Frozen Road Trip Dividing Line

Welcome to the Dividing Line.

You know, when you get an important text, right? I mean, as Rich says, go. You have to respond to that one a little bit later on. I shouldn't be looking at the microphone, should I? No, the microphone.

Frigid Weather, the Frozen Lake, and the Coming Apologetics Trip

Yeah, hey, it is a Friday. And we're going to call it Frigid Friday. It's actually 33 degrees here, which is the warmest outside for days. And it's sunny outside. But every once in a while, you're going to hear a woo in the background, because it is windy.

And I am sitting next to a huge ice cube, also known as lake. I have not seen, honestly, I have not seen a completely frozen lake in a long time. And I have some questions, being in a, I've lived in Arizona since 1974.

And therefore, well, a lake is a weird thing. It's just having water in it. But why are some lakes smooth, and you can go skating on them? And then this lake, it's like it froze with the wind blowing.

So it's not smooth at all. I don't see anybody skating on it. And I don't think you could, actually, because it's not. How does that happen? Does it sort of depend on the first big freeze day of whether it's windy or not?

I honestly have no earthly idea. I don't know. But yes, we are parked next. I mean, I've looked at this entire campground. And I think the guy over there is closer to the lake than I am. And that means he's probably got it colder than I do.

That's about it, because the wind is coming straight off that lake. And yeah, in fact, we get headed for Conway, Arkansas, and the class next weekend on apologetics. And I got an email from the folks in charge today, making sure that I was aware of the fact that the night that I arrived, they are expecting single digits at night.

So I think it's nine. So at least that's a very high single digit. That's just, hee, hee, hee. And so once again, we are proving that last year, I think it was around May of this year, when May, June, when Rich and I were making decisions about this unit that I'm sitting in and how we're going to do this stuff, we were clueless.

And in fact, I mentioned this today to Rich, and he was like, really? I don't remember that. I do, but I wasn't really thinking too much of it either. But this unit has what's called the Arctic 4 treatment or options.

I don't know. But the point is, and I remember, I've been underneath this thing. When you RV, you see pretty much everything packaged. Thank you. And when you get underneath this thing, it's solid underneath.

You can't look up and see bunches of stuff. It's insulated. And sitting out here, I know it's insulated. I've already hit 14 degrees when I was in Springfield or was that in Oklahoma City? I think it was Oklahoma City.

Anyway, so 9 isn't that much colder, but the thing's the wind. And when I see people around here, there's probably 60 units in this park right now. And you wonder, in January, why? Most of these people are working construction nearby.

And that's what I'm finding a lot of perks. They're on the map, but they don't really want you to come in unless you're going to be staying for a month or two months, basically. And this is just how a lot of people live.

This is what they live in and how they do it. And if they're going to be here for a while, they put skirts down to stop the wind from going underneath the unit. Because how many times have you driven down the freeway and it says bridge freezes before road surface?

It's because the air can get underneath it. And so anyway, we're all insulated down there. And my tanks, like the water tank and the waste tanks, things like that, have heating pads on them. And they're on.

Because that could cause lots of problems. And Richside was a little bit weird back in, I forget, I think it was like November. But I was like, we need to buy this. What was this? A heated hose. Yes, a heated hose.

And it's leaking a lot at one point. I think it's missing a washer. We're going to have to play with that. But I can make it work. And so I'm using it. And so yeah, I'm actually looking forward to next week.

You'll notice that I am wearing one of my Coogee sweaters. But this is a cashmere Coogee sweater, which means it is outrageously warm. And there are very few times when I can actually wear this without just simply dying.

This is one of them. You put this under a nice jacket like I've got that doesn't let any wind through, and oh yeah. We're ready for the Arctic, the Polar Express. At least your core is. So yeah, here we are out here in the nice cold.

The Reliability, Sufficiency, and Nature of Scripture

And tonight, we're going to start speaking on the reliability of scripture. And I'm not just going to do my regular stuff on that. I mean, we're going to cover most of that. But the reliability, sufficiency, and nature of scripture.

I think a lot of folks, I had a great time in Springfield on Wednesday night when I spoke there. And I've linked to the Facebook, Revelation 5 and 6. And one of the things that came up then was over the past couple of years with all the changes in society and changes, therefore, in the church, we have really been forced to once again recognize the importance of the sufficiency of scripture, not just simply the inerrancy of scripture, though there you lose the one, you lose the other.

And so I'm going to be dealing a little bit more with that. I mean, I haven't commented publicly on the fanatic apostasy. If you know what that is, the gentleman who, I guess, his stage name was Fanatic.

