Abraham Hamilton III hosts American Family Radio's Hamilton Corner

>> Abraham Hamilton III: Darkness is not an affirmative force. It simply reoccupies the space vacated by the light. This is the, Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio. It should be uncomfortable for a believer to live as a hypocrite, delivering people out of the bondage of mainstream media and the philosophies of this world. God has called you and me to be his ambassadors. Even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment. And now, the, Hamilton Corner. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Hamilton Corner. My name is Abraham Hamilton iii. I am grateful to be back in studio with you. like lots of people all across our country, my family had some issues with the little, little, little storm of the wintry varieties. Thankfully, everybody's okay. And, I'm not gonna regale you with anything because there are people in the country have it far worse than my family and I suffered. But just know we were right there with you. by God's grace, we're back in studio and I'm ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program. we have the Corner contingent in studio. as we are here daily. so as you know, Abraham Hamilton III is my name. I'm the host of this program. Right across from me we have my man, 100 grand, Mr. Bobby. And in the screening room, produce extraordinaire, often imitated but never duplicated successfully, that is, it's the real J. Mac. Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program.

We consistently see reading capacities diminishing in government education systems

At this very moment, many of you, if not most of you, are making your transition from your part time jobs where you generate an income to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to remind you to do so with intentionality, understanding the primacy that God places on family and allowing that, welcoming God's view on the family to inform, to govern and to guide your engagement and my own engagement. I was talking to a brother over the weekend and just explaining how it's vitally important, vitally, vitally, vitally important for us to understand that much of the things that we're confronting societally, they are the byproduct of things that are not happening in the homes. You know, I saw this horribly sad video of a young man, a high school student, who somebody gave a platform and a microphone and cameras rolling to, talk about things that happen in Minnesota, decrying the ICE protests. And I'm saying, you see what's happening. I've been explaining people like in the Carson vs. Macon case, even the Supreme Court acknowledged for the longest time the reason why they wanted this government, this publicly funded government, indoctrination system. It's for values cultivation. It's values cultivation. And I said for the longest, people thought that it was about reading, writing and arithmetic. And I've said the stated purpose has not been the functional purpose in reality, because you see trillions of dollars being expended, yet we consistently simultaneously see reading capacities diminishing. Writing capacities diminishing. You know, cursive. What's that? Who cares that every founding document that exists was written in what it was. It was typed. It was typed with, with Ariel 10.5. No, no. 14.5. No, no. It was typed in sense serif. No, it was written in cursive. At a minimum, a baseline capacity to read and write cursive is necessary for subsequent generations of Americans to be able to read the founding documents for themselves. It's absurd. Yet with the continued funding and yet the continued poor performance, do I need to go over all of the statistics of government education system students who cannot read or are not literate? So, you ask them, well, why we spent. Because they're making regressive activists. That's why we see that manifesting itself now, where people don't have a capacity to, evaluate circumstances, use discernment. It's just sheeple following the metronome of Goebbels Inc. But we have the opportunity to cut that off and to reverse it. If we will welcome the Lord to grab ahold of us and our families, we will never be able to out politic out Supreme Court opinion, out SCOTUS oral arguments outvote the deficiencies that persist in the home. We need a presence on all of these other, other fronts. But if we neglect the obligation to make disciples starting in our homes, we are going to continue nipping around the periphery. To the word of God we go.

Proverbs chapter 18 is where we're going to begin. This is the cross examination text

Proverbs chapter 18. Proverbs chapter 18 is where we're going to begin. This is one. One of my, I guess I got to stop saying it. I have too many favorite scriptures. That's my choice. Daddy, every one of the scriptures is your favorite. Proverbs 18. I call it the, The. The case in chief text. Proverbs chapter 18, verse 17. That verse particularly is what I call the case in chief text. The verse states, the one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him. The one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him. This is a Case in chief text. This is the cross examination text. I'm going to explain something. Now. The procedures in any trial proceeding, this isn't a civil trial or in a criminal trial. In any trial, when they're opening statements for the trial, the movement, meaning the party that bears the burden of the burden of proof, always goes first. In a criminal trial, that would be the prosecution. In a civil trial, that would be the plaintiff. The movement, the one who is asking the court to do something of, a matter. First instance goes first. They make their opening statement first. They have to place their, what's called their case in chief. They have to put their case in chief on first. All right, after the opening statements, you move to the testimonial portions of the trial in which evidence is submitted. All right, so let's put this in a criminal context. You'll have the prosecution, who has an obligation to offer their case in chief. When you are the attorney for the moving party offering your case in chief, this is where you have to, put your witnesses on. You cannot offer leading, cannot use leading questions. That will be questions in which the answer is implied in the question. Like you can't make an affirmative statement and then add an, a question at the end. You were there at 5pm, weren't you? You are suggesting what a person was in the question. That's a leading question.

In the United States, the accused party is presumed innocent

All right, so you, in your case in chief, you present what you believe is cogent evidence that will allow you to meet your burden of proof. If all that was necessary in an adversarial trial, trial context would be for the moving party to present their case in chief. The trial would end right there. But in our American system of government, which is not perfect, but it's better than anything else in the world, especially in the criminal context where we have our Fifth Amendment where the charge party is presumed innocent. Whereas in Europe and England in particular, that's the opposite. No, if you charge, you got to prove you're innocent. Here, if you are accused of something, our law says, okay, you accuse me, prove it, and I don't have an obligation to say anything. In fact, if I believe what you have presented in your case in chief is insufficient, I can avail myself solely of the fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination, and I don't have to say anything. And in the criminal context, you have to be willing to present to the jury your evidence and assert that I believe it meets the burden of proof that I have persuaded you jurors beyond reasonable doubt. But that doesn't always End the trial it does sometimes because, an accused party might believe. Man, your evidence is so weak, your case is so whack, I don't need to say anything. If however, an opposing party believes there's something that needs to be addressed. Well, even before I get there, let me take a few steps back. When the case in chief is offered, the moving party is putting on his witnesses, its witnesses and its evidence. Guess what the opposing party has, the oblig have the opportunity to do with every single witnesses witness that's presented. Our constitution guarantees to an accused party the right to confront witnesses against them. So in the moving party, and again in this criminal context, the prosecution puts on their case in chief and they're presenting their witnesses at trial. The opposing party has the privilege to cross examine those witnesses. I hear what you're saying, but I have some questions about what you're presenting as evidence that I want to examine. That's literally what the scripture says. The one who presents his case first seems right. Now why is it that the one who presents their case first seems. Seem right? Because the one who speaks first, with no rebuttal, there's nothing to contradict what is offered. But the scripture says the one who presents his case seems first. The one who presents his case first seems right. Until the other comes and examines him. So the moving party, again in the criminal context of prosecution, presents their witnesses. The defendant has the opportunity to cross examine every single single witness, invalidate their testimony if possible, to to. To present information that will call into question the credibility of those witnesses, to utilize whatever admitted evidence to show maybe this witness doesn't know what they're talking about. And with each witness, the important partner gets that opportunity. Not only that, after the moving parties case in chief, the opposing party has an opportunity to offer what's called a rebuttal case. Isn't that something? And the way it goes, even before you get to the rebuttal case, the moving part of puts on the witnesses the opposing party cross examines. The moving party has an opportunity to do what's called redirect examination. Redirect, your honor. And then you move on to the next witness. It continues that way. Then the opposing party gets opportunity to put on their rebuttal case. And even then the moving party has an opportunity, if they view it necessary, to offer additional information and evidence or witnesses in light of the rebuttal case that's offered. Depending on the scenario, depending on the jurisdiction, depending on certain things like that. Why am I laying all of this out for you, it's vitally important that when your goal is truth, that you refused to be moved solely by whoever speaks the loudest or who speaks first. We often discuss in our family that just because you're loud, it doesn't make you right. Just because you have the bully pulpit, it doesn't make you right. Just because you have a bunch of networks that is given the same thing is almost like they're coordinated. Doesn't make them right. I've shared with you guys. My wife gets upset with me because I have a worldview. This is not a straight news show. I'm giving my opinion in addition to the information that is newsworthy. All right? But I endeavor to have an informed opinion. And in an effort to have an informed opinion, I want to see counter arguments to my opinion. Whenever I would prep a case for trial, I would always prep a case for trial in view of how I would attempt to defeat my case. Because in order to have an informed opinion or when truth is the objective, truth can withstand scrutiny. Truth can withstand scrutiny, which is why our founders valued the First Amendment right to speak so much. So the antidote to bad speech, poor speech, horrendous speech, is not censorship. The antidote is more speech. There are a lot of people stating their case first and state in their cases loudly. And there are others who, because of the volume and the firstness of the case being stated, they're taking it as if it's true. So we're going to do a little cross examination today. And I just want to talk about some factual things. That's it. Some factual things. Now let's see if there's any truth that can be ascertained as a result of a little bit of cross examination. You're listening to the Hamilton corner. Glad to be back in studio. We'll be right back after this break. A, discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.

One of the most loving things you and I can do is share the gospel

Love always gives, and we're all called to a lifestyle of love. One of, if not the most loving things you and I can do is share the gospel with a world that desperately needs to hear it. So one of the ways whereby we live a life of love is living a life and a lifestyle of sharing the gospel as we go. So a part of walking in love, walking in the wisdom and the power of love, is knowing that, yes, if you're a believer, then it's your responsibility to be a bright and bold witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. Sharing the gospel as the Holy Spirit directs us. Sharing the gospel because that helps address the biggest need of the world. Every human being's greatest need is the need to know Jesus Christ. So one of the ways whereby we live a life of love is living a life and a lifestyle of sharing the gospel as we go. Shining light into the darkness. This is the Hamilton Corner on American family Radio.

Simsborough Baptist Churches Family focused weekend scheduled February 20-22

Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here, grateful to be able to announce once again February 20th through the 22nd, we'll be in Simsborough, Louisiana, at Simsborough Baptist Churches Family focused weekend. The event is no charge, free of charge. However, you are asked to register to allow the church the opportunity to prepare for your attendance because they are planning to feed all attendees. It's going to be a thrilling time together. I believe with everything in me that this is a pivotal moment, in our nation's history. And the Lord is drawing people together to communicate the truth that he desires to be conveyed in this time period. And I believe this is, a vital, vital, vital time of that occurring. You don't want to miss this. If you're in the area willing to come to the area that is February 20th through the 22nd. First Baptist Sims Borough Church. I should have said. I'm sorry. 133 Tiger Drive in Simsborough, Louisiana, 71275. In order to register, you need to go to fbcsimsborough.org click on the events tab and you'll see the Family Focus weekend and you can register there. Remember, no charge for the event. They just want to know how many people are coming to anticipate those who will be there. Looking forward to meeting you there. All right. There's so much that's happening, and so I'm going to try to do a little bit of catch up today, get to other stuff.

Fulton County, Georgia, acknowledged that they counted 315,000 votes illegally

I know about the Epstein file drop, and, you know, you got all kind of stuff. The people squirming in Fulton County, Georgia. Wait, wait. I thought it was a perfect election. What's the problem? What's the fuss? I mean, if you ask me, hey, hey, what is that on the shelf? And I know what I have on the shelf is not problematic. I'm not gonna squirm because you asked me what's on the shelf. Now, of course I want to make sure you have a legal request and all these kind of things. You're not entitled to know what's on my shelf. But if in this instance, there's a lawfully approved search warrant and subpoena for documents that you'd already been instructed to maintain for latter purposes, what's the problem? And then it's always funny to me, you know, because these things happen, you know, on an obscure Friday on, December 17th of, 2024, I believe that was a Friday. You can double check me. Might have been a Friday. I might be wrong. But December 17, 2025, you know, as people are preparing for Christmas, all of a sudden. And in fact, I was. I was out, I believe, that day. But I made a note, say, huh? So the Fulton county admitted that they violated the rules in 2020 when they certified 315,000 early votes that lacked poll worker signatures. And the county said, we won't dispute these allegations. That was on December 17, 2025, by the way. See, they thought they could slide that one by you like a Sandy Koufax slider, You know, get to get it in. But we take notes. So that's how they get the warrant. Aha. Uh-huh. Aha. Uh-huh. See, I'm saying that because if you're wondering how did the Department of Justice get the warrant, Fulton county acknowledged that they counted 315,000 votes illegally. Do you remember the margin of victory in Georgia? Purported victory, that is, for Mr. Ice Cream Man? It was a mere 11,779 votes. So if you illegally certify 315,000 votes, what are we saying, people? I remember reading somewhere in the scripture, the Bible says that the wicked flee when no one pursues. Or say it differently. If you're driving on an interstate and you're doing the speed limit and you happen to see a police car, usually most people won't necessarily be concerned. But if you're speeding, that's when the heart tends to start beating a little faster. Anyway. Anyway, I'm getting beside myself. so as many of you and I've been talking about this, and it's just amazing to me just how much Bible we sang. We were walking in the studio, man. These people have no regard for the American people. just. Just how absurd some of the things are that are done repeatedly. Like, you have video evidence of the. The faux testers in Minnesota. And I'm saying that because that's what they are. They're not. This is not an organic outcry of the people, because ICE has been operating all over the country right now. ICE is operating in other states. Why are we having these things happen in Minnesota? Let's just. Again, I'm gonna do a little bit of cross examination.

Tom Holman was elevated to be the director of ICE Under President Trump

So a lot of us are aware of Tom Holman, for example, because Tom Holman was elevated to be the director of ICE Under President Trump. M. President Trump described him as his border czar. Right. But is President Trump the first president? Tom Holman served in a capacity where he was responsible for. Let me see. Let's get this from a job description, shall we? Where he served in the capacity where he directed the enforcement and removal operations for ice. Does any. Everybody know the answer to that question? Well, no, brother Abe. This is not the first time. Huh? Fun facts for everybody here. Did you know the way that President Trump learned about Tom Homan's capacity to operate in ice? Does anybody know? You want to know how Trump became aware of Tom Holman? This is what I'm here for. This is why you tune in. Cause I'll tell you, I feel like. Me, me, me, Me, me. In 2013, President Barack Obama appointed Tom Holman as. Here's the title, guys. Ready for it. The executive associate director of enforcement and Removal operations for ice. It was the ERO branch of ice. What was Tom Holman's job? Abe? I'm so glad y' all asked me this question. Tom Holman's job under Barack Obama. You know, 2013 is when Barack Obama appointed him to this position. Tom Holman's job in 2013 was to identify, arrest, and deport illegal immigrants. 2013. 2013. I'm not saying you have to, Jeff, but you could put up a picture if you wanted to. You don't have to, but you could if you wanted to. Did you know that because of the stellar performance of Tom Holman under President Obama, that he was given an award by President Obama? Not just any award. By President Obama. Not just any award he was given. And I. I encourage everybody to go and look this up. He was. He was given the presidential rank award by President Obama, which is the highest civil service honor that could be afforded in the United States. Yeah, I'm gonna say that again, real slow for the people all the way in the back. The presidential rank award. Tom Holman received it in 2015. Tom Holman, you know, the dude who. Who, Who. Who's on TV all the time talking about same cat.

Who is responsible for the largest deportation operation in American history

Did you know if you were asked this as a trivia question, who is responsible? And I'm gonna finish this line, a question on Tom Holman. But who is responsible for the largest deportation operation in American history? We have some Jeopardy. Music. Time's up. Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Ding. You would be absolutely right. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack. The most ever in American history. Let me give a couple other things. So why did Barack Obama give Tom Homan the presidential rank award? The award was given to Mr. Homan for, quote, sustained, extraordinary accomplishment. Mr. Homan was recognized for his effectiveness in immigration enforcement. Have you said that? No. Barack Obama gave him the presidential rank award because of how effective he was in deporting identifi. I'm gonna read the job description again. It's not on LinkedIn, though. He was so effective in identifying, arresting, and deporting illegal aliens. Hm. Now, I could be wrong here. Bobby, you may recall this. Jeff, you could help me out if you recall this. Do y' all remember anybody protested in Minnesota when Barack Obama was. Was deporting almost the entire population of the state of Mississippi? I was like, where's Minnesota? Did y'. All do y' all any protests? You know, the kids in cages, y'. All. You know who started that jam, right? It was before her. It's Barack Obama's cages now. Why am I. Why am I presenting all of this? Are we witnessing objections to deportation? Well, Abraham. And this. I like these questions, y'. All. That's why the cross examination comes. Abraham, you don't understand. You see, President Obama was only focusing on criminal aliens. Okay? So we can. We can play these games if you want. Entering the country illegally is a crime. If you entered the country illegally. And before you get to your assessment of your law degree assessment. Do you think the people into the country illegally are unaware that they've entered the country illegally? You think they don't know? You think they run away? Now, even if you disagree with the idea that crossing the border is illegal, it really don't matter what your opinion is of it, because we have. We have statutes. That's the point. It doesn't matter your opinion about it. We have laws that say it's illegal to enter our country illegally. Because we also have laws that say for those who want to come to our country from other nations, here is how you do so. Okay, but Abe, you see, there were no protests under. Under Obama. Barack Obama. A. Because he was focusing on criminal aliens. Oh, so is that the distinction you want to roll with? Okay, well, come go with me for a moment, right? If you want the deportation efforts to focus on criminal aliens. And let's be specific with our terms. You mean in addition to breaking our law to enter our country without authorization to enter our country, those who commit additional crimes once they've entered our country, those are the aliens you are comfortable with being. With being deported. And the data would say that the American populace supports that. one of the highest things that people agree on well, how then would you square that with the idea that you know the coach, Tim Waltz, Minnesota, and you know the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Fry, their sanctuary states and sanctuary cities who say that they will not allow ICE to enter their jails to remove illegal aliens who additionally committed crimes upon entering our country illegally and are incarcerated in either the prison or the jails. So which one is it? So you cool with deporting illegal aliens who commit additional crimes when they come to our country, but at the exact same time, you're supporting administrations that refuse to allow ICE access to the jails, to the prisons, to remove the illegal aliens? Now, ask yourself the next question. If you are an ICE employee and you have been made responsible with removing illegal aliens, and your focus is criminal illegal aliens, but, the local, state, and municipality prohibits you access to the jails and to the prisons, where are you going to find the illegal aliens? are y' all tracking with me? Where are you going to find them? Or let me say it differently, where then would you have to find them? Because you don't want to provoke a constitutional crisis. You don't want to provoke a scenario where you have federal agents standing crosswise from state and municipal law enforcement officers. Then what are you going to do? You then have an obligation based upon the scenario created by whom? That would be the governor of the sanctuary state and the mayor of the sanctuary city. Who prohibits you from executing your task with removing the criminal illegal aliens? Those who have committed the additional crimes, once they've entered our country illegally, you can't get them into jail. So guess where you got to go and get them? The same place Barack Obama had to go and get them. Guys, I'm not laughing because this is funny, because it's not funny. I'm laughing because it's unbelievable.

Don Lemon claims he's coordinating with local elected officials on anti-ICE protests

Unbelievable. So you have Don Lemon showing up with a professional camera crew, and he's coordinating with local elected officials. We laid out for you local elected officials and those campaigning for election, yet they want. They're kicking into the country like these are just organic protests, and the people are rising up. You had the scenario. What was the gentleman's name? Peretti. Alex Preddy. Oh, he's just a, docile ICU nurse who just, you know, who showed up a couple weeks prior at a full test, and he's vandalizing. Vandalizing government property. And which, by the way, if you spit upon a person, that is considered an assault. That's a crime. That's a crime. Assault upon a law enforcement officer is an additional crime. Assault upon a law enforcement officer that impedes the officer's lawful discharge of his duties is an additional crime. And oh, by the way, when he's committing these acts, vandalizing government property, kicking taillights out of vehicles, spitting on officers in their vehicles, he happens to have a firearm in his waistband. In his waistband, but nevertheless in his waistband. So why then the concerted effort to try to present him as something other than what he is, which is, at a minimum, a person who seeks to agitate against ICE officers who also is known to carry firearms? Y' all know me, I grieve the loss of life. But the circumstance with. With Renee, good, let's be honest, she caused that circumstance. This pretty fellow. And Lord, I don't know where his soul is, but his conduct sure is giving me an indication of something. But why do the things keep happening? Why the faux tests? Why the. The theater with. With equipped with accompanied lights, camera in action? Because it deceives the mindless masses. The awakening with Bishop E.W. jackson. We have not been made the greatest nation in the history of mankind by denigrating God, we have become the greatest nation on earth because we are nation that acknowledged almighty God to be the source of our values, our rights, our liberties, and that therefore we are accountable to Him. The Awakening on the podcast [email protected] if we lose this cultural war, we're going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society. Discover the story of the Culture warrior Don Wildmon and how he went head to head with Hollywood playboy, the homosexual agenda, and the Disney empire. The movement Don started paved the way for Christians to boldly stand for truth and righteousness in a hostile culture. Watch Culture Warrior today for free. Visit CultureWarrior Movie, The Hamilton quarter podcast and one minute commentaries are available at afr.net back to the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

President Obama awarded Tom Homan for his efforts to deport illegal aliens

Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. Why is it not common knowledge that Barack Obama awarded Tom Homan for his efforts to deport illegal aliens? Why? Probably for the very same reason that our culture, we understand Isaac Newton as, Isaac Newton was a mathematician and a scientist and a physicist, but we don't know that he actually wrote close to three times as much about theology than he did about sciences. We don't know that he explained that his scientific experiments were driven by what he discovered in Scripture because there is a manner of deception that follows concealment, which is why it requires a knowledgeable cross examiner to present these things. I was having a conversation with the person. They were going on and on and on. And on about ice, and then I asked him some of the same questions I'm presenting to you today. So did you realize that, the guy who's, you know, the borders are. And all of this, he's the same guy who Barack Obama awarded for doing the exact same, if not similar activities? Do you. What? Hey, that's not true. Please go and look it up and then come back and tell me. Man, I didn't know that. How would that influence your opinion? Do you remember any protests when Obama was doing. Well, Abe, it was the criminal aliens, not the.

Governors and mayors refuse to give ICE access to jails and prisons

All right, all right, let's talk about this. Okay, well, if you want the criminal aliens. That's the question. If you want what you're describing as criminal aliens, which are those who've already violated our laws to enter our country illegally and then who have committed additional crimes, or those who got visas, overstayed the visas, whatever scenario that led to them being illegal, they committed a crime in addition to being in our country illegally, where will those people be? Largely? Largely they will be in jails and prisons. If you want those aliens removed, would not you allow access to the jails and prisons? Answer seems obvious. Or if you did not want those aliens removed from the country, what would you do? I wouldn't give access to the jails and prisons. So if you would have a governor and a mayor, for example, who refuses to give ICE access to the jails and prisons to remove illegal aliens who commit a additional crimes upon on, being in our country illegally, what would be the only thing you can conclude? Well, that governor and that mayor wants the utility UA aliens to stay here. Yeah, yeah. And it's just frustrating because the reason why these people do these things over and over again is simply because it's effective, which is why it's important for us to be those cross examiners. I see what they're saying, but let me look into this. What is this really? What is this really about? What's really going on here?

A New York jury awarded a transgender teen $2 million in damages

All right. Something else I want to address. A trial happened in NewSong York. And the. How do they describe the court? Is the. Yes. The NewSong York Supreme Court at Westchester county, now that is a district court in the state court system in NewSong York. This case has to do with a young lady whose name was Isabel. She ultimately changed her name several times, ultimately landing on the name Fox Varian because she, as a 16 year old girl made the decision that she was transgendered. All right. She had the assistance of two doctors in particular, one Kenneth Einhorn, who was a psychologist and two, the surgeon, Dr. Simon Chin. Kenneth Einhorn counseled and ultimately Simon Chin executed the mastectomy surgery. It's a double mastectomy. Inflicted this upon a 16 year old girl, the girl's mom. Let me get to that. The girl's mom, Claire Deakin, testified during the trial that she was against the surgery, but she consented to it out of fear that her daughter would commit suicide if she did not get the surgery. And the psychologist Kenneth Einhorn increased mom's fear that if she did not consent to this little girl, this little girl's permanent alteration of her body in the name of gender insanity, that it was a foregone conclusion that her daughter would kill herself. All right. The case was tried in NewSong York. It was a three week trial. And at the conclusion of the trial, the NewSong York jury awarded the young lady who's now 22 years old, awarded her $2 million in total. $2 million in damages, 1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering as well as another 400,000 for future medical expenses. Following the announcement of the verdict. Chloe Cole, who has been just rock solid on this issue because she too underwent mastectomy as a minor, who came to regret that, she had some comments concerning this jury verdict. Listen to and watch clip number two. Clip two go. Frankly that I think that $2 million is not nearly enough to compensate for the damages that these doctors have done to my generation. I think that it would only be right if. Next. Every single doctor, every single clinic has been involved in this, has their wallets completely drained. They're all thrown in prison with, with the keys thrown out. But I think that $2 million, this, especially in a blue state like NewSong York, this bodes well for the rest of the 28 cases, including my own, of all the children who have been harmed and are seeking legal justice. Your doggone Skippy, open the floodgate. Your dog on Skippy. So as you heard, there are an additional 28 cases that are pending that are just like this all over the country. And you know, there's ah, a. There's a reality. You know, I had a basketball coach used to say pain stimulates the brain. Pain stimulates the brain. You have ah, people who won't reason, who won't deal with reason and logic and appeals to truth, the truth of scripture. But guess what? They'll respond to that pocketbook. They'll respond to, you know, M M. Their malpractice insurance skyrocketing. They'll respond to, man, listen, you can't Find any. Any insurance companies that'll provide malpractice insurance for you. Because word on the street is that you'll. You'll counsel a minor to destroy themselves if it pays well. You're an insurance risk, my boy. Or my girl, whatever the case may be. Now, when you get into the facts of this case, man, it's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking, some of it. For many of you who've been following this issue, it may be predictable. Some of the other things and the things that I'm talking about in particular, in addition to the. Just the pain and the trauma and the toil of this little girl in her confusion as a child, but also when you consider just. There's a notion in law concerning, medical operations called the reasonable standard of care. Is this a reasonable standard of care? So, according to the testimony and y', all, this is wild to consider. This. This young lady. This is sad, man. This young lady had expressed concerns prior to consulting with the psychologist who made the referral to the surgeon, by the way. So this little girl was seeing the psychologist first. Kenneth Einhorn. Einhorn is the one who made the referral. But prior to. And contemporaneous to this little girl seeing the psychologist Kenneth Einhorn, she was also going to a local pride center called Albany Pride center, where she would tell people there she was having second thoughts about whether or not she was transgender, whether or not she was confused. The people at the center would say that Isabel, who became Fox Varian, would tell them, quote, she felt pressure to decide on a male identity or a female identity. She felt pressure from friends and from family and from. And from culture, and she continued to question her identity. But she was afraid that if she went back on attempting to identify herself as a boy that she would lose credibility, end quote. She was concerned that she would lose credibility with her own mother. Now, you want to talk about upsetting both of these medical professionals had to testify that Kenneth Einhorn wrote his referral to Dr. Simon Chin, and he never had a conversation about this girl with Dr. Simon Chin. Not one conversation. Not one. She had to testify that Kenneth Einhorn had to testify. His referral letters actually included false information and inaccuracies about this girl. Yet you still going chop off her healthy breast tissue. Guys, this. This. This is. This is just wild. And in addition to what I just told you, Einhorn, the psychologist never had any conversations from anybody from the Pride center, though the girl told him about it. He testified in trial, quote, that he might have never written the referral letter. Had he known that the little girl was telling other people she was second guessing, transitioning to be a boy. The surgeon, Dr. Simon Chin, testified at trial that had he known the little girl was unsure of her gender identity, he would not have performed the surgery. So you don't think before you gonna cut off some little girl's healthy breast tissue that you need to ask her whether or not she's certain that she want to do this? You don't think that's important? Why, why am I bringing this up? Because I want you to see that when people like me are talking about these things, hey, guys, these are the things that are happening. These mental health professionals are making these referrals. They're not doing their due diligence. They don't really know what's going on with the child. They have this unstable child. They don't care about the child enough. They're not thinking about the child.

Before a civil jury trial, you have lots of negotiations about a settlement

They're thinking about the political objectives. They're thinking about their political preferences. They're thinking about the money that they're going to make. They're not thinking about the child. What about the child? What about the child? They ain't thinking about that. So now it takes a, jury trial, which most of you may not know, but before you ever get to a civil jury trial, you're gonna have lots of negotiations about a settlement. So it's when the settlement conversations break down that you actually end up going to trial. So it takes for these medical professionals to be held accountable in a trial to expose, Well, yeah, I probably wouldn't have cut off the child's healthy tissue had I known she wasn't sure she wanted this.

Abe Shapiro says little girl didn't express regret for breast surgery years later

Which brings the whole thing to the forefront, doesn't it? Doesn't it? Because the psychologist, this is the key, guys. The psychologist and the surgeons attorney argued at trial. I mean, this is unbelievable. The psychologist and the surgeon's attorneys argued at trial. Well, the little girl, she didn't express regret for her surgery until years later. What's m the translation of that, Abe? Well, she ain't. She wasn't feeling bad about it until much later. Is that not the point we've been saying all along? Is that not the reason why Tennessee enacted a law to say you can't cut off the chest tissue of, of a child? Has anybody ever experienced a child? Y' all know I got six of them. I got two teenagers now. I got a 13 year old daughter. Y' all want to ask me how often my daughter changes her mind? And my daughter ain't confused about our identity yet we're going to bind ourselves in this ridiculously stupid way. Remember I told you sin makes you stupid. We know 16 year olds, 15 year olds, 14 year olds do all kind of things and change their minds on a regular basis. But on something like this, well, she says she feels like a boy, so we gonna go ahead and cut the breasts off. We don't do that in any other area. So in a culture where it seems like that's been slapped side of the head with a stupid stick, you won't listen to logic, you won't listen to reason, you won't submit to the truth of God's word. I guess we got to hit you where it hurts you, where you really worship in your pockets. And make no mistake about it, that will make this all change in a hurry. In a hurry. Don't be surprised at these other 28 cases. They don't see the light of day concerning trials because guess what's going to happen? Those insurance companies going to be behind the scenes saying, listen here, we're going to go ahead on settle this right now, because there's going to be momentum built by these verdicts. And this girl got awarded $2 million in NewSong York. You think that that amount with the jurors is going to go down or is it going to go up? It's sad to say that it takes this, but we've gotten to this place. That's what it's going to have to take. But I pray that the Lord opens our eyes before the foolishness governs. In total, 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. Proverbs 18:17. Cross-examinations are part of jury trials for a reason.

15:00 - 31:00. Tom Homan was President Obama’s Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and is now President Trump’s “Border Czar.”

31:00 - 48:00. A New York jury finds doctors liable for malpractice in a lawsuit concerning a minor’s mutilation surgery.

https://www.fbcsimsboro.org/events | Family Focus Weekend Feb 20-22, 2026

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

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

Video Clip Links

Chloe Cole

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0eMbx-djWg