From Velvet Gloves to Iron Fists:
A Deceptively Effective Strategy
May 12, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: Leo Hohmann
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 5/12/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer:
Hello and welcome to this Monday edition of Stand In the Gap Today. And as always, Mondays typically follow significant news, which happens seem frequently from the end of the day on Friday drops into a news low cycle, and then Friday through Sunday, things tend to fall into this little bit of an abyss, but little covered over the weekend. There are a lot of things and a lot of places that we could go, but the media loves it because whatever is placed on Friday night is old news on Monday, and by the time Monday comes, there’s another series of things to distract us and away you go. That’s just the way it’s been for a long time. But this is the way of also of modern governments and cultures driven from one created crisis to another. They lead people along not to give them in full informing.
It’s complete opposite frankly. Over the last years, though most alert Americans I think have thankfully become more greatly aware of this highly developed political strategy of placing narratives and then leading people to the place they want on this program. We have emphasized for years the warning of Jesus starting right there because that’s where it starts, where he warns of the times in which we live, that they would be dominated by deception on all sides, and that we must be acutely aware so that we are not deceived by the smiling lies. As I put it there, the smiling lies, the clever compromises and the rise of ruthless pragmatism as an accepted alternative to God’s unchanging truth. And while there are many headline newsworthy of comments this morning, I’ve asked Leo Hohmann to join me again, independent investigative journalist. As you all know, if you listen regularly, you know Leo well, but since he was with me last time, about three weeks ago, he’s written about 10 or so significant articles on most significant issues about which we’ll discuss just several today.
But these articles can be found either on his two websites, Leo Hohmann.com or Leo Hohmann.substack.com, either one, and I’ll give those again if you’re listening to me right now, each of us share a perspective on life, all of which is shaped by our upbringing and experiences. We know we bring to every event slightly different perception, but we try to view it all through the lens of scripture on this program. My 20 years in the political process and 18 years specifically in the Pennsylvania General Assembly has helped to form my real world experiences in many ways. One experience I remember is when a former powerful speaker of the Pennsylvania House now passed away, but he referred to a strategy of accomplishing a controversial change in law. That was a discussion at that point years ago when I was there. He said, one approach is guys, he said he just sees the power and you can force through the changes whether people like it or not, and then you live with a consequence.
He said, and I’m going to say that’s similar to what we witnessed during the Biden and Obama years where they literally weaponized the aspects of government. That’s one way, but he said, this fellow said it works, but has often tremendous consequences. He said, there’s another approach. And he said, this is an approach. He said, I’ve come to use and it works quite well. It accomplishes the same end, but along the way it’s not so controversial and people can be convinced that what you’re doing is for their good and actually help you to accomplish what will ultimately be their undoing in a term. This ruling, this aspect ruling as doing so with an iron fist inside a velvet glove. And that really brings a thought into mind, doesn’t it? But I’ve observed that over time, two strategies which appeared totally different, but in the end, up accomplishing the same thing. And because of some of Leo’s articles illustrating this strategy through though he did not use this phrase, I’ve called about it, we’re going to talk about some of those things as we focus here today that I think all God-fearing and truth-seeking people must be aware this process that is used. The title I’ve chosen for today’s program is simply this, from Velvet Gloves to Iron Fists, a deceptively effective strategy. Leo, welcome back to the program.
Leo Hohmann:
Thanks for having me, Sam.
Sam Rohrer:
Leo, to get us started today, we’re going to get into some specific things of some of your recent programs, but just in the overall aspect, what I’m talking about, you’ve been writing for a long time, you’ve exposed deceptive tactics, you’ve exposed the smiling lies. Can you think of some past articles, events, not the ones we’re going to talk about today, but where you or others felt, for instance, compelled to pursue truthful reporting to expose the truth where perhaps an iron fist was inside actually a velvet glove policy?
Leo Hohmann:
Yeah, and first of all, I want to congratulate you on boiling down the overarching theory or theories of almost all of my articles. You pretty much captured it there, Sam, with that phrase, that one phrase, iron fist inside a velvet glove. Another way of saying, I’d never heard that by the way, and so thank you for sharing that with me. I’ve never heard that phrase, one that I am familiar with that really communicates the same messages. The issue is never the issue, meaning whatever you hear the mainstream media and the major politicians talking about on the news that day and the way that they cover individual stories, they never get to the crux of the matter of freedom, American liberties, the Constitution, and how all of that will be affected by this, that, or the other law or bill that they’re considering passing. And good examples of that.
After 911, after that horrific attack back in 2001, I was one of the few voices. My wife and I owned a weekly newspaper at the time. This was really before anyone much had the internet. They were still reading newspapers. And I was warning that this whole thing about creating a new department of Homeland Security and the USA Patriot Act, all it was going to end up doing was breaking down our sacred rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and normalize this concept of being frisked and stopped at the airport and having your baggage checked when you go into a courthouse. And all of the things that we took for granted at Americans were now on the negotiating table. And sure enough, they ended up being completely and radically changed, and we are less free, but supposedly we’re more secure, right? And that’s just one example. I mean, you could go with the voter ID law. We as conservatives have said for years, we need to have voter id. While I agree that sounds like a good thing, well now they are pushing the real ID and talking about using that at some point as the voter id. And it sounds good when it’s put in the context of security and having secure elections and safe and secure elections. But now what everybody has what amounts to a national ID card, that’s where they’re moving with that.
Sam Rohrer:
There you go. And Leo, just hold it right there, ladies and gentlemen, get the idea. That’s the velvet glove. The velvet glove is, this is for you. It’s soft, it’s nice, it’s friendly, but inside it, if you had an iron fist example after example and come back, we’re going to begin walking through some of Leo’s recent articles on that point. Well, if you’re just joining us, we’re at the beginning of the program now. We just introduced it. Leo Hohmann, author, researcher, independent investigative journalist website@leoHohmann.com and Leo Hohmann.substack.com is with me again, and as we’ve been doing for the last little while, kind of picking up a number of themes from the many articles that he’s written. So we’re going back about three weeks and I’m looking through and pulling out some things today, and I’ve decided to categorize our roadmap for today under this. This is the title for today’s program if you’re just joining us From Velvet Gloves to Iron Fists, a Deceptively Effective Strategy.
And what we’re talking about is oftentimes how laws and public policy, the things that really impact our lives are actually launched to put it that way, and then brought through the process. So with that in mind, we’re going to proceed here further. So Leo, together, you and I, we’ve discussed the advances of artificial intelligence as I’ve done with other guests from other perspectives on this program. It’s a big issue and I think everybody listening to me right now is aware of we’re seeing it come from all sides. It’s affecting our lives on all levels. But as we’ve tried to present the potential benefits of AI, there is also a very clear tyrannical, and I’m going to say potential use and certain, if you listen to the designers of AI and AI itself, it’s more than potential. It’s strategic. Now from an objective perspective, you’ve written about, and we’ve discussed for instance, the major meeting in the White House the day after the inauguration in January where Donald Trump was inaugurated, where he met the day after the inauguration, like the first day, which is significance by the importance and priority of that event, but three major billionaires.
And from that came a $500 billion commitment with the sanctioning of the highest office in the land to expand the usage of AI across America, building a major databases. And the billionaires involved, as we have talked, have made it clear where they want it to go, including replacing doctors in the exam room, consolidating all healthcare data and becoming more valuable than a single doc sitting in an office. This entity now can replace them. They’ve specifically talked about linking the body cams, the cameras that police officers carry, and on their dashboards and other cameras that are increasingly across the country, linking them and having AI watch and observe all of those theoretically to improve accountability. They’ve also talked about linking the functions of government for the purposes of efficiency. They’ve talked about the capacity for connecting digital currency, combining and consolidating transportation and travel literally every aspect of our lives.
So to me, on one hand, all these benefits is the velvet glove, but there’s an iron fist absolutely within them, and I think I sensed that within some of the principles of your article. So that being the case on article on April 25th, you wrote this article with this title, the Push toward AI powered Self-Driving Cars gets Major boost from the Trump administration. Your subtitle was under the guise of We must keep up with China. US Transportation System is about to be fundamentally transformed in a way negates freedom of movement, and it’s all being ushered in by the Trump administration. Then on May 6th, just shortly after that, you wrote another article, Elon Musk now admits AI will replace bloated, inefficient federal government. And then you want to say large swaths of federal workers being terminated does not mean the end of government involvement in our lives. So all that being said, here’s my question to you. You wrote on this theme, a theme was running through it. Could you identify and consolidate the core message of concern in these articles, link them together and raise and illustrate how possibly this velvet glove and iron fist of tyranny concept could be in fact within these two developing major policies?
Leo Hohmann:
Yeah, the overarching concern I always look at is what is being said about the new policy being proposed and does it really hit the main core issue that we should be concerned about, or if we just take them at face value, I guess Sam is what I’m saying. If we take the comments of the media and the politicians at face value, do those comments connect with what we should be concerned about? And in the example of the push towards the self-driving cars, it’s all about making the roads safer and taking the whole possibility of human error out of the equation will all be safer and more secure On the highways is what they tell us. But what’s really happening here in the overall shift from private vehicles, it’s a shift from private transportation to public transportation because these self-driving autonomous vehicles are not under our control.
They can be remotely shut down. They actually, by 2026, Joe Biden signed an executive order that requires the car makers to have every car that rolls off the assembly line equipped with a remote kill switch. And so this goes in with the lack of autonomy that we’ll have over our own vehicles at that point. Do we really own them or does the government own them? Okay. And so that’s what I’m concerned about there. The second was Elon Musk admitting that AI will replace bloated and inefficient federal government workers. Well, that sounds good at face value, right? Who doesn’t want to get rid of these bloated bureaucracies, but think of the bigger impact. What if people are replaced in the government with ai? We’ll no longer be able to contest a traffic ticket. For instance, AI gave us the ticket. Who are you going to argue with?
There’s no police officers to show up in court to argue against. And you think about the medical profession. I have a good friend of mine who’s in the hospital right now after a major heart attack, and it was a committee of people at the hospital, doctors who met to decide whether or not he should get a very important surgery. Well, what if we turn that decision over to AI? We now have a machine determining whether you live or die and that cannot be argued, and if things go wrong, you cannot sue the hospital. Who are you going to sue? It was AI that made the decision, not the committee of physicians.
Sam Rohrer:
And Leo, I agree totally with what you’re talking about and I hope our listeners as are viewing this say, you know what? Yeah, I’ve heard this. Now I can envision this. For instance, in the cars, the right to travel is a right to be mobile, alright? To be independent, not to be continually surveilled. Now if we’re continually surveilled, then we’re not really independent and if we’re traveling, but we can be shut down by the determination of somebody, which is exactly what you’re talking about and the kill switch as an example. Then in fact, somebody else beyond us in the realm of government is now deciding, but in the process, because it is linked as it is in self-driving, it has to be linked to satellites and everything that is linked to satellites is recorded. So every person who has a car of that nature is automatically being followed and they know exactly where they are.
Now, as you say, that’s the question of independence. Is that what we view independence to be and liberty and freedom? The answer is no. So what is that? Well, that’s tyranny. That’s the iron fist that’s in that. So I just throw that back to you says from further comments because again, all of these things, the issue as you say is not the issue and that the presentation of the benefits, if someone doesn’t look beyond it, find out that really they’re giving up their freedom, which is at the core of what we’re talking about. So expand a bit more. Where do you want to go?
Leo Hohmann:
Yeah, a hundred percent. And we could even go further with it. What about AI in the hands of law enforcement? This is already happening where law enforcement is saying that they want to be able to not just react to crimes and solve crimes, they want to be able through the use of AI to predict crimes. So they could show up at your house with a SWAT team raid at some point and say, you know what? We saw some of your comments on social media and it sounds to us like you’re getting ready to have a meltdown and maybe do something to hurt yourself or somebody else and we need to take you out of your house and maybe get you a psychological examination or something. You’re considered dangerous. We’ve had some complaints about you and we need to take action. So same thing in education. The Trump administration has now freed up AI in the classroom through another executive order about a week or two ago and said that they’re going to unleash AI in the classroom and eventually we’ll see teachers replaced largely by artificial intelligence, Sam, and it doesn’t take much of an imagination to see where that could go wrong.
Sam Rohrer:
Well, no, and see that’s the thing. Even on this theme as we talk about, and I had a guest on before Dr. James Spencer was with me, and we were talking about it from more of a theological perspective in that in reality education as an example, we know that if you could actually have a one-on-one mentor type circumstance, you probably would have the finest education. But it’s not possible because there aren’t enough of those individuals able to teach. But now it’s being put out there that you can in ai, you can in fact produce a individualized tailored mentor. Except ladies and gentlemen, as we’ve talked about, AI is artificial intelligence. It is programmed according to algorithms. It does have a worldview as we’ve talked about before. Even AI said has a worldview. It is a humanist worldview and it does not recognize God, and it does not recognize the reality that there is a higher power.
Their higher power is their creator, the programmer. That’s what’s already there. So okay, now we can see the issue, velvet, glove, iron, fist. We need to be very aware. We come back, we’re going to look at another couple of… Alright, before we get into this second half of the program, again, just call to your attention in that last break, you heard another of our ongoing series we’ve begun. I’ve been talking about that last week, and just a quick mention about verses to remember or some case, a verse to remember from Stand in the Gap Today we’re doing that and we’re asking you as this verse, you just heard from Psalm thy word, have I heard and have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against you? That verse those verses associated with that this week that you memorize that with us.
Why? Well, because there are many, many blessings that come to memorizing God’s word. First, we memorize that which we think is important. God’s word is important. If we don’t have enough, well passion and love for God’s word, we’ll never memorize it. If we don’t memorize it, we will not have the guard within us to keep us from sinning. We’ll not have that which the Lord places within us to be guided by the Holy Spirit to give us discernment for being aware of things that come before us, such as we are talking about today. So that’s our verse and we’ll play it every day this week and then we’ll shift and we’ll go to another one next week. Just be aware of that also. Now, if you’re just turning in with Leo Hohmann, author, researcher, independent investigative journalist with me regularly, generally once a month, maybe a little bit more often as we review generally speaking, either an issue of the day, but most often things about which he has written to websites, leo holman.com and Leo holman.substack.com because he is independent, he can write freely and because of that he depends on the gifts of people just as we do on this program.
And so I’ve just put that before you. Alright. Now, in the second term of Donald Trump, no one could say, as we’ve talked about many times, there’s one thing people have a hard time. I’m saying including myself, of knowing exactly what is happening. There’s so much happening. And one thing for sure, we’ve said there is no one enemy or friend who could say that a lot has not been done in these first a hundred plus days because it has. But as we’ve said on this program for these three months now, no one can tell you exactly all that has been done because there has been so much already thrown into the mix and no one certainly can tell you how it’s all going to work out. The scores of executive orders, the changing tariff policies, attempts to deter war and bring peace regardless of all these things, the world is closer to war today now than it was.
And every aspect of American’s lives are well, very uncertain because of all of these things. And I’m going to say except for the faithful, those listening to me right now, I’m going to say remnant believers, those who know where their hope, true hope is found and who are looking more each day to how God’s word is being fulfilled, his promises and biblical prophecy being fulfilled other than us who are in that category, who should be coming more confident by the day because we can see the hand of God at work, the world and everyone else is really more confused. That’s a reality. Now, Leo, since the last time we met, we have a new Pope about which you wrote two articles. I don’t want to talk very much on that, but you did write two articles looking into what might be and then summing it up about what actually happened.
You may want to have a comment on that. But then within that article that you wrote last on that you also embodied within that the summary of a personal interview that you did with a name that most people would know, attorney John Whitehead. And that was in regard to an April 28th executive order that the president signed that was entitled. This is the name of the executive order strengthening and unleashing America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens. That was the title of the executive order. The article is filled with many observations. That is your article, but you ended the article with this paragraph from John Whitehead. Lemme just read that now and then you take it from there. This is the last of your article. You said this in his final, now Whitehead’s final analysis about Trump’s April 28th executive order. Whitehead said this, there are some people who are not going to like this when it gets implemented and they’re going to be in trouble. This is going to be overwhelming when ai, we’re just talking about artificial intelligence and all of this technology is given to the police to Department of Homeland Security. They’ve already done threat assessments on homes across America. So they’re already doing that creepy stuff that George Orwell warned about in 1984. So that was Whitehead’s commentary. Fill in the blanks, Leo, and explain Whitehead’s concerns, which I’m going to say by the way, I’ve read that EO and I agree with what he said.
Leo Hohmann:
Yeah, it’s a very concerning executive order that got interestingly, very little coverage in both the mainstream media or the conservative media because if you read it, you can’t help but notice the very vague language that is used throughout the executive order as far as who is the criminal and what is the crime if you just read it at face value. Again, you might think it’s all geared just towards the really bad guys, the super violent felons and the illegal immigrant felons. But the executive order does not say that. It doesn’t define its terms. And so that’s why it’s so concerning because even if President Trump has the noblest intentions with this thing, it’s now part of the White House documented executive orders and a future president could totally weaponize it against us. And in fact, that’s what happened with 911. George W. Bush gave us the Homeland Security Department.
He gave us the USA Patriot Act and he told us it was just going to be used against those radical Islamic terrorists. Well, along comes another administration, Barack Obama, and he says, no, we’re going to turn this thing inward and start focusing on homegrown radical right wing extremists. Okay, that’s you and I, Sam and just about every other conservative, patriotic American. This is what I fear is going on with this executive order. I mean, it talks about investing in new technology and equipment and sharing it with local law enforcement. It talks about using the military to help local law enforcement patrol the streets and arrest the bad guys. It talks about investing in new prison space. America already has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world with the possible exception of China. And he wants to build this executive order says we need to build more prisons.
It talks about granting immunity, legal immunity to police. What does that mean when they mess up and maybe they use violence inappropriately against somebody, they’re now immune from prosecution or from civil penalties and you can’t do anything about it if your loved one gets taken down and inappropriately in an altercation with police simply because maybe he questioned something they said and all of a sudden he gets tased or worse than that, it talks about giving enhanced sentences to people who commit crimes against police. But again, it does not define what is a crime against the police. It could be something as simple as not obeying an order that you think is an unjust order and now you’re going to get an enhanced sentence on whatever else it was they were looking at you for. So you could have just been a traffic ticket, right? And now you’ve got a more serious penalty because you questioned something that the police, what you thought was an illegal order from the police. We have constitutional protections. Were supposed to, at least in our constitution, against this sort of unruly police behavior and they worked for us. But when you read this executive order, you almost get the impression, Sam, that we are being ruled over and the police have our special class of people in society almost like our little gods. And every little word out of their mouth must be obeyed, whether it’s just in constitutional or not.
Sam Rohrer:
And Leo, I agree with that. I’m looking at the executive order right now and supporting what you’re saying. I’m just going to read to piece of it. It says, using national security assets for law and order. Ladies and gentlemen, think about this. Your local police are under whose jurisdiction right now? Well, mostly if like on a township level or county level, that’s the county, right? And then if you go up from there, you got state police and so forth and all of that, but they’re still in the state order. Let me read this. Within 90 days of the date of this order, which that was April 28th, the Attorney General National US Attorney General and the US Secretary of Defense, all right, and consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, which means all of them appropriate undefined shall increase.
This shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist state and local law enforcements. That includes coordination with Attorney General to determine how military and national security assets, that’s equipment, that’s guns, that’s trucks, that’s vehicles, that’s a whole much more training and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime. There’s so many things in there I can tell you ladies and gentlemen from standpoint of legislation or think of this type, there are so many holes, big holes, and just the mere fact that you’re having the federal government provide assistance, equipment and money to the locals. What that means is it’s a backdoor approach to control the locals because wherever they get the help and the money who controls them, that’s an unconstitutional thing. Big issue. Velvet glove, iron fist. Well, thanks for being with us. We’re going into our final segment.
Been a fast hour here at Leo. You’ve written, I’d say about 10 articles in the last three weeks since you were with me. We’ve really looked at portions of three. There are so many more and all of them, which is why I recommend to all of you who are listening that if you are intrigued or interested or caused to think in a different way about for instance, what we’re talking about here today that you may want to strongly consider accessing and making Leo’s websites either@leoholman.com or leo holman.substack.com, a place where you can go because things are coming out all of the time, but are always on relevant themes and from a perspective that reflects the worldview that we deal with here on this program, biblical worldview from a truthful perspective. So that being the case, I’m just going to put it there. You can get it there.
And then again, this program, and I would just encourage all listening that if you are helped in any way by these programs, and I know so many of you are, because I hear from you, I heard from folks over the weekend, even when I went to church, people came and they were saying they had heard programs and how much it had meant to them. Okay? If it means something to you, I can assure you it will also help your friends. So just pass it along, encourage them to also listen. That’s a great thing to do. Okay, Leo, before we wrap it up and go into a final summary, is there anything about what we covered in the last two segments? Anything relative to the artificial intelligence and its application as we see it? Velvet glove, iron fist type concept or now the executive order, which is really mobilizing the DODI just read the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General. Basically the big guns of the federal government and money to come to bear to put resources, they would call it on the ground, but it’s not limited hardly to anything, but it’s effectively if implemented, in my opinion, it allows for a circumvention of the Constitution where the federal government is actually directing the actions on the local ground. And that is just not possible constitutionally according to the 10th Amendment. So anything about that? And if not, then we’re going to go into the final wrap up of the today program.
Leo Hohmann:
Yeah, well, the only other thing I would add to that, you’re exactly right. It’s completely and totally unconstitutional and against both the letter and the spirit of our American laws. Most notably the Posse Comas Act of 18, I think it’s 1878 or something like that, expressly forbids the participation of the US military in any aspect of local law enforcement, state or local law enforcement. And so they’re really flouting, not just the Constitution, but even established norms and laws by the President signing by his staff. Even putting an executive order like this in front of the president is really shocking. And that he would sign it is even more shocking, but perhaps maybe not so shocking because if you listen to President Trump’s rhetoric and his speeches, he does seem to have an unduly large emphasis on heroizing. He seems to almost have an obsession with law enforcement and heroizing police, which there are many heroic police and we can’t do without them. But it just seems like he’s taking an extreme approach by making it sound like they’re all heroes, when in fact John Whitehead and other attorneys have concrete evidence that there are also some bad actors law enforce like in every other profession, and they need to be held accountable.
Sam Rohrer:
And I’m glad you mentioned that. And so ladies and gentlemen, again, you listen to this program, you know where I’m coming from, where we come from, we are so supportive of God’s design for government, God’s design for the family, God’s design for his institutions of authority. And that when operating according to how God has laid it out, everything works perfectly. To the extent that a nation will fear God and keep his commandments will limit themselves according to the 10 commandments of God. It’s what William Penn said here in Pennsylvania. And when that happens, and God can bless the country, and we have been the recipient of that, but when God is removed from the picture and God’s word is not the final, which frankly it has not been the final authority in our country for a long time, then neither is the Constitution because the Constitution is founded on biblical principles.
So therefore, we talk about God, we can talk about the Constitution, but we don’t really limit ourselves to it. And when that happens, that’s exactly like our founders said, would take place those in office. And the people do not limit themselves voluntarily, according to God’s 10 commandments as moral law, as he’s laid it out, then what will result is this iron fist, but possibly in the cloaking of a velvet glove. Let’s put it that way. All right, so let’s connection. Let’s go back to not much time left, Leo, Sherry, your perspective here, because everything we’ve said basically raises a level of skepticism. I started the concept Jesus is warning himself. Don’t be deceived because you’re going to be in a climate of deception. How have you learned to balance what is to be skeptical and judge all things, but not become a hopeless cynic?
Leo Hohmann:
Great question. Wow. One thing I look at always is the big picture, Sam, and we know who wins. In the end, Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the sovereign God. He will allow evil to mature to a certain level here on earth to further his prophetic timeline, but at some point he’s going to intervene and he’s going to act and he’s going to act with justice and true biblical justice, not the fake justice that we see here on earth. And so that’s what keeps me grounded and balanced. And just one other comment on the things that we’ve talked about here, keep in mind I always do the Hegelian dialectic. I mean, we had a previous president who was all about negating police and defunding police and talking badly about police and what happened. Crime soared out of control. And so now we have the next president come in, if you believe like I do, that the globalist wanted President Trump to be the next president, he now reacts to that extreme policy by Biden with an equally extreme opposite policy of enhancing, beefing up police, giving them new powers and new legal immunities and less accountability.
Sam Rohrer:
Well, that brings us up pretty much the end. But the Hegelian dialectic, you brought it up. You’ve mentioned in some of the articles, and ladies and gentlemen, we’ve talked about it on this program before, but it describes the kind of thing that happens in politics, and it happens over generations, and it does move. You create a circumstance that causes the pendulum to swing way out to a point where everybody says, I can’t stand it. But by design, the pendulum comes back, but it goes further the other way. That is a part of the dialectic, this creation of these two apparently opposing things, but in design, it’s moved and designed and implemented to move people from a position from which they’re comfortable to a position to which they would never go, except that the way it’s done, they’re convinced that it’s good. That is a part of the deception we share, that we didn’t make up that terminology or these things. But anyways, be aware of that healthy skepticism. Beware of deception. Those are Jesus’ own words. How do we do that? Hopefully discussion today is a part of that. Leo Holman, thank you so much for being with me again, his website, leo hohmann.com and leo hohmann dot sub stack.com, you can find these articles and actually subscribe to what he’s doing. Thank you for being with us today, ladies and gentlemen, and the Lord willing, we’ll be back here tomorrow. Until then, trust in the Lord. Stand in the gap for truth.
Recent Comments