>> Jeff Chamblee: This July we celebrate the birth of our nation and remember the heroes who fought for our freedoms. But did you know there are Americans today who don't have the freedom of life and liberty. Every day unborn babies very lives are under attack. But because of preborn, we can rescue them.
>> Mat Staver: I got to hear and see my baby for the first time. Hearing the heartbeat made me cry and it was certain that I was going to keep my baby forever.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Ultrasounds save lives and when, when you save a life at a preborn Network clinic, you often save a Soul as over 85,000 women have come to know Christ. To learn more about preborn's life saving work, call pound250 and say the keyword baby. That's 250baby or visit preborn.com/afr that's preborn.com/afr all gifts are tax deductible. Your love can save a life.
>> Walker Wildmon: We inform religious freedom is about people of faith being able to live out their faith, live out their convictions no matter where they are.
>> Rick Green: We equip sacred honor is the courage to speak truth to live out your free speech. We also rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and character hope.
>> Walker Wildmon: This is At the Core on American Family Radio. Welcome, um, to the core here on American Family Radio. Walker Wildmon here with you on this edition of the program. The show is hosted each week by Rick Green and myself. And we're, uh, joyed to host a show each week here on American Family Radio. As a brief reminder, uh, we have, uh, two trips coming up in the spring of 2026 which will be here before you know it. And we're going to Israel and Greece with the Greece trip being a brand new trip. So we're going to Israel and Greece back to back. My parents, Tim and Allison are leading the Israel portion. My brother Wesley and I were leading the Greece portion, which is also known as the footsteps of Paul Tour in Greece. Uh, and so if you would like to go on either of those trips or maybe both, you can go over to wildmangroup.com to look at the dates and the pricing and all the information. That's wildmangroup.com turning our attention to the scripture and then we'll jump to our guest for this segment. Proverbs, chapter 21 is where we are this week. Verse 3. To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice. To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice. Let's remember this was written during the time of, uh, Judaism, during the time, uh, pre Christ, obviously. Um, and so sacrifices played a critical role in the life of a Jewish believer. And so, but what the writing here, what the writer here is talking about, and ultimately the Lord, because this is God's inspired word, is it's saying that, look, doing the right thing, doing the just thing, is more important than your sacrifices. Uh, because if you're leaning into and relying on sacrifices for the cleansing of your sins and, and you're not at all focused on righteousness and justice and not needing the sacrifice, um, then you're focusing on the wrong thing. And actually, the Apostle Paul wrote, uh, about this as well, where he talks about. I don't have the exact scripture, but Paul's talking about, uh, why should we go on sinning so that grace may abound. Same concept. Uh, why should we focus so much on God's grace and ignore our own sin and the turning away from sin, uh, that should come with the believer's life. It's not that we don't fall. It's not that sacrifice isn't needed. Um, but that should not be. Uh, the goal of the believer is to take advantage of sacrifices and grace. The goal of the believer should be to live righteous and upright lives before the Lord. All right, let's turn, uh, to our guest. Philip Jauregui is my colleague over at AFA Action. He's senior counsel with AFA Action. He's also director of our center for Judicial Renewal that we've talked about frequently here on the program. Hey, Philip, welcome back.
>> Phillip Jauregui: Yeah, thanks a lot, Walker. Great to be with you, Philip.
>> Walker Wildmon: Uh, we are roughly, let's say six to eight months into the, to the presidency, I guess eight months now, uh, going back to January, are approaching eight months here, uh, in a couple of days. But, uh, President Trump is just, uh, nomination after nomination coming forth. And there's a lot of, um, executive level nominations, sub cabinet level nominations that are pending. Over 100 of those, as a matter of fact. But what you've been focusing on is judicial nominations over at the center for Judicial Renewal. So bring us up to speed on where President Trump is on judicial nominations.
>> Phillip Jauregui: So Walker started. We started with about 46 vacancies. Uh, there have been 15 nominations. Five of those have been confirmed. Five are pending on the Senate floor waiting for a vote. And then five of them are still in Senate Judiciary Committee.
>> Walker Wildmon: All right, so. All right, so we started out with 46, you said vacancies, and President Trump was sworn in. And, and that number has grown. Correct. Since.
>> Phillip Jauregui: It's growing since January. Yeah. I'm saying 46, Walker. I'd have to look whether it was 45 or 46. It's grown a little bit, but it started, I think, closer to 40. So with the few additions that we've had. Last I saw, I think it was 46.
>> Walker Wildmon: Okay. Total. And we're researching. The goal of the center for Judicial Renewal is to research all judicial nominees, uh, for the three court levels. Ah, district, circuit, uh, and Supreme Court. Um, where are we on that?
>> Phillip Jauregui: So, so far, Walker, we're holding to form, we've been able to research all of them that have come through. Um, I guess the good news is we're keeping up with the research load. I don't know if I want to call it a concern yet, but the quality of the nominations thus far is not where we'd like it to be.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
>> Phillip Jauregui: Um, it. In other words, there's. There's not enough information on a number of these nominees for us to take a position that this is a great nominee. We want to see them confirmed.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah. And we know that, uh, as a hard fact, based on the. The evaluations that you are placing on these nominees. Talk about the different positions, the confirm, etc. The different confirmed positions that we're placing on everyone we research.
>> Phillip Jauregui: Yep. So we're ranking them in one of five categories. The highest category for an excellent nominee would be a priority confirm. In other words, this is someone that we believe ought to be confirmed. And not only that, but it's a priority. And this is based on research, Walker, as you know, I mean, I want your listeners to know we're not just kind of listening to an interview. We're doing comprehensive research, in some instances turning out 10 to 20 pages of comprehensive research. So we're. And we want these people to be great nominees. If anything, that would be where we would want to go, but at the same time, we have to be honest. So the top. Top category is priority confirm. Below that is confirm. Uh, middle category is that we're not taking a position on a nominee because there's not enough information. A level below that would be a stop. In other words, they shouldn't be confirmed. We want to stop them. And then the lowest category would be a priority stop. This person is so bad that we're placing a high priority on stopping their confirmation.
>> Walker Wildmon: So, thankfully, we haven't had to place a stop or priority stop, uh, label yet or ranking yet on any of Trump's nominees thus far. Um, what I want to highlight to Our audience. And by the way folks, um, all of this information is publicly available. We would love for you to go out there and read more about the work that we're doing over at AFA Action at ah, Phillips center for Judicial Renewal. If you just go to afaaction.net that's afaaction.net right there on the homepage you'll see the center for Judicial Renewal tab. Once you click on it, you can click Pending, uh, pending judicial nominees. Click the Pending tab and then you can see everyone that we've researched along with the ranking and uh, research attachments that uh, Philip and his team have uploaded there on the website. So we're, we're, we're, we're looking at, looking through and talking through what's publicly available on our website. Philip, why do you think it is? I'm showing only one priority confirm. Out of the ones we've researched thus far. We have, ah, another one that is a confirm and then we have some no positions. Um, why do you think it is that, that some of these individuals, uh, some of these nominees just don't have a whole lot of uh, information that's publicly available?
>> Phillip Jauregui: I'm not sure, Walker, why that is. Um, you know, there are new people advising President Trump on judicial nominations. A lot of people will remember that during his first term he said publicly that he would almost be turning it over to the Federalist Society. And they had a heavy, heavy influence. Um, this time it's uh, it's a different, it's different groups advising the President. I don't know. Well, he's certainly not involved, Walker, as we know, on a district court level. I mean, I don't think he's researching district court nominees for Florida and Missouri and all around the country. He has a lot going on. That's why he builds a team. But, but I don't know that there's a high priority on finding people with beefy records. And I don't know why that is. I don't know if they want people that, that don't have great records so that they're easier to confirm. That's a strategy. I don't like it, but that is a strategy that we've seen sometimes in the past, but I don't know why that is. And you know, we've made some recommendations, not across the board but to some key seats. We've made recommendations and so I know it's possible to find great people because we've been able to do that as an outside group researching these vacancies.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, Right now we only have one priority confirmed, and that's the Honorable Jordan Pratt, uh, who is a current judge in Florida, and he's being, uh, nominated. He's on the, on the first district court in Florida. Um, he's being nominated to the US District Court for the middle district of Florida. He's a priority confirm. And then we do have another, uh, confirmed. Art. Uh, I may be mispronouncing this last name. Uh, the Honorable Ed Arto.
>> Phillip Jauregui: I think it's Artel, but either way.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. So that's where we are, Philip, on judicial nominations.
>> Phillip Jauregui: Yep.
>> Walker Wildmon: Talk about the, this, this, this slow walking by the Democrats, how they're using every tool in their, in their, in their, in their toolbox to slow walk even the judicial nominees.
>> Phillip Jauregui: Yeah. There are certain rules in the Senate that allow for a number of hours for nominations and discussions and before they're able to have votes. And these are just Senate rules that they put in place in terms of how to operate. The problem is it can give the minority, in this case, the Democrats, some tools to obstruct if they want to. And Democrats are doing that. They're forcing time to be taken up on the Senate calendar to get through nominations. Um, there was some discussion a week or two ago that, um, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, was even demanding $2 billion in funding in order for him to lift this blockade of, uh, nominations. So that was a real problem. And there was some public discussion of that.
>> Walker Wildmon: This, uh. Philip, we're at the point where we're eight months in, roughly eight months into the presidency. Who knows what's going to happen during the midterms? I would like to think that Republicans keep both chambers, but who knows? Uh, the pendulum typically swings the other direction historically. Doesn't mean it has to happen. But my point is, is that the clock is ticking here. Yeah. And we've got over 100 approaching 150 other nominees, not for the judiciary, but just for other sub cabinet positions that are still awaiting Senate confirmation. And Schumer is slow walking them. We could easily hit January of next year with all these nominees. Not all, but most of them still pending before the Senate. I mean, to me, this, this is the, the plan of the, the establishment, if you will, is to just wait out President Trump. Yep, yep.
>> Phillip Jauregui: And so I think, Walker, what I'd recommend, you know, there are a couple things that can be done. One is abolishing the filibuster. But I think it's better to think in terms of first breaking the filibuster and in doing that, if it's necessary to abolish it, you can. But there's another way to go about this without abolishing the filibuster, which, by the way, I'd be for. But you can break it. And the way to break it is for Senator Thune to come back, the majority leader of the Republicans, and just say, okay, guys, if you want to take up time, then we're just going to take time. So cancel your plans for vacations in the fall. Christmas. We're going to be working all day, all night. Be here Monday, by the way, no more coming in Monday night, working Tuesday. You're not leaving Thursday night. We're going to be working Friday and Saturday. We'll take Sunday off so we can worship the Lord. But otherwise it's going to be six days a week. We're going into the evening and we're going to vote on these. And you know what will happen? Democrats will cave. Part of the problem here are Republicans, but because they want their vacations, too. Walker. Yeah, so it's going to take some guts by the Republican majority to just say we're going to, we're going to make this a, uh, game and we're going to force Democrats to stick around if they want to block these.
>> Walker Wildmon: Absolutely. And this is, yeah, this is so frustrating now, sentence on recess for a month, um, which is infuriating. But, uh, to me, this, this is pivotal. I mean, this is the pivotal moment in the Trump administration with the election referendum where we can be slow walked and delayed and waited out or we can push through the agenda. Um, Philip, uh, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate the work you're doing.
>> Phillip Jauregui: Absolutely. Thanks, Walker.
>> Walker Wildmon: Appreciate you. All right, AFA action.net AFA action. Right there on the homepage you'll see the center for Judicial Renewal tab. You can click it. And then if you click on the pending tab, you can research all of these judges that we are looking into. You can see all the research that is download the documents, see their status before the Senate. All of this is available over at afaaction.net click on the center for Judicial Renewal tab. We'll be back in a few minutes. At the Core podcast are available@afr.net now.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Back to At the Core on American Family Radio.
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome, um, back to the core here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us on this second segment of today's program. Stick around for the last segment, not because we have a guest, but we are going to continue this discussion of the uh, Senate slow walking, President Trump's critical nominees. We'll talk about more of that. We'll play a couple clips in the last segment, and, uh, we'll talk about President Trump's latest move as of this morning to federalize, uh, law enforcement activities in Washington, D.C. and the reasoning behind that. We'll break all that down in the last segment. Want to jump to our next guest? Uh, Matt Staver is with us, founder and chairman of Liberty Council, good friend of the ministry, and was actually visiting here not too long ago at our headquarters. Hey, Matt, welcome to the program.
>> Mat Staver: Thank you. Good to be with you.
>> Walker Wildmon: Well, Matt, you've, uh, obviously been involved in many cases over the years over your, your career. Uh, one that, uh, just doesn't seem to end is the Kim Davis case. And I remember the very early weeks of this litigation going, uh, to the county, uh, jail there, uh, where Kim Davis was imprisoned and having the rally in support of Kim Davis. I mean, I just remember all of that very vividly. Her case in some regard is still ongoing today. And you're representing her. Uh, bring us up to speed on that.
>> Mat Staver: That's right. And in fact, this month, in the beginning of September over Labor Day, is when Kim Davis spen six days in prison in Kentucky. And she spent time in prison because she asked for a simple accommodation to have her name as the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, removed from the marriage licenses because she could not affirm her name as an authority affirming a, um, marriage between two people of the same sex, which God does not ordain. And it was a very simple accommodation request. Unfortunately, the judge did not get grant her that, nor did the Democrat governor at the time. And so she ended up spending six days in prison later in the year in 2015, when the Republican governor, Matt Bevins was elected, one of the first acts of being governor is he gave an executive order giving an accommodation to her, saying that she deserved an accommodation. There was no compelling reason for the state of Kentucky, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to not grant it. So she got that accommodation she sought. In April of 2016, the legislature unanimously passed the accommodation. So she got the accommodation. The individuals that brought the case never even thought about getting married until they saw Kim Davis in the social media. That is the Ermold plaintiffs, the two Davids in this case, there were others as well. And they went in, got a marriage license when she was in prison. And the marriage license had her name scratched off. That was scratched off by the clerk. They wanted to have her name on it. But The Democratic governor said, no, that's okay. That's exactly the accommodation she requested. So they got their license, she lost her liberty for six days, and then she got the accommodation. So why is this case still going? It's going because these two same sex couples that did an interview with GQ magazine and detective 2015 who never thought about getting married, want to humiliate Kim Davis because of her Christian beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Something that's been since millennia of the creation of humanity, uh, from human history. And they went after her personally. And so a jury actually awarded $100,000 collectively in damages against her. At the same time another jury found that there was no basis and gave a zero verdict to two other plaintiffs. So now she's got a, uh, $360,000 plus verdict against her personally because two people want to humiliate her because of her Christian views. And she lost her liberty for six days. So we are asking the Supreme Court, we filed the petitions there now, to do two things. Number one, grant Kim Davis the relief that she requested religious accommodation under the First Amendment. Number two, overturn this wrongly decided Obergefell opinion that five lawyers invented so called same sex marriage, tried to redefine marriage from their own ideological standpoint has no basis in the Constitution. That's the big issue overturned A. Berger fell this decision that caused the mess in the first place.
>> Walker Wildmon: This, um, Matt, is very important to, um, to not only natural order and what has been the standard of human sexuality since the dawn of creation and how we basically simply reproduce here. I mean, these are biological facts and natural facts that have been undisputed up until we became woke. But the Supreme Court literally pulled this out of their pocket. I mean, this notion of to men being able to get married, um, was rooted nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere in the rule of law. And so they pulled it out of thin air, literally and created this imaginary right. Um, and so the Supreme Court should have to answer for this. I mean, this was so bad. It was so bad, so indefensible. Tell us how you got here, how you were able to. I understand the appeal on the damages, um, against Kim Davis, but how were you able to craft the appeal to the court, the filing to the Supreme Court, in a manner that is adequately able to address both issues at hand here.
>> Mat Staver: Well, Walker, uh, what we have asked for from the beginning is a religious accommodation. And she was, uh, sued in her official capacity. She should have gotten accommodation. She did get it from the governor and she got it from the Legislature. But by that time, she already lost her freedom, and she was now a, uh, target of a lawsuit. But that did not actually satisfy these LGBTQ plaintiffs. They wanted to strip her of her governmental immunity. So they come after her individually as an individual person and assess damages against her. Why? Because of hurt feelings. They don't have any medical treatment, no counseling, no lost wages, nothing. They have hurt feelings, and they were the ones who wanted to hurt Kim Davis feelings. They wanted to humiliate her. So they go to a jury, they go to a judge that should have been dismissed, and they say they have hurt feelings. Give us $50,000 apiece, and out of nowhere, the jury gives them $50,000 a piece. The other jury for the other plaintiffs said, no, there's no basis for this. So two juries in the same courtroom, same time, one said, no basis, the other one gave $100,000. So now Kim Davis is facing personal liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, number one, the issue here from the very beginning has been the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment defense. She has a right to an accommodation. She has a right to an absolute unqualified defense under the First Amendment. Case should have been dismissed a long time ago under the First Amendment. So that's how we got here. But now that we're here, we also raised the court question, the basic question, before you even get to that, yes, she does have, uh, an entitlement to First Amendment. But wait a minute. What about this case on which she now is facing these damages and for which she lost her liberty? It has no basis in the Constitution. And so we have a great argument here, because the Chief Justice, John Roberts, issued a very strong dissent in 2015. He said five lawyers. That's his words, not mine. Five lawyers imposed their own will, not a legal judgment. And it has nothing to do with the Constitution. And the other dissenter said the same thing. But the Chief justice could not be more clear and pushed back significantly that they just invented this out of thin air. This is objective reality. Marriage between a man and woman. You can't change male and female. There are two sexes, male and female. It's been since the creation of Time and the Supreme Court, five lawyers just invented this, and they imposed it on the nation. And Kim Davis is the first, but not the last victim of that unconstitutional decision. So that's how we're here. I think we have a good opportunity. I would ask the viewers, listeners to pray for this case, because the Supreme Court has already ordered the other side to respond. Uh, they will actually Meet in their, what's called super conference September 29th. When they come back into session, that's the first time they'll take a look at this case of Kim Davis, and they'll make a decision then whether to take the case or not. If they don't take it, it's catastrophic for Kim Davis bankruptcy. It's catastrophic for the country because in a very sex based, objective relationship, marriage, this opinion says it doesn't matter. Biology and objective facts do not matter. Well, that trickles down into boys and girls, sports invading women's private spaces, all the different nonsensical pronouns of over 100. That's really what it does, is it has a ripple effect across the board. So that's really what's at stake, not only for Kim, but also for the country. So pray that they take the case. We need four justices to decide to take a case. Obviously, uh, we need five to win. And we anticipate, and we're optimistic that not only they'll affirm first amendment free exercise for not only Kim, but everybody, but that they'll overturn like they did Roe versus Wade. This opinion of, uh, Berger Fell has no basis in the Constitution.
>> Walker Wildmon: Matt, to your point about, you know, Kim Davis being the first victim of this wrong ruling at the Supreme Court and just the, the trickle effect that this has had on Kim Davis and other government officials that have faced this similar dilemma, the Supreme Court opened up the wild, wild west of what is marriage. I mean, this has created, uh, not just morally that's important, but legally as well. The 2015 Obergfell ruling once again pulled out of thin air. No constitutional or legal basis has created the wild wild west of number one, marriage, uh, and licensing, uh, but also adoption as well. I mean, you've got two men, three men, three women, all saying, yeah, we can do this, we can do the marriage thing, we can do the adoption thing. You know, we can do the surrogacy thing. And children are falling victim to this nonsense. And so I want to explain the ramifications here because yes, it's important from Kim Davis standpoint, this is very important. But also this ruling is creating victims after victims every day that it stands.
>> Mat Staver: Walker, you're right. Um, in fact, if you take a very gender based relationship, marriage with a man and a woman, and you say gender doesn't matter anymore, two people of the same sex can call it marriage as well. Then where do you stop? Is it two men and a woman? Is it, uh, three people in polygamy? Or is it polyamory? Where you have group marriage, you literally just abolish the definition of marriage. And so it is the Wild west. And that's actually happening, by the way. And then also recently we've read about two homosexual men getting quote, unquote married and they get an IVF baby that they adopt. And one of them is a pedophile. And so now this child that they have adopted through some IVF process, and it's now part, you know, it's got two men on the birth certificate, so to speak, one of them is a pedophile. Now this child will be permanently precluded from ever having a moment. Same sex marriage damages children because what we know for a fact that children do best when they're raised with a mother and a father, mom and dad make a difference, male and female make a difference in the well being of that child. And that's indisputable.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yes.
>> Mat Staver: And now what you've done is say, well, no, you can have two men, you can have two women, and what you therefore have done is you have permanently excluded from that child's life the opposite sex. So you permanently excluded mom or you've permanently excluded dad. And not only did you permanently exclude them from their lives, which has a huge impact in a beneficial way if they were there, you've also skewed the view of the missing gender. So not only have you eliminated mom, but you've actually, you've denigrated mom because you have two men that don't want mom, you have two women who don't want debt. So you move the mom or dad out and then you put a negative spin on them that's damaging for children. And so I wrote a book back in 1994 said same sex marriage putting every household at risk. And it really does put every household at risk because what we're talking about are children and the negative impact that same sex marriage would have and does have on children. And that affects not only them, but all of us.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, absolutely. Folks, this is so important. And, uh, I just want to congratulate or really give appreciation to Matt and his team for sticking with this over at Liberty Council. This has been long, long litigation far beyond, you know, what's, what's considered, quote, normal in the litigation world. Um, Matt, thank you so much for coming. M on. Appreciate your work filing this case at the Supreme Court. And, um, there's a lot of, a lot of negative media about you out there today. Uh, but I'm glad to have you on the program to share your perspective and, uh, really put A positive spin on this, on this, uh, filing.
>> Mat Staver: Thank you, Walker. Good to be with you and thank you for all the great work that you're doing.
>> Walker Wildmon: Thanks Matt. Appreciate it. All right, that's Matt Staver. Uh, there you had it first with Liberty Counsel, uh, within 24 hours of this, uh, this filing at the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court accepting it and other party to respond. Uh, so in many regards, that was breaking news. Uh, and Matt Staver is, uh, the lead counsel for Kim Davis. Has been from the very beginning, um, long, long time coming for Kim Davis. So many wrongs done. And the Supreme Court, through their lunacy really in 2015, opened up this Pandora's box, this legal and moral Pandora's box of saying that two men can call what they're in a marriage and that matter of fact, the government's gotta sign off on it. And if anybody objects, well, we'll punish you. You can object. The, uh, Supreme Court did this. The Supreme Court caused this harm and it's the Supreme Court's job to fix it. This isn't some of those cases where the Supreme Court didn't ask for it, they didn't initiate it, they're just there to hear it. No, this wrong began at the supreme court. It did. 2015, Oberg failed. This wrong began at the Supreme Court when at the time the Supreme Court created a protection, created a right that had never existed. Not only in American law, but other law as well across the world throughout human history. This had not been done. This was not a thing. This was not a legal theory. Not in the Constitution, nowhere to be found, this so called constitutional right for two women, two men to be granted marriage licenses and all the benefits, by the way, that come with that which are plentiful. So this is on the Supreme Court. You created the wrong, now it's your turn to fix it. And not only is Kim Davis victim to this, but countless children are falling victim to this wicked sexual deviancy agenda every single day that we allow this to live on. We'll be back in a few.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Some would say truth is relative and to the world. That's right. What the world considers to be truth fluctuates depending on the narrative they're trying to promote. Of course we know truth is found in scripture and it never changes. The documentary, the God who Speaks, proves the Bible's reliability as the source of real truth and reinforces our belief in it as our firm foundation. Watch it anytime@stream.afa.net that's stream.aca.net this is.
>> Jeff Chamblee: @ the Corps on American Family Radio with your host, Walker Wildmon.
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome, um, back to the Corps. Well, Bobby and I are just, I'm just venting to Bobby over the break about how, how this is lunacy, this, this, this sexual confusion agenda. It's, it's, it's clearly rooted in a spiritual nature, clearly rooted in a spiritually dark underpinning. And it defies all reasoning. Defies all reasoning. I mean, this, this first, the, for any person that is, that is, that is just halfway smart understands that one of the basic qualifiers for the marital union is the ability, uh, or at least the capacity to reproduce, meaning male and female. Now, once again, there's some exceptions, some, some men and women have trouble reproducing, but they're, they're, they're at least their bodies are built and they are designed in a manner meant for reproduction. This is, this is literally Genesis and the garden and Adam and Eve teaching here. This is what we teach 3 and 4 year olds about humanity and how we all got here. Well, God created Adam and Eve. God created, even Adam and Eve reproduced. And to have. This is why we don't need to pat ourselves on the back too much here thinking that we're the latest and the greatest generation and we've got artificial intelligence and we've got, we've got energy production unlike any generation in the past, and we've got, you know, the largest economies that have ever existed, and we've got driverless cars, and, you know, we've got robots that can clean our houses and we've got all this advanced healthcare technology and, and I could go on and on about all the ways that modern humanity boasts in itself. And while we've advanced in many regards, we've also regressed in many regards. And so we're solving very sophisticated problems and we're also creating very simple problems. We can't agree that the marital union is, uh, something between a man and a woman that is unique to a man and a woman and has been since Genesis. Like, how can you complicate that? How can you complicate that? Well, you can complicate that by throwing out the scripture. And see, the thing is, we're not just throwing out the scripture. We're throwing out what's right in front of our very eyes, which is God's natural revelation. So to be doubly unwise, which the scripture warns about, to be doubly unwise is to not only throw out the central text which guides humanity and bears all truth, but to also put a blindfold over our very eyes and say, no, I don't see that. I don't see a man and a woman. I don't know what you're talking about. But see, we're not, we're not honest and wise enough to throw out all of God's created order, all of God's knowledge, all of God's precepts. Because here's what the enemy does. The enemy uses part of God's truth and then spins it into a lie. For example, this modern sexual deviancy agenda, it doesn't ditch, it doesn't completely throw out the male female notion. They try to use it like it's one thing to say, you know, we don't believe in God, we don't believe in the scripture, and as a matter of fact, we don't believe in science and biology. We're just throwing it all out. We don't. When you say man and woman, we don't even know what you're talking about. But no, they want to use the male, female terminology and then say that you can be whatever you want to be. And so it just. And I'm not naive to the sin nature, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I'm shocked at sin because when you read the scripture, none of us should be shocked at sin and the ability of man to, to commit vast amounts of evil. But it is, it is a little surprising to me that we take something so basic, so prevalent, so right in front of your very eyes and we want to get our PhDs and our master's degrees and build our artificial intelligent robots, but we don't even know what a man and a woman is. I mean, this is the, this is the height of being unwise. That's what the scripture talks about. They thought they were wise in their own eyes, but they were fools. They were counted as fools. And so really the next time you kind of consider who you trust and who you look to for counsel, There are some basic realities of life that we have to agree upon in order to have credibility. And if we can't agree on things as simple as that marriage is between a man and a woman and that there is only man and woman and you can't swap back and forth between the two. I mean, these are just basic realities of life that all of a sudden we've overcomplicated as a society. And some of the so called smartest people in the room, the lawyers can't even get it right. And then we've got people that call themselves physicians and they go to school for 10 years and pay a million dollars for an education, and then they're doing mutilation surgeries on 13 year olds, cutting their bodies up. What. What did you go get a doc? What did you go get your MD In? Did they not teach you that this isn't good? We don't, we don't cut up the healthy body parts of 13 year olds that have gender dysphoria. But, no, we've got surgeons doing this stuff. And so this just further proves the point that it doesn't matter what degree you have, what kind of letters you have before or after your name, what kind of school you went to, you, um, can do all these things and accomplish all these worldly objectives and be the most unwise person in the room. And if you don't believe me, look around today. All right, let's, uh, talk about the, um, this slow walking of President Trump's nominees. I'm going to play a clip here. This is Senator John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader. He's talking about how the Democrats are using every tool in the toolbox or literally every rule in the book to block President Trump's nominees. Cliptube.
>> Speaker F: I Referred to this, Mr. President, as a historic level of obstruction. And I mean it. President Trump is the only president on record, the only president on record to not have a single one of his civilian nominees confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote at this point in his presidency. The only president on record. Uh, just to offer a point of comparison here, by this point in his presence, presidency, President Biden had had 44 civilian nominees confirmed by voice vote. President Trump hasn't had one. 44 for Biden, zero for President Trump. And so when I say this is a historic level of obstruction from Democrats, I mean it's. That's not a Republican talking point. It's just a fact.
>> Walker Wildmon: Well, there you have it. That's Senate Majority Leader John Thune, um, on the Democrats. Obstruction. All right, here, here's. Here's where we are. And I'm just gonna. This isn't gonna. This isn't gonna give you a pep in your step. This isn't gonna make you have the best Monday ever. But I'm just gonna tell you where we are. Where we are. Zero. Zero sympathy for Jonathan. Absolutely zero sympathy for the Senate Majority Leader. Why? Because he runs the show. Republicans run the show. They're in the m. Majority. Um, the Senate went on recess, okay? The Senate went on recess. All right? So this is why I have absolutely zero sympathy for John Thune. Because if Senator Thune really had a deep concern about getting President Trump's nominees through, then he would do exactly what Philip Draghi said in the first segment, and he would keep the Senate in session in Washington, D.C. through the August recess until an adequate number of nominees of President Trump's were approved by the Senate. But he didn't do that. And this is where actions speak louder than words. Senator Thune can go to the Senate floor and whine and complain about what Chuck Schumer is doing, which, why are we surprised? Chuck Schumer's been doing the same thing since he got there, which is obstructing. Obstructing and making bad decisions. So, uh, no, you're not going to get me fired up at Schumer. All right, you're in the majority. But let me tell you what's happening on. Practically. And I'm not. I'm not getting into motives and intentions and what's in their mind, because I don't know. But I. I'm gonna tell you what the net effect is, which is undeniable. The effect of what is taking place under Republican majority control in the Senate is they are waiting out the clock on President Trump's last term. Now, once again, I don't know, Senator Th. I'm not in his head. I have no idea what their motives are. But I'm just telling you, the effect is, is that we get, uh, one year, two year, three years down the road, and President Trump just can't get anything done. He's being undermined at every turn. Judicial vacancies out the wazoo, empty case, dockets beginning to backlog even more than they already are. And meanwhile, the Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate are saying mean things to each other at the podium, and nobody's doing anything about it. And this referendum that was 2024 turns into a dud. And I know I'm sounding down and out on the presidency, but let me just tell you, folks, the vast majority of everything that President Trump is doing can be rescinded with a stroke of a pen. Nearly. Not all. Nearly everything that President Trump is doing can be rescinded with a stroke of a pen. Matter of fact, they'll probably use auto pin. There are only a few things that can be done that will outlast the presidency, and that is passing laws, which they have done with the one big beautiful bill, um, and approving judicial nominations. And not only just approving judicial nominations, also approving confirming executive branch nominees. Because, see, every time President Trump shows up to town meaning January of 2017, January of 2025. These agencies are staffed deep. And Obama and Biden people see, we don't see this stuff. They actually don't talk about this stuff. But you've got these agencies that are largely still staffed by Obama and Biden holdovers. So when I say that that, that really changing how Washington, D.C. works is going to take 8, 12, 16 years of consecutive conservative leadership. This is what I'm talking about. I think the White House needs to be fired up on this. I think the chief of staff, I think Susie Wiles, I think Stephen Miller, I think everybody in the executive office of the President, President should be fired up about this because they can have all the fancy press conferences they want, we can build all the ballrooms we can build, we can clean up D.C. but if we don't get these nominations through the finish line, then the Democrats will take over and within 24 hours, they will have everybody gone and all of their people in. This is our moment.
>> Jeff Chamblee: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
