Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 502 | Facebook Whistleblower: Dem Operative or Hero? | Guest: Rachel Bovard

Starting point is 00:00:00 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.

Starting point is 00:00:19 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 Thursday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week so far. Today we are talking to Rachel Beauvard. She is a journalist. She writes about big tech. And we've had her on the podcast before talking to her about the solutions that she proposes to the power that big tech holds in the lives of Americans and even the power that they have to influence our elections and why that's a problem and where she thinks the federal government should step in and try to curb some of the influence that they have. She's coming from a conservative perspective, though, whereas

Starting point is 00:01:30 as we will talk about today, Democrats who want more authority over. these technology companies seem to want to do so, not because they want to protect the country from their influence, but because they actually want to try to control the flow of information and the messages that, especially the political messages that the American public is receiving. So Rachel Beauvard is very nuanced on this issue. She is very well versed on this issue. She is going to talk to us a little bit about that. But really what we're focusing on is this Facebook,

Starting point is 00:02:06 whistleblower or if she's being called a whistleblower. Her name is Francis Howgan. She testified during the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security. She worked for Facebook and she came out and said, you know, Facebook is doing all of these bad things. They know that they're doing bad things. And also, she believes that Facebook should step in or the government should step in and should basically regulate Facebook. There's some disagreement on the right in. the left about whether or not she is a hero or whether she is just kind of a partisan hack because some of the things that she said during this hearing, like wanting to censor

Starting point is 00:02:47 political information that she doesn't like, that's something that she believes that Facebook should do. Obviously, people on the right don't like that. But at the same time, she is pointing out that Facebook is knowingly devastating the mental health and the safety of young children, and especially young girls and they're not doing anything about it. And so it's important that we look at all sides of this and think about what some solutions to this problem might be. And Rachel's going to do that for us. Now, you probably noticed a couple days ago that Instagram and Facebook and WhatsApp,

Starting point is 00:03:26 which was acquired by Facebook, were all down. And I don't think we have all of the information of why that happened, but there are some questions as to as to whether or not it had to do with all of this because there have been internal documents that have been leaked by this so-called whistleblower. There's some disagreement about whether, you know, whether or not we should be calling her that, that have showed, you know, a lot of the, a lot of the problems within Facebook and the nefarious things that are going on there. So they're already going under that PR crisis. Then things shut down to the point to where apparently Facebook employees couldn't even get inside the building like

Starting point is 00:04:06 their little, the keypad wasn't working to get inside the building. And I don't think we even know all of the reasons why. And so there are some questions about whether or not this is all interconnected somehow. You know, I don't know. But Rachel is going to lend as much insight as she possibly can. She is very, very clear. She's going to break all of this. Very complicated stuff down in a way that makes sense. I don't know about y'all, but when I was on, so when I was on, trying to get on Instagram the other day, I think it was on Monday after I recorded the episode with Jonathan Isaac.

Starting point is 00:04:47 I was going on Instagram to tell you, hey guys, like, I just recorded that and it wasn't loading. And so I definitely, I was like, you know what? They are coming after Ali B. Stucky. And they are not allowing me to post what I want to post on Instagram. This is censorship. So I deleted the app and then I re-downloaded it. I tried to open it back up and it still wouldn't let me on.

Starting point is 00:05:09 Took me a long time before I figured out. Okay, I need to go on Twitter. This is what everyone does. You go on Twitter and you search the words Facebook and Instagram to see if other people are dealing with this. And they were. Everyone was on Twitter and on telegram and things like that to talk about how, unfortunately, Instagram was down.

Starting point is 00:05:28 And it was a little weird. Like, it reminded me. it showed me, I guess, that I rely on Instagram a lot to connect with you guys. And obviously, there have been days where I've been off Instagram, but it felt weird not being able to talk to y'all. I mean, I spend a pretty good chunk of my day responding to messages from you guys on Instagram. And if I haven't responded to you, I'm not ignoring you. I can't get to all of them. But I do respond to people and repost the things that you guys tag me in. And it felt really weird not being able.

Starting point is 00:06:01 to talk to y'all. I did not like it. And it made me realize maybe I need to diversify my platforms a little bit, but it also takes a lot of energy to post on all the different platforms. But that's probably something that I'm going to have to do so I can stay connected to you guys, even when Instagram shuts down. But it just showed me, wow, these platforms have so much power and play such a big role in our lives. It really, really is important that we are paying attention to what they're doing and what's going on behind the scene. So that's why we're talking about this today, especially if you are a parent, guys.

Starting point is 00:06:36 If you are a parent, you need to listen to this. And we have to be so cognizant of what our kids are consuming. As long as your kids are under your roof, like they are under your authority. You get to set the rules. If you feel like, oh, dang, you know, if I took away Snapchat for my 13-year-old or Instagram for my 14-year-old, who we know from these internal Facebook documents are really,

Starting point is 00:06:59 really, really negatively affected by the kind of content that they consume on these platforms. If you're afraid that they might be mad at you or something, my humble advice is someone who is not a mom of a teenager, but who has been a teenager not too long ago is that it is worth it's worth the frustration. It might be worth the anger that they show towards you. You are doing what God has called you to do, which is steward their hearts and their minds to the best of your ability. You can't protect them from everything, but you can do what you can while they're under your roof to try to make sure that what they are consuming and what they are taking in is that which is good and right and true.

Starting point is 00:07:40 So that's just my encouragement before we get into this conversation with Rachel. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular.

Starting point is 00:08:10 This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Rachel, thank you so much for joining us again. Okay, I just want you to break down this whole Facebook whistleblower thing. Who is Francis Howgan? Where did she come from? What is she saying? And what should we think about all of this? Well, thanks for having me back. And yes, Francis Hogan or Hogan, I suppose, burst onto the scene with a congressional hearing yesterday.

Starting point is 00:08:54 but we've been reading about her findings for the last several weeks. If anyone's been following the Facebook files that the Wall Street Journal has been putting out, showing the fruits of her research, basically this trove of documents of internal research that came from Facebook, showing that they know how their products harm children, specifically 13% of teenage girls tracing their suicidal ideations back to Instagram, you know, the cartels and sex traffickers that use their platform. The fact that they know the Chinese government is using their platform to stalk Uighur Muslims, you know, who are they actively trying to wipe out in China.

Starting point is 00:09:32 All of this has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal. But yesterday we really saw the face of Francis Hogan. We saw her on 60 Minutes on Sunday as well. So she's a former Facebook employee. She went to work for Facebook in 2018. So, you know, you have to wonder, she knew what Facebook was doing at that point in time, but went to work for them anyway. And she's released these documents in an attempt, I think, to push Congress to. implement some reforms. And now, if you listen to her testimony yesterday, it was disturbing to a lot of

Starting point is 00:10:00 us on the right because she didn't call for, you know, breaking up Facebook or reducing the power Facebook has. She explicitly said, no, we need a government misinformation agency. We need someone to regulate Facebook. I mean, what she was calling for was basically overt government censorship of speech, you know, more entrenchment of these platforms to go after, you know, January 6th, insurrectionists, which we know because of definition inflation on the Democratic side, that just means any conservative who they don't like. So her proposed solutions, I think, are very suspect. But I do think the information she's provided is useful and I think could provoke investigations on privacy, what Facebook is doing with the information about your children and even some information

Starting point is 00:10:44 about their ad practices. All of that should go to the regulating agencies for investigations. And I hope that's what does happen. Yeah, so I guess that leads to my next question. What should be the solutions then? Because we would agree that a lot of the problems that she lists are actual problems, but we don't think that the answer is necessarily the government coming in and just regulating the heck out of Facebook. And so what would you suggest we should do? So my first policy proposal has always started with the antitrust enforcement. One, because these are laws on the books, right? We don't have to create, you know, this new regulatory structure to go. after these companies, antitrust laws are supposed to protect the free market. And I think we've done a very poor job of enforcement around the tech space. And that's my preferred solution for a lot of these speech problems is competition, right? If you actually had a free market in tech, you could compete a lot of these concerns away. And I think that that takes away a lot of the speech concerns.

Starting point is 00:11:39 If you look at speech as downstream of market power. And what I mean by that is, think about Google right now. Google filters information for 90% of America. And so what they choose to suppress, what they choose to amplify, can literally change the minds of, you know, a big proportion of the country. If that market power is broken, I don't care what Google suppresses or amplifies if they're only doing it for 30% of the country, right? The market for information is much more open and less of a cartel. So I think antitrust can solve that problem. But I do think that there are other reforms that need to be made. You know, you often hear Section 230 bandied about. Now you'll hear Democrats want to use it, again, for speech control, for censorship, I do think it has to be done

Starting point is 00:12:21 in a way that keeps Section 230 in place, but brings it back to its original intent. And Justice Clarence Thomas has now written about this twice. You know, he said, look, the lower courts have gotten this wrong. What was a porous immunity has become a bulletproof one. You know, guys, the original intent here was so that, like, child pornography didn't flourish on the platforms. You know, this was never supposed to be expanded as a protection for sex trafficking on Facebook, is what Facebook claims as its immunity is Section 230. It was never designed to, you know, engage in or protect overt political censorship, which is what we're seeing now. So there needs to be a retraction, a return to the original intent of that statute. Yeah. You know, and then I also think

Starting point is 00:13:00 data privacy and data portability play a big role here too. And that's an area that Congress, frankly, hasn't even begun to explore. Yeah. Can you just quickly summarize, you, you kind of did, but in a very basic form, can you summarize what Section 230 is supposed to? supposed to be what it was originally intended to do? So Section 230 was never even actually a bill. It was an amendment to a much larger telecommunications package. And the title of the amendment was the Family Online Empowerment Act. It was supposed to, again, give these companies an incentive to take down sort of the smutty,

Starting point is 00:13:37 you know, violent, harassing content that nobody wanted to see. And to do that, it basically says, look, these platforms are not subject to the liability for what users post on their platform, right? They're not publishers in that regard. They can't be sued for what we say. And then it gives them a protection. It says, look, even if this is constitutionally protected speech, we want you to be able to take down and it lists a whole host of criteria, you know, lewd, lascivious, harassing, all this criteria. That's what it was designed to do. But unfortunately, the lower courts have just expanded it so dramatically that, again, the Texas, in this Texas Supreme Court, Facebook recently argued, again, three moms who brought a case there. Their 14 and 15 year old girls were trafficked into sex slavery on Instagram. And those moms said, hey, look, Facebook knew this and did nothing. Facebook is responsible. And Facebook said, no, we're not. Section 230 protects us. We're not responsible for this. And so that's how it's become so grossly distorted that it's protecting Facebook from even knowing sex traffickers are on their site and doing nothing about it. And so I do think that

Starting point is 00:14:42 that needs to be brought back to bear because this is just non-sustainable. The size and scale of platforms makes that kind of policy unsustainable. They're protecting criminals and getting away with it. Right. So it was supposed to say, hey, you have the power to be able to take off really bad content from your platforms without being liable for the rest of the content that is on your platform, which is good, because that allows them to remove really bad content that we don't want on there. But the thing that I'm thinking is that they very often don't remove really bad content that's on there. Like you said, like we've seen several times, this is a source, Instagram, Facebook, or a source of not just harassment and bullying and doxing that very often is never held accountable and never removed. But also it is a vessel for trafficking and for grooming and for the sexualization of children.

Starting point is 00:15:40 and they don't seem to be using Section 230 to empower themselves to remove that kind of content. It seems like they only invoke Section 230 when they don't want responsibility to remove that content. And also when they want justification for removing, say, political content that they don't like in the name of misinformation. Is that part of the problem? That's a huge part of the problem. think especially when you're talking about political speech, you know, these platforms, the reality of them now, and this was not the reality when Section 230 was passed or when Facebook began, but the reality of them now is that, you know, Facebook and even Twitter to some extent,

Starting point is 00:16:26 these are how candidates now reach their constituents or voters. You know, this is how these are, we saw this with President Trump, right? This is how candidates and elected officials talk to the voters, talk to potential voters. And when you remove the ability of, you know, one party or one candidate in a primary to access that forum, that does have a political impact at this point. And that's a reality that our laws haven't grappled with yet. You even saw the RNC, the Republican National Committee, brought a lawsuit to the Federal Elections Commission after Twitter suppressed circulation of the story about Hunter Biden from the New York Post. RNC went to FEC and said, look, this is a campaign violation. This is an in-kind donation to Joe Biden, you know, to suppress this critical story at this

Starting point is 00:17:11 critical time. And even the FEC said, look, it's not because we think Twitter is a publisher. We think Twitter's a media outlet. You know, they weren't trying to, you know, sway the debate in any way. They have a First Amendment right to do this. And that just flies in the face, I think, of reality at this point. But I think it speaks to the fact that our laws simply haven't caught up to what these platforms actually are right now, which is sort of key avenues of, you know, speaking. political speech, commerce, information flow, you know, when we have laws that just don't, I think, accurately reflect that reality at this point. So Democrats want to regulate these social media companies in the name of trying to police

Starting point is 00:17:57 misinformation to protect the public from what they deem misinformation, which we know is probably just an Orwellian descriptor for political speech. Like you said, that they don't like opinions that they don't agree with. Do you think that they are using Howgans' testimony? And I don't want to get too conspiratorial. But do you think that this was pre-planned that they kind of hoisted her up to bring forth all of these issues that the American public really cares about? Okay, you care about if Facebook knows that it could be helping drive young girls to the

Starting point is 00:18:31 brink of suicide. It's making their body image issues worse. It's a source of trafficking and grooming for young children. Like, has she been purposely platformed by the side that wants to regulate these social media companies? Is that or is, or is that just how she's being incidentally used? I do think that, you know, there is a little bit of an overt effort by Democrats here to use her testimony to favor their own solutions, right? Which is this like major government crackdown on social media, not in the way that Republicans would like it, which again is to let speech flourish, let the free market solve. these problems, but through a very top-down heavy-handed approach, I do think that, you know,

Starting point is 00:19:13 she is impeccably groomed and, you know, well-spoken and suddenly, right, all of the sudden, you know, leaking documents for the Wall Street Journal, then ends up on a 60-minute interview, then in very, very quick turnaround, has a Senate hearing, you know, all working with a PR firm. There is a little bit of like, there was clear pre-planning that went into place here. But I think, you know, the right can, I think, very legitimately criticize that. They can very legitimately criticize her policy solutions because she's not an expert. They don't have to listen to Francis Hogan. But what they should not ignore is the information she's produced, which there are some very damning indictments of what Facebook is up to.

Starting point is 00:19:53 And I think if we ignore that simply because we've, you know, discredited Francis Hogan, then, you know, we aren't doing our job and actually saying, what are our solutions for holding Facebook accountable? because what she's produced, exclusive of, you know, her motivations is still important in this debate. What do you think the motivations are for Facebook and Instagram? Obviously, they, Instagram is an entity of Facebook. But, you know, Google, YouTube, and again, YouTube is an entity of Google, even Twitter to not do more of a thorough job to protect its young users from the kind of material that we know is damaging them, not just like. psychologically, but also physically, if they are groomed into some kind of abuse. I mean, obviously, they make a huge effort to try to censor any information about, say, COVID therapeutics or people's

Starting point is 00:20:47 opinions about masks and things like that. They have certainly mobilized a large team of people to take down that kind of information. Why aren't they quite as motivated to censor the material that they know is damaging the public? Well, I think the really difficult thing to grapple with about that is because it's their business model, right? And the thing that makes, what's very clear in these documents is how critical it is for Facebook and by extension Instagram to attract those young users. They, you know, there was lines in those documents about Facebook has teams of people that want to figure out how to quote, leverage your child's play date. What does that mean? more, I don't know.

Starting point is 00:21:35 And I'm concerned actually about what it means. Like I would like more information about what those teams are doing to, quote, leverage the playdates of children. But they want more clicks on Facebook Messenger, right? Because they have a messenger for kids app, basically. And they want to figure out how kids playing together can somehow mean more clicks and more eyeballs on Facebook. Because that is their business model. The more users they can attract, the more data they can collect feeds their very highly lucrative, highly targeted. ad business, which is what funds Facebook.

Starting point is 00:22:05 That's how Facebook makes money, right? And so there's far less of an incentive, I think, to police for, you know, things that, you know, could be put, could begin to put kids down a very bad track. And that's what's happening, right? We know this. And there's a lot of comparisons these days, you know, among people who defend these companies who say, well, this is not, you know, this is like the crusade of the 90s to get rid of video games because video games were going to make. us all violent. But again, I don't think that comparison grapples with what social media really is. And how ubiquitous it is. It's everywhere. Yeah. And as soon as a kid has a smartphone, they are on these apps. And it's very difficult, I think, to police that even if you're a helicopter

Starting point is 00:22:48 parent, right? Even if you know, exactly what your kid is doing at all times, you know, they aren't in your control at all times and the internet is everywhere. Yeah. It's certainly not the same thing. one, because, well, I would actually argue that anything that we put into our mind can have an effect on our thoughts and therefore our behavior. So that goes for video games. That goes for the things that are online. But it's even more dangerous when it comes to social media because they're not just playing a game that is closed. They're actually connecting to real-life people that could do them harm. I'm not on Snapchat, but the things that people send me, they screenshot like the Explorer,

Starting point is 00:23:28 page or whatever it is that has different news stories. I mean, there are 11-year-old kids that are on Snapchat and gosh, parents, if you're listening and your preteen is on Snapchat, change that ASAP. But the stories they have are like, you know, different sex positions and how to have safe anal sex and here's how to get an abortion without your parents' permission. I mean, that stuff is on Snapchat. And it's not just for, okay, if you're 18 and over, these are the kinds of stories. And that we'll show you. They don't care. I don't know what the intent is behind sexualizing kids that age. I don't even really want to think about it. But the fact of the matter is it exists. And I don't think kids have the brain development to be able to filter out that kind of information. And also,

Starting point is 00:24:19 they also just don't have the discernment quite yet to say, maybe I shouldn't send this kind of picture because then it's going to be spread. Or maybe this person is it trustworthy that I'm I'm talking to, I mean, there are all kinds of problems that do obviously primarily rest on the shoulders of the parents that are helping make decisions for their kids. But you would like to think that there are at least a few parents at these companies that would sympathize with the concerns of the American public. And I don't know. It just doesn't seem like there is.

Starting point is 00:24:50 Well, you have to think about it. You know, on the right, we always prize the profit motive, right? We're like, this is what drives the economy forward. And that's true. But if these companies, they aren't distinguishing between what's good for children and just flat out consumers. They only care about the consumer because, again, this is how they make money. This is why they are doing, you know, you saw Instagram trying to create Instagram kids. You know, and this is what Facebook was doing with the full knowledge of what can happen to kids on their website.

Starting point is 00:25:17 Right. They don't distinguish between child safety necessarily, you know, and what could be a future consumer. And you see this from Google as well. I mean, there's a reason Google hands out free Chromebooks in every school it can. They want to addict your child early because that's their next generation of users. So there's always, you know, I don't think we can trust these companies to look out for child welfare. They've proven again and again they kind of frankly don't prioritize it. And even when they're punished for it, they barely respond by changing anything.

Starting point is 00:25:43 Yep. My last question is, do you have hope that this kind of new crop of conservatives that seems to be coming up, or at least they're running for office? And some of them are already in Congress. Obviously, Josh Hawley has been on this beat for a while. while. But then you've got people running like Blakemasters, Jady Vance, who say that they really care about, you know, about the dominance of Big Tack and the effect that it's having on society. Do you have hope that there are some Congress people, hopefully some younger

