In a heated House Judiciary Committee hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced scrutiny over the CDC’s handling of the COVID pandemic, sparking a robust debate on whether recent changes were warranted. Later in the episode, we explore the theological and constitutional implications of a debate ignited by Senator Tim Kaine’s comments on the origins of our rights. In a compelling reflection of America’s foundational beliefs, experts discuss the intersection of faith, governance, and the enduring legacy of the Founding Fathers. Don’t miss this thought-provoking conversation that challenges and inspires.
SPEAKER 03 :
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, Jody Heiss.
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, good afternoon. Welcome to this Thursday edition of Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss, Senior Fellow here at the Family Research Council, and an honor to be filling in today for Tony. We have a lot to bring your way in the next hour, so stay with us. First of all, with Congress back in session, so are the hearings. And when there are hearings, there typically are fireworks that often come with them. And among the hearings was one yesterday on how European online censorship laws threaten the right of Americans to speak freely online here in the United States.
SPEAKER 05 :
This legislation we’ve got will damage trade between our countries, threaten free speech across the West because of the knock-on, roll-out effects of this legislation from us or from the European Union. So I’ve come today as well to be a klaxon, to say to you, don’t allow, piece by piece, this to happen here in America.
SPEAKER 17 :
Very interesting. That was UK Member of Parliament Nigel Farage yesterday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and I’ll be discussing this here in just a few moments when I’m joined by Peter McElvain, who works in the office of the UK’s House of Lords, and he’ll be coming to us from the UK. And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was on the hot seat today. He faced an angry group of Democrats who were upset over a number of things, including the recent shakeup at the CDC. In his defense, Secretary Kennedy said that those changes were absolutely necessary given the CDC’s handling of the COVID pandemic.
SPEAKER 04 :
America is home to 4.2% of the world’s population, yet we had nearly 20% of the COVID deaths. We literally did worse than any country in the world. And the people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving.
SPEAKER 17 :
So is Secretary Kennedy endangering Americans, as all the critics are claiming, or is he protecting them? Well, we will have that discussion with North Carolina Congressman Mark Harris, who will be joining me in just a little bit. And then there were these absolutely outlandish remarks that took place during a Senate Finance Committee hearing yesterday in which Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia attacked a Trump nominee, catch this, for believing that our rights come from God and not from government.
SPEAKER 15 :
You state, and this is a quote from Secretary Rubio, our rights come from God, our creator, not from our laws, not from our government. I find that very, very troubling. The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the creator, that’s what the Iranian government believes.
SPEAKER 17 :
Wow. Absolutely unbelievable. Well, you want to stick with us. I’ll be discussing this later when I’m joined by Dr. Matt Spalding of Hillsdale College. And also on today’s program, I’ll discuss the latest in the Trump administration’s legal battle over the president’s emergency tariffs. Spencer Morrison, he’s the editor-in-chief of the National Economics Editorial. He will be joining me for that discussion. So, as I said a while ago, we have a lot coming your way in the next hour. You certainly don’t want to miss any of it. But if you do, our website is TonyPerkins.com. You can go there, but I encourage you, in addition to that, if you don’t already have it, download the StandFirm app. where you can get this program, the Washington Stand, and tons of other information. Simply text APP to 67742 if you don’t already have the Stand Firm app. And then, real quickly, before we jump into our next guest, I want to encourage you about our upcoming PrayVote Stand Summit coming October 17th and 18th in Chino Hills, California. If you register within the next week, you can get a discount. You don’t want to miss that. Simply use the code FALL, and that would be not like fall down, but like the fall time of year. Text FALL for a special code, and you’ll be able to get that. You can learn more to register or learn more at PrayVoteStand.org. All right, now let’s jump into our first news item for today. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine European threats to America’s free speech and innovation. In particular, the hearing highlighted how European online censorship laws threaten the right of Americans to speak freely online, even here in the United States. And on this, one of the witnesses, a member of the UK Parliament, issued a stark warning.
SPEAKER 05 :
This legislation we’ve got will damage trade between our countries, threaten free speech across the West because of the knock-on, roll-out effects of this legislation from us or from the European Union. So I’ve come today as well to be a klaxon, to say to you, don’t allow, piece by piece, this to happen here in America.
SPEAKER 17 :
That was UK Member of Parliament Nigel Farage. So just how grave is this threat? Well, joining me now to discuss this is Peter McIlvena. He’s the co-founder of Hearts of Oak, which is a freedom of speech alliance, and he works in the office of the UK’s House of Lords. Peter, welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you.
SPEAKER 16 :
Great to be with you, Jody. Thanks so much.
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, listen, we’ve got a couple of online censorship laws that came up during the hearing yesterday that are already part of the UK. The Online Safety Act was one of them and the European Union’s Digital Services Act. Can you can you highlight those for us? Tell us what what those are all about.
SPEAKER 16 :
I can and I’m so glad that Nigel is over there in D.C. letting you know what is happening in the UK. And I know the Trump administration already understands these threats. J.D. Vance has spoken a lot about his concerns and was paramount in Apple stopping, making sure the UK government didn’t get a backdoor there. So there’s so many areas. The Online Safety Act, Online Safety Bill, was billed as a child protection app, basically. Keep your children safe. But what it means is that media companies, social media companies, are liable for huge fines if anyone may be offended through what is said. So there, basically, a X is held to the same standard as the New York Post. And this does not mean it’s one country or another. This means that actually it could be anyone, any US citizen, anyone. The UK government doesn’t seem to make any distinction with territorial boundaries. It simply has become judge and arbiter and said anything that is said online, on any social media platform that anyone may find offensive, then you’ve broken the law. And the fines are up to 10% of global annual turnover, not just UK annual turnover, global. So you can see why many media companies have expressed concern to the UK government as they’ve expressed concerns to the European Union on their Digital Services Act, which is just as dangerous and was introduced strangely just days after the UK’s Online Safety Act. But they told us they weren’t colluding together. Nonsense. So this is a huge effort by Europe at large to shut down free speech. They have huge concerns of the rise of populist parties. As you’ve had the huge success of President Trump being re-elected in Europe, we’ve had big successes in Germany with the AFD, in Austria the FPO Marine Le Pen obviously in France and they have done everything they can to make sure and keep that support down so it is the European Union in utter fear that the people may actually have their way
SPEAKER 17 :
So are you saying just a practical perspective here? Could an American citizen traveling to the UK, could they face potential arrest or risk of arrest for something that they posted on social media?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, they could. And let me give you an example of what happened just a day or two ago. And it was a comedian, UK comedian, one of the most famous UK comedians, Graham Lynham. And he’s written a range of hugely popular TV shows. And he has become a free speech activist in terms of the trans issue, in terms of women having women’s spaces and men not being able to call themselves a woman. Fairly common sense. If you read the Bible, God made us male and female. It’s simple. It’s all there in Genesis. But he has been very outspoken about that. And he traveled back from Arizona. He’s actually an Irish citizen. I don’t know if he has a British passport. He’s an Irish passport holder. And he traveled from Arizona to London Heathrow. And he was arrested by, I think it was five or six armed police officers. Now, armed police officers are normal in the US, but here in the UK, it is not the norm. You’ve only got a very small percentage of the police that actually are trained to use firearms. So to be met by five armed police officers is very unusual in the UK. And this was because of Tweet. He has never had violence against anyone, but he was held. He actually was in the magistrate’s court today in Westminster fighting against that. And he wore a huge plaque basically saying that men cannot be women and free speech is important. So he went in fighting, but an Irish citizen, and it could be an American citizen. And a lot of US friends have expressed concerns flying through the UK that they also could be arrested because when you’re in UK territory you don’t have any First or Second Amendment rights here.
SPEAKER 17 :
Right. Wow. Stunning. And look, just springboard from here. We have covered this before, but it’s not just free speech that can get you in trouble in the UK right now, but even your thoughts and prayers, even silent prayers. Are there any updates that you can provide on the public spaces protection order while we have just a little bit of time left here?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, it is still in force and it kind of mirrors the third clip you showed in your intro there with shock from some of our politicians that you would say that everything we have is God given. We have a utter collapse in our frontline politics of any kind. faith element apart from Islam. Certainly Christianity is more or less non-existent in the front benches of both Labour and the Conservative parties. So we have very few Christians in Parliament. And as you mentioned, Your thoughts are now an arrestable offence and prayer. So we have these restrictions outside abortion clinics. I think it’s 500 feet. And around that 500 feet area, you cannot do or say or think anything that may hinder the operation of those abortion clinics. And we have had a number of people arrested today. simply for standing there and praying silently. We still don’t know exactly what the law says on this, but the problem is when you bring in legislation that’s very wide and vague, it then can be used by certain groups to push this through, and this has been used by certain police officers who hate Christianity, who are very aggressive on a Marxist agenda, and they’re using those personal hateful beliefs against us as Christians to make sure and marginalise and silence not only Christians, but on the pro-life issue, those who stand for life, not even from a Christian point of view, that also is not allowed. So we really do need your prayers in the US for us here, that that will be overturned. That came in under a conservative government. That’s the sad state of affairs. And I know Nigel Farage is speaking up against all of those restrictions.
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, thank you so much, Peter McIlvain, a co-founder of Hearts of Oak. We appreciate you staying up and for joining us today on Washington Watch. Incredible information. And we will certainly be praying. Thank you for joining us.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thank you, Judy.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right, friends, we have a lot more Washington Watch coming your way after the break and a lot more issues to cover. So stick around. We’ll be back.
SPEAKER 11 :
Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued its historic Dobbs decision, a ruling that overturned Roe versus Wade, which for nearly 50 years imposed abortion on demand, silencing voters and bypassing the democratic process across the country. The Dobbs decision was a huge step forward against abortion, but it didn’t outright ban it. It returned the power to the people. Now, 29 states have laws on the books protecting life. However, there’s a catch. Abortion numbers since Dobbs have actually gone up with an increase of 12% since 2020, climbing from 930,000 to over 1 million in each of the most recent years. So how can this be? The answer is simple. The abortion drug. Today, over 60% of U.S. abortions involve abortion drugs, many of these without medical oversight. In 2021, the Biden administration quietly removed bare minimum longstanding safety protocols for the abortion drug that have existed for 20 years to protect women from life threatening risks and ensuring informed consent. The Biden DOJ then declared that they would not enforce the Comstock Act, which prevents the mailing of anything that causes an abortion. This is not only illegal, but also dangerous. A study shows nearly 11% of women who take the abortion drug end up in the emergency room with serious complications. Unless the Trump administration reverses these reckless Biden-era policies, pro-life laws will remain largely symbolic. Without a full review and repeal of Mifepristone, unborn lives will remain in grave danger and pregnant mothers will remain at risk. Let’s stand for life and end this mail-order abortion drug pipeline. Sign the petition urging the Trump administration to take action at frc.org slash stop chemical abortion.
SPEAKER 01 :
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory. Family Research Council invites you to join our Stand on the Word Bible reading plan as we reflect upon the life of Jesus, the Word who dwelt among us. Come with us and discover the glory of the Word. Read the Gospels and witness the life-changing story of Jesus, His life, death, and resurrection. Come read how Jesus transformed the lives of common people and how those same people transformed the known world through the power of the Holy Spirit. Come with us for 10 to 15 minutes a day and read the entire New Testament before the new year. Find our Bible reading plan in daily devotionals from Tony Perkins at frc.org slash Bible. Join us in Stand on the Word.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. Welcome back. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony. All right. I mentioned it a while ago, but when Congress is back in session, generally speaking, you can count on fireworks coming with them. particularly as it enters into the various hearings that they have. Well, that took place again today on Capitol Hill as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on the President’s 2026 healthcare agenda. In particular, the Democrats attacked Secretary Kennedy over the shakeup at the CDC, which the secretary said was absolutely necessary considering the CDC’s poor handling of the COVID pandemic. So do Democrats really, do they really think that the CDC did a good job? Do they really think that changes are not needed? Well, joining me now to discuss this and more is Congressman Mark Harris. He serves on several different committees, including judiciary. He represents North Carolina’s 8th Congressional District. Congressman Harris, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always good to have you.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, Jody, it’s great to be with you. Thank you for having me today.
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, listen, I know that your schedule is crazy. You just come off a panel where you’ve been talking to a group of people. So thank you for joining us by phone. Let’s start with all the criticism against Secretary Kennedy that took place today. He was in the hot seat. What are your thoughts about it?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, you know, Secretary Kennedy is following through on really everything that President Trump ran on. I think all of America, reacted in the election in 2024 to really the mismanagement that we saw on these health care issues, and particularly the COVID and the way it was handled under the Biden administration in so many ways. And I think that really, again, we’re seeing just the fulfillment of exactly what President Trump said he was going to do. And I think Secretary Kennedy is making sure that that occurs.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, I tell you, some of the footage that I’ve seen, some of the clips, he was standing pretty tough in the midst of a very hostile environment. Among them was the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. He described that the U.S. is in the midst of a health care calamity. But you listen to that, Congressman Harris, and I don’t know, maybe I’m mistaken, it sounded more like he was talking about the HHS under the Biden administration. Your thoughts?
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, I would agree with that 100%, Jody. I mean, when you look at really trying to get confidence restored in our health care and government in this country, that’s been a big, tall order. And this administration, I think, has really done a great deal to restore confidence in the leadership that’s there. And so for Democrats to compare what’s going on to being chaotic, that’s pretty rich. I find that quite fascinating.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, I’m chuckling with the way you put that. I think that’s right. I mean, let’s look. We’re still, all of us as a country for that matter, we’re still reeling from the shoddy decisions, the mandates of the Biden administration’s HHS that they pressed on the entire country during the COVID pandemic. I mean, their decisions literally negatively impacted impacted our children, our businesses, our military, on and on and on. And you wonder, where in the world do they believe they have the moral high ground now to attack someone who’s trying to correct all those things?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, you’re exactly right. And not only that, but rarely a week goes by that I don’t meet somebody or talk to somebody that is still dealing from the ramifications of the COVID vaccines. I mean, I’ve got folks in my district that talk to me often, very concerned because they’re still dealing with the side effects, the fallout that came from taking the vaccine that was mandated as it was. So I agree with you. I think for this Democrats to be claiming that this administration somehow has us in a state of chaos, I think is way, way off track.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah. And I think the American people have good enough memory to to recall that. If I can, Congressman Harris, let me switch gears on you real quickly. We’re still seeing a lot of pushback again from the Democrats, particularly mayors and governors across the country, various places against Trump’s. crackdown on crime. And yesterday, the president suggested that New Orleans could be next in line for federal assistance from the National Guard. Give me your assessment of what the president’s been doing as it relates to this whole crime issue.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, Jody, I think the president has really taken the lead and provided the leadership that American people have been looking for on this issue of law and order. I mean, when you’ve got the Associated Press just two weeks ago that put out their poll that 81 percent of the American public believes that crime is a major issue, that just tells you Americans are concerned about it. The president took Washington, D.C., and has somewhat tried to turn it into a model city, if you will, in its law enforcement. And when you look at the over 1,600 arrests, when you look at the number of illegal guns that had been seized. When you look at the lack of murders for the first, there was no murder for 12 consecutive days. And, you know, prior to all of that, there was the murder on average every other day. So I think that he has demonstrated what can work. And then, you know, in comparison, look at Chicago, where I read the statistic just today. They’re on track for 4,000 shooting victims in this year alone with where they’re going. If they continue to pace, they’re at now 4,000 in a year of people being shot. So that’s a major crisis in our large metropolitan cities. And I just think the president is trying to sound that alarm. And it really is going to take some mayors that are going to step up. And I hope that people realize that elections do matter. And I know there’s a lot of major cities municipalities that are having elections this November, and I’m hoping crime is going to be the major topic of conversation and that the American people have a chance to vote on that.
SPEAKER 17 :
I think it definitely will be a major issue. And I just come alongside you with scratching my head over these Democrat mayors and governors. But I will say I’m proud of D.C.’ ‘s mayor, Mayor Bowser. She has now, being a Democrat, she’s come out saying thank you, President Trump. And there has been an enormous about face in Washington, D.C., as it relates to crime. Thank you so much, Congressman Mark Harris of North Carolina. Always great to have you on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 06 :
Always great to be with you. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right. All right. Coming up next, Supreme Court steps into legal battle over tariffs.
SPEAKER 02 :
Download the new StandFirm app for Apple and Android phones today. You can join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective. Read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events, and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family, and church members. And of course, stand firm wherever you go.
SPEAKER 21 :
At Family Research Council, defending the family isn’t just a mission, it’s our daily calling. Every team member at FRC uses their God-given talents to stand for biblical truth, protect life, and uphold religious freedom.
SPEAKER 20 :
Here at Family Research Council, we face many threats to the family, threats that have been with us for some time. Abortion, the gender ideology threat, the attacks on marriage, the attacks on parental authority, and the attacks on religious freedom. We have to promote, support, strengthen, and incentivize family growth so families take their place in society in a place of honor.
SPEAKER 19 :
I’m defending the family by working in the Center for Biblical Worldview to provide cutting edge research and resources for pastors, ministry leaders, and Christian parents.
SPEAKER 14 :
Through my work at the Washington Stand, I passionately defend what God has defined for marriage and family. I don’t see the Washington Stand as just a place to talk about cultural events. It’s a place to share biblical truth with the perfect outlet to advance and defend what God has defined as good, true, and beautiful.
SPEAKER 10 :
Because of you, we’re able to frame things in such a way that help Christians stand for truth on the things that matter most, like life, faith, family, and freedom.
SPEAKER 14 :
Thank you for standing with us.
SPEAKER 20 :
Thank you for your support. It is so critical to the work that we at Family Research Council are doing day to day as we support and strengthen the family. So thank you.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. Again, I’m Jody Heisfilling, and for Tony, and we appreciate you being on board with us. All right, yesterday, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to quickly step in to the legal battle over the president’s emergency tariffs. And you probably saw this, but perhaps not. This whole move is coming after a federal appeals court ruled last week that President Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. So the administration has appealed that decision, and now they are asking the Supreme Court to decide by September 10th whether or not to take the case. And the justices were also urged to schedule arguments by the first week in November. So how might all this unfold? Well, joining me now to discuss this is Spencer P. Morrison. He’s editor-in-chief of the National Economics Editorial and author of Reshore, How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream. Spencer, welcome back to Washington Watch. Appreciate you joining us.
SPEAKER 18 :
Good evening. It’s always a pleasure.
SPEAKER 17 :
OK, so for those in our audience who may not be aware of this, can you give us kind of a brief explanation of what I just referenced, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the president’s implementation of it in particular? That’s the question.
SPEAKER 18 :
Right. So just to provide a brief summary for everyone, over the last five, six months, there’s been an enormous amount of what I would call lawfare being waged against this administration. They’ve been essentially taking the president to court over his use of his executive authority to institute these tariffs. And the reason for that is because, you know, if you took your civics classes, you should be well aware, Congress has the power over the purse in accordance with the Constitution. Now, where this gets interesting is the fact that there’s something called delegated authority. That is, Congress is able to pass a statute which delegates some of their decision-making authority to the president or to the executive branch. The reason they might do this is because, of course, people in Congress, they take a long time to make decisions, whereas the executive is much more nimble and can respond to threats and issues. So what President Trump has done, of course, is he’s taken a look at what’s happened to America’s economy and the downstream effects that offshoring and the so-called free trade with foreign nations have had, both on the economy and, of course, downstream. socially and politically. What he said is, look, this is a total national emergency. Not only are drugs like fentanyl pouring across the border, which is killing tens of thousands of Americans every year, but on top of that, America’s supply chains have been completely gutted, and this is causing a national security crisis because, of course, you know, the military requires foreign parts in order to build machinery and equipment Computer chips are a really good example of that. So what the president said is, look, this is a national emergency. Terrorism is the solution to this emergency. And what this litigation battle is about is whether or not this constitutes a national emergency.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, that’s the huge question. So let me wrap a couple of questions into one, if I may. First of all, how strong of a case does the Trump administration have before the Supreme Court on this? And then what are the possible outcomes that could take place, and which one do you think is most likely?
SPEAKER 18 :
That’s a good question. Well, in terms of whether or not this constitutes a national emergency, I think it depends. In terms of whether or not there’s a nexus between a national emergency and tariffs, is a question that the court is going to consider. And I’m leaning to them not deeming this to be a national emergency insofar as the terrorists are instituted against Canada and Mexico. I think there’s a much better case to be made with reference to China, however. Imagine if we were in the Cold War still, and the United States was purchasing fighter jets from the Soviet Union. Can you imagine the outroar, the public outcry about the national security threat that that would have? And that’s essentially exactly what is happening with America’s trade with China. America is purchasing almost all of the semiconductors that go into our computers from China or from Taiwan. rather than building them at home. And of course, this is a massive national emergency. That being said, I’m not confident that the court will find in the administration’s favor. And this brings us to the second part of the question, where does this leave us? The reality is that there’s a number of other statutes that delegate authority to the president. He could simply institute the tariffs under another piece of delegated legislation. So I think ultimately this is really more of a roadblock than the end of the line for either the lawfare against the president or for the tariff agenda as a whole.
SPEAKER 17 :
Wow. So very interesting. So so so you’re saying even if the president loses here, he still has options to continue putting forth the tariffs.
SPEAKER 18 :
Yeah, exactly. And I think it’s important to remember that this particular piece of legislation was used to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico and China. because of the fentanyl crisis. And then he’s imposed the 10% baseline tariffs under this legislation. Now, the reality is that all of the other tariffs are actually already brought in under other legislation or under other delegated authority. So this is only going to impact a certain subset of what the president has done. So it’s not the end of the tariffs by any stretch of the imagination. And I think, frankly, he could fit this in perhaps more snugly under other branches of authority to begin with.
SPEAKER 17 :
Wow. Thank you so much, Spencer Morrison, editor-in-chief of the National Economics Editorial. Fascinating discussion. Deeply appreciate your input.
SPEAKER 18 :
Thanks. God bless.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right. Coming up next, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia says that our rights do not come from God. They come from government. And he said that if you think otherwise, you’re in lockstep with Iran’s hardline Islamic government. Really? Stay tuned. We’ll go there after this break.
SPEAKER 08 :
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 13 :
Jennifer, it’s so exciting to be here with you today talking about our new book, Embracing God’s Design. Who is actually gonna benefit from reading this book in your view?
SPEAKER 09 :
There are so many different audiences that can benefit. The first one are counselors themselves, 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 13 :
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 09 :
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 13 :
Order today at embracethedesign.com.
SPEAKER 12 :
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 17 :
You’re tuned in to Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony. All right, before we dive into this final segment, just one more reminder. Fall is just around the corner, and so is our Pray, Vote, Stand Summit. It’s taking place again October 17th and 18th in Chino Hills, California. This is a powerful, powerful event. Christian leaders, experts, government officials, prayer, inspiration, action items, On and on. You don’t want to miss this. I can just tell you. And if you’ll register now and use the code FALL, F-A-L-L, then you’ll save $30 on the Summit package. So it’s a special discount offer that only goes through Friday next week, September 12th. So register now. You can learn more by going to PrayVoteStand.org. PrayVoteStand.org. OK. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a nomination hearing for Riley Barnes, a former U.S. State Department official who has been tapped to serve as the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Well, during his opening statement. Barnes highlighted comments that were made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his first remarks to State Department employees. And in those opening remarks, Secretary Rubio had talked about how all men are created equal. And he said, because our rights come from God, our creator, not from our laws or our governments. Well, back to the hearing yesterday. One of the hearing individuals, Senator Kaine of Virginia, he took issue with that. Look at this clip.
SPEAKER 15 :
You state, and this is a quote from Secretary Rubio, our rights come from God, our creator, not from our laws, not from our government. I find that very, very troubling. I’m a devout person. I was a missionary in Honduras. We’ve got other devout folks in this room, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, American. The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the creator, that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law and targets Sunnis, Baha’is, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities.
SPEAKER 17 :
wow i i don’t know what else to say it sounds like senator kane needs to do some reading at least and not just to the bible he needs to read some of our historical documents What does Senator Kaine need to know? Well, I’m looking forward to this conversation with Dr. Matt Spalding. He’s the Kirby Professor of Constitutional Government at Hillsdale College and the Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale’s Washington campus. And as Vice President for Washington Operations, he also oversees the Kirby P, the Allen P Kirby Junior Center, for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. Dr. Spalding, welcome so much to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 07 :
It’s great to be with you, Jody. Thanks for having me on this interesting occasion, shall we say.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, I’ve been chomping at the bits to have this conversation with you. So let me just throw it out here real quick. Was Senator Kaine anywhere close to being in the ballpark with his comments?
SPEAKER 07 :
It’s hard to know where to start with that conversation. It reminds me, you know, you recall every I don’t know, every so many years there’s a nomination hearing. You might remember Clarence Thomas’s when Senator Biden went after him for making reference to the D. natural law, and this was somehow demonic and problematic. His whole statement was so off-base, it’s hard to know what point to go at, but it does tell you a lot about kind of the state of where the conversation is about this understanding of the role of faith, but also reason and nature, all these terms which come back to and are centered in the Declaration of Independence. And there’s a deep misunderstanding, and it’s been developing over decades in how we teach, how liberalism looks at these, how progressives have looked at these documents. And I think we’re now at a point where there’s just complete misunderstanding of these very things. One thing that kind of drove me crazy, he quoted, well, all men are created equal, but of course the very next line says, and endowed by their creator. It makes very clear that the source of rights are from the creator. The Declaration has a clear theology to it that grounds it in that. But the key distinction which he doesn’t make and doesn’t come out in the testimony because there wasn’t enough time to draw this out, but the key thing Senator Kaine misses is that that belief that our rights come from a creator and we are all created equal does not necessarily mean theocracy. The key difference here is that all of those arguments of the Declaration are grounded in what they open the Declaration with, a reference to the laws of nature and of nature’s God. That is, the assumption of the Declaration, which, by the way, is the assumption of the New Testament, and you see it in Romans, for instance, the assumption is that there are certain things that man can know by his reason, by his thinking, by his created mind about God. That doesn’t mean it’s directly divine in terms of it’s biblical per se, but it is in a general sense. It’s a general revelation that we understand. And that’s the basis of our rights. That’s the basis of the whole Western tradition of the understanding of rights and human equality.
SPEAKER 17 :
And doesn’t it even go to the point that if you take his position that our rights and freedoms, liberties come from government, that that’s really the communistic, dictatorial, hardline regime mentality where government is God. They can give rights and government can take rights away.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s the practical implication of it. And it’s very clear that the founders never understood, never implied that our rights came from government. They wanted to get away from that. That was the grounding of parliamentary supremacy and the British tyranny they were opposing. But Senator Kaine’s position also ultimately means, and it’s very clear once he starts talking about what he believes in, well, we all believe in rights, but we have different opinions. His understanding of rights is they are subjective. They are merely expressions of our will. whatever it might be. It might be one’s sexual preference. It might be one’s ideology. It might be one’s belief about anything, for that matter. It’s all a matter of relativism. That’s essentially the modern liberal position that’s taught in the academy nowadays. And I think we’re seeing, you know, Senator Kaye is really expressing a popularized version of that. It’s an empty argument. And the stronger argument is the one in our founding itself, which we should be going back to, which appeals to both reason and revelation, the two great traditions of all of Western thought.
SPEAKER 17 :
Absolutely. And it’s the duty of government to secure those God-given rights for everyone. And it’s just astounding that he said, you know, and to think that he was a candidate for vice president in 2016. I mean, had Hillary won, we would have had this.
SPEAKER 07 :
Let me recall here. I think what Senator King is expressing is a common opinion that in mainstream academic thought, but also mainstream kind of liberalism, if you will, about the source of these rights. One of the things we’ve lost, we talk about the problems of civic education and history, and we’re not learning things anymore, but the key thing we have lost, the grounding, is really the argument that Underneath all of this history, all of these concepts, all of these rights, or equality, consent, all of these things depend upon a source outside of ourselves, outside of history, outside of our particular subjective whims, outside of government. Well, what is that source? If you look at it over time, going back to the Greeks and the Romans, and then through the whole Christian tradition, It’s this concept of nature, which then becomes God’s nature in creation, and you see it expressed in the Declaration. It’s not meant to be particularly sectarian. It’s not Baptist or Catholic or anything like that. It’s not Jewish. it’s it’s a general recognition of a creator and a creator god who by the way is also a supreme judge of man’s uh rectitude of his intentions it’s also divine providence it’s clearly there and and they wanted so much get rid of that influence that they essentially erase it completely as opposed to the founders’ argument, which was, it’s not particular, it’s not a fight between Catholics and Protestants, or different forms and different beliefs. That’s why we have religious liberty. But the ground of religious liberty is a common recognition by all men. that there is something we can understand about the very nature of things. And that, by that tradition, and by the argument of the founders, was that we have a recognition that we are not God. Government is not God. But there is a creator. It doesn’t say exactly who it is, what it is, what religion we should follow. That’s our religious liberty. But it opens up the possibility of pursuing that religious liberty, which ultimately is what they meant by the pursuit of happiness at its highest meaning.
SPEAKER 17 :
and of nature’s God as you referenced earlier. So let me throw this term into you because the narrative from the left seems to always conflate words and ideas and so forth. But now one of the big phrases tossed around is Christian nationalism. And this really has to do a little bit with what he was jabbing at in his comments. So can you shed some light on that term and how you believe perhaps our founders would have characterized themselves as it relates to this term?
SPEAKER 07 :
Sure. And again, there’s a lot of background to this that we need to kind of think through. Modern liberalism, I keep using that term, which is that modern view of politics and man that grows over the 20th century that we associate with progressives and liberalism. has long argued, coming out of the Enlightenment, that reason really means science, and revelation and religion is something to be avoided at all costs, and these things should be completely separated. And so anything that speaks of or touches on or shows a faith in that religious belief, they now term Christian nationalism. And there also are some, meaning some of our Christian brethren, who see that as the only way to solve this problem is to actually have a more established church. Western tradition which becomes the understanding of the American Declaration of Independence and the whole founding, which is that reason and revelation are actually friends. They work together. They don’t answer all the questions. There’s still great distinction between what revelation tells us and what reason or science might tell us. They’re not always in agreement. There are certain truths we can’t understand by our reason. But Eric said that they’re friendly on the basics. We’re all created equal. None is born booted and spurred, ready to ride. We have certain equal rights, the most fundamental things, our lives, our liberties, our basic human liberty to act and choose and do, and to pursue happiness. But we can understand that, and we need to figure out a better way, and I would suggest the founders have given us that language to show how reason and revelation can work together. So the problem is on the left and certain portions of the right, they see these things at war with each other, and now they’re taking sides. And I think Christian nationalism, out of that, it’s something the left uses to go after, those who are believers, but it’s also some place where some hide, I think wrongly, thinking that that’s the way out of the problem. So I think that’s an unfortunate aspect of the modern conversation that really misses the importance of the rule of law, the recognition of religious liberty, the understanding of fundamental rights grounded in the very nature of things, whether you believe that’s from a rational tradition going back to the Greeks and the Romans, or whether you believe that’s in a general revelation perfectly compatible with biblical Christianity, that we are all equal in the eyes of God. The Founders’ whole purpose was to show that those two things come together and give us a grounding for free government.
SPEAKER 17 :
And I’m really glad that you made the distinction also. I’m glad you made the distinction also between the theocracy and the belief that we’re talking about, that our rights come from God. They’re not the same things. But without the religious and Christian foundation that we have in this country, is there any value to our rights even? I mean, we’ve only got a couple of minutes left, but give me your thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 07 :
No, I think you’re right. Without a grounded understanding of our rights, they are meaningless. They’re merely our subjective will, which is where much of the modern academy on the left kind of wants to go. That’s a deep fundamental problem. That is the problem, if you will. But it’s not a theocracy to say that we believe that all men are created equal and we’re endowed by or created with certain unenable rights. The beauty of what the Americans did, the founding, the declaration, the religious liberty in the Constitution, is to recognize that grounding, philosophical and theological grounding, but it doesn’t necessarily make that the basis of our rights. You have rights and I have rights because we are human beings. We believe that that’s because God created us as human beings and created us equal. That’s the core understanding. But it doesn’t matter if one is a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. You still have those fundamental rights, but it demands, it demands it only makes sense if it’s understood to be of a higher source, not government. not the Supreme Court, not the President, not Congress, a higher source, and that source is in the very nature of things which in the Western tradition must be and really has always been understood to be a general sense of a Creator God consistent with biblical Christianity over the course of Western tradition.
SPEAKER 17 :
We’ve got to wrap it up right there. Thank you so much, Dr. Spalding, Hillsdale College, for joining us. I know you’ve got a book coming out in December, The Making of the American Mind. We’ve got to have you back to talk about that. Very timely, seeing our 250th anniversary is coming up. Thank you for joining us on Washington Watch. And to each of you, thanks for joining us. Hope you have a great evening. We’ll see you again tomorrow right here.
SPEAKER 03 :
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.
