Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 579 | Spilling the CPAC Tea

Episode Date: March 9, 2022

Today we spill the tea on CPAC: the controversy that got me forever uninvited and the recent troubling revelations that have made me thankful for that. Then, we listen and respond to some audience voicemails detailing your weird dreams. --- Timecodes: (0:00) Introduction (4:29) Why Allie hasn't been invited back to CPAC (22:51) Matt Schlapp's tweet about Lia Thomas (37:23) Why didn't CPAC 2022 hold any pro-life speeches or talks? (54:47) Allie listens to some voicemails about strange dreams --- Today's Sponsors: Carly Jean Los Angeles is more than just clothes — they want to make a difference in the lives of others through not only clothes that make you feel amazing but through living with a heart of kindness & love for others. Go to CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com & use promo code 'ALLIEB' to save 20% off your first order! Good Ranchers sells 100% American meat — and did you know that 85% of the grass-fed beef in stores & online is imported? Don't pay a premium for low-quality, foreign meat! Go to GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE & save $30 off your order when you use promo code 'ALLIE'. Z-Stack is a specially-formulated immune-boosting supplement that includes Zinc, Quercetin, & Vitamins C & D. It's Kosher & GMP certified & is produced right here in the USA! It's formulated to combat ANY & ALL variants as well as the common cold & flu. Go to ZStackLife.com/ALLIE & use promo code 'ALLIE' to get a small discount off your first order. --- 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 Wednesday. 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 All right. That's good ranchers.com slash alley. All right, guys, the moment you've all been waiting for. I'm a little bit nervous about it, to be honest. I'm talking about CPAC and why I have not spoken at CPAC since 2019, the story behind that. And also some issues I have with CPAC as a conference, as an organization that really has nothing to do with me no longer speaking there. And I just want to say up front, before we get into it, I hold no ill will toward the leaders. of CPAC, the people who organize CPAC, I don't have anything personal against them as people.

My desire is not to slander. It's not to malign anyone's character. It's not to impugn anyone's motives. I don't want to cause division. I think it was Ronald Reagan, who said the 11th commandment was that you never spoke ill of another Republican. And I think a lot of people abide by that. But the reason why I am talking about this is because I genuinely believe in conservative values. I believe in conservatism as a political philosophy, as a social

philosophy. That is something that I believe is entirely informed by my biblical views. That's not to say that those things are identical or synonymous conservatism and biblical Christianity. But I do believe having a view of the Bible as authoritative does lead you to conservative conclusions when it comes to a variety of policy and social issues. Obviously, that is part of why the show exists. That is a large part of what we do on this podcast is explaining that connection. And so I want conservatism as a political philosophy to prevail. That means even people within conservatism that I may disagree with on some issues. I don't, you know, I don't want to tear them down. I don't want to hold them back. I want them to succeed if I feel like their cause is just and the

things that they stand for are good if they are advancing the cause of freedom, for example. But when there are organizations and when there are individuals who claim to represent conservatism and to be on the cutting edge of conservatism and the front lines of conservatives, and they aren't actually representing conservative values or they're not doing that sufficiently or well or with, in my opinion, integrity, then I would say that's a problem. And look, at the end of the day, I don't really care about conservatism or the conservative movement. Like I said, I adhere to conservative values. But at the end of the day, I don't care about it as a political movement ultimately or primarily.

I am a Christian, first and foremost and completely. And as I said, yes, that does inform my conservative views, absolutely. But I don't ultimately care about the GOP. I don't really care about the Republican Party. Yes, I do vote Republican. But if republicanism and the so-called conservative movement is what I'm about to describe one day, which is basically a form of capitalism with kind of a progressive, twist, then I don't want any part of that. I really don't care. If that's what the conservative

movement is, if that's the future of the GOP, then I will watch it crash and burn and I will feel totally apathetic about it. That's not what I desire, though, which is exactly why I'm having the conversation that I'm having today. It does not have to do with me, again, having any personal animus toward anyone that I'm talking about. It just has to do with disagreement that I think is really, really significant. So first, before I talk about some of the issues that I think were, that, that I think exists within CPAC and why I think those things mattered, let me, let me back up first. And I think it gives this context of why I have not spoken at CPAC since 2019. So I spoke at CPAC in 2018. I was asked to be on a pro-life panel. And I took that very

seriously. I had never been invited to CPAC. I really just kind of started this whole thing in 2017, like 2018, when I spoke at CPAC, I believe it would have been February. And so I hadn't even started relatable yet. I was just about to start relatable. I was just kind of on the cusp of this career in conservative, political, and cultural commentating. And I took it, I mean, I really prepared for that speech and for the monologue that I, that I wanted to give. I knew I only had six minutes to speak. And I wanted to speak as passionately and as clearly and as concisely as I could about the evil that is abortion. I was very thankful that they gave me a platform to do that, someone who didn't have a big platform. At that time, it was certainly, I saw it as a favor that CPAC gave me

to speak. And then the next year, they were kind enough to ask me to help plan. So they kind of put me on a committee. I think it was Dan Schneider, who is the executive vice president, who originally reached out to me and said, hey, will you kind of help us plan? Will you make some suggestions for who should speak and what the panel should be on? And I was really excited again about that opportunity. This is CPAC is the biggest conservative political action conference that happens every year. I guess I should have said that at the beginning for those of you who don't know. This is a huge conservative political action conference that's been around for a very long time. Not only did they ask me to plan the 2019 CPAC, but they also asked

