Evangelicals for Harris

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. I'm your host, John Harris. We're gonna talk today about evangelicals for Harris, and I don't mean me.

I know that's my last name. I've had some people ask me about it. Is Kamala Harris in the family? Are you related?

And my answer, according to my father, is no, that there's two lines of Harris's.

One's Scottish and one's English. We're part of the Scottish line. She's from the English line. That's what he says.

Maybe he's just trying to distance himself. But for all the other Harris's out there, I probably should have had it up on the screen, but I didn't think about it until just now.

I will have a shirt, and I will wear it on the podcast, I will show you, that says Harris is against Harris.

So for all the Harris's out there, we needed to come up with something. And I remember when

I was thinking about this, I was like, you know, there aren't many Trumps out there. I don't think there's a lot of Bidens. Certainly not a lot of Obamas.

I don't, I'm trying to think, I think I've met one Bush in my life, you know? Harris is such a common name.

We haven't had a very common name for a while. So Harris is against Harris. I think that could include a lot of people.

That could be a grassroots identity politics organization. Anyway, it's good to have you all on the podcast today.

I see people are coming in. And if you want to be part of the live chat, you can go to YouTube, you can go to Facebook, or you can go to X and leave a comment there or a question.

And if it's a question, especially I will do my utmost to get to it. So thank you,

Andrew. Everyone does have their cross to bear. And mine is having the last name Harris right now, apparently.

So I want to let you know before we get into everything that I am speaking. I'm pretty bad at this lately and I need to get better because I have some speaking engagements coming up, but I am speaking.

In fact, this is old. July 28th, obviously is past. So I can take this off. That's almost a month ago.

This Sunday, I don't have it up here. I will be speaking at Evangelical Fellowship Church in Stone Ridge, New York.

If anyone lives in the New York area and you want to come on out, that's where I'll be. That's this coming

Sunday. But I do have some conferences I'll be at. And so I wanted to let you know about them.

I really need to edit this because obviously May 5th through 4th has also gone by. So let's skip ahead to September 27th through 29th.

That's where we're at now. And the Fundamentals Conference is coming up. That's a men's conference at Camp of the

Woods. It's only a weekend, so it's not a huge time commitment. I know some people are trying to make arrangements to stay a day longer.

They're coming out a day earlier to enjoy the camp and that kind of thing. But this is just a

Friday night, Saturday and Sunday morning thing in a beautiful area though. And you can go to fundamentalsconference .com

to find out more. That's all I'll say about it now, but we have a lot of people signing up and we're going to have a fishing competition.

I have more to say about that. I have more announcements to make. And when I have the trophy,

I will show it to you. October 11th through 12th is the Future of Christendom Conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

I think you can look that up on a search now. I don't have it linked here because there wasn't a link when

I first put it down, but I'm pretty sure you can sign up now if you go on DuckDuckGo or whatever search engine you use and type in Future of Christendom Conference, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

And then the Jesus and Politics Conference. I'm really looking forward to this because I've done this for two years,

I think. And I was supposed to do it last year. And unfortunately, my mother -in -law passed away and wasn't able to go.

And I obviously, under the circumstances, didn't want to be there. I needed to be with the family, but I did miss going last year.

And I'm looking forward to being there this year in Syracuse, Indiana. And Rod Barton's gonna be there this year, by the way.

So is William Wolfe. And I don't know, actually, everyone, so I probably should stop talking. I'm pretty sure Joseph Spurgeon's gonna be there.

Obviously, Tim Bushong, he's the pastor who sponsors this. I know I'm leaving people out. I'm not sure who he has coming, but I'll be there.

And then in November, November 2nd through 3rd, the Strong Pillars Conference, Jeffersonville, Indiana, which is right near Louisville, Kentucky.

So if you are in that Tennessee -Indiana border region, come on out. This is actually going to be,

I think, right before the election. So I hope I can get home. I hope I can get home. And then we have stuff coming next year.

I don't even have everything filled out for next year. But those are some things that are just coming up this fall. And I wanted to make you aware of them so that you know where to see me.

And I'm looking forward to speaking at all these various places. We're gonna talk, like I said today, about Evangelicals for Harris.

And while we do this, I wanna get into a couple other organizations that seem similar, that I've seen people who are more on the left and claim to be evangelical.

They're sharing posts from these other organizations. And so we're not just gonna talk about Evangelicals for Harris, but obviously we are gonna talk about Evangelicals for Harris.

And did I misspell it? Someone's saying Evangelicals for Harris misspelled.

Hmm, did I? I don't think I misspelled it. H -A -R -R -I -S, that's my name, right?

Chastity Hill says, loved your interview with Pastor Joel yesterday and can't wait to hear what you have to say today. Oh, by the way, for those who have watched my interview with Joel Webbin, I didn't know exactly what we were gonna be talking about.

I think the conversation just developed. And we talked an awful lot about abolitionism and slavery in the 19th century in the

United States. And I think it initially started, if I remember, I think he had asked me, cause it was over a week ago we filmed it.

He had asked me to do something on the Confederacy. And we talked a little bit about the

Confederacy, historically speaking. But I said, well, you know, we have the 1607 project out and I directed that and produced it.

And I wouldn't mind talking about that. That's a bit of a passion project and I'd love to get the word out there about it.

And we ended up talking mostly about antebellum abolitionism and the debate over abolitionism.

So if you wanna know more about those topics, whether it's the

Confederacy, early America, the founding fathers, how they wrestled with slavery,

Christianity, and how it relates to that, the Bible, all of this stuff. How apologists specifically tried to defend the

Christian faith when people bring this up. I have a two -part series right now that I have filmed within the last month.

I think I've done both videos. And it's only for patrons though. So if you are a patron, patreon .com

forward slash worldview conversation, you can have access to those videos and the slideshows that go with them with all the primary sources.

And it's good for, I mean, if you wanted to even go over it with a small group or something, you could do that.

But this was another area where I just thought, and there's a number of areas like this, but I don't see good material out there.

I really just don't see Christian apologists handling that topic well. And in a way that atheists or those who oppose

Christianity can't just really make you look stupid for. And I've seen a lot of Christians look very stupid, unfortunately, in college ministry settings, doing evangelism and that kind of thing, where you get a college kid who usually they don't know much, but they know enough to know, hey, the

Bible says this about the institution of slavery. And they've been told what they've been told in their

American history class as well. And that usually gets coupled in with it, or maybe they're upset about ancient slavery or biblical slavery or whatever, but they have a gripe and they talk to the

Christian who's supposedly trained in apologetics or in evangelism. And the answers they get, they're like Swiss cheese.

They can really just make you look foolish. And I've seen that happen a number of times. And so it's one of the reasons that I handle it differently,

I think, a little differently than some of your more mainstream, popular Christian apologists. And I felt compelled to put out some material and produce some material on it.

So if you're a patron, you can get access to that. At some point, I may make it available for everyone, but that is one of the perks to being a patron.

And I've really thought lately there should be some perks. So that is one of them.

So I appreciate everyone who supports me on Patreon, by the way. But anyway, so people weighing in about that.

My interview with Joel Webb, and we talked about some of those things. My brother, David Harris says,

I've never felt so supported as a Harris. So many evangelicals are for me. Yes, I think they're talking about someone else.

Pretty sure they're talking about someone else. So the Ann campaign, yes.

I've talked about the Ann campaign a number of times. We're not gonna talk about them as much today, but the Ann campaign is the same as evangelicals for Harris, Jimmy Starfish says, but they pretend to be neutral.

Justin Gibney is a grifter. Yeah, I just don't feel compelled to talk about them. Or the

American Solidarity Party, to be quite honest, which is different, because they are actually running, I think, their own candidates that you're supposed to write in and stuff.

But they all have this third way approach. Republicans are no good, Democrats are no good. And we need to transcend this.

I think the difference with maybe the Ann campaign is I think they do lean more left. Like they don't have their own candidates they're running.

They're playing the third way thing, but they're playing it to the left. And it's definitely an on -ramp for evangelicals to vote for Democrats.

And Michael Ware, who was one of the founders of the Ann campaign, of course, was a Democrat strategist.

So figure that one out, right? Yeah, we're not talking about the interview

I did with Joel. I don't want that to suck the oxygen out of the room, but I do have some comments. I'm not super convinced of some of the points you made in that interview.

That there was a viable path to freedom in the South if the North had not forced it. I don't know if I phrased it quite in those terms.

I just said that there were gradual emancipationists in both the North and the South, by the way. It wasn't unique to the

South at all. But who wanted to end slavery or they foresaw the end of slavery in a more responsible fashion than it ended up happening in.

And that's a historical fact. That's not really, I don't know what point, like that's not something, like I'm not making an argument for that.

I'm just stating that this is how it was. I suppose the argument that I would make, if you wanna relate it to an argument, would be if I lived under the conditions of let's say the 1830s or the 1840s,

I probably would have been a gradual emancipationist. And I would have probably, if I lived through the

Civil War, I would have looked in horror at what became of many slaves and ex -slaves after that event and with the estimates being that a million of them starved and died and they were freed into an impoverished war -torn land.

And it poisoned race relations for years to come. And so, yeah, I definitely think there was a better way.

I mean, at the end, see, I don't want the oxygen sucked out of the room, but here we go. You're tapping into my nerdom here.

In 1865, at the end of the war, Jefferson Davis, the president of the

Confederacy, had even, he had signed into law, it was too late, but he had signed into law that they were essentially figuring out a way to grant freedom for slaves who would agree to fight for the

Confederacy. So, and there's a lot of other things I could point you to. Joel didn't really ask me about it, so I didn't get into it, but there's a number of other factors you can look at to say the moral will to end it was there, or at least it was,

I think under the right conditions, you could have foreseen that happening. But that's one of those things about history.

Like you can look back and say, what if the American Revolution was never fought? You know, what if the allies hadn't won

World War II? There's all these what ifs, and you just don't know what history, what would have happened.

That's a very speculative thing to get into. And so, so I try not to be too speculative if I can avoid it.

I love history, Stryker says. Yeah, I do too. That's part of the, I mean, I guess technically, you know, that's one of my areas of study.

So in undergrad, that was a big area of study for me. In grad school though, my area of primary focus was evangelicals, specifically evangelicals on the left during the second part of the 20th century, which is modern history.

It's not really, it's not, it almost, it barely qualifies as history. And that's what we're gonna talk about today, evangelicals for Harris.

So, all right, last, I'll allow this one last, this one last, this is the last comment on this.

One fact I've never here mentioned is that only in America were slave populations self -sustaining with more births than deaths because of this abolishing the slave trade ended slavery everywhere else.

I'm actually trying to wrap my head around this. Okay, so, yeah, there were, the population was rising and abolishing the slave trade ended slavery wherever else.

Yeah, so by 1808, it was supposed to be ended. There was still smuggling happening, but I don't think it did end slavery everywhere else to be quite honest.

I think it went on. I mean, Brazil didn't end it until, what was it, 1883. I mean, there was a lot of places in South America and the

Caribbean that still had slave ships going to them after it was banned in the United States.

So, all right, we're done with that. We're done with that. We're going to talk about the issue at hand because we're almost 15 minutes into this podcast.

I don't wanna get side -railed too much. So, Evangelicals for Harris is the, and I have a number of videos, a number of things to talk to you about regarding this.

And we're trying to make sure that the Democrats don't, well,

I think they already have, but they don't even more so give us the kind of crushing civil slavery where you're a number and where, frankly, just very twisted and ungodly policies are forced upon you and your children.

And you're a number in the state apparatus. So, we're approaching that.

And that's one of the things that I think causes a lot of angst. This is what dystopian futures in novels like 1984 and Brave New World, they depict.

And I think people feel like we're careening closer and closer and closer to that. And it is surreal to hear the

Democrats talk about being the party of freedom and that the Republicans wanna take your personal freedom and invade your lives with the government when it just sounds like projection.

And so, let's talk about, I'm trying to think what clip to even start with you. Let's start with this clip.

This is Evangelicals for Harris. And this is a video that they just put out supporting

Kamala Harris. And really, it's just an attack on Donald Trump, but it's supposed to persuade evangelicals that this is the candidate.

I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible.

Somebody, if I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say, go down and indict them.

I alone can fix it. They're poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done.

All right, so it says, read 1 John 4. It says, it quotes, not every spirit, don't believe every spirit who comes to you.

And of course, this is talking about false teachers who come to introduce destructive heresies, but they're applying it to Donald Trump.

And they're saying, this applies to Donald Trump. He's a false teacher in the church. And I would just be quick to point out that Donald Trump is not in an ecclesiastical position.

He's not in a church. He's not, he wants to be president, but I don't see anything about him.

There might be some people making him out to be more than he is, but he's pretty honest,

I think, about who he is. And you heard in those clips, he's certainly not an

Orthodox Christian. So the things that come out of his mouth when he talks about Christianity are often not Orthodox things.

He has a certain love for a cultural Christianity of some kind, but he's not our guy when it comes to, like, he's an evangelical.

I would never consider him that. I never have considered him that. And I don't know of many evangelicals in my circles, at least in conservative evangelical circles, who do.

I think there are those in more charismatic Pentecostal circles who may.

And I think the reason for that, and I'm not saying all charismatics are Pentecostals by any stretch, but I think that in some, especially more word of faith churches, they already have very low standards for whom they qualify as Christians and whom they don't.

And I even have personal stories along this line. I remember being at a Pentecostal church years ago, and there was a girl who was involved in the ministry there, and she had gotten pregnant out of wedlock.

And the way it was handled was she was exonerated because this was the devil.

This was the work of the devil in her life, as if she had no responsibility in the matter, and she was still allowed to carry on with ministry and those kinds of things.

I'm not saying that's across the board for every Pentecostal church at all. I'm just saying that that kind of thing is a little more rare to have that kind of an obvious sin and to kind of hem and haw about it and come up with an excuse in more

Orthodox, Protestant, conservative evangelical churches. So, yeah, you might be able to find some people in those circles, but in general, no.

I mean, Trump is, he's seen as someone who is going to be poisoned to the left more than anyone else.

And he's going to, as he says, try to protect or maintain or preserve

Christianity, cultural Christianity. He wants people to say Merry Christmas. He doesn't want

Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter, that kind of thing. So he, that's who he is. He's not someone though, who's directly our guy.

And Evangelicals for Harris wants to make a big deal about this. And of course, the curious thing to me though, is they want to promote

Kamala Harris as if she's an exemplary Christian, which I'll show you in a moment. But that's one of their last,

I guess, advertisements. I debated playing another one, but we'd be here forever. There's too many videos to play. So let me show you, let's see.

Let me show you the organization that Evangelicals for Harris is actually under.

So they, so Evangelicals for Harris is not a 501C3 or C4 or an LLC or any of that.

They are under a 501C4 themselves. And that 501C4 is called

Faith Voters, Faith Voters. And if you go to Faith Voters, I don't know who funds them.

I looked, I tried to look into it and I'm not exactly sure with the amount of time I had, but they say that they're a diverse community of believers pursuing the common good and seeking to build a more perfect union.

Our nation thrives on its leaders, our people of good character, guided by core values of faith, integrity, and justice. As citizens and voters, we believe it is our responsibility to man that our leaders hold to those values.

So no one's going to disagree with any of this, right? This is all general enough that Republicans could see this.

And I think this is part of actually the strategy. They do try to keep things as general as they can for appealing to your unassuming evangelical voter.

They quote scripture quite a bit. For he himself is our peace who has made the two groups. One has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, which of course is about the law and Jews and Gentiles being one in Christ, but they apply it to America.

And they say our freedoms as Americans and children of God calls us to love and service. Americans are better served when building one another, loving thy neighbor, and embracing the unity that comes with being free.

So, and they go on, but this is, you know, scripture taken out of context over and over. Live in harmony with one another.

Do not be proud, but enjoy the company of the lowly. Do not be conceited. And they say in this, our purpose is not defined by a party.

Acting justly may not fit into party lines, but the call remains the same nonetheless. Our common goals should unite us, not just as a people of faith, but also as American citizens.

The country was built around our values and the idea of the common good. And when, this is funny to me, because they say when party identification causes us to lose sight of our fellow

Americans, we must walk humbly, learn from one another, and use our faith to investigate the motivations behind our politics.

But then if you go to our work, it says evangelicals for Harris right there. So they want to play this third way type thing, which is the typical way that you get evangelical.

You can't just go to an evangelical typically and say, I'm far left and you should join me and let's go to the

Democrat National Convention. You have to ease them into it like the frog that boils.

You have to give them grades of sliding into it.

And so I think that's why you see the AND campaign and our values for faith voters, sorry, faith voters and other organizations vote common good.

They do this thing where they try to say, we're not really for any party, but then you look and clearly they're trying to funnel you into the

Democrats. And there's more that could be said here. They take the example of Christ and try to say that this should influence our policies, that he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.

And of course, I guess that means Democrat policies are more in keeping with that because they wanna take your money and they wanna give it to various groups that may not even be victims, but they claim a victim status.

They have a scripture guide. They say, read our scripture guide, but if you click on it, it takes you to a blog with various issues.

And here's one of them taking a biblical stance on immigration. So they wanna be biblical. It's very interesting. They use that term a lot.

So they know the language that appeals to evangelicals. And if you read the article, I'll just give you, they quote

Leviticus 27, 19, which says that God's people were aliens in the land of Egypt. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as a citizen among you.

You shall love the alien as yourself for you are aliens in the land of Egypt. I am Lord your God. And I do not know what translation this is and where they got citizen from exactly, but I'm pretty sure this is a modern translation of some kind, because I don't remember seeing that word when quoting

Leviticus 27. But they of course use these kinds of things to then promote their migration or at least shift you from a more

Republican or more conservative position to being more accommodating to looser immigration laws and that kind of thing.

It says, loving my neighbor is about more than just the people next door to us. Immigrants can bring a lot of good to our society.

And scripture supports the view that welcoming the stranger is a Christian duty. So again, it's general enough.

You don't know exactly what that means. Like I could look at that sentence and I could say that there's points of agreement.

In fact, maybe if I framed it the way I wanna, I would wanna frame it. I could say that I agree with the whole thing.

Of course, loving your neighbor means the people that you're in proximity to. And those might not always be the people next door.

You do have people that travel. And so of course, on a personal level, you obviously should be loving the people who are around you.

Immigrants can bring a lot of good to our society. And it's possible, of course, that doesn't deny the fact that they can also bring a lot of bad, right?

And so you have to weigh those things. And scripture supports the view that welcoming the stranger is a Christian duty.

Well, I would say, yeah, we're welcoming someone who's in proximity to you, who's come across your path, the story of the

Good Samaritan, who is in need. And they're different culturally than you. Of course, you should help them and welcome them.

But again, what does this have to do? Where is this trying to shift you? This is really pounding these things, this is emphasizing these things for the purpose of, in the beginning of the article,

Donald Trump's rhetoric on the wall and immigration. It's saying that that's wrong. It's signaling to you that that's wrong.

Donald Trump's wrong. And this is even the image here they use is someone's being kept out from America.

And that's a bad thing. That's a negative thing. That fence shouldn't be there. I guess everyone should have access to the

United States. So this is the group that funds and is behind Evangelicals for Harris.

If you go to, well, this is a website, beta .canda .org, and they supposedly can give you information, give you 990s.

There's no 990 for this organization. So I don't know what to tell you. It's in Great Falls, Virginia.

I would love to know who's funding it, but alas, I do not. So back to Evangelicals for Harris, and I'll take some questions after we talk about them, and then we'll get into another organization.

But here's some posts that they made. And I should probably say the purpose of this, by the way, is not to be deceived by these people.

That's really my aim in all of this. Don't be deceived by these people and what they're trying to pull on you. But that's

Democrats for Life. Let me go a little more forward. We'll come back to Democrats for Life. Here's Evangelicals for Harris. And a few posts from them.

First, you have a picture of Evangelicals for Harris and a booth they have set up at the

Democrat National Convention, as I am talking. Right now, you can go to Chicago, to the DNC, and you will find this banner.

And it's a little surreal because you think outside they're giving free vasectomies and free abortions.

Planned Parenthood's got their bus or whatever it is there, and they're doing these operations.

And then you have Evangelicals for Harris in the same coalition, right there in,

I don't know how many hundreds of feet, but they're not far. It says on the

Twitter, or ex -social media posts that they put out there, this is one of the things they say, at the core of our support here is the fact that living in a pluralist society means we're going to disagree with our neighbors, but as Evangelicals, we know to still love them.

The Harris -Waltz ticket is pro -family and pro -America, and we love that. And my first thought when

I saw this was like, how blatantly, just surreal, how blatantly odd.

Like, is there no shame? Is there no sense of self -awareness, self -reflection? Do they not see who they're supporting and their policies are obviously not pro -family.

This is the party, and Walz is obviously a good example of this, is the governor of Minnesota, and the policies that he's pushed for transgenders, or people who think of themselves that way.

They're the party that wants your daughter, if you have one, to be forced essentially to have to use a restroom that men are allowed to use in the schools.

It's the party that wants parents to not have to be notified when their children want gender -affirming care of some kind in school, or even an abortion for that matter.

This is the party that wants unlimited restrictions on abortions essentially.

And you can have an organization that says their evangelicals for Harris just come at it so directly and so clearly say that it's pro -family and pro -America.

And you don't even know what to say in response to that other than, do you even know what you're talking about?

And of course they do, of course they do. They've convinced themselves that these policies actually aren't, they've either downplayed them or they've thought that these might be actually positive.

And their speaker list when they first announced that they were having a webinar to drum up support for this included a few people

I've talked about on the podcast. And I wanted to mention this. So Ikemini Uwan was part of this.

And I have shared the story many times. I know Trevor Loudon likes to share this story of Ikemini years ago at a crew event, formerly

Campus Crusade for Christ, telling all the students that Clip is actually in Enemies Within the Church.

I'm sure I've played it on the podcast, but she's telling them that essentially God wants you to be a leftist.

She's for social justice. It's all about racial justice and what she's talking about, but she wants you to be for reparations.

And she's telling all these kids in crew. And then you have, it says

Dr. Jamar Tisby, who was essentially very promoted in conservative evangelical circles, most notably by Ligon Duncan in the

PCA. And he's even, I think, had some, if I'm not mistaken,

I remember there was some interaction with Al Mohler at one point, but he was kind of like one of the racial justice guys in evangelicalism before 2020 to help evangelicals really navigate this issue.

And he wrote a book called The Color of Compromise, which I've talked about. I've done podcasts on it, and I've talked about his book in my book,

Christianity and Social Justice. You have Latasha Morrison. I did a whole podcast on Latasha Morrison's book,

Be the Bridge. Every element of critical race theory is in that book, blatantly so.

And this is someone who also has spoken for crew, Lisa Sharon Harper. I did a whole podcast. I think it might've been two podcasts on her book, which was blatantly social justice and gets the gospel wrong.

Sandra Van Opstel right there. She's spoken at crew. She was the one that basically compared, if I remember correctly, in 2019,

ICE agents to Nazis or Gestapo or something like that. And she really thinks of the gospel in terms of social justice.

You know, it's a social gospel, essentially. Dwight McKissick is a Southern Baptist pastor.

Raymond Chang, who we've talked about him in relation to the Asian American Christian Collective.

And they were very big on the COVID -19 backlash.

Asians were getting backlash for this and Christians evangelicals needed to stand up for anti -Asian racism.

So, and Claude Alexander, I recognize the name. I don't know if we've talked about him, but these are just some of the names that when

I saw this, I thought, wow, okay. So this actually is, like you're used to seeing these groups where they have like fake evangelicals,

I like to say like they, and I would maybe argue that these people are also fake evangelicals, but it's more out there.

It's like an organization I'm about to show you called, well, maybe I should just show you now. We'll take this little side tangent and I'll show you this organization that these are the kinds of things that we're used to seeing.

So this is called Vote of Common Good. Vote Common Good, I guess is the name of the organization.

And Doug Padgett is the first name. He's the founder. And Doug Padgett is one of the founding fathers, you could say of the emergent church.

So post -modern Christianity blatantly. So these guys were the first wave. You know, this is before Shane Claiborne, there he is,

Red Letter Christians. You know, these guys are, this is the Sojourners crowd, right? The Jim Wallace Sojourners crowd right here.

And of course, you know, if you go to, they have this series on Christian nationalism that, you know, that's the threat really,

I guess, is Christian nationalism. And they talk to people like Catherine Stewart and Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry and Kristin Dumez.

And so I consider those guys part of the Sojourners crowd myself, to be honest, even though there's overlap, they end up getting promoted by the

Phil Bishers of the world and, you know, I think, you know, Kristin Dumez is at Calvin College, I believe.

But, you know, they're out there. And so, and they'll partner with these people. There was an article about them in 2019, and the title of it in the

New Yorker was "'Teaching Democrats to Speak Evangelical.'" You know, very unashamed about what they're doing and very forthright with it.

You know, we are trying to get evangelicals, rope them into the

Democrat party. So I'm used to seeing this kind of thing. I definitely am, but I'm not used to seeing as much.

This is maybe the first election cycle where I've seen this as blatant as it is. A bunch of names that have been associated with organizations like CRU and the

Gospel Coalition and the Southern Baptist Convention, all there promoting Kamala Harris.

And I think it's rich that this is also coinciding with the release of Megan Basham's book where she talks about this kind of thing.

And you have all these people from the Gospel Coalition and the Southern Baptist Convention saying that she's lying, she's deceptive in her tactics, she has the wrong associations, she's this, she's that.

And her thesis is playing out right before you with this organization, Evangelicals for Harris.

And I'm actually surprised I don't see CBD and Abuele here because I'm pretty sure he's also supporting

Kamala Harris as he did Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the Gospel Coalition published his piece on that.

Here's some of the, this is really the work that's happening though. This is why an organization like this exists because you might think, what

Evangelicals are going to join this? Well, it's effective even if you don't have Evangelicals directly participating, you have this kind of thing.

You have headlines from the USA Today. This next one is, you got the

Hill, you have MSNBC, you have the New Republic. And what are they saying? Evangelicals for Harris?

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz ticket draws surprising support from these religious group. Of course it's by Liam Adams at the

Tennessee and of course it is. I think he's one of the most instrumental journalists probably in trying to push

Evangelicals to the left through his reporting. But anyway, they're carrying this at USA Today that there's a surprising support.

And this is one of the reasons, it's the one thing that does give me a little hope, I suppose, with the election is that I know that this is propaganda when

I see it. I know it is because it's not like there's a groundswell of Evangelicals who have joined this particular group, but these stories

I believe are aimed, I think this is their purpose, to create more of a groundswell, to try to peel off.

If they can just peel off a small percentage of Evangelicals, they can turn the election. So it doesn't take a lot.

So yeah, I think that that's what's going on here. Here's another one, white born again,

Christian Evangelicals could sway election to Harris warns Conservative Baptist Networks, I think that's, or CBN, no, that's not

Conservative Baptist Network, that's Christian Broadcasting Network, I think. So this is a threat, this is a danger.

You have The Hill, Evangelicals for Kamala, supported by Billy Graham's granddaughter.

I mean, that'll make a headline, right? Divine Intervention, Evangelicals for Harris, hijacked,

I can't read the rest of it because I have it cut off, but this is MSNBC. And if you watch the clip, it's the same thing that you're seeing with these others.

Pro Harris group perfectly calls out Trump's Christianity scam, that's the New Republic. So this is meant to try to sway you away from Trump and towards Kamala Harris, and that's the purpose it serves.

And so a group like this with a name like this serves a purpose like this. And they don't need a lot of money, they just need the bullhorn of the media.

And it probably helps if they have some recognizable figures who are willing to, you know, like some of the ones we just showed who can say,

I was in an evangelical organization, I am a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention and I'm voting for Kamala Harris.

Woke Preacher Clips, I gotta give them a lot of credit because they do great work, but they put out a few just clips of the webinar that took place that Evangelicals for Harris sponsored.

So Ikemini Uwan, the co -host of InterVarsity Press's Get in the Word with Truth Table podcast, a moderator of the

Evangelical for Harris Zoom call, lists the issues that have convinced her to vote for Kamala. And Woke Preacher Clips says they are contraception and IVF, a biblical view of creation care and racial justice.

And then you have Adam Kinzinger justifying his support for Kamala Harris on CNN and saying that they're essentially not liars, unlike the

Trump administration who lies. But then he's again on CNN trying to defend Tim Walz who's for decades lied about his military career.

Woke Preacher Clips also put out this during the Evangelicals for Harris Zoom call, Bishop Claude Alexander says, "'I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare "'in the cases of rape, incest, "'and a threat to the life of the mother.'"

And in this election is a referendum on January 6th. So he's preferring January 6th. Like that's the issue above abortion.

That's the issue to care about, to be concerned about. He's probably the most influential participant in the fundraiser, though certainly not the most famous.

He's the chair of the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary Board of Trustees and sits on the Board of Christianity Today, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, the

BioLogos and other large organizations. That's a big deal. That's a big deal for Bishop Claude Alexander to say.

So some of these organizations like, you know, Gordon Conwell, you think, you know, that's an Evangelical seminary, right?

I'll go there. And this is the guy who's on the Board of Trustees there. Don't think that, you know, just be prepared.

You go to any of these places, just be prepared. You're not necessarily going to get what you think you're going to get.

It may be a dose of leftism with the Christianese. Here's some things that Evangelicals for Harris put out about the gospel.

And I really want you to pay attention to this. There's so many more that I could have picked from, but here's just a few representative tweets.

They're responding to Gabriel Hughes, who said, to perhaps no one's surprise, Kamala's faith story on Evangelicals for Harris, which we'll read in a moment, contains no gospel whatsoever.

No sin, repentance, her need of a savior, none of that, right? And Evangelicals for Harris responded to this and says, "'Pastor

Hughes, we believe Christ is Lord. "'We believe Christ is best worshiped through loving others, "'not kicking dirt in their face as Mr.

Trump does.'" So again, always redirect it to Trump. That is not the gospel.

Now, of course, you know, the category confusion here is amazing. You know, of course, that's not the gospel.

Of course, you know, obviously no one is claiming that Donald Trump's rhetoric is the gospel, right?

But neither should people be claiming that loving others is the gospel. Loving others is not the gospel.

Loving others is fulfillment of what? The law. We cannot pretend this man loves others when he so openly hates them.

That is not Christ's love. You and your family are always in our prayers, Pastor Gabe. Christ should bring us together in his teachings and what we taught.

This is so, yeah, you're in our prayers. You know, is Trump in your prayers? You know,

Christ should bring us together. Well, you know, not Trump, I guess, right? So here's another thing.

The issue, Franklin, so Franklin Graham basically says, look, they're trying to use

Billy Graham's image. Morning Joe is using Billy Graham's image here in a video that I guess they put out using

Billy Graham to forward their evangelicals for Harris. And Franklin Graham took issue with this and said, look, you know, you're using this to promote candidate

Harris and, you know, this doesn't reflect the conservative values of my father. And they said, the issue,

Franklin, is that in your worship of Trump, you have forsaken the gospel. We are voting for Harris, but we only worship

Jesus. Remember the calling to which you were called. You know, the Lord's grace is always ready to receive. Now that's, look at the way they phrase this.

The Lord's grace is always ready to receive you. They're implying that Franklin Graham himself, I guess, isn't receiving the

Lord's grace or he's not a Christian somehow because he worships Trump. So he's forsaken the gospel.

I guess that would mean he's not a Christian. So what is the gospel then? And I asked this question, they haven't responded on X yesterday.

What is the gospel? Seriously, if, you know, he's forsaken the gospel because he's a

Trump supporter. If evangelicals for Harris is saying that, well, you know,

Donald Trump's rhetoric is not the gospel, which no one is arguing, what is the gospel?

They quote St. Francis Assisi saying, "'Preach the gospel, use words if necessary.'"

There's another post they say isn't, is where they're responding to this guy named Jesse. Jesse says, "'Not a single mention of God's glory, his effort, as all others will not succeed without it.'"

And here's what they say. "'Isn't that what the gospel, the good news is all about? And by the very definition of our name, shouldn't good news be what evangelicals focus on spreading?''

Okay, so I want you to notice this trick they pull. So gospel's good news, right? Now, is the gospel general good news?

You need to answer this before we get to the rest of the tweet here. Is the gospel just general good news? Is it just, you know, my wife comes in and says, "'I baked cookies for you.'"

That would be good news, right? If my daughter is walking, right?

That would be good news. But that's not the gospel. When we say the gospel, we're talking about specific good news.

We're saying Christ has come and paid the penalty for our sin. That's what the gospel is. That's why the gospel is good news.

I'm getting a call from Brian McClanahan. I need to call him back. So that's the gospel, right?

Christ came, he took the sins of those who had repented and put their trust in him, nailed them to the cross, satisfied the wrath of God.

He lived the perfect life. You could not live. And that was transferred to your account if you repent and put your faith in Christ.

And that's good news. You're not gonna incur the wrath of God. You're not gonna go to hell. You're not going to live apart from him.

You're going to be with him for eternity in a mansion he's prepared for you. That sounds like some pretty good news, doesn't it?

Well, Evangelicals for Harris goes on in this tweet and says, "'Matthew 24, 12' applies too well to our generation because of the spread of lawlessness.

The love of many will grow cold." It says, "'And yet we have and affirm the promise in verse 13 through 14, but those who stand firm will be saved and the good news will be preached to the ends of the world as a testimony to the nations.

We aren't trying to succeed, but to serve. To God be the glory, go in peace, brother.'"

Okay, well, what good news? They're spreading good news, how?

I think actually Matthew 24, 12 might apply to them. If your faith, if the gospel is really just social activism, if it's just, quote unquote, loving your neighbor and all the things that fall under that are

Democrat party platform policies, then you don't have the gospel.

You have not only, you have a law, but it's not even the biblical law. You just are substituting the

Democrat party's ideas about what ought to be for God's law. And then you're taking that substitution and calling it the gospel.

And this is what you find over and over and over again with evangelicals on the left.

And the evangelicals end up going to the left nine out of 10 times, this is what they end up doing. And sometimes they'll even make orthodox statements in one place, and then you'll see them in another place do this kind of thing.

This is the kind of thing that I've been exposing for years is what Walter Strickland at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has done repeatedly.

This is what Jarvis Williams at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has done. This is, you find this in the organization crew at some of their national gatherings where they have these activists who claim to be ministers and so forth.

When they start talking about the gospel and you really listen to what they're talking about, oftentimes it's not really the gospel, it's some vague notion of love your neighbor, but slanted towards the left.

So I think this is important to point out. And this is something that you, don't let this happen because Christians obviously must care about the gospel.

And if they can convince you this is the gospel, then they can motivate Christians to essentially do their bidding.

Oh, I just wanted to point this out. I guess I put this in my slideshow. Sean, I think it's Sean Michael Lucas, who's kind of big in the

PCA. He wrote a biography of Robert Louis Dabney. He liked this Kamala Harris post.

So someone pointed this out. It's like, what are you doing liking this? What's going on? So there are people even in your, you think conservative arena denominations who are supporting

Harris. Let's talk about Democrats for Life real quick. And then I will play for you some clips that I wanna play you.

Oh no, let's not, let's actually play one or two. Let's play this clip. This is from Billy Graham's granddaughter and she's supporting

Kamala Harris. And this is put out there by Evangelicals for Harris. It's Jerusha Duford.

And I'm grateful to have an opportunity to join you tonight. Thank you to everyone who joined this call to discuss a pivotal point in our country's future.

You know, I was thinking this morning that if you told me 10 years ago that I would be taking an active role in politics,

I'd have laughed. But then I had to stop and realize this is so much more than politics. My role began in 2016 when a man bragged about assaulting women.

Various leaders of my faith then propped up this man as a poster boy for godly manhood and leadership. This broke my heart as I have watched, quite frankly, for the last eight years, people who were curious about Jesus and his teachings done a 180 and walked in the other direction from my faith.

Isaiah talks about an oak whose leaves wither and a garden going without water. These things happen slowly over time.

First, people professing the Lord made excuses for the lack of kindness, then for the name calling.

Soon it was making excuses for assault. Then it became making excuses for January 6th and now making excuses for convicted assault and 34 felonies.

The oak leaves don't wither overnight and I'm terrified to think of how far this turning our head the other way and making excuses will take our country, but more importantly, our witness to the world.

One of my grandfather's favorite verses was Micah 6 .8. What an incredible reminder of what the

Lord requires of us to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly. I've always stated that my president doesn't have to be a

Christian, but I am and will be watching for my faith leaders support actions that reflect mercy, justice, and humility, and for my faith leaders to rebuke actions that are the antithesis of that.

Voting Kamala for me is so much greater than policies. It's a vote against another four years of faith leaders justifying the actions of a man who destroys the message

Jesus came to spread and that is why I get involved in politics. I'm a therapist and I try to leave my clients with what

I call committed action steps and the following are the ones I'd love for you to take with me. First, pray.

Pray for the faith leaders in our country to take a stand for justice, mercy, and humility.

Second, pledge. Take the Evangelicals for Harris pledge on our website, evangelicalsforharris .com

and lastly, service. Go perform actions of service in your neighborhood or community and then come back and share your story with the

Evangelicals for Harris campaign. Thanks for listening to me. Let's do this.

Well, how appropriate that she's a therapist. She has a voice of a therapist too and I'll leave that one there.

Anyway, yeah, Jimmy Starfish says, that voice, please make it stop, yeah.

So, yeah, people are really, here, endeth your therapy session posing as theology and governance as design build.

Betty, that's a big clue, therapist. Yeah, everyone's thinking, I think, the exact thought that I'm thinking.

So, Evangelicals for Harris has Billy Graham's granddaughter there essentially supporting them and it really all comes down to Trump.

She just doesn't like Trump. So, I didn't hear a positive case made for Kamala Harris. It's just, I really don't like Donald Trump and it reminds me of John Piper's article from a few years ago where he tried to do a moral equivalency between Trump and I think it was

Biden at the time and he listed all of Trump's sins in the Greek which makes it more heavy and more, he had to kind of overcompensate to make

Trump look worse and I see the same kind of thing going on here only more so where Trump is just his, the mean tweets are just so bad that we should be fine supporting the person who's wants, well, she's been the border czar and you see the border.

So, unlimited practically immigration and unlimited abortion and access to your government paying for abortions and LGBT sexual degeneracy, open the floodgates on all of that, even for children, it's,

I don't know what to say. Like, it's just your priorities are so out of whack, right?

If you think that there's any moral equivalency between these things but there is a certain kind of person, there is a certain temperament and I think a therapist probably does very much qualify for the poster child of this but they really can't stand anything that's aggressive.

I would say sometimes even masculine, assertive, dominating, and it's associated with an arrogance and sometimes it is with Trump, I think certainly it is at times or there's certainly an arrogance there but they don't want those things.

They don't want it. I even thought this by the way about the attempted assassination. I had the thought, the week it happened, and I thought, well, this is like a shoo -in.

Trump's clearly, they can see that he's the enemy of the deep state. I think people will at least come to that conclusion and the more things come out about the shooting, the more it seems like there's some very fishy things.

But a week later, I started thinking, there are enough people with the temperament that I'm describing who just, they just hate the fighting.

They hate the controversy. They don't want a president who people would try to assassinate.

They want a president who's all about love, who no one wants to kill, right? And they're okay living in somewhat of a fantasy,

Fortress America, and we don't have to be, live in the suburbs and we're not exposed to what's happening in our inner cities or in other parts of the world.

But believe me, our country is transforming. You will be exposed to those things. It's a matter of time. But yeah,

I mean, unless you have a lot of money and you can really afford to be in a super gated community and that kind of thing, but that'll insulate you, but you're going to be exposed to this kind of stuff.

It'll change your life. You'll become like places like South Africa where you have to have a gated house and you have to have cameras and you have to have guards and all the rest.

And so I thought, you know, that actually might be a cut against them with some people. They might see that and say, I just don't like the stress of it.

It's just too stressful. It's too controversial. We just, you know, no more stress. We need to rid this of our lives.

And they don't care to know what these policies are doing to other people, because in their lives, they have somewhat of a comfortable existence and they don't want to see on TV something that makes them stressful.

And CNN and all the organizations, they will put Trump's face up there in some kind of a pose where he's angry and they'll stress you out.

They'll say what he said and, you know, and that's the only side you're getting. And so I do think this does appeal to a certain segment.

Okay, let's play. Let's see, was this part of, let me see what this was. No, I already played this one.

All right. Let me finish up with talking a little bit about this organization.

And I'm gonna play you some clips from the Democrat National Convention last night. So this organization is

Democrats for Life. Now they are a little different. They, I think, did legitimately start, I believe in 1999, as an organization to try to make sure that there were still some pro -life

Democrats. Of course, I wanted to show you. I don't know if they changed along the way or what happened, but they are now putting in other issues.

For example, here's capital punishment. They did a poll, I guess, of their supporters and supporting pregnant women is up there, but also paid leave and ending gun violence and protecting the environment is up there.

They put out a press release that really condemned what

Planned Parenthood is doing in Chicago with providing free abortions for the Democrat National Convention.

But they are one of these organizations that makes all these different things life issues, essentially.

And if you go to their website, which is right here, you can see, right on the front of their website, liberal, atheist, pro -life, pro -life for the whole life.

So abortion extremism is not progress. So there, I do take them at their word that they don't want abortions, but of course they stuff a bunch of things into this that aren't about murder, things like I just mentioned.

Here it is right here. Love is stronger than hate. Black lives matter. Science is real. Feminism is for everyone.

Human rights begin in the womb. No human is illegal. Pro -life for the whole life. So they're trying to fuse just like, let's just have the

Democrat stuff with just adding this one thing. Let's add abortion. Imagine a future where abortion is restricted.

Families are financially supported. Adoption and foster care are funded. Our justicism system is humanized.

Our systemic racism is squashed. Our government is for the people. This is the future we can build together. So let's have, I guess let's have socialism and let's at the same time though, make sure that we're not aborting.

Now, the concern that I have, and I said this on X, I said, look, at this point with the

Democrat platform being very aggressively pro -choice or pro -abortion,

I don't see what kind of an influence a group like this really can have. LifeSite News just did an article on them on August 20th.

So that's today, this morning they released this and how they're condemning the

DNC platform. Well, they wanna try to exert some influence in the

Democrat National Committee or convention, but there's no place for them anymore. They've gotten to the place where there's just, they don't have a seat at the table.

It's been over 20 years. It's been 24 years since the Democrats have changed their platform to rule out people who might have pro -life views in their party.

So the people who are still pro -life, there's very few that are even left.

And I think that if an organization like this continues, the, what they're going to do, cause

I saw it with Davidi Adeboyele, right? Nine marks guy, former nine, I don't know if he's still with them, but he was a nine marks guy, spoke at Southeastern frequently.

He was a gospel coalition author, and he put out a post from Democrats for Life.

And I just thought, you know, this is what they're going, this is the purpose they're probably going to serve.

They're going to be an organization that convinces Christians, hey, there's a place for you.

You can join this organization or people who are pro -life. You know, you can join this organization and you can still keep your principles and vote

Democrat, but you will at least be with another group that's encouraging you that you're still pro -life.

And so I think it can serve the purpose of these other organizations to funnel people into the

Democrat party. Here's the

Democrats for Life saying, well, we have no plans to endorse a presidential candidate. We wanted to hear your thoughts.

And Kamala Harris, of course, won their straw poll. So, you know, who should be the nominee for president?

Harris won. Manchin was number two, which I think Manchin is pro -life. He's one of the last pro -life

Democrats, if I'm not mistaken, but Harris still won. They still picked one of the, so think about it this way.

Democrats for Life, still a plurality of them, more than any other candidate, decided to go with the pro -abortion person.

So they're still hooked into the Democrat party. In 2023, President Biden stated that he's not a big fan of abortion throughout his long career in public service.

Biden's policies have occasionally reflected that skepticism. So this is what they're holding onto. Maybe Biden's skeptical. In contrast,

Kamala Harris has never publicly supported any restrictions on legal abortion. So whoever's running the account is trying to signal, hey,

Biden's better than Kamala Harris on this issue. They still picked Harris. They have a statement on Kamala Harris.

And I don't, I think the fonts, can I read this? They congratulate her for getting the nomination, and they're concerned about her abortion stance.

But they're not, they're not like saying we're gonna withhold her vote. They're not condemning her in those terms. So, so yeah, there you go.

There's pro -life Democrats. Now let me play for you a few clips from the

DNC last night, and just show you some of this religious language and appalling language too, that gets into their movement.

So here's the, I believe this is the invocation for the event. Growing up in the apostates,

I often look to the good book for understanding and guidance.

As second Corinthians informs, we are troubled on every side, yet not distressed.

We are perplexed, but not in despair. Persecuted, but not forsaken.

Cast down, but not destroyed. Our great democracy has been tested, and so has the basic goodness of the

American people. But our resolve to remain a great country with freedom and justice for all will not falter.

We will continue our march toward a more perfect union, united in our common purpose and emboldened by our resolve to elect

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as the next president and vice president of the

United States of America. Thank you, and Godspeed.

All right, so second Corinthians four, where Paul's talking about persecution and undergoing that, he applies that to the

Democrat party. And they're in power, it's just a weird thing. It's like, you just think about the optics of it.

Paul literally has almost lost his life, and he's giving his life for the church to suffering great deprivation.

And he's showing the Corinthian church, like, this is what I suffer for you, for the gospel, for our

Lord. And so he just applies it to the Democrats in the room. Hey, we're suffering, just like that, apparently.

Even though we're in charge, we're in charge. It is the weirdest thing to me that the Democrats have this way of,

Obama did this, where he's had two terms as president, and yet there was always these forces that would prevent him from getting done what he really wanted to accomplish.

All these hidden forces that were out there that were persecuting, that were holding him back, that were just under the surface, waiting to come out.

And Kamala Harris has been the VP for the entire term. And yet she's pretending like she's got all these novel new policy ideas that she can't do anything about.

And Biden's supporting her. But yet, so what's the disconnect? Why, you know, she's just get in a room with Biden and be like, you gotta do this.

And she's saying she's gonna bring border security. She's, that was her job. You had one job, Kamala, was secure the border.

It's not secured. So what makes you think that when she gets into the office of the presidency, she's gonna do any of these things? It makes no sense.

But I think this is part of that. This is that there's always these forces that are holding us down, keeping us back from getting the utopian world that we want.

And even when we're in charge, they're still doing it somehow. So he applies this persecution verse to that, taking it out of context.

Here's Raphael Warnock, who, you know, of course is a quote unquote pastor.

And here's what he had to say at the Democrat National Convention last night. I need my neighbor's children to be okay so that my children will be okay.

I need all of my neighbor's children to be inner city children in Atlanta and poor children of Appalachia.

I need the poor children of Israel and the poor children of Gaza.

I need Israelis and Palestinians. I need children.

All right, keep the faith. I guess he thinks that's a room full of believers.

And it's so surreal. Again, I keep using that word, but I don't know what other word to use. I need the children to be okay.

That was the whole point of that rant or not rant, but that, you know, that crescendo.

I want the children to be okay. All of the children, says the guy who's in the party of death.

I want all the children to be okay. So I guess, you know, drag queen story hours, transing them, letting them choose their gender, making sure that they can be killed in the womb if their parents don't really want them, making sure all the children can be okay there.

Yeah, and they cheer for it. And they think that this is somehow the party that believes in that and wants to keep the faith and keep looking up.

Here's, oh, and I'll say, another observation I had, by the way, the religion stuff.

I do think there's paganism that's growing in this country. I don't so much see a growth in liberal

Christianity, but what I do see, if you remember, decade ago or more, the

Democrat party booed God. You remember that from the party platform? And, you know, well, of course there was all these fact -checkers saying they didn't actually boo

God. They booed the party for, okay, so whatever, for including

God in the party platform. And that was the height of the new atheism. And now

I don't see that spirit as much. What I see happening, and I think in the future you'll see more of this, is there is a rising religiousness, but it's not

Christianity. It's not real Christianity, obviously, but it is a rising religiousness.

And I think there's more of an openness to acknowledgements of God. Not Jesus, not the

Christian God, but God. And, you know, or when they talk about Jesus, they're not talking about, you know,

I think that Jesus, that Orthodox evangelical Christians are thinking of. So anyway, just thought

I'd point that out, that there doesn't seem to be a lot of backlash for these particular things. Now there's one other clip

I wanted to play. Maybe there was two. Let's see, what's this one? Oh yeah, we'll play this one.

This is the, I guess - Let us pray. End of it, end of the convention. We praise you, oh

God of all creation. Quicken in us a resolve to protect your handiwork.

You are the - Okay, I just need to say, I think I was wrong. I think this is actually the invocation, and what

I played for you before was the benediction. Source of every blessing that graces our lives and our nation.

We pray that you help us to truly understand and answer the sacred call of citizenship.

We are a nation composed of every people and culture, united not by ties of blood, but by the profound aspirations of life and freedom, justice and unbound hope.

These aspirations are why our forebears saw America as a beacon of hope.

And with your steady guidance, Lord, may we remain so today. All right, that was

Cardinal Cupic is his name. And I think the thing

I wanted to point out about this is that he says we're not, you know, the things that connect us are, it's not common blood, it's not, you know, it's actually very different than the

J .D. Vance's kind of like, we're an actual place, we're an actual people. He's saying that, you know, it's not the things that we share tangibly with each other, it's this common mission that we have, this purpose we have.

And that is the progressive mindset. That is the progressive instinct. And so that was his opening prayer.

And then the last clip I have from the DNC that I wanted to play for you is this one.

This is Hadley Duvall, who is an abortion activist, and she got, cheers, well, she got,

I'll show you. She got some claps for this. I was raped by my stepfather after years of sexual abuse.

At age 12, I took my first pregnancy test and it was positive.

That was the first time I was ever told, you have options.

I can't imagine not having a choice. But today, that's the reality for many women and girls across the country because of Donald Trump's abortion bans.

He calls it a beautiful thing. What is so beautiful about a child having to carry her parent's child?

There are other survivors out there who have no options.

And I want you to know that we see you, we hear you.

Kamala Harris will sign a national law to restore the right to an abortion.

She will fight for every woman and every girl, even those who are not fighting for her.

And - I want you to think about something for a moment. I might not have the take that you think you're accustomed to from me on this.

And yeah, I am thinking probably what you expect me to say.

But there's two things going on in my head though. And the first one is this. I think we have to take something like this somewhat seriously.

If you look around the room, and by the way, Democrats look a lot different than Republicans, the way they dress, the way the looks on their faces, it's just, it's interesting to me how different the parties look.

But if you look on the faces around the room as Hadley is saying what she's saying, there's tears starting to form.

I mean, they really, they're believers. Some of them are probably thinking back to times in their life when they were abused.

They really do think that, I mean, what she first said was inaccurate about Donald Trump having these abortions.

They're not Trump's abortion laws in these various states. Trump obviously made a way for those laws to trigger laws and pro -life laws to be allowed because of the overturn of Roe v.

Wade because of the Supreme Court nominees, but they're not Trump's laws. But either way, this is something that the women in that room who you saw on camera who are getting very emotional about this, they probably have stories behind that.

And I think there's actually as twisted as what you heard was that women need abortion, they need to kill their babies.

Essentially, we need to make it so women can kill their babies. And it's not just people in this predicament that those laws would apply to.

This would be the vast majority using them because of, not because of something like incest, but because they have an abortion, they wanted an abortion for the sake of convenience and that kind of thing.

But either way, there is something also twisted about the scenario she's describing, right?

12 years old, and I think what she said, her father rapes her. And so she is pregnant with,

I mean, it's such a twisted thing. It's her half sister and yet it's also her child.

And her father would be the grandfather of this child in a sense, but also the father.

It's so twisted. It's so against what we know to be the way

God has ordered our world. And she is tapping into that on some level.

She's, I saw someone, I don't know who it was. Someone said this recently though, that the

Democrat party is the party of very insecure, needy women, something like that.

And they were doing it based off of some stats that came out. There was a stat that basically showed, I guess it was left -leaning women, something like 50 % of them are on antidepressants.

It was a crazy number. And when you don't have a husband or the men in your life have been bad, or you just haven't chosen well, and you've chosen to go down in your naivete, maybe you married someone you shouldn't have, whatever the case is, but you've gotten to the position where you've been a victim, a real one of some actual abuse.

And you're done with it. Maybe you're done with men. You could become a lesbian, or maybe you just say,

I'm just not gonna do it anymore. I'm not gonna date. I'm not gonna, but you still have these maternal instincts.

It doesn't go away. You're still a woman, right? You're still attracted to men on some level, or at least attracted to these, even in a lesbian relationship, why does one act like a man?

You're going to look for someone to take care of you, and that becomes the government.

Kamala Harris becomes mom. Tim Wallace becomes the good dad, the dad that is portrayed as the kooky, goofy uncle who's not going to do horrible things, even though his policies, he's a moral monster, essentially.

I mean, I don't know. There's speculation on sexually what he's done and hasn't. I don't wanna weigh in on that because I don't know, but all these videos they're putting out to make them relatable, things

Trump and Vance would never do, but they're at a gas station, and Kamala Harris is looking for chips, and Tim Wallace is like, here's the chips in this aisle, and it's meant to make you feel comfortable.

It's meant to make broken people, I think, feel at home. The policies don't really matter to those people as much as, not saying they don't matter at all, but as much as the image that they're getting.

They want someone who they think cares and who's not going to do those horrible things and who's innocent in some way and who is not threatening and doesn't bring stress to their lives, and Trump is portrayed as all those things.

Sometimes he says things that increase stress, and especially for women, and then portray

Kamala Harris and Tim Wallace as these more chill, kind of cool people that don't bring that kind of stress.

I think that's the strategy, and I think it actually, with this demographic, it works,

I believe. You could just see the looks on the women in that room. The thing that they care more about in that moment,

I think, is the fact that Kamala Harris and Tim Wallace, they actually care about what we went through.

They actually care about what people we know went through, and the policies, they associate these policies with care, obviously, so abortion means that you're not forced to do this very unnatural, this very outside -of -the -created -order evil thing, but if you try to come at them with stats, if you say, well, look, it's a small percentage of abortions that are because of this, and even in that case, you're still killing an innocent party because of the sin.

Why don't we just tighten up regulations and restrictions and penalties for fathers who would do that to their children, right?

Even then, I'm not talking the language of caring, am I? I'm being aggressive.

I wanna go hurt someone. I wanna go punish someone, and they've been convinced that the unborn life isn't a someone, so I guess my only point in bringing that up is when

I saw that, I thought, you know what? That's very twisted because they wanna kill an innocent party, but at the same time, they're also reacting to a twistedness, and they think that this, being more twisted, is the way to solve the initial twistedness, and it's not.

Obviously, the solution is the father should never do that, and the penalty should be so severe that thinking about doing it would be a scary thing, so I'm not suggesting any strategy for Republicans or conservatives.

I don't really know exactly how you, I don't think that's a base that you necessarily can attract.

You can talk about being hard on crime and punishing those who would break the law in abusive ways and keeping children safe, and those,

I mean, you could do all that, and that does mean something, but I don't know that you're going to tap into what many of these women who are in these situations need is, it's not what conservative, in their minds, at least, it's not what conservative solutions are going to provide.

Right? They're done with what they consider to be toxic masculinity, so yeah, take that for what it is.

I just, I think it's a symptom of how far we've fallen that you have a large demographic of people like this, and it's very dangerous.

It is very dangerous for our society to have so many people who aren't married, so many women who are in these more professional careers and guys in blue collar jobs, that's already a mismatch.

A lot of guys don't even, some guys do, obviously, but I was reading something the other day that guys don't tend to marry women, it was a stat, actually, women who are in roles that seem superior to them.

That's just, you can make of that whatever you want, but that is, that's a reality.

That's just the truth. Guys, they want to be the breadwinner. They, in general, they want to be the one who's more dominant in the sense of taking control of family economics and that kind of thing.

They want to be the providers. They want to be the protectors, right? And they want to use their aggression and channel it towards those ends.

And I'm talking about the good guys, right? And so it's very dangerous when you get into this spot of telling women that they're going to be fulfilled with these professional careers, and there's more of them in college now than men, and they get into this spot in their 40s and their 50s, where, what's the meme going around X right now of a woman in her 40s, who's really proud that she doesn't have children, she doesn't have a man, but she's having the time of her life.

She's partying it up. That's the exact demographic that votes for the Democrats, exactly.

That's if you want more liberals, that's what you're going to get. And so I would just warn dads who are more traditional and Christians obviously listening to this podcast, make sure that your daughters are,

I'm not saying you have to make them Amish, but make sure that they know that the fulfillment that they're seeking in life is not ultimately going to come from a professional career.

They do have maternal instincts. There are special cases. God does give the gift of singleness. I understand all that.

But for the vast majority of people, what God has designed and what

God wants is for them to seek marriage and to seek children. And sure, it's fine to pursue a career and those kinds of things, but don't expect from it that you're going to get what you would get from a husband or a family.

So more families, I think, equals more conservatives, more single women like this.

Many of the faces you saw at the convention or people from these broken backgrounds, you're going to get, the more,

I would say mentally unhealthy probably a person is, the more likely they are to go for a party like this that allows vice, that doesn't want you to suffer the consequences if vice happens and consequences are there.

You know, that speaks to you in the therapeutic tones, but inside there's great violence and great evil.

I think that was the last video that I wanted to play. No, there's one more and I'll end it with this. So I wanted to, this is some speculation, but this is election speculation here about what might actually happen in the election.

And this is the VP for the Kennedy ticket. They are running a third party.

And at some of these swing states, they're running 5%, 6%, meaning if they swung their support to one side or the other, that might swing the state for a candidate.

And we may end up having a Trump victory based upon this.

You know, there's two options that we're looking at.

And one is staying in, forming that new party, but we run the risk of a Kamala Harris and Waltz presidency because we draw votes from Trump or we draw somehow more votes from Trump, or we walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump.

And, you know, we walk away from that and we explain to our base why we're making this decision.

All right, that was Nicole Shanahan. And she is running as the vice presidential candidate with Robert Kennedy and considering the possibility of throwing their support to Trump.

And if that happens, then that is gonna be a real problem for the Democrats. So let me take some questions and some comments.

So get them in now. Crazy Cowboy, Crazy Cowboy. Sorry, I have allergies. So that's why

I'm struggling a little bit here. But Crazy Cowboy says, why are Christians more critical of Trump while voting for the satanic left?

I don't get it. You have to buy into some propaganda.

You have to have all the negatives about Trump inflated in front of you and all the things about Kamala Harris kind of just, well,

I didn't show you actually. I said I was gonna show you and I don't think I ever did. So I can show you this now.

Let's see. This is the Evangelicals for Harris website. This actually partially answers the question right here.

So there's Kamala's faith story, right? Is right here. So everything's about like attacking

Trump. I showed you like the video that they just put out. And then here's Kamala Harris.

Of course, she's with a little baby. So it talks about the

Good Samaritan and loving others. And it's just, she loves God and she's a Baptist.

She was singing in the children's choir at the 23rd Avenue Baptist Church of God rather in Oakland, California when she was a little girl.

Somewhere along the line, she had some Baptist connection but then it says that she respects the faith of her mother and she's been in Hindu temples and the faith of her husband.

And she's been to, you know in Jewish ceremonies with her husband. And so she just respects all these faith traditions.

And like many people of faith I have private conversations with God where I usually ask for strength and protection to make good decisions and do the right thing.

And I can trace my belief in the importance of public service back to the Good Samaritan. So it's so vague.

It's so general. It's so ecumenical. It's so not evangelical.

There is nothing in here about any kind of repentance, salvation, none of it. And yet if you just, if you take the few little things you can from Kamala Harris, you know she said that the

Good Samaritan inspired her and really play that up and then take all of Trump's foibles and put that in front of you then you get an incorrect picture.

Obviously Trump actually has more of an evangelical connection than Kamala Harris does growing up Presbyterian.

And he doesn't have the Hindu stuff and the Jewish stuff. So, you know, if you wanted to make the case you know, who's more in line with evangelicalism it would probably be

Donald Trump. Neither of them are evangelicals though. Is there a point at which reasoning with people who have hardened their hearts is pointless?

Yeah, there does become a point. I think I was going back and forth a little bit with a guy,

I won't even say his name and I don't want him to get more followers than he has.

He doesn't have many, but there's a guy on X that I was going back and forth with. And I had a few people being like it's not worth your time,

John. And I struggle with that sometimes. So, you know, is it worth my time? Is it not? I sometimes think, you know, people are watching and for them,

I will sometimes go back and forth with someone who's a fool. But yeah, I think the Proverbs are very clear on casting your pearls before swine.

Obviously that's not in the Proverbs but that principle that you see carried through the Proverbs of when you speak to a fool they will laugh and rage at you.

It doesn't accomplish anything. Better not to do it sometimes. So yeah, I agree. John, you were spot on.

There was a lot of denial by large numbers of Christians of the decay happening. They do not see Christians who

Christians are and I've been in a war and they do not want to fight. There's a lot of other comments coming in.

I'll try to get to some of these. Question, how has the manifestation of liberal Christianity connected to the big box seeker sensitivity that defined much of mainstream evangelicalism?

It seems one came out of the other. And this is actually a good question because I think that the mainstream, the evangelicals that Euclid was responding or talking about there who go to the mega church where it's really watered down, they're the ones that can be suckered into evangelicals for Harris easily because their theology is an inch deep and they're not thinking through things necessarily.

And there's just not a lot of direction and guidance on stewarding your vote.

So they're going to churches that want Democrats and Republicans most likely next to each other in the same service.

So those things are gonna be downplayed, those differences. But whether one came out of the other,

I think that the big, those evangelical churches you're talking about are more and more market -driven.

They're not necessarily ideological. They just want to have the biggest crowd possible and that gives the most money possible and that kind of thing.

So yeah, they're gonna appeal to the left because they want people who are on the left sitting in their churches and they'll respond to pressure from the left.

And that's where most pressure comes from. But I don't think they are necessarily all ideological.

Some of them are, but I don't think they necessarily have to be.

If you love Christ, could you vote for death? Fetus means offspring in Latin, not a clump of tissue. No, I don't think you could vote for death.

No, if you really understand what Christ's commands are, you really understand this is murder, then no.

Let's see here. Trump's position is the same as Reagan and Bush and senior and Bush Jr.

So what is their point? I'm wondering if this is on abortion and I'm not sure at what point

I was, what I was saying when this question was asked, but that's a good point. Trump's position actually isn't, it's not as different as I think some evangelicals who are very, very pro -life and I understand are portraying it.

Trump is not pro -life in the sense of, let me rephrase that, all right? Trump is not anti -abortion, not to the point that he should be.

He is against late -term abortion, partial birth abortion and fantaside, but he has never been someone who has a strong pro -life record or anything, really.

I mean, he, I think his concession to evangelicals was he was going to make that one of his purposes and he has done more for the pro -life movement than probably any president since the moral majority.

He showed up at the March for Life, first president to do so. He actually got

Roe v. Wade overturned through his Supreme Court appointments, Mexico City policy.

I mean, there's a lot of good you can say about Trump, but he's not a convictionally or a consistently pro -life person.

And you could make the argument that neither was Bush, neither was Reagan though. I believe, now Reagan, I'm trying to remember now, but I think in both cases, they were in favor of certain exceptions.

And Donald Trump seems to want federalism for this. He wants states to, he has opened the door for states to do what they want on this issue, even though he is,

I know people will be quick to point out that in Arizona and Florida, that he was against some of their legislation that restricted abortion because of wanting to win the election.

And that may be, but he doesn't have authority in those. He wants to create, he wants a situation where he does not have legal authority to do anything about that, that these are state decisions.

So that's his solution. That's the federalism, I guess, bent that he has.

But yeah, I don't know exactly who's in reference here. So I'll take maybe one or two more and then we got to close the program because we're over an hour and a half in at this point.

I don't think, I want to take it from people I haven't taken questions from. John Harris, is abolitionism hurting the incremental gains we could claim?

That's a good question. I think that's going to look different depending on what state you're in. And I'm not fully able to speak on what's happening in places like Oklahoma or Idaho or Texas or some of these red states where you do have more prominent abolitionists.

That'd be a good question for someone like Dusty Devers. And he would probably say no, but I've wondered at times,

I have the thoughts cross my mind and I live in a state that's blue. So we don't have abolitionists in New York.

When I was in Virginia, I know there were some, but they had little influence.

But I will say this, Virginia is more purple. And so there's a little more abolitionists.

And my understanding is that Governor Youngkin did want to do an abortion ban, but it wasn't a total ban.

And it was abolitionists primarily that were able to defeat his bill so that Virginia has less restrictions than it would have.

So, some would look at that and say that was a principled stand. Others would look at that. And I think

I would be more sympathetic to the others who look at that and say, now more babies are going to die because we didn't like the bill.

I think it's better to, you push as hard as you can for the right bill.

And if there's a compromise that's made of some kind and it's moves the needle in the right direction, that's the incremental approach.

You go for the compromise and then immediately you start pushing again for the right bill and you never stop and you never let it pressure.

I know Doug Wilson calls that smash mouth incrementalism. And there's some people who say they're abolitionists who are for that, because they'll say, well, my whole goal is to abolish abortion in doing that.

Even the most hardcore abolitionists though are working on the state level, which means they have to go state by state by state, which is also in a sense, you could say perhaps an increment that we're going to by different steps eventually get to abortion being illegal.

Even if we have to work through the state apparatus, state apparatuses and we can't work through the federal government, or if we have to work through state laws and defend them up to the

Supreme Court so that we can maybe get a ruling that will protect life in all these states.

That's still an incremental. So I think the water's muddy between these two things a little bit.

And some of the vitriol that's cast back and forth. I don't,

I'm not a fan of all of it. I think that we should all be for, let's end all abortion.

At least as much as we can. We can't end everything because people are going to sometimes do things outside of what the government knows about.

But insofar as we can, let's end abortion and let's use the means we have necessary to do so.

So that's the position I've held at least. Okay, let's see one more question or comment.

And I'm trying to pick on, I'm sorry for those who are in the chat who have already gone to. It's nothing against you personally.

I just want to go to someone who hasn't commented yet. So last call.

All right, Forge and Anvil, child tax credits. Child tax credits. I don't know what this is in response to.

I think that we should have child tax credits. So if that's what you're asking, if I'm for that, then yeah, I think we should definitely incentivize having children.

And that's something the government should do. And that's very different than, I think that the Democrats want, or actually

I shouldn't say just the Democrats, but because the Republicans even, I think have a plan to pay,

Trump floated this years ago to have paid childcare essentially.

Provided like a service. And it's like in calling it pro -family and like, okay, but wouldn't it be much better if you just don't take the money from us in the first place that gives us more control and the state less control.

And I think that would be a much better way to do that. Are child tax credits socialism? I guess that was the question.

No, well, child tax credits, as far as I understand, right, when you're filing your taxes, this will be the first year that I actually have to navigate this because I have a child.

So I think any parent understands this, but when you have children, you get a write -off, right? So in other countries, you can get like big incentives.

I think in Hungary, maybe Poland, but also I think in Russia, there's some big incentives for having kids because they have a population problem.

And so they may even give money to have a child. But I think the best thing is don't tax me as much.

Don't take my stuff. Give me more so I can have the resources to raise the kid. That's my way of thinking about it.

But I haven't thought about it all that deeply. All right.

Sorry, Euclid, I see your question there. Save it for the next podcast. We're almost an hour and 40 minutes in.

God bless everyone. Remember, if you're a guy, come to the Fundamentals Conference, fundamentalsconference .com,