Werry's Law posits that evangelical men only speak on culture if a woman has already done so, arguing conservative women are inherently liberal or domestic. The speaker critiques Lila Grace Rose's opposition to capital punishment as "feminine sentiment" hindering justice, contrasting it with biblical "masculine" penalties. Citing 1 Peter and the 19th Amendment, he claims universal suffrage displaced virtuous men with inclusive policies favoring non-contributors. Ultimately, the episode asserts societal decline stems from weak men allowing feminism to erode family structures, while courageous men face ostracization within organizations like the Texas GOP. [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
Why We Ask for Reviews00:14:51
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.
As surely as the sun will rise each morning in the east, there is a universal law, a law of nature, a law of the scripture, that has never proven to be false a single time in all of human history.
That law is known as Wherry's law.
Now, this is something that has been observed by many for quite a while, but Wherry, a friend of mine, put it into concise and clear language a while back, i.e., Posted an infamous tweet that I'm going to show for all of you and read for those of you who are listening that I think will bring a lot of clarity.
Here it is.
Where he said, There are two elements of where he's law.
Number one, an evangelical man will only speak out on a controversial cultural issue or political, we might say, if he can do so by citing a woman who has already done it.
Number two, every conservative woman, and this is what we're going to focus on.
Every conservative woman with a public platform is on a trajectory toward liberalism.
Let me say that one more time.
The second component of Wary's Law, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to always be true in every instance, is this every conservative woman with a public platform is on a trajectory toward liberalism.
And there you go.
There you have it.
That is Wary's Law, and it has proven to be true again and again and again.
Because if there is a woman who is truly conservative, and conservative, I understand it's not the best word.
Why is it not the best word?
Because, well, you could be conserving something that is biblical and traditional, old, tried, true, or you could say, I'm a conservative.
What are you conserving?
Well, I'm conservating the politics of 2015, I'm conserving the 1990s.
And so, in that sense, yeah, there are plenty of feminist conservative women that are, in the technical sense, Actually, conservative, if you're conservative, you know, seeking to conserve something that's fairly recent.
But if we say conservative, and what we mean by that is a woman who is biblically conservative, she's trying to conserve the timeless Christian principles of scripture.
That is, she's biblical, she's traditional.
If we're speaking of a conservative woman in that regard, then a conservative woman who is speaking and teaching and leading and directing.
People publicly from some public platform is an oxymoron.
Jumbo shrimp, right?
Intelligent liberal, right?
There's all kinds of oxymorons, and this would be one of them.
Public conservative woman.
There's no such thing.
A truly conservative woman, again, using the word conservative, not conserving the 1990s, but biblically conservative, that woman is a domestic woman.
She is a homebody.
She is a lady of the hearth.
That is a woman who is out of sight.
I don't mean that she never goes into public.
I'm not saying that she can't go to the grocery store.
I'm not saying that she can't take the children to the park, but I'm talking about public platforms.
Speaking, leading, influencing from a public platform is not what a truly conservative woman does.
And I've seen this go both ways.
To be fair to Wary's Law here, one scenario is that a conservative woman with a public platform is on a trajectory towards liberalism, or she's on a trajectory off liberalism.
Of that public platform.
And by God's grace, and it's a wonderful thing, you love to see it.
You love to see it.
It's a wonderful thing that God, in his compassion and kindness towards that particular woman, has done many times.
Many times, there is a woman who is biblical in her convictions for the most part.
She's not, obviously, she's not entirely consistent, which is why we're seeing her publicly talking about it, influencing, seeking to lead, seeking to grow her influence.
But over time, her convictions actually don't lessen, but they get stronger.
She becomes more convicted by the scriptures.
She wants to be more pleasing to the Lord.
She's maybe a young single woman at first, but then she gets married and she has her first child and then a second and then a third.
And little by little, you know, you wake up one day and five years have gone by and you're like, hey, I never hear from so and so anymore.
I wonder what happened to this woman.
You know, she had some decent takes online.
You know, I used to follow her ex account, you know, or she had a podcast for a while that.
That had some good things, you know, that she was saying, and I never hear from her anymore.
What happened?
Well, what happened is that she started listening to her own podcast.
What happened is that she influenced and led herself right into biblical womanhood.
And leading herself into biblical womanhood necessarily means leading herself out of the public sphere.
And again, not saying that women aren't literally in public sometimes.
But public leadership, public platform, publicly seeking to speak to and lead and teach others.
That is an oxymoron.
That is not feminine.
It's not domestic, right?
I think of 1 Peter chapter 3 that says that the characteristics of a woman who has inward beauty, imperishable beauty of the heart that is pleasing in the sight of God, is that she's a quiet woman with a gentle spirit.
Those are the two characteristics, the only two characteristics that are mentioned in this particular passage in 1 Peter chapter 3: quiet and gentle spirit.
Those two characteristics make up imperishable internal beauty of the heart that God finds to be pleasing.
It is not feminine, not in any biblical sense, to be online in the public sphere and battling with men in the public sphere.
Even if those men are wrong, even if those men are progressives and leftists and liberals.
Then that's something that a man should be doing.
Now, back to the first point of where he's long, then we'll jump into the episode.
The first point is that when it comes not just to generally conservative men in the realm of politics and culture, but particularly evangelical men, Christian men in the evangelical world, church world, his first point is this an evangelical man will only speak out on a controversial cultural issue if he can do so by citing a woman who already has.
I personally would add to that.
And say a woman who has already spoken out or a black man.
I think either one would be fair, a white woman or a male who is non white.
A non white male or a white woman, right?
It's like, man, there's this big issue going on in politics right now, going on, you know, in the culture war.
Has a white woman talked about it publicly yet?
Has a black or Hispanic man talked about it publicly yet?
Oh, phew.
Okay.
Then I can come in behind them and simply echo what they've already said.
Without that cover fire, without a white woman or a non white male leading the way, then you can expect an evangelical man, evangelical pastor to not take the risk, to not exercise the courage.
And so I say that just to temper what I've already said.
I do have sympathy.
I do have sympathy because I do think that there are many women who are conservative and not just conserving the 1990s, but in the biblical traditional sense, who Would love to see men, godly, courageous men, enter the fray, but sadly, often they don't.
They don't.
And so eventually, I think some of these women speak out.
And then once they speak out, then you have the cover fire, and these men feel as though they have permission to follow up behind and echo the sentiments.
Now they feel like they can speak out.
And this is just this vicious cycle that keeps going round and round and round.
We've been watching it for decades at this point, but it's been especially prevalent.
Over the last few years between podcasting and social media and all these kinds of things.
And at a certain point, oh, I think John MacArthur, you know, will honor him.
He just recently passed away and is now in glory with the Lord.
And he famously said, when someone asked him once, you know, what do you think?
It was Todd Friel.
What do you think about Beth Moore?
Two words.
What would you say?
He said, go home.
Wonderful.
I love it.
Go home.
Be feminine, be domestic.
Be a lady of the hearth, exercise, and model a quiet and gentle spirit.
But we don't have a whole lot of that.
And so what we're left with instead is conservative women saying things that sound good for a while.
And then, lo and behold, shocker, they come out a little bit later saying things that are not conservative at all.
And all I'm saying is can we please, as a society, and especially Christians in America, come to a place?
Where we're no longer surprised by this, where we realize that the purpose of a system is what it does, right?
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Oh my goodness, I can't believe that this woman who I followed for the last two and a half years was so conservative and said so many good things, and now she's saying some things that aren't conservative.
But was she so conservative?
I mean, she's literally in the public sphere speaking to men and women alike.
Telling them what to do, wearing a three piece, you know, boss babe pantsuit.
No, she was, it's not that she switched.
That's what I'm trying to get across.
It's not that all these conservative women keep becoming liberals.
No, it's they weren't conservative women in the first place.
How do you know?
Because if they were truly conservative, I would have never heard their name.
That's how I know.
So this episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, also by our Patreon members.
You can join our Patreon by going over to patreon.com.
And also, this episode is brought to you by our generous donors.
You can make a donation today by simply going to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate.
So it's just you and I, Wesley Todd and Joel Webbin today.
Antonio is out of the studio and will also be out on Friday, but will be back with us next week.
We'll make good use of the time.
One way or another.
Yeah, one way or the other.
I think jumping into this, one of the big themes I feel like we've been talking about a lot this year, especially the last three months conservative, liberal, progressive, Republican, Democrat, a lot of what we're talking about is kind of two sides of the same coin.
And if you keep up that paradigm, Well, you're going to end up with the same result that you've always gotten.
So, we've talked before about getting women out of politics.
We talked about Governor Christy Noam and even in pro life.
So, Kristen Hawkins, I remember a feminist was assaulting her or just confronting her.
And she said, Well, hang on, you're over here advocating for children for pro life.
Where are your children at home?
Who's caring for them?
Oh, somebody else.
And so, we've made this point a lot.
And what we're really bringing Wary's Law to bear on here is to illustrate that until we get over this obstacle, until you get over and you stop making Women be the first champions for your position.
Well, as a woman said it, as a woman said it, has someone come out in support?
We're never going to get over some of the hurdles that I think we would all love to see go away.
In the Texas House, there's a bill to abolish abortion filed this session, and one of the state reps said.
There's a bill to abolish women.
Yeah, we both voted for abortion.
Yep.
And one of the state reps said, well, why isn't this being carried by a woman?
As in, children are being killed alive in Texas, in the womb, through abortion pills.
This is, I mean, Who else to take this on but the men, men of character, men in political office?
And the first question was, Well, have you had a woman go and tackle that?
Like, who's supposed to save people in a society?
It is the men.
That's right.
Let's go ahead and illustrate this with the unfortunate case, Joel.
This happened, I think, yesterday.
Yeah, I saw it.
With pro life activist Lila Grace Rose.
She's been around for a number of years.
She did some undercover work at Planned Parenthood back in the 2000s, worked with James O'Keefe as well, exposing just Planned Parenthood.
She went in as a 15 year old, said, Hey, I want to get an abortion.
Don't tell my parents.
They had no problems with it.
So she's been around and been a pro life, whatever that means, activist for a long time.
But listen to what she said.
And this is a relation, again, she's commenting very publicly.
This had over half a million views last I checked, commenting very publicly on the execution that Tennessee just carried out of an inmate.
So the article, maybe you might be able to read the headline, maybe not, from the New York Post it says Tennessee death row inmate cries out in pain during lethal injection after state refuses to deactivate defibrillator.
Implant.
So you had an inmate, and in the picture.
The Cost of Capital Punishment00:06:52
What did he do?
What's the crime?
Well, in the picture, he brutally murdered a mother and her two children.
So the man is on the right.
So we're saying that a man who murdered a mother and her two children, looks like they're both daughters, murdered three women, two of them little girls, that he experienced some pain as a consequence, and this is a problem?
I regret to inform you.
Does hanging hurt?
Unfortunately, yes.
Yeah.
We have.
We have exercised capital punishment for capital crimes, such as murder, in virtually every God fearing society for centuries.
But not to fear.
What's the problem?
Sir, you're based Roman Catholic, woman in politics, woman in the public.
She had some thoughts.
She said, No civilized nation needs the death penalty.
Lilo Rose.
Lilo Rose.
She was raised evangelical Protestant.
She's now Roman Catholic.
Again, very active in pro life.
She's written a book.
No civilized nation needs the death penalty.
His death doesn't bring these innocents back to life.
Life in prison is enough.
I love that use of my tax dollars for the record.
Right.
Well, and here, real quick, for me to play the devil's advocate, I know all the different rhetoric.
This is what they so they'll say.
Well, it actually costs more taxpayer dollars to put someone to death than it does to put them in prison for life.
Okay, number one, first, start with what's true, start with what God says.
So, first, before we get into the fiscal responsibility of how we carry out punishment for crimes, the first thing is does the Bible allow us to treat people like pets?
Here's the irony it's like, well, this is so inhumane.
You're putting someone to death, giving them the death penalty for a capital crime because they murdered three people.
Yeah, treating someone like a dog, three meals a day, a little bit of outside time, you know, maybe we put a lease.
If you behave, outside time is always the same.
Yeah, if you behave, you know, then you can go out in the dog run, you know, for a little bit, you know, and play with, you know, everybody, the other dogs and yap at each other and blah, blah, blah.
And then you can come back into your kennel at night.
And no, that's inhumane.
You're treating people like cattle, you're treating people like animals.
The Bible does not have any category for life in prison.
Somebody could be arrested, and as they're awaiting trial, right?
They could be captive as they're awaiting a fair trial.
But then, once the fair trial happens, then there's a punishment.
It's either a fine, right?
It's double restitution if they stole, or it's the death penalty if they committed a capital crime, or if it's assault or something like that, then they're publicly beaten by rods, right?
Oh, my goodness.
That's so.
Did he just say that out loud?
Yes, I'll say it again publicly beaten by rods.
This is actually far more humane.
Far more humane.
And instead, think about what we do.
We put someone that we put the worst people in society around the worst people in society, right?
There's no reform.
There's no prison, the purpose of a system is what it does.
If somebody wasn't a bad guy when they went into prison, they come out a bad guy.
If they're somehow innocent, they somehow wouldn't be when they got out.
Yes.
And so you are literally putting people into a system that's one, it's not just according to God's law.
And then secondly, There's no behavioral reform that's taking place.
If anything, it's what Corinthians says bad company corrupting good morals, making the person worse and worse and worse.
And then now to talk about the fiscal side of things yes, I have seen those statistics that, well, it actually costs more money to give someone the death penalty than it does to sustain them with three meals a day and air conditioning and room and board for 40, 50 years until they die of old age.
If that is the case, It's not because it literally costs too much money to give someone lethal injection.
It's because of all the court fees.
It's because of all the legality, because we have made it as a society virtually impossible to punish someone justly.
And because we've made it virtually impossible to give anyone a just punishment.
I mean, people who, like this man who murdered three women, and you have a Catholic conservative woman from her public.
Her public platform, again, it's an oxymoron coming out and saying, This is inhumane.
This is terrible.
We shouldn't have capital punishment.
Well, it's because of all the Lila Roses of the world and that feminine sentiment, right?
That is a feminine sentiment.
The masculine sentiment is, He killed how many people?
Okay, tall tree, short rope.
Right.
We have it on video.
He's at a jury.
Okay, all right, we're done.
It's actually really, really cheap to put someone to death, believe it or not.
What makes it so expensive.
Is that before you put them to death and after you put them to death, you have to placate and satisfy all the women in society who think that it's bad?
That's why it's expensive.
It's because of all the legal loops and hoops that you have to jump through that have been determined primarily by a feminine sentiment.
So, no, I reject the notion that it will cost more to put someone to death than it does to sustain them for 50 years in prison.
That's not true.
It only costs more to put them to death because we have so many people fighting against it.
That's right.
And the point is, when you have this type of rhetoric, and thousands of people liked it, like I said, this was a post that got a lot of traction.
That type of rhetoric runs cover fire.
And there's a lot of people, so women and women adjacent men, who kind of see that and they say, yeah, that kind of makes sense.
Well, we can't get the innocent people back.
And so, I mean, capital punishment, like this poor guy was crying out in pain.
And that's the dangerous effect of women with public platforms.
They take those sentiments, they take them and run with them, and they run cover fire for weaker individuals, like those that don't have the stomach for statecraft.
I commented actually on this post statecraft, you know how we got the society we have now where it's safe?
For you to go pretty much anywhere.
We had a long history, hundreds and hundreds of years of Christendom being really hard on criminals, those that were not fit to participate in society, the violent, those without the temperance, those that couldn't abide by laws.
Again and again, for hundreds of years, men who ran things said, You're not fit to participate in society.
And the way you lose it is you give in to the sensibilities that prevent you from maintaining it.
And so, as long as you have women leading the movement, women using their voice to do that, You're going to have an environment where it's very difficult to push back and say, No, the measures we have to take are not fun and they're not pleasant.
How Narratives Take Over00:05:19
But you don't understand because the alternative to this that you're not considering, she's not considering the alternative.
The alternative to this is something much worse.
And you can't imagine it.
You're not thinking of it.
You haven't studied the history.
You don't have it in the back of your mind.
But we do.
We know what life was like prior to high trust, prior to having strong rule of law.
It was not great.
But then someone will come along and say, Well, sentimentally, the vibes.
I don't know.
That seems pretty inhumane.
Capital punishment.
And that's the bigger problem with this.
Yep.
Real quick, I noticed in the chat somebody was asking where Michael Belch is.
So, for those of you who are new to the channel, we've done this with three hosts myself, Wesley Todd, and Michael Belch.
And Michael Belch will be actually preaching this Sunday at our church.
So excited to sit under the preaching of the word by Michael.
He is an elder in the church.
He's going to be preaching this Sunday.
And he left right response because he is doing other things.
And we talked about that.
We didn't talk about that.
He talked about it.
So, his final episode, we had him on.
I can't remember what episode that was, but.
It was the Supreme Court back when.
That's right.
So, this was probably three weeks ago, something like that.
But if you go back and you look, and it has Katanji Brown Jackson in the thumbnail.
So, you can go back and you can watch that video.
And it's the final segment, the third segment that we have Michael Belch explain to the listeners because everybody loves him.
We love him and explain why he's leaving, some of the projects that he's actually going to be working on, and so how people can follow his work and see what he is up to.
And in terms of will he or Wesley for that matter, or Nathan over there back working the tech, will they always be working with me with Right Response Ministries until the day that they die?
Guess what?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Will we part ways?
Will Michael be in the church, buried in the church, in the back cemetery?
I don't know.
Maybe God calls his family to go somewhere else.
Else one day.
Maybe God calls you to go somewhere else.
Maybe I end up moving and doing something else one day.
But the speculation of like, there must be something really, really going on, that's just a bad faith speculation.
And you know it.
The listener knows it.
We know it.
And so try not to do that.
But if that's kind of your aim, if you like to tune into the live stream, you know, because, you know, you just hate this ministry and hate us, well, then, you know, haters are going to hate.
Speaking of that, not, you know, it's one thing to hate watch a video online.
But it is, I mean, at some level, you just got to, you know, give honor where honor is due.
It is impressive.
To not just hate watch a video online, but to hate attend a church on the Lord's day, right?
Like, especially when you're local, it's like, I actually belong to another church here in town, and I'm going to skip church to go to this other church that I hate so that I can listen to a pastor that I hate so that I can then publicly post slander.
I can outright lie about his sermon when the sermon is publicly posted online and anybody can listen for themselves.
But here's the thing.
It doesn't really require, you don't actually have to have the facts and evidence because there is a certain point where you can just say enough people don't like someone that the narrative has already been woven and you actually don't have to source anything.
You actually don't have to prove your point.
You can just say it and there's enough people who are just, they're itching for it.
They're just like, yes, say it.
I declared it.
Yeah, I didn't say bankruptcy, I declared it.
And so, you know, but that happened just this last week.
That's just, That's where we are.
We are on the front lines.
We're doing things that we feel the Lord has called us to do and trying to exercise courage where it is desperately needed in our society and in the church today and in our nation.
And because of that, there are many individuals who hate us and absolutely oppose us.
And some of them will just dig and dig and dig into your past to try to find things from 12, 13 years ago.
Or some of them will show up to our church on a Sunday and And then try to write, you know, some kind of tweet or an article or whatever about it.
And there are many people who are trying to do that with Michael.
All right.
So that's why I brought it up.
I saw it in the chat, you know, where's Michael?
You know, and there must be something sinister going on.
Well, if you'd like to see more of Michael, feel free to watch the sermon from this Sunday from our church where Michael will be preaching.
All right.
So let's go to our first commercial break and we will be right back.
Hello, brothers in Christ.
Let me ask you something real.
Are you truly protecting and providing for your wife and children, not just in this life, but the one to come?
Here's a reality check.
Only 45% of adults in America have life insurance, and of those, nearly two thirds are underinsured.
That's not good stewardship.
And as Christian husbands and fathers, we're called to do better.
But what if you could protect your family's future and wisely grow your wealth right now?
Can Women Have It All00:17:04
That's where private family banking comes in.
It's a proven strategy that allows you to leverage your existing cash flow, build tax free legacy wealth, and give your family lasting security.
All while aligning with your biblical call to provide and protect.
This is what it looks like to turn post mill talk into post mill action.
Tap the link in the show notes to book your free discovery call and take your next step toward financial discipleship and multi generational impact.
Heaven's Harvest takes pride in providing you with the best freeze dried emergency survival food kits on the market.
Their kits stand out because they prioritize serving sizes and calories that will sustain you for the long haul.
No gimmicks, no fillers, just a diverse array of nutritious options that will pleasantly surprise you.
But they're more than just emergency food, they're advocates for sustainable preparedness.
Their heirloom seed kits include heirloom, non GMO, non hybrid, open pollinated seeds, ensuring that your garden produces the same quality and variety year after year.
Packaged in high grade Mylar foil, their seeds have a 10 year shelf life.
So get 10% off your Heaven's Harvest order by using our special discount code RRM at checkout or by clicking the link in the description below.
Made in the USA and free shipping on orders above $99 for the US only.
All right.
So I made the comment just in this earlier segment that when it comes to conservative women and liberalism, liberal women, you're often in many ways.
Practically, functionally, you're talking about two sides of the same coin.
And to back this up, I'm going to quote extensively from a Wall Street Journal article.
This article just came out and it's called The Conservative Women Who Are Having It All.
Because there's always this dichotomy put out.
And if you watch Candace Owens, for example, on Jubilee, there's a kind of a dichotomy of there's a lot of women and they're advocating for traditional roles.
They say women should be at home, women should be taking care of their children, women should be married.
But then also at the same time, I think a lot of people then they put the pieces together and they say, But hang on, I'm hearing this rhetoric from the right.
I'm hearing this from conservatives, but I'm looking at Donald Trump's press secretary.
I'm looking at his chief of staff.
I'm looking at these women involved in pro life.
And these women, in many ways, seem to be doing the same thing that I want to do.
And this article, it's funny, it's titled, These Are the Conservative Women.
And in Having It All, what it's referring to is that they're conservatives.
They have all the things that come with it.
They're pro family, pro children.
And I think many of them genuinely are.
And also, they've managed to just squeeze on top of it just a little career that's just 60 hours a week.
Have to fly home to Houston on the weekends.
And so they're able to kind of have it all.
Let me read this first quote.
This is from, this is referring to Deputy Chief of Staff May Mailman.
So this is a 37 year old woman that works now for Donald Trump in his cabin in DC.
And this is kind of her schedule.
So, first of all, she flies home to Houston every weekend.
She's pregnant.
So imagine your pregnant wife.
You have three kids at home.
Your wife, she's gone in DC till Friday.
And then work finishes up late.
She goes ahead and catches the first flight back during the week.
This is from the article.
May Maelman's nanny and her husband David, who owns a tree moving company, so he's home, he's running his business too, gets the kids out of bed, changes their diapers, bathe and feed them, and put them to bed while making sure to run the dishwasher.
Yes, Maelman is missing out on much of her kids' early years, but she doesn't second guess or feel guilty about her choices.
So this is quoting her now.
She feels lucky.
I don't have a victimhood mentality, she said.
You have to exert a certain locus of control and focus on the things you can handle without obsessing over what you can't.
And the obsessing over what you can't, the context there is motherhood.
The formative years of my children.
As in, well, my kids won't really know me.
And Lord knows in her career, it's not as though, like, guys, I got six more months, then I'll be home for good.
It's going to continue.
Hey, who's going to obsess over the things they can control?
This conservative woman says.
The things she can control is literally being present.
Not even the same house, not even the same town.
Literally being present in the same state as her children five out of seven days of the week.
Right.
Yeah, it's crazy.
Crazy.
Continue reading.
So, again, this is from a Wall Street Journal article The Conservative Women Who Are Having It All.
Conservative, just as heavy as quotes there as you could put.
Conservative women just tend to see their lives in a different light.
In interviews with over a dozen high profile, dozen high powered conservative women, they said the trad wife lifestyle was never a choice they seriously considered for themselves.
All said that they always knew they wanted children and that they also wanted a meaningful, Career.
As for what makes this juggle work for them, they credited a combination of grit, religious faith, familial and community support, and a laser like focus on planning and priorities.
In other words, many, again, this is across the board.
Donald Trump's press secretary, her name is Catherine Levitt, I think that would be the way that I pronounce it.
She went back to work four days after having, I believe, her first child.
This was around when he was assassinated.
She said, Hey, I just had my baby.
I feel a calling to be on this.
Four days after she had her first kid.
And it's interesting because they say they're very pro family, all of these different things.
But notice then, it's like, well, would you consider that life for yourself?
Would you be a trad wife?
Would you be a keeper at home, like the Bible says?
Would you be home to raise your kid?
And almost all of them have said, and it's the same.
I mean, this was the arc of feminism.
Well, no, I'm going to have a career too.
What discernible difference is the number of kids?
I'll grant you, maybe some of them have probably one to two more children.
Than the average liberal woman that also has a family.
But I mean, we are practically, functionally speaking, there really is no difference at all.
It's the same picture.
It's a revolt against the traditional way of life, it's a revolt against how societies have been ordered.
And then practically, you look at anxiety, you look at happiness, you look at all these different metrics.
Man, why are women so stressed out?
Why do they have so many mental health issues?
Why is divorce so common?
Do you know what would be a, I'm just trying to think here, what could drive divorce?
I don't know, maybe not being your spouse five out of seven days of the week, not being present with one another.
What if your spouse is really contributing?
That's a group of children with the nanny.
I mean, in the mind.
That's never gone wrong, has it?
Yeah.
In the mind of those children, it's like, okay, there's daddy and there's mommy.
No, no, nanny, mommy, right?
I mean, that's how a one year old child is going to.
There's a male, there's a female.
They're the ones who give me baths.
They're the ones who wake me up.
They're the ones who make breakfast.
They're the ones who help me get dressed.
They're like mom and dad.
Oh, that's actually not your mom.
Right.
Well, then where's mom?
She's doing more important things.
Yeah.
And that's definitely never introduced affairs or infidelity in the home either, that you're just gone most of the week.
Let me even again illustrate this.
We've talked about this before.
Let's take Governor Christie Nome.
I mean, she is Miss Conservative, Christian, family values.
Governor Christie Nome, this is a headline from Vanity Fair a couple of years ago.
God fearing family woman and Corey Lewandowski, Trump creep, reportedly had years long affair.
It's pretty well substantiated that Governor Christie Nome, I believe, South Dakota, And she was a big, like, get men out of women's sports, all of that.
And what was she doing as governor?
Oh, having a years long affair with someone besides her husband.
Same thing over here.
You have Representative Lauren Bobert.
Again, this is your Miss, I'm pro Second Amendment, I'm pro family, God and country.
It's another headline Lauren Bobert and her ex husband have a series of public spats, timeline of the relationship.
She has the three kids in there.
The family disintegrated, gone, split between the two of them, sharing time.
themselves publicly feuding.
Imagine seeing that publicly, your mom and your dad fighting with each other as you split up and you're caught in the middle.
These women are destroying their families.
And again, all in search of what, a career?
Like, who's ever 60 and 70?
And it's like, oh, man, I just provided so much shareholder value.
Like, it's kind of ridiculous.
And you have to see, like, oh, well, she's a conservative.
She's this.
She's a God fearing woman.
No, the people that love Jesus obey him.
And one of Jesus' commands to women, it's not the same as men, they're different commands men's responsibilities, women's responsibilities.
His command to women is, To be keepers at home.
And the description of the wayward woman is she's never at home.
In the Proverbs, it's Proverbs 7.
Her feet, she's always going other places.
So it's like, I love Jesus.
Have you taken the first steps in obeying him?
Oh, you haven't?
Right.
Another point I wanted to raise is a lot of people will try to counter what we're saying here by saying, well, it's the men.
The men aren't willing to step up.
And there are a lot of apathetic, cowardly men, certainly.
I talked about that in the cold open to this episode.
But at the same time, it's not just that, you know, well, every single male in the entire country refuses to lead.
No, that's not the case.
There actually are a lot of men who are being, who could lead and could lead well, but who are displaced because they're intentionally, whether it's the GOP or whatever it may be, are intentionally seeking out women, particularly young, blonde, attractive women.
It's actually their goal.
Whether it's Fox News or whatever it may be, it's not a, well, we had to turn to women, right?
Because this is what Christians say over and over.
They're like, well, this is a Deborah situation.
What if she's just a modern day Deborah and she's rising through the ranks because all the men are cowardly and refuse to?
I talk to men every day.
They're not all cowardly.
There are a lot of cowardly men, but there are good, competent men.
Gifted, qualified, courageous men to lead.
They are being passed over by women.
The way that this affects not just society and politics, but even the economic repercussions of this.
There are men who would be able to hold these vocations, these positions, and provide for wife and children and have a single income family where mom can stay at home.
And that's not happening in part because.
Men have been literally displaced by women.
Women are, it's not just women are filling the void left by men.
No, weak men are seeking out women and intentionally taking them over qualified men who are able and willing to fill that role, but are being skipped and avoided and forgotten because they know that, well, having a woman will work better.
And if we were to go a little bit deeper, another level, Why would you do that?
Let's just say in the realm of politics, right?
Why would the GOP, why would political entities be thinking, all right, there are men actually who want this position and who are qualified for this position, perhaps even more qualified for this position, but we're intentionally going to seek out a woman.
Why would they do that?
Well, they do that because they think that it will play better to their constituents.
They think that having a woman in said position will garner more.
More likability, more sympathy, more whatever.
Well, but who cares?
Who cares if it's more people like it?
Well, I'll tell you what makes you care, what forces you to care.
A democracy with universal suffrage.
Why are we appointing women as politicians?
Because we gave women the vote.
That's why.
All of it is actually downstream of the 19th Amendment.
Why does the GOP, allegedly conservative, sit there and say, yeah, we've got, we actually have like 500 guys who have been busting their tails for years and years and years, trying to work their way up the rank, and they're going to be passed over for this position.
Even though they're willing, eager, right?
And more than qualified.
But we have to get this little blonde chick to do it instead.
Why?
Because we have to win an election and we can't win an election when it comes down strictly to the merits.
In principle, we have to win an election by getting enough votes from the peanut gallery.
And who is the peanut gallery?
Every single person in the country over the age of 18.
Every single one of them.
You mean, no, no, no, you just need to have the support of.
Of the people in the country who actually lead the country, right?
The heads of households, you know, those who own land, those who pay taxes, those who have been here for generations, who are actually founding American stock.
Nope.
Anyone, male, female, right?
On welfare or paying taxes, living in project free housing or owning a home in their family for 30 years.
They've been here for one year.
They've been here for 10 generations.
No, doesn't matter.
They each get the same say.
In the direction of our country, they each get a vote.
Universal suffrage is one of the most surefire ways to end a civilization because it requires that the politicians no longer care about what is good, but rather simply try to please the masses.
And if you're trying to please the masses and 51% of those masses are women, then what are you going to do?
You're going to pass over men to put forward women.
That's a major part of all this.
And what you're saying too with universal suffrage is not.
All forms of voting are terrible and immoral, but a type of voting where, like you said, everybody participates.
In a republic, citizenship is very closely tied to the virtue and character and the stock of a man.
So it's men, it's men that are productive, it's men that own property.
Even Aristotle, he tended towards men that are specifically civilly engaged.
So men who know politics, men who have the training.
And it's those men that it's like, all right, so here on one hand, this was a real state, this was a real race here in Texas.
You had a man who had run, he was a fifth generation Texan.
Father to five children, had run a very successful title company.
He was a lawyer.
I mean, the type of man, Christian, character, godly, family, vocation.
And he had to run a neck and neck race, knock down, drag out, versus a woman who I could only tell her only real accomplishment was shaking hands and kissing babies.
Now, if you're voting block.
Not her babies.
No, not even hers.
No, she's a kid.
Maybe she had one or two.
She would probably leave her babies to kiss other people's babies.
Yep.
And literally, like a man qualified on every single metric.
And it's like, I have to spend months knocking on people's doors, trying to outdo all these posters that are painting me as a terrible person just to make sure that 50% of the voting block, being women, don't pick my opponent again, just because she's a woman.
But in a restricted republic, the men who are making the decisions go, well, yeah, of course, no, duh, he's the most qualified man to go up and to represent us.
But those are real dynamics.
And guys lose those races.
Then you have Katie Britt as a senator.
You have women.
Like, it's tough to think this way, but like, women going through menopause working as, like, Pam Bondi working as the attorney general for the United States.
That sounds miserable.
Like, just as a practical, at a practical human level, that sounds terrible.
That's not something I want to want to put my wife through.
Hey, you're going through menopause.
That's great.
Would you enjoy 70 hours a week working in the United States Capitol?
Very high stress situation.
Oh, millions of people will hate you too for the way that you handled the Epstein files.
Have no fear of that.
You go out there and you get it, babe.
Sounds awful.
Sounds like a terrible husband.
And even people surrounding, people that picked her, Donald Trump, even those guys, what are we doing?
Right, right.
Yeah, and we've got to fix.
Are We Still a Republic00:06:41
We're not a republic.
I know we're supposed to be.
I like republics as much as the next guy, but we just don't have one, right?
It's like, well, we're not a democracy.
We're a constitutional republic.
No, we're not.
No, we're not.
Number one, the Civil Rights Act trumps the Constitution for all intents and purposes in terms of its function effectively.
And then in terms of being a republic, No, a republic would have some form of, it's not a free for all.
It's not every single person is coming and voting.
I've quoted it before, but that little video where the guy says, democracy is for the people, by the people, of the people, but the people are retarded.
So democracy is for the retarded, by the retarded, and of the retarded.
And that's absolutely where we are today.
Not everybody should be able to vote.
Not everybody should be able to dictate the direction of the country.
If you don't have a stake in the country's past, you shouldn't have a say in the country's future.
If you're not married and don't have children or don't intend to have children, then why does it matter?
Why should you be able to make decisions that could direct the course of the nation for the next 250 years when you don't have anyone?
You're going to be dead and you don't even have any posterity to stay, you know, your living memory continued by them.
You should have a stake in the past and a stake in the future.
Stake in the past, you should be at least third generation on both sides of the family.
You need to be a heritage American.
Stake in the future, you need to be married with the intent of children.
You also need to be contributing.
You need to be landowning, paying taxes.
If you're taking welfare, you should get negative votes.
You are a fiscal drag on the society, right?
You are taking.
Why in the world would you get a say?
You are freeloading off of the taxpayers.
You should have zero say.
So, you should be land owning, you should be paying taxes, you should be a heritage American, you should be married, you should be male heads of households.
Part of what's happened with all this is we no longer believe the family is the basic building block of society.
Instead, we've made it the individual.
And when we moved away from families to individuals, we became further fractured, atomized, and we set up this perpetual feud between this battle of the sexes.
Part of the battle of the sexes is because of the 19th Amendment.
It is women versus men, men versus women.
And so, well, but women should have a voice.
They always had a voice.
Every wife, every sister, every daughter, every mother had a voice.
They had a voice through the avenue of a man who loved them and cared for them their brother, their uncle, their father, their husband.
That husband was going into the voting booth thinking about his children, thinking about his wife, thinking about the family unit, casting one vote with a married.
Father who owns land, who has been in the country generations back and plans to have his posterity as a vital part of the country generations forward.
That makes sense.
That's what healthy societies are built on.
But when you get rid of that, anybody can show up in America in a matter of months, years at the longest, they can not only vote, but they can actually be one of our civil officers.
And expressly, they're not even trying to hide the quiet part anymore.
They're saying it out loud.
I am first and foremost a Somalian, but I am here in America serving as a civil officer in America for the good of.
Somalia.
So, not only do we allow them to vote at this point, but we allow them to rule.
And then we're like, man, the country's really going downhill.
I wonder what the problem is.
How did this occur?
And to bring it full circle, that impulse for inclusion.
So, you say, hey, only men that have duty, only men that have jobs, men that have a stake in the future, they can vote.
Your biggest opposition to that is going to be most certainly liberal women.
It's also going to be conservative women.
And that's because of the feminine impulse for inclusivity.
Women, by nature of caring for children, as they always have, they have a very inclusive nature.
A good woman will not want to see one of her children left out, right?
She has four children, three of them are having a great time.
One of the wonderful things about women is they're going to notice, hey, he's over there in the corner and he's sad about something.
And I want to bring him in and make sure, hey, you should include so and so.
That's a wonderful quality, except when you're trying to have a functioning nation.
When you get to that point, hey, we should include everyone.
Well, he's a felon.
Well, come on, he should have a voice and they should have a voice.
And well, they just got here.
Well, but I mean, like, this nation has to be safe for them too.
It is directly.
The feminine sensibility towards inclusion that got us to expand voting rights as big as they are right now.
And it will be pushing back against that feminine sensibility.
Practically, we probably don't go from everyone voting to a half of people voting, aka men.
We probably go from everyone voting to nobody voting, aka monarchy.
But if we were to go back, it would have to be hey, I know as women, you want to include and you want to make sure everyone has a fair say.
That doesn't work at scale for 350 million people.
There are millions of people.
Who should not have a say?
They have no duty.
They don't pay taxes.
They don't contribute.
They offer nothing to society.
And at the very least, we can relieve them of the burden of going to the voting booth every two years.
Yeah, and relieve us of the burden of their stupidity.
Of living with your choices.
Yeah, then next time cast yourself into the.
When I go to Walmart.
And rid us of your stupidity.
When I go to Walmart, I'm just, I'm always relieved.
These people are voting.
They've got my future in their hands.
Absolutely crazy.
All right, let's go to our last commercial break and we'll be right back.
If you want to send in a super chat, We're going to deal with whatever questions you guys might have.
So, we'll deal with some of the questions and we'll prioritize the super chats first.
Also, make sure to subscribe on YouTube and click the bell so that you'll be notified as we post content.
And then make sure to follow us over on X. Our handle is at RightResponseM, as in Ministries.
At RightResponseM.
You can follow us on X.
And if you are watching on X right now, do us a favor and retweet or repost the video so that it has legs, a little bit of staying power, and is seen by more people.
We'll go to our last commercial break.
Then we'll come back.
We'll start dealing with questions and super chats first.
Protecting Your Digital Family00:02:04
The danger of centralized power is often represented by the word king.
As Americans, we hate the word king.
Civilian ownership of body armor is about helping people to have increased power to resist tyrants and criminals.
And so, Armored Republic is about helping you to preserve your God given rights to the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the king of kings and he governs kings and he will judge them.
This is Armored Republic.
And in a republic, there is no king but Christ.
We are free craftsmen and we are honored to be your armor spread of choice.
Want to protect the digital devices in your home?
Victory by Covenant Eyes provides a clear view into the digital behavior of those in your household.
Its screen accountability technology scans each screen, analyzing it for explicit content.
It blocks concerning images and generates a report that is sent to an accountability partner.
Covenant Eyes is offering our listeners 30 days free when you sign up using our promo code.
Whether you're concerned about online safety for yourself, your kids, or even your workplace, Covenant Eyes has your back with its powerful screen accountability and filtering services.
Covenant Eyes provides peace of mind by monitoring and reporting digital activity in a way that's both effective and respectful of privacy.
Plus, the Victory app offers free resources to guide your understanding of why people get stuck in pornography.
And what you can do to help them.
Try it out for an entire month absolutely free using our code.
Where Are the Strong Men00:05:33
So don't wait.
Take advantage of this exclusive offer and start protecting yourself, your family, and the people around you today.
Visit the link in the show notes and use promo code RRM for 30 days free.
All right, we're going to go ahead and deal with the chat.
We've got three super chats, which we appreciate.
God's Doomer.
He gave us $10.
No comment, just giving us a super chat, just trying to help out.
We appreciate that a lot.
Thank you, God's Doomer.
But no dooming.
But no dooming.
No blackmail.
That's right.
And then we have Blood Based.
He gave us $5, $4.99.
Blood Based, again, no comment, no question.
And then he gave us another $4.99.
So we've got $10 from God's Doomer.
We've got $10 from Blood Based.
We appreciate both of you guys.
Thank you for your generosity.
And then we've got a question from Ninja5150.
Ninja5150, he asked this Do you think that All this is happening because there are not enough strong men.
I don't think so.
Oh, it's a she.
All right.
Nathan's saying it's a she.
So she asks, Do you think that this is happening because there are not enough strong men?
No.
I think that these things started because there were weak men.
Absolutely.
Right.
The old adage of, you know, hard men make good times, good times make soft men, soft men make bad times, bad times create, you know, hard men.
So I think that, you know, there was a time.
Where, yeah, we did not have enough strong men.
I think that Christendom had done its work because of many faithful generations of both men and women in the past and created a society that was healthy, that was strong.
And many men chose to be apathetic and lulled to sleep, and feminism began to creep up on their watch.
But I don't think that it's the case now, right?
The question of, you know, is this because we don't have enough strong men?
Well, you can never have too many strong men.
So I do think that, yes, we do need more courageous men.
But I think my position is that as it stands today, that there are actually several courageous men who have been completely ostracized and silenced and passed over.
So I actually think that, yes, I'd like to see us have even more courageous men.
But first, I'd like to see us actually use the courageous men we currently have.
I think that there are men right now who are willing to be courageous, willing to be strong, who are courageous, who are strong, and who are both qualified and willing to fill the gap, but they are being passed over.
So, no, I don't think it's just, oh, this is just Deborah, you know, because all the men are, you know, trembling and shaking in their boots and choosing to stay back at home.
No, I think there's a lot of qualified men who would go out to the fight.
They would run to the battle.
But Deborah has been chosen over them.
Yeah.
Men, also, too.
So, a courageous man, it's funny, I was sharing earlier this week some studies just men with higher testosterone, they're less willing to just behave in ways that are socially acceptable.
So, it's men that are high T that say, the mask is stupid, I'm not wearing it.
They're the ones that are more likely to speak out.
But by that, men that are courageous, they're more likely to speak out.
They don't acquiesce well to kind of these existing structures that we put in place that are very feminine coded.
So they won't ascend through the ranks in a company or in a political party.
Like in the Republican Party of Texas, it's like, well, why don't we have any great councilmen or great board members?
Well, because they got there for 10 to 15 years.
And the way they got there was by being very non offensive.
They didn't speak out, they didn't stand out, they didn't mess with the status quo.
So those type of men were the softer men.
They were, and certainly many of them, women.
They all acquiesce to the very feminine coded structure that was there.
And then the good men, there are many of them, hundreds of them out there, but they would never survive the process.
People wouldn't be willing to work with them.
People wouldn't be willing to put them forward.
People wouldn't be willing to be friends with them because, again, the structure itself is coded for maintain the status quo, not be offensive.
And so that's why when you look around, you're like, man, state representatives, state senators, the Republican Party for us, RPT, Republican Party of Texas, man, there's no great guys in here.
And to be honest, there are still some.
But many of them have had to deal very much so with the fallout of standing up, speaking out, and nearly losing their job.
Right.
Yep.
Any other questions, Nathan?
That's the only one I saw.
Okay.
We're going to just go ahead and leave it, let this episode be a little bit shorter for today.
Today's what, Wednesday?
Yes.
Okay.
So we have Friday.
That'll be the last live stream of this week.
And then we have the Friday special with Dr. Stephen Wolf.
That's Friday at 8 p.m. Central.
So if you're new to the channel, our regiment is as follows we do the live stream three times a week, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
And then we have the Friday special, which is pre recorded and it's a deep dive, multiple part series.
The topic is all things Christian nationalism with Dr. Stephen Wolf.
That's at 8 p.m. on Friday evening.
So we'll have one more live stream with Wes and I while Antonio is out at 3 p.m. this Friday.
Then we'll have the Friday special at 8 p.m. on Friday with myself and Dr. Stephen Wolf.
And then we will come back on Monday, Lord willing, me and Wes and Antonio.
All three of us back in the studio.
So we hope this episode has been helpful for you, that you've been blessed by it, and we will see you on Friday, Lord willing, at 3 p.m. Central.