Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 315 | Trump vs. Biden 2020: Climate Change

Episode Date: October 19, 2020

Right off the bat, we need to address the controversy over the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden. If the facts check out, it looks like there's some (more) proof of Joe Biden's dishonesty. Then, it's time to get into the issue of climate change: Which candidate is more serious about being a conscientious steward of the land, and which one is leveraging apocalyptic language to grow the federal government? And, as Christians, we take a look at the changing climate through a biblical lens. Today's links: Email Reveals How Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/    The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#  The Not-So-Pretty Fine Print of the ‘Green New Deal’ https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-not-so-pretty-fine-print-of-the-green-new-deal/ Biden Taps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Craft Climate-Change Policy https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-taps-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-to-craft-climate-change-policy/  Joe Biden’s Green Dreams Are About Controlling You, Not the Climate https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/03/joe-bidens-green-dreams-are-about-controlling-you-not-the-climate/  Joe Biden’s Disastrous Plans for America’s Suburbs https://nypost.com/2020/07/21/joe-bidens-disastrous-plans-for-americas-suburbs/  Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/  --- 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. Happy Monday. Hope everyone had a great weekend. Continuing our election series today, we are going to talk about climate change and what each side thinks about helping the environment.

We'll also look at climate change from a big. biblical perspective. How should Christians view the issue of climate change and caring for the environment? First, because we didn't get to talk about this last week, I want to talk about this drama with Hunter Biden. So the New York Post published a story about Hunter Biden and Burisma, his workings with a business in Ukraine. And here is what the, here's what the article says. Hunter Biden introduced his father, then vice president Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before. The elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor

who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by New York Post. The never before revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadim Pazarski and advisor to the board of Burisma allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pazarski, reportedly Burisma's number three exact, asking Hunter for advice on how you could use your influence on the company's behalf. Now, Joe Biden claimed not too long ago that he had never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings. Hunter Biden has worked not just with Ukraine, but allegedly with China as well in what

seemed kind of like sketchy deals. I mean, the guy has a path, has a past that is riddled with a lot of misbehavior, a lot of sketchy dealings. And the only reason he has been given these places of influence in Chinese and Ukrainian companies is because he is the son of someone with a lot of influence, namely Joe Biden. These emails show that Joe Biden apparently did actually know about a lot of his overseas dealings. And the question is whether or not Joe Biden decided that he was going to pressure government officials in Ukraine to firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company because his son was profiting from the company.

If so, that is illegal. That is corruption. And the ironic thing is that you'll remember that the impeachment hearings, the impeachment hearings were about President Trump earlier this year, if you can even remember that, about President Trump issuing some kind of illegal quid pro quo with Ukraine. Well, this is certainly some kind of quid pro quo Joe Biden using his influence and his power as the vice president to possibly it looks like pressure. Ukrainian officials into firing the prosecutor that is looking into the company Burisma that his son was making money off of. It doesn't look good. And that's not even, that's not even the full story. So that was the story by New York Post. I'll include the link of it and the description here. And you can research for yourself with any kind of story, whether it's about the candidate that you like or dislike. It's always important to look into it, to ask questions to say, okay, do these sources seem legit? Is there somewhere else that I can, can I, can I dig into it a little bit more to try to figure out the validity of this story. Is this just, you know, a propagandizing

hip piece? And so whether you're looking at the New York Post or Fox News or New York Times, it's important to try to get all sides of the story. However, this is a good journalistic piece. I mean, we have actually the emails that were sent to Hunter Biden and that were sent from Hunter Biden, some of them mentioning his dad as my guy. And it just seems like he has used. the influence of his dad as vice president to get the things that he wants to get and to work on behalf of Ukraine. That's not a great look. But here's what happened. When the New York Post tweeted this out, Twitter decided that they were going to not only take that tweet down, they were going to shut down New York Post Twitter page. And they disallowed anyone from actually

tweeting out the link. So anyone who tweeted out the URL to this story, they got a message on Twitter saying, sorry, you can't tweet that. We don't allow that. And people, Kaylee McEnany, the press secretary, she actually had her account locked down for tweeting it out. And so thankfully, the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is run by Republicans, they posted the story on their website to try to get around the blocking of the URL that Twitter was doing. Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, did come out and say, oh, you know, we shouldn't have done that. There was a lot of, there was lack of clarity and communication around that. No, the fact of the matter is, is that you are applying a certain level of, if you can even call it scrutiny, I would say just plain old

censorship, two stories that you don't like because Joe Biden is your candidate and you hate Donald Trump. Twitter tried to come out and say, oh, we're blocking the story because it has sketchy sources, because we don't know if it's legit, because it has information that came from hacking apparently these emails and we don't want to incentivize that kind of thing. Really, have you applied that same level of scrutiny to stories that involve Donald Trump? I mean, the New York Times somehow obtained tax returns from Donald Trump that were leaked illegally. And Twitter didn't have any problem whatsoever with not only allowing that story to be circulated, but allowing it to trend. I mean, someone illegally recorded and then

leaked a conversation with the First Lady of the United States, which ended up being a nothing conversation, but they tried to make it into something. CNN played it. And Twitter had no problem circulating that. They have never tried to stop the circulation of the hoax, a Russian collusion story that we actually know now Hillary Clinton invented out of thin air to try to stop Donald Trump, Twitter never applied the same scrutiny to those kinds of stories. They're only applying this scrutiny, which is actually censorship to a story, which seems like a very legit story, just as legit as any story about Donald Trump. They are applying a certain standard of scrutiny and censorship against this story because they want to Biden to win.

That is election interference. I mean, that is something that you expect out of communist China, not out of the company that has flourished because of American freedom and American innovation and capitalism. But they are actually working against the very system and the very people that have allowed them to become successful. Our big tech overlords want to control the flow of information in order to change your mind in order to control what you think. So if Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, which of course is run by Facebook and YouTube, which is run by Google, are all ideologically in one direction, whatever, they can believe what they want to believe, that's fine. But when they start censoring people that disagree with them, when they start stopping the flow of information that they don't like or runs up against their worldview or their preferences, that's a huge problem. And yes, we know they have been doing that for a long time. But it is especially consequential when it is, when it comes to an election.

We are three weeks before an election. And they are purposely trying to stop the flow of information that they don't like. Talk about collusion. Like we've been wasting our time talking about a Russian collusion hoax for the past four years that ended up being nothing. It was, again, created out of thin air. But we're not talking about the collusion that exists between Big Tech and the Democratic Party. And look, I am all four private companies being in. able to run their business how they see fit. I don't want the government to control Twitter.

I don't want the government to control Facebook. I think that would be worse. I think it would be worse if the Democratic Party, if they are in power of the government, if they are the ones that are regulating Facebook and Twitter, that's going to be even worse for conservative. So that's not what I'm saying the solution is. But these companies also have a monopoly over our information and are trying to change public opinion by manipulating search results, by censoring ideas and philosophies and stories that they don't like. And that's a huge problem. And it is our responsibility.

It is our responsibility to not only keep speaking the truth, but also seeking the truth and just remembering that no matter what side of the aisle an outlet that you're reading is on, that it is your responsibility to go past the headline. I haven't always done that. It's easy to have confirmation bias to read a headline that we like that agrees with us and just share it without even thinking. But it is our responsibility, Christians, I would say especially to critically think, to go beyond the headline, to go beyond the story.

Unfortunately, you could spend 10 minutes reading a whole story from the New York Times and you don't even have half of what really happened and what really was said. You don't even have all the context. You could spend all day watching CNN. And you still don't have the truth about what's going on in the world. it's so slanted. That's true of a lot of different outlets. And so, you know, the Megan Kelly, when I had an interview with her, she said that she goes, I think it's on real clear politics.com every day. She sees editorials from the right and the left. And she actually takes the time to look at both

sides of the issue and then come to her own conclusions. And I think that's what we have to do as well. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of completely unbiased information. I encourage you to always fact check me. Don't allow me to be the only one. want to shape your views. But of course, we have to be able to dig into what is true. I do not ever trust the first thing that comes up on Google, ever, ever. And I have to be very specific with what I Google in order to get anything relevant to what I'm saying. If I Google climate change, for example, I am only going to, the first 15 results are going to be left-leaning outlets and left-leaning results. You have to really dig to find both sides of an issue. That's why I

I am thankful that a place like the New York Post exists, that Fox News exists, that Daily Wire exists, that the Blaze exists, that the Federalist and National Review and Prager You, that conservative podcast exists. There is a plethora of liberal information. If you are just swimming down the mainstream and you never think and you never test what you hear, you will become a liberal because everything that is popular and everything that is easy and everything that is propaganda right now in 2020 skews to the left. You have to work hard. to get the other side of the issue. And that's what we're going to have to do now more than ever

because Big Tech is, again, censoring messages, stories that they don't like. It is corrupt. It is scary. You don't live in a country that actually believes in free speech. If the people who are controlling our flow of information are censoring half of the country and what half the country thinks and what half the country wants to know and read about. 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.

So it's a scary time, but I am here to bring you a different perspective other than the very popular and mainstream perspective about climate change and what we should actually do about it. So that's what I'm going to talk to you about today. So what we hear from climate change activists on the left, there are climate change activists and advocates of fighting climate change on the right. And their tactics are very different. Their mindset is very different.

