In this Friday edition, I welcome my co‑host Brent Allan Winters to range across law, history, and current events through a common‑law lens. We dig into what perjury actually is (and isn’t) at common law, why oaths matter, and how evidence is ultimately oral within our tradition. We touch on naturalization, jury power, equity vs. law, and the Constitution’s often‑forgotten militia clauses. We also kick around the Supreme Court’s fast‑moving tariff case, the right’s ongoing Tucker–Fuentes flap and what it may mean for the post‑Trump GOP, and the difference between loyalty to the land and the pull of foreign entanglements. Along the way we field audience questions on juror gag orders, the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic text, the ark in Kentucky, and even the fate of the Farmer’s Almanacs—contrasting “brute facts” with reliable testimony, and why the Bible (and the common‑law process) is our court of last resort. If you like spirited talk about the law of the land, evidence, and the culture that sustains freedom, this one’s for you.
- Brent Allan Winters (Common Lawyer): https://commonlawyer.com
- Old Farmer’s Almanac: https://www.almanac.com
- Farmers’ Almanac: https://www.farmersalmanac.com
- Ark Encounter (Williamstown, KY): https://arkencounter.com
- Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org
- InfoWars: https://www.infowars.com
- Euro Folk Radio: https://eurofolkradio.com
- Global Voice Radio Network: https://globalvoiceradio.net
- Westminster Confession of Faith (text): https://opc.org/wcf.html
[00:00:36]
Unknown:
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymitobust.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function without adequate mitochondrial function is kinda like running an engine without oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by snapphat.com. That is snap,phat,.com. It's also brought to you by the Preyf International terahertz frequency wand through iterraplanet.com. Thank you so much for joining us, and welcome to the program.
[00:02:03] Unknown:
Yep. As would we, Alvin Lee, and we're gonna take another another swing at the old Goal here today on Friday, November 7. And, of course, Friday, meaning that we, have Brent Winters as a cohost. He's not even a guest. He's Like family. Hello, ma'am. Could we get the little little private conversation you could hit star six? We'd appreciate it. Anyway, here at the start of the show, it's the Friday edition, Roger Sales, and Brent Winter's your host. If he gets here, has Brent joined us yet, Paul? I can't no. I don't think he has. Right? Nope.
[00:02:44] Unknown:
No. We yeah. He has. Well, he's
[00:02:46] Unknown:
has joined us. Oh, he just he just he just pulled up. Okay. Good deal. Yeah. We actually traded
[00:02:53] Unknown:
the WBOU feed for Brent. Alright. Or is WBO BO no. WBOU is still there. I'd say it's just me seeing things again.
[00:03:06] Unknown:
I see. Well, he'll if he's not here, he'll pull up directly. I promise you. So, anyway, he's here. Okay. Morning, Brent. What? And, Paul, if you'd, be so kind here on this Friday edition to give all of the folks that help us extend our reach the well, the proper credit and the proper recognition they deserve for for their efforts.
[00:03:29] Unknown:
I would be happy to do that. We're on one zero six point nine WVOU FM in Chicago. We're on homenetwork.tv, freedomnation.tv, golivetv, and stream life.tube. Those platforms are brought to us by the Debt family of broadcast services. We're on, radiosoapbox.com, thanks to our buddy Paul English. Create Paul English Live yesterday. Go to paulenglishlive.com, and you can, grab the archives for that. Also, we're on, eurofolkradio.com, our flagship platform that's brought to us by pastor Eli James, who was also on Paul English Live yesterday. And we're on Global Voice Radio Network, both on, audio stream through Podholm, radio.globalvoiceradio.net, and a video stream through Rumble. That is rumble.globalvoiceradio.net.
Mhmm. Our website, of course, is thematrixstocks.com, where you can find the links to free conference calls. You can join us live on the show, and everybody is invited. Everyone is welcome.
[00:04:43] Unknown:
Yeah. Even Farris, I guess. We haven't, we haven't seen, our buddy in a few weeks. Did did you, by any chance, issue him an invitation to come, come cavort with us?
[00:04:55] Unknown:
Standing invitation. And, he, it was after midnight by the time we wrapped up talking.
[00:05:05] Unknown:
Oh, that's weird. So Yeah.
[00:05:07] Unknown:
Yeah. So Alright.
[00:05:10] Unknown:
Well, we'll see. If he pops in, he's always welcome. You know, we love Paul English here. Yep. I love to have him. Brent feels same way, and just I wanna I wanna hear his accent. I wanna hear him say some of those words that we don't have in common necessarily. And and and and the reflection on there because really when you get back, everything we talk about here for the most part began there. That's the beginnings, and that history is fascinating. And, not only do I find it so, my cohost here, Brent Winters, does also. Morning, Brent.
[00:05:44] Unknown:
Hi, Roger. Roger. You doing good? Well, good.
[00:05:49] Unknown:
We're all okay. Well, Roger, what's been the excitement this week on your show? Well, hell, there's well, there's all kinds of stuff going on after this New York thing. We got, you know, open communist leading one of the major cities of the world, and some of the others are making great inroads in. Atlanta, they've got one on the city council, others wanting, even Texas, I believe. They're it's repulsive. And the thing is, you see, and this is kinda interesting. It's in our wheelhouse to some extent. You know, we show and prove that everything has to be voluntary here.
And so, that even that Supreme Court case, Afroheem v Rusk, where even though he clearly violated the rules and they tried to take away his citizenship, and they said, no. You can't. Of course, leaving the unstated conclusion that he's gotta give it away because it's all gotta be voluntary. So now I find one hole in that where they can go in and take your rights away. Have we talked about this?
[00:06:56] Unknown:
I we've talked about it from so many different angles, Roger, but I don't believe this one.
[00:07:01] Unknown:
Well, this is pretty well, Mondami, this guy that just got elected, has got the whole country and the world shook up one way or the other is a prime example. When you come in and, and and initiate paperwork to become a naturalized citizen as he did, you they ask you a question. Are you affiliated with any organizations that potentially wanna overthrow the constitution? Something to that effect. And he answered no. And now he pops up being a hardcore communist and and winning this election. And they literally have the grounds to revoke his citizenship and kick him out of the country. Now will they do that? There's some some some, factors that are working on it and have been for a couple of months. But isn't that an interesting little, little, just a little pinhole of, yeah, we can still take them away if you lie to us? Well,
[00:07:56] Unknown:
repeat
[00:07:57] Unknown:
what it was, the question, and what he said again, please. Well, I'm I don't know that I can get this exact. I'm just getting it. You the everybody that comes into the country, it's not just him Yeah. Fills out a form for naturalization.
[00:08:11] Unknown:
Right.
[00:08:12] Unknown:
Hey. Here I am. Well, they ask him, are you affiliated with any organizations? I'm paraphrasing here, please. Are are you affiliated with any organizations that have the intent of overthrowing the constitution? And he is positive. He said no. Because otherwise, he won't let you in. Right. And now he shows that he lied on that form, and that is a grounds to take away your naturalized citizenship. It's the only one I think we've stumbled on, and it does have something to do with what we do around here regularly. And I just thought it was a very interesting little shift. I did not know that.
[00:08:51] Unknown:
Well, I would say this. What you do to your microphone is great. Oh, good. Good. I'm glad. I bought this cheap little thing at a truck stop, and it works pretty good. Yeah. We sound good now. Good. Well, just to weigh in some ideas, number one, perjury is almost impossible to prove, nearly impossible, and that's what you're talking about here. In other words, to prove perjury, you have to prove at the time that he said said that on the form, and that's a that's an information return, like a tax return, any other piece of paper you file with the government that's called an information return, and it's always signed under penalties of perjury that everything is true and correct as to any material matter. Every one of them, state or federal. And there's lots of them, by the way. The tax return is just one. Yeah. But he if he signed it, you'd have to prove that what he believed right when he grieved his name on there. If he later on decides he wants to overthrow the constitution of The United States by force or violence,
[00:09:53] Unknown:
well, that doesn't prove perjury. It it may be evidence, but it doesn't conclusively prove it. One of his inner circle came forward in an interview and said they'd been planning this since 2014.
[00:10:05] Unknown:
Well, it there's more evidence. Yeah. I'm not saying he didn't lie or perjury. Well, perjury is not lying. That's that's the other thing about perjury. Perjury is not lying under oath. Perjury is is the oath that is a lie. When you sign, you're not lying. You're you're well, you're not lying about the material matter on the form. You're lying that, you're saying that I I swear. See, perjury has to do with the oath, not the promise the oath supports. There's a difference. And perjury, when you get on for example, that's after swearing when you sign a form. When you get on the witness stand, that's force wearing. That's called force wearing. The bible uses the word, the Hebrew word translated force wearing a lot, and it's perjury. And what it means is you take the oath elsewhere to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you don't mean that when you say it, you're guilty of of perjury before you ever give any testimony.
Oh. And your and your prosecutable from that point forward. And I'm quoting the Supreme Court of the United States on that. I find it amazing that the state statutes, deny that and say perjury is lying under oath. It never has been, and I say it still isn't. As a matter of our common law tradition, anciently, as a matter of the bible, a it's called a false oath, not lying under oath. There's a difference. Now some of you are hearing that, you know, what are you talking about? I know what you're thinking. Because when there's a paradigm shift, it's hard for us, all of us, to get our heads around it. It's not that we're stupid, but once you make the paradigm shift oh oh, I get I get Think about it. Think about it. Worry over what I've said like a dog worries over a bone, and eventually, hopefully, it'll come to you. It's up to us to know what god has said about perjury, what it really is. It is not that is not lying under oath. And until we understand that, all of our talk is just silliness. I hear people say, this is more patriot mythology, and they scream it a lot. He perjured himself.
He's got we've got to get him out of office. Well, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Most people that take an oath, how can you perjure yourself when you don't even know what an oath is? You can't. And I'd say 99.999% of people don't have a clue what an oath is or what it is intended to do and the reason for it, what God said it is, what our common law tradition has said it is. I'm just making the point. It's not that people are stupid. No. No. No. That's not it. We're all ignorant about many things. But on that point, the devil has done a masterpiece of showing us or have of hornswoggling us and to believe in that an oath is something that it isn't. Now coming back to this fellow that said this, I have to tell this story because I knew this fellow when I was in school. He's the president of a university, and his parents had immigrated here from, or rather his grandparents had immigrated here through Ellis Island from Germany, one of the parts of Saxony or someplace, and his name was Bouchard.
Bouchard. And when he got to the now he told this story. I take it to be true. I I wasn't there, obviously. But, what he said was when his grandparents got to Ellis Island, they asked him the kind of questions you were talking about. Of course, at that time, they're running them through by the thousands. Yes. And I don't know whether they were filling out form. Most well, they couldn't write English. They couldn't read English. So I assume that, that they just did it orally, and that's probably true, of course. They did it orally, but they asked somehow, they asked because grandpa, do you advocate the overthrow of the constitution of The United States by force or violence?
Well, him having a smattering of English and not really understanding what that meant meant, he thought that it was a multiple choice question, sports or violence. And he thought for a minute and said force instead of violence, which, of course, are synonyms. But, he had to get straightened out. And people say a lot of things they don't understand. Uh-huh. When people sign a tax return, I'm not gonna believe, and I don't think anybody believe, they really understand what they're really signing, a tax return or any information return. I used to sign returns information returns for when I was running for congress to the Federal Election Commission. I had to sign one every quarter. And then within thirty days of the election, I had to sign it, every four had to submit it signed every forty eight hours.
You know, as the as you get close to the election, they want to know everything that's going on. And those are all under penalty of perjury. That means if you perjured yourself, How many people sign a tax return and know what's even on it? A lot of lot of people. Maybe most. I don't know. They have somebody fill it out for them. Look it over. And even if they look it over, Roger, you know and I know. They don't know what they're looking at. Of course. They just shove it across the table. It reverse and and say sign right here. Yeah. Who we kidding? That's the danger of the whole thing, of course, because they'll accuse you of perjury and have been doing it since back, when the income tax first started. But then one of the cases that came up in the nineteen twenties, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it hit the Supreme Court in 1927, but it might have been '25. But it was the first case, that arose concerning tax return.
And that the the case occasioned the supreme court to rule on what perjury is. And they did. And the, the tax return was just one form of possible perjury, and they defined it just like I said just now, like I tried to repeat the concept. And I remember what the court said at that time, and, of course, they were defining that that common law. And the court said that perjury one way to understand it is remember that perjury is prosecutable upon the taking of the oath. I believe I'm quoting that pretty much the way they said it. Mhmm. Perjury is prosecutable upon the taking of the oath. Not you don't have to lie under oath. Now lying under oath is evidence, but here is the principle of law. Anything that is true is may or may not be true a millisecond afterwards or a millisecond before.
But we know this, that what is testified to at that moment at that moment may not be true later. So if I sign, an information return and I believe that everything on it is true and and correct as to every material matter, and that's what the statute says, the federal statute, and it applies to all information returns not just tax returns, of which there are thousands. True and correct as to every material matter. I may come to a different understanding about what what is true and correct, a minute later, an hour later, ten years later. Anything that is true at any given point must be proven true at that given point to assure that it's true. Remember the analogy some Greek philosopher said, he couldn't dip his if he if he dipped his foot in the Tiber River, and did it then a second later he'd be dipping his foot in a different river.
Because the water is is different with every changing moment of any river. It's flowing, it's moving silt, it's trees are falling in it. You're talking about the Mississippi back in my neck of the woods. Rivers, never stop changing. I know places on, that where Missouri is on the Illinois side of the Mississippi, and Illinois is on the Missouri side, and Illinois is on the Kentucky side, and vice versa, and Illinois and Indiana are on the on different sides of the Wabash River. Why? Because the river is constantly winding and hairpin curves, oxbow lakes cutting itself off.
And there's a lot of that that goes on here in America, but it goes on all over the world. And everything that was true at that moment is not true at the next or something has changed. And that's why the law of evidence that's why in the bible, for example, it says it'll say something that's true at the writing of one of the Old Testament books like Joshua. I'm going through Joshua now. It says, and it is true unto this very day. In other words, it was true then, it remained true, and it's still true now, but the Bible does not vouch for it being true beyond the time that the testimony was given.
Well that's proper. The Bible more than anything I have ever read Roger, I've read probably thousands of books, but the Bible more than any book that I have ever read is conscience conscious of evidence, testimony. What it is, when it occurs, how often it should be used, when it should be used, how it should be used. The Bible is evidence. That's above all things. That's what it is. Mhmm. And the question is, is it reliable becoming that's why it has so much to say about, swearing, oaths, vows, perjury. It says it over and over in the New Testament just as well. Yeah. And defines what it is and what a witness is and what a witness is it. Another thing about the Bible, and this is true at common law, all testimony is evidence, and all evidence is ultimately oral, o r a l. All evidence is ultimately oral in our common law tradition. Interesting. Nothing is true until somebody testifies to it on the witness stand. A smoking gun laying on the counter in front of the jury in a murder case isn't evidence until somebody gets on the witness stand and vouches for, the for its authenticity.
Is it the thing that I saw? Chain of of custody that has to be testified to. If those things aren't done, that that's just nothing but a hunk of metal laying on a table. And that true same is true of the bible. I continue to be amazed listening to the, other family members that just went south of Louisville, Kentucky. Well, yeah. Oh, right around Louisville there, to the ark the Noah's Ark. They hired a a Mennonite family, and I met the family out west because they moved out west to build that blasted thing. It's larger by scale than the proportions and the measurements that the Bible gives for the ark of Noah.
Everything down to the detail is done inside and out the way God described it and he was very meticulous about describing it. But and that organization down there called Creation Research I'm not against what they believe fundamentally but they tend, as all people do, to elevate extra biblical evidence above the Bible. The Bible doesn't excite people like extra biblical evidence that supports the Bible, but that's backwards. Extra biblical evidence is unneeded. It's not as reliable as the Bible. The badges of reliability of the manuscripts of the older and New Testament in the Bible are overwhelmingly in sync with our common law of evidence, with the Bible's presentation of the law of evidence, all of our experience, and all other evidence must stand or fall in light of the Bible, not the other way around. For example, there they hire, geologists and biologists to prove what the bible says is true. Well, that's backwards.
And because they've got that backwards as most people do, be as most people do in all areas, they begin to make mistakes. That's what happens. And they begin to rely upon, the laws of nature instead of the bible. There's nothing wrong with going to the laws of nature, for example, geology. I worked in mines. I understand that. And I lived in the oil field. I understand a little bit about a little bit. Yeah. I do. I can think into geology okay. I don't profess to be the world's expert, but I do know this, that it is the laws of nature, but the final court of last resort respecting any disagreements about the laws of nature, geology, biology, the final court of last resort is the bible, not geology.
What people will begin to say if you get that backwards they'll say well the Bible doesn't have any evidence in geology for this so I don't believe that. And pretty soon you're off because you've elevated the laws of nature above the laws of nature's God. The laws of nature's God are the or the laws of nature are the the laws of creation that God has made, yes, but they're not stated explicitly, they're open for our observations, sometimes we make mistakes. But the laws of nature is God, that phrase at that time was a phrase that meant the lex scripta, the written revelation of God, the evidence that God provides in writing.
That's the final court of last resort. Do we misunderstand it sometimes? Yes. But it's still the final court of last resort. Whatever it says
[00:23:37] Unknown:
is it, whether you believe it or not. And the evidence is overwhelming that the evidence of the Bible is reliable. Back to you, Roger. I think Sodom and Gomorrah would be the perfect example. The audience may not know this. You're the one that informed us of it. They find sulfur and magnesium balls
[00:23:55] Unknown:
over in that area where that was reputed city reputedly was. And didn't you say they don't find them anywhere else like that in the world, Brent? No. No. And you can pick those things up. They're there by the trillions. You can pick one of them up, take a cigarette lighter and and light it on fire. It's magnesium. It's something that got sulfur in it Yep. Just like the Bible says. But the point is that does not prove the Bible true. The bible proves what that stuff is. There's a difference. Mhmm. And if you're willing to depend upon here we've got here it comes down to this too under the point of evidence. All facts that you can find, okay, I found the sulfur and magnesium together in little billions, trillions of little balls around the Dead Sea.
Okay. What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. It's like the smoking gun laying on the table. It's just a hunk of steel or hunk of yeah. Steel, put in a certain configuration, and it doesn't. Until somebody testifies to it, it is meaningless. And until the Bible provides the testimony of what that is, it is utterly meaningless. As Van Till says, it's a brute fact. Brute? That means it's not related to anything rationally, so it doesn't mean anything. Brute fact, that means that's an old word, of course, that means and then well, the Bible says, Peter the apostle talks about unreasoning beasts.
And, the translation is pretty good. I think the King James says brute beasts. What does that mean? Well, a brute is something that doesn't have the ability mentally to draw rationality between thoughts, logic, to be more precise. They don't have that. Oh, they do things out of instinct. Oh, they can put two and two together sometimes, but they don't put it together in a logical sequence the way we understand it. They do it by, that can be thrown pretty clear, I think, even a chimpanzee by instinct. But a brute fact I'm using this phrase. This is Van Til's the way he put it, and he's right. A brute fact is a fact that is not related, had that has no evidence to support it. It is what we call a dogma.
If I say I believe the Bible, that's a dogma. Am I am I is my dogma true? Yes. Is there a time for dogmatics? Yes. Is declaring the truth? That's what preaching is. But there are those two that deliver apologies. They show why things are true. We talk, for example, about law givers. A law giver, anciently, is a final arbiter of right and wrong. Arbiter, that means he doesn't have to give reasons for his decisions. There's no law no law that requires him. We have two arbiters in our created universe. Two and only two. We have the arbiter that doesn't have to give reasons for his decision. He's the creator.
He declares the truth and that ends the matter. He has no competition. That ends it. Oh, in in the sky and on the land. But then he has delegated the man one other arbiter. One other arbiter. And that is the 12 man jury. As a matter of fact, that's our common law tradition, by the way. Matter of fact, that's why he impaneled 12 men to that's what juries do, witness evidence. He impaneled 12 men to witness the evidence. The evidence of his identity, they are not required. No jury in our common law tradition is required to give the reasons for their decision.
That is monumental. That is power. That is ultimate power in God's created order. But they do that down here on land. They're not final. God's final. But down here on land, they have that power. And God is the cult we they're the court of last resort among men. That's God ordained. That's, applicable in every country in the world, but only the common law countries do it. Are we losing it? That's the questions we should be asking. Well, that was the kind of things that I think about. I wanted to talk today. A couple of things, Roger. I don't wanna forget. I'm gonna mention them, then I'm gonna shut up for a minute, and maybe you want Well, I've got another, of this current events is right up our alley, but go ahead with what else you want to say. There was a question of a fellow last week. No. Well, yeah. He did. He he, emailed me, and he asked if my translation of the Bible from the original tongues depends upon the Septuagint or the Hebrew text, the Masoretic text.
Well, because I say that my translation of the Bible is from the original tongues that rules out the Septuagint. The old testament translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jewry is not in the original tongues. Let me say that again the old testament translated into Greek called the Septuagint by Alexandrian Egypt, Jewry and Alexandrian Egypt is not the old testament in the original tongues. It's accurate in the first five books of the bible. After that it just goes to I won't use the word a sailor might use, but it just goes to nothing. There's nothing but a loose paraphrase and inaccurate and adds things. No, I don't depend upon it because it's not what God has given us as the primary evidence of what he said. What God has given us in the Old Testament of the primary evidence of what he has said is in Hebrew. The Hebrew the Masoretic text is the best one we have with fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And those have those are valuable. They're older even yet. They're as old as the Septuagint approximately. But the Masoretic text is in sync. Well, we have the complete scroll of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls and it's in sync exactly with the Masoretic text. That's good evidence, that's important evidence, but the Hebrew Old Testament, not the Septuagint, is the accurate and that's what God has given us to rely on. Can we use the Septuagint? Sometimes, but it's very dangerous because it's a product of Babylonian religion, namely Jewry.
[00:30:03] Unknown:
That's the answer to that question. I well, I thought the Septuagint was what Jesus taught out of. Is that not correct?
[00:30:10] Unknown:
Well, it appears that you I've got it. No. That's not that's not we have no clear evidence of that. Although although Jesus Christ see, the New Testament is written in Greek, but not the Greek of the Septuagint. Oh. The New Testament is written in the sailor's Greek, the merchant's Greek, the Pigeon Greek of the Roman Empire. Mhmm. It's not the classical Greek of the ancient Greek writers. I see. It's a it's a fascinating it was it was written down to the ground. You know, like, you ever been to well, I have. I'll ask you, Roger. You've been to Hawaii, for example, listen I have. I have. Have you heard the Pidgin English there? They still speak? I don't remember as many years ago, but I'm sure I did. Well, the Hawaiians and all the South Sea Islanders, speak the Pidgin English of the English sailors in a lot of places still.
And, sailors that travel learn the Pidgin language of their own that they spread, and everywhere they go and the ports they go into, this has been true for hundreds of years, they speak that Pidgin English. Well, the same was true in the Roman Empire. There it took in many tongues in the Roman Empire, and everybody spoke their own tongue. But in addition to that, in all the Roman Empire, they all spoke Pidgin Greek, what we would call Pidgin Greek. And that's what the New Testament is written in. But the Alexandrian Jews translated the Bible into a more classic Greek. It's the same tongue. I can understand Pidgin English, but I have to listen close and I learn a few new words and ways of saying things. And when I was in the South Seas and in in places like Hawaii I caught on to it a little bit.
And that's the New Testament. The Septuagint was translated in the early centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ by the Babylonian Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt. And Jesus we have evidence for example it looks like kind of looks like that in the Old Testament when they or in the New Testament when they quote the Old Testament, you can see some similarity as they say here in the Wabash Valley, some similarity between the Septuagint, the Old Testament in Greek, and the New Testament. But it's not consistent. I have a book, packed away. I quit using it because I've just focused on the Hebrew more. All of the quotations a book excites, in in, parallel text on each page, all the quotations of the New Testament of the old in the New Testament of the Old Testament and the comparable comparable Septuagint text on the other side.
It's not consistent. And so I I the the evidence is not clear. I know this for for sure, Roger. I know this for sure. Some things could be opinion. This is an opinion. The Hebrew testament is final. And when the new testament quotes the Hebrew testament, the Hebrew testament is final as to what it means. And the quote of the Greek and the new testament is consistent with it. There's no perfect transition between any two languages, but Jesus Christ used the Hebrew older testament. I know that because he makes that clear when he says things like every jot and every tittle shall come to pass. Well the jot is the name the name of the Roman empire for the smallest letter of the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet, the yod, and the tittle is the name that they use to describe one of the strokes.
Just one of the strokes of the more than one stroke on a Hebrew letter. And on about a half a dozen letters, if you leave that stroke out it becomes another letter. Mhmm. And that could change, a word to another word, which, of course, could change the whole meaning fundamental meaning of a Hebrew text and Jesus Christ followed through the tradition. I know this because he said so. Mhmm. The tradition of the Masoretes, as far as that goes, there were other traditions of the Masoretes. We have no evidence that he followed. But when it came down to the letters, the consonants, and there are no vowels, no vowel sounds recorded in the original Old Testament text, The Masoret Masorets added those, but that's not part of the Bible.
That's why the Masorets, I say, they were as well Babylonian Jews. And we need whatever they added, I'm not interested in. I'm not interested in it because it's not what God said. God wrote the old he superintended, I should say, the pinning of the Old Testament while preserving the personality, vocabulary, and everything about those that wrote. You said a while ago, for example, Roger, that everything is voluntary. That's true. Everything is voluntary. But God superintends what I want. And he he he the bible teaches, he changes what I want.
He enlightens my mind so I see what he wants and that's what I want. That's called the new birth. And the one that is not enlightened of his mind, God as Barnhouse used to say, hasn't wiggled his willer, what he wants. He will only want his choices available to him are only evil. He has no power to choose what is right, ultimately, what is right. He has the power of choice of what is evil. That's what the Bible clearly says. You say, Brent, how do you explain that? I don't have to. That's a dogma. God said it in dogmatic fashion. He explains it to a certain degree in the book of Romans, for example, The chapters seven eight nine through 11 even. But he he answers a lot of questions about that but it is a conundrum to the human mind. But I know it to be true. That means again he stated it as a dogma. That's a Greek word that means a god's statement of fact to which he owes nobody an explanation.
Doesn't mean he can't give one. A jury, a 12 man jury, can give an explanation if they want, but the law doesn't require them to. I've talked to jurors that say I don't want to talk about it. I've talked to others that tell me everything, and God's that way too. He he's the one that instituted the jury in that fashion, and if he wants to tell, he does. At the whole new testament, by the way, the whole new testament are him is him telling just telling the mysteries that he has uncovered, the mysteries he has uncovered that were hidden in the old testament as it is often said the new testament is in the old testament many times concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament more forthright and revealed. That is true.
But all of the truth is there. Well evidence is what I'm driving at here, Roger. I just wanted to wanted to make that point about the septigent because somebody asked. There was a couple of the things I wanted to bring up today, but, I wanna know what you got on your mind for.
[00:37:24] Unknown:
Well, hold on just a second, Larry. I wanna bring this up. There's also because this is potentially constitutional, oh, snafu here, and that's this hearing. They had at the Supreme Court this week on Trump's tariffs. They're expediting that. There was a ruling that came through some kind of trade courts I've never heard of before, of course, against Trump. And him trying to switch the whole system over to tariffs. And they had the, solicitor general, who's the guy that argues cases for the government in there, and he was addressing some of the justices.
Remember Sheila Jackson Lee, the one that didn't know what a woman was?
[00:38:11] Unknown:
Yeah.
[00:38:12] Unknown:
Well, she didn't know what a tariff is either evidently.
[00:38:15] Unknown:
Well, Roger, let's be honest. Do you know, anybody maybe just a few, but do you know anybody that really knows what a tariff is?
[00:38:24] Unknown:
Well, a few. But but these they've had five previous Supreme Court cases on these same issues. So they could go back and brief themselves very easily going back to the start of the country. Yeah. Yeah. They're responsible to do that if they don't know. That's right. This was interesting to me. The solicitor general was exceptionally good, and he was talking very fast. And she was saying what a lot of people that don't understand I wouldn't have understood this before I heard this, actually. Talk about minutiae's here and, that the tariff is a tax.
That's what some of the justices are, debating with him is the tariff attacks. Mhmm. And he gave a very interesting example, and I just never thought about it. If the government required everybody to buy a Mercedes Benz Mhmm. Then that's a tax. Mhmm. But, otherwise, it's elective to those that will want to buy that item and pay that tax. Mhmm. And so there's a very slight little difference there, but it's really important.
[00:39:30] Unknown:
K. Mhmm.
[00:39:32] Unknown:
Well, if go go ahead. I was gonna make can I make a comment, Roger? Well, let me just say, I'll finish up and then you can. Okay. If they rule against Trump and five of the justices evidently were asking sternly poised posed questions like they might vote that direction, then he's got to return all the billions that have been given to us by all these countries and manufacturers. And so the constitutional crisis is if they rule in that direction, what's Trump gonna do?
[00:40:04] Unknown:
Well, he'll have to do what, his office requires of him. And there's nobody that will make him give that money back or even could make him give that money back. Uh-huh. We have separate and co equal branches of government, and each branch of government and every person in it is duty bound to do what he believes in his heart of hearts is constitutional and lawful. Mhmm. And that ends the matter. And nobody can make no no the other two branches have no power to make him do anything Right. That he doesn't believe is constitutional. That's the way the constitution is established. That's our common law tradition.
[00:40:40] Unknown:
Well, there's a couple of options he may have. Should they do that, I I I don't know what they were. I couldn't discuss them because I'm not up on it enough. But there are other things, obviously, he can do. So I just wanna say heads up. That may be coming up. I don't know. They just heard oral arguments. It's an extremely important issue. I don't know if they'll expedite that, decision or not. But, anyway, that happened this week.
[00:41:05] Unknown:
I'm making a point about taxes and duties and tariffs, and all of that is just wordplay. It doesn't mean much anything. A duty, a tariff, those are what we call taxes. Was a tax. That's something that can be extracted from you outside of contract by duty. It's your it arises out of law and it can be extracted by from any whoever they say they're gonna extract it from by force or threat of force. Call it whatever you want. It's all the same. The word tariff is a Italian word that has to do with notification. The word duty is a word that's used in our in our Anglo Saxon speech and it it means what arises out of law. The word debt a tax is not a debt. A tariff is not a debt.
A debt arises out of contract in the private sector. Mutual exchange of consideration. But tax duty tariff, we need a word that just covers all of it because it's all what the government says the law requires of you. And if you don't give, to give to us and if you don't give it to us, we will take it by force or threat of force. Let's not make this complicated. The word tariff, why do we even have that word? It's just silly. Why don't we just say to people, look, you bring a a car from your country into our country, we're gonna charge you a tax.
We're gonna make you pay this much Mhmm. For everyone you bring in. And if you don't give it to us, we'll take it by force or threat of force. No. We won't let you bring the car in. Or we won't let you bring the car in, but that's that's right. But if you wanna we could talk there is a difference between taxes that are that are, that are, transferrable to other people and taxes that are head taxes. A head tax is a tax you can't pass off somebody else. Yeah. For example, a yeah. A sales tax, the like, gasoline tax, the you don't pay it. The guy that pays it, he can pass it on to you. Mhmm. That's, that's there are is that distinction. Forget all the other words and I'm it's a sad thing to me that the Constitution of The United States uses all these screwy words that just make people confused and think they gotta understand the definitions too. If you understood the definition of the word tariff, it wouldn't help you a bit. It's an Italian word. It doesn't have anything to do with taxes really. Well, a little bit, but not much.
And so, duty, and that's a good word because it does describe what a tax is. It's something you gotta pay and, and you have no contract with anybody. It arises out of law. And if you're in the jurisdiction of the state or the general government or a subject matter or territorial jurisdiction, and they say you gotta pay, you gotta pay it. But it's against the law in our common law tradition to have a head tax put on anybody. That's a tax that you cannot transfer to somebody else. See? Right. Unless it's apportioned. If it's apportioned, they can apply it. But among the states, and that's our income tax. It's not being applied according to that constitutional
[00:44:11] Unknown:
standard. Right. Okay. That that's all I wanna say, Rob. Alright. Well, I'll let Larry wanna say something. Larry, a lot of this conversation this morning, what you got, buddy?
[00:44:20] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent mentioned, that if a jury wants to offer an explanation, they could do that. And I wanted to ask, where does this this concept come from where, you know, judges say to the jury, you're not allowed to talk about this case, you know, before before the trial takes place. And if you do, they the the judge can hold them accountable, I guess, for contempt of court or whatever. In other words, the judge instructs the jury that they have to remain hush-hush about the whole case. And is that really required of a jury, or is that just some manmade thing somewhere that that evolved?
[00:45:03] Unknown:
Well, that's a mushy area of law. In other words, does a judge really have authority to do that? Well, in our common law tradition, they've been doing it for a long time, centuries. The question then comes, will the judge hold you does he have personal jurisdiction over your body if you don't comply? And I've that in other words, equity contempt is is equity if it's non criminal. And, well, criminal jurisdiction have jurisdiction over your body too. Remember, equity acts against the person, the body of the person. Forcing him to do something by force or threat of force or, forcing him to refrain from doing something by force or threat of force. And then the course, the judicial branch, a a judge, a court has that authority where he thinks it should be used.
Where he thinks it is necessary even to, to fulfill the purposes of the law. Now law and equity are two different things. What the law is short for common law and then there's equity. But equity is an important part of our common law tradition. Don't forget that. Remember, equity follows law. Equity is not allowed to be used as a matter of common law until all remedies at law have been exhausted and there is no other way to to make sure the law is enforced. That's the fundamental, applies across the board. But for a judge to say a judge can say anything he wants if he has some legal cover in the precedent of cases. Does that mean that he has the the authority to enforce it? What I'm saying to you is when it comes to contempt, for example, it's pretty mushy. How do I know? Because I've been held in contempt and I and I've had clients held in contempt and I've looked into it. I don't know everything about it, but I've looked into it enough to try to fix the problem. And I have discovered that the powers that a judge has an equity of contempt are not very constrainable except on appeal.
But when you're down there, just remember, he has a lot of power. Why? Because if he didn't, there would be no order in the court. Everything would be chaos. Justice would not be possible. That's fact. That's why the bible says that we are to submit the the process of the court. And if we don't like what the judge's decision is, we have the the option of appeal. You don't argue with a judge. You respectfully make your position known respectfully, and you go overboard when you do it, by the way. That's biblical. But when he doesn't agree, you say, okay. That's the decision. I'm moving on, and I'm saving that for appeal, and you save it for appeal.
And then you appeal up. That's our common law tradition. That's always been our common law tradition. And it's a good tradition. The rest of the world doesn't even have those options. So keep that in mind. We live in a sinful, cruel, foul, twisted world of sinful men named, we call them judges. We call them litigants. And it is amazing to me. I'm utterly amazed at the wisdom of God. That he says the 12 man jury is the way I want you to decide these matters. Paul the apostle establishes that further, upholds it in the sixth chapter of of Corinth first Corinthians.
The Old Testament is rife with that. It's all through the idea of the of the elders and the jury and the gray bearded men making decisions, in individual instances from whose decision there is no appeal. Remember, when the jury decides decide something, the facts that they decide, if they're decided, within the due process, in other words, the bounds of our common law, our common law is the way we go about doing things. If it's decided within it, those facts are not changeable. But no appellate court has jurisdiction to change those facts. Mhmm. And that that's that's that's almost it's shockingly unbelievable to the rest of the world that you had just grabbed 12 folk off the street regardless of educational level if even been able to read and write.
Even not knowing whether or not they should brush their teeth for a year or two or take a bath. And I've seen all this. Doesn't mean they're stupid. That's what God said. These are the kind of folk, if I'm not mistaken, that's what Jesus Christ did. Is it do we really grasp the characters that he grabbed, the 12 men he grabbed and empaneled as the jury? Who they really were? Have you ever really looked into that? That's shocking too. There was even a tax collector for a foreign power in there, Matthew. There were Canaanites in that group.
Yeah. Grabbed 12 men standing around and on and on a week ago. But they were the ones that he said that according to the the law of God, the will of God were to decide. Not the phariseites, not the experts, not the law sharps, not the scribes, not the Sadducees, no no no. Not the university men such as Paul the Apostle, but these 12 men that are nobodies, that people look at and spit on because they're part of the unwashed masses. But you put together put 12 men together like that. And God said that's the ones I want to decide. Did you ever stop to consider, for example, with the jury? Paul the Apostle talks about this in first Corinthians.
Said you got problems among yourselves? Compound the least esteemed among you. The least esteemed. The nobodies. Be careful not to get some highfalutin fellow on the jury. Can you imagine how that would change the attitude of the highfalutin crowd that go to the country club that has lots of money? Can you imagine if they knew that some wino on the street or somebody equivalent to a wino on the street could decide the fate of their wealth? Yeah. You can you imagine how he would be careful to treat people his whole life if he knew that? We don't know that. We don't think about that. We should. We have we have it in our common law. I know lawyers in small towns and communities, and I was in that community. I didn't have the clout they had because there were lawyers that made good living as trial lawyers, very few, by the way. It takes a special personality to do that, but there were some that did. And I discovered as I got older, that those are the fellows that never said anything that they didn't have to say. They made no public statements. They never ran for public office. They never, they never declared their position. They were careful not to even talk to people because they knew if they, if they ever said anything to anybody, they would offend them. And that fellow they offended might be on the jury and could throw the whole case. It only takes one on a jury. It's not a majority institution.
Can you imagine if we had that mindset really? That takes a lot of discipline. That takes discipline right there. Oh, yeah. For a guy to learn, hey, these people could, I'm a trial lawyer, they could ruin my life, ruin my career. But also the people that have wealth, they should understand that the juries we pick are the nobodies, and they could ruin their wealth too. Be careful who you offend. As Sheriff Darley, the fellow that teaches law classes with me, says he used to tell his his, young people, young deputies. And he'd say, remember, the toes you step on are connected to somebody's can, you may have to kiss someday.
He said it more graphically than that. Of course. I'm trying to tone it down. How eloquent. Yeah. How eloquent of him. Yeah. Speaking in plain English. That's what God wants of his friends. Roger, I wanted to bring up about, this there's such a there's a flap going on. There's a flap going on in the MAGA community.
[00:53:01] Unknown:
Oh, boy. Is there. Tucker Carlson.
[00:53:04] Unknown:
Absolutely. There is. And he is couple other personalities, and one of them controls the young men in America. Oh, no. Not all of them, but a large segment of them by his podcasts.
[00:53:15] Unknown:
Yes. And and and that would be minister Fuentes. Yeah. Exactly. We're right to the top of the hour here. I know Paul might want to, have you go ahead and give your, your identifables, if you will. And then we'll have the top of the hour break because we do have those, platforms with us today. And then we can kinda launch into that after that, I think, and we'll have the whole next hour to discuss it. It's an extremely important issue.
[00:53:43] Unknown:
Alright. Well, this is Brent. Thank you, Roger. This is Brent, Brent Allen Winters, commonlawyer.com. Go to commonlawyer.com and you can take advantage of the things there that, that we have, books, lots of books, translation of the Bible from the original tongues, over 35,000 footnotes, over 200 appendices, tracing major themes through the warp and the wolf of the text of the context. Folk call it the winterized version of the Bible. We call it the good book uncooked. We don't want to cook the book. We want to deliver it up in the original town the way it would deliver to us best we can. We've tried to do that. You can get that in digital form or hard copy, both or either one, an appreciation of a donation, the comparative law text, excellence of the common law, 958 pages, comparing and contrasting our common law tradition, our law of the land, with its ever present antagonist, the law of the city on every continent and every age, the only two traditions of religion, law, and government available to mankind.
And every country in the world, except the few common law countries, is under some form of the canon civil laws of Rome. The code of Justinian of the Roman Empire, and we compare and contrast those, and we talk about, of course, the second greatest blessing. The second greatest blessing we have in America, blessing we have in America, is our common law tradition. You say, well, what's the first greatest blessing? As a practical matter, the first greatest blessing is the laws of nature's god, the bible, the court of last resort.
Babylonianism calls it the paper pope. That's exactly that's exactly what it is. It is the court of last resort. No mere mortal. We are a government. In the Christian tradition, we call our common law. We are a government of laws and not of any personalities, not of men. Well, go to commonlawyer.com. Join us for the classes we have there. We're starting a class here pretty quick. You have to go there to see when it is. I just do what I'm told. A class on the declaration of 76 clause by clause and plot blow by blow. We'll be using one of yours truly's books called the declaration of 76 and constitution of The United States clause by clause and blow by blow.
Be using that and comparing and contrasting, the law of the land with the law of the city because that's what our declaration of '76 is complaining about, the law of the city and its fundamental quote for fundamental forms. Admiralty law, martial law, equity and international law. They're all there. And that's the complaint. We wanted our common law tradition back. Take that course in appreciation of a donation. Paul also is getting, Paul here. Boehner on this course getting a Paul, is your last name banner? Biner? Which one is it? I Biner. Never heard you say. Biner. Okay. Yeah. Beaner Beaner. He's getting together a group of folks, for a cut rate with a larger going for the volume thing, on trust.
The common law trust as understood from the Bible, man's relationship with his maker, the common law trust defines it. That's what the Bible is. It it is those it is those trust indentures and attendant documents documents. They're called the covenant and the covenant of God with his people. We talk about that, but you can contact, go to commonlawyerlawyer.com and email there. Go to the contact page. And if you wanna join Paul Bieners, collection of personalities, you got quite a few, and they get a cut rate, are the class on trusts, the common law trust, and how to draft the common law trust. That's another class.
[00:57:36] Unknown:
He's in the many classes. We at at the law school, sheriff Darleif and I. Go ahead. Well, Brent, we had a new guy come on this week, I believe, from Tulsa, RJ. I don't know. We've had him back since. But he was talking about they're in Tulsa County. They've got a guy that wants to be a constitutional sheriff. I kinda tried to steer him over to you. I told him about you and sheriff Dyer. So, anyway, that came up this week. Maybe if he comes back, we can find out some more about it. We want well, we would want him to contact
[00:58:11] Unknown:
sheriff Dyer. Yes. Sheriff Dyer has been sheriff for over twenty years. He's right headed. He's he's not apologetic about the common law tradition, and that's what our constitution is. It's just the common law tradition applied to government put on paper. Yeah. Really, that's what it is. Applied here in the New World. It's fundamentally the same as that in England and New Zealand and Canada, our common law tradition. Although, we are more common law by far than our our, fellow common law countries, by far. Oh, yeah. We're more English than the English, the comp as the comparative lawyers say, by far. And we are the last great hope, friends. And it is our common law tradition is is the nexus that puts the rubber on the road of what we call the Bible, the laws of nature of God. The laws of nature, that's our common law tradition without it. That's the delegation of God to man of our of due process. That's what it is. How we go about doing things so to ensure all things are done properly. If we do things properly, friends, God says, oh, I'll give you the result that's that's good that's good.
Follow follow our common law tradition, what we call the processes of our common law. The outcome belongs to him. That's not our jurisdiction. He'll give it to us through those processes. The jury is one of the ways we discover the mind of God. Back to you, Roger.
[00:59:36] Unknown:
Back to the whistler, Paul?
[00:59:39] Unknown:
One zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago and any other platforms that are part of the Net family of broadcast services that, leave us after the first hour. You can go to the matrixstocks.com, thematrixd0cs.com, and you can click on any of the links there to follow us into the second hour. You can use Global Voice Network, Euro Folk Radio, or FCC and join us live on the show. Trust the course, sign up. If you have not paid, if you have not signed up, do so now because I'm cutting off enrollment and, we're starting next week. Thanks,
[01:00:21] Unknown:
everyone. There you go. Thank you, Paul. Brent, you were talking about this, well, it's very interesting. It's a civil war within the right side of the Republican party, right side and left side. It's, all of these people that used to publicly hate Trump that now wanna glom on their, of of what's a little obnoxious guy, Sean Hannity's sidekick, the Mossad agent, all all these Zionists that have glammed on to Trump.
[01:00:57] Unknown:
Yeah. And they have, of course, because he, they they want his help. The state of Israel, the Israelis, and I'm distinguishing between the what an Israelite and an Israeli. An Israeli, there's a big difference.
[01:01:12] Unknown:
Yes.
[01:01:12] Unknown:
But the Israelis know that without The United States, they're done. Yeah. They're done. They because we we we give them all their money. They don't produce all this. We do this. I don't know why the Rothschilds don't just, liquidate some of their damn wealth and support the whole damn place But I started it. Yes. And I but I didn't wanna say upfront, so nobody misunderstands me. I have duty bound to do this. That I don't concern myself one way or the other. That's a foreign country. If they can help us, great. But America is the country, the land of my loyalty.
I don't say that lightly. I'm an American. This this is the trust settlement of God, and the land God has entrusted is the land he has given me for now. That's that's mine. Yeah. And I'm loyal to this land, and I'm loyal to it. I don't want it polluted by unlawfulness. Mhmm. And so I am committed while I'm here. No matter how bad things get until God takes me out of here, I'm committed to this land. I am not committed to any other land. Mhmm. I'm not against people that are committed to their land in England and Canada, but we if we're committed to the land that got the Lord our God has given us, each of us, wherever we are, we are brothers and we are of kind I like to say kindred mind in the Christian sense. Mhmm. But we are God has given us different responsibilities just like the land that I live on is a different responsibility than my neighbor.
And, the same way here, my land where I that God has given me that I'm loyal to, I'm not loyal to some other land in that way. And divided loyalty at common law, divided loyalty in the Bible is no loyalty at all. Mhmm. Having a citizenship in two different different countries like Ted Cruz is not possible as a matter of law because there is there can be no loyalty there. Mhmm. Loyalty divided. As a lawyer, I am not allowed by law, by the strongest of tradition, to divide my loyalty between two clients that are at odds in any way or even could be at odds. Hell, old Ted Cruz may have three passports. Yeah. Yeah. And there are a lot of people in America that boast of that, and I don't get exercised over it. I know people that have, citizenship in England and in America.
Mhmm. Now or Canada. Now the truth is as long we're common law countries, until it gets so that we're at odds, well, that's okay. I suppose. I don't advocate it. But I see a large contingent of Americans that are odds as a matter of Christianity with the Israelis. I can't that's not my jurisdiction. I just know this. I'm not gonna I don't wanna get involved with them. I am loyal to this land. I do not want to get ugly about it. The Jesus Christ confronted Babylonian Judaism. The apostles were there, and the whole New Testament says just leave them alone. They wanna be Babylonian Jews. You don't bid them Godspeed. You leave them alone. They hate Jesus Christ. They're not bashful about it. What do I have in common with somebody who hates Jesus Christ? Answer Not much. No. No. Nothing. No. The Bible says nothing.
Paul or John, the chairman of the 12 man jury that Jesus impaneled, the only one that wasn't murdered murdered for his verdict, by the way, he writes in his epistles, don't just leave them alone. Do not bid them Godspeed. Don't, let them stay in your house although they're your friends. Just leave them alone. It doesn't mean go out and fight with them. It doesn't mean, attack them verbally or physically. Just leave they're doing what they do. I don't go to a Lutheran church because I'm not a Lutheran. I don't agree with what they do. So I don't go. I'm not fighting with them. I don't go to a Romanist church. I don't go to the synagogue. I don't go to a mosque because that's abhorrent to me.
By command of God, he's put that in me. I feel that way. I don't wanna go. All the idolatry and all that goes with all that. I'm not attack in those places. I'm not bombing them. I'm not advocating attacking them. What am I doing? I'm doing, trying to do what Jesus Christ said. Treat them as a tax collector. This is easy. Oh, tax collector. I've been in that world, been around that kind of stuff. What do I do with a tax collector? Do I send them Christmas cards, Christmas cards every year? No. Do I attack them publicly? Not individually by name. No.
What did Jesus Christ say to do? Well, everybody knows. And even in the Roman empire, you just you you see him on the street and you're forced to be nice. You you say hello, but you don't buddy with them. You don't have them over to your house to play cards. You don't hang out with them because they're contrary to you. They they hate Jesus Christ. And anyone who's an idolater, anyone who practices things that you believe the Bible doesn't teach, it's called freedom of association, friends. I'm all for it. Now DJ Trump is in a world that I I understand a little.
I was in that world for five years full bore. I had no other job but to be in that world and try to get elected to office. And, I worked hard at it. So not that I understand everything you understand, but then again, I'm not the dumbest guy. I do understand that in politics, you're playing a game, a dangerous game. As some of us have learned, you could get killed, thrown in jail, your reputation ruined, or your family ruined. I've had air all that happened to me. Has somebody tried to kill me? I have no clear evidence of it. I'm sure they could have if they would if they would have if they could have and got away with it like they've done to gee DJ, but I'm not complaining of what DJ is doing. What is politics?
This is the bottom line. He was elected. He wasn't elected as I like to say, to be Sunday school superintendent. Even elected to be president of The United States. He's in the world of polis, the law of the city. What does that mean? Roger, let me finish my thought, and then I'll I'm gonna let you talk. That means you say one thing while you're doing another. You say one thing while you're thinking quite another. You you you there's some things you don't say at all that you believe, but you say nothing. If you don't do that, you're in the law of the polis. If you don't do that, you'll be gone or dead or something. I don't know. You it doesn't work.
Now. Yeah. That's the way it is. Remember every time these fella, even the ones you like when they open their mouth, just like Jesus Christ said, there's a lot of things I don't say because I don't trust you. He said that to his disciples, They weren't ready for it. He didn't say it. And of course, a lot of other people he didn't trust too. He didn't say a lot of things. Now at in not saying something, not saying the truth is part of being in politics. So I'm not gonna criticize the man. He's down in the trenches. I do know this. God's sovereign, and it's my job to stay away from people who are dangerous to me. That's all. And if people hate Jesus Christ, they're dangerous to me. I've learned that through the years.
[01:08:45] Unknown:
They're dangerous. Roger, where you stand? I was gonna say, and I've just become aware of this relatively lately, that, the presidential oath, he's the only one that takes any oath that has the word preserve. The others are protect and to defend. He has preserve,
[01:09:04] Unknown:
protect, and defend in his oath. That's very interesting, isn't it? It is. And the difference one of the differences is I don't know everything, but I'll tell you what I think I do know. I'm just having worried over this for decades and been involved in that world. That oath, of course, is a common law oath. We can trace it back to the August and King Alfred the Great. It's it's in our constitution, but it's also and it says it's required of every office holder, state and federal in America. That means yeah. The the seaman deuce that goes to boot camp, that means the private kid private soldier, 17 years old. He takes that oath because he becomes an officer of the government of the United States.
Same thing is true of all officers of of state government. I was, county prosecutor, state's attorney in a small rural county for a short time. I had to take that oath. One night, I banged on the door. They needed me the next day. They asked me if I'd fill in. I went to the courthouse. I banged on the door. I had to get it done right away. Somebody came to the door. It was the clerk. He said, well, I was hoping you'd come by. It's small community. I went in. Nobody was in the courthouse. He put a piece of paper out on the counter. He said, raise your hand. I raised my hand. I took the oath. It just put near like the one the congressman takes or the president. And, he said, well, here's the oath you just took. Sign this. I'll look and ask what it hit. Okay. Sign it. I took it when I was a military man. I took it there. I took it when I became a lawyer. All this silly stupidity, people talking about lawyers swearing an oath to the BAR, the British registry, all that hogwash. I took the oath. Yeah. I swore when I became a lawyer, I swore to defend the constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What does that mean? That's a common law oath. It means foreign. That means I'm willing to take up arms as a member of the militia.
Domestic, that means I'm willing to serve on the 12 man jury in in preservation and defense of the law of the land. Take up arms in defense of the land and and serve on the jury in defense of the law of the land. And to do one is to do the other. If I defend the law of the land, I'm defending the land and the integrity of that law and its application in individual instances. And if I'm defending the land by force of arms as a member of the militia, I'm defending the law of the land. This land this law we have, our common law tradition, our unwritten constitution is the foundation of our constitution of The United States. The constitution of The United States and of our states are just a very thin slice of our common law tradition, our unwritten constitution.
It's more important. It is more important to understand that and know that than it is to know the Constitution of The United States. You can't know the Constitution of The United States without informing it with our common law tradition. That's why people don't know it. They flat can't know because every word and every phrase is informed, inflated, inflated in a positive way, made meaningful. It becomes something less than a brute fact. When the constitution of The United States says trial by jury shall be preserved, that's a brute fact. What does it mean? How many people supposed to be on the jury? When are they supposed to be impaneled? Where are they drawn from? How are they supposed to be sequestered at if at all and on and on and on, all these unwritten customs in our common law tradition. It's just a brute fact to say jury, but to inform that that that, blown bladder, to inform it with our common law tradition now has meaning. How do we know what it is? Well, our courts over the centuries have recognized what that means, but this oath is our common law tradition. The president of The United States is not a member of the militia. His oath is a little different.
He could become a member of the militia, but he is commander and commander in chief of the militia of the United States. And when an individual, a militiaman, is sworn in at the order of the president of The United States, at that point, he's under the martial law and becomes part of the armed forces of the United States. That's the law. And I recommend again, I don't know everything. I'm just trying to say what I know and what I've compiled about these things. We have a course at commonlawyer.com on the four militia clauses of our constitution, unpacking them, showing how they dovetail together, what they mean. I call them the sleeping militia clauses. We've ignored them for a hundred and eighty years, and they've become meaningless.
The second amendment is the last one, the fourth one. Well, everybody knows about that, but it's meaningless too right now. Again, meaningless is a brute fact. Why? Because it's not related to the other four militia clauses that support it. And they go together like together, they dovetail and they become meaningless brute facts without relation to the other things that are important about it. This thing about brute facts, a big deal. Van Till wasn't a dummy. Van Till grew up on a dairy farm in a Dutch community in Indiana. By the way, the largest dairy in The United States is still in that community. I think it's called fair Fairview Farms or something or Fair Oaks. No. Fair Oaks. Fair Oaks Dairy. It's been in the news as for abuse to cattle.
I've seen an abuse in in recent years. But getting back to what Roger was started talking about, this there's a fellow how do you say his name? Puentes or something like that? Fuentes, f p e n t e s. 20. Fuentes.
[01:15:03] Unknown:
He's, he's only 26 years old. He's still single. He's a sharp cookie. I mean, really, I've listened to a bunch of him. He's very, very controversial. Very much, but he's in charge of a lot of people. Go ahead, Roger. And what really brought this to the forefront, this Uh-huh. Civil war in the Republican party, basically I don't know. Is an interview because they had been at odds. So Nick Fuentes had thrown some remarks out about, Tucker's father, who was in the CIA, evidently unbeknownst to Tucker, at least to the degree for most of his life. Uh-huh. And so they got into a urinating match, and Alex Jones put them together to do an interview.
And they did. They did an interview. It's posted. You can go watch it. It's about two hours long. It's very good. There's nothing real controversial. I listened to it. Nothing struck me. They kinda two guys just kinda, oh, I'm sorry. You know, I didn't understand that and and making up with each other a bit. But, boy, that got the monkeys strong. Here's what here's what Oh, here here let me just finish. Let me finish. Go ahead, Roger. Because I think what the real thing that's at stake here, as I've heard several people, comment on,
[01:16:17] Unknown:
is the future of the Republican party after Trump. That's right. That's right. Now this Nick, he's 26. I heard 27. Right along in there. He's overwhelmingly popular young among young men. He is super sharp. He's super sharp. For sure. But most men are, but he is too. He's never been married, but he is when he was on with Tucker for two hours, that was a different personality that he is when he's on his show. When you listen to him, he was really cranked down careful not to say the things he says on his show. What he says is, and I've listened to him on his show too. He mentioned some of the things, but in a more measured manner.
He says that men, young men are not getting married because, the girls, the popular thing is to be fat, loud mouth and feminist. And liberal. Yeah. Well, that's liberal. Yeah. You're right. Well, I don't call it liberal because it's not liberal. Liberal means freedom. That's not what it is. It's just that's, a word that the evil empire uses. There's nothing liberal about them. But he said, what young man wants a loud mouth woman, a feminist who doesn't know how to cook, eats chocolate is fat and loud mouth. And he said, that's what we got. Don't know how to keep house. Don't know how, don't wanna have any babies caught up in the, in the evil empire. Well, I get it. I never wanted that either. Okay. That's what he says, but he says it in graphic and foul mouth terms when he's on his show. That's true. That appeals to young men that have no sense of masculinity.
That's true too. What's missing there? The militia is missing. Men have to have a passage. God made them that way in the manhood. Women don't need that. They just are. Like one fellow said, men build houses and women wanna live in them. That's the way it works. That's the way God made it. Men struggle to make enough money and then if they get the house built, then the women just wanna sit in and enjoy it and keep house. I'll that's a good idea. That's not bad. But that we've lost track of that because we're that the evil empire wants to take away the Indus Sea is the badges of manhood and they're very good at it. At the foundation of it all, of course, is a man being king in his own castle with his queen, his wife. Who by the way, according to Christianity is is a sub mission, a sub mission, the mission of the female to the male. That's no question about that in the Bible. The male's mission is an, is a sub mission under Jesus Christ. Mhmm. According to the trust settlement of God.
And the well, anyway, this fellow is saying that, and then he's saying too, I'm a loyal American. I get that. I'm not. America first. They're big American first. But let's recognize where that comes from too. I'm glad you brought that up, Roger. That comes from Nazi Germany. That comes from Nazi Germany. Is there something wrong with it? Not necessarily. Of course, it's the famous phrase, blood and soil. And what the Nazis, they weren't stupid, but they were not Christian either. And that was a problem. And they attacked false religion, Judaism in a violent way. I know you say, well, they didn't, the Holocaust is over inflated, whatever.
The point is they didn't like them. They wanted to get rid of them and they got violent against them and it did get out of hand. No question about it. But Jesus Christ said don't do that. And their country was destroyed, but they did have this sense they tried to add to it. That's German for blood and soil. And one of the platforms, the pillars of the Nazi party was we're gonna get people back on the land. It is the it is the peasant German Saxon Bavarian farmer that makes Germany strong. Is that true? Yeah. That was true. I mean, even in America, we the the railroads advertised all over with poster Germany to get, German farmers over to America. They know farming, they always have. Yeah. And get them to America so the railroads would have could make money out in Nebraska and Kansas and Iowa. And they did populate those places, by by the way.
And they did a good job of it. And there's German settlements of German farmers all over the Midwest because of that. But that's what they're good at. And the Nazis recognize that. The Americans recognize it. Tom Jefferson said the backbone of America is gonna be the independent farmer. It's still it is, and it's gonna remain that way. And once we ever lose that, we become urbane and urbanized. We will be destroyed. That is happening friends. There is a massive exodus in America right now. The the most massive exodus from the cities we've ever had.
And it's to the land. People have that sense now. Is that biblical? Yes. Is that the trust settlement of God? Yes. Does does that go to taking care of the land? Yes. Does it get away from the law of the city and urbanization? Yes. Does it promote the law of the land? Yes. That's what we need. So he's right about the Nazis were right on that point. The trouble is they were trying to put it in place with the law of the city, and that will never work ever. We don't call it the law of the land, our common law. We call it the law of the land. Our constitution says that. Magna Carta uses that phrase. That's not for nothing. It is the land law, and it's all about the land and the trust settlement of God. The Nazis understood that that far, but they tried to form a pagan Nordic religion and get rid of Christianity. That ain't gonna work, friends. And we can see the results of what happened to them. Germany is no more. Manhood in Germany is no more according to the testimony that that I get from people that have lived there. It's no more.
Feminism has taken over. Young men in America are rising up by the way. Yeah. Nazism. That's what made them rise up. It was, the sense of manhood that they thought they were losing.
[01:22:02] Unknown:
This is to Versailles. This is the things they did to them from Versailles.
[01:22:07] Unknown:
The devil's clever, and they, but to try to get manhood out of the doctrines of the, away from the doctrines of the Bible is impossible. It's not gonna work. It never has worked. The Vikings tried it. What do they do? Well, they're Believe me, when the Viking Vikings, the day the Danish Vikings and those other piratical tribe, the angels, the Saxons, the Jews, the Norwegians, when they came to England and raped, plundered, pillaged, and burned, by the way, that's a phrase. Well, I'm getting sidetracked when I think about these things. When they came to England and did that, I guarantee you as Justin Wilson used to say, remember that Roger Garell, I guarantee you that their wives were kicking their butts at home big time.
You show me a man that wants to dominate other men and doesn't stop. I I've seen this in churches. Guy get on a church board. He always trying to run over everybody, but you knew what is, what was going on at home. His wife was running over him. That's the way it works always. And when the I'm, and I'm quoting a Harvard scholar on this point, by the way, George Gilder. George Gilder wrote a book for which he got the award from the now organization, the National Organization of Witches. They used to call them women. And they gave him the pig of the year award for writing this book.
It's it's it was, called, I forget what it was called at first, but it came out later called of men and marriage. And George Gilder, he substantiates an observation of all that he says, and he says that the gangs on the streets in America are the result of young men that have been their their manhood has been taken away. They have no right of passage that is lawful. So they turn to tear them down society. And it goes back and he talks about the Viking raiders. He talks about all the people that in history that went out to dominate other men in violent and unlawful ways. And the reason is because they were getting their butts kicked by women at home. That's what it was. They didn't have the manhood, the power behind them. That would takes a conversion of the spirit to have that, to just stand up and say, no. Our grandpa Adam in the garden of Eden didn't do that. That's why we're in the deplorable condition we're in today. He didn't say no to his wife. It was a very quiet thing. She said, well, I really think this would be nutritious for food and it's pretty to look at, and I think we should eat it. It will according to this, the snake, it will make us like a God, like a law giver, like a final arbiter of right and wrong. And he knew better. The Bible says he knew better. She didn't know better. She was horn swaggled.
That's the female. Horn swaggled. That's her weakness. Easily charmed, as we say. My mother, I interviewed her re oh, I won't go into that.
[01:24:53] Unknown:
I got a stale point. I got a stale point. Emotionally based, and you can sway them with emotions. Let me, I watched a speaking of Tucker, an interview you did this week with a guy that's running against Lindsay's Sugar Briches Graham. And this guy, kind of a nerdy kinda guy, he's a doll, but what an interesting background. He's very brilliant, scholarship to MIT, also was a attorney and all this stuff very, very early. He used to be a Ross Perot fan, so that struck him very early. And he had got onto Trump very early and worked in one of the agencies that set up Trump for the transition and stuff. He streamlined everything and set it up. Very interesting fellow.
And, but I learned some things about Lindsey Graham that I didn't know, and I, well, I don't know that I really wanted to know, you know, one of those. But they showed some clips of him and speeches and stuff discussing. This guy's running against him now in South Carolina. Wish I could remember his name. I just can't. Paul Banks or something to that effect. Good interview. But, they went on to have somebody with the dialections that Sugar Briches Graham has have this streak of wanting to murder all these people. You know? They showed a clip of him up in front of, Netanyahu right after, oh, I don't know, eight months after, October 7, and he's drunk. You can always tell he's a little bit drunk. He's an alcoholic too on top of everything else.
And, he's almost poking Netanyahu in the chest and going, I'm here the fifth time since October 7 to shore up the blood libel. And he was talking about, blood libel.
[01:26:57] Unknown:
Roger?
[01:27:01] Unknown:
He might have lost Internet again. That that happened. Oh. Or And then there's so There he is. Now he's back. Oh, okay. I don't know how much you missed that, Brent. But now we've got Bud Libel. Of Bud Libel, with with, with Lindsey Graham then switch over to the fact that a lot of the violence is being done by these transition people. And that both of these people are so internally screwed up by these inner drives that they go out and they try and, exert it with violence. But get this, on July January 6, several senators and congressmen have testified or may have told the story of how Lindsey Graham was scared out of his wits when the people were walking into the Capitol.
So here's a guy that's scared as hell in that setting and yet wants to go over and bomb every country in the world. Yeah. Anything that the Jews want, he's in to do it. Yep. And, I'm hoping he gets defeated this time, around.
[01:28:12] Unknown:
I wanna drop a footnote if I may. I talked about men that wanna constantly dominate other men. That's not the law of the land. That's not proper. That's is there a time to dominate? Yes. There is. There is a time. But there is not, but it's not the habit of a Christian man's life shouldn't be like that. If somebody's threatening your jurisdiction, you might have to get forceful with them. But to interfere in other people's jurisdiction, to have a bloodlust, and I don't know Lindsey Graham's I think I told you Roger. The first time I met Lindsey Graham, I was on the platform with him. We were both running for congress. I remember in Washington DC. Yeah. I didn't know who he was. Nobody else did either. And, of course, he got in. I didn't for probably obvious reasons, some people anyway.
But he is what Nick Fuente's crowd hates, and they don't wanna end up like him. No kidding. Yeah. They don't wanna end up like him. It there's a when I there's a spark of reality in a young man, and if his conscience isn't sheer seared off as the Bible says, he wants to be a man, and it's a struggle. And any of us who have born been born male understand that struggle. We ought to, some, and ought to appreciate it. We have to prove ourselves. We have to overcome. The female of the species depends upon us. Whether they like it or not, they do want a man to look after them. They want a man to protect them, even the most rabid feminist. Why is Hillary Clinton the way she is? I'll tell you why she's the way she is, why she's so murderously dangerous. She's in the same category as bloody Mary, queen Mary. Yeah. She doesn't feel like any man ever really loved her. Indeed, they didn't.
And what happens to a woman? The most important thing in a woman's life is to be loved. The most important thing in a man's life is to be respected properly. And men women will do things that they shouldn't do thinking they're gonna get love, desperate for it, and men are desperate for respect, and they will kill and murder and fight to try to get it. And women will kill and murder and fight to try to get love. And I mean well, as as, Shakespeare said,
[01:30:34] Unknown:
love to a man, I'm quoting, if somebody would turn off there. Paul, could you find out where that interference is coming from, please?
[01:30:42] Unknown:
Because there are no keep in love one Oh, it's okay.
[01:30:50] Unknown:
So Shakespeare said that and and he this is his line. Love to a man is a thing apart. In other words, to a man, love is over here, and I'm over here right now. I'm not over there right now. But love to a woman, love is all of a woman. That's all she is. That's what she is. She loves and she wants to be loved. There's a difference. God made us that way. And if you don't understand it, go back and contemplate, and keep contemplating for the rest of your life what happened in the Garden of Eden between our grandpa and our grandma, Adam and Eve, and what God said about it later, and what Paul the Apostle says about it in the New Testament. The woman is in a certain position. A man's in a certain position. I've heard women say, Oh, women are in a terrible position.
Are they? No. If you're in the position God wants you to be in and you understand that life can be beautiful, It can be. And we're in this cruel, twisted world, and we're working at it to try to make life decent as within the confines of God's trust settlement and marriage. And the relationship between a man and a woman is fundamental to all of the hell or lack thereof among mankind. I don't mean some of it. I mean all of it. That's why that story is told first. I've said this many times on this on this program, and the older I get, the more it becomes real to me that that's the problem. When you look at Lindsey Graham, it's a sex problem. It's a gen not gender. It's a sex problem. Yeah. He doesn't know how to handle his manhood. That's why he is who he is.
[01:32:22] Unknown:
Well, Roger or somebody or did you wanna say something? Well, I just thought that those were really interesting things. We got about thirty minutes left or less maybe. And see if anybody's got any thing from the audience. Or Brent, did you have something you wanted to launch off on? Well, just to make the point that what Tucker did, he brought Ted Cruz on, and he criticized
[01:32:45] Unknown:
him heavily. Because he asked him he asked. He said I'm sorry, Roger. Go ahead. He let Ted Cruz make a fool out of himself. He did, but he he wasn't, he didn't just listen. With Nick Fuentes, he just listened. He didn't say much anything. He made comments a little bit, not much. With Ted, he said, well, where is it? He said, why are you doing this? This Apex, Zionist thing. Why are you committed to Israel? And he said, well, the bible says that he who blesses Israel will be blessed, and he who does not accursed Israel will be cursed. And Tucker said, well, we're gonna say that in the bible. And I'm telling you too. And now I don't know if Tucker knew or not.
And of course, it doesn't say that in the bible. It does not say that in the bible. That comment was made to Abraham, the father of Arab nations, not to mention the Israelite nation and many other nations. But that does not say that bless Israel and curse Israel. That's not in the Bible. It's very important to read exactly what it says. He asked Cruz where it was. He said, well, I don't know right off the top of my head. And he said, well, if you're basing all of your you're saying you're in the US Senate to support Israel. That's why you're there.
And you're saying it's a religious conviction that comes out of the Bible. Don't you think it's a good idea that you really know where that is and what it really means? Okay. He did that to Ted Cruz and that was embarrassing. So Ted Cruz is now on a rampage to destroy Tucker. But when this Nick Fuentes comes on, instead of cross examining Nick, he was just kind to him and let him talk. He did say, I know there's some things I've had against you, but he didn't criticize him. Now the right, the MAGA crowd is saying, oh, you should have cross examined him like William f Buckley when he had Eldridge Cleaver on. You remember Eldridge Cleaver was one of the founders of the Black Panther movement, in de facto, along with, Newton Newey, I think. Newey.
Newton. Huey Newton. Huey Newton. Huey Newton. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and, well, he interviewed them way back. And Yeah. And people say, well, he should have done that with Nick Fuentes. I didn't hear Tucker agree with Nick. As a matter of fact oh, I mean, he agreed with him on some things, but he didn't pump him up. And he, he's Nick certainly did not come across to Tucker the way he comes across on his show. I wouldn't want him on my show to come across the way he comes across. Right. But and he Michael John's if Nick Nick Fuentes comes up, he says, well, which Nick Fuentes is gonna appear? That's e Michael Jones as well. Then I'm I'm in good I'm not the only one that noticed that. Yeah. Yeah. He's foul mouthed and all that. But fundamentally, he'd and he even said one time, let's be complete here.
Nick Fuentes said to Tucker something about Joseph Stalin, and I'm a fan of Joseph Stalin. Yes. Well, I'm not a fan of Joseph Stalin. Why is he a fan of Joseph? That's insane. He's also a fan. Apparently, people say he says he's a fan of Adolf Hitler. I'm not a fan of Adolf Hitler because Adolf Hitler was not Christian. Adolf Hitler, had good policies, some of them like Germany first, Blutem, Boden. Yeah. Oh, yeah. But he he had all that, but he ignored the weightier matters of god's law that dictates everything and destroyed. He had a hand in destroying utterly the German culture.
[01:36:13] Unknown:
That's too bad. That's too bad. We don't forget what he did in a short period of time is not only what he accomplished, but where he they came from. And they came from that super hyperinflationary period after Versailles and World War one, where World War two was basically guaranteed by the Versailles agreement, I e.
[01:36:38] Unknown:
Well, I I agree. I agree with that.
[01:36:41] Unknown:
But the But what I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I was just gonna mention some a couple of specifics because they're really important because I keep hearing them denied. But why? Had no reason to invade Poland. Well, that is absolutely, totally wrong. They had a go look in a, area called the Sudin Lands. Mhmm. And they gave 10 miles of Germany to Poland with a, I guess, a historical hatred between those two of sorts. And then the agitators came to agitate the Poles, and they started going over in that 10 mile strip and killing German women, men and children.
And then last weekend, they murdered over 10,000 of them viciously, and that Monday is when Hitler invaded Poland. So to say that there's no reason is absolutely well,
[01:37:35] Unknown:
you garbage in garbage out. You get your information from bad sources. Well, it's no. No. It's true. And that's all blowback. But go back we go back further. Why was it that way? Why World War one? World War one came about because Otto his name Otto Bismarck? Yes. Otto Bismarck did away with the common law in Saxony. He did away with it decisively. Martin Luther started it started doing away with it long before. He did away with it and he received the code of Justinian as the official law of Germany. Mhmm. Put his name on it. That's really what caused all of the problem. Martin Luther was did a lot of good things. Of course, fundamentally, yes.
But he destroyed anything good happening in government in Germany when he told the electors of Germany, you've got to take on the Roman code of Justinian, the canon civil laws of Rome, then you can have the power like the pope of Rome. We're in a war for our lives. Well, that they never got rid of it and it just kept getting stronger and Bismarck put it in place. World War one was the result. World War two was the result because Bismarck had that government of a single will as did Adolf Hitler. That never works. It can't work. I don't care how good your policies are. Of course, Hitler's policies took Germany Germany out of, out of all that ugliness of inflation and prosperity, but it couldn't last. That's why I say fundamentally, it's not about the economy.
No. It's about the controlling question of the economy, which which law are you tending toward, the law of the land or the law of the city? And our common law tradition is the law of the land. It's being lost. And if it's lost, all is lost. It is our second greatest blessing. I'm quoting William Pratchett, comparative lawyer. Back to you, Roger.
[01:39:29] Unknown:
Anybody in the audience got any comments or questions?
[01:39:33] Unknown:
Uh-huh. Roger? Roger?
[01:39:37] Unknown:
Okay. Hold on. Bury your second. Larry?
[01:39:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, do you believe, the holocaust occurred, or what are your thoughts on that whole thing?
[01:39:50] Unknown:
Well, I've read some books. I've read a lot of books about Nazi Germany and the war, and it's clear to me that the German government spun out of Hitler's control. He wasn't in a class. He wasn't acclimated to the world of government. He was a guy that had a lot of good ideas. He was a pagan. And the people that he that surrounded him, that's what you're gonna get. You're gonna get people that spin out of control. They did spin out of control. They did murder a lot of Jewish people. No question about it. I don't know how many. I don't go along with the Holocaust just because I'd I mean, I I go along with kill a lot of German people, but when you do the math and you know there are only 500,000 about 500,000 Jews in Germany in 1939.
I looked up the numbers. There were three to 4,000,000 in Poland and not many more than that in France. I don't understand those. I don't understand where they got those figures. So I don't so I don't go along with all that. But I do know this, Germany was destroyed. Then I must ask myself why I must look at history and say, oh, I see what happened. I see what happened and I I've come to my conclusions. I do know this too that the holocaust is not the Messiah of God's people. No. No. That word comes out of the old testament. It's a Hebrew word and it means it's translated in the king James and other translations, burnt offering, holos. It doesn't mean whole. There is a word in the new testament in the Greek tongue, holos.
That is not the Hebrew word, they sound alike but they're not the same. Holos is our word in the Indo European towns, hole in English, w h o l e, that's different. But holos in Hebrew means up in smoke. It's a preposition meaning up, Al, up in smoke. And I translate it that way every time, but they say, well, we are the offering. See the Jewish people being a false Babylonian religion, Judaism is religion. It's not a a race of men. And they take the position that they are the Messiah. Jesus Christ isn't the Messiah. No, they are. And when they say, okay, the holocaust, that means when, Hitler put us in the ovens, whether he did, how much, all that, I'm not even gonna venture an opinion.
What I believe, what I don't believe. I believe what I know to be true, and I try to stick to that. Everything else that I don't have clear evidence of, we're talking about evidence. All I've got evidence that's really tainted about a lot of it. I have read some books. I know that that Nazis struggled at the first to try to decide the most efficient way to kill Jews. I know that. And they killed hundreds, hundreds. They first started, they tried to machine gun them and that was too messy. So what they tried to do after that, and Himmler was behind a lot of this, he said, we'll just put them in trailers, hold behind semi kinda tractor trailers, and we'll we'll, use diesel therapy on them. We'll just pipe the fumes in there and gas them. That was done a lot by the way. I have done a lot. And they thought it was painless and an easy way to go.
How many? I don't know. Do you records were not kept for the this reason. The Nazis didn't want anybody to find the records of how many were killed. So when people say 6,000,000, I say to myself, well, the evidence that I've read that I think is reliable says that records weren't kept because they in case the war was lost, they didn't wanna be executed. That's really what happened. So they didn't keep records of how many were killed. In other words, there are a lot of famous cases where, people that were Jewish were gunned down, and you can read about those. You can read about the things I'm talking about if you dig enough.
I don't even remember the who it was that said those things. I mean, who wrote the books? I just remember I read them.
[01:43:40] Unknown:
Go ahead, Roger. E Michaels talks about some of the Catholic priests that they put in some of those camps. Have you did you have you come across that information?
[01:43:49] Unknown:
Oh, they they put people in camps that were Romanists, and they put people in that were Lutherans, and they they slaughtered them to a great degree. A lot of people, Russians, they slaughtered them too. Oh, sure. Yeah. You know, there's a lot of bad blood there. You know, the German people were fundamental had Christian sensibilities, fundamentally the people. They wanted to fight and go home to their families. They were they had that agrarian culture that even followed them into the cities. And that means I wanna fight for what's behind me. I'm not, I'm not hating what's in front of me as much as I'm, as much as I'm loving what's behind me. I'm in defending my home and the heart and the hearth and I'm my family.
And that was different than the law of the city. Germany had taken up the same law. They gave it to Imperial Japan, Bismarck's code of Justinian, the German form of the code. And that enabled Japan to have legal cover, they thought, to do what they did. But they were even worse because they never had any Christian sensibilities at all. They didn't wanna fight. They, they, they didn't, love what was behind them more than they hated what was before them, their homeland, their family. That wasn't it as much as they want to die for their country and they were driven by vicious hate to kill. Bloody, bloody, bloody. That's what they wanted and they wanted to die. That's the pagan culture of death.
A Christian nation of Christian sensibilities, Germany got caught up in that. They were more responsible for their actions than were the Japs. The Japs had no concept of Christian sensibilities. I really believe, this is my conclusion for what it's worth, that the German people are gonna be held accountable for allowing and supporting a government of a single will, committing idolatry by swearing an oath to a single man called Adolf Hitler. That is ranked idolatry. Well, they they they're suffering. They're suffering.
[01:45:42] Unknown:
God help us. Let's not do that, friends. Back to you, Roger. Well, they're under the yoke right now of the people they tried to get rid of. Bory, I wanna make a comment. I'm gonna we got a little time here. You know, Brent, I was over in Germany about ten years ago. I won a contest, and I got to go over there for ten days, a week, ten days. Studebart. And, I was stunned at how much I liked all of that. It was just very everything was print proper. Every all the hedges were trimmed. Everything looked great, all that. I I was speaking with a gal who bought some stuff there, and then when you you have to pay the VAT tax on your items, and then you go get a piece of paper so when you leave the EU, you get that VAT tax refunded.
And I was talking to her. She spoke English, and and I was telling her how much I like it. And then she said, but but we've got so many rules. And I thought, yeah. I'm sure you do. Oh, I do. So, Bori, what you got? Bori. Sorry, buddy. I had to get that in there. I was taking
[01:46:57] Unknown:
I was taking the news, Brian. Sorry. It's a question for Brent. Good morning, Brandon. Good morning, Brian. Why do people swear on the Bible? That's not a sin. Are you?
[01:47:12] Unknown:
As as I said a while ago, all we have tangibly, and this is on the testimony of Jesus Christ, reliable testimony, reliable evidence. The word of God is everything. The laws of nature is God. Jesus Christ, I'll quote a Quaker who was a communist who was wrong on most everything, but he said this. He was honest. He was a Bible scholar, professor Harvard, Joel Cadbury. He said, if you're going to follow Jesus Christ, you're gonna believe that the Bible is without error because that was the testimony of Jesus Christ. He said, I don't believe that, but I don't believe the Bible. But if you're gonna follow that, that evidence, you're gonna come to that conclusion if you're honest. And he was being honest.
The Bible is what we have, the word of God right now. And that's what he's left to us. And when the spirit of God enlightens a man's mind, invades and inhabits the organs of his body within his skin, he enlightens us to that book and he makes us hungry for it. That's what the Bible teaches. We recognize truth when we see it, and we get better at it as we get older. We're not perfect, but we're getting better at it all the time. I pray that you're in that condition. But the oath is on the bible. And in written, you hold it while you take the oath. If you're a get on the witness stand, they hand it to you, hold it.
In America, we put our hand on it as an indication, an expression of what we believe is final. That's why we do that. And anyone who's not willing to do that shouldn't be in office. That's the doctrine I'm just thinking, of our governmental tradition, the Westminster confession, part of our common law tradition from England has a section section 20, I believe, I can't remember. Anyway, it has a section on oaths and vows. And it starts by saying that the oath and the vow is an act of religious worship, and to take an oath to anything upon the authority of anything with the maker of heaven and earth is an act of rank idolatry.
Rank idolatry. The Bible is not an idol. I debated a fellow in Missouri. Again, liked him. I still like him. Yeah. But we're at odds on that point. He said he said, the constitution of The United States is the biggest idol we've ever had. I said, now doggone it. No. It isn't. An idol what an idol is is clear. It's a created thing that of a creature, a man, a living man, a created thing, a living woman, a a bevy of men or women. When you take the oath, Jesus Christ was clear. He didn't forbid taking it. That's again a Quaker idea, it's not true but he said, be careful. Don't need to do it all the time, be careful how you do it.
Swear tightly and only swear by the maker of heaven and earth, him and no other him and no more. Because if you swear by the temple, if you swear by the gold on the temple, if you swear by the earth or the land, you swear by anything, cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye. That is demonism because you're calling in something less than the maker of heaven and earth to enforce your oath. And how, how silly could it be to call on yourself or on your mother's grave? How ugly that is and how idolatrous, how demonism, how much demonism is in that a lot. How about a statue of Mary?
But the word of God is what we have of God. His mind, the record of his mind, his thoughts, his will, and that's what he says he wants to conform and will conform his people to. The trust documents that define our relationship to him. Well, that's my response for what it's worth.
[01:51:30] Unknown:
K. Thank you, Brent. Anybody else in the audience got something or, towards the end of the program? If you do, you now's a good time.
[01:51:38] Unknown:
Roger, breaking news.
[01:51:40] Unknown:
Okay, Dave. Give it to us.
[01:51:43] Unknown:
So ABC Radio just reported that 2026 will be the last year that the Farmers' Almanac will be published due to financial issues.
[01:52:01] Unknown:
That's unfortunate. Maybe that announcement by itself
[01:52:08] Unknown:
Well, I think you can get it on the Internet anyway because I have a look.
[01:52:13] Unknown:
Well, they no. They said next year will be the last year that they produce at a Farmers' Almanac.
[01:52:20] Unknown:
Well, they're not gonna put anything on the Internet?
[01:52:24] Unknown:
They didn't say that. They made it sound like they were not gonna have a Farmers' Almanac anymore.
[01:52:30] Unknown:
Well, let me ask you this. Why do you think that's, newsworthy?
[01:52:36] Unknown:
Well, they thought it was newsworthy ABC Radio. I think it's pretty important. I know a lot of, farmers rely on that report. I know the Amish use it. I don't know about, these, you know, GMO farmers. I don't think they use it. Are you from the probably why because most farming now is genetically modified.
[01:53:00] Unknown:
Are you from the Northern Midwest or Canada?
[01:53:04] Unknown:
Michigan.
[01:53:06] Unknown:
Oh, I thought I detected that accent. Well, no. You My folks were both born in Canada.
[01:53:13] Unknown:
Oh, okay. I'm first generation American.
[01:53:16] Unknown:
So you know you know, as do I do, that that's been an important part of American life since the very beginning. And what it Right. Reason it's been important and popular is because it is the communication of the laws of nature, the laws of nature. Remember old captain Preston, that lawyer asked him. He was at at the Concord at the battle there. And this young lawyer, 42 years old, trying to figure out how these guys who were there had, Kahun used to challenge the most powerful military force in the world. And so he started asking questions. He said, were you oppressed by intolerable oppressions? And this fellow was 92 years old.
It was in the eighteen forties. Were you oppressed by intolerable oppressions? He said, oppressions. I didn't feel any. He said, well, what about the stamp act? He said, I never saw one of those stamps. I never paid a penny for one. He said, well, what about the t tax? The t tax. He said, t tax? He said, never drink a drop of the stuff. He said, I didn't drink that stuff. And the boys threw it all over overboard anyway. They thought, well, what's what's motivating this guy? He thought, well, maybe he's a philosopher. He said, I suppose then you'd been reading Harrington and Sydney and John Locke about the eternal principles of liberty. He said, I never heard of them, and they'll listen to what he said. He said, I never heard of them. He said, we read only the Bible and the almanac and Watts Psalms and Hymns.
The Bible, the almanac, and Watts Psalms and Hymns. Now that's the testimony of a man 92 years old, rank and file American. And he said, the only thing we knew or we even had to read with the Bible, the farmer's almanac, which had a little bit different name then. Ben Franklin published it for a long time. Well, what I what is that? That means they were interested in the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God. That's what that means. And by the way, to add to that, maybe he didn't, but according to our best figures, there are about 3,000,000 white folk in the American colonies in 1776.
1,000,000 of them were of English extraction Anglicans, which included period Puritan and Congregationalist. About a million of them were Dutch reformed and German reformed roots. Many lived in Pennsylvania, but other places too. And about a 100 about a million of them were Scotch Irish Presbyterians. All of them were of the reformed Christian tradition. To use a word I don't like to use, but I don't have any other that we get it across, that means reformed Christian tradition. They were hardcore Calvinist. That's what that means. And they were. They were the Heidelberg confession, the Westminster confession.
Was that the 39 articles of the Anglican church, a hardcore Calvinism still is. That's what those fellows were. To understand America, you don't understand that. Don't don't know about it. Don't try to factor that in. You can't understand what motivated these fellas. But they were motivated, and they did put their lives on the line. And, we're the only common law country in the world, that is here because of war. We wanted it bad enough. We were willing to kill and be killed for it, and we were. We knew the we, the people I my forebearers, yours too. If you're living in America, they're your forebearers. They came before you, and they carried the carried the water for us. Now it's our turn.
The laws of nature is our common law tradition. The laws of nature is God. Our common law tradition, yes. The way things are in nature that we observe and they ain't gonna change. The time, the season, the almers the farmer's almanac relates directly as you know to the land. Okay. Well, thank you for bringing bringing that up.
[01:57:19] Unknown:
Maybe something You're welcome. The announcement. Maybe something will step in and and and stop that. We'll see. Okay?
[01:57:26] Unknown:
Who who else That's what I figured.
[01:57:30] Unknown:
Yeah. Who else is saying something now? I was gonna say I saw a story right before, the show. I was watching, Infowars on this stuff called Bovina, I believe it's called. Have you ever heard of that before, Brent? No. They're giving it they're doing it in Europe. They're planning on doing it here. It's a concoction they add to the cow's feed that affects the way the fourth stomach, produces methane and it suppresses a bunch of it. Well, all of a sudden, cows are dying and, ailments out the gazoo and stuff in in Denmark. So, hopefully, that'll go by the wayside. Anyway, there's the whistler. Obviously, that means we're done for the, for the day. And always wanna thank Brent Winter for taking time out of your busy schedule to come over here and hang with us, Brent, and go over all these things that are so important, background, foundational.
And, we love you, buddy. Thanks for showing up and giving us the goods.
[01:58:30] Unknown:
We'll look forward to next week. Thank you, Roger. I feel the same way about you and all the folks that listen. I don't pray for everybody in the world. I'm not God. But I do pray for those that listen that all of our line minds would be enlightened to the laws of nature, and the laws of nature is God. God's will, what he wants for us. And that's what the pain is in here?
[01:58:53] Unknown:
I'm sorry. Real quick, and I'll I'll tell you after. There are two almanacs.
[01:58:59] Unknown:
Okay. Two almanacs, Murr says. And maybe just one of them. Okay. Well, we're at the end of the program. So the folks that are listening are just gonna have to be held in suspense. Aren't they, Murr? So these things happen, and that's gonna happen today. So, we'll see you tomorrow or soon. Thank you, Brent. Ciao. Okay. Now we should learn about two almanacs. Which ones? What are they, myrrh?
[01:59:30] Unknown:
The, farmers that, Dave is talking about there is, Johnny come lately, and I was always suspicious of them. They're the ones discontinuing the old Farmers' Almanac that, is online. And, I stopped buying the paper variety a while back, but, it's, more dependable, I think. And, you know, there's there's some stuff that's been taken over, but it's been published continuously since 1792.
[01:59:57] Unknown:
I have a feeling it's gonna continue to be published.
[02:00:00] Unknown:
Mhmm. Now go for the one. Farmers.
[02:00:03] Unknown:
The old Farmers' Almanac, not the Farmers. And the Farmers' is the one they'd have on TV too. And it would come out before the Old Farmers. The Old Farmers comes out in October. The the farmers would precede it and be on TV, and so I would say discount it anyway.
[02:00:20] Unknown:
Thank you, Murr. Ben Franklin published Poor Richard's Almanac. I think that's what he called it. And whether or not the one you're talking about is a continuation of that, I don't know. If you know, you may tell us. But, Yeah. Pretty nice. Fun pretty much. Yeah. We used to wait in the feed store, my brother and I. Had in that little town close to us, had a feed store where we got our seed cleaned and had our corn shelled and all that. When we go in every year, we knew when that thing would be out and available. And we waited with bated breath, and we got it. And we'd set over on the feed sacks by the elevator while dad was doing his business, and Dave would read that to me, my older brother.
He always wanted to read out loud. And there would be so many the articles were fun, interesting articles about all sorts of subjects, but then also the predictions of weather because back then we depended upon those kind of predictions of weather and the weatherman. We didn't know what else to do. Matter of fact, we found out the weatherman didn't know anything. We would figure when we were farming and we were trying to get the crop in or get it out, we'd listen to the radio at noon, and we'd if they said it was raining in Saint Louis, well, we knew how fast the rain would travel. We knew it would be raining where we were, and we knew about what time. That's the way we calculated.
And if we heard something from Paducah, we knew how long it'd be to get to us or something from Evansville, Indiana, if it we'd check the weather there in those radio stations. And that was big stuff back then. The the farmers depended upon the radio to know have an idea maybe what was happening. But the best weather broadcasting we discovered was whether they said it was raining or not. They they get that a 100%, but everything else was about a fifty fifty shot. That's been my observation of the weather, man. I think I told you about I was on radio and Terry Oat and, like, Ballard owned the station. We got talking about that, and he said, well, he remembered when they opened the the TV station there about 1960. It was, a CBS, WTHI, I think. And, he said the guy that did the weather to come blow in, and he was a young guy just out of school, and he was an engineer there. He'd come blowing in, slide sideways in the parking lot down there on Wabash Avenue, run-in, straighten it up his tie, and run there just within seconds to get on the air and do the weather.
And what he couldn't figure out, he couldn't figure out how this guy knew what to say. That was in the early days. There wasn't no no radar and all that. And he said, oh, shucks. He said, I'm sitting at home. I got it down to a science. I know which road to take to get here or I won't get delayed. And he said, as soon as I jump in the car, I turn the radio on, and I I catch the weather. And that's what then I just say what the guy said on the radio. And I discovered that that's what all of the news is. And when I ran for congress, I discovered there were about 300 outlets in Washington, DC, and every news news outlet in the country, every newspaper, every television station depended upon those outlets.
And then I found out that in the state capital, and all state capitals are this way, there's just a very few people that control what comes out of the state capital, and all the newspapers and radio, broadcasters, depend upon those few. Well, that system that I learned about when I was running for congress doesn't exist anymore. The Internet has torn down all of the barriers like the they they think they're the gatekeepers, some of them, but they aren't. And that's what they were going through when Trump ran the first time. They still had an idea in their head that they were the gatekeepers of everything that America got to hear. And they hadn't figured out that that the gate was still up, and they were still sitting at the gate, and they were keeping it closed when they wanted to, but the fence all around them had been torn down, and people were just flooding across from every direction while they sat at the gate and were monitoring the gate.
Well, now they're not even doing that. The Internet has plumbed taken over, and we're getting a wide calculus of what we wanna know. That's what's happening, and it's causing awful upheavals.
[02:04:50] Unknown:
The those establishment media are having a hard, hard time staying above water. Oh, yeah. People like Alex Jones. They have from 30 to 80,000,000
[02:05:01] Unknown:
viewers on any episode. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He's in control. So it becomes purely competition between a whole lot. Let that Fuentes. That guy's a nobody. He was a nobody for the longest time. He doesn't he's never had an experience in life at all. Nope. But he has risen to the top for whatever reason. And, and he's and he said I heard him say to Tucker, listen to that interview. He said, shoot. He said, when I was on whatever, RSB, Republic, something, broadcast. I don't know what it was. He said, I was just another guy on there, and I would listen to this other talk radio guy, and I'm just repeating all his lines and everything he said. That's all. He said, I didn't know what I was talking about. And that had been just a few short years ago he was doing that. What could he know now? There are a lot of people here just repeating, not understanding. I always thought we take for some somebody like Michael Savage.
Michael Savage never did know what he was saying, still doesn't. Exceedingly popular. He was a left wing wacko hippie for years, and he decided to make any
[02:06:03] Unknown:
I'm sorry. His real name is Weiner.
[02:06:06] Unknown:
Yeah. Thank you. But he he didn't, he just learned the lines of the conservative. He could talk the talk, and he's on the radio, and he gets to be who he wants to be, makes a lot of money. But I've heard him interview true conservatives, and he didn't get it. He didn't have a clue,
[02:06:20] Unknown:
obviously. Well, he also I'm sorry, Brent, but he also hangs out with, you know, Rabbi Schneerson and whatnot. And he reportedly also wrote homo maybe still does, wrote, homosexual novels under pseudonym Oh, yeah. You know? Yeah. And he he hates Christianity,
[02:06:38] Unknown:
hates Christians, hates Jesus Christ. I've heard him say it. I remember one time he interviewed Jerry Falwell, and not that I'm a fan of Jerry Falwell, but Jerry Falwell puts on the puts on the persona of a Christian, and may he may be. I've met him on a couple of occasions. I'm not against him. Against some of his methods, he's a Baptist. That means he's a dictator. But other than that, I I listened to Michael Savage. Just tear Jerry Falwell up while Jerry Falwell was really being nice to him. But my the spirit in this Michael Savage fella couldn't couldn't stand him talking about Jesus Christ. That's all. That's the way it works. The bible says that's the way it works, and that is the way it works. So why is Tucker having problems? Because Tucker, you may not agree with everything he says about his Christian faith, but he's upfront with it, and he's talking about it like it's true and saying, well, this is the way it is. So why would I do this or that? Well, that's what they can't stand, friends.
He's talking about Jesus Christ as though Jesus Christ is responsible for Christianity and responsible for the culture in America that we have inherited from the Isle Of Britain primarily primarily. Culture, a common law culture that is a Christian culture, start to finish. We inherited it, and it has made us the most powerful engine of wealth and prosperity the world has ever known. And if we let it go, and Tucker gets this, it sounds like if we let that go, we'll lose everything. Oh, he's absolutely right. Of course. And it all comes down to the land, my friends, polluting the land.
The history of mankind is men pollute God's land. He's the Elodial landlord, friends. And if you pollute his land, that means you're consistent about it. We all make mistakes. But if you make it official policy to murder babies, he's not gonna stand for that. You make it official policy to take an oath to a single man, life or death, Adolf Hitler or Mussolini or the emperor of Japan. Oh, he's not gonna stand for that. You'll be annihilated. That's one thing the Bible's clear that he won't stand for, and it's and history proves it from start to finish. Well, Roger, back to you. I gotta get something to eat, and I gotta make some phone calls. Me too. I'm gonna go out and enjoy a beautiful day. Anybody got something for either one of us real quick?
[02:08:58] Unknown:
Hey, Brent. An hour ago, you mentioned did you say something like Jesus hates Judaism? And if you said that, do you have a specific
[02:09:09] Unknown:
scripture No. I I I know. I no. I don't wanna say that. What I wanna say is go read the bible and see what Jesus said about the Babylonian Jewish leadership and what he said to them. And then go to the epistles of Paul the apostle and read what he said about them. Just type it into the Internet. Pull it up. No sense of me saying it. I'm just repealing to the Bible. I that's final. I'm not final. The Bible is final. The final court of last resort. And I present the evidence. That's all that anybody can do is present evidence, and I take the Bible and I put it in evidence. And I say, read it, and you tell me what your conclusions are. I cannot give you I cannot dictate your conclusions. I don't want to. I don't even wanna try. What I want to do is present the evidence.
As a lawyer, that's what a lawyer does. That's what he's supposed to know how to do, present evidence. And that's what god's man is supposed to know how to do is present evidence, and that's what he's presenting. There's Jim there. Two places.
[02:10:13] Unknown:
God says, Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated. Who is Esau Edom?
[02:10:19] Unknown:
Oh, there we go. That's a
[02:10:20] Unknown:
yeah.
[02:10:21] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. That's debatable as far as hate, though. And try John chapter eight. Oh, no. Evidently not. We Brent translated it for us one day, year on year murder.
[02:10:32] Unknown:
Okay? Yeah. He He fought a hell of a year.
[02:10:47] Unknown:
Well, thank you. I was just telling June, try John chapter eight in particular and first Thessalonians two, especially fourteen and fifteen. Contrary to all men.
[02:10:58] Unknown:
Well, it's important to understand hate biblically. I agree with well, Roger, and I have talked about it. Maybe we can do that next time. It is important to understand it because those are heavy statements. But just know this, go go, examine the New Testament and, what the attitude and, of Jesus Christ is toward false religion and Paul the apostle and the others. They're all the same. And Judaism is the prototype in the Bible, false religion, Babylonian. It's all Babylonian, and that's what he talks about and see what he got to say about it. Back to you.
[02:11:35] Unknown:
Would I have a question. In the minis. Right? Go ahead.
[02:11:40] Unknown:
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[02:11:42] Unknown:
Go ahead. Go ahead. Whoever else was there.
[02:11:47] Unknown:
This is Sherry, Brent. And I was wondering in your translation translation of the scriptures, did you find where, the Messiah quoted books that have not been put into into
[02:12:01] Unknown:
the the scriptures now? The Bible post books that that are not part of the canon. Yes. The the Bible even quotes, a a Greek physician named Galen, and I can read his writings, but that's not part of the canon either. But if some writer of the Bible lifts a pericope or a section or a phrase out of a h t t p out of another book, that does not that does not verify the whole book as being part of the canon. For example, I heard Tucker say this. Well, I've heard a lot of people say it. The man that wrote more of the New Testament than any other man was Luke. Luke only wrote two books. And Paul wrote more books, but he didn't write more pages than Luke. And those two book books that Luke wrote are long.
Luke draws no conclusions in those books. He makes no statements of theology except to quote other people. And it's pure fact. It's pure fact. That's important. The more of the Bible is pure fact and theology or command even. More of the New Testament. But Luke compiled all of that evidence and he says so right in the very beginning. He compiled it all through a lot of research. That doesn't mean that every place he got that evidence ought to be in the bible, every writing, all of it. It means he's quoting other people, and he had gathered evidence from other people.
So be don't go and say, well, we don't have all the bible because they, the book of Jude, the next to the last book of the Bible quotes the book of Enoch. It does. That doesn't mean the book of Enoch is part of the Bible. Peter the apostle quotes the Greek physician Galen. That doesn't mean that that's the writings of Galen, which we have. We have manuscripts of it. That doesn't mean that's part of the Bible. And Paul the apostle quotes a Greek poet and he says all Cretans are liars, slow bellies, lazy. Well, that doesn't mean that the right all the writings of that Greek poet are part of the bible.
That's never been the case. Nobody that's never been the position of Christianity. That's never been the position of ancient Israel, but that's the way they dealt with it. The book of Jasher, the bible quotes it. And we don't have the book of Jasher, the one's quotes anymore. There were no one that I know of. That doesn't mean that it's a lost book of the bible. God has promised to preserve his word the way he wants to preserve it, and we have it. And a lot goes into deciding. There never was a time, never is a place, never any evidence in the history of Christianity where anybody made an official pro claimed to make an official proclamation of a list of the books of the Bible ever.
I hear that said over and over and over about the cons the council of Constantinople and all that. There are places where they said, these are the books that are in common use throughout the churches. Hell yeah. They say that. Just make an observation. But they've never there never has been an official list proclaimed by anybody with authority to do so.
[02:15:34] Unknown:
Well
[02:15:35] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Thank Yeah. Brent.
[02:15:38] Unknown:
Welcome. Okay. We'll be talking. Thank you again. Next week. Okay, Brent. Have a great week. You too. Bye. Hey, Brent. Boy, you're gonna try to grab me.
[02:15:48] Unknown:
Uh-oh. I have. I've gotta grab you. Area you're getting to. You almost got away, bro. Well, I I I've been, this is Bob. I've been missing, Tasmanian word association day, so I got one for you here. Oh, okay. You you just said the word you just said the word baited as in you and your brother were waiting there at the feed store with baited breath. I don't know how many times I've seen that spelled b I a t, which, of course, is not correct. But at any rate, just yesterday, just yesterday, we're riding along in the car, and somehow that word came up between my two daughters and I.
Okay. And I said, well, it almost seems like abate would be the negative abated, you know, because to Uh-huh. Typically, a an a would modify it to be the opposite. I don't find that to be the case here. But, anyway, where I'm headed is this, An abatement, of course, in law is to stop something or to at least impede it. And it occurred to me here's here's where the Tasmanian word association comes in. It occurred to me that it's very similar to the French word for a for a butcher shop, habatoire. Okay. And absolutely. It's absolutely related. It's where things come to an end. That that critter is ended.
[02:17:17] Unknown:
Oh, okay.
[02:17:19] Unknown:
I had never put that together, and I just I just couldn't resist. When I heard you say baited, I when you said baited breath, it baited me in. How do you like that?
[02:17:29] Unknown:
B a I t. No. I was thank you. No. I wasn't aware of all that, but I was aware that b a I t is not bated breath. But it is Exactly. Here. Yeah. The the connection between words, you have to stop and get real conceptual sometime, but they're there. They're there. Yes. Well, thank you, Bob. Appreciate it. Yeah. Brent? Uh-huh. Go
[02:17:57] Unknown:
ahead. Hey. To answer Sherry's question, don't forget the book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. And, second thing I wanna say is, earlier in the program, you talked about a definition of politics. And, have you ever heard of Kent Hovine and what his definition was in his younger days when he went around the country? Many given such parts in colleges. Many blood searching Well, it's made up of yeah. He says it's made up of two, two words, poly mean meaning many and ticks, which are blood sucking creatures. I always found that quite funny.
He was convicted of tax, of tax
[02:18:46] Unknown:
criminal Structuring.
[02:18:48] Unknown:
Structuring.
[02:18:50] Unknown:
Yes. That it was structuring. That's right. Don't do that. Be careful about structuring. If you don't know what it is, go look it up. But yeah. Thank you. No. I Kent Kent's a good communicator. I don't know what he's doing now, but it wasn't he didn't just get a year or two. He got 10. His wife got a year or two. Lost his marriage. Listen. We're dealing with the evil empire. When he got into that mess, obviously, a very intelligent man, but he didn't understand the lay of the land and the and the fight. And it takes a long time to get there. He's there now, I'm sure.
Who is who's this we're talking about? Kent Hovind, and he traveled all over the world delivering lectures on creation versus evolution. And, Oh, yeah. Yeah. You can go to the Internet. Him. Yeah. You go to the Internet. He's from Pensacola. Well, actually, he's from East Peoria, Illinois, but he wound up at Pensacola. I think he's still there around Pensacola somewhere. Uh-huh. Yeah. You can look him up, and his his lectures are clear and entertaining, and his research is wide. He doesn't boast of a formal education. Really good communicator.
He's right headed. That's all I can say about him.
[02:20:01] Unknown:
They gave him ten years. Roger For what? What? For what? Yeah.
[02:20:05] Unknown:
Structuring. The IRS went to prison
[02:20:08] Unknown:
for ten years for structuring and also because he did not withhold taxes. He had a lot of, student employees to help him out with his creation museum. And evidently, he was supposed to be withholding taxes for the IRS. And his excuse was, which I believe is just justified, is that he considered them to be, you know, independent contractors and they were responsible for withholding their own taxes. And, and so but they ended up the IRS ended up convicting him and his wife. They both went to federal prison for ten well, he went there for ten years. I don't remember how many years his wife went to prison. They ended up splitting up, and I just recently heard that there is charges against him for something he did to his ex wife in 2021.
He was convicted of something, some type of abuse.
[02:21:04] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you can bet he's the kind of person they wanna go after with both claws.
[02:21:08] Unknown:
Oh, yeah.
[02:21:09] Unknown:
For sure. Well, he didn't give up the structuring, and he, he I think he's on his, like, second wife since then. He was married to Mary Taco for a while, and, she had to had to leave.
[02:21:23] Unknown:
Damn. Okay. Well, that sounds like me. I've got to leave too. And I know Brent does. Yeah. So, I hesitate to ask. Anybody got a question for Brent or I? Brent, they're gonna let us out, I think. Okay. Okay, buddy. Well, I know. Thank you. We'll see you next week. Alright. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. What yes. Bye bye. Thanks, Murr. See you tomorrow. Ciao.
[02:21:58] Unknown:
Run, Forrest. Run. Mhmm.
[02:22:10] Unknown:
Again, if you're a chain to come in.
[02:22:22] Unknown:
You talking to me?
[02:22:24] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm talking to you.
[02:22:27] Unknown:
What'd you say?
[02:22:29] Unknown:
What yanks your chain to get in here?
[02:22:32] Unknown:
Well, didn't you hear? It was about the almanac the almanac. The almanac.
[02:22:36] Unknown:
Weren't you listening? Yeah. I
[02:22:39] Unknown:
yeah. I heard the almanac, but I didn't think it was provocative.
[02:22:44] Unknown:
There are two almanacs. The good one and the not is good one. The Johnny come lately one that they pushed is the one that's going out of circulation. The one that's been the longest periodical periodical to be in circulation is still in circulation. The old Farmers' Almanac from 1792.
[02:23:14] Unknown:
So in, the war the immortal words of Gregory, there's an almanac and a Gooder Almanac.
[02:23:31] Unknown:
One of the fun things with the almanac, the old farmers is the letters to the editor. I really learn a lot of interesting things.
[02:23:48] Unknown:
Oh, you're echoing bad, Mark.
[02:23:52] Unknown:
Yeah. I hear that. Sorry about that. Is it better now? Yep. Yep. I thought I thought Brent and Brent w and Roger are gonna butt heads there about, Germany and Hitler. Yeah. I was gonna say something about that, but decided not to. I don't know whose whose whose information Brent is consuming, and maybe they're under a pseudonym too. But, a lot of faulty information going on there going on there.
[02:25:14] Unknown:
I'm thinking that it's probably a good thing that Paul English didn't show up or maybe a bad thing because Paul English would have been able to, come up with, David Irving quotes and, information and others that have the real scoop on Germany.
[02:25:38] Unknown:
Alright. Alright.
[02:25:47] Unknown:
Maybe Paul English did dial it, but, chose to remain silent out of respect for Brent and Roger. I don't know.
[02:26:06] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. In the beginning of today's radio rant, you said that you were saying who was on I think you said on Paul English live last show. Was it Eli James? Or who did Yeah.
[02:26:21] Unknown:
Yeah. Eli Eli was there. Ogi. Thank you. Normal Thank you. And the normal cast of characters. Balding is Eric von Essex, me.
[02:26:45] Unknown:
Hey. They even talked about psychedelic mushrooms yesterday.
[02:26:54] Unknown:
Yeah. They did.
[02:26:57] Unknown:
I love that shirt.
[02:27:00] Unknown:
Did they mention Scylla Simon?
[02:27:09] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:27:10] Unknown:
They probably mentioned silly Simon and hungry hippos.
[02:27:15] Unknown:
Not microplastics,
[02:27:17] Unknown:
but in microdose.
[02:27:27] Unknown:
I guess they never anticipated that people would be able to see through doors and windows and ceilings and roofs.
[02:27:40] Unknown:
That was the one that Eli James was on? Call English Life with the silk with the, mushrooms and the Paul Bina?
[02:27:55] Unknown:
Yeah. Yesterday's show is the one we've been talking about.
[02:27:59] Unknown:
So did what did okay. Well, I'll listen to it, but do you wanna did, Eli James say anything about the mushrooms?
[02:28:08] Unknown:
Not that I remember.
[02:28:15] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:31:13] Unknown:
Irving, liked you quote that there was, like, 70 men that knew about the extermination program. There was no extermination program contrary to popular lying beliefs.
[02:31:36] Unknown:
I just said good.
[02:31:45] Unknown:
And they all like to single out Mengele. There were 12 doctors. Mengele had a Jewish assistant, and he wasn't about torture and killing and all the other stuff. He studied them, but he didn't harm them. One Jewish family had seven dwarfs. It was one of the families he studied. Why did Germany go into France? I have to look into that to give you a really good answer. Can't right off the top of my head. But, they weren't against it when they got there. Same thing in Austria. They also arrested now they tried to make this out, the historians in favor of the Rothschilds and whatnot, make it out to be a kidnapping and a ransom, but it was an arrest.
And so they paid, bail, which was pretty high amount for that time. I think it was, like, 21,000,000 or something for, Louis de Rothschild for the bank in Vienna. They arrested him there. So, you know, there was stuff going on all over the place. They also arrested and confiscated the property of, Julia
[02:33:14] Unknown:
Rothschild. You know,
[02:33:16] Unknown:
that's why they holocausted Dresden and some other cities that, and they had a conference in 1882 about the Jewish question held in Dresden. But you'll notice it was on the Saint Valentine's Day and that's when they've done many massacres and that can be checked back to the middle fourteenth century, 1348 in particular, but they changed the date to 1349 when Jews were held accountable for poisoning water all over Europe except in the Pale, which is now Poland where they were, All different methods. And then they tried to call it the black death. And they tried to relate it to a passing comet and every all kind of stuff. But, no, this is water being poisoned just like they're doing today, just like they're shoving poison. And it is the Jews, make no mistake, that the comes from demon on the back and frighten people into getting poison stabbed into them.
Because, you know, the whole world has a virus that doesn't exist. Viruses can exist on their own in the air. But since they relate it subliminally to Gates and his computer viruses that can be everywhere in the world at once, well, guess what? Suddenly, people too. They have it everywhere in the world at once. Way is for fools.
[02:34:52] Unknown:
You mean doctor Gates.
[02:34:54] Unknown:
Yeah. Right? That's what they were calling him too. Yep. That was no slur. Yep. And he's a Jew. Crypto Jew. I don't know what his real name is. Might be kept that name. I don't know. And, of course, his father, helped start Planned Parenthood. Whose mother was in banking and, had her portrait lightened so she didn't look so olive. Went by the name Murder. Yes, ma'am.
[02:35:31] Unknown:
What did doctor Lorraine Day, speak up about regarding viruses? Do you know?
[02:35:38] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. They don't exist. You know? They can't exist. And like Tom Rogers says, they have to be, you know, fat or carried somehow. They can't exist in the cosmic energy in the sunlight and the oxygen in the air. Doesn't happen.
[02:35:55] Unknown:
Okay. Because I did hear her speak about, the scriptures and that, the laws of cleanliness didn't, give them ways to in which to avoid things in the air. You know what I'm saying?
[02:36:14] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, she talks about the, you know, Israelites and, how they're none of that is ever mentioned that there's something in the air that that won't happen. Just not happening. Right. Okay. Thank you. I'll send you a link though. A fellow named, I don't know, Parsi is what he went by, but he has a website 911essentials.com. And it'll probably come up blocking here or something, but you can get into it if you go past their block. And, he keeps the what Lorraine Day said about viruses up on that site. Used to come in chat rooms and stuff. He used to be a roadie and then, CME, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and interesting character living there in Chicago.
He and his wife and, harassed all the time. So I guess he's still around because his website's up. But he would he would say, how he could, you know, see where the inquiries were coming from, and he got a real big influence from all the different government websites, people looking at his site.
[02:37:31] Unknown:
Oh, so there's no Avian flu? Right?
[02:37:38] Unknown:
You know, they call stuff all different things. You know?
[02:37:43] Unknown:
But it's It's interesting.
[02:37:46] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:37:47] Unknown:
Something that just dropped on, Drew Bergstein's YouTube channel was, seven lies about Catholic history by Diane Moxer. And, some side as even as a Catholic born and raised, I didn't really know about these things. So it was pretty interesting. Yeah. Wanna listen to a good book, gets into all the, you know, how Hitler was Catholic trying to stop the Jews and everything.
[02:38:11] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. You're so right. I wanted to bring that up too, but there wouldn't really time today for all that.
[02:38:23] Unknown:
Joan, welcome back, Joan.
[02:40:13] Unknown:
According to some of the videos I watched on David Irving, here recently, because he's he's redone. He's got a new edition of his Hitler book out. And, so I guess he's doing interviews and gotta wonder if he's a little beat down. But on the other hand, he's basically using documents from the time, and he's saying all the evidence shows him that, Hitler forbade the ex the the question of what to do with them, the Jews that is or the whatever you wanna call them. Until after the war, he didn't want it to be a distraction. But according to Irving, guys like Himmler secretly behind Hitler's back did do some of this, but even that looks like it was pretty limited because otherwise it would be difficult to keep from from from Hitler. So that's what he's saying these days.
[02:41:30] Unknown:
Yes. Like I said, he, he also, you know, quoted somebody that says, oh, about 70 men knew about the extermination plans. Well, there were no extermination plans. So was the I put a link in the those chats that had, he's gone now. But he, was questioning, who were these men? You know? If you're gonna you know? It it just it's just more lies. But he did, you know, like you said, being beat down and tired. I think he capitulated to some extent whether he really chose to or not, but he was really under the gun with Lipstadt. Right? And she's now, what, in charge of antisemitism Yeah. In this country. But, I mean, she's ugly, and he's handsome. And so they she was made a movie and, put Rachel Wise, who's very pretty in her you know, to play her part. And I forget the actor, but only actor to play him. You know? Interesting how they do their propaganda.
[02:42:37] Unknown:
Yeah. He does mention people that were under Himmler that were taking his orders. So who knows for sure? But, you know, one thing about Irving, I think he's always trying to be, you know, I think he's fair about every question except the bloodthirsty nature of his own country, Britain. He's a little you know, he's very much a nationalist. He very much blamed Churchill for the destruction of the British Empire. And, he thought that was a good thing, obviously, and, I think he's an error there. But, other than that, you know, it wouldn't be surprising that somebody like Himmler would go I mean, he, in the end, did betray Hitler.
So it's just logical that he may have gone against his orders and did some exterminations, on his own with people who were a lot of like thinking. Of course, he was the head of the SS, so he had a lot of people under his control.
[02:43:53] Unknown:
Well, you know, every empire has been, far sighted, including Britain, British Israel.
[02:44:00] Unknown:
You know? Yeah. Look look at all the people who wanna make excuses for Trump today and say that, well, he doesn't really know. He's not been told. Oh, no. Etcetera etcetera. Right? And that's in this day and age with with a different communication system today than they sure as hell had then. You know?
[02:44:20] Unknown:
Yeah. Churchill's mother was Jewish, so there you go. Jenny Jerome.
[02:44:26] Unknown:
Leave with surname. He he tells some terrible stories about Winston Churchill. Like, in fact, I do believe he has a book on Churchill alone, which is Terrible gosh. Tears tears the man down to what he was.
[02:44:40] Unknown:
Mhmm. Yep. Hee haw.
[02:44:46] Unknown:
The was Himmler or Mengele? Mengele? No.
[02:44:54] Unknown:
You know, I don't even know what that word means anymore. It's just a phony name along with everything else. I think I'm sticking with Pharisees.
[02:45:06] Unknown:
Uh-huh. I'm sticking with Parasites.
[02:45:10] Unknown:
Yeah. But they do consider Probably better, but
[02:45:13] Unknown:
They do Pharisees Parasites.
[02:45:16] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:45:17] Unknown:
They do consider themselves a distinct people, a culture. You know, it's not just a religion. And in fact, many of them, there's a whole list I've threatened to read sometime at some point the of Jews that brag about communism being Judaism.
[02:45:41] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[02:45:45] Unknown:
I was busy today during the show, but, at some point, I I might chime in with, Brent on what the canon of the Old Testament should be, and I think there's a lot of evidence that it's incomplete. And, I think that was done by the Pharisees. And it it started at January when they got into power. And these were the people that were in power during Jesus's time, and he he know what he called them. You know? The synagogue of Satan. This is basically that that temple was defiled by them. January. Not Are you talking about the Phariseites or the Phariseites?
Which which Pharise group is it? The parasites. Oh, I see. The it's is that giving him a bad name?
[02:46:48] Unknown:
Well, I guess so. But, Not the rusty ones like you.
[02:46:53] Unknown:
I gotcha. Mhmm.
[02:46:55] Unknown:
How do you spell myrrh?
[02:46:58] Unknown:
Oh, read the transcript. You'll get a kick out of how AI spells it. It's just m e r. It's my initials. It's an acronym. But it it puts m u r r and m y r r h.
[02:47:12] Unknown:
One of the one of the things if you look at what they were up to is and why they got exiled into, other people's nations, and their temples destroyed and stuff is because they were not in God's favor. One of the main reasons they weren't in God's favor is they worshiped other gods. They didn't keep the Sabbath. They didn't keep the Jubilees. And for that, they were exiled. Now the book of Jubilees points out all these times and things that they were supposed to keep and and the division of the lands, etcetera. So this would be a book that wouldn't be something they would wanna have around.
So I think they got rid of it.
[02:48:09] Unknown:
Do y'all think that they're like gypsy?
[02:48:17] Unknown:
Well, looks like they're not even they weren't of the tribes of Israel. They were actually from the lines of the Nestle.
[02:48:34] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:48:38] Unknown:
So you you don't even have when Jesus is there, I don't believe there was there was any God in that temple unless Jesus was in it. And I think Jesus knew that. But he was there to give him one last chance to get on board,
[02:48:59] Unknown:
and they refused. And, you know
[02:49:04] Unknown:
Too bad. So sad. I'm glad.
[02:49:11] Unknown:
But to think that they they're you know, Christianity took their word, which they're not even of the nation of Israel. Right? Not the 12 tribes. Christianity sort of took their word for what the canon should be. That was a big mistake in my mind. Anyway.
[02:49:53] Unknown:
So, Samuel
[02:49:59] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:50:00] Unknown:
What what would you say in your opinion is missing exactly from you from the bible letters?
[02:50:08] Unknown:
Well, according to this group called the God Culture, which have no denomination, they are just Bible researchers, they're saying that the community that John the Baptist was from during Jesus' time was from Qumran. Well, that's an Islamic name. It used to be called Bethabara. That's where John was from and he was keeping the original canon and what you find in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the canon and that will include they found in Dead Sea Scrolls 15 copies of Jubilees. They found the book of Enoch, the first book, not the Gnostic stuff that comes later, Esdras, Obetz, no Ruth or no Esther. I'm sorry.
And no Esther. And the other documents that were found there was like the Damascus scroll, which was about how the temple was to be properly kept, etcetera. And they railed in that document against the Pharisees and Sadducees that were in control of the temple and saying they were evil. And that's their their argument, god culture, is these people got into power. They weren't even of the 12 tribes. They weren't from the sons of Adak, which would have been the Levites who had charged to keep scripture, which is stated in Deuteronomy.
The people that were there were eliminating things that contradicted including the calendar, by the way, was wrong. And Jubilees touches on all of the times and seasons and divisions, Sabbaths, jubilees. So that's what they're saying, and I they've got an awfully good argument, and they published and have a lot of videos on the subject. They've got a 52 part video series on jubilees alone. They have over 400 videos total. So I've been listening to a lot of that stuff lately, and it's difficult to find fault with it for me anyway. I mean, to know, it would be nice to have people to, you know, discuss it with.
I don't think they're right on everything, but they, they support a lot of their stuff with real tangible evidence and history as well as what the Bible says. And their premise was these missing books is that they don't contradict with the canon. They just add more detail to it. So because if there was a contradiction, they'd like, for instance, Jasher, they think is not a good book even though it does get mentioned once, I think, in the, New Testament. They reject Jashers, and, again, it's not found in the Ditzy scrolls either. So that's what I know so far.
At some point, I wonder if Brent would be willing to take a look at what they had to say or what. They're not like a quick and easy read or what have you. Their books are in great detail, and their videos are in great detail. And it take takes quite a bit of time to to go through any one particular subject. And they're all sort of melted together because you really, really can't, appreciate one without having an overview of most of what they have to say. So I hope I answered your question.
[02:54:48] Unknown:
Oh, you did. Thank you for that. Well, I did. But, you know, I've because I've heard this,
[02:54:57] Unknown:
under my.
[02:54:59] Unknown:
Having a hard time hearing you?
[02:55:04] Unknown:
Yeah. Can you hear me now?
[02:55:06] Unknown:
That's better.
[02:55:09] Unknown:
No. I've heard this, from different people. I'm in my fifties now, so I've heard it for years. And it's not that I've come to a complete conclusion, but I I have a question that that, that also comes into this in my mind is can men, mere men, stop what God wants to really do? You know? And and to me, it it is the most important question or statement, I guess, because if God wanted his word to be meant to have his complete word, how could how could men stop that? You know? I just and I'm thinking that they can't stop. They can only do what he allows them to do in the first place anyway.
[02:56:00] Unknown:
But I'm not having I sort of feel the same same way. The way I look at it is the canon as it is is enough to get understanding and be absolutely correct about, but it it does leave out details, which I think if we had would reduce the amount of different ideas we have in the church and so many different denominations because those books clear up people who make up man made doctrine when these books are so telling you exactly what it is. That that's sort of what the god culture is saying. So I, you know, I I struggle with you know?
But, you know, I'm just putting it out there for people to look at if they want and make their own conclusions. Thessalonians also does say that we're supposed to prove all things and not to be fooled and also that we're gonna learn more things as the end comes closer. More will be revealed. Maybe that's what all this is about. You know, I don't know.
[02:57:36] Unknown:
Well, I mean Samuel. I appreciate that.
[02:57:41] Unknown:
You're welcome.
[02:57:42] Unknown:
Hey, Samuel. Samuel. What do you have another word? What's another word for a canon? Or or do you know the definition? A good definition? Your definition of canon?
[02:57:57] Unknown:
Well, to me, all all that it means is what is the word of God and what isn't.
[02:58:07] Unknown:
Okay. Thanks.
[02:58:10] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. Are you there?
[02:58:21] Unknown:
Thanks, Samuel. Thank you, Samuel.
[02:58:40] Unknown:
Samuel.
[02:58:44] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:58:46] Unknown:
This is Larry. Yeah. The historical books are called the pseudepigrapha. Have you ever heard that term?
[02:58:53] Unknown:
Yeah. And it's also a made up term along with many many things that we accept as being so. And it's made up by the same deceivers that Jesus was dealing with in his time. And basically, you know, this fancy way of saying hidden, which, I guess, could be true. Yeah. The the most compelling thing for me is this. Jesus said that John the Baptist was the most important man ever born of a woman, So that puts him above everybody. And if he was in Qumran keeping the canon, and he was a Levite. He had the lineage. The people in the temple did not. Who should we trust through the canon?
These guys were in Qumran were the outcasts, but they were the remnant from Deuteronomy saying that it's only the Levites that were to be the final word on the word of God.
[03:00:56] Unknown:
And that's it for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales, the Friday edition, Friday, 11/07/2025. Catch us here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. You can catch us on radio.globalvoiceradio.net, eurofolkradio.com, and rumble.globalvoiceradio.net. We're also on the net family of broadcast services. Catch us here and catch our website, thematrixdocs.com, where you'll find interviews, downloadables, exhibits, all kinds of things for your freedom. Thanks for joining us. Catch you next time. Ciao. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:02:02] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymitobust.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function without adequate mitochondrial function is kinda like running an engine without oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by snapphat.com. That is snap,phat,.com. It's also brought to you by the Preyf International terahertz frequency wand through iterraplanet.com. Thank you so much for joining us, and welcome to the program.
[00:02:03] Unknown:
Yep. As would we, Alvin Lee, and we're gonna take another another swing at the old Goal here today on Friday, November 7. And, of course, Friday, meaning that we, have Brent Winters as a cohost. He's not even a guest. He's Like family. Hello, ma'am. Could we get the little little private conversation you could hit star six? We'd appreciate it. Anyway, here at the start of the show, it's the Friday edition, Roger Sales, and Brent Winter's your host. If he gets here, has Brent joined us yet, Paul? I can't no. I don't think he has. Right? Nope.
[00:02:44] Unknown:
No. We yeah. He has. Well, he's
[00:02:46] Unknown:
has joined us. Oh, he just he just he just pulled up. Okay. Good deal. Yeah. We actually traded
[00:02:53] Unknown:
the WBOU feed for Brent. Alright. Or is WBO BO no. WBOU is still there. I'd say it's just me seeing things again.
[00:03:06] Unknown:
I see. Well, he'll if he's not here, he'll pull up directly. I promise you. So, anyway, he's here. Okay. Morning, Brent. What? And, Paul, if you'd, be so kind here on this Friday edition to give all of the folks that help us extend our reach the well, the proper credit and the proper recognition they deserve for for their efforts.
[00:03:29] Unknown:
I would be happy to do that. We're on one zero six point nine WVOU FM in Chicago. We're on homenetwork.tv, freedomnation.tv, golivetv, and stream life.tube. Those platforms are brought to us by the Debt family of broadcast services. We're on, radiosoapbox.com, thanks to our buddy Paul English. Create Paul English Live yesterday. Go to paulenglishlive.com, and you can, grab the archives for that. Also, we're on, eurofolkradio.com, our flagship platform that's brought to us by pastor Eli James, who was also on Paul English Live yesterday. And we're on Global Voice Radio Network, both on, audio stream through Podholm, radio.globalvoiceradio.net, and a video stream through Rumble. That is rumble.globalvoiceradio.net.
Mhmm. Our website, of course, is thematrixstocks.com, where you can find the links to free conference calls. You can join us live on the show, and everybody is invited. Everyone is welcome.
[00:04:43] Unknown:
Yeah. Even Farris, I guess. We haven't, we haven't seen, our buddy in a few weeks. Did did you, by any chance, issue him an invitation to come, come cavort with us?
[00:04:55] Unknown:
Standing invitation. And, he, it was after midnight by the time we wrapped up talking.
[00:05:05] Unknown:
Oh, that's weird. So Yeah.
[00:05:07] Unknown:
Yeah. So Alright.
[00:05:10] Unknown:
Well, we'll see. If he pops in, he's always welcome. You know, we love Paul English here. Yep. I love to have him. Brent feels same way, and just I wanna I wanna hear his accent. I wanna hear him say some of those words that we don't have in common necessarily. And and and and the reflection on there because really when you get back, everything we talk about here for the most part began there. That's the beginnings, and that history is fascinating. And, not only do I find it so, my cohost here, Brent Winters, does also. Morning, Brent.
[00:05:44] Unknown:
Hi, Roger. Roger. You doing good? Well, good.
[00:05:49] Unknown:
We're all okay. Well, Roger, what's been the excitement this week on your show? Well, hell, there's well, there's all kinds of stuff going on after this New York thing. We got, you know, open communist leading one of the major cities of the world, and some of the others are making great inroads in. Atlanta, they've got one on the city council, others wanting, even Texas, I believe. They're it's repulsive. And the thing is, you see, and this is kinda interesting. It's in our wheelhouse to some extent. You know, we show and prove that everything has to be voluntary here.
And so, that even that Supreme Court case, Afroheem v Rusk, where even though he clearly violated the rules and they tried to take away his citizenship, and they said, no. You can't. Of course, leaving the unstated conclusion that he's gotta give it away because it's all gotta be voluntary. So now I find one hole in that where they can go in and take your rights away. Have we talked about this?
[00:06:56] Unknown:
I we've talked about it from so many different angles, Roger, but I don't believe this one.
[00:07:01] Unknown:
Well, this is pretty well, Mondami, this guy that just got elected, has got the whole country and the world shook up one way or the other is a prime example. When you come in and, and and initiate paperwork to become a naturalized citizen as he did, you they ask you a question. Are you affiliated with any organizations that potentially wanna overthrow the constitution? Something to that effect. And he answered no. And now he pops up being a hardcore communist and and winning this election. And they literally have the grounds to revoke his citizenship and kick him out of the country. Now will they do that? There's some some some, factors that are working on it and have been for a couple of months. But isn't that an interesting little, little, just a little pinhole of, yeah, we can still take them away if you lie to us? Well,
[00:07:56] Unknown:
repeat
[00:07:57] Unknown:
what it was, the question, and what he said again, please. Well, I'm I don't know that I can get this exact. I'm just getting it. You the everybody that comes into the country, it's not just him Yeah. Fills out a form for naturalization.
[00:08:11] Unknown:
Right.
[00:08:12] Unknown:
Hey. Here I am. Well, they ask him, are you affiliated with any organizations? I'm paraphrasing here, please. Are are you affiliated with any organizations that have the intent of overthrowing the constitution? And he is positive. He said no. Because otherwise, he won't let you in. Right. And now he shows that he lied on that form, and that is a grounds to take away your naturalized citizenship. It's the only one I think we've stumbled on, and it does have something to do with what we do around here regularly. And I just thought it was a very interesting little shift. I did not know that.
[00:08:51] Unknown:
Well, I would say this. What you do to your microphone is great. Oh, good. Good. I'm glad. I bought this cheap little thing at a truck stop, and it works pretty good. Yeah. We sound good now. Good. Well, just to weigh in some ideas, number one, perjury is almost impossible to prove, nearly impossible, and that's what you're talking about here. In other words, to prove perjury, you have to prove at the time that he said said that on the form, and that's a that's an information return, like a tax return, any other piece of paper you file with the government that's called an information return, and it's always signed under penalties of perjury that everything is true and correct as to any material matter. Every one of them, state or federal. And there's lots of them, by the way. The tax return is just one. Yeah. But he if he signed it, you'd have to prove that what he believed right when he grieved his name on there. If he later on decides he wants to overthrow the constitution of The United States by force or violence,
[00:09:53] Unknown:
well, that doesn't prove perjury. It it may be evidence, but it doesn't conclusively prove it. One of his inner circle came forward in an interview and said they'd been planning this since 2014.
[00:10:05] Unknown:
Well, it there's more evidence. Yeah. I'm not saying he didn't lie or perjury. Well, perjury is not lying. That's that's the other thing about perjury. Perjury is not lying under oath. Perjury is is the oath that is a lie. When you sign, you're not lying. You're you're well, you're not lying about the material matter on the form. You're lying that, you're saying that I I swear. See, perjury has to do with the oath, not the promise the oath supports. There's a difference. And perjury, when you get on for example, that's after swearing when you sign a form. When you get on the witness stand, that's force wearing. That's called force wearing. The bible uses the word, the Hebrew word translated force wearing a lot, and it's perjury. And what it means is you take the oath elsewhere to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you don't mean that when you say it, you're guilty of of perjury before you ever give any testimony.
Oh. And your and your prosecutable from that point forward. And I'm quoting the Supreme Court of the United States on that. I find it amazing that the state statutes, deny that and say perjury is lying under oath. It never has been, and I say it still isn't. As a matter of our common law tradition, anciently, as a matter of the bible, a it's called a false oath, not lying under oath. There's a difference. Now some of you are hearing that, you know, what are you talking about? I know what you're thinking. Because when there's a paradigm shift, it's hard for us, all of us, to get our heads around it. It's not that we're stupid, but once you make the paradigm shift oh oh, I get I get Think about it. Think about it. Worry over what I've said like a dog worries over a bone, and eventually, hopefully, it'll come to you. It's up to us to know what god has said about perjury, what it really is. It is not that is not lying under oath. And until we understand that, all of our talk is just silliness. I hear people say, this is more patriot mythology, and they scream it a lot. He perjured himself.
He's got we've got to get him out of office. Well, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Most people that take an oath, how can you perjure yourself when you don't even know what an oath is? You can't. And I'd say 99.999% of people don't have a clue what an oath is or what it is intended to do and the reason for it, what God said it is, what our common law tradition has said it is. I'm just making the point. It's not that people are stupid. No. No. No. That's not it. We're all ignorant about many things. But on that point, the devil has done a masterpiece of showing us or have of hornswoggling us and to believe in that an oath is something that it isn't. Now coming back to this fellow that said this, I have to tell this story because I knew this fellow when I was in school. He's the president of a university, and his parents had immigrated here from, or rather his grandparents had immigrated here through Ellis Island from Germany, one of the parts of Saxony or someplace, and his name was Bouchard.
Bouchard. And when he got to the now he told this story. I take it to be true. I I wasn't there, obviously. But, what he said was when his grandparents got to Ellis Island, they asked him the kind of questions you were talking about. Of course, at that time, they're running them through by the thousands. Yes. And I don't know whether they were filling out form. Most well, they couldn't write English. They couldn't read English. So I assume that, that they just did it orally, and that's probably true, of course. They did it orally, but they asked somehow, they asked because grandpa, do you advocate the overthrow of the constitution of The United States by force or violence?
Well, him having a smattering of English and not really understanding what that meant meant, he thought that it was a multiple choice question, sports or violence. And he thought for a minute and said force instead of violence, which, of course, are synonyms. But, he had to get straightened out. And people say a lot of things they don't understand. Uh-huh. When people sign a tax return, I'm not gonna believe, and I don't think anybody believe, they really understand what they're really signing, a tax return or any information return. I used to sign returns information returns for when I was running for congress to the Federal Election Commission. I had to sign one every quarter. And then within thirty days of the election, I had to sign it, every four had to submit it signed every forty eight hours.
You know, as the as you get close to the election, they want to know everything that's going on. And those are all under penalty of perjury. That means if you perjured yourself, How many people sign a tax return and know what's even on it? A lot of lot of people. Maybe most. I don't know. They have somebody fill it out for them. Look it over. And even if they look it over, Roger, you know and I know. They don't know what they're looking at. Of course. They just shove it across the table. It reverse and and say sign right here. Yeah. Who we kidding? That's the danger of the whole thing, of course, because they'll accuse you of perjury and have been doing it since back, when the income tax first started. But then one of the cases that came up in the nineteen twenties, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it hit the Supreme Court in 1927, but it might have been '25. But it was the first case, that arose concerning tax return.
And that the the case occasioned the supreme court to rule on what perjury is. And they did. And the, the tax return was just one form of possible perjury, and they defined it just like I said just now, like I tried to repeat the concept. And I remember what the court said at that time, and, of course, they were defining that that common law. And the court said that perjury one way to understand it is remember that perjury is prosecutable upon the taking of the oath. I believe I'm quoting that pretty much the way they said it. Mhmm. Perjury is prosecutable upon the taking of the oath. Not you don't have to lie under oath. Now lying under oath is evidence, but here is the principle of law. Anything that is true is may or may not be true a millisecond afterwards or a millisecond before.
But we know this, that what is testified to at that moment at that moment may not be true later. So if I sign, an information return and I believe that everything on it is true and and correct as to every material matter, and that's what the statute says, the federal statute, and it applies to all information returns not just tax returns, of which there are thousands. True and correct as to every material matter. I may come to a different understanding about what what is true and correct, a minute later, an hour later, ten years later. Anything that is true at any given point must be proven true at that given point to assure that it's true. Remember the analogy some Greek philosopher said, he couldn't dip his if he if he dipped his foot in the Tiber River, and did it then a second later he'd be dipping his foot in a different river.
Because the water is is different with every changing moment of any river. It's flowing, it's moving silt, it's trees are falling in it. You're talking about the Mississippi back in my neck of the woods. Rivers, never stop changing. I know places on, that where Missouri is on the Illinois side of the Mississippi, and Illinois is on the Missouri side, and Illinois is on the Kentucky side, and vice versa, and Illinois and Indiana are on the on different sides of the Wabash River. Why? Because the river is constantly winding and hairpin curves, oxbow lakes cutting itself off.
And there's a lot of that that goes on here in America, but it goes on all over the world. And everything that was true at that moment is not true at the next or something has changed. And that's why the law of evidence that's why in the bible, for example, it says it'll say something that's true at the writing of one of the Old Testament books like Joshua. I'm going through Joshua now. It says, and it is true unto this very day. In other words, it was true then, it remained true, and it's still true now, but the Bible does not vouch for it being true beyond the time that the testimony was given.
Well that's proper. The Bible more than anything I have ever read Roger, I've read probably thousands of books, but the Bible more than any book that I have ever read is conscience conscious of evidence, testimony. What it is, when it occurs, how often it should be used, when it should be used, how it should be used. The Bible is evidence. That's above all things. That's what it is. Mhmm. And the question is, is it reliable becoming that's why it has so much to say about, swearing, oaths, vows, perjury. It says it over and over in the New Testament just as well. Yeah. And defines what it is and what a witness is and what a witness is it. Another thing about the Bible, and this is true at common law, all testimony is evidence, and all evidence is ultimately oral, o r a l. All evidence is ultimately oral in our common law tradition. Interesting. Nothing is true until somebody testifies to it on the witness stand. A smoking gun laying on the counter in front of the jury in a murder case isn't evidence until somebody gets on the witness stand and vouches for, the for its authenticity.
Is it the thing that I saw? Chain of of custody that has to be testified to. If those things aren't done, that that's just nothing but a hunk of metal laying on a table. And that true same is true of the bible. I continue to be amazed listening to the, other family members that just went south of Louisville, Kentucky. Well, yeah. Oh, right around Louisville there, to the ark the Noah's Ark. They hired a a Mennonite family, and I met the family out west because they moved out west to build that blasted thing. It's larger by scale than the proportions and the measurements that the Bible gives for the ark of Noah.
Everything down to the detail is done inside and out the way God described it and he was very meticulous about describing it. But and that organization down there called Creation Research I'm not against what they believe fundamentally but they tend, as all people do, to elevate extra biblical evidence above the Bible. The Bible doesn't excite people like extra biblical evidence that supports the Bible, but that's backwards. Extra biblical evidence is unneeded. It's not as reliable as the Bible. The badges of reliability of the manuscripts of the older and New Testament in the Bible are overwhelmingly in sync with our common law of evidence, with the Bible's presentation of the law of evidence, all of our experience, and all other evidence must stand or fall in light of the Bible, not the other way around. For example, there they hire, geologists and biologists to prove what the bible says is true. Well, that's backwards.
And because they've got that backwards as most people do, be as most people do in all areas, they begin to make mistakes. That's what happens. And they begin to rely upon, the laws of nature instead of the bible. There's nothing wrong with going to the laws of nature, for example, geology. I worked in mines. I understand that. And I lived in the oil field. I understand a little bit about a little bit. Yeah. I do. I can think into geology okay. I don't profess to be the world's expert, but I do know this, that it is the laws of nature, but the final court of last resort respecting any disagreements about the laws of nature, geology, biology, the final court of last resort is the bible, not geology.
What people will begin to say if you get that backwards they'll say well the Bible doesn't have any evidence in geology for this so I don't believe that. And pretty soon you're off because you've elevated the laws of nature above the laws of nature's God. The laws of nature's God are the or the laws of nature are the the laws of creation that God has made, yes, but they're not stated explicitly, they're open for our observations, sometimes we make mistakes. But the laws of nature is God, that phrase at that time was a phrase that meant the lex scripta, the written revelation of God, the evidence that God provides in writing.
That's the final court of last resort. Do we misunderstand it sometimes? Yes. But it's still the final court of last resort. Whatever it says
[00:23:37] Unknown:
is it, whether you believe it or not. And the evidence is overwhelming that the evidence of the Bible is reliable. Back to you, Roger. I think Sodom and Gomorrah would be the perfect example. The audience may not know this. You're the one that informed us of it. They find sulfur and magnesium balls
[00:23:55] Unknown:
over in that area where that was reputed city reputedly was. And didn't you say they don't find them anywhere else like that in the world, Brent? No. No. And you can pick those things up. They're there by the trillions. You can pick one of them up, take a cigarette lighter and and light it on fire. It's magnesium. It's something that got sulfur in it Yep. Just like the Bible says. But the point is that does not prove the Bible true. The bible proves what that stuff is. There's a difference. Mhmm. And if you're willing to depend upon here we've got here it comes down to this too under the point of evidence. All facts that you can find, okay, I found the sulfur and magnesium together in little billions, trillions of little balls around the Dead Sea.
Okay. What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. It's like the smoking gun laying on the table. It's just a hunk of steel or hunk of yeah. Steel, put in a certain configuration, and it doesn't. Until somebody testifies to it, it is meaningless. And until the Bible provides the testimony of what that is, it is utterly meaningless. As Van Till says, it's a brute fact. Brute? That means it's not related to anything rationally, so it doesn't mean anything. Brute fact, that means that's an old word, of course, that means and then well, the Bible says, Peter the apostle talks about unreasoning beasts.
And, the translation is pretty good. I think the King James says brute beasts. What does that mean? Well, a brute is something that doesn't have the ability mentally to draw rationality between thoughts, logic, to be more precise. They don't have that. Oh, they do things out of instinct. Oh, they can put two and two together sometimes, but they don't put it together in a logical sequence the way we understand it. They do it by, that can be thrown pretty clear, I think, even a chimpanzee by instinct. But a brute fact I'm using this phrase. This is Van Til's the way he put it, and he's right. A brute fact is a fact that is not related, had that has no evidence to support it. It is what we call a dogma.
If I say I believe the Bible, that's a dogma. Am I am I is my dogma true? Yes. Is there a time for dogmatics? Yes. Is declaring the truth? That's what preaching is. But there are those two that deliver apologies. They show why things are true. We talk, for example, about law givers. A law giver, anciently, is a final arbiter of right and wrong. Arbiter, that means he doesn't have to give reasons for his decisions. There's no law no law that requires him. We have two arbiters in our created universe. Two and only two. We have the arbiter that doesn't have to give reasons for his decision. He's the creator.
He declares the truth and that ends the matter. He has no competition. That ends it. Oh, in in the sky and on the land. But then he has delegated the man one other arbiter. One other arbiter. And that is the 12 man jury. As a matter of fact, that's our common law tradition, by the way. Matter of fact, that's why he impaneled 12 men to that's what juries do, witness evidence. He impaneled 12 men to witness the evidence. The evidence of his identity, they are not required. No jury in our common law tradition is required to give the reasons for their decision.
That is monumental. That is power. That is ultimate power in God's created order. But they do that down here on land. They're not final. God's final. But down here on land, they have that power. And God is the cult we they're the court of last resort among men. That's God ordained. That's, applicable in every country in the world, but only the common law countries do it. Are we losing it? That's the questions we should be asking. Well, that was the kind of things that I think about. I wanted to talk today. A couple of things, Roger. I don't wanna forget. I'm gonna mention them, then I'm gonna shut up for a minute, and maybe you want Well, I've got another, of this current events is right up our alley, but go ahead with what else you want to say. There was a question of a fellow last week. No. Well, yeah. He did. He he, emailed me, and he asked if my translation of the Bible from the original tongues depends upon the Septuagint or the Hebrew text, the Masoretic text.
Well, because I say that my translation of the Bible is from the original tongues that rules out the Septuagint. The old testament translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jewry is not in the original tongues. Let me say that again the old testament translated into Greek called the Septuagint by Alexandrian Egypt, Jewry and Alexandrian Egypt is not the old testament in the original tongues. It's accurate in the first five books of the bible. After that it just goes to I won't use the word a sailor might use, but it just goes to nothing. There's nothing but a loose paraphrase and inaccurate and adds things. No, I don't depend upon it because it's not what God has given us as the primary evidence of what he said. What God has given us in the Old Testament of the primary evidence of what he has said is in Hebrew. The Hebrew the Masoretic text is the best one we have with fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And those have those are valuable. They're older even yet. They're as old as the Septuagint approximately. But the Masoretic text is in sync. Well, we have the complete scroll of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls and it's in sync exactly with the Masoretic text. That's good evidence, that's important evidence, but the Hebrew Old Testament, not the Septuagint, is the accurate and that's what God has given us to rely on. Can we use the Septuagint? Sometimes, but it's very dangerous because it's a product of Babylonian religion, namely Jewry.
[00:30:03] Unknown:
That's the answer to that question. I well, I thought the Septuagint was what Jesus taught out of. Is that not correct?
[00:30:10] Unknown:
Well, it appears that you I've got it. No. That's not that's not we have no clear evidence of that. Although although Jesus Christ see, the New Testament is written in Greek, but not the Greek of the Septuagint. Oh. The New Testament is written in the sailor's Greek, the merchant's Greek, the Pigeon Greek of the Roman Empire. Mhmm. It's not the classical Greek of the ancient Greek writers. I see. It's a it's a fascinating it was it was written down to the ground. You know, like, you ever been to well, I have. I'll ask you, Roger. You've been to Hawaii, for example, listen I have. I have. Have you heard the Pidgin English there? They still speak? I don't remember as many years ago, but I'm sure I did. Well, the Hawaiians and all the South Sea Islanders, speak the Pidgin English of the English sailors in a lot of places still.
And, sailors that travel learn the Pidgin language of their own that they spread, and everywhere they go and the ports they go into, this has been true for hundreds of years, they speak that Pidgin English. Well, the same was true in the Roman Empire. There it took in many tongues in the Roman Empire, and everybody spoke their own tongue. But in addition to that, in all the Roman Empire, they all spoke Pidgin Greek, what we would call Pidgin Greek. And that's what the New Testament is written in. But the Alexandrian Jews translated the Bible into a more classic Greek. It's the same tongue. I can understand Pidgin English, but I have to listen close and I learn a few new words and ways of saying things. And when I was in the South Seas and in in places like Hawaii I caught on to it a little bit.
And that's the New Testament. The Septuagint was translated in the early centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ by the Babylonian Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt. And Jesus we have evidence for example it looks like kind of looks like that in the Old Testament when they or in the New Testament when they quote the Old Testament, you can see some similarity as they say here in the Wabash Valley, some similarity between the Septuagint, the Old Testament in Greek, and the New Testament. But it's not consistent. I have a book, packed away. I quit using it because I've just focused on the Hebrew more. All of the quotations a book excites, in in, parallel text on each page, all the quotations of the New Testament of the old in the New Testament of the Old Testament and the comparable comparable Septuagint text on the other side.
It's not consistent. And so I I the the evidence is not clear. I know this for for sure, Roger. I know this for sure. Some things could be opinion. This is an opinion. The Hebrew testament is final. And when the new testament quotes the Hebrew testament, the Hebrew testament is final as to what it means. And the quote of the Greek and the new testament is consistent with it. There's no perfect transition between any two languages, but Jesus Christ used the Hebrew older testament. I know that because he makes that clear when he says things like every jot and every tittle shall come to pass. Well the jot is the name the name of the Roman empire for the smallest letter of the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet, the yod, and the tittle is the name that they use to describe one of the strokes.
Just one of the strokes of the more than one stroke on a Hebrew letter. And on about a half a dozen letters, if you leave that stroke out it becomes another letter. Mhmm. And that could change, a word to another word, which, of course, could change the whole meaning fundamental meaning of a Hebrew text and Jesus Christ followed through the tradition. I know this because he said so. Mhmm. The tradition of the Masoretes, as far as that goes, there were other traditions of the Masoretes. We have no evidence that he followed. But when it came down to the letters, the consonants, and there are no vowels, no vowel sounds recorded in the original Old Testament text, The Masoret Masorets added those, but that's not part of the Bible.
That's why the Masorets, I say, they were as well Babylonian Jews. And we need whatever they added, I'm not interested in. I'm not interested in it because it's not what God said. God wrote the old he superintended, I should say, the pinning of the Old Testament while preserving the personality, vocabulary, and everything about those that wrote. You said a while ago, for example, Roger, that everything is voluntary. That's true. Everything is voluntary. But God superintends what I want. And he he he the bible teaches, he changes what I want.
He enlightens my mind so I see what he wants and that's what I want. That's called the new birth. And the one that is not enlightened of his mind, God as Barnhouse used to say, hasn't wiggled his willer, what he wants. He will only want his choices available to him are only evil. He has no power to choose what is right, ultimately, what is right. He has the power of choice of what is evil. That's what the Bible clearly says. You say, Brent, how do you explain that? I don't have to. That's a dogma. God said it in dogmatic fashion. He explains it to a certain degree in the book of Romans, for example, The chapters seven eight nine through 11 even. But he he answers a lot of questions about that but it is a conundrum to the human mind. But I know it to be true. That means again he stated it as a dogma. That's a Greek word that means a god's statement of fact to which he owes nobody an explanation.
Doesn't mean he can't give one. A jury, a 12 man jury, can give an explanation if they want, but the law doesn't require them to. I've talked to jurors that say I don't want to talk about it. I've talked to others that tell me everything, and God's that way too. He he's the one that instituted the jury in that fashion, and if he wants to tell, he does. At the whole new testament, by the way, the whole new testament are him is him telling just telling the mysteries that he has uncovered, the mysteries he has uncovered that were hidden in the old testament as it is often said the new testament is in the old testament many times concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament more forthright and revealed. That is true.
But all of the truth is there. Well evidence is what I'm driving at here, Roger. I just wanted to wanted to make that point about the septigent because somebody asked. There was a couple of the things I wanted to bring up today, but, I wanna know what you got on your mind for.
[00:37:24] Unknown:
Well, hold on just a second, Larry. I wanna bring this up. There's also because this is potentially constitutional, oh, snafu here, and that's this hearing. They had at the Supreme Court this week on Trump's tariffs. They're expediting that. There was a ruling that came through some kind of trade courts I've never heard of before, of course, against Trump. And him trying to switch the whole system over to tariffs. And they had the, solicitor general, who's the guy that argues cases for the government in there, and he was addressing some of the justices.
Remember Sheila Jackson Lee, the one that didn't know what a woman was?
[00:38:11] Unknown:
Yeah.
[00:38:12] Unknown:
Well, she didn't know what a tariff is either evidently.
[00:38:15] Unknown:
Well, Roger, let's be honest. Do you know, anybody maybe just a few, but do you know anybody that really knows what a tariff is?
[00:38:24] Unknown:
Well, a few. But but these they've had five previous Supreme Court cases on these same issues. So they could go back and brief themselves very easily going back to the start of the country. Yeah. Yeah. They're responsible to do that if they don't know. That's right. This was interesting to me. The solicitor general was exceptionally good, and he was talking very fast. And she was saying what a lot of people that don't understand I wouldn't have understood this before I heard this, actually. Talk about minutiae's here and, that the tariff is a tax.
That's what some of the justices are, debating with him is the tariff attacks. Mhmm. And he gave a very interesting example, and I just never thought about it. If the government required everybody to buy a Mercedes Benz Mhmm. Then that's a tax. Mhmm. But, otherwise, it's elective to those that will want to buy that item and pay that tax. Mhmm. And so there's a very slight little difference there, but it's really important.
[00:39:30] Unknown:
K. Mhmm.
[00:39:32] Unknown:
Well, if go go ahead. I was gonna make can I make a comment, Roger? Well, let me just say, I'll finish up and then you can. Okay. If they rule against Trump and five of the justices evidently were asking sternly poised posed questions like they might vote that direction, then he's got to return all the billions that have been given to us by all these countries and manufacturers. And so the constitutional crisis is if they rule in that direction, what's Trump gonna do?
[00:40:04] Unknown:
Well, he'll have to do what, his office requires of him. And there's nobody that will make him give that money back or even could make him give that money back. Uh-huh. We have separate and co equal branches of government, and each branch of government and every person in it is duty bound to do what he believes in his heart of hearts is constitutional and lawful. Mhmm. And that ends the matter. And nobody can make no no the other two branches have no power to make him do anything Right. That he doesn't believe is constitutional. That's the way the constitution is established. That's our common law tradition.
[00:40:40] Unknown:
Well, there's a couple of options he may have. Should they do that, I I I don't know what they were. I couldn't discuss them because I'm not up on it enough. But there are other things, obviously, he can do. So I just wanna say heads up. That may be coming up. I don't know. They just heard oral arguments. It's an extremely important issue. I don't know if they'll expedite that, decision or not. But, anyway, that happened this week.
[00:41:05] Unknown:
I'm making a point about taxes and duties and tariffs, and all of that is just wordplay. It doesn't mean much anything. A duty, a tariff, those are what we call taxes. Was a tax. That's something that can be extracted from you outside of contract by duty. It's your it arises out of law and it can be extracted by from any whoever they say they're gonna extract it from by force or threat of force. Call it whatever you want. It's all the same. The word tariff is a Italian word that has to do with notification. The word duty is a word that's used in our in our Anglo Saxon speech and it it means what arises out of law. The word debt a tax is not a debt. A tariff is not a debt.
A debt arises out of contract in the private sector. Mutual exchange of consideration. But tax duty tariff, we need a word that just covers all of it because it's all what the government says the law requires of you. And if you don't give, to give to us and if you don't give it to us, we will take it by force or threat of force. Let's not make this complicated. The word tariff, why do we even have that word? It's just silly. Why don't we just say to people, look, you bring a a car from your country into our country, we're gonna charge you a tax.
We're gonna make you pay this much Mhmm. For everyone you bring in. And if you don't give it to us, we'll take it by force or threat of force. No. We won't let you bring the car in. Or we won't let you bring the car in, but that's that's right. But if you wanna we could talk there is a difference between taxes that are that are, that are, transferrable to other people and taxes that are head taxes. A head tax is a tax you can't pass off somebody else. Yeah. For example, a yeah. A sales tax, the like, gasoline tax, the you don't pay it. The guy that pays it, he can pass it on to you. Mhmm. That's, that's there are is that distinction. Forget all the other words and I'm it's a sad thing to me that the Constitution of The United States uses all these screwy words that just make people confused and think they gotta understand the definitions too. If you understood the definition of the word tariff, it wouldn't help you a bit. It's an Italian word. It doesn't have anything to do with taxes really. Well, a little bit, but not much.
And so, duty, and that's a good word because it does describe what a tax is. It's something you gotta pay and, and you have no contract with anybody. It arises out of law. And if you're in the jurisdiction of the state or the general government or a subject matter or territorial jurisdiction, and they say you gotta pay, you gotta pay it. But it's against the law in our common law tradition to have a head tax put on anybody. That's a tax that you cannot transfer to somebody else. See? Right. Unless it's apportioned. If it's apportioned, they can apply it. But among the states, and that's our income tax. It's not being applied according to that constitutional
[00:44:11] Unknown:
standard. Right. Okay. That that's all I wanna say, Rob. Alright. Well, I'll let Larry wanna say something. Larry, a lot of this conversation this morning, what you got, buddy?
[00:44:20] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent mentioned, that if a jury wants to offer an explanation, they could do that. And I wanted to ask, where does this this concept come from where, you know, judges say to the jury, you're not allowed to talk about this case, you know, before before the trial takes place. And if you do, they the the judge can hold them accountable, I guess, for contempt of court or whatever. In other words, the judge instructs the jury that they have to remain hush-hush about the whole case. And is that really required of a jury, or is that just some manmade thing somewhere that that evolved?
[00:45:03] Unknown:
Well, that's a mushy area of law. In other words, does a judge really have authority to do that? Well, in our common law tradition, they've been doing it for a long time, centuries. The question then comes, will the judge hold you does he have personal jurisdiction over your body if you don't comply? And I've that in other words, equity contempt is is equity if it's non criminal. And, well, criminal jurisdiction have jurisdiction over your body too. Remember, equity acts against the person, the body of the person. Forcing him to do something by force or threat of force or, forcing him to refrain from doing something by force or threat of force. And then the course, the judicial branch, a a judge, a court has that authority where he thinks it should be used.
Where he thinks it is necessary even to, to fulfill the purposes of the law. Now law and equity are two different things. What the law is short for common law and then there's equity. But equity is an important part of our common law tradition. Don't forget that. Remember, equity follows law. Equity is not allowed to be used as a matter of common law until all remedies at law have been exhausted and there is no other way to to make sure the law is enforced. That's the fundamental, applies across the board. But for a judge to say a judge can say anything he wants if he has some legal cover in the precedent of cases. Does that mean that he has the the authority to enforce it? What I'm saying to you is when it comes to contempt, for example, it's pretty mushy. How do I know? Because I've been held in contempt and I and I've had clients held in contempt and I've looked into it. I don't know everything about it, but I've looked into it enough to try to fix the problem. And I have discovered that the powers that a judge has an equity of contempt are not very constrainable except on appeal.
But when you're down there, just remember, he has a lot of power. Why? Because if he didn't, there would be no order in the court. Everything would be chaos. Justice would not be possible. That's fact. That's why the bible says that we are to submit the the process of the court. And if we don't like what the judge's decision is, we have the the option of appeal. You don't argue with a judge. You respectfully make your position known respectfully, and you go overboard when you do it, by the way. That's biblical. But when he doesn't agree, you say, okay. That's the decision. I'm moving on, and I'm saving that for appeal, and you save it for appeal.
And then you appeal up. That's our common law tradition. That's always been our common law tradition. And it's a good tradition. The rest of the world doesn't even have those options. So keep that in mind. We live in a sinful, cruel, foul, twisted world of sinful men named, we call them judges. We call them litigants. And it is amazing to me. I'm utterly amazed at the wisdom of God. That he says the 12 man jury is the way I want you to decide these matters. Paul the apostle establishes that further, upholds it in the sixth chapter of of Corinth first Corinthians.
The Old Testament is rife with that. It's all through the idea of the of the elders and the jury and the gray bearded men making decisions, in individual instances from whose decision there is no appeal. Remember, when the jury decides decide something, the facts that they decide, if they're decided, within the due process, in other words, the bounds of our common law, our common law is the way we go about doing things. If it's decided within it, those facts are not changeable. But no appellate court has jurisdiction to change those facts. Mhmm. And that that's that's that's almost it's shockingly unbelievable to the rest of the world that you had just grabbed 12 folk off the street regardless of educational level if even been able to read and write.
Even not knowing whether or not they should brush their teeth for a year or two or take a bath. And I've seen all this. Doesn't mean they're stupid. That's what God said. These are the kind of folk, if I'm not mistaken, that's what Jesus Christ did. Is it do we really grasp the characters that he grabbed, the 12 men he grabbed and empaneled as the jury? Who they really were? Have you ever really looked into that? That's shocking too. There was even a tax collector for a foreign power in there, Matthew. There were Canaanites in that group.
Yeah. Grabbed 12 men standing around and on and on a week ago. But they were the ones that he said that according to the the law of God, the will of God were to decide. Not the phariseites, not the experts, not the law sharps, not the scribes, not the Sadducees, no no no. Not the university men such as Paul the Apostle, but these 12 men that are nobodies, that people look at and spit on because they're part of the unwashed masses. But you put together put 12 men together like that. And God said that's the ones I want to decide. Did you ever stop to consider, for example, with the jury? Paul the Apostle talks about this in first Corinthians.
Said you got problems among yourselves? Compound the least esteemed among you. The least esteemed. The nobodies. Be careful not to get some highfalutin fellow on the jury. Can you imagine how that would change the attitude of the highfalutin crowd that go to the country club that has lots of money? Can you imagine if they knew that some wino on the street or somebody equivalent to a wino on the street could decide the fate of their wealth? Yeah. You can you imagine how he would be careful to treat people his whole life if he knew that? We don't know that. We don't think about that. We should. We have we have it in our common law. I know lawyers in small towns and communities, and I was in that community. I didn't have the clout they had because there were lawyers that made good living as trial lawyers, very few, by the way. It takes a special personality to do that, but there were some that did. And I discovered as I got older, that those are the fellows that never said anything that they didn't have to say. They made no public statements. They never ran for public office. They never, they never declared their position. They were careful not to even talk to people because they knew if they, if they ever said anything to anybody, they would offend them. And that fellow they offended might be on the jury and could throw the whole case. It only takes one on a jury. It's not a majority institution.
Can you imagine if we had that mindset really? That takes a lot of discipline. That takes discipline right there. Oh, yeah. For a guy to learn, hey, these people could, I'm a trial lawyer, they could ruin my life, ruin my career. But also the people that have wealth, they should understand that the juries we pick are the nobodies, and they could ruin their wealth too. Be careful who you offend. As Sheriff Darley, the fellow that teaches law classes with me, says he used to tell his his, young people, young deputies. And he'd say, remember, the toes you step on are connected to somebody's can, you may have to kiss someday.
He said it more graphically than that. Of course. I'm trying to tone it down. How eloquent. Yeah. How eloquent of him. Yeah. Speaking in plain English. That's what God wants of his friends. Roger, I wanted to bring up about, this there's such a there's a flap going on. There's a flap going on in the MAGA community.
[00:53:01] Unknown:
Oh, boy. Is there. Tucker Carlson.
[00:53:04] Unknown:
Absolutely. There is. And he is couple other personalities, and one of them controls the young men in America. Oh, no. Not all of them, but a large segment of them by his podcasts.
[00:53:15] Unknown:
Yes. And and and that would be minister Fuentes. Yeah. Exactly. We're right to the top of the hour here. I know Paul might want to, have you go ahead and give your, your identifables, if you will. And then we'll have the top of the hour break because we do have those, platforms with us today. And then we can kinda launch into that after that, I think, and we'll have the whole next hour to discuss it. It's an extremely important issue.
[00:53:43] Unknown:
Alright. Well, this is Brent. Thank you, Roger. This is Brent, Brent Allen Winters, commonlawyer.com. Go to commonlawyer.com and you can take advantage of the things there that, that we have, books, lots of books, translation of the Bible from the original tongues, over 35,000 footnotes, over 200 appendices, tracing major themes through the warp and the wolf of the text of the context. Folk call it the winterized version of the Bible. We call it the good book uncooked. We don't want to cook the book. We want to deliver it up in the original town the way it would deliver to us best we can. We've tried to do that. You can get that in digital form or hard copy, both or either one, an appreciation of a donation, the comparative law text, excellence of the common law, 958 pages, comparing and contrasting our common law tradition, our law of the land, with its ever present antagonist, the law of the city on every continent and every age, the only two traditions of religion, law, and government available to mankind.
And every country in the world, except the few common law countries, is under some form of the canon civil laws of Rome. The code of Justinian of the Roman Empire, and we compare and contrast those, and we talk about, of course, the second greatest blessing. The second greatest blessing we have in America, blessing we have in America, is our common law tradition. You say, well, what's the first greatest blessing? As a practical matter, the first greatest blessing is the laws of nature's god, the bible, the court of last resort.
Babylonianism calls it the paper pope. That's exactly that's exactly what it is. It is the court of last resort. No mere mortal. We are a government. In the Christian tradition, we call our common law. We are a government of laws and not of any personalities, not of men. Well, go to commonlawyer.com. Join us for the classes we have there. We're starting a class here pretty quick. You have to go there to see when it is. I just do what I'm told. A class on the declaration of 76 clause by clause and plot blow by blow. We'll be using one of yours truly's books called the declaration of 76 and constitution of The United States clause by clause and blow by blow.
Be using that and comparing and contrasting, the law of the land with the law of the city because that's what our declaration of '76 is complaining about, the law of the city and its fundamental quote for fundamental forms. Admiralty law, martial law, equity and international law. They're all there. And that's the complaint. We wanted our common law tradition back. Take that course in appreciation of a donation. Paul also is getting, Paul here. Boehner on this course getting a Paul, is your last name banner? Biner? Which one is it? I Biner. Never heard you say. Biner. Okay. Yeah. Beaner Beaner. He's getting together a group of folks, for a cut rate with a larger going for the volume thing, on trust.
The common law trust as understood from the Bible, man's relationship with his maker, the common law trust defines it. That's what the Bible is. It it is those it is those trust indentures and attendant documents documents. They're called the covenant and the covenant of God with his people. We talk about that, but you can contact, go to commonlawyerlawyer.com and email there. Go to the contact page. And if you wanna join Paul Bieners, collection of personalities, you got quite a few, and they get a cut rate, are the class on trusts, the common law trust, and how to draft the common law trust. That's another class.
[00:57:36] Unknown:
He's in the many classes. We at at the law school, sheriff Darleif and I. Go ahead. Well, Brent, we had a new guy come on this week, I believe, from Tulsa, RJ. I don't know. We've had him back since. But he was talking about they're in Tulsa County. They've got a guy that wants to be a constitutional sheriff. I kinda tried to steer him over to you. I told him about you and sheriff Dyer. So, anyway, that came up this week. Maybe if he comes back, we can find out some more about it. We want well, we would want him to contact
[00:58:11] Unknown:
sheriff Dyer. Yes. Sheriff Dyer has been sheriff for over twenty years. He's right headed. He's he's not apologetic about the common law tradition, and that's what our constitution is. It's just the common law tradition applied to government put on paper. Yeah. Really, that's what it is. Applied here in the New World. It's fundamentally the same as that in England and New Zealand and Canada, our common law tradition. Although, we are more common law by far than our our, fellow common law countries, by far. Oh, yeah. We're more English than the English, the comp as the comparative lawyers say, by far. And we are the last great hope, friends. And it is our common law tradition is is the nexus that puts the rubber on the road of what we call the Bible, the laws of nature of God. The laws of nature, that's our common law tradition without it. That's the delegation of God to man of our of due process. That's what it is. How we go about doing things so to ensure all things are done properly. If we do things properly, friends, God says, oh, I'll give you the result that's that's good that's good.
Follow follow our common law tradition, what we call the processes of our common law. The outcome belongs to him. That's not our jurisdiction. He'll give it to us through those processes. The jury is one of the ways we discover the mind of God. Back to you, Roger.
[00:59:36] Unknown:
Back to the whistler, Paul?
[00:59:39] Unknown:
One zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago and any other platforms that are part of the Net family of broadcast services that, leave us after the first hour. You can go to the matrixstocks.com, thematrixd0cs.com, and you can click on any of the links there to follow us into the second hour. You can use Global Voice Network, Euro Folk Radio, or FCC and join us live on the show. Trust the course, sign up. If you have not paid, if you have not signed up, do so now because I'm cutting off enrollment and, we're starting next week. Thanks,
[01:00:21] Unknown:
everyone. There you go. Thank you, Paul. Brent, you were talking about this, well, it's very interesting. It's a civil war within the right side of the Republican party, right side and left side. It's, all of these people that used to publicly hate Trump that now wanna glom on their, of of what's a little obnoxious guy, Sean Hannity's sidekick, the Mossad agent, all all these Zionists that have glammed on to Trump.
[01:00:57] Unknown:
Yeah. And they have, of course, because he, they they want his help. The state of Israel, the Israelis, and I'm distinguishing between the what an Israelite and an Israeli. An Israeli, there's a big difference.
[01:01:12] Unknown:
Yes.
[01:01:12] Unknown:
But the Israelis know that without The United States, they're done. Yeah. They're done. They because we we we give them all their money. They don't produce all this. We do this. I don't know why the Rothschilds don't just, liquidate some of their damn wealth and support the whole damn place But I started it. Yes. And I but I didn't wanna say upfront, so nobody misunderstands me. I have duty bound to do this. That I don't concern myself one way or the other. That's a foreign country. If they can help us, great. But America is the country, the land of my loyalty.
I don't say that lightly. I'm an American. This this is the trust settlement of God, and the land God has entrusted is the land he has given me for now. That's that's mine. Yeah. And I'm loyal to this land, and I'm loyal to it. I don't want it polluted by unlawfulness. Mhmm. And so I am committed while I'm here. No matter how bad things get until God takes me out of here, I'm committed to this land. I am not committed to any other land. Mhmm. I'm not against people that are committed to their land in England and Canada, but we if we're committed to the land that got the Lord our God has given us, each of us, wherever we are, we are brothers and we are of kind I like to say kindred mind in the Christian sense. Mhmm. But we are God has given us different responsibilities just like the land that I live on is a different responsibility than my neighbor.
And, the same way here, my land where I that God has given me that I'm loyal to, I'm not loyal to some other land in that way. And divided loyalty at common law, divided loyalty in the Bible is no loyalty at all. Mhmm. Having a citizenship in two different different countries like Ted Cruz is not possible as a matter of law because there is there can be no loyalty there. Mhmm. Loyalty divided. As a lawyer, I am not allowed by law, by the strongest of tradition, to divide my loyalty between two clients that are at odds in any way or even could be at odds. Hell, old Ted Cruz may have three passports. Yeah. Yeah. And there are a lot of people in America that boast of that, and I don't get exercised over it. I know people that have, citizenship in England and in America.
Mhmm. Now or Canada. Now the truth is as long we're common law countries, until it gets so that we're at odds, well, that's okay. I suppose. I don't advocate it. But I see a large contingent of Americans that are odds as a matter of Christianity with the Israelis. I can't that's not my jurisdiction. I just know this. I'm not gonna I don't wanna get involved with them. I am loyal to this land. I do not want to get ugly about it. The Jesus Christ confronted Babylonian Judaism. The apostles were there, and the whole New Testament says just leave them alone. They wanna be Babylonian Jews. You don't bid them Godspeed. You leave them alone. They hate Jesus Christ. They're not bashful about it. What do I have in common with somebody who hates Jesus Christ? Answer Not much. No. No. Nothing. No. The Bible says nothing.
Paul or John, the chairman of the 12 man jury that Jesus impaneled, the only one that wasn't murdered murdered for his verdict, by the way, he writes in his epistles, don't just leave them alone. Do not bid them Godspeed. Don't, let them stay in your house although they're your friends. Just leave them alone. It doesn't mean go out and fight with them. It doesn't mean, attack them verbally or physically. Just leave they're doing what they do. I don't go to a Lutheran church because I'm not a Lutheran. I don't agree with what they do. So I don't go. I'm not fighting with them. I don't go to a Romanist church. I don't go to the synagogue. I don't go to a mosque because that's abhorrent to me.
By command of God, he's put that in me. I feel that way. I don't wanna go. All the idolatry and all that goes with all that. I'm not attack in those places. I'm not bombing them. I'm not advocating attacking them. What am I doing? I'm doing, trying to do what Jesus Christ said. Treat them as a tax collector. This is easy. Oh, tax collector. I've been in that world, been around that kind of stuff. What do I do with a tax collector? Do I send them Christmas cards, Christmas cards every year? No. Do I attack them publicly? Not individually by name. No.
What did Jesus Christ say to do? Well, everybody knows. And even in the Roman empire, you just you you see him on the street and you're forced to be nice. You you say hello, but you don't buddy with them. You don't have them over to your house to play cards. You don't hang out with them because they're contrary to you. They they hate Jesus Christ. And anyone who's an idolater, anyone who practices things that you believe the Bible doesn't teach, it's called freedom of association, friends. I'm all for it. Now DJ Trump is in a world that I I understand a little.
I was in that world for five years full bore. I had no other job but to be in that world and try to get elected to office. And, I worked hard at it. So not that I understand everything you understand, but then again, I'm not the dumbest guy. I do understand that in politics, you're playing a game, a dangerous game. As some of us have learned, you could get killed, thrown in jail, your reputation ruined, or your family ruined. I've had air all that happened to me. Has somebody tried to kill me? I have no clear evidence of it. I'm sure they could have if they would if they would have if they could have and got away with it like they've done to gee DJ, but I'm not complaining of what DJ is doing. What is politics?
This is the bottom line. He was elected. He wasn't elected as I like to say, to be Sunday school superintendent. Even elected to be president of The United States. He's in the world of polis, the law of the city. What does that mean? Roger, let me finish my thought, and then I'll I'm gonna let you talk. That means you say one thing while you're doing another. You say one thing while you're thinking quite another. You you you there's some things you don't say at all that you believe, but you say nothing. If you don't do that, you're in the law of the polis. If you don't do that, you'll be gone or dead or something. I don't know. You it doesn't work.
Now. Yeah. That's the way it is. Remember every time these fella, even the ones you like when they open their mouth, just like Jesus Christ said, there's a lot of things I don't say because I don't trust you. He said that to his disciples, They weren't ready for it. He didn't say it. And of course, a lot of other people he didn't trust too. He didn't say a lot of things. Now at in not saying something, not saying the truth is part of being in politics. So I'm not gonna criticize the man. He's down in the trenches. I do know this. God's sovereign, and it's my job to stay away from people who are dangerous to me. That's all. And if people hate Jesus Christ, they're dangerous to me. I've learned that through the years.
[01:08:45] Unknown:
They're dangerous. Roger, where you stand? I was gonna say, and I've just become aware of this relatively lately, that, the presidential oath, he's the only one that takes any oath that has the word preserve. The others are protect and to defend. He has preserve,
[01:09:04] Unknown:
protect, and defend in his oath. That's very interesting, isn't it? It is. And the difference one of the differences is I don't know everything, but I'll tell you what I think I do know. I'm just having worried over this for decades and been involved in that world. That oath, of course, is a common law oath. We can trace it back to the August and King Alfred the Great. It's it's in our constitution, but it's also and it says it's required of every office holder, state and federal in America. That means yeah. The the seaman deuce that goes to boot camp, that means the private kid private soldier, 17 years old. He takes that oath because he becomes an officer of the government of the United States.
Same thing is true of all officers of of state government. I was, county prosecutor, state's attorney in a small rural county for a short time. I had to take that oath. One night, I banged on the door. They needed me the next day. They asked me if I'd fill in. I went to the courthouse. I banged on the door. I had to get it done right away. Somebody came to the door. It was the clerk. He said, well, I was hoping you'd come by. It's small community. I went in. Nobody was in the courthouse. He put a piece of paper out on the counter. He said, raise your hand. I raised my hand. I took the oath. It just put near like the one the congressman takes or the president. And, he said, well, here's the oath you just took. Sign this. I'll look and ask what it hit. Okay. Sign it. I took it when I was a military man. I took it there. I took it when I became a lawyer. All this silly stupidity, people talking about lawyers swearing an oath to the BAR, the British registry, all that hogwash. I took the oath. Yeah. I swore when I became a lawyer, I swore to defend the constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What does that mean? That's a common law oath. It means foreign. That means I'm willing to take up arms as a member of the militia.
Domestic, that means I'm willing to serve on the 12 man jury in in preservation and defense of the law of the land. Take up arms in defense of the land and and serve on the jury in defense of the law of the land. And to do one is to do the other. If I defend the law of the land, I'm defending the land and the integrity of that law and its application in individual instances. And if I'm defending the land by force of arms as a member of the militia, I'm defending the law of the land. This land this law we have, our common law tradition, our unwritten constitution is the foundation of our constitution of The United States. The constitution of The United States and of our states are just a very thin slice of our common law tradition, our unwritten constitution.
It's more important. It is more important to understand that and know that than it is to know the Constitution of The United States. You can't know the Constitution of The United States without informing it with our common law tradition. That's why people don't know it. They flat can't know because every word and every phrase is informed, inflated, inflated in a positive way, made meaningful. It becomes something less than a brute fact. When the constitution of The United States says trial by jury shall be preserved, that's a brute fact. What does it mean? How many people supposed to be on the jury? When are they supposed to be impaneled? Where are they drawn from? How are they supposed to be sequestered at if at all and on and on and on, all these unwritten customs in our common law tradition. It's just a brute fact to say jury, but to inform that that that, blown bladder, to inform it with our common law tradition now has meaning. How do we know what it is? Well, our courts over the centuries have recognized what that means, but this oath is our common law tradition. The president of The United States is not a member of the militia. His oath is a little different.
He could become a member of the militia, but he is commander and commander in chief of the militia of the United States. And when an individual, a militiaman, is sworn in at the order of the president of The United States, at that point, he's under the martial law and becomes part of the armed forces of the United States. That's the law. And I recommend again, I don't know everything. I'm just trying to say what I know and what I've compiled about these things. We have a course at commonlawyer.com on the four militia clauses of our constitution, unpacking them, showing how they dovetail together, what they mean. I call them the sleeping militia clauses. We've ignored them for a hundred and eighty years, and they've become meaningless.
The second amendment is the last one, the fourth one. Well, everybody knows about that, but it's meaningless too right now. Again, meaningless is a brute fact. Why? Because it's not related to the other four militia clauses that support it. And they go together like together, they dovetail and they become meaningless brute facts without relation to the other things that are important about it. This thing about brute facts, a big deal. Van Till wasn't a dummy. Van Till grew up on a dairy farm in a Dutch community in Indiana. By the way, the largest dairy in The United States is still in that community. I think it's called fair Fairview Farms or something or Fair Oaks. No. Fair Oaks. Fair Oaks Dairy. It's been in the news as for abuse to cattle.
I've seen an abuse in in recent years. But getting back to what Roger was started talking about, this there's a fellow how do you say his name? Puentes or something like that? Fuentes, f p e n t e s. 20. Fuentes.
[01:15:03] Unknown:
He's, he's only 26 years old. He's still single. He's a sharp cookie. I mean, really, I've listened to a bunch of him. He's very, very controversial. Very much, but he's in charge of a lot of people. Go ahead, Roger. And what really brought this to the forefront, this Uh-huh. Civil war in the Republican party, basically I don't know. Is an interview because they had been at odds. So Nick Fuentes had thrown some remarks out about, Tucker's father, who was in the CIA, evidently unbeknownst to Tucker, at least to the degree for most of his life. Uh-huh. And so they got into a urinating match, and Alex Jones put them together to do an interview.
And they did. They did an interview. It's posted. You can go watch it. It's about two hours long. It's very good. There's nothing real controversial. I listened to it. Nothing struck me. They kinda two guys just kinda, oh, I'm sorry. You know, I didn't understand that and and making up with each other a bit. But, boy, that got the monkeys strong. Here's what here's what Oh, here here let me just finish. Let me finish. Go ahead, Roger. Because I think what the real thing that's at stake here, as I've heard several people, comment on,
[01:16:17] Unknown:
is the future of the Republican party after Trump. That's right. That's right. Now this Nick, he's 26. I heard 27. Right along in there. He's overwhelmingly popular young among young men. He is super sharp. He's super sharp. For sure. But most men are, but he is too. He's never been married, but he is when he was on with Tucker for two hours, that was a different personality that he is when he's on his show. When you listen to him, he was really cranked down careful not to say the things he says on his show. What he says is, and I've listened to him on his show too. He mentioned some of the things, but in a more measured manner.
He says that men, young men are not getting married because, the girls, the popular thing is to be fat, loud mouth and feminist. And liberal. Yeah. Well, that's liberal. Yeah. You're right. Well, I don't call it liberal because it's not liberal. Liberal means freedom. That's not what it is. It's just that's, a word that the evil empire uses. There's nothing liberal about them. But he said, what young man wants a loud mouth woman, a feminist who doesn't know how to cook, eats chocolate is fat and loud mouth. And he said, that's what we got. Don't know how to keep house. Don't know how, don't wanna have any babies caught up in the, in the evil empire. Well, I get it. I never wanted that either. Okay. That's what he says, but he says it in graphic and foul mouth terms when he's on his show. That's true. That appeals to young men that have no sense of masculinity.
That's true too. What's missing there? The militia is missing. Men have to have a passage. God made them that way in the manhood. Women don't need that. They just are. Like one fellow said, men build houses and women wanna live in them. That's the way it works. That's the way God made it. Men struggle to make enough money and then if they get the house built, then the women just wanna sit in and enjoy it and keep house. I'll that's a good idea. That's not bad. But that we've lost track of that because we're that the evil empire wants to take away the Indus Sea is the badges of manhood and they're very good at it. At the foundation of it all, of course, is a man being king in his own castle with his queen, his wife. Who by the way, according to Christianity is is a sub mission, a sub mission, the mission of the female to the male. That's no question about that in the Bible. The male's mission is an, is a sub mission under Jesus Christ. Mhmm. According to the trust settlement of God.
And the well, anyway, this fellow is saying that, and then he's saying too, I'm a loyal American. I get that. I'm not. America first. They're big American first. But let's recognize where that comes from too. I'm glad you brought that up, Roger. That comes from Nazi Germany. That comes from Nazi Germany. Is there something wrong with it? Not necessarily. Of course, it's the famous phrase, blood and soil. And what the Nazis, they weren't stupid, but they were not Christian either. And that was a problem. And they attacked false religion, Judaism in a violent way. I know you say, well, they didn't, the Holocaust is over inflated, whatever.
The point is they didn't like them. They wanted to get rid of them and they got violent against them and it did get out of hand. No question about it. But Jesus Christ said don't do that. And their country was destroyed, but they did have this sense they tried to add to it. That's German for blood and soil. And one of the platforms, the pillars of the Nazi party was we're gonna get people back on the land. It is the it is the peasant German Saxon Bavarian farmer that makes Germany strong. Is that true? Yeah. That was true. I mean, even in America, we the the railroads advertised all over with poster Germany to get, German farmers over to America. They know farming, they always have. Yeah. And get them to America so the railroads would have could make money out in Nebraska and Kansas and Iowa. And they did populate those places, by by the way.
And they did a good job of it. And there's German settlements of German farmers all over the Midwest because of that. But that's what they're good at. And the Nazis recognize that. The Americans recognize it. Tom Jefferson said the backbone of America is gonna be the independent farmer. It's still it is, and it's gonna remain that way. And once we ever lose that, we become urbane and urbanized. We will be destroyed. That is happening friends. There is a massive exodus in America right now. The the most massive exodus from the cities we've ever had.
And it's to the land. People have that sense now. Is that biblical? Yes. Is that the trust settlement of God? Yes. Does does that go to taking care of the land? Yes. Does it get away from the law of the city and urbanization? Yes. Does it promote the law of the land? Yes. That's what we need. So he's right about the Nazis were right on that point. The trouble is they were trying to put it in place with the law of the city, and that will never work ever. We don't call it the law of the land, our common law. We call it the law of the land. Our constitution says that. Magna Carta uses that phrase. That's not for nothing. It is the land law, and it's all about the land and the trust settlement of God. The Nazis understood that that far, but they tried to form a pagan Nordic religion and get rid of Christianity. That ain't gonna work, friends. And we can see the results of what happened to them. Germany is no more. Manhood in Germany is no more according to the testimony that that I get from people that have lived there. It's no more.
Feminism has taken over. Young men in America are rising up by the way. Yeah. Nazism. That's what made them rise up. It was, the sense of manhood that they thought they were losing.
[01:22:02] Unknown:
This is to Versailles. This is the things they did to them from Versailles.
[01:22:07] Unknown:
The devil's clever, and they, but to try to get manhood out of the doctrines of the, away from the doctrines of the Bible is impossible. It's not gonna work. It never has worked. The Vikings tried it. What do they do? Well, they're Believe me, when the Viking Vikings, the day the Danish Vikings and those other piratical tribe, the angels, the Saxons, the Jews, the Norwegians, when they came to England and raped, plundered, pillaged, and burned, by the way, that's a phrase. Well, I'm getting sidetracked when I think about these things. When they came to England and did that, I guarantee you as Justin Wilson used to say, remember that Roger Garell, I guarantee you that their wives were kicking their butts at home big time.
You show me a man that wants to dominate other men and doesn't stop. I I've seen this in churches. Guy get on a church board. He always trying to run over everybody, but you knew what is, what was going on at home. His wife was running over him. That's the way it works always. And when the I'm, and I'm quoting a Harvard scholar on this point, by the way, George Gilder. George Gilder wrote a book for which he got the award from the now organization, the National Organization of Witches. They used to call them women. And they gave him the pig of the year award for writing this book.
It's it's it was, called, I forget what it was called at first, but it came out later called of men and marriage. And George Gilder, he substantiates an observation of all that he says, and he says that the gangs on the streets in America are the result of young men that have been their their manhood has been taken away. They have no right of passage that is lawful. So they turn to tear them down society. And it goes back and he talks about the Viking raiders. He talks about all the people that in history that went out to dominate other men in violent and unlawful ways. And the reason is because they were getting their butts kicked by women at home. That's what it was. They didn't have the manhood, the power behind them. That would takes a conversion of the spirit to have that, to just stand up and say, no. Our grandpa Adam in the garden of Eden didn't do that. That's why we're in the deplorable condition we're in today. He didn't say no to his wife. It was a very quiet thing. She said, well, I really think this would be nutritious for food and it's pretty to look at, and I think we should eat it. It will according to this, the snake, it will make us like a God, like a law giver, like a final arbiter of right and wrong. And he knew better. The Bible says he knew better. She didn't know better. She was horn swaggled.
That's the female. Horn swaggled. That's her weakness. Easily charmed, as we say. My mother, I interviewed her re oh, I won't go into that.
[01:24:53] Unknown:
I got a stale point. I got a stale point. Emotionally based, and you can sway them with emotions. Let me, I watched a speaking of Tucker, an interview you did this week with a guy that's running against Lindsay's Sugar Briches Graham. And this guy, kind of a nerdy kinda guy, he's a doll, but what an interesting background. He's very brilliant, scholarship to MIT, also was a attorney and all this stuff very, very early. He used to be a Ross Perot fan, so that struck him very early. And he had got onto Trump very early and worked in one of the agencies that set up Trump for the transition and stuff. He streamlined everything and set it up. Very interesting fellow.
And, but I learned some things about Lindsey Graham that I didn't know, and I, well, I don't know that I really wanted to know, you know, one of those. But they showed some clips of him and speeches and stuff discussing. This guy's running against him now in South Carolina. Wish I could remember his name. I just can't. Paul Banks or something to that effect. Good interview. But, they went on to have somebody with the dialections that Sugar Briches Graham has have this streak of wanting to murder all these people. You know? They showed a clip of him up in front of, Netanyahu right after, oh, I don't know, eight months after, October 7, and he's drunk. You can always tell he's a little bit drunk. He's an alcoholic too on top of everything else.
And, he's almost poking Netanyahu in the chest and going, I'm here the fifth time since October 7 to shore up the blood libel. And he was talking about, blood libel.
[01:26:57] Unknown:
Roger?
[01:27:01] Unknown:
He might have lost Internet again. That that happened. Oh. Or And then there's so There he is. Now he's back. Oh, okay. I don't know how much you missed that, Brent. But now we've got Bud Libel. Of Bud Libel, with with, with Lindsey Graham then switch over to the fact that a lot of the violence is being done by these transition people. And that both of these people are so internally screwed up by these inner drives that they go out and they try and, exert it with violence. But get this, on July January 6, several senators and congressmen have testified or may have told the story of how Lindsey Graham was scared out of his wits when the people were walking into the Capitol.
So here's a guy that's scared as hell in that setting and yet wants to go over and bomb every country in the world. Yeah. Anything that the Jews want, he's in to do it. Yep. And, I'm hoping he gets defeated this time, around.
[01:28:12] Unknown:
I wanna drop a footnote if I may. I talked about men that wanna constantly dominate other men. That's not the law of the land. That's not proper. That's is there a time to dominate? Yes. There is. There is a time. But there is not, but it's not the habit of a Christian man's life shouldn't be like that. If somebody's threatening your jurisdiction, you might have to get forceful with them. But to interfere in other people's jurisdiction, to have a bloodlust, and I don't know Lindsey Graham's I think I told you Roger. The first time I met Lindsey Graham, I was on the platform with him. We were both running for congress. I remember in Washington DC. Yeah. I didn't know who he was. Nobody else did either. And, of course, he got in. I didn't for probably obvious reasons, some people anyway.
But he is what Nick Fuente's crowd hates, and they don't wanna end up like him. No kidding. Yeah. They don't wanna end up like him. It there's a when I there's a spark of reality in a young man, and if his conscience isn't sheer seared off as the Bible says, he wants to be a man, and it's a struggle. And any of us who have born been born male understand that struggle. We ought to, some, and ought to appreciate it. We have to prove ourselves. We have to overcome. The female of the species depends upon us. Whether they like it or not, they do want a man to look after them. They want a man to protect them, even the most rabid feminist. Why is Hillary Clinton the way she is? I'll tell you why she's the way she is, why she's so murderously dangerous. She's in the same category as bloody Mary, queen Mary. Yeah. She doesn't feel like any man ever really loved her. Indeed, they didn't.
And what happens to a woman? The most important thing in a woman's life is to be loved. The most important thing in a man's life is to be respected properly. And men women will do things that they shouldn't do thinking they're gonna get love, desperate for it, and men are desperate for respect, and they will kill and murder and fight to try to get it. And women will kill and murder and fight to try to get love. And I mean well, as as, Shakespeare said,
[01:30:34] Unknown:
love to a man, I'm quoting, if somebody would turn off there. Paul, could you find out where that interference is coming from, please?
[01:30:42] Unknown:
Because there are no keep in love one Oh, it's okay.
[01:30:50] Unknown:
So Shakespeare said that and and he this is his line. Love to a man is a thing apart. In other words, to a man, love is over here, and I'm over here right now. I'm not over there right now. But love to a woman, love is all of a woman. That's all she is. That's what she is. She loves and she wants to be loved. There's a difference. God made us that way. And if you don't understand it, go back and contemplate, and keep contemplating for the rest of your life what happened in the Garden of Eden between our grandpa and our grandma, Adam and Eve, and what God said about it later, and what Paul the Apostle says about it in the New Testament. The woman is in a certain position. A man's in a certain position. I've heard women say, Oh, women are in a terrible position.
Are they? No. If you're in the position God wants you to be in and you understand that life can be beautiful, It can be. And we're in this cruel, twisted world, and we're working at it to try to make life decent as within the confines of God's trust settlement and marriage. And the relationship between a man and a woman is fundamental to all of the hell or lack thereof among mankind. I don't mean some of it. I mean all of it. That's why that story is told first. I've said this many times on this on this program, and the older I get, the more it becomes real to me that that's the problem. When you look at Lindsey Graham, it's a sex problem. It's a gen not gender. It's a sex problem. Yeah. He doesn't know how to handle his manhood. That's why he is who he is.
[01:32:22] Unknown:
Well, Roger or somebody or did you wanna say something? Well, I just thought that those were really interesting things. We got about thirty minutes left or less maybe. And see if anybody's got any thing from the audience. Or Brent, did you have something you wanted to launch off on? Well, just to make the point that what Tucker did, he brought Ted Cruz on, and he criticized
[01:32:45] Unknown:
him heavily. Because he asked him he asked. He said I'm sorry, Roger. Go ahead. He let Ted Cruz make a fool out of himself. He did, but he he wasn't, he didn't just listen. With Nick Fuentes, he just listened. He didn't say much anything. He made comments a little bit, not much. With Ted, he said, well, where is it? He said, why are you doing this? This Apex, Zionist thing. Why are you committed to Israel? And he said, well, the bible says that he who blesses Israel will be blessed, and he who does not accursed Israel will be cursed. And Tucker said, well, we're gonna say that in the bible. And I'm telling you too. And now I don't know if Tucker knew or not.
And of course, it doesn't say that in the bible. It does not say that in the bible. That comment was made to Abraham, the father of Arab nations, not to mention the Israelite nation and many other nations. But that does not say that bless Israel and curse Israel. That's not in the Bible. It's very important to read exactly what it says. He asked Cruz where it was. He said, well, I don't know right off the top of my head. And he said, well, if you're basing all of your you're saying you're in the US Senate to support Israel. That's why you're there.
And you're saying it's a religious conviction that comes out of the Bible. Don't you think it's a good idea that you really know where that is and what it really means? Okay. He did that to Ted Cruz and that was embarrassing. So Ted Cruz is now on a rampage to destroy Tucker. But when this Nick Fuentes comes on, instead of cross examining Nick, he was just kind to him and let him talk. He did say, I know there's some things I've had against you, but he didn't criticize him. Now the right, the MAGA crowd is saying, oh, you should have cross examined him like William f Buckley when he had Eldridge Cleaver on. You remember Eldridge Cleaver was one of the founders of the Black Panther movement, in de facto, along with, Newton Newey, I think. Newey.
Newton. Huey Newton. Huey Newton. Huey Newton. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and, well, he interviewed them way back. And Yeah. And people say, well, he should have done that with Nick Fuentes. I didn't hear Tucker agree with Nick. As a matter of fact oh, I mean, he agreed with him on some things, but he didn't pump him up. And he, he's Nick certainly did not come across to Tucker the way he comes across on his show. I wouldn't want him on my show to come across the way he comes across. Right. But and he Michael John's if Nick Nick Fuentes comes up, he says, well, which Nick Fuentes is gonna appear? That's e Michael Jones as well. Then I'm I'm in good I'm not the only one that noticed that. Yeah. Yeah. He's foul mouthed and all that. But fundamentally, he'd and he even said one time, let's be complete here.
Nick Fuentes said to Tucker something about Joseph Stalin, and I'm a fan of Joseph Stalin. Yes. Well, I'm not a fan of Joseph Stalin. Why is he a fan of Joseph? That's insane. He's also a fan. Apparently, people say he says he's a fan of Adolf Hitler. I'm not a fan of Adolf Hitler because Adolf Hitler was not Christian. Adolf Hitler, had good policies, some of them like Germany first, Blutem, Boden. Yeah. Oh, yeah. But he he had all that, but he ignored the weightier matters of god's law that dictates everything and destroyed. He had a hand in destroying utterly the German culture.
[01:36:13] Unknown:
That's too bad. That's too bad. We don't forget what he did in a short period of time is not only what he accomplished, but where he they came from. And they came from that super hyperinflationary period after Versailles and World War one, where World War two was basically guaranteed by the Versailles agreement, I e.
[01:36:38] Unknown:
Well, I I agree. I agree with that.
[01:36:41] Unknown:
But the But what I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I was just gonna mention some a couple of specifics because they're really important because I keep hearing them denied. But why? Had no reason to invade Poland. Well, that is absolutely, totally wrong. They had a go look in a, area called the Sudin Lands. Mhmm. And they gave 10 miles of Germany to Poland with a, I guess, a historical hatred between those two of sorts. And then the agitators came to agitate the Poles, and they started going over in that 10 mile strip and killing German women, men and children.
And then last weekend, they murdered over 10,000 of them viciously, and that Monday is when Hitler invaded Poland. So to say that there's no reason is absolutely well,
[01:37:35] Unknown:
you garbage in garbage out. You get your information from bad sources. Well, it's no. No. It's true. And that's all blowback. But go back we go back further. Why was it that way? Why World War one? World War one came about because Otto his name Otto Bismarck? Yes. Otto Bismarck did away with the common law in Saxony. He did away with it decisively. Martin Luther started it started doing away with it long before. He did away with it and he received the code of Justinian as the official law of Germany. Mhmm. Put his name on it. That's really what caused all of the problem. Martin Luther was did a lot of good things. Of course, fundamentally, yes.
But he destroyed anything good happening in government in Germany when he told the electors of Germany, you've got to take on the Roman code of Justinian, the canon civil laws of Rome, then you can have the power like the pope of Rome. We're in a war for our lives. Well, that they never got rid of it and it just kept getting stronger and Bismarck put it in place. World War one was the result. World War two was the result because Bismarck had that government of a single will as did Adolf Hitler. That never works. It can't work. I don't care how good your policies are. Of course, Hitler's policies took Germany Germany out of, out of all that ugliness of inflation and prosperity, but it couldn't last. That's why I say fundamentally, it's not about the economy.
No. It's about the controlling question of the economy, which which law are you tending toward, the law of the land or the law of the city? And our common law tradition is the law of the land. It's being lost. And if it's lost, all is lost. It is our second greatest blessing. I'm quoting William Pratchett, comparative lawyer. Back to you, Roger.
[01:39:29] Unknown:
Anybody in the audience got any comments or questions?
[01:39:33] Unknown:
Uh-huh. Roger? Roger?
[01:39:37] Unknown:
Okay. Hold on. Bury your second. Larry?
[01:39:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, do you believe, the holocaust occurred, or what are your thoughts on that whole thing?
[01:39:50] Unknown:
Well, I've read some books. I've read a lot of books about Nazi Germany and the war, and it's clear to me that the German government spun out of Hitler's control. He wasn't in a class. He wasn't acclimated to the world of government. He was a guy that had a lot of good ideas. He was a pagan. And the people that he that surrounded him, that's what you're gonna get. You're gonna get people that spin out of control. They did spin out of control. They did murder a lot of Jewish people. No question about it. I don't know how many. I don't go along with the Holocaust just because I'd I mean, I I go along with kill a lot of German people, but when you do the math and you know there are only 500,000 about 500,000 Jews in Germany in 1939.
I looked up the numbers. There were three to 4,000,000 in Poland and not many more than that in France. I don't understand those. I don't understand where they got those figures. So I don't so I don't go along with all that. But I do know this, Germany was destroyed. Then I must ask myself why I must look at history and say, oh, I see what happened. I see what happened and I I've come to my conclusions. I do know this too that the holocaust is not the Messiah of God's people. No. No. That word comes out of the old testament. It's a Hebrew word and it means it's translated in the king James and other translations, burnt offering, holos. It doesn't mean whole. There is a word in the new testament in the Greek tongue, holos.
That is not the Hebrew word, they sound alike but they're not the same. Holos is our word in the Indo European towns, hole in English, w h o l e, that's different. But holos in Hebrew means up in smoke. It's a preposition meaning up, Al, up in smoke. And I translate it that way every time, but they say, well, we are the offering. See the Jewish people being a false Babylonian religion, Judaism is religion. It's not a a race of men. And they take the position that they are the Messiah. Jesus Christ isn't the Messiah. No, they are. And when they say, okay, the holocaust, that means when, Hitler put us in the ovens, whether he did, how much, all that, I'm not even gonna venture an opinion.
What I believe, what I don't believe. I believe what I know to be true, and I try to stick to that. Everything else that I don't have clear evidence of, we're talking about evidence. All I've got evidence that's really tainted about a lot of it. I have read some books. I know that that Nazis struggled at the first to try to decide the most efficient way to kill Jews. I know that. And they killed hundreds, hundreds. They first started, they tried to machine gun them and that was too messy. So what they tried to do after that, and Himmler was behind a lot of this, he said, we'll just put them in trailers, hold behind semi kinda tractor trailers, and we'll we'll, use diesel therapy on them. We'll just pipe the fumes in there and gas them. That was done a lot by the way. I have done a lot. And they thought it was painless and an easy way to go.
How many? I don't know. Do you records were not kept for the this reason. The Nazis didn't want anybody to find the records of how many were killed. So when people say 6,000,000, I say to myself, well, the evidence that I've read that I think is reliable says that records weren't kept because they in case the war was lost, they didn't wanna be executed. That's really what happened. So they didn't keep records of how many were killed. In other words, there are a lot of famous cases where, people that were Jewish were gunned down, and you can read about those. You can read about the things I'm talking about if you dig enough.
I don't even remember the who it was that said those things. I mean, who wrote the books? I just remember I read them.
[01:43:40] Unknown:
Go ahead, Roger. E Michaels talks about some of the Catholic priests that they put in some of those camps. Have you did you have you come across that information?
[01:43:49] Unknown:
Oh, they they put people in camps that were Romanists, and they put people in that were Lutherans, and they they slaughtered them to a great degree. A lot of people, Russians, they slaughtered them too. Oh, sure. Yeah. You know, there's a lot of bad blood there. You know, the German people were fundamental had Christian sensibilities, fundamentally the people. They wanted to fight and go home to their families. They were they had that agrarian culture that even followed them into the cities. And that means I wanna fight for what's behind me. I'm not, I'm not hating what's in front of me as much as I'm, as much as I'm loving what's behind me. I'm in defending my home and the heart and the hearth and I'm my family.
And that was different than the law of the city. Germany had taken up the same law. They gave it to Imperial Japan, Bismarck's code of Justinian, the German form of the code. And that enabled Japan to have legal cover, they thought, to do what they did. But they were even worse because they never had any Christian sensibilities at all. They didn't wanna fight. They, they, they didn't, love what was behind them more than they hated what was before them, their homeland, their family. That wasn't it as much as they want to die for their country and they were driven by vicious hate to kill. Bloody, bloody, bloody. That's what they wanted and they wanted to die. That's the pagan culture of death.
A Christian nation of Christian sensibilities, Germany got caught up in that. They were more responsible for their actions than were the Japs. The Japs had no concept of Christian sensibilities. I really believe, this is my conclusion for what it's worth, that the German people are gonna be held accountable for allowing and supporting a government of a single will, committing idolatry by swearing an oath to a single man called Adolf Hitler. That is ranked idolatry. Well, they they they're suffering. They're suffering.
[01:45:42] Unknown:
God help us. Let's not do that, friends. Back to you, Roger. Well, they're under the yoke right now of the people they tried to get rid of. Bory, I wanna make a comment. I'm gonna we got a little time here. You know, Brent, I was over in Germany about ten years ago. I won a contest, and I got to go over there for ten days, a week, ten days. Studebart. And, I was stunned at how much I liked all of that. It was just very everything was print proper. Every all the hedges were trimmed. Everything looked great, all that. I I was speaking with a gal who bought some stuff there, and then when you you have to pay the VAT tax on your items, and then you go get a piece of paper so when you leave the EU, you get that VAT tax refunded.
And I was talking to her. She spoke English, and and I was telling her how much I like it. And then she said, but but we've got so many rules. And I thought, yeah. I'm sure you do. Oh, I do. So, Bori, what you got? Bori. Sorry, buddy. I had to get that in there. I was taking
[01:46:57] Unknown:
I was taking the news, Brian. Sorry. It's a question for Brent. Good morning, Brandon. Good morning, Brian. Why do people swear on the Bible? That's not a sin. Are you?
[01:47:12] Unknown:
As as I said a while ago, all we have tangibly, and this is on the testimony of Jesus Christ, reliable testimony, reliable evidence. The word of God is everything. The laws of nature is God. Jesus Christ, I'll quote a Quaker who was a communist who was wrong on most everything, but he said this. He was honest. He was a Bible scholar, professor Harvard, Joel Cadbury. He said, if you're going to follow Jesus Christ, you're gonna believe that the Bible is without error because that was the testimony of Jesus Christ. He said, I don't believe that, but I don't believe the Bible. But if you're gonna follow that, that evidence, you're gonna come to that conclusion if you're honest. And he was being honest.
The Bible is what we have, the word of God right now. And that's what he's left to us. And when the spirit of God enlightens a man's mind, invades and inhabits the organs of his body within his skin, he enlightens us to that book and he makes us hungry for it. That's what the Bible teaches. We recognize truth when we see it, and we get better at it as we get older. We're not perfect, but we're getting better at it all the time. I pray that you're in that condition. But the oath is on the bible. And in written, you hold it while you take the oath. If you're a get on the witness stand, they hand it to you, hold it.
In America, we put our hand on it as an indication, an expression of what we believe is final. That's why we do that. And anyone who's not willing to do that shouldn't be in office. That's the doctrine I'm just thinking, of our governmental tradition, the Westminster confession, part of our common law tradition from England has a section section 20, I believe, I can't remember. Anyway, it has a section on oaths and vows. And it starts by saying that the oath and the vow is an act of religious worship, and to take an oath to anything upon the authority of anything with the maker of heaven and earth is an act of rank idolatry.
Rank idolatry. The Bible is not an idol. I debated a fellow in Missouri. Again, liked him. I still like him. Yeah. But we're at odds on that point. He said he said, the constitution of The United States is the biggest idol we've ever had. I said, now doggone it. No. It isn't. An idol what an idol is is clear. It's a created thing that of a creature, a man, a living man, a created thing, a living woman, a a bevy of men or women. When you take the oath, Jesus Christ was clear. He didn't forbid taking it. That's again a Quaker idea, it's not true but he said, be careful. Don't need to do it all the time, be careful how you do it.
Swear tightly and only swear by the maker of heaven and earth, him and no other him and no more. Because if you swear by the temple, if you swear by the gold on the temple, if you swear by the earth or the land, you swear by anything, cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye. That is demonism because you're calling in something less than the maker of heaven and earth to enforce your oath. And how, how silly could it be to call on yourself or on your mother's grave? How ugly that is and how idolatrous, how demonism, how much demonism is in that a lot. How about a statue of Mary?
But the word of God is what we have of God. His mind, the record of his mind, his thoughts, his will, and that's what he says he wants to conform and will conform his people to. The trust documents that define our relationship to him. Well, that's my response for what it's worth.
[01:51:30] Unknown:
K. Thank you, Brent. Anybody else in the audience got something or, towards the end of the program? If you do, you now's a good time.
[01:51:38] Unknown:
Roger, breaking news.
[01:51:40] Unknown:
Okay, Dave. Give it to us.
[01:51:43] Unknown:
So ABC Radio just reported that 2026 will be the last year that the Farmers' Almanac will be published due to financial issues.
[01:52:01] Unknown:
That's unfortunate. Maybe that announcement by itself
[01:52:08] Unknown:
Well, I think you can get it on the Internet anyway because I have a look.
[01:52:13] Unknown:
Well, they no. They said next year will be the last year that they produce at a Farmers' Almanac.
[01:52:20] Unknown:
Well, they're not gonna put anything on the Internet?
[01:52:24] Unknown:
They didn't say that. They made it sound like they were not gonna have a Farmers' Almanac anymore.
[01:52:30] Unknown:
Well, let me ask you this. Why do you think that's, newsworthy?
[01:52:36] Unknown:
Well, they thought it was newsworthy ABC Radio. I think it's pretty important. I know a lot of, farmers rely on that report. I know the Amish use it. I don't know about, these, you know, GMO farmers. I don't think they use it. Are you from the probably why because most farming now is genetically modified.
[01:53:00] Unknown:
Are you from the Northern Midwest or Canada?
[01:53:04] Unknown:
Michigan.
[01:53:06] Unknown:
Oh, I thought I detected that accent. Well, no. You My folks were both born in Canada.
[01:53:13] Unknown:
Oh, okay. I'm first generation American.
[01:53:16] Unknown:
So you know you know, as do I do, that that's been an important part of American life since the very beginning. And what it Right. Reason it's been important and popular is because it is the communication of the laws of nature, the laws of nature. Remember old captain Preston, that lawyer asked him. He was at at the Concord at the battle there. And this young lawyer, 42 years old, trying to figure out how these guys who were there had, Kahun used to challenge the most powerful military force in the world. And so he started asking questions. He said, were you oppressed by intolerable oppressions? And this fellow was 92 years old.
It was in the eighteen forties. Were you oppressed by intolerable oppressions? He said, oppressions. I didn't feel any. He said, well, what about the stamp act? He said, I never saw one of those stamps. I never paid a penny for one. He said, well, what about the t tax? The t tax. He said, t tax? He said, never drink a drop of the stuff. He said, I didn't drink that stuff. And the boys threw it all over overboard anyway. They thought, well, what's what's motivating this guy? He thought, well, maybe he's a philosopher. He said, I suppose then you'd been reading Harrington and Sydney and John Locke about the eternal principles of liberty. He said, I never heard of them, and they'll listen to what he said. He said, I never heard of them. He said, we read only the Bible and the almanac and Watts Psalms and Hymns.
The Bible, the almanac, and Watts Psalms and Hymns. Now that's the testimony of a man 92 years old, rank and file American. And he said, the only thing we knew or we even had to read with the Bible, the farmer's almanac, which had a little bit different name then. Ben Franklin published it for a long time. Well, what I what is that? That means they were interested in the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God. That's what that means. And by the way, to add to that, maybe he didn't, but according to our best figures, there are about 3,000,000 white folk in the American colonies in 1776.
1,000,000 of them were of English extraction Anglicans, which included period Puritan and Congregationalist. About a million of them were Dutch reformed and German reformed roots. Many lived in Pennsylvania, but other places too. And about a 100 about a million of them were Scotch Irish Presbyterians. All of them were of the reformed Christian tradition. To use a word I don't like to use, but I don't have any other that we get it across, that means reformed Christian tradition. They were hardcore Calvinist. That's what that means. And they were. They were the Heidelberg confession, the Westminster confession.
Was that the 39 articles of the Anglican church, a hardcore Calvinism still is. That's what those fellows were. To understand America, you don't understand that. Don't don't know about it. Don't try to factor that in. You can't understand what motivated these fellas. But they were motivated, and they did put their lives on the line. And, we're the only common law country in the world, that is here because of war. We wanted it bad enough. We were willing to kill and be killed for it, and we were. We knew the we, the people I my forebearers, yours too. If you're living in America, they're your forebearers. They came before you, and they carried the carried the water for us. Now it's our turn.
The laws of nature is our common law tradition. The laws of nature is God. Our common law tradition, yes. The way things are in nature that we observe and they ain't gonna change. The time, the season, the almers the farmer's almanac relates directly as you know to the land. Okay. Well, thank you for bringing bringing that up.
[01:57:19] Unknown:
Maybe something You're welcome. The announcement. Maybe something will step in and and and stop that. We'll see. Okay?
[01:57:26] Unknown:
Who who else That's what I figured.
[01:57:30] Unknown:
Yeah. Who else is saying something now? I was gonna say I saw a story right before, the show. I was watching, Infowars on this stuff called Bovina, I believe it's called. Have you ever heard of that before, Brent? No. They're giving it they're doing it in Europe. They're planning on doing it here. It's a concoction they add to the cow's feed that affects the way the fourth stomach, produces methane and it suppresses a bunch of it. Well, all of a sudden, cows are dying and, ailments out the gazoo and stuff in in Denmark. So, hopefully, that'll go by the wayside. Anyway, there's the whistler. Obviously, that means we're done for the, for the day. And always wanna thank Brent Winter for taking time out of your busy schedule to come over here and hang with us, Brent, and go over all these things that are so important, background, foundational.
And, we love you, buddy. Thanks for showing up and giving us the goods.
[01:58:30] Unknown:
We'll look forward to next week. Thank you, Roger. I feel the same way about you and all the folks that listen. I don't pray for everybody in the world. I'm not God. But I do pray for those that listen that all of our line minds would be enlightened to the laws of nature, and the laws of nature is God. God's will, what he wants for us. And that's what the pain is in here?
[01:58:53] Unknown:
I'm sorry. Real quick, and I'll I'll tell you after. There are two almanacs.
[01:58:59] Unknown:
Okay. Two almanacs, Murr says. And maybe just one of them. Okay. Well, we're at the end of the program. So the folks that are listening are just gonna have to be held in suspense. Aren't they, Murr? So these things happen, and that's gonna happen today. So, we'll see you tomorrow or soon. Thank you, Brent. Ciao. Okay. Now we should learn about two almanacs. Which ones? What are they, myrrh?
[01:59:30] Unknown:
The, farmers that, Dave is talking about there is, Johnny come lately, and I was always suspicious of them. They're the ones discontinuing the old Farmers' Almanac that, is online. And, I stopped buying the paper variety a while back, but, it's, more dependable, I think. And, you know, there's there's some stuff that's been taken over, but it's been published continuously since 1792.
[01:59:57] Unknown:
I have a feeling it's gonna continue to be published.
[02:00:00] Unknown:
Mhmm. Now go for the one. Farmers.
[02:00:03] Unknown:
The old Farmers' Almanac, not the Farmers. And the Farmers' is the one they'd have on TV too. And it would come out before the Old Farmers. The Old Farmers comes out in October. The the farmers would precede it and be on TV, and so I would say discount it anyway.
[02:00:20] Unknown:
Thank you, Murr. Ben Franklin published Poor Richard's Almanac. I think that's what he called it. And whether or not the one you're talking about is a continuation of that, I don't know. If you know, you may tell us. But, Yeah. Pretty nice. Fun pretty much. Yeah. We used to wait in the feed store, my brother and I. Had in that little town close to us, had a feed store where we got our seed cleaned and had our corn shelled and all that. When we go in every year, we knew when that thing would be out and available. And we waited with bated breath, and we got it. And we'd set over on the feed sacks by the elevator while dad was doing his business, and Dave would read that to me, my older brother.
He always wanted to read out loud. And there would be so many the articles were fun, interesting articles about all sorts of subjects, but then also the predictions of weather because back then we depended upon those kind of predictions of weather and the weatherman. We didn't know what else to do. Matter of fact, we found out the weatherman didn't know anything. We would figure when we were farming and we were trying to get the crop in or get it out, we'd listen to the radio at noon, and we'd if they said it was raining in Saint Louis, well, we knew how fast the rain would travel. We knew it would be raining where we were, and we knew about what time. That's the way we calculated.
And if we heard something from Paducah, we knew how long it'd be to get to us or something from Evansville, Indiana, if it we'd check the weather there in those radio stations. And that was big stuff back then. The the farmers depended upon the radio to know have an idea maybe what was happening. But the best weather broadcasting we discovered was whether they said it was raining or not. They they get that a 100%, but everything else was about a fifty fifty shot. That's been my observation of the weather, man. I think I told you about I was on radio and Terry Oat and, like, Ballard owned the station. We got talking about that, and he said, well, he remembered when they opened the the TV station there about 1960. It was, a CBS, WTHI, I think. And, he said the guy that did the weather to come blow in, and he was a young guy just out of school, and he was an engineer there. He'd come blowing in, slide sideways in the parking lot down there on Wabash Avenue, run-in, straighten it up his tie, and run there just within seconds to get on the air and do the weather.
And what he couldn't figure out, he couldn't figure out how this guy knew what to say. That was in the early days. There wasn't no no radar and all that. And he said, oh, shucks. He said, I'm sitting at home. I got it down to a science. I know which road to take to get here or I won't get delayed. And he said, as soon as I jump in the car, I turn the radio on, and I I catch the weather. And that's what then I just say what the guy said on the radio. And I discovered that that's what all of the news is. And when I ran for congress, I discovered there were about 300 outlets in Washington, DC, and every news news outlet in the country, every newspaper, every television station depended upon those outlets.
And then I found out that in the state capital, and all state capitals are this way, there's just a very few people that control what comes out of the state capital, and all the newspapers and radio, broadcasters, depend upon those few. Well, that system that I learned about when I was running for congress doesn't exist anymore. The Internet has torn down all of the barriers like the they they think they're the gatekeepers, some of them, but they aren't. And that's what they were going through when Trump ran the first time. They still had an idea in their head that they were the gatekeepers of everything that America got to hear. And they hadn't figured out that that the gate was still up, and they were still sitting at the gate, and they were keeping it closed when they wanted to, but the fence all around them had been torn down, and people were just flooding across from every direction while they sat at the gate and were monitoring the gate.
Well, now they're not even doing that. The Internet has plumbed taken over, and we're getting a wide calculus of what we wanna know. That's what's happening, and it's causing awful upheavals.
[02:04:50] Unknown:
The those establishment media are having a hard, hard time staying above water. Oh, yeah. People like Alex Jones. They have from 30 to 80,000,000
[02:05:01] Unknown:
viewers on any episode. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He's in control. So it becomes purely competition between a whole lot. Let that Fuentes. That guy's a nobody. He was a nobody for the longest time. He doesn't he's never had an experience in life at all. Nope. But he has risen to the top for whatever reason. And, and he's and he said I heard him say to Tucker, listen to that interview. He said, shoot. He said, when I was on whatever, RSB, Republic, something, broadcast. I don't know what it was. He said, I was just another guy on there, and I would listen to this other talk radio guy, and I'm just repeating all his lines and everything he said. That's all. He said, I didn't know what I was talking about. And that had been just a few short years ago he was doing that. What could he know now? There are a lot of people here just repeating, not understanding. I always thought we take for some somebody like Michael Savage.
Michael Savage never did know what he was saying, still doesn't. Exceedingly popular. He was a left wing wacko hippie for years, and he decided to make any
[02:06:03] Unknown:
I'm sorry. His real name is Weiner.
[02:06:06] Unknown:
Yeah. Thank you. But he he didn't, he just learned the lines of the conservative. He could talk the talk, and he's on the radio, and he gets to be who he wants to be, makes a lot of money. But I've heard him interview true conservatives, and he didn't get it. He didn't have a clue,
[02:06:20] Unknown:
obviously. Well, he also I'm sorry, Brent, but he also hangs out with, you know, Rabbi Schneerson and whatnot. And he reportedly also wrote homo maybe still does, wrote, homosexual novels under pseudonym Oh, yeah. You know? Yeah. And he he hates Christianity,
[02:06:38] Unknown:
hates Christians, hates Jesus Christ. I've heard him say it. I remember one time he interviewed Jerry Falwell, and not that I'm a fan of Jerry Falwell, but Jerry Falwell puts on the puts on the persona of a Christian, and may he may be. I've met him on a couple of occasions. I'm not against him. Against some of his methods, he's a Baptist. That means he's a dictator. But other than that, I I listened to Michael Savage. Just tear Jerry Falwell up while Jerry Falwell was really being nice to him. But my the spirit in this Michael Savage fella couldn't couldn't stand him talking about Jesus Christ. That's all. That's the way it works. The bible says that's the way it works, and that is the way it works. So why is Tucker having problems? Because Tucker, you may not agree with everything he says about his Christian faith, but he's upfront with it, and he's talking about it like it's true and saying, well, this is the way it is. So why would I do this or that? Well, that's what they can't stand, friends.
He's talking about Jesus Christ as though Jesus Christ is responsible for Christianity and responsible for the culture in America that we have inherited from the Isle Of Britain primarily primarily. Culture, a common law culture that is a Christian culture, start to finish. We inherited it, and it has made us the most powerful engine of wealth and prosperity the world has ever known. And if we let it go, and Tucker gets this, it sounds like if we let that go, we'll lose everything. Oh, he's absolutely right. Of course. And it all comes down to the land, my friends, polluting the land.
The history of mankind is men pollute God's land. He's the Elodial landlord, friends. And if you pollute his land, that means you're consistent about it. We all make mistakes. But if you make it official policy to murder babies, he's not gonna stand for that. You make it official policy to take an oath to a single man, life or death, Adolf Hitler or Mussolini or the emperor of Japan. Oh, he's not gonna stand for that. You'll be annihilated. That's one thing the Bible's clear that he won't stand for, and it's and history proves it from start to finish. Well, Roger, back to you. I gotta get something to eat, and I gotta make some phone calls. Me too. I'm gonna go out and enjoy a beautiful day. Anybody got something for either one of us real quick?
[02:08:58] Unknown:
Hey, Brent. An hour ago, you mentioned did you say something like Jesus hates Judaism? And if you said that, do you have a specific
[02:09:09] Unknown:
scripture No. I I I know. I no. I don't wanna say that. What I wanna say is go read the bible and see what Jesus said about the Babylonian Jewish leadership and what he said to them. And then go to the epistles of Paul the apostle and read what he said about them. Just type it into the Internet. Pull it up. No sense of me saying it. I'm just repealing to the Bible. I that's final. I'm not final. The Bible is final. The final court of last resort. And I present the evidence. That's all that anybody can do is present evidence, and I take the Bible and I put it in evidence. And I say, read it, and you tell me what your conclusions are. I cannot give you I cannot dictate your conclusions. I don't want to. I don't even wanna try. What I want to do is present the evidence.
As a lawyer, that's what a lawyer does. That's what he's supposed to know how to do, present evidence. And that's what god's man is supposed to know how to do is present evidence, and that's what he's presenting. There's Jim there. Two places.
[02:10:13] Unknown:
God says, Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated. Who is Esau Edom?
[02:10:19] Unknown:
Oh, there we go. That's a
[02:10:20] Unknown:
yeah.
[02:10:21] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. That's debatable as far as hate, though. And try John chapter eight. Oh, no. Evidently not. We Brent translated it for us one day, year on year murder.
[02:10:32] Unknown:
Okay? Yeah. He He fought a hell of a year.
[02:10:47] Unknown:
Well, thank you. I was just telling June, try John chapter eight in particular and first Thessalonians two, especially fourteen and fifteen. Contrary to all men.
[02:10:58] Unknown:
Well, it's important to understand hate biblically. I agree with well, Roger, and I have talked about it. Maybe we can do that next time. It is important to understand it because those are heavy statements. But just know this, go go, examine the New Testament and, what the attitude and, of Jesus Christ is toward false religion and Paul the apostle and the others. They're all the same. And Judaism is the prototype in the Bible, false religion, Babylonian. It's all Babylonian, and that's what he talks about and see what he got to say about it. Back to you.
[02:11:35] Unknown:
Would I have a question. In the minis. Right? Go ahead.
[02:11:40] Unknown:
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[02:11:42] Unknown:
Go ahead. Go ahead. Whoever else was there.
[02:11:47] Unknown:
This is Sherry, Brent. And I was wondering in your translation translation of the scriptures, did you find where, the Messiah quoted books that have not been put into into
[02:12:01] Unknown:
the the scriptures now? The Bible post books that that are not part of the canon. Yes. The the Bible even quotes, a a Greek physician named Galen, and I can read his writings, but that's not part of the canon either. But if some writer of the Bible lifts a pericope or a section or a phrase out of a h t t p out of another book, that does not that does not verify the whole book as being part of the canon. For example, I heard Tucker say this. Well, I've heard a lot of people say it. The man that wrote more of the New Testament than any other man was Luke. Luke only wrote two books. And Paul wrote more books, but he didn't write more pages than Luke. And those two book books that Luke wrote are long.
Luke draws no conclusions in those books. He makes no statements of theology except to quote other people. And it's pure fact. It's pure fact. That's important. The more of the Bible is pure fact and theology or command even. More of the New Testament. But Luke compiled all of that evidence and he says so right in the very beginning. He compiled it all through a lot of research. That doesn't mean that every place he got that evidence ought to be in the bible, every writing, all of it. It means he's quoting other people, and he had gathered evidence from other people.
So be don't go and say, well, we don't have all the bible because they, the book of Jude, the next to the last book of the Bible quotes the book of Enoch. It does. That doesn't mean the book of Enoch is part of the Bible. Peter the apostle quotes the Greek physician Galen. That doesn't mean that that's the writings of Galen, which we have. We have manuscripts of it. That doesn't mean that's part of the Bible. And Paul the apostle quotes a Greek poet and he says all Cretans are liars, slow bellies, lazy. Well, that doesn't mean that the right all the writings of that Greek poet are part of the bible.
That's never been the case. Nobody that's never been the position of Christianity. That's never been the position of ancient Israel, but that's the way they dealt with it. The book of Jasher, the bible quotes it. And we don't have the book of Jasher, the one's quotes anymore. There were no one that I know of. That doesn't mean that it's a lost book of the bible. God has promised to preserve his word the way he wants to preserve it, and we have it. And a lot goes into deciding. There never was a time, never is a place, never any evidence in the history of Christianity where anybody made an official pro claimed to make an official proclamation of a list of the books of the Bible ever.
I hear that said over and over and over about the cons the council of Constantinople and all that. There are places where they said, these are the books that are in common use throughout the churches. Hell yeah. They say that. Just make an observation. But they've never there never has been an official list proclaimed by anybody with authority to do so.
[02:15:34] Unknown:
Well
[02:15:35] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Thank Yeah. Brent.
[02:15:38] Unknown:
Welcome. Okay. We'll be talking. Thank you again. Next week. Okay, Brent. Have a great week. You too. Bye. Hey, Brent. Boy, you're gonna try to grab me.
[02:15:48] Unknown:
Uh-oh. I have. I've gotta grab you. Area you're getting to. You almost got away, bro. Well, I I I've been, this is Bob. I've been missing, Tasmanian word association day, so I got one for you here. Oh, okay. You you just said the word you just said the word baited as in you and your brother were waiting there at the feed store with baited breath. I don't know how many times I've seen that spelled b I a t, which, of course, is not correct. But at any rate, just yesterday, just yesterday, we're riding along in the car, and somehow that word came up between my two daughters and I.
Okay. And I said, well, it almost seems like abate would be the negative abated, you know, because to Uh-huh. Typically, a an a would modify it to be the opposite. I don't find that to be the case here. But, anyway, where I'm headed is this, An abatement, of course, in law is to stop something or to at least impede it. And it occurred to me here's here's where the Tasmanian word association comes in. It occurred to me that it's very similar to the French word for a for a butcher shop, habatoire. Okay. And absolutely. It's absolutely related. It's where things come to an end. That that critter is ended.
[02:17:17] Unknown:
Oh, okay.
[02:17:19] Unknown:
I had never put that together, and I just I just couldn't resist. When I heard you say baited, I when you said baited breath, it baited me in. How do you like that?
[02:17:29] Unknown:
B a I t. No. I was thank you. No. I wasn't aware of all that, but I was aware that b a I t is not bated breath. But it is Exactly. Here. Yeah. The the connection between words, you have to stop and get real conceptual sometime, but they're there. They're there. Yes. Well, thank you, Bob. Appreciate it. Yeah. Brent? Uh-huh. Go
[02:17:57] Unknown:
ahead. Hey. To answer Sherry's question, don't forget the book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. And, second thing I wanna say is, earlier in the program, you talked about a definition of politics. And, have you ever heard of Kent Hovine and what his definition was in his younger days when he went around the country? Many given such parts in colleges. Many blood searching Well, it's made up of yeah. He says it's made up of two, two words, poly mean meaning many and ticks, which are blood sucking creatures. I always found that quite funny.
He was convicted of tax, of tax
[02:18:46] Unknown:
criminal Structuring.
[02:18:48] Unknown:
Structuring.
[02:18:50] Unknown:
Yes. That it was structuring. That's right. Don't do that. Be careful about structuring. If you don't know what it is, go look it up. But yeah. Thank you. No. I Kent Kent's a good communicator. I don't know what he's doing now, but it wasn't he didn't just get a year or two. He got 10. His wife got a year or two. Lost his marriage. Listen. We're dealing with the evil empire. When he got into that mess, obviously, a very intelligent man, but he didn't understand the lay of the land and the and the fight. And it takes a long time to get there. He's there now, I'm sure.
Who is who's this we're talking about? Kent Hovind, and he traveled all over the world delivering lectures on creation versus evolution. And, Oh, yeah. Yeah. You can go to the Internet. Him. Yeah. You go to the Internet. He's from Pensacola. Well, actually, he's from East Peoria, Illinois, but he wound up at Pensacola. I think he's still there around Pensacola somewhere. Uh-huh. Yeah. You can look him up, and his his lectures are clear and entertaining, and his research is wide. He doesn't boast of a formal education. Really good communicator.
He's right headed. That's all I can say about him.
[02:20:01] Unknown:
They gave him ten years. Roger For what? What? For what? Yeah.
[02:20:05] Unknown:
Structuring. The IRS went to prison
[02:20:08] Unknown:
for ten years for structuring and also because he did not withhold taxes. He had a lot of, student employees to help him out with his creation museum. And evidently, he was supposed to be withholding taxes for the IRS. And his excuse was, which I believe is just justified, is that he considered them to be, you know, independent contractors and they were responsible for withholding their own taxes. And, and so but they ended up the IRS ended up convicting him and his wife. They both went to federal prison for ten well, he went there for ten years. I don't remember how many years his wife went to prison. They ended up splitting up, and I just recently heard that there is charges against him for something he did to his ex wife in 2021.
He was convicted of something, some type of abuse.
[02:21:04] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you can bet he's the kind of person they wanna go after with both claws.
[02:21:08] Unknown:
Oh, yeah.
[02:21:09] Unknown:
For sure. Well, he didn't give up the structuring, and he, he I think he's on his, like, second wife since then. He was married to Mary Taco for a while, and, she had to had to leave.
[02:21:23] Unknown:
Damn. Okay. Well, that sounds like me. I've got to leave too. And I know Brent does. Yeah. So, I hesitate to ask. Anybody got a question for Brent or I? Brent, they're gonna let us out, I think. Okay. Okay, buddy. Well, I know. Thank you. We'll see you next week. Alright. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. What yes. Bye bye. Thanks, Murr. See you tomorrow. Ciao.
[02:21:58] Unknown:
Run, Forrest. Run. Mhmm.
[02:22:10] Unknown:
Again, if you're a chain to come in.
[02:22:22] Unknown:
You talking to me?
[02:22:24] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm talking to you.
[02:22:27] Unknown:
What'd you say?
[02:22:29] Unknown:
What yanks your chain to get in here?
[02:22:32] Unknown:
Well, didn't you hear? It was about the almanac the almanac. The almanac.
[02:22:36] Unknown:
Weren't you listening? Yeah. I
[02:22:39] Unknown:
yeah. I heard the almanac, but I didn't think it was provocative.
[02:22:44] Unknown:
There are two almanacs. The good one and the not is good one. The Johnny come lately one that they pushed is the one that's going out of circulation. The one that's been the longest periodical periodical to be in circulation is still in circulation. The old Farmers' Almanac from 1792.
[02:23:14] Unknown:
So in, the war the immortal words of Gregory, there's an almanac and a Gooder Almanac.
[02:23:31] Unknown:
One of the fun things with the almanac, the old farmers is the letters to the editor. I really learn a lot of interesting things.
[02:23:48] Unknown:
Oh, you're echoing bad, Mark.
[02:23:52] Unknown:
Yeah. I hear that. Sorry about that. Is it better now? Yep. Yep. I thought I thought Brent and Brent w and Roger are gonna butt heads there about, Germany and Hitler. Yeah. I was gonna say something about that, but decided not to. I don't know whose whose whose information Brent is consuming, and maybe they're under a pseudonym too. But, a lot of faulty information going on there going on there.
[02:25:14] Unknown:
I'm thinking that it's probably a good thing that Paul English didn't show up or maybe a bad thing because Paul English would have been able to, come up with, David Irving quotes and, information and others that have the real scoop on Germany.
[02:25:38] Unknown:
Alright. Alright.
[02:25:47] Unknown:
Maybe Paul English did dial it, but, chose to remain silent out of respect for Brent and Roger. I don't know.
[02:26:06] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. In the beginning of today's radio rant, you said that you were saying who was on I think you said on Paul English live last show. Was it Eli James? Or who did Yeah.
[02:26:21] Unknown:
Yeah. Eli Eli was there. Ogi. Thank you. Normal Thank you. And the normal cast of characters. Balding is Eric von Essex, me.
[02:26:45] Unknown:
Hey. They even talked about psychedelic mushrooms yesterday.
[02:26:54] Unknown:
Yeah. They did.
[02:26:57] Unknown:
I love that shirt.
[02:27:00] Unknown:
Did they mention Scylla Simon?
[02:27:09] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:27:10] Unknown:
They probably mentioned silly Simon and hungry hippos.
[02:27:15] Unknown:
Not microplastics,
[02:27:17] Unknown:
but in microdose.
[02:27:27] Unknown:
I guess they never anticipated that people would be able to see through doors and windows and ceilings and roofs.
[02:27:40] Unknown:
That was the one that Eli James was on? Call English Life with the silk with the, mushrooms and the Paul Bina?
[02:27:55] Unknown:
Yeah. Yesterday's show is the one we've been talking about.
[02:27:59] Unknown:
So did what did okay. Well, I'll listen to it, but do you wanna did, Eli James say anything about the mushrooms?
[02:28:08] Unknown:
Not that I remember.
[02:28:15] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:31:13] Unknown:
Irving, liked you quote that there was, like, 70 men that knew about the extermination program. There was no extermination program contrary to popular lying beliefs.
[02:31:36] Unknown:
I just said good.
[02:31:45] Unknown:
And they all like to single out Mengele. There were 12 doctors. Mengele had a Jewish assistant, and he wasn't about torture and killing and all the other stuff. He studied them, but he didn't harm them. One Jewish family had seven dwarfs. It was one of the families he studied. Why did Germany go into France? I have to look into that to give you a really good answer. Can't right off the top of my head. But, they weren't against it when they got there. Same thing in Austria. They also arrested now they tried to make this out, the historians in favor of the Rothschilds and whatnot, make it out to be a kidnapping and a ransom, but it was an arrest.
And so they paid, bail, which was pretty high amount for that time. I think it was, like, 21,000,000 or something for, Louis de Rothschild for the bank in Vienna. They arrested him there. So, you know, there was stuff going on all over the place. They also arrested and confiscated the property of, Julia
[02:33:14] Unknown:
Rothschild. You know,
[02:33:16] Unknown:
that's why they holocausted Dresden and some other cities that, and they had a conference in 1882 about the Jewish question held in Dresden. But you'll notice it was on the Saint Valentine's Day and that's when they've done many massacres and that can be checked back to the middle fourteenth century, 1348 in particular, but they changed the date to 1349 when Jews were held accountable for poisoning water all over Europe except in the Pale, which is now Poland where they were, All different methods. And then they tried to call it the black death. And they tried to relate it to a passing comet and every all kind of stuff. But, no, this is water being poisoned just like they're doing today, just like they're shoving poison. And it is the Jews, make no mistake, that the comes from demon on the back and frighten people into getting poison stabbed into them.
Because, you know, the whole world has a virus that doesn't exist. Viruses can exist on their own in the air. But since they relate it subliminally to Gates and his computer viruses that can be everywhere in the world at once, well, guess what? Suddenly, people too. They have it everywhere in the world at once. Way is for fools.
[02:34:52] Unknown:
You mean doctor Gates.
[02:34:54] Unknown:
Yeah. Right? That's what they were calling him too. Yep. That was no slur. Yep. And he's a Jew. Crypto Jew. I don't know what his real name is. Might be kept that name. I don't know. And, of course, his father, helped start Planned Parenthood. Whose mother was in banking and, had her portrait lightened so she didn't look so olive. Went by the name Murder. Yes, ma'am.
[02:35:31] Unknown:
What did doctor Lorraine Day, speak up about regarding viruses? Do you know?
[02:35:38] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. They don't exist. You know? They can't exist. And like Tom Rogers says, they have to be, you know, fat or carried somehow. They can't exist in the cosmic energy in the sunlight and the oxygen in the air. Doesn't happen.
[02:35:55] Unknown:
Okay. Because I did hear her speak about, the scriptures and that, the laws of cleanliness didn't, give them ways to in which to avoid things in the air. You know what I'm saying?
[02:36:14] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, she talks about the, you know, Israelites and, how they're none of that is ever mentioned that there's something in the air that that won't happen. Just not happening. Right. Okay. Thank you. I'll send you a link though. A fellow named, I don't know, Parsi is what he went by, but he has a website 911essentials.com. And it'll probably come up blocking here or something, but you can get into it if you go past their block. And, he keeps the what Lorraine Day said about viruses up on that site. Used to come in chat rooms and stuff. He used to be a roadie and then, CME, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and interesting character living there in Chicago.
He and his wife and, harassed all the time. So I guess he's still around because his website's up. But he would he would say, how he could, you know, see where the inquiries were coming from, and he got a real big influence from all the different government websites, people looking at his site.
[02:37:31] Unknown:
Oh, so there's no Avian flu? Right?
[02:37:38] Unknown:
You know, they call stuff all different things. You know?
[02:37:43] Unknown:
But it's It's interesting.
[02:37:46] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:37:47] Unknown:
Something that just dropped on, Drew Bergstein's YouTube channel was, seven lies about Catholic history by Diane Moxer. And, some side as even as a Catholic born and raised, I didn't really know about these things. So it was pretty interesting. Yeah. Wanna listen to a good book, gets into all the, you know, how Hitler was Catholic trying to stop the Jews and everything.
[02:38:11] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. You're so right. I wanted to bring that up too, but there wouldn't really time today for all that.
[02:38:23] Unknown:
Joan, welcome back, Joan.
[02:40:13] Unknown:
According to some of the videos I watched on David Irving, here recently, because he's he's redone. He's got a new edition of his Hitler book out. And, so I guess he's doing interviews and gotta wonder if he's a little beat down. But on the other hand, he's basically using documents from the time, and he's saying all the evidence shows him that, Hitler forbade the ex the the question of what to do with them, the Jews that is or the whatever you wanna call them. Until after the war, he didn't want it to be a distraction. But according to Irving, guys like Himmler secretly behind Hitler's back did do some of this, but even that looks like it was pretty limited because otherwise it would be difficult to keep from from from Hitler. So that's what he's saying these days.
[02:41:30] Unknown:
Yes. Like I said, he, he also, you know, quoted somebody that says, oh, about 70 men knew about the extermination plans. Well, there were no extermination plans. So was the I put a link in the those chats that had, he's gone now. But he, was questioning, who were these men? You know? If you're gonna you know? It it just it's just more lies. But he did, you know, like you said, being beat down and tired. I think he capitulated to some extent whether he really chose to or not, but he was really under the gun with Lipstadt. Right? And she's now, what, in charge of antisemitism Yeah. In this country. But, I mean, she's ugly, and he's handsome. And so they she was made a movie and, put Rachel Wise, who's very pretty in her you know, to play her part. And I forget the actor, but only actor to play him. You know? Interesting how they do their propaganda.
[02:42:37] Unknown:
Yeah. He does mention people that were under Himmler that were taking his orders. So who knows for sure? But, you know, one thing about Irving, I think he's always trying to be, you know, I think he's fair about every question except the bloodthirsty nature of his own country, Britain. He's a little you know, he's very much a nationalist. He very much blamed Churchill for the destruction of the British Empire. And, he thought that was a good thing, obviously, and, I think he's an error there. But, other than that, you know, it wouldn't be surprising that somebody like Himmler would go I mean, he, in the end, did betray Hitler.
So it's just logical that he may have gone against his orders and did some exterminations, on his own with people who were a lot of like thinking. Of course, he was the head of the SS, so he had a lot of people under his control.
[02:43:53] Unknown:
Well, you know, every empire has been, far sighted, including Britain, British Israel.
[02:44:00] Unknown:
You know? Yeah. Look look at all the people who wanna make excuses for Trump today and say that, well, he doesn't really know. He's not been told. Oh, no. Etcetera etcetera. Right? And that's in this day and age with with a different communication system today than they sure as hell had then. You know?
[02:44:20] Unknown:
Yeah. Churchill's mother was Jewish, so there you go. Jenny Jerome.
[02:44:26] Unknown:
Leave with surname. He he tells some terrible stories about Winston Churchill. Like, in fact, I do believe he has a book on Churchill alone, which is Terrible gosh. Tears tears the man down to what he was.
[02:44:40] Unknown:
Mhmm. Yep. Hee haw.
[02:44:46] Unknown:
The was Himmler or Mengele? Mengele? No.
[02:44:54] Unknown:
You know, I don't even know what that word means anymore. It's just a phony name along with everything else. I think I'm sticking with Pharisees.
[02:45:06] Unknown:
Uh-huh. I'm sticking with Parasites.
[02:45:10] Unknown:
Yeah. But they do consider Probably better, but
[02:45:13] Unknown:
They do Pharisees Parasites.
[02:45:16] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:45:17] Unknown:
They do consider themselves a distinct people, a culture. You know, it's not just a religion. And in fact, many of them, there's a whole list I've threatened to read sometime at some point the of Jews that brag about communism being Judaism.
[02:45:41] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[02:45:45] Unknown:
I was busy today during the show, but, at some point, I I might chime in with, Brent on what the canon of the Old Testament should be, and I think there's a lot of evidence that it's incomplete. And, I think that was done by the Pharisees. And it it started at January when they got into power. And these were the people that were in power during Jesus's time, and he he know what he called them. You know? The synagogue of Satan. This is basically that that temple was defiled by them. January. Not Are you talking about the Phariseites or the Phariseites?
Which which Pharise group is it? The parasites. Oh, I see. The it's is that giving him a bad name?
[02:46:48] Unknown:
Well, I guess so. But, Not the rusty ones like you.
[02:46:53] Unknown:
I gotcha. Mhmm.
[02:46:55] Unknown:
How do you spell myrrh?
[02:46:58] Unknown:
Oh, read the transcript. You'll get a kick out of how AI spells it. It's just m e r. It's my initials. It's an acronym. But it it puts m u r r and m y r r h.
[02:47:12] Unknown:
One of the one of the things if you look at what they were up to is and why they got exiled into, other people's nations, and their temples destroyed and stuff is because they were not in God's favor. One of the main reasons they weren't in God's favor is they worshiped other gods. They didn't keep the Sabbath. They didn't keep the Jubilees. And for that, they were exiled. Now the book of Jubilees points out all these times and things that they were supposed to keep and and the division of the lands, etcetera. So this would be a book that wouldn't be something they would wanna have around.
So I think they got rid of it.
[02:48:09] Unknown:
Do y'all think that they're like gypsy?
[02:48:17] Unknown:
Well, looks like they're not even they weren't of the tribes of Israel. They were actually from the lines of the Nestle.
[02:48:34] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:48:38] Unknown:
So you you don't even have when Jesus is there, I don't believe there was there was any God in that temple unless Jesus was in it. And I think Jesus knew that. But he was there to give him one last chance to get on board,
[02:48:59] Unknown:
and they refused. And, you know
[02:49:04] Unknown:
Too bad. So sad. I'm glad.
[02:49:11] Unknown:
But to think that they they're you know, Christianity took their word, which they're not even of the nation of Israel. Right? Not the 12 tribes. Christianity sort of took their word for what the canon should be. That was a big mistake in my mind. Anyway.
[02:49:53] Unknown:
So, Samuel
[02:49:59] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:50:00] Unknown:
What what would you say in your opinion is missing exactly from you from the bible letters?
[02:50:08] Unknown:
Well, according to this group called the God Culture, which have no denomination, they are just Bible researchers, they're saying that the community that John the Baptist was from during Jesus' time was from Qumran. Well, that's an Islamic name. It used to be called Bethabara. That's where John was from and he was keeping the original canon and what you find in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the canon and that will include they found in Dead Sea Scrolls 15 copies of Jubilees. They found the book of Enoch, the first book, not the Gnostic stuff that comes later, Esdras, Obetz, no Ruth or no Esther. I'm sorry.
And no Esther. And the other documents that were found there was like the Damascus scroll, which was about how the temple was to be properly kept, etcetera. And they railed in that document against the Pharisees and Sadducees that were in control of the temple and saying they were evil. And that's their their argument, god culture, is these people got into power. They weren't even of the 12 tribes. They weren't from the sons of Adak, which would have been the Levites who had charged to keep scripture, which is stated in Deuteronomy.
The people that were there were eliminating things that contradicted including the calendar, by the way, was wrong. And Jubilees touches on all of the times and seasons and divisions, Sabbaths, jubilees. So that's what they're saying, and I they've got an awfully good argument, and they published and have a lot of videos on the subject. They've got a 52 part video series on jubilees alone. They have over 400 videos total. So I've been listening to a lot of that stuff lately, and it's difficult to find fault with it for me anyway. I mean, to know, it would be nice to have people to, you know, discuss it with.
I don't think they're right on everything, but they, they support a lot of their stuff with real tangible evidence and history as well as what the Bible says. And their premise was these missing books is that they don't contradict with the canon. They just add more detail to it. So because if there was a contradiction, they'd like, for instance, Jasher, they think is not a good book even though it does get mentioned once, I think, in the, New Testament. They reject Jashers, and, again, it's not found in the Ditzy scrolls either. So that's what I know so far.
At some point, I wonder if Brent would be willing to take a look at what they had to say or what. They're not like a quick and easy read or what have you. Their books are in great detail, and their videos are in great detail. And it take takes quite a bit of time to to go through any one particular subject. And they're all sort of melted together because you really, really can't, appreciate one without having an overview of most of what they have to say. So I hope I answered your question.
[02:54:48] Unknown:
Oh, you did. Thank you for that. Well, I did. But, you know, I've because I've heard this,
[02:54:57] Unknown:
under my.
[02:54:59] Unknown:
Having a hard time hearing you?
[02:55:04] Unknown:
Yeah. Can you hear me now?
[02:55:06] Unknown:
That's better.
[02:55:09] Unknown:
No. I've heard this, from different people. I'm in my fifties now, so I've heard it for years. And it's not that I've come to a complete conclusion, but I I have a question that that, that also comes into this in my mind is can men, mere men, stop what God wants to really do? You know? And and to me, it it is the most important question or statement, I guess, because if God wanted his word to be meant to have his complete word, how could how could men stop that? You know? I just and I'm thinking that they can't stop. They can only do what he allows them to do in the first place anyway.
[02:56:00] Unknown:
But I'm not having I sort of feel the same same way. The way I look at it is the canon as it is is enough to get understanding and be absolutely correct about, but it it does leave out details, which I think if we had would reduce the amount of different ideas we have in the church and so many different denominations because those books clear up people who make up man made doctrine when these books are so telling you exactly what it is. That that's sort of what the god culture is saying. So I, you know, I I struggle with you know?
But, you know, I'm just putting it out there for people to look at if they want and make their own conclusions. Thessalonians also does say that we're supposed to prove all things and not to be fooled and also that we're gonna learn more things as the end comes closer. More will be revealed. Maybe that's what all this is about. You know, I don't know.
[02:57:36] Unknown:
Well, I mean Samuel. I appreciate that.
[02:57:41] Unknown:
You're welcome.
[02:57:42] Unknown:
Hey, Samuel. Samuel. What do you have another word? What's another word for a canon? Or or do you know the definition? A good definition? Your definition of canon?
[02:57:57] Unknown:
Well, to me, all all that it means is what is the word of God and what isn't.
[02:58:07] Unknown:
Okay. Thanks.
[02:58:10] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. Are you there?
[02:58:21] Unknown:
Thanks, Samuel. Thank you, Samuel.
[02:58:40] Unknown:
Samuel.
[02:58:44] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:58:46] Unknown:
This is Larry. Yeah. The historical books are called the pseudepigrapha. Have you ever heard that term?
[02:58:53] Unknown:
Yeah. And it's also a made up term along with many many things that we accept as being so. And it's made up by the same deceivers that Jesus was dealing with in his time. And basically, you know, this fancy way of saying hidden, which, I guess, could be true. Yeah. The the most compelling thing for me is this. Jesus said that John the Baptist was the most important man ever born of a woman, So that puts him above everybody. And if he was in Qumran keeping the canon, and he was a Levite. He had the lineage. The people in the temple did not. Who should we trust through the canon?
These guys were in Qumran were the outcasts, but they were the remnant from Deuteronomy saying that it's only the Levites that were to be the final word on the word of God.
[03:00:56] Unknown:
And that's it for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales, the Friday edition, Friday, 11/07/2025. Catch us here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. You can catch us on radio.globalvoiceradio.net, eurofolkradio.com, and rumble.globalvoiceradio.net. We're also on the net family of broadcast services. Catch us here and catch our website, thematrixdocs.com, where you'll find interviews, downloadables, exhibits, all kinds of things for your freedom. Thanks for joining us. Catch you next time. Ciao. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:02:02] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
Friday kickoff, stations roll call, waiting for Brent
Accents, history, and Brent joins the conversation
Naturalization, communism claims, and citizenship revocation debate
What is perjury? Common law, oaths, and evidence
Evidence, the Bible, and the role of juries
Militia, juries, and equity vs. law
Tariffs, taxes, and constitutional questions
Jury conduct, contempt, and court order authority
Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and a MAGA rift
Allegiances, Israel, and America first
Presidential oath, militia clauses, and common law roots
Post‑Trump GOP futures and youth politics
Manhood, family order, and social decline themes
Debating Old vs. New Testament sources and Greek/Hebrew texts
World War I & II histories, law of the land vs. law of the city
Farmer’s Almanac, laws of nature, and American heritage
Media gatekeepers, Internet disruption, and talk radio
Oaths on the Bible and idolatry concerns
Kent Hovind case, structuring, and legal risks
Extended post‑show: Holocaust debates, canon, and Dead Sea Scrolls
