Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 306 | Amy Coney Barrett & Trump's Battle for the Presidency

Episode Date: September 28, 2020

In this special episode of our "Election 2020" series, we are discussing new Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett: Who is she, why are leftists afraid of her, and should Christian conservatives support her? Then, we talk to Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel about what the next few weeks hold for Trump's campaign.  Today's Sponsors Car Shield has affordable protection plans that can save you thousands for a covered repair including computers, GPS, electronics, and more. Visit https://carshield.com and use code 'ALLIE' to save 10%! Today's Links Thank Obamacare for the Rise of the Uninsured https://www.cms.gov/blog/thank-obamacare-rise-uninsured Previously on Relatable: Ep 304 | RBG and the Fight for SCOTUS https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-304-rbg-and-the-fight-for-scotus/id1359249098?i=1000492227467 ------ Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

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 everyone had a great weekend. Happy Monday. So if you are watching this on YouTube, you see that I'm not in my set.

It's not my typical setup. And maybe you can even tell by listening to this wherever you are listening that it sounds a little bit different. Well, let me tell you what happened. So I'm actually recording this, today's episode, Monday's episode on Sunday. Now, I already actually recorded what was supposed to be today's episode on Thursday. That's what I typically do. I record Mondays and Friday's episode on Thursday. However, when I recorded on Thursday, I didn't think about the fact that Amy Coney-Barritt

would be officially nominated by Trump on Saturday and that I would have. so much to talk about. And so I wanted to do a special edition. That means I had to get rid of a ton of content that I had recorded on Thursday. And now I am, now I am recording something new for you guys because I wanted to make sure that we talked about this. It's obviously so important. And there are a lot of questions that you guys have asked me. There's been a huge reaction to this over the past few days. and so it just didn't make sense for me to talk about what I talked about on Thursday today in light of everything that happened over the past couple of days. Now, at the end of this, I am still going to show you the awesome, awesome conversation that I

had with Chairwoman of the RNC, Ronna McDaniel. And I really want you to listen to that at the end of this episode. That was recorded on Thursday. But before we get into all of that, I do want to talk to you guys about Amy Coney Barrett, the judge that has just been nominated by President Trump to become the next Supreme Court justice, taking what was RBG's seat. So let's talk about who she was, both personally and professionally. We'll talk about the media slash left-wing reaction to all of it. And then we are going to talk about some of the conservative critiques of her. And all

also some Christian critiques of her, specifically the critique of a woman sitting on the highest court of the land and how we as Christian should think about that biblically. So I'm going to try to cover all of that as thoroughly and yet as briskly as I possibly can because we've got a lot of ground to cover. And then I still have that awesome interview at the end of this. So I have to be able to make time for all of it. First, let's talk about who she is. So she is the oldest of seven kids from a Catholic family from New Orleans. She also has seven kids of her own now. So she is used to big families. She graduated Magna Cum Laude from Rhodes College in Memphis. And then she went to, I don't know how you guys say it. Is it Notre Dame? Is it Notre Dame? I say Notre Dame.

But some of you from up there, you might correct me. She graduated from Notre Dame law school. after that she spent two years as a judicial law clerk, first for Judge Lawrence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998. And then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from 98 to 99. You guys know who Justice Antonin Scalia is. He is the very conservative textualist Supreme Court justice helped decide a lot of very important cases. He passed away unexpectedly in 2016. And then we had that whole saga with President Obama nominating Merrick Garland and the Republican-controlled Senate saying, no, we're not even going to entertain that because look, there's precedent for this, which there is. There's a lot of historical precedent more than there is going the other direction of the opposite party in the Senate refusing to confirm the nominee of the opposite party's president right before an election. So that's what Mitch McConnell decided to do. now that it's 2020, same party in the White House, same party in the Senate. They're saying, yeah, of course we're going to vote to confirm this nominee. It's really just politics. Republicans want a Republican nominee on the Supreme Court. They didn't want a Democratic nominee

on the Supreme Court. It would be the same way, the other way. You can go back and listen to, I think it's episode 304, where we talk specifically about that difference. Okay, back to Amy Coney Barrett from 1999 to 2002. She practiced law at Miller Cassidy, Larocca, and Lewin in Washington, D.C., Barrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olinfellow in Law at George Washington University Law School for a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School in 2002. She has lots of academic work that has been published in journals like the Columbia Cornell, Virginia, Notre Dame, and Texas law. reviews at Notre Dame. Barrett received the Distinguished Professor of the Year Award three times. Barrett has

continued to teach even as a sitting judge. A very busy and obviously an accomplished woman on May 8th, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Like I said, she has seven children. Two of these are adopted from Haiti. Five biological. Her youngest son has Down syndrome. She is married to an attorney and has been married to him. I think she said on Saturday for 21 years. Now let's talk about her judicial philosophy a little bit. She is considered an originalist. So what that means is an originalist interprets the Constitution based on what writers originally meant. Now, some of you out there, maybe some conservatives that have have a problem with Amy Coney-Barrant and some of the decisions that she's helped make might have

a critique of that description of her and I will get to that in just a little bit. But just to explain a little bit more the difference between an originalist, which is almost always what the Republicans, who the Republicans want to nominate versus who Democrats want to nominate. We talked about this again. I think it was episode 304. Left-wing judges interpret the Constitution based not on what the founders originally intended, but based on what they would like it to mean today. And I don't think that that is an unfair characterization. I'm not trying to say that all left-wing judges are flippant, or that they don't care at all about the Constitution, or they don't care at all about the law, but they don't care about the intent of the law or what the law is actually meant to mean.

They care much more about how they can reinterpret and apply the law according to the current dogma of their ideology. So, for example, even though abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, not even alluded to in the Constitution, and the framers would have never meant for the 14th Amendment to include the right to kill the baby inside your womb, the justices found a way to include it. Now, not all of those justices were these far left-wing radicals. Some of it had to do with the ignorance of the fact that a baby inside the womb is indeed a baby. There was some technology and science lacking there, that they just didn't know how early a baby can feel pain. Of course, we know from just a moral, scientific, biblical perspective that life is life

at conception, whether or not the baby feels pain, which they do as early as 16 weeks, at least, a baby is a baby from the earliest stages. A human is a human from the point of conception. They were not operating through that lens, but there probably was some ignorance there, scientific ignorance on how soon a baby feels real pain. But also it did have to do with their judicial philosophy that you can kind of insert and create rights where they don't actually exist, where you want them to exist in the Constitution. So the Constitution, really according to that philosophy is just kind of something that it's a formality. You have to appeal to it.

