Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 561 | Free Crack Pipes & the Cruelty of Progressive Compassion

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. 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 Wednesday. Almost forgot what day it was. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers American Meat delivered right to your front door. Go to Good Ranchers.com slash alley or use promo code Alley.

Starting point is 00:00:57 good ranchers.com slash alley. Okay, guys, we've got a lot to talk about today. I don't even know if we're going to have time to talk about all the things that I want to talk about. I originally wanted to dedicate this episode to female issues. And by female issues, I am talking about women in sports and men who are pretending to be women, specifically this person named Leah Thomas, who is a swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania.

Starting point is 00:01:34 we've talked about this person before. Well, now the teammates, the swimming teammates, have written this open letter saying that Leah Thomas does have an unfair advantage, which of course we already knew because we love reality here on the relatable podcast. But I don't know if we're even going to have time to get to that story. Hopefully we will. But I realized last night that I really want to talk about this crack pipe. this crack pipe story, free crack pipes for racial equity, crediting the Biden administration for

Starting point is 00:02:13 this amazing headline that I read in the Washington Free Beacon. I really want to explain this story and talk about that first. And then we'll get to the other stuff. There's also this tweet that's circulating on evangelical Twitter about female modesty. I was going to get into that. So who knows? Who knows if I'm going to be able to get into those female. centric stories because I have a lot to say about this crack pipe story. I don't think we've ever used

Starting point is 00:02:40 the phrase crack pipe unrelatable. It just hasn't been relevant to the things that we want to talk about. And crack pipes for racial equity surely has not been a phrase that I've used because that is not enter into the minds of sane people. But we are not led by sane people. As I've said a few times, we are truly in a cacistocracy. If you don't know what a cacistocracy is, it is where you are run by people. are led by people who are incompetent. So the least competent people are in charge. Every day, when I read the news, I realize on the right and the left that we are in a cacistocracy, unfortunately. And this story that I first read in the Washington Free Beacon and now has been picked up by several outlets is perfect evidence of that. And now I know that I'm kind of being silly and sarcastic,

Starting point is 00:03:28 but this is a serious story. It has huge worldview implications. And as Christians, we have to care about this because this has to do with people. Of course, all policy has to do with people. It has an impact on people. But we're truly talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society, the people that we, of course, we're supposed to care about everyone, but we want to be voices. We want to be defenders. We want to be advocates for the most vulnerable people in our society. And this story has to do with that. And our responsibility as Christians to these people. So let me read you some of this reporting. As I said, it's very serious.

Starting point is 00:04:07 But there are some funny parts, just some absurd parts to it too. And I think it's okay to laugh at the ridiculousness of all of this. So the title of this article is Biden admin to fund crack pipe distribution to advance racial equity. I thought that this was a Babylon B title. I don't think. And this is, I'm not trying to offend the writers of the Babylon. B who are hilariously creative. I honestly don't think if they got even their most creative people, their funniest writers

Starting point is 00:04:40 together that they could come up with a better, more absurd, more hilarious headline than this. This reads like satire. But isn't that true of so much of the news today? That's actually why I think the people at the Babylon B, they have a very difficult job because it's hard today to actually distinguish between reality and satire because reality is so absurd. If you didn't know, I've written several articles, satirical articles for the Babylon B.

Starting point is 00:05:10 Maybe I'll try to find some of them. I've written for them in a long time just because I felt like I didn't have time. But maybe I'll link some of those past articles in the description to this episode if you are interested in reading them. So this is a real headline. Biden admin to fund crack pipe distribution to advance racial equity. Here's what the article says. The Biden administration is set to fund the distribution of crack pipes to drug addicts as part of its plan to advance racial equity.

