Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable.

Happy Tuesday. Hope everyone is having a great week so far. If you are watching on YouTube, if we can get this side shot, I have a new desk and I'm super excited about it. It's not a big deal to you guys and it makes absolutely no difference in your life whatsoever. But I have kind of been struggling with a little desk that I did have and now I get to spread out and eventually I'm going to have all of these papers in front of me like a mad professor so I can be fully prepared to tell you everything that I want to tell you at once.

OK, that's all I wanted to say about that. Thank you. To those of you who watch on YouTube, if you don't subscribe on YouTube, if you're listening to this, then please subscribe. That would mean a lot to me. Also, if you love this show, it would mean so much to me. If you gave me a five star review on Apple podcast, that would be wonderful. You don't even have to say why, although I do love it when you guys give me this lengthy explanation of why you love the show, but it's totally fine if you don't.

That five star review would mean a lot to me if those are your true feelings. So thank you so much for listening and for watching. Today we are going to talk about the attorney general nominee, Merrick Garland. And why is this important? Because justice is important and this is the enforcer of justice in the United States. And so we had Bill Bar under President Trump. And towards the end of Trump's tenure, towards the end of Bill Barr's tenure there, there were some mixed feelings and mixed reviews about Bill Barr from conservatives.

I think for the most part, for a long time, most conservatives really liked Bill Barr. And then towards the end, people thought that he, you know, he was a grifter, that he betrayed Donald Trump. You guys know, I was I mean, I am a Bill Barr stand. I really liked so much of what he did when he was attorney general. But towards the end there, people kind of got sour on him. And now we have Merrick Garland.

You probably remember the name Merrick Garland from his nomination by President Obama to the Supreme Court that did not go through the Senate. You might remember that whole debacle with Mitch McConnell saying, look, we're not going to confirm a lifetime, a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court with a lame duck president, basically because this was after the 2016 election or right before the 2016 election. And so they wanted to put it off until a Republican president was able to appoint his own nominee.

Now, Merrick Garland is not an extreme leftist. I am not entirely disappointed by this nomination, by Joe Biden for attorney general. I think there are many worse picks. There were some people that were saying that it could be Stacey Abrams. There were some people that were saying it could be Andrew Cuomo. Oh, my goodness. If you don't know why that would be a disaster, please go back and listen to yesterday's episode, the interview that I did with Geneste about the corruption of Andrew Cuomo.

But thankfully, he has nominated someone who is not an extreme leftist and is is not an extreme progressive, still obviously not a conservative choice, but also not the worst choice in the world. However, the hearing yesterday was very troubling. The things that he refused to say as the enforcer of justice is the potential enforcer of justice. If he is confirmed and he probably will be confirmed, were very troubling. So the things that he said about racial equity, the things that he said or did not say also about racial equity and what he had to say about boys competing in girls sports and occupying what has traditionally been have traditionally been gender exclusive spaces.

And so we're going to go through a couple of those things that, again, this matters because justice matters. I mean, this affects people's everyday life and not just every person, but especially the most vulnerable people. And so it matters who the enforcer of justice is in this country. It matters what their beliefs are. It matters what their beliefs are in regards to the law. It matters what their worldview is. And so that's what we're going to talk about, mainly those two those two issues, what he had to say about racial equity and also what he had to say about gender in Title nine and boys competing against girls.

So let me back up a little bit and just give us a little bit of context. What is the attorney general I've kind of already said, but the attorney general holds the power of attorney in representing the government in all legal matters, nominated by the president to Merrick Garland was nominated. By Joe Biden, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, can be removed by the president at any time, the attorney general can be impeached and tried by Congress if deemed necessary.

You guys know Democrats control the Senate and it is very likely that he is going to be confirmed. Also, there are going to be Republicans that vote yes to confirm him as well. And so I don't even think it's going to be very close. I think that he will be confirmed easily. The attorney general prosecutes cases involving the government, also gives advice to the president and executive department when it is needed. The attorney general is the chief officer of the Department of Justice, does does a few things, enforces federal laws, provides legal counsel in federal cases, interprets the laws that govern executive departments, heads federal jails and penal institutions, examines alleged violations of federal laws, among some other things, the attorney general and the president.

They've got an interesting relationship. You might remember when Barack Obama said that Eric Holder was his wingman and that was a scandalous thing to say. It's not supposed to be that way. One quote that people liked that Merrick Garland said yesterday that he is representing the United States. He's not representing the president. And I think Bill Barr felt the same way. But a lot of Democrats didn't see it that way. They thought that he was just a shill for the president.

Well, Eric Holder was a was a shill for President Obama. And actually, let me correct myself, it wasn't Barack Obama who called Eric Holder his wingman. It was Eric Holder who called himself Barack Obama's wingman. And that was a problem. That is a stark difference from what we heard from Merrick Garland, who said, look, I'm not representing the president, I'm representing the United States. And that is good. Like that is something that we want to hear.

That's something that we want to see because we want to see, as we've talked about so many times, the importance of impartial justice. We want to see someone who views the interpretation of the law, the enforcement of the law impartially. This is a quote. This is this is a quote about the relationship between the attorney general and the president. One of the greatest challenges is the ability for the attorney general to balance his obligations to abide by the Constitution with the pressure of politics in the White House.

Attorney General Edward Bates once said, the office I hold is not properly political, but strictly legal. And it is my duty above all other ministers of state to uphold the law and to resist all encroachments from whatever quarter of Mir will empower. So they have to try to kind of wade through the politics of each decision or way through the politics surrounding each law. These are not policy makers are not supposed to be political. They're not actually supposed to be biased towards the president, even though they were nominated and can be fired by the president.

But they are supposed to remain impartial in interpretations and enforcement of the law. And Merrick Garland, of course, is promising to do that. Of course, all nominees are going to promise to do that in these hearings, but he probably is not as extreme as some appointments some nominees could have been. So he's a long time judge. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 by then-President Bill Clinton in 2016. After Justice Scalia's death, President Obama, like we said earlier, nominated him to fill to fill the seat.

But then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to give Garland a hearing. We've talked about the difference between that and then the nomination and confirmation of Amy CONI Barrett. We did that on an episode several months ago when all of that was happening. Biden has stated America's mandate as attorney general would be to renew the agency's commitment to civil rights and to combat domestic extremism. So already we're kind of getting that political language and you're kind of giving him a political task, because we have to ask ourselves, like, what does civil rights mean to Joe Biden and what does domestic extremism mean to Joe Biden?

Of course, the most people would agree civil rights is good, domestic extremism is bad. But we've already seen the politicization of these kinds of terms to mean something that is strictly political and strictly partisan and actually not impartial. And so that should worry us a little bit when we hear something like that from Joe Biden. Just a little bit more background about Merrick Garland while he was at the Justice Department, Garland supervise the investigation into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

And so he said this in his opening statement that he is committed to he is committed to prosecuting and going after the people who stormed the capital in combating domestic extremism. Again, I think one reason why people are having a tough time with that is not because they believe that the people who stormed the Capitol shouldn't be prosecuted because, of course, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The question is, what does it look like to combat extremism?

Is that going to be censorship of speech? What is going to be included under the category of extremists A. Is it going to be true extremism or is it just going to be views that someone arbitrarily says will one day lead to extremism and that's a problem like is supporting President Trump going to be linked to extremism when millions and millions and millions of people who voted for him have no extremist bone in their body and have never done anything in the way of extremism?

So people are worried about political bias when it comes to things like this. Not that anyone is actually against battling domestic extremism, because that's someone that benefits something that benefits every law abiding person. People on the right are saying things like this. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, says that he intends to vote for Garland and said that he is, quote, a fundamentally decent human being. Senator Chuck Grassley said on Monday to Garland, I just want to say I like you, I respect you, and I think you are a good pick for the job.

But I have a lot of questions about how you are going to run the Department of Justice. And I would say that that is that kind of deference, that kind of respect, that kind of, hey, I like you as a person, but I disagree with you on on certain things. You just don't see that kind of treatment coming from Democrats when it has to when it's Republican nominee. It's like you certainly didn't see that with Judge Kavanaugh, then Judge Kavanaugh.

You didn't see that with Amy CONI Barrett. You don't see that. You didn't see that with Bill Barr. You don't see that with Republican nominees. It's always this person is going to bring in The Handmaid's Tale and is going to bring in the apocalypse in the end to civil rights in America. And so we have to treat them like the enemy that they are. We're just playing on two different playing fields, whereas Republicans have a different view in general that, OK, I disagree with this person on policy, but if they show themselves to be basically decent, then I'm not going to go after them as if they are my arch nemesis.

I'm saying that in general, I'm not saying that no Republicans go after unfair attacks or ad hominem attacks, but in general, the right and the left, Democrats or Republicans in Congress have two very different views and different approaches to nominees that are nominated by the president of a different party. And the left is saying things like this. Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois. There have been few moments in history where the role of attorney general and the occupant of that post have mattered more that more than 150 former Justice Department officials have written to Congress supporting Garland's nomination, including former attorneys general Loretta Lynch, Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzalez, along with 61 former federal judges.

Other backers include two sons of former Attorney General Edward Levi. So you've got a lot of Democrats, a lot of people on the left, a lot of people in the justice system who support him. Now, depending on where you are in the political spectrum, you could see that as a bad thing because you could maybe believe that he is a swamp rat or he is part of the establishment and that the establishment is against the people. And so that might make you a little uncomfortable if you are anti-establishment and if you're worried about the growth of the swamp, you could see him as just another swamp creature.

The Hill writes about Garland's judicial record. Despite nearly two decades on an appeals court, Garland's record still presents questions about how he'd vote on hot button issues, including abortion, gay rights and the death penalty should he be confirmed. Obama said that he was a centrist. Now, if Obama said he was a centrist, that probably means that he leads leans to the left. And so there are a lot of different questions on where he stands, on things like the Second Amendment, even where he stands on the First Amendment, where he stands on abortion.

In 2015, Priests for Life sued the Department of Health and Human Services Challenge, challenging the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. The D.C. Court of Appeals sided with the administration. The Obama administration ruling that priests for life to religious rights were not burdened by having to opt out of the contraception mandate. After Priests for Life asked for a review of the case, Garland sided with the majority, denying a rehearing of the case. He never gave a reason for why he decided that.

And so that just is one indication of where he will probably land when it comes to abortion. Now, let's talk about a couple of highlights from from his hearings yesterday. I want to play you this clip between Senator John Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana, and Merrick Garland, in a question about biological men competing in female sports.

I just want to know what you believe. Allowing biological males to compete in an all female sport deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes.

It's a very difficult societal question that you're asking here. I know what underlies know what you're going to be attorney general, but I may not be the one who has to make policy decisions like that. But it's not that I'm adverse to it. Look, I think every human being. Should be treated with dignity and respect. So he said that that's a difficult question, which is just fascinating when you take a step back and you think and you think about that statement at no other point in history before the past, I would say even just two to three years, maybe maybe five years, if I'm being generous, would that ever have been considered a difficult question?

It's not a difficult question. It's a no brainer that, of course, biological men being fundamentally, biologically, physically different than women and superior stronger in most regards than women, should not be competing against women in sports because that's unfair to women. Women just do not have the physical ability to be able to compete against athletic men. That is a fact that it's not misogynistic. That's not sexist. That's just how God made us. We have lower bone density.

We have lower anaerobic anaerobic lung capacity. We have less muscle mass. Our brains work differently. Everything about us, a lot of things about us.

I shouldn't say everything, but a lot of things about us are are different. They're they do not provide for fair competition or an even playing field in any way. And so when Merrick Garland says that we need to treat everyone with dignity and respect, my question is, well, what about girls? Like, is it dignified and respectful to force girls to share a locker room or a bathroom with biological males? There is this report that's coming out of Palm Springs, and it's about a naked man that was showering in a women's locker room, leaving them traumatized.

Here's what the report said. A group of waterpolo, players from Palm Springs High School, have gone public after they say they after they say they recently encountered a naked man showering in the women's locker room area, leaving them traumatized. Christine Foster, a parent of a 17 year old senior on the team, told Katie Askew that her daughter and two teammates saw the person as they entered the locker room after practice, which took place at the Palm Springs Swim Center, which is operated by the city.

According to the report, coaches confronted the person who told them they were in the locker room because they identified as female. So this article is using they as this persons, the pronouns police were called but did not pursue a case. The city of Palm Springs has now offered a temporary solution that will see the installation of a unisex shower near the locker rooms at the swim center. Of course, that is not going to solve. That's not going to solve the problem here, because if someone if a man who says that he identifies as a woman wants to truly be a woman and live life as a woman, he is going to want to go into the women's bathroom even at the expense of young girls who don't want to shower next to a biological man.

And what I am hearing is that that is bigoted. That is wrong for teenage girls to not want to shower by a naked man just because he identifies as a woman. I mean, that's insane. We have reached surely this is the peak of insanity, surely. Right. Surely we can't get past this. And so if Merrick Garland wants to talk about the dignity and respect of people, then that should also include women. That should also include women who deserve an even playing field when it comes to sports, who deserve sex protected spaces, when it comes to bathrooms, when it comes to locker rooms, when it comes to prisons, places in which women are vulnerable.

But that would require us to look at to look at human biology and to look at nature and to look at the physical distinctions between men and women. And that Rex transgender ideology. If you are reading Brave New World with us, you will recall that science is manipulated and science is seen as something that is enemy, an enemy to ideology. Science is seen as something that is very dangerous and has to actually be manipulated. Nature is something that has to be manipulated, has to be hidden, has to be engineered in order to go after ideological aims.

And that's certainly what we see with this kind of ideology. And that's troubling when you think about justice in the law being enforced. If we want to treat everyone with dignity and respect, you can treat transgender people with dignity and respect. Absolutely. And I think that we should and people who struggle with gender dysphoria, we should understand that those feelings are real for those who are truly diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they feel discomfort in their body. We can show all the compassion, all the dignity, all the respect in the world to those people, but not at the expense of the safety of women and girls and the fairness of women and girls to be able to compete on an even playing field.

And so it troubles me that Merrick Garland. Was unable to answer this, as obviously as he should have known. I understand he's in a hard position because you've got an entire political party in that room who actually believes that it's totally fine for men to be able to go into women's locker rooms and to take showers next to young girls, no matter how no matter how humiliated, no matter how traumatized those young girls may be. And they would have I mean, their ideology requires this for them not to have any problem whatsoever with a grown man in a city bathroom or city building like this one in Palm Springs who identifies as a woman, hasn't had any surgery or anything like that, but identifies as a woman going in and taking a shower next to a 13 year old girl.

I mean, they can't say that they have any problem with that because their ideology says that trans women are women.

And so if you truly believe that, then why would you have a problem with something like that? But for all sane people, for all the people who still have our head screwed on, hopefully for Merrick Garland, like you can see the problem with that. I mean, that is in line with assault, forcing a young girl to stand next to a naked man in a locker room or in a bathroom or in a shower space or in a prison or in a women's protection shelter.

And it troubles me that Merrick Garland is apparently on the fence on that and says that that is that's a debatable and a difficult question. It's not a difficult question. It's not a difficult question. And if we were still in the land of the sane, we would all be laughing at anyone who said that. That was a difficult question. This is from the Blaze Dotcom crisp. And also, he says, as attorney general, Garland will be the attorney for the government and controversies where people sue in discrimination cases.

So if a girl sues a school for letting boys play her sport, presumably Garland will argue in favor of the government's position on this, which Biden has made clear that boys should be able to compete against girls in sports. And so that's why in this regard, his nomination and confirmation matters. That's why his view on this matters. And so, unfortunately, you're not getting a champion for women and girls in Merrick Garland, even though I think that he has some other good characteristics.

You're not going to find him on the right side of that issue, unfortunately. And there's another issue that I think he happens to just be confused about, and that is the issue of equity. And so we're going to wade into some controversial waters. We're going to talk about his exchange with Tom Cotton and why he doesn't really understand what equity means and why we have to make sure that we understand what equity means. It's not just equality under the law.

It's not just impartial treatment as we want it to mean. It actually means something else. And we need to make sure that we are very clear about that. So we understand how Merrick Garland, how the attorney general will represent and enforce the law when it comes to so-called racial equity. Before we get into that, I do want to tell you guys about a sponsor that you guys have heard me talk about before, because they are one of my favorite sponsors and that is Ani's Kit Club.

So we all know the detrimental impact of too much screen time for kids. Kids kind of just numbing their brain with electronics, whether it's TV or whether it's computer, iPad, phone, whatever. Sometimes they just need a break from that and they need some real life hands on skills. And Annie's kit clubs make sure that that can happen for your child. They have a young woodworkers club, a monthly subscription that puts real tools into your child's hand, starting with a great kid sized hammer.

Every month your child will receive and will receive an all in one woodworking kit with the materials and the tools that kids need to make an awesome woodworking project with minimal supervision. Another amazing club is Annie's Creative Girls Club, which tends to fund craft projects every month, complete with easy to follow instructions. You can kick start her creativity through painting, beading and more so kids develop actual skills. They master real world building or new crafting techniques while expressing their creativity.

And so there's just there's so many benefits to this. Go to Annie's kit clubs, dot com slash alley, save seventy five percent off your first shipment. That is in kit clubs, dotcom slash alley, save seventy five percent off your first shipment. That is Annie's kit clubs, dotcom slash alley.

All right, now I want to talk about equity and Tom Cotton and his exchange with Merrick Garland about this subject.

Yes, I think discrimination is morally wrong. Absolutely. You're aware that President Biden has signed an executive order stating that his administration will affirmatively advance racial equity, not racial equality, but racial equity. Yes.

And I read read the opening of that executive order, which defines equity as the fair and impartial treatment of every person without regard to their status.

So it's very important for us to distinguish what equity actually what equity actually is, because it does sound good. I said something about it on Twitter. A lot of people got mad. They said that I misunderstand that someone that someone would have hurt me because I don't understand equity. I would actually posit that these people don't understand equity and that they have just accepted a term that sounds good to them and have never actually ask themselves what it means or what it looks like in practice.

This is not equality before the law. I think traditionally it's meant being treated equally in the eyes of the law. But once you understand critical race theory and understand where this term is being developed in and being redefined in how it is being redefined, you understand that equity actually means something very different when progressives use it. Equity as critical respect for insuring some people are treated differently, given preferential treatment to try to ensure that they end up in the same place as other people.

Now, where am I getting this idea? I'm getting this idea from people like Ebix Candy and other critical race theorists like him. Racial equity is giving a certain kind of treatment to a non-white groups to try to ensure that they end up in the same place as white groups. So to try to close the outcome gaps between the two groups.

Kamala Harris, she put out a video, I think it was the day before the election where she said that equity means everyone ending up in the same place. So it's not just people starting out in the same place. It's not just people being given equal opportunity, but equity, according to Kamala Harris and other people who have her worldview, is everyone ending up in the same place? And so critical race theorists mean that you have to give certain treatment towards one group that they would say has been historically oppressed.

In order to lift them up, you have to hold back another group so that you can make sure that everyone ends up the same. Of course, there is a flaw to this, your theory because of a few reasons. It's based on the assumption that non-white people do not already receive equal treatment under the law. There are currently no laws on the books today that explicitly discriminate against non-white people, period. There is no legalized discrimination against minority groups in the United States in twenty twenty one.

So in order to prove as critical race theorists believe that racism in America is nonetheless still systemic and that therefore the system must be changed in order to make things fair and, quote, equitable for everyone. Activists then, like Obama, Candy, have to point to disparities between groups to then prove that the system that is in place, its laws, its function, is still racist because, as Candy argues, regardless of the policy's intent, if it allows for or creates gaps between racial groups, it is in fact racist.

So to be anti-racist, he posits to achieve so-called equity, which means to make sure there are no longer any gaps between white Americans and black or brown Americans. It's not enough just to have equal treatment under the law, but the system much must actually be be tilted and changed in the direction of those who have been historically oppressed black Americans in order to rectify the past wrongs against them that supposedly are causing the outcome gaps today. I hope you're following.

So to summarize, the critical race theory argument is America is pervasively racist. It's white supremacist. That is the reason for the gaps in, for example, high school graduation rates, income, crime rates, homeownership, etc. between white and black Americans. These gaps prove the white supremacist system and that has been historically and unceasingly rigged against black and brown Americans. And in order to write this wrong, in order to not just be not racist, which would mean treating everyone equally, what we traditionally understand equity to be, but to be anti-racist, to achieve new fangled racial equity, there must be different treatment of whites and nonwhites in, for example, admissions, hiring processes, perhaps sentencing, even curriculum, as we've seen in so-called equitable math courses in which non-white students are told that finding the right answer to math problems is unnecessary in order to help them pass.

Math classes close that success gap. And if that sounds bigoted, if that sounds ridiculous, if that sounds absurd to you, that's because it is. That is the soft bigotry of low expectations. And if all of that sounds like it is based on a faulty premise, that's because it is in the faulty premise is that disparities between two groups is due to discrimination and injustice when that's not automatically and always and unconditionally necessarily true. We've talked about this many times on this podcast is Thomas Sole writes about in his book Discrimination and Disparities in Quest for Cosmic Justice.

There's two different books. Disparities do not automatically prove discrimination. And assuming they do, actually causes us to miss the variety of other factors that could be coming into play that cause one group, for example, to have higher employment or higher graduation rates. So once we realize this, we very easily dismantle the entire argument that the playing field has to be tipped in favor of one group and out of favor or in favor of another group in order to close gaps and achieve so-called new fangled equity, which is Kamala Harris said, means everyone ending up in the same place.

Thomas Sowell says this in a 2015 article, Equality before the law is a fundamental value in a decent society. But equality of treatment in no way guarantees equality of outcomes. On the contrary, equality of treatment makes equality of outcomes unlikely, since virtually nobody is equal to somebody else in a whole range of skills and capabilities required in real life. When it comes to performance, the same man may not even be equal to himself on different days, much less a different periods of his life.

So Soul is saying that everyone being treated equally under the law is necessary. It's good. I agree with that. Obviously, anywhere that we see that's not happening, we do have an obligation to say something that would be a definition of injustice, especially according to God's word. God hates partiality. He hates the playing field to be tipped in the direction of one group or another. He wants everyone to be treated impartially under the law. He reiterates that in both the old and the New Testament, but equal outcomes is never guaranteed.

And it's not something that we can fairly guarantee. We shouldn't try to guarantee it because people are different. If two if two siblings from the same family, same background, same parents, same education, same upbringing, same socioeconomic status, if two siblings end up in different places and different stations in life, how in the world is it possible for a third party, the government, to guarantee that people from entirely different backgrounds, with totally different talents and interests and choices and DNA end up in the same place?

You can't you cannot guarantee that unless you are constantly tipping the playing field in one direction or another in order to try to make sure no one succeeds more than anyone else in order to create this so-called equity. Everyone ending up in the same place, what Thomas Sowell calls impossible cosmic justice and trying to ensure that everyone is constantly in the same place despite their interest, despite their choices, despite what path they take is impossible outside of tyranny. Thomas Sowell argues elsewhere that you'll notice every attempt at equal outcomes ends in what he calls equality downward.

It is impossible to force people upward and to keep them there. It is only possible to force people downward. An example of this is San Diego schools getting rid of the traditional grading scale. Everyone is then held to a lower standard, rather than giving the struggling students the tools to reach the higher standard. The the problem with this is let me give you another example. So if everyone today just had zero dollars, they had zero dollars. We didn't have any property to our name.

And the government then gave everyone thirty thousand dollars and then said, do what you will. By next year we would have millionaires and we would have people who are broken in debt. So what would you then have to do to rectify this gap and make everything even again? You would have to take money from the people who have money and give it to the people that don't have money. And you would constantly be having to do this until everyone was the same over and over and over again.

People circumstances are different. Their choices are different. So trying to force everyone to end up in the same place, this new definition of equity requires unequal treatment because the state is going to have to continually punish those who get too far ahead. And they'll justify it by saying all disparities are actually due to discrimination and therefore disparities must be closed to achieve so called equity. The reality is what we know about human nature, what we know about people, what we know about societies.

These things have been studied for a very long time. We know that fatherhood, family, faith, all of these things have a much bigger impact in the United. States in twenty twenty one on where a child ends up in life than probably any other factor. So every study shows us that the child who grows up in a family with a mom and a dad has a lower chance of dropping out of high school, getting pregnant as a teenager, being depressed or suicidal, turning to drugs, are becoming incarcerated as a teen.

And then the child who grows up with a single mom, for example, that's not bashing single moms. Moms are awesome, whether they're single moms or whether they're stay at home moms or whatever. You know, mom, you are moms are amazing. I'm not trying to bash that. I didn't agree that in any way. But that's what the studies show, that fathers matter. Moms also matter. Kids of two parent homes are likely statistically to avoid poverty, to avoid teen pregnancy, to avoid teen incarceration at a higher rate, at least than those who are in a single parent home.

We know that the two of the best ways to avoid prolonged poverty, according to the Brookings Institute, is graduating from high school and waiting until after you get married to have kids. I know that's not how life goes for a lot of people, and they end up great and fine and OK. And that is good. And I know that's not easy for a lot of people. I'm not trying to say that it is. But again, that's what the studies show.

That's what the statistics show, that these are the the most, most sure ways to be able to avoid prolonged poverty. My point is that if we assume that all disparities then are just due to discrimination, they're just due to an unfair system or racism. We miss other more pressing factors at play and then we end up offering the wrong solutions because we diagnose the wrong problem. We end up bringing the government into situations where the government really doesn't. It can't help.

It doesn't have the resources to be able to rectify these wrongs when we don't even bother to look at some of the other issues going on that need our attention, people are going to continue to suffer. That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that some gaps aren't due to discrimination or that discrimination in twenty, twenty one in America is impossible or that it should be ignored where it does happen. But I am saying that the aims of anti-racist racial equity are very often misguided because they're driven by critical race theory, which asserts America is pervasively, systemically racist and white supremacist, and that this must be rectified by the government to achieve justice.

And it's just not true, as we've talked about, to make the argument, to make that particular argument, you have to conveniently leave out that Asian-Americans enjoy the highest median income, the lowest unemployment rates, the lowest crime rates, highest college graduation rates, lowest rate of single parent households. Asian have the Asians have the lowest denial rates for mortgage loans in the country. And so if this were truly just a white supremacist society that punishes people who are not white or punishes it or punishes immigrants or is a system that is set up to only allow white people to succeed, you're going to have to answer for why Asian-Americans, even immigrant Asian-Americans, are typically more successful across a variety of factors than white Americans are.

But of course, that is inconvenient to the critical race theory narrative that seeks to find racial equity through contriving a variety of factors so that everyone ends up in the same place by, you know, by getting rid of white supremacy that they claim is systemic. And so this matters. This matters when we're talking about the enforcement of justice. This matters when we're talking about the enforcement of the law. And I'm not sure that Merrick Garland is totally woak enough to be able to understand how the definition of equity has changed.

We all agree with the definition of equity that says people should be treated impartially, people should be treated fairly, that we should all get equal treatment. The problem is what this actually looks like. Like do you believe that affirmative action is a form of equity? Do you believe that some traditionally privileged groups like white Americans or Asian Americans need to be discriminated against in order to achieve equity in order to achieve equality? Well, that's going to be a problem because a lot of people don't agree with that, and rightly so.

If we just agree and enforcing the law and treating everyone equally that I'm completely on board with that. And anywhere that's not happening, we should absolutely call out to uncover and we should fix. I am 100 percent on board with that. But if by equity you mean tilting the playing field continually in certain directions until everyone ends up in the same place, well, then I have a problem with that. Because you don't understand human nature. You don't understand what the real problems are and you don't understand what the real goal is.

The goal should not be to everyone ends up in the same place, but that everyone is. Sided with as much opportunity as possible to be able to achieve the things that they want to believe or want to achieve and that they are able to achieve, that is not guaranteed, that people are going to end up in the same place at all. They're still going to be gaps between individuals. That's just how things are. Everyone is different, as we have already discussed.

And so I think that's something that we need to watch out for. We already know that the Biden administration is fixated on critical race theory. They have undone anything that that President Trump tried to do in getting rid of critical race theory and tax funded agencies. And certainly we have seen the kind of critical race language coming out of his administration. And I think that we can't expect this kind of tilting of the playing field in the hopes of making sure everyone ends up in the same place.

Of course, that's always been the goal of communism and socialism as well. And it just it doesn't end well. It doesn't end well. And so those are the things that I think that we need to look out for. Like I said, this matters because justice matters. Because truth matters. Because the rule of law matters. I am not entirely terrified by this pick for attorney general. I do think that he will do the bidding of the Democrats.

I do think that he is left leaning ideologically. And so there are things to conservatives that we should that we should certainly care about. But I'm glad it's not Andrew Cuomo. I'm glad it's not Stacey Abrams. I'm glad it's not a whole host of very radical people that he could have picked. He is closer to the center than some nominees certainly are. Potential nominees could have been. And so it's not the it's not the worst news in the world.

And I kind of I wish all of his nominees were like this and fit into this category. Unfortunately, unfortunately, they don't. So he will get confirmed. But we need to pay attention. We need to make sure that we're looking out for some of these issues that as conservatives and particularly as conservative Christians, we are concerned about. All right. That's all I got today. Tomorrow, we are going to talk about Ravi Zacharias. We are going to talk about Carl Lentz.

We are going to talk about some other Christian leaders. I think Max Lucado as well, who a lot of people, a lot of people are disappointed in in a quite a few of our Christian leaders right now. And so we're going to take a look at some of these so-called scandals. And some of them really are scandals. And we're going to look at some of this controversy and we're going to talk about how we work through this from a biblical perspective and how Christians should think about it.

So we'll be back here tomorrow with all of that. I'll see you guys in.