Dead Men Walking Podcast Glenn Sunshine: Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, & Biblical Government

Listen to that guitar. Wait for it. Wait for it. Oh, there it is. Welcome to another episode of Dead Men Walking. Got something a little bit different for y 'all, don't we? Yeah, if you guys have been listening for a while, you're going, what's going on with these intros?

I know. We keep switching it up a little bit. We had an intro for about seven, eight months. We switched it a little bit for the last few months and now we're getting into this thing where Jay just brings in his guitar, rips a few licks on the mic, and I've got about 15 of these bad boys preloaded.

I mean, this is a fun time, man. I mean, we're just jamming in here and trying to come up with a new intro. So you guys will have to email us and let us know which one you're digging on. Yeah, because I think we might just do a little different one each week.

Maybe we'll even have a live session or something as we work through some intros, get some input from the listeners, see what they like. But that little lick there, that little, what is it called? A lick?

Sure. Is it called a rhythm? Riff. Riff. Yeah, yeah. That was by ours truly, Jason Hamlin there, just off the top of his head last week. I can hardly wait to see when you put nine minutes into an intro instead of 45 seconds.

It's going to be unbelievable. Well, I do have a little bit of Jimmy Page in these fingers, so just watch it. Oh, man. So, wow. How you been, man? We took a week off. I know, I know, which is cool. Let's go.

It's always good to take a little bit of a break. It's cool. Now you guys still got your episode every week. We had one banked. It's funny because I did have a listener reach out to me and they go, love the consumerism episode last week.

Why did you say Christmas was coming? No, really? I said, well, a little caveat there. We recorded that in November. That's hilarious. So you got one that was a few months old, but we put one in there.

We do like the TV shows do, the host takes off for two weeks. We do a little pre-record there, but we're back at it now. It feels good to be back in the studio with you too, man. I feel like when we go a week without, I'm like missing something in my life, man.

It's like, what's going on here? I'm like, where's my bearded brother at? I'm missing something. And then I cut it, and then, yeah. Well, I'll tell you what, we're going to do a little introduction here and then we're going to get into some newsy news, but we have someone on the line who has been on the podcast before when we were down at the Fight, Laugh, Feast conference.

Was it a conference, rally? What was it? Oh, both. Down in Franklin, outside of Nashville. We got to set up right next to a gentleman that we had not met, but have come to love. He is a international author, a professor, a theologian, historian, and he's host of Theology Pugcast, which is the coolest name for a podcast if you think about it.

It is the coolest podcast you guys will listen to. Oh my gosh. It's much, much, much better than ours. Okay, let's just throw that out there. Much smarter people on that podcast. Yeah, yeah, for sure.

And the dumb dad jokes on ours. Yeah, yeah, exactly. A couple knuckleheads trying to, yeah. Last fall, I was raking leafs to one of their episodes, and you know how you just kind of passively listen to a podcast when you're doing things?

I literally had to stop raking, rewind or go back 30 seconds a minute, re-listen. Happens many times. Okay, yep. Well, hold on. Go back. It's such deep and introspective and historical and theological.

You just go, man, there's a lot of meat in those podcasts. But today on the podcast, we have Mr. Glenn Sunshine. Glenn, how are you, sir? I'm doing great. The crowd's going wild for you. Yeah, live audience.

A pre-recorded live audience. So we do a little thing here, Glenn, called Newsy News. We just go over two or three subjects that popped up in the news this week. Feel free to join in and comment on it.

And after that, we are going to get into what we want to talk to you about tonight. So, Jason, do we have some news?

We absolutely have some news. Let's go to Newsy News. Yep. News, the news, the newsy newsy news, the news, the news, the newsy newsy news, news. We got some news!

Nice. Love that falsetto. We might have to put that on iTunes. So all of our friends out there can We will sell four copies of that at 99 cents. No, no, no. We'll put it for free. Let's just give that one away.

Okay, okay. But, all right, so What's our first news story? Yeah, check this out. A Washington man arrested for allegedly stealing 400 pound slide, mounting it to his child's bunk bed at his home. Now that sounds amazing.

That is totally a dad thing. He's a dad, right? Does it say he's a dad? Yes, he totally is. Yeah. Mounted it to his I have been tempted going down the street before and I saw an old slide in the trash and I went, I could rehab that.

I could put that on the side of the second story window and let the kids slide out. You remember those really dangerous slides that used to be on the playground, man. Yeah. Like, imagine having one right outside of your second story window and you just

Well, now see, when I was a kid, they used to make them out of 100 American made steel. Oh, yeah. So in the summertime, they'd be 211 degrees, just one degree below boiling. You couldn't boil your legs off, but you did get third degree burns when you went down it and it was not slippery at all.

Right. Yeah. So he stole it and then hooked it up to the kid's bunk bed, huh? Hooked it up to the bunk bed. And they got him. That's a great idea though. But how did he even get caught? Did he put it on Instagram?

Like, I just don't understand. Oh, geez. Nowadays, the government can come right into your house for a slide. I mean, geez. Yeah, they can do anything they want. If you can't have more than five people at your Thanksgiving dinner, what else can they tell you to do inside the privacy of your own home?

Exactly. What else we got there? Yeah, yeah. That was a fun one. So this one is interesting. Okay. Miss Silver State USA was awarded to a transgender person. Oh, I think I saw this. Cataluna Enriquez was crowned in the biggest preliminary competition for the Miss Nevada USA pageant.

So now we have men winning Miss Nevada. Yes. Is that what it is? Miss Nevada? Miss Silver. Miss Silver? State, yes. What is going on? Yeah, Nevada. How is this woman's empowerment, by the way, too? I don't know.

I love talking to third wave feminists and going, you know, so now we're just dominating and everything? I want to know where they're at on this, you know? Like, why are they not upset, you know? Well, it is a crazy thing.

I mean, yeah, we see, you know, the depravity of man, you know, in full force there when we can say, you know, eight-year-old kids can, you know, inject hormones and do those things. And we call, you know, more than two genders, which is outside of God's design.

But what's really funny, and when I say funny, not a laughing matter, but just ironical to me, is when you have these kind of liberal sex within themselves having to war against each other. So now you have a man, right, winning a competition just for women.

Where do feminists fall on this? No idea. Glenn, what's going on with this stuff? Have you ever heard of TERFs?

T-E-R-Fs. Oh, I think I have, yeah. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Oh. And it turns out that within the feminist movement, you have it split between trans exclusionary—actually, Caroline Rowling is a good example of this.

She nearly got canceled, but she's too popular and too rich for that to actually work. But she objected to the trans stuff, and they tried to cancel her. So she's sort of the poster child for the TERF.

But there is this split within the feminist movement between those who support trans and those who don't.

So now even inside of that, there's some intersectionality of like, well, I'm with this group within that group that says yay or nay to that. It's wild. I mean, even hearing about a male winning a weightlifting competition.

Well, a male who says he's a woman winning a weightlifting competition. I mean, duh. I mean, what do you think's going to happen? Right. Yeah, anyone that wants to argue with me about either the depravity of man or God being a God of wisdom and seeking after God to attain wisdom, you only have to look at this culture.

Yeah. I mean, it is absolutely insane that we've taken biological, scientific, just about anything from the stem, you know, the stems and just flipped it on its head and said there's more than one gender.

Men can become pregnant. It's like we've taken the basic core of the scientific foundation and just said, oh, no, doesn't matter. It's all what you think, feel, believe. And it's just insanity to me. Okay, well, why don't we finish up?

What do we got on the last one there? Okay, we got vaccine passports. What are they good for and how would they work? Experts discuss the possibility of showing proof of COVID -19 vaccinations in the U .S. in order to travel and potentially do other social activities.

