KLZ 560 AM DENVER'S CONSERVATIVE HOME STATION
Menu
The episode covers the recent Supreme Court decision on reverse discrimination, featuring insights from David Kloss. Discover how this ruling impacts current societal debates over justice and equality. Additionally, the episode highlights the subdued enthusiasm for Pride Month and its implications for corporate America and public sentiment, emphasizing the importance of returning to foundational principles of equality.
SPEAKER 24 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Sitting in for Tony is today’s host, Joseph Backholm.
SPEAKER 22 :
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, June 6th, 1944, D-Day. Almighty God,
SPEAKER 15 :
our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true. Give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again. And we know that by thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, thy heroic servants, into thy kingdom.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome to Washington Watch. I’m Joseph back home sitting for Tony today. And today is the 81st anniversary of D-Day. And that was the prayer that President Roosevelt made on behalf of our nation and our soldiers and the world on that day. And today we remember the steep price that was paid in defense of freedom and in opposition to evil. And we also At the same time, thank God for the victory that was won and all that has meant for us individually and the world since then. And so we do want to recognize that day. And later in the program, we will be talking more about D-Day with Mark Levesque. but also coming up the supreme court says the law can’t treat straight people more harshly than people who identify as gay what was that case you heard a little bit about it from the news desk but why in the world is this something we need to say we’re going to talk about that lady later coming up in the program in our world view conversation but first our headline for today the ongoing online feud between former doge head elon musk and U.S. President Donald Trump is drawing a lot of attention. What started with Musk’s jab at Trump’s big beautiful bill eventually evolved into Musk and Trump trading blows over behaviors, policies, government contracts, and Could anyone have seen this coming? And what broader impacts could this feud have on Capitol Hill and beyond? Here to discuss this with me is Ken Blackwell. He was part of the Trump administration’s transition team on the domestic policy group in 2016 and in 2024. He’s also a senior fellow for human rights and constitutional governance here at Family Research Council. Ken, thanks for joining me today.
SPEAKER 20 :
Joseph, it’s good to be with you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we are going to talk about this Musk-Trump story. But before we do, we have some breaking news that I want to react, get you to react to just in the last hour involving Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. Everyone knows he is kind of a progressive’s favorite illegal immigrant. He has been returned to the United States, but it may not be exactly what advocates for Abrego-Garcia believe. had hoped for. Here’s part of what Attorney General Pam Bondi had to say just about an hour ago. Let’s play clip nine.
SPEAKER 13 :
Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice. On May 21st, a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee returned a sealed indictment charging Abrego Garcia with alien smuggling and conspiracy to commit alien smuggling.
SPEAKER 08 :
And then she also said this. Let’s play clip eight.
SPEAKER 13 :
The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring. They found this was his full-time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women.
SPEAKER 08 :
Ken Blackwell, your reaction to all of this?
SPEAKER 21 :
I’m so delighted, Joseph, that Garcia is coming to stand in the dock before the American people. He’s a bad guy. And I think the American people need to feel the full embrace of justice being brought to him for the horrible crimes that he has has committed.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, it is an incredible kind of turning of the tables, it seems, because he’s been presented to the public as a victim of injustice. And now, based on these charges, he has been a perpetrator of injustice for a very long time. We will see which narrative ends up prevailing. We will certainly… keep you informed of the developments as they happen. But Ken, I want to turn to the story we intended to cover in this block. And everyone is kind of aware of the online feud, and it’s mostly online right now, it seems, between President Trump and Elon Musk. How do you think we should be thinking about this?
SPEAKER 21 :
i think the two principles here need to understand and need perhaps to adopt uh that uh that strategy of uh because they have a mutual capability of destroying the forward movement of this country in terms of our national security in terms of dealing with the enormous debt that we have and dealing with the challenge of getting us back on the path of growth and opportunity. And so this back and forth between the President of the United States and a very smart, very affluent, now adversary, but just a few weeks ago, an ally, has to be brought to an end. The President is the President of the United States. He is the head of our Constitutional Republic, and he has an enormous challenge. He has to keep the herd moving west. And in order to do that, he has to work through not only with the House and the Senate, he needs to do it within the framework of our Constitution. That’s a little bit more difficult than the deep dive that Elon has done along with his team and come up with a prescription for a comprehensive fix that just might not be doable this time around. But I think the big beautiful bill, while again, lacking in some aspects, it’s probably the best that we can do to make sure that we keep the trifecta.
SPEAKER 08 :
that’s necessary to keep us on a path of progress now you kind of described well the policy debate that’s happening on the surface is the big beautiful bill good is the big beautiful bill an abomination as elon musk has referred to it do you think this conflict really is ultimately policy-based or is this personal on ways that on levels that we perhaps haven’t seen yet
SPEAKER 21 :
Well, it’s gone sideways and it’s destructive and it’s personal and we need folks to go to their mutual corners. But I’m not confused and the American people are not confused. Donald Trump stood for the presidency. He got a clear majority of the voters to say he was the one that they wanted to lead the nation. He now has to work within the framework of the Constitution. And that means that he has to be able to work with a House that has a slim majority and a Senate that has not always behaved and voted as a coherent force.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, there is a lot of curiosity about the impact that this will have or will not have on the big, beautiful bill. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was asked this question. Here’s what he had to say.
SPEAKER 02 :
This is not a problem for getting the bill done. The House and Senate Republicans here know that we have a job to do and we’re going to do our job. And we produced a very, very good product. It is not perfect because there’s no such thing as perfect legislation. But we’re really proud of this.
SPEAKER 08 :
Ken, do you think that is an accurate description of the impact that this feud will not have, according to the speaker on the bill?
SPEAKER 21 :
Well, I think there’s an ounce of hope in that. He understands that this head-butting by these two powerful personalities can keep us off of what I consider to be a positive track forward and make the Speaker and the Senate leaders’ jobs much more difficult. But again, I have confidence that in the final analysis, the two principles that we’re discussing here will come to a daytime and make sure that this bill, while not perfect, gets passed. Sometimes you make the good the enemy of the best or vice versa, and we just can’t make that happen this time around. We need to put the tourniquet on and while it doesn’t completely stop the spending bleeding, it puts us on a track, I think, where we can complete the job over the next three and a half years.
SPEAKER 08 :
Do you agree with the analysis that we’ve heard from many that this is the best we can realistically do under the current political circumstances?
SPEAKER 21 :
Well, I have a lot of faith in the Speaker. I would imagine that something’s going to be sent back to the House that is slightly different from what they sent over to the Senate. But I have full confidence that working with the President’s team in the White House, he and Leader Thune can get this done. Again, the The worst narrative would be that this thing collapses and we all have eggs on our face and that just wouldn’t be good for us. But more importantly, it wouldn’t be good for the American people.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, there seems to be a consensus that we’re spending too much money. Nobody says, oh, we’re not spending enough, right? Regardless of where you are in this bill, everybody seems to agree we should be spending less. The disagreement seems to be about when we can or if we can. And what the political implications of that are, is it possible? And the analogy that comes to mind is like, If we as parents had our children vote for whether we could be parents, we would be much more deferential to our children. Are we dealing with a situation where politicians are afraid to tell the truth and look out for the long term best interest of the American people because the American people don’t really want that? We want what we want and we want it now.
SPEAKER 21 :
Well, look, let me tell you, one of the blessings of the United States of America is that our form of government is decentralized and it brings decision making back to the most basic level, ultimately to the national government, but starting out with the family as the basic unit of governance, working through cities, states, counties, et cetera. In the final analysis, a downside of our system is that it is decentralized and it makes for conflicting interests. But again, I think we know what the penalty would be if we fail. And I believe in the final analysis, we’re going to get this done.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we hope and pray that you are correct. Ken, thank you so much for taking some time with us today.
SPEAKER 20 :
Good to be with you, Joseph. God bless.
SPEAKER 08 :
Up next, we will honor the 81st anniversary of D-Day by reflecting on the daring military move and the modern state of the American military. I will be speaking with Dr. Mark Levecky, a scholar and expert on war and ethics. We’ll do it all when we come back. Stay with us right here on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 16 :
Hello, I’m Tony Perkins, and we’re here in Jerusalem, the city of King David. And I’m excited to announce the launch of our Family Bible Challenge to read through the Gospel of Matthew. Now, this 21-day challenge begins on June the 11th, and it’s a part of our Stand on the Word Bible reading plan. It’s in bite-sized readings. It takes about 10 to 15 minutes a day, and we provide a toolbox full of resources to help you along the journey, including a study guide titled, Matthew, the King and His Kingdom. We also provide downloadable resources such as age appropriate questions to engage children. And we have a variety of family friendly projects as well as this, listen, a coloring book, coloring pages about the life of Jesus for the younger kids and your grandkids. Think about it. What could be a better summer activity than to go on a journey through the life of Jesus as a family? Just think what God could do in the lives of your loved ones as they read Matthew. Unforgettable stories about the greater son of David, Jesus the Messiah. I hope you’ll join us for our family Bible challenge beginning June the 11th. Text the word Matthew to 67742. I hope you’ll join us. Thank you.
SPEAKER 19 :
In a time when Washington seems clouded by compromise, a bold group of lawmakers are standing firm in defense of the values which our nation was built upon. At FRC Actions 100% Awards, 171 members of Congress were honored for voting 100% in line with policies that promote faith, family, and freedom.
SPEAKER 06 :
Faith and family made our country, it’s the foundation that made our country not only great, but good.
SPEAKER 14 :
The values that make America, faith, family, hard work, personal responsibility. I mean, that to me is the heart of FRC and grateful for everything that they do.
SPEAKER 23 :
It’s very important for us to have organizations such as FRC. First of all, I think it keeps us grounded. In addition to which, the issues that you champion are issues that we should all be championing.
SPEAKER 17 :
FRC is very, very good at honing in on those things that really affect Christians’ lives. Also, working with members of Congress, too, to make sure that those values are instilled in the legislation that we create.
SPEAKER 10 :
Having the Family Research Council to guide us is critically important to being able to do the right thing consistently.
SPEAKER 19 :
These lawmakers have drawn the line, not just in policy, but in principle. This is more than politics. This is conviction in action. Visit frcaction.org for more information on how you too can make a difference.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Joseph Backholm sitting in for Tony on this Friday evening. Today, June 6th, marks the 81st anniversary commemorating the soldiers who gave their lives to defend freedom in the D-Day invasion. marks an important reminder of how some landmark victories are achieved through great risk and sacrifice. President Trump issued a statement today alluding, quote, the warfighters whose indescribable valor, fierce determination, and unwavering patriotism delivered this pivotal victory for the global cause of freedom. Now, does that sort of heroism still exist? Does it hold the same moral weight today? Here with me to reflect on this important day and the effect it’s had is Dr. Mark Levecky. He’s a McDonald Distinguished Scholar of Ethics, War, and Public Life at Providence Institute of Religion and Democracy. He’s also an author of the book, The Good Kill, Just War and Moral Injury, and a forthcoming book, Moral Horror, a Just War Defense of the Bombing of Hiroshima. which I’m sure will not be controversial at all. Dr. Levecky, welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 05 :
It’s great to be here. Thanks for having me back. Not controversial at all.
SPEAKER 08 :
I’m sure it will not be. And we’re going to actually wait on that conversation for a moment. But I would like just your thoughts about why D-Day is still important for us to remember and reflect upon.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, absolutely. If I can riff on then-President Roosevelt’s prayer to the nation as he alerted the nation of the forcible entry into Europe then underway, he said the following. He said, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor to preserve our republic, our religion, our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. And I think in those lines we see encapsulated everything that is important about D-Day. It reminded us, if we needed the reminder, that freedom, liberty, life, human flourishing, the good, the true, and the beautiful are things that need to be fought for. And so we needed men that were capable of fighting for them. And D-Day represented that fact. And it behooves us to remember that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, at the risk of insulting some members of our audience, we keep seeing some of these polls that say people don’t even know who fought in the Civil War, right? So if you would, provide some context and set the scene for us. What was happening? Why was D-Day so important in our nation’s history and, frankly, the world’s history?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, for sure. I don’t know how far back I have to go, but I will remind everyone that World War II was one of the perhaps somewhat rare instantiations in which the line separating good from evil was crystal clear. America and her allies were fighting against Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and then over in the Asia Pacific, fighting against militant Japan, Japanese militarism. But D-Day itself was… was the first real opportunity that the Allies had to open up a second front. The Soviet Union was busy fighting the Nazis in the East. Britain and the Allies had already been pushed out of Europe at the very beginning of the war. And this was the opportunity for Britain, for France, for the United States, for Canada to enter into Europe. And our orders were clear. General Marshall told General Eisenhower the following. He said to cross the Channel, to enter the heartland of Germany, and to liberate Europe. And so this was an opportunity for us to do that. It was Britain’s triumphal reentry into Europe after having been pushed out. And it was the first opportunity we had to open up that vital second front to relieve some of the tension from the fight in the east and really to begin the end of the war in Europe.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, we remember this day in ways that we don’t necessarily honor every other battle and every other victory in World War II. It feels more significant to us. At the time, did they see this as a pivotal turning point moment in World War II?
