One of Joe Biden’s few effective moments in the June 27th Presidential debate was his answer on abortion rights, when he made the comparison that repealing Roe v. Wade was like “turn[ing] civil rights back to the states.” This is a key policy difference that the Biden campaign is banking on to animate Democrats and Independents alike. Unlike the rest of the media, Hy and Christopher deconstruct the subtext of the comment, the impact of returning issues like IVF to the states. The Southern Baptist Convention recently condemned the practice. How will moderate suburban women vote if they believe—correctly or incorrectly—that their right to use extraordinary medical means to get pregnant might be taken away by state legislatures?
Hy and Christopher debate whether IVF could be the issue that causes the Christian and the pro-life political movement to split. The pro-life ethics of IVF collide with the desire of people to be fruitful and multiply with their own biological children. Telling a mother she cannot have a biological child of her own— and must instead go through an adoption process of someone else’s child— underpins a GOP weakness going into election day.
Then we note that the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute criminalizing the possession of firearms by individuals with domestic violence restraining orders against them. Commentators have depicted the ruling in United States v. Rahimi as a “victory” for gun safety and women’s rights, even though it only retained the status quo. But the opinion is important for another reason: It signals what could be the start of a major course correction in the conservative justices’ approach to constitutional interpretation.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting vote, due to his commitment to a judicial philosophy called “original intent”, whereas several of his conservative colleagues subscribe to “textualism”.
Originalism holds that judges are to interpret a law based on the meaning of the law’s text at the time it was enacted. In the case of provisions of the Constitution, originalism thus claims to tether judges’ interpretations to the understandings of the Founding generation (or later for the more recent amendments). Textualists, though, are not as bound by the past, and limit their views to specifically what the constitution says—snd what it does not.
Hy and Christopher note that in a speech last year at Catholic University, Justice Amy Coney Barrett reiterated the point. “We have to be very, very careful in the way that we use history,” she said, adding that deploying historical evidence to advance a legal conclusion can be like “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.”
Why do we care? Because the ACLU is suing Gov. Jeff Landry to stop him from posting the 10 Commandments in Louisiana school classrooms, a law passed by the legislature. “Original intent”, as Hy observes, would protect the bill and allow it to come into force, but if “textualism” (i.e. following the specific written word of the constitution) The predominant philosophy, some of the‘s conservatives might side with the liberals and uphold the 1980 Supreme Court decision preventing the posting at the 10 Commandments.
Hy and Christopher debate whether IVF could be the issue that causes the Christian and the pro-life political movement to split. The pro-life ethics of IVF collide with the desire of people to be fruitful and multiply with their own biological children. Telling a mother she cannot have a biological child of her own— and must instead go through an adoption process of someone else’s child— underpins a GOP weakness going into election day.
Then we note that the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute criminalizing the possession of firearms by individuals with domestic violence restraining orders against them. Commentators have depicted the ruling in United States v. Rahimi as a “victory” for gun safety and women’s rights, even though it only retained the status quo. But the opinion is important for another reason: It signals what could be the start of a major course correction in the conservative justices’ approach to constitutional interpretation.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting vote, due to his commitment to a judicial philosophy called “original intent”, whereas several of his conservative colleagues subscribe to “textualism”.
Originalism holds that judges are to interpret a law based on the meaning of the law’s text at the time it was enacted. In the case of provisions of the Constitution, originalism thus claims to tether judges’ interpretations to the understandings of the Founding generation (or later for the more recent amendments). Textualists, though, are not as bound by the past, and limit their views to specifically what the constitution says—snd what it does not.
Hy and Christopher note that in a speech last year at Catholic University, Justice Amy Coney Barrett reiterated the point. “We have to be very, very careful in the way that we use history,” she said, adding that deploying historical evidence to advance a legal conclusion can be like “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.”
Why do we care? Because the ACLU is suing Gov. Jeff Landry to stop him from posting the 10 Commandments in Louisiana school classrooms, a law passed by the legislature. “Original intent”, as Hy observes, would protect the bill and allow it to come into force, but if “textualism” (i.e. following the specific written word of the constitution) The predominant philosophy, some of the‘s conservatives might side with the liberals and uphold the 1980 Supreme Court decision preventing the posting at the 10 Commandments.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Battles politicians, the drift of digitatorsand magicians. First to see the money.
They just don't there's nothing to fillthe holes. Well, then fill
in their pockets, bid holes.The politicians mountain down the road. Every
(00:22):
body's wish for no moment, corruptionand its function. It's gone to take
divide its offens. The subtext ofThursday Night's debate had to do with reproductive
rights, and it's actually something that'sdividing the right in some of Trump's space
(00:43):
with IVF. We'll talk about thatand where the lines are and how that's
playing with voters in the middle.Also talking about voters in the middle.
Here in Louisiana, we have aten Commandments bill that was signed to law
by the governor a couple weeks ago. Now it's going to the courts.
How far is too far? Alsospeaking of not going too far? In
Saint Tammany Council actually figured out kindof a middle ground on raising taxes and
(01:07):
cutting them at the same time.We'll talk about that and other issues on
this edition of The Founder Show.And God bless all out there. You
are now listening to the founders,So the voice of the founding fathers,
your Founding Fathers, coming to youdeep within the bowels of those mystic and
cryptic alligator swamps of the Big Easy, that old Crescent City, New Orleans,
(01:30):
Louisiana. And high up on topof that old Liberty Cypress tree way
out on the Eagles Branch, drapedand Spanish moss, is none other than
your s Bengary Babbay, all theRepublic Chaplain high mcgenery with Christopher Tidmore,
your roving reporter, resident radical moderateand associate editor of the Louisiana Weekly at
Louisiana Weekly dot net, and folks, we wanted to you know, everybody
(01:53):
else on earth is talking about thecontext of the presidential debate, what happened.
We wanted to go a little deeperand one of the challenges that Trump
is facing, and that has todo with this sort of IVF issue,
and it's bigger than that. ItsIt deals with everything from range to birth
(02:14):
control, to the abortion drug meofiction prone and the Supreme Court decision.
But I wanted to start off becausewe have we're in a unique position because
my co host is not just apolitical co host, as you all well
know, he's a Southern Baptist ministerand co host CHRISTOPHA. I am the
host than one of my chop liverNo. I mean my point being,
(02:35):
are the brilliant parts journalists on thisshow, and you do a great job.
My point being that you're a Baptistminister. And I'm curious about this
because you and I have always sortof approached the issues of reproductive of reproductive
rights to versus abortion, kind oflike where our religious side drew a line
(02:59):
on public calge. What do Imean by that. I've heard you say,
maybe you've changed your opinion, butI've heard you say before you believe
life starts a conception. That's yourpre Christian faith, the moment of the
spark. But you've also said thereis a reasonable enough debate until six weeks
when a heartbeat starts. That's whatyou said. You maybe have changed opinion,
but that's what you said the pastreason. Yes, yeah, okay.
(03:19):
What I've said before for those thatdon't follow it is I actually,
as as a Christian, do believethat life starts a conception. But I
believe the debate goes to about twelveweeks in my mind for political reasons,
twelve to fourteen weeks and The reasonfor that is that's you don't have brain
wave of activity until the sixteenth week. I'm only telling you that not to
(03:39):
get into a debate over where it'ssixteen or you know, for us,
but to give you some of theground rules where Hi and I've always said
that there are some gray areas,a little bit of gray areas in this
debate, and we're kind of wherebetween those two positions most of the American
people are. Well. The grayarea, of course that's plaguing republics is
(04:00):
IVF or intra intravenous fertilization, andthat is something that right now came before
the Congress. Now, for thosewho haven't been following the debate, a
major move happened a month ago wherethe Southern Baptist Convention voted to restrict,
condemn, not approve of, ifyou will in IVF. In this this
(04:26):
is not original. The Roman CatholicChurch hasn't supported IVF for years, the
idea that every conception, no matterwhat, should be protected. But this
has not been that every month.So when the Baptist Church came in and
added a wrinkle into the debate,and the reason is because there had sort
of been an argument on the rightthat we oppose abortion, but we do
(04:49):
not oppose birth control. We donot oppose anything before implantation and fertilization.
IVF is a great area because whichyou're doing is you're fertilizing the ovum outside
of the outside of the woman,outside of the uterus. And so the
Southern Baptist Convention came out and thissort of went against week's worth of Republicans
(05:14):
saying, no, we support IVF, it needs to be legalized. A
tremendous amount of pressure amongst Christian Conservativesstarted to be applied to Congress. So
when the IVF issue came up aspart of a bigger issue on guaranteeing birth
control under federal law, which isnot technically protected. It's within the privacy
(05:35):
zone. There's no statute on federallevel that protects birth control. There's plenty
on the states. This forced alot of Republicans to vote against a democratic
measure all but two and they saidit was a lot of arguments on it,
but it should be left to thestates. It's created this debate.
Donald Trump is trying to thread thisdebate, and he's taken a step further
(05:57):
saying that all issues of abortion whatsoever, should be in the States, breaking
his twenty sixteen position there ought tobe a federal ban on abortion. After
twenty weeks, he ran on thathe now no longer supports that there's a
move in Congress led by Lindsay Graham, to put a federal abortion ban.
At fifteen weeks, I actually supportit, but Donald Trump doesn't. And
(06:18):
the reason he does, and hesaid this debate is going to be politically
difficult for Republicans. So this hasbeen the hammer in which the Democrats are
smashing Republicans for good reason. Andthe best way to articulate this is the
IVF debate. Where does this go? Because it is a fertilized egg,
(06:41):
but it has not been implanted.The eggs are usually put up for adoption,
but sometimes destroyed. How far doyou go? It's obviously not a
human being, it's not growing,it's not going anywhere. On the other
hand, it falls within that sixweek window. And members of your church,
hi, you're your fellow pastors ofthe Southern Baptist Church basically have condemned
(07:02):
anyone trying to do this as destroyinghuman life. And what I'm curious about
is how this plays on the politicalside, and I'm not trying to get
in the argument we don't have tohave a full abortion fight. I'm talking
about practical politics, because this isan issue IVF. You tell a woman
who can't get pregnant, and forthose that don't know, my ex wife
(07:23):
and I went through IVF. It'sa very difficult and very expensive process.
You tell a woman she can't haveher own children and go to lengths of
that, good luck with that.You will lose her vote. I don't
care how deeply conservative she is onevery other issue, you will lose her
I don't care how pro life sheis, you will lose her vote every
day of the week. If youtell her family can't go to extraordinary lengths
(07:45):
to have children, well, ofcourse, for I mean, there's got
to be an answer here, andmy answer would be that if you cannot
have a baby. And by thewhite folks, I have a really good
friend and I'm the godfather of severalof their kids, all four of them
that were quadruplets. All four ofthem were produced by this method of a
fertilized egg outside of the womb,and uh, they're great kids. One
(08:07):
of them's a marine they're just wonderfulkids, and so, you know,
I understand the real value of this. The problem that comes in here is
they're they're they're doing so many ofthem, I mean like hundred thousands,
hundreds of thousands, whatever it is. There's money in it, and and
then they end up killing I don'tknow what the I would say, a
(08:28):
large majority of them get killed.And that's the rub. That's where the
problem is. Is it really okayto create life and then and then murder
it? I mean, before God, that is a human being. You
so you cannot measure the size ofa soul or the spirit. It's not
immeasurable. Uh, you know,like the old old medieval debate of how
many angels can dance on the headof a pen. Uh, it's it's
immeasurable. And just because it's inone cell doesn't mean that human being does
(08:54):
not exist body, soul, andspirit. Yeah, the body is just
a one cell's eyegoat. But thesoul and the spirit. Said so,
is it really right to kill thesethings? I don't think it is.
So the way I would handle itis you do it on order, on
demand if you will, uh.And that is that if somebody wants to
try this method, then they whoever'sgoing to provide it, they get together
(09:16):
and they provide the sperm and thecell and they do it that way and
then no, no babies are killed, No, no zygotes are killed.
And so that would work. That'sto me a happy medium. And the
other concern because we have so manymad scientists out there, like Fauci and
all these other siccos that believe inusing, you know, experimenting on human
(09:37):
beings. All the modern day mingolasthat are in high government positions. I
don't trust them to handle these things. There's no telling what they may they
may be trying to make Frankenstein's Wehave no idea what these sicicos are up
to. That's a great concern Ihave about this. And so you know
those are my thoughts on a Christopher. Now you had something you wanted to
say, No, I want toask a question. I want to ask
(09:58):
a question. You've said in thepast that where you say you see a
legislative protection where you basically say thepro life forces shouldn't go is six weeks
after implementation when you have a heartbeat. You've said that before, you still
hold that position. Yeah, Ibelieve that once you have a heart.
Now this is for political just politicalreasons. I'm talking about politics here,
(10:18):
not religion, And I understand thisis not you can't avoid one with it.
You cannot mix them here. Actuallyyou can, because at this point
we're drawing a line of where thereis a reasonable debate. No fine follows.
You cannot separate the two, Chris, according to fire Fathers, yes
you can. But the point butthe point I'm getting at here is I'm
referring the statements you've made before beforethe Roe v. Wade, where you
(10:43):
said prior to six weeks, that'swhere there shouldn't be legislation. That should
be a question of the conscience offaith, not of the law. Well
actually did no, I really didn't, chrispher obstin. It's very practical here,
folks. Nobody knows they're pregnant,so they probably six weeks or eight
weeks pregnant. And if you can'tkill a baby after six weeks, and
(11:05):
so what if you said a sixweek deadline. They're not going to kill
a baby anyway. They don't evenknow they have one. Let me so
by that logic, if you're followingthe logic, then birth control, which
could be in a porti facia,shouldn't be allowed because and that no,
that's that's that's the Catholic Church's position. Because so that's that's not me coming
out of nowhere. The main reasonthe Catholic Church does not support abortion support
(11:28):
of birth control pills one of thetwo major arguments. The other is that
you know, all sex should befor procreation. But the second one is
that you a a a birth controlpill can stop implantation of an ovum.
Now, look, you raised acouple of issues. Let me just say
this. You said faith in politics, you always put the two together.
(11:50):
The difference between us on this showis that I don't because I say there
are people of many different faiths,it doesn't and that has to be respected.
Now, what I'm getting at is, you tell a woman she can't
have IVF if she wants to havechildren, you'll never get her vote.
And let me explain this very deliberately. You cannot and you cannot fertilize one
(12:13):
ovum. If you do IVF,you have to do five or six because
they don't implant altogether. I've beenthrough this process, high I know this
has been one hundred and fifty thousand, and you're always going to end up
with extra fertilized ovums. There isabsolutely no way under any medical tradition to
say that you don't end up withfertilized ovums under IVF. And if you're
(12:37):
saying you can't do that, ifyou're legislating that, you are literally legislating
IVF out of existence. And rightnow you're going to destroy the conservative movement
by doing that. Politically, Christopher, I'm not destroying a conservative movement.
And you maybe not understand what I'msaying. Yes, I know you have
to fertilize several of them, youknow, to get one, Well,
so what then that's it, andthen you wait for the next request and
(13:01):
there you've got some other fertilized ovums. You said. What you're saying is
they don't all fertilize. You haveto fertilize five to eight and then try
to implant them. You won't beable to implant all you were going to
kill. You're going to destroy someovums in the personal process, and you've
got to This is the problem.You can't not do it and have idea.
(13:24):
What you're saying is medically impossible.Then what you're saying is the ovums
that don't implant will die. Isthat okay, Well that's fine. You
know that does happen in nature,so I can accept that that's a natural
process. But the Southern Baptist Conventioncouldn't. That was their point. They
said, because there would be ovumsthat would die, you couldn't do it.
This is what I'm getting at.You're talking about politics, but with
(13:46):
the fact is you've told me beforethe heartbeat is where you say there should
be legislation. This is before theheartbeat. And if you're following this position,
you've changed the rules that we toldeverybody before the band. What you
don't understand is I'm not a biggung ho guide to band, you know,
intravenious fertilization. I'm not a Christopher. Look, I love the Southern
(14:11):
Baptist Church, but I agree witheverything they say, and I love them
to death. Guess what, Christopher, I'm the dancer's crazy man on a
dance floor. You ever saw That'sa sin according to other Baptists, I
think, at least to many SouthernBaptists. And I love the Southern Baptists,
I don't agree with everything you do, Christopher, So I think you
pegged me with something and you misunderstoodmy position. But at least everybody understands.
(14:31):
They're very ins and outs and whereaboutsof this debate right now, and
it is going to be a bigdebate. I'm basically going to say it
like this. No, I believethat I see a practical this. You
know, I also see you ona dance floor and nobody can believe you're
a Southern Baptist because you dance sowell. But the point I'm beginning at
is you're now seeing how this thisis a thousand angels on the head of
(14:54):
debate because there is no way tothread this debate. Used to be easy
with abortion, fertilized ovum. Itis head of heartbeat, head, brain
waves, is probably a baby.That's pretty straightforward. The fact of the
matter is, with the right havingthis debate, you're breaking up the conservative
movement. Look, I actually,for once I'm gonna say something, You're
(15:15):
gonna die of shock. I reallyfeel for Donald Trump in a positive way
because he's by trying to make thisa state by state issue, a state's
rights issue, which is against whathe ran on originally and that's all the
way through abortion from basically even twentyweeks. He's trying to hold the conservative
coalition together in a way, he'slooking at a whole bunch of VP candidates
(15:37):
from Tim Scott on who are onrecord on a federal band of abortion.
In fifteen weeks, he's dealing withthe one issue that will guarantee it.
And when it comes to IVF,particularly as well as birth control, you
want to make Republican women vote forJoe Biden, tell him this. I
can tell you from home. That'sexactly what will happen. And right now
(15:58):
the Democrats have the ultimate weapon becauseRepublicans when this came up before the Senate,
the Republican caucus was so afraid ofthe Southern Baptist Convention and the political
reaction from the Christian right that theydid not vote for a bill that was
straightforward. The couple who did cameout and said, wait a second,
this is what we said. Weactually supported a woman's right to IVF two
(16:18):
weeks ago. There was nothing elsein's bill, and everybody agreed with that
statement. It was too politically charged. The right is going just like you've
seen it with the pro life movementbefore. They're trying to make perfect the
enemy of the good, and they'regoing to lose everything because of it.
Well, I hope they figured itout, Christopher. Very interesting points there.
And by the way, folks,remember David danced with all his might
(16:40):
before the Lord, and in theOld Testament law dancing was required for the
worship of God. So I don'tknow where my beloved Southern Baptist brethren go
there. How they go there.Maybe there was a time when there were
many saloons with strip joints and theyrelated that to all They just blanket at
(17:00):
all dancing. Is that kind ofthing? Well no, I mean,
there's such a thing as gluttony.It's a great sin. And yet we're
not forbidden to eat right because gluttonyis a sin. So there needs to
be a little refinement on that positionwith my beloved brethren, the good old
Southern Baptist hardcore evangelical preachers. Well, folks, so, Christopher, I
(17:22):
know you got another topic you're gonnabring up here. What's that next topic?
Well, when we come back,we're going to continue this kind of
conceptual problem in the right sort,this texts versus originalist. But we're gonna
actually turn our attention to something alittle bit more. Basically, that's property
taxes here in Louisiana and something interestingthat happened in St. Tammandy Parish.
Before we get into that, wegot to bring up this Ten Commandments bill.
(17:42):
The ACLU is doing it all thatand more with Hiy McHenry and Christopher
Tidmore. After this commercial break,the fourth of July is coming up,
and there's nothing better than a patrioticarrangement from Villary's Florist at one eight hundred
vi l e are r Villaries hoursdot com on the web. Locations on
(18:02):
the North Shore and Highway one ninetyin Covington. The South Shore on Martin
Burman Avenue right off Veterans Boulevard,right near the Jefferson Orleans line. You
can walk in and get one ofthe patriotic arrangements for the July fourth holiday.
Also baskets gift baskets for parties inJuly fourth barbecues. They're perfect.
The barbecue baskets are fantastic. Youcan go in and get all of this
at Villary's Florist, or check themonline or give them a call at one
(18:25):
eight hundred vi l l e rie or villariesflorist dot Com for all of
your floral but also gift needs oneeight hundred VI l l e er.
Good, folks, is chaplin,Hi mckenry. I'm here to tell you
about our ministry, a Lamb Ministries. Folks, during these days of independence
and celebrating the birth of this country, we should remember the Biblical foundations of
(18:47):
our country. And we do thatwith the Lambministries where we go into the
inner city, we go into theurban poor, and we reach kids and
adults, but primarily children, theyouth with the Gospel of Jesus. They
need all the help they can get. Folks. Let me tell you where
they what I've seen when I tookmy kids to Mexico and as we crossed
(19:07):
the border and got into Mexico.You know, our kids are very straight,
street smart. We were going ona mission trip down there. They
were looking around, their eyes wereall white. They had never left America.
This is a big, big thingfor them. They had never left
the Ninth War. I mean,you know, they'd never left their neighborhoods,
the hood, so this was abig thing for them. They were
just so astounded and excited and lookingaround, and you know, two blocks
(19:29):
into Mexico, they did something thatshocked the daylights out of me. They
started screaming, I love America,I love America. And they shouted like
that for a couple of minutes.I thought I didn't even know my kids,
They didn't any sense of patriotism.What's going on here? You see?
I told you earlier. They read, They knew how to read the
street, and when they saw whatthey saw on that border town, they
(19:53):
knew how blessed America was. Theyknew how fortunate they were. Folks,
this is a great work. Ifyou want to get involved, we need
all the help we can get.We need volunteers, we need final supports,
and we need prayer warriors. Soplease contact us. Just call me
chaplinhamg aera code five zero four seventwo three nine three six nine, or
(20:15):
go to our website lamnola dot com. It's lamb and ola dot com and
thank you so very very much.Folks, beat the dog days of summer
in the evenings by coming to theGarden District Bookshop with its new bar,
open from four to seven pm everyday, and in fact noon to seven
(20:37):
pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Getout of the heat, get into the
air conditioning where events are going onevery night. Pop ups for special food
from hot dogs on Tuesdays, FilipinoBarbecue on Thursdays, lobster rolls on Fridays,
and family friendly movies on Saturdays atfour point thirty. But come have
a cocktail in the in the HistoricGarden District Bookshop heav ohs and bring your
(21:00):
kids, let them play in thekids room and enjoy the evenings when it's
not too hot inside in the HistoricRink at twenty seven to twenty seven Pritannia
the corner of Washington Avenue and Pritanniaover seventy spots of off street parking right
off Washington Avenue at the Historic Rinkat the Garden District Bookshop, and if
you want me available during the day, come to the Chickery House new menu
(21:21):
for breakfast and lunch opens every morningfrom seven am to five pm right in
the Chickery House and the Garden DistrictBookshop at twenty seven to twenty seven pertenn.
You find out more online at theGardendistrict Bookshop dot com. Ohs,
folks, We're back and you arelistening to the Founders, So the voice
of the Finding follows, and Iwant you to know you can hear us
(21:42):
every Sunday morning from eight to nineam on wr O. That's nine to
nine point five on your radio dialFM dial. You can also hear U
during the week on WSLA and that'sninety three point nine on the FMDAL or
one five six zero on the AMdial and drive time eight to nine am
(22:03):
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Youcan if you're out in the Grand Canyon
by the way way out in Arizona, you can also hear us on Ridlesnake
Radio. We're all over the country, folks. Nah. If you don't
like making exact times, I don't. All you have to do is go
to our website, thefoundershow dot comthat's felled with two s's, or get
the iHeartMedia app. And that's absoluutelybest way because it's better than satellite radio.
(22:27):
It has a greater variety. Itcovers everything from iHeartMedia, the largest
broadcasting company in the world, andyou can listen to us whenever you want
to. So get that iHeartMedia app. It's free. Just download it takes
a couple of minutes. You goton your computer, got on your cell
phone, and we're ready to goany time you want to hear us.
And so, folks, it's timefor us to get the show going.
(22:48):
This is chappaheih mcinery with Christopher Tidmoory, you a roving reporter, resident radical
monitor, and associate editor of theLouisiana Weekly newspaper at louisanawekly dot net.
And I got some about the factthat people were angry that I wasn't more
up in arms about the Ten CommandmentsBill. So if anybody hasn't followed this,
Governor Jeff Landry signed the Ten CommandmentsBill into law immediately saying I'm looking
(23:14):
forward to a lawsuit. This isa test case. The ACLU and related
groups are immediately going to test this. And the reason why it's a test
case is in nineteen eighty there wasthis particular case and it's very clearly said
that you could not post the TenCommandments on a public school wall, that
that was an establishment of religion.Now we're dealing with two generations later.
(23:37):
The question is will the current SupremeCourt uphold that finding or will they say
it people are like, why aren'tyou more offended by this? I don't
stay on a personal level, Idon't care. I mean, that's kind
of strange. This is a passionateissue on both sides, and to me,
posting the Ten Commandments in a schoolwall is roughly the same as having
God in the pledge of allegiance.To me, it is not an infringement
(24:04):
on establishment of religion. On theother hand, I don't think it's gonna
implass a great morality in our people. But I'm fascinated by the arguments about
it because everybody thinks, because there'sa conservative court, this will be a
slam dunk, and that's not necessarilytrue. Ladies and gentlemen. We talk
about pressures in the last segment betweendifferent areas of conservatisms. Let me explain
(24:26):
to you the legal pressure that thiswill face when it goes to Supreme Court.
And we're already seeing in other casesthe difference between an originalist and a
textualist. And guess what that springvote is New Orleans own Amy Connie Barrett.
Now how you were like, youwant to say something about you're waving
for the Mitch. You explain thedifference between originalists and contextualis yeah, well,
(24:51):
let me get this. So foreverybody's like, well, isn't that
the same thing, it's like conservativejudicial philosophy. No, it's actually quite
different. Sometimes it comes to thesame conclusion but for different logic. And
I'll use the most famed case ofthem all recently is Roe v. Wade.
So an originalist will look at basicallywhat history contends, the idea of
(25:12):
the founding fathers, but not reallywhat they intend when they wrote it,
what they put original intent. No, an originalist, that's actually part of
the argument. You're wrong about that. The reason is the original intent argument
is what the two sides have.So an originalist will come out and say,
and I know this seems like I'mnitpicking, but it's actually quite important.
(25:33):
This was the common belief at thetime and when they wrote the document,
this is what they meant. Atextualist will come at this and said,
I don't care. What I careabout is what's on the page,
what does it say or what doesit not say? And the case of
Roe v. Wade, instead,we don't have the power to establish upright
to privacy, And so an originalistwill say, what do the founding fathers
(25:56):
think about abortion, how does thatplay with their definition of rights and things.
A textualist who would be an originalistis a perfect example of that would
be Neil Gorsich or Clarence Thomas.A textualist would be someone like any Connie
Barrett who says, okay, great, she has a great comment. And
(26:17):
there's a several cases where this isbeing revered, and one of them she
says in a speech before the CatholicUniversity. And remember she's a very devout
Catholic. She's a pious the tenthCatholic. She's a Dominican girl. She
went to Dominican High School in NewOrleans. She reiterated the point we have
to be very, very careful inthe way that we use history, adding
that displaying historical evidence to advance andlegal opinion can be looking like looking over
(26:40):
a crowd and picking out your friends. What she means is that you just
because it was in the past doesn'tmean because the document says it or doesn't
has any bearing on what a judgedoes. Christopher, maybe we're saying the
same thing, but splitting hairs orsomething. I don't know, but to
give you a little better understanding,of original intent. There are questions about
(27:02):
passages in the Constitution that could goeither way, and they're trying to figure
out what was So those who believein original intent, they go to the
preitererations, and there were several writingsof the Constitution. If you look at
the rough draft, it's nothing thatyou see that fine, beautiful calligraphy.
It was written by Governor Morris,and his penmanship was not the best,
but you could read it. Youcould you could understand it. And there
(27:25):
are many scratches and many underlinings,and many rewritings and everything else. So
you go to the preiterations and whatwas said in the debates to try to
establish what did they really what wasthe real context was, what was the
real text saying that's what the wayI understand and follow original intent, And
but it bails down to what youjust said. What does the text actually
(27:45):
say? For instance, government shallmake no law respecting the establishment of religion,
are prohibiting the free exercise thereof Andwhereas the government cannot prohibit the free
exercise size of religion anywhere, itjust can't establish a state religion. They
were trying to end the concept ofa state religion. And if you go
(28:07):
to the preiderations, you see thatthey say no denominations shall rule over any
other denomination in several other statements likethat, which lets you see the goal
there was to eliminate any possibility ofa state religion. That's the point I'm
trying to make it, all right, And what I'm approaching for you there
is you just said, as ifthe two viewpoints are the same. Let
me give you a few areas wherethey're different. Have you noticed there have
(28:30):
been some unusual splits in the SupremeCourt lately, okay, over several issues,
including when it came in, forexample, was unstanding. So what
you're saying is you're looking at thefounders to find out what their original intent
was. That's an originalist, literalistargument based on their preitererations, to find
(28:51):
out where were they going with this. A textualist would say, Okay,
that's all well and good, andyes you need to be educated by history.
Yes we need to know what thatfounding father says. He said,
However, you can take that toofar and this is the difference, and
only give you about the ten Commandments, because that's how we started this argument.
As it goes to the Supreme Court, a textualist will ask the question,
(29:15):
is this an establishment? It doesn'tmatter to them what the founding fathers
thought was the state curse that?And I think the same thing, Christopher.
Okay, but you just said thefounding fathers for original intent, a
textualist will say, so what,And you're like, well, we're splitting
hairs. We're not, And whereit's coming in, I'll get Chris.
For the original intendant is to tryto understand fully the text. You have
(29:37):
to go by the text that Iunderstand, and you're like this, but
you can take this at far sothe interpretation. A true originalist was Anton
Scalia, who's very worried about whathe made a joke. He says,
everybody says, I don't care whatinternational law says. Well, I'm very
concerned what a group of English judgessaid in the sixteen and seventeen hundreds,
because I wanted to know what theirintent was. He was that, to
(30:00):
which, turning around Neil, towhich John Roberts or Kavanaugh today, who's
another example, would say, well, that's all well and good, and
it should educate us a little bit. But frankly, it's looking at historical
intent is like looking at a livingconstitution. It's not necessarily reflecting the text
(30:21):
in the current circumstances of life.And I'll give you the perfect, the
absolute perfect example, bump stocks.The both sides got mad with this for
a very simple reason. The unanimouscourt said Congress needs to change the law
about what an automatic weapon is.They didn't. What the originalist said was,
(30:41):
well, the Founding Fathers believed andright to bear arms, and you
should have ruled that this is perfectlyfine. In fact, you should have
ruled that automatic weapons are fine.A textualist would say there's nothing in the
text full automatic. Well, butI'm not debating whether a bump stop is
full or not. And I don'tthink you're debating whether Congress has the right
(31:02):
to do the statute. The pointI'm getting at is an originalist will come
in and say the Founding Fathers thoughtthis. A textualist will say this,
and that's what this is going tocome down to. It's not going to
matter to an Amy Connie Barrett whetherthe Founding Fathers thought posting the Ten Commandments
on the side of a building wasa good idea. She's going to look
(31:25):
at it from the standpoint of howdoes this or do or do not?
And she could rule either way establishreligion today. And so this is the
part where the right thinks people thinktoo simplistically when it comes to the law,
because they want activist judges to reflecttheir viewpoints, and sometimes judges,
by staying out of it, areactually doing their job. Let's just look
(31:47):
at the Thin Commandments quickly. Madisonwho wrote the Constitution. Of course a
lot of other people contributed to it, but he was the main author of
it. James Madison, who's heavilyunder the tutelage of Thomas Jefferson, made
it very clear the Constitution was basedon one main thing, the Ten Commandments,
and without the Ten Commandments, theConstitution would not work. Isn't it
(32:10):
strange that when you go to theSupreme Court above the Supreme Court building in
the gable end, you're going tosee the Ten Commandments with Moses holding them.
With all the other great philosophers andleaders of the world religious leaders,
they are all pointing to Moses like, hey, he's got it, the
Ten Commandments. And when you walkinto the doors, you're going to see
(32:30):
the Ten Commandments on the doors ofthe Supreme Court. And when you go
into the Supreme Court and you lookat the nine judges behind them, you'll
again see the Ten Commandments. Ithink the government throughout history has realized the
importance of the Ten Commandments. Justto give you a little idea of this,
when they kicked God out of governmentin nineteen sixty one of the Gore
versus Fidal decision, and they hadto remove everything heaven to do with God
(32:52):
in public schools. Up until thatpoint, problems in public schools were like
running in the hall, passing notesin the classroom, spitballs. That was
the greatest problem they had, andthey were very concerned about it. The
teachers, they wrote about it.What are the problems today? Extreme violent
crime in the schools, rape,murder, you name it, drugs,
(33:15):
the violence, things you could thinkof are going on inside of schools.
Now since we took God out ofgovernment. There are over forty government statistics
that prove this. Also, whenwe took God out, get what happened
to academic excellence. We were thenumber one rated education system in the world
back then. We're not even thetop thirty five anymore. Of the of
(33:37):
industrialized nations. We're at the verybottom. Now, since we kicked God
out of government, I think there'sa lesson there. Everything that described academic
excellent crashed and burned, Everything describedacademic depravity skyrocketed. Folks, we need
the Ten Commandments back in schools.You know, if the kids read it
(33:58):
and they actually think about it,Oh my goodness, Yes, that could
be terrible. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not lie, Thou shalt
nuts to do. Wouldn't it behorrible for them to be thinking about those
things? No, it'd be great. Those kids need to know that.
You turn to a moral argument,and you know what what I'm trying to
except that's the point. A textualistwill say, the morality doesn't matter,
(34:20):
the fact that the Founding father's moralitydoesn't matter. You're waving it away.
I'm giving you what's going to happenon the Supreme Court based on a real
difference, because I mean, youcould use the Founding fathers. Jefferson said
we should rewrite the Constitution every thirtyevery thirty years, very bluntly said it
was not to be an eternal document. And so if you're saying that the
morality of the how it affects thesociety. That's an important issue. It
(34:45):
doesn't matter to a textualist, itdoesn't matter that. But the text clearly
says in our prohibit the free exerciserup. If you're saying kids cannot bring
Bibles to school, they can't,but that's not that's not that's not the
compulsion. But they ten Commandments becauseit teaches the kids the foundations of our
government. Can you show me inthe Constitution where the Ten Commandments are?
(35:08):
I'm agreeing the fun This is whatI'm getting at. This is what the
case is going to come down to, not whether or not you can't spray
religion on somebody. That's what thenineteen eighty case was about. What this
case will come down to, witha conservative majority being divided, is whether
or not the Constitution gives the powerto the federal government to make an expressive
(35:30):
religious statement on not the federal governmentthe state government in this case, the
state of Louisiana to make an expressivereligious statement. And originals will say,
yes, you're arguing the religional positionbeautifully high. But I'm telling you,
a textalist would say, even onelike any Connie Barry, whose devout Christian
would say, you know what,I believe that, but the document doesn't
(35:51):
say that. Okay, Chris,So it's down to the debate. But
okay, and the liberals have beenright, all right, No, you're
wrong about that, Christopher. You'reabout that anyway. So it's going to
come down to the textualists and originalistand we'll just say how it works out.
It's gonna be interesting, folks.Who knows where this will go.
We'll find out. Anyway. Let'schange gears here for a second. I'm
(36:12):
actually going to compliment some politicians.I don't know if you've been paying attention
in Sant Tammany Parish. The parishwants to raise more money. And there's
a scam that exists in Louisiana politics. It's called roll forwards. So for
those that aren't familiar, which meansyou've never paid a property tax. When
we started saying that houses were goingto be properly assessed, there was a
(36:34):
promise implicit in it that the propertytaxes would roll back. So when you
vote for a property tax, youvote for a certain amount of money to
come in, and that could beadjusted by the rate of inflation. But
it's a fixed amount of money,and that's assigned a percentage of your value
of your house to pay in taxes. It's called a mill or a millage.
When the house goes up in value, you're trying to produce the same
(36:57):
amount of money. So the millageis supposed to be rolled back. Now,
in a rational society, the lawwould say if you wanted to roll
it forward, therefore collecting more moneybecause your house is now worth more,
you'd have to have a public vote. But Louisiana law doesn't say that.
What Louisiana law says is that thegoverning body this could be a parish council,
this could be a municipal government andin case the sheriff, since a
(37:20):
committee of won the sheriff who decidesthis can roll forward the millages. And
what it's done is we've been kitin this. One of the big things
that's happened in Louisiana is as propertyvalues have gone up, our taxes have
gone up because of it. Well, the same tam Many parish government is
looking at higher expenses and they're facingthis problem and they could do what other
parish governments have done, just rollfor the millage. They have the power.
(37:43):
What they've decided to do. I'dlove them just to roll it back.
They've decided to do though, wasinteresting. They want to roll for
the general millage and this by thesame amount cut the coroner's millage back.
Actually reduce it, roll it backso that the same amount of taxes are
pretty are paid by the same amountof people, you know, the same
level of taxes. Now, Iat least give them credit they're thinking about
(38:06):
this. Part of the reason Ithink of that as is everybody in Santamity
Parish hates the coroner and wants torecall them and do all the different stuff.
But the fact of the matter isthis kind of perspective in a time
of inflation, when costs are goingthrough the ceiling, is something we'd like
to see more. And the StammedyParish Council's willingness to at least acknowledge that
property taxes hit people. I mean, we've already talked about in previous shows
(38:29):
how absurd insurance rates are going thatpeople are literally losing their houses. This
is not hypothetical. I talked aboutmy friend Sharon Brolski having to sell her
house that she owns outright because shecan't afford twenty five hundred dollars a month
insurance. I love and saddened bythe story of the one hundred people that
are about to go into default thatgot their houses from Habitat for Humanity.
(38:52):
They can make their house payments,but a hundred families are going to be
kicked out because they can't make theinsurance payments that goes along for government to
make it worse by raising your propertytaxes inadvertently, no matter how expensive things
have become. And yes, I'mthe first one to say the problem we
have right now mostly is not government'sfault when we talk about five ten percent
(39:15):
inflation, but when you're talking aboutrebuilding roles, the inflation rate for asphalt
and for medals have gone up someseventy percent. I see the problem they
have. But I'm also saying ifpeople are losing their homes because of rising
insurance, rising property taxes will onlymake it worse. And I wish all
(39:35):
these constitutional things are being talked aboutin a special session in August by Governor
Jeff Landry. I mean, he'salready got a problem that the legislators don't
want to come back because they've alreadybeen in office too long. At the
magnificent salary of sixteen eight hundred dollarsa year, they don't really want to
spend the whole year in baton rouge. But one of the things that should
be in any change to the constitutionis the simple idea that if you're going
(39:58):
to roll forward a millage after it'sbeen rolled back, the people ought to
be able to vote on it.And right now, no one wants to
do that because if it's brought upby the municipal association, it's killed.
Because this is a stealth tax cutthat frankly, local government has lived large
on. And no matter how legitimaterising costs are people in Louisiana, the
(40:21):
average income is fifty one thousand dollarsa year. They're getting cooked to where
we are watching people losing their homes. The worst housing market we've had since
Katrina, and people have record numbershave houses for sale, and it's not
because they think they can make alot of money. It's because they can't
pay for the insurance and the expensesof living. No, I agree with
you, Chris, from keeping ahouse up now has become almost unaffordable for
(40:46):
so many people because of what youjust said, and we can look to
big brother government, big brother corporation, and especially right now the Biden administration,
who has is destroying us with inflation. I mean it's it's killing us,
and it's especially killing my kids,the urban poor. They can't handle
this. It's too much for himand this could lead to extreme social unrest.
(41:09):
I'm talking about riots in all thestreets across America, not just the
Democrat controlled areas like twenty twenty whenthey caused so much damage. You know,
hit five hundred and seventy locations,billions of dollars of property damage,
hundreds of millions of stolen chattel property, looted chattel property, fifty cops killed,
two thousand in the hospital, andwho knows how many other people raped
(41:31):
and murdered. It was. Imaginethat if that happens, starts happening all
around the United States because of what'shappening with inflation right now in America,
it could get extremely bad. Folks. Well, folks, it's time for
us to call you brought Biden.I'm going to say something. I would
also point out that Trump pointed anextra nine hundred billion dollars right before the
(41:52):
election, and what causes inflation asgovernment spending. Biden's continued it. But
this whole thing started, as arehey juniors said, because Trump was pumping
government money into the economy when heshut down the economy. And if you
don't forgive Trump for having shut downthe economy, it's basically Biden's been the
second term of Donald Trump. No, it is not. That's so false.
(42:12):
That the huge spending came under theBiden Obama administration, which spent more
money than all prior administrations combined.That's where it really began. And then
and then Trump got control and hadto fix everything, which cost a lot
of money, including on military.They were having to go to museums to
get playing parts because Obama had runthe military so far. That's very expensive,
folks. So yeah, Trump hadto spend the money to try to
(42:34):
get the country back in shape.And look how great it was under him.
And then Biden's got it now nowhe's spending more than anybody's ever spent.
Christopher, that's has never met adeficit. He doesn't like, Christopher,
that is so untrue. Be rightback. Rescuing, recovery, re
engagement. These are not just wordsThese are the action steps we at the
(42:59):
New Orleans Mission take to make apositive impact on the homeless problem facing the
greater New Orleans area. After thehealing process has begun and lives are back
on track, we walk each individualas they re engage back into the community
to be healthy, thriving, andliving a life of purpose. No one
(43:19):
is meant to live under a bridge. No one should endure abuse, no
one should be stuck in addiction.The New Orleans Mission is a stepping stone
out of that life of destruction andinto a life of hope and purpose.
Partner with us today go to wwwdot New Orleans Mission dot org or make
(43:42):
a difference by texting to seven sevennine four eight got a shoe? Well,
folks are back in this CHAPLAINH.Mckenry, and it is not time
for us to go into our chaplainbah bah patriotic moment where we just take
a brief moment to remind you ofthe biblical foundations of our country, our
(44:02):
Judeo Christian jurisprudence, and today wewant to talk about none other than the
man who wrote the Decoration of Independence. As we are on the eve of
decoration for the July week coming thisThursday, and so it seems fitting to
talk about the man who was themain author of the Decoration of Independence,
(44:22):
Thomas Jefferson. You know, ThomasJefferson said this, and he said this
throughout his life in many speeches hemade, but he first said it when
he's a young man in the Houseof Burgess in Virginia that was our legislature.
He was working very hard to endslavery. He thought it had to
end. He thought it was terriblefor the country, terrible for people,
(44:44):
very demeaning, for as much asfor the slave as for the master.
And so this is his quote.God, who gave us life, gave
us freedom. And can the libertiesof a nation be thought secure if we
removed the only firm foundation from theminds of the people, that these liberties
are indeed a gift from God.We do that, but with his wrath.
(45:06):
I tremble for my country. ForGod is just, and his justice
shall not rest forever. Folks,I think Thomas Jefferson want to make sure
we knew that the foundations of Americawas God and the Holy Bible. He
made this speech many times, ascarved in stone, and the Jefferson Memorial
in Washington, d C. He'salso the fellow who assured us that prayer
(45:28):
and Bible reading would remain in schoolsand throughout the country throughout government. A
letter was written to him from theDansbury Convention, the Baptist Convention of Dansbury,
Connecticut. They were asking me,is if is it true we're free?
Will we have will our preachers bethrown in jail? Will we have
security and safety? Is there arewe really do we really have freedom of
(45:52):
religion? And he wrote, Bankssaid absolutely so. And then he quoted
a famous Baptist theologian, and thatwas Roger Williams, who said that there's
an inseparable wall between the church andstate. However, it's a one way
wall. It's designed to keep thegovernment out of the church, but could
never and should never keep the churchout of government. Folks, I think
old Thomas Jefferson really believed we needto keep God in government. But what
(46:14):
about you? Is God in you? Well? If you're not sure,
you need to really listen up onthis one, because this is where I'm
going to share with you how youcan know for sure that when you pass
away, you're going to glory andyou're going to be saved from hell as
we're now going to our chaplain bya gospel moment. And by the way,
Thomas Jefferson, when he made thisspeech, I wrote the Decoration of
(46:37):
Independence in it. It caused abig furor because he had written a phrase
in it that would would have encouragedthe colonists to end slavery. Well,
they had a big uproar about abig debate. It almost ended the whole
meeting and would have we would havenever had the Decoration of Independence. Rutlets
representing the South, stood boldly forslavery. And then the slave trader robber
(47:01):
barons of the North were desperate tosave the slave trade. They were making
such huge fortunes on it. Sothey went into this big, giant debate
and it went nowhere, and theyfortunately they were able to save it and
bring everybody back and go ahead andwrite the Decoration of Independence. By the
way, mister Rutledge, Edward Rutlich, I'm talking about from South Carolina.
At the end of the war,he personally freed all of his slaves and
(47:23):
drove him into bankruptcy, because that'swhat would happen. You had so much
money in the cost of labor,and if you just throw it away like
that. Of course he did itfor a very noble cost and slavery.
But it is not time for usto go into our chaplain by by gospel
moment where you can really find freedom. Folks, if you're looking for freedom,
this is how you get it.Did you know that the scripture says
(47:46):
for God's so loved the world.That's you, that's everybody. That he
gave his only begotten son. That'sthe Lord, Jesus Christ, perfect God,
perfect man, all the way God, and all the way man.
He gave his only begotten son.That whosoever, that's you, that's all
of us, folks, that's me. That whosoever believeth in him. Believe
what I mean, that's kind ofa strange. Okay, I believe in
(48:06):
my But what do you got tobelieve something about him? Right? All
right? This is what you needto believe about him. The Scripture says
for I declared to you the Gospel, and the Bible says for the Gospel
is a power of God into salvationto whosoever believeth. So what is the
gospel? The scripture says for Ideclare to you the gospel that Jesus died,
according to the scripture, for allof our sins, folks. That
means from the day you're born,in the day you die, your tinians,
(48:27):
to your greatest sins, they wereall on the cross with Jesus.
He took them all on the fact. The scripture says, he that new
no sin was made sin, thatyou might be made the righteousness of God
in him. He takes all yourbed to give you all his good.
That's absolutely amazing that he was actuallyturned into our sin. I mean,
I don't know, let's beyonest,it's hard for me to write my brain
around that one. My mind aroundthat's that's a tough one, and it
(48:51):
just to me it screams out howgreat God's love is for us, that
he that nun no sin was madesin, that you might be made the
righteousness of God in him. Sothat's what you have to believe in him,
That he died for your sins inrossmith dead, that whosover believe in
him shall not perish, not goto Hell, which is the most terrible
place. I mean, I couldspend hours telling you what hell is really
(49:12):
like. I wouldn't want to spenda minute on it. It's so terrible,
folks. Please don't go there.Stop stop. Get the only help
you can get, and that's theLord Jesus. Believe in him. Save
yourself from a burning, horrible zombiehell. It's going to be like everybody
in Hell is gonna be like azombie. They gonna have existence, but
no life, wandering around devouring oneanother. Just it's going to be too
(49:34):
horrible to even think about. Everythinggets bad. It's going to be in
hell, so that whosover believing inHim shall not perish, not go to
hell, but have everlasting life.Folks, you need that resurrection, everlasting
life in your life right now.You know, the Bible says for God,
it says for we have been savedby grace. That word grace means
(49:55):
free gift, that's all it means. It's a free gift, folks.
Free. You can't earn it,you can't work for it. It's free.
For we've been saved by grace tofaith. And even that is not
of ourselves. It is a giftof God, not of works, lest
any man should boast. You see, folks, we don't get salvation because
we're going to earn it some kindof way, and that's what Jesus kept
(50:16):
saying. Repent and believe, Repentand believe. What does reword mean mean?
It means plain and simply stop trustingin yourself, Stop trying to help
God out, Stop trying to workyour way to heaven. Forget your religion.
Religion means you're working your way toheaven. Give it up. You
know there's nothing you can do toin any way help God out. On
(50:37):
the cross, Jesus had to doit all because we weren't capable of it,
and He did it all so itwould come as a free gift to
you, to all of us,folks. If you've never done this before,
if you've never believed you can't saveyourself, that's repentance. So then
you're free to put faith alone inChrist alone. You're free to believe that
He did, that he will,and that He has saved you from burning
hell and guaranteed you everlasting life becauseHe died for all your sins. In
(51:00):
rosam that. If you've never donethat before, do it now. Don't
wait till it's too late, folks. Now today is the day of salvation.
The scripture says well, folks,the day of Jesus's coming is coming
soon, very soon. As wenow go into our chaplain by by watchmen
on the walls. Again, justtake a brief moment, a minute or
two, to give you signs soyou will be aware. Jesus said,
(51:22):
I'm giving you all these signs inall of it discourse. They're over actually
two hundred in the entire Bible aboutJesus's second coming. They are over one
hundred of his first coming. Kindof makes you think maybe the second coming
is even more important than the firstdone it apparently it means that Jesus really
wanted us to know about it andbe ready for it. And he says,
don't let me catch you unawares.Don't let me catch you sleeping messing
(51:44):
up. He says, if youdo, there's going to be a judgment
for you. Even though you're goingto heaven, there's going to be a
judgment if you're not ready for Jesuswhen he comes back. So get ready,
folks, He's coming back, andhe's coming back soon. So many
signs. One of the signs wasthat there would be an increase of Satanic
religion all around the world. That'shappening right now. It's called the New
(52:05):
Age Movement. Hitler was a devoteeof that movement that many people. It's
very popular in the Hollywood crowd.It's a type of it's just neopaganism,
is what. It's any and alltypes of pagan and occult religions brought together
into one new under one new bannercalled the New Age Movement. It's super
saturating the world right now. There'sanother fulfillment of what the Bible said would
(52:28):
happen right before the Antichrist came,and he would be declared to be God.
He would be declared to be thesavior of the world by his religious
leader called the false Prophet. That'sall happening right before us in living technical
folks. It's in the movies,it's in the songs. It's just all
around us. And it's just inthe various individual groups that are forming to
support the New Age Movement that arebecoming New Age people. Folks, we're
(52:51):
in the end. Get ready,smell the coffee, smell the new wine,
if you will, because Jesus iscoming back really soon. Well,
folks, it's not time for usto go. And and by the way,
if you need a bunker, asafe house for Jesus coming back,
he is a safe house. Putsyour faith, all your faith in him.
(53:12):
Believe that He died for all yoursins in Wilsemandad, and you will
never be safer and never be moreprepared for when He comes back. So
it's not time for us to close. As we close with a mont Saint
Martin singing a creole goodbye, andGod bless all of it. We call
you wel goodbye. They think we'rejust wasted out the time all three sivil
(53:45):
love me. There's time for aCreo good bye.
Battles politicians, the drift of digitatorsand magicians. First to see the money.
They just don't there's nothing to fillthe holes. Well, then fill
in their pockets, bid holes.The politicians mountain down the road. Every
(00:22):
body's wish for no moment, corruptionand its function. It's gone to take
divide its offens. The subtext ofThursday Night's debate had to do with reproductive
rights, and it's actually something that'sdividing the right in some of Trump's space
(00:43):
with IVF. We'll talk about thatand where the lines are and how that's
playing with voters in the middle.Also talking about voters in the middle.
Here in Louisiana, we have aten Commandments bill that was signed to law
by the governor a couple weeks ago. Now it's going to the courts.
How far is too far? Alsospeaking of not going too far? In
Saint Tammany Council actually figured out kindof a middle ground on raising taxes and
(01:07):
cutting them at the same time.We'll talk about that and other issues on
this edition of The Founder Show.And God bless all out there. You
are now listening to the founders,So the voice of the founding fathers,
your Founding Fathers, coming to youdeep within the bowels of those mystic and
cryptic alligator swamps of the Big Easy, that old Crescent City, New Orleans,
(01:30):
Louisiana. And high up on topof that old Liberty Cypress tree way
out on the Eagles Branch, drapedand Spanish moss, is none other than
your s Bengary Babbay, all theRepublic Chaplain high mcgenery with Christopher Tidmore,
your roving reporter, resident radical moderateand associate editor of the Louisiana Weekly at
Louisiana Weekly dot net, and folks, we wanted to you know, everybody
(01:53):
else on earth is talking about thecontext of the presidential debate, what happened.
We wanted to go a little deeperand one of the challenges that Trump
is facing, and that has todo with this sort of IVF issue,
and it's bigger than that. ItsIt deals with everything from range to birth
(02:14):
control, to the abortion drug meofiction prone and the Supreme Court decision.
But I wanted to start off becausewe have we're in a unique position because
my co host is not just apolitical co host, as you all well
know, he's a Southern Baptist ministerand co host CHRISTOPHA. I am the
host than one of my chop liverNo. I mean my point being,
(02:35):
are the brilliant parts journalists on thisshow, and you do a great job.
My point being that you're a Baptistminister. And I'm curious about this
because you and I have always sortof approached the issues of reproductive of reproductive
rights to versus abortion, kind oflike where our religious side drew a line
(02:59):
on public calge. What do Imean by that. I've heard you say,
maybe you've changed your opinion, butI've heard you say before you believe
life starts a conception. That's yourpre Christian faith, the moment of the
spark. But you've also said thereis a reasonable enough debate until six weeks
when a heartbeat starts. That's whatyou said. You maybe have changed opinion,
but that's what you said the pastreason. Yes, yeah, okay.
(03:19):
What I've said before for those thatdon't follow it is I actually,
as as a Christian, do believethat life starts a conception. But I
believe the debate goes to about twelveweeks in my mind for political reasons,
twelve to fourteen weeks and The reasonfor that is that's you don't have brain
wave of activity until the sixteenth week. I'm only telling you that not to
(03:39):
get into a debate over where it'ssixteen or you know, for us,
but to give you some of theground rules where Hi and I've always said
that there are some gray areas,a little bit of gray areas in this
debate, and we're kind of wherebetween those two positions most of the American
people are. Well. The grayarea, of course that's plaguing republics is
(04:00):
IVF or intra intravenous fertilization, andthat is something that right now came before
the Congress. Now, for thosewho haven't been following the debate, a
major move happened a month ago wherethe Southern Baptist Convention voted to restrict,
condemn, not approve of, ifyou will in IVF. In this this
(04:26):
is not original. The Roman CatholicChurch hasn't supported IVF for years, the
idea that every conception, no matterwhat, should be protected. But this
has not been that every month.So when the Baptist Church came in and
added a wrinkle into the debate,and the reason is because there had sort
of been an argument on the rightthat we oppose abortion, but we do
(04:49):
not oppose birth control. We donot oppose anything before implantation and fertilization.
IVF is a great area because whichyou're doing is you're fertilizing the ovum outside
of the outside of the woman,outside of the uterus. And so the
Southern Baptist Convention came out and thissort of went against week's worth of Republicans
(05:14):
saying, no, we support IVF, it needs to be legalized. A
tremendous amount of pressure amongst Christian Conservativesstarted to be applied to Congress. So
when the IVF issue came up aspart of a bigger issue on guaranteeing birth
control under federal law, which isnot technically protected. It's within the privacy
(05:35):
zone. There's no statute on federallevel that protects birth control. There's plenty
on the states. This forced alot of Republicans to vote against a democratic
measure all but two and they saidit was a lot of arguments on it,
but it should be left to thestates. It's created this debate.
Donald Trump is trying to thread thisdebate, and he's taken a step further
(05:57):
saying that all issues of abortion whatsoever, should be in the States, breaking
his twenty sixteen position there ought tobe a federal ban on abortion. After
twenty weeks, he ran on thathe now no longer supports that there's a
move in Congress led by Lindsay Graham, to put a federal abortion ban.
At fifteen weeks, I actually supportit, but Donald Trump doesn't. And
(06:18):
the reason he does, and hesaid this debate is going to be politically
difficult for Republicans. So this hasbeen the hammer in which the Democrats are
smashing Republicans for good reason. Andthe best way to articulate this is the
IVF debate. Where does this go? Because it is a fertilized egg,
(06:41):
but it has not been implanted.The eggs are usually put up for adoption,
but sometimes destroyed. How far doyou go? It's obviously not a
human being, it's not growing,it's not going anywhere. On the other
hand, it falls within that sixweek window. And members of your church,
hi, you're your fellow pastors ofthe Southern Baptist Church basically have condemned
(07:02):
anyone trying to do this as destroyinghuman life. And what I'm curious about
is how this plays on the politicalside, and I'm not trying to get
in the argument we don't have tohave a full abortion fight. I'm talking
about practical politics, because this isan issue IVF. You tell a woman
who can't get pregnant, and forthose that don't know, my ex wife
(07:23):
and I went through IVF. It'sa very difficult and very expensive process.
You tell a woman she can't haveher own children and go to lengths of
that, good luck with that.You will lose her vote. I don't
care how deeply conservative she is onevery other issue, you will lose her
I don't care how pro life sheis, you will lose her vote every
day of the week. If youtell her family can't go to extraordinary lengths
(07:45):
to have children, well, ofcourse, for I mean, there's got
to be an answer here, andmy answer would be that if you cannot
have a baby. And by thewhite folks, I have a really good
friend and I'm the godfather of severalof their kids, all four of them
that were quadruplets. All four ofthem were produced by this method of a
fertilized egg outside of the womb,and uh, they're great kids. One
(08:07):
of them's a marine they're just wonderfulkids, and so, you know,
I understand the real value of this. The problem that comes in here is
they're they're they're doing so many ofthem, I mean like hundred thousands,
hundreds of thousands, whatever it is. There's money in it, and and
then they end up killing I don'tknow what the I would say, a
(08:28):
large majority of them get killed.And that's the rub. That's where the
problem is. Is it really okayto create life and then and then murder
it? I mean, before God, that is a human being. You
so you cannot measure the size ofa soul or the spirit. It's not
immeasurable. Uh, you know,like the old old medieval debate of how
many angels can dance on the headof a pen. Uh, it's it's
immeasurable. And just because it's inone cell doesn't mean that human being does
(08:54):
not exist body, soul, andspirit. Yeah, the body is just
a one cell's eyegoat. But thesoul and the spirit. Said so,
is it really right to kill thesethings? I don't think it is.
So the way I would handle itis you do it on order, on
demand if you will, uh.And that is that if somebody wants to
try this method, then they whoever'sgoing to provide it, they get together
(09:16):
and they provide the sperm and thecell and they do it that way and
then no, no babies are killed, No, no zygotes are killed.
And so that would work. That'sto me a happy medium. And the
other concern because we have so manymad scientists out there, like Fauci and
all these other siccos that believe inusing, you know, experimenting on human
(09:37):
beings. All the modern day mingolasthat are in high government positions. I
don't trust them to handle these things. There's no telling what they may they
may be trying to make Frankenstein's Wehave no idea what these sicicos are up
to. That's a great concern Ihave about this. And so you know
those are my thoughts on a Christopher. Now you had something you wanted to
say, No, I want toask a question. I want to ask
(09:58):
a question. You've said in thepast that where you say you see a
legislative protection where you basically say thepro life forces shouldn't go is six weeks
after implementation when you have a heartbeat. You've said that before, you still
hold that position. Yeah, Ibelieve that once you have a heart.
Now this is for political just politicalreasons. I'm talking about politics here,
(10:18):
not religion, And I understand thisis not you can't avoid one with it.
You cannot mix them here. Actuallyyou can, because at this point
we're drawing a line of where thereis a reasonable debate. No fine follows.
You cannot separate the two, Chris, according to fire Fathers, yes
you can. But the point butthe point I'm getting at here is I'm
referring the statements you've made before beforethe Roe v. Wade, where you
(10:43):
said prior to six weeks, that'swhere there shouldn't be legislation. That should
be a question of the conscience offaith, not of the law. Well
actually did no, I really didn't, chrispher obstin. It's very practical here,
folks. Nobody knows they're pregnant,so they probably six weeks or eight
weeks pregnant. And if you can'tkill a baby after six weeks, and
(11:05):
so what if you said a sixweek deadline. They're not going to kill
a baby anyway. They don't evenknow they have one. Let me so
by that logic, if you're followingthe logic, then birth control, which
could be in a porti facia,shouldn't be allowed because and that no,
that's that's that's the Catholic Church's position. Because so that's that's not me coming
out of nowhere. The main reasonthe Catholic Church does not support abortion support
(11:28):
of birth control pills one of thetwo major arguments. The other is that
you know, all sex should befor procreation. But the second one is
that you a a a birth controlpill can stop implantation of an ovum.
Now, look, you raised acouple of issues. Let me just say
this. You said faith in politics, you always put the two together.
(11:50):
The difference between us on this showis that I don't because I say there
are people of many different faiths,it doesn't and that has to be respected.
Now, what I'm getting at is, you tell a woman she can't
have IVF if she wants to havechildren, you'll never get her vote.
And let me explain this very deliberately. You cannot and you cannot fertilize one
(12:13):
ovum. If you do IVF,you have to do five or six because
they don't implant altogether. I've beenthrough this process, high I know this
has been one hundred and fifty thousand, and you're always going to end up
with extra fertilized ovums. There isabsolutely no way under any medical tradition to
say that you don't end up withfertilized ovums under IVF. And if you're
(12:37):
saying you can't do that, ifyou're legislating that, you are literally legislating
IVF out of existence. And rightnow you're going to destroy the conservative movement
by doing that. Politically, Christopher, I'm not destroying a conservative movement.
And you maybe not understand what I'msaying. Yes, I know you have
to fertilize several of them, youknow, to get one, Well,
so what then that's it, andthen you wait for the next request and
(13:01):
there you've got some other fertilized ovums. You said. What you're saying is
they don't all fertilize. You haveto fertilize five to eight and then try
to implant them. You won't beable to implant all you were going to
kill. You're going to destroy someovums in the personal process, and you've
got to This is the problem.You can't not do it and have idea.
(13:24):
What you're saying is medically impossible.Then what you're saying is the ovums
that don't implant will die. Isthat okay, Well that's fine. You
know that does happen in nature,so I can accept that that's a natural
process. But the Southern Baptist Conventioncouldn't. That was their point. They
said, because there would be ovumsthat would die, you couldn't do it.
This is what I'm getting at.You're talking about politics, but with
(13:46):
the fact is you've told me beforethe heartbeat is where you say there should
be legislation. This is before theheartbeat. And if you're following this position,
you've changed the rules that we toldeverybody before the band. What you
don't understand is I'm not a biggung ho guide to band, you know,
intravenious fertilization. I'm not a Christopher. Look, I love the Southern
(14:11):
Baptist Church, but I agree witheverything they say, and I love them
to death. Guess what, Christopher, I'm the dancer's crazy man on a
dance floor. You ever saw That'sa sin according to other Baptists, I
think, at least to many SouthernBaptists. And I love the Southern Baptists,
I don't agree with everything you do, Christopher, So I think you
pegged me with something and you misunderstoodmy position. But at least everybody understands.
(14:31):
They're very ins and outs and whereaboutsof this debate right now, and
it is going to be a bigdebate. I'm basically going to say it
like this. No, I believethat I see a practical this. You
know, I also see you ona dance floor and nobody can believe you're
a Southern Baptist because you dance sowell. But the point I'm beginning at
is you're now seeing how this thisis a thousand angels on the head of
(14:54):
debate because there is no way tothread this debate. Used to be easy
with abortion, fertilized ovum. Itis head of heartbeat, head, brain
waves, is probably a baby.That's pretty straightforward. The fact of the
matter is, with the right havingthis debate, you're breaking up the conservative
movement. Look, I actually,for once I'm gonna say something, You're
(15:15):
gonna die of shock. I reallyfeel for Donald Trump in a positive way
because he's by trying to make thisa state by state issue, a state's
rights issue, which is against whathe ran on originally and that's all the
way through abortion from basically even twentyweeks. He's trying to hold the conservative
coalition together in a way, he'slooking at a whole bunch of VP candidates
(15:37):
from Tim Scott on who are onrecord on a federal band of abortion.
In fifteen weeks, he's dealing withthe one issue that will guarantee it.
And when it comes to IVF,particularly as well as birth control, you
want to make Republican women vote forJoe Biden, tell him this. I
can tell you from home. That'sexactly what will happen. And right now
(15:58):
the Democrats have the ultimate weapon becauseRepublicans when this came up before the Senate,
the Republican caucus was so afraid ofthe Southern Baptist Convention and the political
reaction from the Christian right that theydid not vote for a bill that was
straightforward. The couple who did cameout and said, wait a second,
this is what we said. Weactually supported a woman's right to IVF two
(16:18):
weeks ago. There was nothing elsein's bill, and everybody agreed with that
statement. It was too politically charged. The right is going just like you've
seen it with the pro life movementbefore. They're trying to make perfect the
enemy of the good, and they'regoing to lose everything because of it.
Well, I hope they figured itout, Christopher. Very interesting points there.
And by the way, folks,remember David danced with all his might
(16:40):
before the Lord, and in theOld Testament law dancing was required for the
worship of God. So I don'tknow where my beloved Southern Baptist brethren go
there. How they go there.Maybe there was a time when there were
many saloons with strip joints and theyrelated that to all They just blanket at
(17:00):
all dancing. Is that kind ofthing? Well no, I mean,
there's such a thing as gluttony.It's a great sin. And yet we're
not forbidden to eat right because gluttonyis a sin. So there needs to
be a little refinement on that positionwith my beloved brethren, the good old
Southern Baptist hardcore evangelical preachers. Well, folks, so, Christopher, I
(17:22):
know you got another topic you're gonnabring up here. What's that next topic?
Well, when we come back,we're going to continue this kind of
conceptual problem in the right sort,this texts versus originalist. But we're gonna
actually turn our attention to something alittle bit more. Basically, that's property
taxes here in Louisiana and something interestingthat happened in St. Tammandy Parish.
Before we get into that, wegot to bring up this Ten Commandments bill.
(17:42):
The ACLU is doing it all thatand more with Hiy McHenry and Christopher
Tidmore. After this commercial break,the fourth of July is coming up,
and there's nothing better than a patrioticarrangement from Villary's Florist at one eight hundred
vi l e are r Villaries hoursdot com on the web. Locations on
(18:02):
the North Shore and Highway one ninetyin Covington. The South Shore on Martin
Burman Avenue right off Veterans Boulevard,right near the Jefferson Orleans line. You
can walk in and get one ofthe patriotic arrangements for the July fourth holiday.
Also baskets gift baskets for parties inJuly fourth barbecues. They're perfect.
The barbecue baskets are fantastic. Youcan go in and get all of this
at Villary's Florist, or check themonline or give them a call at one
(18:25):
eight hundred vi l l e rie or villariesflorist dot Com for all of
your floral but also gift needs oneeight hundred VI l l e er.
Good, folks, is chaplin,Hi mckenry. I'm here to tell you
about our ministry, a Lamb Ministries. Folks, during these days of independence
and celebrating the birth of this country, we should remember the Biblical foundations of
(18:47):
our country. And we do thatwith the Lambministries where we go into the
inner city, we go into theurban poor, and we reach kids and
adults, but primarily children, theyouth with the Gospel of Jesus. They
need all the help they can get. Folks. Let me tell you where
they what I've seen when I tookmy kids to Mexico and as we crossed
(19:07):
the border and got into Mexico.You know, our kids are very straight,
street smart. We were going ona mission trip down there. They
were looking around, their eyes wereall white. They had never left America.
This is a big, big thingfor them. They had never left
the Ninth War. I mean,you know, they'd never left their neighborhoods,
the hood, so this was abig thing for them. They were
just so astounded and excited and lookingaround, and you know, two blocks
(19:29):
into Mexico, they did something thatshocked the daylights out of me. They
started screaming, I love America,I love America. And they shouted like
that for a couple of minutes.I thought I didn't even know my kids,
They didn't any sense of patriotism.What's going on here? You see?
I told you earlier. They read, They knew how to read the
street, and when they saw whatthey saw on that border town, they
(19:53):
knew how blessed America was. Theyknew how fortunate they were. Folks,
this is a great work. Ifyou want to get involved, we need
all the help we can get.We need volunteers, we need final supports,
and we need prayer warriors. Soplease contact us. Just call me
chaplinhamg aera code five zero four seventwo three nine three six nine, or
(20:15):
go to our website lamnola dot com. It's lamb and ola dot com and
thank you so very very much.Folks, beat the dog days of summer
in the evenings by coming to theGarden District Bookshop with its new bar,
open from four to seven pm everyday, and in fact noon to seven
(20:37):
pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Getout of the heat, get into the
air conditioning where events are going onevery night. Pop ups for special food
from hot dogs on Tuesdays, FilipinoBarbecue on Thursdays, lobster rolls on Fridays,
and family friendly movies on Saturdays atfour point thirty. But come have
a cocktail in the in the HistoricGarden District Bookshop heav ohs and bring your
(21:00):
kids, let them play in thekids room and enjoy the evenings when it's
not too hot inside in the HistoricRink at twenty seven to twenty seven Pritannia
the corner of Washington Avenue and Pritanniaover seventy spots of off street parking right
off Washington Avenue at the Historic Rinkat the Garden District Bookshop, and if
you want me available during the day, come to the Chickery House new menu
(21:21):
for breakfast and lunch opens every morningfrom seven am to five pm right in
the Chickery House and the Garden DistrictBookshop at twenty seven to twenty seven pertenn.
You find out more online at theGardendistrict Bookshop dot com. Ohs,
folks, We're back and you arelistening to the Founders, So the voice
of the Finding follows, and Iwant you to know you can hear us
(21:42):
every Sunday morning from eight to nineam on wr O. That's nine to
nine point five on your radio dialFM dial. You can also hear U
during the week on WSLA and that'sninety three point nine on the FMDAL or
one five six zero on the AMdial and drive time eight to nine am
(22:03):
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Youcan if you're out in the Grand Canyon
by the way way out in Arizona, you can also hear us on Ridlesnake
Radio. We're all over the country, folks. Nah. If you don't
like making exact times, I don't. All you have to do is go
to our website, thefoundershow dot comthat's felled with two s's, or get
the iHeartMedia app. And that's absoluutelybest way because it's better than satellite radio.
(22:27):
It has a greater variety. Itcovers everything from iHeartMedia, the largest
broadcasting company in the world, andyou can listen to us whenever you want
to. So get that iHeartMedia app. It's free. Just download it takes
a couple of minutes. You goton your computer, got on your cell
phone, and we're ready to goany time you want to hear us.
And so, folks, it's timefor us to get the show going.
(22:48):
This is chappaheih mcinery with Christopher Tidmoory, you a roving reporter, resident radical
monitor, and associate editor of theLouisiana Weekly newspaper at louisanawekly dot net.
And I got some about the factthat people were angry that I wasn't more
up in arms about the Ten CommandmentsBill. So if anybody hasn't followed this,
Governor Jeff Landry signed the Ten CommandmentsBill into law immediately saying I'm looking
(23:14):
forward to a lawsuit. This isa test case. The ACLU and related
groups are immediately going to test this. And the reason why it's a test
case is in nineteen eighty there wasthis particular case and it's very clearly said
that you could not post the TenCommandments on a public school wall, that
that was an establishment of religion.Now we're dealing with two generations later.
(23:37):
The question is will the current SupremeCourt uphold that finding or will they say
it people are like, why aren'tyou more offended by this? I don't
stay on a personal level, Idon't care. I mean, that's kind
of strange. This is a passionateissue on both sides, and to me,
posting the Ten Commandments in a schoolwall is roughly the same as having
God in the pledge of allegiance.To me, it is not an infringement
(24:04):
on establishment of religion. On theother hand, I don't think it's gonna
implass a great morality in our people. But I'm fascinated by the arguments about
it because everybody thinks, because there'sa conservative court, this will be a
slam dunk, and that's not necessarilytrue. Ladies and gentlemen. We talk
about pressures in the last segment betweendifferent areas of conservatisms. Let me explain
(24:26):
to you the legal pressure that thiswill face when it goes to Supreme Court.
And we're already seeing in other casesthe difference between an originalist and a
textualist. And guess what that springvote is New Orleans own Amy Connie Barrett.
Now how you were like, youwant to say something about you're waving
for the Mitch. You explain thedifference between originalists and contextualis yeah, well,
(24:51):
let me get this. So foreverybody's like, well, isn't that
the same thing, it's like conservativejudicial philosophy. No, it's actually quite
different. Sometimes it comes to thesame conclusion but for different logic. And
I'll use the most famed case ofthem all recently is Roe v. Wade.
So an originalist will look at basicallywhat history contends, the idea of
(25:12):
the founding fathers, but not reallywhat they intend when they wrote it,
what they put original intent. No, an originalist, that's actually part of
the argument. You're wrong about that. The reason is the original intent argument
is what the two sides have.So an originalist will come out and say,
and I know this seems like I'mnitpicking, but it's actually quite important.
(25:33):
This was the common belief at thetime and when they wrote the document,
this is what they meant. Atextualist will come at this and said,
I don't care. What I careabout is what's on the page,
what does it say or what doesit not say? And the case of
Roe v. Wade, instead,we don't have the power to establish upright
to privacy, And so an originalistwill say, what do the founding fathers
(25:56):
think about abortion, how does thatplay with their definition of rights and things.
A textualist who would be an originalistis a perfect example of that would
be Neil Gorsich or Clarence Thomas.A textualist would be someone like any Connie
Barrett who says, okay, great, she has a great comment. And
(26:17):
there's a several cases where this isbeing revered, and one of them she
says in a speech before the CatholicUniversity. And remember she's a very devout
Catholic. She's a pious the tenthCatholic. She's a Dominican girl. She
went to Dominican High School in NewOrleans. She reiterated the point we have
to be very, very careful inthe way that we use history, adding
that displaying historical evidence to advance andlegal opinion can be looking like looking over
(26:40):
a crowd and picking out your friends. What she means is that you just
because it was in the past doesn'tmean because the document says it or doesn't
has any bearing on what a judgedoes. Christopher, maybe we're saying the
same thing, but splitting hairs orsomething. I don't know, but to
give you a little better understanding,of original intent. There are questions about
(27:02):
passages in the Constitution that could goeither way, and they're trying to figure
out what was So those who believein original intent, they go to the
preitererations, and there were several writingsof the Constitution. If you look at
the rough draft, it's nothing thatyou see that fine, beautiful calligraphy.
It was written by Governor Morris,and his penmanship was not the best,
but you could read it. Youcould you could understand it. And there
(27:25):
are many scratches and many underlinings,and many rewritings and everything else. So
you go to the preiterations and whatwas said in the debates to try to
establish what did they really what wasthe real context was, what was the
real text saying that's what the wayI understand and follow original intent, And
but it bails down to what youjust said. What does the text actually
(27:45):
say? For instance, government shallmake no law respecting the establishment of religion,
are prohibiting the free exercise thereof Andwhereas the government cannot prohibit the free
exercise size of religion anywhere, itjust can't establish a state religion. They
were trying to end the concept ofa state religion. And if you go
(28:07):
to the preiderations, you see thatthey say no denominations shall rule over any
other denomination in several other statements likethat, which lets you see the goal
there was to eliminate any possibility ofa state religion. That's the point I'm
trying to make it, all right, And what I'm approaching for you there
is you just said, as ifthe two viewpoints are the same. Let
me give you a few areas wherethey're different. Have you noticed there have
(28:30):
been some unusual splits in the SupremeCourt lately, okay, over several issues,
including when it came in, forexample, was unstanding. So what
you're saying is you're looking at thefounders to find out what their original intent
was. That's an originalist, literalistargument based on their preitererations, to find
(28:51):
out where were they going with this. A textualist would say, Okay,
that's all well and good, andyes you need to be educated by history.
Yes we need to know what thatfounding father says. He said,
However, you can take that toofar and this is the difference, and
only give you about the ten Commandments, because that's how we started this argument.
As it goes to the Supreme Court, a textualist will ask the question,
(29:15):
is this an establishment? It doesn'tmatter to them what the founding fathers
thought was the state curse that?And I think the same thing, Christopher.
Okay, but you just said thefounding fathers for original intent, a
textualist will say, so what,And you're like, well, we're splitting
hairs. We're not, And whereit's coming in, I'll get Chris.
For the original intendant is to tryto understand fully the text. You have
(29:37):
to go by the text that Iunderstand, and you're like this, but
you can take this at far sothe interpretation. A true originalist was Anton
Scalia, who's very worried about whathe made a joke. He says,
everybody says, I don't care whatinternational law says. Well, I'm very
concerned what a group of English judgessaid in the sixteen and seventeen hundreds,
because I wanted to know what theirintent was. He was that, to
(30:00):
which, turning around Neil, towhich John Roberts or Kavanaugh today, who's
another example, would say, well, that's all well and good, and
it should educate us a little bit. But frankly, it's looking at historical
intent is like looking at a livingconstitution. It's not necessarily reflecting the text
(30:21):
in the current circumstances of life.And I'll give you the perfect, the
absolute perfect example, bump stocks.The both sides got mad with this for
a very simple reason. The unanimouscourt said Congress needs to change the law
about what an automatic weapon is.They didn't. What the originalist said was,
(30:41):
well, the Founding Fathers believed andright to bear arms, and you
should have ruled that this is perfectlyfine. In fact, you should have
ruled that automatic weapons are fine.A textualist would say there's nothing in the
text full automatic. Well, butI'm not debating whether a bump stop is
full or not. And I don'tthink you're debating whether Congress has the right
(31:02):
to do the statute. The pointI'm getting at is an originalist will come
in and say the Founding Fathers thoughtthis. A textualist will say this,
and that's what this is going tocome down to. It's not going to
matter to an Amy Connie Barrett whetherthe Founding Fathers thought posting the Ten Commandments
on the side of a building wasa good idea. She's going to look
(31:25):
at it from the standpoint of howdoes this or do or do not?
And she could rule either way establishreligion today. And so this is the
part where the right thinks people thinktoo simplistically when it comes to the law,
because they want activist judges to reflecttheir viewpoints, and sometimes judges,
by staying out of it, areactually doing their job. Let's just look
(31:47):
at the Thin Commandments quickly. Madisonwho wrote the Constitution. Of course a
lot of other people contributed to it, but he was the main author of
it. James Madison, who's heavilyunder the tutelage of Thomas Jefferson, made
it very clear the Constitution was basedon one main thing, the Ten Commandments,
and without the Ten Commandments, theConstitution would not work. Isn't it
(32:10):
strange that when you go to theSupreme Court above the Supreme Court building in
the gable end, you're going tosee the Ten Commandments with Moses holding them.
With all the other great philosophers andleaders of the world religious leaders,
they are all pointing to Moses like, hey, he's got it, the
Ten Commandments. And when you walkinto the doors, you're going to see
(32:30):
the Ten Commandments on the doors ofthe Supreme Court. And when you go
into the Supreme Court and you lookat the nine judges behind them, you'll
again see the Ten Commandments. Ithink the government throughout history has realized the
importance of the Ten Commandments. Justto give you a little idea of this,
when they kicked God out of governmentin nineteen sixty one of the Gore
versus Fidal decision, and they hadto remove everything heaven to do with God
(32:52):
in public schools. Up until thatpoint, problems in public schools were like
running in the hall, passing notesin the classroom, spitballs. That was
the greatest problem they had, andthey were very concerned about it. The
teachers, they wrote about it.What are the problems today? Extreme violent
crime in the schools, rape,murder, you name it, drugs,
(33:15):
the violence, things you could thinkof are going on inside of schools.
Now since we took God out ofgovernment. There are over forty government statistics
that prove this. Also, whenwe took God out, get what happened
to academic excellence. We were thenumber one rated education system in the world
back then. We're not even thetop thirty five anymore. Of the of
(33:37):
industrialized nations. We're at the verybottom. Now, since we kicked God
out of government, I think there'sa lesson there. Everything that described academic
excellent crashed and burned, Everything describedacademic depravity skyrocketed. Folks, we need
the Ten Commandments back in schools.You know, if the kids read it
(33:58):
and they actually think about it,Oh my goodness, Yes, that could
be terrible. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not lie, Thou shalt
nuts to do. Wouldn't it behorrible for them to be thinking about those
things? No, it'd be great. Those kids need to know that.
You turn to a moral argument,and you know what what I'm trying to
except that's the point. A textualistwill say, the morality doesn't matter,
(34:20):
the fact that the Founding father's moralitydoesn't matter. You're waving it away.
I'm giving you what's going to happenon the Supreme Court based on a real
difference, because I mean, youcould use the Founding fathers. Jefferson said
we should rewrite the Constitution every thirtyevery thirty years, very bluntly said it
was not to be an eternal document. And so if you're saying that the
morality of the how it affects thesociety. That's an important issue. It
(34:45):
doesn't matter to a textualist, itdoesn't matter that. But the text clearly
says in our prohibit the free exerciserup. If you're saying kids cannot bring
Bibles to school, they can't,but that's not that's not that's not the
compulsion. But they ten Commandments becauseit teaches the kids the foundations of our
government. Can you show me inthe Constitution where the Ten Commandments are?
(35:08):
I'm agreeing the fun This is whatI'm getting at. This is what the
case is going to come down to, not whether or not you can't spray
religion on somebody. That's what thenineteen eighty case was about. What this
case will come down to, witha conservative majority being divided, is whether
or not the Constitution gives the powerto the federal government to make an expressive
(35:30):
religious statement on not the federal governmentthe state government in this case, the
state of Louisiana to make an expressivereligious statement. And originals will say,
yes, you're arguing the religional positionbeautifully high. But I'm telling you,
a textalist would say, even onelike any Connie Barry, whose devout Christian
would say, you know what,I believe that, but the document doesn't
(35:51):
say that. Okay, Chris,So it's down to the debate. But
okay, and the liberals have beenright, all right, No, you're
wrong about that, Christopher. You'reabout that anyway. So it's going to
come down to the textualists and originalistand we'll just say how it works out.
It's gonna be interesting, folks.Who knows where this will go.
We'll find out. Anyway. Let'schange gears here for a second. I'm
(36:12):
actually going to compliment some politicians.I don't know if you've been paying attention
in Sant Tammany Parish. The parishwants to raise more money. And there's
a scam that exists in Louisiana politics. It's called roll forwards. So for
those that aren't familiar, which meansyou've never paid a property tax. When
we started saying that houses were goingto be properly assessed, there was a
(36:34):
promise implicit in it that the propertytaxes would roll back. So when you
vote for a property tax, youvote for a certain amount of money to
come in, and that could beadjusted by the rate of inflation. But
it's a fixed amount of money,and that's assigned a percentage of your value
of your house to pay in taxes. It's called a mill or a millage.
When the house goes up in value, you're trying to produce the same
(36:57):
amount of money. So the millageis supposed to be rolled back. Now,
in a rational society, the lawwould say if you wanted to roll
it forward, therefore collecting more moneybecause your house is now worth more,
you'd have to have a public vote. But Louisiana law doesn't say that.
What Louisiana law says is that thegoverning body this could be a parish council,
this could be a municipal government andin case the sheriff, since a
(37:20):
committee of won the sheriff who decidesthis can roll forward the millages. And
what it's done is we've been kitin this. One of the big things
that's happened in Louisiana is as propertyvalues have gone up, our taxes have
gone up because of it. Well, the same tam Many parish government is
looking at higher expenses and they're facingthis problem and they could do what other
parish governments have done, just rollfor the millage. They have the power.
(37:43):
What they've decided to do. I'dlove them just to roll it back.
They've decided to do though, wasinteresting. They want to roll for
the general millage and this by thesame amount cut the coroner's millage back.
Actually reduce it, roll it backso that the same amount of taxes are
pretty are paid by the same amountof people, you know, the same
level of taxes. Now, Iat least give them credit they're thinking about
(38:06):
this. Part of the reason Ithink of that as is everybody in Santamity
Parish hates the coroner and wants torecall them and do all the different stuff.
But the fact of the matter isthis kind of perspective in a time
of inflation, when costs are goingthrough the ceiling, is something we'd like
to see more. And the StammedyParish Council's willingness to at least acknowledge that
property taxes hit people. I mean, we've already talked about in previous shows
(38:29):
how absurd insurance rates are going thatpeople are literally losing their houses. This
is not hypothetical. I talked aboutmy friend Sharon Brolski having to sell her
house that she owns outright because shecan't afford twenty five hundred dollars a month
insurance. I love and saddened bythe story of the one hundred people that
are about to go into default thatgot their houses from Habitat for Humanity.
(38:52):
They can make their house payments,but a hundred families are going to be
kicked out because they can't make theinsurance payments that goes along for government to
make it worse by raising your propertytaxes inadvertently, no matter how expensive things
have become. And yes, I'mthe first one to say the problem we
have right now mostly is not government'sfault when we talk about five ten percent
(39:15):
inflation, but when you're talking aboutrebuilding roles, the inflation rate for asphalt
and for medals have gone up someseventy percent. I see the problem they
have. But I'm also saying ifpeople are losing their homes because of rising
insurance, rising property taxes will onlymake it worse. And I wish all
(39:35):
these constitutional things are being talked aboutin a special session in August by Governor
Jeff Landry. I mean, he'salready got a problem that the legislators don't
want to come back because they've alreadybeen in office too long. At the
magnificent salary of sixteen eight hundred dollarsa year, they don't really want to
spend the whole year in baton rouge. But one of the things that should
be in any change to the constitutionis the simple idea that if you're going
(39:58):
to roll forward a millage after it'sbeen rolled back, the people ought to
be able to vote on it.And right now, no one wants to
do that because if it's brought upby the municipal association, it's killed.
Because this is a stealth tax cutthat frankly, local government has lived large
on. And no matter how legitimaterising costs are people in Louisiana, the
(40:21):
average income is fifty one thousand dollarsa year. They're getting cooked to where
we are watching people losing their homes. The worst housing market we've had since
Katrina, and people have record numbershave houses for sale, and it's not
because they think they can make alot of money. It's because they can't
pay for the insurance and the expensesof living. No, I agree with
you, Chris, from keeping ahouse up now has become almost unaffordable for
(40:46):
so many people because of what youjust said, and we can look to
big brother government, big brother corporation, and especially right now the Biden administration,
who has is destroying us with inflation. I mean it's it's killing us,
and it's especially killing my kids,the urban poor. They can't handle
this. It's too much for himand this could lead to extreme social unrest.
(41:09):
I'm talking about riots in all thestreets across America, not just the
Democrat controlled areas like twenty twenty whenthey caused so much damage. You know,
hit five hundred and seventy locations,billions of dollars of property damage,
hundreds of millions of stolen chattel property, looted chattel property, fifty cops killed,
two thousand in the hospital, andwho knows how many other people raped
(41:31):
and murdered. It was. Imaginethat if that happens, starts happening all
around the United States because of what'shappening with inflation right now in America,
it could get extremely bad. Folks. Well, folks, it's time for
us to call you brought Biden.I'm going to say something. I would
also point out that Trump pointed anextra nine hundred billion dollars right before the
(41:52):
election, and what causes inflation asgovernment spending. Biden's continued it. But
this whole thing started, as arehey juniors said, because Trump was pumping
government money into the economy when heshut down the economy. And if you
don't forgive Trump for having shut downthe economy, it's basically Biden's been the
second term of Donald Trump. No, it is not. That's so false.
(42:12):
That the huge spending came under theBiden Obama administration, which spent more
money than all prior administrations combined.That's where it really began. And then
and then Trump got control and hadto fix everything, which cost a lot
of money, including on military.They were having to go to museums to
get playing parts because Obama had runthe military so far. That's very expensive,
folks. So yeah, Trump hadto spend the money to try to
(42:34):
get the country back in shape.And look how great it was under him.
And then Biden's got it now nowhe's spending more than anybody's ever spent.
Christopher, that's has never met adeficit. He doesn't like, Christopher,
that is so untrue. Be rightback. Rescuing, recovery, re
engagement. These are not just wordsThese are the action steps we at the
(42:59):
New Orleans Mission take to make apositive impact on the homeless problem facing the
greater New Orleans area. After thehealing process has begun and lives are back
on track, we walk each individualas they re engage back into the community
to be healthy, thriving, andliving a life of purpose. No one
(43:19):
is meant to live under a bridge. No one should endure abuse, no
one should be stuck in addiction.The New Orleans Mission is a stepping stone
out of that life of destruction andinto a life of hope and purpose.
Partner with us today go to wwwdot New Orleans Mission dot org or make
(43:42):
a difference by texting to seven sevennine four eight got a shoe? Well,
folks are back in this CHAPLAINH.Mckenry, and it is not time
for us to go into our chaplainbah bah patriotic moment where we just take
a brief moment to remind you ofthe biblical foundations of our country, our
(44:02):
Judeo Christian jurisprudence, and today wewant to talk about none other than the
man who wrote the Decoration of Independence. As we are on the eve of
decoration for the July week coming thisThursday, and so it seems fitting to
talk about the man who was themain author of the Decoration of Independence,
(44:22):
Thomas Jefferson. You know, ThomasJefferson said this, and he said this
throughout his life in many speeches hemade, but he first said it when
he's a young man in the Houseof Burgess in Virginia that was our legislature.
He was working very hard to endslavery. He thought it had to
end. He thought it was terriblefor the country, terrible for people,
(44:44):
very demeaning, for as much asfor the slave as for the master.
And so this is his quote.God, who gave us life, gave
us freedom. And can the libertiesof a nation be thought secure if we
removed the only firm foundation from theminds of the people, that these liberties
are indeed a gift from God.We do that, but with his wrath.
(45:06):
I tremble for my country. ForGod is just, and his justice
shall not rest forever. Folks,I think Thomas Jefferson want to make sure
we knew that the foundations of Americawas God and the Holy Bible. He
made this speech many times, ascarved in stone, and the Jefferson Memorial
in Washington, d C. He'salso the fellow who assured us that prayer
(45:28):
and Bible reading would remain in schoolsand throughout the country throughout government. A
letter was written to him from theDansbury Convention, the Baptist Convention of Dansbury,
Connecticut. They were asking me,is if is it true we're free?
Will we have will our preachers bethrown in jail? Will we have
security and safety? Is there arewe really do we really have freedom of
(45:52):
religion? And he wrote, Bankssaid absolutely so. And then he quoted
a famous Baptist theologian, and thatwas Roger Williams, who said that there's
an inseparable wall between the church andstate. However, it's a one way
wall. It's designed to keep thegovernment out of the church, but could
never and should never keep the churchout of government. Folks, I think
old Thomas Jefferson really believed we needto keep God in government. But what
(46:14):
about you? Is God in you? Well? If you're not sure,
you need to really listen up onthis one, because this is where I'm
going to share with you how youcan know for sure that when you pass
away, you're going to glory andyou're going to be saved from hell as
we're now going to our chaplain bya gospel moment. And by the way,
Thomas Jefferson, when he made thisspeech, I wrote the Decoration of
(46:37):
Independence in it. It caused abig furor because he had written a phrase
in it that would would have encouragedthe colonists to end slavery. Well,
they had a big uproar about abig debate. It almost ended the whole
meeting and would have we would havenever had the Decoration of Independence. Rutlets
representing the South, stood boldly forslavery. And then the slave trader robber
(47:01):
barons of the North were desperate tosave the slave trade. They were making
such huge fortunes on it. Sothey went into this big, giant debate
and it went nowhere, and theyfortunately they were able to save it and
bring everybody back and go ahead andwrite the Decoration of Independence. By the
way, mister Rutledge, Edward Rutlich, I'm talking about from South Carolina.
At the end of the war,he personally freed all of his slaves and
(47:23):
drove him into bankruptcy, because that'swhat would happen. You had so much
money in the cost of labor,and if you just throw it away like
that. Of course he did itfor a very noble cost and slavery.
But it is not time for usto go into our chaplain by by gospel
moment where you can really find freedom. Folks, if you're looking for freedom,
this is how you get it.Did you know that the scripture says
(47:46):
for God's so loved the world.That's you, that's everybody. That he
gave his only begotten son. That'sthe Lord, Jesus Christ, perfect God,
perfect man, all the way God, and all the way man.
He gave his only begotten son.That whosoever, that's you, that's all
of us, folks, that's me. That whosoever believeth in him. Believe
what I mean, that's kind ofa strange. Okay, I believe in
(48:06):
my But what do you got tobelieve something about him? Right? All
right? This is what you needto believe about him. The Scripture says
for I declared to you the Gospel, and the Bible says for the Gospel
is a power of God into salvationto whosoever believeth. So what is the
gospel? The scripture says for Ideclare to you the gospel that Jesus died,
according to the scripture, for allof our sins, folks. That
means from the day you're born,in the day you die, your tinians,
(48:27):
to your greatest sins, they wereall on the cross with Jesus.
He took them all on the fact. The scripture says, he that new
no sin was made sin, thatyou might be made the righteousness of God
in him. He takes all yourbed to give you all his good.
That's absolutely amazing that he was actuallyturned into our sin. I mean,
I don't know, let's beyonest,it's hard for me to write my brain
around that one. My mind aroundthat's that's a tough one, and it
(48:51):
just to me it screams out howgreat God's love is for us, that
he that nun no sin was madesin, that you might be made the
righteousness of God in him. Sothat's what you have to believe in him,
That he died for your sins inrossmith dead, that whosover believe in
him shall not perish, not goto Hell, which is the most terrible
place. I mean, I couldspend hours telling you what hell is really
(49:12):
like. I wouldn't want to spenda minute on it. It's so terrible,
folks. Please don't go there.Stop stop. Get the only help
you can get, and that's theLord Jesus. Believe in him. Save
yourself from a burning, horrible zombiehell. It's going to be like everybody
in Hell is gonna be like azombie. They gonna have existence, but
no life, wandering around devouring oneanother. Just it's going to be too
(49:34):
horrible to even think about. Everythinggets bad. It's going to be in
hell, so that whosover believing inHim shall not perish, not go to
hell, but have everlasting life.Folks, you need that resurrection, everlasting
life in your life right now.You know, the Bible says for God,
it says for we have been savedby grace. That word grace means
(49:55):
free gift, that's all it means. It's a free gift, folks.
Free. You can't earn it,you can't work for it. It's free.
For we've been saved by grace tofaith. And even that is not
of ourselves. It is a giftof God, not of works, lest
any man should boast. You see, folks, we don't get salvation because
we're going to earn it some kindof way, and that's what Jesus kept
(50:16):
saying. Repent and believe, Repentand believe. What does reword mean mean?
It means plain and simply stop trustingin yourself, Stop trying to help
God out, Stop trying to workyour way to heaven. Forget your religion.
Religion means you're working your way toheaven. Give it up. You
know there's nothing you can do toin any way help God out. On
(50:37):
the cross, Jesus had to doit all because we weren't capable of it,
and He did it all so itwould come as a free gift to
you, to all of us,folks. If you've never done this before,
if you've never believed you can't saveyourself, that's repentance. So then
you're free to put faith alone inChrist alone. You're free to believe that
He did, that he will,and that He has saved you from burning
hell and guaranteed you everlasting life becauseHe died for all your sins. In
(51:00):
rosam that. If you've never donethat before, do it now. Don't
wait till it's too late, folks. Now today is the day of salvation.
The scripture says well, folks,the day of Jesus's coming is coming
soon, very soon. As wenow go into our chaplain by by watchmen
on the walls. Again, justtake a brief moment, a minute or
two, to give you signs soyou will be aware. Jesus said,
(51:22):
I'm giving you all these signs inall of it discourse. They're over actually
two hundred in the entire Bible aboutJesus's second coming. They are over one
hundred of his first coming. Kindof makes you think maybe the second coming
is even more important than the firstdone it apparently it means that Jesus really
wanted us to know about it andbe ready for it. And he says,
don't let me catch you unawares.Don't let me catch you sleeping messing
(51:44):
up. He says, if youdo, there's going to be a judgment
for you. Even though you're goingto heaven, there's going to be a
judgment if you're not ready for Jesuswhen he comes back. So get ready,
folks, He's coming back, andhe's coming back soon. So many
signs. One of the signs wasthat there would be an increase of Satanic
religion all around the world. That'shappening right now. It's called the New
(52:05):
Age Movement. Hitler was a devoteeof that movement that many people. It's
very popular in the Hollywood crowd.It's a type of it's just neopaganism,
is what. It's any and alltypes of pagan and occult religions brought together
into one new under one new bannercalled the New Age Movement. It's super
saturating the world right now. There'sanother fulfillment of what the Bible said would
(52:28):
happen right before the Antichrist came,and he would be declared to be God.
He would be declared to be thesavior of the world by his religious
leader called the false Prophet. That'sall happening right before us in living technical
folks. It's in the movies,it's in the songs. It's just all
around us. And it's just inthe various individual groups that are forming to
support the New Age Movement that arebecoming New Age people. Folks, we're
(52:51):
in the end. Get ready,smell the coffee, smell the new wine,
if you will, because Jesus iscoming back really soon. Well,
folks, it's not time for usto go. And and by the way,
if you need a bunker, asafe house for Jesus coming back,
he is a safe house. Putsyour faith, all your faith in him.
(53:12):
Believe that He died for all yoursins in Wilsemandad, and you will
never be safer and never be moreprepared for when He comes back. So
it's not time for us to close. As we close with a mont Saint
Martin singing a creole goodbye, andGod bless all of it. We call
you wel goodbye. They think we'rejust wasted out the time all three sivil
(53:45):
love me. There's time for aCreo good bye.
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.