All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2024 - Stew Peters Show
01:01:48
Millstone Report w Paul Harrell: House Temporarily BLOCKS FISA, Americans OPRESSED By Occupied Gov!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The rainbow Gestapo, the goose-stepping gay lobby, all of that stops right now.
Stare at the sun just for kicks all by myself.
I lose track of time so I might be past my prime.
People say we need to make America great again.
I completely agree.
We may need to make Gallows great again.
Literally so many people that need to have a millstone put around their neck and tossed into the sea.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome.
This is the Milstone Report.
Happy Thursday today.
Welcome to the show.
We really appreciate you being with us, as always.
My name is Paul Harrell.
This is the Milstone Report.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives held a vote to reauthorize the FISA warrant scam.
You know, the system that allows the government to totally ignore the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.
The totalitarian freaks will say FISA warrants for spying are really just about keeping tabs on people outside of America.
But we know that's not true.
FISA has been abused.
It's one of the key components of the Russia hoax and how they framed a sitting president for treason.
It is a demonstrable fact that the FISA court was lied to in order to spy on Trump associates and Trump himself.
We know this.
There is ample proof this happened and no one has been held accountable for it.
So the intel agencies that have taken control of our government and are being used every single day to target the American people they hate, you know, the ones who share political opinions they disagree with, they're up in arms, we're told, thanks to some rebel congressmen.
The vote to reauthorize FISA spying on American citizens failed in a procedural rule vote thanks to congressmen and women, Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, Lauren Boebert, Tim Burchett, Michael Cloud, Eli Crane, Bob Good, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Clay Higgins, Anna Paulina Luna, Corey Mills, Nancy Mace Roethlis.
Ralph Norman, Scott Perry, Matt Rosendale, Greg Stube, and Chip Roy.
Now, to be clear, this is a temporary victory and it's likely that the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, will change the rules and partner with the Democrats to continue the unconstitutional spying of Americans.
And again, the majority of Republicans showing, once again, that they're absolutely good for nothing when it comes to standing up for the people.
The FBI and the intel apparatus that is working on building the second Tower of Babel tried to stop and sabotage president-in-exile Donald Trump's presidential campaign and entire presidency once he got into office.
And again, no one has gone to prison for this.
The Uniparty will no doubt get FISA reauthorized, but the question on my mind is, so what if they didn't?
I mean, if FISA was not renewed...
Do we really think the government would just stop spying on Americans?
I don't.
I'm old enough to remember the Edward Snowden leaks, which showed that the data center in Utah is collecting everything we say and type.
Now, if you possess that level of technology and you understand the wickedness of the human heart, then we can agree that the question is not why would the government do this?
The question is why wouldn't the government do this?
Why wouldn't you spy on your political opponents?
Why wouldn't you spy and frame the American people or a sitting president?
When you have that kind of technology, that's the real question.
If FISA ended tomorrow, the government would continue spying.
Do you know why?
Well, because of what we mentioned earlier.
Because they know that no one would ever go to jail.
Not the people actually responsible for breaking the law anyway.
And when you think about it, the reality I just described, if it's true, is a slave nation.
We're slaves.
Our leaders can do whatever they want and no one will get punished for it.
I pray that changes.
We should all pray to that end.
A Senate staffer was caught in the act of sodomy in a Senate committee room and nothing happened to him.
There was an investigation and we're not going to do anything about that.
Still no word on who was on the other side of that camera.
All of this while J6ers continued to rot away in gulags.
Mike Johnson knows his role, though.
Speaker Johnson, oh, he knows his role.
His role is to bow down to the post-9-11 America that redefined the relationship between citizen and government.
You know, the post-9-11 world that means citizens will be spied on while TSA agents take naked photos of us and then stick their hands down our pants all while telling us that it's for our own safety.
It's literally like peeing on someone's leg and telling them, oh, that's not pee, that's rain.
Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind reported this, quote, House Republican lawmakers left a closed-door meeting late Wednesday afternoon furious at their 19 GOP colleagues who blocked the chamber from advancing a bill to renew a key surveillance tool of the federal government.
Quote, when you have a majority where members in the majority will not support the rules and the procedures set forth by the majority, you effectively are turning control over to the minority party.
And that's what these members are doing.
That's Representative Andy Barr, Republican Kentucky.
That's what he told Fox News.
It comes after a normally sleepy procedural vote known as a rule vote on a bill to reform and renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
And that failed 193 to 228 on Wednesday afternoon, the seventh time a rule vote failed this Congress.
Prior to that, a rule vote had not failed in two decades.
Okay, quote, here's what frustrates me.
One of these Congress people say, is that the same members who are taking down this rule are vociferously advocating for reforming FISA. There are 56 major reforms, they say, in FISA 702 that are embedded in this base bill.
I understand they don't think those 56 reforms go far enough, but by taking down the rule and by making it impossible to pass this reform base bill, they're going to get nothing, Barr went on to say.
End quote.
Okay, so again...
The reason I read all of that, the ins and outs of the Washington D.C. and the legislative party, you know, making sausages, you know, that's just how the sausage is made.
Again, does that dog and pony show, what I just read you, does that really matter at all?
If it didn't get passed and reauthorized, and again, this is just a roadblock, I think they will, but would it change?
Or would they just keep on spying?
Again, go read the documents leaked by Edward Snowden all the way back in 2012.
In 2012, they were already recording everything we did.
Snowden detailed a program called X Key Score.
Remember that?
Maybe you don't.
This was long before Elon Musk changed the name of Twitter to the name X. There was this program, probably still is this program, named X-KeyScore.
This program allowed the Intel apparatus to monitor the strokes on your keyboard.
Ever type out a Facebook post, an email, or a text message and decide, yeah, maybe that's not such a good idea.
I don't want to poke that bear.
Or maybe that's a little too harsh.
Well, thanks to this leak, we now know the government captures and stores that info.
The backspaces, you know, oh, well, they decided to delete that.
Maybe we'll just go look for the delete button.
And then we'll get to see the real juicy stuff.
And that combined with the rising technology of AI, can you imagine...
What would happen if they hooked an AI up to that constant flow of information, X key score?
They probably already have.
The technology to enslave ourselves is real.
And Congress and politicians are not in charge of running anything.
They're not in charge of running our government.
That much is clear.
They simply do not control the government.
The intel agencies control our government.
They have the final say.
And if the dog and pony show...
Were to somehow, this performance that we see, if it were to somehow get close to threatening the espionage industrial complex, never heard that phrase, but I'm sticking with it, they will surely pull out their digital files on whichever congressman is getting in their way and blackmail them, Jeffrey Epstein style, or who knows, some other, maybe there's something worse out there, I don't know.
That's the game that's played.
And until real people at the top are charged, tried, and convicted, nothing is going to change.
And the same thing goes for election theft, COVID bioweapon development at Fort Detrick, as well as the jab in Fauci's remdesivir genociding hospitals.
Accountability is what's needed.
And we don't have that.
And that's why there's a cascading failure right now in every single American institution.
Every single institution.
From your local government all the way to the White House.
Speaking of Fauci, Senator Rand Paul authored an opinion piece for Fox News.
He says he has new evidence that 15 agencies, government agencies, knew about COVID's lab leak origins.
Well, maybe not the lab leak, but that it was created in a lab.
Of course, none of this is news to most of the people watching this program here on the Stu Peters Network.
But articles like this, that yes, even mention Ralph Baric, are a positive step in getting this info into the eyes, or in front of the eyes, or into the hands, in front of the eyes, of normies.
I know I just spent most of this monologue ranting about how no one is ever held accountable, but the only way we get there is if the masses are awake, and they are wide awake to the crimes against humanity that have been committed by our so-called leaders.
So, let's go to the screen and we'll check this out.
This is the tweet here.
Rand Paul tweeting this.
We'll fly this in, and we're going to make this more visible.
So, newly obtained documents confirmed yet again Fauci lied about COVID. Fauci's NIH lab was a partner with Wuhan on a proposal to engineer a highly transmissible coronavirus.
Now, so, again, this is beneficial for a few reasons.
Here's the op-ed over at Fox News.
The Great COVID Cover-Up, Shocking Truth About Wuhan and 15 Federal Agencies.
So Rand Paul says that he's done an investigation and recently discovered government officials from 15 federal agencies knew in 2018 that the Wuhan Institute for Virology was trying to create a coronavirus-like COVID-19.
These officials knew that the Chinese lab was proposing to create a COVID-19-like virus, and not one of the officials revealed this scheme to the public.
In fact, 15 agencies with knowledge of this project have continuously refused to release any information concerning this alarming and dangerous research.
Government officials representing at least 15 agencies were briefed on a project proposed by Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
This project, called the Diffuse Project...
You know, that's funny.
You call it the Diffuse Project, so you kind of wonder, at least I wonder...
You know, diffusion.
It sounds like a lot of people do essential oils now.
They have diffusers.
What is that?
It's something that water vapor is dispersed.
It's diffused throughout a room to make it smell less.
It's so interesting that the name of the program is Diffuse.
when they created a virus and unleashed it intentionally on the American people or a spike protein.
Was it a virus?
Was it just a spike protein?
I don't know.
They released a bioweapon and diffused it across the entire world, right?
Interesting how they just tell you in plain sight what they do.
So in this project, Rand Paul writes, according to his research, that the proposal was to insert a furin cleavage site into the coronavirus.
I didn't know what a furin cleavage site was, but apparently this is the mechanism that makes this transmissible to humans, right?
So they literally intentionally engineered this so that humans could catch this thing.
For years, I've been fighting to obtain records from dozens of federal agencies, he writes, relating to the origins of COVID-19 and the Diffuse Project.
Under duress, the administration finally released documents that show that the Diffuse Project was pitched to at least 15 agencies in January 2018.
What does all this mean?
Rand Paul writes, it means that at least 15 federal agencies knew from the beginning of the pandemic that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were seeking federal funding in 2018 to create a virus genetically very similar, if not identical to COVID-19.
Now, I know what many of you out there may be thinking, because we're going to get into this.
Is this all a red herring to distract from the fact that...
We're just going to now blame China and we're going to ignore the fact that the research and a lot of this development was done right here in the United States of America by Ralph Baric.
That's kind of what I was thinking when I was reading this.
That was kind of my gut reaction.
What is this?
But this article goes on to mention Ralph Baric.
And Francis Collins, by the way, who I don't think gets enough, not enough people talk about Francis Collins and his culpability here either.
Disturbingly, not one of these 15 agencies spoke up to warn us that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been pitching this research.
Okay, so this whole thing about the 15 agencies, let's just hope that it's a mechanism to wake up the normies, right?
A lot of us have been there for a very long time, right?
And we're waiting for accountability.
But he's just not.
One of the agencies warned anyone that the Chinese lab had already put together plans to create such a virus.
Again, blaming it on the Chinese lab, but hear me out.
Peter Dassett concealed this proposal.
University of North Carolina scientist Ralph Baric, a named collaborator, on the Diffuse project.
So this directly connects him to the Chinese project, which eventually it will come out.
It will be accepted by normies.
Um...
And again, it'll be thanks to the work that you have seen on this network with Stu Peters and Karen Kingston and a whole host of other people about what this really was.
And, you know, they slow walk it.
And in part of the slow walking, you can get into red herring territory, right?
As I was mentioning, and so that's what we do have to be careful.
I was mentioning at the beginning of the program, right, like, they'll never let the people who are really responsible go to jail, right?
They may let somebody.
I think, like, Ghislaine Maxwell and things like that, like, how is Ghislaine Maxwell in jail and yet we still don't have the people she was trafficking children to, right?
So, Ralph Baric, though.
Mainstream media article saying Ralph Baric was part of this project to create COVID-19, essentially, or a COVID-19-like virus in the Chinese lab.
And Rand Paul goes on in his op-ed and he says, And now we know that 15 agencies heard the proposal, and when each agency discovered that COVID-19 was strangely similar to Diffuse's proposed virus creation, not one agency stepped forward to warn the public that the virus might be man-made and therefore already adapted to transmit freely among humans.
Now, there's two reasons.
Why would nobody come forward?
Well, number one, they don't want to die.
Yeah.
Or they're in on it, and they're all part of the intel apparatus to begin with, right?
Like, if there's a true whistleblower, your life's at stake, right?
But you're already in this giant, big, you know, government, military, pharmaceutical, industrial complex.
Like, you're already in the club, and you know what you're there for.
You're there to create, you're there to weaponize germs.
You know, you're there to weaponize, to create bio-warfare.
That's your job!
Just because you didn't sign on to one proposal, you probably had 15 other bioweapon proposals that these agencies were already working on, if truth be told.
At least that's what I suspect.
Not surprising to some...
Rand Paul writes, Dr.
Anthony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was not only briefed on Wuhan's desire to create the virus, they were actually listed as a participant in the initial diffuse pitch.
Fauci's Rocky Mountain Lab was named as a partner alongside the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
These documents also reveal that a scientist whose lab has received millions of dollars from EcoHealth was also part of the original plan to create these chimeric coronaviruses.
This researcher, Ian Lipkin, also later became one of the author's proximal origins, a journal paper commissioned by Fauci and the National Institutes of Health head Francis Collins, to throw shade on anyone arguing that the virus might have come from the lab.
Yet Ian Lipkin never revealed to the public the diffused proposal.
Millions of people died from COVID, Rand Paul says.
They also died from poisonous remdesivir.
We know that over 15 government agencies, as well as the investigators Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, Ian Lipkin, and scientists at NIAID's Rocky Mountain Lab all knew of the Wuhan Institute of Virology's desire to create a coronavirus with a furin cleavage site, a virus pre-adapted for human transmission.
And no one spoke up.
We only know of this diffused proposal because of a whistleblower by the name of Marine Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Murphy, and he came forward with the truth.
Likely, hundreds of people in the government knew of this proposal to create COVID-19-like viruses, and virtually every one of these people chose to keep quiet.
That's because they're in on it.
To obscure and ultimately conceal information that might have saved lives by letting the world know this was no sleepy animal virus with poor transmission.
No, all evidence suggests that...
See, here's what you mentioned.
Oh, yeah, we did that right off the bat.
Oh, yeah, this is one of ours.
Maybe people would be screaming for justice and, well, you mean we did this?
We funded this?
Maybe you should be arrested and tried and sentenced to death for creating a virus that killed millions of people.
You know, how does the rest of the world feel about this, right?
Like, How do you think the rest of the world...
We've talked about this program many times before.
The U.S. dollar, it's a tyranny against these other countries.
And it very much is.
We've got to use U.S. dollars and we just get to print as much as we want.
Yeah, I mean, that is a tyranny, for sure.
And there's people making other financial plans, other countries making other financial plans, other financial alliances, and that sort of thing.
But...
How do you think they feel about the United States creating a virus that killed millions of people all across the planet?
How do you think they feel about that one, though?
Right?
It's kind of, yeah, yeah, monetary system, financial system, yeah.
This was, this had a real blood cost.
And not that the financial system does it.
I mean, if you reject the U.S. dollar, your country tends to get bombed to smithereens.
Saddam Hussein found that out the hard way.
Muammar Gaddafi.
Bashar al-Assad almost found out, but the Christian villages in Syria that he was allowing to thrive, they certainly found out when the U.S. created ISIS and armed the rebels there to go into Christian villages in Syria and slaughter pregnant Christian women.
So yeah, I mean, rejection of the monetary system does have a blood cost, but this one hits different though, right?
This one hits different.
So, this article is not everything I would hope for it to be.
But Senator Rand Paul is, at least this is showing the Overton window is shifting.
We have Ralph Baric's name mentioned in.
Ralph Baric is on Senator Rand Paul's radar and it's getting in front of normie eyes.
We've just got to keep moving the ball forward and keep educating folks the best that we possibly can.
That's the goal here.
That is the goal.
I've got to tell you...
Let's see.
What is the article?
Let's see.
What's the last thing?
All evidence suggests...
We want to finish this up.
All evidence suggests COVID-19 was a laboratory-enhanced virus purposely adapted for human transmission.
Shame on all those who covered up the Diffuse Project.
Of course, they all should be punished, but likely won't.
Okay.
At the very least, though, the perpetrators should be made to admit the truth and Congress should finally put in place sufficient oversight to make sure dangerous gain-of-function experiments are sufficiently vetted and, if necessary, prevented.
Now, this last part, we could park here for a while.
No, they need to be punished, and they will be punished.
That would be, if Senator Rand Paul would admit that, and just advocate for that.
They should be, but they will be.
be.
We will hold these people accountable.
I hope that it happens.
But again, this kind of dovetails into our initial topic about this, which is what we talked about.
It's what the whole monologue was about at the very beginning.
You have all this dog and pony show, right?
The House Republicans are a handful of them, and I'm thankful they did.
They said, hey, we're not going to reauthorize FISA. And so now, Mike Johnson's trying to figure out what he can do.
He's going to probably change the rules or something in part with the Democrats.
They're going to get it through, but again, to my previous point, what if they don't get it through?
Will they stop spying?
No.
Have they stopped making bioweapons?
No.
No, they haven't.
And all of this congressional theater that goes on They're not in control.
They're not in control.
Again, I'm thankful for Senator Rand Paul for putting out the information.
Again, information is how we win.
It's one of the key components of how we get there.
Information is like paving the road to keep going to eventually get to some sort of justice for the American people, for the crimes against humanity, and everything else.
But I mean, it's quite clear our politicians are really, specifically at the national level, they're really not in charge of the government.
The intel agencies are.
The people, the military-industrial complex that has scientists, you know, at Fort Detrick creating bioweapons, these are the guys that are really in charge.
And it's quite demoralizing when you think of it that way.
It really is.
But you have to go on.
You have to live your life.
You have to raise your family.
You have to worship God.
And that's where we're at right now.
But it's really not as frustrating.
And look, I know I spent the last two days, and we're going to talk more about Trump's abortion comments because there's more fallout.
And I know I spent the last two days kind of covering this and lamenting and everything.
But if you really just accept the fact That right now we are living just under an occupied government, right?
We have an illegitimate government, but it's occupied.
And so the mechanisms of power, it's tough to get there mentally, right?
Because you're raised...
Especially if you went through the government school system like I did, you take your civics class, you're raised to believe there are these mechanisms and ways and that we have the right and we have the ability to actually control things.
And we do somewhat still have that at the local level in local elections.
I would even say state elections, although when you get a high-profile state election, it can also, you know, They can steal those two.
I mean, they can steal them all.
But for the most part, we can govern ourselves on a local level still, with some exceptions there.
And so it's tough, though.
It's tough.
Get this through your head.
We are living, essentially, really in the midst of a war.
It's like our generation's war, where...
We're being oppressed, but a lot of us don't think we're being oppressed.
We live in a society where, in many ways, we're just as enslaved as we would say the North Korean citizens enslaved.
Kim Jong Il dies and you have all these people faking their emotions, faking their crying, wailing and boohooing, trying to outgrieve each other.
Oh, we're on the steps and we can't believe our great leader is dead and everything else.
And you see that.
I remember watching it back when it happened.
I covered it.
And I thought, man, this is what totalitarianism looks like.
I couldn't believe it.
But I mean, fast forward to look what Americans are doing and look at the woke sex religion and look at all of the new religious dogma and the speech police and how everybody wants to pound their chest and show everybody how virtuous they are because they're using the right pronouns and everything else.
And then you look at how many Americans still think that stories like this on your screen amount to a hill of beans.
And it's like, oh, did you hear?
They didn't pass the FISA warrant.
Even if they succeed and they don't reauthorize FISA, the government will still continue spying on you and no one will be held accountable for it, at least in the short term.
It's difficult to wrap your head around it, but it's the reality we live in.
Once you accept that reality, and I am not the best at accepting it, but once you accept that reality, it kind of makes it easier to go about your day and to plan accordingly.
I've also talked about There are two camps of Christians right now, from what I can tell.
There are those Christians who are convinced that if the government's left the way it is and we don't politically organize and try to, You know, build stronger families, govern ourselves locally, and that sort of thing, that they're going to put Christians in boxcars, and we're going to be powerless to stop it.
You know what I mean?
That's this Christian nationalist, or whatever you want to call it, but let's just stick with that label.
I'm fine with that label.
Versus the other Christians that are like, oh, don't make an idol of the government, and we just need to...
And it's like, if they haven't come to the conclusion...
That they're going to put Christians in boxcars.
So they look at us and they think, well, you guys are crazy.
You guys are weird.
But they don't realize, but hey, we've come to the conclusion that the reality of the situation is dire.
And so we're going to plan and act accordingly.
And that's what's got to happen on this other level, too.
And I know, look, we're in the midst of an election year, and we're going to talk about that.
Obviously, we're going to cover the election here on the Millstone Report as it heats up, for sure.
But at the same time, have to recognize that these intel agencies are, you know, they've got it all, right?
And...
We'll see.
Again, we can continue to go forward and pray and hope that the Tower of Babel, the construction of it, is thwarted from heaven.
Thwarted from heaven.
Alright, so we're going to take a break.
When we come back, we're going to cover more about these abortion comments from Trump.
There's more fallout, and I have more to say about it.
There's more analysis about it.
You've got your abolitionists.
You've got your pro-lifers.
And then there's a middle category of incrementalism, which is what we talked about yesterday without really calling it incrementalism because we played for you that clip of the pastor describing William Wilberforce.
William Wilberforce was able to end slavery through incrementalism, right?
So we'll talk about that.
When we come back, Arthur Kwon Lee was on Stu Peter's show the other day.
Yesterday, as a matter of fact, talking about a new race-swapping element.
New York's West End, they're putting on Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, and they've cast Tom Holland and a black actress to play...
Juliet.
They had a discussion about it.
Romeo and Shaniqua is what the graphic says.
We're going to listen to that interview.
And when we come back, we've got a great rest of the show for you.
You don't want to miss it.
My name is Paul Harrell.
This is the Millstone Report.
We're back in a moment.
Maybe you don't.
Arthur Kwan Lee may agree and may not.
We'll ask him now.
Do you?
Well, this is just another arm of trying to erase white racial consciousness, as we know, which has always been by the playbook.
And it's interesting because all of these great attempts to be revisionists in our history, you know, they're done so successfully in the arts, but it's an arm of what we many people know as a clergy plan.
You're making me think of this excerpt of, it's called Practitioner Idealismus, which is what Glergy wrote.
And the whole idea is to try to make white people accept the intermarrying of different race mixing, but the plan was to first make them all accepted in the high arts.
And, you know, I was looking through my notes before I went on this, before I came on here, and can I read you a quote?
Yeah, of course.
Go ahead.
I want to read you a quote by Israel Cohen, okay?
So this is a part of the clergy plan.
Just so you know, the plan being to destroy white racial consciousness, once again.
And he's a thought leader of the Zionist movement, and he also served as the secretary of the World Zionist Organization.
So he writes...
Sounds like a great guy.
But this is a mic drop here.
He writes that we must realize our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension by propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites.
We can mold them In the program of the Communist Party, in America, we will aim for the subtle victory.
While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in whites a guilt complex for the exploitation of the Negroes.
We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment.
With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin to progress, which will deliver America to our cause.
So this is just a part of the playbook.
The idea of that, you know, we're going to basically cause white people to feel this internal guilt with the fake virtues, tumultuous virtues of tolerance and diversity.
Meaning it's a progressive idea to not acknowledge the social cohesion that your forefathers have left you.
Abandon your identity because you're being virtuous with this pseudo-virtue.
So what is new here?
They're just doing more satanic inversion by just their language plan owning all of this, right?
So this is by the playbook, and this was written in the Kaleriki plan.
But it's interesting because when you actually study This actual strategy of destroying white racial consciousness, specifically in America, he actually says the Aryan people, they admit this, the Aryan people are too strong to confront directly.
We need to be manipulative.
We need to use the arts and their entertainment.
We need to make them castigated from a sense of class.
We need to use mysticism and we need to use trickery.
Well, I mean, they're doing damn well, Stu.
And you gotta understand that, like, it's funny, but at the same time it's heartbreaking because Even this usage of the word class, you know, when we think of class, we think it's a pretentious thing.
Well, all these Christian white people in this country, we used to produce the greatest paintings, the greatest art, beautiful dramas, classical compositions, amazing composing and directing, and it made people.
Class, you know, it's what you want your children to be exposed to.
But now when you think of class, you think it's this pretentious thing.
So we need to kind of bring that back because they want the go.
And I mean, talking about the obvious as well, you know, it should not be difficult for people.
People get so uncomfortable by words, literally by disagreements.
People get so uncomfortable that they just...
Oh my, like, their face is going to melt off because, you know, you go, for example, the other night, you know, we're live in this debate with this Jew called Adam King and this Christian Zionist who might as well be a Jew who found these heifers and he's going to usher in the Antichrist because he thinks that he's called by God to burn cows and whatever.
And all I said was, hey, there's a new covenant, you know, the New Testament.
Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.
And Jesus Christ actually said, no, no more sacrifices required.
You don't have to mutilate and torture and execute cows and then burn them and then rub them all over yourself and then clean ground with them where, by the way, something is already there that exists to build this temple that, by the way, they tried to do before and God was like, no, you're not doing that.
and a fire came raining down, by the way.
And then the video...
And welcome back to the Millstone Report.
If you liked that segment with Stu there and Arthur Kwan Lee, you've got to check it out.
It's available on this Rumble channel.
And you can finish watching this video, this live video here, or you can click out now if you want to get the rest of that conversation.
Really interesting.
At the very end there, when he says, talking about words, people are so triggered by words, and words can make people feel so uncomfortable.
It really goes right back to what I was saying with this idea.
We look at a country like North Korea.
Most of us would say, oh yeah, they're backwater and they are enslaved.
But...
I would definitely probably say, yeah, that enslavement is more overt, but what would you want if you were a dictator?
Would you want people to, you know, would you want the physical force that is required, you know, in a real textbook totalitarian Stalinist regime?
Or would you...
Would things be a lot better if you got to have your power and be as wicked as you wanted, but the people thought they were free?
The people that were suffering in this empire, suffering in this system, believe that they're free.
What would be more easy on a dictator?
And for that matter, let's take it even a step further.
If you do have this system that purports to show that there's accountability...
When there really isn't any.
But it still is kind of, you know, you don't like your name in the headlines.
You don't like to have to at least go out there and even play the game, the back-and-forth politic game of Barack Obama said this.
Mitt Romney said this and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
If you don't want to do that, then you can just put a geriatric patient with Alzheimer's, install that person as president, and then you can work him from behind the scenes.
And because he's frail, old, senile, and really can't group words together and form sentences...
No one's ever responsible for your policies.
You're the one doing the policies, but you're not responsible.
Biden is responsible, but he's not really responsible because he's got Alzheimer's or some form of dementia, right?
I don't know.
Which dictatorship would you prefer?
I don't know.
Just something to think about.
Donald Trump...
Kind of continues to dig this hole on abortion.
He said this outside of his Trump plane yesterday.
Thank you, sir.
Mr.
President, did Arizona go too far?
Did Arizona go too far?
Yeah, they did, and that'll be straightened out.
And as you know, it's all about states' rights.
That'll be straightened out.
And I'm sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason, and that'll be taken care of, I think, very quickly.
So people have been quick to point out that he says, you know, it's states' rights.
And a lot of the people who have just kind of blanketly defended Trump and what he said on abortion, which is my summary of what he said and the reason I take issue with what he said.
I'm not saying, you know, some people out there are saying...
Well, Trump, Paul's always had this position of rape and cis life.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I get that.
I get that.
And if I, you know, if I led you to believe that that's my main issue, that's not what I meant.
I'm pretty sure I said this multiple times.
Trump is essentially saying publicly that we have to allow blue states to murder babies if we want to win elections.
And that's what I'm so offended about.
That's the thing that's evil and wicked and it's just disgusting, right?
And I guess if you really don't believe, and the main takeaway from yesterday's program was, many Republicans just flat out don't believe that abortion is murder.
They don't.
Because if it was murder, murder comes with a cost, right?
Murder comes with a penalty.
Murder comes with prosecution, right?
That's what murder comes with.
Because it's murder.
It's wrong.
We don't want to do it.
Many Republicans, now.
Okay.
But the biggest problem here is...
Some of the people that had nothing wrong with what he said, because they've bought into it, right?
Gotta win elections.
That's what they say.
They think, okay, that's a fair give and take there, which is just beyond me.
But they say, but it's states' rights, states' rights, states' rights.
The states are going to side.
I love that.
But if it's a states' rights issue, why say that Arizona went too far?
Leave it to the states.
If Arizona wants to punish doctors for killing babies, well, that's now a states' rights issue.
But you can just feel that they don't want the states to ban and totally ban abortion.
They really don't.
Because they don't want to have to answer electorally for it.
They don't want to have to explain what...
They don't really want to have to stand by what the Bible says, what God clearly says about murder.
What do you think about Florida?
What do you think about Florida?
Florida's heart is probably maybe going to change also.
See, it's all about the will of the people.
This is what I've been saying.
It's a perfect system.
So for 52 years, people have wanted to end Roe v.
Wade to get it back to the states.
We did that.
It was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement.
We did that, and now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want.
It's the will of the people.
So Florida's probably going to change.
Arizona's going to definitely change.
Everybody wants that to happen.
And you're getting the will of the people.
It's been pretty amazing, wouldn't you think?
Yeah, getting the will of the people.
And if there are clerics in heaven...
They're taking notes, and they're saying, oh, okay, the will of the people, right?
We thought at least one side in America actually wanted to end abortion, but no, the whole time they actually just want to kill babies, they just don't want to kill as many babies.
They want to kill less babies.
Hmm.
As you can imagine, Getting to heaven and saying, well, I killed babies.
Yeah, but I didn't kill as many as this guy.
These guys over here.
I didn't kill as many as the Democrats did.
So there's been some more fallout from this.
We have this story here.
Megan Basham, this is the Christian Daily Wire reporter.
She says, this is why I write today, Trump's vague call to follow your heart is the kind of relativistic problem more befitting of a Disney cartoon than a would-be leader of the free world.
There's been a lot of fallout here.
Dusty Devers, the Christian nationalist Oklahoma state senator, to be clear, this is abominable.
Arizona did not go far enough, and Donald Trump says they went too far.
You shall not pervert justice.
You shall not show partiality.
Justice and only justice.
You shall follow Deuteronomy 16, 19 through 20.
The Babylon Bee.
We're going to come back to this slavery argument.
One second.
And then we have Megan Basham again.
While acknowledging that the U.S. in 1858 had no national mandate for outlawing slavery, Lincoln nonetheless reminded his listeners that slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature, opposition to it in his love of justice.
And then we have this other one.
Okay, so then we have Trump's concrete record on abortion.
Okay, so this kind of leads to the rub here.
This is what I was talking about.
So you can look at what he did with the Supreme Court justices that got Roe overturned that got us to this point.
There's no taking that away from Trump.
So you have a president who believes in abortion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, right?
So if a baby's conceived in rape, we're going to kill the baby, and the father stands like the father, the rapist, what happens to him?
Does he die?
No.
But you have a president that believes that, that puts the Supreme Court justices on the court, and also Mitch McConnell for that matter, Enabled that to happen, which is wild when you think about it.
And Roe versus Wade gets overturned and it's sent back to the states.
Okay.
Like, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that incremental step.
And now we're fighting to get this stuff totally banned and totally abolished, right?
So there is no doubt that incrementalism in this specific issue worked.
And it's somebody, at least, has moved the ball forward.
But we're not done yet.
Okay.
I was watching last night a YouTube post by a pastor from Moscow, Idaho.
His name is Doug Wilson.
And he, to me, he broke down really nicely these three camps.
And one of the things he said was that in a Trump administration, again, let's not open the can of worms up about the election getting stolen, but let's assume that Trump gets elected.
Okay, big assumption there.
They're saying in a Trump administration, pro-lifers and even abolitionists will be in his administration.
Like, they will be, this is at least...
A speculation, but whereas in a Biden administration, you got no chance, right?
There's literally no one in there that is going to be for anything but murder up until the moment of birth and even after the birth.
R.C. Sproul Jr.
tweets this, Now that is the goal, abolish human abortion, but how do we go about doing that in our current predicament?
So, Doug Wilson here.
I pulled this video from Doug's, this pastor, again, Moscow.
I know many of you may know him.
Maybe you've never heard of him.
Who knows?
I suspect you have.
And this is a quick definition of...
Quick definition.
On the abortion issue, an abolitionist is someone who does not want to chip away at our ungodly abortion laws.
He wants simply to outlaw the practice pure and simple.
An establishment pro-lifer is someone who wants to discourage abortion by whatever means are currently expedient, and a lot rides on what the cool kids tell us expedient means.
And a smash-mouth incrementalist is someone who wants to implement whatever restrictions we can successfully place on abortion now with the stated goal of coming back for more in the very next round.
So, I guess, here's the deal.
I... And I've been fighting in the pro-life movement.
I just thought that's what it was called, alright?
But my goal the whole time has been, yeah, we've got to end this, you know...
Abolition is the goal.
But if you actually take these three categories, you know, your abolitionists, your pro-lifers, or your incrementalists, I guess I've always thought, working in the pro-life movement, knowing that Roe was the law of the land, hey, incrementalists, like, there are babies dying, so we need to try to save literal, like, there's going to be babies die this year from abortion.
Right.
So, can we pass a law that says at 20 weeks the child can feel pain and save that life this year with the goal being, hey, someday we have got to ban this thing outright, you know what I'm saying?
And that's the rub.
So, I guess I would describe myself, I mean, I'm an abolitionist who can also see, like, because we want to save children from death this year, like today, or...
That I would also consider myself an incrementalist as well?
I don't know.
Feel free to tell me what you think.
It goes on.
And with all of us understanding that the final goal is the entire eradication of human abortion.
This is something I wrote about a couple years ago, and you can get up to speed if you would like.
Here, here, here, here, and here.
That's a bit of reading.
It seems like this term smash mouth has been something that Doug Wilson has coined.
I mean, other than the ban, you know.
and the Shrek song.
The issue and not the issue.
We need to begin with the obvious.
Whether or not Trump's announced position is politically expedient or not, it is most certainly incoherent.
Politicians who adopt the rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions are showing us all one of two things.
There are two and only two possibilities.
Either they don't know that the position they've adopted is incoherent, or they do know.
Those are the only options, and certain things follow from each.
The issue in the abortion debate is whether or not the child is a person created in the image of God.
If a person, then that child should have the protections that God's law secures for persons.
The law should recognize the personhood of the unborn child.
If not a person, then we need not bother.
So that is the issue, and that is the only issue.
The politician who does not know that his exceptions are incoherent is wanting to adopt a different position.
He wants a third way, which is that the unborn child is a person for purposes of pro-life fundraising and campaigning, but that persons need not have the protections that are guaranteed to persons in God's law.
The grift is real.
The pro-life grift is real.
And that is why we have, as a Christian voting bloc, as a bulwark, we have given Republicans our vote based on the issue of life for decades and decades and decades at this point.
And they have raised so much money off of it.
And now the pro-life movement is the new pro-choice movement because the people that took our money and accepted positions of power never thought Roe would be overturned.
They thought this was going to be a perpetual grift.
You also saw this with the NRA with constitutional carry.
The NRA did not want southern states to go to constitutional carry because why do you need the NRA anymore?
So it's the same idea, and the grift is real, and I'm glad that Pastor Doug Wilson mentioned that.
Yes, you are a person, the politician says, but your life is still forfeit if your father did something bad, rape, or your life is forfeit if your father and mother did something bad.
Incest.
When a child is conceived in rape, there are three parties.
The father is the criminal, the mother is the victim, and the child is the bystander.
The respectable Republican pro-life politicians want to remain respectable and electable by advocating for the execution of the bystander for the crime of the father.
Let that sink in.
The moderate position, the respectable position, the tolerable position, is the one that says an innocent party should be executed for the crime of his father.
A real vote-getter, that one.
And so people who argue this way while angling for the pro-life vote are demonstrating that they don't have the first bit of a clue regarding what the abortion issue even is.
It is the ungodly taking of a human life.
Murder.
If it is not murder, then it is not anything.
So that, again, that's what we talked about yesterday.
I mean, that was like, oh, they don't believe abortion is murder.
And if you don't believe abortion is murder, Then you are just trying to play God, drawing arbitrary lines into the sand, you know?
I'm reminded of that Jerry Seinfeld bit when he's, like, making fun of the silver medalists, you know, and the difference between, like, you know, you didn't, you lost by, well, how much did you lose by, can you describe how much you lost by, and Jerry Seinfeld goes something like, well, it's like now to now, like, now to now, from here, now to now, and I lost, ah, you know?
And that's what these people, if you don't think abortion is murder, then you're just drawing lines on the sand.
Like, when is it a baby?
Well, it's a baby now, but it's not a baby now.
So, you know, when does it go, you know, we're a 15-week ban.
Okay, okay, so at 14, 14.5, 14.6, 14.9 weeks, 14, can't kill it anymore.
Or now you can kill it.
I mean, it's insane.
It's absolute insanity.
This leads to the second kind of politician.
So there are other politicians who know that this position is incoherent but who also know that it is a message that can be passed off on a gullible electorate.
In other words, they are cynical but not confused and their cynicism preys on confused voters.
Those confused voters want to do something pro-lifey, and so they cast vague sentimental votes in that general direction.
So when people ignore the issue, is the child a person, and move on to demonstrate their compassion by advocating for the termination of one of the victims, they are by their actions telling us one of two things.
First, they might be telling us that they are stupid.
That's one option.
Or second, they might be telling us that they are cynical and are making a play to include stupid voters in their coalition.
That is the other option.
Smash Mouth Sumo Wrestling.
A presidential election in a nation like ours is like two great globs of people, tens of millions of them in each glob, in a gigantic sumo wrestling match.
We run at each other trying to push the other group out of the ring.
In the very nature of the case, even if we succeed in pushing them out of the ring, thus winning the match, it is highly unlikely that we will have been able to push them out in a straight line.
There is going to be a goodish bit of wobbling and teetering and quivering and staggering and trembling and swaying.
It is a difficult process for a purist ideologue to understand.
The smash-mouth incrementalist knows where he is going, and he is willing to get there by means of incremental gains.
Well, it's difficult for an ideologue to understand.
Yeah, that's true.
But it's even more difficult for a hardcore ideologue to understand when you're playing in a system that appears to be rigged.
We're still in the wake of a stolen election, and we're being told to go vote again.
And again, I'm still planning on going and voting with a prayer.
Again, we want the Tower of Babel to end, this new Tower of Babel that they're building.
But this is the rub.
This is where it gets really, really difficult to find it where you want to pull your hair out, which is why I said in the first half hour...
If you just kind of accept that we are in an occupied government and we're having to work within the system that we do locally, you know, city, county, state, and then with a prayer try to deal with this federal nonsense, which is a dog and pony show, you can still build your families.
You can still love your families.
You can still worship God.
You can still go to church and you can persevere through all of this while the world is crumbling down around us.
And who knows what we might be able to build up from the ashes.
In that world there would be no abortion.
So the abolitionist has a dilemma.
The former president has just made it crystal clear that he is not an abolitionist.
Can an abolitionist vote for him?
He's not a pure presidential candidate.
But is purity the standard or is actual progress the standard?
All or nothing purity is likely to wind up with nothing.
But the only way to measure actual progress is by increments.
Even though Trump is not an abolitionist, he has stated a policy that makes room for abolitionists to work at the state level.
Leave it up to the states means that abolitionists could actually succeed at the state level.
And for Trump, these are not just words.
Because he appointed the three SCOTUS justices that he did, Roe, which was a federal straitjacket on all the states, was reversed in Dobbs.
And because of Dobbs, abolitionism at the state level is now a possibility.
Abolitionism is not on the rise because incrementalism is a dead end.
Just the reverse.
Abolitionism is a real option now because of the success of incrementalism.
So here's another definition.
Smash-mouth incrementalism is simply realistic abolitionism.
Incremental progress is going to happen whether or not it meets with the approval of all the ideological abolitionists.
The realistic abolitionists who are working to outlaw abortion at the state level are standing on the shoulders of Dobbs, an incrementalist victory.
If Trump is elected again, the White House is going to have all kinds of personnel running around in there.
Conventional pro-lifers, smash-mouth incrementalists, and abolitionists.
Trump is going to start appointing judges again, and they too will be a mix.
The spectrum on life issues in a Trump administration will be a real spectrum, but that spectrum will include a good many hardliners for life.
If Biden is re-elected or re-pre-selected, whatever, how many pro-lifers of any stripe are going to be anywhere around?
You guessed that correctly.
The Democratic Party is the party of murder, and no Christian who is right with God can have anything to do with them.
There's only one thing I would like evangelicals for Biden to remember, and that is this.
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.
Psalm 50, verse 22.
You can check the rest of that video out.
He's on YouTube.
I don't know if he's on Rumble, but it's Blog and Mayblog.
You can also just go read it too, Blog and Mayblog.
Again, that's Pastor Doug Wilson.
It's what I was watching last night, and I thought...
I've got to share this with the Millstone Report audience because I thought the categories that were really helpful for me to kind of understand things.
Again, Trump's position is a wicked position and we have done, I have criticized it for two days now, now three, and at the same time, for whatever reason, I thought that was a helpful perspective of where we are and where we are going and We can't control what the board looks like, but you've got to play.
So, feminism is the god of the left in many regards.
We're going to go from one pastor to a woke pastor or a professor at Baylor University, Greg Garrett.
Listen to this.
The last thing that I'll mention...
Because I'm Episcopalian, I don't like to interrupt liturgy.
Liturgy is holy.
It works when it's together.
We have a song that is 200 years old, which will be our opening hymn.
I am well aware that the title Brethren We Have Met to Worship is sexist.
So please know that I am not trying to say, hey, let's have a conference about racism and diminished women.
That is absolutely not the message I'm intending to send.
So I want you to know this, and you will probably notice if you're familiar with the hymn.
I have edited it and moved verses around so that, sisters, you are just as important as brethren.
The last thing that I'll mention...
Yeah, so you might as well...
I retweeted this.
Again, this is Credit Woke Preacher Clips.
Great follow.
Yeah, some quote churches, they really are worshiping feminism.
So the hymn, Brethren We Have Met to Worship, is sexist, so I thought of nothing better.
What a better hymn to play us out.
the real version of the hymn, not the one that's been edited on this edition of the Millstone.
The Millstone.
The Holy One comes now.
Red and gray and holy men of whom we shower all around.
Red and sea porcelain.
They even have a verse just for the women.
Summering on the creek of gold.
This is too much for a woke Episcopalian.
Hell is moving.
Can you bear to let them grow?
See our fathers and our mothers.
And our children sinking down.
Brethren, pray and holy men.
Now we'll be shouting all around.
And so the ladies, I understand that the ladies even went first.
And serve us with sweet men all around.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Millstone Report.
Thank you so much for being with us.
God bless you.
We'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection