Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 7 | Can Liberals Love Jesus?

Episode Date: April 24, 2018

Progressive liberalism has become mainstream — and Christians are latching on. Allie breaks down the key differences between conservatism and liberalism and highlights the contradictory nature of being a "liberal Christian." 

Okay, here we go. It is Wednesday, which means it is time for another episode of Relatable with me, Ali Stucky. You can also find me on CRTV.com slash Ali, where I have weekly short videos that dive into both theology and politics from a conservative millennial perspective. You can also find me on social media if you want. If you don't want to, that's totally fine. But if you do, my Facebook page is the conservative millennial. I am Ali B. Stucky on Instagram. and conserve Malin on Twitter. I always keep those pages up to date, so they are great places to see what content I'm putting out

and what I am up to. In case, you are new around here. This is a weekly podcast where we take somewhat of a deep dive into one particular issue, and we talk about the Christian political or slash and cultural implications of said issue. This week, we are going to ask the question, can you be a progressive liberal and live out your Christian faith? Most of the country would probably

say yes, whereas I think probably 10 years ago or 20 years ago they would have said no, but I think today most of the country would say yes. And a large amount of people would probably even say that you must be a progressive liberal in order to be truly living out your Christian faith and would say that political conservatism is actually antithetical to Christianity. I really think that's where we are. The idea is really getting more and more popular, more and more mainstream by the day, even in denominations and sections of Christianity that used to be considered traditional. So to answer this question, we have to first define our terms.

So what does it mean to be a progressive liberal in America? So for the sake of efficiency, I have to speak in somewhat general terms. Every political and even religious ideology I know has nuances and different denominations of people whose thinking might diverge from the whole. So if while I'm describing the political left, you're like, hey, that's not me or that doesn't describe everyone that I know who's on the political left, okay, well, maybe I'm not talking about you. maybe I'm not talking about your friends.

There's really no way for me right now to describe every single facet of progressivism or even conservatism. So I'm going to do my best, but I'm going to have to paint with a broad brush. And also for the sake of efficiency, I am going to use the terms progressivism and liberalism interchangeably referring to people on the left. Now, some people have a problem with that. I know. And for very legitimate reasons, they don't like using the term.

liberal for people on the left, but nevertheless, that's kind of what's easier here and everyone knows what I mean when I say progressive or liberal. I am going to make this very elementary because I never want to take for granted what people in the audience may not know. If you are a political newbie, which I think a lot of people who listen to me and watch my stuff are political newbies and you don't really know anything at all about politics, I want you to know that is totally okay. I never want anyone to listen to this podcast and feel bad about something that they don't know or haven't heard of before. I mean, the Lord knows that is a daily occurrence for me and probably for everyone, whether they admit it or not. So we should all just

be humble and learn together. So I am going to break it down to its most simple right here. So you've probably heard people say the terms left and right when they are referring to people's political beliefs. What they're referring to there is the spectrum of political and even cultural ideology. So the left side of the spectrum is what we call progressivism or today's liberalism. The right is what we call conservatism. The left typically, not always, but typically votes Democrat. The right, typically, but not always, votes Republican. Now, I know that you could say that neither of these parties fully represent progressivism or conservatism. But again, for the sake of simple explanations, we're going to leave it at that.

The fundamental difference between the political left and the right side of the spectrum is, and it's kind of this two and one deal, is what they believe about the individual and as a consequence of what they believe about the individual, what they believe to be the role of the government. The left, by and large, believe that an individual's rights are given to them by the government. The right, by and large, believe that it is, that an individual's rights are inherent, given to them by a creator or interwoven in our DNA. That is why we are in a constant battle over things like free speech and the right to bear arms. For example, the left believes that these are rights that should be subject to government

approval rights that can be diminished or taken away completely if the government sees fit because the leftist political ideology says that these rights come from the government, not from God. They are not inherent. Conservatives on the right, in company with the founding fathers, believe that rights like the right to free speech and the right to defend yourself with a firearm are rights along with all the other rights acknowledged in the Constitution that are inherent to every human being and therefore in most cases should not be taken away by the government.

Now, both sides, for the most part, claim to care about constitutional rights. But progressives believe that the Constitution gives us our rights, they can be taken away, but conservatives believe that the Constitution acknowledges our natural rights, meaning they should not be taken away. Every right outlined in the Constitution flows from the reality that the founders verbalized in the Declaration of Independence. All men were created equal and were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property. Now, has our country been perfect in upholding this? No. It took some amendments and a lot of

lot of effort to make sure our country was truly equal for men and women and people of different races to truly have the same rights. But conservatives, at least conservatives today, believe the progress we've made toward equality is because of the fundamental truth outlined in our founding documents, whereas most progressives believe that the progress we've made toward equality is in spite of our founding documents. This is why you see progressives talking about the U.K., in Canada, in Australia, and Sweden, how awesome they are, how we should be modeling everything after them, because most don't actually believe in the foundational uniqueness and goodness of America. They look at the sins America has committed, which do exist, and say that America is bad,

and we need to fix it by being more like other countries. Conservative today, look at the sins America has committed and say, those were bad, but America itself is good, and we need to fix them by being more American. which means actually manifesting what Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration that we are all equal, all endowed by our creator with particular fundamental rights that shouldn't be taken away from us. Conservatives believe in American exceptionalism, not that Americans as people are superior in worth or even in morality to other people around the world, but that America as an idea, a government for the people by the people, is exceptional and is the greatest and most successful experiment ever conducted. conducted in the history of the universe. I know I'm biased here, but on that, we conservatives are absolutely right. I mean, point to any other country in the world that has accomplished as much as we've accomplished in 250 years. What other country has led the world in technological

advancement the way that we have? What other country has cultivated wealth the way that we have? What other country has fought as relentlessly for universal freedom as we have? What other country has alleviated poverty. What other country has conquered so many frontiers? What other country as young as we are has had as much equality and as many rights and opportunities as we have? What other country stands as a beacon of hope and liberty for people fleeing tyranny? None. The answer is none. So when people, particularly conservative, say America is special, when people say America is the greatest country on earth, when people say God bless America, That is what they're talking about.

They're not pretending that America is perfect, but they are saying that it is the best shot the universe has ever taken. If you're born in America, if you get the chance to become a citizen of this country, no matter where you're born, you have hit the jackpot. And no other place in the world is the rags to riches story, the obscurity to influence story, the failure to success story more possible and beyond that plausible. That is the reality. that conservatives are at least idealistically aiming to protect.

When we stand against illegal immigration, when we stand against open borders, when we stand against repealing the Second Amendment, limiting free speech and freedom of religion, we're trying to protect the sovereignty of the best nation in the world, the exceptionalism that makes America great. But progressives on the other side have a problem with America on a very basic, level. Many, and now I think that this is actually a fairly new development, believe that the founders were racist because they owned slaves. They were misogynistic because they didn't allow women to vote. This was a white man's government and as such, the cars have always been stacked against women

and minorities. They truly believe many on the progressive left that there is a cancer of white supremacy and patriarchy inextricably woven into our founding. Therefore, they say American institutions must be completely deconstructed and

reconstructed with things like forced diversity and representation and the like. That is why you see such animosity towards things, uh, towards things like merit on the left because they believe nearly all, if not all

systems and institutions in America are inherently discriminatory because of our racist founding and thus meritocracy must be inherently unfair. And again, that is not everyone on the left, at least not everyone on the left says these things, but the ideas I just articulated that used to be extreme are now becoming mainstream. There was a Pew study from October of last year showing just how far Democrats have gone to the left on virtually every single issue since 1990, while conservatives have stayed about the same.

