Abraham Hamilton III: Darkness is not an affirmative force. It simply reoccupies the space vacated by the light.

Abraham Hamilton III: This is the, Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: It should be uncomfortable for a believer to live as a hypocrite, delivering people.

Abraham Hamilton III: Out of the bondage of mainstream media and the philosophies of this world.

Abraham Hamilton III: God has called you and me to be his ambassadors even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment.

Abraham Hamilton III: And now, the Hamilton Corner.

Abraham Hamilton III: Good evening. Welcome to the Hamilton Corner. I'm your host, Abraham Hamilton iii, joined by the Corner contingent. We have a full house today as we are a few days away from celebrating the 249th year of our independence from Great Britain. The reason why I don't have to know anything about any royal families. I'm not worrying about the Duchess and the Dukes and the, the, the princes and the pukes and you name them, I'm about him. Praise be to God for the United States of America and his sovereignty and allowing our nation to come to the fore really of its establishment and also in a short time really to ascend to the dominant nation in the world. It's amazing how remarkable. Let me. It's amazing and remarkable that that happened in such a short amount of time. We, we, we still remain a relatively young nation when you consider the, the, the longevity of nations around the world. But yet God's hand has been on our nation for quite some time. But I, do question whether or not our people, one, recognize that, two, value it, and three, whether or not it will be an enduring phenomenon going forward. At this very moment, many of you, if not most of you, are making your transition from your part time jobs where you generate an income to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to remind you to do so with intentionality, understanding the primacy that God places on the family. We're actually going to talk about that a little bit in this segment. And allowing the primacy that God places on family to guide your engagement in daily living. I am joined, as is our custom here, by the corner contingent I mentioned, right across from me, my man, 100 grand. Mr. Bobby Rosa, producer extraordinaire in the screening room. Often imitated, never duplicated. The real J. Mac and your friendly neighborhood with a holic. You ask him how he's doing. Fairly Partly cloudy with a slight chance of brain. Marty Sparks, ladies and gentlemen. Lighten up the dark from there because I will tell you now that we're going to open the phone lines in the third segment. So get your dialing fingers ready because I want to have a conversation with you and as we go through the program, I want to get your reaction. Primarily, we're going to talk about some of these Supreme Court decisions that have been rendered recently and inquire as to what do they say about the state of our nation. Additionally, what do they say about the state of the church? I want to welcome you to weigh in on that in the third segment. But as I've mentioned earlier, you're making your transition, most of you at this juncture, although I know we have some doing it in opposite direction. Some people are on their way to their part time jobs. And no matter how you are tuning in and engaging the program, we thank you for doing so. Our podcast listeners, our live radio listeners, our live video streamers, our television show watchers, no matter how you're tuning in, we are grateful for you doing so. Because the simple reality is without your engagement and support, there would be no program. And it is, because you enjoy the show that, that we continue to offer it to you. I want to remind you that what we try to accomplish, and I do know some days I feel like we are more effective than others, is to aid you in establishing a biblical framework through which we navigate the issues of the day. We don't want to try to engage in today's, matters, but to do so severed from the truth of God's word. And I know some of you are listening to the show or tuning into the show right now. You would say, well, Abraham, I don't share your biblical conviction, but I think what you say makes a lot of sense that I can tell you. It happens so often as I travel, meet people, it'll. Many conversations will begin. Man, I couldn't stand you when I first heard you on the radio, but I kept listening. Then after a while I started realizing, man, you make a little bit of sense. Then after a while I realized you made a lot of sense. That happens so often. So if you are in that ilk, right now you're saying, oh, here he goes, I can't stand him. Well, keep listening. Invite you to keep listening to the word of God. We go, we're going to begin the program in Ephesians, chapter 5. Ephesians, chapter 5. Many of you have perused this scripture. For some of you, this will be your first time hearing this. but I want to point out something to you from God's word. Ephesians, chapter five, verse 22. And we read all the way to verse 26. Then I'm going to read. In chapter six of Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, the Scripture says this, wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her so that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word. I've explained to you before, Starting in verse 22, it appears to be a command to wives solely, but it's not because of the Greek term employed hupostaso when it says wives, be subject to your own husbands. The term hupo staso, which is translated in the NESB 95 that I'm reading now as be subject to some translations say submit yourselves. That word literally means this. Hupostaso is translated into the English compound word sub, mission or sub, and meter, sub meaning under meter, M, M, I, T, R, E, meaning vision. The call for wives to submit themselves to their husbands is not a calling to subjugate oneself to biology. It is a calling to voluntarily invest yourself in the vision for your family. So what is being articulated is that the Lord is saying, through the apostle Paul, for men to be biblically qualified for marriage. And I know there are lots of examples and circumstances that derogate from this. But with the Scriptures explaining for men to be biblically qualified to be joined to a wife, that man must have a vision for the family he seeks to to found and must be affirmatively taking steps toward it. The other thing I want to say is that the term hupo staso is a military term, and it's one that communicates a voluntary submission. It cannot be be compelled externally. It is in an internal disposition that's made evident in one's conduct. Next thing I will say is that the call to this voluntary hupo staso is not a generalized call of males, I'm sorry, females being submitted to males. It is a covenantal one, which is why the Scripture says, wise, be subject to your own husbands. It is a covenantal context, all right? There's no need for a woman to be subject to some other man. It's no need for a woman who is a wife to one man to be a suitable helper for someone other than her husband. It is a covenantal reality. But notice the object always is as to the Lord. You then see verse 26, the command to husbands to love your wives. The command to husbands to love their wives is not merely an emotional investment. It actually is, a call to voluntary, willing, self sacrificial love. It requires husbands to live in such a way with our wives. To where? Iowa. Our wives know on a daily basis that we will lay our lives down for for them. So often we have people who abuse this text and use it as if God is allowing men to be, you know, machismo and me man chest pounding. It's actually a call to die. It's a call to be the type of house band to where nobody is taking bullets. We're taking bullets for everybody under our jurisdiction within our care. This reciprocal interchange between husbands and wives is the only human institution in scripture that the Lord continuously allows to be illustrative of Christ and the Church. The only one. It's the only one. This is why I've said before, there's such intense and outsized warfare against the imago DEI image bearers as individuals. So much warfare against marriage, so much warfare against husbands and wives. That's why there's such intense warfare. Similarly, in this exact same Epistle, as the Spirit of God is moving the Apostle Paul to close the Epistle, you have this command. And I'll explain why I'm saying these are Commands. Ephesians chapter 6, verse 4. The Scripture says within the exact same context I just illustrated where Christ is the object. Wives engagement and participation in marriage is as unto the Lord. Husband's engagement and participation in marriage is as unto the Lord. Ephesians 6:4 says, Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Some translations render that phrasing the nurture and admonition of the Lord, similar to Ephesians 5:22. When I said that the command in 5:22, it's addressing wives directly, but it's also an intrinsic instruction to males, specifically to husbands, prospective husbands and husbands. This instruction is a command to fathers as being ultimately accountable, but it is not limited to fathers as simply saying, fathers, you are ultimately responsible for this being executed. Very similar to the command in the garden concerning the tree in the center of the garden, applied to both Adam and Eve equally, but Adam was ultimately held responsible for the violation. Everybody with me? All right? When the Scripture says, fathers, do not provoke your children, it's a command to fathers that's ultimately responsible. But God is not subject to the Deficiencies of one Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. God is not one who is ignorant of the notion that in order for there to be a father, you have to have a mother. In order for there to be a father, it by necessity requires a mother's participation. So the instruction, the command is to fathers and mothers, but with fathers ultimately responsible for the implementation and execution of the command. All right, makes sense. Fathers, do not provoke your children. Rather, in contrast to that provocation, rear them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. The paideia and anothesia of the Lord. The word paideia literally means the whole training of the mind and the morals. The whole training. The Scripture is indicating, not indicating. It's commanding. Fathers, this is your responsibility. Fathers. You, with the participation of your wives, the mother of your children, you are responsible for this coming into fruition. I've explained that this is a command. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. The first half is written in Greek in the indicative mood, indicating who we are. The second half is written in the imperative mood. These are commands. This is not optional. It's not optional. This is ground zero, foundational. This is one of the major reasons why I say the first institution that God created was the family with marriage at the center. Why did God create the family as his first institution with marriage at the center? Because it is the primary institution that is vested with the obligation of generational fidelity to the King of glory. It doesn't mean we can't have others who aid us. But if those, if we have people aid us, it doesn't take away from us that it's our primary responsibility. But what has largely happened there has been almost like a sooth saying, seduction. And in society to where our children being reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord has been made a secondary phenomenon. In practice, we've allowed the popular ideas of education to be degraded to the fact or degraded to the place to where we only see education as being directly related to occupations. Can I tell you something? The idea of education being tied to a future occupation comes straight from, wait for it, the Karl Marx, Frederick Engels understanding. biblically speaking, the objective of paideia is the whole training of the mind and the morals making one fit to function within God's economy. Others have articulated as the objective of instruction. We call it education, but it really is cultivation of the mind. But biblically, the mind should never be cultivated in the absence of the morals being cultivated. Others have opined that it is the establishment or the cultivation or the rearing towards virtue. But we don't often recognize just how much worldly, dare I say, antichrist drivel we have imbibed and made normal. So much so where it's strange to us to ponder. Wait a minute. Education. It shouldn't be something driving towards some occupation. A, discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.

Joseph Parker: First John, chapter one, beginning at verse one. That which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled. Concerning the word of life, the life was manifested. And we have seen and bear witness and declared to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us. That which we have seen and heard. We declare to you that you also may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his son, Jesus Christ. In these things. We write to you that your joy may be full. This is the message which we have heard from him and declare to you that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have no fellowship with him, we walk in darkness. We lie and do not practice the truth.

Abraham Hamilton III: Shining light into the darkness. This is the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. And some of y' all recognize. I forgot to add in. Some folks prefer. Some folks prefer their jams or preserves in a jar. Well, you take what you want, but I'll stay with Double R. Reed Ritter's in the studio with us, ladies and gentlemen. Y' all thought I forgot about it. Well, I did, but I got it back. I got it back. All right, so the U.S. supreme Court has made several decisions, and I do want to weigh into the substance and the merit of the decisions, But I want to extrapolate from the decisions to have a broader conversation. the first of which, and I mentioned when this happened, all of these decisions were six, three. How you could have three, dissenters from these historically foundationally normative decisions is just. It's indicative as to where we are. So the first one that I alluded to was, decided. Well, all of these were decided last week. The one. The first one was decided the week before last. The Scarmetti case. All right, this is the case that came from Tennessee. We've talked about this at length. It's a very, very simple notion that was addressed. In that case. The state of Tennessee passed, a law via its legislature. The governor signed the law, signed the past the bill. The governor signed the bill into law that simply said that minors in the state of Tennessee cannot be subject, subjected to chemically castrating drugs nor genital mutilation surgeries in the name of transgenderism. That's it. That's it. The 6:3 decision. The court ruled. Yeah, right. Bobby's laughing because it is gallingly sad. But you can see this repeated notion that you have people who are willing to engage in all types of sinful behavior, but they are more than willing to sacrifice children in the process of them pursuing what they want. This is no different guys, than the biblical examples of sacrifices to Molech and others. Some of the un, some of the seedy details of, you know, baal, ah, Molech worship. And what you'll find is that really they all worship the same demon, but they have different names based on what nations they were in. One of the features is that these pagan worship rites included shrine and temple prostitution. No different than prostitution in the 15th century, 16th century, 17th century, 18th century, 19th century. One of the inevitable consequences of prostitution has been children who are produced. But because of the pursuits being, whether they are prurient, carnal pursuits in terms of the physicality or economic pursuits, they're willing to kill children in furtherance of them. The same rings true today. So now you had people who are making these arguments. I told you guys that a woman who calls herself a man, who identifies herself by the name of Chase Strangio argued from the posture that a 2 year old can know if they happen to be born in the wrong body and what society should do. And the believer, most importantly is evaluate that in light of the truth of God's word and in light of the truth of scripture. are we really willing to say that 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 year olds, 10 year olds, 11 year olds, they know enough to make these in many cases permanent irreversible decisions. Permanent irreversible decisions. Guys, there's a reason why we don't allow children to get driver's license to certain ages. There's a reason why we have more scrutiny, concerning people getting tattoos on their bodies than we would have if Tennessee's law wasn't passed and ultimately sustained concerning children and what they do in mutilating their bodies. You know, our wicked culture has all of these, you know, Alphabet mafia zealots, but they won't centralize the scores, the many, many, many thousands and millions of people will say, man, yeah, I tried that and I regret it. I regret it. They won't ever put them front and center. At a minimum, as a society we should be able to say, you know, we probably shouldn't let this happen to children. You know, a 12 year old girl going through what they've identified as rapid onset gender dysphoria. What's another synonym from your experience? You're listening to me. Many of you, most like me, I'm homeschooling my children, but I wasn't homeschooled. You're listening to me. What's another description for rapid onset gender dysphoria which the studies show is only seems to be hindering young preteen and early teenage girls? What do you call that? I'll give you a hint. Have you ever been in a place where you have one early teen, preteen or teenage girl and they say, I have to go to the bathroom. What happens next? Usually, often they all go to the bathroom together. One says, I gotta go to the bathroom. You have to go to the bathroom? Yeah, I have to go to the bathroom. Girl, you have to go to the bathroom? Yeah, we have to go to the bathroom. So one person becomes five girls, young girls, all going to the bathroom together. Yet we, I don't know what's going on. Rapid onset gender. Society has been pumping these ideas. You know, you follow the matriculation of toward third wave feminism. You know, women are just as good as any woman, is just as good as a man. A, woman doesn't need a man. The best women are men. You see that? You see that happening. So you have these impressionable young girls who are now saying, yeah, and to further my commitment here, I want to cut off my very natural, fully functioning mammary glands. You gonna let children do that? It's insane. Gratefully, we currently have a supreme Court that would, affirm a state's ability to do so. But let me explain something else though. The Supreme Court made the decision that said, yes, that Tennessee can protect their minor citizens. And also articulating in any state that endeavors to do likewise, they can also protect their minor citizens. But we must not forget there are states that are not interested in protecting their modern citizens from this craziness. States like Minnesota, where they want to do the exact opposite. They want to rescue children. That's what they say, rescue children from their parents. Bigotry. So thankfully, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ability to protect its minor citizens. But that doesn't do anything for children who don't live in those states, don't live in Tennessee in states that are willing to protect children from that. What about those states? What about those circumstances Then you have talked to you about this case before it finally, we finally got a decision on it. This was released Friday, last week. The case is styled Mahmoud versus Taylor. This is the case from the Montgomery County School District in Maryland. And I'll just, I've explained it before but I want to remind you some of the details. I'll read to you some of the facts directly from Justice Thomas's dissent, which he gives us a little historical assessment. But it's amazing to consider that this is what parents had to put up with. Right? Families have to put up with this from their own governments. Justice Thomas writing, quote, the board of Education of Montgomery county adopted a series of controversial LGBTQ inclusive storybooks for use in its Pre kindergarten through 5th grade English language arts curriculum. Now let's just pause and reflect on that. The Montgomery county school board adopted books for its English language arts curriculum for pre kindergarten children through fifth grade. You understand me. You are literally talking about four year olds, maybe three year olds in some instances, but let's just say four year olds up to 10 and 11 year olds. That is who we're talking about. All right, three and four year olds, potentially up to 10 and 11 year olds. All right, back to Justice Thomas's concurrence. Hundreds of parents raised religious objections and sought to use the board's then existing opt out policy to exclude their children from lessons involving these books. The board responded by removing the opt out option and then even refused to provide parents with notice of, of when schools would use the material. End quote. Now think about this guys. Pre kindergartners to 5th grade, 4 year olds to 10 and 11 year olds. The county used to have an opt out provision. Then the county said nah, we ain't letting anybody opt out anymore. And not only that, you can't opt out and we, we won't give you notice, parents of when we gonna use these books. And in the case, and I'll show you some of it, there's an appendix that shows ah, the books that were at issue in the case. Diabolical. People have been up in arms, rightly so. About Zoram Dani, the Democrat nominee for New York mayor and his idea amongst he's a communist based on his policies, no doubt about it. And his ideas about government run grocery stores. Right? Government, government run grocery stores. People like, well government, government run grocery stores. That'll be terrible. But, but, but we're cool with government run schools. We'll let that percolate in. The Montgomery county school district was saying, parents, we don't care what you Think you send your children over here, this is what we will teach them. And you can't opt out. And we won't even give you notice of when we're going to teach them this stuff. And you'll see why in a few moments. Back to Justice Thomas's concurrence. Quote, parents sued arguing that the board's new no opt out policy violates their first amendment rights. The court correctly holds that the policy contravenes parents free exercise right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. So I want you to see what, understand what's happening there. Most parents send their children to school because they want them to learn reading, writing, arithmetic. They don't want them indoctrinated concerning sexuality. When, when parents objected, the school said no, no, we're not gonna let you opt out. Oh no, no, no, no, no, we gotta let you opt out. And we'll do this whenever we choose to. You won't give you any notice. Well, in addressing this, Justice Thomas went on a little walk down memory lane and say, hey, you do realize that the whole idea of, you know, sex ed education, that wasn't anything that existed in schools until the 1970s. Do we realize that there are things that we just accept as normalized that historically haven't been a part of what we've done? They said if general health communications about sexuality is a recent invention that has been utilized in schools, we certainly have no long history of gender studies being foisted upon elementary school children pre kindergartners through fifth grade. Then he goes in for the boom. Justice Thomas, on page four of his concurrence, quote, instead of incorporating materials focused on health and reproduction, for example, the board chose the storybooks. Listen to this guys. The board chose the storybooks based on factors such as whether they reinforce or disrupted heteronormativity, CIS normativity and power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture. End quote. Time out. Flag on the plate. Did you know that's how the Montgomery County School board decided which books they would include in this English language arts curriculum? Do you guys remember when I told showed you the quote from John J. Dunphy and, and, and John Dewey and Harvard, Howard Pierce, Chester Pierce. I'm sorry, Howard man. And others showing that this has been a long plan. And John J. Duffy said it doesn't matter what the subject is. It doesn't matter what age or what level of education, but what we must continue to assert is the agenda. Did you know that 4 and 4 and 5 year olds up to 10 and 11 year olds were having English language curriculum books chosen specifically based on whether they, quote, reinforce or disrupted heteronormativity, CIS normativity and power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture. Justice Thomas goes on quote, the board further provided teachers with guidance about how to conduct LGBTQ+ inclusive instruction, which among other things suggested that suggested that teachers should disrupt their students either or thinking about sexuality and gender, end quote. Now, at the exact same time with Justice Thomas's is explaining these facts, you have liars arguing, oh, just because information is presented doesn't mean the children are intended to believe it. Now take that back to what we talked about in the first segment. What did God say parents are supposed to do? Fathers and mothers were to do what? Rear children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the discipline and instruction of the Lord. But you literally have the government in this instance the Montgomery County School Board saying no, you parents want to do what the Scripture says you should do with your children. We want to disrupt that and interrupt it. We rightly object to Zoram Hamdani's presentation of government run government owned grocery stores, but we don't have anywhere near the same scrutiny for government run government owned education systems. Why such a discrepancy? Could it be that Zora Momdani is being objected to today? But a time is in. There's a time in America's future when the idea of government owned and government run grocery stores will get a collective shrug from the American society. My purpose in explaining this now is to highlight for us how much wickedness we have already embraced and normalized.

Jeff Chamblee: Washington Watch with Tony Perkins. You look at three of the four justices there in Colorado that voted to remove him from the ballot. They all came from Ivy League schools, schools that had been created as divinity schools. What a picture of the apostasy in America when it comes to the church. Stay Informed with Tony Perkins and his guests on Washington Watch weekdays at 4:00pm Central on AFR or catch up anytime with the podcast at, afr.uh.net hello.

Dr. Jessica Peck: My name is Andy Miller and I'm the president of Wesley Biblical Seminary based in Ridgeland, Mississippi. We are developing trusted leaders for faithful churches and we do that based on the authority of Scripture and in the reality that Christians can be transformed. We do that also through bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees. We'd love for you to learn more about Wesley Biblical Seminary at wbs Edu, where we're developing trusted leaders for faithful.

Abraham Hamilton III: Churches.

Abraham Hamilton III: The Hamilton quarter podcast and one minute commentaries are available at afr.net back to the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. The number to call if you want to join the program is 888-589-8840. That number again is 888-1589-8840. Simply put, I'd like to have a conversation to you with you, I'm sorry, concerning, your reaction to these Supreme Court cases and what I'm driving towards with this. Similar to Skermetti, thanks be to God that we have a Supreme Court that ruled six to three that the Montgomery county school board does not have the lawful authority to intrude upon the parental province and indoctrinate. I'm going to continue to say this. Pre kindergartners to fifth graders with LGBT propaganda, transgender insanity. You know, in the opinion, if you're watching the show, here's in the appendix for the opinion. They included some excerpts from the books. And again, these people are arguing, yeah, just because the information is presented, it won't be believed by the children. When you have teachers presenting this stuff with the instruction that you need to disrupt the child's either or mentality concerning guys, it's wicked. But here's what I want you to consider. What would happen if the decision was 5 to 4 in the other direction? Our society, guys, is hanging on by the thread if that type of insanity. First of all, someone would have the audacity to file a lawsuit to say, yeah, I have the. I have the authority to refuse to allow you to opt your children out of this sexual confusion indoctrination, and you can't do nothing about it. And to have the district court rule against the parents, the appellate court ruled against the parents. How long? How long? Remember prior to Roe versus Wade being passed, abortion was not popular in America. The lie was passed as law. 50 years now you have scores of younger generation of Americans, especially women, who literally believe that there is a constitutional right to kill their own children. The same thing. Prior to obergefell being decided, 31 states amended, their state constitutions or passed legislation to recognize that marriage is the exclusive union of a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. Following Obergefell. Have you seen our country lately? You literally have. In this instance, the local government in Maryland, in Montgomery county, working against, parents and families, using the full apparatus of government and tax dollars to usurp and undermine what God commands of parents. What does that say about the state of our nation? When George Washington said that religion and morality are indispensable supports to our constitutional republican form of government, meaning it can't sustain, can't be sustained without it. But, what's going on in our nation? What's going on in our churches? To as still to this day the issue that provokes all manner of backlash. Sexuality. You have another case and we're going to get to the phone lines. The number again is 888-589-8840. You had several cases within with district courts attempting to basically usurp President Trump's authority. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. And this, this would be funny if it wasn't serious. Another 6, 3 decision and the ultimate conclusion from the case was district courts. You can't issue these nationwide injunctions consistently. You're upsetting the separation of powers that our Constitution affords. The American people elected the president, and they elected the president to do that, to do the job that the Constitution outlines. Again, Justice Barrett, Amy Coney Barrett wrote this majority opinion and she says this is from page 21 of the opinion. Quote, the principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain like the, like the Judiciary act of 1789, and our case is on equity. Justice Jackson, however, chose a startling line of attack that is tethered. Tethered neither to these sources nor frankly any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away. And this is what I want you to consider. Waving. Waving away. Attention to the limits on judicial power. As a mind numbingly technical query, she offers a vision. Turn the page. She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. What is Justice Barrett saying? Justice Katanji Brown. Jackson doesn't have any discernible constitutional interpretive method in her vision. The president. Not supreme. The court is supreme. We've exchanged, based on the founding articulation, we've exchanged a monarchical tyranny for an oligarchal tyranny for lawyers in black dresses. Back to the opinion. Justice. Justice Baird is right. She said, quote, in her telling, Justice Jackson is telling, the fundamental role of courts is to order everyone to order everyone. She literally, Justice Barrett said that Justice Jackson waved away attention, you know, to the limits on judicial power. I mean, the judiciary is limited fully on that. Who says the judiciary has limits? I remember reading this thing one time. The initial draft was finished in 1787. Oh, yeah, it's called the Constitution. But the Justice Jackson, as Justice Baird is explaining it, she relegates the constitutional separate separation of powers to a, quote, mind numbingly technical query. Let me Translate that. Y' all know I translate legalese. You know, just recently had the no Kings rally. We here in America, we have no kings. Justice Brown, Ketanji, Brown, Jackson. Yeah, we have no kings. We have a judiciary. Justice Barrett went on. And this. You want to talk about a letter bomb? Justice Barrett says this, and this really is the. The line from her opinion, quote, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries imperial. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. End quote. This woman's rulings. This is Justice Barrett is saying this woman's rulings come out of the crackerjack box. She has no druthers, no pension, no affinity, no fidelity to the Constitution. She wants the Constitution to be. Stop. You've heard this before. Whatever she says, it is. Now, thankfully, Again, in the 6, 3 decision, the court concluded Justice Jackson was wrong. But what does that say about the state of our Union, the status of our nation? How long can we persist as a society in this direction? These are questions we have to answer. These are questions we have to consider. These are questions we have to answer. I have so much more to say, but as promised, let's go to the phone lines. We'll start in Indiana where Larry is on the line. Larry, thank you for calling the Hamilton Corner. Welcome to the program.

Caroline: Hello, Abraham. Thank you very much for your program. I really appreciate it. A. Ah, few things. one, and it really has to do with we the people. I. I don't know how long.

Caroline: We should just continue to, be passively on the sidelines. even Jesus got rude with the money changers. And if we can't be rude and impolite to people who are purposely, directly, consciously hurting our children, I don't understand how long we can do that. The other, the Supreme Court, they ruled President, Trump, he said what he thinks.

Abraham Hamilton III: Mm.

Caroline: We know what we the people think. I don't understand how it's not illegal being prosecuted for any, whether it's in a hospital or a school or a church or anywhere else.

Abraham Hamilton III: Well, I'm not sure what you're saying, how you don't know why it's illegal. But let me. Let me start with the first things first. I don't think rudeness is necessary in order to expose the darkness, but I do think resoluteness is necessary. And one of the major problems, and this is a part of the Strata, Some of you heard right before we came on how technology, ChatGPT, large language learning models and things of that nature are really dumbing down society. This, this is one of the things you have. The combination of our society being dumbed down in our capacities while simultaneously being distracted with constant unending entertainment, right? To get us diverted in our thought processes to where we don't spend much time and effort considering weighty substantive matters. And so when it comes down, we have people who have time for everything under the sun, but we don't have time for substantive things. In fact, if we're honest, too many, because I don't want to be accusatory, but this is just a fact. Too many parents are so busy with life, in many instances trying to earn an income, so busy with life, we don't even have time to check what our children are even reading. We don't even know what they're reading. We don't know what they're learning. So many parents were shocked to find out, whoa, this is what they're teaching my children in these schools during the COVID time period. Now, I want to add this question in the Supreme Court has ruled and said the Montgomery county school board was wrong. What they did right. Do you think that's going to automatically result in all of those schools within Montgomery County, Maryland, to all of a sudden no longer be interested in interrupting their children, the students either or understanding of gender? Do you think it's going to automatically have the same school board that decided we don't want parents to be able to opt their children out? We won't even give the parents notice when we'll teach their kindergarteners, pre kindergartners to fifth graders. This thing that they're objecting to, that we know they're objecting to. We won't even notify them when we're teaching it. Do you think those people all of a sudden they're going to be like, ah, you know what? we're going to let the parents be the parents. We're going to. Do you think that's going to happen? Or do you think some of these people will try to find another way to get the same thing accomplished? What do you think? What do you think? Ponder that while I invite Jerry from Texas to join us. Jerry, thank you for calling the Hamilton Corner. Welcome to the program.

Caroline: Thank you, brother. I appreciate it. Always love listening to your commentary and your insights and thoughts. real quick to answer your last question that you pondered. No, they're not going to change because one now colleges are changing DEI to new definitions. Democrats already changed the definition vaccine. They change the definition of baby murder. They change the definition of marriage. Definite. They didn't have definition change, they wouldn't have terms. Let's just answer that one second one is, is that the Constitution? I have taken classes and have my kids read and I read it every 4th of July to them. And even my 11 year old can understand that. The Congress has the power to unseat a Supreme Court justice on the terms of bad behavior.

Caroline: And there's no definition of that. The Congress, if they had any backbone, could take two or three of these justices and say, look, bad behavior is not following the Constitution. My 11 year old, my 14 year old, my 15 year old, myself, just a layperson reading the document the way it was written, can interpret it and understand it. And I tell you what brother, the thing I have found more and more times with our corrupt education system is that when I talk to people, they, they're not even taught it.

Caroline: As our founding father said, if you're not taught your rights, it's easier to take them from you. And I'll discuss with people and they don't. They think we're a democracy because all they hear is politicians saying it's detrimental to our democracy. They think that everything it should be given, they don't read the documents. And I get frustrated when I try to give these people the terms and the definitions of what it is and they refuse to hear.

Abraham Hamilton III: Thank you so much for your calling, your comments, you're absolutely right and thank you for taking the time to read it yourself and to teach it to your children. But, but this, this is literally what's happening. And we have evidence this, the historical understanding of, of good behavior included constitutional fidelity. The earliest, one of the earliest impeachments we have is because a ah, judge tried to render a ruling that violated the U.S. constitution. So it, it is, it is exactly what you said. We'll try to get one more call in. Oh man, the music is disrespectful. Tyrone, I'm gonna try to get you in from oklahoma. You got 15 seconds. Go.

Bishop EW Jackson: All right. The when they took the the 10th commandments out at schools, they say because people might be followed, influenced by it. What would be the conscious crisis of the children decide not to kill, not to steal, not to destroy. Then they put the other deals in the concert of what to follow and the dust couldn't even stand to hear it. Why don't the people who who defended this threat. Why? What we should say. You can't opt out.

Abraham Hamilton III: Well said. Well said. And the thing is that you often have lies that have been perpetuated in giving the appearance as if they're a law. What I'm driving at, folks, is that we have to respond locally. Right where we live. God bless you all. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.

0:00 - 15:00. Ephesians 5:22-26; 6:4. Marriage and family is central to God’s plan for His Kingdom.

15:00 - 31:00. SCOTUS has made several civilizational scaled decisions. What do they say about the state of our union? 

31:00 - 48:00. What do recent SCOTUS opinions say about the state of the church in our nation? Callers weigh in.

https://www.afa.net/weekend

https://afafoundation.net/ | 1-800-326-4543 ext. 345

https://afr.net/BIBLESFORBABIES To donate call : 877-616-2396