Hamilton: God has called us to be ambassadors even in this dark moment

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham Hamilton welcomes you to the Hamilton Corner

>> Abraham Hamilton III: And now, the, Hamilton Corner.

>> Abraham Hamilton III: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Hamilton Corner. My name is Abraham Hamilton iii. I'm the host of this program. Thank you for tuning in this evening. I for one know very well that there are lots of places that vie for your attention where you could invest your time. And so, in light of the fact that you made the decision to hang out here in the corner with us, I just want to tell you thank you. I'm exceedingly grateful to you, for making that choice. And by God's grace, we will endeavor to always make it worth your while for making that decision. I am joined by the Corner contingent, as usual, right across from me, my man, 100 grand, Mr. Bobby Rosa is on the boards making sure all the audio levels and things are remaining at optimum function. And in the screening room, produce extraordinaire, often imitated but never successfully duplicated, is the real J. Mac. And he is joined by the elegant, the effervescent, the illustrious Kennedy Greene. And we are ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program.

Jeffrey Goldberg: People are rejecting what is commensurate to self governance

At this very moment, many of you, if not most of you are making are making your transition from m your part time jobs where you generate an income to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to encourage you to do so with intentionality. Intentionality. Understanding the primacy that God places on family, refusing to neglect the opportunity to squander the time and to ignore the privilege that you have to be a part of the King's agenda, fulfilling his commission, starting right in your homes. As we were talking about yesterday, the indisputable and indispensable fact of this constitutional republic with democratic features is that as our second president said, that our country and our means of government are only effective for holy, religious and moral people. When Jon Adams used that term religion, he was undoubtedly describing referring to Christianity, in other words, what I'm saying, what he's saying is that the only way that this experiment in individual liberty will be an enduring phenomenon is if we have a people that are conducive to this enduring phenomenon. And I will continue to tell you that self governance is a synonym for the fruit of the spirit called self control. When we have a populace that is not endowed and indwelled by the spirit of God who bear the fruit of the spirit that is self control, we will not have a, people that are conducive to, to our constitutional republican form of government. So when you see the consistent efforts to fundamentally transform, what you are witnessing is that externalization of the fact that people are rejecting what is commensurate to self governance. That is what it is. As I was describing yesterday, this is why the call must go forward, for people to repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ and be discipled and matured in him. Because the lack of that happening generationally, I'll say at least two generations of our fellow countrymen is what has given rise to the inability to resist, plainly doctrines of demons in various formats. On the regressive left, you have, you know, balkanization of society, comparisons amongst oneself and entitlement being weaponized full on to lead to a pursuit of Marxist iterations of policy in our country. And I mean, that's an undeniable fact. And then you see on, I would call it the regressive right, an effort to say, well, we need to secure and seek political strongman to impose our wills through government. we need to use government to make all things right. It's like, whoa, that's just as anti American as the left, the regressive left. And you see those things perpetuated because there's been a vacuum of a core ethos anchored in biblical Christianity that will enable us to say, just as our founding took place, the core of our founding was the truths articulated in our declaration. Those truths flow from the biblical reality of the imago dei. That's where all of that flows from. But when you have metastasizingly biblically illiterate populace succumbing to moralistic therapeutic deism, as we talked about yesterday, this is what it looks like in practice. So as you're making your transition, my encouragement to be about our Father's business, starting first and foremost in our own homes, with ourselves first, and then we become proponents of the very thing, that we have been captivated by. In the name of Jesus, to the word of God we go. Deuteronomy, chapter 18 is where we're going to. Deuteronomy, judges, chapter 18, Jeff, is like what you put Judges on the rundown. Judges, chapter 18, verses 14 through 20. have to explain a bit of context first. So, this will be a summary really that goes, goes back to judges, chapter 17. Following, the account of Samson in the book of Judges, the text immediately turns to an unnamed woman who has a son who stole silver from her. The son is named Micah. And immediately this mother encourages her son to use the silver to build m. A graven image. Now, you know, I may not know everything, but didn't, didn't. Wasn't there a commandment that said you shall not make any graven images? Yet you have an Israelite mom instructing her son who is an adult, who's not a child. Because the Bible says he has his own son. The text says he has his own son to, to use the money to make a graven image. Then this man not only made a graven image, he has a household shrine of false gods or idols, and he's living in the hill country of Ephraim. Then he ordains his own son as a priest to be a personal priest to him. Though the Lord's priests at this time were living and functioning in Shiloh, he makes his own counterfeit Ephod. Then the scripture reveals that there's a Levite who comes a, straggling into his area of the country. And the Bible says the Levite was looking for a place where he could stay. But even though the Lord had already told us and already told them in the book of Joshua, for example, chapter 21, verses 4 and 41, that the Lord had already ordained cities for the Levites. So the concept of a Levite being nomadic was one showing that there's a fish out of water here. The Levites ain't supposed to be Roman to say, I'm looking for a new place to stay. Now if you're trying to visit, that's one thing, but you're looking for a new place to make your home, it's revealing that things have begun so have become so corrupt in Israel. You have Levites functioning out of order. Idolatry is normalized, and this is all happening in within the Israelite territory. Fast forward a little further as this wandering Levite makes the acquaintance of Micah. Micah has this religious, disposition, but he's trying to build his own religion. So he gives his son the boot as his priest and says, hey, Levi, you're a Levite. Won't you be my priest? I'll pay you 10 pieces of silver a year. I'll pay for your room and board, and I'll make sure you are laced with the Finest flyest drip. The fly is closed and the Levite goes. Word. I can be your personal priest. Well, fast forward. Cross reference. Judges, Chapter one. The tribe of Dan had not yet at this juncture, found a permanent place for itself to reside because they were unable to deal with The Amorites. Judges 1:34 tells us this. And so the tribe of Dan sends spies out to say, hey, man, we need to find a place where we can call our final home. So they send out five spies to go and spy out the land. And they come across the city of Laish, was the name of the place there. And the people who were living there, they said they were unsuspecting, living in peace, and they had robust prosperity. They had a culture similar to the Sidonians, but the Sidonians were so far away, they felt like they could overtake them. And we pick up, we'll pick up in the middle of that story here in, verse 14 in Judges, chapter 18. I'll read all the way to verse 20, then make a few observations. Judges 18:14. Then the five men who went to spy out the country of Laish said to their kinsmen, do you know that there are in these houses in Ephod and household idols and a graven image and a molten image. Now therefore, consider what you should do. They turned aside there and came to the house of the young man, the Levite, to the house of Micah, and asked him of his welfare. The 600 men armed with their weapons of war, who were of the sons of Dan, stood by the entrance of the gate. Now the five men who went to spy out the land went up and entered there and took the graven image and the Ephod and the household idols and the molten image, while the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the 600 men armed with weapons of war. When these men went into Micah's house and took the graven image, the ephod, and household idols, and the molten image, the priest said to them, what are you doing? They said to him, be silent, otherwise, shut up, put your hand over your mouth and come with us, and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be a priest to the house of one man or to be priest to a tribe and a family in Israel? The priest's heart was glad. And he took, and he took the ephod and the household idols and the graven image, and went among the people. Guys, what you're witnessing there are several violations of the highest order. And this is not like way Far down the line. This is shortly after. I won't say shortly, but this is certainly after the time of Joshua, during the time of the Judges is showing the that apostasy was already setting in. First and foremost, what is the Levite doing rambling and wandering away from the cities that God had ordained for the Levites to live in Shows the Levite himself is unsettled, uncomfortable. Yes, God has a portion for me. I don't want what God has. I'm going to strike out and find my own way, which is in itself an exercise of rebellion.

Joseph Parker: The tribe of Dan was founded in compromise which eventually turned into apostasy

Then what do you have next? You have the tribe of Dan at this juncture to have a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. When they learned that Micah had a household, household idols, had a shrine of idols in a molten image and a graven image and had an ephod there, that was a point of attraction to them when it should have been a point of despisal. They should have been, as a tribe of God's people, they should have been offended at the notion that you have a person who would dare have a counterfeit priest functioning in an individual capacity. Because the priest that God had ordained, the priests and the Levites were not functioning for individual families. They were operating on behalf of the entire nation of Israel. But you don't see that. Then you see the priest getting upset. You taking this ephod, you taking these idols, what are you doing? Then the Danites, the tribe of Dan, they appealed to the priest's pride after telling them shut up. Then said, wouldn't you want to upgrade? Why would you want to stay a priest for one little man in one little house when you could be a priest for an entire tribe? Guys, this is violating the law of God as conveyed through Moses. There's no such thing as a priesthood for a tribe. Then the prideful appeal made to the Levite, you saw it take root because the scripture says, and the priest's heart was glad so that he took the ephod and the idols and the graven image. Now you think about this. This is at the foundation of what later becomes the home of the tribe of Dan. When you fast forward later into the era of the kings, when Jeroboam becomes the first king of the divided nations of Israel and Judah, what's one of the first things that Jeroboam does? He sets up golden calves. Where one of them was set at Beersheba. But where was the other one placed? The other one was placed in Daniel. What the scripture is bearing out is that The Tribe of Dan was founded in compromise, which ultimately burgeoned fully into apostasy. So when the golden calf was placed in Dan, that wasn't anything that was foreign to the Danites. That was just the latest iteration of the same idolatry, false God worship that they had been embroiled in since the Tribe of Dan established its home front. I'm saying all of this the same as we examine the truth of God's word, that the road to rebellion and apostasy often begins with compromise. When you compromise at one point, that compromise, if not confronted, confessed and repented of, will inevitably burgeon into fl. Full blown rebellion. Don't play with compromise.

>> Abraham Hamilton III: A, discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.

>> Joseph Parker: We can live like civilians and just be victims of the killing, abuse, problems and difficulties of war, or we can choose to become well equipped soldiers and warriors, skilled and trained for war and spiritual warfare. Hopefully all believers would want to become warriors in God's kingdom. Warriors who've learned about the realities of spiritual warfare and that have been taught and trained to be well equipped soldiers. The most powerful weapon in the world is the Word of God. And here are seven ways that we can put the Word of God, the sword of the Spirit, to work in our lives and in our world. Here are seven ways to use the Word of God every day, daily. We can read it, hear it, believe it, speak it, obey it, pray it, and meditate on it. All of these uses are related, but none of them are quite the same.

Hamilton: Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship raises questions about representative government

>> Abraham Hamilton III: M

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

>> Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. Man, so much stuff is falling out. Have you seen the latest on Graham Platner in Maine? Where, are we witnessing the whole concept of representative republic? I mean representative government, just being intentionally eviscerated on the national stage. we'll get into that. And, what's the deal with Mitch McConnell? Many people, myself included, was among the people that are saying, you guys wanted me to not believe my so called lying eyes. Mr. Ice Cream man clearly cannot be the Democrat nominee. And you remember Bobby, you remember this? I told you guys, as soon as the election happened, I said, this guy's not going to be the nominee for the 2024 election. Not gonna happen. And the consistent representation, oh, he's fit as a fiddle. You know, I'll never forget Jake Tapper. He's the best we've ever seen. Then this dude writes a book after the fact saying, oh, I can't believe Joe Biden deceived us. Like what? You were part of the deception, Jake. Well, you have Mitch McConnell being hospitalized, and when he goes to the hospital, his wife goes to China. Elaine, child. That certainly don't smell right. Then we have. And I haven't weighed in on this because I was really, intending to my own family. That's why this whole thing about having a family member hospitalized and you going out of the country, I can't imagine that. But, this. This decision by the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship, guys, it. It amounts. It amounts to a majority of the Supreme Court amending the US Constitution in an extra constitutional manner. I mean, let me explain what I'm talking about. All right, let's do this radical thing that we used to do here in the country. It's called read the 14th amendment. Let's read the 14th amendment. All right, the 14th amendment says. This is section one of the 14th amendment, and I quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That doesn't seem too complex, does it? I'll, read it again. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. This is an amendment that was adopted July 21, 1868. This is a part of the Reconstruction Amendments. It was very clear that the whole point of this was to address the abomination. That was a Dred Scott decision that said that the descendants of African slaves who were brought to this country against their will, their children, are American citizens. Because the same Supreme Court, obviously different justices, but the same Supreme Court, said in Dred Scott that they were not citizens. So this, amendment, exists to correct the wrong decision the Supreme Court made in Dred Scott. It's very simple. You know, Kennedy's interning with us. You see, there are two requirements to be a citizen of this country. The first requirement, all persons born or naturalized in the United States of America. That will be our sovereign territory. It would extend to our territories, our protectorates, our military bases, of course, but that's one requirement. What's the second requirement? And the person who was born or naturalized in the United States of America is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. That seems pretty simple. Born here and subject to our jurisdiction. The issue that was presented by President Trump's executive order. I'm gonna read. I'm read the pertinent part of his executive order in a Moment. What's just that.

Five of the nine Supreme Court justices agreed that children are subject to jurisdiction

Well, what is the status of those people who are born here, yet their parents have entered our country illegally? What the Supreme Court decision was. And y' all square. Square this circle. All right? The Supreme Court ruled. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices agreed that, quote, children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are, therefore, citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. Just one simple question. Can you explain to me. And this is what I was looking for in the. In all of the opinions, 194 pages of opinions, all of the. The majority opinion, the concurring opinions, the dissent. Well, not the dissents, but the majority opinion and the concurring opinion. Can you explain to me how the parents can be unlawfully, in our country while simultaneously being subject to the jurisdiction of our country? Does that make sense? That question makes sense. How can you be in our country illegally? You're very present is tangible physical evidence that you are not subject to our jurisdiction. Jurisdiction. Because you're violating our jurisdiction. How can you be here, illegally, and at the exact same time that you're illegally present, you're subject to our jurisdiction. And I'm gonna make this very, very simple for you guys. And I understand, and I don't even. I'm not sitting here to say, oh, I am far more intelligent than the U.S. supreme Court justices, but oftentimes people conceal deception and chicanery and lots of words and using big words. Right? But here's a very simple question. If the constitutional amendment, the 14th amendment only meant to convey that people born on American soil will be citizens, why would there be a need for an additional requirement? Right. This. The. The 14th Amendment would have said very explicitly, all persons born or naturalized in the United States are, ah, citizens of the United States and the states wherein they reside. Period, end of sentence. If that is what they meant to convey, wouldn't you think that would be what the amendment says? Right, Bobby? Ah, am I tripping? If the. If the. If the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant solely to convey anybody who is born on American soil would be American citizens, they could have said that explicitly. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. But that's not what they said. There's this jurisdiction component. They said all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. What we just witnessed, it was the Supreme Court five of the Nine justices. And y' all know who they were? Do I need to name them? It's the usual three. Y' all know they are Justices. So Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. But they were joined in this disastrous decision by Chief Justice Jon Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. If the intention was merely to confer citizenship upon people who are born in this country, the solution would have been simple. To state, all persons born or naturalized in this country are citizens. But being subject to the jurisdiction cannot mean that you are simultaneously violating our jurisdiction. M. Oh, boy. So, because I love y', all, I dove into these 194 pages, much to my own headache. And you, you, you have like, for example, Justice Kavanaugh, who wrote a dissenting opinion. And in his dissenting opinion, he explained, well, he would have favored Congress clarifying the Immigration and Nationality act as a means of expressing what President Trump express. Let me, before I get to Justice Kavanaugh, let me read to you the pertinent portions of President Trump's executive order. And that's what brought the issue to the Supreme Court. So President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, the day he was inaugurated, 2025. It was executive order number 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. His order, quote, provides that children born of persons unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. That, that's what President Trump's Executive order said. So he basically said what I'm saying to you, that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship upon people merely because they're born here. No, being born here is one part, a vital part of the formula, but being subject to our jurisdiction is also a vital part. The Immigration and Nationality act goes forward to clarify that not everybody born here are citizens because we have, here's a, here's the most clear example, and I've talked to you guys about this before. That is why the children of, foreign ambassadors, like when you have the ambassador from Brunei who lives in a, in the, in the Brunei consulate in D.C. that Brunei consulate is viewed as Brunei sovereign territory. And because the Brunei ambassador, though they are physically, tangibly on American soil, they are by definition not subject to American jurisdiction. Therefore, their children are not automatically American citizens. We've understood that. We've known that for years. Which brings me back to Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh's argument was and, you know, I understand what he's saying, but I find it to be weak sauce. I find Justice Kavanaugh trying to find a way to weave and bob and dodge the weightier issue. He even said it. He said he thought that the decision should be decided on statutory grounds and not even address the 14th Amendment argument. He said that he felt like the court should have merely addressed the Immigration and Nationality act and said that the Immigration and Nationality act did not exclude citizenship based on the unlawful presence of. Just keep it. Keep it a buck. illegal immigrant. They should have just put that in a statute. That's what he said. He said. But because they, the majority, address the Constitution, I'll address the Constitution, and I say that their constitutional analysis is wrong. That's what Justice Kavanaugh said. I understand what he's saying. I do think clarifying the Immigration and National, Nationality act is important, yes, But I don't think that needs to be dispositive of the issue, because the Constitution trumps even statutes.

Coleman: Supreme Court ruling basically incentivizes illegal immigration

All right, but what the majority of the court just ruled. Their ruling effectively culminates in a rewriting of the 14th Amendment. They have basically said that the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is practically meaningless because in their parlance, you can be subject to American jurisdiction while. While you're violating American jurisdiction. guys, that is insane. That is insane.

>> Jeff Chamblee: Cole, you stupid.

>> Abraham Hamilton III: So you have the U.S. supreme Court basically incentivizing illegal immigration, because you know how our, immigration laws, as they're currently written, that they work, is that if you have an illegal immigrant who has a child here, the child is automatically a citizen. So then if you are a citizen, that could begin the process of what's called chain migration.

>> Jeff Chamblee: Guys.

>> Abraham Hamilton III: Ah, that's a fact. That's a fact.

>> Joseph Parker: This.

>> Abraham Hamilton III: This is. This is an exceedingly absurd ruling. Exceedingly absurd. Justice Thomas, as usual, he took out his hammer and did what he does in his dissenting opinion of about, 91 pages and saying this is exceedingly absurd when the intent of the amendment and the application of the amendment are obvious. They talked about, the previous case where you had the Chinese

>> Abraham Hamilton III: man,

>> Abraham Hamilton III: who was a descendant of Chinese citizens. I'm sorry, they were Chinese residents who were not citizens of the U.S. but they were permanent, lawful residents of the U.S. and how their son, was a citizen, because it's clear that they planned to be. To live here. They were in. And they were. And they were in the parents in our country legally, just as Gorse has picked up on that in saying that his disagreement with the majority is consistent with that decision, the previous decision, because the issue was this being subject to the jurisdiction will be those who, in complying with our laws, had expressed their intention to be permanently in our country, that compliance with our laws would be akin to being subject to jurisdiction of our law, of our, of our country. So what do we do now? One, this shows the importance of having both sane immigration laws and sane immigration enforcement. This undergirds and underscores why it's very important that we enforce our immigration laws. But this is also why we cannot rely solely on executive action which can be undone by a subsequent administration. But two, and, and this is going to make it a lot harder you can seek for which, honestly, I'm not sure this would even carry the day any longer in light of the Supreme Court opinion, because if you even tried to amend the Immigration and Nationality act to further clarify and specify, now you have the Supreme Court opinion that's staring in the face. So this could very well require you to, amend the US Constitutional amendment, which in effect, and I hate that I'm saying this because of the challenge in doing that. This could very well create further incentive, incentive for things like birthright tourism. Because one of the things that President Trump was trying to, communicate is that being a temporary visitor to our country is not the same as being a permanent, lawful resident and being in a little, in being an illegal alien certainly, certainly is not being subject to our jurisdiction. So I'll address your question after the fact. Opinion is not law, right? That's a question that popped up on the feed. I'll get to that in a second.

The American Family Radio Compass focuses on faith, truth and conviction

>> Joseph Parker: If we lose this cultural war, we're

>> Abraham Hamilton III: going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society.

>> Jeff Chamblee: Discover the story of the culture warrior Don Wildmon and how he went head to head with Hollywood Playboy, the homosexual agenda and the Disney empire. The movement Don started paved the way for Christians to boldly stand for truth and righteousness in a hostile culture. Watch Culture Warrior today for free. Visit CultureWarrior Movie.

>> Jeff Chamblee: Tune in Saturdays at 1:30 Central for the Compass with host Rick Beggs and I, Voter Guide President Debbie Wuthnau. Each weekend, the Compass will seek to navigate the public square with faith, truth and conviction. Rick and Debbie will keep tabs on upcoming elections and remind us of the importance of our participation in them. The Compass reminds us that God is our true north. Be listening for the Compass Saturday afternoons at 1:30 Central on American Family Radio Independence Day.

>> Joseph Parker: This is David Wheaton, host of the Christian Worldview, a nation in world altering took place on July 4, 1776 in Philadelphia when 56 representatives of 13 British colonies signed the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. The Declaration is America's original founding document and is the most consequential enumeration of the fundamental and unalienable rights of mankind as irrevocably endowed by our Creator. The Bible says, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. While this specifically refers to Israel. There is general blessing for any nation that reveres and honors God. This begins with each one of us. hear our most recent [email protected] and then tune in this weekend for another topic that will sharpen your worldview.

>> Jeff Chamblee: Listen to the Christian Worldview with David Wheaton Saturday mornings at 8 Central on American Family Radio.

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

To correct this Supreme Court opinion, one of two things has to occur

>> Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. So, a question came in. The Supreme Court opinion is not law, right? Well, you're right and not right at the same time to a degree. And this is why. So this case is different in the sense that it is providing an interpretation and ultimately an application of the 14th amendment itself. It is providing, the interpretation and application of the verbiage for the 14th Amendment in the absence of, well, not. Let me say it better. So you have the Immigration and Nationality act, which is, subordinate to the U.S. constitution. But what you have the Supreme Court saying is that this is what the Constitution says and this is what it means. for example, when you had the Roe vs. Wade opinion, it wasn't saying these are the words of the Constitution. It was reading into the Constitution something that did not exist in it. But if you recall, if you recall, the practical application prior to the Dobbs case was that Roe was viewed as the legal basis that prohibited states from basically restricting or even outlawing abortion. In this instance, with the 14th Amendment's interpretation, the court is saying, this is what the US Constitution means. So in order to correct this Supreme Court opinion, one of two things has to occur.

>> Jeff Chamblee: All right?

>> Abraham Hamilton III: Probably maybe both of them, but at least one of two things has to occur. First, you're gonna have to get another case to go to the court to overturn this opinion. Right? So this, Trump versus Barbara case is gonna have to have another case that reverses Trump versus Barbara, just like it took the Dobbs case to reverse Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. All right? And. Or I should say, or first, or that we have to get an Amendment to the 14th Amendment, either via Convention of the States or via Congress to clarify the text of the amendment itself. All right. The easier way may very well be. And both of these are going to take time. None of this is going to happen overnight. the most direct thing that probably would need to happen. way in both of these, because we have, you know, just to be real, you have feckless Republicans that don't even want to touch this issue. So they are more than willing to hide behind this decision and allow it to flourish because they actually want the outcome from this decision. You know, how many years have there been opportunities to correct all of this via congressional legislation before this case ever got to the court? It never should have got to the place where it took an executive order from President Trump to bring this issue to the fore. What should have happened long before this was simply a, clarification to the Immigration and Nationality act from Congress. Then we never had to deal with the Supreme Court opinion. But now that this opinion has been issued, we're probably going to have to See either the U.S. constitution amendment amended, which will take time, or another case that overturns this case, which will also take time. But it's not. And here's the thing, it's not the end of the conversation, though. And that's the beauty of being, in the United States of America and being a citizen in the United States of America. But we're going to have to go through the process of highlighting the absurdity of this decision, communicating that this conclusion functionally and practically modifies the 14th Amendment. It's literally eviscerating the end, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, provision of the constitutional amendment. So it's going to take work, but it can be done. And I think justice, Thomas's dissent gives a lot of the foundation for the groundwork for that it's going to take. I would probably encourage, and, a both and approach. but it's gonna take time. It's gonna take time.

An additional former girlfriend of Grand Platner has accused him of raping her

Now, I'm gonna talk a little bit about this Graham Platner situation. This is, this is just. Man, this is just rich. So, a m. An additional former girlfriend of Grand Platner has accused him of raping her. Oh, you're very welcome. Thank you for listening. Accused him of raping her. But here's the thing that's so wild. The accusation is not a new accusation. All right? In this, in this sense that this accusation of Graham Platner raping this former girlfriend was known before the Democrat primary in Maine for the U.S. senate. And when the accusation was made previously, the Democrat Party circled the wagons around Graham Platner, all saying, we support. We. Hey, we're going to support Graham Platner and all of this. And then all of a sudden, all of a sudden, Politico does a subsequent interview with this young woman. And I'm telling you, it's. It's. It breaks my heart to hear her discuss what she says the Grand Platinum did to her. Oh, my gosh. But the question that the American public should have is now, what happened that caused the Democrat Party to now say they're calling for Grand Platinum to drop out of the race? Because they could have called for him to drop out of the race before the primary, where the voters in Maine could have had an opportunity to vote with somebody else, but they didn't do that. Kind of like, remember when Joe Biden wasn't capable of running for office again, and he didn't drop out before the Democrat primary, but they waited till after the primary, and then did they hold another primary? No, no, they just said, now we gonna. We're gonna roll with Kamala. Yet they're defenders of democracy. Well, they don't have candidates who are elected to run for office or nominated run for office. They have who. They're the party bosses appoint. So in his latest iteration, the party, you have all of these Democrat elected officials around the country, all of the ones who endorsed him, you know, Elizabeth Warren, la, and you know, Ro Khanna, and all. All of these people, they. They endorsed Graham Platner. They support him wholeheartedly. And. But now they all now are, withdrawn their endorsements, and the Democrat party has until July 13th to select a replacement for Graham Platner. Well, then, in the latest turn of events, Graham Platner has announced, and this is being reported by the NewSong York Times, that he refuses to withdraw from the race unless he gets to name who he wants to be the person who runs from the Senate. And I'm like, what about that old democracy thing they like to talk about? Aren't, ah, these the people that were like, no kings, no kings, no kings. But it seemed like they keep having kings. The party bosses nominate. It doesn't matter who votes for who. It's almost like remembering in the run up to 2016, and Bernie Sanders was running against she or she'll never be president. And who was winning in that primary? Yo. Oh, yeah. Bernie Sanders was telling everybody to get off his lawn. And then all of a sudden,

>> Jeff Chamblee: Why

>> Abraham Hamilton III: am I Bringing this up. So I told you guys, the Angela, the Maya Angelou maxim. When people show you who they are, believe them. How many times do things like this have to happen? And I'm not going to make any accusations that are unfounded, but I sure find it pretty curious that the very same allegations that were publicized before the Democrat primary now all of a sudden are. Are credible enough for the Democrat Party to call for Graham Platler to resign or, ah, sorry to get out of the race. So they ran with, dude got a Nazi tattoo on his chest. Everybody knows he's a Nazi fan. He watches the movies, he talks about it. The people who talked to him before he ever ran for office would say, I, knew exactly what tattoo he was getting. But then he comes out and say, oh, I didn't. I didn't know what I was putting in permanent ink on my body for the rest of my life. I didn't know what that was. That's what he said. He has a Nazi tattoo on his chest. He would. He would get inebriated and take his shirt off in bars before he ran for office, pound his chest and brag about the tattoo he has. But that wasn't enough. And for the party that accuses everybody else of being Nazis, you got a dude who literally got a Nazi tattoo on his chest, but they're saying, this is our nominee for the U.S. senate. And then you have the same party who try to make up sexual assault allegations about Brett Kavanaugh, but this dude literally has a line of former girlfriends and former staffers and all who say, man, this guy is a sexual abuser. And you had staffers who are literally resigning from his campaign because of his behavior in the Democrat Party. No, this is our man. This is our guy. And all this information was known. They still rally around him. It's like, you want this guy to be a U.S. senator, like, that bad. But now that the primaries are over, now they're saying, you know what? On second thought, we don't want him to be US Senator. I could be wrong, but it seems like. It seems like the Democrat Party is not necessarily interested in voters deciding who gets to be their nominee in Maine. That's what it seems like to me. If y' all had this information before the primary, what. And at a minimum, I think you owe it to the public to explain why now you find these allegations to be credible enough to call for Grand Platinum to resign when you didn't think so before. And because y' all know I'm an equal opportunity truth Teller, let's toggle on over to the GOP side of the aisle, shall we?

Han Zing: Mitch McConnell has been hospitalized since June with cardiac arrest

Where reports are that Mitch McConnell has been in the hospital for over three weeks now. No one has spoken to him. He's missed several critical votes in the US Senate. As I said before, it was pretty obvious that Mr. Joseph Biden was unable to acquit, himself to be the President. You know, if Mitch McConnell, he's 84 years old, and I'm not saying if you're 84 years old, you can't do the job. But not all 84 year olds are alike. I know 83, 84 year old who's just, just as with it as was if he was a 44 year old. But in this instance, Mitch McConnell has been hospitalized since June and been in the hospital for three weeks. We got evidence of the EMS call that was made, and it was made from what's understood and known to be Mitch McConnell's residence in Washington D.C. and they said it's cardiac arrest. They didn't say Mitch McConnell's name, so that would be an assumption. I don't know for sure that the emergency call was made for Mitch McConnell, but it was at his house. And now he's been in the hospital for three weeks, but we don't know what caused his hospitalization. Can Mitch McConnell still do the job of a US senator? I remember seeing him at a public event where he was, completely befuddled, seemingly unable to digest a question and answer a question publicly. What's going on there? And then, and then, and this, this is, this has always been curious to me. Meaning his marriage. Elaine Child, who was a former U.S. ambassador, by the way, but Mitch McConnell is hospitalized and Elaine Chow goes to China. I don't understand that at all. According to the report, she's meeting with Chinese Vice President. You see, I got old boy's name right here. Han Zing. You got pictures with those two in public. Now, if I'm wrong about this, I am more than willing to correct this. But does that not look funny? Why, why are you showing up in China? Why? Your husband is in the. I just. Man, this stuff stinks. Man, this stuff stinks. And that's why there has to be, a desire for truth. There are reports today that there are several Republican Senate members who said they've spoken to Mitch McConnell. He's doing fine. He sounded strong. Okay. All right. I just think the United States of America, the citizens of our country and the people he represents in Kentucky deserve better. I understand. Hipaa. I Don't think you need to give your entire medical history in public, but can. Can you do the job? And then I ran out of time. But the preliminary hearing is underway in the trial concerning the accused murderer of Charlie Kirk. And the types of conspiracy and lies and things that have been discussed about this case is just ridiculous. I wanted to explain. I guess I'll explain. In some jurisdictions, the probable cause determination is not made by a grand jury for certain felony offenses that they have to go through what's called a preliminary hearing for a court to make a decision concerning probable cause. So this proceeding in Utah is not the trial of Tyler Robinson. It's a probable cause hearing is what it is. All right? It's the presentation of evidence that will cause the court to say yay or nay as to whether or not Tyler Robinson must stand trial for this event offense. All right, now, there's lots of evidences that have been presented. Lord willing, I'll probably go through some of this evidence. Much, of the hearing has been televised. So this. This is not secret. There have been portions of it, like video of Charlie Kirk's, murder that when, you know, that have been not played for the public consumed, but it was played in the courtroom. But the bulk of the hearing has been televised, and, you know, it's evidence. That's why criminal cases are not tried on podcasts or on social media. There's this thing called a court of law where oaths are taken and testimony is presented. Lord willing. We'll be back tomorrow.

>> Jeff Chamblee: M the views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio. M.

0:00 - 15:00. Judges 18:14-20. Compromise is often the on-ramp to apostasy.

15:00 - 31:00. A U.S. Supreme Court majority amended the U.S. Constitution with its horrendous birthright citizenship opinion.

31:00 - 48:00. Representative government is being publicly eviscerated in ME.

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

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