American Family Radio thanks sponsor, Preborn for supporting pro life advocacy
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 £250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you, and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
Today is Florida's primary day; make sure you vote early
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, August 18th. So for those of us in the great state of Florida, today is our primary day. So if you have not early voted, make sure that you get out and vote. there are a lot of key offices at stake, including who is going to succeed Governor Ron DeSantis. And so the Democrat primary is, pretty much already wrapped up with David, Jolly being the likely nominee, who's actually a former Republican congressman, which is very interesting, and running as an incredibly extreme leftist, not even a moderate, which, you know, if he were smart, he would try to appeal to some of the voters by at least suggesting that he's not going to be, basically the Nikki Freed or Kamala Harris brand of Democrat, but, not going so well on that side. And this, has been on the Republican side, one of the most petty and contentious primaries, I have ever seen. And there are a lot of people across the state and out of state who are so glad that today is August 18th, and I'm one of them, so that we can hopefully put this primary, behind us and turn, to better policy. so, yeah, we will bring you, those results tomorrow morning. And who on the Republican side, is going to win that nomination. And then we will see what the polls are saying in the head to head for the general.
Former congresswoman Nancy Mace revealed she had nine tattoos after leaving office
but let's turn to something that, I think is a really timely message for all of us. And this is when political power ultimately becomes your identity and how we need to deal with pain and loss. so Nancy Mace, the former congresswoman, is completely spiraling on social media. She's trending. And she reminds me of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who claim they want privacy and they want privacy so much and please don't talk about me that we're going to go on this massive media tour to tell everybody and generate all of these headlines talking about how much we don't want any headlines. Right. this is exactly what Nancy Mace is doing by revealing that she had nine tattoos she reportedly got, during a turbulent period in her personal and professional life. She revealed them and then complained that everybody was talking about them and then said that she's going to respond to all of the criticism so that people would stop talking about it on a new, YouTube show, which, you know, so I'm calling her Nancy Markle basically. but the deeper issue here is not about the, the tattoos themselves with which I find sleeves on women just absolutely gross and disgusting. I don't think that, ah, any woman who is feminine should ever, do that. she looks kind of like a leftist, now, and she kind of fits into the category visually. Ah, and this is not what the Bible describes, for femininity. But deeper than that, she said that she, quote, wanted to feel pain and described her rationale for getting the tattoos as a way to, quote, reclaim her body and identity. So now, after giving up her congressional seat to run unsuccessfully for governor of South Carolina, she appears to be publicly unraveling and desperately, desperately searching for a new identity and platform. And instead of simply, you know, going and doing something productive in society, a lot of these members of Congress, when they no longer have media, they're no longer newsmakers, they're no longer commenting. They just shift to trying to do YouTube shows. Marjorie Taylor Green is off, you know, doing some show called At Home with Marjorie Taylor Green, as if, you know, she's now the Barefoot Contessa of Georgia. And, and these are people who cannot, cannot give up political power and are wanting and craving that type of attention. So I'm not trying to attempt to diagnose, some of her clear mental health issues, but the concerning issue here is Nancy Mace's own explanation. Deliberately seeking physical pain to cope with emotional pain and obvious, loss of political power. And so when someone says, I need to feel pain, that shouldn't just become celebrity gossip and we shouldn't just, you know, make fun of her. It should cause us to ask what kind of pain she's attempting to escape and why our, ah, culture has so few meaningful answers for it. Because political power is an absolutely terrible identity. It can and often doesn't. I saw this so often when I was in D.C. and I still see it among the, people that are, you know, surrounding Trump, the leftists, Republican across the board, even when they're Republicans and when the causes being advanced are good. Public office provides attention, influence, status invitations, the cocktail parties, you know, alt cameras, and a feeling that one matters. And so when those things disappear, the person whose identity was built around them may suddenly ask, who am I now? And I need a new identity. And this is the same thing. I've talked with, my good friend Jeremy Stallnacker, who, does the Mighty Oaks foundation. And it's the same thing as a lot of these veterans, who have to leave the military because, they're wounded or they simply, they're discharged for whatever reason. And suddenly they don't have a chain of command. They don't have that same purpose. And so they become extremely depressed without goals. And they're. They wonder who they are because their entire identity was wrapped up in being in the military. And that's a very, you know, good, goal service to our country. But, but the point is that jobs and vocations and seasons of life can expire, and political power always expires, especially in America. This is why term limits are a very good thing. Because then, you know, we get a turnover of people, and political power shouldn't just be, achieved for its own sake. We want statesmen. But when that identity expires and then audiences move on and that identity is lost, then suddenly people don't know what to do with themselves. And the Bible teaches something radically different. Because Matthew 16 says, and, Jesus said, for what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? If losing an office, losing a job, losing a season of your life causes you to lose yourself, then that position was no longer simply your vocation, it became your identity and possibly even your idol. And so Mesa's comments also point to something larger than, you know, just her, that Americans overall are profoundly in a mental health crisis. And studies show that more than one in five American adults, approximately 59 million people, and this is according to the National Institute of Mintle Health, are living with what they profess to be or have been diagnosed with a mental illness. And that in 2024 alone, 14.3 million adults reported serious thoughts of suicide and 2.2 million reported attempting suicide. Depression prevalence among adolescents and adults increased over 60% over roughly a decade. What does this tell us about the state of our Mental health in America, we have more therapy, more prescriptions, more public discussion about mental health than ever. Everyone is dealing, you know, with anxiety. They can't, they can't even focus unless, you know, they have, some of their coping mechanisms. And yet we appear as a culture to increasingly be unable to answer some of the most basic questions that every human being has to answer in their lifetime. Who am I? Why am I here? And what do I do with negative emotions? Guilt, pain, rejection, loss. I mean, these are things that all human beings have a common experience with. So the studies show that more than 1 in 10American adults took prescription medication for depression in 2023. And I'm not suggesting that no medication can ever be medically appropriate or for some people, life saving. But medication is often treated and over prescribed, and it's treated as the entire answer rather than one possible component of care. And so just anecdotally, for example, I was diagnosed about six months ago with fibroids. Ah. And had a lot of pain associated with it. You know, went to the doctor, ended up having to have an mri, dealt, with a lot of, pretty severe pain. My initial doctor wanted to just prescribe, but birth control, which has a wide variety of hormones, right. And I said, is this really necessary? And we ended up. I ended up on a medication with just two hormones. The effect that, that had on my body, the physical symptoms, and I'm sure that there were some, you know, other side effects as well. I've been dealing with for the last six months. And finally, thankfully, prayerfully, God answered my prayers. I did not have to have surgery. this was not, medically indicated. That was really great. And so I went back to my doctor and I said, okay, just this one prescription of these, of these two, you know, medically indicated hormones. Can I get off of these? Can we, can we treat the symptoms in some other way? And had I not gone back and actually asked about it, the original prescribing indication would have left me on this birth control regimen of like 17 different hormones probably for the rest of my life. Right. Unless, in the future, you know, I wanted to have children and all of that. And in talking with my doctor, the amount of women who go in for various issues and even at a very young age who are prescribed birth control and hormones that absolutely have an effect on their body. I was only on two hormones for six months. And some of those changes and effects were very profound. And thankfully, about six weeks ago, I got off of all of that and, and I Cannot tell you the difference in how I feel now compared to being on just that one medication. And that's just, you know, that's just my own experience and anecdotal. But the amount of medication that's being prescribed just to treat symptoms that then have side effects, that then you need to treat the side effects and other things that also have an impact and known side effects. I mean, if you listen to some of these commercials, it's like, you know, and if you're experiencing, all of these kinds of negative thoughts and you're dealing with, you know, all of these things, and it can possibly lead to, you know, heart complications and death and all of those other things. But, hey, you know, this one symptom that you're experiencing, this. This might help you. Is that really how we should be dealing with physical pain? You know, there's something like fibroids are a. Are a serious, actual medical issue. But when we're talking about mental health, when we're talking about things like distress, unresolved grief, destructive choices, isolation, guilt, or, a life ordered around false gods, are we wanting to just throw medicine at it, or are we wanting to have an underlying biblical response?
