00:00:55.380will be quietly remained in the image of Islam.
00:01:00.300Get your copy today, newchristianright.com forward slash jihad.
00:01:22.720Hello and welcome to the next crusade with me, Father Calvin Robinson, only here on NXR
00:01:36.800Studios. That's the new Christian right. We've got a great show coming up today. Of course,
00:01:41.560this is the show where we address current events from a Christian perspective and look at the
00:01:45.940headlines the rest of the legacy media does not want to touch with a 10-foot barge pole.
00:01:49.480we've got jenna ellis coming on to talk about men and women's roles the differences between the two
00:01:55.220the importance of the family unit and marriage holy matrimony freedom of religion and interracial
00:02:02.660marriages going up against dale partridge's stance there that'll be interesting and then
00:02:07.100we've got nicholas holster coming on to talk to us about vaccines ticks viruses biochemical weapons
00:02:13.760and bioterrorism and what the elite are up to what trickery they're trying to play this time
00:02:19.660around we'll talk about covid and we'll talk about the new uh threats facing us in society too
00:02:25.360now we've got some great guests coming up in the show today let's go and hear what they've got to
00:02:30.460say before we do let's say a prayer in the name of the father and of the son and of holy spirit
00:02:35.200amen our father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth
00:02:41.420as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive
00:02:47.220those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.
00:02:52.640In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
00:02:57.180Right now, a lot of families are trying to eat healthier. I know that my family is trying to do
00:03:01.680this as well. But when you look at the prices of truly grass-fed, pasture-raised meat, it feels
00:03:08.400impossible. That's why I want to tell you about our sponsor, Wild Pastures. Wild Pastures works
00:03:14.020with over 100 American family farms to deliver 100% grass-fed beef, truly pasture-raised chicken
00:03:22.260and pork, and wild-caught seafood directly to your front door. And unlike a lot of these big
00:03:28.300meat delivery companies, their beef is raised right here in the good old U.S. of A. No imported beef
00:03:35.060from overseas. Their animals are rotationally grazed, non-GMO, raised without antibiotics
00:03:41.760or hormones. And the farms focus on regenerative agriculture that actually restores the land
00:03:49.320instead of destroying it. And here's the best part. They've made this actually affordable.
00:03:55.400In many cases, their products are 25 to 40% less than what you'd expect to pay for this kind of
00:04:02.520quality. So if you want cleaner meat, better sourcing, and you want to support America's
00:04:07.800farmers, then go and check out Wild Pastures. You can go to wildpastures.com forward slash
00:04:14.200NXR. Again, wildpastures.com forward slash NXR. Try it for yourself. Get 20% off of your first
00:04:23.320box plus an extra $15 off when you use our link in the description below. My next guest is Jenna
00:04:30.700Ellis, who I've been having an ongoing conversation with about freedom of religion, about the faith
00:04:36.860in this country, mostly on your show. And Jenna, you've agreed to come on mine and have the
00:04:41.160conversation here too. Thank you for that. Thank you for giving us the time. How are you?
00:04:44.540Yeah, thank you so much. It's great to see you and to continue having this conversation because
00:04:48.880it's so important, especially as we're celebrating America's 250, to understand
00:04:53.260what religious freedom means and where we're going in this great nation.
00:04:57.520Well, I've done some research onto this, because I tend to think that the terms and the words have been changed over time. And AI tends to agree with me. So I ask the question of freedom of religion, has it changed from how we use it now to how the founding fathers would have used it? And Grok tells me absolutely it has, that now freedom of religion tends to mean freedom of belief, to have any set of beliefs, to believe in anything, to have an idea that you are believing in something.
00:05:24.360Whereas in the late 18th century, it would have been that there's no established church, many states would have had established churches, that there's toleration and free exercise for Christians with varying extensions to others, so Jews and Catholics, but mostly to Protestants, emphasis on protecting opinions and conscience from coercion.
00:05:46.960so it's quite clear that freedom of religion back in the founding fathers day was you have the
00:05:51.820freedom to be a christian however you see fit and no one can coerce you to be a christian and no one
00:05:55.540can coerce you to their sect or denomination or their flavor or tradition of christianity
00:06:00.320it's not actually about freedom to believe in anything and anyone in any way shape or form so
00:06:06.080we've changed there in modernity and there is a question coming honestly but i also looked at the
00:06:10.260word religion and the word religion has changed too because it now it just means again a belief
00:06:14.460in anything the word religion in the founding fathers era would have meant a system of faith
00:06:19.720or worship centered on god that's quite clear so the the default option of the founding fathers
00:06:25.160would have been belief in the christian god and freedom to worship the christian god however you
00:06:29.140see fit we've changed haven't we yes absolutely and i and i completely agree with your assessment
00:06:34.600and it's so important to understand these terms how the founders used them and would have
00:06:40.460understood them. That's what originalism dictates, that we don't just have this evolving fluid
00:06:47.600constitution and set of principles and values also that change and flow with the changing
00:06:53.860nature of society. Because as we've increasingly become secular pluralist, which basically means
00:06:59.580that anyone's belief, regardless of how true or logical or historical it might be, is given just
00:07:07.400as much validity and weight in society as someone else's. That's not what the founders understood
00:07:11.920freedom of religion to mean. It's also not what they understood the separation of church and state
00:07:17.880to mean, which by the way, is not in the constitution, as you know, that came from a
00:07:22.080letter to the Danbury church from Thomas Jefferson, who was basically describing the three institutions
00:07:28.460that God ordained, the church government, the family government, and the civil government. And
00:07:32.600they have different jurisdictions and different areas of legitimacy and powers, limited powers
00:07:38.980that are dictated by God, our creator and natural law. And Jefferson, of course, was the primary
00:07:44.240author of the Declaration of Independence, which referred to the laws of nature and if nature is
00:07:49.140God. And so when he talked about the separation of church and state, it wasn't that religion
00:07:53.480can't or shouldn't influence civil government. It's that there is a different jurisdiction.
00:07:58.460And so when I go to my church and I'm under my pastor's authority for church discipline, for doctrine, for proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, right, like the New Testament talks about, that's not what the civil government is providing me, nor can the church in exercising church discipline throw me in jail, right?
00:08:17.260They can't issue me a traffic summons.
00:08:19.760They don't have the jurisdiction that the civil government does to maintain a well-ordered society.
00:08:24.920So we're talking about separate jurisdictions, but both of those jurisdictions are under divine law authority. And that's what I talk about in my book 10 years ago that I wrote the legal basis for a moral constitution.
00:08:38.540The Constitution isn't and wasn't just derived out of a secular humanist framework or a religious pluralism, which was giving dignity and affirmation to any set of beliefs.
00:08:50.200It's that the Christian worldview, the God of the Bible, was recognized specifically and explicitly as the divine lawgiver by which our civil government jurisdiction and its laws must have fidelity to, adhere to, and any legislation, any executive order, any governmental action must be consistent with that.
00:09:11.200And that actually flows exactly with what Jefferson was talking about with separation of church and state.
00:09:17.280But as you mentioned, Calvin, that term and those different terminologies have changed over the course of American history.
00:09:27.640And what the Supreme Court has tried to do with all of these different doctrines, phrases, clauses of the Constitution, they've tried to break it down so that it's totally incoherent, much like, unfortunately, some pastors do with the Bible.
00:09:42.860they'll pick one word or phrase out of its context and then build an entire doctrine around it that
00:09:49.020looks nothing like what the framers, the authors originally intended. And that's why we're here in
00:09:55.3202026, talking about religious freedom in a completely different context than what the
00:10:00.880founders intended. Absolutely. And I do want to get to the family government theory later,
00:10:06.900but sticking with civil and church government for a moment, because it's obvious to me that
00:10:11.120the church should impede on the state in that it should provide a moral compass to the state so
00:10:15.740that our legislators are legislating in accordance with a Christian moral compass but it's also clear
00:10:20.820to me that the state should only impede on religious freedom in terms of protecting the
00:10:27.520original religious freedom of Christians to worship the one true living God however they see fit
00:10:31.520whilst also protecting them from incoming ideologies, faiths, cults and religions and one
00:10:37.000example is we had another guest on who was talking about the encroaching uh islamic ideology and
00:10:43.200people are using this religious freedom to to force uh sharia law and sharia cities and buying
00:10:49.680up churches converting them to mosques it should be the case in a christian country with a christian
00:10:54.600religious freedom that the state could say actually no we don't want any more islam in
00:10:58.580this country and they can't argue on a term of equality of freedom of religion because that's
00:11:02.040not what it was about yeah absolutely and that's not what the establishment clause meant and of
00:11:06.460course, we have to read the First Amendment in context, which is part of the Bill of Rights,
00:11:11.360which is basically a redundancy protection built into the Constitution as our first 10 amendments
00:11:17.260to the original articles of the Constitution to say, Congress, just in case you weren't clear,
00:11:24.320here's what you can't infringe upon, and here's where you don't have civil jurisdiction over.
00:11:29.680It was never meant to protect the government from any sort of Christian influence or religious influence.
00:11:37.960But what the Bill of Rights actually was for, and I think that Hamilton was absolutely brilliant in Federalist 84.
00:11:45.700I'd encourage everyone to read the Federalist Papers because that was by three different lawyers, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison,
00:11:53.920who promoted the ratification of the Constitution in its original drafting, saying, here's our logic
00:12:00.720and here's our reasoning. And Hamilton, in Federalist 84, actually contended against a
00:12:06.320Bill of Rights, because he said, historically, when we've had bills of rights, that's been when
00:12:11.280the citizens turn over every right to the government in exchange for protection. And then
00:12:16.480they reserve a few rights that they say, okay, our landlord or our king or our tyrant, whoever's over
00:12:22.800us cannot infringe upon. And Hamilton's argument was, listen, we the people are the ones that give
00:12:28.540specific limited powers through our consent to our government in order to do the legitimate work
00:12:35.300of civil government, which is to protect and preserve those rights. But we the people haven't
00:12:39.560turned over anything to the government. We give them specific limited powers, but we retain all
00:12:45.440of our rights. And so a bill of rights isn't even necessary. He was actually right. Now, in 2026,
00:12:51.400I'm very grateful that we have our first amendment. I'm very grateful that we have the protections of due process. I'm very grateful that we have all of those things, but we have to understand them in context.
00:13:01.320And so when the Supreme Court is talking about, for example, the Establishment Clause or when they're saying or people are advocating for religious freedom in the sense that this that our society must validate and recognize as a legitimate religion and set of belief, a parallel legal system, which is what Sharia law is, that fundamentally violates our U.S. Constitution because that is our highest supreme law of the land.
00:13:27.400We don't have any other legal systems in our civil government.
00:13:30.900Now, you want to talk about the church government or the family government?
00:13:46.120You know, there are different rules in a family government.
00:13:49.820There are different rules in different church governments.
00:13:52.060But here in America, in our civil government, we have one highest law of the land.
00:13:57.400That is the U.S. Constitution, period.
00:13:59.740We can't allow parallel legal systems that operate, especially when they violate the principles of the Constitution and they go against things like religious freedom, integrity of the individual.
00:14:11.980They go against and violate and infringe upon some of those rights.
00:14:15.840And even if they didn't, the whole point is that the civil jurisdiction here in America is operated under the U.S. Constitution, period, no other law.
00:14:25.940I love that, especially the outline that you talked about how Hamilton was against all of this, because I often criticize the Enlightenment for many, many reasons.
00:14:35.200But this is one area that, you know, post-Enlightenment America has benefited from that thinking in that in Britain or in England, at least, it was the monarch who was sovereign.
00:14:46.320In fact, we call them the sovereign still traditionally.
00:14:51.300And after the English Civil War, it became Parliament, which is sovereign now.
00:14:54.460so in my country it is parliament who are sovereign and america took the english bill of
00:14:59.180rights and went a step further and now it's the people who are sovereign which i think is so much
00:15:03.620more important and that's always been the case in this country in america the people are sovereign
00:15:07.720it's still not the case in my country which is why we don't have things like free speech
00:15:11.120really and truly because it's only parliament that has any freedom of speech um but that all
00:15:15.540come that's all post enlightenment and you know we're writing highlighting that it's hamilton that
00:15:19.720was fighting a lot of this stuff. But it seems to be over time, whether you call it progress or the
00:15:25.340opposite, I think we have handed a lot of our rights over to the state and expected the state
00:15:30.220to give us rights rather than us loaning rights over to the state. And this is why it's so
00:15:34.900important that the First and Second Amendments are there because they are protected and enshrined
00:15:38.940in that codified constitution, which again, my country does not have. But let's shift on to the
00:15:44.100One last thing on that point, if I may, this is why it's so important linguistically to be precise, because so often, even here in America, we talk about our First Amendment rights as if it comes and stems from the Constitution or from the government.
00:16:00.280And you talk about progress. Well, if pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress? Congress. But but we need to understand that we our rights are not contingent on the First Amendment or our right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on the Second Amendment.
00:16:18.500The First and Second Amendment and all of our Bill of Rights simply enumerates some of the rights that our founders recognized are most often infringed by government. And so we could repeal the First Amendment or the Second Amendment tomorrow. Would that change the nature of our rights or our ability to exercise them? Or in this country, the obligation of the civil government who we, the people who retain all our rights, only give limited powers to? Not at all.
00:16:47.040So it's not my First Amendment right. It's my God-given, ordained right that is part of intrinsically my humanity that can't be infringed on, that by design, the civil government through the First Amendment is obligated to preserve and protect. And so we have to be very clear about where our rights actually come from.
00:17:08.680Yeah, thank you for that clarity. Our rights are deemed from God. They originate from God,
00:17:13.480and we have the right to free speech because he commands us to proclaim the gospel and to
00:17:18.040disciple the nations. We have the right to bear arms because he says, if you don't own a sword,
00:17:22.320sell your cloaks and get one. Have the right to defend yourselves. We have the right to life
00:17:26.820because he gives us life. These things are from God himself, and yeah, governments can help protect
00:17:31.620our rights, but the rights do not come from the government, and they should not be able to take
00:17:34.500our rights away but i do want to talk about the government of the family because you've mentioned
00:17:39.300you had a slightly different family um growing up and i think that's that's probably the best
00:17:43.600model actually uh homeschooling or home educating is far superior to state education at this point
00:17:48.640again people hand their children over to the state and expect the state to raise their children
00:17:53.160they're giving the rights and responsibilities of parents over to the state
00:17:56.320indoctrinated from a young age but how does how should a family structure look jenna
00:18:21.880Because most of the social issues where we've gotten off track with the definitions and
00:18:26.300trying to reinvent or redefine the definition of marriage, parentage, rights of the child,
00:18:32.140All of these things that go into the relationships and the governance of the family, we have often, as Christians, failed to define what that family unit looks like and its goal and its purpose.
00:18:46.120And of course, that comes from Genesis 1, where the first institution that God ordained is the family.
00:18:53.160And that starts with the covenantal union between one man and one woman.
00:18:58.920And the purpose of that is not just love, affection, emotional companionship, all of those things are well and good, but that's not the ultimate goal or purpose. The ultimate goal and purpose is to model Christ in the church and to have that union, then be an environment that is best suited to raise children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
00:19:24.540So why does the church government help? Why does the civil government help? And we have to protect and preserve ultimately the family unit because the family is the fulcrum of civil society, of everything that God intended. The church should supplement that and the church should protect that. And so should the civil government protect the church government and the family government. But everything goes back to the family.
00:19:48.120And when we've defined family as simply emotional attachment or adult choice, that if I want to be familially related or have these bonds to my roommates or to another woman or to five women in a chandelier, as some people in the UK have done, right, then we have actually perverted the definition of what a family unit means.
00:20:14.800And if we go back and we actually define the family as God-ordained and that unit, we actually solve all of the other problems of marriage, of parentage, of rights of the child, and of all of the social issues, because we've already defined the context and the environment by which those other issues and institutions resolve and also thrive.
00:20:37.960absolutely and this is going to upset some people but by defining what the family is we know what it
00:20:43.400isn't and the family is not two men three men two women three women and that's not because we hate
00:20:48.960men or women or people who suffer with same-sex attraction just as a family it doesn't include
00:20:53.760dogs and cats we certainly don't hate dogs and cats we love them all right as just as we love
00:20:58.540all people but the family is one man and one woman in a lifelong indissoluble union with each other
00:21:04.820blessed by god with as many children as they are blessed by that is a family that's what it means
00:21:09.200right amen absolutely and you're so right that you know while we can have and we should have
00:21:14.860other relationships um even with extended family right this is why in genesis 127 it says a man
00:21:21.800shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one
00:21:25.680so even within um your family unit that you grew up in when you get married and you start that
00:21:33.140family unit, that becomes your primary family. And that's what a lot of people have misunderstood.
00:21:39.120And they believe that family is whatever we choose it to be. Just like a woman now can be
00:21:44.960whoever happens to identify as a woman. Well, a family isn't whoever just happens to identify as
00:21:50.300a family or whoever you want to add to your phone plan or your Netflix account. It matters that the
00:21:55.920family unit starts with one man, one woman in the context of marriage, and that that is the family
00:22:03.160unit and that is the primary. And so for too long, I think that Christians have only addressed
00:22:09.980isolated issues like the definition of marriage, like pro-life, like the rights of the child,
00:22:16.560some of these other social issues without defining the context. So it looks like when we advocate
00:22:22.200for the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman. Well, we're just against
00:22:27.300homosexuals. We just hate any other people who don't act and behave like us, or, oh, this is
00:22:32.980just a religious issue. This isn't religious symbolism. This is the laws of nature and of
00:22:38.060nature's God, because the only context that children can be created and the only opportunity
00:22:45.400for procreation is one man and one woman, period. Natural law through God's sovereignty, how he
00:22:51.980ordained and created it we know that he has because natural law requires only one man and
00:22:58.760only one woman and you have to have one man and one woman there's no other context by which a
00:23:03.760family can be created oh man i love it and not not to ruin the vibe because i've just been sitting
00:23:09.320and nodding along but i do think it's good to have healthy disagreement with people that you
00:23:13.740mostly agree with and i see you as my sister in christ we agree on most stuff but before the show
00:23:18.200we're chatting about some things we may disagree with. One of my colleagues and friends, Dale,
00:23:23.660was talking about how the family has an ideal as well, and that it's ideal for a heritage American
00:23:29.540to marry another heritage American. I would believe that it's ideal for a British person
00:23:35.060to marry another British person, but you feel there's a bit of difference in there.
00:23:39.000Yeah, and I think when we're talking about an ideal, we have to define where the ideal is
00:23:43.260derived from. Are we talking about a biblical ideal, or are we talking about personal preference?
00:23:47.440because certainly there are people who biblically I could marry because that that would not go
00:23:54.960against biblical principles that may just not be well suited for me I may not I just simply may not
00:23:59.300prefer right and so in my view in my ideal I can reject some people that others may say
00:24:07.140that they wouldn't reject or they may think are good for me right so when we're talking about the
00:24:11.160ideal we have to first define is it biblical or is it preferential and where I see this obviously
00:24:17.340God did not say and command that marriage and the ideal biblically is of your same culture,
00:24:26.220even of your same age. He didn't prescribe any process of dating. The modern invention of dating,
00:24:32.700I think is actually horrible. I hate it. But that's the modern convention. The Bible prescribes
00:24:38.420no process from getting from single to married. It's just here are the instructions for people
00:24:43.880who are single and here are the instructions for people who are married. And the Bible also calls
00:24:49.060marriage a good thing and says that he who finds a wife finds a good thing and a designed marriage
00:24:56.180for people to participate in, right? And so when we're talking about the ideal, I disagree with
00:25:01.600how Dale framed it because he is presupposing that his personal preference, or maybe, you know,
00:25:08.160we can even argue policy-wise might in 2026 be an ideal, that's preferential. It's not
00:25:16.060biblically commanded. So I'll give you two reasons why I think it might be biblically commanded. One
00:25:20.540is that nations and tribes are God-ordained. And so peoples or nations, whatever word we want to
00:25:26.160use, matter because God set us apart into different regions and different areas for his own reason.
00:25:30.780We don't have to understand that reason. But also, I would say, in Numbers, we're told that
00:25:35.740the Israelites are commanded to marry other Israelites. And we see this pattern throughout
00:25:39.800the Bible that tribes are commanded to marry within their tribe. And it's usually a punishment
00:25:44.140when someone is forced to marry someone outside of their tribe. Now, in the New Testament,
00:25:47.920we're not bound by those laws from the Old Testament in the same way. However, there's
00:25:52.320still that cultural recognition that our tribes matter because they're God-ordained,
00:25:56.460our nations matter because they're God-ordained, and it's been preferential throughout the Bible
00:26:00.300to marry within your tribe. And there is some preferential treatment to this too that's
00:26:05.600not unbiblical. That is just that we like our neighbors, we like our nations, we want them to
00:26:10.740survive. I personally want Great Britain to survive. I want it to be a nation in 100 years time.
00:26:16.040And if British people don't marry other British people, it won't be. The birth rate's already
00:26:20.060abysmally half of replacement rate whilst mass immigration is happening at the same time. Like
00:26:25.640Britain will no longer exist in our lifetimes unless something radical changes. And people
00:26:30.620are asking the same thing about america you know the the native the heritage american is what 50
00:26:35.84057 of the population now white americans are also going extinct and it's not that race is the
00:26:42.140entirety of it but race comes into it race culture you know ethnicity ethnos is is the the peoples
00:26:47.580which is made up of culture language faith and and race too so it's some degree it matters
00:26:53.380preferentially but some degree also does matter biblically right well i think two responses to
00:26:58.380that first. I agree with you that it matters biblically in terms of what Old Testament Israel
00:27:03.040was commanded. And we see that reflected in the New Testament in terms of the Old Testament
00:27:08.860Israelites were commanded to marry other Israelites because they worship the same God. They couldn't
00:27:12.800go out and procreate with heathens, just like in the New Testament, we are commanded that we must
00:27:18.300not be unequally yoked. So that has been a fundamental principle that we are not supposed
00:27:23.680to marry outside of our faith. That is a commandment, absolutely. And so I could not, as a
00:27:28.480Christian, marry a non-Christian, period. I agree with you on that. From the Old Testament in terms
00:27:33.560of tribe, I think that we're taking that term and applying it to our nation in a way that isn't kind
00:27:41.780of a one-for-one for the Old Testament. And so when we look at the lineage of Christ and we look
00:27:47.160at the reasons that God kept the nations and the nation of Israel and the tribes, basically
00:27:54.300exclusive was to preserve that genealogy and that heritage. We no longer live in that kind of
00:27:59.620a system. And that was more about the Mosaic law and the Levitical command that we don't live
00:28:06.520under that framework as we are under our supreme law, which is the U.S. Constitution, right?
00:28:11.040But in terms of the priority and the preference of you marrying a Brit, I'm marrying an American, that makes sense from just a wisdom standpoint.
00:28:21.380But I would say it's wisdom and preference, not biblically commanded.
00:28:24.680I wouldn't want to marry someone that hates America, regardless of where they were born.
00:28:28.340I wouldn't want to marry someone who maybe their culture and their understanding of how they would want to raise kids and how we would govern our family.
00:28:36.320that would be just a lot more difficult than someone who shares the same values who wants
00:28:42.660to homeschool who understands you know the same cultural um familial sort of type of family
00:28:48.580government system that i do that's wise uh and that can be challenging if you marry someone
00:28:54.080outside of that but as long as they're a christian it's not unbiblical i think you've won me around
00:28:59.440i think the people in the comments are gonna be hating i think you've won me around i'm trying
00:29:03.000to think what argument i have left um other than there is the this still this idea that there is
00:29:10.280an endangered species there is a dying um race and it is the white race it is you know happening fast
00:29:16.960and so that's important too yeah and i don't disagree with that and i do think that um overall
00:29:23.160the the declining birth rate is something that is ultimately utterly tragic regardless of you know
00:29:30.560what race or heritage we're talking about. The fact that I cited a statistic on my radio show
00:29:35.380last week that was saying that from 1975, about 81% of males were married and 2025 that had dropped
00:29:44.440down to something like 16%. And the reason for that, I think goes back to a misunderstanding
00:29:50.360of what relationship in marriage is for, which is to create that family unit. It's not just for
00:29:56.660personal preference, accommodation, companionship, you can get those things in 2026 outside of
00:30:01.980marriage. And that's what people are doing. They don't understand that being part of a family,
00:30:05.820creating that family unit is what God intended. And that's why the marriage rate is declining
00:30:10.920and ultimately why the birth rate is declining as well. Yeah. And I am Christ first. I'm Christian
00:30:15.860first, but I'm also British. And so I'm trying to align these things. It's important for me that
00:30:20.640Britain remains Christian and it always has been. And I hope it always will be. I don't know.
00:30:24.940current demographics don't show that but it's also important to me that britain remains british
00:30:28.960uh i'm probably gonna have to go back to the bible and find where that comes from if because
00:30:33.620that might just be my personal preference um but i i think if if britain remained christian but also
00:30:40.520mostly north african it would no longer be britain and i think that'll be a shame so that's the issue
00:30:46.100i'm trying to work through right well i don't think that patriotism is unbiblical at all i
00:30:51.100mean, I'm very proud to be in America. And why? Because I recognize that this nation, and in fact,
00:30:56.740the West was founded on Christian principles. I mean, this is, as we've talked about extensively,
00:31:01.420this is Christendom, right? I'm so grateful that here in the United States, I can argue and advocate
00:31:06.580for religious freedom in the sense and context that we've been describing and say, and you know
00:31:10.720what, my supreme law of the land actually requires my government to protect my religious freedom,
00:31:16.320to protect my freedom of speech, my right to keep and bear arms. And I'm so grateful to the founders
00:31:21.000for creating such a wonderful nation as the United States that I get to argue from a much
00:31:26.880stronger premise than if I were in a feudal feudalistic society or in basically any other
00:31:32.820government system across the face of the earth. So I'm very proud to be an American. And I don't
00:31:37.400think that's a bad thing. And I think to want and desire your nation and your country to turn to
00:31:43.040Christ and respect Christ, and especially for Britain, which absolutely historically was
00:31:47.600christian to return to that that's actually a good and biblical thing yeah the church has always
00:31:51.880taught that uh patriotism is pious it's never really used the word nationalism patriotism has
00:31:57.000always been taught to be pious so we should all be more patriotic we should love the place that
00:32:00.180we happen to be born because we're not born here by accident we are born here by god's providence
00:32:04.840and so we should put him first and love the place that he puts us in i think that's a
00:32:08.820amen our founders said that too here they said you know look at god's providence look at
00:32:13.220by you know by grace were here and they were so grateful to be at their place in history and i
00:32:18.440think that's a wonderful thing i love it jenna where can people find out more about you thank
00:32:23.280you um so i host a daily radio program from eight to nine eastern jenna ellis in the morning you can
00:32:28.060stream that at afr.net we have a free app you can stream there live or you can find your local
00:32:33.460station i also host a weekly podcast called on demand you can find that at afr.net you can also
00:32:39.080follow me across social media at real jenna ellis on x and on other platforms jenna ellis media
00:32:45.000jenna thank you for your time today god bless you and keep doing what you do
00:32:47.740god bless thanks so much for having me it was a joy to be on your show thank you
00:32:52.100now i'm very pleased to introduce my next guest nick holsher who is an epidemiologist because i
00:32:58.700want to get to the bottom of what the heck is going on at the moment before i get to what's
00:33:03.380going on now though i want to discuss what they tried to do to us over the last half a decade
00:33:08.300or increasing than that now uh nick thank you for joining us how are you thanks for having me i'm
00:33:14.180great and i'm happy to be on your show thank you it's an absolute pleasure to have you now
00:33:18.680covid was an up and down journey for me i um happened to be dating someone who worked in
00:33:27.220the government at the time and i was getting all this information that the world's going to end
00:33:31.300we're all going to die they're doing everything they can to help us we must just comply i was
00:33:35.000like oh okay cool and then after a couple of weeks I was like wait a minute this doesn't add up
00:33:38.640and it didn't take me long to wake up but I did have a waking up process and I think a lot of
00:33:42.580people had that but fast forward to now years later I haven't seen any accountability from
00:33:49.300people like Anthony Fauci haven't seen any accountability for major companies like Pfizer
00:33:53.080that made a killing what is your professional verdict on a on a the the veracity of COVID
00:34:00.040and B, the way all the governments reacted to that situation?
00:34:05.420Yeah, the totality of the COVID-19 response is nothing short of catastrophic.
00:34:12.300In fact, because of the policies, the government actions, the mRNA mandates,
00:34:20.520the lockdowns, the hospital protocols, all of this was man-made, right? So these man-made
00:34:33.060policies and actions resulted in most of the deaths, millions of casualties across the globe.
00:34:41.320So, you know, I would call it criminal. So, you know, I think it's very serious,
00:34:47.960particularly when we look at how it all began and how there was pre-planning activities,
00:34:53.880how University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Ralph Baric was collaborating with Wuhan.
00:35:01.500They were making SARS-CoV-2 and SARS viruses more transmissible to humans.
00:35:08.220And while at the same time, during those years, 2012, 2014, 15,
00:35:14.660they're working on the mRNA injections for it already.
00:35:17.960and we saw this global coordinated response lockstep countries would follow each other lockstep
00:35:26.440vaccine passports mandates forcing people to get it it was catastrophic you're absolutely spot on
00:35:34.040with all of that i think just the fact that the virus was man-made and being developed in a lab
00:35:39.920in wuhan and that we're hearing about this gain of function that all of these conversations weren't
00:35:44.800allowed to be had at the time. That's the thing that terrified me the most, not the virus or
00:35:48.540whether the virus was real or not at the time. The thing that really worried me was the censorship
00:35:53.140around it. Now, I was on, this show was on television at the time in Great Britain on a
00:35:58.680channel called GB News. And my job as a commentator, I never call myself a journalist,
00:36:04.920but my job as a commentator is to comment on situations and ask questions, is try and find
00:36:09.040out the truth. And I was pushing up against scientists who just didn't want the truth to
00:36:14.060be questioned, that also raised alarm bells. Let me show you a little clip and let's get your take
00:36:18.080on this. This was with a scientist called Dr. Simon. What are the other options available to us?
00:36:26.440Well, social distancing, maintaining good hand hygiene, stuff like that. There are no other
00:36:33.440real treatment options. Things like dexamethasone works very well, but it only works very well in
00:36:40.380people who are about to die or real risk of dying there is news from last week of a monoclonal
00:36:48.200antibody but that will be extraordinarily expensive and it won't be given out to people
00:36:52.540as an alternative an alternative of choice anyway for a vaccine and hydroxychloroquine for example
00:37:00.840well show me it works I mean there is zero evidence that it doesn't work but that's that
00:37:07.440it does work. It just doesn't. It's not zero evidence. We have a report from Harding.
00:37:10.920Really? No, really. There is zero evidence that it works. And I'm not going up and down
00:37:16.460this path with you. It doesn't work. I mean, you said give me evidence. I'm willing to
00:37:21.400give you the evidence. And if you're a scientist, you should address the evidence. Yale University
00:37:24.580is well-respected around the world. Harvey Risch, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology at Yale,
00:37:29.620says the evidence of the benefit of HCQ used in high-risk outpatients is extremely strong.
00:37:34.700So are you saying you don't want to see the evidence or you don't want to believe the evidence?
00:37:39.560It's not what I want to believe or what I don't want to believe, thanks.
00:37:54.360Invermectin, again, even the manufacturers say it doesn't work.
00:37:58.040But again, we've seen high cases of this working very well in developing countries,
00:38:01.620but also in Japan, lots and lots of evidence of it working there.
00:38:04.300i'm interested i'm interested to hear why every time i speak to you say there's no evidence of
00:38:07.780this working but when we show you evidence you seem to not want to take it on board is it a case
00:38:11.540that you don't every time you mean the one time you've spoken to me no no um the general consensus
00:38:17.960of opinion and it's not just me is that this doesn't work so this clip blew me away nick
00:38:23.280because i'm here as someone who's not a scientist i don't have a medical background and i'm asking
00:38:28.120questions and the scientist's response is show me show me that it works i'm like no i'm asking
00:38:32.860you does this work no no none of these things work none of these things work and you'll have
00:38:37.440to excuse my pronunciation of ivermectin as invermectin in that clip but this is in the
00:38:41.520early days when we didn't know what this stuff was and i'm like so does ivermectin work no no no no
00:38:45.740evidence no like what about this evidence no no no we can't look at that is this a normal response
00:38:50.000from from the scientific community no it's not normal that comes from somebody who appears to
00:38:55.800have been ideologically brainwashed by something called vaccine ideology, because right now at this
00:39:04.720point in time, and not only back then, but right now in this point in time, there's a meta-analysis
00:39:09.180of studies looking at ivermectin and COVID. There's over 100 studies in this meta-analysis.
00:39:15.320And according to the hundreds of studies, the ivermectin works without a doubt. In fact,
00:39:23.240it decreases hospitalizations, time to resolution, it drastically increases,
00:39:29.960it decreases deaths, and symptom severity decreases. So we know it works. And we also
00:39:37.400know hydroxychloroquine works. In fact, just by the mechanism itself of how hydroxychloroquine
00:39:43.560shuttles zinc into the cells to inhibit RNA-dependent RNA polymerase on a pathogen,
00:39:50.920that will inhibit from replicating. So just of the basic mechanism, like we should at least say,
00:39:57.880yeah, we suspect it may work. But that individual and many others just lost their minds. They
00:40:05.340absolutely lost their minds. They said the only solution is the novel mRNA injection or the viral
00:40:11.580vector injection that uses the synthetic chimpanzee virus. And for some reason, they just
00:40:18.500got locked into this mindset and that has cost millions of lives across the globe well i can
00:40:25.780tell you the reason and with no fear of being sued i later found out that this uh scientist
00:40:29.680research was backed by the same people who invested in the vaccines so his there was a
00:40:34.520monetary incentive there but the reason i start with the covid stuff before i get to what's
00:40:39.000happening now is because i want to remind people of how little we should be trusting the so-called
00:40:43.900experts on all of these things and we should be asking so many questions because the questions
00:40:47.820were. Is COVID a killer virus? Is it not a killer virus? Is it man-made? Is it not man-made? Is the
00:40:53.260vaccine work? Does it not work? Is it a vaccine? Is it not a vaccine? Are there alternatives? Are
00:40:57.740there not alternatives? Or so many questions came up, but so many questions were suppressed.
00:41:01.840So now fast forward to today when we're hearing, oh, is Ebola going to be the next
00:41:06.880massive spread pandemic? What are your thoughts on that?
00:41:11.380No, Ebola will not be the next pandemic. And there's a key reason why. There's been
00:41:17.58040 Ebola outbreaks across Africa since the 1970s and not a single one has ever become a pandemic
00:41:25.820out of all 40, including the 2014 one where in West Africa, where there was like 28,000 Ebola
00:41:33.880cases that didn't become a pandemic. So the worst case scenario in Western countries is you'll see
00:41:41.580a few cases, sporadic cases here and there, because Ebola does not transmit easily. It's
00:41:48.380not airborne. It only spreads through direct physical contact with infected bodily fluids,
00:41:55.260basically like HIV. This is not a respiratory pathogen. This is not COVID. And so all this
00:42:02.680fear-mongering is taking its toll, and it appears to be a method to sell more vaccines and scare
00:42:10.780the public, scare the United States into rejoining the World Health Organization.
00:42:15.860Yes, the World Health Organization, which had a policy that they wanted to be responsible for
00:42:21.340pandemic management across all the countries signed up to the WHO, which essentially makes
00:42:25.820them a hyper or a super government, which again is something that concerns me because their
00:42:30.180response to COVID wasn't great. Let's look at hantavirus as well. What's that looking like in
00:42:35.760real life yeah so this is a what appears to be with i would say 98 confidence it is a dead-end
00:42:44.780outbreak so basically there's only been up to 12 confirmed cases not even in fact i believe they
00:42:51.260subtracted a case a few days ago because it was a false positive um all of these cases were people
00:42:58.120on the cruise ship so there's been zero cases and people not on the cruise ship it hasn't spread
00:43:04.820And also, there's been, specifically in the United States, there's been zero confirmed cases.
00:43:10.360And so it does not have this spread outside of the initial outbreak where they were basically locked in their cabins to breathe in infected air and potentially rat feces and excrement in the dust, as well as from the corpses.
00:43:28.140We don't know exactly what they did with the corpses right away.
00:43:31.300we don't have the rodent control logs they claim there was no rodents but they haven't provided any
00:43:37.140evidence and lastly there was a systematic review paper looked at 22 studies looking at the andy
00:43:43.100strain the same strain on the cruise ship looked at 22 outbreaks and across these 22 studies there
00:43:49.920was zero credible evidence of efficient human to human transmission so it's not going to spread
00:43:55.400it's not going to become a pandemic either okay i'm glad to hear that that's that will ease a lot
00:43:59.900of people's anxieties, but that's part of all of this, isn't it? The pandemic itself is the stress
00:44:04.940that the mainstream media or the legacy media puts out there. Do you think there's been a lot
00:44:09.060of irresponsible reporting on both of these cases? Oh, very, very irresponsible. We see,
00:44:15.540particularly on the legacy media, large amounts of irrational fear mongering, saying that we should
00:44:23.740being extremely worried and saying basically the only option we have out of this is with a vaccine,
00:44:31.580same playbook, you know, every single time with this. And particularly now though with Ebola,
00:44:37.660they kind of left Hantavirus in the dust because it didn't gin up enough fear. And so now, you know,
00:44:45.580they're trying to gin up fear for Ebola because there was a study by Gao and colleagues, they
00:44:51.820found the higher the population perceived fear of a pathogen is, the higher the vaccine uptake.
00:44:59.140So they need maximal fear to drive the highest amount of vaccine sales.
00:45:06.540And let's not forget that the vaccine sales were the biggest profit makers in modern history.
00:45:11.360You know, a company like Pfizer that was almost bankrupt became one of the richest companies in
00:45:16.060the world almost overnight. And so we should also be questioning that, the motivations behind these.
00:45:20.340um the one thing that's caught my attention is potentially concerning amongst all of these is
00:45:25.720the ticks now urban legend is that ticks were released by a department of the u.s government
00:45:32.560decades ago that ended up spreading lyme disease as some kind of i don't know if it's a field test
00:45:37.820or what but this is this is urban legend i'm not trying to spread conspiracies i'm just saying this
00:45:40.960is what people think happened where lyme disease came from and now fast forward to today ticks are
00:45:45.880popping up everywhere over the last year or two ticks have been popping up in a much higher
00:45:50.820capacity than they have previously and it's not just lyme disease that's spreading it's of course
00:45:55.800this uh what do they call it um alpha gal yes which obviously makes people allergic to red
00:46:03.440meat at a time when people are taking up carnivore diets and people are you know going keto or low
00:46:09.320carbohydrate trying to ditch the sugar which is obviously really bad for us and trying to get more
00:46:13.580natural. And also people are trying to spend more time in nature. Touching grass has become a common
00:46:18.380phrase in the lexicon. So it seems that there's a push against all of that with this new
00:46:23.400craze of ticks. Yeah, there is. And I'll say the most shocking recent example of this whole
00:46:32.480tick situation is professors from Western Michigan University published a peer-reviewed paper last
00:46:39.900year and they've laid out the whole rationale for why they so here's what they say they say
00:46:46.740genetically modifying ticks releasing them in the in the wild to intentionally spread alpha
00:46:55.840gal syndrome among the population is morally obligatory what that's what they that's what
00:47:01.780they say. And they called it a moral bio enhancer to basically, you know, partake in
00:47:09.660bioterrorism, to have CRISPR edited Lone Star ticks to better spread meat allergies. So you
00:47:17.960can't even make this stuff up. And then, you know, people have been linking this to Bill Gates and
00:47:24.000maybe he's doing stuff. We haven't found any evidence of directly implicating the Gates
00:47:30.200Foundation in Lone Star tick modifications, but we have identified Bill Gates and his foundation
00:47:38.180did give over $7 million to a biotech company a few years ago to make GMO ticks to spread in the
00:47:46.680wild. The claimed purpose is to control the cattle, tropical cattle ticks. So we know Gates
00:47:56.960Foundation is involved in GMO ticks. And yeah, the U.S. Army, or one of the departments of the
00:48:03.780military, did disperse, I think, hundreds of thousands of ticks in the 1960s. They were
00:48:12.000basically marked with some sort of radioactive identifier to see how they spread. So we have
00:48:19.560the precedent, and then we have farmers and other individuals apparently finding boxes of ticks
00:48:26.080you know on their doorstep and so there could be something very illicit going on regarding this we
00:48:32.520got to get to the bottom of it well i'm sure this isn't a coincidence that bill gates has also been
00:48:37.820buying up lots and lots of farmland at the same time as launching meat alternative companies where
00:48:42.880he grows meat in labs for people to to purchase instead of actually buying genuine organic natural
00:48:49.140meat those two things can't be a coincidence that he's buying up the farms producing some
00:48:53.660kind of superficial manufactured man-made meat at the same time as funding these tick companies
00:48:59.840and these ticks are being modified and spreading something that makes people allergic to meat to
00:49:06.940cattle it's insane it sounds criminal it's diabolical it's diabolical if you really think
00:49:12.600of it and you know this it's a debilitating syndrome alpha-gal syndrome you do not want
00:49:18.000to get it right so if you get bitten by a lone star tick you know it might take a few weeks
00:49:23.500maybe a month and then all of a sudden you'll start to eat steak or any mammalian meat you can
00:49:29.860have anaphylaxis or just a severe allergic reaction feel absolutely terrible and it's
00:49:37.120estimated at least in the united states about 500 000 americans may be affected by this already
00:49:43.060and it just continues to increase so here's another question on the motivations behind this
00:49:47.400is this going to spawn another multi-billion dollar industry where people are paying like
00:49:52.980like male pattern baldness people are paying for solutions to be able to eat meat again
00:49:56.780yeah i think uh i think that's another avenue that many of these biotechnology companies would
00:50:04.940love to take they would love to sell a vaccine for you to be able to eat meat again and it
00:50:10.660wouldn't surprise me if it's the same biotech companies that would have manufactured the ticks
00:50:15.980in the first place would then sell the solution to allow you to eat ticks again you know that would
00:50:21.740not surprise me one bit, given what we've seen in the past five years. This is dark. Nick, I want
00:50:27.700to ask about more homeopathic solutions. I've read extensively that witch hazel and cedar wood
00:50:35.440are two primary ingredients in creating your own homemade tick repellent. And these things can be
00:50:41.160far more effective than the stuff you can buy in the stores. Yeah, definitely. Those compounds and
00:50:47.240other sort of essential oils um in the form of a lotion or cream have shown some efficacy
00:50:54.200most definitively in preventing ticks and you're right some of these toxic chemicals and some of
00:50:59.080the major uh grocery store brands that are carcinogenic you do not want to be putting
00:51:04.520those on your body so yeah definitely look for these uh herbal or natural compounds to protect
00:51:11.640yourself if you go out in the woods okay well prior to say 2020 i think most ordinary people
00:51:19.200were getting on with their lives maybe worrying about the economic arguments that were going on
00:51:23.700you know trying to put bread on the table i don't think most people were worried about global
00:51:27.740pandemics as they are today every every week now there seems to be some kind of scare factor
00:51:32.180in the mainstream media what advice can you give people to look out for if there is if something
00:51:38.020genuinely does come about that is going to be you know apocalyptic or or to guide people away from
00:51:43.220falling into hyperbole and sensationalism what's your main advice to people well listen we'd be
00:51:49.740the first one to tell you when something's going to be actually bad so when when something's
00:51:54.420actually bad look for the people that you know are not selling vaccines um and if they say it's
00:52:01.040bad, then okay, maybe it's bad. But so what I'll say is there are 3,600 BSL-3 and BSL-4 biolabs
00:52:12.140currently operational across the world. And so these contain pathogens with pandemic potential.
00:52:18.120And among these over 3,000 biolabs, they are conducting gain of function activities. And so
00:52:24.620they have synthetic pathogens that do not exist in nature sitting in freezers in some of these
00:52:31.020lab so all it takes is a bioterror act from any could be a single individual an agency a rogue
00:52:40.620agency or a terrorist group and they could release something and so and we see people even like bill
00:52:48.780gates warning about it while he laughs he laughs uncontrollably said in a bbc interview when he
00:52:55.500he says the word bioterror, he began to giggle. And so, you know, we have to be very careful.
00:53:01.880And so I think the key point, what we would see when something's really actually bad is
00:53:11.440at first, it would either be something we haven't seen before, or it would be something that,
00:53:17.700you know, we see, we go from say, you know, 10 cases to a thousand cases in a day. Okay.
00:53:24.220And so if we see some sort of major signals like that, then for sure we've got to look right away to the genetic sequencing.
00:53:32.200Are there any laboratory-related anomalies?
00:53:35.420And we should be able to get the answer pretty quick.
00:53:37.960But for Ebola and Hantavirus, we do not see any laboratory-related signatures.
00:54:30.680Because we have to remember, among those 3,600 biolabs, 73% of them, we don't even know their locations, exact locations, or the pathogens they're working with.
00:54:42.240So they could be working with whatever, who knows what.
00:54:49.000And we can't allow, you know, these rogue scientists, these mad scientists to make Frankenstein pathogens.
00:54:57.760You know, they could be working on and they have worked on modified bacterium and modified fungi.
00:55:04.860You know, they could, you know, if you've seen the movie The Last of Us, you know, if you have a cordyceps, a fungus that gets out that's been modified to infect humans, that would be catastrophic.
00:55:16.580and it would not surprise me some of these military labs have likely already at least
00:55:22.640attempted to do to to manufacture those so what needs to happen is there should be and i don't
00:55:29.720know how likely this is given the current geopolitical situations but there needs to be
00:55:36.580a coordinated international effort to literally shut down completely worldwide ban on gain of
00:55:43.620function research and go into these labs and if they have modified pathogens with pandemic
00:55:49.420potential those pathogens should be destroyed i think that's the soundest advice you can give
00:55:56.100we're going to clip that and put that out let's start a movement to ban these gain of function
00:55:59.340research labs nick holsher thank you for coming on today you've had many words of wisdom for us
00:56:03.620god bless you thank you god bless you and that's it for this week thank you very much for watching
00:56:09.440As you know, we like to end on a prayer, so here is the collect for Trinity Sunday.
00:56:13.720In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
00:56:17.720Almighty and everlasting God, who has given unto us thy servants grace
00:56:22.400by the confession of a true faith to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity
00:56:27.920and in the power of the divine majesty to worship the unity,
00:56:32.480we beseech thee that thou wouldst keep us steadfast in this faith