Joel and Wes argue conservatives must abandon "beautiful loser syndrome" to seize power, citing Trump's defiance of a judge on Venezuelan deportations as lawful authority rather than tyranny. They reference historical precedents where presidents like Lincoln and Biden ignored Supreme Court rulings, contrasting this with modern evangelical hesitation. The hosts discuss Stephen Miller's border policies, the biblical necessity of assimilation via Ruth, and conspiracy theories regarding an "AutoPen" used by Joe Biden. Ultimately, they assert that true American identity requires Anglo-Protestant heritage and warn that surrendering political power invites societal chaos. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Algorithmic Reviews for Ministry Growth00:10:49
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform.
I get it.
It's annoying.
Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.
You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
For decades, conservatives have been plagued by an affliction.
Almost an allergic reaction to power.
It's as if the only way to truly be virtuous is to lose, and to lose with grace.
Political wins are viewed with suspicion, as if governing with authority is somehow unseemly, or worse, unchristian.
But what if that mindset is not just wrong, but actually harmful?
Take a look at Donald Trump.
Like him or not, he's leading a populist resurgence that is centered not just on rhetoric, but on wielding power, on winning.
Recently, he made headlines for appearing to defy a court order that would have prevented the deportation of Venezuelan gang members.
Then he took aim at President Biden's use of an auto pen for signing pardons, questioning the validity of those signatures.
Predictably, his critics shriek, Tyranny!
But is it tyranny or is it the legitimate use of power for the good of a nation?
There is long, And deep conservative traditions here in these United States that support the responsible use of authority.
Edmund Burke warned that power unused is power lost and that liberty without virtue is the greatest of all evils.
Russell Kirk argued that moral order requires strong governance.
Sam Francis lambasted the right for its obsession with losing honorably rather than governing effectively.
Even American history is filled with examples of presidents.
Who defied courts and insisted on doing what they believed was right.
Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, and even Andrew Jackson understood that sometimes the law is wrong and justice demands action.
Yet modern evangelicals often act as if any use of power is suspect, embracing what Francis called the beautiful loser syndrome, preferring to be righteous victims rather than victorious defenders of truth.
And order.
But what does scripture actually say?
Joseph wielded power in Egypt to save his people.
Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem despite opposition.
Even Christ declared that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him.
So today we ask is Trump a tyrant or is he acting within a legitimate and necessary conservative tradition?
And more importantly, why do so many conservatives still believe that surrender is a virtue?
This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, as well as our Patreon members and our generous donors.
You can join our Patreon by going to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries, or you can make a donation by going to right response ministries.com forward slash donate.
Political power is not everything, but it's not nothing either.
And when good men refuse to use it, then evil men will pick it up.
And destroy whole societies.
It's time for Christians to learn to use political power for good ends once more.
Let's get into it.
All right.
Happy Monday.
We are back.
We are back.
Some would say we're so back.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
My goodness.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
We've got green on.
My goal.
Yeah, I didn't even mean to, but I've got it.
You knew deep down in your heart what day it was.
And you refused.
All right.
So, welcome to the show.
We're going to be talking about wielding power and that it's not inherently righteous and it's also not inherently evil, but it is a necessity.
It must be done.
Who's going to lead off?
I think, announcement too about the conference.
Oh, yeah.
We did fill up.
Our singles event for the conference.
Right Wing Watch was very, very excited that we were lacking three women out of 40.
But by God's grace, we have filled the slots and we're ready to go.
So, much to the chagrin of all the haters.
Okay.
This time next year, there'll be some weddings, Lord willing.
Yep.
Lord willing.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, yeah, Joel, like you said, we're going to be talking about political power and some of the current news events, and the stories are changing.
Even as I was preparing the episode, it's You know, some of the details and what's going on.
So, there's a principle underneath everything that we're talking about, but we are going to be talking about Trump and his auto pen, which I just love that he is.
Yeah, anyway, we'll get into that.
And then also him supposedly define a judicial order from a federal judge to undo a plan that probably had been days and weeks in the making, which is just preposterous that the judge, a federal judge, would try to exert some sort of.
Really, that's the tyranny, the tyrannical authority over the president and his foreign policy.
So before we get into this, I want to share a story that I think I've briefly referenced on the podcast before.
And it's about Newt Gingrich.
And, you know, I'm not saying Newt Gingrich was fantastic or the greatest conservative mind in politics.
He was a smart guy.
But there's an interesting story about when he was elected for the first time to the House of Representatives in 1984.
And he was a young, naive congressman at that point.
He got to Washington, D.C., kind of, you know, all eyes all aglow and excited to get involved with the work.
And when he was elected in 1984, the Republicans were the minority party in Congress.
And so he, shortly into his stint on Capitol Hill, went up to the minority leader and said, okay, what is our plan for winning?
How are we going to take the whole House?
How are we going to take the whole Senate?
What are we going to do to get?
Basically, to get power, to win the power of the Congress.
And I don't remember the name of the congressman at the time, but his response to Newt Gingrich was, What are you talking about?
He said, We are the minority party and business is getting done just fine in America.
We push back on the Democrats.
They throw us a bone here and there.
And actually, the system is running along just fine.
Our goal is not to actually try and get power, it's just to be here to kind of coexist with the Democrats.
And like I said, like Newt Gingrich or not, he was just Utterly flabbergasted at that response.
And he made it his mission to get rid of that mentality in the Republican Party.
To some degree, he was able to.
He ended up becoming the Speaker of the House and within 10 years, and then in 1994, led a campaign to really take over control of Congress for the Republicans for the first time in a long time.
The point is, this idea of just, yeah, it's fine.
We don't have to have the power.
You don't have to be in charge.
We can leave the power in the hands of the Democrats has been in.
Neoconservatives for a long time.
That was 1984, right?
And just the assumption was we can coexist peacefully.
We can just be here.
They'll do their thing.
They'll let us do our thing.
And whether or not that was the case, that certainly is not the case anymore.
I know Steve Dace likes to say that what's going on in the West right now and in America in particular is that there is a steel cage death match going on and only one is going to walk out.
I'm not saying political party, the parties will continue, but just the way of.
Ideology.
The ideology of governing a nation and.
One vision.
Yes, what vision?
Is in a steel cage deathmatch.
And once you realize that, you realize that it is utterly foolish for conservatives and Christians to say, well, yeah, we're totally fine not having political power.
It really is so short sighted that it almost beggars the imagination.
So we're going to get into a little bit of history, but any opening comments, Wes, from you or Joel, before I kind of go through a little bit of Burke and some conservative history, just to base what we're going to say today in the actual.
Historic tradition.
Thinking of that meme where it's the tombstone, it says, Here lies conservatism.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
Or what if the other side did this?
Yeah.
Can you imagine?
Yeah.
I saw him post today.
I forget who it was by, but he literally said that.
And I'm like, My brother in Christ, I don't think he's a Christian, but my dear friend, it's the year of our Lord 2025.
And he literally posted, he said, We should seek to expel these judges, these literal judges, Marxist judges, and stuff.
But But we can't just be overriding a court order.
He's like, because if we do, if we do, then one day the Democrats will be in power.
And he said, and they might do that in order to accomplish things that are unimaginable.
And I'm just like, I cannot believe I'm like, you know what I mean?
If it was 2016, maybe, or even back, like 2018, 19, 20.
But it's like, dude, like, if you have not, and this is somebody, I think he had like 100,000 followers, you know, it wasn't nobody.
But it's like if you haven't learned this lesson by now, like they might do something unimaginable, like what, like, like, uh, like have a bunch of drag queens, right?
You know, with uh, with children in a public library, right?
Or put like I'd bring 20 30 million people that don't belong here, they wouldn't do something like that, like flood the country with 20 or 30 million, you know, people from four nations, or they might give you know, like 350 billion dollars to Ukraine, or like what do you mean they might do something?
They've already done the unimaginable thing, and we've been sitting on our hands.
Wielding Power Through Legislation00:15:55
No, it's time to wield power and win.
And the courts, so the last four years, there was not a lot of the courts standing up to it.
The thing that the saving grace was actually, it was two senators that refused to break the filibuster so they could get through a lot of their more radical legislation.
In other words, power by occupying seats.
That was the actual thing.
And really, in this case, not even Republicans holding the seats, but two Democrats that were moderate enough not to go fully along with the agenda.
The judges didn't hold back the tide these last four years and save us from all the inflation and everything that we've seen.
They barely did anything.
Yeah.
So the fact of the matter is, political power has been part of society, well, since the beginning.
Like, I think we're all in agreement that we would say the idea of political power, which is simply who gets to make the decisions, would have even been around before the fall.
The idea of having someone in authority who is going to make a decision and ultimately has the responsibility for making that decision is innate to human nature, even unfallen.
Human nature.
There'd be a sense of who is making the decision and then how do we support that.
The conflict over the decision, I think that there still may have been some sort of discussion, like what do you think is wise and a sharing of counsel.
But the conflict and the vying for power and the backstabbing and manipulation, of course, is a product of the fall.
But the political process, in the sense that man's a social animal, I think has been with humanity and will be forever.
Yeah.
That kind of gets at what is the heart of government.
Certainly, when it comes to legislation and law, all laws are moral.
I think in the realm of law, neutrality really is a myth that all laws are moral.
You're legislating someone's morality.
So it really is by what standard.
It's not whether, but which.
Can I expand on that just for a second?
Because people are going to push back.
People will say, well, whether you drive on the right side of the road like we do in America.
Oh, you were going to get into that?
Yeah.
Well, my point is just that even the decision that we need to have a direction is a moral statement.
Because it's preferring order to chaos.
So even if the right or left side is not one more moral than the other, the determination that we have to have an order to how we drive on the roads is a moral statement on security for pedestrians, on order and chaos, on all of those sorts of things.
Right.
Agreed.
Yeah, I was going to say that, you know, like so much of law and legislation is, you know, it's whose morality.
It's a matter of, very often, it's a matter of life and death.
But there are other laws that simply do have to do with simply organization and order.
And yeah, and so I believe in a prelapsarian world, had Adam never fallen, that there would still be government, that there would still be whatever form it might be, if it were kings or an aristocracy or a republic or whatever, that there would still be forms of government that would have to make certain decisions for the populace that they would need to abide by.
And it wouldn't require, if sin had never entered the world, laws like against murder or something that's clearly sin, because there would be no sin.
But there still would be certain.
Legislation and laws and things like that that pertain to what side of the road to drive on or what materials should be used when it comes to the building of a house.
And I think that there would be, I don't think it would be libertarianism because I think even in a sinless world, libertarianism would still be gay.
And so because of that, it wouldn't be allowed because it'd be sin.
So it wouldn't be that.
But I would say that, like G.K. Chesterton said, if man will not have 10 commandments, he will have 10,000.
And so I do think it would be less laws.
But there are still certain things that.
For the sake of order, organization, and not devolving into chaos.
Somebody would have to make a decision.
Yeah.
Well, so to kind of frame the discussion, I just jumped into some Burke and some quotes from Edmund Burke, who was an 18th century political philosopher, kind of the father of paleoconservatism, not to be confused with neoconservatism.
So, Nate, let's pull up number one and we'll just apply it as needed, and if not, we'll move on to number two.
He said this people crushed by law.
Have no hopes but from power.
And boy, if there was a statement that described our time, it is people now who, what are they crushed by?
They're crushed by the law.
They're crushed by all the rules and regulations.
You think of all the laws passed during COVID, the restrictions.
People crushed by law have no hopes but from power.
If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws.
And those who have much hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
I love that because it's not nihilistic.
Those who have much hope.
And nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
And so I think that that almost perfectly encapsulates what we have right now and why people are so prone to throw their lot in with Donald Trump right now.
He has set himself up, even his post a couple weeks ago about, I don't remember the exact term, but about breaking the law is the just law or the just thing to do.
The Napoleon quote.
The Napoleon quote.
Yeah, like that a man who saves his country does no wrong, breaks no law.
Yeah.
Yep.
Yeah.
And so when law, when the tax code, or when the border immigration policy, or when the requirement for transgender people, so called transgender people in sports, or that Catholic charities must adopt children to gay parents, or all of these things that are law upon law that are oppressing people, Edmund Burke says power is the only option, the only thing that they can turn to.
I think implicit in his quote is the idea that you just turn to principle.
Yes.
You need principle, but the principle has to somehow be able to be.
Yes.
There needs to be some mechanism for enforcing the principle and having powerless principle losers.
Like you're still oppressed.
Yeah.
You can have a clean conscience before God, but you're going to be persecuted.
I don't know if you can.
If God has put you in a position and you're unwilling to act for it, And not the average man who's just working a job and supporting a family, but the elite, the conservative elite or the evangelical elite.
I don't think they get to have a clean conscience by saying, I stuck to my principles and did nothing.
And I would venture to say that's why we talk so much, at least in this time on this show, about politics and power.
Because everything, like if you think of what the world you want for your children, your grandchildren, like guys, that's not accomplished with making beautiful music and making beautiful art and writing stories.
Think of the Benedict option, right?
Rod Dreher, like we just got to have these communities where we live out the gospel.
Like none of those things move the needle to getting back to a world that you want your children and your grandchildren to live in.
There's one remedy that's going to come in and make sure they live in a world that's safe, a world that they can prosper, a world where they can work, a world where, I don't know, their food's not poisoned.
What's the recourse to all of that?
It's going to be, at some level, political power wielded for the good.
So in this time, That is one of the most important things at a human tangible level.
Of course, it doesn't supersede the spiritual in terms of ultimate importance.
But practically, right now, power is the thing that's going to make or break a better world, not just for you, for your children and your grandchildren.
Yeah.
And Rob Dreher's point is legitimate if society has collapsed, right?
Like, then, yeah, you huddle up, you bunk, you hunker down.
If you're the 1%, you get through.
Yeah.
If you're 1% of the population, like, yeah, you're going to have to go to the mountains and eke it out.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, that's a very good point, Wes.
And, you know, I'll just speak frankly here.
There are episodes when I would rather be talking about, you know, art or literature or things like that, right?
Or music.
Or I'd rather be spending my time doing some of those things.
But Christians have been weak in those areas too.
They really do believe that there's a need, you know, one of the needs of the hour is all of Christ for all of life.
That we need Christians in medicine, we need Christians in media, we need Christians in art, all these things.
And like we even said just the other day, I think last week in one of our broadcasts, we talked about the importance of.
Storytelling and that narratives are powerful.
Like you talk about power, one of the ways that you garner power is by winning the people.
And you win the people, you know, in the same way it's like, well, you know, my facts don't care about your feelings.
Well, a lot of people's feelings don't care about your facts.
And so there is something to be said for the poetry and prose and the pathos of, you know, of the preacher or just, you know, the citizen to be able to be compelling and persuasive and pull on the heartstrings of an individual.
There's a way to do that with guile and manipulation that would be unethical.
But there's also a way of doing that with skill and with rhetoric that's truthful and that it's not just a lecture and it's not just.
You know, a pie chart, but as much as we like charts, but it's a way of telling stories that are true and that actually help you to achieve power because it wins the hearts of people.
And there is a power that comes by numbers.
But you're right.
So, all those things, we're not saying that they don't matter, but it seems like there's a lot of lessons that we're all learning in real time, right?
I mean, that's the whole problem with all this, all the way back to like 2020.
You know, we were all learning in 15 minutes, but we should have.
Carefully studied over the course of 15 years.
You know, we were all, myself, you know, absolutely included in this, understanding what is, you know, what actually is tyranny and when does it become incumbent upon Christians, you know, in order to exercise, you know, civil disobedience or resistance and, you know, all these.
And it basically just hasn't stopped.
I don't know how you guys feel, but for me, it feels like after 2020, I remember, you know, initially kind of thinking, man, this is a big one.
It's, you know, God is kind of, you know, He's, you know, Separating the wheat and the tares, and you know, and but but we're gonna get this all settled, you know, and ironed out, and we'll lose a lot of guys that we thought were with us, but they're really not.
But then we'll move forward.
And but I've realized, at least for myself personally, ever since 2020, it's just been one lesson after another, after another, another test, another test, another test.
And it's doing it feels like the Gideon kind of thing.
It's like God gives you know certain tests, and like okay, a bunch of you know Gideon's army goes home, and then he gives another test, and it's like, whoa, we've already whittled down.
I thought we had our thing, yeah, I thought that I think that's.
That's enough.
And he whittles it down even further.
And I feel like every six months for five years now, that's kind of in his providence.
That seems to be what the Lord's been doing.
And so, anyway, so there's all these lessons we're learning in real time.
And so, we don't want to, I think it's not either or, it's all of them.
So, we're collecting virtues and collecting emphases and things that are important.
And story and art is certainly one of them.
And so, we're not moving on from that.
And we'll continue to do episodes like that.
But one of the big lessons that I feel like we've been learning over the last five years is that Christianity is not a religion of passivity.
Like, if I could sum it up in a word, it would be Christians are not pacifists.
And here's the thing it's like, okay, well, we got it.
Let's move on.
But do we?
Like, John Piper just posted something recently, not just his infamous, you know, somebody was an intruder and broke into my home, I would let him completely.
You know, have his way with my wife and murder my family, you know, because he may not be a Christian.
And I would, you know, or if I could, I would, you know, bust a Wyatt Earp, you know, and I would shoot the gun out of his hand, you know, like all these ridiculous things.
But basically, they saying, like, but I'm not going to kill him because he's an unbeliever and that would send him to hell.
I would kill him, right?
And I wouldn't lose any sleep.
If somebody's an intruder in my home, I have an obligation under God to protect my wife and my children.
I absolutely would shoot him.
And I'm not aiming for the leg, I'm not aiming for, you know, to like a Wyatt Earp.
I'm aiming for the check.
I'm pleading with him as it shakes, like, please turn around.
And I'm going to double tap.
I'm like, I'm going to ensure that the job is done.
And so, but my point is that this is still a reoccurring theme for evangelicals.
John Piper has a massive platform.
It's not just some fringe opinion from the sidelines.
It is still, I think, in many ways, the reigning consensus of Christians, particularly Protestants and evangelicals, that power is icky and that Christians are principled pacifists.
So that's why we're talking about it.
Or, this is the lesson that I have learned through this, and it's an extension of what you've said, Joel, but the lesson that I've had to learn and I'm still learning because I can say it and it still unsettles me a little bit.
The lesson that I have learned is.
I was always okay with Christians having power if it was through the Holy Spirit moving and converting all the hearts so that now they all agree with the Christian position.
It was not Christians have power and they will use, you know, cultural pressure or legal pressure or even, you know, trolling on Twitter to exert a Christian perspective on the issue.
And so for me, it was the coercion, the perceived.
Coercion that Christians have to do to exert political power.
And what I just am having to get over is it's not, it is coercive in a sense, but it's not a sinful coercion in the same way that it's not a sinful coercion when a father requires that his children obey him when he tells them to do something.
Like, of course, that's coercion.
You're going to discipline the child if he or she doesn't obey.
But that's not a sinful coercion.
And in my mind, coercion was the negative, never acceptable for Christians.
In and of itself, to use coercion at all was inherently wrong.
Yes.
Where the reality is, at this point, I would say that coercion outside of your jurisdiction is what should be.
So the father is given the rot.
And so that's a lawful coercion.
He shouldn't misapply it.
But likewise, the civil magistrate is given the sword, but he's also given to punish the evildoer, but he's also given by his constituents and those that he represents.
He's given a certain position with X many votes and this much of a voice.
And to wield that power for the glory of God and the good of.
His people, but even private citizens.
So that's the home and the state.
But even private citizens, like if you're a business owner, you actually, it's not an unlawful coercion.
You actually have the power to not hire liberals who hate your way of life and hate your family and want to see your family replaced by a bunch of foreigners from the third world.
Like you actually do have, that's not unjust.
You can actually say deliberately, you can say, yeah, I'm going to hire.
Good people who support our way of life, who want to see it flourish, who love my family and my children, and who don't want to see the eradication of America or the eradication of white people or the eradication of Christians or whatever it may be.
Vivek and the America First Mindset00:08:38
And so, even that is you know, you have power as a business owner, you have power as just an individual person in terms of social media.
Like, if you have a certain number of followers, you actually can.
Levy and utilize power in a certain direction to put pressure on individuals.
Like, think about this Vivek Ramaswamy, who worships demon gods, is not a Christian, but who has been LARPing as an American.
And for everyone in the chat, I understand he was born in Ohio.
I understand that he's second generation, that he was born here in the United States.
But Vivek is for India.
He is.
And during Christmas, which is a very Western Christian holiday, as Americans are celebrating, and not all of them are celebrating Christ, but many in our nation are celebrating the birth of our Savior.
Vivek is firing away, mocking Americans, saying that they watched too much television and Boy Meets World, and they didn't go to enough math leagues, you know, and engineering competitions, and that their parents are lax, and that the students are dumb.
And because of this, That real genius and real gifting and real innovation can't be found in our pathetic country.
And therefore, we have to allow for H1Bs because the true future Einsteins are in India, apparently.
And ever since then, you've seen it.
He's been on his apology tour, basically trying, going to every quintessence, eating apple pie, going to NASCAR.
He had a jacket that looked like a Texas flag the other day.
Right.
Like, hello, my fellow Americans.
How do you do?
How do you do, my fellow Americans?
And it's like, no, like, you kind of proved that, like, there is something to be said for heritage.
There is.
There is something to be said for someone who is second generation, but from somewhere else, and who has the mindset that America, I mean, this is what it came down to, is he proved that for him, America first doesn't mean Americans first.
It doesn't mean heritage Americans first.
It means America first.
Likened to a sports team winning on the global stage in terms of its GDP.
That's what it means.
And just like a sports team, if you're not winning, but you have enough resources, what do you do?
You buy a player from another team.
Right?
That's one of the ways, if you ever watched Moneyball, that's one of the ways that the New York Yankees would always win.
They just had a bigger budget than everybody else.
So somebody else has a homegrown player who grew up in that city.
You know what I mean?
He played Little League there and T ball and all this kind of stuff.
And one of their scouts found this guy at a young age.
And they put backing and they took a risk on him and they put him in as a rookie, but he performed really well.
And now he plays for the Red Sox and he's homegrown, Boston, right?
Boston Red Sox.
And he's true blue, Bostonite.
But then the New York Yankees just offer him a triple his salary and he goes over there.
And that's Vivek's view of America.
You're telling me power, even in sports, is what rules everything?
Yeah, money.
Money is the answer to everything.
Ecclesiastes, that's a quote.
So all that being said, my point is just to say, That, yeah, like that, like that was, that was revealing and, and, you know, so I think we're having, you know, having those moments and realizing, okay, like not everybody, not everybody is really for us.
And, and we need, we need to use the pressure we have.
So my whole point in using Vivek was to say that, so where did he go?
I mean, he had, he had a lot of influence.
He was in the limelight, you know, he had his 15 minutes of fame.
And then all of a sudden, he's kicked out of Doge or a Dodge.
And, um, And I don't think he'll win in Ohio.
Well, maybe he does.
It's important that he doesn't.
We'll talk about that someday.
But my point is, he was relegated.
He was kind of pushed off of the federal, big national stage with Trump.
And my point is, how?
Because a civil magistrate with the exact title and the exact appointment and the exact position and authority made that decision?
No, a bunch of minions like you and I over Christmas holidays is he's insulting Americans.
And insulting our country, we got on and said, Listen, bub, why don't you go back and run for president of India then?
If that's your attitude, get out of here.
Seriously, if you think that Americans, we've already been replaced by DEI and all this, and if you're just a conservative, with conservatives like this, who needs leftists?
If you're just going to sit here and levy one more argument for why Americans.
Don't deserve American jobs and that they should be outsourced to people on the other side of the world because, like, let's be honest, it's not because there's geniuses in India that are incomparable to Americans, it's because it's cheaper.
And for you, America first means GDP, big line go up.
And one of the ways to accomplish that is overhead go down, cheaper labor.
And if that's who you are, then we don't like it.
And it was literally, here's my point tweets.
Like, what took down Vivek Ramaswamy?
Who had a lot of power for a moment.
He did, even if in form 80% of the vote.
Like, coming out of nowhere, 80% of the president's vote.
So, who took him out?
Twitter?
Like, tweets, literally tweets.
So, if you think that my point is, everybody, what makes coercion wrong is when it, I think, when it's outside of your jurisdiction, but everybody within your jurisdiction, even if you're not an elected official, you're not a civil magistrate, whether it's as a parent or as a churchman, In a congregation, and you're wanting that congregation to go the right direction towards the scripture and be courageous in applying the scripture, you have a lot of power just by virtue of being in a church,
whether it's through social media or as a business owner who has the power to determine who you're going to employ and who you're not.
We all have power, and using coercion, the power that we have in the realms where the Lord has assigned us, is not inherently sinful.
Right.
I want to wrap up this segment.
By reading this next quote from Burke, because Wes, what you said a few minutes ago ties into this perfectly.
Like, we are hoping for better days ahead, and we're building in that direction.
And so, Burke said this about force and power.
He said, The use of force alone is but temporary.
It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again.
So, here he's going to contrast force with governance.
He says, A nation is not governed.
Which is perpetually to be conquered.
And to some degree, what we have now is I don't think it was always this way, even with two parties, but there is a reconquering of America going on every political cycle.
And the stakes I don't think our grandparents viewed the stakes of an election as the American project might cease to exist if Donald Trump doesn't win.
People on the left say the same thing about Trump winning.
They say America, as we know it, is done.
It's never coming back.
They say it probably with even more conviction.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right?
The side that wants to win or the side that simply wants to be left alone will never beat the side that wants to win.
That's correct.
That's where we're at.
You're right.
Well, let's do this real quick.
Are you ready for a commercial break?
Yep.
Two things.
Number one, I've seen it in the chat and I love it.
You got to love it.
So, yes, and amen.
Christ is king.
Say it loud, say it proud, and don't let anybody guilt you otherwise.
And number two, we've got currently, now this includes Twitter, you know, so we're currently simultaneously broadcasting on both YouTube and X.
But we've got about 600 people that are watching right now.
And I'm looking up here, and I think this is just for YouTube, but we've got 36 likes.
Those two numbers just don't make sense to me.
Private Family Banking Explained00:03:30
634 now, just got updated.
That's how many people are currently watching, and 37 likes.
Now, two dislikes, I appreciate that, right?
If you're a hater, you know, have some courage.
What are you talking here for?
Exercise some power, right?
Like that's your power.
You can use that dislike button.
But for the rest of you guys who aren't hate watching, usually the hate watching comes later in clip form as people take me out of context and whatever.
But for those of you who are supportive, help us out.
It really does.
It triggers the algorithm both on X and YouTube.
It gets the video out to a lot more people, which is really helpful.
Share the video, that's huge.
Comment in the chat, that's huge.
But the simplest thing is just liking the video.
In addition to that, if you're new here, welcome.
We're glad to have you with us.
Go ahead and subscribe to us on YouTube and click the bell so you'll actually be notified.
Because the way it is these days, people subscribe to a million different things, and you'll be subscribed to a channel.
Six months could go by and you won't see a single piece of their content and forget that you're even subscribed.
So, if you'd like to get our content every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time, our live stream and our Friday special on Fridays at 8 p.m. Central Time, then subscribe on YouTube and click the bell.
And then also do us a favor and follow us on X because we don't just comment on X and provide commentary and hot takes and all that kind of stuff, but we also post.
All of our videos on X.
So if we could have the handles real quick, Nathan, pop up on the screen.
These are our X handles for each of us.
If you'd like to follow, I'm at right response M, at right response M.
And then Michael is at ML Belch, ML Belch.
And then our very own Wesley Todd is at Wesley underscore Todd with two D's and then underscore again, at Wesley underscore Todd, two D's, underscore again at the end there.
Okay, let's go to our first commercial break and we'll be right back.
Our sponsor, Private Family Banking, wants to help you with one money move that'll implicate itself in multi generational wealth building starting the first day.
They help you to avoid taxation and to draw compound interest to your money.
Now, if you're a high net worth individual, someone who has maybe even $10 million in net worth, then they can help you even more.
W 2 workers, contract workers, business owners, it's all about cash flow and making tax deferred gains on all your money.
For the rest of your life, don't avoid this.
It's a big move, but it's a great time to make it.
Click the link below and you can get on Chuck de Laterante's calendar and he'll go over your background and what you want to accomplish.
And he's going to help model a program that exactly fits your needs.
So go ahead and send an email to Chuck at Private Family Banking.com.
Again, that's Chuck at Private Family Banking.com, or you can click the link below.
Make a free discovery call now.
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God and not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though they're commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
Reese Fund.
Christian capital, boldly deployed.
Reese Fund Business Strategy00:03:41
All right, welcome back.
We're going to jump a little bit out of the theory and into some specifics.
Wes, we didn't confirm.
When do you want to throw in your quote?
Do you want to tie it into some of the theory here to put a ball on that, or do you want to save it for later on?
I'm going to talk about Trump himself, actually, what he's done.
So, why are we talking about political power again?
Well, because Trump has done two things, at least two things, in the last couple of days that has the left.
Two things in the last 15 minutes.
Yes, exactly.
Trump woke up this morning, and so the left is.
More like he never went to bed last night.
That's right.
He never went to bed.
Probably not.
He just Big Maced his way through the night, and.
There have been all sorts of cries about tyranny, but the big buzz phrase going around is that we are facing an impending constitutional crisis.
Constitutional crisis.
Because, in particular, Trump.
The Civil Rights Act?
1964.
Is that one?
Part of the act?
They're finally catching up.
We've been in a constitutional crisis for a couple of years.
That's what the first one is called.
A judge in Hawaii at like 11 p.m. on a Tuesday is like, Trump must, I don't know, forfeit the election.
You guys remember the whole first term was like that?
Trump be like, hey, we're going to stop Muslims from coming into the country.
It'd be like a single activist judge, like the bottom of the ninth, just said, no, you can't do that.
And I think they probably got fed up with it.
And so we're getting to the point we're at right now.
Which is exactly what happened because Trump had, now, to be fair and to not get a response sued, I will say, rounded up a bunch of alleged Trend Aragua gang members, Venezuelan gang members.
Which are only here, sorry to keep jumping in, but like MS13 has been here for a while.
They've only been here since late 2020 when the border crisis started.
This is a violent gang.
They don't use gang tattoos, which are more easily identifiable.
So it's a Venezuelan refugee.
That's how they got in.
So they've only been here a couple of years under.
We all know what happened as the border was completely porous.
They've been indicted in violence, in drugs, in murder, all these different things.
These are people you do not want to mess with.
If only there had been a former presidential candidate who had told us that criminals and gang members were coming across the border.
But try to do something about it.
I remember he got so.
Destroyed by the media when he said criminals and gang members are coming across the border.
I mean, and now it is like he was 100% right.
Wes, you're 100% right about the trend to Aragua rise.
Fun story for later.
I have a friend in Venezuela who was kidnapped by them at one point and released later on.
That doesn't sound like a fun story.
No.
Well, cool story then.
But they don't mess around at all, we'll put it that way.
So Trump had rounded up a bunch of them and In a great move of international diplomacy, had arranged for them to be flown off to El Salvador to be, you know, catered to and taken care of and provided hospitality, given good, gainful employment.
That's right.
And so, this judge on Saturday, they go to the federal judge, and the judge says, makes a ruling that says, no, you cannot deport these alleged gang members.
And I guess the legal ruling was, There has been no substantial proof that they are gang members or something like that.
And so it appears that they were already on the planes and that at least two of the planes are already in the air, probably outside of US sovereign airspace.
Supreme Court Constitutional Crises00:11:02
And the judge says, if you read the ruling, it was just so arrogant.
The judge says, the president cannot do that.
And if he has already done it, I so order that the planes be returned immediately.
And if that can't happen, That no prisoners disembark at their destination point.
And when you read it, when you hear the quote read, it's just like this toddler throwing a fit.
Who are you?
Yeah.
Let me even say.
So then the plane had already taken off.
Sounds like Stephen Miller, who's like Trump's right hand guy, super great.
He orchestrated this to get the plane off.
So it landed.
And then, Judge, his name is Boasberg, he said he's demanding answers from the Trump administration whether any flight with individuals subject to the proclamation took off after, did they land after?
So this morning, Monday morning, rolled in first thing and said, You have to answer for me.
Did you take off?
Did you land?
What have you done about this order?
As if he rules the place.
Yeah.
Imagine a judge, a federal judge, thinking that he has the authority.
Like, this is the actual constitutional crisis.
Right.
The idea that these low ranking judges.
Are they elected?
Federal judges.
No, they're appointed.
They're not.
They're appointed.
So a non elected judge is going to somehow be the true leader of the United States over the president who was elected both electorally and in the popular.
Vote by the citizens of the United States.
That's insane.
That's unconstitutional.
Let's get into that super quickly because the Constitution lays out, so Article I is Congress, and Article I is the biggest and the most power is granted because that's the most immune from kind of like the people all in one go over six months getting an idea.
It kind of protects it against extremes.
So you have Article I, which is for Congress, which is the biggest section of the three.
Article II lays out the executive branch.
Article III is the shortest in the Constitution, Article I, II, and III, and that lays out the judicial branch.
And there's, of course, differing theories on this, but let's pull up this quote.
This is from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.
This is prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalist arguing for what this would look like if the states were to ratify the Constitution.
They were in favor of it.
How would we be organized?
So, Alexander Hamilton said this in Federalist Paper No. 78 The executive, that is the president, not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.
The legislature, that would be Congress, not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and the rights of every citizen are to be regulated.
The judiciary, On the contrary, it has no influence over either the sword or the purse, over justice or over how money is spent, no direction either to the strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever.
It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.
And Hamilton capitalizes that in the original paper.
I didn't capitalize them here in this quote.
It may truly be said that the judiciary has neither force nor will, but merely judgment and must ultimately depend upon the aid.
Of the executive arm, even for the efficacy of its judgments.
Now, Federalist Papers, they're not binding, they're not canon, they're not the Constitution.
But in the framing of it, and this is referenced in Marbury versus Madison of 1803, which established judicial review, they all were looking back to the founders.
What were they intending for the judiciary branch to do?
And most certainly, they did not intend for, like you said, someone unelected, someone unappointed for life, barking orders at the executive branch and all of the power he's been giving and deciding whether they like it or not.
This was never in the scope.
Of the framing of the Constitution, of how we've done rule of law.
And so ultimately, sovereign is he who decides the exception.
Like, this is why it's so important, I think so good that Trump has said at the end of the day, this is not how this was ever supposed to function.
And he who saves this country, he violates no law.
The reality is, it's just rich to hear, Joel, you mentioned this in the last segment, the left shrieking about constitutional crisis because the president is ignoring a federal judge.
Which, I mean, we're not even sure that he ignored a federal judge, right?
This was an operation that was days and weeks in the making.
Involved international negotiations and diplomacy with El Salvador.
And then, you know, it's not like they went to a judge beforehand and the judge says, no, don't make sure, or if you're going to do it, make sure you do this step and this step.
This was already like 99% of the way done.
And at the last minute, the judge is like, nope, pull the extension cord.
And it's like, well, the plane's already taken off.
So, but even, even, let's grant the point, let's grant the case that even if Trump had ignored this federal judge, this is certainly not the first time this has happened.
I did a little bit of research and so.
Not just a federal judge, but the Supreme Court presidents have ignored Supreme Court rulings basically since the beginning of our nation.
So, let's go to image number one there.
So, this is just a few of the times where presidents have just completely ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court.
Abe Lincoln did it by rescinding habeas corpus, FDR did it with Schechter Poultry because he wanted to insist on wage, I think it was minimum wage laws in the The Supreme Court said you can't do it, or at least this way, and he just did it anyway.
Truman did it during the war with taking over some of the sheet metal companies because he needed them to be producing weapons and tanks and whatnot for the war.
Reagan did it in regards to the power of labor unions.
Bush did it with Guantanamo Bay.
And Biden did it with the kerfuffle over whether or not.
Landlords could evict tenants who hadn't paid during COVID.
Now.
So, real quick, though, you're telling me that the guys who overrode.
Nathan, let's pull that up one more time so I can see.
These are the presidents who overrode Supreme Court orders Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Harry Truman, Hillary Reagan, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden.
Right now, I feel like you're trying to convince me that this is a bad thing.
Go to the next graph, then, Nate.
Because I'm not a huge fan of any of those guys.
This is going all the way back.
These are presidents who have.
Defied Supreme Court, not just a federal judge.
Supreme Court decisions and just told the court, go pound sand, I'm doing it anyway.
Okay, so this is definitely more of a concern.
So this goes all the way back to the 18th century, Jefferson, you know, third president.
Because here we have, we've got Nixon, we've got Theodore Roosevelt, we've got Andrew Jackson, we've got Ulysses S. Grant.
Andrew Jackson famously said, John Marshall, Justice John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
Because there is no enforcement mechanism.
Of the court.
Who's the judiciary branch?
Andrew Jackson.
Jackson.
So you see the colors up there.
So the X's correspond to how we would classify these presidents with the modern idea of conservative and liberal.
And it's a pretty equal distribution, actually.
Yeah, it is.
But all sides, both sides have decided, you know what, the court, they can say whatever they want.
We're doing this anyway.
And so the idea that the nation is literally going to fall apart right now because Trump supposedly disregarded what some federal judge said.
Is preposterous on its face.
Secondly, I think to going to what you said, Wes, I think Trump realized that that was not an Achilles heel, but a frequently used tactic against him the first time around.
I think he wants a case like this to be triggered up to the Supreme Court because I think he wants clarity for the future.
I think he wants the Supreme Court to rule that low level federal and district judges cannot step in and counterman the president of the United States when he's doing this sort of thing.
So it seems like he's actually.
Kind of picking a fight on this issue.
And that's the sort of thing where we talked about at the beginning.
He's trying to exert power and he's trying to do it both to achieve his short term goals let's kick out the gang members and to achieve longer term goals of let's weaken the bureaucratic state and let's return the power to where it goes.
If we're going to continue to have the Constitution, it needs to look more like it did back when it was originally written.
I noticed a lot of those, too, they came at the beginning of terms.
So COVID 19, Joe Biden's term, the war on terror early on in George W. Bush's term.
Watergate early in Nixon terms.
They're early conflicts that set the stage for win or lose the rest of the administration.
The next four years, yep.
Or the next eight years.
Right.
Yep.
Yep.
That's 100% true.
So the idea that we are in a constitutional crisis is really, I don't know, it's just preposterous.
But the point is not to win the political issue, whether or not Trump was right to, or whether or not Trump did defy the judge or not.
The point, again, that we're trying to, I'm trying to make at least, is I actually don't care if Trump did.
Right.
Like, even if the judge the day before had said, you can't do this, I would hope Trump would have said, not okay.
We're doing it.
Like, this is the right thing to do, and we're going to do it a lot more.
And that's really the issue is the idea, like, Kirk, Russell Kirk, not Charlie Kirk, the guy that we quoted in the cold opening, his idea of conservatism is that conservatism preserves permanent things.
I think that's a really good way to think about it.
Like, We don't like the term neoconservatives anymore.
We don't like the term conservatism because it's so mixed in with neocon globalist ideas.
But Kirk argued that the true conservative preserves permanent things.
And so if the president is going to rule as a conservative president, what his goal is, is preserving permanent things like the security and identity of the nation.
And insofar as he's preserving legitimate.
Um, permanent things like let's give more power to that, let's give more emphasis and attention to that.
I'm all for that sort of thing, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Well said, okay.
Um, well, I mean, we could go to our second break now, we're coming up on four o'clock, yeah, let's do that, and then we'll hit section three.
And then, guys, if you've got questions or super chats that you're going to put in the chat, go ahead and start putting those in now because we'll hit those towards the end of the next section, setting them aside for us, and we'll try to hit as many of them.
As we can in a moment, right after this commercial break.
All right, the clock is running out.
Dominion Mandate in Financial Services00:02:13
You need to go and register now for our Christ is King How to Defeat Trash World Conference.
It's happening the year of our Lord 2025, April 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
That's a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
And by God's grace, we're able to provide for you an all star lineup.
We've got Steve Dace, Calvin Robinson, Orrin McIntyre, Dr. Stephen Wolfe, Eric Kahn, David Reese, Andrew Isker.
John Harris, AD Robles, Dan Burkholder, Dusty Deavers, Ben Garrett, CJ Engel, and yours truly, Pastor Joel Webbin.
Come on out, join us April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2025, Thursday through a Saturday.
Go to RightResponseConference.com to register today.
Again, that's RightResponseConference.com.
Listen, guys, you probably listen to Right Response Ministries because you take the dominion mandate offered to us in Scripture seriously.
Well, unsurprisingly, so does Dominion Wealth Strategist.
As the only distinctly reformed financial consulting firm, they help Calvinistic, covenantal, and confessional Christians to steward their resources faithfully in a way that actually aligns with God's Word.
Dominion Wealth leverages all corners of the financial service industry as independent brokerage agents, matching you with suitable products and services from dozens of top industry providers.
Their mission is to equip believers to secure their family's future and build a legacy that glorifies God by building holistic financial strategies that include budgeting, insurance, debt management, retirement planning, estate planning, and more.
In order to make wealth Christian again with a portfolio that might even put King Solomon to shame, go and take dominion over your finances today by visiting www.reformed.money.com.
And book an introductory overview right now.
All of Christ for all of life and all of finance for Christendom.
Dual Citizenship Loyalty Debates00:03:21
All right, we were just talking during the commercial break.
And something to point out, like we're trying not to be excessive with it, something to notice, to observe.
We try not to do it a lot, but like you do need to see this.
Like this judge demanding that the Trump administration keep violent Venezuelan gang members who have murdered American citizens, who have run a drug operation ring, this drug, this judge.
Was Jewish.
And real quick, one of the guys in the chat called Cool Dude, but he pointed out, and I thought it was helpful, because he's right.
He said, We've got to break out of the mindset.
We can't afford to be so naive.
These are not bleeding heart libs.
Right.
I just, well, I care for the downcast and the downtrodden and those who are oppressed.
He said, No, this is malicious.
They want, they're wanting to open the borders.
And then now, because Trump is closing them, they want to be able to somehow maintain, retain the, it's, The purpose of a system is whatever it does.
Right.
Right.
And the aims and intentions of a person, like Jesus said this, right?
This isn't like, oh, that's Carl Schmitt and he was a Nazi.
No, no, no.
There's another little guy who said this once upon a time.
His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, second member of the divine trinity.
He said, You'll know a tree by its fruit.
Right.
And so when somebody is like, Hey, there's a group of people, they might be rapists, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that they're in this country.
Well, then you're an enemy of the country.
You are a traitor.
It's treason.
You hate America.
You are trying to destroy America.
So that guy was Jewish, but here's our point bringing up.
Credit where credit is due.
The mastermind of this is a guy named Stephen Miller.
The mastermind of Trump's roundup of the game, get them out.
This dude, his whole life, his existence, he is pretty much dedicated to illegal immigration and closing the border.
He's one of Trump's right hand guys.
The result of the system is what it does.
This guy, what he does, his fruit is.
Yep, and his name is Stephen Miller, and he's Jewish, and he is awesome.
So basically, on one side, it was.
Stephen Miller, and he collaborated with the head of Homeland Security, Christy Nome.
They masterminded this together.
So you had Stephen Miller, who's Jewish, and then a Jewish judge who said, Don't do it.
And Stephen Miller, who said, I'm doing it anyway because I love my people.
He's the one that said at Madison Square Garden, America is for Americans only.
Amen.
And we bring it up just, you know, we get a lot of flack for, you know, hating Jews, and we don't.
But we just, we like, we're just not going to play that game of like, oh, you know, you must never go there.
You must never say that thing.
You must never notice.
No, there is absolutely a disproportionate amount of, you know, it's 3% of the population is Jewish.
And there's a disproportionate amount of Jewish people in positions of government in our nation.
And not all, not even close to all, but many of them do have dual citizenship.
If you look at, like, at the federal level, how many federal, you know, electives have dual citizenship, America and another country.
And then of those who have dual citizenship, Is there any particular country other than America that seems to have the most?
Is it Nigeria?
Yeah, do we have a bunch of.
Madagascar?
No, it's Israel.
And I just, like, we just have to be able to admit that it represents, you know, like we've said this before, I'll say it again.
Assimilation and Israelite Heritage00:14:50
If I was king for the day, you would not be permitted to have dual citizenship and serve as an elected official in American politics.
We need to know that you don't have any contingency plan, you don't have any fallback.
There's.
No, you don't have an escape route.
You don't have dual loyalties.
No, your full, unfettered allegiance is to these United States.
It's your home.
You've burnt the ships.
If you came from somewhere else, you've burnt the ships.
You're not going back.
This is your home, like Ruth.
Your people will be my people.
Your God will be my God.
What does that mean?
It doesn't just mean the acceptance of the people in Israel, in the case of Ruth, a different kind of Israel, very different than the modern Jewish state today.
But it wasn't just the acceptance of the Israeli people and acceptance of Of the triune god of the Christian god, but she it was also a full throated, whole rejection of the Moabites and false Moabite gods.
What she's saying when she says, Your people will be my people, she's saying, I am forsaking my own people and I am also forsaking my people's foreign gods.
And even in the case of Ruth, Ruth, you know, she marries Boaz and they have their son is Jesse, not Jesse, no, Obed, Obed, Obed, and then Obed.
Fathers Jesse, and then Jesse fathers David.
And so then you, what you have there is the second king in Israel right after Saul, and the kingdom is removed from him because of his faithlessness, not faithfulness, but faithlessness, and given to David.
So the first, in many ways, not the first king, but the first godly king in Israel comes from the line of Ruth.
So there really is such a thing as assimilation.
There really is such a thing as assimilation.
But what does that assimilation look like?
At least three things to point out.
Number one, a full rejection.
She doesn't come in and try to.
Start Chinatown, little Italy, Moabite town.
Little Moab.
Little Moab, in some region of Israel.
No, no, no.
I reject my people and I reject my foreign gospel.
Number one, she assimilates.
She fully assimilates.
I'm going to speak Hebrew.
I'm going to marry.
And how do you assimilate in this case?
One of the chief ways is she marries in.
She marries in, which I'll say, and this gets me flat.
I've got guys who are to the left of me.
I've got guys who are to the right of me.
I'm going to say it, Wes.
I'm going to say it.
But this is one of the reasons why I, it depends what you mean.
But in the technical capital letter case, I am not a kinist because I personally believe, biblically speaking, and just as you know, just studying sociology and the way that nations work, the way that peoples work, they're really long term, there really is no true ultimate assimilation apart from intermarriage.
That ultimately, the way that whether it's the Irish, who and I absolutely agree that when it comes to any In any nation, take America out of the equation.
It doesn't have to be America, but any nation, there are other peoples, other nations outside of that nation that are more or less compatible.
Certainly, right?
Haiti is not as compatible with America as England or Canada, right?
And so when the Irish came at the time, they weren't super compatible.
But in all fairness, the Irish.
The fighting, strong headed.
Yeah, but the Irish still would have been far more compatible with an Anglo Protestant American culture than the Sudan.
Right?
I think we can all agree on that.
But a lot of people were upset about Irish immigration when that was taking place.
But ultimately, the Irish did assimilate over time.
And one of the chief ways that they did that is through marriage.
And that's what we see with Israel.
When we do see certain peoples come in, whether it's Rahab or whether it's Ruth, what they don't do is they don't come in and set up shop as an embassy, an outpost of their previous nation.
Right.
In the middle of, no, they forsake.
Their people, that's one.
They forsake false gods, so they forsake idolatry.
That's two.
So it's social, right?
People, it's religious.
And then the last thing I was going to point out in the case of Ruth is David eventually, he's king.
But you know who's not king?
Ruth and also Obed and also Jesse.
It's not until Ruth comes in, and it's not until, in terms of generations, she marries Boaz, Obed.
Then Jesse, then David, on the third generation after Ruth.
Is there something to that?
This is a biblical principle, guys.
This is not racist.
Well, I mean, it may be racist according to the left standards because everything's racist.
That's sin.
But it's not sin.
It is not anything that the Bible forbids.
But here's the deal it is favoritism because the Bible does not condemn inherently favoritism in all its forms and fashions, there is sinful favoritism.
Preferring the rich only because they're rich, even when they're wicked, at the expense of the righteous in matters of justice.
James talks about these kinds of things.
So there is a way to show sinful favoritism, but there is also a way.
What we're talking about is preference.
You are allowed to have preference in your flesh, in your sin.
Can you have sinful preference that's unjustifiable, that's baseless, and that doesn't just prefer one group, but actually ends up with an unjustifiable animus towards another group?
Yes, and that would be sin.
But what Ruth is doing here is she is preferring the people of God over her own idolatrous people.
And in this, it's not until three generations later.
So that's why I was just going to bring up the biblical principle that in Israel, if someone did, if they were an immigrant, not just a sojourner, we've talked about this before the sojourner, what didn't stay?
They didn't stay.
They eventually went back.
But if someone was truly an immigrant and they would come.
They would assimilate, but it wouldn't be until the third generation.
And some nations, depending how compatible, that gets back to the compatibility piece that Sudan is less compatible than England, you know, in the case of America.
Well, for some nations that had historic grievances where they had betrayed the people of God in a severe way, the Lord remembered that.
And as a judgment towards them, there were some nations where He said, not until the 10th generation.
And, you know, can you be fully assimilated in and have all the rights and privileges?
Particularly as it pertained to worship and the temple and access to the temple, not until the 10th generation, but for most, the default was three generations.
And what you see is three generations removed from Ruth, who was a Moabitess, who came from idolaters and came from foreign people in a foreign land that worshiped foreign gods.
But three generations removed from Ruth, all of a sudden, you have a guy who, in the sight of God, is an Israelite, a true Israelite in every way, not just.
I came on the magic dirt and said the magic words, and I ate Jewish apple pie, and now I'm an Israelite.
No, I memorized the books of Moses, and I can, like, no, no, it takes time.
And Ruth, she did not come and set up little Moabite in Israel.
She assimilated.
She did it through intermarriage.
She did it through forsaking her people, forsaking those gods, and it took time, not 15 minutes, multiple generations.
And it wasn't until the third generation removed from Ruth that you had.
Truly, a guy who was such an Israelite that he was fit to be king.
Yep.
That's what we're talking about.
That's like for all the people who are like, oh, well, you're kinest.
Well, I'm quite literally not.
Because I actually think if I was king for a day, this is all.
Some guys to my right won't like this, but I'm going to say it.
Number one, we need to immediately deport about 30 million people, maybe 50, but at least 30 million people.
That's just the last four years, guys.
That's just the last four years.
Immediately deport about 30 million people and not just the criminals.
Not just the criminals.
And so, immediate deportations.
You got to build the wall.
Feel free to build a second wall behind it.
Whatever it takes.
I mean, our tax dollars have been going towards teaching transgenderism in Pakistan.
So, I mean, a second wall would be a better expenditure than most of the things my taxes have gone towards lately.
So, stop immigration, deport a ton of immigrants.
But then, here's the deal.
We are still going to be, it'd be better, immediate improvement economically, you know, crime would go to like, I mean, immediate improvement if we could achieve that.
But we're still going to have a fraction divided nation.
And what it ultimately will take is time.
It's going to take, I would guess, there was a point if we had done these things 100 years earlier, right?
This is how sin works.
We've been sinning.
This is sin.
Globalism is a sin.
It is a sin to rejecting the order of morals and not loving, not having a preference for your own people.
But your fellow Americans and allowing the third world to just flood in is a sin.
It really is.
And here's the way sin works the longer you take to repent of sin, the more complicated and harder that repentance process is.
So if we had done it 100 years earlier, maybe it would have been easier.
At this point, we would have to deport at least 30 million people, build a wall, and I would guess it would probably take about 100 to 150 years for everyone to fully assimilate and to actually be able to say, All my fellow American citizens really are also heritage American people, really American.
And what's one of the things that I'm assuming in that?
I'm assuming that in 100 to 150 years, that there would be, maybe not universally, maybe not entirely, but there would be a significant, that would be enough time for there to be a significant degree of intermarriage.
And that's ultimately what it would require.
And apart from that, our nation.
Is terribly divided, religiously divided, politically divided.
We got people in America by the millions that don't even speak English.
They don't even speak the language.
You too have been to the DMV recently.
Nations can't, it's not viable.
My daughter took her driver's test.
This is a couple months ago now.
But when she got in the car with the guy to take the driving test, he just sighed.
He said, Oh, you speak English.
He said, I feel like I'm taking my life.
He told her this.
He said, Basically, he said, I feel like I'm taking my life on my hands when I issue these tests because I'll tell the guy, Turn left at the light and they just fly through the light.
And he's like, This is not where we're going.
And he just.
Here in Texas.
Here in Texas.
Yes.
And you know what?
It wasn't Latinos that he was referring to.
Oh, no.
Just throwing that out there.
Muslims?
Or Hindus?
Or Hindus.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, it's interesting because the verse that the progressive Christians always liked to quote was.
In Jeremiah 29, where God commands Israel to seek the welfare of the city that they're in.
But what we forget about that context is God was judging them, and they were going to be in Israel for 70 years.
And then leaving.
Sorry, in Babylon for 70 years.
And then leaving.
And that's why they weren't supposed to intermarry.
That's 100%.
They weren't supposed to stay there.
That's not the marching orders for any time you go and move into.
That's what Timothy Keller told me.
No, that's my point.
That was.
Like when God wanted there to be a specific, okay, wait, we're breaking the pattern, He gave specific instructions.
But the norm is because this is not the first time that there have been refugees and wars and famines that cause people to move.
And the normal order is people get absorbed into the nation that they go in.
It was a miraculous providence that God kept the messianic line steady through the Old Testament by having Israel, even in Egypt and even in Babylon, Preserve themselves as a distinct people.
And that Messianic line did include some immigration, but emphasis on some, Rahab and Ruth.
And if I'm remembering correctly, that's just about it.
And those are both women, too, that are coming in and joining a man's line.
That's right.
Yeah, they're not men that have come in from another tribe and people.
And there is an emphasis on that.
Like the Israelite soldiers, when they went into Jericho, or not Jericho, but the other cities they conquered, they were able to take wives and bring them back in.
But none of the men were ever allowed to come back, or even women that had already had children.
It would only be unmarried women that they were allowed to bring back and they were to become Israeli or Israelite citizens wouldn't really be the term, but residents and live there and be married.
And so, some measure the point is like some measure of immigration that with the full intent on assimilation, where there's a real forsaking of your previous people, your previous religion.
I want to be American.
I want to work.
America is a Christian country.
I want to worship the Christian triune God and an acknowledgement of I'm a guest.
I intend to stay.
I'm fully assimilated in.
But really, there's a real sense, this will be controversial, but there's a real sense in which, for that first generation, especially my entire life, I'm going to behave respectfully as a privileged guest.
I don't know why that's controversial.
I've spent a lot of time internationally, and I don't think anyone going to an Asian nation would just be like, yes, of course.
That's because everyone else is allowed to have a country, Michael.
I know, but my point is, it's not that controversial overstatement.
It shouldn't be.
It shouldn't be.
And most people, you know the people who come after me who get angry?
White people.
Derek Cooper was talking about that in Rogan.
Liberals.
In the West specifically, right past the.
Suicide is built into your bones.
Progressive Christian Hospitality Issues00:09:38
Because you're right, no Japanese person would be offended by that.
They'd be like, yeah, if a white Englishman moves to Japan, even with the intent he marries a Japanese woman, he's going to die in Japan, live his whole life there.
If he said, but I'm going to behave as a guest, recognizing that I'm not Japanese, he could become a Japanese citizen, but he's not Japanese.
But with the recognition that I'm marrying a Japanese woman and And eventually, my descendants will be Japanese.
But I'm not.
With the first generation, I'm not ever going to fully be Japanese because I'm simply not.
I'm a Brit and I'm proud of that, and that's fine.
But I love Japan.
I love my wife.
I love these people.
I love their customs.
I love their heritage.
I love their history.
And I want my line to be here.
If someone was to determine.
Now, personally, I don't know why an Englishman would make that decision.
But if he did, if he did.
That would be the proper disposition, like with a disposition of humility.
And on the flip side, the Japanese people should treat him with respect and dignity.
You shouldn't.
And that's what Israel was told.
They don't.
Like non white immigrants, they do not.
And if you're pastoring in that scenario, that's a whole different dynamic to deal with.
There's one side of the West, we're way too welcoming.
And then Japanese, like just straight up, like certain classes of people, they will turn off an interview.
You show up in the interview on video and you're a black man.
They'll just end the interview right there.
Wow.
That's how they are.
The analogy would be better if there was like a war in a neighboring Asian country.
And so the country took some in.
And then they said, you can be here.
And if your nation is destroyed and you're coming in, then you're going to have to assimilate.
But like, no nation would expect the refugees to come in and set up shop and start terrorizing or insisting that that nation look just like the nation they left.
Like, Obviously, it is sad that disaster happens, that war happens, but these are things that are under the providence of God.
And I think what progressive Christians in the West and white progressive Christians have done is they've said, because there's perceived unfairness of a war or a natural disaster in Haiti or in the Middle East, therefore, we can't just welcome them and be hospitable to them.
We have to become them, we have to allow them to make our land.
And there's a fundamental denial of God's sovereignty over international events.
Like, if they're, well, if God ordains that a war wipe out a nation, often in the Old Testament, that was judgment, right?
And those people, what was going to happen, the best thing that could happen to those people is they could go to a nation that was at least sympathetic to their plight and they would become that nation.
They weren't going there and setting up their own secondary nation in Egypt or in Assyria or whatever.
Next door to them.
Like their nation was done.
God had judged it.
And they would live.
They would have children.
They weren't all necessarily slaughtered, but they would no longer live.
Yes.
Yes.
The sovereignty and distinctiveness of their people was gone.
And those things are under the prerogative of God.
And.
But nobody was rejoicing about that.
Everybody instinctively understood that this was a judgment from God.
The Bible even explicitly talks about that, like one of the most severe judgments.
People think, like, well, all that matters is that my name would be written down in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Not that I'm remembered on earth, but that I'm remembered by my Father in heaven.
Yes, midwit.
Yes.
Yes, yes.
We are perfectly aware and we perfectly affirm, we're not just aware, we agree that the spiritual and eternal category is the ultimate category, that matters the most.
But the Bible also contains judgments, earthly judgments, and many of them are severe.
And the Bible talks about one of the severe judgments of a person is that the Lord would blot out his name from the earth, that no one would remember.
His name, that he would wipe him out, that he would not give to him offspring to continue his legacy, his name, that this is a great judgment.
And if that is a judgment for an individual, certainly that is a judgment.
And we see that language with nations.
And yet, we have reformed ministers.
We have, I mean, just the other day, I was just curious.
And so I tuned into an interview, a discussion between two individuals.
Both are Lutheran.
And And they were talking about race and talking about nationhood and these kinds of things.
And one of them, who was hosting the interview, you know, he was doing it to challenge and to point out, you know, very troubling and concerning views.
And at a certain point, I mean, for me, it was shocking, you know, that at a certain point, the French came up as like a hypothetical, you know, case study.
And what was proposed was, Like, well, what if the entirety of France and the French people, the native French people, what if they were completely replaced and completely eradicated between immigration, between war, between, you know, all these different things, you know, between just their birth rates lowering, all that, like, and they're completely wiped out and the world moves on, but there's no more French people.
Like, would that be sad?
Would that be a tragedy?
And the guy hosting the interview said, That it wouldn't matter.
Just straight up, just said, like, you know, and he even made like a joke about it, like, well, you know, at least it's the French, you know, which I get.
I'm not a huge fan of that.
We're with you there.
I appreciate a good joke at the French.
Can we keep the recipes?
At their expense.
I'd like to keep it.
The French actually have some incredible cuisine.
But, but, but, anyways, but like, and, and the whole interview was this guy who said it's completely fine if, if all of the French are, Just disappeared, and there's no more memory of the French, you know, on the earth.
But this was the good guy, supposedly, and the other guy was the terrible racist who's a heretic and going to hell.
And I just, one, it would be great if we could just, and you can do it strongly.
I'm not saying ideas have consequences, theologies have consequences.
You can do it strongly and say, I strongly, strongly disagree with you.
And you can even say, and I think the implications.
Of your ideas and your convictions are dangerous.
But we are so quick within Christianity and especially the Reformed world, we just anathematize everyone.
We don't just say, I disagree with you or I think you're wrong.
We say, You're a wolf, you're a false teacher, you're a goat, you're unregenerate, you're a reprobate, you are going to hell.
And then it's like, Why?
Because you're a racist.
You just said you're fine with the French being eradicated.
Right.
Who has indifference?
I have problems on both sides of the aisle here, but there's one side that's saying, and therefore you're going to hell for eternity.
And the other side is saying, I really, you know, keeping their calm disposition, and I think you're really wrong.
But, like, so anyway, I don't know.
It's just interesting.
In Isaiah, when God pronounces woe on the king of Tyre, which is a confusing passage because some have interpreted that to be the devil in some cases.
But when God is pronouncing the woe on the king of Tyre, he is destroying Tyre and it's in his people.
And at the same time, he is just grieved that all the good, the earthly good that the king of Tyre had done by establishing transport and shipping and, like, Producing this very prosperous society that had been good for the known world at the time, God is judging them and saying, You're done.
And yet, I'm very sad about this because a lot has been good.
A lot of done has been good globally at that time or in that sphere of the world through the influence and the prosperity of those people.
And so, even God, like in Ezekiel, it says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
Like God does judge nations and wipe them out, and He wipes out peoples.
Peoples are not.
He judges nations as nations.
As nations and peoples.
But as he does so, like there's never a, like there is a sadness that people rebelled and earned that judgment.
And that, you know, in a sense, especially a nation that was Christian previously, like the French, like to just say, well, yeah, history can just move on from them.
Think of the deepness of Lamentations, like how torn apart his soul is that he sees his people destroyed like that.
Like he's bound to them, he loves them, he cares for them, and he's watching God smite them hand and foot and scatter them.
And he is torn apart.
Some of the most anguished writing in all of the Bible.
Presidential Orders and Autopen Signatures00:05:40
Yep.
And he's like, to see my people go through this is awful.
Yep.
To pivot out of this section, I'll close with a joke.
It's clear that we have to establish an Anglo Protestant ethic because the fact that an American can instinctively say, oh, yeah, but it's the French, and we can all say, oh, yeah, the French, that is because we descended from the English.
So there's our proof.
That is a great point.
I don't know if we need to hit AutoPen.
We can probably just go on to Super Chats and watch what happened.
I think we should.
Okay, go ahead.
I can do it.
Go ahead.
This is fascinating.
So, when a president does an executive order, there's obviously a signature at the bottom that one puts their name to it.
And it would appear many, many, many, if not almost all of the executive orders issued by President Biden during his time use the exact same signature.
So, it's not like he got the order and he signed it this way.
But he's not the only one who's done this.
Nope, he's not the only one who's done this.
But virtually all of them, and this would be a software and application tool called an AutoPen.
Well, he pardoned a number of individuals before leaving office, right?
Last day, hey, if Anthony Fauci ever jaywalked in his life, a pardon was issued.
If Anthony Fauci ever jaywalked in the last 25 years, I hereby pardon.
Trump said this morning, right?
It's 3 a.m., he's up, he's putting out bangers.
Big Mac and ham.
He declared all of the pardons that contained that auto pen signature.
Because here's the deal if someone has a software, they could write anything, slap his name on it, and it would carry the weight and authority of the president.
How do we even know it was Joe Biden?
Yeah.
Exactly.
And so Trump said, null and void.
I'm ignoring all of those, meaning he can go after the Justice Department that tried to take him out, that tried to throw him in jail, the January 6th committee, Anthony Fauci.
And it's, and I get it.
Like, I get the conservatives that, like, they're older and they're like, guys, this is unprecedented.
Yeah, it 100% is.
But at a certain point, you have to cross the Rubicon.
Like, it is unprecedented.
But that's what was unprecedented was first what we experienced, 2021 through 2024.
We're in uncharted waters.
A president saying, hey, these are done with the software.
I'm declaring them null and void.
Hey, a judge told us to turn it around, pound sand.
Yeah.
Like, it's scary.
I get it.
The only way out is through.
There's no going back at this point.
It is scary.
We had 250 years.
For them.
Yeah, for them.
It would be very painful for you.
The intrigue is a little bit deeper, though, because the Heritage Foundation did some analysis of those executive order signatures, and they found that some of the pardons that were closest to the Biden family were actually a different AutoPen signature than the one that had been used on all of the executive orders that he probably legitimately attached his signature to with AutoPen.
It's slightly.
This is a computer.
image that gets attached.
And so it's not like, well, there's some variation in the signature of someone's handwriting.
They're, they're, well, yeah, let's go ahead and show it, Nate, since we got into it.
So these are, these are the two different signatures, Auto Pen A and Auto Pen B.
And they've zoomed in and there's periods and dots that are slightly, yeah, it's right there, slightly different.
And so what the implication is, is that some of the pardons that were issued at the end of Biden's presidency, were not issued with the official auto pen of the office of the president that had been used on a lot of the executive orders.
They were issued by presumably some other actor.
Did that include Hunter Biden?
Mm hmm.
And do you know a document had a different signature?
The one where he said he was dropping out of the presidential race.
Yes.
That signature differed from all the auto pen.
Yeah, man, right when that happened, I thought like a tweet.
Like that's, it's just.
And he was holding strong in public.
I'm committed.
I'm doing this.
And then when we didn't see him for a while.
Yep.
And he was sick, remember?
It's like Joe Biden's sick.
Nobody had seen him.
People were wondering, is he even alive?
And then there's just a tweet that a random staffer could have done that, gotten a hold of his Twitter account, and put it out there.
And you're saying that that signature is one of the anomalies of the algorithm.
As I understand this, that signature then is completely different.
Right.
Something like forced or whatever.
This wasn't even a staffer who had the software.
That one's even different from those ones that were used.
I don't know what the implications of it are.
Yeah, no, it was, to me, it was clearly a coup.
It seems pretty clear that after that debate, and all of a sudden they couldn't, you know, they couldn't.
It was a weekend at Bernie's, you know, for four years in the White House and, you know, with a dead corpse that they're, you know, attaching to strings and using like a puppet to make him seem like he's still alive.
But once they couldn't pull that past the people anymore, I mean, you know, Republicans, we knew that even in the primaries all the way back in 2020, we were like, Joe Biden is barely alive.
You can't.
This guy can't be the president.
Democrats were, he's sharp as attack, sharp as attack.
They kept saying, you know, rehearsing the same lines, you know, as they always do.
But as soon as they couldn't keep up the gig any longer because of the debate and it became apparent to the American people that Joe Biden was a vegetable, then all of a sudden, like immediately, like clockwork, you saw all the legacy media change their tune and like, oh, and pretend, you know, they pretend to be surprised.
Like, oh, we're just as surprised as you are.
We had no clue.
We thought he was.
And then, you know, they needed a scapegoat, like, so who's been lying to us, you know, and saying that he was just fine and blah, blah, blah.
But then it was shortly after that time, then all of a sudden Biden's sick.
Nobody sees him.
Nobody hears from him.
And then we get a random tweet and an unelected.
Dennis Prager Power Warnings00:15:42
Just a letter.
Right.
Yeah.
A letter, you know, screenshotted and tweeted.
But like a random unelected, I mean, Kamala Harris, who elected?
Nobody voted for her.
Right.
Literally, no one in the primary voted for her.
Literally.
Yeah.
At that point, nobody voted.
Yep.
The only way she ever got a vote in her life was when it came down to a white male.
Well, when it came down to Libs voting against Donald Trump, there were no votes for Kamala.
There were votes for the election.
All the way up to the election, right?
Yeah, exactly.
But at that point, she had not received a single vote in her life.
And all of a sudden, she's now the presidential candidate for the front runner for the DNC.
And because they had power, they were able to pull off what they pulled off in 2020 with cultural power, with media power, with attorneys, district attorneys that had the races funded through sources, open source foundations.
They weren't looking into and prosecuting voter fraud.
So a powerful system got him in in the first place.
And then they held the reins of power.
And we saw what they did.
It's all downstream of power and money.
That's how the world runs.
Yeah.
So, as much as it depends on you, I said this in a recent episode, but just like what Paul writes to slaves in scripture, be content.
But if you can avail yourself to do so, if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself to do so.
And so, yeah, we need to be content with whatever station of life the Lord has assigned to us, but that doesn't forego.
Godly, righteous ambition.
Ambition is not sin.
You can have sinful ambition and you can have righteous ambition.
And so if you can gain power, money, influence, then avail yourself to do so in order to wield it righteously for the good, you know, for the glory of God and the good of his people.
It's a pretty simple concept.
And I would say that's why, before we go to the questions, you don't just go from being a well intentioned Christian man to having A degree of power.
Like, there's a reason why the process of being faithful with little things and then being given more, which is a biblical principle, applies here.
Like, if you don't run for a city representative or a state representative or city council, is the thing I was saying, like, no one just knows that you're sitting in your living room preparing to be the perfect congressional candidate.
You've got to get out there.
And not only that, sitting in your living room is not preparing you to be the perfect.
Congressional candidate.
Like, you've got to learn some things about how politics and governance works.
And so, if you're a young man and you're aspiring to be involved in the political world, you've got to start small, right?
You've got to start as a local elected official of a city or.
That's right.
You do.
A lot of them need money too.
Like, they'll need to have some type of job that can sustain them.
Yep.
Knocking on doors for three months.
Yep.
It's not just like, oh, I'm 18, I'll go into a career in politics and make $70,000.
Yep.
My brother in Christ, you'll make nothing.
Right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Let's go ahead and address some of our questions.
We'll start with a super chat from Jannie Jackson.
$50 super chat.
Very kind and generous.
Thank you, Jannie.
She says, At what point or at all do you allow someone arrested for child P?
We know what that means for the algorithm.
We'll just leave it there.
Child P. At what point, if they're arrested for child P, do you allow them back into the congregation at church if they have repented?
Our elders.
Have been quiet about it.
My husband gave me permission to ask this.
I appreciate that.
We appreciate and support your ministry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great question.
I've got thoughts.
Does anybody want to lead off with this non controversial question?
The first thing I want to say is you're under the authority of your local pastors and elders.
And if it's a solid biblical church, then definitely take what we say with a grain of salt and don't use it to stir up dissension with them.
So, what we say is the specifics.
Yeah, they'll know the specifics.
And this is not to be.
Yeah, they're privy to information that we may not have.
This is not to be a cudgel to, well, right response.
Well, Joel Webbins said, like, then we're just going to get lost for the record.
Well, and for the record, let's just be honest.
If you go to your pastors and you say, well, Joel Webbins said, that's fair.
That's fair.
Then you've just lost your case.
Yeah.
I am not necessarily viewed fondly by many.
So, yeah.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Were you going to say something?
Well, you were just going to give that in.
Wes and I have similar comments, but you say it first.
And then if there's anything, Joel or Wes, that you didn't say that I was thinking, but I know what you're going to say, and I think it's similar.
I would just lament being in the situation.
There's a psalm very early, I think it's Psalm 11, it says, If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?
And he says, Do I flee to the hills and to the mountains?
And even in the psalm, he says, But no, the wicked are just going to draw their bow.
And there's a real sense where people are put in very difficult situations like this because we lost power, because we had a Christian culture and a Christian expectation, and we lost it.
And so now we're in a place where someone seems to have done something terrible.
And the role of the magistrate in the case like this, according to biblical precedent, probably should have done more.
But they haven't.
Now, this individual, you know, by their admission, seems to be repentant, but you're stuck with a very, very difficult situation.
And so I can just lament and say that there isn't an easy yes, no answer because it's the failure of one sphere to execute justice, the failure of one sphere to suppress.
Like, how does material like this proliferate on the internet?
Well, it proliferated because we made the normal stuff, the normal stuff legal.
So you made the normal stuff legal and then become trade with the worst stuff.
And then people get into it and sin in that way.
And then the magistrate's like, well, so many people have done this.
I can't possibly.
Utilize the sword and minister capital punishment.
And so, this is one of the faults, one of the difficult, painful things.
You've got someone who's repentant and wants to follow Jesus, but also families with children.
How do you bring them together in a local church?
It's really hard.
Yeah.
So, what do you do when you have scenarios that exist that should never actually even exist?
That's what you're getting at.
Rush Denny, who, just for the record, we've said it many times, but I'll say it again.
I really like Rushdini, and he has in many ways stood the test of time.
He was a ferocious reader.
I think he owned close to 45,000 different books, and most of the people who knew him said he read them all, were close to it, and they would find in the backs and pages of the books, handwritten notes, and all these things underlined.
He was just a brilliant man, and he was one of the OG theonomists.
But what I appreciate about Rushdini is it's like he was from a different generation, probably just a different kind of man.
Personally, individually, but also generationally, to where he just didn't.
His version of theonomy was not, it wasn't just the theonomic version of post liberalism.
Yeah, exactly.
It wasn't just theonomic liberalism, but he was actually, he actually had his convictions.
He was a theonomist and not just a 20th century liberalism guy, but a theonomic flavor.
And so, anyways, all that being said, he talked about abortion.
He said, like, yeah, well, in a theonomic society, in a just biblical society, it's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life.
And abortion is murder.
And so the murderer would be penalized and receive capital punishment.
And so, in that case, you would not have congregants in your church who were murderers because the state would have dealt with them.
This is also indicative of Calvin.
Calvin from Geneva, he talked about.
When it comes to divorce and remarriage, and you know, there are some who take the position that if you've been divorced, then you know, the permanence view of divorce that you can never remarry.
But many of the Presbyterians actually, that was more of a more modern Baptist idea the permanence view of you can never remarry.
Most of the older Presbyterians, Calvin included, they believe that if the divorce was by biblical merit.
Being either abandonment or adultery were the two clauses that were given.
And you not being the one who did that.
And you not being, yes, so you being innocent in the matter.
Obviously, everyone's a sinner, but innocent in the matter.
So your spouse, you know, is the one who committed adultery.
And if you got a divorce out of that, then you would actually be free to remarry.
And one of the, you know, the justifications and, you know, argumentation that Calvin uses is he says, well, according to God's law, the adulterer would be put to death.
And in the sight of God, they are.
As good as dead, right, and therefore, um, you are free from that covenant in the divine sense, according to God.
And so, likewise, what Rushduni going back to abortion now, uh, what he said was like, okay, but if they're repentant, they've had an abortion, but they're repentant, um, then then they can't just you can't because at this point it's like one in every four women.
I mean, like, and even at Rushduni's time, it wasn't quite as high as it is today, but it was pretty high.
I mean, honestly, it might have been just as high because it's been about a million children every year for 50 years.
Yeah.
And so, you know, so Rushden.
In different demographics.
So, like, if you're in, you know, upstate Washington versus inner city Baltimore, there's a different ratio there.
That's true.
So, Rushden said, well, you can't just say that this entire swath of people are, you know, that they are unredeemable.
And so he said, like, they have to be welcomed back to the church.
They can be forgiven if they're repentant.
But he was trying to find some way, and I'm not even saying that he's exactly right with this, but I appreciate the instinct.
I appreciate what he was trying to say, yeah, but sin really does matter, and there really are consequences.
And so, what he advocated for was like, at least he talked about another congregation that did this, and he talked about it favorably that they kept them, they welcomed them back into the membership with the church, but they withheld the supper from them for like years.
I think it might have been like 10 or 20 years.
And in some cases, it may have been for life.
As you know, to say that you are forgiven when you are a church member, but there is a consequence for such a heinous sin as murder.
And so, all that being said, back to this question, what Wes is saying, I'm agreeing with Wes, as he's saying there are so many ethical questions that we have to deal with today because all the practical implications of repentance become far more complex the longer.
A person or a people go without repenting.
The more muck and mire, the more sin that's accrued, then the more difficult it becomes to untangle all that mess.
And so, back to the original question what do you do with an individual who was arrested and found guilty?
There's evidence, it's proven.
That's a big thing, assuming that there was.
Exactly.
So, let's assume that the arrest was legitimate, that the person is guilty, that they've actually, you know, that they've even pled guilty and they've admitted it.
By their own volition, that they were arrested for child P.
But I assume they're now out of jail and they're back in the congregation.
They've repented.
And should they be welcomed back into the congregation?
And yeah, that's just one of those questions that you shouldn't ever have to answer in a just society.
But we do.
And we have to answer this question because of our sin.
Yeah, I'm going to say it.
Dennis Prager.
Right.
Dennis Prager recently did an interview where he said, well, you know, if it's AI, so it's not actually, you know, a child, but it is child P.
It's the image of one.
It is child P. Exactly.
But like someone intentionally is using AI to manufacture because they want it to be a child, that level of perversion.
So it is child P, but it's AI generated.
And he was asked point blank in an interview and, and, He wasn't like, you know, baited into it or something like that.
The guy, literally, the person interviewing him said, I think that that's morally reprehensible.
I'm just, yeah, I'm just disgusted with your answer.
A Catholic, a Christian interviewing a Jew.
And Dennis Prager, and Dennis Prager was clear about why he has this view.
He said, like, it is my religion.
He said, you know, and he said this in other contexts as well.
So I'm not making this up.
He said, like, Jordan Kirk pressed him on it.
Yeah.
He said, one of the problems, this is Dennis Prager, this is his view.
He said, one of the problems with Christianity.
I'm paraphrasing him, but this is just about it.
Is that, you know, the Torah, the Old Testament, never condemns sinful thoughts.
It never even, basically, what he's saying is that the Old Testament doesn't even have the category, theological category, where a thought could be sin.
So you can think with impunity.
Well, covetousness is a thought.
That was the first one I went to.
I know, but this is what he said.
And he said, it's you Christians with your New Testament, it's, it's, Specifically, Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount.
But I tell you, right, if anyone looks, not just committing adultery indeed, but if somebody looks at another woman with lust in his heart, then he's like, that is a Christian perspective.
So, this whole idea that you guys are bringing up with these questions about pornography or about this or about that, as long as it's not acted upon in a Jewish framework, you're fine.
It's only in a Christian framework that these ethics matter.
I think that's, you know, I don't even think that's an accurate, even if you only, like, the Ten Commandments have a category for the last two years.
Does he speak for every Jew?
No, nobody gets to speak for everyone.
I don't speak for every Christian, but I'm just saying, but it's not a random guy on the internet.
It's Dennis Prager, the head of Prager U, who is.
Big thunder for Turning Point as well, I believe.
Yes.
And he's saying, this comes from my Jewish convictions, Judaism.
He says that explicitly.
So here's my point.
My point is.
We have, we live in a world that we have been apostatizing in the West and here in these United States for a very long time.
Math Work and American Heritage Rules00:14:58
And like Wes said in the Psalms, like if the foundations are lost, what can the righteous do?
And we have lost the foundations.
We have.
And because we've lost the foundations, we now have to get questions like this in our live stream.
Like, what do we do with this person who did this thing?
And like, here's the reality number one, it's a thing that should be impossible to do.
Right.
You shouldn't be able to find child pay.
It should be legal to produce it, and it is, but it should be so heavily penalized, and like what Wes was saying, and everything even remotely leading up to it, adult pee, that it wouldn't be found.
Remember when Saul wants a medium and he's going to rebel against the Lord?
Remember, Saul has to go way, way, way outside of his kingdom because he had banished all the mediums.
So even when he wanted to sin against God, and here's the point the average layman in Israel wouldn't have been able to do it.
It required a king with a mass amount of resources to even be capable of sinning in that category.
Why?
Because righteousness had been so thoroughly enacted in the land of Israel that there was no access to medians.
And oh, that it might be true in our nation one day that there wouldn't even be the ability to gain access to these kinds of things in this course.
So that's one level.
Number two, The fact that there are multiple sins where the Bible does actually talk about the death penalty that we don't abide, and so that person, uh, this goes back to Rushduni and those individuals who had committed abortion.
He's saying, like, yeah, this is something the church shouldn't necessarily have to figure out, you know, and if it was a just society because it's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life, but we do.
And so he's doing his best.
He's like, I don't have a verse for this, you know, but I'm doing my best to say, okay, well, I know grace, even for the most wretched, if there's repentance and if grace and membership in the church, but.
Okay, there's got to be some penalties, so we're going to prohibit the Lord's Supper for a time.
And so, all that being said, that's what you're having to sift through.
And I guess I would say, in line with Rush Dooney, the reason I pointed him out and the reason Calvin, all this kind of stuff, is to try to, so you don't just think it's coming from me.
Because if it's just me, then who cares?
But I think I would go with kind of this, that Rush Dooney hybrid of, okay, welcome back into membership, as atrocious as it is.
But there would be some kind of consequence, whatever that is, if it is being prohibited from the Lord's Supper for a prolonged period of time or whatever it might be.
And in the practical sense, for protection and prudence, it would absolutely, I would say, for indefinitely for life, it would require that the only way that church attendance would be permissible is with before you even step on the grounds, that there is.
Probably one or two men who are perfectly aware of the situation who meet you off the property and walk you in.
You get to stay for the service because you're a Christian and we want you to be able to go to church.
But then immediately afterwards, they walk you off.
So you're not barring them from the Lord's Day, but you're saying you can't come to the community group.
This is held in people's homes.
You are, as a Christian, you have the right to come to the Lord's Day, we're permitting that.
But you can't come to a community group.
You can't come to Tuesday night psalm singing.
You can't do that.
Your sin has forfeited access to guys' nights, like men's nights or something like that.
Potentially.
They could say yes or no to that.
But that would be up to the leadership of the church.
And up to those men if they feel comfortable with that.
Yeah.
And so that's a heartbreaking question, but that's the best answer.
And you can respectfully ask your elders hey, I have children.
We love you.
We want to see.
There's nothing more glorious than the sinner forgiven.
But please, as members of the church, we would respectfully ask that any time.
This man is here on the property.
Could you provide from the security team a chaperone so we know that he's never alone?
We know that he's never talking with individuals he shouldn't be talking with.
We know he's never lingering around with anyone having eyes on him.
You know, the other thing that does is that that will demonstrate repentance because if that man is really repentant and understands his sin and the grace that's being afforded to him, he will not kick against that.
He won't buck against that requirement.
If he knows that's unreasonable, like there's a pretty good chance that he has not truly repented.
That's a good point.
Right.
Okay.
This is from CoolDude again, his username.
Super chat, $10.
Thank you for your generosity, cool dude.
We appreciate it.
He said, Just a right response, Ministries Appreciator.
I know that you guys catch a lot of heat for covering controversial but important topics.
Thanks.
That guy is a cool dude.
He is a cool dude.
Thank you.
We appreciate that.
It's very kind.
And yes, you are right.
We do get a lot of heat.
A lot of heat.
Mostly, mostly Michael, you know, but.
Gosh, Michael.
Now, all of us do.
Michael had his moment on Right Wing Watch.
Yeah, yeah.
I remember it.
Okay.
Let's go back.
More questions.
Kevin Ice.
Kevin Ice, Super Chat 499, said, I saw a photo of a man holding a sign that said, quote, Reform Baptist Church, join us.
We keep our women in line, end quote.
Is this too harsh or counterproductive?
Thanks for the Super Chat, Kevin.
Doesn't go far enough.
Now I'm kidding.
It's the same thing.
Like, it's tough.
Like, in a time like ours, emphasizing when every other Baptist church in your area, you know, is perhaps has women pastors.
Like, I can get the emphasis again.
Like, you're in a small town, every other church is like that.
You're trying to get something off the ground, and you're like, every one of these other churches, the rule of this, that, or the other.
I don't see a point that would be relevant, like, in our church, in our town.
I think it would actually be counterproductive.
You'd be putting the emphasis on just something that is not minor when it goes wrong, but in the whole life of a church, like, that's a very small part.
Like, simply, you're obeying 1 Corinthians, which says it is shameful for a woman to speak during the service.
So, you're obeying that commandment, and that's just not a big deal.
So, Probably counterproductive, but without knowing the church, without knowing the town, without knowing the person, I don't know.
I feel like it would be tough to say, like, oh, yeah, there's no scenario where that possibly could be.
Yeah, I want to condemn it, but yeah, we, at this point, especially, you know, it's hard to say, like, well, this is what we would do.
Like, well, we're unique in the sense that.
Joel basically does that every six weeks.
Well, exactly, because.
That's what I was going to say, it's because of right response ministry.
It is different, though.
It is different.
Yeah, well, because, yeah, it's not just, we're not advertising our church and saying, and this is, we're leading with this.
No, we're doing long form content where we talk about all kinds of controversial subjects, and that does occasionally include biblical patriarchy and God's natural order and design for both men and women.
And when those things come up, we don't make a sign and stand in front of our church and do it.
But our detractors and opponents who are seeking to discredit us go in, they hate watch, they clip it out, and then they put that in isolation, and it gets picked up by other leftist and sadly complementarian Christians.
Course, I don't know which is worse.
Honestly, on this particular issue, I've probably received just as much outrage from complimentary Christians as I have from liberal Democrats.
But they're the ones who clip it out, they make it go viral, share it with all their friends.
So, I mean, for all intents and purposes, our church, Covenant Bible Church, does have a literal, not literal, but it does have effectively a sign in front of it that says, We keep our women in line.
But I think there's a difference in your enemies doing that to you.
Versus you doing it to yourself.
Right.
That's what I would say.
Taking your identity.
I'll take that one.
Striker.
Thanks for the personal question.
Did I have a nice time camping?
We did have a nice time camping.
It was at Garner State Park, which is really nice.
There's a nice river flowing through there and lots of area to hike around.
Have I started a Trail Life USA troop?
No, I have not.
We don't have land or property, we just rent it for Sunday mornings right now.
I do like Trail Life.
There are several Trail Life groups in our area, and several of the men in our church have their boys in Trail Life, so I recommend that pretty highly.
But no ability to start one at our church until we have our own space.
If we wanted to do it at that point, we could talk about it.
There's some guys in our church who have their sons in trail life.
They speak highly of it.
Yep.
I can tackle this one.
Belushi Prevalion.
All right.
Super chat $2.
Thanks, Belushi.
He asked, he or she asked, can you do a show on running for local offices?
It'd be tough to do two hours of one.
I honestly kind of want to take like 10 minutes on X and actually just briefly break it down because if you're thinking about running for office, this is about the time that you need to actually put a campaign together.
And begin thinking because primaries, at least for some offices, will be November 2026, which means the primary for them will be in March.
So the general election will be in November.
That's where we vote on, you know, congressmen, if your congressman's up for re election, et cetera.
But March 2026, which is a year away today, it takes about a year to put a campaign together, that's when you'd actually run in the primary to basically be able to compete in the November election.
So I don't know that we'll be able to do a full two hour show, but if you follow me on X, I am going to, this is my commitment.
In the next month, have some time after the conference.
Do a short video on anyone interested in running for local office, the things to think about, and what to put together.
You know, we could maybe, depending on how your ideas go with that, Wes, we could maybe do an episode on strategic ways to impact your town, a borough building, things like that, political office being one of them.
That's a good thought.
Good recommendation.
Thank you.
The McGlone Code.
He gave us a super chat, $2.
He said, Keep up the good fight, men, Christ.
Is king.
Amen.
Amen.
Christ is king.
Thank you.
The McGlone Code.
We appreciate it.
Okay.
Any other questions we want to hit?
Okay.
James May says, How does heritage American math work?
I like the way you phrase that.
When a real American, in this case, JD Vance, for instance, marries a non heritage American, where do his children fall on the hierarchy?
He said, It also occurs to me that Barron Trump is also half.
Non American.
The chosen.
The chosen one, yeah.
Well, I mean, Nassim, Nassim Al Gib, he wasn't a native Fremen.
That's true.
But he led them to paradise.
The outsider.
There's a difference when we're talking about citizens and elected offices versus when we're talking about the prophesied one.
The prophesied one who ultimately he's not elected.
He's going to be the unelected emperor.
49% of Republicans favored lowering the age requirement in some straw poll to let Barron Trump run for president.
Wow.
Legitimately.
That's legit.
But he doesn't need to be president.
He needs to be monarch, some kind of king.
Most of that's facetious.
Maybe not entirely.
But not all of it.
Not all of it.
But just for the internet.
So, for the question, how does Heritage American math work?
Okay, so JD is, as far as I know, he's a Heritage American.
And I don't just say that because he's white, but I mean, he grew up in Appalachia.
He's Irish.
He's Irish.
You know, from hillbilly elegy.
You know, I know that at least three generations to his grandmother.
So, yes.
In the case of his wife, she's Indian.
I don't know if she's a Hindu anymore.
Is she practicing religious?
She is attending Mass with him.
Good.
Praise God.
That's good.
Praise God.
So, I know from what I've read, at least for a while, she was still practicing Hinduism.
And JD is a Catholic, but it sounds like she's going to mass with him.
Even in the pictures, and granted, you don't know somebody's heart, so I'm not going to try to presume to know.
But you look at pictures of JD, and his wife is standing next to him, like doe eyed, her eyelashes bouncing up and down, just smitten by her husband.
Like, really embodying a.
A domestic, feminine beauty and respect and adoration for her husband.
She seems like a wonderful wife and a wonderful mother and a very sweet woman.
That does not make her a heritage American.
Right.
Rules is rules.
We don't make the rules.
But what we are trying to say is that we talk about preference, and preference isn't inherently sinful.
I will absolutely say that is one particular Indian that I am far more glad is here.
Than others.
And I make no apology about that.
And so, and from what we can tell, she's attending Mass.
Perhaps, you know, I don't know this definitively, but I would assume if she's attending Mass that at least there's the potential that she's forsaking Hinduism.
I know that JD has explicitly said, in terms of the children, that they're being raised Catholic and not Hindu.
So that's significant.
So to answer the question, how does heritage American math work when real American, you know, JD Vance marries a non heritage American.
In the case of his wife, where do the children fall on the hierarchy?
Well, with what I said earlier, biblically speaking, third generation.
And so in this case, I would say that J.D.'s grandchildren, that his children's children, would be fully heritage American.
That's not to say that his children now are not American at all.
And it's certainly not to say that his wife or children are not American citizens.
Here's the thing, guys.
I tweeted about this, and immediately, when people read me on the, and again, sadly, it's not just leftists, it's primarily Christians.
They're the worst, truly the worst.
But, man, that's not fair.
Most Christians aren't reformed Christians.
They're the worst.
But when they read me, they immediately think, what is the least charitable possible reading of this?
That I can, you know, that I could possibly, you know, interpret.
Monoculture and Heritage Americans00:10:19
And then they just assume that that's what I meant.
And so I, you know, I tweeted about this and, you know, people lost their minds and naturally so.
But what I was advocating for is I was not saying that this person is not an American.
And therefore, that means that they're not an American citizen or that that means they immediately have to, you know, be deported somewhere or that, like, no, what I'm advocating for.
Is that we need another category.
Right now, the only categories, we have like two categories for America.
We have Americans, legal citizens, and non legal citizens.
Right.
We have Americans, and most people would define that as someone who has legal citizenship in America.
That's right.
American.
And then, and they would just say that that's American.
And then we have non Americans, and that would be everybody else.
So we have two categories.
And the way that the American mind, the modern American mind, thinks these days.
Two categories American.
How is it defined?
Anyone in America with legal citizenship.
They don't even have to be in America, they could be somewhere.
Anyone with legal citizenship in America, American.
That's it.
That's the definition.
And then non American, everyone else.
And what I'm saying is that no other nation thinks that way.
Again, to use Japan or France.
Most of them don't even.
But for France, they could say a Frenchman is one thing, and then there can be a.
A French citizen who's not a Frenchman.
You know what I mean?
And in the same way, an English citizen who's not a Brit.
He's not an Englishman.
And that's all I was trying to say is that we need another category to where we can say, okay, this person is an American citizen and they should be treated respectfully so long as they behave themselves as a law abiding guest and they're not here simply to exploit America or commit crime in America.
So they are an American citizen.
They should be.
Treated respectfully, but attaining citizenship in America cannot immediately make you an American.
And if it does, then basically what we're saying is that right now, you've said this, Wes, but like right now in India, I guess there are 1.3 billion potential Americans.
Right.
Right.
And in China, there's another billion potential Americans.
So basically, what you're saying is that the whole world is divided into two categories Americans and potential Americans.
Right.
And what we want to say is no.
That is insane.
It has to mean something.
It has to mean something to be an American, to be Japanese, to be a Frenchman, to be.
And I do understand, I'll add this disclaimer.
I understand that the origin and the settling of our nation and the building and civilizing of our nation is unique to other nations.
One difference would be it is far more recent.
Many of these other nations, both European and Eastern alike, are nations that were settled.
A thousand plus years ago.
So, one of the differences is that our nation still just isn't that old.
And I acknowledge that.
And I'll also acknowledge that when you're settling, and there is a difference between immigrating and settling, settlers and immigrants.
We no longer have settlers.
The nation, it's been settled, folks.
It's settled.
How do you know it's settled?
Because you can comfortably move about 3,000 miles from one coast to the other, and you don't risk.
Snake bite.
You don't risk being all the stuff on Oregon Trail.
Yeah.
You don't need a passport to do so.
That's right.
And you don't, yeah.
And you can drive on a nice paved road.
It's settled.
It's settled.
And so we don't have, we have not had settlers for quite some time.
All we have these days are immigrants.
But in the settling of America, I acknowledge number one, it's more recently settled than other countries.
And number two, it was settled by somewhat, not.
Not near as much as people would like to make it sound, but somewhat of an eclectic group of peoples, right?
It wasn't just settled by one people.
However, it did for a very long time have a predominant hegemony, a primary people, and that was an Anglo Protestant people.
And so that is what America is.
Now we have a choice.
We can reject that and say, well, that's not what we're going to be anymore.
I think that that would be a terrible choice.
Terrible choice.
And that's a choice that we've been making for quite a while now.
And I'm hoping that we can unmake that choice.
But as it stands, if you claim to love America, if you claim to love America, its heritage, its culture, its history, then America is an Anglo Protestant nation.
And to be an American is to be fully assimilated into that monoculture, which is Anglo Protestant.
And just for the record, because some people say, okay, so, you know, like, what about.
What about black people?
You know, they're not Anglo, they're not British, you know, they don't have that bloodline.
I'm saying a monoculture.
I do believe that there is a difference between a heritage American black person versus a Nigerian who came over here five years ago.
There is a difference to someone who can trace back their ancestry four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 generations, 200, 300, 400 years.
Even if they're not white, that still means something.
And so I, but I think that, you know, Clarence Thomas, you know, Stephen Wolfe has said this that's culturally speaking, not ethnically, but culturally, that he would still be an Anglo Protestant.
He is of that culture, he's in that milieu, very much so.
His mind, his views, his principles, his virtues, the way that he thinks, and that that was done, that was accomplished.
Not in just one lifetime or a few short years or a couple of months.
It was shaped over generations.
He's the product of that and he has that ancestry.
So when I say Heritage American, I am not saying exclusively white.
I am saying though, if we're talking Heritage American, it was predominantly white.
It was predominantly white.
And I make no apology for that.
That is our history.
It just either is or it's not.
And it was.
And so, yeah, I would like to see America.
Be America true to its founding, true to its heritage, true to its history, and most importantly, true to its worship of the triune God and its virtues and values that stem from the Protestant, Anglo Protestant religion.
I would like to see that.
And what would it look like in terms of skin color?
It would be predominantly white.
I don't want the white, current, barely, current white majority of our country to be eradicated and replaced.
I don't want that.
It wouldn't be the same country.
It would be a different place, and I like this place, and and so yeah, so that's that's what we're talking when we say Heritage America, uh, Heritage American.
We're saying people who, um, who are willingly doing everything they can to assimilate into a mono culture, American culture, which is an Anglo Protestant culture, they may have a different melanin, a different skin tone, and that does come, it's not just arbitrary, color is not arbitrary, that comes, that means a different bloodline, different race, um.
But if they have been here, their ancestors have been here for multiple, multiple generations, then I would say that they are a heritage American.
And if we could shut down our borders and stop taking a bunch of immigrants and try to preserve the stock of our nation for a hundred years, a long time, then eventually what likely would happen through intermarriage is that Americans not only would be the same as a monoculture, but eventually through intermarriage, they would also.
In terms of skin color and race, eventually America would be one people.
And I personally, I think anything other than that, long term, is not sustainable.
We are right now, because of globalism and all that, and because of anti racism and because of 20th century liberalism, we are on a headlong collision path where our nation is similar to Rome.
Is going to, we've bit off more than we can chew.
We've spread too far.
We have received too many peoples who aren't really assimilated to Rome.
Throw this super chat and will be destroyed from the inside.
McGlone code $10 super chat.
Thanks, McGlone.
Historically, citizenship was tied to your duties to your country, not your rights and privileges.
It was tied to you had an allegiance, you had a belonging.
The answer to something.
On JD Vance's kids, too, there's a difference between.
Between they stay in America, they marry Americans, they continue to have allegiance to it, or if they went to some enclave in Houston, Texas, only composed of Indians, or went back to India, those are two different futures in which they wouldn't be Americans.
But then there is a future where they cling to America and they would be.
Amen.
Amen.
So here's the deal you guys think we're radical racists.
Live Streamed Super Chat Fundraising00:05:21
I'm telling you, have you been on the internet?
Have you been on the internet since Elon took it over?
You will be begging.
For right response ministries in two to five years.
See, I'm telling you, listen to all the haters, listen to me for a moment.
Give it two to five years.
You think that you're going to win this argument.
You're not going to win this argument.
You have no idea how many millions, not thousands, millions of young men predominantly rising through the ranks, high caliber, ambitious, driven, successful, and they despise your squishy.
Limp wristed liberal views.
They hate it.
And they're going to win.
They're going to win two to five, and they're going to win quick.
The Overton window is moving at the speed of light.
Two to five years from now, you will be begging for right response ministries.
You will be saying, I miss those moderates.
I'll talk to Joel.
He's reasonable.
And the bridge will have been thoroughly burned.
So just keep it in mind.
Okay, any other questions or thoughts?
No?
Okay, that's good for today.
Thank you guys so much.
Again, subscribe to us on YouTube and click the bell so you'll be notified with all of our new content as it comes out.
Our schedule is as follows Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time for the live stream, and also Fridays at 8 p.m. Central Time for the Friday special.
We are in between seasons right now.
Season one has ended, season two is coming, and we will pick up with season two on the first Friday of.
April, and that's going to be a 10 part series with myself and Dr. Stephen Wolf on the subject of Christian nationalism and getting into the particulars and the practicals of how to implement Christian nationalism here in these United States of America.
If you'd like to be able to view that ahead of time and you'd like to do so ad free, then go and join us at Patreon.
And honestly, even if you don't want the content, but you recognize that we're trying to exercise courage and talk about a lot of things and getting a lot of flack.
And you'd like to put your money where your mouth is and support this ministry?
One of the ways you can do it is simply by supporting us by becoming a Patreon member.
So go to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
Patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
You will have access to the entirety of season two, all 10 episodes with Dr. Stephen Wolf and myself, ad free, and you'll also be supporting a good cause.
Go ahead also and follow us on X. My handle is at right response M. At right response M.
And you also, we've already said, you can go back in the video and look.
We've got at Wesley underscore Todd with two D's underscore and at ML.
Belch at ML Belch for Michael.
So, follow us on X, subscribe on YouTube.
If you're willing to do so, we are incredibly appreciative and grateful if you would join us on Patreon, become a Patreon member.
And lastly, register for the conference.
If you haven't already, we'd love to see you there.
We will be live streaming the conference for those who are interested.
You just can't make it because maybe you live outside of the country or whatever it may be.
If you're not able to come, we have had a lot of people inquiring about whether or not the conference will be made available online.
The answer is yes.
It will be live streamed, but it will be live streamed exclusively for our Patreon members.
So that's another reason.
Not only can you get early ad free access to this Friday special with Stephen Wolf, but you also will be ready to, in just a few weeks now, live stream the entirety of our Christ is King conference, How to Defeat Trash World, which is happening April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
You'll be able to live stream the whole thing.
And if you can't watch it at that very moment, it will be live streamed as it's happening, but you'll also By joining us on Patreon, you'll have access to that.
If you can't watch it in the moment, it'll just be there for you on Patreon indefinitely.
However, for the live stream, for the conference, you have to join our Patreon as a gold member.
We think that it's an incredible value.
A lot of people are taking off of work, they're spending money on travel and lodging and all these things to be there.
And so for those who can't come, we understand.
But we've worked really hard to provide some of the best speakers.
There are and a lot of them, and they cost money.
And we're providing, I think, a great value for you guys.
And so we are going to require that it's part of our gold membership, which at the end of the day, it's 10 bucks a month.
It's still very affordable.
There are a lot of other conferences that I've seen that live stream, and the live stream costs $49.99 or something like that.
So it's still a really great deal.
And of course, you can also register and come in person if you would like.