Starting point is 00:26:14 congresspeople who are waking up to this kind of thing? They understand the threat and that they're actually going to do something about it, at least on the right? I am encouraged, I think, you know, not just by the slogan hearing and the rhetoric, but by the fact that, you know, people like J.D. Vance, you know, is pretty sophisticated. Blake Masters actually kind of has experience in Silicon Valley. They know how these companies work. And I think that's a lot of what's missing, you know, from the current crop of policymakers. They just, they're just not technologically. Well, Blumenthal, he, oh my gosh. I'm sure you saw he said, and I don't know if the audience saw, he said something like, will you commit to ending Finsta? And Finsta is, like, like a, you know, a slang term for a fake Instagram or like a friend Instagram. Oh, gosh. So that is, that's a huge problem. They just don't understand. Well, and, you know, I think this younger generation of lawmakers, they have young kids, right? They have kids that grew up in this environment in a way that

Starting point is 00:27:11 I didn't, and perhaps you didn't either. You know, I'm on the elder generation of millennials who didn't have Facebook, right, until like the end of college. Yeah. So I think they are much more aware and, and I think fluent in what the problem is. And then I think in addition to that, this newer generation is skeptical, far more skeptical, I think, of concentrations of power outside of the government. And that, I think, for a long time is what's been missing on the right. You know, we very rightly look at the government and say, this is a big threat and, you know, we should be wary about what the government is up to. But in many cases, and I think, no, not many cases, in certain cases, and I think in this case with big tech, you have an unprecedented accumulation of power and control here that deserves just as much scrutiny and skepticism. And I think the younger generation of lawmakers is far more savvy in that regard and fearless, I think, too, about calling it to account. Yep.

Starting point is 00:27:59 Well, I'm hopeful. Obviously, we don't know the results of those elections. We can hope. I do think having some young blood and having a new understanding and also feeling like you have a vested interest in these companies changing because you've got those young kids that are being exposed, that are being exposed to that. And there's really only so much that parents can do to protect their kids from that. They go to a friend's house. They go to school. I mean, this really does affect everyone.

Starting point is 00:28:26 And it can very seriously shape the minds of an entire generation for the worse. So I'm thankful for the work that you do to try to inform people about what's going on. And maybe there are some good things that will come out of this quote unquote whistleblower testimony. that aren't just, you know, a government overhaul of these, of these companies. That's the hope. Yeah, that's the hope. Well, thank you very much. Where can people find you and follow you?

Starting point is 00:28:59 So you can find me on Twitter at Rachel Beauvard and all my work is at cPI.org as well. Thank you so much, Rachel. Thank you so much. Okay, guys, thanks so much for listening this week. This was a big week. We had NBA player on Monday, Jonathan Isaac, talking about his decision not to get the vaccine. and how he has the courage to stand up for these controversial opinions nowadays, vaccine choice, but also last year he was the only player on the Orlando Magic to stand up for

Starting point is 00:29:36 the national anthem and not wear a Black Lives Matter shirt when he was asked the reason why he shared the gospel. I mean, the guy is solid. I really appreciated him coming on and kind of telling us his reasoning and sharing his story. if you have not heard that conversation, definitely go listen to it or watch on YouTube. We had our 500th episode on Tuesday and just the messages and the comments and the reshares that you guys put out there and just the encouragement and the kind words that you gave to me and what relatable has meant to you.

Starting point is 00:30:06 It means so much. Thank you guys. I'm so thankful to be able to do this. If you do love this show, please leave a five-star review on Apple. Tell us why you love it. Just a couple sentences is great. That would mean. A whole lot. Monday, we've got Christopher Rufo coming on, and he has really led the charge against

Starting point is 00:30:24 critical race theory in schools. And you guys might have seen the story of the Department of Justice led by Merrick Garland, Biden's Department of Justice. They are now mobilizing the FBI against parents that they say are threatening, you know, school board members or public school teachers. Now, of course, any threats of violence are not okay, not right. But what the fear is, And the very justified fear is that the DOJ is going to actually be weaponized against parents who just raised their concerns. And that this is more of an intimidation tactic than anything else to try to silence justifiably concerned parents. So make sure you tune into that. That will be a big episode.

Starting point is 00:31:08 And I hope you guys have a great weekend. I will see you on Monday. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles,

Starting point is 00:31:32 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

Starting point is 00:31:53 or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 502 | Facebook Whistleblower: Dem Operative or Hero? | Guest: Rachel Bovard

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.