As more and more people receive the vaccine, it becomes harder to tell who is fully vaccinated and who is not. So they are talking about us possibly wearing a yellow star, a bracelet. Are we getting a what are we going to be putting inside of our bodies to, you know, in our hand?

That's insane. Glenn, does the government have the right to make us produce a vaccine passport to be able to travel between states? What do you think?

I don't think so. And there are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, it's a violation of federal laws that already stand. It's a violation of HIPAA protection. So, you know, you're setting up a system where you've got contradictory laws here, which is itself a problem.

And then there's the right, the guarantee against unlawful search and seizure, which I think this would fall under. There are a whole host of things that are wrong with it. Right.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I feel like this is going to catch on, though. And it's funny because Mark Levin, who not a huge fan of, but I've read some of his books just to keep up on where he is about five, eight years ago, maybe six or seven years ago, came out with a book called Liberty and Tyranny.

He has two chapters dedicated to essentially him predicting that, you know, the overbearing tyrannical, what he called leftist government types would want to do is limit travel because it's a form of limiting freedom in the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution.

So he feels when you just from a constitutional standpoint, when you limit travel, you're actually limiting the expression of freedom, which, you know, when I read that, I think six years ago when I read the book, I thought that was an interesting point.

Now, now we see it coming to, hey, show me your piece of paper or you don't get to cross this imaginary line that separates these states. Well, we're seeing we see in two, two areas, two countries right now that are already implementing this in China.

They have already developed a COVID -19 vaccination certificate required for citizens of cross border travel in Israel. There's the green pass, an app that connected that's connected to a database listing everyone who's received the vaccine.

So we expect that from communist China, right? Right. For sure. I, I would expect that from a country that, you know, avows himself of being the bearer of freedom, personal rights, and the government having negative tech, certain rights of ours.

It's kind of sad that we're seeing that. But, you know, that actually, is that all we got for news? Yeah. Okay, cool. So that actually brings us into the kind of right into the next subject that we want to talk to Glenn about, obviously, like we said, at the top of the show, historian, author.

I mean, some of these books that he has to which the newest book I bought from him slaying Leviathan is that, is that your latest book or do you have another one coming out? Glenn slaying Leviathan.

That's the latest. Yeah. And just that one's the latest. There are a few others in the works.

Yeah. So for all of our listeners too, I highly recommend and I mean, it's available anywhere that you can purchase books pretty much. I think there's some digital eBooks of that floating around too, as well.

You have it in e-form. Yeah. And he really covers. I mean, he covers a lot of the stuff that I kind of, you know, wanted to ask him and Jason wanted to ask him. So, you know, we're in a time right now where we're really flirting with, you know, I call it a soft tyranny.

Some people go as far to say it's governmental tyranny. Maybe there's not a difference. Maybe there is. But the church is, you know, the church is seeing some of this, you know, persecution or at least not being privileged anymore, like we talked about on other episodes.

And I just look at, and I feel like a lot of my generation younger than me, even some older than me, don't really put it in perspective of, of history. And the older I get, the more I really appreciate history because those that don't understand it and study it and know what are doomed to repeat it.

And I said, you know, to Jason, boy, Glenn would be great to talk to about this. I mean, especially with the time that we're in. I mean, Dorian, do we have a historical reference for maybe mapping out what will happen if we go down this road of government tyranny, Glenn?

Well, yes, there are multiple examples that we see that where governments start off seeming to be benign or at least claiming to be benign and that take you in all kinds of places you don't want to go.

Inevitably, whenever you run into somebody who's proposing some kind of utopia, they're, they're totalitarian. You know, anybody, anybody who has a utopian vision is pretty much by definition at the top, because any dissent threatens becoming utopia, any program threatens becoming utopia.

So for the good of society, you must wash all this back.

So what would you say, just going off that line of reasoning, what would you say to someone who's maybe, and I don't want to put them in a box or, you know, prejudice them, but let's say they're a very progressive far left and they go, look at your founding fathers.

They had a utopia that they were creating with those documents. What would you say to someone like that, that calls the bill of rights and the constitution a type of utopia?

They don't know what a utopia is. That's sort of the short answer. The founders, the founders were acutely aware of the problem of human sin. I mean, a lot of them were heavily influenced by the Puritans who went from Calvin, who got it from Augustine or Luther for that matter.

The entire governmental system in the United States in the constitution is designed as a way of trying to prevent, number one, the government taking too much power, but number two, trying to find ways to block corruption before it can do too much damage.

That's what the whole idea of checks and balances is about. So yeah, so no, we're not dealing with the utopia.

And I feel like even when you have these very popular quotes, like the Jefferson quote that says government is a necessary evil, maybe rightly attributed him, maybe not. I feel like that gives you a little bit of an idea of what they were saying.

Look at, we understand that it's a type of evil, but sometimes a necessary one. And it's not a utopia, but it's the best that we can do at this time and for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah. And that's pretty much, that pretty much summarizes it. I mean, and Jefferson ultimately got that idea from St. Augustine. Yeah. Yeah. So there's very long history, very long tradition that the U .S. Constitution came out of.

And again, it's anything but utopia.

So I have this, I have this book and it is probably six or 700 pages thick, nice big thick book. And it's founding fathers quotes. Okay. And you can look everything up by subject and then what people, whatever the historical quote was on that.

And when I go through that, I have to say probably 85 of those has either some mention of a creator, of God, of grace, of some type of religious aspect. And then, you know, I will get in these discussions with my more liberal leaning friends and they will say, oh, they weren't, they weren't Christians.

They might've been deists, but they weren't Christians. They weren't believers. Where does that argument come from? Because when I read Samuel Adams and John Adams and James Monroe and Jefferson and all these others, there's so many references to the Bible and to creator into, you know, all the things that we hold dear as Christians, where, where does that leftist argument come from that?

Oh no, they were either atheists or deists or, you know, religious leanings whatsoever. How's it even become a thing that we even have to argue that.

A lot of it is really the result of the post enlightenment period. There's no question that the, well, there was a book called On Two Wings. I'm blanking out on the author off the top of my head. But it argued, I think correctly that the American Eagle flies on two wings.

One of them is Protestant Christianity and the other is the enlightenment. There's no question that there was an enlightenment influence on the founders, but there's also no question that there was a heavy Christian influence on them.

Even the deists bought into a lot of ideas from Christianity because they thought of them as common sense. They were only common sense because they grew up in a Christian culture. So what happened after the enlightenment, as you start getting this push toward increased secularism in society, really in the wake of the French revolution, especially, what you end up seeing happening is people start emphasizing the enlightenment side of things and de-emphasize things, the Christian side of them.

So this is going to hit America probably in the early 20th century is where a lot of this is really going to start coming through. Before that, you want...

Yeah, when it comes to the separation of church and state, I mean, how are we looking at these subjects now since we have so many things that are starting to come into play that, you know, do go against our Christian faith that do put us, you know, in a situation where we have to voice our opinion about abortion, where we have to voice our opinion about, you know, certain subjects.

I mean, like, where do we stand on that in this moment in history? Where do you think we are in that, Glenn? Glenn, just so you know, he's trying to get you to admit that you are post-mill along with him.

That whole question was just about eschatology. It's always about eschatology. I'm just kidding. Go ahead. That's a very good question, Jason.

Well, first of all, the answer, let's deal with the thing. You don't have the right to bring your religious faith in. You don't have the right to impose your religion. There's the separation of church and state.

You can't bring your religion into the public square. Okay, so let me ask this question then. If I am not allowed to advocate for my values, why are you allowed to advocate for yours? Because if, in fact, we're talking about no, you know, no special privilege given to religion, but also given the way the First Amendment is written, you can't deprive people, religious people, of their rights either.

Why is it that only secular people get the right to advocate for their viewpoint? Religious people cannot.

That's nonsense. Well, because non-religion is a viewpoint, is a religion in itself.

Yeah, absolutely. So I think that just by the terms of their question, they're basically saying that freedom of religion means we can do and advocate and fight for whatever we want, and you have to shut up.

Yeah.

Yeah. And, you know, I think that's why this goes back to making sure we are supporting and raising up godly leaders that actually speak that way, that speak with boldness and speak with conviction and obviously speak biblically about these issues, because I see as the culture progresses, it's going to get harder and harder to do that as the culture accepts.

I mean, you're only one generation away from major culture shifts. We've seen this over the last 30, 40 years and even longer than that. Yeah, it's true. I mean, like, Glenn, I was going to ask you, I was going to ask you this, what do you think America's or the world's golden calf is right now?

Where do you think we're at with the golden calf?

You know, that's a really interesting question. I would say that's actually a hard one to answer. I don't really have a good way of looking at it. Right now, we're very fragmented. The problem that we've got right now is that we have a whole bunch of what I would describe as sub-world views.

They're not complete world views. They're just partial world views. And these are all, the glue that holds all of them together is critical theory. Yeah, okay. And all of them are built around this idea that you've got oppressors and you've got people who are oppressed and the oppressed are virtuous and the oppressed are evil.

And you can mix and match categories. You can be an oppressor in one and oppressed in the other. And this whole matrix of things that we're dealing with here is increasingly what's dominating the culture.

But what that means is that each of these little special interest groups have their own little idol. So for the LGBTQ plus crowd, it's things related to sex. For the radical greens, it's, well, the environment.

For the critical race theorists, it's racial animosity and so on. There are a number of others as well. But again, the glue that holds them all together is this notion of how the society is structured coming out of this academic field, academic theory known as critical theory.

It's been around for decades, but now it's really coming home to roots here. So trying to identify a single golden calf in the midst of all this is pretty difficult. Right.

Yeah. I mean, I guess I was thinking about that this week whenever all of us, well, not all of us, most people got their stimulus check, you know, and you'd read online about how people are like, it wasn't enough.

You know, I'm not getting enough. I can't do anything with this. It's like, this is free money, you know, and not free. Well, it's not free. Sorry, sorry, sorry. You're talking to an elected official who's a constitutional conservative.

It's true. It's not free. But you know what I'm saying? They're throwing this money at us and, you know, of course, we have many categories here. Some people are angry, rightly so, because this goes on the backs of our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids more than likely.

But I mean, you know, will we ever get to the point once again where, you know, in slaying Leviathan, you brought up the Francisco's, you know, I thought that that was a really interesting group of people, the people that were only being paid.

Like, they would only get, you're going to have to help me with this one, but they would be beggars that would not receive money, but they would receive whatever they needed for that day. Maybe they were hungry, so they would only receive the food, you know, or whatever it is.

But do you think we'll ever get back to that point where monetary things won't mean so much to our society to where it's just like we're more minimalist, where we're not, you know, sitting around hoping for that next big thing in our life, the bigger house, the bigger car, you know, and I know that's probably a far stretch to bring up the Francisco's, but that's kind of my golden calf in my brain, I think, if I could say.

Yeah, the materialist thing, the more is having more, getting more acquisition and things like that, I think is big. I have a suspicion that that is not going to last. And the reason is that I am anticipating that there is a fair likelihood of a serious economic collapse in the US in my lifetime.

Yeah, well, yeah, and, you know, I'm actually looking at this, like, from the perspective of a complete shift in the global economy away from the US. And the reason for that, historically, great powers are always sunk by debt.

Yeah, if we were to try to pay off the debt right now, at a rate of $1 a second, it would take over 700 ,000 years. Wow. Wow. This is just simply unsustainable.

Yeah, yeah, it's absolutely insane. I want to shift gears here a little bit, because a little earlier, you mentioned critical theory. And I think that was something we wanted to talk to you about as well, like even critical race theory, which has been around since I think the late 70s, correct me if I'm wrong, mid-late 70s, but is now just kind of really gaining traction in the last few years.

If I'm a listener right now, and I've said, yeah, I've heard critical race theory, I've acronym, you know, CRT, I hear people kind of talking about it, but I'm kind of on the outskirts of it. I'm not a professor or a theologian, or I don't have a degree, but I want to know what it is.

What's a good way to explain that to our listeners without getting, you know, too professory, is that a word? But also, you know, explaining it correctly. What's the definition of that and how that came about?

Okay, first of all, there are different critical race theories, a pretty broad area. It started off in legal studies. A professor at Harvard Law argued that U .S. law is intrinsically, you know, it's baked into it that it's racist.

It's really about maintaining white supremacy, the entire U .S. law code. That's how it begins with that idea. From there, we get a woman named Kimberly Crenshaw, who is going to introduce the idea of intersectionality.

That is to say, you know, I talked about this matrix of oppressed or oppressed classes. The more oppressed classes you are in, the more moral authority that you have to speak. Okay, if you aren't in the oppressed classes, you don't really have much of a right to speak.

So those are sort of the roots, the two key roots. Where it emerges in Black Lives Matter in particular, the way this gets popularized, moving it out of the academy, moving it out of law school, the way this really hits is through, well, if you read the original manifesto of Black Lives Matter, what you will find it is a smattering of all kinds of different causes, many of which have nothing to do with race.

So anyone who is in an oppressed class is good. So we want to support LGBT because, well, we're in a heteronormative society, and that means that heterosexuals don't have moral authority, but the oppressed LGBTQ plus people do.

We want to support, we want to get away from patriarchy. So it talks about mothers and children, and the idea that we need to have a community to raise the children to the degree that the mothers and children are comfortable with it, completely omitting the fathers.

There's got to be a universal right to abortion, all of these kinds of things. So what critical race theory, which starts in the law school, morphs into something that ends up being a sort of an umbrella for all kinds of leftist organizations, all kinds of leftist causes, and so on.

They even did a Black Trans Lives Matter rally in Washington, excuse me, in New York. So it ends up being this umbrella of all of these different kinds of oppressive causes. But the fundamental point that stands behind it right now is that America is a fundamentally racist society, that it is baked into the system.

It's not clear whether they even believe the system can be reformed. Some do, some don't. Some think you have to tear the whole thing down and start over again. But it basically says that everything that happens, it fundamentally really revolves around race.

And if someone is a person of color and they perceive something as racist, it is racist, whether or not you intend it to be or not. It doesn't matter. They get the right to decide. And whites have to sit down and shut up because they don't have any kind of moral authority on the issue.

How does something like that infiltrate the church? Because I know there's popular national children's curriculum out there. Many evangelical churches are using and suggested reading is critical race theory, white fragility, all these things where they just take this social movement and then they put some words on it, and then they put it underneath the heading of a social gospel, which all three of us here know that's ridiculous.

But how does that infiltrate? And now we have Christians that, you know, so-called Christians that are essentially espousing and teaching and saying, you must learn about this critical race theory. And the four or five things you just mentioned about it, not one of them seem biblical.

How did we get to a point where we have many churches accepting this? And I would also say is a theory, not a principle. It's a theory, right? So is it even true? Right.

Yeah, this is, I'm about to say some very unpleasant things about American evangelicalism. I hope you don't mind. No, please do. Go ahead. Okay. We're all thinking it. I'm a historian. I'm a historian.

So let's look at this over time. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism were originally the same thing. They only split in the 1950s because of Billy Graham. I'm not going to get into the details there. Evangelicalism gradually became more and more because they were more willing to interact with the culture, unlike the fundamentalists.

They started having a certain degree of influence. Then a self-described evangelical by the name of Jimmy Carter got elected president in 1976. Time Magazine declared it the year of the evangelical. We have Jerry Falwell in the moral majority hitting the big time.

So suddenly evangelicalism became popular. It became, well, it's not popular. At least it became visible and influential and recognized. And there were a lot of people who had positive feelings about it in various sorts of ways.

But from there, what ended up happening is in order to appeal to more and more people, they began to adopt more and more elements of the culture to the point where today in many evangelical churches, what you have in place of worship, put that in scare quotes, is a concert followed by a TED Talk.

And it is a TED Talk. It is not biblical exegesis. It's how to feel good about yourself kind of thing. I mean, unfortunately, that's where it's ended up in a lot of places. You have new churches being built that don't look like churches.

They look like entertainment venues, concert halls. What does the architecture communicate? The architecture should say something to people. And when people go in and see that, they immediately think entertainment.

They immediately think concert. They don't think worship. So we're doing all of these things to accommodate to the culture. And at a point where the evangelical fad kind of starts dying out, they begin to accommodate to more and more things in the culture, not just putting in a Starbucks coffee bar or the concert and TED Talk thing.

They begin adopting ideas from the culture because by so doing, they hope that they're going to hold on to this popularity that they've had. Yeah.

They're going to have to keep up with it as well.

Right. Which means that you follow the fad. Right. That's becoming relevant. There's nothing less relevant than a church that thinks it's relevant or that tries to be relevant. Yeah, and we've said it quite a few times.

Oh, go ahead. There's one more thing in this, however, that does need to be said, and that's that although I will be the first person to argue that racism is a heck of a lot less of a problem today than it was when I was a kid, things are much better.

That doesn't mean that racial problems have gone away. And Christians do need to be aware of this. We do need to be concerned about it. And we do need to be fighting for true justice. Right. So when you have that, when you have it combined with, frankly, manipulative stuff from the media telling you how awful this problem is, how serious it is, when you're getting bombarded with these messages, it is actually appealing to something that is genuinely important and genuinely significant for Christians, because we should be fighting for justice.

But because we've lost the biblical foundation for what justice is, because we've forgotten the fact that the church has the resources to deal with the problem of racism, we think that critical theory is the only game in town.

So it's a combination of two different things that are going on here. Wow.

Yeah, that's so good. And I feel like sometimes this was birthed out of even the social justice movement. And I would ask you, Glenn, is, because I've had, I mean, believing Christians who seem sincere, I've known for a long time, you know, they're not political, but they just go, no, Christ taught social justice.

He said, feed the poor and clothe them and do all these things and turn the other cheek. He taught social justice. And then they, you know, point you right towards some leftist organization that doesn't have anything to do with the gospel, but is helping possibly air quotes again, helping the poor, the downtrodden or urban or underprivileged or whatever you want to name them.

Is social justice what Christ taught?

No, because among the other things, well, for example, Jesus said, feed the poor. He didn't say subcontract that out to the government. Amen. So let's just be clear here, because it turns out, well, let's do some numbers here.

Private charitable organizations, as of the last time I looked at the numbers, 70 of the money that is given to them goes to feed the poor or to whatever their particular cause is. They've got 30 overhead.

The last time I checked the government, it was 30 cents went to feed the poor and 70 cents went to government overhead. It is probably worse now because all of this was before the expansion of government in the Obama administration and since.

So in all likelihood, it's probably down to more like 25 cents to a dollar. So just in terms of financial responsibility, private charity is a much, much better way of dealing with issues of poverty. Let's take another part of it.

The government out of Washington can only do one size fits none policies. The more effective way of dealing with poverty is to have people on the ground who know the individuals who are involved, who know the communities and those kinds of things, and have them deciding how to administer the funds, how to work with them, and so on, because they have local knowledge.