Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - March 09, 2022


Ep 579 ｜ Spilling the CPAC Tea


Episode Stats


Length

56 minutes

Words per minute

181.823

Word count

10,285

Sentence count

711

Harmful content

Misogyny

13

sentences flagged

Hate speech

13

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

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

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
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 0.97
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 0.75
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 1.00
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, 0.83
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, 0.82
00:22:44.460 none of us would even exist. If we buy into this postmodern lie that gender identity is something 0.82
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 1.00
00:22:55.020 their own spaces? Why shouldn't men who identify as women, who say that their women go into women's 0.59
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 0.55
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 1.00
00:25:22.180 perspective that conservatives need to be adding right now? Like as men are infiltrating women's prisons 0.99
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 0.98
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 1.00
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 1.00
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 0.99
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 0.95
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 0.99
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 1.00
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. 1.00
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 0.77
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 1.00
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. 1.00
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 0.96
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.
00:53:01.500 Wow. That was definitely my strangest dream.
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
00:54:40.000 sincerity. So thank you very much.
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
00:56:33.240 guys back here tomorrow.