me to contribute a chapter to a book that was called Reagan at CPAC. That basically you analyzed one of Reagan CEPAC speeches and you talked about its significance and how it applies to the issues today. As a fan of Ronald Reagan, I was very honored to be asked to do this. This was a book that was sold at CPAC in 2019. They also asked me to do it very last minute. They actually had one of their contributing writers for this book back out. They needed me to turn this around in a couple of days. I gladly did that. They were grateful for that. So I was pretty involved in CEPC in 2019. I spoke on two panels. I spoke on a religious liberty panel with Senator Lankford from Oklahoma. And I spoke on another, like in another breakout session about, I think with Family Research Council or something,

about the importance of the nuclear family and all of that. So that was great. I was pretty inundated in C-Pact in 2019. I didn't work for them. I wasn't officially associated with them in any way. I was just a volunteer. It didn't get paid as far as I remember for any of this. I'm pretty sure that it was just a voluntary role honored to do it, all that good stuff. Well, the next year rolls around 2020. And this was before the world shut down because this is like end of February. And beginning of February, I thought it was weird that I hadn't heard from CPAC. I knew that I hadn't gotten asked to help plan or write anything. Okay, that's fine. And my book, You're Not Enough, was about to come out. At that point, it was going to come out in May that ended up getting changed, you know,

because of COVID and all of that. But my publisher from Penguin had been reaching out to CPAC and just saying, hey, you know, Ali would love to come if she could mention her book in like a speech or a panel. That would be great. And they didn't hear anything. They kept on getting ignored, which I thought was really, I thought was strange. Again, because of all of the involvement that I had had the year before. And so finally, Dan Schneider replied to me because I, you know, inserted my

and trying to be as polite as possible. I didn't have any reason I thought to disrespect CPAC. And he agreed to speak on the phone with me about why I wasn't being invited in 2020, which again, I really appreciate. Dan Schneider did not have to take the time to talk to me on the phone. But he did. He offered to talk to me on the phone about that, which I really, really appreciated. Still appreciate to this day, I think that's the right thing to do. However, the reason that he told me on the phone that I was no longer invited was stunning to me. I thought that it was just going to be, look, we can't invite everyone every year. We appreciate the contributions that you've had in the past, but we just don't have a place for you that year. That's fine. That's how the world works.

That's how things go. You're not invited to everything every year, even if you were appreciated for your contribution the year before. I was shocked by what he told me. And I am going to leave you on that for just one second. 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. 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. Okay. So in order for me to explain to you the reason that he gave me, which was really stunning,

it's kind of a boring answer. Like, I'm not going to tell you that it is like this like super juicy answer. It's boring, but it's just bizarre. And I think doesn't speak well to the organization just to try to put it as charitably as I possibly can. he told me that okay so let me back up a little bit in 2019 Michelle Malkin spoke and she said something about I don't I didn't hear the speech something about the spirit of John McCain and you know Senator John McCain had recently died and so a lot of people didn't like this like she was speaking poorly negatively about John McCain and how John McCain basically she was saying wasn't like a lot of people didn't like this like she was speaking poorly negatively about John McCain and how John McCain basically she was saying wasn't like a a good contribution to the Republican Party. This was then publicized on Twitter.

And every year, things that are said at CPAC go viral and liberal journalists and even conservatives criticize it. And Megan McCain, understandably, was offended by this. And, you know, she was talking about it. I didn't know Megan at all. And I think I might have seen her tweets, but I saw a lot of people talking about CPAC and some of what they thought were problematic things that were said. understandable people like you have a right to criticize things that are said i certainly would would have been offended if someone said that about my dad and i didn't have any problem with

you know what megma was saying so i created a different um a different tweet and it had nothing to do actually with what me was saying to me it was all there was just like a ccophony of criticism about CPAC and remember this is the year that i was helping plan that i was like on a i was on a pan about religious liberty and all of that. And I made a tweet and I tweeted out a clip from the panel that I was on about religious liberty. And I said, you know, I actually said, I wish I had it in front of me, but I don't. It's on there.

It's on there, though. So you can fact check me. I said, you know, I know that a lot of people have problems with some things that were said. I don't care what anyone says. I was proud of the panel that I was a part of. And I posted that clip. Well, Megan McCain, who just to spoiler alert, we are actually. We're friends now. We reconciled very quickly and it was all good. She's great. She took what I said as a

response to what she was saying about Michelle Malkin criticizing her dad. And she kind of went after me and was like, hey, basically, how dare you, how dare you say this? Of course, I have a problem with what's being said at CPAC. This is a terrible thing to say about my dad. And I, again, was not responding to her. So I started replying to her tweets and was like, I am not talking about that. I'm not talking about your tweets. I'm not talking about what Michelle Malkin said. I'm saying there's a lot of criticism out there about CPAC. And I said to her, I totally understand why you're offended.

You know, basically that's valid. I'm just saying that I was proud of what I was a part of. And then we went back and forth on DM. She was like, sorry, I jumped to that conclusion. I was like, totally fine. I get it. And again, we're friends. It's all good.

And so that's a happy ending to that story. And I thought that I did a good job of, like, defending the parts of CPAC that I was a part of without endorsing everything that was said because I never endorse everything that said in any conference that I'm a part of, especially in political conference. There's always going to be things that people say that I disagree with and maybe people that present that I disagree with. And so it's never my responsibility to defend every single person I don't think it should be. So that was the exchange. I thought really nothing of it. really the thing that made me nervous about that was thinking that Megan McCain thought that I was like trying to attack her in any way and I was really glad that we reconciled. So after she and I reckons out and it was all good, like I really didn't think anything of it. So that was the exchange that happened. Dan Schneider told me in 2020 when he again very kindly, I think took the time to call me and tell me that the reason why I wasn't invited in 2020 is because in that tweet exchange with Megan McCain, he said that their team at CPAC didn't think that I did enough to defend CPAC, that I should have,

that I shouldn't have, I guess, given any caveats about, you know, some people being offended or Megan being justified for having, you know, her, for being offended by what was said that I didn't do a good enough job of going to bat for CPAC in that exchange, which I actually, like, I was speechless. I could not believe what I was hearing. So many things. First of all, it's, I don't work for CPAC. I've never worked for CPAC. It's not my job to do PR for CPAC. I have never been officially affiliated with them in any way. It's not my job to go to bat for them on social media. But even though that's true, I did. Like, I did actually defend them in a lot of ways. Yes, I did walk that line because I didn't agree with everything that was said. And I wanted to validate what I thought were very justified feelings by Megan McCain. But you can go and find this tweet exchange somewhere. Of course, I was thinking as I'm having this conversation, this is a public conversation. I don't want people at CPAC to feel disrespected. I don't want

Megan to feel disrespected. So I would have never said anything to throw anyone under the bus, but they felt like I didn't do enough to defend them. So I guess that's the line. Like if you don't unapologetically, no matter what, without any caveats or any conditions, go to bat for CPAC, this organization that, again, I am not officially affiliated with, have never been in any way, then you're out. So he told me that that's why I wouldn't be invited again. I was so just shocked and embarrassed, not for myself, but honestly for CPAC. I mean, we're talking about grown men in the conservative movement who cut someone out, who is, I mean, I'm as conservative as they come who cut someone out because of a tweet exchange that they didn't think was like quite

passionate enough in defense of every single CPAC speaker. I mean, maybe that wasn't the real reason. Maybe there's another reason that I'm not invited. Maybe they just didn't want to invite me. If that's the case, like, I can take that. That's fine. Honestly, as I already said, that would have been better than telling me that I didn't defend CPAC enough on Twitter. That was insane to me. And honestly, it made me very cynical. It showed me that even grown adults can be extremely petty, can be extremely sensitive, that really we almost never graduate from middle school or high school, or some people never graduate from middle school or high school. And the ironic thing about that is that they have people that come every year that disagree with them or what they say their values are on really big issues.

I mean, they've had people come that are not proletal. life in any sense. They've obviously had Tulsi Gabbard speak. They have people who are for abortion at least up to a certain point. They've had, I think they had Van Jones a couple years ago, who is obviously very liberal. I'm not even criticizing them for that. I understand, okay, we don't have to agree with everyone on everything in order to form a coalition. Okay, there are some things I disagree on that I think are foundational that shouldn't be, you know, there shouldn't be much wiggle room on. But, okay, if you want to invite people that we agree with on a few, a few things and disagree with on other big things to at least contribute some part of their voice to the conversation at CPAC, whatever.

It's not my organization that's fine. But to invite those people that you disagree with on a matter of life and death, like abortion, and then cut someone out because I didn't defend you enough on Twitter, even though we agree apparently on all of these big issues, like what does that say? about a conservative organization. And look, I'm not saying that I'm special, that I am entitled to be invited to anything. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the reason that I was given for not being invited from a conservative

organization that then turns around and invites people that are decidedly not conservative, really, in any way, I mean, that's just troubling to me. It's not troubling to me just because of my personal situation. That's fine. I get asked to speak many, many places. every year. I have to deny more requests than I, except I'm very thankful for that. I have many opportunities to speak across the country. I love doing that in a way that honestly, I think, it's a lot more meaningful than the platform that I would be given at CPAC. So I don't lose anything.

Honestly, I really don't. But it troubles me about conservatism in general. It troubles me about the people who claim to be leading conservatism. And it's not just that. It's not just my personal particular situation, although I think that that is kind of indicative of at least a problem within, you know, I don't know if you would call it like establishment conservatism or like Beltway, D.C. conservatism. I do think it's indicative of a problem in that regard. But also I think that there are some real issues when it comes to priorities and when it comes to very, values that are displayed at CPAC that I want to talk about. And that is based on a tweet by Matt Schlapp, who is the head of CPAC, about Leah Thomas. It's based on the lack of pro-life

talks and panels at CPAC. It's also based on a lack of conversation, public conversation at CPAC about women's sports and women's spaces and women's issues and then also a lack of public conversation this past year about religious liberty. And so we'll get into those substantive issues in just one second. All right. So the leader of the head of CPAC, his name is Matt Schlapp, and he got a lot of backlash on Twitter for a tweet about Leah Thomas. And look, I want to be as charitable as possible because we've all said things on Twitter that we didn't mean or we worded things the wrong way. And so we, you know, got into a little bit of trouble. That happens to the best of us, absolutely. And I don't think necessarily that this tweet is representative of

everything that Matchlap truly believes about women in sports. So I do want to give the benefit of the doubt there. But it was the response to the backlash that he received that I found. again, really troubling when it comes to who is leading this particular movement and the priorities that they have. So Matt Schlapp tweeted just the other day earlier this week that he said, no matter what one thinks of Leah's, he was quote tweeting, I think, an article by the New York Post, no matter what one thinks of Leah's ability to swim with women, her story deserves are compassion. It will be interesting to hear Leah's POV in 30 years.

So this coming from a conservative was troubling for a few reasons. It is not because he said that Leah Thomas deserves compassion. Because I do believe that all human beings deserve compassion. But it really depends on what you mean by compassion. Does compassion mean that you validate their newfound identity? does it mean that you feel sorry for them or does it just mean that, hey, you're a person made in the image of God and therefore I believe that you are due to some respect and I will treat you with decency and understanding. If you are simply saying that, hey, this is a person like all people who is made in the image of God and therefore we don't try to dehumanize them. We don't speak in a malicious way about them.

Then I'm on board with that. But here are some problems that I had with the tweet, which I think a lot of people had as well. Well, that is his use of her. So he called a man, her. He is a man. Leah Thomas is a man. Biology is not bigotry. And therefore, calling a man, he or him, is not bigoted.

It's not wrong. Once you have acquiesced to the point of bending your language to the progressive absurdity that a man can become a woman or vice versa, by calling a man, she, her, or calling a woman, he, him, you have completely seated ground. like you have completely given in. If we cannot defend this front, the most fundamental fact of human existence that male, female actually exists and that your gender is not simply an identity or a declaration or something you take on and therefore it's not something that you, that other people have

to bend their language to, then there really is nothing to fight for anymore. Then why fight for anything? If you can't even fight for that fight. fundamental truth, then like, really, what else is there? If we are not conserving that, which again, which is the most fundamental fact of human existence, without the reality, the fixed reality of male and female, none of us would even exist. If we buy into this postmodern lie that gender identity is something that you can take on and take off, that it's simply just a feeling, then why fight for women to have their own spaces? Why shouldn't men who identify as women,

who say that their women go into women's prisons? Like, if you are going to call a man, she, her, then why shouldn't a man who calls himself she, her, go into a girl's bathroom? Like, why shouldn't he be in a domestic abuse shelter for women? So you've ceded ground once you call a man her. And he did that. That's a big deal from the leader of CPAC, the head of CPAC. And then he says it'll be interesting to hear Leah Thomas's perspective in 30 years, except we are already hearing Leah Thomas's perspective.

Everyone in the mainstream media is only talking about Leah Thomas's perspective. There was this whole, was it Time Magazine? There was this whole big article. Let's see. So Time Magazine did talk about Leah Thomas, but I'm pretty sure that there was another. Oh, Sports Illustrated. It was Sports Illustrated. You did this whole thing about Leah Thomas and came out and took

pictures of him and all this. So we are already hearing his perspective. You know whose perspective I want to hear, but we don't really hear enough of because they are scared to speak out, at least with their name and their true identity. I want to hear from the women who are no longer setting records. They're no longer winning their competitions because they have a man that they are competing against. That's not fair. I want to hear their perspective. I want to hear their perspective right now. I'm not really interested in hearing Leah Thomas's perspective in 30 years unless he is looking back and saying, wow, that was an injustice I committed against these women who have worked their whole lives to be good and to excel and to win at what they do. And I took that

from them simply because I wanted to identify as a woman. Wow, that's not fair. That would be a perspective that I'd be interested in hearing. But right now, for the head of a conservative organization who is supposed to be at the helm of the conservative movement, calling a man, her and then saying it's interesting it'd be interesting to hear his perspective in 30 years. I'm just not sure why Matt Schlapp felt the need to add this perspective at all. Again, I agree. We should treat everyone with a level of compassion and decency and respect. Absolutely.

People are made in the image of God. That includes people who think that they are the opposite sex even though they are not. That is true. Do I think that that is the perspective that conservatives need to be adding right now? like as men are infiltrating women's prisons in a variety of states as they are going into girls' bathrooms, locker rooms, and taking records in scholarships and titles away from girls and women and women's sports. Like is that the perspective that conservatives need to be adding to the conversation? No.

Our job right now is to pull the Overton window way back over. We've gotten to this crazy realm where if you identify you something, that means you are that thing. And as we can see, so-called trans rights are at odds with women's rights. And so, like, where do you stand in that? Like, what is the battle that you are fighting? I think that you see too much ground when you call a man hurt. And that's the predominant perspective that you represent as a conservative. I don't see how that is helping the conversation at all.

And by the way, like, if we wanted to model how to, talk about this issue with decency and respect, which again, I agree with, while also defending fiercely women's rights and women's privacy and women's safety, then it would have been great to have a panel on that or have a speaker talk about that at CPAC. But as far as I can tell, and I have talked to now people who helped plan CPAC and know the inner workings of CPAC. There was, as far as I can see, I'm sure maybe someone mentioned it in one of their talks are one of their panels. But as far as I can see, there was no talk about that. There was no panel that talked about women's sports. There was no speaker that had that as the

subject that they were presenting on at CPAC. So if that was an issue that he cares about and we want to be really nuanced about that, then maybe that should have been something that was headlining CPAC. But it wasn't. And so that's one issue. Now, I do want to be fair because I want to say what his response was. He did put out a statement. He said that CPAC believes in fiercely defending girls and women's sports at every level, including in state legislative chambers. The left's war on gender must be confronted and CPAC will continue to do just that. We will continue to demonstrate decency to all those involved. All right. That's fine. And it is true that CPAC does. They rate bills when it comes to this particular gender issue, something that I'm, something that I'm

grateful for. When he was talking to the Daily Wire, he said, I just believe quite clearly that you can have operations to change your physical appearance, but you can't change your gender match slap told the daily wire. There's no way to change it and that should, and that should determine your status on gender questions like what sport you compete in. He said that he was just quickly responding to a tweet. When he said her, he said that's not an intentional statement one way or the other. That seems to me he doesn't want, you know, he definitely doesn't want the pronoun police knocking on his door. But I, you know, I believe him when he says that he believes that men should compete in men's sports. I just think that the tweet was odd. And again, okay, even if you say give you the benefit

of the doubt, you didn't mean to say what you said, his response to that to people that were that were critiquing him or even just respectfully disagreeing with him, I thought. was super strange. So Jenna Ellis, who was a Trump lawyer, she went kind of back and forth with him and just disagreed with him and said, you know, like this is not something. This is this is not the stance that we need to be representing as conservatives right now. This simply is not helpful. And he said, all he's saying is that in the entrance people deserve our love and compassion. He said we should defend girls, sports against competing with men aggressively. But in the end, remember that all people deserve respect.

Kind of simple. If showing decency makes you boycott CPAC, Jenna Ellis, I'm good with it. And she makes a good point in response to that. She said, that's not all you said. You can't walk back calling a man her under the guise of loving compassion. Loving compassion requires speaking truth. Gina Ellis says, which I agree with. And then she said, this is an open call from that to abandon CPAC because he is unwilling to stand for truth.

Do it. And then he says, Jenna, this is a false controversy. You're upset with CPAC because we didn't invite you to speak. Whoa. That's low. That is really low. I mean, she explained, there are a lot of people, a lot of great conservatives, by the way,

very influential conservatives who weren't invited to CPAC. I haven't heard from any of them that they're very bitter and resentful about that. But I thought that was really low. To basically say the only reason that she could be criticized in him when she explained, very clearly why she's criticizing him is because she's bitter that she didn't get invited to CPAC. That's a very prideful response. And again, he's doubling down. And so if you didn't, if you said something that you didn't mean to say, okay, whatever, that happens to the best of us. But to double down and then to attack someone who is critiquing you for that, I thought that was

really, really low. And then Dan Schneider, the person whom I talked about earlier, who again had the respect to call me and tell me that what I thought was a very bizarre reason, to not to, you know, not have me back. He said that we at CPAC have always taken a principal position on marriage and identity. We also maintain our view that all people are deserving of dignity and respect. This is the heart of conservatism. It is also what Jesus taught. I also thought that this was really low.

To bring Jesus into this, when, like, this is also a straw man argument. No one is arguing, including Jenna Alice from what I can see, that we shouldn't treat people with compassion and respect. That's not what anyone is arguing. Like, we're arguing that that wasn't the greatest representation of what the conservative priority is when it comes to defending the fixed reality of biological sex and the importance of prioritizing the rights of women and girls and calling a man hurt. Like, that was the beef here.

But they keep on avoiding that, which people have said over and over again, yeah, that's the, that's the real beef and saying, oh, well, this is what? We're just talking about respect. This is what Jesus would do. To me, that's a form of manipulation, a spiritual manipulation. Again, to me, that's really low. So I responded to that response. And I said, I'm not sure the principal position is calling a man her or saying that it will be interesting to hear the perspective of someone who is accused of flashing his genitals to women in the locker room. That's true. That's according to Daily Mail.

Apparently, there are teammates of Leah Thomas, again, who are saying this anonymously, who are uncomfortable because he has not had any operations and he is changing. is getting naked apparently, reportedly, in the locker room, and he is also still attracted to women. And now these women are forced to change with him in the locker room. Why is that, why is our compassion not directed toward them primarily? Like, why can't we talk more about that? Why can't we focus on that? Why do I want to hear the point of view of someone who is indirectly or maybe intentionally or unintentionally doing what is what happens? as in the past amounted to sexual harassment towards college women.

Like, why isn't that where our compassion is directed? But again, this is a straw man argument. Oh, no, this is what Jesus would do. Jesus would apparently call a man her in a tweet. And so Dan Schneider responded to me. He said, of course, I never suggested otherwise, but happy to have an intelligent conversation with you if you want to go beyond 280 characters.

And I said, well, that's exactly what Matt said originally. He originally did call a man her and said that we need to see Leah Thomas's perspective. And he said, it is not. It is not what Matchlap originally said. And I responded with the screenshot of what Matchlap originally said. And he did not respond. So yes, it is.

That actually is what Matchlap originally said. And why does this all matter? Because of what I've already said. Because when we acquiesce, when we seed ground on this language issue and on the issue of whether or not a man can become a woman, then you've lost all the battle. And these are people who are at the helm of the conservative movement who are heading the largest conservative conference every year talking in this way. And then treating other conservatives who critique them and who push back against them in a way that I think is really shameful.

And to me, it just reflects how I was treated at the beginning of 2020 in that conversation. This to me is a problem. But that's not the only problem that's going on. Like I said, there was a complete lack of representation of pro-life conversations in the year that Roe v. Wade will possibly be overturned. That is a big omission. And Matt Schlapp was actually asked about that, a particular reporter from, I think, a small news organization asked Matt Schlapp, hey, why are there no talks? There were zero speeches and there were zero panels on the pro-life. issue. Why? Why? In the year that Roe v. Wade might be overturned, obviously this is a big issue for people. Why were there no official conversations about that at CPAC? Let me play you, his response.

Go away. You and Mercy have a very strong pro-life record. And some of the folks that have come to CPAC were concerned that it might not have as much of a strong pro-life message, particularly in a year where Roe v. Wade could be overturned. I wouldn't if you could speak to that. Yeah, you know, we always say every year we should have a pro-life panel. And I broke that. I was like, I don't want a pro-life panel. And they're like, why? I was like, because I think everything's pro-life that we talk about. Everything should be life-affirming.

And we've tried to take that spirit in what we talk about with so many issues. Now, we'll have speakers that are for abortion and for legal abortion, and we have people here with disagreements on almost every major issue. That used to be a problem for us. And my belief is that should not be a problem. All right. So I, I'm sorry. That's not a great answer.

That's almost like what the left says about the pro-life issue. And again, I'm not questioning whether or not Matt Schlapp is truly against abortion. I hope and pray and think that he is. But that's not a great response. That's not a great response. The abortion issue is imbued in everything that's talked about. Let me tell you, there were two separate talks tied to lock her up about Hillary Clinton. Like, can you tell me how the pro-life cause?

conversation was imbued into the conversation about Hillary Clinton, the nominee in the 2016 election, six years ago, guys, how the abortion conversation and the travesty of the slaughter of unborn children was imbued in the conversation about locking Hillary Clinton up. Can you tell me how that was interwoven into that? And then there was a speech or a panel that was apparently about Stacey Abrams not being the governor of Georgia. Guys, that was 2018. So, like, are these the issues that are most important to the conservative movement? But having, and he blatantly said in that clip that he said no to a pro-life panel, that he didn't want that.

In the year that Roe v. Wade might be overturned, I'm sorry, I'm really having a hard time understanding the motivation behind that. And again, I don't want to falsely impugn people's motives or unfairly impugn people's motives. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me. But again, I would have thought that the response would be, wow, this is basically priority number one for CPAC or a really high priority for us. This is really important for us. You're absolutely right. You know, we should have prioritized this more.

But, you know, XYZ speaker did talk about it, even though it wasn't the title of any of our talks. And this is something that we're really committed to. Looking back, I do think that that was possibly in oversight. or hey look, here's how CPAC has contributed to a lot of the victories that we've seen on life. But to basically say that, yeah, some people wanted a pro-life panel and he said no, because apparently pro-life is just this kind of like ethereal and tangible issue that can be somehow implicitly intertwined in all of these other talks that are given. That's a really lame excuse.

And again, that's really troubling to me. also I saw no titles of any talks on religious liberty. I'm not saying that that wasn't mentioned at all. I'm not saying that that's not a priority for people who, who head up CPAC, but why wasn't it talked about? Like, these are big issues that conservatives care about. I represent a very large segment of conservatism

of Christian moms and Christian women who, those are our biggest things. Like abortion is our biggest thing. Yes, what goes on? in education, what goes on with our kids, what goes on with things like mask mandates, all of those things matter too. But man, religious liberty really matters. Abortion really matters. Rights for women and girls really matter to us. We're a big voting block. We're a big voice in conservatism. Like social conservatives, true Christian conservatives, we care about these issues first and foremost.

And if we're no longer represented in what is considered conservatism or, you know, conservative Inc. or whatever it is, a conservative establishment or the GOP establishment, then I'm out. I don't care. Like I said at the beginning, I do not care. I am going to continue to represent you, my audience, the issues that you care about, the concerns that you have. I am going to continue talking the truth, speaking the truth about the things that matter and using as humbly but as effectively and as correctly as I can, scripture to be our guide. And if the Republican Party is basically, you know, some form of capitalism with a progressive twist that I am out. I do not care. I will cut ties and burn bridges. And that's that. At the end of the day, I'm a Christian. And I would love. I would,

I do. I am all four, um, speaking to people discussing issues with people, uh, partnering with people in certain ways that I disagree with on a variety of issues. You guys know that. I've had a lot of people on this show that I disagree with on really big things, but we've had great, very substantive conversations about the things on which we do agree. We disagree on something as major as abortion, perhaps, but we talk about the importance of protecting women and women's spaces. We disagree on an issue as huge as marriage, but we agree on the issue of draconian mandates. So, yes, I understand linking arms in some ways for some purposes. People, that you disagree with.

But excluding conversations about these major issues, I mean, that's a red flag to me. That's really troubling to me. I mean, there are some other reports that I'm not sure that I want to, I'm not even sure I want to get into right now, but there are several outlets that are posting some questions about where CPAC gets some of its money. And the only reason I'm not going to talk about all of that is not because it's not important, but because I feel like I need to understand a little, a little bit more context before I talk about it. And honestly, I just kind of wanted to give my personal perspective

on why CPAC is not conservative enough for me and why I have some issues with the leadership and the lack of leadership that I see there. And, you know, it's you looking from the outside in, you might think that all conservatives basically disagree. or basically agree, I should say, on things. And that the people that you see talking to you or representing some of the concerns that you have, that they seem exactly the way that they are on, you know, on their broadcaster from their pulpit, whatever it is. And unfortunately, even someone who I would say has purposely kind of put myself on the outskirts,

of political media and the conservative establishment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of great people. I'll say that. There are a lot of people that you see them, you know, publicly, you see them on the screen and they are wonderful people behind the scenes. I would say that's the majority of people within conservative media that I've talked to. But man, there are some snakes. There are some stakes.

If I really believed in, you know, spilling all the tea about everything I would have. Unfortunately, there's just a lot of people who, aren't who disappoint. People are going to disappoint. Organizations are going to disappoint. And at the end of the day, that is why I'm so thankful for a few things. I am thankful that ultimately the divide in this world is not right versus left. It's not conservative versus liberal. It's not Republican versus Democrat. And therefore, my identity and my allegiance isn't ultimately to any side. It is to Christ, which means that I can be okay with rejection from these organizations. I can be okay with criticism from these organizations. I can be okay with not actually being in any clique to do with conservatism. I've talked to a lot of different

organizations. I'm friends with a lot of different people, but I am not in the never Trump crowd. I'm not in the always Trump crowd. I am not in the nationalist populist crowd. I'm not in the neocon crowd. like I'm not in the libertarian crowd and there are other different cliques that I am not firmly a part of. There are probably things that I agree with from all of those different factions, but I have very purposely worked over the years to not associate myself with any click and to simply try as humbly and as fallibly, but as persistently and earnestly as I possibly can speak the truth and love and represent the issues and the concerns. that you guys have and that you guys really care about. And that means that there is going to be division between me and other people who call themselves conservative because at the end of the day, I don't care. I don't care to acquiesce to them. I don't care to compromise. Like, I care about what is true and seeking at as much as I possibly can, even as imperfectly, but again,

as earnestly and honestly as I possibly can. And there's a lot of comfort. There's a lot of comfort, I think, in knowing where my identity comes from, where my purpose comes from, where my calling comes from, that God has called me to whatever he's called me to. He has written my future. He is sovereign over every single second of every single day of my life. And he doesn't need the endorsement of any organization. He doesn't need the support of any individual to accomplish whatever he wants to accomplish in my life. He is going to do what he's going to do. And I have always asked for wisdom. I have always asked for wisdom. I have always asked for strength to have integrity. I have always asked for the ability to be as consistent as I possibly can and to protect me from corrupt forces. And I look back now when I think how I was kind of hurt and I was disappointed and I was stunned when I was told that I would no longer be invited to CPAC.

But now, as I have looked at all of these issues unfold and the back and forth that I saw unfold on Twitter this week, and I said, wow, it really is true that saying that man's rejection can be God's protection. And I'm very thankful for that. I'm thankful to no longer be associated with that conference. I'm thankful to not be asked to go to it anymore. Maybe that was God protecting me from people that I shouldn't have been associated with. Maybe. And I'm thankful for that. So apply that to your own life. Maybe there's an opportunity that you felt like you missed out on or you got passed up for something that you thought that you deserved or someone rejected you. Understand that God is completely sovereign over your life. He doesn't need the approval or the assistance of anyone to do what

he wants to do for you and through you. And you never know what missed opportunities and what forms of rejection are actually God's protection and provision for you. And so knowing that, knowing, again, where my purpose and identity lie and also just like trusting that at the end of the day, like I am a Christian, I'm a wife and a mom who happens to have a podcast, who happens to be a conservative. All of that is secondary, tertiary on the periphery for me. I love doing what I do. I love speaking. I love having this podcast. But my identity, second to being a Christian is being a wife and a mom. That's what matters to me. That's what keeps me grounded. That's why I don't typically get caught up in all of this drama and the toxicity of conservative media.

and all of that. I just don't play the game. I don't play the game. And for the reasons, the reason why is because of a lot of what I explained today. I don't know if that makes you feel cynical about the things that go on or if that makes you feel sad or disappointed or discouraged. I don't think it should. I think it should remind you that we don't put our hope in politics. We don't put our hope in politicians. We don't put our hope in activists. We don't put our hope in conferences. You put your hope in the Lord. Don't put your hope in me. Don't put, don't put, don't put all your eggs in my basket either. That's certainly not what I'm trying to say that, oh, I'm just totally above reproach and I'm perfect. And I have never gotten down into the mud or

said anything I don't mean or I've never, you know, been accidentally dishonest or something. I'm not, I'm certainly not saying that I'm not trying to get you to pat me on the back. I'm not patting myself on the back at all. I am just reminding you that worldly institutions and that individuals are ultimately going to disappoint you, but Christ never will. And when your hope and your identity and your purpose comes from him and when you trust in his sovereignty, you can look at all of the dishonesty and the pettiness that goes on, even on your political side. And you can say, that's sad, but I don't have to allow that to shape or to affect me. And I can be just as joyful and peaceful knowing that God's got me because he does.

And as far as it is concerned, as you are concerned, as far as it concerns you, be honest, have integrity, do the next right thing, try to be the same person behind the scenes as you are on camera and simply do the next right thing. You cannot worry about who doesn't like you, who rejects you, what their values are. And I don't know the future of conservatism is if this is our leadership, if this is what it looks like. And I do care because I care about the country. And I think conservative principles and policies are better for the country for every.

single demographic in every group than progressive policies. I think I've made that very clear on every single podcast episode that I've done. And so, of course, I care about conservative political philosophy prevailing. I do. But at the end of the day, you know, we have to stand in the truth, even if the Republican Party leaves us. Like, we stand where we stand and we're grounded on the word of God. And we don't sway, no matter. Who, in. up disagreeing with us. And so, yeah, that's where it is. That's the tea. I spilled the tea. And that's all I got. All right. We're going to do some, we're going to do some voicemails now. You guys left me some voicemails. And we're not going to be able to get through all of them because

we just have a few minutes left. But we are, I think we're going to do a bonus episode, potentially, might be next week, might be next Saturday. I don't know. We're going to do it. because we got so many amazing voicemails from you guys saying your dreams, we want to be able to play more of them. So we're going to do that. But I'm going to play a few of them right now just for fun. It's a fun way to finish the episode tomorrow. We're going to talk about what's the truth about oil and gas prices and everything that's going on.

We have an amazing guest for that. Okay, we will play two or three voicemails. I've not heard these voicemails yet. Beth, producer, picked them out. And so we will, I'm really excited. We'll let it rip. So let's go ahead and play the first voicemail. Hi, Ellie.

I am calling to tell you about my strangest dream and it actually happens to be a reoccurring dream too. I will preface it by saying that I have very bad eyesight in real life. I wear glasses. And in this dream, I have some kind of situation that I need to take care of. It is an emergency and I cannot see you because I don't have my contact lenses in. Oh, no. And so I go to put them in.

and I discover that they are the size of dinner plates. I have no idea what this dream means. My husband thinks it's hilarious. I don't think it's funny because the feeling of anxiety is so real that I just wanted to share because it's definitely strange. Oh, that's really funny. And if you're not watching on YouTube, you don't know that I took a sip of water at an inopportune time.

And when you said that your contacts were the size of dinner plates, I almost spit out my water. that's really funny but I could definitely see how that's really frustrating sometimes I have dreams where I'm trying to see something or like I keep on like last night I had a dream that I kept on searching for something on my computer and for some reason like I kept on getting distracted and I had to like go somewhere else every time like the page was loading and then I would go to a different place and I'd have like a different device and I'm like I gotta upload this page or whatever and it wouldn't and it was really sad so I'm really sorry I don't know what your dream means I'm not going to try to interpret it for you but I can definitely see how that's frustrating. All right. Next voicemail. Hi, Ellie. This is Deborah. I was calling because I wanted to share a strange dream. This is a dream I had when my son, who is now 12, was about 10 months old. And in the dream, I was feeding him carrots when his mouth fell out. Obviously, this piqued me out a little bit, and I thought examining the mouth that fell out. And I saw it was more like dentures,

laid over the bite that went in. And it had one tooth. And then I opened up his real mouth, and he had actually had two teeth. I broke out and I call 9-1-1. So they come in and they're like, oh, this is not a problem. His device has malfunctioned. This is a device installed by the government when children were born. Wow. Which I'm not sure how that happened.

I had a home birth, but whatever. It was a device. They get to all children to make vegetables taste better. Wow. make the population healthier. So they put in two doubling batteries. I remember that specifically because it was my 10-month-old, and I'm not sure how that fit. And I put it back into his mouth. Now it had two teeth, like his real mouth, and I fed him some carrots, and he says, clear as day, tastes like chocolate cake. Wow. That was definitely my strangest dream.

That is a really strange dream, except for our government, definitely wouldn't give us a device to make to make carrots taste better because they don't care about us being healthy at all. They would probably be like, oh yeah, we injected corn syrup into their brain when they were born. That's really, really bizarre. It's kind of like the theory that birds aren't real. You've heard that conspiracy theory, that birds aren't real, that they're actually all just devices for the government to spy on us. I actually saw like a diagram of like a pigeon and what like technology they believe. is like inside the birds that make them spy on us.

It's pretty funny. All right. Next voicemail. Hi, Allie. So my strange crazy dream happened just last week. I had a dream that my husband was suddenly like really upset with me and saying every worst thing about me that I've ever thought about myself. And this was his excuse for leaving me.

And it was very, very vivid. It's awesome. And I woke up really sad. and I remembered that my husband was out of town. So I was just kind of sad by myself. And I told him later that it made me sad throughout the whole day. And he's like, well, good thing it was just a dream. And then I took a pregnancy test the next day and found out I was pregnant.

So I guess the vivid dreams started a little early for me. Anyways, thank you for your show. I love watching and I love that you're spreading. and sincerity. So thank you very much. Oh, man. I'm glad that it ended with you taking a pregnancy test because at first I was like, no, this is just a sad dream.

I don't want to play this. But then, you know, it ended happily. The voicemail ended happily. And I'm glad for it. I'm glad for that because, okay, I had, when I first got married, I used to have really sad dreams that, like, we were still dating and that he broke up with me and that he was like dating his ex-girlfriend. and I would get so sad.

And so I know exactly what you're talking about. I think it's like our greatest fears or something. They sometimes manifest itself, themselves in our dreams. But yes, pregnancy, vivid dreams are so real. I absolutely hate vivid dreams. And if you're new to this podcast and you don't know why we're talking about this, it's because I shared a very strange, long convoluted dream with the weird Bible verse in it on Monday that you should go listen to if you haven't already.

So, okay, I think that's all we have time for. We have a lot, we have a lot more dreams that we might play out in a bonus weekend episode that are just really funny. But now I'm remembering, we actually have done this segment before. And I think I tried to like interpret your dreams in a joking way in the past. And I just love dreams. And someone was laughing. Someone sent me a message saying, this is why we need context.

And they quoted me saying on Monday. day. I love laughing at people's dreams. I don't love laughing at your goals and your aspirations, but I do love laughing at the strange dreams. People have at night. All right, that's all we've got time for today. I hope it was helpful and maybe clarifying for you. And tomorrow, like I said, we'll be back. We'll be talking about oil and gas. It's a really good shorter conversation. If you love the podcast, please leave us a five-star review wherever you listen. That would help us so much. I'll see you guys 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. 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 T-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.