have to try to exclude people.
	I think that that just loses votes.
	And so, again, it just goes back to you guys can't wield any of this power you say you want to wield if you're not going to win elections.
	You're just not.
	And I don't know.
	I just think it's, it's just kind of silly to go on about this argument that certain people need to be excluded because all it's doing is telling people not to vote for you.
	And I actually agree with that.
	If it keeps going back to like, we need to win, we need to win, saying you can't vote for us or you don't have a place in the party isn't, I don't see the winning tactic of that.
	I mean, I don't think that the social conservative movement is going to necessarily grow stronger to the point where you wouldn't need.
	And also what you said about LGBT votes not having a statistical raise, I believe they did double.
	Obviously, it's still a small community, but it did double from 2016.
	So clearly there is a shift happening.
	I think it was 14% in 2016 and probably like 1% every other election before that.
	And it was like 28% in 2020.
	So yeah, you know, minority groups don't necessarily win elections now.
	Over time, they very well could.
	Can I just move to Lauren Cook?
	900,000 votes.
	900,000 people nationally came out from the LGBTQ community and voted for President Trump.
	We've done the math.
	It was absolutely not beneficial for all the money we spent when we could have been going after the working class, the white working class, the Christian working class, the religiously, yeah, we spent way too many resources.
	So the lie that we have to be a big tent in order to win and we have to be inclusive, you know, like I said, there is a party for free market capitalism and transgenderism and liberalism.
	That's called the Libertarian Party.
	Why don't you join them?
	We do not need you.
	You are doing nothing but hurting us.
	You are hurting the Christian vote by creating a platform for yourself saying, this is Trumpism.
	This is Trumpism.
	You know, we should have never glorified this in the first place while we are losing everything on social issues we lose every single time.
	You know, we are influencing, you know, public opinion matters and we are influencing our own elected officials to not take a stand on issues such as transgenderism, LGBTQ education, drag queen story hour.
	They are saying nothing.
	We have created a cowardly elected class within our party.
	So it is not helping us.
	There is absolutely no electoral benefit.
	There's no social benefit.
	And if, like I said, if you are a gunslinging, freedom loving person, absolutely, we'd love to have you come vote for us.
	But should you be having a say in influencing the party?
	Should you have an opinion that, you know, like Jared Kushner was the one who did push the LGBTQ agenda, mass migration.
	And those were the things that, you know, mass migration was something that Trump addressed in 2016.
	That's what got the white working class out to vote for him.
	You know, so there are plenty of votes out there for us to get, but it doesn't come with compromising.
	We don't get those 15 million unregistered Christian voters to get them registered to vote now to vote for us by glorifying the LGBT community.
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
	I don't know why Lauren's still against the First Amendment.
	I think the First Amendment is pretty great.
	I also think the Second Amendment is pretty great too, because it protects the first.
	And these are the things that we should actually be conserving.
	And we can't do that if we can't win elections.
	The fact of the matter is, Lauren, that every single problem you have with the LGBT movement right now, from giving hormones to kids, medical transition, whatever, this was all caused by the right losing the culture war 30 years ago when they tried to legislate their religion.
	That is why we're currently experiencing this today.
	The only way to come back and conserve whatever it is you want to conserve is by winning elections.
	And the fact of the matter is, it's not just people like Blair who vote based on LGBT issues.
	I am straight as an arrow.
	I'm married to a dude.
	Between the two of us, I'm the one that's actually married with the family.
	And so I will say that I absolutely will not vote for a party that treats LGBT people like they are subhuman.
	I won't do it.
	Part of the reason that Trump won my vote is because he does not care.
	He promotes people.
	He doesn't promote sexualities.
	Okay, so first of all, you're using issues again on me that you don't apply for yourself.
	So Dr. Carl here was the first one to celebrate me being banned from Twitter.
	She was so excited to see that my voice had been silenced.
	So freedom of speech for the, but not for me.
	Absolutely.
	So, you know, disregard that opinion.
	Well, I celebrated that you were banned on Twitter because you repeatedly tweeted that my husband should be deported, Lauren.
	No, he's not.
	I am now thrilled that I don't have to hear you call for my husband to be deported on Twitter, who has had a permanent green card for the last six years.
	He came into our country illegally.
	He broke our laws.
	He did not.
	He married an American.
	How lucky is he?
	He has to go back.
	I'm sorry.
	He doesn't, honey.
	That's not how laws work.
	It's not how laws work.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	I have a husband and you don't, Lauren.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	You're welcome.
	Anyone will respond?
	You guys can keep going.
	Keep going.
	Blair's like, I'm all.
	You want me to keep going?
	Oh, well, you know, I'm in early recovery.
	So, you know, I've only been clean three years.
	You know, myself getting in toxic relationships is what kept, you know, me relapsing.
	So, you know, I'm just doing it with wisdom this time.
	I'm dating.
	But my intention is to get married and have children eventually, but I certainly will not be marrying an illegal alien to give him his green card.
	So, you know, I hopefully will find an American man.
	I will find an American man.
	You'll be pleased to know we had several interviews with ICE and they blessed our marriage.
	Really?
	Even though he wasn't illegal and didn't come the right way?
	We're going to have to reinvestigate.
	Let's go to Blair.
	Here's the thing, though.
	Like, we can keep talking about my husband, all she wants to talk about him.
	But the fact of the matter is, my husband ain't going to win us an election.
	Votes are going to win us elections.
	I don't know why we're so focused on these issues that are driving people away from voting for things like conserving the First Amendment, conserving the Second Amendment.
	That's really what I would like to have the conversation about.
	We don't even work the First Amendment.
	You won't even like it.
	So why are you, why are you going to get away from that?
	Blair, I'm going to cut you guys off.
	I want to, Blair, let me hear what you're going to say.
	Oh, I was just going to say, I think that there's a little bit of a tit for tat here, but I will say, Lauren, you said that Carlin was celebrating you being the platform.
	Did see that, and I personally disagree with Carlin for doing that.
	I didn't, I don't like people being banned off Twitter or deplatforms.
	But I will say, you open this up with saying that I shouldn't be given a platform and that I shouldn't have a say in the party, or and you know, so I think there's a little bit of it to go around.
	I think everyone should probably just respect each other a little bit more.
	No, I didn't say you should be de-platformed from your voice.
	I was saying that you should not have a platform within a party who stands for traditional marriage because that is just opposing itself.
	You know, it makes no sense.
	Also, when you cannot deny that your people are the ones that are reading dressed in drag to kids at our taxpayers' expense.
	And I'm just curious to what extent am I forced, am I going to be forced to participate in your fetish or delusion while our children are being targeted for pedophilia openly?
	You know, so you know, no, I don't want to give a platform to that lifestyle.
	And those are your people.
	Here's the platformer deep.
	There is.
	Go ahead, Blair.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	There is.
	And I think this may be something that you might not be aware of, or people who are not, you know, closer to the LGBT community knowing the inner workings.
	So that's actually a huge divide from people who aren't aware of that.
	I disagree.
	I think that there's a huge divide within the community as from people who do support things like Drag Queen Story Hour, one of the things I've been very vocal against, against children transitioning.
	So I don't think it's a monolith.
	I don't think any group is a monolith.
	The same way that people, the right wing is not a monolith of just people who believe, you know, in a biblical, you know, definition of conservatism and people who don't.
	And I think that there's a really big missed opportunity for the right in the sense that I think LGBT people are actually the best warriors against gender ideology and you know and seeing and seeing children being read to by half-naked drag queens and children going under hormone therapy at 12.
	I think that people who are from that community coming and speaking out against it do a lot more, a lot better of a job at trying to stop it than people who are on the outside.
	Because at the end of the day, Lauren, you could make it part of your platform to be against those things.
	And even Carlin, you guys could talk about it, but it's never, it's simply the way it works.
	It's never going to be heard as loud as someone like myself or a gay person coming out of the community.
	And so I think that when you have, I would venture to say, the majority of LGBT people who disagree with those things, when they feel like they can't speak out against it, because what happens is the right will say, okay, you can speak out against it, but you still get no voice in the party.
	You're still disgusting.
	You're still a freak.
	They don't want to, then they end up staying on the left.
	And it makes it appear as though all of us agree with those things.
	But in reality, oftentimes we feel politically homeless, like we don't have a voice over here.
	And we have to pretend to be leftists or pretend to be along with these things because we don't have a political home.
	So again, so I just want to one second, just one last thing.
	So again, I think just in general, the overall point of what I think is that you don't benefit from turning people off from voting for you.
	You just don't.
	Okay.
	Well, listen, here's the deal.
	Your whole lifestyle really opens the door to everything that you claim to stand against.
	Now, I'm not really sure if you really stand against the transitioning of children or drag queen story hour or if it's just public opinion.
	Or if public opinion is against you because public opinion matters.
	You know, I don't really know what's really in your heart, but when you walk out a lifestyle that introduces that to children, I mean, it's there.
	It is your people.
	It is part of, you know, that's part of the package deal.
	It is spearheaded by the LGBTQ movement.
	Just because you take a normal stance on something, everybody should be opposed to grown men going into young girls' locker rooms or bathrooms.
	You know, every, that's, that doesn't make you special.
	It makes you normal, you know, and just because you dress up as a woman does not mean that you have a special opinion on something that everybody should oppose.
	Okay, so I'm not claiming to be special.
	I'm just a person that shares my opinions online.
	And what I'm just trying to tell you is that it's a lot more people than you think within the community, the LGBT community that agree with me and think the exact same way.
	Not the exact same way, but on the more radical ideas like children, everything to do with children.
	It's all good.
	I mean, you can sit here and you can insist that it's a monolith and insist that we all think that way and that it is a package deal, but it's really not, especially considering gender ideology and how it has manifested now and taken over culture and been popularized.
	It started a lot long.
	It started well after the existence and acknowledgement of gay people or transgender people.
	Transgenderism used to be a purely medical issue that was treated on a purely medical basis.
	Gender ideology that we see on college campuses and that oftentimes it's communists spreading it, that came much, much later.
	So if I don't, I think that they are two separate things.
	Okay, so let me, let me, let me, I have to move the conversation on because I know that Blair again has a hard out.
	And so I kind of want to give Carlin and John a chance to respond to this.
	So as we're wrapping this up with the big tent, with the idea of the place with gays, I don't want to get your opinion wrong, Lauren.
	So I'm just, if you can give me a brief response to this, do you believe that we should exclude the LGBT influence from the right wing and reestablish sort of like a Christian party?
	Can you give me your summary in under a minute?
	Yeah, so certainly.
	In conclusion, the LGBTQ community has no platform, should have no influence on the party that was based on traditional marriage.
	Opposing gay marriage still is our platform.
	That hasn't changed, but we are going to have to vote on it again soon.
	You know, are we going to be the party moving forward?
	Are we going to be the party that compromises on our values that got us this far?
	Are we going to stand firm on issues like family, restoring the nuclear family, getting dads back into the home, re-legalizing conversion therapy, which they have stripped parental rights where children now can't even go to get therapy if they choose to change their mind while struggling with gender dysphoria?
	You know, the only path forward with this, with this LGBTQ agenda, is stripping parents of their rights.
	Parents are being villainized for not wanting to transition their children.
	They're having their children taken away from them.
	So it is not a lifestyle that should be included in the Republican Party.
	And it's not something we need either.
	Electorally, it hurts us.
	Okay.
	Lauren, and then Carlin, let me give you, so in under a minute, can you wrap up your conclusion on this as well?
	Yeah, this is about attracting as many people to the movement as we possibly can.
	I would like everyone who believes in freedom of speech, who believes in protecting the Second Amendment, who believes in protecting all our individual liberties to come to the movement.
	And I think it's rather ironic that people like Lauren talk about treasuring the traditional family when she was campaigning on Twitter to have my husband of almost 10 years supported.
	So protecting traditional family, but break up mine.
	I would like to welcome everyone into this movement, including my husband, who will be starting the process of becoming a U.S. citizen a little later on this year.
	And when he does, when he does, he will be voting in the MAGA movement, just like me.
	John, I think that Lauren summarizes it pretty well.
	We're not saying that we're going to turn these people away.
	We're just saying that their issues can't be represented in our party platform because their issues fundamentally represent something that is deviant from the traditional American society.
	And these allusions to the Constitution as though it's an argument about religion, I think is kind of disingenuous because, like I said earlier, Lauren, I think, I mean, speaking for myself, I was against these sort of issues before I really came to the faith.
	I think it's important to put that into context that, like, when the Constitution was written, you know, you mentioned the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, even the founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, who would now be considered to be like the most radically pro-freedom of the founding fathers, when he was governor of Virginia, he wanted the punishment for sodomy to be the equivalent of the punishment for rape because these were always considered to be deviant acts that were against and went against the social fabric of the nation and the moral fabric of the nation.
	So, if you want to come vote for Republicans nominally, that's great, but you can't have your issues represented because all of your issues, whether that be two men getting married or it's just like it all represents something that is the total enshrinement of equality, which is fundamentally a left-wing idea and it always has been.
	And then, Blair, give us your conclusion.
	I guess my conclusion would be that this is all kind of silly.
	You have half the country unconstitutionally locked down, people dying alone right now, can't go to funerals, people out of work, like the entirety of the country living with almost no dignity out of all of a sudden we have lockdowns and just so much stuff to worry about.
	We're bombing Syria.
	You know, I just can't, I can't wrap my head around this being even remotely close to the most important conversation happening on the right or anywhere.
	And I think that it's also kind of just over.
	I guess I'm just kind of saying what I've already said before, but Trumpism is the future and Trumpism isn't unfortunately what you've seen with Lauren and with John today.
	And they're certainly free to advocate for an increase or a rise in social conservatism.
	But speaking for a really big chunk of my generation, which are going to be the people running things very soon, they already are.
	You know, what Carlin said earlier about we grew up in a time where we were very, very turned off in social conservatism.
	And a lot of the more radical ideas that you're seeing now in regards to gender ideology, wokeness, it is the pendulum effect of social conservatism.
	It is.
	It was, you know, I grew up in a time where when I was five years old, I was naturally feminine, getting beat up by little Christian kids in my school.
	And that was kind of the era that we were in, and things changed and people got disgusted with that.
	And the pendulum is now to the point where now you have people being disgusted with the opposite end.
	So I guess big time party is the future.
	Not a huge tent.
	You don't have to compromise on everything, but you do have to acknowledge the anomalies in people and that everyone's different.
	And if you're going to be searching for, you know, pure, perfect, ideologically consistent 100% of the time, people to only be part of your movement, you're not really going to find many of them, especially because a lot of these social conservatives on Twitter that, you know, love to talk about LGBT people being excluded, a lot of them are secretly gay behind the scenes.
	All right, I got to cut to cut you off there.
	That's a loaded statement.
	I know, John, people want to respond to that stuff.
	Maybe you are secretly gay behind the scenes.
	Maybe you're not.
	Maybe you're super straight.
	It doesn't really matter.
	Guys, I want to hear your thoughts below in the comments.
	We could kind of go on with this conversation forever.
	And I want to let you know something.
	Obviously, you know, Carlin and Lauren and Blair and John coming on, this is something that we don't get a lot of.
	And before I wrap things up, I just want to let you guys know that you can follow Carlin, you can follow Lauren, you can follow Blair and John.
	All their links to their social media is in the description.
	If you hate them, if you love them, please don't harass them, but just follow them if you like them.
	And I also want to give thank them so much for coming on today and for being willing to do what many people are not.
	If you guys like this, I encourage you, DM them, comment, start conversations.
	They probably will block you if you're a troll, but I mean, like, genuinely engage with them and follow them if you like what they believe.
	And most importantly, if you really like this, please continue to support this show at blazetv.com/slash Elijah.
	It's to get 10 bucks off a year subscription.
	And guys, we don't know if conversations like this can happen much longer, but it's very important that you help us fight the censorship.
	We could do this for a long time, and we're going to do this a lot in the future.
	And that helps support us.
	So please go to blazetv.com slash Elijah.
	Anyway, thanks so much to Carlin.
	Thank you, Lauren.
	Thank you, Blair.
	And thank you, John, for coming on.
	My name is Elijah Schaefer, the host of Slightly Offensive, the best worst show on Blaze TV.
	Make sure that you leave a five-star review for this podcast.
	It's free.
	It doesn't cost you anything.
	Links are in the description.
	And it's the most important part about all of this is that in the end, free speech reigns and that we continue to have these conversations so that we have the right future for the right wing.
	Have a great rest of the week and may God bless the United States of America.

▲