In this episode of Washington Watch, host Tony Perkins takes listeners through a deeply engaging dialogue on recent events impacting Israel, focusing on the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. We discuss the ramifications such actions have on international relations and hear from prominent voices in U.S. politics as they weigh in on these critical issues. As concerns over rising anti-Semitism grow, discover how the House of Representatives is taking a stand and what this means for the international community.
SPEAKER 02 :
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. Washington Watch with Tony Perkins starts now.
SPEAKER 03 :
The ICC’s decision is outrageous, unlawful, and dangerous. Israel has a right to defend itself and the ICC’s rogue actions only enable the terrorists who seek to wipe Israel off the map.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was Senate Republican Leader John Thune on the Senate floor earlier today, responding to the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former Defense Minister Gallant. Welcome to Washington Watch. Thanks for tuning in. The European Union’s top diplomat, Joseph Borre, stated that the ICC’s warrants are binding on all parties.
SPEAKER 17 :
This decision is a binding decision, and all states, all states’ parties of the court, which include all members of the European Union, are binding to implement this court decision.
SPEAKER 07 :
We’ll get reaction from Capitol Hill in just a moment. And staying with the topic of Israel, the House of Representatives passed a resolution yesterday condemning the global rise of anti-Semitism.
SPEAKER 13 :
Silence is not an option. We know it. In the fight against antisemitism, we need government at all levels to denounce, chronicle, and prosecute where these thoughts matriculate into evil deeds. If you just stand by idly, you enable it. You need to call it out.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith the author of the resolution. He’ll join me shortly to discuss this important measure. Meanwhile on Capitol Hill controversy erupted as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee to address the threats facing our nation.
SPEAKER 05 :
American people need to know we’ve got multiple threats that are out there. We need to know about special interest aliens. We’ve had the Chinese have done a significant hack into telecom systems in the United States. This is something that needs to come out to the American people and they’re refusing to be able to bring it to life.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was Senator James Langford of Oklahoma earlier today on Fox News. He’s a member of the committee and he’ll be here later to share his thoughts. Is abortion ever medically necessary? Well, FRC’s Mary Sox will join me to discuss a new publication that answers that critical question. And finally, on Agenda 47.
SPEAKER 15 :
And one other thing I’ll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., and sending all education and education worker needs back to the states. We want them to run the education of our children because they’ll do a much better job of it.
SPEAKER 07 :
That, of course, was President-elect Donald Trump pledging to disassemble the Department of Education. But how exactly does his team plan to dismantle a federal agency? We’ll talk with Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for education studies at the Family Research Council and a former member of the Trump administration’s Department of Education. All of this and more on today’s edition of Washington Watch. I invite you to join us for Operation Prayer Shield, which is a unified movement of believers interceding for God’s divine protection, wisdom, and guidance over our nation during this critical transition between administrations. By joining, you’ll become part of a powerful collective effort standing in prayer for our leaders, our nation, and the challenges ahead. Simply text SHIELD, that’s S-H-I-E-L-D, to 67742. When you sign up, you’ll receive weekly alerts to keep you informed and inspired, prayer points to help you focus your intercession, and other resources to strengthen your prayer effort. So let’s come together as one voice seeking God’s hand of protection over our nation and our allies like Israel. So text the word SHIELD to 67742. Well, as I mentioned earlier today, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former defense minister, Yoav Galant. The court claimed that it found reasonable ground to believe that each bear responsibility for committing the war crime of starvation and crimes against humanity. What effect could this decision have and how will the United States respond? Joining me now to discuss this and more is Congressman Chris Smith, senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He’s the co-chair of the Israeli Allies Caucus, and he’s the co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Anti-Semitism. He represents the 4th Congressional District of New Jersey. Congressman Smith, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always great to see you.
SPEAKER 13 :
Great to see you, Tony. Thank you for having me on. Appreciate your work.
SPEAKER 07 :
The United States does not officially recognize the ICC’s authority, but what does this mean? What effect will this have, and how will the United States respond to it?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, the United States, as John Thune so eloquently just stated on the Senate floor, should repudiate the indictments. Netanyahu is a tremendous head of state as prime minister of Israel and is defending his people against an existential threat posed by Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and others who are committed to the complete elimination of Israel and the killing of Jews. He’s responding at first to October 7th, when all those horrific atrocities occurred. But it has been ongoing, and it’s been something that cried out for what Netanyahu has tried to do, and that is to restore order, to end the bitter fruit of anti-Semitism, especially as conveyed through absolute violence. You know, this is nothing subtle about what Hamas has been trying to do. And I applaud Netanyahu. And frankly, as you pointed out, we have not ratified. Clinton signed the ICC, but that was repudiated by Bush. And the good news is the Senate never even came close to ratifying. Department of Defense is against it for this very reason. that when a just war is being waged, the ICC stands there ready to indict people like a president or, in this case, a prime minister, Netanyahu. So it’s outrageous. And we need to… I mean, the administration needs to speak out boldly. The problem is… If Netanyahu were to travel to any signatory nation, they would feel potentially obligated by law to arrest them and send them to The Hague for prosecution. Again, absolutely outrageous.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, as I played the clip from the European Union’s top diplomat, Boré, he came out in support of the decision and he says that members of the EU are bound to implement it. I mean, what does that look like for our European allies?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, it looks awful. And, you know, it’s par for the course. You know, the European Union has been notorious for its siding with the PLO and then the PLA and now Hamas. They’ve always had their finger on the scale against Israel. And, of course, much of that goes back to the very problems of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. And you would think that they would have learned by now that the killing of Jews, the extermination, the genocide of Jews will never again happen. And Netanyahu has said it will never happen, especially on his watch. So the European Union has failed again. And I find that outrageous as well. But, Netanyahu, this needs to be reversed. You know, even during when we were in a war against Serbia, you might recall years ago, the ICC was looking at potential war crimes against the United States because of the way our pilots were flying in a way that’s less likely to lead to their downing by surface-to-air missiles. Are you kidding me? Once there’s an aggression, a country like the United States or like what we thought were our allies, and certainly Israel, which is a close ally, needs the ability to defend itself. And there has been no genocide, crimes against humanity or anything else being committed by the Israelis. And again, I think it’s outrageous. It’s a further manifestation of UN and UN type of anti-Semitism. I chaired four congressional hearings in this Congress alone about UNRWA, about the UN Human Rights Council, and how they are just absolutely infiltrated by anti-Semitic personnel who then on a daily basis go after Israel in such cruelty. And they need friends and partners, and certainly the administration needs to speak out strongly, just like Johnson did.
SPEAKER 07 :
We did not know that this decision was going to be handed down today. But yesterday, the House passed your resolution condemning the global rise of anti-Semitism, which I should say we saw it on full display here in our country this past year. But prior to that, we saw the rise in Europe. where we see now the statement by the top diplomat in the EU to pursue the ICC’s arrest warrants of the prime minister. You led this legislation. You sponsored it in the House. Why? I mean, I think this is a perfect example of why that resolution is so important.
SPEAKER 13 :
Oh, without a doubt. You know, I remember when we were trying to get the the OSCE and I was the head of delegation. It’s all the European countries, Russia and the United States and Canada to take on the issue of combating anti-Semitism. I was shocked. This was back in the early 2000, 2001, even before that, about the pushback. by so many of the countries that make up Europe. And it shocked me, frankly. And I actually did a hearing in 1995. When we took over the House in 94, one of my first hearings was just that, the rising tide of anti-Semitism. And it has only gotten demonstrably worse over the years. And, as a matter of fact, one of my witnesses in 2002, A rabbi with the Wiesenthal Center said, you know, the the Holocaust kind of provided a protective Teflon. These are his words over more overt anti-Semitism. He said that has faded. And that was back in 2002 that he said that. And now, you know, it is just like. just people feel unfettered in their ability to hate Jews and to say it publicly and to act it out through violence. So the ICC, this is one of the worst marks on them imaginable to indict a sitting prime minister who is defending his country against aggression that is unspeakable.
SPEAKER 07 :
Sadly, we see some of this anti-Semitism even coming from our own Congress. Oh, sure. Now, I will say the vote yesterday was 388 to 21. I mean, that’s overwhelming. But there were some, like Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who said it does nothing to combat anti-Semitism. And she said, and this is quoting her, dangerously conflates legitimate criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism. Your response to that?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, you know, I’ve had Natan Sharansky, the great human rights defender, several times at hearings. I actually went with Frank Wolff, and I mentioned it yesterday during the debate, to Perm Camp 35 in the Earl Mountains in the 1980s when they were horribly mistreating him. And we went to that Perm Camp and visited many of the prisoners of conscience. He said at my hearings, this is Natan Sharansky, legitimate criticism is welcomed Israel is a democracy, just like the United States. And when constructive criticism is offered, even though it may hurt, it’s a good thing. That’s what democracies are all about, a marketplace of ideas where all of that conflict in a benign way takes place. That’s not the case here. He said, as soon as you enter into what he called the three Ds, demonization, delegitimization of Israel, and the third one was… Delegitimization, demonization, and the ability of just no longer allowing it to exist. Once you cross that threshold, what you’re doing now, frankly, is saying Israel has no right to exist. So they use that as a cover. that they’re just disagreeing with Israel’s policies. But then they act out through violence, and they do a terrible thing. But Sharansky was right. We’ve got to realize this is just a facade for practicing anti-Semitism and, of course, traditional anti-Semitism that goes back through the centuries of hating Jews simply because they happen to be Jewish. Right. You know, I think it’s demonic, and we need to call it out.
SPEAKER 07 :
And you did that yesterday, and we appreciate that. Always great to see you, Congressman Smith. Thanks for joining us. Folks, stick with us. We’re back with more after this.
SPEAKER 06 :
The throne of Jesus Christ is unchallenged. His name was never on the ballot to begin with, and it’s never going to be on the ballot. He’s the King of Kings, and he’s the Lord of Lords, and nothing’s going to change that. And so our mission stays the same. Preach the gospel, make disciples, get ready for heaven. In the meantime, that we’re to advance the concerns of the kingdom of God here on earth.
SPEAKER 07 :
America has entered a critical and vulnerable period from now until January the 20th. Join Family Research Council for Operation Prayer Shield, a 10-week prayer initiative for our nation. From now until January 20th, our country faces global challenges, a transition of leadership, and a lame duck session of Congress. This season calls for heightened spiritual vigilance, discernment, and prayer. Text the word SHIELD to 67742 to join us. You’ll have access to prayer points, scripture, prayer calls. Text SHIELD to 67742. Unite with us and pray for our nation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Let’s not be discouraged. Don’t lose heart. Don’t lose the faith. Stand now strong because the Lord has given us the great privilege of living in a time when our choices matter, when our lives matter, when our courage matters. So let’s stand together and save this great country. God bless the United States of America.
SPEAKER 14 :
The American Republic has a freedom like no other. It has roots in the scriptures. far more than any other heritage. And if we as followers of Jesus and conservatives don’t defend it, who will?
SPEAKER 01 :
Neutrality is not an option. There are many Christians who believe that if we just keep our heads down, if we just don’t say the wrong thing, that somehow we will come out of this unscathed. You’re naive if you think that, because what they want from us is not our silence. What they want from us is our submission.
SPEAKER 16 :
Part of the dilemma of Christianity in our generation is that we’ve relied a little too much on human wisdom and human reasoning, human strength, human resource, and we’ve relied too little on the power of God and God’s ability to open doors that we can’t open and do things that we couldn’t even hope to begin to do.
SPEAKER 09 :
This may not be an easy task, But we are living in a moment of challenge, but also a great opportunity. And we know always that we are not alone, that his spirit empowers us and protects us, and that he can do the unimaginable. Dobbs, after all, was never supposed to happen.
SPEAKER 07 :
Father, we thank you. You have entrusted us with this moment in history, and I pray that we would be found faithful, and that as a result of our faithfulness to you, that thousands, millions would come into the kingdom as they would experience the forgiveness of sin and the new life that is found only in Jesus Christ. Amen. All right. This morning, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was scheduled to have its annual hearing on threats to the homeland. But it was postponed after the heads of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI refused to appear to provide public testimony. Now, this is the first time that this has happened in more than 15 years. Why? Why this year of all years? Joining me now to discuss this and more, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, who serves on four Senate committees, including the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He’s also vice chair elect of the Senate Republican Conference. Senator Lankford, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thank you. Good to be back with you again. All right. So why? Why no show? Why did they not show up to share with the American public the threats that exist out there?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, what’s interesting is they had actually, we had originally asked for this hearing in September. They had come back and said, hey, we don’t want to do it right before the election. We feel like it will be too political. And so we postponed it till right after the election. And then literally today they come out and say, we don’t want to come. We’ll come in a classified setting, but we don’t want to be in an open setting. This is Ali Mayorkas. So we’re obviously talking about immigration issues. And this is Christopher Wray. There are two major issues that are still moving right now that both of them need to not just answer for, but inform the American people of. We tried to get the number of what’s called special interest aliens out of DHS for months, and they will not come out even to us with that number. And apparently we’re not willing to be able to talk about it today. And there’s been a major hack of our telecommunications system by the Chinese that I was planning and already informed Christopher Wray we need to talk about this in a public setting so the American people can know more about it. And then they failed to be able to even show up today to be able to talk about it. So they knew the topics. They just bailed and said we don’t want to talk about them.
SPEAKER 07 :
Is it that bad that they don’t want to tell the American people what has happened on their watch?
SPEAKER 05 :
I actually have no idea why they would possibly do that. Again, they said we’ll come in a classified setting, but a classified setting doesn’t help the American people to be able to know what’s happening. And our committee is not trying to be able to attack them personally, but we are trying to be able to deal with what’s happening. a political thing. We’re past an election. But the American people need to know what the Chinese are doing. We need to know the threats. We need to know what’s actually happening and some of the things that are still present in our country from a wide open border. So we’ll know how to be able to process those things together.
SPEAKER 07 :
And when it’s in a classified setting as you said the American people they can’t observe what is being shared in that in that hearing. But you can’t talk about it either if it’s classified.
SPEAKER 05 :
Correct. So it’s not just I know the information now as well, but then it’s restricted for how I can actually distribute that information. There are aspects of this that can be discussed. The FBI just yesterday in this hack of the telecom system, the FBI put out a veiled response on that yesterday and made a public statement on it. So, OK, if you can put that public statement out, why can’t you come and just make a broader statement publicly on a non classified setting?
SPEAKER 07 :
Other breaking news today, Senator Langford, Congressman, former Congressman Matt Gaetz, who had been tapped by President Trump, President-elect Trump to be the attorney general, announced this afternoon he’s withdrawing from that after spending yesterday on Capitol Hill meeting with some senators. What were you hearing about that potential confirmation process with Congress, former Congressman Gaetz?
SPEAKER 05 :
Everyone I know of it already said, hey, this is a president’s pick. We want them to go through the whole process on it. Obviously, we’re preparing starting the meeting yesterday. I was not in any of those meetings yesterday. But people were saying, OK, let’s let’s give it a fair shake. Let’s get a chance to be able to go through the process. He’ll have public testimony that will come out in the days ahead. And then he withdrew today. So I don’t know what that final vote would have been and where people would have landed and voted on it. But I do know everyone was committed to actually going through the full nomination process. That’s the responsibility of the Senate has to do advice and consent. When the president nominates someone, the Senate should take them up and actually give them a fair shake to be able to go through the process and allow them to be able to speak publicly, not just through the press on it. Obviously, that’s not going to happen to the president. I’ll be able to find another good attorney general. There’s a lot of great options that are out there for attorney general that will be good in the law, good at trying to be able to restore some kind of trust back in the Department of Justice again.
SPEAKER 07 :
That role that the Senate plays is not a rubber stamp. Now, I know that even if the president’s of the same party, it is an official role of advice and consent. So the Senate has to, as you said, go through the process, vet the candidate, make sure that they are qualified.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right, everyone’s passionate about the Constitution, so are we. And for some people that have said, hey, if Trump picks something, we should just automatically do it. I’m like, hey, that’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says the Senate has an advice and consent role, which we should take seriously through the process on that and make sure that we’re working together, that every person in the executive branch, all these cabinet officials, that they do represent the American people and the views of the president and the policy directions of it. Now, the president has some people, as you know, like Elon Musk, that will be an advisor to the president, will work on government efficiency. Elon’s not going to be in the cabinet. That’s not what he’s asking Elon Musk to be able to do. He’ll be an advisor to the president. The president can pick his own advisors like that, and they don’t go through Senate confirmation. But if they are a cabinet official, they do constitutionally go through that Senate confirmation.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, you’re going to have an opportunity to practice that a lot in the next as we get into toward January, because there’s there’s already been a number of people that have been tapped. The president’s wasting no time in putting his team together. I want to switch gears once again, Senator Langford. Also today, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. I mean, this is and I was talking about this earlier in the program with Congressman Chris Smith. We’re not a party to the ICC. But nonetheless, this affects one of our critical and strategic allies.
SPEAKER 05 :
It does, actually. And this is, again, a reminder of why we’re not a participant in the International Criminal Court is because they are a rogue entity that is practicing things like this, saying that, hey, they’re going to actually try to prosecute the leader of a country that was attacked with acts of terrorism that still has hostages, that’s taking inbound missiles and rockets every single day from terrorist organizations. They want to reach in at that moment. and to be able to try to arrest and prosecute the leader of that country that’s being attacked. That is absolute insanity. So we need to continue to be able to stand with our ally Israel. We need to call out the International Criminal Court for who they are. The House has already said that they want to be able to sanction leaders of the ICC on that. The Senate and Chuck Schumer has failed to even take up that bill that the House has overwhelmingly passed, that the Senate’s not even taking it up for debate even. So let’s just call it out for what it is on that and say we’re going to continue to pray for peace in Jerusalem and for the entire region. We pray for all those civilians and individuals that are affected, all those families that are waiting for their loved ones to come home, that their loved ones are hostages being held in Gaza. But we also want to see the chicanery stop from the International Criminal Court.
SPEAKER 07 :
Just about 25 seconds left, but that’s going to change come January when the Republicans are in control of the United States Senate. I look to that body being much more friendly toward our ally Israel.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I would assume it would be by far based on even the vote that happened yesterday with Senator Sanders brought up a vote to be able to cut off arms sales to Israel. Nineteen Democrats supported that. Not a single Republican. Things like that are not going to be the games in the Senate anymore. Let’s focus on what we’re going to do to end that war, bring peace to the region and stand with our allies. All right.
SPEAKER 07 :
Senator James Langford, always great to see you. Thanks for joining us. Good to see you again, Tony. All right, folks, on the other side of the break, a new publication from the Family Research Council, Difficult Conversations About Abortion. That’s next, don’t go away.
SPEAKER 08 :
All of us are born with the desire to find truth and meaning. Where did I come from? What happens when I die? While our answers to these questions may divide us, we are united in our need for the freedom to answer life’s biggest questions and make life’s biggest decisions for ourselves. That’s why religious freedom matters for everyone. Religious freedom matters because the powerful have long wanted to control those who are less powerful. Religious freedom matters because the freedom of those who are different is often threatened by those who believe different is dangerous. Leah Sharibu, a Christian teenager in Nigeria, remains a captive of Boko Haram for her refusal to renounce her Christian faith. Chinese pastor Wang Yi is serving a nine-year sentence for speaking publicly against the Chinese government. In Pakistan, Asif Pervez is on death row for allegedly sending a blasphemous text message. All of this because people in power decided different is dangerous. at the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council. We promote religious freedom for everyone because the only alternative is religious freedom for no one. We encourage Americans and the American government to engage and advocate for the persecuted. And they do. We work every day to bring good news to the afflicted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners. We do it because that’s what Jesus does. We work to give freedom to others because we ourselves have been set free.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us on this Thursday. The website tonyperkins.com. Better yet, download the app, the Stand Firm app, and you’ll have access to Washington Watch, the Washington Stand, and all of our resources like the one I’m about to tell you about. Go to the App Store and download the Stand Firm app. Stand firm so you can stand firm. When it comes to the abortion issue, we often hear the argument that it’s needed in order to save the life of a mother. But that’s a misconception that comes from the misinformation being spread by the pro-abortion lobby to instill fear into the general public. So what’s the truth? Well, Family Research Council has a series of resources on difficult conversations about abortion. And the latest installment addresses this very question. Is abortion ever medically necessary? Joining me now to discuss this is one of the authors of the resource, Mary Salk, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview, the Center for Life here at the Family Research Council. Mary, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thanks so much for having me on.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. So let’s dive straight into the main question. Is abortion ever medically necessary.
SPEAKER 12 :
It’s not Tony and the CDC’s definition abortion is the intentional ending. of a pregnancy that falls in line with a state’s legal parameters. So under that definition, the intentional killing of an unborn child, abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. And in fact, performing an abortion on a pregnant mother would make things worse for her, would put her in greater jeopardy. than performing, say, an early induction or a premature delivery. So we know that the best course of action for every patient in this scenario is for physicians to actually treat both patients with dignity and respect.
SPEAKER 07 :
The misconception that’s being pushed out there is that pro-life laws would prohibit doctors from saving the life of a mother. And the only way to save the life of the mother would be to abort the baby. That’s not true. If a doctor is serving the first patient, which is the mother, and something happens to the baby in the process of saving the mother, that’s not an abortion.
SPEAKER 12 :
No, absolutely not. And we know when an abortion happens where a baby lives, when an abortionist is trying to intentionally kill an unborn child and that baby miraculously lives, that’s called a failed abortion. When a physician is performing an early delivery and that baby lives, everyone cheers. That’s the outcome that everyone hopes for, the miracle that everyone’s been praying for. And we know that there are those cases where a woman’s membranes have ruptured or where she has a heart condition or perhaps even cancer that requires some sort of treatment for her that could inadvertently cause harm to her baby. But we know in those situations, the intention and the direct action are not taken to kill that child. The intention and direct action are taken to preserve the life of her mother.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. So first off, it’s helpful to have the right terms. An abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child, taking the life of a child. That’s intentional. When you are working to save the life of a mother and in the process that her baby were to die, that’s not an abortion. And so they’re conflating this and they’re trying to misguide and mislead by conflating terms, misusing terms just to scare the public. Are they not?
SPEAKER 12 :
To scare the public and to scare physicians, quite frankly, we have seen a number of cases. ProPublica has documented several instances where they have sort of manipulated the facts to make it try to appear that pro-life laws somehow endangered a mother’s life. But that’s not the case at all. In those situations, in at least two of the cases, it was, in fact, LIKELY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE ABORTIONIST OR OF THE PHYSICIANS TREATING THE MOTHER. BECAUSE OF THIS INFORMATION THAT IS BEING SPREAD BY THE ABORTION LOBBY, PHYSICIANS ARE CONFUSED. THEY ARE WONDERING WHAT CAN WE DO, WHAT CAN’T WE DO. WE NEVER WORRIED ABOUT THIS BEFORE DOBS. DO WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT NOW? AND THAT IS ON THE ABORTION INDUSTRY. BRO LIFERS ARE OUT THERE SAYING YOU CAN TREAT A MOM.
SPEAKER 07 :
THAT IS SO SAD. THEY ARE PUTTING THE LIVES OF WOMEN AT RISK. in order to advance their agenda, which is to protect abortion. It’s tragic what the abortion industry is doing. But again, it lays bare what we’ve known all along. It’s profit driven. It’s not about the health or well-being of women and certainly not of babies. Mary, where can folks get a copy of this new publication regarding difficult conversations about abortion?
SPEAKER 12 :
It’s at frc.org slash difficult conversations. And you’ll find conversations not only on this topic, but also on the conversation of rape and incest, on ectopic pregnancy, and other conversations that you might find challenging to start regarding protecting the dignity of the unborn child.
SPEAKER 07 :
So these are written in such a way that someone can read through it. They’ll then have a basic understanding of how they can engage in conversations to, you know, very compassionately but with firmness push back on the false narratives that many people are just repeating because they don’t have the facts.
SPEAKER 12 :
Right, and our first point in all of these is to make sure that you listen and that you respond with compassion, always assuming that the person you talk to may have some sort of a personal connection to whatever the issue is that you’re having a heated discussion over. So pray for the help of the Holy Spirit, listen, and then respond with truth and love.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s it. Mary, thanks so much for joining us, and again, great work once again.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thanks so much for having me.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. And folks, you can check it out. Go to Tony Perkins dot com and follow links over. But it’s a great time to have resources like this so you can have conversations as we approach the holiday season. They come up. Need to talk about. Don’t go away. More straight ahead. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council here in Washington, D.C. Behind me is one of the most recognizable buildings in all the world, the U.S. Capitol. What does it stand for? Well, most people say government. But you know, the Bible talks about four institutions of government. You know what they are? And do we have a republic or a democracy? Well, what do you say? Also, what about this thing, separation of church and state? Does that mean Christians shouldn’t be involved in government? Guess what? We address those issues and more in our new God and Government course. I invite you to join us to see what the historical record and the Bible has to say about government. Join us for God and Government.
SPEAKER 10 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our worldview. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They’re disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. But that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release and the forest and the trees.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Again, let me invite you to join us in Operation Prayer Shield as we pray for our nation. We pray for Israel, as we’ve been talking about today. They remain under attack and America needs to stand with them. And as we were discussing, you know, we can be critical when they get policy issues wrong, but we support their right to exist. That’s really what is driving the anti-Semitism that we see around the world and even here in our own country. So anyway, join us for Operation Prayer Shield as we pray from now until January the 20th when the new administration comes in. We’ve got lots of resources for you to help us. in this process as you pray and think through and be mindful of the threats we face and the need we have for god’s hand of protection to be upon the country so text the word shield to six seven seven four two that shield to six seven seven four two Our word for today comes from Isaiah chapter 2. Many people shall come and say, come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways and we shall walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law. In the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, he shall judge between the nations and rebuke many people. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war anymore. This passage describes the millennial kingdom when Jesus reigns and teaches the nations his ways through the word of the Lord. Now, this begins with the gospel, which calls all people to walk in his path. Now, from Jerusalem, Jesus will judge the nations. He will rebuke rebellion and establish a peace unlike anything the world has ever known. Verse 4’s imagery of swords turned into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks reflects total transformation. Nations will no longer prepare for war, but live in harmony under Christ. True global peace will not come through human efforts or organizations like the United Nations. It will come only through Jesus in Jerusalem, where He will reign as the Prince of Peace. For more on our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742. Well, during his campaign for a second term in office, then White House hopeful Donald Trump pledged to close the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, D.C., and send the education work and the needs back to the states. Great idea. But what? will it take to get this done? What will be involved in eliminating the Department of Education? Joining me now to discuss this question and much more is Meg Kilgannon, Senior Fellow for Education Studies here at the Family Research Council. She previously served in the U.S. Department of Education during the first Trump administration as Director of the Office of Faith and Opportunity Initiatives. Meg, thanks for joining me for this conversation.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thanks for having me, Tony.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. So first off, I want to get your reaction to the pick of former Trump administrator of the Small Business Administration, Linda McCann, as the secretary of education in this term.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, I like this pick. I had her on my bingo card going to commerce, but I love her at education. I think that we need someone who is not a part of the educational industrial complex to be in charge of this department so that it can do the work that the American people want it to do until we try to shut it down. which we’ll talk about in a minute. But I think that she is obviously a very trusted member of the Trump team. The president-elect entrusted her to run the transition for his team, which was where we saw the first Russiagate things happening. And so she’s obviously a highly regarded person in his world. And I think that’s a good sign for education. I think it’s going to be an important topic for the president. And I think that she is going to hit the ground running.
SPEAKER 07 :
So big task to actually uproot a federal agency. I mean, to eliminate a total bureaucracy. I mean, this is a pretty big one. Now, I’ve talked about this and you and I have talked about on the program before. Well, they don’t give a lot of money to the state. Average is somewhere between seven to 10 percent of the public education funds come from the federal government. But they have not just strings attached. They have cables attached to those dollars that they send. How might they go about this process of sending the power and the authority back to the states?
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, you need an act of Congress to eliminate the Department of Education and to send the money directly to the states. So it’s going to be a heavy lift. And the people running the Department of Education aren’t going to necessarily be in charge of that part of it, right? But right now, we have not much money and a lot of strings, a lot of difficult, ridiculous strings and cables, as you described them. But I think that it might be possible to get to 60 votes on a bill to undo the Department of Education if you gave them more money with the promise of fewer strings. And by that I mean if you sweetened this deal with the idea of increasing Title I spending and increasing spending for special needs students under the IDEA Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, you might be able to get surprising coalition of people to support closing down the Department of Education in Washington DC and I think that that is something that the the left is sleeping on a little bit here when they they like to scream about the fact that the Department of Education is threatening to be closed but I think you could find a coalition of the willing on this with the right sweeteners
SPEAKER 07 :
Could this be accomplished through reconciliation since that’s a budget mechanism? We’re talking about government spending. Could that be a means of going after this without having to have the to meet the 60 vote threshold?
SPEAKER 11 :
I think that’s a working theory that’s out there. I think that that is something that is on the table as a potential option. But there are a lot of things you can do with the department in terms of you could spin off the student loan portion of the work of the department, for example, to an agency like the Department of Treasury, which is really where that kind of things should be housed in the first place. And so that would greatly lessen the budget of the department itself, right? You could off the Office of Civil Rights, which is a huge, huge problem for Christian universities anytime a Democrat is in control of the department, because they tend to go after Christian universities relentlessly you could you could put that at the Department of Justice now that doesn’t necessarily help you in terms of having bad actors in charge of legal offices but it takes it out of the hands of the Department of Education so the less work we have generated by the department it makes it easier and easier to wind it down and then eventually to shut it down so I think all of those kinds of ideas are on the table
SPEAKER 07 :
What this would accomplish, if you’re sending back education, the authority and the responsibility for education to the states, this is further strengthening our federalist system. Because you are empowering these states, as we’re seeing with other issues, They are being empowered. And through that, when they succeed, people around the country are going to be voting with their feet by going to states that are successful economically, states that have a strong moral foundation, they’re safe, strong families because they have good policy. So you’re going to see states like California, New York, people are going to be continuing to flock out of those states. So this will only accelerate that which is already happening across the country, in my view.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think that’s right. I mean, right now the Department of Education is being used to enforce blue state values on red states. And a great example of that is this Title IX rule that they’ve issued that is enforcing a gender ideology framework around the idea of protecting women and men in sports and schools. Essentially, it was to provide nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education. And that’s been just completely perverted under this Title IX paradigm that we have now. Now, the new folks coming in are not going to be able to turn on a dime and undo that rule immediately. You have to go through notice and comment. You have to write a new rule. You can’t just say we’re not going to enforce this right now. It will, unfortunately, be the law of the land. It’s enjoined right now. We’re waiting decisions in the Sixth and Fifth Circuits. So there are some states that are not required to operate under the new rule. and the states that are affected by the new rule are effectively have some version of this ideology already in their school systems. So it’s going to be a lot of work. It’s going to be a lot of complicated legal work. Then when you talk about, you know, until you could maybe spend off student loans, having to go back and undo these lawless things that the Cardona administration has done to try to forgive student loans. That kind of whiplash that we see with the department going back and forth incessantly between two polarized ideologies is just very unhealthy for the nation because you’re talking about children who are caught in the crossfire of all this fighting.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, that’s a point that I’ve made with government as a whole because, and this is This is actually, we’ve talked about it from a scriptural standpoint, because this is what happens when a country loses its moral compass, and it vacillates back and forth, and it’s not just marginally. It is extreme from one side to the other as people respond to the policies of the left. And it’s not healthy. It’s not healthy for our children, as you pointed out. It’s not healthy for our relationships with our foreign allies because they don’t know what to expect from one election to the next. So let me ask you this about the Department of Education and what you have laid out and how complex it is. It’s not just like flipping a light switch or turning the light switch off. Can it be accomplished in four years.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well I think you can get a good running start in four years and I think even if you could flip the light switch you’re going to have a long legal battle ahead of you when you try to actually close this department down or any part in any part of the federal government. Unfortunately so I think that that there’s going to be a team of people who are going to go in and they’re going to be willing to think creatively about how to best harness this department and to make it truly in service of families and students and not doing the bidding of every radical interest groups that comes to the door and puts pressure on a president or the secretary.
SPEAKER 07 :
You know, I think they also need a ideological ideologically driven demolition crew. And what I mean by that is and hear me out is to go in and think creatively on how do we blow this thing up so that when if four years from now you get the left back in control, which would be the pattern we’ve seen. They can’t jump right back in and drive their agenda, just like what this administration did in pulling out of Afghanistan, leaving all of that equipment behind. They should have blown it up so that the terrorists couldn’t have used it. I think we’ve got to have a creative crew that is at the same time working to make sure that they can’t jump back in in four years and use this Department of Education to continue indoctrinating our children where they left off.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think all of the appointments that we’ve seen coming out of this transition are indicating that that’s exactly what they’re intending to do in terms of, you know, in terms of disrupting the federal stranglehold on the nation, so to speak. We need to cut back regulations. There’s so many things that we need to do. And you could set a great example of how to do things and how to do things creatively by going into the Department of Education really REELING BACK SOME OF THE REALLY EGREGIOUS NONSENSE THAT’S BEEN GOING ON IN THERE. I MEAN, THEY WERE PART OF THE REASON WHY WE HAD COVID RESTRICTIONS FOR LONGER BECAUSE THE TEACHERS UNIONS WERE IN THERE LOBBYING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO KEEP THE SCHOOLS SHUT DOWN. which just delayed everybody’s recovery and our economic recovery from COVID. So you’re right. And then in terms of foreign policy, we had the whole crisis of campus protests last year after the horrible October 7th attack. That is something, you know, working on fighting anti-Semitism on college campuses is a really high priority. And I think you’re going to see that from this administration, from the new administration. Right. There’s so many things that can be done from this department that are absolutely worth doing and are easy to accomplish in a way if you know that the actual closing of the department is a big lift and it’s time to really think about how are we going to run this department because we can’t let it run us when our team is in charge. We have to be running the government.
SPEAKER 07 :
You know, I don’t know what makes the incoming secretary, once confirmed, better qualified. Was it the fact that she ran the Small Business Administration or that she had a background in professional wrestling? That might be better. That might better equip her to take on this monumental task, but a significant one.
SPEAKER 11 :
Right. And she has service as a board member of a Catholic college, an independent college. So she’s on our team in that regard. So I think that she has a lot to offer in this area that will be a positive.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, there is a lot ahead. And this one is one that does excite me because education, as we’ve talked about so often on this program, our children, their worldview is formulated between 15 months and 13 years. And we see the left increasingly trying to bring that age down to earlier and earlier childhood education. We need to get this back closer to the parents. In fact, it’s the parents that need to be driving that process of helping instill the right worldview into the lives of their children. Meg Kilgannon, always great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us today.
SPEAKER 11 :
It’s great to be here.
SPEAKER 07 :
And folks, it’s another thing to pray about. I mean, there’s going to be so many things coming forward. We need to pray for wisdom, discernment and be careful. Don’t just take everything at face value. Pray through these things. Pray that the truth would prevail and the curtain would be pulled back. This is a great opportunity that we have. It doesn’t solve everything. but it gives us the opportunity to rebuild the moral foundation of our country and move our country forward. But we all have to be involved. We have to pray. We have to vote. We have to stand. And with that, let me leave you with this. The words of the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6, when he says, you’ve done everything you can do when you’ve prayed, when you’ve prepared, and when you’ve taken your stand, by all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 02 :
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.
