Emily Loon

以耶和華為神的，那國是有福的！【詩 33:12】
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord! Psalm 33:12

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

https://t.co/yVkHHB9rRL

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

https://t.co/ESOy19LwTA

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

齊心守護：受造而平等的尊嚴與未來 Created Equal

https://t.co/SD0Ru6HleB

各位早安。今天，在這個美好的日子裡，我們齊聚一堂。能夠身為這片土地的兒女，共同見證並慶祝這個國家在歷史上所凝聚的偉大成就，是一件無比幸福的事。在人類文明的長河中，這是一個極具包容力、展現卓越生命力且崇尚自由的國度。誠如各位時常聽到的真摯提醒：這是一場歷經兩百五十載、至今仍蓬勃發展的民主憲政實驗。即便在前行的道路上，我們每日都面臨著大大小小的挑戰，但這些考驗從不曾減損我們心中的感恩，更不該成為我們灰心喪志的理由。
回望1776年，先賢們懷揣著對人��的崇高敬意，共同宣告了那份不可動搖的信念。這份銘刻於《獨立宣言》核心篇章的真理，宛如一席莊嚴的信仰宣告：
「我們認為這些真理是不言而喻的：人皆生而平等。」
在此，我想特別請大家一同體會箇中的深意——文中所寫的「平等」，並非指眾人生來的環境或條件全然相同，而是指我們在創造者的眼中，皆被賦予了同等神聖、不容剝奪的尊嚴。正是這份來自天地萬物主宰的厚愛，賦予了每一個人追求生命、自由與幸福的權利。
當年，湯瑪斯·傑佛遜攜手班傑明·富蘭克林、約翰·亞當斯等先賢，字斟句酌地寫下這些雋永的字句。這在當時階級分明的世界中，是多麼具有顛覆性且充滿勇氣的宣告。時至今日，我們有幸成為這份偉大傳承的守護者。這意味著，我們應當竭盡所能，為每一個人締造公平競爭的機會；更意味著，無論彼此的背景有多麼不同，每一個生命都因其獨一無二的來源，而擁有無可估量的內在價值。先賢們正是從神聖的經典與信仰中汲取了這份智慧，才奠定了這座自由燈塔的基石，讓這片土地得以在共同的仰望中，走向卓越與包容。
若各位曾造訪議事堂，必然會注意到那彰顯國家立國精神的格言，就莊嚴地鐫刻在議長席的正上方。在《人民議事堂訪客指南》中曾溫柔地記載著這段歷史：這行格言於1962年由國會正式立碑誌之，旨在冷戰時期那段充滿動盪與思維衝突的歲月裡，為世人點亮一盞明燈。面對唯物主義或忽視個體神聖價值的思潮，我們先賢選擇將這份對崇高生命的敬畏置於議堂核心，讓每一位肩負人民託付的代表，在每日擘畫國家藍圖時，都能抬頭看見立國的初衷。這不僅僅是一行文字，更是對後世子孫永恆的叮嚀：提醒我們切莫忘記那份帶領我們走向偉大的核心信仰。
然而，站在歷史交界點的今天，我們正迎來一場深刻的思想與價值抉擇。這不僅僅是政黨之間的競逐，更是一場關於「常理與混亂」、關於「守護基石與全面否定」的對話。我們看見某些激進的思潮正試圖動搖這個國家的根本，甚至主張摒棄那些保障社會安定、司法公正與權力制衡的既有體制。
一個國度若失去了對自身根基的尊重與愛護，便難以在風雨中屹立不搖。對此，國父喬治·華盛頓在治國初期的��別贈言中，便曾留下了跨越時空的雋永智慧。他如同慈父般叮嚀後世，必須謹慎尊崇財政紀律以防債台高築，保持外交的純粹與自主，更要時刻警惕因黨派或地域之私所引發的對立。而在這一切智慧的總結處，他留下了至關重要的一句話：信仰與道德，是政治昌明不可或缺的兩大支柱。 這再次呼應了我們的核心信念——權力從不來自於少數統治者或政府的施予，而是源自更崇高的生命本源；而我們，亦須對這份崇高負起最終的責任。
因此，今天我們在這裡所做的努力，絕非僅僅是傳統政治上關於稅率多寡或行政規章大小的技術性爭辯。這是一場更深層的、關乎「愛與守護」的實踐。我們深愛這片土地，尊重它悠久的歷史與核心價值，因此我們無法坐視那些試圖撕裂社會肌理、否定文明成果的激進言論。這不是為了對立，而是為了守護。
就在今天，我們將審議並通過新一季的《國防授權法案》（NDAA），以理性、負責且合乎尊嚴的方式，為國家的安全提供堅實的保障。這份法案不僅合情合理地為我們長年辛勞的國軍健兒爭取到了5%至7%的薪資調升，更將延續並落實多項攸關國家繁榮與安全的戰略大計。我們之所以如此堅持，是基於兩個無可妥協的信念：
第一，正如隆納·雷根前總統那段充滿洞察力的提醒——自由，從來不會透過基因自動傳承給下一代。 它需要我們每一個世代用智慧去捍衛、用包容去守護、用真誠去傳承。否則，我們的子孫將無法品嚐到我們今日所享有的豐饒與安全。
第二，這個國家在世界上始終扮演著傳遞希望與自由的燈塔。議事堂那座舉世聞名的���頂，象徵的正是人類對於尊嚴與自由的共同嚮往。
我們絕不會在此刻退縮，相反地，我們將加倍努力。在即將到來的日子裡，我們將繼續推動各項關乎民生福祉的法案——例如即將迎來一週年的《工作家庭減稅法案》，以及數百項已經在院會通過、旨在造福基層人民的建設性法案。國家的活力正在復甦，這片土地上的每一個人都值得為這份共同建立的家園感到自豪。
接下來，我非常樂意聆聽各位的提問。查德，早安，請說。
文中所引述之歷史文獻與典籍出處
本篇演講雖多次提及「聖經與經典（Scripture）」作為立國精神的思想泉源，但在文稿中並未直接引述特定宗教經典的具體章節，而是全面融合了美國憲政史上最具代表性的歷史文獻：
《獨立宣言》（Declaration of Independence, 1776）：
引述其最著名的第二段核心精神，強調人皆生而平等，並享有造物主所賦予的不可剝奪之權利。
華盛頓總統《臨別贈言》（George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796）：
引述關於國家財政、外交自主、反對黨派內耗的忠告，特別強調「宗教與道德」為政治繁榮的基石。
雷根總統經典演說格言（Ronald Reagan's Motif）：
融入其著名的民主傳承論述，強調自由並非存在於血脈之中，必須透過每代人的教育與守護方能延續。
美國國家格言（National Motto, 1956/1962）：
提及刻於議堂之上的「我們信仰上帝（In God We Trust）」，作為團結國家並對抗唯物史觀的歷史象徵。

【 美國國歌 】中英文 American National Anthem (English & Chinese Lyrics)
https://t.co/fahBxtEUIn

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Created Equal

https://t.co/SD0Ru6HleB

Well, good morning, everybody. This is a great day and a great week to be an American as we celebrate the greatest nation in the history of the world—and it is not even close. You all hear me remind us of that all the time: we are the most free, most successful, most powerful, and most benevolent nation that has ever existed on planet Earth. America is back right now, and there are so many reasons to be excited and to celebrate with your family and friends. Celebrate freedom, and celebrate the great blessings we have to live in this country. We have challenges, of course, and we are working through those every day, but there is no reason not to celebrate. There is absolutely no reason to be depressed in any way.
We recognize that at 250 years old, this country is still an experiment; we are still a grand experiment in self-governance. In 1776, the founders came together and boldly proclaimed a self-evident truth. We call it the nation’s creed, and it functions like a statement of faith. Written right into the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which we celebrate this weekend, they wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
A self-evident truth is something that is obvious. They held it to be self-evident that all men are created equal. I always pause there to note that it does not say we are born equal; it says we are created equal by God. It is God, our Creator, who gives us our inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That statement was incredibly revolutionary when Thomas Jefferson wrote it on behalf of a small committee of founders that included Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. They were meticulous in their phrasing because they wanted to make a bold proclamation of an obvious truth. Today, we are the stewards of that great foundational principle. It means that everyone is created equally, that we must strive for equality of opportunity, and that every single person possesses an inestimable dignity and value because our Creator made us in His image. The men who wrote those words understood that concept directly from Scripture. That scriptural understanding is what made America exceptional and set us on the path to becoming the great nation we are today: one nation under God.
Most of you spend a lot of time in the House chamber covering us, so you know exactly what it looks like. If we were to walk over there right now, one of the first things you would notice upon entering the member's door is our national motto inscribed right above the Speaker’s rostrum: "In God We Trust."
If you look at page 21 of the Visitor’s Guide to the People’s House—a beautiful, full-color publication produced some years back that we still hand out—it explains exactly why and when that motto was placed above the Speaker's head. Congress placed it there in 1962 as a direct rebuke to Soviet philosophy during the Cold War.
What was that Soviet philosophy? Marxism and its political deviations, like communism and socialism, begin with the premise that there is no God. Congress saw fit in the early 1960s to place our motto directly above the podium so that every member of Congress has to face it every single day. They wanted future generations of Americans—and certainly those elected to represent the people—to remember what truly distinguishes America. We are defined by our national creed, the very foundational principle that set us on a course to greatness.
Yet, surreal as it is on the anniversary of our country, we now face an open contest between Marxist-communist ideologies and American principles. For months, we have predicted that this upcoming midterm will be a contrast election. We initially described it as a contrast between common sense and craziness, but now you can add another layer: it is common sense versus communism. That is what is happening as the insurgent left takes over the Democratic Party. I do not need to recount the past week's developments for the people in this room because you cover them minute by minute, but that is the contest shaping up.
We must remain clear-eyed about this: a country that undermines its own foundations and founding principles cannot survive. The founders were highly articulate in their personal letters and private correspondence, leaving behind advice that echoes down through the generations to you and me as the current stewards of this grand experiment. They did not know how long it would last. However, the father of our country, George Washington, gave us timeless guidance on how to keep the republic in his famous Farewell Address—which we read on the floor of the Senate and the House every year on his birthday.
In that address, Washington warned his countrymen to watch out for the accumulation of national debt, an issue we are actively working on right now. He warned against forming too many foreign alliances, which has indeed become a problem at times. He also explicitly warned us not to fall into regional or political factionalism. While we have not followed all of his advice, he offered a crucial summary statement regarding the habits that lead to political prosperity. He wrote that religion and morality are indispensable supports. This echoes our common American theme: our rights do not come from a king or a government; they come from God Himself, and it is to Him that we owe our ultimate responsibility.
That is the baseline of what we are fighting for. Meanwhile, the insurgent left openly disdains our founding principles. They oppose the very idea of borders and prisons. In the latest Democratic Socialists of America platform statement—which deserves more media coverage—they even advocate for abolishing the presidency and the Supreme Court. This is deeply dangerous terrain. We see individuals wiping their hands on the American flag, and many of them maintain ties to radical organizations. You truly cannot make this stuff up.
We are no longer in a traditional political battle between Republicans and Democrats arguing over marginal tax rates or the scope of regulatory policy. This election year, and the legislative arguments happening in Congress right now, represent a fundamental contrast between people who love this country and its founding principles, and those who harbor open disdain and hatred for them. They want to tear America and Western civilization down, but it is not going to happen on our watch.
Today, we are moving forward to pass the rule that sets up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We will invest properly, appropriately, and responsibly in America’s national defense. Our legislative policies reflect this commitment: we are delivering a long-overdue pay raise of 5% to 7% for our troops. Furthermore, this legislation will advance 65 of President Trump’s key priorities and executive orders. We will do whatever is necessary to maintain our status as the premier superpower on the planet.
Securing our freedom is essential for two primary reasons. First, as Ronald Reagan used to remind us, freedom is not passed along to our children through the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, taught, and handed down to the next generation, or they will not enjoy the same liberties, opportunities, and security that we have known. Second, America is the leader of the free world; we are a beacon of freedom. The Capitol building is one of the most recognized symbols on Earth because that pristine dome represents liberty.
We will not sacrifice that legacy now. Instead, we will double down. As we celebrate our nation’s grand birthday this July 4th, we will advance these principles even further. We will win the midterms, Republicans will remain in leadership, and we will continue to pass impactful legislation—such as the Working Families Tax Cut, which hits its one-year anniversary this July 4th. With over 700 pieces of legislation passed through the House and over 100 executive orders already codified, we still have much more to do. America is back. You should celebrate everything it means to be an American.
With that, I will take a few questions. Chad, good morning.
Quoted Texts & Historical References
While the speaker frequently mentions "Scripture" broadly as the philosophical source for the Founding Fathers, no specific biblical book, chapter, or verse is directly quoted in the text. Instead, the speech relies on foundational American political texts, historical documents, and presidential quotes:
The Declaration of Independence (1776):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796):
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
Ronald Reagan (Inaugural Address / Standard Speech Motif):
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same..."
The National Motto of the United States (Statutory Code 1956 / Inscribed 1962):
"In God We Trust"

American National Anthem (English & Chinese Lyrics)
https://t.co/fahBxtEUIn

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Sheridan Gorman, Daughter of Angel Family

國會震撼一幕！母親淚控民主黨：為何我的孩子不如非法移民？到底���樣一個世界，掌權者才視而不見？我常常半夜驚醒，你們居然還能說「但是」！如果是你們的...

https://t.co/9rSeIaOL2O

00:42 這是關於一個忘記自身首要職責的政府和政客。擺在這個委員會面前的問題，其實痛苦卻非常簡單。你們究竟是從什麼時候開始，不再把保護美國人民放在第一位？我要一個解釋。
01:27 我和丈夫總是開玩笑說，大女兒梅琳是我們的驕傲。而謝里登，則是我們的快樂。
01:55 謝里登一直守著『友誼長椅』。只要有孩子看起來孤單，謝里登就會走過去。只要有人沒人陪玩，謝里登就一定會出現。如果有人覺得自己像個透明人，謝里登一定會看見他。
03:43 直到今天，我還是無法理解這一切。到底是怎樣的一個世界，才會讓一個一輩子都在努力不讓別人孤單的孩子，最後卻驚恐又孤單地死在芝加哥的碼頭上？到底是怎樣的一個世界，才會讓那個總是看見每一個人的女孩，反而被那些本該保護她的掌權者視而不見？
04:09 謝謝你們不用開口，就讓我知道，你們知道自己人在這裡，心卻根本不想在這裡。謝謝你們讓我知道，你們根本不在乎。
04:28 我也向你們所有人提出挑戰，坐下來和我談。請告訴我，為什麼非法入境的人，比你們自己的美國公民還重要？請告訴我，為什麼庇護政策比我女兒謝里登的生命更重要？請告訴我，為什麼要求你們和ICE合作就這麼困難，卻要美國父母親手埋葬自己的孩子，反而成了可以接受的代價？回答我。
05:25 請想像，那不是我的女兒，而是你們的女兒。如果那是你們的孩子呢？你們還會猶豫哪怕一秒鐘，不採取行動、不做出改變嗎？
06:11 如果那些辜負她的人寧可轉過頭去，那我請其他所有人，好好看著她。
06:52 每一個環節，這個制度都有機會阻止他。但每一個環節，它都失敗了。而我的女兒，就是用她的生命，替這些失敗、替你們的失敗付出了代價。任何家庭都不該因為公職人員沒有把美國人的生命放在第一位，而被迫埋葬自己的孩子。我只是請求你��選擇我們。
07:20 為什麼我的孩子，還不如一名非法移民重要？為什麼？
07:53 我常常半夜驚醒，然後不停地想：「我的女兒當時有沒有哭著喊媽媽？」她孤零零地死在人行道上，流著血，身邊沒有任何人。而我永遠、永遠都不會停止。
08:57 我往後的人生都得繼續奮戰，對抗這些政策，努力讓人們記住她的名字。
09:21 但我不明白，為什麼看起來只有共和黨這一邊在乎我們美國的孩子。你們根本體會不了我的痛苦，因為你們下一句話就是「但是」。沒有什麼「但是」。當你的孩子躺在棺材裡時，就沒有任何「但是」。
13:33 每次聽到你們說「但是」，我就非常難過，而你們也始終不願正視這件事。
13:46 你們知道我唯一感到慶幸的是什麼嗎？我慶幸我的女兒只是後腦中槍，而不是像梅根・博斯那樣，遭到性侵、殺害、肢解，最後被塞進垃圾桶。這是多麼扭曲的一件事？可你們居然還能對這些「天使家庭」置之不理。你們還能說：「但是……」
14:41 這裡有人當過新手爸媽嗎？那種為孩子挑選第一套從醫院回家時要穿的衣服的喜悅。而我，卻得替我的女兒挑選人生最後一套衣服。從迎接孩子誕生時滿心歡喜，到如今卻只聽到人們不停找藉口、說著「但是」。對不起。這一切都令人無法接受。
15:31 剛才妳回答問題時，一開始說了「對不起」。妳完全不需要道歉。永遠不要因為把這個故事告訴美國人民而道歉。
16:32 我感到非常遺憾，因為不僅沒有人願意為這些政策道歉，甚至還有人試圖灌輸大家，說這些犯罪本來就是無法避免的。這就是那個大家都不願意正視的謊言。這兩起悲劇本來都可以避免。它們根本就不該發生。
21:00 老實說，要拜登政府官員來談邊境政策，實在有點可笑。

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

The Declaration of Independence: God’s Enduring Wisdom
Tulsi Gabbard Continues the Legacy
獨立宣言-神的箴言 加巴德續寫傳奇

Way to go Tulsi Gabbard!

God bless you! God bless USA.

https://t.co/Ev8i5e84Fi

I love our country. It’s why I enlisted after 9/11, why I’ve served as a soldier for over 16 years, deployed twice to the Middle East, and now serve in Congress for almost seven years. What Senator Harris is doing is continuing to traffic in lies. I’m committed to doing all that I can to send President Trump back to the White House, where he can once again serve us as our commander-in-chief.
Our next Director of National Intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard. There’s nobody like her for this job. Truth, accountability, and justice—the integrity of our democratic republic depends on it.
Today, I’m releasing new evidence knowingly withheld from you, the American people.
Thank you for the great work you’ve done. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.
We have another award to give away, and this time it goes to a great American and a patriot: a daughter of the Pacific Islands, born in Samoa, raised in Hawaii. She began her political career as the youngest woman ever elected to the Hawaii legislature. She served her country in the Hawaii Army National Guard and in combat in Iraq, Kuwait, and the Horn of Africa. She received the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Combat Medical Badge. She rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve. In 2012, she was elected to Congress, where she served on the Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs Committees. She became an eloquent champion for our warfighters, a defender of women who had been victims of sexual harassment in the military, and a rising star as an opponent of foreign adventurism and endless wars.
She ran for president in 2020. I still remember the time she schooled Kamala Harris in that first debate. I have two sons who are both conservative Republicans and Trump supporters. They were texting me during the Democratic debate, asking what I thought. When I asked why they were watching it, they said they just wanted to watch Tulsi Gabbard go after Kamala Harris.
She left the Democratic Party for good in 2022. She endorsed Donald Trump for president in 2024 and became one of his top advisors and national surrogates. He appointed her as the eighth Director of National Intelligence, where she streamlined the intelligence community, eliminated wasteful spending and bureaucracy, and focused on securing our border, counterterrorism, and counter-narcotics. She has served our country as a soldier, as a member of Congress, as a legislator, as a leader, and as a champion for the values of faith and freedom.
Tonight, it is our great honor to present her with the Ronald Reagan Defender of Freedom Award. Would you please welcome to the podium our dear friend, the former Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Remarks:
Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone. It is my honor and my privilege. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Ralph, and to all of you for the honor of this award and for the privilege of joining you here this evening at such a pivotal time in our country. Ralph, thank you for your friendship.
As I was standing offstage, I was thinking back to when we first met on Hershel Walker’s campaign bus a few years ago during the special election. I had heard about the legend and lore of Ralph Reed, but it was such a privilege to get to know you in that intimate environment—crammed onto a bus with far too many people. We traveled across Georgia, spending time with people from all walks of life and speaking about the most important values that bring us together as Americans. Those are the same values and principles that bring us together here this evening. So thank you, Ralph, for your friendship and your leadership.
I was thinking about what to share with you this evening as we head into the celebration of Independence Day. What has this path over the last 250 years looked like that led us to this moment—with both the challenges and the opportunities we face now? I started reflecting on some of the challenges in our politics today: Why is it so hard for Congress to pass what should be easy legislation, like the Save America Act requiring voter ID? Why has it become controversial to say that members of Congress should be prohibited from insider trading? Why is secure borders a controversial idea? And at the core, why are people on the street, on college campuses, and in the halls of Congress debating whether free speech is still relevant in America today?
When I think about why these things that should not be hard have become so difficult, I remember my time in Congress and wonder why we don’t have more political leaders with the courage to do the right thing. It was so cliquish. Instead of prioritizing the Constitution and the rights in our founding documents, leaders worried about not being invited to the fancy parties like the White House Correspondents’ Dinner or about negative headlines and mean comments.
Let’s go back 250 years to the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the sacrifices and controversy they faced. Consider John Hart, a 65-year-old farmer from New Jersey with a large farm, a wife he loved dearly, and 13 children. He wasn’t famous or seeking glory, but in the summer of 1776, as a delegate, he signed the Declaration of Independence. He knew, as all the signers did, that this act of treason against Britain could cost him everything.
Soon after, the Hessian army came after him. They ransacked his farm, destroyed his fields and gristmill. He fled to the forests and caves of New Jersey—a 65-year-old man sleeping on the ground, hunted like an animal—while his beloved wife lay dying at home. John Hart never made it back in time. By the time he returned, his wife had passed away and been buried. His 13 children had fled and hidden for their own protection. He never saw any of them again and died alone a few years later.
I share this story for context and reflection as we gather in our nation’s capital. It reminds us of the challenges we face today and what we, as patriots who love this country, are willing to do to defend her and our freedoms. This question was not rhetorical for the signers of the Declaration, and it cannot be merely rhetorical for us today. In our own lives and circumstances, using the skills and abilities God has given us, how can we support and defend the Constitution and the freedoms so many have sacrificed for?
As we head into the Fourth of July, it is the perfect time to reflect on the Declaration of Independence. President Trump proudly displays the original in the Oval Office as a daily reminder that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Those rights come from God, not from any king, government, politician, institution, or bureaucrat—and therefore none of them can take those freedoms away.
Our founders did this intentionally because they had lived under tyranny: soldiers invading homes, trials without juries, taxes without representation, and the silencing of dissent. They flipped the script and declared that our rights come from God. No earthly power gave them, so no earthly power can take them away. With wisdom and vision, they designed a system to prevent the concentration of power in any single person, party, or permanent ruling class. They gave us the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the sacred duty to guard them.
Two hundred fifty years later, those documents remain the bedrock of our country. It is our responsibility to keep it that way. The Constitution is not just a document—it is deeply personal to every person who cherishes freedom.
I have sworn the oath to support and defend the Constitution three times: first as a 21-year-old private in the Hawaii Army National Guard while serving as a state representative; second on the floor of the House of Representatives after my deployment to Iraq, where I witnessed the human cost of war; and third when President Trump swore me in as Director of National Intelligence in the Oval Office. Each time, I felt the weight of those who have kept that oath and those who have violated it.
There is a difference between those who truly believe in the Constitution and turn that belief into action, and those who go through the motions, dismissing it when it doesn’t suit their goals. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing among us.
The Constitution is a covenant between government and the people, between generations past, present, and future. At its heart is the Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment foremost. I used to be a Democrat for a long time, but the party today is unrecognizable. The question I’m asked most often is what was the final straw. It wasn’t one thing—it was a growing pattern of silencing, censoring, and punishing those who asked inconvenient questions or challenged approved narratives. The party that once defended free speech became its foremost opponent.
The First Amendment is not a debatable technicality; it is the beating heart of a free society. Real freedom of speech means protecting even speech you hate, that makes you uncomfortable, or that you disagree with. As veterans understand: “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The moment a government or party decides some speech is too dangerous to permit is the beginning of the end of a free society. Tyrants throughout history start by controlling speech, always claiming it’s for your safety and best interest. We’ve seen this at home: colleagues cheering government coordination with social media to suppress voices, the Hunter Biden laptop story falsely labeled as Russian disinformation, and doctors and scientists censored during COVID for asking legitimate questions.
Freedom of religion runs alongside freedom of speech. Every one of us has the right to worship as we choose—or not at all—and Article VI prohibits any religious test for office. I could not in good conscience remain with a party that opposes free speech and works to push God out of public and private life, denying that our rights come from God—the very heart of the Declaration of Independence.
Another unseen threat is the deep state: career officials and unelected managers who view elections as nuisances and believe they are more qualified to run the country than those we elect. They slow-walk orders, leak to the press, and shape intelligence to fit their agenda. From firsthand experience as Director of National Intelligence, I fought this every day under President Trump’s mandate of transparency, accountability, declassification, and truth-telling. It is always the right time to tell the American people the truth.
The work of exposing and dismantling these entrenched power structures is not finished. We the people must hold our leaders accountable and fight against these deep state actors who care only about their own power.
Let me close with the story of another signer, Abraham Clark of New Jersey, a lawyer of modest means. He signed the Declaration and sent his two sons to fight in the Revolutionary Army. The British captured them and imprisoned them on the notorious hell ship Jersey, where conditions were brutal. His sons faced extra cruelty because of their father. One was placed in solitary confinement with no food or light.
The British offered Abraham Clark a deal: publicly support the king, denounce the Declaration, and they would free his sons. He said no. He chose what was right over what was easy, knowing it could define generations. His sons survived, and Abraham lived to see the early steps of the nation he helped create.
At this moment, we must ask: What does it mean to be a patriot? It is not just feelings or symbols. Patriotism is love expressed through action. As we celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday, action is needed. The struggle today is for the heart of our nation, the integrity of our elections, and the preservation of our constitutional freedoms.
We will not win by sitting back. Every one of us has a role. If you’ve thought about running for office—at any level—do it. We need servant leaders of character committed to the Constitution, free speech, religious freedom, common sense, objective truth, secure borders, and biological reality. If you’re not running, support those who do: walk door-to-door, make calls, get out the vote, and have real conversations with people who may not share your views—without demeaning them.
We must stand together, defeat those who oppose freedom at the ballot box and in the public square through the power of ideas. John Hart and Abraham Clark did not think the cost was too high. The 56 signers kept their promise despite immense sacrifice. It is now our time to keep our promise to them and to future generations.
In moments of fear, I find peace, strength, and courage in God’s unconditional love. On this 250th birthday, I am grateful to stand with you, renew our pledge to support and defend the Constitution, and uphold the truth that all men are created equal, endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights—including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
May God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you.

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

獨立宣言-神的箴言 加巴德續寫傳奇
The Declaration of Independence: God’s Enduring Wisdom
Tulsi Gabbard Continues the Legacy

Way to go Tulsi Gabbard!

God bless you! God bless USA.

https://t.co/Ev8i5e84Fi

我深愛我們的國家。這份愛，讓我在九一一事件後選擇從軍，至今已服役超過十六年，兩度部署中東，如今更在國會服務近七年。我堅信，賀錫莉參議員所做的，正是繼續散布謊言。而我全力以赴的目標，就是協助川普總統重返白宮，再次擔任我們的三軍統帥。
我們下一位國家情報總監，將由 Tulsi Gabbard 擔任。這個職位，沒有比她更適合的人選。真理、問責與正義——我們民主共和國的 integrity，正繫於此。
今天，我要向全體美國人民公布一項長期被刻意隱瞞的重要證據。
感謝各位所做的卓越貢獻，我們由衷感激。謝謝大家。

今晚，我們要頒發另一項榮譽給一位偉大的美國人、一位真正的愛國者。她是太平洋島嶼的女兒，在薩摩亞出生、夏威夷長大，曾是夏威夷州議會史上最年輕的女性議員。她在夏威夷陸軍國民兵服役，參與伊拉克、科威特與非洲之角的戰鬥，獲頒陸軍嘉許勳章與陸軍作戰醫療徽章，並晉升至陸軍預備役中校。
二〇一二年，她當選國會議員，服務於武裝部隊、國土安全與外交事務委員會。她是軍人堅定的代言人，也是軍中性騷擾受害婦女的勇敢守護者，更以反對無止境的外國軍事冒險而廣受注目。
二〇二〇年，她參與總統大選。我至今仍清楚記得她在首場辯論中，那段讓人印象深刻的時刻。我的兩個兒子都是堅定的保守派共和黨人與川普支持者，當時卻傳訊息問我對民主黨辯論的看法。我問他們為什麼在看，他們回答：「我們只想看 Tulsi Gabbard 怎麼對質賀錫莉。」
二〇二二年，她正式離開民主黨。二〇二四年，她支持川普競選總統，成為他最重要的顧問與全國代言人之一。川普總統任命她為第八任國家情報總監。在任內，她精簡情報體系、消除浪費與官僚，專注於邊境安全、反恐與反毒工作。她以士兵、國會議員、立法者、領袖的身分，全心守護信仰與自由的價值。
今晚，我們懷著無比榮幸的心情，向她頒贈隆納・雷根「自由捍衛者獎」。請大家以熱烈的掌聲，歡迎我們親愛的朋友、前國家情報總監——Tulsi Gabbard。

Tulsi Gabbard 致詞：
非常感謝大家。能站在這裡，是我的榮幸與福分。謝謝各位。
Ralph，衷心感謝您，以及在場每一位朋友，感謝您頒給我這份榮譽，也感謝您讓我能在這個國家關鍵時刻，與大家共��一堂。Ralph，謝謝您的友誼。
站在臺側等待時，我想起我們初次相識的情景。那是幾年前在 Hershel Walker 參議院特別選舉的競選巴士上。我早就聽聞 Ralph Reed 的傳奇，但能在那樣親切的環境中真正認識您，實在是莫大的榮幸。雖然巴士上人擠人，我們卻一同穿越喬治亞州，與各行各業的民眾交流，談論那些凝聚美國人的核心價值。而今天晚上，我們正是為了同樣的價值與原則再次相聚。Ralph，感謝您的友誼與領導。
今晚，我想和大家分享一些思考。隨著獨立紀念日即將到來，我不禁回顧過去兩百五十年，我們這條道路如何走到今天這個充滿挑戰與機會的時刻。我也反思當前政治中的一些困境：為什麼國會連「要求選民出示身分證」這樣簡單的《拯救美國法案》都難以通過？為什麼禁止國會議員內線交易會成為爭議？為什麼確保邊境安全竟會���發爭辯？更核心的是，為什麼街頭、大學校園乃至國會殿堂，竟然有人在辯論「言論自由在當代美國是否仍然重要」？
這些本該理所當然的事，為何如今變得如此困難？我回想自己在國會的經歷，常常思考：為什麼我們缺乏更多有勇氣堅持正確之事的領袖？當時的環境充滿小圈子文化，大家更在意是否能參加華盛頓記者晚宴、是否會有負面報導，而不是優先守護憲法與建國先賢賦予我們的權利。
讓我們把時光拉回兩百五十年前，看看那些在《獨立宣言》上簽名的先賢，他們面對的犧牲與爭議是何等巨大。其中一位是來自紐澤西的農夫 John Hart，六十五歲，擁有大片農場，深愛妻子與十三個孩子。他並非名人，也不求名利，卻在1776年夏天以代表身分簽下《獨立宣言》。他和每一位簽署者都清楚，這一筆，���能讓他們失去一切——這是對英國的叛國行為。
簽名後不久，英國僱用的黑森傭兵便前來追捕。他們摧毀了他的農場、田地與磨坊。六十五歲的他只能逃進紐澤西的森林與洞穴，像動物般被追獵，而他深愛的妻子卻在家中奄奄一息。他未能趕上見妻子最後一面。回家時，妻子已逝，十三個孩子也因躲避追捕而四散。他從此再也沒有見到任何一個孩子，最終孤獨離世。
我分享這個故事，是希望在我們齊聚國家首都的此刻，能共同反思：面對當今挑戰，我們這些深愛國家的愛國者，願意為守護她與我們的自由付出什麼？對當年的簽署者而言，這絕非空談；對今天的我們，也不能只是空談。在上帝賜予我們各自的生命與才能中，我們該如何貢獻力量，捍衛憲法與先人用生命換來的自由？
在即將到來的七月四日，讓我們好好重溫《獨立宣言》。川普總統特意將原件陳��在橢圓形���公室，每天提醒自己：我們生而平等，皆由造物主賦予不可剝奪的權利。這些權利來自上帝，而非國王、政府、政客或官僚，因此任何世俗權力都無法將其奪走。
建國先賢們深知暴政的滋味——軍隊入侵民宅、無陪審團審判、無代表權的稅賦、壓制異議之聲。他們勇敢地翻轉了舊有秩序，宣告：我們的權利來自上帝，世上任何力量都不能給予，也不能奪取。他們以智慧與遠見設計一套制度，防止權力集中於任何個人、政黨或永久統治階層，並賦予我們守護憲法與權利法案的神聖責任。
兩百五十年後，這些文件仍是我們國家的基石。守護它，是我們每個人的責任。憲法不僅是一紙文書，更是每一位珍惜自由之人心中的信念。
我一生曾三次宣誓捍衛憲法：二十一歲時以夏威夷陸軍國民兵列兵身分宣誓；第二次是在伊拉克服役歸來後，於眾議院議場宣誓；第���次則是川普總統在橢圓形辦公室任命我為國家情報總監時。每一次，我都深深感受到那些曾信守誓言與違背誓言者的重量。
真正相信憲法的人，會將信念化為行動；有些人則只是走過場，在不合己意時便將憲法擱置一旁。這正是我們之中披著羊皮的狼。
憲法是政府與人民之間的盟約，是過去、現在與未來世代之間的盟約。其核心是《權利法案》，而《第一修正案》位居首位。我曾長期是民主黨的一員，但今日的民主黨已面目全非。許多人問我離開的最後一根稻草是什麼？其實並非單一事件，而是一連串模式：不斷打壓、審查、懲罰那些提出不便利問題、揭露不便利真相，或勇於挑戰主流敘事的人。曾經捍衛言論自由的政黨，如今卻成為其最大威脅。
《第一修正案》不是可爭辯的技術細節，而是自由社會跳動的心臟。真正的言論自由，意味著即使是你厭惡、令��不舒服、與你完全相反的言論，也要予以保護。正如許多退伍軍人所深知的：「我可能不同意你說的話，但我誓死捍衛你說話的權利。」
當政府或政黨開始認定某些言論「太危險」而必須禁止時，自由社會的終結便已開始。歷史上所有的暴君，都是從控制言論起步，總是宣稱「這是為了你的安全與利益」。我們已在國內親眼見證：國會議員與社群媒體合作壓制異議、亨特・拜登筆電事件被謊稱為「俄羅斯假消息」，以及COVID期間醫生與科學家僅因提出合理疑問便遭審查、失業、吊銷執照。
宗教自由與言論自由密不可分。我們有權選擇自己的信仰，或不信仰任何宗教，而憲法第六條明確禁止任何宗教測試作為擔任公職的條件。我無法在良心上繼續留在一個反對言論自由、並致力將上帝從公共與私人生活中排除的政黨——因為這否定了「我們的權利來自上帝」這一《獨立宣言》的核心真理。
另一個隱藏的威脅，是那些自認高於憲法、高於民意的「深層政府」。他們是終身官僚、未經選舉的官員，視選舉為阻礙，認為自己比民選領袖更有資格治理國家。他們拖延命令、選擇性洩密、扭曲情報。我在國家情報總監任內，每天都在對抗這種現象，忠實執行川普總統「透明、問責、解密、說真話」的指示。對美國人民說真話，永遠是正確的時機。
揭露並拆解這些根深蒂固的權力結構，尚未完成。我們人民必須持續監督領袖，對抗那些只顧自身權力的深層政府行動者。
最後，讓我以另一位簽署者 Abraham Clark 的故事作結。他是紐澤西的律師，家境樸素。他簽署《獨立宣言》後，送兩個兒子參軍。英國人將他們關在惡名昭彰的「地獄船」Jersey號上，條件極其惡劣，並因他們父親的身分而施加更殘酷的對待。���中一名兒子被單獨囚禁，無食物、無光��。
英國人向 Abraham Clark 提出交易：只要他公開支持英王、譴責《獨立宣言》，便釋放他的兒子。他拒絕了。他選擇了正確，而非容易。他明白，在歷史的關鍵時刻，這樣的選擇將影響世世代代。他的兒子最終活了下來，而他也見證了這個新國家的起步。
此刻，我們必須自問：何謂愛國？愛國不只是情感或符號，而是透過行動展現的愛。在國家兩百五十週年之際，我們需要的是實際行動。今天，我們正在為國家的心臟、選舉的公正，以及憲法所保障的自由而奮鬥。
我們不能袖手旁觀。每個人都有自己的角色。若你曾考慮參選公職——無論是地方議會、學校董事會、州議會或國會——請勇敢踏出那一步。我們需要有品格的公僕型領袖，忠於憲法、言論自由、宗教自由、常識、客觀真理、邊境安全與生物現實。
若你暫不參選，也能以各種方式支持：挨家挨戶拜訪、���電話、協助催票，並真誠地與不同立場的人對話——不輕蔑、不排��，而是用心分享。
我們必須團結一致，在投票所與公共論壇上，以理念的力量擊敗那些反對自由、常識與真理的人。John Hart 與 Abraham Clark 從未認為代價太高。五十六位簽署者無一人背棄承諾。我們現在該是守住對他們、也對後世子孫承諾的時候了。
在恐懼與軟弱的時刻，我總能在上帝無條件的愛中找到平安、力量與勇氣。在國家兩百五十週年之際，我懷著感恩的心與大家站在一起，共同重申捍衛憲法的誓言，並堅守這一真理：
我們生而平等，皆由造物主賦予不可剝奪的權利，其中包括生命權、自由權，以及追求幸福的權利。
願上帝祝福各位，願上帝祝福美利堅合眾國。
謝謝大家。

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Way to go President TRUMP!

Way to go Elon!

God bless you all! God bless US.

Trump Wins Another Supreme Court Victory: The Biggest Expansion of Presidential Power in Nearly a Century | Calls on U.S. Oil Companies to Lower Gas Prices | Musk Speaks Out Strongly Against Communism 【非童凡響Beyond the Ordinary】：2026.6.30.
Video: https://t.co/LtxEap86yP
Episode Summary

This program focuses on four major themes:

1. Iran and Global Oil Prices
The speaker believes the conflict between the United States and Iran has largely shifted from military confrontation to diplomatic negotiations.
As crude oil prices decline, he expects retail gasoline prices to gradually follow.
2. California Gasoline Prices
The speaker attributes California's higher gasoline prices primarily to state fuel taxes, carbon-emissions policies, and environmental regulations.
He argues that these policies place the greatest burden on lower-income households while raising questions about the efficiency of certain publicly funded programs.
3. The Latest U.S. Supreme Court Decision
The speaker discusses the Court's recent ruling, which he believes significantly expands presidential authority over many independent federal agencies.
He also notes that the Federal Reserve remains subject to a different legal standard because of its unique institutional role.
4. Elon Musk, Joseph McCarthy, and the Yalta Conference
Using Elon Musk's sharing of McCarthy's speech as a starting point, the speaker reviews the historical background of the Yalta Conference, the early Cold War, and the history of Crimea, drawing connections between these historical developments and today's geopolitical landscape.
Scripture for Reflection
Proverbs 21:1

"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases." (NIV)

This verse reminds us that while political leaders, governments, and world events may shape the course of history, God's sovereign purposes ultimately prevail. It encourages believers to view current affairs with both discernment and confidence, trusting that the Lord remains sovereign over the nations.
【非童凡響】：川普再獲最高法院勝利，近百年來最大的���統擴權；喊話美國油商必須降低汽油價格，否則後果自負。馬斯克高調反共，一個共產黨的存在都嫌多！【非童凡響】：2026.6.30.

https://t.co/LtxEap86yP

全片重點總結

本集節目主要圍繞四個主題：

一、伊朗局勢與油價
主持人認為，美伊衝突已逐步轉向外交談判階段。
國際油價回落，零售汽油價格理應逐步下降。
二、加州汽油價格
主持人分析，加州高油價主要來自州燃料稅、碳排放制度及環保政策。
他認為，高油價對低收入家庭影響最大，並質疑部分公共支出的效率。
三、美國最高法院判決
主持人介紹最高法院最新裁決，認為這項判決擴大了總統對多數獨立聯邦機構的人事任免權。
同時指出，聯準會因制度特殊，仍需遵循較高程度的法律程序。
四、馬斯克、麥卡錫與雅爾達會議
主持人藉由馬斯克分享麥卡錫演說，引介雅爾達會議、冷戰初期反共運動及克里米亞歷史背景，說明這些歷史事件與今日國際局勢之間的連結。
箴言 21:1──神掌管君王的心，提醒我們歷史最終仍在神的主權之下。

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Trump Wins Another Supreme Court Victory: The Biggest Expansion of Presidential Power in Nearly a Century | Calls on U.S. Oil Companies to Lower Gas Prices | Musk Speaks Out Strongly Against Communism 【非童凡響Beyond the Ordinary】：2026.6.30.
Video: https://t.co/LtxEap86yP
U.S. Oil Companies Must Lower Gas Prices (Part 4)

Elon Musk Again Speaks Out Against Communism

The speaker then shifts the discussion to Elon Musk.
He notes that Musk has consistently maintained a strong anti-communist position. While some argue that because Tesla operates a major manufacturing facility in China, Musk must be cautious in his dealings with the Chinese Communist Party, the speaker disagrees with that conclusion.
According to the speaker, Musk is one of the world's most influential entrepreneurs, possessing substantial global resources and independence. As a result, he believes Musk is not easily controlled by any single government.
The speaker even remarks, "If President Trump cannot completely influence Elon Musk, it is even less likely that Xi Jinping could."
For this reason, he argues that Musk's investments in China should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that he must align himself with the Chinese government's political positions.
Senator McCarthy's Historic Remarks
The speaker then introduces a video recently shared by Musk featuring U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy from the 1950s.
Although the clip is brief, the speaker believes one statement in particular captures McCarthy's central message:
"Even one Communist in a university is one too many. Even one Communist serving among the American advisers at the Yalta Conference is one too many. Even one Communist in the State Department is one too many."
According to the speaker, McCarthy's point was that a single individual occupying a strategically important position can exert a disproportionate influence on national affairs.
For this reason, McCarthy repeatedly warned during the 1950s that communist influence could infiltrate American universities, government agencies, and the nation's diplomatic institutions.
The Historical Background of the Yalta Conference
The speaker next explains why McCarthy specifically referred to the Yalta Conference.
Held in February 1945, near the end of World War II, the conference brought together the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union in Yalta, Crimea, to discuss the postwar political order.
The three principal leaders were:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States
Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom
Soviet leader Joseph Stalin
Among the major topics discussed were the postwar reorganization of Europe and the Soviet Union's agreement to declare war on Japan within three months after Germany's surrender.
The speaker explains that, because the Soviet Union later expanded its influence throughout Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, many commentators have viewed the Yalta Conference as one of the West's most controversial diplomatic decisions following World War II.
In the speaker's view, the Soviet Union's subsequent domination of much of Eastern Europe led many critics to conclude that the agreements reached at Yalta granted Stalin excessive strategic advantages.
Five years later, McCarthy questioned whether communist sympathizers—or even Soviet spies—within the U.S. government may have contributed to what he regarded as excessive concessions during the negotiations.
According to the speaker, this concern became one of the major historical factors behind McCarthy's later anti-communist investigations.
The Historical Development of Crimea
Using the Yalta Conference as a transition, the speaker then reviews the history of Crimea.
He explains that when the Yalta Conference was held in 1945, Crimea belonged to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union.
Looking further back, Crimea had been annexed by the Russian Empire in 1783.
In 1921, it became an autonomous republic within Soviet Russia.
By 1945, it remained under Soviet administration, making Yalta a natural location for the Allied summit.
Nine years after World War II, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea administratively from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.
The speaker notes that this transfer was an internal administrative adjustment within the Soviet Union, motivated largely by geographic and economic considerations rather than by an international transfer of sovereignty.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent nation, and Crimea became part of the newly independent Ukrainian state while retaining broad autonomous status. Russia's Black Sea Fleet also continued leasing naval facilities in Crimea.
This arrangement remained in place until 2014.
That year, Russia organized a widely disputed referendum in Crimea and subsequently declared the peninsula annexed.
The speaker notes that the overwhelming majority of United Nations member states continue to regard Crimea as Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation and do not recognize the annexation as lawful under international law.
Closing Remarks
The speaker concludes the program by briefly introducing his Jade Pu-erh Tea.
He explains that the ceramic tea jars have now arrived, meaning the product is no longer available only by pre-order but is ready for immediate shipment.
Customers are encouraged to inspect the ceramic container carefully upon delivery. Should any damage occur during shipping, a replacement jar will be provided at no additional charge.
The speaker then thanks viewers for watching and invites them to join him again in the next episode.
Episode Summary
This program focuses on four major themes:
1. Iran and Global Oil Prices
The speaker believes the conflict between the United States and Iran has largely shifted from military confrontation to diplomatic negotiations.
As crude oil prices decline, he expects retail gasoline prices to gradually follow.
2. California Gasoline Prices
The speaker attributes California's higher gasoline prices primarily to state fuel taxes, carbon-emissions policies, and environmental regulations.
He argues that these policies place the greatest burden on lower-income households while raising questions about the efficiency of certain publicly funded programs.
3. The Latest U.S. Supreme Court Decision
The speaker discusses the Court's recent ruling, which he believes significantly expands presidential authority over many independent federal agencies.
He also notes that the Federal Reserve remains subject to a different legal standard because of its unique institutional role.
4. Elon Musk, Joseph McCarthy, and the Yalta Conference
Using Elon Musk's sharing of McCarthy's speech as a starting point, the speaker reviews the historical background of the Yalta Conference, the early Cold War, and the history of Crimea, drawing connections between these historical developments and today's geopolitical landscape.

Scripture for Reflection

Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases." (NIV)

This verse reminds us that while political leaders, governments, and world events may shape the course of history, God's sovereign purposes ultimately prevail. It encourages believers to view current affairs with both discernment and confidence, trusting that the Lord remains sovereign over the nations.

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

【非童凡響】：川普再獲最高法院勝利，近百年來最大的總統擴權；喊話美國油商必須降低汽油價格，否則後果自負。馬斯克高調反共，一個共產黨的存在都嫌多！【非童凡響】：2026.6.30.

https://t.co/LtxEap86yP

美國油商必須降低汽油價格（第四部分）

伊隆．馬斯克再次公開反共
主持人接著將焦點轉向伊隆．馬斯克。
他表示，馬斯克反對共產主義的立場一向十分明確。雖然許多人認為，特斯拉在中國設有大型工廠，因此馬斯克必須對中共有所顧忌，但主持人並不同意這種看法。
他的理由是，馬斯克身為全球最具影響力的企業家之一，擁有龐大的國際資源與自主性，不容易受到任何單一政府完全控制。
主持人甚至表示：「連川普都未必能完全左右馬斯克，更何況是習近平。」
因此，他認為，不應僅因馬���克在中國投資，就推論他必須迎合中國政府的立場。

麥卡錫的一段演說
主持人接著介紹，馬斯克最近分享了一段美國參議員約瑟夫．麥卡錫（Joseph McCarthy）於 1950 年代發表的影片。
雖然影片內容很短，但主持人認為，其中一句話極具代表性。
麥卡錫表示：
「即使一所大學只有一名共產黨員，都已經太多；雅爾達會議的美國顧問團中，只要有一名共產黨員，也已經太多；國務院裡，只要有一名共產黨員，同樣太多。」
主持人指出，麥卡錫當年想表達的是：只要有人身居關鍵職位，即使人數極少，也可能對國家造成深遠影響。
因此，早在 1950 年代，麥卡錫便不斷警告，美國的大學、政府部門及外交體系，都可能遭到共產主義勢力滲透。

雅爾達會議的歷史背景
主持人接著解釋，為何麥卡錫特別提到雅爾達會議。
所謂雅爾達會議，是 1945 年 2 月第二次世界大戰接近尾聲時，美國、英國與蘇聯三國領袖在克里米亞雅爾達舉行的重要高峰會。
與會三位領袖分別是：
美國總統小羅斯福（Franklin D. Roosevelt）
英國首相邱吉爾（Winston Churchill）
蘇聯領導人史達林（Joseph Stalin）
三國主要討論戰後歐洲的政治���排，同時也協議，在德國投降三個月後，蘇聯將對日本宣戰。
主持人認為，後來蘇聯在亞洲及東歐迅速擴張勢力，因此不少評論者將雅爾達會議視為西方在戰後外交上的重大失誤。
在他看來，蘇聯最終控制了大半個東歐，使許多國家落入「鐵幕」之下，因此有人批評雅爾達協議讓蘇聯獲得過多利益。
五年之後，麥卡錫便據此質疑：是否因為當時美國政府內已有共產主義同情者或蘇聯間諜，才導致談判時過度讓步？
主持人指出，這正是麥卡錫後來發起反共調查的重要背景之一。

克里米亞歷史的演變
主持人接著利用雅爾達會議，引出克里米亞歷史。
他說，1945 年雅爾達舉行時，克里米亞屬於蘇聯體制下的俄羅斯蘇維埃聯邦社會主義共和國。
不過，若再往前追溯歷史，克里米亞早在 1783 年便被俄羅斯帝國併吞。
1921 年，它成為俄羅斯共和國轄下的一個自治共和國。
1945 年時，則屬於蘇聯體制的一部分，因此雅爾達會議才能在當地舉行。
到了二戰結束九年後，赫魯雪夫（Nikita Khrushchev）將克里米亞從俄羅斯共和國劃歸烏克蘭共和國。
主持人指出，當時這只是蘇聯內部行政區重新劃分，主要考量是經濟與地理因素，並非國際法意義上的領土轉讓。
直到 1991 年蘇聯解體，烏克蘭宣布獨立，克里米亞便隨之成為烏克蘭的一部分，同時保有高度自治權，而俄羅斯黑海艦隊仍繼續租用當地軍港。
這樣的局面一直維持到 2014 年。
當年，俄羅斯在克里米亞舉行具高度爭議性的公民投票，隨後宣布併吞克里米亞。
主持人指出，目前聯合國絕大多數會員國仍不承認這項併吞具有合法性，因此在國際法上，多數國家仍將克里米亞視為烏克蘭領土，只是目前遭俄羅斯實際控制。

節目結尾
最後，主持人簡短介紹自家推出的翡翠普洱茶。
他表示，目前茶甕已全部到貨，因此產品已由預購改為現貨供應。
他提醒收到商品的消費者，開箱時應先檢查陶甕是否因運送而受損；若有破損，將會免費補寄新的茶甕。最後，他向觀眾道別，並預告下一集再見。

��片重點總結
本集節目主要圍繞四個主題：
一、伊朗局勢與油價
主持人認為，美伊衝突已逐步轉向外交談判階段。
國際油價回落，零售汽油價格理應逐步下降。
二、加州汽油價格
主持人分析，加州高油價主要來自州燃料稅、碳排放制度及環保政策。
他認為，高油價對低收入家庭影響最大，並質疑部分公共支出的效率。
三、美國最高法院判決
主持人介紹最高法院最新裁決，認為這項判決擴大了總統對多數獨立聯邦機構的人事任免權。
同時指出，聯準會因制度特殊，仍需遵循較高程度的法律程序。
四、馬斯克、麥卡錫與雅爾達會議
主持人藉由馬斯克分享麥卡錫演說，引介雅爾達會議、冷戰初期反共運動及克里米亞歷史背景，說明這些歷史事件與今日國際局勢之間的連結。

• • 箴言 21:1──神掌管君王的心，提醒我們歷史最終仍在神的主權之下。

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Trump Wins Another Supreme Court Victory: The Biggest Expansion of Presidential Power in Nearly a Century | Calls on U.S. Oil Companies to Lower Gas Prices | Musk Speaks Out Strongly Against Communism 【非童凡響Beyond the Ordinary】：2026.6.30.
Video: https://t.co/LtxEap86yP
U.S. Oil Companies Must Lower Gas Prices (Part 3)

What Solutions Does President Trump Propose for California's High Gas Prices?

The speaker next examines what tools the federal government could use if President Trump intends to significantly reduce gasoline prices in California.
In the speaker's view, the most direct approach would be to eliminate California's long-standing special waiver that allows the state to enforce its own vehicle emissions standards.
For many years, California has been authorized by the federal government to adopt emissions regulations that are stricter than the national standard. According to the speaker, these higher standards have increased the costs of fuel refining, automobile manufacturing, and regulatory compliance. Ultimately, those additional costs are reflected in the prices consumers pay at the pump.
The speaker therefore argues that today's high gasoline prices are not simply the result of market forces, but also of government policies that have intentionally added costs to the system.
He notes that after taking office, the Trump administration signed legislation revoking portions of California's authority to establish certain stricter emissions standards independently. While these changes will take time to affect gasoline prices, the speaker views them as an important first step.
The matter, however, remains the subject of ongoing legal challenges.
One of the lawsuits argues that California, as a state government, should not independently enter into international agreements involving energy or carbon-emissions programs, since foreign affairs fall under the constitutional authority of the federal government.
As an example, the speaker points to California's joint carbon allowance auctions with the Canadian province of Quebec. Although the auction proceeds remain with each participating government and are not transferred across borders, some believe that the program—because it involves interstate businesses and may include companies with Chinese investment—raises important questions about the limits of state authority.
The speaker also clarifies that this does not mean California is directly sending tax revenue to China. Rather, his point is that certain businesses may indirectly benefit through participation in the carbon market.
More broadly, he argues that the nation's energy market should be guided primarily by federal policy rather than by the actions of a single state that could significantly influence national energy prices. For that reason, he hopes the courts will provide greater clarity regarding the constitutional balance between federal and state authority.
What Other Options Does the Federal Government Have?
The speaker then outlines several additional measures that he believes the federal government could consider.
First, he suggests reevaluating federal funding for California's high-speed rail project.
According to the speaker, the project has consumed well over $100 billion since it was launched in 2008, yet construction has progressed far more slowly than originally promised. He argues that the federal government could reasonably reconsider continuing its financial support.
If federal funding were reduced or withdrawn, California would need to rely more heavily on its own carbon-related funds—now totaling more than $30 billion—to finance the project rather than depending on federal taxpayers.
Second, the speaker suggests linking certain categories of federal funding to state energy policies.
For example, if California continues to maintain unusually high gasoline taxes, the federal government could respond by reducing highway or infrastructure funding, thereby encouraging the state to reevaluate its tax policies.
Even so, the speaker believes the most important factor affecting gasoline prices remains supply.
If domestic oil production and overall fuel supplies increase, market prices should naturally decline. In that case, even California's higher tax structure would become less effective at sustaining exceptionally high retail prices.
Finally, the speaker observes that California depends heavily on fuel-related tax revenue. As a result, he expects state officials to strongly resist federal efforts to change existing policies.
In his view, continued legal disputes between the federal government and California are therefore almost inevitable.
The speaker concludes that President Trump appears fully prepared to pursue this strategy.
He also notes that California will elect a new governor this year, making these legal and policy debates likely to become major campaign issues. Even so, he believes it remains a significant challenge for California to shift from its long-standing Democratic ("blue state") leadership to Republican ("red state") leadership.
The Latest U.S. Supreme Court Decision
The speaker then turns to a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He says the ruling was welcomed enthusiastically by President Trump, who described it as the largest expansion of presidential authority in nearly a century.
According to the speaker, the timing of the decision is especially significant, coming as the United States approaches its 250th anniversary while national discussions continue regarding executive authority and government accountability.
So what exactly did the Court decide?
The speaker explains that the Supreme Court ruled that the President has broader authority to remove officials serving in many federal agencies that have traditionally been regarded as "independent."
In the past, members of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could be nominated by the President but generally could not be dismissed at will under longstanding legal precedent.
The Court has now concluded that because these agencies exercise executive authority, they remain part of the executive branch. Accordingly, the President should possess greater authority over their leadership.
In practical terms, the ruling allows the President to remove many of these officials at will, without having to demonstrate specific cause.
The speaker believes this decision overturns an important ninety-year-old precedent limiting presidential removal authority and represents one of the most significant changes to executive power in modern American history.
Why Is the Federal Reserve Treated Differently?
The speaker then points out that the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion regarding the Federal Reserve.
As an example, he discusses Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whom President Trump reportedly sought to remove following allegations concerning mortgage-related matters.
According to the speaker, the Court did not conclude that the President lacks removal authority altogether. Instead, it recognized the Federal Reserve's unique institutional role in maintaining an independent monetary policy that is insulated from direct political influence.
For that reason, removing a Federal Reserve governor requires cause (with cause), and the official must be given an opportunity to respond through appropriate legal procedures.
In other words, the Court did not reject presidential authority outright; rather, it required that such authority be exercised through due process.
The speaker believes that when the case returns to the federal district court, one of the key questions will be whether President Trump's stated reasons are legally sufficient.
He further argues that because Federal Reserve governors serve lengthy terms, an overly rigid interpretation of institutional independence could unintentionally shield officials from meaningful accountability, even in cases involving serious ethical concerns.
For this reason, he says he will continue to follow the case closely as it proceeds through the courts.
Part 3 – Key Takeaways
The speaker believes that ending California's special emissions waiver would be an important step toward lowering gasoline prices.
He argues that California's carbon market partnership with Quebec raises constitutional questions regarding the division of authority between the federal government and the states.
He suggests that federal transportation and infrastructure funding could be used to encourage California to reconsider its energy policies.
The recent Supreme Court decision significantly expands presidential authority to remove officials from many independent federal agencies.
Because of the Federal Reserve's unique constitutional role, its governors may be removed only for cause and through appropriate legal procedures.
The speaker believes these legal disputes will continue to shape the constitutional balance between executive authority and judicial oversight in the years ahead.
Scripture for Reflection
Ecclesiastes 3:17
"God will bring into judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge every deed." (NIV)

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

【非童凡響】：川普再獲最高法院勝利，近百年來最大的總統擴權；喊話美國油商必須降低汽油價格，否則後果自負。馬斯克高調反共，一個共產黨的存在都嫌多！【非童凡響】：2026.6.30.

https://t.co/LtxEap86yP

美國油商必須降低汽油價格（第三部分）
川普提出哪些方法降低加州油價？
主持人接著分析，若川普希望真正降低加州的汽油價格，聯邦政府究竟有哪些工具可以運用？
��認為，最直接的方法，就是取消加州長期享有的特殊車輛排放豁免權。
多年來，加州依據聯邦授權，可以制定比全美更嚴格的汽車排放標準。主持人認為，這些更高的標準，使煉油程序、汽車製造及法規遵循成本全面提高，而這些增加的成本，最後都反映到消費者支付的汽油價格上。
因此，他認為，民眾今天支付的高油價，不只是市場供需的結果，也包含了政府政策刻意增加的成本。
主持人表示，川普政府上任後，已經簽署法案，取消加州部分可以單獨制定更高排放標準的權限。不過，法案生效需要時間，因此短期內尚未完全反映在油價上，但至少已經跨出了第一步。
目前，相關措施仍在司法程序中。
其中一項訴訟主張是：加州作為州政府，不應自行與外國政府建立涉及能源或碳排放的合作制度，因為外交與對外協議屬於聯邦政府的權限。
主持人舉例指出，加州曾與加拿大魁北克建立碳權聯合拍賣制度。雖然拍賣所得各自歸屬地方政府，不涉及直接跨境資金移轉，但由於碳權交易可能涉及其他州企業，甚至具有中資背景的公司，因此有人認為，這已涉及聯邦權限。
主持人同時澄清，這並不表示加州政府直接把稅收匯給中國，而是碳權制度可能間接讓部分企業從中獲益。
此外，他也認為，全美能源市場本應由聯邦政府統一管理，而非由單一州政府自行制定足以���響全國市場的政策，因此期待法院能盡快釐清聯邦與州政府之間的權限界線。

聯邦還有哪些施壓方式？
主持人接著提出幾種他認為聯邦政府可以採取的作法。
第一，是重新檢討聯邦對加州高鐵的補助。
他指出，加州高鐵自 2008 年推動以來，已投入上百億美元，但工程進度遠低於預期，因此聯邦政府完全可以考慮停止補助。
如此一來，加州政府若仍希望繼續興建高鐵，就必須自行運用州政府累積的三百多億美元碳排基金，而不是持續依賴聯邦經費。
第二，是將聯邦各項補助與州政府的能源政策連結。
例如，如果州政府持續維持過高的汽油稅負，聯邦便可以相對減少道路建設或基礎建設補助，藉此促使州政府重新檢討稅制。
不過，主持人也認為，真正決定油價的關鍵，仍然是市場供給。
只要美國整體石油供應增加，市場價格自然會下降，即使加州仍維持較高稅負，也很難長期維持過高的售價。
最後，他指出，加州政府高度依賴汽油相關稅收作為重要財源，因此預料州政府勢必強烈反對聯邦介入。
換句話說，聯邦與加州之間未來仍將持續進行司法攻防。
主持人最後表示，川普顯然已經做好準備，打算一路推動這項政策。
他也提到，今年加州將舉行州長選舉，因此這場政策與法律攻防，也將成為選舉的重要議題之一。不過，他認為，加州要從民主黨長期執政的「藍州」轉變為共和黨執政的「紅州」，難度仍然相當高。

美國最高法院最新判決
接著，主持人將話題轉向美國最高法院。
他表示，最高法院最新作出的判決，令川普十分振奮。
川普甚至形容，這是近百年來，美國總統行政權擴張幅度最大的一次司法裁決。
他認為，這項判決出現在美國即將慶祝建國二百五十週年的時刻，又正值政府強調反共與強化行政效率之際，因此具有特殊意義。
那麼，判決內容究竟是什麼？
主持人說，最高法院認定，美國總統有權解除許多原本被視為「獨立聯邦機構」官員的職務。
過去，像聯邦貿易委員會（FTC）等獨立委員會，雖然由總統提名，但依據過去判例，總統通常不能隨意將委員解職。
如今，最高法院認為，既然這些機構是在代行行政權，本質上仍屬行政體系的一部分，因此總統應擁有對其人事任免的控制權。
換句話說，總統可以依照自己的意志（at will），不需要提出特定理由，即可解除這些官員的職務。
主持人認為，這項裁決等於推翻九十年前限制總統人事權的重要判例，也是近代美國行政權的一項重大改變。

為何聯準會又有不同標準？
然而，主持人接著指出，看似相同的問題，最高法院對於聯邦準備理事會（Federal Reserve）卻採取不同態度。
他舉例說，聯準會理事 Lisa Cook 因涉及住房貸款相關爭議，川普希望將她免職。
但最高法院並未表示總統完全沒有權力解除她的職務，而是認為，聯準會具有特殊的制度設計，���目的之一就是維持貨幣政策不受行政權直接干預。
因此，若要解除聯準會理事職務，總統仍應提出具體理由（with cause），並讓當事人有��分答辯的機會。
也就是說，最高法院並非否定總統的免職權，而是要求必須經過正當法律程序。
主持人認為，接下來案件回到聯邦地方法院後，法官是否認定川普提出的理由足夠充分，將成為下一個值得觀察的重要焦點。
他也指出，由於聯準會理事任期相當長，如果制度設計讓有重大道德瑕疵的人幾乎無法被撤換，那麼「獨立性」反而可能成為逃避監督的保護傘。
因此，他將持續關注法院後續如何處理此案。

第三部分重點
主持人認為，取消加州特殊排放豁免權，是降低油價的重要措施。
他主張，加州與加拿大魁北克的碳權合作涉及聯邦與州權限爭議，目前已進入司法程序。
他建議聯邦可透過高鐵補助及基礎建設經費，促使加州重新檢討高油價政策。
美國最高法院最新判決，擴大總統對多數獨立聯邦機構的人事任免權。
聯準會因制度特殊，總統若欲��職理事，仍須提出正當理由並遵循法律程序。
主持人認為，未來相關案件仍將持續影響行政權與司法權之間的界線。

傳道書 3:17：「神必審判義人和惡人，因為在那裡，各樣事務、一切工作，都有定時。」

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Trump Wins Another Supreme Court Victory: The Biggest Expansion of Presidential Power in Nearly a Century | Calls on U.S. Oil Companies to Lower Gas Prices | Musk Speaks Out Strongly Against Communism 【非童凡響Beyond the Ordinary】：2026.6.30.
Video: https://t.co/LtxEap86yP
U.S. Oil Companies Must Lower Gas Prices (Part 2)

Why Is Gasoline So Expensive in California?

At this point, many people may ask: What exactly is happening in California? Why are gasoline prices consistently higher there than in almost every other state?
Gasoline prices are influenced first and foremost by the global price of crude oil. In recent months, crude oil prices were relatively high, and it takes time for changes in crude prices to work their way through refining, transportation, taxes, and seasonal demand before they are reflected at the retail pump. In other words, retailers cannot lower prices overnight simply because crude oil has become less expensive.
Nevertheless, President Trump has publicly urged gasoline retailers to pass these lower costs on to consumers as quickly as possible.
Although international crude oil prices have now fallen to approximately $67–68 per barrel, some refiners and retailers may still be recovering losses from the earlier period of higher costs. As a result, they may be reluctant to reduce prices immediately.
At the same time, the federal government has the authority to investigate whether retail gasoline prices are reasonable. If necessary, companies may be required to disclose their cost structures for review.
Overall, gasoline prices are trending downward. However, reaching President Trump's suggested retail price of $2.50 per gallon will likely take time, particularly in states like California, where substantial state taxes and regulatory costs are already built into the final price.
President Trump has a way of using brief, direct statements to highlight what he considers an unreasonable situation.
His basic argument is that the various taxes and fees imposed by the California government have come close to—or, in some cases, nearly exceeded—the underlying cost of the gasoline itself.
Generally speaking, most people accept reasonable taxation. For example, if a $10 item is subject to a 7% sales tax, that is considered a normal part of doing business.
However, if taxes were to approach or exceed the value of the product itself, many would question whether such taxation remains reasonable.
Looking at California's average gasoline price—currently over $5.00 per gallon—one might assume that most of that amount is tax. In reality, that is not entirely the case.
Roughly $1.00 per gallon consists of various state-imposed charges, including the state fuel tax, carbon-related fees, underground storage tank fees, and other regulatory costs. A significant portion of these charges is tied to California's environmental and clean energy policies.
In addition, each gallon sold must also cover the operating costs of gas stations, labor, transportation, and distribution.
The actual cost of refining crude oil into gasoline may be only about one dollar per gallon.
For this reason, President Trump argues that government taxes and fees have nearly overtaken the value of the gasoline itself—an argument that, according to the speaker, has some factual basis.
How California's Carbon Policies Affect Gas Prices
Beyond the fuel tax, California has another significant cost component: carbon-emission charges.
State law also allows the fuel tax to increase automatically with inflation, causing the tax burden to rise over time.
Because carbon emissions are difficult to tax directly, California incorporates many of its carbon-reduction costs into the price of gasoline, effectively passing those costs on to consumers whenever they fill their tanks.
In addition to these charges, motorists also pay standard sales taxes and various local taxes.
According to the speaker, the policy objective is clear: California has long sought to reduce the use of fossil fuels and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles. Raising the cost of driving gasoline-powered vehicles is viewed as one way of encouraging that transition.
In other words, higher gasoline prices are intended, at least in part, to serve as a public policy tool.
This raises another important question:
Are gasoline-powered vehicles used only by higher-income households?
Not necessarily.
The speaker argues that rising gasoline prices often place the greatest burden on lower-income families.
Higher-income households may own both gasoline-powered and electric vehicles and can choose whichever best suits their needs. Lower-income households, however, often rely on older, less expensive gasoline-powered cars and therefore bear a disproportionate share of rising fuel costs.
From this perspective, the speaker describes high gasoline taxes as a form of "hidden taxation."
Some have also questioned whether California's carbon revenues ultimately flow into international carbon markets or even to China.
The speaker says the answer is no.
Most carbon-related revenue remains within California and is not sent directly to international carbon organizations or to China.
As of 2026, California's carbon-related funds have accumulated more than $30 billion.
By law, at least 35% of these funds must be invested in disadvantaged communities, while the remaining allocations are determined by the state legislature and the governor.
The Speaker's Commentary on California's Policies
The speaker characterizes this approach as representative of what he views as California's progressive governing philosophy.
In his view, the government collects substantial tax revenue from the public, pools those funds into large programs, and then determines how the money will be distributed.
Funding supports initiatives such as carbon-reduction projects, high-speed rail, affordable housing, sustainable community development, electric buses, electric vehicle incentives, and solar energy programs.
However, the speaker argues that California's high-speed rail project has experienced significant delays and cost overruns, while some subsidy programs have produced disappointing results and may have become vehicles for political favoritism.
As a result, he contends that contractors, developers, and certain interest groups often benefit the most, while ordinary working families—particularly those with lower incomes who rely on their vehicles every day—bear much of the financial burden.
From the speaker's perspective, these policies increase the everyday cost of living in order to advance particular policy objectives.
At the same time, he acknowledges that these policies were enacted through California's lawful legislative process.
Part 2 – Key Takeaways
Although crude oil prices have declined, retail gasoline prices require time to fully reflect lower wholesale costs.
California's high gasoline prices are influenced by state taxes, carbon-emission policies, and environmental regulations.
The speaker argues that higher fuel prices are being used as a policy tool to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles.
He believes the greatest financial burden falls on lower-income households, effectively creating a "hidden tax."
California's carbon-reduction fund has accumulated more than $30 billion, with at least 35% legally designated for disadvantaged communities.
The speaker questions the efficiency and accountability of certain publicly funded projects and encourages continued public discussion regarding how these resources are allocated.
Scripture for Reflection
Proverbs 29:4
"By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down." (NIV)

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

【非童凡響】：川普再獲最高法院勝利，近百年來最大的總統擴權；喊話美國油商必須降低汽油價格，否則後果自負。馬斯克高調反共，一個共產黨的存在都嫌多！【非童凡響】：2026.6.30.

https://t.co/LtxEap86yP

美國油商必須降低汽油價格（第二部分）

加州汽油為何特別昂貴？

談到這裡，很多���會問：加州到底發生了什麼事？為什麼全美各州之中，加州的汽油價格始終居高不下？

大家都知道，汽油零售價格首先受到國際原油價格影響。前一段時間原油價格確實偏高，而汽油從原油開採、煉製、運輸，到稅金與季節性需求，都需要時間反映到零售市場。因此，油價並不是零售商今天買便宜原油，明天就能立刻降價。

不過，川普仍然選擇公開向零售商施壓，要求他們盡快反映成本下降。

目前國際原油價格已回落到每桶約 67 至 68 美元，但部分煉油商與零售商可能因前一波高成本而出現虧損，因此希望利用目前的價格調整，把之前的損失補回來。

當然，聯邦政府仍有權調查最終零售價格是否合理。如果有必要，業者必須公開成本結構，接受政府檢視。

整體而言，汽油價格確實正朝下降方向發展，只是若要迅速降到川普所說的每加侖 2.5 美元，恐怕仍需要一段時間，尤其像加州這種早已將高額稅負附加在汽油價格上的州，更不可能短時間內大幅下降。

川普擅長用非常簡短的一句話，凸顯問題的荒謬之處。

他的意思其實是：加州政府加在汽油上的各種稅費，幾乎已經接近、甚至逼近汽油本身的成本。

一般而言，政府課稅應該是在合理範圍內。例如，一件商品售價十美元，課徵百分之七的交易稅，大多數人都能接受。

但如果政府課徵百分之百的稅，不論理由為何，都很難令人認為合理。

然而，若以目前加州平均每加侖五美元以上的汽油價格來看，是否大部分都是稅金？
其實也不是。

目前加州每加侖汽油，大約有接近一美元屬於州政府額外課徵的各種費用，包括州燃料稅、碳排放相關費用、地下儲槽管理費等。其中相當大一部分，都與推動綠能政策有關。

此外，每賣出一加侖汽油，還需要支付加油站營運、人事與物流等成本。

真正從原油煉製成汽油的成本，可能僅約一美元左右。

因此，川普認為：「汽油本身的價值，幾乎已經快被各種政府課稅超過。」這樣的說法，並非完全沒有根據。

加州碳排政策如何推高油價？

除了燃料稅之外，加州還有一項特殊制度，就是碳排放費用。

加州法律甚至規定，燃料稅會依照通貨膨脹率自動調整，因此稅負會逐年增加。
另一方面，由於碳排���本身不容易直接課稅，因此政府將減碳成本轉嫁到汽油價格上，使消費者在加油時一併承擔。

除此之外，還有一般銷售稅與地方政府課徵的其他稅費。

其背後政策目標十分明確：加州政府長期希望降低石化燃料使用，加速推廣電動車，因此透過提高使用汽油的成本，引導民眾改用電動車。

換句話說，提高汽油價格，本身就是政策工具之一。

然而，這也帶來另一個值得討論的問題。

使用汽油車的人，真的都是高收入族群嗎？

未必。

真正受到高油價影響最大的，往往是低收入家庭。

收入較高的人，可能同時擁有汽油車與電動車，可以依需要自由選擇；但收入較低的人，往往只能購買價格較低的二手汽油車，因此反而必須長期承受高油價帶來的負擔。

從這個角度來看，高額汽油稅實際上形成了一種「隱形稅」。

有人甚至質疑：這些碳排放收入，是否會流向國際碳權市場，甚至流入中國？
主持人認為，答案是否定的。

目前加州碳排放收入，絕大部分仍���在州內使用，並沒有直接交給國際碳權機構，更不是直接流向中國。

截至 2026 年，加州透過相關制度所累積的基金已超過三百億美元。

依法，其中至少百分之三十五必須用於弱勢社區。至於其餘資金如何分配，則由州議會與州長共同決定。

主持人對加州政策的評論

主持人認為，這正是加州左派政策的典型思維。

政府先向大多數民眾收取高額稅金，再集中成龐大的基金，最後由政府決定如何分配。

部分資金被用於減碳計畫、高速鐵路、可負擔住宅、永續社區建設，以及補助電動公車、電動車和太陽能設備等項目。

然而，主持人質疑，高鐵工程多年來嚴重延宕、成本持續超支，而部分補助計畫也被認為效率不彰，甚至可能淪為政治利益分配。

因此，他認為，真正受益者往往是承包商、開發商及部分利益團體，而真正承擔成本的，卻是每天需要開車上下班的一般民眾，尤其是低收入家庭。

在他的觀點中，這種政策是透過提高一般人的生活成本，來支持特定的政策理念。

當然，他也承認，這些措��畢竟屬於州政府依法制定的政策。

第二部分重點

國際油價下降後，零售汽油價格仍需時間反映市場成本。
加州高油價主要來自多重州稅、碳排放制度及環保政策。
加州將提高汽油成本作為推廣電動車的重要政策工具。
主持人認為，高油價對低收入族群衝擊最大，形成一種隱形稅。
加州碳排基金累積超過三百億美元，依法部分須投入弱勢社區，其餘由州政府決定用途。
主持人批評部分公共建設與補助計畫效率不佳，認為資源分配值得檢討。

箴言 29:4：「王藉公平使國堅定；索要賄賂的，使國傾敗。」

[Emily Loon @FearLoveGod]

Trump Wins Another Supreme Court Victory: The Biggest Expansion of Presidential Power in Nearly a Century | Calls on U.S. Oil Companies to Lower Gas Prices | Musk Speaks Out Strongly Against Communism 【非童凡響Beyond the Ordinary】：2026.6.30.
Video: https://t.co/LtxEap86yP
A Historic Triumph: The Supreme Court and the New Era of Executive Leadership

President Trump’s Decisive Call to Action for Energy Retailers and the Growing Movement for Freedom

Special Briefing · Part I

Dear Friends,
Welcome, and thank you for tuning into Beyond Common Sense. It is a privilege to have you with us as we gather to reflect on and analyze the defining events shaping our nation and the world.
Today is June 30, 2026. Tomorrow, as we welcome the first of July, President Trump will attend the grand opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. Among the four towering leaders immortalized on Mount Rushmore, Theodore Roosevelt stands uniquely as the sole representative of the twentieth century. He earned his place on that sacred monument because of his boundless vision and transformative contributions to American modernization. He was, without a doubt, the pivotal architect who guided America into the modern era.
History often rhymes in fascinating ways. In today’s discussion, we will draw inspiration not only from Theodore Roosevelt but also explore the enduring legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our focus centers on three deeply impactful developments that touch our daily lives:
Global Energy and Everyday Affordability: We examine the current state of international oil markets, focusing specifically on California's gasoline prices and the relief that consumers rightfully deserve.
A Landmark Supreme Court Ruling: We break down the High Court’s historic decision redefining the boundaries of executive authority for the first time in nearly a century—a ruling that President Trump has met with immense satisfaction.
The Modern Vanguard for Liberty: We explore the powerful cultural shift led by President Trump and tech visionary Elon Musk, who recently reaffirmed that communism remains one of history's most tragic ideologies. By sharing archival footage of Senator Joseph McCarthy's landmark 1950s addresses, Musk has reignited an essential conversation about safeguarding freedom.
We will delve into each of these compelling stories as we move forward.
Dawn over the Desert: The Diplomatic Horizon in Iran
Let us begin by turning our attention to Iran, a nation whose domestic shifts heavily influence the pulse of global energy markets.
Following recent constructive diplomatic engagements in Switzerland between American and Iranian representatives, Iran has taken a proactive step forward. They have requested a new round of high-level talks to be hosted in Doha, Qatar. Doha has long served as a premier global stage for international diplomacy, famously serving as the cradle for the World Trade Organization’s historic "Doha Round."
While many seasoned observers remain understandably skeptical, viewing the Iranian question as an unresolved challenge, a broader perspective reveals a heartening trend. As both sides deliberately align their dialogue toward shared regional interests, the path forward is becoming increasingly clear.
The decisive turning point occurred earlier this year, on February 28, following precise, coordinated military measures by the United States and Israel. Those actions effectively brought an end to the threat of large-scale military conflict. The true strategic shift was achieved on that very day; the subsequent negotiations—whether they conclude swiftly or require patient endurance—represent the necessary diplomatic wrap-up. Renewable, major kinetic conflict remains highly unlikely.
True international diplomacy operates much like a marathon. It requires steady, iterative dialogue to bridge divides. Wise statesmen secure consensus on foundational, straightforward agreements first, isolating the most sensitive, complex issues for systematic breakthroughs later.
Progress of this magnitude demands humility. We must recognize that Iran’s internal governance and societal evolution cannot be transformed overnight. These remain the sovereign affairs of the Iranian people. Direct external intervention by the United States or Israel risks triggering defensive nationalist sentiments, which can cloud rational discourse.
If we genuinely hope for a peaceful, enduring transformation within Iran, the most viable path relies on the global private sector. Cultivating civic partnerships, fostering commercial investments, and promoting mutually beneficial economic ties can gently enrich Iranian society. By introducing economic vitality, we provide the Iranian people with the tools to naturally embrace modernization, openness, and liberty.
Though the journey ahead remains long, we can draw encouragement from the visible signs of progress.
This outlook beautifully mirrors the perspective shared by Vice President J.D. Vance, who recently offered a message of strategic grace: "Should we not afford Iran the opportunity to embrace meaningful change?"
Naturally, critics point to history and argue that such regimes seldom honor their commitments. Yet, we must remember that keeping the door open to diplomacy does not mean letting our guard down. America's formidable defense and deterrent capabilities remain fully intact. Choosing to give peace and diplomatic dialogue every opportunity to succeed before resorting to ultimate measures is a hallmark of profound wisdom and statesmanship.
American decision-makers are acutely aware of these historical risks. Pursuing dialogue is not a sign of naiveté; it is a calculated, sophisticated component of a grander strategy.
Restoring Prosperity: The Push for Fair Prices at the Pump
Simultaneously, the energy market volatility sparked by earlier geopolitical friction is finally subsiding, revealing that much of the price surge was driven by speculative market trading. International crude oil has now eased to approximately $69 per barrel and continues its steady downward trajectory—falling below the price levels seen before the resumption of the nuclear talks.
A Firm Stance on Civic Well-being:
Because global crude costs have significantly decreased, everyday retail gasoline prices must immediately reflect this relief. The hard-earned savings from a stabilizing global market belong in the pockets of working families, and artificial price inflation will not be tolerated.
President Trump addressed this issue directly on social media, pointing out that California families are facing the most severe burdens. He noted that despite crude oil trading near $68 a barrel, retail prices at the pump remain unjustifiably high. In response, he has encouraged citizens to remain vigilant and report instances of unfair pricing or market manipulation.
"Do not mistake this for a casual observation; the time for energy retailers to do the right thing is now," President Trump emphasized during a recent press briefing from the Oval Office. He made it clear that manipulating consumer prices undermines both economic fairness and the rule of law, warning that non-compliance would bring serious regulatory scrutiny.
Based on current market fundamentals, a realistic and fair target for retail gasoline should sit closer to $2.50 per gallon. Beyond calling on energy retailers to adjust their margins, President Trump urged California's state leadership to reconsider its exceptionally high fuel taxes, which often surpass the baseline value of the fuel itself.
He offered a powerful word of encouragement to the public: American consumers should not have to quietly bear an unsustainable financial load, and citizens possess every right to advocate for tax structures that respect their livelihoods.
💡 Key Takeaways from Part I
A Shared Global Vision: This briefing highlights three pillars of our current era—protecting consumer livelihoods, entering a historic chapter for executive governance under the Constitution, and championing the enduring principles of human freedom.
The Promise of Diplomacy: Strategic analysis indicates that the conflict with Iran has successfully transitioned into a diplomatic phase, closing the chapter on large-scale military engagements.
The Wisdom of Patience: Vice President J.D. Vance advocates for utilizing diplomatic avenues to their fullest extent, demonstrating that a confident nation can pursue peace without ever compromising its strength.
Championing the Consumer: Leadership is taking a definitive stand against inflated energy costs, actively calling for lower prices at the pump and meaningful tax relief for everyday citizens.
【 A Moment of Reflection and Blessing 】
1 Timothy 2:1–2: "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."
May you carry a spirit of hope, resilience, and peace in these dynamic times.