A couple great examples. Couple three is it? People still say that.
I always forget how old nun is. It was like, you're not going
to say it's come on, okay, do tell me. I'm on pressure.
But does anyone in your generation say a couple three? No, okay,
that used to be a thing. People say, oh, it's a
couple three, it's not the same thing two or three. In fact,
the further on that goes, what is it sixty ninety, that's not even
forty? Go do math live on the show. There are some examples of
people beginning to kind of own the mockingbird medians and ways or opportunities to do
that. I should be clear, we in our realm, we don't get
to go question these reporters, but we can begin to ask some questions of
our friends through the caring and fairness lens. Remember caring in fairness. Those
are the two things about which moderates and people who can be persuaded look at
in politics. Moderates and their people, they're the persuadables, not the hardcore
progressives. They're god. Most of them are spiritually captured. We conservatives care
about we care about our border, We care about national security. We care
about law and order, we care about authoritarianism, we care about the economy,
we care about all the things. Only caring in fairness matters to these
people. So how about using a carrying in fairness lens in order to help
them begin to ask the correct questions of the mockingbird medium. In other words,
how can we own the mockingbird media members to get our country back and
more importantly, to save souls. We do this with the help of Bonefrogcoffee
dot com, slash Todd and through the good grace of God Almighty. The
Todd Herman Show is one hundred percent disapproved by big pharma technocrats and tyrants everywhere.
Now from the high mountains of Free America, here's the Emerald City exile
God her Man. Today is the day the Lord has made, and these
are the times to which God has decided we shall live. There's an old
trick that I learned back in the sales day sales days, back in the
see who is that Brian Tracy. Brian Tracy was the sales trainer who put
out great sales training audio tapes. And when you were trying to be in
the sales game, you listen to Brian Tracy's you drove around and he'd teach
you things like the porky pine clothes. What's a porky pine close? Porcupine
closes, We're gonna toss it back at the customer. So you're walking through
the car lot with somebody, or in my case, the hot tub lot.
When I was in retail sales, only did retail sales in hot tubs.
Everything else was business and business. But sitting there retail sales walking along
at the home show used this. At the home show, guys looking at
a really high end spa and he says to me, does that come in
brown? Now see the amateur response to that is, let me check the
Brian Tracy tape listener to, because I listened to by Brian Tracy on the
way to the home show. I use the porcupine clothes? Do you want
it in brown? And then the trick is you just wait, never speak
past the clothes. Do you want it in brown? Doom doom, doom,
doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom,
doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom,
doom, doom doom. Yes, of course we have it in brown,
then you go check to see if you have it in brown. He
also described the Colombo clothes. I've used this, it actually worked. I
use it in business to business sales. I was selling what I was taught
to call pressure sensitive labels. Don't you dare stinking call them stickers or I
will take you up back and I will whoop you. Purple and blue their
precious sensitive labels. So selling pressure sensitive labels out in business to business,
I sat down with a buyer, LeAnn Iso lady named Peggy. She was
very professional, and she said, Hey, I need to let you know
we're not getting able to do business in this round. I appreciate your approach
to this, and but we'll we'll invite you back for another bid. I
may ask if it was price. No, it wasn't so much price,
But we've made the decision, and so the decision stands, and you know
again, we'll invite you to bid again. Okay, I appreciate that,
Peggy, And I'm grabbing my stuff up and making some small talk. You
know, Hey, I'm getting this up. Get plans for the weekend.
Yeah, I'm doing this with kids, and you're too young for kids.
I hope to have kids one day, and I like for kids. And
you know, my mom's a teacher, dad's a social worker, and you
know how many kids you have and sells them gathering up my stuff. Are
kind of bonding on this and oh my gosh, these are your kids over
here. And she knows what I'm doing. I'm creating a relationship, trying
to and we walk out the door and just before I goes, hey,
just one thing, Peggy, you said it wasn't price. But I'm so
new at this, I'm a little lost. I mean, can you just
actually what was it? She looks around, she goes, Okay, it's
really much more an issue of ownership that I guess. There's been some bad
blood between Bill and my boss. Oh okay, man, I'm sorry to
hear that. Thank you so much for telling me that. I feel better
because I really felt like I sharpened a pencil on this. That was the
thing you'd say back in the day when you'd done your best on Price.
I really sharp into the pencil. So of course I go back to the
office and I knocked on the door of the owner and I said, hey,
here's what happened. Oh, I know exactly what this is, I'll
take care of it. You put in a call, I got a call.
We closed the deal. It was a stupid thing about a kid's birthday
party. Someone didn't get an invitation, someone was hurt, and Bill was
actually gracious enough to come back and let me in on that. So I
asked a question in a way that invited Peggy to reveal to me some information.
I was seeking information, and I was doing it in a way that
conveyed a little bit of humility. We can do the same thing when we're
talking now about the mockingbird media. And I don't know about you, but
I find it deeply frustrating and, in fact, to be well blunt,
a little bit horrifying, how many of my friends just give into the mockingbird
media. They think they know things because they hear things on the mockingbird media.
I was just talking with a brother the other morning and he brought up
the explosion in gun violence and particularly mass shootings, and he was just saying,
well, upon in fact, these really these things have skyrocketed. And
I listened to this, and I didn't respond because it was in a church
setting, and I didn't want to respond in a church setting. To politics,
and we were getting ready for a discipleship group, and it's far more
important for me to be there united in the body of Christ. Super great
guy, and he, at one point sort of a break of the conversation,
showed me this meme. I said, right, they changed the definition
to what and mass shooting means. It doesn't even need to mean a It
doesn't need to mean anymore that there were any deaths, and they've dropped it
down to the number three. And sometimes it's just attempted shootings or shootings in
the same area, and oftentimes it's things like gang shootings, sometimes even accidental.
Oh right, he had taken a meme and grown to have an understanding.
He's a conservative guy. We're going to have this understanding, which was
of course all wrong. So in that case, I just issued the information.
But that's not going to work for people who were committed to a moderate
or liberal point of view, caring in fairness. So we'll start with Jeffrey
Epstein here. In a second. We'll start with that because there's ways to
do this, because there is a new financial or there's a new document dump
around Jeffrey Epstein, who in all likelihood was the most prolific pedophile on earth,
probably a sex trafficker, well not probably was a sex trafficker, but
also was a eugenesis looking to recede the world using his sperm and the eggs
of beautiful young women. That was a legitimate plan this psychopath had. And
there's all sorts of ways to twist science for bad results. Say he was
one one example of that. There's other ways to use science for your advantage.
When the people who make the Native Path products, you know, I
use now a host of their products. I use their Native Path hydration,
which is a very very good hydration products, zero sugar, et cetera whole
bunch of electrolytes and BCAAs. I use that now at the gym and outside
the gym, and it was going to be absolutely core to my seal fit
pursuit. I'll be drinking a ton of it this weekend. As a matter
of fact, they use science and scientific study to their advantage to create a
better Omega three. If you use omega threees, you're probably using fish oil,
and that fish oil probably comes from farm fish, and those farmfish are
probably raised in waters that aren't as clean as they could be. And then
there's just the very nature of fish versus crustation based Omega threes krill come from
the Antarctic. These are wild farm Antarctic krill, the mega threes. The
oils from these crustaceans are far more absorbable than the fish oil, meaning they
get to work better. Meaning in terms of potency per dollar, you're saving
money because the product's that much more potent. Me you feel better quicker,
and it's not just fighting inflammation. Although this has been extraordinary for me.
That blew me away that I had been an idiot taking iberprofen four pills a
night, sometimes four in the morning as well for all those years, putting
my liver at risk, my kidneys, my heart, my brain, my
immune system, my gut. When I learned that iberprofen causes inflammation, I
felt like the world's biggest walking around idiot sucker, giving into the clothes.
We'll make you feel better. So, if you're taking Omega threees now and
it's not helping it to inflammation, do this. You did nativepathcrill dot com
slash todd get the Native Pathcrill product. Compare the results to that. If
you're not taking Omega threees, you need to start, because most people are
absolutely deficient on this, and look at me. I eat fish almost exclusively
for my whole food protein, and I was short on it. Nativepathcrill dot
com slash. There's a new document dump that Florida prosecutors have gotten in relation
to Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutors were told that he raped girls as young as fourteen,
but they decided to go ahead and cut him a deal anyway. This
is from the New York Post. Florida prosecutors heard testimony that disgraced financier Jeffrey
Epstein raped teenage girls, but cut a deal with him in two thousand and
eight anyway, according to newly released court crime transcripts, the one hundred and
fifty page transcript of the two thousand and six jury investigation reveals the court heard
testimony about Epstein sexually assaulting girls as young as fourteen inside his Palm Beach mansion.
The victim also testified and told detectives they were paid to find Epstein more
girls to assault. In a horrowing case that ended with the pedophile sentenced to
less than two years in prison after taking a plea deal, the Florida Circuit
judge Louis Delgado, who released the pages of Monday, warned that the transcripts
would likely outrage anyone who read them. Well, they should outrage everybody who
reads them. The transcripts showed that Palm beached up. Police detective Joe Recory
began the investigation against Epstein in March two thousand and five when a Rubin reported
that her stepdaughter received three hundred dollars three hundred bucks in exchange for sexual activity
with the man in Palm Beach. Another teenager told the detectives that when she
was seventeen years old, a friend told her she could make two of dollars
by providing a massage at Epstein's home. When the teen got to Epstein's home,
she told investigators, Epstein demanded she removed her clothes and massage him.
According to Recay's testimony, when he tried touching her, the teenager told him
she was uncomfortable. Epstein then told the girl he would pay her if she
brought other girls to his homestressing that they must be young, and he told
her the younger the better. Over time, the teenager told detectives she brought
six friends from her high school to Epstein's home, including a fourteen year old
girl. She added that when she brought up her twenty three year old friend,
Epstein refused and told her that the woman was too old, And it
continues. Epstein, of course, was tragically suicided in a prison cell that
was designed to present to prevent suicides. But sadly the cameras were turned off
and the guards fell asleep and he was taken off of watch, and then
he was suicided. Caring in fairness, you know, a moderate friend,
I know this has turned into kind of a stupid political football. It's so
sad. Do you think it's I mean, how do you think it's fair
that men like Jeff Epstein got deals like that and were allowed to continue to
do what they were doing. But do you think that's fair? No,
of course not. Yeah, I just don't think it shows any caring for
the girls. Like can I ask a question? Why do you think?
Why do you think that media chose not to talk about this case? I
mean, you probably have your point of view. I mean I'm frustrated with
some of the networks that didn't do that, like ABC, And why do
you think they chose to not talk about that? And they had the information.
People like Sidney McCain had the information. Why do you think they did
that? It invites them to pause. You are positioning them as someone whose
opinion matters to you, and you're letting them have an open canvas. You're
not issuing your theories. You're simply asking a question. I don't mean to
break the Ben Shapiro rule. We conservatives know they answer Ben Shapiro rules.
You don't just ask questions. Ask questions, because that's a bad thing.
You are inviting them to pause and think and reply, like I did with
Peggy the Buyer. You know, Peggy, I'm so new to this and
I'm feeling confused, and hey, he's just now you said it's not price.
Can you help me understand what's really going on? You're asking your friends
what do you think really is going on? There are some times where you
can watch people actually get out and straight out, straight out ask a very
very pointed question. We'll get to this from Newsmax is James Rosen in a
second here, who asked this of the figurehead spokeslar, the main spokes liar
KGP. I do want to share with you and approach that it is sometimes
used behind the scenes, increasingly so from conservatives in media who understand the game
that's being played against them. This comes specifically from a woman named Ashley Saint
Clair who got an email from Karen Urrish with the New York Times. So
what this says in a second, when you get a letter from the New
York Times, or you get a letter from an investigative journalist, and I've
gotten these letters, there are people who just flat panic. I remember back
in the day when the New York Times wanted to make me into a January
sixth participant. That was their goal because it's something I said on Rush Show
during January sixth. They got in touch with my program doctor. They could
have reached out to me. It would have been easy enough to get to
me. They could have found my contact information in about six seconds. They
could have gotten my email in about six seconds. They didn't want to.
They wanted to panic the people at the radio station to you know, they're
thinking that my boss would force me to speak to them. So when Jason
called me, all panicked, he said, New York Times, they think
that you lied about Antifa being there on January sixth, and they're great,
it's a hit piece, Todd, they got a hit piece coming. I
listened to this and I go, wow, you sound really worried. Yeah,
I'm worried. Help me understand why? Well, because the New York
Times could really hurt us. How No, I'm confused. How could they
hurt us? Well, I mean, this is a hit piece and it's
the New York Times. This could really affect us with advertisers our station.
How would that be because our audience hates the New York Times. Your Times
can't convince him of anything? All right, all right, but ownership,
okay, paradough ownership. You got to reply to this guy, Todd.
You got to get back to him on the phone. He's writing. Now
you think I'm anna call him, I'm not calling a New York Times reporter.
I'll write an email, but I will not call him. So I
did. I wrote an email and said you can use it all in my
statement, in total or not. And if you don't use it, you
have to write herman provided a statement we've chosen not to use. Those are
the rules. And by reading the email reading my statement, you accept those
rules. And I attached the statement so it couldn't just be read. He
had to read the email and then hit the attachment. It worked, It
insulated me, but man, people were sleepless on this. Karen Iurish wrote
a note to a woman named Ashley Saint Clair who's a fantastic Christian activist and
political activist, and here's the way she fra here's the email. We're working
on a story about mar Largo and are reaching out because you will be included
in a group of people who have visited the property at least three times since
Donald Trump left the White House. Question the results of the twenty twenty election,
played down the seriousness of the events at the Capitol in January sixth,
twenty twenty one. Please let us know if you believe any of these details
to be incorrect. Our deadline is noon Friday. See the way this is
phrased is easy enough to read. The two copy points and then the third
played down the seriousness of events at the Capitol because questioning the results of the
election, that's binary, yes or no. Visited the property at least three
times, that's yes or no. But that last phrase played down the seriousness
of the events, completely open ended. That's by design. It's to draw
you in so that you get back to them immediately. And the reason that
they put the deadline on it is A it's professional courtesy, it is,
and B it's also to get your cortisol levels up. They're going to put
a hit piece out on me. Here is how Ashley Saint Clair wrote back,
This is perfect when you're dealing with the mockingbird media. Here's why it
is showing them that you're not afraid of them. The fear of the thing
is almost always greater than the thing itself. And if you are ever in
a situation where you're going to be faced with bodily violence, one of the
things you want to convey to the other person is there's no limits on what
I'm willing to do. I will do the things you think I will not
do, so, Ashley Saint Clare writes back, Hi, Karen. In
twenty sixteen, you publish a New York Times piece promoting the idea that the
border crisis was a racist Trump conspiracy. Since you're peddling these dangerous falsehoods,
The US has seen a two hundred and four percent increase in death by open
border if you count fentanyl alone, and estimated ten million migrants have come into
our country illegally with little to no vetting. Do you regret using your position
at the New York Times to push its a jedly and consequential narrative. Ps
at least include photos of my dress I made moral lag grow even more fabulous,
a little rush limball style self effacing humor. There love it. It's
a fantastic way to say to the Mockingbird media your days of one way rayroading,
one way hit pieces are over. And to our friends as we seek
to own the Mockingbird media, here's a great question for them. How do
you think the media? I mean in general, how do you think they
decide on what story is to talk about and not talk about? Do you
think there's a fair process for that? But what do you know about it?
Because I actually don't know the process they go through. Have you looked
into this? Do you think it's a fair process? And by the way,
how about you think they care about the people who read their publications?
Again, it's a thought starter. Again, it's a way to get an
emotional connection to someone who's consuming news emotionally, and it's a chance again to
position that as someone who whose opinion matters. It's a door opening conversation.
In the era of social media, there's plenty of people who will have seen
this clip. It has no doubt made it into the social media feeds of
liberal people because it's likely to upset them. But a conversation like how do
you think the media chooses the story's report on? Is an opportunity to have
a fruitful conversation, even about something like this. This is James Rosen from
Newsmax asking questions of the White House spokes liar is disabled? No? No,
and let me finish with your colleague please, And I know, but
shouting out, come on, you know better, you know better? Come
on? Is he disabled? The conversation continues, and in the conversation comes
this, why aren't you releasing his medical reports? KGP? Well, we've
been very forthright in releasing him. No, the last one was six months
ago and it didn't contain anything neurological. Why aren't you're releasing those? Question
for your friends? Do you think it's fair of the White House too?
In the Hut, in the midst of this controversy over the debate, do
you think it's fair for them to not release the neurological exults? And you
could use the phrase, well President Biden's mind, do you think it shows
caring for the country If they don't do that, is it fair to us?
Well? And frankly, I'm not going to vote for him, but
you are. Is it fair to you to not release this? Shouldn't you
have some idea of his state of mind and mental health if he's going to
continue to be in the White House as the leader. And again, I
don't think Biden's leading anything, but we're talking here about how to own the
Mockingbird media with our friends. There is this as well. When you are
confronted with Christian bigotry from the Mockingbird metiing and rampant abuse of the Christian faith
from the Mockingbird media, we have in our hands an opportunity absolutely fit for
gold and silver, and opportunity. CNN talking about what they claim is in
the Bible is a great, great chance for us to engage our friends in
conversation about who they see us to be. This again, is CNN talking
about beheadings and the Bible and pornography. We just referenced it, and in
this you're saying that the teaching of the Bible in the classroom is a mess
that every teacher must accept that the Bible includes beheading, rape, and incest.
Do you support teaching children about those topics. I support teaching children our
history accurately. And what we've seen is the radical left in the Teachers' Union
have driven the Bible out of schools. You can't talk about our rights coming
from God, this Thomas Jefferson reference. You can't talk about Abraham Lincoln talking
about being on God's side and what he does and that inspires him. You
can't talk about the civil rights movement Martin Luther King Junior, who routinely referenced
examples from the Bible, including from a letter from a Birmingham jail, to
say, the reason I'm doing the things I'm doing is because of the tenants
taught to me by the Bible. So it's essential that our kids understand our
history and we're going to put it back in. And the left is going
to continue to try to censor our history. Well, we're not going to
allow it here in Oklahoma. Okay, you didn't answer my question. We're
going to get to the history and everything. And by the way, Thomas
Jefferson, he advocated for freedom of religion, actually not the establishment of a
religion, for one. But are you okay with all teachings of the Bible
if you want to bring it back into the classroom, rape and cessihaden?
Are you? Is that acceptable to you? Again, I'll answer your question.
You might not like the answer, but it is the answer. It
is our history that the reference the Bible was a referenced multiple times in a
Marria and history. It had a profound influence on American history. It was
the best selling book in American history. To not teach that in the classroom
is academic malpractice. Our kids have to understand our history and we're not going
to hide that from them. Okay, So she of course wants this answer
to this. Wait, wait, wait, what about the pornography? And
this is the Secretary of Education for the state of Oklahoma and Ryan Walters,
who has just passed to rule saying that the Bible will be taught in schools.
He's not doing a great job at this. There's a great answer to
this, and it goes to caring in fairness again. And the CNN talking
head's going to continue down this path because there's something that she wants to score.
She needs a little meat out of this, So will you allow teachers
to teach all aspects of the Bible. How are teachers supposed to know what
of the Bible to teach and what of the Bible not to teach. It's
a simple question, given the fact that the Bible includes also pornographic material,
something you've come out against and actually took a teaching certificate away from a teacher
for giving access to students of pornographic material that's in the Bible. Yeah,
let me be crystal clear. The Bible is not on the same plane as
gender queer and flamer. These are pornography. The Bible is a book that
was referenced throughout American history. We have academic standards that tell our teachers that
you are to talk about the Bible and reference to the Mayflower Compact, Letter
to do from a Birmingham jail, the Declaration of Independence. Here's the answer.
Wow, I wonder is it really fair for you to take the Bible
that teaches against abusive sexual acts, that admonishes that they should not happen.
That shows the terrible costs that even a man after God's heart, like King
David, paid what he decided to go pursue and get to have sex with
and then later in perverse marriage, marry a woman named Bethsheba. He lost
his son because of that. God took his son because David pursued his fleshly
desire. You're really going to compare that to a book called Gender Queer,
which is encouraging eleven and twelve year old boys to in experiment with sex with
adult men. You're really going to make that comparison. How is that fair
to a Christian audience? Why are you doing this? Why are you pretending
this is pornography? The fact of the matter is this the Bible is,
and you can call it the historical document. It's true. It's a great
historical document. I'm personally a Christian. I believe it's a complete and inerrant
word of God. And I would ask you this, why would God hide
things from us when we are in another happening and said to teach about them?
The Bible's the document that led to the end of slavery. It was
the Reverend doctor Martin Luther King who so often quoted the Bible in answer to
teaching all of it. Absolutely will teach all of it, including the admonitions
against rape and incest, and by the way, the sacrificing of babies,
which is promoted on a constant basis on your network CNN. To our friends
when things like this come up, we get the opportunity to say, to
our friends who are going to maybe speak about a clip like this and they
talk about Christians in the hypocrisy, we have a way to deal with this,
and that is to reach in and say, I'm curious, do you
include me in your assessment of Christians in that way? Are you including me
in that that would really hurt me if you were caring in fairness is a
potent lens to view things, but also a potent way to draw people in
and to have conversations with them. So is the ability to point to utterly
outrageous statements by utterly outrageous people who get to have the well moral cloaking of
being outraged about something immoral. A couple of cases like this. In fact,
they are now all over the place in terms of people being willing to
talk about assassinating the president. Now there's an opportunity to do this because the
Supreme Court says, certainly, that's exactly what the Supreme Court says, Right,
Can you smell this one coming. Probably can in your home and your
RV, in your camper, in your cabin, in your college dorm,
your military dorm. Smells build up. Don't believe it. Wait till you
come home from summer vacation. Do this. If you haven't been home in
a few weeks and you walk in from summer vacation, open the doors your
house and inhale. Now, maybe your house smells absolutely absolutely pure, but
maybe not particularly if you have pets or you smoke. And if you smoke,
I beg you please stop. If you cook a lot of garlicly foods
or fishy foods, you're gonna have that. And again the pets thing,
that's so axiomatic, that always creates some form of smell, even if it's
just dog dander. Well, the cats, that's another story. It does
not need to be an embarrassment when you open your door if people knock on
the door and you weren't expecting, Oh hi, mom. You can have
what we have in the studio and that I have at home. It's called
the Eden pure oxy leaf. Two. Friend of mine just put this in
his medical clinic because it happens to be located within a gym. And he'd
like it to smell like a medical clinic, not a gym. And so
it does. And in fact, what it smells like is the fresh smell
of immediately following a thunderstorm where God has produced oh three, that's ozone in
the air, which is in fact a pleasant smell. Those particles, the
three molecules, destroy the molecules of the bad smelling stuff. And I'm going
to save you two hundred bucks. Three devices. Whole home coverage for under
two hundred dollars is a two hundred dollars says, get these, you plug
them into the wall, they're done, or need them in your car.
And a friend of mine had a terrible stink in his car. He's able
to plug in the Eden Pure auxy Leaf two in there and boom, that
smells gone. Just go to edenpeerdeals dot com use code Todd three. That's
t DD three and the website is Edenpure deals dot com code Todd three.
Jake's Tapper has made a now habit of insisting that because of the Supreme Court
decision that President Trump and all presidents have limited immunity for the official acts they
undertaken office. He insists that this means that they can go around assassinating US
citizens. That was a stunning moment in April. Did the Court just say,
yeah, you can assassinate a political rival. No, I don't think
they did. That's a ridiculous answer by Donald Trump's eam, a dangerous and
reckless answer. One really important thing, the basis for Donald Trump's legal argument
that maybe he can order an assassination still be okay. Is this preposterous argument
that they offered below that while a president can only be indicted if he's first
impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected
that argument. They impeachment has nothing to do with this. That's not the
test to your question, Jake. Someone's got to decide what's the official act?
Right that the challenge here, and this was what Serta Mayer was getting
at in her point. Somebody has to make the call as to whether even
the seal, the preposterous Seal Team six example, falls under the ambit official
acts. And that's litigation main months in court. No, agreed. I
think that's something that will have to be decided by the trial court. If
we were faced with that preposterous type of scenario. So listen to this,
because obviously there is a crisis of confidence in the US Supreme Court, among
many other institutions in America. And I want to just read from something from
a Judge Justice Soto Mayor's dissent on some of these issues that we're talking about.
Let the President violate the law, she writes in her dissent. Let
him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, Let him use his
official power for evil ends, because if he knew that he may one day
face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless
as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today.
Orders the Navy Seal Team six to assassinate a political rival, Immune, organizes
a military coup to hold on to power. Immune takes a bribe in exchange
for a pardon, Immune Immune, Immune Immune. That is the majority's message
today. From Sonya So Toomi Ar. Yeah, I mean, it's a
remarkable and very stark way to think about it. And you mentioned the crisis
of confidence in the Supreme Court are varying institutions. I just I can't help
but think while on the one hand, yes, this is a decision that's
going to affect presidents far into our future. You can't pull it apart from
the immediate political context in which we are living. And note that in a
five to four decision like this split along ideological lines like this is going to
excuse me, I may have misspoken, am you did? And you're the
same lady Casey Hunts who misspoke and said that the Bible contains pornography. It
doesn't. There are no descriptive acts of sex in the Bible. At no
time are the descriptive or sillacious. The point about the immunity and Trump is
this in relation to caring in fairness. When President Trump is put up on
charges this way, and the discussion is going to be what is an official
act? Here's a great question. I'm curious, are we going to go
retroactively back and look at things that's save, for instance, save for instance
fundraising trips. I mean, presidents do this all the time. They get
on Air Force one and they do gum some ceremonial thing, some announcement where
hey, we're opening a new parking lot. The presidents here at an air
and we're going to name it after a congressman. Oh, by the way,
want he's in town, is going to spend the next twenty five hours
doing fundraising. Do you think there's a fair way to do that? A
fair way to say this is that for this president and another or this?
Do we care why the founders created this immunity in the first place, why
they made it difficult for one branch to go attack another? Do we care
about the history of that? Would it be fair for us to take a
case like this and apply today's standards to something when we don't care enough to
be fair to look at why it was created? For instance, how much
have you read about for why that immunity was created. We are framing things
in ways that liberals and moderates think they think about caring in fairness. We
get an opportunity to feed into that. Here's my concern. I think it
could become deeply unfair in periods of time where one Congress controls one party controls
Congress if they decided to use this to say that nothing a president did is
official, unless it say, signing a bill. Now, if it was
only knowble, it is the president is not allowed to murder Americans. He
is not allowed to be judge, jury and executioner. That requires a court
system. It requires adjudication. Now, in terms of war on foreign soil,
that is a different issue because the Congress gave para mean, the Constitution
gives the president a right to do that when the war is declared. At
no point does it give a president the right to murder someone on American soil
who happens to be an American citizen. And understand why Trump's lawyers allowed themselves
to be backed into the corner of saying, okay, well, I guess
he could because they were arguing for blankets immunity. That's what they were trying
to get from the court. They didn't get that, they got some immunity.
Caring and fairness is our way to deal with this. There's one more
on this topic. It comes from MSNBC. MSNBC talking about presidents violating the
Constitution. I want to ask one more question. So, and this is
how I read it. You tell me if it's wrong, because you guys
are legal minds and I am just you know, playing one on television.
I read it as you can use there. They're reading the Constitution as saying
it implies an authority or implies immunity to a president so much so so broadly
that even his motivations can't be questioned if he were trying to violate the Constitution.
So it was circular. Is that an incorrect reading of it? No,
I don't think so. I think there are a lot of things about
this decision that are sort of tautological, and there are a lot of things
about it that are just simply illogical, you know. To point out pick
up on Catherine's point about Amy Coney Barrett and her concurrence in part, she
drops a footnote saying like it's it's lost on her why the fake electors scheme,
for example, could plausibly be official that the president has no role whatsoever
in themistration of federal elections. To her, there's no analysis that needs to
be done, she says, squarely, the fake Elector's scheme, in its
totality is private conduct. But that's not how the majority sees it. Despite
admissions from Trump's lawyers at oral argument, are they saying that the constitution protects
the president from allows the president to violate the Constitution? Well, put that
way, yes, basically, he has absolute immunity for his core constitutional function
so I'm the president, so I can do what I want, even if
I'm trying to violate the constitution nix, which is what Donald Trump was accused
of doing in twenty If only we had a system, if only we had
a body of government that was designed to determine something is constitution or not.
Like the Supreme Court, it does not say the president can violate the Constitution
and get away with it. This was about criminal charges. Is it fair
for an MSNBC host who knows better to pretend that the Supreme Court doesn't have
the role of determining the constitutionality of something? By the way, honestly,
how fair is it to your side when they make it so easy for us
to say, wait, Joe Biden for the third time violated the Supreme Court
decision on forcing me to pay for your college debt. And I'm thinking here
about my family. My family is I'm the only recent I'm the only family
member I can think of who didn't go to college. Well, I went,
but I dropped out after a year of small college football, very small
bit of football on a very small college football team. I dropped out to
go play in bands so I could have a conversation with my much more much
more educated I mean classically educated in terms of schooling. I could have a
conversation with family member saying that just that thing, do you think it's fair
for me to pay for your college debt given that I didn't go? And
more importantly, is it fair to your side? The Democrat side that it's
so easy for me to say, wait a minute, you don't care about
the constitutionalogy something that's very very clear. There's more news in terms of fairness,
and it's actually good news, and it comes from the COVID front.
We'll get to that in a second. Because health related stuff is not stuff
we're going to stop talking about. I refuse to stop tracking the great ruin
that was done through the medical, useless, deadly, politically advantageous lockdowns of
the country. There's also this news one hundred million Americans are walking around with
something that's inside them that could lead to not just well, pain, discomfort,
et cetera. It could lead to them getting on a lot of drugs
like statins. Please please think carefully about getting on statins. It could lead
to people feeling sluggish and tired and just really run down all the time.
It's called fatty liver disease, and this happens largely when people have become obese
or far too heavy. The people who make the Fatty Liver formula want you
to know that their product is not something you should take for the rest of
your life. They want you to hear this. If you drop the extra
fat, the fatty liver is going to go away in all likelihood if you
don't do that or in the process of while you're doing it, do not
let yourself get liver disease, because that's where fatty liver can lead. This
Fatty Liver Formula contains eleven clinically proven botanicals to help recharge and protect your liver,
to help you get back to getting decent sleep, to help turn around
things like feeling sluggish, even to help you in your pursuit of dropping fat
so you no longer need their product. Here's what you can do. Buy
a thirty day supply of Liver Health Formula and get a free bottle of a
gift product from them. You go find out what it is good to liver.
Getlverhelp dot com. Slash todd comes with a free gift for you when
you get a thirty day supply again is getliverhelp dot com slash todd. Get
liverhelp dot com slash todd. They're a health company that's telling you flat out
please don't consider our products something you should take for the rest of your life.
On the other hand, Pharma the government has given I think it's about
one hundred and seventy million bucks. I'll get the specifics back to Pharma to
go create guess what lucky you and mr and a injection for bird flu,
well, you know the bird flu that's just being rampant right now. In
farm animals. You know the farm animals that they're gonna be told they're gonna
have to do away with like they did in Netherlands. Remember that I won't
stop covering this because they won't stop covering it. Blue Cross has been ordered
to pay a seven hundred thousand dollars settlement to a woman. This is from
life site News insert Giants blue Cross. Blue Shield must pay nearly seven hundred
thousand dollars in damages to a former employee after refusing to grant her religious exemption
to its COVID injection dictat. Please don't call them jabs. Jabs are more
of a pleasant thing. Please please use language well. A federal jury awarded
the damage to Tanjab Benton last week. She first filed for a lawsuit in
mayle twenty twenty two. Benton proved by preponderance of evidence that her refusal to
receive the COVID vaccination was based upon a sincerely held religious belief. According to
the June twenty eighth judgment order posted by journalist Robbie Starbuck, the damages out
of work for total of six hundred and eighty seven two hundred and forty dollars.
Benton worked as a biostatistical research scientist for sixteen years, according to the
national lawsuit, since lockdowns began in the spring of twenty twenty, she rarely
interacted in person with clients, according to the lawsuit. For some clients,
several years would pass before requesting a meeting with the plaintiff, the lawsuits stated.
The lawsuit estimated that just one percent of her working hours involved client interaction.
Benton also never performed any work or attended any meetings in medical facilities where
patients were being treated during her entire career. She objected to the so called
vaccine due to her religious beliefs, since COVID shots are derived from avoided fetal
cells and it is a fact that they are. The Civil Rights Act of
nineteen sixty four General requires employers to try to accommodate the deeply held religious beliefs
of their employees. Oh it's right here, I forgot we had it here.
More good news on the COVID front, Except it's not. It's a
side by side comparison of caring and fairness. These injections failed. They have
killed many people and disabled many people. But that doesn't mean that government's going
to stop us. Government has given one hundred and seventy six million dollars to
Maderinitay to develop an mRNA H five and one bird f injection. Why well,
because the cases are rampant. Don't you know there's been some cows who
died from this. Don't you remember that the cow that supposedly died from this
in Mexico, the Mexican government had to come out and say that was not
bird flu. That didn't kill that cow. Is it caring and fair for
the mockingbird media to continue to destroy credibility institutions by issuing statements that come straight
from the institutions without taking a moment to question them. We can own the
mockingbird media by owning our responses to them and using the lens of caring and
fairness, or, as the Lord Jesus might put it, teaching truth wrapped
in grace. This is the Todd Hermann Shaw. Please go, be well,
be strong, be kind, and please make every effort to walk in
the light of Christ had pass befo