even though this kind of anti-Americanism I'm outlining certainly doesn't account for every single progressive out there, it is a trend that's becoming much, much more popular on the left. This idea that America is inherently bad because of our imperfect history and therefore reverting back to what the founders intended for our country is outlined in the founding documents is problematic because our foundation is faulty because of racism, et cetera. That is the idea that is being popularized on the left. So are you tracking with me? Okay. Now, here's the kicker. I just explained to you how the right and the left view the individual and the rights of each individual in where they come from. The view of individuals and their rights determines also how each side views the role of the government. The left, as you have probably picked up on by now, has a pretty negative view of the individual. Remember, they don't believe that people have rights. They believe that they are given rights by the government. So, basically,

they wouldn't say this, they see people as tools or vessels of the state. That's how they justify being pro-choice. They don't believe that people are born with rights. They believe that the government gets to determine their rights. So they believe that people are agents who must be kept in line or can only be kept in line via regulation. They do not believe, for the most part, that people can regulate themselves, which partly, partly is true. We know that people sin, people commit crimes, they abuse corporate power, etc. That's why there are laws. But the left believes that the government must be involved in virtually every single part of our lives in order for things to go okay. They believe basically that more government equals fewer problems. That's it. More government

equals fewer problems. That's what they believe. The more the government takes on the role of caring for people regulating the environment, businesses, other things, the better off people will be. This is why individual liberty for them is low on their priority list. They believe people should be willing to sacrifice much of their individual liberty for the sake of what they would deem, the left would deem the common good. So, for example, the rich person should be happy to pay 50% in taxes because it's going towards governmental programs that help the poor. So rather than allow that rich person to keep most of their money so they can choose to give money to the poor how they see fit. The left believes that the government is smarter and more

compassionate than the average individual, so they demand that as penance for your material success, you give half of what you earn so they can distribute your money how they see fit. Now, the right has a higher view of the individual. You would never think that watching the news these days. You think that we hate everyone. But the truth is, conservatives believe that though people are imperfect and even though we do have a tendency towards selfishness and even evil, we still believe people do a better job of regulating themselves than the government does. We actually believe that self-regulation and something called the free market actually accounts for people's bit towards selfishness because supply and demand both satisfies self-interest

by earning people money and providing them with goods at a decent price, and in so doing also contributes to the common good. Now, Republicans in particular still believe that the government has, a role in our lives and that some regulation and government intervention are necessary in good. But they believe in general that people should be paying less in taxes and should be able to make the decisions they want to make without the government getting in the way. At least that's what Republicans are supposed to think. This is in contrast to libertarian conservatives who really believe that the government should be basically obsolete. It is possible, by the way, to be

libertarian on some things like marijuana or gay marriage, meaning you may not agree with it, but you don't want the government getting in the way of it and then be Republican on other issues. Just wanted to make sure I clarified that. So the left believes in giving and taking rights from people, whereas the right believes in preserving and protecting people's rights. And in case you haven't deduced this already, there is dissonance in the left's position. On the one hand, they think America and its institutions, including the government, are inherently bad and discriminatory towards people that they consider marginalized and therefore should be deconstructed, but they also want to expand said government at the same time. So they, I guess, believe that they are going to use and grow the thing that they think is fundamentally flawed in order to fix these fundamental flaws.

and if you think American institutions are fundamentally messed up, I mean, wouldn't you want them to have less power, especially under Trump, whom they loathe? Trump's presidency is actually giving them, I think, a good lesson on why none of us should want the central government to have power. He's doing things they don't like and they're uncomfortable with how much this administration is changing things. they want him in Congress to have less power so that they can't do as much. And I say, yes, welcome to conservatives' lives. We would love to decrease Trump's power and Congress's power. We would love nothing more. That's all conservatives want.

That's all we've ever wanted. All we want the government to do is it's really simple. Protect life, liberty, and property. And allow us to protect life, liberty, and property. That's it, which is why conservative, for the most part, are pro-life, pro-second Amendment, advocates of free speech and freedom of religious expression. We want the government to protect our fundamental rights, which means keeping this nation a sovereign nation, a.k.a. curbing illegal immigration. We want them to protect us from

imminent danger, foreign and domestic, and we want them to protect and perpetuate our individual liberty. Conservatives want the people to rule the government, not the other way around. Thomas Jefferson supposedly said, it's not confirmed. Some people say he didn't say it. But Thomas Jefferson, I think, said when government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny. I mean, do any of you get the feeling that our government actually fears us? No. I mean, maybe possibly when they're up for re-election, but most of the time, we are the scared ones. We're scared of what the government is going to do to us. How much money are they going to take from me? Am I going to get targeted by the IRS?

Is the EPA going to do more damage to my industry? Are they going to come and confiscate my guns, that's where the political left has gotten us, the expansion of the government and the shrinking of individual liberty to the point where we are afraid of our elected officials who work for us. And to be quite honest and fair, Republicans haven't really stopped the growing of the government in a long time. Trump has done some. He's deregulated a good amount, but the spending bill that was just passed is not an indication that the government is ready to relinquish any power whatsoever. So, okay, the question is, does this have to do with Christianity? The original question was, can you be a Bible believing

Jesus loving, progressive liberal? Well, let's just say that I think that there are several contradictions between the two ideologies. So number one, Christians cannot believe, as progressivism does, that the government should be the one to create rights. Because allowing the government to be the creator of rights means that you ascribe power to the government that only God has. That is unbiblical. So if we have a logical line of reasoning here, it goes like this. Christians, by definition, believe in the Bible.

If you don't believe in the Bible, you're not a Christian. Sorry, Christians believe in the Bible. The Bible says that God is our creator. As such, he gave us inherent, internal, inextricable, inarguable worth as the only creatures made in his image. He defines who we are and how valuable we are. and that value we see in the creation account and throughout the Bible is both extremely high. God places an extremely high value on human beings and is also equal from person to person.

So when the founder said that all men are created equal, they found that truth in the Bible. And that equality manifests itself in the guarantee of life, first and foremost, the right to live and to protect innocent life and the rights to liberty and property, which have a necessary symbiotic relationship with our first inherent right, the right to life. You can't have life and the protection of life without the right to liberty and property, and you can't have liberty or property without the right to life. Progressivism says, sorry, no, the government is free to take any or all of those rights away because they gave them to you. This, ipso facto, means you do not believe that your worth comes from God.

And if I haven't made this clear enough that simply not. biblical and therefore does not square with Christianity. Now, you might be thinking as a progressive liberal Christian, that's not it. I just believe that we need to care for the least of these, like Jesus says, and progressive democratic policies are compassionate because they give to the poor, which leads to number two. So if the first problem with progressivism is that it puts the government in the place of God, the second problem is that it also puts the government in the place of the church. When the Bible says to sell everything we have and give it to the poor, when we read and acts to the fellowship of the believers in the early church, this is not a government

dictated situation here. The early Christians were not selling their property and possessions, helping out their fellow believers because the government told them to, which is what the Democratic Progressive Platform is. They did it through the power of the Holy Spirit freely. God loves a cheerful giver, the Bible says. Cheerful giving is encouraged when people have the freedom to give their money out of their own volition. Not when it's taken away from them by the government and distributed to organizations and programs that may or may not be actually helping anyone.

Like, I don't know, $500 million to plan parenthood every year, the number one killer of unborn babies. Now, you could argue again, that Republicans have also played an important role in that. But what I'm arguing against is the general idea in any political party that giving more power and money to the government is in any way a good Christian thing. If you are worried about the poor, great.

Vouch for a government system that lets you give your money away to the poor. You're worried about the least of these, the loss, the marginalized? Awesome. Vouch for a government system that ensures you have freedom of speech and freedom of religion so that you can go to these people and preach the gospel without the fear of getting arrested. Give your time, your energy, your advocacy, money to causes and organizations and businesses in the private sector so you know for sure that your investment is actually going to things that you believe in and care about instead of things that you don't or shouldn't believe in as a Christian, such as the abortion mill plan parenthood.

And you know what? I've heard this from Christian, so I just need to address it as an aside. Do not give me the whole, they do so much more than abortions. We shouldn't define them by abortions. Christians can still support Planned Parenthood. Okay. Okay. Well, a serial rapist might also collect coins, but do we identify him as a coin collector? No. Does his hobby of collecting coins make him any less of a serial rapist? No. Would you want to contribute to the coin collection of the serial rapist?

No. So just a touch on that. And we'll do a whole episode on that later. But for now, on two point number three. Which is being politically progressive has social implications. Social implications, by the way, that are antithetical. to what the Bible teaches. You cannot extract the democratic progressive political platform.

So if you're someone who says, why just believe in welfare for the poor? You cannot extract that political position from its social positions and its social platform because they have been intertwined inextricably. And that is precisely what happens when you give the government more power and money as progressivism demands. You are at the whim of whoever is. in power. They become the arbiters of not just your tax money, but of morality of truth. If you would like to know what the future of progressive politics looks like on a social and moral level,

then you don't need to look any further than California. California, where, among a plethora of other horrific problems that they are having, it is becoming illegal. Illegal. For a counselor, teacher or religious leader to counsel someone with either same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria against those desires. So no matter the reason, even if it is for a legitimate religious reason, or even if the reason that the counselor is telling someone this is to stay faithful to the wife and kids, nope, can't do it. You will be in trouble with the law in California if you advise or publish materials that advise anyone to not give into the desires that the Bible preaches. against. Monica Burke over at the Daily Signal has a good piece on this. Here's what she reports.

The bill defines sexual change efforts as any practices that seek to change an individual sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex. This law would be triggered when a transaction occurs, a counselor's payment and attendance fee, the cost of a book, or a pastor's speaking fee. Anyone who is offended by a statement, teaching or practice with regard to sexual orientation, and gender identity could then file a lawsuit against a minister,

a counselor, an author, a store, or educational institution that offended them. A lawsuit could devastate any of these persons or institutions. First, the accused would be at the mercy of a judge to determine whether or not AB 294,000, that is the name of this bill, applies in their case. The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act commands that it be liberally construed and applied. By this standard, individuals and institutions would be vulnerable to crippling fines simply

for speaking to millennia old views on human sexuality. That's what she writes. I read the Daily Signal. Some people, which I think understandably so, are worried that this would effectively ban the sale of Bibles in California, since the Bible is pretty, shall I say, strict on the sex stuff. Snopes.com says, however, no, that's not true. It doesn't ban the sale of Bibles, but I'm not really sure how that's not true. I'm not really clear on how that doesn't ban the sale of Bibles or at least open up bookstores who sell the Bible to possible lawsuits. The bill says any practices, any.

To me, that means preaching from the Bible or selling a Bible that is pretty clear on its stance on sexuality. But that is where progressive liberal politics get us. Christians might say, well, I don't want that. I just want the, you know, the helping the poor stuff, the compassion for illegal immigrants and stuff. Nah, uh-uh, not so fast. You do not get one without the other. You know why? because while things like helping the poor with unlimited unconditional welfare and letting in the illegal immigrants sound compassionate, they're actually not. Neither of them help anyone or anything in the long term. Unlimited welfare motivates people to stay unemployed and illegal immigration chips away at our sovereignty, which is necessary to upholding any sort of rule of law and safety. And both are simply ways to get more people to depend on the government, giving the government more power and more money, which in turn gives them the authority to make moral decisions like the one where,

seen in California, which is basically the all-out censorship of Christians on the topic of sexuality. Do you see that? You see how they're related. Because the politicians who advocate for illegal immigration, open borders, and limited welfare are also the people who believe that Christian leaders shouldn't be able to speak out about sexuality or really anything. They have to be. To get elected.

That's the stance that they have to take. There is no such thing, at least that I know of, as a democratic politician in the U.S. Congress, who is so. socially conservative or constitutionally conservative. None of them are interested in protecting Christians' rights. By voting Democrat, you are also voting for these kinds of infringements of liberty, the purpose of which are to criminalize Christian and traditional viewpoints. That's just the bottom line. That's not hyperbolic. It's just true. You can see it in California. And not only that, and this is point number four, greater government control always leads to

godlessness in human suffering. Let's back up for a second and explain how I got to this conclusion. The end game for the political leftist socialism, an economic system, and eventually communism, an economic and political system where the government controls absolutely everything. People are taxed out of their minds in order to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. And they brand this as compassion, which is why Christians buy into it. Because yes, in a socialist society, theoretically, the poor may have what they need, at least for a little while. They have what they need at the expense, though, of the middle and upper class who are forced to give

their money to the government so the government can give it to the poor. But the only way for the government to have this power, the power to tax us insanely and provide everything for the poor is if we give them that power. We give the government the power when we start surrendering little by little our liberties in the names of protection and provision. That's the only way. Liberties including religious liberty, which is always one of the first to go in a socialistic society. Socialism is only possible with a large centralized government and people worshipping whomever they want to, having values not aligned with the state, worshipping a system higher than the government is a threat to authoritarian or socialist governments. There has never been a socialistic government in which religion and specifically Christianity has thrived.

not only because often the government doesn't allow it to thrive, but because people put government in the place of God and the church so they don't feel the need for religion anymore. But how has that worked out? How has that worked out for mankind? Has placing government in place of God and the church via socialism turned out well for people? No. Hitler and the Nazis come to mind. Nazi stands for National Socialists, by the way. Stalin comes to mind. Mussolini comes to mind. Mao comes to mind. And why live in the past? Venezuela comes to mind. North Korea, China, and even all across Europe, which has largely adopted socialism, the church is almost completely dead.

Now, not every leader in country listed was socialistic. Mussolini was a fascist, but they are all totalitarian, the government having ultimate control after promising the people they were going to care for them. Do you know how many people have been killed by communistic, which is the ultimate form of socialism, by the way, communistic regimes over the past century? 100 million, 100 million have been brutally murdered at the hands of communist governments. If communism is the in result of leftism, of progressivism, and if communism has only ever ended not just in the surrender of basic liberties, but in people suffering and death,

then why, why, why church would we ever go there? Don't you see that leftism is not compassionate at all? that they're fooling you with words like tolerance and love and acceptance and inclusion. They're tricking you into thinking that more government is the merciful choice and it's not. And gosh, I haven't even gotten into Marxism yet, but that will just have to be another podcast for another day. So finally, the answer is no. If you are a Christian, you should not, cannot be a progressive liberal.

Now, let me qualify that. I think many Christians who advocate for progressive policies think that they are doing so in compassion and goodness. They're just ignorant. In other words, I think Christians who are progressives in their politics have a head issue, not necessarily a heart issue. I think that they're not thinking and that they just don't know. Now, eventually I will say that not knowing something becomes a heart issue because

eventually we make efforts to not know something we really don't want to know because we don't want to admit that we're wrong. But I think most Christians, if not all Christians who claim to be liberal, are just ignorant of what leftism really is and what it has always throughout history led to. They think they're being compassionate when they advocate for open borders and welfare, when in reality these things are tied to an ideology that is inherently and diametrically opposed to Christianity. And I mean, just to add a little bonus here, and I know this is not indicative of every Christian who claims to be on the left, I have never actually met a Christian who is liberal in their

politics, who has remained grounded in theology. I mean, it's funny. I think I said this last week, too. It's almost like as soon as a Christian starts advocating for social justice, they stop preaching the gospel. They start idolizing things like tolerance and inclusivity and forget about repentance and holiness. That's because the church doesn't need social justice. We have been doing the work of reconciliation for centuries, and we don't need the secular

world to label what we've always done. And when we do allow that, we end up being influenced by the world more than we influence them, which leads to the diminishment of the gospel in exchange for things like, quote, acceptance and superficial definitions of love. And we see that. We see that the same people who advocate for liberal politics. eventually fall into liberal interpretations of scripture. For example, I have never heard a so-called Christian who has a liberal, open, progressive

view of sexuality also say that they believe that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. They tend to believe that Jesus is right for them, but not for others. That's not Christianity. And again, I am totally not sane at all whatsoever that Christians who are liberal in their politics or who have voted Democrat are going to hell. I'm not judging people's salvation here. I'm not in the business of that. I'm actually not even judging the genuineness of their faith necessarily. I'm judging their ignorance. That to say, all of this to say, I also want to make clear that I do not believe that the Republican Party is by any means God's party. I mean, we've got a Republican Congress

in a White House that, like I've said, are still funding Planned Parenthood. we have corrupt people in our party. God is so far above the right or the left or Democrat or Republicans, governments, nations. Okay, I know this. And I think you all know this too. So this is not so much about party labels as it is your political ideology, which is important because it should be defined by how you view individuals and their rights, which should be shaped by the Bible. How the left views individuals, their rights and consequently how the government can control individuals and their rights leads to a squelching of liberty, including religious liberty and ultimately to human suffering. That ain't biblical.