That's what you vowed to do when you took your place on the Supreme Court. But left-wing justices don't actually care what the Constitution was intended to do or what the framers actually wanted textualist, originalist interpreters of the Constitution like Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, or Amy Coney-Barritt. They do care about the intention and what the law is actually meant to mean. She does believe that some cases she wrote about this, I think it was 2013, should have what she calls super precedence, which means that the court should never consider overturning them. She included particular cases in this argument like Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled

that separate but equal is unconstitutional in public schools, a map v. Ohio, which ruled that any evidence obtained by state and local authorities that violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures could not be used in courts. Now, she did not include on this list of super precedence Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case because she said it is not widely agreed upon enough by the courts, nor the people, to just take it off the court's agenda entirely and to say, okay, there's never any possibility of overturning this. 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 Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join. on roe v wade she said the case was decided by quote creating uh through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand and so that's a disagreement with how roe v wade ended up uh she's right about that whether or not you think that women should have the right to choose the reason why uh row is contentious goes really far beyond that the question is is it constitution is it constitution

was the case decided constitutionally. Again, left winger is just having a different worldview, having a different view of the government doesn't really care whether or not the Constitution actually does grant the right or recognizes the right to abortion. They are okay with creating the right to abortion and simply going back in some subliminal message of the Constitution to try to prove their case. Now, I would say there is no constitutional right to abortion, Most conservatives would say, no, there's no constitutional right to abortion. There is no right to kill your baby inside your womb anywhere in the Constitution, including in the 14th Amendment.

The decision could have and should have been made legislatively, not judicially. And for the millionth time, overturning Roe v. Wade, which is very unlikely to happen. That's something the ACB, that's the acronym I'm using for Amy Coney-Brett. She said that herself, that it's very unlikely. for that to actually happen. But even if it did happen, it doesn't outlaw abortion. It allows states to decide. And the vast majority of states, of course, we pro-lifers don't like this,

but the vast majority of states are going to keep abortion in place. And actually, the fact that this became part of the judicial process rather than just a part of the democratic process actually probably stopped the liberalization of abortion law from happening. And that is something that RGB. said herself, something that a lot of pro-choice, pro-abortion activists don't seem to understand. So ACB also, this is another thing that you're going to hear from Democrats, particularly from Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, that with ACB on the Supreme Court, we're not going to have health care anymore and that people with preexisting conditions will no longer be able to be

covered by insurance. And the reason why they're saying that is because ACB disagreed publicly with Justice Roberts' his defense of the Obamacare mandate in the case National Federation of Independent Business versus Sebelius. The mandate said you have to have health care or else you will be fined for it. Most of you guys know what the Obamacare mandate is. People are really fearmongering about this, though, trying to say that she's going to take your health insurance away, especially if you have a preexisting condition.

But let's try to understand this a little bit. Justice Roberts and Scotis, the majority anyway, in that case, recharacterized the mandate as a tax, which the conservative justices and ACB both said that that is not an actual interpretation of the law, but actually a rewriting of the law, to be something that it was never meant to be, that it never claimed to be. Justices Kennedy, Scalia Thomas, and Alito argued in that case that this unconstitutionally expanded the power of Congress via the Commerce Clause. Remember this. Obamacare was radical, is radical in a lot of ways. It didn't just provide people with health care. It actually forced

people onto health care and it raised premiums. So a lot of people think that Obamacare just saved all of these people and what would we do without it? And it's so cruel to talk about whether or not the mandate it's constitutional. But let's just talk about its effect on this for just a second. This is from an article in the Center for Medicaid and Medicare services titled, think Obamacare for the rise in the uninsured. This is from last year. While Obamacare promised affordable health insurance for every American and even penalized those who refused to buy it, that is that individual mandates, the law did nothing to control underlying costs. The very structure of the law, which imposed billions of dollars in new costly regulations, also led to

higher and higher insurance premiums. As a result, when President Trump took office in 2017, average individual market health insurance premiums in states using health care.gov had already doubled when compared to 2013. The year before Obamacare's main regulations took effect, average premiums went up by another 26% by 2018. At the same time, individual market premiums were spiking out of control. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services data show a substantial enrollment drop among unsubsidized people on the individual market who do not receive federal premium tax credits. In just two years from 2016 to 2018, unsubsidized enrollment declined by 2.5 million people a 40% drop. These numbers clearly show Obamacare has created a serious

affordability problem on the individual market, and this was all put in motion before President Trump took office. Let's remember that insurer's process, for setting rates for 2018 was well underway at the beginning of 2017 when President Trump took office and based on policy set in place under the Obama administration. Simply put, there are too many people without subsidies who cannot afford coverage under Obamacare. So the fact of the matter is that Obamacare wasn't a fix-all, not even close. It made some problems actually worse. And so President Trump in 2019, they decided that they were no longer going to enforce the individual mandate so you wouldn't be penalized for that. A lot of people, of course,

all this is a good thing. Even just constitutionally, people said, oh, that's an attack on health care somehow. And people have said that President Trump is taking away coverage for preexisting conditions. But President Trump actually just signed an executive order to protect preexisting conditions. Republicans realize that coverage for preexisting conditions is very popular among the American people. And so they have vowed to protect that. Democrats. really want to use this to scare you away from ACB, to scare you away from Trump, and to scare you away from Republicans.

