Radio Lux Lucet 126

2024 Presidential Election Preview

You're listening to Radio Looks Lucid. This is episode 126. Title of this episode is What is the title of this episode? I think I know what it is. This is the title of the episode. It's 2024 Presidential Election Preview.

I'm your host, Steve Matthews. Thanks for joining me here today. It's great to have everybody here on a Friday night. This is the fallback night, just to let everybody know. One of the few things that I like about going back to Eastern Standard Time is you do get a fallback.

You get that extra hour of sleep. I get an extra hour of sleep before I have to get up for church in the morning. I can just go on and on here tonight. I got tons of time because I get an extra hour of sleep.

Anyway, I hope you're doing well here today. I hope you've had a good day, a good Saturday, and enjoying your weekend and all those things. We're finally here, almost at the very eve of the big event.

Of course, I'm talking about Tuesday's presidential election here in the United States. This is something that I think a lot of us have thought a lot about, written a lot about. I think I've mentioned this here before, even on this podcast, that I have a friend of mine.

I don't know how we got into this exactly, but we always get together sometime in December, leading up to Christmas, for a lunch. He and I, we were sitting there last year and talking. He made the comment to me, he says, when we meet next year this time, he says, we could be living in a very different world.

I think a lot of us really do have that sense about this election, and have had that sense for some time. I think that there's a sense that there's some unfinished business from 2020, that there were things that went on, there was theft to that election that took place, that has never been dealt with adequately.

This has been one of the big concerns that a lot of people, including myself, have had is the fact that the Democrats were able to steal that election, in my opinion, and the fact that they've been able to make the fraud stick.

I think that's the thing that has maybe been even more disturbing, just the fact that they have made it happen. They made it stick, they got through all the legal challenges, they got Joe Biden inaugurated.

The only people who have been held accountable at all in that time, actually, were those people who were trying to address the issues of the fraud. They have been handed down, they have been prosecuted, some of them have been jailed.

Steve Bannon, I guess, he refused to appear before the January 6th Committee in the House, and they held him in contempt of Congress. He just got out from, I think it was a four-month prison sentence.

Some of Trump's lawyers have been indicted for bringing in, for questioning the election in 2020, things of that sort. So not only have the people that committed the fraud, have they not been punished, but the people who've tried to hold people accountable for committing the fraud, they're the ones who have been punished.

And that's a real problem. Because if you accept the thesis, which I do, that there was massive cheating that went on in the elections in 2024, or in 2020, rather, all those six battleground states, they all shut down the county at the same time, and then all of a sudden they reopened.

And magically, somehow, Joe Biden had been losing in these states, and he made this massive comeback and somehow won the election. Even though he spent all of his time, the months leading up to that, basically campaigning, if you want to call it that, from his basement.

And there were many things that were very, very suspicious about that whole 2020 election. Remember the Hunter Biden laptop, that whole story broke shortly before the election. And you had people from these deep staters, these intelligence agents, former intelligence agency people, they were coming out, there was a letter signed by 51 of them, I think it was, saying, well, this is all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.

And then, excuse me, then, of course, the social media companies of the time spiked the story. You couldn't comment on it on Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube. If you tried to do that, you got your post taken down, you could receive strikes, you could potentially be barred temporarily, or even permanently, from posting on these social media sites.

The New York Post, I think, yeah, the New York Post, because that was, that's a major American newspaper, and they're the ones that broke that story. And they had, I think, did they, I don't know if they had their account suspended on X, I don't know if that was the case, or if they just had that story spiked, I don't remember the details.

But, yeah, they got severely punished on social media, particularly, I recall, on Twitter, for breaking that story. You know, they were spreading misinformation. Well, it turned out it was true, you know, the Hunter Biden laptop was a true story.

And of course, the really important thing about the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't all the salacious stuff, you know, all of the kind of national inquiry kinds of things, you know, he's with pictures of him smoking crack, or he's with underage girls, and these are terrible things.

I don't mean to say that these are good things. But that was really kind of a distraction. Because the central, the big problem was all of the evidence that was contained on this laptop of basically Hunter Biden, well, that's appropriate, of Hunter Biden really serving as the bag man in funneling bribe money to the big guy.

And, of course, you know, he was always referred to as the big guy, and I can't possibly imagine who that would be, right? Yeah, I mean, you know, the Biden regime, I mean, Joe Biden, I mean, it was a great big, you know, influence peddling scandal.

And if it had been anybody else, you know, if it had been a Republican candidate, if it had been Donald Trump, I mean, he'd been in jail for 800 years. But Joe Biden can go out and he can engage in influence peddling, apparently to the tune of, you know, receiving millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments, and that's totally okay.

You know, we're down with that, that's a good thing, and we're gonna move forward with it. But anyway, so I wanted to dive in on a few things today, and just maybe talk about a few things that you don't always hear on podcasts.

I mean, there is quite a bit of analysis out there, some of it very, very good from independent journalists. I'm not talking about the mainstream type people. But there is a lot of interesting information that's out there put out by, you know, bloggers and YouTubers and, you know, independent journalists.

And sometimes it can be a little bit daunting, you say, well, you know, there's all these outlets and some really smart, talented people, people that, you know, whose work I respect. And yet at the same time, there are some angles to this election that are rarely if ever covered.

And that's one of the things I try to do, and one of the sort of the niche that I find myself in, you know, sort of reformed political commentary, but even more focused and reformed, of course, you know, as a scripturalist, as somebody who is, you know, believes in the system, the philosophical system of Gordon Clark, some of the teachings that John Robbins put out on politics and economics.

You know, and I try to do my commentary really from that scripturalist perspective, and that's not something that you hear very often, and it's something that I really enjoy doing. I've always kind of been a bit of a junkie for political commentary.

I think that goes back to even when I was a kid, I've always been interested in that. So I think there are some things that even though despite the fact that there's a lot of, I think, very good commentary that's out there, I think there's some angles to this election that are not often addressed.

So I'm going to try to address at least a few of those things today. Here's one of the first ones. I was in a Bible study the other day, and one of the gentlemen, it was a men's Bible study, and he raised this point, and he says, you know, one of the things that's amazing to me is that nobody's made a big deal about Kamala Harris being a woman, you know, and how, you know, one way or the other, there's just been no commentary on it.

And, of course, me being the, I guess, I don't know, theologically incorrect or politically incorrect or whatever you want to say, fuddy-duddy that I am, I said, well, you know, John Knox had something to say about that, and I immediately got looks of recognition.

Of course, they knew what I was talking about, and I further went on to say my editorial comment on John Knox is that he was right. And, of course, what I'm talking about here, and you may already know what I'm talking about if you're of a Reformed bent and you have a background in Reformed theology and Protestant theology, you know that John Knox wrote a very famous essay back in the day, and this is back in the 1500s, John Knox, which is a great Scottish Reformer, and the title of this essay, it's, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

And that title maybe needs a little bit of explanation for us because Knox is using the words monstrous and regiment in a way that probably we don't, more in a, maybe it's an archaic sense of the term, so usually in a way that probably we wouldn't use them today.

When he says monstrous regiment, what he means is unnatural government. So, it's the first blast of the trumpet against the unnatural government of women is what he's saying there. And in it, what he does is he argues that it is an error.

It actually is a lot more, he's a lot more emphatic than simply just to call it an error, but it's an error to have put a woman in charge of the civil government. And I think that he was exactly right.

You know, John Knox is just devastating in that article. It's really interesting to read through it, and it's the kind of thing that, I mean, Gary, I mean, it's going to offend a lot of people today if they were to read that, but I would really challenge them to think seriously about Knox's argument.

I'm not going to repeat his whole argument here. In fact, let me get this because there's a quote. I'm just going to read you one paragraph in here, and it'll kind of give you a flavor of John Knox. And I really hope you read it.

I'm going to put in the show notes, I'm going to put a link. There's John Robbins, he did an edition of The Monstrous Regiment of Women. He called it The Place of Women. And it was published back in 19, I think it was 1984.

And I don't know for sure if this is the reason, but I'm pretty sure, I guess I'm pretty sure that he published that in response to Walter Mondale's selection of Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate.

If you're old enough like me to remember 1984, you may recall that the Democrat presidential nominee that year, he ran against Reagan. But the Democrat nominee that year is Walter Mondale. And his running mate he chose was a woman named Geraldine Ferraro.

And that had been the first time in American history where a major party, now there'd been minor party female candidates, but this was the first time ever where you had a major party, Democrats or the Republicans, where you ever had a woman on a presidential ticket.

Now, she was the vice presidential nominee, the running mate, but yet she was still on the ticket. And that was a pretty big deal. And it was that year, I believe, that the Trinity Foundation published, I'm going to double-check that.

Yeah, it was published in August 1984 was when they did that. And so, I'm sure that this was done in response to Walter Mondale's selection. In fact, it probably was in July or August when the Democrats had their national convention, their nominating convention that year.

So, this was published right in... I'm sure this was published in response to that. But here's just a quote from John Knox. And this is what he says, quote, To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a thing most contrary to His revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally, it is the subversion of good order and of all equity and justice.

The revealed will and perfect ordinance of God do manifestly oppose that any woman shall reign or bear dominion over man. For God, first by order of His creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman by the reason of her rebellion, has pronounced the contrary.

This is so good, I'm going to read a little bit more of it here. And then Knox continues, he says,. First, I say that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him.

As St. Paul does reason in these words, man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And the man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of the man, and therefore ought the woman to have power upon her head, that is, a cover and sign of subjection.

Of which words it is plain that the apostle means that woman in her greatest perfection should have known the man was Lord above her, and therefore that she should never have pretended any kind of superiority above him, no more than do the angels above God the Creator, or above Christ Jesus their head.

So, I say that in her greatest perfection woman was created to be subject to man, that after her fall and rebellion committed against God, there was put upon her a new necessity, and she was made subject to man by the irrevocable sentence of God, pronounced in these words,.

And where greatly multiplied thy sorrow and thy conception, with sorrow shalt thou bear children, and thy will shall be subject to the man, and he shall bear dominion over thee. Hereby may such as altogether be not blinded plainly see that God, by his sentence, has ejected all women from empire and dominion above man.

End quote. Now, I could go on. Knox is really devastating in his argument. This is some really, I think it's actually some of the most powerful stuff that I have ever read from a Christian on any subject.

I mean, this is one of the greatest essays that any Christian has ever written, and yes, John Knox was right. And that is a really hard thing for people today to hear. I mean, that's going to offend almost everybody.

And yet, that is the situation in which we find ourselves today. And, you know, I mean, the very fact that you have a woman heading up a presidential ticket, this is the second time in just the last eight years.

Of course, Hillary Clinton ran in 2016. Now we have Kamala Harris. Now, that's a sign that there's something seriously wrong in the United States of America, that we're even entertaining this. And regardless of what the outcome of the election is on Tuesday, or, you know, who knows, we might not know for two months.

We should know by Tuesday, but, you know, that's a whole other can of worms there, with all the rigging, lying, cheating, and fraud that goes on, particularly from the Democrats, party of Romanism and rebellion, particularly from those guys.

Yeah, it's, who knows? I mean, I doubt seriously whether we're going to know what the results of the election are on Tuesday night as much as we should know those things. But, I mean, the very fact that we're even entertaining this idea that we would have a woman president is a, shows how devolved the United States of America has become in terms of its Christian understanding of politics.

This is a Protestant republic. You know, one of the things I learned from Christian Pinto, he does Noise of Thunder Radio, and he's a documentary filmmaker, a really very talented researcher. And, you know, he, in some of his programs, he's talked about a speech that Samuel Adams gave prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

And one of the comments that Samuel Adams made, he said this, he said, today, the reign of political Protestantism will begin. And, you know, so, I mean, you have, the United States of America has always been a Protestant republic.

If you want to know, well, what is political Protestantism? Well, take a look at the Declaration of Independence, take a look at our Constitution, take a look at the Bill of Rights. And if you want to go back before that, you even go back to the Magna Carta.

You know, it's the idea that the government, you know, one of the big ideas is that the government is also subject to the law of God. You know, that sovereigns are not sovereign. I mean, they don't have a right to just make up right and wrong all on their own.

But those who are in authority are also subject to the word of God. They're God's minister, which means they do not have their authority originally, but they have their authority given to them by God.

And because they have their authority given to them by God, they are subject to the law of God. They don't have the right to just go out and do whatever they want to do. They don't have a right to lie, cheat, and steal, and murder.

They don't have a right to do these things. Although many people seem to think that they do have a right to do those things, but those people are not thinking, they don't have a Christian political theory.

But yeah, I mean, our nation was founded as a Protestant republic. And yeah, we have devolved very greatly over the past almost, well, you know, I guess in a couple years we'll be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, but we have fallen very far.

And I want to kind of actually come back to that idea. In fact, why don't we talk a little bit about that right now? Well, tell you what, before I go on to that, I just want to say this. Talking there a little bit about John Knox, there was a really a good presentation that was put out, and really, I guess you almost call it a summary of Knox's argument.

It was put out by Paul Elliott with the Teaching the Word Ministries, and there's about a six-minute YouTube video that was put out by him and by his organization. I'm going to put a link in the show notes to that, so it's a really good summary.

Paul Elliott, if you don't know Dr. Paul Elliott, he is a Christian, he is a teacher, Bible teacher, very sound in his thinking. He did a lot of work for the Trinity Foundation. I know he was friends with John Robbins, and someone whose work I respect a lot.

And I think that it's really a very good piece that he puts out. And again, it's sort of, I would call it a summary of John Knox's argument. And Paul Elliott, he answers a lot of questions in this, you know, maybe questions people might have, okay, well, what about this or what about that?

And he addresses those in this video, and it's only about six minutes long. I think he does a really good job presenting that argument against the idea of a female president. In fact, the title of it is A Woman President Biblical, and the answer he gives unequivocally is no, no, it's not.

And I think that might shock a lot of Christians too, because I think there are a lot of Christians who would say, well, you know, it just all depends upon her qualifications and well, no, that's actually not the correct view.

And again, I'll leave it to Paul Elliott to make that argument. I think he does a good job of it. So, and as I said, I'll put a link to the show notes for you for that particular video. You know, there was a video too, and I know I've written some about this, but some blog posts a few years ago, in fact, I think I did it back in 2016 when Hillary was running.

But there is a, back, I think it was in 1980 or around there, Ayn Rand, the objectivist philosopher, she was on the Phil Donahue show, interesting. Phil Donahue did some really, actually some very interesting stuff, some serious stuff.

And he had her on, I think on multiple occasions, excuse me. And she got on there and she said that she would not vote for a woman president. And that a good woman would not think about running for president or wanting to be commander in chief.

And the audience was really offended. I mean, the audience had filled with a bunch of feminists, this is back in 1980. And they were very hostile in their reaction to what Ayn Rand said. Now, Ayn Rand, she was an atheist, but she was closer to the mind of God on that subject than many people who are evangelicals.

You could find probably, I would say most even conservative Christian ministers might hem and haw around that particular question if somebody asked them, is a woman president biblical? And there'd probably be a lot of, like I say, hemming and hawing from people who claim to be followers of Christ, and maybe they are.

I shouldn't say that someone is not a Christian just because they don't give the right answer to the question, is a woman president biblical? But the correct, the only correct answer to that is no, no, it's not.

But there are a lot of people I think that would probably be a little bit afraid to be that direct about it, but we need to be direct about it. I think feminism is really one of the most destructive, one of the most dehumanizing philosophies that has ever gained widespread acceptance.

I mean, it really attacks us in a very fundamental way that I don't know if there's any other philosophy or way of thinking out there that's destructive to the degree that feminism is. I mean, it's just pure poison, and it has disordered modern society to such a degree that we're barely functioning.

And I really do believe that a lot of the, a huge amount of the problems that we have in the West is as a result of adopting that particular philosophy. And it's everywhere. I mean, you can't get away from it.

And unfortunately, it's even seeped into evangelical churches to some degree. So, enough about that. A few other things here. Let's see, what time, how long we've been going here? Oh, goodness. I've already eaten up half an hour, and I'm just getting warmed up here.

Oh, you know, a few other things about this, the presidential contest. Let's see, I want to do a little screen share here. And let's take a look. No, that's not what we want to do. This is what we want to do.

All right, here we go. Let's make sure I did this right. Okay, so there we go. All right, so now here is something that's, I think, interesting. This is actually a tweet that was put out by Elon Musk.

Was that today? Yeah, actually, that was today. And it's just a summary of the media coverage of Harris and Trump and the kind of quality of the coverage that both candidates have gotten. According to this, the headline here, it says, The Legacy Media's Election Interference.

And it lists ABC, CBS, and NBC, so the big three television networks. And according to this coverage, Kamala Harris, 84 of the coverage she's received from these three outlets has been positive. So it's been, you know, rah, rah, Kamala.

Go Kamala. You're awesome, Kamala. Isn't Kamala just the most awesome thing you've ever seen? Yeah. You know, it's amazing how the media machine has gone into full swing to make her the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So 84 of her coverage they've considered to be positive. And for Donald Trump, on the other hand, 89 of his coverage has been negative. So it's almost a mirror image. And let's see if I can blow this thing up a little bit.

Who was... Okay, so it cites as a source, it says, Based on the Media Research Center analysis of ABC, CBS, and NBC news coverage of the 2024 presidential election. And it gives the July 21st to August 17th, 2024.

So, you know, roughly that month period, that one month period. So, you know, who knows, maybe it's a little bit different, you know, over the past couple months, but I doubt it's probably that much different.

That's probably a pretty constant number. You know, orange man bad, that's been the message from legacy media now for, you know, for nine years. I mean, Donald Trump, you know, he famously came down the escalator there at Trump Tower with Melania.

And that was, I think, in June of 2015. So it's been over nine years since that took place. I mean, I remember that. And it's just hard to believe we just had this just anti-Donald Trump media harangue for the past nine years.

And it's just nonstop. And it's an amazing thing to watch. So yeah, I mean, that's not surprising that those numbers are that skewed. I mean, I would say that just kind of just going from my own experiences, I think those are very believable numbers.

Now, there was, in fact, there was a Bible study this morning, some discussion came up about this. There was a Christianity Today article that has, it's got the headline, it's called, voting is important to me.

That's why this year, I won't vote. And it's by this fellow named Robert Postick. And he's a political scientist who is a Christian. And anyway, he writes through this. And then basically, he says, a plague on both your houses, you know, both Kamala and Donald Trump are so bad, I'm not going to vote for either one.

Now, I will say this, just withholding consent, not voting for either candidate, that actually is a legitimate decision. I know even Gordon Clark talked about that in his logic book. He says, you know, you don't have to pick one or the other.

If both of them are bad, you can withhold your consent as a voter. And that is completely legitimate. So, it is a legitimate Christian stance to not vote for either candidate if you don't believe either candidate is up to the job.

Now, I don't agree with Robert Postick's analysis. And there was an article that was written by Owen Strachan in response to this. It was published by the Dobson Culture Center. I apologize. I've kind of got hiccups right now for whatever reason.

I just came out of nowhere. Let's see here. I'm just kind of going through this. Now, I want to take a look. We'll just read through a little bit of it here. This is Strachan writing. He says, quote, according to Christianity Today, the American presidential election does not represent a binary choice.

So, argued Robert Postick in a Christianity Today essay titled, voting is important to me. That's why this year I won't vote. And in his article, Postick cited Dr. James Dobson in support of his position.

Let's see here. So, let's see. I thought there was a good paragraph. Let me just a second here. Okay. I'll just read this paragraph. This again, this is Strachan talking. He says this, quote, we have perplexing choices to make in life.

Every husband sent to the grocery store knows this in abundance. However, the 2024 presidential election is no elusive quest for a spouse or peanut butter. In our judgment, it is a binary choice because of policy.

One major candidate has a record of support for unborn babies, religious liberty, the natural free marriage, the free market, national border security, legal citizenship, and global peace through strength.

The record of the other major candidates stands against these biblical principles. So, end quote. So, you know, I would have, you know, I would say that Strachan is on target with his remarks here. You know, it's one of the things with Donald Trump, and I've been castigated by some people for, you know, for saying, how can you as a Christian support Donald Trump?

You know, he's, you know, he's been divorced and he's been involved in all these things. You know, he's a casino owner. I mean, Donald Trump is not a perfect guy, and I'm not here to defend every single thing Donald Trump has ever said or anything else, everything he's ever done.

But I will say this about him. In watching him over the years and listening to him, I would classify him as a political Protestant. I think he's an inconsistent political Protestant, but he is a political Protestant.

And I really do think that that gets to the heart of why certain people hate him so much. Because one of the, and this is the thing that just absolutely just drives the globalist types, just makes them apoplectic, is that he actually does believe in the Westphalian world order.

He believes in the idea of Westphalian sovereignty. You know, that is the idea that the nation state is the highest level of government, and essentially that a nation state is a legal person in international law.

And you cannot, you know, one nation does not have a right to invade another nation or to interfere in the internal politics of another nation. It's basically the Westminster sovereignty or the Westminster world order is a global system of nation states that are there to cooperate with one another, that have rights as a legal person, and they have an exclusive right to to, you know, that the governments of these nation states have an exclusive right to set policy within the nation's borders without being interfered with from the outside.

This was something in the Westphalian sovereignty, the Westphalian world order was developed, was developed or came out of the Thirty Years' War, which went from 1618 to 1648. It was settled by the Peace of Westphalia, and it established the modern world.

And what it was, it was actually the Protestants fighting against the Roman Catholics that wanted to tell them how to run things. And these Protestant countries said, we don't want, you know, we don't want the Pope bossing us around anymore.

And they had this pan-European war. The Protestant forces of the countries were known as the Allies. And I believe, I haven't checked this out, but I'm pretty sure that that's where that term, you know, we talk about World War II, for instance, we talk about the Axis powers and the Allied powers, where I believe that that's where that term came from.

It originated back in the Thirty Years' War. You know, the Protestants were the Allied powers. It was a pan-European war. It went on for 30-some years. It was extremely destructive. And yet, in the end, the good guys won.

And it ended papal power in the victorious nations. The Pope could no longer boss these nations around. So, it was a great victory for liberty. And one of the things about the Westphalian world order is that by having a multitude of independent nation-states, it's a bulwark against tyranny.

If you think in history, you know, the great tyrannies have always been these, in most cases, have been these large empires that just absorbed, you know, many, many nations, you know, many people groups, you know, many languages and peoples and tribes and tongues, what have you, they were all subsumed under this great imperial power.

And these powers tend to be abusive. Well, when you have a multitude of nation-states that are, you know, each with an independent government, those can be, those are a very strong bulwark against centralized abusive power, which, of course, is something that Antichrist, the Antichrist Roman Church, they love that stuff.

And I really do believe, and I said this before, and I'll say this again here now, that really what you're seeing, this whole fight between globalists and nationalists, that's usually the way it's posited today, what you're seeing is you're seeing a fight between geopolitical Protestantism and geopolitical Romanism.

Geopolitical Protestantism is the Westphalian world order, an order of independent nation-states. The globalists, you know, the new world order, you know, whatever you want to call them, that is geopolitical Romanism.

And these are opposing ideas and they're in conflict. Well, Donald Trump believes in the Westphalian world order. I've never heard him actually talk about the Westphalian world order explicitly, but if you listen to his statements over the years, that's what he's describing.

You know, national border security is one part of this, you know, that you can't just have millions of people come pouring across your border and then you're expected to feed, clothe, house them, and provide jobs for them, and rob your own people to do this.

You know, that sort of migrant invasion, that's political Romanism. I talked about that last week in my Reformation Day talk. I called it anti-Christ irredentist immigration assault on America. Irredentism is Jesuit immigration warfare, and that's what we're experiencing here in the United States, and not just in the United States, but throughout the Western world.

And it's this attempt by Rome to subvert the United States and other independent nation-states and fold them into this giant globalist empire. That's what's going on with this. Now, that's why you're seeing these migrant invasions.

They're doing this to capture the United States and these other countries for Rome. That's what's going on. So yeah, I mean, Donald Trump, he's a political Protestant, and it just absolutely just makes these globalist types just apoplectic.

They can't process it. So Donald Trump gets a lot of things right, these kind of big-picture issues. For all of his faults, he gets these things right. And I have never seen anybody just evoke the kind of just raw hatred against himself that Donald Trump does.

Now, you can say, okay, sometimes he's indelicate in things he says and that, but even if he were the most polite gentleman, people would just despise the man because of some of his ideas. You know, the idea that the United States does not have an obligation to be overrun by migrant hordes, by the Pope's migrant hordes.

And there are some people that just cannot, they can't handle that. They get totally triggered. You know, that's what they call that, that's where that Trump derangement syndrome so-called comes from.

And that's a real thing. You know, I mean, I used to think that that was kind of a joke, but I mean, I really do think, I mean, there are people that just cannot handle Donald Trump's ideas. They are so offensive to them that they can't, just can't process it.

So anyway, you got that going on. So yeah, I think that it would be a mistake for Christians to sit this out. I think we should be voting. And I think, I do believe the best choice, I didn't say a perfect choice, but I do believe the best choice is Donald Trump.

I think that if Kamala Harris does get in there, that she is going to be an accelerationist to the downside. You're going to see a significant acceleration of the decline of the United States of America, the loss of liberty.

You're going to see, you know, you think the migrant crisis has been bad so far. I mean, I think it's going to get worse. You know, in this country can't stand, can't take, can't take this. I mean, this is just unsustainable.

And of course, that's the whole idea. The people that are doing this, they don't want it to be sustainable. They want to collapse the system and they want to remake this country in their own image. And that's not an image that's going to be friendly to life and to liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all, to quote the Declaration of Independence.