It’s been a couple of weeks since Caitlyn Jenner became a candidate for California Governor. Gavin Newsom’s record of failure prompted a recall election and Jenner jumped up to the top of the list of people to replace him should my fellow Californians choose to do so. This would be a tremendous mistake. As badly as I’d love to see Newsom replaced, Jenner is not the person for the job.
Let’s get one thing out of the way immediately. It has NOTHING to do with her status as a “transgender woman.” I am opposed to transgenderism pushed onto children and I’m against militant LGBTQ+ supremacy, which has become the Cultural Marxist’s endeavor of choice in recent years. But I’m not against people making their own choices for their own lives. If Jenner were a conservative Republican willing to be the roadblock to prevent the radical leftist legislature from continuing their reign of terror on our rights, economy, and safety, I’d support her.
My objection is ideological. She made a splash immediately by coming out against transgender people in sports. And let’s face it, this is an issue of biological males competing against girls. When Jenner came out against the popular sticking point between right and left, many conservatives said, “See! She’s one of us!”
She’s not. There are a few things in her muddled list of priorities that are conservative such as lowering taxes and cutting bureaucracy, but those stances do not make Jenner a conservative any more than they make Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney conservatives. We need to stop lowering the bar for what we claim to be conservative, and that bar needs to be lowered tremendously if Jenner is to be propelled over it.
Then, there’s the perspective Jenner holds that the 2020 election was not stolen. That alone should be the ultimate litmus test for anyone claiming to be a Republican. If one can read the thousands of affidavits, see the video, examine the inexplicable data surrounding late-night vote dumps, and still come out saying there was definitively not enough evidence to sway the election, then that person is either fighting for the wrong side or they’re an absolute moron. The same can be said about anyone who falsely claims the courts threw out the challenges based on evidence. That demonstrably didn’t happen.
Unfortunately, Jenner falls into one of those two categories. Either she’s fighting for the left or she’s an absolute moron. According to Breitbart:
California gubernatorial candidate, former Olympian, and reality TV celebrity Caitlyn Jenner declared Monday on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen from former President Donald Trump.
Jenner is one of several candidates running against Gov. Gavin Newsom in a recall election after Newsom’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Correspondent Dana Bash asked, “Do you believe that the election was stolen?”
Jenner said, “No, I believe in the system, but I believe in the — what we need to do in the future is we are a democratic republic, we need to have integrity in our election system. I’m not going to go on the past, you know. We’re in a post-Trump era, and they still keep talking about him.”
Bash asked, “Are we, though?”
Jenner said, “We are in a post-Trump era.”
Bash said, “I don’t think he believes that.”
Jenner added, “We have moved forward. ”
The argument coming from many Republicans is that she would be a dramatic improvement from Newsom. That’s probably true. But as a California resident, I can tell you this with a certainty: Unless a constitutional conservative is in the Governor’s Mansion, nothing is going to change. The Swamp in Washington DC is only slightly more corrupt and powerful than The Swamp in Sacramento. The vast majority of “Republicans” in elected office in this state would have been considered moderate Democrats a decade ago.
Slowing down the decadence in California is not a solution. If anything, I can argue that Newsom finishing out his term would actually help the GOP and the state in the not-so-long term more than a Jenner Governorship. No, that does not mean I’d prefer to have Newsom over Jenner by any means, but it’s like saying I’d rather not be tortured before dying. Both Jenner and Newsom lead to this state’s demise and if Jenner wins, the GOP has no recourse with which to try to salvage the state in the near future. At least with Democrat control failing miserably, we can continue to build the growing coalition of Democrat “walk-aways” coming to the right.
If there are any actual conservative candidates out there who are willing to discuss what they’d do if they won, I’d love to talk to them. I’d love to support them if they are true conservatives. I’m not demanding a far-right agenda, which would make winning impossible in California at this time. But I do want to see more than a Not-Newsom in the office.
Let’s look at some more warning signs from the Bash-Jenner interview:
BASH: California’s labor force includes 1.75 million undocumented immigrants. Should they have a path to citizenship?
JENNER: I would hope so. I am for legal immigration, okay. What’s been happening on the border was honestly one of the reasons I decided to run for governor. I was watching people dying come across the river, kids in cages – whatever you want to call them.
BASH: They should have a chance at citizenship?
JENNER: Absolutely. Yeah, they should.
To me, personally, there’s a lot of people, but personally, I have met some of the most wonderful people who are immigrants, who have come to this country and they are just model citizens. They are just great people and I would fight for them to be, you know, U.S. citizens. I think it would be the greatest day of their life.
BASH: What about deportation?
JENNER: The bad ones have to leave.
