Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection and the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: The South Carolina primary is this evening
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, August 25th. So the, South Carolina primary is this evening. And, more on that a little bit later.
Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in voting restrictions ahead of November elections
But first, President Trump scores a Supreme Court win on mail in voting restrictions before the midterms. So this coming from FOX News. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce revised mail ballot restrictions in a 6, 3 decision. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a victory victory on Monday, allowing it to enforce President Trump's election integrity executive order restricting mail in voting ahead of the November midterms. So the high court lifted an injunction that had blocked the order in 23 states that challenged it. After the administration appealed In July, the U.S. postal Service and Justice Department said they would immediately implement the revised mail in ballot, restrictions after the ruling. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, this seems like a very good thing that should have happened a lot sooner.
Gerard Filitti: It seems like a very good thing that should have happened a lot sooner. But we need to temper a little bit of caution here because this is only one of a few cases that were brought challenging, President Trump's order. And while the stay was lifted, there is still a stay in place in one of the other cases. So at best, this is still a little bit of a murky issue that the Supreme Court will need to weigh in on again before the election. So this is a temporary reprieve on one case, but it doesn't settle the issue finally.
Jenna Ellis: So is that, is that other case, ah, poised to be settled before the midterms, or are we still going to kind of be in this murky situation and looking forward to 2028.
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think we will have a settled, I think we will have the Supreme Court weigh in on that other case as well. So this case is a case brought by the states, and the Supreme Court basically said that the suit was brought prematurely because the, administration, President Trump, had not actually issued rules about the order. There was just an order. so the Supreme Court found that the injunction was premature because there was no actual regulatory, process to appeal from or to question. But, that's for the states, but on lawsuits brought by the League of Women Voters and individuals that still, there is still a stay in place in that case. and that's what the issue is. Now that there is a ruling, now that there is a final rulemaking that was made by, the administration, this can move forward in the courts. But, it has to do so quickly because the closer we get to the election, the less likely that is, the court will say, yes, change things, or you can change things, the process before this election. So the short answer, is that basically, I don't think that we will have this in place by this midterm, but it was something that will move forward for the next election.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so, what is the basic issue that's being challenged here? Because, I mean, obviously Trump, notoriously since 2020, has said the overwhelming security and other issues of, how
Gerard Filitti: the
Jenna Ellis: volume of mail in ballots, needs to be corrected. And so, what is the main issue that the Trump administration is pushing? Because this isn't restricting mail in ballots and forcing, in person voting altogether. So what are they actually pushing for?
Gerard Filitti: Well, that's where the dispute is. And what, what the people who are opposing this order are claiming is that it does set a manner for elections that is not within the executive branch's power to do that. If states want to have mail in voting, that is something that is up to the state legislatures and that is permissible, or that's the way the Constitution requires it to work, and that the executive branch, the president, can't unilaterally say that the post office will or will not deliver ballots. If the states say that they want to use mail in votes, and the states decide how to do that. So ultimately that's the question whether what the president is doing is a postal regulation about the passage of mail or whether it impacts voting to the point that it's taking power away from the states, that the Constitution gives to the states.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Some really fascinating legal questions and where should the Supreme Court fall on that? Because it does seem, I mean, if we take away the whole election integrity issue and, you know, for a moment just look at what's actually being argued, I mean, it seems to me more meritorious that this is, taking away the state's ability to regulate their elections and, almost just giving a pretext that this is something that deals with postal authority, but at the same time, the outcome is obviously something that conservatives prefer. So where should the Supreme Court land on this?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the Supreme Court will have a difficult time with us, to be honest. I think that they will see this war as a postal regulation, but one that requires time to implement in such a way that it does not affect the state's ability to determine the manner of their elections. In other words, the Supreme Court will likely try to split the baby and give both sides a little bit of a win. And, ultimately the states can comply with postal regulations, but they can also come up with methods outside of the postal system for absentee or pre delivered ballots. so I think that's really the challenge. I think that both sides have a good amount going for them and the Supreme Court will come down a very narrow line here.
A private arbiter has ordered the Washington Post to reinstate Karen Attaya
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, let's move on to, another issue as well. So a private arbiter has ordered the Washington Post to rehire an opinion columnist, Karen Attaya, who was fired in September, last September, over her social media posts about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Ah, it has also. This arbiter has also ordered the company to compensate her with back pay. she, she posted a quote that was attributed falsely, to Charlie Kirk, among other things. And, yet this private arbiter has determined that, the terms and conditions of her contract require the Washington Post to rehire her. this, this seems really interesting that this was, also an arbiter's decision. Not necessarily, you know, a full civil litigation. So what's going on here?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what's going on here is that attire had a contract with the Washington Post that was negotiated through a union, the guild. And that union contract had very favorable provisions about discipline. So the Washington Post should have disciplined her in a different way, should have gone through different steps instead of just summarily deciding that what she did was gross misconduct and firing her. So this really is a process issue. And a contract that she negotiated allowed her to have process that the arbiter says she did not receive then. That's why she's being ordered reinstated. Now. I don't think this settles the issue. But that is where we are at the present moment.
Jenna Ellis: And, this, you know, just raises a host of other questions about, employment law, contracts and so forth. And so is it possible that even though she's reinstated, the Washington Post could still pursue some of those steps and end up with disciplinary, action and not just saying, okay, well, because the arbiter decided that we couldn't fire you now, that we can't at least pursue some other kind of discipline.
Gerard Filitti: Well, they can pursue discipline afresh, but that's harder to do once you've had an arbiter ruling, because anything that you do to your employer might look targeted, which would open up to your employee might look targeted, which would open up the Washington Post for an actual lawsuit. So really, there are three things that we can look to happen here. either the Washington Post goes to court to try to vacate the arbiter's decision, which rarely happens. The courts almost always go with the arbitration process saying that, so long as the process was followed and the arbiter construed the contract, then that's okay. so that's not likely to happen. What usually happens is that there is a negotiated settlement where she leaves the Washington Post, she gets paid an undisclosed amount of money, and everyone loses the hassle of dealing with this in the public eye. And the third option is that she goes back to work full time, which I don't think anyone wants to see happen, least of all the Washington Post.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, that would probably cause, you know, some level of strain. But it also raises a question as well, because some have said that employers shouldn't have so much control over, independent social media posts that, whether it's, you know, journalists or whether it's, in any other form of employment that employers shouldn't be able to dictate and otherwise restrict opinion posts on social media that don't specifically, say that they're representing the company, that, that should be termed private speech. Even though it's published. Obviously it gets a lot further than if you're just talking to your neighbor. but that, that's a restriction on, on opinion and free speech that employers shouldn't be able to restrict. obviously contracts can, can deal with that in a lot of different ways. But overall, in terms of a general rule and process, it does seem like more employers are, are, adding provisions that do restrict social media posting. Is that overall a good thing, for employers, but a bad thing for individuals?
Gerard Filitti: I think that's exactly the way to look at it. It's a good thing for employers because oftentimes when you have an employee making contentious comments online, if they get doxed, if they get targeted, it's not just that person in their personal capacity. Oftentimes you'll see people going after their employer or sending demands to their employer that that person be. And that creates a, negative reputation for the employer. So from the employer's perspective, it's a good thing. You want to protect your image. You don't want to have. You don't want to be in the news because your employee said something on their day off that is so horrible that people are calling you up about it. But from an employee's perspective, you don't really have that bargaining power. Most people don't have a choice when it comes to employment agreements. So you really are potentially giving up your ability to say what you want, to share your opinion online. and that is really a big constraint that most people, frankly, yes, that don't have to face. But we're seeing this as an increasing trend.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so it's just a reminder that, you need to be aware of what your, employer requires, and especially if you're going, to a new, ah, employment situation, just be aware of that and know what you're agreeing to up front. And also, you know, she did know, what the provisions are if you end, up terminated or other. Or under some other kind of discipline. Because obviously, you know, her agreement, ah, stipulated that she couldn't just be fired. And, so she ended up winning that arbitration. and so, you know, a lot of this just ultimately is governed by what the parties agree with. So I'm speaking with, my special guest, Jared Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. You can follow him on X.