And so I don't want to lump in all climate change activists, although I would say most of them exist on the left. But leftism colors climate change activism in a way that is fearmongering. And in a way that I will argue later is idolatrous. And what we hear from these left-wing climate change activist is that the world is going to get to a point of irreversible damage in seven to 12 years. If we do not act on climate change, the water will be too high, the sun will be too high, atmosphere will be too damaged and we won't be able to go back.

And all of these people everywhere will, they will suffer if we don't do something drastic. Acting typically to these climate change activists means banning fossil fuels, fracking, switching to electric cars, flying less, walking more, eating less meat. but it also has a lot of economic proposals that typically come with these climate change proposals as well. We saw from AOC's Green New Deal that she believes that fighting climate change includes the entirety of the socialist wish list. So more public housing, economic security for those unwilling, not just unable, but unwilling to work, all buildings being retrofitted to be more green and controlling the every day. of people's lives in order to ensure that they have a smaller carbon footprint. It gives a lot of control to the federal government.

It takes a lot of money out of our pocket in order to ensure equal outcomes for all people in the name of climate justice. And that's what really all of this is about, as I will explain. Biden's website says that he wants to ensure the U.S. achieves 100% clean energy economy and reaches net zero emissions no later. than 2050, ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. He will not only recommit the United States, this is what his website says, to the Paris Climate Agreement. He will go much further than that. He will lead an effort

to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. The Biden admin will take action against fossil fuel companies. You might remember that in Kamala Harris's and Mike Pence's debate that she said that, oh, no, Biden didn't say that he is going to ban fracking. He's not against all fossil fuels. Yes, yes, he is. We have him on video saying that he is going to ban fracking. She is against fracking.

So just understand that, that they are against fracking. Biden's climate and environmental justice proposal, environmental justice, always beware when there is an adjective in front of justice. racial justice, economic justice, environmental justice, social justice. Typically what they mean is not justice at all. It is trying to socially engineer society in order to have the outcomes that far left-wing activists want to create. So Biden's climate and environmental justice proposal will make a federal investment of

$1.7 trillion over the next year. So whenever you hear a leftist, say, investment, what they mean is that they are going to raise your taxes astronomically and spend it on the things that they want to spend it. So that's a $1.7 trillion tax hike over the next 10 years on the American people, leveraging additional private sector and state and local investments, two total to more than $5 trillion. Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are the core of his plan.

Number one, the United States urgent. needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge. And number two, our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected. So you see there it is the pitch for changing the economy to be more left wing, to be more socialist in order to fight climate change. That's what this is really all about. A national review breaks it down like this. The article says under the Green New Deal within 11 years.

So we're saying that we're talking about the Green New Deal now because Biden has said that he wants that he believes the Green New Deal is a great framework. And he also tapped Bernie Sanders to help him with this climate policy proposal who then turned around and tapped AOC, who is the co-author of the Green New Deal. So it's important for us to understand what the Green New Deal is since Biden's climate policy proposal mirrors it so closely. Under the Green New deal within 11 years, the United States would be required to eliminate not merely nuclear power, which, by the way, does not directly contribute any carbon dioxide to air pollution or air pollution, but all natural gas. Natural gas currently provides about 32% of America's energy. The Green New Deal

would do away with it. And nuclear power produces another 10%. The Green New Deal would do away with it. The Green New Deal would also eliminate coal, which provides almost 18%. of America's energy and liquid natural gas and oil, which generates another 28%. In other words, within 11 years, the United States would need to replace about 88% of its current energy sources under the Green New Deal. This is not possible short of a societal collapse to agrarian subsistence. And you have to wonder if that's what really this is about, if they just have this like Marxist vision of, if Marxism had actually worked out when it was first implemented in the 19th. century. Apparently, they want us to go back to that, not just Marxism, but literally the era in which Karl Marx was alive. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 1.1, well, actually,

just to clarify, before Carl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto because he was writing the Communist Manifesto because he believed the Industrial Revolution and how people were treated in the factories was proof that capitalism is bad. And he saw communism as an antidism as an to all of that. So Carl Marx was not living in an agrarian society, but a lot of society still during that time was agrarian. And so that's the point I was making just in case I get some pushback on that. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 1.1 million working coal, oil, and gas production, 2.3 million jobs in transmission, distribution, and storage, and 2.4 million workers in motor vehicles and component parts, not counting dealerships. The vast majority of these 5.8 million jobs

would be eliminated under the Green New Deal. These aren't just jobs. These are people. These are people with livelihoods. It would also cut military spending, at least by half the Green New Deal, would pull troops from overseas, which, okay, a lot of people are on board with that. President Trump is on board with that. But costing $1.4 trillion and putting some people out of work, every home and business

in the United States, every home in business in the United States would have to be, quote, upgraded for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort, and safety. Basic income programs in single-payer health care is a part of the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal would also establish a federal jobs guarantee. One of the few non-energy-related parts of the plan, Ocasio-Cortez, has spent significant time advertising. So there are a lot of non-energy-related parts of the plan, but this is one that Acosio-Cortez brings up a lot.

she said this would mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional, and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth. Again, that is what so-called climate justice is actually all about creating equality of outcome through socialism. Conservative estimate, the Green New Deal would cost $40 trillion. That's $40 trillion of our dollars, even if the U.S. were to eliminate all of its carbon dioxide emissions by the start of 2030, something that is impossible. that increased carbon dioxide emissions of the rest of the world would more than offset the reductions in America. So it wouldn't do anything. According to the proposal, the Green New Deal would deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment.

And it promises the funding of massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases. That is a code phrase for giving billions of taxpayer dollars to renewable energy companies. And remember, it is offering economic security for those unwilling. to work, that is unbiblical. God created work. There is no such thing as, there's no such thing morally as being unwilling to work. That is not, that is not a moral position to take, that is not a good position to take. God created work before the fall. It's not a necessary evil. Human beings need to work. We have to be productive, whether it's being a stay-at-home mom and being productive that way, whether it's being a volunteer and being productive that way, or whether it is working in a

salary job. Human beings were made to be productive. No human being was made to be lazy. The Bible is clear. He who does not work, does not choose to work, cannot eat. We're not talking about the people who are unable to work. We're talking about the people who choose not to work. Let him, who chooses not to work, not eat. That is what the apostle Paul says. And the Bible is replete with reprimands against laziness, against not working. Again, the creation account shows that God created work. It is good. But the leftist worldview is a godless worldview. It is not a biblical worldview. It continually gets God and truth and human nature wrong. And so leftists typically believe that work is not necessary for the human soul. It's not necessary for the human mind. It's something that you can do. It's not something that you have to do to survive and thrive. But the human mind and soul atrophies without being productive. There should not be economic. security for those who are simply unwilling to work. But AOC is a socialist and she has a godless worldview when it comes to this. Also, national review about Biden's $2 trillion climate plan,

at least $2 trillion. Biden has tapped Trotskyite Bernie Sanders, a man who wants to prosecute fossil fuel executives for climate change and nationalize, then eliminate oil production to lead these efforts. Bernie in turn is picked Representative AOC to be the co-chair of climate change committee. Biden has voiced support for a national fracking ban, which would not only decimate natural gas production and spike energy prices, the United States is the top producer of natural gas in the world, but hurt efforts to diminish carbon emissions. That's not even to mention the thousands of jobs that would be lost. Some of the more extreme elements in Biden's plan include a goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, the creation of a civilian climate core, and plans to spend

trillions retrofitting cars and buildings to be energy efficient. Of course, this would kill energy jobs. Many other industries will also suffer because of increasing energy prices and regulations. Small businesses will have to pay more to keep their lights on and on and in compliance costs. The federalist says this about Biden's climate plan. The climate agenda would urge you instead of driving to live in a dense urban area and rely on public transportation that might be very inconvenient when like now a viral epidemic hits, which of course is true. Home will also be less of a refuge. The Biden climate agenda has a big problem with suburbs, as in their very existence. It might be your new dream home, but the extremists who will run the Biden administration will

consider it to be a sprawl. So let me take a second to talk about this. I've been wanting to talk about the Biden plan for the suburbs, but I haven't been able to fit it into these election episodes, but strangely it fits into the climate episode. So, You might have seen this going around, a story going around again by the New York Post, or Trump saying that he wants to decimate your suburbs. Well, unfortunately, Trump hasn't done a really great job of explaining why that is. So I am going to explain because President Trump is right. They do want to destroy the suburbs.

They don't want you to live in the suburbs anymore because that limits their control. They want you to be under the control of city ordinances of city politicians that typically run to the left. They want more centralized control over your life. And because they want to reconfigure society to have equal outcomes, they don't want some people to have more safety and security in the suburbs and some people to have less safety and security in the city. And so they want to integrate those two groups in order to make sure that everyone has equal outcomes.

So this is from the New York Post. The ex-vP wants to ramp up an Obama-era social engineering scheme called Affirmatively furthering fair housing that mercifully barely got underway before President Trump took office vowing to stop it. Starting in 2015, President Barack Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development floated a cookie cutter requirement for, quote, balanced housing in every suburb. Balanced meant affordable even for people who need federal vouchers. So towns were obligated to do more than simply not discriminate. They had to make it possible for low-income minorities, specifically to choose suburban living and provide adequate support to make their choices possible.

So we're not talking about making sure that suburban areas aren't discriminating against black people. Because of course, if that's the case, that is illegal, should be illegal. That is awful. That is an injustice. No, we're talking about providing some kind of financial support and ability for people who want to live in the suburbs but can't afford to live in the suburbs to live in the suburbs. So it doesn't matter if you say you used to live in government housing, but you worked really. really hard to make sure that your family could get out of that area, which very often, tragically, has a higher crime rate and to move to the suburb so your kids could go to better

schools, so you could have more safety and comfort and security, so you could have the backyard. It doesn't matter if you worked really hard to make sure that your family could do that. The Obama administration said, no, we want to make it to where it doesn't matter what you've actually worked for. It doesn't matter the choices you've made if you want to live in the suburb, whether or not you can't afford to live in the suburb. the suburbs should make it possible for you to live in the suburbs. Now, the article goes on to say, had the rule been implemented nationwide, towns everywhere

would have had to scrap all zoning, build bigger water and sewer lines to support high-density living, expand schools and social services, and add mass transit, all pushing up local taxes. Towns that refused would lose their federal aid. Now remember, these people that are now pushing up local taxes to make it possible for people who can't afford to live in the suburbs to live in the suburbs are not themselves rich. Like not everyone who lives in the suburbs is rich. Like you might be making $50,000 a year. You might be living on one salary or two teacher salaries that are worth $40,000 a year. Like you are working just hard enough to be able to live in an okay neighborhood that is not

ridden by crime. And maybe you've come from the bottom of the totem pole, but you have worked your way to where you are to be able to live in the neighborhood that you live in. Now you are paying higher taxes so that people who didn't necessarily make the choices that you made can live where you live. And so your choice to make the choices that you did and to live where you do is now moot in the name of justice and equality according to the Obama administration. The rule was one of the worst abuses of the Obama Biden administration, a raw power grab masquerading as racial justice. Absolutely right. Biden's plan is to force suburban towns with single-family homes and minimum lot sizes to build high-density affordable housing smack in the

middle of their leafy green neighborhoods. Local preferences and local control be damned. So they're trying to make this about race. That in and of itself is racist because they're actually saying that all-inpoversed people that live in government houses are black. And so they're saying, well, if you don't want that, if you don't want federal housing in your nice, safe neighborhoods, that must be because you're a bigot and you're a racist when that's not true at all. You know that there are non-white people, lots of non-white people that live in these suburbs, that have all, they've all worked really hard to get there, whether you're white or not. And now you're telling them that they're racist because they don't want to go back to

living where they were living. African Americans, according to this article, have steadily, have been steadily leaving inner cities and choosing suburban lifestyles. According to Brookings Institute data, many families of all races want the people of mind of letting their kids ride bikes around quiet neighborhood streets. That is what zoning laws provide. That's not bigoted. That's just the reality for people of all races. You move to particular neighborhoods because it provides better opportunity for you and your kids and better safety and security. The real barrier to suburban living is money. Living in the burbs isn't cheap. HUD secretary Ben Carson

told a House committee last May that people can only afford to live in certain places. It's not because George Wallace is blocking the door. Biden and the equality warriors are using accusations of racism to accomplish something different. Their message is, you worked and saved to move to the suburbs, but you can't have that way of life unless everyone else can too. You know, this reminds me of a story. I told this to my husband the other day. And it's so funny because I think that it very much describes. It's a good analogy for, maybe I've shared it on this show before. I don't remember. It's a good analogy, I think, for how leftism works and how it thinks. So I remember one time I was spending the night with a friend. I was probably like six or seven years old. She lived across

the street from me. And I, we both had one pillow. And I asked for a second pillow. I knew there was another pillow in another room that was, that was not being used. And she told me that I couldn't have another pillow because she only had one pillow. And I remember saying, well, I'll go get another pillow for you. Like there are more pillows available. We can both have two pillows. And she said, well, I don't want two pillows. Okay. So she didn't want two pillows. She only wanted one pillow. she only wanted me to have one pillow, even though I wanted two pillows. And to her, that wasn't fair. That is actually how the left wing thinks about a lot of things. It doesn't matter preferences. It doesn't matter choices. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you actually want to do.

What matters is equal outcomes no matter what. And that's actually, that in itself is not fair. That in itself is not actually just. In fact of the matter is we cannot accomplish equal outcomes and life outside of tyranny, outside of taking freedom away. And that is what Biden is planning to do by obliterating the suburbs and integrating all people together. Thomas Sol, who is an economist. You guys have heard me talk about him a lot. Here is what he says about all of this when this was happening under the Obama administration. He says it better than I can. It's a little bit long, but I think it's worth it for me to read to you what Thomas Sol says. And what may be the most ambitious social engineering project undertaken by the federal government, the administration is

mapping every neighborhood in America by race. The stated purpose is to use the data to compel local officials to loosen zoning laws and build more public housing, thereby offering more poor inner city minorities better opportunities for housing and education. But the unstated purpose is forced racial integration. The suburbs are just too white for Obama and his race-mongering social engineers. Remember, Thomas Sol is black saying this. They think they, they, they think they geospatially discriminate against minorities. Never mind that more and more middle class black people are flocking to them on their own. Individuals and groups of all sorts have always differed from one another in many ways. Throughout centuries of history and countries around the world,

left to themselves, people tend to sort themselves out into communities of like-minded neighbors. This has been so obvious that only the intelligentsia could misconstrue it, and only ideologues could devote themselves to crusading against people's efforts to live and associate with other people who share their values and habits. When the world fails to conform to their vision, the intelligentsia, then it seems obvious to the ideologues that it is the world that is wrong, not their vision that is uninformed or unrealistic. One of the political consequences of such attitudes is the current crusade of Attorney General Eric Holder, remember, this was during the Obama administration that he wrote this, to force various

communities to become more, quote, inclusive in terms of which races and classes of people they contain. Undaunted by a long history of disasters when third parties try to mix and match people or prescribe what kind of housing is best, they act as if this time it has to work. That is always true of left-wing proposals. To those with the crusading mentality, failure only means that They should try, try again at other people's expense, including not only the taxpayers, but also those whose lives have been disrupted or even made miserable and dangerous by previous bright ideas of third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Oh, that is so true. He loves to talk. He loves to say things like that, that the elites, the intelligentsia, that these ideologues

come up with these terrible ideas. And they never have to pay the price of being wrong because they are in their insulated bubble. They are in their rich, wealthy, gated communities, and they don't have to worry about the consequences of integrated neighborhoods that are going to end up obliterating the suburbs and making them more like cities. They don't have to pay the price of being wrong. You do. So the Biden administration, which will be the most far-left radical administration that

we've had, according to Bernie Sanders himself, the farthest left member of the Democratic Party, who is a part of the task force. on both economic policy, on education policy, on climate policy. They are in the business of social engineering in the name of racial and climate justice. For anyone who says that Joe Biden is a moderate, first of all, he himself is not a moderate. His record does not prove that.

And the entire administration that he is building, the people that are behind him making these plans, AOC and Bernie Sanders, the most progressive, if you want to use that term, progressive members of the Democratic. Democratic Party are backing him and saying this is going to be the farthest left presidency that we have ever had, at least since FDR. And so I saw a post from some influencer on Instagram saying, a vote for Joe Biden is not going to be a vote for socialism. Really? The socialists say that it is. What do you know that they don't? I'd love to know. So all they're talking about in racial and climate justice is really social engineering to try to advance equal outcomes for

equal outcomes. It is not justice. It is actually what Thomas Soul calls cosmic justice in his book quest for cosmic justice. It's not about real justice, which is equal treatment under the law, which is, as we've talked about so many times on this podcast, direct proportional, truthful, and impartial punishment for wrongdoing and direct proportional, truthful, impartial restitution where necessary. This is rewriting the rules of the game in order to achieve and force equal outcomes. Equal outcomes are not justice because they are impossible outside of tyranny. Individuals are different. Individuals have different interests, have different capabilities, have different ambitions, talents, and yes, privileges. There are a million different privileges that exist in all kinds

of societies. They're pretty privilege. There is athletic privilege. There is two parent privilege. These can help determine where we end up and trying to control all the factors and obstacles. that every individual has in their life by bringing us down to the lowest common denominator is impossible outside of taking away all of our freedoms and all of what makes us unique and to completely obliterate consequences of personal choices and have bureaucrats, ideologues, and the intelligentsia try to re-engineer society in order to conform to their imaginary, their imaginary picture of what equality and justice actually looks like. That's not God's definition of justice.

There's nowhere in the Bible that God says that justice equals equal outcomes at all. Yes, equal opportunity, equal treatment under the law we believe is good. But nowhere in the Bible do we say, do we hear that income gaps are a form of injustice necessarily, or that everyone has to be making the same salary in order for things to be fair, or everyone has to have the same kind of house. Actually, what we see in the Ten Commandments is that God forbids envy. He forbids covetousness. You're not supposed to want your neighbor's stuff.

You're not supposed to want the stuff of people that are richer than you or people that are different than you. And it also forbids stealing. So the stealing of your money and distributing it to people who didn't work for it, that's theft. And that is against the Lord's command. And yes, there are reasons for taxes. There are reasons for the government.

The Bible says in Romans 13 that one of the roles of the government, in addition to executing justice against the wrongdoer, is also to collect taxes. Yes. But the forced redistribution of wealth is a form of theft. It is a form of theft and it is a form of corruption. It is a form of tyranny. And that is all this climate and so-called racial justice thing is about. The fact is,

regards to climate change specifically. We know that the climate is changing. It has always changed, but so-called scientists have been saying for decades that the world is about to end, literally for decades. We've been like on a 10-year timeline saying that the world is about to just spiral out of control into irreversible damage. We're never going to be able to get it back. The concern a while ago was global cooling and then it was global warming. And now with climate change, we simultaneously here. The climate isn't weather, but that climate change is what's causing these hurricanes, these tornadoes, these wildfires. But for example, like we know that climate change is not causing the wildfires in the

West in California. We actually know we discussed this on the podcast and that they were caused by environmental policy from left-wing activists that actually prevents brush clearing in the forest and limits the water supply and the corrupt firefighters unions leveraging their power to increase the six-figure salaries for the firefighters so the state can't actually afford to hire more firefighters to fight the fires. And so these are left-wing policies that are working against the safety and well-being of people in California, but it's very convenient to be able to point your fingers at climate change to say it's all Donald Trump's fault. There are a lot of myths also

that are surrounding fossil fuels. Alex Epstein wrote a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. He argues that a lot of the talking point that the climate change scientists and the Democratic politicians talk about when it comes to fossil fuels are actually wrong. He actually argues that fossil fuels make our air and water cleaner that we need fossil fuels and that wind and solar energy can never replace fossil fuels. That is his perspective. So understand that there is disagreement about climate change. Like there is disagreement about what's causing climate change. anyone who tells you that there is not or the same kind of people that are telling you that everyone agrees that abortion is a constitutional right. Just because we have left-wing people that are controlling our flow

of information does not mean that that is what everyone thinks or that is what we should think, and that certainly doesn't equate to truth. I mean, popular opinion does not equate to truth. I think we can look throughout history and see all of the terrible immoral things that the majority of people have supported and realize the popularity does not necessarily equal true. from a Christian perspective, guys, the world is not going to end because of climate change. It's just not. From a biblical perspective, it is impossible to believe that. We are tasked with caring for the earth and the animals.

That is true. I don't think we should litter. We certainly shouldn't be cruel to animals. We shouldn't be wasteful. We should be conscious of the things that we buy and where we buy from. There's nothing wrong with looking at both sides of the debate when we're talking about energy sources and how to protect biodiversity. Absolutely.

That's part of caring for the earth and caring for energy. animal, something that we as humans are tasked to do. God created this earth. It is to glorify him. The Bible said that if no one, if no human praises him, that even the rocks will cry out. Like, God created the earth. He loves the earth in a different way than he loves us because we are created in his image. But we should absolutely take care of the earth and take joy in the earth. But our hope and fear is not dependent upon the latest news in regard to climate change. That is an unbiblical, godless way to think. Listen to this promise from God. in Genesis 822.

While the earth remains, this is to Noah. While the earth remains, sea time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease. What we hear from climate change alarmists is that one day it's just going to be all summer, that we're basically going to burn up, that it's going to be so hot and that we're not going to have regular seasons anymore because of climate change. Well, God, the creator and sustainer of the universe says this, Genesis 822, while the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night

shall not cease. That is a promise. We also know, and God will destroy the current earth with fire. So he's going to do that. He doesn't need climate change to do it. He's going to do that. And believers will have a new heavens and a new earth. But by the same, oh, this is according to 2nd Peter, 3.7 through 12. But by the same word, the heavens in earth, that now exist are stored up for fire being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly we know how it's going to end the bible tells us how it's going to end and it's not through climate change jesus will rescue his church he will defeat sin and death and Satan and destroy unbelievers and we will dwell forever with him in perfect peace and joy that's how it is

there is no mention of climate change is the cause for the end of the world and if it were mentioned there ain't nothing that you or i could do to stop it job 38 4 through 11 God says this to Job after Job dares question God. I love these chapters of the Bible, just shows God's power and sovereignty. And for all the people, tone policing, who constantly say, oh, you know, we just really need to be softer. Yes, we're not the God of the universe, so that doesn't mean that we can mimic God's tone in everything. But God actually uses sarcasm in a way, rhetorical questions. Jesus himself does. Paul himself. does, certainly James does in his letter. And so this, a lot of people would be very disturbed by the

tones that we see in the Bible and the use of rhetorical devices like sarcasm to get a point across. That is what God is doing here to Job, who dared question him. He sets, Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding, who determined its measurements? Surely you know, or who stretched the line. upon it. On what were its bases sunk or who laid its cornerstone? When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb. When I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors and said, thus far you shall come and no farther. And here shall your proud waves

be a state. God rules the world. He is in charge of the earth every single bit of it, every single organism, every single atom and molecule is under the authority of Christ. So should we steward and care for this earth that he is in control of with compassion? Yes. But we do not put our hope in fighting climate change, especially since doing so almost always comes with it a human cost and an economic and freedom cost that translate into a human cost. The world of climate change all too often views human beings as a debit. to the world rather than a credit. They see us as impositions on the world, that the world existed

and that we came and we interrupted everything. That is why you see climate activists speaking with disdain about having more than one child and having large families. There's a rise of antinatalist groups and climate groups that champion abortion and forced birth control, sterilization as a way to calm that climate change. That is not a biblical way to view human beings who are created in the womb by God, Psalm 139, with specificity with care and purpose, who are made in his image and have a soul that will live forever whom God longs to redeem with the blood of his son. That is how we see human beings. Instead, climate activists on the left often glorify plants and animals over human beings. You will hear them say humans are more important than animals. And actually, we are just, we're just

animals. We're just devolved animals. No, no. Again, for the Christian, that is not how we see the world. that is not how we see human beings. Once again, leftism gets human nature wrong, God wrong, truth wrong, morality wrong, leftist climate activism is very often a form of destructive idolatry. Romans 121 through 23 speaks to this kind of thinking and these kinds of people. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened, claiming to be wise, they became fools. And exchanged the glory of the a mortal god for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Far be it from us to echo their rhetoric and to go with their fearmongering. We go to the Word of God to see how we

steward the earth. And so when it comes to Trump and the environment, I want human beings to be in the center of any conversation about caring for the earth, the economic well-being and the freedom of human beings. And yes, keeping and caring for the earth. I want those things to be the center of the conversation when we are talking about caring for the environment. Donald Trump has basically said, look, climate change isn't a hoax, which I agree with. Climate is changing. Climate has always changed. But we shouldn't be spending all of our money and all of our time and all of our effort in combating it. And I agree with that. He talked about the importance of better forest management, planting more trees, I think that's absolutely true. I think that's great. I think that we should preserve

our natural resources that is a human-centered issue. We should plant more trees. We should have better force management as the wildfires in California show. He encourages nuclear energy. He encourages the deregulation of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is great because the regulations that they have placed on businesses on people have been burdensome. and have made it very hard for businesses to survive and thrive in some areas. He issued an executive order on water infrastructure management. Most of the language in it is in line with the administration's stance on cutting federal regulations to streamline processes.

That's something this administration has done very well, cut regulations to streamline processes. He got out of the Paris Climate Accord because he believed that it was unfair, put an unfair burden on the American taxpayer, and it wasn't doing anything because the biggest perpetrators of air pollution are not us. It's China in India. And they're never held accountable for their actions. It's only the United States that have to carry the financial burden of all of this. So he got out of the Paris Climate Accord because it wasn't doing anything. This is what he said when he exited. Paris Accord and the Paris Accord and the Draconian Financial and Economic Burdens the agreement imposes on our country have made it necessary for him. He is saying to get out

This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution, and very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune. Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions and displaced on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. According to the same study by 2040, compliance with the Paris Accord commitments put into placed by the previous administration, the Obama administration, would cut production for the following sectors, paper down 12%, cement down 23%, iron and steel down 38%, and coal down 86%, natural gas down 31%. The cost of the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases much worse than that.

And of course, Joe Biden has said that he wants to reenter the Paris Climate Accord. There's no reason to reenter it except for virtue signaling to say, oh, look how we're finding climate change. That's what a lot of climate change policy is about. And so it doesn't bother me that Trump doesn't have some like cohesive economic policy in order to combat climate change. Yeah, let's care for the environment. Let's do what we can to reduce waste.

Let's be responsible. Let's care for animals. Let's preserve our natural resources. Absolutely. Let's prevent as much pollution. as we possibly can, but at the cost of human freedom, at the cost of jobs, I don't think so. I don't think so. And remember the Christian, the biblical perspective that we looked at on climate, that is not

where our fear or hope rests, but we understand that God is on his throne, that he already has everything planned out. He has suspended in the eternal now. He is not looking to the future and worried about what's going to happen. His perfect plan of redemption is unfolding without a hitch because he is the sovereign God under which we are and the entire earth is in control. It is in his control. It is under his reign.

So that's all I have to say about all of that. I understand for climate activists out there, you probably don't listen to my podcast. Probably won't like where I ended up on it. But just trying to give you a different perspective, you can go to the other side and you can here at that side as well. Okay, I will see you guys back here on Wednesday and I will be talking. It'll actually be an interview on Wednesday. So a little bit different than what we typically do on Wednesdays, but I'll be talking to John Cooper of Skillet. He is awesome and you are just going to love that conversation and learn so much. So looking forward to you guys hearing that. We will be back

here then. 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.