Transcript

Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution obligates government to protect God's rights

 : 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.

D.C. circuit panel orders Judge Boasberg to terminate contempt probe

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, April 15, and several major legal headlines. yesterday breaking in a 2 to 1 vote, a D.C. circuit panel issued an extraordinary writ of mandamus ordering Judge Boasberg, remember him, ah, the rogue judge that is just very anti Trump. but the D.C. circuit panel ordered Judge Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt probe into the Trump administration's transfer on of alleged Trend members to El Salvador. remember that whole scenario back when that was kind of a bigger deal last year. And so the panel holds that the TRO did not, or the temporary restraining order did not clearly bar transferring custody abroad, making contempt legally untenable and warns the inquiry improperly intruded into high level executive national security decision making. That coming from SCOTUS wire on X. And you can read the full ruling there. And the order is is actually pretty short. It's just it's just one page. But the opinion then goes down further. There's an opinion by the circuit court judge, a concurring opinion and then the one dissent. But let's welcome in Gerard Felitti who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, this is a really a good thing I think a, a smackdown for the overreaching of Judge Boasberg. He had tried to have a plane, carrying some of these, Trend members actually turn around when it was over international waters, as if his jurisdiction and his authority reached that far. this I think is a good decision. But even more importantly it should come with some consequences for Boasberg.

Gerard Filitti: Well that's absolutely right. It should come with consequences. Especially when you actually read the opinion, it goes into pretty good detail about how Boasberg seems to be engaging on a personal crusade against the administration, taking things well above what a normal case would entail, and going far and beyond in an effort to discover everything it can about the government's action and find it at fault well beyond what's permitted by law, well beyond what's permitted by the judiciary, well beyond what is permitted in Any normal case. So I think when you see how detailed this opinion is about Bolzberg really stepping outside of bounds, you have to wonder what the consequences are going to be. And here it may not be enough just to have a slap on the wrist in an opinion. It may be that we are talking about the impeachment of a federal judge,

Jenna Ellis: and we should be. And I think that's exactly the consequence that needs to, be handed down. And, you know, Congress seems to be focused on a lot of other things, including potential expulsion of two remaining members that didn't just go ahead and resign. But this is something that if, if all sides were looking at this fairly, they wouldn't want a politically motivated judiciary and would understand, the really alarming danger of having someone like Boasberg on the bench. and so how. How likely do you think it is that it least a Republican member would file impeachment paperwork?

Gerard Filitti: I think we're getting to the point where it's very likely. Of course, as you pointed out, we have a Congress that's distracted by quite a few other things right now, including passing a budget to fund tsa, but. And the misconduct of several members that have the, gall to continue trying to stay in office. But at the end of the day, this is an issue that's gotten so serious, the abuse of the judiciary by judges that it needs to be taken seriously. There need to be consequences, it does need to happen, in order for it to serve as a warning to judges that they need to actually follow the law and not make it up as they go along.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And this is very different, in terms of what the opinion said and the overall posture of this case and what, what Judge Boasberg actually did, and the obvious motivation, then, you know, just kind of a routine overturning by a circuit court of a district court judge. I mean, that happens all the time. And when that happens, that's sort of the regular course of business in the judiciary. People don't talk about impeachment. So I think that we can fairly say that this scenario and instance with Boasberg is a totally different category that does warrant impeachment.

Gerard Filitti: It's a much different category because here we've had a, clear record where he's been told multiple times by the circuit court, by the Supreme Court, that he is wrong, that he is going about things the wrong way. So when you're being told by SCOTUS that you're doing things wrong, that you're wrong on the law and wrong on the fact. But you keep going back and doing the same thing over and over again. You are either incompetent or don't care about what the law is. So that's how serious this is, that you don't have a judge that's been overruled or overturned on one or two things. He's been told explicitly that he is not doing things the right way, yet he. He still wants to do them that way, meaning going after the administration. So it's gotten to the point where it's not enough just to keep appealing, but he needs to, see that there are consequences for ignoring the law.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, what about within his own district? I mean, there generally is a chief judge over even district. I mean, that's, it's for listeners. It's not just at the U.S. supreme Court that there's a chief that. That handles more of the administrative details. I mean, even within, within the county level, the district level, on. On even county level in the state, but also federal, there's, you know, the administrative judge. And there are some ways, that. That. That Boasberg potentially could be held accountable. I mean, an administrative judge could not allow him to take certain cases, almost by his own initiative, could maybe impose some other kinds of, punishment or just accountability measures. Why do you think that hasn't been done? Or maybe it hasn't. We're just not necessarily aware of it.

Gerard Filitti: The problem in the District of Columbia is that the chief judge is James E. Boseberg.

Jenna Ellis: he's not going to punish himself.

Gerard Filitti: Yeah, you have this unique situation where you need to have, you need to bring it to other judges when it involves the chief judge. And judges are reluctant to kind of form a committee against, the person who is responsible for their assignments and for their conduct. So this creates a conflict of interest, essentially, which is why someone else needs to step in.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, and. And that's really frustrating that when you have somebody who is the one in authority, then people under them. I mean, it's often like a boss at work. You know, you don't want to necessarily, bring a complaint because then you're worried about retaliation. And clearly Boseberg is a person of the type of character that, I wouldn't put it past him, to. To have retaliation and you know, other consequences if anyone under him tried to do anything. So hopefully then Congress, will be the entity to bring what should be the appropriate consequence. And if more judges who went rogue like this and it's not rogue just in terms of, oh, we disagree with their opinion, but it was at least well thought out. It was, it was within the contours and boundaries of, of the Constitution, of the law, of statutes. I mean, that was famously, what Scalia and Ginsburg and their friendship, was. Was measured by. They had a healthy respect for each other that even though, you know, we know, I mean, Ginsburg had decisions that we totally disagree with, but they at least respected the fact that each other approached the law and the Constitution from at least a personal desire to actually do their job. Well, even though Ginsburg obviously was very, very much liberal, it wasn't the same type of political bias that we see with people like Boasberg and those types of rogue judges. And so if more of the rogue judges, the ones who are very obviously political activists, if more of them were impeached and held accountable, then hopefully we would see that not playing out nearly, to the degree that we've seen it, especially from D.C. but I think he thinks he's just going to get away with it.

Gerard Filitti: Well, because he has gotten away with it. Let's not forget that Boasberg was also the one involved with, Operation Arctic Frost. He was the one who was, providing the Biden DOJ with the tools to spy on Republican, legislators, senators and members of Congress.

Gerard Filitti: And this was a scandal in and of itself because that went beyond constitutional protections. So this is not the first time, this is hardly the first time that Judge Boseberg has gone far and above what a normal judge does, and politicized the legal process. So this really is one judge that needs to have that attention of Congress through impeachment proceedings.

The Biden DOJ weaponized federal law to prosecute pro lifers, report says

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and speaking of, political activism that belongs nowhere, in proceedings, there was also a headline yesterday from the NewSong York Post that the Biden DOJ weaponized federal law to prosecute pro lifers and give them longer prison sentences. Really isn't a headline. We've all known this for a while, and for a long time. But the Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden withheld evidence and approved aggressive arrest tactics when targeting pro life defendants and then slapped them with longer prison sentences than pro abortion ones, according to an explosive internal review released yesterday. So the DOJ revealed the stunning abuses in a nearly 900 page report after examining more than 700,000 records related to the Biden administration's prosecutions under the FACE Act. And, and this when we're looking at the Biden DOJ being found to have engaged multiple times. I mean, this was a pattern in the biased enforcement of law and politically targeting their opponents with harsher sentences and over prosecutions and basically lawfare. You know, this is yet another example of, of government actors that need to be held accountable. All of these attorneys that were involved in this, in my opinion, should be disbarred.

Gerard Filitti: I think you're right. And we are seeing the imposition of some consequences. We've seen some firings, and we can expect more. At the end of the day, this is textbook institutional capture. This is the machinery of the federal prosecution being deployed not against conduct, but against a disfavored political and religious class. So this is not what the application of law is supposed to be. You're not targeting enemies of something that you don't believe in. You're supposed to apply laws neutrally. And when you are recommending sentencing that are harsher on one class of people, or when you're ignoring due process protections because you don't like who the defendants are, but you're not applying the same law to other parties, that's a major problem. That shows how far this, the DoJ became corrupted under the Biden administration even earlier.

Jenna Ellis: Oh, yeah, and I think it was much earlier. I mean, when we've seen, the lawfare getting progressively worse. I mean, obviously during the Biden administration, the targeting of, of their political opponents, which included Christians, pro lifers, Trump, any of his associates, any of his supporters, I mean, basically anyone who wasn't a flaming liberal, they wanted to and, and, and targeted. And yet, if there's no accountability here, I mean, if all we get is this 900 page report and, you know, people talk about it for a day and they say, oh, this is terrible, but then America sort of moves on. That does not bode well for a future DOJ under potentially a Democrat administration if Democrats win in 2028. Because they've already signaled very clearly. I mean, they're open about it. It's not just a signal. They're literally saying that they want to take revenge and vengeance on Trump and his associates and, basically everyone who disagrees with them. So this is already something that they're planning to do again if they get into power. So what might actually deter them from that path? I mean, it seems like there's not accountability. But even if there is accountability, would that deter Democrats, do you think, if they get in power?

Gerard Filitti: I think the two things that might deter Democrats when they get in power is imposing consequences on the conduct that we've seen now and cleaning up the DOJ as much as possible before there is a change in administration. And by consequences, there need to be lawsuits, there needs to be civil litigation here. Because essentially what this report shows is a systemic violation of people's civil rights. Not just that you're bringing charges disproportionately, but then you're engaging in conduct to violate rights like jury screening, where you're deliberately excluding jurors on the basis of religion. That's not legal. Withholding evidence in cases that's not legal. These are things that the DOJ can be sued for and should be sued for. that would bring consequences. And the flip side is we need Todd Blanche to clean house. unfortunately we did not see this in the past year. We've had other preoccupations by the Justice Department, but they really do need to use reports like this to get rid of the people in the department that are violating Americans rights.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Not just allow kind of some of these career prosecutors to stay on board. I mean one of the good things that Pam Bondi actually did was clean house in, in some respects to some of the people, who had targeted Trump supporters. And that overall I think was was a good thing. I think maybe, you know, she, she indiscriminately just fired anyone who was a part of it, who maybe was just, just following orders of the ag. but Attorney General Merrick Garland under Biden, deserves accountability as well. For himself personally. I mean he set up a national task force to pursue cases against pro lifers the month after the supreme court overturned Roe versus Wade. that was in June 2022. And you know, he, he absolutely deserves accountability. And like you said, the civil litigation is really where it's at. That's how the left really goes after, the conservatives and Republicans when they're not in power, when they don't have the power of the state and they can't over prosecute, then they go after civil litigation. But they are so well funded. And you and I have talked about this a lot. Gerard Felitti, that one of the main problems to why there aren't more lawsuits that are actually good and forcing accountability from the overall conservative right is simply a lack of funding. And that really frustrates me, you know, as someone who was also targeted with lawfare, that really frustrates me because when you're looking at accountability, civil litigation is incredibly expensive. And then especially after the individual's already gone through having to defend you know, a criminal case potentially, or, you know, other things, in terms of lawfare, it's just so expensive that we often don't have the resources on the right overall to mount these types of challenges.

Gerard Filitti: We don't have the resources. We need to start doing what the left has done for so long, which is relying on people. Well, they rely on people like Soros or the Ford foundation or any other number of left wing think tanks to raise money and fund them. We need to start coalescing on the right to do the same. And at the same time we also need to give people the knowledge about what these organizations are that will support them. Because oftentimes when people are looking for help, when they do have, even if they have the means to engage in civil action, they don't know who's available to help them because everything is so politicized. You only hear about what the left does. You don't really hear about the good organizations on the right who are fighting.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said. And we've got to take a break here, but Jared Felitti, really appreciate it and, and it's so true. I mean I get emails from listeners all the time, or, you know, after I go and speak places, you know, people are asking who can help me with, you know, this particular situation. And often there isn't a solution, because it's such a narrow type of topic that it's not something that falls within the wheelhouse of certain, you know, more notable conservative, legal outfits and organizations. And that just speaks, literally, it just speaks to the lack of funding. And I agree that Christians and conservatives overall do need to coalesce and have a better funding available for some of these things because we can affect a lot of the outcomes in forced accountability through the judiciary if we had more resources, just bottom line line. But, always appreciate Gerard Felitti. You can follow him on X. And we will be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis: Some on the conservative right still have questions about Iran

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the Iran conflict continues and I think the right is kind of vacillating a little bit back in and forth between supporting and understanding versus questioning and maybe not supporting, looking at the prices of gas, looking at what's going on in the mainstream media and having some of these questions and it seems like for all of the White House's communication and this is literally the most accessible president that we've ever had, Trump is, is often his own best press secretary unless he, you know, post some memes that he shouldn't on not your social. But, but he really is and, and he likes to explain what's going on and even over explain. But even then, some on the conservative right still have some of these questions. But my good friend Dinesh d', Souza, who hosts a, show, Dinesh also, a podcast on the Salem Podcast Network as well, had a really great episode yesterday titled the Real Estate President. And his argument is that Trump's foreign policy confuses the left and the right because we expect him to be ideological. Dinesh says, I argue that the key to understanding Trump is that he's our first real estate president. So Dinesh d' Souza joins me now and expand on that argument because I found it pretty fascinating.

Dinesh D'Souza: You know Jenna, many people said when Trump was first elected, we want a businessman and not a politician. And that's what we got, but not any kind of businessman. Trump of course, was not a high tech mogul. He was a, builder, a real estate guy. And I argue that a lot of the things that he says and does can be understood from this kind of real estate framework. So Trump will say something like, you know, gee, Gaza could be a Riviera, which from a political point of view is a little bit of a strange thing to say. But look at a real estate guy just looking at Gaza. It's a beautiful spot. It's on the water, it's rubble. And the real estate mind goes, I see buildings, clean streets, coffee shops, maybe a Trump hotel. So the real estate mind is one that looks at the world, in terms of building, construction, prosperity and trade. I think if we look at Trump's actions in Iran, in Venezuela, you can see that his main goal, isn't even to free the people there, to create democracy, to create even a framework for immediate elections. No, it is basically to secure the real estate and prosperity and open up the sea lanes, open up the markets, create a framework for, you can call it the American. It's almost like America is one giant corporation, America Inc. Or America llc. And Trump is like the CEO and he's looking to expand the power and influence and prosperity of his own piece of real estate.

Jenna Ellis: M. And you know, I think that that is a very, apt description and tracks totally with what I observed up close working for him during his first administration when he was so focused on trade and manufacturing and you know, bringing all of that back to the shores of America. Instead of putting that out. Ah, and putting that out into the other countries and, you know, really wanting to be genuinely America first. I mean, that's. That's what that whole model and that whole slogan actually means. And he's even said things in the context of, public negotiations with, the Iranian regime and some others. You know, you could be, the best, you know, biggest, most beautiful, prosperous country ever. You know, he said that, to some of these other Arab nations. And it's like he has this mentality that all of these other Middle Eastern countries want to be America and they want to be prosperous and, at the end of the day, capitalist, like America. Do you think that there is a little bit of danger in that assumption, though, when you're talking about a terrorist regime? That. I'm not sure that Iran and at least the, you know, the leaders that were killed really cared at all about freedom and prosperity and real estate as much as they ultimately care just about power and domination and, their own separate goals. I mean, they clearly didn't care about their people in the same way that Trump cares about Americans.

Dinesh D'Souza: Well, the kind of real estate mindset, you know, acknowledges that there are people in the world who want to blow things up, terrorize people, and you can almost call it disrupt the smooth commercial operations of the world. And Trump's point is, how do I figure out how to checkmate those people? So Iran puts a big sort of circle around these straight up Hormuz, and they go like, okay, nobody in, nobody out. And Trump goes, okay, I'll make another circle around your circle, and I'll control who goes in and who goes out. So that is Trump basically using power. You can almost look at the military as a kind of, security force for a real estate empire. And Trump sees it that way. you know, you have to understand Trump, you have to pick things that Trump says or does that nobody else would do. So Trump is talking to the US Generals, and he says, why are we blowing up these Iranian ships? He goes, a ship is really valuable. Why don't we just, like, capture it, sell it, you know, use it ourselves? Now think of it. You know, Jenna, as well as I do. No other president thinks like this. They would never think, why don't we just acquire these ships? And the military guys go, no, no, no, no. We kind of have to blow them up. And somebody even makes a joke that blowing these ships up is more fun than trying to capture them. And Trump probably realizes, I can't really do what I want. But the mindset is, you know, a ship, is essentially an Asset, not something just to be blown up if you don't have to do it. Trump was also really upset when US Left all those munitions back in Afghanistan. Same reason. So, from Trump's point of view, he thinks in terms of, like, assets and liabilities. And even in his, for example, his comments about the US Leaving NATO, he's asking the very simple question, like, what do you do for us compared to what do we do for you? It's kind of like Europe has operated now for decades on the idea, hey, listen, you pay your homeowners dues, America, and you also pay ours. And Trump is like, wait, what? I don't mind being your friend, but why don't I pay my share and you pay your share? So this is the real estate mindset. This is the kind of commercial mindset that looks at a contract and basically sees, are you, upholding your end of the deal? I think if you see Trump in this light, you begin to see, to understand it more clearly. It's not, by the way, some people say, you know, well, it's art of a deal. Art of a deal. No, what they mean by art of a deal is Trump, you know, he makes an outrageous proposition and then backs down and takes a kind of middle position that is still better for him. I'm not talking about Trump's negotiating style. I'm talking about the way he sees the world.

Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah. And the way that he sees the world is definitely closer to a CEO of a company in a business negotiation than traditional diplomacy. And when he does things like makes, you know, kind of these outrageous overtures and then backs off, I mean, that's more of a settlement negotiation, you know, to start high. But then, you know, what you'll actually settle for, which is much lower than it is traditional diplomacy, which takes a lot more of statecraft into consideration. And I do think you're right, Dinesh, that, you know, looking at Trump through this lens, maybe it's understanding his worldview rather than trying to force him into what the presidency has historically, been about and what. What most presidents have, ah, how they've behaved in terms of foreign policy, which has been traditional diplomacy. And overall, I think it has worked for Trump. And you're absolutely right that, you know, back in 2016, everybody was saying, you know, we want someone who comes from the private sector who understands business. I mean, this is why the gop, you know, even back way earlier than Trump nominated Mitt Romney, I mean, which. Which seems outrageous to us in 2026, but at the same time. I mean, people were really excited about it, back, you know, when. When he was. What was that, 2012, something like that. and when. When we nominated Romney, it was because he was a businessman. And then ultimately, obviously, he didn't ascend to the presidency. But that has been the whole model. And then we finally get one, but then we want to force him into a politician caste.

Jenna Fineman: Trump's transactional approach gives him leverage in presidency

Dinesh D'Souza: You know, Jenna, you've just forced me to think about something that's not in my article, but I think is very interesting. The difference between Trump and Romney is that Trump recognizes that, you know, while inside of America with a system of courts and contracts, you might have a kind of peaceful commerce, the truth of it is that on the international, front, you don't really have those kinds of rules. And so you have to operate as a combination of a businessman and a bit of a Mafia guy. and Trump is perfectly, perfectly willing to do that, I think, in a way that Romney is not. and so Trump will say again, something really outrageous like, well, listen, maybe, you know, we'll make a deal with the Iranians where, you know, we'll jointly operate the Strait of Hormuz, and if there's any kind of fees that people pay for going through there, we'll split the proceeds. I mean, think about this again. Would Bush say this? Would Reagan? Would anybody? No, it's only Trump. And why does he say this? Because Trump is basically operating like this. You know, you've got this Strait of Hormuz. It's right next to Iran. They control it just by virtue of proximity. It's, almost like you got a little mafia that's kind of running the place. and it's a complete shakedown, right? It's extortion. Because the Strait of Hormuz is not like the Panama Canal, which is a big, expensive operation to build and maintain. This is just happens to be an opening through which the oil passes, and Iran is like, hey, we happen to be here, so we control it. So Trump's point of view is like, okay, well, you're the small mafia. Well, there's a big mafia in town. There's a big sheriff in town. That's us. So if you want to cut a deal, we want in on your deal. Pure real estate way of thinking. He's looking at it not ideologically. He's like, oh, I might even be able to make a deal with these crazy mullahs to split the proceeds of the Strait of Hormuz. That is a commercial transactional mentality.

Jenna Ellis: Mm. 100%. And you know, I even during the whole, media focus on Trump's post saying, you know, we may end up destroying a civilization and everybody was, you know, kind of freaking out about that. And, I gave a comment to NBC that actually, you know, said something similar, that Trump approaches even his presidency and executive action more like, he, he does his commercial real estate coming from NewSong York where it's push the envelope, find the loopholes and get, and accomplish your, your agenda. I mean, get it done in any way that you have to, regardless of the constraints. And so there are some pros and cons. I mean, I think there are a lot of advantages to this mindset that gives, you know, Trump some unpredictability in, in a good way that traditional presidents didn't have some of that leverage there disadvantages because obviously the presidency has to be constrained by the Constitution. That's a, that's a lot more rigid than the commercial real estate where, you know, you can use bankruptcy as a loophole and, you know, some of these other things. But does this unpredictability actually create leverage in a way that ideology can't?

Dinesh D'Souza: Yes, I think it does. And the proof of it is that the fastest growing power in the world, namely China, operates exactly this way. They are transactional. The Chinese go to Africa and they say, listen, we're not interested in whether you have democracy or autocracy. We're not interested in whether you persecute the Christians or don't persecute the Christians. Basically, we want to buy your port and we want to operate it ourselves. So you become dependent on us and we'll put a lot of capital in. So what are they doing? They're basically not only making a real estate investment, but they're creating this sort of political leverage that comes out of that. So Trump has realized, all right, well, that's what we need to do. We need to operate in the same transactional mode. Now, who doesn't operate in a transactional mode is somebody like the European countries. So they're like, let's come up with a extensive plan to open the Strait of Hormuz. The Europeans don't intend to do anything, but they want to develop a plan. Or the Europeans are like, well, listen, we got to pay any price, bear any burden to liberate Ukraine. Again, this is the ideological mode of thinking. Ah. And Trump has basically said, look, that has severe limitations. That's the way we've done it before, and there might be a better way to do it. and our main rival, China, is in fact, doing it that way. So the United States has been going down to these African countries and basically saying, stand with us if you believe in democracy, and the Chinese go, stand with us, and we'll give you $500 million. And the Africans go, I think we'll take the $500 million. So Trump's recognized the effectiveness of the transactional approach, and I think he's. It's natural to him, and he is deploying it effectively. But many people on the right don't understand this. This is why there's a lot of confusion about Trump. Not just from the left, like, he's nuts. We need to do the 25th Amendment. But there's also a lot of bewilderment on the right. Like, why is Trump saying this? Why is he doing that? I think this is framework can help people understand what he's doing and why.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that this provides more clarity, because if you expect someone to operate from a particular framework and from a particular premise, and they're not, then it's very confusing. But if you understand their worldview and the way that they operate, then you can start to predict their actions and at least make sense of their actions, because you understand the worldview that they come from. So if Trump is the real estate president, and if this is more of the model, and I think that. That it is, that he is using, you know, all of this to his advantage, then in true real estate lingo, I think the bottom line question is, for winning, which we know that that's ultimately what he wants is to prevail. What do you think is the price he's willing to pay?

Dinesh D'Souza: Well, I think his goal is to build the United States, let's call it real estate empire. And I don't mean by empire, I don't mean like the British Empire, you know, go to India and stay there and rule it for 200 years. I mean, an empire in the sense of. Think of all the great families that, you know, kind of built America. You know, they built the Midwest, they built Manhattan, they built Seattle. and what did they do? They focused on land, but not just land. They focused on buildings, they focused on, acquiring things. They focused on keeping commercial dealings with the people around them so that valuable fur and the railroad goes through and all kinds of ways to build the prosperity, of your sort of piece of real estate. And Trump looks at the world that way, but his goal is to strengthen the real estate. And by real estate, I mean the possessions and power of the United States of America. That is sort of his domain, and I think he's very fiercely protective of it. And just as you said earlier, this is what he means by America first.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said.

Jenna Ellis: Dinesh is spot on about Trump on Iran

Well, we've got to take a break here, but Dinesh d', Souza, really appreciate it. And what a fascinating conversation on Iran that deals with more of Trump's view and his posture and maybe making sense of all of this rather than just, from the traditional, either military view, the traditional foreign policy view, or, you know, all of these ways that a lot of the mainstream media is either trying to make sense of it or they're trying intentionally to confuse it and, you know, to have people not support Trump. But I think you're absolutely right, and you're spot on. I mean, this is exactly what I observed through Trump's first term as well, is that he's very transactional, very, much the real estate mind that he brings to D.C. and Dinesh, you're absolutely right. This is what the American people actually voted for. So maybe we're seeing this finally play out in real time, but appreciate it. You can follow Dinesh, on X and also follow his show, Dinesh. We will be right back with,

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

Congress is back in session this week, and there's a lot going on

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there is. There's still a lot going on in Congress besides, looking at the potential expulsion of two additional members, the resignations of Eric Swalwell, and, Representative Gonzalez as well. so a lot going on, but hopefully Congress, while it's back in session this week, should be focused actually on legislating, you know, maybe. But, Politico is talking about Representative, Salazar's Dignity act, which is sparking major backlash among the MAGA wing of the Republican Party. And of course, you know, immigration has been a huge, hot topic, as it should be, with Trump's agenda for mass deportations. Everyone looking at, you know, the, the fraud, the Somali fraud that, that has been going on in Minnesota, with all of the violent, offenders and, you know, everything that has gone on, it seems like Congress should be able to get it together to actually legislate, because this is one of the areas that the Constitution actually explicitly, textually provides that subject matter to Congress, and Congress is the one that needs to act. And this is why in the whole birthright citizenship debate at the Supreme Court, a lot of people are thinking that the Supreme Court, even if they, agree with Trump's argument, against a birthright citizenship, may be uncomfortable with it the rule coming from the executive rather than Congress. And so how could Congress cure this very easily? Well, just legislate. But there's so much, that's going on even among Republicans that are debating this. do we, can we really find a solution here?

Congressman Brandon Gel is opposed to the Dignidad Act on immigration

Well, let's welcome in Congressman Brandon Gel from the great state of Texas. And, you know, where. Where is Congress at in the whole immigration debate overall?

 Brandon Gill: Well, thank. Thanks for having me, Jenna. You know, we started off strong, I think. Ah, ah.

 Brandon Gill: At the beginning of this Congress, we got the big, beautiful bill passed. It provided over $100 billion for border security, build the wall infrastructure for deportations, river barriers, 10,000 new ICE agents. You know, all of the things that we ran on. But more recently, we've had two different things that we've been dealing with. one of them was, as you mentioned, the Dignidad Act. It's not the Dignity act, per the bill of the text. It's actually the Dignidad Act. It's written in a foreign language because it's a bill that benefits foreigners at the expense of American citizens. But it is, plain and simple, an amnesty bill. It is a mass amnesty bill that would give 12 million illegal aliens, roughly speaking, who are in the United States right now, immediate amnesty. It would hamstring the president's efforts to deport the other illegal aliens, and it would allow illegal aliens who have been previously deported under certain conditions to come back into the United States, while at the same time massively increasing legal immigration and work visas that are bringing foreigners into the country and taking American jobs. So this is a mass migration bill. It's something that has been promoted by a couple of my different, of my dear colleagues here on the Republican side. And it's something that I think the American people vehemently rejected last election cycle. And we ought to as well.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that was very clear in the overall Trump mandate and, the right and the base and everyone who elected Trump. And also this, trifecta, the majority of the Republican majority in the House and the Senate to say that, you know, this is something that we want solutions, for. And it, it seems like some Republicans, including Salazar, are kind of going along with the antiquated sort of GOP mindset that, only illegal immigration is bad, but legal immigration we should be all for. And so we should try to provide more pathways to amnesty, to, to a pathway to citizenship. You know, all of these things that I think the American people have very clearly rejected.

 Brandon Gill: Yeah, that's, that's right. And, you know, the idea that somebody can come into the country illegally and then either Biden or Congress can get just magically granted legal status, and all of a sudden everything is okay. I mean, that's asinine. And that's something that no American outside of this GodForSaken City, Washington, D.C. would ever agree with or think is. You know, we ran on a mandate last cycle of mass deportations, and there was nothing subtle about it. We were holding up signs at the rnc. We didn't say deport some people. We didn't say give mass amnesty, to one group of people and deport small groups of others. We said mass deportations. So for a Republican Congress to turn around and after that mandate, give amnesty, say, hey, sorry, voters, you asked for deportations, we're going to do amnesty instead, that would be such a massive betrayal. It would be absolutely unforgivable. And I think, honestly, I think it would make the GOP unelectable for a decade because it's such a huge betrayal. You cannot say one thing, you cannot make one thing the central thesis of an entire election and then turn around and do the exact opposite and expect voters to forgive you for that. So that's why I've been so adamantly opposed to this. You know, one, that the policy itself is horrible for our country, but two, politically for the Republican Party. This will kill our party. And I think we need to make sure that Congress and everybody up here is aware of that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think, I mean, not just killing the party, but also the country. I mean, we won't have a country left if we have. If we keep. Keep importing our demise. And so, I think you're absolutely right, Congressman Gill, that the, the voters and the base expect not just campaign promises, but actual then elected follow through. And so, you know, the midterms are coming up and, there's been talk here in Florida because Representative Salazar, you know, of course, is, is from a district close to Miami. And, you know, talking about how the primary, the primaries here aren't until August 18th, so there's still time to, you know, go and, and. And primary her out. And there's a lot of talk about that. I wish that more things like that would happen so that people who are pushing amnesty or who are pushing, you know, all of these other quote unquote solutions that are so outside of what the gop, wholly as a whole, ran on and what Trump ran on in 2024, that the GOP would actually get it together and say, okay, wait a minute, maybe we need to actually push forward, to America first. But to your point that, you know, voters are frustrated, what's the solution then before November so that it isn't just this sense of, well, I, you know, I don't want, crazy liberals to get in office, so I obviously have to vote for the lesser of two evils. But we're kind of tired of that.

 Brandon Gill: That's exactly right. And this is something that I've been trying to make the case, very aggressively internally within, within Congress to my colleagues, is that whenever we go to voters in the midterm cycle and we ask them to vote for vote Republican, we cannot simply say Democrats are bad. We have to give something affirmatively for voters to vote for. It can't just be they're bad. It has to be we are good. And here's why. Here's what we have done. Like I said, we did a big tax bill last week, last year that was huge. Border security, welfare reform, repealed the Greene NewSong Deal, all kinds, of great conservative policies along with the tax cuts. But we've got to do more. And that's something that we have to realize is that voters put us here for a reason. And it's not just to stop Democrats from holding the seats that Republicans have. It's because they want border security, they want deportation. They want us to cut, you know, insane, wasteful spending that we've been identifying with Doge. And it's our job to do that. If we do that, I think that we'll be in good shape in the midterms. But if we don't, it gets harder and harder and harder to go back to voters and ask, ask for their votes. But listen, the biggest thing people can do is just stay aware of what's going on in Congress right now. I mean, we've got another bill that we're going to be voting on tomorrow. and we're voting on this because four Republicans teamed up with all, everybody on the Democrat side to force what's called a discharge petition, which bypasses Republican leadership and forces a bill to the floor for a vote. That bill would essentially give mass amnesty to, ah, Haitian illegal aliens, and Haitian Haitians, ah, who came into the country illegally. It would extend what's called temporary protective status. That's another thing that we're going to be dealing with. So, so there's a lot here, there's a lot of bad bills that we've got to kill. But, we need People engaged to know, know know who's fighting them.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And where, where can people go as kind of a, you know, one stop shop? I mean I know this is why I follow you on X and encourage everyone to follow a congressman, Brandon Gill, because you post, you know, a lot of really important information and I appreciate that. But how can people stay best informed when obviously you know, the mainstream media isn't going to be telling them this?

 Brandon Gill: Well by listening to shows like the Jenna Ellis show. But apart from that, but apart from that, you know, you can I try to get as much of this out on social media? You know you have. Social media is one way that bypasses the mainstream media gatekeepers and I think it's been really effective at getting messages, the conservative message out to a wide audience of Americans and to tell you really what's going on on a day to day level in Washington. And that's, that's what people need to know.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And we also need to know, you know, who is voting for these things and you know, those Republicans that are that are now going over and helping the Democrats. I mean it's bad enough that we're not getting good bills, passed. It's even worse that Republicans have to kill bad legislation when you're in the majority.

Jenna Ellis: This is why the midterms absolutely matter

So this is so frustrating. But this is also why the midterms absolutely matter. And for everybody who is just like me, really discouraged at all of this, we can't give up hope. We can't just turn in the towel and say, well I'm going to sit at home. We still have to fight continually for this country, fight for our values and vote for our, our values. So Congressman Brandon Gill, really appreciate it. appreciate the endorsement too, definitely. Always tune in to Jenna Ellis in the morning and our great shows on afr because we cover the news that actually matters and from a biblical Christian worldview. You can reach me and my team Jenna at AFR Net.