Christian Nationalist Secrets Exposed!?! - Cody Libolt Tweet

All right, all right, let's begin. This is a video about a

Cody Liebolt tweet, which I know a lot of you in my audience don't care for Cody very much, but I actually do.

I think Cody's a good guy, and I like Cody. I don't approve of many of his tweets, obviously, but, got a wintergreen one for today.

But I do think he's a good guy, and I think it comes from a good place. And in fact, I will say this, my father likes

Cody Liebolt's tweets quite a bit. Not all of them, of course, but one time he shared with me one of Cody's, it was some kind of tweet that I was involved in in some way, and he thought it was funny, so there you go.

I think Cody's funny, too. I don't know, I mean, he doesn't bring the same kind of humor that I do, but I quite often laugh at some of the things that he posts, not in a derisive way, like I actually am laughing with him, but in any case,

I thought I'd respond to this, because I think he's onto something here, although I don't agree with it in its entirety.

Here's what Cody Liebolt says. Christian nationalism, the state of the debate. The discussion has degenerated.

I guess I could see why he would say that. I disagree. I think the conversation is good, and I think it's in a healthy place, and if you think this has degenerated,

I think that there's a lot lower it could go, I'll tell you that much, but in any case, as far as I know, he says, none of the

Christian nationalists has so far stood up and said, hey, we have some problems on our side. In my opinion, the

Christian nationalists deserve no more public interaction at this point, not a single one of them.

That is quite a statement, but that's okay. I'm okay with that. You don't have to interact with our stuff.

That's really not a problem. I think it would be good if he interacted with our stuff. I think it would be beneficial.

I think that taking this position assures that the discussion will degenerate, but it's okay with me because I don't have a problem with you, whether or not you take me seriously or you don't care or whatever.

It all serves my purposes, so I'm okay. All right, let's continue. He says, you would be justified to block them all and completely ignore their requests for public dialogue.

Again, really, I mean, again, he seems to be worried about the discussion degenerating. I don't really see how that solves anything, but hey, it's just my opinion, of course.

He continues, he says, the best move at this point is to privately try to reason with our brothers in error. Well, at least he considers us brothers, and I really do appreciate that because that is not a given these days.

It's not a given, and so my hats go off to Cody Leibel. He says, try to help them see more context and at least slow down the rate of the errors they are making.

Try to be a peacemaker and connect with people who have had a falling out. Try to show what they are missing as they overreach in their claims.

I think all of that is good advice. There is not going to be a peace, and that is okay.

I'm sorry, he says, here is where I am at with this. There is not going to be peace, and that is okay.

For the most part, the Christian nationalism guys lack wisdom and self -awareness. Most of them have little idea why their critics are concerned, and they are not curious to find out.

I think we know a lot more about why our opponents are concerned, and I don't think we really care about that because here's the thing,

Doug Wilson in the most recent Room for Nuance thing says, we all have our audience, right?

We all have our audience, and we know that when we have a specific audience, we're going to make people fussy that are not in that audience.

They're not going to hear it. They're not going to like it. They're not going to give us a hearing, and that's okay. We have our particular audience, and so a lot of the critics of Christian nationalism just really aren't my audience.

It's just as simple as that, so I do know why the critics are concerned, and I'm okay with that.

All right, they have no idea just how much of an upper hand their critics have in the debate.

We have been holding back because we care about the reputations of many of these men, and we care about their hearts.

Often, a godly man would rather be wrong than trying to seek justice against someone who insulted him, but we also have to be people who tell the truth.

The discussion has played out, and tragically, we have seen that the hearts of many or most of the Christian nationalism guys are committed to this foolishness.

We are probably not able to save them from the errors they are making, either about the issues themselves or about how to discuss the issues in a mature way.

Yeah, so Michael O 'Fallon said something like this on Twitter to me today where he says that he tried to tell me about all of the problems in the movement that I've aligned myself with, and I didn't listen.

That's what he says. I didn't listen. I pleaded. He says this a lot to different people. I pleaded with you, Doug, to do this and that, and you didn't listen, and that's not really the truth.

Now, Michael did actually reach out to me and to try to convince me to not be a Christian nationalist anymore because of the nefarious things that were going on behind the scenes and all this kind of stuff, and we talked for like an hour, maybe even more than that, and I did listen.

I did listen, but I didn't do what he wanted me to do, and in his mind, that's not listening, right?

I mean, I did listen, but the problem was that his argument was full of innuendos that were very strange and a lot of weird assumptions and nefarious things, and I mean,

I have no way to know if they're real or not. I mean, there just wasn't a convincing case, and furthermore,

I haven't really aligned myself with anybody in any meaningful fashion, with the exception of the

Moscow guys because, of course, I'm on their podcast network, but I was on their podcast network even before I knew who

Michael was, and maybe that's not true, but right around the same time, and I've always been a theonomist.

I've never not, as long as you've known me in my audience, I've always been a theonomist. I don't really talk about it because I don't really care so much for the terms.

I mean, you can call me a theonomist, and I'm not offended, but I don't need to own that. I'm not trying to convince people to be a theonomist with me and all of that, and my views on theonomy really haven't changed all that much.

I'm not as wooden as I used to be when it comes to theonomy, and I'm less of a Christian reconstructionist than I used to be, but basically,

I believe the same things. As long as you've known me, I believe that blasphemy laws are good and that we should have blasphemy laws, for example, among other things, and I've never tried to hide it.

I've always been open about it. I don't lead with it often, but we'll get to that in a minute, why I wouldn't lead with stuff like that, but it's out there.

I mean, we publicly say these kinds of things, and we have for a very long time, so it's like you try to convince me to not be a theonomist anymore, and then

I don't do what you say. That's not really the same thing as not listening, so anyway, we'll continue.

So he says, what that leaves is this. Pull back the front line. Man -to -man discussion and debate in public has been tried.

It is no longer a priority. I'm not so sure that that's actually true, but it's okay.

He says, call in the air support. It is time to start telling the full story here. What is the full story?

A lot of the leading Christian nationalists believe in positions that if they were clearly stated would alienate them from ordinary

Christians in churches across the country. It is time to bring these positions to light.

He makes it seem like it's very nefarious, like these are things that we're secretive about and all of that, and it's just not the case at all.

I mean, I've always believed that adultery should be criminalized, that sodomy should be criminalized.

I've always believed that as long as you've known me and have never hidden it, I don't talk about it all the time because it's not appropriate to talk about all the time.

It doesn't make sense to talk about it all the time. It's not the right context for it all the time. And then there's also another thing that kind of, we'll talk about it in a minute, that is a reason why you don't talk about it all the time.

It's not about a Mott and Bailey. It's not about a bait and switch. It's about prudence and what is prudent for right now.

This is why I'm no longer like a wooden theonomist as much as I used to be anyway. But he tries to make it seem really nefarious.

If only they were honest about this. We write books about this. We write books about this. We do hundreds of videos about this.

We tweet about it all the time. It's not that this is weird, nefarious thing or we're being real secretive about it and we don't tell anybody.

It's very, very bizarre to present it this way. And it's, Cody, you've asked me to say, to tell you where you're not being fair.

I think it's stuff like this that you're not being fair because you make it seem like it's this sort of hidden, weird, secretive agenda.

And really, it isn't. It's very public. It's very open. We're very honest about it.

I've done video after video. I've done my own videos. I've done other people's videos. You ask me about this,

I'll be honest with you. And that's pretty much true across the board. Across the board.

But we'll get into this. Here's the positions. Here's the positions. He says, it's not hard to defend traditional

Americanism and to show that Christian nationalism is incompatible with it. That is where I see the discussion going next.

As far as ministry partnerships and willingness to engage in friendly debate, I think that time has passed. The Christian nationalists deserve to be in an ideological ghetto.

They deserve to be a byword. And that is what they are going to be. It is time to bring up the issues that will expose these men for how foolish they are.

These are the issues right here. These are the issues that are gonna expose how foolish we are.

And I really just don't understand why that has to be the way it is. Hold on one second. Hold on one second.

All right, I'm back, I'm back. I just had to take a work call right there. All right, here are some major critiques against the

Christian nationalists that I am willing to start focusing on. Many of them seem to advocate the following.

So these are the things that he finds extremely objectionable that show how foolish we are.

So the first one, executing gays. Now, you know,

Cody, I do believe that Cody wants to be fair. And so I'm gonna correct you,

Cody, and we'll see if you take the correction. But it's not the case that Christian nationalists want to execute gays.

What we do want, though, is we want an acknowledgment that homosexual sexual acts are not an inalienable right, and they never have been, and they never will be.

You could find that nowhere in nature. You could find that nowhere in the scripture.

It's not something that's real. The right to sodomize each other is not an inalienable right.

Nothing would make you think that. And so, yes,

I think that in the ideal situation, sodomy and perverted sexual acts, we can just kind of all put that in the same bucket for right now.

I mean, obviously, you've got to be specific, but this is not a comprehensive list here, should be banned, should be outlawed, should be criminalized in the ideal world.

Now, often people don't lead with that kind of thing because we also have to consider prudence, right?

So if I became the emperor of the United States today, the kinds of acts that I would probably look at first would be at the very least to stop celebrating it by the order of law.

So we wouldn't have Gay Month, and we wouldn't fly pride flags, and all of that kind of thing.

And then I think what we should do is we should look at the law code and look at ways to incentivize traditional families, traditional sexual unions, and not recognize in any way, according to the law, perverted sexual unions and things like that.

So we could do those things, and I think it would be very prudent to do those immediately. And then

I think you've got to let the states do their thing, right? You've got to let the states do their thing. And I think that it's very clear that we should allow for states to criminalize homosexual acts.

And this doesn't mean you put a camera in, because a lot of times people like Cody will say, well, that would require a surveillance state, and secret police, and cameras in every bedroom.

And none of that, none of that. You don't need any of that stuff. You don't need any of that stuff. It's more about things done publicly, things celebrated, things promoted.

And that's what it's really about. So no, you wouldn't need to do that. And so if two guys decided to do the thing privately, and they didn't tell anybody about it, and it was kept in the back alleys, and in secret, they'd be fine, they'd be fine.

But the minute that people start to flaunt it, and start to be open about it, that has a degenerative effect on a nation, and so that can't be allowed.

And so there's an issue of prudence here, right? What is doable and good to do right now, versus what is the ideal situation?

I think a lot of problems happen when you start talking about ideal situations versus reality, and you need to weigh that.

That's what wisdom is, right? You need to consider that kind of stuff. So no, you've made a mistake here.

It's not about executing gays. So I would trust that you won't make that mistake again, Cody, because that's really not what we advocate for.

When it comes to criminalizing, and executions, and things like that, the specifics would be the act of sodomy, not being gay.

Banning atheism. I think it's the same thing here. Banning atheism, how could you even do that?

Banning, like, you can't get into someone's mind to see if they're an atheist or not. But what we can do is we can, again, have no special celebration for atheists, not allow promotion of atheism, and things of that nature.

So again, it doesn't require a secret, you know, monitoring, or anything like that. It's just about, look, you don't have a seat at the table here.

We don't care what your atheist book of wisdom says when it comes to deciding what we should do as a nation.

We don't care, because the governing authority is supposed to work for God, is supposed to serve

God, is supposed to be a deacon of God, for executing vengeance upon the evildoer, and to praise what is good.

Like, this is what the governing bodies are for. And so atheists don't get a seat at that table, because who cares what an atheist thinks you should do?

You should only be concerned with what God says you should do, what God says you should praise, and what

God says you should punish. That should be the concern. And so banning atheism, and this is a very strange one there,

Cody. I think you should be corrected there as well. Banning atheism, most Christian nationalists want to ban atheism?

No, but they do want to suppress it. They don't want atheists to have a seat at the table. We don't care what atheists think a government should do, because who cares what some random person who is so foolish that they can't even acknowledge the creator of the universe.

They're the prototype of a fool. I think it would be foolish to allow the prototype of a fool to have a seat at the table of what you should do as a nation.

So it's not about banning atheism, but it is about suppressing their influence on your culture, because they're fools.

So there's a second correction. Ending free speech. Now again, the way you frame this isn't quite right.

Most of us are pro -free speech, but we also acknowledge, as the founders did, as the courts did for decades and decades and decades and decades and decades up until the 20th century, that blasphemy was not part of that.

That wasn't the intention of the amendment. It wasn't the intention of the government.

It wasn't the intention of the people who created the amendment and who ratified the amendment. That wasn't the intention.

And so I think it's better to go back to the intention. And so blasphemy is not a part of that.

I think that's what he's talking about here. None of us say we want to end free speech, but we do want to acknowledge that blasphemy and things like pornography should not count as far as that, as far as that goes.

Removing the women's right to vote. Removing women's right to vote.

Yeah, so this is a good one, because a lot of Christian nationalists think that the 19th Amendment was not such a great idea.

Not such a great idea. And I agree, I'm one of them. I'm one of them. This is something that, again, Cody frames this as we've been very secretive about.

We're not really clear about this. We're not really honest about this. This is something I've said on video numerous times.

I mean, I can't count how many times. I've said this numerous times, and many of us say this publicly and openly all the time.

So I just, I really don't appreciate the framing. I think you're being dishonest, Cody. And so now I'm correcting you, so hopefully you won't make this mistake ever again.

But yeah, this is one of those things with prudence though, right? Because I don't think the 19th Amendment was good. But at the same time,

I understand that that, we're like 10 steps away from getting to a point where that would be a good idea to implement right away, where we, you know, maybe we should repeal this one.

This one was no bueno, not a good idea. Let's go ahead and do a do -over on that one. We're so far away from that being the case.

I think we're closer than you think, Cody. But we're pretty far away, in my opinion. So that's not something that you lead with, because it's not something that's prudent for right now.

It doesn't really make sense right now. But it is the way it should be.

A lot of us would agree with that. So if I was emperor for the day, well, I guess if I was emperor for the day, we wouldn't have voting anyway.

But would I remove the 19th Amendment? I'm not so sure I would. Yeah, maybe.

Yeah, because I'm emperor. There's a thought experiment here, Cody. You'll have to bear with me.

I don't really know what I would do. Then again, I'm not advocating to become emperor for the day, so there you go.

He says, replacing the current government. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, so you'll have to bear with me.

But yeah, the government as it exists today is no bueno. No bueno.

I'm not a revolutionary, so I don't believe in that kind of thing. But yeah, I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to replace the government as it exists today.

And you, as a libertarian, I think ought to understand this. So I'm not saying that you should I'm not so sure about that one,

Cody. It's a little bit vague, so I'm just gonna go ahead and let it slide. I think we agree on that one, though. Installing an authoritarian

Christian government. So again, it's not really about being an authoritarian

Christian government, because I happen to believe that a Christian government would be a government of freedom, a government of liberty.

Obviously, liberty defined, of course, by the Lord, and what he says a government should do.

So yes, the government should be Christian. I mean, I'll be honest,

Cody, it's a little perplexing that you would attempt to frame this as something that we're not clear about.

Christian nationalists want a Christian government. We haven't been so clear on that one.

Cody, I don't think that you're really thinking that one through, that Christian nationalists have been unclear that we want a

Christian government. That is beyond bizarre,

Cody. And I happen to think you're quite intelligent. I happen to respect your intelligence. I don't understand this one, though.

This one boggles my mind that you would say this is one of those things we've been unclear, and if we were only clear, it would show how foolish we are.

That's what you said, foolish, we'd be exposed. This is a weird one,

Cody, because I think we've been pretty clear about all of these, but this one in particular, when

I read it, I just kind of was like, what is going on here? What is the purpose of this?

It doesn't make sense, Cody, to say that Christian nationalists have been unclear that we want a

Christian government. Now, you might think that that would be authoritarian.

I don't know why you would think that. I don't think it would be authoritarian, but we want a

Christian government. On that point, I think we've been pretty clear. We'll move on to the next one.

Tolerance toward advocates of kinism and racial separation. Tolerance toward advocates of kinism and racial separation.

I think if I'm being generous here, what he means is that we aren't calling them out all the time.

We're not breaking fellowship with them. We're not saying they're the worst people in the world and all that kind of stuff, because he said the word tolerance, and that can mean a few different things.

So I think that's what he means, and that is true. You know what I mean? I don't look at the kinists and the racial separatists as the untouchables.

I really don't, and in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to do that, because I'm not a kinist.

I think that's pretty clear. I'm not one of these segregationists, but I also acknowledge that throughout history and even today, many nations are ethno -states.

They're ethno -states. Israel is an ethno -state. Japan is an ethno -state.

Ethiopia is an ethno -state. These are great countries. These are great nations that, well, depending on who you ask,

I guess, depending on who you ask, and they've got their prerogatives, and they can do what they want to do, and I don't see any reason to say, well, those

Japanese, man, those guys, I mean, they're the worst people in the world. I got to separate myself from those

Japanese. I have no reason to do that. It doesn't make sense to. So, yeah,

I think this is what he means by tolerance towards advocates of kinism and racial separation. I think that people that are kinists are mistaken, but it's not like,

I'm supposed to treat them as the unwashed. I'm supposed to treat them as lepers, essentially, and I don't really see a reason to do that because if I was required to do that, you would think that you'd find some kind of instruction for doing that, and I just don't see that.

I really don't. I've talked to kinists, and I know what they believe, and I don't agree with some of the things they believe, but at the end of the day,

I also recognize that they're not saying, oh, yeah, you see those blacks over there?

I mean, they can't even be saved. They're not, they can't even be, they can't even be welcome to the table.

They don't say that, or at least not all of them. At least the ones I've talked to, I guess. So anyway,

I mean, listen, I think you'll find a lot more tolerance of these two things amongst

Christian nationalists than you will amongst the non -Christian nationalists. I think that's beyond dispute, but I guess what

I'm wondering is how does this show how foolish we are? And also, how are we, again, how are we hiding this?

This is, again, this is something we've been very clear on many times. I'm not really sure. But he goes on, he says, these are positions that many

Christian nationalists seem to hold, especially if you look at their leading voices. If I am misunderstanding them,

I hope some thoughtful brother will appear on the screen to point out my errors. I think I just did.

But this is where the conversation needs to go. The discussion needs to go. Are the Christian nationalists indeed advocating those things?

Do they believe that if we disagree, we are sinning? Because if that is their position, then they are more than fools.

They are sinfully divisive and ought to be treated as such. I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching that you have learned.

Keep away from them, for such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the minds of naive people.

Romans 16, verses 17 through 18. Very interesting.

Very interesting to end with something like that, especially considering how you started, which is like, we need to no longer engage them, no longer talk to them, block them even.

Like, I don't know about you, but that seems pretty divisive to me. And then to also kind of frame it the way you've done it here and make numerous errors in what you said, it just does not seem like divisiveness is really something you're all that concerned with.

Now, I don't really care because I don't actually think that that being divisive, but also to kind of frame us that we're being divisive, right?

We're being divisive because we advocate these things and we don't like it when you disagree.

We think maybe that you're in sin if you disagree. Yeah, because I do think that if you don't think that God was right to say that sodomy should be punishable, a criminal offense, blasphemy should be a criminal offense.

I think, yeah, I think that you're in error and I think that that's sinful to think that God somehow got that one wrong.

I think that is sinful, but I understand that it's not like the order of sinful of actually doing the sodomy yourself.

There's orders, there's degrees, there's things like that. I think that people that don't baptize babies are in sin, but at the same time,

I don't let that ruin the unity that we have in Christ, because I understand why you think that.

I understand you're trying to do the right thing. You think you've got good arguments and I can understand why you might make an error like that.

And so I think we can do better than don't engage them, block them, they haven't earned the right to speak to us.

We must expose them for these things they've been clear about since the beginning. Like, I think we can do better than that.

That's just my opinion. I think you can do better than that, Cody. And quite frankly, I think you have been doing better with this, because I used to be blocked by you and I'm not anymore.

And I do appreciate that. I think it's a sign of respect and I appreciate so many of your tweets and I like seeing them.

But if you choose to go ahead and block me again, you know, I'm not gonna stay up at night over it, but yeah, that would be unfortunate.

That would be unfortunate. And it would seem awfully divisive, at least in my opinion, you know, to treat someone that way.

But yeah, I mean, yeah, I guess I'll stop there. In any case,

I hope you found this video helpful. God bless. All right, so it's the next day.

I was reviewing the video response I did to Cody's declaration of,

I guess the second stage of the war as he sees it. And I thought

I wanted to add something to you, Cody, because once again,

I wanna be totally clear, like I tweeted this as well. Go for it, you know what I mean? Don't worry about my reputation when it comes to the 19th

Amendment or any of the things on that list, because those are things that I've been very open about.

I've spoken on numerous times. These are things that I've believed, maybe not all of them, but most of them.

Since you've known me, Cody, I've believed all of these things. And I think you know that, especially when it comes to things like criminalizing homosexuality or adultery and things like that.

You and I have a little bit of a history there that I'm not gonna get into here. So you know that I've believed that kind of thing for a very long time.

But don't worry about my reputation, because I'm not. If I was worried about my reputation, I either,

A, wouldn't believe those things, or B, I wouldn't be public about them all the time, right?

But I felt like I wanted to add something. That's why I'm doing this follow -up. It's not just me that's like this,

Cody, because here's the thing. You want to go DEF CON 5 on this and expose our secret beliefs, or at least our not -so -clear beliefs, which

I don't understand why you think any of those things are not that clear. It could be,

Cody, that what you mean is we're not clear by framing it the way you frame it.

And again, that's really not honest either, because I would never say, and I don't believe, that I want to end inalienable rights.

What's clear, though, Cody, is that I don't think that the inalienable rights that you believe in are actually even rights at all.

There's no right to sodomy, whether alienable or inalienable. There's no right to blasphemy, whether alienable or inalienable.

There's no right to distribute and produce pornographic materials, whether alienable or inalienable, right?

So we disagree on what rights even are, Cody. That's more clear.

And so, yeah, if you're defining being clear by saying sodomy is an inalienable right and I'm against it, then

I don't know what to tell you. That's not honest, that's not clear, that's not fair, in my opinion.

I mean, do what you want to do. I'm not trying to stop you from saying whatever nonsense you want to say, but the thing is, you asked for us to correct you, and so this is me correcting you.

But I'm not alone in this. This is the point. You've commented on Stephen Wolfe's book a lot.

I don't know that you've read it, because I think I've seen tweets from you that say that you refuse to read it, so you can always say you never read it.

But you should read it, because if you did, then what you would find out, and if you listen to Stephen's words explaining the book, what you would find out is that when he's describing the

Christian prince and the things that the Christian prince could do, which is just a stand -in for the

Christian governing authority, what he's talking about is what's permissible according to natural law and according to Scripture, and really according to the

Reformed tradition is what he's doing. What's allowable, not necessarily what should happen today.

It's a book about theory as opposed to practically what should the United States do today, right now, in our current situation, and there's a difference there, and I think that that's an important piece of clarity.

What is permissible for the civil governing authority to do? You gotta understand that before you can even start talking about what's wise to do, what's prudent to do, and so a lot of the things that you find particularly objectionable, those are things that are maybe permissible, but maybe wouldn't work in our multicultural context currently, because the reality is, whether you like it or not, that that's what we have here in the

United States, and so wisdom and prudence needs to know what's permissible, but also needs to weigh that against what the situation they find themselves in actually is, and so I think if you're defining clarity by saying, hey, we're not honest because we're never telling you we wanna execute gays, well, the reason why we're not saying that is because that's not actually what we believe a lot of the time, and so I'm sure there's some people out there that believe that, but very few.

We actually believe something that is kinda similar, but not actually quite the same thing, and it actually makes a huge difference, and so I'm pretty sure that if we don't believe something, we really can't be accused of not being clear that we believe it, since we don't, and so I've tried to help you here,

Cody, but honestly, do whatever you wanna do, because even the way you framed them, I believe is gonna help our positions grow in respectability, and we're moving the over,

I mean, I think this is the fact, we were moving the Overton window big time, and it's still small, I'm not saying that we're a huge movement, but if you look at people that think, hey, maybe the 19th

Amendment wasn't such a great idea, there's a lot more of us today than there were yesterday, and our numbers are growing every single day, and I'm sure that terrifies guys like you, but that's okay,

I'm not too worried about that, simple as that. So I guess what I would say,

Cody, to you is, and this is old advice that I think probably would really help you and your mission to expose us, try to be a little bit more clear about what we actually believe and actually say, and then if you want to, you can go ahead and make the case that, yeah, they believe that blasphemy isn't an inalienable right, and that's not true, blasphemy is an inalienable right, and I'm gonna prove it here, that would be a lot more difficult, but if you really do believe it, that would be a lot more helpful,

I think, to the conversation. If you do truly want to help the conversation, I think that's what your intention is, and I think that's what you really want to do, that would be very helpful.

If you could put me in my place and show me why sodomy isn't an inalienable right, that would be very helpful,

I think, to the conversation, or pornographic materials, distributing pornographic materials, or allowing the prototypes of fools, atheists, to be involved in very complex and wisdom -requiring decision -making, to allow fools to be involved in your complex, wisdom -requiring decision -making as a nation, tell me why that's a great idea, that would be helpful, that would be very helpful.

But in any case, Cody, like I said, I hope you take this video as it's intended, and I'm intended to help you not make the mistakes that you've consistently made again, and again, and again, and again.