Starting point is 00:05:38 The $30 million grant program, and it's linked in this article, and so you can read it for yourself to make sure that this is not misinformation, which closed applications Monday and will begin in May will provide funds to nonprofits in local governments to help make drug use safer for addicts, included in the grant, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services. And you'll remember the head of the Department of the Health and Human Services, I think his name is, his last name is Bacera. And we've talked about him several times on this show. He is a lawyer. He doesn't actually have any background, medicine, or science. He is extremely pro-abortion. And when he was the Attorney General in California, he went after many pro-life organizations, even religious pro-life organizations because he is so pro-abortion.

Starting point is 00:06:29 And then we've got our assistant health secretary, which whose name is Rachel Levine. Sorry, it's hard for me to say that seriously. We've also talked about this person several times. You can look up Rachel Levine and you can tell me if you think this person should be in charge of the country's health. So it doesn't really surprise me. We've got these two people that are running the Department of Health and Human Services and their ideologues, and they don't seem to know a whole lot about health, and they are overseeing this $30 million grant program. The funds in this program are for, quote, smoking kits and supplies.

Starting point is 00:07:11 The article goes on to say, a spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kids will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal meth, and any illicit substance. HHS said the kids aim to reduce the risk. That's the propaganda phrase that you will hear, reduce the risk, reduce the risk, risk reduction. So they say that it aims to reduce the risk of infection when smoking substances with glass pipes, which can lead to infections through cuts and sores. Applicants for the grants are prioritized if they treat a majority of undeserved communities, including African Americans and, quote, LGBTQ plus persons. As established under-President, Biden's executive order on, quote, advancing racial equity. Democratic run cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have distributed smoking kits to residents. Some local governments, however, have in recent

Starting point is 00:08:07 years backed away from their smoking kit programs over concerns they enable drug use. Huh, that's so crazy. I don't see the connection at all. Louisville, Kentucky, for example, allowed convenience stores to sell smoking kits, but later banned them. Legislators in Maryland, Maryland ditched their distribution plan after facing backlash from local law enforcement and African-American leaders. Funding for the, quote, harm reduction grant program. That's another phrase, risk reduction, harm reduction grant program, is provided through Democrats' American Rescue Plan. I mean, there couldn't be a more Orwellian name for this, American Rescue Plan, providing crack pipes for equity, which the Senate passed along party lines after Vice President Kamala Harris, maybe just a little slut there, cast a tiebreaking vote.

Starting point is 00:09:00 Other equipment that qualifies for funding includes syringes, vaccinations, disease screenings, condoms, and fentanyl strips. The grant program will last three years and includes 25 awards of up to $400,000. An HHS spokesman declined to specify what is included in the smoking kids. Similar distribution efforts provide mouthpieces to prevent glass cuts, rubber bands to prevent burns, and filters to minimize the risk of disease. It is against federal law, okay, these last two lines, this is in the article, okay, I'm quoting, and they're funny. It's sad, but it's funny.

Starting point is 00:09:38 Okay, quote, it is against federal law to distribute or sell drug paraphernalia unless authorized by the government. Oh, that is such a good example of why corrupt big government is so awful. It is against federal law to distribute or sell drug paraphernalia unless authorized by the government. Amazing. Last line of this article, gold, they really buried the lead here. President Biden's son Hunter is a longtime user of crack cocaine. That's how the article ends. And a lot of people were talking about that on Twitter yesterday. Again, I'm not trying to make light of this because it's very consequential and it's very, very sad. This is a very sad story. But it's, there are such absurd, ridiculous parts of this that I think it's okay to laugh because

Starting point is 00:10:23 it's actually true. It's well documented that Hunter Biden is a user of crack cocaine. And I don't want to make light of someone's addiction. A lot of people have family members who are unfortunately, they've suffered from addiction for a very long time. They've tried to get help. They've been unable to get help. And we should have all of the compassion. in the world for that. But let's point out the hypocrisy here and the absurdity here in all of this. I think that is very appropriate too. Now, I want to get to the question of, well, does this really work? Because as a thinking person, I think that should be our question. Does this work? Does this help people get off the streets? Does this help prevent people from dying from drug overdoses and

Starting point is 00:11:07 infections and things like this? Is this a useful and effective program? There are other countries around the who have used similar programs apparently pretty effectively. And so let's answer that question before we just completely bash this, because it does look ridiculous on its face, but I am for effective policies. And so we will analyze that in just one second. 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.

Starting point is 00:11:36 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,

Starting point is 00:12:04 you can watch this Steve Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. So you guys might be familiar with Michael Schellenberger. He is the author of Samfrancicco. And he spent a long time as a progressive activist. He even worked for organizations that were funded by George Soros. We have had him on this show. We will link that episode. We talked about his book, San Francisco on this show. And so we'll link that. You can go listen to it. He has done lots of interviews. And he recently contributed to Barry Weiss's substack, an article about what is happening in San Francisco with supervised drug consumption sites. And what the federal government is doing with these free kits, it's all kind of a part of the

Starting point is 00:12:57 same plan that if we just allow people to take heroin and meth and fentanyl and crack, quote, safely, then we can actually help these vulnerable communities. And like I said, I am open to policies, even if on their face, they seem like they wouldn't work. If you can show me that they actually do work, then I'm open to looking at that. I don't want people to die from drug overdoses. I want people to get off the street. I don't want people chained to addiction. I would say that most people, most thinking people, don't.

Starting point is 00:13:33 But I do think after reading this article, which we're going to get into, this is really a clash of world views. I really think that this is moral relativism run amok, that progressivism, because they really don't have a place where they are getting any kind of strict or clear definition of right and wrong, actually think that it's judgmental, it's bigoted, it's wrong to say that addiction is bad or that living on the streets is bad. I think that's why you see in very progressive cities the incentivizing of living on the streets. and opposition to any policies that would discourage or disincentivize homelessness and drug use, especially public drug use, and that prioritizes trying to get people rehabilitated and into jobs

Starting point is 00:14:22 because they assume that this just means that you're criminalizing poverty or criminalizing homelessness or that people are just getting sucked into incarceration. And that's really not what it's about. I do believe that if the law has a place and I think it does, It should be an incentivizing people to live clean lives and productive lives. I have seen interviews Michael Schellenberger has done on the street interviews with some of these addicts and drug dealers in places like San Francisco and in other very progressive cities across the country. Tucker Carlson showed a couple of those last night and it just broke my heart

Starting point is 00:15:01 because these people, when they are at all lucid, when they do have any clarity of speech clarity of mind. I mean, you can tell they're drug addicted just because physically their teeth, their face, their posture, you can tell that they are suffering from addiction. But one of the guys that was interviewed on Tucker Carlson last night, I mean, you can just tell by his vocabulary, by his ability to express himself that even though he looks so downtrodden and very sick, that he's a smart person. And I just think about the waste of human potential. that is experienced and that is seen when you look at this addiction and these drug consumption sites and these quote safe drug kits and so many of these measures that aim or claim to be for

Starting point is 00:15:54 risk reduction and harm reduction are actually just incentivizing otherwise very potentially productive people to stay addicted and that is what michael schallenberger essentially is arguing in this substack article, which we will link in the description of this episode. He writes this, quote, San Francisco is running a supervised drug consumption site in United Nations Plaza, just blocks away from City Hall in the Opera House in flagrant violation of state and federal law. There, city-funded service providers supervise people smoking fentanyl and meth they buy from drug dealers across the street.

Starting point is 00:16:33 The police do nothing. Indeed, the mayor, this is Mayor London Breed, through the Department of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Health is running the site. The city is carrying out a bizarre medical experiment whereby addicts are given everything they need to maintain their addiction, cash, hot meals, shelter, in exchange for almost nothing. Voters have found themselves in the strange position of paying for fentanyl, meth, and crack use on public property. See, this is the problem, not just with moral relativism, while it is, it's inextricably intertwined with moral relativism when empathy, and I would argue, superficial,

Starting point is 00:17:14 cheap definitions of empathy are leading all of your policy positions. You get something like this where you are simply facilitating what is objectively, a deadly, and a dangerous and a damaging lifestyle that doesn't just affect these individuals who are dealing the drugs and consuming the drugs, but affects the community as a whole, affects the children that are trying to live safely in this community. This is the consequence of that. You cannot only push policies based on what feels good, based on simply facilitating the kind of lives that people want to live. That's what progressivism does, though. That's why every single city that is run by progressive mayor's progressive DAs and progressive city council members why they are all like this or at least

Starting point is 00:18:08 they're heading that direction. Portland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, D.C., New York City, Boston, all of these cities that are run by these progressive politicians are all heading this direction. And that's why I just, I honestly don't understand. why any well-meaning person would vote for a Democrat at this point. Like, how can you not see that the cities that are run by Democrats and have been run by Democrats for a very long time are places that you would never want to live with your family? Of course, the rich parts of these cities are for the most part, fine. But I think in places like San Francisco, the damage and the deterioration that you're seeing because of these policies is now. reaching into the rich parts of the city, which is why you see even Democrats in San Francisco

Starting point is 00:19:04 kind of pushing back on this. Once it starts to affect you, once it starts to actually affect the elites, which for the most part, Democratic policies don't. They're most damaging to the people that they say that they're trying to help, like the poor and the marginalized people on the fringes of society. Once the policies really start affecting rich people, that's when you see Democrat saying, okay, we understand that our progressive policy. I've really run amok. I think, by the way, I know I'm inserting a separate conversation in here. I think that's part of the reason why you are seeing some Democrats roll back COVID restrictions. One, I think it's because the midterms are coming up this year and they know it's unpopular.

Starting point is 00:19:45 And so they're going to let the country get in a better mood before the midterms. And they're going to do some disaster in September, October to make sure that people are motivated for Republicans. That's how it goes. It's very tired at this point. but I also think it's because you even have powerful Democrats and probably rich Democrat donors who are tired of their kids having to wear masks at school. So I know I'm very cynical, but I think that's part of the reason why Democrats are doing what they're doing in regards to rolling back COVID restrictions and how that relates to what we're talking about is that that is when you start to see some progressives and some liberals

Starting point is 00:20:22 speaking up about the damage of progressive policies. when the rich people, when the elites in their parties start to be affected and start to complain, that's when they start kind of speaking up and doing something about it. That's probably why Mayor London Breed said a few weeks ago, we've got to do something about this BS that is ruining our city. And as Michael Schellenberger notes, she hasn't actually done anything about that. So he goes on in this article. If you're coming into a place that's supposed to guide you toward the end of seeking,

Starting point is 00:20:52 so now he's sorry, he's quoting someone right now. If you're coming into a place that's supposed to guide you toward the end of seeking treatment and recovery, and there are people using drugs around you, which is what happens in this drug consumption site, that becomes an incentive to keep going, said Stanford University School of Medicine Addiction expert Keith Humphreys. It's like trying to have an AA meeting in a bar. And so these quote risk reduction sites and quote risk reduction kits that are now being handed out by the federal government thanks to our tax dollars, really it's incentivizing people because. It's making it easier to be around other drug users and be around other drug dealers. And so if the goal, if even just the stated goal, the ostensible goal is to get people to stop using drugs and to stop being addicted, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do this because it's just making it easier for people to be around other people that are doing drugs. As this addiction expert from Stanford University says, it's like trying to have an AA media in a bar. It just doesn't work. The article goes on to say, San Franciscans have been fed the line that people are not on the street primarily because they are addicts, but because of high rent and lack of housing.

Starting point is 00:22:03 I mean, even if that were true, that is also because of progressive politicians and the policies that they have pushed in the state of California. The most powerful proponent of this view, Michael Schellenberger says, in this article, is Jennifer Freidenbach of San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness. She blocked the closure of open drug scenes, calls people who disagree with her fascists and racist, of course, and organizes protests at the homes of politicians. She says they're screaming for housing. She says about the city's homeless population. But that is not what addicts on the street tell me, according to Michael Schellenberger. On Saturday, I talked to a 37-year-old heroin addict originally from Alabama, who has been living on San Francisco streets for seven years. He told me that for the majority of homeless people, a dickens.

Starting point is 00:22:51 is the main driving force. The so-called housing first approach pioneered in San Francisco doesn't even keep people housed long term. In the spring of 2021, a team of Harvard medical experts found that after 10 years, just 12% of the previously homeless remained housed. It is not about a lack of housing. For the vast majority of homeless people, unfortunately, it has to do with mental illness in some cases.

Starting point is 00:23:19 It has to do with a variety of scenarios. but really the driving force. And we see this not just in San Francisco, but again, in progressive cities across the country, addiction is the driving force. And so we're just feeding that. In 2018, a National Academies of Sciences review of the scientific literature of Housing First

Starting point is 00:23:36 concluded that there was no substantial evidence that the policy of Housing First contributes to improved health outcomes. This shouldn't come as a surprise, given that it doesn't deal with addiction. So what are the worldview implications of all of this? Well, we've already alluded to them. We already touched on them a little bit. I think once again, we are seeing the consequences of the secular progressive and secular

Starting point is 00:24:04 humanist, I think ironically labeled a worldview that basically says that there is no objective right and wrong. There is no right way to live. And the loving thing to do, the compassionate. thing to do is simply to help people live exactly how they want to live and how they feel like living. If you really loved someone, if you really love someone, is that the stance you take? If your child was suffering from addiction, would you do everything you can to simply make them more comfortable in suffering from addiction? Now, I understand maybe you'd say, well, you know,

Starting point is 00:24:41 they're going to use drugs anyway, so let's at least help them, you know, stop dying from infections. I mean, I guess you could try to make that argument, but they're just going to die from an overdose. And as this article also says by Michael Schellenberger, that these drug consumption sites aren't actually reducing the number of people who are dying from drug overdoses. They're just doing it under supervision to make sure, I guess, they have clean needles. But look, we're still looking at deadly drugs. and there is no way to do meth to take fentanyl safely. There just isn't. He also notes that in other countries that have implemented these, you know, these kinds of

Starting point is 00:25:29 similar policies, these drug consumption sites still are like the Netherlands, for example, they still greatly stigmatize on purpose drug use. And so even while they are trying to prevent overdose, or they're trying to prevent infections from contaminated drug paraphernalia, they are still disincentivizing and strongly discouraging drug use. That's not what's happening in places like San Francisco. Again, they don't want to stigmatize anything. You hear that a lot from the progressive side that we need to desigmatize.

Starting point is 00:26:06 We need to destigmatize everything. Well, some things need a stigma. Some things in society need a stigma. But it just seems like this is the far less attempt at making people unable to work, unable to be productive, and just dependent upon the government so that they can say anyone who wants to take away these programs that supposedly help these marginalized communities are heartless. This is heartless.

Starting point is 00:26:35 This is cruel. If you loved someone, if you cared about someone's well-being, if you really cared about so-called racial equity and so-called marginalized communities and people of color. As Democrats say that they do, would you make it easier for them to ruin their lives and to ruin the communities that they are a part of? Of course you wouldn't. You would have to hate someone to do this. This is how you treat someone.

Starting point is 00:27:03 This is how you treat a group of people if you hate them. If you love someone, you want what's best for them. And the definition of best is not just. whatever feels good to them or whatever they want to do. I mean, we know this, of course, as parents. There are things that our children want to do that we don't allow them to do because we love them. I mean, my two-year-old would love to eat only cupcakes all day every day.

Starting point is 00:27:28 I don't allow her to do that. Why? Because I don't want her to be happy because I don't love her. No, it's because I love her so much. And because I want what's good for her. And she doesn't know. She doesn't know everything that's good for her. and as her parent, it is my responsibility to steward this wonderful gift that God has given me

Starting point is 00:27:46 by ensuring that she is taking in things that are good for her. That's because I love her. But this superficial, flimsy definition of empathy that seems to be running far left progressive policies and cities, it actually mistakes what really is hate for love. They are hating these vulnerable communities by not doing what's best for them, but actually doing what is quite literally worst for them. And it really does, as I said, it really does break my heart. These are people who are made in the image of God, who have potential, and who are wasting

Starting point is 00:28:27 away, not just because of government policy, because of choices that they've made, because of circumstances that they're in, because of a whole host of things. and we are not serving them well. We are not serving them well by simply making it easier to destroy themselves. We're just not. And I wish people would realize that we hear all the time that voting for Democrat is the more compassionate thing

Starting point is 00:28:53 because, oh, we care about poor people, because you care about people of color, because you care about equality and equity. Why don't you look at the cities that are run by Democrats and tell me if any of those things are even close to being accomplished there? I'm not saying that you have to like Republicans or everything that Republicans do. I understand. I do. I have my own problems with the Republican Party. But you can't tell me that voting for Democrat is somehow more compassionate.

Starting point is 00:29:18 Thomas Soul talks about how Democrats tend to judge the effectiveness of their policies by their stated intentions and never by the results. No, we judge policies not by the stated or purported intentions. We judge policies by their results and the results of the policies that are being pushed forth by the current Democratic Party, their destruction all around. There are forms of tyranny in some cases when you look at the restrictions that have been placed on individuals and churches and schools and children for the past couple of years, but they're also deadly and destructive. Like when you look at abortion policy, for example, and when you look at drug use policy, and of course, it's always in the name of compassion. By the way, tyranny is always in the name of

Starting point is 00:29:58 compassion too. I don't care what's done in the name of compassion. I want to know what is actually being done and what is the result of that? I'm sure Paul Pot also put forth his policies in the name of compassion too. I'm sure Kumar Rouge bill themselves as the party of compassion. Of course, destructive tyrants always do. And again, I am not trying to say that Republicans are the perfect party with the perfect policies that have put forward perfect solutions to the very real issues that we have. I wish that they would. I think that's why you actually see a shift in the Republican Party away from this kind of libertarian, well, you know, whatever. It's not the government's role to do anything to a, okay, well, how can we harness the power of the government in order to advance policies that are actually good for communities? I think that's a particularly good shift and I think we should lean into that while also not wanting government power to simply run a mock. And so there's just, there's a lot to be, there's a lot to be discussed there. And I also want to acknowledge, I understand, because Michael Schellenberger, I don't think. think he calls himself a conservative or Republican. And neither does Barry Weiss. And so there are a lot of people who identify as on the left or maybe center left or maybe right in the center who maybe

Starting point is 00:31:15 identify as Democrats who voted for Joe Biden, who are not for this kind of thing, who can look at what's happening on the streets of San Francisco or Austin or any of the other cities that I've named and see, okay, this is a problem. This is a problem. And they're not for this either. And I'm not same that there is a whole lot of compromise to be had between the modern Democratic Party and those of us who identify as conservatives. But on some things, like we just have to be able to say, okay, do we share the goal of policies that are good for communities? Do we share the goal of getting people off the streets and out of addiction? If we share that goal, which I think the vast majority of people do, despite your political affiliation, no matter what your political affiliation is,

Starting point is 00:32:00 is, but I think that there's probably, you know, fringe progressives that think that addiction is fine and that people should just be incentivized to live that way. I think the vast majority of us truly want everyone to be a productive citizen that is able to make money for themselves and their families and to live clean and responsible lives, right? And so if we agree on that, let's look at policies that are actually going to discourage disincentivize and, yes, stigmatize the kind of lifestyle that is. truly not just destroying these individuals, but destroying communities and societies as a whole. We have to care about that if we say that we're compassionate, even if the policies that disincentivize

Starting point is 00:32:42 those things may sound not compassionate, we have to, again, look at the results. This is not about feelings or what feels good or, again, superficial, flimsy definitions of empathy. This is about true love. And true love actually seeks the true best interests. of the people that we say that we're loving. So I just wanted to make sure that we're covering that story. And also point out just a couple of things. I mean, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up pro-life evangelicals for Biden because I do every chance that I get. This administration, unfortunately, as moderate as he said that he was going to be, is run by radical progressives.

Starting point is 00:33:25 It is. Those are the nominees that he has tapped. Those are the people that are running the show. Biden's not running the show. He can barely complete a sentence. That's just objectively true. You can say that that's rude. It's easily observable.

Starting point is 00:33:36 He can barely hold it together. And so the people that are running the show are probably much farther left than him. And we have been saying that since before the election. And yet we were told by people in the pro-life evangelical for Biden camp, the compassionate politics camp, and people who said that Joe Biden is going to restore America to a sense of normalcy and going to unite Americans together. not going to be a demagogue and he is going to squash COVID. None of those things have been true. He has been extremely radical, not just in his rhetoric, but also in the policies that his administration

Starting point is 00:34:12 has advocated for. And so we said, we said this. I mean, I hate to say, I told you so. There are plenty of things that I've been wrong about over the years. But on this, we were right. We told you that Biden and his administration was they were going to be radical, that they were going to be in America last administration. And if you wanted to ruin the country, if you wanted to weaken America, you would not do anything differently than what the Biden administration has done.

Starting point is 00:34:43 I mean, that is abundantly clear. And anyone who could not see that at this point, you've just got your head in the sand. Or maybe you just so badly want to justify and defend your vote. And you still want to believe that you did the right and the compassionate thing, that you refused to see what is so blubes.

Starting point is 00:34:58 blatantly in front of you. Just admit Joe Biden is doing a bad job. Everything is just, just, just tangibly worse and even intangibly worse. Like, everything just feels dark and depressing a little bit. Not that there's not a lot of happiness in life because there is. I have a very happy and wonderful life. But just everything is more expensive and more burdensome and more absurd than it was even when Trump was president. I mean, the decline has been very. precipitous, and that is why, of course, Joe Biden has such low ratings. But I do wish, I do wish that some leaders who advocated for Joe Biden, Christian leaders who advocated for Joe Biden, some of whom we talked about yesterday, would come out and say,

Starting point is 00:35:45 you know what, I was, I was wrong. I was wrong that this would be a so-called holistically pro-life uniting more Christian presidency. And that they would just come out and say, you know what? I didn't like Trump. I didn't like a lot of the things that he said, but the policies that he put forth, they were better than the policies put forth. They were more, quote, holistically pro-life or pro-all-life than the policies put forth by the Biden administration, whether you're looking at immigration, whether you're looking at abortion, whether you're looking at what we've talked about

Starting point is 00:36:16 today. I mean, that's just objectively true. You don't have to love Donald Trump or be a Republican to be able to acknowledge that. I saw a tweet by Beth Moore and she said, you know, that she thinks that it's very strange that a lot of Christian leaders don't feel the need to apologize when they have been purveyors of misinformation or when they've said something that has turned out not to be true or when they've contributed to, you know, bad-mouthing someone and what they said turned out not to be true, whatever. And I just think that that is really interesting because I have a feeling she's not talking about the people that I think of when that comes to mind. I think of all of the people who vouched either implicitly or explicitly for Joe Biden,

Starting point is 00:37:01 saying again that he was going to be unifying or in some way pro-life or that he was going to be more reflective of Christian values in his presidency than Donald Trump was. I think of some of the people that we talked about yesterday that platformed Francis Collins, who said that a cloth mask was a life-saving device and that not getting a vaccine that doesn't stop infection or transmission is loving your neighbor. I think about those people. well, why haven't they apologized? Or the people who said that we should meet virtually for churches instead of just allowing that to be a place of Christian liberty or acknowledging that, hey, Johns Hopkins has just come out and said that lockdowns had no measurably positive effect when it came to mitigating the spread of the virus. Why shouldn't they come out and say, you know what, I was wrong. I was wrong in saying that.

Starting point is 00:37:47 I was wrong in castigating my fellow Christians who took a different stance on meeting together. as churches I was wrong in saying that it is loving your neighbor to get this vaccine because some of those people have been triple vaccinated and still got COVID and possibly spread COVID. And so I wish some of those leaders. And I don't think that's who Beth Moore is alluding to. I wish some of those leaders would come out and apologize and simply say, you know what, I was wrong.

Starting point is 00:38:14 And I was wrong to divide the church in that way. I would love to know. I would love to know, actually, specifically. who she is referring to there. And one more absurd thing, in addition to the lack of response from the evangelical pro-life for Biden crowd, is in thinking about what this administration has demonized and now what they seem to be almost endorsing or at least incentivizing and allowing. They have demonized ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine.

Starting point is 00:38:51 they have stopped the production or reduced the production and the distribution of monoclonal antibodies, all of which have been used by doctors with lots of experience and specifically lots of experience with COVID patients. And they have been used reportedly by these doctors, according to these doctors, effectively. At the very least, they haven't caused harm for the patients, according to these doctors. and yet this administration has demonized them. And yet they're making it easier to smoke crack for equity. That's what I said on Twitter yesterday.

Starting point is 00:39:30 Ivermactin is horse dewormer. Hydroxychloroquine is fish tank cleaner. Monoclonal antibodies are useless. And free crack pipes are equity. Science. Health. Truth. Reality.

Starting point is 00:39:44 Democracy. All of the values encompassed in one. in one ridiculous, ridiculous headline. Okay, so I actually think that's all that we have time for today, rather than get into this whole other story about Leah Thomas. I'll save that for another day. I'm actually, I'm going to do an extra episode on Friday because I had so much that I wanted to talk about this week

Starting point is 00:40:12 and I didn't have a new episode on Monday since we did a part two on Monday. Definitely go listen to that, by the way. I share the gospel. I talk about the gospel with an atheist with James Lindsay. We talk about theology. Go listen to that. But I didn't get in everything I wanted to talk about this week. And so we're going to do an extra episode on Friday in which maybe I'll talk about this Leah Thomas story.

Starting point is 00:40:33 Or maybe we'll talk about the Canadian convoy. Tomorrow we're talking to Scott Atlas. I'm super excited about that. And he's going to pull back the curtain on the pandemic response and the history of that super fascinating book that he has out. I'm really, really excited about that conversation. But, yeah, I think I'm going to save, I think I'm going to save that conversation and the other conversation about Leah Thomas and also that tweet about modesty that's been going around. Also speaking of Beth Moore that she responded to, I think I'm going to save that for Friday

Starting point is 00:41:11 or maybe even Monday. Who knows? There's always, people ask me all the time. Do you ever feel you run out of content? do you ever wake up and you're like, I have no idea what I'm going to talk about. Sometimes I don't know what I'm going to talk about when I wake up, but I never run out of things to talk about. There is just always so much to cover. And you guys also ask me, do you just get tired of talking about it? Sometimes I do, but honestly, like, this gives me energy.

Starting point is 00:41:39 I love recording this podcast. I think that I, if I didn't have an outlet to talk about these things, I'd probably just like talk to myself or I'd talk to my husband, even when he's got his headphones in because I just have to get out my thoughts about all of this. All right, guys, thank you so much for listening. Make sure you go back and listen to Monday and Tuesday's episodes. If you haven't done that already, subscribe on YouTube if you currently don't. And please, if you love this podcast, leave us a five-star review. Tell us why you love it.

Starting point is 00:42:09 Or you don't even have to say why you love it if you don't have time. Just leave us a five-star review. It means a lot. Thank you guys so much. We will be back here tomorrow. 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.

Starting point is 00:42:28 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.

Starting point is 00:43:00 I hope you'll join us.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 561 | Free Crack Pipes & the Cruelty of Progressive Compassion

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