Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 362 | Decentering AOC & Reassessing BLM

Episode Date: February 2, 2021

We start off today with a clarification regarding the COVID-19 vaccine and the use of fetal cells to develop it. Also, we discuss AOC's recent Instagram livestream, where she revealed she is a survivor of sexual assault. And, BLM is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize ... really? -- Today's sponsor: Annie's Kit Clubs: You can save 75% off your first shipment at AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE -- Sources: National Review: The Facts about the COVID Vaccines and Fetal Cell Lines: https://bit.ly/3tknRNQ  NYP: Black Lives Matter is nominated for a Nobel peace prize https://bit.ly/3cGg7zX  Fox News: BLM faces revolt as local chapters allege power grab, murky finances https://fxn.ws/3tn5Myw  DC Area Educators for Social Justice: BLM 13 Guiding Principles https://bit.ly/2Ldk5oh -- Past Episodes: Ep 360 | Scientism, COVID & the Vaccine Ep 305 | Breonna Taylor: Truth in Love Ep 301 | When Lies Spread Like Wildfire Ep 286 | How the Church Should Respond to Black Lives Matter Ep 280 | The Madness Ravaging America's Cities Ep 272 | Which Black Lives Matter? Ep 258 | Does the Truth Matter?

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Tuesday. Hope everyone has had a great week so far. So we've got to change. Last minute change yet again in our podcast. So this is the second time I've tried to get Alex Brinson on my podcast, had him scheduled. And then last minute, unfortunately, he has been unable to come on the podcast. If you don't know, he's the guy.

He used to work for the New York Times. And he has been very thoroughly and consistently reporting on the side of, of coronavirus reporting that is not typically shown in the mainstream. So he'll look at the data of masks. He'll look at the data of the rate of infections and hospitalizations and some of the background of the vaccines and report on those things that a lot of people, unfortunately, just aren't willing to talk about. And I really wanted to get him on last week.

And then I wanted to get him on today. And we literally got like a text or an email a couple minutes before the interview. that he wasn't going to be able to make it. So that's a, that's a huge bummer. Also, he was going to promote a book. And you guys are just so, I just have like the most responsive audience in the world. Whenever I have someone on to promote their book and I've had several people on to talk about their book, first of all, I just want to let you guys know.

I only have people on to talk about their books that I know are going to be interesting to you. Not just, you know, I don't just have anyone on. But you guys are so supportive. and always go out and buy their book and you follow them. And you really want to support the people that I go to as a resource or that I listen to or I talk to. And I just love you guys. I always talk about how I have the greatest and smartest and most thoughtful and encouraging audience in the world.

And I really think that's true. Like I probably, I mean, I know that I don't have, you know, the same size audiences, a lot of people out there. but I do have a ton of you. And the many, many, many of you who do listen to this podcast are also just so involved and so engaged. And I just appreciate that so much. And on that note, if you do love this podcast, please go and give a five-star review. If those are your honest feelings about the podcast, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts.

That would be great. And since I won't be promoting someone else's book, if you haven't read my book, you're not enough and that's okay escaping the toxic culture of self-love that came out in August. Then I encourage you to do that. If you don't want to buy it it on Amazon, I completely understand I'm trying my best not to support Amazon either and try to support some smaller, smaller retailers. You can just go to my website, Alliebethsucky.com slash book. And you can see all the places where you can buy it, either in a store or online, but it's particularly geared toward young women, but it really can be applicable to anyone.

Okay, so today I've had to take the last few minutes to kind of reassess what we're going to talk about. I want to make a clarifying comment about the vaccine. So last week, when I was supposed to have him on and I ended up talking about the vaccine on my own, I talked about John Piper's view on vaccines that are using fetal cell lines or using those fetal cell lines for research and testing versus Albert Mueller's view on it. What I don't think that I made clear is something that I'm going to in just one second about the actual use and the how of the use of these fetal cell lines in the vaccine for you to be able to make your proper assessment. So I'm sorry for not being as clear as I should have been last week. But then we're also going to talk about AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She revealed on an Instagram live last night that she is a survival of sexual assault and she was talking about this. in conjunction with talking about the Capitol riot. And so I do want to talk about what I think we should give her credit for. And then what I think is fair criticism of her, not just in that particular statement, but just in general. And then we're also going to talk about if we have time, that's going to kind of bring us into this yet, again, this compare and contrast hypocrisy double standard when it comes to chastising, rightly chastising, the violence that we saw at the Capitol riot versus

is the violence that we've seen across America's cities for the last few months. We'll talk about Black Lives Matter being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and what I think about all of that. And hopefully all of time to end on some encouragement as well. So let's go ahead and get started with this clarifying part or this clarifying statement that I want to make about fetal cells being used in the development of the coronavirus vaccine. Now, there may be other reason. why you don't want to get the vaccine.

Maybe you're skeptical about how quick the process was. Maybe you don't think that there's been enough research. There's been enough data. There's been some conflicting information that we talked about last week. Still go listen to last week's episode on it. I believe it was last Thursday or last Wednesday. I don't remember that we talked about some of the conflicting messages that we've been getting, not just about vaccines, but about coronavirus, about masks and different things like that.

You might be pregnant or you might be breastfeeding. and you see that the CDC says, yes, it's totally fine for you to take this vaccine. And then you see the WHO that says, we actually don't have enough data on this. You probably shouldn't take the vaccine if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. And so maybe you're not taking the vaccine for those reasons. Maybe it has nothing to do with the fetal cell aspect of it. But for a lot of Christians who are not anti-vaccic. And by the way, let me just say, I do not mean that as a pejorative.

I know that a lot of people use that term to just throw aside or marginalize all people who have any questions about vaccines. As I made very clear last week, I don't think that every curious person, every skeptical person, not just about vaccines, but about scientism, as I call it, or scientific findings or medicine or suggestions that the medical community gives. anyone who has questions or skepticism surrounding those things shouldn't just be pushed to the side is this conspiracy theorist or an anti-vaxxer because some people who have genuine questions because the medical community sometimes gets it wrong. Scientists sometimes get it wrong. Vaccine developers sometimes get it wrong. I mean, we can look throughout just the past 30 years alone and we can see several times where, you know, the medical community made a mistake. And I gave some examples of that last week. So go back in and listen to that. But when I say anti-vaxxer,

I am not just saying everyone who has any question about a vaccine, you're so stupid and you haven't done any research. That's not what I'm saying. I'm literally talking about people who are anti-vaccine. And there are people who are anti-vaccine for several reasons. I know that phrase is used as just a demeaning pejorative and that's not how I mean it. I used to say just vax hesitant, but then I got messages from people saying, well, no, I'm actually an anti-vaxxer. I'm not, I'm not just vax hesitant. And so you can say anti-vaxxer. And so there are some people who are anti-vax.

There are some people who are vax hesitant. There are some people who don't even care at all anything about the research behind vaccines who are just very pro-vaccination or they do care about the research behind vaccines and they're very pro-vaccination. And so there's a spectrum of feelings about vaccines. When I say anti-vaxxer, I'm not trying to just be this rude, demeaning person who is categorizing everyone who has any skepticism or questions towards the medical community and, quote, big pharma. I'm not just throwing everyone in one anti-vaxxer basket. So I just want to make that clear.

So you could be someone who has questions about the COVID-19 vaccine who is not a. not an anti-vaxxer. You're not vax hesitant, but you do have certain questions about it. And one of the ethical questions that a lot of Christians have asked is whether or not it's okay to use a vaccine that is being developed in any way from the cell line of aborted babies. And last week, like I said, I gave you two different Christian perspectives on that. But I need to make clear that there are no H-E-K-293. So that is from the kidney of a baby that was aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s for the, for this, I don't know if he or she was actually aborted for this reason, but the organs were harvested for the purpose of vaccine development and vaccine research, H.E.K. 293. this baby's kidney cells are not in either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccines.

So, doctor, this is according to National Review, by the way. Dr. Lee is a senior fellow at the Charlotte Lozier. I think that's how you pronounce it, Institute and director of its life sciences program. She told national, she told National Review that H.E.K. 293s were involved only in the post-production process of the final vaccine product. That is, they are not part of the vaccine, but rather were test subjects used to develop, used to help determine how effective it was. This is not the case for all vaccine candidates. Some of the higher profile products under development by JANSA research and Johnson and Johnson, as well as AstraZeneca and Oxford University, for example, are using fetal cells in the production process.

And these vaccines, there is a direct line between the vaccine and abortion. That line does not exist in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. So there were fetal lines that were used in the testing of the final vaccine product when it comes to Pfizer and Moderna, but it's not actually in the vaccine. So make of that what you will, but I wanted to make sure that I made that clear because I meant to say that when I was talking about Albert Mueller's perspective of it last week and I don't think that I was exactly clear or I might have actually missed when I was reading his article. I might have actually miss that excerpt, which made that really clear. And some of you messaged me, which I'm very thankful that you did and pointed that out to me. And I just wanted to offer that

clarity. So there are still things to think about. Still go back, like I said, and listen to that episode because you will find that there are different perspectives on this. And look, I'm not going to let you just be categorized as some crazy conspiracy theorist just because you have a couple questions about a quickly developed vaccine. And don't let other people tell you that you are either. I think there's such a difficult and fine line between categorizing people as a conspiracy theorist and then recognizing that a lot of people aren't conspiracy theorists but have legitimate questions. Some people don't have legitimate questions and truly are conspiracy theorists. And I'm not just talking about when it comes to vaccines, but when I'm

talking about many different things. People who are constantly looking for conspiracy theories, they go down this black hole, or conspiracy theories, they go down this black hole on the internet. Constantly, they're listening to unnamed anonymous sources who claim to have some kind of special knowledge about what's really going on and they're not actually able to back up their research or give you their sources or give you any kind of real substantial explanation for what's going on. People who get sucked into those kind of theories are really searching for some kind of Gnosticism that can't be found. Gnosticism is a special or hidden knowledge.

And there's a lot of clicks and even a lot of money to be gained if you are someone who claims to have all of this special hidden knowledge because people are constantly looking for alternative narratives than what they see in front of them. And we know that as Christians, that's wrong. If you want to know what's really going on, you don't need to look to all of these a Gnostic sources and all of these people who claim to have this special and hidden knowledge about what's really going on behind the scenes. What's really going on without a doubt that we know for sure is that God's plan of redemption, eternal plan of redemption, is always and forever going off

without a hitch. If you want to know what's really going on, what's really going on is that God is being exceedingly patient with all of us so that more people can come to know Christ before he comes back and defeats sin and death and sorrow and evil in wickedness forever and ever. That's what's always really going on. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's not even some hidden knowledge. That is special revelation, but it's accessible to everyone in God's word through Jesus Christ. And so if you're looking for an alternative narrative to the craziness that's going on,

if you just feel like you can't find all of the answers, we're not going to be able to find all the answers here on earth. but all wisdom and clarity about what's going on in the physical and the spiritual realm that we at least can know now as finite human beings on earth can be found in God's Word through the Holy Spirit. And so we don't have to wander through these black holes on the Internet to find out the real knowledge or the real game plan or the real narrative. We can go to God's Word, which is right in front of us, to tell us what's really going on.

Now, that said, that doesn't mean that we have to accept every headline or we have to accept everything the CDC says or we have to accept certainly not everything the WHO says. I've spent a lot of time talking about the serious, serious corruption in the WHO. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask questions. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't dig beneath the headlines and beneath the research and look at the methodology of every research and look at who wrote each article and what biases might be there or what's really going on and look at a wide range of sources on a particular story. to understand what's really behind the headline or what's really behind the mainstream narrative. Obviously, I think that's so important. And we're going to talk about that a little bit today when we talk about Black Lives Matter. It's not a conspiracy theory to say, okay, what they're saying doesn't actually line up with the data. So we should be absolutely asking questions and we should be digging into what is real and what is true as much as we can without obsessing over and looking for that special. knowledge. But look, we're looking for facts. We're looking for named sources. We're looking for things that can be verified, things that can be corroborated when we're trying to dig beneath the

headline and try to figure out what's really going on. I think that's the differentiating. Those are the differentiating factors. Some of them between digging and doing your own research and following conspiracy theories that really have no substantial foundation. The questions we should ask is, where is this coming from? Does this sound true at all? Are there facts to back this up? Do I have any legitimate sources to back this up? Are there other corroborating sources when it comes to whatever particular fact or narrative that we have found in our research? So it's very important to distinguish between fair questions and criticism and conspiracy theories. The former is good.

The latter is bad. We have to use our discernment and use our wisdom to be able to distinguish between those two things, whether we're talking about COVID, whether we're talking about the vaccine, or whether we're talking about anything else. I think that it is incumbent upon us, especially as Christians who are commanded to ask God for wisdom as a promise. He tells us in James that wisdom is a promise, but also realizing that wisdom is a process we read throughout the book of Proverbs, that it's something that we have to seek out.

It's something that we have to work for. It is incumbent upon us to be wise and to be discerning in all that we think, say, read, believe, accept, and do. I've talked very often on this podcast how I think right now more than ever, maybe not more than ever, I just feel like that because I'm in this present moment, but it is so important for Christians to not live. by lies. And, you know, that's the name of Roger Rier's book. We've had him on the podcast, and he talks about how America is in this pretotalitarian state because of the fascist tactics of cancel mobs, of public harassers, of corporations, of big tech, and that the minority view is getting more and more dangerous to hold, and that the silencers are getting louder and

louder. And he talks about those in Soviet Russia who lived in the same time and how important it was, how they determined and promised to themselves and to each other to not say or believe or accept anything that they didn't really think, anything that isn't really true. I think a lot of us are pressured to say things or to acquiesce or to compromise in a way that isn't really true to ourselves, that isn't really right, that we know isn't really factual. We're not sure is really factual, but we're saying it because we're told that, for example, posting to Black Squares empathic. We have no idea what it actually connects to. Like, we have no idea if the movement or if the social media hashtag is actually in relation

to anything that is factual. But we're just going to do it because we feel pressured, because we don't want to be called a bigot. We don't want to be called a racist. And so we just go along with this performative activism without actually researching because we don't want to be castigated. We don't want to be condemned is on the wrong side of history or whatever. Well, Christians have got to abandon that. We've got to abandon the performative activism. We've got to abandon the compromise. We have to be dogged in our pursuit of the truth. We have to refuse to accept anything that is not true. We have to refuse as far as we can to say, refuse to say anything that is not true. That doesn't mean it's going to be perfect. You guys always tell me if I

missed context or I didn't say something that was true or I messed up as never, ever my intention. But that's what I, that's what I tried to do. You guys know I'm coming from a conservative Christian perspective and I don't hide that at all. But that doesn't mean that I am trying to hide something from you or lie to you or tell you that there's not another side to it. I'm always encouraging you guys.

Do your own research. You should fact check me. Make sure that what I'm saying is true. And if it's not, then you should tell me. and we should tell each other and make sure and ensure and encourage one another in believing that which is true, accepting that which is true, and saying that which is true. It's the only thing that is going to keep us saying when the world is saying that war is peace and freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength and that men are women and women are men,

we have to hold fast to that which we know is true or else we're just going to be tossed on the waves of cultural changes that have no grounding, no grounding in reality, no grounding in morality, and certainly no grounding in any kind of biblical truth. All right, that was just a little rant. Now I want to talk about AOC, why she is going viral on Twitter right now for things that she said in her Instagram live. All right. So since this was trendy, and I do want to talk about AOC and her Instagram live. I think that there's a lot of fair criticism of AOC. that she doesn't seem to really take as fair criticism, which I understand when it's personal criticism towards you. It can be hard to take well, but she's very public in her reactions about

the criticism that she receives. She seems to always see it as some kind of personal attack, and that's something that I'll talk about in just a minute. But there's also some unfair criticism of AOC. So I think any criticism about her that has to do with the fact that, oh, my gosh, she does these Instagram lives. She thinks it's all about her. or she goes on Twitch or she's always on Twitter. Yes, I understand where you're coming from. But at the same time, this is why she's so popular. Because she maintains this level of accessibility,

even while having millions and millions of followers, she maintains a level of relatability, even though she's a congresswoman. And that's why so many people probably worldwide follow and support her. It's not because of her ideas. I don't think. Obviously, I'm a conservative, so I disagree with her. It's not because she is, you know, necessarily bringing some skill to the table that people are impressed by,

but because of her down-to-earthness, because she seems like a regular person. So I think when most young people go to Congress, they feel like they really have to button up. They feel like, okay, people aren't going to take me seriously. They're going to underestimate me because I'm young. And so I really have to be very mature and I have to dress and act and present myself in such a away the people know that I am one of them, that I am an adult. I think AOC has decided that she's not going to do that. And I know this is going, this in and of itself is going to sound like a criticism. And, well, it is and it's not. It's actually something that I think

is very valuable to her and a very important tool in her toolkit. AOC has very uniquely retained a level of adolescence and juvenility and dare I say immaturity that makes her very appealing to a young audience. So she has gone to Congress and she has decided she's not only going to continue going on Twitch and going on Instagram Live and using these different forms of media to reach young people, but she's also not going to change how she talks. She's still going to say like every other word. She's still not going to be very articulate in how she is able to explain things. She might be confident, but it seems to me that she has not made a whole lot of effort in trying to change how she presents herself and trying to make herself into a

good or effective or a mature sounding communicator, because whether she is defending something or questioning someone in some kind of committee hearing on the Hill, or she is talking on Instagram, or she's talking on Twitter in an interview, it's all kind of the same. I mean, she sounds like a young 20-something who is just figuring out how politics works. And I know that sounds like a kind of underhanded, but I'm just saying I think that's why so many people are attracted to her. I think that's why she appeals to so many young people because she still sounds like one of them. She still looks like one of them. She sounds really young to me. And I know, again, I know this might sound rude. I'm not trying to be rude, she sounds a lot younger than a typical 30-year-old. And I think that's why

there are so many teenagers and so many college students and so many young people that love her so much because of that. Because she has retained a level of adolescence and how she speaks and how she carries herself that people really like. I've never watched one of her Instagram lives because I don't follow her on Instagram, but the clips are typically replayed on Twitter. And so I'll catch what people are saying about it. And I think that, her, you know, drinking wine or whatever on Instagram Live or talking about this, she has no idea what a disposal is on Instagram Live or like building furniture, making macaroni and cheese, whatever it is.

I think that those are really effective. I think that's great that she does that. Someone on the right, like a conservative lawmaker, is free to do something like that too, rather than just criticize her for doing it. because it's actually effective, but someone on the left, I mean, someone on the right hasn't done that. And so more power to her for knowing her audience, knowing how to reach her audience, knowing what accessibility looks like, knowing what relatability looks like. And of course, yes, there is double standard here. Because if there were, say there were a blonde 28 year old, well, I think she's, I don't know

if she's 29, 30, I'm 28, we're almost the same age. If there were a blonde 29, year old congressperson who acted the same way the AOC did, who did the same kind of Instagram lives, who talked in the same way the AOC did, who does. Or she did the interviews, CNN, MSNBC interviews the same way the AOC does. Very unable to defend her views, very unable to articulately and confidently and self-assuredly defend what she thinks or articulate her ideas. If there was a blonde Republican lawmaker, 29 years old, who said like as much as AOC does, who explained things the way AOC does on her Instagram lives and these various, you know, spontaneous things as she does. I mean, this person would be called all kinds of things.

She would be called a buffoon. And I'm not just talking about random trolls on Twitter because there are a lot of people that say those things about AOC. But the mainstream media, we're talking, Blue Check journalists would be calling that. Republican young lawmaker, an idiot, stupid, brainless, especially, oh my gosh, if she had a Southern accent. Can you imagine if a young, blonde congressperson with a Southern accent talked in the same way, conducted herself, carried herself in the same way the AOC did? Oh my gosh. She would be the, she would be the subject of every single cartoon, of every single caricature

of some kind of Southern idiot. there. And so there's certainly a double standard. That said, I think that AOC does the accessibility thing very well. And Instagram Live is one of the, one of the best tools that she has to do that. And she did that last night. And she was still talking about the Capitol Riot. And when I say still, I just mean that it's a few weeks. You don't have to stop talking about it. It was a really big deal. It was a very traumatic incident. It was a crazy thing to watch and something that no sane person is proud of or excited about or happy about in any way. There's a lot of us who have continued to talk about it and the problem with political violence

and all of that. AOC, the reason why she's going viral and talking about this last night is that she said that she experienced sexual assault and she talked about how the trauma from that kind of compounded with the trauma from the Capitol. Here's what she said, quote, the reason I'm getting emotional in this moment is because these folks who tell us to move on, that it's not a big. deal that we should forget what's happened or even telling us to apologize. These are the same tactics of abusers.

And I'm a survivor of sexual assault. And I haven't told many people that in my life. But when we go through trauma, trauma compounds on each other. So I have no problem. A lot of people have a problem with her saying this. I mean, this is her personal Instagram. If that's her perspective and those are her feelings, I don't see anything wrong with her saying something like that.

I mean, of course, you don't have to move on from this. You can deal with it however you want to. the problem that I have with this has nothing to do with what she said about sexual assault. She shared that experience. And obviously, I have all of the compassion and the love and the sadness in the world for anyone who experienced sexual assault and all the anger in the world towards people who dehumanize and objectify people in that way through sexual assault. And so that aside, you know, that is her, if she wants to share that, if she wants to talk about

that, that's totally fine. if she was talking about how that trauma compounded with the Capitol Hill trauma, that's totally fine. What bothers me is how she has talked about this in general, how she has continually talked about this, as if the capital, she is the only person who experienced or that Democrats were the only people, but specifically her, was the only person that really dealt with trauma and that everyone else is just telling her to move on and everyone else is just trying to minimize it. And everyone on the other side of this is just some kind of abuser because they're telling her to move on. And she is likening that to a sexual assault abuser.

I'm not sure that is a fair characterization. Sure, you can share whatever feelings that you want to and you can totally feel that trauma. Absolutely. I'm not taking that away from her. I'm not saying she shouldn't have shared that. But this is a pattern that we have continued to see from her, that she is making the capital riots about only her and what she experienced. And I think this was, to me, most grotesquely seen when she tweeted this at Senator Cruz. I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there's

common ground. This was in response to Ted Cruz saying something, agreeing with her about something. But you almost, to Ted Cruz, you almost had me murdered three weeks ago so you can sit this one out. Happy to work with almost any other GOP that aren't trying to get me. killed. Okay, so she is claiming because Ted Cruz was going to peacefully, whether you agree with it or not, he was peacefully going to ask on the Senate floor for investigation into legitimate allegations of voter fraud and voter irregularities that he actually directly attempted to murder her. You are accusing a senator of attempted murder because of something that he was going to say that wasn't at all tied to actually what happened at the Capitol. It wasn't.

Like, that's just not a factual correlation. It's certainly not a factual causation. And so if she is willing to accuse someone of attempted murder because of something that they said that was not in conjunction with the riot or the storming of the Capitol, then to me, that tells me a little bit about her perspective of this whole thing, that she is implying that she was the key target, that she was a target or she was the target of the riots and the violence and the terror and the chaos that we saw at the Capitol on January 6th. And that's not true. The targets of this that we know via investigation were apparently Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, some other GOP lawmakers, the DNC and R&C buildings. There was a random person, yes, who tweeted assassinate aOC, which is awful and terrible, worst kind of people.

that tweet things like that. But unfortunately, that happens to lawmakers and really just influencers of all backgrounds all the time on Twitter. That's a terrible thing. But that happens to people all the time. She said on Monday, AOC, that she was terrified when someone was banging on her door. She said this in the Instagram Live that she was terrified. Someone was banging on her door, but it ended up being Capitol Police. Then she said on Instagram Live that this officer approached her with hostility.

that she didn't know if he was angry and that that was really scary because once again, she didn't know if this Capitol Hill person or this Capitol officer was on her side, and he very angrily and gruffly, she said, told her to go to a different part of the building. My response in that situation, if I were retelling the story, would have been, thank you. I'm so thankful that this Capitol officer took the time to specifically come to my office and to tell me where I could go to be safe. I'm sure it never occurred to her that maybe this officer in a very high-stress situation was just expressing, was just embodying the kind of angst that everyone felt at the time

that he's a human being too and he was just doing his job in a very precarious situation. And maybe, and this is hard for anyone to believe, but maybe he came in and was trying to assess the situation because he knew that there were people in Nancy Pelosi's office and he had no idea if there were going to be rioters in her office too. That could have been why he came in there. And maybe just for a second, maybe he didn't recognize AOC. Like maybe he doesn't even know really who she is or what her significance is. Maybe he didn't recognize her face. Maybe he didn't recognize the staff or the AOC said, you know, was feeling like he had to size up this officer. Like maybe that's, maybe it has nothing to do with her feeling or with her being targeted or with

this capital police officer being in opposition to her. And I think this is the problem when anyone, any one of us makes ourselves constantly the center of a narrative in something that is in actuality a lot bigger than us is that we start to see everyone is out to get us. Everyone is either for us as the star of the show where everyone is against us as the star of the show. And the reality is for most of us, even for someone as popular is AOC, is that most things aren't about us. Like most things don't center on us. Most people aren't necessarily for us or against us, they're just not thinking about us. And I know AOC, like I said, gets a lot of criticism. A lot of it is fair. Some of it is very unfair. And so I understand why she might

be on the defense. But when it comes to something like this, like the capital attack, I think it's really important for her to realize that there were all the GOP lawmakers experienced trauma as well. every single innocent person that was at the Capitol, every lawmaker, every staffer was also a victim of what happened. She's not the only victim of what happened. She is not the only one who experienced trauma. She's not the only one who was in this very confusing and chaotic situation. She's not the only one who may have felt like they were going to die that day or like they were in serious danger. I think the correct reaction would be how can we stop this from happening to our kids?

country and show a little bit of grace and deference and compassion and give some benefit of the doubt to the police officers who came to make sure that you are in a safe situation instead of again making it about who is against you. And that's something that I see so often from AOC, everything is about who is for her or against her when most of the time most people aren't thinking about you. Most people aren't thinking about me. Most people are not for us or against us. And she is very good. Maybe it's on purpose. She's very good about centering herself in the narrative and making this about for or against

AOC. The reality is the whole capital right is a lot bigger. It's a lot bigger than that. It's a lot bigger than AOC. It's a lot bigger than one person. It's even a lot bigger than the president. And I think that when we decenter ourselves from any narrative, we are able to see things rightly.

And I think that she would be able to make a better assessment. Again, this is aside from her talking about her sexual assault, she can talk about that however, whenever she wants to. I'm talking about in general how she has talked about this and how she has laid responsibility on the feet of all of the GOP, especially people like Ted Cruz, accusing him of attempted murder. And she's doing that. She's unable to look at this rightly and look at this fairly because she has centered herself in all of it when it's not about her. is not about her. And she lays responsibility then at the feet of her political enemies that she doesn't take, that she doesn't take herself.

Remember, the BLM riots, and this is not at all to minimize what happened at the Capitol, but this is to make an important point, which murdered at least, at least two black children, Antonio Mays and Sequoria Turner, in addition to dozens of other people, were celebrated by AOC. I'm not talking about those specific murders, but she didn't have anything to say about those. She just praised the protests in general saying on Twitter that protests are, quote, supposed to make people feel uncomfortable without acknowledging that the discomfort that some people felt during not just not the peaceful protests, but the riots that were orchestrated by BLM in conjunction with

Antifa, people were uncomfortable with it because people were dying from them. People were losing their homes. People were losing their livelihoods. people were losing their businesses, innocent people, were made to feel, quote, uncomfortable through violence. And AOC didn't acknowledge any of those things. She actually condoned all of the demonstrations, saying that, you know, basically that it was necessary for their intended goals. I mean, so she's not going to take any responsibility whatsoever for being silent where she should have spoken up and saying something where she shouldn't have been, where she should have been silent

when it comes to the violence that we've seen across the country for the past seven months, but she is going to accuse Ted Cruz and accuse other lawmakers of attempted murder and being against her and even a capital officer of potentially being hostile towards her. That just doesn't seem right. That doesn't seem fair. And again, that's what happens when we center ourselves in a narrative that we're not actually the center of, when we star ourselves in a show that we're not actually the start of. And I understand a lot of people are going to say, well, you can't compare the capital right.

to the Black Lives Matter riots. And I'm not comparing the capital rights to the Black Lives Matter peaceful protests. I am comparing violent riots to violent riot. People will still say, you can't compare those two things because Black Lives Matter, those demonstrations, even the looting and the arson and the violence, that was all fighting for their lives.

But that's not going to cut it. That's not going to cut it. That double standard just doesn't work with me. There were more lives taken as a result of BLM and Antifa chaos in the past six months. then there were unarmed black men killed by the police, which according to the Washington Post database was 15. So I'm saying if AOC is going to accuse Ted Cruz of attempted murder for making a statement on the Senate floor, but will take no responsibility for her own rhetoric and talk about some of the misinformation and the false narratives

that pushed her own side to violence in some cases, then I just don't think that I don't think her accusations and I don't think her assessments are very fair. if both sides could just consistently and resolutely say, look, I'm against political violence of all kinds, I'm against storming the capital, I'm against arson, I'm against looting, I'm against rioting, that ends the lives and hurts the lives of innocent people, no matter the alleged cause, that I think that we could, the vast majority of the country could probably come together in unison and say, yeah, that's bad, but unfortunately we're unable to do that. Because the truth is, misinformation, exaggeration, cherry-picked narratives, fanned the flame of both sides of this violence. And yes, this is a both sides situation. It's not so easy as

while the Capitol terrorists were mad about a fairly one election in BLM or just fighting for justice. No, no, no, no, that's not true. There were plenty of peaceful Trump rallies, plenty of peaceful BLM protests. I remember, I think it was the Washington Post or Time magazine reported that BLM only, they're only 7% of their demonstrations turned violent. Okay, well, if you're going to use that standard, then you could say only what, 0.5% of Trump rallies turn violence. So, again, you have to apply that standard consistently. And I don't really care whether it's 7% or 1% or 50%. The fact of the matter is that percent, it represents real people's lives. It represents people murdered. It represents towns burning down. Both sides have been fed misinformation about

their causes, the narrative that Trump duly won every swing state and that Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi and Governor Kemp were all colluding to take down Trump isn't true. Were there some voting irregularities? Yes. But that's completely unrelated to the lawmakers at the Capitol and the storming of the Capitol that accomplished nothing except releasing some sort of angst. It was stupid. It was wrong.

In addition to other conspiracies, Trump's still going to have four more years. he's going to declare martial law. We're going to have a blackout so Trump can finally drain the swamp. And then he's going to become president again. He has to get rid of these satanic pedophiles and hang Mike Pence for treason. It's insane. All of that 100% helped fuel the chaos that we saw on January 6th. But also, we have to recognize that the narrative on the other side that the police, for example, are hunting and killing disproportionately.

Black men or that black men are killed by the police at a disproportionate rate, is not factual if you look at just the number that are not just the number that are killed, but also the number of police interactions, arrests, and crimes per year of each group. And I will link a variety of sources in the description and also the plethora of episodes that we have done diving into the numbers and the statistics and the data on this. That doesn't mean that there are not warranted cases of police shootings and serious injustice, even in justice that might be disproportionately racialized. There are unwarranted killings have been in just the past few years of both white and black men.

The problem is you only, for the most part, hear the names of black men. And then we're told this is only happening to one race. This is disproportionately happening to one race. And that's not true. Like most people don't know the name. I mean, she has made some headlines. But a lot of people don't know the name, Justine Damon, for example, because there are no protests or hashtags for her or for Tony Tempa.

And those are, I would say, two of the most prominent names of white people who were, in my opinion, they were not justified at all in being killed by the police. I think Elijah McLean, he is a black young man who I think was totally unjustifiably tackled by the police and sedated by the police to the point to where he died. His heart stopped. I think that was totally unjustified. but we're unable to assess the issue, the possible issue of police brutality in some cases rightly when we're told that this is only happening or this is disproportionately happening to black

to unarmed black men when that is just not factually true. Like we don't even know the names of the 21 unarmed white people shot and killed by the police last year because it's not a part of the narrative. Like it's not a part of the movement. The truth is for the most part white people, kill other white people when they kill. And when black Americans kill other black Americans, sadly at a rate that is completely disproportionate to their population size. There are more white people killed by black people per year than the other way around,

according to FBI data. So again, this idea that white people are hunting black people in this country is not true. So there is misinformation on both sides that fuels this chaos. I won't put everyone on the line for violence, though, if they didn't call for it. I don't think it's fair to say that people who talked about election fraud are responsible for violence. And certainly people who talked about police brutality, I would not say are responsible for violence either. But we do need to make sure as far as we can, to make our assessments as accurate as possible. We need to try to be consistent to not accuse the other side of attempted murder when that's not what happens. Again, we have to

refuse as far as we can, as far as it concerns us not to live by lies, even if something is popular. Just because something is popular, just because a narrative is repeated over and over again in your circles, just because someone tells you that believing something or repeating something is empathetic or kind or right doesn't make it those things. Things will only get worse. If we continue to delude ourselves with that which isn't true, if we continue to accuse the other side of that which we are doing ourselves. Things will only get worse and more chaotic. And another instance, I think, of this just living in this kind of upside down world is Black Lives Matter being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The New York Post reported that

they were nominated by a Norwegian politician, Peter Eide, I don't know how to pronounce his last name, who called it, quote, a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice. When Ide was asked about BLM violence. He only said studies have shown. that most of the demonstrations were organized by Black Lives Matter have been peaceful. Then, of course, there have been incidents, but most of them have been caused by the activities of either police or counter protesters. That's not true. That's just not, that's not factually accurate at all.

Unfortunately, I mean, as Iyana Presley said herself, they believe a lot of Black Lives Matter activists believe there has to be unrest in the streets as long as there is, quote, unrest in our lives. And so violence certainly, looting certainly, is just to, It's a justified tactic by some people on the left. That's why NPR profiled this author who wrote the book in defense of looting, which she actually wrote back in April before George Floyd happened. And what she said, look, yes, looting is part of the Marxist socialist uprising that needs to happen in this country.

So there's certainly a lot of different causes intertwined. The founders of Black Lives Matter have said themselves that they are trained Marxist. They've made, and, you know, Marxists, they say that they are socialist, but they love money. They love capitalism for themselves, which is why Black Lives Matter continues to rake in millions and millions and billions of dollars. And yet, according to Fox News, actually, this is just on Twitter, Black Lives Matter, D.C., along with, I think, 10 other local chapters of Black Lives Matter released a statement in November saying, look, Black Lives Matter global network is not held accountable in any way. And the money that they've promised us over the past few years has

not come to us, hasn't come to our causes, it hasn't helped fund these grassroots movements and the leadership acts in a way that is completely disconnected from what the local chapters of Black Lives Matter wants. And so my question is, what are they, what is the Black Lives Matter global network at least being nominated for in the way of peace? Like, can you tell me what they've actually accomplished in the way of peace? I'm not sure, I'm not sure that anyone can. I mean, I look at some of their points. There's like 13 points that Black Lives Matter believes, and these are now being taught in a lot of schools across the country. And one of the points is that we see ourselves as part of the global black family, and we are aware of the different ways. We are impacted or

privileged as black folk who exist in different parts of the world. And by the way, that's not, that's not necessarily true. Like if you talk to a black person that is not from America, they have a very different perspective. And unfortunately, a lot of Black Lives Matter, activists, if there was a black person either in America or outside of America that doesn't agree with them, they will accuse that black person of being colonized or having internalized white supremacy just because they disagree with them. I mean, if you look at, for example, Ibrahimax-Kindy, how he talks about scholar and academic John McWhorter, they disagree on ideas. And, you know, Ibramax-Kindy constantly tries to condescend and condemn John McWhorter for basically

being a racist and a white supremacist. And so this idea of being a part of a global black family, yeah, of course, if you agree with them. Their point 11 in their statement is, quote, black villages, which reads, we are committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure. By the way, I would like to say that that's not Western prescribed. Mom, dad, kids, that's not Western prescribed. It's how the, it's how biology works. And so cultures around the world for all of time have formed themselves in those. And those, kinds of families that doesn't mean that there hasn't been help from villages or help from towns or help from friends and extended family when it comes to raising children. That's definitely

true. But this idea of a mom and a dad and a kid, that's not just Western prescribed. You can find that anywhere. And by the way, even if you don't believe in the Bible, the Bible is not a Western book. The Bible is an Eastern book that was written by Eastern people, was not written by white people. And in Genesis 1, we see the formulation of the family. Again, whether or not you believe in the spiritual authority of the book, it was still a book that was written thousands and thousands of years ago and not in the West. So this idea that the West has just prescribed and created mom, dad, kids formulation of the family just isn't, again, historically accurate. But in the world of CRT, that views everything as West Bad, America Bad, Whiteness Bad, you have to attach anything that is

conservative and anything that is not progressive, anything that is bad to those categories in order for your CRT narrative to move forward. So they say in this point 11, so we want to disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other's extended families and villages that collectively care for one another. You get that. Your child doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the village.

And especially our children to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are. comfortable. You'll notice that they purposely leave out the word fathers. Mother's parents and children are comfortable. So the village has your kids. Fathers, I guess, have no say despite the fact that lack of fatherness or fatherness, lack of fatherhood. And the present, the lack of present dads in all kinds of communities in America is one of our biggest problems. And if you look at the data surrounding fatherlessness, you've got higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of depression and suicide for kids without present dads, you've got higher rates of teen delinquency, you've got lower rates of high school and college graduation, higher rates of poverty and

unemployment when kids do not have present dads at home. God created it that way. He created it that way. We need fathers. Like we need strong men in our lives. The genders aren't interchangeable. Parents are not interchangeable. Like we need strong. men. We need strong moms too. Of course. Mothers are absolutely irreplaceable. But to dismiss the need for fathers, especially in this point, which is, I guarantee you, is absolutely on purpose, is to just perpetuate so many of the problems that we're already dealing with in this country. And then their other point is we are committed to embracing and making space for trans brothers and sisters to, wow. So they say trans brothers and sisters. And then they put on you the gender binary of brothers and sisters.

to participate and lead, we are committed to being self-reflexive and doing the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege. All right. And uplift black trans folk, especially black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans antagonistic violence, which, by the way, again, is not factually true. That's actually not factually true, that last part. And so I'm, you know, I'm not surprised by them being nominated for the Nobel Peace, price. By the way, Trump was also nominated. Jared Kushner was also nominated for their

working to the Middle East and for the peace deals that especially Jared Kushner has pressed forward, which I do think is impressive. But I understand a lot of people are going to have a problem with that too. A lot of people are going to say they've actually caused violence and have been destructive in a variety of ways. And so we don't have to agree with all the nominations. And I think it's fair to bring that up. But this reflex that I think so many people in America have to just jump on the bandwagon of having to support Black Lives Matter and all the narratives surrounding it in order to prove that you're a good person. I think you've got to reject that. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Look to the Bible for the definitions of justice, for the definitions of love, for the definitions of serving your neighbor, for the definitions of truthfulness and impartiality. And I think that you will be on a much better path to seeking actual justice and actual mercy. an actual truth, an actual love, an actual reconciliation and unity and progress, then you will, if you believe some of these false narratives that are centered on critical race theory and, quite frankly, the destructive tenets of the Black Lives Matter organization. All right. That's all I have time for today.

I will be back here tomorrow.