Why Are Christian Nationalists So Anti-Constitution?

Today's show is sponsored by Curios Consulting. That is Curios with a Y. K-Y-R-I-O-S. Real estate investing can be intimidating. That's why you don't do it alone. Curios Consulting gets you from no real estate to your first rental property.

My friend Steve did it right here in New Hampshire, and he wants to help other Christians do the same. Visit consultingbycurios .com. Again, that's with a Y. Consultingbycurios .com. No more excuses. The world needs more Christians with passive income, not more passive Christians.

Make it happen. The link is in the description. All right, everybody, let's get started today. I don't know where you guys get this, but you guys are brutal. Just complete savages. I'm out here. I'm just in between calls.

I just checked Twitter real quick, and all I see is just a no quarter brutality, savagery. It's off the charts these days. I'm going to take my hat off to you. Put it back on. Everyone's freaking out about how Christian nationalists want to overturn the constitution, and we want to do this and that.

They want to have an authoritarian Dick O 'Fallon. Oh, you're a neo-integralist reactionary. All that gobbledygook that he typically says. It has gone a little nuts lately. Then, of course, you've got Blake Callens on team O 'Fallon, which I know they're not actually on the same team, but they're on the same side of this.

It must be uncomfortable. You've got all the people that you used to be so wary of, and, oh, they're terrible, and this and that. You're on the same team now. It's just too funny. The woke right is very interesting.

They like to say that we're the woke right, but you guys have so much in common with the woke church. It's just unbelievable. Whatever. Anyway, Blake Callens, he said, oh, they've been talking about overturning the constitution in secret for years, and I knew about it, but now they're open about it.

Now I got them to be open about it. It's just so funny because it's a classic case of Blake Callens' internet sleuthing because what he does is he pretends like something is hidden that has been open for literally years.

I've talked about this for literally years on my channel and in my podcast, but no, we was in secret until Blake showed up on the scene, and he got us to expose ourselves. It's one of the classic moves out there that I always get a good chuckle out of, but here's the reality.

The situation is this. My team, almost to the man, I mean, I'm sure there's some people, but almost to the man, my team, we're constitution respecters. We appreciate the constitution. We appreciate the government that the constitution set up or at least intends to set up, but there's two caveats about our constitution respect.

The first caveat is that the way that people interpret the constitution in the, I don't know, maybe the past half century or so is nothing like, nothing like the way the constitution was intended to be interpreted.

You got to go to, we understand that the original meaning is what's important. The constitution can't mean what it never meant. That's one of those phrases that sounds so stupid, but when you think about it, it's profound.

The text cannot mean what it never meant, and it never meant the situation that we have today. It never meant that, so it doesn't mean that, and so number one, we recognize that fact, so we respect the constitution as it was originally intended, and so that means things like blasphemy laws are okay under the constitution because they were okay under the constitution when the constitution was written.

They were okay. They were legal. They were constitutional, so we respect that. We don't respect the modern day interpretations where all of a sudden blasphemy laws would be literally the worst thing since Hitler, and then so there's that kind of stuff.

We respect the constitution as it was originally intended where it was okay for states to establish churches because the first word of that amendment is Congress shall make no law. Congress shall make no law.

Congress shall make no law. It has nothing to do with what states want to do, so if a state wanted to establish a church, that was okay under the constitution, and so that means it's okay under the constitution, not the modern day interpretations of that, so we're constitution respecters, but the real constitution, right?

When guys like Michael O 'Fallon and Jacob Brunton insist that you show fealty to the constitution and we must return to the founding documents, they get their chests all puffed up. We must return to appreciate the constitution.

They don't mean the constitution. What they mean is the modern interpretation of the constitution after the revolution, and so that's the first thing. The second thing is we recognize that the constitution has no relation to how the country is actually run these days, and if it does have a relation, it is a very, very shallow connection to the way the country is actually run, and so while we respect the constitution, the original constitution, the way it was intended to be understood, we also recognize that it does you no good to pretend like this is still an operation today.

It isn't in any meaningful fashion. Of course, yes, we still have a House of Representatives. We still have a Senate. We still have all these things. We still have the appearance of it, the veneer of it, but in actuality, the way the country is run, it's unconstitutional all the way down, and so number one, we understand what the constitution actually meant, and number two, we understand that that's not really enforced today.

There's so many examples that I'm not even going to get into it because it's just so preposterously obvious that that has no relation to how the country is run today, so we recognize those two facts, and because we recognize those two facts, we're dealing in reality.

People say, well, you want to upset the constitutional order? You want to cause a revolution? They get all caught under the collar. They get all emotional. They get all crazy. Listen, O 'Fallon and these guys, they're at the level of people that call the January 6th thing an insurrection.

That's the level that they're at. The woke right, O 'Fallon, guys like Samuel Say, guys like Eric Erickson, all these kind of guys that are freaking out about anti-Semites and stuff like that, these people are at the level of those who call the January 6th protest an insurrection.

It's the same thing. It's the same exact kind as that. That's how they're freaking out. They're so irrational about this because we recognize those two facts. All of a sudden, oh yeah, you guys are planning an insurrection, and you're treasonous, and all this kind of stuff, all this kind of stuff.

It is no better, no better than the January 6th fake bogus insurrection. Anyway, so here's a couple of brutal, brutal tweets that I saw just yesterday that I wanted to draw some attention to because they're just so beautiful, just beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

Samuel Say, what can I say about Samuel Say? I like Samuel Say for the most part, but he is a very emotional guy, a very emotional guy, and he's very much on message. He's not going to go too far off message.

Now, to his credit, he does go off message occasionally, and those are his best takes by far. He is capable of seeing reality for what it is, so he's not one of these people that has completely just lost the plot and just a mindless robot that says whatever CNN says.

That's not Samuel Say. He's a good guy, and I like him, but for the most part, he's completely safe. Samuel Say is completely safe. That's the line, and so Samuel writes, as an immigrant to the U .S., it's so strange that I appreciate the Constitution more than an increasing number of conservatives, and so that's this kind of, it's like a trope at this point that immigrants love the country more than native-born.

Immigrants love the country more than native-born. That's a right-wing trope that's constantly repeated. When you got a right-wing immigrant, someone that's on the right, they always like to claim that they love the country more than native-born.

Simple as that, and man, Andrew, Andrew, I don't know, man. I don't believe in taking chill pills or gummies or anything like that, but man, dude, maybe you should hit the gym or something. This is savage.

Isker says, by the way, I'm in full support of this tweet. I'm just joking about that. Andrew Isker says, as an American who's been here for five generations, I don't find it strange at all that someone who just got here has no idea what's going on.

Brutal, man. Brutal. That is savage. Listen, I don't know. Maybe Samuel Say stole his Cheerios one day. I doubt Andrew Isker eats Cheerios, but man, I don't know if this tweet deserved that level of brutality, but he got it, and I was appreciative.

Yes, he has no idea what's going on. No idea. Because the Constitution doesn't mean what many people, like Samuel Say, seems to think that it means. He has no clue what's going on. Since the 50s, since the 60s, the way that the Constitution is thought of and interpreted is completely upside down.

It's upside down, and this is proven again and again and again by various people. Here's another one that I just, man, I could not even believe how brutal this was. This is Joe Rigney. Now, his brutality is not, it's not the same type of brutality as Andrew Isker's, but here's Jacob Brunton.

Jacob Brunton, he's one of Michael O 'Fallon's crew, and so he asks Nate Fisher, who, Nate Fisher is the reason why this call got kicked off in the last few days. Nate Fisher said some things about the Constitution and all of that kind of thing.

Basically, he's saying, like, if you guys think that the Constitution is still in force, you're living in a fantasy world. It's just not, that's not how anyone's ruled or governed right now. It's a nice document.

It's a nice piece of paper, but it's been ignored for a long time, so long that this is just not, it's not right to say this is how we're governed right now. We're not governed by the Constitution. That's a reality that you need to accept sooner rather than later, and so Jacob Brunton says, do you affirm or deny the inalienable individual rights of liberty, life, and property?

And so this is the kind of thing that's just, this is like, if you play sports, right, you know, you play hockey, you play soccer, you play something like that, like, one of the worst things that you can do is set yourself up for an own goal.

Like, you shoot it into your own goal, right? And this question, it's so, like, Jacob, in my opinion, is so disconnected from the conversation. Like, he knows his interlocutor so poorly that he thinks this is a hard question for us to answer.

This is, it's, like, you could spend maybe five seconds, five minutes rather, thinking about Nate Fisher, taking a look at Nate Fisher's tweets and stuff like that, and you would know how he would answer this question, and so you wouldn't set yourself up for this level of ownage.

Like, you owned yourself here. This is so preposterous. Do you affirm or deny the inalienable rights of liberty, life, and property? And so Joe Rigney jumps in on this. This wasn't addressed to Joe at first, but Joe Rigney jumps into this, and he, and Joe asks Jacob, I'm curious here, would you, Jacob and Michael, because they're kind of attached at the hip, support a political regime which had Christian blasphemy laws, Sabbath laws, and state-level Christian establishments of various kinds, but including religious tests for state office, or would you oppose that sort of arrangement?

Now, when I saw Joe Rigney say this, I thought to myself, there's no way Jacob is foolish enough to fall into this trap, because he wasn't that sneaky about it. Joe was not sneaky about it. He put in all of the caveats.

He put in all of the necessary details for someone to instantly think, oh, I know what he's doing here. What he's doing here is he's talking about the Constitution as it was originally intended, the Constitution as the founders gave it to us.

It's very obvious, but not to Jacob Brinton. Jacob Brinton walks directly into this trap. It's a trap, and it's a very obvious trap. Now, sometimes you set traps, and they're less obvious. This one was very obvious.

So, Joe Rigney is basically saying, would you support a political regime like the ones the founders gave us? That's what he's asking Jacob, and Jacob is one of these guys, we must return to the Constitution.

We must return to respecting the Constitution, the founding fathers. He's one of these guys that's all into that. So, Joe Rigney asks him, would you support their system of government? You always talk about it.

You always say we got to believe in the Constitution. Do you support what they gave us? Jacob foolishly walks into this. I'm not mad about it because it helps me and my causes, but it just boggles the mind.

He's like he was seeing red. You know when you get real angry, and you're just seeing red, and you're not really thinking things through. You're just ready to fight. You know what I mean? You're just seeing red.

Jacob was just seeing red here, and he says, no, I would oppose that sort of arrangement. Now, I'll ask you a question, and it's not enough to own himself once. He's got to own himself again. Do you affirm or deny the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property?

Again, Jacob knows Joe Rigney so poorly that he thinks this is a hard question for him to answer. Joe Rigney answers it in one word. Affirm. Yes, I affirm the inalienable individual right to life, liberty, and property.

Like Jacob is seeing red here. He's heard from Michael O 'Fallon long enough. Oh, there's the woke right. They're no better than the Marxists. They're the commies. So, he thinks that we would deny these rights.

Of course, we affirm these rights. Of course, we affirm these rights. Of course, we affirm these rights. You have to know us for five seconds to know that we would affirm these rights. And so, Joe Rigney says, affirm.

It's as simple as that. And I'm sure if he wanted more explanation, he would have given him more explanation. But he says, yes, I affirm those rights, obviously. But Jacob's seeing red. He thought that was a, oh, he got him.

He got him. He thought he owned him right there. But no, of course not. And then, of course, Joe Rigney springs the trap. Now, this is savage, completely savage. He says, thanks for clarifying. I assume that you guys didn't want a recovery of the American system that operated for the first 150 years or so since it was still a Christendom model.

Glad to have that confirmed. So, for all the times that guys like Jacob or Michael or Cody or Eric Erickson or Samuel say, say, oh, we need to return to the Constitution. Every single time you hear them say that, you need to hear them add, as long as it's the Constitution, like 1940s, 1950, 1960 interpretation, like not the original.

They don't actually want you to return to the founding documents. They want you to affirm the reinterpretation, the reimagination, the retcon of the founding documents. So, here's what you want to think of.

You want to think of, like, if Jacob Brunton were to say, man, I really love Ghostbusters, we need to really start paying attention to Ghostbusters. He's not talking about the Ghostbusters in the 1980s.

He's talking about the reimagination of Ghostbusters when it's got the girls, the women pretending to be the Ghostbusters. That's what he's talking about. He's talking about the retcon Ghostbusters. So, that's the thing.

So, Jacob Brunton, when he says return to the Ghostbusters, remember he's thinking of the all-female cast. That's what he's thinking of. Joe Rigney, complete savage. In a different way than Andrew Isker, but savage nonetheless.

And then, of course, here's Eric Erickson, where he's, he's, he's scare quote tweeting Nate Fisher about, where Nate says, I understand the nostalgia for the Constitution or longing to restore the principles the founders established, but if you will not accept the reality that this is long gone, if you judge others based on a fidelity to a set of principles that govern no one, then you are a fool.

You are a fool. Nate is being very direct. That's his style. Nate is, you know, he's like a CEO type, investor type. That's his style. And, you know, he's basically saying, look, I mean, I like the Constitution too, but it's long gone.

I mean, it's just gone. It's as simple as that. So, if you're trying to use a system that's long gone to, to change how things are, you're, you're thinking in terms that are, that are, that are not going to work.

It's, they're foolish. Boniface option, of course, here, Andrew Isker, if the system that the founders gave us in quotes, because it's not the system that the founders gave us, but if the system that the founders gave us brought us to this, of what use was the system that the founders gave us?

See, here's the thing, like this, the system that the founders gave us was just a system and it requires people to use the system the way it was supposed to be used. The system was not used in that way.

The system was retconned. The system was re-imagined. The system was essentially the same thing that happened to the Ghostbusters. And it led us to this demon teaching kids that their parents willingly brought to them to teach them how to worship demons as well and read them stories to make them think that demon worship is okay and all of that kind of thing.

The system was only as good as the people that were wielding the power. And unfortunately that didn't work out. It did not work out. And so people are thinking through, what would it take for us to get back what we lost?

And the system as it's used today, it's baked into the cake guys. I mean, you've got to think outside of the box a little bit in order to have a better future. It's amazing. It's always like this. It's like, you know, you guys want to overturn the constitution and the constitutional order.

You want to overturn the constitutional order. And this is the constitutional order. They're upset because we want to overturn this kind of thing. Because if somebody were to make laws about this, a lot of these guys would freak out and say, oh, you don't believe in liberty.

You want to stop the demon story hour? You don't believe in liberty. That's a blessing of liberty. I remember when I said that David French called the drag queen story hour, a blessing of liberty. Cody didn't believe me.

He didn't believe me at first that French had said that. And it's like, yeah, I mean, this is how people interpret the constitution these days. They think drag queen story hour is one of the blessings of liberty, one of the inalienable rights.

And it isn't. It isn't. These kinds of things are not inalienable rights. Worshiping other gods is not an inalienable right. It's just not. And so, like, listen, I'm a constitution respecter. I've long been on record being a constitution respecter.

I think the constitution could have been better, but it wasn't. And so I'm not losing any sleep over it. But I'm a constitution respecter. The problem is that right now there's a debate about reality.

The reality of the situation is the constitution the way the nation is governed today or is it not? Is there just lip service paid to the constitution and then people do whatever the heck they want to do?

I think if you take it out of the context of Christian nationalism, guys like Cody, Michael, Jacob, they would be on our side of this debate. They would say, of course, people do whatever they want. They don't care what the constitution says.

That's the same thing that we're saying, except the reality is that we're also but the reality is we actually do want to go back to the original type of setup, the original system where they it was Christendom as simple as that.

It was Christendom and our laws reflected that. And that was totally constitutional. The position here with a lot of these guys, Jacob, Cody, Michael, Samuel Say, Eric Erickson, all these kind of guys, Russell Morfitch in this category, you know, all these guys are kind of in the same bucket now.

It's a it's a weird bucket, but they're all in the same bucket right now. The thing with these guys is that excuse me. Sorry. They believe that essentially the Constitution was unconstitutional when it when it when it was when it was created.

It was unconstitutional. And for the first hundred and fifty years or so, the Constitution was unconstitutional. And then only recently did we realize that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional.

And now we have the official meaning. And now it now it's more constitutional than it used to be. So here's the thing. The Constitution, when they gave us the Constitution, it was already unconstitutional.

And then in the 50s and 60s, we decide we realize what it really meant. And now it's more constitutional than it used to be. So blasphemy laws that was unconstitutional. So the Constitution, you see, was unconstitutional.

Sabbath laws that was unconstitutional. So the Constitution was unconstitutional. The states being allowed to establish a religion that was unconstitutional. And so the Constitution was unconstitutional until like the 50s.

And then it became constitutional. That's the position. That's the position of guys like Jacob Brinton. They won't say it that way, but that is the position. Guys like Michael Fallon and Cody, they won't say it quite that way, but that is the position.

That the Constitution was unconstitutional for the first hundred and fifty years. And now we got it right. Now we understand it. And then they then they then they get real concerned when we talk about the existence of a post-war consensus.

But that's for another video. I hope you found this one helpful. God bless.