Host: Welcome to Today's Issues. I'm joined in the studio by Wesley, Tony, and Chris Woodward, our news guy today.
Wesley: Good morning. Hump day.
Host: Hump day, that's right.
Chris: Hello.
Host: There we go. Nicely done. I got enthused over your point and was ready for you to give me your best. If you had come in slow, I would have been left hanging.
Wesley: He did that Monday, but we pretty much let him know that we expect more as the week goes on.
Chris: I tell you what, from henceforth, I will be like Bill O'Reilly: do it live.
Host: All right, folks, I am sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week. He will be back in the captain's chair on Monday. Before we get to the news of the day, we have a challenge for you.
Wesley: My wife and I and our kids have started going back to church on Wednesdays since August. We had been more sporadic the last couple of years on Wednesday nights, but we made it a priority this year. We have been fitting it into all the scheduling that we have, and we have really been blessed by it.
I want to challenge those who have a lot of activities and a lot going on. Making it to Wednesday night church, if your church offers it, will greatly benefit you. That is my challenge for this Wednesday. You have the rest of the day to think about how you can work it into your schedule if you are not already doing it. If you are doing it, keep doing it. Keep making it to church on Wednesdays.
Host: Your kids will learn because truth is caught more than taught. Kids pay attention. When parents let their kids know, "We are doing a lot of important things and a lot of fun things, but church comes first," they pick that up.
If that becomes a lifestyle, they understand that God, hearing the Word, worshiping with other believers, and pouring into other people with whatever gifts they have is a priority.
Wesley: Amen.
Tony: If I may, I would like to add to your recommendation. Several years ago, when COVID was the thing and churches were restricting this or that, we did not have Wednesday night service for a little while. When it came back, I found it to be a big blessing because the news can depress you.
Getting together for fellowship, singing hymns, and talking to people helps you recharge. You get away from the news and the world for a little while, and you get that nugget from the pastor that is going to get you through the next couple of days. Do not take Wednesday night prayer service and Bible study, or whatever you may call it, for granted. It is a huge blessing.
Host: All right, Chris, let us get started with the news of the day.
Chris: Speaking of terrible situations, I was watching this last night just after it unfolded. There was a deadly bus collision in Los Angeles when authorities said an SUV struck a city bus at an intersection. People died in that incident, and then several news helicopters arrived to provide aerial footage for local and national television outlets.
Unfortunately, one of those news helicopters crashed, adding to the terrible situation. A news helicopter used by NBC and Telemundo crashed in an Los Angeles neighborhood and burst into flames, killing at least three people while reporters were covering the collision between the SUV and the city bus.
I have some audio here from Los Angeles Fire Captain Brandon Silverman talking to authorities not long after this happened.
Captain Brandon Silverman: We do have one confirmed patient that seems to be outside of the helicopter when it crashed. Paramedics got on scene very quickly because they were just clearing the other traffic accident in Chatsworth. That person was clearly deceased on scene from the helicopter itself. It is pretty well destroyed.
Chris: Both incidents are still under investigation today. Stay with AFN, because I assume they are going to have another press conference. The problem is the time difference. It is 8:00 or 11:00 in the morning in Los Angeles, so it could be later this morning or even early afternoon before we get that audio.
Host: The investigation is going to cover why these things happened. Did the SUV hit the back of the bus, or did it sideswipe it?
Chris: The initial news reports said it essentially T-boned the bus, meaning it hit the middle of the bus. We are not sure whether the driver was impaired or whether the bus driver committed an infraction. We are not sure at this point.
Host: What about the helicopter?
Chris: The cause of the helicopter crash is also under investigation. It was up there doing aerial footage, as you would see in Los Angeles or one of the big cities that have these kinds of resources for news reporting. For whatever reason, that helicopter crashed, although there were several in the air at the time. It was this particular NBC and Telemundo helicopter.
Host: With an airliner, they start off at 30,000 feet or so, and you can get information by listening to the exchange with the tower. They may say, "Something is going wrong. We are going to try to land." Those helicopters are not up that high. They are only a few stories up, so there may not be much information available in that way.
Chris: There are rarely any survivors in a helicopter crash from whom you can get information.
Host: It is awful.
Chris: One other local incident happened recently. According to the Mississippi Highway Patrol, 16 children and two adults were injured in a school bus crash. The bus overturned, and according to some reports, one or more students were airlifted for medical treatment.
Host: Do we have any idea how it overturned?
Chris: No. That is also under investigation at the moment. I am looking at the headlines from this morning's reports, and the crash is still under investigation.
Host: All right. Next story.
Chris: As far as Iran watch goes, according to Fox, Iran has new demands for the United States when it comes to the conflict, war, escalation, or turmoil, whatever somebody wants to call it over there.
Iran is asking the United States to end the war, give them money that is currently frozen in bank accounts and other assets, and allow them to continue their nuclear energy research. That is the whole point of concern for the Trump administration: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
In its coverage this morning, Fox News spoke with Victoria Coates, a Fox News contributor who discusses national security and foreign policy issues. She said these demands from Iran are unreasonable.
Victoria Coates: I do not think any of that is going to happen. It is very interesting to have Foreign Minister Araghchi in Beijing today meeting with his counterpart, Wang Yi. I think what China really wants is the starting back up of the free flow of cheap oil out of Iran.
They may be putting some pressure on Iran. Bear in mind, they have done very little to help Iran during this conflict. They have not ridden to the rescue, as many people expected. We may see more developments in the coming days.
Chris: To put some context to that, China is trying to get Iran to come to terms here. That is why she mentioned China and the summit.
Host: Wesley, I think the reason Iran is putting these ridiculous requirements on the United States is that they are going to get none of that as long as Trump is in office. Trump can be a hard negotiator.
I think the reason they are doing that is because they want to have fallback positions they can agree to if they are getting pressure from China. We know that China gets a significant portion of its oil from Iran. China does not produce its own oil and has to import it, and Iran is a major provider.
I think it would be great if China would pitch in and pressure the leadership of Iran to get to the negotiating table. Otherwise, I do not see an off-ramp.
Wesley: Something we have not mentioned on Today's Issues in several weeks, maybe a couple of months, is that there is the regime and the Iranian military, which really is not one unified force. Then you have the spokespeople and the negotiators.
I would imagine that while they support the regime, the spokespeople and negotiators are probably more practical and are representing the people better in their thinking. At the end of the day, they can speak, negotiate, and do all of those things, but the regime and the military in that country get the final say.
Host: Tony, I think that is why over the last several months, whenever President Trump has said negotiations are going great, maybe they were. The negotiations may have been going great, but then the people running the country said, "No, we are not going to do that." That is why we got the ping-pong-ball effect back and forth in terms of what we were hearing.
Tony: This is indicative of these types of conflicts. The regime and the military, as Wesley was describing them, are so decentralized. I have heard it described as a mosaic. There are so many different factions within the military operating in different areas of Iran.
You may have a military leader in one area of Iran say, "We would be fine with these terms." Then you may have the person over operations closer to the Strait say, "No, we are going to keep dropping mines. We are going to keep launching rockets. The Strait is closed. I do not care who is negotiating or what they say is going on. This is my area, and we are not letting the infidels claim it."
That is what you are seeing. That is why you are seeing this ping-pong. The diplomat from Iran shows up, and one day he may say, "This is looking good. I think we have something here." Then he may go back to Iran and talk to the people really in charge, and they may say, "No, these are our demands."
In my opinion, some of the demands that we bring to the table may be unrealistic. It is always, "Shoot for the moon and maybe land somewhere in between." For instance, we were going to get a percentage of everything, the tolls we were going to charge. That was something we were demanding. How are we ever supposed to enforce that? That might be an unrealistic demand.
Just like no interference with their nuclear program, that is an unrealistic demand in my opinion.
Host: Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said much the same thing. I saw a speech a couple of months ago where he was asked why we were having this effect with the negotiations: one day we are good, the next day we are not, and there are memorandums of understanding and all that kind of stuff.
Marco Rubio said, "Look, we have so devastated the top echelon of leadership that everyone else is afraid to give their position or location away. They are sending someone by camel, not literally, and it sometimes takes four or five days for this proposal to get to one place or another."
It seems cultural. Once you get east of Iraq, in Iran and Afghanistan, we saw the same thing with the tribal leaders. You cannot just deal with one person. There are other tribal leaders who say, "That is not us. We are not involved in that." That seems clearly to be the case in Iran as well.
Tony: This may be why we thought we could get regime change by taking out the upper echelon. Forty-eight senior Iranian leaders, officials, and military commanders are dead.
Host: We may have underestimated, and it seems clear that we did underestimate, how the regime could continue with lower-echelon people running it. It is actually a wise way to govern so that you do not get decapitated.
Wesley: Our assumption is always that every culture is just like ours. If the opposite happened and someone took out 48 of our top military leaders, we would be in complete and utter disarray because we are a Western-structured democracy. Our government, military, and doctrines are different. We rely heavily on top-down military leadership, so it would be disastrous for us.
Our assumption is that every other culture and society must operate like us. If we carry out these attacks, then they will collapse.
Tony: Just as a counterpoint, militarily, I think that in the field we do have a lot of autonomy among officers and those below them when it comes to conducting operations.
I would also note the genius of our Founding Fathers. God forbid, I hope this never happens, but if somebody decapitated the federal government, we have state governments that could continue to operate.
That is part of the genius of the federalist system. You have federal, state, and local governments, and then you have the individual with weapons to protect his family. I think that is what is happening in Iran.
I do not want to rely on China, but hopefully we can find a way out that preserves at least some of our initial goals.
Host: All right. What else do you have?
Chris: Charlie Kirk's family is signaling an intent to sue Utah Valley University, alleging that the university and campus police made stunning failures that led to the on-campus assassination of Charlie Kirk just over a year ago at a TPUSA event at Utah Valley University.
I have some audio from retired FBI agent James Gagliano on Fox talking about this situation.
James Gagliano: It goes so far beyond that. Where we are standing right now is called the Fishbowl. To give you some spatial alignment, over my right shoulder are the Losee Center and the Sorenson Center, the two buildings in question that were named in the notice of claim.
The fact that this was such a tight spot, and how you could have 3,000 people come here, is significant. Take Charlie Kirk out of it and take the elevated threat level out of it. If you had an event here, there are only certain points of entry, and the fact that there was no coverage via drones or anyone on the rooftops is unconscionable.
Chris: Lawrence Jones was involved in that discussion. Frank Turek has told us a couple of times that when he arrived in the vehicle with Charlie before the event, he told Charlie, "I do not feel good about this. There are too many rooftops."
Host: Wesley, it is sad to say that we have come to this in our country. I never thought about these kinds of questions when I was growing up: rooftops, who might be up there with a weapon, and firing down into a fishbowl.
Now we have conversations about metal detectors, on-duty police officers, and security personnel at schools and churches. Here at our ministry, we have several layers of security protection. The world has changed, and we are adapting to it. These are questions people are going to have to answer before they speak in public.
Wesley: Absolutely. The drone mentioned in that audio is also a very good point. There are expensive drones and inexpensive drones. For around $4,500, you can get a very good drone that would be able to visually cover all that ground. If you had somebody flying a $4,500 drone over the campus for two hours, you could spot that in a heartbeat.
Another thing is that, apparently, Utah Valley University security was responsible for everything outside of securing Charlie in and out. If that is the case, it seems like nobody checked the first box. The rooftop was at a distance where you should have seen someone.
There are a lot of similarities to the shooting where Trump was shot in the ear. That was another location where you ask, "Where was the breakdown in communication?" Later you find out there were multiple security groups. Everyone says, "I have this zone," or, "I have that zone." You have state security, federal security, the Secret Service, and so on.
In this case, you have Charlie Kirk's security team, and then you have on-campus police saying, "No, we have this." Between the drone and not having the rooftops covered, it was a major failure.
At the time, the Charlie Kirk family had other concerns for good reasons, including the funeral and other matters. But I knew it was only a matter of time before the family took action. The Kirk family and TPUSA support law enforcement, the military, and first responders, but there is going to have to be legal accountability for this breakdown because it was avoidable.
Host: That is going to be part of what is discussed. Tony, when Wesley mentioned using a drone with security, what is strange now is that the other side can use drones. At a football stadium or at a university, a drone could be used to strike individuals.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Thomas Crooks, the person who took the shot at Trump, was spotted days before the event with a drone.
Wesley: He was using a drone to map the area.
Host: The sad reality is that it took something horrible happening to Charlie, who was not a political figure or a politician, for everybody to wake up to the need for security for anyone who is a lightning rod politically or ideologically.
We will take a short break. You are listening to Today's Issues on the American Family Radio Network. Abraham Hamilton the Third will be joining us after the break.
Host: Welcome back to Today's Issues. I am sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week. I am joined in the studio by Wesley, Tony, and Chris Woodward. Now we welcome Abraham Hamilton the Third, host of The Hamilton Corner, heard weekdays at 5:00 p.m. Central Time on AFR. Abe, welcome back.
Abe: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody.
Host: We have covered a story this week about something happening in Massachusetts. As someone born in the Boston area, I am never surprised by the craziness we hear coming out of that state, any more than I am when it comes from the West Coast.
Chris, set this up for those who have not heard the story.
Chris: A Catholic couple in Massachusetts had their daughter taken away by the state under the guise of child abuse after refusing to affirm her so-called transgender identity.
In 2024, the 15-year-old child was removed from the home of Joseph and Arlene Kutsko after they said she was secretly socially transitioned at Algonquin Regional High School. Now they are fighting to get her back before she is medically transitioned with high-dose testosterone.
The parents have not seen their child in more than a year since she was taken away. They are not even allowed to have contact with her. As the mother said yesterday, she cannot even hug her. She just wants to hug her, give her a kiss, and tell her that she loves her.
People I have talked to say this is just one of several cases in which schools or the state are ignoring parental rights and trying to do things in secret. That is why we brought in Abe to help fill in the gaps.
Abe, before we get to the specifics of this case, constitutionally, what rights do parents have legally? I know it is different from state to state, but in broad terms, how has the Supreme Court approached the issue of parental rights?
Abe: Parental rights have largely been viewed as sacrosanct. The unfortunate reality of what is happening in states like Massachusetts is that they are using a child abuse standard to do this. They are treating the parents' refusal to call their daughter a boy as if the parents were physically abusing the child and putting her life at risk.
They are treating it as if the parents were beating the child with a two-by-four. They are treating it along that same trajectory, which is egregious. I expect the parents to prevail legally after exhausting all of the appellate maneuvers.
They are in court right now because the state is attempting to administer birth control and high-dose testosterone to the child without the parents' consent. The parents are saying, "Wait a minute. No way. We do not want this to happen." But at what cost? They have gone more than a year without seeing their own child.
The child was 15 in December of 2024, so she is approaching 17. That is almost two years of a child's life that she has not been around her parents. The state has put her in a dorm with boys. She is living with boys, and all of these things are happening.
I expect this to be corrected legally, ultimately, but at what cost? What kind of daughter will they have back by the time the litigation is finished? She may have reached the age of majority.
Host: She was 15 when she was removed from the home, and she is 17 now.
Abe: The overzealous departments of child and family services in various states all over the country are proactively saying, "We would rather ask for forgiveness than ask for permission."
In this instance, the parents had no idea what was happening with this girl at school. She was being socially transitioned at school. A guidance counselor encouraged her to come out at school and then told her, "Now we think you have enough courage and confidence. Go and tell your parents."
She came back to school, and the guidance counselor asked how it went. The girl told the counselor, "My parents said they do not agree with it." The guidance counselor called the Department of Children and Families and initiated the actions that resulted in the girl being removed from the home.
Host: Was this at a Catholic school?
Abe: No. It was at Algonquin Regional High School. The guidance counselor told the girl to tell her parents, and when the parents disagreed, the counselor called the Department of Children and Families.
Host: It makes me angry. I do not even know this girl, Sophie, and I am furious about what the Kutsko family is going through.
Abe: Yesterday we talked about things parents can do at home. We acknowledged that not everybody can homeschool or send their children to a private Christian institution. We encouraged parents to talk with their children, ask them questions every day, and dig a little deeper as their children enter adolescence and become less open.
The question is, what can parents do in this situation? Is this the type of case that could eventually make its way to the federal level, where the federal courts could intervene and set a precedent that parents could point to and say, "You cannot confiscate my children because you think I am abusing them when there is clearly no instance of that"?
Abe: I have a lot to say about this, and I will try to be succinct. I am from the hood, so I understand various circumstances. My mother was a teenage mother, and I grew up in the projects.
I think we may need to be slower in saying what people cannot do. Sometimes people say they cannot do certain things without really looking into them. I am not saying that everyone can, but this is so vital and critical that I do not think we should easily say, "We cannot private school or homeschool."
Putting that aside, this is the problem I have with this. California went through a similar situation. The state passed laws saying schools could socially transition children without notifying their parents. The litigation went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected what California was doing, and fines were paid by taxpayers rather than by the administrators who created the problem.
But did that stop the same type of social agenda in Massachusetts? No. They do the same things because they are ideologically motivated.
One major point that is sometimes missed is the sociological development that occurs when children spend most of their time away from their parents. Values are often set where we spend the most time.
The idea that adolescents become less communicative with their parents is largely connected to the fact that children spend most of their waking hours away from their parents. Adults face this all the time. At a dinner party with coworkers, you have coworkers you do not talk to very often and coworkers you talk to most often. Where do you sit at the Christmas party? You sit with the people you spend the most time with.
That is not necessarily malevolent or hostile. It is a feature of human development. But Marxists have long understood that they need to sever the relationship between parents and children and make children more comfortable talking to anyone other than their parents. Education is used as the veneer for operating a social mechanism that makes children least comfortable with their parents and most comfortable with everyone else.
That is why you have a child talking to a guidance counselor but not telling the parents anything.
Host: The Nazis told children to report on their parents. Many parents lived in fear of their own children. This happens in communist movements as well, where parents are afraid to confront their children or direct their upbringing because the children are told at school or somewhere else to report their parents if they give them a hard time.
Abe: I am not trying to demystify the notion that children naturally talk to their parents less as they develop. That is not automatic. Children become accustomed to talking to their parents less because of the destruction of society.
What has to occur, and this will be confronted in each family and each relationship, is that we have to converse with our children in a manner that advances the relationship. We do not want our children to have more confidence and comfort with people other than us.
There is only one remedy for that: time.
Host: For many years, people have said that it takes a village to raise a child. In recent years, school officials and people in government offices have said things like, "Your kids and my kids are our kids." Is what we are talking about today the personification of that mindset?
Abe: Sadly, yes. It does not take a village to raise a child. The village can help if it shares your worldview, vision, and objective. But if the village is hostile to what you are seeking to accomplish with your children, the village has become an enemy.
Many of the people who hold to that idea do not have children of their own. When they say, "They are our children," they are really looking for you to give your children to them so they can be the primary influencers and shapers of their values.
Then you end up with twenty-somethings calling their parents Hitler for voting for Trump in 2024. That is how it happens.
Host: I agree with what you said earlier, that there is more we can do than we realize if we think about it. The time spent with our children is entirely our responsibility as parents, and what they do with their time is our responsibility.
Without getting into all the forms of education, at a minimum, you cannot send your child to a school that is on the record doing this kind of thing. Algonquin Regional High School is on the record doing this.
So what do you anticipate legally will be the outcome?
Abe: The parents are going to prevail. They have attorneys from the Becket Fund and other attorneys involved. They are going to prevail, and there will be a significant fine levied against the school district and the state.
But the fine will not be paid by the individuals who caused the problem. It will be paid by the taxpayers collectively. You are going to have another case precedent consistent with what the Supreme Court already ruled in the California case.
The parents will ultimately prevail, but in the meantime, this child has been out of her home for 18 months. The irony is that there is no telling what actual abuse is occurring to this girl during that time, when the basis for her removal was supposedly that she was being abused by her parents.
She was not on birth control when she was living in her parents' home, but the state is trying to give her birth control. She was not sharing a room with boys in a boys' dorm, but that is what has happened to her.
I have a 14-year-old daughter. I cannot imagine not being present in my daughter's life as she moves from 13 to 14, 15, 16, and approaches 17.
Host: You cannot get that time back.
Abe: That is formative and shaping. This young girl's entire adulthood is going to be shaped by these last 18 or 20 months. She is approaching 18 and independence as an adult.
That is why people say these things are benign. They are not benign. The abuse is being imposed upon the child and the family by the state.
Host: One final question. My frustration, beyond everything that has been said, is the disregard for what the Supreme Court has said. Why cannot the attorneys go to a federal district judge and say, "Judge, this state is clearly ignoring what the Supreme Court has said"? Why cannot this be over in 30 days, with a federal judge telling Massachusetts that it cannot do this?
Abe: You have the Department of Children and Families, state judges, federal judges, and the state system in Massachusetts. Having been born and raised there, you know it is not a red state.
Judges are people. You have lower-level judges who may be trying to curry favor with a potential Democratic president or someone down the line because they want to show that they are committed to the cause and get an appointment later.
That is why cases such as the California case have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It should never have gotten there, but it happens because you have ideologically motivated people.
I spoke with Sam Whiting, general counsel or chief counsel at the Massachusetts Family Institute, about why school districts and states are ignoring Supreme Court cases. You have the decision out of California, which is the most recent case involving this exact issue. Then you have the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, which dealt with opt-outs but solidified parental rights in Maryland.
Why did that case have to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Christians and Muslims were saying they did not want their children taught sexual material in the schools. The law said parents could opt out, but the school district unilaterally removed that option. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Sam told me that, just as I have said, it is ideology. People say, "That is California. This is Massachusetts."
If an officeholder in Mississippi said, "That is Illinois. It does not impact us," the media would cover it wall to wall and say how awful Mississippi was for ignoring the law.
Host: The core issue is that this is a war over God and about God. We have two mutually exclusive worldviews at war with one another.
When I was growing up, we did not have this kind of situation. We had disagreements about whether to spend money on guns or butter, whether we needed another aircraft carrier, or whether we needed more money for welfare. Those were the arguments we had.
Now we have two mutually exclusive ways of understanding parental rights, gender, and human sexuality. These worldviews are at war with one another in this country. I am not sure how that ends. It is a cold civil war, if you will, with two distinct sides.
You have people who are supposed to uphold the law saying they are not going to uphold it because their side needs to win.
Abe: It is very provoking because precedents have been established. I thought we were a nation of laws and not of men, but I guess it depends on where you live in the country.
I do believe that what is legal and lawful will ultimately prevail, but at what expense? In the meantime, what happens in this little girl's life? What happens to this family? She has a brother who has not seen his sister in almost two years. Her mother is on television crying, saying, "Please come home. We love you. We miss you."
These things are not benign. That is the urgency I am trying to communicate. This is not merely a political disagreement. There are real tears, blood, sweat, and family disintegration involved. It is happening right now.
We need to be vigilant on every front: proclaim the gospel, make disciples, engage civically, know what is going on in your children's classrooms and lives, know the people who interact with your children regularly, and make your presence felt consistently so that people will be embarrassed, ashamed, and fearful of trying this foolishness with your child.
Spend time with your kids. You have to. Quantity of time gives rise to quality of time. You cannot pre-program those qualitative moments. Quantity of time, repetition, and frequency of engagement set the stage for those moments when your child says, "Dad, I was thinking about this. This is what happened at school."
You get one first impression. You get one first opportunity. You do not get to redo parenting.
I do not care how hard it gets financially or emotionally, or what other reasons cause families to break up. You get one shot at raising your kids. If you are listening now and realizing that your children are 10, 11, 12, 15, or 16, you get one shot. Start today if you have not already started.
You have to invest in your kids and prioritize your family over everything else. You have to prioritize time spent with them. Many people work long, hard days in construction, truck driving, and other labor. But when the day ends, it starts with your family.
When you get home, you will never regret the hours and days you spend with your kids.
From a Christian perspective, you can be creative in discipling your children. Many people check out when they think, "It has been a long day. I cannot sit down and read the Bible for 30 minutes."
You need to read the Bible with your children, but if you know the Bible and it is in your heart, you can share the Bible with them without always sitting down for another textbook-type setting after they have been in school all day.
If God's Word is in your heart, it becomes part of your everyday life and the way you communicate. Scripture comes out of us when we are investing in our kids.
I make it a priority not to waste time in my vehicle. We do not just play music and drive, although we do that for fun sometimes. I have gotten to the point where I play devil's advocate with my 11-year-old son, Bennett. I challenge him in his faith.
I ask him, "Why read the Bible? Who cares about that?" I challenge him because he is going to have to answer some of these questions. Do not waste that time in your vehicle.
Host: Abe, you made a great point about quantity of time. Just have fun with your kids. You can do all kinds of things they like to do. That is putting in time, and eventually they are going to ask a question about something that is bothering them.
Thank you so much for being with us.
Abe: Thank you, brother.
Host: You can listen to Abraham Hamilton the Third, host of The Hamilton Corner, weekdays at 5:00 p.m. Central Time on AFR. You hear the same kind of passion and knowledge on that show, and maybe he amps it up even more.
Abe: It is just the caffeine.
Host: Welcome to Today's Issues. I'm joined in the studio by Wesley, Tony, and Chris Woodward, our news guy today.
Wesley: Good morning. Hump day.
Host: Hump day, that's right.
Chris: Hello.
Host: There we go. Nicely done. I got enthused over your point and was ready for you to give me your best. If you had come in slow, I would have been left hanging.
Wesley: He did that Monday, but we pretty much let him know that we expect more as the week goes on.
Chris: I tell you what, from henceforth, I will be like Bill O'Reilly: do it live.
Host: All right, folks, I am sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week. He will be back in the captain's chair on Monday. Before we get to the news of the day, we have a challenge for you.
Wesley: My wife and I and our kids have started going back to church on Wednesdays since August. We had been more sporadic the last couple of years on Wednesday nights, but we made it a priority this year. We have been fitting it into all the scheduling that we have, and we have really been blessed by it.
I want to challenge those who have a lot of activities and a lot going on. Making it to Wednesday night church, if your church offers it, will greatly benefit you. That is my challenge for this Wednesday. You have the rest of the day to think about how you can work it into your schedule if you are not already doing it. If you are doing it, keep doing it. Keep making it to church on Wednesdays.
Host: Your kids will learn because truth is caught more than taught. Kids pay attention. When parents let their kids know, "We are doing a lot of important things and a lot of fun things, but church comes first," they pick that up.
If that becomes a lifestyle, they understand that God, hearing the Word, worshiping with other believers, and pouring into other people with whatever gifts they have is a priority.
Wesley: Amen.
Tony: If I may, I would like to add to your recommendation. Several years ago, when COVID was the thing and churches were restricting this or that, we did not have Wednesday night service for a little while. When it came back, I found it to be a big blessing because the news can depress you.
Getting together for fellowship, singing hymns, and talking to people helps you recharge. You get away from the news and the world for a little while, and you get that nugget from the pastor that is going to get you through the next couple of days. Do not take Wednesday night prayer service and Bible study, or whatever you may call it, for granted. It is a huge blessing.
Host: All right, Chris, let us get started with the news of the day.
Chris: Speaking of terrible situations, I was watching this last night just after it unfolded. There was a deadly bus collision in Los Angeles when authorities said an SUV struck a city bus at an intersection. People died in that incident, and then several news helicopters arrived to provide aerial footage for local and national television outlets.
Unfortunately, one of those news helicopters crashed, adding to the terrible situation. A news helicopter used by NBC and Telemundo crashed in an Los Angeles neighborhood and burst into flames, killing at least three people while reporters were covering the collision between the SUV and the city bus.
I have some audio here from Los Angeles Fire Captain Brandon Silverman talking to authorities not long after this happened.
Captain Brandon Silverman: We do have one confirmed patient that seems to be outside of the helicopter when it crashed. Paramedics got on scene very quickly because they were just clearing the other traffic accident in Chatsworth. That person was clearly deceased on scene from the helicopter itself. It is pretty well destroyed.
Chris: Both incidents are still under investigation today. Stay with AFN, because I assume they are going to have another press conference. The problem is the time difference. It is 8:00 or 11:00 in the morning in Los Angeles, so it could be later this morning or even early afternoon before we get that audio.
Host: The investigation is going to cover why these things happened. Did the SUV hit the back of the bus, or did it sideswipe it?
Chris: The initial news reports said it essentially T-boned the bus, meaning it hit the middle of the bus. We are not sure whether the driver was impaired or whether the bus driver committed an infraction. We are not sure at this point.
Host: What about the helicopter?
Chris: The cause of the helicopter crash is also under investigation. It was up there doing aerial footage, as you would see in Los Angeles or one of the big cities that have these kinds of resources for news reporting. For whatever reason, that helicopter crashed, although there were several in the air at the time. It was this particular NBC and Telemundo helicopter.
Host: With an airliner, they start off at 30,000 feet or so, and you can get information by listening to the exchange with the tower. They may say, "Something is going wrong. We are going to try to land." Those helicopters are not up that high. They are only a few stories up, so there may not be much information available in that way.
Chris: There are rarely any survivors in a helicopter crash from whom you can get information.
Host: It is awful.
Chris: One other local incident happened recently. According to the Mississippi Highway Patrol, 16 children and two adults were injured in a school bus crash. The bus overturned, and according to some reports, one or more students were airlifted for medical treatment.
Host: Do we have any idea how it overturned?
Chris: No. That is also under investigation at the moment. I am looking at the headlines from this morning's reports, and the crash is still under investigation.
Host: All right. Next story.
Chris: As far as Iran watch goes, according to Fox, Iran has new demands for the United States when it comes to the conflict, war, escalation, or turmoil, whatever somebody wants to call it over there.
Iran is asking the United States to end the war, give them money that is currently frozen in bank accounts and other assets, and allow them to continue their nuclear energy research. That is the whole point of concern for the Trump administration: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
In its coverage this morning, Fox News spoke with Victoria Coates, a Fox News contributor who discusses national security and foreign policy issues. She said these demands from Iran are unreasonable.
Victoria Coates: I do not think any of that is going to happen. It is very interesting to have Foreign Minister Araghchi in Beijing today meeting with his counterpart, Wang Yi. I think what China really wants is the starting back up of the free flow of cheap oil out of Iran.
They may be putting some pressure on Iran. Bear in mind, they have done very little to help Iran during this conflict. They have not ridden to the rescue, as many people expected. We may see more developments in the coming days.
Chris: To put some context to that, China is trying to get Iran to come to terms here. That is why she mentioned China and the summit.
Host: Wesley, I think the reason Iran is putting these ridiculous requirements on the United States is that they are going to get none of that as long as Trump is in office. Trump can be a hard negotiator.
I think the reason they are doing that is because they want to have fallback positions they can agree to if they are getting pressure from China. We know that China gets a significant portion of its oil from Iran. China does not produce its own oil and has to import it, and Iran is a major provider.
I think it would be great if China would pitch in and pressure the leadership of Iran to get to the negotiating table. Otherwise, I do not see an off-ramp.
Wesley: Something we have not mentioned on Today's Issues in several weeks, maybe a couple of months, is that there is the regime and the Iranian military, which really is not one unified force. Then you have the spokespeople and the negotiators.
I would imagine that while they support the regime, the spokespeople and negotiators are probably more practical and are representing the people better in their thinking. At the end of the day, they can speak, negotiate, and do all of those things, but the regime and the military in that country get the final say.
Host: Tony, I think that is why over the last several months, whenever President Trump has said negotiations are going great, maybe they were. The negotiations may have been going great, but then the people running the country said, "No, we are not going to do that." That is why we got the ping-pong-ball effect back and forth in terms of what we were hearing.
Tony: This is indicative of these types of conflicts. The regime and the military, as Wesley was describing them, are so decentralized. I have heard it described as a mosaic. There are so many different factions within the military operating in different areas of Iran.
You may have a military leader in one area of Iran say, "We would be fine with these terms." Then you may have the person over operations closer to the Strait say, "No, we are going to keep dropping mines. We are going to keep launching rockets. The Strait is closed. I do not care who is negotiating or what they say is going on. This is my area, and we are not letting the infidels claim it."
That is what you are seeing. That is why you are seeing this ping-pong. The diplomat from Iran shows up, and one day he may say, "This is looking good. I think we have something here." Then he may go back to Iran and talk to the people really in charge, and they may say, "No, these are our demands."
In my opinion, some of the demands that we bring to the table may be unrealistic. It is always, "Shoot for the moon and maybe land somewhere in between." For instance, we were going to get a percentage of everything, the tolls we were going to charge. That was something we were demanding. How are we ever supposed to enforce that? That might be an unrealistic demand.
Just like no interference with their nuclear program, that is an unrealistic demand in my opinion.
Host: Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said much the same thing. I saw a speech a couple of months ago where he was asked why we were having this effect with the negotiations: one day we are good, the next day we are not, and there are memorandums of understanding and all that kind of stuff.
Marco Rubio said, "Look, we have so devastated the top echelon of leadership that everyone else is afraid to give their position or location away. They are sending someone by camel, not literally, and it sometimes takes four or five days for this proposal to get to one place or another."
It seems cultural. Once you get east of Iraq, in Iran and Afghanistan, we saw the same thing with the tribal leaders. You cannot just deal with one person. There are other tribal leaders who say, "That is not us. We are not involved in that." That seems clearly to be the case in Iran as well.
Tony: This may be why we thought we could get regime change by taking out the upper echelon. Forty-eight senior Iranian leaders, officials, and military commanders are dead.
Host: We may have underestimated, and it seems clear that we did underestimate, how the regime could continue with lower-echelon people running it. It is actually a wise way to govern so that you do not get decapitated.
Wesley: Our assumption is always that every culture is just like ours. If the opposite happened and someone took out 48 of our top military leaders, we would be in complete and utter disarray because we are a Western-structured democracy. Our government, military, and doctrines are different. We rely heavily on top-down military leadership, so it would be disastrous for us.
Our assumption is that every other culture and society must operate like us. If we carry out these attacks, then they will collapse.
Tony: Just as a counterpoint, militarily, I think that in the field we do have a lot of autonomy among officers and those below them when it comes to conducting operations.
I would also note the genius of our Founding Fathers. God forbid, I hope this never happens, but if somebody decapitated the federal government, we have state governments that could continue to operate.
That is part of the genius of the federalist system. You have federal, state, and local governments, and then you have the individual with weapons to protect his family. I think that is what is happening in Iran.
I do not want to rely on China, but hopefully we can find a way out that preserves at least some of our initial goals.
Host: All right. What else do you have?
Chris: Charlie Kirk's family is signaling an intent to sue Utah Valley University, alleging that the university and campus police made stunning failures that led to the on-campus assassination of Charlie Kirk just over a year ago at a TPUSA event at Utah Valley University.
I have some audio from retired FBI agent James Gagliano on Fox talking about this situation.
James Gagliano: It goes so far beyond that. Where we are standing right now is called the Fishbowl. To give you some spatial alignment, over my right shoulder are the Losee Center and the Sorenson Center, the two buildings in question that were named in the notice of claim.
The fact that this was such a tight spot, and how you could have 3,000 people come here, is significant. Take Charlie Kirk out of it and take the elevated threat level out of it. If you had an event here, there are only certain points of entry, and the fact that there was no coverage via drones or anyone on the rooftops is unconscionable.
Chris: Lawrence Jones was involved in that discussion. Frank Turek has told us a couple of times that when he arrived in the vehicle with Charlie before the event, he told Charlie, "I do not feel good about this. There are too many rooftops."
Host: Wesley, it is sad to say that we have come to this in our country. I never thought about these kinds of questions when I was growing up: rooftops, who might be up there with a weapon, and firing down into a fishbowl.
Now we have conversations about metal detectors, on-duty police officers, and security personnel at schools and churches. Here at our ministry, we have several layers of security protection. The world has changed, and we are adapting to it. These are questions people are going to have to answer before they speak in public.
Wesley: Absolutely. The drone mentioned in that audio is also a very good point. There are expensive drones and inexpensive drones. For around $4,500, you can get a very good drone that would be able to visually cover all that ground. If you had somebody flying a $4,500 drone over the campus for two hours, you could spot that in a heartbeat.
Another thing is that, apparently, Utah Valley University security was responsible for everything outside of securing Charlie in and out. If that is the case, it seems like nobody checked the first box. The rooftop was at a distance where you should have seen someone.
There are a lot of similarities to the shooting where Trump was shot in the ear. That was another location where you ask, "Where was the breakdown in communication?" Later you find out there were multiple security groups. Everyone says, "I have this zone," or, "I have that zone." You have state security, federal security, the Secret Service, and so on.
In this case, you have Charlie Kirk's security team, and then you have on-campus police saying, "No, we have this." Between the drone and not having the rooftops covered, it was a major failure.
At the time, the Charlie Kirk family had other concerns for good reasons, including the funeral and other matters. But I knew it was only a matter of time before the family took action. The Kirk family and TPUSA support law enforcement, the military, and first responders, but there is going to have to be legal accountability for this breakdown because it was avoidable.
Host: That is going to be part of what is discussed. Tony, when Wesley mentioned using a drone with security, what is strange now is that the other side can use drones. At a football stadium or at a university, a drone could be used to strike individuals.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Thomas Crooks, the person who took the shot at Trump, was spotted days before the event with a drone.
Wesley: He was using a drone to map the area.
Host: The sad reality is that it took something horrible happening to Charlie, who was not a political figure or a politician, for everybody to wake up to the need for security for anyone who is a lightning rod politically or ideologically.
We will take a short break. You are listening to Today's Issues on the American Family Radio Network. Abraham Hamilton the Third will be joining us after the break.
Host: Welcome back to Today's Issues. I am sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week. I am joined in the studio by Wesley, Tony, and Chris Woodward. Now we welcome Abraham Hamilton the Third, host of The Hamilton Corner, heard weekdays at 5:00 p.m. Central Time on AFR. Abe, welcome back.
Abe: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody.
Host: We have covered a story this week about something happening in Massachusetts. As someone born in the Boston area, I am never surprised by the craziness we hear coming out of that state, any more than I am when it comes from the West Coast.
Chris, set this up for those who have not heard the story.
Chris: A Catholic couple in Massachusetts had their daughter taken away by the state under the guise of child abuse after refusing to affirm her so-called transgender identity.
In 2024, the 15-year-old child was removed from the home of Joseph and Arlene Kutsko after they said she was secretly socially transitioned at Algonquin Regional High School. Now they are fighting to get her back before she is medically transitioned with high-dose testosterone.
The parents have not seen their child in more than a year since she was taken away. They are not even allowed to have contact with her. As the mother said yesterday, she cannot even hug her. She just wants to hug her, give her a kiss, and tell her that she loves her.
People I have talked to say this is just one of several cases in which schools or the state are ignoring parental rights and trying to do things in secret. That is why we brought in Abe to help fill in the gaps.
Abe, before we get to the specifics of this case, constitutionally, what rights do parents have legally? I know it is different from state to state, but in broad terms, how has the Supreme Court approached the issue of parental rights?
Abe: Parental rights have largely been viewed as sacrosanct. The unfortunate reality of what is happening in states like Massachusetts is that they are using a child abuse standard to do this. They are treating the parents' refusal to call their daughter a boy as if the parents were physically abusing the child and putting her life at risk.
They are treating it as if the parents were beating the child with a two-by-four. They are treating it along that same trajectory, which is egregious. I expect the parents to prevail legally after exhausting all of the appellate maneuvers.
They are in court right now because the state is attempting to administer birth control and high-dose testosterone to the child without the parents' consent. The parents are saying, "Wait a minute. No way. We do not want this to happen." But at what cost? They have gone more than a year without seeing their own child.
The child was 15 in December of 2024, so she is approaching 17. That is almost two years of a child's life that she has not been around her parents. The state has put her in a dorm with boys. She is living with boys, and all of these things are happening.
I expect this to be corrected legally, ultimately, but at what cost? What kind of daughter will they have back by the time the litigation is finished? She may have reached the age of majority.
Host: She was 15 when she was removed from the home, and she is 17 now.
Abe: The overzealous departments of child and family services in various states all over the country are proactively saying, "We would rather ask for forgiveness than ask for permission."
In this instance, the parents had no idea what was happening with this girl at school. She was being socially transitioned at school. A guidance counselor encouraged her to come out at school and then told her, "Now we think you have enough courage and confidence. Go and tell your parents."
She came back to school, and the guidance counselor asked how it went. The girl told the counselor, "My parents said they do not agree with it." The guidance counselor called the Department of Children and Families and initiated the actions that resulted in the girl being removed from the home.
Host: Was this at a Catholic school?
Abe: No. It was at Algonquin Regional High School. The guidance counselor told the girl to tell her parents, and when the parents disagreed, the counselor called the Department of Children and Families.
Host: It makes me angry. I do not even know this girl, Sophie, and I am furious about what the Kutsko family is going through.
Abe: Yesterday we talked about things parents can do at home. We acknowledged that not everybody can homeschool or send their children to a private Christian institution. We encouraged parents to talk with their children, ask them questions every day, and dig a little deeper as their children enter adolescence and become less open.
The question is, what can parents do in this situation? Is this the type of case that could eventually make its way to the federal level, where the federal courts could intervene and set a precedent that parents could point to and say, "You cannot confiscate my children because you think I am abusing them when there is clearly no instance of that"?
Abe: I have a lot to say about this, and I will try to be succinct. I am from the hood, so I understand various circumstances. My mother was a teenage mother, and I grew up in the projects.
I think we may need to be slower in saying what people cannot do. Sometimes people say they cannot do certain things without really looking into them. I am not saying that everyone can, but this is so vital and critical that I do not think we should easily say, "We cannot private school or homeschool."
Putting that aside, this is the problem I have with this. California went through a similar situation. The state passed laws saying schools could socially transition children without notifying their parents. The litigation went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected what California was doing, and fines were paid by taxpayers rather than by the administrators who created the problem.
But did that stop the same type of social agenda in Massachusetts? No. They do the same things because they are ideologically motivated.
One major point that is sometimes missed is the sociological development that occurs when children spend most of their time away from their parents. Values are often set where we spend the most time.
The idea that adolescents become less communicative with their parents is largely connected to the fact that children spend most of their waking hours away from their parents. Adults face this all the time. At a dinner party with coworkers, you have coworkers you do not talk to very often and coworkers you talk to most often. Where do you sit at the Christmas party? You sit with the people you spend the most time with.
That is not necessarily malevolent or hostile. It is a feature of human development. But Marxists have long understood that they need to sever the relationship between parents and children and make children more comfortable talking to anyone other than their parents. Education is used as the veneer for operating a social mechanism that makes children least comfortable with their parents and most comfortable with everyone else.
That is why you have a child talking to a guidance counselor but not telling the parents anything.
Host: The Nazis told children to report on their parents. Many parents lived in fear of their own children. This happens in communist movements as well, where parents are afraid to confront their children or direct their upbringing because the children are told at school or somewhere else to report their parents if they give them a hard time.
Abe: I am not trying to demystify the notion that children naturally talk to their parents less as they develop. That is not automatic. Children become accustomed to talking to their parents less because of the destruction of society.
What has to occur, and this will be confronted in each family and each relationship, is that we have to converse with our children in a manner that advances the relationship. We do not want our children to have more confidence and comfort with people other than us.
There is only one remedy for that: time.
Host: For many years, people have said that it takes a village to raise a child. In recent years, school officials and people in government offices have said things like, "Your kids and my kids are our kids." Is what we are talking about today the personification of that mindset?
Abe: Sadly, yes. It does not take a village to raise a child. The village can help if it shares your worldview, vision, and objective. But if the village is hostile to what you are seeking to accomplish with your children, the village has become an enemy.
Many of the people who hold to that idea do not have children of their own. When they say, "They are our children," they are really looking for you to give your children to them so they can be the primary influencers and shapers of their values.
Then you end up with twenty-somethings calling their parents Hitler for voting for Trump in 2024. That is how it happens.
Host: I agree with what you said earlier, that there is more we can do than we realize if we think about it. The time spent with our children is entirely our responsibility as parents, and what they do with their time is our responsibility.
Without getting into all the forms of education, at a minimum, you cannot send your child to a school that is on the record doing this kind of thing. Algonquin Regional High School is on the record doing this.
So what do you anticipate legally will be the outcome?
Abe: The parents are going to prevail. They have attorneys from the Becket Fund and other attorneys involved. They are going to prevail, and there will be a significant fine levied against the school district and the state.
But the fine will not be paid by the individuals who caused the problem. It will be paid by the taxpayers collectively. You are going to have another case precedent consistent with what the Supreme Court already ruled in the California case.
The parents will ultimately prevail, but in the meantime, this child has been out of her home for 18 months. The irony is that there is no telling what actual abuse is occurring to this girl during that time, when the basis for her removal was supposedly that she was being abused by her parents.
She was not on birth control when she was living in her parents' home, but the state is trying to give her birth control. She was not sharing a room with boys in a boys' dorm, but that is what has happened to her.
I have a 14-year-old daughter. I cannot imagine not being present in my daughter's life as she moves from 13 to 14, 15, 16, and approaches 17.
Host: You cannot get that time back.
Abe: That is formative and shaping. This young girl's entire adulthood is going to be shaped by these last 18 or 20 months. She is approaching 18 and independence as an adult.
That is why people say these things are benign. They are not benign. The abuse is being imposed upon the child and the family by the state.
Host: One final question. My frustration, beyond everything that has been said, is the disregard for what the Supreme Court has said. Why cannot the attorneys go to a federal district judge and say, "Judge, this state is clearly ignoring what the Supreme Court has said"? Why cannot this be over in 30 days, with a federal judge telling Massachusetts that it cannot do this?
Abe: You have the Department of Children and Families, state judges, federal judges, and the state system in Massachusetts. Having been born and raised there, you know it is not a red state.
Judges are people. You have lower-level judges who may be trying to curry favor with a potential Democratic president or someone down the line because they want to show that they are committed to the cause and get an appointment later.
That is why cases such as the California case have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It should never have gotten there, but it happens because you have ideologically motivated people.
I spoke with Sam Whiting, general counsel or chief counsel at the Massachusetts Family Institute, about why school districts and states are ignoring Supreme Court cases. You have the decision out of California, which is the most recent case involving this exact issue. Then you have the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, which dealt with opt-outs but solidified parental rights in Maryland.
Why did that case have to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Christians and Muslims were saying they did not want their children taught sexual material in the schools. The law said parents could opt out, but the school district unilaterally removed that option. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Sam told me that, just as I have said, it is ideology. People say, "That is California. This is Massachusetts."
If an officeholder in Mississippi said, "That is Illinois. It does not impact us," the media would cover it wall to wall and say how awful Mississippi was for ignoring the law.
Host: The core issue is that this is a war over God and about God. We have two mutually exclusive worldviews at war with one another.
When I was growing up, we did not have this kind of situation. We had disagreements about whether to spend money on guns or butter, whether we needed another aircraft carrier, or whether we needed more money for welfare. Those were the arguments we had.
Now we have two mutually exclusive ways of understanding parental rights, gender, and human sexuality. These worldviews are at war with one another in this country. I am not sure how that ends. It is a cold civil war, if you will, with two distinct sides.
You have people who are supposed to uphold the law saying they are not going to uphold it because their side needs to win.
Abe: It is very provoking because precedents have been established. I thought we were a nation of laws and not of men, but I guess it depends on where you live in the country.
I do believe that what is legal and lawful will ultimately prevail, but at what expense? In the meantime, what happens in this little girl's life? What happens to this family? She has a brother who has not seen his sister in almost two years. Her mother is on television crying, saying, "Please come home. We love you. We miss you."
These things are not benign. That is the urgency I am trying to communicate. This is not merely a political disagreement. There are real tears, blood, sweat, and family disintegration involved. It is happening right now.
We need to be vigilant on every front: proclaim the gospel, make disciples, engage civically, know what is going on in your children's classrooms and lives, know the people who interact with your children regularly, and make your presence felt consistently so that people will be embarrassed, ashamed, and fearful of trying this foolishness with your child.
Spend time with your kids. You have to. Quantity of time gives rise to quality of time. You cannot pre-program those qualitative moments. Quantity of time, repetition, and frequency of engagement set the stage for those moments when your child says, "Dad, I was thinking about this. This is what happened at school."
You get one first impression. You get one first opportunity. You do not get to redo parenting.
I do not care how hard it gets financially or emotionally, or what other reasons cause families to break up. You get one shot at raising your kids. If you are listening now and realizing that your children are 10, 11, 12, 15, or 16, you get one shot. Start today if you have not already started.
You have to invest in your kids and prioritize your family over everything else. You have to prioritize time spent with them. Many people work long, hard days in construction, truck driving, and other labor. But when the day ends, it starts with your family.
When you get home, you will never regret the hours and days you spend with your kids.
From a Christian perspective, you can be creative in discipling your children. Many people check out when they think, "It has been a long day. I cannot sit down and read the Bible for 30 minutes."
You need to read the Bible with your children, but if you know the Bible and it is in your heart, you can share the Bible with them without always sitting down for another textbook-type setting after they have been in school all day.
If God's Word is in your heart, it becomes part of your everyday life and the way you communicate. Scripture comes out of us when we are investing in our kids.
I make it a priority not to waste time in my vehicle. We do not just play music and drive, although we do that for fun sometimes. I have gotten to the point where I play devil's advocate with my 11-year-old son, Bennett. I challenge him in his faith.
I ask him, "Why read the Bible? Who cares about that?" I challenge him because he is going to have to answer some of these questions. Do not waste that time in your vehicle.
Host: Abe, you made a great point about quantity of time. Just have fun with your kids. You can do all kinds of things they like to do. That is putting in time, and eventually they are going to ask a question about something that is bothering them.
Thank you so much for being with us.
Abe: Thank you, brother.
Host: You can listen to Abraham Hamilton the Third, host of The Hamilton Corner, weekdays at 5:00 p.m. Central Time on AFR. You hear the same kind of passion and knowledge on that show, and maybe he amps it up even more.
Abe: It is just the caffeine.
Ed Vitagliano sits in for Tim Wildmon as the Today's Issues panel examines a Massachusetts custody case involving Joseph and Arlene Kutsko. The parents say their teenage daughter was socially transitioned at Algonquin Regional High School and later removed from their home after they declined to affirm her transgender identity. They have not seen her in more than a year. Abraham Hamilton III, host of The Hamilton Corner, discusses parental rights, the guidance counselor's reported role in the case, and Supreme Court precedents that he says states are ignoring. Hamilton urges parents to stay involved in their children's education, spend meaningful time with them, and teach them biblical truth. The panel also discusses the Charlie Kirk family's stated intent to sue Utah Valley University over alleged security failures and reviews Iran's reported demands in negotiations with the United States, including access to frozen assets and continued nuclear research.
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:
