Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 587 | Biden’s SCOTUS Pick: Soft on Child Abuse & Clueless on Biology | Guest: Steve Deace

Episode Date: March 23, 2022

Today, we start by discussing President Biden's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson. It's important for people to be familiar with her judicial record, as she is on the verge of joining the highest court in the country. So, it's unfortunate to discover that not only her judicial record, but also her views on race and gender are very suspicious. Senator Josh Hawley did a good job of exposing Jackson's tendency to give light sentences to those involved with child sexual assault material. Then, fellow BlazeTV host Steve Deace of "The Steve Deace Show" joins us to discuss several other topics going around the news right now. We talk a little bit more about Ketanji Brown Jackson and how she wasn't even able to provide a definition of the word "woman," but we also touch on Dr. Fauci's return to cable news to remind us of the dangers of COVID, and we even get into the broader topic of how the sexual revolution of the '60s is still hurting society today. Lastly, we talk about what it even means to be a conservative and how closely Christians should ally themselves with secular freedom-lovers to defeat progressive wokeness. --- Timecodes: (0:00) Introduction (0:29) Did Allie start CrossFit again? (7:51) Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's exchange with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) (24:22) Interview with Steve Deace --- Today's Sponsors: Carly Jean Los Angeles does the hunting for you, providing clothes that are effortless, easy, & flattering on any shape, size, age, or season — save 20% off your first order at CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com when you use promo code 'ALLIEB'! Crowd Health: Don't let healthcare costs stand between you & your future. Go to JoinCrowdHealth.com & use promo code 'ALLIE' at sign-up to get your first 6 months for just $99/month. Naturally It's Clean: Allie's Essentials Starter Kit includes 4 of their top products! Go to NaturallyItsClean.com/ALLIE & use promo code 'ALLIE' to save 15% off your order! Dwell: the Bible app to enhance your time in the Word – studies have shown increased recall when listening & reading are combined! Go to DwellApp.io/RELATABLE to get 10% off a yearly subscription, or 33% off Dwell for life! --- Show Link: Allie's video: "Why I Can't Congratulate My Friend, Dave Rubin" https://bit.ly/3CXbw7v --- 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 Good Ranchers. That's American Meat delivered right to your front door. Go to Good Ranchers.com slash All right, guys. Before we get into this episode, I want to issue you an apology. I promise. that I would be talking about my CrossFit experience yesterday. I did not end up going to CrossFit. Motherhood duties pulled me back home when I was on the way to the gym. I can't say that I'm that disappointed.

I can't say that it was that difficult to pull me away from the gym. But I was actually pretty excited about trying. And you guys were excited about me talking about my experience. So I will have to wait maybe until Monday to talk about that. Or maybe I'll just go on Instagram and tell. you about it and it will be entertaining because you're looking at someone you're listening to someone who has not really legitimately worked out in about four years now i used to be very into working out from about 2013 when i ran a half marathon and i ran a half marathon after not being able to run even

five minutes it took me like i don't know 10 months to start running and then train for this and then after that i got super into working out i met my husband doing crossfit style workouts i did cross-ed a little bit in college, then on and off until about 2018. I was really into Pure Bar. I taught Pure Bar for a little bit. So I was super into working out. And then I got pregnant. And I was super tired. And I also found an excuse to eat whatever I wanted to. I think that's kind of fun and can be fun and done in a fun, balanced way when you are pregnant. But I wouldn't recommend like going all in on the daily hamburgers and tacos like I did. I would maybe like balance it out a little bit with the salad. And so I also just kind of got lazy with working out, which I don't really

recommend. I do think that you should try to keep up if you can if you have the energy to do so some level of fitness when you are pregnant. You'll just feel better after. And I've heard it can really help labor and delivery and all of that. And so I just kind of gave up and was a little lazy and I've been exercising on and off at the beginning of this year. I was like, okay, I'm going to start exercising again. We have a peloton. I was doing the floor workouts and I really liked them. I was working out like every day and I was excited and then we got COVID and it wasn't that bad but I was really tired. I was tired for a couple weeks after COVID and I just couldn't make myself work out and then I just didn't get back on the bike literally and figuratively. I just didn't

I just didn't get back into the routine and now you know I've been thinking okay should I just do crossfit should I just go all in on this and just really get back to being strong because thing I think I miss is working out so hard that you want to pass out. Like I liked that feeling when I was working out and like your lungs burning and just feeling like, wow, I could not have worked any harder than I just did. If you are someone who likes to work out or you've gone through seasons of your life where you've worked out really hard, you know what I mean. It's kind of addictive. It gives you endorphins and it just makes you feel good in different areas of your life. Truly, I think that exercise, the kind of exercise where you're pushing yourself, it benefits you in so

many different ways. Most importantly, most significantly for me, it reminds me when I'm doing something that's difficult intellectually or just going through a hard time in my life that you can do things that hurt. Like you can do things that are difficult that you can push through, that your mind can override the exhaustion that your body feels. And so anyway, I've just missed that. I've missed that feeling. And so my husband, who is very in shape for as long as I've known him, he has very consistently exercised and he eats healthier than me. and all that good stuff. And he suggested kind of out of the blue,

what if we went to CrossFit? And immediately I was like, okay, let's do it. I'm scared, but sure, let's do it. I want to get back into it. And so we are going to start that. Like I said, I couldn't do that yesterday. And so I'm excited about it. It also, I think, is good for us together.

It's something that we can do fun and we can work on together. Like I said, that's how we met. We met at it wasn't a legit CrossFit Jam, but it was a CrossFit style. workout that we were doing. It was in Watkinsville, Georgia, back when I lived in Athens, after college, working there. And that's where we met. And that really was kind of how we bonded. That was also back when I was really athletic and in shape. And so we could actually compete against each other. And that was fun. And now he's going to make sure, he's just going to have to

make sure that I'm not dead. So that's not going to be as much of a bonding experience or that I don't get like rabdo or something. That's what I'm scared of. And you know what? He keeps on just telling me, you're going to be so sore. You're going to be so sore. You're going to be your legs are going to be so sore. You're not going to be able to walk the next day. I'm like, thanks a lot, babe. That's a really great motivation. He's right, though. I'm going to be so sore. Maybe my arms not as much because I am lifting children a majority of my day. But I mean, I'm not going to be lifting a lot of weights. If you're worried for me, the first day, I mean, I'm probably going to be doing like, I'm probably going to be using like a PVC pipe. I'm not going to be using like even a bar,

even a 45 pound bar would be really difficult for me right now. So pray for me. I think we're supposed to go tomorrow after I record. So again, I probably won't be able to tell you until tomorrow or Friday. So pray for me and pray that I stick with it because as I, as I mentioned, I really want to be strong again. And hey, maybe use this as your motivation. If you are like me and you took a break from being fit or in shape or healthy in any way to have children and you're like, I got to get back into it. Look, I'm so out of shape, legit objectively out of shape in every single way. this is going to be really difficult and so beyond my comfort zone. If I can do it, you can do it.

And actually, I'm very thankful that I can even reach back into my memory and think, okay, one time I ran a half marathon when previously I couldn't even run three minutes without stopping. I did that then and yeah, I'm a lot older now, but I think I can do that now. So let's do those difficult things together. Maybe this is your calling your motivation to do that. All right. I just wanted to give that update to you. Today, we're not talking about that.

We are talking with our friend Steve Days, who we've had on several times. You guys love him. My episodes with him, my previous episodes with him are some of my most popular, most listened to episodes ever because he's just one of the most insightful people. So we're going to be talking about this question, just very briefly, if COVID is making a comeback,

Dr. Fauci is coming out from the shadows. Why is that? What's going on? What's the future of these COVID restrictions? Are they coming back? And so we're going to talk about that briefly, but we're also going to talk about what is conservatism. He and I are both Christians. We are social conservatives.

And yet we find ourselves in this coalition of people that don't have the same fundamental worldview as we do. And so how do we balance? Like linking arms with people that we disagree with in big ways, but we agree with in other ways. We'll also staying true to our values and remembering who we are ultimately and primarily, which is part of the body of Christ. And so what exactly does that look like? And he's going to give us some wisdom there. He's also going to talk a little bit about Katanji Brown Jackson. That is the judge, the Supreme Court nominee that is going through Senate hearings right now. We are going to talk

about her inability to answer a very basic question from Senator Marsha Blackburn about what a woman is. And so it'll be very interesting to talk about that and hear about that from Steve. But I want to talk about Katanji Brown Jackson a little bit before we even get into that conversation because I didn't have time to talk to him about the exchange that she had with Josh Hawley, Senator from Missouri, about her judicial record. And the reality that it seems like she has been very light when it comes to her dealing with child predators and people who have consumed and distributed child pornography. So I'm going to play you a couple minutes of the exchange.

that Josh Holly had with Judge Jackson yesterday. Prosecutor in this case, it's a liberal administration, I think it's fair to say. It says in the state of Texas, see my colleague from Texas next to me here. The prosecutor in this case, nevertheless, still asked for two full years in prison. You gave the defendant three months. Guidelines called for 10 years. Prosecutor wanted at least two. You gave him three months.

And when you did, you made a number of arguments and statements in the record. and I'd like to go through some of them because I've read them all. And the first argument you made was that the federal guidelines that punished child porn offenders, the ones that Congress wrote, were, and I'm quoting you now, are in many ways outdated. That's your quote. And you went on to say about why you thought they were outdated. I'm going to quote you again. You say, and I quote, I don't feel that it's appropriate to increase the penalty on the basis of the number of images

or prepubescent victims, meaning little kids, as the guidelines require, because these circumstances exist in many cases, if not most, and don't signal an especially heinous or egregious child pornography offense, end quote. I just want to ask you about that because I just have to tell you I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. We're talking about eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds and nine-year-olds and 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds. He's got images of these.

The government said added up to over 600 images. Gobbs of video footage of these children. but you say this does not signal a heinous or egregious child pornography offense. Help me understand that. What word would you use if it's not heinous or egregious? How would you describe it? Thank you, Senator, for letting me address the concern that you've put forward based on the record that you've reviewed. as a judge who is mom and has been tasked with the responsibility of actually reviewing the evidence,

the evidence that you would not describe in polite company, the evidence that you are pointing to, discussing, addressing in this context is evidence that I have seen in my role as a judge. And it is heinous. It is egregious. What a judge has to do is determine how to sentence defendants proportionately consistent with the elements that the statutes include with the requirements that Congress has set forward. All right. If that was painful for you to listen to her answer when it seemed like every word had to be pulled out of her mouth, it was uncomfortable for me, too.

My husband and I were watching this this morning. And honestly, I had to give her kudos because that's a rhetorical tactic that, is learned over time when you are trying to think of your answer without saying uh or um or using any filler words because it makes you seem dishonest or like you've just been caught in something you use legitimate words or legitimate sounding words slowly so that you can take time to actually think about your answer so that is i think what she was doing there like i said it's a good rhetorical tactic it still didn't come off as very uh trustworthy to me it was very i was kind of like found myself cringing because I didn't find her answer to be very convincing at all. Basically,

what Josh Hawley said is he is describing this case in which there was a consumer of child pornography and the federal prosecutors recommended two years in prison and she said, oh, no, I think I'm just going to actually do three months. I'm going to do a few months. And the reasoning that she gave is because when the law was written that set these standards for what the punishment would be for consuming child pornography, that was back in a day when you had to go through a lot more steps and a lot more effort to actually purchase this child porn. And now, because it's so easily accessible, maybe the punishment shouldn't be as harsh. And I think Josh Hawley is rightly pointing out what logical or judicial sense does that make? I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. I don't think that she did a good job

answering it. And unfortunately, Josh Holly has uncovered, he uncovered on Twitter a pattern for Judge Jackson when it comes to child, when it comes to child predation and child pornography. And so I'm going to read you a few of those cases that he has cited publicly. And then I'll talk to you about the media response to that, which is just crazy. And so this is from cnsnus.com. There was a defendant, this is one case, a defendant distributed multiple images of child pornography, possessed dozens more, including videos. I mean, it just puts a pit in my stomach to even talk about this. It's just so difficult to talk about.

And I don't, it's hard for me to understand how more people aren't caring about this. So the federal sentencing guidelines for this case is 97 to 121 months in prison. The prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison. And so this is the case that he's talking about. A second case, the defendant possessed 48 files of child pornography, federal guidelines, sent 78 to 97 months in prison. First of all, I think the federal guidelines are off.

I think it should be way more than that. Like, do you even know the abuse that we are talking about here? The prosecutor recommended the same. 78 to 97 months in prison. Judge Jackson sentenced him to 28 months in prison. Third case, defendant distributed dozens of images of child pornography possessed over 600 federal guidelines, 151 to 188 months in prison. Prosecutor recommended 72 months.

So even lower, Judge Jackson gave the... the defendant the lowest sentence permitted by law 60 months. Fourth case, defendant distributed 33 graphic images and videos of child sexual assault. And that's really what you're supposed to call it. Child sexual assault material, not child pornography because there is no consent going on here. It is sexual assault. Federal guidelines, 70 to 87 months in prison. Prosecutor recommended 70 months.

Judge Jackson sent it to the lowest sentence permitted by law, 60 months. Number five, defendant distributed scores of images in children suffering sexual abuse. federal guidelines. Ninety-seven to 121 months. Prosecutor recommended 97. Judge Jackson gave him 57. Defendant distributed over 100 videos of child pornography. Guidelines say 97 to 121 months in prison. Prosecution recommended 97 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave 71 months.

Last one. Defendant was convicted of traveling across state lines to engage in sexual intercourse with a child and also possess six separate thumb drives of child pornography. Who knows how many images in videos? guidelines, 46 to 57 months in prison. Still, it's just amazing to me that this is not life in prison. You don't want me to become dictator. I'm just saying that. If you think that there should be light sentencing for child pornographers and people who are trying to have sex with a child or rape a child, which is actually what it is in every case, if you think that it should be a couple

years or a few years for those people, you don't want to elect me to any position of power because I would ensure with everything that I could that those people get 25 years to life, no doubt, if not something harsher than that. Prosecutor recommended 49 months. Judge Jackson sent it to 37 months. This is a big deal. This is her judicial record. Senator Holly is calling this out. She doesn't have a good answer for it. And what does the media say? Here are just some headlines that I have. Orange County Register. Josh Hawley's disgusting QAnon slur talking about this. Yahoo News.

Josh Holly is on the verge of being senator from QAnon. So because Q&ONN people believe that there was this like elite child sex ring going, global child sex ring going on in the world that Hillary Clinton was a part of, apparently any time you bring up the reality of child sex abuse material or child predation and you question someone's judicial record on this when she is consistently giving lighter sentences, that's QAnon. That's a dangerous conspiracy theory, of course, trying to liken this to January 6th, insurrectionist.

I'm sorry, but if that's the argument you make, then maybe the FBI should be looking at your thumb drives. That's really troubling. If you are saying that talking about the existence of child sex abuse material is a conspiracy theory, then I'm a little worried about. what you're viewing and what you're doing. A business insider. Why Josh Hawley's dishonest claim that Katanji Brown Jackson with soft-owned child pornography is devoid of context.

It's always devoid of context and without merit. And then, of course, there are several. Matt Al on MSNBC said that this was terrible, that he actually didn't agree with himself and not Katanji Jackson. It's a reason, of course. Reason.com says Josh Holly's attack on Katanji Brown Jackson illustrates the emotionalism. She criticized. Like, does anyone have a legitimate argument over this? It's insane. This is insane. I mean, these are the same people criticizing Josh Holly, who was bringing up her judicial record.

We're talking about a position on the highest court in the land. These are the same people who thought that it was totally legitimate and very appropriate and completely objective. and responsible to ask Judge Kavanaugh if he was involved in gang rape. That was an accusation that ended up being disproven. What he did at a party when he was 17 years old claims that were never substantiated or corroborated by any witnesses and had many holes in them. What kind of beer he was drinking. If he threw ice at a party, what the inside jokes that he listed,

in his yearbook mint, like boof, and trying to read into every little thing that he did when he was 16 and 17 years old? Apparently, that was totally above board. That was totally fine. That's very legitimate and relevant to the conversation. But her judicial record, when it comes to his child sex predators, that's off the table. That's an attack. Of course, that's racist. I'm sure that's what they're saying. That's totally sexist. Really? Again, that makes me question. you. That makes me just, I don't know, make me feel like you're a little sketchy. Can you not, can you not just maybe, I don't know, disagree with him? I don't even know why you would. Or like argue against this on its merits or try to come up with any kind of legitimate argument

rather than just being so freaking creepy. Like why? Why are you people like this? Why? Also, the same media that thought it was totally responsible to question why Amy Coney-Barritt had adopted black children. I remember there was a story. Let's see if I can pull it up about Amy Coney-Barritt's adoption from Haiti. And if it was totally, if it was fine, like if it was something that was legitimate and above board, or if it was something, I can't find it right now. Or if it was something, they talked about like the history of Haitian adoption and how sometimes there was like kidnapping involved. And so there were a lot of illegitimate, terrible, immoral attacks against Amy Coney Barrett.

And because she adopted, because she was a Catholic and she might have certain views on birth control, and abortion and things like that. These are the same people who launched those attacks that think it's totally off the table. You shouldn't be able to talk to Katanji Jackson about her judicial record when it comes to sentencing child predators. It's just, it's very confusing. Well, actually, it's not really confusing at all. It's becoming increasingly clear. This is a pattern.

It's the same people who think that there is a fundamental right to a teacher teaching a five-year-old about gender switching in the state of Florida. So like if you don't want people to accuse you of these horrible things or to be suspect of these horrible things, like maybe don't be so suspect. Maybe don't be so freaking weird. I don't know. Like maybe that's a plan. Good on Josh Hawley for bringing this up. He's going to get a lot of pushback. It's a legitimate line of questioning.

Maybe there is more context. That's fine. But don't tell me that the Democrats are the ones that are being responsible and above board when they question the nominee. I mean, come on. Kavanaugh, for a lot of people, including me, was like a major red pill moment because I saw that there were politicians that were out for blood. And I know for a lot of you, you had known that for a long time. And even though I was always conservative and I was voting Republican, I just saw the depth of the ugliness and the depravity on Capitol Hill that they did not care that they may very well be ruining a man's life with accusations that they either knew weren't true or didn't know were true at all. awful awful i mean just the rot in our institutions is so disheartening but you know good good for senators and politicians who are pushing back when they know it's going to be unpopular i hope to god there is more context that explains these decisions that she made because you know i liked her speech that she gave i thought that it was good it was obviously middle of the road i don't wish ill upon her

I hope that she is a very just justice, that she is impartial, and that she applies to the Constitution and all of her decision making. I hope that for her. But as I say, legitimate questions, legitimate questions hanging in the air about this very disturbing record. 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. Okay, Steve. Thanks so much for joining us again, helping us make sense of all the craziness that's going on. We haven't talked about COVID in a while, but it seems to be making a comeback. Dr. Fauci, he went away. He was lost in the shadows, and now he's coming back talking about a new variant, new restrictions kind of seem to be

being discussed again. What's going on in your estimation? Well, the funny thing is, Allie is they started about the final week of February through the first week of March. And we kind of have this term that we use a lot in alternative media called memory-holing when a story that doesn't fit the spirit of the age's narrative just suddenly puffed the magic dragons, right? Yes, for 1984, in case some people don't know. Yes. Yeah, this is different. They warmhold COVID.

I mean, they instantaneously took us to an earth where COVID never existed. Okay. And so I don't believe they're going back to that narrative anytime soon. Because if you look at the numbers, if you look at the data, the last week of February and the first week of March, actually through the second week of March, so the last three weeks we have complete data. We actually have more COVID deaths in America those three weeks of this year than we had during those three weeks of last year. And it's like the story just went away. In my opinion, I think if you look at the timeline here with what I believe occurred is he did some interview with that where he said he was thinking of retirement and instantly people started drawing the conclusion that I would imagine you're thinking of retirement when Rand Paul and Thomas Massey and Ron Johnson are threatening you with full-fledged subpoena power if they're in control of the Congress next year and so I think the it's not a coincidence that he ended up right back on the on on the shows right after that sort of as a reassertion of his position but I

don't believe the regime has any intent anytime soon to return to the COVID narrative. Doesn't mean that they have forever mothballed it. I mean, could I foresee a scenario where we suddenly decide in some very blue counties in some swing states like Fulton County, Georgia, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and Washington County, Michigan? Could I foresee that some of those very blue totally in control counties where they board up windows and count votes for days after the election? could I foresee a scenario where they decide, man, we just have a very terrifying spike of COVID here and mid-delayed October, and we really have to go to mail-in balloting.

Could I foresee something along those lines? I mean, I don't know. Were Pope's previous to this one Catholic? Of course. But for the interim, I don't believe they're going back hardcore to the COVID narrative at all. It's such a loser for them. So do you think the reason that Dr. Fauci is now kind of making appearances on mainstream shows like ABC's this week and he's, warning of these new variants. And he's saying he's using the term pivot that we might need to pivot

back. We might need to, you know, reinstate mask mandates and things like that. I saw this morning from the New York Times, Medina will seek emergency authorization of its coronavirus vaccine for children younger than six, the company said. And then we've got Jin Saki and then another, I think, Democrat Senator or a congressperson saying, oh, you know, we tested positive for COVID. Even after getting our booster shots, it just seems like it is trick. back into mainstream conversation again. So if you don't see the full regime pivoting towards this and trying to push this narrative again, do you think it's just that some people, they're just hanging on and they're desperate for this to be relevant because they almost

like this new normal better than actual normalcy? And if yes, then why do you think that is? I think it's because this gave a group of people, you know, the Karen Unful, phenomenon. This gave a group of people meaning. I mean, this gave, and this is much more tangible than Ukraine. I mean, if you look at the entire Ukrainian narrative, to me, there is the fact that Vladimir Putin is a vile despot and was prior to his invasion of Ukraine. And then there is the Ukrainian narrative. And how seamless and quick the regime moved to this narrative. Zelensky's the new Fauci. He's the new unassailable. figure hero. You cannot question, even though you had no idea who this dude was 10 minutes ago,

all right? You know, the mask is the ban Russian products and don't, you know, now Nestle is not going to give hot cocoa to the poor Russian people, okay? That's the new mask. The jab is, well, we have to do a no-fly zone and all sorts of things that actually don't really threaten Putin the way that we are claiming they do. And then the new Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is, if we actually went back to energy independence and told the Russians, we're not giving you access to the largest middle class economy in the world any longer until you get out of Ukraine.

You know, these are all, these are, see, this is the same narrative. Nothing has changed. All the same people that went from pronouns in their bios to then putting a mask in their Vax card in their bios, then went to a Ukraine flag in their bios, okay? And so what we're dealing with here is, true cultic behavior. I rarely, and you'll see this if you follow my postings or our programming, I rarely use the term liberal or leftist any longer.

I don't even use the term progressive, really, that much any longer. This is true spirit of the age level stuff. And you're seeing just how many people have been groomed. I mean, the poll that came out of Canada this week, Allie, is one of the most stunning things, evidences of like literal mark of the beast level grooming I have seen in my life. And it was a poll from the Toronto Sun. And what it showed was that your views on Ukraine, they broke them down by, are you triple jabbed or more? Wow.

And have you taken no jab or more? And their views on Ukraine, something that should have nothing to do whatsoever with your view of COVID or the COVID vaccines or their efficacy, safety, nothing whatsoever. A total line of demarcation. Why? Because it's really about who has been preconditioned to accept a spirit of the age narrative. on any subject no matter what it is and then who has not. And so I think that's the reality of the situation. I think there are some people struggling for good old fashioned political relevancy like a Fauci.

I think also a little bit of ego. I'm not afraid of you guys. He actually should be very afraid and should probably be lawyering up. But I think that from a lot of people, this is just a more tangible narrative to get meaning from than something going on in a country where we don't know where it is. is we still don't know how many whys are in Zelenskyy and how to pronounce or spell Kiev. Right. You know, the whole Ukraine thing, and we're going to be talking about it more tomorrow,

it's very confusing to me that for whatever reason, I guess it is just the spirit of the age. We are unable to hold common sense and compassion at the same time. So if someone says, you know what, I'm not sure if we should be lionizing Zelensky, there are some questions that I have about Ukraine and why our politicians seem to be. caring more about its borders their own borders. I have some questions about that. So then why are you a Putin puppet? Just like, why do you hate grandma? Right. And you can simultaneously say Putin is bad as we already have and say,

wow, I feel so badly for the Ukrainian people. But it seems like you're not allowed to hold those what they would call competing thoughts in your mind. You have to say that Zelensky is the best leader that ever was, that there is no corruption in Ukraine whatsoever. And you have to pour out your Svedka from your freezer, and that's the only way that you are considered a virtuous person. Is it really that people are just clinging to meaning? And they really are just like waiting, like dogs waiting to be fed. They're waiting for the regime, for the media, for the government, whatever it is. Tell them, tell me what to care about. Tell me how I can show people that I'm virtuous. Tell me what my purpose in life is, what my identity is. I mean,

is that really just it? Does it go back to kind of just godlessness and amorality and people are looking for someone to tell them what to do? Yeah. Yeah. That's really what it is. I think that we have to, particularly on the right, I think that there is a huge hesitancy to really admit what this is and to define it as what it is. And I think, frankly, it's because much of the right has gotten more pluralistic and secularize. That's the whole debate we've had within our own company over the last week that a lot of people have paid attention to. I think it's because the much, you know, we used to see this lack of critical thinking or attachment to some fundamental plum line was largely correlated with the American left for a long time. Pardon me,

but that's not true any longer. It still mainly comes from the American or the Western left. It is still their native habitat, but whenever a tumor goes untreated for a long period of time, it can't help but metastasize. When locust are done consuming one plot of land, if they are not eradicated, then they will just move on to the next. And so much of this sort of kind of secularized morality or non-theistic, direct notions of philosophy have now permeated the right. And so much of what we view as we're opposed to, we do it on instinct. So we don't oppose the idea

on the surface or the face of it that men cannot be women, and this is insanity or women, men, and should not be entertained at any level. In fact, we flirted with creating our own sort of conservative trans character named Blair White a few years ago. No, instead, we will latch on to

something that instinctively insults our craven senses, watching Leah Thomas pretend with an Adams apple and, you know, hills in the shoulders, pretend to be a woman and dust the chicks by two seconds in a national championship swim meet. It's when our senses get instinctively assaulted, that we instinctively, based in our just, you know, basic craven being just basically made in the image of God, even if we are philosophically godless. That is when the right tends to speak out. the problem is by then it's often too late. A great example of this is what's happening right now with Judge Jackson. So she made a lot of headlines, and I commented on it too by saying yesterday in response to Senator Blackburn's question, she cannot define a woman.

And we made it look like this. Just so people know, Senator Blackburn said, can you define a woman? And she kind of laughed a little bit. The judge kind of laughed. You could tell she was uncomfortable. And she said that she's not a biologist. So you have to be a biologist to say what a man or a woman is. Incredibly, the human race has existed all of these millennia without everyone being a biologist.

And yet knowing who carries the baby and who impregnates the woman, apparently you have to be a vet to know what a dog is. You have to be, I don't know, a professional to know how to categorize anything. That was her response. It was pretty incredible. It was pretty incredible. It was also typical. I mean, she's joining an august body that a decade ago told us after 6,000 years, it doesn't know what a marriage is.

Right. That just a couple of years ago, including with Neil Gorsuch, who overall has been a good judicial appointment, but just a couple of years ago told us it didn't know what a gender is. He voted to codify this gender madness into law. It told us 50 years, it told us 50 years ago, we don't know what a baby is, right? This is actually, it's been telling us pretty much for the last 50, 60, 7 years since the Warren Court, it doesn't know what a constitution is. Right.

So she's actually, she's at home. She belongs in that natural habitat. But the problem is, for so long, we didn't defend our fundamentals that we tend to now, we keep on the right, we keep trying to dam the river down the stream. And the problem with that is, is that you'll stop some of the water, but you can't stop at all because by that point in time, gravity, inertia, the laws of physics have taken over and it's gained too much momentum. That's why you damn a river at the source, but we tend not to do that and we're getting less hesitant to do it or more hesitant to do it on the right because we're all afraid of

losing our Facebook monetization models and our Twitter followings and things of that nature, which is why I'm ecstatic to see what the Babylon B and Charlie Kirk have done in the last couple of days, no, I'm not going to self-edit. No, I'm not going to change. And there's been a lot of money to be made within conservative media for many years in not fundamentally attacking the enemy, but doing so around the edges. The problem is now we've lost so many of the edges. We really have no choice now, but to attack the enemy fundamentally. And I think you get where we are now by the right only ever making an argument of personal liberty. We never defy the right. We never defy the what we want to defend on its merits.

So rather than saying, okay, this is what a marriage is, this is how we define it. It preexist not only America, but civilization. There's already a definition of marriage. We're too scared to actually defend marriage on its merits or defend what the family looks like on its merits. We have to kind of hedge and say, well, you know, this is really about personal liberty. But if personal liberty is your only standard for right and wrong, well then of course anything goes. Of course we can't really define anything. I mean, if personal

liberty is your only argument, then why can't Leah Thomas compete against women? Like there has to be some kind of substance, some kind of why behind what you believe. And we can't just allow the Overton window to keep getting pulled back over and for us to show up five to 10 years later and say, okay, well, now it's fine because it's too scary to say otherwise. So before we get to Judge Jackson, because I want to play another clip for her. Can you summarize? Because I think that you have such great insight into this. And this is a debate that we have been having within conservatism.

What is conservatism, essentially? What is it? How would you define it? There seems to be serious disagreements about this. To me, a word means what its root word means. Okay? And so when Jesus says no one is good, God. What is the root word of good? God. Okay? That's why good and godly are considered, well,

they were previous to the last 20 years to be direct synonyms. So a word is what its root word means. Conservatism is not an ideology. It means to conserve. It's an observational science. It means, so what is it I'm trying to conserve? What is it I'm trying to conserve is what history has revealed and history's author and finisher has revealed throughout time to be what is good and what is true and what is beautiful for the human condition and human flourishing as best we can east of Eden in a fallen and sinful world. That's what it means. Now the problem with that is and this is and issues and dilemmas like what happened with Dave this week within our company. These are going to become more apparent as as the opposition to,

obvious spirit of the age, Marxism grows, it's going to become more diverse. I mean, we're living in an era where Bill Maher and Ben Shapiro are sitting down smoking peat pipes, okay? We're living in an era where I'm playing Russell Brand clips and like nodding my head. Oh, right. I'm liking every single one of his posts on Instagram. Yes, yes. And so I think we have to understand that one, that is good. Okay. We didn't have the numbers. This is still a numbers game. We didn't have the numbers to, move the fulcrum of America's socio-political, you know, levers on our own, unless we got really rolled snake eyes and a guy like Ron DeSantis wins by less than 40,000 votes in a state of

21 million people and turns out to be the 21st century closest thing we've seen to George Washington, right? But good luck. You can't duplicate that. It's not a duplicatable process, right? That's not something you can rely on duplicating all the time. And so we didn't have the numbers to move those levers, to be the fulcrum that moved the leavers. To be the fulcrum that moved the lovers. And so it's good now that there is a growing cacophony of people that are waking up that might be like Ein Rand, atheist, who think Christians are fools, but believe in some form of objective reality who are like, what in the Sam Hill is all of this? Those things are good. We should align with those people when we can. What we're going to have to figure out, though, is that we

cannot abandon our convictions in that process. And that doesn't mean that we're going to ask you to accept the Heidelberg or, you know, catechism and the Westminster Confession. And then that there's only a triune God. You know, we would prefer you did. We have those views because we believe those are the ultimate truths and we will never, you know, come off of them and we'll discuss them with you anytime they come up and we'll be bold and discussing them anytime they do.

But that's not a qualifier into you aligning with us over shared concerns. Just know that if you put that qualifier on me, I will not honor that. And I think we're going to have to, that's really what it means to be in the world and not of it. And as this coalition expands and becomes more plurality, we're going to have to also then make sure we hold on to our distinctiveness alley so that the

salt doesn't lose its flavor. There's an issue here that I think we should address. And that is we're dealing with a generation of Americans. I'm going to be 49 this year. So I'm the first born from the sexual revolution. My mom got pregnant with me at 14 from her high school senior boyfriend. Roe v. Wade happens a couple months later when she's 15. And she debated whether to kill me or not and then decided not to. All right. I grew up She then, when I was three, married a stepdad who never really took me in and was very abusive. We were on food stamps, government cheese, reduced lunches in schools. So I'm a product of what the sexual revolution did to America.

I then grew up to be a byproduct of it, all the exposure to porn and premarital sex and everything of that nature. and I think what's happened is because the sexual revolution and what's and what's and how comprehensive it is it became it's tainted almost every household in America yeah and I think there are a lot of households with a lot of people who are who are really wrestling with hey man last night I gave into temptation again and I was watching porn after the wife went to bed I can't take a strong stance on this and I think or you know I've got a loved one who's gay and and you know I just feel like I'm compromised in this area. And I think this is a demonic fallacy. We are all compromised. Even if you're not compromised in this area, you are compromised in another. Otherwise,

you wouldn't need a savior. All are like sheep and easily let us stray. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we succumb to the idea, now that doesn't mean, by the way, if you're struggling in your personal life with sin, don't run for elder of church. Okay? Don't go to seminary. That doesn't mean there aren't areas or things that you have morally disqualified yourself from. Okay? But in general, if we wait to say, not until I have reached a certain moral standard,

will I feel qualified to speak up on something that is clearly evil and wrong and destroying people, then we'll never speak up because none of us can achieve that standard. None of us are good enough. That's why we need a savior. And so I think there's a lot of people within our ranks who because of their own personal struggles are feeling, and maybe they're afraid those things will come out.

That's why, man, I just let all my errors out. I'd tell everybody everything I'm doing wrong and everything that has gone on in my personal life that I've screwed up, provided doesn't break a confidence with somebody else. I'm just brutally honest because, of course, I'm not morally qualified. I was not a virgin on my wedding night.

I mean, there's a reason my wife went in, her major to be a therapist at Liberty was issues dealing with sexual dysfunction and it wasn't just her husbands it was her own i mean we were we met as pagans our mutual sexual dysfunction was a primary thing that attracted each of us to one another okay so i mean the idea that any of us are perfectly qualified and without any sin to stand up and speak out on what is right and wrong that's a fallacy none of us will reach that level and you're listening to the accuser the question is are we are we speaking out self-righteously and hypocritically without recognition of our own sinfulness. And are we doing so in order to impose

some sort of moral standard or because we are trying to stop people from making the same mistakes that were made either against us or by us? What's our motivation here? That's what we should be wrestling with is our motivation far more than our qualification. Yeah. And I think when it comes to conservatives and as you said, becoming more pluralistic and having the courage and the qualifications, even if they're, you know, self-imposed to speak out about the things that we know are good and right and true. We also have to decide what what conservatism or what this coalition, maybe it's not even conservatism, what we are for because you are describing, you know, linking arms with people like Russell Brand. You probably agree with a lot of self-described feminists

when it comes to men not being able to be women, but obviously we disagree with them on abortion. So I have found myself linking arms with people that I adamantly disagree with when it comes to some of my, you know, most closely held beliefs. But the question becomes, what are we? So I know what we're not. Like, we're not insane.

We're not woke. We're not anti-reality. We're not left-wing authoritarianism. That's true. That's probably true of you and me and Russell Brand. and you know, Chris Pratt, whoever. But what are we? What are we for?

Like, okay, we've got to build something because the left is really good at organization. They're really good at mobilization. They're really good at coming together and saying, this is what we're going to build. We are going to infiltrate all of these institutions. We're going to remake these institutions into our image. And we are really good about articulating why that's wrong. We're not necessarily good in general at coming together in building up. And I feel like one of the reasons is because we don't have.

actually agree in this pluralistic coalition what our foundation is. You really can't build a house without a foundation. Of course, you and I believe that the foundation is at the very least biblical morality, even if someone doesn't believe that Jesus is the only way truth in the life. I do think that we have to agree just in a broad sense that, okay, our rights come from God, not the government. The reason why you and I have inherent worth is because we are made in the image of God. God is the creator of justice. The Bible is the creator of justice. Let's at least start there, even if someone doesn't believe that spiritually in the same ways that we do. But that's what I feel like we are, we're not doing as conservatives, that we're kind of just like,

okay, we're capitalism with a progressive twist and we just accept everything that progressives were accepting a few years ago. And we don't really know what we're building. But we are getting a lot of views when we talk about these crazy stories coming from the left. But it does seem to me, like we have to agree on, okay, where do we start from? And then how are we going to build from there? I like the numbers. I like that there's a broad coalition. I like that there's a lot of people with the different worldview that are against the same things as me. But I do worry at the end of the day are the moderates that we're talking about, who I love. I love Barry Weiss. I think Douglas Murray has a lot to contribute. I think Russell Brand is awesome. I love those people. But at the end of

the day, like, do they hate me in my worldview just as much? Like, are we agreeing at all? on the starting point and what we're trying to build, are we just the same anti? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. You've made a perfect argument here about the dilemma and those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it. A different variation or proto version of this was tried when I was a kid and probably before you were born with the original religious right. So prior to Roe v. Wade, Catholics had never voted majority for a Republican ever, an American presidential history. Never happened. Not even for Eisenhower. Never happened. And then since Roe v. Wade, what's happened is every time Republicans win a majority

of Catholic votes, they win a presidential election, with one exception, the hanging chat election. And then every time that they don't, they don't. All right. And so what happened is post Roe v. Wade, a new coalition was formed. All right? Catholics started considering voting Republican for the first time over the life issue. And evangelicals put down how Lindsay's late great planet Earth that the world's going to end in 1980 long enough to realize we've got to confront this evil in our midst right here in 1980 and 81. And they formed this coalition, the Catholic Paul Weirich, who started the Heritage Foundation with men like Protestant leaders like D. James Kennedy and Adrian Rogers and Jerry Falwell Sr. And it became the most potent political force for the

next 25 years in America, known as the values, voters, religious right, whatever you want to it, but to do that, they had to align pluralistically within the Republican Party. With it, align with people like Barry Goldwater, who thought religious, the religious right was a crock, even though you might have agreed with a lot of, we might have agreed with him on a lot of issues. And what they learned, though, was what the dilemma that, what we learned the wrong way, unfortunately, is we, we thought we were building a big tent. Instead, we built a big tarp. Let me explain. A tent has stakes in the ground. so that the center can hold when there is,

when the wind and the rains come. That makes it a shelter. A tarp is something that when people see the storm, they just indiscriminately run into for cover. It can flop around. It can lay on the ground, okay? But there is no foundation to it. And so what happened is they aligned with a lot of these corporate entities

and other entities because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but there was no valid thing actually tying them together. The proverb can two walk arm and arm, unless they see eye to eye proven true once again. Let's not make that mistake here again. So how do we not make it? We have to establish some plum line here. And the good news is,

is actually the hardest plum line of them all to establish is actually the one that's the most readily available right now. What is true? Let's start there. What we started with before were, in the previous generation, the religious right did was, Democrats are bad and have to lose,

no matter what the cost, even if it means nominating Mitt Romney, John McCain at all. And that coalition has collapsed. It doesn't exist any longer. And right now our audiences probably trust Russell Brand, Bill Maher, more than they trust. John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy. I could go on and on. True. And so that coalition has failed.

I think there's a new opportunity here to begin with, what is the truth? and now we're playing in an arena for us as Christians. We're the home team here. Because this is the arena that we have struck. I'm just going to tell you, Ali, I've been working in this movement in industry longer than you because I'm older than you. What has gone on within our company and the controversy over it internally and externally since what happened with Dave Rubin and his announcement last week is the most honest

conversation that has taken place within conservative media in my 15 years working here. and I can't think of a close second. See, we have a tendency to not want to be honest. We have a tendency to want to counter our own. How many times did we see over the trite headlines that we all rallied around, Democrats, the DNC doesn't have any money. Look at how much money the RNC has. Well, that's because Democrats figured out

that the DNC cooked the 2016 election for Hillary to win, so they stopped giving it money. So they just give millions of dollars to flake candidates like John Ossoff directly now. And then they turn around and kick our butt. See, we have tried to counter with our own talking point. We try to counter with our own win-win for the Gipper speech, not with the truth. And what's happening right now, as I think you're seeing God in the culture, has put his thumb on the scale and says, you know, we're going to let the line out of its cage. We're going to let the truth have its way.

Now, the truth makes for some strange bedfellows. And right now, there are people that we have voted for that don't want to hear a lot of these truths, not necessarily because they agree with Leah Thomas swimming with women, but because they don't want to have to act on it and confront it. right now I think here's our new coalition and here's what we are we're truthists where is the truth whoever is speaking truth we're with them at that time when they see speaking truth we're not when someone was not speaking truth before but they're speaking truth now we're with them now where we go we migrate wherever the truth is it doesn't mean we just give up whole cloth political activism even in a we live in a partisan country we cannot avoid that let us not be like the people you and I were talking about 20 minutes ago who cannot hold competing thoughts,

okay? But it does mean we've got to understand what time it is here. We've got to be sons of Isacar, men who understood the times and what to do about them. I think what you're seeing, when you get outside the R versus D and R versus L paradigm, you are seeing God move in a mighty way to expose real truth in this culture that we have tried to cover in talking points and political propaganda and slogans for decades. And now that can be a pain. harsh existence. The sword of truth is a double-edged sword, okay? But the truth is having its way. If you're willing to accept that and understand that may take you into some uncomfortable places, that may force you to compel you to align with people, you wouldn't have in the past,

but then you may have to confront those people later on when your conscience is violated. If you're comfortable with being uncomfortable, this is actually a pretty exciting time. right now though most of us are not comfortable with being uncomfortable and so we're seeing the old r versus d r versus l paradigm blow up in our midst and we're and we're kind of in no nothing good can come from nazareth mode we don't want to see what new thing that is that god is doing right now because it doesn't look like the old thing we're accustomed to i would urge everyone within the sound of my voice right now get comfortable with being uncomfortable and you'll see that god is actually moving very mightily it this is that things are kind of from a truth perspective going well. They're just not going as we planned. Yeah. And I think that we forget that. I think we forget what collective hunger there is for truth. A lot of people. So just to use the Dave example, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, you and I have probably both talked about it. I've talked to Dave about it. I'm not trying to keep going back to this. But because we're talking about what conservatism is in the conversations that we've had, I made a video explaining why,

even though I love Dave and I think he's a great guy and we have so much in common. I just couldn't congratulate and I listed my four reasons why. The interesting thing was that I got several messages from people who I know did publicly congratulate him who messaged me and said, thank you so much. Thank you so much for that video. I found myself agreeing with you or I agreed on two of those points, but I didn't want to say anything. But now that you've kind of articulated why you believe what I believe, now I'm kind of

considering my position. I'm kind of considering what I said publicly or where I am. And so I'm just using that as an example of you never know what effect and what contagion you can start by saying what you know is true or what you sincerely believe in. There might be a lot of people who you think disagree with you who actually they just don't know or maybe they're afraid to say their public opinion. But when you kind of give them cover and you're the first one, hey, I'm going to shift the Overton window back over. I'm going to pull us back. I'm going to go even farther than some of the other people are by saying, actually, I'm going to go back to creation for my argument. Then other people feel, well, okay, I can kind of inch my way back to.

Maybe there is a rational, compassionate reason to believe the unpopular thing. You never know who you are begetting your courage to by standing up for what you know is true or what you believe to be true, right? Right. Sister, all I can say to that is testify. Yeah. Every word and amen. Yeah. Well, thank you for being one of those people.

You're so wise and you have so much discernment and you articulate it so well without any kind of, we always are impressed after we're done recording. You never say, uh. It's because I have made a crap ton of mistakes and tried to learn from them, Alley. That's why. Well, you are a gift, a gift to the movement and to our show. So thank you so much, Steve, for taking the time. to come on today. That's very sweet and kind.

And likewise, and same to you. Thank you so much. You bet. All right, guys, thanks so much for listening. As always, if you love this podcast, please leave a five-star review

wherever you listen and make sure to subscribe on YouTube. If you have not already, we will see you guys back here tomorrow. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Alley,

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 Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen And wherever you get podcasts, I hope you'll join us.