A (16:19)
Okay, so after he said that, Candace Owens said that Bibi Netanyahu is lying about that letter. And, you know, since the letter has come out, which we're going to read a little bit, a lot of people have said that, you know, Candace was lying, saying that Bibi Netanyahu was lying. And I'm not sure, I don't think that's totally true that she was lying about that. I think that it is true that there were parts of that letter that Bibi Netanyahu didn't read. But at the same time, I don't know that him not reading the critical part of Charlie's letter was a malicious omission. It probably just wasn't appropriate on Fox News right after Charlie had died to read all of Charlie's criticism of Israel's messaging. So yes, it is true what Candace said, that the entirety of the letter was not just praising Israel unconditionally, but Bibi Netanyahu is also right that Charlie wrote that and that Charlie was a supporter of Israel in general and the Judeo Christian alliance in general. So both are telling the truth there. There is more to this letter, though, that I do think is important to know. And we can't go through the whole thing because it was a very long letter. It was originally released in its full by the New York Post. And Charlie is basically expressing deep affection for Israel in the beginning as a Christian advocate. He says it's been one of his greatest joys, exactly what we heard Bibi Netanyahu say here. And then he goes on to say, as Muhammadism spreads into Western societies, it's critical that Jews and Christians stay united in the effort to contain a rollback, radical Islam and Sharia law. I regret to report that anti Israel and anti Semitic trends are at record levels on social media. These negative sentiments then flow downstream into college campuses and even seep into the conservative MAGA community. But then he goes on to tell Bibi Netanyahu this is mostly Yalls fault. He's like, yalls messaging efforts aren't good. Y' all need a new PR strategy. And what you are doing to communicate the virtue of Yalls fight against Hamas, it shouldn't rely on American influencers. And it seemed to me that Charlie was frustrated, that he was always having to try to figure out a way to defend everything Israel was doing and that Israel wasn't doing their part in helping American media and American conservatives, like, get the truth out there. And so this was a very nuanced, a very layered letter to Bibi Netanyahu that I think showed genuinely who Charlie was and how he really felt. I don't think there's any question that he was very pro Israel, that he really believed in a Judeo Christian alliance and that he cared about the Holy Land and that he wanted Israel to succeed against Hamas and that he saw Islamism and as a huge threat to Western civilization and that he didn't buy into conspiracy theories about Judaism taking over different parts of power in the United States and undermining America. I, he didn't believe in that. From what I can see. I don't have any secret conversations or secret information about Charlie to tell you one way or the other. But it seems obvious to me from what he said publicly and what he said here to Benjamin, to bb, Nat and Yahoo. So a lot of people are also saying, I've seen out there that, oh, this wasn't. This letter wasn't really from Charlie, which I don't really understand. I see that from the right. It seems some people saying this was written by AI. This is chat GPT. This is not Charlie. This is not how Charlie sounds. Why would Charlie send this letter? And then I see people on the left saying, oh, he was so arrogant. Why would he send a letter like that? Well, you both are wrong. Number one, this sounds exactly like Charlie. This sounds like Charlie. This sounds like how he writes. This sound or how he wrote this sounds like how he talked. This seems true to the things that he was saying publicly at the time. And so, and okay, number two, I saw some people say this is chat GPT and Israel put it out there. Why would Israel put out a letter like this? This makes them look horrible. Why would Israel want to publish A letter that makes them look so bad because he had so much criticism for Israel. So that doesn't make any sense. And then on the other side, people saying, well, this was so arrogant, it must not be real because Charlie would never think he had this much influence. He had this much influence. He had this much influence, like Israel relies on American conservatives to be their publicist, basically, in a lot of ways in the West. And Charlie was one of the leading pro Israel voices and very influential in the, in the Trump administration. So, yes, he had that much influence on bb, Nat and Yahoo. And so I think that the letter is completely real. I don't think that we have any reason to doubt its validity. And then we also have sub claim 5, which honestly, we're not even going to get totally into because I'm still trying to figure out, like, what is the claim here? The claim is that Turning Point is losing money. And I think that the assumption is that it had something to do with Israel. And maybe we'll have to come back and we'll have to really, like, get into what the truth is about this and the allegation that they were losing money mysteriously and that Charlie wanted to lead some kind of, like, doge effort to make sure that they weren't losing money and some kind of, you know, nefarious way. And then Tyler Boyer, who is the COO of Turning Point Action, he said that they're not losing money, that it's not true, this is a standard audit. And so, yeah, there's a lot of, there's a lot of back and forth there. And I don't have any insider information to offer you on that one. But all of these points are supposed to come together