Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 100 | Ilhan, Incitement & Identity Politics

Episode Date: April 17, 2019

 American discourse has devolved into madness. Criticism is categorized as incitement of violence and racism, making legitimate debate impossible. What does this mean for us?   Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved.

Hello, Relatable listeners. This is my 100th episode. One hundred episodes of Relatable. That's pretty amazing. We started last March doing one a week. And then we started last summer doing two a week. And then now, of course, we do three a week, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. It has been really fun.

I've learned a lot since I started doing this podcast. And you guys have helped me. Thank you so much to those of you who have been listening from the beginning to those of you who just recently started listening, no matter when you started listening to Relatable, I really appreciate you a lot. I love doing this podcast. There are a lot of things I love about my job, but getting to interact with you guys, getting your emails, getting your messages, getting your feedback about the podcast and being able to talk to you about the things that matter, that means so much to me. So thank you so much for listening for all of these.

these 100 episodes. If you haven't listened to the beginning of the relatable podcast, I encourage you to go back and listen because we kind of lay the foundation for a lot of what we believe and why we talk about the things that we talk about on this show. It might kind of help you, give you a little bit of context into these conversations. But anyway, thank you so much for listening. If you have not listened to Monday's podcast yet, you definitely should. we talked about black liberation theology, this doctrine that is posited as a Christian viewpoint, a biblical viewpoint, the similarities that it has surprisingly to Nation of Islam and how both of these things are founded in Marxism, which we know is a secular ideology that has led to the

suffering of at least 100 million people over the past century and why we should be on the lookout for these kind of collectivist viewpoints seeping into the event. evangelical church. And so we use scripture to back up our analysis of these things and how we can actually push back on the lies that are indeed infiltrating our pulpits. Today, we are going to talk about the many controversy surrounding Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. And we are going to talk about the First Amendment as her relates to her and the criticism surrounding her, as well as the plight of identity politics. how that is defining our dialogue and why it truly is so damaging. First, I do want to talk about or just touch on Notre Dame, Notre Dame, however you pronounce

it, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I had the privilege of visiting Notre Dame in 2013 when I was studying abroad. As you guys know, I'm a Protestant, and so there isn't for me the extra layer of significance that there is of Notre Dame as there is for Catholics. but of course it is a beautiful piece of art that has been around since the medieval times that we can all admire and that we can all respect the significance of for millions of people around the world. Unfortunately, it has been brought to my attention that there are reformed Protestant Instagram accounts that are posting memes kind of making light of or trivializing the

burning down of Notre Dame, the destruction of the cathedral. and people have asked me what I think about that. I think that's terrible. Let's go back to the five solas for a second and look at one solo, which is solar scripture. In scripture alone or through scripture alone, we believe on the absolute authority of scripture above any other human authority. While scripture tells us that Protestants say that we respect and that we adhere to, scripture tells us in Romans that we are to mourn with those who mourn and we are to rejoice with

those who rejoice. And so we can still acknowledge that there are serious doctrinal differences between Catholics and between Protestants. And we can refuse for just a second to make light of what is a tragedy. And really, it's not just a tragedy for people of the Catholic faith. It's really a tragedy to the people of France. This is actually a publicly owned building owned by the people of France that is, in a way, almost leased to the Catholic Church. It's not owned specifically by Catholics. I've heard the excuse that the building of it was paid for by indulgences, which of course, Protestants rightly believe that indulgences are unbiblical, but that really, to me, does not justify the disrespect that I am seeing from

some Protestant social media accounts posting memes about this. I mean, God, Guys, that is completely unchrist-like. You are doing nothing to advance the gospel. You are doing nothing to demonstrate the love that Christ has called us to. And so maybe check your heart for just a second. If you really believe in the five solas, if you really believe in Tulip, the way that you Calvinist and I'm included in that say that you do, then maybe we should start demonstrating that faith in a way that's a little bit more loving than posting a meme about the destruction of a cathedral that millions of people find significant. I wouldn't say that this is a happy time.

Even if a mosque was burning down. I shouldn't even say even. If a mosque was burning down, if a building of any person, of any other kind of faith was burning down and there were people who were mourning, there were people who were hurting, the right thing to do would not be to laugh at that,

would not be to say, well, they don't believe what we do, so it's all good. Really? You think that's what Jesus would have done? you think that's the best way to show what you believe, to share the gospel? I certainly don't think so. So for those of you who have messaged me about that and wondered my thoughts, those are my thoughts. And I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry, especially for the Catholic people who are listening to this,

who see that and think, oh, yeah, that's why there's so much animosity between us. Look at those Protestants and how much they hate us. No, that's not true. That's not an accurate portrayal. Unfortunately, people in the meme world can be extremely immature and they think that anything is worthy of being laughed at and it's just not. It's just not. That's not the love of Christ and I'm sorry for anyone who has been hurt by that. Now, speaking of Catholicism on Friday, I have Matt Walsh on my podcast. Matt Walsh of The Matt Walsh show on the Daily Wire and we are going to talk a little bit about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, but we're not really even going to focus on that. We're actually going to talk about heaven and hell and what happens

after we die, which should be a really interesting conversation. It's pretty timely, actually, because Friday, of course, is good Friday. And so you can get a nice religious theological conversation that hopefully will get your theological wheels turning inside your own head by listening to that podcast. So I hope that you will tune in. That will be Friday morning, 6 a.m. Eastern time. make sure that you subscribe to my podcast or subscribe to my channel on YouTube. It's Ali Beth Stucky. You can watch all of these videos. Typically, they come out in the afternoon.

It's a really easy way to share it too with people who don't listen to podcasts or with your parents or with older people who don't understand podcasts. Everyone can watch a YouTube video no matter what kind of phone you have, no matter what generation you're in. So I would love if you subscribe to my YouTube channel. One more shameless plug and ask before. we actually dive into this stuff. If you guys love this podcast, if you do, if you don't love this podcast, then you can just ignore

me. But if you love this podcast, it would mean a lot to me if you would leave me a review and tell me what you think about it. Of course, I would love a great review. I would love a five-star review. But I do want you to be honest. If you do have any constructive criticism, please feel free to email me. I take that really seriously.

Allie, the conservative millennial blog.com, people who have given me criticism can tell you that I take their criticism to heart, sometimes it's not real. Sometimes it's not legit, and so I don't apply it. But very often the constructive criticism, constructive criticism I receive from you guys is true, and it is helpful, and it is right for me to apply. And you have no idea how much I appreciate that. So if you love the podcast, I would love for you to leave an iTunes review. If you do have criticism or feedback or suggestions or anything like that, would love for you to email me, Allie, the conservative millennial blog.com. And Without further ado, let's go ahead and get into this Ilhan Omar controversy.

So all of you know probably who Ilhan Omar is. She is the freshman congresswoman from Minnesota over the weekend. The discourse in this country really reached, I would say, one of its low moments. And that is saying a lot. There's been a lot of low moments in American discourse, really in all of its history, but especially, I would say, over the past two years. And with the rise of social media, things just get so here. so fast. We can no longer, it seems like, look at the other side and say, you know, I respect

you as a person. And you just have, you have, you have a different perspective than I do, but we could still go to dinner. We could still get along. I still hope the best for you and your family. The vitriol and the hatred and the aggression towards both, from both sides, towards the other side is really, really something. It's, I don't know if it's the lowest point that it's ever been, but we certainly see its lowest points on display more than we ever have, which probably exacerbates the problem. And we saw that demonstrated through the back and forth between Ilhan Omar's speech that she delivered last month at a banquet for a counsel on American Islamic Relations. That is CARC.A.I.R. We talked about them last or on Monday on the podcast,

I believe, or did we? I don't remember. If we didn't, the Council on American Islamic Relations is a terrible organization. I'm not just saying that as a left wing, as a left wing, wow, as a right-leaning person. It is a left-wing organization, but as a right-leaning person, that's not the reason why I'm saying it's bad. It's because they have legitimately been charged as co-conspirators and terrorist attacks. They do PR for Hezbollah. They do PR for Hamas, which terrorist groups in the Palestinian region. And they are legitimately a terrible, horrible, evil organization. They truly are. And they are behind Ilhan Omar, who, as we know, has been guilty of sane anti-Semitic comments on Twitter. Now, you will hear from people on the left that

she's not anti-Semitic. All she's done is criticize Israel's foreign policy. Well, actually, I would say that that's the one thing, or Israel's policy. In our foreign policy, and our foreign, and policy towards Israel. But I would say, actually, that's the one thing she hasn't done. I haven't heard, and maybe she has recently made legitimate criticisms of Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and made legitimate criticisms of Israel. But I haven't heard that. What I have seen her say is that Jews are hypnotizing the world, that Israel is hypnotizing the world, that the only reason any Republicans in Congress would support APEC, which is an organization that supports Israeli relations, with America is for the bingements, for the money, which of course perpetuates this trope

that Jews are controlling the banks that Jews are controlling the world through finances and that they are, like Carl Marx said, just hucksters. She's perpetuating that stereotype probably without even knowing it. And so she has been known for a long time, really since 2012 or before that, to be an anti-Semites, to be someone who believes in these negative stereotypes. about Jewish people. And so her criticism of Israel doesn't really seem to be substantive. It doesn't seem to be legitimate. So that is, I would say that that has damaged her reputation even before we knew that care was behind her, which is not exactly surprising. She is absolutely an extremist.

She wrote a letter to a judge in Minnesota asking for an alleviated sentence or a lighter sentence on citizens of the country of immigrants. I think it was Somali immigrants who tried to join ISIS. So she is an extremist. People who question her patriotism are not being Islamophobic. They're not being racist. They just have legitimate questions about her adherence to the Constitution and her love for the country because she has shown that she really detests.

She really detest American values. And we're about to see that. So she gave a speech at this care banquet, and here's a little bit of what she said. Far too long, we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen. And frankly, I'm tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. Care was founded after 9-11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. So you can't just say that today someone is looking at me strange,

that I am going to try to make myself look pleasant. You have to say this person is looking at me strange. I am not comfortable with it. I am going to go talk to them and ask them why. So some people did something. That's how she described 9-11. Now, I'll be honest, at first when I heard that, I said, okay, maybe we're blowing this out of proportion.

Maybe, you know, I've given speeches before. I'm nervous. I don't know what I'm saying. I've tried to maybe backtrack or I've said the wrong thing. Okay, that happened. So let's try to view this in the most charitable way that we possibly can. but even with the context and given the context of the other things that she has said about the country, the other things that she has said about certain groups that she seems to not like,

it's not that far off to guess that she is probably purposely, deliberately minimizing what happened on 9-11. In a tweet from a man named Imam Muhammad Tawidi, he is a self-reclaimed Islamic scholar. he's a peace advocate. He said in a tweet, Ilhan Omar mentions 9-11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists. Instead, she refers to it as some people did something, then goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization, care, they are, on U.S. soil. Obviously, a lot of people went after her for that. One of them was Dan Crenshaw. He said on Twitter, first member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9-11 as some people who did something. unbelievable. AOC was extremely upset about that, told Dan Crenshaw, who of course lost his eye in war, defending our country to do something, which is not surprising again coming from someone as thoughtless as AOC. I'm not trying to be rude. That just is an apt description of who she is. She doesn't think before she speaks. And so she tells a veteran that he should probably do more to defend 9-11 victims to defend the country.

She's a 29-year-old congresswoman who was a bartender about a year ago, and she's going to tell Dan Crenshaw that he needs to do something. But this is the arrogance that we're seeing from these freshman congresswoman, like AOC and like Ilhan Omar. There was another video that was circulating about Ilhan Omar. She was in an interview a little while ago talking about Hezbollah and Hamas. It was the thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said al-Qaeda, he sort of like his shoulders went up and, you know, he's in command here. Al-Qaeda, you know, hospital.

He's an expert. And it was, you know, as... What's his name? Where do you know? We are not saying his name. You probably get to see him on CNN. Yeah, of course. I love those guys.

But, you know, but it is, it is that you don't say, America with an intensity. You don't say England with an intensity. You know, you don't, you don't say the army with an intensity. So my mistake, she was only talking about Hezbollah. And if you could understand that, she was saying, you know, it's really weird that we talk with more intensity about Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda, which are, as we have said, legitimate terrorist organizations with the same intensity that we talk about the army. or England or America. That's crazy.

So in her mind, she thinks that terrorist organizations that have killed thousands of innocent people who are evil to the core, who have been so relentlessly brutal towards its own citizens, towards its fellow citizens and towards its enemies, she thinks that they are on the same moral plain as America or as England or as the American army. I mean, that just tells you what her perspective is. And so it is fully, like I've already said, fully legitimate, fully within the realm of logic to question this woman's patriotism. I would also like to question her sanity, but unfortunately, I think that she's probably mentally with it. I really just think that she hates the country. She tweeted not too long ago, I think it was 2017 and it actually was

recirculating that we just need to realize that our country. was founded on genocide. Our country was founded on neo-colonialism. That's the only way we've been able to obtain power. I mean, this is just the postmodern crap that is being perpetuated in academia that is just not true. Every civilization since the beginning of time, every civilization that has been civilized, which I guess is the definition of a civilization, has in some way committed a sin against the people that it had to conquer. And America certainly is, not free from that guilt. Yes, there were bad parts of our history. Yes, there were things that we shouldn't have done the way that we treated Native Americans, the way that we have treated

other groups throughout our history in this country. But the idea that we were founded upon genocide, that we were founded upon neo-colonialism isn't true. The reason why Ilhan Omar came here with her family as a refugee 20-some-odd years ago from Somalia was because we were founded on something that was much better than that. We were founded on an idea, on a radical idea that all men and women are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why she and thousands of other refugees every year have made their homes in America. Why did you come here? Why did your family come to a country that is rooted in genocide? Isn't that why you left Somalia?

Why would you have left Somalia if this country is really no better than the countries in Africa. Tell me that. But she has been so inundated, so indoctrinated with this far leftist Marxist group think that tells you that anything that is related to power, anything that has been successful, anything that is related to wealth and to individual liberty is somehow inherently oppressive. And that has come out in her political views. It's come out in her views on Israel. It's come out in her views on 9-11. It's come out in her views on 9-11. It's come out. in her views on the United States. And this really shouldn't be something

that is difficult for Democrats to condemn. I understand that she is on their side, but if I were Nancy Pelosi, I would be so embarrassed by the PR of my party. I would be so embarrassed that our chief messengers are three freshman congresswoman, Rashida Talib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ilhan Omar.

I would be so ashamed. And she is a little bit. She's actually done some interviews recently where she's again, tried to downplay them, tried to say, oh, they're not that big of a deal. You know, I really appreciate all of their gumption. I appreciate how enthusiastic they are. But she said recently she's not a socialist and the Democratic Party isn't a socialist. Well, Nancy Pelosi, you don't say what the Democratic Party is anymore. You just don't. You're not in charge. People like Ilhan Omar are in charge. Now, the president, responded to the circulation of Ilhan Omar's video, where she is saying 9-11 was some people just doing something. He tweeted a video montage of scenes from 9-11, cut back and forth. Here it is. Care was founded after 9-11 because they recognized that some people did something. So you have no idea right now? I'll have another one. Another plane just hit. Some people did something?

Oh my goodness. There is smoke pouring out the Pentagon. Some people did something? It just flew straight into it. You know, I know this is very technical. I thought that the video could have been edited a little better. I thought that it could have been a little more powerful, but I also thought that it was a really good point. I mean, being that flippant about the greatest,

terrorist attack on our country juxtaposed with the, with the absolute horror of the day, the devastation of the day, the loss of the day is important. It truly shows just how un-American those comments were. So I thought that it was a great idea, but the left flipped out. And it just further exemplified that truly Ilhan Omar and her cronies in Congress are leading the party. Nancy Pelosi, that the mainstream Democrats have completely lost control. And Ilhan Omar is the left's hero, is the hero of the Democratic Party. So every single Democrat that you can possibly think of saw Trump's tweet and said almost the exact same thing, turned this into a battle of identity politics.

So Bernie Sanders tweeted, Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. she won't back down to Trump's racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must in. Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump is trying to incite violence and to divide us, and every political leader should speak out against that. The Republican leadership in Congress cannot take a pass on this. Blah, blah, blah. Republican leadership are complicit.

They love that word. Complicit in what he is doing. It's wrong. Beto O'Rourke. This is an incitement to violence against Congresswoman, Omar against our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim. This is part and parcel of what we've seen from an administration that has described Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. What? Corey Booker, Trump's recent attacks on Ilhan are unacceptable. This is the same language

that gives extremist license to carry out violence against our Muslim brothers and sisters. Omar herself, she utilized a lot of the same language when she put out her statement on all all of this. She said that it was an incitement of violence. She took screenshots of Dan Crenshaw's response to her with a quote from Fox and Friends. She said, this is a dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it. My love and commitment to our country and that of my colleagues should never be in question. We are all Americans. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of course, we're not surprised by this. She said that the Republicans attacks are, quote, not normal and are an incitement of violence against a

progressive woman of color. Also, AOC tweeted out a quote that was describing the Holocaust, and she said, you know, first, you know, that quote that's like, I didn't speak up for the socialist because I wasn't a socialist, I didn't speak up for the blank because I wasn't a blank. It goes on and on. And then they came for me and I had no one to speak for me. She was saying that in relation to Ilhan Omar. I mean, really, you have the audacity and the audacity, and I guarantee you she didn't think through this. I don't think that she thinks very hard about very much.

The audacity to compare someone who has made blatantly anti-Semitic comments, compare them to a Holocaust sufferer, a victim of the Holocaust, a victim of Nazi Germany. You have the audacity to compare Ilhan Omar to a heart. Holocaust Jew? Really? Because because she said something that solicited legitimate criticism, you're going to say that she is being persecuted, that she is akin to people who were thrown in gas chambers? Are you serious? You thought that that was probably the best move and you as some kind of hero for speaking up for her? You think you're Cory Tin Boom because you tweeted something about this? You think you're Bonhofer for sticking up for someone who was decidedly anti-American.

American. Okay, AOC. Really good move. It's very smart of you. Always making extremely brilliant comments. Now, the question is, is this an incitement of violence? Also, just to like back up for a second, I do wonder how Democrats get their language down so uniformly every time. I mean, they just, they just, they know their messaging. And they're like, okay, guys, I don't know if it's a conference call. I don't know if it's a group text. I don't know if they have group me. I don't know if they get on Skype. I don't know how they do it. But somehow they all come together really fast. And they're like, okay, guys, this is what we're going to say. These are the words that we're going to say.

We're going to say exactly like this. And no one get off of the talking point because this is how we have to approach this. And so they're saying that this is incitement of violence. Now, if you know anything about the First Amendment, you know that pretty much all speech is protected. but if you say something that incites violence. In the constitutional context, that means directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, then it is not protected by the First Amendment. So this is a democratic effort to police language that they don't like by saying that it incites violence.

So it is not covered by the First Amendment. No, it is not. It is not incitement of violence to quote her. That's literally what the president did. He happened to put it next to the events of 9-11, but does that take away the significance of her words? Does that mean that she didn't say something? Is this slander in any way? Of course not. All we're doing is playing a video of what she said. And I don't agree with anyone's life being threatened based on what they believe. based on something that they say. I think the people that issue death threats or violence threats against someone that they don't like, even against someone that they really hate and think are dangerous,

I think they're the scum of the earth. I hate that. I don't want violence against Ilhan Omar. I don't want her life to be threatened. I don't even want her to be uncomfortable. I actually want us to be able to have these conversations. I want Ilhan Omar to be able to say very offensive things. I want her to be free to believe very offensive things.

And I want the ability to be able to engage her in that. I want the ability and the freedom to be able to criticize her without being called a racist, without being called a sexist, without being called an Islamophope. I want us to be able to have really offensive ideas. And I want us to be able to say things that other people hate without being told that it is inciting violence when it is not inciting violence. It is the, if I'm able to kind of use a what is. typically seen as a logical fallacy, but is actually not in this case, the slippery slope. I am afraid of the slippery slope that Democrats are now using to say, well, this video that the president just put out, the juxtaposition of Ilhan Omar's words with 9-11 is incitement of violence,

I am afraid of the slippery slope. I'm afraid of them saying, well, anything that is critical of a minority, anything that might arouse anger in. someone that that is incitement of violence and you can't say it. But the funny thing is that doesn't seem to be true of their own side. I mean, if that was really the standard that they held, that anything that is critical of someone else, quoting someone else and criticizing them is incitement of violence and is therefore not covered under the First Amendment, our right to free speech, then they need to apply that to their own side. But of course, we see with Democrats, that that's not something that they really want to do very often.

I mean, Corey Booker called Kavanaugh supporters complicit in evil. I mean, let's think about Covington. Let's think about how that was covered. And that was much worse. That's even a totally different thing than what the president did to Ilhan Omar. All the president did to Ilhan Omar was saying, well, this is exactly what she said. And here is the event that she's talking about in such flippant terms. They lied.

MSNBC lied about the Covington kids. CNN lied about the Covington kids. they jumped to conclusions about Kavanaugh. They jumped to conclusions about Russian collusion. They jumped to conclusions about the Jesse Smollett, so-called attackers, and made the conclusion that this is Trump's America. I mean, really, if you want to talk about incitement of violence, then, okay, if this is what incitement of violence is,

is criticizing someone, then, wow, you guys deserve all to be fined. You guys are not covered by the First Amendment because how much so-called violence have you apparently incited against the president, against Republicans, against conservatives by saying things that aren't even true? At least the things that we are saying of Ilhan Omar are true. But even if they weren't true, even if they were exaggerated, even if someone did say something that is racist. And that should still be covered by the First Amendment. That still is not incitement of violence. Speech can be wrong. Speech can be offensive. Speech can even be hateful and still be covered by our freedom to speak what we will. Of course, that is what the First Amendment is for. The First Amendment is not for speech that you agree with. The First Amendment is not for innocuous speech. The First Amendment is for offensive speech.

You do not have a right not to be offended. You do not have a right, especially as a public figure, to not be criticized. You are going to have to be held to account for. your words. I'm held to account for my words. Now, yes, is it unfair to decontextualize someone? I absolutely think so. That's why I think we need to look at the context of Ilhan Omar's words. But the context doesn't help her at all. So she is free to be criticized. And again, if anyone truly does incite violence, if anyone says, hey, someone needs to go and attack her and, you know, docks her, that's wrong. That shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment. But I haven't seen

anyone do that. The president certainly didn't do that. So Democrats saying this is an incitement of violence shows once again how much disdain they have for American principles for the First Amendment and how hypocritical they are. I mean, their personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with them all day long should definitely fall under the standard that they have just set for free speech. I mean, I don't remember when James Hodgkinson shot Steve Scalise in the hip in almost killed him because he thought that Republicans were kicking people off their health care and that Bernie Sanders, that Bernie Sanders' statement was right that 24 million people are going to die because of Republicans, which is not true, by the way, that that that was, I don't remember

Democrats saying that that was an incitement of violence on Bernie Sanders part, that Bernie Sanders should be held responsible for that. I don't remember that. I mean, I don't think that he should be held accountable for that, but apparently they do. So if this is your new standard, then you guys better not say anything. You guys better not say anything that is disrespectful or rude or untrue about Republicans or Donald Trump ever. But we know that that's not going to happen. That's the only tool they have in their bag. That and, I guess, identity politics. I guess Pete Buttigieg, should he, should he be accused of inciting violence when he says that Mike Pence has harmful views on biblical, marriage? Well, he doesn't have harmful views on biblical marriage. He has biblical views on biblical

marriage. And there's nothing harmful about them whatsoever. You can disagree with them, but that doesn't make him a bad person. So is Pete Buttigieg inciting violence against Mike Pence for saying these negative things about him? I mean, it is absolutely so loony and how they have jumped on this to say that the president is in fact, is in fact inciting violence and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment, shows you how uniformed they are in identity politics and the hatred of the Constitution. But this really just kind of shows, this really just kind of shows where we are as a country. We are more polarized than we have ever been. We can't have an agreement on anything.

We can't have any kind of basic understanding of what falls in. to the realm of constitutionality. We can't have any kind of basic understanding of what morality is, and we cannot tolerate someone disagreeing with us or legitimately criticizing us. We just can't. What the left does is they say, well, it has to be about the color of our skin, has to be about what gender I am. It has to be about something nefarious, something evil, something personal, and not just that we don't like your ideas. I mean, we see this from AOC all of the time. She claims that no one in the GOP has any legitimate criticisms of her, and they only take below the belt shots at the things that she wears and how she sounds. No, it's because your ideas are terrible.

I don't think AOC is a terrible person. I don't think that she's the smartest person in the world, but I don't think she's a terrible person, but I think her ideas are horrible. Same thing with Bernie Sanders. Same thing with Ilhan Omar. Now, Ilhan Omar, I do have a reason to very much question her character. But I would sit down. and have a conversation with her. I would respect her. I would fight for her constitutional rights. I would fight for her individual liberty. I would fight for her right to say things that I think are completely offensive. But I don't think that I would get the same respect in return for some reason. I don't think the Democrats have the same deference towards my rights to hold my views and to speak

my views and to be public about my views as I am for them. I don't think that that is a reciprocal respect that we receive from people on the left. But I still do believe that the right should uphold that. That the right should uphold their rights, even when we disagree with them, that we should have some principles, that we shouldn't be trying to shut down people that we don't like. We also shouldn't cease from criticizing them. Before we finish this up, I do want to tell you or remind you about unplanned. You guys have heard me talk about this before.

I have seen it. I was extremely emotional when I was watching unplanned. it really changed my, I wouldn't say change my perspective on abortion because I was already pro life, very pro life before I saw it. I saw it back in February. But until you actually see what goes on at a planned parenthood, it's very hard to wrap our minds around just how evil this act is. I mean, that's probably why the MPAA gave them an R rating. But it was also probably to deter young people, people with kids, uh, from seeing the movie. But, you, You should, if you can, you should go see the movie.

You should try to stomach everything that you're going to see. I mean, it just exposes just how terrible the practices are and how wicked abortion actually is. It is very hard to walk out of that theater the same way that you came in. You follow the story of Abby Johnson, who herself had two abortions. And then she was very pro-choice. She worked at Planned Parenthood. She was really good at what she did. and so she rose through the ranks, and then one day she was called in to assist with an abortion,

and she saw what actually happens for the first time. And it completely changed her heart. It completely changed her mind. And truly, God has done an incredible work through her story. Planned has done really well in the box offices. I think it surpassed everyone's expectations, much to the chagrin of people on the left. Google labeled this as propaganda. I mean, they do not want you to see the truth. There is nothing. that is propaganda about this, all it does is show you exactly what an abortion is, exactly what goes on in Planned Parenthood from someone who actually lived it themselves. And so if you haven't seen it, seen it, go to unplanned.com or unplannedfilm.com.

That's unplannedfilm.com. You can see where it is playing near you. I encourage you to go and to bring your friends. Okay. As we finish this up, let's talk about, I want to talk about the analysis that Maggie Haberman had in the New York Times. She was analyzing everything from the Republican's response to the Democrats' response over Ilhan Omar. She said what I thought was a very good insight. She said Mr. Trump and his team are trying to make Ms. Omar one of a group of progressive women, Democratic House members, who is relatively unknown in national politics, a household name to be seen as the most prominent voice of the Democratic Party, regardless of her actual position. And they are gambling that there

will be limited downside in doing so. Now, where I agree with her is that they, that is exactly probably what Trump and Republicans are doing, that they're hoping to show just how radical this person is so that Democrats will be embarrassed by her. And Nancy Pelosi will speak out and say, you know, she does not align with the rest of our party and that there will be Democrats who say, okay, you know what? I might not like Donald Trump, but I don't want to be associated with someone who is un-American.

I think that's probably a pretty good story. strategy because I think that's true of a lot of people who are Democrats, that they are not as far left, they are not as crazy, they are not as anti-American as Ilhan Omar is. But where I disagree with Haberman is that she makes this an issue about being a progressive woman, again, using that identity politics language, that it's not just because of her ideas, it's not because of what she's saying, but it's because she is a progressive woman. And of course, we've seen that he is also being racist. He's also being an Islamophobia has nothing to do with those things whatsoever. It has to do with the things that she is saying and the way that she is exemplifying her lack of patriotism. And she can say as much as she wants

to. She can say as much as she wants to that she loves this country, but her words say otherwise. So here's what the Bible has to say about all of this, that we as Christians should care about justice. We've talked about this before. In the Lord's prayer, it says, on earth as it is in heaven, may God's will be done. We should care about justice being served. We should care about the least of these being taken care of. The question is not whether or not we believe in justice, we believe in mercy, we believe in compassion. It is how. And with justice, it has to be connected with, as we talked about, I think it was on Monday, it has to be connected with truth, has to be connected with evidence. It cannot be collective justice in that all white people or all Republicans are guilty of something,

but it has to be based on truth, has to be based on evidence, and it has to be individual, and it has to be direct. That is not the social justice that we see from the left. Certainly, it is not justice to say that Israel is categorically bad

because the Palestinian people have been suffering. I mean, that's not connected to truth, and it's also not direct. The reason why it's not connected to truth is because the reason, mostly, that the Palestinians are suffering is because Hamas runs the show, and Hamas is a terrorist organization

that kills its own people. And so if you want to talk about the suffering of the Palestinian people, I'm for that. I believe in compassion for them. I want to help them too. And I feel my heart breaks for the Palestinian people that are suffering. But the reason why they're suffering is because of their own leadership that they elected. And so that should be where our resources, if we are going to give them and where our energies go to helping them in that way, not to in any way detaching from Israel and to placing, placing blame where it is not found.

And so the so-called justice that Ilhan Omar says that she is seeking when she speaks for organizations like care and when she speaks so critically of Israel is not real justice. Now, we can have a debate and a conversation about that. Like, we can talk about the nuances. I certainly don't know everything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We can talk about the best mode of foreign policy. I think that that's all open to debate and that is all within. in the realm of logical reason, and we can have a conversation about that in a way that's

productive. That is not what Ilhan Omar has done. That's certainly not what the Democrats are trying to facilitate. They're making everything about race, everything about identity politics, everything very personal to where Republicans aren't even allowed to criticize what she's saying without being called terrible people, which, of course, is something that we are very used to. So we are supposed to seek justice. We are supposed to correct oppression.

and we are supposed to bring fairness to the fatherless, and we are supposed to plead the widow's cause. That is something that Jesus came here to teach us to do and to command us to do. But again, it's a matter of what that looks like. The right believes that that is in protecting life and individual liberty, and so the private sector can do their best to protect and to help the least of these. The left believes that that is through wealth redistribution, and through this crazy calculation of social cosmic justice that is really more,

more about collectivism that it is about doing what is right. And so that's where we disagree. And if we could get to the point where we acknowledge that we all have the same goals, if we do have the same goals, that many of us have the same goals, we just have a different means of getting there, rather than saying that if you criticize what I say, you must hate all women, then we can be in a much better place. I am not looking for all of us to agree. I'm not looking for all Democrats to become conservative or for Ilhan Omar to suddenly be in love with Israel. I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for us to have a legitimate conversation about this. I'm asking for us to give each other the freedom to have ideas that differ from our own and to be able to have substantive discussions about this. But we seem completely, completely unable to do that. And I'm not saying that the right has been completely innocent on this. Certainly President Trump hasn't necessarily been the most productive player when it comes to positive dialogue. We can all do better. But, we got to get away from the identity politics. We got to be able to criticize someone for something

that they say without being thrown under the bus as a terrible person. So that is my, that's where I'm going to end that today. Like I said, I will be here on Friday with Matt Walsh. Make sure that you subscribe on YouTube and make sure that you leave me a review. Wow. A review if you would like. I'm just going to, I'm just going to leave that in there. Like I could edit that out, but I just been talking for like 45 minutes and I just stopped being able to form words. But you know what I was saying. Anyway, love you guys and I will see you on Friday.