Transcript

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.

Delano Squires: 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.

Delano Squires: 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.

Delano Squires: And now, the, Hamilton Corner.

Abraham Hamilton: Don't allow world to trump importance of your home

Abraham Hamilton III: Good evening everybody. Welcome to the Hamilton Corner here on American Family Radio. I'm your host, Abraham Hamilton iii. What a week, what a week this has been. I'm, joined by producer extraordinaire, often imitated, never duplicated, the real J. Mac, his man in the controls. And we're ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program. At this very moment, many of you, if not most of you, are making your transition from your part time jobs where you generate an income to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to remind you to make that move with intentionality, understanding the primacy that God places on family. We will never be able to out politic, out vote or out church, the deficiencies that abound in the home. And I'm truly hopeful that the conversation that we have today will really bring that point home because I'll tell you frankly man, Satan works overtime to get us to invest ourselves all over the world in all manner of things. You know, I'm sorry, I got this noisy vest on, is picking it up in the mic, to invest ourselves into all manner of things. We spend ourselves everywhere outside of, outside of our families and our homes and the things are transpiring to such a degree and we're probably going to get into this now and into this later in the program, but the simple reality is, as things are happening in our society, the majority of children that are being born, especially when you break down the data demographically, they're being born into families that they're not being raised with married fathers and mothers. And I don't want to be hyperbolic at all, but that's a formula for disaster. And we're giving attention to the economy, which we should give attention to the economy, we're giving attention to various policies and I'm grateful it's being reported that President Trump has a draft executive order calling for the dismantling of Department of Education needs to happen. But those things in and of themselves will not be what we need for our nation. We Must we must understand the primacy that God places on family. Before you get to a modern iterations of civil government, before you get to orders of priests and prophets, the first human institution that God establishes, the family. It's the family. The family is the foundational rubric of the church. The foundation is the fundamental, indispensable component of stabilized society. Can't escape it, guys. And so I want to encourage you who are listening to this program.

Delano Squires: To.

Abraham Hamilton III: M refuse to allow everything else to be more important. I know we're at different stages, different places. I know some of you may be listening to me right now and you say man Abon. I hear what you're talking, but my marriage is on the rocks. I don't know all of the variables and all of the details, but I know for the most part when it comes right down to it, when there is difficulty, one or more parties in the marriage, the husband or the wife, are refusing to humble themselves, humble themselves before God first and have the demonstrable component of that vertical humility exemplified in how you interact with one another. Don't allow the world to trump the importance of your home. So as you're making your transition to your full time jobs today, let today be the day. If you've never done it before, let today be the day where you appropriately worship the Lord by serving him through your family and in your home today. If you are a person who you've understood that and you've been investing yourself in that way, I want to encourage you to refuse to become weary in well doing, but to continue what you have done. For those who are not yet married, I don't care what the world says. Marriage is good primarily because God made it. And he's the one who said it was good. When you search the book of Genesis, for example, who's the one that suggested to Adam it's not good for man to be alone? That wasn't Adam's idea. That came from God. The desire to be married is a good desire. It came from God. It's not the exclusive context. Surely there's a reality of the vocation of singleness, but rest assured, it is in fact a ah vocation. And the vocation of singleness is accompanied by the gift of celibacy because it is the first. Because the first command given to mankind is issued within the familial context. Fruitfulness, multiplication and replenishing the earth. It is the reality for the majority of people that it is the will of God for us to be married. That was something I really considered, Lord, is this your will for me? Are you calling me to be like the apostle Paul, a lifelong unmarried man? Which I was willing to pursue, but the Lord helped me to see that wasn't his will for me. And, Lord, I'm grateful that he did. But for those who, are called to the vocation of singleness, you will be able to rejoice in your vocation, just as I'm able to rejoice in mine as a husband and a father. I've been endeavoring to communicate, man, that we will not have a great nation if we focus solely on what happens at the governmental level. We have got to live locally. We've got to live locally. And fundamentally, what you and I do as citizens of this nation and what you and I do who are members of the Lord's Bride, we will determine the quality or the lack thereof, what the church will be in our nation and what our nation will be. That's just the bottom line. Simply put, America will be what her citizens make her, the church will be in America. What the members of the Lord's Bride in America do in submission to the Lord's authority as communicated to us through his word. To the word of God, we go.

Deuteronomy, chapter 30 is where I want to go. If you're new to the program,

Deuteronomy, chapter 30 is where I want to go. If you've been listening to the program, you probably know this. If you're new to the program, the book of Deuteronomy, the root word is deuter, meaning two. All right. This is the deuterocanical expression. This is Moses's instruction. Oh, I didn't say the verse yet. oh, NASB 95 is what I'm going. I'm sorry. I didn't put that on the rundown either. Deuteronomy, chapter 30, verses 11 through 20 is where I'm going to go. My bad. I didn't put that on rundown. I'm sorry. Deuteronomy, chapter 30, verses 11 through 20 is where I'm going to go. This as I was explaining, the deuterocanical expression from Moses is his articulation to the second generation of wilderness Israelites. You'll remember if you don't remember. I'll refresh your memory. That the first generation of wilderness Israelites are those who refuse to enter the promised land. When the Lord says, hey, this is yours. Go in. And they responded, we are like grasshoppers in the eyes of the people who are inside of the promised land. Now, they didn't know that. They didn't take a poll. They have George Barnum saying Hey, I wonder how. How they look. We look to them. No, that's what their conclusion was. And the simple reality was that their conclusion was based on their own perception, denying the reality of who their God was. And so the truth is, the wilderness journey was actually an application of judgment for the rebellion of the first generation of, wilderness Israelites. And so their children. I'm sorry. The first generation. The only first generation wilderness Israelites that were given entry to the promised land was. Were Moses and Caleb. I'm sorry, Joshua and Caleb. Lord, please forgive me. Joshua and Caleb. Not even Moses entered the Promised land, but he's preparing the second generation. These are those who were. Who were, infants when they've exited Egypt. Or those who were born, for example, in the wilderness while they were traveling at 30 in the wilderness for 40 years. It is these children who have now become adults and their children who are preparing to enter the Promised land under Joshua's authority. And so Moses offers this instruction to them to prepare them for life in the Promised land. And I want to direct your attention, direct your attention there. Deuteronomy, chapter 30, verse 11. For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven that you should say, who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it that we may observe it. Nor is it beyond the sea that you should say, who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it that we may observe it. But the word is very near you in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. See, I have set before you today life and prosperity. Or some translations say, there's a life and good and death and adversity, or death and evil. In that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments. That you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods, lowercase gifts serve them. I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today. That I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants by Loving the Lord your God, by obeying his voice and by holding fast to him. For this is your life and the length of your days that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give them. Moses explained very plainly to the second generation of wilderness Israelites that God Yahweh is setting before you life and death. Life and death are available to you if you follow God's m way. God's way produces God's results. If you stray or reject or rebel against God's way, that rejection produces death. That communication, guys, is just as true today as it was the day Moses articulated it. The unfortunate reality is that in our day and age, there have been many euphemisms and arguments employed, marketing strategies employed. I would say that they are the plausible arguments that Paul warned about in Colossians chapter two, to persuade people to willingly and voluntarily reject God's way. There in Deuteronomy, when. When Moses warned the second generation of wilderness Israelites against worshiping foreign gods, lowercase G, which, by the way, are no gods at all. Ultimately, they're demons. The marketing strategy from Satan, which C.S. lewis captured very beautifully in Screwtapes, Screwtape letters, where you had, oh, screw, tape and wormwood collaborating, is that we have people willingly and voluntarily rejecting God's way and, and, and saying that rejection is actually empowerment, that rejection is actually progress. That's why I don't call the progressives progressives. I call them regressives, because there's no way you can advance as an individual or as a society by rejecting God's way. You're only. You're only inviting destruction. You are welcoming disaster. You are courting death. And that, by and large, is what we are experiencing in our society. We had the demonically inspired sexual revolution that followed the demonically inspired advancement of Darwinian evolution. And those two were followed by, you know, feminism, second wave, third wave. Now, I want to tell you, when I say feminism, feminism did not just affect women, it affected men, too. It feminized men. And we are reeling from that to where we are voluntarily ripping our own progeny limb from limb in the womb through surgical abortion or, chemically burning them to death through various chemicals, or we're destroying our own families with our own hands and calling it progress. Who says you need a husband and a father in the home with the child? Who says that's the only way family can be? And I understand the reality of what we experience, but we should never allow the frequency of experiences that stray from God's standards to redefine for us what should be standardized or normalized.

Preborn celebrates that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned

Jeff Chamblee: Preborn celebrates that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned. Roe has been responsible for the slaughter of over 63,3 million babies. Now the decision to abort a child will be left in the hands of the states and sadly abortions will continue in the most liberal states. Over the past 16 years, PreBorn has positioned their clinics in the top abortion cities where 50% of abortions occur. Preborn's work of saving babies lives continues at an even greater level as they save babies lives and defend their centers from the radical hate groups who want to shut them down. Preborn's response is dependent on you, the pro life community. Be a part of rescuing lives and changing hearts for Christ. $28 sponsors one ultrasound and $140 will help to rescue five babies lives. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby or go to preborn.com all gifts are tax deductible.

Delano Squires: Shining light into the darkness.

Delano Squires is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation

This is the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. I'm delighted to have on the program a brother who's been on the show before. I got to dap him up in person at NRB in Dallas last week. but my guest is Delano Squires, who is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos center for Life, Religion and Family at the Heritage Foundation. He's also a contributor to Blaze Media, where he writes about faith, family and culture, as well as to Blaze TV's Fearless with Jason Whitlock. I want to ask you to join me in welcoming Delano Squires back to the Hamilton Corner. Thank you for joining me on the show, man.

Delano Squires: Thank you for having me.

Abraham Hamilton III: It is truly, truly, truly my pleasure. I want to jump right into it.

DJ Daniel: President Trump seemed more comfortable addressing Congress this time around

We just had a rather interesting joint session of Congress in which President Trump addressed the congressman and Al Green. Not love and happiness. He brought out his cane and you had a whole bunch of things happening there. What is your reaction to President Trump's, address to the joint session of Congress earlier this week?

Delano Squires: Well, the first thing I noticed was sort of just, before we get into the substance of the speech, the president just felt, seemed much more comfortable in his role addressing Congress. He felt natural. He had a few lines and garnered a few laughs. and I think he was brilliant strategically when he said, nothing I do tonight or say tonight, is going to satisfy the Democrats. And I think he went on to talk about things that many Americans would generally be in support of cutting waste from the government, millions of dollars, pro lgbt, projects in Mozambique and Lesotho and all this other stuff. and then the sort of combination of serious substantive policy issues, so issues around the border, as well as heartwarming moments like when he made the 13 year old boy, Secret Service agent DJ Daniel. Yeah, right, right. DJ so it felt like President Trump, as I said, is more comfortable this time around than he was the first time around. and I think it feels as if he has a beat on the pulse of the American public, which was stood in stark contrast to Democrats who would not stand or applaud for anything except, as I've heard, when he talked about sending more funding to Ukraine. And I think the difference in distinction between the two parties was made clearer than ever, during that speech.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah, I think you're right about the distinction between the parties. And I also think, that unfortunately, and you know, I try to be equal opportunity truth teller when Republicans mess up, I'll call it out, you know, but, but frankly, in this instance, the Democrats distinguish themselves, I believe, frankly, from the American people, not just their, counterparts on the other side of the aisle. Because, I mean, if you haven't read the room, the American people agree with most of what President Trump was saying. Not American people who are members of the Democrat Party too, which they're starting to come out in droves and even say these things. Many of them saying how embarrassed they are to be Democrats, how ashamed they are to be Democrats, and to have such a deplorable display for, all the world to see. I think it was a seminal moment in a nation's history and it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out in the midterms.

Delano Squires: Yeah, but here's the thing. Some of the criticism I heard, of Democrats from the left was not that, oh, they breached the rules of civility, is that they weren't radical enough, they didn't do enough. They should have just got out en masse and stormed out behind Representative Al Green. And I think that would have made them look even worse. So, yes, the little bingo paddles holding up faults or Elon Musk did look ridiculous. It wasn't a good visual. But is also, at a certain point they're gonna have to deal with the substance of their structural problem, which is that Democrats have moved from being a party that can brand itself as fighting for the working class, and they've become a party that's embraced radical ideological positions on some of the most essential issues, whether it's on the nature of human sex, the definition of family, it's the boys and girls, sports. And I think to your point, they're becoming more and more out of touch with the everyday Americans. So I don't think more radicalism is going to help them, But I think that's what their party is looking for right now.

Abraham Hamilton III: And that is wild.

Draft executive order calls for dismantling of Department of Education; whether Congress approves

We also had, I mentioned this a bit yesterday. President Trump campaigned and promised that he would dismantle the Department of Education. He said it in the Oval Office that he would like to see it dismantled immediately. Well, just yesterday the Wall Street Journal got ahold of a draft executive order that calls for, the dismantling of the Department of Education and instructs newly confirmed secretary of the Department of Education to. I want to say it exactly how the draft executive order says it directs education secretary Linda McMahon to, quote, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Education Department. And upon being confirmed, Linda McMahon sends an email to the entire 4,000 plus Department of Education staff saying that they are working on the department's final mission. Final mission. Now, to be fair and frank and clear, in order for that to be executed in totality, is going to require congressional participation. But there are a lot of steps that the President can take on his own with the assistance of the Education Secretary to begin to winnow down what the Department of Education does. What is your reaction to having a draft executive order out there, just as recently as yesterday, calling for the dismantling of the Department of Education?

Delano Squires: To your point? Right. The President campaigned on this issue and it's one of these things where he's going to say, promises made, promises kept. I said I was going to dismantle it and I'm moving in that direction. So whether Congress gets on board with that obviously remains to be seen. But again, I think this is another area where, particularly on the right, I'll say it for conservatives, there's a lot of energy around dismantling Department of Education. My sense is that they're still going to, require some massaging and messaging in this area. Because people tend to respond, you know, very one dimensionally when they hear, oh, you want to get rid of the Education Department, that's a bad thing. And I think it's going to require, you know, good advocates on the President's side to say, no, the Department of Education does not educate. Again, it has become an ideological institution and part of the bureaucracy that pushes very radical ideas and requires, States and locales to accept these ideas or else face funding cuts. Like obviously, I remember when, I'm sure you remember when President Obama on his way out, said school districts have to allow kids to use bathrooms in accordance with their quote, unquote gender identity or face potential funding cuts. That's the type of thing that Department of Ed is into and that's why the President says it's got to go.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah, and concerning the messaging point, I don't think it's gonna be a hard lift. two very potent points can be raised. First and foremost, contrast educational standards in America and productivity production, the children's ability to read and write and to do mathematics. Compare it to what it was prior to Department of education's formation in 1980 to what it is now. That's step one. Secondarily you can say that since its formation, the Department of Education has had over a trillion dollars. a trillion, not a billion children with a T yet. Look at, look at the results that have been produced very simply. And then lastly, I would say talk about the genesis of it, that it wasn't the product of well studied ideas and this is going to move America forward. It was a campaign barter between Jimmy Carter and the teachers unions to get his support for his reelection bid. Had nothing to do with, with the educational outcome of American children despite, what they say. And I think if you let the American people know those facts, those are facts, you'll see. Maybe we should consider some alternatives. You think I'm over maybe, hyperbolic in that assessment.

Delano Squires: I hope you're correct. My sense is that there are going to be some hold offs. And I'm thinking of people in my own family, right. I grew up in New York and I'm thinking, oh, they just hear the top line, right? they see the headline, they hear the top line, Trump wants to cut education funding. And to your point, we can say, look, before the Department of Ed, this is where we were. But as, ah, someone who worked almost 15 years in local government, one of the things that I know is once a program, a government program is created, it is incredibly difficult to get rid of it. and the responses, two government programs, particularly the ones that fail, are almost always the same. They start with this is our intention, right? They skip over, the incentives, they skip over the interests, they skip over implementation. And then they say, here's the impact. And when impact does not match intent, you know, the standard line, oh, we need more funding, we need more funding and we need more time. So I think Many of us, whether on the left or the right, have been conditioned to think this way. And that's why rolling back, particularly a department that has that name, it's the Department of Education, is going to take a little bit of time. Again, I hope you're right. But my sense is that, it'll be a hard sell for a significant part of the American public.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah, no, I agree with you on it being a hard sell, but it's a necessary sell. I literally just covered earlier this week a story, a girl who went to public school in Connecticut from first grade all the way to graduation from high school and she can't read. Cannot read. By her own admission, she can't read. And she started her classes each year telling her teachers that she couldn't read and they would mock her, you know, but you know, they could not allow their graduation rates, you see, to drop. And so they promoted the child. Now she's suing. She's suing the school district, her school in particular, and a teacher specifically, who would mock and deride her, in that they continue to socially promote her all the way throughout her high school years. And she can't read. 19 years old. Alicia Ortiz is her name.

Delano Squires: There should be a class action suit because there are a lot of students in a lot of, school districts who have, who have similar complaints. I will say this though. I think one of the things that needs to be reiterated in these debates about education is that education, and the responsibility to educate children starts in the home with parents. and I think one of the reasons we are where we are is because too many parents have gotten too, comfortable discharging that responsibility onto teachers and administrators without any sense that they are ultimately the keepers and the ones responsible for ensuring that the kids receive, an adequate, education. But yes, I think if you're getting promoted year after year, somebody's gonna have to be accountable for that. But as you know, right, if, if schools don't promote these kids and you have a backlog of 24 year old super duper seniors, that is going to cause some trouble as well. So, it's a tension that's not, very. Or it's not. It's a tension that's not easy to resolve quickly, but it needs to be for sure.

Abraham Hamilton III: And that graduation rate is incentivized by. What is that? Oh, yeah, yeah. Funding from the Department of Education.

Delano Squires: Exactly. Exactly.

Abraham Hamilton III: To your point, in her email to the DOE staff, Linda McMahon literally says, quote, as a mother and Grandmother, I know there is nobody more qualified than a parent to make educational decisions for their children, end quote. She literally said exactly what you said in her email to the Department of Education staff, as she, explains to them they're embarking upon their final mission, should they choose to accept it. That's very interesting.

Ashley Hamilton: People are deferring, delaying, or even declining marriage

Now, I introduced you as, the Heritage Foundation's research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos center for Life, Religion and Family. And I know you and Rachel Sheffield, co authored a deep dive into the state of the American family in a new report titled Crossroads American Family Life at the Intersection of Tradition and. And Modernity. And I want to dive into this a bit, and I want to start with what you all identify in your report as the connection conundrum, as it applies to family formation.

Delano Squires: Sure. And when we talk about the connection conundrum, one of the things that we observed is that we live in an era where technology is ubiquitous and people feel as if, well, I can reach out and touch this person. I know this person. I have this many friends on social media. So people, I believe, have a false sense of connection with one another, including in terms of romantic connection. But what you see is that singles report having more trouble in their dating lives than they did in years past, and people are even again, with all the dating apps that are out there, people are still having a difficult time meeting someone in real life, connecting with them, and forming a family. and you see that in the data. Right. The median age of first marriage has increased. it was about 24 for men and 22 for women in 1980. It's about 31 and 29 right now. and there's no reason to think that it's going to level off right there because people are not meeting. The life script for the average American has completely changed over the last few decades. And people are pushing off marriage, particularly marriage, not always children, but particularly marriage, further and further, as they get the sense that I need to accomplish all of these personal and professional milestones before I begin to have a family. And it will eventually have a downstream effect on all of American society.

Abraham Hamilton III: No, no doubt about it. I began to show in Deuteronomy, chapter 30, where Moses is really warning the second generation of wilderness Israelites as they're preparing to enter the promised land under Joshua's authority to say, listen, I present before you life and death. I'm, choose life. And there. It's almost like there's an interstate. You get on the interstate heading east, you're going to end up towards the Atlantic Ocean. You go west, you're going to end up toward the Pacific Ocean. You know, once you get on this road, unless you reverse course, that is where you inevitably will end up. And by and large, in our society, we're choosing death. We're using all kind of fancy terminology, euphemisms, you know, I call it regressive identification markers, you know, but it's actually going in the opposite direction. And you, you pointed out that, well, people are deferring, delaying, or even outright declining marriage, but not child production, not bearing children. That is a formula for disintegrating society. This is a huge question, but how, what are the fact. What is contributing to us being driven in this direction as a society? And I'll add, there's no way America will be made great if we continue to ignore the realities of family disintegration.

Delano Squires: Absolutely. And that stat, particularly around non marital childbirth, Right, because, I refer to that one because if I had to take any statistic as it relates to the family, I go there because what that tells me is that two people, have come together and joined to make a child, but not necessarily make a home, right. An intact home for that child. And right now, 40% of American children are born to unmarried parents, and 20, about 25% live with a single parent, typically a single mom. that second statistic, the 23% of kids raised by a single parent in America is the highest rate in the world. So what you have are people who are, at times choosing to have kids but foregoing marriage. Now sometimes people will say, well, you know, well, we live together, we just want to see. Because marriage is a lifelong commitment. And my thing is, well, a child is. Having a child together is a lifelong commitment because you're bound, you're bound to another person for the entirety of your life. I think we got here.

Abraham Hamilton III: wait, let me stop you right there because the music is on. I want to pick up with you right there as to how we got here. And this whole idea is something that really is impacting society. I mean, you just had the Elon Musk Ashley St. Clair phenomenon that just happened in our society.

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

Delano Squires: We've normalized family disintegration

Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner, Abraham Hamilton iii. Here my guest is Delano Squires, research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos center for for Life, Religion and Family at the Heritage Foundation. Before the disrespectful music Grabbed us. Delano, you were beginning to explain, your perspective as to how we got to this place, to where frankly, we've normalized family disintegration.

Delano Squires: Yeah, and I'll say this, historically this conversation has been sort of pitched in racial terms. Right. So the black family has been analyzed and dissected by social scientists, journalists, policymakers for the better part of 60 plus years. Right. particularly with the Moynihan report and all that other stuff. But in retrospect, the black family really was a canary in the coal mine because it's the same factors at play. And oftentimes people will say what's changes to the economy or it's mass incarceration. And I think those things play a role. But the fundamental way to destroy a family is to make both, particularly the man and woman, husband and wife, reconsider their roles and responsibilities towards one another and their offspring.

Delano Squires: So when you have the rise of big government liberalism in the 1960s, that says, either implies or explicitly says, we can replace the role of the father and the husband by giving you a check from the government. So allow Uncle Sam to become the de facto head of household for millions of families and everything will be all right. And you have that happening at exactly the same time that second wave feminists say are, ah, telling women femininity, as you've practiced it is weak. masculinity is toxic, marriage is a tool of the patriarchy, the home is a prison and your children are burdened. You should a free and liberated woman goes out and pursues her own interests and does her own thing. you don't need them in order to live a fulfilled life. And you have those two things happening at the same time. What you do is create, an alternative and parallel family structure. And it sends the signal throughout the culture that, particularly that women don't really need a man, and children don't really need a father. And when you add policy to that, that incentivizes and you have cultural messages that reinforce that message. You just let it play out and the snowball will roll down the hill and, and pick up steam. I'm mixing metaphors now, but it'll pick up momentum. Right. Without any external push. And I think that's one of the reasons that we got to where we are today, because we have been practicing this as a grand social experiment for the better part of 60 years.

Abraham Hamilton III: Man, that's so true. And what's sad to me, society hasn't recognized that, that notion the convergence of influences that you identified, including like, second wave feminism, was straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Straight out of it, you know, to where it was one of the branches of critical theory. To where you have, you know, feminine feminism, and like queer. Critical, queer theory. And then you have, you know, critical race theory. They're all subsets of the same objective that ultimately sought to decimate individual liberty, to decimate individual, identity for a collectivist notion that ultimately leads to the state, being the end all, be all. And that is the inevitable consequence. And you mentioned the black family being the canary in the coal mine. And unfortunately, you have some on the right who haven't thought through some of these things to where some who have been pro family advocates. But when you have people like Elon Musk, who is quite committed to procreation but not to being a father, and to a stabilized family where a husband marries the mother of his children and rears them together, you have some who would say, well, as long as the check is big enough, then you don't need it. Well, that's people on the right saying the exact same thing. People on the left have been saying that who needs Daddy? As long as the government can be Daddy, all we need to make sure is the check is big enough. You have completely commodified and reduced what a father is. And a father is indispensable to the formation of children and ultimately society.

Delano Squires: Ah, absolutely. And the other thing that people don't realize is that oftentimes these conversations are strictly about the father's responsibilities to his children. And obviously that's important. But husbands and wives have obligations to one another.

Abraham Hamilton III: Bingo.

Delano Squires: Right. So that, that vow to stay together in sickness and health. I've never heard it in a cohabitation agreement. I've never heard it in a divorce decree. and I've never heard it in a child support order, and I've never.

Abraham Hamilton III: Heard it in the congressional appropriation.

Delano Squires: Right, right, right. So it's one of these things where it's. The household needs to be unified because everyone has a responsibility and, has duties and obligations there. But oftentimes to your point, the politics can sort of scrub that away and just say, let's just focus on responsible fatherhood again. It's good. But before a man is a father, I believe that every one of them should be a husband. Because the left, what the left will do is say, oh, many low income single moms, don't have marriageable men. Which makes me think, okay, so you had a Baby with a man who you felt was suitable to father your children, but not suitable to be your husband. Since when did we start to separate those. Those two sets of characteristics?

Abraham Hamilton III: Since the notions you identified, the Marxist convergence, second wave feminism, the sexual revolution, Darwinian evolution, giving rise to the sexual revolution. Those notions contributed to our assessing those things. And you talk to a lot of young people, today. They'll tell you they want to be parents, but they won't say anything about being husbands and wives.

Delano Squires: Right.

Abraham Hamilton III: It's strange to them. Yeah. And this is. Go ahead, go ahead.

There are more Americans who have ever cohabited than ever before

Delano Squires: No, and I was gonna say this is one of the things that, myself, my colleague, found in our report is that, people are still wanting sort of the trappings of marriage and relationships. They just don't want to get married. So now what you see is that there are more Americans who have ever cohabited, right. Who have lived together outside of marriage than who have ever been married. And one of the things, you and I are around the same age, and we remember if you were living with your girlfriend, even if she was your fiance before you got married. Old folks say, oh, you're shacking up. Yeah, they were very displeased by that. But now moving in together is just another step on sort of the relationship trajectory. So you meet somebody, you date for a couple of months, you're in the same city. It's crazy expensive here. Let's move in together. And now what you find is that, 20% of new home purchases, I believe in 20, 22 were unmarried couples. M. So instead of just moving in together in an apartment, it's no. We'll buy property together as if we're a married couple. We'll have kids together as if we're a married couple, but without the benefits of being married, either to the benefits to one another or to our offspring.

Abraham Hamilton III: I often say we will never, as a society, be able to out politic, outvote, or even out church the deficiencies that abound in our home, in our homes.

Delano Squires: And.

Abraham Hamilton III: And, by and large, man, we've bought the lie. We've bought the lie. Like from the rebellion in the garden. Did God surely say, you know, you won't die, die. You won't.

Delano Squires: Moose.

Abraham Hamilton III: Moose. You know, we have that same phenomenon being perpetuated. And what we have happening is we are conflating popular occurrence with normalization. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's normal, because you can have a normalization of rebellion. That's what Genesis 11, the tower of Babel, Is, you know, they were unified, they were on one accord, in rebellion. And what we have constructed in modern society and modernity is a social Tower of Babel. We can look at other nations that are further along the trajectory than where we are in like Europe and other places and Canada. And there are some that are behind us in Latin American countries and some further behind in African countries. But you can see the inevitable result in what is attempting to occur in is to say, hey, we don't need God's blueprint for building society and building life. We will do what is right in our own eyes. But chaos is in the wake. If we continue along this trajectory, what are the kind of things we can see practically that will happen downstream?

Delano Squires: Well, one of them, and I mentioned this in the report, because what you have when you, when marriage rates decrease, people wait longer to get married, but, they continue to have children out of wedlock, right? And, two thirds of children born to cohabiting parents, those parents break up before the child turns 12. So one of the tangible outcomes, particularly sort of, you know, small and medium sized cities, is that you're going to have people who end up dating their half siblings. Half sibling, because multiple partner fertility is also on the rise, right? So a guy may have five kids by four women, or a woman may have four kids by three men. And each of those kids has half siblings by the other parent. So the family tree is going to become far more difficult to reconstruct. Right? And not because, oh, we don't. Well, it is because we may not know who's particularly dad, but because the relationships are going to become increasingly complex. the other thing, one of the other outcomes, and this comes from the same spirit in terms of adults prioritizing their desires over the needs and rights of children. One of the other outcomes is just the complete separation of, you know, sex and reproduction from marriage through reproductive technology, ivf, you know, birthing pods, whatever your mind can imagine it, we're on a trajectory, the downward trajectory to get there. and one of the things, and I say this often, this stems from partly the government's decision or attempt to redefine marriage. So the left will say, no, marriage shouldn't just be between a man and a woman. It's any two consenting adults. And my question is, why only two? Why can't the polycules that the New Yorker writes about incessantly, why can't those three guys say we want to get married? And when they do, why can't they go down to child services and say, now we want to adopt a child and we should have a right to do so. it's dystopian, if you really think.

Abraham Hamilton III: About it, or to use, the whole, and I don't mean to be crude here, the rental womb phenomenon. Why can't we, have a modern day 21st century slavery where we rent a womb and we call that liberty and progress and advancement? why is that problematic?

Delano Squires: It's not liberty for the motherless and fatherless children who are being intentionally created so that people who've chosen a lifestyle that makes them fruitless can have the family life that they've always wanted. and what we're doing is we're demanding that children, the weak, sacrifice on behalf of adults, the strong.

Abraham Hamilton III: Oh, man, that's so galling. That's so galling. I want everybody to know that as Delano was sharing these statistics, we're not trying to condemn people for choices, things that they've made, but we need to be aware of the consequences of these type of choices. And if these things continue as they are, these are some of the downstream realities that could occur. Now, Delana, what would you say to the person who would say, oh, man, Delana, you sound like old curmudgeon fuddy duddy. you just want us to go back to the doldrums of being shackled by, the notions of antiquity. What did you say to that person?

Delano Squires: Well, I'd say, look, if advocating God's blueprint makes me a fuddy duddy, I will gladly accept that charge. the other thing is, I would say, look, look at the evidence. What we're doing is not working. So the strong single mother type who says I can do it all, she's constantly online talking about how stressed out she is. So I believe that children need their parents, men need women, and women need men. And the best way for those interconnected relationships to be executed, is in a loving, low conflict home with married mom and dad raising their offspring. So that is the blueprint. And it's the blueprint because that is how our creator designed us to be. Now, the people who think that they can do something better, let's see your results. Because the last 60 years are telling me that they're not looking particularly good.

Abraham Hamilton III: Man, you're so right about that. And I want to say as a moment of encouragement, that, man, God knows where we are. God knows our stations in life. He, knows, that even if we haven't, I know I talked to a lot of guys, and they Said man, Abe, I didn't know nothing about being a father, being a husband, but the scripture promises that he's the father to the fatherless, you know, and that God's way still is the best way. And even if you have not had that personal experience, you have the fresh opportunity, to submit yourselves afresh to the truth of God's word. And the Lord can give you wisdom to rectify what you probably were deprived of.

If we're speaking realistically concerning the statistics that are prevalent now, uh

If we're speaking realistically concerning the statistics that are prevalent now, have you had the circumstance and encounter with people who might say, hey, I came from a pretty tortured background, but, I want to make an adjustment in my lifespan? What has your experience been with that?

Delano Squires: Yeah, absolutely. And one of the things I tell people all the time is that you can't help the family that you're born into, but you can help the one that you build.

Abraham Hamilton III: Amen.

Delano Squires: So part of it is saying, look, I had no, sort of say in what my parents did or how they managed their relationship, but I want something better for myself and for my future children. Or if you're a guy who says, look, I have four kids about three different women, I can't marry all three of them. But what I can do is express something and encourage something and plant a new seed for my children. And the thing is, we have a beautiful pattern of this. Right? If you go into any urban school district, in any school, in any big city, you're going to see banners and flags with Harvard and Yale and Duke and Hampton and Howard. And oftentimes these are schools that are educating children whose parents have never even gone to college. They never imagined going to college. But m. The school understands how to express an ideal in such a way where the parents don't feel condemned or judged, and a good parent wants something better for their child than what they have for themselves. So I think we can apply the same logic to people whose lives may not measure up to the ideal. But I'll say this. There is no way to express and articulate and hold a particular value in place over the course of generations without, the carrot of affirmation, as well as the stick of correction. I would just much rather use my stick on the institutions that are anti family. Right. On institutions that, that are led by people who talk right, who live right, but talk left. So I'm thinking about all of the Martha's Vineyard set who don't talk about, let's say, for instance, the issue, the plight of the black family. But they don't drive the who's your daddy DNA track around Martha's Vineyard because all of those people live their lives in such a way where they try their best to adhere to God's design. So I would rather, bring the stick of shame against the institutions. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.