On October 29th, 2019, Turning Point USA, headed
by Charlie Kirk, hosted their 6th “Culture War” panel taking on some harder
hitting questions in the brewing fight of moral and cultural issues culture. This
sixth forum took place at Ohio State University, and the hard-hitting questions
came … hard. Before I get to the events that transpired, I want to provide a
little background about Turning Point USA.
Kirk wants to take on the so-called culture war. Ok, but why
is he inviting guest hosts who are pretty liberal on some of the cultural
issues? For example, Tomi Lahren, one his guests in different TPUSA forums, is
a center-right leaning pundit, but she is pro-choice. Abortion is one of the
most contentious issues in the culture war. More disconcerting, Kirk invited a guest
panelist/participant named Rob Smith. Smith is black, an Iraq war veteran, and
he’s openly gay. Yes, and he is proud of it. On an episode of Tucker Carlson,
Smith announced without any reserve or hesitation that he was “married” to a
husband.
Why does TPUSA invite speakers and guest hosts who are
fighting against conservatives and conservatism on the culture war? Someone
please explain to me how anyone fights a culture war when the key partisans in
the fight have all but given up fighting the culture war to begin with?
Furthermore, Charlie Kirk took photos with “Lady MAGA”
proudly at the 2019 Politicon Convention, which took place in Tennessee this
year (probably due to the fact that fewer people every year are attending the
convention, in large part because the discussions panels are one-sides and the
panelists are repetitive and distinctly anti-Trump). Lady MAGA is a drag queen.
Why are conservatives normalizing, promoting sexual deviance?
During the question period, a young man named Dave Reilly
came up to the mike and said:
“We understand that sexual liberation is political control.
It’s a form of political control. You have advocated multiple times on
accepting homosexuality, accepting homosexual acts as normative in the
conservative movement. How does anal sex help us win the culture war?”
BAM! I was shocked and greatly pleased that a younger person
finally put this question out there. Why are conservatives continuing to cave
on the issues of homosexuality, gay marriage, and now transgenderism? Why are
conservative pundits running away from taking a stand on the fundamental conservative
principle of family? For the last five years, I have been sounding the alarm
about the moral decay associated with homosexuality, and the political tyranny
which is coming in the wake of the whole LGBT Agenda. It seemed that my outrage
was falling on deaf ears. Those fears were dispelled on October 29th
at Ohio State University. It was so gratifying to hear someone from the younger
generation speak out about this, and call out these so-called conservatives for
pandering to the so-called LGBT community in their push for a more “inclusive”
conservatism.
The audience erupted with loud cheers and cries of support
for the question. It was really stunning! The answers from Kirk and Smith were
quite revealing. Smith immediately attacked Reilly: “Can you have the balls to
ask the gay man on the stage that question?” Reilly had asked both of them. His
question was bold, and he had boldly asked it. There should be no question
about the young man’s courage. Smith began to sputter and repeat himself a
little bit, as he was clearly caught off guard by this question.
Smith then gave a non-answer:
“This is America. This is the greatest freakin’ nation in
the world. We realize that America is great because we have Western values.”
Right—and one of those Western values is the nuclear family
and sex as best expressed within the confines of marriage between one man and one
woman. So what was the point of that statement Smith continued:
“We realize that gays and lesbians get to contribute to
American society in the same way that everybody else is.”
What exactly do they “contribute” in their status as living
out sexual perversion? They do not give birth to children, for starters. On top
of that, the sexually destructive behaviors lead to mental and emotional
problems, as well as the spread of venereal disease. On top of that, LGBT
militancy has forced perverse curricula into public schools, without parental
knowledge or permission. Individuals who choose not to celebrate LGBT
activities and ideas are hounded out of the public square, sued in court, lose
their jobs, or even face jail time. How is this contributing anything
worthwhile to America?
Smith then added: “When you continue doing that, you realize
that we are here, we are able to do everything.” What kind of answer was this? It
showed once again that Smith was caught off guard and clearly offended by the
question, as though anyone should question his behaviors. Then Smith played the
veteran card, as if to silence further debate.
“I served in the military …
Reilly cut through the debate and asked again: “How does
homosexual sex help us win the culture war?”
Smith tried spin it back on Reilly, as though he was
affirming that homosexuality is helping conservatives win the culture war. Then
Smith used the basest response yet: “It’s a BS question. It’s not a good faith
question.”
Wrong, Rob! Wrong, Charlie! Wrong, TPUSA! It’s an EXCELLENT
question. The loud chorus of boos which followed Rob’s arrogant, dismissive
response confirmed that Reilly’s question was well-taken.
