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 III: And now the Hamilton Corner.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Good evening everybody. What a day, what a day, what a day.
Abraham Hamilton: Many are making transition from part time jobs to full time jobs
Welcome to the Hamilton Corner here on American Family Radio where I am your host, Abraham Hamilton iii, joined by the corner contingent right across from me, my man, 100 grand, Mr. M. Bobby. And in the screening room produced extraordinaire. Never often imitated, but never duplicated. It's the real J. Mac. And we are ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program. At this very moment, many you, if not most of you are making your transition from your part time job where you generate an income, part time jobs where you generate an income, to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to remind you to do so with intentionality, understanding the primacy that God places on family and welcoming God's word as he's instructed us to guide, to govern and to guard your engagement right in your homes. If, ah, we would welcome the Lord to grasp a hold of us in our homes. There's no question as to what can be done in society. And I say that because we have seen what it looks like, what type of society is constructed when people have the lordship of Christ as a primary forming feature. the distinguishing characteristic of our nation amongst the nations of the world is ours is the first, our nation is, is the first nation in the history of the world where its founding ethos is that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That is the founding ethos of our nation. as I've said on this show routinely, have we embraced, understood and applied that ethos properly? Absolutely not. We have never done so perfectly. But one thing that our founders understood is that they anticipated each successive generation of Americans to strive in order to form a more perfect union as our preamble to our Constitution states. And so the expectation was that the founding ethos would serve as a foundation to continue to grow and to build this thing called these United States of America. But when we reject that, when we reject the reality of the imago dei, when we reject the truth that is anchored in scripture, the founded, founding truths in scripture, that we set ourselves on a course for our own destruction. And in many ways that is what we're witnessing. And I know, I don't want to ever, oversimplify the reality that we're facing, but the truth is that we are facing a challenge, a contention between God's word, God's word being prevalent, or Man's word. That's what, that is what this all boils to down to. So as you are making your transition to your full time jobs, I want to encourage you to do so, with laser guided focus and understand that you've been ordained for this moment. This is something that I revisit often because it simply is true. The scripture bears this out, that we, but that God has determined before time the boundaries of our habitation and the times in which we would live, so that men should seek God to say it simply. You and I are ordained for this moment, guys. With all of the craziness, with all of the, the swirling epithets that, that go forward and you know, I was reading something the other day, it said it's it's easier for a black man to come out, say he's a woman than to say he's conservative. Is that, is that true or is that a lot? You know, somebody claimed to be, you know, trans, whatever. They're lauded as heroes in our society currently. It's utter madness, guys. But regardless of the madness that is percolating around us, this is the time that God has ordained for you and I to be alive. This is the moment for us that God has ordained. Let's not miss our moment.
Clancy: Isaiah chapter 59 speaks about justice within a temporal context
To the Word of God we go. Isaiah, chapter 59 is where we're going to go. I'm going to focus on verses 14 and 15, but I want to begin by alluding to the beginning of the chapter where the Lord reveals himself in a manner we described just yesterday in saying that it's not as if the Lord's arms are too short to save. It's not as if that the craziness of the moment have all of a sudden rendered, the omnipotent one impotent. Not at all. The issue, the issue in this portion of Scripture, the issue that was hindering Judah was their sinfulness, their rebellion. And I know for some that makes them uncomfortable to consider. But sin is real and sin has consequences. And so there were things, the first eight verses of this chapter kind of describes the cause for what transpires. And then when you get to Right about verse nine through the rest of the chapter, they describes the effects of the cause. The sinfulness is what has caused a separation between God and his creation. some of the effect, the results of that are described here. And this is what Isaiah, chapter 59, verse 14 says. Justice. Justice is turned back. Or some translations there say, justice is turned away backward, and righteousness stands far away, for truth has stumbled in the public squares and uprightness cannot enter. Other translations render that for truth has been hurled to the ground, has been cast to the ground and trampled, and justice is trampled underfoot. What the scripture is pointing to here, is that the places where the expectation is for justice to be appropriately meted out, and make no mistake about it, this is justice employed in a temporal context. This is not talking about cosmic justice. This is not talking about eternal justice. This is talking about the application of justice. Justice within a temporal context. The scripture says that justice is trampling underfoot. And being turned backward is the byproduct or the results of truth being cast to the ground, truth being rejected, truth being hurled down is because truth has been hurled down that righteousness stands afar off. Justice is turned back. And then look. Verse 15 says, Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. Think about that. In an environment where sin is so prevalent, truth is hurled to the ground, cast to the ground, and justice is trampled underfoot. Righteousness stands far off from the places where you would expect to have the application of justice in the temporal context. And then what happens is the ones who depart from evil make themselves a prey. How dare you say it's wrong to slaughter an unborn child. How dare you say that children shouldn't be confronted with teacher, sexuality. How dare you say a man can't be a woman or a woman can't be a man. How dare. Ah, you, you become a prey if you say those things to the point I said a few minutes ago, is it truly easier in our society for a more melanated man to come out and say they're transgender than for them to actually say they're conservative? What kind of pushback do you think society will offer? Guys, I'm sharing this because of what's happening here. It's only in an environment where truth has been hurled to the ground that you'll have women dress up in pink and show up to support a woman who strangled three of her children, her three children to death. And oh, don't stop now. But I brace myself for this potentially happening. But I'm a share story with you later on. Just yesterday in Frankfort, Illinois, a mom. I want to explain it. Just the news reports and the information that we have. Currently a 2 year old child is found dead in a resident in a suburban, residential neighborhood in Frankfurt, Illinois. A two year old child. Police find the child, get access to the house, search the home, find the child's mother attempting to harm herself. The child is transported to the hospital. The child is determined to be dead. Mom is transported to the hospital with life threatening injuries. The people in the community are saying this is how, just like the Clancy case out of Massachusetts, I brace myself for copycats. Now what? We have the information that happened just yesterday, so investigation is still underway. but this is grievous, man. This is grievous. We have a society that has already declared that we shall allow. When I say we, I'm using that as a universal we. I know not. I don't agree with it, not at all. And I don't support it at all. I fight it with every, every fiber of my being. But when I say we. There are members of our society and entire states, by virtue of their representative governments that have declared that we believe the ability for a mom to murder her child is a constitutionally protected right. I keep referring to this because this is a recent phenomenon in Massachusetts just changed its law to allow for an unborn child to be slaughtered through the entire gestational
>> Joseph Parker: period.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: The state of NewSong York has radical laws on the books concerning abortion. Several states all around the country, you know, following Roe vs. Wade being overturned and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the number of children murdered before they were born has increased. It has increased. Remember, the scripture says that men invent ways to do evil. That we have people who have used technological innovation to create new ways to murder children before they are born. Because truth has been cast to the ground. Gosh. Truth has been hurled down. Justice has been trampled underfoot. My, ah, point in illustrating all of this or describing all of this is to show you the scripture told us what would happen. Some of us didn't anticipate exactly what it would look like, including myself. I've told you many times, I remember thinking as a young man studying the Scriptures, when the Bible says, as it was in the days of Noah, I would often envision, what would that look like? Where men, their thoughts and the intentions of their hearts were continuously evil all the time. What did that look? What could that look like?
Joseph Parker: People everywhere are facing intense spiritual warfare
Guys, I think we're here. We're here. We're here. I've commiserated publicly with the percentage of pastors, according to recent data from the Barna group, that engage in the consumption of pornography at some level. The data shows about 20% of pastors, and that's those who responded to the survey in an honest fashion. Guys, we're at the place to where the major problem is that truth has been cast to the ground and what has to happen, and I've said this, I'm going to continue to say it, that we have to disciple our way out of it. Now we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, we have to pass wise, policy. Yes, we have to identify the immediate threats, physical, temporal threats. Yes, we have to do so. But we have to get to the place where we're obeying our king's commission to make disciples. The cultivation of the mind is central to the disciple making process. And when I say cultivation of the mind, I'm not talking about to have a bunch of brainiacs running around. I'm talking about, people who have been invited to submit the reality of their entire capacity to the lordship of Christ. Where we don't just seek to understand finances, we understand finances in light of the truth of God's word, but we understand relationships in light of the truth of God's word. That we ply ourselves, to knowledge, not merely to have information rolling around our minds, but so that we would be wise that we would know how to apply this wisdom. Because as I've stated, darkness is not an affirmative force, but it does reoccupy the space that is vacated by the light. For far too long there has been an absence of the light in the various areas that are desperately necessary. What's happened is darkness has filled that chasm, but by the grace of God, man. As Isaiah 59:1 says that the Lord his arms are not short to save that the Lord's arms are just as potent today as they have always been.
>> David Wolan: A discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.
>> Joseph Parker: Every disciple of Jesus Christ would be wise to strive to become a kingdom warrior. A kingdom warrior is a disciple of Christ who skillfully puts the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit, to work every day. People everywhere are facing intense spiritual warfare. We face it at home, at school, at work, everywhere. What if people say that they don't want to be involved in spiritual warfare? None of us have a choice in the matter. Like civilians who happen to live in a war torn land. War has come to us, like it or not. Since we have no choice but to face spiritual warfare in our lives, then let's face it head on. We, can live like civilians and just become victims of the killing, abuse, problems and difficulties of war. Or we can choose to become well equipped soldiers and warriors.
>> David Wolan: The following is not an actor, but a real life story from Trinity Debt Management.
>> Julie: Every day I speak with people who are worried and are feeling a lot of pressure because of credit card debt. That's why I'm very proud of what we do at Trinity. We just help. We give people the support they need along with a real plan to become debt free. Credit card bills are consolidated into a single monthly payment that is much less than what they were paying before. Most of our members end up saving thousands and even may improve, their credit scores by as much as 200 points. I know from the bottom of my heart that I'm making a difference in the lives of the people we help. It just makes me really happy.
>> David Wolan: If credit card debt has you down, call trinity at, 1-800-788-1813.
>> Julie: My name is Julie and I'm a Trinity counselor. Call me and become debt free for keeps.
>> David Wolan: 1-800-788-1813.
>> 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. This, this is truly, ah, astonishing to me. That's why you have socialism. Yeah, right. Yeah. Patrick Clancy's three children, Cora was five years old, Dawson was three, Callan was eight months old. they're dead. Still to this day they haven't seen any protests in support of or any public anything concerning these children yet. The jury that is deliberating concerning whether or not their murderer, which also happens to be their mother, is deadlocked. Earlier today, as I mentioned yesterday that deliberations resumed in this trial in Massachusetts to where this woman admitted she murdered her three children. That's not even, a debated fact, which is still mind boggling to me that there are others that are saying that, well, the husband, Patrick Clancy, is the one who should be held responsible. Like, what are you? Yet the defense attorneys in the case have not even made such a ridiculous assertion. At about 2:15pm today, the juror sent a note for the second time to the presiding judge in Massachusetts stating that they are unable to arrive at a unanimous verdict. They're unable to arrive at animal's verdict. This is after five days of deliberation following a. There's been one day of deliberation now for every week of the trial. Basically, it's utterly remarkable to me that we're at this case, but it's also greatly concerning to me that we're at this case. Yesterday I told you that long deliberations don't usually favor, prosecutorial perspective of the case. I mentioned yesterday that we do do not know the makeup of the deadlock, whether it's 1 versus 11, 9 to 3, 10 to 2, etc. Etc. We don't know what the. What the numerical arrangement is. we know that there are nine women on the jury and three men on the jury. And the expression from the jurors that they are unable to come to unanimous decision now for the second time, presents the reality in a more acute fashion that a mistrial may be declared. A mistrial would be declared as a result of a hung jury. So I want to explain what a mistrial is. but before I get to that, I want to mention that after receiving the note for the second time, that the jurors were unable to come to a unanimous decision. the judge offered what is commonly understood in amongst trial lawyers as a dynamite charge. It's a charge that's meant to let the jurors know, like, listen, you sat through the whole trial. You're here. the likelihood of somebody else being able to assess the evidence any better than you is not necessarily reality. And some of the. That dynamite charge, it has some, variations as the way it's applied in different states around the country, but the way that the judges usually render it, and this is how the judge in this case renders some of the things he stated to the jury was this, quote, the verdict to which each juror agrees must, of course, be his or her own verdict, the result of his or her own convictions, and not merely an acquiescence in the conclusion of the other jurors. Still, in order to bring 12 Minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor and with a proper regard and respect for each other's opinions. The charge goes on and on and on. Depending on where you are, it could be three pages, four pages. However, then the judge in this case concluded, quote, with that. I would ask you now to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind. So the jury then returned to the jury room, continued their deliberations for a little bit longer, and then they ultimately were dismissed for the day, and deliberations are expected to continue tomorrow.
The jury in Massachusetts has five sentencing options in this case
Now, when I say deliberations are expected to continue, the jurors have five options available to them. Okay, you have the original charge of first degree murder. That's before the jury, with. Which carries with it a sentence of lifetime imprisonment with no parole without parole. next. The next option is second degree murder. In the state of Massachusetts, second degree murder carries with it a sentence if. If a, conviction is rendered for second degree murder, second degree murder carries with it a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. But that's not all the options. Another option that is available to the jury is manslaughter. Manslaughter is a sentence that carries. Is a.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Is. It is a charge that carries with it a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Then you have the options of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. So these are the five options. Whichever the jury chooses, they would have to choose them unanimously. But I wanted you to know that, because I've been saying, on this program that any. Any assessment as to whether she was sick or whatever, the postpartum concerns. Those are concerns at a minimum, that should be taken, not at a minimum that should be applied to a sentencing consideration. These are not the things that should absolve one of criminal responsibility. Because I've told you in my own experience in trying cases, would you ever say someone who takes the life of another human being is mentally. Well, is it not, evidence that something is a little off? If you got somebody killing somebody else, and it's. And it's like, wow, this is where we are as a society. Like, there were people saying, oh, Abraham, you're not. You don't know what you're talking about. Because they want to put that woman, to give her the death penalty for what happened. I'm like, whoa. that's not even on the table in Massachusetts, my man. That's not even. That's not even a part of the considerations. What are you talking about? There's a full scope of options available that include everything from, you know, mental, institutions and. And a term of years with mental health and all this other kind of stuff. But are we the type of society that we're going to say, oh, oh, okay, we already say moms should be able to kill their children inside of the womb. But now. Now. Now we're going to say, yes, moms, you have so much agency, that if. If. If. And when parenting gets difficult. And I don't want anybody to misconstrue what I'm saying, as if I'm insensitive to the realities of postpartum depression and postpartum Psychosis, which are not the same things. But as I said to you before, I've experienced the reality of people who've had psychotic breaks. But usually when people have psychotic breaks, they don't wait till the husband is running errands with a particularly plotted out time period where you map the distance from where your husband is to your home. Then you realize you need a little bit more time and send him on another errand to give you enough time to kill your own children. That's not usually evidence of a psychotic break. That's not usually the evidence of someone who is, who is incapable in that moment of ascertaining that what they are doing is wrong. That's not what that usually looks like. I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but I've been around people that have had breaks with reality. You know, I've seen people speed walking up and down the street at a certain time of day and having a conversation with no one. They're not waiting to see if anybody else will see them. It's just, man, it's quite galling to me that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That we don't understand the realities of compassion. Not requiring us to check our ability to assess right versus wrong at the door. This is crazy guys. This and I, and I don't think, I don't think many people who are supporters of this mom, this murdering mom, understand. So you're saying that there's a particularity concerning moms, especially concerning women, especially after they've had children, that will prohibit them from being able to properly ascertain right versus wrong. I don't really think y' all have thought that through the implications of that and this is just, this is mind boggling to me but it's not surprising to me in that these are the types of things that happen when truth has been, been, been cast down.
Two year old in Illinois killed by mother; mother hospitalized with self harm
And then you have and I've already alluded to it. I'll just get to it now. you have this case that happened just yesterday in Frankfort, Illinois. We have a two year old who is now dead and a mom who's in the hospital. It seems in the homicide investigation is going to bring it out, but it seems that the two year old was murdered by the mother. Listen to and watch clip number four. Clip four. Go Marie.
>> Jeff Chamblee: This is a community that is in shock tonight. If you take a look behind us, the crime scene tape is finally down. 24 hours after this incident happened in just a small memorial outside of this Home here where a two year old boy died. His mother hospitalized after police say she herself attempted to self harm a quiet cul de sac covered in crime scene tape.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: It's very quiet in Frankfort. I mean you rarely ever hear about anything of the sort, so it's a bit much.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Melvin Woods Jr. Has lived in the area for five years. I live around the block. Carolyn Pappas has a 2 year old herself.
>> Julie: This is just absolutely heartbreaking to understand
>> Jeff Chamblee: what happened a couple blocks away and that it's impacting our community. A 17 year old teen was the one to call for help.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: female, 17, is still attempting CPR. Patient does not seem responsive at all. Two year old child.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Her relationship to the family is not clear though neighbors tell us four young children lived in the home.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Okay. We are currently searching this house.
>> Jeff Chamblee: When first responders got there, they say they brought the two year old child to a local hospital. The child later died. Then they say they called another ambulance for that child's mother who they found attempting self harm while they searched the home.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Guys, this is, this is wild. I saw, I saw reports of another one. I haven't been able to dig into the details of it yet, which is why I haven't brought this to the, to the Hamilton corner yet. But up north in the northeast, another case, very similar. I shared with you. was it this week or last week? The new reports indicating that young men, you know, under 35 years old are not getting married and people are trying to say, yeah, the young men are struggling, man. The young women are struggling too. Guys, in our country, you know, Isaiah wrote the whole head is sick. And I've explained before, people said there's a war on masculinity. I'm saying it's not merely a war on masculinity. It's a war on the imago dei as reflected in, in authentic maleness and femaleness. It's attempting, is an attempt to degrade and, and, and to mangle the imago day. So much so, because what is happening man? The divergence between young men and young women. there, there's a, There was a young man, he was engaged to be married two weeks away from his wedding. Then he found out that his fiance was supporting Lindsey Clancy. He called off the wedding. Called it off. Called it off completely. Honestly, I don't blame him. He said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Your support for this woman in the sense that you're saying that she should be absolved of criminal responsibility gives me great concern for your judgment because the woman I hope to marry, I hope to one day be the mother of my children. And I would not want to take a risk that the mother of my children would, would see herself in this Clancy woman. What do you, what do you tell him? Is he wrong for that? No, he's not wrong for that. But, but guys, we, we, we, we cannot force feed generations of our countrymen this, you know, this imago dog, as Dr. Everett Piper describes it, that there's, there is nothing sacred, there's no sanctity to human life. That there's not a grace and anointing that God gives to parents concerning their children. It doesn't matter. You just rule out parent one, dads and moms, or parent one, parent two, it doesn't matter. You just do anything you want and these are the consequences. But here's the thing that we cannot merely rail at the insanity that is happening. That we need to cast an affirmative vision for what is available, frankly in Christ. That our society has been force fed a denigration of God's imago DEI. That is not properly discerned really. It's a demonic attack on the imago DEI in authentic maleness and an authentic femaleness that we have to feminize the men and we have to masculinize the women to break the imago DEI down into an amalgamation of indecipherable human goo. And masculine features in men are toxic, but masculine features in women are liberating. We have to understand that there's a demonic root to all of this man in cast an affirmative vision for what's available to us. The complementary distinctiveness between men and women. How the family with marriage at the center is the first of God's institutions to establish human flourishing. For men to be men and older men to help to pour into younger men and older women to pour into younger women. This is God's way, man. God's formula that's available to us not even like a formula, but it's the product of a living, thriving ecclesia. Because these kinds of things. What's happening in Massachusetts. And now we're starting to see some, what seems to be some copycat types of phenomenon that may be in the works.
>> : 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
>> Abraham Hamilton III: if we lose this cultural war, we're going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society.
>> : Find out more and watch @culturewarrior movie.
>> David Wolan: It's been suggested that what God desires is not our happiness, but our holiness. But what if by making us holy, God is also changing what makes us happy? I'm David Woolen inviting you to join me along with special guest Andrew Wilson on a new Haven Today series called Made for Happiness.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Haven Today, Weekday mornings at 4:30 Central on American Family Radio. Listen online at afr.net.
>> 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.
Woman arrested for intimidating jurors in Massachusetts case
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. I don't know if you know, there was a 56 year old woman named Don Light who was a retired nurse who was arrested in Massachusetts because she was photographing and videoing video recording the jurors in the case. So she's now been arrested, for intimidating jurors in the Massachusetts case. 56 years old, man. You know that the whole thing I was saying about older women helping younger women. Now I'm not saying she is old, but 56 is older than someone who's not 56. All right, but yeah, yeah, arrested outside of the courthouse. No, for filming and recording the jurors.
A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's compulsory school attendance laws could become a national issue
Another news story and I want to bring this to your attention, because this is a case that I'm monitoring that it's at the early stages, locally in Nebraska, but it brings some issues to the fore that very well could become national issues. And I would argue that it should become a national issue because it is raising, ah, arguments that many have made. One man in particular, a Columbia Law School professor named Philip Hamburger, has been making this argument for years. And it has to do with the combination of the compulsory attendance laws concerning government schooling as well as the monopolistic funding that goes to government schooling. And what Philip Hamburger has argued is that the lion's share of education really, it boils down to speech. And a, lawsuit has now been filed, in Lancaster County, Nebraska and it's led by the NewSong Civil Liberties Alliance. That's the, that, that's the organization that the attorneys are representing, the plaintiffs in this case. The case is styled Jacobson versus Spellberger. And what the plaintiffs are arguing is it's two families, the, the mentor family and the Jacobson family. Both of these families are making the argument that education largely consists of speech and that our current system to where government education is funded with taxpayer dollars is unconstitutional because it, quote, unduly pressures parents into submitting their own speech. I'm sorry, into substituting it. Unduly, precious parents into substituting their own speech when it comes to their children for government speech they disagree with in terms of the funding mechanism. The argument goes, quote, goes on further to say, quote, because education consists mostly in speech, and parents, not bureaucrat bureaucrats, possess the liberty to decide what their children hear. The government education system, by design, pressures parents to substitute government educational speech for their own. Government education is a benefit tied to an unconstitutional condition. State law requires parents in Nebraska to enroll children in either public, private, denominational, or parochial schooling or to homeschool them. Fail to obey that law, you face a CRA Class 3 misdemeanor, up to three months in jail and a $500 fine. Yet the only education the state of Nebraska actually funds to the tune of over 90, about $19,000 or more per pupil statewide and about $17,000, $17,400 in Lincoln, Nebraska. That funding is available to families who surrender their children to government classrooms and government viewpoints. Right. That money is not available to parents who decide not to substitute their children to those viewpoints. Additionally, if you leave that. That system because you do not want to subjugate your children to that viewpoint, then the government still requires you to
>> Joseph Parker: pay
>> Abraham Hamilton III: for the system that you fled. See, that's the part of the argument. This is not an argument that is saying, let's get some form of a voucher. Since this money goes to public education, why can't we use that money to go to this? No, no, this, the argument is adding the additional nuance, which I think has to be challenged. It adds the addition of nuance to say that you are compelling families who have removed their children from this system. You still compel them to. To pay for the system that they're leaving. Because education consists largely of speech, which is protected under the First Amendment, then families and citizens should not be compelled to fund speech that they disagree with. This is the argument that's being made and it's being applied to the education context. Listen to this brief explainer from the NewSong Civil Liberties alliance is general counsel Ms. Zanette Brown. It's clip number three. Clip three. Go.
>> Zanette Brown: Nebraska gives parents an unconstitutional accept the government's educational viewpoints or pay thousands of dollars to escape them. Education happens through speech. Every lesson taught, book selected, idea discussed and value emphasized communicates a message to the child and parents, not the government, have, the legal duty and the primary right to provide or select the educational speech. Their children receive. Nebraska requires parents to educate their children under threat of criminal punishment while providing education benefits only through government schools. On average, the state spends more than $19,000 per government run school student per year. Parents who choose private school or homeschool because they want a different educational viewpoint must bear that entire cost themselves on top of the taxes they already pay. That puts families in an extremely difficult position, accept the government's preferred educational viewpoints, or pay handsomely to exercise their own free speech rights. This case matters because the government cannot condition a valuable public benefit of on families surrendering a, constitutional right. Nebraska may require children to receive an education, but it cannot use that requirement and the enormous financial pressure attached to it to steer parents toward government's preferred speakers and viewpoints. That's why NCLA is filing a lawsuit on behalf of these Nebraska parents.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Now, this is why this lawsuit has some teeth.
A lawsuit challenging government mandates on education is in early stages in Nebraska
What is the most common reason that you hear in your everyday lives as to why people decide either decide not to homeschool their children, or to do private school anything? What's the most commonly referred to reason? Usually it's because of money. So what the Mentor and Jacobson families are arguing in this case is that they're saying that the government is making a legal requirement, but they're incentivizing only one option. The option that they're incentivizing is the one where the government's preferred speech and viewpoints is what's being communicated. So what, what, what their argument is argument is that, yes, the government can compel children to be educated, but the government cannot say, hey, we want children to be educated. Oh, and by the way, we are going to educate them, and we'll also provide the monetary capacity for that to occur. Guys, that is huge. That is huge because in your own experiences, I hear it all the time, Abe. I would do it, but man, it costs so much. I, you know, I'm already paying taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes, and then I'm gonna show the responsibility financially for my family as well. You guys know, this is what we are doing. My wife and I, we are home, we're homeschooling our children, and we also are, taxed for this government speech that we disagree with. This lawsuit, and it's at its early stages, filed in Lancaster County, Nebraska. This is one that I want, that I'm going to monitor because this has the potential to break the government monopoly over the hearts and minds of our children in our country. Yes, you can require education, but you can't require education and to say, hey, and by the way, we'll do some education, and we have this government benefit over here to aid what we're doing. Guys, this is a big one. This is a big one. I hope it's not lost in legalese, because I know it's a lawsuit. But the bottom line, what I want you to consider is it's not the conventional voucher, argument to say, hey, why don't we just use the funds that normally would go to. And it's not even all the funds. Let's use some of the funds that normally would go to public education. And as you heard in Nebraska, it's over 19,000 per pupil per year in the government school. Well, why can't we use that for homeschooling or some other alternative? No, they're making the additional argument why should we be compelled to continually subsidize speech? Making that. That argument that education consists largely of speech. So when you have the government serving as a market participant in education, you have government speech. Well, why can the government compel me to educate my children? Which. There's no argument against that, but at the exact same time, incentivize, exclusively incentivize the pedagogical offerings that consist of government speech. That is a big one. That is a big one. That is a big one. So you can think about it in this way. The con. The conventional, you know, voucher argument with the additional component. And, oh, by the way, why should I be compelled to support speech I disagree with, with my money? What.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Not.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Not just support. Why should I be compelled to finance. Why should I be compelled to materially support with my docket, with my dollars? Government speech I disagree with. That is a violation of my First Amendment rights. Oh, that's a good one. That is a good one. And so we're going to monitor that case. I suspect that this case is going to make its way. It's going to make its way. And if it's. If it's ruled particularly. Why you look. Why you look confused. Are you confused? You're skeptical. Yeah, he's skeptical. Well, there's. There's some. There's some reasons why I'm saying it could make its way. Notice I said it's filed in Lancaster County, Nebraska. I have more to say on that in the future. but this is a worthwhile argument. This is a worthwhile argument because one is built on the premise that speeches is largely involved in what we describe as education. What I expect to be a lot of pushback on that As a premise for the lawsuit, say, hey, who says this is speech? Who says it's a speech? And in the, in the lawsuit, you read the complaint, it says that in, in what is conveyed in the classroom and the texts that are, determined, that are, that are selected. I mean, who, who is making that decision? So are the parents making those decisions? No, the government's making those decisions through its administrators and it's higher personnel, but it's ultimately the government making those decisions. I think that's where this case is going to find the tension. To speak or not to speak, that is the question. And then this, this is, this is kind of silly. it's, honestly, it's embarrassing to me that this had to make it all the way to the U.S. supreme Court.
National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to stop White House ballroom renovation
But, in a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, they sued to, to stop President Trump from building his ballroom renovation in the East Wing of the White House. And the thing that's interesting is that they didn't file their lawsuit until after the East Wing had already been demolished. So, so, so they, they literally didn't file their suit until after the former East Wing was demolished. And then President Trump was about to start building. So they literally was like, well, no, we don't want you to build anything. We wanted to stop you from being able to build. Why did they file a lawsuit when he announced his plans and he's going to do all these kinds of things? Well, the Supreme Court ruled that this trust, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, cannot stop the East Wings construction in, President Trump's ballroom project. And they explained first and foremost that this has always been described as a national security issue from everybody. I mean, do we need to talk about the old crazy dude who attempted to run up in the, the, the White House Correspondents Dinner to once again try to kill the president? I mean, how many, how many assassination attempts you got to survive before people realize, hey, yo, American presidents, especially named Trump, face threats, and this will be a ballroom that not only benefits the current president, but it's going to benefit additional presidents after him? Does anybody fail to realize that President Trump's term is almost halfway over? You realize that, well, this whole case came down to, and the Supreme Court pointed this out, that this trust launched its objection to the president's construction of the ballroom because of one woman, and she said that she found the design of the proposed ballroom to be distasteful. I kid you not. This is from the Supreme Court opinion quote to establish standing. And to bring this case, the Trust relies on a declaration from a single of its members, Allison K. Hoagland. Hoagland says that she lives in Washington, D.C. and expects to visit the neighborhood around the White House about once a month. She asserts that having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer injuries to her aesthetic, cultural and historical interests because she finds the scale, height and massing of the government's design distasteful. On the strength of that declaration, the Trust contends It has Article 3 standing to challenge the East Wind project. The court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. End quote. Simply put, woman, nobody's paying you no attention. You can't say, I don't like the way it looks, and that's the reason why you're suing to stop it. You don't have standing to challenge the construction of the ballroom. Simply put, the ballroom with the bunker down below is being built. Ain't nothing this these hag this woman can do to stop it. And it's insane that this had to go all the way to our Supreme Court for them to realize what should have been ruled on a long time ago.
>> Jeff Chamblee: 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
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Darkness is not an affirmative force. It simply reoccupies the space vacated by the light.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: This is the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: It should be uncomfortable for a believer to live as a hypocrite, delivering people
>> Abraham Hamilton III: out of the bondage of mainstream media and the philosophies of this world.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: God has called you and me to be his ambassadors even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: And now the Hamilton Corner.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Good evening everybody. What a day, what a day, what a day.
Abraham Hamilton: Many are making transition from part time jobs to full time jobs
Welcome to the Hamilton Corner here on American Family Radio where I am your host, Abraham Hamilton iii, joined by the corner contingent right across from me, my man, 100 grand, Mr. M. Bobby. And in the screening room produced extraordinaire. Never often imitated, but never duplicated. It's the real J. Mac. And we are ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program. At this very moment, many you, if not most of you are making your transition from your part time job where you generate an income, part time jobs where you generate an income, to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to remind you to do so with intentionality, understanding the primacy that God places on family and welcoming God's word as he's instructed us to guide, to govern and to guard your engagement right in your homes. If, ah, we would welcome the Lord to grasp a hold of us in our homes. There's no question as to what can be done in society. And I say that because we have seen what it looks like, what type of society is constructed when people have the lordship of Christ as a primary forming feature. the distinguishing characteristic of our nation amongst the nations of the world is ours is the first, our nation is, is the first nation in the history of the world where its founding ethos is that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That is the founding ethos of our nation. as I've said on this show routinely, have we embraced, understood and applied that ethos properly? Absolutely not. We have never done so perfectly. But one thing that our founders understood is that they anticipated each successive generation of Americans to strive in order to form a more perfect union as our preamble to our Constitution states. And so the expectation was that the founding ethos would serve as a foundation to continue to grow and to build this thing called these United States of America. But when we reject that, when we reject the reality of the imago dei, when we reject the truth that is anchored in scripture, the founded, founding truths in scripture, that we set ourselves on a course for our own destruction. And in many ways that is what we're witnessing. And I know, I don't want to ever, oversimplify the reality that we're facing, but the truth is that we are facing a challenge, a contention between God's word, God's word being prevalent, or Man's word. That's what, that is what this all boils to down to. So as you are making your transition to your full time jobs, I want to encourage you to do so, with laser guided focus and understand that you've been ordained for this moment. This is something that I revisit often because it simply is true. The scripture bears this out, that we, but that God has determined before time the boundaries of our habitation and the times in which we would live, so that men should seek God to say it simply. You and I are ordained for this moment, guys. With all of the craziness, with all of the, the swirling epithets that, that go forward and you know, I was reading something the other day, it said it's it's easier for a black man to come out, say he's a woman than to say he's conservative. Is that, is that true or is that a lot? You know, somebody claimed to be, you know, trans, whatever. They're lauded as heroes in our society currently. It's utter madness, guys. But regardless of the madness that is percolating around us, this is the time that God has ordained for you and I to be alive. This is the moment for us that God has ordained. Let's not miss our moment.
Clancy: Isaiah chapter 59 speaks about justice within a temporal context
To the Word of God we go. Isaiah, chapter 59 is where we're going to go. I'm going to focus on verses 14 and 15, but I want to begin by alluding to the beginning of the chapter where the Lord reveals himself in a manner we described just yesterday in saying that it's not as if the Lord's arms are too short to save. It's not as if that the craziness of the moment have all of a sudden rendered, the omnipotent one impotent. Not at all. The issue, the issue in this portion of Scripture, the issue that was hindering Judah was their sinfulness, their rebellion. And I know for some that makes them uncomfortable to consider. But sin is real and sin has consequences. And so there were things, the first eight verses of this chapter kind of describes the cause for what transpires. And then when you get to Right about verse nine through the rest of the chapter, they describes the effects of the cause. The sinfulness is what has caused a separation between God and his creation. some of the effect, the results of that are described here. And this is what Isaiah, chapter 59, verse 14 says. Justice. Justice is turned back. Or some translations there say, justice is turned away backward, and righteousness stands far away, for truth has stumbled in the public squares and uprightness cannot enter. Other translations render that for truth has been hurled to the ground, has been cast to the ground and trampled, and justice is trampled underfoot. What the scripture is pointing to here, is that the places where the expectation is for justice to be appropriately meted out, and make no mistake about it, this is justice employed in a temporal context. This is not talking about cosmic justice. This is not talking about eternal justice. This is talking about the application of justice. Justice within a temporal context. The scripture says that justice is trampling underfoot. And being turned backward is the byproduct or the results of truth being cast to the ground, truth being rejected, truth being hurled down is because truth has been hurled down that righteousness stands afar off. Justice is turned back. And then look. Verse 15 says, Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. Think about that. In an environment where sin is so prevalent, truth is hurled to the ground, cast to the ground, and justice is trampled underfoot. Righteousness stands far off from the places where you would expect to have the application of justice in the temporal context. And then what happens is the ones who depart from evil make themselves a prey. How dare you say it's wrong to slaughter an unborn child. How dare you say that children shouldn't be confronted with teacher, sexuality. How dare you say a man can't be a woman or a woman can't be a man. How dare. Ah, you, you become a prey if you say those things to the point I said a few minutes ago, is it truly easier in our society for a more melanated man to come out and say they're transgender than for them to actually say they're conservative? What kind of pushback do you think society will offer? Guys, I'm sharing this because of what's happening here. It's only in an environment where truth has been hurled to the ground that you'll have women dress up in pink and show up to support a woman who strangled three of her children, her three children to death. And oh, don't stop now. But I brace myself for this potentially happening. But I'm a share story with you later on. Just yesterday in Frankfort, Illinois, a mom. I want to explain it. Just the news reports and the information that we have. Currently a 2 year old child is found dead in a resident in a suburban, residential neighborhood in Frankfurt, Illinois. A two year old child. Police find the child, get access to the house, search the home, find the child's mother attempting to harm herself. The child is transported to the hospital. The child is determined to be dead. Mom is transported to the hospital with life threatening injuries. The people in the community are saying this is how, just like the Clancy case out of Massachusetts, I brace myself for copycats. Now what? We have the information that happened just yesterday, so investigation is still underway. but this is grievous, man. This is grievous. We have a society that has already declared that we shall allow. When I say we, I'm using that as a universal we. I know not. I don't agree with it, not at all. And I don't support it at all. I fight it with every, every fiber of my being. But when I say we. There are members of our society and entire states, by virtue of their representative governments that have declared that we believe the ability for a mom to murder her child is a constitutionally protected right. I keep referring to this because this is a recent phenomenon in Massachusetts just changed its law to allow for an unborn child to be slaughtered through the entire gestational
>> Joseph Parker: period.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: The state of NewSong York has radical laws on the books concerning abortion. Several states all around the country, you know, following Roe vs. Wade being overturned and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the number of children murdered before they were born has increased. It has increased. Remember, the scripture says that men invent ways to do evil. That we have people who have used technological innovation to create new ways to murder children before they are born. Because truth has been cast to the ground. Gosh. Truth has been hurled down. Justice has been trampled underfoot. My, ah, point in illustrating all of this or describing all of this is to show you the scripture told us what would happen. Some of us didn't anticipate exactly what it would look like, including myself. I've told you many times, I remember thinking as a young man studying the Scriptures, when the Bible says, as it was in the days of Noah, I would often envision, what would that look like? Where men, their thoughts and the intentions of their hearts were continuously evil all the time. What did that look? What could that look like?
Joseph Parker: People everywhere are facing intense spiritual warfare
Guys, I think we're here. We're here. We're here. I've commiserated publicly with the percentage of pastors, according to recent data from the Barna group, that engage in the consumption of pornography at some level. The data shows about 20% of pastors, and that's those who responded to the survey in an honest fashion. Guys, we're at the place to where the major problem is that truth has been cast to the ground and what has to happen, and I've said this, I'm going to continue to say it, that we have to disciple our way out of it. Now we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, we have to pass wise, policy. Yes, we have to identify the immediate threats, physical, temporal threats. Yes, we have to do so. But we have to get to the place where we're obeying our king's commission to make disciples. The cultivation of the mind is central to the disciple making process. And when I say cultivation of the mind, I'm not talking about to have a bunch of brainiacs running around. I'm talking about, people who have been invited to submit the reality of their entire capacity to the lordship of Christ. Where we don't just seek to understand finances, we understand finances in light of the truth of God's word, but we understand relationships in light of the truth of God's word. That we ply ourselves, to knowledge, not merely to have information rolling around our minds, but so that we would be wise that we would know how to apply this wisdom. Because as I've stated, darkness is not an affirmative force, but it does reoccupy the space that is vacated by the light. For far too long there has been an absence of the light in the various areas that are desperately necessary. What's happened is darkness has filled that chasm, but by the grace of God, man. As Isaiah 59:1 says that the Lord his arms are not short to save that the Lord's arms are just as potent today as they have always been.
>> David Wolan: A discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.
>> Joseph Parker: Every disciple of Jesus Christ would be wise to strive to become a kingdom warrior. A kingdom warrior is a disciple of Christ who skillfully puts the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit, to work every day. People everywhere are facing intense spiritual warfare. We face it at home, at school, at work, everywhere. What if people say that they don't want to be involved in spiritual warfare? None of us have a choice in the matter. Like civilians who happen to live in a war torn land. War has come to us, like it or not. Since we have no choice but to face spiritual warfare in our lives, then let's face it head on. We, can live like civilians and just become victims of the killing, abuse, problems and difficulties of war. Or we can choose to become well equipped soldiers and warriors.
>> David Wolan: The following is not an actor, but a real life story from Trinity Debt Management.
>> Julie: Every day I speak with people who are worried and are feeling a lot of pressure because of credit card debt. That's why I'm very proud of what we do at Trinity. We just help. We give people the support they need along with a real plan to become debt free. Credit card bills are consolidated into a single monthly payment that is much less than what they were paying before. Most of our members end up saving thousands and even may improve, their credit scores by as much as 200 points. I know from the bottom of my heart that I'm making a difference in the lives of the people we help. It just makes me really happy.
>> David Wolan: If credit card debt has you down, call trinity at, 1-800-788-1813.
>> Julie: My name is Julie and I'm a Trinity counselor. Call me and become debt free for keeps.
>> David Wolan: 1-800-788-1813.
>> 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. This, this is truly, ah, astonishing to me. That's why you have socialism. Yeah, right. Yeah. Patrick Clancy's three children, Cora was five years old, Dawson was three, Callan was eight months old. they're dead. Still to this day they haven't seen any protests in support of or any public anything concerning these children yet. The jury that is deliberating concerning whether or not their murderer, which also happens to be their mother, is deadlocked. Earlier today, as I mentioned yesterday that deliberations resumed in this trial in Massachusetts to where this woman admitted she murdered her three children. That's not even, a debated fact, which is still mind boggling to me that there are others that are saying that, well, the husband, Patrick Clancy, is the one who should be held responsible. Like, what are you? Yet the defense attorneys in the case have not even made such a ridiculous assertion. At about 2:15pm today, the juror sent a note for the second time to the presiding judge in Massachusetts stating that they are unable to arrive at a unanimous verdict. They're unable to arrive at animal's verdict. This is after five days of deliberation following a. There's been one day of deliberation now for every week of the trial. Basically, it's utterly remarkable to me that we're at this case, but it's also greatly concerning to me that we're at this case. Yesterday I told you that long deliberations don't usually favor, prosecutorial perspective of the case. I mentioned yesterday that we do do not know the makeup of the deadlock, whether it's 1 versus 11, 9 to 3, 10 to 2, etc. Etc. We don't know what the. What the numerical arrangement is. we know that there are nine women on the jury and three men on the jury. And the expression from the jurors that they are unable to come to unanimous decision now for the second time, presents the reality in a more acute fashion that a mistrial may be declared. A mistrial would be declared as a result of a hung jury. So I want to explain what a mistrial is. but before I get to that, I want to mention that after receiving the note for the second time, that the jurors were unable to come to a unanimous decision. the judge offered what is commonly understood in amongst trial lawyers as a dynamite charge. It's a charge that's meant to let the jurors know, like, listen, you sat through the whole trial. You're here. the likelihood of somebody else being able to assess the evidence any better than you is not necessarily reality. And some of the. That dynamite charge, it has some, variations as the way it's applied in different states around the country, but the way that the judges usually render it, and this is how the judge in this case renders some of the things he stated to the jury was this, quote, the verdict to which each juror agrees must, of course, be his or her own verdict, the result of his or her own convictions, and not merely an acquiescence in the conclusion of the other jurors. Still, in order to bring 12 Minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor and with a proper regard and respect for each other's opinions. The charge goes on and on and on. Depending on where you are, it could be three pages, four pages. However, then the judge in this case concluded, quote, with that. I would ask you now to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind. So the jury then returned to the jury room, continued their deliberations for a little bit longer, and then they ultimately were dismissed for the day, and deliberations are expected to continue tomorrow.
The jury in Massachusetts has five sentencing options in this case
Now, when I say deliberations are expected to continue, the jurors have five options available to them. Okay, you have the original charge of first degree murder. That's before the jury, with. Which carries with it a sentence of lifetime imprisonment with no parole without parole. next. The next option is second degree murder. In the state of Massachusetts, second degree murder carries with it a sentence if. If a, conviction is rendered for second degree murder, second degree murder carries with it a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. But that's not all the options. Another option that is available to the jury is manslaughter. Manslaughter is a sentence that carries. Is a.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Is. It is a charge that carries with it a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Then you have the options of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. So these are the five options. Whichever the jury chooses, they would have to choose them unanimously. But I wanted you to know that, because I've been saying, on this program that any. Any assessment as to whether she was sick or whatever, the postpartum concerns. Those are concerns at a minimum, that should be taken, not at a minimum that should be applied to a sentencing consideration. These are not the things that should absolve one of criminal responsibility. Because I've told you in my own experience in trying cases, would you ever say someone who takes the life of another human being is mentally. Well, is it not, evidence that something is a little off? If you got somebody killing somebody else, and it's. And it's like, wow, this is where we are as a society. Like, there were people saying, oh, Abraham, you're not. You don't know what you're talking about. Because they want to put that woman, to give her the death penalty for what happened. I'm like, whoa. that's not even on the table in Massachusetts, my man. That's not even. That's not even a part of the considerations. What are you talking about? There's a full scope of options available that include everything from, you know, mental, institutions and. And a term of years with mental health and all this other kind of stuff. But are we the type of society that we're going to say, oh, oh, okay, we already say moms should be able to kill their children inside of the womb. But now. Now. Now we're going to say, yes, moms, you have so much agency, that if. If. If. And when parenting gets difficult. And I don't want anybody to misconstrue what I'm saying, as if I'm insensitive to the realities of postpartum depression and postpartum Psychosis, which are not the same things. But as I said to you before, I've experienced the reality of people who've had psychotic breaks. But usually when people have psychotic breaks, they don't wait till the husband is running errands with a particularly plotted out time period where you map the distance from where your husband is to your home. Then you realize you need a little bit more time and send him on another errand to give you enough time to kill your own children. That's not usually evidence of a psychotic break. That's not usually the evidence of someone who is, who is incapable in that moment of ascertaining that what they are doing is wrong. That's not what that usually looks like. I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but I've been around people that have had breaks with reality. You know, I've seen people speed walking up and down the street at a certain time of day and having a conversation with no one. They're not waiting to see if anybody else will see them. It's just, man, it's quite galling to me that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That we don't understand the realities of compassion. Not requiring us to check our ability to assess right versus wrong at the door. This is crazy guys. This and I, and I don't think, I don't think many people who are supporters of this mom, this murdering mom, understand. So you're saying that there's a particularity concerning moms, especially concerning women, especially after they've had children, that will prohibit them from being able to properly ascertain right versus wrong. I don't really think y' all have thought that through the implications of that and this is just, this is mind boggling to me but it's not surprising to me in that these are the types of things that happen when truth has been, been, been cast down.
Two year old in Illinois killed by mother; mother hospitalized with self harm
And then you have and I've already alluded to it. I'll just get to it now. you have this case that happened just yesterday in Frankfort, Illinois. We have a two year old who is now dead and a mom who's in the hospital. It seems in the homicide investigation is going to bring it out, but it seems that the two year old was murdered by the mother. Listen to and watch clip number four. Clip four. Go Marie.
>> Jeff Chamblee: This is a community that is in shock tonight. If you take a look behind us, the crime scene tape is finally down. 24 hours after this incident happened in just a small memorial outside of this Home here where a two year old boy died. His mother hospitalized after police say she herself attempted to self harm a quiet cul de sac covered in crime scene tape.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: It's very quiet in Frankfort. I mean you rarely ever hear about anything of the sort, so it's a bit much.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Melvin Woods Jr. Has lived in the area for five years. I live around the block. Carolyn Pappas has a 2 year old herself.
>> Julie: This is just absolutely heartbreaking to understand
>> Jeff Chamblee: what happened a couple blocks away and that it's impacting our community. A 17 year old teen was the one to call for help.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: female, 17, is still attempting CPR. Patient does not seem responsive at all. Two year old child.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Her relationship to the family is not clear though neighbors tell us four young children lived in the home.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Okay. We are currently searching this house.
>> Jeff Chamblee: When first responders got there, they say they brought the two year old child to a local hospital. The child later died. Then they say they called another ambulance for that child's mother who they found attempting self harm while they searched the home.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Guys, this is, this is wild. I saw, I saw reports of another one. I haven't been able to dig into the details of it yet, which is why I haven't brought this to the, to the Hamilton corner yet. But up north in the northeast, another case, very similar. I shared with you. was it this week or last week? The new reports indicating that young men, you know, under 35 years old are not getting married and people are trying to say, yeah, the young men are struggling, man. The young women are struggling too. Guys, in our country, you know, Isaiah wrote the whole head is sick. And I've explained before, people said there's a war on masculinity. I'm saying it's not merely a war on masculinity. It's a war on the imago dei as reflected in, in authentic maleness and femaleness. It's attempting, is an attempt to degrade and, and, and to mangle the imago day. So much so, because what is happening man? The divergence between young men and young women. there, there's a, There was a young man, he was engaged to be married two weeks away from his wedding. Then he found out that his fiance was supporting Lindsey Clancy. He called off the wedding. Called it off. Called it off completely. Honestly, I don't blame him. He said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Your support for this woman in the sense that you're saying that she should be absolved of criminal responsibility gives me great concern for your judgment because the woman I hope to marry, I hope to one day be the mother of my children. And I would not want to take a risk that the mother of my children would, would see herself in this Clancy woman. What do you, what do you tell him? Is he wrong for that? No, he's not wrong for that. But, but guys, we, we, we, we cannot force feed generations of our countrymen this, you know, this imago dog, as Dr. Everett Piper describes it, that there's, there is nothing sacred, there's no sanctity to human life. That there's not a grace and anointing that God gives to parents concerning their children. It doesn't matter. You just rule out parent one, dads and moms, or parent one, parent two, it doesn't matter. You just do anything you want and these are the consequences. But here's the thing that we cannot merely rail at the insanity that is happening. That we need to cast an affirmative vision for what is available, frankly in Christ. That our society has been force fed a denigration of God's imago DEI. That is not properly discerned really. It's a demonic attack on the imago DEI in authentic maleness and an authentic femaleness that we have to feminize the men and we have to masculinize the women to break the imago DEI down into an amalgamation of indecipherable human goo. And masculine features in men are toxic, but masculine features in women are liberating. We have to understand that there's a demonic root to all of this man in cast an affirmative vision for what's available to us. The complementary distinctiveness between men and women. How the family with marriage at the center is the first of God's institutions to establish human flourishing. For men to be men and older men to help to pour into younger men and older women to pour into younger women. This is God's way, man. God's formula that's available to us not even like a formula, but it's the product of a living, thriving ecclesia. Because these kinds of things. What's happening in Massachusetts. And now we're starting to see some, what seems to be some copycat types of phenomenon that may be in the works.
>> : 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
>> Abraham Hamilton III: if we lose this cultural war, we're going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society.
>> : Find out more and watch @culturewarrior movie.
>> David Wolan: It's been suggested that what God desires is not our happiness, but our holiness. But what if by making us holy, God is also changing what makes us happy? I'm David Woolen inviting you to join me along with special guest Andrew Wilson on a new Haven Today series called Made for Happiness.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Haven Today, Weekday mornings at 4:30 Central on American Family Radio. Listen online at afr.net.
>> 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.
Woman arrested for intimidating jurors in Massachusetts case
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. I don't know if you know, there was a 56 year old woman named Don Light who was a retired nurse who was arrested in Massachusetts because she was photographing and videoing video recording the jurors in the case. So she's now been arrested, for intimidating jurors in the Massachusetts case. 56 years old, man. You know that the whole thing I was saying about older women helping younger women. Now I'm not saying she is old, but 56 is older than someone who's not 56. All right, but yeah, yeah, arrested outside of the courthouse. No, for filming and recording the jurors.
A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's compulsory school attendance laws could become a national issue
Another news story and I want to bring this to your attention, because this is a case that I'm monitoring that it's at the early stages, locally in Nebraska, but it brings some issues to the fore that very well could become national issues. And I would argue that it should become a national issue because it is raising, ah, arguments that many have made. One man in particular, a Columbia Law School professor named Philip Hamburger, has been making this argument for years. And it has to do with the combination of the compulsory attendance laws concerning government schooling as well as the monopolistic funding that goes to government schooling. And what Philip Hamburger has argued is that the lion's share of education really, it boils down to speech. And a, lawsuit has now been filed, in Lancaster County, Nebraska and it's led by the NewSong Civil Liberties Alliance. That's the, that, that's the organization that the attorneys are representing, the plaintiffs in this case. The case is styled Jacobson versus Spellberger. And what the plaintiffs are arguing is it's two families, the, the mentor family and the Jacobson family. Both of these families are making the argument that education largely consists of speech and that our current system to where government education is funded with taxpayer dollars is unconstitutional because it, quote, unduly pressures parents into submitting their own speech. I'm sorry, into substituting it. Unduly, precious parents into substituting their own speech when it comes to their children for government speech they disagree with in terms of the funding mechanism. The argument goes, quote, goes on further to say, quote, because education consists mostly in speech, and parents, not bureaucrat bureaucrats, possess the liberty to decide what their children hear. The government education system, by design, pressures parents to substitute government educational speech for their own. Government education is a benefit tied to an unconstitutional condition. State law requires parents in Nebraska to enroll children in either public, private, denominational, or parochial schooling or to homeschool them. Fail to obey that law, you face a CRA Class 3 misdemeanor, up to three months in jail and a $500 fine. Yet the only education the state of Nebraska actually funds to the tune of over 90, about $19,000 or more per pupil statewide and about $17,000, $17,400 in Lincoln, Nebraska. That funding is available to families who surrender their children to government classrooms and government viewpoints. Right. That money is not available to parents who decide not to substitute their children to those viewpoints. Additionally, if you leave that. That system because you do not want to subjugate your children to that viewpoint, then the government still requires you to
>> Joseph Parker: pay
>> Abraham Hamilton III: for the system that you fled. See, that's the part of the argument. This is not an argument that is saying, let's get some form of a voucher. Since this money goes to public education, why can't we use that money to go to this? No, no, this, the argument is adding the additional nuance, which I think has to be challenged. It adds the addition of nuance to say that you are compelling families who have removed their children from this system. You still compel them to. To pay for the system that they're leaving. Because education consists largely of speech, which is protected under the First Amendment, then families and citizens should not be compelled to fund speech that they disagree with. This is the argument that's being made and it's being applied to the education context. Listen to this brief explainer from the NewSong Civil Liberties alliance is general counsel Ms. Zanette Brown. It's clip number three. Clip three. Go.
>> Zanette Brown: Nebraska gives parents an unconstitutional accept the government's educational viewpoints or pay thousands of dollars to escape them. Education happens through speech. Every lesson taught, book selected, idea discussed and value emphasized communicates a message to the child and parents, not the government, have, the legal duty and the primary right to provide or select the educational speech. Their children receive. Nebraska requires parents to educate their children under threat of criminal punishment while providing education benefits only through government schools. On average, the state spends more than $19,000 per government run school student per year. Parents who choose private school or homeschool because they want a different educational viewpoint must bear that entire cost themselves on top of the taxes they already pay. That puts families in an extremely difficult position, accept the government's preferred educational viewpoints, or pay handsomely to exercise their own free speech rights. This case matters because the government cannot condition a valuable public benefit of on families surrendering a, constitutional right. Nebraska may require children to receive an education, but it cannot use that requirement and the enormous financial pressure attached to it to steer parents toward government's preferred speakers and viewpoints. That's why NCLA is filing a lawsuit on behalf of these Nebraska parents.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Now, this is why this lawsuit has some teeth.
A lawsuit challenging government mandates on education is in early stages in Nebraska
What is the most common reason that you hear in your everyday lives as to why people decide either decide not to homeschool their children, or to do private school anything? What's the most commonly referred to reason? Usually it's because of money. So what the Mentor and Jacobson families are arguing in this case is that they're saying that the government is making a legal requirement, but they're incentivizing only one option. The option that they're incentivizing is the one where the government's preferred speech and viewpoints is what's being communicated. So what, what, what their argument is argument is that, yes, the government can compel children to be educated, but the government cannot say, hey, we want children to be educated. Oh, and by the way, we are going to educate them, and we'll also provide the monetary capacity for that to occur. Guys, that is huge. That is huge because in your own experiences, I hear it all the time, Abe. I would do it, but man, it costs so much. I, you know, I'm already paying taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes, and then I'm gonna show the responsibility financially for my family as well. You guys know, this is what we are doing. My wife and I, we are home, we're homeschooling our children, and we also are, taxed for this government speech that we disagree with. This lawsuit, and it's at its early stages, filed in Lancaster County, Nebraska. This is one that I want, that I'm going to monitor because this has the potential to break the government monopoly over the hearts and minds of our children in our country. Yes, you can require education, but you can't require education and to say, hey, and by the way, we'll do some education, and we have this government benefit over here to aid what we're doing. Guys, this is a big one. This is a big one. I hope it's not lost in legalese, because I know it's a lawsuit. But the bottom line, what I want you to consider is it's not the conventional voucher, argument to say, hey, why don't we just use the funds that normally would go to. And it's not even all the funds. Let's use some of the funds that normally would go to public education. And as you heard in Nebraska, it's over 19,000 per pupil per year in the government school. Well, why can't we use that for homeschooling or some other alternative? No, they're making the additional argument why should we be compelled to continually subsidize speech? Making that. That argument that education consists largely of speech. So when you have the government serving as a market participant in education, you have government speech. Well, why can the government compel me to educate my children? Which. There's no argument against that, but at the exact same time, incentivize, exclusively incentivize the pedagogical offerings that consist of government speech. That is a big one. That is a big one. That is a big one. So you can think about it in this way. The con. The conventional, you know, voucher argument with the additional component. And, oh, by the way, why should I be compelled to support speech I disagree with, with my money? What.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Not.
>> Abraham Hamilton III: Not just support. Why should I be compelled to finance. Why should I be compelled to materially support with my docket, with my dollars? Government speech I disagree with. That is a violation of my First Amendment rights. Oh, that's a good one. That is a good one. And so we're going to monitor that case. I suspect that this case is going to make its way. It's going to make its way. And if it's. If it's ruled particularly. Why you look. Why you look confused. Are you confused? You're skeptical. Yeah, he's skeptical. Well, there's. There's some. There's some reasons why I'm saying it could make its way. Notice I said it's filed in Lancaster County, Nebraska. I have more to say on that in the future. but this is a worthwhile argument. This is a worthwhile argument because one is built on the premise that speeches is largely involved in what we describe as education. What I expect to be a lot of pushback on that As a premise for the lawsuit, say, hey, who says this is speech? Who says it's a speech? And in the, in the lawsuit, you read the complaint, it says that in, in what is conveyed in the classroom and the texts that are, determined, that are, that are selected. I mean, who, who is making that decision? So are the parents making those decisions? No, the government's making those decisions through its administrators and it's higher personnel, but it's ultimately the government making those decisions. I think that's where this case is going to find the tension. To speak or not to speak, that is the question. And then this, this is, this is kind of silly. it's, honestly, it's embarrassing to me that this had to make it all the way to the U.S. supreme Court.
National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to stop White House ballroom renovation
But, in a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, they sued to, to stop President Trump from building his ballroom renovation in the East Wing of the White House. And the thing that's interesting is that they didn't file their lawsuit until after the East Wing had already been demolished. So, so, so they, they literally didn't file their suit until after the former East Wing was demolished. And then President Trump was about to start building. So they literally was like, well, no, we don't want you to build anything. We wanted to stop you from being able to build. Why did they file a lawsuit when he announced his plans and he's going to do all these kinds of things? Well, the Supreme Court ruled that this trust, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, cannot stop the East Wings construction in, President Trump's ballroom project. And they explained first and foremost that this has always been described as a national security issue from everybody. I mean, do we need to talk about the old crazy dude who attempted to run up in the, the, the White House Correspondents Dinner to once again try to kill the president? I mean, how many, how many assassination attempts you got to survive before people realize, hey, yo, American presidents, especially named Trump, face threats, and this will be a ballroom that not only benefits the current president, but it's going to benefit additional presidents after him? Does anybody fail to realize that President Trump's term is almost halfway over? You realize that, well, this whole case came down to, and the Supreme Court pointed this out, that this trust launched its objection to the president's construction of the ballroom because of one woman, and she said that she found the design of the proposed ballroom to be distasteful. I kid you not. This is from the Supreme Court opinion quote to establish standing. And to bring this case, the Trust relies on a declaration from a single of its members, Allison K. Hoagland. Hoagland says that she lives in Washington, D.C. and expects to visit the neighborhood around the White House about once a month. She asserts that having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer injuries to her aesthetic, cultural and historical interests because she finds the scale, height and massing of the government's design distasteful. On the strength of that declaration, the Trust contends It has Article 3 standing to challenge the East Wind project. The court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. End quote. Simply put, woman, nobody's paying you no attention. You can't say, I don't like the way it looks, and that's the reason why you're suing to stop it. You don't have standing to challenge the construction of the ballroom. Simply put, the ballroom with the bunker down below is being built. Ain't nothing this these hag this woman can do to stop it. And it's insane that this had to go all the way to our Supreme Court for them to realize what should have been ruled on a long time ago.
>> Jeff Chamblee: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
0:00 - 15:00. Isaiah 59:14-15. When Truth is rejected, real people suffer the consequences.
15:00 - 31:00. Patrick Clancy’s three children are dead, yet the jury deciding the case of their murderer is deadlocked.
31:00 - 48:00. Could Nebraska pave the way to a new future for the land of the free and home of the brave?
https://afafoundation.net/ | 1-800-326-4543 ext. 345
https://afr.net/BIBLESFORBABIES To donate call: 877-616-2396
Video Clip Links
NCLA Lawsuit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8prOxmVKpI4
2-yr old killed in Frankfort, IL
0:00 - 15:00. Isaiah 59:14-15. When Truth is rejected, real people suffer the consequences.
15:00 - 31:00. Patrick Clancy’s three children are dead, yet the jury deciding the case of their murderer is deadlocked.
31:00 - 48:00. Could Nebraska pave the way to a new future for the land of the free and home of the brave?
https://afafoundation.net/ | 1-800-326-4543 ext. 345
https://afr.net/BIBLESFORBABIES To donate call: 877-616-2396
Video Clip Links
NCLA Lawsuit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8prOxmVKpI4
2-yr old killed in Frankfort, IL
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:
