Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 172 | Let Them Eat Babies

Episode Date: October 9, 2019

From an “Eat the Babies” campaign, to Planned Parenthood’s secret mega-clinic, I cover some of the crazy news stories from this week.

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a great week so far. Today, we are going to do a rundown of some important stories that have been circulating, some important things that have happened in the political and cultural sphere. I usually like to do really kind of big picture evergreen stuff that has to do with politics in the news generally, but kind of like dive in and do an analysis of it from a biblical moral perspective. I think a lot of times that's more meaningful and valuable to our lives and kind of helps shape our worldview. But sometimes we just need to get through a lot of different stories and analyze them piecemeal. So that's what we're going to do today.

There's just so much craziness that is happening, especially that has happened in this past week, just some crazy things that have been said that point to even crazier realities in our political sphere that I want to talk about. I would be remiss not to highlight at least some of those things. So that's what we were going to do today. We are going to dive in and analyze it. as well as we go through some of these absurd quotes and goings on, but I just kind of want to be able to get through as many as possible.

I don't even know if I'm going to get through all of the things that I want to say, but we will try. First, we have to take a look at simultaneously, my favorite, and my least favorite moment from this past week. It occurred at an AOC town hall, a woman who is very upset, very upset to put it mildly about climate change, got up and said this to AOC. climate crisis. We only have a few months left. I love that you support the Green Deal, but it's not getting, you know, getting with a fossil fuel, it's not going to solve the

problem fast enough. A Swedish professor saying, you know, we can eat dead people, but that's not fast enough. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this. We got to start eating babies. We don't have enough time. There's too much CO2. All of you, you know, you're pollutant. Too much CO2. We have to start now. Please, you are so great. I'm so happy that you really support a nuclear deal, but it's not enough. You know, even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people, too much pollution. So we have to get rid of the babies. That's a big problem. Just stopping having babies is not enough. We need to eat the babies. And this is very serious. Please give a response. No, thank you. Thank you. Okay. No, we'll go ahead. No, no, no. Thank you.

So I think, yeah, no, so one of the things that's very important to us is that we need to treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it does present. Luckily, we have more than a few months. We do need to hit net. zero in several years. But I think we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions

that we have and that we can pursue and that if we act in a positive way, there's space for hope. We are never beyond hope. Okay, so a few things. First, this recommendation to eat babies is found in a satirical work by Jonathan Swift called A Modest Proposal. Many people are saying that this woman was a plant. This wasn't real. She was put there to say something ridiculous to see how far AOC would take this if she would actually agree with her, how far she would go to defend her extreme stance on climate change policy. Maybe so. Maybe this was a plant. If it's been confirmed that this young lady was a plant, please let me know. I think that's just kind of something that people are assuming. But how sad is it? Here's the thing. How sad is it that we don't actually know immediately? I mean,

My thought when I was first watching this video on Twitter was that this is a joke. This isn't real. She kind of seems like a pretty bad actress trying to emulate someone who is extremely radical on climate change policy. But at the same time, when you think about it, it might not be that absurd for Democrats. It might not be that crazy for someone who supports AOC to suggest something like eating babies. and how sad is it that we honestly aren't sure that we could see this maybe being real. I fully believe, if this is where it gets serious, I fully believe that we will live to see the day that people on the left side of the aisle

will openly and shamelessly advocate for infanticide in the name of saving the planet. I really believe that. Now, we know that they already do that. They already support infanticide. They support abortion through nine months, and they're very hush, hush about the very real situation. in which babies who are born alive after surviving an abortion are either left to die as they are fighting for their lives or their spinal cord is snipped by the doctor on the back of their neck.