I have waited a long time for someone to start asking these
tough questions, to start putting the screw to political pundits and elected
officials. Why is the conservative movement in general, and Republican
officials in particular, caving on the LGBT issues? At the Republican National Committee
Convention in 2016, pro-family and Evangelical forces strived to maintain the
pro-life and pro-family planks of the party platform. They not only succeeded,
but exceeded expectations. The RNC platform rejects the Obergefell “gay
marriage” decision, rejects transgender bathrooms, and even affirms the value
of reparative therapy for individuals seeking to leave LGBT behaviors.
And yet, elected officials in Congress put up the weakest
arguments to stop the Equality Act, legislation which if passed would pervert
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to treat sexual perversions like homosexual,
transgenderism, and even pedophilia as civil rights. The wrecking ball damage
of state-sponsored tyranny that would result from the passage of this law is
incalculable if she legislation was enacted into law.
Conservative pundits refuse to question the fundamental
arguments about homosexuality and transgenderism, such as “Are people really
born that way?” Other questions, like “Why are we normalizing mental illness”
and “Should we allow drag queens around children” have become more prominent,
as well. Sadly, libertarian-leaning pundits like David French have actually
DEFENDED Drag Queen Story Hour. Unbelievable. How much more are conservatives
going to tolerate on this LGBT front or rather affront?
Trying to help Rob Smith save face at The Ohio State
University forum, Charlie Kirk jumped in:
“Honestly, I don’t care what two consenting adults do …
Reilly shouted back: “You should!”
Yes, we should. Private morality, or the lack thereof, does
indeed have public consequences. Nations have criminalized incest, for example,
even if it were to take place between two consenting adults. Prostitution is
also criminalized, because she rampant sexual perversion undermines the moral
fabric of a community as well as endangering public health. Kirk then adopted a
similar attitude of derision toward Reilly and retorted: “Your hyper focus on
it is kinda weird.” Smith then piled on: “You seem to be really interested in
gay sex. If you’re into that, you can go find someone to do it with.”
Of course, the last comments were an example of a staggering
left-wing tactic: don’t debate the issue, attack the person. Individuals who
rightly oppose homosexuality, including its rampant promotion and
pervasiveness, get slammed as “closet homosexuals” in turn. Really bad form,
Charlie and Ron. Really bad! So much for
an honest debate. Rob couldn’t leave well enough alone. What he followed up
with next was really degrading: “Someone like that has no place in the
conservative movement. That is so behind the times.”
Another chorus of boos followed, as was warranted. Wasn’t
the whole Culture War forum about debating cultural issues? No one of the
panelists is suggesting that that pro-family conservative has no place there.
Sounds like a robust form of censorship. And since when has conservatism been
about being up with “the times”? Since when has civilization, Biblical morality,
or scientific fact had anything to do with fads and passing opinions? The very
nature of conservatism is protection of revered institutions with a commitment
to deliberate—thoughtful and slow—change if needed. Conservatism is about
fighting for eternal values, not going with the flow.
The next questioner didn’t let this disregard from the two
panelists pass:
“We don’t want centrists in the conservative movement. We
want to retain our core values. We don’t want drag queens … You’ve advocated
for homosexuality. You said there is a place for the gay agenda in the
conservative movement. You’re also comfortable with transgenders and
cross-dressers. So my questions, is there any points where conservatives should
take a moral stance on Christian morality or should we abandon it altogether?
What is your brand of conservatism doing to conserve Christian morality?”
ANOTHER GREAT QUESTION!
Conservativism, to be robust and effective, must be firmly
planted in Judeo-Christian values. Yes, indeed. Islamic values, which in a
chronological sense are quite progressive, considering that the Koran was
written after the Torah and New Testament, do not bolster conservatism, but
rather a large state at the expense of individual liberty, and even freedom of
conscience. Hinduism rejects scientific fact in large measure, and even
Buddhism and Daoism abandon rugged skepticism for blind mysticism. The fusion
of faith and reason is essential to conservatism, and this fusion is best
portrayed in the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Using another left-wing tactic, shaming the questioner
rather than debating the question, Kirk pointed at Smith and said “So, you’re
saying that you don’t want him in the movement?” Then he said, “I want to
rationally understand an irrational position.”
What a sham deflection! Once again, instead of responding,
Charlie attacks the guy. The second questioner was really clear about defending
natural marriage. What is so hard about responding to that? Easy—TPUSA is NOT
interesting in conserving the culture, not interested in conserving
morality—and those two young men called them out on it.
Rob Smith tried to give a more spirited defense for his
homosexuality while also denigrated the more insidious iterations of the LGBT
movement in our culture. He talked about the “alphabet soup left.” He then
referred the whole movement to allow children to transition into another gender
as “garbage.” It’s not just garbage—it’s evil! Then Smith called himself a “gay
Christian.”
This is nonsensical. There is no “gay” identity.