Florida governor suggests one of his allies could face death penalty over child sex charges
And I want to get to one other story before we let you go this morning. Gerard. so this is coming out of Florida, and Governor, DeSantis has suggested that, one of his allies who was appointed to a Palm beach post could face the death penalty over child sex abuse charges. And so that's coming from, Fox News. And so, suspended Palm beach county clerk of Cork might court. Mike caruso voted in 2023 to allow the death penalty for certain sex crimes against young children. Now, prosecutors say the law could potentially be used against him, but getting there would require a new charge, a grand jury indictment, and, potentially a constitutional fight reaching, beyond Caruso's case. what is going on here?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it's an interesting, It's a very interesting case. The issue ultimately is that the capital sexual battery law has been used before. there is someone who has. There is someone in Miami, Dade county who is facing the death penalty for allegedly sexually battering an infant. Very, very disgusting fact. so this is a law that is already being, enforced. It's already being challenged. So by the time that this case makes its way to trial, we will have a better sense of whether the law itself is constitutional and, whether it can be. Whether it can be imposed. But ultimately, it just tells you that Florida is taking these types of cases very, very seriously. We don't want predators preying on children. child abuse is, you know, sexual depravity is one of the worst things in our society. And I think that Desantis is very right in pushing for, you know, the death penalty for child abusers. It's just a matter of making sure that, we follow process, and there's a conviction after a new grand jury indicts on the charge, if that happens. But if process is followed, I mean, from a moral perspective, we don't want people who are abusing children to get away with it.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, and this may, you know, end up one of those cases that's a test case in Florida, but Florida is very serious about all this. And, speaking with reporters last week, Desantis said that Caruso could be in for, quote, unquote, a world of hurt if convicted. he'd been suspended from his clerk duties, following his arrest last week, and is accused, of course, of preying on a young boy. More than half a dozen times since 2024, there's been some, allegation that, you know, Desantis, because this, this individual, Mike Caruso, was. Was, an appointee that somehow Desantis or the administration should have known. I don't buy into that, that line of thinking. I think that the process was followed here. as soon as, these allegations are raised, there's an investigation, and then as soon as the arrest happened, he was suspended. And so all of the process is being followed. Clearly, the governor is not showing him any favors, or, you know, or not taking this seriously because he was an appointee. But you can't possibly know, as, you know, someone who makes hiring decisions just like any other company, whether it's the government or private, what people do, outside of work, if they ultimately choose to commit these types of crimes, then the process needs to be followed. but I think that it's, you know, it's kind of an opportunity that some of the detractors are taking Gerard to, you know, kind of take a shot at Desantis. That I think is kind of unfair.
Gerard Filitti: No, I think you're right about that. You can take a shot at the law. You can take a shot at the death penalty. You can say that the, you know, the Supreme Court previously found the death penalty an unconstitutional punishment for rape and non homicide crimes. But taking a shot at Desantis, I don't really see the basis for that because as you said, he followed the process. he has not shown any favoritism. He has actually been very strict about this. You could sue his statements to be very unfavorable to Caruso. so I think that taking a shot at Desantis. Let's focus on who the actual alleged criminal here is. And it's not Ron Desantis.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, exactly. So Desantis noted that Caruso was a clean vet and was well regarded in the community at the time he was appointed. This coming from Fox News. And Desantis also said the decision to quote, yank him from that position wasn't easy one. So we've got to take a break here. But Gerard, Felitti, really appreciate it, coming on and talking about all of the issues going on in all of these different cases. And of course we're still following the Lindsay Clancy case and everything that is going on there. And we'll see how long the closing arguments take and then also how long the jury deliberates. that's been one that we've talked about extensively on this program and we'll continue to talk about as well and all the implications for society and the law unprecedent. But we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the morning. 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 the this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Israeli airstrikes hit two locations in Gaza yesterday, killing at least two people
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And Israeli airstrikes have hit two locations in Gaza yesterday, killing at least two people, including a four year old old boy, according to Palestinian health officials. So the strikes hit also a refugee camp that was nearby, leaving one building reduced to rubble and several, several people wounded. According to Fox News, Israel's, military says it's reviewing both strikes as tensions persist over alleged ceasefire violations. Let's welcome in our good friend Joel Rosenberg, who's the host of the Rosenberg Report and the editor in chief of All Israel News, where you can find that atallisrael news.com and Jo, it has been a while. I'm so grateful that you are back with us. And what is the latest on this and everything coming out of Israel? I know there's a lot of news since we've last had you on the program. And is Joel here? And I'm not hearing Joel. I'm not sure if that's All right. So we are trying to get him back. And so that I will, I guess hear from my producers as soon as we have, we are working on reestablishing that. They're letting me know that. And so we'll be talking more about Israel as well.
Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El Said is pushing for Sharia law on Fox News
And in the meantime, the other story as well that I wanted to get to was the Michigan Senate nominee, Abdul El Said was on Fox News last night. so, you know, this was just a really terrible interview in, in all kinds of different ways. he's a Senate candidate from Michigan, clearly a Muslim, did not want to talk directly about any of the issues, but he is pushing for Sharia law. So this was one of the exchanges between El Said and Jesse Waters. This is Cut one, let's move on.
Jesse Watters: You said getting rid of Sharia law was white supremacy. Let's roll the tape. Cut.
Jesse Watters: I don't have to tell you that the same exact forces that drove native peoples from their land two centuries ago destroyed Black Wallnua Street a century ago, bombed a building decades ago and tried to ban Sharia law not a decade ago that those forces are alive and well today. So getting rid of Sharia law's white supremacy.
Jesse Watters: Can you explain that one?
Abdul El-Sayed: Do you know what canon law is, Jesse? I assume you're Christian, right? Yeah. Tell me. Alright, so canon law is the name for Christian law. I don't begrudge you your right to practice your faith as you choose. I don't know why the idea that I could practice my faith as I choose is a problem. Nobody is trying to push Sharia law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push canon law on anyone else, anybody else. Because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion.
Jenna Ellis: So obviously, this El Said guy has no understanding of the differences scripturally between moral, ceremonial and civil law in the Bible. And he's suggesting somehow that Christians are governed by a separate parallel civil law system like Old Testament Israel. And we as Christians obviously know that that is not the case. But Sharia law, is not just a religious belief system. It claims to be an authority as a comprehensive civil and legal code and even separate courts. And as such it's fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution and can't operate here as a parallel system of law. America has one civil legal system governed by the Constitution and that applies equally to every citizen. So his, his statement about canon loss and somehow trying to compare, the moral law that governs everyone, that is under God's design and a moral and upright society that's embedded in a civil code that we express through our US constitutionutions and laws pursuant to that is a totally different thing than the church, governance system, if you're a member of a local church, their discipline, for Christian life and so forth. He's trying to compare and equate Sharia law somehow to a church process while completely disregarding the differences scripturally between moral and civil law in the Bible. And also that Sharia law is a civil system that cannot have, ah, any foothold here in the United States. So beyond that, and that, you know, kind of disparity, and I wish that Jesse Waters had pressed him further on that because I think that is a huge issue that we need to all be very careful of as voters not voting in any of these Muslims into office that want to undermine the U.S. constitution. But also he had no responses whatsoever to issues like, men and women's sports. He was trying to equate circumcision to castration and suggesting that somehow transing children and genital mutilation is okay. I mean this guy is clearly a left wing lunatic. But I'm told that we have Joel Rosenberg back.
Joel Klein: Abdul El Said is a serious problem for Democrats
And Joel, before we go back to the Israel topic, I want to get your comment on this. I don't know if you saw that clip, from Jesse Waters last night with this Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El Said. But you know, while we're talking about the dangers of the Democrat socialists, we also need to talk about the dangers of the rise of a lot of these Muslim candidates that literally do not want to follow US Law.
Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, Jenna, great to be with you. I'm sorry about those technical difficulties. Shalom from Jerusalem. It's great to be back on with you. I appreciate it. the reason I haven't been able to be on the last ah, few months and I appreciate your invitations but m. My wife Linne and I have been working on a book on this, these very issues. The book comes out next April. the manuscript is done. Thank God. Now we're coming back up for oxygen. It's called Firestorm, what's true and what isn't in the war against Israel, Jews and the Christians that love them both. We'll get into that book more when we get closer to its release. But Abdul El Sayed in Michigan is a perfect example of the Firestorm, not just against Israel and not just against Jews, but against Christians. And this is a man who is so far outside of the mainstream, not just the mainstream of you know, Judeo Christian civilization. He's outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party. How he has you know, emerged as the Senate candidate in Michigan is a serious problem for Democrats. I will just tell you right up front, Jenna, I used to be a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat, in NewSong York state. And I left, left the Democratic Party, because I couldn't bear it. And that was, that was 35 years ago. So the Democratic Party today, you know, mostly, not entirely, but mostly hates Israel, hates Jews, and hates the US involvement in fighting against radical Islamism. And now you basically have a radical Islamist journalist running for the United States Senate in Michigan. in my capacities of running nonprofit organizations, I can't take a position, but in my own personal capacity, I am praying for Mike Rogers and for all Michigan, residents to sort of wake up and smell the Starbucks. Like this is a El Sayed would be a danger not just to Michigan, but to the United States and U.S. leadership in the world. He is a very dangerous person and it's just amazing to me to see Democratic leaders embrace him.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it's so true and it is so dangerous. And you're right that the Democrat Party, if It was terrible 35 years ago, it's ah, way, way worse and even unrecognizable now. I mean it's not at all even the same party, that it back 35 years ago, you could almost call them conservative compared to where they are now. And so you know, obviously the left and some of the detractors would say, well if you're overall against voting for any Muslims, then you know, you're for religious test with which, you know, the U.S. constitution forbids and aren't you, for religious freedom. And you know, they make this more about the religious identity of the individual rather than the policies that they're pushing. And I think there's an distinction there that we need to press because this isn't just about a person's private faith or even what he believes the government should get out of or or not inhibit it when it comes to the free exercise of religion. This is all about a legal system, what they want to do in civil, government, what they want to do with the court system, what they want to do in civil society. I mean this goes well beyond just the doors of a mosque. This is more about undermin, our entire system and process of government and the morality which it was founded upon.
Joel Rosenberg: You're absolutely right. And I think anybody that's making the case, mainly Abdul El Sayed and his supporters that were against him because he's a Muslim, you know, that's ludicrous. We're against him because he's crazy. because he's not just left wing, right? He's, you know, he wants to do things that are so outside the mainstream of the country. even the mainstream of Michigan. That's why Michigan, which is such a blue state, I mean those are the colors, right, of the Michigan universities. But the state is moving towards Rogers because, they see El Sayed as dangerous. It's not that he's Muslim, it's that he's dangerous. It's that, you know, it could be other reasons. you know, there are, He is following very much in the footsteps of someone like Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is Jewish. He's still dangerous to the United States. Right? He wants. He's a socialist. They both are. they both hate Israel, they both hate America, having a, strong military and dealing with radical Islamist terrorism as well as other threats around the world. They're against free markets, against capitalism. They're against basic Judeo Christian values and principles that have made America great. So whether it's Abdul Al Sayyad in Michigan who's a Muslim, ah, that's not the issue. It's that he's radical and he's crazy. If it's in Vermont, as Bernie Sanders, okay, he's Jewish, but he's wrong and he's dangerous and he's crazy. So, so. But Abdul El Sayed is taking a dangerous approach even further than any candidate that I have seen. He's been embraced, right, and strongly supported and endorsed by Hassan Piker. Right. The, extreme left wing, podcaster with like 11 million followers. Hasan Piker, who's embraced, abducted, Al Said. Hassan Piker has said that, America deserved, the attacks of al Qaeda on 9 11, the death of 3,000Americans, plus people from other countries. That's who Hassan Piker is. And that's who is endorsing Abdul El Sayed. And Abdul El Sayed is totally happy with Hassan Piker's endorsement. And that's just one example of how far outside the mainstream, how dangerous, how wrong, El Sayed is.
Jenna Ellis: Well, I mean, and Joe Biden was Catholic and Governor Ron DeSantis is Catholic, but yet the two could not be more opposite in terms of governance, leadership, worldview, you know, all of those things. And so, it really does matter who the individual is, what their policy is and what they're running on. I mean, unfortunately, you can't just look at someone and say, oh, well, this is their religious belief, so therefore they must be in support of, you know, a certain policy. And you know, likewise when the Democrats are saying, well, you know, you're just anti Islam, M. It's like, no, you know, they are Muslim perhaps. And so that if they're, if they are, in line with what their faith believes, then they should believe certain things that obviously we would disagree with. But it's more about the policy and what their actual positions are. And so, you know, turning to the Republican side, it seems like we don't have enough of, you know, the Governor DeSantis, you know, sort of model. And especially when you're looking at some of these races, like the South Carolina, runoff that's going to happen tonight, and when, you know, you look at somebody like a Darlene Graham who's just completely incompetent, can't answer questions, doesn't even want to be video recorded. I hope that all of those videos of her, her debates, her refusal to stand up for pro life. I mean, a lot of these things will go far in South Carolina, so that we get the better, conservative pick on the GOP side because we have to get people, in office, but also running against these radical extreme Democrats to show the contrast. And if we don't have the most solid conservatives, then it ends up that a lot of voters are saying, well, you know, we're not really that enthusiastic for the Republican and we may end up losing, more races than we ultimately could.
Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, I was really surprised, I have to say, Jenna, by President Trump's sort of rapid embrace and endorsement of, Senator Lindsey Graham's sister. I think that was pure emotion and I understand it, I'm sympathetic to it. But what made Lindsey Graham great. I thought I disagreed with Lindsey on a number of issues. He and I were personal friends for the last 15 years or so. and I did disagree with him on his early immigration policies and a number of other things. But what made him an excellent senator representing South Carolina and being a great American, leader was he had deep convictions. he was deeply pro life. He was a deep, evangelical Christian. He was deeply, supportive of the military, having served in the military for like three decades, including, you know, his years in the reserves. He was for peace through strength, a strong military, a strong US Assertion of leadership around the world, including defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion, and, not, you know, giving away all of our money and, you know, to Vladimir Zelensky, but still defending, Western, civilization against Vladimir Putin. And same thing with a strong U, s. Israel alliance.
Joel Rosenberg: Senator Lindsey Graham's death is a huge loss for Senate
And Lindsey Graham, his death, his sudden and tragic death is a huge loss for the Senate, for South Carolina, for the United States. And while I've never met his sister, she seems like a lovely person. But, Senator Lindsey Graham didn't remain such a great senator from the great state of South Carolina, because of his name or, you know, his heritage. It's because he had principles and he was clear about them and he fought for them. And it's not clear that his sister necessarily shares all of them or knows how to explain them. So I don't. The Senate is not a legacy environment. You're not supposed to win the seat because you're from the family of the person that people loved and appreciated. Right. You shouldn't be knocked for that, for being from the family. But this should be a meritocracy. You win the seat on the merits, you either are. You have these values that comport with South Carolina conservative Christian, you know, strong military, pro life type values, or you don't. And I, think South Carolina needs and deserves, a United States Senator who represents all of the values, or at least most of the values that Lindsey Graham supported. He did switch over the time, for the record and for his own legacy and my friendship with him. he had a terrible bill back in the day, on illegal immigration and sort of supported, just amnesty and stuff with Jon McCain. But he did come around to become one of the strongest defenders of, President Trump. Trump's, policies, especially on the border, and, God bless him for that. I'm not sure that he himself would have supported his sister just getting the seat just because.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and we've got to take a break here. Joel Rosenberg. But I fully agree with everything that you just said. I do think it was an emotional response from President Trump. I would have preferred, you know, he just, if anything, you know, give her the seat just for, the, the last interim couple of months. But, you not endorse her for reelection because the problem, as you mentioned, is that nobody's really met her, nobody knows where she stands. I don't even know if she knows where she stands on a lot of this. And that's not what you want in a U.S. senator. so we'll see how that, that election plays out tonight. We'll have more on that, obviously. Tomorrow morning I'm speaking with Joel Rosenberg, host of the Rosenberg Report, and at All Israel News on, all israel.com and we'll be right back with more with him to talk more about Israel and, the state of the US Foreign policy.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, ah, 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 sound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves. Just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Joel Rosenberg says President Trump needs to focus more on domestic issues
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm still here with my special guest this morning, Jill Rosenberg, who is the host of the Rosenberg Report and also editor in [email protected] and as he mentioned, in the previous segment, is, has just finished completing the manuscript for a brand new book. We'll look forward to, talking with you more about that as publication time, comes closer. But Joel, I want to get back to, you know, this topic of where Israel, the US And Iran, are at and and, and how Palestine factors into all of this because, as we are heading closer to midterms, a lot of the critic, at least the conservative Republican side. And you know, just anecdotally what I've heard from listeners, and supporters is that they're very frustrated that Trump is not focusing more on domestic policy. Some of the, genuine affordability issues, you know, some of the things that he promised in the 2024 campaign that he would do domestically. And it seems like this Iran war has been extended so far beyond what anybody, I think even what Trump initially contemplated. And it doesn't seem like it's in a great position, right now. How do you view this from the perspective, you know, being there in Israel and from, from where we are, kind of from a 30,000 foot perspective?
Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, it's a great question, Jenna and I deal with some of that on my, my show, my primetime show, as you mentioned, the Rosenberg Report on tbn, which is the leading Christian television, network in the United States. Nine, p.m. on Thursday night Eastern. we're going to deal with some of these questions because, you know, the great thing about democracy is, Jenna, that it helps people, refocus on listening to the people. Right? And it's a republic, it's not a pure democracy. But, you know, President Trump I think is beginning to, to hear frustration. And yes, there are haters of Trump. Let's set them aside. And there's haters of Israel. Let's set them aside for a moment. There are people who strongly support the US Israel alliance and believe that the Iranian regime was a serious, serious, national security threat to the United States, to Israel, to our Arab allies, and believed action was needed. They had enough nuclear, fuel to build 11 fully operational nuclear bombs. That's what they told Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. that's what the Iranian negotiators told them, in January and were bragging for them that they had enough fuel to build 11 nuclear warheads. And that's why even Jared and Steve, who supported a peaceful negotiation deal with the Iranian regime, said to the President, like, they're not listening. They don't Want a deal? We've got to act or they're going to build 11 bombs. So we had to act. And I think President Trump has shown m tremendous courage and leadership. He has promised for decades that Iran would never get a nuclear weapon. and now they won't. there's more to be done. But all that being said, yes, he absolutely needs to deal. Spend more time on US Domestic issues, including, especially the economy. That's his strength. That's President Trump's strength. Right. He's not a politician. he's a businessman. And he's a very good businessman, very successful. I think one of the things that, President Trump is getting tripped up on is not so much the war. I realize that's an easy focus, and no American ever wants to be at war. I get that. but sometimes you have to, so. But what is the president getting tripped up on? It's tariffs. Okay. I'm, not against any tariff at any time under any circumstances. But President Trump is really excited, as you know, about slapping tariffs on almost everybody, everywhere. and the problem is tariffs are a tax. In the old days, Right. In the old days, we had tariffs instead of the income tax. right. The federal income tax didn't come in until 1913. Right. So tariffs were the way to regulate commerce, internationally and raise money for the government. But to have tariffs and the federal income tax and all the state income taxes and, you know, Social Security, Medicare, it's too much. And so what the president is excited about, he doesn't. He's not accepting the fact that tariffs are attacks and attacks. these taxes are raising prices on the very people President Trump ran on saying, I'll lower the cost of living. And I think there's a disconnect there. And, but, you know, President Trump has total political support within the Republican Party. And so everybody has gone along with these tariffs. it has raised a lot of money for the treasury, but it's costing Americans, because it raises prices. These taxes. Tariffs are not just paid by foreign governments or foreign companies. They're passed on to consumers. And that's why inflation is not as low as it should be. That's why prices are not coming down like they should be. And, you know, it doesn't mean I don't support President Trump on so many other things. I don't support him on raising taxes on the American people. and unfortunately, that's what's happening with the tariffs.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, that's such a great explanation because, you know, there were a lot of people I think that didn't quite understand how all of this worked and had you know, just this trust in ah, President Trump and and I think rightly so, I mean I think he earned that of course after the 2024 election and also how much he boosted the economy after his first administration. Obviously, you know, Covid, a totally separate issue and you know how all of that happened. but we're looking forward to seeing some of that rebound, especially after the Bidenflation.
Joel Rosenberg says President Trump's focus on Iran is distracting him from economy
And so, so do you think that there is merit to this criticism or concern that Trump is so focused now in his second term on foreign policy and being the peace president and you know, some of these more long term and long ranging issues that he's not really appreciating the impact for everyday Americans and that's in part you know, causing some of this frustration.
Joel Rosenberg: Yes, I share that criticism of the President and hope that he's listening as he's getting closer to the midterms. I think that you know, this war with Iran has taken much more of his time and attention than he, than he thought it would. but it was always going to be a massive challenge. you know, when you're dealing with, with the potential of a country that's already been at war with America for 47 years being this close, you know, inches away from having 11 nuclear warheads, that's not going to be an easy fight. and it hasn't been easy. The United States has done a brilliant job with Israel at its side, but it's not, you know, but what's left of the Iranian regime isn't going to, you know, capitulate easily. Right. I think President Trump has moved back to his strength, which is he's already bombed as many. I mean, are there more sites to bomb? Sure. And I'm not against that necessarily, but I think he's doing the right thing, which is he's turned back to his economic leverage and that is the blockade, on Iran. And I think that's a great strategy, but it, but that has driven up the price of oil to some degree and thus gas prices. But the overall problem that Trump is facing is that he thought that by coming back into office he would have this huge economic rebound, after Biden. And he could show the contrast in many areas. He has succeeded because he's attracted so much foreign direct investment in the United States. I mean just massive, record amount, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of foreign, investment and American investment as American companies take their factories out of foreign countries and bring them back to America. This has been great. But what Trump is getting tripped up on and he does not see it, and so he cannot change it in the next few months before the midterms is the tariffs. He's enamored of tariffs, but he has never made, he's never accepted, the Steve Forbes argument and the argument of others, even Larry Kudlow, his previous national economic, Council advisor, that tariffs are taxes. You can't get around it. And so what we have is President Trump, who's so good on economics and in every other area, is helping manufacturing get rebooted and bringing investment back and factories back and the supply chain back. All of this has been great, but he doesn't understand why it's not having as much of an impact as he wants as he expected. And that's because of tariffs. That's because of taxes. Taxes are always a drag on the economy and they're always going to get passed on to the consumer. And that means higher prices for the very people that he, that President Trump genuinely cares about. And he's, it, it's a conceptual mistake that's costing him. Now, it may be in the end, like, if everything, all things being equal, Republicans would get wiped out this fall because of, discouragement and disagreement with the war, even though he's right about it, and because of the economy. but Democrats are so crazy, some of these candidates that we discuss, that I think Republicans might do very well this fall in spite of these issues. But Trump has to focus on how to bring down prices, how to deal with inflation. And he's going to have to come to terms that it'd be better to keep reducing tariffs than, for example, he wants a new fight with Canada in which he might swap 50% tariffs. Canada is our biggest, America's biggest trade, partner. To slap huge tariffs on Canada right before the election is not going to be good economically, not going to be good politically. It may feel good, but it's not going to get President Trump economically or politically. Where.
Jenna Ellis: And such great commentary, Joel Rosenberg. We've got to leave it there. really looking forward to having you back on again soon. appreciate it. You can follow Jill Rosenberg and as always, reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net.
Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection and the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: The South Carolina primary is this evening
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, August 25th. So the, South Carolina primary is this evening. And, more on that a little bit later.
Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in voting restrictions ahead of November elections
But first, President Trump scores a Supreme Court win on mail in voting restrictions before the midterms. So this coming from FOX News. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce revised mail ballot restrictions in a 6, 3 decision. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a victory victory on Monday, allowing it to enforce President Trump's election integrity executive order restricting mail in voting ahead of the November midterms. So the high court lifted an injunction that had blocked the order in 23 states that challenged it. After the administration appealed In July, the U.S. postal Service and Justice Department said they would immediately implement the revised mail in ballot, restrictions after the ruling. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, this seems like a very good thing that should have happened a lot sooner.
Gerard Filitti: It seems like a very good thing that should have happened a lot sooner. But we need to temper a little bit of caution here because this is only one of a few cases that were brought challenging, President Trump's order. And while the stay was lifted, there is still a stay in place in one of the other cases. So at best, this is still a little bit of a murky issue that the Supreme Court will need to weigh in on again before the election. So this is a temporary reprieve on one case, but it doesn't settle the issue finally.
Jenna Ellis: So is that, is that other case, ah, poised to be settled before the midterms, or are we still going to kind of be in this murky situation and looking forward to 2028.
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think we will have a settled, I think we will have the Supreme Court weigh in on that other case as well. So this case is a case brought by the states, and the Supreme Court basically said that the suit was brought prematurely because the, administration, President Trump, had not actually issued rules about the order. There was just an order. so the Supreme Court found that the injunction was premature because there was no actual regulatory, process to appeal from or to question. But, that's for the states, but on lawsuits brought by the League of Women Voters and individuals that still, there is still a stay in place in that case. and that's what the issue is. Now that there is a ruling, now that there is a final rulemaking that was made by, the administration, this can move forward in the courts. But, it has to do so quickly because the closer we get to the election, the less likely that is, the court will say, yes, change things, or you can change things, the process before this election. So the short answer, is that basically, I don't think that we will have this in place by this midterm, but it was something that will move forward for the next election.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so, what is the basic issue that's being challenged here? Because, I mean, obviously Trump, notoriously since 2020, has said the overwhelming security and other issues of, how
Gerard Filitti: the
Jenna Ellis: volume of mail in ballots, needs to be corrected. And so, what is the main issue that the Trump administration is pushing? Because this isn't restricting mail in ballots and forcing, in person voting altogether. So what are they actually pushing for?
Gerard Filitti: Well, that's where the dispute is. And what, what the people who are opposing this order are claiming is that it does set a manner for elections that is not within the executive branch's power to do that. If states want to have mail in voting, that is something that is up to the state legislatures and that is permissible, or that's the way the Constitution requires it to work, and that the executive branch, the president, can't unilaterally say that the post office will or will not deliver ballots. If the states say that they want to use mail in votes, and the states decide how to do that. So ultimately that's the question whether what the president is doing is a postal regulation about the passage of mail or whether it impacts voting to the point that it's taking power away from the states, that the Constitution gives to the states.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Some really fascinating legal questions and where should the Supreme Court fall on that? Because it does seem, I mean, if we take away the whole election integrity issue and, you know, for a moment just look at what's actually being argued, I mean, it seems to me more meritorious that this is, taking away the state's ability to regulate their elections and, almost just giving a pretext that this is something that deals with postal authority, but at the same time, the outcome is obviously something that conservatives prefer. So where should the Supreme Court land on this?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the Supreme Court will have a difficult time with us, to be honest. I think that they will see this war as a postal regulation, but one that requires time to implement in such a way that it does not affect the state's ability to determine the manner of their elections. In other words, the Supreme Court will likely try to split the baby and give both sides a little bit of a win. And, ultimately the states can comply with postal regulations, but they can also come up with methods outside of the postal system for absentee or pre delivered ballots. so I think that's really the challenge. I think that both sides have a good amount going for them and the Supreme Court will come down a very narrow line here.
A private arbiter has ordered the Washington Post to reinstate Karen Attaya
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, let's move on to, another issue as well. So a private arbiter has ordered the Washington Post to rehire an opinion columnist, Karen Attaya, who was fired in September, last September, over her social media posts about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Ah, it has also. This arbiter has also ordered the company to compensate her with back pay. she, she posted a quote that was attributed falsely, to Charlie Kirk, among other things. And, yet this private arbiter has determined that, the terms and conditions of her contract require the Washington Post to rehire her. this, this seems really interesting that this was, also an arbiter's decision. Not necessarily, you know, a full civil litigation. So what's going on here?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what's going on here is that attire had a contract with the Washington Post that was negotiated through a union, the guild. And that union contract had very favorable provisions about discipline. So the Washington Post should have disciplined her in a different way, should have gone through different steps instead of just summarily deciding that what she did was gross misconduct and firing her. So this really is a process issue. And a contract that she negotiated allowed her to have process that the arbiter says she did not receive then. That's why she's being ordered reinstated. Now. I don't think this settles the issue. But that is where we are at the present moment.
Jenna Ellis: And, this, you know, just raises a host of other questions about, employment law, contracts and so forth. And so is it possible that even though she's reinstated, the Washington Post could still pursue some of those steps and end up with disciplinary, action and not just saying, okay, well, because the arbiter decided that we couldn't fire you now, that we can't at least pursue some other kind of discipline.
Gerard Filitti: Well, they can pursue discipline afresh, but that's harder to do once you've had an arbiter ruling, because anything that you do to your employer might look targeted, which would open up to your employee might look targeted, which would open up the Washington Post for an actual lawsuit. So really, there are three things that we can look to happen here. either the Washington Post goes to court to try to vacate the arbiter's decision, which rarely happens. The courts almost always go with the arbitration process saying that, so long as the process was followed and the arbiter construed the contract, then that's okay. so that's not likely to happen. What usually happens is that there is a negotiated settlement where she leaves the Washington Post, she gets paid an undisclosed amount of money, and everyone loses the hassle of dealing with this in the public eye. And the third option is that she goes back to work full time, which I don't think anyone wants to see happen, least of all the Washington Post.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, that would probably cause, you know, some level of strain. But it also raises a question as well, because some have said that employers shouldn't have so much control over, independent social media posts that, whether it's, you know, journalists or whether it's, in any other form of employment that employers shouldn't be able to dictate and otherwise restrict opinion posts on social media that don't specifically, say that they're representing the company, that, that should be termed private speech. Even though it's published. Obviously it gets a lot further than if you're just talking to your neighbor. but that, that's a restriction on, on opinion and free speech that employers shouldn't be able to restrict. obviously contracts can, can deal with that in a lot of different ways. But overall, in terms of a general rule and process, it does seem like more employers are, are, adding provisions that do restrict social media posting. Is that overall a good thing, for employers, but a bad thing for individuals?
Gerard Filitti: I think that's exactly the way to look at it. It's a good thing for employers because oftentimes when you have an employee making contentious comments online, if they get doxed, if they get targeted, it's not just that person in their personal capacity. Oftentimes you'll see people going after their employer or sending demands to their employer that that person be. And that creates a, negative reputation for the employer. So from the employer's perspective, it's a good thing. You want to protect your image. You don't want to have. You don't want to be in the news because your employee said something on their day off that is so horrible that people are calling you up about it. But from an employee's perspective, you don't really have that bargaining power. Most people don't have a choice when it comes to employment agreements. So you really are potentially giving up your ability to say what you want, to share your opinion online. and that is really a big constraint that most people, frankly, yes, that don't have to face. But we're seeing this as an increasing trend.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so it's just a reminder that, you need to be aware of what your, employer requires, and especially if you're going, to a new, ah, employment situation, just be aware of that and know what you're agreeing to up front. And also, you know, she did know, what the provisions are if you end, up terminated or other. Or under some other kind of discipline. Because obviously, you know, her agreement, ah, stipulated that she couldn't just be fired. And, so she ended up winning that arbitration. and so, you know, a lot of this just ultimately is governed by what the parties agree with. So I'm speaking with, my special guest, Jared Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. You can follow him on X.
Florida governor suggests one of his allies could face death penalty over child sex charges
And I want to get to one other story before we let you go this morning. Gerard. so this is coming out of Florida, and Governor, DeSantis has suggested that, one of his allies who was appointed to a Palm beach post could face the death penalty over child sex abuse charges. And so that's coming from, Fox News. And so, suspended Palm beach county clerk of Cork might court. Mike caruso voted in 2023 to allow the death penalty for certain sex crimes against young children. Now, prosecutors say the law could potentially be used against him, but getting there would require a new charge, a grand jury indictment, and, potentially a constitutional fight reaching, beyond Caruso's case. what is going on here?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it's an interesting, It's a very interesting case. The issue ultimately is that the capital sexual battery law has been used before. there is someone who has. There is someone in Miami, Dade county who is facing the death penalty for allegedly sexually battering an infant. Very, very disgusting fact. so this is a law that is already being, enforced. It's already being challenged. So by the time that this case makes its way to trial, we will have a better sense of whether the law itself is constitutional and, whether it can be. Whether it can be imposed. But ultimately, it just tells you that Florida is taking these types of cases very, very seriously. We don't want predators preying on children. child abuse is, you know, sexual depravity is one of the worst things in our society. And I think that Desantis is very right in pushing for, you know, the death penalty for child abusers. It's just a matter of making sure that, we follow process, and there's a conviction after a new grand jury indicts on the charge, if that happens. But if process is followed, I mean, from a moral perspective, we don't want people who are abusing children to get away with it.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, and this may, you know, end up one of those cases that's a test case in Florida, but Florida is very serious about all this. And, speaking with reporters last week, Desantis said that Caruso could be in for, quote, unquote, a world of hurt if convicted. he'd been suspended from his clerk duties, following his arrest last week, and is accused, of course, of preying on a young boy. More than half a dozen times since 2024, there's been some, allegation that, you know, Desantis, because this, this individual, Mike Caruso, was. Was, an appointee that somehow Desantis or the administration should have known. I don't buy into that, that line of thinking. I think that the process was followed here. as soon as, these allegations are raised, there's an investigation, and then as soon as the arrest happened, he was suspended. And so all of the process is being followed. Clearly, the governor is not showing him any favors, or, you know, or not taking this seriously because he was an appointee. But you can't possibly know, as, you know, someone who makes hiring decisions just like any other company, whether it's the government or private, what people do, outside of work, if they ultimately choose to commit these types of crimes, then the process needs to be followed. but I think that it's, you know, it's kind of an opportunity that some of the detractors are taking Gerard to, you know, kind of take a shot at Desantis. That I think is kind of unfair.
Gerard Filitti: No, I think you're right about that. You can take a shot at the law. You can take a shot at the death penalty. You can say that the, you know, the Supreme Court previously found the death penalty an unconstitutional punishment for rape and non homicide crimes. But taking a shot at Desantis, I don't really see the basis for that because as you said, he followed the process. he has not shown any favoritism. He has actually been very strict about this. You could sue his statements to be very unfavorable to Caruso. so I think that taking a shot at Desantis. Let's focus on who the actual alleged criminal here is. And it's not Ron Desantis.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, exactly. So Desantis noted that Caruso was a clean vet and was well regarded in the community at the time he was appointed. This coming from Fox News. And Desantis also said the decision to quote, yank him from that position wasn't easy one. So we've got to take a break here. But Gerard, Felitti, really appreciate it, coming on and talking about all of the issues going on in all of these different cases. And of course we're still following the Lindsay Clancy case and everything that is going on there. And we'll see how long the closing arguments take and then also how long the jury deliberates. that's been one that we've talked about extensively on this program and we'll continue to talk about as well and all the implications for society and the law unprecedent. But we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the morning. 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 the this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Israeli airstrikes hit two locations in Gaza yesterday, killing at least two people
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And Israeli airstrikes have hit two locations in Gaza yesterday, killing at least two people, including a four year old old boy, according to Palestinian health officials. So the strikes hit also a refugee camp that was nearby, leaving one building reduced to rubble and several, several people wounded. According to Fox News, Israel's, military says it's reviewing both strikes as tensions persist over alleged ceasefire violations. Let's welcome in our good friend Joel Rosenberg, who's the host of the Rosenberg Report and the editor in chief of All Israel News, where you can find that atallisrael news.com and Jo, it has been a while. I'm so grateful that you are back with us. And what is the latest on this and everything coming out of Israel? I know there's a lot of news since we've last had you on the program. And is Joel here? And I'm not hearing Joel. I'm not sure if that's All right. So we are trying to get him back. And so that I will, I guess hear from my producers as soon as we have, we are working on reestablishing that. They're letting me know that. And so we'll be talking more about Israel as well.
Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El Said is pushing for Sharia law on Fox News
And in the meantime, the other story as well that I wanted to get to was the Michigan Senate nominee, Abdul El Said was on Fox News last night. so, you know, this was just a really terrible interview in, in all kinds of different ways. he's a Senate candidate from Michigan, clearly a Muslim, did not want to talk directly about any of the issues, but he is pushing for Sharia law. So this was one of the exchanges between El Said and Jesse Waters. This is Cut one, let's move on.
Jesse Watters: You said getting rid of Sharia law was white supremacy. Let's roll the tape. Cut.
Jesse Watters: I don't have to tell you that the same exact forces that drove native peoples from their land two centuries ago destroyed Black Wallnua Street a century ago, bombed a building decades ago and tried to ban Sharia law not a decade ago that those forces are alive and well today. So getting rid of Sharia law's white supremacy.
Jesse Watters: Can you explain that one?
Abdul El-Sayed: Do you know what canon law is, Jesse? I assume you're Christian, right? Yeah. Tell me. Alright, so canon law is the name for Christian law. I don't begrudge you your right to practice your faith as you choose. I don't know why the idea that I could practice my faith as I choose is a problem. Nobody is trying to push Sharia law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push canon law on anyone else, anybody else. Because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion.
Jenna Ellis: So obviously, this El Said guy has no understanding of the differences scripturally between moral, ceremonial and civil law in the Bible. And he's suggesting somehow that Christians are governed by a separate parallel civil law system like Old Testament Israel. And we as Christians obviously know that that is not the case. But Sharia law, is not just a religious belief system. It claims to be an authority as a comprehensive civil and legal code and even separate courts. And as such it's fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution and can't operate here as a parallel system of law. America has one civil legal system governed by the Constitution and that applies equally to every citizen. So his, his statement about canon loss and somehow trying to compare, the moral law that governs everyone, that is under God's design and a moral and upright society that's embedded in a civil code that we express through our US constitutionutions and laws pursuant to that is a totally different thing than the church, governance system, if you're a member of a local church, their discipline, for Christian life and so forth. He's trying to compare and equate Sharia law somehow to a church process while completely disregarding the differences scripturally between moral and civil law in the Bible. And also that Sharia law is a civil system that cannot have, ah, any foothold here in the United States. So beyond that, and that, you know, kind of disparity, and I wish that Jesse Waters had pressed him further on that because I think that is a huge issue that we need to all be very careful of as voters not voting in any of these Muslims into office that want to undermine the U.S. constitution. But also he had no responses whatsoever to issues like, men and women's sports. He was trying to equate circumcision to castration and suggesting that somehow transing children and genital mutilation is okay. I mean this guy is clearly a left wing lunatic. But I'm told that we have Joel Rosenberg back.
Joel Klein: Abdul El Said is a serious problem for Democrats
And Joel, before we go back to the Israel topic, I want to get your comment on this. I don't know if you saw that clip, from Jesse Waters last night with this Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El Said. But you know, while we're talking about the dangers of the Democrat socialists, we also need to talk about the dangers of the rise of a lot of these Muslim candidates that literally do not want to follow US Law.
Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, Jenna, great to be with you. I'm sorry about those technical difficulties. Shalom from Jerusalem. It's great to be back on with you. I appreciate it. the reason I haven't been able to be on the last ah, few months and I appreciate your invitations but m. My wife Linne and I have been working on a book on this, these very issues. The book comes out next April. the manuscript is done. Thank God. Now we're coming back up for oxygen. It's called Firestorm, what's true and what isn't in the war against Israel, Jews and the Christians that love them both. We'll get into that book more when we get closer to its release. But Abdul El Sayed in Michigan is a perfect example of the Firestorm, not just against Israel and not just against Jews, but against Christians. And this is a man who is so far outside of the mainstream, not just the mainstream of you know, Judeo Christian civilization. He's outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party. How he has you know, emerged as the Senate candidate in Michigan is a serious problem for Democrats. I will just tell you right up front, Jenna, I used to be a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat, in NewSong York state. And I left, left the Democratic Party, because I couldn't bear it. And that was, that was 35 years ago. So the Democratic Party today, you know, mostly, not entirely, but mostly hates Israel, hates Jews, and hates the US involvement in fighting against radical Islamism. And now you basically have a radical Islamist journalist running for the United States Senate in Michigan. in my capacities of running nonprofit organizations, I can't take a position, but in my own personal capacity, I am praying for Mike Rogers and for all Michigan, residents to sort of wake up and smell the Starbucks. Like this is a El Sayed would be a danger not just to Michigan, but to the United States and U.S. leadership in the world. He is a very dangerous person and it's just amazing to me to see Democratic leaders embrace him.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it's so true and it is so dangerous. And you're right that the Democrat Party, if It was terrible 35 years ago, it's ah, way, way worse and even unrecognizable now. I mean it's not at all even the same party, that it back 35 years ago, you could almost call them conservative compared to where they are now. And so you know, obviously the left and some of the detractors would say, well if you're overall against voting for any Muslims, then you know, you're for religious test with which, you know, the U.S. constitution forbids and aren't you, for religious freedom. And you know, they make this more about the religious identity of the individual rather than the policies that they're pushing. And I think there's an distinction there that we need to press because this isn't just about a person's private faith or even what he believes the government should get out of or or not inhibit it when it comes to the free exercise of religion. This is all about a legal system, what they want to do in civil, government, what they want to do with the court system, what they want to do in civil society. I mean this goes well beyond just the doors of a mosque. This is more about undermin, our entire system and process of government and the morality which it was founded upon.
Joel Rosenberg: You're absolutely right. And I think anybody that's making the case, mainly Abdul El Sayed and his supporters that were against him because he's a Muslim, you know, that's ludicrous. We're against him because he's crazy. because he's not just left wing, right? He's, you know, he wants to do things that are so outside the mainstream of the country. even the mainstream of Michigan. That's why Michigan, which is such a blue state, I mean those are the colors, right, of the Michigan universities. But the state is moving towards Rogers because, they see El Sayed as dangerous. It's not that he's Muslim, it's that he's dangerous. It's that, you know, it could be other reasons. you know, there are, He is following very much in the footsteps of someone like Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is Jewish. He's still dangerous to the United States. Right? He wants. He's a socialist. They both are. they both hate Israel, they both hate America, having a, strong military and dealing with radical Islamist terrorism as well as other threats around the world. They're against free markets, against capitalism. They're against basic Judeo Christian values and principles that have made America great. So whether it's Abdul Al Sayyad in Michigan who's a Muslim, ah, that's not the issue. It's that he's radical and he's crazy. If it's in Vermont, as Bernie Sanders, okay, he's Jewish, but he's wrong and he's dangerous and he's crazy. So, so. But Abdul El Sayed is taking a dangerous approach even further than any candidate that I have seen. He's been embraced, right, and strongly supported and endorsed by Hassan Piker. Right. The, extreme left wing, podcaster with like 11 million followers. Hasan Piker, who's embraced, abducted, Al Said. Hassan Piker has said that, America deserved, the attacks of al Qaeda on 9 11, the death of 3,000Americans, plus people from other countries. That's who Hassan Piker is. And that's who is endorsing Abdul El Sayed. And Abdul El Sayed is totally happy with Hassan Piker's endorsement. And that's just one example of how far outside the mainstream, how dangerous, how wrong, El Sayed is.
Jenna Ellis: Well, I mean, and Joe Biden was Catholic and Governor Ron DeSantis is Catholic, but yet the two could not be more opposite in terms of governance, leadership, worldview, you know, all of those things. And so, it really does matter who the individual is, what their policy is and what they're running on. I mean, unfortunately, you can't just look at someone and say, oh, well, this is their religious belief, so therefore they must be in support of, you know, a certain policy. And you know, likewise when the Democrats are saying, well, you know, you're just anti Islam, M. It's like, no, you know, they are Muslim perhaps. And so that if they're, if they are, in line with what their faith believes, then they should believe certain things that obviously we would disagree with. But it's more about the policy and what their actual positions are. And so, you know, turning to the Republican side, it seems like we don't have enough of, you know, the Governor DeSantis, you know, sort of model. And especially when you're looking at some of these races, like the South Carolina, runoff that's going to happen tonight, and when, you know, you look at somebody like a Darlene Graham who's just completely incompetent, can't answer questions, doesn't even want to be video recorded. I hope that all of those videos of her, her debates, her refusal to stand up for pro life. I mean, a lot of these things will go far in South Carolina, so that we get the better, conservative pick on the GOP side because we have to get people, in office, but also running against these radical extreme Democrats to show the contrast. And if we don't have the most solid conservatives, then it ends up that a lot of voters are saying, well, you know, we're not really that enthusiastic for the Republican and we may end up losing, more races than we ultimately could.
Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, I was really surprised, I have to say, Jenna, by President Trump's sort of rapid embrace and endorsement of, Senator Lindsey Graham's sister. I think that was pure emotion and I understand it, I'm sympathetic to it. But what made Lindsey Graham great. I thought I disagreed with Lindsey on a number of issues. He and I were personal friends for the last 15 years or so. and I did disagree with him on his early immigration policies and a number of other things. But what made him an excellent senator representing South Carolina and being a great American, leader was he had deep convictions. he was deeply pro life. He was a deep, evangelical Christian. He was deeply, supportive of the military, having served in the military for like three decades, including, you know, his years in the reserves. He was for peace through strength, a strong military, a strong US Assertion of leadership around the world, including defending Ukraine against the Russian invasion, and, not, you know, giving away all of our money and, you know, to Vladimir Zelensky, but still defending, Western, civilization against Vladimir Putin. And same thing with a strong U, s. Israel alliance.
Joel Rosenberg: Senator Lindsey Graham's death is a huge loss for Senate
And Lindsey Graham, his death, his sudden and tragic death is a huge loss for the Senate, for South Carolina, for the United States. And while I've never met his sister, she seems like a lovely person. But, Senator Lindsey Graham didn't remain such a great senator from the great state of South Carolina, because of his name or, you know, his heritage. It's because he had principles and he was clear about them and he fought for them. And it's not clear that his sister necessarily shares all of them or knows how to explain them. So I don't. The Senate is not a legacy environment. You're not supposed to win the seat because you're from the family of the person that people loved and appreciated. Right. You shouldn't be knocked for that, for being from the family. But this should be a meritocracy. You win the seat on the merits, you either are. You have these values that comport with South Carolina conservative Christian, you know, strong military, pro life type values, or you don't. And I, think South Carolina needs and deserves, a United States Senator who represents all of the values, or at least most of the values that Lindsey Graham supported. He did switch over the time, for the record and for his own legacy and my friendship with him. he had a terrible bill back in the day, on illegal immigration and sort of supported, just amnesty and stuff with Jon McCain. But he did come around to become one of the strongest defenders of, President Trump. Trump's, policies, especially on the border, and, God bless him for that. I'm not sure that he himself would have supported his sister just getting the seat just because.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and we've got to take a break here. Joel Rosenberg. But I fully agree with everything that you just said. I do think it was an emotional response from President Trump. I would have preferred, you know, he just, if anything, you know, give her the seat just for, the, the last interim couple of months. But, you not endorse her for reelection because the problem, as you mentioned, is that nobody's really met her, nobody knows where she stands. I don't even know if she knows where she stands on a lot of this. And that's not what you want in a U.S. senator. so we'll see how that, that election plays out tonight. We'll have more on that, obviously. Tomorrow morning I'm speaking with Joel Rosenberg, host of the Rosenberg Report, and at All Israel News on, all israel.com and we'll be right back with more with him to talk more about Israel and, the state of the US Foreign policy.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, ah, 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 sound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves. Just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Joel Rosenberg says President Trump needs to focus more on domestic issues
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm still here with my special guest this morning, Jill Rosenberg, who is the host of the Rosenberg Report and also editor in [email protected] and as he mentioned, in the previous segment, is, has just finished completing the manuscript for a brand new book. We'll look forward to, talking with you more about that as publication time, comes closer. But Joel, I want to get back to, you know, this topic of where Israel, the US And Iran, are at and and, and how Palestine factors into all of this because, as we are heading closer to midterms, a lot of the critic, at least the conservative Republican side. And you know, just anecdotally what I've heard from listeners, and supporters is that they're very frustrated that Trump is not focusing more on domestic policy. Some of the, genuine affordability issues, you know, some of the things that he promised in the 2024 campaign that he would do domestically. And it seems like this Iran war has been extended so far beyond what anybody, I think even what Trump initially contemplated. And it doesn't seem like it's in a great position, right now. How do you view this from the perspective, you know, being there in Israel and from, from where we are, kind of from a 30,000 foot perspective?
Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, it's a great question, Jenna and I deal with some of that on my, my show, my primetime show, as you mentioned, the Rosenberg Report on tbn, which is the leading Christian television, network in the United States. Nine, p.m. on Thursday night Eastern. we're going to deal with some of these questions because, you know, the great thing about democracy is, Jenna, that it helps people, refocus on listening to the people. Right? And it's a republic, it's not a pure democracy. But, you know, President Trump I think is beginning to, to hear frustration. And yes, there are haters of Trump. Let's set them aside. And there's haters of Israel. Let's set them aside for a moment. There are people who strongly support the US Israel alliance and believe that the Iranian regime was a serious, serious, national security threat to the United States, to Israel, to our Arab allies, and believed action was needed. They had enough nuclear, fuel to build 11 fully operational nuclear bombs. That's what they told Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. that's what the Iranian negotiators told them, in January and were bragging for them that they had enough fuel to build 11 nuclear warheads. And that's why even Jared and Steve, who supported a peaceful negotiation deal with the Iranian regime, said to the President, like, they're not listening. They don't Want a deal? We've got to act or they're going to build 11 bombs. So we had to act. And I think President Trump has shown m tremendous courage and leadership. He has promised for decades that Iran would never get a nuclear weapon. and now they won't. there's more to be done. But all that being said, yes, he absolutely needs to deal. Spend more time on US Domestic issues, including, especially the economy. That's his strength. That's President Trump's strength. Right. He's not a politician. he's a businessman. And he's a very good businessman, very successful. I think one of the things that, President Trump is getting tripped up on is not so much the war. I realize that's an easy focus, and no American ever wants to be at war. I get that. but sometimes you have to, so. But what is the president getting tripped up on? It's tariffs. Okay. I'm, not against any tariff at any time under any circumstances. But President Trump is really excited, as you know, about slapping tariffs on almost everybody, everywhere. and the problem is tariffs are a tax. In the old days, Right. In the old days, we had tariffs instead of the income tax. right. The federal income tax didn't come in until 1913. Right. So tariffs were the way to regulate commerce, internationally and raise money for the government. But to have tariffs and the federal income tax and all the state income taxes and, you know, Social Security, Medicare, it's too much. And so what the president is excited about, he doesn't. He's not accepting the fact that tariffs are attacks and attacks. these taxes are raising prices on the very people President Trump ran on saying, I'll lower the cost of living. And I think there's a disconnect there. And, but, you know, President Trump has total political support within the Republican Party. And so everybody has gone along with these tariffs. it has raised a lot of money for the treasury, but it's costing Americans, because it raises prices. These taxes. Tariffs are not just paid by foreign governments or foreign companies. They're passed on to consumers. And that's why inflation is not as low as it should be. That's why prices are not coming down like they should be. And, you know, it doesn't mean I don't support President Trump on so many other things. I don't support him on raising taxes on the American people. and unfortunately, that's what's happening with the tariffs.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, that's such a great explanation because, you know, there were a lot of people I think that didn't quite understand how all of this worked and had you know, just this trust in ah, President Trump and and I think rightly so, I mean I think he earned that of course after the 2024 election and also how much he boosted the economy after his first administration. Obviously, you know, Covid, a totally separate issue and you know how all of that happened. but we're looking forward to seeing some of that rebound, especially after the Bidenflation.
Joel Rosenberg says President Trump's focus on Iran is distracting him from economy
And so, so do you think that there is merit to this criticism or concern that Trump is so focused now in his second term on foreign policy and being the peace president and you know, some of these more long term and long ranging issues that he's not really appreciating the impact for everyday Americans and that's in part you know, causing some of this frustration.
Joel Rosenberg: Yes, I share that criticism of the President and hope that he's listening as he's getting closer to the midterms. I think that you know, this war with Iran has taken much more of his time and attention than he, than he thought it would. but it was always going to be a massive challenge. you know, when you're dealing with, with the potential of a country that's already been at war with America for 47 years being this close, you know, inches away from having 11 nuclear warheads, that's not going to be an easy fight. and it hasn't been easy. The United States has done a brilliant job with Israel at its side, but it's not, you know, but what's left of the Iranian regime isn't going to, you know, capitulate easily. Right. I think President Trump has moved back to his strength, which is he's already bombed as many. I mean, are there more sites to bomb? Sure. And I'm not against that necessarily, but I think he's doing the right thing, which is he's turned back to his economic leverage and that is the blockade, on Iran. And I think that's a great strategy, but it, but that has driven up the price of oil to some degree and thus gas prices. But the overall problem that Trump is facing is that he thought that by coming back into office he would have this huge economic rebound, after Biden. And he could show the contrast in many areas. He has succeeded because he's attracted so much foreign direct investment in the United States. I mean just massive, record amount, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of foreign, investment and American investment as American companies take their factories out of foreign countries and bring them back to America. This has been great. But what Trump is getting tripped up on and he does not see it, and so he cannot change it in the next few months before the midterms is the tariffs. He's enamored of tariffs, but he has never made, he's never accepted, the Steve Forbes argument and the argument of others, even Larry Kudlow, his previous national economic, Council advisor, that tariffs are taxes. You can't get around it. And so what we have is President Trump, who's so good on economics and in every other area, is helping manufacturing get rebooted and bringing investment back and factories back and the supply chain back. All of this has been great, but he doesn't understand why it's not having as much of an impact as he wants as he expected. And that's because of tariffs. That's because of taxes. Taxes are always a drag on the economy and they're always going to get passed on to the consumer. And that means higher prices for the very people that he, that President Trump genuinely cares about. And he's, it, it's a conceptual mistake that's costing him. Now, it may be in the end, like, if everything, all things being equal, Republicans would get wiped out this fall because of, discouragement and disagreement with the war, even though he's right about it, and because of the economy. but Democrats are so crazy, some of these candidates that we discuss, that I think Republicans might do very well this fall in spite of these issues. But Trump has to focus on how to bring down prices, how to deal with inflation. And he's going to have to come to terms that it'd be better to keep reducing tariffs than, for example, he wants a new fight with Canada in which he might swap 50% tariffs. Canada is our biggest, America's biggest trade, partner. To slap huge tariffs on Canada right before the election is not going to be good economically, not going to be good politically. It may feel good, but it's not going to get President Trump economically or politically. Where.
Jenna Ellis: And such great commentary, Joel Rosenberg. We've got to leave it there. really looking forward to having you back on again soon. appreciate it. You can follow Jill Rosenberg and as always, reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net.
Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis discusses pivotal legal and political issues with attorney Gerard Filitti. From the Supreme Court's recent ruling on mail-in voting restrictions to the implications of a private arbiter's decision regarding the Washington Post's firing of a columnist, the conversation covers significant topics shaping our legal landscape. Jenna also talked to Joel Rosenberg about the controversial candidacy of Abdul El Said in Michigan.
(00:00) Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
(00:32) Jenna Ellis: The South Carolina primary is this evening
(01:13) Supreme Court lifts injunction on mail in voting restrictions ahead of November elections
(06:39) A private arbiter has ordered the Washington Post to reinstate Karen Attaya
(12:30) Florida governor suggests one of his allies could face death penalty over child sex charges
(18:23) Israeli airstrikes hit two locations in Gaza yesterday, killing at least two people
(19:41) Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El Said is pushing for Sharia law on Fox News
(23:45) Joel Klein: Abdul El Said is a serious problem for Democrats
(34:16) Joel Rosenberg: Senator Lindsey Graham's death is a huge loss for Senate
(37:19) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing baby on ultrasound
(38:41) Joel Rosenberg says President Trump needs to focus more on domestic issues
(45:09) Joel Rosenberg says President Trump's focus on Iran is distracting him from economy
(50:07) Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
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:
