Open Q&A

Opening the Show and the Purpose of Apologetics Live

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

We are back. Well, I say we, but really, me. I'm back. Drew, it is I. I am back again. I was sad that I had to miss last week's episode, but I did listen to it, and it was really, really good. So if you missed last week's episode with Mark Spence, I would encourage you, go back, listen to the episode.

It was absolutely wonderful. But we are back, Apologetics Live, and Andrew did tell me that he's going to try to come on. He is on his way to his hotel, so he's going to try to get set up there at his hotel and then join us.

But Apologetics Live is a podcast ministry by Striving for Eternity where we seek to answer your questions about God and the Bible. And of course, like Andrew likes to say, if you doubt that, then head on over to ApologeticsLive .com, click the duck icon, make sure that your audio is connected, and join us.

But just remember, I don't know is a perfectly valid answer. In fact, it's actually my favorite answer. People ask me a question, but on tonight's show, we are going to be having an open Q &A, although I know Brother John Elvin probably wants to ask some Post Mill questions.

Maybe I'll entertain that some, but we did a whole show on Post Millennialism, so I don't know how many more questions he could have. But Andrew did send me a text message, and he thought it would be good if I mentioned it here on the show.

Refuting a Claim About the Kinsman Redeemer and Tribal Lineage

Now, if you remember a couple of months ago, we had an interaction with a professed Orthodox Jew named Benzion. Well, toward the end of that show, there were some other topics that were discussed, and one was the doctrine of the Kinsmen Redeemer.

Well, I think you should listen for yourself to what Benzion said.

Adopted in. That's not what the Torah says. It says that it's your father. He's an adopted person.

And with the Kinsmen Redeemer, the older one would be adopted in, and the father would be the older brother. So yes, it works out perfectly.

Father, that's not true. That's not true. It doesn't say that anywhere. You're making something up, with all due respect.

Did you hear that? That's not true. That's not true. You're making something up. Well, you guys know Andrew. You know that he can't let that slide. So he sent me this text from Deuteronomy 25, verses 5 and 6, which read,.

When brothers live together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go into her and take her to himself as wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. Well, there you have it, okay? Wouldn't you know it, right there in the Bible, the very thing that Benzion said was not there.

Now that exchange took place when we were discussing the idea of adoption and lineage or tribal affiliation, and Andrew mentioned the Kinsman Redeemer. And so I kind of came at the idea of tribal affiliation lineage from a different direction when I was emailing Benzion, and I pointed out to him 1 Chronicles 2, verses 34 -36, which read this way.

Now Shishan had no sons, only daughters, and Shishan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Shishan gave his daughter to Jarha, his servant, in marriage, and she bore him Ateh. Ateh became the father of Nathan, Nathan became the father of Zabad.

Now here in this genealogy, it goes through the mother. Remember now, Benzion kept saying it can only go through the father. Well here, it actually goes through the mother, the daughter of Shishan. She married an Egyptian, and then the lineage picks right back up as though it goes through the father.

So between Andrew and myself, I think Benzion has been refuted. But on tonight's episode, let's really start with some in the news, and I think this is going to lead to some good questions, and I think it's really going to tie back to the episode last week on abortion.

Nikki Haley, Abortion, and the Republican Party

Now this comes from thechristianpost .com. From an article that they ran on July 4th, and it's titled, Nikki Haley Urges Republicans to Stop Demonizing, Find Consensus on Abortion. Okay, let me read that again just in case you missed it.

Nikki Haley urges Republicans to stop demonizing and find a consensus on abortion. Now this upcoming election for president, the topic of abortion is going to be a major discussion issue. Now if you're not familiar with Nikki Haley, she is a former governor of South Carolina.

She's a former UN ambassador during the Trump administration, and she is currently campaigning for president for the Republican Party. But just from this headline alone, from an apologetic standpoint, the first things that really jump out at me is that Republicans are not pro-life.

No matter how much they say that they are, they're actually not pro-life. And the Republican Party does not equal Christianity. But in this interview on Fox News Sunday, not only did Nikki Haley say that Republicans need to stop demonizing the opponents on the abortion issue, but she also criticized bills in some states that were seeking to put women in jail for having abortions.

Well, that's interesting, because why would a woman go to jail for having an abortion? Could it be because the baby in the womb is a human baby, and to kill it would be murder? Wouldn't that be a good reason to put someone in jail for committing murder?

I mean, does she even believe that abortion is murder? I mean, I know I've heard her say that she believes that it's a baby, but does she even believe that it's murder? But she would go on to say that her goal is to forge a national consensus in order to save as many lives as possible.

Now I'm just curious, just curious here. But if you had legislation in each state that criminalized abortion, wouldn't that accomplish the goal of saving as many lives as possible? Because you would be seeking to save the life of every unborn baby?

And wouldn't you also be seeking justice for those murdered babies in the womb if abortion were criminalized? I mean, just spitballing ideas here. But why criticize bills that actually seek to save as many lives as possible?

That seek to criminalize abortion? Actually give equal rights to the unborn? I mean, this is what blows my mind about the Republican Party, because they always tout how they're the party of pro-life.

They're the party of pro-life. They want to save babies. They don't like abortion. But then they say, well, we need to stop demonizing people who get abortions. We need to just find a consensus. We need to find a happy place where we all agree.

But she does say that she would absolutely support a bill that legalized abortion up to 15 weeks. Now in her own state of South Carolina, I think it's 20 weeks. And I think Senator Lindsey Graham is trying to put in legislation that would make it 15 weeks.

But she's the one that actually signed the bill to make abortion legal up to 20 weeks. Now there are currently, I think, 12 to 13 states that have six-week abortion bans. And which, by the way, I also found this fascinating.

Donald Trump said that Florida's six-week abortion ban was too harsh. And he said this in criticism of Governor Ron DeSantis. Now Donald Trump, if you remember, when he ran for president in 2016, he said that his goal was to stack the courts with pro-life judges for the purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade.

And yet he says a six-week abortion ban is too harsh. He just completely flip-flopped on that whole issue. Now let's take this idea of a six-week abortion ban. They're also known as the heartbeat bills.

Many pro-lifers would view these heartbeat bills that are passed, they would view them as wins. But are those actually wins? Well, no, they're really not. Because if we understand the law as a teacher, and Nikki Haley actually understands the law as a teacher when it comes to this.

If we understand the law as a teacher, we aren't only told when we can't kill a baby, but we're also told when we can. So as long as you do it before this time, then it's acceptable. And that's one of the things, and I listened to several, several interviews with Nikki Haley talking about this idea of her views on abortion.

And she said, we need to come to a national consensus. We need to find a place where we cannot kill a baby. Well, she didn't use the term kill a baby. She said we need to come to a consensus where we can have safe abortions, but then also where we cannot.

We need to know where we can't. How about we don't kill babies? How about we do that? And here's my question. What if there was a national consensus that said we want complete bans on abortion? Would you vote for that?

And she was actually asked that question. And you know what her answer was? It was a non-answer. She didn't give an answer, like a true politician. But there is absolutely no place where abortion, the murder of a baby, is acceptable.

No matter how you slice it, it's murder, plain and simple. Christians should not be rallying around six-week abortion bans. And we should take the position that we want to end abortion, not regulate it.

But the interesting thing about this idea of her saying that she wants to come to a national consensus or a federal consensus, I heard her say several times, is that it seems she wants to have a federal law on abortion.

But with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I'm not sure that having a federal law would actually do anything. And the reason I say that is because there are federal laws against abortion. Or not abortion.

There are federal laws against marijuana. So at the federal level, marijuana is illegal. And yet, there are several states that have legalized marijuana. So those states have actually said, we're not going to listen to you.

We're going to make our own laws. And they're actually right in doing so because of what's called states' rights. So Nikki Haley, she criticized bills in states that are trying to bring about a total ban on abortion and criminalize abortion.

And they have the right to do that because of states' rights. And the thing with Roe v. Wade, what people don't agree or what people don't understand with Roe v. Wade is that I hear a lot of liberals say, well, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, now they're going to ban abortions and we're losing our rights and all these things.

Okay, first of all, you never had a right to kill your baby in the first place. But all it does, all that the court did in overturning that decision was send it back to the states. Now, each state can make its own laws regarding abortion.

And some of these states have said, we want total bans on abortions. We want to make abortion illegal, we want to criminalize it, and we want to prosecute the mothers who murder their babies. What's wrong with that?

I mean, what's wrong with that? We should want to prosecute murderers. We should not be trying to fight to say, okay, we can kill our baby here. We can kill our baby there. It's okay to kill my baby as long as I do it before this time.

No, it's not. Because their argument goes, well, it's not a baby. And like Jason Cave says here, conception equals life. Exactly. Yep, from the moment of fertilization, it is life. Absolutely. And so some of the arguments go, well, it's not a baby.

It's this clump of cells. It's this, it's that. They try to call it anything but a baby. Except if you look at every embryology textbook, they all say it's a baby. From the moment of conception, from the moment of fertilization, it's a baby.

Why? Because a human can only give birth to other humans. We don't look at dogs and say, oh, well, I guess my dog is just pregnant with some kind of zygote. No, we say my dog is pregnant with puppies.

Or my cat is pregnant with kittens. The only place we try to desensitize people is with abortion. By calling it everything other than a baby. This just blows my mind at the party that says it's for pro-life.

And one of the interesting things about this, how I said the Republicans are not pro-life. You know, really a lot of people in the pro-life movement are not pro-life at all. And I want to give you an example.

So, in Oklahoma a couple of years ago, they went to introduce a bill that would ban abortions. And they had the Oklahoma National Right to Life president sitting right next to Cecil Richards, who at the time was the head of Planned Parenthood.

They were sitting together. And when they wanted to bring up this bill, it kept getting shot down. The pro-life movement kept saying, we can't pass this bill because then it will undo all the work that we've done over the decades in advancing the pro-life movement.

Okay, well, is your goal to end abortion? I thought that was the goal, to end abortion. It seems like when something comes up that wants to end abortion, you don't actually want to do it. So is the pro-life movement actually pro-life?

No, they're not. Melissa Owen says, eagles are more protected than babies. They really are. And if you look, just look at our country, right? Look at PETA. Look at, just look at all the environmentalist people and whatnot, the kooky people.

They fight so hard to protect all of these animals, right? They fight so hard to protect shellfish and scallops and just all of these little animals. But yet, they are all for killing babies. Human babies.

I mean, this is without a doubt just the greatest evil that we face today. People who want to kill babies, people who advocate for killing babies, people who come up with mantras like they did a couple years ago, shout my abortion, that is a level of depravity that, I mean, I don't even have words for it.

When we reach the point that says, I can kill my baby if I want to, and that's actually what they say at the abortion mills. Go out to the abortion mills. I would encourage you, go out, find whoever locally is doing abortion ministry in your city that you live in.

Go out with them one day. Listen to all the people. They don't make the argument, oh, it's just a fetus, which by the way, you can just say, well, fetus is a Latin word for baby. But they don't say it's just a fetus.

They don't say it's a clump of cells. They don't say it's a ball of tissue. They don't say all these other things that people in the media are saying. They actually say, I can kill my baby if I want to.

Let's see, Facebook user, they advocate for the murder of babies, a grievous sin, so they can continue to fornicate another gracious sin. I think you meant egregious sin, grievous sin. Yep, there you go.

But that, absolutely, absolutely true. They want to be able to kill babies so that they continue living a life of fornication and a life of sin. So abortion now is just another form of birth control. We need abortion.

Why? So we can have more fornication. I need to be able to do what I want with my body. That's ultimately why. And look at the reasons that they give as to why they need abortion. Oh, well, they're going to be in poverty.

Okay, so what, we kill poor people now? Oh, well, they're not going to be fully developed. They're going to have mental issues. Okay, so are we to kill people who have mental issues? Oh, well, the mother's not going to be able to have her career and do all these things.

Well, I guess she should have thought of that before she engaged in the act that results in pregnancy. Look, so many things, only so many things can happen. Yeah, here you go. Andrew Graham right here, I want a career.

Yeah, should have thought about that one before you engaged in the act. Only so many things can happen when you engage in the act that results in pregnancy. You get pregnant, you get an STD, or you get both.

It's not a disease that someone sneezes and you catch it. Okay, you know what you're doing. You know what this act leads to. And so when you say, my body, my choice, yeah, you're right. Your body, you made that choice.

That doesn't mean you get to commit murder. I mean, utterly ridiculous. And yeah, they just want to fight for abortion so that they can continue living sinful lives of fornication. Let's see, was lost but now am found says euthanasia will be the next thing, just like in Canada.

How Supreme Court Precedents Led to Roe v. Wade

But one of the things that I always find interesting, and I don't know that a lot of people know this. Really the idea of, how did we get to this point? How did we get to the place where abortion, murdering babies is viewed as birth control?

And it's viewed as an acceptable and moral thing. Now, some of you might not know this. Some of you may know this actually, but there were actually several Supreme Court cases that led up to Roe v. Wade.

So this wasn't something that just all of a sudden fell on the desk of the Supreme Court and they made this decision about it. There were several court cases that led up to the decision of Roe v. Wade.

And I like what Andrew Graham, right here, whoops, abstinence is a form of birth control. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. But actually with what I'm going to get into right here with some of these court cases is people were fighting against the idea of abstinence.

So the first court decision we can look at is Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. Okay, so now at this point, abortion was illegal, and contraception was actually illegal as well. Many states had laws against fornication.

Sex was viewed as something that could only be done by the wife in the marriage bed, and it was for the purpose of procreation. And so in Griswold v. Connecticut, it was determined that married people should be able to decide whether they want to and when they want to have children.

So the court determined that contraception was allowed to be obtained by married couples only. And this decision was made citing the 14th Amendment and implying, and that's actually an important phrase, implying what we know as the right to privacy.

So we're going to see that show up in some of these other cases. And just to be clear, the idea of the right to privacy is actually not in the Constitution. It's an idea that is imposed on the text of the Constitution rather than derived from it.

And so what began really to form in the minds of people is this idea that sex should be sterile. And that's another idea that's going to be important as we continue going through some of these arguments.

Let's see what Humble Clay says. Humble Clay says, How many abortion victims have had the cure for cancer disease? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe write out in the comments what you mean by that.

I saw your other comment earlier. How many cures for cancer have have been aborted? I'm not sure. Let me know what you're what you're getting at there. So with Griswold versus Connecticut 1965, contraception was allowed to be obtained for married people only.

And because the idea that sex should be sterile and they should be able to decide when they want to have children. And it's the first time we see this idea of the implied right to privacy. So this brings us to our second case, Einstein versus Baird in 1972.

Now, this case was struck down by Massachusetts law, which prohibited the selling of contraception to unmarried people to prevent pregnancy. So at this time, it wasn't that you couldn't get contraception.

It was that you actually had to have it prescribed by a doctor. So a physician had to prescribe it to you. And now William Baird, he was actually giving a lecture at Boston University to a group of young women on the importance of contraception.

So he actually had samples with him, and that was actually against the law to display samples of contraception. And at the end of his lecture, he gave a woman a contraceptive foam. And immediately, deputy sheriffs who were waiting outside, they came and arrested him off of the stage.

Now, the decision that came from the court in 1972 was that single people engaging in sexual acts now have the right to contraception. And again, here, they implied the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

And so here we have this idea, again, that sex should be sterile, right? It's starting to take shape a little more. So now, not only can married people have sex recreationally without the consequence of pregnancy, but now unmarried people are told that they can engage in this act and not get pregnant.

So here, we start to see those formings of what would become in our country, right? I mean, and at this time, what did you have? I think you had the sexual revolution in the 60s, and this idea is really, really starting to take shape of just free sex for everyone.

And so after Einstein versus Baird, this takes us directly to the third Supreme Court case. And the interesting fact about this particular case, so we had Griswold versus Connecticut, Einstein versus Baird, and we're coming up to our third case.

Let me see. Hold on. Okay. So Einstein versus Baird was actually decided with Roe v. Wade on the desk of the Supreme Court. Okay, so word phrasings show up, that show up in Einstein versus Baird, they show up in Roe v. Wade.

And so the third case is Roe v. Wade. So it was handed down almost 50 years ago. Actually, I think, what is it, 2023? It might actually be exactly 50 years ago now. The United States Supreme Court declared that abortion was a right granted by the Constitution under, and here it is again, an implied right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

And this decision passed by a vote of 7 to 2 with Justices White and Rehnquist dissenting. Now what happened with Roe? In 1969, Norma McCorvey, she used the pseudonym Roe, Jane Roe. She got pregnant with her third child.

Her first two children she gave up for adoption, but with the third one she wanted to seek an abortion. This took place in Texas, and the law was very clear that unless a woman's life is in danger, she could not obtain an abortion, which that's also a separate topic.

The idea of the woman's life being in danger, that she could die from having an abortion, that's a separate topic. But she wanted to obtain an abortion, and Texas would not let her. So once the case reached the Supreme Court, Norma had already given birth to the baby, and then that baby was given up for adoption.

And the decision handed down by the Supreme Court was determined by what we would call an artificial demarcation. They determined what fetal viability was, and based off of that demarcation, they outlined rules as to when and to what restrictions could be placed on abortion depending on the trimester that the mother was in.

Let me see. Okay. So the decision that was reached was that no state had the right to restrict a woman from obtaining an abortion. Now this is okay, think about that. No state has the right to restrict a woman from obtaining an abortion.

It sounds like the Supreme Court is making law, which they can't do. Congress can make law. That's their role, to make law. But the Supreme Court cannot make law. It's I mean, I'm sorry. Jason Cave says, what about states' rights?

Yeah, I actually covered that I think probably before you got in, Jason. I covered states' rights. I was covering an article that was put out by Nikki Haley, and I covered states' rights in there. But yeah, absolutely.

You're on the right track there. Now with Roe v. Wade, this case was unique because it set precedent. So rather than referring to precedent, it set precedent. So you may hear this case referred to as a landmark case or a watershed case.

That's because there were no previous cases to draw from. So this case was unique. And the court, they pulled when you see that all the other cases that I just laid out before you, Roe pulled from those previous two cases, Griswold v. Connecticut, Einstein v. Baird.

And so they pulled from those cases as to what to do if contraception fails. So since sex should be sterile, what do you do when sex is recreational and contraception fails? Well, Roe now allows you to kill the baby.

So that's how we actually arrived at Roe v. Wade. Now I want to kind of move on from let's just move past Roe a little bit. And let's go to another case called Carey v. Population Service International.

This was in 1977. They cited the precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Einstein v. Baird in 1972 on not restricting access to contraception. The court determined that no state listen to this no state could restrict the selling and distribution of contraception to persons under the age of 16.

Okay, so let me rephrase that in case you missed it. The court is saying that minors should be able to have sex recreationally and not get pregnant. Yet, should that happen, no worries because Roe v. Wade allows them to kill the baby.

That is how we arrived at this place where we are at in our society that says we can just kill our babies. I heard that Roe claimed to be raped. Is that right or was that someone else? She actually did make the claim.

She did make the claim that she was raped, but later she actually recanted that. She said that wasn't true. So she did make that claim initially, but then she ended up recanting that. So just try to get this in your mind, okay?

We have a society today that fights so hard to kill babies, and why do they do that? Because they believe sex should be recreational, you should not have the consequence of getting pregnant, and should contraception fail, you kill the baby.

Yep, Andrew, this is Andrew Graham. Should you be under 16 and want murder, we've got you covered. Yep. And people today, they actually pass this off as, they always use the excuse, well, what about if the child was raped?

Or what about rape? What about incest? What about life of the mother? One, if those happen, rape is absolutely vile. And I believe if you rape a woman, you should be given the death penalty. I wonder if Nikki Haley would agree with that.

I wonder if she would agree with that. But when you look at the numbers of women who obtain abortions because of rape, I mean it's less than 1%. But they use that as the majority of their argument. They try to make less than 1 of all abortions the strong point of their argument.

Okay, don't do that. That's just not going to hold up. But even in that, you have to look at the statistics for who gets raped. Because while rape is evil, it is an evil, and it should be punishable by death.

Not everyone who gets raped gets pregnant. You have to consider age with childbearing years. But also the body itself has defense mechanisms. The woman's body actually knows when these things, when it's being violated in such a way.

The body contracts, areas begin to shut down and not function properly. In order to stave off an attack like that. Now that's just what I read in some journals. I read that in about two or three different journals.

About, I think it was last year when Roe was overturned. If you're a doctor, and let's see. Someone is getting blocked right there. Don't come on the show and use profanity in any way. That's just going to get you blocked.

I don't put up with profanity. I don't put up with anything crass or crude. Not on this show. Keep it away or you will just be blocked. So, it's, there was, let's see. That's not true about, that's not true about defense mechanisms.

Okay, I mean if there's a doctor that wants to come in and talk about it, you know, fine. I'm just telling you what I read in some medical journals when Roe was overturned. But let's see some comments that we have.

Melissa, abortion is just as bad as the hormone replacement therapy for children who cannot even comprehend the long-term effects. Yes, absolutely. People who make the argument, well my child is transgender because I saw my four-year-old boy playing with my lipstick.

Okay, and so they quickly rush to get him hormone therapy and try to turn him into a girl when all he did was see mommy do it, and so he's just repeating it. That doesn't mean he thinks he's transgender.

That's actually child abuse. Quit doing that. But yes, abortion is just as bad because you're, one, you're killing a baby, but then in the hormone therapy, all you're doing is mutilating the body. You're taking a healthy body and you are mutilating it.

You're destroying it. Why would we ever want to do that to our children? Why? Lots of stuff going on just in society today that, I mean, we need to be getting out there. We need to be getting out there, evangelizing, and taking Christ to a loss and dying world.

I mean, when we have, and I said earlier that the Republican Party doesn't equal Christianity. And one of the things that I used to make fun of for, now I'm a Southerner, proud to be one, but being in the South, we do like our Fox News.

Okay, well, Fox News isn't Christian news. It's not Christian, but they also don't claim to be either. But Fox News has a contributor that they call Caitlyn Jenner, whose real name is Bruce Jenner, a man pretending to be a woman.

And so Fox News, which is this conservative news outlet, has a man, a grandfather, actually, pretending to be a woman. What are you trying to conserve at that point? What are you trying to conserve? Because now, just with bringing on Bruce Jenner, parading him around as a woman, what's left?

Now you're saying it's okay. It's okay if you think you're a woman. It's okay if you don't feel like you're in the right body. As long as you line up with us politically, it's just, yeah, we'll make you a contributor.

And let's see, Humble Clay says, Fox News isn't conservative anymore. I've kind of noticed that when Rupert Murdoch gave the company to his kids, I think his kids are very, very liberal. And so I think they kind of took it in that direction, trying to get more center or more center left.

Andrew Graham says, let's not forget Fox sacked Tucker Carlson. Yeah, and the funny thing about that is when, did you see when Tucker did his live? I think it was on, I think he did it on YouTube or something.

But he did his live and it got, at the same time that was his prime slot at Fox, and he got more viewers than Fox did. I thought that was hilarious. But Tucker Carlson was very much kind of the reasonable conservative voice.

You kind of, when you listen to Tucker talk, you kind of hear some, almost some presuppositional apologetics in the way that he approaches arguments. Kathy says it was on Twitter. Yeah. And I think Twitter is actually coming out with a way to do lives like that.

I think Tucker was probably the first one that they, that they, that Elon Musk approached about doing that. But yeah. So if you follow Fox News, I'm sorry for you. They're not conservative anymore. They're not trying to conserve anything.

And really the Republican Party in itself is really trying to be their, uh oh, hold on. I think we got someone coming in. We do. I'm going to add him to the stream. Andrew Rappaport has joined us from his hotel room.

Andrew Rappaport Joins the Discussion on Abortion and Political Hypocrisy

Hey, how are you? Oh, you know, we're doing good. We're talking about lots of things on here. Oh, good. Miss anything fun? Oh, you know, we're just talking about abortion again, and I went through some Supreme Court cases that basically that how we arrived at the place we do where abortion is now birth control, and people are shouting to protect their right to kill babies.

Yeah, we've had a very interesting reaction you're seeing with the Supreme Court, because when the Supreme Court was ruling in favor of the left and basically against the Constitution, they were all happy about that.

And now, I mean, Joe Biden saying the court's not normal. It's like every time they don't get something that goes their way, well, we've got to pack the court. We've got to do something. It's like they can't get along with other people.

If it's not their way, they can't handle it.

Well, I came to this decision a couple years ago that really, if you look at Democrats and Republicans, there's really no difference because Democrats say we want to take your money now, and Republicans say we want to take your money, but we just want to do it over six years.

Yeah. Yeah.

It is an interesting thing. I remember when George W. Bush went through all the using his political capital to get the tax cuts passed, but he only did it for 10 years. So how much do you really believe in it, right?

Because if you're thinking, well, it's only for 10 years. I'll be out of office. Right. And so he won't have to deal with the ramifications of it. But if you really believe it's a good thing, then just push it to be made permanent.

Yeah.

Yeah. Now, we do have an important question here from Melissa. She says, Andrew, have they found the cause of you having double vision? No. I went to the eye doctor today.

So I went to an eye doctor, and he said, hey, because of the way it is, he said he thinks he can rule out that it's an aneurysm. But he's not sure. He still thinks I should go get an MRI just to be safe.

But I didn't have a lot of confidence in him because he was like, you know, I haven't dealt with this since when I went to school. So I was like, you know what, I called my other eye doctor, the one I used to have.

And she was like, tomorrow, call your primary, get an appointment, get a cardiogram, just make sure, rule out a stroke or anything like that. But she was more forceful than he was. So, yeah, that's what I plan to do.

I plan to get some appointments. You know, I'm in the process of my health care change. So I'm in the fun part where I am changing primary care physicians. It's always fun. But in February, I made an appointment for the earliest possible appointment, which is next month.