Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 483 | Refuting Propaganda on Ivermectin, Abortion & Afghanistan ​| Guest: Liz Wheeler

Episode Date: September 7, 2021

Today we're excited to be talking to Liz Wheeler, host of the Liz Wheeler Show. We've got lots of crazy stories floating around the news to discuss, and we start off with the ongoing reactions to Texas' heartbeat law, which is now in effect. For some reason, the Left is furious that women in Texas won't be able to get abortions after about six weeks without abortionists getting sued. Even Biden and AG Merrick Garland are promising to fight the legislation, but do they really have any power to do so? Speaking of Biden, our next topic is Afghanistan and the hostage crisis that is now clearly unfolding. Lastly, we talk about the completely made-up story that Rolling Stone ran about people in Oklahoma overdosing on ivermectin. --- Today's Sponsors: Annie's Kit Clubs help your kids master new, hands-on skills while expressing their creativity. Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE & save 75% off your first shipment! Good Ranchers have traveled the US and met with the actual farmers that raise the livestock to ensure their craft beef and better than organic chicken they are sending to your table is the very best. Go to GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE to get $20 off & free express shipping! Or if you subscribe today, you'll save 20% on each box of mouth-watering meals. Alliance Defending Freedom needs your support now more than ever with the family, freedom, and even basic biological reality under constant attack. Join the growing number of Americans standing in solidarity to defend freedom and liberty at ADFLegal.org/ALLIE. --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

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

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to relatable. Happy Tuesday. Hope everyone had a wonderful Labor Day weekend. Today I'm talking to my friend Liz Wheeler. We are going to spend the first part of our conversation talking about some of the propaganda that you have seen coming out about the Texas. abortion law. And just a note on that, I am actually talking to someone today, just a private conversation with someone who kind of helped draft the Texas law. And I'm going to ask them some questions because I just want to say, like I have some questions too about how this Texas law is going to work. There are a few things that have kind of troubled me that I've seen come out about

it. And so I just want to get some clarity. And so later this week, hopefully I'll have the opportunity to share some clarifying answers that I get about this law. But Liz and I are going to talk about some of the abortion arguments that you're hearing and some of the false narratives that you're hearing surrounding not just the Texas law, but abortion in general. We are also going to talk about Biden's response, authoritarian response to the law and his mishandling of Afghanistan the latest on that and the hostage situation that's going on there with American citizens, unfortunately. And then we're going to briefly talk about some of the

propaganda, again, that has come out about Ivernecked in this crazy Rolling Stone story that ended up being totally debunked and what that means about our trust and our public health institutions and how that has deteriorated so much. So a wide-ranging conversation, She's awesome. If you don't know her, you're going to love her. Without further ado, here is Liz Wheeler. Liz, thank you so much for joining us. I think everyone listening and watching knows exactly who you are, but just in case, can you tell everyone who you are and what you're up to? Of course. First of all, Ali, thank you so much for having me today. I feel like you and I have been trying to make this happen for at least a year. But one of us was having a baby if the other one was not. We didn't get to do this until now. I host the Liz Wheeler Show podcast. It's a brand new video podcast that we just launched in May, which is really exciting. Before that, I hosted a top-rated cable news show on One American News for the past five years.

I've written a book on how everyday Americans, how we all can debate liberals in, you know, whether it's school, home, family, just in your life, debate tactics for getting past some of their talking points. I'm a Christian, a practicing Catholic, conservative activist. And, you know, you and I have known each other for a long. time. We've kind of grown up, I think, in this world together. And like I said, it's really great to be able to sit down and talk to you. You are awesome. You set such a wonderful example for conservatives, especially for conservative women. You are so clear in everything that you say, you're concise in everything that you say, while also remaining tactful and eloquent. And that balance is very difficult to strike. And you do it really well. And I'm so glad that we were finally able to

get together. I was excited to have you on today because I have so much to talk about and I thought, okay, who's someone that I can talk to that can talk about anything, that I know that if I launch any question at them, they'll be able to answer it well. And you are that person. And the first thing I want to talk about, because it's something that you and I are so passionate about, is this Texas abortion law last week on the show we went through what the law actually says, what it does, what it accomplishes and what it doesn't do. And we went through some of, you know, the abortion arguments as you've done as well on your show and on social media. And the propaganda that we have seen over the past few days, I mean, the way that people

have twisted what the law actually says, the way that they have tried to do all kinds of mental and moral gymnastics to try to justify the slaughtering of unborn babies, I don't think that I've seen them this passionate pro-choices, this passionate about something. I don't know, maybe since Kavanaugh, what's your take on everything that you've seen over the past few days? Oh, yeah. I was going to make the same comparison. I'm not sure that we've seen the pro-abortion activists this rabid since Kavanaugh, since they were mailing coat hangers to Senator Susan Collins's house after she chose to vote in favor of his nomination. I mean, they're desperate. They're desperate and they should be desperate because we are past culturally. We are past this point in our culture where abortion should be acceptable. Not that it ever should have been. to begin with. But we're past the point that all of the original pro-abortion arguments could ever hold water. We're past the point where there's a question of scientifically when a life begins. We're past the point of people being confused about whether it's about the woman's body,

whether it's about the baby's body. We're past the point of what it means to be pro-life, whether you have to support essentially socialist policy agenda items in order to call yourself pro-life. We're past the point where we as a nation should accept the fact that every, Every year, almost a million unborn babies are slaughtered just for the mother's convenience. Again, all of the talking points have been debunked. We know it's not the majority of abortions, the vast, vast majority of abortions are not about rape, they're not about incest, they're not about life of the mother. Even late-term abortions are not about fetal abnormalities.

If you do the studies, if you look at the polling, if you look at the surveys, it's all about convenience. Now, that being said, we should be tremendously compassionate, of course, to women that find themselves in this position, whether they didn't intend to be pregnant, or whether they're worried about how to make it work, whether they're being pressured by a partner to abort the baby. We should be compassionate. And as pro-lifers, we should support these women and help them

and give them the resources and the love and the care that they need. But none of that takes away from the heart of the matter, is what I like to call it, unironically, given what the pro-abortion activists are talking about this week. But we should be compassionate, but it doesn't take away from the humanity of that child. And the heart of the matter is that unborn child scientifically, morally, ethically, and yes, legally is an independent individual person with DNA separate from the mother and therefore should be protected under the law just like you, Allie, or like me.

Yep. The Goopmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. And according to their own reporting, fewer than less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest. And that's not to discount those cases. Obviously, we think those cases are horrendous. We think rape is horrendous. We think it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But the point that pro-lifers make is that, okay, but we also can't discount the life of the child, that the circumstances surrounding a person's conception doesn't make them any less of a person. And therefore, it doesn't make them any less deserving of human rights.

And I'm sure you get a ton of questions about, okay, how would you respond to this post? How would you respond to this talking point in favor of abortion? and I always say, look, just always bring it back to the life that is in the woman's womb. Because every talking point is pretty much a red herring when it comes to abortion. They bring up, like you said, all of these different policies that you apparently have to support in order to call yourself pro-life. They bring up all of what they see as hypocrisies of the pro-life movement in order to try to defend their position.

But I haven't seen anyone on the pro-abortion side really try to wrestle with the court argument that pro-lifers make that, look, this is a human being? In what other circumstance is it justified to kill a human being because they're not wanted or because they might be poor or because they might have a hard life? In what other circumstances that justified and why is it justified for this life just because it's in the womb? What else do you have to say to people who are, you know, struggling to kind of make sense of the propaganda and the pro-abortion arguments? What advice do you have? Sure. Well, there's a couple things. So the point that you're making essentially can be condensed into just asking the question, what is the limiting principle on the arguments being made by the pro-abortion left? What would limit this to just life in the womb, just these unborn babies growing inside their mothers?

If we're allowing society, if we're allowing abortionists to end the life, brutally end the life of these babies based on convenience, based on the idea that they're dependent, based on the idea that they're quote unquote not sentient, then what is the limiting principle? Why wouldn't that apply to a three-month-old outside of the mother who is reliant on the mother's body, who is reliant on the mother's care, who is not able to take care of themselves, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Why wouldn't this apply to people in comas who are, quote, unquote, not sentient? You know, there's no limiting principle. on the abortion argument, which is kind of what we saw last year, last year or the year before, I forget which one, from Virginia Governor Ralph Northam when he was essentially arguing about, you know, abortion after birth, which is infanticide. I mean, we see the extreme of these arguments because it's really not the extreme of the arguments. It's just the logical conclusion of the arguments that abortionists are making. And I talked about this exact thing on an episode of my show from today because Joy Reid over at MSNBC did a monologue late last week. where she tries to redefine the term pro-life and say,

you can't call yourself pro-life. Republicans can't call themselves pro-life unless, and then she gives all these caveats to whether or not you can be pro-life. And so I go through them on my show one by one and say, well, that's obviously not true, because everything else notwithstanding, you still have to ask yourself two questions. When does life begin?

And if life begins at conception, what right do we have to end that life? If you can get past those two questions and still make your case for abortion, okay, try to make it for me. I'd love to hear it because you're going to make an argument that maybe I've not heard because no abortion advocate will actually entertain that question. The other thing, Allie, and this is a really useful tool, I think, for people listening to this or just conversations with your friends, whether you're in high school or college,

at, you know, your Bible study, wherever you are in a political group, is to actually ask the what is it-ness of abortion. So when we're talking about abortion, we're not talking about POC, which is what abortionists call the products of conception, We're not talking about a, quote, pregnancy, because of pregnancy, you have to ask, what is it? We're talking about the termination, meaning the death, the deliberate killing of an unborn child. And this is what live action, for example, does really well, is they make those animated videos that show the tactics, the tools, what actually the procedure of abortion is. And that changes people's mind, because when they understand that life begins a conception and that an abortion through either chemical, basically burning the baby, starving the baby, suffocating the baby, or physically,

pulling the baby apart, as horrendous as this all sounds, when they realize what it is, then people's minds change. And so those are the two tactics I use when I'm talking, either about abortion or to someone who supports abortion. And it really does give people pause when they understand the humanity and then what we're doing deliberately to end that humanity. Yep. I asked on Instagram people to tell me how they became pro-life if they once considered themselves pro-choice or pro-abortion. And just a note on that term pro-abortion, a lot of people like to say, well, it's not the same thing. I'm pro-choice. I'm not, I'm not pro-abortion. No one's pro-abortion. First of all, that's certainly not true that no one is pro-abortion. Their

organizations, one example is shout your abortion. That is very pro-abortion. People are becoming more unabashed about that. And when I testified before Congress on pro-life legislation under the Trump administration, I quoted from a New York magazine article that actually argued that abortion is a moral good. The dismembering of babies is a moral good. And so yes, people are pro abortion. And by the way, pro choice and pro abortion, they still end up with the same consequences. And so that's why really those terms can sometimes be interchangeable. But I asked people on Instagram, what made you pro-life? What made you anti-abortion? And the two most most common answers, and it was usually a mixture of them. Number one was I became a Christian,

or I thought I was a Christian, and then I realized I wasn't really a Christian because I started reading my Bible and praying, or I switched churches, and I just realized, oh, what I was doing wasn't really Christianity. It was some form of spiritualism that didn't align with the Bible at all, and Jesus changed my heart, and it was undeniable to me that this was a human. And then number two was what you said, like seeing what abortion actually is. And, and it was, and I was, and and thinking through it. So that means that really the big reasons why people typically are pro-abortion is because of some kind of, it's a spiritual matter. It's a heart matter for a lot of people. And also the second thing, and I think this is a huge one, is that people really just have not

thought about it. They just haven't thought about it. They don't know what abortion is. Someone told me that they ended up looking up live actions videos to try to equip themselves as a pro-choicer so they can really arm themselves and know what they're defending. And then they ended up just totally breaking down and realizing, wow, I can't believe that I once defended this. And it's amazing, isn't it? And this is, I think, something that you and I have experienced, Allie, as Christians who are outspoken Christians, practicing Christians in the public eye,

even in politics. It's not always popular to be so. But it is easy because all you have to do is open the Bible to know that life begins at conception that we're fearfully and wonderfully made, that we're all made in the image of God, that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. I mean, you can go on and on and on about how clear it is that God intends us not to end the lives of unborn babies in our wombs. But what's really interesting as Christians, and this is not all policy, but this is like the fundamental moral policies from government is they don't contradict, they don't contradict biblical teaching.