But a lot of it is just fearmongering and propaganda. Now, I'm going to do a whole election episode. Mondays are supposed to be election episodes. Today it's a little bit different. We've been doing several of them in the past. We'll continue next week. I'll do a health care one soon to break down how the right and the left view health care coverage

and what possible solutions there could be. Now, it's not just Democrats. who have a problem with some of her decisions. Of course, they are not going to agree with her interpretation of the Constitution because they're not textualists. They're not originalists. And they want an activist like RGB. RGB, in my opinion, was wrong on most things, not everything, but on most things constitutionally. She, like I said, would just insert whatever the current dogma was of the leftist ideology of the Democratic Party into subliminal messages in the Constitution in order to make her case. And I just don't agree with that. And people who say that she was holding our

democracy in place, how? There's just no way. Now, you can agree with her. We can respect her as a person. We can respect her career. And we can say she did a lot in some ways. Well, also disagreeing with her and realize it. We don't need to idolize her. We don't need to pretend like she was holding things together. I mean, let me just pause to say. And we talked about this again, I think it was episode 304, that people have lost their minds when it comes to RGB. Like some people, not everyone, but some feminists on the left are really, really losing it. I saw this Huffington Post article that said that this woman said,

RGB's death encouraged me to join a satanic cult or the church of Satan or whatever. Okay, what? Like, I'm thinking there was probably something brewing in your heart before RGB does. I hope so anyway, for something to push you literally into hell. That's really interesting. I got a lot of messages from you guys when I was posting about this last week saying that you have friends. There are people that you know that literally are on antidepressants because of RGB's death. I talked to someone who said that her friend was on the brink of tears talking about it.

And as we discussed, this is not just about, you know, right versus left different perspectives on this election. that's a divergence of worldview. The reason why you did not see a single conservative act that way when Justice Scalia died and why you will not see us act that way if President Trump loses or if somehow Amy Coney Barrett is not confirmed is because we don't see the government as our savior. We don't most conservatives because of our worldview, because we see the government as instituted by God, under the authority of God, we do not see them as our savior. We don't idolize them.

Like I'm not going to cry if one of the justices died. it'll be really sad. You know, I was sad when Scalia died. Definitely. Honorable person and an amazing justice. But did I think, oh my gosh, our democracy is going to crumble? And I'm going to lose my mind if Obama gets his way and confirms Merrick Garland. No, I don't know a single conservative who thought that.

So a divergence of world views. And it's very troubling. I just want you to know, feminist. If you're freaking out about RGB, you don't have to live that way. You don't have to live that way. You can be free of that kind of misery that you're, are living under, you're trapped by it. Now, like I said, it is not just Democrats who are struggling with this. There are some conservatives as well who disagree with Amy Coney-Barrant. And the

main thing is that she cited in a recent case. There are a few other cases that they cited to, but I didn't have time to look into them. So I can't talk about them thoroughly. But there's one case in particular from August 2020. So last month in which she ruled in favor of the state of Illinois in regards to lockdown policies. So in the case, Illinois Republican Party versus J.B. Pritzker, governor of Illinois, the state GOP, wanted the same relief from the limitation of only 50 people for public gatherings that the governor had granted to religious organizations. The state said, no, we're not going to give you that relief. And the court agreed with the state that it was in the public interest to keep the gatherings below 50 because the gathering could infect people who didn't attend.

gathering. The majority relied partly on a 1905 case Jacobson versus Massachusetts, which ruled that the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts had the right to force smallpox vaccinations on the citizens of that city, unless child had a written excuse from a physician that said that they did not have to get it or that they should not get it. Now, I know that I'm just, you know, a random person and that Amy Coney Barron and the people who decided this case know a lot more about the Constitution and the law than I do. But I disagree with that. No matter your stance on vaccines, this is not about one way or another on vaccines. Force vaccination is, in my amateur view, a violation of our fundamental rights. It makes no sense for abortion bans to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, but for forced

vaccinations, not to be. If the state can force you to inject something into your, a body against your will, then what else can't they force you to do? Also, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that if the issue is safety, if the issue is public health, then why are religious organizations exempt? Like the argument that the judges gave in this case was that, well, it's, you know, it's not fair for these people who get together in this Republican organization to meet and possibly infect one another. And then you might go to the grocery store and, in fact, someone who didn't choose to go to your gathering, that's not fair to them. Well, the same could be true of someone who went to a mosque or a synagogue or a church.

And so that doesn't seem like proper reasoning. And so I understand the concern with this and the concern looking at the justification for the ruling of this case on Jacobson, the Massachusetts, the forced vaccination case, why people would be worried about that. That's the thing with conservative justices. we Republicans, as I've said before, we are consistently, we're going to be disappointed with some of the decisions that justices and judges make because they're not activists. Unlike the left wing judges, they are activists. They almost always, 99% of the time agree with leftist activists and Democrats. They're never disappointed with their judges and justices because they rule according to ideology. Conservative justices and judges rule according to the law and the Constitution. and according to the law and the Constitution means that there is going to be disagreement between people who are looking at the law and the Constitution.

We're not judging by ideology. We are judging by what the law says, and that means there's going to be disagreement. So no judge is going to agree with us on everything. That's just the fact of the matter. I think that her qualifications and her record as an originalist overall are very encouraging that we should be excited about the fact that she will be confirmed. on the Supreme Court. Now, more leftist concerns about this that are not about policy, because even if I disagree with Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and other Democrats saying that, oh, she's going to overturn

Roe v. Wade, and she's going to take your health care away, at least there's some substance to those arguments, like you're making it about her positions, you're making it about her decisions, and not about the two things that other Democrats have decided to go after, her faith and her family. like let me tell you what a terrible strategy that is if you are trying to win suburban moms, in particular suburban Christian moms. Listen to some of the stuff. These are not just random trolls. You can find any random troll saying something on the left or the right that is ridiculous that doesn't typify most people or even a good portion of people on that side. But we're talking about activists, like well-known people with large following,

saying the following stuff. So this is the stuff, this is some of the stuff about their faith. So during her hearing when she was first appointed by President Trump to the Court of Appeals, Senator Diane Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article that she wrote in 1998. So she was in law school. And she argued during that time that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in cases that have to do with the death penalty. Now, Barrett said, look, I was in law school and I was in a junior position there. I was just kind of doing my job.

And I have had to rule in a lot of death penalty cases since then. So she didn't say, you know, I don't believe that anymore. But what it sounded like in her answer is that I evolved in that. So she has ruled on a lot of death penalty cases and it doesn't seem like she believes that Catholics should actually recuse themselves. She said this, quote, my personal church affiliation or my relationship. or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge. And it is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else on the law.

Barrett emphasized that the article was written in her third year in law school and that she was very much the junior partner in our collaboration. But Feinstein was worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade because of her Catholicism and she said this to her, quote, the dogma lives loudly within you and that is a concern. That is nothing other than religious bigotry. And by the way, that's a constitutional violation. You are not allowed to issue religious tests to people.

So you are not allowed to test people on their religious belief to decide whether or not they are qualified for something. Guys, Catholics, evangelical Christians have been making large decisions, have been in power in this country for a very long time. It is only now that the left decided that maybe that's disqualifying. It's them that has changed, not the Christians. They have been able to interpret the law according to the law as long as we have had justices and judges, as long as we have had people in power in this country.

Doesn't mean that Christians have always been on the right side of every decision, unfortunately, but all of a sudden this is disqualifying, not because the right has changed, not because Christians and Catholics have changed. And I really mean evangelicals and Catholics when I say that. Not because they have changed, but because the left has changed. The left has grown in their animus towards religion, in particular, conservative religion. Lambda legal is an LGBT civil rights organization.

They co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett's nomination. They said that they can't trust her on LGBT. matters and they're afraid that she's going to take away their legal rights. She said that these cases are binding precedents, the cases being Obergefell, United States v. Windsor and Lawrence v. Texas. She said that these are binding precedents that she intended to faithfully follow if confirmed. And this was to the appeals court when they were trying to oppose her nomination. And so she said, look, you don't have to worry about that. I am going to abide by the Constitution.

I'm going to abide by the law. The left cannot imagine what it's like, not to insert your ideology into your interpretation of the law because that's what they do. They can't understand someone who doesn't do that. This is a tweet by activist, Democratic activist, Charlotte Clymer. Amy Coney Barrett basically wants her personal beliefs to control the private lives of other people. She wants the government to tell people who to love and what to do with their bodies. that's her judicial philosophy.

That's who Trump is nominated for the Supreme Court. That is wild. There is no basis for as whatsoever. Like you cannot look at her career. You cannot look at her decisions, her jurisprudence, and say, yep, that's her philosophy. No, again, what they mean, what the left means is that they're afraid of the Constitution. They have to have someone that inserts their ideology into the interpretation of the law,

no matter what the Constitution says, in order for their ideology to actually. be codified in order for it to move forward. And they see, they see the bench, they see as an extension of Congress, an extension of the legislative process in a way to ram through their ideology without regard whatsoever to what the majority wants, what the democratic process is, or what the Constitution says. And so they have to project their own philosophy onto other people, Amy Coney Barrett by saying that, oh, yeah, she just wants, she wants the government to control people's body. She wants to tell people what to do with their lives. She has never in her history of being a judge. That has never been true. That's not a true characterization in this light is. Again, they want an activist who does not care about the law.

Susan Hennessy, she is also a liberal journalist. She said Amy Coney Barrett's personal faith is entirely unobjectionable. and between her and her creator. She should have ended there, but she doesn't. Her clear intention of imposing her private beliefs, including religious views on the American public by overturning long-settled precedent, should disqualify her from the bench. Now, let us remember what she said

when she was being confirmed onto the court of appeal. She said, my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge, and it is never appropriate for a judge to impose the judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else on the law. And her career shows that she actually means that. But what we're seeing is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian bigotry here.

It is the disbelief from the left that a conservative Christian is not a theocrat, like is not trying to conform everyone, coerce everyone to believe what they believe and to live how they want them to live. even though we have a long history in this country of Christians very fairly judging and very fairly leading. Are there examples of Christians not doing that? Yeah, there are examples of atheists not doing that too. Like let's compare Christians who interpret the law according to the law and atheists who interpret the law according to their ideology. Like if you want to decide who is more biased Christian conservatives in their interpretation of the law or left-wing atheists,

and their interpretation of the law, I guarantee you the less fair crowd, the crowd who cares about equality, true equality for everyone least, will be the left-wing activists because they are not concerned with the equality of Christians or the equality of people that they consider to be privileged. I'm talking about the far-left activists and the people that are talking about that. So what we're seeing in this criticism that Amy Coney-Barritt would not be able to be an unbiased judge or justice, even though she has done that for the entirety of her career is anti-Christian bigotry. Remember when President Trump said that, which I think was an egregious thing to say, that he was afraid that a Mexican judge, a Mexican-American judge would not be able to be

unbiased in his ruling on immigration. That was a really bad thing to say. And the left freaked out. And rightfully so, they're doing the same thing except for with Christianity and for no reason whatsoever. Here's where I think it goes even lower below the belt. when they start attacking not just her faith but also her family. So Dana Howell, I think that's how you pronounce her last name.

She is a Democratic activist. She has worked as a Hill staffer before. She tweeted this. I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett and her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti. So here's a cue. Does the press even investigate details of Barrett's adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy.

And if press learned they were unethical. and maybe illegal adoptions. Would they report it or not because it involves her children? Would it matter if her kids were scooped up by ultra-religious Americans or Americans weren't scrupulous intermediaries and the kids were taken when there was family in Haiti? I don't know. I think it does.

But maybe it doesn't or shouldn't. And so what she's just casually throwing out there is perhaps Amy Coney-Ber and her husband kidnapped her kids from family in Haiti, from their parents in Haiti. She is suggesting that possibly they illegally took these kids from Haiti. Maybe they weren't even really orphans. Maybe they stole them from their family in Haiti. That is such a brilliant analysis and suggestion to make that the esteemed judge and lawyer from the United States decided that, you know what? I think that we're just going to do this in a way that's illegal, even though it's possible to go through illegal means of adoption.

I think we're just going to steal these kids from their families in Haiti. Yes, definitely. and that has just been swept under the rug for the past 20 or so years that they have had a career. I mean, this is crazy. This is an attempt to attack the legitimacy of their family, the legitimacy of her motherhood of these kids, which, by the way, in a way, is weirdly racist. Because you have to wonder if they would be asking these questions if their kids were also white. But people are very sensitive nowadays to white parents adopting non-white children.

and I think a great example of that is John Lee Brower, who is also Democratic activist. He has worked for a lot of big-name Democrats, according to his Twitter profile. He says this, as an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney-Barrick came to adopt her children. And the treatment of them since, transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm. And everything I see here is deeply concerning. What do you see? The fact that you just don't agree with her politically? the fact that she is a conservative constitutionalist, that's what you don't agree with.

That's what you see is troubling. And that is really disturbing to me. There are a few parts of this that are really disturbing. Number one, that this person is implying that white parents who adopts non-white children, that they have a greater potential to harm those children than I guess non-white adoptive parents would. That in and of itself is racist. and I think about all the wonderful people that I know who happen to have white skin, who have adopted kids that don't share their same melanin count, who are wonderful parents,

and who spent so much time, money, energy, and resources to rescue a lot of these kids from dangerous and dire circumstances. And there is this entire idea on the left right now that that is a white savior complex. and that's actually very damaging and detrimental. Again, this is simply a way to delegitimize adoptive families. And it's racist. That's the bottom line. It is racist. I don't care what you call it white savior complex or not.

When a parent of any skin color decides they are going to dedicate time, energy, and resources into rescuing a kid from an otherwise completely destitute situation, whether it's an America or abroad, they should absolutely be applied. for that. Now, I'm not saying there were no sketchy adopt or that there aren't some parents who decided to adopt because it made them feel better about themselves and maybe they didn't love their child. But that is an exception, a very rare exception to the rule. The parent to adopt kids don't spend everything they have to go rescue those kids just for clout. I mean, that takes a lot for parents of any skin color to go to another country or

even to adopt here. Children that have been abandoned or their parents are just unable to care for them. And so I see this as an attack not just on family, but specifically on adoption. And I said on Twitter and I'll reiterate this. It is a spiritual attack much more than it's a political attack. People who hate God will always attack that which represents the gospel. And there are three earthly depictions, wonderful earthly depictions, of the gospel. One of them is marriage. We know that the church is the bride of Christ. Another one is having biological children. We become children of God when we are saved through Christ. And another one is adoption. We know that Gentiles have been adopted by God through Christ to be a part of his family. So these are all earthly depictions of the gospel. So we cannot be surprised when people who hate God attack them and try to delegitimize these institutions. In particular, adoption. And so that's what's happening right here. It's not just a political attack, which it is. And it's low. It is as low as you can possibly get questioning the legitimacy of someone's motherhood because they have kids with the different skin color as them or questioning the legitimacy of someone's family. But it is also, it is a spiritual attack. It is not just political. It is certainly not just about her nomination.

It is much deeper than that for a lot of people. This is a writer for Vanity Fair. Again, going in on Amy Coney-Barritt's legitimacy or effectiveness as a mom. She says this. I guess one of the things I don't understand about Amy Coney-Barrant is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving present mom to seven kids. Is this like the Kardashian stuffing nannies in the closet and pretending they've drawn their own baths for their kids. And if there aren't enough hours in the day for her to work and mother

these kids, when she portrays herself as a home-centered Catholic who puts her family over her career, isn't she telling a lie? So who's the patriarchy now? I mean, this is the argument that left-wing feminists have been saying that conservative patriarchs have been using to limit women. And now they're saying, oh, is it really possible for you to have an illustrious career? be a good mom. Can't you only do one or the other? And I'm a little bit confused because I thought it was feminist all this time who said, no, you can have it all. You don't have to choose. But what I'm realizing is that the real lie that a lot of feminists believe is that you have to give up your faith. You have to give up your family. You have to give up marriage in order to be accomplished in your

career and career fulfillment. Self-fulfillment is the real form of happiness that you should be looking for, certainly not self-sacrifice. And so a lot of these left-wing feminists did decide that they were going to sacrifice marriage, that they were going to sacrifice having kids for the sake of a successful career. And unfortunately, a lot of them made those sacrifices to only have a mediocre career. And so it has to be very difficult for them to watch someone like Amy Connie Barrett, have this illustrious career, have seven children, two adopted children, one special needs child, seems to have a very lovely family and a lovely, loving, cohesive home and good marriage from everything we can see. It's got to be difficult for them to see that they have imbibed

these lies that landed them in the spot of misery that they're in because they made sacrifices that they should not have made because they bought into feminist manipulation. So I think a lot of this is personal for feminists when it comes to Amy Coney-Barrid. I think a lot of it is projection of their resentment and their own misery. Ibramax Kendi said some white, this is back to adoption, some white colonizers adopted in quotes black children. They quote civilized these, quote, savage children in the quote, superior ways of white people while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial while cutting the biologous. parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. And so once again, we find these baseless accusations of Amy Coney-Barrant and her husband, at least implicitly here, that they are

white colonizers who actually adopted because they're racist, again, trying to delegitimize her adoptive family. I mean, that is a kind of slander and a kind of. of character assassination that I honestly thought was beyond most people. But avid racist like Ibraxcandy who wrote the book How to Be an Anti-Racist, just don't see that. And this is critical race theory, guys. This is the idea that guilt and innocence is ascribed to you according to your skin color, not according to what you've done. So it really doesn't matter how many kids you have adopted because you're white.

You are suspect in all of your motives, even if you do something kind. to extend generosity and charity towards people who don't share your same skin color. It can't be because you're altruistic or because you're filled with the Holy Spirit and you are compelled to generosity by the love of Christ. It has to be because you have a white savior complex and you're doing something out of selfishness. So this is why critical race theory and the mentality of critical race theory that Ibramax-Kendi holds is always going to lead to division. It's always going to lead to resentment and hate because you are constantly thinking the

worst of people who look differently than you. rather than judging people by the content of their character or their actions or their words, their attitudes, which of course is what MLK Jr. wanted us to do and believed that we should do. We are now saying that people are suspect and their motives are suspect just based on their skin color, critical race theory, will never bring reconciliation. It will always bring division. It will always bring hate.

It will always bring malice. Ibermax Kendi is the champion of this. by way of liberation theology, which is basically critical race theory, Christianized in some sense. Joy Reed in trying to slam Amy Coney Barrett's faith, says, turns out Republicans do have a platform, the handmaid's tale. I'm very confused by this accusation, by the way, that President Trump, that Mike Pence, that Justice Kavanaugh, they're ushering in the handmade's tale. I just wonder how many of these people have seen the handmade's tail or read the handmade's tale. And in what parallels you are seeing here? Because, guys, you said the Handmaid's Tale was going to be ushered in when President Trump was elected.

Four years later, you got all your rights and then some. And you said that we were going to be in the Handmaid's Tale when Kavanaugh became the Supreme Court justice. Well, two years later, I think we're all good. And now you're saying that Amy Coney Barrett, this very accomplished woman who has had a full time career and has raised seven children that this is the woman that's going to usher in the Handmaid's Tale. I saw a really good tweet and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have it in front of me and it said, oh, my favorite part of the Handmaid's Tale is when the main character packs her seven children into her minivan to go to her Supreme Court nomination.

And that's, I mean, that is such a, that's such a good point. It just shows the absurdity of all the fearmongering out there of people who are saying that Amy Coney Barrett of all people. people is going to take women backwards simply because she's a constitutionalist. Like that is what they're scared of. And they're also freaking out that maybe it might be harder one day for them to kill babies. Like that's what this is about. If you don't see that this is a spiritual battle in so many ways, I don't know what to tell you.

You might remember from a couple weeks ago, the episode I did on this whole thing after RBG died, Beth Reinhard of Washington Post tweeted this, potential Trump's Notice nominee, Amy Coney Barrett wrote influential decision, making it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities' handling of their cases. And so this, again, they think is part of the Handmaid's Tale. This is evil and wicked and against women. This just goes to show how much the left really hates due process. And they really don't care about actual justice because actual justice actually deals

fairly with the accused as well as the accuser. believe all women is not justice. That's ignorance. Like that is bias. The Bible is very clear, which whether you like it or not is the source of our inspiration for due process, says that we have to treat the accused fairly. Like he is entitled to do process. And the accuser has to bring forth witnesses. And the Bible also says, you shall not be partial to the poor or to the grade. The Bible is very clear that God's definition of justice is impartial. So we don't just believe accusers simply because they are accusers or simply because they are women. Everyone is entitled to due process. I, for one, am very comforted by the fact that we have a potential justice who cares

about due process. Yes, we should listen to accusers. But when it comes to accusing people in a court of law, everyone is entitled to due process. And that includes people who are accused of assault sexual assault or any crime. Of course. And so I just think it's interesting, the kind of criticism that is being leveled against her. In particular, when it comes to her faith and when it comes to her family, what it's revealing is that the left actually believes in the gendered stereotypes that they have been saying that they are bucking against. And what I mean by that is that the criticisms that they are leveling against her, they would not level against a man. They did not level against Donald Trump. They did not level against Justice Kavanaugh. And I'm talking about the legitimacy

of her adopted kids, the legitimacy of her family, her fitness as a mother and her ability to balance it all. And so they are actually affirming that they understand that there is a different role for women in society, a different role for mothers than there is for men and for fathers. They are actually recognizing and emphasizing that men and women are different. They show that by the particular attacks that they are leveling against them. They're not so much questioning her competence. They are certainly not going to try to accuse her of sexual assault because they realize that women are different, that she has different vulnerabilities, different weak points. And that happens to be faith and that happens to be her motherhood. And so that is what they

are going after. And in so doing, they're revealing that they recognize there is a vast difference between men and women. And a lot of people on the right are saying that, that, hey, these are double standards. They're not accusing her in the same way that they accuse Kavanaugh or anyone else. These are different kinds of attacks. And that's unfair. It is unfair. But we also know, in particular as Christians, that yes, there's a double standard because women and women in society do have different roles. They do complement each other with different strengths and with different weaknesses. There are different expectations for women. There are different expectations for mothers. There are different responsibilities in the home that women have, then men have. And those strengths and those

responsibilities and roles are meant to complement each other. They're not supposed to be the same. And so I don't think as Christian conservatives, we should necessarily be concerned by the double standards and the different kinds of attacks the left are leveling against her. Again, I think that we should be saying, finally, they're admitting that there's a difference between, there's a difference between men and women and that they play a different rule in society and fathers and mothers play a different role, which I think leads us into the conversation about some of the criticisms and concerns that I have seen evangelical Christians and Christian conservatives articulates about her nomination. So the question is, should women, according to the Bible, not according to the Constitution,

according to the Bible, be in power? And that's not questioning whether or not we should make it illegal for women to be in power. I think some Christians are just asking, should I personally support this person when she is a wife and a mom? And from their perspective, she actually should be spending all of her time at home. And she shouldn't have all of this civic influence. And she shouldn't be leading. That is the concern of a lot of conservative Christians. I wouldn't even say a lot.

I would say some conservative Christians that I have seen. So as Christians, we understand that a woman. women's role, according to the Bible, primarily is to be to take care of children and the home. That does not exclude her ability to work. That doesn't exclude her entrepreneurial endeavors entirely. That doesn't mean that she is not allowed to have civic influence, though. That doesn't exclude other areas of her life. But we do know, according to Titus 2.5 in Proverbs 31, that a wife and a mom's life in

priorities are to be centered on taking care of her family. Again, we don't believe that that means, or at least I don't believe that that means that a mom cannot work at all in any way ever. And that's why I am not going to personally judge Amy Coney Barrett for her career. I'm just not going to do that. Number one, I don't know if she has the same worldview and the same belief system that evangelical Christians do. And we don't know her life. Like, we don't know how she spends her time. Yes, we know that she has this long, illustrious career that I think is very impressive and I think is an indication that God has used her and put her in places of influence to impact this generation of the generations to come with hopefully good and thoughtful and wise, discerning decisions.

But I don't know how she has spent her time. Like, I don't know what her priorities have been. I don't know how much she sleeps at night. I don't know if she took a step back when her kids were little and she decided to get back into it more after her kids were all in school. We don't know. So I don't think it's fair for Christians to say, well, I'm not going to support her because it seems like she focuses more on her career than her kids. We just don't know. Like, we don't know her set up. And I don't think the Bible explicitly says in any way or even implies that women are not allowed to work at all in any way outside of the home. Again, priority number one for mothers and wives is on their family and the home that does not exclude all other roles and responsibilities.

Now, the question of women in leadership, there is a verse Isaiah 312 talking about the miserable state of Israel at this time, my people, infants are their oppressors and women rule over them. The Bible is saying this is a bad thing, that the youth and the women of Israel are the ones that are in leadership. So what this means is that passive weak men have allowed to. children and women to be in charge, which ultimately leads a nation to being passive and weak and therefore vulnerable. That is not mean that women are never meant to have civic influence, though. There are obviously examples in the Bible where God puts women in positions of

leadership, and they lead in a way that the men at the time, God believed, could not. And so he, in his sovereignty and in his specificity, and according to his perfect purpose, many times not just put wicked women like Jezebel in power, but put good and wise and godly women in positions of influence. Yes, it is true that men and women are different and they and men are naturally inclined to provide and to protect and to lead. And I do not think a nation that has all women leaders is in a good spot. I think that makes us very vulnerable. I think that makes us very week. Society needs strong men. We need strong leaders. We need strong male decision makers. I simply don't see according to the Bible, though, and even according to Isaiah 312, that excludes women from having

any civic influence whatsoever. We do know that there is a role for women in the family. We know that there is a role for women in the church that excludes them from preaching and teaching, exercising authority over men. But we don't see that the Bible is. excludes them entirely from all civic influence. And so I am not concerned with Amy Coney-Barrant being in a position of leadership. I'm not concerned with how she balances, like being at home with work. Personally, I don't think that last, that latter one is any of my business. But as far as her being in a position of power and influence, if she is going to make decisions according to the Constitution, decisions that are wise and good and positively impactful for her.

the next generation. And my other option is for Joe Biden. If he wins to nominate a left-wing activist, then yes, of course, I am going to support Amy Coney-Barrant. And I don't have any qualms about that. And so I did want to just point that out. And also, Romans 13 is very clear that governments are instituted by God. The authority they have is from God. And so if we have a female leader in any way, that does not delegitimize their authority and render our responsibility to submit to them moot. We are still responsible for that submission to all government authorities as long as it does not cause us to sin according to Romans 13. So I did just want to talk about that because I know that there were some conservative Christians that were concerned about this. but that is all I have.

And now, without further ado, here is my interview with chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel. Chairwoman, thank you so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. I'm so excited to be with you. Yes, I am sure that you are busier than ever. Can you tell me just a little bit about what's going on in the RNC about 40 days out from the election? Yeah, 40 days out. We're in the home stretch.

I've been traveling all over the country. I think I've been in four or five states in the past couple days. It kind of is a blur. But so is the Trump family. So is the vice president. You see the president's on the road. And we're just making sure we're taking the case

to every American as to why President Trump deserves four more years, why we need the Senate and why we deserve to win back the House. There is a lot of controversy right now going on with the Supreme Court. You've got Democrats saying that, you know, we're going to make sure we're going to

pull out all the stops to make sure this doesn't happen. How do you feel that the president and the Republican Party are navigating this kind of crisis? The president is leading like he always does. He is exactly right. We need to fill this vacancy. There's nothing that says because you're 40 days out from an election that you have to stop governing, that you put a pause on making sure that we have checks and balances, that we have those three branches of government. And especially with Democrats systematically challenging election laws across the country and upending election laws in many states and changing them to create chaos on election day. I think it's more pivotal than ever that we have nine justices on the Supreme Court. Yes, absolutely. And can you

explain the difference between, we've kind of talked about it on this podcast, but for the people who are saying, well, whoa, whoa, whoa, what about 2016 when Mitch McConnell said that he wasn't going to try to confirm Merrick Garland. What is the difference between 2016 and today? Well, it's a really clear difference. And Mitch McConnell has been very straightforward on this. When Merrick Garland was put forward, you had a president from one party, the Democrat party, and a Senate majority of Republicans. And Mitch McConnell said when you have a opposition between the two parties at the executive and legislative branch, we shouldn't move forward on a Supreme Court nominee. But the voters decided in 2016 to give Republicans not just the president,

but also majority of the Senate. We had that vacancy. Voters wanted Republicans to be in control of the Supreme Court. It was a key issue in 2016, and they need to fulfill that duty because they were elected to do so. And it's constitutionally within the president's right to put forward a nominee in the Senate to advise and consent. Yes.

I have had a lot of followers and talked to me about their friends who are on the left side of the aisle who have truly had some sort of breakdown after. unfortunately, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed and who have even been believing what I think is craziness that women are going to lose the right to vote. We're going to lose all of our rights. If Trump is able to confirm his Supreme Court nominee, can you just tell us why that is ridiculous propaganda and why women especially have nothing to be scared of when this SCOTUS pick is confirmed? Women have nothing to be afraid of with this SCOTUS pick. It's not surprising. It's not surprising that Democrats are going to engage in fear mongering and division. And hopefully they won't,

but I think they will, character assassination like they did to Brett Kavanaugh, destroying a good man because of power. I hope they don't do that to this next nominee. Listen, the court is a judicial body. These are very sound-minded, minded individuals. They have spent years studying the law. They work in cohesion together. And they're always going to put the Constitution first. And what the president is putting at the front and center of his nominee pick is somebody who will adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and not be an activist judge making law from the bench, which is not their role on the judiciary and that branch of government. I think that's critical. And again, the voters in 2016 knew that there was a Supreme Court vacancy and they chose Republicans to

fill it. And that is why we need to follow what the voters want this election and make sure we fill that seat. You know, Democrats are saying that they're going to, I think it was Richard Blumenthal who said that they're going to stop at nothing. Nancy Pelosi said that she's got arrows in her quiver. George Stephanopoulos, you know, asked Nancy Pelosi, are you thinking about impeachment? Do you think that they're going to take one of those kinds of extreme strategies to stop the president from governing? I don't think the Democrats will stop at anything. I mean, literally since President Trump's been in office, they boycotted his inauguration. They've refused to work with him on any level. We've had this phony impeachment. I mean, so many things, even before he was in office, you saw what the Obama administration did spying on his campaign. We've never seen anything like this. And Democrats have never accepted the results of the 2016 election. They have never given the president any pathway to any type of bipartisanship. And it's, It's not surprising that Nancy Pelosi is already pulling out the possibility of impeachment for the president doing what the Constitution dictates the president does, which is put forward a Supreme Court nominee. It is ludicrous. But it's also another reason why this election is so important, because if Democrats lose

and they are rebuffed for obstruction and resistance and all the terrible things they've done the past three years that have divided our country, then they'll have to find a different game plan. just maybe they'll work with Republicans and on behalf of the American people like they're elected to do. You know, there has been a baseless theory. I believe it's baseless thrown around in the left wing media and by Democrats saying that Trump is somehow not going to accept the results of the election, that if there's going to be some crazy coup, again, just fearmongering propaganda. Is there a fear, though, a legitimate fear of Democrats being unable to? and I'm not, you know, propagating a conspiracy theory about a coup by them or anything.

I'm saying, is there any fear that they are not going to accept the legitimate results of the election if and when Trump wins? Well, I mean, the clock's ticking and they still haven't accepted the legitimate results of the 2016 election. So I don't think there's any doubt that they're not going to accept the results when Donald Trump wins in 2020. Hillary Clinton has already told Joe Biden do not accept. the results do not concede under any circumstances. Those were the words she used. You have seen Democrats systematically try to upend voter integrity laws that ensure election integrity. In states like Michigan, they just passed through the claims court, the ability for votes to be counted 14 days after the election. There is a reason there is a finish line. If you don't have a

finish line, you can't have a winner. And Democrats are trying to get rid of any type of deadlines, finish line, end date to an election. Why are they doing that? In these uncertain times, how is this good for our democracy? Especially when we know that voting in person is safe. Dr. Fauci has said so. Michigan had a primary in August with a million voters voting in person. There was no coronavirus spike. So they are using this pandemic to upend vetted, tried, and true election laws and inserting chaos into this election. And the president is absolutely right to point out the concerns that he has about election integrity and getting results on election day. I agree with that.

And Joe Biden's pitch, though, is that his presidency will be a return to normalcy. His presidency will be a return to, you know, peace and safety and security and all of that. But if you look at not just what his campaign has said and done, but also the Democrat-run cities across the country are the ones dealing. with the unrest. And President Trump has tried to send help. And unfortunately, in some cases, these Democratic politicians haven't agreed. So what is, is there anything behind the Democrats pitch that Joe Biden can bring in safety and normalcy when that's just not what we're seeing from the Democratic Party? Joe Biden has spent 47 years saying whatever he thinks the voters want to hear and then getting nothing done in Washington. He is a total bureaucrat. But here are the

policies he's putting forward. So don't. listen to his empty rhetoric because they are just words and they are lies when he says this, that there's going to be returned to normalcy and peace. Things that he is espousing, reimagining the police, redirecting funds from the police. He has said he wants to get rid of cash bail, which means police are catching criminals that are doing violent things, and then they have to be immediately released back into the streets so the police have to use resources, again, catching those same criminals. Kamala Harris has bailed out some of these rioters and looters who've done havoc in our cities.

So their actions and their policies proved to the American people that they are in lockstep with these Democrat mayors and Democrat governors who are not clamping down on the violence in their cities. And they are not standing with the men and women who are serving our country and serving our communities and protecting us every day, our men and women in blue. So Joe Biden has no business saying that.

He likes to say it. He's going and taking cans of beer to police. stations and trying to be a good guy, but his policies will make our country left safe. And his statements as well, every time something can just happens in a city where there's an accusation of police brutality, his default is to blame the police without looking at the facts of the case, but just to latch on to the mainstream leftist narrative, which simply isn't always true, which I would say actually exacerbates the tensions and stokes the flames of division that are unfortunately causing a lot of the chaos that's happening.

in the cities around the country. For women in particular, on a personal note, I mean, you are a mom. You're obviously a working mom and you have real concerns, not just the chairwoman of the Republican Party, but just as an American, as a mom who cares about the future of the country. Why, from that personal mom perspective, do you think Donald Trump is good for the country? I think this is the most important election of our lifetime. And I say that as a mom. I am worried about the America we will be leaving for our kids.

And will that American dream be achievable and attainable? And Joe Biden is taking us down a path to socialism, government control of our health care, of our decisions of our lives, more taxes, more regulation, everything in the hands of politicians and really limiting the great opportunity that this country provides for so many. Donald Trump is about freedom. He's about what our founders intended. He has cut taxes. He has cut regulation.

And he is for keeping America America. Joe Biden is not lying when he says he wants to transform this country. He will transform it into something we don't recognize. So that is why I'm on the front lines of our future every day because I want that for my kids. And this is an election that will determine which path America goes. And I hope, I'm hopeful that we go down the path of prosperity and that Donald Trump will continue to lead us on the Great American Comeback. Well, me too, me too.

How are you guys feeling about the potential for a win on election night or at least in the days soon after? Well, you know, I'm a party chair. So I have to always feel like I'm running from behind. You know, I'm also a big 10 football fan. You know, you don't want to like sit on a lead, right? That's like the worst thing you can do. So I feel great.

The energy is great. We've outpaced Democrats in voter registration. The ground game's great. We have the best candidate in the world who's out there working. and the best policies that will deliver for the American people. But that being said, I'm not going to rest. I say to people, you can sleep November 4th. This is the time where all of us need to give everything we have

because feeling good and thinking everything's okay is not enough. We have to fight between now and election day to make sure we're preserving the greatest nation on earth. And that means reelecting President Trump, keeping the Senate and winning back the House. Well, thank you so much for all the work that you are doing and everyone at the RNC is doing. and everyone in the campaign in general, I know that you guys are working really hard. You all have been up against a lot for the past few years and you will be over the next few weeks.

I keep telling people to brace themselves if you're not already. It's a crazy time. But, you know, I'm hopeful and optimistic as well. So thank you again. And thank you for taking the time to talk to me. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. 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 Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.