People try to numb or control emotional pain with fake methods
There are counterfeit methods of reclaiming ourselves. And, Devin, go ahead and extend this, just a couple minutes because I want to finish this. counterfeit methods of reclaiming ourselves. People try to numb or control emotional pain. Not just physical pain, emotional pain in countless ways. With alcohol, drugs, sexual behavior and deviancy, over consumption of food, over consumption of material things, status, constant work, if you're workaholic, social media attention, political power, like we've discussed, physical pain, like what Nancy Mace is suggesting that she is doing, perpetual reinvention. You have to somehow reclaim your identity. And these approaches provide sensation or distraction or maybe a feeling of temporary control but not ultimately restoration. And so the biblical worldview rejects the idea that we heal our emotions by inventing a new self. We don't ultimately own ourselves because we are gods, and therefore we can't reclaim ourselves as though personal Autonomy were salvation. First Corinthians 6 says, you are not your own. You were bought with a price. And the Bible also says that there is freedom in truth, and knowing the truth will set you free. So Christianity doesn't tell us to search deeper within ourselves and our fallen humanity and, and manufacture a more satisfying identity that, you know, is bound up in tatted, sleeves on our arms. It tells us to die to the false self and find our identity in Christ. And the Bible. Never pretends that pain is not real or that this is easily resolved. It's not as simple as saying, you know, wow, well, the truth will set me free. Okay, thanks. I'm good. No, we have to openly deal with our pain. David openly lamented before God, Job, if you've ever read the book of Job, he grieved a devastating loss, many devastating losses. Peter confronted the guilt of denying Christ. He felt guilty. Why? Because he actually had sinned. And that's true guilt. We can also deal with false guilt. and we need to confront the truth. Paul endured suffering that he couldn't escape. And Christ himself was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, as the Bible describes him. But Scripture directs pain somewhere to tell the truth about it. Biblical lament brings suffering honestly before God rather than covering it up with distraction or reinvention. And it distinguishes suffering from sin. Not all pain is caused by personal wrongdoing. I mean, you can get in a car accident and feel pain. But where guilt is legitimate, the answer is, is recognition and repentance, not endless self affirmation or reinvention. We receive forgiveness through Christ. The Gospel does not deny guilt, it provides atonement for it. That is a very completely different way to resolve sin. Instead of ignoring it, covering it up, covering the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and some of those things that are bound up by guilt. The Gospel does not deny guilt, it provides atonement for it. And we are called to live within Christian community. We're commanded to bear one another's burdens, not process every crisis alone before an online audience or just to chase the clicks. We are supposed to also be grounded in our identity in Christ. Careers, relationships, bodies, health, public approval, all that changes. We all get older, we deal with things. Christ doesn't change. Psalm 147 says, he heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds. And again, Jon 8 says, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. So we need to pursue truth and we need to recognize the difference between genuine physical pain that may need medical intervention versus spiritual pain and emotional loss and grief and some of those heart issues that can only be address through repentance and seeking the truth of the Lord. I mean, I'm no stranger to, you know, losing a lot of, a lot of my platform and opportunity. I lost my law license for three years and I didn't, that wasn't easy. But the reason, the only reason that I didn't spiral and never took medication for depression or anxiety or any of those things was because I went into all of those things knowing and purposefully saying, okay, if God is going to allow lawfare and he's going to allow me to, you know, lose my law license, then it must be true that the next thing that God has for me, I don't need a law license. And you know what? Not one opportunity over that three year suspension I've ever had to turn down that God has wanted me to do, or any opportunity at all but saying, oh, well, you know, sorry, I can't do that because lawfare, no, God has, not only given me more, but has expanded my ministry. And I believe it's because I've been faithful to him. But you have to know whose you are first. And your identity has to be bound up in Christ alone. Then you can get through all of the trials and all of the negative emotions and all of the things that life hits us with. So I hope and I pray that Nancy Mace doesn't turn to identity in her new YouTube show, or her tattoos are feeling pain, but she turns to the Lord and repents. So we can take a break here, but I want you to know that you will know the truth if you turn to the Lord. And the truth will always set you free. 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 exist. 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.netforward/give. That's afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
President Trump defends his move to cut back South Korea military exercises
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. We're getting to some of the headlines this morning. this coming from the Washington Post. Trump defends his move to cut back US South Korea military exercises. So, a day after attributing the decision to a good relationship with North Korea, President Trump also tied the move to South Korea's refusal to help with the Strait of Hormuz. So, for more on this, let's welcome in Scott Eulinger, who's a former CIA officer. And Scott, for once, the opening question isn't about Iran, but it is about the Strait of Hormuz. So kind of tie these together for us.
Scott Uehlinger: It's a really interesting development, and it's not exactly what people think it is. President Trump's announcement is, is basically he's addressing a problem that has existed in South Korea for about a year now. And he's finally doing it. South Korea's got some real problems. The new, president, who's been there for about a year, is, ah, a member of the, the Democratic Party of Korea, which has been, according to some people that I follow, has been really infiltrated by the Chinese Communist Party. So these guys are, not a big, big Trump fans. And they are being, they have been being overly friendly with China and it is becoming an increasing security concern. So this latest lack of support for the, United States in Iran is just the latest symptom in an ongoing problem. They're not supporting us because a lot of them are pseudo communists. And Trump knows this. And it hasn't really been dealt with. It hasn't even really been covered by the press. So what he's doing is he's citing, he's citing North Korea, his good relationship with North Korea. Okay, that's fine, but that's kind of a red herring. But what he's really doing is he's addressing the problem of South Korea not being supportive of the United States in the same way that he called out countries in Naito years ago that weren't supporting NATO financially. So it's a similar situation. the United States has been drawing much closer to, to the Philippines in particular, Taiwan, Japan, obviously we have a very good relationship with. And those countries are rather alarmed at what has been going on in South Korea. And so President Trump is doing, dealing with this by telling South Korea that, okay, you know, we're not going to do as big exercise this way. But, and that's what everyone thinks it's about. But the real message to Korean, South Korean leadership is shape up and stop being so friendly to the Chinese communists because we have leverage in the form of, you know, 40,000 U.S. troops in South Korea.
Jenna Ellis: And, and this doesn't surprise me that, you know, the media isn't picking up on what the actual. I mean, they tend to, just go where they can criticize Trump for anything, rather than following. Yeah, following the strategy. And so, Trump's critics are arguing essentially that, you know, don't reward King Kim Jong Un before he gives you anything. But Trump's argument, seems to be as you've described it. That's persuasive.
Scott Uehlinger: Right? It's not. This is not right. He's not. Well, he's not right. It's like classic misdirection. But it's like he's being very diplomatically astute. Like he's using, he's using North Korea as the red herring. I have a good relationship with them, and we do have an improved relationship with them. But this is not a move that favors North Korea as much as it is a move that is basically scolding South Korea because you also have to, especially the Asian mentality. You know, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, have been doing a lot of, good things with the United States over the last few years. Philippines is even negotiating, started negotiating, returning a US Military presence to the Philippines, which existed for, you know, 75 years and finished 25 years ago, like Clark Airfield in the Philippines and Subic Bay for the Navy, so that even the Philippines is afraid of China enough that they're starting to negotiate like that. And China or, the Philippines and Japan don't want to see. Really? Why should Trump treat South Korea as well as he treats Japan and the Philippines when South Korea is doing things like sucking up to Communist China, which they are, in fact doing. And so this way he's keeping faith with our really good allies, Japan, or, you know, Japan really good ally, growing ally, the Philippines and Taiwan. And at the same time, it's a shot across the bow of the South Korean government that says, okay, look, you guys had better start reforming and getting with the program, you see. So people have to remember South Korea is not, this is not an, age old democracy. Democracy, in South Korea started in 1987. So this is a new country in terms of that kind of thing. And so, you know, they need to be, they need to be dealt with in a firm manner because there was a lot of election fraud and there are a lot of accusations in the Asian American community about this government, the, past president of South Korea, who had declared a state of emergency and then less than 24 hours later recanted it, is still in prison, in bad health, and he's basically dying. And the South Korean government refuses to release a dying ex president from his prison cell. So that kind of shows you what the present South Korean government, how they're thinking, and Trump sees that and is reacting to it.
Jenna Ellis: Wow, it's really fascinating. And so what is, China's likely response here? I mean, they're one of South Korea's most important trading partners. But how much leverage, or maybe, you know, economic dependence, on Beijing actually give the CCP over South Korean foreign policy?
