All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2025 - Stew Peters Show
01:00:27
Millstone Report w Paul Harrell: ✝️ Christianity or Paganism? New York Dems Vote for Communism
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, folks, welcome to the show.
Thanks so much for being with us.
My name is Paul Harrell, and you have found the Millstone Report.
We can't do the program without you watching every single day.
And I want to remind everyone this portion of the broadcast brought to you by Red Vive Health.
You can go to redvivehealth.org and learn about their life-enhancing red light panels and the benefits of red light therapy, scientifically proven stuff.
And we'll tell you more about the healing power of red light here in just a moment.
We've got a great show for you.
We're going to talk about, you know, it's kind of going to be a show where I'm going to talk about something I haven't talked about in a while.
But the news, I think, gives us an excuse to do it.
I was talking on the shows yesterday, just, you know, how a lot of us are having right now in the wake of the ceasefire agreement in the Middle East.
A lot of people having, you know, what can only be described as Middle East fatigue and kind of tired of this, talking about it incessantly for the last two weeks.
So we're going to continue to pray that the war, the ceasefire holds and that the neocons don't, you know, get what they want to drag us into another war.
So here we go.
New York City Democrats have essentially nominated for the mayor of New York City.
And look, I mean, at first, when I first heard this news, they've nominated a radical Marxist, somebody who actually wasn't even born in America.
When I first heard this news, I'm like, well, you know, who cares?
I live in Arkansas.
I mean, it doesn't really, you know, not going to really affect me much.
And this is just one of these left-wing states or left-wing city-state, really.
I mean, you know, it's sad.
I know there's some people that have a lot of nostalgia for New York City, you know, a great American city that is in the decline.
We're witnessing it on the decline.
You know, for a lot of people, though, you know, especially me living in the South, don't really think about New York City very much.
I visited there one time, you know, saw it.
Yeah, it was extremely interesting.
And I think when I visited it, it was actually quite nice, at least Times Square was.
I remember that.
Versus the horror stories that I've only read about of what Times Square descended into before Giuliani took over.
But anyway, that's neither here nor there.
So I was kind of like, I don't really care about this.
They've nominated this Muslim guy, and this is to be expected.
But then I started thinking, I mean, we really do need to take a look, take some stock, and look at the differences between cultural Christianity and paganism.
And what all does that really mean?
And what are the benefits of it, the clear benefits of it?
And there are actually some people out there that we've even talked about this.
This was in the news, I think, a couple of months ago, where an Arkansas state representative went to the floor of the House there and spoke against putting the Ten Commandments up in school classrooms because cultural Christianity is just altogether fake and gives people a false sense of their salvation.
We're actually going to address that argument directly in a piece that Tim and Klein wrote last year over at American Reformer.
So that's kind of where I want to go today.
We're going to talk about Trump and NATO as well.
We're going to cover all of that towards the end of the program.
But I just kind of wanted to get back to one of the things that we need to talk about.
And that's that cultural Christianity and the derivatives that we're living off of from our forefathers are a good thing.
Cultural Christianity is actually a really good thing.
And it's much more preferable than, I don't know, paganism.
And the choice really is a binary one.
It really is a binary one, in my opinion.
That's interesting.
Well, anyway, I digress.
Here is, sorry, a little technical issue there.
We're going to throw this up.
Megan Basham, the author for Shepherds for Sale, writing, unchecked immigration led to a socialist Muslim mayor in London.
Now it's leading to one in New York.
This was a comment, a response To Stephen Miller, Trump's Stephen Miller, writing the commentary about New York City Democrats nominating an anarchist socialist for mayor, omits one point: how unchecked migration fundamentally remade the New York City electorate.
Democrats change politics by changing voters.
That's how you turn a city that defined U.S. dominance into what it is now.
Megan Basham then also responds and says, and remember, Russell Moore used the ERLC, that's the Southern Baptist lobbying arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, to oppose any attempts to lessen Islamic immigration, said it would be unchristian not to bring in Muslims.
We're going to address this line of thinking directly here on the program today.
Matt Walsh writing, this statistic that I did not know, 40%, did you know this?
40% of New York City's population is foreign-born, not just second and third generation immigrants, he writes, foreign-born.
Almost half the city wasn't born in this country.
New York City isn't an American city anymore by any reasonable definition of the term.
It's a tragedy and disgrace.
To which R.N. McIntyre writes, deportations are an existential threat to the Democratic Party because they rely on ethnic resentment and patronage to immigrant blocs.
We can save New York, we can save the whole country, but we must have the will to deport illegals and place a moratorium on legal immigration.
So even the legal immigration side, which this is, you know, what's crazy is how the Overton window has shifted on this.
The idea that, you know, we would close the border, end illegal immigration, but then also say we've got to have a pause on all immigration as well for a time, which, by the way, the country has done in the past.
I think they did it in the 30s.
We did it for 10 years or something in the early 20th century, I believe.
But anyway, yeah, the idea that the American people and our leaders can't decide who gets to come here is not really, I mean, that's preposterous.
The idea that we can decide is a reasonable idea in any country.
Like the idea that it's somehow racist or somehow xenophobic is really a new concept throughout human history.
Like this thinking is just a blip on the historical radar when you really think about it.
Tim Poole points out that this guy, this mayoral candidate that the Dems have nominated by the name of Zoran Mamdani, this was one of his campaign ads.
Listen to this.
Grocery prices are out of control.
The cost of eggs and milk has skyrocketed.
Dump stores are even using dynamic pricing, jacking up the cost over the course of a day depending on what they can get away with.
It doesn't need to be this way.
I'm Zefran Mamdani, and as mayor, I will create a network of city-owned grocery stores.
It's like a public option.
For produce, we will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores, whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging.
These stores will operate without a profit motive or having to pay property taxes or rent, and we'll pass on those savings to you.
Grocery prices are out of control.
The cost of it.
So yeah, I mean, that's just straight up communism.
Tim Pole Rifle, he says that would just end small businesses.
They can't compete with profitless competition, and it will create food deserts.
He's exactly right.
But yet, here we are.
Steve Dace weighing in.
Actually, first of all, he's weighing in on William Wolfe.
So William Wolfe, who is the Center for Baptist Leadership, who is actually doing great work and trying to very much counter the wokeness that's infiltrated the Southern Baptist Convention, writes, New York City is cooked.
I don't know how to explain or express how bad this is.
This guy is a foreign-born radical Marxist.
Americans are giving up their country to foreigners who share nothing in common with us at all.
So Steve Days, he responds to that.
And I thought this was interesting because I do think there, because I guess my generation now, you know, this the late millennial to the, you know, to the Zoomers that are coming up, there's a lot of people starting to really think about the millennial generation and the Gen X generation, which very much delivered Trump the presidency.
We're comparing the worlds that we grew up in to the America that we are confronted with today.
And we don't like it.
We don't like it.
And we're looking at the leaders who have gotten us to this point with a hyper, like a lens that is hyper critical of their leadership.
But when you take, what Steve Days here does is he takes the official narrative of 9-11.
He says, for William here, and we all remember, you know, all of us from, you know, my age and up or maybe a little below, we all remember where we were on September 11th.
He writes, for William here, his generation was born into a world where 9-11 was supposed to be a Pearl Harbor-like inflection point.
Instead, they are now raising their children in a country where major swaths of it now seems eager to surrender to the same core worldview that pulled 9-11 officially.
Many are probably not prepared for how this is going to radicalize them in the culture war way more than their boomer grandparents, who cared way more about Jews retaking the Temple Mount thousands of miles away than retaking their own school boards down the street, down the street, everywhere.
Or, I'm sorry, down the street, everywhere.
Okay, so buckle up is what he's saying.
You know, it's a fascinating idea to think about how people are waking up to the culture and the culture wars and how they're real.
Well, obviously they're real.
What am I talking about?
Obviously, the culture wars are real.
But the fact that it's really a binary choice is what I'm trying to get at.
It is, very much so.
I'm sorry, I'm just kind of stuck on this.
The Pearl Harbor-like inflection point.
Instead, they're now.
Well, here's what I would say about that.
You know what's funny is if you would have told somebody on September 12th of 2001 that seven years later, America was going to elect a man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency seven years after the official narrative that the Muslims
flew the planes in and knocked the planes down or knocked the towers down.
If you would have told an average person that, right?
Of course, we were bludgeoned to death with Islamophobia accusations for the next seven years.
A lot of people, they like to criticize America, obviously, for being a racist country.
But what kind of racist country elects a guy who's got a Middle Eastern middle name, who's sane, seven years after this Pearl Harbor type moment, you know, where Muslims are responsible for striking the towers and everything else.
Of course, we know all the narrative surrounding all of that.
Just kind of crazy to me to think about that.
And now New York City, to Dace's point, is nominating a Muslim, radical, Marxist, communist, somebody who's not even born here to potentially be the mayor of America's flagship city.
It does really make you think how much ground we have lost over the last 20 years while we've been in wars overseas.
You know, we're fighting wars overseas over the last 20 years while our country here at home is being invaded and being completely reshaped in front of us.
So one last post from Dace here.
He says, America's largest city confirms you will have Christianity or you will have gay race communism.
Those are your choices because someone will always rule and something will always be worshipped.
Choose ye this day whom you will serve.
Now, so this reminded me of an article from last year, and I think this would be, this is a good time to go over it.
This is an article, and forgive me, it's my show, and this is what I want to talk about today.
So this may be boring to you, but it's not boring to me, and I think it's something that we really need to talk about.
Cultural Christianity Again, written by Timon Klein.
Again, this was last August.
And he writes a brief response to John Piper.
John Piper is a pastor, is a preacher.
He writes, Desiring God just published a sermon on Luke 2, 14-26 from John Piper entitled, No Neutrality, The Illusion of Indifference to Jesus.
Timmin Klein writes, like most sermons from the Patriarch of Minneapolis, it's worth the read or listen.
The basic message, Christ or Satan.
There's no middle ground presented to us in Scripture.
Choose a side.
If you are not embracing Christ, then by default, you are embracing the devil.
Whoever is not with me, quote, whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters, end quote.
He goes on, and Scripture tells us the only way to be for Christ is acknowledgment of his divinity and resurrection, submission to his lordship, and reliance by the spirit wrought faith on his atoning work, on the cross for our salvation.
All good and true words, he says.
But then he brings up something else.
He says, towards the end of the sermon, though, however, Piper's applications and cultural commentary became confused.
Therein, Piper treats cultural Christianity, quote, he said, let me say one final word about applying this to our culture in America today, given the moral collapse of the culture around us.
Some people are saying that the cultural Christianity of 60 years ago, for example, is a good thing and that we should work for its return, end quote.
Here's Piper's definition of cultural Christianity, quote, a culture in which the people are mainly not true Christians, but the culture is still shaped by the outward vestiges of the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic, end quote.
Timmy Clyde takes issue with this.
He says, now Piper is inserting something into this definition that suits his purposes, that most people in a culturally Christian place are not true Christians.
This is contestable, he writes, to be sure.
Why does that necessarily follow from the definition?
By all accounts, most people in this country 60 years ago claimed to be Christians, and their claim is all we have to go on.
Moreover, why would less Christians exist in that context than do in its opposite, where wickedness is celebrated publicly, is what he's trying to say.
Further, he goes on, the invocation of a Judeo-Christian ethic is suspect, a debatable term, as Justice John Paul Stevens rightfully, in my view, insisted in his Van Orden v.
Perry 2005 dissent.
No such thing existed historically, i.e.
late 18th century.
It is a relatively new creation conjured up for certain short-lived jurisprudential and political ends, as good scholarship has traced, and therefore shouldn't be intricate to a definition of cultural Christianity unless we are limiting our consideration of the idea only to more recent manifestations and accompanying propaganda.
Piper recalled his own memory of a cultural Christian childhood.
No state-sanctioned abortion, no drag queen story hour, no genital mutilation of children, no celebration of divorce or promiscuity, and so on.
The cultural room of Piper's youth was swept clean and in good order.
Sin, now hear me clearly, because I love that Klein goes here and qualifies all this.
Sin wasn't absent, but external conditions were better than they are today.
And that is just an objective fact.
Specifically, for the true Christians that were alive in that time, yeah, life was a lot better when open wickedness was restrained by the culture, by the government.
He says, neither Piper nor advocates of cultural Christianity would say that these cultural conditions were in themselves salvific, of course, meaning a cultural Christianity doesn't save anybody's, you know, it doesn't give you your personal salvation.
Only Christ does that.
That is not their nature or function.
And so the analysis should really end here.
Things were better when material or cultural conditions reflected and promoted Christianity, even if only externally.
Life was better.
And the attainment of a culture saturated by the moral and ethical vestiges Christianity, if in spite of itself by the 1950s and 1960s, was objectively on this front better than what we have now.
And it wasn't just better for only Christians, he says.
Assume here all the required caveats that do no more than acknowledge fallen human nature and the imperfection of all socio-political orders.
Would that we had more conscious, actionable recognition of the latter right now?
Then we might be able to inquire more freely about the finitude of our recent political experience and expectations.
In a sane, learned setting like that of the late 18th century, talk of Caesar and dead constitutions wouldn't freak people out, but neither would the idea, the fact, that real law is always living, a suggestion anathema in most conservative circles.
Exposed near daily is the fact that most participants in the discourse are tragically incapable of real thought, another cause for lament, to be sure, if no less so than the eternal damnation of souls.
In any case, he says, Piper isn't satisfied with limited external analysis with consideration of the temporal benefits of Christianity.
Instead, he blends and confuses two modes of inquiry.
Lament, the passing of cultural Christianity with tears, he instructs.
Not tears for the passing itself, but for the eternal cost for the millions of cultural Christians that are in hell today.
The charge for Christians from Piper is to rescue people from the illusion that a clean, well-ordered life can save them.
Only Christ can, to which I say amen.
But cultural Christianity occupies no causal relationship to these things.
I agree with Piper that by definition, meaning that by definition, meaning by the dictates of our shared sotierology, for those of you who don't know, sotierology is how one comes to faith in Christ, how one is saved.
Many cultural Christians perished, just as many non-cultural Christians today will spend eternity in hell, suffering under the righteous wrath of God.
And that's the point.
On this analysis, what's the difference?
We just described any period in history, whether within Christendom or without.
Doubt, apostasy, heterodoxy, these things are perennial for the church in any context of external material conditions.
The same goes for self-deceit and false assurance.
See, Acts 5, 1 through 2, Anias and Sapphira weren't casualties of cultural Christianity.
That's the story where they lied about the land that they sold and the money and didn't give it.
And Peter called them out and then they were struck dead.
Perennial 2 is the illusion that mere participation or membership in the church is in itself salvific.
The same goes for enjoyment of cultural conditions favorable to Christianity.
Again, this analysis is not getting us anywhere with the topic at hand.
It is a confusion of categories of means and ends.
Piper is right.
There is no neutrality, neither soteriologically nor culturally.
Some religion, some orthodoxy, some ethic, some allegiance will dictate both.
Man is a moral creature and possesses the sense of divinity.
In other words, he is inescapably religious.
Did you hear that?
Man is inescapably religious.
He will worship something.
He is also social, Timon Klein writes, made for communion, not only with God, but with other creatures.
We have two dimensions, two modes of existence.
Then that cannot be bifurcated, just as man's body and soul cannot be separated except in death.
And yet, the two parts of this body and soul dualism can be analyzed separately if we are to make any sense of it.
Man's soul is inclined to worship, but so too is his body, his material existence.
Hence, among other things, the sacraments like baptism, the Lord's Supper.
Those are physical things.
The soul and the body mutually inform one another.
This is how God made us, and all thoughts, words, and deeds should reflect and honor the Creator as a matter of course.
It is a dictate of duty and justice apart from consideration of our salvation in Christ.
Were no redemption offered, the duty would remain, given our origin and status.
He goes on, a decidedly modern view is that Christian cultural conditions impede true religion or heartfelt genuine faith.
The historical Protestant position on this is the exact opposite, he writes.
So too did our theological forebearers reject the idea that civil authorities only care for bodies and not for souls, or that a material harm principle was sufficient for ethics.
And then he goes in and he talks about the law, and I'm going to skip down here because that, for our purposes, is we're just going to skip a few paragraphs.
He says, when the parameters of acceptable behavior in a society, When they're Christian, people act more Christian, obviously.
Christian things, practices, and speech are normalized.
Christian customs and stigma are both objectively good and again preparatory for the acceptance of higher truths grasped by faith.
When people are genuine Christians in a culturally Christian society, it's celebrated.
Non-believers may be able to get along undetected, but they must at least fake it.
They still have to observe fast days, swear on the Bible to hold office.
They still can't shop on Sundays.
By the way, we could just stop right there, folks, and just talk about the blue book laws.
There are people alive today that remember you could only go shop on Sundays if it was like mercy items like food and water.
All other things were roped off.
People remember this, okay?
And this was perfectly acceptable.
The laws on the books were perfectly acceptable to do this, but no longer.
It's given way to some sort of, well, you can say it's secularism, but it's really not.
It's actually a form of paganism or diet paganism or paganism that didn't get you to the full bird that we're experiencing today.
Sociopolitically, he goes on, this is all that is required.
For example, men don't have, listen to this.
This is really good.
People are like, what do you mean?
They have to fake it if they're a non-believer.
Well, here's the deal.
Men don't have to like that murder is illegal.
They just have to comply.
More often than not, the fact that murder is illegal will convince them that it is also immoral.
Laws, official or unofficial, act upon both the intellect and the will.
To expect more than the production of civil righteousness of cultural power would be to confuse that mode of being with the church itself.
It cannot save, but it can prepare.
Indeed, the absence of cultural and legal conditions that reflect, expect Christianity and point to the gospel should be considered a failure, a bad culture.
And he references Stephen Wolfe's book.
To be clear, Piper is not celebrating the demise of cultural Christianity with a Russell Moore good riddance, which we'll talk more about Russell Moore here in a minute because this is relevant to this whole New York City thing.
But like most evangelicals, he is confused.
He misses the necessity of cultural Christianity because he wrongly assumes its causal relation to problems that are not unique to it, but perennial.
Meaning there are always people who think they're okay, think they're Christians, or think that they're a spiritual person, but they're not religious, and so they'll be okay when they die.
There are always those people that have some false sense of security or believe something about God that isn't true.
He goes on, Piper is famously a big fan of Jonathan Edwards.
Humanly speaking, what kind of culture was receptive to the revivalism of the mid-18th century?
A Christian one.
For those critics out there who insist that there is no political solution to our present ills and that only a new spontaneous awakening will save us, should ponder this historical fact deeply.
Cultural Christianity is not neutrality.
It is not indifference to Jesus.
It is according to its mode, purpose, and end, the proper recognition of Jesus and is, at bare minimum, an encouragement to civil righteousness.
Further, it points to the gospel that is oriented to true religion.
Vestiges of these conditions still exist in America.
I'll even call them, I mean, I like the term derivative.
We're living off of the derivative fumes.
And he says, and our country still features, now this is true.
Our country still features at least professedly a sizable Christian population.
Regionally, this is even more pronounced.
In some places, a Christian civil righteousness is still preferred in bids for cultural or political leadership.
That's very much true in the South, among the Christian red states.
Where church attendance is valued, the Bible is read in schools, or Christ's name is invoked in a public prayer, the authority of scripture is normalized, both its moral and salvific elements.
This is good and far better than the alternative, which you can see playing out right now in New York City and all of these other places.
He goes on, why would we prefer a social environment that is hostile to the gospel or the instituted church?
Why would we prefer that?
There are times that that's happened, you know, and the Lord has used it for good, but why would we prefer that?
There's some people I feel like that would prefer it.
Only unfalsifiable myths that persecution will produce more and better Christians animates that supposition.
He goes on, at bottom, the common error is, in fact, to expect too much of cultural conditions and thereby mistake their function and overestimate their causality.
And at this point, he writes, surely we must recognize that the traditional family values of Mayberry are better than the pagan values of Sodom.
The former cannot save, to be clear, not going to save you.
Only Christ does that, but neither can the latter.
But the former is much better for everyone.
Again, Tim and Klein writing this almost a year ago, and I think it directly applies to much of the discussion right now as we still see how New York or New England and just how much of those places, they are literally, well, the churches, some of them, are basically museums up there, beautiful buildings, but they're just devoid.
It's very much an unchurched, conquered land at this point.
And all of that certainly can spread.
And then we'll go here because I think this was interesting.
Megan Basham is in response to what's gone on within these New York Dems nominating this Muslim Marxist guy.
She says, on behalf of Southern Baptists, Russell Moore, which Timmy Clyde briefly mentioned in the article, told the world that demonizing Islam is wrong.
What a position for a Christian to take.
As a friend told me, he is in essence saying demonizing a religion that worships a demon is wrong.
If you want to kind of drill down on Russell Moore, look where New York City is specifically.
Do you remember that story a while back, several years ago, where there was a group of Muslims that wanted to build a mosque in New York City?
And was it around the, I think it was around the Twin Towers.
And people were saying, you know, how this was just an act of conquering and everything else.
And it was a huge story, right?
I don't know if you remember it.
Well, so Russell Moore was, he wrote like a legal document or joined a legal document back in the day while he was the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Foundation or Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention.
And he joined a legal document supporting the New Jersey group's fight to build that mosque.
And it was very controversial.
He was called out for doing so at one Southern Baptist Convention, and this is what he said.
I'm going to go to the Amarill Baptist Church in Amarill, Arkansas, and I have a question for Dr. Moore.
I would like to know how in the world someone within the Southern Baptist Convention can support the defending of rights for Muslims to construct mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans.
They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world.
Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today, that he would support this and that he would stand up and say, well, let us protect the rights of those bail worshipers to erect temples to bail?
Do you believe that, Dr. Moore?
You know, sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated and we have to spend a lot of time thinking them through and not sure exactly what the final result was going to be.
Sometimes we have really hard decisions to make.
This isn't one of those things.
What it means to be a Baptist is to support full freedom for everybody.
And brothers and sisters, when you have a government that says we can decide whether or not a house of worship can be constructed based upon the theological beliefs of that house of worship, then there are going to be Southern Baptist churches in San Francisco and New York and throughout this country who are not going to be able to build.
And the bigger issue, though, is not one of self-interest.
The bigger issue is the fact that we have been called to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
A government that has the power to outlaw people from assembling together and saying what they believe, that does not turn people into Christians.
That turns people into pretend Christians, and it sends them straight to hell.
The answer to Islam is not government power.
The answer is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the new birth that comes from that.
Now, that was in June 14th of 2016, a motion calling for the removal of the Office of SBC Leaders who supported the right of Muslims to build mosques.
Now, I'm going to be real.
I used to, if you'd have played that for me in like 2010, I would have agreed with Russell Moore.
I would say, yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Live and let live, man.
It's not about government power, and it really fundamentally would just be a complete ignorance of American history.
The fact that America and the First Amendment and our founding fathers and what they envisioned and what we had was a pan-Protestant coalition.
It was distinctly Christian.
This would have never, this is why blasphemy laws, blaspheming the Christian God, were on the books and survived legal challenges up until 1933.
His concept, Russell Moore's concept of what's right here is just fundamentally totally at odds historically with the people who founded this country.
And yet I would have agreed with this years and years ago.
I would have agreed with this libertarian idea and philosophy.
Let's just objectively look where it leads.
Where does his, you know, might have sounded good, might have tickled our ears, but where does objectively this type of weakness or pacifism or allergy for Christians to be Christians in public office?
That Christians to use the government when you're a Christian dog catcher or maybe even a Christian president.
Use governments to restrain paganism or wickedness.
And again, you heard what he said there.
He said that it'll send people to hell.
Basically, he was arguing exactly what John Piper was arguing, a portion of it.
That, oh, cultural Christianity, we just got to accept it.
We've got to accept the pagans.
Because cultural Christianity is bad because you've got a lot of people who think they're going to heaven, but they're really not.
And to Timmy Klein's point, you have that regardless.
Wherever you are in history, you're always going to have that phenomenon.
Wouldn't it be better to have a culture that doesn't call evil things good and good things evil?
Wouldn't that be better for everyone involved, in particular, Christian brothers and sisters?
And you get the same thing with the border.
Oh, no, maybe we need to let the immigrants in here so we can evangelize them.
Not saying that there haven't been illegal immigrants who have been evangelized, but when you take into account, so there's this fake moral high ground in virtue signaling, because when you take into the account that the open border is actually bad for our neighbor, because not to mention, you know, we could talk economics and wages and all that, but we could also just talk about the murder rate and the violence and the mind of the third world and how it actually makes people around us, our actual neighbors, our actual countrymen.
It makes them less safe.
Talk to the parents of Lake and Riley.
We have this, it's a totally misunderstanding.
We've totally forgotten people like Russell Moore and others, and I know who Russell Moore is, but they have totally forgotten basically mainstream historic political thought, Protestant political thought.
I'm sorry, they have forgotten what used to be mainstream historic Protestant political thought.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Forgive me.
So, yeah, where does that lead?
I mean, that stance, I'm going to say it.
I mean, if there are a list of data points down the slippery slope, this would be one of them, and it would lead to this.
Grocery prices are out of control.
The cost of eggs and milk has skyrocketed.
Dumb stores are even using dynamic pricing, jacking up the cost over the course of a day depending on what they can get away with.
It doesn't need to be this way.
I'm Zahran Mandani, and as mayor, I will create a network of city-owned grocery stores.
It's like a public option.
For produce, we will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging.
These stores will operate without a profit motive or having to pay property taxes or rent.
And we'll pass on those savings to you.
There you go.
We need to have these conversations, and man, it's just incredible.
So, yeah, I mean, really, I guess what Steve Day said here, America's largest city confirms you'll have Christianity or you will have gay race communism.
Those are your choices because someone will always rule and something will always be worshipped.
Choose ye this day whom you will serve.
Folks, I want to tell you about Red Vive Health and the healing power of red light.
You can elevate your game.
You know, these red light panels enhance your athletic performance.
They boost recovery.
They promote faster wound healing.
According to research, the utilization of red and near-infrared light therapy has significant benefits such as reducing muscle fatigue, improving muscle strength and endurance, facilitating fat loss and muscle growth responses resulting from exercise, as well as accelerating the recovery process.
Red Vive devices, they emit red light, obviously, but they also emit near-infrared light designed to reduce muscle and joint inflammation and pain, stimulate cellular energy, speed up recovery, boost skin, collagen, strengthen your body.
And I can tell you that these panels work, ladies and gentlemen.
I use them every day.
I use my one every day.
I don't have two like that lady in the photo there that you just saw.
This is scientifically proven anti-aging technology.
And then you also have the near-infrared light.
So the red light helps the skin and the collagen production and tightens your skin and can take care of color patches or hyperpigmentation.
Then the near-infrared light, though, that's what penetrates deeper into the body, reaching your bones, muscles, tissues, and even organs.
And it's called photobiomodulation.
Look at a photobiomodulation or biophotomodulation.
And this technology, this light that your body craves, it literally, your cells respond to it like it's medicine.
It stimulates the mitochondria of your cell.
It's incredible stuff.
You're going to look better.
You're going to feel better, though.
I can't tell you how much better you're going to feel when you use this stuff.
It's great for your eyes, great for your head, great for your whole body, your back pain, all of it.
Go there now.
Shop now, redvivehealth.org slash Paul to get 15% off.
That's redvivehealth.org slash Paul gets you 15% off.
Or you can call 866-726-8483.
That's 866-726-8483 and mention my name, Paul, and they will happily take down all your information and make sure.
60-day money-back guarantee, 0% interest financing available.
The 60-day money-back guarantee is great, right?
But you're not going to send it back.
No one does.
But yeah, keep the box just in case you have to send it back.
And so go there now, redvivehealth.org slash Paul.
That's redvivehealth.org slash Paul.
We're going to take a quick break, going to hear from our friend Mike Lindell and be back here in just a minute.
I hear every day about the products y'all wish my pillow carried.
Well, guess what?
We probably do.
Slippers, bathrobes, pet beds, blankets, mattresses, sleepwear, loungewear, duvets, comforters, potholders, aprons, oven mitts, and so much more.
And they're all on sale.
For example, get our best-selling standard MyPillows for only $14.98.
Body pillows, $29.98.
Six-piece bath towels or kitchen towel sets, just $29.98.
Multi-use MyPillow 2.0s with pillowcase, $9.98.
Save $40 on our spring per kilo and Giza Dream bedsheet sets.
Any size, any color, and so much more.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code to save up to 80% on all my pillow products.
And I've never done this before.
When you spend $100 or more, you're going to get two standard MyPillows absolutely free.
All right, so make sure you got those big summer savings there.
Make sure to use that code PH.
Go to mypillow.com.
That's mypillow.com and use the promo code PH.
All right, so Donald Trump is in NATO or wasn't it?
I think he's flying home now.
And yeah, I didn't think I, when I woke up this morning, I didn't think I was going to be typing this headline.
Trump called Daddy by NATO leader.
This has to do with his strong language that we covered on the Milston Report yesterday, as well as the Paul Harrell program that aired later in the airs at 4 o'clock Central on X American News.
Yeah, you know, it was kind of funny.
Trump went from dropping bombs on Iran to dropping the F-bomb on national TV.
We talked about that yesterday.
Here's Donald Trump calling, I'm sorry, here's the NATO leader referring to Donald Trump as daddy.
I mean, we may do papers on it, Marco.
Maybe we're going to do papers.
I don't even know.
You need them.
They're not going to be fighting each other.
They've had it.
They've had a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard.
You know, they fight like hell.
You can't stop them.
Let them fight for about two, three minutes.
Then it's easier to stop them.
And then daddy has to sometimes use strong language.
You have to use strong language.
Every once in a while, you have to use a certain word.
I think you have to join North.
I mean, we may do papers on.
Yeah, I mean, you know, sometimes Daddy has to use strong language.
He's referring to Trump.
Trump referred to as Daddy by NATO leader.
It's pretty funny.
And the jokes kind of kept coming.
You can see Marco Rubio kind of having a...
Listen to this.
This is from Sky News.
Mark Rutter, the NATO chief who is your friend, he called you daddy earlier.
Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of children?
No, he likes me.
I think he likes me.
If he doesn't, I'll let you know.
I'll come back and I'll hit him.
The answer is yes.
Donald Trump should regard NATO allies as children.
Children.
No, he likes me.
I think he likes me.
If he doesn't, I'll let you know.
I'll come back and I'll hit him hard, okay?
He did it very affectionately.
Daddy, you're my daddy.
Do you regard your NATO allies, though, as kind of like children?
And they're obviously listening to you and they're spending more.
And you're obviously appreciative of that.
But do you hope that actually they're going to be able to defend themselves, defend Europe on their own without?
I think they need help a little bit at the beginning.
So the reporter is referencing this next clip where Trump announces that he's convinced NATO allies to boost their defense spending by whopping 5% of GDP.
Major focus of our conversations at the summit was the need for other NATO members to take up the burden of the defense of Europe, and that included the financial burden.
As you know, it was 2%, and we got it up to 5%.
And they said, a couple of them came up to me.
One in particular said, sir, we've been trying to get it up to 3% for 20 years.
We haven't been able, and you got it up to 5%.
So they're going to be, most of them, I guess almost all of them, are going to be contributing now.
5%, a number that people are surprised at, but you need it today.
The United States accounts for two-thirds of all NATO defense spending.
Since I began pushing for additional commitments in 2017, believe it or not, our allies have increased spending by $700 billion.
So, yeah, I mean, you know, if you're one of these people that, you know, still thinks NATO is what it once was, then, yeah, I mean, this is good.
I mean, obviously, if we're in some sort of mutual defense agreement, they need to pull their weight, and the United States pulls way too much of it.
All that is true.
And this is really a leftover policy goal from Trump's first term when he looked at NATO and basically told him they're all children.
I mean, basically, he did and pointed out that it makes no sense.
He was pointing out that it makes no sense for NATO to protect Germany from Russia when they're inking oil pipelines.
Of course, we know how that worked out, don't we?
We all know how that worked out.
But yeah, NATO was originally created to protect Christian Europe from the godless communist Soviets, and now Europe, with their free speech laws, their anti-free speech laws, they've essentially become godless communists in Europe.
As far as I can tell, it's an alliance that is totally different from the original alliance and what it was originally intended for.
It used to have the moral high ground.
I certainly don't think it does.
Literally, I don't think it has the moral high ground.
If you look at one of the main foreign policies that we force and have forced on people, look at the USAID money was LGBTQ rainbow issues and wanting countries to come forward and progress into the 21st century where homosexual lifestyles are lauded as preferred.
But anyway, Trump at NATO here commanding a lot of respect.
There's no doubt about that.
Israel and Iran came up, obviously.
This is what Donald Trump said.
I think Iran, look, you know, they've got a country, and they've got oil, and they're very smart people, and they can come back.
Israel got hit very hard, especially the last couple of days.
Israel was hit really hard.
Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings.
And they've been great.
B.B. Netanyahu should be very proud of himself.
And they've really been great.
Interesting.
Before we go any further, I want to remind you this portion of the broadcast brought to you by Curable Premium Health.
We'll tell you more about their great CBD products here in just a minute.
Donald Trump saying that Israel got hit hard.
This is kind of something that I was pointing out the other day, or I was referencing Colonel Douglas McGregor a few times, and I was wondering if a lot of this ceasefire, I mean, you know, if you look at it from a standpoint of how much of Tel Aviv got hit, obviously Iran got hit very hard too, but, you know, the U.S., at least for the time, right, not interested in the ground troops, not interested in Iraq 2.0.
And so you have Benjamin Netanyahu that starts the offensive right before negotiations and couldn't defend his city.
And so, yeah.
And I said yesterday, it just kind of seems like Israel bit off more than it could chew here.
And I heard Steve Bannon say something similar today.
So, you know, this is something that's not really talked about.
What is being talked about, though, is this leak.
And this, to me, is so, I think it's irony.
I think it's the opposite of truth.
And I'll tell you what I mean by that here in a minute.
The Pentagon has launched a probe into Iran's strike intel leak.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed the findings after others called it fake news.
Again, this is politico, so take it with a grain of salt.
The Pentagon has launched a criminal investigation into the leak of a classified defense intelligence agency report assessing that damage to Iranian nuclear facilities from U.S. strikes didn't significantly set back Tehran's nuclear program.
Now, why in the world would this get leaked to the press?
Because there's still plenty of neocons out there who they want to discredit Trump, but they want U.S. ground troops in Iran.
They want a regime change by any means necessary.
And so, you know, I told you from the beginning, I said, look, I don't care if the nuclear program was destroyed or not.
All I know is they're saying that it's destroyed.
And for me, who doesn't want another war, like I've had my entire life, they have removed this talking Point from the chessboard.
And now, thanks to this intel leak, they're trying to bring the pawn back onto the board.
And I find that so fascinating to me, mainly because now we're in a situation where it's like an inverted, it's like the reverse of WMDs from a government media perspective.
With Iraq, the government said they've got weapons of mass destruction.
And then, you know, some of the media were like, and the code pinkers were like, no, they didn't.
That was a lie.
And it took a long time for that to come out.
Now the government is saying officially, the Trump government is saying, they no longer have weapons of mass destruction or the nuclear capability.
They don't.
They don't.
We promise you they don't.
And now there's this back and forth argument.
So you go from weapons of mass destruction.
The government says they got them.
We're all like, no, they don't.
Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do.
And now we're on the other side of it where the government's like, those weapons of mass destruction are gone.
They've been taken care of.
And the media's like, no, they haven't.
Yes, they have.
No, they haven't.
Yes, they have.
To me, it's just hilarious.
It's absolutely hilarious to me.
Here is Donald Trump, more from Donald Trump on NATO talking about the obliteration of Iran's nuclear program.
We hear it was obliteration.
It was a virtual obliteration.
When you take a look at the ground above, don't forget the flame is all underground.
But everything above, if you look at the before and the after picture, everything above is burned black, the trees, everything.
There's one building, but that's a building that sunk substantially into the granite so that the fire goes right over it.
It was, I believe it was total obliteration.
I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast.
If it would have taken two weeks, maybe, but it's very hard to remove that kind of material.
Very hard and very dangerous for them to remove it.
Plus, they knew we're coming.
And if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there.
There aren't too many people that are going to be down there.
Pete, do you have something to say about that?
Well, Mr. President, when you talk to the people who built the bombs, understand what those bombs can do, and deliver those bombs, they landed precisely where they were supposed to, through the flawless mission.
Flawless.
Right down where we knew they needed to enter.
And given the 30,000 pounds of explosives and capability of those munitions, it was devastation underneath Fordo.
And the amount of munitions, six per location, any assessment that tells you it was something otherwise is speculating with other motives.
And we know that because when you actually look at the report, by the way, it was a top-secret report, it was preliminary.
It was low confidence.
So this isn't, you make assessments based on what you know.
And it said it could be very devastating, very serious.
Moderate, severe, and we believe far more likely severe and obliterated.
So this is the political motive, Peter.
Political motive, he says.
Then we have one from Rubio.
Then Rubio chimes in.
First of all, on this stuff about the intelligence, this is what a leaker is telling you the intelligence says.
That's the game these people play.
They read it, and then they go out and characterize it the way they want it characterized, and they're leakers.
This is the game they play.
So that's number one.
Number two, here's a fact.
The conversion facility, which you can't do with a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility.
We can't even find where it is, where it used to be on the map.
You can't even find where it used to be because the whole thing is just blackened out.
It's gone.
It's wiped out.
It's wiped out.
Then we dropped 12 of the strongest bombs on the planet right down the hole in two places.
Everything underneath that mountain is in bad shape.
And I refer you to the statement of the IAEA, Mr. Grossi.
You know what he said?
He said there was Iran, the way it looked the day before the attack, and what their nuclear program looks like now.
Two very different things.
They are way behind where they were just seven days ago.
Now, anything in the world can be rebuilt, but now we know where it is.
And if they try to rebuild it, we'll have options there as well.
But all this leaker stuff, these leakers are professional stabbers.
That's what they are.
They go out and they read this stuff, and then they tell you what it says against the law, but they characterize it for you in a way that's absolutely false.
There's no way Iran comes to the table somehow and nothing had happened.
This was complete and total obliteration.
They're in bad shape.
They are way behind today compared to where they were just seven days ago because of what the president did.
So this really, I really, I want what I would love for the Trump administration to do here, and maybe we'll get this, but right now, you know, the narrative is, okay, they're leaking this so that we can make the president look bad and attack him and take away his victory.
But that's not really why they're leaking this.
They're leaking this because they're upset that the weapons of mass destruction talking point, a perennial talking point to drag us into war, has been removed from the chessboard.
And they want to put it back on because they want regime change.
They want war.
They want more American involvement in the Middle East.
And that's why this was leaked.
It's patently obvious that that's why this is leaked if you have been following people like Mark Levin or Lindsey Graham for any amount of time.
And then I think here is where Hexeth announces the criminal investigation.
Before we get to that, I want to tell you about Curable Premium Health and the great folks at curable.com.
Go to curable.com right now, K-U-R-I-B-L.com, and use promo code PALL20 to save 20% off all your CBD product purchases.
They have stuff for everything.
They've got tinctures.
You see the tinctures on the left there.
They come in cinnamon as well as orange zest.
They have the muscle cream, which I'm a big fan of, the sleep gummies that also has melatonin in them.
And they even have pet support.
They've got CBD dog treats, 375 milligrams.
They have CBD bath soaks.
They even have drinks.
Check it all out over at curable.com, K-U-R-I-B.com, but make sure you use the promo code PAL20 at checkout.
I'm a huge fan of the muscle cream, as you know.
The sleep gummies are good as well.
What I can tell you is if you haven't ever researched the benefits of CBD when it comes to getting off of the hamster wheel of a big pharma that, you know, you might be taking, you know, two ibuprofen a day or four ibuprofen a day.
A lot of people Go with these NSAIDs that work, but are they really good for you?
Some studies suggest they're not good for you.
You need to consider trying CBD instead of these over-the-counter NSAIDs.
Get CBD from Curable right now at curable.com, K-U-R-I-B-L.com, and use promo code PAL20 and save 20%.
Last up for you today, we have this fantastic development.
Is it a fantastic development?
Volodymyr Zelensky was at NATO.
He was at the NATO summit.
Yeah.
And he was actually wearing a suit.
Can you believe it?
Look at this guy.
He's actually wearing a suit.
The one thing he was criticized for when he was in the Oval Office during his disaster meeting.
He's walking up at The Hague.
He is in a suit.
This is a huge development.
Owen Schroyer writes, did Trump get Zelensky to wear a suit?
Jack Pasobic responds, Zelensky wants that bag.
He wants the money to keep going.
He knows, again, and we've got to, you know, we can't really say this enough.
He knows that if the war ends, so does his dictatorship, because he suspended elections.
They haven't had elections in Ukraine in a very, very, very long time.
That is all the time that I have for this edition of The Millstone Report.
If you like what you have heard, consider following me over on X at RealPaulHarrell.
Make sure you follow X American News.
Also consider supporting the show, PaulTalkShow.substack.com.
That's PaulTalkshow.substack.com, where you will receive, if you support us financially, a free copy of Left Wing Will and The Red Pill, the game that laughs at the left's expense.
That's all the time that I have for this edition.
If I'm providentially hindered, I won't be here tomorrow.
So unless I'm providentially hindered, I won't be here tomorrow.
I'll be back here delivering you the news.
God bless everybody out there watching, and we will see you soon.
▲
Export Selection