Speaker 1: What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all of the links, become
a patron, go to dpeakclendarshow dot com. Make sure you
hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right
to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so
much for your support. We still I still have a
lot of messages to get through, and we had some
phone calls from people throughout the last two hours, some
you know, not so great, having a hard time coming
up with some sort of excuse to rationalize this and
why people on the rights, we're just making too much
out of this assassination of Charlie Kirk, a man with
somebody pointed out on the text line eighty five million followers.
It was a very public figure. He was a person
engaged in the political debate in the arena. He was
shot from distance at two hundred yards roughly from a
rooftop by a gunman who laid in wait for him
and according to law enforcement, had etchings or markings on
the AMMO of transgender slogans and anti fascism slogans, or
as CNN called it, cultural sayings. That's what they identified
it as. There was a news conference apparently scheduled for
twelve forty five Utah time, which would have been about
fifteen minutes ago our time, but it was postponed due
to quote rapid developments. So hopefully they caught him or her.
I don't want him misgender. Actually, I will let me
go over and get Joe on real quick. Hello, Joe,
welcome to the program.
Speaker 2: Hey man, Yeah, your last done in the head that
was screaming and hollering about this wasn't political. I mean,
like you just said, how do you You're known by
eighty five million people on social media followers and it's
because you're a conservative Republican and that's what you do
for a living, and it's not political. I just I
don't get it. And your definition of assassiation a public figure, well,
I don't know, you get more of a public figure
besides the president. Let's got eighty five million followers. I
don't you know?
Speaker 1: Again, just not rational, right, it's trying to search for
an excuse to minimize and dismiss the importance. And honestly,
I am encouraged by that kind of reaction that I
have heard from sort of the usual suspect callers that
we've gotten today. I'm encouraged because there is no argument
that they are making that is cogent or coherent. There
yet you yet, they know how bad this is, because
they have just red pilled millions and millions of people
and that may never look at a Democrat to vote
forever again.
Speaker 2: Ever, Yeah, because I mean it's just it's we're getting
sick and tired of this. I mean, I don't have it.
Like Russia used to say, they can't win on the
in the UH, in the debate of ideas, right, they
have to stack the court, they have to cheat on
UH elections, and now they've got to kill people because
they're losing. They can't they can't win on their on
the merits.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Leftism at its core is always about envy and force, yes, always,
I mean that's what Marxism is and so.
Speaker 2: Exactly, I mean that's what the Castro was. Oh, you know,
we're going to give you more of the rich people.
You know, they're horrible, blah blah blah blah blah. Well,
you know, if it wasn't for Cargie and Morgan and
you know, our country would never be as great as
it was.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I mean again, but all of these historical
figures that you just mentioned, they are all uh, you know,
portions of good and bad because they were human beings, right,
so they did exactly exactly right, right, they did good,
they did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I loved I used to love rush with
always at Thanksgiving, and that's coming up always. The real
story of Thanksgiving is when they came over in the Mayflower.
They actually set up a socialist government and it failed.
It wasn't because they didn't know how to you know,
some of it was they didn't know the lay at
the land. But the reason it failed is for human nature.
There was plenty of people that didn't want to work,
and they kept taking from the common store, right, and
they starved to death. And then they realized that was
and work. Until then they set up basically a capitalistic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, private property.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were like, okay, you can do what you
want with your property and you can sell the access
and you know, and then it thrived. It works, Yeah
every time. You know, it's just because human nature is
some people are going to be lazy and some people aren't,
you know, Yeah, the best you know, and it's you know,
there is no perfect system, but it's the best one
on the planet because the other way doesn't work. And
it's all about only the top get rich and only
the top gets stuff, and all it does is bring
everybody down to a low level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the free market recognizes human nature. Marxism denies human nature,
which is why you need force to make it to
employ it, and that, of course leads to all of
the body bags that Marxism has attached to its name. Joe,
I appreciate the call, man, Yes, sir, good to hear
from you. All right, let me go and talk with Bill.
Hello Bill, Bill.
Speaker 3: Hello, Yes, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir, a question, what.
Speaker 3: Was the motive of the man who attempted to assassinate
President Trump in Pennsylvania?
Speaker 1: What was the motive of the man who oh the
trumpet the Trump assassination in Butler? Yeah, we don't know.
Speaker 3: Okay, So how do we know the motive of the
person who attempted to assassinate or did assassinate Charlie Kirk,
Which is horrible, by the.
Speaker 1: Way, because we know more about the AMMO and the
scrawlings that were.
Speaker 3: On the AMMO and what were the scrawlings.
Speaker 1: Transgender sayings and slogans and quote anti fascism slogans.
Speaker 3: Has anybody seen them? Anybody?
Speaker 1: It seems like you're trying to move the goalposts a
little bit here, But I mean, has anybody seen any
of the AMMO from the Butler shooting?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I just think that since this has happened, there's been
assumptions that this person was anti Trump, and we don't
know yet.
Speaker 1: No, No, I think he was anti Charlie Kirk. I
did say anti Trump. I've never said anti Trump. I
said this is I said that this is a political assassination.
They targeted Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 3: I just think that when when each side calls each
other evil, it's wrong. When each side tries to attribute
this to Marxism, that's wrong. When someone calls me a
moderate Democrat a Marxist, it troubles me because I'm conservative
on on on national policy, I'm liberal on social policy.
I am not and never will be a Marxist. Anybody
who accused me of Marxist is wrong. When I vote
for Democrats, I think painting with a broadbrush, using the
word evil to apply to either side when we don't assume.
I don't assume every Republican is evil, okay? You Democrats
is evil? Or a Marxist buil?
Speaker 1: Do you differentiate between leftism and liberalism?
Speaker 3: Oh? Those are both loaded terms and the definitions are
so broad you can't separate the two.
Speaker 1: So so you don't. You don't differentiate between being a
leftist and being a liberal.
Speaker 3: I think the labels are all wrong.
Speaker 1: We're all pr Well, you called yourself a conservative, progress
that label wrong.
Speaker 3: I'm progressive and liberal. Okay, So given liberal and think
that we ought to we ought to take the most
aggressive steps possible to end the war in Ukraine by
penalizing Putin and Russia. Well that that depths possible.
Speaker 1: That's not progressive or liberal. There are conservatives that believe
that too. That's my question is whether or not you
make any kind of differentiation. No, because look, Donald Trump
is a lifelong Democrat, Like I understand about the mixture
of the labels. What he is. He was, that's not
a lie.
Speaker 2: He was and he's not.
Speaker 3: He's not a conservative for that.
Speaker 1: No, for sure, I've been saying that for a decade.
I've been saying that for a decade. But I don't
understand what point you think that makes when you're not
even willing to differentiate between a leftist and a liberal.
Speaker 3: I am leftist. Leftist sounds like Marxist, sounds like it
is liberal?
Speaker 2: Can be?
Speaker 1: Do you think? Okay? So I will use your term
that I So leftists are Marxists, they're communists. Okay, that's
what a leftist is. Okay, So you and you're not? Okay?
So do you think Marxism is evil?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay? So if there were Marxists in the Democrat Party,
would you call them evil?
Speaker 3: If you if they meet the definition of Marxism.
Speaker 1: Like if they were self described socialists, would that matter?
Speaker 3: AOC is not a Marxist, she's a socialist. She's liberal
on social issue.
Speaker 1: No, she's a socialist either. She is a member of
the Democrat Socialists of America.
Speaker 3: Your your job is so much easier to attract people
to your view if you'd let with these the fairy.
Speaker 1: That's her label. She chose the label. She willingly joined
that association. I didn't do that to her. So do
you think so? Do you think you just said, Max.
You said, I asked you if Marxism is evil.
Speaker 3: Marxist.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking about her, I'm asking about Marxism. Is
it evil?
Speaker 3: It's evil?
Speaker 1: Okay? So if so, do you consider socialism to be Marxism? No,
what's the difference.
Speaker 3: It's a spectrum?
Speaker 1: How like, what's the difference between socialism and Marxism?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 1: What's the spectrum under? What's the big umbrella that the
spectrum lives under?
Speaker 3: Well, the point is no, no answer the.
Speaker 1: Question, Bill, No answer my question. I've heard your point.
You've made it several different ways. I'm asking you said,
it's a spectrum. I want to know what the name
of that spectrum is.
Speaker 3: Political.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous. That makes no sense at all.
Speaker 3: It's the political spectrum.
Speaker 1: No, So you're okay, So you're saying that. So you're
saying that socialism and Marxism are different by degree not distinction.
Speaker 3: Oh, those are those are very similar words. They're both,
they're both distinctive. They're different. And how for a degree?
Speaker 1: How how are they different? That's what I was asking.
How is socialism different than Marxism?
Speaker 3: Uh? Well, I don't have a PhD in political science.
Speaker 1: You don't need one. You had, you had opinions about
them being different, So I'm sure you know why they're
different because you believe them to be different.
Speaker 3: You may feel like I've got ld I'm gonna cut
him off now.
Speaker 1: No, I've already kept your long. I've already kept you
two minutes too long. I'm asking you to define the difference,
because you said there's a difference, Bill, So if there's
a difference, tell me what it is.
Speaker 3: I believe that if you took all of the elements
of socialism and stacked them up, and all of the
elements of Marxism, you would and stack them up. What
you would find is that the elements of Marxism are
more extreme and severe, such as you're pure communist. Pure
communism believes that there is no capitalism. Pure communism believes
that it is only the group. Everybody takes from the group,
everybody gives to the group. There's no individuality. Marxism is
more like that than socialism. Bernie Sanders, he says he's
a socialist. I'm not sure, but he's not a Marxist.
It's not a communist.
Speaker 1: You still haven't told me what the difference between Marxism
and socialism is you went to communism, which, by the way,
that is Marxism as well. So like you're you're all
over the place. It sounds like, Bill, it sounds like
what you're telling me is that is that socialism is
sort of a light version of communism.
Speaker 3: It's correct.
Speaker 1: It's a good version, no.
Speaker 3: Good, good and bad, loaded good and bad, love and terms, all.
Speaker 1: Right, so it's it's a neutral version. I did call
you evil. I'm trying to figure out how you are
so sure of these terms and the philosophies and you're
taking offense to being called evil when no one's called
you evil. I'm so, I'm trying to figure out how
you have become so sure of these things yet don't
know the underlying definitions of the things that have so
offended you.
Speaker 3: I'm going to go spend a couple of hours and
I'm going to drop you an email. Okay, I'm gonna say, yeah.
Speaker 1: You do that. You're the difference, all right, you do that.
Explain to me the difference there. I appreciate it. Bill,
have a great day. So when I was a kid,
my grandpa died with Alzheimer's, and before he died, my
mom and my dad took care of him as he
got worse. Forty years ago, there were no treatments and
not much support for caregivers and family. But things are
different today because of the work of so many people,
including the Alzheimer's Association of Western Carolina. It's a great
organization with awesome people with huge hearts. I've been a
supporter for twenty five years. This caused means a lot
to me. I participate in the annual Walk to End
Alzheimer's and I'm leading a Charlotte team again this year,
and it's called once again Pete's Pack. You can sign
up and you can join the team and walk with us.
It's on October eighteenth, that truest field. Sign up at
alz dot org slash walk and then you can search
for my team name Pete's Pack. There's also a link
at thepetepod dot com. There's also a link in the
description of this podcast. Also, I'll be am seeing the
Gastonia Walk on October eleventh, and so you can make
a team and join that one too, or make a
donation and help me hit my goal of five thousand dollars.
If you do, I really appreciate it. There are a
bunch of other walks all over the Carolinas. You can
go to alz dot org slash walk for all the
dates and locations. We're closer than ever to stopping Alzheimer's.
Can you help us get there? Will you walk with me?
For a different future, for families, for more time for treatments.
This is why we walk again. Like in these types
of situations, after these kinds of horrific events, I usually
go and pull a whole bunch of comments from people
who I find to be more insightful and wiser than
I am, because I know my limitations. And so here's,
for example, this guy's on social media. He goes by
the name of Gummy. He says, it's clear to me
from the media coverage and the reactions that the left
does not understand who Charlie Kirk was or what he
represented for the conservative movement, and I don't think they're
prepared for the backlash that'll follow. And I think that's correct.
I do. I think that's correct. There are a lot
of people, particularly older people, that do not understand who
Charlie Kirk was and what he meant for a lot
of young people in America. Here's another one. He goes
by the name of coddled affluent professional. On Twitter, he says,
I mean this and everything else. The reputational threats, the coercion,
the censorship apparatus, the relentless media propaganda, the constant lies
and dissembling. It's all downstream of constant losing. I think
what we're seeing for the first time in decades is
real politics where major material interests and real power are
at stake. For a long time, electing a Democrat or
a Republican did not change the direction we were heading.
It just changed the pace. And a lot of liberal
activism was predicated on the idea of hurrying up historical
progress that they supposed was inevitable anyway. Well that's all
up for grabs now, along with a tremendous amount of
cultural power and social authority. So Libs feel their interests
are being threatened on all sides. A lot of this
has to do with factors besides explicit partisan politics, like
technological succession and post war ideological dispensations being well beyond
their expiration date. But Trump and MAGA are the most
concrete and perceptible manifestations of these threats, and that's why
we have political violence and nat SEK plotting against the president,
and state censorship and libs screaming about how Nazism and
authoritarianism are undermining their democracy. This is all to say
that right now there's quite a lot on the table
and politics are very meaningful. There's a lot that's very ugly.
But to a great degree that has to do with
the stakes being so high. Game on Week one starts
now and every touchdown brings you closer to a payout.
With Draft Kings sports Book and official sports betting partner
of the NFL, this isn't just football, it's first touchdown
fireworks anytime TD rushes live bets that ride every momentum
shift a DraftKings. Every play is your next shot to win.
Will the Panthers win? Will we even get a touchdown?
New customers bet just five dollars and get three hundred
dollars in bonus bets instantly, plus get over two hundred
dollars off NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube and YouTube TV.
So your season starts now. Download the Draft King Sportsbook
app and use code Pete to get three hundred dollars
in bonus bets instantly. When you place your first bet
of five dollars or more plus over two hundred dollars
off NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube and YouTube TV, but
you got to use promo code PETE. In partnership with DraftKings,
the Crown is yours. Gambling problem called one eight hundred
gambler In New York, call eight seven seven eight hope
and why, or text hope and why four six seven
three six nine. In Connecticut, help is available for a
problem gambling Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven
seven seven seven or visit CCPG dot org. Play responsibly
on behalf of boothill, casino and Resort Kansas. Fees may
apply in Illinois twenty one plus. Age and eligibility varies
by jurisdiction void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire seven days
after issuance. See Sportsbook dot DraftKings dot com, slash promos
NFL Sunday Ticket offer for new subscribers only and auto
renews until canceled. Digital games and commercial use excluded. Restrictions
apply additional NFL Sunday Time ticket terms or at YouTube
dot com slash go slash NFL Sunday Tickets Slash terms
Limited time offer message from Kenny, who says the people
that get most angry with the labels are angry because
they know the labels are true. Call or Bill opposes
political labels because they accurately define positions. The left know
their opinions are typically not well received, they have to
lie and dull them up. You rarely hear a conservative
complain about being called conservative, which is a great point, Kenny,
Thank you. People call me, oh, you're just a capitalist,
Oh you're a conservative, Oh you're a libertarian. Whatever. I
get called these names, and it's like, yeah, I don't
ever run from those labels, just like they do generally define. Now,
if someone says, oh, you're a Republican, okay, well I'm
not that. I'm not a registered Republican, but I do
vote more Republican. They represent more of my views, way
more than the Democrats do. But I'm not a registered Republican.
But for some reason, friends on the left, they're always
swapping out their names progressive liberal, Well I guess that's it,
really progressive liberal. They swap They go back and forth
trying to think of the others. I mean, they'll just say, oh,
you know, democrat, I'm a conservative Democrat whatever, So they
try to come up with the different labels. They don't
like socialists or Marxist or communists. They don't like any
of these things. Even as their party is being infiltrated
and taken over by Democrats, Socialists of America candidates, they're not.
They are unable to fight back against those candidates that
that philosophy because truth be told, they are they are
closer to that than or No. I shouldn't say that,
because I do believe in the Dennis Praeger axiom on this,
which is that conservatives vot vote their principles, leftists vote
their principles, but liberals do not because they don't want
to acknowledge that they're actually closer to Republicans or conservatives
than they are to the leftists. Let me go over
and get Alex on. Hello Alex, thanks for hanging on.
Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, I just I want to kind of give
I guess my opinion out for what it's worth. Sure,
So just all up on the guy that you just
spoke to. I mean, I kind of see where he's
coming from. I do not I mean I don't subscribe
too much with Charlie Kirby's to say, I don't think
I don't agree to some of the things you say
on this program and some of them on this radio station.
I think, you know, if you have to look at
sort of Marxists, and you know a lot of labels
that I do see they do come home from the
right of them from the left, but maybe some degrees
to the left as well, but.
Speaker 1: No, not maybe Alex. I'll stop you right there. Have
you heard the terms nazi? Have you heard the term yeah,
fascist but racist, but texist, omophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, yeah, no, I get that, and I don't.
I mean, there's nobody's Naza. I mean, nasi's very hard
having to earned. I don't think there's a lot of
sort of maybe self described Marxism, but they're not really Marxist.
Speaker 1: So I would well, I would venture, but I would.
I would simply say this, though, is that the use
of those terms against your fellow Americans, calling them, not
saying that you personally, but using those kinds of terms.
Speaker 4: Understand not just the people, that's just the people who
don't understand what's Nazis were, I mean.
Speaker 1: The well, but also fascists authoritarian, I mean it's totalitarian.
Speaker 4: It's I I would actually be okay with totilitarian to
a degree.
Speaker 1: Sure you would to, yeah, but but not but to
a degree again, I mean, yeah, remember who was it? Who?
But who was it that shut down all of the
all of the governments and such? Who was it that
did the mask mandates and the who is it that
did the uh, the the shot the vaccine mandates? That
would you consider that to be totalitarian?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but with those due respect, I never really
had any problems with that because some sort of she's
done for the greater good of country.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 2: You can have that debate, you can have the debate, but.
Speaker 1: My point, I believe it's not a debate. Alex, you're
proving my point.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, I mean I feel like that was gone
for the better of society, right, which is sort of.
Speaker 1: That's what and that's what people on the left always believe.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, we can always talk about what Christian
nationalism is and things like that and what they believe
and how crazy that is. But what I did want
to talk about is this. I look again, I like
I said before, I don't I don't really subscribe to
anything what Charlie Kirk was saying. Of course he's not.
This is the stupidest thing ever. It's a senseless act
that really does not serve any purpose to anybody. It
is absolutely idiotic thing that anybody could do. And it's
just there's really no there's nothing you can say really
about it. From my perspective anyway, what what what? What
sort of struck me?
Speaker 2: Is just typical.
Speaker 4: And again, maybe this is going to be problem in
popular opinion, but this could have been something that at
the very least Trump could have shown and and and
show some sort of humility and understanding that this country
is very much divided. I guarantee you if this would
have been a situation where Obama, Biden, Trump, anybody except
for Trump and not Trump, I'm sorry Bush, they would
have come out and they would have been a statement
trying to bring the country together. It would have been
a statement, not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Alex, I'm going to stop Alex. No, I got you.
I'm going to stop you there, hang on, hang on,
hang on, Alex, I'm gonna stop you there. And I'm
going to tell you that we are past that point.
Speaker 4: But but this is the job of a president to
come this country.
Speaker 1: We did horrible stupid.
Speaker 3: Did not saying happened?
Speaker 4: Why No, his statement came out and he was just
lambasting Democrats, lambasting left Wilkins, left, left and right. It
is that was wrong. That was just a stupid This
was the opportunity, a horrible opportunity, stupid opportunity should not
have come around. But if this is this was the
moment for him to step up and be a leader
that you people think he is. This was that she
should not have come out of the way he did.
Speaker 1: I am shocked to learn that Trump did not fulfill
your expectations.
Speaker 2: But exactly but what.
Speaker 1: He never would, he never can. This is why. See
So here is this what I mean, Alex, Yesterday's assassination
of charge Alex stop, stop, stop stop, Alex stop Alex. Okay,
stop there you go. Now you are stopped. This is
the thing. Yesterday's assassination of Charlie Kirk has reoriented our society.
You may not realize it. You may maybe you do,
and maybe that's what you're kind of nervous about right now.
But everything has shifted, The vibe has shifted, and we
had presidents Republican presidents that would always dutifully go up
and say the things that you wanted Donald Trump to say,
even though if he had said them, I'm sure that
would not have sufficiently been adequate for you either. But
I don't know. I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt and say that, yeah, maybe Trump could have surprised
you and you would have said, did a good job there, Donald,
But Republicans in the past have said the very thing
that you want Trump to have said, and we keep
seeing these types of attacks. It's not working. So you
guys on the left are going to have to rain
in your leftist nut jobs. That is on you. Meanwhile,
the Trump administration, I suspect, is going to use the
full force of the federal government and the DOJ to
start cracking down on these left wing organizations and agitators,
at least I hope. So I appreciate the call. Alex.
All Right, you hear me talk a lot about incentives, right, Well,
let's talk about incentive trips, the kind that companies offer
employees to fire them up and reward their teams. If
you own a business or you work somewhere that offers
these incentive trips, First off, good for you. But also
there is a custom app that's a game change for
these trips. It's called Incentive Tripkit. Private group messaging, shared photos,
your itinerary, travel details, all built into a single, easy
to use app. There's even a traveler locator, so carl
from Accounting doesn't get left behind. The best part about
Incentive Tripkit it's totally private. No email captures, no sign ups,
no cringe ads. It's simple, clean and secure. And when
the trip is over, Incentive trip Kit turns those highlights
into a professional storytelling video. So think about it. When
you launch next year's incentive trip campaign, that video becomes
your greatest motivator. Talk about a return on investment, Right,
you got to check out incentive trip Kit for your business.
Visit incentive tripkit dot com. Because great trips deserve even
better returns. Let's bring this baby in for a landing.
I know I got a bunch of people on hold.
I still have a ton of messages too. Uh, let
me go and get Mary on Hello Mary, welcome to
the program.
Speaker 5: Hey, thanks for having me. Of course, I'm totally devastated
by Charlie's murder, but I want to just say something
what I feel that we really need to look at
at the basis of every single thing he ever testified.
And by the way, if you look back at some
of his challenges, he ran circles around not the students
at Cambridge University and Oxford, but the professors.
Speaker 1: Yes, he destroyed them. Yeah.
Speaker 5: And the thing is it all goes back to the
Christian faith. And you know when he was contested in
one of these arguments, not with a professor, with somebody
else that was like, oh, the deparation of a dependence
really only says God.
Speaker 1: Like, I actually have that clip. I have the clip.
I can play it for you. I think, Well, Nick, producer,
Nick back in the studio, do you have the uh
do you have the clip? It's Kirk on Christian Nation
is the name of the clip. All right, let's fire
it up for Mary. This is what she's talking about.
Speaker 6: Feels found on common law because the Declaration only refers
to God four times in the Constitution, doesn't refer to
God at all, and it only articulates the structure of government.
Speaker 7: So first of all, remember that we were a collection
of states and colonies, and you need to read the
state constitutions or anything else. Thirteen or thirteen required a
declaration of faith. In almost every single one of the
original state constitutions, they had I profess Lord in Jesus
Christ as my Lord and Savior. Secondly, fifty five and
fifty six of the original assigners of the declaration or
Bible believing church tending Christians. If you ask about common law,
let's go to three principles of common law, assumption of medicense,
due process, and dur of your peers, all three of
biblical principles, so and all wrapped into the ultimate Biblical
principle that you shall not favor justice if you are
richer report, which is in Leviticus nineteen, which is the
idea of blind justice, which is incorporated also in the
New Testament ideal. Neither slave, nor Greek nor jew You're
all one in Jesus Christ, as you have to edip
human equality. These are all Biblical ideas. But more importantly
than that, they say that God was only mentioned four
times in the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker 1: Well that's a big deal.
Speaker 7: John Adams seamlessly said the Constitution was only written for
a moral and religious people. It was wholly inadequate for
the people of any other The body politic of America
was so Christian that our form and structure of government
was built for the people that believed in.
Speaker 1: Christ, our Lord.
Speaker 7: One of the reasons we're living through a constitutional crisis
is that we no longer have a Christian nation, but
we have a Christian form of government, and they're incompatible.
So you cannot have liberty if you do not have
a Christian population.
Speaker 1: All right, So whether you agree with that or not,
does it matter. But he makes the case and he
engages people with those facts and with the philosophy.
Speaker 5: Well, here's the thing. I mean, I think the part
where it's not agree or not is the part that
it's pure fact, that it is our history. And I
just think that the undermining of this fact that that's
like it or not, the fact is that is how
our nation was founded on those ideals and principle. So
like the schools that are not teaching that are failing
our students because they're leaving out the fundamentals of this
form of government. And I believe that's the job that
we have before us, is to really go after the
education system and make it staptual. Like I met a
lobbyist who's trying to get church and state separated more.
I met her in the Bahamas and she talked about
like how they were trying to get the Ten Commandments
out of Alabama, how that's the new thing they're fighting.
And I said, hey, I think you're on the wrong
side of this battle. The founders were way more Christians
than you think, and their intent was never to eliminate that.
It was to always keep it pure. And it gave
us the best economy in the world so quickly.
Speaker 1: That's going to be taught, right, Well, it unleashed the
potential of all human beings, right, that's the idea. That's
what the free market capitalist system does. It releases all
potential to allow people to pursue things that interest them. Yes,
for self interest, but also if you make something that
nobody wants, you're not going to be You're not going
to make any profits. So you are incentivized to make
something that people want and need that betters the society.
That's the beauty of it. Now, does that mean everything
ever invented is for the good of society? No, there
are some bad things. Obviously, we are all humans, and
humans do bad stuff, you know, that's.
Speaker 5: But the invisible hand, you know, the invisible hand of
the economy is the whole basis of what's going to succeed. Right,
that invisible hand, thing like what's necessary will rise to
the top and succeed. Just what you said. And Harvard,
of course started as a divinity school, and their logo
was changed. You know, it was a divinity school before
it was a secular university, and their logo had been
changed when it changed secular. The three Open Books, they
started out as the two open books in the crest,
with the one on the top as a as a
book facing downward, and that symbolized that we are to
get all of our scholarly knowledge that we can from
study on earth, but there is some knowledge that only
comes from Heaven, from God himself. That's what the Harvard
logo was. And of course the secular movement that's been
now defining our time as very ungodly, it started at
those universities and it pushed God out.
Speaker 1: Mary, I got a right. I do appreciate the call
good to hear from you. Thanks so much. I will
close real quick. Obviously. It is September eleventh, going into
nine to eleven. It's always a tough time of year
for a lot of people. It's already a heavy time
of year. This day is filled with sorrow and remembrance
and memories, and obviously now after the murder of Charlie Kirk,
the murder of the Arenas, the Routska on the train.
So if you are of the praying kind of a person,
please say some prayers for all those in pain, for
comfort and for strength. Brett Warnable's up next. I will
see you tomorrow. Don't break anything while I'm gone. All right,
that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much
for listening. I could not do the show without your
support and the support of the businesses that advertise on
the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too
and tell them you heard it here. You can also
become a patron at my Patreon page or go to
dpetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening,
and don't break anything while I'm gone.