Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 244 ｜ YouTube Censors Inconvenient Facts

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a great week. Today we're

00:00:06.200 going to talk about a few things. We're going to talk a little bit more about Tara Reid,

00:00:10.460 the woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault back in 1993. She has recently come forward with

00:00:19.520 those allegations and so we're going to talk a little bit about the media reaction to that or

00:00:24.360 the lack thereof. We are also going to talk about the two doctors out of Bakersfield, California

00:00:30.480 who did a press conference with a local news organization. They looked at data and they said

00:00:37.540 based on this data we don't think that these lockdowns are necessary and in fact they might

00:00:42.740 be doing more harm than good. So we're going to talk about that and the censorship of that video

00:00:46.640 on YouTube. We'll also talk about this myth of overpopulation that seems to be increasingly

00:00:51.720 popular on the left and I'll tell you why that conversation is pertinent and what made me think

00:00:56.760 about it and want to have that conversation. First, let's talk again about Tara Reid and Joe Biden.

00:01:02.680 So Tara Reid, junior staffer for Joe Biden when he was a senator, claims that back in 1993,

00:01:09.980 and what I'm about to say is graphic, so if you have kids in the car you might want to fast forward,

00:01:14.540 she claims that he pushed her up against the wall and he digitally penetrated her and when she was

00:01:20.360 visibly shaken, she says that he said, it's fine, it's fine, you're going to be fine, you're going

00:01:24.800 to be fine. So I don't know if this is true. I have no idea if her story is legitimate or not. I don't

00:01:34.860 know. We do know that she is a Bernie supporter and so some people are saying that maybe this is

00:01:41.400 political. I don't know. What I do know is that right now she has more corroboration and more

00:01:49.560 substantiation for her story than Christine Blasey Ford did. She has friends who said,

00:01:56.800 oh yeah, she told us about this in the 90s when this happened. Her brother says, oh yeah,

00:02:01.320 she told me about this and he says that he stupidly told her not to go forward. Her mom says, yeah, 0.93

00:02:08.160 she told me about this and her mom actually called Larry King and told him about it. Of course,

00:02:14.740 didn't say her name and didn't say Joe Biden's name, but said this happened and she had a hard time,

00:02:19.440 knowing what to do because she didn't want to ruin the senator's reputation. She also filed a police

00:02:25.140 report. So based on all of this, she has a lot more credibility right now than Christine Blasey

00:02:31.540 Ford did. And yet the media ran forward with the Christine Blasey Ford story, with the Julie

00:02:35.800 Swetnick story, with the Deborah Ramirez story against Kavanaugh without any substantiation,

00:02:42.840 without any corroboration whatsoever. And even with all of the inherent contradictions within the

00:02:48.440 Christine Blasey Ford story. If you need a refresher on all of that, I talked about Kavanaugh a lot.

00:02:56.060 I mean, that, like I've said, that was a turning point for me when I realized just how ruthless

00:02:59.900 and how cruel people can be in Washington and in the media and in Hollywood, like Alyssa Milano, 1.00

00:03:04.960 in ruining someone's life based on unsubstantiated allegations, just because it suits them politically.

00:03:11.200 I mean, that completely opened my eyes to the evil and corruption that exists in all sorts of

00:03:18.440 institutions in America, especially when it comes to politics. So the media ran with that story 100%.

00:03:25.740 And oh, like I said, I talked about that a lot. Podcast episode, I think it's titled Before Believing

00:03:31.220 Kavanaugh's Accuser. So if you need like a refresher on the facts of that case, you can go back and listen

00:03:36.460 to that. But the media ran with that full speed ahead without really even checking. And even though

00:03:42.120 they knew that it lacked corroboration, they talked about it, they reported on it like it was absolute

00:03:48.960 truth and they hailed Christine Blasey Ford as a hero. And yet when it comes to Tara Reid, who has all

00:03:54.200 of these people saying, oh yeah, I remember her talking about that. Even though there's a lot more

00:03:59.380 corroboration to her story, the New York Times waited 19 days before saying anything about it. And here are

00:04:05.200 some of the headlines that we see when it comes to these allegations, because the Washington Post,

00:04:11.780 CNN, they also waited several days after the New York Times piece, after these allegations originally

00:04:18.480 came out to say anything about it, to report on it at all. There was not that kind of patience,

00:04:23.200 that benefit of the doubt, that really investigative rigor when it came to Kavanaugh. So the Washington

00:04:29.320 Post, here's their headline about it. Trump allies highlight new claims regarding

00:04:34.900 allegations against Biden. So that's the headline. Not a former staffer accuses Biden of sexual assault

00:04:42.760 or Biden accused of sexual assault. Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against

00:04:49.920 Biden. So I don't know how familiar you are with like conservative Twitter and conservative online

00:04:55.600 conversations, but there's this joke. It's a joke, but it's not. It points to something serious.

00:05:01.280 And the joke is conservatives pounce because it, it seems like every time there's a negative story

00:05:07.780 about a Democrat, every time there's a negative story about a liberal, the headline in these left

00:05:13.700 wing media, media outlets like the Washington Post is never what the Democrat did wrong. So say for

00:05:21.100 example, Maxine Waters stole $1 million from her next door neighbor, whatever it is. And conservatives

00:05:30.100 went on Twitter and they say, wow, look, Maxine Waters stole a million dollars from her next door 1.00

00:05:36.720 neighbor. That's like, that's pretty bad. The media should probably start reporting on that. Look at this

00:05:41.060 local police report. I can't believe Nancy or Maxine Waters did this. The headline in the Washington

00:05:46.740 Post in this, this is obviously not a real scenario that happens, but the headline in the Washington

00:05:52.240 Post would be conservatives pounce on Maxine Waters based on allegations of theft or whatever it is.

00:06:02.240 The story ends up being conservative reaction, conservatives pouncing rather than what the

00:06:08.920 Democrat actually did wrong. And this headline is a perfect example of that. So the Washington Post

00:06:13.720 reports that Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden before the Washington

00:06:19.400 Post actually reports the allegations against Joe Biden. CNN, one of their headlines was why Biden needs

00:06:26.900 to personally address Tara Reid allegations. Again, the headline, the first headline wasn't that

00:06:33.140 Biden has these allegations or that Tara Reid has come up with a very credible story based on the

00:06:39.840 corroboration that we have right now against Joe Biden. It's that, you know, Biden, he really needs to

00:06:45.920 address this. So already preemptively giving him the benefit of the doubt that they did not afford to

00:06:53.120 Kavanaugh. Ruth Marcus, she wrote an entire book on why Kavanaugh is guilty of the accusations that,

00:06:59.600 like I've said, were uncorroborated, were unsubstantiated, unproven and contradictory.

00:07:05.520 She says that Tara Reid's accusations, which were reported at the time that they happened and told to

00:07:11.520 friends and a mother, she said that they probably didn't happen. So here's what Ruth Marcus says.

00:07:17.220 Oh, by the way, she works for the Washington Post. The likelihood of definitive proof one way or

00:07:23.380 another seems frustratingly low. My gut says, here's what she says, wrote an entire book, this editor for

00:07:30.040 the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus on why Kavanaugh is definitely guilty, wrote an entire book on that.

00:07:35.880 She says, my gut says that what Reid alleges did not happen. Her gut says that. Okay. My head instructs

00:07:44.640 that it is within the realm of possibility and fairness requires acknowledging that. And there's

00:07:49.880 another point to bear in mind. Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and

00:07:55.120 diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to

00:08:01.080 credit Tara Reid's account. Okay. So you're comparing like random people on Twitter. So me,

00:08:07.580 you're comparing podcasters reaction, maybe to Christine, uh, to Christine Blasey Ford to this,

00:08:14.560 uh, journalistic institution that is supposed to remain unbiased and to report the facts, which of

00:08:20.480 course we know the Washington Post does not do that. Neither does the New York times. And so

00:08:24.720 who, like who, uh, what other media outlet, uh, cast doubt on Christine Blasey Ford that is 0.94

00:08:33.080 automatically and immediately accepting Tara Reid story. I don't think that actually exists. And

00:08:38.580 for the record, I did not cast doubt on Christine Blasey Ford simply because she was accusing the nominee

00:08:48.000 for the Supreme court, uh, that was nominated by the president that I voted for. That is not why it's

00:08:54.000 because she didn't have any substantiation or corroboration. Like, I don't know how many times

00:08:57.820 I have to say that she asks us, Ruth Marcus, uh, asks us to explain our reasoning. That's our

00:09:03.100 reasoning because there's more corroboration for this story. Like I don't want to, I don't want to

00:09:10.160 set a precedent no matter who it is to just believe accusers, no matter what, based on absolutely

00:09:16.400 nothing. I don't care if someone's accusing a Republican or a Democrat, that's not a precedent.

00:09:21.160 I want to set. I do want people to be innocent until proven guilty. I want there to be due

00:09:26.160 process. I want there to be questioning and I want there to be investigation. That's what

00:09:30.420 journalists are for. But when you have this journalist, when you have this editor for the

00:09:34.960 Washington post that did not afford the same benefit of the doubt and the innocent until proven

00:09:39.500 guilty mentality, when it came to Kavanaugh saying that her gut tells her that it didn't happen

00:09:45.400 based on who knows what, I don't know why her gut is telling her that then yeah, you have

00:09:52.260 a lot of people, uh, questioning whether or not, like not only are we questioning whether

00:09:58.900 or not we're able to trust the media, but also if there isn't some kind of other political

00:10:05.580 motivation behind downplaying these allegations. Um, I don't know. Like I said, if this happened,

00:10:13.060 I don't know. I am willing to say that there should be vetting. There should be questioning,

00:10:17.680 but let's start with Joe Biden. Like he was on the news multiple times over the weekend.

00:10:22.780 Over the past few days, he did not receive one question about it. There were several senators

00:10:26.740 who did not get questioned about it. It's beyond parody. And you wonder if at this point,

00:10:31.340 the media is just accepting, are they just accepting that they're biased? Are they just accepting

00:10:36.440 that they are propaganda arm of the DNC? Or is there something in their head where they're

00:10:41.540 truly convincing themselves that they are unbiased and that they're objective? I don't know. I'm not

00:10:47.140 sure. Okay. Let's move on to this, uh, to this video. So Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Artin Masihi,

00:10:56.160 they are two doctors that own, um, I didn't write it down, accelerated urgent care. I think that's

00:11:03.480 what it called, what it's called in Bakersfield, California. Shout out to Bakersfield. I really

00:11:08.320 like Bakersfield, California. There's just a lot of great people. Anyway, they did this press

00:11:13.340 conference with a local news organization and they looked at the data for about an hour. And they

00:11:18.600 said, look, based on this data, we just don't think these lockdowns are necessary. And we actually

00:11:25.220 think they do more harm than good because the cases of abuse have gone up. The cases of child

00:11:30.860 molestation has gone up, have gone up. Um, the, uh, suicide rates have gone up. It's, it's just,

00:11:38.180 it's not good. This is not creating a good situation for people. He also argued that the

00:11:43.000 more people are inside and not interacting with the outside world, their immune system, uh, the,

00:11:50.040 the, the immune system's power to be able to fight off disease and viruses, it lessens. And so

00:11:56.340 he basically said, we don't think that this lockdown is a very good idea. It doesn't make

00:12:01.120 sense economically. And he argues it also doesn't really make sense medically either.

00:12:07.200 So we knew this was going to be controversial because he draws conclusions from the data that

00:12:12.180 other people that Dr. Fauci, for example, and Dr. Birx did not draw. And there are a lot of people,

00:12:18.000 and it seems to be splitting across partisan lines at this point. There are a lot of people that say,

00:12:22.220 no, we need these lockdowns no matter what, for a really long time, YouTube, they said that they're

00:12:27.820 going to take down videos that are critical of the WHO, or they go against anything that the WHO

00:12:32.700 says. If you need to know how corrupt the WHO is, you can go back and listen to my podcast title,

00:12:40.960 who is who, or who is WHO. I walk through the very tangled web of corruption and misinformation

00:12:47.860 information that the WHO represents. But YouTube said, yeah, we're just going to go ahead and take

00:12:53.380 down any videos that go against what the WHO says or lockdown guidelines or anything like that.

00:12:59.460 So this video, it had millions and millions of views. It was being shared everywhere. A ton of you

00:13:04.000 shared it with me. It was taken down by YouTube. Thankfully, there are other outlets or there are

00:13:11.060 other YouTube accounts that have put it back up. So you can still go watch it at least for now. And I

00:13:17.220 would go watch it if you want to, if you're interested, I watched the whole thing. And I

00:13:20.400 thought that it was very interesting. Now there, there is criticism to this video. So basically

00:13:27.100 they said, look, we've got millions of cases and we have a very small number of deaths. That means

00:13:33.120 the death rate is so low. They said, you know, it's comparable to the flu. And that means that people

00:13:39.100 don't need to be sheltering in place. It's counterproductive. Other people are saying, okay,

00:13:44.340 there's a problem with how they looked at the data. So if you watch YouTube videos or you read

00:13:49.380 any posts that are saying that these doctors got it wrong in general, their, their reasoning for

00:13:54.820 their critique is this, is that you can't say that, Oh, 6% of the people that we have tested are

00:14:01.980 positive because that's what this doctor said. I think he said like 6% of the people we've tested

00:14:06.300 are positive. Therefore, you know, he extrapolated that therefore all of California or 6% of all of

00:14:12.360 California is, is a positive. People are saying you can't do that. You can't extrapolate the data

00:14:17.680 that way. And that criticism I think is fair. Obviously it's more likely that people in the

00:14:22.920 urgent care are going to be positive for Corona virus. In other words, what he's looking at

00:14:27.680 isn't a random sampling. So it can't be extrapolated to the entire state of California

00:14:32.360 to then calculate the death rate. And that's what he did to get that very low death rate of like 0.03%.

00:14:39.480 That is a lot like the flu. And people are saying you can't, you can't do that. That's not really

00:14:44.100 probably the rate of infection in all of California. However, what I would say to those critics is that

00:14:51.320 they are discounting that we actually do know that there are more people who have Corona virus

00:14:56.480 than those who have tested positive because a Americans have been told not to go to urgent care

00:15:03.360 or not to go to the ER, the ER, unless they feel like they can't breathe, like unless they feel like

00:15:08.300 they're dying. So there are definitely lots of people who have had Corona virus, uh, who never

00:15:15.300 got tested and are not being counted in the official number, either in the state of California or in the

00:15:21.500 country as a whole. Uh, we now know that the virus was, uh, known about in China in November, if not

00:15:28.740 earlier, and people were traveling from Wuhan, China to other parts of the country, to other countries,

00:15:34.140 including to the U S all the way through January, which means it's also very likely people had the

00:15:40.760 virus before we even knew what Corona virus was back in December and January. So add that to the

00:15:47.520 number of people who we know for sure have had it, who have tested positive. And maybe, maybe there are

00:15:53.240 people who you could say, okay, maybe there are people who died from it back then who weren't counted

00:15:58.780 as COVID deaths. So you'd have to add those to the death toll too, to get an accurate death rate.

00:16:03.260 But the point is there are very likely he's right. And that there are very likely millions who have

00:16:09.220 had this, who have tested positive and who have recovered and are therefore not contributing, uh,

00:16:15.060 to the official number of those being tested. And so the death rate probably is a lot lower than what is

00:16:22.360 being reported. Plus what the CDC has told us, uh, about people being, uh, asymptomatic that emphasizes

00:16:30.240 the likelihood that far more people have had this, uh, than those who have actually tested positive,

00:16:36.180 because why would you get tested unless you actually felt some sort of, of symptoms? According

00:16:43.860 to a study out of LA reported by ABC news, an estimated 320,000 adults in Los Angeles County may have

00:16:51.520 been infected with coronavirus, according to the preliminary results of the study that suggested

00:16:56.000 the illness is far more widespread than current testing shows. And the death rate is much lower.

00:17:00.260 The study conducted at April 10th through 14th by the County and the University of Southern California

00:17:05.080 estimated that approximately 4.1% of the County's adult population of 8 million has antibodies to the

00:17:11.960 virus. When adjusted for margin of error, the infection rate ranged from 2.8% to 5.6% or about 220,000

00:17:19.800 to 440,000 adults. At the time the testing was conducted, the County reported nearly 8,000 cases,

00:17:26.620 meaning that the actual number was probably 28 to 55 times higher. And the fatality rate was much lower

00:17:33.840 than that based on the number of people tested. So what he's saying is right. And some of the people

00:17:41.080 that other news outlets have put up to say that these two doctors, they're absolutely wrong.

00:17:46.600 They shouldn't be listened to. They have also not presented a good argument. I saw that there is

00:17:52.980 another immunologist that a local news station put up in Bakersfield that said he didn't give any data

00:18:00.780 or facts. He just said, yeah, you know, this, uh, this virus doesn't, it doesn't spare anyone. And it's

00:18:07.300 not something we need to be taking lightly. Well, that's not an argument against what these other

00:18:12.740 Bakersfield doctors said. They didn't say we should take it lightly. They didn't say that we

00:18:17.080 shouldn't abide by any CDC guidelines. He didn't tell people that, Hey, if you're sick, you should

00:18:22.380 just go out and, you know, eat lunch at your favorite restaurant. He didn't say, don't wash your

00:18:26.360 hands or don't wear a mask or anything like that. He just said, maybe the full scale economic shutdown

00:18:32.120 isn't what is, is best for this virus. And is it what is best for people holistically? And yes, other

00:18:39.940 doctors have said, uh, this doctor also said this virus is sparing no one. The doctor who was trying

00:18:45.640 to, uh, contradict what Dr. Erickson said, but this virus is sparing a lot of people. It's sparing

00:18:52.760 probably 99% of people. And every death is tragic. Every death matters, whether they are old, whether they

00:18:59.400 were medically fragile, whether they had underlying conditions, whether they were rich or poor, it

00:19:04.440 doesn't matter. Of course, every death matters. And I still believe that people should do whatever

00:19:09.840 they can to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus. Like I do think that we should still be wise.

00:19:15.720 I do think that people should still socially distance to a degree in Texas. They are actually

00:19:22.020 lifting the stay at home order and they are going to open things back up in stages. Things are going to

00:19:27.420 be, you know, roaring twenties right away, but you can already see that states that are opening up.

00:19:33.780 They're really just responding to not just pressure, but, uh, they're also responding to the fact that a

00:19:40.600 lot of people are just disobeying these orders. A lot of people are saying, Hey, it's warm outside.

00:19:46.120 Like I've got to get some fresh air. I've got to go outside here. I'm going to go crazy people with

00:19:50.140 kids, especially if you live in the city, like you've got to go to a park. Your kids have to exercise.

00:19:54.820 They have to get their energy out. It's good for us to be out in the open, to be in the sun, to get

00:20:01.380 that vitamin D and to just refresh our minds as well. Like we were not made to be isolated at home.

00:20:07.800 That's just not, that's not how human beings thrive or flourish. Like we were made to be in community.

00:20:13.180 And still, I still believe that we should take proper precautions, but I just happen to trust people. 1.00

00:20:20.520 Like there's a lot of stupid people out there. Don't get me wrong. Trust me. I know that there 1.00

00:20:24.540 are a lot of stupid people out there, but I think for the most part, like people don't want to die 1.00

00:20:28.920 from a virus. People don't want to get the virus. People don't want their family to get the virus. 1.00

00:20:34.660 They love their parents and grandparents. They love their babies. They love their, you know,

00:20:39.960 friends who is going through cancer treatment. So I think most people are going to be responsible.

00:20:44.400 And look, you don't have to, even if your state opens up tomorrow, you don't have to go out.

00:20:50.360 Like you can shelter in place for the next two to three years. If you want to, like,

00:20:54.800 if you want to stay in your house until there is a vaccine, there is nothing stopping you from doing

00:20:59.080 that. If you are a business owner and you don't want to open your restaurant, you don't have to open

00:21:04.540 your restaurant. I'm supposing if you're a business owner, if you're a restaurant owner who only wants

00:21:08.560 to let five people at a time, five people in at a time, you can probably do that for the next three

00:21:13.500 years. I mean, I don't know how you're going to survive, but just remember as the media is

00:21:17.760 lambasting all of these more conservative governors that are starting to open up their states

00:21:23.580 strategically and slowly, just understand that that doesn't mean that people that are, people

00:21:31.280 are ordered to go outside. Like you're not ordered to go to the, you know, mall and start making out

00:21:37.920 with someone like you don't have to do that. Um, so also understand though, that the media is going

00:21:44.820 to be exaggerating and reporting on every single case and, uh, every single tragic death of

00:21:53.980 coronavirus that comes out of these states that are, uh, loosing the orders that are loosening the

00:22:00.400 orders. Um, that's just going to happen because they want to prove that people should have stayed

00:22:04.480 inside. Yes. We're going to see the infection rate probably go up, which means there will be

00:22:09.800 a higher number of deaths as things open up. But that is, uh, that's the case. No matter what you

00:22:17.280 do. Yes. When people go outside, they're going to be more car wrecks. There are going to be more cases

00:22:21.760 of the cold. There's going to be a lot more risk. The more people that are on the road, the more people

00:22:26.180 that are outside, the more there are germs, the more there are viruses, the more risks there are of all kinds

00:22:32.260 of risks. Eventually you have to trust people to make responsible decisions. And here's, here's my

00:22:38.480 question. So for the people that are saying, this is so stupid to open back up, like you have to stay 0.98

00:22:44.400 locked down for the governor of California, for the mayor of LA to say, Oh no, we're doing this for 0.99

00:22:50.780 several more weeks. Like you've got to stay locked down. What exactly are you waiting for? So the curve is

00:22:57.020 already flat. We know that the curve is flat in most places. Are you waiting for it to get down

00:23:02.060 to zero? Because that's just, that's not going to happen. And like I said, people are already

00:23:07.640 disobeying these orders. People in California are going out to the beaches because you've got to get

00:23:11.840 outside. Like this is, was a great social experiment to see how long people are willing to stay inside

00:23:17.640 for risk or perceived risk. But I think people are getting to the end of their rope. I think people

00:23:22.600 are saying, okay, I can't do this anymore, especially when it's warm outside and it feels like summer

00:23:26.600 people want to get back to their lives. And I think people are more and more willing to take on

00:23:30.840 that risk. That doesn't mean that you're irresponsible. That doesn't mean that you

00:23:34.920 don't wash your hands and cover your mouth and don't go outside if you're sick and all of that

00:23:38.420 good stuff. But of course, like people have to live their lives. They have to provide for their

00:23:42.220 families. They have to engage in recreation. They have to do the things that keep human beings alive

00:23:47.580 and sane. And these leaders that are saying, Oh no, shelter in place forever. A lot of them

00:23:52.400 aren't even by abiding by their own guidelines. We saw a mayor de Blasio and his wife.

00:23:58.380 Uh, we saw them, I think it was someone reported like 11 miles from their house. They were actually

00:24:04.100 driven to a park where they could go, you know, walk and, uh, and do the things that they want to

00:24:11.540 do. And so they're obviously not taking it as seriously as they expect everyone else to, which

00:24:18.120 is why people, people don't trust them. Like people don't trust the powers that be. And another reason

00:24:24.100 why people have stopped taking this seriously is because it has become so politicized. So when it

00:24:28.920 became obvious via the media and opposing politicians that they were going to try to

00:24:34.440 weaponize the Corona virus, uh, against Trump to try to use this to help Joe Biden or to hurt Donald

00:24:40.980 Trump, then I think people stopped taking it as seriously because it seemed like it was more of

00:24:46.800 not that the virus was a conspiracy, but that the reaction to it was a conspiracy against Donald Trump.

00:24:52.380 But when you politicize something like this and when you make it seem more than it really is,

00:24:58.380 then people are just going to stop listening to you and they're going to do what they are going to

00:25:02.520 do, which is what is happening right now. You can go back and listen to the episode list, uh,

00:25:07.480 little tyrants everywhere. And it talks about some of the crackdowns that are happening in how,

00:25:13.160 uh, different people on different, uh, segments of society. So politicians, journalists,

00:25:18.920 professors are trying to use this to gain more control and power. And when people see that they

00:25:23.460 say, you know what, I don't really want to be a part of this. I'm going to do the things that I

00:25:26.740 want to do. Okay. I want to talk about one more thing. And that is this myth of overpopulation. So,

00:25:33.840 uh, I, there is an Instagram account. I actually forget what it was called. Is it architect to digest?

00:25:39.420 Is that something, is that like an outlet that, that people read? Well, there's the Instagram

00:25:44.320 account that shows people's houses. It's famous people's houses and like how their houses are

00:25:48.980 designed. And there's this couple of James and Kimberly Vanderbeek, and he was on Dawson's Creek.

00:25:55.500 He was also recently on dancing with the sharks. He's done a lot of other things too. And they have

00:26:00.420 five beautiful kids. Like they're just such a precious family. They've got four, four girls and

00:26:08.400 one boy. I don't really know. I don't follow them that closely, but I saw this story because I follow

00:26:13.180 her actually. So she is, she doesn't listen to this podcast. She is super new age, super into like 0.94

00:26:19.700 witchcraft and things like that. And so we are definitely not on the same page worldview wise,

00:26:24.760 but she has a lot of good advice for moms and like, she's very organic and things like that.

00:26:30.420 And their family's just precious. So I do follow her and I saw that they were featured on this

00:26:35.360 Instagram account and it was a precious picture of all seven of them. And I went to the comments.

00:26:41.020 I don't even know why I just did. I went through the comments and a huge number of the comments,

00:26:46.240 uh, were about how many kids they have and how irresponsible it is for them to have that many

00:26:52.140 kids and how she looks really tired and she looks like she's super over it. And how, how could you have

00:26:58.880 this many kids in this kind of climate? Well, also she shared on social media that she recently

00:27:04.440 miscarried pretty late in her pregnancy with their sixth child, which is absolutely tragic.

00:27:08.460 So obviously they're happy with the number of kids they have. They're even willing to have

00:27:12.460 more kids than they have. And so all of these people who simultaneously scream my body, my choice,

00:27:18.360 her body, her choice, you can do what you want with the baby in your womb are also saying that,

00:27:23.420 well, you can't have more kids than we, whatever, whoever they are, uh, the, the climate activists

00:27:29.980 of the world. You can have more kids than we say is responsible. These are the same kind of people,

00:27:35.160 by the way, who are constantly telling Christians and conservatives that we're judgmental, that we

00:27:40.780 care too much about what they do with their lives. Now they're prying into one of the most personal

00:27:45.660 decisions that a family can ever make. How many kids that you're going to have? And they're saying,

00:27:51.260 oh, you're irresponsible for that. First of all, what they're saying is a myth. There is not an

00:27:56.800 overpopulation problem. So they see these climate activists, they say, okay, we've got a finite

00:28:02.420 amount of resources in the world. And since 1980, uh, we have increased our population by 3 billion.

00:28:11.700 And eventually we're going to run out of resources because we have too many people,

00:28:15.860 but that is a faulty mindset. That is when you view people as liabilities rather than assets and

00:28:22.280 environmentalists always have not always, but leftist environmentalists almost always have

00:28:28.260 an anti-human point of view. They see us as the problem. They see us at war with the earth rather

00:28:35.400 than what most people really are. Sure. There's irresponsible people that maybe irresponsibly drain

00:28:41.880 resources, but most people are assets. So most people actually contribute to the good of the world

00:28:49.460 around them either economically or actually caring for the earth. Even having a family is a way that

00:28:56.620 you help humanity as a way that you help the earth. Now we talked about on Monday, we talked about the,

00:29:02.520 the truths and the falsehoods in climate change and climate activism and how, uh, how we should look

00:29:10.500 at climate change from a biblical perspective. Uh, but there are a lot of myths surrounding climate change

00:29:16.120 that say, okay, if you have babies, if you have more babies, then that's irresponsible. And your

00:29:21.560 carbon footprint is going to be huge. But the reality is that's just not true because human beings

00:29:26.460 contribute more than they actually take away because extreme poverty also since 1980 has been cut in half.

00:29:33.840 And so if it were true that we had a finite amount of resources, uh, and if it were true that human

00:29:41.000 beings are taken away from these resources to the point to where we're not going to have any anymore,

00:29:46.360 and the word, the world is just going to get worse and worse, then that wouldn't be the case. As the

00:29:51.800 population has increased by 3 billion since 1980, extreme poverty, you would think with our very finite

00:29:58.760 resources would have increased along with that, but it hasn't. It has actually gone down by half.

00:30:04.840 So it is a myth and it's more of an anti-human, anti-baby, anti-natalist worldview than it has to

00:30:13.400 do with climate change because all of these people aren't living their lives. All of these people

00:30:19.640 have their phones, they're on social media, all of these things, uh, all of these things also

00:30:25.000 contribute to their carbon footprint. And I guarantee you all of these people use paper towels and paper

00:30:31.400 plates and probably go to the grocery store and get their plastic bags. And they're willing to use

00:30:35.720 the paper masks for their face during coronavirus and the latex gloves and all of that. But they're

00:30:40.360 really worried about one family who has the means to raise these kids having a few too many kids.

00:30:46.280 It's just so interesting how much they want to pride people's lives while simultaneously saying

00:30:51.000 that, you know, live and let live and just be tolerant and her body, her choice. There's always that kind of

00:30:55.800 hypocrisy, but really underneath it all, it is an anti-life worldview. It is an anti-compassion,

00:31:02.440 anti-love worldview is an anti-natalist worldview. And this is the godless mindset,

00:31:07.960 the hatred of babies, the hatred of children, the hatred of procreation is a godless mindset.

00:31:15.240 It's a satanic mindset actually. Um, because it is everything that goes against what God,

00:31:22.760 the giver of life says is good and right and true. And it's just sad. Like this is increasing on the

00:31:29.080 left. It's increasing among, uh, amongst climate activists. And this is why I say, by the way,

00:31:34.520 I'm always very skeptical of any organization that is already caused that is run by someone

00:31:42.840 whose main concern is overpopulation, especially in, in atheist. And it's almost always atheists that 1.00

00:31:49.400 are concerned with overpopulation. Um, but I don't trust that organization, especially if that

00:31:54.440 organization is built to help people. I'm sorry. I just don't trust you because if you think there

00:32:00.840 are too many people already, why do I think that you are going to do something to preserve my life

00:32:05.640 for the life of my family? No, thanks. So I just wanted to talk about that. It's, it's crazy. And I'm so

00:32:11.320 glad that she was, you know, happy to show her family because her family really is precious. And for all the

00:32:16.600 people saying that she doesn't look happy, she, you should actually go to her, you should go to

00:32:21.320 her profile because she absolutely, it seems like loves her children and loves her family.

00:32:26.040 And it's just sad how quick people are to judge, uh, other people's choices and even their appearances

00:32:32.920 based on all that they don't know. Okay. That's all I have for you today. I will be back here on Friday.

00:32:38.920 We are going to talk about out of shadows. I promise you that. Okay. I'll see you then.

00:32:46.600 Bye.

00:32:47.600 Bye.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - April 29, 2020

Ep 244 ｜ YouTube Censors Inconvenient Facts

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript