“Conservative trans woman” is apparently a thing now, but Steve Deace ain’t having NONE of it…

There’s a few articles out there now on a ‘conservative trans woman’ who apparently said a few things about the transgender idiot in Canada that got offended when a bunch of women wouldn’t wax his…..ya know:

Conservative and transgender…um….what?

The fist I heard of this was from Steve Deace, who noticed this in his timeline and had a similar reaction:

I agree with him completely. You can’t just abandon the most basic essence of our humanity and call yourself a conservative.

I get that everyone doesn’t believe in God, but Christianity is at the very heart of conservatism. It was at the very center of America’s founding over two centuries ago, as we see in our most sacred documents. And there’s a good reason for this, because you can’t have a truly free society without virtue, and virtue doesn’t grow on trees. It comes from God.

This is why I have a hard time with so-called secular conservatives who are also social liberals. It just doesn’t compute for me.

In any event, this Blaire White dude responded to Deace, and here’s his response to her…I mean him:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

155 thoughts on ““Conservative trans woman” is apparently a thing now, but Steve Deace ain’t having NONE of it…

  1. Totally agree with Steve. So, do we now have Trans Conservatives or are they Transervatives? Hmmmm

  2. I remember when being an openly gay conservative was a oxymoron. A trans conservative is just the next thing in this mixed up world.

  3. Just want to put this out there that you don’t have to be Christian to be a social conservative. A belief in God helps, but honestly, I don’t understand why so many people are so eager to embrace any new sexual/gender social experiment that comes along. I guess the brainwashing of the young is very effective.

  4. A conservative by definition is one holding to traditional attitudes and values, so by that definition a trans-conservative would be an oxymoron.

  5. Steve knows that there are millions who call themselves conservatives but aren’t. It’s like the ones who say well I’m a fiscal conservative or I’m a social conservative. Ridiculous! You either are or aren’t….sadly most aren’t.
    Of course the goal is to give Conservatives (real ones) a bad name..I.e. let the bashing and beating begin…

      1. I only watch Hannity when Mark is on and or Ted Cruz is on any of them. Never liked the guy.

  6. Blare, believe it or not everyone, is one of the good guys…or girls, whatever. Blare has been on Gavin McInness, Dave Rubin and Steven Crowder’s show multiple times. Blare is very good on wanting to be trans & just be left alone. Accept it…cool, if not, that’s cool too. Blare also doesn’t want to force anyone to accept his/her lifestyle on anyone that doesn’t agree through lawfare.

    It would be a mistake to dismiss Blaire, especially when he/she has a lot of views that are consistent with conservatism. It would just give more ammo to the socialists to call us all bigots & whatever. I don’t agree with his/her lifestyle either, but like the Stones song, “You can’t always get what you want”. Remember, just 10 years ago, the thought of a gay conservative was unthinkable…now we have guys like Guy Benson & philosophical allies like Dave Rubin (Rubin I grant is not a conservative, but a classic liberal with a lot of views that we can agree on)

    I say if you don’t know about him/her, just give Blaire at the least a fair hearing on his/her videos. What’s the worst that you have to lose?

    1. Just stop calling biological males a her or she. They are not. I am so sick of males diminishing women with this crap. Steve Deace is right here.

    2. They may say some things we agree on, but at the same time we do have to have standards. Otherwise, we are no different from the Left. And where do we draw the line exactly? Would it be acceptable to have a pedo whose a conservative? I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t matter if we agreed with such a person 100% politically, the fact they were a pedo would be a deal breaker. That’s an extreme example, but you get the point.

    3. He may be fine on most issues, but he has a problem he’s not addressing. We shouldn’t celebrate his problem, but can certainly acknowledge his good arguments when he makes them and ignore the rest.

    4. I can accept that Rubin or Benson or some others may be gays with conservative leanings.

      I will not accept gay marriage. It needs to be undone.

      1. Govt has bestowed certain rights ONLY to certified married people (inheritance visitation rights etc). So gays want to be “married” to enjoy those rights.
        If “civil unions” have the same rights, I guess they would be okay with it.

        Food for thought.

  7. what is so conservative about going through the process of changing God’s creation.Like Steve Deace,count me out.No special privileges neither.Keep their butt out of the Military also.

  8. If by Conservative they mean anti-Socialist, fine, I welcome that much at least, but the fact that they think being the opposite sex is a real thing shows they’re still manipulated by the socialists. On a side note, if you want to preach to the choir, talk about God making males and females. If you want to actually win converts and the argument, talk about the scientific evidence that these people are NOT suddenly the opposite sex just because they want to believe it. In fact they’re not even the opposite sex after a “sex change” operation and any doctors who profit from this are engaging in the worst sort of predatory fraud there is.

  9. I’ve actually watched a lot of Blair White’s videos. She’s got some very choice words to say about the sickos who insist on putting their kids through this in order to virtue signal their leftist credits.

  10. I like Steve Deace a lot. Not sure if…. sigh, I don’t know nearly as much about Blair White. She seems more on the level than most trans. What’s Steve’s position? That she isn’t conservative? I dunno, man.

    Look, I was a crossdresser for years. I don’t do it anymore, but that’s besides the point. I’m pretty damn conservative. It was a compulsion, an obsession. Deace knows more than most that we’re human and have weaknesses.

    What would that satisfy him? I mean, what’s Blair White’s attitude towards her transgenderism? Does she see it as a problem that she’s coping with as best she can, or is she “yeah, I’m a woman, bigot” kind of mentality?

    1. It’s an interesting subject. For years there have been religious conservatives who have essentially alienated and driven away allies against the Left by belittling anyone that doesn’t conform in all aspects to what is deemed conservative. To be fair, being a transvestite is not at all conservative, but then I’ve come to realize that conservatism has been a HORRIBLE vessel for opposition to socialism. It’s great as a personal/cultural disposition, but terrible as a POLITICAL vessel.

      To push back against the Left conservatives don’t have to lose who we are, but we absolutely cannot drive new people away from the coalitions which are required to win political victory. Trump’s election has shaken this old coalition up and the Conservative purists have largely now been ostracized as NeverTrumpers, which is fine because perfection is the enemy of the good and was a recipe for socialists continuing to takeover. Now ironically it’s the socialist purists who are causing problems for the Left.

      The reality is that it’s Liberalism that is for freedom and that is the central tent-pole of Western civilization, but it was the socialist Leftists themselves who have hijacked and bastardized that term and Conservatives inadvertently helped them to do it. The founding fathers were Liberals. Today we say Classical Liberal, but most people are completely ignorant on both sides as to the history not only of Liberty, but of the socialist threat to its existence.

      1. A purity test is too much, of course and wouldn’t be in our interests. Still, there needs to be some standards to conserve, or what else is the point of being a conservative?

