Transcript

AFA action takes attacks, um, on the family seriously

 : AFA action takes attacks, on the family seriously. The enemies of the family constantly employ new tactics to try to sneak past our radar. They know if we stand together, their evil plans will fail. Your gift to AFA action allows us to stay vigilant against their onslaught. And if you give this month, you'll receive access to the Cultural Institute video When youn Faith is Illegal by Frank harbor on AFA Stream as our thanks. You, you can make your gift [email protected] 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.

Bob Good says Iran talks fell apart because Tehran overestimated its leverage

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, April 13, and two major headlines this morning. The first is that Iran talks are done in by Tehran's delusions over leverage they don't have. U.S. officials say Vice, President Vance spent 21 hours in talks before leaving Islamabad without an agreement, saying the US Made its red lines clear. So the peace negotiations fell apart after Tehran apparently severely misjudged what kind of leverage the regime believed it held. A US Official told Fox News Digital on Sunday. And so without a deal, the official said that Vance used the talks to measure the Iranians own assessment of their position in the negotiations. And Vance found that Tehran thought they held a strong hand going into those negotiations, but added that no deal can be achieved, achieved when one party deludes itself into believing they have leverage that in reality they don't have. So what else is new? That, some in the Middle east regime are delusional. But let's welcome in former Congressman Bob Good. And where, does this leave us exactly then? With a conflict in Iran.

Bob Good: Well, great to be with you, Jenna. Thanks for having me again. You know, Iran, seemed to underestimate, the lethality of the American military forces back last summer when the United States and Israel came in and as the president said, totally obliterated their nuclear capability, overwhelmed them in what was called the 12 Day War. They were sort of emasculated, exposed, humbled by their inability to fight back or resist last summer, and then even more so more recently, while they've shown their ability to, be an annoyance and to harm their neighbors and to gum up the Strait of Hormuz, and to, to kind of engage in sort of guerrilla like tactics, if you will. They have no ability to withstand the U.S. military, but they continue, as you, as you said, to seem to overestimate their strength or their leverage or underestimate, the United States, which is incredible at this point. They would do that. But I think we find ourselves, that said, you know, we admire, the wonderful, capability and performance of the US Military. And thank God for a president who has put the focus of the military on what it should be, along with Secretary of Defense, hegseth that it's not a social experiment, it's not about LGBT or DEI or climate or these incredible things that the Biden administration was focused on, but the military's focus on lethality, force readiness, effectiveness, being the most efficient, effective killing machine so that no one wants to challenge us on the world stage. So we're thankful for the performance of the military that's obviously completely overwhelmed Iran, but and thankful for, relatively speaking, while we mourn every loss of life, but we've had very limited casualties, in terms of troop deaths. Thankful for that. But we find ourselves, I think, to your question, in, not really any good options, in a sense. Do we prolong the conflict? Do we escalate the conflict? Do we stay for an indeterminate period of time? President Trump's kind of been back and forth on regime change or not regime change, hey, victory, it's over. Or, hey, we may continue to fight. Will we have ground troops? Won't we have ground troops? Ground troops. So you have a less than desirable option of staying and sustaining whatever is put in place, or do we declare victory and do we leave? And while they've been greatly weakened and decimated, do we allow them to reform or to stay in place? There doesn't seem to be signs of an uprising or an overthrow among the unarmed people, 40,000 of which were killed just a few weeks back, at the end of the year. So I don't see a lot of great options, for us other than the fact that we have effectively decimated, if not eliminated their nuclear capability for a while, their ICBMs, missile capability, we've obviously greatly weakened their military. We've reduced their ability to fund their proxies, their terrorist proxies, and you'd like to see there be an overthrow within the country, but I'm not sure that will happen.

Jenna Ellis: So do you think that's enough for the, the Trump administration to actually just declare victory? And say, okay, we're done. Because one of the points, and to me the most significant of the points in the Iranians proposed peace plan was that they could still continue to enrich their uranium. So basically they're openly saying that they want to continue to build toward a nuclear program. And then of course the control over the Strait of Hormuz has been, you know, a big deal in the news. And people are suggesting that that is really the leverage that Tehran and Iran thought that, that they had.

Bob Good: Well, the President has called for unconditional surrender as you know, a few weeks back, earlier in the war, that unconditional surrender, which would sort of preclude negotiation. If you're unconditionally surrendering, you don't have any ability to negotiate. but, and we're trying to seemingly to make a deal with an evil empire, an evil regime which is incapable of making any kind of honest deal, making or keeping a deal. You could never trust those in power, not to try to cheat or if you will, or violate the deal or violate the agreement. They would just be patiently waiting for their next opportunity to attack, trying to secretly enrich the uranium and try to, you know, obviously their ultimate dream objective is to build a nuclear weapon to use against Israel and, or the United States. and so I don't know how you make a deal with them. I think the only thing they understand is strength and overwhelming force. Although they're so unrealistic in their grasp of that even at this point it would seem. but this is a country of course, that threatened, to use human shields around their civilian structures. When the President was saying, hey, we're going to blow up the bridges, we're going to blow up their utilities and their power plants and so forth. And they said we'll surround them with human shields. And then of course the President relented and said, hey, negotiations are going to take place and we'll see. But I don't know how you make a trustworthy deal with them. I think the best that we can realistically hope for is again, you obliterated their ability to be a threat. but it's going to take people within the country of Iran, which, you know, I've had friends, who of Iranian background tell me that they estimate that only 10% of the population actually supports the regime. Maybe about 10 million, 9 or 10 million of the 93 million population there. But they're the ones in power with the guns and the ability to put down a rebellion or resistan so we're not left with a lot of great options, in terms of what's left behind, I think.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, I think that's a, ah, spot on analysis. I'm talking with former Congressman Bob Good. And, so speaking of Congress, if this conflict continues or escalates, Congress hasn't authorized any of this. And so at what point, does this require formal Authorization under Article 1 War powers? Because there's been a lot of talk about that as well, and even potential impeachment of Trump, which they would impeach him over anything. But at what point would Congress need to step in?

Bob Good: Well, while I think it's critically important, while the troops are in, you know, in combat and the bullets are flying and the war is being engaged, that, you know, we're unified behind our troops, behind our president, behind our military, and obviously all praying, for victory and for safety for our men and women in uniform. but we do Congress does need to reassert its Congression, its constitutional authority in many aspects. The framers wisely entrusted the most precious powers, the most important powers in the people's representatives in the Congress. That's the power to tax, that's tariffs and so forth, to send troops into battle, to commit, America's young people, you know, into harm's way. And they didn't want it in the power of one individual person. That's greatly, obviously been violated over decades now, not just by any one president. and we haven't declared war since World War II. And that's the last time where we had an overwhelming victory. It was the last time that we declared war. So you're coming up to your point on the 60 days. We're about two weeks out from the 60 days where the law requires for Congress to weigh in on the conflict. And so I hope that Congress will appropriately assert itself in that respect, not in a way where they're threatening to cut off funding while we're, you know, the president is the commander in chief, where he has the constitutional authority to execute war, to carry out the war. He's supposed to do it with authority, from Congress, unless he's deterring an immediate threat, we've been attacked, or there's an imminent attack, or that sort of thing. but to carry on an ongoing conflict is constitutionally supposed to require the people's representatives to weigh in. The ones who are accountable to people, have to come back every two years and ask for their vote, through which the people can express their wishes and, a significant conflict. Ah, ought to have the country, as reflected through the people's representative of the Congress behind it. And so, but this needs to be. Congress needs to take action before the next conflict. you know what? You seem to have a reaction to this. When a conflict ensues, whether it's whatever president might be or the current conflict. But the Congress needs to throw itself before the next conflict and to affirm its constitutional power, to declare war, to commit troops in the battle, to be consulted with at least. And the president come and make the case to Congress before we would have prolonged conflicts at a significant level.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's such a great advice. And Congress. There are a lot of things that Congress needs to reassert in terms of its, constitutional authority and not, just simply, it seems like either turn a blind eye or just delegate, to the executive or to other agencies. And, it's really frustrating to see that there are so many, other things that Congress is focused on besides actually doing its job.

Democrats are calling for Rep. Eric Swalwell to resign over sexual harassment allegations

but that gets me into the second major headline, which I'd love your comment on, Bob Good, which is, Eric Swalwell. So he, The. The utter, brutal, quick takedown, from the Democrats has actually been very impressive. So, this. They're basically me tooing him, which should have come a long time ago, but he got away with everything that he was doing because he was valuable to the Democrats and they protected him. Now that, he is no longer useful on the California gubernatorial ballot, they're calling for him to suspend his campaign, which he just announced, last night, that he is suspending his campaign for governor. He says to my family, staff, friends and supporters, I'm deeply sorry for the mistakes and judgment I've made in my past. I will fight the serious false allegations that have been made, but that's my fight, not the campaigns. But apparently, the allegations are serious enough that it warrants suspending his campaign in California, but not so serious that he's considering or that Democrats are calling for him to resign from Congress. So it's really clear, I think what's going on here is that the Democrats with California's way that they select the top two candidates regardless of party in the primaries, the really wide field of the Democrats they're trying to consolidate. And so they just want to get Eric Swalwell off the ballot, but are they going to keep him in Congress?

Bob Good: It'd be interesting to see. You know, it's bad when the party of no morals, no standards, the party of sexual deviants, is calling on him, as you noted. They call on him to leave the California governor's race, perhaps only pragmatically so, because they wanted to winnow the field a little bit, as you noted. but you are beginning to see him lose support in Congress, the Congress leadership, all three of the congressional leaders called on for an investigation. You're ah, seeing Democrats as you know, they're calling for him to leave the gubernatorial race. But this is a guy, who you know, obviously apologized to his wife for his moral failings. Apparently, this is the guy who had the reported allegations that he was having an affair with an alleged Chinese spy previously. This is a guy who's saying he needs to take time, you know, to kind of repair things with his family. but you had 50 of his staffers, 50 of his former staffers have called on resign, to resign in a letter to Congress and for a full investigation. the allegations go beyond the sexual harassment and unwarranted inappropriate advances in behavior and apparently include what could be considered rape based on the allegations that have been recorded from I guess the San Francisco Chronicle. and so it's very serious and perhaps he's simply trying to defend. He's worried about his criminal potential, alleged criminal culpability beyond his political situation, political survival. I think you're going to see a groundswell build, for him to resign from Congress. I think if Democrats only trying to protect themselves politically, I think that maybe they'll try to negotiate and pair that with the removal of perhaps Tony Gonzalez as well. but I think if there was a vote to remove Eric Swalvall from Congress, I think he would lose that vote. Right now you'd only need about a third of Democrats to join all Republicans, Republicans to vote to remove him. And Ana Luna seems determined to bring that to force a vote to that effect. And you've had even, Jayapal, the very liberal congressman, Jayapal has said that she would vote to remove him. I've seen reports to that effect.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so, do you anticipate that that would, will actually happen, when you know, Congress is back? And there have been calls, as you mentioned, to remove not just Eric Swalwell, but also, Gonzalez and also Corrie Mills out of Florida for, for unfortunately very similar, types of accusations as well as I believe, you know, some other financial issues as well related to campaign finance and so forth. but is this going to be perhaps maybe one fell swoop where because there, ah, are Democrats and Republicans, that this may be one thing that both sides kind of united and say, okay, will get rid of, our guys if you get rid of your guys as well.

Bob Good: Well, and there's suspicion to your point, that sheila sheriff list McCormick, who's also got her own, allegations of ethical and campaign and finance, violations and things like that. And while I think you might be right, that there may be a negotiated two and two or one in one, they really ought to be, held accountable on their own marriage, assessed independently. And you know, and while all the aforementioned, you know, have. There's obviously concerns and there may be warranted action for all. And frankly, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine who their members are in terms of Congress can vote out a member for any reason they want to vote out a member if 2/3 agree to do so. So they certainly can be held accountable, at least professionally and politically by Congress. but I do think they ought to be assessed on their own merits or lack thereof, their own culpability, their own violations, rather than negotiate it in. Well, we want to remove this, throw this one in too, which, because they ought to stand or fall, if you will, on their own merit or lack thereof. But I suspect you might be right that in order to try to get action taken, that you might have a combination.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree with you that it shouldn't just be a political calculation and that kind of a negotiation, but each member should be considered on his or her own merit or lack thereof. And that would be, that would be fair. But, you know, that would be probably too reasonable and rational for Congress, because it seems like everything, is at least quasi political in terms of the calculations of any sort of accountability. But I hope that, that Swalwell and, and I think Corrie Mills is absolutely deserving of expulsion as well. And, when people stand or fall on their own merit, it should matter what the facts are. not just the allegations. You know, we don't just believe all accusers, obviously, as the whole MeToo movement suggest, but to actually do the fact finding, but to be impartial. And it shouldn't matter whether they have an R or D after their name. It should matter what the facts are and what, what proof there actually is of these types of allegations. But Congressman Bob Good, really appreciate it. We've got to go to break here. but tell us about your podcast and where people can find that.

Bob Good: Thank you for letting me mention that, Jen. Appreciate what you do. Good for America is the podcast. It is on YouTube, Spotify and Apple, wherever you find your favorite podcasts. And so we'll be talking about these issues and more this week and beyond. Thank you.

Jenna Ellis: Great. Well, I'll be listening because, you're, you are one of my favorite political commentators and I always appreciate your wisdom and advice and I wish that you were still in Congress. But, you know, perhaps, you'll, you'll live to fight another day in that one. But Bob, good, really appreciate it. You can follow him, on X and of course listen to that podcast. And we will be be right back with more.

Robert Kennedy Jr. is leading Make America Healthy Again Maha movement

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

Jenna Ellis: Well, amidst all of the more important, perhaps headlines, or at least the ones that mainstream media would like you to pay attention to, kind of quietly in the background, Robert, A.H. f. Kennedy Jr. Is still chugging on as the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and leading the Make America Healthy Again Maha movement. And I think overall, I mean obviously Iran and that conflict, very important. you know, looking at the midterms upcoming, very important. I mean all, all of these things that we have to consider kind of in the short term, very important. But overall, as sort of the signature initiatives of the second term, for a long term projected benefit to the United States, I think that the Make America Healthy Again movement and the Doge movement, which has basically, you know, all but concluded, both of those things were set to be the signature initiatives of Trump's second term and if implemented well and actually causing a lot of change for good, could have significantly, and maybe still can significantly impact, how America lives day to day. And so I saw, because I'm on Instagram, of course, and I follow all kinds of, you know, different people, not just politics, but also, you know, culture and home design, interior stuff, I mean, all kinds of things. and so once in a while things will pop up in my feed on Instagram. That's interesting. And this was from, a coach named Dan Go. And he said, I had a client who suffered from mental health issues for years. We had him get some sun, lift weights, get 10,000 steps a day, while dropping 25 pounds of fat. Brain fog was eliminated. Intrusive thoughts disappeared. It turns out he wasn't mentally unhealthy, he was metabolically unhealthy. And this was fascinating to me.

Raw egg nationalist explores relationship between mental and physical health

and so I want to ask, our next guest, raw egg nationalist who, we always invite on to talk about things about, health and nutrition and some of these things because this may be a fascinating correlation to what we're seeing in terms of a rise, not just of some of the obvious things that RFK Jr. Wants, wants to, to target, like chronic disease and some of these things, but what we've seen over the last, just several, decades, and I think even over the last decade, of very severe mental health issues of. Of people who are committing all kinds of very violent crimes. And it seems like there is just in density and the data arise in issues that are attributed to mental health and even going so far as, as then claiming, you know, that some people are not competent to stand trial, like, the. The murderer in, the. The Irina, case who. She was a young woman from Ukraine who was, who was stabbed just randomly on that public transportation, train. And the court is saying, you know, that he's mentally incompetent to stand trial due to mental health reasons. But could there be a correlation between how absolutely terrible our food supply is, what we eat, the lack of vitamins, the lack of just taking care of our physical bodies, that it's not so much actually a mental health issue, but it's a metabolic health issue. So raw egg. Thanks so much. And, you know, what are your thoughts on this overall? Because I found this topic really fascinating. Fascinating.

Raw Egg Nationalist: it's great to be back with you, Jenna. So, yeah, I mean, this is. This really is a fascinating topic, the relationship between mental and physical health. you know, I mean, we can be quite cynical about the past. We can look down on the ancients, you know, people in the Middle Ages and even back to classical times. But actually the ancients, the Greeks and the Romans, recognized very well that there was a fundamental relationship between the health of the mind and the health of the body. So there's a very famous Latin formula, men's sauna in corpore. Healthy mind in a healthy body. They fundamentally understood that the two things were linked. You couldn't have a healthy mind without a healthy body, and vice versa. And so, you know, physical cultivation was an essential part of life in the classical world. The gymnasia, the palaestra, the wrestling school, you know, it's not for nothing, actually that, you know, a lot of the great philosophers of ancient times, Socrates, for example, Plato, they were physically cultivated men. They were strong men. Plato, which was actually the philosopher's nickname, meant broad shoulders. He was a wrestler of some, you know, great skill. He was quite a formidable physical presence, as well as being one of the greatest philosophers, you know, of ancient times. But I think since then, we've actually lost a sense of. For various different reasons. I mean, you know, we could speculate on them, but for various different reasons. We've forgotten this fundamental wisdom that actually really is very, very obvious to you if you've ever undertaken a serious program of exercise lot. So many people who suffer brain fog, anxiety, depression, you know, if they start working out, suddenly they discover that these things disappear. It's like, oh, I didn't need to take any medicine. Actually, all I needed to do was start using my body. So there's a lot of scientific research as well that goes along with this, with this, you know, renewed emphasis perhaps, on the relationship between the mind and the body. So we're starting to discover, for example, that there is such a thing as gut, brain access axis. And what that means essentially, is that there is a fundamental relationship between the gut and the brain, and gut health is fundamental to mental health health. and our guts are under assault, in the modern world from pharmaceuticals, from processed foods and food additives, from herbicides and pesticides. so, I mean, one of the. One of the ways that people, you know, really starting to reclaim their mental health actually is to take seriously what they eat as well as exercise. You know, what you eat, what you put in your stomach, how you treat the billions and billions of tiny little microorganisms that live in your gut that are fundamental to your hormonal health, your metabolic health, your mental health. That really does make a difference. So, I mean, this isn't. This isn't a meme. There's no way that this is just a meme. this is something actually that we should take very, very seriously.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And it just, I mean, it stands to reason and common sense that when you are more active, you feel better. When you get better sleep, you feel better. When you eat right. And healthy, you feel better, when you are. And it's not just a matter of. Of. Of weight, but overall health. And obviously, you know, when you're at a weight that you should be, and then you feel better. I mean, all of these things that go into making sure that our physical bodies are healthy, that does ultimately affect how we feel emotionally. the. The brain fog that this coach was talking about, all of these things and, you know, the. The kind of correlation that. That I was thinking about as well then ra. You know, when we look at the last several decades of how, big Pharma has infiltrated, and instead of going back to some of these holistic remedies, they want to Just throw medication, at it to really, for a bottom line of having a, you know, multi billion dollar industry. and then you look at the food supply, you look at you know, all of these things that are keeping people feeling terrible frankly. It keeps them more sedentary. So then all they do is watch TV or play video games and it impacts their overall, their overall will to be productive. And in many cases it facilitates more dependency on government. And in some cases I think an argument could be made, as this coach is making, that some of the mental health, issues that are attributed to mental health are actually an issue of overall physical health health. But it seems like other than RFK Jr. It seems like the government is almost trying to design our environment and our overall lifestyles to keep us suppressed so that we aren't as productive and we aren't as interested in, you know, individual rights, freedom and liberty and doing all these things. But to be more dependent on the, the big pharmas and big government and ultimately government welfare.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I mean look, there's, there's absolutely no doubt that illness is big business. Big pharma doesn't exist to address the underlying causes of ill health. You know, big pharma companies exist to pretend the best, to produce the best possible return for their shareholders. And the model for that obviously is to sell people pillars and to sell people ad hoc remedies that they need to keep using. And you only need to look at these new weight loss drugs as mpic, for example. You know, it's already been admitted that users of weight loss drugs are going to have to stay on them probably for life if they want to keep the weight off. So that's one way of addressing the obesity crisis. And there is a crisis. 70% of Americans are either overweight or obese. You know, I mean, we are talk an epidemic of obesity. That's one approach. You give them a drug, they take it for life. Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, all these huge companies make tens and hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions of dollars over the course of decades from hundreds of millions of people being overweight. Or there's a different model, which is actually you empower people, you give them the ability to look after themselves, to exercise personal responsibility. You give them access to good food, you clean up the environment. you know, you educate people from a young age, from school, you show them what real food is and what bad food is, and you show them the benefits of exercise. But that's actually, that's actually like you say, I mean, that is a, that is a model, I think, of citizenship, of individual freedom that is increasingly at odds, I think, with the way that nations are governed, with the, kind of very tight nexus that you see between government and Big Pharma. And it was obviously so clearly on display during the pandemic, you know, when you had Big Pharma scientists essentially dictating how much freedom you could have for a period of years, locking you in your own home if you didn't have a vaccine, if you weren't prepared to social distance and wear a mask. so, yeah, I mean, it's. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Really is bucking the trend, I think, over the last six or seven decades. But he's facing a very, very serious uphill task. And it's much, much easier for government just to accept the Big Pharma model, not only because it generates money and there's a certain amount of corruption or a large amount of corruption, but also actually because dependency. Dependency does benefit government in very many fundamental respects. it certainly benefits leftist government and sort of socialistic government that wants people to be dependent on the state, that wants people to have their hands out, ready to be dispensed food and medicine by the government, and to be dependent in pretty much every single aspect.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. is pushing pesticide and chemical regulation during Trump presidency

So, yeah, we are talking about fundamental issues that cut to the very heart of the type of political community that we live in and the kind of political community that we want to live in. I mean, I really want Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. To be successful, but he is facing a huge uphill battle.

Jenna Ellis: He is. And this is where I wish that, that Trump would focus a little more on some of these things. And hopefully he's giving RFK Jr as much as he can. Of course, the leeway to implement a lot of, the significant changes. But he, he is facing, an incredibly uphill battle. And I hope that Maha doesn't eventually kind of go the way of Doge, which, you know, just ran into a wall, where the elitists and the Unit Party of DC Just didn't want to make any sort of, of cuts in spending and they didn't want accountability for corruption and, you know, all of those, financial disclosures and things that Doge uncovered. And the Maha movement similarly is running into a lot of those, kind of blockades. So where is it at right now? As you, know, we're in mid April of 2026. And what, do we hope are the significant wins, as you've said, frequently on this program. this is going to be much longer, as successful as RFK Jr could be. This needs to be a decades long kind of movement. So we're not going to solve everything just in this Trump term.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes. No, I mean, yeah. This is something that I try to hammer home. Maha, has to be a generational agenda. You know, it's taken the better part of a century really for Americans to become the most unhealthy nation on earth. You're not going to undo that in a four year presidential term. You know, you can say that, but then that's just a sound bite and an empty promise. And I know that RFK Jr knows that this is going to be a decades long agenda. He's had some, he's had some very high profile wins. I think he's been able to, particularly his stuff with the vaccines, I think. So changes to the vaccine schedule, changes to, you know, the recommendations for the COVID vaccines. those have been, those have been good. And he's also done something very, very fundamental, I think by turning the food pyramid upside down. You know, the food pyramid was ah, a monstrosity really as it existed. And he's turned it upside down on its head. Re emphasized the importance of consuming high quality animal foods. I mean that's fantastic. That really is a fundamental change. That is a reversal of decades and decades of terrible, terrible nutritional science and bad advice that has made people as unhealthy as they today in America. But there are still some big, big issues that need to be tackled. And one of them I think is pesticide and chemical regulation. So we saw a little while ago, I forget exactly when it was at least sort of a month, maybe two months ago, this executive order from Donald Trump, about glyphosate, you know, about bringing manufacturing of glyphosate back to the US and China and also providing immunity for manufacturers. Now it was justified as a strategic intervention to protect the US food supply. And that may very well be the case. The US food supply is dependent on the use of glyphosate as it is. But that was really seen as a fundamental betrayal of the Maha, movement. large, largely. And I think that was correct. You know, I mean, I mean RFK Jr. Has campaigned for decades about the harms of glyphosate. Glyphosate is this ubiquitous, herbicide that's sprayed all over the US but particularly on crops in the Midwest. Corn and soy, GMO varieties particularly. And it's horrible. I mean it's one of the nastiest agricultural chemicals there is, and it's everywhere and it's causing all sorts of harms. It's implicated in pretty much every kind of chronic disease you can imagine. and yet here we are. We've just had the manufacturers of glyphosate given immunity from the harms caused by the product. That's the opposite of what RFK Jr wanted. I know it's very hard for him to swallow. He did have to, kind of, come out in support of Trump and say, look, yeah, this is necessary now. but we'll try and, you know, we'll try and do something about glyphosate in the future. so there is an issue about chemical regulation, about pesticide regulation, about chemicals like glyphosate. We do need to see more movement to get these chemicals out of the food supply and out of the environment. But again, RFK Jr. Is facing this enormous uphill battle. We're talking about massive vested interests. You know, glyphosate is worth billions upon billions of dollars to Big Ag and Big Chemical. And yes, it's just. It's not going to be easy. It's not going to be easy. There are really, really serious battles to be fought.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. Or on the state level as well. because, you know, that's a big battle that here in my home state of Florida, the Surgeon General and the first lady and the make, Florida healthy again, movement, is trying to battle as well. And I think the more people that focus on that in the more call and kind of grassroots groundswell, hopefully then, there will have to be some addressing of it. And you know, the Big Ag and Big Pharma can't just get away with all of this. But raw egg, really appreciate it. You can follow him on X. And you know, all of these things are so important. It just reminds us to make the best decisions for our overall nutrition and health that we can. And we will be right back with

 : foreign.

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

Donald Trump went on lengthy rant yesterday calling out Pope Leo over foreign policy

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Donald Trump is of course, in the news for many, many reasons and, including yesterday, a kind of lengthy rant on truth social, calling out Pope Leo. He said, Pope Leo is weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy. He told talks about, quote, unquote, fear of the Trump administration, but doesn't mention fear that the Catholic Church and all other Christian organizations had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers and everybody else for holding church services even when going outside and being 10 and 20ft apart. He goes on then, and it's a pretty lengthy rant so we don't need to read the whole thing. But basically he points out, I think correctly, that Pope Leo is more liberal. And it's interesting that he is calling out, out Pope Leo. And of course the Democrats are finding fault with that. As Senator Mark Kelly posted, as a Catholic, I find it abhorrent that the President of the United States would publicly attack a successor of St. Peter. Donald Trump is flailing. All right, well then, meanwhile, USA Today had a, piece this morning that asked the question and this is what I found interesting. Pope Leo for president, question mark. A meeting with Obama guru spark speculation. So a, a Chicagoan leader having a closed door meeting with Democratic strategist David Axelrod in the spring before the year's midterm elections is usually seen as a playbook for a big announcement. Pope Leo's reported confab with the former senior advisor to former President Barack Obama on April 9th stoked all sorts of speculation. Was the Pontiff going to formally meet with the 44th President or announce a new communication strategy? So. Or maybe as some eyebrow raising posts on social media Joker jokingly teased, foreshadowing a possible papal presidential run because he is an American. So that's possible. But let's welcome in Tony Ortiz, who's the founder of current Revolt. And I don't think we will be seeing that kind of conflation of a church and state anytime soon. At least I hope not. But, you know, it's really interesting to see how Trump is really focused, I think, on this particular Pope, kind of more than he seemed to be, previously.

Tony Ortiz: Yeah. And it's a bit unhinged. you know, as a, as a Catholic myself, I think it's a bit inappropriate. I think it would, it would behoove the President to probably focus on other things and then kind of this, this issue. I mean, the, the Pope's going to do what the Pope does, Right? And the President should focus on his task as well.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, I mean, you know, that's for, you know, a lot of people have tried to tell President Trump that, but of course, he's gonna also do what he's gonna do. But, but you know, this is where, when the Pope does engage in commenting on the propriety of war. And you know, this kind of all started with his tweet, which as a Protestant and as an Evangelical, I took issue with, not just, you know, as a, as a non Catholic, but just from someone who's actually read the Scriptures for myself. And to suggest, as the Pope did, that, no, wars are just and literally said God doesn't bless war is just patently, not true from, from the Bible. And I think a lot of people took issue with that. Of course, Trump took issue with it more personally because it was related to the conflict in Iran. So, you know, is that necessarily, a good strategy of the Pope to comment on those? I mean, he's going to, of course, but then that's going to invite this sort of criticism.

Tony Ortiz: Yeah, and you're 100% right. And I would agree. I think the Pope is kind of, in a sense asking for the, for the arguments and, and for anybody, who's followed President Trump long enough. If a big enough figure makes a comment on something or is slightly critical of the President's actions or decisions, you're basically inviting him to, engage. And so, yeah, I would disagree with the Pope here too, that

Raw Egg Nationalist: there

Tony Ortiz: is good justification for specific wars and people could argue whether or not this war specifically that we're in with Iran is justified or not. But like you said, he's basically inviting criticism by engaging. And I think, you know, he, you know, obviously has the right to comment on it. but I don't think his comments there are very, very well thought.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. And so what about, you know, this, this kind of speculation that because he's an American, I mean, technically he could run for president. I mean, there's not, unless, you know, the Vatican has a rule otherwise, you know, that that's a potential. I don't think that that's a likely outcome. Outcome. But it was just, it was actually interesting that USA Today of all places was putting that out there as speculation.

Tony Ortiz: Yeah, I was under the understanding that, Catholic doctrine prohibits, their, their figureheads like the Pope from, from running for office. I may be mistaken, but, I don't, I don't see it happening. If anything, I could see, maybe this Pope getting more political than normal and maybe, I don't know, doing a Democratic run with somebody or being seen at events with somebody, especially if he feels he needs to be in these sort of discussions. But, as far as actually running for office, I don't believe I could be wrong, believe that the Pope is

 : allowed to run for office, so he'd

Jenna Ellis: have to maybe step down as the Pope. To go and run for office, which, you know, it's 2026. Stranger things have happened, so we'll see.

Tony Ortiz: Allegations against Rep. Eric Swalwell should be investigated

But speaking of, strange things in the last few minutes of this segment, I wanted to get your comments, Tony Ortiz, on what we're seeing with, the brutal takedown of Eric Swalwell. I spoke with former, Congressman Bob Good earlier in the program. And, you know, to me, this just smacked of a clear takedown to take, Eric Swalwell out of the governor's race in California to kind of consolidate that field. Because currently the two Republicans, Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, are polling, at the top. And the state's unusual top two primary system could allow only two Republicans to reach the November general election ballot. And it seems just really obvious that this is where the Democrats are focused.

 : Yeah, I mean, two things could be

Tony Ortiz: true at the same time. Right? Like, the timing is convenient, and it's clearly like a timed hit piece or timed attack against Smallwell. and, you know, the potential that these allegations could be true. and they've just been sitting on them.

 : Right.

Tony Ortiz: You see it a lot in politics. This is nothing new as far as, you know, people sitting on oppo or sitting on infinite until the right moment. And, you know, if I, If I recall correctly, I believe the first incident happened in 2019, and then the other one, you know, just a couple years ago. Ah, allegedly. And then you've got all these women coming forward at the same time. So, it could be, you know, a consultant that was sitting on this oppo and decided to pull the trigger on it. Or it could be that these women genuinely felt. Felt that this guy, that Swalwell was getting too much power and they decided to come forward, to take him down.

 : But.

Tony Ortiz: But I totally agree. Does seem the timing is convenient, as they say.

Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah. And, and. And it's. It's really fascinating too, that someone like Swalwell, who, you know, during, the Kavanaugh confirmation was posting. And of course, we still have all of those. Those posts of, you know, believe all women and believe all accusers. And now he's sitting there calling them false accusations. And of course, when he's the one who's being accused. And so, you know, there's a lot of hypocrisy going on. On. But this was also interesting from Christina Pushaw, who, works in Governor DeSantis office. She was responding to, a tweet from Katy Porter, who is also running for a governor in California. Who said the allegations against Congressman Swallow horror, horrifying. I'm thinking of the courageous women who've come forward to share their stories. We believe you. We stand with you. Christina responded. If we are believing the women who accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct, which I do, we should also believe the man who accused Porter of domestic abuse. I know this is contra. Is a controversial thing to say, but California deserves better than these two psychopaths. I tend to agree with that.

Tony Ortiz: Yeah. And this is common with almost exclusively with the Democratic Party, but you're starting to see it with Republicans too, where, you know, they're hypocritical, like you said. They say believe all women and this and this. And, you know, they support women and we're feminists and all this stuff. And then on the other end, you know, when they get accused of sexual assault or degenerate behavior, all of a sudden they're either quiet or they're very dismissive. so, yeah, I agree with her as well. We should look at all these allegations. They should be investigated and you know, it should be a verify sort of situation rather than, really taking action or anything. And you know, in the United States, people are innocent until proven guilty. But these allegations do deserve to be investigated.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And they should. They should stand or fall on their own merit. I mean, just as former Congressman Bob Good was saying earlier in the program, you know, this shouldn't matter whether it's a Democrat or a Republican when it comes to criminal, allegations particularly and especially. But even, ah, congressional expulsion. I mean, they should stand or fall on their own merit, but, they deserve to be investigated where there are credible and serious allegations, regardless of how much power each of these, individuals. Individuals purport to have within their own party. But Tony Ortiz, we're already out of time, but really appreciate your comments. You can follow him on X. the founder of the current revolt. You can also follow that publication as well. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna F R.net and, more news coming your way tomorrow morning. It.