Latest / Palafox Media Network / Kingdom Revelations: Truth VS Power

Transcript

Kingdom Revelations: Truth VS Power · Palafox Media Network

• Charles: Welcome everyone to Kingdom Revelations. This is your host, Charles Farfield. I'll be joined shortly by Greg Fink. We're gonna talk about the latest Supreme Court decisions and the latest things that's happened in the world that affects us as Americans and and the people all over the globe for what's affects America eventually affects the globe. Because for our economy outstanding in the world. Before I bring in Greg Fink, let me go into my normal commentary. Recently United States Supreme Court made some major, major rulings. That they did a pretty decent job up holding the Constitution, but one of the problems I have with this out of control Supreme Court is their failure to follow legal precedents. One of the major decisions that this Supreme Court just ruled on was a a birthright citizenship case. The problem I have with that as a lawyer is a five to four decision. In the Constitution There's never been a case, a legal layout, as easy as this particular case in terms of if you are born in these United States, you ordeemed to be a citizen the United States. The plain ⁓ of that constitutional ⁓ Anyone that has a functional brain knows that. It's offensive that four jurors on the highest court in the lane did not see this obvious legal layup. Meaning that this decision is on life support, on legal life support. And it should not be. There is obviously built-in systemic and ideological bias when you become a jurist, your life assurances, your education, your training, your thinking, your values, where you grew up, all that plays a a natural But that that this goes beyond political or ideological bias. This becomes the issue of credibility and legitimacy. If the American public doesn't have a legitimate view of this Supreme Court and it's polar less than politicians, less than Congress, and it's been like that for a number of years, this democracy is in lack support. And the people who are sworn an oath to uphold It has been a jury judiciary. Since the case of Matt Marbury versus Madison, that the Supreme Court has said that it justified the the judiciary branches being the final authority matters of legal disputes. But you cannot have ⁓ on the highest court in the land operating political ⁓ agenda agents a particular party, irrespective of what agenda what party. They're trying to enforce their agenda on. There has to be a level of systemic objectivity for us to survive as a nation. Too many people have died and bled from lynching, the killing, the the the dress crop, the three-fifths of a person as an African-American black person, black people. has always been a fight in this country. And yet, the very people who sworn an oath to uphold. the law for justice and fairness and quality. They have reached their duty. It is time, American people, that we change, make fun of our changes to the Supreme Court in the United States. You we can no longer give them a lifetime appointment. We need to limit the Supreme Court juries to a fifteen year term limit. And that's because it is in the best interest of democracy. These juries act like they are black robe gods in their own delision of arrogance, intellectual arrogance, and think that they are so smart that they almost try to equate themselves to God. And that is an abomination to God Himself. And so I think that we need to re examine giving these Supreme Court justices tenure. It has made them arrogant. out of touch with everyday American people. The pauses and the law that they implement, they don't have to follow because they're in their own intellectual bubble. We've seen the jurors, Clarence Thomas, aka in the black community, and I've labored him Uncle Ruckus, because he's a character. How is it that a sitting jurist on the Supreme Court could be in the halls of Congress in broad daylight doing working hours of Congress, ⁓ seemingly meeting with a congressperson or maybe a speaker. We don't know. That's speculative. But the fact that he's on video in the House of Representatives Chamber when he's about to make major rulings that affect the lives of the American people is beyond outrage. When the oral arguments will happen, this sitting president. For the first time ever, a sitting president was in oral arguments at the beginning of this session so that on the very cases that the Supreme Court just make the ruling zone to try to sway influence. This public bias, this public corruption stop. This idea of doing corruption in plain sight to justify saying that it's not corrupt. We cannot long no longer accept this as American people. We have a obligation. We have a duty. We were seeing a lot of a lot of things go on. Of course, today $2.2 billion that this current president made in 2025 through crypto deals. We see him influencing stock markets routinely on a regular basis. So we're gonna talk about these issues because the credibility of the Supreme Court. Is is shattered. And I'm wondering, can it even be redeemable in the eyes of a substantial significant portion of the American people? So let's bring in Greg Freek and let's debate and talk about some of these issues. Welcome to the show, Greg. Doing good, doing good. Let's let's get into it. The Supreme Court made a five of full birthright citizenship decision for basically reaffirming that. Greg: Hello, how you doing? Charles: if you born in this country in America that you are now deemed a a citizen in the world. That's always been the case for decades and decades and decades. Is is plain plain or written in the in the Constitution. But my concern is something so easy had a five or four decision, which means that it can easily be overturned real quickly. That's very troubling to me. ⁓ I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. This this this particular situation And we can go into cases too, but let's start with the birthright citizenship case. Greg: I you know, I agree that, ⁓ you know, basically I think if you're born here, you should be a citizen here, but also, mean, I was actually, know, and far as their stance on it goes, I think they, they upheld that correct. Charles: Yeah, it did, it did. But five Greg: And so, so well, five to four. so, I mean, you know, there's not very, you know, a of the voting is not always unanimous and, and, and also the whole credibility of the courts, think, you know, it's really in the eyes of the people who, know, who agree or disagree with their decision-making. mean, you know, it's a, I've said before, the court's been political for years and decades. And, and so don't think that the way they're behaving now is any different than The way they're behaving before, think the difference is that if you're on the side that they're siding for, you're okay with it. you're against what they're siding for, you think it's worst thing in the world. And so I think that a lot of this very subjective on how, you know, I mean, you know, on how they're handling the different situations and comparatively to the other courts. And when you say about their integrity, yeah, I think, you know, the courts integrity is going to outlast it. I mean, granted, they might have low poll numbers, but you know, me being a pollster, I also know that, you know, Poll numbers could be in the way you ask the questions. And secondly, you're also the people who are polled only know what the media tells them. So the media already has a bias against what the judiciary is saying. Then the messaging that the media is putting out to the people who will be taking the polls are going to be biased as well. That includes you and I both. mean, you're a lawyer, so it's a little different for you because you actually know the law. That's how you know exactly the different jurisprudence, the definitions and all the... all the legal leaves and all this stuff. And, and, and you're a, you you understand you're an officer of the court. So, you know, you know, so I defer to you as far as their accuracy or lack thereof and how they handled the different decisions or, or their deliberations. But that being said, when you're asking the general public, whether they think about the Supreme court, I doubt, you know, you ask the general public on if they even know who's on the Supreme court. They probably won't. You ask them about, know, if they know who the chief judge is, probably not going to. And so whenever, whenever you talk about the credibility of the Supreme court with the John, John Doe public or Jane Doe public, everything else, I don't think is, you know, I don't think I was making any radical changes or saying it's can only be 15 years or, or increasing the number of people on the court. Is it going to make any difference at all? I don't think it'll be any better at all. That's just my thought. Charles: Yeah, I will I will I will I will agree with you in in terms of the the we have a lot of information society but I think as much if information we we have become will become corporally or in the average dumb up because there's a different I'll preach about this, the difference between information versus ver versus revelation. We are tremendous information. And information can be used to be misleading you, can misguide you, could put a person in a state of delusion and and can be misinterpreted for information and data. But revelation is a spiritual thing that centers you from a spiritual standpoint and it's it's divine and it's godly. And I think when you have a revelation or revelatory word, you don't have to fully understand it because the spirit of God teaches you what's right and what's wrong, and what's, you know, good or bad. You know, and so it kinda moves you, influences you to kinda govern your affairs and even the way you think. You know, but I think w we're we're in a society where we put our attention, our focus in one news channel or how we get our news and if we if we if we if we stick with just MSE now, you're gonna get one interpretation. If you do with Fox News, you're gonna get another interpretation. So And if you don't intentionally try to expand your capacity to receive information or whatever, you're gonna be in in a eco chamber that is that can make you delusional and out of touch with what's really going on. You know, and that's I think that's one of the biggest problems. So I do agree with you that most people don't know what's really going on with the Supreme Court. But at the same time I think most folders fundamentally know yeah who they want on the Supreme Court in terms of what the political outcome will be. And sometimes they get, you know, unexpected kind of decision making that they'd never anticipate. You know, and sometimes we they get what we call bias remorse. You know what I mean? That they thought that there was ⁓ vote this, but they really didn't think there was vote for all that stuff. Whatever that all that stuff will be, you know, so I but I do I would agree with you that But people do need to care more. And my biggest grief is non-voters. I my biggest is I don't have an issue with people that vote. Now I can disagree too strongly, but more concerned with the eighty-something million people who are eligible to vote, 84 million people that didn't vote. You have the the you you didn't have the the responsibility or the care or consideration to go vote. And many things as you know. Greg: Yeah, I was like... Charles: They have Astra T Valley, they Miller Valley, they have sold to the polls. If most of the time you can you don't have to be on election day, you can have weeks or sometimes two or three weeks before actual voting day. And I think that's a good thing. I know sometimes ⁓ the conservatives kinda like like just on one vote one day. But what what if you you in the north and you have snowstorms on that voting day, that's a point why you have, you know, more than one you know, weeks before. to actually vote, you know, and I I usually always early vote. I I never chance vote on the day of because you may get sick, you may have an emergency. I always early vote. Always. Greg: day. Yep. Yep. I only voted one time and after that, back in, guess in 2006, I pretty much voted election day almost every other time. I never have voted absentee yet. No, I- Charles: I do no it was called earlier. Yeah, actually go I actually go there, but you know, two weeks early vote. I Yeah, I I I like doing it's like, you know, I don't chance with Murphy's Law, so to speak. You know, when I was in journalism. Well d ⁓ no, my thing is is that anything can happen. I mean you can have a you get in a little fender bin or car accident. You go out Greg: Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. I don't know about you. So you do that, I can change your mind That happened to me one time. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, my car issues one time I was out putting up signs for a candidate. And so I was putting up all the different yard signs and we doing that. All the different precinct locations and polling locations. And we had like, guess, 82 precincts ⁓ to And I started at three o'clock in the morning and I actually fell asleep in the parking lot at one of the voting locations. And when I woke up, I only had like an hour left to vote. I said, Oh my goodness, I actually fell asleep the entire day in a voting location. And it was not my voting location. It was two freezings away from my voting location. So I had to wake up and then go to my voting location and wait in line for an hour and a half to go vote. Yes, you're right. Anything can half up. Charles: Anything can pop up, so that's why I like the early vote. That's exactly why I like to to early vote. There there were some other issues in terms of Supreme Court dealt with. One of the things that I think you kinda like, which they in one case basic they open up the the the restrictions on campaign funding. So now they they they the i the parties were were restricted to a limited amount of monies that the parties can kind of put on advertising, things like that. But but you have corporations doing their bidding for them, which is that's why all that Melan all that TV ads that the parties didn't act didn't directly pay for, but indirectly the people who like corporations w will basically will speak it through on whoever candidates they support. Now I think you gotta it it's unlimited now, where now the parties can spend all kind of money. And now the corporation can. So the question is Not it for people who it's gonna help you with campaign finances and run the campaign what you do, but but just from a straight philosophical standpoint, it was already bad. Now ⁓ I mean it w with no Greg: Yeah. don't think the pool got any bigger. think just a channels in the streets. The money is going down and just got redirected. It got detoured. I think actually it's probably got in a weakening the packs and weakening the C fours and weakening the five 27s because the more money is going to be going straight through the party directly now. And here's where the biggest problem I see is that we always have problems with, you know, I've worked with a lot of insurgent candidates with candidates who are against the system or against the establishment. And the majority of them were always outraged by the establishment guys. And so once you give the establishment unfettered access to all that money, then basically as we used to call it the incumbent protection clause. And that's one thing that we always hated was that it didn't matter how bad the guy was, they're going to stick with the guy they, they, they took to the dance. And that was it. They were going to find a different dance partner. so, uh, and so that being said, if the incumbent stinks as a, does a horrible job and you have somebody else who wants to run against him, who might be a better choice, that the party will stick with that bad choice incumbent instead of funding somebody who might go against him. guess the whole concept is a double you know, instead of the double you don't. And so that's where this, this is going to, in my opinion, be bad is just going to. and strengthen the entrenchment of the establishment and not give people from outside the establishment or dwindle their opportunity to challenge the leaders. Charles: Well let let me ask your take on this and just from a a pure intellectual standpoint, knowing that you're traditional GOP kind of conservative. Now, we know what happened with the three candidates in in New York and most people are kinda saying that the the set proclaimed socialist democrats that won't was in New York. And I was about what last now we seen Colorado the same social democrats Greg: Yeah, DSI. in Colorado. Charles: One in Colorado and unsee was it Benny comic? Yeah. He's a very normal, kind of ⁓ kind of fella. Very I was very surprised that he lost. Honestly, I really was surprised that he got he lost. I really was stunned by that. Greg: Regular Democrat. a shocker. ⁓ young people are turning out. ⁓ Charles: That was a shocker to me because he's a f I mean, Michael Bain, I think it's saying he's a very n you know, kinda unreasonable fella, down to earth politician. I th I thought was very effective. But what I think is happening is that and the and the deal's about to watch out because I've always said they are politically the Buffalo Bills. They can take they can just lose when they're supposed to win. But the thing about it is that I think the people are saying If you're not doing nothing and you're going along with the traditional establishment, get out the way. We throw in some new people. I see that. That's going to get something done. And that's why I think that because like you can kind of understand it with all the different boroughs and the uniqueness of you know New York. But in Colorado, I just I didn't see this in Colorado. This Greg: Yeah. It is weird. It is weird because I mean, have Jasmine Crockett, who is actually part of the DSA group. She lost in her primary in Texas, but, you know, and she's also an incumbent for a few years, but then Bennett loses in Colorado, who's a traditional Democrat. And so basically I think, I think what you're seeing here is actually counter actually to what the Supreme court just unleashed. see a lot of people who are just fed up with the incumbents of both parties. I mean, this is the first time. In recent history, we've seen this many incumbents lose in their primary of either party. gives political scientists to go do some research on that, but there has not been an election cycle like this where we've had so many numerous incumbents lose. Because incumbents usually win 95 % of the time for general election and 99 % of the time for primaries. That's roughly an estimate. And so that said, they're not this year. And incumbents... People are fed up of both parties of basically status quo and doing things the way they've always been done. And they're seeing that no matter what their ideological tilt is, no matter what their bully pulpit promises are, that nothing's being done period to help the general welfare of the districts and the communities. And so people are looking for a change with that. Now with this campaign finance issue, empowering the establishment. A party of both parties. That's the thing is it's not just Republican is it's every party empowered. so Democrats are going to take full advantage of it as well. So don't, don't be naive to think they're not. They will. They'll take full advantage of it. And so, but it's, it's going to be funding for the entrenched establishment that is gaining their butts handed to them in the primaries. So it's going to be weird. Charles: think that ⁓ parties are vi equal violator of that. I think my issue with it is that ⁓ it's gonna it's gonna be the financial elites, the billionaire corporations that's gonna have politicians their puppets. Basically, the corporation and the billionaire tell them what to do. You don't think you just do what we tell you to do, and that's not gonna be in the best interest of the average American. That's gonna Greg: My question is, the billionaires going to be funding the incumbents and the establishment that the people say they don't want, or are they going to be funding? That's very curious ⁓ question and funding question for me is are they going to be funding like the DSAs and the MAGAs and other people who are upending and ⁓ over the establishment of both parties are. So which side are they going to hedge their financial bets on? My Charles: In my view it's gone it is traditionalist because there the when you when Greg: Losing? Why would they bet on losing people? Charles: Well no, I mean well no that that not in the aggregate. I mean you again, you're seeing this in New York you can say New York is you you ⁓ New York is very unique. It surprising to me that this happened in Colorado, which is, you know, out west kind of state, that that that is surprising. Now I again I don't know if this is the trend, but I I don't think the billionaires want something solid and if they're gonna go against ⁓ a a a person that ⁓ that that's outside the tradition, it's gonna be you know, a wacko like Trump that that just you know, that kinda, you know, that's kinda been around for a while, that you kinda know ⁓ w how he's wired, how he's kinda operating and and the way he's been doing his mom and pop businesses for for decades up in New York. So people kinda knew what they was getting in him. So he he he's not a surprise to the to the billionaires that was backing it. Okay. So but I they're not gonna put their money into an unknown and untested person because they won't they want something almost a quasi guarantee for their book. This all this quick throw quote action that that is a good segue to our next issue, ⁓ which is it's just been reported today. This president, one year, two point two billion dollars that he's made when he delayed filing this in in in initial financial papers and And his own was like a what five hundred dollar or two hundred dollar fine. it wasn't the best interest to file it, you know, last year. Right. So so the fine is only like a few hundred bucks. So but he made two point two billion dollars. So ⁓ that's that's that's that's a what no, that's a real good deal. But the question is that ⁓ you you don't he's the only person is has not put his funds Greg: Is that bad? The businessman. Charles: in in into a blind trust like every other person has done. And and now this doesn't include Greg: Maybe this shit, maybe this shit haven't done it. What if they don't see me in two? Charles: Now that the the ⁓ the the Nollman claw prohibit this stuff he's doing is totally legal. ⁓ button he's just getting away with all kinds of illegal stuff. Greg: It's crypto. course. How is it to have your own cryptocurrency? I mean, you have crypto and that has nothing to with his decision-making. Charles: the president has tremount ⁓ tremendous amount of executive power and influence to change stock markets. Every word he says it not just ⁓ our but the whole world. ⁓ And he stands in has part and power over people who've done criminal things and they'll a certain kind of funding. Greg: The world. Charles: You get these partners. That that that's that's there's legitimate point of that reporting on that on the on the regular. But the American people seem to have a infinite perpetual tolerance ⁓ illegality and criminality because they just they just sh they're not shocked anymore. It's just an expectation of, you know, people just doing what it what they want to do. But I mean but the bottom line is that Greg: My friend. Charles: is that this doesn't include now these no big no big mining mining contract deal, no big contract that his sons are getting for these new mining mining rights. Greg: Yes, no Yeah, that's for next year. Yeah. That'll be a next year disclosure. This is 2025. That's 2026. Charles: But yeah, but they're borrowing. Right. Correct. And so again it you know again. So so it it it every year we gotta deal with it. Greg: I get it. I get it. It's frustrating and everything, but it's once again, I'll go back to the point I've always been saying. This is the first time you've had a CEO coming in to be president. Who's not a public official or public servant or somebody who's been part of the political pedigree. And this is what you get. And now the next CEO will probably be the same way. If we would have had a, what's that guy, the guy Bloomberg, if he was president, it would have been the same thing. And if we would have had Ross Perot, we probably would have seen a lot of the same things, but we didn't have either one of them. But if we did, we would probably want to see much difference. What the Charles: But they're they would they would they they would have put that up to the truck. Well ev everybody else that did except for him. Greg: Maybe. Yeah. Maybe. friend, their friend, well, they haven't been present yet. Ross Breyer wasn't present and, and the Bloomberg wasn't present, but if they had become president, their family members and their buddies would have been cashing in the same way. likely. ⁓ very speculative. Yeah. ⁓ Charles: I I don't know that's more expected, but Yeah, it's hard to it's hard to s to say that because they never were present. Greg: Well, yeah, exactly. if we ever see a CEO become president again, we might see the same recipe happening again for the same piece of bread as being baked. so, this is why this is so frustrating and so aggravating to a lot of people who are ⁓ basically looking this from the prism of everything has always been like this. Yes, it always has been, but now it's not. I mean, and the reality is, mean, the Supreme Court... is basically allowing the CEO of the country to have the same powers as the CEO of a corporation. Charles: Right. And and then the big difference that the the the the you know, a government is not a private corporation. It's it's Greg: Well, it should be. Exactly. A private corporation would have been bankrupt by now if it were the government. Charles: Well, private corpor corporations wouldn't have tolerated the fools that the American public tolerate. Greg: Exactly. They wouldn't tolerate $40 trillion in debt. Charles: Yeah. Now but one of the things is that we see in all these, you know, government, all this wealth gaining from the first family of whatever the American people are struggling and I wanna deal with the w the morality of the biblical mandate being our brothers keep but I don't talk about too s lay the foundation with that thinking based on the on the biblical concept. In Jane Chapter 2, verses 1516. The word of God says this. a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warm and filled. Notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the body. What does it profit? So here is God telling us is that when we see our brothers and sisters in need, we don't say I'll pray for you if you have the means and the ability to help them. We have a duty and a responsibility. If we're saying that we love God, you cannot love God not love God's people who you see, you know, and that's another script. But so so the bottom line is that we're seeing that we have a government. I'm talking ⁓ irregular party now. I'm talking about a government. Forget parties. I'm talking about a government that always seems to not s to say we don't have we can't fund this to help people, the regular people get fooled. We we we we we cut and snap. We we we we dojing everything. We wanna destroy everything. But yet we can have money to build all these buildings. We can build all we can go to war and drop billions of dollars in war. And we can we can we always seem to find billions for war and war equipment. And and and like you say military military action all over all over the globe. We can fund military adventure even without Congress consent rather. ⁓ can do all that. But we can't seem to wanna give the American people, poor people, in terms of class economically. We wanna give their food and nutrition so their kids can go Greg: And that's how you dress your partner. Charles: have a meal at school without starving. Okay, we can't we can't seem to find money for that. And then let me give you another a biblical scripture. When is in power of thy hand to do it. Again, here's God telling us that we ha we have to be our brothers and sisters keep not in but in reality. So why is it that Greg: proper Charles: We we can't seem to find nothing to help the American people, but we always can magically find money to do war and and things of that nature. And and big money. Big money. But for but we we can't even find a little money to have people that are Greg: Nevermind. Yeah, no. Yeah. mean, talk about healthcare. We talk about food. We talk about all the conditions and everything else that the people in this nation are facing. And, ⁓ and me, yeah, I'm not a socialist guy. I'm not a big government guy, but I am also a logical person to where to realize that with all the funding that we are doing to other nations, all the funding that we are giving to all these other services outside of our borders, outside of our country, how come we can't just go ahead and redirect that money? And put, know, to ⁓ or to champion a Trump statement, but put America first. mean, or put our citizens first. mean, how come we can't care of the people in Chicago or Dallas or Miami or Orlando or, you know, Pensacola or, you know, Palm Coast or Jacksonville or any spot. I mean, it doesn't have to be a big town. It could be a small town too. I mean, it doesn't really, it shouldn't have limits or it shouldn't have a limit test on where it's at. I mean, we should be taking care. And if it doesn't come from the government giving money directly to the people, the government can start, you know, releasing funding to nonprofits who are trying to get more money for them, ⁓ for support and everything, or to other facilities or other agencies to help people. mean, there are mechanisms and there are financial mechanisms to do this that are not being done. at the same time, and once I'm not a big government guy. not a nanny state kind of guy, but I'm also at the same time, not a nanny state person ⁓ for, know, Every other country in the world where funding and taking care of with these weapons and these bombs and this killings and the military industrial complex and all the, I mean, I'm a big pro military guy, but it's supposed to be easy for national security, not for interrogation and everything else. And all the actions that is being used in a clandestine manners all around the world. And I'm for a regular military to be like a regular military. and that being said. We're paying countries not to bomb each other. We're paying countries to be peaceful with each other. And we're not just paying them like a few hundred grand or a few million. We're paying them in the billions, in the tens of billions. We're paying them at such an extraordinarily high number of revenue and investments that, you know, there should be no reason why we can't just cut a few of the countries. Just maybe, I don't know, let's just cut a dozen of the countries that we're funding. Pick out the top dozen that... I have nothing and return that money back to the States. Let the States take care of the poor people because it's raining. The federal government, everything they do breaks. So let the States on that level handle that on a micro level because it needs to be done on a macro level, not a macro level. Charles: Well, I I think some of the states can't be trusted to do the right thing. No, no, they can't. If if we if we Greg: Most of them can be. Well, the federal government sure can. Charles: If we trusted the states we'll still be Jim Crow slavery if we would trust the state and so you just can't. You always have to have a better government to bring some level of objectivity to I mean, you got certain states still wanna submit Greg: Hey. ⁓ yeah, but They're good up here, but they're not good in the weeds. Charles: Well, the the thing is is that Greg you still got certain states wanna secede, like Texas today, twenty twenty six. They still talk that's a sex and foolishness. So Greg: think Oregon and Washington would succeed too. And so does Minnesota. Charles: I I think I think that I think that you know, w one of the reasons why that we as Americans always want to have everywhere on the earth in terms of for for potential military alliance in foreign nations to monitor what other people doing, even though ⁓ I'm very suspect of of America calling people terrorists because of stuff that we do. But we wanna watch groups doing bombing and killing or whatever you know we do it, you know, through our CIA and whatever. And we fund stuff and you you remember the movie what you ⁓ what what it called it? What what's the movie Charles? Greg: We got Wilson's War, got Maine America with Tom Cruise, and you America, and all those theatrical impressions are ⁓ really on reality. Charles: Yeah, that was that was true. That was a real true story. I mean, the fundamental stuff was very true. And it was very good, good movie. But this is what our CIA kind of does. But we do that to have influenced spatial military lines so we can know there's an encroachment against our strategic American ⁓ so we can have a connection ⁓ and financially in that in that in that country or that nation. So ⁓ That cost. I mean, and that cost the theory is a regardless of party thinking, Greg, it's always been the theory that if we can stop war off our territory, we'll fund it. Regardless of political party, that's always been an American ideal. And that's basically that's but that's it's more expensive doing that now. In twenty twenty-six it is Greg: Yeah, I It's more expensive. But at the same time, reason why a lot of it costs more for the weaponry and a lot of it costs more for the material is because we're saving human life. mean, before we were putting ground troops out there and putting a lot more people in the skies to drop bombs and get shot down. so, and so the trade-off is, you know, it's kind of the question that can put a price on the human life. And so basically a lot of these are unmanned drones and unmanned devices, unmanned weaponry that's doing it. And so, yeah, we write bigger checks, but we save more American soldiers and we save more American blood. so we're, and so like today, I mean, this sort of war with Iran, lost, I guess, 14 individuals where if it were 15 years ago with all the technology we had then we'd probably have lost two or 300 by now. Usually. And if it were 30 years ago or something like Vietnam, we probably lost a thousand a day. And so, mean, because of technology, it does cost. By the same time that the financial costs saves blood and saves American soldiers, it saves souls and saves lives. And so that's where I think you have to look at the, the weighting of it and everything and see, it all just, you know, the military industrial complex. But that being said, do we need to be in all these places? Do we need to be, and I'm actually not as worried about paying for the weaponry to save American lives. What I'm worried about is paying countries to, to. not hit other countries and they do and then pay other countries to be nice to other countries and they're not. And basically we're funding all these nations on these conditions and nobody's following any of the conditions of the funding and we shouldn't be funding them at all anyway. They're wealthy nations. They have their own oil. They have their own gold. They have their own jewels. They have their own resources. They should be able to fund their own nation and be able to handle their own domestic budgets in their country. without America having to come rescue and save them all the daggone time. Why? And why are we doing? Why are we doing that? We have no idea why we're doing it because it's not making ours, our lives any better. It's putting our people at jeopardy, financial jeopardy, economic, economic integrity of our nation is going down the tubes to where, you know, we have, you know, we had the price of oil drop over a hundred percent a barrel and gas basically, and we talked about this on the last show basically stabilize or maybe And camellia went up a little bit or incrementally went down just a hair, but not a hundred percent, not anywhere close to it. so this instability financially of our nation is still high because of all the behavior of everybody outside of our nation. And so, and these behaviors and then our, our government Democrats, Republicans and and anybody who's against Trump and all of them, the the behavior is and the semantics and all the projection. throughout the media and the tainted media is just basically, you know, destroying the economic stability and the consumer confidence and everything else and so many different levels on top of the inflationary rates. It's a mess. Charles: I mean I think I I think that we do a lot of duplication and multiplication of duplicitous machinery from all different branches of our military from Coast Guard to the Marines to Airport. We they they call ⁓ different things and got Lockheed Morton di i the defense contractor. Just just just getting getting really well of American tax per dollar. I think we need to be wise with that. I think that Greg: Great job. Charles: Again, we talked about this on on on the on this show and other shows on the platform regular about how war has got to be changed. Our our military brass has got to get enlightened about how the new war the new wars going forward now is gonna be two phase. It is gonna be cyber warfare and economic. That's the how you win now. you notice there's not a lot been said about Japan lately. You know Greg: Who were they? Charles: Ch Yeah, exactly. Because they always we've been funding them since, you know, the you know, you know, w they dropped the bomb on us. And so we yeah, yeah. And so we so now we basically say we don't want you to have no weapons. So we'll be the ⁓ the world police dog. And then Japan in the eighties was economically became a superpower. The same thing with China. We laughed at China in the sixties and the seventies. Greg: Nuggets. Charles: and ⁓ they'll never get no weapons. And we were doing all this bullying and stuff. They say, you know, China surprised us in the seventy two and whenever they start getting their nuclear weapons. And the the the little sh the guy in North Korea and say he's gonna surprise us. So I the thing is Greg: China got a lot of help from American people who are double agents who are giving and selling out things to China. It was since the eighties and the nineties. I mean, you they got a lot of help from a lot of people here who were just profiteering and not thinking that the stuff that they gave China was going to go that far. guess they thought Chinese people weren't smart. I have no idea what they were thinking, but they thought their checkbook and their wireless being fatter was more important than China being smart enough to use EOS. intelligence that they were given by these double agents. And, and there's lots of stories, lots of books about what happened in the late nineties for the US federal government and how they got nuclear secrets and nuclear information, everything else through the administrations. And ⁓ was both parties doing it as just profiteering, profiteering, profiteering. And at the same time, you know, people just don't care and they should. And now we're woken up to the fact that they are a superpower and not just economically, but militarily and. We are, should not be surprised, although we still are. Charles: Yeah, I I I think I think that we just gotta get smart in terms of how we approach our weaponry, our our our basic we're not only a foolish military leadership will continually think that you can drop off the tons of soldiers, foot boots and foots on the ground in modern welfare. It it's it's not happening except for a very clandestine it. kind of thing where you're trying to get a particular, you know, overthrow or certain type of ⁓ government or whatever, and have special forces kinda doing that. That's the only time you're really gonna be doing that in the modern era. Now so you we have to focus in on cyber and technology or be ahead of the game on that. And that's why I think where China ⁓ is surpassing us and they got dec China can produce by all kind of navy ships like 20 or 30 a year, it takes us like fifteen years now to get two ships. It's ridiculous. You know, and so we we we gotta be better than that. We have got to be able to make things here. All our even our nuclear components, and we get on children. ⁓ Greg: It is. And our medicine. You know, our medicine, our pharmaceuticals, we got COVID from China. Charles: Exactly. So that so in in in terms of the humanity of the world, we're all gonna need each other. I believe that there's a humanity that has no borders as a person of faith and believing in Jesus Christ is that he he loves ⁓ all people over earth. So but I do think that we have to be smarter and wiser with our resources. Greg: It's a big disease. Charles: But at the same time, I I I I fundamentally agree with you, but but we we to start with Israel. We give them billions and billions of dollars a day, they don't do nothing we say. They they won't continue war, they don't want peace. So why are we constantly giving them the money? And I think that's why you see in the Dems can help Trump because most of social democrats are winning because that's the main iss that they're tired of. the Israeli lobby APAC that got both parties strangle strangler a stronghold on both parties. That is a big deal. We we're seeing now not just that, but ⁓ we as Americans, we give a lot of military equipment to a lot of different countries, including our allies. However, we've been talking a lot of nonsense about Canada and I believe it was ⁓ early this year where Canada redirected some of their weaponry that they're like, no, we don't ⁓ With not with all that terrorist nonsense that the president was talking, he kinda ticked took Canada off and it was like, No, America, we don't look that. We're not fine from y'all anymore. So we start to lose out. Even when I even when our allies, the British don't r looking at us sideways now, you know, because no one really trusts us now. ⁓ NATO, ⁓ our NATO allies that you know, that they got nuclear weapons too, NATO or NATO NATO friends. And I I believe that's the greatest accidental thing America ever done. was the formulation of NATO and we led on that. And yet we'll we'll let this president degrade that relationship. Because as you were saying earlier, sometimes, you know, the financial cost is work for if something can eliminate American life. Okay? And that's the whole point of NATO. Having friends and allies. You being in isolation has never helped any nation. Because there will there will there will become a crisis where you're gonna need another nation. So we have to be stewards of humanity in terms of, you know, have a global humanity that benefits everybody. Otherwise we're not gonna be any use to ourselves, much less ⁓ our other brothers and sisters on the earth if we think that we can just be live here and be isolated. That's not that's not helpful at all. So more comments on that before we go into our next section next ⁓ Greg: I'm good. Charles: Let's talk about ⁓ our power of God, the party seg. ⁓ there's a amazing story with a young man named Ethan Pritchard, who was a linebacker football player for Florida State University that got shot last year of September the fourth, twenty twenty twenty twenty five. And just ⁓ was in Havana, Florida, up in North Florida, Pan Hand and he was taking his one is relatives to to some place and some random person criminal just start firing shots and got shot in the head and and he's he's from lives here from Sanford, Florida, locally, not too far from me. In fact we we go to a church in Sanford near there. But this young man do prayer a lot of Christians ⁓ over the place. He's now just being able to walk, it look impossible, but it goes to show you that God is still in the miracle working business. You know, there are times I want everybody to listen to me, there are some times when you feel like you can't make it, that it's over with and you wanna quit and you wanna give give up, but you can't. You can't quit. You gotta endure. You know, the storm the only way you're gonna get through a storm is through endurance. You have to endure. You know, things don't always go the way we wanted to go in the time frame we want it to go. But the only way you're gonna win by faith is by putting your faith in action and being able to do it and do it through it. This young man is amazing how far he's come in in such a quick time frame to be able to walk out that hospital and, you know, with his crutches and everything. But God is a is is accelerating his health and Whether he ever get back to playing football is another issue. But the fact that he's he's alive and God saved his life. I mean, he literally was shot in the head. And most people don't survive that. And I think it's a beautiful story because every now and then God will show up in the earth and do miraculously God things that only he can do. You know, and so and he he reminds us that he's still God, he's still reveling. That no matter what men say, God is still God, He's still sovereign and He's still i it in control. And so prayer changes things and prayer will change and correct our lives. If we just give God a chance and just, you know, believe and trust and have faith and and our prayer that our prayers will work because we have a God that loves us and He's not He's not an abstract God. He's not, you know, He's He's real. He he he He he he suffered. He died for us. Jesus Christ died for us when he knew no sin. They gave his life for us. He shed his blood for us. So God is the intention of God. And sometimes in the chaos of life's kinda get us worn down and beat down. And I say to you all that listen, you may give out, but don't never give up. Yeah. Well, we're going to ⁓ Greg: Cause they're better. Charles: wrap it up for tonight, but we want you to always comment, like and share. Again, this King of Revelation show is about the people. This is real talk, real discussion. This is about mature conversations to grow each and one each and every one of us so we can expand and grow together and influence the world and have the voice of God and in the ways of God and the thinking of God anyway. in the midst of all the chaos. You know, we have a free right with free expression, just like people who don't believe in God and you know, you know, it's like they wanna silence us but we won't be silent. It's time for the intellectual, it's time for the people of God to say we can talk too, we can think, we gotta brain. We gotta we got constitutional rights too. The constitution flies for us like it flies for people who don't like God, who hate God, who are atheists and whatever. And you can Believe what you want to believe. But I I know in my life my circumstances that the God I serve is really and and and and God and and sometimes I hear I hear often hear great people when you don't agree with people, they always want to say that the Christian is intolerant or you're a hater. No, no. You can't call people labor people extreme things just because they don't agree with you. You can't disagree in this country. That's what makes us beautiful Americans, that we have the right to disagree. But let's disagree respectfully. Greg: Right. I agree. mean, that's part of the whole first movement is, you know, he has the right to say what you want, but people also have the right to disagree. I mean, it kind of goes both ways. If you're like, Oh my gosh, you, you, cannot disagree with me. You cannot, you cannot challenge me. I'm like, that's kind of the way it works. Charles: Right. Exactly, exactly. So we again we we pray for you, you pray for us and we all watch God move and we ask you to we thank you for watching us and for sharing and watching us and give your comments and give us your thoughts and comments and we can agree or disagree. But again, we all want America and we all have a different perspective of how America should work, but sh we should always listen to each other because You never know what you can learn just by listening. You can't always remind it that you have all the answers. Only God got all the answers. You know, we're just trying do the best that we can we can be. But we want you to be the best version that God you know, wants you to be. That comes with revelation, kingdom revelation. So we want to thank you again for joining us and la shares and follows and Greg: Close Charles: And again, this is the people moving and so walk in power and always rock on and have a great night until next week. God bless ⁓ great you have a great, great, great evening. All right, tonight. Greg: You too. Thank you Charles. Good night. Good night guys.