        A moderate transgender person may be a bit better than a radical gender terrorist like Mr. Wax My Balls, Bigot. But it’s still a bit of a quandary. The LGBT movement is becoming very dangerous to social stability, let alone morality, let alone freedom of speech or religion. (They’ve gone far beyond just wanting personal “rights.”). Sure, maybe there are a few that think they went too far… or are there? Maybe Blair White is one of the few. I haven’t seen much out of Guy Benson on this. Still, I don’t know how far she goes to oppose the nutcases.

  11. Oh, geez can we just go back to male or female? It is NOT complicated. I’m with Deace. I won’t buy into it. I refuse. No matter what you call yourself.

  12. Is there a perfect conservative? Would we all be able to agree on what that even means? If Blair agrees with me on most things, why wouldn’t I consider her a conservative? And I think it’s a good thing that some trans people can think for themselves.

    1. OK, but we should also step back with eyes wide open here. His philosophical faculties might be well ordered to an extent, but there’s still a significant dysfunction residing in his gender identity system. Yes that’s not my business but I’m not going to start calling a “he” a “she” just because he says things I agree with. A part of me doesn’t really give a shite what he does and the other part is unwilling to compromise objective reality by passively accepting what I consider to be the manifestation of a serious mental illness.

    2. If you buy into his delusion then you yourself are part of the problem and don’t even realize it.

      “Trans” people are mentally ill. This is inarguable.

    3. We should be able to agree what conservatism (i.e. conserving our founding principles) means, and the character of the person delivering the message matters (e.g. Milo Yiannopoulos), but I’m not sure why a ‘conservative trans woman’ has to stop identifying as a conservative, even if the concept of nature’s laws are lost on him.

  13. Kinda disagree with Deace here, because it seems like he’s conflating conservatism with ‘social conservatism.’ The notion of being ‘trans’ might be at odds with nature, and detrimental to Christianity and society itself, but conservatism is about individual liberty (e.g. freedom of religion), limited government and fiscal responsibility. The Bible might reinforce these ideas, along with free markets and representative government, but that doesn’t mean someone who identifies as trans can’t subscribe to them.

    1. I question the use of the term conservative to define a political coalition. What you call social conservatism in reality IS conservatism, which is a personal/cultural disposition. It has been of terrible utility in the fight to oppose socialism for exactly this kind of situation. Blair White is NOT a conservative, but he must certainly be welcome as a member of the Liberty coalition to oppose the Leftists. We can’t afford to drive people like this away because forming a winning political coalition always demands strange bedfellows… pun somewhat intended.

      1. Social conservatism is an ideal that needs to be restrained from time to time, so it doesn’t infringe on individual liberty, or the free will afforded to all of us in the Bible.

      2. It’s even become a metaphysical disposition simply because a predominant part of the left doesn’t even believe that any notion of “the individual” exists, only group identity.

  14. I question the use of the term conservative to define a political coalition. Conservatism is a personal/cultural disposition. It has been of terrible utility in the fight to oppose socialism for exactly this kind of situation. Blair White is NOT a conservative, but he must certainly be welcome as a member of the Liberty coalition to oppose the Leftists. We can’t afford to drive people like this away because forming a winning political coalition always demands strange bedfellows… pun somewhat intended.

    1. I made the point below though, where exactly do we draw the line? Even if we agreed on a majority of issues, there are some things that are just deal breakers. At least for me anyways. I mean people are already using politically correct pronouns, calling him a she. That means we’re already compromising our values just to be “inclusive”. That reminds me an awful lot of what the Left does. The expression, if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas comes to mind.

      1. But my point is that you’re right, it IS a deal breaker for conservatism. It should not be a deal breaker for building a winning political coalition to oppose the socialists, however. This does not mean we must suddenly accept the nonsense premise that he’s a woman because he thinks he is, nor should we support any legislation that supports the same. Not at all. But it doesn’t hurt to focus on the areas of agreement while ignoring the areas of disagreement and only outright OPPOSING if they want to push pro-transgender legislation. He’s not a conservative, that’s for sure. I just want to make the point that he can still be anti-Leftist or pro-Liberty and it would serve us much better if that was how we chose to divide our politics.

  15. On the one hand, this is America and if you want to pretend you are, say, a dragon or a unicorn or a sex that your chromosomes don’t agree with then fine…that is your right. You have the right to be a lunatic.

    On the other hand, you do not have the right to demand that anyone participate with you in your delusion. And I have the right to be protected from your delusion insofar as it in any way becomes a danger to my safety or the safety of my family or infringes on my freedom or liberty.

    Plus, you belong in an institution and safely separated from minor children, sharp objects, firearms, microphones and cameras.

    (Party of “science” they said. It is to laugh.)

  16. How do you conserve what is already lost?

    The term “conservative” goes back to Burke railing against the radicals in France. Burke, and his ilk, recognized the radicals were simply mob rule, run amok, and a threat to liberty. Was he trying to conserve the British system from similar radicals in his own country? Yes, but he wasn’t trying to freeze the British system in time. British conservatives of that era sought an incremental approach to progressive reforms (e.g. expanding the franchise, empowering the middle class at the expense of the aristocracy, market reforms, etc.).

    John Adams, the first truly “conservative” American thinker, shared many of Burke’s beliefs and philosophy, but he wasn’t trying to “conserve” a system – he, with the other founders, was trying to establish a system that maximized liberty, kept tyranny at bay, and so constrained the “natural aristocracy” they could not game the system at the expense of the larger citizenry.

    Adams was far more prescient and insightful than most realize. His “Defence of the Constitutions of the United States” was a masterpiece detailing every form of representative government to date and defending the organization of the various state constitutions. His three volume book was widely read and referenced at the Constitutional Convention.

    He recognized early on, America’s greatest threat was not from a single autocrat assuming power, but from a clique of influence peddlers and the politically powerful warping the system to create a broad authoritarian regime rewarding themselves at the expense of the public.

    In his final letters to Jefferson, he explained while most of the founders feared a tyrant or feared the mob, and while he feared those threats too, he really feared “the few” – the natural aristocrats – the elites. Today, his fear is the one we’re facing in real life.

    Any talk about what is or isn’t conservative or self-proclaimed arbiters of what conservatism is today makes me wonder if the author knows where the term came from and what it means. Sure, they’re using it in the modern sense, but everyone has a different definition – fiscal, social, religious, etc.

    The is nothing left to conserve. Maybe we should quit using the word “conservative” with all the implied references to “going back” to something and have a different word for those who want policy that maximizes liberty.

    I think gender dysphoria is a mental issue and those suffering from it deserve pity and need help. If one of them espouses “conservative” values, that’s great, but it doesn’t change they need help from mental health professionals.

    1. Interesting. Today, many of us who label ourselves conservative are, like Burke, railing against what we have lost to the mob.

    2. You make excellent points I agree with, but Liberalism came first and that’s what our founding fathers were. Today both Liberalism and Conservatism have been warped into other meanings. If anything the Conservatism you write about would be an overlay to the political idea of Classical Liberalism, which is what our nation was founded upon. There’s the political realm and then there’s the social/cultural realm. If anything the two must go hand in hand, but the overlap isn’t 1 to 1.

      1. You’re absolutely correct, which is why some refer to themselves as “classical liberals” and why the right of center party in the Australia is the Liberal Party. That’s also why Libertarians chose their name back in ~1972 to try to “reclaim” liberal from the leftists.

        This is also why many opt for “leftist,” “progressive,” or “statist” to refer to those who were called “liberal” in the 70’s.

        Political realm, social realm, cultural realm, religious realm – “conservative” will always be changing and subject to re-interpretation based on the baseline of the speaker/writer and listener/reader.

        The term was never especially useful and is even less relevant today than ever before. I think fighting over it and trying to claim X is not or is conservative is silly.

  17. I get that everyone doesn’t believe in God, but Christianity is at the very heart of conservatism. It was at the very center of America’s founding over two centuries ago, as we see in our most sacred documents.

    At the risk of my Catholic heathenism showing, I’ve been in many a philosophical/theological tussle about the nature of morality in society. There’s a very “chicken or egg” thing going on with it.

    On the one hand, if you accept that God exists and that all is derived from Him – this necessarily includes morality. Which means that He is the arbiter of Good/Evil, Right/Wrong. On the other hand, if you don’t accept that God exists – morality can still exist because one can assert its objectivity as something attributed to God by the men who created religion. Either way, you’ve got an Objective Morality.

    And morality must be objective, because everything else in reality is objective. So whether it comes from God or whether it’s attributed to God is ultimately irrelevant. Morality – like any other aspect of knowledge – simply is. It must play by the same logical rules that govern everything, all the way down to the Law of Identity.

    So, if conservatism accurately reflects morality – and I, for one, think it does – does it really matter whether it’s rooted in Christianity or anything else? No. So long as it accurately reflects morality, that’s all that matters. (This, I might add, hearkens back to the Dantean notion of the Righteous Dead – people who got it right all throughout life without accepting, or even knowing God. They don’t get to sit next to Him in the afterlife, but they ain’t going to any kind of “hell” that one might lament ending up in either. As a believer, I like to think of it as folks who had God whispering to them, but never realized who they were hearing from.)

    So, coming back to our transgender conservative – all right, so she/he/she/he ain’t exactly in step with the physical reality; but judging her solely on her moral merits is there anything demonstrably and objectively false about the moral tenets she espouses?

    Maybe. I can’t say I know every word Blair has ever spoken. But of what I have heard, I have found it largely accurate and consistent with conservative morality. Regardless of what one may think of Blair, what she’s saying is not wrong simply because Blair is the one saying it.

    And that’s a pitfall I think a lot of religious people tend to fall into. Blair clearly has a departure from, as Scoop put it, “the most basic essence of our humanity” – but does that make her wrong on a moral tenet she espouses?

    I can’t say yes. No different than if she were to post a video explaining why 2+2=4.

    1. Deace’s point was the “Transgender Conservative” is a label that can’t be accepted as Conservative. I have to agree with him. The person may say conservative things and live a mostly conservative life, but being transgender as NOT conservative because it goes against the Judeo-Christian moral code which is the base of conservatism.
      For your morality comments. They sound all good but without the compass that is provided by the religion that is millennias old you find morality becoming subjective based on an individuals belief of what is moral and what is not. It is a thing I often think about when a consider where non-religious people get their moral compass from. Even different religions have different “moralities”. Fortunately most established faiths are fairly in line with what’s considered moral and what’s not.

      1. Thought experiment:

        Suppose I had a magical genie lamp, and I made a wish that everyone would instantaneously forget that God exists and all the Bibles and crosses and churches and anything pointing to or referencing the Judeo-Christian faith would disappear. That is to say, there’s eight billion people on the planet and not a one of them has any inkling of anything Judeo-Christian whatsoever. God still DOES exist – but literally nobody knows it.

        Does conservatism also pop out of existence? Does morality itself?

        I’d argue no to both. Nothing in our political philosophy would change. Nothing in our social philosophy would change. We wouldn’t all become craven monsters killing and stealing in a Hobbesian state of nature. So, no, I disagree that J-C is the base of conservatism. I think it aligns with conservatism because both aim to accurately reflect morality.

        One of the philosophical ideas I’ve spent decades trying to establish is: regardless of whether God created morality or not, we do not need God to understand, accept and live by its tenets. And I think this is most evidenced by the pre-Christian societies that lived morally correct without ever having heard of Judeo-Christianity.

      2. I think the reason is that in today’s world Christian values are on a collision course with LGBT values. The LGBT lobby has made it so that if you express support for traditional marriage then you are labeled a bigot and should be tossed from the public square. If you do not accept 71 genders then you could lose your teaching job…etc….Society has given more rights to LGBT individuals than Christians and other individuals who are not in the LGBT community.

    2. Do you think morality just “came to be” at some point?

      Just another random occurrence like that which caused the universe to create itself?

      1. I’ve always found it funny when certain anti-theist types reference “random occurrence” as if that is a claim that favors their arguments.

        It’s not clear to me at all that God doesn’t constrain most of His interactions with us to the dimension of probability in the physical universe.

        Of course that’s an uncomfortable thought for some because it opens the door to the possibility of theistic evolution.

      2. Yes.

        Assuming whatever created the universe and everything in it (if not God, if instead some random series of events caused existence to exist), it must have also created morality. If you operate under the premises that everything else in existence is objective, then morality, as part of that existence, must be as well. It must be understood by the same rational faculty as we understand literally everything else.

        If A=A is true for everything else in the universe, and it is, then it must be true for morality as well.

    3. “And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
      And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”
      Mark 10: 18
      Luke 18: 19

      “…the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

      – F. Scott Fitzgerald

    4. That’s an interesting point. Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager are Jewish. Are they not “conservative”?

      …oh, but they meant Judeo-Christian, right?

      How about mormons like Mike Lee? There are quite a few Christians who believe mormons — members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — are not Christian (Mike Huckabee kind of intimated that once). What about certain protestants who don’t consider Catholics to be Christian? There is the whole debate on the apocryphal chapters, right?

      Let’s roll with Judeo-Christian and assume a very broad definition of Christianity.

      I know more than a few Buddhists who see all abortion as murder, are very decent, caring, and forgiving, and are big fans of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Some of the most ardent anti-communists I know are Buddhists. Can’t they be “conservative”?

      I think the argument over the term and all those claiming they’re the arbiter of who is or is not conservative is silly. On this very site, not 4 or 5 months ago, commenters were railing against Mike Lee as not being “conservative.” Mike Lee!

      As I wrote below, the whole history of the term is problematic, inappropriately applied in America, and absolutely doesn’t fit today’s situations.

    5. So…you seem to be in favor of the milkshake with just a spoonful of dog poop in it rather than the milkshake chock full of dog poop.

      Aligning with a delusional person is okay as long as they seem to agree with your political view, eh? Broken clocks being right twice a day or something, I suppose.

  18. Not very impressed with Steve Deace. He was an early and avid supporter of Roy Moore in Alabama – even after the news of him pursuing young girls broke. I was on Facebook at the time and had rational, logic based criticism of why supporting him would cost us that Senate seat. He blocked me. I turned out to be right. Silly stubbornness when we had Mo Brooks available to us. Steve strikes me as someone desperate to be a leader but who is fundamentally a status obsessed follower.

    1. Yeah, one time I criticized Deace for giving Hollywood his money by seeing every piece of trash they make, and he got his widdle feelings hurt… he is principled but also very, very immature.

    2. I remember Deace’s commentary then. I think he was more than fair. Keep in mind, it’s still an open possibility that the attack on Roy Moore was every bit a made up smear as the attack on Kavanaugh. Deace stepped back, basically saying he was open to the testimony of a handwriting expert, but none came forward.

      He also makes a strong point: Someone who is a stalker like that doesn’t usually get married, stop, and do nothing creepy for the next 40 years. Roy Moore, we’re supposed to believe, limited this to a short period of his life. Sounds unlikely to me.

      1. Apparently, he liked ’em young. This was more acceptable in the south at the time and in periods of history when people didn’t live very long.

    3. I heard a lot of rumor and innuendo about Roy Moore. What crime was he convicted of?7

      1. Kevin Spacey hasn’t been convicted of any crimes but I wouldn’t run him for Senator either.

  19. Conservative trans woman? We’ve lost something along the way. Why would the opinions of this mentally ill person even be considered? I knew an extremely intelligent man who covered his several layers of clothing and the shopping cart he pushed around with patches, pins, feathers, etc., etc. The man was near genius, but I would never have asked him his views on conservatism.

  20. I like Deace for the most part. But he picks terrible Hills to die on. Blair White is against agendas being forced on ppl and ppl should be able to live as they choose as long as they are not forcing others to go along with it. Sounds conservative to me. She is a valuable voice to have.

    1. What you described was a Libertarian not a Conservative. The very essence of conservatism is to keep things the same – to conserve them. Conservatives are fine with big government as long as it enforces their culture.

      1. So you want to conserve Zerocare? How about the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision that basically nullified the 10th amendment?

        The term “conservative” was coined to refer to Burke and others attacking the French radicals. They feared the French revolution would spread leading to revolution and widespread unrest in Great Britain. Even they, Burke especially, never meant to freeze their institutions in time. The term wasn’t even created until later, but was applied retroactively to describe those who favored reasoned, incremental progression and “conserving” the fundamental framework of their system.

        The term was not American and is a poor fit for American politics. As I wrote below, the first (and arguably greatest) “conservative” thinker was John Adams. He wasn’t “conserving,” he was establishing. Now, one could argue he was conserving the representative self-government already created in the colonies, and that’s true. However, to do that, they first had to stage a revolution and declare independence, not conservative at all.

        The real issue with the term is how it is applied by different people to mean different things at different times. In referring to a church dogma, somebody uses “conservative” to describe “traditional” teachings. In the modern American sense, we might say conservative, but then even Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy call themselves conservatives. McConnell regularly speaks at CPAC, but I don’t think very many serious people who think about their philosophy consider him conservative.

        Then there’s fiscal conservative, social conservative, cultural conservatives, neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and just below this Pybob was talking about constitutional conservatives — a term I’ve used myself many times to differentiate “authentic” conservatives from fakers and charlatans like John Cornyn.

        The term no longer has any currency and was never very appropriate for the US. We’d be much better off if our “conservatives” were the Liberal Party the way they are in Australia.

        Maybe we should focus on ideas instead of marketing labels that are poorly based in history.

      2. Perhaps today’s “conservatives” would be “fine with big government.” That’s not what conservatives once believed. Such conservatives as Edmund Burke, among others, believed in small or limited government. Big government was viewed as incompatible with individual liberty, one of the most important principles conservatives sought to safeguard.

  21. Deace is so damn smart but annoying as can be. I agree with him on this issue even though it appears he took the bait and gave something more attention than it otherwise would have received. But maybe there is a good point here he is making. Why would you alienate true conservative voters for .0000000000000001 of the population. If this trans dude wants to vote conservative thats fine but we don’t have to celebrate and highlight it. Now back to Deace. His sports talk show on The Blaze was addictive. Better than anything you will see on ESPN. As a matter of fact ESPN should consider him as a host. I haven’t listen to sports talk in years until I came across his talk show and thought it was great.

    1. I followed Deace on Twitter. I mostly went there on the weekends and all he talked about was sports. Since I am an Iowan, but not a worshiper of the yellow and black hawk-god, I unfollowed him.

  22. I hate to say Deace is right but he is. Of course he goes on about it in his usually annoying, self-righteous, and holier-than-thou way, but did I really expect a leopard to change his spots?

  23. I am not comfortable with the sexuality of Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, or Milo Yiannopolous. But I sure do love their criticism of the Left. Should I assume none of these ” social liberals” compute in either Scoop or Deace”s heads?

    1. Would any of those be described as “conservative?”

      The term is somewhat flexible, but you can’t just apply it to anyone that agrees with you about, say, 50% of issues.

      Next thing you know, we’ll start hearing about “the conservative case for transgenders.”

    2. None of those three are ‘trans’ gender. Paglia and Bruce are both strong women and proudly so. Paglis is, by her own account, bi-sexual; a hedonist if you will. Bruce is an unapologetic lesbian and Yannopolous is a homosexual.

      Paglia is not a conservative. She, like Dave Rubin, is a classical liberal, a point of view with which I find myself more in agreement than what is not called ‘conservatism’. The Republican Party was not founded as a conservative party; it was a radical departure from the established way of governing in exactly the same way that the Declaration is not a conservative document. It is about as radical as one can imagine in 18th Century America. It is the epitome of Classical Liberalism. Yiannapolous, a flaming homosexual, is an agent provocateur. I don’t think he actually supports the modern conservative movement but has managed to hitch a ride on it as a means of making a living, and a pretty good one at that.

      But the word “Liberal” in all of its forms and iteration was hijacked by the Progressives in the late 19th century so classical liberals had to come up with another name to distinguish themselves from that pack of jackals.

  24. The Truth is often a Pain in the Ass whether or not the one delivering that Truth is a Pain in the Ass.

    Here, both the Truth and the one delivering that Truth are a Pain in the Ass.

    But that leaves unanswered the question of the sincerity of Blair White and Blair’s biological/genetic makeup insofar as sex is concerned. Is Blair a woman or a man? Appearances suggest that Blair is a woman. But was Blair BORN female or male?

    In this following paragraph, I will use the prefix ‘trans’ for the purpose of clarity, not because I accept the notion that one can change their sexual identity by changing one’s APPEARANCE, a notion that I completely and fully REJECT.

    In certain respects, Blair is not that different from her nemisis, Jessica Yaniv, who is, clearly, a fraud and a male sexual predator PRETENDING to be a “transgender” person for the purpose of violating, in some fashion, young women and girls. Blair MAY be a male seeking to live life as a woman or Blair may be a woman PRETENDING to be a transgender person.

    To get the true flavor of that I suggest you watch the hilariously fun movie, Victor Victoria, starring Julie Andrews, the story of a Woman PRETENDING to be a MAN pretending to be a WOMAN. I’m seriously suspecting Blair White of being a version of Victor Victoria.

    1. Getting really sick of you men referring to biological men with franks and beans, as women. Most conservative women I know have taken leftist feminists to task for demeaning men and here we have men who are supposed conservatives demeaning women by assigning your mental case freaks to us. These men do not know the struggles of what real women have been through. Stop it. This is a man.

      1. These men do not know the struggles of what real women have been through.


      2. I understand where you’re coming from. I think part of it is that, visually, Blair looks quite feminine, so the knee-jerk reactions of our brains is “she” even if, you are correct — Blair White is a man who had enough surgeries and enough talent with makeup or fashion to look convincingly female.

        On the other hand, I can’t think of Bruce Jenner as a woman … heck, even calling him (see what I did there?) Catelyn is a stretch. Why? Well, his voice is masculine, his mannerisms are masculine, and he may be able to afford some expensive make up artists and fashion consultants, but he’s absolutely unconvincing to my mind’s eye, so that same instinct says “he” no matter what he does.

        But rationally, the real madness is the people who want to say that trans women are as “real” a woman as, say, a mother. That’s where you must say 2 + 2 = 5 because the Party demands it.

  25. ‘… they’re reading kids old Buckley columns.’ ha ha!! Thanks, Steve Deace for today’s laugh. And, trans-whatever is not normal.

  26. So if a person who has never served in our armed forces puts on a uniform and says to the world that they have served in our military, are we to just tolerate that? Are we to now refer to them as “trans” military? People get mad and call that stolen valor.

    1. Evidently in this fantasy world we now live in you are whatever you say you are. So gas me up – I’m an Oldsmobile.

    2. ExactlyDesiree. Pretending to be something or someone does not make them that thing or person. It makes them a fake or a fraud no matter how much they believe whatever it is that they want. But this country and most of western society seems h**l-bent on sliding into insanity as fast as they possibly can so we are now accepting fakes, frauds and pretenders as real things. I truly weep for us.

  27. Many of you here and it’s men I see doing it, are using the language of the left calling this man a she. Stop it. Don’t demean my sex and assign your freaks to me.

    1. Exactly…and conservatives need to stop referring to leftists/Marxists as liberals……that drives me nuts.

    1. Sorry, you are wrong.
      To put in my face ANYTHING about your sexual preference is not conservative.

      He had good reason to tell us about his transformation…do not buy it.

  28. I completely agree with Deace. The word conservative means nothing any more. I am also so tired of hearing so called conservatives say that someone like a Ted Cruz could never win the presidency because he is too extreme and conservative…..and we wonder why conservatives have lost the culture war; when conservatives back men like Trump over a Cruz. Their logic being that Trump has a better chance of winning. This is what we hear constantly from conservative frauds like Ann Coulter.

    1. If Cruz were on the ballot for president in a general election, I believe he could absolutely win. That’s why I put so much into supporting him. I agree, any argument about perceived extremism or too “this” or too “that” absurd.

      The issue is the GOP nomination. The GOP aristocracy will never let him be the nominee. Heck, they’d go with a lifelong left-of-center Democrat from New York before they’d let Cruz (or Cotton, or Sasse, or Abbott, or Crenshaw) win their presidential nomination.

      They never wanted Reagan. He came close in ’76, but they out-maneuvered him at the convention. He only came close because they never thought he’d be competitive against a sitting president. In 1980, Reagan wasn’t in the first tier of candidates until that “I paid for this microphone” moment and a country starving for leadership suddenly rushed to support him. Baker and others fully expected him to lose the general and they didn’t start supporting him until 1983 when his popularity was on the rise because of his success.

      They never wanted Goldwater and they did all they could to sabotage him.

      They never wanted Coolidge. He was a last minute floor nomination for VP after a multi-day drawn out negotiation for the presidential nomination, and they figured they could nix him later. Then Harding went and died. They didn’t even want Coolidge running for a full term.

      That’s it. That’s the entire list of conservative GOP nominees. Three, with Reagan and Coolidge both being unintended surprises to the GOP aristocracy.

      Cruz had one shot: 2016. The establishment thought his support was weak, conservatives would be divided as usual, Cruz showed lower personal appeal (as compared to a Rubio), and they didn’t think he could raise money.

      He skunked them. He ran a great campaign. He unified much of the right, especially in key early states like Iowa and he was able to raise massive amounts of money. His grassroots network was astounding. That was a surprise. The GOP aristocracy was not prepared for that.

      They won’t be caught by surprise again. Regardless of the ‘conservative’ candidate, the GOP aristocrats will pull out all the stops and do the normal illegal Barbour tricks they to cut off any funding to Cruz/Sasse/Jindal/Cotton/Abbott/Crenshaw.

      None of them have a chance. Not because of their ideology, but because the GOP wants a nominee they can control, or at least with whom they can do business.

      1. I completely agree with you and it makes me sad. It makes me sick that corrupt men like Barbour have control over essentially one half of the country by controlling the GOP primary process.

    2. I don’t know if you realize it or not, or whether you were just using sarcasm. But If you are serious in your statement, just one question; You do realize that Cruz LOST and Trump WON, right? In that case, you’ve made my point a thousand times over. Going with Cruz who would have given Hillary the presidency. Cruz would have stayed with conservative marquis to queensbury rules and would have had the floor wiped with him in the general election. Second question, can you honestly state that Cruz would have put all three sexual harassment accusers of Bill Clinton in the first row at a presidential debate? Not on your life. In that case TWO Judges in the supreme court would have been wacko Marxists. Your attitude which is the carbon copy of Steve Douche is one of the two reasons I cancelled my subscription to Douche’s network.That and the fact that Mark Steyn left.

      1. Cruz would have beaten Hillary like a drum. He always polled better against HRC than Trump did, which means Cruz likely would have taken all the states Trump did and probably a couple of close ones like Minnesota as well.

      2. Cruz would have beaten Hillary in a landslide. Cruz would have slaughtered her on the debate stage, if they went one on one, something that Trump denied Cruz. Unlike Trump, Cruz had no skeletons…just the manufactured skeletons that the National Enquirer created……

        I reluctantly voted for Trump but I am not pleased with how left the Republican Party has shifted under RINO leadership over the course of the past few decades. Republicans have been defeated in the classrooms, the culture wars and they have no problem with that. They just go along.

        Republicans want a secular country where anything goes. Soon pedophilia will become legal…..once you support the concept that there are more than two sexes you have introduced insanity……..so why wouldn’t the left be able to convince the GOP that pedophilia is legal?

        What I am fed up with are people calling themselves small government constitutional conservatives and they are anything but that…….

        Oh and it is people like you who have ceded massive amounts of ground to the Demonic Dems and the Marxists over the course of the past few decades…..starting with the Bushies.

  29. If you believe there are more than 2 genders you ain’t no conservative. Conservative transpeople? Hogwash!

    1. …you…you mean there’s no such thing as a non-CIS conforming pansexual omnivorous unicorn genderqueer? My facebook gender identity is a lie?

      1. In my defense, my parents dressed me as a unicorn every morning and made me watch My Little Pony 18 hours a day so I’m a very confused soul

  30. I became republican because of social issues such as abortion and later found out they were right on economic issues too. My dealings with secular republicans are they would like to see social conservatives out of the republican party believing that social conservatives are just a drag or dead weight that hinders the republican party…to be fair though I don’t think so highly of them either.

  31. Deace is right (as always), Conservatism is a way of life not of or part of political ideology.

    NB. To be fair that last tweet wasn’t aimed at Blair, that was more of an attack on those who will just celebrate anyone who tries to own or attack the left.

  32. I feel like Steve is acting like a twitter grammar nazi here, simply objecting to the use of the term conservative. Would it be better to say right-wing trans woman? Or reactionary trans woman? Or is conceding the use of the term “trans woman” too much for him as well? how about “right-wing guy who thinks he’s a girl?” Generally speaking, I’m not going to split hairs over what terms to use to refer to people like Blair White or Theryn Meyer or Rose of Dawn… I’m not going to call them women, or use female pronouns, but I’m not going to get my panties all up in a bunch over people calling them “trans women.” Or is Steve’s objection the inclusion of people like Blair White on the right at all? In that case can there be any gay conservatives then? If not this just seems like idiotic purity spiraling to me. My stance on trans issues is probably perfectly in line with Steve’s, but I feel like he’s making a mountain out of a mole hill on this, and it seems like a pretty stupid mole hill to die on.

  33. If you are familiar with the #Walkaway movement, Blaire White is active in that organization appearing on panels at Brandon Straka’s “town halls” in cities across the country – reaching out to traditionally Democrat-voting groups and calling on them to leave the Democrat Party. Blaire is very candid about the fact that transgender is a “disorder”. And I don’t think their idea of “conservative” is what we consider to be conservative – it is more about American patriotism and trying to protect our Constitutional Republic and our birthright of liberty. Brandon is gay himself, and that organization is doing a lot to reach Americans from every walk of life and encouraging them to think for themselves and not just vote Democrat because they always have and it is expected of them. He also recognizes that the media is lying to them and manipulating them and he wants to wake people up to that. What he is doing is vitally important, and although Christian conservatives have a problem with their lifestyle choices and their definition of conservative… for them it is a BIG step… and they are discovering that “most” conservatives are more loving and caring than the progressives in this country who have pretended to be their champions and protectors.

    So, I get what Steve is saying – but I think you have to look at the whole picture here and recognize that as Believers we must learn to walk in love without condoning sin, as Jesus did. And though these “tax collectors” may not have chosen a path that fits with our definition of conservatism – accepting the fact that they love this country and want to be a part of the opposition to the Democrat party (which they refer to as red-pilled) is something we should be able to understand and appreciate.

    1. I understand. I wish political writers, journalists and others would just stop using vague labels to identify people like conservative, liberal, left wing, right wing etc….. I say vague because people have different meanings for these terms. For example many people still use the term liberal to describe raging Marxists. Marxists are anything but liberal.

      Political writers should just state the facts and leave out the labels. For example there was no need to label this transgender person as a conservative, just state his actions and opinions and let the people decide.

  34. I’ve gotten to the point in my political life where I’ve stopped caring so much about what people think they are; I’m more concerned with their views about how we interact with each other. I don’t have to agree with how someone sees themselves to agree with them about things that are important to conservatism, such as individual liberty and responsibility, government no bigger than it has to be to fulfill constitutional duties, and the freedom of everyone to believe and speak as they see fit– as long as they agree that I have the freedom to not agree with them about how they see themselves.

    “The man that agrees with you eighty percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a twenty percent traitor.” — Ronald Reagan

    1. I feel the same way. This person is an ally in the fact that they know they have a problem, but the bigger problem is with those who would be our masters (the government).

  35. This guy Deace should change his name to Douche because that’s what he is. He’s a never Trumper (from his comments that makes Shapiro look like a MAGA hat wearer). He is one of the reasons that I stopped subscription to his channel where Mark Steyn (why I joined in the first place) left the network with a huge lawsuit (AND WON). I watch Blaire White videos. I think Blaire has a unique outlook, and relatively just wants to be treated with human dignity and left alone. Blaire constantly describes the life of someone who (is gay) and has a disorder. Blaire constantly is clear that (he) she has a disorder. That certain cosmetic surgeries have made him (her) feel better but they still have problems associated with the disorder. Being left alone and wanting to be treated as a human being (with problems) clarifies as enough of a conservative for my taste. We all just want to be left alone. Blaire is conscious of her/his status and is not delusional to the problems (he/she) faces. She/He puts it out there and takes loads of s%^&T from both sides. I know why the LGBT people berate Blaire,. because he/she is a threat to their delusions. Conservative like Douche are uncomfortable with the “Walk-Aways”, and the people like Blaire who stand for “get the government out of my business”. This person is not your enemy, and could be a strong ally, without the Douche asking her/him to wear a pink triangle on their shirt.

      1. And he knows it, he also knows he has a disorder. But if I were with him, and he wanted to be called she, I would just call him Blaire. Just Like Marion Morrison wanted to be called John.

  36. Science: Humans can’t trans into another gender. In the name of science, stop bastardizing it by using the language of the left. And for what it’s worth, conservatism isn’t that hard to define. It’s pretty rock ribbed in its definition. If you are trying to make it something other than the basic definition, you’re not really conservative to begin with. It’s a way of life, dummies.

  37. Sorry, but no. He can be a “trans woman Republican,” but that won’t make him a conservative. If you can’t accept the reality that men are not women and women are not men, then there is no way that “conservative” can describe you.

  38. Sorry Scoop but in this issue I side with Brandon Morse and not you and Steve Duece. I happen to watch Blair Whites video’s on youtube from time to time and on issues I find Blair to be right of center. As far as judging Blair’s lifestyle, life choices. As long as I am not called on to celebrate them I will accept them and let God be the final judge. If you feel this does not make me “Conservative” or “Christian” so be it. I am perfectly okay with letting God judge me when the time comes.

    1. When a “he” wants to use the ladies room or shower with women I will judge. Trans is a sickness and while I want them to get help I certainly don’t want them in the same bathroom or shower as my granddaughters. God all ready decided their gender and I’m not about to argue with him.

      1. And that is funny that you know which rest room etc that Blair White uses. I have watched a few of Blair’s video’s and I have no idea. You need to mot equate one right of center person with the activists left. I know this will come as a shock to you but not all trans people are the same anymore then all Christians are or all conservatives are.

      1. I am curious…do you have a point or are you just picking fights? Blair is Blair and never claimed to be anything other then that as far as I know. Have you ever watched a video or do you base your arguments on what Steve Deuce has to say?

  39. Wow, to here author tell it, you need to be a member of Westboro Baptist Church to be a conservative. No gays, no trans, no feminist, no anyone who doesn’t conform to our religious beliefs. A conservative America is freedom for everyone to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn’t infringe on your right to do the same. One can have a spiritual world view in terms of what is right and wrong but as Americans, we must be willing to live and let live as long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s rights. I was unaware that “the right scoop” was such a bigoted site. By the way I am a conservative and a believer in Christ. One is political, the other spiritual.

    1. There’s “live and let live” and then there’s disfigiuring your body because of mental illness. I’m not hostile toward trans folks. I feel sorry for them. That said, I don’t have to uphold them because they claim to be conservative, which in this case is an oxymoron.

      1. So if they agree with you concerning the size and power of government, taxes, abortion, the military etc., but they are trans they can’t be conservative?
        If a person has a mental disorder they cannot be conservative?
        They must conform 100% with a certain defined ideology in order to be considered conservative?
        I don’t think people have to agree on everything in order to be conservatives. If this is the case then I don’t want to be a conservative,as that is antithetical to what it means to be a conservative. Conservatism isn’t about checking off all the boxes concerning certain political or religious issues. It is about the value, rights, and freedom of the individual.

    2. Technical detail: the Phelpsians (I refuse to call them a church) are a bunch of Democrat lawyers. There’s absolutely nothing conservative about them.

    3. He’s not going to that extreme (WBC).

      First, gender dysphoria is a mental issue and the person needs help.

      Second, lots of people have an array of mental and other issues, and need help, and they can still have conservative values/take conservative positions.

      I think it’s almost humorous how everyone is treating “conservative” like it’s an exclusive club. The word means nothing…it was never intended to apply in America anyway.

      1. Agree…if Jeff Flake can write a book where in the title he declares himself a conservative then the word conservative has become a Huge political joke.

    4. So the USA’s constitution was not based on Judeo Christian values?

      I am also a small government constitutional conservative.

      My question to you is how do you decide who is right and who is wrong in a secular world?

      For example, the LGBT community insists that men have the ability to use women’s locker rooms and that men have the ability to compete in women’s sports. They say there are 71 genders and all 71 genders have rights and there rights must be honored just as a biological females and male’s rights are honored.

      So whose rights are honored?

      I like Morse, the author of the red state’s article but I disagree with his conclusion. Morse’s conclusion is simplistic and naive.

      Of course all true conservatives respect the views of other people and do not believe in punishment or retaliation for views that differ from their personal world views……..but who is the arbiter when views, rights and actions collide? To me, this is the real question that this debate should be focussed on.

      1. 1) it was, but you don’t have to be Jewish or Christian to share those values.
        2) I’m for limited government, I am not for conserving Zerocare or the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision vitiating the 10th Amendment …okay, I know what you mean, but ‘conservative’ is really a meaningless term, especially now.
        3) we have laws and there are only two sexes. Men use men’s rooms, women use women’s room, and if somebody isn’t comfortable, they have issues and should seek help.

        What is a “true conservative”? Who decides that? Is there a conservative arbiter agency or the Royal Academy of Conservatism that decides who is and isn’t conservative?

        Rush calls himself conservative. For 27 years he was an icon of conservatism. I consider him a fraud after 2016.

        This president has done a few good things. Some could even be described as “conservative,” but I don’t consider him a conservative. McConnell, McCarthy, Ryan, Boehner, Cornyn, and many more call themselves conservatives. Their actions suggest strongly their only real belief was in their own power.

        I think the whole thing is silly. John McCain called himself a conservative, but I sure didn’t seem him that way. He was a senator, I’m a nobody.

        Conservative has become a totally meaningless term. Truth is, it was never meant to apply to the US anyway. It was coined to describe Burke and others in that era in British politics rejecting the French radicals. The original term has no relevance to the US.

      2. My response to you would be that the examples you are giving are where the entitled rights of one person or group is infringing on the rights of others. This is not acceptable. Also, we have science to support certain arguments such as there are only two genders – male and female. This is a scientific fact. It can be argued from a scientific perspective. Judges stating that men can shower in women’s locker rooms is absurd and should be challenged. The Judeo-Christian values imprinted in the constitution center around the worth and value of the individual. As individuals, they have the right to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are free to pursue these rights as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others. Men in women’s restrooms/showers, men competing in women’s sports, all these things are infringing on the rights of other people. Naturally I am not offering an exhaustive view of conservatism, but hopefully you see where I am coming from.

    1. Why was my response to this deleted?

      I almost never question that, because I don’t care – but I cannot for the life of me imagine what was possibly objectionable about it.

      The point was that agreeing with someone doesn’t mean you’re legitimizing them. You don’t support Hitler just because you and he can both do math correctly.

  40. One thing I’ve noticed from perusing this conversation (and others) is that some fail to draw a distinction between being a conservative and espousing conservatism. And some folks seem to think – wrongly – that if you’re not the former, then the latter is flat out impossible.

    I’m thinking primarily of Justin Amash right now. A good portion of folks lost their marbles when Amash flipped the bird to the Republican party and told them get stuffed. When he mic-dropped his awesome exit speech, I asked the question: Is anything he said right now wrong?

    Because it wasn’t. He didn’t say anything False or Evil when he left. Yet, folks still went into hysterics, ripped off his conservative cape, and set fire to it – because they were pissed about something else entirely.

    I think the hardest thing people struggle to do in these kinds of analyses is to separate the speaker from the message. They get so upset by the former, that the latter becomes lost to them. (Hell, I run into that personally on this site from a few ignorant dolts who can’t ever bring themselves to agree with me when I’m right, because they’re emotionally consumed to the point of irrationality by their loathing of me.)

    I think it’s a mistake to ignore a sound, valid, correct conservative argument simply because we object to the package. I agree with (what I’ve heard of ) Blair’s argument because it’s correct. Whether or not she’s a conservative because she’s a tranny is 100% irrelevant.

    Substance over form, folks.

  41. I strongly believe in the rights of the individual but why is it some individuals have more rights than other individuals in today’s real world?

    I believe that is why people are rejecting this transgender person’s “label” (I hate labels) as a conservative. In today’s world the LGBT community clearly has more rights than Christians. The LGBT community has successfully silenced many Christians. Christians are in fear of losing their jobs and lively hood by the LGBT mob if they openly support Christian marriage and so on………

  42. Whatever, I just know that Jessica Yaniv is the fugliest trans thing I’ve ever seen. Whew!

  43. Every time I see this guy Deace I think of that tweet he sent in the middle of 2016 election night.
    “A little birdie flew in and told me Hillary Clinton is our next president”.
    Just goes to show you no one has the right answers.

  44. The Deace-White exchange raises at least two basic questions: (1) What does it mean to be a conservative? (2) Is conservatism inclusive to all who generally embrace conservative principles or is it exclusive regardless of the principles one holds?

    The inclusive argument is based on the idea that conservatives largely share a body of thought about life, the world, government, etc., formed by history, experience, empiricism, reason, etc. In American history, the Founders’ conception of ‘self-evident truths’ is unmistakably an inclusive one. Not surprisingly, their argument reached the logical conclusion of the existence of “unalienable rights.” The idea of a potentially universal conservative community, one in which all who generally embrace the core ideas that form the basis of conservatism, would be consistent with the perspective advanced by the Founders.

    I am in no position to judge whether Ms. White is a conservative, as I am unfamiliar with her ideas. Ultimately, if one strips out all of the identifying information concerning the author of her ideas–e.g., if the ideas, only, were presented would they be consistent with conservative thought?– it is that body of ideas that would provide the measure as to whether she is a conservative. That, of course, assumes the inclusive notion of conservatism.

    Deace seems to rest his argument on an exclusive definition that extends beyond principles. The exclusive proposition is based on the assumption that the general commitment to a body of ideas is not what defines a conservative. Instead, the exclusive framework is founded on the notion of the existence of higher priority considerations that supersede ideas and commitment to ideas in defining who is/is not a conservative. That’s certainly a line of thinking that diverges from the Founders’ inclusiveness, but it’s far from an unknown one.

    1. founded on the notion of the existence of higher priority considerations that supersede ideas and commitment to ideas in defining who is/is not a conservative.

      Awful lot of words to float a strawman.

      1. It’s not a “strawman” unless one doesn’t understand the point being made or chooses to ignore it.

    2. What many people fail to provide when discussing conservatism is to leave God totally out of the equation.

      I have no doubt that our country was founded through divine providence. That our constitution was built and formed based on English common law and common law was based on the Bible. God’s Word.

      It is through this framework and lens that we have to define conservatism. This persons way of life is antithetical to those principles.

      Of course we are all sinners, but I am not asking anyone to accept, promote or normalize mine or anyone else’s sinful behavior.

      I get frustrated when many use the term “We need to have a bigger tent.” What good is a bigger tent without a strong foundation. Weak tent pegs. Reminds me of the Parable of Jesus about the house built on the sand. Matt. 7:24.

      I would like to see the strongest possible foundation based on The Rock (Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ).

      But we have lost sight of that over the past half century or more.

      Insanity and confusion (Bablylon) is the norm of the day. Rev. 17

      Sign of the times. End Times. 1 Timothy 1

      Rev. 22:20 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

      1. Indeed, at least some of the Founders wrote about God’s seeming role in events e.g., Washington’s escape from Long Island during a thick fog.

  45. Western philosophy has generated schools of thought many times since it escaped the world of the sophists. Conservatism is one such school, and it was derived primarily from classical liberalism. It’s not the only school so derived. It didn’t somehow end all such attempts to derive new schools. And it isn’t terribly difficult to understand.

    Unfortunately, the success of Reagan has drawn many opportunists to try and derail the conservative school of philosophy from its original expression by its principle founders. It’s a strange thing, because foundational conservatism is well defined, well encapsulated, and well known. So the attempts always fail. But for some reason the attempts never stop. We see them here frequently.

    Folks, all you have to do is read The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. If you disagree with Kirk, you disagree with conservatism. And so what? Just accept you aren’t a conservative and move on. I did.

    I don’t need to lie about what conservatism is just to try and wrest control of the idea for myself. I have no respect for those who do. I can’t even understand why they try.

    That’s why I like this website. Scoop is a conservative.

    Conservatives are also lucky that one of the few commentator/authors on the right who accurately explains conservatism is Mark Levin. I don’t always like his style, and I have a few philosophy disagreements with him. But that doesn’t mean I would say he’s not a conservative.

    I’d be interested in hearing his opinion on this story.

  46. I have been a daily reader and supporter of RS for many years. This is my first post ever as I feel compelled to respond to such a terrible hit piece on Blair White. Incredibly dissapointing and certainly affects how I now see RS; I don’t know if Blair identifies as a Conservative as Red State characterized her, but she has been one of the bravest public defenders of many conservative principles for many years – fighting against rabid left wing ideology and intolerance regarding Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Feminism, etc. She’ll wear a MAGA hat and face getting physical abuse to expose Left wing hatred and intolerance. So she’s trans, so what! Don’t call her a dude, don’t disrespect someone who is fighting for the same causes we are fighting! You’re showing complete intolerance , which is what we’re fighting! And you’re missing the important whole point of the story – that Blair is risking being called a homophobe and getting even more hate and death threats for exposing this so-called tranny , Jessica Yaniv, who is really just a perverted, trans predator of underage girls who is being protected by the Left. Shame on RS. I noticed there was not an author to this specific piece. I’d like to know who wrote it. I was a huge fan, no longer.

Comments are closed.