Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God not government

 : Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

 : So as you know this is not

 : the first time in the past couple of years that our republic has been attacked by a would be assassin

 : who sought to kill in Butler Pennsylvania less than two years ago. You all know that story.

 : And in Palm Beach Florida a few months after that, we came close.

 : We really had again we had some great work done by law enforcement.

The White House correspondents dinner shooting suspect has been identified

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, April 27 and the White House correspondents dinner shooting suspect has been ID and authorities have identified a 31 year old, I'm not going to say his name as the suspect who breached security at the Washington Hilton wounding a Secret Service agent before being tackled and then taken into custody. Shots were fired apparently back at the suspect but did not hit him according to reports. And President ah Trump is now calling for a permanent return to White House based events including the big beautiful ballroom. But as he mentioned in that press conference that came from the press room, right after this incident on Saturday night, this is just completely unacceptable that this level of violence and this many assassination attempts, this is now the third that we know of, that that ah, law enforcement has had to engage over just the last couple of years. So let's welcome in Tim Rice who is the Daily Wire Washington Bureau Chief. And Tim, were you at this event on Saturday?

Tim Rice: So first of all thank you so much for having me. It's great to be here. I was not at the actual correspondence center. I was excuse me, at the substack new media party which is actually right next to the White House is where it was hosted this year. so that was sort of an interesting experience in and of itself because we also got locked down because they locked the Secret Service locked the block of the White House down. so even though you know the President wasn't there and we were not exactly in the vicinity, we did, no one was allowed in or out. and we sort of got to, had to watch everything play out from this from this sort of captive environment. But a number of my colleagues from the Daily Wire were there fortunately, they, like everybody else, was okay, but yeah, it was. We had folks inside. We actually wound up doing a live news broadcast and I was on and our editor in chief who was at the dinner was on and so sort of kept in touch with him that way live on air. But, it was just, I mean it was just as you know, everyone everywhere has noted, it was a pretty crazy, ah, evening.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, as reports are coming out now, that the way that this 31 year old shooter, ah, got access and it was not light security, but there's some questions surrounding security as there should be, frankly. Even though thankfully everyone is finally apprehended the suspect, there are always questions asking, okay, well, how was he even allowed as far as he was. he, according to reports, had checked in to the hotel days prior and even in this now manner manifesto that the NewSong York Post is reporting, and other outlets, including daily wire reporting it, which seems to be very detailed. interestingly, even the suspect mentioned that he was surprised that no one was checking any of the guests that were checking into the hotel days prior. is this being focused on, to your knowledge, as part of the investigation, that maybe now if there are events like this that have really high security personnel, you have the president, the vice president, members of his cabinet, as you mentioned, I mean basically the entire Washington press corps. I mean there are a lot of people, in this event that are very high profile, including of course for national security purposes, elected officials, cabinet appointments that they need to vet and maybe not just allow anyone to, to book hotel rooms at the location of these events.

Tim Rice: Yeah, absolutely. I think that's, that's an incredible point, that, like one that I will say is, I believe it was, it was Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney General. I think he said yesterday on one of the Sunday shows, you know, when Margaret Brennan or Kristin Welker was pressing him on the security and he said, look, you know, obviously, there's going to be an investigation into what happened here. Of course, we never want anything like this to happen again. But he said also, you know, he reminded people, you know, there was a perimeter, right? And this, the shooter, the would be shooter did breach the early stage of the perimeter, but then Secret Service and you know, and whoever else was there sprung into action and apprehended him. And he sort of said, you know, on the one hand, this is what you want to have happen with. This is why you set up a wide perimeter, right? We at no point they didn't let him get close to the President. so I do think that is something that is being, that that isn't being mentioned as people are understandably wondering and criticizing and questioning what's happening here. Right.

Tim Rice: Which is that there were fail safes in place. I do think that it's important, just to remind that. Remember that especially considering, like, how swiftly and heroically the Secret Service acted. But to your point, I mean, this is one of those things that, you know, it's. It's very easy to Monday morning quarterback, and it is a little bit shocking, but it is. Right. Like, how did no one think about someone checking into the hotel a couple of days before? it seems like this guy is the only one who discovered this loophole. Right. and unfortunately, I think I don't know what the solution is. Right. Do you shut down one of the biggest hotels in Washington for, for, you know, for. For a month in advance and sweep all the rooms? Do you search luggage? Those both seem like untenable solutions. So, you know, the president's critics have given him a lot of, a lot of flack for proposing this ballroom and for going right back to it. But, I mean, the more you think about it, I think there is a sense that just, you know, the White House is a secure environment. It is an environment where, you know, the Secret Service can pretty much control every aspect of what's going on there. So maybe that is the solution. Maybe the. And it's not a permanent solution. It's very reasonable for a president to say, especially a president who's now been shot at three times. And to your point, you know, probably had likely many other assassination attempts to get some foil that we don't know about. If this president wants to not do public events that aren't in environments where that he and his team could control, that's a very reasonable thing to want to do.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think it's a very reasonable request, and push that, especially for a president who doesn't have just assassination attempts in theory, but three actual attempts, wanting a secure environment where he can still host and attend some of these events. I mean, obviously this wasn't a White House, dinner. This was, through the White House Correspondence association. And that's. That's fine. But then even using that ballroom for those events, if the President is in attendance, it just seems like there needs to be a solution. And probably the most practical solution is having something that. Having a separate location, at the White House, that is Already secure that just guests can come in and they can go through all of those protocols that, you know, you and I have both been through, where it's actually pretty, rigorous when you go through several checkpoints, as just a guest in the White House perimeter.

Carl Butler: President Trump was very kind to the press after the shooting

And so, it's interesting to me as well, Tim ah Rice, my special guest this morning, he's the Daily Wire Washington Bureau chief. the reaction and the response from the press compared to the reaction and the response in the Brady press room from President Trump. Because he was, in my opinion, he was very kind to the press. I mean, he's been through, unfortunately, several of these situations. he. He knows that this is obviously traumatizing to be in the room, to even have this as a national story. He was very kind to all of the press who were asking him questions and had to go from, like, guests and the shared experience to then sort of asking him questions, which I felt was, was kind of an odd, ah, turn of events right after. But the press haven't really been quite so kind, Tim, even in the aftermath and in discussing the ballroom issue and even discussing overall, political violence as a category. Because shouldn't we all be able to agree that this type of political violence that's clearly targeted for the shooter's ideology against President Trump, that should never happen in America, regardless of who the president is, what party he's from? Why you disagree? This should never happen in the United States.

Tim Rice: That's exactly right. I, you know, I will say it's. I think that we're not even. I don't even think that we've seen the full. The full freight of what the press's reaction is going to be. Because I think to your point, the entire Washington press corps more or less, was in the room. I think a lot of people are justifiably a little shell shocked from what happened. So I think that we're still, you know, the muted criticisms or sort of, you know, lack of praise of, you know, compassion for the president that is trickled out is unfortunately just, going to. I think it's going, you know, the voices will be more amplified. I think people are going to start coming out with more, More criticisms as everyone sort of gets their. Their sea legs back. But to your point, it really was astounding. I mean, look, this is the second time that America has elected President Trump. I think that obviously, you know, his critics focus way more on his. His, you know, prickly side. but, you know, America does not look Necessarily this man to be, you know, as everyone always said with Joe Biden, Right. Like the kind grandfather, the one who's been through grief. Like they elected a fighter. They know that he fights. They know that he stands up for himself and for them. Which made it all the more, astounding. I think that as you said, he was sort of trying to bring the room together that night. I mean, simply making himself available. Right. Having that press conference because you knew that something that the media would want to do, Right? They wanted an answer. All right, let's all just go over there together. And then what did he not do? I mean, he notably did not blame the media. Right.

Tim Rice: He loves blaming the fake news media. And, you know, it's not. We saw last night, on 60 Minutes with Norah O' Donnell, when, you know, she read the manifesto and basically said, you know, are you a pedophile, sir? Did you have this coming? And he said, I knew you were going to say that because you're nasty, horrible people. So it's not that. It's clearly on his mind, but he didn't do what he usually would have done, which is come out and say, you know, this is what happens when you people at CNN and the fake news media are constantly telling them to come after me. No, he came out and he thanked the Secret Service and he said he was glad that everyone was okay and he was calm and he was measured. Apparently he called Jon Carl from abc, after. To make sure he was okay. And, you know, basically was like, I know it's pretty traumatizing. So, yeah, this is an interesting. I think one thing that we have seen, right. Is that these moments really affect the President. Right.

Tim Rice: I mean, after Butler, he was kind of visibly shaken for a couple of weeks, right. He. His RNC speech just a couple of days after the shooting, he talked a lot about God and mortality and, you know, he sort of pulls back on the. On the. On the public events. when he talks about these things, you can see it's a little bit more. It's very human. It's not the. It's not the, you know, the president that we've come to know. It's. He sounds more like how the rest of us would sound disgusting some of the way this happened. So I think, you know, yeah, obviously, understandably, even someone like Donald Trump is, shaken when things like this happen. So I do think it's, you know, you see a very different side of him in moments like this.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Tim Goodman: Three assassination attempts against President Trump raise concern among Americans

And, Tim, you know, what do you think this says about the political moment in America right now that we've had had three assassination attempts just against President Trump? I mean, obviously we've had assassination, attempts of presidents, and unfortunately, a couple of those have been successful across American history. But, this. This is a lot. And this is specifically just increasing the divide, and it's, it's turning up the. The feeling of concern and, frankly, fear, among a lot of Americans. I thought President Trump was great in saying we have to continue to go about, our routine. We have to go to these events. We can't let them win, you know, all of those things. But at the same time, it feels like our culture is really at a breaking point when there are this many people that are trying this often, to go after a president, not just in the press, but with violence.

Tim Rice: You're absolutely right. The thing that really, shocked me and discomforts me is that this shooter and the Butler shooter, these are people. And I want to be very clear, these are obviously sick people, right? I'm not. I'm not saying they're not, you know, deeply, I mean, certainly evil, but also likely mentally ill. I mean, you almost have to be right to try to do this. But yes, compared to, you know, Jon Hinckley, who tried to kill Ronald Reagan because he thought it was going to impress Jodie Foster, or, you know, going back to Charles Guiteau, who wanted to kill James Garfield because he was, like, legitimately, in his mind, had created a relationship between them and thought that Garfield had screwed him out of a government post. Like, these were people who were truly, like, head in the clouds, divorced from reality. Like, this had literally nothing, barely even to do with the President. These shooters are people who, for all of their. Again, like, all of their mental illness and whatnot, they are methodical and they are doing it for political reasons. Right? They have been radicalized. Same thing with the person who killed Charlie Kirk in September, right? These are people who have been radicalized by leftist politics and have planned very methodically to sort of sneak in. And it's not just someone whipping out a gun in a crowd, right? It's snipers. They set up the shot, they get ready, they have a plan. They write these manifestos, they write these, you know, they write these. Here's how I did it, here's why I did it. It's almost like a Bond villain. And the two things that those documents always reveal, and what, you know, just sort of successive court cases, whatever, reveal one is the amount of planning that went into this, right. As if they were almost like professional agents, you know, like instead of just a madman. And the second is that they're very unambiguous. Like, I am doing this because I hate Donald Trump. And the talking points that they lay out or the reasons they lay out always sound like the sort of anti Trump leftist talking points. He's a fascist, he's a tyrant, he's a this. He's a this. and so it is. Yes. I mean, I think the. It's almost strange to say, but the motives and the caliber of the people who try to assassinate presidents is, I fear, a significant leading indicator in where this country is going. Right. 50 years ago, even the president, a president's most vociferous critics would not have been able to find a common right. Republicans didn't look at Lee Harvey Oswald and say, well, you know, I don't think you should kill a president. But, I mean, you know, I kind of get where he was coming from. Of course not, because A, that would have been unfathomable, and B, that's not why Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. He didn't kill Kennedy because he was, opposed to the, you know, Great Society or whatever. you're the new frontier. He killed Kennedy because he was a lunatic and a Soviet sympathizer. And those are the people who used to kill presidents, lunatics and foreign agents. Today, no matter how much Democratic politicians, you know, condemn assassination, and I'm not saying that I secretly want the assassination, but the fact of the matter is, you go read what Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi or AOC has said about Donald Trump. And it's the exact same criticisms that this shooter put in his manifesto. And, you know, I'm not necessarily trying to say that they're directly responsible for that, but that is something that we all need to consider. That is certainly something that they need to think about. And we do need to acknowledge that we have a problem with violent political rhetoric in this country. And for my money, one side is driving it way more than the other.

Jenna Ellis: So.

Tim Rice: The shooter's rhetoric is virtually identical to Democrats' rhetoric

Well said. Well, we've got to take a break here, but Tim Rice, Daily Wire's Washington bureau chief, really appreciate your commentary. Glad that you and everyone at Daily Wire and also in D.C. are so safe. And we'll continue to talk about, the political implications of this, because I couldn't agree more that, you know, when you look at the shooter's manifesto, which does kind of read like, you know, a Bond villain I mean it's, it's amazing that he put all of his thoughts out because clearly he wanted this to be the political discourse. Right. but when you compare that to the rhetoric of Democrats against President Trump, I mean, it's virtually the same. And that becomes a major problem with when you consider that this is no longer just rhetoric, it's actually inflaming and I think inciting a lot of this action. So, again, we'll continue to talk about this, but we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

The suspect in the White House correspondents dinner shooting will make his first appearance today

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. While we're still talking about the White House correspondents dinner shooting and the suspect that was taken into custody, after that event, and that attempted assassination of, according to his manifesto, at least several, high profile targets of, Trump's administration, including the President himself, he is going to be making his first appearance later today in court and being charged with, a number of kind of lesser counts, at least for right now. But according to the DOJ and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, likely as the investigation continues, there will be more serious charges as the investigation then, reveals, more of these motives and some of these things that then would provide evidence that go to, higher charges. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is, an attorney at the Lawfare Project. So Jared, there's, there's some online chatter, you know, of, of people who are frustrated that at this first appearance, he's not being charged with, for example, you know, attempted assassination of President Trump. But these things take time. And even though obviously he's being held on you know, suspicion of some of those lower things like carrying a firearm, and you know, illegally and some of these things that are obviously far, far lower felonies, this is part of the process.

Gerard Filitti: It's absolutely part of the process. And we have to remember that investigators and prosecutors want to build a case carefully so that it doesn't get dismissed on a technicality and that they have all the evidence they need to sustain the serious charges, like the attempted assassination of President Trump, the attempted murder of a Secret Service officer, however, many counts of attempted assassinations will be ultimately present because the manifesto seemed to refer to multiple government officials that he was targeting. So all of this is a process. These initial charges are meant to assure that he stays behind bars while this investigation is being carried out.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And so that's really going to be the Key issue, at least in my opinion, is whether or not he will be released on any kind of bond. That would be really high. I don't see that happening. But at the same time crazier things have happened and I think the collective, right wing Republican base would be outraged if there was any sort of bond, that was in place, whether or not he could meet it.

Gerard Filitti: I think you're right. And I would very much doubt that any bond would be imposed on this case. I think that whatever political ideologies judges have, they stop short of releasing back onto the street someone who charged a, gathering of hundreds of people, of over a thousand people, including the President, with an attempt to, an attempt to kill people. So I think that this guy will be, will not be released on any sort of bond. He will be behind bars while the proceedings play out.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, this is yet another high, profile, targeted attempt on President Trump. And I'm frankly getting tired of it. I mean this is this is something where we've just now had the conclusion a couple of months ago of the alleged, or well now the convicted, but the assassin, the attempted assassination at the golf course of President Trump. And of course, that man was convicted, serving. I think it's close to the rest of his life behind bars. And you know, we had that conclusion, that went all the way through trial, but that took a while. And so we're now going to have, you know, this instance in this case that will go through the whole process and it'll be yet, you know, another public spectacle. And the frustration is that regardless of what anyone's view of President Trump, his policies, his rhetoric, you know, anything else that you can criticize, the line between criticism and then turning into therefore, because I don't like him, that justifies violence is getting thinner and thinner. And when we look at, as I was saying at the conclusion of the last segment, if you look at the rhetoric from Democrats, really high profile Democrats, in fact, who are who are using this kind of, incendiary language against Trump, I mean it basically is the same thing as this shooter's manifesto. And at what point do the Democrats, as crazy leftist lunatics, you know, Trump derangement syndrome, m. All of that as, as crazy as that is, at what point do they actually sit here and think, okay, we've got to stop this because we don't want this to be the status quo, moving into America's future, that any president, if you disagree with his rhetoric, deserves to be targeted. I mean, that's basically the inference of their continued, just really irresponsible and I think, becoming borderline illegal, rhetoric against President Trump.

Gerard Filitti: I think that's absolutely right. Not, not to downplay the seriousness of the attempt on Saturday night, but that's the most straightforward part of it, because that's a legal proceeding. You, the prosecutors will prove what they need to, and this guy will get locked up. But the business story is this echo chamber, this radicalization pipeline that people like Allen, that other people who have taken up violence, political violence, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, all of this is tied together. And this is the echo chamber that exists with daily, relentless. It's cable news, it's elected officials, liberals who are making these allegations, podcasts, social media. Basically it comes down to they're making it not about policy disagreements, but they're framing a narrative grounded in Marxist origins about the oppressor and the oppressed. And when you are suppressed, when you are considering yourself the oppressed and fighting for them, then you're justifying political violence because it's a life and death matter. So that's really the issue here. It's this echo chamber, the way we're indoctrinating people in schools online into this level of violence that then we see play out on Saturday night.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, and there is something deeply, deeply wrong with the, the world view of the left when they don't see this as a problem and when they seem, frankly, perfectly okay with the targeting of President Trump and his administration officials and allies, because they've already been doing this with lawfare, they've been trying to destroy President Trump's life in a variety of ways, themselves. And so it's not really that much more of a leap, to, to almost tacitly, approve of this type of political violence. And when their, their protests turn violent, when, the left has so many, other issues of, you know, of fraud and, other things that are completely illegal and anti American. it's really not that much further of a leap. And we need to really dial down, the political violence in this country or it's just going to continue to get worse.

Judge has halted construction on White House ballroom, saying it needs congressional approval

But on that note, Gerard Felitti, there's been a lot of conversation about, Trump's push to have this ballroom at the White House, not just because, you know, he obviously, you know, loves kind of the, the Mar A Lago style ballroom, which, you know, of course, he oversaw that project and, he's Revised a few things at the White House. you know, whether or not people like it, that's whatever. And so a lot of people initially thought it was more of a vanity project, but when you actually take a step back and you look at this, and I think it put it in a much different context, having a location, not just for Trump, but for all future presidents to have a location that can hold a significant number of people, but is on the White House premises and can be secured. And you don't have these types of security failures that we've seen, over a number of events that have included President Trump. this seems to be, like, a really wise move. And so the DOJ has now said they're going to more aggressively, attempt to. To try to get this project completed. Where does this stand in terms of, the Judge has, in D.C. has halted this, saying that it needs Congress approval. where are we at in this process?

Gerard Filitti: The judge has halted at the appeals court, overruled the hold until, June, at least for the next hearing. So construction is still going ahead. Ultimately, this is going to be decided in the courts. But I do think that President Trump has made the excellent point that this is a matter of national security. especially after the White House Correspondents Dinner, we definitely see the need. But more than that, even historically, and the law does look at historically, when you look at what other presidents have done to the White House, the West Wing itself and the original East Wing were built through administrative action. They were built through presidents just doing it. They didn't get congressional approval for that. So if you look at the history of how things have been handled in the past, which has a bearing on how the courts will see them today, I think that President Trump, will prevail. It's just a matter of this idiotic lawfare to block pretty much anything that he does, even when it's for national security.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, and that's such a good point that the historical precedent of, you know, the White House itself and some of these renovations and modifications, including the West Wing, haven't had a congressional approval. And so was it really just, you know, kind of a judge that doesn't like Trump and wants to thwart his agenda or what? What do we know about that particular judge and why he would have halted this? Because, you know, because the project is. Is about, you know, halfway underway. I mean, they've already done the demolition, according to the photos, so they're going to have to put something else there. I mean, they can't just leave half the White House. not there.

Gerard Filitti: No, they can't. And ultimately, the judge, it's. The judges do have their biases, but it seems that this judge is grasping at straws because you do have the arguments that are being made that President Trump should have followed procedure, he should have followed the consultation process. He, should have basically filled out applications and waited for approval. But again, that's not historical precedent. So there's a very aggressive lawfare effort to use, administrative law that has never been used in this context for the White House before. And a judge gave that credit, and a judge listened to that and held up construction. So, ultimately, this is just another issue of a disagreement on whether things are being done the right way. I think, ultimately, President Trump does have a stronger argument here that he is based on history. but it's a colorable argument whether, you know, what procedures need to be followed. This is not something that happens every day, mind you. It's not. People don't sit around creating codes for how to rebuild the White House. So all of this is a gray area to some extent.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, and moving forward with this, and I hope that this ballroom does get completed. I hope that the. The rhetoric, finally, someone on the Democrat side, besides, you know, Jon Fetterman, who's been the most reasonable Democrat, which is totally wild to me, I actually really like him a lot. he seems to be. He seems to be the only one that cares about principle over party. but overall, you know, with the, the rise in the incidence of these attempts on President Trump's life, is there anything that Congress should be doing? I mean, obviously, an assassination attempt is already illegal. We've seen that. you know, in the previous case, there's already a lot of criminal, statutes that cover all of this. But, to the point of this, this shooter who is now, you know, they're waiting for the investigation to charge him with more serious felonies. I mean, is there something that Congress could do to implement, you know, maybe a federal statute that if you carry a. An unauthorized weapon, you know, with the intent, you know, and have all. All of the different factors there, that nothing more than that is necessary for you to be charged, with a very serious felony? I mean, is there something else that we maybe need to do to capture this specific type of criminal activity that's not yet on the books? That seems like it would be a really good deterrence mechanism.

Gerard Filitti: I think your idea is sound. I mean, I think there are laws, to some extent that encapsulate some of that about transporting weapons across state lines with the intent to commit an act of violence. So there are chargeable offenses there. But ultimately I think what Congress needs to do and what the DOJ needs to do is they need to investigate these movements. There have been reports that Allen was part of a group called the Wide Awake, which is something that came out of Sunrise. It's the groups that make, it's the groups that have the no sleep for ice campaigns, and banging pots and pans all day outside of officials windows and that do other aggressive protest tactics. Now protest is protected under the first Amendment, but I do think we need more investigation into these groups because that's where the radicalization occurs. So we need to stop that before it gets to the point of, you know, we need to prevent the physical act of violence. We need to stop the radicalization and indoctrination.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you know, that's such a great point that even before the point of it getting to having to prevent the violence and looking at security protocols and you know, all of these things, the, the world view that the left is pushing, especially through, the public education system, through a lot of these, nonprofits like you know, what BLM is doing, what we're seeing, even with the splc, you know, and, and trying to label Christians as hateful, you know, all of these different ways that the left is trying to turn the worldview of truth on its head and indoctrinate, our young people into thinking basically that violence against your political opponents is okay. I mean, it's almost the same thing of the, the problem that I have with, you know, a lot of these entertainment groups like Disney and so forth that have a justification for their villains, like, well, we're just misunderstood. And as long as you have a justifiable reason that something your past happened, that created, you know, your villain origin story, then it's okay that you're, you know, this dastardly villain. Right. I mean, it's almost the same type of theory that as long as you can justify your hate for your political opposition, that then justifies political violence against them. And that type of worldview is something that we need to, as, as conservatives, as Christians, we need to focus on that first. Because I think you're right, that that type of worldview, before anyone even gets radicalized or before this, this guy was 31 years old and actually not not only hated President Trump, but was willing to take that step further and actually plan this and then carry it out. I mean, this is not just there's a rise in incidents of totally, you know, crazy, horrible people that are willing to, to perpetuate this type of violence, but that there's more and more people who have the view that this type of violence, political violence, is justified. And that's a really dangerous thing moving forward in society.

Gerard Filitti: It is.

Gerard Felitti: We need transparency in school curriculums

And when we talk about legislation, I mean, one of the things that Congress can do and states should do is we need transparency in curriculums, because all of this starts in school. It's not just a matter of people being radicalized on the dark fringes of the Internet. It's what they learn in K12. It's the political biases of teachers and the teaching material that really starts this whole process. And most parents don't know about that. Most people don't know what kids are learning in school, the worldview that they're learning in school, the one that's perpetuated by Disney as well, by what they see online. And by the time they get into college, it's even worse. We've all seen what happens on college campuses after October 7th. So it's not a surprise that at 31, someone who's been spending so many years getting degrees and being educated has been, radicalized to this extent. So we really need that transparency from the very beginning. So parents and that we as a society know what's going on in school so we can change it.

Jenna Ellis: Yes, absolutely. Well, we've got to take a break here, but Gerard Felitti, really appreciate your commentary. hopefully the DOJ will, get on this and get approval for completion of the ballroom so that it's not just for President Trump, but for all future American presidents to have that type of secure location so that we don't have to worry about, whether or not Secret Service is, doing all of its jobs or whether there will be some of these loopholes or fail safes, you know, that we can have confidence in the safety and security of our leaders. And we also absolutely need to get back into the mindset of truth that we can disagree without resorting to this kind of political violence. So, hopefully that's a conversation that even Democrats may be willing to have in this country, but I think that we need to push them for that and, to say, you know, all of this absolutely needs to stop. So, you can follow Gerard Felitti on X. And we will be right back with more.

 : M. Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio, welcome back.

Federal judge says Christian doctrine threatens psychological harm to child in contested custody case

Jenna Ellis: Well, speaking of the worldview ideology in this country being totally turned on its head and the justification of political violence among a lot of those on the left. now a main judge is ruling that Christian doctrine actually threatens, quote unquote, psychological harm to a child, according to his ruling. And so, does the gospel of Jesus Christ pose a serious risk of psychological harm such that a court must protect an 11 year old girl from going to a church that preaches directly from the Bible? So that was the question that a federal judge in Maine made a ruling suggesting as much. And the case revolves around the custody of a young girl who now apparently is 12 in Maine and parents who never married. And one parent wanted to actually take her to a Calvary chapel that teaches verse by verse. And the pastor actually believes in God, Jesus, heaven, hell and take salvation seriously. And that has now become the subject of a, contest and now this main judge's ruling. So let's welcome in Tyler o' Neill, who is a senior editor at the Daily Signal. And Tyler, this just seems to be, you know, a violation of you know, not only constitutional principles but parental rights and you know, religious ah, freedom and a whole host of other problems with them. This, but to me just the mere fact that a judge could say, could say, I'm going to inquire into the adequacy of what your church teaches and I'm going to comment on that related to potential psychological harm of a child really seems like an overreach that a judicial opinion should have absolutely no province, actually inquiring into.

Tyler O'Neil: Oh yeah, it's an egregious overreach. And I think what's, what's fascinating here is that we've seen essentially the father of this child is weaponizing the court system against this church. And what happened here was, you know, one of these many contested, you know, this is a contested custody case where you know the, and there's so many, so many lessons in this story. One of them is, you know, just the importance of getting married before you have children. these, this man and this woman were never married and they had this daughter and now they're, they live in completely different moral worlds. So you have the mother who is accepted Jesus and you have the father who is so disconnected from Christianity that when he did the barest of, investigation into what Calvary Chapel stands for, he was flabbergasted. You read the document, and this is the document from the judge, by the way. The Order. And the father is figuring out what Calvary Chapel believes. And he watches the sermon and he hears the pastor say that he goes verse by verse, chapter by chapter through the Bible. And the father treats that as a red flag. And not only does he treat it as a red flag, but he hires a woman who builds herself as an expert on cults to investigate this church. And of course, this so called expert on cults is not exactly a fan of the gospel. And she comes to the conclusion that, oh yes, Calvary Chapel, this evangelical Christian church, is effectively a cult. And she wouldn't, she wouldn't use that word now, but she says it's a closed social system. And she very much gives it to be interpreted that that means that this girl is in a cult and she needs to be saved from that cult. The main, the main legal problem here is that the court does not find that Ava's mother is unfit. So even though, you know, and this, this is the thing that Matt Staver, who's the council liberty counsel who walked me through this, most highlighted because the mother is considered a fit parent, but her right to raise her daughter according to her faith is being stripped from her and handed to a man, you know, the father in this case who is aggressively opposed to this church. And I have a little bit of sympathy for people who, you know, are stuck in a situation where, you know, you're the father and you don't want the child to be raised in this way. But ultimately, you know, the court's role is to say, look, if both parents are fit parents, they both have the right to raise their child in the way that they think they should go. And that means that the mother can take the girl to church and the father can decide not to take the girl to church instead. The judge says, no, this religion is unacceptable and you can't take her to church. The father gets all the say.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this really is trampling on parental rights and is just another example and a, and a horrible example of why the best practice, of course, is to be married, and to be married and in alignment on your worldview and on your faith and on, the upbringing of children before you have them. I mean, the biblical way of marriage and family is obviously the best one because then, if you don't abide by those parameters and contours, then you get into situations like this. But this happens, unfortunately, quite frequently. And as Staver said, in this article that you have on Daily Signal, that the presumption of the law is that parents are acting in the best interest of their children. They have a right to raise them in their own religious faith. And what you can't do and what the judiciary can't do is give one parent a veto right over the religious upbringing of another parent when both are fit. And so this really becomes not a question of what faith, and religion is right, quote, unquote, at least for the judiciary. But to say that the, the judge does not have the authority to determine which parent is correct in terms of their view of religious upbringing. Because imagine we put this in a different context and, you know, it was, the parent who wanted to take their child to synagogue as, as a Jew. And the end, you know, the other parent, was very secular and didn't want to. Well, would a judge say, you know, no to the Jewish parent? You can't take them to, to synagogue? I mean, this, this is literally the same thing that a judge is overreaching and telling parents when and how and why they, can exercise their parental rights over the direction of, a child's upbringing in a way that the law, and certainly not the Constitution. Constitution Ever provides to the judge, but provides solely to the parents. And we can disagree, obviously, with how some parents raise their children, and we should, according to the Bible, but that doesn't mean that we want judges to interfere in this kind of decision making.

Tyler O'Neil: Yeah, I think that's exactly the point, Jenna, because, you know, we, we can see and you can envision so many different potentials, of this. You know, you can say a Jewish parent and a Muslim parent or, you know, a Catholic parent and a Protestant parent. And, you know, I believe that Catholicism and Protestantism are both real Christian denominations in a way that other, you know, other faiths very much are outside of the gospel. But the key point here is that the courts should not be deciding which religion is better in terms of awarding parents religious custody. And that's what we see in that case. And we see it.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

Tyler O'Neil: And we see it really. We see really impermissible. I mean, this reminds me of the Master Key Masterpiece Cake Shop case, to be honest. the way that the Supreme Court actually resolved that case where they found an impermissible hostility to traditional, Christianity. I'm m sensing a lot of impermissible hostility in this case too, because if you read this judicial ruling, it very much suggests that there's something suspect about Christianity in general. And that's ultimately why I found the case so important to write about, was that, what's at stake here is not just the legal rights of this mother, but also, you know, the standing of our faith in our court system. And it is not acceptable for a judge to be ruling that a girl can be, you know, can be psychologically harmed by the preaching of the Gospel. And that's what this comes down to. I mean, essentially the complaint is that this church teaches that demons and angels and God and Jesus are all real and salvation matters. And that is one of the main things that made it so somehow impermissible for this young, impressionable girl to go to church. It is beyond the pale that a judge would rule this way.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And for a judge, then if we give this kind of discretion to the bench, then it becomes the bias of the judge. Because, as you note in this article as well, it's very telling that the order actually lowercases the name of God throughout. I mean, it's very clear that this main district court judge, is biased against Christianity. And so basically what you're doing then is, is establishing that the judge. The judge's biases are going to determine what's in the best interest of children. And you can't pick your judge the way you can pick, for example, a counselor. I mean, the. The Colorado case, recently at the Supreme Court gave the correct view that, you know, parents can choose what type of counseling to provide for their children. And if they want to go to a Christian counselor and get biblical advice, they have that right. And. And if they don't, they unfortunately also have. Have that right. and they can choose who. What. What bias or worldview or perspective a counselor, comes into. Just like they can choose what. What perspective, on religion if they. If they attend a church. And unfortunately, you can't do the same thing with a judge. And so then you're just at the mercy of whatever bias a particular court that's assigned this case. Because if this were different and this judge was, a Christian, obviously, we would see a very different outcome. And so that's part of the danger of this, is then you just have the judge's personal opinions rather than the predictability and the objectivity of law that is a hallmark of, not just a legal system, but a legitimate one. So, we're already out of time, Tyler o'. Neill. But I really appreciate you, bringing attention to this case. It's really important.

Christian Doctrine Threatened Psychological Harm to Child According to Main judges

And so, the rest of this article, it's found in Daily Signal. The title is Christian Doctrine Threatened Psychological Harm to Child According to Main judges. Ruling, and it's again by Tyler o'. Neill. You can follow him on X. And, we will see you tomorrow morning. As always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, at afr Net.