Scott Uehlinger: Well, I mean, like I said, South Korea used to be, you know, up until, let's say a year ago, was, was, was, you know, despite the trade, like we have a lot of trade with China. But we, we, you know, we, we call out problems as they are diplomatically. And South Korea was kind of doing the same. You know, they, Their relationship was, you know, similar to, let's say, the US Relationship with China. But since the new, president, Lee came in, last year, they have been, they have been slow. Like, they've been getting much more friendly with China, overly friendly in it from the point of view of Japan, the United States, the Philippines, and, there's been like, new human rights problems. And like I said, a lot of Asian, Asian American experts who have been. Who really closely follow Korean, politics have been increasingly alarmed at what this government is trying to do. So it's like, you know, it's basically like the way, you know, let's say Mamdani has captured NewSong York City. You know, it's like a similar thing going on in South Korea. And so the government is changing and, is not, you know, being. Is not getting with the program of, you know, being a traditional U.S. ally. And that is what. And it's a very slowly evolving situation. But Trump has let it go on for about a year. But this is kind of a warning. Okay. You know, you can be. We, can pressure you as well. And then, and then the cherry on top is that he says, oh, because I have such a great relationship with North Korea, which is kind of funny. And, and gets. And gets further, perhaps motivates the new South Korean government to start watching their P's and Q's.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Trump's argument seems to be that America can't continue providing these enormous security guarantees around the world while our supposed allies decline to help us when we need them. So is this overall, I mean, is it just isolated more to this instance, or is this, and Trump trying to fundamentally change the nature of the American alliance system?
Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, I think. I mean, this is another part of. He's fundamentally trying to change it, which is a good thing. So, you know, I mean, we recently had, there's a defense pact now signed between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. And, I was on Arabic, ah, tv, talking about it. And of course, if you look at it through, like, the globalist lens, and they tend to do that. They're like, oh, well, you know, is the United States going to be angry that this, this indicates maybe a loss of faith in the United States? Why is Saudi Arabia piling up the Turkey?
Scott Ewlinger: President Trump tweets about withdrawing troops from Asia
But ironically. But Trump tweets about it, and he's happy about it because that is the way to be. In other words, he's like, I congratulate these countries that they are working together to assure their own defense. Because the unwritten part is the United States is getting sick and tired of doing this. So in other words, good. Good luck with that because we plan on reducing our footprint overseas. So ironically, despite the fact we have the ongo, conflict with Iran, Trump is actively trying to change, the way the United States does business and United States military does business and, you know, basically withdrawing more troops. And if he can do that and at the same time make a political point to South Korea, then that's all the better for the United States. So it's. This is very much in keeping with the make America like, you know, America first kind of philosophy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. I mean, this is right within Trump's wheelhouse, and President Trump saying that there's asymmetry here going, why is America, helping all of our supposed allies? And then we don't really get anything in return. And so, where do you see this then headed? especially while, you know, we're not just in a time of peaceful negotiations necessarily. you know, this is dealing with the greater question mark of the resolution of the Iran conflict.
Scott Uehlinger: Well, like I said, he ties everything in, together in kind of a sharp manner. So, for instance. So he also, he basically threw out a nice compliment to North Korea. Right. So Kim Jong Un will be very happy about that and will be, like, less inclined to cause trouble, which is good, because right now the carrier George Washington has left Sasebo Japan and is going to the Middle east to relieve the Abraham Lincoln. And so for the first time in a while, there will be no U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific. And so his. Trump's timing is good with this because in other words, he sort of, if there was any potential problem with North Korea that I think has gone away for the next six months or more. And, and by being somewhat forthright with. By being forthright with South Korea, China sees that what's going on? And China is aware, okay, Trump knows our game with infiltrating South Korea. And so it just kind of puts him on notice, kind of like, okay, look, dad is home, he sees what you're doing, and he's going to be leaving the house for a little while, but he knows what you're up to. And so this will actually, further, stabilize the situation, I think, in Asia as, the ship goes to, Iran.
Jenna Ellis: Well, I nominate Scott Eulinger for the next press secretary, because the way that you are Articulating this makes a lot of sense. And I think the average midterm voter, whether Democrat or Republican, isn't putting this all together in the same way that you are because of the mainstream media, I think purposefully losing the plot and not really, presenting Trump's argument fairly. Obviously they like to put up strawman, but this makes a lot of sense. So we'll see where we go from here. But again, Scott Ewlinger, really appreciate it. You can follow him on X and we will be right back with more.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
M.
Jenna Ellis: 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 250 and say the keyword baby. That's 250 baby or [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
There are concerns that President Trump may be engaging in insider trading
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there are concerns now of course from the mainstream media that Trump is perhaps insider trading. And there is a great piece in the Blaze, that says if Trump is insider trading he's terrible at it. So let's welcome in tho Bishop who is the comms director for the Mises Institute. And ah, though what's going on here and why are people claiming that Trump may be insider trading?
Tho Bishop : Yes, Jim. Well you know, Trump has definitely been very, or there has been a lot of reports about various aspects of Trump's businesses, Trump's family dealing with different, you know, business deals or in this case in particular, stock moves, very high volumes. And of course people are pointing that like oh well, you know, trading on inside information, etc. Etc. I thought the blazer part was very interesting. Kind of just looking at the actual performance of the trades rather than the volume of the trades and showing that, you know, particularly relative to say, the performance of Nancy Pelosi. he certainly can learn a thing or two from. From the former speaker there. but I do think that there is something more deeper to this where the concerns over this, each side can have their own examples. this has become something that each side can kind of use against various figures on, depending on what side of the aisle is the enemy at that time. I think that goes to a much broader problem which is the reality of which politics can shape markets and just the broadening lack of public trust in public officials generally. And when you start from that foundation, then it is very easy to make very broad assumptions of corruption, et cetera, some of which might be more accurate than others. And I think this is more along the lines of that kind of deeper zeitgeist in terms of how political officials are viewed broadly more than necessarily about the actual accounting of the profit loss statements of the president. stock moves which are done by an independent entity. Right. There are some safeguards there, but, I think it speaks more to that problem than it is what exactly is going on in terms of his investment portfolio.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I agree with that completely because we've seen criticism, from everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Byron Donalds, who may be the Republican nominee for Florida governor after tonight, about insider trading, about ethics concerns, in Congress. And in fact, you know, there's been repeated calls that that members of Congress shouldn't be stock trading at all while they're in office because of, you know, potential, ah, knowledge just while they're on the job. And so, you know, overall, where is the public confidence with this? And should a lack of trust in you know, some of these officials who are clearly in some way shape or form getting enriched while in office instead just being public servants, should that drive the policy around this?
Tho Bishop : I know there has been attempts in the past. I remember the Stock act, was kind of a first attempt to address this issue. I do think it is interesting and I don't think entirely invalid, some of the arguments. I remember Dan Crenshaw famously making this argument, not that he was the most compelling, figure for this about, you know, particularly at the congressional level, you know, how basically. Oh, well, you know, if we can't inside trade the cost of living in D.C. for anyone who's not already extremely wealthy. I don't think that is necessarily the best argument to pitch to the public, particularly in a high inflationary environment.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, they can afford $20 burritos. We can't. Yeah.
Tho Bishop : But I do think that it is an example of. There's a variety of. I think these, broadly we can call them m. Populist issues, you know, data centers, very different sort of category, but I think similar to that. And I'm not trying to equate, you know, the policy, you know, solvency of all these as equal, but I do think there's a real sense of. A broad sense of the need for some sort of, let's call it civil reform to address this issue. though, again, I think a big part of this that is often missed in the conversation is the issue that Washington itself has the power and has the authority to dictate decisions, often by a small group of people. Again, particularly at the congressional level, we do not really legislate properly. But the extent to which a handful of people can have market swinging power over something claimed to be the freest markets in the world, and that it is something that the political class can exploit, regardless, depending on different layers of that, I think speaks to a broader problem with the American economy as a whole. But I think the reform aspect of it is something that would be. If I was running on a populist campaign, I think attacking that issue is something that scores well above the board. And, so I am interested to see if that is picked up as an effective lever in the future. But again, there is definitely something that. This populist sentiment on both left and right, that manifests itself in a variety of ways. I think that is very there in terms of just the deeper distrust of the Washington political class.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I do as well. And I think, hopefully some of these reforms that are suggested would be supporting one uniform standard, rather than, deciding which specific trades might be suspicious based on whose name is on the account or, you know, what one individual media outlet might want to report about Trump that they wouldn't necessarily care about with, you know, Chuck Schumer, or vice versa if it's a conservative outlet. And so it seems like overall there. There is a problem that needs to be addressed and there is certainly a public trust and confidence issue that, needs to be addressed. But there also is a. A political and politicizing question as well of who's reporting what and when, based on the R or D after their name and I could see, you know, a lot of this, particularly with Trump, being something that, you know, could lead to a third impeachment, over, you know, virtually nothing, if, if Democrats end up with control of the House after the midterms. So, you know, how important is it for the policy to be a, an actual standard?
Tho Bishop : Well, I think trying to find a proper policy fix is difficult because like one of the go to is right, is like, okay, you have to have a blind trust, you know, you have to have someone else handle everything. A complete fire line. but, but of course, you know, that same example exists for PACs versus official campaigns. And if anyone thinks big boy politics, that that fire line is devoutly followed by people in the political realm, you know, I've got a bridge to sell you. And so, you know, we already know this really doesn't work in Washington. you know, I don't know how you can possibly build a wall tall enough to avoid the natural way that knowledge gets out within D.C. and the natural self interest of people and the sort of, which, make up the halls of power right now. I almost kind of think that the other way might be better is having more transparency on political officials in their moves. So they give more examples of like the Pelosi, stock track, algorithms out there. But I do, but again, I think this is part of the larger problem, and I think it's something that is broadly systemic within the American political system as a whole, is that we know there's a problem. The actual fundamental roots of the problem are very deep. And you know, it's all about the axis of Washington's broader control. And so we try to create solutions that deal with the symptoms, which often I think are more facades to try to distract from that root cause rather than they are anything that meaningfully makes a difference to why people are concerned and upset. If the American population was, if the American public felt that Washington were being good stewards of the economy, if everyone was feeling a, level of economic prosperity, if that anxiety wasn't there, you didn't have increasing tensions between perceptions of have and have nots, whether, that's generationally, whether that's regionally, you know, Rust Belt America versus Silicon Valley, et cetera, if you had a truly thriving American economy, I think the concern over this particular issue would be much lower. I think this as a talking point, really comes to the forefront when you have the combination of a very polarized society politically and an economically anxious, society broadly. and so Again, I'm a little skeptical that there's some sort of legislation that one, that Congress would actually enact, but two that would really solve these things. but again, I think the more fundamental issues are something that I'm even less optimistic about being solved in the long run.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I completely agree with you as well that if there was more confidence in the way that you know, both parties are handling the economic issues, then there might not be as much public distrust on, you know, all of the other levels.
Economic issues are a main issue heading into the midterms
So let's talk about that, that for a moment. with some of these economic concerns, I mean, I mentioned the whole, you know, $20 burrito, situation and you know, there's been a lot of discussion over affordability. I think that's, that's been and will be a main issue heading into the midterms. there's been discussion of the, the younger generations turning to socialism as, as and socialist candidates as possibly kind of rebelling against what they perceive as, you know, a lack of dealing with inflation, dealing with prices. And I don't honestly see the GOP having great messaging on this. Certainly none of the, you know, podcast to stand, commentators and you know, the social media, people who are just kind of arguing amongst themselves. so what in, in your view, where does the GOP need to get to in either reality, or at least in messaging to, on the economy to have a solid presentation before November?
Tho Bishop : You know, it's a very difficult, I don't know what the political fix is in the short term because as long as you've got, you know, gas that's close to $4, as long as, you know, there are certain self inflicted wounds, you know, people can order, can try to argue that the cost benefit analysis in terms of, you know, national security, whatever, but the reality is, is that, you know, there's been major moves made in the last two years that have hurt, affordability. Not all of it is necessarily inflation in the proper sense. but you know, tariffs in the Iran war have short term economic consequences. And the argument for both was always in the long run. And you know, you know, maybe that ends up being the case at the end of the day, but short term those economic issues are there. The other side of it though is that where the inflation aspect really comes in is that inflation is a natural byproduct of spending and our debt is about to hit $40 trillion, which is absolutely insane. We've had one of the largest, deficit months, in record histories, payment on interest is higher than it's ever been before. out of curiosity, I look back, like in 2012, the congressional. The CBO estimates for, the debt would be today was 16 trillion. I mean, we're almost 150% more than what Congress expected a little over a decade ago. And the problem is, until you address the spending problem, you can change Fed chairs, you can talk everything you want about monetary policy, you can even address some of these things, the issue in terms of tariffs and energy prices. But as long as spending is out of control, inflation is going to be up. But we've been dealing with inflation that is. That is remarkably high. I mean, we're talking about, you know, well above the Fed's target rate for over half a decade. And that's a really bad inflationary environment. And until you address spending, you can't waive this away. And I don't think there's any real support on either side. And so given that inflation is particularly regressive and particularly hurts younger generations, you know, I think we're just going to keep seeing a. Similar to the insider trading issue is that whoever is in power is going to get blamed for the economic anxiety which is going to lead voters to have a broader range of tolerance for political opinions that are increasingly out of the mainstream. I'm really terrified for that. Looks like when it comes from the left, there's certain aspects on the right I don't particularly want either.
Scott Uehlinger: But.
Tho Bishop : But I. Until you're serious about spending, m. Which is not a presidential issue, it's a legislative issue, I don't know where the easy release valve is when it comes to these real broader systemic economic issues.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. Well, and on the flip side, though, I mean, if there's no easy answer for, Republicans and, you know, capitalists, there aren't really actual easy answers, of course, for the socialists, because we know that socialism doesn't work. But the difference is, of course, you know, they can make all these kinds of campaign promises and, undermine the economy and also not really have to necessarily deliver on what they're promising. And so, you know, where do you see the messaging, distinction here and what's perhaps taking some of these young voters in?
Tho Bishop : Well, I do. I think there's a large element on the specific candidates in some of these races. I think whoever can, be particularly entertaining has a massive advantage in politics. I mean, Mandani, for all of his bad ideas, was a remarkably charismatic and tech savvy candidate, which I think made him bigger than simply his ideas in that regard. but I do think that the extent to which the Democrat response from particularly the younger generation has manifested itself in primary wins, to the extent that that helps freeze people in the quote unquote center, does kind of create this interesting situation where it's more gridlock than it is a response to the economic environment. which is one thing that might kind of midterm dynamics and things like that in terms of the explicit political element, more less robust in terms of shakeups than it might otherwise have been in a different political system, where people feel these economic anxieties, but it is true though is that a lot of what the left wants in terms of centralizing government control, the payoff doesn't necessarily need to be the well being to get that. And so that is a concerning aspect on their end.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and unfortunately I agree with you too that you know, if people are entertaining, often then it's that entertainment value that gets them a lot of push and a lot of popularity instead of actually their message. And I really wish that politics weren't like that. But you know, this is the age of digital media and so it just shows that those who actually have a good message need to be able to deliver it and be package it in a way that resonates with people who are unfortunately looking for some of that entertainment value. But though Bishop really appreciate your commentary, you can follow him on X as well as the Mises Institute. And as always you can reach me and my team Jenna fr.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.
American Family Radio thanks sponsor, Preborn for supporting pro life advocacy
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 £250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you, and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
Today is Florida's primary day; make sure you vote early
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, August 18th. So for those of us in the great state of Florida, today is our primary day. So if you have not early voted, make sure that you get out and vote. there are a lot of key offices at stake, including who is going to succeed Governor Ron DeSantis. And so the Democrat primary is, pretty much already wrapped up with David, Jolly being the likely nominee, who's actually a former Republican congressman, which is very interesting, and running as an incredibly extreme leftist, not even a moderate, which, you know, if he were smart, he would try to appeal to some of the voters by at least suggesting that he's not going to be, basically the Nikki Freed or Kamala Harris brand of Democrat, but, not going so well on that side. And this, has been on the Republican side, one of the most petty and contentious primaries, I have ever seen. And there are a lot of people across the state and out of state who are so glad that today is August 18th, and I'm one of them, so that we can hopefully put this primary, behind us and turn, to better policy. so, yeah, we will bring you, those results tomorrow morning. And who on the Republican side, is going to win that nomination. And then we will see what the polls are saying in the head to head for the general.
