Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Rad.
Jenna Ellis: Dolly Parton passed away unexpectedly yesterday
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.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, August 26, and as a lot of people are commenting on social media, the last probably universally loved person passed away yesterday, Dolly Parton. And we extend some sincere condolences to her family. And she, really was, as a, as a country music and just overall icon and legend, somehow managed to stay, universally loved on all sides, throughout her, career and her philanthropic, mission. And so, that was a huge loss that came really unexpected, yesterday.
Darlene Graham defeated Ralph Norman in South Carolina's GOP primary runoff
So, the other unexpected news yesterday was that Darlene Graham won the South Carolina GOP primary runoff election for her brother seat. So this was very, very close, 52 to 48% in the, primary runoff over, Ralph Norman Tuesday in South Carolina. And she said in her victory speech, these past few weeks have been unbelievably an unbelievably challenging time for our family. But you know what? We did it. And so Ralph Norman used his concession speech to say he was sad for the state and he didn't get why Trump intervened for Graham. And, and this is actually the thrust of what I want to talk about, because if Ralph Norman, who is part of, who is part of the Freedom Caucus in Congress and has been in politics several decades, doesn't understand why Trump would do this, then he just really doesn't get politics. And Darlene Graham, in my opinion, of course, is, not at all competent for this seat, I think this was a big mistake for the people of South Carolina to elect her basically just in her brother's memory and because of the Trump endorsement. But, this goes to show how the establishment, the new MAGA establishment perhaps is still alive and well because Ralph Norman, of course, endorsed Nikki Haley in the 2024 primary. he has been at odds with Trump on a few things. He's, been overall a really great conservative, obviously part of the Freedom Caucus. But, that's been Trump's M.O. beyond the fact that, Graham, of course, is carrying on her brother's legacy. And, Trump not only appointed her to that seat because of, of her brother's very untimely passing, but then also endorsed her, I think, over Ralph Norman, literally for the exact same reasons that he, really went hard in the primaries against, former Congressman Bob Good, Chip, Roy, Thomas Massie, and others. Because Trump carries grudges in politics often, and for those who, he perceives as not being a team player, doing his will and bidding, then they're off the team. So does the Freedom Caucus really understand the political landscape moving forward? That's the question that I want to ask our good friend Steve Dace, who, of course is the host of the Steve Day show over at the Blaze. And Steve, you know, I understand that Ralph Norman, you know, obviously, is disappointed, all of those things. But to say he really doesn't understand why Trump intervened for Graham I think is really evidencing that he doesn't understand Trump at all.
Steve Deace: Or it could be that he really understands Trump's base. There is no market for criticism of Trump. There's no market for it. Our voters don't want to hear it, they don't respond to it. And so, yeah, it's just the reality. So you, you almost have to. Every time you want to be critical of something, you have to do it indirectly. you have to do it. You have to frame it with, an assumption that Trump's been misinformed or misled. any front, any frontal. You know, I've just learned this over a decade. You know, any. Any funnel criticism of Trump really, no matter what it is from the right, will just shut everybody down. and a lot of this is the conditioning of most of the criticisms. The vast majority of it, like 95% of it from the left is so over the top, so ridiculous, so inflamed and. Or false. But I repeat myself that at this point, just everybody's. Everybody's default mechanism is, I just tune it out. So, I could be very well be. This was a passive aggressive way of bringing up a point, without criticizing the king, because he is king of the gop. It's the king the people elected they want. And so, you know, that's just the reality of the world we're in. And criticizing him directly just gets you nowhere. It won't move anything, doesn't move him, doesn't move his base. everybody will get very defensive and territorial right away. And so you have to always, you almost always have to frame it, if you want to have any movements at all anyway, you almost have to almost frame it passive aggressively or as if Trump just got bad advice. There's almost a papal infallibility bestowed upon him from our base. And so, you know, people in you and I's positions have a decision to make where that's concerned. And some of us, you know, some of my friends, for example, can't handle that. And so just want to inflex, reflexively, rail against it all the more just out of spite, which is great. You know, there's a part of that I adore, you know, but understand that'll just render you less and less, effective. That's the cost and trade off. Others of us, and I put myself in this camp, have just accepted that that's the ecosystem in which we operate. And so if you want to advance ideas, you know, you can, you, you live in Florida now. You know, you, you guys have 3,000% humidity. It's the month of August, you know,
Jenna Ellis: you got your 175 degrees out right now. Yeah, well, but most of the time
Steve Deace: there's 3,000 degree, 3,000% humidity. And so you can decide, hey, you know, it's winter and I'm, I don't care, I don't care what the humidity factor is. I don't care what the climate is. I'm, you know, I'm, I'm layering up well, you know, you're going to pay the penalty for that, you know, and that's the environment in which we live. I'm just honest about it.
Jenna Ellis: And I agree with you that there is this kind of reflexive, positioning among the base that Trump can do no wrong. And a lot of that is because of how over the top the criticism of Trump initially was. in the beginning that was just so ridiculous. I mean, calling him a racist, saying that he didn't know what he was doing, he's borderline dementia. You know, I mean, all of these things that were just completely fabricated, over the top nonsense. and then coupling that with in 2024, Trump demanded absolute loyalty. I mean it, it wasn't even just a reflex from the Base. It was an actual demand from him. And that kind of culture in politics becomes really dangerous when you look at the endorsements, and the record of the endorsements and say, okay, well, since Trump endorsed, then I can't even question that. We should always be able to question our politicians. And so you and I do fall into that category. Ah, where we are willing to point out things. obviously you and I want him to succeed. we voted for him. we didn't support him in the primary, but we'll do that as conservatives. but. But, you know, we overall want him to succeed, and so we'll point out areas of growth and then also things that he's done well. But overall, I think that the, the Freedom Caucus may, be doing this in a way that isn't actually helpful for their position, because obviously, you and I are in a different position as commentators, as, as outsiders. I mean, I was in a different position when I literally worked for him. Obviously, there were things I disagreed with, but that was private. I never said any of that publicly because I literally spoke for him, and that's the job. But when you're in Congress and when you're actually part of the GOP and elected office there, it seems to me that there has to be a better strategy than what a lot of these people like Ralph Norman are doing, to not really help advance anything in the gop, and then it just basically devolves into this loyalty contest that they're not going to win.
Steve Deace: Great analysis. I mean, listen, there's no heroes here. This, this state is wrecked. I mean, the Palmetto State has been pathetic and pitiful our entire lives. I mean, to have Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham be the senators of that state for as long as they were is ridiculous. we had then. Trey Gowdy is the definition of all hat, no cattle. Guy made an entire career out of one House testimony question, getting Hillary to say, what difference does it make? But, I mean, from a politician standpoint and as a member of Congress, he looked like Tarzan and played like Jane. Okay. I mean, he was a total rhino in Congress. You had Mark Sanford, remember him? Chased his.
