The AI Safety Concern and the Call for a Global Pause

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Leo Hohmann

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 6/10/26. 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 Wednesday edition of Stand in the Gap Today and it’s also our look at headline news from the perspective of the constitution and biblical worldview. We’ll do that today through the eyes of an independent investigative journalist and recurring guest on this program, Leo Hohmann. Today I’ve chosen to focus on a particular area connected to many other programs which we’ve done, but it links to a recent article that Leo has just put out entitled, and here’s the title of what he wrote. The CEO of Major AI Company calls for “global pause” a global pause in AI development to address safety concerns. All right, I think that’s a very, very interesting thing. You no doubt if you’re listening to the news, you may be aware of some of the things that we’ll share, but tying it together I think is important. We’ll do that today.

But I’m doing this because this conversation holds I think within it the seeds, or should I say the tentacles perhaps, that extend the tentacles of AI, the seeds of AI that literally extend into all other leading headline events of the day that we could cover but were not. For instance, yesterday there was an historic loss in the Dow in the S&P of over one and a half trillion dollars yesterday due to a combination of factors from rising inflation was one. Increasing war in the Middle East was another. There was also a major correction in exaggerated AI profits and growth and the Fed is suggesting keeping rates at the current levels. Those factors, and there were actually some others, but they kind of came together. But every one of those things I just mentioned is either to some degree shaped or colored by AI. One undeniable observation is that the creep of AI into all of life is seemingly unstoppable.

You get that sense? Kind of like a tide that’s rising. I compare it to like a literal Pac-Man type of intrusion where control and perhaps destruction of human civilization both economically and personally, governmentally, even spiritually is happening. All of life is being impacted with the proverbial, I want to say the heat that’s being turned up, bringing the breadth of global economic and political instability to a literal boil. The title I’ve chosen to frame today’s focus is this, the AI safety concern and the call for a global pause. And with that, I want to welcome back in today, Leo Hohmann. Leo, thanks for being back with me today.

Leo Hohmann:

Hi, Sam. Thanks for having me.

Sam Rohrer:

Yep, you’re welcome. Because of time, let’s get right into this, Leo, because you’ve written on this theme broadly, many, many, many articles. This one specifically we’re going to today focuses on AIs as a company called Anthropic Dario Amodi, who has called for a global pause in AI development, but he’s not the only one to raise questions of concern about the speed and the expansion and all of that of AI. So in this first segment, what I’d like you to do is to identify the who. Who is the who of AI that are involved in this expanding area of which they are expressing concerns, which we will talk about those concerns in the next segment, but the who and what are they talking about?

Leo Hohmann:

Well, it’s all of the household names really, Sam, that all of us would recognize pretty much in the tech industry, whether it’s Google Alphabet which owns YouTube and Google and all the others or Sam Altman of OpenAI, you’ve got Zuckerberg over at Meta and his people, they’re all pretty much singing the same tune where they’re in on breath saying that this AI monster is something that is going to happen. We can’t stop it. It’s a reality that you just need to accept. Then in the other breath, doing what I would call and what other folks have been calling a limited hangout where they give you a limited amount of realistic view of what it will look like in the future if we don’t slow it down and they’re supposedly concerned about that and we need to have some government regulation while on the other hand, they’re actually lobbying the government not to regulate them.

Okay? And so it really is disingenuous in my opinion and a classic limited hangout. And what is the reason or the purpose of a limited hangout? I think it is just to cover their backsides for lack of a better way to describe it where, Sam, they could come back three or four or five years from now when we’re in a total lockdown surveillance state and nobody is allowed to do anything that isn’t monitored twenty four seven by the government through the power of these technology companies and they can say, “Well, hey, look, we warned you four or five years ago about this and you didn’t do anything.” I think that is the purpose of it just so that they can say later on when it’s no longer sneaky and it’s no longer sneaking up on us bit by bit the surveillance state, but it’s 100% implemented and everybody’s lost all their freedom and it’s now obvious that we are no longer a free country.

At that point they can say, “You know what? We just delivered the tools. It was the government who allowed them to be used in such nefarious ways. And if you look back at the record from five years ago, we’re actually on the record warning you of exactly this type of dystopian,

Horrific society. Here it is, you didn’t listen to us.” And I think that is why they are coming out now, Sam. All these different CEO tech CEOs with these ominous sounding warnings of AI taking over the world, AI taking over society and we better slow it down, we better get a handle on it.

Sam Rohrer:

I think that’s a great observation and I think I would share that as well. Ladies and gentlemen, here they are again. These are the ones that Leo’s mentioned. Yo hear them often. OpenAI, the CEO, Sam Altman, Anthropic, CEO Dario Amodi, Google Deep Mind Alphabet, you mentioned that. That’s Dennis Asabas, Microsoft AI, that’s Satya Nadella, Meta AI, Mark Zuckerbook. And there are others that have other platforms. Leo, just in a quick sense, these all that I mentioned that you mentioned, they’re all just American, but there are other companies who are just as much at work in Europe and China and the rest of the world as well, isn’t there?

Leo Hohmann:

Oh, 100%. I mean, China is probably further down the road than any other country in terms of weaponizing this technology where they have pretty much a full blown social credit scoring system in place, but the people there are used to that type of control because they’ve lived under communism for many decades already. They need to go slower in the Western countries where we’re more used to individual freedom and liberty and they use this very sneaky attack. Like I said, it’s like an ambush attack. Well, you don’t see it coming until it’s already on you.

Sam Rohrer:

Yep. All right. And with that, just hold that, Leo. We’re going to break away here. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us to be just tuning in. Leo Hohmann is my guest today. And the theme is this, the AI safety concern and the call for a global pod we’re talking about. When we come back, we’ll talk about some of these specific

Concerns. Well, if you’re just joining us, Leo Hohmann is my guest today. He’s an independent investigative journalist, been with me a number of times, generally about once a month or every few weeks anyways. He has a website where you can find all of his articles, Leo Hohmann, H-O-H-M-A-N-N, two N’s, leoHohmann.substack.com. I’ll give you that address, which you will find lots of information there and even including the article to which I’m referring today in part. Leo, in this segment, let’s move now to a closer look at the concerns, that aspect of safety and other things that some of these AI CEOs of which I gave a list of all of them, but one in particular from Anthropic has made a recent statement. But I’ll share this with you. As I’ve done my research, as you have done yours and you’ve together, if we put it all together, we’ve got a lot of information.

But these guys’ concerns, in my opinion, are not necessarily mine. I don’t necessarily share the concerns that I think they are pursuing and possibly you either, but I think some of them we would align. For instance, some of what I am seeing some of their concerns to be relate to perhaps fear of government oversight or one actually in some other commentary seemed to be more of a concern that there would be some kind of regulation put in place to slow down their own corporate goals. So it wasn’t genuine as I was seeing, as we would think, safety. But when Anthropic CEO says his concern is that, “These systems, AI systems, may soon be capable of self-improvement without human oversight.” And you had that in your article or as you write in your article beyond human AI, I’m sure that we probably would all share concern because we’re almost like in a frontier land where we don’t know where we’re headed, but we’re sure going there fast and that is a concern.

So as you’ve done your research and written in your article, what have you found would be the greatest concerns? Let’s build them out a little bit as mentioned by the CEOs, perhaps some that you think maybe are not, like I say, genuine and then some that they’re mentioning that in fact would be shared.

Leo Hohmann:

Well, I think the overarching concern that the CEOs have been talking about is this whole idea that AI could at some point become sentient, meaning it would have sort of a mind of its own, no longer under the controls of human beings. It would be able to, under this scenario, it would start to rewrite its own code. So you might program it to do one thing, but if it didn’t want to, it could write its own code and do something else. They’re actually talking about this and that it could only be possibly three to five, six years away. Well, it’s actually a wide spectrum. If you read from the experts, you’ll hear some say we’re literally only two or three years away from reaching that dystopian scenario and then others will say, “Oh, we’re like 10 or 15, 20 years even away from it. ” So we have no, as regular folks out here not dealing with this or working in this industry every day, we have to just rely on these experts to tell us how close we are to that frightening scenario and there is no agreement on it.

So that alone is a little suspicious to me. Could they be possibly hyping it up to make it sound even worse than it is because they know it’s going to be bad, but if they make it sound even worse than what it’s going to be, then we’ll be okay with it, we’ll accept it because, oh, at least it’s not this. That could be part of the strategy, the strategic maneuvering we’re seeing going on here, but I think we can all agree that no matter what level of bad it becomes, it’s going to be destructive to human systems, to our jobs, to our freedoms, to our way of life. I had a whole section in my article about the flock cameras that are now in over 5,000 communities nationwide spying on everything people do. These things used to just read license plates. Oh, that sound innocuous enough, right?

It’s just reading license plate numbers. Well, now they’re equipped with facial recognition software. They’re identifying people inside the cars. They have the ability to listen and hear what’s said on the streets like up to a quarter mile away with super sensitive speakers. They can pick up all sorts of idiosyncrasies about your vehicle, not just the license plate, but what color it is, what make and model, how many scratches it has, where it always starts with something that sounds innocuous and almost obviously like something that would be wise to do and help law enforcement keep us safe, but then with this incrementalism and the amazing advances in technology, these systems continue to pick up more data on us, personal data and I think that is the overarching concern that I have and very few of these CEOs by the way talk about that where it’s just the incremental slow but continuous crushing of personal individual freedoms.

Sam Rohrer:

And Leo, to add to what you’re just saying in my preparation for this today and I forget right now which one of these CEOs did, but was not using the 10 year, the five year, the three year, but actually said in one year. So all of that underscores exactly what you’re saying and that is a technology that is global, ladies and gentlemen, global, because we’re just talking about what’s happening here in America, but the same things going on throughout Europe and Russia has its own approach and China is way ahead on many things and these things are connected around the world. So that is the point. It is expansive, it’s going very fast and no one is able to say where you’re going. So I always say, “Wait a minute, if you don’t know where you’re going, you’d better slow down unless you fall over the edge of the cliff.” And that’s a little bit of the concerns that you’re talking about their Leo as well, but you’ve written some other things we’ve chatted about as well, but you’ve got the technology, you’ve got the platforms, you’ve got OpenAI and Anthropic and DeepMind Alphabet and so forth, these platforms, but then they’re all connected into the databases which are taking place.

Give some comment on that because just the AI itself is one thing. All the databases become another thing and putting all that together is probably the largest concern you’ve written about, whether you call it the beast system or what. Talk a little bit about that because it’s a package that we’re talking about.

Leo Hohmann:

Well, 100%. I mean, I mentioned in the article that as bad as it is right now and it’s worse than most people know by the way right now. I mean, I could tick off some examples of things that are going on like just today in the news, San Diego State University spent 1.3 million on 1300 hidden cameras, AI internet connected cameras throughout its campus including 330 of these cameras inside student dormitories. And so they didn’t sign up for that type of big brother environment when they enrolled at San Diego State University as a student. It’s all being done under the radar. I had an article a few weeks ago about a preschool in Washington State that was hooking AI surveillance cameras to the teachers monitoring everything that every student was doing throughout the day, the little toddlers, right in preschool and scooping up all that data.

I mean, when you go to a sporting event or a music concert, it’s unbelievable that the cameras scooping up your facial biometric data and other sorts of biometric data and it’s all being stored. See, this is the thing and so as they scoop up more and more of this personalized data and they get more and more granular with it to where the point where you can’t like roll over in bed without it being monitored, you can’t cough or whatever, even your health and your bodily functions they want to be monitored. Well, this all takes computer storage capacity and that is one of the reasons, one of the main reasons why they’re building all these data centers, because they have to have increased capacity as they continue to increase the amount and the granular level of data that they’re picking up on every human being. And at the same time they’re increasing the number of data centers they’re hoping to reduce the number of human beings on the planet and that you could do a whole showed Sam just on that and the depopulation agenda that goes along with

Sam Rohrer:

This. You’re correct. And Leo, another thing as I’ve been reading and researching is that for instance where China is, China is way ahead on the use of robots. I have seen them do some performances of robots running and jumping in orchestrated presentations flipping and moving around like soldiers, uniform soldiers. And how are they training these things? Ladies and gentlemen, do you know how they train robots and AI driven entities like that to actually be very, very human? Well, you simply record many, many humans, children, adults, how they act, their facial responses, how their eyes move, how their mouth moves, how they move their head when they talk. They use their hands when they talk. All of that is learned fed into the databases and it’s used to program and teach the fake the entity that looks like a human but is not, it’s learning. So we’re helping to learn.

All right, I’ll just put that out there as an example. Many, many, many things. So when they raise concerns these guys raised some are absolutely legitimate. Some are for their own concern that they stay in control of what they’re doing, but stay with us. We’ll come back and we’re going to talk a little bit more about that. Why and where is this going? All right. If you’ve been with us from the beginning, our theme today is we’re looking at this theme, the AI safety concern and the call for a global pause. You say, “Well, who’s doing that? ” Well, a particular AICO has done that, but really all of them, well, not all of them, certainly Elon Musk has raised questions and others have raised questions as well and my guest today, Leo Hohmann has mentioned that his thought is that may be true, maybe genuine concerns, maybe just the fact that they know they’ve got a, what do you call a lion by the tail.

This AI technology, it is global. It’s not just by American companies that we all would recognize, but there are companies in Europe. There are companies in Russia. There are entities and companies in China, which is probably ahead of the whole pack that are all doing the same thing. The end goal, well, we’re going to talk about that a little bit, the end goal, but they’re all on a race to see who’s going to get somewhere first, but they don’t know where they’re going, but they are moving fast and there is no control. I’ll tell you, there is no regulation. There’s no government entity. It’s not being controlled by a fear of God. I guarantee you that there is no concern, fear of God. There’s no ethics involved. It’s whoever can get wherever first. So we’re in a strange time and so it’s logical that some would raise the question and say, “Well, we’re just putting you on record.

We don’t know where it’s going and where we may end up may not be a good thing.” So we’ll just leave it there, but let’s go into it. In most cases, headlines and government seeded narratives, I’m going to suggest that everything we hear in the media of any type, anything coming out of government these days are strategic. They’re controlled, they’re shaped. Corporate, government branding, the way news is presented, but most of it focuses on the what of what’s happening and then everybody gets caught up talking about the what that is taking place and as a part of it, they generally direct people to the conclusion that they want as well. That’s a part of it because if it’s made within us to kind of wonder, “Well, why is this happening?” And that why question is important. What we’re seeing is strategic manipulation, it’s propaganda. And as the Lord says, we are in the days of deception.

That’s all wrapped up in it. So truth and objectivity in reporting long lost approach. Leo, you could speak to that as an investigative reporter, but when’s the last time you’ve actually read an article other than some of what you write and some few others, but it’s not reporting of the news. It’s more of a telling people what they ought to think and therefore it requires a lot more work. So let’s get into this and go here a little bit further. Why in this case before we’ve talked about the what a little bit and the who, but if you’re taking what we’re talking about here thus far, why do you think these AI CEOs have raised their concerns? You’ve talked about some of it now perhaps and then why now? Is it legitimate, self-serving? You’ve been through it, but let’s go through it again. I know it’s hard to comment on motives, but normally in the public world, words are followed by deeds and actions and we can measure those.

So just give some thoughts on why we are seeing why there’s such a rush to put into place something that can be like an absolute trap and yet we are not slowing down, we’re actually speeding up.

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah. I think we’ve been moving in the direction for many, many decades of a more controlled society. People like Zabigni of Brzezinski wrote about this back in the 1970s with his book between Two Ages America in the Technotronic Era, where he said that everything would be controlled in the future. Well, the future is here. Okay, that was the ’70s and 40, 50 years later here we are. We see that we have very few choices left. I mean, every year it seems like we end up with technology making more of the choices for us. Well, you actually have to file everything online now, right? You can’t walk into a government office if you need to take care of some sort of business. They want you to do everything online. Same with the utility systems and the corporations and all of your interaction with those type of entities and there’s a certain loss of humanity.

When we start taking the human element out, you no longer have to face the bureaucrat to go in to renew your license or to get a passport or to do other sorts of business with the government and now you’re just basically dealing with the internet and their algorithms and it’s all there to be manipulated and you can’t appeal. How do you appeal something like when you get a ticket in the mail from a stoplight camera that said that you were going five miles over or you were in the middle of the intersection when the light turned from yellow to red. You can’t argue with that. You can’t go to court and plead your case against a machine and I think this is the type of society that Zabigni of Brusinski and others foresaw very early on with the advent of computers and they actually saw a crude form of artificial intelligence taking shape at some point in the future and unfortunately it seems like we’re there.

I mean, you can also look into the world of literature with books back as early as the 1930s and 40s like Brave New World in 1984 Aldis Huxley and George Orwell writing those epic pieces of literature for warning about the direction we were heading. And so none of this should come as a surprise, but I feel like people have been anesthetized by the mission creep like we spoke of earlier in the program where something starts out with what sounds like a legitimate purpose in terms of, I think I used the example of the license plate, automated license plate readers installed in over 5,000 communities in the country starting out just tracking license plate numbers and using it to, “Oh, we need to know if a criminal shows up in our community so we can go arrest them.” No, that had nothing to do with the overall arching goal of this type of technology.

It is to make everyone a potential criminal, okay? When you’re monitoring and scooping up the information and data on everyone, not just putting some sort of monitor on a convicted criminal, but now using a broader form of technology, we used to have ankle monitors and stuff like that for people convicted of drunken driving and other crimes, but now they’re doing the same essential thing to all of us whether or not we have any sort of criminal history in our background and I think they need to get us slowly accommodated and used to that being normal. They’re trying to … If I had to boil it down into a nutshell, Sam, they’re trying to normalize tyranny.

Sam Rohrer:

And I think that’s a great way to put it. Some of the research I did here, for example, I just went online and just checked and said, all right, which of the companies involved in the kind of thing we’re talking about AI or AI analysis as an example right now have contractual agreements with the government, US government and these are just with the Department of Defense, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web, Nvidia, Oracle, SpaceX, Reflection X and those are involved. They’re classified networks, they’re battlefield intelligence, they’re logistics, they’re decision systems, but companies like Palantir, which analyzes by AI all of the data being put in the data centers has a contract for what I believe with every agency of the federal government. There may be one that’s not there right now, but they’re doing exactly what you’re talking about in a small funnel collecting all this information from every camera, every piece of input, every satellite and movement, all of that kind of all being collected analyzed by AI that now runs the risk of taking that data and kind of doing its own thing.

So it is exactly what you’re saying and it was easily found just by doing any kind of research on that. So anyway, any further thoughts on this, on the why and the wherefore, because I think where you ended up is where I’m thinking in my mind is that every dictator in the history of the world would have loved to have had the ability to access and touch every citizen or every person under their control. But AI, the way you’ve been writing about it, the way we’re talking about today, has that ability, doesn’t it?

Leo Hohmann:

It absolutely does. It just hasn’t fully been, and I emphasize the word fully, it hasn’t fully been weaponized yet. It’s out there, it’s available. We’re not talking about something that is going to happen in the future. It’s already there and in the hands of the wrong people and they have started weaponizing it. And some of these examples I’ve been giving in the show today, it’s proof that it is being weaponized, but it has not been fully weaponized to the point of China or even beyond what China is doing. And that’s another whole thing that we could get into just briefly. I’ll mention that the United States already has around 5,000 AI data centers either up and running or under construction and they want to build at least three or 4,000 more. No other country has even close to that many data centers. So what is the plan of the US government in cooperation with these private surveillance technology companies.

It

Sam Rohrer:

Seems

Leo Hohmann:

It could be even beyond China.

Sam Rohrer:

Yeah, absolutely. It certainly has the potential. Stay with us, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll come back and we’ll conclude. And we’ll just say, I’m just going to ask Leo, what do you think are the chances of a global pause? Before we go into our final segment, thank you for being with us today. Again, my guest is Leo Hohmann. He’s an independent investigative journalist. One of the few who’s actually in that category, not I’m going to say controlled by some company that has to say traded away their independence for a few shekels from Washington or from state government. And that is important that those types of people and like we here on this program who are not supported by those who seek control, but by you who want the truth, that’s why we need your financial help and it is important that you do that. Otherwise, this program will not stay on programs by the very nature of how things are, it costs money.

And so we need your help. Independent journalists like Leo do as well. So his website, leoHohmann.substack.com, just want to give that to you again where you can find the article that we’ve referred to somewhat in passing, but the focus of today’s program as well as a host of other things. He generally does several a week, several to many editorials and research articles per week you can find there. So let’s go into it. So again, the theme was this AI safety concern and the call for a global pause. Someone said, “We ought to stop for a little bit and just kind of take stock of where we’re going because we don’t know where AI is going and it may end up in such a way that it will destroy humanity.” Actually was a phrase that was used in your last article, Leo. But I want to go there, the call for a global pause.

It sounds noble. It really is a good idea, but for many perspectives I just wonder if it is even possible because I look at it, Leo, from this perspective, for many reasons. There are a lot of reasons why those who are really behind it wouldn’t want there to be a pause because it appears to me to be a tool, a mechanism, a means, a method, however you want to put it, by which a very select few elite literally have the means to rule the world. You talked about the ability to help the tyrants, the tyrant mentality of the world to have a mechanism invisible but powerful. They can control the politicians with it, already are, I think, can surveil the entire global population, can accomplish for a handful of elite people, or frankly, Leo, I’m even thinking even one person, this system is so global, we’ve talked about it, but the mentality of many and most who get into office only want more power.

So they love to control this technology gives that ability like nothing ever in the history of the world. So the question is what’s next? So here’s my question. What’s the likelihood from your perspective of a global pause? Why or why not? And if not, what does raising the question by the very people who have brought the world to this point really accomplish? And it may go back to what you said at the beginning, but add into it now anything at this point

Leo Hohmann:

Yeah, it’s nothing but a smokescreen, all of this fake concern. And the reason I say that is I’m a realist and I see all the data centers being built and I see them being built in communities that 100% don’t want them. It’s being shoved down their throat anyway. You’ve got the White House saying, issuing executive order, putting data centers under the category of military installations in a matter of quote unquote national security. Well, if it’s a matter of national security, state and local regulations don’t apply because now we’re talking about a boogeyman could China or Russia, we’re protecting ourselves and our national security through the use of these data centers. And so it’s very much a clever way of positioning the whole thing to make sure that they get their way. So we wouldn’t see all these data centers being built if there was any chance that these warnings from these tech CEOs were being taken seriously.

I mean, to me, that’s where the rubber meets the road, Sam. And by the way, Larry Fink, who’s the BlackRock chairman and the co-chairman of the World Economic Forum and a close friend of President Trump, total globalist, he came out a week or two ago and said that we really need to get out ahead of the possibility that these anti-data center activists could start sabotaging our sacred data centers and we need to start beefing up the security around our data centers and treating them like military installations as the president declared them to be. And so at the same time, the federal government just a few weeks ago came out with a new national security position and said that people who take activist roles against data centers should be looked at, are being looked at now by the government as potential terrorists. They’ve added them to the list of potential terrorists.

If you’re against data centers and AI and this sort of thing, you are now on a watch list and being monitored closely by the government. This is their words, not mine, because you could be a potential terrorist. And so this is where we’re heading. So I really don’t see the warnings of these CEOs as being anything but political posturing and covering their backsides, as I said earlier in the program so that they can at least point back to this point in time where they said, “Yes, we did warn you people that this dark side of AI was a possibility but you didn’t listen to us and didn’t regulate it and so here we are.

Sam Rohrer:

” And Leo, I would agree with all that you said. And ladies and gentlemen, I want to mention a couple of concerns that I have and Leo, I think you would agree with it, but I have significant constitutional concerns that are actually being exacerbated and this is what I’m going to say, if you think that even this administration will look out for the rights of the people and support and protect the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, they will not and they are not. And you say, “Well, how can you say that? ” Well, you can say it like this, the executive branch effort through executive order or other ways such as what Leo, you just mentioned, to streamline, they would say, but to override state’s rights, the 10th amendment. I served in the Pennsylvania legislature. I know what it means to have states rights and follow what they believe to be right in those states.

The federal government and the effort right now to build this oligarchy between the US government and these billionaires through contractual arrangements and otherwise is the forming of an oligarchy never imagined by our constitutional founders and the efforts to override local control, state control, state oversight, and to force onto the ground everywhere in all of our states and supersede all state laws and everything regarding to AI surveillance and cameras in the collection and the putting of all that together is 100% unconstitutional, but where’s the concern? Where’s the question? We’ve moved to a point, ladies and gentlemen, where the ends justify the means. Pragmatism, which is controlling what is in Washington today, has the ability to override every other concern, including the Constitution, including God’s own moral laws and it’s happening. So those are concerns that I have and they’re real and they are real. Anyways, Leo Hohmann, thanks for being with us today.

Again, we just opened a can here. We could have gone so much deeper than this, but thank you for the work that you’re doing. His website again is leoHohmann.substack.com and then you can get this article and this program today on our program. Find it, get it, read the transcript, send it along to a friend.