Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 363 | Truth: The Dread of "Reality Czars"

Episode Date: February 3, 2021

A New York Times opinion piece recommends the Biden administration create a "reality czar" to combat misinformation. That couldn't possibly go wrong, could it? The right to free speech and the truth itself are a big problem for those with totalitarian aspirations. Speaking of totalitarian, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas has introduced a gun control bill that acts as though the Second Amendment doesn't exist. And, we take a look into the horrific allegations against Ariel Robinson, which the media has been strangely quiet on. --- Today's Sponsors: Built Bar: Eat healthier & tastier food - Built Bar is healthier than your favorite protein bar & better-tasting than your favorite candy bar. Don't give up on your resolution! Go to BuiltBar.com & use promo code 'RELATABLE' to get 20% off your next order! ExpressVPN: It's finally time to say NO to censorship and take back your online privacy with the VPN Allie trusts - go to ExpressVPN.com/Allie & get an extra 3 months free! --- Show Links: "How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis": https://nyti.ms/3cJNt0R H.R. 127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing & Registration Act: https://bit.ly/2LkrJxc "Rep. Jackson Lee's Anti-2A Bill Would Create a Mandatory Federal Gun Registry ... And Way More": https://bit.ly/2YGQ9E6 "Winner of Food Network show charged with child abuse murder of white 3-year-old foster child. She criticized 'white privilege' on social media": https://bit.ly/3pMu7f7 Allie's Blog: Recommended Resources: https://bit.ly/3oLO4RU Allie's Book Club: https://bit.ly/2MAoLVL --- 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 guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone's having a wonderful week. Today, we are going to talk about truth, absolute truth, the reality of truth, natural truth, supernatural truth. In relation to this New York Times article that I read just the other day by Kevin Ruse about the appointment of realities are, those are the words used in Biden's administration. And we'll look a couple ways that I think this has applied practically. If we have time, we'll go into this House Resolution by Sheila Jackson Lee that has to do with the Second Amendment and gun ownership. And then I also want to talk about if we have time again, a story about a woman named Ariel Robinson. She was a Food Network star. She was recently charged with murdering her adopted daughter.

and why we're not really hearing about this story across mainstream outlets, even though it's a unique story and, of course, a devastating story. And this all kind of centers on this idea of what is true and what is not and who gets to say what's true and who doesn't. So let's first start with this New York Times article by Kevin Ruse. It's titled this, how the Biden administration can help solve our reality crisis. Quote, several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a, quote, realities are. It sounds a little dystopian, Al Grant. Well, he's right about that good analysis, Kevin, but let's hear

them out. Right now, these experts said, the federal government's response to disinformation and domestic extremism is haphazard and spread across multiple agencies, and there's a lot of unnecessary overlap. So I am never going to be opposed to cutting down on bureaucracy and making sure that there's not any overlap between agencies and making sure that we're running as tightly and efficiently as possible in the federal government. I have a feeling that's probably not what he's talking about, since that seems to not be Democrats or quite frankly Republicans first priority when they get into office. But I do have a problem with this idea of. of realities are, a political appointment by the Biden, by the Biden administration, I guess,

to be the arbiter of what is true and what is not, to try to gate keep the information that we are allowed to see, that we are allowed to read. And of course, that we are allowed to say, there's this pesky thing called the First Amendment that could possibly make this complicated. But as we've talked about before, limiting speech and limiting our rights to say what we want to say to speak our opinions freely is not just a matter of the First Amendment and what the federal government can or can't do. It's also a matter of how much power corporations have and how much power certain political appointees like realities are are willing to try to get away with before something, before some kind of measure is taken to the courts and challenged. So certainly our free

speech can absolutely be limited by big tech, it can absolutely be limited by major corporations. It can be even limited in some ways by the general population. If you do not feel safe saying what you believe, if stating a perfectly reasonable opinion like, hey, I don't believe that we should be able to legally kill babies in the womb. If you honestly feel like it's not safe for you to say that without the cancel mob coming after you, then you're not really free. You might be technically free because yes, we have a First Amendment, but that doesn't mean that we are not living with certain effects of totalitarianism that make you feel scared to speak up about the things that you believe. So talking about taking that kind of totalitarianism into the federal government via

realities are is something that people on both sides of the aisle should have a problem with. This should not be a partisan issue. Really, the Constitution shouldn't be a partisan issue. I understand there may be different interpretations and different priorities on the left and the right in regards to our Bill of Rights. But free speech, there's a reason why it's in the very first amendment. It is like Frederick Douglass said, the dread of tyrants, being able to say what we want to say, speak in opposition to the people in power, say something that is unpopular. As George Orwell said, freedom is the right, the ability to say two plus two equals four. the freedom to be able to speak that which is true or even just that which we think is central to living in a free society, certainly in a representative democracy in which we live.

So this is the reason I, from a conservative perspective, have a problem with this, not just because I worry about how it's going to affect people across the aisle when it comes to free speech, but specifically from my perspective, I have a problem with the party that claims that men are women and should be able to compete against boys in sports or girls should be able to compete against boys in sports and vice versa, that they should be free to share bathrooms and locker rooms together, that we should intermix prison populations and we should allow biological men into women's abuse shelters, for example, telling me what is true and what is not. Like, I have a problem with people who believe that kind of nonsense,

trying to tell me what reality is. I have a problem with the party who says that babies in the womb are blobs until they are taken from their, until they are born. I have a problem with that party saying that a child in the womb has no right to life because they're not really human. I have a problem with that party with those people who believe that telling me what reality is. I have a problem with the people who believe that opening the borders and taxing the middle class will lead to prosperity. I have a problem with the party who daily perpetuates the lies of critical race theory and identity politics and the narrative of racialized police brutality have a problem with those people telling me what is true, telling me what is right, telling me what

reality is, only talking about disinformation and misinformation when it comes to their political opponents but refusing to confront it when it comes to their own side. Don't you see the problem with this. If you were someone on the left, can you imagine if Donald Trump, if he appointed, say, I don't know, Jared Kushner or Ivanka Trump to be the realities are to tell you what is real and what is not, what kind of real information you're allowed to say, you're allowed to hear, you're allowed to accept, you're allowed to believe. Like, you would probably think that's a problem, right? Because you don't have the same worldview as Jared Kushner. You don't think that you don't have the same view of reality.

You don't have the same view of morality. And so it would be a problem if Donald Trump and his administration started to tell you what you can believe, what you can read, what you can say, and trying to control the flow of information that comes into your life. That would be a problem, right? And so you can put yourself in my shoes and see how I don't want the Biden administration or any administration, by the way, to have a realities are. And when Kevin Ruse so insightfully says that this is dystopian, he is absolutely right. This is a quote from 1984, Women's Book Club with Ali Stucky. We read it together last year. We're about to read another dystopian novel, Brave New World.

If you are a woman, in particular, a Christian woman, you're looking for a like-minded group of about 8,500 women on Facebook. Join Women's Book Club with Ali Stucky. Make sure you answer all the admission questions. And we have literally thousands of requests. So it might take a while to get to yours, but request and join us and join the conversation about Brave New World. Anyway, this is from the book that we read last year that a lot of us read in high school as well, 1984.

Quote, in the end, the party, the people in charge, would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make the claim sooner or later. The logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For after all, how do we know the two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works or that the past is

unchangeable. If both the past in the external world exist only in the mind and if the mind itself is controllable, what then? So I hope you followed that. You can back up and you can listen to it again. If you haven't read 1984, you might have to listen to it or read it a couple times to kind of understand the context of what's really going on. But in 1984, the party, led by Big Brother, was controlling people, telling them that something that they said happened yesterday didn't really happen, that they were constantly changing history, newspapers were sent down a memory hole. And there was no proof whatsoever that what was reported on yesterday, for example,

that they were at war with Eurasia was actually true. Today, they say that they're at war with East Asia and you just have to accept it because there is no external reality. There is no common sense. The only reality that exists is that which is in your mind and your mind is controlled by the propaganda, by the information that is told to you by the party, by Big Brother. Remember, Orwell said, like I said, at the beginning of this, freedom is the ability to say two plus two equals four. but where he was in this dystopia, there wasn't the freedom to say that. If the party said that 2 plus 2 equals 5 because the only reality that exists is the reality in your mind, because the party controls your mind, then 2 plus 2 actually equals 5.

And you have no way to prove that because they've controlled the language, they've controlled the curriculum, they've controlled the idea of math and science so closely and so tyrannically that you don't even have the tools to be able to prove that 2 plus 2 actually. equals four. The point of Winston's torture, you might remember if you've read it, at the end of 1984 was to make him accept the party lines to reject all understanding of reality outside of what the party tells him to believe that 2 plus 2 truly equals 5, for him to really believe that, to truly love Big Brother and adore Big Brother as his source of truth. And in the end, he does, that is just maybe the most devastating ending to any novel ever. Before the, before the,

that, how we tried to keep sane, how we tried to resist a big brother, was to keep insisting to himself and to those or to the person that he felt like he could actually confide in, that two plus two actually does equal, actually does equal four, and that there is a reality that exists outside of what the government or anyone in power says. And that's going to be true for us, too, not just if there's a realities are, but if we have all of these voices, cultural, political, whatever they are, telling us things that aren't true. Our sanity depends on us insisting to ourselves on a daily basis, that which is true, that which we know, that which was common sense just a few years ago.

And now we are being told in the words of Orwell that common sense is heresy of heresies. So men or men and women are women. The fact that you feel afraid for your job for saying that, you feel afraid that you're going to lose friendships, you feel afraid that social media is going to crack down on you. You feel afraid that your small business could be targeted. You feel afraid for your livelihood, for your life. Because if you say online, if you say publicly, hey, men are men, women are women, biological sex matters, the sexes are different. The fact that you feel afraid and ashamed to say that, that you feel like you have to whisper something that honestly, five years ago was totally

uncontroversial, that tells you what direction we're heading, whether or not Biden actually appoints or realities are. A human embryo is still a human. Again, that was common since we knew that. Even if your stance on abortion was that that's a human that you should be allowed to kill legally, a human embryo is still a human being. Stated in an opinion is not inciting violence. Christianity is not a domestic terrorist threat. That's the cool, vogue thing to be. be writing about in a variety of outlets right now. Parents have a right to teach and raise their children how they see fit. Treating everyone equally is not racism. Justice is not showing favoritism toward one group to allegedly make up for wrongs of the past. America is not a terrible

country based on evil ideas that has unconditionally been a force for bad in the world. The American Revolution was not because of slavery. Socialism and communism don't work. these are all things we're going to have to continue to remind ourselves when we have self-appointed realities are telling us the opposite and telling us that common sense is heresy telling us that two plus two equals five and look i'm willing to debate all of these things i'm willing to have a conversation about all of these things i'm not saying that i am the arbiter of absolute truth either but i am going to continue to harken back to that which all of us knew were true just five minutes ago and now we are being told to to put all of those things down the proverbial memory

hole and to deny them. And I'm just not going to hop on board with that. I'm just not. I'm not going to play that game. I told you guys about how I listened to, you know, birthing and pregnancy podcasts and how in the birthing world, a lot of you told me that you were training to become a doula or maybe you're training to become a midwife or maybe you're a labor and delivery. nurse. The language has changed. You're no longer allowed to say mom in some cases. I'm not speaking for everyone's experience or everyone's hospital where you work. But in a lot of cases, you're not allowed to say mom or you're encouraged not to say mom. You're encouraged not to say woman, but you have to say birthing person. You have to say gestator. You have to say lactator.

These ridiculous terms that purposely muddy the waters and muddy our understanding of what it actually means to be a woman. And I'm just not going to play along in that game. Like, I'm not going to deny women the most uniquely powerful capability that we have, which is to deliver life. I'm not going to reduce women down to our physiology and our biological functions by calling a woman a menstruator or calling a woman a gestator or a lactator or something ridiculous like that. There's a name for it. It's called woman. And we are being told literally in the last 15 minutes, not literally, figuratively, in the last 15 minutes that that's bigoted and wrong, I'm just not going along with it. I'm not going to play that game. I am not going to pretend that women don't exist. I'm not going to

pretend that by declaration, you can just be another sex or that gender and sex are not interchangeable. I'm just not going to play along with this postmodern, manipulative, nonsense. And I encourage you not to either if you want to keep your sanity. If you want to, in the end, be able to resist loving big brother and resist the ridiculous lie that two plus two equals five, I highly encourage you right now to be able to tell the truth to yourself and to other people about that, which was common sense five seconds ago. And now we are being told is not real. This is the result of postmodernism. This is the result of godlessness.

When we no longer believe in absolute truth, we no longer believe that there is a source of transcendent morality, we no longer believe that there is any kind of authority that tells us what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's bad, that we all become the gods of self rather than worshiping the God of Scripture. Of course, everything becomes arbitrary. Even science itself, even facts. Like you'll remember it was the museum of, I think, African American history that came out over the summer and gave a list of that which is actually whiteness and white supremacy that we need to get rid of. And one of them was objectivity, the other one, linear thinking.

I've been told before that bringing up data about, for example, racialized police brutality or talking about statistics or facts. surrounding claims of systemic racism as a way to kind of challenge some of those vague assertions, that that is actually just, that's actually just white supremacy, that we are not supposed to talk about the data. We're not supposed to talk about numbers, but we're actually supposed to accept something called standpoint epistemology, which is that we gain knowledge from our position, or we gain knowledge from our experiences alone. We gain knowledge from our race or our standpoint, our subjective view, that is a way to shut down any kind of objective thinking or objective conversation. If someone has authority just because of their standpoint and that

authority trumps objectivism and trumps facts and trumps data than a person who insists, for example, that systemic racism is the number one problem in America in 2021, that that statement actually trumps any kind of data that someone else might bring up to challenge that. That is the danger of any kind of epistemology that is outside of objective truth or outside of the reality that we can see and observe and quantify, that is outside of the moral truth that we get from the great moral lawgiver God himself. And that's where all this confusion is coming from. And, you know, this is all created, it's created very strange bedfellows between, for example, atheists and Christians who are against critical race theory or, you know, radical feminists and very

traditional people like me who are against the demeaning of women and the eraser of women through transgender activism and the manipulation of language. But at the same time, I know that there's a separation between me and between James Lindsay or between the feminist that I have on my show that have a different worldview and have a different belief system because to me, from my perspective, and they would totally disagree with this, obviously, and that's fine. This is all a result of some of the religious or non-religious views of the people that are now complaining about the problems with critical race theory and the crazy postmodern definition of gender and sex. Yeah, this is a result of godlessness. I mean, they can say all they want to. They believe in some kind of objective morality

and objective truth. But my question, if you don't believe in Genesis 1-1 that God created the heavens in the earth, if you don't at least believe in some kind of transcendent moral lawgiver, why? Why does science matter? Why is their reality? Why can't the party say that 2 plus 2 equals 5? Like, why do people have inherit human rights? If there isn't a God who created all of us, if there isn't an authority higher than government,

then who says what is and what isn't? And so like I always say, your cultural beliefs are downstream from your theology, whether you believe in God or not. Your political views are downstream from both your cultural views and your theological views, whether you believe in God or not. So all of this, this postmodernism, this confusion, this need for an appointment of realities are in our federal government among people who can't even tell you what a woman is, it's a result in my opinion of godlessness, of replacing the God of Scripture with the God of self, of postmodernism, of a kind of epistemology that prioritizes subjectivism over objective truth. People are very confused. And if you want to stay sane, you've got to commit to convincing yourself on a daily basis that two and two equal for. And I have three pieces of advice or three tips to make sure that we do that. Number one, remember that there is an

authority higher than the government. There is an authority higher than big tech. There is an authority that is higher than you, higher than me, higher than any cultural or political influence in the entire world who says exactly what is and what isn't, who has given us general revelation through just the natural world that anyone Christian or non-Christian alike can observe. We can observe that there are men and women, that there are differences in men and women. we can, you know, we can observe for a very simple example that something like trees exist or vegetation exists or that there's, you know, there's diversity in our, in what people look like, whatever it is. There is natural revelation that we can see with our own eyes that we will be told to, deny by the way.

And then there's also special revelation that we are given in God's word that tells us what this all means, why we're here, what sin is, what salvation is, what the afterlife looks like, what morality looks like, what good is, what bad is, what right is, what wrong is. Genesis 1-1 in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Everything flows from that. That is the most controversial verse in the Bible. We have to remember that God is the realities are. He is the moralities are. He is the one that says, again, what is and what is it, what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's bad. We appeal to his authority when we have a question about anything, when it comes to the definition of what gender is, when it comes to the value of life inside the womb, when it comes to all of our chaos and confusion, we find our respite, we find our clarity in him and his word. And so, number one, remembering that there is an authority that's higher than us, that's higher than all human institutions, and renewing our mind and saturating our mind.

in our heart in that truth that we find in his word. Number two, surround yourself with at least a few people who share your values. I've talked to a lot of young women who are on college campuses who feel like they're alone. They feel like they're isolated. And that's really when you start to question your beliefs. That's when you really start to question what's true because you're like, okay, I'm the only one who believes this stuff. Maybe I really am a bigot. Maybe I really am an extremist. Maybe it really is radical to believe that babies inside the womb matter. So you have to surround yourself with at least a few people who share your values who can challenge you, who can encourage you, who can spur you on toward loving good works. As the Bible says,

1 Corinthians 1533, do not be deceived. Bad company ruins good morals. And so, you know, we've all been in this situation before where we've surrounded ourselves by people who aren't good influences. We tell ourselves, we're going to bring them up. They end up bringing us down. And it comes, it even comes down to our belief system that is. on the line when we surround ourselves by people who don't share our values, who are actually bad influences. And remember, it's actually more important for you to surround yourself by like-minded people than it is to surround yourself by people that you like. Now, that doesn't mean that I want you to have friends that you just don't enjoy time with, but I'm not asking you to look

for a click that you have everything in common with. I'm asking you to at least build a small community of people that you can get together on a weekly basis and just be able to talk to each other and say, okay, we're not crazy, right? Like, you still believe this? I still believe this. Here's why we believe this. Okay, great. That's going to do wonders for you. Number three, seek wisdom. Kind of goes with both number one and number two. James 3.17, but the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, then gentle, open to reason. Any of your friends who are not open to reason and claim to be the arbiters of truth. I would challenge that because of this descriptor, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, impartial. So that means not showing partiality or

favoritism to one group or another, impartial and sincere. So pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And what we talked about before is that wisdom is a promise according to James. It's also a process according to proverbs. And so we ask God for wisdom. We also seek wisdom. through his word and through the natural world, the gifts of common grace that he has given us through a lot of, through many resources that aren't his word, that can tell us about history, that can tell us about economics, that can tell us about politics. I've got a list of resources on my blog. I'll put the link in my description. So those are my three tips to be able to

continue to insist until the end that two plus two equals four. That reality is reality. that truth is truth. Remember, Jesus says, I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the father except through me. You want clarity in the midst of confusion. You want respite from all the chaos. You want a refuge in all of the confusion and all of the postmodern nonsense. Then you go to Christ. He is the embodiment of truth. He has the answers. He has, he has. He has. He has, as everything that you are trying and failing to find inside yourself and in the world. It's all right there. What amazing grace that is.

All right. I'm going to move on to a couple other stories before we finish. All right. So we don't really talk about the Second Amendment very much on this podcast. That's not because I don't care about it. Obviously, I care about it very much. I am not what you would consider a gun nut. Not that there's anything wrong with loving guns, but I'm not someone who you will see at the

range every single day who knows everything about guns but I very much believe in the right to defend yourself and to defend your family how you see fit I am all for responsible gun ownership for women especially to know how to use a gun to carry a gun to defend yourself I think it is one of the greatest protections that we have in in addition to free speech and religious liberty against tyrants. And that is not me advocating, of course, for any kind of, for any kind of violence or any kind of use of force. But that is why the Second Amendment exists to be able to protect us against the tyrannical nature of the government that we have to be, and we get to be well armed. And it's not just police officers and it's not just the military.

it's not just the government who has all the guns, that we as citizens are also able to defend ourselves and to defend our families. Now, this has been something that the left has been after for years, gun ownership. It's difficult to go after. It's difficult to pass any kind of substantial, what they call common sense gun legislation

or gun ownership restrictions in this country because even a lot of Democrats represent people in their states who like to own guns, whether it's because they like to hunt or they just like guns recreationally or they want to be able to defend their families, except for in these major cities, it can be really hard for a bill like this to pass because there are still a lot of senators and representatives who, like I said, represent people who are for the Second Amendment. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has just introduced a new gun bill or a new resolution, H.R. 127, quote, to provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession

and the registration of firearms and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition. So this probably won't go anywhere. Like I said, I mean, Democrats do this a lot. And Republicans do this in their own way, too. but they present some kind of piece of legislation that they know is probably going to die, but they're really more making a point about it. This is from MRC.tv. Lee's bill named after Sabika Sheik, a Palestinian girl killed at the age of 17 and a 2018

Texas public school shooting would not only mandate that all gun owners place themselves on a federal registry. It would mandate that all people trying to get a gun or keep a workable gun or keep an even antique gun must ask for and be granted a federal. license. I mean, this is exactly why the Second Amendment exists, because you're not supposed to have to get some kind of permission just to have a workable gun in your house from the federal government. The bill would also mandate that those who desire to own self-protection devices called firearms would be at least 21 years of age, unless, of course, they're 18 and enter the military,

which I think is so interesting because there is another bill, HB1 that is, quote, a voting rights bill that I'm working through right now and that I will eventually do an episode on. there's just a lot in it. But this bill that probably will be passed by the Democratic Congress that is trying to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. So while they want to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, they also want to raise the age for gun ownership from 18 to 21. And so you are apparently old enough at 16 years old to be able to vote, even though your

frontal lobe is not even close to being developed. like all of us have been 16 before. If you're 16 and you're listening to this, you're a lot smarter than I was at 16 because you actually care about the things that are going on in the world. I have no doubt that you have a lot of wisdom. However, I have been your age before,

and it's just a biological fact that our brains just aren't developed. We don't have that much life experience at 16. Most of us were under our parents' roof. We have no idea how taxes work. We have no idea how the world works. We don't know really how politics work. We don't know how it works to get a paycheck.

We don't know. any of that. So the idea that we should be voting at age 18, but you can't defend yourself until you are 21 years old. So you've been in college for two years and you're not allowed to defend yourself until you're 21. That doesn't seem just. That doesn't seem right at all. If you don't think that an 18 year old is able mentally to be able to operate a gun, that a 16 year old certainly isn't able mentally to be able to vote. That would be my argument. Anyway, the article goes on, whereupon they might be able to. ordered to conduct unconstitutional activities in the United States and around the globe.

So they're saying, so let me just read that all together. The bill would also mandate that those who desire to own self-protection devices called firearms be at least 21 years of age unless, of course, they're 18 and entered the military whereupon they might be ordered to conduct unconstitutional activities in the U.S. and around the globe. Americans wanting to own firearms would also have to pass a have to pass a federal created psychological evaluation. And this is where it ties into what we were talking about at the beginning of the podcast. In order to get that wonderful government license, require passage of

a psych test of anyone else in the home, mandate a government agent doing an interview with one's spouse or ex-spouse prior to issuance of the license, mandate the annual $800, $800 purchase of firearm owner insurance, ban certain kinds of ammo, and any magazine that, holds more than 10 rounds of ammo, mandate the purchase of a license to get ammo, continue to mandate a national background check, require at least 24 hours of training, as well as live fire training for those who want to own military-style firearms, which, as the feds have shown, is a turn that politicians apply to virtually any gun that they choose. Like, there's not an objective definition of military-style firearms, and would require reapplication for the renewal of said license every few

years. So this is just making it as hard as possible to own a gun. A psych evaluation, not just for you, but also for the people in your house. Maybe that sounds good to you, but you understand, again, that those evaluations are going to be very subjective. You honestly think that a federal government that is run by Democrats and who calls any kind of conservatism these days, extremism and domestic terrorism is going to allow any conservative to own a gun? Like these psychological evaluations are probably going to be partisan. They're going to be biased against certain kinds of belief systems. Do you honestly think they're going to want a Christian and conservative to be able to own a gun?

No. And that's, I think, partly the point of this. But also I want to point out that making it more expensive and more cumbersome to own a gun is probably not going to affect a lot of the people, a lot of the wealthy people that own guns. These pieces of legislation always disproportionately affect poor people, people who can't afford to pay the $800. For example, every year to be able to own a gun, they don't have the time or they just don't have the resources to be able to jump through

all of these hoops to be able to defend themselves. And so it's almost always poor people that are negatively affected. by these bills that makes it much harder for them to be able to defend themselves. And a lot of these poor people live in these inner city communities where the majority of gun violence and the majority of homicide, the majority of these violent crimes are happening. And so all you're doing is making it harder for innocent people to defend themselves. That's all you're trying to do here. Because criminals are going to own guns.

They're going to find a way to own a gun. If someone unfortunately wants to shoot up a school, if someone wants to go commit a crime, they are not worried about whether or not they're in compliance with Sheila Jackson Lee's new bill or new law if it actually gets passed. That's just the reality of it, that these pieces of legislation, all they do is they stop innocent people from being able to protect themselves easily. It doesn't actually stop any kind of crime. I mean, if you look at somewhere like Chicago, some of the strictest gun laws in the world,

you also have the highest proportion of gun violence. I mean, that's true in all these inner cities. And you can't blame the states with loose gun laws for all the crime that's happening in these inner cities, where the gun restrictions are so strict. And the reason why this connects at all to what we were talking about is this definition of who is actually acceptable to be able to own a gun and who is not based on the psychological evaluation, based on the opinions of the people who are in charge. Again, they are trying to determine a form of reality and a form of acceptability that is based not on any objective standard,

but just on their subjective belief that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves how they see fit. This is, of course, this entire bill is against the Second Amendment. I don't think it would stand up in court, which is just another reason why we should be so worried about the future of the Supreme Court, which is really the only barrier right now between the American people and Democratic-controlled White House and Congress who have many radical things in mind and far-left policies in mind. But of course, they want to pack the court, which is going to depend also on the future of the filibuster. So if you think the almost 40 executive, orders, radical executive orders that Joe Biden has signed and the past couple of weeks was any

indication of where this administration and where this Congress is going, we haven't seen anything yet. Like they are just getting started on the things they want to pass and push. And the Second Amendment, just like the First Amendment is absolutely in their line of sight. All right, we have time. And so I'm going to talk about this one story that I think is, it's super sad. And you're not going to hear about it on CNN. It's not going to be trending on social media. You'll see it in places like The Blaze. I actually saw it in Huffington Post, but of course they left out, I think, a lot of analysis in it. The reason why this is pertinent is because the person that's at the center of this was on the Food Network. She was a Food Network reality star, like World's Worst Cooks or America's Worst Cooks or something like that. And she has been charged with murder along with her husband. And we'll talk about, you know, why I think this is significant and what this has to do with a lot of the narratives that are surrounding race and surrounding truth and surrounding the idea of what justice and equity is and all of that in just one second. All right, let's talk about this tragic story. I really don't want to

talk about it because it's going to cause me to have to say controversial things about a very sensitive topic, but that's what we do. And because most people probably won't cover this or most mainstream outlets probably won't cover it. I think that it's incumbent upon us to do so. So this is according to the Blaze. Police allege that Ariel Robinson 29 and her husband, Jerry Robinson 34, inflicted a series of blunt force injuries on their adopted child, Victoria Rose Smith. I guess I should stop there and say that there is trigger warning to this story. I'm talking about child abuse. And so if you're listening with your kids in the car, this is something that you just don't want to listen to. You might want to fast forward to the very end.

so just FYI. The parents called 911 on January 15th to report that the child was unresponsive. When medical professionals arrived, they immediately suspected child abuse, according to the heavily redacted police report. Smith was taken to a hospital. This is the little girl. I believe that she's four years old. Yep.

Smith was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. WYFFTV reported the two were charged with homicide by child abuse. the TV station reported Ariel Robinson is best known for winning season 20 of the Food Network Show worst cooks in America. In August 2020, the network deleted the season where she won after she was charged with murder of her adopted child. Also, and we'll put a picture up from the blaze of this mother and her adopted four-year-old little girl.

What I think is missing in a lot of the analysis, thankfully the Blaze, including this, but of course, this was not mentioned in the Huffington Post article that talked about this simply because she was on the Food Network. There was a tweet that she sensed just a couple weeks ago. In my house, my black children get treated the same as my white children and my white children get treated the same as my black children. It's a shame that when they go out into the real world, that won't be the case. Hashtag white privilege, hashtag black lives matter.

So I'm going to resist trying to attach this story to the larger, problem of this kind of language of chastising and condemning a group of people because of their skin color and victimizing a whole group of people because of their skin color and pitting the pitting the two races against each other because I don't like it when people take a single story and then attach that to a larger narrative without any kind of correlation. It's really hard for me not to do that. but I still think that I can talk about the problems with this kind of idea in relation to this story without saying, I'm not saying that everyone who talks about white privilege, even though I disagree with

that phrase, and everyone who talks about this kind of thing is leading to the kind of violence that we saw. Obviously, this woman and her husband, who apparently, allegedly, both beat this child to death. I mean, they probably have some kind of mental health issue. I can't imagine that anyone stable would be able to do something, would be able to do something like this, whatever kill a child and especially kill a child in this kind of vicious way. And so I'm not trying to attach what she said to everyone who says something like, you know, white privilege, black and white people are treated different in this country. But I do think, like I said, that I can use this situation to speak to the problems with this

kind of mentality because think about this. Just think about this illogic for just a second that this woman who allegedly killed her child, her four-year-old little girl, who had been in foster care for several years, whose parents gave her up supposedly because of poverty, because they couldn't take care of her. Previous families that had had her in foster care said that this little girl was beautiful. She was a light. She was so sweet. And she brought so much. joy to their family, this family that ended up apparently killing her. They were able to adopt her. And this woman is saying, she's apparently a comedian, this Food Network star, Ariel, is saying

that her child has white privilege, that her white children that I guess she adopted have white privilege and that her black children are underprivileged because they won't be treated the same way in the world. So think about this, that her white child, she is saying. has white privilege who is given up by her biological parents and praise God that they chose life and that they decided to do that, that they bravely chose adoption instead of abortion. This child who was given up by her biological parents, who has been in foster care for the four years of her tiny life, who has gone from family to family, was finally adopted by a family,

finally had a mom and a dad who took her in, who didn't beat her to death and murdered her. Does that sound like white privilege to you? Is that the kind of privilege that you're hoping to cash in on? Like, did her privilege protect her from being murdered by her adopted parents? And this woman who had joked, there's a video of her joking to social workers about putting her kids in cages so that the social workers don't know, like, how crazy her kids are so she's able to adopt other kids. Like, does that not show a level of privilege that this poor little girl didn't have?

this is also the problem with critical race theory in how you interpret this story. If you believe in the tenets of critical race theory, which says that America is endymically racist, that it's systemically, institutionally, irrevocably racist, and sees all personal interactions, all pieces of legislation, all policies through the lens of white and black. White, the party of the oppressors and black people, the party of the oppressed, no matter individual experiences, no matter individual culpability or innocence, it categorizes people into white, non-white, and places them in categories of the oppressor versus the oppressed based on that skin color, which forces you logically to believe that even children, even innocent children

are part of, are complicit in our beneficiaries of this racist anti-black system. That is what critical race theory logically asserts. And so if you believe that, then you look at a story like this, and you have to then deduce that this child is a product of privilege, that she is on the side of the oppressor, and that this charged murder is still on the side of the oppressed. That's the only option that critical race theory gives you. So don't you understand how it subverts truth, how it subverts justice? Now think about if that kind of critical race theory mentality is placed into our justice. system that if all people of one skin color are oppressed and all people of another skin color are on the side of the oppressor, then how does that hold up in a court of law? Like, is this little

girl, is she still seen as the side of the oppressor? Is she not seen as a victim because of her white privilege? And these two people who murdered her are they seen as the side of the oppressed or they let off for some reason because they have been oppressed their whole life? And because of their skin color. Like you see how that subverts justice, right? How that subverts the objective idea of right and wrong. How there is no impartiality behind that. There's no truth behind that.

There's no mercy behind that. There's no compassion behind that. This idea that people, because of a skin color that they didn't choose, are born into privilege and are therefore complicit in a racist system until they become, I don't know, anti-racist and that people with another skin color are always irrevocably on the side of the oppressed. and should be treated differently than white people, like that's going to lead to you looking at a

story like this and not being able to draw just conclusions. So that's the point I want to make. I'm not trying to make the point that this person, that critical race theory is all to blame for what happened to this little girl. Obviously, these parents are sick in the head and hard-hearted and calloused and terrible and awful people, if they truly did, kill this poor child. But I am making the point that the reason why you are not seeing this story plastered on every headline, the reason why the Instagram account, no white saviors, isn't talking about

this, but they would be if the races were reversed. The reason why this isn't the center of every mainstream media story and hasn't been for the last few weeks is because it doesn't fit into critical race theory. It doesn't fit into this new worldview and this brave. new world in which we live that says everyone of one group is oppressed and everyone of one group is an oppressor and we're not allowed to talk about the stories in which those categories are actually reversed. That is why you're not seeing this talked about. And that has real tangible implications if that truly does infiltrate itself into our justice system, into our

definitions of what truth is, what morality is, what right and wrong is, and what justice looks like. that's a problem. That's a problem. May justice be done? To these parents who allegedly killed their four-year-old little adopted girl, may we start caring about instances of injustice that don't fit into the popular mainstream narrative of what we're supposed to care about? May our outrage not be driven by hashtags and by social movements, by what's popular, by what's posh. May we not just engage in performative activism that posts a black square because the celebrities in our lives told us that that's what it looks like to be compassionate? Let us be as God tells us to be as Christians, which is impartial, which is caring about instances of injustice,

whether it's a black person killing a white person or a white person killing a black person, let us actually look for the truth and care about both situations equally. Unfortunately, that idea of caring about things equally based on what actually happened, what is true and real culpability and real justice is no longer in vogue. But again, again, if we are people who care about truth, if we care that two plus two equals four and not five to be able to maintain our, to maintain our sanity, we have to care about things like this too. All right, that's all I got for today. Tomorrow I'm super excited about the episode. I will be talking to Dr. Christina Crenshaw. She is a professor at Baylor who is, um,

under fire for sending a tweet saying that, hey, what if I don't want my daughters to share a bathroom with a biological boy? What about the 99% of us who don't want Title IX to be expanded? Well, of course, some people in the cancel mob came after her, tried to get her fired, sent her mean messages and all this stuff. And this show was actually the only interview that she has accepted so far. She is in studio and we're having a conversation about all that. We've already recorded a really, really good conversation, super insightful. She is a conservative Christian and has really good advice and wisdom for all of us. So make sure you tune into that conversation tomorrow. I'll see you guys then.