Ep 579 ｜ Spilling the CPAC Tea
Episode Stats
Summary
In this episode, I discuss why I have not spoken at CPAC since 2019 and why I believe it is time for me to speak at the conservative conference in 2020. I also discuss some issues I have with CPAC as a conference and as an organization.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. This episode is brought to you by our friends
00:00:04.460
at Good Ranchers. American meat delivered right to your front door. Go to goodranchers.com
00:00:09.360
slash Allie for a discount. That's goodranchers.com slash Allie.
00:00:22.320
All right, guys, the moment you've all been waiting for, and I'm a little bit nervous
00:00:27.940
about it, to be honest. I'm talking about CPAC and why I have not spoken at CPAC since 2019.
00:00:36.820
The story behind that and also some issues I have with CPAC as a conference, as an organization
00:00:44.400
that really has nothing to do with me no longer speaking there. And I just want to say upfront
00:00:52.300
before we get into it, I hold no ill will toward the leaders of CPAC, the people who organize CPAC.
00:00:59.500
I don't have anything personal against them as people. My desire is not to slander. It's not to
00:01:05.980
malign anyone's character. It's not to impugn anyone's motives. I don't want to cause division.
00:01:13.380
I think it was Ronald Reagan who said the 11th commandment was that you never spoke ill of
00:01:18.720
another Republican. And I think a lot of people abide by that. But the reason why I'm talking
00:01:24.580
about this is because I genuinely believe in conservative values. I believe in conservatism
00:01:31.900
as a political philosophy, as a social philosophy. That is something that I believe is entirely
00:01:37.560
informed by my biblical views. That's not to say that those things are identical or synonymous,
00:01:46.940
conservatism, and biblical Christianity. But I do believe having a view of the Bible as
00:01:54.040
authoritative does lead you to conservative conclusions when it comes to a variety of policy
00:02:01.160
and social issues. Obviously, that is part of why the show exists. That is a large part of what we do
00:02:07.300
on this podcast is explaining that connection. And so I want conservatism as a political philosophy
00:02:16.160
to prevail. That means even people within conservatism that I may disagree with on some
00:02:22.500
issues. I don't, you know, I don't want to tear them down. I don't want to hold them back. I want
00:02:28.080
them to succeed if I feel like their cause is just and the things that they stand for are good if they
00:02:33.300
are advancing the cause of freedom, for example. But when there are organizations and when there are
00:02:39.940
individuals who claim to represent conservatism and to be on the cutting edge of conservatism in the
00:02:46.660
front lines of conservatism and they aren't actually representing conservative values or they're not
00:02:55.560
doing that sufficiently or well or with, in my opinion, integrity, then I would say that's a problem.
00:03:03.160
And look, at the end of the day, I am, I don't really care about conservatism or the conservative
00:03:09.960
movement. Like I said, I adhere to conservative values, but at the end of the day, I don't care
00:03:14.580
about it as a political movement, ultimately or primarily. I am a Christian, first and foremost
00:03:21.560
and completely. And as I said, yes, that does inform my conservative views, absolutely. But I don't
00:03:27.300
ultimately care about the GOP. I don't really care about the Republican Party. Yes, I do vote Republican
00:03:33.140
but if Republicanism and the so-called conservative movement is what I'm about to describe one day,
00:03:41.100
which is basically a form of capitalism with kind of a progressive twist, then I don't want any part
00:03:47.420
of that. I really don't care. If that's what the conservative movement is, if that's the future of
00:03:52.140
the GOP, then I will watch it crash and burn and I will feel totally apathetic about it. That's not what
00:03:57.500
I desire, though, which is exactly why I'm having the conversation that I'm having today. It does not have to
00:04:02.660
do with me. Again, having any personal animus toward anyone that I'm talking about. It just has to do
00:04:11.120
with disagreement that I think is really, really significant. So first, before I talk about some
00:04:17.480
of the issues that I think were that I think exists within CPAC and why I think those things
00:04:25.000
matter, let me let me back up first. And I think it gives this context of why I have not spoken at
00:04:29.880
CPAC since 2019. So I spoke at CPAC in 2018. I was asked to be on a pro-life panel and I took that
00:04:37.080
very seriously. I had never been invited to CPAC. I really just kind of started this whole thing in
00:04:42.940
2017. Like 2018, when I spoke at CPAC, I believe it would have been February. And so I hadn't even
00:04:49.000
started Relatable yet. I was just about to start Relatable. I was just kind of on the cusp of
00:04:54.540
this career in conservative, political and cultural commentating. And I took it. I mean,
00:05:00.940
I really prepared for that speech and for the monologue that I that I wanted to give. I knew
00:05:05.940
I only had six minutes to speak and I wanted to speak as passionately and as clearly and as
00:05:10.820
concisely as I could about the evil that is abortion. I was very thankful that they gave me
00:05:15.760
a platform to do that. Someone who didn't have a big platform at that time, it was certainly I saw it
00:05:21.060
as a favor that CPAC gave me to speak. And then the next year, they were kind enough to ask me
00:05:26.580
to help plan. So they kind of put me on a committee. I think it was Dan Schneider, who is the executive
00:05:32.580
vice president, who originally reached out to me and said, hey, will you kind of help us plan? Will
00:05:37.460
you make some suggestions for who should speak and what the panel should be on? And I was really excited
00:05:42.760
again about that opportunity. This is CPAC is the biggest conservative political action conference
00:05:50.760
that happens every year. I guess I should have said that at the beginning for those of you who
00:05:54.360
don't know. This is a huge conservative political action conference that's been around for a very
00:05:59.220
long time. Not only did they ask me to plan the 2019 CPAC, but they also asked me to contribute a
00:06:07.140
chapter to a book that was called Reagan at CPAC. Basically, you analyzed one of Reagan's CPAC
00:06:12.600
speeches. And you talked about its significance and how it applies to the issues today. As a fan
00:06:21.280
of Ronald Reagan, I was very honored to be asked to do this. This was a book that was sold at CPAC in
00:06:26.200
2019. They also asked me to do it very last minute. They actually had one of their contributing writers
00:06:31.480
for this book back out. They needed me to turn this around in a couple of days. I gladly did that.
00:06:36.260
They were grateful for that. So I was pretty involved in CPAC in 2019. I spoke on two panels.
00:06:41.000
I spoke on a religious liberty panel with Senator Lankford from Oklahoma. And I spoke on another
00:06:47.880
like in another breakout session about, I think, with Family Research Council or something about
00:06:52.760
the importance of the nuclear family and all of that. So that was great. I was pretty inundated
00:06:57.980
in CPAC in 2019. I didn't work for them. I wasn't officially associated with them in any way. I was just
00:07:03.840
a volunteer. I didn't get paid as far as I remember for any of this. I'm pretty sure that it was just
00:07:10.360
a voluntary role, honored to do it, all that good stuff. Well, the next year rolls around, 2020.
00:07:17.860
And this was before the world shut down because this is like end of February. And beginning of
00:07:25.400
February, I thought it was weird that I hadn't heard from CPAC. I knew that I hadn't gotten asked
00:07:29.280
to help plan or write anything. Okay, that's fine. And my book, You're Not Enough, was about to come
00:07:36.200
out. At that point, it was going to come out in May. That ended up getting changed, you know,
00:07:41.580
because of COVID and all of that. But my publisher from Penguin had been reaching out to CPAC and just
00:07:46.860
saying, hey, you know, Allie would love to come. If she can mention her book in like a speech or a
00:07:52.560
panel, that would be great. And they didn't hear anything. They kept on getting ignored, which I
00:07:57.240
thought was really, I thought was strange, again, because of all of the involvement that I had had the
00:08:01.200
year before. And so finally, Dan Schneider replied to me because I, you know, inserted myself and
00:08:07.100
trying to be as polite as possible. I didn't have any reason, I thought, to disrespect CPAC. And
00:08:13.020
he agreed to speak on the phone with me about why I wasn't being invited in 2020, which again,
00:08:20.200
I really appreciate. Dan Schneider did not have to take the time to talk to me on the phone. But he did.
00:08:26.160
He offered to talk to me on the phone about that, which I really, really appreciated,
00:08:29.660
still appreciate to this day. I think that's the right thing to do. However, the reason that he
00:08:35.240
told me on the phone that I was no longer invited was stunning to me. I thought that it was just
00:08:39.500
going to be, look, we can't invite everyone every year. We appreciate the contributions that you've
00:08:43.620
had in the past, but we just don't have a place for you that year. That's fine. That's how the world
00:08:48.600
works. That's how things go. You're not invited to everything every year, even if you were appreciated
00:08:53.640
for your contribution the year before. I was shocked by what he told me. And I am going
00:08:59.640
to leave you on that for just one second. Okay. So in order for me to explain to you the reason
00:09:07.240
that he gave me, which was really stunning, it's kind of a boring answer. Like I'm not
00:09:10.980
going to tell you that it is like this, like super juicy answer. It's boring, but it's just
00:09:16.540
bizarre. And I think doesn't speak well to the organization just to try to put it as charitably
00:09:23.960
as I possibly can. He told me that, okay, so let me back up a little bit. In 2019, Michelle Malkin
00:09:34.700
spoke and she said something about, I don't, I didn't hear the speech, something about the spirit
00:09:41.820
of John McCain. And, you know, Senator John McCain had recently died. And so a lot of people didn't
00:09:48.040
like this. Like she was speaking poorly, negatively about John McCain and how John McCain, basically,
00:09:53.640
she was saying, wasn't like a good contribution to the Republican Party. This was then publicized
00:09:59.260
on Twitter. And every year, things that are said at CPAC go viral and liberal journalists and even
00:10:05.060
conservatives criticize it. And Meghan McCain, understandably, was offended by this. And, you know,
00:10:12.520
she was talking about it. I didn't know Meghan at all. And I, and I think I might've seen her
00:10:18.360
tweets, but I saw a lot of people talking about CPAC and some of the, what they thought were
00:10:22.520
problematic things that were said. Understandable people like you have a right to criticize things
00:10:28.920
that are said. I certainly would, would have been offended if someone said that about my dad. And
00:10:33.360
I didn't have any problem with, you know, what Meghan was saying. So I created a different,
00:10:39.300
a different tweet. And it had nothing to do actually with what Meghan was saying. To me,
00:10:45.040
it was all, there was just like a cacophony of criticism about CPAC. And remember, this is the
00:10:50.140
year that I was helping plan that I was like on a, I was on a panel about religious liberty and all of
00:10:55.840
that. And I made a tweet and I tweeted out a clip from the panel that I was on about religious liberty.
00:11:01.840
And I said, you know, I actually said, I wish I had it in front of me, but I don't, it's on there.
00:11:07.240
It's on there though. So you can fact check me. I said, you know, I know that a lot of people have
00:11:10.780
problems with some things that were said. I don't care what anyone says. I was proud of the panel that
00:11:15.620
I was a part of. And I posted that clip. Well, Meghan McCain, who just to spoiler alert, we are
00:11:22.780
actually, we're friends now. We reconciled very quickly and it was all good. She's great. She took
00:11:29.920
what I said as a response to what she was saying about Michelle Malkin criticizing her dad. And
00:11:37.200
she kind of went after me and was like, Hey, basically, how dare you? How dare you say this?
00:11:43.880
Of course, I have a problem with what's being said at CPAC. This is a terrible thing to say about my
00:11:49.320
dad. And I, again, was not responding to her. So I started replying to her tweets and was like,
00:11:55.360
I am not talking about that. I'm not talking about your tweets. I'm not talking about what
00:12:01.340
Michelle Malkin said. I'm saying there's a lot of criticism out there about CPAC.
00:12:06.060
I under, and I said to her, I totally understand why you're offended. You know, basically that's
00:12:10.380
valid. I'm just saying that I was proud of what I was a part of. And then we went back and forth
00:12:14.040
on DM. She was like, sorry, I jumped to that conclusion. I was like, totally fine. I get it.
00:12:17.800
And again, we're friends. It's all good. Um, and so that's a happy ending to that story.
00:12:22.420
And I thought that I did a good job of like defending the parts of CPAC that I was a part
00:12:28.060
of without endorsing everything that was said, because I never endorse everything that's said
00:12:31.940
at any conference, um, that I'm a part of, especially a political conference. Uh, there's
00:12:36.620
always going to be things that people say that I disagree with and maybe people that present
00:12:40.440
that I disagree with. And so, and I, it's never my responsibility to defend every single
00:12:46.460
person. I don't think it should be. So that was the exchange. Thought really nothing of it.
00:12:50.940
Really? The thing that made me nervous about that was thinking that Meghan McCain thought
00:12:55.480
that I was like trying to attack her in any way. And I was really glad that we reconciled.
00:13:00.020
So after she and I reconciled and it was all good, like I really didn't think anything of
00:13:04.280
it. So that was the exchange that happened. Dan Schneider told me in 2020, when he, again,
00:13:11.300
very kindly, I think took the time to call me and tell me that the reason why I wasn't invited
00:13:16.260
in 2020 is because in that tweet exchange with Meghan McCain, he said that their team
00:13:23.480
at CPAC didn't think that I did enough to defend CPAC, that I should have, that I shouldn't
00:13:29.960
have, I guess, given any caveats about, you know, some people being offended or Meghan being
00:13:36.100
justified for having, you know, her, uh, for being offended by what was said that I didn't
00:13:41.860
do a good, a good enough job of going to bat for CPAC in that exchange, which I actually
00:13:47.560
like, I was speechless. I could not believe what I was hearing. So many things. First of
00:13:53.640
all, it's, I don't work for CPAC. I've never worked for CPAC. It's not my job to do PR for
00:13:58.560
CPAC. I have never been officially affiliated with him in any way. It's not my job to go to
00:14:04.700
that for them, um, on social media. But even, even though that's true, I did like, I did actually
00:14:12.520
defend them in a lot of ways. Yes, I did walk that line because I didn't agree with everything
00:14:18.240
that was said. And I wanted to validate what I thought were very justified feelings by Meghan
00:14:22.620
McCain. But you can go and find this tweet exchange somewhere. Of course, I was thinking
00:14:27.400
as I'm having this conversation, this is a public conversation. I don't want people at CPAC
00:14:32.440
to feel disrespected. I don't want Meghan to feel disrespected. So I would have never said
00:14:36.320
anything to throw anyone under the bus, but they felt like I didn't do enough to defend
00:14:41.660
them. So I guess that's the line. Like if you don't unapologetically, no matter what, without
00:14:46.260
any caveats or any conditions, go to bat for CPAC, this organization that again, I am not officially
00:14:52.300
affiliated with, have never been in any way, then you're out. So he told me that that's
00:14:57.960
why I wouldn't be invited again. I was so just shocked and embarrassed, not for myself,
00:15:06.340
but honestly, for CPAC. I mean, we're talking about grown men in the conservative movement
00:15:12.500
who cut someone out, who is, I mean, I'm as conservative as they come, who cut someone out
00:15:18.680
because of a tweet exchange that they didn't think was like quite passionate enough in defense
00:15:24.900
of every single CPAC speaker. I mean, maybe that wasn't the real reason. Maybe there's another
00:15:30.100
reason that I'm not invited. Maybe they just didn't want to invite me. If that's the case,
00:15:34.980
like I can take that. That's fine. Honestly, as I already said, that would have been better than
00:15:40.520
telling me that I didn't defend CPAC enough on Twitter. That was insane to me. And honestly,
00:15:46.380
it made me very cynical. It showed me that even grown adults can be extremely petty,
00:15:52.260
can be extremely sensitive, that really we almost never graduate from middle school or high school,
00:15:58.260
or some people never graduate from middle school or high school. And the ironic thing about that
00:16:03.260
is that they have people that come every year that disagree with them or what they say their values are
00:16:10.680
on really big issues. I mean, they've had people come that are not pro-life in any sense. They've
00:16:17.120
obviously had Tulsi Gabbard speak. They have people who are for abortion, at least up to a certain
00:16:22.800
point. They've had, I think they had Van Jones a couple of years ago, who is obviously very liberal.
00:16:27.760
I'm not even criticizing them for that. I understand. OK, we don't have to agree with
00:16:31.620
everyone on everything in order to form a coalition. OK, there are some things I disagree on that I think
00:16:37.520
are foundational that shouldn't be, you know, there shouldn't be much wiggle room on. But
00:16:43.000
OK, if you want to invite people that we agree with on a few a few things and disagree with on
00:16:50.060
other big things to at least contribute some part of their voice to the conversation at CPAC,
00:16:56.340
whatever, it's not my organization, that's fine. But to invite those people that you disagree with
00:17:01.000
on a matter of life and death, like abortion, and then cut someone out because I didn't defend you
00:17:07.600
enough on Twitter, even though we agree apparently on all of these big issues, like what does that say
00:17:15.080
about a conservative organization? And look, I'm not saying that I'm special, that I am entitled to
00:17:21.580
be invited to anything. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the reason that I was given for not
00:17:28.680
being invited from a conservative organization that then turns around and invites people that are
00:17:33.380
decidedly not conservative really in any way. I mean, that's just troubling to me. It's not
00:17:38.720
troubling to me just because of my personal situation. That's fine. I get asked to speak
00:17:42.240
many, many places every year. I have to deny more requests than I accept. I'm very thankful for that.
00:17:48.680
I have many opportunities to speak across the country. I love doing that in a way that honestly,
00:17:53.860
I think it's a lot more meaningful than the platform that I would be given at CPAC. So
00:17:58.260
I don't lose anything. Honestly, I really don't. But it troubles me about conservatism in general.
00:18:08.120
It troubles me about the people who claim to be leading conservatism. And it's not just that. It's
00:18:15.360
not just my personal particular situation, although I think that that is kind of indicative of at least
00:18:20.980
a problem within, you know, I don't know if you would call it like establishment conservatism or
00:18:27.240
like beltway DC conservatism. I do think it's indicative of a problem in that regard.
00:18:33.400
But also, I think that there are some real issues when it comes to priorities and when it comes to
00:18:40.820
values that are displayed at CPAC that I want to talk about. And that is based on a tweet by Matt
00:18:48.900
Schlapp, who is the head of CPAC about Leah Thomas. It's based on the lack of pro-life
00:18:56.820
talks and panels at CPAC. It's also based on a lack of conversation, public conversation at CPAC about
00:19:05.480
women's sports and women's spaces and women's issues. And then also a lack of public conversation
00:19:14.100
this past year about religious liberty. And so we'll get into those substantive issues in just one
00:19:20.840
second. All right. So the leader of the head of CPAC, his name is Matt Schlapp, and he got a lot
00:19:29.620
of backlash on Twitter for a tweet about Leah Thomas. And look, I want to be as charitable as
00:19:35.140
possible because we've all said things on Twitter that we didn't mean or we worded things the wrong
00:19:40.420
way. And so we, you know, got into a little bit of trouble. That happens to the best of us.
00:19:47.020
Absolutely. And I don't think necessarily that this tweet is a little bit of a
00:19:50.840
is representative of everything that Matt Schlapp truly believes about women in sports. So I do
00:19:57.420
want to give the benefit of the doubt there, but it was the response to the backlash that he received
00:20:03.300
that I found, again, really troubling when it comes to, when it comes to who is leading this particular
00:20:11.580
movement and the priorities that they have. So Matt Schlapp tweeted just the other day,
00:20:19.700
earlier this week that he said, no matter what one thinks of Leah's, he was quote tweeting, I think
00:20:27.520
an article by the New York Post, no matter what one thinks of Leah's ability to swim with women,
00:20:33.160
her story deserves our compassion. It will be interesting to hear Leah's POV in 30 years.
00:20:41.220
So this coming from a conservative was troubling for a few reasons. It is not because he said that
00:20:48.560
Leah Thomas deserves compassion, because I do believe that all human beings deserve compassion,
00:20:54.320
but it really means it really depends on what you mean by compassion. Does compassion mean that you
00:21:01.560
validate their newfound identity? Does it mean that you feel sorry for them? Or does it just mean that,
00:21:07.540
hey, you're a person made in the image of God, and therefore I believe that you are due some respect,
00:21:14.200
and I will treat you with decency and understanding. If you are simply saying that, hey, this is a person
00:21:19.680
like all people who is made in the image of God, and therefore we don't try to dehumanize them,
00:21:24.180
we don't speak in a malicious way about them, then I'm on board with that. But here are some problems
00:21:29.980
that I had with the tweet, which I think a lot of people had as well. That is his use of her.
00:21:35.460
So he called a man her. He is a man. Leah Thomas is a man. Biology is not bigotry,
00:21:42.020
and therefore calling a man he or him is not bigoted. It's not wrong. Once you have acquiesced
00:21:49.100
to the point of bending your language to the progressive absurdity that a man can become a
00:21:54.620
woman or vice versa by calling a man she, her, or calling a woman he, him, you have completely
00:22:02.900
seated ground. Like you have completely given in. If we cannot defend this front, the most
00:22:09.480
fundamental fact of human existence that male, female actually exists, and that your gender is
00:22:18.040
not simply an identity or a declaration or something you take on, and therefore it's not something that
00:22:24.240
you, that other people have to bend their language to, then there really is nothing to fight for
00:22:29.600
anymore. Then why fight for anything? If you can't even fight for that fundamental truth,
00:22:35.040
then like, really, what else is there? If we are not conserving that, which again, which is the most
00:22:39.700
fundamental fact of human existence without the reality, the fixed reality of male and female,
00:22:44.460
none of us would even exist. If we buy into this postmodern lie that gender identity is something
00:22:49.240
that you can take on and take off, that it's simply just a feeling, then why fight for women to have
00:22:55.020
their own spaces? Why shouldn't men who identify as women, who say that their women go into women's
00:23:00.360
prisons? Like, if you are going to call a man she, her, then why shouldn't a man who calls himself
00:23:05.580
she, her, go into a girl's bathroom? Like, why shouldn't he be in a domestic abuse shelter for
00:23:13.940
women? So you've ceded ground once you call a man her. And he did that. That's a big deal from the
00:23:20.880
leader of CPAC, the head of CPAC. And then he says, it'll be interesting to hear Leah Thomas's
00:23:27.780
perspective in 30 years, except we are already hearing Leah Thomas's perspective. Everyone in
00:23:32.200
the mainstream media is only talking about Leah Thomas's perspective. There was this whole,
00:23:38.220
um, I think, was it Time Magazine? Uh, there's this whole big article.
00:23:44.080
Let's see. Uh, so Time Magazine did talk about Leah Thomas, but I'm pretty sure that there was
00:23:53.320
another, oh, Sports Illustrated. It was Sports Illustrated. You did, uh, this whole thing about
00:23:58.820
Leah Thomas and came out and took pictures of him and all this. So we are already hearing his
00:24:05.100
perspective. You know whose perspective I want to hear, but we don't really hear enough of because
00:24:10.160
they are scared to speak out at least with their name and their true identity. I want to hear from
00:24:16.120
the women who are no longer setting records. They're no longer winning their competitions
00:24:20.560
because they have a man that they are competing against. That's not fair. I want to hear their
00:24:25.640
perspective. I want to hear their perspective right now. I'm not really interested in hearing Leah
00:24:30.000
Thomas's perspective in 30 years, unless he is looking back and saying, wow, that was an injustice I
00:24:34.840
committed against these women who have worked their whole lives to be good and to excel and to win at
00:24:39.960
what they do. And I took that from them simply because I wanted to identify as a woman. Wow,
00:24:44.720
that's not fair. That, that would be a perspective that I'd be interested in hearing. But right now
00:24:49.900
for the head of a conservative organization who is supposed to be at the helm of the conservative
00:24:54.820
movement, calling a man her and then saying it's interesting. It'd be interesting to hear his
00:25:00.300
perspective in 30 years. I'm just not sure why he, why Matt Schlapp felt the need to add this
00:25:06.120
perspective at all. Again, I agree. We should treat everyone with a level of compassion and decency
00:25:11.920
and respect. Absolutely. People are made in the image of God. That includes people who think that
00:25:16.980
they are the opposite sex, even though they are not. That is true. Do I think that that is the
00:25:22.180
perspective that conservatives need to be adding right now? Like as men are infiltrating women's prisons
00:25:28.060
in a variety of states as they are going into girls' bathrooms, locker rooms, and taking records in
00:25:35.780
scholarships and titles away from girls and women and women's sports? Like is, is that the perspective
00:25:42.720
that conservatives need to be adding to the conversation? No. Our job right now is to pull
00:25:47.280
the Overton window way back over. We've gotten to this crazy realm where if you identify as something,
00:25:52.800
that means you are that thing. And as we can see, so-called trans rights are at odds with women's
00:25:59.100
rights. And so like, where do you stand in that? Like, what is the battle that you are fighting?
00:26:06.260
I think that you see too much ground when you call a man her. And that's the, that's the predominant
00:26:13.780
perspective that you represent as a conservative. I don't see how that is helping the conversation at
00:26:19.980
all. And by the way, like if we wanted to model how to talk about this issue with decency and respect,
00:26:26.540
which again, I agree with, while also defending fiercely women's rights and women's privacy and
00:26:33.980
women's safety, then it would have been great to have a panel on that or have a speaker talk about
00:26:39.680
that at CPAC. But as far as I can tell, and I have talked to now people who helped plan CPAC and know
00:26:48.900
the inner workings of CPAC. There was, as far as I can see, I'm sure maybe someone mentioned it in one
00:26:54.160
of their talks or one of their panels, but as far as I can see, there was no talk about that. There
00:26:59.200
was no panel that talked about women's sports. There was no speaker that had that as the subject that
00:27:06.560
they were presenting on at CPAC. So if that was an issue that he cares about, and we want to be really
00:27:12.540
nuanced about that, then maybe that should have been something that was headlining CPAC, but it wasn't.
00:27:18.900
And so that's one issue. Now, I do want to be fair because I want to say what his response was. He did
00:27:25.520
put out a statement. He said that CPAC believes in fiercely defending girls and women's sports at
00:27:31.180
every level, including in state legislative chambers. The left's war on gender must be
00:27:35.120
confronted and CPAC will continue to do just that. And we will continue to demonstrate decency to all
00:27:39.400
those involved. All right, that's fine. And it is true that CPAC does, he, they rate bills when it
00:27:47.740
comes to this particular gender issue. Something that I'm something that I'm grateful for. When he
00:27:53.600
was talking to the daily wire, he said, I just believe quite clearly that you can have operations
00:27:58.880
to change your physical appearance, but you can't change your gender. Matt Schlapp told the daily
00:28:02.720
wire, uh, there's no way to change it. And that should, and that should determine your status on
00:28:08.120
gender questions like what sport you compete in. He said that he was just quickly responding to a tweet
00:28:12.620
when he said her, he said that's not an intentional statement one way or the other. That seems to me
00:28:17.340
he doesn't want, you know, he definitely doesn't want the pronoun police knocking at his, at, on his
00:28:23.660
door. Um, but I, you know, I believe him when he says that he believes that men should compete in
00:28:29.660
sports. I just think that the tweet was odd. And again, okay, even if you say, give you the benefit
00:28:34.640
of the doubt, you didn't mean to say, um, what you said, his response to that, to people that were, um,
00:28:42.760
that were critiquing him or even just respectfully disagreeing with him, I thought was super strange.
00:28:49.440
So Jenna Ellis, who was a Trump lawyer, she went kind of back and forth with him and just disagreed
00:28:57.000
with him and said, you know, like, this is not something, um, this is, this is not the stance that we
00:29:02.540
need to be representing as conservatives right now. This simply is not helpful. And he said,
00:29:10.580
uh, all he's saying is that in the end, trans people deserve our love and compassion. He said,
00:29:15.680
we should defend girls sports against competing with men aggressively. But in the end, remember
00:29:20.020
that all people deserve respect. Kind of simple. If showing decency makes you boycott CPAC, Jenna Ellis,
00:29:25.560
I'm good with it. And she makes a good point in response to that. She said, that's not all you said.
00:29:30.920
You can't walk back calling a man her under the guise of love and compassion. Loving compassion
00:29:34.880
requires speaking truth, Jenna Ellis says, which I agree with. And then she said, this is an open
00:29:39.700
call from Matt to abandon CPAC because he is unwilling to stand for truth. Do it. Um, and then
00:29:46.520
he says, Jenna, this is a false controversy. You are upset with CPAC because we didn't invite you to
00:29:51.760
speak. Whoa, that's low. That is really low. I mean, she explained, there are a lot of people,
00:29:58.580
a lot of great conservatives, by the way, very influential conservatives who weren't invited
00:30:02.680
to CPAC. I haven't heard from any of them that they're very bitter and resentful about that.
00:30:07.800
But, um, I thought that was really low to basically say the only reason that she could
00:30:13.440
be criticizing him when she explained very clearly why she's criticizing him is because she's bitter
00:30:18.600
that she didn't get invited to CPAC. That's a very prideful response. And again, he's doubling down.
00:30:23.740
And so if you didn't, if you said something that you didn't mean to say, okay, whatever that happens
00:30:28.320
to the best of us, but to double down and then to attack someone who is critiquing you for that,
00:30:33.120
I thought that was really, really low. And then Dan Schneider, the person whom, um, I talked about
00:30:40.140
earlier, who again, had the respect to call me and tell me that what I thought was a very bizarre
00:30:44.140
reason to, uh, not to, you know, not have, have me back. He said that we at CPAC have always taken
00:30:52.060
a principal position on marriage and identity. We also maintain our view that all people are
00:30:55.860
deserving of dignity and respect. This is the heart of conservatism. It is also what Jesus taught.
00:31:00.540
I also thought that this was really low to bring Jesus into this. When like, this is also a straw man
00:31:07.520
argument. No one is arguing, including Jenna Ellis, from what I can see that we shouldn't treat
00:31:12.480
people with compassion and respect. That's not what anyone is arguing. Like we're arguing that that
00:31:17.460
wasn't the represent, that wasn't the greatest representation of what the conservative priority
00:31:21.760
is when it comes to defending the fixed reality of biological sex and the importance of prioritizing
00:31:28.560
the rights of women and girls and calling a man hurt. Like that was the beef here, but they keep
00:31:35.200
on avoiding that, which people have said over and over again. Yeah, that's the, that's the real beef
00:31:39.880
and saying, oh, well, this is what we're just talking about respect. This is what Jesus would do.
00:31:44.040
To me, that's a form of manipulation, a spiritual manipulation. Again, to me, that's really low.
00:31:49.880
So I response, I responded to that response and I said, I'm not sure the principal position is
00:31:55.440
calling a man her or saying that it will be interesting to hear the perspective of someone
00:31:59.440
who was accused of flashing his genitals to women in the locker room. That's true. That's
00:32:02.740
according to Daily Mail. Apparently there are teammates of Leah Thomas, again, who are saying
00:32:08.160
this anonymously, who are uncomfortable because he has not had any operations and he is changing.
00:32:13.820
He is getting naked, apparently, reportedly, um, in the locker room. And he is also still
00:32:19.220
attracted to women. And now these women are forced to change with him in the locker room.
00:32:23.760
Why is that? Why is our compassion not directed toward them primarily? Like, why can't we talk
00:32:29.420
more about that? Why can't we focus on that? Why do I want to hear the point of view of someone
00:32:34.940
who is indirectly or maybe intentionally or unintentionally doing what is, uh, what has in
00:32:44.280
the past amounted to sexual harassment towards college women? Like, why isn't that where our
00:32:50.660
compassion is directed? But again, this is a straw man argument. Oh no, this is what Jesus would do.
00:32:55.100
Jesus would apparently call a man her in a tweet. And so, um, Dan Schneider responded to me. He said,
00:33:01.780
of course, I never suggested otherwise, but happy to have an intelligent conversation with you if you
00:33:05.200
want to go beyond 280 characters. And I said, well, that's exactly what Matt said originally. He
00:33:10.220
originally did call a man her and said that we need to see Leah Thomas's perspective. And he said,
00:33:16.400
it is not, it is not what Matt Schlapp originally said. And I responded with the screenshot of what
00:33:22.120
Matt Schlapp originally said, and he did not respond. So yes, it is. That actually is what Matt
00:33:27.960
Schlapp originally said. And why does this all matter? Because of what I've already said. Because
00:33:33.720
when we acquiesce, when we cede ground on this language issue and on the issue of whether or not
00:33:41.220
a man can become a woman, then you've lost all the battles. And this is, these are people who are at
00:33:46.020
the helm of the conservative movement, who are heading the largest conservative conference every year
00:33:51.360
talking in this way, and then treating other conservatives who critique them and who push back
00:33:57.320
against them in a way that I think is really shameful. And to me, just reflects how I was
00:34:02.640
treated at the beginning of 2020 in that conversation. This to me is a problem, but that's
00:34:08.280
not the only problem that's going on. Like I said, there was a complete lack of representation
00:34:13.100
of pro-life conversations in the year that Roe v. Wade will possibly be overturned. That is a big
00:34:21.960
omission. And Matt Schlapp was actually asked about that. A particular reporter from, I think,
00:34:27.920
a small news organization asked Matt Schlapp, hey, why are there no talks? There were zero speeches
00:34:35.400
and there were zero panels on the pro-life issue. Why? Why? In the year that Roe v. Wade might be
00:34:43.520
overturned? Obviously, this is a big issue for people. Why were there no official conversations
00:34:48.420
about that at CPAC? Let me play you his response. Go away. You and Mercy have a very strong pro-life
00:34:54.280
record. And some of the folks that have come to CPAC were concerned that it might not have as much
00:34:58.980
of a strong pro-life message, particularly in a year where Roe v. Wade could be overturned. I
00:35:03.800
wonder if you could speak to that. Yeah. You know, we always say every year we should have a pro-life
00:35:07.500
panel. And I broke that. I was like, I don't want a pro-life panel. And they're like, why? I was
00:35:11.800
like, because I think everything's pro-life that we talk about. Everything should be life affirming.
00:35:16.120
And we've tried to take that spirit in what we talk about with so many issues. Now, we'll have
00:35:22.480
speakers that are for abortion and for legal abortion. And we have people here with disagreements
00:35:29.160
on almost every major issue. That used to be a problem for us. And my belief is that should not
00:35:34.640
be a problem. All right. So I'm sorry. That's not a great answer. That's almost like what the left
00:35:44.200
says about the pro-life issue. And again, I'm not questioning whether or not Matt Schlapp is truly
00:35:49.820
against abortion. I hope and pray and think that he is. But that's not a great response. That's not
00:35:55.600
a great response. The abortion issue is imbued in everything that's talked about. Let me tell you,
00:36:02.060
there were two separate talks tied to lock her up about Hillary Clinton. Like, can you tell me how the
00:36:08.680
pro-life conversation was imbued into the conversation about Hillary Clinton, the nominee in the 2016
00:36:15.220
election, six years ago, guys, how the abortion conversation and the travesty of the slaughter of
00:36:23.880
unborn children was imbued in the conversation about locking Hillary Clinton up? Can you tell me how that
00:36:30.480
was interwoven into that? And then there was a speech or a panel that was apparently about Stacey
00:36:36.920
Abrams not being the governor of Georgia. Guys, that was 2018. So like, are these the issues that
00:36:45.480
are most important to the conservative movement? But having, and he blatantly said in that clip
00:36:51.000
that he said no to a pro-life panel, that he didn't want that. In the year that Roe v. Wade might be
00:36:59.180
overturned? I'm sorry. I'm really having a hard time understanding the motivation behind that. And again,
00:37:05.740
I don't want to falsely impugn people's motives or unfairly impugn people's motives. I wouldn't want
00:37:10.080
someone to do that to me. But again, I would have thought that the response would be, wow, this is
00:37:16.820
basically priority number one for CPAC or a really high priority for us. This is really important for
00:37:23.420
us. You're absolutely right. You know, we should have prioritized this more. But you know, XYZ speaker
00:37:28.320
did talk about it, even though it wasn't the title of any of our talks. And this is something that
00:37:33.040
we're really committed to. And looking back, I do think that that was possibly an oversight or,
00:37:39.040
hey, look, here's how CPAC has contributed to a lot of the victories that we've seen on life.
00:37:46.280
But to basically say that, yeah, some people wanted a pro-life panel. And he said no, because
00:37:50.880
apparently pro-life is just this kind of like ethereal and tangible issue that can be somehow
00:37:57.960
implicitly intertwined in all of these other talks that are given. That's a really lame
00:38:04.320
excuse. And again, that's really troubling to me. Also, I saw no titles of any talks on religious
00:38:09.820
liberty. I'm not saying that that wasn't mentioned at all. I'm not saying that that's not a priority
00:38:14.280
for people who head up CPAC. But why wasn't it talked about? Like, these are big issues that
00:38:21.440
conservatives care about. I represent a very large segment of conservatism, of Christian moms and
00:38:29.160
Christian women who, those are our biggest things. Like, abortion is our biggest thing.
00:38:35.560
Yes, what goes on in education, what goes on with our kids, what goes on with things like mask
00:38:40.700
mandates, all of those things matter too. But man, religious liberty really matters. Abortion really
00:38:45.800
matters. Rights for women and girls really matter to us. We're a big voting bloc. We're a big voice
00:38:52.780
in conservatism. Like, social conservatives, true Christian conservatives, we care about these issues
00:38:59.500
first and foremost. And if we're no longer represented in what is considered conservatism or, you know,
00:39:05.980
conservative ink or whatever it is, conservative establishment or the GOP establishment, then I'm out.
00:39:12.060
I don't care. Like I said at the beginning, I do not care. I am going to continue to represent you,
00:39:18.080
my audience, the issues that you care about, the concerns that you have. I am going to continue
00:39:23.240
talking the truth, speaking the truth about the things that matter and using as humbly but as
00:39:29.060
effectively and as correctly as I can scripture to be our guide. And if the Republican Party is basically,
00:39:34.700
you know, some form of capitalism with a progressive twist, then I am out. I do not care. I will cut
00:39:41.080
ties and burn bridges. And that's that. At the end of the day, I'm a Christian. And I would love,
00:39:47.460
I do. I am all for speaking to people, discussing issues with people, partnering with people in
00:39:57.620
certain ways that I disagree with on a variety of issues. You guys know that. I've had a lot of
00:40:02.160
people on this show that I disagree with on really big things. But we've had great, very substantive
00:40:07.600
conversations about the things on which we do agree. We disagree on something as major as abortion,
00:40:13.340
perhaps, but we talk about the importance of protecting women and women's spaces. We disagree
00:40:18.280
on an issue as huge as marriage, but we agree on the issue of draconian mandates. So, yes, I understand
00:40:26.860
linking arms in some ways for some purposes, people that you disagree with. But excluding
00:40:35.460
conversations about these major issues, I mean, that's a red flag to me. That's really troubling
00:40:40.440
to me. I mean, there are some other reports that I'm not sure that I want to, I'm not even sure I
00:40:46.460
want to get into right now. But there are several outlets that are posting some questions about
00:40:51.920
where CPAC gets some of its money. And the only reason I'm not going to talk about all of that is
00:40:59.940
not because it's not important, but because I feel like I need to understand a little,
00:41:04.920
a little bit more context before, before I talk about it. And honestly, I just kind of wanted to
00:41:10.800
give my personal perspective on why CPAC is not conservative enough for me and why I have
00:41:17.020
some issues with the leadership and the lack of leadership that I see there. And, you know,
00:41:24.580
it's you looking from the outside in, you might think that all conservatives basically disagree or
00:41:31.360
basically agree, I should say, on things. And that the people that you see talking to you or
00:41:40.120
representing some of the concerns that you have, that they seem exactly the way that they are on,
00:41:47.020
you know, they're on their broadcaster, from their pulpit, whatever it is. And unfortunately,
00:41:54.300
even someone who I would say has purposely kind of put myself on the outskirts of political media
00:42:02.580
and the conservative establishment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of great people. I'll say that
00:42:07.980
there are a lot of people that you see them, you know, publicly, you see them on the screen and they
00:42:14.020
are wonderful people behind the scenes. I would say that's the majority of people within conservative
00:42:18.660
media that I've talked to. But man, there are some snakes. There are some snakes. If I really
00:42:23.580
believed in, you know, spilling all the tea about everything, I would have. Unfortunately,
00:42:29.400
there's just a lot of people who aren't, who disappoints. People are going to disappoint.
00:42:35.080
Organizations are going to disappoint. And at the end of the day, that is why I'm so thankful for a
00:42:39.540
few things. I am thankful that ultimately the divide in this world is not right versus left. It's
00:42:45.080
not conservative versus liberal. It's not Republican versus Democrat. And therefore, my identity and my
00:42:51.520
allegiance isn't ultimately to any side. It is to Christ, which means that I can be okay with rejection
00:42:58.040
from these organizations. I can be okay with criticism from these organizations. I can be okay
00:43:06.300
with not actually being in any clique to do with conservatism. I've talked to a lot of different
00:43:11.480
organizations. I'm friends with a lot of different people. But I am not in the never Trump crowd. I'm not
00:43:18.360
in the always Trump crowd. I am not in the nationalist populist crowd. I'm not in the neocon
00:43:24.020
crowd. Like I'm not in the libertarian crowd. And there are other different cliques that I am not
00:43:29.880
firmly a part of. There are probably things that I agree with from all of those different factions.
00:43:35.280
But I have very purposely worked over the years to not associate myself with any clique and to simply
00:43:42.160
try as humbly and as fallibly, but as persistently and earnestly as I possibly can speak the truth
00:43:51.000
and love and represent the issues and the concerns that you guys have and that you guys really care
00:43:57.260
about. And that means that there is going to be division between me and other people who call
00:44:02.400
themselves conservative because at the end of the day, I don't care. I don't care to acquiesce to them.
00:44:08.160
I don't care to compromise. I care about what is true and seeking that as much as I possibly can,
00:44:16.160
even as imperfectly, but again, as earnestly and honestly as I possibly can. And there's a lot of
00:44:23.960
comfort. There's a lot of comfort, I think, in knowing where my identity comes from, where my
00:44:27.800
purpose comes from, where my calling comes from, that God has called me to whatever he's called me to.
00:44:32.600
He has written my future. He is sovereign over every single second of every single day of my life.
00:44:38.540
And he doesn't need the endorsement of any organization. He doesn't need the support of
00:44:43.860
any individual to accomplish whatever he wants to accomplish in my life. He is going to do what
00:44:50.460
he's going to do. And I have always asked for wisdom. I have always asked for strength to have
00:44:55.380
integrity. I have always asked for the ability to be as consistent as I possibly can and to protect me
00:45:03.520
from corrupt forces. And I look back now and I think how I was kind of hurt and I was disappointed
00:45:10.960
and I was stunned when I was told that I would no longer be invited to CPAC. But now, as I have
00:45:18.000
looked at all of these issues unfold and the back and forth that I saw unfold on Twitter this week,
00:45:23.360
and I said, wow, it really is true that saying that man's rejection can be God's protection.
00:45:30.020
And I'm very thankful for that. I'm thankful to no longer be associated with that conference. I'm
00:45:34.620
thankful to not be asked to go to it anymore. Maybe that was God protecting me from people that I
00:45:40.580
shouldn't have been associated with. Maybe. And I'm thankful for that. So apply that to your own
00:45:46.240
life. Maybe there's an opportunity that you felt like you missed out on or you got passed up for
00:45:50.640
something that you thought that you deserved or someone rejected you. Understand that God is
00:45:57.160
completely sovereign over your life. He doesn't need the approval or the assistance of anyone to
00:46:01.760
do what he wants to do for you and through you. And you never know what missed opportunities and
00:46:07.820
what forms of rejection are actually God's protection and provision for you. And so knowing that,
00:46:13.980
knowing again, where my purpose and identity lie, and also just like trusting that at the end of the
00:46:20.720
day, like I am a Christian, I'm a wife and a mom who happens to have a podcast, who happens to be a
00:46:27.640
conservative. All of that is secondary, tertiary on the periphery for me. I love doing what I do. I love
00:46:35.680
speaking. I love having this podcast. But my identity, second to being a Christian, is being a wife and a mom.
00:46:42.720
That's what matters to me. That's what keeps me grounded. That's why I don't typically get caught
00:46:46.020
up in all of this drama and the toxicity of conservative media and all of that. I just don't
00:46:53.440
play the game. I don't play the game. And for the reasons, the reason why is because of a lot of what
00:47:00.240
I explained today. I don't know if that makes you feel cynical about the things that go on or if that
00:47:05.540
makes you feel sad or disappointed or discouraged. I don't think it should. I think it should remind you
00:47:10.640
that we don't put our hope in politics. We don't put our hope in politicians. We don't put our hope
00:47:14.780
in activists. We don't put our hope in conferences. You put your hope in the Lord. Don't put your hope
00:47:18.720
in me. Don't put all your eggs in my basket either. That's certainly not what I'm trying
00:47:23.860
to say that, oh, I'm just totally above reproach and I'm perfect and I have never gotten down into
00:47:28.160
the mud or said anything I don't mean or I've never, you know, been accidentally dishonest or
00:47:32.340
something. I'm certainly not saying that. I'm not trying to get you to pat me on the back.
00:47:36.440
I'm not patting myself on the back at all. I am just reminding you that worldly institutions
00:47:42.720
and that individuals are ultimately going to disappoint you, but Christ never will. And when
00:47:48.320
your hope and your identity and your purpose comes from him and when you trust in his sovereignty,
00:47:52.920
you can look at all of the dishonesty and the pettiness that goes on, even on your political side,
00:47:59.940
and you can say, that's sad, but I don't have to allow that to shape or to affect me. And I can
00:48:07.140
be just as joyful and peaceful knowing that God's got me because he does. And as far as it is concerned,
00:48:14.420
as you are concerned, as far as it concerns you, be honest, have integrity, do the next right thing,
00:48:20.840
try to be the same person behind the scenes as you are on camera, and simply do the next right
00:48:28.080
thing. And you cannot worry about who doesn't like you, who rejects you, what their values are.
00:48:34.320
And I don't know the future of conservatism, if this is our leadership, if this is what it looks
00:48:40.320
like. And I do care because I care about the country. And I think conservative principles and
00:48:45.680
policies are better for the country, for every single demographic and every group, than progressive
00:48:51.460
policies. I think I've made that very clear on every single podcast episode that I've done.
00:48:55.520
And so, of course, I care about conservative political philosophy prevailing. I do. But at
00:49:04.620
the end of the day, we have to stand in the truth, even if the Republican Party leaves us. We stand where
00:49:10.960
we stand, and we're grounded on the Word of God. And we don't sway, no matter who ends up disagreeing
00:49:18.780
with us. And so, yeah, that's where it is. That's the tea. I spilled the tea. And that's all I got.
00:49:25.960
All right. We're going to do some, we're going to do some voicemails now. You guys left me some
00:49:31.260
voicemails, and we're not going to be able to get through all of them because we just have a few
00:49:34.520
minutes left. But we are, I think we're going to do a bonus episode, potentially, might be next week,
00:49:40.840
might be next Saturday. I don't know when we're going to do it. Because we got so many amazing
00:49:45.100
voicemails from you guys saying your dreams. We want to be able to play more of them. So we're
00:49:53.060
going to, we're going to do that. But I'm going to play a few of them right now just for fun. It's a
00:49:56.300
fun way to finish the episode tomorrow. We're going to talk about what's the truth about oil and gas
00:50:00.640
prices and everything that's going on. We have an amazing guest for that. Okay, we will play two
00:50:07.320
or three voicemails. I've not heard these voicemails yet. Beth, producer, picked them out. And so we
00:50:13.340
will, I mean, I'm really excited. We'll, we'll let it rip. So let's go ahead and play the first
00:50:19.040
voicemail. Hi, Allie. I am calling to tell you about my strangest dream. And it actually happens
00:50:25.100
to be a reoccurring dream too. I will preface it by saying that I have very bad eyesight in real life.
00:50:30.120
I wear glasses. And in this dream, I have some kind of situation that I need to take care of. It is
00:50:36.360
an emergency. And I cannot see because I don't have my contact lenses in. Oh, no. And so I go to put
00:50:41.720
them in and I discover that they are the size of dinner plates. I have no idea what this dream
00:50:48.660
means. My husband thinks it's hilarious. I don't think it's funny because the feeling of anxiety
00:50:54.040
is so real that I just wanted to share because it's definitely strange. Oh, that's a really funny.
00:51:00.600
And if you're not watching on YouTube, you don't know that I took a sip of water at an inopportune
00:51:06.120
time. And when you said that your contacts were the size of dinner plates, I almost spit out my water.
00:51:10.540
That's really funny. But I could definitely see how that's really frustrating. Sometimes I have
00:51:14.520
dreams where I'm trying to see something or like I keep on like last night I had a dream that I kept
00:51:18.820
on searching for something on my computer. And for some reason, like I kept on getting distracted and
00:51:23.980
I had to like go somewhere else every time like the page was loading. And then I would go to a
00:51:27.980
different place and I'd have like a different device. I'm like, I got to upload this page or
00:51:31.500
whatever. And it wouldn't. And it was really sad. So I'm really sorry. I don't know what your dream
00:51:37.940
means. I'm not going to try to interpret it for you. But I can definitely see how that's
00:51:40.980
frustrating. All right, next voicemail. Hi, Allie. This is Deborah. I was calling because I wanted
00:51:45.980
to share a strange dream. This is a dream I had when my son who is now 12 was about 10 months old.
00:51:53.400
And in the dream, I was feeding him carrots when his mouth fell out. Obviously, this freaked me out
00:51:59.600
a little bit. And I started examining the mouth that fell out. And I saw it was more like dentures
00:52:04.720
laying on the device that went in. And it had one tooth. And then I opened up his real mouth
00:52:09.860
and he actually had two teeth. I freaked out and I call 911. So they come in and they're
00:52:16.980
like, Oh, this is not a problem. His device has malfunctioned. This was device. This is a
00:52:24.220
device installed by the government. Wow. When children were born. Wow. Which I'm not sure how
00:52:30.200
that happened. I had a home birth, but whatever. It was the device they get to all children
00:52:36.260
to make vegetables taste better. Wow. To make the population healthier. So they put in two
00:52:42.980
doubling batteries. I remember that specifically because it was my 10 month old. I'm not sure
00:52:48.400
how that fit. And they put it back into his mouth. Now it had two teeth like his real mouth.
00:52:53.360
And I fed him some carrots. And he says, clear as day, tastes like chocolate cake.
00:53:05.780
That is a really strange dream. Except for our government definitely wouldn't give us a device
00:53:10.660
to make carrots taste better because they don't care about us being healthy at all. They would
00:53:16.980
probably be like, Oh, yeah, we injected corn syrup into their brain when they were born.
00:53:22.100
And that's really, really bizarre. It's kind of like the theory that birds aren't real.
00:53:27.060
You've heard that conspiracy theory that birds aren't real, that they're actually all just
00:53:30.440
devices for the government to spy on us. I actually saw like a diagram of like a pigeon
00:53:36.360
and what like technology they believe is like inside the birds that make them spy on us. It's pretty
00:53:43.460
funny. All right. Next voicemail. Hi, Allie. So my strange, crazy dream happened just last week.
00:53:51.380
I had a dream that my husband was suddenly like really upset with me and saying every worst thing
00:54:00.320
about me that I've ever thought about myself. And this was his excuse for leaving me. And it was
00:54:05.100
very, very good. And I woke up really sad. And I remembered that my husband was out of town.
00:54:13.640
So I was just kind of sad by myself. And I told him later that it made me sad throughout the whole
00:54:21.620
day. And he's like, Well, good thing it was just a dream. And then I took a pregnancy test the next
00:54:27.060
day and found out I was pregnant. So I guess the vivid dreams started a little early for me.
00:54:32.820
Anyways, thank you for your show. I love watching. And I love that you're spreading truth and
00:54:43.200
Oh, man, I'm glad that it ended with you taking a pregnancy test. Because at first I was like,
00:54:48.020
No, this is just a sad dream. I don't want to play this. But then you know, it ended. It ended
00:54:53.480
happily the voicemail ended happily. And I'm glad for I'm glad for that. Because okay, I had when I first
00:54:59.400
got married, I used to have really sad dreams that like we were still dating. And that he broke up
00:55:05.300
with me and that he was like dating his ex girlfriend and I would get so sad. And so I know
00:55:11.240
exactly what you're talking about. I think it's like our greatest fears or some or something they
00:55:16.860
you know, sometimes manifest itself themselves in our dreams. But yes, pregnancy vivid dreams are so
00:55:24.580
real. I absolutely hate vivid dreams. And if you're new to this podcast, and you don't know
00:55:29.380
why we're talking about this, it's because I shared a very strange, long convoluted dream with
00:55:35.420
a weird Bible verse in it on Monday that you should go listen to if you haven't already.
00:55:40.560
So okay, I think that's all we have time for. We have a lot we have a lot more dreams that we
00:55:45.540
might play out in a bonus weekend episode that are just really funny. But now I'm remembering we
00:55:51.360
actually have done this segment before. And I think I tried to like interpret your dreams
00:55:55.900
in a joking way in the past. And I just love dreams. And someone was laughing, someone sent
00:56:01.900
me a message saying, this is why we need context. And they quoted me saying on Monday, I love laughing
00:56:08.140
at people's dreams. I don't love laughing at your goals and your aspirations. But I do love laughing
00:56:13.480
at the strange dreams people have at night. All right, that's all we've got time for today. I hope it
00:56:19.020
was helpful and maybe clarifying for you. And tomorrow, like I said, we'll be back, we'll be
00:56:24.800
talking about oil and gas. It's a really good shorter conversation. If you love the podcast,
00:56:29.080
please leave us a five star review wherever you listen. That would help us so much. I'll see you