Former congresswoman Nancy Mace revealed she had nine tattoos after leaving office
but let's turn to something that, I think is a really timely message for all of us. And this is when political power ultimately becomes your identity and how we need to deal with pain and loss. so Nancy Mace, the former congresswoman, is completely spiraling on social media. She's trending. And she reminds me of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who claim they want privacy and they want privacy so much and please don't talk about me that we're going to go on this massive media tour to tell everybody and generate all of these headlines talking about how much we don't want any headlines. Right. this is exactly what Nancy Mace is doing by revealing that she had nine tattoos she reportedly got, during a turbulent period in her personal and professional life. She revealed them and then complained that everybody was talking about them and then said that she's going to respond to all of the criticism so that people would stop talking about it on a new, YouTube show, which, you know, so I'm calling her Nancy Markle basically. but the deeper issue here is not about the, the tattoos themselves with which I find sleeves on women just absolutely gross and disgusting. I don't think that, ah, any woman who is feminine should ever, do that. she looks kind of like a leftist, now, and she kind of fits into the category visually. Ah, and this is not what the Bible describes, for femininity. But deeper than that, she said that she, quote, wanted to feel pain and described her rationale for getting the tattoos as a way to, quote, reclaim her body and identity. So now, after giving up her congressional seat to run unsuccessfully for governor of South Carolina, she appears to be publicly unraveling and desperately, desperately searching for a new identity and platform. And instead of simply, you know, going and doing something productive in society, a lot of these members of Congress, when they no longer have media, they're no longer newsmakers, they're no longer commenting. They just shift to trying to do YouTube shows. Marjorie Taylor Green is off, you know, doing some show called At Home with Marjorie Taylor Green, as if, you know, she's now the Barefoot Contessa of Georgia. And, and these are people who cannot, cannot give up political power and are wanting and craving that type of attention. So I'm not trying to attempt to diagnose, some of her clear mental health issues, but the concerning issue here is Nancy Mace's own explanation. Deliberately seeking physical pain to cope with emotional pain and obvious, loss of political power. And so when someone says, I need to feel pain, that shouldn't just become celebrity gossip and we shouldn't just, you know, make fun of her. It should cause us to ask what kind of pain she's attempting to escape and why our, ah, culture has so few meaningful answers for it. Because political power is an absolutely terrible identity. It can and often doesn't. I saw this so often when I was in D.C. and I still see it among the, people that are, you know, surrounding Trump, the leftists, Republican across the board, even when they're Republicans and when the causes being advanced are good. Public office provides attention, influence, status invitations, the cocktail parties, you know, alt cameras, and a feeling that one matters. And so when those things disappear, the person whose identity was built around them may suddenly ask, who am I now? And I need a new identity. And this is the same thing. I've talked with, my good friend Jeremy Stallnacker, who, does the Mighty Oaks foundation. And it's the same thing as a lot of these veterans, who have to leave the military because, they're wounded or they simply, they're discharged for whatever reason. And suddenly they don't have a chain of command. They don't have that same purpose. And so they become extremely depressed without goals. And they're. They wonder who they are because their entire identity was wrapped up in being in the military. And that's a very, you know, good, goal service to our country. But, but the point is that jobs and vocations and seasons of life can expire, and political power always expires, especially in America. This is why term limits are a very good thing. Because then, you know, we get a turnover of people, and political power shouldn't just be, achieved for its own sake. We want statesmen. But when that identity expires and then audiences move on and that identity is lost, then suddenly people don't know what to do with themselves. And the Bible teaches something radically different. Because Matthew 16 says, and, Jesus said, for what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? If losing an office, losing a job, losing a season of your life causes you to lose yourself, then that position was no longer simply your vocation, it became your identity and possibly even your idol. And so Mesa's comments also point to something larger than, you know, just her, that Americans overall are profoundly in a mental health crisis. And studies show that more than one in five American adults, approximately 59 million people, and this is according to the National Institute of Mintle Health, are living with what they profess to be or have been diagnosed with a mental illness. And that in 2024 alone, 14.3 million adults reported serious thoughts of suicide and 2.2 million reported attempting suicide. Depression prevalence among adolescents and adults increased over 60% over roughly a decade. What does this tell us about the state of our Mental health in America, we have more therapy, more prescriptions, more public discussion about mental health than ever. Everyone is dealing, you know, with anxiety. They can't, they can't even focus unless, you know, they have, some of their coping mechanisms. And yet we appear as a culture to increasingly be unable to answer some of the most basic questions that every human being has to answer in their lifetime. Who am I? Why am I here? And what do I do with negative emotions? Guilt, pain, rejection, loss. I mean, these are things that all human beings have a common experience with. So the studies show that more than 1 in 10American adults took prescription medication for depression in 2023. And I'm not suggesting that no medication can ever be medically appropriate or for some people, life saving. But medication is often treated and over prescribed, and it's treated as the entire answer rather than one possible component of care. And so just anecdotally, for example, I was diagnosed about six months ago with fibroids. Ah. And had a lot of pain associated with it. You know, went to the doctor, ended up having to have an mri, dealt, with a lot of, pretty severe pain. My initial doctor wanted to just prescribe, but birth control, which has a wide variety of hormones, right. And I said, is this really necessary? And we ended up. I ended up on a medication with just two hormones. The effect that, that had on my body, the physical symptoms, and I'm sure that there were some, you know, other side effects as well. I've been dealing with for the last six months. And finally, thankfully, prayerfully, God answered my prayers. I did not have to have surgery. this was not, medically indicated. That was really great. And so I went back to my doctor and I said, okay, just this one prescription of these, of these two, you know, medically indicated hormones. Can I get off of these? Can we, can we treat the symptoms in some other way? And had I not gone back and actually asked about it, the original prescribing indication would have left me on this birth control regimen of like 17 different hormones probably for the rest of my life. Right. Unless, in the future, you know, I wanted to have children and all of that. And in talking with my doctor, the amount of women who go in for various issues and even at a very young age who are prescribed birth control and hormones that absolutely have an effect on their body. I was only on two hormones for six months. And some of those changes and effects were very profound. And thankfully, about six weeks ago, I got off of all of that and, and I Cannot tell you the difference in how I feel now compared to being on just that one medication. And that's just, you know, that's just my own experience and anecdotal. But the amount of medication that's being prescribed just to treat symptoms that then have side effects, that then you need to treat the side effects and other things that also have an impact and known side effects. I mean, if you listen to some of these commercials, it's like, you know, and if you're experiencing, all of these kinds of negative thoughts and you're dealing with, you know, all of these things, and it can possibly lead to, you know, heart complications and death and all of those other things. But, hey, you know, this one symptom that you're experiencing, this. This might help you. Is that really how we should be dealing with physical pain? You know, there's something like fibroids are a. Are a serious, actual medical issue. But when we're talking about mental health, when we're talking about things like distress, unresolved grief, destructive choices, isolation, guilt, or, a life ordered around false gods, are we wanting to just throw medicine at it, or are we wanting to have an underlying biblical response?
People try to numb or control emotional pain with fake methods
There are counterfeit methods of reclaiming ourselves. And, Devin, go ahead and extend this, just a couple minutes because I want to finish this. counterfeit methods of reclaiming ourselves. People try to numb or control emotional pain. Not just physical pain, emotional pain in countless ways. With alcohol, drugs, sexual behavior and deviancy, over consumption of food, over consumption of material things, status, constant work, if you're workaholic, social media attention, political power, like we've discussed, physical pain, like what Nancy Mace is suggesting that she is doing, perpetual reinvention. You have to somehow reclaim your identity. And these approaches provide sensation or distraction or maybe a feeling of temporary control but not ultimately restoration. And so the biblical worldview rejects the idea that we heal our emotions by inventing a new self. We don't ultimately own ourselves because we are gods, and therefore we can't reclaim ourselves as though personal Autonomy were salvation. First Corinthians 6 says, you are not your own. You were bought with a price. And the Bible also says that there is freedom in truth, and knowing the truth will set you free. So Christianity doesn't tell us to search deeper within ourselves and our fallen humanity and, and manufacture a more satisfying identity that, you know, is bound up in tatted, sleeves on our arms. It tells us to die to the false self and find our identity in Christ. And the Bible. Never pretends that pain is not real or that this is easily resolved. It's not as simple as saying, you know, wow, well, the truth will set me free. Okay, thanks. I'm good. No, we have to openly deal with our pain. David openly lamented before God, Job, if you've ever read the book of Job, he grieved a devastating loss, many devastating losses. Peter confronted the guilt of denying Christ. He felt guilty. Why? Because he actually had sinned. And that's true guilt. We can also deal with false guilt. and we need to confront the truth. Paul endured suffering that he couldn't escape. And Christ himself was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, as the Bible describes him. But Scripture directs pain somewhere to tell the truth about it. Biblical lament brings suffering honestly before God rather than covering it up with distraction or reinvention. And it distinguishes suffering from sin. Not all pain is caused by personal wrongdoing. I mean, you can get in a car accident and feel pain. But where guilt is legitimate, the answer is, is recognition and repentance, not endless self affirmation or reinvention. We receive forgiveness through Christ. The Gospel does not deny guilt, it provides atonement for it. That is a very completely different way to resolve sin. Instead of ignoring it, covering it up, covering the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and some of those things that are bound up by guilt. The Gospel does not deny guilt, it provides atonement for it. And we are called to live within Christian community. We're commanded to bear one another's burdens, not process every crisis alone before an online audience or just to chase the clicks. We are supposed to also be grounded in our identity in Christ. Careers, relationships, bodies, health, public approval, all that changes. We all get older, we deal with things. Christ doesn't change. Psalm 147 says, he heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds. And again, Jon 8 says, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. So we need to pursue truth and we need to recognize the difference between genuine physical pain that may need medical intervention versus spiritual pain and emotional loss and grief and some of those heart issues that can only be address through repentance and seeking the truth of the Lord. I mean, I'm no stranger to, you know, losing a lot of, a lot of my platform and opportunity. I lost my law license for three years and I didn't, that wasn't easy. But the reason, the only reason that I didn't spiral and never took medication for depression or anxiety or any of those things was because I went into all of those things knowing and purposefully saying, okay, if God is going to allow lawfare and he's going to allow me to, you know, lose my law license, then it must be true that the next thing that God has for me, I don't need a law license. And you know what? Not one opportunity over that three year suspension I've ever had to turn down that God has wanted me to do, or any opportunity at all but saying, oh, well, you know, sorry, I can't do that because lawfare, no, God has, not only given me more, but has expanded my ministry. And I believe it's because I've been faithful to him. But you have to know whose you are first. And your identity has to be bound up in Christ alone. Then you can get through all of the trials and all of the negative emotions and all of the things that life hits us with. So I hope and I pray that Nancy Mace doesn't turn to identity in her new YouTube show, or her tattoos are feeling pain, but she turns to the Lord and repents. So we can take a break here, but I want you to know that you will know the truth if you turn to the Lord. And the truth will always set you free. 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 exist. 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.netforward/give. That's afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
President Trump defends his move to cut back South Korea military exercises
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. We're getting to some of the headlines this morning. this coming from the Washington Post. Trump defends his move to cut back US South Korea military exercises. So, a day after attributing the decision to a good relationship with North Korea, President Trump also tied the move to South Korea's refusal to help with the Strait of Hormuz. So, for more on this, let's welcome in Scott Eulinger, who's a former CIA officer. And Scott, for once, the opening question isn't about Iran, but it is about the Strait of Hormuz. So kind of tie these together for us.
Scott Uehlinger: It's a really interesting development, and it's not exactly what people think it is. President Trump's announcement is, is basically he's addressing a problem that has existed in South Korea for about a year now. And he's finally doing it. South Korea's got some real problems. The new, president, who's been there for about a year, is, ah, a member of the, the Democratic Party of Korea, which has been, according to some people that I follow, has been really infiltrated by the Chinese Communist Party. So these guys are, not a big, big Trump fans. And they are being, they have been being overly friendly with China and it is becoming an increasing security concern. So this latest lack of support for the, United States in Iran is just the latest symptom in an ongoing problem. They're not supporting us because a lot of them are pseudo communists. And Trump knows this. And it hasn't really been dealt with. It hasn't even really been covered by the press. So what he's doing is he's citing, he's citing North Korea, his good relationship with North Korea. Okay, that's fine, but that's kind of a red herring. But what he's really doing is he's addressing the problem of South Korea not being supportive of the United States in the same way that he called out countries in Naito years ago that weren't supporting NATO financially. So it's a similar situation. the United States has been drawing much closer to, to the Philippines in particular, Taiwan, Japan, obviously we have a very good relationship with. And those countries are rather alarmed at what has been going on in South Korea. And so President Trump is doing, dealing with this by telling South Korea that, okay, you know, we're not going to do as big exercise this way. But, and that's what everyone thinks it's about. But the real message to Korean, South Korean leadership is shape up and stop being so friendly to the Chinese communists because we have leverage in the form of, you know, 40,000 U.S. troops in South Korea.
Jenna Ellis: And, and this doesn't surprise me that, you know, the media isn't picking up on what the actual. I mean, they tend to, just go where they can criticize Trump for anything, rather than following. Yeah, following the strategy. And so, Trump's critics are arguing essentially that, you know, don't reward King Kim Jong Un before he gives you anything. But Trump's argument, seems to be as you've described it. That's persuasive.
Scott Uehlinger: Right? It's not. This is not right. He's not. Well, he's not right. It's like classic misdirection. But it's like he's being very diplomatically astute. Like he's using, he's using North Korea as the red herring. I have a good relationship with them, and we do have an improved relationship with them. But this is not a move that favors North Korea as much as it is a move that is basically scolding South Korea because you also have to, especially the Asian mentality. You know, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, have been doing a lot of, good things with the United States over the last few years. Philippines is even negotiating, started negotiating, returning a US Military presence to the Philippines, which existed for, you know, 75 years and finished 25 years ago, like Clark Airfield in the Philippines and Subic Bay for the Navy, so that even the Philippines is afraid of China enough that they're starting to negotiate like that. And China or, the Philippines and Japan don't want to see. Really? Why should Trump treat South Korea as well as he treats Japan and the Philippines when South Korea is doing things like sucking up to Communist China, which they are, in fact doing. And so this way he's keeping faith with our really good allies, Japan, or, you know, Japan really good ally, growing ally, the Philippines and Taiwan. And at the same time, it's a shot across the bow of the South Korean government that says, okay, look, you guys had better start reforming and getting with the program, you see. So people have to remember South Korea is not, this is not an, age old democracy. Democracy, in South Korea started in 1987. So this is a new country in terms of that kind of thing. And so, you know, they need to be, they need to be dealt with in a firm manner because there was a lot of election fraud and there are a lot of accusations in the Asian American community about this government, the, past president of South Korea, who had declared a state of emergency and then less than 24 hours later recanted it, is still in prison, in bad health, and he's basically dying. And the South Korean government refuses to release a dying ex president from his prison cell. So that kind of shows you what the present South Korean government, how they're thinking, and Trump sees that and is reacting to it.
Jenna Ellis: Wow, it's really fascinating. And so what is, China's likely response here? I mean, they're one of South Korea's most important trading partners. But how much leverage, or maybe, you know, economic dependence, on Beijing actually give the CCP over South Korean foreign policy?
Scott Uehlinger: Well, I mean, like I said, South Korea used to be, you know, up until, let's say a year ago, was, was, was, you know, despite the trade, like we have a lot of trade with China. But we, we, you know, we, we call out problems as they are diplomatically. And South Korea was kind of doing the same. You know, they, Their relationship was, you know, similar to, let's say, the US Relationship with China. But since the new, president, Lee came in, last year, they have been, they have been slow. Like, they've been getting much more friendly with China, overly friendly in it from the point of view of Japan, the United States, the Philippines, and, there's been like, new human rights problems. And like I said, a lot of Asian, Asian American experts who have been. Who really closely follow Korean, politics have been increasingly alarmed at what this government is trying to do. So it's like, you know, it's basically like the way, you know, let's say Mamdani has captured NewSong York City. You know, it's like a similar thing going on in South Korea. And so the government is changing and, is not, you know, being. Is not getting with the program of, you know, being a traditional U.S. ally. And that is what. And it's a very slowly evolving situation. But Trump has let it go on for about a year. But this is kind of a warning. Okay. You know, you can be. We, can pressure you as well. And then, and then the cherry on top is that he says, oh, because I have such a great relationship with North Korea, which is kind of funny. And, and gets. And gets further, perhaps motivates the new South Korean government to start watching their P's and Q's.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Trump's argument seems to be that America can't continue providing these enormous security guarantees around the world while our supposed allies decline to help us when we need them. So is this overall, I mean, is it just isolated more to this instance, or is this, and Trump trying to fundamentally change the nature of the American alliance system?
Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, I think. I mean, this is another part of. He's fundamentally trying to change it, which is a good thing. So, you know, I mean, we recently had, there's a defense pact now signed between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. And, I was on Arabic, ah, tv, talking about it. And of course, if you look at it through, like, the globalist lens, and they tend to do that. They're like, oh, well, you know, is the United States going to be angry that this, this indicates maybe a loss of faith in the United States? Why is Saudi Arabia piling up the Turkey?
Scott Ewlinger: President Trump tweets about withdrawing troops from Asia
But ironically. But Trump tweets about it, and he's happy about it because that is the way to be. In other words, he's like, I congratulate these countries that they are working together to assure their own defense. Because the unwritten part is the United States is getting sick and tired of doing this. So in other words, good. Good luck with that because we plan on reducing our footprint overseas. So ironically, despite the fact we have the ongo, conflict with Iran, Trump is actively trying to change, the way the United States does business and United States military does business and, you know, basically withdrawing more troops. And if he can do that and at the same time make a political point to South Korea, then that's all the better for the United States. So it's. This is very much in keeping with the make America like, you know, America first kind of philosophy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. I mean, this is right within Trump's wheelhouse, and President Trump saying that there's asymmetry here going, why is America, helping all of our supposed allies? And then we don't really get anything in return. And so, where do you see this then headed? especially while, you know, we're not just in a time of peaceful negotiations necessarily. you know, this is dealing with the greater question mark of the resolution of the Iran conflict.
Scott Uehlinger: Well, like I said, he ties everything in, together in kind of a sharp manner. So, for instance. So he also, he basically threw out a nice compliment to North Korea. Right. So Kim Jong Un will be very happy about that and will be, like, less inclined to cause trouble, which is good, because right now the carrier George Washington has left Sasebo Japan and is going to the Middle east to relieve the Abraham Lincoln. And so for the first time in a while, there will be no U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific. And so his. Trump's timing is good with this because in other words, he sort of, if there was any potential problem with North Korea that I think has gone away for the next six months or more. And, and by being somewhat forthright with. By being forthright with South Korea, China sees that what's going on? And China is aware, okay, Trump knows our game with infiltrating South Korea. And so it just kind of puts him on notice, kind of like, okay, look, dad is home, he sees what you're doing, and he's going to be leaving the house for a little while, but he knows what you're up to. And so this will actually, further, stabilize the situation, I think, in Asia as, the ship goes to, Iran.
Jenna Ellis: Well, I nominate Scott Eulinger for the next press secretary, because the way that you are Articulating this makes a lot of sense. And I think the average midterm voter, whether Democrat or Republican, isn't putting this all together in the same way that you are because of the mainstream media, I think purposefully losing the plot and not really, presenting Trump's argument fairly. Obviously they like to put up strawman, but this makes a lot of sense. So we'll see where we go from here. But again, Scott Ewlinger, really appreciate it. You can follow him on X and we will be right back with more.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
M.
Jenna Ellis: 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 250 and say the keyword baby. That's 250 baby or [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
There are concerns that President Trump may be engaging in insider trading
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there are concerns now of course from the mainstream media that Trump is perhaps insider trading. And there is a great piece in the Blaze, that says if Trump is insider trading he's terrible at it. So let's welcome in tho Bishop who is the comms director for the Mises Institute. And ah, though what's going on here and why are people claiming that Trump may be insider trading?
Tho Bishop : Yes, Jim. Well you know, Trump has definitely been very, or there has been a lot of reports about various aspects of Trump's businesses, Trump's family dealing with different, you know, business deals or in this case in particular, stock moves, very high volumes. And of course people are pointing that like oh well, you know, trading on inside information, etc. Etc. I thought the blazer part was very interesting. Kind of just looking at the actual performance of the trades rather than the volume of the trades and showing that, you know, particularly relative to say, the performance of Nancy Pelosi. he certainly can learn a thing or two from. From the former speaker there. but I do think that there is something more deeper to this where the concerns over this, each side can have their own examples. this has become something that each side can kind of use against various figures on, depending on what side of the aisle is the enemy at that time. I think that goes to a much broader problem which is the reality of which politics can shape markets and just the broadening lack of public trust in public officials generally. And when you start from that foundation, then it is very easy to make very broad assumptions of corruption, et cetera, some of which might be more accurate than others. And I think this is more along the lines of that kind of deeper zeitgeist in terms of how political officials are viewed broadly more than necessarily about the actual accounting of the profit loss statements of the president. stock moves which are done by an independent entity. Right. There are some safeguards there, but, I think it speaks more to that problem than it is what exactly is going on in terms of his investment portfolio.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I agree with that completely because we've seen criticism, from everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Byron Donalds, who may be the Republican nominee for Florida governor after tonight, about insider trading, about ethics concerns, in Congress. And in fact, you know, there's been repeated calls that that members of Congress shouldn't be stock trading at all while they're in office because of, you know, potential, ah, knowledge just while they're on the job. And so, you know, overall, where is the public confidence with this? And should a lack of trust in you know, some of these officials who are clearly in some way shape or form getting enriched while in office instead just being public servants, should that drive the policy around this?
Tho Bishop : I know there has been attempts in the past. I remember the Stock act, was kind of a first attempt to address this issue. I do think it is interesting and I don't think entirely invalid, some of the arguments. I remember Dan Crenshaw famously making this argument, not that he was the most compelling, figure for this about, you know, particularly at the congressional level, you know, how basically. Oh, well, you know, if we can't inside trade the cost of living in D.C. for anyone who's not already extremely wealthy. I don't think that is necessarily the best argument to pitch to the public, particularly in a high inflationary environment.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, they can afford $20 burritos. We can't. Yeah.
Tho Bishop : But I do think that it is an example of. There's a variety of. I think these, broadly we can call them m. Populist issues, you know, data centers, very different sort of category, but I think similar to that. And I'm not trying to equate, you know, the policy, you know, solvency of all these as equal, but I do think there's a real sense of. A broad sense of the need for some sort of, let's call it civil reform to address this issue. though, again, I think a big part of this that is often missed in the conversation is the issue that Washington itself has the power and has the authority to dictate decisions, often by a small group of people. Again, particularly at the congressional level, we do not really legislate properly. But the extent to which a handful of people can have market swinging power over something claimed to be the freest markets in the world, and that it is something that the political class can exploit, regardless, depending on different layers of that, I think speaks to a broader problem with the American economy as a whole. But I think the reform aspect of it is something that would be. If I was running on a populist campaign, I think attacking that issue is something that scores well above the board. And, so I am interested to see if that is picked up as an effective lever in the future. But again, there is definitely something that. This populist sentiment on both left and right, that manifests itself in a variety of ways. I think that is very there in terms of just the deeper distrust of the Washington political class.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I do as well. And I think, hopefully some of these reforms that are suggested would be supporting one uniform standard, rather than, deciding which specific trades might be suspicious based on whose name is on the account or, you know, what one individual media outlet might want to report about Trump that they wouldn't necessarily care about with, you know, Chuck Schumer, or vice versa if it's a conservative outlet. And so it seems like overall there. There is a problem that needs to be addressed and there is certainly a public trust and confidence issue that, needs to be addressed. But there also is a. A political and politicizing question as well of who's reporting what and when, based on the R or D after their name and I could see, you know, a lot of this, particularly with Trump, being something that, you know, could lead to a third impeachment, over, you know, virtually nothing, if, if Democrats end up with control of the House after the midterms. So, you know, how important is it for the policy to be a, an actual standard?
Tho Bishop : Well, I think trying to find a proper policy fix is difficult because like one of the go to is right, is like, okay, you have to have a blind trust, you know, you have to have someone else handle everything. A complete fire line. but, but of course, you know, that same example exists for PACs versus official campaigns. And if anyone thinks big boy politics, that that fire line is devoutly followed by people in the political realm, you know, I've got a bridge to sell you. And so, you know, we already know this really doesn't work in Washington. you know, I don't know how you can possibly build a wall tall enough to avoid the natural way that knowledge gets out within D.C. and the natural self interest of people and the sort of, which, make up the halls of power right now. I almost kind of think that the other way might be better is having more transparency on political officials in their moves. So they give more examples of like the Pelosi, stock track, algorithms out there. But I do, but again, I think this is part of the larger problem, and I think it's something that is broadly systemic within the American political system as a whole, is that we know there's a problem. The actual fundamental roots of the problem are very deep. And you know, it's all about the axis of Washington's broader control. And so we try to create solutions that deal with the symptoms, which often I think are more facades to try to distract from that root cause rather than they are anything that meaningfully makes a difference to why people are concerned and upset. If the American population was, if the American public felt that Washington were being good stewards of the economy, if everyone was feeling a, level of economic prosperity, if that anxiety wasn't there, you didn't have increasing tensions between perceptions of have and have nots, whether, that's generationally, whether that's regionally, you know, Rust Belt America versus Silicon Valley, et cetera, if you had a truly thriving American economy, I think the concern over this particular issue would be much lower. I think this as a talking point, really comes to the forefront when you have the combination of a very polarized society politically and an economically anxious, society broadly. and so Again, I'm a little skeptical that there's some sort of legislation that one, that Congress would actually enact, but two that would really solve these things. but again, I think the more fundamental issues are something that I'm even less optimistic about being solved in the long run.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I completely agree with you as well that if there was more confidence in the way that you know, both parties are handling the economic issues, then there might not be as much public distrust on, you know, all of the other levels.
Economic issues are a main issue heading into the midterms
So let's talk about that, that for a moment. with some of these economic concerns, I mean, I mentioned the whole, you know, $20 burrito, situation and you know, there's been a lot of discussion over affordability. I think that's, that's been and will be a main issue heading into the midterms. there's been discussion of the, the younger generations turning to socialism as, as and socialist candidates as possibly kind of rebelling against what they perceive as, you know, a lack of dealing with inflation, dealing with prices. And I don't honestly see the GOP having great messaging on this. Certainly none of the, you know, podcast to stand, commentators and you know, the social media, people who are just kind of arguing amongst themselves. so what in, in your view, where does the GOP need to get to in either reality, or at least in messaging to, on the economy to have a solid presentation before November?
Tho Bishop : You know, it's a very difficult, I don't know what the political fix is in the short term because as long as you've got, you know, gas that's close to $4, as long as, you know, there are certain self inflicted wounds, you know, people can order, can try to argue that the cost benefit analysis in terms of, you know, national security, whatever, but the reality is, is that, you know, there's been major moves made in the last two years that have hurt, affordability. Not all of it is necessarily inflation in the proper sense. but you know, tariffs in the Iran war have short term economic consequences. And the argument for both was always in the long run. And you know, you know, maybe that ends up being the case at the end of the day, but short term those economic issues are there. The other side of it though is that where the inflation aspect really comes in is that inflation is a natural byproduct of spending and our debt is about to hit $40 trillion, which is absolutely insane. We've had one of the largest, deficit months, in record histories, payment on interest is higher than it's ever been before. out of curiosity, I look back, like in 2012, the congressional. The CBO estimates for, the debt would be today was 16 trillion. I mean, we're almost 150% more than what Congress expected a little over a decade ago. And the problem is, until you address the spending problem, you can change Fed chairs, you can talk everything you want about monetary policy, you can even address some of these things, the issue in terms of tariffs and energy prices. But as long as spending is out of control, inflation is going to be up. But we've been dealing with inflation that is. That is remarkably high. I mean, we're talking about, you know, well above the Fed's target rate for over half a decade. And that's a really bad inflationary environment. And until you address spending, you can't waive this away. And I don't think there's any real support on either side. And so given that inflation is particularly regressive and particularly hurts younger generations, you know, I think we're just going to keep seeing a. Similar to the insider trading issue is that whoever is in power is going to get blamed for the economic anxiety which is going to lead voters to have a broader range of tolerance for political opinions that are increasingly out of the mainstream. I'm really terrified for that. Looks like when it comes from the left, there's certain aspects on the right I don't particularly want either.
Scott Uehlinger: But.
Tho Bishop : But I. Until you're serious about spending, m. Which is not a presidential issue, it's a legislative issue, I don't know where the easy release valve is when it comes to these real broader systemic economic issues.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. Well, and on the flip side, though, I mean, if there's no easy answer for, Republicans and, you know, capitalists, there aren't really actual easy answers, of course, for the socialists, because we know that socialism doesn't work. But the difference is, of course, you know, they can make all these kinds of campaign promises and, undermine the economy and also not really have to necessarily deliver on what they're promising. And so, you know, where do you see the messaging, distinction here and what's perhaps taking some of these young voters in?
Tho Bishop : Well, I do. I think there's a large element on the specific candidates in some of these races. I think whoever can, be particularly entertaining has a massive advantage in politics. I mean, Mandani, for all of his bad ideas, was a remarkably charismatic and tech savvy candidate, which I think made him bigger than simply his ideas in that regard. but I do think that the extent to which the Democrat response from particularly the younger generation has manifested itself in primary wins, to the extent that that helps freeze people in the quote unquote center, does kind of create this interesting situation where it's more gridlock than it is a response to the economic environment. which is one thing that might kind of midterm dynamics and things like that in terms of the explicit political element, more less robust in terms of shakeups than it might otherwise have been in a different political system, where people feel these economic anxieties, but it is true though is that a lot of what the left wants in terms of centralizing government control, the payoff doesn't necessarily need to be the well being to get that. And so that is a concerning aspect on their end.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and unfortunately I agree with you too that you know, if people are entertaining, often then it's that entertainment value that gets them a lot of push and a lot of popularity instead of actually their message. And I really wish that politics weren't like that. But you know, this is the age of digital media and so it just shows that those who actually have a good message need to be able to deliver it and be package it in a way that resonates with people who are unfortunately looking for some of that entertainment value. But though Bishop really appreciate your commentary, you can follow him on X as well as the Mises Institute. And as always you can reach me and my team Jenna fr.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 explores the intersection of political identity and personal crisis, drawing parallels between public figures and their struggles with mental health. She discusses the case of Nancy Mace and the implications of seeking identity through political power, while also addressing the broader mental health crisis in America.
(00:00) American Family Radio thanks sponsor, Preborn for supporting pro life advocacy
(01:02) Today is Florida's primary day; make sure you vote early
(02:27) Former congresswoman Nancy Mace revealed she had nine tattoos after leaving office
(13:16) People try to numb or control emotional pain with fake methods
(20:00) President Trump defends his move to cut back South Korea military exercises
(29:10) Scott Ewlinger: President Trump tweets about withdrawing troops from Asia
(32:40) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
(34:07) There are concerns that President Trump may be engaging in insider trading
(43:53) Economic issues are a main issue heading into the midterms
Jenna explores the intersection of political identity and personal crisis, drawing parallels between public figures and their struggles with mental health. She discusses the case of Nancy Mace and the implications of seeking identity through political power, while also addressing the broader mental health crisis in America.
(00:00) American Family Radio thanks sponsor, Preborn for supporting pro life advocacy
(01:02) Today is Florida's primary day; make sure you vote early
(02:27) Former congresswoman Nancy Mace revealed she had nine tattoos after leaving office
(13:16) People try to numb or control emotional pain with fake methods
(20:00) President Trump defends his move to cut back South Korea military exercises
(29:10) Scott Ewlinger: President Trump tweets about withdrawing troops from Asia
(32:40) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
(34:07) There are concerns that President Trump may be engaging in insider trading
(43:53) Economic issues are a main issue heading into the midterms
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:
