Donate and listen to the podcast at WRWL.org when it comes to illegal aliens and the crimes they're committing. I think the American people spoke very loud that they wanted law and order back on our streets. And so when the president tries to deport a plane full of illegal aliens that are gang members to El Salvador, you would think the judge would support that, right? You would think that considering he's a judge, he puts bad guys away, that we'd want to get these illegals that are bad guys out of our country. But no, the hatred towards President Trump even has the courts not being truthful with the American people. They simply hate everything that the president is doing.
Let me talk to you about real numbers. So my liberal friends that are watching this argue with this. Underneath the Obama administration, eight years, the court only put in 12 injunctions. Underneath President Trump, his first term, in four years, they put up 64 injunctions. Biden, who was completely absent-minded, wasn't even around the country, which could arguably be the largest cover-up we've ever had in political history. The judges on these D.C. courts and the district courts around the country only put up 14 injunctions in four years. Now, the president has been sworn in since January 20. How many injunctions do you think the court's already installed?
15. Do you think there's some bias going on? Absolutely. That's why Speaker Johnson in the House and Leader Thune in the Senate is leading the charge to start holding these courts accountable. They are simply there to interpret the law and the Constitution, not weigh in from the bench because of their political bias towards President Trump. It has gone too far and it's time for these courts and these judges to be held accountable. Oh, and they will be. Let's take a look at what Representative Mark Harris had to say.
What would be inappropriate? Speaker Gingrich, you referred to this trend we're discussing today as a, quote, emerging dictatorship of district court judges, end quote. And you posted on X that the No Rogue Rulings Act, quote, would be an appropriate first response to the district judges who are trying to be many presidents totally beyond their constitutional authority. I totally agree with you, Speaker Gingrich, and the No Rogue Rulings Act would be an impactful first step in addressing this problem.
I was proud to vote in favor of it when this committee marked it up and I later joined on as a co-sponsor and look forward to at some point having an opportunity to vote on the House floor. But, Speaker Gingrich, specifically, do you believe there are any additional legislative steps that need to be taken to address the problem of activist judges acting beyond their constitutional authority as you described in your post? Well, I would just say for the moment that this issue of district judges becoming alternative presidents and issuing nationwide injunctions at such a central point to where we are, that solving this, first of all, if we can successfully limit the district judges, we will have sent such a strong signal of rebalancing the Constitution that I think will sober up everybody in the judicial side. In the future, there are some key issues. The whole notion of whether judicial supremacy means supreme inside Article 3 or supreme over Article 1 and 2, I think is an issue worth taking up, but I would put that a very distant second to solving this immediate problem because if you solve the immediate problem, you both make it possible for the executive branch to be effective and you've sent a pretty powerful rebuke to the judicial branch that they can't overreach in what they're doing.
So, I would make it a sequence in that sense. I'm told that 92 percent of the judges who've issued blanket injunctions against the administration have been appointed by Democrats. That at least suggests a rather partisan tilt to all this, and it's not being done even-handedly.
What's your view of that? Doesn't that undermine public confidence in our courts? Well, I think if you look at the recent reports from various polling firms, clearly a majority of Americans believe that no single district judge should be allowed to issue a nationwide injunction. And I think that when you lookâlook, my judgment as a historian, this is clearly a judicial coup d'etat. You don't have this many different judges issuing this many different nationwide injunctions, all of them coming from the same political ideological background. And just assume it's all random efforts of justice. This is a clear effort to stop the scale of change that President Trump represents. And I agree, a lot of this stuff can be fought out, some of it should be fought out in the Congress, but it shouldn't be micromanaging the executive branch on national security issues by random single judges who have no standing, they have no particular knowledge, they haven't been in the room, they don't know what the consequences of what they're doing are, and they put both Americans and the nation at risk when they intervene to become basically alternative presidents.
You now have potentially 677 alternative presidents, none of whom won an election. What is Ted Cruz saying? Check this out. It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. I have to admit, I'm enjoying listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law after four years where they brazenly supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen. We just heard the senator from Rhode Island talk about the imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up outside Supreme Court justices' homes, including, I might note, female justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, threatening their family, and Joe Biden's Attorney General didn't do a damn thing and refused to enforce the law to protect those judges.
Why? Because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted to intimidate and threaten those judges. Professor Bray, under our Constitution, who should decide elections, the voters or unelected judges? The voters are the ones who should vote in the election, according to the the laws, and the laws sometimes have to be applied by the judges. And under our Constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions, elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges? I think the question of policy, Senator, is a little broader than the particular case. So the laws should be enacted by Congress.
That's where the fountain of law is. Policy decisions are the elected branches. Law is the province of the court. Policy is the province of the elected branches. These are not complicated.
Professor Bray, let me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case? That's a question I agree is not complicated. They do not have that power. Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere in the Constitution?
It is not. The first 150 years of our republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued? My view is that there were not any until 1963. Zero.
Now fast forward. How many nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century? It's a small number. I would think it would be a dozen, give or take.
It's not large. Twenty-seven, actually. Excluding Trump's first term, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the last 20 years? Far more than that. Thirty-two. From 2001 to 2024 against Biden, Obama and Bush, 32. And how many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone? There have been quite a few.
Thirty-seven. Let that sink in. There have been more nationwide injunctions in the past two months against President Trump than in the entire 20th century. There have been more nationwide injunctions against President Trump in the last two months than both terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency lawfare, indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery of justice to attack him, and that was an attack on democracy.
Because Democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are angry at the voters for re-electing Donald Trump and electing a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and they engage in lawfare to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this is the second phase of lawfare.
Second chart. This is the second phase of lawfare. Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from re-electing him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical judges to try to shut down policies, and they are forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with the policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore U.S. immigration law concerning TPS being revoked.
TPS being revoked. U.S. law explicitly said there's no judicial review for that, but hey, they found a judge who says, you know what? We the Democrat Party, we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the party of murderers and rapists and gang members, and the Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason the Democrat Party is at 26% approval nationwide. Because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law. Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this committee and this body to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decide.
Oh, Senator Kennedy loved this guy. Senator, a universal injunction is what we call an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case, but applies nationwide or in some cases universally to enjoin the government. Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction? Yes, it is, Senator. What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court? I'm not aware of a statutory basis, Senator. There is no statutory basis, is there? No, Senator. What's the United States Supreme Court opinion which interprets the Constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this?
Can you name me that case? I'm not aware of one, Senator. There isn't one, is there?
I'm not aware of one, Senator. Explain to me how this works. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her?
How is that possible? It shouldn't be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time. I think on the theory that the courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect and they often will enjoin it as nationwide so all non-parties are protected by that injunction. I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action.
That's correct here, Senator. So why don't the federal judges, instead of issuing a universal injunction with no legal basis, tell the plaintiff, look, you've got to go file a class action if you want to impact parties who aren't subject to my court. Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. I think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate. They wouldn't, the plaintiffs couldn't satisfy Rule 23 to establish a class.
So they couldn't? Correct. So they prefer to ask for a universal injunction? Yes. Does this encourage forum shopping?
Yes, Senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to find one judge that will enjoin a single policy nationwide. If you have five lawsuits, a plaintiff, one of only one of those five cases needs to be successful. OK, we've established that there's no basis in statute and no basis in Supreme Court precedent for universal injunction. How about a common law? I mean, this is universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. Did this exist in common law courts in England on which our law is based?
I don't believe so, Senator. I think we've the government has cited cases from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court that says, you know, courts are really bound by the scope of relief that a court in equity would have granted back in England before the founding. And the courts at that time would grant relief to the parties in the case, not far beyond them. A universal injunction is a remedy is is unknown in English common law, is it not? I haven't done the research that far back, but I'm not aware.
I have. It's unknown. Wasn't part of equity. Only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the 20th century. Does that sound about right? That sounds about right, Senator. But 86 of them were issued against President Trump in his first term.
Is that correct? I don't know the specific number, but they were a high number. And so far in President Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him, have they not?
Senator, I don't have a specific number, but that sounds about right. The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not? Yes.
And tell me again in my last 10 seconds. Tell me the basis for universal injunction in Article three. I read Article three, which defines judicial power. Where does it mention universal injunction? It does not, Senator. It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case. So the Congress could act and say, look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action.
That's why God created class actions, isn't it? Yes, Senator. Well, you know, what we have to do, we have to get Congress to act and they're not going to act, John, they're not going to act unless we put the fire to their feet. I mean, they've got to hear from the people. And I know Trump is going to, but I mean, they really have to know that, hey, this is the people are demanding that they act, they're demanding that they deal with and start removing these judges. And, you know, if there's actually, I would say the first one you should have to remove and impeach? Roberts, what do you think? Well, I would like to, Pastor Ernie, but this one right now on the District of Washington Court, Bowles-Bowlesburg, I think he's the one that's the main one.
But Pastor Ernie, he's got five, he's got five different cases against Trump. Yes, yes. So, but here's the thing. At some point, Pastor Ernie, can we rely on Congress to do this? No, not unless we, no, no, no, no.
Well, here we actually have some hope here. Trump's going to have to do it, Pastor Ernie. Like that last audio that you just put on, it said exactly what I was saying. Exactly. They gave you all the details, all the information, nothing in the Constitution, no court cases, no law. They are just doing this. And Trump has all the authority to stand up and tell them we're not obeying you. We're not obeying, according to the Constitution of the United States, I am not listening to these district judges, these appellate judges. They have no authority to dictate my job as the President of the United States. So why hasn't he done that? Well, because, this is why. Because the Democrats are waiting for him to do it because they're going to say he's a dictator.
He's coming against the court. They're never going to tell us the truth. You know, you'll never hear from them that there is no authority for these judges to do it. So he is going to try, they're going to try and rile up the population here in America saying Trump is a dictator.
That's why, Pastor Ernie. Well, I guess I got an article here that says Chuck Grassley introduced legislation to the Senate and the bill is titled the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025, which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act to allow restraining orders to be immediately appealed and limit court orders to only impact people in the case. So, if this passes, that would shut down the universal, what did they call it, a universal injunction?
Yeah, that would shut down all of them. So we need to pass this. Everybody, call your Senators, tell them to support the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025, and also your Congressman.
Call, demand a vote, an immediate vote. Here's the problem we have, we have a problem now, you have the RINOs. We would have the votes, but we have RINOs. Now, you've had then Murkowski, you had obviously the former Speaker of the Senate McConnell, you had, oh, what's the one up there from New England? One from Maine. One from Maine, yeah. And now Rand Paul. Oh, Susan Collins. And now Rand Paul has gone over and joined with them right now.
And I don't know what has got in there. I bet his daddy's not too happy with him. But that's, you know, so that's our problem.
We could do it in the Senate unless by chance there would be a Democrat in the Senate, a Democrat in the Senate with common sense. There's only one that comes real close to that, and it's Federman, John Federman. He's kind of going along with what he believes what Trump's doing, okay? We had the fellow from West Virginia, but he's out now. He's becoming, well, I think he's out all together, isn't he? He's out of office. You know, I'm talking about the moderate from the former Governor of West Virginia. No, Senator. He's a Senator from West Virginia. You're talking about Joe Manchin? Joe Manchin. I don't think he's still a Senator, because I thought he left the Democratic Party.
No, yeah, he stepped down. Okay, that's what I thought. Well, they haven't voted on this yet. So we want them to vote on it. Yeah, you want to vote, but I'm saying the problem we have is with the Rhinos.
We have the same thing. We have the same problem in the House with the Rhinos, okay? So, I mean, if it passes in the Senate, then it's got to go... Says it's co-sponsored by 21 Republican Senators. And then it's got to go to the House, unless they can get a couple Democrats to go along with them.
I mean, actually, because of the Rhinos, unless somehow they get the Rhinos to do the right thing, which Rhinos never hardly ever do the right thing, do they? So with the numbers, we need to have at least only three go against... We can't have more than three go against it, right? Right.
Is that the right number? Right. And you got the problem of McConnell, Murkowski, and Collins, because they're usually... And now Rand Paul. And now Rand Paul.
Well, that was just... That was disappointing with the tariffs. Yeah. Well, that's... Yeah. But he usually doesn't do that, right? Usually, right.
All right. But let me tell you who does. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin. And he's a hardcore communist. This guy is a real hardcore communist.
He was one of the major players in the Russian... The Russia, Russia, Russia, fake Russia probe, is demanding the return of all of the Venezuelan gangsters to the United States. And obvious how little Democrats care about protected Americans' borders. Raskin said during a hearing that the hundreds of Venezuelan gangsters deported from the U.S. to be a prison in El Salvador should be returned immediately. I call on my colleagues to demand the Trump regime comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever ones they want to appeal and to demand the return of people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on the so-called plane full of gangbangers, Raskin said in a hearing Tuesday. Raskin was referencing two aircraft-carrying suspected illegals, immigrants, gang members tied to Trin Arguell and MS-13 who were flown to El Salvador last month after entering the United States illegally.
Okay. Anyhow, here, Trump has all the authority in the world. His job is to protect the American people, is it not?
We got your back, President Trump. Shut him down. I mean, that is his job. This is... Trump has the authority to declare this a state of emergency. And that's what it actually... He has that authority, he has done it already with the the illegal alien act there of 1798.
He has done that, that their operatives in America as like an army of terrorists in America from Venezuela. So, all right. There you go. You have an article there.
I do. There's this, this is another one of you. Corrupt, corrupt. Now, this is unclean, ungodly, wicked woman. This is about Colorado, a WND article. State House Speaker turns killing the unborn into a cost-saving scheme. A prominent lawmaker in the leftist state of Colorado has turned gruesome in her demands that the state promote abortion. She insisted that the killing of an unborn child is better for the state because births are more expensive. It is Julie McCluskey, a Colorado Democrat and extreme abortion, extremist on abortion, who says births will not occur because abortions happened instead. Birth is more expensive than an abortion.
The savings comes into Medicaid births that will not occur. She is the speaker of the Colorado House and continued savings from adverted births outweigh the cost of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans. So, this, this woman needs to be voted out of office. Absolutely, absolutely.
She needs to be voted. Okay, we, we're coming up to the bottom of the hour. We got a couple quick announcements to make. One is we have this coming Wednesday, or no, Monday, Monday, doers of the word Baptist Church and that would be the seventh, right? When they would be the seventh, we have the John County right to life is having this monthly meeting 7pm 7pm.
And so that's the doors of the word Baptist Church 14781 Sperry Road in Newberry, Ohio. And then you have coming up on the 26th of this month, which would be a Saturday. We're having our chili cook off. Now we haven't had one. We had about 20 of these, but then we haven't had one for years.
I would say for the last five or six years we haven't had one. And the reason for that is the fellow that pastor Bruce who headed it up who did such a tremendous job, because there's a lot of work put it on a chili cook off is a tremendous amount of work. Okay. But he, he passed away went home to be with the Lord and so now Aaron here he's decided to take up the mantle and put on this chili cook off to raise money to save babies. That's what we do. We save babies. And over the years we've saved over 24,000. So folks, we need all your participation to come out and help us just to raise some money and have a really good time.
We're going to have some speakers and a lot of good chili. Now this will be the last time and I mean it for this time. I'm this will be my last time to compete because I'm get every year that they always would look over there. We have I have 14 first place trophies 14 first place true. I counted 17. Okay. No, they're all first place somewhere second place.
Believe it or not, I actually did some second place. Well, listening audience, we're going to have 10 chefs. The event is from 12 noon to 6 pm on April 26.
That's the last Saturday of this month. The admission tickets are $15 for an adult over 12 years old. Married couples is 25. Ages 6 to 12 is $7. Ages 6 and under is free. You get an all you can eat chili bowl, dessert, salad, drink, and you get to attend the award ceremony. Vote on your favorite chili chef and live music speakers. Come meet some pro life, good American people, and like pastor said, we got to protect and save the baby. So that's what this is a fundraiser for the chili cooking for life. And then they could vote for me and let me retire. Well, I hear it's not really based on the taste of this. I can retire as a champion, right? Okay.
What do you think about all that? Should we fly back, turn it in and have him cook? Uh, no, I just eat fast, Ernie. I don't cook.
I just eat. I'd like to meet you, John. What's the ticket cost from Texas to here?
Uh, it depends on how you want to fly. When's the last time you saw him? Uh, it's been a while. We could, uh, we, we save money if we put him on a bus. We could put you on a bus, John. A long way from Harris from Houston to Cleveland. Yeah. Well, they got some of those, uh, airlines that like fly from Cleveland to Florida.
I don't know about Texas, but they're relatively reasonable. Yeah. We wouldn't have to worry about where he stays.
He always stays with me when he comes up here. There you go. Something to think about, John.
April 26th. Yeah. Boy, a lot of people would come out to hear John Mccurran talk, huh? There you go. And, uh, yeah, they would.
A lot of people in there. So w w well, we should have, um, what do you think elder Barkley? Uh, yeah, let's get them down here. Okay. All right.
Very good. We'll be back right after this. Words, my everlasting words, my words have brought you here to me. And I won't ever let you down, but you should have a fear of me. Oh, words, you know, that I have always done every single word. I say, my words, my words are what I use to turn your heart to me. You know, my words, my words will never pass away. My words, my words are what I use to turn your heart to me. My words, my words are what I use to turn your heart to me.
My words, my words are what I use to turn your heart to me. All right. We're back and what we're going to do, I think open up the phone lines and take some calls within the next, uh, 20 minutes. So, or we have about, uh, 25 minutes. So the phone lines are now open. We got our old number back 8 8 8 6 7 7 9 6 7 3 8 8 8 6 7 7 9 6 7 3. If you have a question or a comment, I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll do it different. When they call in with a question, I'll give it to one of you guys.
I'll give it to whoever. Yeah. How's that sound? If it was like a Bible question or, uh, sounds good to me. All right.
8 8 8 8 8 6 7 7 9 6 7 3 8 8 8 6 7 7 9 6 7 3. If you have a question or a comment, give us a call. Now here, Timmy walls, walls. I'm talking about, you remember him? Tampon Tim, they called him, uh, calls for shadow governments to counter Trump's election integrity efforts with alternative press conference. What did they think the deep state is?
Okay. Uh, minister, governor, Minnesota, governor Tim walls has called for the establishment of a shadow government to counteract what he receives as the Trump administration's efforts to counter president Donald Trump's common sense efforts to secure American election. Do you understand what he's asking? He's asking for people to, to counter our government to go against.
Isn't that John, isn't that called insurrection? Yeah. I mean, they're wide open. That's the Ernie.
They don't, I mean, they don't have any fear or I don't know what, it's just wide open. Hey, this is what we want to do. He was elected by the people, but we don't accept it. So we're going to have to do this and we're going to have to lock him for, uh, trying to get fair elections because we can't win with their whole actions.
So it's amazing. Best Ernie. Just why don't you think it's got to do with the fact is that he'll say, look, we'll get it with one of our, our, our corrupt judges, one of the, one of the club judges and you know, we'll win. Okay. Who do we have? Okay, who do we have? We have Brian and Dallas. Let's go out to Dallas with Brian. Brian, you're out in McTernan's neck of the woods.
Go ahead. It's kind of been raining for four days. You know, we got along the way to Sunday pasture.
Yep. We're getting a lot of rain here. I don't get no tornadoes or nothing like that.
Like Oklahoma. I want to say God bless you pasture. May the Lord be with you and give you the strength that he continues to give you. Um, I know you come in every day and you look, uh, you're burning the lamp and I know that you're doing a lot and you got a good team that you style and Joe and, and, uh, tell John that I believe he can get a ticket on Southwest for pretty reasonable. It's not too bad. Um, you know, especially right now with everything going on, the airlines are running specials.
So, um, uh, yeah, uh, Southwest is probably gonna be his best route. Um, and right now, uh, things are a little, you know, economical in everybody, but, uh, I'm, I'm in the same, uh, thought process. I'd love to come see you guys sometime. And it's on my bucket list today, but the reason I called you pasture and, uh, the listeners is, do you guys remember when we had to bail out general motors? Yeah, I certainly do.
Yeah. And if we, if Trump, if we don't, if we don't put the brakes on this, uh, are you guys familiar with the car electric car company? B Y D and if anybody else is listening, hasn't played up on them, Mexico's allowed China to build down there. And now all the Hispanics down there in Mexico, a bottle of close to 300,000 of these electric cars. Um, we can't allow them to destroy what's left of our auto industry. God is now foreign owned.
I think, uh, GM, uh, under, uh, under the, uh, Joe bomb administration of bombing them, they've had to bail them out and, um, we can't allow this to happen faster. Yeah. Those, uh, those Chinese electric cars now, now outsell in Tesla, they're now selling Tesla. There you go. Yes, sir.
But that, that's all I wanted to put out there this evening. I know you guys got a lot of colors waiting, but, um, it's a tough, uh, pulled about right now, but, um, you know, Walmart, uh, they both, uh, Sam Walton built this company on made in America. And if we don't get at least 60 to 70% of our products back made in America, we're none of us are going to have jobs because, uh, right now, uh, manufacturing, like Trump said, over 90,000 manufacturers, we've lost to this, this deal, you know, outsourcing to different countries, China, mainly. And, uh, you got to figure if that's 90,000 manufacturers, you figure per each manufacturer, that could be 30 jobs.
It could be a thousand jobs and that could be in the millions of jobs we've lost in this country. But anyways, I want to say God bless you pastor. And, uh, um, once again, talk to it about for everybody, but, um, our forefathers built this country and we have got to get back to banging our knuckles and building in America pasture. All right.
Thank you very much, Brian, for that comments. Uh, you know what happens here? Two things are happening. Now they're, uh, they're, they're trying to do the fright thing with the tariffs. What Trump is doing, Trump is asking for a level playing field. That's all he wanted to do.
A level playing field. Okay. And what's happening, some of these, um, these very countries that are raising their tariffs against us at the same time, a lot of the American companies that had left America, went to Mexico, went to, they're coming back here now. And not only that, but a number of the foreign companies out there like Honda and Toyota and others, they're opening, they're building plants here in America. In fact, I think, I think one of the largest was a Toyota that's building the largest, uh, yeah, it's Toyota.
Yeah. Toyota's building their largest plant ever. I believe it's in Kentucky or is it Indiana? It's one of those things in Indiana. Yeah, so a lot of these, these companies, more and more of them are, they're coming back to America.
Hyundai in Louisiana? You're seeing, right, but you're not hearing that on NBC, ABC or CBS or unfortunately, uh, or Spectrum One. You're not hearing all of that, folks. That's why it's up to you people out there for what you hear, hear from us.
You gotta let other people know and tell them how, and because they're coming after, what Trump is trying to do is he's doing what a president is supposed to do for his country, put his country first. And, uh, that's exactly what he's, we've been sold out and sold out and sold out. These Democrats have, have been very quick to sell us out for a good hefty kickback. You want to know how they get into office and they become multi, multi-millionaires so quickly is they pass legislation, you know, that is harmful to us.
They sell us down the line, sell our country out and they get the kickbacks from our, the foreign companies out there, our opposition. That's what happens. And, uh, you know, you, you even had Mad Maxine referred to, uh, taking all of that money that as, as she said, he's not going to take our slush fund, all of that illegal money they got and this money from the socialist security net, she referred to it as her slush fund. I mean, this, there you go.
I mean, didn't even try to hide it. Right. Was that, was that from USAID? Yeah. Yeah. The, the, the corruption is quite a part.
All right. Who, what do you think of all that, John? Mad Maxine, Pester, oh my, oh my. And then you have, I mean, look at these, these wackos that are in the Democrat party. I mean, bona fide wackos, and they keep getting reelected. You know what I, I guess you can't, that they've got that system so locked up, Pester Ernie, you know, that, um, you, you, they can't be unelected.
Unbelievable. Well, keep pushing for transparency and accountability with, uh, with Doge. That's why they're attacking the cars, because he's getting results. Well, absolutely. They're exposing the corruption.
Stop. I mean, a lot of this money was going towards, um, terrorists. Yeah. They were actually funding. The Taliban. Yeah.
With our own taxpayer dollars. Yep. And there's a paper trail of money.
Yeah, I know. But you see, they can justify it by they get a kickback, okay? And they're going after them, and the, the, here's the number one, the number one thing that the Democratic Communist Party is, is, is worried about is the pedophilia. This, this whole thing, Epstein Island, the hush money, hush money, hush money has been paid. This P. Diddy thing, the same people, a lot of hush money, a lot of hush money. There's been paid there to keep that quiet. So far, you know, they have it now.
Remember Pam Bonnie said she was bringing it out. Everything was coming on this team, but it's didn't did it. No, it dropped that. You don't hear anything anymore. It just stopped.
Yeah, it just stopped because, because there was some people there that they didn't want to expose, I guess, for one reason or the other. Okay. And it should be brought out. It all should be brought out.
Okay. Well, the United Nations wants to legalize pedophilia. So does the ACLU. The ACLU here has been trying to legalize pedophilia for years in America. Bunch of perverts.
Yeah. And you want no part of that. Silently, silently, not vocally, not real loud, but Islam wants it legalized also. Because that their prophet was involved in that. No kidding. Islam wants to legalize pedophilia. No kidding.
Well, I know that they marry seven year old girls. Okay. Yeah. Well, they're not, uh, they're not out front with this past tyranny, but they would go, don't go along with it.
They didn't want it because like I said, their prophet was involved in that. Yeah. John, have you heard about that Sharia law, uh, facility being built near Dallas? Yes.
West of Dallas. Yeah. Yeah. Is it going to get shut down? Um, what happens is they're building it without any, uh, permits. They just, they're just building it. So the governor says that they're going to shut it down and I don't know how far they're going to go and stopping it, but they're rogue with it. They're just building whatever, however they want to build.
So he wants the, I think it's the, uh, Texas, uh, state police there to investigate what they're doing. All right. You've got seven minutes, John, uh, between you and elder Barkley, you guys can split it up. If you want to tell the folks again, the most important thing, the most important thing to everybody out there listening is they're standing with the Lord Jesus Christ. They're either saved or they're lost one or the other. And, uh, they're all going to die and they're either going to die and go to heaven or hell.
So tell them how they can get to heaven. Well, did we do this last week? And did I speak last week? Uh, I don't remember.
I think that, yeah. Well, I don't want to waste time, so I mean, I'll, I'll do it. So here we go. Um, the, I found folks, one of the best ways to prove the gospel of Jesus Christ is to go into the book of revelations and go into heaven with the people that are there and have us tell us how they got there. So we go to Revelation chapter 5, and there are elders around the throne there, the throne of God, and they're so excited about what's happening, it says, and when the Lord took the book, starting the judgment here on earth, it says the 24 elders fell down before the lamb, having each one of them hearts, golden vials of odors, which were prayers of the soul, and they sung a new song to the Lord, thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof, for you were slain and it's redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nations. So the people around the throne of God, they're saying that we've gotten here because you were slain to the Lord Jesus. That means he died on the cross for us. That's where he was slain, on the cross, and you have redeemed us to God by your blood. There's the gospel, folks. It's right there from the lips of the people in heaven, praising the Lord Jesus, for you were slain, and he died on the cross, and he shed his blood, and that shed blood, the people there that are around the throne where Jesus is, they said that you redeemed us to God by your blood, and notice what it says, every kindred, that's like tribe, every tongue, language, every people.
Now, people will be male, female, young, old, rich, poor, whatever color your skin would be, and nations, and America's a nation. So the Bible is so clear that everybody in America can be in heaven, and we know how to get there by the death of Jesus Christ and by his shed blood, and I love that verse because it's so clear, there's no mistaking it, there's no twisting it, they're in heaven because Jesus died on the cross and shed his blood to redeem. That means to bring back to God, they were redeemed, they were lost in sin, they were separated from God, they were headed towards eternity, what the Bible calls a lake of fire, we kind of think of it as hell, and we were taken away from that, we were brought to God by his shed blood. It hasn't changed, folks, the gospel of Jesus Christ hasn't changed one bit since he died on the cross and rose from the dead, and it has the same power today that it had 2,000 years ago, or whatever the exact date would be, so I want to make that offer to everybody that is hearing us, if you do not have assurance of eternal life, if you do not know that if you were to pass away tonight, that you would be in the presence of God, you have to get that nailed down, folks, and the Bible tells us that it starts with repentance.
Repentance means that you are living your own life in whatever sin it could be, it could be horrible sins, it could be little sin, it's still sin and separates you from God in eternity. You have to turn from that and turn to Jesus Christ as your Savior along with his word. A disciple of Jesus Christ is in his word. The word and believing in Jesus Christ goes together. So there's repentance. And then there's believing that the Bible says for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish out of everlasting life. So believing that his Son, the God's Son, the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who was without sin, died on the cross, took the penalty for our sin in him on the cross.
And he exchanges and takes our sin and his righteousness is placed in us. That's how we have eternal life. That is not worth, works will not, but how can works pay for the penalty of sin which is death?
It's the death of Jesus Christ, sinless, only begotten Son of God, who God placed the penalty for our sin on him and then took his righteousness and placed it in us. That's why we can go to heaven. That's why we can have eternal life. That's why we can have assurance of eternal life. And then Christ, three days later, rose from the dead, bodily rose from the dead in power.
And that same power can be in us. The resurrection power of Jesus Christ can be in us. So the Gospel is, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. He was buried. One minute. He was buried from the Scriptures.
One minute. Thank you, Pastor. Right now it can be done by a confession that you, I believe, you're praying with me, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.
He died on the cross, shed his blood, took the penalty for my sin, his righteousness was placed in me, and now I have assurance of eternal life. Thank you, Pastor. Absolutely. You know, I know that everything you just said is absolutely true. Everything that you just said is absolutely true. The question is, the question that's out there for these people that we say, well, why should I believe that? Well, and there's no greater source without of credibility in all of history than God's Word, the Bible.
It's the greatest source of proven truth. We're out of time for tonight, so as we get to this time, we always say good night. Good night. We always say God bless, God bless, God bless, God bless, and then we always say and always, always, always, always, always, keep fighting the fight and fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. Thanks for listening to the voice of the Christian resistance, what's right, what's left, hosted by Pastor Ernie Sanders. To learn more about our ministry, please visit us online at www.wrwl.org. Please tune in next time for another edition of What's Right, What's Left. The preceding program is sponsored by What's Right, What's Left Ministries, and is responsible for its content.
