Our Fallen World

DC McAllister – Transgender Restrooms In North Carolina

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “In our fallen world, we’ve chosen to imitate the girl on the cover of Cosmo.  We tell our children: You want to be like the baseball player, the football player.  That’s fine to desire vocations, don’t get me wrong.  We have our models all out of whack here.  You’re going to get screwed-up people and screwed-up results.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

D.C. McAllister:  . . . you’re losing your freedom all in the name of you being afraid of not appearing to be tolerant.  This is how this agenda is promoted.  This is why you have six in ten people in America saying they oppose North Carolina in what they’re doing.

Mike:  That’s right.  They’re spineless, yellow-bellied cowards.

McAllister:  I think there’s a couple things going on.  First of all, there’s rampant ignorance, and I mean that you don’t know.  I don’t mean that you’re stupid.  People who think that North Carolina is wrong here, you don’t know what you’re talking about.  You probably don’t know the facts.  You probably don’t know that Charlotte overreached its authority and instituted laws contrary to the laws given to it by the State of North Carolina’s constitution.  It overreached its boundaries.  You probably don’t understand the kind of dictatorial imposition on businesses and privacy that was going on with the Charlotte ordinance, that North Carolina was protecting people from.  You probably don’t know a lot that’s going on here.  I would say get educated about it.

Number two, even if you are educated and you still think that LGBT should get their way here and North Carolina is so wrong, I think that’s rooted a lot in just this kind of in-group mindset.  You don’t want to be in the out group.  I want to be in the group that’s not looked upon as being criticized.  You’re not the bad guy.  You want to be with the good guy group.  It’s going to take some strength of will on the part of the American people to be able to step out of the group of your friends, of your society, and be the scapegoat, be in the out-group and have people think you’re bad and racist and bigoted.  All you’re doing is standing for truth.  That’s going to take some strength.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

Mike:  Fortitude.

McAllister:  Fortitude and being able to know what’s true.  The problem, the underlying problem of all of this is one thing.  When you abandon objective truth and moral absolutes, this is what you get.  If we are not going to get back to that as a society, we are going to live in moral chaos.

Mike:  We already do live in moral chaos.  When I send you a headline this morning that says “How Porn Brought My Mom and I Together,” it’s over.

McAllister:  What you notice from that story, what was sad about that story –

Mike:  It was tragically sad.

McAllister:  Aside from just the porn part, just having a mother embrace the daughter’s porn lifestyle – that can be a whole other story about personal relationships that we don’t even know that’s going on.  What I notice from that story is that her moral standard was her mother’s feminism, what was approved or not approved by feminism.  Would feminism allow for my porn to be acceptable?  We set up all these subjective standards.  LGBT, that’s the moral code.  That’s the moral standard.  Whatever the LGBT agenda is is now our moral code, or whatever feminism is is our moral code, or whatever the Democratic Party is is our moral code, or populism, whatever the mob wants is our moral code.  We have all these subjective, independent moral codes that are all vying for power.

Mike:  That’s right.  There can only be one.  There can only be one objective truth.  That’s why it is an objective truth.  It’s an object and it’s true.  The difficulty comes in when we have detached ourselves from the truth.  When we talk about women, and when you write about women, and when I think of my daughters and my wife and my mother, and when I think about femininity and the nature of woman, my thought process goes something like this: There can be no higher distinction, no higher title earned ever, and maybe not even earned, just divinely directed ever, than actually being chosen to bear the son of God.  There is nothing any woman that will ever do that can ever top that, nothing.

When we see Mother Mary, when we see Immaculate Mary, she doesn’t appear in a bikini.  I’ve never heard of a Mary sighting in anything other than beautiful, flowing gowns, usually white, with a blue veil.  We don’t even know what hair color she has.  There is a beauty there.  My point is, it doesn’t get any higher or better than that.  If women were aspiring, if that’s the model of as good as it gets, kind of like the Roman hero, the Greco-Roman gladiatorial general-type hero for masculine men as a model, I think that’s mistaken.  There’s a book out there called My Imitation of Christ.  I try to read from it at least a paragraph or two every day.  You can’t pick better models than that.

In our fallen world, we’ve chosen to imitate the girl on the cover of Cosmo.  We tell our children: You want to be like the baseball player, the football player.  That’s fine to desire vocations, don’t get me wrong.  We have our models all out of whack here.  You’re going to get screwed-up people and screwed-up results.  That’s the order that has to be – that’s the order and that’s the virtue that you can point to that is The Objective Truth that I think Denise McAllister just spoke of here on the Veritas Radio Network’s Crusade Channel.

McAllister:  Even as a Protestant – I’m a Protestant – I believe in the divine feminine.  There’s masculinity and femininity.  From the very beginning God said one of the most foundational parts of our humanity was that we were made male and female.  It’s part of our identity, part of our ontology.  When we reject that there’s even an ability to know or there’s even the existence of these kind of objective realities in life, as much as we have epistemological questions about how we know these things and the discussions that come from that, but when it comes to actually having a recognition that there are these objective standards about who we are, even our very being, when that goes out the door and we just start creating our own realities, it’s really a self-worship.  It’s a self-idolatry, in that I am my own god, that I am the definer of my own existence, that I am the definer of truth.

We have five billion people on this planet.  Everyone is like their own little god, their own little definer of truth, and then they group together.  How do we function in a society like that, when you completely reject the idea that there is any kind of objective knowing, that we can come together and figure out.  When you think it’s totally inordinate and subjective, all you’re going to have is war.  You’re going to have chaos.  You’re going to have the jungle mentality of fighting for yourself and for your own agenda.  However it’s defined, it can be different groups doing it in different ways, but the ultimate result is you’re fighting about it.  It’s about whoever has the most power.  This is why they’re all statists.  This is why we ultimately, when we reject moral absolutes and objective truth, statism is the result.  You need a power strong enough to enforce your subjective will.

Mike:  This is our Veritas et Sapientia quote of the day.  GK Chesterton, the great philosopher, came here to the United States.  I believe he made one visit.  There’s a small piece of footage that you can watch on YouTube of Chesterton being awarded some kind of – you know how they give these ceremonial doctorates at universities, something like that.  He kind of did an English version of de Tocqueville.  He wrote about it.  I started reading it this morning.  I was intrigued.  I said: I wonder what Chesterton, did he write about America?  He did.  What he wrote about was, being in England, and reading and hearing about it and actually going and visiting here and seeing it up close and personal, the United States and the people of the United States had developed a creed.

You mentioned that you’re Protestant.  I would invite you to channel something when you write about these things, and it’s not me telling you, [mocking] “All right, little Denise, I’m smarter than you.  Let me tell you.”  This is just something that’s helped me.  There was a series of conventions that were convened, that took place in Baltimore in 1870, ’71, ’72, and ’73.  They wrote reports.  It’s called the National Reform Alliance.  There was a group of Protestants that were mortified and horrified at the carnage of Lincoln’s war, and that their countrymen were actually capable of this.  They met in convention to discuss what they thought was wrong, and then to propose a solution.  Their solution was to amend the Constitution.  Their proposed amendment, which you can read, never made it out of a committee in Congress.  What they basically said was: We got the order wrong.  We the people cannot be the source of authority, and when we are, this is what we get.  We have to get the order correct, and then we can get the Constitution –

Anyway, if you read the proceedings of the convention – you can find them on books.google.com.  That’s where I read them.  I print out the chapters I want to read.  There are some speeches in there where this day is predicted.  It’s predicted in 1870, ’71, ’72, ’73, I don’t think with the detail that it was predicted.  Those Protestants recognized and they were troubled by this, that Americans had adapted and adopted basically: We’re Americans.  We can pretty much do whatever we want.  We can be our own bishops and our own priests and our own popes and we can make our own rules.  If we don’t like them, we can change them.  We don’t answer to anyone other than us.  The NRA was mortified by this and they begged their countrymen to change course, and we didn’t.  Thus you and I are having this conversation in 2016.

McAllister:  We can probably have a whole different conversation about that.  The balance of power and separation of powers which is the solution to, the check on too much individuality was something that was recognized by our founders.  Our founders were definitely a fusion between Christianity, Judeo-Christian ethics, and the Enlightenment.  They certainly weren’t bent on instituting any kind of, I don’t want to say religious creed, because they weren’t.  It was more about: What is the function of government?  The function of government is simply to protect your rights.  The people are wicked and evil, so you have to balance out power.

There are so many different levels to the American society.  That’s why I really think de Tocqueville is the best one to read when it comes to really understanding the development of American democracy and how to maintain it.  He was really strong on – he guarded against too much individuality.  He said if you have too much individuality, then you’re going to have anarchy eventually.  He said the checks on that, of course, is the civil society, the home – this is why the attack on the family is so bad.  It’s one of the biggest checks on the individuality gone awry.  The family, then the Church, within the civil society, those need to be functioning well.  When it comes to government, government needs to be fully federalistic.  It needs to have balance of powers.  It needs to have separation of powers.  The states need to be free in their own sovereign way from the control of federal government.  Through these different layers of balancing power, you protect the rights of the individual.

We’ve not only lost so much of the core function of the civil society, but we’ve also tipped the balance of power within the government.  We’re really at odds here and really threatened.  I think that fundamental cultural, philosophical, religious foundations in the civil society have been lost.  With the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of the Church, that was what was necessary.  To me it’s not so much that our system as developed by our founders was wrong, because

[/private]

I would have to probably disagree a little bit with the people in Boston.  I think our system is fine.  As de Tocqueville said, for that system to function, you have to have a strong moral civil society.  If you don’t have a strong moral civil society, that system will only be able to hold it in check for so long.

Mike:  Denise McAllister, I asked for ten minutes and I got 35.  I was just saying thanks for your time.  I would define the role and the purpose of government not to secure our rights, but to secure our rights to our duties.  Our duties – you can’t have rights without duties.  My duty is to live as our Lord told us to and the teaching that he left us.  That’s my duty.  I have a duty to Almighty God.  Government is there to see to it that I have the right to carry out that duty.  That’s where I think our rights come from.  You know what?  You and I can have that conversation on another day.

McAllister:  It’s very different, the Protestant view of that.  I’m a little more on libertarian [unintelligible], but definitely more actually, I wouldn’t use the term libertarian, classical liberal.  Definitely more that Protestant view and understanding of how – Thomas Jefferson is definitely more my guy.  There’s definitely those nuances, different views of how government – is it to promote virtue or is it simply to protect rights?  Those are the different conversations.  One thing about those conversations is, even as you have them about government, you need to ask which level of government we’re talking about.  Townships, local governments have different functions than even federal government.  There are different layers in your expectation of involvement and what government is supposed to be doing.

Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet?  You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST.   The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.  Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!

Mike:  Jefferson said he disagreed with Madison.  He said, in letters he was writing in 1816 and ’17 and so, he doubted that republican government, federalism, can function outside the scale of a New England township.  That’s his words, “New England township.”  When it got any larger than that, there was trouble a’brewin’.

McAllister:  Because it was so tied to that civil society.  That’s one thing we have to keep in mind is the bigger – that’s why the answer to him was: Well, that’s why we have separation of powers and all these balances and checks and everything.  It’s very complicated for a reason.  We have gridlock for a reason.  We have all these different layers and it’s slowed down and difficult for a reason.  That’s one of them.  It’s very difficult to maintain freedom within the government and this kind of balance of power outside of the small local community, also if it’s devoid from a strong civil society.

Mike:  I love gridlock.  I wish we had permanent gridlock so they couldn’t do any more damage.

End Mike Church Show Transcript