Speaker 1: How many friends have you lost this weekend? Given politics
as people want to think of it, and the Supreme
courts boom boom boom decisions on behalf are in favor
of the Trump administration. Yep, I lost a friend this weekend.
My community in North Idaho lost two firefighters who were
apparently drawn in to an ambush and this went on
for hours, hours on a place called Canfield Peak. I
talked about this at length in the sub stack video
for today with some images, et cetera. So, if I
stand a little bit down, horrible, horrible thing in our community,
very difficult, but we're gonna talk about. There's the fact
that there's America, then there's CONTINGI Brown Jackson's America. We'll
get started with the help of Visible. This go BIS.
If you have not established actual corporate credit as a
business owner, you are making an active decision to put
your family's retirement accounts at risk. Let's go Visible dot
com and Lord God, precious Jesus, please please please bring
healing to these families of these fallen first responders, and
please please please preserve the life of the other firefighter
who is, in fact, as I understand, it's still fighting
us for us life and Lord Jesus bring peace to
broken families. Thank you Lord.
Speaker 2: The Todd Herman show is one disapproved by big pharma
technocrats in tyrans everywhere from the high mountains of Free America.
Here's the Emerald City exile God her Man.
Speaker 1: Today is the day the Lord has made, and these
are the times to which God has decided we shall live.
I don't know if you've had time to read the
opinion as it were from Catangi Brown Jackson, and because
it is a well I would say disappointment. But let's
remember that this is a woman who perjured herself during
the Senate interview to be confirmed when she pretended to
not know what a woman is. I can't say that's
perjury because it's opinion. It can't rather prove its perjury.
It was clearly perjury. She herself knew she was selected
because she is black and a woman. She knew that
she was fine with that. And you've probably read Amy
Cony Barrett's takedown of her as it were. And in
terms of Supreme Court language, this is is a short knifing.
I mean, this is a beatdown in terms of how
they choose to speak Katangi Brown Jackson's opinion, and this
is on the case of the rogue judges. She writes
phrases like this, and this is a legal insurrection. William
Gibson pulled this out. Executives, let's seem to act in
a man of the thoughts of plain text of the Constitution. Instead,
to the majority, the power hungry actors are dot dot dot.
Wait for it, dot dot dot. The District courts Amy
Cliney Barrett calls out the fact that this woman stands
in direct direct opposition to the Constitution, and in that
in this dissent that Katangi Brown Jackson writes that legalese
bores her. This is the full statement pulled out by
doctor Gibson. Professor Gibson, pardon me, I view the demise
of the notion that a federal judge can order the
executive to adhere to the Constitution full stop as a
sad day for America. The majority's unpersuasive effort to justify
this result makes it sadder still. She doesn't cite any
any presidential acts that the case was based upon that
was discussed to hear the majority tell it. This suit
raises a mind numbing technical query. Our universal injunctions sufficiently
analogous to the relief issued by the High Court of
the Chancery in England at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary
Act to fall with an equitable authority Congress granted federal
courts and the Judiciary Act of seventeen eighty nine. But
that legally ease as a smoke screen. It obscures a
far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance.
May a federal court United States order the executive fallow
the law? No, it doesn't a federal court. Can a
district court exceed the power that exists in all the
presidential law? The very very narrow scope of this. These
national mandates are new, They are novel. You do not
get to just change society on a novel basis because
you like it, not as a Supreme Court justice. If
you want to do that, get into politics, or get
into entertainment or media. And remember Catangi Brown Jackson did
try to get into entertainment when she debased the Supreme
Court by going in supposedly acting in a play that
exists only to promote same sex attraction. That's the only
reason it exists. So her version of America, we're going
to depart looking at just her. We're going to go
instead and look initially at something another courtroom had to
struggle through. I'll talk about that in just a second.
I said that she tried to act. That's true, she
did try to act. I guess I should have hold
that video just to remind everybody that she tried to act.
And of course acting is something that some people are
super super skilled at, and Hollywood has corralled them, put
them into one mindset, punish people who go outside those lines.
So what a miracle that God has allowed Angel Studios
to come out of this now becoming not yet a
major player, but getting there. And they have done something
incredibly smart. They understand that wise counsel is important, that
a fool does not want wise counsel. So they have
offered us an opportunity to become a premium Angel Studios
Guild member and to vote on the movies that they
accept into production, that they make and they promote and
they distribute, and we are the deciding factor. This is
a beautiful thing. And if you have ever carped about Hollywood.
And if you watch any media, then this is as
much of no brainer as anything. When you become a
Premium Angel Studios Guild member, you get to stream all
their fan curated shows immediately, including the groundbreaking King of
Kings movie, the animated feature about Jesus Christ that destroyed
Snow White that doesn't get enough credits. You get to
get free tickets, two free tickets to every theatrical release
from Angel Studios. And yes, you joined the Angel Studio
Premium Guild membership. We are the ones who green light
the next films. We go to Angel dot com slash
todd that's Angel dot com slash tod and march through
the door that Angel Studios has opened us into Hollywood.
So this is gonna sound utterly bizarre, and it's true,
and it received And I looked and looked and looked
for media coverage on this. I asked GROC to find
media coverage on this. A judge figured out that state
officials were allowing to take someone's family from them. They
committed perjury. Now, how does this relate to Kittenji Brown Jackson?
Because Kateenji Brown Jackson only cares about outcomes. It's about
as communists and mouse as it gets the ends justify
the means if erasing the existence, if erasing the necessity
of the Supreme Court by allowing any district court judge
to issue national injunctions on topics absolutely secured within his district.
You remember the Maryland man thing. There's no way that
could be class action. It's one man in one state,
and he wasn't a Maryland man that became a national injunction.
So ruling emotion end justify the means. Watch and or
listen to this as this judge confronts a state attorney.
Listen to this.
Speaker 3: I understand the argument that it seems to be common
sense and are ethically it's.
Speaker 4: More than common sense. It's statutes that prohibit perjury and
submission of false evidence in court cases.
Speaker 3: State statutes.
Speaker 4: Are you telling me that a person in your client's
shoes couldn't understand you can't commit perjury and a court
proceeding in order to take somebody's children away?
Speaker 3: Of course not, you're of course not.
Speaker 1: Isn't the case over then?
Speaker 4: And the case is over because what.
Speaker 3: Our clients did, which is remove the children, pursue it
to a court order.
Speaker 5: No, but what they're accused of doing. And what the
issue is here is committing perjury in a court to
take away someone's children. And you just said that's obviously
not okay to do.
Speaker 3: According to our moral compass and our ethical guidelines. But
what we're here to decide is the constitutionality of it,
and we look to the courts.
Speaker 1: I just that is so out of the bizarre. I
want Alex to do what's called reracking. Okay, I know
a little inside radio doc. Let's rerack that, Alex, and
I want you to gain Behold, there's a moment in
here where the attorney actually says, I know it's perjury.
But oh, incidentally, here's the coverage Grock found Ready, Orange
Counter Register, find Law, and the Harvard Law Review. No
local news coverage of note this bizarre video. So Katangi
Brown Jackson knows what a woman is, she knows the
definition of a woman. She chose to lie. Katangi Brown
Jackson knows that it's not boring legalese to look at
the precedence so that Supreme Court doesn't start making law.
Supreme Court goes back to the beginning. Our framework is, yes,
English common law, you don't have to like it, but
it's true. The precedence that the majority cited, and remember
it was a six to three decision. The precedents that
they decided are spots onto this. She doesn't cite precedent,
she rants. So listen again and or watch to this
and just get to that point where this woman admits
they commit perjury and then uses the phrase I know,
but I.
Speaker 3: Understand the argument that it seems to be common sense
and are ethically it's.
Speaker 4: More than common sense. It's statutes that prohibit perjury and
submission of false evidence in court cases.
Speaker 3: State statutes.
Speaker 4: Are you telling me that a person in your client's
shoes couldn't understand you can't commit perjury in a court
proceeding in order to take somebody's children away?
Speaker 1: Of course not. And the case is over.
Speaker 3: What our clients did, which is remove the children pursue
it to a court order.
Speaker 5: No, But what they're accused of doing, and what the
issue is here is committing perjury in a court to
take away someone's children. And you just said that's obviously
not okay to do.
Speaker 3: According to our moral compass and our ethical guidelines. But
what we're here to decide is the constitutionality of it,
and we look.
Speaker 1: To the court according to our moral companies and constitutional guidelines.
According to statue, you don't get to lie in court.
So here's kind of the background in this This is
from groc. The case discussed in the expos is related
to the Hardwick versus County of Orange lawsuits where Orange
County social workers were found to have lied and falsified
records leading to the removal of children from their mother
over six years. For over six years, they lied and
got to keep the kids for over six years. Here's
some of the news media coverage of this case. Orange
County Register twenty eleven zero four twenty one the article
County looses four point nine millionari lawsuit challenged overlying social workers.
Details of the lawsuit where the county is held accountable
for the actions of the social workers. So Katangi Brown
Jackson could look at this and say that's legalese. This
is boring legalese. The question before this court should be
did it feel good to take the kids away? If
you've been with us for a while, you might remember
some of the cases we've covered where courts lied to
take kids or whether officials lied to take kids. Away.
You might remember the three year journey of a woman
we had on They took her son, pretending she was
starving him. She wasn't starving him in the least. He
didn't lose weight until he went to the hospital. She
finally won her son back with a great, great, great
bit of momentum towards a lawsuit. Catangi Brown Jackson doesn't
care about process, she doesn't care about precedent. She cares
about feelings, and she is not alone in this. This
is I'll get to a case that's involves protecting the
public from keeping it by keeping people violent offenders in jail.
Then we'll get back to some of the more current
cases of Catangi Brown Jackson as a representative of leftist
thought and justify the means. And we cannot whistle past this.
So the big beautiful bill of course is hanging in
the ballots right now. And Tom Tillis, who has voted
Democrat more than Republican, has announced, you know, he's not
interested in re election. He's going to vote on his principles.
He's very, very concerned about the effects and the cuts
of medicare on his constituents, the cuts to Medicare are
largely cuts to fraud, and the amount of fraud that
we've seen in medicare is unbelievably breadtaking. So this bill
could change a lot of things. President Trump says that
the spending in it, and there's a lot, guys, there's
a lot of spending. This isn't a big beautiful bill
in my mind. It's a compromise of compromises. But it
can change the economic outlook very very quickly. So let
me ask you this. If your retirement portfolio was a
political party, how's it doing? Or better yet, a sports team? Okay,
if your retirement accounts was a sports team, how does
it look at halfway through the season or halfway through
the year. Zach Abraham is putting on a free live webinar,
a halftime webinar Thursday, July twenty fourth. He's going to
look at the country and our economy halfway through the year.
This halftime webinar is not going to It's not like
a stink and raw Ross beach. Zach will tell it straight.
He voted for President Trump, he likes most of President
Trump's policies, and he'll tell it to you straight as
he sees it. The global unrest, how does that going
to continue to affect the markets, the outlook for the
second half of twenty twenty five, and how Bulwark is
always obsessively looking for ways to lower risk and to
lower costs. So go attend this free live webinar Thursday,
July twenty fourth at Know Your Risk Podcast dot com.
That's k and OW Know Your Riskpodcast dot com. Investment
Advisor's surfaces off with their Truck Financial LLC and sec
Regid Investment Advisor investments involved risk and are not guaranteed
past performance, doesn't guarantee future results Truck twenty five that'sh
two point seven. There is America and then there's Katenji
Brown Jackson's America. This is from a case involving keeping
dangerous offenders in prison longer. US attorney Stephanie Rose objected,
this comes from Jonathan truly. It does protect the safety
of the public, though when they're not present to recidivate
unpersuaded Jackson continue, our countered, but the amount of time
in jail doesn't affect that, because there's no difference if
we keep them in jail for the extra thirty six
months or whatever whatever they're going to recidivate at the
same rate as if they re release them early. So
I don't see how public but protection is being affected
one way or the other that scenario, because during the
three years they're in prison, they're not committing new crimes.
That's the difference. Rose replied, adding that the Department had
public safety concerns over cutting prison time for so many
felons at once. People have a finite lifespan. God decides
when people die. By keeping that person out of the
public realm for a greater percentage of their life, they
then have a lesser opportunity to harm people. It's very
questionable as to if this woman has a functioning intelligence. Truly,
she doesn't get that limiting the opportunity for people to
do harm makes the public safer, or she pretending to
not get that. To the case at hand, continge you
Brown Jackson, and again go back to Jonathan Turley's analysis
of this. She said that limiting the power of individual
judges to freeze the entire federal government was quote enabling
our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that
the majority is so caught up in the minutia of
the government, self serving finger pointing argument that it misses
the point. The minutia dismissed by Jackson's happens to be
the statutory and constitutional of the federal courts. It is
the NUSHA that distinguishes the rule of law from mere
judicial impulse. Justice Barrett clearly it had enough with the
self aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that
Justice Jackson would do well to hear heed her own admonition.
Everyone from the president undown is bound by the law
that goes for judges too. She added, we will not
dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with
more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention
the Constitution itself. We only observe this Justice Jackson decries
an imperial executive, while in braking an imperial judiciary, Jonathan
Churley writing the imperial judiciary can be imperial prosecutors. That
chilling case an attorney saying, well, I know we committed perjury.
I know my client committed perjury. I know that we
stole someone's kids from them for six years based upon lies.
But we're here to decide if it was constitutional. I mean,
if you'd like to look at this from a strictly
legal perspective. That's the fruit of a poison branch. If
you affect a search without reasonable without reasonable suspicion reasonable cause,
that can get ruled out in courts because it's the
fruit of a poison branch. Back to Jonathan, Turley is
talking here about some of the jurisprudence of jackson exasperation
having to closely follow the text of the law, he
writes in an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out
against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to
free themselves from the confines or shall we say, the
minutia of statutory language. In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson
for pursuing other diversions quotes because analyzing the governing statute
involves boring legalese end quotes. Again, what Jackson refers to
as legalese is the heart of the jujitsual function in
constraints under Article three. In constraining courts of pardon me
under Article three, untethered by statutory or constitutional tax it
allows the courts to flee from the limits of the constitution.
For many that is not an escape into minutia, but
into madness without clear limits for judicial power. There is America.
Then there is Kotenji jack Brown Jackson's America. It doesn't
end there. There's more. Katenji Brown Jackson also cited with
people who want to exploit children for money. Talk about
that in a seconds. Exploitation takes many, many, many forms,
and there has been an exploitation of the power that
the government has handed the medical authorities. I'm creating a webinar.
I'm working with the people at Renewed Healthcare to put
on a webinar coming up this see July eighth, Okay,
July eighth. And in this webinar, I'm going to be there.
This is going to be at two o'clock Pacific time.
I'm going to be there. Steve Anderson, the director, the
managing partner of Renew's going to be there. Their healthcare
professions are going to be there. We may have some
successful patients there. So, if you've been curious about renew
and the ethically gathered stem cells only from umbilical cords,
world class replication of those cells so that they only
use the very best cells to solve issues neurological, physical,
keeping people out of surgery, making recovery from surgery more quick,
in fact, extending the lifespan. It seems of someone with als,
a dear, dear lady named Diane and her wonderful husband
named Brian helping my friend Mike I met down there.
Twenty two year marine no longer have knee pain when
he walks up and down the stairs, and that was
just weeks after the event. Or my friend Zach Abraham
went down for lower back stuff. Couldn't believe he sat
on a plane comfortably. He hasn't begun, not even near
their tissuary building stage, or me able to go out
and do reps at a deadlift amount that would have
caused my back to crack and shift. It doesn't do
that anymore. So here's what I'm going to ask you
to do. Go to renew rn U e dot Healthcare
and sign up for this webinar. It's coming up July eighth,
just after the fourth of July break renew dot Healthcare.
So the corruption of the medical system is one thing
we've talked about that a lot. The continued corruption of
the judiciary in this point down to the level of feelings.
Katie Bueller goes and points out a Fifth Scotis opinion
six to three Supreme Court rules Texas can require pornography
websites to verify visitors' ages, upholding a Fifth Circuit decision
that subjected the law to the lowest level of First
Amendment scrutiny. Liberals, of course, dissented. So let's just be
clear on this. We have liberals recognizing age limits for voting.
They don't like them, but they recognize them. In this case,
it's clear that the porn sites themselves have already agreed
to the age limits. They're employing them. They don't like them,
but they have to agree. The so called logic of
these people is that, yeah, there's age limits there, but
states cannot require them to verify the age, so people
can simply say, I'm eighteen. Does this work in any
physical location. It's no secret that the Left is absolutely
bent on making sure kids see as much pornography as possible.
They're putting it into the schools. Justice Jackson is part
of this. There's no mistake here. There's no coincidence the
fact that they do not want these porn sites held
to account for doing something they're supposed to do under
the law speaks to the fact that they don't like
the law, and in Katji Brown Jackson's world, not liking
the law, you get to ignore the so called legalese. Texas,
like many states, prohibits the distribution of sexually explicit content
to children. Texas Pedal Code and they name the code.
But although that prohibition may be effective against brick and
mortar stores, it has proved challenging to enforce against online content.
In an effort to address this problem, TESCS enacted and
they go through the bill which requires certain commercial announced
law commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content to verify
the ages of their visitors. This requirement furthers furthers the
lawful end of preventing children from accessing sexually explicit content,
but it also burdens adult visitors of these websites, who
all agree, we all agree with a First Amendment right
to access at least some of the content that the
websites publish. We granted Serratri to decide whether these burdens
likely render HB one one eight one on constitutional under
the free speech clause of the First Amendment. We hold
that they do not the power to require age verification
is with the state's authority to prevent children from accessing
sexually explicit content. You can check IDs, and you're supposed to.
When people fly, you can check IDs. When people attempt
to buy alcohol, in fact, must you check ideas of course,
when people want to purchase a firearm, In fact you must.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 1: Katenji Brown Jackson's world is that if a thing seems good,
wait for it, dot dot dot. Why should something as
stupid as English common law, as boring as legal ease,
as technical as the clear and distinct reading of the
United States Constitution that the voters can put limits on
what children can access in countless ways, from tattoos to
flying by themselves. States can do this, so can the
federal government. Now see there was a time, There was
a time when there was a CONTINGI Brown jack who
was not on the Supreme Court. See she was just
a so called academic. She's had a ton of jobs.
She was relatively harmless as an academic. But this speaks
to what the academic world has become. She talked person
to person. This is a segment from this programmed person
to person, and here she is describing her concern with
Donald Trump's immunity. Now, listen to how she describes Donald
Trump's immunity that the Supreme Court recognized. Listen to her description.
Speaker 6: Are president versus ordinary person, and that the idea, the
sort of founding principle of no one is above the law,
is really folded into the way the criminal justice system operates.
Speaker 7: In your dissent, you wrote that the court declared for
the first time in history that the most powerful official
in the United States can, under circumstances yet to be
fully determined, become a law unto himself. It sounds like
a warning.
Speaker 6: Well, I mean that was my view of what the
court determined.
Speaker 7: You were concerned about broad immunity.
Speaker 6: I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide
immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when
we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated
everyone the same.
Speaker 1: Catangie Brown Jackson. The ruling was this, Presidents, none of
them can be sued for carrying out their official duties,
nor can they be criminalized for carrying out their official duties.
Let me give you an example here and Zach chief investment
officer Bolwar Capital. He informed me this Congress can inside
trade all day long, openly go to need to hide it.
If you or I were sitting on an airplane and
we overlooked someone's computer screen and let's see it, had
a conversation with them over lunch. You know that they
work at this or that company, public company, for instance,
let's say it's Tesla. You know that they work at Tesla,
and you're looking at their computer screen and you see
that Tesla is launching in the first quarter of next year,
a full on commercial sale of flying cars with clearance
with the federal authorities to be able to fly in
and out of local airports. And the price point is
thirty thousand bucks. And you look at that, go, dear God,
this is going to change everything. I'm buying Tesla stock. Now.
If you did that, and it was later proven that
you did that because you came across that information by
simply look at a person's computer screen, you could go
to prison face a massive fine. A member of Congress
who approved the flying cars, who was in on the
meetings and the discussions, members of the bureaucracy that approved it,
could all openly buy stock and not be punished. The
president's official duty as president does not include murder. It
does not include sexual assault. Brock Husi and Obama bragged
about using drones to kill American citizens, which is blatantly illegal,
and he said it turns out he's good at killing folks.
Llrick Clinton committed national security filmies and hundreds of them,
and was cleared. She committed the acts which were not
official duties. It is not an official duty to share
top secret information with your lawyers who don't have clearance,
or worse, maybe given this an activist law firm, worse
with the guy who's working on your unsecured server. That's
not in the official line of duty. In fact, it's
against the official line of duty. This is the same
Supreme Court that has not bothered to go through and
find the leaker, and we can't make them. Catangi Brown
Jackson is pretending that this was broad immunity. We have
watched broad immunity. We have watched now as we have
learned that the people who ran Joe Biden gave junior
people access to the autopen assistance, access to the auto pen.
So I got to wrap this up and take this
right back up to the top here in a seconds.
And I want us to reflect upon America versus Catangy
Brown Jackson's America. Well, let's reflect on this, because there's
been a big, big price paid to have America what
it is or should be. Some of those prices are
irretrievable lives. We're going into Independence Day. We don't get
to have Independence day if we don't have a good standing,
solid military to protect us. And in my home in
North Idaho, we just saw the value of that protection.
I don't know if it was a terrorist. I know
it's a terrorist activity to use fire to draw first
responders in in order to take their lives. And I
know that brave men and women went up Canfield Peak
ultimately trying to take that guy out as they were
facing a forest fire. Who are these people, Well, at
least one of them. I know, former neighbor of mine
was up there, and I trust he's okay. In fact,
I got a text from him this morning, he's okay.
They're the sort of people like Tim Krukshank, who spent
his life protecting US three deployments as a Navy seal,
and he did this in combat. He came back and
he became a BUDS instructor and after his career in
the Navy, he decided to start a coffee company. So
I would tell you patriotically, I actually think that you
owe it to Tim to try his coffee. So how
about the Red White and Brew for Independence Day? There's
still time to order this for your Independence Day gathering.
And no, I don't like to say fourth of July.
I like to recognize what it was. It was our
independence from Tyrany. So go try a Red White and Brew.
And it's a patriotic way to celebrate Independence Day with
your family, because if you're not getting completely geeked on caffeine,
what fun is fireworks? Really? Honestly, with your now geeking
go to bonefrog dot com slash todd get ten percent
off your first purchase or fifteen percent off subscription coffee
and a coffee recommended for Independence Day of Red White
and Brew Bonefrog Cooffee dot com slash Todd. Please make
sure you use promo cod promote code tod at checkout.
Do you want to live in a world where you
can be pulled over by a police officer and you
say high officer, good morning. License registration, proof of insurance please, yes, sir,
here you are sir my ask why I is pulled over? Yeah,
I was having a bad day. You were having a
bad day, yep. Decided to pull someone over and have
some fun taking money from people. Okay, that's illegal. Yeah,
but what you're gonna do? You're pulled over? You can
drive away? Oh, I know you can beat this in court.
But you know what, I think I need to inspect
your car force. I'm just gonna do it. In fact,
you know I think this car is unsafe. I'm going
to order it toad, and you can go to court,
probably get overturned lack of evidence. Nothing happens to me,
But man, I get to enjoy watching you scuirrem and
I had a really rotten day. So step out of
the car. It's getting impounded. Well, that can't happen, right
in conting you Brown Jackson's America. It absolutely can. Here's
a prosecutor saying, yes, it's wrong to commit perjury. But
that's just legal ease. Let's rerac that, Alex.
Speaker 3: Yes, just legalese, common sense and are ethically.
Speaker 4: It's more than common sense. It's statutes that prohibit perjury
and submission of false evidence in court cases.
Speaker 3: State statutes.
Speaker 4: Are you telling me that a person in your client's
shoes couldn't understand you can't commit perjury in a court
proceeding in order to take somebody's children away.
Speaker 3: Of course not, you're of course not.
Speaker 1: Isn't the case over then?
Speaker 4: And the case is over because.
Speaker 3: What our clients did, which is remove the children, pursue
it to a court order.
Speaker 5: No, But what they're accused of doing, and what the
issue is here is committing perjury in a court to
take away someone's children. And you just said, that's obviously
not okay to do.
Speaker 3: According to our moral compass and our ethical guidelines. But
what we're here to decide is the constitutionality of it,
and we look to the courts.
Speaker 1: If you are not watching the video, the look on
the face of the judge in the top left, who
appears to be the presiding justice in this three judge panel,
his mouth is open, he's his mouth is a gape. Oh,
just one other fun fact, No one was charged with perjury.
Taxpayers paid four point nine million dollars to the family,
not the people, not those who committed perjury. There is
no record of even a civil fine for stealing someone's
children for six years. But yes, yes, yes, tell us
all about the Imperial Executive. This is the Todd Hermershaw.
Please go, be well, be strong, be kind and please
today maybe this is selfish. Please pray for the first
responders community in North Idaho and go walk in the
life of Christ.