Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 175 | LGBTQ Town Hall Disaster

Episode Date: October 16, 2019

Discussing last week's LGBTQ town hall, filled with ungodly views and Democratic extremism. 

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys. Welcome to Relatable. I hope that you guys are having a great week. Happy Wednesday. Today we are going to talk about the LGBT town hall. I know that we're like a week late, but we're going to talk about with the Democrats. Think of people who believe in the Bible's definition of marriage, which is an exclusive relationship between one. man and one woman. If you're curious about that subject and why Christians believe marriages between one man and one woman, you can go back to an episode titled biblical marriage. And I explain from a biblical perspective why that is the case, why God said it up that way and why it is so important and foundational to our faith. I know that we are talking about this just a little bit late. It's

been covered by a lot of different people, but it is still circulated in the media and for good reason. The reason is this. This is where conservatives have said that the left is going for a long time when it comes to not just condescension of people with traditional values, but legal restriction of people and organizations with traditional values. We have seen the writing on the wall since the Obergefell decision in 2015, claiming that same-sex marriage is a human right. We have been able to see that soon our religious liberty will be at stake in light of that

decision. And we were right. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you, about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Okay, so like I said, Christians and people of traditional values

that have all kinds of religions, but typically it's evangelical Christians who are kind of in the crosshairs of this kind of conversation. We've been saying for a long time, okay, our religious liberty is at stake if we view same-sex marriage as a fundamental right. Churches will not long be able to exercise their freedom of religion or there will be some tension between freedom of religious expression, our First Amendment rights and the right of same sex couples to get married.

We have seen that tension a lot over the past few years. And there was a line by presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke that really just brought it home. Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage? Yes. There can be no reward. No benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we're going to make that a priority.

And we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans. So this means that churches, synagogues, mosques, religious nonprofits would lose tax exemption status, which they currently enjoy if they oppose same-sex marriage. And he doesn't say a discriminate. against a gay couple or gay people in hiring, which also religious organizations are allowed to do, but just oppose same-sex marriage in general.

So what does oppose actually mean? Does that mean that a church couldn't preach against homosexuality? Does that mean refuse to perform same-sex weddings? What does that mean? And how are they planning to accomplish it constitutionally? Since Obergefell, like I was saying earlier, Christians have been asking, how will this decision affect religious liberty, which is not by definition just a Christian or a conservative value, but a constitutional right?

If same-sex marriage, according to the court in 2015 is also now a right, which one is going to have to give way when the two come in conflict? How will churches and religious organizations be able to legally avoid embracing it? The dissent in Obergefell in 2015 brought up these exact concerns. These are not new concerns that people, people are having, the dissent knew that this was coming. It probably has come more quickly than they thought that it was going to. It's only been four years since this decision, and they knew back then that this battle was ahead. So this is what Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent in a burga fell. Hard questions arrive when people arise, when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may seem to be seen in conflict with a new right to same-sex marriage.

when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex-married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they oppose same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court. Unfortunately, he says, people of faith. faith can take no comfort and the treatment they receive from the majority today. Clarence Thomas then said this in his dissent. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental

institution. It is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflicts, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. This is the problem with the government getting involved in marriage at all. It was not originally a civil agreement. Marriage was a religious covenant. It was a religious association.

It was defined by the Bible. This is not something that is supposed to be defined by the government. No matter where you stand, though, on same-sex marriage, a Bergen-Fell was a horribly decided case. no matter where you stand on it, Thomas articulates one of the reasons why. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process as the constitution requires, the people could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process.

Instead, the majority's decision short-circuits that process would potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. And still, the left said in 2015, oh, calm down, you religious, archaic Christian bigots. No one is bothering you. This has nothing to do with you. If you don't want gay people to get married, then just don't be gay yourself. This doesn't affect you at all. Your precious liberty is fine. It has taken four years. Four years. That's a short amount of time. Only four years for a Democratic candidate for the president of the United States to say outright that yes, if a religious organization opposes same-sex marriage, just opposes it. They will no longer have

tax exemption status, which means effectively the organization is going to be punitive. punished by the government for not aligning with its definition of marriage, which of course is unconstitutional. This is what they hope to do. This is a definition of marriage, by the way, that is only, I've said this a few times now, that is only four years old. This new definition as between a man and a man or a woman or a woman of marriage is four years old, as opposed to the traditional definition of marriage, which is thousands of years old. If Christians who have held the same Orthodox beliefs about marriage for millennia are being told that if you don't right now hop onto this train of progressivism,

which less than five years ago redefined marriage as something that it has never been defined as, then you are in trouble. And less you think this is just crazy bit of yelling into the wind, remember, remember that the Equality Act, which is the Democrats' darling legislation that will not pass through the Republican-controlled Senate right now, but is going to be, it's going to be held on to. It's going to be pushed until it is passed. I guarantee you in the years to come. Basically affirms the direction that Beto is headed. Episode 115 covers the Equality Act in full, but let me remind you what the Equality Act actually does. It makes irrelevant any religious or conscience exemptions for doctors. Under this bill, a doctor is required to perform same-sex, or same-sex, sex change surgery and provide hormone therapy even to children. Now, they could maybe find protection under the free exercise arguments or other conscience objection legislation, but that's really unsure under the Equality Act. Religious schools would be regulated under this act, even if they take no funding from the federal government, meaning they could not choose to not hire or fire a teacher, for example, who is in a gay relationship. or who was transitioning, you might not agree what these religious schools views, but

Christian schools operate under the Bible. And the Bible is clear about marriage and gender. And so by regulating them, by the government regulating them, you are forcing them to ignore and condone what the Bible says is sin. That is the opposite of religious liberty. That is tyranny. You can see that whether you're a Christian or not. There is a Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith that held that religious dissenters are subject to, are subject to generally applicable laws, which means under the Equality Act, there would be very little, some but very little recourse for religious people who object to these laws. Also, under the Equality Act, athletic teams would be forced to allow transgender boys and girls to compete

on athletic teams that correspond with their gender identity rather than their biological sex. the law actually says that individuals cannot be denied access to a locker room or dressing room no matter their gender or their gender identity. The act also says that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes of people as race and sex already are. The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a case that would make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. This likely means that private places of employment and religious

organizations and religious schools will be prohibited from choosing not to hire someone based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. The reason why that is different than not hiring someone based on their race or sex, which we would consider immoral, the reason it's different not to hire someone as a religious organization based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is because there is a moral component to it. There is a biblical component to it. Because as I've already said, God already set up what marriage was. Guard. God already set up what gender and sex was in the Bible. There is no question on that.

So if you have a biblical worldview, there would be a moral and biblical reason not to hire someone who is transgender or not to hire someone who is in a same-sex relationship. You don't have to agree with that. If you're not a Christian or if you don't hold this worldview, I don't expect you to agree with that. But people who do have that worldview should have the freedom to exercise their religion as they see fit. And if you think this won't soon apply to the curriculum.

that's taught in these private schools and these Christian schools, you are crazy. I promise you that Christian schools are not immune from this. The goal is total, an absolute control of the schools, control of the churches, control of what is taught and what is preached. That is the goal. And they justify these totalitarian tactics by saying that they are limiting practices that quote, harm people. But harm in their terms actually just means offend. Because the last, the the leftist dogma, the leftist point of view, believe that the LGBTQ community and other minority groups have a right not to be offended. And that right trumps your constitutional right to free exercise of religion,

to teach your kids what you want to teach them, to preach to your congregation what you want to preach to them. That is not a slippery slope fallacy. If you think that the liberals like Beto only want to decimate one part of the First Amendment, the free exercise part and not another part of the First Amendment, the free speech part, then you are kidding yourself. And I've heard people say, well, oh, this is just Beto. He is just crazy. Yes, he is crazy. But so are the rest of the candidates on stage. He was just the only one brave enough to clearly articulate what they're all thinking. Here is what Elizabeth

Warren has to say about people who believe in traditional marriage. I'm old-fashioned, and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response? Well, I'm going to assume it's a guy who said that. And I'm going to say, then just marry one woman. I'm saying you can find one. So this is what Liz Warren thinks. One, that only men apparently believe in biblical marriage.

So that would mean that only men are Orthodox Christians. Only men believe in the sufficiency in the inerrancy of Scripture. We're right here, Liz. You're welcome to come on the podcast. There are hundreds of thousands of women in this country alone who, believe that God defined marriage is between a man and a woman and that he did that purposefully. Again, you should go back and listen to the biblical marriage episode if you want to know why, Liz Warren. You are totally welcome to do that. But to her, if you believe in the Orthodox view

of marriage, then you are completely repugnant. No one would ever want to marry you. You are so unattractive to any potential spouse because of your... religious beliefs. If that's not bigotry, I don't know what it is. That's what all of these candidates think of you. If you allow the Bible to shape your worldview, which automatically and unquestionably includes the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, then you are gross to them. You're gross. You're gross. You're disgusting. You are embarrassing. Remember when we talked about Taylor Swift's music video, you need to calm down in which she told all of us to calm down because we believe in the definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years that was authored by the creator of the universe.

Yeah, that's what they all think, that we just need to calm down. But the reality is, I don't think it's us that's really, we're not the ones that are losing our cool. What we saw from the stage at the LGBTQ town hall was that this is a religion. Progressivism is a religion. And if you, for one second, go out of their orthodoxy, which has only been around for a few years, if you for one second blaspheme them. If you for one second don't bow down to their god of progressivism, then you are a heretic. And you will be excommunicated.

You will be punished. You will be thrown out. You will be regarded as a social pariah. And you will also lose your tax exemption status if you are a church who holds to a biblical definition of marriage. That's what they think of you. Joe Biden, the so-called a moderate of the group, said this. The American people are better than we give them credit for.

But we allow the homophobes to be able to control the agenda. So homophobes. Phobia means that you have an irrational fear of something. So he's saying that people, again, who believe in the Bible, have an irrational fear of gay people, which isn't true at all. Just remember that he was the vice president for the guy who said in 2008, in 2008. Like that's not that long ago, guys, that's 11 years ago. Just a little over a decade ago, Barack Obama said that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. That shows you

just how fast this revolution has gone. This gender and sexual revolution has gone over the past 10 years. And we are being told, if you don't get on this crazy train right now that's going a million miles a minute, not knowing where the heck it's going, by the way, then you're wrong. You're on the wrong side of the tracks. You're on the wrong side of history, and we will make you pay. Christians need to learn something. Christians need to learn that the Democrats, for the most part, today, not all Democrats, for sure, but the Democrats represented on this stage, the Democrats that are represented

in the media, they don't like you. They don't like you. They hate you. They hate your worldview. They hate your Bible. They hate your beliefs. Therefore, they hate your God. They hate what you think.

and they will only accept you. If you are Christian, the left will only accept you. If you water down your faith so much to the point where you're basically an agnostic who uses the name of Jesus when it's convenient for you. Those are the only kinds of Christians and really the only kinds of religious people that they really like. Any kind of religious person. So whether you are Jewish or a Muslim who actually holds to the tenets of their faith,

which happened to be pretty traditional when it comes to marriage, obviously those three religions differ on a whole lot, but traditional when it comes to marriage, if you actually hold to that, well, then there's a huge problem. No, the left wants you to be an agnostic who just believes in the culturally convenient and the socially acceptable parts of your faith. They hate you. If you disagree with them, they will call you a bigot. They will punish you legally. They don't believe in your right to think or say or believe what you want, and they will come for your freedoms. They will come for your kids' schools, and they will probably in our lifetimes come for your kids. They will not believe that you have a right to raise your kids how you want to raise them

because they will say you're harming your kids. This is bigoted. This is some form of emotional or gender abuse because you say that marriage is between a man and a woman and that your biological sex actually determines your gender. They will say this is wrong. They will come for your children. So if you want to know, if you want to know, this is not fearmongering, by the way. The writing is on the wall on the same way.

that this tax exemption tax exemption taken away was written on the wall a few years ago and all Christians said that it was going to happen and now it is actually talked about openly that it is going to happen or that Democrats wanted to happen. The writing is on the wall.

It's not fear among green. And if you want to know, guys, why evangelical Christians support Donald Trump? This is why. I'm so tired of hearing from people. Christians and non-Christians are like, how can evangelical support Donald Trump

He is so immoral. He has, you know, married so many women. He has been sexually promiscuous. He says terrible things. And it's all true. It's all true. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about those things or we shouldn't call those things sin because they are sin. We should disapprove of those things. We do not support Donald Trump because he is Christ-like. We don't support Donald Trump because he's perfect or we want him to be our pastor. We support Donald Trump because unlike all the Democrats, he's not going at, he's not going to war with evangelical Christians. He is not trying to take away our freedom. He is not trying to stand in the way of our liberty. He's not telling us what to preach or what to teach our kids. He's not saying that he's going to take away the tax exemption status from churches who believe in traditional marriage. That is why evangelical Christians support Donald Trump. Because at least he's going to leave us alone. At least he believes in religious liberty. At least his administration is fighting for religious liberty. So if you want to know, if you want to know why evangelical Christians keep voting for this guy, it's not because we think he's our Messiah. At least I'm speaking for myself and the people

that I know that support him. It's not because we think he's perfect. It's because at least he's going to protect our liberty. At least he doesn't hate us. Like at least he doesn't condescend us. At least he doesn't demonize us. At least he doesn't say that our sincerely held beliefs are bigotry and discount them is not real. Invalidate them as a way to hate people. people because that's not what they are. At least it's not Elizabeth Warren. Like these Democrats at the town hall that we're talking about just made clip after clip of Trump campaign commercials. This is what they think of you, religious people. This is what they think of you Christians. They hate you. They hate you. They patronize you. They think you're gross. They think you're archaic.

There's no way that you've ever thought for yourself. That there's no way that you could possibly be intellectual, that you could possibly be genuine in your faith. that you are just a Westboro Baptist Christian that hates people. They couldn't possibly understand how you can love people and disagree with their sin. Why? Because their religion of progressivism refuses to let them see the world that way. I want to play you another clip of Cory Booker. He says that he is going to go after schools that deny LGBTQ students' equality.

And I will, number one, change the Trump administration's guidance, back to what the Obama administration's guidance was that school could allow people to use the bathrooms that conforms with their gender identity. But we cannot stop there. We must use our Department of Justice and our Department of Education's Civil Rights Division to go after schools that are denying people equal rights and equal protections. So this is what I mean when I say that Democrats have placed themselves in opposition. to churches. And I think that this is a huge mistake for their part. I think that this is going to cost to them the election because they think this is what, unfortunately, people in the leftist

media, people in D.C., people in New York and in San Francisco and L.A., they assume that most of the country thinks the way they do. Like most of the country is just as extreme as they are, that no one really believes in traditional marriage. Like no one believes really the biological sex corresponds with gender. That's just a tiny little sliver of people and they're going to be extinct pretty soon. There's certainly no young people that believe that way. Anyone who is in any way sophisticated or who has been educated at all, or who is under the age of 60, they are all on the right side of history and they believe in this gender and sexual revolution. And so they think that they can get away with saying things that we're going to go after Christian schools.

I don't think that they recognize the ire of parents in suburbia. Like, I don't think that they recognize that there are a lot of Christian women who, for a while, maybe they were kind of considering voting Democrat because, you know what, they don't like President Trump and they don't like what's going on at the border. And they kind of just think the whole Trumpian thing, the whole demonization of the press is uncouth. they are just not attracted to his style. There might have been some suburban moms who previously voted Republican who were thinking about voting Democrat. In fact, we know that that's

kind of been a movement. He's just not attractive to suburban moms. You start telling, start telling suburban moms that you're going to infiltrate their schools. Start telling suburban moms that you're going to start telling them what they can teach their kids. Start telling Christian suburban moms that you are not going to allow their pastor to preach what they want to preach about marriage. Start infiltrating our belief system. Start infiltrating our private schools. Start messing with our kids. Start indoctrinating our kids. See how long that lasts. I think you underestimate the passion and the protectiveness of suburban Christian moms. This will start a war in this country. This will start a war in this country. If you try, if you try to

influence our kids through indoctrinating them at school or a church. or whatever, if you mess with our private institutions that we have worked very hard to protect and to protect the religious liberty of, you will start a war. You will. And actually, Pete Buttigieg, he said that in a way. He was talking, he was answering a question about better award saying that he was going to take away the tax exemption status. He said that I agree that anti-discrimination law ought to be applied to all institutions, but the idea that you're going to strip churches of their tax exempt status, if they haven't found their way toward blessing same-sex marriage. I'm not sure he understood the implications of what he was saying.

I mean, that means not only going to war with churches, but I would think with mosques and a lot of organizations that may not have the same view of various religious principles that I do, but also because of the separation of church and state are acknowledged. So if we want to talk about anti-discrimination law for school or organization, absolutely, they should not be able to discriminate. I'm not going to keep going on that. So at first, I was thinking, okay, Pete, Buttigieg, good for him. I would say this is part good for him. At least he understands politically that this is not very savvy to say that you're going to punish churches. He might be on the left side of the theological and the political aisle, but he at least understands that that's probably not the

best way to go. Now, do I think in practice, he would advocate for something like the Equality Act, of course I do. And do I think that he really cares too much about religious liberty? No, I don't. But he did bring up a good point about the separation of church and state, and he actually used it for once someone on the left used it in the right context. The separation of church and state, first of all, it's not in the constitution, but it is a principle that is supposed to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. It's supposed to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. Of course, we have the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, but the separation of church

and state was supposed to protect the pulpit from the government saying what you can and can't say how you can and can't act what you can and can't believe. And he's right about that. The separation of church and state is a principle that is important, not primarily for the state, not primarily for the government. It's not meant to restrict religious people from believing what we want to believe, but restricting the state from infringing upon the rights of the church. And that is what is at stake here. The fact of the matter is, religious liberty and individual liberty is not a value that the left has. They're not interested in freedom. They're not interested in in liberty, they're interested in control. That is why they are advocating now for socialism.

They would rather have forced equal mediocrity than unequal levels of wealth, unequal levels of success. They want everything to be controlled in their minds. They think that if they can control everything, if they can control all the variables, then we will be in this equal utopia and everyone will be happy. And that includes a controlling religion. And what is actually said, they do not believe an individual liberty that is not a value that they have individual liberty for them is a culprit in inequality and a culprit in oppression. And so in order to rid America of oppression, which of course is never going to happen because the world is sinful, but to rid the world of inequality, they think that they have to stifle individual liberty as much as possible. And if you look at

every totalitarian regime, every socialist or communist country in the world or throughout history, religious liberty has always, always been one of the first things to die, that it's freedom of the press, freedom of speech, in a way, freedom of thought. If you want to know how this goes, just read 1984 that is exactly the path the Democrats are forging and they don't care. They do not care. Marco Rubio, I thought, made a really good point when he explained on Twitter that this is exactly why. this is exactly why so many people can't get on board with Democrats. There would be. They would win.

They would win every election from here on out if they could just not be so extreme. If they could not be so crazy and not be so patronizing, condescending, and downright hateful towards people who don't agree with them, towards the millions and millions of people who believe and who have traditional values. They would be able to win every election from here on out, but because they cannot be not extreme, because they don't care about individual liberty anymore, because they are catering to such a small minority

of so-called marginalized groups, they are going to struggle. And Donald Trump, people like Donald Trump, a candidate that, when you think about it, should never really have one in the first place. People like that are going to keep winning. It's not going to matter. You could put up Kermit the Frog on the rights,

and Christians are not going to vote for people on the left who talk like this, who say that they're going to take a, way our First Amendment rights or try to take our First Amendment rights through as many means and whatever strategic means possible, it's just not going to work for them. And they don't, they don't understand. And Marco Rubio said that. He said, this is exactly, this is exactly the reason why so many people in the middle of the country, so many people who just don't agree religiously, ideologically with Democrats, why they can't get on board. It's because

of this elitism, this condescension of people with traditional values. Elizabeth Warren is a snob. And he's exactly right. Of course, he got dragged for this, which shows you there is obviously a good portion of the country who agrees with her, who agrees with Beto at work. They don't care. Also, there is not a constitutional respect that is a value for the left. They really couldn't care less about that. They think a lot of people on the left, not everyone, but a lot of people on the left, believe that this is stolen land, that America is fundamentally a racist and a horrible country. And so why should it matter whether or not we uphold the Constitution? Why should it matter matter whether or not people that we don't agree with have liberty and have the freedom to exercise

their religion, how they want to, have the freedom to say and think what they want to? Why do we care about that? A lot of people on the left would say because truth, because freedom, because individual liberty, constitutionality, these are not values that the left upholds. and we can see that extremely clearly when it comes to the Democratic candidates. So now this is mainstream. So we're talking about mainstream Democrats who hate Christians and who hate Christianity and who hate any kind of orthodoxy or traditional characteristic of beliefs. This is not just some fringe group. This is not Antifa that we're talking about.

This is not just AOC or the squad. These are people running for president of the United States who represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party. They don't represent everyone in the Democratic Party, but this is. say that they're not mainstream, I would be a little bit crazy. I want to talk about just a couple other things really quickly because I thought it was remarkable. I want to play you this clip from AOC talking about climate change in Denmark, I believe it was. Deeper still, we don't have to project one minute into our future to see that the climate crisis is already here. On this note, I speak to you not as an elected official or public figure, but I speak to you as a human being.

a woman whose dreams of motherhood now taste bittersweet because of what I know about our children's future and that our actions are responsible for bringing their most dire possibilities into focus I speak so first of all let me tell you why I was encouraged by this clip I am encouraged if she's telling the truth that she has a dream of motherhood that's great I really am glad for that like I I want AOC now there's going to be a lot of jokes out there about, oh, AOC, you shouldn't have kids, you shouldn't reproduce. I don't agree with that. I think having a kid makes you a better person. I think that it makes you more responsible.

I think it makes you see things differently. I think that it also brings you back into your Christian faith if you have maybe walked away or you haven't been taking it seriously. It just has a way of sanctifying you. It has a way of making you more responsible and be able to see the future in a different life. I think that having a child would greatly mature AOC. And I hope that she gets married first and has a child. I think that that would be a wonderful thing for her to do. So I know a lot of people are saying, oh, no, AOC shouldn't have a kid. I hope that she has a kid. And I hope that she realizes then that climate change isn't all that she thinks it is. I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about the earth, that we shouldn't be good stewards of creation because of course as Christians, we believe that we

should, but it, I don't believe it's this, uh, this dire circumstance and this imminent threat that the left thinks it does that the world is going to end in 12 years. I think there are probably some common sense, common sense free market solutions that we can employ and not absolute takeover of the government like AOC's Green New Deal would be. Um, I wonder if she would kind of change her mind on that. So I'm actually encouraged, yes, this is hyperbolic. Yes, it's a little bit crazy. But I'm encouraged that she actually has a dream of motherhood. I think that she should pursue that. I think she should pursue that. So that's the update from some of our friends on the left. This is going to be a crazy election, guys. It's going to be crazy. Like, I'm not looking forward to it. I feel like

the election just happened of 2016. I feel like it just happened. Like, I am talking to you as someone who, I'm just going to be honest, never been a big fan of Donald Trump's persona, never been a big fan of his personality the way that he does things. I was on team no tweets and I did vote for him in 2016 because when it comes down to a general election, it's a binary choice. It just is. I've heard all the arguments to the contrary. I don't know. I understand not voting for either of them. It was a binary choice. There was no way that I could vote for Hillary Clinton, an advocate of abortion and fantasite and as deeply corrupt as she was. I knew that even though Donald Trump wasn't perfect, even though he wasn't as Christ-like as I would want a president to be, that he was at least

going to surround himself by people who would advocate for conservative values and advocate for things like religious liberty, which all Christians should care about. If you don't care about religious liberty, then you are stuck in a privileged bubble. And you might want to read up about what's going on in China right now, how Christians and Muslims are thrown into concentration camps and gulags and executed and their organs are being harvested. If you want to see what what it looks like when a totalitarian regime takes away freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and free speech, then you could just read up about the atrocities going on in that country, which, by the way, the MBA seems to love and refuses to condemn. I could do a whole episode on that.

I could also do a whole episode on what's going on in Hong Kong. When you have protesters, pro-democracy, pro-freedom protesters waving the American flag, I'm like, can we do a little switcheroo? Like, can we do a little switch? We take some Hong Kong protesters, make them American citizens, take some people who hate America and religious liberty, like some of the people that we just heard, and switch it. And then the people over here who say, oh, religious liberty is not that big of a deal, constitution, whatever. They can see how it is in a communist country and how much people just love it and how great

and wonderful it is over there. We can just switch and see how that goes. That's my proposal. I don't know. Maybe I'll talk to President Trump about it. I think I got off track. The point is that 2020 election is going to. to be a huge deal. And even though I haven't loved Donald Trump, this episode and the things that we

have talked about here, it's why. It's why I have no other choice but to vote for him. I have no other choice but to convince you to vote for him and to persuade other people to vote for him. Now, I understand if you were on the left, why you wouldn't vote for him, but I don't really understand how anyone with any semblance of traditional values could vote Democrat. They hate you. They hate everything you think and everything you believe, everything that you hold dear. I mean, there's just no other way around it. So he bothers me on a lot of different levels. There are a lot of things he said and done and done that I don't agree with. But really, the Democrats, they give me and people like me no choice. They have very much

made clear where they stand on the things that matter to us. And that's been their choice. And that's fine. We'll see how it goes for them. Okay, that's all I have today. We will be back here on Friday. I'm so excited for you to listen to the conversation that I'm going to have them with Jeremy Volo. You can look him up on Instagram. He is the husband of who you might know as Ginger Dugger, but he is an awesome person, of course, in his own right. He is studying at Master's Seminary in California, that is the seminary that is under the leadership of John McArthur. And we are going to have an incredible conversation about the gospel and what's missing in young Christianity. I'm so excited for you to hear that. So make sure that you tune in and I will see you guys here.

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show,

we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos.

If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.