Church & State: Strickland Confronts USCCB, RFK to Head HHS, and Mayan Rite Approved

[00:00:07] Speaker A: Hello and welcome. Today on the Crisis Point Podcast, we're going to do something a little bit different. Instead of focusing on one subject and just talking about that, I'm going to talk about a lot of things that have been the news lately. I was trying to narrow it down to one thing, but I realized there's too much to talk about. So I just decided to go with everything instead. So I'll be talking about Bishop Strickland at the USCC CCB meetings, or I should say outside of the USCCB meetings. Talk about RFK being appointed to the head, the hhs, the Mayan. Right. That's been approved and things of that nature. Before we get started, just want to encourage people to smash that like button. Subscribe to the channel, let other people know about it. We really appreciate everybody who has subscribed. But don't bother hitting the notification button because you have a life outside the Internet. You don't need YouTube telling you what to watch. Know to come and watch the Crisis Point podcast, no matter what. Also, you can follow us on social media at Crisis Mag, at all the major social media outlets. We are not on Blue sky, though, because that seems to be just a pit of hell, like a level of hell, from what I understand. I haven't even tried. For those who don't know what Blue sky is, it's like the liberal attempt to recreate X or Twitter. But I heard like everybody self report, everybody reports everybody else for violating terms of service. And so like everybody gets canceled. You can also subscribe to our email newsletter. Just go to cris magazine.com and put in your email address and we will send you our articles each morning, usually two articles a day, right to your inbox. Okay, so why don't we go ahead and get started here first? Let me go ahead and I got. I'm going to. Might have some technical issues. I already screwed up at the beginning with the intro, but I might have some technical issues. I'm doing things a little bit differently, but bear with me. This is a very small operation here at Crisis in the sense that we do a lot with a very limited budget. And we'll be asking for donations next month, by the way, but we, I think we make things happen here even with our limited budget. Okay, the first thing I want to talk about is that Bishop Strickland confronts the usccb. So last week was the annual USCCB meeting in Baltimore, and Bishop Strickland, who is no longer the Bishop of Tyler, Texas, I assume, was not invited to come, or at least he did. Not go to the actual meetings. Instead, he went outside of the meetings and he made a statement. He prayed in front of the building. He also made a statement that was pretty controversial. We had Kevin Wells, one of our best writers. He wrote an article about it last week at Crisis magazine. It's called A Prophet Among Bishops. And basically the crux of his. Of Bishop Strickland's letter that he read out was to call his fellow bishops to task for not calling out the shenanigans going on at the Vatican, particularly the Synod on Synodality. At one point, Strickland said, almost all of you, my brothers, stood by silently watching as the Synod on Synodality took place. An abomination constructed not to guard the deposit of faith, but to dismantle it. And yet few were the cries heard from you men who should be willing to die for Christ and his church. I mean, this is pretty hardcore. He literally called the synod an abomination. And he is calling on his fellow bishops to speak out against these things going on, like at the Synod on Synodality. Now the question is, what will happen to Bishop Strickland if he continues to do this or even for just doing this? He's already been removed from his diocese. Obviously, the next step would be laicization, where he's removed from being a bishop. You cannot remove, just for those who are technically wondering, you cannot remove a. Like the priesthood from somebody, their priest forever, likewise as a bishop. But you can say they're no longer. You can lay aside them, means they're not able to minister as a bishop or as a priest. And so that could happen. Theoretically. It doesn't mean he's wrong. I mean, essentially, most ways that I would agree with wholeheartedly that we do need bishops speaking out whenever error occurs in the church, no matter who is saying it. So even if error is coming out of sin on synodality, bishops need to speak out. And this is one of my things I the drum I've been hammering for years now, which is bishops need to stop being middle managers for the Vatican and instead recognize they are successors. Each and every one of them are successors to the apostles in their own diocese. They have authority, full authority in their own diocese. And so they should be caring only about the souls in their diocese and getting them to heaven. And so if something is keeping their soul, the souls in their diocese, from heaven or preventing them from growing in holiness, they should speak out against it. And that's what Bishop Strickland's saying now. So I'm not gonna. I'm saying Very clearly that I agree with Bishop Strickland sincerely in his concern that bishops aren't putting the salvation of souls, particularly the souls in their own diocese, as their. As their primary obligation, their primary duty, their primary responsibility. Instead, it's more of a career move, like, okay, I'm just going to make sure I keep my head down and not get in trouble. Now, I know some bishops do that in the sense of, well, I can care for the souls of my diocese best if I do that. Okay, I can understand the argument, whereas I might not agree with it. I can understand it. But I honestly think that what bishops need to do is they do need to speak out more in these situations. All that being said, I am worried about Bishop Strickland. He's a holy man. He's a good man. I've met him myself. I've talked to him numerous times. I think he's a true shepherd who cares about Jesus. My concern is that by the church ostracizing him, church leaders ostracizing him, basically sending him to the peripheries, to use that term. I worry that he might become radicalized in a negative sense. I'm thinking of Archbishop Vigano in this sense. I think that's what happened to Vigano. If you look at Vigano, he had a lot of good things that he said, but the more he was pushed out, the more he got radicalized. And I think then went over the line that you need. That you need to stay on this side of. He went over it in denying that Francis is the Pope and some other things he said. And I have a whole podcast on that that you can, you know, go. Go find and look at my concerns with my. My objections to Archbishop Vigano. I pray and hope that Strickland does not go down that path. I think it's good that he's standing very strong, that he is speaking clearly, but I worry that he will go down the path of ending up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, of rejecting Francis's papacy. He's made very clear by the way that he does not do that, that he. That he accepts Francis's Pope, but so did Vigano for a while. And so I think we should pray for Bishop Strickland that he continues to be a good shepherd and a bold shepherd, but also he keeps the straight and narrow. I mean, that's the thing. I've said this often, that Catholics can go astray on either side. We're walking a tightrope here. On the one side is the progressivism that dominates our church and is the real, the real evil in our church today. But it is possible to fall away on the other side and basically reject the promises of Christ by rejecting the bishops, the magisterium, when it teaches, when it basically says, okay, the bishops, the Cardinal College, Cardinal says this is the Pope, things of that nature. Or you basically say the church doesn't even exist today. I mean, a lot of people are doing that where they're basically saying, because they, the Catholic Church leaders are saying these problematic things, basically, it's just a false church and we can reject anything the bishops say. I don't think we should go down that path either. And I worry and I'm concerned that, that Bishop Strickland might do that. So pray for Bishop Strickland. Okay, next, I want to talk about Bobby Kennedy. RFK Jr. Was tapped ahead the Department of Health and Human Services by President Trump. I honestly think this is great news. I think this is phenomenal news. I know that there are Catholics who are upset. In fact, I got an email today from the Catholic League. Yes, they're still around. Bill Donahue, who's still around, who was complaining about RFK and basically demeaning him and saying that he's changed his positions and things like that. I mean, it was kind of a weird email because he basically said RFK used to think this, but now he thinks this. And like, literally he was saying, like, he didn't know what he would say. I don't. I haven't looked into this yet. And then he would give a new position later. Well, that's because he looked into it makes no sense to me to criticize RFK for changing positions if he's doing research to find to, to, to come to those positions. Now, it's understandable to be concerned about RFK's abortion views. Frankly, it's understandably concerned about the abortion views of almost everybody in Trump's circle in his cabinet than Trump himself. I think it's a legitimate complaint, and it's something we, as pro lifers should continually pressure the Trump administration to be pro life as much as possible. That being said, when we look realistically at who could head the hhs, first of all, let's remember it's literally a dude pretending to be a woman who's the head of HHS now. And so we, we have somebody who's either mentally ill or just, you know, pranking all of us who's in charge of health in this country. And so having somebody like RFK is such a huge improvement, but he's Also so much better than almost anybody else that would realistically be tapped ahead the hhs. Why? Because he will actually go against Big Pharma. He will go against a lot of the narratives in our culture today that have led to the great health crisis we have now. I know some people don't really recognize the health crisis we're in. They don't really think it's that big a deal that I think it's because they don't really look into it that we have such a huge obesity rate that we have, you know, all these vaccines we pump into our kids. I think it's like 70 some vaccines on the vaccine schedule now that we, you know, we have so much increase in autism and diabetes, all these things. The idea that we shouldn't look into some maybe controversial views on how we can stop these things is just silly because obviously what we've been doing doesn't work. It's been causing a great health crisis in our country. And I do think our physical health is tied to our spiritual health. People who have physical health issues, particularly when it comes to, like obesity and diabetes, things that are lead to brain fog and lethargy and things like that, can impact our spiritual lives. And I think I've talked about that in the past. So I think we should. I think as Catholics, we should be happy that RFK is going to head the hhs. I think that honestly, we need to realize what a big deal this is, how radical this is. I mean, just a year ago, RFK was laughed at by all of society. Maybe two years ago, he was the anti vax guy. He was a crazy guy. He was saying things like wi fi affects, you know, your brains or whatever. Now he is, and he's a Kennedy. Now he. He is appointed by a Republican president to head Health and Human Services. And I think, I mean, we were implementing useless vaccine and mask mandates just a couple years ago. Now we have somebody who's going to head hhs, will make sure that nonsense doesn't happen. So I think we should support rfk, and obviously if he does something that's pro abortion, we should oppose that. But I think this is a big deal for our country and great news. Okay, next news story I want to talk about is the Mayan right has been approved. So there's a new story that, like in Mexico, there's been talk about this for a few years. It's been called this is right of it's a novice. It's basically a form of the Novus Ordo. By the way, there's a whole debate about what it means when you say right form, things like that. I just think often we use these interchangeably. The point is, is that there's going to be a modified form of the Novus Ordo in use in Mexico. And people are calling it the Mayan rite. And it basically takes certain aspects of Mexican culture and puts it into the Mass. And so three of the things that I've seen that are going to be included are ritual dances. So there'll be like a ritual dance that, that members of the congregation may. The whole congregation are involved in during the. The liturgy. During the Mass, there will be women performing the ministry of incense bears in Mass instead of the priest. So they will be incensing potentially the altar and things of that nature, women instead of the priest. Also, there will be men and women leading some parts of the Mass as principles, as the principle. So instead of the priest, a man or a woman might lead, a layperson might lead parts of it. Now, this is understandably, got a lot of Catholics concerned and even upset, and I'm with them. I think it's obvious that, you know, things like having women in priestly roles, even if you don't want to call it a priest, is always a bad thing because men, the only people can be priests are men. Christ himself made it like that. And yes, you can try to skirt around it by giving these kind of alternative like things and say it's not priests doing it, whatever, but we all know what the purpose is. It's all pointing towards, let's have women priests, which is not going to happen. So I think these are bad things when, for example, you have women doing the incense around the altar. Because I don't care what the culture is, if women typically do this in your culture in other contexts, the fact is in Catholicism, only men do it. In fact, not just any man. I can't do it. Only priests do it. I mean, you have a server who's a third for a whole, who might instance a few things. But instancing the altar, for example, is the priest who does that. And so this is another thing that confuses the role of the priest and also confuses the role of men and women in the liturgy. And so it's a bad thing. There's no question about that. I feel like, though, that the real problem is deeper than just simply saying that, okay, there are some things about this Mass that are a little bit off and not done in the traditional manner. I think honestly, the whole attitude, the whole approach to this is wrong. Because it doesn't understand the liturgy and how it develops and how it grows. The reality is that the Roman Rite and the other venerable rites of the church, so, for example, the Dominican Rite, the Eastern rights, things like that, they develop organically over time, and they do take in aspects of a culture over time. But here's the fact, for the venerable ancient rites of the Church, for example, the Roman Rite, the Eastern rites, most of this happened in the first few centuries of the Church, and then it became stabilized where changes were not made very often. And there's reasons for this. Peter Kwesnevsky's written about this before that essentially the structure and the form of the Mass becomes relatively set with only minor changes here and there over time. And that is the way the Church has done it for know, over a thousand years. And it allows us to remember that we're not. We're not the creators of the liturgy. Man does not fiddle with and create and change the liturgy. The liturgy. We don't form the liturgy. The liturgy forms us. And so this idea that basically, let's be honest, it came up after Vatican II when they instituted the Innovus Ordo, because basically it was like, okay, we can just completely reshape it however we want and do a complete change overnight, which is what the Novus Ordo essentially was. Yeah, the structure stays the same, but almost every aspect of the Mass was changed overnight by a committee in Rome. That in and of itself is not the way the liturgy had been treated for 2,000 years. And so this Mayan Rite is just another example of this where let's have some church officials fiddle with it and make changes that we'll say is enculturation. But really, it's like, we want to have certain things happen, so we're just going to do it. And so I really think that this is not a proper way to look at the liturgy. And I know some people argue this is enculturation. We're baptizing pagan things. And yes, it is true in the past, the Church does baptize pagan things at times in the liturgy. In fact, however, it seems to me this is more a matter of paganizing baptized things. You know, baptizing, meaning the liturgy. We're going to paganize it by adding pagan elements to it. Why do we feel like it's necessary? I mean, let's just use the example of the woman instancing the altar. What is the purpose of that? What is the purpose of. For evangelization and bringing people to the gospel of helping people draw Closer to Christ. How does it do that? Is it because they're used to seeing women at the altar, at pagan altars? I mean, is that really, first of all the case? Do they really see, I mean, are all these Mexicans a bunch of pagans now that we need to evangelize, so we need to gradually get them by having women do this? No, of course not. It's really what is an acceptance of modern ideas of feminism and men and women. And so it's really doing that. It's not helping anybody. Instead, we need to do the real work of educating, catechizing and evangelizing people to understand the roles of men and women, why only men can be priests and things of that nature and what the liturgy is. Instead, we do all these little changes to the liturgy, thinking, oh, this will, like, basically, I don't know, bring people to Christ? I mean, you wonder, the proponents of this, I think they fall into a couple different categories. One category is the people who sincerely think that this will help people draw closer to Christ for some reason or another. I think there are also people who are like, this will allow us to slip in things about modern ideas and like, for example, bring in women to become priests one day. This will be a step towards that. So I think, and like, whether or not you're on one side or the other in that argument, you're wrong. Because what you really need to do is understand that we need to be formed by the. By the liturgy, not the other way around. Okay, so next. Next story. Let's talk about mass deportation. So here's my attitude. I'm very cynical when it comes to calls for mass deportation during an election. I think of it back in the day when every Republican would talk about, we're going to overturn Roe v. Wade, and none of them did anything to actually make it happen. I mean, let's be honest. George W. Bush didn't do anything to make it happen. George H.W. bush didn't do anything. No senator, almost no senator or congressman did anything for years. It wasn't until Trump came in and appointed some good Supreme Court justices that actually happened. I think, honestly, when it happened, then a lot of Republicans like, oh, shoot, now we might have to actually do something on abortion. I feel like mass deportation is a similar thing. Republicans for years will talk about having a mass deportation if they're elected. And then literally the day after election, it's forgotten, and there's no. No effort whatsoever. However, it looks like it's possible there might be an attempt this time. First of all the borders are. That was appointed by Trump. What's his name? Tom Homan. I think it is, yeah. Tom Homan. He seems hard line. I mean, he seems like he really wants to deport people and really make it happen, and not just on the edges, but deport large numbers of illegal immigrants back to their country of origin. Also, just this weekend, Trump tweeted our social media, True, social, whatever, that when somebody said that Trump wants to use the military to institute mass deportations, he said true. Which of course left a lot of people going crazy, triggered all the liberals. But the. So it might look. It looks like it might actually happen. There might actually be significant numbers of deportations when Trump takes office. Now, I personally still think it won't be massive. I don't think it'll be a massive. I just don't think practically it can happen. I think it'd be too many difficulties in happening. I think the more likely scenario is, is that they will focus on real criminals, like serious criminals who are here illegally sending them back, which I think is a great thing, by the way. I think that. I think they should do that. I do think it's possible that you could have the negatives outweigh the positives if you try a true mass deportation, because then what you're talking about is really spending a lot of energy on rounding up people and sending them back, which will involve lots of people with guns, lots of forced entry into houses and apartment buildings and forcing people into detention and sending them back. And you'll see on the news every night, which will have less impact because the news doesn't have as much impact as you see. You'll see kids being rounded up with their moms and, you know, all these sob stories. I just don't think. I honestly don't think America has the will to do that. I think if they tried, it would backfire and actually would turn people against the Trump administration. I do think, though, if you do significant deportations of illegal immigrants, I mean, of legal immigrants who commit serious crimes like rapists, murders, people like that, oh, everybody's going to be. I mean, everybody rational is going to be behind that, and you'll get approval ratings through the roof. So I definitely think that it's possible. I just don't think. I still don't think mass deportations are going to happen. I just think it's going to be maybe significant ones. I also think, by the way, the first priority, obviously shut the border. And I do think they're going to try to do that. Shut the Border as much as possible. Biden open it up completely, shut it down completely. Don't let anybody in for a while and basically then you can deport some and start having a good process to bring in immigrants who will help our country. Not just any immigrant, but I talked about this last week with Sarah Kane, but actual immigrants that will help our country. Okay, the next story is probably the biggest one on this. I'm kind of bearing the lead. So Biden, I mean we say Biden, but somebody in the Biden administration decided that Ukraine is now allowed to use US missiles to attack Russia directly. Not, not just Russian forces in Ukraine, but in Russian territory. And this is a huge deal because this was not allowed before and then all of a sudden now Biden allows it. I'll say Biden, but you know what I mean by I say Biden. Whoever is behind Biden and Putin in Russia, they just, they just announced that basically they're changing their rules about whether how to use nuclear weapons. They will they now consider an attack on their territory by a non NATO country using weapons from a NATO source. I, in this case a nao country as basically NATO attacking them. And so in, in, in Russia's mind, and this happened by the way that the Ukraine did today, I think it was, maybe it was last night, today or yesterday did actually attack Ukraine attacked Russia with U.S. missiles. And so a lot of people are saying is this going to be World War Three? And I think it's a legitimate concern. I mean I've talked about this conflict in the past in this podcast. You probably know where I stand if you don't. I think it's, I think honestly that this whole thing was provoked by NATO, by the United States. I don't think Putin's innocent, but at the same time I, I think we had a million to one off ramps before this, that we could have had peace. And the US literally every single time chose not to take the off ramp for peace. We could have just said NATO, Ukraine won't be in NATO. We could have not organized a coup in 2014. We could have done lots of things we could have done. And we still to this day could negotiate off ramps. I mean we're the sugar daddy for Ukraine. We've been seeing them hundreds of billions of dollars. We can tell them what to do. In fact we should tell them what to do. We can say, okay, we're going to negotiate a peace and you're going to agree to it, otherwise we cut you off completely. I mean we should cut them off completely anyway. So do I think though, we're going to have a nuclear war? I don't think so. And here's the reason why. I mean, not right now at least. I think Putin knows Trump's coming in soon. I don't think he would risk a nuclear war just because Biden does something as a lame duck when he knows Trump's coming in. And Trump's going to be much more likely to negotiate a peace and one that will make both Ukraine and Russia both happy and upset, which is a good, that means it's a good negotiated piece if both sides aren't completely happy, but aren't completely upset as well. And so I don't think he's gonna, he's gonna use nuclear weapons. But to be honest, I don't know what Biden's gonna keep on doing. And there's no way you can predict for sure what Putin is gonna do. So it still is possible. I'm just hopeful that Putin is rational enough to say, okay, Trump's coming in soon and we're gonna take care of this. We're gonna wrap this thing up before too long. Okay, next headline is from the Crazy Files. The Leshi League, which is a long time organization that supported breastfeeding and it's honestly an awesome, it's been an awesome organization for years. I remember when we first had children, my wife got lots of information on breastfeeding. It really helped her. You know, we breast, you know, she breastfed all, all of our kids. And the Leshy League was one that we recommended all the time. Unfortunately, it's gone woke over the past number of years and in fact has embraced the transgenderism nonsense. And now they support chest feeding, which is their term for basically men trying to breastfeed people. I don't, honestly, I didn't even want to look into biologically if that's possible because it's just so crazy. But this is what the Laleshi League has started to embrace. And so the founder, one of the founders, Marian Thompson, she resigned from the board of directors because she's, you know, she's a founder. She said, I'm not going to embrace this craziness. And so this is just an example. I bring this up because Leshy League is a great organization, has been passed now. It's terrible when you go woke, it's going to destroy you. I mean any organization that goes woke, it will, they will eventually destroy themselves. And this is what's happening. My hope is that somebody will start up a new organization, breastfeeding organization. Maybe there Already is one that will be a alternative to the Lashley League, which has gone woken, cannot be supported by any Catholic. Anybody who thinks that men can breastfeed babies is an abusive person, potentially mentally ill and definitely not Catholic. Okay, next story. Will Doge cut government? The Department of Government Efficiency. So we got Elon and Vivek in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency, which is nicknamed Doge, which is a funny joke for those who understand it. And so they're talking about slashing and burning a lot of government. Will this actually happen? That's the question. I think the answer is not as much as some of us hope. I mean, my honest opinion is I would love to see the federal government reduced to about 5% of its current size and then we start doing the real cuts. No, like really cut 95% of it. That's not going to happen. And let's be honest, they're not going to touch the Pentagon. They're not going to touch the military, military industrial complex. I don't think that's going to be touched. I mean, there might be some cosmetic changes, but that's not really going to be changed. But will they make some changes? I think they will. I don't think it will be anywhere deep and as massive as we hope, some of us hope at least. But I think they'll make some more changes in the past. I mean, here's. I saw somebody say this on X was if they simply stopped the growth of government, that would be huge. Because remember, every year the government expands. And when they talk about reducing the size of government, what they're saying is reducing the size of the expansion of government. So instead of expanding by 5% each year, they expand by 4%. They call that a reduction. It's still getting 4% bigger. But my hope is, is that it will actually shrink in size. It will be an actual shrinkage of the government in size. I think what they should do is start off with one department and gut it a lot department nobody cares about. Or is there's a political will behind it, like cancel the. Close the Department of Education or something like that. And I think what's going to happen, though, the reason I think that something will happen because remember, Republicans have been talking about slashing the size of government for decades. And it's just like the promise of mass deportations a day after the election. You forget about it until the next election cycle. The reason I think this is going to happen because two reasons. Number one, Elon is behind it and he is really behind it like he is promoting it and giving it pr, and now. And that's making the people behind it. I mean, he's so influential that we actually see now a real political will to make it happen. The second is Vivek Ramaswamy actually knows how to do it. He's got ideas of what. What needs to be done to actually reduce the size of government and to. To really and around all the legal problems that would inevitably come up if you tried to reduce the size of government. So I do think that the culture shifting to demand a real change here, I think will make something happen. In fact, if they drop the ball here, though, I don't know if it could ever happen, because I don't think I've ever seen in my lifetime, at least, a true desire among the American people to actually slash government. Because what it was before is people would say that. And then the second there was actually discussion of maybe cutting this part of government, then everybody would say, no, no, we can't do that, because it would harm so and so, you know, maybe grandma or disabled person, something like that. They'd find some sob story. But I think now they. Most people can read through that and they'll be like, nope, we. We need to decrease the size of government. So I'm hopeful in that one. Okay, next story. Pope Francis, believe it or not, says something controversial. I know that's hard to believe, but this has to do with what's going on in Palestine, in Gaza, with the Israeli Hamas war there. In a new book that's coming out, I believe this week, he endorsed the idea of investigating whether or not what's going on in Gaza is a genocide. Now, for those who aren't aware of this, there are legal definitions in international law about what is a genocide. And some people say what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza meets those definitions. I personally think it's not. It's kind of a waste of time to get too much into those, those nitpicky arguments, because what's happening is terrible. And so if we, if we have a grammatical argument that takes away from the real argument, what's happening. But Pope Francis thinks there should be investigation. In fact, he said, according to some experts, what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. It should be carefully investigated to determine whether it fits into the technical definition formulated by jurists and international bodies. I mean, I commend the Pope for not being beholden to the pro Israeli crowd. And he's not pro Hamas either. I mean, this is what's nice about what Pope Francis is saying about this, and he does the same, by the way. He's the same. He's just as good on Ukraine and Russia, in my opinion, is he understands that he should be for peace. He should be representing the side of peace and negotiating peace. He should not be for one side over the other. I mean, nobody's really arguing, nobody sane is arguing. What hamas did on October 7 was a good thing. It was awful, it was diabolical. But that does not excuse any and all responses. I've said this before, I'll say it again. And so what Israel is doing, the campaign is conducting in Palestine, in Gaza, it's horrific and it's completely disproportional to what is needed. And so the fact that Pope Francis is bringing up maybe it's a genocide, I think is a good thing because it allows us to discuss these things openly. And I appreciate him being one of the few world leaders, there's very few world leaders who are willing to say, like, I'm not going to take one side, but I'm going to promote peace. I mean, I think Viktor Orban in Hungary does a pretty good job of that. There might be a couple others, but. And I think Trump actually does a pretty good job of that. But I think most world leaders are terrible. Okay. The last thing I wanted to talk, I wanted to bring up here was the, what I call the white pill of the week. I do think that we, we have a problem of being of doom scrolling. I do this sometimes myself. You know, obviously our magazine is called Crisis. We're talking about bad things that are happening in the world. But I do think it's important sometimes to have a white pill to understand when something good is happening. And so I wanted to show this video of the famous Trump dance that has been going, that has been catching like wildfire around the country. Because I just think I love watching it, so I'm going to share it with you here. Mad about those other guys and all the things they do wrong. The one thing that I will not forgive them for is they're trying to steal the joy from this country. [00:34:00] Speaker B: Hold up, wait a minute. Something ain't right. [00:34:05] Speaker A: Trump's iconic dance moves are sweeping the Internet and winning him a lot of fans across the globe. Trump's dance moves were on show throughout and even after his election campaign. And it seems like everyone wants to hop on the bandwagon. [00:34:20] Speaker B: Young man, there's no need to feel down I said, young man Pick yourself off the ground I said, young man Cause you're In a new town, there's no need to be unhappy. Young man, there's a place you can go. I said a young man, when you're short on your dough, you can stay there. And I'm sure you will find many ways to have a good time. It's fun to stay at the ymca. It's fun to stay at the ymca. They have everything from your men to enjoy. You can hang. [00:35:22] Speaker A: Okay, so everybody got to see my Trump dance. That's the best thing about the Trump dance is anybody can do it. Even an old white guy like me can do it. What I love about this is recognize the cultural shift that has occurred here. The victory by Trump has shifted things dramatically. Most of those clips, if you're watching the video, if you're just listening to this, I apologize. You didn't get to see my Trump dance or anybody else's. Were from the NFL. Remember, the NFL was doing all the woke stuff just a couple years ago with the kneeling during the national anthem and things like that. Most sports leagues are like that. And here we have NFL players doing the Trump dance when they score a touchdown. And there was also other. I mean, it's around the world, there's like the Greek, somebody from Greece, a newscaster was doing it. And I think we need to recognize what a white pill this is, because what it does is it really does. It really shows that people got tired of the constant nagging, the constant cancellation, the constant like, oh, you can't actually support Trump. You can't be conservative, you can't be against transgender, whatever, because we will shut you down. And finally, people had enough, and they said, no, we're tired of this. We're going to be who we are, and we're going to be free to be who we are. And we're not going to let you tell us who or what we're allowed to, you know, who are. What we're allowed to like or praise. So I thought it was a great thing. So. So go Trump dance. And I'm sure my kids will be embarrassed when they find out I did the Trump dance on the video. Okay, let's wrap this up with some comments and questions. I forgot to mention at the beginning. I. If you're part of the live chat, I really like it if you would go ahead and comment and chat, and I'll try to bring it up as much as. As possible. So, okay, so the first question is from Bolo Fuss. W. And H.W. bush, both appointed Supreme Court justice, who over to en row. Just like Trump. I'M not fans of them for other reasons. Bless him. Credit what is you thank you. You are right. I don't think though. I think my point is this is that they didn't really care if Roe was the way it was overturned. They did appoint just good justices, but I think it was more by accident that they ended up being people who overturned it. I'm just not big fans of Bush's. I don't think either of them cared about the abortion issue at all. So I don't think Trump is a big one either. So. Okay, so next comment. Female Casey, Royals fan from Nebraska. Maya was actually Central America, not Mexico. Yeah, but I think it's in Mexico that this is happening. They're calling it the Mayan. Right. I thought I saw some question about what this, you know, what it should be called and things like that, but I do think it is in Mexico. Jerome Smith says the obvious answer to avoid air best we can is return to tlm. Amen, brother, Amen. If you're in the Rome, the Roman, right, just go the traditional Latin mass and then you don't have to worry about these shenanigans or go to a good eastern mass. I also support the ordinariate is the best way just to avoid kind of this silliness. August TV 123 do should move most of the government offices to Alabama or South Dakota and many people will quit and empties the D.C. swamp. I think that's a great idea. I think I've said something similar to this. Move it to the middle of the country like in Kansas or Wichita or something. I feel bad for, you know, for, for people in Wichita or like Nebraska, somewhere like that. First of all, it kind of represents our country better. And you know, and I also think a lot of the people, like he was saying, the people who love the east coast, people who love leaving DC all the rich people out there, they're going to quit. And so we solve the problem if you move it. I mean, why should the Department of Agriculture, for example, not be in the Midwest? I mean that is the heart of our agricultural system is the Midwest. So why is the Department of Agriculture headquartered in Washington, D.C. ? I think you could say the same for a lot of these different organizations. Okay. I guess TV123 also says the best US and T player did this dance after scoring a goal last night. As woke as US Soccer has become as funny to see. Yeah, that's the funny thing is we saw it in football games. We saw it in, you know, college and NFL football games. I saw it in soccer games, saw it on like TV stations. I, the, the most famous one probably was that the, the fighter, you know, the, the, what's it called, Ultimate Fighting, Whatever it's called. I'm not, I don't follow it that much. That did it right in front of Trump and thank Trump afterwards and he's like one of the best. So anyway, I think this is a cultural moment. I think it's a good sign. Elvin Rivera says, thanks for the Trump dance. You're welcome. Just wanted to bust out my moves. I figure if Donald Trump, who's like a 78 year old white guy, can do it, then this 50 something white guy can do it as well. So my point here is this. Don't be totally black pilled. There are good things happening in the country and so accept them when they happen. Yes, we need to be vigilant. We need to understand that bad things can happen and will happen in the future and be ready for them. But don't assume we can't have victories. And I think these type of things are victories for us. Okay, I'm gonna wrap it up there. Until next time, everybody. God love.