and we're supposed to at least be squinting our eyes at Israel and, and saying, okay, if all of these things are true, or at least partially true, somewhat true, then maybe Israel is involved. And here are some things that I think we need to think about before taking this leap and some questions that I think we need to ask, not only when it comes to this claim, but really when it comes to any claim. But before we get into that, let me go ahead and pause, tell you about our next sponsor. It's Carly Jean, Los Angeles. I'm wearing my CJLE jeans right now because I almost always am. I love CJLA's denim. Fits so well, really, in any stage of life. It has really good give without losing its shape during the day. And it's just really hard to find that, especially for the really fair price that CJLA jeans are. I love all of my CGLA clothes. They're also going to be at Share the Arrows all of our Share the Arrows merch was made by cjla so you know it's going to be top notch and so comfortable. I'm so excited for you all to be able to get yours. But all of their clothes are amazing. They've got new drops like every few months. Their latest one, so cute. Just in time for the fall weather. Especially if you live in warm climate like I do and you want those fall clothes that aren't super heavy. You need to go to CarlyJean Los Angeles.com when you use code ALI B you get 20% off your order. That's CarlyJean Los Angeles.com code ALI B. Okay, here's how conspiracy theories work, okay? Because conspiracy theories are different than critical thinking and question asking and the innuendo is different than investigation and implication is different than investigation. And I'm not even pointing fingers right now. I've seen a lot of different Instagram posts, a lot of different expos From a lot of different people, some that are asking good questions and some that are just spinning up suspicion. And again, those two things aren't the same. So this is what you need to look for when it comes to any claim. If it's a claim that I make, if it's a claim that someone else makes, especially when someone is creating a series out of multiple claims. Okay, so this is how conspiracy theories work. One, you exploit distrust or gaps of information. So in this case we don't trust the government. That's true. We have good reason not to trust the government. There have been things that the government has said that are kind of sketchy, like text exchange that the government claimed was between the shooter and the partner. A lot of people said that it seemed fake. Although I think that there are some questions about that to exploit pre existing suspicions or resentment. So in this case, the people claiming that Israel was involved in this, like already didn't like Israel. So that to me is a little suspicious. Like it would be a lot more credible to me if the people pursuing this theory didn't already blame Israel for other things. Like if they were blaming Germany for this, I'd be like, oh, that's interesting because I don't see any like vested interest in accusing this particular country. Or if people who like never criticized Israel in the past were like, yeah, I really think Israel is a part of this, then that might be a little bit more intriguing, but it just seems a little bit Too on the nose and coincidental that Israel would be involved in a crime, and it's being found out by people who are already super critical of Israel. Another characteristic is giving partial truths. So like there, there are some truths that are in this claim, as we already, as we already validated. Netanyahu didn't say everything was in that letter. Charlie did exchange words with Bill Ackman. Charlie was concerned with Israel's direction. So all of these things are true. But then there's also this aspect, giving full truths, but making it seem like they're tied together with a secret sauce of special knowledge without ever actually providing the receipts and the evidence to prove those connections. So this happened, this exists, and these two things are connected. Because we should be asking, how? Why? So we should be asking, what do those two things have in common? How are those two things connected? What do those two things have to do with each other? And what do they have to do with Charlie's murder? I need to be told specifically. I need to be told directly. I need to be told explicitly. Because if we're making claims about who is involved in Charlie's murder, like I, I need the tangible evidence of those connections. It's not enough to just tell me that some things happened and some things exist also, as I said, innuendo is not investigation. So if someone knows something, if they have insider information, then they need to release it to the public. Like, I don't want a drip campaign. I don't want multiple, you know, like a thread on this. Like, I just, I want to know, like if we all are seeking the truth and I want to know the truth too, then I want to know up there front. I don't want like these, oh well, you know, they, this person said this, but I, I know for a fact that that's not true. Tell me how you know for a fact. I want to know how. How do you know for a fact? And like, what is the truth? Gosh, I really want to know what is the truth. So here are my specific questions when it comes to this Israel claim. Why would Israel, whose existence is largely dependent upon the support of the US take out one of the most vocal supporters of Israel and Judaism? Why would they target a confidant of one of the most pro Israel presidents of all time? Would Israel really risk the further alienation of the American right, literally some of its only lasting supporters in the world, by taking out one of our biggest heroes? And would they do it in a way that Internet sleuths can figure out? Because it's either Israel is very stupid or they're extremely cunning and conniving. But I don't understand how they can be both. And I've gone back and forth with some people in my DMs about this. One person said, oh well, look at this, look at how much Israel lobbies in our government. Like look at how much they're trying to influence the media. Look at how many times they're, you know, meeting with commentators, how they were talking to Charlie Kirk and trying to influence what he thinks. Okay, but even if that's true and even if you have a problem with that, what does that have to do with this? Because do you know how many countries and how many corporations do that? Like do you know how many of these entities are trying to influence American media? China, Russia are two of the main ones. Iran another one. And you know, Charlie was a big critic of Islam, much bigger critic of Islam than he was of Israel. Charlie was a big critic of China. Charlie was a confidant of the President who has been very harsh on Russia. Tell me why there aren't a bunch of theories about those countries involvement in Charlie's murder. Like again, ask why it goes back to Israel. Charlie was critical of a lot of things and a lot of people and a lot of countries and a lot of different ideologies. Like why is it his criticism of one part of what a particular government is doing in the Middle East? Why does that have to be the thing that probably led to his murder? It just doesn't make sense to me. It's, it's not adding up to me. Claim 2. The government is manufacturing the evidence against the current suspect. There's someone named Rob o'. Neill. He's a man who killed Osama Bin Laden. Thank you Lord for that. But he believes that the lone gunman theory is inaccurate. He believes that there was, that this guy had help. Sub claim one. So O' Neill initially calls the 170 yard shot with a 30 odd six rifle, easy for a sniper or hunter. But later questions why an untrained 22 year old would take a neck a neck shot, saying you don't take a neck shot because you missed. He implies the precision hitting Kirk's neck is suspicious for an amateur, suggesting possible training or an alternative explanation. He says that the shot distance is within range for a hunting rifle with a scope. His sniper experience, Rob o' Neill suggests neck shots are accidental, not intentional for non professionals. Okay, so he just doesn't think it adds up there. But here's our fact check it is possible. I wouldn't even, I wouldn't even go so far as to say plausible. I think that's even like a little bit too much. It's possible, but not conclusive. A.30 06 rifle with a modern scope as the one that was recovered can accurately hit a target at about142,142 yards. While challenging for an untrained shooter, the suspect did have experience. We know that he trained with his father growing up. There are a lot of pictures with guns. In fact, Wall Street Journal has this picture of the suspect with a very large gun. And so it is totally possible, it's also possible that he was aiming for the head and that he jerked the gun and that he actually missed, that he didn't actually mean to hit him in the neck. And if he had practiced this, if he had done a lot of target practicing, which it does seem like that was something that was very much a part of his upbringing. It seems that it's totally possible. And so he just doesn't think, it seems like Robbie Neal just doesn't think that this guy could have done it on his own and that this was something that was maybe a little bit more professional. Sub claim 2 People are saying that the wound appearance of Charlie and the shirt movement just, just doesn't fit with this guy being on a roof 175 yards away. So O' Neill disputes that the official narrative that the visible wound was an entry wound. He disputes that, claiming it looked like an exit wound based on his own combat experience. He said an entry wound doesn't look like that. He says video footage showing the neck wound and shirt movement just don't line up. He disputes the assertion that Kirk wasn't wearing body armor. He said bullets don't deflect that way. But we do know from Andrew Colbert that he was not wearing body armor that that day. And Andrew colvitt said on September 20 in an ex post he said that he wants to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound. He said I just spoke with a surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital. He said the bullet absolutely should have gone through which is very normal for a high powered, high velocity, high velocity round. I've seen W from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down an elk, etc but it didn't go through. Charlie's body stopped it. It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn't get killed. His bone was so healthy and the density was so impressive. That he's like the man of steel. I should. It should have gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him, too. In the end, the coroner did find the bullet just beneath the skin. So even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him. Remarkable. Miraculous. Now, some people just aren't buying that, but I don't have a reason not to buy that. I don't have. I. I don't have any reason to doubt. Of course, Andrew Colvid, I totally believe him. But then also what he's saying that the coroner said and that the surgeon said, and of course I believe it's possible for God to do anything. And he's saying it's miraculous. And miraculous means that it goes beyond reason or even like the laws of physics. And so I have no reason to believe that this is untrue and that there was some other kind of wound there. And also, like, we've talked to people who were actually there, like Frank Turek. He saw the wound. He saw what happened. He was there. And I've talked to him and many of you have seen what he has said publicly and describing exactly what happened. And I trust him. I trust Frank Turek, who has described the wound and what was going on in the car and how they were trying to stop the bleeding and all of that. And there's a reason why Charlie died so immediately. There's another claim here about the security failures that people just aren't buying. And we'll get into that in a second. Let me go ahead and tell you about my next sponsor, and that is good ranchers. We love good ranchers in our home. It's so good, we rely on it almost every night. Night. Our kids love the chicken. We just bake the plain chicken breast in the oven. So good, really healthy. Love that it all comes from an American farmer ranch. I made some green beans over the weekend. We went to a little Sunday school party and I used my good ranchers, applewood, bacon and the green beans. And if you don't make your green beans with good ranchers bacon. What are you doing? It's so good. It's the best way to make vegetables with bacon. And good ranchers makes that really easy and really good. And all of their meat, including their bacon, comes from an American farm or ranch. If you go to goodranchers.com and you use my code ALI, you'll get $40 off and you'll get a an extra pack of meat added to your subscription for life. It is such a good deal. They'll also be at Share the arrows go to goodranchers.com use code ALI good ranchers.com code ALI okay, so this is sub claim three security failures rooftop oversight O' Neill questioned why the rooftops weren't secured, especially after what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania with Trump. So here is our fact check on that. So Charlie security team as Turning Point has said over and over again, as I have experienced experience because I've spoken at so many Turning Point events over the years, they are top notch. I've been to a lot of events with different levels of security and I could tell you not every organization and not every event has the kind of security that the Turning Point does. Every time I was at a Turning Point event, I would have one or two security guards with me at all times. From the moment I left my hotel room, from to on stage to walking around no matter what, until I got into my car and I got on my way to the airport, I was covered by a security guard. Not every organization does that. They are like no nonsense guys. And again, I've seen all different levels and they were always my favorite because I just knew that I was cared for. They weren't going to mess around. And you could tell that they were always assessing every threat. And man, that was times 100 for Charlie, which was their principal, the guy that they loved, the guy that they knew. If they were doing that for me, a random person, I'm telling you they were on top of security for Charlie. Now what happened in this case, according to Tyler Boyer, who again is the head of Turning Point Action, has been with Turning Point from the beginning, is that it was not a failure of Turning Point Security who did everything that they possibly could to secure it. They had their own drone program and actually the city where this happened had their own drone program. But unfortunately the drone was the the drone idea, I should say. The drone proposal was shot down by the campus. Not literally shot down, but they said no, you can't use drones, tyler Boyer said on X. We have our own drone program shot down by campus police. Oram Police has a state of the art program. The question I have is why the campus police didn't use it. According to ABC News, Utah Valley University's outdoor courtyard, where Kirk showed up on September 10th to debate students, was surrounded by several tall buildings, leaving Kirk vulnerable. That was made all the more potent because campus police didn't fly a drone to monitor rooftops or coordinate with local law enforcement to secure the event. It deployed only six officers from a force that was Already small for a campus its size. And there were no bag checks or metal detectors. So obviously, like, there are a lot of things, a lot of steps that could have been taken. They could have said no. No outside events after Butler, Pennsylvania. They could have said, no, you're not allowing anyone into this area until they go through metal detector. The drone probably could have saved Charlie Kirk's life. And so there was a lot going on here. But Charlie had been in the lion's den in a lot of different places. He had been in much more progressive and dangerous places than this. So, I don't know, maybe some, you know, security, the local police, campus police, whatever, maybe they just didn't think that it was. That it was that big of a threat. They said that they didn't see any credible threats. Obviously, they were wrong about that, and that is part of why we are where we are today. I don't find this to be suspicious. Human beings are fallible. They make mistakes. They do wrong things. Maybe there were nefarious motives, I don't know, behind the police forces there who didn't allow. Or the campus police that didn't allow them to have the drone program. I don't know. But I don't think this is all part of some secret grand scheme that means that the suspect isn't really the suspect. Again, I'm just not seeing the connection there. And then we also have this claim that there's been a sketchy handling of the crime scene. There's this video going around where it looks like the college UVU is tearing up the crime scene. So six. Okay, so you can see that they're kind of like painting it. They look