BASH: What do you consider a bad one?
JENNER: Criminal records, um, MS-13, the list goes on. There’s a lot of bad people trying to cross our border illegally. I don’t want those people in our country.
If California must choose between Caitlyn Jenner and Gavin Newsom, it’s like choosing between death by poison versus death by waterboarding. One is less comfortable than the other but they both lead to our demise. We need a better candidate.
Here are two articles from WND that further make the point, albeit from different angles:
Scott Lively sees conservatives supporting ‘fake woman’ as bottom of the slippery slope
There comes a time in every season of moral decline when “slippery slope” arguments become moot, because all of the terrible things you predicted on the long downward slide have come true and you find yourself in the stinking swamp at the bottom of the hill, covered in mud and surrounded by rats and snakes.
That’s where we Americans are today with the normalization of transgender insanity. And by insanity, I mean the old-school looney-tunes, climb-on-the-table-in-your-birthday-suit-and-declare-that-you’re-Napoleon kind of crazy. The keeping up with the Kardashians attention-whore kind of crazy where absolutely anything can be rationalized if it keeps you in the public spotlight. The Bruce-Jenner-as-a-drag-queen-version-of Ronald-Reagan running for governor of California kind of crazy. That’s the bottom of the slope, folks – here we are.
At the top of the slope in the 1950s we conservatives correctly predicted that normalizing porn and making comedies about marital cheating was a slippery slope that would break up marriages. In the 1960s, we correctly predicted that legalizing contraception on demand and promoting “free love” philosophies would turn the children of those newly broken homes into self-centered and self-destructive hedonists. When that hedonism led to abortion on demand and “no-fault” divorce in the 1970s we called it a slippery slope to social and fiscal chaos. When the left wing pulled out all the stops to undermine the Reagan Revolution’s efforts to restore normalcy in the 1980s, we predicted that the country would collapse into socialism and the loss of our family-centered society if they won. Then they won.
By the 1990s the slippery slope of moral and ethical decay had spread to the Republican Party, and the “establishment” RINOs had moved so far to the left that JFK’s legacy became conservative by comparison. We conservatives now had to fight the elites of both parties in warning that normalizing homosexuality for adults would be a slippery slope to the recruitment of our children in that lifestyle. By 2015, that battle was fully lost: “Gay marriage” was “legalized” by the Supreme Court, and a vast percentage of American school children had been fully brainwashed in Marxist ideology and “sexual freedom.” Lesbianism among teen girls was the most popular social fad of the decade, and increasing numbers of boys started wearing girlish clothing and defending “gayness.”
It’s hard to believe that was only six years ago, but there was still a “slippery slope” we could warn about in the form of transgenderism. My, how conservative the society still seemed then when the majority strongly pushed back. My, how things can change so quickly when the leftist social engineers really put their shoulders to the wheel, and the Biden FDA helps out by fast-tracking the approval of “puberty blockers.”
“Conservatism” has always been a losers game for those who forget what it is we’re supposed to be “conserving.” These “loser-conservatives” think their job is just to conserve the “status quo,” whatever that might be at the moment, and as the status quo gets more liberal, so do they. They’re the conservative movement’s version of useful idiots, always moving leftward at the same rate of speed as the liberals, just ten paces behind. They’re actually more idiotic than the liberal’s useful idiots, who at least get the joy of winning each new battle as it gets fought, while the “loser-conservatives” never stop eating their dust while they adjust themselves to each new loss – perpetually. Look at how many “conservative” opponents of transgenderism now defend homosexuality, just as many opponents of homosexuality in the ’90s defended sex outside of marriage. It’s a whole other kind of crazy, to be frank, but we’ll leave it at that.
True conservatism has always been about our founding principles – constitutionalism – and the Judeo-Christian culture from which they grew. It has always been about the biblical concept of “ordered liberty,” not secular libertarianism, which has no standard for order, only a resistance to “being ordered,” which constitutionalists share when tyranny raises its head (which makes today’s MAGA coalition possible). Ordered Liberty may (within reason) tolerate some dissent from the essential norms – natural marriage, family, community, economy, health, foods and foreign relations – but it can never survive if it allows these norms to be supplanted by counterfeit alternatives.
The primacy of the natural family in the order of mainstream society, for example, is the immune system of a healthy civilization. Overthrowing that norm to serve the interests of “sexual minorities” was predictably disastrous for social health: a manifestly true law of nature that the still-sane can confirm with our own eyes by observing the chaos we’re suffering today by breaking that law.
Transgenderism is both a mental health problem and a behavioral disorder. There is no healthy version of it. It is by definition pathological. (Bruce Jenner is no more a woman than “Worf” of “Star Trek” was a Klingon.) To hold otherwise is to reject self-evident reality that any rational human can confirm by observation of male and female bodies – so perfectly complementary in design and function it is as if they were created for the purpose of becoming “one flesh” for the bearing and raising of children in families. That is of course, what the Bible teaches, but as Paul notes in Romans 1, the creation itself teaches that truth so clearly that those who fail to recognize it – and the Creator Himself in His Creation – have NO EXCUSE!
Here at the bottom of the slippery slope where there is no deeper depth of moral insanity to warn against – only more of the same in ever more grotesque variations as transgenderism morphs into transhumanism – there is no excuse for the conservative movement to mollycoddle the “loser conservative” traitors who helped get us here by falling into line with the left. There is no benefit to compromising with the crazy people or trying to win their approval by virtue signaling. The level of insanity is beyond affecting with strategy or guile. It’s like fighting the undead, now: They can’t be reasoned with because they have lost connection with reality.
The only thing left to do is fight like the Host of Heaven for truth and righteousness – and there is no more important target to defeat in that process than the walking political disaster formerly known as Bruce Jenner. No “conservative” should be allowed to support this deeply disturbed fake woman without serious push-back from the rest of us. Can we finally say enough is enough?
Michael Brown: ‘The last thing we need is to normalize trans identity in our conservative circles’
I had just started writing this article, urging my conservative colleagues not to make Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner into a hero, when I spotted Ian Haworth’s op-ed about Jenner on the Daily Wire, titled, “Saying One Obviously True Thing Doesn’t Make You A Conservative Hero.” Yet, although our overall concerns are the same, the reasoning beyond our concerns is quite different.
Haworth was referring to Jenner recently stating that “biological boys” who identify as girls shouldn’t be allowed to compete against biological girls. For this, Haworth wrote, Jenner should not be viewed as a conservative icon, since many of his other viewpoints are anything but conservative.
My issue is more basic still: Jenner should not be made into a conservative hero for the very fact that he is arguably the most famous transgender individual on the planet. And transgender activism and ideology are two of the greatest threats to true conservatism today. (On this, see also John Zmirak’s column on the Stream, “Why I’m #NeverJenner and You Should Be Too.”)
To be clear, though, I am not trying to demonize Jenner or to portray him as some kind of moral monster. Obviously, I cannot relate to whatever internal struggles moved him to try to change his gender (which, for the record, cannot be done), and he may be a fine person and a decent human being in many other ways.
I am simply saying that, by no means should he be the latest poster boy/girl for conservative values, even if he is currently seeking to replace California’s radical governor, Gavin Newsom.
Yet last week, Jenner appeared in a very favorable exclusive interview with Sean Hannity on his Fox program, with Hannity (or the narrator) referring to Jenner as “she” or “her,” and with lines like, “California gubernatorial candidate Caitlyn Jenner will join us for her first exclusive interview.”
To Hannity, Jenner was always Caitlyn: “Yes, Caitlyn Jenner, is avowing a new path, a new vision forward, for the people of California.”
So, in the name of ousting a very liberal governor and helping restore California, Hannity has embraced some of the foundational values of transgender activism, referring to a biological male as “she” and referring to Bruce Jenner as “Caitlyn.”
For many years, I (and others) have said that LGBT activism was the principal threat to freedom of religion, speech and conscience in America.
Now, with the Equality Act looming, an act that would literally gut religious freedoms in America, and with states having to pass bills to protect female sports, the last thing we need is to normalize trans identity in our conservative circles.
Before the actual interview on Hannity, viewers saw a campaign video featuring lines like this: “I want to carry the torch for the parents who had to balance work and their child’s education, for business owners who are forced to shut down, for pastors who were not able to be with their congregation, or the family who lost their home in a fire, for an entire generation of students who lost a year of education.”
With all respect to Jenner’s intentions, and again, with no desire to demonize him, pastors do not need a transgender icon to fight their battles. Please.
Someone might say, “But you don’t get it. This is a great strategy, using a transgender celebrity – and a famous athlete at that – to speak against biological boys competing against girls.”
To the contrary, this amounts to trying to win a battle by surrendering the war.
In reality, it is only because of societal acceptance of people like Bruce Jenner as a woman that we’re even talking about boys who identify as girls competing against them. And if, as Jenner recently said, a male-to-female transgender teen is actually a biological boy, then Jenner is a biological man. And you don’t refer to a biological man as “she.”
Just look at some of Jenner’s statements from the interview, put side by side:
“I love this country. I’m a patriarch. I love this state. … I can’t go to my hair salon.”
What? Caitlyn is a “patriarch”? And do patriarchs refer to the place where they get their hair done as a “hair salon”?
Jenner and Hannity agreed that “we’ve got bigger problems … than pronouns in the state of California.”
Yet if you accept the use of transgender pronouns, then you have already lost the ideological war.
You have also capitulated morally, the very thing professor Jordan Peterson refused to do in Canada, which then launched him to international fame. (His famous words were, “If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”)
Sadly, Hannity has already capitulated and without the least bit of coercion, at that. Caitlyn is “she” and “she” should be applauded for her stands.
And just as gay “marriage” further dealt a blow to the meaning of marriage in America, capitulating on pronouns deals a further blow to gender distinctions and gender identity.
And who will pay the ultimate price? The children, the ones who are bombarded with radical ideologies that cause them to question their gender identity, often making terrible, life-impacting decisions they quickly learn to regret.
I’m thinking of people like Keira Bell, a 24-year-old British woman who took legal action against a National Health Service gender clinic, saying “she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.”
Now, living again as a woman, Bell has this to say: “The consequences of what happened to me have been profound: possible infertility, loss of my breasts and inability to breastfeed, atrophied genitals, a permanently changed voice, facial hair.”
Yet, to repeat, we have only gotten to this point in America (and the world) because of the larger, cultural acceptance of (and even celebration) of transgender identity to the point of branding one of our fabled, Olympic, male athletes “Woman of the Year.”
In the Hannity interview, Jenner said, “And I have always been on the Republican side, just because I have conservative economic values. You know, the old saying, lower taxes, less regulations, you know, a more friendly business environment, and we don’t have that in California.
“But socially, I’ve much – I’ve been much more progressive all my life.”
That is exactly the point Haworth was making in his op-ed. Thus, for conservatives to celebrate Jenner for his comments about transgender sports would be similar to conservatives celebrating the head of Planned Parenthood if she spoke out against the sale of aborted baby parts.
My point, again, focuses on Jenner’s very identity, as he said during the interview: “But for me as a trans woman, I think role models are extremely important for young people. Trans issues people struggle with big time. Our suicide rate is nine times higher than the general public.
“And for me to be a role model to them, to be out there. I am running for governor of the state of California, who would have ever thunk that? We’ve never even had a woman governor.”
Is this really what Sean Hannity, one of the most-watched conservative broadcasters in the world, wants to highlight on his show, seeing Jenner as a role model? Have we really fallen so far?
YouTube, Spotify, and other Big Tech platforms are taking Freedom First Network down
It’s no secret we speak our minds and bring on guests who do the same. That’s one of the biggest reasons we put together the Freedom First Network in the first place. There are far too many news outlets, including so-called “conservative” media companies, who are so beholden to Big Tech that they temper their perspectives at best and outright coverup the truth at worst. Many, as you all know, will blatantly lie in order to maintain the narrative that supports the radical agenda taking over much of the United States.
We have had our YouTube channel taken down. Many of our shows have been suppressed or removed by Facebook and Twitter. Spotify banned one of our shows completely from their platform. Google hates us. We’ve even been censored by some of the smaller players like Medium, Transistor, and Captivate. But we stand behind our reporting and perspectives and we refuse to bow down to Big Tech tyranny for the sake of pageviews or video plays.
This isn’t the easiest road to travel, especially for a media company that is so new. We launched Freedom First Network in 2020 to fight against the very censorship that we’re seeing so widespread today. We have found great homes for our content on freer speech platforms like Rumble and we’re putting our best efforts forward into building our presence on Locals. Nevertheless, we cannot do it alone. We need help.
One of the things cofounders Jeff Dornik and JD Rucker agreed to from the start was to never be the pawns of companies that do not embrace our worldview. Finding advertisers and affiliates is easy; we receive requests by companies wanting to be pushed on our shows every day. But it’s important to us that we’re promoting companies, services, and products that are beneficial to maintaining a Freedom First stance in America. As a result, we do not take on sponsors easily. We would rather rely on our own products like Freedom First Coffee and the support of our wonderful viewers, listeners, and readers.
Those who want to support us and help keep the fight for America’s future moving forward can do so by donating through our Locals page. There, you can donate monthly or one-time. Some have told us to use Patreon or GoFundMe, but both of those platforms have demonstrated a hatred for free speech. Locals does not. They embrace it. We encourage everyone to join us on Locals, but donations are greatly appreciated as well. We do not have day jobs. Our fight for freedom is a full-time gig.
Please feel free to reach out to us through our contact form. It goes directly to our founders, so if you’re interested in getting involved, investing, sponsoring, or even bringing a show to our network, let us know. May God Bless the United States of America!