The Mainstream Media Has Come For Me - #FakeNews

All right, well, welcome back to the channel. It has been a full week since I uploaded a video, and I am excited to begin again.

Wilk Preacher Clips said that I was gabbing a little bit yesterday or the day before, I can't remember which, but he had said that it seems like I'm well -rested and ready to kind of drop some bombs, but I don't know if I would call it well -rested.

I mean, I'm definitely rested from YouTubing, but man, it is hard to get rest in when you're on vacation with children of my age.

It's just very difficult. So actually, I don't feel well -rested, although it was a lot of fun.

So there's that. Now, I was all prepared today. Oh, by the way, before I begin, before I begin, a lot of people have emailed me in the last week because there's a lot going on, understandably so.

And so I plan to respond to all those emails. It may take me a day or so because I've got a lot to respond to, but just know that I'm not ignoring you.

I'm going to get back to you. So everyone who sent me an email, I'll get back to you as soon as I possibly can. But let me just say this.

I was all prepared to talk about Jonathan Lehman. Look at this guy. Look at this guy's,

I've got a new, I've got a new term for people like this. Woke or not, not woke. What am I talking about?

Great reset pastors. This is a great reset pastor. These are the pastors that are going with the spirit of the age and they'll defend it to the death.

And they may have good intentions or they may not. I mean, just look at this guy's face. I'm questioning his intentions.

Just let me just look at this. But anyway, Lehman had done a video recently about how virtual church, you know,

Zoom church is not real. That's not real church, which everyone immediately recognized the hypocrisy.

It was just a few months ago that he was closed down, but still doing Black Lives Matter protests in person and saying how you should stay closed if you want to, because John McArthur's wrong about this and that.

And we've done so many videos about Lehman. I wasn't going to address that, but just the abject, like he thinks you are an idiot, right?

Like, like he might, maybe he's clinically insane. I mean, I'm not making any accusations here, but I wouldn't have the audacity of posting a video like this, knowing that like a week ago,

I believe the opposite and was arguing for the opposite. But, but man, like, like what a snake, what a snake.

Maybe we'll get to that. Maybe we'll get to that. But I was, I was all prepared to do that. And you know, when

I talk about Lehman and other great reset pastors, I tend to get a little heated. You know what I mean? So I was all prepared to be in a bad mood and I was trying to like calm myself a little bit.

But, but, but then, but then somebody sent me a mainstream media article in which

I am quoted and I read it. And I have to say, I, I'm happy to not talk about Lehman because this, my friends,

I count as joy. This, this is the kind of thing that makes me feel really happy, really a lot of joy because I'm quoted defending the law of God and nothing would make me happier than to be quoted, accurately handling the word of God.

Although there are some shenanigans played here by the religious news services, or as I like to call it, the glorious, the glorious great reset religion news programming institution.

That's what the religious news service really is. But, but I'm quoted here. Oh, hey buddy. Hold on one second.

Let me pause this. Sorry about that. That was my son wanting to know if I wanted eggs today. All right.

Anyway, so where was I? I was saying I was quoted in this article and this is the kind of thing

I count as joy. Now, excuse me for a second. I need to practice something before I jump into the rest of this video.

Allegedly, allegedly, allegedly, allegedly, allegedly. There it is. There it is right there.

Allegedly. All right. Now, this is an article about a lawsuit that Hannah Kate Williams, Hannah Kate Williams, we did a, if you remember, we did a 50 minute video, a 50 minute video that was about this woman's appearance at the

Southern Baptist convention. And the video was called, I think the high point of the Southern Baptist convention.

And we're going to actually look at a clip of that video in just a moment. But it was like a 50 minute analysis where we took the law of God and we applied it to this situation.

And I said in the video that if her allegations of rape or sex abuse are true, then the people that are guilty of this ought to be executed.

There's just no question about it. The law of God is perfectly clear on this issue. And I think we ought to bring that back.

We ought to not incentivize sex abuse or rape. We ought to have the harshest penalty that the law of God allows for that, and that is execution.

And it's just that simple. So I'm not ashamed of that. I think it's something we ought to bring back. And if you don't think that rapists should be executed, then

I think you ought to take a good look in the mirror, consider the word of God, and pray that God would change your heart there because God has spoken.

And where God has been clear, we ought to be clear as well. So anyway, I also said, though, in that same video that false accusations, people that bear false witness against their neighbor in the law court ought to be examined thoroughly.

And if they're found to be lying, they ought to get the penalty that they were seeking for their person they accused.

And that's also directly from the word of God. And again, in this 50 -minute video, I played and I covered some of the laws.

If you want to go back to it, I'll link to it in the description of this video. And it's a pretty airtight case.

I mean, there's really no question about it. But so all that to say that I'm quoted here, and it's really interesting how they quote me.

So I wanted to kind of cover it because I just want to analyze this a little bit. There's actually some shenanigans.

And in fact, I believe the author of this piece misquotes me, but it's not that big a deal.

I'm not too worried about it. But anyway, the whole point of this is that, I guess, Henna Kate's lawyer has filed a lawsuit against SBC officials.

It says here, allegedly—let me say this—she's allegedly filed a lawsuit, her lawyer, against some

SBC officials. Here's what it says. On Monday, August 16th, Williams filed suit against a wide array of Southern Baptist institutions and leaders, including the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, where her father, James Williams, once worked, Lifeway Christian Resources, the

SBC Executive Committee, and committee members Mike Stone and Rod Martin.

So it looks like Rod Martin and Mike Stone are on the receiving end of this lawsuit, allegedly.

Now, the other people that it names—so essentially, it's a defamation suit because they're saying that because they say that they didn't do what

Henna Kate's alleging them to do, I guess allegedly that's defamation. I don't really know the details of the lawsuit, but, you know, hopefully this all gets sorted out and we can figure out what to do from there.

It says here that her father and mother—her father is the one who allegedly raped her.

And again, death penalty offense, if, in my opinion, it should be a death penalty offense if he's found guilty on the evidence of two or more witnesses, there should be no mercy for James Williams.

There's just no question about that. He should be executed swiftly. Anyway, it says here that James and Gina did not respond to multiple interview requests for this story, which, in my opinion, there's some questions there because—we'll talk about that in a minute—allegedly that's what happened.

So let's just go to where I'm quoted because that's the interesting part, at least for this video. So, it talks about the video that Pastor James Farrar posted about how

Hannah Kate, he alleges that she's a liar. In fact, he says, Hannah Kate is a liar.

She is lying to you. Why? I do not know. That's what Farrar said in the video. And I remember that quote because that's a pretty accurate quote as far as I can remember because I covered that video in my own video.

And I said, that's a very serious accusation, in my opinion. Now, allegedly, this is what

Hannah Kate is, according to Farrar. And I said, well, that's true. That's a very serious allegation because she's actually alleging very serious accusations against him and against other people.

And so, if they're false accusations, then it becomes a very serious matter. And the law of God, again, is quite clear on what to do in those cases.

And so, that's what my video was about. And so, this article quotes me on this.

And I gotta say, I count this a joy. So, here's what the article says about yours truly, quote, another video by popular

Reformed Baptist theologian, A .D. Robles. Now, let's just stop right there.

This woman does not have her facts straight. Now, I'm not talking about Ms. Hannah Kate because she didn't write the article.

I'm talking about the woman who wrote this article. I am not a Reformed Baptist.

And I like Reformed Baptists. I have many friends who are Reformed Baptists. But I am not a

Reformed Baptist. And so, that's where sort of the... There's a pretty sloppy article in general, at least the parts about me.

That's my first gripe, although that's not a big deal. There's some inaccuracies here. That's not that big a deal. But I also would...

I don't know how popular I am, but... All right, let's just continue.

That's not the good stuff. Another video by popular Reformed Baptist theologian, A .D. Robles, followed on YouTube days later analyzing

Williams' claims. He said that according to, quote, God's law, end quote, the church, quote, mustn't entertain an accusation against an elder unless there are two or three first -hands witnesses.

Now as soon as I read that quote, stepping out of the article for a second, I knew it wasn't a direct quote because I understand my own verbiage.

I know the kind of words that I use. And this word first -hand in this particular context, it's not something that I would do.

Now, allegedly, this is a misquote. And I'm just going to just say that.

Maybe she didn't mean to do it. Maybe she meant to sort of add it herself. You know how they do the brackets so that you know it wasn't what

I actually said? That kind of thing. And she just forgot. I'm not that upset about this because it's almost right, but it's not quite right.

And the reason why I want to quibble with this here, this misquote, alleged misquote, because it's a 50 -minute video.

I haven't watched the whole thing again since I found this article. But I'm pretty sure this is a misquote because I would not have used the term first -hand in this case.

The reason why I want to quibble with it, though, is because in the video, I actually say that it has to be lines of evidence.

It doesn't have to be a first -hand witness. It has to be lines of evidence. So it can't just be one person's word and you take it and you accept it and then you adjudicate the case based on it.

No, there has to actually be corroboration. Now, ideally, this would be another witness, someone who was there.

But in God's law, actually, the law we went over in this exact case talks about situations where there is only one witness and what to do in the case of rape.

And so that's actually not a quotation of me talking about this verse because it's not first -hand witnesses, in my opinion, and this is my interpretation of the verse.

It has to be two or three witnesses. But that's really talking about lines of communication.

It could be an expert witness, right? It could be a DNA sample or something like that. Those are not foolproof.

I'm not saying that DNA is foolproof, but it needs to be corroborated.

That's the point. And I think I found the spot where she's talking about here. And just to kind of prove my case here that this is an alleged misquote of me, we're going to talk about why she misquoted me in just a second.

But I want to just play this, because this is the section I believe that she's referring to. Now, this is me, the high point of the

SBC convention, question mark. Man, I can't talk. Anyway, right around minute 13, let's just listen to what

I said. This is where I think she's getting this. Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

So obviously, this is structure here. So this is a literal quote from the Bible. Talking about the church courts.

We also have the law courts, but the same standard applies in the law court and the church court, right?

Do not even accept an elder. Some versions say don't even entertain an accusation against the elder on the evidence of one witnesses, only if it's supported by two or more witnesses.

So you see, I didn't say firsthand witnesses. She added that and attributed it to me. That's actually not accurate.

But I'm not that concerned with that, because it's pretty close. But what I wanted to address here, this is something that's interesting.

So notice how she frames this. A .D. Robles followed a few days later, analyzing

Williams' claims. He said that according to God's law, in scare quotes, the church mustn't entertain an accusation against an elder unless there are two or three firsthand witnesses, end quote.

Now again, misquote aside, notice how she puts in scare quotes

God's law. As if I'm not actually giving you God's law. As if what follows isn't really

God's law, which is kind of ironic because what follows isn't actually God's law, since she adds the word firsthand and attributes it to me.

But you see, this is why I count this a joy, because I'm happy to be quoted defending and upholding and promoting and insisting that God's standards are above our standards.

Our law should comport to God's law. We should be applying the general equity of God's law in every single situation.

I'm glad to accept that. And look, it doesn't matter if it's something that I would prefer, because my heart is desperately living.

Listen, before I was saved, the heart is desperately wicked. Who could understand it? I'm still, of course, fighting besetting sins, just like everybody out there.

And so I don't trust my own heart. I don't lean on my own understanding. I accept God's rules as dictates and stuff like that.

So this is great, because of course this is God's law, although the Great Reset news article here wants to put

God's law in scare quotes as if I'm misrepresenting God's law. Now, if I had said this firsthand, that word there,

I think I would be misrepresenting God's law, but that's not what I said. So the misquote actually makes this scare quote kind of,

I guess, appropriate, but there's like layers here to the problems, as you can see. Let's just play the rest of the quotation so you can hear the rest of what

I said. And it's the same standard in the law court as well. We have to understand that in a law setting, we need to establish the facts of a matter before we move forward.

And so this is the thing, like, I'm all about taking this extremely seriously, but we also have to take it seriously according to the law of God, but also just the standards of our nation.

When we talk about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the kind of thing, we need to be corroborated, right?

It can't just be one line of evidence, it can't just be one person. And I think that God, when he gave us that law, that commandment, what he wants us to do is to think about this and not necessarily shut down your emotions, but keep your emotions in check enough to not just believe the person making the accusation.

See, that's exactly it, right? So we don't accept one line of evidence, that's literally what

I said. So it's not about first -hand witnesses, because of course there could be situations where there would only be one witness.

You're alone or you're in the field. That's the example that we used in the video. God's law talks about a woman being taken in a field.

There's only one witness, so what do you do? And so things like that. So yes, we have the blessings of forensics now and things like that.

We can get different lines of evidence, but it can't just be one line of evidence, that's the point.

And that is literally God's law. You can use scare quotes all you want, Great Reset Weirdo, but it doesn't actually change what the law of God says.

So this is fantastic. Now, she goes on, the author of the article, and then she'll quote

Hannah Kate, allegedly because she misquoted me, so maybe Hannah Kate didn't actually say this, we'll have to wait and see, but she goes on, listen to this, this is very interesting in my opinion.

The author says this, his video goes on to say, sex abuse should be a death penalty offense according to the law of God.

No scare quotes there, which I appreciate because it is according to the law of God. But if a false witness were to rise up, the person should receive the same punishment.

Now I know she brought this up because she thinks it makes me look bad, but again, this is a joy.

I'm glad to defend and uphold the law of God. We ought to punish false accusers severely according to whatever they would have had done to the person they were falsely accusing.

This is something we need to bring back. We cannot have people rising up and giving accusations, very serious accusations against people that are false, and then they walk away with just a slap on the wrist.

I've seen many cases like this where the person doesn't get any, there's no charges filed once they found out they were lying, that we can't have a system like that.

We ought to be applying the general equity of God's law. And you see, God is way smarter than us, right?

Not only is he way smarter than us, but he's way more just than us. He's way more moral, he's perfect.

God's ways are far above our ways. There's a great chasm between my ways and God's ways, right?

So God, of course, understands the wickedness of the human heart, right? He understands that people will lie, right?

I mean, it's one of the Ten Commandments, don't bear false witness. Why do you say that? Because he knows that sinners will bear false witness from time to time.

Not always, but from time to time. And so he wants to give us tools, he wants to give us a law system that can take that into account, right?

It takes into account the fact that, yes, there are people that are out there murdering, raping, stealing, and the whole nine yards, but then there are also people that are very vindictive and will make false accusations against people that they murdered, raped, and stolen, or whatever it is.

And so we need to have a system that can address both of those things. In fact, there's a passage in the scripture, there's a passage in the

Bible that talks about a situation just like this. Potiphar's wife, she was very vindictive, she was an evil woman, and so she wanted to falsely accuse

Joseph of a crime. This kind of thing happens, and God's law, because he's wise, because he's good, because he's holy, because he's just, because he's perfect, because his ways are above our ways, he gives us a system that can take that into account, right?

That's the whole point of having two or more witnesses, that's the whole point of corroboration, that's the whole point of that law in particular.

But the author of the Great Reset article here wants you to think, well, that's bad, that would be a really bad thing.

No, it wouldn't be a bad thing, that would actually be a very good thing, a very good thing. So thanks for giving me credit on that one,

I appreciate that. But listen to what she says next. This is allegedly a quotation from Hannah Kate.

Now again, I don't know if this is a quotation from Hannah Kate, but allegedly it is. She misquoted me, the author of this article, the

Great Reset reporter, misquoted me to make it seem like God is a little bit more ridiculous than he is.

Again, I don't take it as a misquote so much of me, it's more a misquote of God. But, so she misquoted me, but I don't know, this does kind of go in line with a lot of what

I do know about Hannah Kate, but allegedly this is what Hannah Kate said about me. Quote, what kind of a man thinks

I need to go online and talk about how a rape victim needs to be murdered? End quote, Williams said about Robles' video.

Now again, that's an alleged quote. I don't trust the reporter here to get this exactly right, because she almost quoted me accurately, but didn't quite quote me accurately.

There were some summaries in there or some interpretation in her quote of me that she attributed to me, which is really not what

I said, but that's okay. And actually, I did talk about this exact issue, false witnesses, right?

So at least the author of the article frames this right. But if Hannah Kate actually did say this, then

Hannah Kate allegedly misrepresented me and made me look bad where I'm not.

So let's just listen to the rest of my video here. By the way,

God also takes perjury very seriously. And let me read this to you again from the same section of Rush Duny's book here on bearing false witness.

This comes from Deuteronomy chapter 19. He says this, the scripture says, I should say. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong, then both men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the

Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days. And the judges, listen to this one.

The judges shall make diligent inquisition. And behold, if the witness be a false witness and has testified falsely against his brother, then ye shall do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother.

So shall put the evil away. So shall you put thou put the evil away from among you and those which remain shall hear and fear and shall henceforth commit any no more any such evil among you.

And thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

So the idea here is that, look, you know, we're going to have to start understanding that sometimes someone's going to come and make an accusation against someone.

It's just going to be one person's word versus another. And so what he's saying here, the scripture is saying is that what happens at that point is the judges, and this is like the law court essentially, starts making diligent inquisition.

So they start questioning your story. They start asking you questions, cross -examination, right?

And this is why we do that in our court system now. It's based on God's law. It's like you should be cross -examined by someone who's defending the other guy to see if your story holds water.

It can't just be an accusation equals a punishment, an accusation equals an admission of guilt.

No, no, you have to inquire diligently. And so there's going to be questioning there, and it's a command of God that this happened, right?

You don't just accept an accusation. You diligently inquire. And I think that, again, this is another command to sort of, okay, make sure you understand that your emotions are going to be running high, but there's a way in order to do this kind of thing.

And so I personally think that a resolution that is, you know, insisting transparency in that process is a good thing.

All right, so let's stop right there. So yes, I do address the idea of false accusations, but notice the alleged quotation.

The alleged quotation of Ms. Hannah Kate Williams says that I went online and talked about how a rape victim ought to be murdered.

That's the alleged quotation. Now, there's layers of wrongness here. I did not talk about how a rape victim needs to be murdered.

First of all, I wasn't talking about a rape victim. I was talking about a false accuser. So if this is a genuine quote from Hannah Kate Williams, which

I don't I don't have any reason to believe besides the fact that she the author of this article misquoted me that this would be a misquote, but it could be because she misquoted me.

So maybe she's misquoting Hannah as well, or I should say Hannah Kate. But if this is a genuine quote, then she's completely missed the point.

I'm talking about a false accuser. Now, if she's admitting something here, well, then there's something that there might be something to this.

I don't think she's doing that. I don't think she's admitting to be a false accuser. She's trying to frame this as if what

I was talking about was a rape victim. And I was not talking about a rape victim. So that's incorrect.

That's actually a lie. That's slanderous. I was not saying that I was talking about a false accuser. And then she goes on to compound the error, allegedly, if this is a genuine quote, which again, it might not be.

She says that I was arguing that they should be murdered. Murdered.

I am not for murder. That's stupid. That's actually insane. I'm for death penalty execution.

That's very different than murder, because God's law says you shall not murder. However, it, of course, allows for the death penalty.

It allows for capital punishment execution. That's a separate thing. Execution is not the same thing as murder.

If you're executed for a crime you commit, that's a death penalty offense like murder, like rape, something like that.

That's actually not murder. That's actually execution. So this quotation, if it's a genuine quotation, because, again,

I have no idea if it is or not. The author of this great reset article misquoted me.

So maybe she's misquoting Miss Hannah Kate as well. But allegedly, this is a quotation from her. The quotation gets it all wrong.

And I think it gets it all wrong to try to frame me as some kind of a weird monster. Like, I'm advocating for rape victims to be murdered.

That's insane. I'm not doing that. Obviously, what I am advocating for is for false witnesses who allege crimes that ought to be given the death penalty against a victim.

If they're falsely alleging this crime, they're a false witness. They're lying about them. According to the law of God, what would have happened to the person they falsely accused ought to happen to them.

And that is not murder. That is execution. You see, there's layers here to the misrepresentations.

Now, again, I'm not alleging that Hannah Kate said this. The author of this article is alleging that Hannah Kate said this.

And this is, of course, completely wrong. But if they had accurately quoted me about how people who falsely accuse of rape ought to be given the death penalty, they ought to be executed.

I am happy to accept that as a position. I gladly support it.

I'm not ashamed of it. It's the law of God. This is the word of God here. You know what I mean? You might not like it.

You might think that that's just, doesn't have any grace or anything like that. It's just, but it's not my choice though. I have no choice in the matter.

God has spoken and I am but a servant. This is what it means to be a man under authority, right?

It doesn't matter what I think should happen. It doesn't matter if I want to have pity on the false accuser because the word of God specifically says your eye shall not pity so that other people will see what happens and they will fear and they will put the evil away from among them and not an evil thing shall not happen again amongst your people.

They ought to fear this and that's not my words. Those are the words of the Lord. But anyway, so again, this is an alleged quote according to the author of this great reset article.

The author has shown a little bit playing fast and loose with quotations with me. So I don't know whether to believe this or not.

I mean, it definitely seems to match the kind of positions that I know from Hannah Kate, but again,

I can't put that on her. I don't know that she said this. This is all alleged anyway. Um, and then there's this interesting line here.

This is the last thing. So it says Farrar and Robles did not respond to repeated requests for comment from RNS.

That's the news article. Now, um, I wish I had seen these requests because I would have ignored them.

I don't talk to great reset people. That's insane. I would have, I would have loved to have ignored repeated requests for comment.

However, I can't take credit for this because I've never seen these repeated requests for comment from RNS.

I looked at my proton mail and, uh, my, my 80 at 80

Robles .com email address. And I didn't see any requests from this woman.

Uh, what's her name? Megan Botel. I looked, I, I, I searched it and I didn't see any requests.

I didn't see any emails from Megan Botel. Uh, maybe I'm missing it. Maybe there, maybe they got trashed somehow, but I would love to take credit for ignoring, uh, your requests for comment.

Um, but I did not do that. Um, so yeah, there's that there's that.

Um, but Megan, yeah, hit me up at Robles .com. I would love to ignore your requests for comment.

In fact, I would love to ignore repeated requests for comments. So hit me up a few times, a D at 80

Robles .com. I can guarantee you, I will send your mail to the trash can immediately. That'll be fine.

Maybe I'll read it. I'll, I'll, I'll black out your email address. I'll read it live and then ignore it.

That's what I would love to take credit for it. But, uh, unfortunately in this case, I cannot. But, um, but anyway, no, this is great.

I was, when I saw this quotation, I was very pleased. Um, because yes, it kind of misquotes me and, and, and then the alleged quotation from Hannah Kate, again,

I don't know she said that, but the alleged quotation definitely misrepresents what I was saying. Um, that's okay though.

It, it gets it almost right. And so I'm glad to be seen defending the word of God, the law of God with scare quotes on it, um, and all that.

I'm, I'm, I'm absolutely thrilled about that. Um, but yeah, hit me up. I I'd love,

I'd love to get your email, a woman who wrote this article and, uh, I'll consider what you have to say.

I won't automatically ignore it. It all depends on what you have to say, but, uh, but yeah, definitely hit me up and, uh, and all that.

Yeah. But, but the point is though, that this is a very sad situation and, um, I, I feel very bad for, uh, for Ms.

Hannah Kate here, very, very bad. And again, I, I take this stuff so seriously that, um, if, if this is true,

I mean, we ought to be giving her father the death penalty and anyone who covered it up.

Honestly. I mean, I, I would like nothing more than to blast a, a person who covered up sex abuse.

I would like, listen, despite what Ruslan has said, uh, that I don't, uh,

I don't hold people on my side of the same standard. It's just not true. I mean, I even did videos recently, uh, criticizing people from my side for something they did that was unbiblical lawsuits and stuff like that.

Um, but if Rod Martin was covering up sex abuse, that's a serious allegation. That's a serious crime.

I'd blast him. Of course I would blast him. Now. I don't assume that he did that because obviously there's been some problems with truth telling, at least in this article.

Um, and in the past, of course. And so we have to apply God's law and we have to diligently inquire.

And so I hope that happens and I hope all is revealed and all that kind of thing. Um, but anyway, uh,

I hope you enjoyed this video. I sure did. And, um, we'll talk more. We'll talk about Jonathan Lehman very soon.

I've got some live streams that I'm doing today. I've got a video that I'm doing with Jared, uh, not

Jared Taylor. What's his name? Uh, yeah, yeah. I forgot that guys. Now I'm so sorry, brother. Jared Sparks.

Yeah. Jared Sparks. I got a video with Jared Sparks coming up. And, uh, anyway, I I'm glad to be back.