Peering Through the Fog

Peering Through the Fog

September 17, 2025

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Leo Hohmann

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 9/17/25. 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 another Stand in the Gap Today program and if you feel overwhelmed by the news of the day and find it difficult actually to sort through the confusion and the clutter and what I’m going to say is the fog of our day. Well, you’re not alone. As I’ve shared many times on this program, the information coming into our ears and through our eyes is being manipulated by an evil world system. Why do I say it? Well, because that’s what the Bible tells it. It’s been under the control of Satan himself who the Bible says is the prince and power of the air now enhanced, I’m going to say enhanced now, however, would want to look at it by AI algorithms which are also not based on truth, deception, and the ability to deceive has reached a new high. And literally, if you’re plugged at all into the digital media, you are seeing that by the day.

So what’s the goal of that? Well, to confuse, to distract and to literally deceive and destroy with the goal so that people remain even more divided, more angry and so uncertain of what actually is that they become easily fooled and conditioned to believe even greater lies. That’s it, and that’s the challenge. I think that we as all people, but as we God-fearing people face every day and that challenge is not getting easier, it’s getting more difficult. It’s for that reason that I ask for your prayer, for me and our team regarding what we choose to highlight on this program and on our TV program and how to accurately apply a biblical worldview. But we know that when this is accurately done, then we are able by the help of the Holy Spirit and God’s word to bring clarity to confusion, to chase the darkness with the light and to see clearly through the fog. The title I have chosen to guide our conversation today with recurring guest, independent investigative journalist, Leo Hohmann, is this Peering Through the Fog. And with that, Leo, thank you for being back with me again on this program.

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, thank you Sam for having me back.

Sam Rohrer:

Leo, you and I pass information back and forth and I think all who are involved in watching or doing that, but there clearly is a lot of confusion and what I just said I’m sure you would agree with, but there’s a first area, let’s get into this as we look at several areas where there is fog, let’s put it that way in the news that we’re getting. But this first one obviously swirls around of course the murder of Charlie Kirk, and I’ve said on this program as well as some other guests have that this event, well, there’s a lot of similarities to 911 caught us by surprise. It was big. It goes to the heart, it affects every aspect of the human condition, and the result of it is not yet worked out. How it ends, we don’t know yet. There’s likely a whole lot more we don’t know than perhaps we do know, and we know the narrative is being shaped by government storytellers and AI algorithms. So that being the case from your perspective, what do you see when you look into this fog surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk? Because everybody’s kind of walking with their own perceptions. What are you perceiving and things about which we that are really affecting your thinking?

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, I see it being used mightily by the forces of evil. I don’t know who killed Charlie Kirk on that day last week, Sam, but I do know who did not kill him, and I don’t believe that it was a 22-year-old homosexual from the exact Utah area where the crime took place, who was able to use his grandfather’s gun with a $2 scope to take out Charlie Kirk in a pinpoint shot with one single pull of the trigger that would’ve taken extreme training, either military training or some other type of training that law enforcement people receive. I don’t even know if a casual hunter who maybe goes hunting once a year could have pulled that shot off in one pull of the trigger like this young man supposedly did. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have anything to do with the killing, I’m not suggesting that, but to believe that he did it all by himself and he was the actual trigger man rather than a patsy of some sort I think is a stretch. So there were more powerful forces at play, in my opinion, in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So what did they want? What was the intention of it?

I think it was probably more than one thing that they were trying to accomplish, but the overarching goal, if I had to pick one, I would say the further division of America, which is already in a very divided state, much more divided than I can ever remember in my 63 years on this earth. And now we’ve got this out there which is serving to really, it seems like spark a triggering event in a powder keg environment. We were already a powder keg, but this could be the trigger that ignites it, Sam. I really believe that. Why? Because you see both sides ramping up their vilification of the other. You’ve got the left literally celebrating in many cases, not all. I don’t want to paint the so-called left with a broad brush and say they all celebrated this. Some of them were abhorred by it like they should have been, but it seems like for every one that is abhorred, there’s another one or possibly two that celebrated it, and there’s actually a group calling.

They put together a hit list of other conservative leaders that they feel deserve the same fate as Charlie Kirk publicly out there with this sort of thing, Sam, and then you’ve got President Trump talking about, and Marco Rubio talking about deporting people who are celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination and President Trump from the get go blamed it on the left before they even arrested an individual. He cited the left in his address to the nation. I think that was the wrong thing, certainly the wrong timing for a statement like that that just stoked the division that we already found

Sam Rohrer:

Ourselves in. Yes, yes. Leo, let me interrupt here just a little bit left. In this program, things that you’re citing as I am stating lead to division, is there anything that you can point out in this process being put out by anyone really other than maybe what we talk about here in this program that is unifying?

Leo Hohmann:

There’s very little out there to that effect. I have seen some on the left saying that it is sick and horrible to be celebrating this. We may not have agreed with Charlie Kirk and some of his positions, many of his positions, but to celebrate his death is just flat out wrong. I think that’s encouraging on the right. I think there’s some folks who are not wanting to go there, but I see very little of it personally. I think both sides are the majority of both sides. Of course there’s always

Sam Rohrer:

Okay and hold on, we’re out of time. Leo, ladies and gentlemen, stay with us right now. Our theme today, Leo Hohmann is my guest. Leo homan.com is website there our theme is this peering through the fog at the fog of what’s happened to Charlie Kirk. We’re going to go to now another area where there is dense fog. If you’re just joining us today, welcome aboard. Thanks for being with us here today. My special guest today is Leo Hohmann been with me many times, so he is not a stranger to this audience at all. He has two websites, Leo Hohmann.com and then Leo Hohmann.substack.com, all of the articles, and I’m going to be referring to several written in the last couple of weeks in the balance of today’s program. Even some commentary in our first segment. You can find arriving from some at least an article he has there, but I put that out there so you can go for more information.

In addition to what we talk about today, we’re taking highlights, but we’re focusing in on this theme with all of the overwhelming amount of information that’s coming. Most of it, frankly is false or at least conflicting. It’s causing great confusion. And anytime a people are confused, they become easy to be led because they become fearful. And that has been a goal of our media and government itself for a long time. It’s just the way it is. We’ve talked about that many times. So our theme today is this peering through the fog because clarity is not something that the government of today or for a long time has really wanted to do. They want to keep it confused. Now, over the past couple of weeks, Leo, you’ve written about a number of very key issues, which I’m saying and putting in this illustration or a buried in the fog of deception and distraction and delusion.

One article that you wrote was entitled, prominent US Economist, says French President Macron admitted to him that NATO instigated Russia, Ukraine war. Now while Leo, the fact that the US instigated the downfall of the former Ukraine president loyal to Russia about 10 years ago, that thought is out there because it’s not just a thought. Actually that is true now, although there’s many that downplay that they don’t want that to be brought up. But Macron’s statement just days ago about NATO instigating the war, I think was significant. It certainly grabbed your attention. Here’s my question, what about Macron’s statement to you was most significant and clarifying? In other words, why did you think that was important enough to write about?

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, good question. Before I answered, I just wanted to finish my thought from the first segment on Charlie Kirk.

Sam Rohrer:

Sure, go ahead.

Leo Hohmann:

I was right there about to finish it before we had to go to the commercial break. But I think the overall overarching goal of the people who either instigated the assassination or committed the assassination is to drive the United States into civil war. And that’s why it’s my feeling that there’ll be more Charlie Kirks in the days or at least the months ahead, and we should be alert to that because I don’t think Charlie’s going to be the last one targeted. Okay, now back onto this next subject. The economist who made that statement was Jeffrey Sachs. Now, while I don’t agree with every position or stance taken by Jeffrey Sachs, he’s a very prominent American economist.

I do think he’s basically an honest person, and he is the one who said that in May of 2020 when he was in France being presented with the Legion of Honor medal by President Emmanuel Macron, Macron confided in him that while he and other NATO leaders were publicly saying, accusing Russia of starting the war with Ukraine and the whole mantra of naked aggression and unprovoked attack, and we hear this over and over again and have for three and a half years, Macron confided to Jeffrey Sachs in private that the opposite was actually true and that NATO was causing this war. This is what Sachs said. He’s basically serving here as a whistleblower. Whenever someone in the higher echelons of power divulges something that was said in private, in private by another power broker, that is a serious case of whistle blowing and takes some courage to do.

What is the significance of it? It’s simply that it affirms everything we thought. Now, it’s not news to me or you that NATO is driving this war, but when we hear it come from a prominent member state, the leader of a prominent member state of NATO like Emmanuel Macron, president of France, it legitimizes what we already suspected. It is just another piece of evidence in the overall case against NATO. This war could be ended tomorrow if NATO would agree to stop expanding its borders up to the western flank of Russia’s borders. They’ve added Finland, they’ve added Sweden, they’ve added all these countries in recent years, and they would never say that they would not also allow Ukraine to join NATO. That is the biggest issue, the biggest article of separation between the Western powers and Russia that is causing this war to continue. So it would be like Russia inviting Mexico into a military alliance with Russia, China, Iran, and that whole axis, inviting Mexico to join them in a military alliance on America’s border and arming Mexico to the teeth, the Mexican army and actually firing missiles into Texas.

I don’t think the United States government would take too kindly to that. And so this is what’s being done to Russia. It is poking the bear in the eye and then expecting him to back down. Well, Russia is not going to back down on this. This war is not going to end as long as NATO keeps up the pressure right there on Russia’s border with these intimidating provoking policies of trying to lead Ukraine into its military orbit in a military alliance. When Putin has said for decades now that that was a red line that the west could not cross. He’s tolerated all these other countries being added to NATO, but Ukraine was the one country he could not tolerate and this is why the war is continuing and this is why NATO is causing this war to continue. And we have it now from the French leader’s own mouth.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, now let’s go beyond that. I think you laid out the rationale well there, but staying here on NATO, I want to ask you a question. I asked another guest and I’ve been thinking about it, but it’s coming up again. I want to see it your perspective. I don’t know if you’ve written specifically on this, but there are some analysts who are suggesting that Donald Trump’s, I’m going to say cat and mouse strategy game with NATO, Russia and Ukraine. We know it’s all been back and forth a little bit, but it’s not just to get the US out of Ukraine, but the US out of NATO. And this would be the charge that it’s actually behind the scene working to collapse NATO for some reason, in part in order to eliminate the ongoing US financial support to NATO. Now, some are saying that strategy to collapse there is to collapse the monetary system of Europe. Certainly we know that the West and the President wants to by putting pressure on Russia to collapse them economically. That’s what Joe Biden said he was going to do but didn’t do. Others have said that it’s really to give time for Russia to take over all of Ukraine because Trump is really working more with Putin than he is. Okay? All of these things are after. That’s all part of the fog. Alright, from your investigations, what do you think is Donald Trump’s intended or possibly unintended strategy regarding NATO, Ukraine and Russia?

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, well for starters, Trump, president Trump says a lot of crazy things that he will then later use as leverage to get a foreign power or a foreign country to do what he wants them to do. So we never really know exactly what his strategy is because it can always go either way if you just go by what he says. So I try not to pay too much attention to what he says. I do note everything he says, but I don’t say, oh, he said this, so this is what he must really believe. I don’t think that’s the proper way to judge any Trump strategy. I look more at his actions than I do at his day-to-day statements, which are frankly all over the board in schizophrenic. And what I see is a leader who definitely wants Europe to take on more of the financial responsibility of NATO, but I don’t in any way see him as wanting to collapse or dissolve NATO.

He’s been trying to convince the EU to join him in slapping sanctions on China and India for buying Russian oil. And he said that he’s already put 50% tariffs on India because they buy Russian oil. He said he would do the same to China, but so far, and then later when questioned about it said that the reason he hasn’t is because he needs Europe to join him in this economic warfare against Russia or it won’t be effective. And I think he’s probably right about that. So at the end of the day, I don’t see him wanting to break with Europe and to dissolve. NATO would do just that, that would throw them under the bus and tell them that they’re not just needing to take on a greater responsibility for their own defense, but they need to go it alone completely and totally. So I don’t see that as being part of the Trump strategy. I think at the end of the day, Sam Trump is a product of the Anglo-American establishment, the Anglo-American global system. He’s heavily invested in the UK with his golf courses. He’s over there right now.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, we have to break away. Leo Mayville will pick up on that a little bit. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us because there’s another area of fog and that is some of the things that are coming out of the White House itself, and we’ll go there next. Well, welcome back and Leo, let me go back to you right away. Again, we ramp against the break there. Any additional comments on what we were talking about in the last segment before we go into this new one?

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, I just wanted to make the point that Donald Trump at the end of the day is a product of the Anglo-American global system that basically the British Empire at the end of World War II was handed off to the Americans and we see that global, see them acting as the global hegemon ever since that hegemony is now threatened by bricks and the coalition of nations that include Russia, China, India, Brazil, and several others. And I don’t see Trump ever casting NATO to the curb. I think that is part of this whole large struggle between two sides in the world that are both seeking hegemony over what will be the new world order. Will it be the West and America, the UK presiding over it at the head of the table or will it be China, Russia and India and some of these other nations in their coalition? That’s what this is all about. Do not be fooled thinking Trump wants to eliminate NATO.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, I think that’s excellent and I would concur basically what you said as well. So that’s great. Let’s move into another area where I’m saying there is dense fog and I want to say those are events that sometimes happen in the White House, in my opinion is I look at this, I think there’s one thing. I mean there are many things different about Donald Trump and for instance, Joe Biden, who Donald Trump compares himself against all the time as people know. But one of those is that Biden would be known for doing a lot of impactful things. I mean, I’m not the only one who’s observed this, but do them in the dark and try to do them in secret. But Trump on the other hand, is known for doing impactful things in full light and just because of the ability to impact the media, put a different spin on them perhaps.

So that is a contrast. But one recent event that was at the White House regarding AI, and there were some billionaires there that are part of the World Economic Forum guys, these globalist guys. But the meeting raised a lot of serious questions, but for which I found very little investigation or analysis. You did note this about two weeks ago, you wrote an article entitled President Trump host Bill Gates at the White House giving him a platform to spout his evil aspirations for AI driven digital dystopia. Now that was all one title and I know why you had it all in there because it was all needed. But what was the stated purpose for this meeting, Leo and who was in attendance?

Leo Hohmann:

It was to promote technology. Basically technology is going to be the thing that is going to launch America into this new golden age as Trump calls it because we are at the spearhead of all the new innovation. And Bill Gates was given prominence at this dinner along with Mark Zuckerberg and some others. Sam Altman of Open AI was there, of course, and all of the big tech bros as we know them were there. But Bill Gates was sitting right next to Melania Trump and the president and given the forum to speak about his wonderful innovations as he called them. And he was very clear about what they were. I mean, he said it was going to involve vaccines and gene editing, and he said that he was working with the president and the White House on this, and the president sat there and nodded his approval while this was being said. So it was really quite shocking, but so much in the news cycle these days, it was there one day and gone the next Sam. And so I decided to write about it because I didn’t see enough others doing so.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. And I think that that’s appropriate because, and I want to go here because connected, because I think in part, and you can build it out more, but just prior to the meeting, just a number of days ahead of time that this meeting that included Bill Gates and Sam Altman and some of these other big billionaire technology guys, Altman of which, and maybe some others were at the January 24th, the day after the inauguration of the president when they had that AI meeting in the promise of the president to come up with half a trillion dollars, 500 billion to advance AI data centers and all of that. I mean, so here are some of the same guys. They’re back there in the White House, so they’re there. But just prior to the meeting, the president had made a statement, a big statement, questioning big pharma and demanded of them that they come up with their proof that the COVID shot was actually safe and that’s hanging out there.

And he questioned publicly his warp speed decision or the decision for warp speed to put the shots into place, but which he still supports. But politically, the MAGA base, the Trump base has hated both of those. They hate the involvement with the big pharma. They hated the president’s warp speed and the shot and all of that. So he put that out there, which got some excitement positively from the MAGA base, but then here come these people and they said the same things that you just talked about. So what are your thoughts about the timing of the president’s big pharma and warp speed statement and then that White House meeting with AI and Bill Gates and him doing what you just said, build that out a little bit because that’s where some of the fog is.

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, I mean the timing was very, very interesting because you had all this going on, which you already mentioned about the president’s previous comment in opposed to true social sort of questioning whether warp speed was a good thing or a bad thing, but he didn’t come down on one side or the other. He just asked for, he said one side gives this data, the other side gives this data being Pfizer, which was the data he said he was shown in private, but that wasn’t the data being shown in public. So he wanted to know which set of data was the actual true data is what he said. I didn’t get too excited about that. I didn’t get as excited about that comment as many in the MAGA movement did because I just thought, okay, he’s just asking for some sort of validation of what he believes, and more than likely he’ll be given the false set of data that says, oh yeah, warp speed was wonderful and it saved millions of lives.

That’s what I think will come out of that if anything. But then the follow up affirmed my belief even more that that was the case, because then he had Bill Gates and these other gene editing experts there at the White House boasting and clamoring about how wonderful mRNA technology is and how they want to use it even more. And the timing was also interesting because the day before the White House meeting with Bill Gates and the Tech bros, you had Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Testifying before the US Senate and being literally pummeled for even questioning the validity of some vaccines by senators far left senators like Elizabeth Warren. And so if anything, you would think Trump would want to have the back of his own cabinet member RFK Jr. But instead he hosts the godfather of vaccine mRNA vaccines, bill Gates at the White House and gives him a state dinner and a place of prominence and honor. So again, which is the real Donald Trump, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Some people only focus on the good others focus on the bad. I would lean more towards the latter because that, again, I’m looking at his policies, not just his comments.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, and again, you and I have talked about, and that’s one of the difficulties, Leo, for everyone who’s observing is how do you handle what appears to be one direction on this hand and the other direction on the other hand, and it just makes me come back to and say, what does the scripture give us? Any interpretation, a clue on this? And to me, this is where I come down is, yeah, words are cheap. We’re known by our deeds. Scripture says by their fruit, you shall know them. So I do look at what is done, not what is said, because in the media of today driven by AI algorithms and a whole lot more, the words are being shaped. Even as you pick up your phone and you bring up an article, AI is shaping exactly what it is that they want you to know. So deeds I think is a good walkaway on that. You don’t have much time, just about a minute, but that meeting there was for AI technology, but Melania has been designated as the White House leader of ai. Any thoughts about that? Why her?

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, I think that’s just a further affirmation that President Trump does not see the dark side of ai. He’s totally 100% focused on the benefits of ai. And I’m sure there are some. I wouldn’t deny that by putting the first lady in charge of promoting AI in the public schools, both among students and teachers. So yeah, I think we need to pray for more discernment on the behalf of the president when it relates to ai. And one other aspect as far as the timing, it was also the state of Florida had out against vaccine mandates at the same time. This has all been going on and I think a lot of people are confused saying, oh, Florida is banning vaccines. No, they’re only banning mandates of vaccines. You can still get any vaccine you want in the state of Florida. They’re just not going to mandate them.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, at least for now. So ladies and gentlemen, okay, so that’s where we are on that. So that’s another area of fog, hopefully able to see a little bit more clearly, but it just demonstrates how greatly we all need wisdom and discernment. It is not that easy. We just need the Lord’s help. All right, and the last segment, we’re going to go into one other area of fog. I’m going to say that’s out there and I’m going to call it the tariff fog. Anyway, we’ll talk about that in just a minute. Well, as we go into our final segment here today, again, my guest today has been recurring guest, Leo Homan. He has two websites that you can find the articles of which I think in the body of today’s program, perhaps four have been touched on at least. But you can get the entire article by going to either one of these sites, Leo Homan, there’s two ends in that name, Leo homan.com and Leo homan.substack.com.

Alright, another area of confusion. I’ve made this theme today peering through the fog because there’s just no better way for me to describe how I perceive all that is around us. And as I talk to people all across the country, be it experts or average people, of which we all are just average people, there is one common thing is that people are confused. And this is natural based on the fact that we are not getting news that is any longer objectively reported. We are not getting news through a biblical worldview, which is the only thing that can bring you truthful objectivity without a fear of God, without an embracing of biblical truth, absolute truth, and a rejection of pragmatism, which is running things today, a rejection of bribery and corruption and payola in the system of government. Without those things, you cannot get the truth.

And when you enhance all of that by the Lord Jesus himself, saying that in these days in which we live, that deception would increase and to be on the watch and the lookout for that, then all of these things that we’re seeing is that way. But with the help of the Holy Spirit, the guider of truth, there can be clarity brought out of confusion, and the light always will chase the darkness. And with it then we can see some clarity even in the fog. So that’s reason for doing that. So I just throw out some of those principles as I think it through and I try to apply principles. But one of the areas of fog, Leah, was that of the President’s tariff policies from an economic perspective alone, the opinions vary even on good people about the wisdom of the tariffs, even from an economic perspective.

It’s been looked at. I mean, there’s a lot of reason we can’t get into that, but they vary significantly. Even those who, some who early supported it say, well, I’m hard pressed to tell you right now how they are working, at least working the way they were introduced to work from a political perspective, using tariffs unilaterally imposed by one individual and changes from time to time has really confused the world and the world’s leaders. But it’s also tended to anger some. And again, I listen to news from all over the world, and that’s very, very clear that’s the case. Yet tariffs and the threat of tariffs are central policy right now in the way the President is working and directing us policies specifically in this area of NATO and Ukraine and the Russian War. But now it heavily involves China and India and actually the European nation. So all that being said in a recent article that you wrote entitled Trump reportedly pushing European Union to join him in punishing China and India with massive tariffs for defying his orders to stop buying Russian oil. That was the title. Share the thrust of that article and the key questions that you believe should be raised in helping to see a little bit more clearly in this fog of tariffs as I’m calling them.

Leo Hohmann:

Yes, I guess I could start by saying I am not against tariffs on their face if used properly and within reason. If you want to put across the board tariffs of 10%, 15%, whatever for on every country’s goods coming into this country or to balance the scales of trade, I have no problem with that. And that can be used for a good purpose to write the trade balances. However, if you start to use tariffs, exorbitant tariffs of 30, 50, a hundred percent tariffs in a politically motivated way, which is what we see President Trump doing, I cannot emphasize enough how much President Trump in this latest threat of 50 to a hundred percent tariffs on China and India, I cannot emphasize enough. And the reason is they’re buying Russian oil and he doesn’t like that. I don’t think you can overemphasize how much he’s playing with fire.

What he’s doing is he’s telling another sovereign country where they can and cannot buy their oil from. Think about that and the danger of, as you said, angering countries. And then you have a group of angry countries coalescing together against American interests around the world. And that’s what I see happening. These are nuclear armed countries, China and India, and we’re telling them where they cannot and cannot can and cannot buy their oil. India has taken umbrage strongly against this saying that it’s in our national interest to buy Russian oil. It’s the best deal on the market. It serves our people’s interests. And the United States has no business telling us that we can’t buy our oil from Russia. And so this is going to drive the countries into a state of fury and coal, coalesce them against the United States. And it can only end in this is economic warfare in spades. Okay? What President Trump is doing here, he’s waging extreme economic warfare. And economic warfare always precedes kinetic warfare. And that is my concern that we are heading directly towards World War III with the group of nuclear armed countries, Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, they’re all going to be joining forces against the United States if Donald Trump doesn’t back off with these punitive, politically motivated tariffs.

Sam Rohrer:

Leo, I want all of our listeners, all of you listening to me right now to understand the framework for this discussion. And Leo and I had it before we went on the program, and that is this, until and unless we take biblical truth, which doesn’t change biblical morality, biblical truth, and we take that in our nation, our Constitution, which is our highest civil law, unless we look at everything that is done objectively through the lens of biblical morality and biblical truth and the Constitution when it comes to policy. Unless we do that objectively, we’re not doing our job. And I believe that what in fact is happening and has been happening is that, well, if it doesn’t fit the purposes for a moment, then we’re going to set aside the Constitution or we’ll declare an emergency and we’ll just suspend it for a while that happened in COVID, or we’ll come up with and challenge it in the courts, or we’ll, do you understand what I’m saying?

I believe that this is what, if there’s a walk away to the program today about the fog. It’s the importance of looking through the lens and the filter of biblical truth and the Constitution, which is the basis for this program objectively taking out the personality, taking out the party, and apply the rules evenly to all people. It makes no difference whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat, it doesn’t make any difference. All take the same oath. Let’s measure according to the same rules. This is something that I think is so very critical. Leo Hohmann, we’re out of time. Thanks so much for being with me today. Thank you for the work that you do, the time that you spent, and all the research and investigation. And ladies and gentlemen, again, you can read the Fuller articles to which we’ve referred here today@leoHohmann.com or Leo Hohmann.substack.com. And of course you can find all of this on our website and on our app and then listen to it again and then always, if it’s valuable to you, it’ll be valuable to your friends, pass it along to your friends and invite them to also listen. Alright, well, thanks so much for being with us today. God bless you all and the Lord willing. We will see you back here tomorrow.