Hamilton: God has called us to be ambassadors even in this dark moment
>> Joseph Parker: 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.
>> Joseph Parker: 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.
>> Mike Donnelly: God has called you and me to
>> Joseph Parker: be his ambassadors even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: And now the Hamilton Corner.
Jenna Ellis fills in for Abraham Hamilton on the Hamilton Corner
>> Jenna Ellis: Good evening and welcome to the Hamilton Corner. I'm Jenna Ellis filling in this evening for Abraham Hamilton iii. And always a pleasure and a privilege to do so, when he asks, so great to be with you this evening. And you know, as he always says, and I love listening to his program and I always, I always kind of. And you guys can rat on me if he's not listening to this and say that, that I always affectionately refer to it as Pooh Corner instead of the Hamilton Corner because I grew up with Winnie the Pooh and I just love and, and, and he's so kind. so I always call it the Pooh Corner. But when I tune in, then he's always saying of course that we are focusing on our primary ministries and making our way most people at this moment are making their way home, from work and leaving their part time occupations to go to their full time occupation which of course is to be with their family. And and I love how he frames that and how he always encourages all of us to live locally and to be very involved, in our local church and of course, especially our local families and how important that is. And it's so important in the context of our civil government and how we understand how law works and touches and concerns every aspect of our lives.
The question in the Lindsey Clancy case is not who was responsible
And one of the just, really, really, really difficult questions that society is wrestling with right now is with the Lindsey Clancy case. And I know that that will not be a foreign name to those of you who are listening right now because this has been in the news, for the last, several months, but especially the last, a little bit, almost a month that this trial has been going on, where this mother, just absolutely horrifically murdered her three children. And the question in the case is not who was responsible. Like most, murders, the question is, did this person do it or not? The question here legally is not who did it because Lindsey Clancy's defense team is not contesting that. They fully, have stipulated that she is the one, who killed her children. But rather the question is whether or not she should be criminally responsible for her acts. And you might say, well, wait a minute. Of course she should. because when someone murders their. Their child. How could they possibly not be criminally responsible for that? Well, it's a very good question. and what the defense is asserting is that she was under such a, A psychosis. Through a postpartum depression and, Other, Mental health, issues that she was facing that, During this particular time, allegedly. And according to the defense, she heard a voice that was telling her to commit these murders. And this psychosis happened, only then. And it has not apparently happened since. But when she was under this, kind of psychosis and this, delusion. She didn't appreciate the, nature of her actions. And so society should not hold her criminally responsible. And the obvious inference of that is that she would not be morally responsible. And, that's really the question that society needs to ask. Because mental, Illness is a very, hot button issue right now. Especially as we see the rise of the statistics of how many, people are taking, psychotropic drugs, they're taking SSRIs, or taking even, you know, anxiety medication, saying that they've been, diagnosed. there are more diagnoses in, The psychological, DSA Handbook Than, you know, there ever have been. And it's a question of whether we are actually hold people responsible for their actions. Even when they may suffer some, mental health issue or some other kind of psychosis or diagnosis. And the interesting thing to me, and I haven't listened to, you know, every minute of the trial, obviously I've had other work, but I've been following it closely. And what's fascinating to me is that neither side really can prove or disprove, to a certainty. That this mental health issue and this psychosis. Actually existed at the time that she committed the murders. And I think that's very important for a couple of reasons. First, because overall we should be able to prove. And in fact, the law requires the prosecution to prove Each of the elements of the alleged, crime beyond any and all reasonable doubt. That's the burden of proof, in a prosecutorial setting. And of course, you know, Abe knows this, You know, better than anyone. He was a prosecutor. I'm. I'm a former prosecutor as well. And, That's something that the prosecution. That's part of the. The job and the responsibility. and. And when a defendant asserts what's called an affirmative defense, a complete defense. It's not just saying I didn't do it as a defense. It's actually saying because of this defense that I am asserting, then there is a legal, justification for my conduct. I'm admitting the conduct, but the law should excuse me for this reason. And if that affirmative defense, cannot be disproven, then by the prosecution they have that added burden to disprove an affirmative defense. Then the jury is told you should render a verdict of not guilty. So for example, there is a, ah, legal defense of self defense. And so if you assert that and you say, you know, yes, I did this, but it was in the context of self defense, then, you're raising a defense. And there are ah, different states have it a little differently. And Massachusetts law is usually, usually a lot more favorable to the insanity defense. Once that issue is, properly raised, it then qualifies for this added, level of an affirmative defense. And so then the state must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why would we as a society allow these types of mental health affirmative defenses
And so that then brings me to my second point, which is why would we as a society allow these types of mental health affirmative defenses? Because something like self defense, you can still prove based on circumstantial evidence, video evidence, testimony of other people around there. it's, it's a lot more concrete where the mental health, defense, obviously you can have, you know, testimony of her husband, of, you know, friends who observed her, of ah, the psychiatrist that diagnosed her, prescribed things, but you can't actually get inside of her head or have any sort of medical type of validation of this psychosis. And obviously I'm not a doctor and you know, I'm speaking more in layman's terms in the context of the legal. But it's very difficult to prove or to disprove. And the fact that we as a society are suggesting that a mother who, who has, of her own defense team's admission that she has committed such heinous acts as the, the utterly horrific deaths of. And murders of her three children. And, and this was not, you know, just one, one act. I mean these were, these were intentional. I think, the evidence shows, it was a span of 18 minutes that it took her, I'm not going to go into all the details, because I know this is still American Family Radio. But, if you look at the details of this case, it's gruesome and it's just so incredibly depraved. And as a society should we Say, well, based on this mental health issue that we really don't know a lot about and that we can't actually prove, a voice or not a voice, and we can't really prove it. We can't really disprove it. We are going to then say, as a society, as a civil government, that we are going to remove criminal liability from that. I think that opens the floodgates of so many people suggesting, well, I wasn't in my right mind or I had a breakdown of some sort or, you know, on a ton of different medications or, you know, a lot of different excuses to say that their criminal act should not be punishable, with. With accountability. so I would be very much in favor of the law, overall. And obviously it varies state by state, but the law in general to, hold people regardless of their mental health, so status, you know, whatever the. The doctors and the psychiatrists and all of them are saying, regardless of that, hold them criminally responsible for their ex and only have the diagnosis. And all of these experts that are clashing and debating, have that come in, and only be relevant either, in contemplation of a potential plea agreement. So the prosecutor could take that into account. Could, or in the context of sentencing, in the context of sentencing, there are still mitigating, factors that the defense can present. There are still aggravating factors that, you know, the state can argue, for a higher increased sentence, after trial. And that seems to me, to be so much more appropriate, especially in the context of a case like this one, where it really is difficult to prove. And what. What the. What the state and the law in Massachusetts is requiring of the prosecution is so much higher of a standard because they're actually having to prove criminal responsibility as well, beyond a reasonable doubt. And you know, we often, only talk about the concept of. Of jury nullification in the context of defense. Because that's really, you know, where this concept applies. Where, if, even if the state, proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury is like, you know, yeah, the person's guilty if a guilty verdict would still offend justice. And of course that, you know, is. Is up to a jury determination, the jury can still render a verdict of not guilty. Now, the defense isn't allowed to argue that as plainly as I'm talking about the doctrine of jury nullification, but that still exists because, the jury ultimately can render their verdict on where the facts and evidence to them lead. And this is one element that's embedded in our system to prevent abusive, prosecutions and abuse by the state, just like, pardons or clemency, that governors and presidents, can grant that that is a last measure of justice when the system fails. And so jury nullification, the principle of it, in my view, should also attach where, you know, the law is designed generally to catch general, behavior and criminalize it and punish it. And then it's also meant to, to exclude generally certain behaviors, and conducts or allow for certain justifications or excuses, even when the person committed the act, like a self defense type of situation. And I don't think that if you asked, and I have to go back and read the legislative history and all of that of this law, but I don't think that legislators in general contemplate when they are opening the affirmative defense to insanity, that they contemplate that a woman could spend 18 minutes individually murdering her own children and somehow escape criminal liability. That just that just on its face. I don't care what else the 27 days of trial have said that offends the notions of justice because justice requires that the state punish evildoers. This was evil. However you look at, Lindsay Clancy, whether, you know, you have sympathy for her of, you know, what state she must have been in in order to commit these acts, there will never be a way that we can wrap our minds around something so heinous. But the point is it is evil and it absolutely must be punished in a just a moral and a upright society. And I don't think that the law should ever allow for a scenario where the law as applied allows for any type of justification or excuse based on something that is so, so vague. So we will be right back with more. I'm Jenna Ellis. I'm filling in for the great Abraham Hamilton iii. And this is the Hamilton corner on American Family Radio. We will be right back.
>> Reporter: A discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.
The most powerful weapon in the universe is the word of God
>> Joseph Parker: Psalm 1. Beginning at verse one, it tells us these words, blessed is the man who, who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, or stands in the way of sinners, or sits in the seat of scoffers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord. And on his law he meditates day and night. The most powerful weapon in the universe is the word of God, which is also known as the sword of the spirit. As a believer spends time reading and meditating on the word of God, he or she is fortifying their mind, body, body and spirit against the attacks of the kingdom of darkness. Time reading and Meditating on God's word prepares us to step out onto the battlefield of life, to walk in victory. We as believers are wise to make it a high priority to read and meditate on the word of God every single day of our lives.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Shining light into the darkness. This is the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.
A Nebraska law requiring parents to enroll children in public schools is challenged
>> Jenna Ellis: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. This evening I'm Jenna Ellis filling in for Abraham Hamilton iii. You can normally hear my program, Jenna Ellis in the Morning here on American Family radio network from 8 to 9 eastern, 7 to 8 central time. And we covered this story this morning. But for those of you who didn't tune in, why didn't you tune in? But also we want to, make sure that you are aware this is such an important issue and a very fascinating one as well. this was an opinion piece by our friend Corrie DeAngelis, who's a research fellow at the Heritage foundation. And it's titled are Public Schools Unconstitutional? A Nebraska court will decide. So there's a challenge to compulsory education combined with public school only funding that could lead to universal school choice. So a Nebraska law requires parents to enroll children in a public, private, denominational or parochial school or to homeschool them. Non compliance is a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine. Yet the state offers educational benefits roughly $19,000 per student, state statewide, as of 2024-2025, and only to families that enroll their children in public schools or government funded schools, thus accepting the government's preferred viewpoints. So, now this is being challenged and the parents complaints rest on a couple of very interesting theories. So to break this down, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly who is a, an attorney. You can follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks. he was formerly with the Homeschool Legal Defense association, so has been in the space for, education and defending, ah, parental right to direct and control, the education of their children. He's a homeschool father himself. So all of the great things and most importantly, of course relevant, relevant to this program has been, a friend and mentor of mine for, you know, over 10 years now, which I think is a little bit, wild. But Mike, thanks so much for joining me and let's talk about this case.
>> Mike Donnelly: Hey Jenna, it's great to be with you and you're doing a great job filling in for Abraham and it's wonderful to be talking with all of Abraham's listeners. Hope everyone's Having a great afternoon evening, wherever you are. If you're listening on the podcast, fantastic. And of course you can listen to Jen on the podcast too. You don't have to, you know, seven to eight in the morning is a great time, but. Or eight to nine or whenever, wherever you are. But you can listen on the podcast too.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Thanks for the. All of the shout out there. But yeah, yeah, go ahead and break this down.
>> Mike Donnelly: No, let's talk about this. Let's talk about choice. Right? So let's just be real clear. I'm a homeschool dad, you are a homeschool grad, and parents already have a choice on how they want to educate their children. Parents can send their kids to a private school, a Christian school, homeschool. of course, you got the public schools, right? And so everybody, we do have choices today. But what this case is challenging is, and it's novel, it's really a cool, interesting challenge. the idea was, thought up by Phil Hamburger, who's a Columbia law professor. He's a dad, and he's done a lot of work advancing a constitutional reformation, shall we say. He's written books about the administrative state and how to combat the administrative state. He started an organization called the NewSong Civil Liberties alliance, which is taking these kinds of cases and challenging unconstitutional, laws and unconstitutional practices. And here he is taking aim at public education and he's, you know the question. Are public schools unconstitutional? Well, what is he talking about? Well, here's what, here's what the theory is. So we have the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, but incorporated within that idea of being free to speak whatever you want, you've got parents who are responsible to exercise the right of free speech for their kids. And that doesn't mean what kids want to speak. But within that right of free speech, there is also this idea that you should, not be subject to speech. Ah, you know, based on compulsion. So what happens? We have our kids, we send them to public school, they go in there and do they have a choice about what the teacher says? Do they? No, they don't. Do parents have much choices? No, we don't. The kids are subject to whatever the government decides they want to say to those children. And we know what they're saying to those children. They're advancing these crazy, ideas of transgenderism and, you know, gender ideology and all kinds of things. Okay. And so parents should not have to have their children subject to that speech, based on compulsion. That's what Phil is arguing and that's based. There's also this theory called unconstitutional conditions. So the theory of unconstitutional conditions says that the government cannot condition a public benefit on a unconstitutional condition. What's the unconstitutional condition? That you have to send your kids to school and subject them to this mandatory government speech that you don't agree with or you are potentially liable for a criminal offense of truancy. Okay, so he's saying that is not okay in the United States of America. And so he's challenging that in Nebraska. and you know it's in state court and I think this case is going to go up to the US Supreme Court at some point and boy, it's going to be really interesting.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I really appreciate that breakdown. And it was occurring to me as, you know, we're talking through this again and I'm, you know, I'm hearing the overall discussion points of compulsion. I mean there really is not any other aspect of that I can think of. And you know, and if you can think of one, let me know that the government taxes you. Then they provide a service that they require you to to partake of if you want to get any of that money back and you're required to participate in a service of that type. I mean this almost seems vaguely similar to why you know, the whole, the whole healthcare debate was such a big issue and saying that you know, if we are compelling people to have health care in America and they don't actually have a free choice and so to have this, have this issue of not only are they, is the government taxing us, but then they're compelling parents to to a school option. And then they're saying in here we're providing one that will provide for free, but we'll give you will give you some of the money back. only if you accept our particular viewpoint. I mean it just seems like in every angle of this, it's, it runs afoul to all of the principles of the Constitution and frankly liberty, that we've been accustomed to here in America.
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, what we've been, what we've become accustomed to is just taking whatever the government gives us. And what Phil is challenging here is like no, we shouldn't have to do that. you know, public education has a long history. Compulsory education laws have been around for about 125 years. I think compulsory attendance laws are terrible. you know, that is not what the founders intended when they talk about supporting education for the public. They didn't mean compelling parents to send their children to government run a government run monopoly. Okay? They were talking about the government funding any kind of education, which is kind of what Phil Hamburger, I think, what his vision is is, look, if you're going to take money out of my pocket and use it for this common good of education, then I should be able to decide how my child is educated. I should not be penalized the way I'm being penalized. Everyone is essentially being penalized to have their property taxes or their income taxes or sales taxes or the lottery, for goodness sake. I mean, how many states actually use lottery money to fund education? Like, I think that's a problem. That's gambling.
Phil DeAngelis: This is an important lawsuit about school mandates
You want gambling to fund public schools. That's how the gambling industry has been able to get so many communities to go along with them. It's like, oh, well, we'll give the money to the public schools. And of course, the unions love that. They're like, yes, more money for us. Who doesn't like some, you know, blackjack? And we'll fund the kids. You know, that's not okay, in my opinion. but what Phil is doing here in this lawsuit is he is saying, look, all we want is for the court to declare that this is unconstitutional, that it's an unconstitutional situation for the government to force me to subject my child to government speech that I disagree with and take the money away from me and, oh, by the way, impose a potential criminal liability on me if I don't send my child to that school. Because not everybody is going to homeschool and not everybody can afford to send their child to, private school. And what are they left with? This. So Phil thinks this is wrong, and, it's going to be very interesting to watch this case. I think this is going to initiate a very important conversation we need to have in our country about how we do education, because we've been doing it wrong for a long time, Jenna. You know, look, parents who are listening right now, Christian parents, these are the people who know that they have an obligation to provide their children with a Christian education. And they're doing it whether their child is in a public, a private, or through homeschooling. It's a lot easier to do it, I think, if you homeschool or send your child to a Christian school. But, you know, look, there's lots of parents whose children go to public school and they come out well and their faith is intact. The odds are against them. The research is pretty clear on that. and there are lots of other reasons why you might not want to send your child to a public school. But it is our Christian parents responsibility to ensure that our children receive a Christian education. And that can be done in a variety of things. But again, this is about, is it right, is it fair for the government to take this money, use compulsion and criminality to then force people to send their kids to public schools under these conditions? That's what we're going to find out.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it is an important and necessary conversation in the context of education, parental rights and also, as you've been describing, a government compulsion, because we, and we were talking in the break, about, you know, government compulsion. And we've seen how that has been used and abused, even in the context of, the COVID mandates and saying, you know, the government is going to compel you, as a, as a parent, to allow your children to, to have this shot. Otherwise, you know, they were potentially looking at criminal consequences. You know, I mean, that was contemplated during COVID I mean, certainly there were other consequences like loss of job or income and some of this. But really it boils down to what authority does the government have for these types of compulsory measures, over and above parental rights.
>> Mike Donnelly: Danny, you talked about health care before. you know, Obamacare was an attempt to impose a mandate for people to purchase insurance and then penalize them if they didn't do it. you know, we have vaccine mandates that exist today in schools also, which is a problem. And what does the government do? It exempts manufacturers of vaccines from liability. What could go wrong? Why do you think we went from nine vaccines on the schedule to 72 on the schedule? Because it's billions and billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical companies. And they figured out that if they can get into that compulsory education system and make it a condition that kids who go into that system have to have these shots, they can make billions of dollars, which is what has happened. So when you talk about the government compelling people to do things that could be against their convictions, teaching ideas, philosophies, to children that we as parents disagree with and don't have any other option, it's a real problem. and so it's wrong. So we got to stop doing it this way. And I think, you know, I'm really excited about this lawsuit. I hope it's going to initiate that conversation that we need to have in this country. And hopefully we will actually put some pressure on change and, you know, the desired change that I think. Cory DeAngelis wants. He talks about universal school choice. He's talking about giving people the money and letting them decide where the money goes. Okay. I don't know that that is what's going to happen. I think courts are much less likely to tell the legislature, you've got to, you've got to do it this way versus saying look, you can't require people or compel them to send their children so maybe getting rid of the criminal elements, or. Yeah, I don't know. We're going to watch this lawsuit. We'll see. Hopefully we'll have opportunities to talk about it more in the future. It's going to be very interesting.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I think we will be talking about it more especially as it makes its way up and becomes you know, likely an issue that ends up before the Supreme Court. And I think that it will just given the issues and the Supreme Court aspects of this and, or the the US Constitution aspects of it rather. And and this also, you know, is, is raising questions as well. I think overall about the government's authority in general. I mean, you know, when you're talking about when we're talking about health care and some of those things, I mean just even recently, there's been a debate between Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and RFK Jr. on the, the issues of you know, big pharma and vaccine mandates and some of those things. And Josh Shapiro is wanting to have more and more authority, to the state government to be able to tell people what they should do in their in their decision making and particularly parents. And it seems like it's a fascinating conflict between you know, the, the state and Josh Shapiro saying, well I don't have to take the federal government's recommendations because I don't like the Trump administration. But then in turn telling. But parents, you can't say the same thing about the state's recommendations. I mean it seems like where the left wants to go is you have to follow us as long as these are the experts and the outcomes and the viewpoints that we prefer. And that's exactly what they're doing in the context of government funded school.
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, the left always wants to control people. That's the problem with the left. They want power, they want to control because they believe that they know what's best for people and they're going to tell them what to do instead of letting parents make those decisions to educate their children in the admonition and nurture of the Lord as Ephesians 6:4 says, as Deuteronomy 6:4 talks about how, you know, we are to teach our children when they rise up, when they lie down, and when they walk upon the way. That is the role of parents. And the left, you know, has to undermine and destroy the family because the family is what points children to their creator most of the time. Like, there are plenty of families that don't do that. But for the Christian family and the nuclear family, that is an essential building block of a healthy society. God created it that way. And any attack on that, you know where that's coming from, that's coming from the devil because he wants to destroy that which God has created. You know, that's the transgender movement, that's homosexuality. It's all those things are attacks on God's plans for people. So why would we be surprised by that?
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, we shouldn't be. And this is why we have to remain vigilant. We have to have advocates who are willing to assert, some of these challenges and we have to be engaged in our civil society because law touches and concerns all of us. And we have, have to make sure that we are doing all of these things biblically and that we still have the right in this country to ensure that we can follow, the dictates and the wisdom that comes from the Lord. So, Mike Donnelly, you're gonna stick with me through the break. We'll be right back.
Midterm elections are less than 90 days away
Here on the Hamilton Corner,
>> : The feature length documentary Culture Warrior Don Wildmon and the Battle for Decency chronicles the life and ministry of Don Wildmon. It takes you through the founding of the National Federation for Decency. What has become afa? It's a call to stand firm for righteousness and shows how that resolve can make a huge difference in our world.
>> Mike Donnelly: If we lose this cultural war, we're going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society.
>> : Find out more and watch @culturewarrior movie.
>> Christopher Woodward: I'm Tim Moore from Christ in Prophecy Radio. With all the uncertainty in the world, it's good to know God's promises never change. That's why each week we examine current events through the reliable lens of Bible prophecy. Join me for Christ in Prophecy radio. Saturdays at 1:00pm Central, 2:00pm Eastern and Sundays at 11:00am Central, 12:00pm Eastern. Find out what's really going on. Saturdays at 1:00pm Central, 2:00pm Eastern and Sundays at 11:00am Central, 12:00pm Eastern on American Family Radio.
>> Joseph Parker: The war on Reality. This is David Wheaton, host of, the Christian Worldview. It was almost one year ago that 31 year old Christian and conservative leader Charlie Kirk walked into an outdoor amphitheater at Utah Valley University to hold a question and answer event with thousands of college students. Minutes later, a young man named Tyler Robinson fatally shot Charlie from a rooftop sniper position. Robinson was a leftist romantically involved with a gender confused man. He couldn't handle the truth. Charlie propounded Jesus said to his father, your word is truth. This is what the war on Reality is about. Hear a most recent program with Frank Turek, mentor to Charlie Kirk and author of the War on reality, at ah, thechristianworldview.org and then join us this weekend for another program that will sharpen your worldview.
>> Mike Donnelly: Listen to the Christian Worldview with David
>> : Wheaton Saturday mornings at 8 Central on American Family Radio.
>> Reporter: Hello, this is Walker Wildmon. Midterm elections are less than 90 days away. America will soon choose between continuing to return government to biblical values or turning away from these values. We could even lose the U.S. supreme Court. We could see Trump administration officials impeached by a left wing Congress. We could also see doors for righteous government continue to swing open. Or they could quickly close. You can play an important role in the upcoming election. Your generous Gift will help AFA Action and our voter education arm, iVoterGuide, inform and mobilize many more biblical voters to make an impact for Christ in the upcoming elections. Every dollar you give has six times the impact due to our over 60 partner organizations spreading the word about ivoterguide. And we have an extensive trained volunteer outreach program to Give. Go to afaaction.net that's afaaction.net afaaction.net.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: The Hamilton Quarter podcast and one minute commentaries are available at afr.net Back to the Hamilton Quarter on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Mike Donnelly discusses the Meta lawsuit involving Facebook and Instagram
>> Jenna Ellis: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. I'm, Jenna Ellis filling in for Abraham Hamilton iii. And it's so great to be with you this evening and with my special guest, Mike Donnelly, who is an attorney. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that at Donnelly Speaks. he does a lot of work in the realm of parental rights, education. And we were talking in the last segment about this interesting lawsuit in Nebraska, and how this touches and concerns on, parental rights issues, a lot of fascinating constitutional questions. And so I want to ask you, Mike, as about the, meta lawsuit. So, for those of you who haven't seen this headline yesterday, meta, of course, it's Mark Zuckerberg's, corporation reached a landmark multi state settlement over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed in ways that addict children and teens and harm their mental health is coming from, the ap. And so the bipartisan coalition, is suggesting that Meta knew and knowingly use addictive design features to keep minors engaged, misrepresented the safety of its platforms, and in some instances, improperly collected data from children under 13. And the litigation dates back to 2023. and so now there has been a settlement and some terms that now a Meta is, going to change some of its practices. So your thoughts on this?
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, let's remember the history. Right, so what happened in 2021? A Facebook product manager named Frances Haugen brought, some internal materials out, as a whistleblower, saying that Meta was aware of the harmful impact that some of its features were having on children. And so there were congressional hearings, you had Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee and, some others who were concerned about this. And, then in 2023, coalition state attorney sued Meta, alleging that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to maximize youth engagement and that Meta made misleading representations concerning safety of kids using the product. and we had Rob Bonta from California, we had J.B. mcCuskey from West Virginia. So this brought a whole bunch of interesting people who would not normally come together together to sue Meta over this issue. And basically the argument was this. It's like you guys knew what you were doing, you did it on purpose, you knew it was harmful, and you designed these features, these infinite scrolling, the thumbs up sign, all these features that are addictive. You knew they were addictive and you didn't do anything about it. And that is a tort. When someone does something to harm another person in product design, that's a torture. And so the attorneys general brought this lawsuit against Meta and they settled, for $18 billion. Now, that may sound like a lot to some people, but I don't know, we were talking earlier today and I was saying how that doesn't sound like a lot to me. you know, we're $40 trillion in debt as a country, and when you throw the word 18 trillion around, I'm like, 18 billion around. Like that. Is that even a rounding error? I don't even think that's a rounding error on the budget. and James Uthmeyer, who's the Attorney General of Florida, agrees. He was One of the AGs who opted out of this settlement, basically telling Meta, we'll see you in court, saying that, you know, one month's cash flow does not make up for a decade of harm. I think is kind of the tenor of what he said. And, so $18 billion, though, is the settlement, for a company, Meta, whose annual revenue is $200 billion. Okay. So basically is about a month's cash flow and worth $1.5 trillion. Now, some people say, okay, it's not about the money, it's about the safety. And so Met did agree in the settlement to make some changes to its product, as you pointed out, there. But I think one of the interesting impacts here could be, and I think we won't know for a while whether this is going to happen, but this could be significant for the entire social media industry because now there's a new risk calculus that all these social media companies are going to have to consider. They could be sued under product liability theories here. There was evidence that Meta knew they were doing this and it was harmful. You know, we don't. We don't know if there's any other. That kind of evidence of some of the others, but they're on notice that that could be something that they're going to have to deal with. So they may need to change the way they're doing business, to avoid lawsuits like this.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. And I think you're right that, you know, 18 billion while, you know, to somebody like me, that sounds like a lot of money, but, to. To somebody. Are you still there, Mike? We can still hear you, but we'll, we'll try to get him back.
>> Mike Donnelly: Talking to nobody for a while.
>> Jenna Ellis: no, I can. I can hear you. Are, are we there? Are we. Are we on? I'm not sure I can hear anyone from the. All right, well, so, Bobby, do we. Do you still have me? Okay. All right, so I'm still here, which is great. we'll try to get Mike Donnelly back. so sorry about that. You know, sometimes live radio, there's. There's always the, you know, can you hear me now? Good. so. So I'm glad you can all still hear me. But, as Mike was saying, and, and we've talked through this, previously, so as we're getting him back, I'll just say, you know, 18 billion sounds like a lot, you know, to somebody, like you or me. But, it's not really a lot ultimately to a company like Meta, so I don't think that it's really as much about the penalty. I mean, a lot of this money ends up going, you know, to the lawyers and all that. Anyway, I think James Uthmeyer is correct that it doesn't go far enough, but likely the rationale that the other AGs are thinking, because they did agree to this settlement, is that it does force Meta to change some of its practices. So, for example, there will be, an age verification. Meta has agreed to a stronger age assurance measure so that someone can't simply, claim to be 18 to avoid, the protections and better identify children under 13. Parents get substantially more control. the likes and feeds. Ah, a like counts on teen posts will be hidden by default. so there's not, you know, kind of that level of engagement. so, yeah, and there's a few other things.
The question to me is whether these new safety measures actually go far enough
But the question, I think, and I'm told we have Mike back, the question to me, is whether these restrictions and these new, safety measures that Meta agreed to actually go far enough. When you look at the broader scope of the harm of social media. I mean, because even as, you know, I'm. I'm 41, and even being on social media, I can tell it's addictive. I have to purse. I have to. To intentionally put down my phone and say, I'm not going to be on this too much. I have to disengage. I have to not take things personally when people, you know, spew all kinds of rhetoric. I mean, I cannot imagine what it would have been like as a teenager or someone under 13 dealing with all of this. So do you think that the settlement terms that we're aware of actually go far enough in this kind of product liability framework?
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, we're going to find out, Jenna. And I don't know how long I was talking to myself, but it sounded really good.
>> Jenna Ellis: We heard you. It sounded fantastic. We heard you.
>> Mike Donnelly: Oh, you heard. You could hear me, and then I couldn't hear you guys. Okay, great. You know, it's interesting and, you know, shocker, Jenna. Parents don't have to let their kids have Facebook accounts, they don't have to let them have Instagram accounts, and they don't let it. Have to let them have cell phones. you know, my policy as a parent has been when you're 17, maybe I'll think about it if you have a reason for it, either. 18, 17. You know, if you want a cell phone, you can pay for it. although I still pay for a bunch of my kids, but they reimburse me. you know, the family plan.
>> Jenna Ellis: The family plans. Yep, it is.
>> Mike Donnelly: But. But, you know, I. Look, this is a step in the right direction, and I'm like you. I actually have struggled a little bit with Facebook and X stuff, too. I literally took Facebook off my phone, and for about a month, I just didn't do anything with it. And even now, I gone back a little bit. I don't do much on Facebook. X. Similarly, though, I like X because breaking news, right? It's a. It's a good source of news for somebody in my line of work. But, yeah, you know, for kids, it can be very addictive and very harmful. So I think, look, parents have to. We need to. We have to reject some of the culture, right? Do they really need a cell phone? Maybe they do. I mean, I don't know. If my kids were in public school, I would. I think I'd want them to have a cell phone so they could call me if there was a problem or something like that. But now the schools are saying, nope, put your cell phone in a pouch and you'll get it back at the end of the day. Kind of like when we grew up, you know, there were no cell phones back then.
>> Jenna Ellis: Oh, I still remember. I still remember using the pay phone. Like, you know, my. My mom would totally drop me and. And some friends off at the mall, and it'd be like, all right, call us from the pay phone. You know, like, you land at the airport, you had to use that. I mean, it's. It's so wild how far we've come, even in my lifetime, you know, and, I. It's just. It's just wild. But, the. But I think that that presents the bigger question here as well. I mean, I, Obviously, the manufacturers, have a responsibility to not create a product that they know is harmful and to not intentionally create it to be harmful, even if it generates them more profit. I mean, those are some basics in the law. But all of that notwithstanding, there is no yet, government compulsion, you know, or compulsion otherwise that anybody actually has to use their product. And so even though, you know, it seems like, well, everybody's on social media and I'm not going to be able to get my source of, you know, whatever it is that you're using it for, I think that this also comes down to a lot of personal responsibility.
Parents need to have conversations with their kids about AI usage, Jenna says
Separate and apart from the obviously valid questions and the legal concerns, the bigger question for parents is, have you thought about this? I mean, have you thought about the damage that this is actually doing? have you thought about, how we're engaging in our culture, we're engaging in, in so much consumerism with the algorithms, how social media is so online instead of actually in a community. I mean, we learned this during Cove that when we didn't have human interaction, there is a huge detriment, because we're designed for relationship, relationship to God or creator, and then relationship to each other. and. And we are supposed to do that in the context of family, first and foremost, in the context of a local church, and then also in context of our community. And all of this gets kind of put to the side when we are often now alone together. And I think this is a really fascinating term because it's like, you see some of these. These, kids that are sitting, you know, at a Starbucks or something, and they're all on their phones, but sitting around the table, and it's like, okay, they're. They're together, but they're actually alone in their own little universe on the phone. They might as well not even be physically in person together. So all of these things, I think, this whole thing and this whole story raises a bigger question of what exactly are we doing as a society and where does parental responsibility become key?
>> Mike Donnelly: I think that's so well said, Jenna. And I think as parents, we really need to think about this and have conversations, you know, with our kids about it. I was talking with my son today about AI usage. And, you know, of course, AI is the newest thing that kids are now having to deal with in school and figure out, when do we use it, when do we not use it? And, you know, with social media, 15 years ago, or cell phones 15, 20 years ago, and then the social media, and now it's AI. And there's so many things coming at us as parents. And so we really need to think about it. We can't put our head in the sand. We've got to take some action. And, you know, I always tell parents, it's like, look, you've got to make sure that you're protecting your kids. It's not about whether you trust them or not. It's about you protecting them, from something that they're not mature enough to really make a decision on. And they think they are. They think they are, and they're not. And this is the. This is the case of unconscious incompetence. And that's a challenge when you're dealing with your child because they're like, dad, everybody has it. And you know what? I'm going to look dumb if I don't have a phone, and if I don't have a Facebook account, how am I going to talk to my friends and look, it's real. Believe me, I get it, I see it. it's just something that we as parents have to deal with. And in my view, I do think the pendulum may be swinging back the other way. Schools are now saying no. That gives parents an in to say, hey, you know, other people are saying no. I'm going to say no and I'm going to protect you from, you know, something that is harmful. You know, what's Philippians 4:8? Say whatever is good. True. Beautiful. Lovely. Right? These things, think on them. And so I try to use Philippians 4. 8 as a standard. It's like, look, if it doesn't meet that standard, should we be doing it? Should we be exposing ourselves and should we be allowing our children to be exposed to it? So great conversation. And I just love what you said about, about the family first church and then community. It's really important. And technology can, can get in the way of that. It is getting in the way of that. We need to fight against it.
>> Jenna Ellis: It is. And I love what you said as well about the rise of AI. And you know, you know Mike, that I'm, I'm a big fan of chat GPT in some limited purpose.
>> Mike Donnelly: Right?
>> Jenna Ellis: I mean technology is great. I love that we can have this conversation on radio that, you know, 250 years ago we couldn't have. I mean technology can be used for good, but we have to make sure that we're using it in the context of its proper purpose and we're not using it for things like, you know, where there are so many, there's so much data now about how AI is being used as a replacement for therapy. It's being used as a replacement for ah, for analysis and thinking. I mean all of these questions in higher education, I mean there's just so much that is so difficult, that we need to write, discern about the use of technology that includes social media, that includes artificial intelligence. and so we need to always walk circumspectly. We also need to apply biblical principles first and foremost and then constitutional principles as well. And so it's important to have these conversations. Mike Donnelly, I so appreciate you taking your time this morning and this evening to join me. you can follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks and you can always reach me as well. Jennaafr.net I'm Jenna Ellis filling in for Abraham Hamilton III and I will see you tomorrow morning on Jenna Ellis in the Morning. Have a wonderful evening. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
Hamilton: God has called us to be ambassadors even in this dark moment
>> Joseph Parker: 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.
>> Joseph Parker: 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.
>> Mike Donnelly: God has called you and me to
>> Joseph Parker: be his ambassadors even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: And now the Hamilton Corner.
Jenna Ellis fills in for Abraham Hamilton on the Hamilton Corner
>> Jenna Ellis: Good evening and welcome to the Hamilton Corner. I'm Jenna Ellis filling in this evening for Abraham Hamilton iii. And always a pleasure and a privilege to do so, when he asks, so great to be with you this evening. And you know, as he always says, and I love listening to his program and I always, I always kind of. And you guys can rat on me if he's not listening to this and say that, that I always affectionately refer to it as Pooh Corner instead of the Hamilton Corner because I grew up with Winnie the Pooh and I just love and, and, and he's so kind. so I always call it the Pooh Corner. But when I tune in, then he's always saying of course that we are focusing on our primary ministries and making our way most people at this moment are making their way home, from work and leaving their part time occupations to go to their full time occupation which of course is to be with their family. And and I love how he frames that and how he always encourages all of us to live locally and to be very involved, in our local church and of course, especially our local families and how important that is. And it's so important in the context of our civil government and how we understand how law works and touches and concerns every aspect of our lives.
The question in the Lindsey Clancy case is not who was responsible
And one of the just, really, really, really difficult questions that society is wrestling with right now is with the Lindsey Clancy case. And I know that that will not be a foreign name to those of you who are listening right now because this has been in the news, for the last, several months, but especially the last, a little bit, almost a month that this trial has been going on, where this mother, just absolutely horrifically murdered her three children. And the question in the case is not who was responsible. Like most, murders, the question is, did this person do it or not? The question here legally is not who did it because Lindsey Clancy's defense team is not contesting that. They fully, have stipulated that she is the one, who killed her children. But rather the question is whether or not she should be criminally responsible for her acts. And you might say, well, wait a minute. Of course she should. because when someone murders their. Their child. How could they possibly not be criminally responsible for that? Well, it's a very good question. and what the defense is asserting is that she was under such a, A psychosis. Through a postpartum depression and, Other, Mental health, issues that she was facing that, During this particular time, allegedly. And according to the defense, she heard a voice that was telling her to commit these murders. And this psychosis happened, only then. And it has not apparently happened since. But when she was under this, kind of psychosis and this, delusion. She didn't appreciate the, nature of her actions. And so society should not hold her criminally responsible. And the obvious inference of that is that she would not be morally responsible. And, that's really the question that society needs to ask. Because mental, Illness is a very, hot button issue right now. Especially as we see the rise of the statistics of how many, people are taking, psychotropic drugs, they're taking SSRIs, or taking even, you know, anxiety medication, saying that they've been, diagnosed. there are more diagnoses in, The psychological, DSA Handbook Than, you know, there ever have been. And it's a question of whether we are actually hold people responsible for their actions. Even when they may suffer some, mental health issue or some other kind of psychosis or diagnosis. And the interesting thing to me, and I haven't listened to, you know, every minute of the trial, obviously I've had other work, but I've been following it closely. And what's fascinating to me is that neither side really can prove or disprove, to a certainty. That this mental health issue and this psychosis. Actually existed at the time that she committed the murders. And I think that's very important for a couple of reasons. First, because overall we should be able to prove. And in fact, the law requires the prosecution to prove Each of the elements of the alleged, crime beyond any and all reasonable doubt. That's the burden of proof, in a prosecutorial setting. And of course, you know, Abe knows this, You know, better than anyone. He was a prosecutor. I'm. I'm a former prosecutor as well. And, That's something that the prosecution. That's part of the. The job and the responsibility. and. And when a defendant asserts what's called an affirmative defense, a complete defense. It's not just saying I didn't do it as a defense. It's actually saying because of this defense that I am asserting, then there is a legal, justification for my conduct. I'm admitting the conduct, but the law should excuse me for this reason. And if that affirmative defense, cannot be disproven, then by the prosecution they have that added burden to disprove an affirmative defense. Then the jury is told you should render a verdict of not guilty. So for example, there is a, ah, legal defense of self defense. And so if you assert that and you say, you know, yes, I did this, but it was in the context of self defense, then, you're raising a defense. And there are ah, different states have it a little differently. And Massachusetts law is usually, usually a lot more favorable to the insanity defense. Once that issue is, properly raised, it then qualifies for this added, level of an affirmative defense. And so then the state must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why would we as a society allow these types of mental health affirmative defenses
And so that then brings me to my second point, which is why would we as a society allow these types of mental health affirmative defenses? Because something like self defense, you can still prove based on circumstantial evidence, video evidence, testimony of other people around there. it's, it's a lot more concrete where the mental health, defense, obviously you can have, you know, testimony of her husband, of, you know, friends who observed her, of ah, the psychiatrist that diagnosed her, prescribed things, but you can't actually get inside of her head or have any sort of medical type of validation of this psychosis. And obviously I'm not a doctor and you know, I'm speaking more in layman's terms in the context of the legal. But it's very difficult to prove or to disprove. And the fact that we as a society are suggesting that a mother who, who has, of her own defense team's admission that she has committed such heinous acts as the, the utterly horrific deaths of. And murders of her three children. And, and this was not, you know, just one, one act. I mean these were, these were intentional. I think, the evidence shows, it was a span of 18 minutes that it took her, I'm not going to go into all the details, because I know this is still American Family Radio. But, if you look at the details of this case, it's gruesome and it's just so incredibly depraved. And as a society should we Say, well, based on this mental health issue that we really don't know a lot about and that we can't actually prove, a voice or not a voice, and we can't really prove it. We can't really disprove it. We are going to then say, as a society, as a civil government, that we are going to remove criminal liability from that. I think that opens the floodgates of so many people suggesting, well, I wasn't in my right mind or I had a breakdown of some sort or, you know, on a ton of different medications or, you know, a lot of different excuses to say that their criminal act should not be punishable, with. With accountability. so I would be very much in favor of the law, overall. And obviously it varies state by state, but the law in general to, hold people regardless of their mental health, so status, you know, whatever the. The doctors and the psychiatrists and all of them are saying, regardless of that, hold them criminally responsible for their ex and only have the diagnosis. And all of these experts that are clashing and debating, have that come in, and only be relevant either, in contemplation of a potential plea agreement. So the prosecutor could take that into account. Could, or in the context of sentencing, in the context of sentencing, there are still mitigating, factors that the defense can present. There are still aggravating factors that, you know, the state can argue, for a higher increased sentence, after trial. And that seems to me, to be so much more appropriate, especially in the context of a case like this one, where it really is difficult to prove. And what. What the. What the state and the law in Massachusetts is requiring of the prosecution is so much higher of a standard because they're actually having to prove criminal responsibility as well, beyond a reasonable doubt. And you know, we often, only talk about the concept of. Of jury nullification in the context of defense. Because that's really, you know, where this concept applies. Where, if, even if the state, proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury is like, you know, yeah, the person's guilty if a guilty verdict would still offend justice. And of course that, you know, is. Is up to a jury determination, the jury can still render a verdict of not guilty. Now, the defense isn't allowed to argue that as plainly as I'm talking about the doctrine of jury nullification, but that still exists because, the jury ultimately can render their verdict on where the facts and evidence to them lead. And this is one element that's embedded in our system to prevent abusive, prosecutions and abuse by the state, just like, pardons or clemency, that governors and presidents, can grant that that is a last measure of justice when the system fails. And so jury nullification, the principle of it, in my view, should also attach where, you know, the law is designed generally to catch general, behavior and criminalize it and punish it. And then it's also meant to, to exclude generally certain behaviors, and conducts or allow for certain justifications or excuses, even when the person committed the act, like a self defense type of situation. And I don't think that if you asked, and I have to go back and read the legislative history and all of that of this law, but I don't think that legislators in general contemplate when they are opening the affirmative defense to insanity, that they contemplate that a woman could spend 18 minutes individually murdering her own children and somehow escape criminal liability. That just that just on its face. I don't care what else the 27 days of trial have said that offends the notions of justice because justice requires that the state punish evildoers. This was evil. However you look at, Lindsay Clancy, whether, you know, you have sympathy for her of, you know, what state she must have been in in order to commit these acts, there will never be a way that we can wrap our minds around something so heinous. But the point is it is evil and it absolutely must be punished in a just a moral and a upright society. And I don't think that the law should ever allow for a scenario where the law as applied allows for any type of justification or excuse based on something that is so, so vague. So we will be right back with more. I'm Jenna Ellis. I'm filling in for the great Abraham Hamilton iii. And this is the Hamilton corner on American Family Radio. We will be right back.
>> Reporter: A discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.
The most powerful weapon in the universe is the word of God
>> Joseph Parker: Psalm 1. Beginning at verse one, it tells us these words, blessed is the man who, who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, or stands in the way of sinners, or sits in the seat of scoffers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord. And on his law he meditates day and night. The most powerful weapon in the universe is the word of God, which is also known as the sword of the spirit. As a believer spends time reading and meditating on the word of God, he or she is fortifying their mind, body, body and spirit against the attacks of the kingdom of darkness. Time reading and Meditating on God's word prepares us to step out onto the battlefield of life, to walk in victory. We as believers are wise to make it a high priority to read and meditate on the word of God every single day of our lives.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Shining light into the darkness. This is the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.
A Nebraska law requiring parents to enroll children in public schools is challenged
>> Jenna Ellis: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. This evening I'm Jenna Ellis filling in for Abraham Hamilton iii. You can normally hear my program, Jenna Ellis in the Morning here on American Family radio network from 8 to 9 eastern, 7 to 8 central time. And we covered this story this morning. But for those of you who didn't tune in, why didn't you tune in? But also we want to, make sure that you are aware this is such an important issue and a very fascinating one as well. this was an opinion piece by our friend Corrie DeAngelis, who's a research fellow at the Heritage foundation. And it's titled are Public Schools Unconstitutional? A Nebraska court will decide. So there's a challenge to compulsory education combined with public school only funding that could lead to universal school choice. So a Nebraska law requires parents to enroll children in a public, private, denominational or parochial school or to homeschool them. Non compliance is a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine. Yet the state offers educational benefits roughly $19,000 per student, state statewide, as of 2024-2025, and only to families that enroll their children in public schools or government funded schools, thus accepting the government's preferred viewpoints. So, now this is being challenged and the parents complaints rest on a couple of very interesting theories. So to break this down, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly who is a, an attorney. You can follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks. he was formerly with the Homeschool Legal Defense association, so has been in the space for, education and defending, ah, parental right to direct and control, the education of their children. He's a homeschool father himself. So all of the great things and most importantly, of course relevant, relevant to this program has been, a friend and mentor of mine for, you know, over 10 years now, which I think is a little bit, wild. But Mike, thanks so much for joining me and let's talk about this case.
>> Mike Donnelly: Hey Jenna, it's great to be with you and you're doing a great job filling in for Abraham and it's wonderful to be talking with all of Abraham's listeners. Hope everyone's Having a great afternoon evening, wherever you are. If you're listening on the podcast, fantastic. And of course you can listen to Jen on the podcast too. You don't have to, you know, seven to eight in the morning is a great time, but. Or eight to nine or whenever, wherever you are. But you can listen on the podcast too.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Thanks for the. All of the shout out there. But yeah, yeah, go ahead and break this down.
>> Mike Donnelly: No, let's talk about this. Let's talk about choice. Right? So let's just be real clear. I'm a homeschool dad, you are a homeschool grad, and parents already have a choice on how they want to educate their children. Parents can send their kids to a private school, a Christian school, homeschool. of course, you got the public schools, right? And so everybody, we do have choices today. But what this case is challenging is, and it's novel, it's really a cool, interesting challenge. the idea was, thought up by Phil Hamburger, who's a Columbia law professor. He's a dad, and he's done a lot of work advancing a constitutional reformation, shall we say. He's written books about the administrative state and how to combat the administrative state. He started an organization called the NewSong Civil Liberties alliance, which is taking these kinds of cases and challenging unconstitutional, laws and unconstitutional practices. And here he is taking aim at public education and he's, you know the question. Are public schools unconstitutional? Well, what is he talking about? Well, here's what, here's what the theory is. So we have the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, but incorporated within that idea of being free to speak whatever you want, you've got parents who are responsible to exercise the right of free speech for their kids. And that doesn't mean what kids want to speak. But within that right of free speech, there is also this idea that you should, not be subject to speech. Ah, you know, based on compulsion. So what happens? We have our kids, we send them to public school, they go in there and do they have a choice about what the teacher says? Do they? No, they don't. Do parents have much choices? No, we don't. The kids are subject to whatever the government decides they want to say to those children. And we know what they're saying to those children. They're advancing these crazy, ideas of transgenderism and, you know, gender ideology and all kinds of things. Okay. And so parents should not have to have their children subject to that speech, based on compulsion. That's what Phil is arguing and that's based. There's also this theory called unconstitutional conditions. So the theory of unconstitutional conditions says that the government cannot condition a public benefit on a unconstitutional condition. What's the unconstitutional condition? That you have to send your kids to school and subject them to this mandatory government speech that you don't agree with or you are potentially liable for a criminal offense of truancy. Okay, so he's saying that is not okay in the United States of America. And so he's challenging that in Nebraska. and you know it's in state court and I think this case is going to go up to the US Supreme Court at some point and boy, it's going to be really interesting.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I really appreciate that breakdown. And it was occurring to me as, you know, we're talking through this again and I'm, you know, I'm hearing the overall discussion points of compulsion. I mean there really is not any other aspect of that I can think of. And you know, and if you can think of one, let me know that the government taxes you. Then they provide a service that they require you to to partake of if you want to get any of that money back and you're required to participate in a service of that type. I mean this almost seems vaguely similar to why you know, the whole, the whole healthcare debate was such a big issue and saying that you know, if we are compelling people to have health care in America and they don't actually have a free choice and so to have this, have this issue of not only are they, is the government taxing us, but then they're compelling parents to to a school option. And then they're saying in here we're providing one that will provide for free, but we'll give you will give you some of the money back. only if you accept our particular viewpoint. I mean it just seems like in every angle of this, it's, it runs afoul to all of the principles of the Constitution and frankly liberty, that we've been accustomed to here in America.
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, what we've been, what we've become accustomed to is just taking whatever the government gives us. And what Phil is challenging here is like no, we shouldn't have to do that. you know, public education has a long history. Compulsory education laws have been around for about 125 years. I think compulsory attendance laws are terrible. you know, that is not what the founders intended when they talk about supporting education for the public. They didn't mean compelling parents to send their children to government run a government run monopoly. Okay? They were talking about the government funding any kind of education, which is kind of what Phil Hamburger, I think, what his vision is is, look, if you're going to take money out of my pocket and use it for this common good of education, then I should be able to decide how my child is educated. I should not be penalized the way I'm being penalized. Everyone is essentially being penalized to have their property taxes or their income taxes or sales taxes or the lottery, for goodness sake. I mean, how many states actually use lottery money to fund education? Like, I think that's a problem. That's gambling.
Phil DeAngelis: This is an important lawsuit about school mandates
You want gambling to fund public schools. That's how the gambling industry has been able to get so many communities to go along with them. It's like, oh, well, we'll give the money to the public schools. And of course, the unions love that. They're like, yes, more money for us. Who doesn't like some, you know, blackjack? And we'll fund the kids. You know, that's not okay, in my opinion. but what Phil is doing here in this lawsuit is he is saying, look, all we want is for the court to declare that this is unconstitutional, that it's an unconstitutional situation for the government to force me to subject my child to government speech that I disagree with and take the money away from me and, oh, by the way, impose a potential criminal liability on me if I don't send my child to that school. Because not everybody is going to homeschool and not everybody can afford to send their child to, private school. And what are they left with? This. So Phil thinks this is wrong, and, it's going to be very interesting to watch this case. I think this is going to initiate a very important conversation we need to have in our country about how we do education, because we've been doing it wrong for a long time, Jenna. You know, look, parents who are listening right now, Christian parents, these are the people who know that they have an obligation to provide their children with a Christian education. And they're doing it whether their child is in a public, a private, or through homeschooling. It's a lot easier to do it, I think, if you homeschool or send your child to a Christian school. But, you know, look, there's lots of parents whose children go to public school and they come out well and their faith is intact. The odds are against them. The research is pretty clear on that. and there are lots of other reasons why you might not want to send your child to a public school. But it is our Christian parents responsibility to ensure that our children receive a Christian education. And that can be done in a variety of things. But again, this is about, is it right, is it fair for the government to take this money, use compulsion and criminality to then force people to send their kids to public schools under these conditions? That's what we're going to find out.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it is an important and necessary conversation in the context of education, parental rights and also, as you've been describing, a government compulsion, because we, and we were talking in the break, about, you know, government compulsion. And we've seen how that has been used and abused, even in the context of, the COVID mandates and saying, you know, the government is going to compel you, as a, as a parent, to allow your children to, to have this shot. Otherwise, you know, they were potentially looking at criminal consequences. You know, I mean, that was contemplated during COVID I mean, certainly there were other consequences like loss of job or income and some of this. But really it boils down to what authority does the government have for these types of compulsory measures, over and above parental rights.
>> Mike Donnelly: Danny, you talked about health care before. you know, Obamacare was an attempt to impose a mandate for people to purchase insurance and then penalize them if they didn't do it. you know, we have vaccine mandates that exist today in schools also, which is a problem. And what does the government do? It exempts manufacturers of vaccines from liability. What could go wrong? Why do you think we went from nine vaccines on the schedule to 72 on the schedule? Because it's billions and billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical companies. And they figured out that if they can get into that compulsory education system and make it a condition that kids who go into that system have to have these shots, they can make billions of dollars, which is what has happened. So when you talk about the government compelling people to do things that could be against their convictions, teaching ideas, philosophies, to children that we as parents disagree with and don't have any other option, it's a real problem. and so it's wrong. So we got to stop doing it this way. And I think, you know, I'm really excited about this lawsuit. I hope it's going to initiate that conversation that we need to have in this country. And hopefully we will actually put some pressure on change and, you know, the desired change that I think. Cory DeAngelis wants. He talks about universal school choice. He's talking about giving people the money and letting them decide where the money goes. Okay. I don't know that that is what's going to happen. I think courts are much less likely to tell the legislature, you've got to, you've got to do it this way versus saying look, you can't require people or compel them to send their children so maybe getting rid of the criminal elements, or. Yeah, I don't know. We're going to watch this lawsuit. We'll see. Hopefully we'll have opportunities to talk about it more in the future. It's going to be very interesting.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I think we will be talking about it more especially as it makes its way up and becomes you know, likely an issue that ends up before the Supreme Court. And I think that it will just given the issues and the Supreme Court aspects of this and, or the the US Constitution aspects of it rather. And and this also, you know, is, is raising questions as well. I think overall about the government's authority in general. I mean, you know, when you're talking about when we're talking about health care and some of those things, I mean just even recently, there's been a debate between Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and RFK Jr. on the, the issues of you know, big pharma and vaccine mandates and some of those things. And Josh Shapiro is wanting to have more and more authority, to the state government to be able to tell people what they should do in their in their decision making and particularly parents. And it seems like it's a fascinating conflict between you know, the, the state and Josh Shapiro saying, well I don't have to take the federal government's recommendations because I don't like the Trump administration. But then in turn telling. But parents, you can't say the same thing about the state's recommendations. I mean it seems like where the left wants to go is you have to follow us as long as these are the experts and the outcomes and the viewpoints that we prefer. And that's exactly what they're doing in the context of government funded school.
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, the left always wants to control people. That's the problem with the left. They want power, they want to control because they believe that they know what's best for people and they're going to tell them what to do instead of letting parents make those decisions to educate their children in the admonition and nurture of the Lord as Ephesians 6:4 says, as Deuteronomy 6:4 talks about how, you know, we are to teach our children when they rise up, when they lie down, and when they walk upon the way. That is the role of parents. And the left, you know, has to undermine and destroy the family because the family is what points children to their creator most of the time. Like, there are plenty of families that don't do that. But for the Christian family and the nuclear family, that is an essential building block of a healthy society. God created it that way. And any attack on that, you know where that's coming from, that's coming from the devil because he wants to destroy that which God has created. You know, that's the transgender movement, that's homosexuality. It's all those things are attacks on God's plans for people. So why would we be surprised by that?
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, we shouldn't be. And this is why we have to remain vigilant. We have to have advocates who are willing to assert, some of these challenges and we have to be engaged in our civil society because law touches and concerns all of us. And we have, have to make sure that we are doing all of these things biblically and that we still have the right in this country to ensure that we can follow, the dictates and the wisdom that comes from the Lord. So, Mike Donnelly, you're gonna stick with me through the break. We'll be right back.
Midterm elections are less than 90 days away
Here on the Hamilton Corner,
>> : The feature length documentary Culture Warrior Don Wildmon and the Battle for Decency chronicles the life and ministry of Don Wildmon. It takes you through the founding of the National Federation for Decency. What has become afa? It's a call to stand firm for righteousness and shows how that resolve can make a huge difference in our world.
>> Mike Donnelly: If we lose this cultural war, we're going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society.
>> : Find out more and watch @culturewarrior movie.
>> Christopher Woodward: I'm Tim Moore from Christ in Prophecy Radio. With all the uncertainty in the world, it's good to know God's promises never change. That's why each week we examine current events through the reliable lens of Bible prophecy. Join me for Christ in Prophecy radio. Saturdays at 1:00pm Central, 2:00pm Eastern and Sundays at 11:00am Central, 12:00pm Eastern. Find out what's really going on. Saturdays at 1:00pm Central, 2:00pm Eastern and Sundays at 11:00am Central, 12:00pm Eastern on American Family Radio.
>> Joseph Parker: The war on Reality. This is David Wheaton, host of, the Christian Worldview. It was almost one year ago that 31 year old Christian and conservative leader Charlie Kirk walked into an outdoor amphitheater at Utah Valley University to hold a question and answer event with thousands of college students. Minutes later, a young man named Tyler Robinson fatally shot Charlie from a rooftop sniper position. Robinson was a leftist romantically involved with a gender confused man. He couldn't handle the truth. Charlie propounded Jesus said to his father, your word is truth. This is what the war on Reality is about. Hear a most recent program with Frank Turek, mentor to Charlie Kirk and author of the War on reality, at ah, thechristianworldview.org and then join us this weekend for another program that will sharpen your worldview.
>> Mike Donnelly: Listen to the Christian Worldview with David
>> : Wheaton Saturday mornings at 8 Central on American Family Radio.
>> Reporter: Hello, this is Walker Wildmon. Midterm elections are less than 90 days away. America will soon choose between continuing to return government to biblical values or turning away from these values. We could even lose the U.S. supreme Court. We could see Trump administration officials impeached by a left wing Congress. We could also see doors for righteous government continue to swing open. Or they could quickly close. You can play an important role in the upcoming election. Your generous Gift will help AFA Action and our voter education arm, iVoterGuide, inform and mobilize many more biblical voters to make an impact for Christ in the upcoming elections. Every dollar you give has six times the impact due to our over 60 partner organizations spreading the word about ivoterguide. And we have an extensive trained volunteer outreach program to Give. Go to afaaction.net that's afaaction.net afaaction.net.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: The Hamilton Quarter podcast and one minute commentaries are available at afr.net Back to the Hamilton Quarter on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Mike Donnelly discusses the Meta lawsuit involving Facebook and Instagram
>> Jenna Ellis: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. I'm, Jenna Ellis filling in for Abraham Hamilton iii. And it's so great to be with you this evening and with my special guest, Mike Donnelly, who is an attorney. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that at Donnelly Speaks. he does a lot of work in the realm of parental rights, education. And we were talking in the last segment about this interesting lawsuit in Nebraska, and how this touches and concerns on, parental rights issues, a lot of fascinating constitutional questions. And so I want to ask you, Mike, as about the, meta lawsuit. So, for those of you who haven't seen this headline yesterday, meta, of course, it's Mark Zuckerberg's, corporation reached a landmark multi state settlement over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed in ways that addict children and teens and harm their mental health is coming from, the ap. And so the bipartisan coalition, is suggesting that Meta knew and knowingly use addictive design features to keep minors engaged, misrepresented the safety of its platforms, and in some instances, improperly collected data from children under 13. And the litigation dates back to 2023. and so now there has been a settlement and some terms that now a Meta is, going to change some of its practices. So your thoughts on this?
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, let's remember the history. Right, so what happened in 2021? A Facebook product manager named Frances Haugen brought, some internal materials out, as a whistleblower, saying that Meta was aware of the harmful impact that some of its features were having on children. And so there were congressional hearings, you had Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee and, some others who were concerned about this. And, then in 2023, coalition state attorney sued Meta, alleging that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to maximize youth engagement and that Meta made misleading representations concerning safety of kids using the product. and we had Rob Bonta from California, we had J.B. mcCuskey from West Virginia. So this brought a whole bunch of interesting people who would not normally come together together to sue Meta over this issue. And basically the argument was this. It's like you guys knew what you were doing, you did it on purpose, you knew it was harmful, and you designed these features, these infinite scrolling, the thumbs up sign, all these features that are addictive. You knew they were addictive and you didn't do anything about it. And that is a tort. When someone does something to harm another person in product design, that's a torture. And so the attorneys general brought this lawsuit against Meta and they settled, for $18 billion. Now, that may sound like a lot to some people, but I don't know, we were talking earlier today and I was saying how that doesn't sound like a lot to me. you know, we're $40 trillion in debt as a country, and when you throw the word 18 trillion around, I'm like, 18 billion around. Like that. Is that even a rounding error? I don't even think that's a rounding error on the budget. and James Uthmeyer, who's the Attorney General of Florida, agrees. He was One of the AGs who opted out of this settlement, basically telling Meta, we'll see you in court, saying that, you know, one month's cash flow does not make up for a decade of harm. I think is kind of the tenor of what he said. And, so $18 billion, though, is the settlement, for a company, Meta, whose annual revenue is $200 billion. Okay. So basically is about a month's cash flow and worth $1.5 trillion. Now, some people say, okay, it's not about the money, it's about the safety. And so Met did agree in the settlement to make some changes to its product, as you pointed out, there. But I think one of the interesting impacts here could be, and I think we won't know for a while whether this is going to happen, but this could be significant for the entire social media industry because now there's a new risk calculus that all these social media companies are going to have to consider. They could be sued under product liability theories here. There was evidence that Meta knew they were doing this and it was harmful. You know, we don't. We don't know if there's any other. That kind of evidence of some of the others, but they're on notice that that could be something that they're going to have to deal with. So they may need to change the way they're doing business, to avoid lawsuits like this.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. And I think you're right that, you know, 18 billion while, you know, to somebody like me, that sounds like a lot of money, but, to. To somebody. Are you still there, Mike? We can still hear you, but we'll, we'll try to get him back.
>> Mike Donnelly: Talking to nobody for a while.
>> Jenna Ellis: no, I can. I can hear you. Are, are we there? Are we. Are we on? I'm not sure I can hear anyone from the. All right, well, so, Bobby, do we. Do you still have me? Okay. All right, so I'm still here, which is great. we'll try to get Mike Donnelly back. so sorry about that. You know, sometimes live radio, there's. There's always the, you know, can you hear me now? Good. so. So I'm glad you can all still hear me. But, as Mike was saying, and, and we've talked through this, previously, so as we're getting him back, I'll just say, you know, 18 billion sounds like a lot, you know, to somebody, like you or me. But, it's not really a lot ultimately to a company like Meta, so I don't think that it's really as much about the penalty. I mean, a lot of this money ends up going, you know, to the lawyers and all that. Anyway, I think James Uthmeyer is correct that it doesn't go far enough, but likely the rationale that the other AGs are thinking, because they did agree to this settlement, is that it does force Meta to change some of its practices. So, for example, there will be, an age verification. Meta has agreed to a stronger age assurance measure so that someone can't simply, claim to be 18 to avoid, the protections and better identify children under 13. Parents get substantially more control. the likes and feeds. Ah, a like counts on teen posts will be hidden by default. so there's not, you know, kind of that level of engagement. so, yeah, and there's a few other things.
The question to me is whether these new safety measures actually go far enough
But the question, I think, and I'm told we have Mike back, the question to me, is whether these restrictions and these new, safety measures that Meta agreed to actually go far enough. When you look at the broader scope of the harm of social media. I mean, because even as, you know, I'm. I'm 41, and even being on social media, I can tell it's addictive. I have to purse. I have to. To intentionally put down my phone and say, I'm not going to be on this too much. I have to disengage. I have to not take things personally when people, you know, spew all kinds of rhetoric. I mean, I cannot imagine what it would have been like as a teenager or someone under 13 dealing with all of this. So do you think that the settlement terms that we're aware of actually go far enough in this kind of product liability framework?
>> Mike Donnelly: Well, we're going to find out, Jenna. And I don't know how long I was talking to myself, but it sounded really good.
>> Jenna Ellis: We heard you. It sounded fantastic. We heard you.
>> Mike Donnelly: Oh, you heard. You could hear me, and then I couldn't hear you guys. Okay, great. You know, it's interesting and, you know, shocker, Jenna. Parents don't have to let their kids have Facebook accounts, they don't have to let them have Instagram accounts, and they don't let it. Have to let them have cell phones. you know, my policy as a parent has been when you're 17, maybe I'll think about it if you have a reason for it, either. 18, 17. You know, if you want a cell phone, you can pay for it. although I still pay for a bunch of my kids, but they reimburse me. you know, the family plan.
>> Jenna Ellis: The family plans. Yep, it is.
>> Mike Donnelly: But. But, you know, I. Look, this is a step in the right direction, and I'm like you. I actually have struggled a little bit with Facebook and X stuff, too. I literally took Facebook off my phone, and for about a month, I just didn't do anything with it. And even now, I gone back a little bit. I don't do much on Facebook. X. Similarly, though, I like X because breaking news, right? It's a. It's a good source of news for somebody in my line of work. But, yeah, you know, for kids, it can be very addictive and very harmful. So I think, look, parents have to. We need to. We have to reject some of the culture, right? Do they really need a cell phone? Maybe they do. I mean, I don't know. If my kids were in public school, I would. I think I'd want them to have a cell phone so they could call me if there was a problem or something like that. But now the schools are saying, nope, put your cell phone in a pouch and you'll get it back at the end of the day. Kind of like when we grew up, you know, there were no cell phones back then.
>> Jenna Ellis: Oh, I still remember. I still remember using the pay phone. Like, you know, my. My mom would totally drop me and. And some friends off at the mall, and it'd be like, all right, call us from the pay phone. You know, like, you land at the airport, you had to use that. I mean, it's. It's so wild how far we've come, even in my lifetime, you know, and, I. It's just. It's just wild. But, the. But I think that that presents the bigger question here as well. I mean, I, Obviously, the manufacturers, have a responsibility to not create a product that they know is harmful and to not intentionally create it to be harmful, even if it generates them more profit. I mean, those are some basics in the law. But all of that notwithstanding, there is no yet, government compulsion, you know, or compulsion otherwise that anybody actually has to use their product. And so even though, you know, it seems like, well, everybody's on social media and I'm not going to be able to get my source of, you know, whatever it is that you're using it for, I think that this also comes down to a lot of personal responsibility.
Parents need to have conversations with their kids about AI usage, Jenna says
Separate and apart from the obviously valid questions and the legal concerns, the bigger question for parents is, have you thought about this? I mean, have you thought about the damage that this is actually doing? have you thought about, how we're engaging in our culture, we're engaging in, in so much consumerism with the algorithms, how social media is so online instead of actually in a community. I mean, we learned this during Cove that when we didn't have human interaction, there is a huge detriment, because we're designed for relationship, relationship to God or creator, and then relationship to each other. and. And we are supposed to do that in the context of family, first and foremost, in the context of a local church, and then also in context of our community. And all of this gets kind of put to the side when we are often now alone together. And I think this is a really fascinating term because it's like, you see some of these. These, kids that are sitting, you know, at a Starbucks or something, and they're all on their phones, but sitting around the table, and it's like, okay, they're. They're together, but they're actually alone in their own little universe on the phone. They might as well not even be physically in person together. So all of these things, I think, this whole thing and this whole story raises a bigger question of what exactly are we doing as a society and where does parental responsibility become key?
>> Mike Donnelly: I think that's so well said, Jenna. And I think as parents, we really need to think about this and have conversations, you know, with our kids about it. I was talking with my son today about AI usage. And, you know, of course, AI is the newest thing that kids are now having to deal with in school and figure out, when do we use it, when do we not use it? And, you know, with social media, 15 years ago, or cell phones 15, 20 years ago, and then the social media, and now it's AI. And there's so many things coming at us as parents. And so we really need to think about it. We can't put our head in the sand. We've got to take some action. And, you know, I always tell parents, it's like, look, you've got to make sure that you're protecting your kids. It's not about whether you trust them or not. It's about you protecting them, from something that they're not mature enough to really make a decision on. And they think they are. They think they are, and they're not. And this is the. This is the case of unconscious incompetence. And that's a challenge when you're dealing with your child because they're like, dad, everybody has it. And you know what? I'm going to look dumb if I don't have a phone, and if I don't have a Facebook account, how am I going to talk to my friends and look, it's real. Believe me, I get it, I see it. it's just something that we as parents have to deal with. And in my view, I do think the pendulum may be swinging back the other way. Schools are now saying no. That gives parents an in to say, hey, you know, other people are saying no. I'm going to say no and I'm going to protect you from, you know, something that is harmful. You know, what's Philippians 4:8? Say whatever is good. True. Beautiful. Lovely. Right? These things, think on them. And so I try to use Philippians 4. 8 as a standard. It's like, look, if it doesn't meet that standard, should we be doing it? Should we be exposing ourselves and should we be allowing our children to be exposed to it? So great conversation. And I just love what you said about, about the family first church and then community. It's really important. And technology can, can get in the way of that. It is getting in the way of that. We need to fight against it.
>> Jenna Ellis: It is. And I love what you said as well about the rise of AI. And you know, you know Mike, that I'm, I'm a big fan of chat GPT in some limited purpose.
>> Mike Donnelly: Right?
>> Jenna Ellis: I mean technology is great. I love that we can have this conversation on radio that, you know, 250 years ago we couldn't have. I mean technology can be used for good, but we have to make sure that we're using it in the context of its proper purpose and we're not using it for things like, you know, where there are so many, there's so much data now about how AI is being used as a replacement for therapy. It's being used as a replacement for ah, for analysis and thinking. I mean all of these questions in higher education, I mean there's just so much that is so difficult, that we need to write, discern about the use of technology that includes social media, that includes artificial intelligence. and so we need to always walk circumspectly. We also need to apply biblical principles first and foremost and then constitutional principles as well. And so it's important to have these conversations. Mike Donnelly, I so appreciate you taking your time this morning and this evening to join me. you can follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks and you can always reach me as well. Jennaafr.net I'm Jenna Ellis filling in for Abraham Hamilton III and I will see you tomorrow morning on Jenna Ellis in the Morning. Have a wonderful evening. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
Guest Host, Jenna Ellis, is joined by Mike Donnelly, Vice President for yes. every kid. foundation.
https://fedsoc.org/bio/michael-donnelly-5
https://afafoundation.net/ | 1-800-326-4543 ext. 345
https://afr.net/BIBLESFORBABIES To donate call: 877-616-2396
Guest Host, Jenna Ellis, is joined by Mike Donnelly, Vice President for yes. every kid. foundation.
https://fedsoc.org/bio/michael-donnelly-5
https://afafoundation.net/ | 1-800-326-4543 ext. 345
https://afr.net/BIBLESFORBABIES To donate call: 877-616-2396
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
