Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 68 | This Ain't It

Episode Date: January 15, 2019

 Allie goes through some of the most cringey moments from the Right and the Left over the past two weeks. Then, a Thing I Don't Get. Copyright Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.

Hey guys, what's up? Welcome to Relatable. It is Tuesday, January 15th. And today we are going to do a special kind of episode. I think in the future I'll make it just a segment of the episode, but today it's going to be the whole thing just to see how you guys like it. And it is called, This Ain't It. So what we're going to do is we're going to go through some of the cringstastic things. People on the right and the left have said over the past two weeks, break it down and analyze why this is just not it. This is not a thing that someone should be saying. It's not logically correct. It is not morally right. And we'll kind of talk about the implications of that. So like I said, this is from the right and the left. We are going to start with a controversial statement that was made by Iowa representative

Steve King. So Steve King, I know him a little bit. I was invited in the fall to speak at, a group within Congress, within the House of Republicans called Conservative Opportunity Society, I was asked to come to D.C. and speak at their breakfast and talk about how to engage millennials in the conservative cause, which is something I do a lot to various groups and organizations around the country. I thought, hey, this is a good opportunity to speak to Republicans in Congress. These are very influential people. Why would I pass this up? People from Heritage Foundation were there, which is an organization I really trust. And so I said, yes, I made a trip out of it. I did a few other things when I was in D.C. And I spoke to this group. It was great. Afterwards,

Representative King and I got a picture, which is now on Twitter, which is now haunting me. So apparently, Representative King has kind of been sketchy for a little bit in his views on race. And you can call me ignorant. You can call me naive, which maybe is something to blame me for. I really did not know this. Like, I don't know if I should be admitting this, but I didn't know who, who really, who representative, representative king was. I mean, I knew who he was, but I didn't know him. I didn't know about his controversial statement.

So he's retweeted people who identify as neo-Nazis, who identify as white nationalists, white supremacist. He's kind of been labeled as part of the alt-right or at least sympathetic to the alt-right. And I know a lot of you listening are like, oh, that's just. a made-up progressive term to demonize conservatives. No, that's not true. There is actually a real faction of the alt-right within the conservative movement who really aren't conservative at all. They're really more concerned with preserving whiteness than anything else. Just trust me that those people exist and they identify as on the right, even though they're kind of this whole other world

in and of themselves. Steve King has whether it's deliberate or not has kind of been a part of that or has sympathized with some people in that movement, like Faith Goldie, for example. Now, again, you could have different opinions on her, but the general consensus, I personally, I don't know her. I only know a little bit about her, but the general consensus is that she is kind of part of this white nationalist outright movement. So Steve King supported her when she was running for office in Canada. And his most recent statements are what people are saying are extremely controversial.

He said to a New York Times reporter, white nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization, how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me, why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization? This ain't it, Representative King, this ain't it. So part of this statement is correct. Western civilization, how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits? of our history and our civilization. True. True. And some people would call me a bigot for saying this. Western civilization is the best civilization that exists. Absolutely. That is why America is number one in medicine and education and technology has been the number one economy forever, has buoyed

the world economy forever, has created freedom almost virtually wherever we have gone. We have been a good force in the United States. That's why our founding documents are so unique and so wonderful, have created such an amazing society for the most part. He is right about that. That is not bigotry. That is just true. That's why we have people immigrating here and emulating us every day. That is not to say that other cultures are bad, that other people that live in other countries are not good or not made in the image of God and are not equally valuable. But Western society and the culture that it has created is the best, is the most equal, is the most prosperous in all of the world. So that part is correct. Where Representative King is wrong,

is conflating Western civilization with white nationalism and white supremacy. No, that is not Western civilization. Being a part of the West, and this is where the alt-right would seriously disagree with me, being a part of the West has nothing to do with being white. Has nothing to do with being white. In fact, that contradicts exactly what this country was founded on. So our Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. I know that throughout our history, we have not always lived up to that perfectly. That would be the contention that while America has had slavery, we haven't given women the rights that they, that they deserve, that they inherently have. We have allowed

discrimination and racism to flourish in this country. And you're right, there has been seasons of American history where we have been deeply entrenched in racial discrimination, in sin, in gender discrimination, all of these things that I believe are wrong. But the seasons of our history where we have been steeped in racism and steeped in different kinds of injustices and discrimination, they have all been steps away from the, ideals of our founding documents, not towards them. On the other hand, all of the times where we have righted those wrongs, where we have freed slaves, for example, where we have righted the wrong of Japanese internment camps, for example, allowing women the right to vote, those have all been

steps closer, not away from, but closer to the spirit of our founding documents. So the idea, the ideal that America was created on was good, really good for this. side of heaven. Now, they have not been implemented. These principles have not been implemented perfectly throughout our history. Our founding fathers who wrote these documents did not even implement them perfectly as they own slaves themselves. But that doesn't mean that the idea that they created, that the ideal that they created that America was founded on that Western civilization really centers on is bad. What that idea and that ideal is, is that we are, no matter our skin color, no matter our gender created equal.

And because of that, we are endowed by God with certain inalienable inherent. That means they can't be taken away by the government rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So for Steve King to say that there is any correlation whatsoever with white supremacy and white nationalism in Western civilization is just historically ignorant and illogical. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This ain't it. Has nothing to do with whiteness.

The reason why America is so great is because it gives opportunity to anyone, no matter their background, no matter their immigration, well, I shouldn't say immigration status, no matter their nationality, no matter their socioeconomic status, no matter their religion. Now, does that mean that racism and discrimination doesn't exist? sexism doesn't exist? No, of course it does. They're always going to be hateful individuals that carry out hateful acts. But this idea that we have systemic racism and discrimination and inequality in this country simply is not true. This is the greatest, the most equal, the most equitable country that has ever existed. And it is because we reject these notions of white supremacy and white nationalism, or at least we should. We should also, by the way, and this is a lot more controversial,

reject the notions of black supremacy and black nationalism in this country. And like I said, that that's a little bit more contentious because of this whole stupid idea of intersectionality, but I won't even get into this now. Now, Representative King is dealing with a lot of backlash from the right and the left.

And a lot of people are saying, wow, the GOP, let this guy thrive in their party. Well, I guess in some ways, the voters did, but Ben Shapiro made a really good point on this podcast when he talked about this. Republicans are the only ones to clean house. And it's not because we have the only dirty house. Democrats do too. They just refuse to get rid of people like Keith Ellison, an open antisemit. Or they refuse to disassociate from people like Lewis Farrakhan. For the most part, not every single Democrat. They refuse to clean house. And that doesn't mean they don't have a dirty house. Republicans are the only ones to stand up and say, hey, we don't stay.

for this kind of stuff. Sorry. Get out of here. Now, the argument to that is that he hasn't been expelled from Congress. He hasn't been kicked out. He hasn't even been censored. I think that he should be censored for this. A lot of people are saying, though, that he shouldn't be asked to step down. You know, I'm not sure. I'll be interested to see where that goes. Tim Scott, who is obviously an African American congressman says that he should not step down. So there are different ideas about that. But the bottom line is, conservatives have called him out a lot more than it seems like progressives have called out the antisemites and racists in their own party. You can never be too extreme on the left, but you can always, always be too extreme on the right if you are anywhere

the right of Nancy Pelosi. So Steve King, absolutely wrong in this. I am sure that one day in my life, this, when something, when I like really make it big one day, this photo that I have of Steve King is probably going to resurface and float around and say, oh, she associates with white supremacist. No, I didn't know. I had no idea. It was a few months ago and maybe I should have known his past comments and I should have been more careful for that. I apologize. I had no idea. I obviously don't associate with anyone that I know is a white supremacist and people on Twitter are saying, oh, every conservative needs to denounce this publicly, blah, blah, blah. Well, the reason I haven't talked about it on Twitter is one, because apologies are never enough for the left.

I don't feel like I need to apologize per se or even explain myself to leftist blue check marks on Twitter because, again, they just want to ruin your life. They don't really want an apology. I just wanted to explain it to you guys because you guys are the only ones that I really care about. So, yeah, I'm not going to be, I'm just not going to be doing it. But also because obviously, obviously I don't agree with white supremacy like that's not even it's not a question that's so duh

obviously I don't associate with white nationalism that's not even something that I need to say yes obviously okay that's the first one so that was someone on the right let's look at someone on the left Tamika Mallory now she is a head

one of the heads of the women's march as you probably know the women's march has been under fire recently I was on Tucker Carlson not that long ago talking about this for this long expose that came out about the anti-Semitism that is really in the core

of the women's march that from the very beginning there has been an anti-white anti-Semitism sentiment that has seeped from people like Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsor who are virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Tamika Mallory

is BFF with Lewis Farrakhan. Lewis Farrakhan as you probably recall is the one who has called Jews termites, who calls Jews Satanic, claims that they are running the world, you know, that conspiracy theory. She is BFF with him and she was asked about this on the view to kind of justify her association with him and this is what she said. And Tamika, you came under some fire for your relationship with Lewis Farrakhan and the nation of Islam. Now, he's known for being anti-Semitic for being homophobic, but you, You do attend his events and you posted, I believe, a photo together calling him the goat, which means the greatest of all time.

And just because you go into a space with someone does not mean that you agree with everything that they say. But let me push back a little bit. Why call him the greatest of all time? I didn't call him the greatest of all time because of his rhetoric. I called him the greatest of all time because of what he's done in black communities. And I think that, you know. So she says that because she was with him doesn't mean that she agrees with everything that he says. calls him the goat, the greatest of all time on her Instagram, because of what he has done for the black community, not because of rhetoric. And did you hear, I mean, that's such an inane response.

It's hard for me to even coherently respond to that response. But did you hear the applause when she said that, that it's not about his rhetoric? It's about what he's done for the black community. Excuse me? Excuse me. So if, I don't know, Hitler, for example, or let's, let's not use an extreme example, although I'm sure they're not really that dissimilar, considering their rhetoric. So if David Duke, who used to be a part of the KKK, who is a known white supremacist, a known racist, if a white person, if a white conservative went on the view and said, you know, I know David Duke has said some really sketchy stuff about black people, but he's not a lot

for the white community. Like, he's not a lot for white people or he's given a lot to the poor. when we sit back and say, you know, that's, that's cool. I get it. Yeah, sure, his rhetoric was bad, but who cares? He's given a lot to the poor. No, absolutely not. But we're supposed to clap when Tamika Mallory says that this guy who has called Jews termites, who has been an anti-Semite for literally decades and who has preached black supremacy as long as he has been around, that we're supposed to be okay with her saying, well, he's done a lot for the black community. First of all, I would like to know what.

What, what? What is he done for the black community? The nation of Islam, like I said, has been pushing this black supremacy movement for years and years. And Temeca Mallory, really, I can tell, has been indoctrinated with all of their garbage. So we're supposed to just take that and say, oh, yeah, that's fine that you, like this guy who has said all of this disgusting stuff about Jews. That's fine.

You're not an antistamine. He's done a lot for the black community. You go, girl. You keep on leading this woman's march. and we're supposed to believe that you are inclusive and loving and tolerant and kind and all of these things that you claim that the women's march is? No, thanks. This ain't it.

Okay, let's listen to just a few things that Farrakhan has said. The satanic Jews that control everything and mostly everybody. You are not the chosen of God. You are the chosen of Satan. I'm talking about the wicked ones on. in the Jewish community that run America, run the government, run the world, own the banks, own the means of communication. They are my enemies.

You know what they do? Call me an anti-Semite. Stop it. I'm anti-termite. I mean, this is like, can you imagine? Can you imagine calling this person the greatest of all time? I mean, really. Meanwhile, we have people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She recently tweeted out that Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist and associates with white supremacy because other people who are white supremacists

and white nationalists like Richard Spencer have been approving of Tucker Carlson. So that makes Tucker Carlson in and of himself a white supremacist or associated with the white nationalist cause. Okay. So just let me figure this out. Let me just, I'm trying to figure this out. So Tucker is a racist because people associate themselves, people who are racist, associate themselves with him. But Tamika Mallory is not a racist, even though she deliberately associates with herself with

someone who is an outspoken racist. Did I get that right? Is that the logic that we've got? Is that the liberal logic that we've got? Okay, got it. Oh, wait, I have another one. So everyone who voted for Donald Trump, everyone who voted for Donald Trump

or who isn't nasty enough about Donald Trump and just doesn't hate him to his core and just want him to die is a white supremacist. That's what we hear. If you voted for Donald Trump and you still don't just hate Donald Trump with every fiber of your being, you're a white supremacist.

It doesn't matter if you like his policies. It doesn't matter if you just think that he's the alternative to the left, you are a racist if you voted for him. But Tamika Mallory saying that someone who called you satanic termites, Temeca Mallory associating herself with him and calling him the greatest of all time and having attended his talk since she was a child and leaving the women's march, it's fine. Why? Let me tell you why. She's a black woman. She's a black woman who associates with the nation of Islam. So she's got at least three intersectionality points. if you haven't heard me explain intersectionality. I'm not sure which episode it was on. I've explained this,

but it's basically the oppression Olympics. So the more, quote, minority or oppression points that you have, the more credibility you have and the less likely you are to receive a ton of criticism. And so she's going to kind of escape this. Now, if CNN and MSNBC and all of these mainstream left outlets who talk about hating racism and hating supremacy so much or hating bigotry so much, If they really cared about that, the way that they say they do, they wouldn't be picking apart the implications of President Trump, which I agree. He has said some stupid stuff in the past. They would at least pause just momentarily from doing that and say, hey, this leader of the Women's March, which we have promoted on her own network, CNN, and we have louded as this woman of influence and who has been a part of the Women's March, which of course is always covered nonstop by these leftist outlets. it's hey, she associates with racist, and that's probably not a good thing.

If they really cared about bigotry, they would cover that. But they won't. They won't. I really want to see this whole episode because part of the clip that I showed you at the end had Megan McCain really pushing her, but of course the clip didn't show the response. It's what I really want to see. So to make a Mallory, this ain't it. And like I said, Trump has said stuff that I don't like.

I didn't like how he dealt with Charlotte's, that's why I did a whole video about it. I called Trump out for those things. I've never called him the greatest of all time. I don't, unlike some people on the right, call him the savior of Western civilization or the savior of America. No, that ain't it either. I, but my, by me voting for him, that doesn't make me a white process, but apparently it does, but Tamika Mallory is not. So, okay, just making sure that you understood that in case your little feeble brain is confused by that hypocrisy. Okay, next thing is Robert Jeffers. So we went right, left, right. So Robert Jeffers is the pastor of a megachurch in Dallas called First Baptist Dallas. And I have also met him a few times and know people that go to his church. And he was on Fox and Friends saying that one of the reasons why it's okay and biblical for us to have a wall on the southern border is because heaven has walls or something like that. So listen to this. The Bible says even heaven is going to have a wall around it.

Not everyone's going to be allowed in. So, as you heard, he said that heaven has a wall around it. And let me just give a caveat first. I agree with Robert Jeffers on a lot. He makes good points. And I know a lot of people give him a hard time on the right. But if you listen to him in context, a lot of the times the people extract out of context are not really as,

are not really as problematic as they make it seem. So I just want to say, like, I agree with him on a lot. I just think that this particular argument for a wall is stupid. Now, I have said before that I think that you could find, if you wanted to, you could find biblical support for the argument that, hey, a wall is not inherently sinful or racist or immoral because everywhere we see a wall depicted in the Bible, it is a sign of peace and security. People like to cite, oh, the wall of Jericho came tumbling down.

Well, yes, but sure, but that was about God's faithfulness to his people and his willingness to do absolutely anything to secure the promised land for them. Then it was about the inherent badness of a wall. It had nothing to do with that. If you look at Nehemiah, if you look in parts of Proverbs, if you look in parts of Psalms, walls are seen as a depiction as a symbol of peace and security. There is nothing inherently wrong about them. So I don't think that you need to make a biblical argument for the wall. I don't think that's necessary. It's just logical in good policy and it's worked elsewhere and has nothing to do

with race whatsoever. It's certainly not inherently immoral. But if you wanted to, you could. People have done it. Wayne Grudham has done it. He wrote a piece in town hall doing that very thing. and he is a theologian or he is a systematic theologian that I really like a lot. So you can, of course, do this. I simply think that the point that heaven has a wall around it ain't it. Like, I just think that's stupid. Heaven's going to have a lot of things that we don't have here on Earth. So, I mean, Revelation 2121 says that heaven will also have cities of pure gold.

Should we ask taxpayers to pay for streets and buildings and walls and fences of golds? Like if that's going to be our argument, then why shouldn't we do other things that emulate heaven here on earth as well, at least as far as the government goes? I just don't think that this is a great argument for this. So I don't know. Maybe he was doing it tongue in cheek, but it just doesn't, it doesn't make much sense. And a lot of people are talking about how that just, it was a stupid point, which I agree with them. Like I said, Robert Jeffers. I agree with him on a lot.

I think sometimes he goes too far and trying to defend Trump biblically in a way that I don't think he probably would have done for Obama. And I'm not sure that that's the right thing to do. But he makes some good points. And there's a lot that he says that I think is good. This one was just kind of weak. Ain't it? So next one, we might have time for two more.

Depends on how long I spend on this one. okay aOC alexandria accio cortez first let me say i know i said this before a lot of people a lot of people think that republicans need to stop talking about aOC that we are the ones that have created this fame that we have created this monster that we are the ones paying her all the attention that's not true new york times just said an entire article saying that she is the face of the democratic party the people have spoken i mean she has a higher number of uh of of followers on basically every platform than anyone else than any other Democratic leader. And Republicans haven't done that. Now, I'm not saying that we haven't contributed at all.

But I would say for the large part, we are responding to the ridiculousness of the left and hoisting this woman up as their spokeswoman. And I think Democrats are probably really frustrated with that too because homegirl flubs and gaffs so much, so much. Like if a Republican had made as many mistakes as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, like, let's see, saying that Israel was the occupation of Palestine and saying that, oh, she's not an expert on geopolitics, even though she majored in international relations when she was in college, explaining marginal tax rates in her interview for 60 minutes with Anderson Cooper saying, oh, we're just going to tax the tippy tops. Okay. Thank you so much for explaining and the most baby preschool way that you

possibly could what marginal tax rates are. When she said the three chambers of government, rather than three branches of government, and even when she said the three chambers of government, like, that wasn't even correct. And some people are saying that she corrected herself on that. Not really. Also, she has this really interesting habit of taking this one very obscure criticism, that's one random conservative set of her, and inflating it and applying it to all of the GOP, that we're all unfair, that we're all sexist, that we all, that we all, that we all, that we all overblow every single thing that she says. No, that's not true. You just say a lot of bad stuff. But she even said that the criticism of her as compared to Paul Ryan, when he came into Congress,

when he was young in his 20s as well, the criticism of her has been so much more because she is a woman of color. Has nothing to do with that. Paul Ryan is smart. He's been smart for a really long time. So she's in the 60 Minutes interview. And here, I'll just play it for you first. One of the criticisms of you is that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you for Pinocchio's. Oh, my goodness. For misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending. If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there,

I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally. right. So like let's just take that in for a second. She is very concerned that people are taking her factually, that people are taking her facts and they are weighing them against the truth. That's craziness, right? Like how dare people do that? How dare people look at the numbers that she is putting out there and saying, well, does that actually align with reality? How dare people do that? That is so rude of them. And Anderson Cooper, to his credit,

it does push back a little bit and say, well, is it being factual good? And she said, yes, it's absolutely important, but it's not. We continue to see over and over again that she doesn't really care about facts. She was on MSNBC doing what she thought was this awesome tirade about President Trump talking about how this kid died at the hands of, at the hands of ICE on Christmas day. Well, no, it wasn't ICE. It was Border Patrol. He was sick before he got there and it wasn't on Christmas Day. So, and again, she would say that it's more important that she was morally right than factually correct. But the question that we should be asking, is it possible to be factually incorrect and morally right at the same time? I don't think so. Now, I'm not talking about

the person themselves. Like, for example, if I say, if I tell you on accident that there were six illegal immigrants crossing the border and really it was seven, that doesn't mean that I'm immoral because I made a mistake. I should go back and I should correct that mistake. But what I just told you is that statement in and of itself moral? No, it's not because it's not true. Like if I told you that 2 plus 2 equals 5, that would be immoral because I would be telling you a lie. If I teach my future daughter that 2 plus 2 is 5, that is immoral because that is a lie. 2 plus 2 is 4 is moral. 2 plus 2 is 5 is not because 2 plus 2 is 4 is the truth. I kind of got confused with my language there for a second. The truth is moral.

A lie is not. Even flubbing is not moral. That doesn't make you a bad person for making that mistake. But you cannot give a faulty plan or a faulty statistic or a faulty story and that story statistic factoid, I guess it would be falsity that you made up or that you flubbed on still be moral. It just doesn't make any sense like that. So especially when she's talking about economics, when she's talking about these

plans, which is talking about, for example, military spending, which is also a number that she completely flubbed on a few months ago. When you're talking about these things, it's very important to actually be accurate. But what she does is she runs her mouth. She says whatever she wants to say, she makes as many mistakes as she wants to make. And then when someone criticizes her, she says that it's big. That she says that it's discriminatory. She says that it's not fair. Typical millennial, unable to take responsibility for her actions, unable to say, yeah, I can have a problem with the truth. Yeah, I'm not really good at articulating things. Like, honestly, I get really nervous and I don't say the right things. Yeah, I know. We've noticed that.

Just own it. I saw someone on Twitter today saying that, you know, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the first person that has really broken down tax policy in a way that young people understand. This is great. I hope that she really educates young people. What? Like, can you point me to? one instance where she has clearly articulated tax policy in a way that is accurate and coherent, please. And there were even leftist being like, uh, okay, like I like her, but this just isn't true. Anyone who describes marginal tax rates using the words tippy tops probably doesn't understand what they're talking about. Like, I have never heard her coherently state a platform or a position that she has, especially when it comes to money. And look, I am not a math person.

Ocasio Cortez and I have that in common. I am not an expert on tax policy. I'm not an expert on geopolitics. So when I say all of this, she and I can probably relate a little bit. But I am not running for Congress. I am not claiming to be an expert on this stuff the way that she is. She ran for Congress.

She thinks she knows a thing or two about policy. She is going to try to implement policies that are going to affect your life in my life, the lives of the entire country. I am not. I am a lowly podcaster who admits when I am wrong and admits when I don't know something. So I am not faulting Accio-Cortez for not knowing everything as a 29-year-old, but I am faulting her for running for Congress saying that she knows enough to be able to implement this kind of influential policy and really society-altering policy without actually knowing anything. and then falling back on her victimhood when she gets things wrong. It's always everyone else's fault when she gets things wrong.

It's never hers. And the funny thing is, this is kind of similar to President Trump. Like, President Trump has flubbed a lot too. Like, he has fibbed. Most of it has been the same as Accio-Cortez. Like, he probably hasn't meant to lie, but he has exaggerated something or he has taken something from a source that got it wrong. And he doesn't apologize.

I think that's wrong when President Trump. doesn't. And the media is very quick to call him out when he's lying, when he's exaggerating, when he doesn't get something quite right. But with Accio-Cortez, it's like, well, you know, it's kind of unfair that I'm being held to the same standard as reality. I feel like I should just kind of be let off the hook for that. And wow, it's really kind of rude that people are holding me to that standard. How dare they? And then what does the New York Times do? They run an article to say, you know what? Her criticism of fact-checking is valid. Now that we think about it, okay, well, I'm excited moving forward that we're just going to all agree that Trump is morally right about things, whether or not he's factually correct.

I'm excited to kind of see the fact checkers that usually are very quick to say that President Trump is lying, kind of back down and say, oh, but is this morally okay? It's just, it's so, it's so great. It's such a typical millennial and typifies so much of what people hate about millennials. Okay, I wanted to get to this Gillette ad that talks about toxic masculinity, but I'm going to save that for Thursday. Thursday, we're also talking about a subject that is awesome. It's exclusively really theological on Thursday, just a heads up, but I'm really passionate about this particular item. But I'm also going to latch the Gillette thing to the. end of it. But before we go, I will do one thing I just don't get. Some of you are going to agree with

me. Some of you won't. This one thing I just don't get, now that I am pregnant, Instagram, I guess, knows that I'm pregnant. So on my Discover page, I see all of these pregnant people. And most of the time, like I like looking at, you know, their journey and things like that. But you do have to know when you're pregnant, every single journey is different. And yes, there are just some rules that everyone should follow when they, when they are pregnant. But it's really hard beyond those like fundamental rules to say this is exactly what you should do. One thing I think that you just should not do, though, like is one of those fundamental rules is post pictures of yourself that like you wouldn't post if you weren't pregnant. I'm talking about not just showing your belly, whatever.

That's fine. It's not my thing, but whatever. But like the naked pictures. Have you guys noticed that? Like the women who are like, oh, otherwise I probably wouldn't post a picture of myself naked or with underwear on a selfie in the mirror, but I'm going to because I'm nine months pregnant. Why? Why? Like, I just think that's weird. I just don't get that. Why being pregnant somehow gives people license to be like, I'm letting it all hang out on Instagram, y'all. It's just odd to me. Tell me if you see this differently. And if I'm just missing something, I mean, I think pregnancy is beautiful. I think like what a woman's body does to grow a life is absolutely amazing. It's one of those things that among many things, but it's one of those things that you just learn more. about like creating a human life and you're like there has to be an intelligent creator and all of of this. It's just too complex for it to be a chance. But beyond that, like, I don't really want to, I don't want to see naked people on Instagram, period, anyone. I just don't know why all of a sudden it's like, okay and cool when this person is pregnant. I don't know. You can let me know what you

think about that. That's it for today. Come back on Thursday. Like I said, I've got a hot topic for you. and I'll be very interested to hear your feedback because it might be a little bit controversial. I'll be in D.C. to speak at the Stork Ball and then I'll also be at the March for Life. So if you're there, make sure to say hi, but I will talk to you before Friday, which is the March for Life. Have a great day.