Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator

 : Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

 : 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. Mainland.

President Trump gave an update on the conflict in Iran yesterday

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, April 2, and a lot happened yesterday. yesterday evening especially, President Trump addressed the nation and gave an update on the conflict in Iran. Of course, basically the bottom line was, you know, this is, the biggest, most baddest beatdown of Iran ever in the history of dime and, and. And kind of flaunted, what the United States was doing to keep the world safe. And so, whether or not the skeptics of the Iran conflict, really bought into some of that, I think, he kind of rambled a little bit at the end. But the first, especially maybe five or 10 minutes or so, was really important to kind of reset the objectives. Why? The conflict was necessary initially to ensure that Iran did not get nuclear capabilities and, and to ensure that the west and and the world, writ large is protected and, particularly as well with regime change. So he did talk about, you know, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, to make sure that oil prices go down and said that we could expect that in the forthcoming weeks. so this isn't over yet. But at the same time, he, I think, did a very good job of kind of resetting the goals, the strategic objectives, why we initially began the conflict and, why we are continuing, at least at this stage. President Trump also talked about Artemis 2, which is, the first manned crew that will orbit the moon, in decades. And so this is a feat for NASA. I actually saw that, along with, most of my fellow Floridians yesterday saw the launches from a distance. I wasn't up close close, but, you could see that from all over Florida. And it was really an amazing thing to behold. And Trump actually began his speech last night talking about, Artemis and what a great, feat from NASA.

President Obama congratulates NASA on successful launch of Artemis 2 rocket

So this is cut one.

 : Let me begin by congratulating the team at NASA and our brave astronauts on the successful launch of Artemis 2. It was quite something. It will be traveling further than any manned rocket has ever flown and will very substantially past the moon, go around it and come back home from a distance that has never been done before. It's amazing. They are on the way and God bless them. These are brave people. We want to God bless those four unbelievable astronauts.

Jenna Ellis: It's amazing. And you know, as much as we have space travel and we have gone to the, the boundaries in the edge of our environment, that God has, has confined us to here on Earth, it's really amazing to see the vast expanse of the universe. And my dad, who is actually a rocket scientist, who was talking about the Artemis, two yesterday in our family group chat, was saying that according, at leave According to ChatGPT, the expanse of the universe is so vast and that just the estimate is that if one step was equal distance from the Earth to the moon, then 2.1 quadrillion steps would be the possible edge of the universe. I mean it's just, it's so vast and so expansive and we know that the Bible is, is true and is real, that God has confined us to our natural habitat here on Earth, which is the place that we can best not only live and thrive, but also discover him through the natural universe, the general revelation around us and also of course his specific revelation, the Word himself, that he gave, to us and when the Word became flesh, which is what we celebrate this Sunday with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So really incredibly amazing there.

Mike Donnelly joins us to discuss Trump's birthright citizenship case

all right, well, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly, who is an attorney and, and has been a law professor and just an all around, really, I think scholar on the issue of birthright citizenship because that was the other really big headline from yesterday. And this of course is in the context of the Supreme Court case of Trump's birthright citizenship. I almost said Charles V. Salazar, that was the other one, the Supreme Court this week, but Trump's birthright citizenship, case that ah, dealt with his executive order basically ending that practice and it's forcing the Supreme Court to revisit the text of the 14th Amendment and whether or not the framers during the Reconstruction era after the Civil War, who clearly were talking about the children of slaves, meant to provide birthright citizenship to literally anyone who just happens to be born here. And so first Mike, let's, let's get your kind of preliminary thoughts on all of this and how the arguments went yesterday. Good morning.

Mike Donnelly: Good morning, Jenna. Great to be with you. Yeah, it was, well, what a, what a day yesterday. It was so cool seeing that Rocket launch off of there. And, you know, if you're born on the moon, are you a citizen of what, what are you a citizen of? You know, I mean, Mars.

Jenna Ellis: If Elon Musk has his way with his, you know, 37 child.

Mike Donnelly: I mean, that guy, he's hilarious. I think we're going to get to Mars. I mean, that's. I think in our lifetime, we will see human beings on Mars, which is going to be pretty wild. I mean, you know, it's funny. I don't want to digress too much, but as a kid, you know, I didn't grow up, as a Christian. I read tons of science fiction stuff. I'm not sure if that was good or not. Probably not. But, one book I read was written by Robert Heinlein, who's a famous, famous science fiction writer, and it was called Stranger in a Strange Land. not. Not really. what I would necessarily recommend to Christian kids. But if you want to understand Elon Musk, read that book because I think he thinks that's who he is. He's the main character in that book.

First time a sitting president has attended a Supreme Court oral argument

It's very interesting, but, getting, getting to yesterday, I listened to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. I didn't get a chance to go in there. It's pretty crowded. Well, pretty cool that the president, I mean, is the first time a sitting president has attended a Supreme Court. Apparently a Supreme Court oral argument. That's pretty interesting to me. Yeah, I'm not sure if that was a good idea or not, actually.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it kind of came off, as Trump wanting to be there, saying, you know, he had a vested interest in this and maybe, you know, some outlets were speculating maybe for the purpose of trying to intimidate the justices, you know, kind of lock eyes and, you know, do that, like father of the bride sort of thing. but, you know, and I don't think that that's going to necessarily have any effect, but I think at least the perception of a lot of us watching was that, wow, he's taking this so seriously. He's actually going and, and watching the arguments. He's not just, you know, kind of taking the passive. Well, my Solicitor General will handle it.

Mike Donnelly: Well, and the Solicitor General, I thought, did an excellent job. you know, John Sauer, did, I think, a very, very good job of arguing a very complicated, issue because, you know, what we're talking about here is going back to try to understand what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended back in 1868. And it's not that simple because you also have to go back to the Founding, and you got to kind of trace forward. What did the Founders understand? What were we doing? And then what did the framers intend by the 14th amendment? Clearly it was to reject Dred Scott. That was the decision which said, by the Supreme Court, which said that African slaves can never, ever under any circumstances be citizens of the United States because they came from another country and they're, in theory, subject to the power of some African potentate. And, you know, we fought the Civil War over a number of things, and the outcome of that slavery clearly was, an abomination. it's unfortunate that the Founders couldn't find their way to figure that out at the Founding. And we had to deal with that in one of the bloodiest conflicts our country has ever experienced. More than 1.2 million casualties, more than all of the other wars we've ever fought in combined, was the, you know, was the result of the Civil War. But the Reconstruction Amendments came, and you have the 14th amendment, and Congress starts section one with, you know, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And this is really the focus of this case. What does that mean? Because all the folks on the, who are pro birthright citizenship, the ACLU and all of their friends, they're like, oh, yeah, we've been doing this for, you know, 160 years, and it's settled law. And, it's a cornerstone, this birthright citizenship. If you're born here, you're a citizen. Well, that's not what the Constitution says. Doesn't say that. It says born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Now they just want to kind of blow through that phrase and say, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That just means if you're present. Well, clearly if you're born here, you're present. So it can't mean the same thing as just mere physical presence. It has to be something else.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, otherwise they wouldn't have added it to the statute. Right. It would have just said, you're born here. There wouldn't have been a necessity of adding that as a term and, and categorizing people who are subject to the jurisdiction and are not. And I want to kind of interject here only because, one of the most viral clips from yesterday's oral argument was, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson basically making this argument in a hypothetical that your mere presence, and if you're subject to the Jurisdiction in any sense of that term. Like if you are subject to the law of a country that you're visiting, that somehow provides you the necessary cover for citizenship, which is utterly absurd. And this is what she had to say. This is. Cut to.

 : I was thinking about this, and I think they. There are various sources that say this, that you can have. You obviously have permanent allegiance, based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other. Other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I'm. I'm. I U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the. The Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. it's allegiance meaning, can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on. Even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense.

Jenna Ellis: It's so preposterous and so ridiculous. She is conflating so many different, legal concepts to suggest that just because you might be under the jurisdiction of a criminal law of a country that you're visiting, that that somehow requires you to owe allegiance to that country. I mean, those are two completely separate things.

Mike Donnelly: They are two completely different things. And, let's see. Kitanji Brown Jackson go vacation in Japan and then try to argue that she can become a citizen of Japan because she's present in the country. I mean, Japan doesn't do birthright citizenship. They do, you know, if you're. You have to be Japanese citizen in order for, you know, kids born there to be. Be citizen. It's complicated. so, yeah, I mean, are you shocked that. That this is what Justice Jackson is coming up with? not at all. You know, she was the sole dissenter in the. In the case yesterday. So it's just more of Justice Katan. Angie Brown Jackson, she never ceases to amuse and amaze. anyway. But, yeah, allegiance is an important concept that they struggled with yesterday.

The Supreme Court will decide whether birthright citizenship is constitutional

And the other concept that the Solicitor General brought up was this concept of domiciled, you know, and understanding that a person is lawfully present in a location with the intent to remain permanently. And they talked about the case of Wong Kim Ark, which is the case of the Chinese guy, who you know, all the proponents, of birthright citizenship want to say, oh, Wong Kie Mark is the case and it's settled. And, you know, we have to go by that. And it says birthright citizenship. Well, you know, yes and no. Wong Kim Ark was a, ah, case where Wong Kim was born to parents who were lawfully present in the United States of America running a business. They couldn't become citizens, naturalized citizens, because of the Chinese Exclusion act, which Congress passed pursuant to its constitutional authority to, have uniform laws of naturalization saying that we're not going to have any Chinese people be citizens of the United States. Obviously, that's changed. but Congress did that, and so that's why the parents couldn't become citizens. But Wong Kim Ark was born here. His parents were lawfully present, and that means he was subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Because you impute the domicile of the parents to the child to determine whether or not the child is subject to the jurisdiction. Now, there's arguments about that, and, you know, if you're subject, you know, they talked in the case yesterday, General Sauer, and I think it was Gorsuch who was pressing him on this, or maybe Kavanaugh, about, some previous laws that were passed by Congress in 1866, the Civil Rights act, which also dealt with the question of citizenship. And the language it used was not subject to any foreign power. Okay, you're a citizen if you're born or naturalized and not subject to any foreign power. 1866, they changed the language when they passed the 14th amendment or, proposed the 14th amendment in 1868 to border naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction. And there was some discussion about why did they change that. But this whole idea of understanding, what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction, it's clearly not mere physical presence. It has to be more than that. And that's the question the court's going to have to struggle with. And there's this concept that they grappled also that you pointed out of allegiance. What does that mean? And, you know, you've got to have this idea that you're here permanently, you intend to be here permanently, and you're here lawfully with the consent of the sovereign, which is why illegals, people who come here illegal, cannot and should not be able to become the children of illegal aliens, should not be able to become citizens unless Congress acts, under the understanding of the 14th Amendment. So lots of concepts they grappled with. And I thought the Solicitor General did a pretty good job of Trying to unpack a lot of these complicated concepts. I thought the ACLU attorney who was arguing the other side was very simplistic. you know, just kept repeating won. Kim Ark just kept saying that, the Constitution. To me, this was shocking. When she said that the constitution in the 14th Amendment, the first sentence was intended to prevent Congress from making any changes to what a citizen could be. She said it created a floor that Congress could not go beneath. Well, I guess she Forgot about Section 5, which says that Congress has the authority to, you know, pass laws regarding the 14th amendment, which means it can pass any laws, in my opinion, about that. So, you know, that was the argument of the aclu. You know, what are they going to do? That's the question. How are the justices going to handle this case? They got three months to figure this one out.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it's really, going to be very interesting to see how they wrestle with all of this because, you know, it seems like to, you just a regular average people who are looking at the issue of birthright citizenship in the context of the, the immigration issues that the Trump administration has highlighted and you know, in this whole political context. And it seems very simple, Mike. I mean, it seems like, well, no, of course we shouldn't allow people who are here illegally to, to then gain something from our government almost by virtue of them being here illegally. I mean, it almost seems like it's an unjust enrichment in that sense. Right. And so it seems like a very simple proposition to say if you're here legally, whether you're a permanent resident or however, you know, they want to distinguish that if you're, if the parents are citizens, if you're here legally, that is a totally different, and permanently, not just a visitor that's here legally. legally and permanently, that's very different than someone who is here illegally and then is going to, basically take advantage of the system. And yet we have all of these different arguments and nuances and almost like it's so over complicated when it really doesn't need to be. And, we need to take a break here, but I want to hold Mike on through the break because, we actually have a lot more to talk about on this particular issue. because there, there are a lot of incentives and perverse incentives that our current system allows if we don't have a handle on birthright citizenship, and if the court somehow holds that the President doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change this, which they might. but if they go a step further and say that the 14th Amendment actually protects the right of any child born in the, in the United States to have citizenship. That is going to be a disaster overall and in the coming years and decades for this country. So, we're talking with Mike Donnelly is an attorney. You can follow him at Donnelly Speaks. And we will be right back with more.

House GOP agrees to pass Senate bill to fund DHS except for ICE

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we're still here with my special guest McDonnelly who is an attorney and talking about the Supreme Court case. But breaking news. The House GOP has caved to really the Democrats. They've agreed to pass the Senate bill to fund dhs, except for ICE and CBP that unanimously passed a week ago. And so this coming from Politico and also Fox News is reporting new Speaker Johnson caves to Leader Thune. In a joint statement they will announce they will fund DHS through appropriate the appropriations process and reconciliation legit. What could have been done on Friday. This is basically what the Senate did that that House leadership called, quote, unquote garbage. So Chuck Schumer is now out on X, saying news House Republicans caved. And I'm sitting here wondering do Republicans really have a majority or not? You know, it doesn't really seem like it but at least you know that will be the the plan to move forward. So the Senate agreed via voice vote to send a bipartisan deal funding the whole department, except for President Trump's immigration enforcement and border security efforts to the House for consideration. The chamber is not expected to vote on the legislation until the House lawmakers return to Washington after easter break on April 13th. So we can head into the weekend being once again duly disappointed in the GOP leadership. But let's get back to whether or not we'll be disappointed in the US Supreme Court.

Ending birthright citizenship loophole that Obama created is critical to restoring American sovereignty

So the other issue Mike, that that, that came up in the context of all of this and with birther tourism and you know, the so called anchor babies and and all of these incentives for illegals to come and to to say and then have their children become citizens and then they can then apply for citizenship based on the status of their child. there was also a report on Fox News this past weekend, where a ah, reporter or a commentator on Fox was talking about how the Chinese Communist Party, is actually paying a lot of individuals to come to the United States, have Chinese babies who then become American citizens and then eventually they're able to vote in our elections. And so it's basically a quiet but hostile takeover within using our own system. So this was the interview between Kayleigh McEnany and her guest, Eric Eggers. This is cut three. You think China is sending CCP so communist sympathizers to the United States to have children, to make them citizens and really kind of change the ideology of our country, Is that right?

 : Well, you don't take my word for it, Kayla. You can take China's. They have over a thousand companies in China that advertise this service to these Chinese elites. And China's own estimates, by the way, suggest that up to 100,000 people per year travel from China and that are then born in this country. And over the last 13 years, given the loopholes that the Obama administration created, that's potentially up to a million people who can start voting in this country by 2030 or earlier. Peter Schweitzer has called it a Manchurian generation, and it's a very real threat. Look, Donald Trump was elected because of the travesty that Joe Biden created, allowing so many people to enter this country illegally. They've taken good steps to secure the border, and that's necessary, but not sufficient. Ending the birthright citizenship loophole that the Obama administration created is a very important next step to restoring American sovereignty. Donald Trump understands that, and that's what his executive order last year was meant to address.

 : Wait, so, 1 million by 2030 could be new voters. I mean, elections are decided by a few thousand votes. In some cases, this could technically swing an election.

 : Oh, absolutely. And I think we all know based on all the data, which party China tends to favor. I promise you, it's not the Trump administration. It's not conservatives who have finally taken the threat that China poses to us head on in an honest way. It might be the party represented by Barack Obama who created the loophole in the first place.

Jenna Ellis: So, Mike, you know, these are things that go far beyond the left's, you know, cries for, oh, humanitarianism. And, you know, what about the poor babies who arrived here, no fault of their own, and they're not responsible for their parents crimes and blah, blah, blah, blah. But this is a very real threat.

Mike Donnelly: It is. You, know, John Sauer said yesterday, you know, in 1868, it took months to get the United States. Now everyone's a plane trip away. you know, John Roberts, you know, in a quip, which people are spitting to try to say, oh, he's skeptical, which he might be, but I'm not sure you can use this quip, for that purpose. He said, well, yeah, it's a new world, but it's the same constitution. that's true, but President Trump was elected for a reason, as that clip demonstrated. And, you know, billions of dollars of fraud from m, you know, illegal alien communities in Minnesota, the, Somali community sending tens of billions of dollars from America back to Somalia. it's not just limited to those communities, and it's not just limited to illegal aliens. We got fraud all over the place in our country that we've got to deal with. But the fact is, that is a magnet. The modern welfare state is a magnet to people who understandably want to escape their third world, underdeveloped, difficult countries to live in. Look, we live in the best country, the greatest country, with prosperity, a standard of living that people can't even imagine in other places. And, you know, they think of America as the beautiful country or heaven. And to them, in some ways it is, to us who were born here, it's a blessing to live in this country. and so you can't in some ways blame people for wanting to come here. At the same time, it has significant ramifications on whether this country is going to remain the United States of America based on our founding principles. And so that's why this issue has to be dealt with. And look, Jenna, we've, you know, since the founding of this country, we have grappled with issues that have taken decades, even centuries to figure out. Okay, you're a woman. If you're born in 1868, did you have a say in who was President of the United States?

Jenna Ellis: Right. Not until the 19th amendment. Yeah.

Mike Donnelly: No, you didn't. Women couldn't vote, generally speaking, until 1920 with the 19th amendment. Right. you know, that's just one example of things that have lingered for a long time that finally got corrected. The Supreme Court has done things like Dred Scott, which got corrected quickly. But what about Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court said, oh, yeah, it's fine to have, you know, water fountains for black people separate from water fountains for white people, have different schools for black and white. Right. It took 60 years before the Supreme Court realized, you know what? That was not. That was wrong. We shouldn't have done that in Brown v. Board of Education, enforcing the equal protection law. So the fact that this is something that has been allowed to happen by the executive branch over decades, birthright citizenship and interpretation that allows anyone born here without any serious connections here, that has been allowed to happen. you know, it's reached a point where we have to grapple with it as a country from a policy perspective. And now that's coming to the attention of the Supreme Court, and they're going to have to grapple with it. And it's not enough to say that being born here is all you have to be. That's not what the Constitution says.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And this whole idea that the 14th Amendment is so clear and so plain as to grant birthright citizenship is a complete mischaracterization of the text of the Constitution.

Juan Kim: The Constitution can be applied to new circumstances

And you mentioned that exchange between John, Sauer and Justice Roberts, talking about how, you know, it's a new world and, people are just one plane ride away from coming here and then having a baby. And then Roberts. And we actually have this clip I'll play in just a second. He says, you know, well, this is, it's maybe a new world, but it's the same Constitution. Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that then the, the application always remains the same. And we've seen that there is a distinction between a. The argument for a living Constitution, that the words mean something different, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The term sex now, according to the Supreme Court, means sexual orientation, gender identity. No, that's reading something into it that the plain meaning of the statute did not mean that at the time in which it was enacted. But then if you look at something like the First Amendment, okay, that, that has covered freedom, of speech, but in. At the time that it was ratified, it didn't cover transmissions by radio like what we're doing today, because it didn't exist at the time. But the application was different. And in fact, I'll play first, this clip from Alito quoting Scalia on future applications of, of not yet invented, innovations, and how that doesn't change the plain meaning of the Constitution, but the application can certainly expand when you have innovations in technology or just progress as a society. This is cut 4.

 : Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation. He, imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven. And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this fellow says, well, I can't be convicted under this because the microwave oven didn't exist at that time. And he dismissed that. There's a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications. And what we're dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which is illegal immigration. So how do we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?

Jenna Ellis: And I think he's spot on with that.

Mike Donnelly: He is. And I also would point to one of Justice Scalia's cases in the Fourth Amendment context called Kyla, where Scalia, you know, said, no, it's not okay for the police to use thermal imaging to search your home without a warrant. And thermal imaging devices did not exist at the founding, you know, so, yeah, we can certainly understand the general rule, as Justice Alito points out, and apply it to new circumstances. And the Supreme Court is being confronted with that now. and it's not the first time, you know, when was the first time the court interpreted the Second Amendment? 2008. Right. And it was a couple years later they finally got around to quote, unquote, incorporating it against the states in Chicago. Chicago case. Right. So it can take decades, centuries for the Court to get around to questions. And sometimes the circumstances sharpen the focus on what the language means. And now we've got to actually say, okay, here's how that rule applies in this new context, which is exactly what we have now with Trump's executive order. His executive order deals with two categories of persons that are completely different from what the court dealt with In Won Kim Ark. In Won Kim Arc. That court dealt with a family that was here lawfully and permanently and had a child who was born here to lawful permanent parents who were domiciled in the United States, had no intention to return, and were here lawfully. They owed allegiance to the United States. Not in the Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sense of being subject to their traffic laws. No, they were here. This was their, their home and he was appropriately a citizen. And you know, the Solicitor General embraces Juan Kimmark. He's like, yeah, we agree with Juan Kim work, because it's not really relevant to the cases that the Trump executive order is trying to address, which is people here who are here illegally and who are also here temporarily and are not permanently domiciled here legally. And that's what the Court has to grapple with. And it's, you know, people, the CNN of the world and all the left wing media are trying to say, oh, the Supreme Court is skeptical of, this. And well, of course they're skeptical. They're supposed to be skeptical. They've got to press the arguments for both sides. And I heard, I heard a Kavanaugh who was in, was open to it. I heard a Gorsuch who gave a hard time to the ACLU lawyer, and that's what they do is they press both sides hard and they're going to be skeptical to both sides. Of course, you know, Brown, Jack Kagan and Sotomayor have already said how they're going to rule back last year in Trump because the national injunctions case, when they signed on to opinions that substantively said birthright citizenship is already the law of land, they already decided it. So it's already starting out three justices against the executive order. The question is what, in my opinion, the question is what is justice, Roberts and Justice Barrett going to do? I think they're the ones who are the swing votes here. and Gorsuch, I think it's a little bit of a question mark, but, that's, that's kind of where I'm, I'm leaning. what, what does Roberts do? And Barrett.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And we've got to take a break here. Mike Donnelly, you know, so much more that we, yeah, thanks so much. you know, so much more that we can, and will discuss in the coming days, especially when we get this opinion which will probably be handed down, you know, sometime around June close to to the end of session. That's typically when the Supreme Court releases their most controversial or more politically charged, opinions. And so we just need to be praying, for the justices, because this is a huge and monumental decision that is going to have a real practical impact on, American citizens for sure, but also, you know, a lot of people and this is going to, one way or the other, change the trajectory of our country and is something that we need to take incredibly seriously. And so we need to pray for them to have wisdom and to not be led by political partisanship or maybe difficulty, but by actually doing the right and appropriate thing. So we will be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis welcomes Blaze Angolia back to American Family Radio

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, turning to getting some really good accomplishing work done in office, Florida's CFO, Blaze Angolia, in just the first six months in office, has exposed $1.9 billion in wasteful excessive spending. Proposed historic anti illegal immigration legislation, proposed historic government accountability and transparency legislation established. The Florida Agency for Fiscal Oversight, has awarded over $14.7 million to support Florida's, firefighters and also another 8.5 million to support Florida's law enforcement. So, you know, as disappointed as we are in the GOP nationally, this morning, I think that some in Florida at least deserve, our thanks, and that definitely includes our cfo, but I Want to welcome him in now. And Blaze, you have been, going around the state looking for all of this wasteful, excessive spending, basically in a Florida version of Doge. And what you have uncovered has just been absolutely wild, which actually kind of goes along with your X handle, government or gov gone wild, and showing how the excessive expenditures on the state and local level, really could amount, to a lot of returns for the average citizen.

Blaise Ingoglia: Yeah. So what we've seen in the state of Florida, because everyone is moving here, we've had an increase in property values and a, corresponding increase in property taxes. And over the last six years post Covid, a lot of these local governments have just gone reckless. They've taken all this extra money, this property tax windfall. Never once thought about giving it back to the voters. Just took the money, started hiring bureaucrats, administrators, paper pushers, not really hiring more law enforcement and fire, although they do. but the budgets, the local budgets have, most of them have almost doubled in size in six years. So when we talk about an affordability issue here in the state of Florida, as we see across the United States, my argument, and the case that we're making is the affordability issue is starting at the local government here, a local government level in the state of Florida, because they are just, raising property taxes and thus your housing payment every month.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and this has been a huge focus right now, at least, among regular Floridians, not really the Florida legislature, even though Governor DeSantis has yet to actually, put forward a comprehensive plan for property tax relief in the homestead exemption. But what could, in your estimation, just looking at the fiscal side of it, what could that actually entail that would be concrete and that the legislature, could and should pass?

Blaise Ingoglia: So the governor and I think that the numbers work and we want to be as aggressive as possible. We think eliminating homesteaded property, taxes on homesteaded properties in the state of Florida is attainable. But I do not think that the legislature is going along with that. So what I think is going to happen is either one or two things. I do not have any insider information. This is just my opinion. I think that we're going to go back to the original intent of homesteaded state of Florida, which is about shield about a third of your home from property taxation, and now that number is about 9%. So if we can get it back up to 33, close to 40%. The state of Florida, the residents, the property tax, owners will be much, better Off. Or we could see something like a super exemption. Something where an exemption is $400,000, but we phase it in over time where year one, it's 100, then 1502-002503-00350, and then eventually get to a 400, thousand dollars property exemption where the people on the lower rung of the economic ladder won't have any property taxes at all. It gives government some certainty because there's a glide path to, a much larger homestead exemption. I think one of those two are very doable. And, I think it's something that the legislature should contemplate.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So I think a lot of us are wondering why in the world a super majority Republican legislature wouldn't take this up.

Blaise Ingoglia: You know what? that's a good question. a lot of these people are very dear friends of mine. I, you know, you know me, Jenna. I'm very, very aggressive when it comes to, government in general, conservative governance. I, wish they were a little bit more, hard pushing and hard charging on this, but, you know, they have, they're listening to all sides, just like I'm listening to all sides. At the end of the day, look, we want this state to remain the most amazing state in the union. That's why everyone is moving here. And I think it is incumbent upon us with the supermajority to govern like a supermajority. The more conservative, the better.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I could not agree more. I mean, I'm one of them who came to Florida because of Governor DeSantis and your and other leadership in, in Tallahassee and ensuring that we have conservative governance and, you know, coming from a blue state, which, you know, just got its like 30th L at the Supreme Court, yet earlier this week, not, yesterday, but earlier this week, you know, Colorado has just been a total disaster. And you know, looking at, how that state is run and functions compared to Florida, it's just, it's such a vast difference. And even the day to day, I mean, as a just, you know, regular resident, I can tell a huge difference and, and people can tell a difference in conservative red states versus the oppression of blue states and almost kind of always having to be on their guard of, you know, what crazy insane thing are they gonna manufacture and come up with next to infringe on our rights? but, you know, when you're looking at all of the fiscal side and the fiscal responsibility, it surprised me, blazing Goliath, that there has Been so much that's been uncovered of waste and, and even fraud on the local level in even a conservative state like Florida.

Blaise Ingoglia: Yeah, 100%. That's the, In fact, if you look at the numbers on a, per capita basis and a growth basis, the city of Orlando, which is deep, deep blue, is actually the most fiscally responsible of the 15 governments that we reviewed. some of the least fiscally responsible are red counties. It's almost like they take the grassroots for granted. They're like, oh, we're Republicans. They're not going to watch what we're doing. No, somebody's watching. I'm watching. and you know, we have. I just did Citrus county, which is deep red. It was part of my senate district once. $39 million. A small county. 30, $9 million of wasteful and excessive spending. Manatee, which is deep red. $112 million of excessive spending. you have Flagler. Ah, county. We just did. Which is deep red. That is $59 million worth of excessive spending. So it is a government thing. it's not necessarily a red or a blue thing. What happens is, and it's a little frustrating because you get Republicans that run on a platform of, I'm going to cut taxes, make government smaller and more accountable. But when they get in there, it's almost like they listen to the bureaucrats and they stop listening to their own gut instinct. and then there's more and more excuses of growing government when we really need hard charging fiscal conservatives to, put their hands up and say, nope, our job here is to protect the people, not to protect the government.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it is so frustrating. I was actually talking to a couple of guests earlier this week, both a Republican and a Democrat that expressed this, that exact same sentiment, that, you know, we elect people to do a job and then it seems like they get to their positions, whether it's Washington or even state and local level. And it's like they, they become, immobile and they don't know what to do. Or they just go with, the, the power that's there. They just want to win the next election. It's like they don't actually execute their job. And that's really frustrating. and so it's good that there is oversight and especially in, your job, that Florida, you know, has hired you to do for, being the chief financial officer. That's incredibly important, to us. And the other thing, that happened this week as well, that, you know, and all States, I've been saying for a long time, other states need to have a similar version of Florida Doge and replicate that in their states because if wasteful spending would stop in on the state and local level as well as the national level, then, you know, maybe we wouldn't be, you know, feeling the, the economic pressures quite as much.

Florida recently passed a law requiring citizenship verification for voter registration

but the other thing that that other states need to replicate that Florida is doing, just yesterday, Governor DeSantis signed Florida's version of the SAVE act, which was to further tighten election security. And so the law mandates, that citizenship verification for voter registration and requires paper ballot statewide to ensure a verifiable hard copy. And this just seems like total common sense. And so you were there with Governor DeSantis. tell us about Florida's version of the SAVE Act.

Blaise Ingoglia: Yeah, basically mimics what, what ah, Senator Mike Lee is trying to do in Congress. it says that if you are going to be in the state of Florida, you actually have, have to have an actual voter ID in order to vote. We took away all these exceptions excuses for voter IDs like student IDs and community IDs, which we've been trying to get out of the law for years and we've always ran into problems with that. But it also requires verification of citizenship. Now people always, ah, think, well that's sort of, yes, it's sort of common sense, but we do not have illegals voting in our elections. That is absolutely 100%, verifiably false. and how do we know that it's false? Because there are actually cities, and large metropolitan areas around the United States that have put into their, proactively put into their ordinances, that illegals can actually vote in local elections. So the bad idea is already ingrained in the state of, in the United States. it is a good idea to make sure that that bad idea does not spread to state and not spread to federal elections. So we look to verify citizenship. Now the naysayers are going to come out and saying that, you know, and you've seen these ridiculous videos. You know, I think it was Elizabeth Banks. They have all these, these these Hollywood, elites up there saying that, you know, they're going to disenfranchise women. All of that is not true. So just to show you how good we are here in the state of Florida, if the SAVE act would have passed at the federal level, we would be 99.8% compliant. There would just be a small handful of people that we would have to go, and do take a couple of extra steps to verify citizenship. But what's concerning here is the pushback on the. It's like, why would you not want to verify citizenship? There's only two answers to this. One is that they've already registered a bunch of illegals, and the SAVE act is going to expose their plan. Or the second thing is that they're planning on registering illegals and the SAVE act is exposing their plans. But either way, verifying citizenship and voter ID is a good thing. People demand it. It is very, very popular. 80% of all voters in the United States, approve of this. 80% of black voters approved to this. So it's not Jim Crow 2.0, sorry, Senator Schumer. It's just not.

Blaise Ingoglia: And it's just common sense stuff.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, and the great thing about this is Florida is taking those steps and not just waiting on Congress to pass the National SAVE act before actually cleaning up our elections and making sure that we can tighten election security in the best way possible. And this is such a great, example to the other states to say you don't have to just be reliant on Washington. States actually can and should be doing this for themselves. So I really appreciate all of the work that you are doing. Blaze Angolia, his handle. You can follow him at Gov Gone Wild and you should follow him there for all of the updates and sometimes a little bit of snark. That's what I like about him. But thanks so much for your work and Governor Ron DeSantis as well. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, @afr.net.