The Livestream critiques the "United States of Usury," arguing that Trump's proposed 50-year mortgage enslaves citizens to interest rather than ownership. Hosts estimate 2.5 million corporate-owned homes in Texas could drop prices by 40-80% if divested, while condemning foreign influence and the "Hezekiah factor" of leaders sacrificing stability for gain. The episode blends economic policy with eschatology, suggesting a temporary "Satan's little season" before Christianization brings peace, yet paradoxically opposes women in civil leadership despite advocating for heritage Americans over foreigners in public office. [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 Need Your Review00:01:37
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.
The United States of Usury, 50 years a slave.
Even under the Old Covenant, for Old Covenant Israel, there was still the principle of the year of Jubilee.
The year of Jubilee was not after 50 years, but it was the 50th year.
It was seven years times seven, 49 years in which a foreigner could be enslaved under the Old Covenant to the people of Israel.
But in the 50th year, They would be set free.
But here in the United States of usury, not merely the foreigner, but at the behest of the foreigner, to the detriment of the native citizen, you American, not paperwork American, but true heritage American, you can be enslaved, not for 49 years, but for 50.
The debtor is enslaved to the one who lends, the lender.
You thought you were going to get 50 million deportations.
The Trap of Debt Slavery00:14:19
You thought that you were going to get lower prices.
You thought that maybe you might be able to afford a home.
You thought that when you voted for Donald J. Trump, you might get your country back, not just for you, but most importantly, for your children.
Instead, you're not getting 50 million deportations.
You're getting 50 years of usury.
Your mortgage will be maybe $150 to $250 less.
In other words, still completely unaffordable.
But You will stretch out those payments for an extra two decades.
The amount of interest that you will pay to the banks and all those who stand behind the banking system is a difference in hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of half a century.
We are not winning.
We are not winning.
I was reliably informed, and I was stupid enough to believe it, at least in part.
That I would experience so much winning, I would say, please, sir, please, Mr. President, I can't take it anymore.
I can't take any more winning.
I've yet to see it.
What I've seen us do thus far is rile up the hornet's nest, actually spray them with poison, destroy political opponents who are seeking to destroy our nation.
No, not even close.
Tweets, yes.
Memes from the DHS, yes.
Deportations en masse, as we were promised, no.
Actual arrest of treasonous political opponents who have broken the law and journalists and media heads?
No, not even close.
What we have experienced is antagonizing our political opponents, not defeating, not sequestering, not subduing, but antagonizing them just enough to where they're going to come back with a vengeance.
Every ounce of political will that our side clearly doesn't.
Possess.
We do not have the will to act.
Our administration does not have the political will to do what it takes to save these United States.
But our enemies do.
They have proven it time and time again.
If they can't win in the free marketplace of ideas, then they'll use a gun and silence their political opponents with blood.
They play for keeps.
Are they moral?
No.
Are they righteous?
No.
Are they even logical?
No.
But do they have the will to win?
Absolutely.
And the side that merely wants to be left alone will always lose to the side that wants to win.
We have accomplished nothing, nothing that was promised.
All we have accomplished is not defeating, but antagonizing our political opponents so that a blue tidal wave would come and wash over us like a tsunami in the midterms, therefore, effectively binding the Trump administration to where we now have a lame duck presidency for the next two years.
And JD Vance is not the shoe in that many of us think he is.
Trump has one year left.
That's generous.
Not even eight, nine, 10 months effectively to do something.
And as of now, there is no hope in sight.
This is where we are.
And it is time to raise a righteous ruckus.
I did not vote for my children to be enslaved over the course of their entire adult and elderly lives.
To usury, to Jewry, to centralized banks, to Wall Street, and to politicians who continue to get fat off of the tax farm of native citizen Americans to the benefit of foreigners who do not assimilate, who do not love our country, and who worship idols.
That's what we're talking about today.
Tune in now.
We're back.
Good afternoon.
Are we politically back?
No.
Are we culturally back?
No.
Are we religiously, spiritually back?
Absolutely not.
Are our mortgage payments back?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
With a venture.
When I say we're back, I mean the show is back.
The show is back on.
That's about the only positive white pill that I have for you.
Here's the white pill you get to listen to us for the next hour and a half, two hours.
And we have something good to talk about.
Something to talk about.
We have something to talk about.
It's not good.
Government shut down.
Allegedly just ended, right?
It was a 60 40 vote.
60 40 vote, that was for cloture to actually go to the process, and the final vote's going to take place here in the next couple of hours.
But it looks like it's going to happen.
Government shutdown has ended, which in the near term, it does help to make sure our economy doesn't crash and burn.
In the long term, we are avoiding crashing and burning by simply continuing to turn on the money printers and get your own pal in there.
2000 stimulus checks.
So, hey, you get $2,000, 50 year mortgage for your kids, but you get $2,000.
Maybe even that we'll have to see about.
So, no, it's not great, but we're here.
We're going to talk about it.
Wes, you've compiled some different data points, things like that.
What are we looking at?
What's going on?
I'm going to tie this back to a stat we shared, which is incredible just last week, which was that Trump's support among 18 to 30 year olds has cratered, I think it was plus eight in February of this year.
So, not February 2015.
February of this year since his election.
His support has cratered 63 points.
And I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say affording a home is probably the top, if not maybe issue two or three, on the minds of people that are younger.
This is Generation Z. Most millennials, they kind of have the job, they have the home, they care, but it's not the thing that's top of mind for them.
But if you're under 30 years old, you're in that stage of life, you're thinking, how in the world, probably for most of us, honestly, it's how do you get a job?
I've graduated from college, I've got all of this debt.
Oh, great, the housing markets or the work and labor markets have been destroyed for me.
So that's not good.
But assuming you have a job, the next thing on your mind is, How do I afford a home post COVID when low interest rates drove a lot of people to golden handcuffs?
They're in a home, they've got a great interest rate, and they're never going to leave it.
Practically speaking, at this point now, they can't leave it.
They bought a home when it was super expensive, they've got a low interest rate.
It would literally be thousands of dollars more a month if they were to try to move just down the street.
So, a bunch of the housing market locked away in these golden handcuffs.
And 18 to 30 year olds, they're done.
And specifically to your point, Joel, they're done with Trump.
Like at the end of the day, yeah, Ukraine and Israel and foreign aid.
Yeah, that matters to people somewhat.
There's reasons that it's important.
But practically speaking, if life is terrible at home, people are not going to vote for the incumbent.
Okay, I voted for you.
My gas is still expensive.
I still can't afford a home and I still don't have a job.
Okay, maybe you support Ukraine or maybe you don't.
Either way, I don't like you.
My life sucks.
And so it's on this backdrop that you have Trump announcing actually two things this weekend.
For one, some type of $2,000 reimbursement to the taxpayer because tariffs have been so successful.
We don't know what form that will be.
We don't know who's eligible for it.
I mean, it's our guy.
So he must have paid off all our debt and he's giving us the surplus, right?
Right.
The $36 trillion has been zeroed out so we can go to it.
Guys, if this is not buying votes, I don't know what is.
Midterms are coming up.
Oh, man, that stimmy is hitting right in September.
Works pretty perfect, doesn't it?
Right before early voting starts.
So you had $2,000 stimulus checks.
And then the other thing announced that Trump floated out there, and the head of the housing department, Bill Pulte, he confirmed they're working on it.
Is a 50 year mortgage.
Now, to rewind the clock a little bit, I mean, 30 year mortgages, they've been a staple of the West for two, three hundred years.
No, about two to three, maybe generations.
It was the Great Depression that really springboarded the idea that you would actually pay for a mortgage for multiple decades on end.
Prior to the 1920s, most people just bought their homes in cash.
That's objectively how it was.
A hundred years ago, think about that.
A hundred years ago, in this land, in this state, here in Texas, in California, wherever, people made enough money that they could walk up and say, I'm paying for my home in cash.
I have no monthly payment.
I have no mortgage.
I have no interest.
I own this thing.
Credit cards are not a thing that we have dealt with for hundreds of years.
We did a great episode on usury.
Go back and watch it.
Usury is immoral.
Charging excessive interest is immoral.
And we didn't used to have that in this country.
What we did have sometimes was loans that were only paid the interest.
So perhaps you took a bit of a loan out.
What you would have, it would be three to 10 years for a house, three to 10 years.
You'd pay the interest on the loan, and then you would have the three, the five, the seven, the 10 years.
To pay the full amount of the mortgage.
So, say it was a $10,000 home, you pay the mortgage for five years, and then at the end, it's expected you've been successful enough in your endeavors.
You show up to the bank, you write a check, boom, they've got their $5,000.
Same thing, you don't have a mortgage payment.
That payment on the interest that you were paying was relatively small.
However, what people would do is they would often, for one, they'd write that check at the end or they'd refinance.
So, they'd do five years of the mortgage and they'd say, hey, I can't still make it.
I'm going to need to extend this another five years.
But when the banks crashed, they didn't have the capital.
To put up front.
So that's where you had the creation of the FHA, the Federal Housing Administration.
You also had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coming in at the mid to the late 1930s.
And it's in that time that you begin to see the 15 and the 20 year and eventually the 30 year.
But again, practically speaking, that's just 80 years ago.
Just 80 years ago did the idea of the 30 year mortgage enter the public psyche.
And it was actually the veterans coming back in the 1950s and the 1960s that it became much more popular to take out that 30 year mortgage.
But now that that's entrenched, now that that's kind of, well, all right, guess you have a mortgage payment.
It's not that bad.
Ideally, it's less than 30% of your monthly take home income.
That's all right.
Well, we get to the point where that's not affordable now either.
Homes have gone up.
We've covered this already.
Compared to median income, so the ratio of your yearly income to the price of your home, gone up a ton.
There was a time when a home would only cost twice as much on average as you would take in a year on average.
So, on average, if you took in $10,000, on average, homes are about $20,000.
Theoretically, in two years, you could pay it off if every cent went towards it.
Now that ratio is four, five, six, seven times that.
So if you make $100,000, you're now expecting to pay five times what you make annually towards a home.
And it's getting unsustainable.
And the party that's in power while all of this is going on and homes are getting more and more and more unaffordable is the party that's going to pay for it in the midterms.
And so Trump, you know what?
Not to worry.
Don't worry.
We've got this.
He announced the idea of the 50 year mortgage.
Now, as you alluded to, Joel, the 50 year mortgage doesn't actually take your payment down.
That much.
And that's because of the sneaky little thing the banks do called amortization.
Is that correct pronunciation?
Yeah, amortization.
Yep.
So, amortization, if anything, actually, I'm going to toss it to you, Antonio.
You just front load all the interest.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So, the way that it works, if you have a, you know, when a loan is amortized, they are going to fix your monthly payment.
It's going to call it, let's make it simple numbers, say it's $1,000.
Far cry from what an actual mortgage is today, but we'll say $1,000.
And what they do is they say for 30 years and for 12 months out of that, Each year, you're going to pay $2,000.
But this is what we'll do.
We are going to distribute the loan, the interest and principal, such that your first payment, $1,900 is interest and only $100 is principal.
Your second payment, maybe that changes, shifts toward principal by $50, so on and so forth, until toward the end of the loan, year 29, year 30, you are paying predominantly principal on your loan.
And so this is a way that banks actually can recoup interest quicker, right?
Because they still have a lien on the asset itself.
So if you go belly up in year 28, now they can seize the asset and say, this is ours and we own the principal of the asset.
And by the way, you've already paid your interest back.
And so this is a risk adjusted way that banks.
Banks have justified making you pay interest before principal.
And so, you know, going back to the 50 year loan, so what does this mean?
It means that now over 50 years, 30 years of those, I'm paying predominantly interest and not principal on the loans.
Think about it 50 year loan.
So, say your parents are 60 years old.
All right, we're going to buy our forever home.
We're downsizing, kids are out of the house.
They're 60, and they take out a 50 year mortgage.
And so you're 30, you know, they pass away, they're with the Lord.
Well, you've inherited, hopefully, you've gotten inheritance from them.
You've also inherited a home and a mortgage.
Where 80 to 90% of it you still owe.
But my parents made their payments for 30 years.
They made their payments on time.
They kept up.
Surely half of this, we have half of our equity in the home if it hasn't changed in value.
Nope.
You spent 30 years, mom and dad making monthly payments out of retirement, monthly payments out of their social security.
And so they own a good chunk of it, right?
Nope.
They own practically none of it.
It's incredibly immoral.
It really is.
There's a tweet that I thought was hilarious.
This is from Andrew Torba.
I want to read it.
If we could pull it up on the screen real quick, I see it sitting right there.
He said, 10 year mortgage.
What do you need a 30 year mortgage for?
I can't believe my own son is demanding a 50 year mortgage.
You'll be hearing from my lawyer about that 100 year mortgage you still owe me.
Measuring True Wealth00:06:19
I feel like that just about sums it up.
Some of you guys may not be familiar with the meme, but those of you who live on the internet, you are fully aware.
Yeah, that's kind of what it feels like.
It's just stretching usury, debt, slavery to.
Kingdom come.
It just seems as though there is no end.
One thing I wanted to just flesh out.
So I remember having this thought, it was a few years back, you know, because people would always think of like your David Platts, for instance, you know, like radical everybody in the West, you know, particularly in America is just so wealthy.
And there are people who are starving on the other side of the world.
And yet we're living in luxury, you know, with all these conveniences and comforts, you know, modern comforts.
And, you know, you're just, you're selfish.
And you should stop being so selfish and you should live a generous life.
And that was basically the premise of the book, Radical.
And I think a lot of us, I'll speak for myself.
There was a time, I think in my teenage years when I didn't really understand money, I didn't understand the way of the world and the way that things work.
And especially even in my 20s, as a young man, as I'm starting to make a little bit of money, not much, but some, I still kind of had that mindset of, well, there are children in Uganda who are starving.
And meanwhile, I'm over here and I have this, that, and the other.
And I think one of the mistakes that I made is I truncated the concept of wealth and how wealth can be measured, but only into one category.
So I thought about wealth in terms of convenience and comfort.
So I thought about, well, we have HVAC, right?
We have AC, you know, and in that sense, we are as wealthy or wealthier than a pharaoh or a king, you know, in times past, right?
I mean, if you were over an entire empire or a kingdom, you might have.
50 different guys on staff with, you know, some banana tree leaf or whatever, and they're all taking shifts, you know, fanning you as you're sitting there on your throne or as you're sleeping at night, you know, in order to keep you cool.
But that required, you know, a team of, you know, a couple dozen different people to fan, to cool for the sake of convenience and comfort, the king or the pharaoh or the emperor, whoever it was.
And then you think, well, we have, you know, television and streaming devices and all these kinds of things.
And, you know, the king, he would have had a team of, Maybe a thousand people from different forms of entertainment, magicians, entertainers, acrobats, dancers, that would come in at his will, at his whim and fancy to, well, I want to see the dancing routine.
I want to see the magician routine.
And so my point is that the average person did not have a cooling system.
The average person didn't have plumbing.
The average person certainly did not have electricity, these kinds of things.
And they didn't have entertainment that was right there at their fingertips.
You would have had to be.
A king, and even at that level, that stature of being a king, the banana leaf, you know, regiment was not going to cool you the way that an HVAC system does.
And, you know, the dancing regiment was not going to be as entertaining as, you know, sitting down and watching Braveheart, you know.
So, in that vein, if you're using that metric of, again, convenience, access, comfort, pleasure, then there's a sense in which, yeah, the average person in the West.
Is more wealthy than kings.
And that's kind of what we were sold, I think, by Big Eva, you know, and a lot of these kind of, you know, just normie, globalistic, you know, preachers over the last, you know, two, three, four decades.
When I think of, you know, Christianity here in America, evangelical Christianity here in America, you're super wealthy, stop being so selfish, live sacrificially, live a more generous life.
And you're wealthy because, you know, and they would just kind of assume the point.
Well, you're wealthy because you have a smartphone.
You're wealthy because you have a car.
You're wealthy because you have air conditioning, you know, and so on and so forth.
But there's another way to measure wealth.
And this is what I'm getting at.
One way to measure wealth is access, convenience, comfort, pleasure.
But another pretty basic metric for measuring wealth would be this ownership.
Abraham did not have HVAC.
Abraham did not have television or entertainment, certainly not to the degree that we have today.
He did not have access.
You think of just the fact that you can pull up just about anything on a device that you hold in your pocket, right?
If somebody wanted access to knowledge, to information, they would have to be a man of means.
And even then, they would have to send out somebody, a servant or whatever, to go to some library that's Hidden away in some other town or in Babylon or whatever, and try to retrieve the information and bring it back to them, write it down on a scroll or whatever it required.
So, from knowledge and convenience and access and comfort and pleasure and all these different things, that's kind of just the default that I think a lot of us have been deceived into truncating the whole concept of wealth.
But another way of measuring wealth, perhaps the most basic way of measuring wealth, is ownership.
Abraham did not have those kinds of comforts and conveniences.
But Abraham, what he did have is ownership.
He owned land.
He owned houses.
He owned livestock.
He owned resources.
And when I think of that, when I think of the average American today, you know, not necessarily, you know, the 80 year old boomer who kind of got off easy, but the average American today under the age of 45, especially those who are in their 20s and 30s, the reality is that they really, George Soros and, you know, all these kind of malicious and sinister people,
Ownership vs Subscription00:11:45
what they have said out loud really has become.
True, it really has been fulfilled.
You'll own nothing and be happy.
The only thing that they missed is it turns out a lot of people really aren't happy.
A lot of Gen Z and millennials are not happy.
They can't afford to live.
And yes, they have a smartphone in their pocket.
And yes, they don't have to drive a horse and buggy.
They have a motorized vehicle.
And yes, they have HVAC.
But they're living in many cases in an 800, 700 square foot studio apartment.
Even in that instance, I might be a little bit generous.
They don't own it.
They have nothing that they can pass down to anyone else.
They don't own their car, right?
They have payments on their car, they have payments on their phone.
You subscribe to everything.
I remember seeing a video a few months back.
There was a guy who was a comedic, short little YouTube video, but he was talking about how, making a joke about how everything nowadays is a subscription.
And so he was basically answering the door, and it was like his Uber.
Or whatever, you know, grab or whatever company guy shows up with his groceries and he's like, Hey, all right, great.
Do you have the receipt?
And he said, Oh, no, no, no, it's free.
And he's like, Free?
That's incredible.
What did you do to get this deal?
He's like, Well, I just subscribed.
He's like, To groceries?
Like, he's like, Yeah, there was a great subscription on celery.
You know, and then the bit just keeps kind of going on and on and on.
And he said, You know, I subscribed also to the oxygen while I was there so that I could breathe.
And he's like, Okay, but.
But what does the subscription cost?
And he's like, Well, that's the best thing about it.
It's free for the first 30 days.
And then, you know, all of a sudden, you have to pay.
And he's like, Well, show me, you know.
And he's like, Oh my gosh, I'm going to have to start paying $900 a month, you know, in 29 days.
And he's like, Well, I've done it and I've been fine.
I subscribe to everything.
He's like, Well, how have you survived?
And he's like, Well, the fine print is that if you get a referral and can subscribe someone else, then you get an extra month on your subscriptions.
And he's like, wait, what?
How long have you been doing this?
Have you subscribed me to anything else?
And he's like, actually, I've subscribed you to X, Y, Z.
And he goes down this list and he's like, when does the subscription re up?
And my first payment is due.
And he's like, tomorrow at 12 p.m.
He's like, how much do I owe?
He's like, $15,000.
He's like, what did you subscribe me to?
He's like, the atoms, the bone marrow.
And then the bit ends with all of a sudden it turns 12 p.m. and his body just vaporizes.
So obviously a bit of hyperbole, but not much.
My point is to say that's where we are today.
Yes, you have a cooling system.
Yes, you have a vehicle.
Yes, you can watch a video on your phone.
But you are renting everything.
Everything in your life is owned by someone else.
And so, if we say that wealth is comprised of comfort and convenience and access, then sure, you're really wealthy.
But if we say that wealth is comprised at least in part, some degree at all, in terms of sheer ownership, then we here in the West, in the year of our Lord 2025, are the most impoverished people, arguably, throughout human history.
There were serfs in a feudal lord system that were much like us today, did not own anything.
Everything is ultimately lent to them.
But here's the difference with them.
A lot of times they worked three, four months out of the year.
And then for the other eight, nine months of the year, owning nothing, they still got a nine month vacation.
You look at peasants and serfs from four or 500 years ago, and it's like, man, look at that thatched cottage.
That looks nice.
What's the square footage on that thing?
Man, I wish that we had that.
I was just looking that up while you were talking, and the ranges.
Are wide.
I'm not going to pretend as though history is a monolith.
For 500 years in every region of Europe, every serf worked the exact same number of hours.
But different analyses of this is the 13th century and in England.
I'm quoting here from an article.
During the medieval era, peasants would work an average of 1,080 hours a year or about 20 hours a week.
The number would fluctuate depending on the demands of the Lord and the season.
The reason the average medieval peasants worked less hours is because of how work was structured during the open field system.
So 20 hours a week on average, there was church sanctioned, church mandatory.
Days off.
Sunday, for example, church holidays.
When it came down to retirement, when it came down to caring for them, all the people would come together.
If a woman was sick, all the women of the village would come together and help her.
When it came to retirement, there wasn't a true retirement, but basically they would be given tasks that were commensurate with what they were able to do.
And so you had these people working half as much, tons of protected holidays.
Hey, the Lord can't tell you to work on Sunday unless obviously it was an emergency.
Hey, he can't tell you to work on Christmas.
He can't tell you to work on Easter.
So they worked less, had better protections, a better communal setup.
Now, to be fair, they didn't own the land.
They worked it.
But practically speaking, the labor conditions, there's lots of guys that work in tech, work in consulting, work in finance.
It was Sunday yesterday and they were working.
They had no protection.
And that's my point you are a feudal serf.
In these United States of usury, you are a feudal serf.
The difference is that on average, they work 20 hours a week and on average, you work 60.
The feudal serfs of the 13th century in Europe are laughing at you.
They are looking at you and say, What a peasant.
What a plebe.
He doesn't even get Sundays off.
He doesn't even get Sundays off.
That's where we're at.
So, more convenience?
Yes.
More accessibility?
Yes.
More of the petty personal comforts and pleasures?
Yes.
But in terms of ownership, you own just as little as a feudal serf did and work three times the hours.
That's where we are.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's also, you think, one of the other elements that they would experience, positive elements that they'd experience that you don't experience today, is enjoying the riches of the land.
Right.
So you might buy a house and you might be in debt for 50 years to buy that house.
And now you've got a hundred square foot backyard.
And then you better enjoy that piece of land because every other piece, every other plot of land has been taken by someone else in the same boat as you.
And so there is really no communal land, there's no communal access to land.
And so, even in that sense, and just enjoying the place that you live.
That's totally been taken from people.
And then I liked what you said in terms of ownership being real wealth.
And I think another sort of synonym you could use is freedom or autonomy, right?
So you could say to a slave, hey, what if I provided all of your food, your housing, your clothes, even your entertainment?
It's all provided by me, but you can't think a thought without my permission.
You would say that sounds insane, actually.
Well, that's exactly what wage slavery is.
That's what it means to be in a 30 year mortgage.
And you can't walk away from your job because you won't be able to afford your mortgage, you won't be able to afford your car note.
Or food, or any of these things.
So you are effectively in that situation.
You are a wage slave.
Yeah.
I read recently that in terms of delinquencies on loans for cars, vehicles, that we've hit an all time high since, I believe it said, I think it was 1993.
So at an all time high in terms of people having their cars repoed.
So you're exactly right.
It's like you are a slave to your job because if you quit, even for a couple weeks, you're immediately underwater.
You can never get your head up above the surface ever again.
You will fault on your loan for your house, for your car, for all these things, and then they're just gone.
And you need all those things to regain employment.
And so, yeah, we're in bad shape.
And 50 million deportations, isn't that a joke?
Remember when we were excited about that?
Actually, we thought that that might be possible.
What a joke.
Joke's on me.
We'll hit some of the solutions, but yeah, we're going to talk about it.
The one thing I do want to emphasize you guys have to see how literally capitalism came full term.
You started with a feudal system.
People worked for a feudal lord, worked the land, that was their job.
You have this brief window in the Industrial Revolution and modern capitalism and financial markets, but it's literally to the point again the few own everything and everybody rents it from them.
And what's different actually about this one is before you would rent it from an actual person with a real name, you probably actually got to see that person.
Right.
Today, Well, I work part time for House Chipotle with the burrito that I finance and I have to make payments to.
I work part time for House Ford, who I make my car payment to.
I work part time for House Lennar, who I make these payments to.
And none of these people you've ever actually seen, you have no contact with, and they have no obligation to protect you.
That was one of the things the Lords did back then.
If their land was attacked, if peasants were attacked, if someone was killed, they had the responsibility to muster the army and say, not on my watch.
These people belong to me.
Will Jeff Bezos protect you?
No.
Mark Zuckerberg?
How so?
All of the downsides.
You own nothing.
You work for someone.
But now they're an impersonal, removed, irresponsible, distant owner that does nothing with you.
The same system with none of the advantages.
And married with lifeless, soulless work rather than working the land, which is actually can actually be nourishing to your soul, even as a serf.
Yeah, well said.
It can't be overemphasized enough.
Capitalism was supposed to free people.
And what it's done is full circle all the way back to a feudal serf system.
And I'm not saying that to say that I'm entirely convinced that there's no good that has come from capitalism.
I absolutely believe historically that there has been good.
And it's not to say that there aren't certain, what I believe to be universal biblical principles that are often attributed to capitalism, whether that's correct or not, that I believe are inherently righteous and moral and good, like private ownership.
So I stand for those things.
But whatever you want to call it, crony capitalism or capitalism gone wild or whatever it is, where you now have a smart fridge, not just smartphone, smart fridge that's showing you ads on a screen on the front of your refrigerator as you're trying to make breakfast in the morning.
Whatever kind of capitalism that is, it is two things.
One, it's the capitalism we have here in the West today.
And we just have to admit that.
That is our reality.
And two, it's the capitalism we have.
And it's a capitalism that I think is wicked and that God hates.
I really do.
So let's go to our first commercial break, and we're going to be right back and talk about solutions that we can trust that the Trump administration will not ever employ.
Wicked Capitalism Exposed00:03:42
But we're going to talk about the solutions either way, because who knows?
Maybe you, one of you listeners out there, will ascend to power one day and be the true great man that Trump has been at best a mere precursor to.
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.
When it comes to your financial future, are you planning forward or backwards from your desired results?
What type of financial culture do you want to create for your family and for your children's children?
We are not called to be wise as doves.
Therefore, simpleton planning simply won't cut it.
Joe Garrison helps families develop and implement a long term culture of excellent financial management.
He starts with your goals, your tithing plan, your retirement, and the legacy that you want to build for your generations.
And then he works backwards to build a real actionable plan to get your family on track.
Now, many of my personal friends have benefited from the financial wisdom of Joe Garrison that he shared for their specific situations.
Do you want to work with someone who strives for alpha with your investing, hates taxes, and brokers insurance?
Start planning smart.
Call Joe Garresey at 615 767 2555.
Again, that's 615 767 2555.
Or you can find him by going to backwardsplanningfinancial.nm.com.
Again, that's backwardsplanningfinancial.nn, as in Nancy, m, as in Ministries.com.
The silver is mine and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of Hosts.
Yet your retirement dollars keep shrinking daily as Washington prints money out of thin air.
Genesis Gold Group aligns financial guidance with godly principles when others serve only profit.
Their faith centered approach to gold IRAs stands apart in an industry that has forgotten what true stewardship actually means.
Why gamble your family's future on Wall Street's paper promises?
Your 401k and IRA deserve better protection.
Genesis Gold Group transforms your vulnerable retirement accounts into physical gold, something real, something tangible, something that God created with inherent value.
Their faith driven experts walk you through every step, helping you shield your life's work from the financial storms up ahead.
No high pressure tactics, no hidden fees, just guidance rooted in timeless principles of sound stewardship.
So, the decision is simple.
Watch your retirement evaporate through inflation or secure it in God's precious metal.
Moral Obligation to Resist00:04:40
Take action now.
Go and visit WrightResponseBibleGold.com.
You can visit today for your free book, The Bible and Gold, and join the thousands of believers who sleep soundly knowing their future is anchored in something unshakable.
Again, that's WrightResponseBibleGold.com.
Safeguarding your legacy with God's timeless treasure.
All right.
All right.
We're not in the complaining business here at Write Response.
We're in the solutions business.
And so we talked about the 50 year mortgage, and Trump is doing that as a band aid for the housing crisis.
Everyone under 30 is feeling the crunch.
How in the world am I ever going to afford a home?
And so he said, well, why not a 50 year mortgage?
There's actually a lot simpler solutions to this.
And the problem is they require will.
50 year mortgage, Department of Housing does that.
People will pay.
They'll do it.
There was someone that said, well, if people would pay $100 to finance a burrito, that's their choice.
The problem is when you give people the option, they will.
They'll see a lower cost.
They'll see the option to have something now and pay for it later.
They're going to take it.
You can't tempt people with tantalizing instant access with marketing and every tool at your disposal.
Let me pause for just saying that's so important because, I mean, Matthew Henry says this, Thomas Watson says this.
This is the reform position.
It's also the Catholic position.
Even before that, the civil magistrate is a nursing father.
He has a fatherly, civil fatherly duty to the citizens.
So, this idea, because that's kind of, you know, that's the regular counter that the true, you know, capitalist would always offer is they'd say, well, look, like the free, you know, the market never lies.
The market, you know, will regulate all these things and people will ultimately, they'll vote with their fate, you know, they'll vote with their wallets.
And so, if people don't like something, they don't have to do it.
But there actually is a moral obligation of fathers, right?
Like, so when I think of my home and my children, I don't just leave things lying around the house that are lethal, that would endanger them or threaten their well being.
I, you know, I have young children.
So with a three year old, I'm not going to just leave right there on the table or the counter or whatever on the floor, you know, my sidearm.
I'm not going to do that.
That's irresponsible.
That's not loving.
It's negligent.
And so too, As civil fathers, when you think of the civil magistrate, he actually has a moral obligation to ensure that the country is not filled with booby traps and snares to ultimately crush his people that God has appointed him over to steward and to cherish and to lead.
So there really is a moral obligation.
So the idea of, like, well, it's their choice.
Yeah, there are some things that should not be available as a choice.
There are choices that people make, and yes, they are responsible for those choices, but there are many things that the choice being present in and of itself is a moral evil.
I think of even pornography.
So it's like, right?
I mean, seriously, like many people, what I'm about to say sounds like a hyperbolic example, but many people have made this argument with something like OnlyFans or something like Pornhub.
They'll say, well, people have a choice.
Nobody's forcing them.
They have a choice.
And yet, we would say the Christian position is that pornography should be, by legislation, legally, it should be banned from these United States.
That is a choice that should not be available to people because there are too many weak willed people.
Do they bear?
A certain degree of moral culpability for being weak willed and being willing to hand themselves over to such an immoral choice?
Yes, I'm not saying that the people are guiltless.
The people bear culpability, but so do the leaders for allowing orcs within the city gates, for allowing booby traps and snares and poison within the land.
It is perfectly permissible and not only permissible, but I believe it's a biblical expectation that civil rulers would say, I'm sorry.
But there will be no pornography, no lewdness, no blasphemy, no, and the list goes on and on and on.
So, yes, there's a measure of freedom, but this whole idea that anything and everything should be freely available for anybody if they so choose, that's not actually a biblical principle.
Leaders Bear Culpability Too00:12:22
Back to you.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, and I was just going to say, before we go to solutions, I think we've already said that this isn't a solution principally, and we all know that, but just to emphatically state as well, this isn't even a solution practically.
So, there are a lot of reasons this actually probably won't work.
One is, and we've seen this before 50 year mortgage specifically.
Yeah, 50 year mortgage, exactly.
One of the reasons is interest rates.
So, this is sort of an economic theory here, but as you extend, actually, for a lender, as you extend the principal payment out, the interest rate risk increases, and they have to increase interest rates along with that to recoup for potential foreclosures that will happen beyond the 30 year mark.
So, you're actually probably going to see interest rate.
Interest rates rise for the 50 year mortgage, which basically might reach equilibrium and make it just as expensive as a 30 year mortgage, even on the front end.
And then the second part is as you have people having now access to the 50 year mortgage, you're going to get an influx of willing buyers, which will also drive prices up for homes, which then you'll see monthly payments go up as well under the 50 year schema.
So, all this to say, you know, Trump saying, oh, we have a solution to housing affordability.
Oh, so you're making the houses cheaper?
No, no.
No, so the houses are just as expensive as they were before.
And actually, more.
And more expensive because of interest.
And we're simply going to make your monthly payment at the front smaller.
But because of interest rates and because of price increases, because everyone can afford a mortgage, all of a sudden you haven't increased supplies.
Now your monthly payment's basically back to what it was for a 30 year mortgage.
So that's my guess is that it would be, number one, negligible even from the start.
If they unrolled 50 year mortgages today, my bet is on a $500,000 house, for instance, either the 30 year mortgage, Would be maybe, maybe $250 to $350 more a month for the 30 year mortgage.
So I think if they rolled it out today from the very beginning, you would save $250 to $350.
I think within five to 10 years max, maybe sooner, but within five to 10 years, because of banks getting wise, because of the populace all of a sudden giving in and demand increasing, you know, I think within five to 10 years, your 50 year mortgage.
Would be exactly what the 30 year mortgage had been.
But then we just go to a 100 year mortgage, and the solution is there.
So, you're telling me it's a solution that's immoral and not a solution.
Yeah, correct.
What a great solution.
Exactly.
Yeah.
How about I give us some real solutions?
So, in the U.S., there are about 77 million single family homes.
You can get that number up a little higher by going with attached homes.
So, these would be a townhome, a row, three or four.
But we're going to go with the number of 77 million.
There's tons of estimates out there as far as how many owns corporations own.
And it's not a huge amount.
It's not like they own 10, 20, 30% of American single family homes.
But the estimates I saw range from about 2% to 4%.
So, single family detached homes.
Corporations.
So the corporation as an abstract legal entity, BlackRock owns those homes and they rent them out.
It's a lot of investment.
It makes a lot of money.
If you own these homes, I mean, think about it.
It's payments on infinity.
Yeah.
50 years from now, you'll still be collecting rent.
Hire a couple maintenance people, a front office.
Like literally, these things are cash farms.
Real quick, quick pause.
We've got someone named Jacob, J A K U B.
He just said, Hail Satan, ban them immediately.
Out of here.
Back to you.
All right.
77 million single family homes, 2% to 4% owned very likely by corporations.
We'll go with the lower number of 2%.
And then about 1%, again, this number fluctuates, owned by foreign entities, individuals that live overseas, individuals that are investing through corporations.
So we'll call it about 3%.
And I did the calculations.
It comes out to about 2.5 million homes.
So if you take that 2% and the 1%, you've got about 2.5 million homes that are kind of up for grabs here at this point.
So they're up for grabs.
It's like they're not really owned by Americans, they're not lived in by the people.
That owns them.
And so then I went to Texas.
So I'm going to cake this down, take it to the state level, not distributed by land, distributed by population.
So your biggest state in the United States is obviously California.
They have about 11.6% of the population.
Let's go to Texas.
Let's call it 10%.
The allocated homes, so 10% of those 2.5 million that are owned by not Americans, owned by corporations, owned by foreigners, comes out to about 230,000 homes.
Now it's not enough on itself to inject.
So you would say, for example, corporations have five years to divest their single family homes.
The tax gradation will scale up to the point where, if they hold on to them, because you can't just take people's property at gunpoint, they paid money for it.
So you say, We're encouraging you to divest this.
Maybe there will be a tax break.
But by year five, you will pay 100% tax equivalent to the price of this home.
You need to divest them.
So you have a gradually scale it up and you inject over these next five years 230,000 homes into the Texas housing market.
Now, in and of itself, that's actually not enough.
It moves prices.
I looked up.
Real quick is that for the foreigners or that's just the corporation owned?
Homes that's both of them together, so homes owned by foreigners.
And what was the percentage on the homes owned by foreigners?
You said two to four for probably about one percent.
There's some estimates that are higher, some estimates that are lower.
So, we're going with like five, call it five.
Um, I'm actually going lower with three percent okay, two percent on corporations, one percent on foreigners.
Okay, so I'm being generous, guys.
So, it's three to five, and you're going with a low number.
And this is just the homes we'll get to the people demanding them because you have supply and you have demand, yeah.
So, you inject that into it, you probably get an improvement of.
At most, about 4% to 5% in home prices.
So a decline in home prices.
So that does help.
Let's say we took out 40 million people from the United States and went proportional to Texas, and it ended up being about 5 million.
Now, only about 15%.
5 million for Texas.
5 million for Texas.
So proportionally, Texas is about 10% of the United States.
Talking 50 million people that don't belong here, 10% of those residing in Texas, because Texas is the second biggest.
So you're taking out about 5 million people.
Now, in a given year, 5 million of any population, About 15% are actually looking to buy.
So we're not pretending as though there's 5 million people.
I'm trying to be fair here.
5 million people every year in Texas, they don't belong here.
They're illegal immigrants, they're on H 1B visas, and they're buying homes.
Let's just go with 15% of the state of Texas.
I think that's fair.
Because you think there's families, there's children, there's, you know, and not everybody's looking for, yeah.
There's children.
So 15% of 5 million for the state of Texas, foreigners.
All based on the rough back of the envelope math.
230,000 homes more available.
5 million people, 15% of them buyers, out.
No other mitigating effects.
And the 200,000, that's for the whole nation.
No, that's just for Texas.
That's just for the homes.
Wow.
Owned by.
Okay.
And probably for Texas, it's higher, to be honest.
So 200 plus homes available now for Texas, and 5% of 5 million now is out.
So we're saying 750,000 in terms of those who would be competing to buy homes.
So you've just gotten rid of 750,000 people who are competitors in terms of the demand, but the supply you just increased by 230,000.
Increased supply, decreased demand big time.
I've heard these terms before supply, demand.
When you increase supply, And decreased demand, you get 50 year mortgages?
Wait, at the high end, the estimate.
So, if there was a severe housing recession, there are calculations like price elasticity and all that.
Here's the takeaway lots of numbers, big point.
A 40 to 80% correction in home prices is totally feasible in the state of Texas.
Well, how can we make homes affordable?
Ban foreign ownership, ban corporate ownership, take 5 million people out.
Literally, it's not complicated, it's not hard, it's not complex.
Obviously, the math itself, there's a lot of mitigating factors.
Hey, maybe we just a 35% correction.
It's not even a severe correction, just a 35% correction on home prices.
You just made home ownership affordable for millions more people here in Texas.
And which people?
The native citizens.
Exactly.
Americans.
The people.
Not for millionaires.
The people that you actually are obligated to defend as a civil magistrate.
Yeah, it's.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I feel like the Christian life, and I also feel like the life of an elected official, whether it's, you know, Living for Christ as a Christian, or whether it's being a faithful civil magistrate.
I think the concept applies in both arenas.
And the concept is this it's not complicated, but it is hard.
Not complicated, but it is hard.
And the illustration that a lot of people have used and I use is it's like chopping wood.
Chopping wood is not rocket science, right?
You don't have to have 150 IQ, you don't have to be PhD'd.
Chopping wood is simple, but it's hard.
Simple, Not complex, but hard, not easy.
So you can figure it out, but you're going to sweat.
You're going to have some blisters.
You're probably going to be a little bit uncomfortable.
And I feel like that's what it's likened to when we think of political and economic solutions for these United States.
It's really not that complicated.
Someone has once said, No, it's really not that complicated.
And Tony's about to come in and say, Well, actually, what do you think of that solution?
No, I think that's a no brainer.
I mean, that's like, Really, just in the last 10 years or so, that's become a problem that's completely reversible.
I think if you go back beyond 10 years, then you're talking about other things that are very practical as well and achievable, which is property tax, which is just wholly unbiblical.
The idea that even after you've paid your house off, you're still extracting wealth from citizens living on the land that they've rightfully purchased.
The other is red tape with respect to building and zoning laws and those sorts of things, which is just laid on thick and makes it really hard for American companies to build homes for Americans.
And then the other thing, which people don't talk about a lot, but is no surprise, is we talk about supply and demand, we talk about free markets.
Lending mortgages is not a free market.
It is quintessentially price fixing.
With respect, Fannie Freddie, you have the Fed funds interest rate, which fixes interest rates for all banks.
You could ask this question and say, okay, if I'm a bank, how do I make money if I'm a mortgage lender?
I make money by lending people who are purchasing homes money.
How do I compete?
Well, I suppose I compete on interest rates.
So, you would think naturally in supply and demand, free market equilibriums, that banks would be competing with one another to provide lower interest rates to people, to compel them to use them as the bank and not the other bank.
But this is the reality of it.
It's all fixed.
Banks have benchmark interest rates that they all use.
And so, the one out, you would say, okay, maybe free market capitalism works here.
Banks are going to compete on interest rates.
We're going to have the pick of the litter.
I could go with Wells, I could go with USAA, I could go with all of these banks.
And I'm going to go with the one that gives me the lowest interest rate.
And it's like, oh, I go check.
They all give me the same interest rate.
6.5, 6.5.
6.5.
Right.
So there really is so much working against the American who wants to purchase a home today.
So much of it is obviously what we've talked about.
It's the flood of immigration and the increasing supply that's consequent to that.
But then again, it's also the things I just mentioned the property taxes and the government getting involved in fixing.
Interest rates.
So I am all for it.
I think these things are really obvious solutions.
I think they're biblically grounded solutions.
And it's going to take, like you said at the outset of the episode, it's going to take people raising a ruckus.
Christians getting smart on the ethics of lending to begin with, but then also some of these practical solutions to push for, both locally and federally.
Biblical Solutions for Today00:03:21
Well, hey, at least corporations like BlackRock can't make campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans so that they would never vote for legislation like this, which would stop them from investing in single family homes.
Like, they wouldn't have in the 2024 election donated $1.6 million to Democrats, $900,000 to Republicans.
They wouldn't do that.
So, if a vote like that ever came up, they would get the call not to vote for it.
Oh, wait, they're all bought and paid for by big corporations that have every interest in keeping this legal.
It's fixed all the way down.
It's kind of funny how, like, on donations, it's like, well, BlackRock, ESG, Woke Capital, I bet they exclusively donate to Democrats.
Oh, wait, they donate to both.
National Association of Realtors donates to both.
AIPAC donates to both.
They're two sides of the same coin.
Both sides hate you for the most part.
Agreed.
Well said.
Anything else on this segment?
We've got a lot of super chats starting to pile up.
Let me just say this as you're looking, you let me know if there's any concluding thoughts.
If you are new to the channel, we do super chats in our third and final segment, right?
So we do kind of an opening segment and a commercial break, second segment where we try to provide solutions and flesh things out a little bit further.
And then we do our final commercial break.
And then our third and final segment is where we address the super chats.
And so if you want to go ahead and have your comment or question read, Live on the broadcast, then go ahead and send it as a super chat.
We do our best to try to get to some of the questions and comments that are not super chats, but we always prioritize the ones that are.
And honestly, it's probably been weeks, if not months at this point, where the super chats are all we can get to, which is great.
It's a great problem to have.
So if you do a super chat, we make it our goal, our commitment to get to every single one of those.
So go ahead and start sending those in if you have any questions for us.
Also, if you're new to the channel, Make sure that you subscribe, Right Response Ministries on YouTube.
Also, follow us on X.
The handle is at Right Response M as in Ministries, at Right Response M as in Ministries on X.
And we broadcast three times a week on Monday and Wednesday and Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
And this live broadcast is simultaneously hosted both on YouTube and X.
So if you follow us on either of those platforms or both, you will find the live broadcast there three times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
And then once the live broadcast is done, shortly within about an hour or so, then we go ahead and we post the stream.
As a podcast on your favorite podcast platform.
So you can follow us on Apple or Spotify.
Make sure to help us out by leaving a five star review if you are one of our listeners on Apple or Spotify.
It does a world of good.
It helps to trigger the algorithm and get our content out on podcast platforms like Apple and Spotify to more listeners.
And so that helps us tremendously.
We're grateful for that.
If there's no concluding thoughts, then I'm just going to go to our final commercial break.
And again, as I already said, the super chats are starting to pile up.
And we've got some good ones, and so stay with us, and we'll be right back after this final message from our sponsors.
When we think about what powers our modern world fighter jets, clean energy, even the phone that's in your hand we rarely stop to ask the question, What powers our power?
Triggering the Algorithm00:02:23
See, it all comes down to a handful of critical minerals, and most of these minerals come from overseas.
Now, that is a problem.
Saga Metals is working to fix this problem.
Their mission.
Build a secure, independent future for North America by developing domestic sources of titanium, lithium, and uranium, the materials that our economy and defense depend on.
Their flagship project in Labrador, Canada spans 160 square kilometers, with a 15,000 meter drill program underway driving a potentially world class titanium resource.
Saga has also partnered with global mining leader Rio Tinto.
Which can invest up to $44 million in Saga's lithium project, a major vote of confidence.
Now, Saga Metals trades publicly under SAGMF in the US and SAGA, that's Saga, in Canada.
With the race to secure supply chains heating up, a company with assets like these won't stay under the radar for very long.
So, learn more at sagametals.com.
Again, that's Saga Metals.
Hey, friends.
Grey Toad Tallow is a family business making skin care the way that it should be simple and clean.
The company began as a personal mission to find healthier, more affordable solutions to common skin problems without the chemicals that are found in most products today.
Now, that search led to crafting balms from grass fed, grass finished animals that were naturally rich in vitamins and healthy fats.
Which is exactly what your skin craves.
These balms fight dryness, they calm eczema and psoriasis, along with other stubborn skin issues, without containing all the nasty toxins.
Gray Toad Tallow offers everyday soaps, balms, and beard balm for men.
To experience some of their products, grab a balm sample pack.
Each batch is made with care in their home and shipped directly.
Natural Skincare Sponsorship00:15:49
To their customers.
For skin care, the way that God designed, natural, clean, and effective, visit graytoedtallow.com.
Use code WRITE15 for 15% off your order today.
Again, that's graytoedtallow.com.
And if you want 15% off, then add the promo code WRITE15 today.
All right, time for our super chats.
This is one that was actually emailed to us.
It's somebody who gave a Mondo super chat of $1,000, but something with the system got.
The wires crossed and we didn't get it, so we want to make sure to do this.
I think it was some point last week that he sent this in, so he followed up with an email.
We promised that we would get to it.
Kevin Murray is the individual, and he wrote the following What are the right application scenarios of the principle of turning the other cheek that we see in Matthew chapter 5, verse 39?
And what are its limitations?
I know that you've made the distinction between public and private enemies before, but if I defend the right to self defense, for example.
Where is my justification when someone comes back and says to turn the other cheek?
That seems to be a private enemy.
Yes, yes, I understand what you're getting at.
So, when it comes to public enemies, just war theory is a thing and it's a biblically defensible principle.
So, yes, you are allowed to have public enemies.
A nation can have enemies, and those can be people who, at a private level, might actually be friends.
There have, sadly, this isn't something that we should be happy about, but sadly, There have been civil wars in the West that was largely Christian on both sides of the aisle.
We've had that as our own country.
The American Civil War, we've had the European Civil War 80 years ago, thinking of World War II, where you had different Western nations that were all Christian and yet they were fighting each other.
And at a private level, if one English man and one German man who were both followers of the Lord Jesus Christ encountered each other outside of wartime, Then they should treat one another as kin.
They should treat one another as distant cousins.
They should treat one another also predominantly as brothers in Christ.
You could have someone in your home and exercise hospitality and be charitable toward them.
But under the conditions of national war, then all of a sudden the psychology shifts, it changes, and it becomes permissible, assuming that the conditions for just war have been reached, it becomes permissible.
To fight another man who's even a Christian man, even distantly kin, it actually becomes permissible to fight him.
So that's kind of the public enemy, public dynamic.
Whereas privately, you would be friends.
But if you're talking about private scenarios where an individual who's not a public enemy, he doesn't belong to another nation, your two nations are not currently at war, anything like that, he's not necessarily a political enemy.
It's not, you know, Democrats versus, you know, conservatives or something like that.
It's just, you know, Somebody who you encounter on the street and he holds you up at gunpoint and tries to harm you or to rob you or this, that, and the other.
Are you allowed to defend yourself?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
That's not what was going on in Matthew chapter 5, verse 39.
So, just war theory, public enemies, the Bible has a framework for that.
And then at a private level, self defense for life altercations, life threatening.
Situations, the Bible also has a defense for that.
Even Christ himself said to, you know, if you don't have a sword, to sell your tunic and buy one.
The disciples said, We have two swords.
And he says, That's enough.
But he doesn't respond by saying, Oh, you know what?
You should sell those two swords and buy, you know, tunics.
That's the opposite of what Jesus actually says.
Jesus, he defends and affirms the principle of self defense.
So turning the other cheek is not a commandment prescribed by Christ that commands suicide.
It doesn't command, hey, if somebody is threatening you or your family and your lives or your livelihood, that you should just roll over.
And die in the context where Jesus is saying this, you're talking about Jewish people at a time and in a place where they are occupied, they are occupied by a political party that has conquered their nation as a fulfillment to scripture because of Israel's unbelief and stiff necked, hard heartedness.
And so, they're under occupied territory, they're under foreign rule, and they have an obligation in that situation.
To honor the king.
Peter's epistles talk about this honor the king, even if the king isn't particularly honorable.
And he's not talking about an Israelite king.
He's not talking about King David or King Josiah.
He's talking about a Roman emperor underneath their jurisdiction, underneath their conquest, because they had been defeated.
So there's a lot of different dynamics going on.
One, like I kind of briefly hinted at, is just the fact that this was at this time a fulfillment.
Of what was prophesied regarding Israel and it being conquered by foreign nations because of their sin.
So, Jesus, in many ways, is really just tipping his hat to the prophets and the providence of God, God's discipline over the nation of Israel.
He's saying, Yes, submit to the rod when it's exercised on your behind.
Rome was functioning as a rod of discipline over Israel for Israel's rebellion.
And sin.
And so Jesus is saying, No, you don't get to just throw off the rod.
You're under God's sovereign discipline because of your sin.
And you must submit to that discipline.
And the instrument that he's using happens to be a foreign nation.
You may not like it, but this is God's instrument because of your sin.
And so you are subjugated to this.
So there's a lot of different dynamics.
I know, Wesley, you had some things that you wanted to share.
Yeah, there's some fascinating context because there's three commands here, and it deals with personal insult, private property, and military coercion.
And those are all preempted in Matthew 5, verse 39.
With a little phrase that is, do not resist evil.
And it sounds kind of weird.
Do not resist evil.
Translated legally and militarily, what it kind of means is to literally meet force with force.
So Jesus gives three examples.
So he says to you, you have heard it said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, do not resist evil.
Now, of course, we make war with evil.
We hate that which is wicked.
But in this context, Jesus is saying, listen, you take a personal injury.
Don't meet force with force.
So literally in this one, and I know they're talking about the broad application, it was a sign of disrespect to backhand someone.
So if I was to, it was a slave.
I would do this.
I would use the backhand.
To actually meet someone like this was a sign of equals.
That's how equals fought, with the open hand.
So, if you backhanded someone and they turned their other cheek, what you would have to do, if you wished to slap them again, was to hit them open handedly, to see you as an equal.
They wouldn't be able to continue to treat you with contempt.
When it says, for example, if someone compels you to go a mile, go with him too.
Roman soldiers had the legal right in their occupation of Judea and the surrounding areas to compel civilians to take their gear and travel with it a mile.
They legally could do that, and you'd be in trouble if you didn't do it.
She says, No, no, go with him further.
And in doing so, you're not actively resisting him.
You go with a smile.
Oh, no, I'm not going to.
I'll fight you right here.
You pick it up, you carry it.
Oh, no, no, no.
I'm happy to do this.
I'll keep going.
And soldiers could actually get in trouble for compelling them to do more than what they were legally allowed to do.
So, in some ways, you take back the power from him.
You're waging smart resistance.
Oh, it's not a problem.
And you've actually disarmed evil without having to escalate it to force.
So, whether it be personal insult, whether it be property, if someone takes your cloak, or whether it be going a mile, Jesus is saying, listen, straight up, blow for blow, resisting of evil.
That actually doesn't work very well.
Be smart, be shrewd, be wise, and take it on the chin and have a smile on your face.
Don't sit there and be like, I can't believe he hit me on the cheek.
Turn to the other also and make him treat you as an equal.
So there are lots of applications in there, but that is certainly one of them.
Don't sit there and go tit for tat with evil.
But Roman says elsewhere, keep coals of fire in his head.
No problem.
I got this pack for five miles if you need me to.
No, no, no.
You can put it down now.
Please, please put it down.
Jesus says that's a great way to resist evil as well.
Yeah, that's great.
Good.
Good thoughts.
All right.
Next super chat is from 10th Generation American S O A R. That's great.
Sons of the American Revolution.
Sounds like our guy.
I like it.
$2 super chat.
We appreciate that.
He said, straw to gold, children lost if we don't say his name.
Straw to gold, children lost if we don't say his name.
Do you know what he's talking about?
I don't.
If I had to guess, he's talking about Hitler.
Yeah.
I don't know the context.
So he might not be.
I don't want to interject him.
Yeah.
Maybe, maybe not.
All right.
Next super chat.
This dude rocks.
He gives $5.
We appreciate that.
He said, If the American or Canadian government hates its native population and wants a foreign one, why do they think that a foreign homogenous India, India, China, I believe, or China or whatever, Pakistan won't turn on them?
Well, I don't think they're thinking that far ahead.
Yeah.
I mean, like, honestly, what I would say is part of the problem is that we're ruled by foreigners already.
We're ruled by women.
Isaiah talks about this, you know, being ruled by women, being ruled by foreigners, that it is a curse.
So, you know, America is under the curse of God.
God bless America.
Now, God is cursing America because America has been in utter rebellion towards God.
So, one, we're ruled by foreigners.
Well, it makes sense that foreigners who rule over us would not care about us and would just be seeking to exploit America as a tax farm for their nations back home.
That makes perfect sense.
It's wicked, it's malicious, but it's at least logical.
Women, when it comes to women ruling over us, the fact of the matter is that the civil.
Body is simply not the role, it's not the place where God has called women to engage in.
They're not fit for it.
The woman is called to be a helpmeet of her husband.
She is not called to rule over men or to fill civil, male headship type positions.
Women are more inclined towards empathy, they're more inclined towards being nurturing, they're more inclined towards.
You know, seeing the foreigner or seeing the criminal for that matter and thinking, oh, if only he had a better mom, you know, oh, if only he had, you know, a 14th try, you know, he just needs another chance, you know, a lighter sentence, a little bit more grace, a little bit more compassion.
And the reality is that that sentiment, that womanly, feminine, domestic sentiment that is hardwired into a woman, no matter what three piece, you know, pantsuit she might be wearing, no matter how boss babe she thinks she is, The apple ultimately doesn't fall that far from the tree.
She is a woman.
God designed her a certain way.
And that sentiment is natural to women.
And that sentiment is an incredible virtue and gift when exercised in the proper context, like a home, like with children.
A woman being nurturing towards her own children in her home is a wonderful thing.
A woman being nurturing towards criminals, as a Supreme Court justice, looking at you, Katanji Brown Jackson, or a woman being nurturing when it comes to foreigners and an invasion of our country, well, then that's a terrible thing, right?
It's a good sentiment.
In the wrong place.
So, what's going on right now?
Well, I say the foreigners were under God's curse.
We're ruled by foreigners and by women.
The foreigners, they're doing exactly what you would expect.
They're serving their people at the cost of ours, right?
It really is.
We've been conquered.
We are a conquered country.
Number two, the women, it's not necessarily malicious, but they're just not fit for the role.
And men have just not had the will and the courage to tell them to go home.
We say it quite often here on this channel women.
In positions of political leadership, please go home.
Go home.
You are in the wrong place.
You shouldn't be there.
But then there's one final component, right?
Because this doesn't happen if it's just foreigners and women, because there was a time where it was predominantly native men, native citizens who were male.
So how did we get to being ruled by foreigners and women?
What about, you know, once upon a time before we got there when it was native citizens, not foreigners, and qualified men and not women?
Well, I think there's.
I call it the Hezekiah factor.
Hezekiah was told by the prophet that certain calamities would happen in the land of Israel, but they would happen after his time, after he was dead.
And he responded by saying, Well, hot dang.
That's good news.
That's great.
Like he was actually ecstatic, he was exuberant about that.
It's like, Wait a second.
You literally have just received a word.
Infallible word from the Lord through his mouthpiece, the prophet, that effectively, for all intents and purposes, says that your own posterity, your children, or at least your grandchildren are going to be decimated and you're happy.
Um, yes, Hezekiah.
I always think of Hezekiah as the first boomer.
I mean, he really embodied the boomer spirit.
But my point is, now we have an entire generation of Hezekiahs.
An entire generation of Hezekiahs that I think they really thought, like, well, wait a second.
You're saying I could squeeze out a little bit more profit, but you're saying I could get a little cheaper labor.
You're saying that I could get a little higher 401k and I could get a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
I think that's what happened.
I think that the spirit of Hezekiah ruled the roost when it came to the boomer generation.
I think many of them were ignorant and just stupid, but many of them I think actually did know and they didn't care.
They knew that they were ultimately signing onto a mortgage, back to the 50 year mortgage, but they were signing onto a mortgage that they would not themselves have to pay, that would be passed down to their children and to their grandchildren, that somebody else would have to fit the bill.
But it would make them more prosperous, greatly, exponentially more processed.
In the course of their lifetime, that they would get to experience peace and someone else would have to experience calamity.
The Cost of Repentance00:05:47
And I think that that's why we got here.
So, the question, you know, again, being, you know, it seems like our governments hate its own native population and want to replace it with a foreign one.
Why do you think that they would do that?
Don't they know that a homogenous foreign population, like if you import half of India to these United States, don't they know that that population would eventually turn on them?
So, long way of saying this.
Actually, that imported foreign population won't turn on them.
It'll turn on their children.
It won't have time to turn on Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi is 174 years old, guys.
You have to keep that in mind.
I mean, every single time she walks out, Into Congress or something.
They literally have to knock on her coffin and pull her out of a crypt.
I mean, think about that.
And it's not like just one or two guys.
We're literally watching videos every week of Mitch McConnell falling over, hemorrhaging blood.
Chris Schroeder looks like a spring chicken.
He's only 70.
My goodness.
We literally just got done with the auto pin presidency with a man who was in the White House who literally had dementia, pretty much his entire term.
It was literally like a weekend at Bernie's, but in the White House.
You know, and people just pretended like it was acceptable, like it was normal.
The media was covering it up.
So, I'm not being hyperbolic when I say you have three kinds of leaders in this country.
You have Hezekiah boomers that are getting rich and know that the foreigners they're importing will turn against them.
But the them in this case means their children and grandchildren.
It's not actually them because they're all 174 years old and they have about two weeks left.
Before they're dead.
And they know that.
Mitch McConnell could be dead by the end of this week.
Nancy Pelosi could be dead by the end of this week, right?
Joe Biden might already be dead.
And we just haven't heard it announced yet.
So, my point is you have three types of leaders foreigners.
Well, why would our leaders do this to us and prefer foreigners?
Well, because a lot of our leaders already are foreigners.
Ilhan Omar is a foreigner.
Zoran is a foreigner.
Vivek is a foreigner.
They're foreigners.
So, the foreigners, that makes sense.
They're going to serve their people.
With their natural affections and not us.
We're the ones who chose to open the gates and let them in.
The women, okay, the women, different than the foreigners, they actually do have natural affections with native citizenry here in the United States, but they have a female sentiment that is a wonderful thing in the proper context at home.
It's not a wonderful thing for the one who bears the sword, namely the civil magistrate.
And then the last one well, how did you get all the women?
Who let the women in?
Who let the foreigners in?
The Hezekiahs.
The Hezekiahs did it.
The boomers.
The boomer men who knew they could make a quick buck have peace, peace for the next 20 years of their life that was already almost over to begin with, and that someone else would have to pay the bill.
I think that's how we got here.
So, to answer the question, aren't they worried that it'll turn on them?
No, they are not.
The women don't realize it.
The women are overcome by suicidal empathy and actually think the foreigners are just down on their luck.
So, they're actually just ignorant and don't know.
The foreigners know that the foreigners won't turn on them, they're just opening the gates to let in more of their own orcs.
And then the Hezekiah Boomers, they know that they will turn on us, but it'll be after they're good, dead, and buried and have gone on their 17th cruise.
That's where we are.
And it's like the undercurrent of a lot of the things that we talk about is, I think, the reality and the recognition that repentance is actually hard.
It is the easiest thing to do, the short term expediency once you've sinned is to sin again, actually.
So I've lied, now I've been caught in a lie.
Double down, lie again.
That's the expediency.
Oh, I cheated on my wife, lie.
With what's happened a lot with our country and politics, and is the politicians trying to solve a problem the easiest way, which actually is to continue to sin in the same direction and just change it, you know, change it slightly.
So, repentance is hard.
You know, even going back to the discussion around, you know, housing prices, it's like I own a house, 40% cut in housing prices is not good for me.
And people will feel that.
But that's what real repentance looks like once you've deported.
Millions and millions of illegal immigrants and immigrants.
And that's what we're talking about here.
It's just a short term expediency into sin after short term expediency into sin.
Right, because repentance is costly.
Sin long term always costs more.
But the repentance, the cost of repentance is less than the cost of sin, right?
That's why it's better.
It honors the Lord and there is a reward in being righteous, obedient, and repenting.
But there's still a cost attached to that.
So the cost of repentance.
Is a lesser cost than the cost of sin.
But the difference, the reason why people continue to double down on their sin is because although sin has the greater cost, the cost of sin can be furloughed, it can be pushed back.
Whereas the cost of repentance, it's a lighter cost, lesser cost than the cost of sin, but it's an upfront cost, it's an immediate cost.
The moment you repent, you immediately feel the weight, you immediately feel the consequences.
The moment you come clean, the moment you confess, the moment you turn, Is the very moment that you immediately feel the cost.
So repentance is a lesser cost than the cost of sin, but it's a more immediate cost than the cost of sin.
And that's why people will postpone repentance.
Why Sin Persists00:16:10
All right, next.
All right.
Julian Stevenson sent $5.
Thanks, Julian.
I genuinely feel betrayed.
All I want to do is to be able to own land to raise my children.
And the fear and the admonition of the Lord is that too much to ask?
Yeah.
Yeah.
We were betrayed and we were sold out.
Like, think about that.
100 years ago, these mortgages didn't exist.
People bought their homes, and the homes were a little smaller.
That's true.
I'm going to recognize these were not 3,500 square feet McMansions.
But yeah, it was completely doable.
You could find a great gal who was a virgin, who loved the Lord, keeper of home.
You could find a home that was affordable, great piece of land in a safer town.
It was doable.
And I think it's worth acknowledging.
We can't pretend as though every generation has had it hard.
No, actually, they haven't had it this hard.
Yep.
There are some unique challenges.
That we are facing right now, younger generations of Americans that were not faced previously in American history.
There were other challenges, challenges of sickness, disease, bitter conditions of weather, these kinds of things.
So, we're not saying, oh, you know what?
It was really easy to settle America, you know, like come in in the 1600s.
Nope, that was hard in its own right.
But we can say that the challenges that we're facing today are unique, at least in American history.
I'm not saying they're unique for every people in every place throughout all of human history.
But these are unique challenges.
Like, I can't own a home.
These, to have as many people as we do currently in the younger generations here in America who cannot afford a home, that is a unique challenge in our nation's history.
Next one.
This dude rocks.
He gave us $10.
We appreciate that.
He said, Ben Shapiro is telling Americans that they need to move away from their homeland instead of saving it.
That's an evil thing to say, evil messaging.
For the right wing.
Well, Ben Shapiro is not right wing, but we'll continue.
He's either a fool or he's just intentionally empowering Nick Fuentes.
I don't know.
What do you guys think?
Yeah, Ben Shapiro made these comments in relation to New York.
Basically, if you can't afford to live in New York, don't live there.
Oh, oh, why didn't I think of that?
Yeah, just leave generations.
Three generations of my family lived together.
Can't afford it.
Just gotta leave.
Just give it up.
Yeah.
Yeah, I did see that.
Now I know what he's referencing.
Yeah, I think, you know, I don't think he's trying to empower Nick Fuentes.
I definitely don't think that's the case.
I think he's scared to death of Nick Fuentes.
I saw something the other day that in the last, I think, one or two weeks that Ben Shapiro lost 20,000 subscribers.
On YouTube.
So his influence is waning rapidly because the dividing lines are shifting.
It's shifting from conservative and liberal.
You know, that's what it's been for quite a while, for several decades.
And now it really is the framing is being set to where it's America first or not, right?
America first or Israel first or Ukraine first or whatever.
It's usually Israel, you know, but there might be a couple other nations attached, but Israel will be, you know, top of the list.
So that's it's changing from just I'm a conservative, I'm a liberal, you know, I'm a Republican, I'm a Democrat.
And it really is shifting to where the new ascendant right, whatever you want to call it, the dissident right, the new right, the new right, right wing of political and cultural discourse is being quintessentially defined by who is America first, unapologetically, without the fine print, without the caveats.
First.
And as that's becoming the new frame for who is right wing, that puts Shapiro squarely outside of the frame and reveals Shapiro for the liberal that he's really always been.
It's just a lot more visible now.
So the fact that, you know, Shapiro would give that kind of advice, like, hey, things are expensive or things are hard.
Well, the way to fix it is just to leave.
Yeah.
Well, you know what?
Sometimes you do have to leave.
I've said that.
Sometimes you do have to leave.
So I don't.
I don't want to criticize Shapiro.
There's plenty to criticize.
I don't want to criticize him for saying, hey, you, if you want to be conservative, if you want to be a single income family, if you want to have children, if you want to own land, living in Manhattan might not be the best bet.
I get that.
I have to take your book right off the coffee table here very slowly.
Yeah, I literally wrote a book on that.
So that is true.
I think what I would say, though, is just whatever you're saying in that vein.
Uh, you also need to be spending time saying it's wicked and wrong that this city or this place or this state or whatever it is is being shaped in such a way, economically, culturally, politically, by wicked people in such a way that people who are our third, fourth, fifth, tenth generation descendants living there have to leave.
That is a great, great evil and it needs to be named.
Now, I don't really listen to Ben Shapiro, so maybe he is saying that.
I personally, if I had to bet, I would say probably not.
I'm not sure.
So that's all I have to say.
All right.
Next.
Alfred the Based sent $9.99.
He said, We live in Satan's little season, Revelation 20.
I think there's something to the little season.
I love it.
As a thought experiment idea.
I think it's certainly worth a conversation.
I'm not sold on it.
So I would still be of the persuasion that we're in, instead of a little season, Satan's little season, that we're in.
We're in a big dip.
Could you explain just kind of what he's kind of saying there with Revelation 20?
What he's kind of getting at?
Yeah, that Satan would be released at the very end for a short while.
So it's kind of like the view.
A lot of them actually do have kind of like a somewhat of a post millennial.
They wouldn't fall in that scheme, but they actually do think that things got better and better.
They would look at like Christ had his millennial reign.
Yeah, they would say the millennial.
So they wouldn't be like pre millennial guys.
They would say, no, Christ returns after the millennium, a millennial reign, a thousand year reign of Christ.
And they would point to the last 2,000 years and say, It happened.
It happened.
I mean, we had literally, we had King Alfred in around a thousand AD, you know, about a thousand years ago.
And King Alfred, all the way, you know, Charlemagne, all these, all the way up to where we are now.
And what you had was the full Christianization of the West and out of the West, missionaries sent to every corner of the world, the gospel spread, the little bit of leaven worked through the whole batch of dough, the mustard seed grown into.
A great mustard, a great tree.
And now, Revelation chapter 20, that there's a short season where Satan is, you know, he was bound, Jesus bound the strong man so that he could no longer deceive the nations.
You had Christ's millennial reign.
And then at the very end, before Christ's actual return, that there's a temporary releasing of Satan for like one final test and purification of the church.
And that we're in that season now.
So this is my point is, I.
I appreciate it.
I think it's a good thought experiment.
I'm totally open to that conversation.
I think it's a conversation worth having.
I like it because it's not, you know, left behind series.
You know, it's not premillennial, pre trib, you know, it's not the kind of brain dead eschatological take that says, like, you know, things have always just gotten worse and worse and worse.
Like, how do you even defend that?
You can't even read one history book and say that things from the time of Christ have always gotten worse and worse and worse.
Like, how would you even defend?
Things have gotten better.
Lifespans have gotten longer.
There's way more Christians on the planet today than there were at the time of Christ.
Disciples multiplied.
Churches were planted.
A great innovation in medicine and this and that and the other.
People lifted out of abject poverty and hunger.
And there's, I mean, there have objectively been improvements in the world for the last 2,000 years.
However, a lot of that has halted and now started to recess in really just the last century.
Lifespans in the West actually starting to tick back down.
IQ in the West starting to tick back down.
Nutrition, not so nutritious anymore.
When you think of church attendance, now there's a little bit of hope in the last couple of years, but for the last few decades, that was ticking back down.
So historically, things getting better and better and better, but then a recession, a somewhat short, all things considered, in light of the past 2000 years, a short recession.
Historically, that bears out.
Biblically, I'm not personally, it's not my position, but I don't think it's heresy.
I see how you get there.
I can read.
I can read Revelation 20.
I can see it.
So if that's your eschatological position, I think that's perfectly reasonable.
It's certainly orthodox, it's not heretical.
And I would say it puts you light years above any dispy premillennial guy.
It beats the hell out of premillennial Zionism.
As far as I know, the Little Season crew doesn't hold to a rapture.
They're not Hal Lindsey's late great planet Earth.
So, I think it's perfectly plausible.
I personally think that no man knows the day or the hour, but if I were to guess, I think that there's more Christianization of not just the West, but the world yet to come, and that we will enter an even greater season than anything we've seen in history.
Greater numbers of conversions, genuine conversions, greater innovation, the nations no longer knowing war, beating their swords into plowshares.
So, world peace being accomplished.
The youth dies at 100, just so you know, I'm not just pulling out of my butt.
I'm thinking of Isaiah, I believe it's chapter 65.
So the youth dies at 100.
So that implies greatly elongated lifespans.
So, no more death in infancy.
So, I take that to mean not only medical advancements, but also the full abolishing of abortion.
And I think of prior generations when Christendom was at its high water mark thus far, thinking of the 16th century, 17th century, even 18th century.
You wouldn't have had abortion, certainly not like we have it today, but you did still have a lot of death with infancy.
You still had because of just simply sickness and miscarriages.
I look at Isaiah 65 and notice this isn't heaven.
This isn't the life to come.
This isn't after Christ's return because then nobody dies at all.
So you still have death.
The youth dies at 100.
So you still have death, but no more people dying in infancy.
So that would mean you've medically been able to cure certain ailments.
But you also morally have been able to abolish abortion.
I don't think we've seen both of those things simultaneously.
I think we've seen a more moral Christian West in centuries past, but without the medical innovations, advancements to where you still had not abortion, infant deaths, but you still had just sickness and infant deaths.
And then we had some of the advancements, but then we had the moral collapse.
And so now you have voluntary slaughtering your own children in the womb.
So I look at, you know, that's not the only verse, but I look at Isaiah 65.
And I'm hinging something on that.
And so for me, I can't get on board with Satan's little season, but I will say, of the eschatological positions that I've been privy to, I think that's one of the best.
And if that's your position, you don't have my agreement, but you have my respect.
Fair enough.
Yeah.
Go ahead, Antonio.
Yep.
Killer Pancake sent $10 and says, Missed the QA episode.
Why do you think guys like James White are so hostile to you guys and Ogden?
Burns me out because they had huge influence on my journey into Reformed theology.
I don't know.
What do you guys think?
Any thoughts?
Antonio, you have any thoughts?
Yeah, well, first, I'll go on record and say this is true for me as well.
Many of my friends, as well, in the sense that James White has been incredibly influential, has had a lot of great things to say as a scholar, I think, particularly.
We've appreciated his study of history, the many books that he's written, his debates, in particular, I think, with atheists.
And Catholics, I know he's got a big Catholic, a Protestant, anti Catholic sort of ministry.
Yeah, I think a lot of it I explain by just the recognition that, you know, when you fight your entire life to see to some end, when you see things, the landscape change away from you, that's a frustrating experience, I think, for any person to say, hey, wait, the conversation's shifting.
And I want us to stay on this topic, and I've worked so hard for us to stay on this topic in this direction.
So, I think that just perhaps, and this is just me speculating here, but on a personal level, I think that might explain some of the hostility that's come out is that frustration.
But I also just think they're just genuine disagreements, too.
It's not simply something you chalk up to sort of his own sort of interpersonal conflict or personal conflict.
I think there's just genuine disagreements.
And when you have someone who's strong headed and says, no, I have the right position, they're going to push back pretty hard.
And then obviously, the The little piece that these people are actually from, formerly from my camp, right?
Formerly from my field of influence.
For them to be disagreeing with me, I'm sure grinds a little bit harder than, you know, people you expected to be your enemy.
Right.
Yeah.
Wes, any thoughts?
Summed it up well.
Yeah, I think so.
All right.
Next one is from Deacon St. John.
He gave $50 and he said, I found a church for sale in Peoria.
Is that how you say it?
Peoria?
I'm not from the Midwest.
I don't know.
I think that's right.
Peoria, Illinois.
I am not a pastor and do not know how to do a church plant.
I could also make it a single family home or an Airbnb or a gym, et cetera.
It is 10,000 square feet and $278,000.
What would you do to keep it from becoming a mosque?
Good question.
My brother in Christ, we just did a whole episode 50 year mortgage.
No, that's a great question.
I love the impulse too to say, like, if we don't buy up these churches as they die out, as they're abandoned, they become mosques.
They get taken over by Unitarians, Universalists.
I mean, that's an incredible deal.
I don't know what the building looks like.
I don't know how old it is.
I don't know what shape it's in, but I mean, $278,000, the price is right.
I'll tell you that.
That's pretty amazing.
10,000 square feet.
I'm very familiar with that size.
That's a great size building.
You could, 10,000 square feet, if you had, like, you know, bathrooms, a foyer, a little bit of auxiliary space, a couple of classrooms, that still leaves about 5,000, about half the building.
Victory of Christ Despite Weakness00:14:56
5,000 square feet for a sanctuary, 5,000 square feet for a sanctuary with a stage and different things like that basically allows for anywhere from four to 500 people.
So that's like, it's not nothing.
That's a sizable church.
So to me, I mean, some of the things that I would be running through is just not even so much like, well, who's going to pastor it?
Could I pastor it?
Could that person pastor it?
First thing I would be thinking about, pastor is a lot easier to move.
There's guys who want to be pastors, they're just looking for an opportunity.
The pastor is a piece that you can.
You can deliver.
You can transport the pastor.
What you can't transport is all the people.
So, to me, when I think of places where a church maybe should be planted, the first thing I'm thinking is not the building and not the pastor, but the people.
I'm thinking, are there in this town or this area, larger area within a 30 minute drive, are there at least 10 families that are like minded, that agree with me?
At least generally agree with me and who would commit and be a part of a church if we formed one.
So, that would be kind of for me the first question if you're thinking about buying the church and keeping it a church is do you have the people who would make up the initial congregation?
I think about 10 families is probably what I would be hoping for.
If you don't have that, then yeah, I mean, getting a guy, you know, come out there and be the pastor, you know, be the pastor of what?
You know, you don't have a church.
So, Looking at the families.
If not, though, if you still just feel like it's a good investment and you want to look at buying it and turning it into something else simply so that it doesn't become a mosque, I think that that's honorable too.
And just make sure that, you know, like as much as we don't want it to be turned into a mosque, make sure that it's not a money pit.
Make sure that it's an actual, you know, decent investment and that you're not going to hurt your family and lose money on it.
Yeah, I would consider trying to keep it a church.
That'd be my first choice.
But with that, the way that I would answer that question is looking outside of the building.
And looking at the surrounding area, the people do I have a core group of people who would be the congregation that would fill this church and pay that pastor's salary, you know, or at least part time as he's getting started?
If you don't have that, but you still want to buy it, um, then I would just kind of let you know, let the church ambition fall to the wayside and think, you know, what's the next best thing that I can do with it?
Um, for the glory of God, you can make it on yourself to be an ambassador to local churches in the area, there's church groups that run financing.
278k is not a lot of money to finance.
I mean, practically the mortgage.
I don't even think $3,000.
You can see, is there a church around here with 100 people, like you said, 10 families, they're big families, but 100 people, they're faithful, maybe not perfect, they're faithful that could afford $3,000 a month for a church building and serve as a middleman.
Hey, I've got this church.
I know where it is.
I think this is a great neighborhood.
It's safe this out of the other.
Could the pastor meet me?
Let's take a look at it.
Do you think this would be something you could do?
I just have a heart for this.
I'm not buying it.
I'm not giving money towards it.
I might not even be a member.
I want to let you know because you're a good, faithful congregation in the area.
You're meeting in a school, you're meeting in a restaurant, you're meeting in a whatever.
Yep.
All right.
Parks Brown, the fourth, he gave us $5.
We appreciate that.
He said, As we approach our king's return and the enemy gains ground, what verses do you use in your daily walkslash ministry to combat them physically in others?
Okay.
I don't understand that last part.
What verses do you use in your daily walkslash ministry to combat them physically?
Who's them?
The enemy.
So, combat the enemy physically in others.
I think we'll just take the first part of the question.
Okay, let's take the first part.
Yeah, I just don't understand that last part.
I don't understand it either.
No offense to Parks Brown, the fourth.
Writing is hard.
It's not for everyone.
It's not for me, honestly.
I've got an 80 page book sitting on the table.
But I don't understand the last part, but we will take the first part as we approach Christ's return and the enemy gains ground.
Let's just say, um, what do you do in your daily walk not to black pill or to, you know, to stay vigilant or to always be watchful or to not compromise?
Let's just maybe try to answer that question.
Any thoughts?
What verses specifically?
Okay.
What verses?
Um, well, I mean, honestly, like some of the ones that I already shared, um, like thinking of Isaiah 65, but there are others as well.
Um, but you know, one of the ways that I try to encourage myself is by panning out.
Like when things look bleak in the micro, I try to pan out and look at the macro, you know, like, uh, When I feel lost because of the trees, I try to, you know, be seated with Him in heavenly places and get the aerial view, you know, the 30,000 foot view and see the forest, you know, and remember that Christ wins, that Christ is King.
And He's not just ruling and reigning in the 17th dimension in some ethereal, you know, Gnostic, spiritual, you know, spiritually exclusive kind of way, but all authority on heaven and on earth has been given to Him.
And so I try to pan out and look back through history.
And remember that Christians really have won before.
We're not talking about something that's biblically somehow forbidden that the church would ever be victorious.
There's nothing in the Bible that says the church can't gain real victory in human history.
And when we look at not just scripture, but when we look at history, we know that the church has experienced real victory.
So panning out, looking at history, and then looking at verses in the Bible that talk about the victory of Christ, and not just the victory of Christ despite a weak, shriveled, losing church, but the victory of Christ.
Progressively, gradually through his church, that the church is the battering ram of Christ.
So it's not just that Christ will win for his church, but that Christ will win through his church.
And so, looking at some of those verses, the kingdom of God, to what shall I compare it?
It is like a net that is cast into the sea and brings up fish of every kind, and the fish are then sorted.
The kingdom of God, what shall I compare it to?
It is like a wheat field in which an enemy in the middle of the night he did go in and sow bad seed, so the tares grew up among the wheat.
But at the end of the day, as B.B. Warfield and Charles Spurgeon and others said, At the end of the day, there may be a lot of tares that are in that field, but at the end of the day, it is still a wheat field.
It is not a tar field, it's a wheat field.
And that's not just talking about the church or the visible church and the fact that there will be some apostates among her, but the field is likened to the world.
The kingdom of heaven, the net cast into the sea, the sea is likened to the world, or the mustard seed, or the leaven and the batch of dough.
All of these different parables that Jesus gives us to describe the kingdom of heaven, one of the common denominators that I see in reading them.
Is that the kingdom of heaven is potent, that the kingdom of heaven is totalizing, that the kingdom of heaven is something that starts small, grows slowly, but eventually becomes significant.
Starts small, grows slowly, and eventually becomes significant.
And so, one of the ways that I keep from being discouraged, I keep from black pilling, is I look back in history and I know that we've won before.
And then I look forward through scripture and believe that we win again.
And I, even though it feels like when you're, we forget not just our fallenness, that we're sinners and prone towards a lack of faith, a lack of belief, we're prone towards despair because of our fallenness.
But we forget the other side of the coin is not just that we're fallen, but that we're finite.
It's not just that we're sinful, but we're creaturely, we're finite.
What is man that you should be mindful of him?
He is like a vapor, right?
There in the morning, but gone, like a dew or a mist, gone by afternoon.
We forget how small and how finite we actually are.
And so for us, you know, it's like if you're listening right now and you're 40 years old, you've only seen the world for 40 years.
That's all you've known is 40 years.
In the last 40 years, there's no debate.
Things have gotten worse.
No question whatsoever.
But that's 40 years.
That's not the final verdict.
That's not the headline of the story.
It's like you're reading a book and so far you've only read one paragraph and yet you think you know.
What the whole book is about, and you think that you can already somehow guess the ending.
There's a hubris attached to that.
I think there's an arrogance.
And so for me, it's really helpful, you know, as I'm living my one paragraph of this great novel that the Lord's writing in His Providence, it's helpful for me to pan out and read the prior chapters by looking at history and looking at church history and the great victories that we have won by the grace of God, and then reading scripture and what it speaks to about the totalizing, significant, potent. Efficacious effect of the kingdom of heaven on the world, not just the church, but on the world.
And I look at that and I see, all right, this page of the story is a bummer.
This particular page is really bumming me out.
But I look back at the previous three chapters and boy, man, what we've got, we've got some serious fighting power.
And then I'm looking forward through the eyes of scripture and the potency and significance and power of the kingdom of heaven.
And I'm pretty sure we win this thing.
And so for me, that's super helpful and it allows for me to be able to say, look, I'm just one piece of the puzzle.
And if I'm like frontline infantry in a particular moment where the battle is raging the fiercest and where the enemy is starting at least temporarily to get the upper hand, what can I do with my brief life to secure that the next wave of infantry or the next leg of the race, the next portion of the war that my team ultimately wins?
I might lose.
In a glorious battle, but my children and grandchildren will win in a totalizing war.
I believe that I might lose and go out in a glorious battle, but my children and grandchildren will win in a totalizing, victorious war.
And so, any verse in the Bible that speaks to the potency and victory of Christ in history, not just at the very end, not just saved by the bell, but gradual.
Tangible progressive victory of Christ here on earth, King of kings, ruler of nations, Psalm two, right?
The rulers of the world, he holds them in derision.
He who sits in the heavens, he laughs.
Man, I like, I, you know, I think you have to be immersed in those kinds of scriptures on a daily basis to keep your sanity.
And then I think you have to be a good student of history to know that we've won before.
And when you know that your team has been capable of winning before, it gives you a sense of hope to know.
If we've done it before, then by God, we'll have our home again.
If we've done it before, then by God's grace, we can do it again.
So that's me.
Antonio, anything you want to say?
Yeah, I think that's great.
I think something we all struggle with is the right balance of a focus on the external versus the internal.
And obviously, you can be a pietist and only focus on the internal, be blind to the external.
And that can be crushing.
But you could also focus too much on the external and all of the ways that you're losing.
Without a proper appreciation for what Christ has already done for you.
And so I just think that's something that we all have to remain sort of grounded on and have the right perspective.
I think Romans 8, it's always been sort of my favorite chapter.
It's just a very nicely summarized white pill.
You know, it opens There's therefore now no condemnation for those who in Christ Jesus, for the law of the Spirit has set you free from the law of sin and death.
A little later on it says, For I consider the present sufferings to be unworthy of the future glories.
And then a little bit later it says, What shall we say to these things if God is for us?
Who can be against us?
Who can bring a charge against God's elect?
It is God who justifies.
So I just think the pieces of God's everlasting love, the pieces of the future glory, the pieces of what Christ has done for us, I think particularly for the internal to just remain focused, remain grounded, and then to use that to charge out into the world and combat in the external, combat the ways of the world, convince others of that same truth, and win in that way.
I think that's the history of the church.
Yep.
Amen.
Wes, you want to read the next one?
All right.
Johnny Marvelous, Wiki Wiki.
$15.
Thanks, Johnny.
He said, My brother wants to build a barn dominium instead of buying a house to help save some shekels so he can have his 10 to 12 children.
What are your thoughts on this strategy?
That's great.
Love it.
Love it.
Yeah, barn doors, you can do, you got to polish the concrete, you got to do some work on the walls.
Barn doors can be awesome.
Yeah.
Spacious and affordable.
Barn dominiums can be really beautiful.
We have families in our church that have them and they can be really nice, like surprisingly nice.
The reason why it's like, okay, yeah, but why not just build a house?
Well, some of the materials, exterior materials, are actually more affordable, cheaper.
But it's not just that.
It's not just that you can build the barnuminium cheaper than building a house.
One of the big reasons that not everybody knows about, apparently, is the property tax.
A barnuminium, it is possible to, you know, so if you own 40 acres, you know, you can get the homestead exemption and those kinds of things because you have, you know, whatever it is here in Texas.
I think it's like 14 goats, or you can get it if you have.
That would be an ag exemption.
Homestead is everyone.
You're right.
But if you get the ag exemption, if you have honeybees, you know, or if you have goats, or if you have this number of horses or whatever, You can get that, but if you have, for instance, 40 acres of land, you think, Oh my goodness, I'm not going to have to pay property taxes or 90% of my property.
But they actually subdivide it.
So, wherever your home is on that 40 acres, for all intents and purposes, they basically draw a square around that of one acre.
And then it's the other 39 that you'll get the ag exemption for, but you're still going to have to pay the normal property taxes on your one acre that's the most valuable because your house is there.
Oh my goodness.
Homestead Exemptions Explained00:13:37
I didn't even know that.
Yes.
Terrible.
That's how it works.
However, this is why guys will do the barnuminium.
They're not just saving on the materials, but depending how you work it and being shrewd, there is a way, or at least the potential, and I know guys who have been able to achieve this, where the barnuminium doesn't count as a house.
And so if it doesn't count as a house, then they don't subdivide it as this one acre is not ag exempt.
And so now the whole thing can be ag exempt, including the house.
So then they'll say, well, the barnuminium is worth this much, but it gets 90% off the property taxes, just like everything else.
Anyway, so if my point is, he's got to do his homework.
He's got to, you know, he's got to, you know, make sure he knows what he's doing.
But if he knows what he's doing and he maybe even has a little bit, you know, somebody with some legal savvy who's willing to help him, it can be really, really strategic to do the barnuminium because you save on materials and you could also potentially save a lifetime in property taxes.
So great idea.
Okay.
Great.
King Jared sent $2 and says, My house will be my children's launch pad.
Amen.
Amen to that.
That's great.
Savad Attakad?
Attaka.
Attakad.
Yes, yes, yes, of course, sir.
But please, please, what is your Christian name?
So we have Savav Attakad.
It's either a joke or he is somebody who is not a heritage American.
Either way, though, I have to say, he did give us $19.99.
God bless.
I'm going to assume, I mean, there are people who hate us and they'll send in a super chat just to have their hateful comment read on the air.
But he didn't give a comment and he gave the hateful troll.
That's a $1 super chat.
No, he gave $19.99, which makes me think he's supportive, but we're about to find out because he has a comment right below.
Here it comes.
Let's see.
To anyone looking for a good confessional church.
All right, we're all right.
We're going to be okay.
In North Idaho, check out Bayview Bible Church.
My elders are based, and it's a safe place for heritage Americans to raise a family.
God bless.
Right response ministries.
I knew he was our guy.
You don't give $20.
That name is not our guy, but you don't give $20.
He's in deep cover.
He's in deep cover.
You're on board.
I'm going to go on record.
I'm just going to say that name is a joke.
It has to be.
It has to be a joke.
And if it's not a joke, here's the deal.
If it's not a joke, then the guy literally is not a, you cannot be a heritage American with that name.
No offense.
But he would be a good Christian brother who still appreciates America and wants Americans to not be displaced.
So either way, he's our guy and it's probably a joke.
All right, next one, Wes.
All right, 10th generation, Sons of the American Revolution sent $2.
I think he's clarifying from the very beginning when he said, if you haven't said his name, it's all in vain.
I think the name is, he said, Sorry, Rumble, Stiltskin, Grimm's Fairy Tale on Usury.
Oh, okay.
There we go.
All right.
That's what it's from.
This dude rocks.
He gave us a $2 super chat and he said, Favorite Christmas song and worldly holiday song.
So, like a Christmas hymn and then maybe like a, you know, Christmas thing that's not Christian.
I don't know, man.
I like A Holy Night.
That's always been one of my favorite.
Fall on your knees.
What do you think?
What do you like?
I like.
I mean, George of the World's a great one.
I think Let Israel, I think we've done this in our church.
We've sang this during Christmas time.
I think we at least did last year.
Let Israel say now in thankfulness is a good one.
Yeah, that's a good one.
Hark the Herald Angels Sing.
That's a classic.
Classic.
Classic.
And then, of course, you know, for non Christmas or non Christian, but holiday songs, for Wes, it would be Santa Baby, I'm pretty sure.
I'm not sure about that.
I don't know.
For Antonio, I think it's Mariah Carey.
All I want for.
That's good, actually.
I don't know.
We'll just go with the Christmas hymns.
JD Peabody, he gave us $5.
No comment.
Just checking in.
Just checking in, giving us five bucks.
Thanks.
We appreciate that, brother.
Then we have Pavel.
Pavel.
Okay.
$5 from Pavel.
He said only Jubilee can be a check against usury.
This is actually a great point.
I think we should do a whole episode on this one day.
I do think that Jubilee was.
The old covenant principle to stop usury, and but that's just a longer thing to flesh out.
But I just want to say, Pavel, I personally don't know if Wes agrees, I don't know if Antonio, but I think you're on the right track.
So he said, Only Jubilee can be a check against usury, and then he finishes by saying, Forced forgiveness of debt is a biblically approved remedy.
I think there's something there, yeah.
Okay, uh, then Timothy Hatcher, last one five dollars.
Thanks, Timothy.
We appreciate it.
He said, Hypothetical, who do you support for public office?
10th generation heritage American woman, I knew it, I knew woman was coming, or a second generation man, uh, who is a foreigner.
Okay, I would need to know a little bit more details, okay, but in the abstract, that's all you know.
You don't ask reform guys theoretical questions, but you're gonna get caveats.
But this is what I want to know, though, exactly.
But what I want to know is, is this 10th generation heritage American woman a Christian, and the second generation foreigner is Vivek Ramaswamy, who's a Hindu?
You see what I'm saying?
We should just be all equal, right?
I think everything else has to be Christian, neither Christian, so it's a Christian woman.
Who's 10th generation heritage American, or it's a Christian man?
Dinesh D'Souza.
You put it that way.
Is he a Christian?
Yeah.
He's written multiple books on theology.
I thought his religion was Judaism.
Dinesh D'Souza?
The Indian felon?
The guy who's constantly worshiping Israel?
Yeah.
I mean, he's a professing Christian.
His God doesn't seem to be Christ.
Well, take your point.
The only time I've seen Dinesh even mention the name of Jesus is to.
To tweet it out and to make sure everyone knew that Jesus was a Jew.
So, are you serious?
I know.
Is he a Christian?
Yes, he generally professes to be a Christian.
Really?
Wow.
You wouldn't know from his Twitter page over the last three months.
All right, so Wes has made a comment.
Literally, I thought he was a Jewish rabbi.
So Dinesh D'Souza or Amy Coney Barrett?
Okay, Dinesh D'Souza or Amy Coney Barrett.
Oh my gosh.
What about a tank of sharks?
Is that in the equation?
Yeah, Dinesh D'Souza literally wrote a book, What's So Great About Christianity?
When?
When did he change then?
When did he apostatize?
So maybe he used to be a Christian.
But I'm telling you, I'm not trying to be rude.
I really am.
I'm not saying he's a Christian.
We really debated Hitchens on God.
Okay, but I'm just saying, I've been following him for three months, and all I've seen is Jesus is a Jew.
Wake up.
The Bible is Jewish.
This is Jewish.
This is like, that's literally all I see.
So that's his brand.
I'm just like, I just imagine that what people are constantly elevating and glorifying is where their heart is, right?
You know, where your treasure is or where your words are out of the abundance of the heart.
The mouth speaks.
His God, according to that, this is the teachings of Jesus.
I am a Christian.
I can say that.
According to the Christian God, Jesus Christ, he says, out of the abundance of the heart.
The mouth speaks, and the only thing I see his mouth speaking is worship of Israel, Judaism, Jewish people.
So I just assumed he was a Jew, like religiously.
You're telling me the foreign man who came to the Christian West doesn't understand what is actually going on here?
Curious.
So, anyways, to answer the question, Amy Cohen's saying, I'll go on the record.
This is really what we're talking about.
Oh, snap.
He went there.
He went with the 10th generation.
And this is what we're talking about.
I'm not going to lie.
I think it's the right answer.
It's either you lose your country now or you lose it in two generations.
I guess I would pick.
Two generations.
You know why I would say the woman, and just please, because people will clip this out, right?
And they'll forget that like one billion dozen episodes that we've done about why women should not be in leadership.
Okay, so I'm saying it right here.
So if it gets clipped out, the disclaimer is here in the clip.
Women need to go home.
They need to be mothers.
They need to be wives.
They do not need to be civil rulers.
But that said, if those are the choices, right, it's 10th generation heritage American Christian woman.
Or second generation foreigner, but who is a Christian?
Yeah, I think I would go with a woman.
And the reason why, it's like, what?
That doesn't sound theonomic.
That doesn't sound biblical.
The reason why is because it's American.
Honestly, and this is hard, this might get clipped out.
People won't like this.
It's more true to the heritage of my country.
The founders, I know that would have been their answer.
The white woman, I'm not trying to be offensive, but the white woman of European descent who became a widow because her husband died an untimely death or whatever, she would have had more power socially.
She could have been the heir to his estate and actually operate with authority the affairs of the estate, whereas a foreign man, be it a slave or a Chinaman or an Indian or what, would not.
They would have been seen outside of the people.
The American founders, certainly before 1776, but for another good, what do you think, Wes?
Another good 100, 120 years after 1776, all the way up until probably 100 years ago, they would have seen the woman among us is of a greater stature in society than the male foreigner who is not among us.
And honestly, as a father and as a husband with a wife and four daughters, yes, if it came down to Empowering one of my daughters.
Now, again, my choice is give me the heritage American Christian man that my daughter can submit to so she can stay at home and bake pies because she'd be happier.
But if it's between the foreigner who's only second generation, he does not know our customs, he's not one of us.
Down the line, eventually, his posterity could be, but he's not as a second generation.
I would rather my daughter be able to make a decision.
For the future of the country, than someone who is not my people, who's not my people.
And I think that would have been the founder's answer.
I think that was the early American answer.
They would have given more rights and more privilege and a higher status in society to the wife of a noble man than they would have, who was European descent, American, than a man who actually is a male, but outside of the founding stock.
And here's the deal I'm not trying to ruffle feathers.
But I'm actually just trying to subject myself to a group of people, our fathers, our ancestors, who I really believe were probably wiser and smarter and more godly and more God fearing and more biblically minded than I am.
I think they had a reason.
And I don't, like G.K. Chesterton would say, don't take down a fence until you know why it was put up.
I think they probably had a reason for that.
And I'm going to defer to them.
What do you guys think?
I know that's kind of surprising because I'm the patriarchal guy.
You are a moderate, though, after all.
Sensible, classic, moderate.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it's good reasoning.
I think I'd go with the American over a foreigner, but it's close.
It's close.
It's not great.
That's a terrible hypothetical.
I absolutely hate it.
But I think so.
All three of us, I think we would say, Yep, put it down.
This is the only time you're ever going to hear it.
We just found a scenario where we would have a woman in a position of civil leadership.
God forbid.
I hope it never comes to that.
But here's the thing it's going to come to that.
It could come.
It's going to be Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kamala Harris for president.
Not, not, oh, one day.
I'm telling you, like literally, as I saw the question, I was like, oh crap.
I was like, I better be thinking about it and give a decent answer now because this will literally be the theme of conversation.
I think it is likely in 2028.
I actually do.
I actually think it is absolutely possible that you have a European Christian woman against.
Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene is considering a run for president.
I know.
So you could have theoretically Marjorie Taylor Greene, professing Christian, divorcee, leave that aside, but America first.
America first.
God bless you.
Versus Gavin Newsom.
Or versus a Pete Budizek, a gay man.
Pete Booty Juice.
Yeah.
Anyways, that's terrible.
Are there any more super chats, Nathan?
I don't even want to think about that.
I feel like I just need to go home, think about something else.
Is this the last one?
That's it.
Oh, that was it.
Okay.
All right.
That's it.
Do us a favor again, subscribe on YouTube.
Subscribe and click the bell.
Write Response Ministries on YouTube.
Subscribe, click the bell.
Okay.
Then on X, do us a favor, follow us if you're not following already.
The handle is at Write Response M as in Ministries.
At right response in as a ministries, and also click the bell on X.
Political Choices and Super Chats00:00:14
And then again, our broadcasting schedule is as follows it's Monday, Wednesday, Friday, three times a week Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
So, Lord willing, we will see you guys again on Wednesday at 3 o'clock Central Time.