So infanticide already happens. There is absolutely no one, no one that I see on the left that talks about this. I haven't seen any prominent figure. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have not seen any prominent figure of any kind on the left say anything about, for example, Governor Northam's comments when he said that babies who survive abortions would be placed off to decide they would be made comfortable while the parent and the doctor decides what to do. I didn't see anyone on the left talk about the doctor in Illinois who had been collecting

body parts of aborted babies in his home. Did they have anything to say about Gosnell, for example? They're a doctor who routinely murdered babies in the birth canal and out of the birth canal. I just didn't see that. And if abortion were really only about a woman's bodily autonomy, a woman's so-called reproductive rights, which is what they say, don't you think, don't you think that they would have something to say about these things, but they don't? Prominent conservatives and Second Amendment advocates always, without fail, genuinely decry those who use a gun for murder or commit mass shootings. Why? Because we want the Second Amendment to be responsibly exercised. We want it to be correctly exercised. We want guns to be used in the right way, because we

want people to enjoy the right to defend themselves how they see fit. And yet we are still blamed when someone misuses a gun. And yet when children are butchered and their body parts harvested and sold for experimentation, so-called abortion rights advocates are silent. And not a single person in the mainstream media demands an explanation from the pro-abortion side. No moderator in a democratic debate is going to ask a candidate about the millions of babies that have died of violent death by dismemberment. They're not going to be asked about how their rhetoric, which devalues the distinct life of a child inside the womb, is contributed to the normalizing and the glorification of late-term abortion and infanticide. There is no Democratic candidate, aside from Tulsi Gabbard, who outwardly supports any limits whatsoever on abortion. It is all on demand, no questions asked, no matter what, through all nine months and maybe even a little bit after.

Colise Gabbard believes that abortion should be restricted after 26 weeks, which is not by any stretch of the imagination by the way moderate. That is not a moderate position. Babies born at 26 weeks have about a 90% chance of survival. Babies born as early as 21 weeks have survived outside the womb and have grown into fully functioning children. At 26 weeks, most women have been able to feel their baby kick, punch and wiggle for about five to 10 weeks at that point. The baby, of course, has been moving for a lot longer than that. At our 11.5 week appointment with my daughter, we saw her on the ultrasound, this fully formed tiny little baby.

So 11 and a half weeks, that's still the first trimester, kicking, punching, moving around, flipping around. She had a little brain, little lungs, little beating hearts. You can even see where her teeth are going to come in. I mean, this is a fully formed tiny baby in just the first trimester that just needs a little bit more time to develop. And so believing in unrestricted, on-demand abortion until 26 weeks, just two weeks away from the third trimester, is still radical. That is radical.

And yet, compared to the other Democratic candidates, she is conservative on this issue, which is insane when you think about it. Sometimes I just stop. I'll just be driving or doing something else. And I think about the fact that we're actually having a debate, a debate in this country whether or not it's okay to kill unborn children. I mean, where's the logic that comes in on the other side? I still haven't been able to figure it out. Democratic candidates not only believe that a woman should be able to kill her child who with a moment of conception, as you guys know, has distinct DNA and whose sex is even determined at that time as well. They believe in on demand, no questions asked abortions. They also believe that we should pay for it. They are advocating to get rid of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits tax dollars from directly funding abortion, even though our tax dollars already go to Planned Parenthood and funds are fungible. So we are in an indirect. since already funding abortion, but the Hyde Amendment prohibits our money from going directly

to abortion. They want to appeal that. They want our money to directly support abortion because they see that as a right of health care. Democrats today have completely moved away, completely moved away from the safe, legal, and rare standard of a couple of decades ago and have embraced the full glorification of abortion. While they would never say it like this, They would never say this, but their actions show us that they love abortion. They love it. You may say, no, no, no, no, no. They don't love abortion.

They just want a woman to be able to decide. They're just pro-choice. They're not pro-abortion. I don't believe you. Let's apply that standard to something else. I'm personally against it, but it should be legal. So, okay, you are personally against rape, but you think it should be up to the man to decide whether or not he wants to rape someone.

The government shouldn't step in. You're going to say and tell him. him not to should be his choice. Do you honestly believe that? I don't think so. I don't think any sane person would. And before you say that that is different, it's not really, except that abortion is different than rape because you're actually killing someone. And yet, the pro-abortion left, the Democrats running for president, love it. It is shown by the fact that they will do anything for it. They will fight for it forever. They will do whatever it takes to make sure a woman can murder her baby up to an after birth, after the baby can feel pain, after the baby can survive outside the

womb, after the baby can cry and scream inside the womb, after the baby is born and instinctively reaching for her mother only to be met with scissors to the back of the neck or scissors to the vocal cords so she cannot cry while she is put off to the side, cold and alone, struggling to breathe. That's what they advocate for. That's what they will defend to the death. That is what the Democratic Party passionately, passionately defends. Pair that with their experience. Pair that with their extreme nonsensical rhetoric about climate change, that the world is coming to an end in 12 years, that we're all going to waste away into nothing? And is it really that crazy to think that one day, relatively soon, there will be people handing over their babies to be killed, to be consumed,

or to be composted for the sake of, quote, saving the planet? I don't think it's that ridiculous to think of. It's not crazy at all. I mean, it is crazy, but it's not crazy to consider that there will be people probably majoratively on the left who are advocating for that. and AOC can take part credit for that. She can pat herself on the back for her role in drumming up hysteria about the climate so that people who don't know any better think of extreme measures to stop the world for Mende.

Now, I will say, I will give her credit in that. She handled the situation pretty well. Those of us who have been in, I haven't been in that exact situation, but if you are, I have been speaking at a place where someone asks the questioner really makes a statement. It's not really a question. They make a statement and they get very hysterical.

They get very emotional about it. They stopped making sense. That has happened to me when I was at the University of California, Berkeley. She handled that really well. She was calm and she was kind about it. I think that was probably the best thing that she could have possibly done. So I do want to give credit where credit is due. But I did find it funny in a dark way, not ha ha funny, but I guess weird funny,

that she didn't rule out the baby eating. Like she wasn't like, you know what? We're not going to go there. That seems like a very extreme length. and we value life and, you know, I'm working to save the planet for future generations. She didn't even say that. She didn't say, hey, that's not a good solution. I condemn that wholesale because, like I said, nowadays, Democrats actually need to come out

and say that they're not for eating babies if we're supposed to assume that they're not. She didn't say that. There are a lot of things that she could have said to outwardly and outrightly condemn this, and she chose not to. And honestly, why would she? What about the Democratic Socialist platform makes us think that they care about babies at all? There's nothing that I have seen. Planned Parenthood, speaking of abortion and all of this,

Planned Parenthood just built a mega clinic in Illinois to be able to take in more women who want to get abortions in Missouri, since Missouri only has one remaining clinic. Go Missouri. And this is the interesting part. They used a shell company to build the clinic so that people wouldn't know they were building it. In the past, when they have built Planned Parenthood clinics,

people have protested. They've bombarded the companies, providing materials for the building. which I think is awesome. And Planned Parenthood wanted to avoid that. So they did this in secret. Missouri has extremely strict abortion laws. Illinois basically has none.

So Planned Parenthood wanted to ensure that women in Missouri could legally slaughter their unborn child. Very, very compassionate group. Don't ever let anyone tell you that Planned Parenthood is about anything other than abortion. Yes, they do other kinds of services. They do screenings so that they can say that they do those things, so they can say they're a health care organization,

but they are only for and about abortion, relentlessly and centrally and pretty much exclusively. That is why they fired their previous CEO, Leanna Winn. She wasn't radical enough about abortion access. That is what she said. She's pro-abortion herself, but she even wasn't radical enough. She cared too much about actual health care for them.

And a lot of people will say, well, it's only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does. Okay, well, a serial killer or any kind of murder, probably only spends one person of his life actually murdering people the rest of the time. He's eating, sleeping, maybe even going to work. Does that make him any last of a serial killer? Any less of a murderer? No, it doesn't.

Of course not. That's stupid reasoning. A Planned Parenthood, as I said, is relentlessly focused on the killing of children. That's just the end of the story. If you want to be on that side, okay, you are going to have to come up with a moral and logical reason for why killing a child based on the location, based on their age, location, meaning inside of the body versus outside of the body, based on their age, based on their developmental stage, you're going to have to come up with a better case

than bodily autonomy or women's rights to tell me why you think that it's okay. But don't worry, there are a group where there is a group of people the Democrats do actually care about. They actually do want to save the lives of people who do commit murders. Pete Buttigieg is a Democratic candidate who told the Hill last week that he opposes the death penalty even for terrorists. Because why? Because that is the killing of a defenseless human being.

Don't you guys see? He said this. I do believe that the moral consequence, he's telling us about moral consequences, the moral consequence of killing somebody who was defenseless for any reason goes against certainly what I've been taught about the way we're supposed to treat human life.

Now, let's contrast that. Let's contrast that to what he has said when asked about third trimester abortions. He told Fox News's Chris Wallace, I trust women to draw the line. Pete Buttigieg, professed Christian, has never said anything about restricting abortion at any point in gestation.

He also said, we covered this. I think it was last week or the week before, said on the Breakfast Club a few weeks ago, that the Bible says that life starts with breath, which is laughable and untrue, although I don't think that any of us should be taking theological lessons from Pete Buttigieg. The bottom line is,

Buttigieg does not see, inside the womb as life at all, which is not only morally and logically and biblically wrong, but it is also scientifically correct. So he is a science denier, as well as morally backwards and theologically enept. You can be against the death penalty. I understand that perspective. I've listened to many arguments about this, though the Bible, if you're talking from a biblical perspective, the Bible isn't outright against the death penalty. Certainly not. It actually suggests or gives a command for the death penalty in the Old Testament for certain crimes, but you can be against it because of the risk that you might be forever penalizing someone

who is wrongly accused or because you think that the state shouldn't have the power to decide who lives or dies. I understand that. But it does not make sense to be against the death penalty for murders and for the slaughter of defenseless babies. Now, you can be against the death penalty for murders and against the slaughter of unborn babies. That doesn't make you a hypocrite. but it does make you a hypocrite to be against the death penalty for murders and for the death penalty for defenseless innocent human beings, innocent in the fact that they haven't committed any crimes. But these kinds of inconsistencies that we see from someone like Pete Buttigieg, or any of the people that we're going to talk about are normal. Their normal when someone's

worldview is not based on absolute truth. When you decide that what's right and what's wrong is based not on what the transcendent moral lawgiver thinks as found in his word, but on what you think and you feel you will always inevitably contradict yourself because you are not good. I am not good at being my own God. That is an absurd worldview. We will see absurdity over and over again when people's worldview is not based on absolute truth. Speaking of absurdity, a member of the squad, the squad is they are four members of Congress, Democratic members of Congress.

This is one of those members, Democratic representative from Michigan, Rashida Talib. She's constantly saying things that just kind of make you go, hmm, where did you come up with that line of so-called reasoning that you just decided to verbalize? Most recently, she told the Detroit police chief to only use African American analysts for facial recognition systems because white people, quote, think African Americans all look the same. That's really interesting. I don't think that. Do you think that?

I'm not sure where she got that. The police chief also happens to be black. He called her directive insulting, said that it had nothing to do with race or gender of the analyst, but that it's about training. And that's obvious. He's right because what Rashida Talib asked him to do is racist. Now, remember, when Trump suggested that a judge with the Mexican heritage may not be able to judge fairly because of his background, that was the wrong thing to say, in my opinion.

That was bad. This is a similar thing. Talib is saying that white people cannot do this job correctly because they're either too dumb or they're too inherently racist and that no amount of training could possibly overcome it. She then defended her comments doubling down saying that criminals could be misidentified if the analyst doesn't look the same as them. I'm sorry, what? Like, are you trying to say that only a certain race of people commit crimes? That's a really interesting generalization and accusation to make. Also, interestingly, Rashida Talib has.

been on the front lines for every single hoax, every single race hoax on the books this year. Just a couple weeks ago, a 12-year-old girl, I'm not going to say her name because she is a child and she did something pretty immature, but that's just what children do. She falsely claimed that three white boys held her hands behind her back and cut off her dreadlocks, which would be horrible if it happened. But as it turned out, it didn't actually happen. She came forward and said that she actually made this up. but it became national news because it was at the school where Karen Pence teaches part-time.

Of course, Rashida Taleb immediately latched on to the story, tweeting, you see, you may not feel it now. She's directing this to this young girl. You may not feel it now, but you have a power that threatens their core. I can't wait to watch you use it and thrive. Stay strong. Like I said, as it turns out, the girl admitted that this was not true. She made up the story for attention as kids do.

Unfortunately, it is likely that someone in her life, has probably told her, has probably influenced her into thinking that claiming racism is going to get you some kind of sympathy or attention. Hopefully, I truly do hope that she learns from this situation. I hope that she is given forgiveness for this. I never heard anything from Taleb after that. After this information came out, this was not true. She did the same thing with the Covington Catholic saga when the boys were accused of harassing a Native American man, which ended up not being true at all when we looked at the full footage. She tweeted, is so hard to watch. It reminds us of the growing hate and oppression. We are all up against

hashtag take on hate. And then, of course, there was Jesse Smolett, the infamous racial hoax of the year. She claimed that this happened because of the quote, dangerous lies spewing from the right wing. These lies, she said, are killing and hurting our people. And do not forget when a state representative from Georgia claimed a white man in line hurled racial slurs at her, it turned out that all he had done was say, hey, you've got more than 15 items and you're in the 15 items or less line. You need to move. But Rashida Taleb tweeted out when she first heard about this story. Erica Thomas, you are loved, you are loved, you are loved, you are loved, you are loved.

You can find this list of all of the racial hoaxes that Rashida Taleb is latched on to on freebeacon.com in an article by David Rutz. Remember, this should remind us that the intersectional left thrives on misery and resentment and anger and malice and grievance and racism and hate, all the things by the way that Christians are told to let go of when we come into our new life in Christ, they cannot function without people believing that they are oppressed. So much of the Democrats' time is spent telling people that they are oppressed, whether it is true or not, because their fuel is this idea of oppression. They want these stories to be true. They want to believe a poor girl had her dreadlocks cut off.

They want to believe that Jesse Smollett was attacked. They want and need these things to be true. It is their lifeblood. It affirms the narrative that conservatives are making the country unsafe. Now, switching gears just a little bit. I thought that this story was very interesting. A trans activist by the name of Charlie Evans is taking a lot of heat for speaking out about the fact that sex reassignment surgery did not help her.

So Charlie Evans was born female. She transitioned to male. And then she detransitioned to female in 2018. And she is now claiming that she is one of hundreds that she personally knows who are speaking out about the fact that their gender dysphoria was not helped by their surgery. And we actually talked about this last week. There was a study out of Sweden where there is basically no social stigma at all against transgenderism.

The suicide rates are the same before and after surgery for people who suffer with gender dysphoria because mutilating your body just doesn't fix your mind. It's in the same way that people who struggle with eating disorders like I did in college, they never see themselves as skinny enough. You swear that when your body gets to a place where you want it, when you see a certain number on the scale, then you'll be content. You'll be fine. You'll finally be at peace. You'll stop worrying. You'll stop under eating. You'll stop binging and purging. You won't be so disturbed and obsessed over losing weight, but it's just not true because there's something psychologically deeper there. There's a psychological need that needs to be met, not just a physical one.

One of the people that Evans has helped said this to Sky News. When I was at my gender clinic to get referred for hormones, we had a session where I went over my mental health issues and I told them about my eating disorder and they didn't suggest that that could maybe be connected to my gender dysphoria. For everyone who has gender dysphoria, whether they are trans or not, I want there to be more options for us because I think there's a system of saying, okay, here's your hormones, Here's your surgery. Off you go. I don't think that's helpful for anyone that is someone who underwent this transition and is now struggling from that. And this is why, this is why when you hear

trans activists point to what doctors or even medical organizations say about the importance of sex change surgery or hormone therapy, you can just ignore them. You can ignore them because these doctors and organizations are not operating out of scientific accuracy or even helpfulness or care for their patients, they are trying to be politically correct. So they don't get protested. They want to be liked more than they actually want to help their patients. Because now in places like California, you are prohibited from any kind of counseling that is not, quote, gender affirming. So conversion therapy, as they call it, whether it is to help someone through gender dysphoria or unwanted same-sex attraction is prohibited. Why? Because, as we often say, this is what happens when you

replace the God of Scripture with the God of self. When the God of self rules, facts don't matter. Truth doesn't matter. Objective morality doesn't matter. No kind of universal standards matter. All that matters is that you do what you want and that you are being authentic. You are being yourself. But what we will continue to see is that when we deny God's laws, his moral laws, his natural laws, we will end up miserable. In speaking of miserable, I did just want to, I didn't want to end this podcast without mentioning that, yes, we are still talking about impeachment. And I have been following it. So I know what's going on, although there seems to be a new development all the time, but I can give you kind of a general rundown of what's happening. So basically,

President Trump was accused of a quid pro quo with Ukraine to investigate Biden. As it turned out, it wasn't a quid pro quo, but now there's some kind of controversy that Democrats are drumming up about his calls with foreign leaders in general that people are very disturbed by them. There is now two whistleblowers at this point, but the first whistleblower didn't actually know anything directly. He heard something. And then it was a misconstrued. And Adam Schiff has been lying about everything he lied for two years about the whole

Russian collusion hoax. And now people are saying because Donald Trump is calling him Shifty Schiff that he is being antisemitic. What? I know. It's actually crazy. But it's also stuff is coming out with. Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who was getting a lot of money from Ukraine, even though he has

really no business or no experience, no credibility whatsoever to be doing business with them, and that Biden was actually probably involved in some kind of corrupt quid pro quo when he was vice president. But he is saying, oh, no, Joe Biden saying, oh, no, don't look at that. That has nothing to do with me. Corey Booker said, oh, you shouldn't ask questions at all about Joe Biden. that's just a distraction from what we want to do. Is the House going to impeach? Probably not. I think it's just a talking point at this point.

And I do think that Democrats seem to still not be on the same page about that. To me, that's really all that you need to know. It's probably not going to happen. Of course, we see that Trump is extremely defensive about all of this. We've got Rudy Giuliani going to bat for him in the media as he often does. I'm not sure, as always, that the president's tweets are. helping the situation and the things that he's saying. But this is, and this is what I always say, I think the president should just keep his head down and continuing and continue to do things

that are good. One of the good things that he did recently was to make sure that people who are coming in to work, to have a work visa, that they can actually pay for their medical insurance, that they can actually provide for themselves. A lot of people are giving a peep for that. I think that's a very good thing. We already have a lot of people to support on our system. There is no need for us to support even more. It is completely logical to require those who are coming in to be able to support themselves as much as they can or to have family who can support them. So that's something that's happening right now. I think I kind of gave you a pretty good overview of the news. Actually, okay, there's one other thing. Speaking of immigration, I have to play this clip by Beto O'Rourke that he tweeted out and that he thought was awesome.

Let's let her speak, please. We are a nation of laws, and I just think it's a slap in the face to every legal immigrant who has waited and paid and played by the rules. What is a slap in the face to my conscience and the best traditions of this country is taking kids from their parents and putting them in cages. We in this country, we in this country, have lost the lives of seven children in our custody, in our care. There are tens of thousands waiting on the other side of the border in an Orwellian named Migrant Protection Protocol in Tijuana and Sioux La Juarez, vulnerable, penniless,

frightened. They are being preyed upon those who exploit those who have no defense left. If immigration is a problem, it is the best possible problem this country could have. I want those asylum seekers here in this country. I want us to live according to our conscience, to our lives. laws to our commitments and to the best, boldest, brightest future we could possibly have. Those immigrants pose no threat to you nor to me. Stop trafficking in these lives. So you've got this young lady saying, hey, look, I'm a legal immigrant. I went through the process.

And it is a slap in the face to say that people can just come in willy-nilly without going through any kind of process or making any sort of effort whatsoever. Beto completely ignores her answer. He doesn't say anything to her at all about or doesn't say anything to actually address her concern. And he thought his non-answer was so impressive that he actually tweeted it out. And he thought that this was such a heroic moment and such an awesome moment that he actually went public with it. If I were him, if any logical thinking person were him, you would have been embarrassed by that. You would have been like, oh, shoot, they called my bluff.

Or I have no idea what I'm talking about. I really don't have any knowledge whatsoever of the immigration system. And so I gave her a non-answer. I would want to hide that. But instead he tweets it because this is what a lot of people, not everyone, but a lot of people on the left and certainly the Democratic candidates do. They know they can get away with emotional virtue signaling. I know that that's such a cliche phrase that we use a lot. But really, that's all it is.

Clech cliche virtue signaling rather than addressing Americans real concerns. I'm not sure what country Beto thinks that he is running for president of. a little bit confusing. One other crazy thing that happened, I know I keep on adding on to my list of news stories, but that's just because so much it seems like has happened. And I haven't even gotten to, I haven't even gotten to all the things I wanted to talk about. But in the tragic case of Botham, Jean, or John, there have been different pronunciations to the last name. We talked about it on Monday, biblical forgiveness as it pertains to Brandt, Botham's brother when he extended grace to Botham's killer, Amber Geiger. We talked about all of that and how Christians should look at that

from a biblical perspective, but something else tragic happened. A neighbor of both of them who testified in the case was actually murdered. There were multiple gunshot wounds in a parking lot, seemingly totally random. Now, there have been a lot of questions when it comes to this particular case about whether or not this was handled justly or whether or not there was corruption. Does, do they have or does the justice system have a hard time, have difficulty, or have a hesitant, to actually convict their own and to justly handle the situation. Now, one pushback that I would give on that, and it could be, by the way, that this murder of this young man, Botham's neighbor could be totally separate from that.

It could be totally separate from that. But it is provoking people to ask some questions because there were already questions about the integrity of how this case was handled in general. So I'm just letting you know that. It's all kind of connected in a certain way. and certainly to some people, it's all kind of connected. But the pushback that I would give to those who say that this was not justice, that she should have gotten more, I would genuinely, and this is not sarcasm,

I would genuinely want to know what would have been justice in this particular situation. Obviously, justice to the people who are pushing back on this is more than 10 years. So how many years? 12 years, 15 years, 25 years, life in prison, the death sentence. what would be justice in this situation? Because that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that this wasn't justice, that the sentence was too light. And as I said on Monday, I just don't know enough to say that. I can't say that with authority that the sentence was too light. Like I said, I was surprised that it was only 10 years. I really was. But I can't say with authority that it should

have been 11 years or it should have been 100 years. And so that's what I would like to know. If you have an answer, please let me know. What do you think would have been just? justice in this situation. We were not jury members. We were not the judge. We were not the prosecutor. We didn't have really any part in this case. So what is justice and what does a call for justice in this case look like? Those who are accusing those of just celebrating the forgiveness, what else should we do, except for pointing the things out that seemed to be questionable and inconsistent? And I want to research this more. I do. I would like to do a full podcast episode researching not just this murder because I do want to know what happened to Botham's neighbor because

it's just tragic in general and separately from this, but also more about the case. There's a lot to be known about it. And I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring the rest of it because I'm certainly not. But we don't have to put a caveat to our rejoicing for the forgiveness that was shown by Botham's brother. Okay, I think that really is the end of it. Now I'm not going to add another story on. Thank you guys for listening. Please subscribe to YouTube. It's Ali Beth Stucky on YouTube. desire. You can follow me on Instagram. You can follow me on Twitter, on Facebook, on all those places if you want. If you've got suggestions for a future episode, there are two that I keep on getting asked about that I will address. And that is climate change and the second amendment.

There are also some theological suggestions that I've gotten as well, like what does it mean to be unequally yoked? So I've got all of those coming down the pipeline. But if you've got another suggestion, please let me know. Thank you guys for watching, listening, wherever you are. I will see you guys back here on Friday with an awesome interview that you are going to love.