Homosexuality is a behavior, even an ideology, but not an identity. Charlie
Kirk says “I’m a Christian, and I think the Bible is the greatest book ever
written.”
OK, well what do Christians find that the Bible says about
homosexuality?
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans
1:26-27)
And
“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
You cannot be a Christian and walk openly in sin. The grace
of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and live godly lives (Titus 2:11-14)—and
that includes rejecting homosexual behaviors and embracing a new identity in
Christ (1 John 4:17). I submit that there are Christians who struggle with
same-sex temptations or gender dysphoria. Life in Christ is a process of
growing in grace (2 Peter 3:18), and there are many Christians who may not
understand their full standing and the fulfilled promises which they can claim
in Christ Jesus.
But the notion of a “Gay Christian” is not sound doctrine
and should not be tolerated. The notion of “gay conservative” is also
untenable. There may be conservatives who struggle with same-sex temptations,
just as there are conservatives who eat too much, drink alcohol to excess,
etc.—but in no way should these behaviors be celebrated as identities and
welcomed into conservative movements as a part of a broader “inclusive”
outreach.
For the last 20 years, conservatives have been bombarded
with this harsh talking point—mostly from the media, major corporate interests,
and liberal activist groups—that conservatives, that Republicans need to be a
Big Tent. What conservatives seem to forget, however, is that a tent has to be
grounded in something, cover something, and stand for something. Otherwise,
it’s a piece of cloth on the ground, no matter how big, which everyone can walk
on, and which does not serve its intended purpose.
And this is precisely why conservatism is not conserving
anything. Instead of taking a stand on moral issues, conservative activists and
the politicians they elect accommodate and give up. They have continued to cede
ground on the complex yet compelling moral issues of our day. The attitude has
been “we can’t win on this issue. Let’s just give up and focus on what we can
win on.” And it’s not working. The Overton Window has moved so far to the left,
that we have Drag Queens in our libraries and pornographic images pushed on our
children in public schools as “sex education.”
This stand-and-retreat accommodationism is not acceptable.
Donald Trump didn’t run that kind of campaign when he ran
for President. He responded effectively to the border crises and immigration
problems that this country faces. He spoke openly about the plight of mothers
and fathers who lost their children to illegal aliens, even when the mainstream
media and political class refused to talk about them. He recognized the damage
done by “free trade” policies—which were not really free trade—and how they
eviscerated our country’s manufacturing base. He also responded boldly to the
problems of radical Muslims, Islam, Islamic terror, and the coming refugee
crisis which had overrun Europe.
The Pro-Life Movement is not that kind of movement, either.
Since 1973, when Roe v. Wade was shoved onto the country by judicial
fiat, pro-life activists have punched back twice as hard, doubled-down on their
demands to make abortion illegal and to make life the best choice for mothers
and fathers to make. 40 years later, the pro-life movement has become
distinctly militant and effective. A number of states have criminalized
abortions after different timetables closer to the actual conception of the
child. They continue pressuring lawmakers to take a firm stance on the life
issue. In the last ten months, Congressional Republicans have tried to bring up
a bill 85 times to spare the lives of babies born alive after a botched
abortion. When they were in the majority, Congressional Republicans attempted
to repeal Obamacare only 55 times. The
pro-life movement has been so driven, that even bluntly pro-choice real estate
mogul Donald Trump became the most pro-life Republican President on record—even
more than Reagan, and actually fulfilled the promises offered by previous
Republican administrations to defund Planned Parenthood and install an
unprecedented number of pro-life judges and executive officials.
That kind of robust advocacy and consistency, not leniency,
is needed in the culture war. Ironically, TPUSA’s “Culture War” town halls have
shown how this and other so-called conservative movements are more like
“culture surrenders”. The garbled and perverse responses from Charlie Kirk and
Rob Smith on the infiltration of homosexuality into mainstream conservatism
really called this out, and called out it quite well.
I am so glad that the young men who lined up to ask
questions put the issues out there so succinctly. It’s time to hold political
pundits, commentators and gatekeepers to higher standards. We need to be
confronting our elected officials and national opinion makers on these issues,
especially the integrity of the family and the rampant moral corruption of the
LGBT movement. Let’s hope that more young people will ask these hard questions
to mainstream conservative leaders and proponents and put a stop to this LGNBT
pandering and disregard for faith and family, not just freedom.
TPUSA is a blight on conservatism, and they were finally
called out for it. Now it’s time for battle-tested, war-minded conservatives to
take up the fight for faith, family, and freedom and call out this insidious
LGBT Agenda, which has warped its way among the Christian faithful and within
the conservative movement in the United States and around the world. If younger
people can ask these bold questions and take conservative thought-leaders to
task, what’s holding back the rest of us?