Christian: South Carolina's political ecosystem has been a collective failure
Steve Deace: Chased his side piece. Girlfriend of Argentina, Jeff Duncan was like, well, that's the one conservative in South Carolina we can rely on. Turns out he was living a double life. For years. That entire state's political ecosystem said, I think we have to analyze, how do you get to a place where a total moron gets one of only 100 US Senate seats? An admitted moron who literally told you I don't know anything. She's going to vote on treaties and doesn't know anything about China and its place, you know, in the, in the, in the foreign, global geopolitical scene. By her own admission, she didn't hide any of this. She literally told you out loud. My only qualifications, I'm DNA adjacent and share a last name. She is. This whole campaign is the is. There's a movie many years ago called the Distinguished Gentleman with Eddie Murphy where he runs for how he's black. James Garner was the white congressman. He dies in office and he runs for. He runs for his seat, because he's got the same name, like Carl Jackson or something. I remember what it was. But he has the same name. People don't know the guy died. They're so uninformed, they're so tapped out. They just vote this guy into office because they think they've been voting for the same guy. That's the guy they've been voting for all this time. This is what, this is, all right? This is supposed to be one of the red estates in the Union. Its entire delegation for decades has been a collective failure. and so this woman just openly, openly said, I am not qualified for this job. Right. And her family, cynically one of the most brazenly cynical things I've seen in my time in politics. Capitalized on, largely fake and Astroturf mourning for her Rhino brother to get a Senate seat. So this is the ecosystem this is all spawned on. Ralph Northam is a great congressman. Who in the world told that guy, you know what I think you ought to do as a member of the Freedom Caucus? Nothing says Freedom Caucus quite like endorsing Nikki Haley. Well, Steve, it's his home state's governor, so by the time we got to the South Carolina primary, it was clear she was toast. It was clear after Iowa, Trump was going to be the nominee. Just switch your nominate, Just switch your endorsement, right? Realize, hey, King is coming, you know, better get on the right side of the track, and he's probably a member of the US Senate, and America is better off. Now, there's no. There are no heroes here. Trump's endorsement record, overall wins and losses is great, but he's endorsed so many rhinos that are now knifing him and us. On the other hand, though, a lot of the people that get inspired to run, that are native to him. For every Ron DeSantis that comes out of his ecosystem, there's been 20 Marjorie Taylor Green's who either couldn't get elected, or because they were total clowns, or once they got elected, figured out, you know, pretty much showed us their total clouds. So this is a putrid ecosystem on our side. It has been for decades. and this is a generational failure. It's going to take a long time that hopefully we have. I'm not sure we do. To dig out from this. And, you know, one place where I think your whole audience ought to have some hope is in the gubernatorial race in my home state of Iowa with Zach Laine. And he beat a Trump endorsement. I helped him do it. that's rare. He won by 1700 votes statewide to be the gubernatorial nominee. And so if he could win this fall, he's now suddenly the governor of the first of the nation caucus state. And that's going to. And he represents the kind of paradigm shift that people are looking for. He represents what I think is going to be the coalition of the future on the right, which is Maha with Christian conservatism. That's essentially who Zach is. And so this is. This is just a. This is kind of the last gasp of what has been a generational failure on the right. And this is the, you know, yakety sacks music. You know, the climactic number here is the. Is the election of just an absolute uninformed moron as a US Senator, by your own admission and demonstration. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And a couple of observations about this ecosystem is that first, way back when, if we all remember 10 years ago, when Trump got into politics, one of the biggest things that he ran on besides, you know, build the wall, let's make America great again, you know, obviously those things was drain the swamp. The swamp has only gotten deeper and more murky since Trump came along, because he basically enabled it. And he's empowered this very same people that he professed to be going against once he was entrenched in D.C. and within the establishment, the GOP has not actually gotten better. I mean, this is what the Freedom Caucus wanted to do, was to say, let's get back ultimately to conservatism. And a lot of these movements that are trying to go against the establishment. I mean, the Tea Party back in the day have ultimately failed because they've never had a champion who's actually been the president and then has gone against that entrenched system. It's almost like it's so overpowering that you say you run as an outsider, but once you get in and you get all the accolades and you get everything, then you just become part of the swamp, and it Just overtakes you. And if somebody like Donald Trump, who had all of the money and the status and the name ID and everything else, if he couldn't do it, then that says just how deep and dark and frankly malevolent all of this is. And second, disagree.
Steve Deace: I don't disagree. What I would say is, and I think in his first term, he truly thought he was going to do that, and I truly do. And that. But, but that's how you got Scaramucci's Omarosas trying to hire people within his personal ecosystem and they weren't up for the task. And I think he, he was determined, you know what, When I get elected again, I'm just gonna have to actually have my own swamp to get anything done. And I think that that's, and I don't think his analysis, by the way, is incorrect, by and large, because that is the reality of this is all the cost of taking a generation off from, taking your citizenship seriously. And that's what much of America has done.
Jenna Ellis: And he also, though he also had Reince Priebus as his first chief of staff, who literally was establishment GOP swamp. And so there was a mixture there. And the under understanding of the way that Washington worked was too overpowering for people like who, who frankly weren't competent at the jobs like the Scaramuchies and the Omarosas. And, and even speaking, you know, for myself going into all of that, I mean, I, there was so much I didn't know that it takes a while to get acclimated. And so he didn't have anybody who actually understood the game who was willing to then help him go against the game. And I think that if he had had some of the, those key players, it might have actually been different. And, and I wish that it had been different. He hadn't hired, you know, some of the, incompetent people along with the establishment people that just told him, I mean, his own, his own White House counsel was telling him for his entire first term, you know, you can't do that. You can't do that. And, and stopping him basically at every turn. So there were a lot of things in the first administration, but he could have come back in the second administration stronger and wiser and focused more on actually draining the swamp and getting rid of the establishment instead of pursuing basically a personal vendetta out of this, this, this, you know, kind of wrongheaded view of, well, you just have to have loyalty. And now focusing on foreign policy, which is a whole other conversation. And Show.
Ron DeSantis endorsed Donald Trump as soon as he became nominee
But I want to get to the second point real quick, so that you can react as well, is that when you mention that Ralph Northam should have simply said, okay, he's going to be the nominee, let me get on board. That was what Ron DeSantis did. Right. Because even though he ran against him, everything else, as soon as Trump was the nominee, I mean, even before he was the nominee, as soon as, as DeSantis understood he's going to win this thing, he immediately conceded and he full throated endorsed. And that's the problem as well with these people who want to be world changers, all that, even in my home state of Florida. Listen, Byron Donalds was not my first choice, but is he better than the Democrat who is for, you know, transing children, dei, all kind of left wing lunatic politics? Absolutely. So am I going to end up supporting Byron Donalds? Absolutely. Because that's what we need to do in these circumstances. And I think that there is still this segment of the, of, the Freedom Caucus kind of esque mindset that we have to go against the grain at every turn and they see compromise as a weakness or when at times it's actually more strategic.
Steve Deace: Well, I'm glad you thought that was a good move for DeSantis because some of us had a very private, and blunt conversation in the hours after the Iowa caucuses that, let's, just say that that led to that decision. Okay. Because there's. I'm not really much for compromise, but I'm a big fan of wisdom.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Steve Deace: So maybe we should actually bill it as that is some wisdom. And hey, he's king, so he gets to do what he wants. He's the king that people wants, the people want. So it's not fair, but it is what it is. And so if you want to operate within his kingdom, you've got to be a lot more astute than. Let me endorse Nikki Haley. First of all, even if Trump had not run, Nikki Haley was never going to be the nominee of this party in a million years. That was never happening.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Okay.
Steve Deace: That's a campaign from 2004. So it's not fair to Ralph that that one endorsement overwhelms an overall, you know, pretty high end congressional career. But, you know, this is, this is the game we're in. And you just have to make more astute political observations than that. Yeah, you just have to have more wisdom than that. That's just the sad reality of the world we live in today.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely.
Steve Dase: Where is the conservative movement heading after 2028
And we've got to Take a break here. unfortunately, Steve Dase, these are always the conversations that could go, you know, three hours or even longer. And I know that you're going to continue to talk about these things on, your show as well. And it's important overall not just to, you know, point out the incompetency of, Darlene Graham or the missteps of Ralph Norman or, you know, any of these things, but because of the broader picture of where exactly is the conservative movement heading? And that's the bigger question that we are going to have to seriously ask and very seriously answer as a coalition and as a movement, moving forward, especially when after 2028, Trump's name is not going to be on the ballot. And as much as he may endorse, there is going to be another champion that has to rise up for the conservative movement and hopefully assume the office of the presidency. And if we don't get behind all of that together, it's not going to bode well. We'll be right back. Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not ex. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netgive that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in ballot restrictions, but not on election integrity
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And so we talked a little bit yesterday about the Supreme Court's, decision for the Trump administration on this important procedural victory on the mail in ballot restrictions. But, the Supreme Court did not finally determine that the executive orders mail in ballot restrictions are lawful. And so I wanted to do a little bit deeper, dive into this with Hans von Sparovsky, who is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom and has been, doing election integrity, for decades and, you know, really can get into some of the fine print on this. So, Hans, good morning. And where do we stand on not only this issue, but then, you know, election integrity in general?
Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, I'd have to say, you know, one of the biggest things that's annoyed me since the Supreme Court decision has come out is that all these media sources keep talking about the president's restrictive rules on absentee ballots. That is just totally wrong. what he did was try to increase the security and integrity of, of, absentee ballots. And what the Supreme Court said was that the injunction that had been issued by a Obama judge in Massachusetts, nationwide injunction, they Threw it out because they said the states that brought the lawsuit couldn't show any damages. So here's what this is all about. there were three main issues before the court. The first was, the president's executive order told the Department of Homeland Security to create and send to states a citizenship list for each state. The list would be every resident of the state over the age of 18, therefore eligible to vote, who was a US citizen. Now, the states weren't required to use the list. The executive order didn't say that. It just said, dhs send this to state. So they, if they want to, can use it to check their voter registration lists, to make sure that, everyone who's voting is actually a citizen. Can you believe it? The 23 states that sued, all blue states, said it was a violation of the Constitution for DHS to produce a list like that and send it to them. just totally ridiculous. And yet this Obama judge issued an injunction against it. Supreme Court threw that out. the second issue was that the president told the Department of Justice, I want you to prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of state and local officials or anybody else who gives a ballot to an ineligible voter. The judge also enjoined that, in other words, the judge was telling the Justice Department, you are not allowed to enforce the law if you find that someone has violated, a federal criminal statute. Supreme Court tossed that out. The third issue, and this was probably the one that's drawn the most attention, is the, president directed the Postal Service to initiate a rulemaking that would do several things. First of all, it would set up a tracking system for mail in ballots that would put a barcode on the outside of ballots of envelopes that contain mail in ballots. Look, Jenna, that's a smart thing to do. That's what federal, express. That's what UPS all do. When we order stuff from Amazon, we can track that package. Why would you not want to do that with absentee ballots, which contain someone's vote? And yet the states didn't want that either. And the, judge enjoined it. Now, the rules also were supposed to create, a situation where states that were going to use mail in ballots are supposed to notify the Postal Service by giving them the names of everyone who was going to receive a mail in ballot so that the Postal Service could make sure when they get an envelope that it's one of the authorized people from the states. Again, the judge enjoined that the, Supreme Court threw all of that out because they said none of the states had showed that they were somehow going to be damaged by, by this. So that's, that's the situation. Unfortunately, the same judge in Massachusetts, issued a second injunction and this was not the one that was before the court, once again telling the Postal Service it can't put any rules that it comes up with into force. And so far, despite what the Supreme Court said, she hasn't lifted that injunction.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, a lot of this just goes back to the problem that the left just doesn't want election integrity, period. And so they're going to manufacture all of these legal pretexts for you know, reasons like this is an infringement of the time, place and manner restriction and the Constitution. And you know, and some of those may be ultimately meritorious unfortunately. But it seems to me that the job of the US Postal Service is to deliver mail to the appropriate person and to ensure that it's not misdelivered. There can be protections and rules and regulations in place. I mean this is what the Postmaster General is supposed to be doing. And so for the federal government to simply ensure that the mail is authentic and that it goes to the actually right person. I mean this isn't disenfranchisement of voters because if it's misdelivered or given to somebody who's not eligible anyway, you're not disenfranchising someone who doesn't have the right to access the franchise to begin with.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Oh no, you are absolutely right. but look, you and I both know the reason these blue states, particularly the states that are now doing all mail elections, Washington or California, the reason they have, they sued over this and ah, the reason they don't want the kind of tracking system that everybody else uses or all the stuff, like I said, the products we order from places like Amazon. The reason they don't want it is because for years they have been telling everyone, oh, the mail in balloting system is perfectly safe. There's no, not ever any problems with it. And if we actually had a tracking system, well then we would start getting all kinds of data on, well, how often are mail in ballots misdelivered? How often do they don't, are they not delivered on time? Because for example, they're sitting in a U.S. postal Service distribution center somewhere, how often are these mail in ballots going astray, and not ending up where they should. That kind of data, and I think there would be a lot of it, would hurt that mythical image that these states have built up about how safe absentee or mail in balloting is, and they don't want that. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And I mean, it's just the bottom line is they don't want to treat ballots as a thing of value like every other, mail transaction, electronic transaction, or anything else that is safe and secure in the United States. Somehow the voting process to them has to be treated completely differently to somehow what, actually ensure more safety? No. have they shown that people are actually disenfranchised by simple things like voter id, like ensuring that mail is properly delivered? No. so, I mean, it's just obvious what their, what their enterprise is and what they're trying to accomplish. And it's frustrating that it seems like often the courts are not, seeing through this or at least acknowledging and just saying, no, this is, you know, this is ridiculous and we're not going to allow this pretext to override the common sense rationale here. And that's what I'm the most frustrated in, because we know that the Democrats are going to try and the left and all that, they're going to try to do their thing and to rig the game, but for the judiciary, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that especially the Supreme Court and even some of these other federal judges wouldn't see through these arguments.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, that's true, but I have to tell you, the judge in this particular case in Massachusetts, Judge, Judge Tallani, look, the, the Supreme Court's opinion really, while it doesn't, you know, criticize her by name, it points out just how irrational her injunction is. I mean, the biggest, the biggest irrationality of it is if that the Supreme Court points out is that, the executive order is all directives to people within the executive branch. There's not a single order in there to the states. There's nothing telling the states they have to do this or have to do that. It's all directed to the Postal Service, the Department of Homeland Security, etc. So, you know, how are these states claiming somehow that they're damaged by. In fact, the, the court points out that in order to be able to say that the states are somehow damaged, the, the judge had to pile one speculation on top of another speculation on top of another speculation. And that is not the way the federal court system, as you well know, works.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and this is where if we actually had accountability and we had kind of this, this layering of, okay, the, the left is trying to promulgate these ridiculous arguments, then this judge is, is not acting with rationality, or is maybe, you know, one of these judges that is, is exceeding their authority, and so forth. Then the, then the next step, of course, is to try to impeach some of these judges who are, who are clearly going rogue. But the gop, at least in the Congress so far, even with a majority that could at least haul these guys in and make them, even if they're not successful in actually removing them, you know, conviction in the Senate and so forth, they could at least require them to answer before the Senate, but they don't seem to have any interest in doing that or actual accountability. And all we get generally are, you know, some of these hearings that maybe have some clips and, you know, bombastic, you know, Twitter comments and a strongly worded letter, but nothing that actually amounts to accountability. So where is the GOP on this? Because last I checked, election integrity has been a very important issue for a really long time, but especially to President Trump in particular, since the last election.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, look, I agree with you. I think that's exactly what needs to be done. And so far that hasn't really happened except in very, in very rare circumstances. And, and as you know, I mean, related to that is the fact that the SAVE act, which would help prevent aliens from illegally registering and voting while it passed the House, it's been stuck in the Senate, because of a small handful of Republicans who are opposed to it, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who fortunately is, is leaving, the Senate. But, no, it's, it's a real problem, particularly because you, you have all these rogue judges like Talwani who are repeatedly defying the Supreme Court. I mean, look, those postal service rules are not going to go into effect because what was up before the court, Supreme Court, was the first injunction that she issued. She issued a second injunction, on August 11th, and so far, despite the Supreme Court's ruling, she has refused to lift that injunction. So once again, the Justice Department is going to have to fight over that and probably once again have to file an emergency appeal with Supreme Court. That, to me, is outright defiance by a federal judge.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree. And we've got to take a break here.
Hans von Sparovsky: We don't see much movement on election integrity
Hans von Sparovsky. But I so appreciate your analysis and, passion for this issue as well, because I think a lot of, listeners and, you know, so much obviously of the conservative base is very frustrated that, you know, it's been, six years and we don't actually have a lot of movement on election integrity. And it seems like this has kind of fallen, by the wayside in some ways. I mean, it's good to see that the Trump administration is issuing some of these executive orders and doing what they can. But when the legislative and the judicial branches, won't also view election integrity as a nonpartisan, critical issue to the security of our elections, then this is all he can do. So we'll continue to follow this and, always appreciate your analysis. You can follow him. And also advancing American freedom on X. We'll be right back.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword Baby, that's pound 250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Freedom and Royce White declared themselves women and eligible for WNBA draft
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, former NBA players Inez Kanter, Freedom and Royce White will not be eligible to play in the WNBA after both declared themselves women and eligible for the draft. League sources told a, front office Sports. And so the recent declarations of Freedom and White are, quote, unquote, simply publicity stunts. And the league is, quote, not going to give oxygen to efforts designed to mock the league or use this topic to demean and marginalize others. One league source said the WNBA will not allow outside pressure or manufactured controversy to dictate league processes. So my question for the WNBA is, first of all, nobody else has ever done a publicity stunt. I mean, I wasn't aware that that was against the rules. But also, how dare you inquire into the adequacy of what is a Woman, when heretofore you have never, decided that you wanted to actually set a rule on what constitutes a woman, being eligible to play for the wnba. And so to simply declare that somehow, in your, estimation, which is very arbitrary because there is no standard, that somehow freedom and white, are doing this to manufacture controversy when other, men who decide that they want to become women and play in women's sports aren't doing it for the same reasons is utterly hypocritical. And it also goes to show how the left only prefers their own and their own political bias instead of actually wanting to pursue a standard. This isn't about, ensuring fairness or equality or, women actually in sports. This is about selecting and preferring arbitrarily the people and the political, bias that they prefer and the speech and conduct ultimately that they prefer while excluding others. So I hope that this actually gives rise to, more, legal suits and we can get kind of to the bottom of this and sort of force a resolution that actually fair and has a standard. And so let's welcome in Congressman Marlon Stutzman from the great state of Indiana. And this whole thing, just proves the point that the left is not actually interested in fairness. They're not interested in reality. They're not interested in standards. They're just interested in tailoring the rules, changing the rules whenever it suits their ultimate purpose.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, that's exactly right. Jenna, great to be with you this morning. You know, this has become a real sideshow. unfortunately, the WNBA is off to, you know, a really great season. And the attention that the, WNBA has received over the past couple of seasons is really phenomenal because they've got some really good basketball and they've got some great basketball players that people want to watch. I mean, Caitlin Clark is right here in Indiana, and, the Fever are, a team that the, Hoosiers and people, young girls around the country, are flocking to see wherever they travel or whether they're here in Indianapolis. Sophie Cunningham, she's another just a great basketball player. But, you know, a lot of the attention that's been given to her is because she's just simply using common sense and using, you know, when asked, ah, you know, is sharing her beliefs. And then of course, the left attacks her. And, the liberal woke are going after her at basketball arenas around the country. But, you know, one of the things I found really interesting, Jenna, is that, I was watching Jason Whitlock, he's a former NBA basketball player, and really great Christian guy who's got a podcast. But, you know, one of his comments was that his take is that the WNBA is not pro transgender men playing in their league. They are pro women living a male lifestyle. And he goes on to show, you know, like Brittney Griner, and in an interview was asked by the, in the interview about being a grandparent, and mentioned that, you know, she wants to be called Pops. She, of course, is a lesbian. And you know, there's. There's quite a few lesbians in the wnba, and if you watch some of them, it's like they. These women would rather play the role of men. And I think that's the conflict that's really going on inside the WNBA that Jason Whitlock points out that, they don't want, Ennis Freedom to come in and play basketball with them. They don't want Brice White to come in and play basketball with them. They want to protect the, lesbian structure that's inside the WNBA with a, you know, male, quote, unquote, female relationship that are to women. And you know, after he mentioned that, I think that's really insightful because, this has gone on way too far. The wnba, like Charles Barkley said yesterday, former WNBA hall of Famer, said that the WNBA should nip this in the bud and put this to rest, that this is an easy, simple decision to make, but yet they drag it out because they're trying not to offend. I believe their, you know, some of their players, who we all know are women, but trying to live a male lifestyle, apparently.
Jenna Ellis: And yeah, that's a really fascinating observation that I hadn't considered that, you know, this isn't just about excluding biological, men on the basis of the fact that they're not women, which if that's what they were doing, and they actually had a uniform standard for that, that's really the thrust of where everyone's going with this. But. But you're absolutely right that in the context of this whole, you know, trans nonsense, conversation and the LGBTQ mafia and all of that, the. The goal in part of all of this is to blur the. The lines not only of physical, biological, gender, but also the the spiritual heritage of the roles and responsibilities of. Of, The difference between masculinity and femininity. And this isn't just, you know, traditional gender roles that, are oppressive or in this kind of Marxist framework that the left suggests, this is actually part of our, our imago dei and how the Lord created us as male and female. And there are, are traits that necessarily go along with that that a lot of women, unfortunately, don't want. They don't want to be feminine, and a lot of men anymore do not want to be masculine. And so you get this weird, queer crossover because, people are refusing to abide by the laws of nature and of nature's God, and it's playing out in a lot of different ways. And so where do you think, ultimately that we go from here as a culture and for the conservative movement to speak clearly on this issue? Because it's not just about, you know, some of this, that. That is drawing attention to the issue. It ultimately needs to be about a solution.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, well, I think, you know, they have a losing argument ultimately. But, you know, thank goodness that Enes freedom and, Royce White are willing to step up and call out the hypocrisy and say, you know what? I come, you know, according to the rules of the wnba, the Women's National Basketball association, they said, well, we apparently are eligible to play in the WNBA if we identify as women. And so they're calling out the hypocrisy. And I think they're doing the right thing by taking this even to court if they have to, because the wnba and they're making such a mess out of all of this. you know, some people say, well, you know, any media is good media. I don't think in this case, because, you know, what's happened, what we're seeing on the court, the attacks on Caitlin Clark, the punch to the neck, the hard fouling against Sophie Cunningham, you have to start worrying about workplace environment and the safety for the players, and not just Sophie and Caitlin, but for every player. Because as soon as a player attacks, let's say, Sophie Cunningham, and then there's a response from Sophie's fans, and then there become death threats and things like that, which are all wrong. It puts both players in danger. And I think it's important for the WNBA to say, we're not going to allow any of this to happen, because we don't want people to take things to an extreme and having death threats against either side. And that's why they need to, as, you said, stop blurring the lines, because when you have blurred lines, people don't know what the rules are and where it's going. And so I think, you know, with a lawsuit, and it appears that even Matt Gaetz, former congressman, is willing to help, as their legal counsel, take this to court, challenge it. And, you know, if they can't make a decision, let's make a decision, to let the legal, you know, courts make that decision for them. I would think that would be possible. I'm not a lawyer, myself, but I would think that that would be some sort of guidance because they've got a good thing going for them. But of course, the wnba and you look at the ownership to the management, to the coaches and to the players, there's, you know, it's full of lesbians from, you know, a lot of lesbians in that whole league. And I think that's what they're fighting against internally is a WOKE ideology. And they have to remember how many women fought for years and years for these rights and the. The notoriety and the opportunity to play basketball in a league like this, at this elite level. they're ruining something that so many women fought for. And a lot of it is coming from the leftist women that, are, you know, going after the definitions that should define all of this and make it very simple.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I hope that, as this plays out in, in the courts, that will actually get judges who are willing to recognize a lot of these issues that you and I have been talking about and, hold in a manner that, actually creates a rule that makes sense. But what about the legislative, angle? We only have a couple more minutes. But, you know, it seems to me that, states, and also even at the federal level, need to start clarifying, for civil society, you know, some of these parameters, and drafting legislation, accordingly.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, no, and I agree with that. And my wife Kristie Anyabwile, served in the Indiana legislature and filed some of the first legislation, in Indiana to keep men from our boys from playing in women's sports, which, you know, is, again, it's an 80, 20 issue when it even comes to polling, but it's also the right thing to do. And, you know, we have the NCAA headquartered in Indiana, and I'll tell you, I've never seen anybody so weak in making a decision. And because it's like, they don't want to offend anybody. And, you know, what's offensive is that when you do actually have a transgender male, a male, you know, on a swimming podium that just, you know, beat Wriley Gaines, and we all see it. I mean, everybody knows it's an unfair, competition because of the male anatomy versus the female anatomy. And that's where I believe at some point states. Well, states are, you know, passing legislation that's saying boys can't play in girls sports. President Trump, has even, you know, signed an executive order to do the same. And we're pushing legislation. So I think legislation does have to be implemented because these, governing bodies simply aren't doing what they're supposed to do.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said.
Marlon Stutzman: I hope Congress takes this seriously
And I hope that, the gop, somehow after the midterms can take this seriously and we get to a resolution. I mean, this is just so literally insane that society has reached this point. But Rep. Marlon Stutzman, appreciate it. You can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Rad.
Jenna Ellis: Dolly Parton passed away unexpectedly yesterday
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.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, August 26, and as a lot of people are commenting on social media, the last probably universally loved person passed away yesterday, Dolly Parton. And we extend some sincere condolences to her family. And she, really was, as a, as a country music and just overall icon and legend, somehow managed to stay, universally loved on all sides, throughout her, career and her philanthropic, mission. And so, that was a huge loss that came really unexpected, yesterday.
Darlene Graham defeated Ralph Norman in South Carolina's GOP primary runoff
So, the other unexpected news yesterday was that Darlene Graham won the South Carolina GOP primary runoff election for her brother seat. So this was very, very close, 52 to 48% in the, primary runoff over, Ralph Norman Tuesday in South Carolina. And she said in her victory speech, these past few weeks have been unbelievably an unbelievably challenging time for our family. But you know what? We did it. And so Ralph Norman used his concession speech to say he was sad for the state and he didn't get why Trump intervened for Graham. And, and this is actually the thrust of what I want to talk about, because if Ralph Norman, who is part of, who is part of the Freedom Caucus in Congress and has been in politics several decades, doesn't understand why Trump would do this, then he just really doesn't get politics. And Darlene Graham, in my opinion, of course, is, not at all competent for this seat, I think this was a big mistake for the people of South Carolina to elect her basically just in her brother's memory and because of the Trump endorsement. But, this goes to show how the establishment, the new MAGA establishment perhaps is still alive and well because Ralph Norman, of course, endorsed Nikki Haley in the 2024 primary. he has been at odds with Trump on a few things. He's, been overall a really great conservative, obviously part of the Freedom Caucus. But, that's been Trump's M.O. beyond the fact that, Graham, of course, is carrying on her brother's legacy. And, Trump not only appointed her to that seat because of, of her brother's very untimely passing, but then also endorsed her, I think, over Ralph Norman, literally for the exact same reasons that he, really went hard in the primaries against, former Congressman Bob Good, Chip, Roy, Thomas Massie, and others. Because Trump carries grudges in politics often, and for those who, he perceives as not being a team player, doing his will and bidding, then they're off the team. So does the Freedom Caucus really understand the political landscape moving forward? That's the question that I want to ask our good friend Steve Dace, who, of course is the host of the Steve Day show over at the Blaze. And Steve, you know, I understand that Ralph Norman, you know, obviously, is disappointed, all of those things. But to say he really doesn't understand why Trump intervened for Graham I think is really evidencing that he doesn't understand Trump at all.
Steve Deace: Or it could be that he really understands Trump's base. There is no market for criticism of Trump. There's no market for it. Our voters don't want to hear it, they don't respond to it. And so, yeah, it's just the reality. So you, you almost have to. Every time you want to be critical of something, you have to do it indirectly. you have to do it. You have to frame it with, an assumption that Trump's been misinformed or misled. any front, any frontal. You know, I've just learned this over a decade. You know, any. Any funnel criticism of Trump really, no matter what it is from the right, will just shut everybody down. and a lot of this is the conditioning of most of the criticisms. The vast majority of it, like 95% of it from the left is so over the top, so ridiculous, so inflamed and. Or false. But I repeat myself that at this point, just everybody's. Everybody's default mechanism is, I just tune it out. So, I could be very well be. This was a passive aggressive way of bringing up a point, without criticizing the king, because he is king of the gop. It's the king the people elected they want. And so, you know, that's just the reality of the world we're in. And criticizing him directly just gets you nowhere. It won't move anything, doesn't move him, doesn't move his base. everybody will get very defensive and territorial right away. And so you have to always, you almost always have to frame it, if you want to have any movements at all anyway, you almost have to almost frame it passive aggressively or as if Trump just got bad advice. There's almost a papal infallibility bestowed upon him from our base. And so, you know, people in you and I's positions have a decision to make where that's concerned. And some of us, you know, some of my friends, for example, can't handle that. And so just want to inflex, reflexively, rail against it all the more just out of spite, which is great. You know, there's a part of that I adore, you know, but understand that'll just render you less and less, effective. That's the cost and trade off. Others of us, and I put myself in this camp, have just accepted that that's the ecosystem in which we operate. And so if you want to advance ideas, you know, you can, you, you live in Florida now. You know, you, you guys have 3,000% humidity. It's the month of August, you know,
Jenna Ellis: you got your 175 degrees out right now. Yeah, well, but most of the time
Steve Deace: there's 3,000 degree, 3,000% humidity. And so you can decide, hey, you know, it's winter and I'm, I don't care, I don't care what the humidity factor is. I don't care what the climate is. I'm, you know, I'm, I'm layering up well, you know, you're going to pay the penalty for that, you know, and that's the environment in which we live. I'm just honest about it.
Jenna Ellis: And I agree with you that there is this kind of reflexive, positioning among the base that Trump can do no wrong. And a lot of that is because of how over the top the criticism of Trump initially was. in the beginning that was just so ridiculous. I mean, calling him a racist, saying that he didn't know what he was doing, he's borderline dementia. You know, I mean, all of these things that were just completely fabricated, over the top nonsense. and then coupling that with in 2024, Trump demanded absolute loyalty. I mean it, it wasn't even just a reflex from the Base. It was an actual demand from him. And that kind of culture in politics becomes really dangerous when you look at the endorsements, and the record of the endorsements and say, okay, well, since Trump endorsed, then I can't even question that. We should always be able to question our politicians. And so you and I do fall into that category. Ah, where we are willing to point out things. obviously you and I want him to succeed. we voted for him. we didn't support him in the primary, but we'll do that as conservatives. but. But, you know, we overall want him to succeed, and so we'll point out areas of growth and then also things that he's done well. But overall, I think that the, the Freedom Caucus may, be doing this in a way that isn't actually helpful for their position, because obviously, you and I are in a different position as commentators, as, as outsiders. I mean, I was in a different position when I literally worked for him. Obviously, there were things I disagreed with, but that was private. I never said any of that publicly because I literally spoke for him, and that's the job. But when you're in Congress and when you're actually part of the GOP and elected office there, it seems to me that there has to be a better strategy than what a lot of these people like Ralph Norman are doing, to not really help advance anything in the gop, and then it just basically devolves into this loyalty contest that they're not going to win.
Steve Deace: Great analysis. I mean, listen, there's no heroes here. This, this state is wrecked. I mean, the Palmetto State has been pathetic and pitiful our entire lives. I mean, to have Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham be the senators of that state for as long as they were is ridiculous. we had then. Trey Gowdy is the definition of all hat, no cattle. Guy made an entire career out of one House testimony question, getting Hillary to say, what difference does it make? But, I mean, from a politician standpoint and as a member of Congress, he looked like Tarzan and played like Jane. Okay. I mean, he was a total rhino in Congress. You had Mark Sanford, remember him? Chased his.
Christian: South Carolina's political ecosystem has been a collective failure
Steve Deace: Chased his side piece. Girlfriend of Argentina, Jeff Duncan was like, well, that's the one conservative in South Carolina we can rely on. Turns out he was living a double life. For years. That entire state's political ecosystem said, I think we have to analyze, how do you get to a place where a total moron gets one of only 100 US Senate seats? An admitted moron who literally told you I don't know anything. She's going to vote on treaties and doesn't know anything about China and its place, you know, in the, in the, in the foreign, global geopolitical scene. By her own admission, she didn't hide any of this. She literally told you out loud. My only qualifications, I'm DNA adjacent and share a last name. She is. This whole campaign is the is. There's a movie many years ago called the Distinguished Gentleman with Eddie Murphy where he runs for how he's black. James Garner was the white congressman. He dies in office and he runs for. He runs for his seat, because he's got the same name, like Carl Jackson or something. I remember what it was. But he has the same name. People don't know the guy died. They're so uninformed, they're so tapped out. They just vote this guy into office because they think they've been voting for the same guy. That's the guy they've been voting for all this time. This is what, this is, all right? This is supposed to be one of the red estates in the Union. Its entire delegation for decades has been a collective failure. and so this woman just openly, openly said, I am not qualified for this job. Right. And her family, cynically one of the most brazenly cynical things I've seen in my time in politics. Capitalized on, largely fake and Astroturf mourning for her Rhino brother to get a Senate seat. So this is the ecosystem this is all spawned on. Ralph Northam is a great congressman. Who in the world told that guy, you know what I think you ought to do as a member of the Freedom Caucus? Nothing says Freedom Caucus quite like endorsing Nikki Haley. Well, Steve, it's his home state's governor, so by the time we got to the South Carolina primary, it was clear she was toast. It was clear after Iowa, Trump was going to be the nominee. Just switch your nominate, Just switch your endorsement, right? Realize, hey, King is coming, you know, better get on the right side of the track, and he's probably a member of the US Senate, and America is better off. Now, there's no. There are no heroes here. Trump's endorsement record, overall wins and losses is great, but he's endorsed so many rhinos that are now knifing him and us. On the other hand, though, a lot of the people that get inspired to run, that are native to him. For every Ron DeSantis that comes out of his ecosystem, there's been 20 Marjorie Taylor Green's who either couldn't get elected, or because they were total clowns, or once they got elected, figured out, you know, pretty much showed us their total clouds. So this is a putrid ecosystem on our side. It has been for decades. and this is a generational failure. It's going to take a long time that hopefully we have. I'm not sure we do. To dig out from this. And, you know, one place where I think your whole audience ought to have some hope is in the gubernatorial race in my home state of Iowa with Zach Laine. And he beat a Trump endorsement. I helped him do it. that's rare. He won by 1700 votes statewide to be the gubernatorial nominee. And so if he could win this fall, he's now suddenly the governor of the first of the nation caucus state. And that's going to. And he represents the kind of paradigm shift that people are looking for. He represents what I think is going to be the coalition of the future on the right, which is Maha with Christian conservatism. That's essentially who Zach is. And so this is. This is just a. This is kind of the last gasp of what has been a generational failure on the right. And this is the, you know, yakety sacks music. You know, the climactic number here is the. Is the election of just an absolute uninformed moron as a US Senator, by your own admission and demonstration. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And a couple of observations about this ecosystem is that first, way back when, if we all remember 10 years ago, when Trump got into politics, one of the biggest things that he ran on besides, you know, build the wall, let's make America great again, you know, obviously those things was drain the swamp. The swamp has only gotten deeper and more murky since Trump came along, because he basically enabled it. And he's empowered this very same people that he professed to be going against once he was entrenched in D.C. and within the establishment, the GOP has not actually gotten better. I mean, this is what the Freedom Caucus wanted to do, was to say, let's get back ultimately to conservatism. And a lot of these movements that are trying to go against the establishment. I mean, the Tea Party back in the day have ultimately failed because they've never had a champion who's actually been the president and then has gone against that entrenched system. It's almost like it's so overpowering that you say you run as an outsider, but once you get in and you get all the accolades and you get everything, then you just become part of the swamp, and it Just overtakes you. And if somebody like Donald Trump, who had all of the money and the status and the name ID and everything else, if he couldn't do it, then that says just how deep and dark and frankly malevolent all of this is. And second, disagree.
Steve Deace: I don't disagree. What I would say is, and I think in his first term, he truly thought he was going to do that, and I truly do. And that. But, but that's how you got Scaramucci's Omarosas trying to hire people within his personal ecosystem and they weren't up for the task. And I think he, he was determined, you know what, When I get elected again, I'm just gonna have to actually have my own swamp to get anything done. And I think that that's, and I don't think his analysis, by the way, is incorrect, by and large, because that is the reality of this is all the cost of taking a generation off from, taking your citizenship seriously. And that's what much of America has done.
Jenna Ellis: And he also, though he also had Reince Priebus as his first chief of staff, who literally was establishment GOP swamp. And so there was a mixture there. And the under understanding of the way that Washington worked was too overpowering for people like who, who frankly weren't competent at the jobs like the Scaramuchies and the Omarosas. And, and even speaking, you know, for myself going into all of that, I mean, I, there was so much I didn't know that it takes a while to get acclimated. And so he didn't have anybody who actually understood the game who was willing to then help him go against the game. And I think that if he had had some of the, those key players, it might have actually been different. And, and I wish that it had been different. He hadn't hired, you know, some of the, incompetent people along with the establishment people that just told him, I mean, his own, his own White House counsel was telling him for his entire first term, you know, you can't do that. You can't do that. And, and stopping him basically at every turn. So there were a lot of things in the first administration, but he could have come back in the second administration stronger and wiser and focused more on actually draining the swamp and getting rid of the establishment instead of pursuing basically a personal vendetta out of this, this, this, you know, kind of wrongheaded view of, well, you just have to have loyalty. And now focusing on foreign policy, which is a whole other conversation. And Show.
Ron DeSantis endorsed Donald Trump as soon as he became nominee
But I want to get to the second point real quick, so that you can react as well, is that when you mention that Ralph Northam should have simply said, okay, he's going to be the nominee, let me get on board. That was what Ron DeSantis did. Right. Because even though he ran against him, everything else, as soon as Trump was the nominee, I mean, even before he was the nominee, as soon as, as DeSantis understood he's going to win this thing, he immediately conceded and he full throated endorsed. And that's the problem as well with these people who want to be world changers, all that, even in my home state of Florida. Listen, Byron Donalds was not my first choice, but is he better than the Democrat who is for, you know, transing children, dei, all kind of left wing lunatic politics? Absolutely. So am I going to end up supporting Byron Donalds? Absolutely. Because that's what we need to do in these circumstances. And I think that there is still this segment of the, of, the Freedom Caucus kind of esque mindset that we have to go against the grain at every turn and they see compromise as a weakness or when at times it's actually more strategic.
Steve Deace: Well, I'm glad you thought that was a good move for DeSantis because some of us had a very private, and blunt conversation in the hours after the Iowa caucuses that, let's, just say that that led to that decision. Okay. Because there's. I'm not really much for compromise, but I'm a big fan of wisdom.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Steve Deace: So maybe we should actually bill it as that is some wisdom. And hey, he's king, so he gets to do what he wants. He's the king that people wants, the people want. So it's not fair, but it is what it is. And so if you want to operate within his kingdom, you've got to be a lot more astute than. Let me endorse Nikki Haley. First of all, even if Trump had not run, Nikki Haley was never going to be the nominee of this party in a million years. That was never happening.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Okay.
Steve Deace: That's a campaign from 2004. So it's not fair to Ralph that that one endorsement overwhelms an overall, you know, pretty high end congressional career. But, you know, this is, this is the game we're in. And you just have to make more astute political observations than that. Yeah, you just have to have more wisdom than that. That's just the sad reality of the world we live in today.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely.
Steve Dase: Where is the conservative movement heading after 2028
And we've got to Take a break here. unfortunately, Steve Dase, these are always the conversations that could go, you know, three hours or even longer. And I know that you're going to continue to talk about these things on, your show as well. And it's important overall not just to, you know, point out the incompetency of, Darlene Graham or the missteps of Ralph Norman or, you know, any of these things, but because of the broader picture of where exactly is the conservative movement heading? And that's the bigger question that we are going to have to seriously ask and very seriously answer as a coalition and as a movement, moving forward, especially when after 2028, Trump's name is not going to be on the ballot. And as much as he may endorse, there is going to be another champion that has to rise up for the conservative movement and hopefully assume the office of the presidency. And if we don't get behind all of that together, it's not going to bode well. We'll be right back. Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not ex. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netgive that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in ballot restrictions, but not on election integrity
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And so we talked a little bit yesterday about the Supreme Court's, decision for the Trump administration on this important procedural victory on the mail in ballot restrictions. But, the Supreme Court did not finally determine that the executive orders mail in ballot restrictions are lawful. And so I wanted to do a little bit deeper, dive into this with Hans von Sparovsky, who is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom and has been, doing election integrity, for decades and, you know, really can get into some of the fine print on this. So, Hans, good morning. And where do we stand on not only this issue, but then, you know, election integrity in general?
Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, I'd have to say, you know, one of the biggest things that's annoyed me since the Supreme Court decision has come out is that all these media sources keep talking about the president's restrictive rules on absentee ballots. That is just totally wrong. what he did was try to increase the security and integrity of, of, absentee ballots. And what the Supreme Court said was that the injunction that had been issued by a Obama judge in Massachusetts, nationwide injunction, they Threw it out because they said the states that brought the lawsuit couldn't show any damages. So here's what this is all about. there were three main issues before the court. The first was, the president's executive order told the Department of Homeland Security to create and send to states a citizenship list for each state. The list would be every resident of the state over the age of 18, therefore eligible to vote, who was a US citizen. Now, the states weren't required to use the list. The executive order didn't say that. It just said, dhs send this to state. So they, if they want to, can use it to check their voter registration lists, to make sure that, everyone who's voting is actually a citizen. Can you believe it? The 23 states that sued, all blue states, said it was a violation of the Constitution for DHS to produce a list like that and send it to them. just totally ridiculous. And yet this Obama judge issued an injunction against it. Supreme Court threw that out. the second issue was that the president told the Department of Justice, I want you to prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of state and local officials or anybody else who gives a ballot to an ineligible voter. The judge also enjoined that, in other words, the judge was telling the Justice Department, you are not allowed to enforce the law if you find that someone has violated, a federal criminal statute. Supreme Court tossed that out. The third issue, and this was probably the one that's drawn the most attention, is the, president directed the Postal Service to initiate a rulemaking that would do several things. First of all, it would set up a tracking system for mail in ballots that would put a barcode on the outside of ballots of envelopes that contain mail in ballots. Look, Jenna, that's a smart thing to do. That's what federal, express. That's what UPS all do. When we order stuff from Amazon, we can track that package. Why would you not want to do that with absentee ballots, which contain someone's vote? And yet the states didn't want that either. And the, judge enjoined it. Now, the rules also were supposed to create, a situation where states that were going to use mail in ballots are supposed to notify the Postal Service by giving them the names of everyone who was going to receive a mail in ballot so that the Postal Service could make sure when they get an envelope that it's one of the authorized people from the states. Again, the judge enjoined that the, Supreme Court threw all of that out because they said none of the states had showed that they were somehow going to be damaged by, by this. So that's, that's the situation. Unfortunately, the same judge in Massachusetts, issued a second injunction and this was not the one that was before the court, once again telling the Postal Service it can't put any rules that it comes up with into force. And so far, despite what the Supreme Court said, she hasn't lifted that injunction.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, a lot of this just goes back to the problem that the left just doesn't want election integrity, period. And so they're going to manufacture all of these legal pretexts for you know, reasons like this is an infringement of the time, place and manner restriction and the Constitution. And you know, and some of those may be ultimately meritorious unfortunately. But it seems to me that the job of the US Postal Service is to deliver mail to the appropriate person and to ensure that it's not misdelivered. There can be protections and rules and regulations in place. I mean this is what the Postmaster General is supposed to be doing. And so for the federal government to simply ensure that the mail is authentic and that it goes to the actually right person. I mean this isn't disenfranchisement of voters because if it's misdelivered or given to somebody who's not eligible anyway, you're not disenfranchising someone who doesn't have the right to access the franchise to begin with.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Oh no, you are absolutely right. but look, you and I both know the reason these blue states, particularly the states that are now doing all mail elections, Washington or California, the reason they have, they sued over this and ah, the reason they don't want the kind of tracking system that everybody else uses or all the stuff, like I said, the products we order from places like Amazon. The reason they don't want it is because for years they have been telling everyone, oh, the mail in balloting system is perfectly safe. There's no, not ever any problems with it. And if we actually had a tracking system, well then we would start getting all kinds of data on, well, how often are mail in ballots misdelivered? How often do they don't, are they not delivered on time? Because for example, they're sitting in a U.S. postal Service distribution center somewhere, how often are these mail in ballots going astray, and not ending up where they should. That kind of data, and I think there would be a lot of it, would hurt that mythical image that these states have built up about how safe absentee or mail in balloting is, and they don't want that. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And I mean, it's just the bottom line is they don't want to treat ballots as a thing of value like every other, mail transaction, electronic transaction, or anything else that is safe and secure in the United States. Somehow the voting process to them has to be treated completely differently to somehow what, actually ensure more safety? No. have they shown that people are actually disenfranchised by simple things like voter id, like ensuring that mail is properly delivered? No. so, I mean, it's just obvious what their, what their enterprise is and what they're trying to accomplish. And it's frustrating that it seems like often the courts are not, seeing through this or at least acknowledging and just saying, no, this is, you know, this is ridiculous and we're not going to allow this pretext to override the common sense rationale here. And that's what I'm the most frustrated in, because we know that the Democrats are going to try and the left and all that, they're going to try to do their thing and to rig the game, but for the judiciary, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that especially the Supreme Court and even some of these other federal judges wouldn't see through these arguments.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, that's true, but I have to tell you, the judge in this particular case in Massachusetts, Judge, Judge Tallani, look, the, the Supreme Court's opinion really, while it doesn't, you know, criticize her by name, it points out just how irrational her injunction is. I mean, the biggest, the biggest irrationality of it is if that the Supreme Court points out is that, the executive order is all directives to people within the executive branch. There's not a single order in there to the states. There's nothing telling the states they have to do this or have to do that. It's all directed to the Postal Service, the Department of Homeland Security, etc. So, you know, how are these states claiming somehow that they're damaged by. In fact, the, the court points out that in order to be able to say that the states are somehow damaged, the, the judge had to pile one speculation on top of another speculation on top of another speculation. And that is not the way the federal court system, as you well know, works.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and this is where if we actually had accountability and we had kind of this, this layering of, okay, the, the left is trying to promulgate these ridiculous arguments, then this judge is, is not acting with rationality, or is maybe, you know, one of these judges that is, is exceeding their authority, and so forth. Then the, then the next step, of course, is to try to impeach some of these judges who are, who are clearly going rogue. But the gop, at least in the Congress so far, even with a majority that could at least haul these guys in and make them, even if they're not successful in actually removing them, you know, conviction in the Senate and so forth, they could at least require them to answer before the Senate, but they don't seem to have any interest in doing that or actual accountability. And all we get generally are, you know, some of these hearings that maybe have some clips and, you know, bombastic, you know, Twitter comments and a strongly worded letter, but nothing that actually amounts to accountability. So where is the GOP on this? Because last I checked, election integrity has been a very important issue for a really long time, but especially to President Trump in particular, since the last election.
Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, look, I agree with you. I think that's exactly what needs to be done. And so far that hasn't really happened except in very, in very rare circumstances. And, and as you know, I mean, related to that is the fact that the SAVE act, which would help prevent aliens from illegally registering and voting while it passed the House, it's been stuck in the Senate, because of a small handful of Republicans who are opposed to it, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who fortunately is, is leaving, the Senate. But, no, it's, it's a real problem, particularly because you, you have all these rogue judges like Talwani who are repeatedly defying the Supreme Court. I mean, look, those postal service rules are not going to go into effect because what was up before the court, Supreme Court, was the first injunction that she issued. She issued a second injunction, on August 11th, and so far, despite the Supreme Court's ruling, she has refused to lift that injunction. So once again, the Justice Department is going to have to fight over that and probably once again have to file an emergency appeal with Supreme Court. That, to me, is outright defiance by a federal judge.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree. And we've got to take a break here.
Hans von Sparovsky: We don't see much movement on election integrity
Hans von Sparovsky. But I so appreciate your analysis and, passion for this issue as well, because I think a lot of, listeners and, you know, so much obviously of the conservative base is very frustrated that, you know, it's been, six years and we don't actually have a lot of movement on election integrity. And it seems like this has kind of fallen, by the wayside in some ways. I mean, it's good to see that the Trump administration is issuing some of these executive orders and doing what they can. But when the legislative and the judicial branches, won't also view election integrity as a nonpartisan, critical issue to the security of our elections, then this is all he can do. So we'll continue to follow this and, always appreciate your analysis. You can follow him. And also advancing American freedom on X. We'll be right back.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword Baby, that's pound 250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Freedom and Royce White declared themselves women and eligible for WNBA draft
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, former NBA players Inez Kanter, Freedom and Royce White will not be eligible to play in the WNBA after both declared themselves women and eligible for the draft. League sources told a, front office Sports. And so the recent declarations of Freedom and White are, quote, unquote, simply publicity stunts. And the league is, quote, not going to give oxygen to efforts designed to mock the league or use this topic to demean and marginalize others. One league source said the WNBA will not allow outside pressure or manufactured controversy to dictate league processes. So my question for the WNBA is, first of all, nobody else has ever done a publicity stunt. I mean, I wasn't aware that that was against the rules. But also, how dare you inquire into the adequacy of what is a Woman, when heretofore you have never, decided that you wanted to actually set a rule on what constitutes a woman, being eligible to play for the wnba. And so to simply declare that somehow, in your, estimation, which is very arbitrary because there is no standard, that somehow freedom and white, are doing this to manufacture controversy when other, men who decide that they want to become women and play in women's sports aren't doing it for the same reasons is utterly hypocritical. And it also goes to show how the left only prefers their own and their own political bias instead of actually wanting to pursue a standard. This isn't about, ensuring fairness or equality or, women actually in sports. This is about selecting and preferring arbitrarily the people and the political, bias that they prefer and the speech and conduct ultimately that they prefer while excluding others. So I hope that this actually gives rise to, more, legal suits and we can get kind of to the bottom of this and sort of force a resolution that actually fair and has a standard. And so let's welcome in Congressman Marlon Stutzman from the great state of Indiana. And this whole thing, just proves the point that the left is not actually interested in fairness. They're not interested in reality. They're not interested in standards. They're just interested in tailoring the rules, changing the rules whenever it suits their ultimate purpose.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, that's exactly right. Jenna, great to be with you this morning. You know, this has become a real sideshow. unfortunately, the WNBA is off to, you know, a really great season. And the attention that the, WNBA has received over the past couple of seasons is really phenomenal because they've got some really good basketball and they've got some great basketball players that people want to watch. I mean, Caitlin Clark is right here in Indiana, and, the Fever are, a team that the, Hoosiers and people, young girls around the country, are flocking to see wherever they travel or whether they're here in Indianapolis. Sophie Cunningham, she's another just a great basketball player. But, you know, a lot of the attention that's been given to her is because she's just simply using common sense and using, you know, when asked, ah, you know, is sharing her beliefs. And then of course, the left attacks her. And, the liberal woke are going after her at basketball arenas around the country. But, you know, one of the things I found really interesting, Jenna, is that, I was watching Jason Whitlock, he's a former NBA basketball player, and really great Christian guy who's got a podcast. But, you know, one of his comments was that his take is that the WNBA is not pro transgender men playing in their league. They are pro women living a male lifestyle. And he goes on to show, you know, like Brittney Griner, and in an interview was asked by the, in the interview about being a grandparent, and mentioned that, you know, she wants to be called Pops. She, of course, is a lesbian. And you know, there's. There's quite a few lesbians in the wnba, and if you watch some of them, it's like they. These women would rather play the role of men. And I think that's the conflict that's really going on inside the WNBA that Jason Whitlock points out that, they don't want, Ennis Freedom to come in and play basketball with them. They don't want Brice White to come in and play basketball with them. They want to protect the, lesbian structure that's inside the WNBA with a, you know, male, quote, unquote, female relationship that are to women. And you know, after he mentioned that, I think that's really insightful because, this has gone on way too far. The wnba, like Charles Barkley said yesterday, former WNBA hall of Famer, said that the WNBA should nip this in the bud and put this to rest, that this is an easy, simple decision to make, but yet they drag it out because they're trying not to offend. I believe their, you know, some of their players, who we all know are women, but trying to live a male lifestyle, apparently.
Jenna Ellis: And yeah, that's a really fascinating observation that I hadn't considered that, you know, this isn't just about excluding biological, men on the basis of the fact that they're not women, which if that's what they were doing, and they actually had a uniform standard for that, that's really the thrust of where everyone's going with this. But. But you're absolutely right that in the context of this whole, you know, trans nonsense, conversation and the LGBTQ mafia and all of that, the. The goal in part of all of this is to blur the. The lines not only of physical, biological, gender, but also the the spiritual heritage of the roles and responsibilities of. Of, The difference between masculinity and femininity. And this isn't just, you know, traditional gender roles that, are oppressive or in this kind of Marxist framework that the left suggests, this is actually part of our, our imago dei and how the Lord created us as male and female. And there are, are traits that necessarily go along with that that a lot of women, unfortunately, don't want. They don't want to be feminine, and a lot of men anymore do not want to be masculine. And so you get this weird, queer crossover because, people are refusing to abide by the laws of nature and of nature's God, and it's playing out in a lot of different ways. And so where do you think, ultimately that we go from here as a culture and for the conservative movement to speak clearly on this issue? Because it's not just about, you know, some of this, that. That is drawing attention to the issue. It ultimately needs to be about a solution.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, well, I think, you know, they have a losing argument ultimately. But, you know, thank goodness that Enes freedom and, Royce White are willing to step up and call out the hypocrisy and say, you know what? I come, you know, according to the rules of the wnba, the Women's National Basketball association, they said, well, we apparently are eligible to play in the WNBA if we identify as women. And so they're calling out the hypocrisy. And I think they're doing the right thing by taking this even to court if they have to, because the wnba and they're making such a mess out of all of this. you know, some people say, well, you know, any media is good media. I don't think in this case, because, you know, what's happened, what we're seeing on the court, the attacks on Caitlin Clark, the punch to the neck, the hard fouling against Sophie Cunningham, you have to start worrying about workplace environment and the safety for the players, and not just Sophie and Caitlin, but for every player. Because as soon as a player attacks, let's say, Sophie Cunningham, and then there's a response from Sophie's fans, and then there become death threats and things like that, which are all wrong. It puts both players in danger. And I think it's important for the WNBA to say, we're not going to allow any of this to happen, because we don't want people to take things to an extreme and having death threats against either side. And that's why they need to, as, you said, stop blurring the lines, because when you have blurred lines, people don't know what the rules are and where it's going. And so I think, you know, with a lawsuit, and it appears that even Matt Gaetz, former congressman, is willing to help, as their legal counsel, take this to court, challenge it. And, you know, if they can't make a decision, let's make a decision, to let the legal, you know, courts make that decision for them. I would think that would be possible. I'm not a lawyer, myself, but I would think that that would be some sort of guidance because they've got a good thing going for them. But of course, the wnba and you look at the ownership to the management, to the coaches and to the players, there's, you know, it's full of lesbians from, you know, a lot of lesbians in that whole league. And I think that's what they're fighting against internally is a WOKE ideology. And they have to remember how many women fought for years and years for these rights and the. The notoriety and the opportunity to play basketball in a league like this, at this elite level. they're ruining something that so many women fought for. And a lot of it is coming from the leftist women that, are, you know, going after the definitions that should define all of this and make it very simple.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I hope that, as this plays out in, in the courts, that will actually get judges who are willing to recognize a lot of these issues that you and I have been talking about and, hold in a manner that, actually creates a rule that makes sense. But what about the legislative, angle? We only have a couple more minutes. But, you know, it seems to me that, states, and also even at the federal level, need to start clarifying, for civil society, you know, some of these parameters, and drafting legislation, accordingly.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, no, and I agree with that. And my wife Kristie Anyabwile, served in the Indiana legislature and filed some of the first legislation, in Indiana to keep men from our boys from playing in women's sports, which, you know, is, again, it's an 80, 20 issue when it even comes to polling, but it's also the right thing to do. And, you know, we have the NCAA headquartered in Indiana, and I'll tell you, I've never seen anybody so weak in making a decision. And because it's like, they don't want to offend anybody. And, you know, what's offensive is that when you do actually have a transgender male, a male, you know, on a swimming podium that just, you know, beat Wriley Gaines, and we all see it. I mean, everybody knows it's an unfair, competition because of the male anatomy versus the female anatomy. And that's where I believe at some point states. Well, states are, you know, passing legislation that's saying boys can't play in girls sports. President Trump, has even, you know, signed an executive order to do the same. And we're pushing legislation. So I think legislation does have to be implemented because these, governing bodies simply aren't doing what they're supposed to do.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said.
Marlon Stutzman: I hope Congress takes this seriously
And I hope that, the gop, somehow after the midterms can take this seriously and we get to a resolution. I mean, this is just so literally insane that society has reached this point. But Rep. Marlon Stutzman, appreciate it. You can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis discusses the recent political landscape, focusing on the implications of Darlene Graham's win in the South Caroline GOP primary and the challenges faced by the Freedom Caucus. Joined by Steve Deace, they analyze Trump's influence on politics, the complexities of loyalty within the GOP, and the necessity for a strategic approach moving forward. The conversation delves into the importance of understanding Trump's base and the need for a new champion for the conservative movement after 2028.
(00:00) Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
(00:32) Jenna Ellis: Dolly Parton passed away unexpectedly yesterday
(01:44) Darlene Graham defeated Ralph Norman in South Carolina's GOP primary runoff
(10:31) Christian: South Carolina's political ecosystem has been a collective failure
(18:10) Ron DeSantis endorsed Donald Trump as soon as he became nominee
(20:22) Steve Dase: Where is the conservative movement heading after 2028
(21:57) Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in ballot restrictions, but not on election integrity
(35:33) Hans von Sparovsky: We don't see much movement on election integrity
(36:32) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
(37:55) Freedom and Royce White declared themselves women and eligible for WNBA draft
(49:57) Marlon Stutzman: I hope Congress takes this seriously
Jenna Ellis discusses the recent political landscape, focusing on the implications of Darlene Graham's win in the South Caroline GOP primary and the challenges faced by the Freedom Caucus. Joined by Steve Deace, they analyze Trump's influence on politics, the complexities of loyalty within the GOP, and the necessity for a strategic approach moving forward. The conversation delves into the importance of understanding Trump's base and the need for a new champion for the conservative movement after 2028.
(00:00) Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
(00:32) Jenna Ellis: Dolly Parton passed away unexpectedly yesterday
(01:44) Darlene Graham defeated Ralph Norman in South Carolina's GOP primary runoff
(10:31) Christian: South Carolina's political ecosystem has been a collective failure
(18:10) Ron DeSantis endorsed Donald Trump as soon as he became nominee
(20:22) Steve Dase: Where is the conservative movement heading after 2028
(21:57) Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in ballot restrictions, but not on election integrity
(35:33) Hans von Sparovsky: We don't see much movement on election integrity
(36:32) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
(37:55) Freedom and Royce White declared themselves women and eligible for WNBA draft
(49:57) Marlon Stutzman: I hope Congress takes this seriously
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
