Title: The COVID Vaccination: Unapproved, Experimental, and Potentially Fatal-Part II

/0 Comments/in /by

STAND IN THE GAP TODAY

Title: The COVID Vaccination: Unapproved, Experimental, and Potentially Fatal-Part II

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

Date: Jan. 21, 2021

Transcript:

SEGMENT ONE

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, hello and welcome to Stand in The Gap Today, where we deal with headline news of importance to Christians and of all freedom loving people, and we do it from a biblical and constitutional perspective. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’ll be joined today by special expert guest, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. She’s an osteopathic medical doctor, board certified, three medical specialties and widely regarded as perhaps the most knowledgeable physician on the adverse effects that vaccines can have on a person’s health. So this is part two of a focus that we have started actually a couple of weeks ago, but it deals with the decision ladies and gentlemen, that really is being thrust upon us by government, upon which every one of us who are alive in this country. All of you listening to me right now are going to be forced to make a decision.

                                             There’s not too many times I have noted throughout my life, where you’re not going to be able to escape from certain decisions. Most of them you can avoid and go on, nobody cares. But on this one that we’re talking about today, this decision, no fence sitting, no neutral decision. It is the decision of this in the question, do I take the COVID vaccination? Do I choose not to take the COVID vaccination ever? Do I resist it for some time and then come back and take it later? If I’m pulled I can’t travel unless I take it. The choice may become limited, but we’re going to have to make the choice. And can I say here right off that I know when we talk about the matter of vaccinations that it is very controversial, a lot of people have done investigation in the past, maybe for their own children said, “Nah, I don’t like the fact of the way some of these were given.”

                                             Others are really on board and saying, “I liked the idea of vaccinations, but when it comes to this one of COVID vaccination, it is even more perhaps controversial because it’s perhaps more distinctive than any other vaccination you have considered.” And so we’re going to talk about the day, I’m wanting you to keep your mind open. We think it’s part of our responsibility on key points of decision to put out information that people can consider for ourselves. Not my job to tell you what to do. It is my job though, and my responsibility and ours and the program is to offer up information that will help you to consider the ramifications of choices that come our way. Now, that being said today, obviously marks the first day of the Biden Harris administration. A lot of things are happening as you know, executive orders are flying from shutting down the pipeline to open borders, to a host of things.

                                             I’m not going to get into that today. But one of the things that the president has communicated is that he’s going to be prosing about another $2 trillion or so stimulus plan built around COVID. And in it was said this morning that there are going to be some vast sums of money to fund military distribution and involvement with the vaccine. Now we don’t know exactly what that means, but it does make me question when I hear the military involved in vaccinations, because that’s certainly historic. So we’re going to be built off of that thought. Our theme today is this, considering the COVID vaccinations, unapproved, experimental, and potentially fatal. This is part two, that was a theme two weeks ago. And I want to welcome in right now to the program, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. Sherri, thank you for being with us.

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            Thank you so much for inviting me back, Sam. It’s my pleasure.

Sam Rohrer:                      We weren’t able in the last program to get things in and we have a lot to cover today, but you’re a vast resource. And so we want to get right into this. Dr. Sherri, on the consent form, a lot of people don’t know that if they choose to take the vaccine, they will have to sign a consent form that has a lot of key information in it. They need to be very careful. I just say that from a legal perspective, but one of the things is that they have to say they’ve considered and understand the benefits versus the risks of taking the vaccine. Now, reading from the Pfizer fact sheet, this is right off of the fact sheet. It says this,

“…this fact sheet contains information to help you understand the risks and the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination, which you may receive. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is a vaccine.”

And here’s key words, “and may prevent you from getting COVID 19.”

And then it says just below it again, “it is your choice to receive it, or ostensibly not to receive it.”

So I want to ask you a series of short questions here. As we get the program going, first of all, a controversial issue, take the vaccine, not take the vaccine. Does it work, does it not work? But let’s go this way. What is the established need for a vaccine when most of the numbers are saying over 99% of the people who contract the virus survive and go on to live quite normally, what’s the need?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            Well, there really isn’t any need Sam, even if you want to think that that 99% is high, even though that is world data that has been accumulated by scientific researchers all over the world and published, if you… what if it was only 90% or 85%, it’s much higher. It’s a much higher rate than what the actual need is. Many researchers have said that the death rate from COVID-19 fell off months ago, like March or April of 2020, that we really don’t have a pandemic anymore. We have a case of stomach flu, and yes, we have a very small subset of people that get sick going to hospital, a smaller subset in the intensive care units and an even smaller subset pass away. So looking at why did those people die is important. The need for this vaccine is minimal. We don’t need another vaccine for the flu and when we’re basing all of these numbers on cases, which is a fraudulent test, which I think we got into in the last program, there really isn’t any need and this vaccine is all risk and no benefit.

Sam Rohrer:                      Okay, great. Let’s go right on. The benefits of taking the vaccine, then if there’s no need, then the question is the benefit and again, I remind our listeners on the manufacturer itself. The only benefit I’m showing bias, but I’m just saying objectively, the only benefit that they say is that it may prevent you from getting COVID 19 and Dr. Sherry, when we understand that the wearing of face masks, maintaining social distancing and all that’s going to continue anyway, even if that vaccine were to work. What is the benefit?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            There isn’t any, and it’s all risk. And the fact that you have to… when this vaccine is not going to keep you from getting sick, we have no long-term studies on the potential long-term side effects and complications. I’ve learned from European epidemiologists that I’ve spoken to in meetings that it takes at least 48 days for the first side effects to show up. And then it takes anywhere from four months to four years for the long-term complications to show up from any vaccine. So that’s why vaccine studies under normal conditions, they follow potential side effects and complications for years, we have fast tracked this. We strong armed it into the population, and now we’re forcing people to do it against their will to ostensibly get back into a normal life, which you’ve already said is not going to happen.

Sam Rohrer:                      Stay with us. This is Sam Rohrer, I’m speaking today with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and our theme is this- part two of our focus on the COVID 19 vaccination.

SEGMENT TWO:

Sam Rohrer:                      If you’re just joining us right now, we’re looking at COVID-19 vaccinations. I’m doing this again to help present information- expert, reliable information. Our guest today is Dr. Sherry Tenpenny and if you were listening two weeks ago, she was with me for part one of this discussion. I encourage you to go back to our website, standinthegapradio.com. You can look up the January 8th interview and then link it together with this one. And you’ll have a very, very, very good sense of this entire issue. And I understand the dilemma that’s facing so many, actually all of us relative to the vaccine. I’ve spent a lot of time in my life looking at issues.

                                             When I was legislatively in the position as a legislator, looking at this issue, we’ve considered these things well for our six children when they were growing up. So my wife and I walked through a lot of this together, but it’s a new consideration for many young parents and for others in this time. So we’re trying to do this to help you have the information so you can be equipped to make a wise informed decision for yourself. Now in the signing of the consent form I mentioned, if you decide to get the vaccination, you’ll have to sign a consent form.

                                             There are questions there. Have you read the materials about this vaccine? Have you considered the risk? That kind of thing is generally standard for anytime you’re going to get a shot in your arm, perhaps or something you can see that, but what’s assumed by people in times like this, where there’s a vaccine heavily promoted, is that the necessary governmental and agency rules and standards put in place in the past to ensure safety and efficacy, that doesn’t work, has in fact been done with no corners being cut. What’s required by law is that research and testing and standards are in place and they’re followed so that the public can be assured of long-term safety.

                                             And that’s done before any official approval is granted in this case, medically it’s by the FDA food and drug administration. But what if those standards have been set aside? What if the safety and efficacy is not yet known as in the case of this Corona virus? You say, why can you say that the safety and efficacy is not established well on the website of Pfizer at cvdvaccine.com. They state this, ‘in countries where the vaccine has not been approved’ and that’s actually most, key word approved, by the relevant regulatory authority.

                                             ‘It is an investigational drug and its safety and efficacy have not been established.’ Now that I read to you was not a year ago. That’s just what I pull off the website right now. This is on the official website, the efficacy, the safety and efficacy have not been established and it’s termed an investigational drug. So that’d be the case I want to get right into give you maximum time here, Dr. Sherry, in response to this. When I read research and safety testing, not established means it’s still ongoing. To me it says there’s a risk to the company because they don’t know which is what you’re saying, and everyone in the process who gets involved including the patient also doesn’t know, to me it elevates this concept of risk. What is the risk for the companies involved right now? And just build this whole aspect out.

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            Yes. Thank you, Sam. And just for the sake of your listeners who may not have heard me talk a lot before. I’m a board certified physician, I live in Cleveland Ohio. I’ve been studying problems associated with vaccines for more than 20 years and invested more than 40,000 hours of my time onto this topic. So this isn’t something that I just decided last week I was going to talk about, this is something I’ve invested years of my life and years of investigational study into. So I think that credibility is important for you to know that the things that Sam and I are talking about aren’t just off the cuff and to address and answer your question about what is the liability for the companies, they have none. In 2005, there was a piece of legislation that was passed into law. It was actually tacked on at 11:30 on a Saturday night on the backside of a defense appropriation bill.

                                             It was later rolled out and referred to as the prep act, which is the public readiness and emergency preparedness act of 2005 that they refer to it as the prep act for sure. In March, 2020, Alex Azar, the head of HHS activated that law by writing it into the federal register and said that from here forward up through October 1st of 2024 or until which time the pandemic is over that any product that has made that can be called a covered countermeasure, which is a drug, a vaccine, a software, a technology, any type of product, a test, all of the PCR testing that’s done. All of it is has 100% liability protection. You cannot be sued for an adverse event. You cannot be sued if it kills you, you cannot be sued if it gives you false information upon which to base your life. So the 2005 prep act completely covers all of this.

                                             The only way that you have any recourse is it after the effect a large number of people have had an adverse effect to this vaccine. If you can get together and convince the U.S Attorney general that this product was created under an act of willful misconduct, meaning they created it intentionally to harm you, that then and only then will action be taken against the companies who’ve made them. That includes every ingredient, the manufacturer of every ingredient, they’ve got every single piece covered. They have zero liability, and therefore they have no incentive at all to make a safe or safer product.

Sam Rohrer:                      Dr. Sherri, that is very, very key information because just from a human nature perspective, the only thing that prevents, since I was in office at one point, politicians or businesses from doing things that can actually harm people as long as they get gain, is the fact that they are afraid that they’re going to be prosecuted legally or in even fewer cases. The people who lead those organizations have a fear of God and they are self-restrained because of moral obligation to people or ethically driven decisions. But if you throw God out, you throw the moral out and the ethical out, then the only thing that most people fear is the fact of what can happen to their job or their company as in being sued. What you said is very critical. This you’re saying what happened in March, where the 2005 act was actually codified, put into regulation forum. And it’s in effect until the end of 2024, where you said or until the end of this pandemic, that’s what you’re saying. This broad immunity from liability is specifically crafted around this COVID virus policy and this vaccine is that correct?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            Around the vaccine and any product that they’ve labeled. They’ve given it a name, they call it a covered countermeasure, which again, it can be anything that’s made under the umbrella of I’m doing this in relationship to COVID-19. You can belly up to the money trough that the government is throwing to the pharmaceutical industry. Like you said, at the top of the hour, trillions of more dollars to go into the richest, most wealthy, most powerful and in my opinion, most evil organization on the planet, the pharmaceutical industry.

                                             Any covered countermeasure. So that’s a vaccine, a drug, a test, the PCR testing they’ve approved through emergency use more than 200 different types of test kits that are not standardized. And you cannot compare them from one test to kit, to the other, to software, to technology for any sort of microchipping thing that might happen, anything at all that any manufacturer can apply for money and comply for utilization under an emergency utilization authorization, and get money for it because they say, “Oh, we’re doing this to protect people or to make people safe underneath the COVID-19 regulations.” It’s all of it, gets a blanket pass for any sort of liability.

Sam Rohrer:                      Dr. Sherry. I can say that any time that that happens, any kind of accountabilities, put this way accountability has been removed for whatever reason it will be exploited. And so ladies and gentlemen, again, I want to tie this in with this regard, not only are the companies and all those involved in the distributing of it held harmless. If you agree to take the vaccine and when you sign the consent form, which you’ll have to sign and consent forms are really under law. They’re required to be informed consent, meaning you are signing something that you know, and you have to know about, otherwise it could be a coerced consent or a consent under duress, and that becomes a matter of law.

                                             So this becomes an informed consent. And so you are agreeing, I’ve read all the materials, I’ve considered the risks and the benefits. And then after that, you agree, I accept full responsibility for all, and any adverse reactions that may occur from the vaccine. So in effect, legally you give up your right to sue, even though those involved in giving the vaccine have already been exempted by government. So you understand that this is a very, very big deal. We want you really, really to understand what’s taking place in this regard, with that go to our website, I have produced an analysis of the Pfizer fact sheet. I think you’ll find it very, very helpful.

                                             You can find it at the americanpastorsnetwork.net site at the bottom of the page. You will find it and in it, you will find the entire fact sheet, which is probably closer to the truth of anything. And you’ll find some comments and links for me. And you’ll also find in there one of the consent forms that you can look at and read it for yourself in light of what we’re talking about. And hopefully it will be of help to you. We’re going to cut away now in just a moment for some announcements and come back and just a little bit, continue our discussion. We’re going to talk about now therapeutics and treatment, because a lot of people aren’t even getting this virus.

SEGMENT THREE:

Sam Rohrer:                      If you’re just joining us now in the middle of this program, this is Stand In The Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer and accompanied today by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. She is an osteopathic medical doctor, board certified, three medical specialties, widely regarded as perhaps the most knowledgeable physician on the adverse effects that vaccines can have. And of course, we’re talking today about, should I take the COVID vaccine? The decision that’s before all of us, were going to have to decide yay or nay or delay, yay, nay, or delay one or the other. And ultimately with pressure from third-party groups, you can’t travel unless you have a COVID passport, they’re calling it. Or you may not have access to digital currency that’s coming unless you have it, the pressure will in fact be on. So you cannot get away from it. But let me go into same theme, slightly different aspect here.

I think we should pay a fair price for the medicines we buy. The only free cheese is in the mousetrap, don’t you think so? On domain.com, the prices fully correspond to the quality of the medications. Paying for the brand drug, I hope to get an effective and safe treatment, and that’s what https://www.paolivet.com/valtrex-online/ can guarantee.

                                             When it comes to the Corona 19 virus, even from before the official governmental identification of the virus, about a year ago now, as we do this program, individuals and companies were trying without success to produce a vaccine for Corona viruses. This is coronavirus 19, but others have been proceeding. They’ve tried for a long time, either in the past, it didn’t work or all the test animals involved in the research got sick and died, but one way or the other, nothing was ever approved. So even at this time, according to normal safety and testing standards, there is no approved. I’ll put that quote ‘approved Corona virus vaccine’, and the developers Pfizer and the others they make that clear. It’s not approved in the normal sense of the word. It’s emergency authorized, it’s different thing. But the current messenger RNA investigational drug as Pfizer refers to it on their website has never been broadly tested.

                                             And they make that clear. It’s not fully tested. They don’t know. So the result is an experimental or investigational drug where the safety and efficacy, as I mentioned, not tested broadly is now being tested broadly on millions and perhaps billions of people and the companies, as we just talked about, have been granted full immunity from liability and where if there’s any other right you have under law to sue, when you sign the consent form, you give up anything that’s left. So the result of that is you have a drug, an investigational drug being requested by people to be taken into their arms for a virus from which over 99% of the people who get it survive. Now we’ve already talked about some of that. Let me go ahead here, Dr. Sherry, since an investigational drug is out to referred, how can it be a vaccine which asked that question and are these COVID-19 emergency authorized, not approved injections, are they actually vaccines or are they not? Let’s use the right term as we think about this, as people have to think this thing through it, what is it actually?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            Well, we’ve been using the word vaccine ever since this drug has been fast tracked to market. And so people believe it is a similar vaccine to say a flu shot or a single shot or a pneumonia shot, but it behaves by a completely different mechanism of action because of the type of drug that it is. So it’s not going to create the same sort of efficacy, which people generally believe efficacy means that I get the shot and it keeps me protected. It keeps me from getting sick. That’s not what this antibody does. And so therefore it’s a completely different type of device. In fact, some people have been saying that it’s really not a vaccine at all, but it is a type of technology because how the messenger RNA, when it goes into your cells and begins to replicate it acts and behaves in a completely different manner of any previously developed or in utilization of vaccines.

                                             So people think that, Oh, it’s just like getting a flu shot. I’ll just go get that shot and then I won’t get sick from COVID and I can travel and I can go back to work and all these different things, but that’s not the case. How this product that’s going to be injected into your body behaves is not the same way that say a flu shot or an MMR or a chickenpox or shingles vaccine behaves. It’s never been used before in human beings. It’s never been tested long-term and when they tested it on experimental animals, as far back as 2002, when they tried to develop a coronavirus vaccine over the last 20 years, all of the animals developed advanced autoimmune disease and either were very sick when they vaccinated them or they died.

                                             And that’s the reason why the FDA never progressed a coronavirus vaccine out of animal trials, into human in the last 20 years. Because we’ve declared this to be emergency that somehow we’ve come to believe that the outcome of that is going to be different. It’s really not true. It’s something called antibody dependent enhancement. And if you pull all the research papers or that talk about antibody dependent enhancement with Corona viruses, you will see that the researchers conclude on their studies, that we must proceed with great caution in using a Corona virus vaccine in humans.

Sam Rohrer:                      And I don’t have time to go into it, but I did pull in preparation for this because I’m very big ladies and gentlemen, you know what I’m saying? Define the terms, define the terms. When somebody speaks, define what they mean, because they may mean something totally different. And that is the case with vaccine. The definition of vaccine I have in front of me from medical book and it’s standard out there, it’s a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases. But in this one, the COVID 19 vaccine there is nothing at all related to the actual virus. So that is why it doesn’t meet the definition of vaccine among other things, is that correct?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            That’s absolutely correct. In fact, it’s designed to stimulate human cells to propagate pathogens. And even bill Gates said, in one of his interviews, he said, “Yes, we can make a human being, be its own vaccine manufacturer.” Well, that means that you inject a product that starts to replicate, creating an antibody that can cause a lot of harm in your body through auto-immune responses and there’s no off button. Once you’ve pushed the on button, once you inject that and you get the second shot, which actually… it makes the speed go even faster of that replication, once it’s started, there’s no off button.

Sam Rohrer:                      So in reality, Dr. Sherry, what this is, is an altering of chromosomal actions or cells, but it’s an permanent altering of cells.

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            It’s a permanent alteration to your immune system. And when you read the science, those particles, those particulate matter of that RNA can incorporate into your cellular genetics.

Sam Rohrer:                      Okay well I’ll let that drop right there, ladies and gentlemen, hear that this is not a vaccine by definition, it works totally differently and it does enhance your immune system. And out of that comes a host of different risks, but I’ve got to go here and I want to talk a little bit about this. There are many people who don’t get this, the virus, they don’t come down with symptoms. There are treatments that have been used to help people get better if they do get it. But there was a recent study, I believe somebody in Indonesia or whatever did a study and they found some very significant facts. Would you share that with us?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            We look at this, that what I mentioned earlier about the people who get the flu, which is what Corona virus is and they go home and they get better. Some of them get sick enough to go to the doctor. Some get sick enough to be admitted to the hospital, a smaller and smaller subset get admitted into intensive care. And some of them don’t do very well and some of those even die. So instead of our government, looking at that population of very sick people and saying, what sets them apart? Why is it that this particular population of people get the sickest and end up in intensive care units? Well, the Indonesians did a study and they crunched all that data. And one of the things that they discovered was that people have a vitamin D, D as in David, the vitamin D level of 30 or greater have less than a 4% chance of having an adverse outcome, if they can track this infection.

                                             That’s really substantial, and what I’ve been saying in the many, many interviews that I’ve done over the last several months, Sam, is that if you’re going to run out and get tested for something, the thing you should get tested for is your vitamin D level. Greater than 30 is the normal range on most blood tests in our practice here in Cleveland Ohio, we want that therapeutic target to be somewhere between 80 and 100, for it to be most efficacious in your body to get a vitamin D level.

                                             You can get that through your doctor, through your insurance. They’re like any lab test now type services that are available online, that you can order it yourself. The people really should know what their vitamin D level is and secondarily, they should know what their zinc level is, because the other thing that made a big difference between adverse outcomes from COVID infection and people that recovered rather uneventfully was people who were taking zinc and at least 25 milligrams a day in a men up to 25 milligrams a day ongoing with a product called Quercetin, spelled Q-U-E-R-C-E-T-I-N, Quercetin, which is a plant-based antioxidant that drives the zinc into the cells and makes it work to protect you from a host of viral infections not just COVID-19.

Sam Rohrer:                      So what you are explaining there, and we’re just about done is that there are certain naturally occurring things related to our health that helps our immune system, as God has made it to respond to things that come up and in the case of COVID-19 what the Indonesian government has done. And what you’re talking about is that vitamin D levels at above 30, and you are saying zinc levels, but between 20 to 25, 25 for men, those two in combination with Quercetin, you’re saying, according to studies is very, very efficacious and should be pursued it doesn’t cost anything ladies and gentlemen. Saying, bear these things in mind as you’re considering options relative to your choice of whether or not you will end up taking the COVID vaccine investigational drug or not. When we come back, we’re going to talk about thinking carefully, choosing wisely.

SEGMENT FOUR:

Sam Rohrer:                      As we conclude this program today, and this is determining as part two of our focus on the COVID vaccine, our January 8th, 2021, just a couple of weeks ago is a program as part one. I do encourage you to go there. You can also pick up a transcript from that program with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. And then on December 10th of last year, we did a program with Dr. Dolores Cahill from Ireland, where we opened up this whole discussion again and you can also go there, listen to that program and pull up a transcript of that. Between these three programs, you’ll have a tremendous amount of information that hopefully will help you in coming to an informed decision for you and your families with what you do with the COVID virus.

                                             And can I just talk a little bit here to you right now, as we wrap this up, I’m going to be asking Dr. Sherry in just a moment just to share personally how she would advise people to consider this entire thing. But I know that this matter of the virus, this matter of the vaccine has really, unfortunately, almost pitting people one against another, churches are divided even, that’s a shame, should not be. The culture is divided. Now the policies the government is taking is helping to divide, because they’re not overly concerned about that, but we need to be. And we’re trying to provide information to help you make an informed decision. And I know that you and I all of us, would like to take and put behind us 2020. Some of you are listening right now, you’ve lost family members precipitated by the virus, I know that. I know personally have friends who have died from this. So the impact of the virus is real, and we all want at this time, the draconian government mandates that have changed our freedoms and forced to change in the way we school our children or grandchildren, or employment, or church and family gatherings, all of those things to now moving to the case of being the cause of actually jailing right now, as I do this program, there are pastors in California being jailed because they kept their churches open and they’re facing million-dollar fines from government, for what? For what? So now there is a hope for a cure, the vaccine they say, but really it’s not. People want an option to do something to allow life to return to normal. But the powers that be say life will never go back to the way it was. So if there was a time for wisdom and discernment it is now. That makes me think of the apostle James and the book of James that says, if any lack wisdom, let him ask of God.

                                             And he will give him liberally, but God gives wisdom to the person who pursues knowledge and truth as defined by the word of God. The book of Proverbs makes that very, very clear. So we must think carefully. We must choose wisely because choices do have consequences. So Dr. Sherry, I would like to talk to you just right now, people face dilemmas. You know it, you talk to patients, you are a Christian doctor, you have a knowledge of medicine, but you have a knowledge of that which is true. What advice would you offer right now for a person listening, who maybe hasn’t decided are on the fence, or they’re considering about the vaccine? What should they do? What would you tell them?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            I would say for those that are on the fence, two things, one is keep investigating, keep doing your research. Don’t just blindly accept what you’ve been told by me or by anyone else, the information is out there. You need to do your own digging and research. The second thing is, if you’re on the fence right now for this particular vaccine, wait. When all of this stuff started happening back in March and April of 2020, they did a lots of surveys. And one of the surveys was about 70% of people said, as soon as this vaccine is ready, I want to take it. And now fast forward eight, nine months later, the current surveys are saying it’s up to 65% are saying, absolutely not. I will not take it, or I’m going to wait and see what the side effects are and what happens to people.

                                             That’s a huge swing from 70% saying yes to 65 saying either absolutely not or I’m going to wait. I would advise people to just wait. We don’t know what the long-term consequences are. We don’t know what the side effects are going to be. We know it hasn’t been studied in a lot of different ways. We know that so far, we just started this in April of this year, I’m sorry, in December of 2020. And we know that according to the various database, which is the vaccine adverse events reporting system that I got these numbers handed to me this morning.

                                             That so far just since the 1st of December, that in the vaccine adverse event reporting system run by the FDA, there’ve been over 6,700 reports of a vaccine, adverse reactions reported 29,000 different adverse events and 55 deaths from a vaccine that got released under emergency authorization with very little pre scientific evidence of anything that is going to keep you even from getting sick. And those kinds of numbers, Sam are staggering, 6,700 reports, 29,000 different adverse events and 55 deaths since the 1st of December…What other product not only would still be on the market with those adverse events, but would be so heavily pushed by government officials?

Sam Rohrer:                      And I think that’s a logical question objectively to raise that, some would say, and I’m glad you shared those numbers because there have been reports in the UK. Some folks went into anaphylactic shock as an example, there were individuals across this country, but a lot of those reports I’ve seen, they’re up for a while and then they’re been taken down. Now what you’re citing, you’re just gave there is off the FDA website.

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            It’s the vaccine adverse event reporting system. It’s V-A-E-R-S.gov. And the various adverse event reporting system is part of the 1986 childhood vaccine injury compensation act, it’s monitored and run by the FDA. And depending on who you read, some scientists have said that somewhere between one and 10% of adverse events are actually reported. So 6,700 adverse events is only 10%. There may be as many as 67,000 adverse events that many of them haven’t been reported because people don’t know how to report it. Doctors don’t even know how to report it. They don’t even know that this adverse event reporting system run by the FDA even exists. So if we have 60, the actual number is 6,741, 6,741 reports submitted and 29,081 different adverse events at up through January 8th of this year. So that’s within one month plus 55 deaths. I would say if you’re on the fence, just wait, get some more information, do some more investigation, see what happens because you can always vaccinate, but once you vaccinate you can’t unvaccinated and particularly not with this vaccine.

Sam Rohrer:                      That is good. Dr. Sherry, you do have a website. You’ve given some information here, we’ll take and put this on our website as well, probably americanpastorsnetwork.net. We have two sites, standinthegapmedia.org site then we have two, probably place them on both. But you have a website as well. drtenpenny.com. Am I correct?

Dr. Sherri Tenp…:            Yeah. D-R, t as in Tom, E-N, p as in Peter, E-N-N-Y drtenpenny.com and the other website where I blog and I have all of my posts there it’s called vaxxter.com, V as in vaccine, A-X-X-T-E-R.com. We have a slew of writers. We have a bunch of people that write for us, and that’s our educational platform, drtenpenny.com you can read about all the different things that I’m involved with. You can listen to dozens of past interviews that I’ve done, and you can see my CV and you can see a whole lot more about my credentials and why I feel so strongly and so powerfully standing in this gap for God’s people. For God’s people need to hear it.

Sam Rohrer:                      Indeed. And that’s our purpose here. Thank you, Dr. Sherry for being with us, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. And again, I remind you this program today will be available on our website, standinthegapradio.com, go back and listen to January 8th of this year and December 10th of last year, the transcripts will be available. The program will be available. Take it, listen to it. More people listen to these programs, I think any that we have done it’s because it’s important. Go there and listen to it and share it with your friends. And with that, thank you for being with us today join me tomorrow, George Barna will be my guest right here.

Stand in the Gap Today Transcript: H.R. 350 and Government Surveillance – Is the Trap Being Set?

/0 Comments/in , /by

This transcript was taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on March 15, 2021. To listen to the program, please click HERE.

Sam Rohrer:                      Hello and welcome to this Monday edition of Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’m going to be joined today by pastor Gary Dull, and in just a moment by Mark Lerner, who is the co-founder of the Constitutional Alliance.

                                             Our focus for today surrounds a bill, a bill recently introduced in Congress, actually January 19th was the date, by a representative, Bradley Scott, who is a Democrat who hails from the state of Illinois. The bill at that point had 109 sponsors and they have some more now. But it was referred at that point to three committees, Judiciary, Homeland Security and Armed Services.

                                             But just a few days ago, on March the 5th, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Now the purpose of this program, Stand in the Gap Today, is not to specifically track legislation. Other groups do that. But we do however focus on matters of content within law and public policy and all matters of truth where it affects our God given or Constitutional freedoms, and it’s our duty we believe to impart the watchman on the walls to call out deception and lies and attacks in all forms that are against God, the authoritative scripture, and the Biblical world view.

                                             On this program we try to have no bias except a bias for the truth, and for that we do not apologize. As such I feel compelled to address the content of one piece of legislation, H.R…. House Resolution 350, because of it’s potential to negatively impact our freedom, our ability to preach the gospel, to evangelize, and to exercise our God given rights to worship God as we choose, for pastors to preach the whole counsel of God as it is written and as they are commanded, and for each of us to live our lives as law abiding and God fearing citizens.

                                             Taken together with the aggressive efforts of H.R. 5, the immoral inequality act as I refer to it, and multiple Biden executive orders we have to consider well that the net is being laid and we must do all we can as commanded in Proverbs 28:4 to contend or to resist… Another word for that is to strive against the wicked lest we become guilty before God, enabling or literally praising the wicked.

                                             Here’s the entire verse of Proverbs 28:4, and then we’ll get into this. The verse says, “Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law,” that’s the truth of God’s word, “actually strive against him.”

                                             So our theme for today is this, H.R. 350 and government surveillance, why Americans must resist. Today we’re going to define the basis of this proposed law, which is surveillance and monitoring. We’ll define that. We’ll identify what’s in the bill, why it’s being promoted. In segment three we’ll address the key concerns about the bill, of which there are many, and during the final segment we’ll identify how you and I can best resist and oppose the elements of that bill. So all of that and more today right here on Stand in the Gap Today.

                                             With that I want to walk him into the program, right now our special guest, Mark Lerner. Mark, thanks for being with us today.

Mark Lerner:                     It’s my pleasure. I’m looking forward to the program.

Sam Rohrer:                      Mark, so are we. Let’s get right into it. We have a lot to cover, but you’re the co-founder of the Constitutional Alliance, and in that capacity your concerned about Constitutional issues, issues of rights as given to us by God assured by the Constitution.

                                             But you’re also perhaps one of the nation’s leading experts on biometrics and biometric based perhaps surveillance, but generally speaking government perspective surveillance, and you’re there in that space.

                                             Before we get into the concerns about H.R. 30, I want to go first and have you define and help lay the foundation here, so do this briefly. Please define government surveillance and briefly how it’s achieved, if you could do that, start there first.

Mark Lerner:                     I would define surveillance as either having direct or indirect access to all information, emphasis on all, regarding a person or group. The government collects that information directly by requiring biometrics or facial image, et cetera, but also indirectly by going to companies, whether it was Best Buy, Motel 6, travel agency, and paying those companies for information they collect about our activities.

                                             And then finally government uses data mining companies. Data mining companies have about 1,500 data points or more about each of us, magazines we subscribe to, where we travel to, et cetera. So all of that goes into defining surveillance.

Sam Rohrer:                      Dig down a little deeper on that. By the way, it’s a delight to have you back with us today. But in your opinion, and you’ve studied this greatly, we know that government surveillance of the enemy as a military intelligence is very, very necessary, but when the tools of surveillance are turned on or against the citizens of the United States of America that’s different.

                                             You sort of implied some of this in your answer to Brother Sam, but share with us a little bit more on how developed government surveillance is in targeting the law abiding citizens of the United States of America, and compare that in contrast to what we see in China if you would please.

Mark Lerner:                     Very simply, the government is interested in collecting all information, regardless of whether you are doing something illegal or not. They want to know everything about you. In my own personal discussions with former NSA whistleblower Bill [Benning 00:06:35], Bill went to great lengths to explain that none of us can avoid government surveillance.

                                             The difference though with China, in China the people know surveillance is taking place. There’s a great deal of transparency. With our government there’s little or no transparency, and the government has exempted itself from providing transparency by exempting itself from the Privacy Act of 1974.

Sam Rohrer:                      So, Mark, what you laid out there is very critical. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that you heard that. Again, the theme today is this, H.R. 350, that’s a bill in Washington, we’re going to talk about it, deals with government surveillance and a whole lot more. But what Mark just said, the level of surveillance in the United States, the data points collected and all of that, is about as broad as it is in China.

                                             The difference there, the people in China know the government is surveilling them and to some degree how. Here in the United States we don’t know and it’s not transparent. Boy, that’s not a whole big difference, actually worse here in some respects, right? When we come back we’ll talk about this bill. We’ll get into what it is and why it was introduced. We’ll go there next. Stay with here on Stands in the Gap Today.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Sam Rohrer:                      Welcome back to Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer. I’m accompanied today by Dr. Gary Dull and our special guest, Mark Lerner. Mark is the co-founder of the Constitutional Alliance. They have a website at constitutionalalliance.org.

                                             Our theme today is this, our title that we’ve given it is H.R. 30… That stands for H.R. 350 and government surveillance, why Americans must resist. In the last segment we defined it, defined surveillance and the distinctions ultimately between the United States and surveillance on its citizens in China. Mark made the distinction that effectively they are the same except that what’s being done within our nation is not known to people and it is known in China. I’m summarizing that briefly, but we’ll build on it as we go through.

                                             But every bill or law that’s introduced in Congress or various states contain a few common elements. Now I’m sharing this because of my experience of being in office. Many of you out there listening are very astute and you can read bills, and it’s an art to read them and understand them, but here’s just a couple of things.

                                             There are some common elements that are in bills, so if you ever pull one up… In this one, if you go to the US.gov site and you bring up H.R. 350 you’ll look at the bill and you’ll see a certain thing. But here are a couple of common items.

                                             For instance it has the bill number. This is H.R…. House Resolution 350 in this case. There is a brief stated purpose or an overview statement that occurs at the beginning of the bill and then there’s a short title, generally section one it’s referred to. That becomes the official legal reference when referring to the bill.

                                             Then it proceeds into the writing of the bill, and it starts generally speaking with defining certain key words. Then it begins to lay out the why of the bill. There’s some intent generally factored in it, and then how it is a matter of law and how it’s to be enforced by the Executive Branch, because the Legislative Branch writes the laws, the Executive Branch enforces them.

                                             So a bill puts into a law something that is there and it tells effective the Executive Branch what they are to do to enforce it, and it gives them a certain amount of power.

                                             In this case, H.R. 350 says this. The short title is this. “This act may be cited as the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021,” Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021. Now the short preamble purpose statement that is there says this, “To authorize dedicated Domestic Terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” here’s the purpose, “to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the federal government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.”

                                             That is how it all fits together. Mark, let’s get right into this. In the first segment you defined, as I mentioned, surveillance generally. I want you now to describe how this bill defines surveillance and domestic terrorism, if it actually does, and how it perhaps changes the definition of those words or phrases as now currently used, or would be used if this bill were to pass.

Mark Lerner:                     Let’s start by saying the bill does not define domestic surveillance. It does address domestic terrorism by saying acts dangerous to human life, to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and to affect government by mass destruction, assassinations, kidnapping, and these are acts that would take place primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Gary Dull:                           Mark, for those of us who follow what goes on in our country, what goes on in Congress as it relates to legislation, we realize that many times legislation is introduced as a knee jerk reaction to some event that took place.

                                             One illustration I think of that that most of us are aware of would be the Patriot Act following the 9/11 event back 20 years ago for example. With that in mind, and in connection with this bill, H.R. 350, do you think that this particular bill has been introduce and is being promoted as a direct knee jerk reaction to what took place in Washington, DC on January the 6th of this year?

Mark Lerner:                     Yes, I do. There’s no doubt. As Sam had mentioned, this bill was introduced January 19th, the day before Biden took his oath of office. Now as far as a knee jerk reaction, we all believed with regard to 9/11 there was some kind of wall between the Central Intelligence Agency and federal law enforcement like the FBI, but in fact the 9/11 report simply said this. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared, talking about the information the CIA had and giving that information to the FBI.

                                             So the Patriot Act actually was not needed to tear down this mythical wall that we were all told existed. This is the same thing today with this piece of legislation that supposedly is going to address domestic terrorism.

Sam Rohrer:                      Now I’m going to go further on this, because in the next segment I’m going to ask you to talk about some definitions that are not in this bill. But I got to ask you one thing. I am reading the bill here right now. It’s not long. This one is not long. But section two, under definitions, number two, I’m going to read it.

                                             It says this, “The term ‘domestic terrorism’ has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of title 18, United State Code.” So that’s already a little bit of a problem, because they don’t really define it here. But here’s the question I want to ask you. It says, “Except,” so the term domestic terrorism has the meaning given in that section, “Except that it does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by,” and then it goes on and it says, “a foreign person or an organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization,” or in letter C, “a state sponsor of terrorism determined by the Secretary of State.”

                                             I look at this and it would seem to me that domestic terrorism they’re saying under this… Any act of terrorism that happens within the United States one would call domestic, but they’re saying under here that if any of those acts have any connection to a terrorist organization outside the country it’s not going to be included within that. It struck me as highly odd. Comment.

Mark Lerner:                     My comment is simply this. Law enforcement in general is looking for a way to have greater powers to surveil people in the United States, US citizens, even though there may be no probable cause to surveil those people, to collect information about those people.

                                             So if they can draw a nexus to foreign terrorism great, but with this it’s not necessary. This will just give more power to the federal government, but we’re not even going to know what the power is until the bill is passed, enacted, and we find out in the rules what powers government may have.

Sam Rohrer:                      Mark, that’s the point I want to emphasize for all who are listening right now. As Mark said, there is already information gathering and sharing that is in place. The Patriot Act which took place after 9/11 tore down some of the walls providing for privacy and combined certain things.

                                             Now here comes this bill, a knee jerk reaction ostensibly to what happened or did not happen on January 6th, and will be used as the justification to further expand government authority to surveil US citizens, and by specifically saying, as I just read from the act… By specifically not involving any act that is in any way associated to any outside terrorist related group in Iran, or Muslim Brotherhood, or anybody of that type.

                                             But by keeping all of those out it focuses this whole brand new focus on really the law abiding citizen, and by failing to actually define the terms, what Mark just said, makes it open that we’ll never know really what it’s going to be about until you get rule making and bureaucracy gets involved in defining these things after the bill may be passed.

                                             So hopefully you got the idea, but the framework of it is what we’re talking about, the framework to authorize government in multiple agencies to focus on law abiding citizens under the guise of domestic terrorism without defining it really is where the real problem is and that’s why we’re raising it as an issue today. Bad law, dangerous law any time it’s written like this.

                                             When we come back we’re going to go further into actually then talking about further concerns in its application of this law, should it be passed, and it is moving, so we need to be aware. Stay with us. We’ll be right back.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Sam Rohrer:                      Welcome back to Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer, and accompanied today by Dr. Gary Dull and our special guest, Mark Lerner, who is the co-founder of Constitutional Alliance, with a website at constitutionalalliance.org. Our theme is this, H.R. 350, that stands for House Resolution 350, and government surveillance, why Americans must resist.

                                             We’ve built the foundation on surveillance. We’ve defined it in segment one, did some other things relative to its application, comparing where we are in the United States to that of China in the last segment. We talked about some other aspects of the bill, the what aspects of it, as well as a little bit of the why, a bit of a knee jerk reaction, really too exaggerated, in my opinion, January 6th event in Washington, DC.

                                             In the next segment we’re going to talk about the concerns. But before I do that I want to share just very briefly a couple of notes that just came in. A lot of you listening to this program… If you’re listening to this program you’re hearing me now, you’re listening to Stand in the Gap Today. During that last break you heard another program that we do called our Stand in the Gap Minute program, which is on probably 400 or 500 stations I think now across the country just in a singular form.

                                             We have a weekend program that builds off of a selected program from the week and we re-package it slightly and we use it on a weekend, a program that we call Stand in the Gap Weekend.

                                             I got two just came in this morning, two letters. One came from Memphis, Tennessee. One person who says, “I listen to American Family Radio there,” and I’ll leave out some things, “but normally I listen.” She said, “I just happened to tune in on Sunday evening when it’s carried. I tuned in and I heard it on the radio. I heard the weekend broadcast.”

                                             She said, “I was so excited when I heard it,” and she happened to be listening to a program that we did with our special guest from Ireland when we were talking about the vaccines and so forth, and she was so impressed with that she’s asking for some more information. But that was from Tennessee.

                                             Then one that I just got as well, this is just a short one, but it’s very nice. It actually came from an individual in Hershey, Pennsylvania. She said, “We are so appreciative listening to your weekly program Saturday on WDAC,” which comes out of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

                                             She said, “My husband listens to your programs regularly. It’s a major part of our weekend agenda. He listens on his iPad in his skid loader on the farm as he’s mixing feed for our dairy cows.” So it’s amazing, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t know where you are right now. You’re probably not on a skid loader, but we are so thankful to hear from people who are listening to the program and being blessed. I hope that we hear from you.

                                             Go to standsinthegapradio.com. Let us know that you are listening. Participate with us in prayer. Partner with us financially as these folks have done so that we can continue to speak the truth boldly and on more stations across this country.

                                             All right, now back into the legislation we talked about. The legislation or the making of law is both an art and a science. A political body making law possesses certain obligations to make no unnecessary law for instance. I’m talking about good law. Lots of bad laws are made.

                                             But the purpose of a law should be singular. It should be very clearly understood. Significant terms within the legislation are to be clearly defined, and that’s to be a part of the agreement upon which a person who casts their vote is clear. If they’re not clear they shouldn’t vote for it.

                                             The purpose for the bill should also be clear and honestly stated, not intended to deceive, but should be clearly transparent. All ambiguities, potentials for abuse or misapplication should be carefully considered and worked out. No bill should ever be passed where those kinds of things are not fully understood and worked out, and always no authority should ever be given to an Executive Branch for more enforcement than is absolutely necessary, and the bill should have some kind of what’s called a sunset or a termination date so that it can be revisited in case even in that process something happens in that bill that ends up being dangerous or illegitimate. Any bill that doesn’t meet this criteria should get a no vote from every person who’s in office.

                                             Mark, let’s get right into it here. I’ve spent a little bit extra time on this, but N.H.R. 350, Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021, what could a person do under this act that is not already a crime under existing law? Does that make sense? And what potential harm could this cause for God fearing, law abiding citizens?

                                             In other words, the laws are already in effect. Anybody who breaks the law, they’re already prosecuted. What does this one perhaps set up that could get an innocent person involved in doing something that they could be prosecuted for?

Mark Lerner:                     My answer is this. Number one, we already have the Insurrection Act. Essentially what that says is any attempt to overthrow the government or take action against the people who are governing it themself… Okay, so this seems to basically piggyback on the Insurrection Act.

                                             We also have hate crime bills or laws that address if a person is going after a specific group of people, whether they be black people, Hispanic people, or even white people, or abortion clinics. So we have laws that deal with opposing what government is doing and committing a “terrorist act”. We have laws against committing acts of violence against specific people or groups based on their religion, their race, et cetera.

                                             So it’s not really clear exactly what this law is intended or will do, but what we know for sure from 200 plus years of experience, it will give the federal government more power than what it already has. Otherwise there would be no reason for the law at all.

Gary Dull:                           All right Mark, you mentioned that this law, or this bill, H.R. 350 would give more power to the federal government than what it already has. Of course as we look down through history we can see that every one of these bills that are related to surveillance and other things have always strengthened and enlarged the federal government rather than reduced it, and certainly I think that should be a concern for every one of us.

                                             But specifically as you see it, as you’ve studied it, what additional powers are given under this act to government particularly as it relates to the surveillance of individuals that the government does not already have that would really cause harm to our society?

Mark Lerner:                     Reading the legislation, the only thing that any reasonable person can take away is if law enforcement felt an individual or group of people was considering committing an act of terrorism, which I again say could fall under the Insurrection Act or hate crime laws, this will allow the government to proactively follow that trail of supposed evidence that somebody was about to commit a crime.

                                             This is very dangerous, because now we’re getting into the whole idea of the thought police. Many people think about things. That doesn’t mean they’re actually going to follow through, and that’s where I’m very concerned this legislation is going.

Sam Rohrer:                      And Mark, I am too, because one of the things that I said, at the beginning of it it says, “require the federal government to take steps to prevent,” that’s the key word, ladies and gentlemen, “to prevent domestic terrorism.” How are they going to know to prevent other than lots of surveillance and lots of insinuation?

                                             Mark, they also have some key terms in here that are not defined. Pick out a couple of… In the last minute here, a couple of terms that are not defined which ought to be defined.

Mark Lerner:                     The one that really stands out is white supremacy and white supremacist. How do you define the white supremacist? If I want secure borders am I a white supremacist? If I believe we should have strong laws to protect our foreign trade and I want to reduce our trade deficit am I a white supremacist because I think we deal too freely with China or the nations of Africa?

                                             It’s not clear what a white supremacist is. That bothers me, and also the term mass destruction. When you look at the news and you see mass shootings they’re talking about two or more people, so in this legislation it doesn’t define mass destruction. Does that mean where more than one person is hurt all of a sudden it becomes an act of domestic extremism or domestic terrorism? We don’t know because there are no definitions for white supremacy or supremacist or mass destruction.

Sam Rohrer:                      Ladies and gentlemen, what I described earlier, bills that do not define the terms but use them repeatedly, are absolutely setups for activist attorneys, activist judges, and activist Justice Department and others to basically determine when and how they will pursue it, and this is why this becomes so important. When we come back, we’re going to talk about what we can do.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Sam Rohrer:                      When we started this program I quoted the verse from Proverbs 28:4 about the necessity and I’m going to suggest the obligation of all who fear God to oppose… And literally strive is the word that’s used… To strive against those who are wicked, and that includes wicked policies or laws that are wicked and God defying.

                                             It’s the concept of Stand in the Gap… We say stand in the gap with us, all right? Stand in the gap is the word that is used, in a technical sense, it’s ‘interposition’… We talked about that a week ago, Gary and I did with pastor Matt Trewhella. That’s what it means. God himself said in Ezekiel 22:30 all right, who’s going to stand in the gap? Who’s going to oppose? Who’s going to stand there before me so I don’t have to judge the nation of Israel, he was talking about then? But he was looking for someone who would strive against those who would do wicked things and put into effect ungodly laws.

                                             So opposing evil in any form, it’s always a duty for every God fearing and Bible believing person. We don’t often look at things that way, but we should, because the Bible talks about it. So how we resist though, that does vary. How we contend can take various forms, and depending on the level of wicked actions and the specificity of the wicked commands that might be levied, discussion would be more perhaps how best and how most biblically we do it, but resist we must.

                                             Mark, in regard to this legislation I want you to identify a few steps our listeners can take. They’ve heard these things, and again there’s so many different bills that are in place, we know that. We don’t spend a lot of time on bills, because in most cases they never see the light of day.

                                             But H.R. 5, which is the Inequality Act, that has movement. It affects potentially every one of us who are listening to the program. H.R. 1, which is the bill that would actually take over all of the voting, and if you liked the fraud in the voting of the last election H.R. 1 cements it into place, but they have movement to them, and the same way with this one, H.R. 350.

                                             So you’re doing some things with your organization Mark. Perhaps maybe our listeners can actually join in with what you’re doing, or maybe perhaps do it separately, so lay it out there for us please.

Mark Lerner:                     Very simply what we’re doing is we’re honoring what Christ Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 28:20. He told them to observe all things to tell others, “To observe all things that I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even to the end of age.”

                                             So the disciples were supposed to go out and tell all people, preach the gospel to the whole world, make disciples. We have to ask ourselves how are we going to do that with the growing surveillance state, especially ones where evangelical Christians now are being targeted.

                                             What the Constitutional Alliance has done has changed from the a 501c3 to a 501c4 so we can propose legislation and while being in support of it to protect the right of Christians to go out and preach the gospel to the whole world and make disciples without having to be worried about is this going to be considered hate speech? Is this incitement? No. We have a right to do that based on the First Amendment and we have a commandment, a commitment, a responsibility to do it based on Christ Jesus’ words to the disciples.

                                             So, we’re asking people go to the constitutionalalliance.org, constitutional alliance one word, become a subscriber. If you go to our website today you’ll see a button that says subscriber. Please go there. Go there today and subscribe. Help the Constitutional Alliance. We’re going to be in all 50 states working with state legislators, ministries, state roots, private citizens. Help us to help you.

Sam Rohrer:                      Okay Mark. I appreciate you saying that. Ladies and gentlemen, you may not be aware of this, but the American Pastors Network is a 501c3. Mark described a 501c4. A 501c4 can actively get involved in legislation and follow that and propose legislation of all types and so forth.

                                             A 501c3 like us more focuses on the subject and the content, the principles undergirding it. So that’s why I said at the beginning of the program we in this program focus on all things, all issues that would undercut truth, anything that would attack truth.

                                             That could be a heresy from the pulpit. That could be from propaganda coming in from China or from Russia or from our own government, or anything that would undercut our constitutionally guaranteed, built upon our God given rights. That’s what a 501c3 does. That’s why the pulpits… They’re separate even from that, but that’s why pulpits and the word of God tells the pulpit to preach to all aspects of life, because the word of God speaks to all area of life, and that’s what we talk about here.

                                             So that’s why you will see us go so far on this program and we don’t go too much further. We’re not activists because we’re not set up to do that, but you are. You individually are, so we would ask you to do more. Take information and act upon it, and as we say stand in the gap. Take information and literally stand in the gap.

                                             Say no to those laws, guidelines, or whatever comes down the pike that would tell us not to do what the word of God tells us to do, or to tell us to do something that the word of God does not tell us to do, or undercuts our constitutional guaranteed God given rights. That’s how it all fits together.

                                             Gary, we’re about up. I want to go to you to conclude the program, any final comments as a pastor in the pulpit and what we’re talking about, and then conclude, if you would, in prayer for this matter and for our people who are listening to the program today to take and use it.

Gary Dull:                           I think one of the things that we need to keep in mind, Sam and Mark and everybody listening, is that it’s important that we as Christian citizens particularly become aware of what’s going on. Sometimes we are totally oblivious to what is taking place in our government.

                                             Of course here at Stand in the Gap Today we try to keep you all informed, but research these things on your own. Get involved with understanding what’s going on in government. Then build a relationship with your United States Senator and Representative as well as those who are on the state level so that you can have a personal impact in their lives.

                                             When you see a bill such as H.R. 350 or whatever the case is that will not strengthen our country, but will rather weaken it in the long run, or is completely bad law, a bad bill, I would encourage you to write your Senator or your Congressman about that, because we, the people, are the government. They work for us in Washington. They don’t dictate to us. But we must stand up and speak out.

                                             Father, I thank you for the opportunity that we’ve had to put this program together today. I thank you for Mark Lerner and what goes on in the Constitutional Alliance ministry. I pray that you’ll continue to use them. I pray that you protect them in what they do in getting out truth and standing against error. Give the rest of us as Christian citizens of this nation the wisdom, the strength, the ability of the pulpit to stand for truth and stand against error. We thank you in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Sam Rohrer:                      Amen. Amen. Thank you Gary. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for being with us today. Again in conclusion, go to Mark Lerner’s website, constitutionalalliance.org. Find more information. Participate as you can there. Go to our website, standinthegapradio.com. Participate with us. Come alongside of us as we help folks like Mark Lerner and others, all of us together needing to stand in the gap.

Photo by michael podger on Unsplash

iVoterGuide Shares 6 Tips on How to Contact Congress

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the 117th Congress gets into full swing, iVoterGuide wants to make sure you’re well equipped to effectively contact your Members of Congress (MOCs) to stand up for the values and principles you hold dear.

Your senators will be voting whether to confirm Biden’s cabinet nominees.  Some may hold values so abhorrent to you that you will want to fight their confirmation.  Since confirmations occur in the Senate—not the House—you should only call your two senators to express opposition to cabinet nominees.

H.R. 1 is the disastrous legislation being pushed by the Left under the guise of “voter access.”  From disallowing voter identification laws to allowing felons to vote and giving a green light to ballot harvesting, the bill contains many elements you may wish to oppose.

H.R. 5 is the so-called “Equality Act.” Not only does it provide special status and protections for LGBTQ individuals but also specifically overrides the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

FINDING YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Every voter will have three Members to contact.  The two U.S. Senators from your state and the Representative from your district can be found by using the following links:House: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Senate: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

To save time, many people keep a “cheat sheet” — one document with all of the names and contact information that can be easily accessed multiple times.

CONTACTING YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Tip #1: Call the Direct Number

If possible, you should learn the direct number to your representatives’ offices rather than calling the switchboard. (The “cheat sheet” mentioned above helps greatly!)  When you call directly, your number is displayed on caller ID.  Simply put, Members care what you think because they need your vote.  Staff quickly learn area codes and are more likely to take the call when they see it’s from their district/state.

Tip #2: Identify Yourself as Being From the District

No matter how you’re contacting your Member, always start by giving your zip code so the office knows you are in the district.  If you do not live in a Member’s district, it’s best to rally your friends who DO live in the district rather than calling them yourself.If you need to leave a message, don’t hesitate to do so – but don’t forget to leave your zip code.  As staffers listen to messages, they will tally the “yeses” and “noes” from people in the district, and the information will be passed on the member.You can fax!  Some offices still have fax machines that are rarely used.  Sending a fax can be a great way to reach those offices.

Tip #3: Be Specific

Be as specific as possible about what bill/issue you’re referring to and how you want them to vote.  Brief is not bad.  “I’m John Smith, a constituent in zip code XXXXX, and I’m calling to ask the Congressman to please vote no on H.R.1” is perfectly fine. 

In most cases, the reason you oppose or support a bill is not relevant to your Member.  It’s all about the numbers.   At their best, Members are trying to represent the voters in their district, but now is not the time, for example, to try to convince your Member why they should be pro-life if they aren’t.  The goal is for enough calls to come in regarding specific legislation that your Member believes could affect the outcome of his next election. 

Tip #4:  Be Timely

Your Member’s office is fielding so many calls that they have to find a way to prioritize.  Call them when a bill addressing your issue is before the body.

Tip #5: Be Nice!

Remember that you will be speaking with staff or even an unpaid intern who might not even share the views of the Member.  They also may be getting hundreds or thousands of calls.  Respect, civility, and even kindness go a long way. People can rise very quickly in congressional offices.  The staffer you talk to today might be the Chief of Staff next time you call, and they’ll remember who was nice to them when they were first starting out. Learn names. Take every opportunity to build a relationship. Being nice is also the best marketing any cause can have!  Issues and stances are fairly judged by the people who espouse them.  Be a light for your values – and for God.

Tip #6:  Say “Thank You”

Don’t just call when you’re upset.  If a member voted how you wanted them to vote, call back to thank them.  We often only use the “stick” to try to motivate our members and forget that the “carrot” goes a long way, too! Call to say “thank you;” you’ll make someone’s day.

Photo by NordWood Themes on Unsplash