Leftism makes government both God and the church, which are two roles we have seen throughout history that it plays very horribly. Conservatism is meant to free the individual from the tyranny of the government so that we can be free to worship God and be the church, which, historically Christians have done very well. But all this to say, you don't need to take my word for this. I encourage you to research this stuff yourself. Ultimately, what I say about this matters very little, if at all. Study the Bible, study economists like Carl Marx, Adam Smith, study totalitarian regimes, see the history of progressivism, communism, socialism, study these things for yourself.

And if you find that I'm wrong, then I would love to hear from you. You can email me. Ali at the conservative millennial blog.com. I always like to also take a step back and remind myself as well as you all that one day there will be none of this. I will not have a political podcast one day because there will be no political divisions. There will be no societal chasms, no pundits, no partisanship, no opinions. Just truth and peace and true love and worship and glory and goodness and joy forever and ever because the king of kings will rule in every one of his chosen ones will spend the rest of eternity

and uninterrupted worship and none of this will matter. We will be one with each other and with Christ and all of this, this podcast, this president, our politics, this nation, all of the world's history will be a distant memory and all that's going to occupy our minds at that point on that day is Jesus. And sometimes I just need to remind myself of that, that is true because I tend to get bogged down with the craziness of what is going on in our world. Okay. One last thing that has nothing to do with what I just said. I guess bringing us back down to Earth again.

I don't have a name for this last segment like I usually do. I usually try to do something like more fun. This is just like a random thing that I thought was crazy. I'm sure most of you saw it. I was just surprised by it. And that is that Kanye West seems to have been red-pilled, meaning red pill means it sounds like he has become a conservative or is talking like a conservative. This kind of started when he tweeted that he said or he tweeted that he likes the way that Candace Owens

thinks, who is a black conservative who works for Turning Point USA. She makes videos and I don't know if he saw her videos or what it was. And then he started tweeting about stuff about freedom of thought and speech and the thought police and these conservative videos. He told a radio host that he loves Donald Trump. Trump. I mean, wow, like he's talking about victim mentality, all this stuff that conservatives say all the time. It's crazy. Now, I think it's important to also note that Kanye, it's still the same Kanye. Like, he's probably insane. And I mean, he's always kind of just been really eccentric.

So I'm not really sure how, uh, how much we should take his words to heart. And his music is still ridiculously vulgar, although he is extremely talented. So I don't think that we should be hosting him up as some kind of conservative spokesperson or hero, definitely not. But I will say, I think it's kind of cool to see someone that is so popular, legitimately popular, and mainstream articulate conservative or at least non-progressive liberal ideas in a world where people feel like they need to hide and apologize for not being an extreme leftist. I just think that's cool.

I mean, all the Kardashians are on the left. I'm sure most of the people he hangs out with are on the left. And for him to diverge from that at all, I just think that's cool and I think it is good if he can influence other people with that. I mean, we saw Shania Twain. She was in an interview. I think it was over the weekend. And she said that she would have voted for Trump if she was an American.

She's a Canadian. And then she got so much hate that she sent out a four-part apology on Twitter for saying that hypothetically, if she was American, she would have voted for Donald Trump because he seems honest. She apologized for it. I had to go into how she is not into. discrimination and all of that. It's awful. She was completely bullied into that. It's so sad. So I just thought it was cool to see Kanye just not care what people think and say that he's

breaking away from what every other celebrity believes. And I don't know, maybe it'll have some kind of domino effect. That'd be pretty cool. Okay, I think this is definitely the longest podcast I have had so far. So you're welcome to those of you who asked for a longer podcast. I will see you next week. If you have a question, feel free to reach out to me about that. Social media here. If you like my podcast, please rate it. Please do five stars.

Don't do four stars. Please, it really hurts me. If you don't like it, feel free to send me constructive criticism. But if you do really like it, feel free to send me a five star review and share it with your friends, especially your liberal friends who undoubtedly will absolutely love this episode. Okay. Have a great week.

Bye. Thank you.