SPEAKER 05 :
I would say yes. Obviously, it’s easier for us because we have the benefit of hindsight where we know everything ultimately went well. We won. In the day, the contingency of war was still you know, alive. Things were not yet settled. There was no guarantee that even crossing the Channel would work. Contingency was everywhere. Sort of famously, for those who enjoy the historic weeds of the occasion, Eisenhower, who was the commanding general at the time, had to make a decision on June 5th yesterday as to whether or not we would in fact embark across the channel. They had been dealing with horrendous weather. On June 4th, he was told that the weather on June 6th would look good. There would be a temporary but significant break in the bad weather, and this was a good opportunity to go. It wasn’t just a question of weather. You also had to have good lunar conditions. And on June 6th, there was the possibility that these things would come together. But it wasn’t a sure thing. And he got a consensus of the Allied command, and there was no consensus. So he went to bed the night between the 4th and the 5th, trying to decide whether or not to push off on the 6th. After a fitful couple hours, he decided to go. And so he reconvened the Allied command, and he, in his memoir, says he deliberated for about a minute, and then he stood up and he said, let’s go. And within two seconds, the room cleared, and the final preparations for D-Day were underway. So I think they knew it was significant, but it was no certain thing. He visited the troops as they departed, most famously the airborne divisions of the 82nd and the 101st Airborne, And their casualty predictions were as high as 75%. They did not know whether they could pull the thing off. This was by far the largest amphibious assault ever conducted in history. And contingency was everywhere.
SPEAKER 08 :
How innovative was it for the time?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, that’s a great question. I’m not a technical expert, but I think there was innovation all over the place. The landing craft were constantly being honed, the airborne assaults, new tactics, new strategies. Some didn’t go off so well. I think famously, there was the glider division incredibly brave souls who tried to land behind enemy lines in wooden gliders. Those didn’t really work quite so well, but innovation was everywhere. I think it was a technological wonder.
SPEAKER 08 :
I’m going to jump in right there, and I think we can hold you over, if you can, to the next, over the break, because I’d love to continue this conversation as we remember D-Day here on Washington Watch. Stay with us. We’ll be right back with more.
SPEAKER 07 :
The Center for Biblical Worldview’s all-day workshops delves into the formation of a worldview, what it is, how it’s formed, when it’s formed, what that means to them personally and their churches and communities.
SPEAKER 08 :
My hope for people when they come to these worldview workshops is that they will come away better equipped to engage the people and the ideas that they’re living with and around. And our goal is to give people more confidence in the gospel, and the fact that what God said to us actually is true, actually is the path to happiness and human flourishing for all of us, but also more confidence in their ability to have these conversations and help lead other people to the truth.
SPEAKER 03 :
For Bible-believing Christians to know what God’s Word says on these issues and to learn how they can apply it to their lives. And we believe that the more Christians that we equip, that’s how we’ll change the nation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, fam, listen, Pastor Sammy here at Lighthouse Church, and I cannot tell you how equipping, how empowering, how incredibly educating this conference has been. And so I just want to encourage anybody that either has not been part of or is thinking about hosting this event, certainly to pastors, leaders, even CEOs for that matter, this conference is lights out. Stand behind it myself. I can’t commend it enough. We’re going to be talking about this for some time to come.
SPEAKER 09 :
The culture is kind of squeezing in on us as God’s people, forcing those of us with biblical views to change those views or to suppress those views. It’s forcing us to engage with issues that we’ve never had to engage with. And so what this teaches us is what those issues are, what the Bible says about those issues, and then how we can critically engage our culture on these things in a way that is committed to biblical principle.
SPEAKER 11 :
Visit frc.org slash worldview for more information.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Joseph Backholm sitting in for Tony, and we are continuing our conversation with Dr. Mark Levicki on the 81st anniversary of D-Day, why it’s an important day in history, why it’s important for us to continue to remember Dr. Levicki. Thanks for hanging with us.
SPEAKER 05 :
Pleasure.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, I want to dive a little deeper into something that you touched on about the likelihood of success, because in my you know, the first kind of war moment I remember in my life was when we invaded Iraq and took over Baghdad and we overthrew Saddam Hussein. There was a lot of media coverage. We could kind of watch this as Americans. It was interesting, but we felt no stress, right? There was like, we know the outcome of this. This is not a fair fight. We’re going to do whatever we want to do. How were people feeling? And I know that there was not like advanced notice of D-Day, right? The American public didn’t know about this, but even within the leadership and then when Americans learned it was happening, I mean, compare it to that moment. What was the likelihood of success or to what degree were they like, we hope this works, but we just don’t know?
SPEAKER 05 :
I think throughout the day itself, it was a near thing. There were certain points on certain beaches, right? I mean, we’ve got to remember that this was an endeavor that spanned, you know, 156,000 troops trying to forcibly enter Europe from the sea, 7,000 ships, 11,000 support and attack aircraft over a 50-mile beach. right, the numbers are staggering. And all throughout that day, periodically, it looked as if the thing would not come off and that we would be pushed off certain beaches and have to go back, attempt to go back to the ships. But we pressed forward, you know, Theodore Roosevelt Jr., the son of President Roosevelt, was in command of the attack on Utah Beach. They were, because of strong currents, thrown fairly dramatically off course. And he famously sort of said, well, our war begins here. and they were well away from where they were supposed to be, but they innovated, they adapted, they overcame, they went back to the place they were supposed to have started from, and they continued their war. And so it was always a near thing, but it was the strength of the Allied cause, it was their moral resolve, and it was their ability to innovate under duress in very time-compressed scenarios that won the day.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, Mark, that is a great description of kind of the big picture. But let’s talk about the individual soldiers, because, you know, a war is fought by people, individuals with their own lives and stories and concerns. And we always we’ve seen those images of the boats and the door opens and everybody just storms out the front into gunfire. Some of them never even got back above the water, like terrible stories of what happens afterwards. What motivates a soldier in that circumstance to go forward when they’re commanded to despite the situation?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, it’s a great question. It’s an important question. It’s one that I can’t answer directly, right? I have friends who have fought. I have never been shot at in combat. But I think there are multiple answers to it. There are the ideals and the ideas that motivate someone to join the military in the first place. World War II, maybe many of the military were already in, but there were an awful lot of post-Pearl Harbor volunteers. Many of them will simply say they were angry. Their nation had been attacked. Friends overseas were under duress, and they wanted to fight back. But then when you get into combat itself, you know, these high ideals of liberty and all sorts of other things begin to fall away a little bit. They’re probably in the back of the mind. But it comes down to it in the moment, as I understand it, you simply want to protect the men to your left and to your right. And nowadays, you know, the men or the women to your left or to your right, you simply want to keep them safe. And so, you know, there is the mission and the mission is before them, but it’s also just protecting their friends and a desire to get back home. You know, the high ideals are always on their mind, I’m sure. But I think in the moment, it comes down to the very basic things. You want to be safe, you want to keep your friends safe.
SPEAKER 08 :
Part of the reason we try to understand history is because we want it to inform how we live today and the things that we do. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made a statement today, and he was part of that. Let’s play clip seven.
SPEAKER 11 :
Because we strive for peace, we must prepare for war. and hopefully deter it. Because history is not over. Evil has not been eradicated from the globe. Good men are still needed to stand up.
SPEAKER 05 :
Is that true, Mark?
SPEAKER 1 :
100%.
SPEAKER 05 :
That is 100% true. There are some fights that need to be fought. Most, I’ll say it this way, most American soldiers are not looking for a fight. Given their preference, they would rather live in peace. But they recognize that the choice is not always up to us. Our adversaries have a choice. They have a vote. And the just warrior is always only responding to evils that are already in place. We’re not inaugurating fights. We’re not starting new violence. We’re responding to injustices that are already happening. If a fight needs to be fought, then we need the ability to fight it, both as individuals, but also as a nation. And so I think a nation has an obligation, comes out of the dominion mandate, to cultivate that kind of power that is necessary to protect the innocent, to take back things that have been wrongly taken, and to punish sufficiently grave evil. And America in that day, on D-Day, demonstrated that when the call came, we answered it and we were not found wanting. Our boys then performed magnificently. And I think this generation of warfighters that we’ve seen coming out of the global war on terror have performed magnificently. And those are lessons that must never be forgotten.
SPEAKER 08 :
Dr. Mark Levecky, thank you so much for your time. Pleasure. Stay tuned for our biblical worldview segment with my colleague, David Clausen. We’ll be right back with Mark.
SPEAKER 25 :
Family Research Council is committed to advancing faith, family, and freedom from the East Coast to the West. So FRC is going to Southern California for this year’s Pray, Vote, Stand Summit, October 17th and 18th at Calvary Chapel, Chino Hills. Join us for this powerful gathering of Christians desiring cultural renewal and spiritual revival. The Pray, Vote, Stand Summit brings together Christian leaders, issue experts, and government officials for a time of prayer, inspiration, and action. Together, we will seek God’s guidance for our nation and engage in meaningful discussions on the intersection of faith, government, and culture. If the spiritual foundations and the cultural walls of our nation are to be rebuilt, we all have a role to play. May we each find our place on the wall as we build for biblical truth. Register now at PrayVoteStand.org. That’s PrayVoteStand.org.
SPEAKER 18 :
Jennifer, it’s so exciting to be here with you today talking about our new book, Embracing God’s Design. Who is actually going to benefit from reading this book in your view?
SPEAKER 12 :
There’s so many different audiences that can benefit. The first one are counselors themselves, right? Because we have some material in there where we really address the gender dysphoria diagnosis and what is wrong with it. We have information for people who are wanting to go back to embracing God’s design for their life.
SPEAKER 18 :
This is really magical to have the therapist and the individual who suffered come together and write about why this is happening and why we’re seeing this.
SPEAKER 12 :
And we brought all of that experience to the table. We want to see people walking in the fullness of who God has called them to be and not a false identity.
SPEAKER 09 :
Order today at embracethedesign.com.
SPEAKER 19 :
How should Christians think about the thorny issues shaping our culture? How should Christians address deceitful ideas like transgenderism, critical theory, or assisted suicide? How can Christians navigate raising children in a broken culture, the war on gender roles, or rebuilding our once great nation? Outstanding is a podcast from The Washington Stand dedicated to these critical conversations. Outstanding seeks to tear down what our corrupt culture lifts up with an aim to take every thought and every idea captive to the obedience of Christ. Whether policies or partisan politics, whether conflict in America or conflict abroad, join us and our guests as we examine the headlines through the lens of Scripture and explore how Christians can faithfully exalt Christ in all of life. Follow Outstanding on your favorite podcast app and look for new episodes each week.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Joseph Backholm, sitting in for Tony and with you today. Now, before I go to my next conversation, I want to encourage you to take advantage of Family Research Council’s $1.5 million challenge match to defend families. When you give before June 30th, you’ll have twice the impact. So while LGBTQ activists are still pushing Pride Month, join Family Research Council in defending God’s design for the family on the front lines of public policy in DC and across America. To join us, please text the word FAMILY to 67742. That’s text the word FAMILY to 67742. And thank you so much for your support. While it’s been another whirlwind week of headlines, yesterday, our nation’s highest court issued a perhaps surprising decision authored by Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson regarding a case of so-called, and in reality, reverse discrimination. It came out of Ohio and was brought by a straight white woman who claimed she was demoted and passed over for promotion because she was heterosexual or is heterosexual. We’ll discuss this case and more in our weekly worldview discussion with David Kloss, and he’s the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at FRC. He’s also the author of a new book, Life After Roe, equipping Christians in the fight for life today. David, thank you for joining me.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, great to be with you again, Joseph. Happy Friday.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, happy Friday to you. This is a really interesting case to me that I want to kind of get beyond the legal arguments because those are real and interesting. But I think there’s something beneath that that we need to kind of pull out. This woman, Marlene Ames. A heterosexual woman claims in her case before the Supreme Court that while she was working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, she was passed over for promotion. Now, here’s the interesting part. The Ohio Department of Youth Services did not say, no, we didn’t discriminate against you. They said… that because you are a white heterosexual woman, you have a higher burden of proof in proving that you were discriminated against. You have not reached that burden of proof. Therefore, we are not liable for anything. Now, the Supreme Court came back and said, actually, everybody has the same burden of proof in a discrimination case. Why did this argument even have to be made?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Joseph, such a good question. And I think, yeah, the specifics of this are really interesting. And it’s important to note this was unanimous. Katanji Brown Jackson is obviously the most recent addition to the court appointed by Joe Biden. And she wrote the majority opinion. And, you know, over years, this legal concept is known as background circumstances test, which is kind of a higher level of burden than, that folks from majority groups, so I think white, straight, male, need to prove in these discrimination cases. And I think, you know, again, I’m no legal scholar, but, you know, these kind of concepts and ideas don’t develop in a vacuum. And clearly over the last couple decades where you have the rise of, I think, critical theory, things like intersectionality, You’re going to have concepts and ideologies and legal frameworks begin to develop kind of that flow from the logic of even those ideologies. Now, as Christians, you know, I think we should be excited with the Supreme Court decided because as Christian, this ruling basically affirms kind of what I would call just the principle of equal justice. You know, as Christians, we believe all people are made in God’s image. We’re equally valuable. James 2 is another text, Joseph, that talks about how God hates partiality. And so I think this is a good legal decision, and it’s one that Christians, for theological reasons, can also affirm.
SPEAKER 08 :
And it’s important to highlight the ways in which good intentions actually result in unjust outcomes. The Supreme Court has spoken to similar issues recently where they’ve said you cannot prefer people of certain races over people of other races in your admissions practices to institutions of higher learning. And that has been done racially. And this is another example of where they’ve made a similar determination, where it doesn’t matter if you’re white or black or you identify as heterosexual or you identify as homosexual, equal treatment under the law requires that the legal standard be the same for people who find themselves in similar legal situations. Now, why on earth would anybody disagree with that? Because, and you mentioned it, but I think it’s worth kind of describing, the critical theory mood that our country has been in, which says, well, if you are one of the oppressors, you should be disfavored. If you are one of the oppressed, you should be favored. And the way people seek to remedy what they perceive to be as injustice is to give preferential treatment to people in one group and disfavored treatment to people in another group. And I think that’s where this is coming from. Oh, well, you’re heterosexual, you’re in power, you’re the hegemony. If you want to prove discrimination, you have to work harder to do so. And as a result of this, I think it’s good intentions results in unjust treatment where we, as a result, end up throwing out this standard of equal treatment under the law, which is supposed to be a bedrock American principle.
SPEAKER 03 :
Joseph, I agree with you. I think this ideology of critical theory, I think probably the most pernicious way that this has reared its head in our modern political discourse in the last year, year and a half, is actually what’s happening over in Israel, where you will actually have Americans who will say, well, you know, looking at the situation between Hamas, which is a terrorist group, versus Israel, kind of the only stable democracy in the Middle East, well, there’ll be those who sympathize with the Hamas terrorists because they will use the language, well, settlers don’t have rights. And, you know, this is this privileging of minority groups just because the sake that they’re part of a minority class. Again, this is pernicious. This is evil. Christians are the folks who should be on the front lines saying this doesn’t cohere with a biblical conception of actual justice.
SPEAKER 08 :
And let’s remember the worldview foundations of this idea of equal treatment under the law, because that hasn’t always been how it’s been, right? That was actually a Christian idea that was injected into a world that believed the rich and the powerful are better because they are rich and powerful, and innately they have more rights and more opportunities. And it was the biblical christian idea that we are all created in the image of god which injected into that environment this idea that it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor or in biblical terms male or female jew or greek slave or free everyone because we’re created in the image of god has equal value before god therefore it is incumbent upon governments to recognize equal value before god And that works when our identity is rooted in the imago Dei that is inside of each of us. What critical theory seeks to do is root our identity in who we’re attracted to, what our race is, how much money we’ve made, and therefore treat people differently in those circumstances. And as we see in this case, that results in people doing what should be kind of absurd by saying, oh, well, you’re straight. friend who identifies as gay has.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, absolutely. And we use the phrase all the time, ideas have consequences and underlying worldviews, underlying ideologies have significant consequences. And so this case is kind of an illustration in the legal arena, the legal realm of of, again, kind of the manifestation of what bad ideas can do. And I think, you know, because again, as Christians, we should be excited about this. And I do think, and we’ll maybe talk about this later, Joseph, you know, we’re in a cultural kind of almost resetting right now, where there does seem to be a return to kind of some of these creation order principles. And I think that’s something we should be welcoming, especially as Christians.
SPEAKER 08 :
And that is something I want to get into next in our next topic here, because we, of course, know we are living in the holy month of pride, according to the priests of the sexual revolution, right? And we, of course, were, you know, is it the family month? Is it fidelity month? Anything but celebrating one of the deadly sins, right? And so any alternative is going to be better than actual pride. Something that a lot of people pointed out is the fact that the enthusiasm for Pride this year seems to be down. Do you agree with that? And if so, what do you attribute that to?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Joseph, I actually agree with it. And I’m here in Washington, D.C., which I’m told, you know, this week or next week, there’s going to be this World Pride event. But I would even say here in our nation’s capital, it is more muted than it has been in years past. And I think there’s several reasons for this. Just think about the backlash to groups and corporations. Think Bud Light, their whole debacle with Dylan Mulvaney back in 2023. They lost $359 million because they partnered with this transgender activist to try to promote light beer. That debacle actually, for two decades, Bud Light had been the number one selling beer in America. And I take that on faith. I’m a Baptist. I have no idea personally, but I’m just told that, you know, it was knocked off as being the number one selling bear in America simply because they kind of got in bed with the sexual revolution and thought this was a good idea with marketing. Think of Target. They lost 35 percent. Their stock did a value over one summer because of their pride collection, Joseph. And so I do think the Probably one of the main causes is that the sexual revolution has overplayed its hand. Think of things like course pronoun usage, biological men being allowed to participate in female sports. Think of the medical interventions being pushed on minor children who are confused by their gender. And so I think kind of the T in LGBT has really overplayed the hand. You see this even last, two weeks ago, Gallup came out with a poll and showed Republican support for same-sex marriage is down 14 points from just three years ago. And so I think all of that is kind of part of, again, like I say, this return to kind of creation order morality, because we’ve done this for a couple of years and a lot of people are seeing this really doesn’t work.
SPEAKER 08 :
There’s a couple parts of that that I want to discuss with you, David, because one is what’s the American people doing? And you cite kind of the polling from Gallup saying that support for same-sex marriage is down 14 points in the last three years among Republicans. But we also have seen corporate America kind of move away, indications of that. I know that Seattle Pride, right, or, you know, Seattle, can you get any more progressive than that? Their budget for Seattle Pride had declined significantly. 30%, I believe, was the number because of a decline in corporate sponsorship even there. Do you think that we’re seeing a situation where corporate America, and a lot of them have not rebranded their logos this holy month of pride when they had in the past? And that’s kind of a small but significant indicator. that perhaps they were never really in it for the cause, but they were in it for the money. And now that Target and Bud Light have told them, hey, the money may not be all you thought it was or hoped it was going to be. Maybe you should stay away. And so it turns out perhaps corporate America was just chasing the dollar anyway.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, absolutely, Joseph. I think corporate America thought this was kind of the direction that the broader culture was moving in, first on same-sex marriage, then on issues related to transgenderism. I think there was a lot of bullying that took place. Think about, you know, the Human Rights Campaign and their aggressive marketing plan that each year they would publish kind of the organizations and corporations that got their 100% backing for taking moves that they saw as LGBT affirming. And you know what I think a lot of corporations realize? It was never enough. No matter what they did, kind of the activist community always wanted to move the goalpost. And I think even with the election of Donald Trump last year, that sent a kind of a signal to a lot of these corporations, big business, that a lot of Americans feel tired of kind of this woke ideology, these different ideas, critical theory. I think a lot of CEOs realize this is actually simply not in the best interest of our shareholders. And then they’ve stepped back. And so I do think there was probably political reasons they felt bullied into it over the last 10 years. And so this is a welcome reprieve from that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, David, there’s another potential explanation for why there could be kind of a decline in enthusiasm for Pride Month. And that is that it’s just the new norm now. And are you at all concerned that Pride Month has kind of made its impact? Because we talked about the decline in support amongst Republicans, but same-sex marriage still polls very favorably across the public. And for so many people, like, what the sexual revolution has done is so normal that maybe it’s not even controversial and they don’t feel the need to be a crusader for something that has been normalized. While I do think there’s, especially on the trans issues, a growing awareness of the You talk about boys on the podium at girls track meets and cartoon porn in schools and drag queens twerking in front of small children. All of this stuff that a lot of us look at and say that’s terrible. And I think there’s general recognition of that. Has the damage already been done culturally?
SPEAKER 03 :
I think at some place, yes, a lot of this has been normalized. But Joseph, I would argue that the further you abstract from God’s created order, the more aberrations you introduce into culture. One, as Christians, we believe Romans 1, you’re inviting God’s judgment. And that’s something that we should be nervous about, of course. For those of us who love our neighbors, we love folks in our communities. But yeah, I think that’s a fair point. I would probably concede that, that for many people, especially the younger generations, this is normalized. You know, college students today, they don’t know a day, Joseph, when same-sex marriage wasn’t the law of the land. The Obergefell decision was handed down 2015. That was 10 years ago. A college student today was 10 years old when that happened. And so a lot of that has happened, which is why I argue those with teaching, preaching, discipleship opportunities, we can’t take it for granted that people in our churches actually know what a biblical sexual ethic is, all the more reason to kind of recommit in our teaching and our preaching on what God’s Word actually teaches on these fundamental issues.
SPEAKER 08 :
David, how can churches do that? How can people who care, who see what’s happening and want to do something about it be part of the solution?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, and that’s one of the reasons the Center for Biblical Worldview exists. You can go to frc.org slash worldview, and we have a whole host of resources. If you have preaching, teaching, discipleship opportunities, we have resources on marriage, sexuality, religious liberty, political engagement, abortion, and the value of life. So I’d encourage folks to go to frc.org slash worldview, and Lord willing, those resources can serve you and your ministry.
SPEAKER 08 :
And they do, and they will. And we’re not quite halfway through the month. There’s going to be a lot more coming. And I would just commend people to the resources that you have put together, that we collectively have put together there at frc.org slash worldview. It will encourage you, but it will also equip you to understand what’s going on this month, because we really do not wrestle against flesh and blood. David Claussen, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. And friends, we thank you for being with us. We’ll be back with you on Monday here on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 24 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
