Join Tony Perkins on today’s enlightening episode of Washington Watch as we navigate through pivotal discussions on faith, governance, and family values. Starting with the poignant announcement of Pope Francis’ passing, we explore reactions and implications with Eric Sammons. As the Supreme Court considers pivotal decisions on immigration and parental rights, Tony engages with Congressman Tim Burchett on the international stage, covering crucial topics like Iran’s nuclear potential and the geopolitical landscape shaping our world.
SPEAKER 13 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Washington Watch with Tony Perkins starts now.
SPEAKER 04 :
Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7.35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome returned to the house of the Father.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was Cardinal Kevin Farrell announcing the passing of Pope Francis earlier this morning. Welcome to this April 21st edition of Washington Watch. Thanks for tuning in. Pope Francis’ tenure created confusion and uncertainty on a number of issues for many. But as the cardinals prepare to select the next pope, what direction might they take? We’ll talk about it with Eric Sammons, editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine. The second round of talks between the U.S. and Iran took place this past weekend.
SPEAKER 19 :
President Trump has been clear that Iran has no reason to enrich uranium. They therefore have no reason to keep their centrifuges, and they certainly have no reason to be developing intercontinental missiles that could hit the United States. If Iran is willing to make a deal on those terms, and as President Trump said last week, we can have peace.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton with his reaction over the weekend on Fox News. We’ll get more insight from Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett a little bit later here on Washington Watch. Also over the weekend, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelans who are in the U.S. illegally to El Salvador.
SPEAKER 18 :
President Trump invoked the authorities he had of the Alien Enemies Act, an act written and passed by Congress and signed by a president. We’re using the laws on the books, the statutes on the books, to secure the border and remove significant public safety threats and national security threats to this country.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was Border Czar Tom Holman on ABC this weekend. We’ll break down what this means a little bit later. Speaking of the court, tomorrow the justices will hear oral arguments in what could become a landmark case for parental rights and religious freedom. FRC’s Meg Kilgannon will join us with the details. Before the court imposed same-sex marriage on the nation in 2015, I warned that the court could legalize it, but they could never make it moral. Just as with abortion, when the court ruled against the moral law of God, the issue didn’t disappear. It became and remains a point of political and cultural conflict. Exhibit A is about a half a dozen states are now considering resolutions urging the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 same-sex marriage decision. We’ll talk with one of the legislators leading that charge, Oklahoma Senator Dusty Devers, later here on Washington Watch. All of this and more coming up on today’s edition. And by the way, session 10 of our God and Government course has just been released today. In this new session, I explore how we should respond when government policies conflict with God’s Word. You can find this latest edition exclusively on the Stand Firm app. If you don’t have the app, tell you what, text the word course to 67742. That’s the word course to 67742. And I will send you a link. Well, this morning, the day after Resurrection Sunday, Vatican authorities announced the death of Pope Francis at the age of 88. The Pope was suffering from a number of health issues and had been hospitalized on February the 14th. He did appear yesterday in public. Now the Vatican and the Catholic Church at large have entered its traditional phase of mourning for the late pontiff. Many are wondering what direction the Church will go in the selection of the next Pope and what is the future of the Catholic Church on some of the controversial issues that the Pope Francis kind of Well, he wasn’t real clear on, provided, did not provide the direction that many were looking for. Here to discuss this, Eric Sammons, editor-in-chief of Crisis Magnesine and the author of seven books, including Deadly Indifference, How the Church Lost Her Mission, and How We Can Reclaim It. Eric, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thank you very much for having me, Tony. I appreciate you bringing me on.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I certainly think that this is a place where many in the Catholic Church are going to be mourning the passing of any pope. That’s obviously a very significant position of leadership in the church. But there’s a lot of controversy surrounding his tenure as pope on some of those core issues that obviously we deal with a lot when it comes to public policy, life, marriage, family, human sexuality. What do you see the reaction being long term to his tenure as pope?
SPEAKER 17 :
I think the word you used previously, which was confusion, is a good one, because the fact is, if you really look and I’ve done this, you study what Pope Francis has said and done over the years. He has said some very good things on issues like abortion, same sex marriage, issues of that nature and transgenderism. However, he’s also done things that undermine those statements, frankly, that make it appear that – I mean, he has welcomed pro-abortion politicians with open arms. He has – there was a document that the Vatican released a couple years ago. that allowed the blessing of same-sex couples, things of that nature he’s done. And it honestly has caused confusion among Catholics, among Christians, all men and women of goodwill, about what exactly is the church teaching. I mean, those of us who are Catholic know the church has very clear teachings, official teachings against abortion, against homosexuality, against transgenderism. But at times the Pope by his actions, you know, Pope Francis by his actions didn’t always make that clear what the church’s teaching were. And I think that will be a legacy, an unfortunate legacy of his pontificate is that although, like I said, he said good things many times on these issues, other times he just didn’t really act in a way that made it clear that that’s exactly what the church teaches.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, Eric, I think that’s a very important delineation because the church teachings didn’t change. It was the way he talked about some of them in creating that confusion. I had the opportunity to go to the Vatican a number of years ago for a conference on the complementarian nature of man and woman. This was before the redefinition of marriage. But you’re right. The teachings there, the documents are very clear. But his statements muddled it. Do you see the, you know, as the cardinals gather together and they’ll be choosing a new leader of the church, a new pope, will that be a part of the thinking?
SPEAKER 17 :
I do think so. I think because there’s two different aspects when you talk about who the Pope’s going to be, who they might want. One is going to be, yes, what is this person’s ideology, so to speak, to use kind of a political term, but what’s their theology? How do they really look at these issues, all the issues that Christians and all Catholics must address? But also what’s their governance style? What’s their public relations style, to use that term? Because I think in the first area, I think in general, the cardinals will be in general agreement on what is believed, what should be taught. And then the real question will be. Okay, how do we want, what kind of governance do we want? Do we want a pope who’s going to be very much out in the world, like a Pope John Paul II? Or do we want maybe a more intellectual pope, like a Pope Benedict XVI? Do we want somebody like Francis? I personally think they’re not going to want somebody who’s the same style as Francis. Maybe some of the same thoughts and ideas of Francis, but not the same style. So all these things will come together when the cardinals meet in the conclave to say, okay, what different factors are most important to us? Some bishops might be like, honestly, the bishop, the cardinals coming from America and a lot of Western Europe, they’re going to be more concerned about a, let’s be honest, a more progressive ideology. But then you’re going to get some of the cardinals who are coming from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, places like that. And they’re not as concerned about the issues that are as important to maybe the Western Europeans, like homosexuality and abortion. They just consider that a They’re not like still stuck in the 60s and 70s about that. And so they’re more concerned about church growth, for example, in Africa, in Latin America, places like that.
SPEAKER 07 :
You mentioned Pope John Paul. The world was a very volatile place back there during the Cold War. Working with Ronald Reagan, as we now know history very clearly, Margaret Thatcher played a key role in bringing down the wall and opening up Eastern Europe. We’re once again at a very volatile time. The United States has a leader along the lines of Ronald Reagan. Might that factor into their decision when you look at the geopolitical landscape of the world?
SPEAKER 17 :
I think so. I hope so, honestly. I mean, the great thing about Pope John Paul II is there were two great evils in the world at the time that he had to face. One was, of course, the threat of communism in the East and that destructive whole ideology. But then in the West, there was that growing culture of death with abortion, euthanasia, things like that. And one of the beauties of John Paul II is he worked against both. And like you say, he worked with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher. Today we have some great evils of globalism. We have also the great evil of like the woke ideology, the idea of just – changing reality, trying to use different words to say what reality is. So what I’m praying for and hoping for is a pope who recognizes those two great threats and, like John Paul II, will stand up to them, because I do think that’s a failing of Pope Francis. He was not always clear against those two threats, and he seemed to sometimes cozy up to the people who were for that. Maybe I think with good intentions a lot of times, but ultimately I think it should have been more the John Paul II method of we have to fight against these evils. And so what I’m hopeful for is There will be the Cardinals will see that as a need. Like I said, I’m not real confident Cardinals coming from America necessarily. But I do think, like, for example, the Cardinals coming from Africa and Asia, they see that more clearly the evils of a globalism of the ideology. I mean, like we know. American aid for so many years in Africa was dependent upon you had to abide by all this progressive ideology. And so that’s something that the African cardinals are directly aware of. So I’m hopeful they’ll say, OK, new administration in America, maybe this won’t be the case anymore. We can we can work with that administration.
SPEAKER 07 :
Eric, we’ve just got a couple minutes left now. I want to get the process, but first, before we do, you mentioned Africa, you mentioned threats. Where does Islam factor into that, radical Islam?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, I think that’s something that’s very interesting because one of the candidates that people think might be very likely to be elected pope is Cardinal Pizzabala, who is the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem. And he is directly involved with protecting one of his biggest… priorities is protecting Middle Eastern Christians from what’s going on in Gaza and throughout that area. And so I think that’s somebody who’s very aware of the threat of Islam there, of the different threats in the Middle East. There’s also a cardinal now from Iraq, and so he’s surrounded by Islam. So I think there are more cardinals aware of kind of geopolitical role that Islam has in the world.
SPEAKER 07 :
I certainly hope that the Catholic Church will be a strong voice for religious freedom and add their voice to it. That’s a very significant growing threat. All right. Eric, we just have a minute and a half left. Process. What’s the timeline? What’s this look like?
SPEAKER 17 :
So what first happens is there’s a period of mourning. And for Pope Francis, there will be his funeral. They haven’t set the exact dates or anything like that, but typically it’s about nine days in the morning. And then soon after that will be the conclave. My guess is in about two weeks from now is when the conclave will start. That could last a very short time or a very long time. There have literally been conclaves that have lasted years. Now, I don’t think that’s going to happen in modern times as cardinals are going to get out of there before that. But it could last weeks. Usually in modern times, conclaves usually last a few days. And I my guess is that will happen. The first few votes will just be a matter of, OK, who’s who are the main candidates? And then people start working. The Cardinals start working together. So, OK. We’ll compromise and we won’t go with our guy, but we’ll go with your guy if we can all get together. And so my guess is we’re talking about two weeks from now, the conclave will start. And then within a few days, God willing, we’ll get a new pope.
SPEAKER 07 :
And how many cardinals will be in that meeting?
SPEAKER 17 :
About 130, 140. All right.
SPEAKER 07 :
Eric, thanks so much for joining us today. Very insightful. Appreciate the conversation.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you very much, Tony, for having me on.
SPEAKER 07 :
Absolutely. Well folks, we need to be praying that they make the right decision. All right, coming up, the Supreme Court decided to temporarily halt deportations of detained Venezuelans. Could we be looking at a confrontation between the administration and the court? That’s next.
SPEAKER 09 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 09 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 07 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 09 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 07 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, they’re mothers, they’re children, they’re families.
SPEAKER 09 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 02 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice. So I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 09 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 08 :
Download the new Stand Firm app for Apple and Android phones today and join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective, read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family and church members and stand firm everywhere you go.
SPEAKER 15 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at The Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us on this Monday. Well, over the weekend, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelans held in Texas. While this marks a short-term setback to the Trump administration’s effort to deport Venezuelan criminals, the Supreme Court indicated that it would provide a future order on the matter. But the question is, is a confrontation coming between the court and the Trump administration as they keep weighing in on these deportations? Here to discuss this and more, Tennessee Congressman Tim Burgett, who serves on three House committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman Burgett, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thanks for having me on, Tony. I’m driving down the road. I’m speaking to a group of Cub Scouts here in a minute. So I’m not I’m actually riding down the road. I should say not driving.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, make sure you clarify that. We want to set a good example. All right. So what do you think about the Supreme Court’s order halting the deportations of these Venezuelans held in Texas?
SPEAKER 06 :
I don’t think a lot of it, Tony. I worry about the constitutional rights of Americans that their family members have been raped or murdered. We have a young man here in Knoxville, Tennessee. I knew his mom and dad today, as a matter of fact. He was killed by an illegal. And, you know, and I keep wondering, what about those people’s constitutional rights? Of course, I’m not an attorney and I get the I get all of it. But I just I’m worried about that, the overall thing. And I think it also reemphasizes elections have consequences. President Obama, President Clinton and Bush, between the last three of them, they part. I mean, excuse me, they they sent over six million people out of this country. literally evicted them illegals and yet they stacked our courts with some of the most liberal judges that we’ve ever seen and you know and as conservatives we have a nice heart we want to do what do well by people and then yet we continue to play ball with these liberals and we put moderates on our courts and this is what we’re we’re we’re suffering from i feel like i really do
SPEAKER 07 :
So this was, if not the major issue, it was at the top of the list of issues in the last election, securing the southern border. But also judicial activism remains a big issue for voters, especially conservative voters. I mean, it’s like all of those things and national security all kind of rolled into one in this particular case. It appears that the Trump administration, for instance, they’ve been told by the court to return this man from Maryland who was sent down to El Salvador. And they’re saying, hey, we asked for him. He’s not coming back. Actually, this appears to be like it’s going to be a bigger deal than what it looks on the surface. Could we be looking at a major confrontation between the administration and the court?
SPEAKER 06 :
I think we will. I think we will. But I mean, if the shoe was on the other foot, imagine if the president of El Salvador said to America, send back an American that you have in prison. I mean, that’s exactly what they’re doing. This guy, he’s from El Salvador. He’s here illegally. We have it’s under two different judges. And we’ve had an informant saying he’s MS-13. We have INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES HE’S MS-13. HIS PEOPLE BELIEVE HIM TO BE MS-13. YET WE HAVE THE DEMOCRATS WHO FOR SOME REASON THINK THIS IS A BEACH TO DOWN. I KEEP SAYING ARE THEY POLLING ON, YOU KNOW, IN PRISONS THAT ARE FULL OF GANG MEMBERS? BECAUSE THIS OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A, I DON’T THINK IT’S AN 80-20 ISSUE. I THINK IT’S A 95-5. I THINK AMERICA IS SICK OF IT. AND CNN EVEN, THEY HAD A POLL OUT THAT SHOWS THAT 55% OF THE POPULATION, CNN, So you can stack 10 more percentage points on that easily. CNN said that America thinks that Trump is doing, is in the right direction on immigration. He’s basically shut the border down, which is something Biden refused to do. He refused to let our border agents enforce the law. And I think America is sick of it. And I think America is ready for a fight.
SPEAKER 07 :
What options do the Trump administration have if the court does not change course on this?
SPEAKER 06 :
OF COURSE, DIRECT DEFIANCE, YOU KNOW, DARRELL ISSA HAS A BILL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BEAR SOME FRUIT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT DOES IN THE SENATE. PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE, LET’S SEE WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT BASICALLY INSTRUCTS THE COURTS TO STAY IN THEIR OWN LANE. NOW, DEALING WITH THE SUPREME COURT, THAT’S A DIFFERENT ASSUMPTION. I’M NOT THE LEGAL EXPERT, BUT I SUSPECT, YOU KNOW, I DON’T KNOW WHO HAS, WHO ULTIMATELY HAS THE POWER THERE. And I don’t want to abuse, and I see the idealistic viewpoint of some of my friends, but the reality is that we’ve been denied our constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because they’ve allowed illegal people with criminal backgrounds and criminal tendencies into this country that want to do ill will to Americans.
SPEAKER 07 :
And I think, as you just laid that out, that’s an 80-20 issue, certainly among conservatives. They do not want people here illegally committing crimes against American citizens. But I want to ask you this question, how you process this from a standpoint of, you mentioned, and we’re talking Supreme Court now, because it’s Supreme Court on Saturday night, as Samuel Alito said, in the middle of the night, issued this order. But this is a, quote-unquote, conservative-leaning court that President Trump constructed in his last administration. So how do you balance that? This is a court that, for the most part, has gotten it right, and they’re saying, wait, you can’t do this. How do you process that?
SPEAKER 06 :
I don’t. I have a hard time processing it because I see my libertarian friends. I see their viewpoint, but I also see The mothers that I’ve talked to that have lost loved ones, their children to illegals, and they’ve been denied that constitutional right. So I don’t know where the balance is. I just think it’s so far out of whack that we’ve, you know, we’ve seen in the past, Nixon, I think it was the Burger Court. He thought that he put a conservative there and it turned out he wasn’t. So I don’t know. I don’t know. I guess I’d have to pray on it. But I still, I would fall back on the safety of Americans.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, and as you and I have talked multiple times before, these problems that we have now that are so big, we didn’t get there overnight. And we’ve created huge problems that we have to deal with. Tim, we’re almost up against break, got less than a minute left. And I don’t want to hold you from your Cub Scouts, but I think we still got some time to squeeze in a couple more questions. I’m going to hold you over to the next segment. But I want to ask you about the second round of talks that took place between the U.S. and Iran. I mean, this is – you’re on the Foreign Affairs Committee. You’ve got your finger on the pulse internationally of what’s happening. We’ve got 30 seconds left, and we’ll come back and finish this. But your initial thoughts, reactions to this weekend’s talks?
SPEAKER 06 :
I’m glad Donald Trump’s in the White House. I’m glad he’s the one doing the negotiations. Under Joe Biden or a moderate Republican, I’m sure we’d write a strong letter and do nothing. Iran having nuclear weapons is not healthy for America. It’s not healthy for our friends, specifically Israel. So I think President Trump is doing what he’s doing and he’s negotiating from strength.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. We’ll finish that conversation on the other side of the break. Folks, stick with us. We’re back with more after this.
SPEAKER 11 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our worldview. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They are disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. But that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release, and the forest and the trees.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining with us. The website, TonyPerkins.com. Better yet, if you want to keep up with us, get the Stand Firm app. You can get the, not only Washington Watch, but you can get the Washington Stand and our daily Bible devotional, Stand on the Word. You can find it in the App Store. It’s the Stand Firm app or… Text APP, APP, to 67742, and I will send you a link. All right, continuing our conversation with Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Congressman, thanks for sticking around and working us in before the Cub Scouts. All right, I want to talk, continue these conversations about Iran. As we said, the second round of conversations took place this past weekend. Iran’s foreign minister says progress was made on, quote, principles and objectives, but details have been scarce. What specifics do we know?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, our objectives are what President Trump outlined when he ran for office, which is kind of unusual for somebody running for president to keep their word, but dadgum he is. He said he wanted peace in the Middle East. And he realizes that sometimes the only thing these people understand is force. And that’s what Iran understands. And that’s why, from what I understand, our bombers are stationed close there. And if things were to devolve in the wrong direction, that would take care of our business. And I don’t think Trump wants that. Trump wants a peaceful solution. But he’s not going to go over there with America’s jet bucket and buy them out like it’s been done in the past because then the next leader just asks for $1 more. It’s kind of you don’t pay terrorists, and that’s exactly what would happen. But Trump understands the force, and he understands the fact that they want to destroy Israel, and Israel is our friend. And I don’t believe President Trump will turn his back on them, and I think he’s going to stick to his word. And I think we’ll end up with peace, whether Iran is a pile of sand or they’re a thriving nation. But I think YOU’VE GOT SOMEBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS HOW TO NEGOTIATE, FOR GOODNESS SAKES. HE’S DEALT WITH THOSE UNIONS IN NEW YORK FOR YEARS, AND FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, HE UNDERSTANDS IT AND HE UNDERSTANDS NEGOTIATING, AND THAT IS FROM POWER, AND HE KNOWS WE’VE GOT THE POWER.
SPEAKER 07 :
WELL, THE TWO NATIONS WILL MEET AGAIN NEXT SATURDAY. Let me say, are you concerned that the Iranian mullahs are running out the clock? I mean, how long before they get a delay of game? Because, I mean, how long, again, you’re on the Foreign Affairs Committee, you track these things. How long before, you know, they’ve run out the clock and they’re at that point of having the nuclear capabilities and the capability of delivering it?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, of course, that is ultimately some of their goals, is to do that, to run it out until they have the nuclear capabilities. And I think Trump realizes that, and I think that’s why our bombers are stationed where they are right now. And I think President Trump is not afraid. to use them if need be to protect us and our and our friends freedom and so i think ultimately they have to weigh that but you got to realize too just like in gaza the leaders probably aren’t there they’re they’re somewhere safe somewhere in qatar or somewhere else some of them are anyway um pulling the strings and letting old men make decisions and young men die and I think Trump realizes that as well. So he’s cognizant of the fact that civilians could lose their lives, but he’s also cognizant of the fact that we have friends in the Middle East, and I’m sure he’s weighing that, and that weighs heavy on his decision.
SPEAKER 07 :
You’re absolutely right. I mean, he’s been very clear about that. He wants peace. He doesn’t want war. He doesn’t want to be known as a war president. You mentioned Israel. The Jerusalem Post suggested Israelis are not confident that the deal will necessarily benefit them. I mean, you have to consider, I mean, they’ve gotten the short end of the stick multiple times. What do you think is causing their concern?
SPEAKER 06 :
I think they need to say that because they need to look like they’re maybe not on the fence, but they’re not getting in the middle of it. And I think also the fact that leaves them a little room to fall back on. I think it’s purely a PR move. Because if they were to come out and endorse anything Trump did, I think that would show – That would show Iran’s weakness to to Israel and making in their leaders. No, they can’t show that. So I think that’s all part of a political move. That’s my theory.
SPEAKER 07 :
Congressman, I want to, I mean, there’s so much happening on the global stage. Let’s move to Russia and Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a one-day Easter ceasefire, but it reportedly was violated multiple times. That situation there looked like it may be moving toward a ceasefire, but now, I mean, anyone, what do we guess is going to play out there? Yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
I just don’t think you could ever trust Putin. He’s a thug. But again, it’s not our war. If we were truly concerned about people’s lives, we’d be going to war with China because they’re one of the biggest violators right now on the world stage. They did the Uyghurs and others. So I think it’s clearly right now it’s in their court. If they truly want peace, then They’ll move towards that agenda, but if not, they’re going to keep going like they’re going, and you’re going to see America, I feel like, pull further and further back from that conflict. We’re already $250 billion in the middle of it. The president of Ukraine has already stated, Zelensky said that he doesn’t know where I think it was, $100 billion of those dollars went. So there’s a lot of questions that need to remain to be asked, but I just don’t feel like that’s our war, Tony, and I don’t feel like we need to invest any more of our great-grandchildren’s FINANCES IN THAT WAR.
SPEAKER 07 :
THE OUTCOME OF THAT COULD AFFECT US, THOUGH, COULD IT NOT?
SPEAKER 06 :
IT COULD. IT COULD. BUT THE OUTCOME EVERYWHERE ELSE COULD, TOO. BUT I THINK THE THING WE’VE GOT TO REALIZE, AND THEY REALIZE, WE HAVE A STRONG LEADER IN DONALD TRUMP. AND I DON’T THINK THAT THEY’RE GOING TO MAKE ANY MOVES TOWARDS US. BUT YOU GOT TO REALIZE, TOO, RUSSIA’S GDP IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FRANCE AND CANADA. THEY’RE NOT the axis of evil or whatever from years gone past. They are greatly diminished in power, even if they were to slice off a part of Ukraine, which I suspect was in the works. I feel like that needs to be And Ukraine won’t play ball with us either, though. We could give them all that money, and yet they won’t give us access to their rare earth minerals. And that’s something that I think we could both benefit from, and that would show some strength. And I believe Russia would not want to interject any military.
SPEAKER 07 :
Tim, we’re going to have to leave it there, Tim. All right, folks, stick with us.
SPEAKER 14 :
to transform your trials into triumphs? Dive into the book of Daniel with FRC’s new study guide, Daniel, Visions and Valor. Perfect for those seeking courage and wisdom from one of the Bible’s most faithful figures. This 13-day journey is ideal for small groups or individual study as part of our ongoing Stand on the Word Bible reading plan. It’s a timeless resource ready to deepen your engagement with Scripture. Explore how Daniel’s life and God-given visions offer a blueprint for navigating challenges. Each day includes Scriptures, reflection questions, and space for notes to enhance your understanding and application. available in digital and physical formats, order your copy of Daniel, Visions and Valor today and start your journey of transformation. To order, text the word DANIEL to 67742. That’s DANIEL to 67742.
SPEAKER 10 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates, from the Ten Commandments in classrooms to the immigration crisis of America. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 12 :
How should Christians think about the thorny issues shaping our culture? How should Christians address deceitful ideas like transgenderism, critical theory, or assisted suicide? How can Christians navigate raising children in a broken culture, the war on gender roles, or rebuilding our once great nation? Outstanding is a podcast from The Washington Stand dedicated to these critical conversations. Outstanding seeks to tear down what our corrupt culture lifts up with an aim to take every thought and every idea captive to the obedience of Christ. Whether policies or partisan politics, whether conflict in America or conflict abroad, join us and our guests as we examine the headlines through the lens of Scripture and explore how Christians can faithfully exalt Christ in all of life. Follow Outstanding on your favorite podcast app and look for new episodes each week.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. Welcome back to Washington Watch. Unfortunately, the clock got us there and we had to let Congressman Tim Burchett go as he goes talk to the Cub Scouts. Let me make you aware of this. Beginning April the 29th, we’re going to be in the book of Daniel. For those of you who are on our journey through the Bible on Stand on the Word, in anticipation of that, I want to encourage you to order a copy of our new study guide, Daniel, Visions and Valor. It’s a great resource for anyone navigating through tough times, through life. Challenges, worries, anything. So if you’d like to get a copy of that, text Daniel to 67742 to order your copy of the new study guide. Our word for today comes from Ezekiel 39, where the Lord promises to strike down the nations that will come against Israel in the future. Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and will make your arrows drop out of your right hand. You shall fall on the mountains of Israel, you and your hordes and the people who are with you. I will give you to the birds of prey of every sort and to the beast of the field to be devoured. You shall fall on the open field, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God. I will send fire on Magog and on those who dwell securely in the coastlands, and they shall know that I am the Lord. Now, this coalition, likely an alliance of Islamic nations, will be decisively destroyed. Devastation will be cataclysmic. Will it involve nuclear weapons, natural disasters, or some combination of both? We don’t know the means, but we know the certainty. God declares it in verse 8. Behold, it is coming, and it will be brought about, declares the Lord God. That is the day of which I have spoken, end quote. When God speaks, his word is not a possibility. It is a guarantee. For more on our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. Well, we’ve been talking about the U.S. Supreme Court, and tomorrow they will be hearing a potentially landmark case involving parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, and their fight for parental rights and religious freedom, the ability to protect their children from materials they deem to be objectionable and contrary to their biblical faith. What’s at stake in this case? So here now to share more is Meg Kilgannon, Senior Fellow for Education Studies at the Family Research Council. Meg, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thanks for having me, Tony.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. So explain this case. This is something you’ve been tracking from the very beginning as parents began to complain and raise concerns about what their children were being forced to view and to be taught.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. So this case is a situation of the school system and the parents talking past each other and not agreeing on the terms of the discussion. It’s called Mahmood v. Taylor. And the parents in Montgomery County found out that their young children in elementary school and preschool were being read sexually explicit or books with sexual content in class time for, let’s say, math or science or English, not as a separate sex ed education lesson from which they have the right to opt out. But this material was being incorporated into the curriculum of any particular lesson because it was considered a diversity, equity, and inclusion lesson. And DEI was being woven throughout the curriculum at the school. And so this is an issue of the school not believing this is sex education and the parents saying, but you’re talking about sex to my children. It is sex education. And I don’t want you to talk to my children about that. That’s my job and I will do it. So we’re very happy that the Supreme Court has taken this case. And I think it’s because they want to make a, I hope and pray it’s because they want to make a declaration about parental rights in regard to this matter.
SPEAKER 07 :
What we’ve seen the left do on this front is that, you know, it used to be you’d have one section of instruction that would be dealing with these matters. And so you could just say, all right, I don’t want my kid in that. And you could try to pull your kid out. Now, this has long been a debate that I’ve been involved in. I think you’ve been involved in as well. Parents should have to opt their kids in, not opt them out, because it puts the onus on the school. But in this case, it is intertwined with everything. I mean, even in math and reading, almost every subject matter, they have found a way to interject this liberal and this ideology that runs counter to the values of many of the parents.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. And when your children are going to be presented with material of a reproductive nature in school, even if you do want your child to stay in that lesson, you at least know that on this day, my child is going to talk about this topic at school. And as a parent, you can go back and you can overlay your values over that if you know that it’s happening.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
But these parents have to have no idea that it’s happening unless their child happens to come home and ask them a question, which means that someone is presenting a value system to your child and they’re taking it. I always want my children to obey the teacher when they’re at school, right? I want them to listen. I want them to learn, right? So we’re talking about elementary school children who are being told things that are contradictory to these parents’ faith, to their moral values, in some cases to common sense. And then they have no way of addressing this at home with their children after it’s done. So this is a very significant assault on parental authority.
SPEAKER 07 :
It is driving a wedge between parent and child.
SPEAKER 03 :
Absolutely.
SPEAKER 07 :
Of course, that has been a fixation of the left for a long time. So let’s talk about the implications of this case potentially beyond Montgomery County.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right, well, this case has revolved around the fact that Montgomery County does have a sex education program and that that program can be opted out of. And so this court case is simply asking that these parents have the right to opt out of these materials. From my point of view, I wish that they were being asked to not teach this at all, right? And that certainly is what the Trump administration is doing when it is doing a lot of investigations and things. They have their DEI reporting portal at the Department of Education now. It’s really, we don’t want this taught in schools. It’s not diverse, it’s not equitable, and it’s not inclusive. It’s divisive, and we don’t want it taught.
SPEAKER 07 :
But as we’ve talked about how this is so I mean, it’s like I mean, it’s like weed. I mean, it’s just everywhere. It’s got roots everywhere. I mean, how can they opt out if this is it? I mean, their word problems in math include controversial concepts. So, I mean, this would cause them to have to rework their curriculum and shrink this. presentation of human sexuality and all these other ideas that they’re pushing into one session or one section of training, would it not?
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. Well, that’s what I hope. I think that’s the goal, is to at least have the school system, who is now before the Supreme Court of the United States as regards to this matter, understand that this is not something that a whole lot of parents in Montgomery County want. And it’s a wealthier county in Maryland. It’s a suburb of Washington, D.C. It has some very successful schools in the school system. But I’m not sure that their test scores and their achievements in basic reading and math for certain populations indicate that they have time to take off to do other topics, right? Across the country, we’re seeing the need to get back to basics and just stick to the reading, the writing, and the arithmetic. Let the parents handle the rest.
SPEAKER 07 :
Meg Kilgannon, final question for you on this. This is an example of the difference parents can make when they show up. I mean, this goes back a number of years, but they were showing up to school board meetings, became controversial. But eventually, because there were parents who were willing to stand up and take the opposition and the heat, they’re getting their day in court.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes. Thanks be to God, they are.
SPEAKER 07 :
So this is another example of, folks, why you need to stand up for what is right. It might not be in vogue today, but maybe tomorrow people will come to their senses. Meg Kilgannon, thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thanks for having me, Tony.
SPEAKER 07 :
And folks, I encourage you to be praying about that court case tomorrow as the justices hear those oral arguments. And let me do something here that probably a lot of people would prefer that I not do, not you that are listening or watching. But, well, there’s even a number of conservatives who want to make a big deal about women’s sports. And, you know, hey, I’m there. I think men should not be in women’s sports. But we’re talking about this curriculum in schools. But they don’t want to go back to the source of it. OK, let’s walk back to the source of this. The source of it is when we, and it goes further than this, but the tipping point, let me put it that way. The tipping point was the US Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling in 2015, which forced same-sex marriage on all 50 states. They took something that is morally objectionable and made it a right. Now, they can’t, you know, they made it legal, but they can’t make it moral. And from that, we have all of these other issues that are coming forth in our public policy. And we’re dealing with symptoms. Well, I made this argument back when the court was entertaining this. It’s like abortion. You can legislate on it. You can rule on it. But you can never make it right because it is a violation of moral truth. Well, now we’re seeing this. We’ve got about a half a dozen states that are now entertaining resolutions calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the 2015 decision redefining marriage. Folks, this issue will not go away. As long as there is truth, there will be a conflict. And one of the one of the state lawmakers that is leading this effort in the state of Oklahoma, State Senator Dusty Devers, he introduced the Covenant Marriage Act in the state Senate to put a fine point on what marriage really is. Senator Devers, welcome to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 05 :
It’s an honor to be with you, Tony, here on Washington Watch. Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, you’re welcome. Thanks for joining us. Let me ask you this question. What do you say to those on the left who claim that Obergefell, that ruling, settled this issue of the redefinition of marriage?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, you know, people like to say that Obergefell is a settled law, but the truth is it’s not. Obergefell isn’t settled law. It’s besetting immorality that’s imposed by judicial decree. And court opinions can be referred to as settled law only if they are rooted firmly in the Constitution and the heritage and the tradition of the American people. And the fact is Obergefell is fundamentally antithetical to all of And there is just no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. And some states are now passing resolutions, like you mentioned, in support of Clarence Thomas’ ambition to overturn Obergefell. And, Tony, ultimately marriage is not the state’s institution. It’s God’s institution. And really no Supreme Court ruling that redefines a God-ordained institution is ever truly settled, not morally or culturally and even constitutionally. The rogue court will stand in judgment before God for their decision. And the fact is here in Oklahoma, our statutes still define marriage as between a man and a woman, and that’s not a relic, that’s reality. And I believe that it will one day be enforced again. If anything needs to be settled, it’s the moral courage to stand for truth in an age of confusion.
SPEAKER 07 :
Is this not parallel to what we saw with the overturn of Roe v. Wade? 50 years we were told it was settled law, but it wasn’t because it cannot be the law when it runs, as you said, counter to the moral law of God.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s a fact. And, you know, the Supreme Court has overturned itself over 300 times, proving that they are not ruling from on high, that they don’t have the mind of God oftentimes, and they need to move back to the sanity that we see in the scriptures and rule accordingly.
SPEAKER 07 :
Now, I want to ask you about the measure you’ve introduced, Covenant Marriage Act. I actually authored the nation’s first covenant marriage law in Louisiana and came to Oklahoma and a number of years ago spoke to the legislature about it. But it was a pattern of marriage based upon biblical truth. Explain that legislation and the status of it there in Oklahoma.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, the legislation was killed this session in Judiciary Committee, and it was voted down six to two, and four of those six that voted against it were Republicans. And it would simply give the option to religious citizens of Oklahoma who wanted a more meaningful form of marriage, it gave them an option to opt into a covenant marriage that didn’t have no-fault divorce clause, and it would have given them a tax credit for doing so because we want to reward the very good that we see as foundational to society.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, that’s very similar to the law that authored in Louisiana and that we presented in Oklahoma probably about 25 years ago. But it was an idea of modeling what is right so that others will see the value that comes from marriage as designed by God. And I found that when we started running into trouble, we got it through Arkansas and through Arizona, but it was the divorce attorneys who didn’t like it because it was going to bite into their business.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s very true. I don’t know who all came against it, but I know that Republicans sure did.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, Dusty, I want to thank you for joining us. I want to thank you for taking a stand for what is true and what is right. And even though it may not be in vogue today, we know that truth is everlasting. And so we have a right to stand and speak. I have an obligation, I should say, to stand and speak that truth. So thanks for taking that stand and thanks for joining us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 05 :
It’s my joy and honor. Thank you.
SPEAKER 07 :
And, folks, I want to encourage you to continue to stand for truth. This is a moment. We see a lot of good policies coming out of Washington, D.C., out of the president, the Trump administration. But, again, we’ve talked about this. These are executive orders. They can be overturned by the next administration. We’ve got to change the policies. But to do that, we’ve got to change hearts and minds. And we’ve got to be willing to stand and speak like those parents in Maryland. who are willing to stand, and we’re gonna see what comes from that court case. We may talk about it some more depending on how those oral arguments go. All right, out of time for today. Thanks so much for joining us. Until next time, I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul. You’ve done everything you can do when you’ve prayed, prepared, and taken your stand. By all means, keep sampling.
SPEAKER 13 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family, and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