like they're maybe laying now. It looks like they're just painting it. And so some people are saying, oh, my goodness, they're messing up this crime scene. They're trying to cover something up. But the truth is, you can see in this picture right here, we've got this full screen, the scene of the crime was roped off while the authorities were investigating it. This picture is from September 11th that you're seeing the day after the murder. And so they probably got everything that they needed, and they probably told the campus, hey, you can't do anything. You can't reconstruct anything here until we. Until we do what we need to do. And so I have no reason to believe that they were covering up any evidence or that there was anything nefarious going on there. I mean, at this point, it's been a while since Charlie was murdered, and I Assume that federal authorities have gotten everything that they needed because remember the gun and where the guy was actually on the roof. That was not where they are reconstructing. They, I'm sure, already got everything they needed from where Charlie was actually shot. And then there's another claim here, and this is our last claim for this segment, that there was overly convenient evidence left by the suspect. There was a note left under the suspect's keyboard photographed by his romantic partner, saying, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. The text exchanged with his partner post shooting, where Robinson allegedly confessed, said he had enough of Kirk's hatred and that he had been planning the attack over over a week. He also used some words like vehicle, which people claimed, okay, no, no, you know, 20 year old talks like this. This is just too weird. This is clearly the feds creating these texts, I don't know, in order to make you think that this is the suspect. And I read the text and I did think they were super awkward. I thought they were too on the nose. I didn't think that it sounded like a 20 something would text something like this and that the like trans person on the other side was so innocent and so like, oh my goodness, what do you. I thought it was, I did think it was weird, but then I thought I saw a video going around and actually I'll, I'll play it. And it's of this suspect calling a car a vehicle. And then I thought, you know what, he kind of talks like this. Here it is. As I get into the intersection, he holds, there was a vehicle in the lane. And then it struck me, these two people may very well be on the autism spectrum. And they may talk awkwardly, like they may be socially awkward, they may say things that you would think like a typical 20 something wouldn't say. They may actually talk like that. But even if it is the feds, like, even if these texts are fake, I still think that this is the guy. I think that we have sufficient evidence, sufficient photographs, sufficient evidence of his discord and Reddit history to say, yeah, this guy, he didn't like Charlie Kirk and he was a radical and he had been radicalized and probably living with the so called trans person was radicalizing. He had gun training. I don't see any reason to believe that this is not the person he does look like. The pictures that were released of the suspect that was, that came down off the roof. I don't understand when people are claiming that he doesn't look like that he does look like that. So until I see true evidence to the contrary, I just. Sorry. I don't believe that it was anyone else. And I don't believe that the government is like, covering up for Israel again. I just haven't seen evidence of that. All right, we got some questions to ask. We got some things to remember when we're looking at anything or assessing any theory. Let me tell you about our next sponsor. First, it's preborn. Let me tell you this really amazing story. Victoria was a young mom and she was scared, she was confused, she was desperate. When she walked into her local Planned Parenthood, she was handed an abortion pill. But almost immediately after taking the pill, she knew that she had made a mistake. She regretted it. She didn't want to do that. The weight of her guilt was so crushing, she even thought of just ending her own life. She had just ended the life of her child and she didn't want to live anymore. But by God's grace, instead of just staying alone and desperate, she reached out for help. And that search led her to a preborn network clinic where truth broke through. There, the loving staff gave her immediate care, gave her the abortion reversal pill helped save not only her baby's life, but her own. So we have to remember that in a culture that is drowning in deceit, that truth can save lives. That true clarity, that true courage, that love, that grace, that understanding, but a relentless commitment to life can actually save lives. And it can also share the gospel with people who desperately need their souls to be saved by Jesus too. You can be a part of this incredible work. These network, this network of clinic that's offering the abortion reversal pill, that's offering free sonogram, so many free tools for pregnant moms in crisis. You can be a part of saving those lives. When you donate just $28 to Preborn, you cover the cost of a life saving ultrasound. Maybe that's what you can donate today. Maybe you can donate it once a month. Maybe you can donate $2.80. Maybe you can donate $28,000. Whatever your most generous gift is, give that. Go to preborn.comalli make your gift today. Preborn.comalli Here are some questions to ask whenever you're hearing anyone, myself included, make claims and make a case for something. Okay, you gotta ask these questions. What are the motivations of this person? What are the motivations behind their narrative? Consider why someone is promoting this particular line of thinking. Are they seeking truth? That's a good thing. Or do they have ulterior motives? Like trying to perpetuate continued resentment towards a person or towards an entity that they feel resentment toward. Or maybe for some people, it's attention or power, whatever it is. There's a lot of people, I especially see a lot of people making all kinds of posts on Instagram that clearly their theories can be poked through with just a little bit of critical thinking. But this has garnered a lot of engagement for them. So it's very difficult when someone, when something gets you a lot of engagement to stop on the basis of morality and ethics. It's very difficult. What evidence have they presented? This is the big one. This is the one that I want you to ask over and over again to me and every single person that you follow or listen to. What evidence has this person presented? Look for concrete, verifiable evidence. Are the claims backed up with data, documents, firsthand accounts, or are they speculative? And not just for the claims they're presenting, but the connections between the claims that they're presenting? Are they just making a bunch of claims and then leaving it up to you to speculate and to bring all of those things together? See, that's the difference again in conspiracy theory and critical thinking. Do they cite credible sources? Evaluate whether the sources are reputable, transparent, authoritative? Are they vague? Are they constantly anonymous? Are they obviously biased? Is the narrative logically consistent? Does the story hold together under scrutiny? Does it rely on contradictory claims or leaps of faith? So that's a good question. You gotta think really hard about these things. And I think one of the biggest problems that we have is outsourcing our critical thinking to podcasters and influencers. I don't want you to do that. I don't want you to do that with me. I don't want you to do that with anyone. In fact, I like, as much as I love helping people and giving words to their arguments and beliefs, sometimes I'll get messages like, what should I think about this? Or what should I say to that? And I'm like, you should know. You should know. You should be able to ask questions. You should be able to think through what someone is saying and at least get to the point of being able to poke holes in their statement. And typically, it's about, you know, some claim that a professing liberal Christian is making that is so obviously untrue. And I'll get a question from, like, a strong believer. Well, gosh, this is compelling. What do you think about this? And honestly, I just want to say, you know, what do you think about it? You think, before you ask me and this is a good rule of thumb before you ask me, before you ask anyone, you think about it first and you try to dig through it before you outsource your thinking to someone else. Does the narrative align with observable reality? So test the claims against known facts. Do they require dismissing large amounts of evidence or common sense to be believable? Like do you have to suspend what you know to be true in order to believe this person's connections they are presenting to you? What is the fruit of the narrative that they are presenting? Does believing or spreading this theory foster fear, paranoia, chaos? Or does it promote better understanding, a better grasp of the truth, evaluate its spiritual and practical outcomes? And I also want to talk to you about Gnosticism. I think it's really important to know the context of these kinds of narratives and context around true conspiracies. Gnosticism emphasizes secret elite knowledge that supposedly reveals like hidden truths about the world that could only be accessed in a special way. So according to Ligonier, Gnosticism was a prominent movement that grew up around the church in the second time century. It also has a pre Christian origin. It was a cocktail of Persian, Egyptian, Jewish and Christian ideas with some Greek philosophy thrown in. The word Gnosis itself means knowing or having knowledge. Having knowledge is a significant part of Gnosticism. To say you are Gnostic is to say I know something you don't. I'm in on the secret. I've been enlightened, I'm, I've woken up. I'm spiritually on a higher level. And in order for you to access this special knowledge, you have to follow it me and you have to enter into the secret door. I mean this is, we see this in the new age. We see this in the self help, self love movement. We see this, I would say in the hyper crunchy world. We also see it in the progressive world that you just have to be woke the way I'm woke. And if you're woke then I don't really have to tell you the evidence behind these connections because you just, you'll just know it because I know it. And I'm going to infuse my secret knowledge into you. That's Gnosticism. That is pagan cultishness. Okay. And I want to remind you of this passage from Isaiah that's really important for all of us to remember because the truest thing that is always going on is God's eternal plan of redemption which is always going off without a hitch. God is never confused, he's never thrown off, he's never wondering what's on, going, going on. Full justice and truth will be done and will be revealed in the fullness of time. Does that mean we shouldn't seek truth and justice here today? Of course we should. I think that's part of the reason we're here on earth. But we have to do it in a way that is logical, that is reasonable, and that goes more deeply into truth and evidence, not away from it. Isaiah 8, 12, 13 do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy. And do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Holy. Let