And so if you're in a situation as a Christian where your political view is somehow contradictory, of the Bible. You should open your Bible. You should go to church. You should listen to your spiritual director because you're getting it wrong if there's a policy that is absolutely contradictory. The secular argument in favor of just what we would call ethics, secular ethics, is almost always. I can't actually think of an exception in line with biblical morality because that's the basis of our society, right? Secularists pretend that we've just created this system of ethics ourselves, but no, it's not. I mean, all of our laws from laws against rape, laws against burglary, laws against murder, laws against, you know, every, every moral issue is based in

biblical ethics, is based in the gospel, is based on what God told us is the way to order our lives and treat our fellow men as brothers and sisters in Christ. And so it's easy for you and me to be, to say, well, of course, God says it's a person from the moment of conception that he knew us before we were formed in our mother's womb. And it's just great that it's also in line with science and it's also in line with secular ethics. But I don't know. It's sometimes people are afraid, I think,

to talk about the Christian aspect. But it's important to do that too. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true

about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed,

you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Well, secularists certainly try to come up with in, you know, a code of ethics that they say is just grounded in, humanism, but you actually find that many times people who call themselves humanists are very contradictory in their set of ethics because they don't have this kind of biblical foundation. And so they might say that they are for the vulnerable, for the marginalized, but they might also consider themselves pro-abortion or pro-choice. And that just goes to show when you don't know where this moral law comes from that we all ascribe to, whether we say so or not,

when you don't know the moral lawgiver, it's very easy for your worldview to break down. And just adding to what you said about kind of the Christian ethic, the biblical view being the basis of our laws, that doesn't mean that we think that we are dictated by all of the laws that ancient Israel was dictated by because we are not modern day Israel in America. But you're talking about, as I've talked about many times, the basic moral law of do not murder, not steal. These things were the foundation of American law, the idea that we are all made equal by a creator that has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. The idea that property is something that we should have a right to own. This is in the Judeo-Christian ethic.

That's where that comes from. That doesn't mean we apply every law of Israel to the law today. We don't live in a theocracy. Neither of us are advocating to live in a theocracy. and that's one point that people make when it comes to abortion, that fine, you can be against abortion, but look, you know, you can't impose that on me just because you're a Christian. Well, I mean, like you said, Liz, okay, well, the laws against theft, the laws against murder are also based in the same Christian ethic that you say should not have, you know, shouldn't have any place in our laws whatsoever. And I want to say one thing that I want to get you to respond to. And you can respond to what I just said, too, if you're interested in that.

But speaking of religion, the Temple of Satan in Texas are the ones apparently that are, you know, on the front lines against this Texas law effectively banning abortions after six weeks. And they're saying, you know what? We're going to include abortion up to 24 weeks under our, it's our religious freedom as the Temple of Satan. Like, this is one. one of the religious practices that we do child sacrifice up to 24 weeks is what they're saying. And so they're going to fight getting around the abortion law that way. And I just have to say, like, if you as a Christian find yourself on the side of the temple of Satan, then maybe, I don't know, maybe you're on the wrong side.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty telling that the temple of Satan is taking the side of the pro-abortion activists here. I mean, they are on the same side of this. So there's two things to say. So abortion is child sacrifice because you're essentially trading a soul for material, material success, if you will, or material items. You're trading it for convenience. You're trading it for flexibility. You're trading it for the ability to live your life the way that unencumbered, I should say, because it's not even a positive, unencumbered by the responsibilities of a child after you have partaken in the responsibilities or of the privileges of adulthood, I should say. So obviously abortion is child sacrifice.

you are trading that soul for materialism in a sense. So we also have a legal tradition in our country. I don't want to get bogged down in nitty-gritty details, but we have a religious tradition in our country that no, you of course have a right. It's codified in our First Amendment to exercise your religion the way you see fit, but it isn't without limits. I mean, if I, and this is obviously hypothetical,

but if my religion said that I needed to sacrifice an adult human being or murder a human being once a year, you know, at the temple of whatever, the flying spaghetti monster, I don't have a right to do that just because it's my religion. And the reason for that, this is very important. The reason for that is because it violates somebody else's fundamental God-given human right to life. So that's true for any time that you're practicing your religion. You, of course, have a right to practice your religion, even in the public sphere,

not even just in your house of worship or in your home, up to the point that it violates someone else's constitutionally protected, meaning God-given inherent human right. The Temple of Satan, as always, is very, very wrong and easy to debunk and easy to call out on every level, morally, legally, ethically with the gospel. And so that's ridiculous. The other thing, just going back to the you're mentioning of a theocracy, of course I don't support a theocracy. And here's why. I mean, the reason that I don't support a theocracy is because everyone has a right to make choices. And when I say everyone has a right to make choices, I'm not talking about abortion.

I'm talking about choices about their own salvation, because this is a choice that God gave us. He gave us the ability to choose him or to choose Satan, to choose to do the right thing or to choose to reject him. And that's the fundamental, that's a fundamental of the gospel, that we are not animals. We are not just instinctually going to follow him. That we have to make that choice. It's what makes love what love is. It's what makes our love for Christ, what it is, what makes Christ's love for us what it is. And so in our society, even politically outside of religion, we have that same choice.

We can choose to do the right thing. we can choose to do the wrong thing. There are many wrong things that are permissible under the law. You can be unfaithful to your spouse. It's morally wrong. It's probably going to lead to the breakdown of your marriage.

But you have a right to do that. That's not against the law. I know there's nitty gritty laws some places. But in general, that's not against the law to do that. But it is morally, it is morally wrong. That only the limit here, and this is what I always say on my show, the limiting principle is when your actions violate

the constitutionally protected rights of somebody else. And so that's why the so-called choice of a woman to have an abortion is not about her own body. It's not about her right to make bad decisions because it infringes and violates the most important right of that separate unborn child in her room, that child's right to life. Yep. And I'm against Theocracy for, I mean, I think we probably land, I mean, we obviously land in the same place ultimately that we are not for Theocracy, obviously. like we're not even really debating that. And all the people who say, oh, Christian conservatives are just like Joy Reid, like you said, are for some, you know, like Christian nationalist theocracy. No, that's absolutely not true. We don't see, well, first of all, I mean, people know on here. I'm a Calvinist. And so there are some things that you said that you're also a Catholic, I'm a Protestant. So there are some things that we disagree with, of course, when it comes down to theology. But I come at the anti-theocracy. stands from the point of we don't see any biblical precedent for it. I mean, the only biblical precedent that you see for a theocracy is Israel. And that's God's chosen people. America is not

God's chosen nation, even if we think America is exceptional. And in the New Testament, like, that's not what we see Jesus do. He doesn't command us to go out and build a theocracy. But the balance is everyone, no matter your worldview, no matter your background, no matter your belief system, you are trying to influence people around you in the spheres you occupy with your worldview. Progressives do that. Christians do that. And that's okay. It's okay for us to say, yes, we believe that if we align with biblical morality on these things, that individuals and communities and societies will be better. That doesn't mean that we want to dictate everything you do in accordance with the Bible. But there is absolutely a balance. And there is, we do have an

interest in influencing the spheres we occupy with Christian values in the same way that an atheist wants to influence the spheres they occupy with their values. Okay, I want to, I want to ask you about Joe Biden, and this will kind of transition us, but I want to get your take on what he says about what he said about this whole Texas law. So he tweeted on the second, the Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade. Complete strangers will now be empowered to inject themselves in the most private of health decisions. Health decisions. The law does not even allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

Rather than use its supreme authority to ensure justice could be fairly sought. Of course, we know that he did not write these tweets. There is no way. The highest court of our land will allow millions in Texas in Texas, need of critical reproductive care, another Orwellian term, to suffer while courts sift through procedural complexities. And then he goes on about how he disagrees with the, with the conclusion of the majority of the court. And his last tweet says, I am launching a whole of government effort to respond to this decision, looking specifically to HHS and DOJ to see what steps the federal government can

take to insulate those in Texas from this law and ensure access to safe and legal abortions as protected by row. What is your take on that? Well, I think it's really interesting. So this is procedural nitty-gritty, as he mentions. That might be the one accuracy in that in that entire tweet thread there. It is procedural nitty-gritty. And the reason for that is because we, meaning the pro-life movement, this doesn't have to be conservatives, doesn't have to be Republicans. It's everybody who believes in the sanctity of human life and that abortion is wrong. We in the pro-life movement have created a great vision. I'll say it like that. We have created a great victory for ourselves culturally, meaning we have

been successful in changing people's hearts and minds on abortion. We have changed public opinion on abortion. And I'll give an example here so that I'm not being vague. There is no topic, perhaps more polarizing than the topic of abortion, except when you ask people privately when they think abortion should be restricted by the government. For example, 80% of the American people, That is, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, pro-life and pro-abortion, 80% of people think that late-term abortion, third trim abortion, should be prohibited by the government. It's not just late-term abortions. 60%. That's a huge majority, by the way, on any issue. If you have 60% majority, it's a very big number. 60% think that second-term abortions should be prohibited by the government.

So the reason that we see laws popping up around the country in states like Texas to this effect is because the people of the United States want restrictions on abortion. We're one of, I think, seven countries around the world, including China and North Korea, who allow late-term abortions. We are at the very extreme end of abortion laws, even for liberal countries in Europe, for example, we have, the United States of America has more permissive laws on abortion, less protective laws for the unborn than most states. So over the past, you know, 30, 40, 50, 60 years, the pro-life movement has exerted a tremendous successful effort to change people's hearts and minds.

So what happens first culturally is then translated politically. Now politically, in states across the country, pro-life legislators have successfully passed laws because their people want it, codifying the protection of unborn babies in the womb. The problem, of course, is that all of these laws come against the buttress of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade saying that even states have no right to restrict abortion access to women. No right whatsoever except in late-term abortion after viability. That was the precedent in Planned Parenthood versus Casey. So we have this conflict, this contradiction between what the people want and what the states want

versus what the Supreme Court arbitrarily ruled about Roe v. Wade. So of course, I know this is exactly what liberals don't want to happen. But what we need to do is we need to acknowledge, well, Roe v. Wade was wrong. It wasn't based in the Constitution. It wasn't based in science. It's not based in ethics. It's not based in precedent. It's not based in interpretation of what the founders thought, what they believed, what they wrote, what they intended.

Nothing. It's an arbitrarily decided decision based only on the political agenda of radical leftists who wanted abortion to be accessible without limit essentially across the United States because they don't believe in the sanctity of human life. They don't believe in the constitutional values that all people are created equal, that all people have equal protection under the law. So we have to look at Roe v. Wade and say, yes, it's time to revisit this. It's time to overturn it. It's time to kick this back to the states because the people believe differently than what a handful of male Supreme Court justices, you know, half a century ago arbitrarily decided not based on case law. So that's how I would respond to Joe Biden that, yes, we have resorted to procedural tactics because we all know Joe Biden included, the leftists included, the pro-abortion lobby included that Roe v.A. was wrongly decided. excited. Right. And don't you find it strange, especially, I mean, as a devout Catholic, and I know when I bring that up, there are people that say, oh, you know, separation of church and state. Well, we've already established this is not a separation of church and state issue. And everyone operates, you know, from their values. And Joe Biden has said for a very long time, look, you know, well, first of all,

he was for the Hyde Amendment for a long time, which prohibits our tax dollars from federally funding. most abortions. And then he said that he wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment. He used to say he's ready for, or he's willing to accept the Catholic Church's stance that life starts at conception and then he recently flip-flopped on that. He has become very rabid in the way of, in the way of abortion, in the way of being pro-abortion. Of course, Kamala Harris was the most pro-abortion Senator when she was in the Senate. And so it doesn't really, I guess, surprise this coming from this administration, but seeing someone who used to be a moderate, who we were told by, for example, pro-life evangelicals for Biden, that he wasn't really going to be that passionate about being

pro-abortion. Well, he is. And he has actually showing that he cares more about this, a whole of government effort to go after Texas. He cares more about this, it seems like, judging from this Twitter thread that he does about Americans abandoned in Afghanistan, don't you think? Yeah, I mean, I'm not here to say who's going to heaven and who's going to hell. There's one arbiter of those decisions, and it is certainly not me. What I can tell you is that when Joe Biden claims to be Catholic, he is violating the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church. He's violating the fundamental tenets of Christianity. The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception and that we are all made in the image of God,

that our bodies are our temples of the Holy Spirit, all of these, obviously, all of these biblically based beliefs on unborn children. And they teach that abortion is a grave moral evil, that if you are complicit in an abortion, and this includes, by the way, politicians who advocate, who use their positions of power to influence abortions, to influence public policy in favor of abortions, that you are in a state where your salvation is in question.

It's called mortal sin in the Catholic Church, that you're in a state of mortal sin. And so Joe Biden is literally choosing. He is faced with his choice. He's choosing between his own salvation versus, you know, child sacrifice because of his political aspirations. And he's rejecting Christ because we're all made in the image of Christ. So he's rejecting the image of Christ in these unborn children and choosing instead this,

this antichrist, this, this satanic belief about child sacrifice. So like I said, I can't say whether, you know, what's going to happen to his salvation? I can't say whether he's going to heaven or hell. What I can say is that he is rejecting one of the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church. And so I don't know how you can claim to be Catholic while rejecting your beliefs on that. He has also shown, as you mentioned, this terrible disregard for human life in other areas. I don't know what to think of this part of his presidency alley. You mentioned that he didn't write those tweets himself.

I think we all suspect that his agenda is not being dictated by himself. He has surrounded himself in his administration with very, very, very, very much. very radical individuals, whether it's Kamala Harris, as you mentioned, whether it's Javier Bacera at HHS, the former Attorney General in the state of California, very pro-abortion, whether it's the second in command at HHS, a transgender individual from Pennsylvania who thinks it's okay for children to be transitioned genders, even against perhaps the wishes of their parents. I mean, Joe Biden has proven what his political agenda is just by who he's surrounded himself with. And so we don't have to question anymore whether he's a moderate, whether he's

going to be a centrist. We know that he is as radically left as possible and he's willing to use the power of the federal government to push his agenda. It's a, it's a sorry thing to see. One last note, by the way, the idea that he says, I am prepared to accept that life begins at conception, or I think he said that in 2015. He recently contradicted himself. But the fact that he said that he's willing to accept that, but then politically isn't willing to back that up, That would be the same as saying, well, I'm personally anti-rape, but politically I don't want to put that. I don't want to impose that kind of law on anybody. You simply can't be personally pro-life and politically pro-abortion.

It's a fallacy. It's contradiction. It's false. I want to read this one. You mentioned something that reminded me of this quote that I read by Peter Kreeft the other day. He is a Christian professor. He said abortion is the Antichrist demonic parody of the Euchar. That's why it uses the same holy words, this is my body, with the blasphemously opposite meaning.

And I mean, I had never thought about it like that, how it inverts the Eucharist by also saying those sacred words, my body, but using it in such a contradictory and demonic way. And so what you said about choosing the Antichrist when it comes to abortion really stuck out to me because I think I think it's absolutely true and it's very sad. And we really haven't seen throughout Joe Biden's presidency in other areas, a respect for life, especially when we're looking at all of the other divisions of his presidency and his leadership. When you look at the border, when you look at what happened in Afghanistan, when you look at even the economy, we're not seeing this so-called holistically pro-life approach from this administration. Can you tell us like what do you, What else do you think about Joe Biden's leadership right now?

Maybe especially as it pertains to things like the border and what's going on in Afghanistan because I do think those things are kind of tied together. Oh, certainly. I mean, I cannot think of a presidency that's worse than Joe Biden's first eight months in office. My husband's former military, he was a medical officer in the Navy. He was attached to Marines. So it's all, I mean, it's personal for all of us just as Americans. right, when we lose our troops in combat.

But it's particularly heartrending. And this is one, when these 13 American service members were killed, this one hit me particularly hard because I looked at these young men and these young women who were following the direction of their commander in chief, the bad direction of their commander in chief. And I thought, they're willing to lay down their lives. And they did. And it wasn't necessary. This wasn't something where it was like, well, in order to fight off this evil,

sometimes that evil requires, like, that's what happens in war. War is deadly. People on both sides of a conflict die. No, that's not what happened in Afghanistan. What happened in Afghanistan is Joe Biden's political choices that he made deliberately led to the death of these 13 service members, U.S. service members. And, Ali, what's not mentioned a lot is the fact that in that blast, in that bomb, in that terror attack outside of the Kabul airport, there were over 150 Afghans who were killed,

too. 150 other people besides the 13 U.S. service members were killed. And you don't hear about that on the U.S. news. You only hear about these tragedies when it happens to American citizens or American troops. But it's an equal tragedy when 150 other innocent people were killed in this terror attack. And Joe Biden is directly responsible. I know he's not the one that detonated the bomb, but he allowed the Taliban to take over Kabul. He allowed al-Qaeda to gain this hold again in Afghanistan after the U.S.

U.S. had driven them out over the past two decades. He allowed ISIS K to flourish the way that he did in Iraq after he and Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and ISIS went into the vacuum of power there and were able to grow and flourish and export their terrorism around the world. Joe Biden, this is worth than Vietnam. It's worse than Vietnam because we historically know what happens when you capitulate to terrorists. We know what happens when you capitulate to the enemy. We know what happens when you surrender to a terror group and Joe Biden did that anyway. He knew what would happen and he did that anyway. And I think that's why when you ask people, no matter their political affiliation, what they think of Joe Biden's choices in Afghanistan, everybody is horrified.

Everybody hates what he did, except for a few fringe radicals, probably on both sides of the aisle. Because he just disregarded human life. That might be his defining legacy is his utter disregard for human life. Yeah. It reminds me, I mean, it goes back to ideology. for them. And it reminds me of the ideology that drove the Obama administration, this idea that if America flexes its strength, that that's bad for the world. And that actually if America capitulates and if we take America down a notch and we don't flex our muscles, even if it means, you know, saving American civilians in Afghanistan, then things will be okay. If we just capitulate to the Taliban, if we just say, okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, you know, we'll be weak. We'll

back out. And yeah, sure, we'll leave on August 31st. Don't worry about it. And even though, according to the New York Times, there's at least a thousand people, dozens of American citizens, the New York Times says, Afghans holding visas to the United States or other countries. They remain stuck in Afghanistan. This is at least as of Sunday. And, you know, our military leaders have already said, which is not true. I've talked to enough people to know that this is true. Oh, yeah, we didn't have the capacity to get all of these American. out, but we did have the capacity, apparently, to airlift thousands and thousands of Afghans who are not SIVs and they're not necessarily our allies. And I have all the compassion in the world for them.

I'm glad that they got out of Afghanistan. I'm just saying that if American citizenship means anything, which I think that it should, if there is any privilege and any right to being an American citizen, then it should mean prioritizing American lives and rescuing Americans from Afghanistan. But in this situation, you see a total deprioritization of American lives, a complete negligence in trying to capitulate, as you said, to the Taliban. But also, we see a deprioritization of American security when we're seeing that there is a complete lack of vetting process and when we are allowing these Afghan refugees into our country. And again, I'm happy to have a number of Afghan refugees come to America. But when there's no vetting process, I think it's very fair to wonder,

okay, what could possibly be the repercussions of this? And then when you look at the completely open border in rundown border patrol at the southern border, we see that this is an administration who seems to have the motto of America last. We saw this with Obama a little bit, but now we are seeing the full manifestations of it. And I'm very worried about what the consequences might be in the coming months and years. Are you? Yeah, certainly. I mean, I feel the same way about Afghan refugees. If their lives are in danger, which so many of them are, I'm happy that they're able to escape the Taliban. I mean, what we should have done is we should have avoided this circumstance, but not allowing the Taliban to take over. But Joe Biden made that choice to do.

So I read the numbers yesterday. I think it's something like 30,000 Afghan refugees. The U.S. has evacuated 30,000. 10,000 of them were basically flagged. They needed an additional review. Of that 10,000, 100 of them had very troubling backgrounds. And at least two of them weren't even allowed. They were taken to Kosovo, I believe, because they had distinct ties. to terror organizations. So that's only the ones that we know of so far. That's extremely troubling. I mean, to think about those individuals

who haven't been vetted in our neighborhoods per se, I mean, as a mom, that scares me. As a compassionate American, I want people who are in danger to be evacuated from Afghanistan, but I don't want people who are a danger to me and my family, in my neighborhood, in my community,

and my country to be allowed to roam free in our nation. I mean, going back for a second to the idea of American citizens, there are American citizens in Afghanistan who want to be evacuated. We're told by Jen Saki, we're told by the Biden administration that the only people there are people who want to stay there. But, Ali, there's a pregnant American citizen. She's eight months pregnant.

She tried to get to the airport and the Taliban kicked her pregnant belly. I mean, I can barely, I've talked about this story on my show, but I can barely talk about it just thinking of how horrendous that is. She's now in hiding because she fears for her own life and the life of her child. There's a three-year-old boy from California. He's a U.S. citizen. He and his dad tried to get to the airport. they wanted to leave Afghanistan. The Taliban beat them both.

Beat this tiny baby. Beat this three-year-old. I mean, this person wanted to leave Afghanistan. Joe Biden is lying to us because he's not willing to actually stand up for human life. The same thing is happening at our southern border. And I know this is a slight pivot, but it stays in the line in this theme of this disregard for human life. The people that are coming across our border are not just asylum seekers.

Many of them do have sad stories and many of them perhaps deserve asylum after it's been adjudicated in the court system, but many of them are drug cartels, our human traffickers, have prior convictions for things as horrible as child sex abuse and spousal assault and rape and murder and all kinds of violent crimes. They've been convicted and deported and they're trying to come back now. The Biden administration is just releasing them into our country. This is something that, again, it doesn't matter your politics. This is about the basic safety and security of our own families, especially as moms alley. This, I think this is maybe why so many. women so many moms have gotten politically involved lately because they realize that this is not just

a matter of push and pull of politics, who has the best solution for the same problem, that no, this is a fundamentally dangerous ideology for us and our children and our families. And if we don't get involved, who's going to protect us? I think you're right. America last is bad ideology. It is bad foreign policy. It's bad domestic policy. Strong borders. Strong foreign policy is not just compassionate and right for the citizens of this country, which are the only citizens, by the way, that this government has a responsibility to protect. Yes, of course, we also have a responsibility to help out our allies, and that is all important, but their primary responsibility is to look after the welfare of the citizens of this country. And unfortunately, it just seems like this

administration is not doing that. That is not compassionate for migrants who are unfortunately being trafficked across the border. There are incentives, more incentives than ever for trafficking these young children across the border because of the policies of the Biden administration. It's not compassionate for the people in this country either. And going back to some of what you were talking about in the backgrounds of some of these refugees that are coming in, this is according to the New York Post. U.S. officials are looking into reports that elderly Afghan men were permitted to evacuate with young girls. They claimed as, quote, wives, with some of the purported child brides brought to an army base in Wisconsin, according to a report on Friday.

And look, like, this is where this idea of, like, cultural and moral relativism just falls apart, that every culture has their own equally legitimate set of morals that we have no right to say that's good or bad. No, like, we have to be strong in this and say, it doesn't matter what your cultural background is. Taking a child as a bride is not permitted in the United States. And obviously, we have to be strong on. that, but that was according to the Associated Press actually recorded this, or reported on this as

well. And to say that that is somehow xenophobic or that is hateful to say, hang on a second. Like, I have concerns about people, old men who have taken child brides coming into this country and roaming free and what kind of consequence that's going to have on communities. And yet we're kind of being told, like, we shouldn't even be able to voice those concerns because that's somehow racist. I'm just not buying that. Oh, no. I mean, none of us should buy it. I mean, I think of my little baby girl, and I think of this idea that when she's, what, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, that she would be taken as a child bride.

I mean, all you have to do is put your own family in that circumstance, and you know how horrific it is. As you said, it's not racist. It's basic protection of these little girls. We're not just supposed to protect our own families. We're supposed to protect children from child abuse. This is the worst kind of child abuse. It's child sex abuse. These girls are actually reporting to U.S. authorities that these men are raping them.

I mean, it's so horrendous. It's so horrendous. And anybody who's excusing that is complicit in it morally, and it's disgusting. The fact that we're even having this conversation that there's anybody in our country who's even giving an excuse for why this should be allowed is mind boggling. But no, no one should have any qualms about saying stop. No, absolutely not. We're not allowing this. I don't care what your background is.

Yeah, it's when this idea of intersectionality kind of conflicts with human rights. when we see people wanting to, on the left, wanting to kind of ignore this. Now, I think the majority of people who identify as liberal care about, you know, child abuse and things like that, too. So I'm not just painting them with a broad brush and saying, no one on the left cares about this. But in general, there seems to be some disregard of this kind of thing for fear of coming across as racist or xenophobic. And this idea that, you know, or Islamophobic, this idea that we can only criticize. one group of people, we're not allowed to criticize anyone with a higher melanin count. It kind of leads to this contradictory moral worldview. We also see it. There was a report about that case at

we spa in L.A. The woman, and I'll just remind the audience, I'm sure you remember Liz, the woman who came to the front desk of we spa in L.A. and said, hey, there's a dude in the women's locker room. There are young girls in the women's locker room and there's this dude walking around naked and he's, you know, exposing himself to these young girls and we feel very uncomfortable and people shamed this woman in the video saying, oh, you know, this person's transgender. And then there were, I guess, conservatives who protested in front of Wiespa and then there were these people who identify as Antifa coming and protesting the protesters, to defend this supposedly transgender person who was naked walking around in the women's locker room.

Well, it turns out that that wasn't a fake story. This woman reported something that actually happened, that there was a man who, I guess, says that he is a woman walking around in the locker room, exposing himself to young girls. And he has actually been, he's been charged multiple times with the same kind of criminal. crimes. And yet, you have people who literally would rather allow, would rather allow this kind of sexual harassment of young girls by a man than criticize, then criticize him for fear of seeming transphobic. Again, like, this is where that, you know, intersectionality actually takes precedence for some people on the left over human rights, especially children's rights. It's crazy. It's super crazy. And this is why I always say, when you oppose.

when we should, and we should all do this, by the way, when we oppose the idea of letting biological men, even if they identify as women into women's locker rooms or women's bathrooms, it has nothing to do with transgender people, right? It actually has nothing to do with people with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. I'm sure it's an incredible burden. I actually can't imagine what it feels like to feel that you are trapped in a body that's not your own. It is a mental disorder and we should have tremendous, tremendous compassion for people who suffer from that. That being said, compassion does not mean. Compassion does not translate into essentially enabling that delusion.

Just as we don't tell schizophrenic people that the voices that they hear in their head are real, we shouldn't be telling people that suffer from gender dysphoria that what they're feeling is a legitimate feeling. We should be giving them the medical care that they need. So that being the preface of what I'm about to say is that it's not anti-trans to oppose allowing biological men, even if they identify as women, to enter women's bathrooms. It's not about those people at all, because most of the time, the egregious incidents actually have nothing to do with people who sever from gender dysphoria.

The egregious incidents are people who pretend to be trans, but they're actually voyeuristic perverts who are preying on young girls. They are praying on children. They are betraying women's privacy. And so it's of course appropriate for us all to say, hey, as women, as grown women, we don't want to share a locker room with strange men. We don't want to see male genitalia when we're changing our clothes. We don't want our children exposed to that. We don't want, God forbid, our little girl to see something flashing before her eyes that belongs in a male's locker room. And we certainly don't want to let them fall victim to child sex offenders who would use the guise of being transgender, even when they're not, to enter a girl's locker room. So there's two entirely separate arguments to be made.

We can talk about gender being two genders, male and female, corresponding to your body and your DNA and God's design. And then we can talk about the safety issue of being of bathrooms, being open to people of the opposite biological gender, that of course being redundant, I know. And it's not anti-trans to talk about either. We should be standing up and protecting little girls. Yep. I very much agree with you. That's something that we talk a lot about on this podcast and that balance of, you know, saying no matter your background, no matter how you identify, you're someone who's made in the image of God. I want to talk to you. I want to have compassion for you. And I don't want to purposely offend you or, you know, make you feel hated in any way. But look, in every policy,

especially when we're talking about policy and we're talking about public spaces, we have to talk about both sides of the equation. We have to talk about, okay, how can we be compassionate to all people? That means being compassionate towards the girls and women who are in these private and vulnerable spaces, who just a few years ago, we would have recognized have a right to not. be sexually harassed by men in those private spaces. I want to talk about one more story, and this is, again, a pivot, but I guess I can connect it in the way of talking about false narratives, and I can also connect it in the way of talking about a disregard for human life that we were talking about in the first half of the episode. But this really more has to do

with just propaganda. And you're really good at dissecting. protecting propaganda. So I want to talk to you about this Rolling Stone story. I'm sure you saw it, reported on Ivermectin. And the Rolling Stone said they relied on one source from a guy who used to work at a hospital in Oklahoma City. And this guy apparently told the Rolling Stone, hey, yeah, our ICUs are full because people are overdosing on Ivermectin. And a statement was released by this hospital, Northeastern Hospital System, that replied to the Rolling Stone article saying that this huge thing that's happening in Oklahoma, you know, all these right wingers taking

Ivermectin and almost dying from it. While the Northeastern Hospital System says that, okay, yeah, this guy is not an employee of our hospital system. He is affiliated with a medical staffing group that, provides coverage for our emergency room but has not worked at the location that he was talking about in over two months. And by the way, we have not treated anyone for an Ivermactin overdose. And so this story is completely false. Well, Rachel Maddow talked about it on her show. She tweeted about it. She never apologized. She did not take the tweet down. And the Rolling Stone just

issued a correction, but not a retraction, didn't take the tweet down. So now everyone is freaking out about this, pretending like this story is true. It's not true. And guess what? Ivermectin has been used by millions and millions of people for a very long time, very safely. So what is all this about? Yeah, I mean, you identified it correctly at the beginning. It's propaganda. It's also really funny to me, and we'll get to the lies from Rachel Maddow in the mainstream media for a second. It's really funny to me that the mainstream media who claims, they claim, you know, leftists always claim to be the party of science, they keep calling Ivermectin a horse dewormer. or a horse medication.

And there is a livestock version of this drug. It's a more concentrated version. But Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize in 2015 as a human medicine. So anybody who has I done, any journalist, journalist, put that in quotation marks, any journalist or mainstream media talking head or any news publication that's just referring to Ivermectin as a livestock medication is deliberately lying to you.

They're deliberately misrepresenting this drug because it has a human form. And like you said, won the Nobel Prize in 2015. in its human form. Ali, it's been the strangest thing. I think you'll agree with this. It's been the strangest thing the last 18 months to watch the devolution of our public health officials.

And they, of course, have harnessed the mainstream media to help them do their work, to watch the devolution of our public health officials from people of science who are just trying to, I guess, help people. And I don't even want to ascribe that good of motives to them at this point because they've lied to us so much. But the devolution into these political animals who are ignoring science, ignoring studies.

Ivermectin. I have no idea if it works, by the way, against COVID-19. I have no idea. I have not used it myself in that particular circumstance. However, the public health conglomerate, if you will, is so opposed, or they appear to be so opposed to any therapeutic that someone could take after they contract COVID-19, that they are not willing to accept actual studies,

actual data of anything that works, and then incorporate that recommendation into their overall advice on how to treat this pandemic. They are singularly focused on just pushing these vaccines, which, again, I don't care if you get the vaccine. I don't care if you don't get the vaccine. That's your personal choice. I don't think government or the private sector should be involved here. Again, just people's personal choice, not my business, don't care. However, the public health community doesn't feel the same way. They are singularly focused on coercing everybody into doing that. And the only way that their narrative stands up is if they don't accept that there's any other way to prevent COVID-19 from

being fatal in cases where it would otherwise be fatal. I think that's why they rejected at the beginning hydroxychloroquine. They've rejected studies about vitamin D. They've rejected studies about obesity. They've rejected now this emerging data on ivermectin. They don't really talk about monoclonal antibodies that much. They just are singularly focused on this vaccine. So they have to use, they have to use these mainstream outlets as propaganda to push the idea that all of this is hogwash, that any therapeutic aside from the vaccine shouldn't be used. And as you said, it's resulting in lies and shame on all these mainstream outlets for not confirming this before they, before they echoed it and not retracting it when it's been proven to be false,

because it is false. Yep. And I'm not, I mean, I'm not recommending I've been back than either, only because I'm not a doctor and I've never taken it. I have heard positive stories anecdotally. but I've also listened to a lot of doctors who expressed the same sentiments that you did, not just about ivermectin, but other treatments, that this is really unprecedented. One, that the bureaucrats, the NIH and the CDC are trying to tell doctors on the ground what they can and can't do. When doctors on the ground are like, hang on, Dr. Fauci has never treated a patient with COVID. People with the NIH and the CDC are not treating patients with COVID.

We should be telling the CDC and the NIH, these doctors on the ground, are saying what treatments are working. and then those institutions should be distributing these protocols, saying, hey, here's what doctors on the ground are seeing. Here's what has been effective. But instead, because they've politicized it so much, you and they are telling doctors, hey, it doesn't matter what you've experienced. And actually pretty much calling doctors quacks who say, hey, here's a list of, you know, therapeutics that have worked in my personal experience. Doctors are saying, I've personally saved lives. I've personally had great outcomes from a variety of treatments. Those people are getting censored off of YouTube.

Those people are getting, you know, lambasted by the mainstream media as some kind of quacks when they're not. They're just ICU doctors. Like, these are just people that are saving people's lives. And it does make people wonder. I mean, one, it makes people conspiratorial, whether you like it or not, when you feel like, okay, why are they hiding legitimate information from legitimate sources? too it so's distrust as you've already said in institutions that we're supposed to be looking to for guidance in this situation but it absolutely cost lives because then doctors on the ground because they're listening to these institutions they're not treating patients the way that they

should be treating them the way the experience and deductive reasoning tells them to treat them and people are literally dying because of politics and yet you've got people on the left that are accusing people on the right of politicizing this no no no the left is politicized every single piece of this since they figured out that they could use it against Donald Trump in the election. They have it stopped and it's become a religion for them that the tears of holiness just get higher and higher. At first, it was you're super holy and loving your neighbor if you stay inside and you, you know, don't go in to run the restaurant that you own or whatever. And then it was, okay, you're only holy if you wear a mask everywhere, even outside when you're picnicking. Then it was

your only holy if you wear a double mask. And then it was your only holy if you wear a double mask. And then it was your only holy if you get both the vaccines. And now it's, well, you're only going to be truly holy and loving your neighbor if you're getting the booster. And so it just goes on and on. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter like how much you point out the propaganda and the facts against so many of their arguments, whether it's against masking kids or whether it's against, you know,

natural immunity versus vaccine immunity. Some people, it seems like, in our public health institutions, in the media, a lot of constituents, millions of. American citizens do not care about the facts. They are going to cling to this virus and the so-called mitigation measures for as long as possible because it has truly become an identity for them. And it's really sad. It's super sad. I mean, it's almost becoming a mental issue for a lot of people, how they're hiding behind masks because they don't want to socially interact, how they're letting fear dictate their lives, how they're, you know, rejecting facts just in favor of being

docile and compliant deferential to government authorities. It's not a great commentary. actually on the citizenry of our nation. It's very sad to see. It's also very heartening to see how many people are able to say, wait a second, I'm going to think for myself, I'm going to make my own decisions, I'm going to read the studies myself, I'm going to draw conclusions myself.

And if it contradicts the government, I'm going to trust myself because I know better. That is very heartening to see. It is somewhat of a religion. It's certainly, I believe it's a government tactic at this point to control us. I think the reason that we're seeing so much hysteria, even to this day, is because without this hysteria,

hysteria at this point. Without this hysteria, there's going to be no justification for a lot of the electioneering that the Democrats need to win in 2022. There's not going to be any justification for mail and ballots for those 24-hour drop boxes for a lot of the election laws or rules, I should say, that were strong-armed in the months leading up to 2020. There's not going to be any justification for those in 2022. And again, the Democrats need them in 2022 unless there's this ongoing crisis. So I think it's certainly, if it wasn't always political, it's certainly political now, which is why it behooves us all. Share the research. Share your experience. Share what you know. Question authority. Don't worry if someone has a medical degree and you don't. You have reading comprehension. Read those studies yourself. Talk to your friends about them. And ultimately, trust your gut and trust your own reasoning because you're probably right if you think that these government agencies are misleading us. They have been for the last 18 months. Yeah. And that's not to say, like you mentioned trust yourself. I'm not saying that.

Oh, I trust myself, ultimately as a medical expert or a scientist because I'm neither of those things. But like you said, I have reading comprehension. And I am looking at study after study talking about, for example, that really kids wearing masks does not mitigate the spread of the virus at all. Or doesn't stop the spread of the virus at all. And so I'm not just relying on a hunch that I have. I am reading. And I'm not just reading like Holly's whole. holistics.com. Like, I am reading peer-reviewed studies. I am looking at journals before all of this

was politicized. And I'm listening to people that are on the ground, ICU doctors, biologists, who are not conservatives most of the time that have raised flags about, okay, why aren't we treating patients like this? Why is there such a push on this particular vaccine and not on therapeutics at the same time? And so don't stop yourself from asking questions just because you have been lied to that holiness and loving your neighbor means without question accepting everything that the government says. That's just not true. We're seeing what's happening in Australia when people don't question the government. Right. And also remember too, I mean, if we're operating and living our lives, as we should be as Christians, you know, from this biblical standpoint, standpoint, God says to love the

Lord of God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength. I mean, mind is included in that Bible verse for a reason. We're supposed to critically think. You're absolutely right when you say we're not just operating on a hunch here. When I say trust yourself, I mean trust your ability as a thinking individual to put together information, put together research, and be able to logically draw a conclusion and then be able to trust that conclusion because you have reading comprehension, you have understanding, you have actual expert opinions weighing in. That's what I mean when I say trust yourself and we should do that because that is honoring God with our minds because we're made to be thinking individuals. We're not made to be a bunch of sheep.

We're not made to be just a docile citizenry that defers to government officials just because they serve in government. We're a representative society. You know, our republic is a representative republic. These government officials are either supposed to be directly accountable to us if they're in our legislatures or they're supposed to be, I guess, the bureaucrats are supposed to be accountable to the legislatures. That's a whole different conversation about the administrative state and unaccountable bureaucrats serving in these executive agencies. But the point is these people are not on a pedestal higher than us. We are not their subjects. We are a cooperative, collaborative, representative type of society when it comes to governance.

So our opinions matter. Our critical thinking matters. And the conclusions that we draw do matter. Absolutely. And I could keep going on that, like you said. There's a whole different. There's a lot of things in there that I could keep asking you about. But we've got to close out.

We'll definitely have you back to just talk about so much of the stuff that we didn't get to cover today. but can you remind people once again where they can find you. Yeah, absolutely. This is so much fun. You can find me at Liz Wheeler Show.com if you want to find me on all the platforms. You can also, if you could, subscribe to my podcast, Liz Wheeler Show on Apple Podcasts on Spotify, basically wherever you get your pods. We're also on YouTube and Rumble for video formats.

If you want to be part of the Liz Wheeler Show community, you can join us at Liz Wheeler Show.com slash locals. Locals is a free speech platform where we don't have to censor at all. Or you can find me on Twitter at Liz underscore Wheeler. Ellie, this has been so much fun. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you so much, Liz. Hey, this is Steve Day.

If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity. over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV

or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.