Very important, I guess, in the early Christian rap period. I'll admit, I'd never heard of him before. But that's not overly shocking, given my musical taste in my background. But I listened to the video that he put out talking about, I mean, the guy has a master's from Westminster, Philadelphia.

And so I was hoping for some substance that I could dig into that you could respond to. There was no substance. That may be purposeful. I've been informed that he's writing a book. But there are a lot of people who've been impacted by that.

And it all goes back to what hooked me and John Cooper up. And that was the interview that he did where some folks, I've even forgotten which one of the many, had apostatized, deconstructed. Let's use a biblical term.

Had apostatized, had entered into apostasy. That's falling away from the faith. That's the biblical term. There's no deconstructed anywhere in scripture. Someone had left the faith. And CBN interviewed John about it.

And John was like, musicians tend to do this because they don't tend to be involved in the church. And you shouldn't be listening to us anyways. You should be listening to your pastor. And it's all about sufficiency of scripture.

And that was what made me aware of the fact that there is a guy out there that's got super solid grounds. And he's in Christian music. And that's how we ended up getting all hooked up and stuff like that.

Anyway, the issue of the sufficiency of scripture is going to be central over the next couple of days as we meet with the folks. In fact, there was a couple that I briefly talked to as I was pulling out of the parking lot in Springfield of the church.

And they said they're coming up here. So I'm looking forward to seeing them here. And over the years, we've had a number of people who've traveled to be here at Covenant Grace Church. And we get started at 7 o 'clock tonight if you happen to be in the area or whatever.

I do need to say that because after I was in Springfield, I saw a bunch of people on social media going, I didn't know you were in Springfield. Sorry, didn't mean to. Certainly, we're not trying to keep that information from you.

There's a calendar with the events and stuff like that on it. But Rich has to wring that information out of me anyways. So maybe that'll go from there. OK, so we're on Odyssey for the simple. Oh, by the way, I read recently that if you're touching your face, it means you're lying.

I might as well follow this up. By the way, why are there so many geese? I mean, at night, you can hear them. They're wah, wah, wah. There's a flock of them flying right there. Why are they on a frozen lake?

They're to eat on a frozen lake. I mean, all the plants are gone. They're all frozen solid. So I'm not really sure what the attraction is. Are they just waiting for the first warm spell? I don't know.

But I just noticed that there's a bunch of them here. And you can hear them from long, long distance away. And I see them flying around out here. So it's like, why? I mean, I see them actually out there.

Well, I did see two bald eagles. They were huge, humongous beasties out in the middle of this reservoir lake thing. I'm not sure what exactly it is. And bald eagles. And I had not seen a bald eagle in a very, very long time.

I think bald eagles happen to be. Anyway, I just got distracted. But I've been seeing comments since the last dividing line. I also think someone mentioned something about looking away from the camera.

First of all, the cameras in one of these light ring things, I don't like looking at for very long because you end up with these circles all over the place. You try to look at something else and you can't see what in the world you're reading.

And then I'm in a travel trailer. And if the windows are open, there's people driving by and there's things happening. But after we did the last program, where I responded necessarily to the amazing abuse of hermeneutics and exegesis by Layton Flowers in at least the first half of the debate had with Pastor Hughes.

And I know what kind of responses you're gonna get from that. If you, people who don't have an exegetical response today tend to respond with charges of arrogance. How arrogant of you because they've been deeply influenced by postmodernism.

How arrogant of you to think that your interpretation is better than somebody else's interpretation because they can't deal with the substance of the argument. That is that Layton Flowers turned the text its head.

The flow of the text on its head. Cut parts out that don't fit with where he's trying to go. And then created this wonderfully polite group of people who apart from the grace of God are the ones who follow the father.

And they did so out of the goodness of their hearts. And it's amazing because he says that what God does is he makes the gospel available. This is before the gospel is being proclaimed. So without that extension of God's grace I guess it must have been mosaic law that did that.

I don't know. It's just so far removed from anything that has a historical foundation within. But anyhow, I demonstrated all these issues, these problems in regards to Layton's argumentation. And so I've been doing this since the BBS days, okay?

Some of you don't know what BBS is. We're up the Baltimore systems back in the, that was the 80s, wasn't it? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Yeah, late 80s, late 80s. The Mormon echo and the Bible, open Bible echo and all that kind of stuff.

And learned early on and humans haven't changed much. I learned early on that when you present a strong argument to someone and they lack the confidence or the background to be able to respond to your argument, there are certain directions that people will go to seek to escape the weight of the argumentation presenting to you.

And that's what you're seeing in these comments. Now I haven't been, I think I saw at one point that Layton did a video, not shocked by that, and I think he and Guillaume ended up going back and forth a little bit on the issue.

I think it was because I had commented to someone, someone had done the, well, he's just predestined to not get it right thing as if that's somehow a meaningful argument. And I guess Layton had commented on that.

And then he and Guillaume went back and forth on that for a little while, not very long. It didn't get very far, but it was pointed out that he's an incompatibilist, uncompatibilist, and he just can't even allow for the idea as I would argue that in light of James 50, Isaiah 10, Acts 4, you have no choices.

This is, if you're gonna believe all the scripture and scripture alone, this is where you have to go. This is what you're forced to in light of the biblical text. Anyway, I had made a comment that someone who does the, well, I don't care what you say because I've just been predetermined to be wrong anyways, just isn't a serious individual.

They're not thinking seriously because even on the reform perspective, we are held accountable for what we do. You can say, well, he doesn't have a place to do that. That's Romans 9. That's why he didn't execute Romans 9 either.

But the reality is that we believe that scripture teaches that you're judged on the basis of what happens in time, not on the basis of an eternal recurrence. It's not what I think about. And so the whole, well, I've been determined anyways is playing as if you can be God.

You don't know what you've been determined to do. You don't know what the future is gonna look like. And the basis of judgment is what takes place in time, not what you theoretically can come up with in regards to some eternal decree that scripture can tell us about, but doesn't tell us what the content of that is outside of the reality that it means that God is going to glorify himself.

And man, do provisionists. That's scary. Some of the comments that I've seen, it's one thing for the people just rip my lips off. Honestly, I don't care. These people don't know me. They don't know me from Adam.

What that say about me is utterly irrelevant. It just proves my point. They're attacking me as an individual because they can't deal with. Ah, he's arrogant. Let's say that I will. Let's say that it's totally arrogant to point out that someone is twisting the scriptures.

What does that have to do with anything? All you're demonstrating is you can't refute the argument. You don't have, you do not think clearly. It's frightening. How many people, how many people? Let me reverse that.

It's frightening how few people care if they are thinking logically and clearly. That's what's really scary. But anyway, there was a screenshot I saw just a little, just before the program was coming on from someone named John Chu Public.

James White breaks out in a cold sweat, contemplating having to ever debate Dr. Flowers again because he knows Dr. Flowers will mop the floor with his comical contrived shtick. If you were to take all of James White's intellectually honest debate tactics away from him and ask him to sit calmly like a mature grownup adult and rationally discuss theological topics, James White would be a blithering empty shell of a mess because he wouldn't be able to bully his way through with his loud mouth smoke and mirrors circus act.

Now, this is someone who knows that they're the one who would never want to have to sit down across the table from me. This is called projection. And the first person I remember, I wonder if she's still around.

I wonder if Rich will remember this name. But the first person that I ever tangled with for an extensive period of time, partly because she was, but again, it was electronically. It was on the old Echoes, the BBS system, was someone named Sue Weidemark.

You remember Sue Weidemark, Rich? You do, all right. I think I did. Didn't she come to something we did at the office once? I think she did. But anyway, her whole shtick, to borrow the language, her whole shtick was to project onto you everything that she herself was busily engaged in doing while ignoring the issue, which with her was Roman Catholicism.

And that was where, at a young age, I came to understand the term projection. It is all over media. It is constant in media. Both sides do it together, but it is a part of the canon of the left. It's in every book that they have written about how to do, how to deconstruct Western culture.

Project. Accuse the other side of what you yourself are doing and hope that the people that are listening are too stupid to recognize it. That's what this is, this John Q. Public guy. This is projection.

This guy knows that it's not a matter of cheap debating tricks or smoke and mirrors, circus acts, the rest of the stuff. Everybody who watched that last video knows we went into the text and it wasn't a circus act.

It was exegesis. It was the facts of the lexical meanings of words and the relationship of words to one another and the fact that in John 37, the giving of the Father determines the coming to the Son and that the same Elton is the one that is drawn by the Father and raised up by the Son and all the rest of this stuff.

That's not a circus act and that's not bullying. And see, these guys know they can't respond to that. So that's why they call it bullying. But they don't want to admit that. I can't engage his arguments.

So they project the idea that he doesn't have arguments. All he has is cheap debating tricks, which is what this is. So it's projection. It's fascinating to see. And so someone posted on Twitter a bunch of the responses and I read through them and not one of them even pretended to offer any type of meaningful response.

And no, I haven't listened to Leighton's thing because I haven't finished listening to the debate yet. I'm sort of busy right now. And we'll get to it when time allows. If I can remember to get it on my phone so that on the next leg, next four hours, you can throw it in there and catch up with stuff.

And we'll try to do that as we're heading down. But even then, I've got more preparation to do for the class next weekend. And then we got the debate after that. And as arrogant as it is, to be honest with you, we have more important things to be doing than playing some of the games that are out there.

But yeah, that was fascinating. Right before I started the program up, I saw the Anti-Defamation League. Language is severely under attack. And the wise person is sitting back and asking, who is having to redefine words and why?

So we've redefined immunization to mean something it never meant before. And then we pretend as if we didn't do it, and it's always meant what it means now. And the scary thing is, people's memories seem to be so short that they buy into this type of stuff.

And they accept this type of assertion. And once you control the language, in that way, there's almost a limit to the power that you can accrue to yourself over other people. So we know that racism has been redefined.

Racism is no longer what I was taught. What was sinful about racism was the hatred in a person's heart, the bias and prejudice, the pride that goes with judging a person based upon the color of their skin, based upon the background of their ancestors, whatever else.

And now, of course, here's the new definition of racism from the ADL. Racism, the marginalization and or oppression of people of color, based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

So I was somewhere down near South Mountain. I think somewhere around 2006, 2007. I was listening to the Michael Medved Show. Not sure if it's even still on. It was canceled in Phoenix a number of years ago.

And he had a person on who was arguing that people of color, specifically Black people, cannot be racist. And I remember the first time I heard it, I was just like, how can someone be so disconnected from reality?

And this is now, what, 16 years later, absolute dogma. And obviously what the left wants to do is the left wants to institutionalize in the law these kinds of absurd definitions. And I say they're absurd because half the words in here are loaded with utterly undefended and indefensible concepts behind them.

The result of this is what we are seeing in our society. And that is more and more people of color thinking that the law has no meaning for them. They cannot be racist themselves. And so they can behave in any way they choose to behave.

And the result is what you're seeing in major cities, people fleeing these major cities as a result, people just walking and stealing things, shooting people, killing people. And the people who suffer the most, of course, are people of color.

You do need to realize BLM always will have zero concern. About people of color, unless they happen to be the person of color that you're talking about. But language, there is a natural development of language that is perfectly normal and acceptable and doesn't have anything to do with a rejection of a worldview or anything like that.

Language has to develop because languages interact with one another, because there are new developments in history, technology, inventions. I was, what, in high school? Yeah, maybe even college, before there was such a thing as a floppy drive.

And when you think about floppy drive, would have had no meaning to anyone in the decades or the centuries before that. I mean, it really would not have had any floppy and drive. But most of us, I guess some young people in the eyes may not know what a floppy drive is.

But that's a natural, appropriate development in language. Technology, languages interacting with each other, that's perfectly normal. What we're experiencing is not that. What we are experiencing is a recognition that when you honor language, you're honoring the presence, connection to the past in the sense of wanting to be able to understand what the past said and to place them in their proper context with honesty.

So as to live in light of both the good and the bad of the past, to honor the good and to learn from the bad, and then to be connected to the future so that there is an accurate understanding of what we believe and where we were coming from in the future context.

The secular left obviously wants to completely destroy our connection and our connectivity to the past. Tear down the statues, change the history books. That's their thing. That's what they want to do.

And that way, you stop being concerned about the future. It's so sad for me to see so many people, young people today. When I was a teenager, I felt that I had a responsibility to grow and to mature and to marry and to have a family and to look toward the future.

And I didn't have as much emphasis upon that as I wish I had, but it was still a part of the general concept, the general thinking of my era. And that eventually, well, yeah, even in my youth, that gave me an interest in the people who'd come before me, maybe not as far back as now, certainly.

But it gave cohesion. It unified. Critical theory, secular leftism does not want any unification in the sense of right now, it's construct, obliterate, destroy, then build a unified totalitarianism based upon a narrow secular range of thought that destroys all liberty.

That's what you got to do then. And that's what they're actively pursuing now. And as Christians, we cannot go there. It should be a Christian who reads scripture and ponders it. Why did the various of the patriarchs put up this stone pillar, an evanescer, a stone of help?

Because they were commemorating when God had acted in deliverance for them. And so they put something up because they want to remember and they want others to remember. Here is physical. You look upon this and you remember what God did here.

That's a part of our worldview. And hence, we should be looking forward to the next generations in the same way. That, I'll be honest with you, has been short served eschatologically in many situations today.

But it's an attack upon language. It is an attack upon language. Just a couple of other things here. May not even go to full, but we'll see. Just that way, Rich stays awake. Because I've got to get ready for this evening.

And like I said, a text came in, literally, as Rich said, go. Requesting information about another important trip. So I need to get to things like that too. I haven't commented on the Pennsylvania, quote unquote, transgender swimmer.

This is a guy who actually competed on the university level as a male. Evidently, is only doing the chemical stuff. He has not done the physical stuff. Because there is a story out, I think yesterday, late yesterday, early today, from other swimmers, other actual real women's swimmers on the team that are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that he is running around the locker room.

But here's, where was it? Where did that go? Yeah, the Daily Mail. Have you noticed how all media, even Fox News, has collapsed into the utilization of whatever pronouns a person demands? Everybody, everybody in the media just does it.

Here's the Daily Mail headline exclusive. We're uncomfortable in our own locker room. Leah Thomas's UPenn teammate tells how the trans swimmer doesn't always cover up, ready, her male genitals when changing and their concerns go ignored by their coach.

I honestly think my grandparents would have looked at me with utter non-comprehension. If I ever tried to explain to them what's going on in our day, it is another attack upon language, obviously. It's an attack upon biology, attack upon the created reality of who we are.

It's not Leah Thomas. I've forgotten what the guy's name, actual name was. I looked it up once, what his real name is. And so he runs around the women's locker room naked because he claimed, and yet the Daily Mail talks about her male genitals, her square circle.

What? It's insanity. It's absurd. Don't sit there and talk to me about following the science. There is no science here. You do not put a female pronoun with male genitals. That is an absurdity. And any culture that goes, well, you know, if it makes someone feel better, that culture is doomed and it's doomed by its own stupidity.

And if you don't think Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping don't rest so easy at night, realizing this stuff is happening in the West, they are so thankful for it. Well, they've helped to produce it, especially China.

They've contributed to this because they know it will utterly decimate any society. And it is. And it is ours. This is a man, every single quote unquote record that he swims should have an asterisk next to it and be ignored.

I think people should get together and start providing awards, medals, start keeping track of the competitions and simply take these people out. And when this guy goes, as he does, leisurely by the best female swimmers, because he went through puberty as a male, he's got big, broad shoulders and long arms and he's a guy.

And guys swim faster than girls by a long shot. Even Ledecky, who's the greatest women's swimmer of the past 50 years, well, ever, probably, could not compete in the Olympics against the men. She couldn't.

She would be last every single time. But he's a guy. And so he goes zooming past the gals. And I think he started to realize that when he won by, what was it, 27 seconds in the one thing, that didn't look good.

And so what he does now is he just sort of paces along until the last lap and pulls ahead and wins by one body length and ta-da, and that's how you do it. The second place finisher is the winner. That's all there is to it.

And anyone with common sense knows that. And the amount of money being spent, and remember, we have spent trillions of dollars over the past couple of years. We don't have it. It's funny money. That's why everything's becoming more and more expensive, because we're just printing money.

It's funny money. But we have spent trillions of dollars, and the vast majority of it has ended up in the pockets of the people who are promoting this very stuff. Your tax money, your grandchildren's inheritance has been stolen by these evil people to promote evil.

That's what has happened in our society. That's what's going on in our society. And it takes that kind of money to push this kind of insanity, because our kids know it's not true. And so it takes 12 years of indoctrination to get them to believe this foolishness.

There it is. So Neil Young cancelled himself. That's great. I've loved all the memes, I'll be honest with you. The young people, who's Neil Young? And then the older people, what's Spotify? I think that's a good observation.

I think that works. But just a couple of things. There was a statement, I think, from Trevin Wax at TGC, sort of taking a shot at bad preacher clips and woke preacher clips and stuff like that. I'm very, very thankful for both of whoever that is.

They provide a really valuable service. And I read what Trevin Wax's article said, and it was like, how would you like to have people looking so carefully at what you were saying as a young preacher and blah, blah, blah, blah?

That's not what they're doing. They're demonstrating, if they do the IFB stuff, just the abuses of the IFB pulpit, how abusive these churches are with the woke preacher clips. I've benefited greatly. I actually downloaded, it wasn't very easy to do, but an entire presentation today from the woke preacher clips sources so that I could possibly review it in the future.

So I just wanted to publicly say I really appreciate the huge amount of time that goes into that. I don't want to be listening to all that stuff. I really, really don't. And so I appreciate that, that they're doing.

The censorship move, however, continues on without any slowing down. I guess a bunch of other has-been musicians, including Barry Manilow, have likewise joined Neil Young in demanding that their music be taken off Spotify as long as Joe Rogan's on there.

Realize what this is. These are leftist, weak-minded people. That's what they are. And they are virtue signaling. They can't refute what Joe Rogan's guess. And it's not just, Joe Rogan's just simply saying, hey, let them say what they say.

They're wrong. Refute them. No, no, no, no, no, no. Refutation takes too much thought, takes too much work, too much effort. We want totalitarianism. We want absolute unanimity of thought. We cannot stand challenge.

And so they're saying, take their music off. And I really think Spotify is looking at these people going, OK, I would imagine if you put all these musicians together, they would not get enough streams in a year to equal a single episode of Rogan's program.

So self-cancellation, OK. If you don't want the royalties off of that, I guess we won't be able to listen to Copacabana on Spotify. Oh, well. But there's something more sinister behind all of that. There's a guy named Alex Berenson who has been writing for quite some time on the pandemic and the government response and all sorts of things like that.

He, of course, was banned from Twitter. I had followed him on Twitter. And the only reason I even found out what Substack was was so that I could continue getting his material. Well, now we've got him kicked off Substack, too.

And he posted today an email sent to him by, I think it was the New York Post, at like 9 .43 last night. I mean, the hit piece had already been written, but they did. And you read it and I go, man, I've seen this so many times before.

This is Pravda. This is yellow journalism. This is the worst of the worst of this stuff. And they're just doing everything they can to put pressure on Substack to get him. And that means they will eventually work their way around to everybody once we have been convinced that thinking wrongly is bad.

Listen to Trudeau in his description of the truckers up in Canada. It's wrong. It's wrong to think right, wrong thing. It's hard for us to realize this is happening, because those of us that were in high school in the 70s and 80s, we had to read these books.

70s, graduated in 81. We had to read these books. And wow, well, we'll never let that happen. Right in front of us. Astonishing. Two other things, Biden in the Supreme Court. This is so sad. The retirement is purely political.

The retirement has been rushed because this is the last way of saying we know you're going to get absolutely sloshed and on a level that we can't fix with our election rigging. And because I don't think that has to be extremely targeted right now.

Maybe that'll change in the future. It's really targeted in 2020. Those key, key places to determine the outcome. And it doesn't have to be too wide, too easily detected. I think they're going to get creamed.

And for many good reasons. I mean, Biden is utterly incompetent. But he had done this virtue signaling during the election, during the campaign, that he would nominate a Black woman. And while I'm sure there are Black women who could serve on the Supreme Court, it's the very idea of this type of racism.

Racism, this kind of intersectional bigotry of lowered expectations, basically. I mean, Sotomayor, wow, talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, just does not have the acumen, the ability to know what's going on in the world to be there.

And so now Biden, who, of course, orchestrated the attack on Clarence Thomas, the first Black Supreme Court justice whom he voted against. I mean, the hypocrisy should cause Biden to simply explode. But I'm not sure he remembers that, to be perfectly honest with you.

He may not remember having done that. And so here's Biden being told, this is what I'm going to do. This is the person I'm going to put forward. This will not be a liberal. This will be a radical leftist.

This will be a communist. A communist totalitarian is what is coming our direction. And they know they've got to get this done before the election and before they lose both the House and the Senate, which they will.

And then we'll have a real mess on our hands at that point. Last thing you're never going to expect, but I want to throw out there, Michael Fallon sent me something, and I've been thinking about this for quite a while now.

Remember, I don't know, June, July 2020, where a lot of us were seriously, well, really, actually, April, May 2020, we are seriously making plans as to how we might have to meet meet in houses, do it on days other than Sundays.

We're running through, in our minds, through all of the scenarios because the government wants everything shut down. And I thought at the time, if you go out to a certain area in the East Valley in Phoenix, there are all sorts of automatic cars out there.

I don't know if it's a testing facility or what it is. You drive on Ray Road in Mesa and Gilbert, and you will always see Waymo automatic cars running around. And this is what's coming. It's already in news articles.

We have demonstrated in our society that we are cowards. We are childish cowards who are afraid of our own shadows. And the safism, the religion of safism has become the religion of the society. And so as long as you can put it in the context of this will keep people safe, we'll go, okay, I'll give you my children for that.