him be your fear, let him be your dread. So we should not have the same paranoia and the same fear and the same anxiety that the world does because we know who is ultimately in charge. We know where our hope comes from. So if you're going to seek truth and ask questions, seek truth and ask questions from that place, trusting in the sovereignty of God, trusting in his goodness, not from a place of, of personal control. Don't exchange the God of scripture for the God of self. That leads to a very heavy burden of anxiety in all ways. All right, I've got a completely unrelated hard pill to swallow and it's about our girl Taylor Swift in just one second. Let me go ahead and tell you about our last sponsor and then we'll do that last segment. That's Patriot Mobile. They're America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. So thankful for them. They stand in the gap for all of the things that we believe in and you don't have to worry about the them sending your hard earned dollars to left wing causes. They're not doing that. They're supporting the sanctity of life. They're supporting our first and second amendment rights. And so when you make the very easy switch to Patriot Mobile, you are voting with your dollar and that's really important. And you don't have to compromise at all on service when you do that. They've got a 100% US based customer service team that makes switching so easy. You can activate in minutes from the comfort of your home. Keep your number, keep your phone or you can upgrade. They offer unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, Internet backup, so much more. Go ahead, make the switch. Go to patriotmobile.com Ali that's patriot mobile.com Alli okay moms, your daughters should not be listening to Taylor Swift. They should not be. She is not a role model. And it actually baffles me that there are Christian moms who will say, well, she's better than Chapel Room or she's better than Bad Bunny, or she's better than, I don't know, Selena Gomez, whoever, y'. All, the bar is in hell. If that is our standard. The bar could not be lower. If we are deciding on the righteousness of our kids entertainment choices based on the most degenerate stuff out there. That is not how Christians should be thinking. We are to pursue what is excellent, what is good, what is Praiseworth. And Taylor Swift's music at this point is none of those things. Okay, we're excited that she's getting married. I'm excited that she's getting married. We are excited that she has found a man that she can commit to and love. Yay. We are excited that she is not celebrating being a homosexual like so many pop artists today. Yay. Okay, we can acknowledge all of those things. We can say that maybe she's not as depraved and disagreeable disturbed as some of the pop artists out there. All right, we can acknowledge all of that while also acknowledging that she is not placing good, pure, praiseworthy and excellent thoughts in our minds and in the minds of our very impressionable daughters. See, it is different teenagers listening to Taylor Swift today than us listening to Taylor Swift when we were a teenager. When we were teenagers. Because Taylor Swift was a teenager. When we were a teenager. She was crying on her guitar. We were crying on our guitar. She was happy, confused, and lonely at the same time. We were happy, confused and lonely at the same time. She was 22. I was 20. Okay? So we were in the same life stage. She was talking about this, you know, silly superficial stuff. She was talking about teenage romance. She was not talking about opening up her thighs to someone who is not a husband. Okay? And that is literally what she is singing about. There is zero reason for you to allow your daughter to be listening to or going to the concert of Taylor Swift. There is a verse that came to mind when I was seeing some of the people Share about her lyrics Song of Solomon 2:7 do not stir up or awaken love until it pleases the NIV says do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires. And I think it's so important to make sure to do everything that we can to keep our daughters to keep our kids on the right track, spiritually, mentally and emotionally. Like, I think about the mistake that I made when I was a teenager and reading smut. I mean, it wasn't nearly as bad as, you know, the stuff that you see today it wasn't like explicit 50 shades of gray, but a lot of innuendo, a lot of like, like hot and heavy implication about what was going on behind closed doors. That kind of twilight stuff I should not have been reading as a 16, 17 year old alone in my room. Because it creates in you a desire that cannot be fulfilled in a holy way and purposely consuming content that creates in you, whether you're an adult, but especially as a teenager, that creates in you a desire, a longing that may be natural but cannot be fulfilled in a way that is honoring. To God is not good. And we as parents are called to steward our children. We can't control them. And I'm not saying we put them in a bubble, but we also don't say, here, honey, this thing that is degenerate and that is encouraging sexual impurity and immodesty and self service and self obsession and sexual promiscuity. Like, yeah, listen to this. Let's be entertained by the sins that Christ died for. That's not good Christianity. That's not good motherhood. That's my hard pill to swallow. We'll be back here on Wednesday talking about the comparison between George Floyd and Charlie Kirk. What really is martyrdom. Yes, I will be responding to that Jackie Hill Perry clip that a lot of you guys have sent me and that has been circulating. But we'll have a lot more to talk about on Wednesday as well. So we'll see you guys back here then.
