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

Jenna Ellis: Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

Jenna Ellis: This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

A landmark social media trial is taking place in Los Angeles on Thursday

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. Today is, Thursday, February 19th, and a big trial is going on in Los Angeles that you really should be paying attention to. This is a landmark social media trial that is contemplating the question of whether the the features of social media on Meta, which includes Facebook and Instagram, features such as infinite scrolling beauty filters, push notifications and algorithms are engineered to maximize engagement in young users contributing to addiction, depression, suicidal thoughts and other harms. And you and I may think, well of course, that that seems like an obvious, issue for social media. If anyone, has been on social media, and especially young people on social media, this seems to be a very clear indication that, you know, of course the algorithms are designed to keep you on those platforms. but Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, testified in person facing the jury on this issue, and he strongly denied that Meta intentionally targets children or engineers its platforms to be addictive and stressed that the company prohibits users under 13 and that many who are underage lie about their age to children joined. So basically, hey, we're putting all of these parameters in place. We can't necessarily help, if, you know, somebody who is not meant for these platforms comes on. But we're not intentionally, targeting them. And so this is a really fascinating civil, lawsuit. And initially, YouTube and there was one other platform that was engaged as well and they ended up, oh, so it was TikTok T. TikTok and Snapchat as well. they settled with the plaintiff before the trial began. And so Meta and YouTube remain as defendant. So you had two platforms that settled out of court before the trial began. We don't know what exactly was contained in that settlement. That's not been made public. I'm not sure if it will. And then, meta and YouTube remain, as the defendants in this trial. So it's going to be really interesting, to see what the, what, what unfolds. And so many people are talking about this, going, being a bellwether sort of trial because like what's going on in the realm of the intentional harm, for the transgender surgeries and the genital mutilation and all of that and seeing where some of those juries are going, if this ends up with liability on meta and YouTube, then that's going to be a kind of cascading effect for some of these other trials. And so what's interesting here is this question of whether these features are designed to be addictive and essentially ignore the harm that can and that does foreseeably happen. And so this particular case was brought by a 20 year old woman, who is just identified by her initials, who says that she began using Instagram and YouTube as a child and that the platforms worsened her mental health. And, and that you know, that seems like a pretty bare basic claim. And the question here is how young people begin and children begin using these platforms and whether the foreseeable harm that can happen to children, ultimately these platforms are responsible for. Because you know, obviously some of these things that even if they're addictive to adult users, we have the wherewithal and we have the choice to simply turn them off. And for children it's a little bit different at least under the legal question. And so Adam Mosseri, who is the head of Instagram also testified earlier in the trial saying social media use isn't quote, clinically addictive but rather can be problematic use. and so the internal company emails and presentations that are being shown in court are suggesting that Meta employees once discussed strategies on engaging teens and tweens. so kind of that age range of like you know, 11 to 13 maybe and that age verification was difficult and not always enforced. And so this case matters because it's a test on whether social media platforms can be held liable under a kind of product liability style claim for harms like addiction and mental injury, not just for harmful content posted by users. So this is separate and distinct from like ah, we're talking yesterday for example, to to Steve dase about whether YouTube is a publisher or whether it is a platform and how you know, YouTube is trying purposefully to engage in viewpoint discrimination, not be viewpoint neutral and just say hey, we're a platform. And obviously there are some, you know, legal boundaries that you, that you have to observe, at the, at the outer edges. But in terms of viewpoint neutrality from just a platform, if you're a conservative or if you're a liberal, or whatever, Your political view or whatever, you know, type of content you want to post. We don't actively discriminate and censor you based on your political affiliation, you know, your religion, you know, all of these other things. So this isn't a question of whether Meta and YouTube are publishers versus platforms. This is a question under a product liability, framing and the legal question of whether of not whether this is harmful content posted by users. This is about the algorithm and the behind the scenes overall structure of how Meta and YouTube operate that they intentionally design these platforms to not just be engaging to users, but actually addictive and ultimately harmful in a way that not only is a foreseeable result, but may even be, you know, an intentional one. And obviously Meta would say, well you know, we're not, we're not intentionally trying to be harmful. We just want to keep people on our platforms using our products. And that's sort of this, this standard. Of course, anyone who has a product, they want to keep people engaged. I was looking even at an advertisement, because of course you know, Instagram and I'm a prolific user of Instagram and you know, a lot of these platforms for political content especially, but you know, these algorithms also know like your purchase history, you know, some of this. So they target ads and, and you know it was funny scrolling down yesterday and seeing this ad and one of, one of my friends, and I were talking about it that it was this you know, ridiculous like almost pirate looking outfit from a company and it was, oh, you're gonna wear this forever. And we were just laughing because it's like, okay, we wouldn't even wear this once except maybe to like a pirate themed party or something. I mean, I don't know where in the world you would actually wear this ridiculously hideously looking outfit in like normal society. But the advertisements language saying you know, oh, you'll wear this forever. If that were true and they actually believed that then they would be undermining their own profit margin because they would say these pieces are so classic that you know, you're going to wear them out and you're going to have them for 20 years and you're never going to need to come back and shop with us. And so you know, it's, it is manipulative in, in a sense and that's obvious and we all know that marketing works like that. But but it's so, it's so funny because it's like there are some things that are legally Acceptable in terms of marketing and just persuasion. Because that's not, for example, a provably false thing that, oh, you'll wear this forever. Well, that's not provably false. Right. So that, that falls under the legally accepted, you know, standards for marketing. But we all know that it's designed to be manipulative. Right? And we all should know that as consumers and we all should be teaching our children to be more discerning about some of these things.

A verdict against Meta could set a major legal precedent for how social media are regulated

But where this case I think gets really interesting is under the kind of product liability style claim for harms like addiction and mental injury. It's not just about keeping your customers on the platform and it's not just about harmful content posted by users. A verdict against Meta could set a major legal precedent for how social media companies are regulated. And it may force changes in how platforms are designed and operated. And how that would ultimately, overall affect social media and especially for children, remains, to be seen. And so the legal stakes, are this case is trying to kind of move beyond just content liability. It argues design liability. So if the design itself is defective, then, you know, section 230, which, you know, we've heard prolifically in conservative circles, may not actually shield them from liability. And so a lot of these platforms have gone to section 230 to say, you know, hey, we're we are platforms, not publishers. We're not responsible for content. And if, you know, if people spend 17 hours a day scrolling, well that's on them, that's their decision. But this is basically a design liability. And so this is the difference, for example, in a car manufacturer, right, when if you speed beyond the speed limit and you're going 105 miles an hour and you get into an accident, that's a user, ah, feature that is, that is something that the user pushed the product beyond what it was designed for and obviously beyond what the law, allows for a user. And that's not liability on the manufacturer. But if the design fails, the manufacturing fails and you know, the brakes don't work, when they stop and there's a design error, then that can at times create liability for the manufacturer. But it gets worse. If a manufacturer actually knows of a design flaw but they don't want to go back and correct it, because it's going to cost them either you know, a lot in redesign and recall or you know, whatever their, their analysis is. And for something like Meta and YouTube, if it comes out and it looks like to me, and what I have seen and I haven't, you know, watched extensively the entire trial. Based on reports and the testimony, if what is being alleged, the jury ends up finding and fact finding and saying yes, you know, Meta and YouTube intentionally designed their algorithms and their product. they intentionally designed their product in order to create this, this platform that causes these addictions and harms, you know, with your mental health and all of this. Then that is the same type of liability as a car manufacturer, for example, that intentionally designs a car that is known to crash and says well you know, because we will, for whatever reason, you know, we'll make more money, the user will spend more time in it or whatever their rationale for doing that. it's not a one to one comparison obviously there. But if they knowingly are designing a car that has these features that cause harm, that is a huge, huge liability, risk. And so if Meta loses this, there will be a massive litigation wave, a redesign of platforms, possible federal regulation, and new duty of care standards required for tech companies. which frankly I, I hope that this is the outcome because this is something where conservatives, like I said, have fought against section, 230 liability shields for these platforms that are basically getting away with not only viewpoint discrimination against content, users and content creators, but they're basically saying we have no liability whatsoever and we keep our algorithms a secret. And so while you know, regulation has to be done carefully, the, there already is federal regulation in a lot of these things. Like you know, you can't post certain content, that would violate the law. Right. you know, things like child porn for example. I mean just obvious things. and so to ensure that some of these regulations and restrictions meet a certain threshold and a new duty of care standard for tech companies that actually really makes sense. And a redesign of platforms that, that doesn't intentionally engage children especially and minors through a lot of these filters and some of these other things that really do cause harm would be a very good thing for these platforms. And if they, you know, lose money over it. Well you know that's just, that's, that's unfortunately part of the protections that are part of a legitimate government, because the government should under a state standard of a biblical worldview and saying what is the government designed to do? Well, it's designed to preserve and protect the rights of the individual. And sometimes that means regulation. And so this isn't, and this is where I disagree overall with those on the right who say that government is a necessary evil and the most limited government is the best government. Yes, government should be limited, but government does have necessary functions. And some of these things, like regulation are actually necessary. And regulation has to be done in a legitimate fashion. And over regulation, or if it's not trustworthy regulation, like what we're seeing with, you know, some of the fda, it's like, okay, we trust as a consumer that if this is fda, if it passes the fda, then it's safe to consume. But we're learning now in Florida that there are levels of arsenic in. In candies. and, you know, some of this other stuff that, okay, it passed the fda, but is that regulation actually accomplishing what the regulation is intended for? So this is going to be a really big trial, and, if meadow wins, it will reinforce limits on holding platforms liable, under the law, and it will signal, that courts are reluctant to treat social media as a defective product. So. So, this is going to be really fascinating. We're going to follow this trial more extensively. we need to take a break here. I'm already a couple of minutes over, just because I love talking about some of this stuff. But we will, take a break here. And, we need to see whether this jury. And it's really fascinating that this is in the hands of a jury as a fact finder. it's not a bench trial where a judge will determine questions of law and fact, but that juries, are going to look at this and really ask, at what point does design become manipulation? And that manipulation cause foreseeable harms and consequences to users in a way that government absolute, absolutely should regulate. So, it'll be interesting to see and we'll know within probably, you know, couple, couple of days or a couple of weeks. I'm not sure exactly how long this trial is supposed to take. but once we get that verdict, we will talk about this more. So we'll be right back with more here here on Jenna ellis in the morning.

Chuck Schumer is pushing a bill to give the pride flag federal protection

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back to jenna ellis in the morning on american family radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, in other words, news that can be filed under stupid things that democrats want to push because we have nothing else going on in this country that needs attention of the senate besides the pride flag. Right. Chuck Schumer, ah, infamous stupid democrat, is pushing a bill to give the pride flag the same status as the United states and military flags. So the legislation comes after the trump administration removed the pride flag from the stonewall national monument. So this would not replace the American flag. You know this. Let's put this into context. As, as ridiculous as this is, it doesn't mean that the pride flag becomes equivalent to or replaces the US Flag as the national flag. That's unique in law and tradition under the US Flag code and its symbolic and legal places distinct. However, what this is pushing for is to have, that the. The pride flag that, is the same status as other flags that get similar federal protection. So, for example, rules about where it can be displayed and safeguards against arbitrary removal on federal property. So, you'll recall that Trump, took down a lot of these pride flags and at US Embassies and now the flag that was being removed from the Stonewall National Monument. And so supporters of this are arguing then, the pride flag would get federal protection for arbitrary removal on certain displays, which is just utterly ridiculous. But let's welcome in our good friend Alex McFarland, who is an author and Christian apologist and, the co host of Exploring the Word right here on American Family Radio Network, to rant with me about this ridiculous piece of legislation. So, Alex, you know, first and foremost, I mean, I, I think we need to clarify here that the pride flag itself, I mean, well, obviously there are other, symbols and other flags. We have a Christian flag, for example. You know, there are other flags that have, that represent certain groups. what the pride flag has sort of become is almost in use, almost like a national flag. I mean, we've seen several of, the Olympians in other, contexts and, and other competitions. instead of having the American flag, they're waving the pride flag. And, you know, we've seen these allied flag buttons and stuff, on, people's lapels, which traditionally are supposed to symbolize what country you're from. and yet they put, or, you know, or maybe in certain contexts, you know, like here in Florida in the Epcot showcase of the world. some of the flags indicate what languages, the ambassadors speak. And that doesn't apply whatsoever to the pride flag. And yet here are the Democrats suggesting that the pride flag deserves federal protection. Your thoughts?

Alex McFarland: well, Jenna, thanks for having me. Good morning to you, and good morning to everyone. And, you know, the pride flag is evil. M. I'm going to say the rainbow pride flag connotes so many things that are wrong, that are immoral. And Chuck Schumer's, wanting to grant this the same, you know, equal legal status to the US Flag is treason. And another subject, we could, you know, roll out is why the Democrat party in recent years has become treasonous, and they are betraying the United States of America. the US Flag represents so much that is good and godly. And, you know, I've often said that there are many scars and stripes that purchase the stars and stripes. but I've got to tell you, and I'm not saying this just as a Christian. I am a Christian. I'm a believer in Jesus Christ. But Christianity aside, for just a moment, every American citizen that has served our country or family members have served many families over the years throughout the wars, family members have died. If you have one thimble full of patriotism and appreciation for the USA in your soul, dear friends, then you should purpose in your mind right this minute that till your dying day you would never vote Democrat again. Because the idea to put the rainbow pride immoral, heinously unspeakably vile, globalist wicked pride flag, to put that on the same plane as the US Flag, that is treason. And if you have one shred of appreciation for this country, you should say, that's it, it's game, over. Never again would I vote for anything with a letter D beside of it.

Jenna Ellis: Oh, amen to that. And this should show you so clearly what the agenda of Democrats are, because, like I said in the opening, if we didn't have, you know, other issues that are obviously more important that the Senate needs to focus on, I mean, this, this is coming in this very same time frame that the Senate is, is dragging its feet on passing the SAVE act, which of course would safeguard, election integrity and ensure that you have to just show an ID in order to vote in federal elections. I mean, things that have actual consequences, for Americans. And now intentionally, the left is trying to blur the distinction between national unity symbols and things that are intentionally demonic and divisive. And they are activist symbols. And this is trying to redefine the whole LGBTQ mafia and elevating a cause based flag to the same status as the American flag. And I just find that so reprehensible.

Alex McFarland: It is reprehensible. It's wicked. let me remind people that last fall the government shut down, and the Democrats stonewalled, and we'll, we'll come back to the use of that word. But they, they wanted the government shut down. People were without their paychecks. It really was jeopardizing the stability of the country. But the Democrat demands to end the shutdown, and the President had a budget it was time to open the government and operate the government. Okay, These were the extortionate demands, the ultimatums. The Democrats said, look, we want 3.9 million to go to LGBTQ advocacy in the Balkan Islands. Right? 2 million to organize feminism in Africa. 2.9 million for desert locust reduction in Africa, 13.4 million for, quote, civic engagement in Zimbabwe, and 24.6 million for climate resilience research in Honduras. I mean, these were among the insane, absolutely ludicrous demands of the Democrats to end the government shutdown last fall. And Jenna, the reason I bring this up is, I mean, how does this have anything to do with the welfare and the care of the US American taxpaying citizens?

Jenna Ellis: I don't know.

Alex McFarland: Yeah, no, not at all. And this pride flag.

Alex Bennett: Schumer's move to remove gay pride flag is empty gesture

And I want to talk a little bit about the fake history that's been contrived around the Stonewall. see, Trump took down a pride flag that was at this Stonewall National Monument. And the whole thing. I was in College in the 80s when the Pride, the gay movements were coming along. And I remember at University, of North Carolina at Greensboro, more and more in all of my classes, you know, there was talk about homosexuality and gay marriage, gay rights, never in any of my college classes. And you know, I went to a very, very liberal undergrad program. Jenna. Nothing was mentioned about Stonewall. and by the way, what happened, I don't know if people realize this, but the 1969 Stonewall riots, the Stonewall Inn was a mafia run gay bar. that's a fact. And there is this narrative that began to be crafted in the early 1990s, that there was this heroic act, a first brick that was thrown by a single individual. And even secular scholars say that this is false, this stuff never happened. But what you have to understand people is that this idea that there's this heroic, noble cause for gay marriage, mainstreaming of homosexuality, and now transgenderism, this is a human right. And this is a grand moment of history. It's false. I, mean, and our nation. I was on a show yesterday, Jenna, with Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute. Just a brilliant attorney, and we were talking about how America is predicated on natural law. And that's also another word for really essentially the Ten Commandments. Now here's the thing. In the privacy of one's home, you can be as deviant as you want to be. But what is happening is in legitimizing a worldview or with no moral guardrails whatsoever. And that's the LGBTQ trans Pro choice, pro. Be as deviant as you want to be to forcibly impose deviancy and militant relativism on the nation. our Constitution can't survive in a context like that. And the fake history contrived around the Stonewall riots as if that's the same as the shot heard around the world at Lexington or the civil. I mean, it's a horrid slap in the face to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the civil rights movement of the 60s, which was absolutely legitimate. but that's this fake history, fake narrative, fake just cause that's been crafted around the gay movement. And to put the pride flag as any sort of nationally recognized symbol, it's treason. And may God grant that it goes nowhere. I don't think it will. But Chuck Schumer, it's pandering. Jenna, forgive my rant. I'll hand it back to you. this will probably go nowhere, but Schumer and the, empty, vacuous symbol gesture. Democrats are doing this to simply say, come election time, okay, sexual deviants. We tried. The evil Republicans opposed us, but please vote Democrat, because we did try. For you. It's just an empty gesture.

Jenna Ellis: Mm, No, 100%, it's an empty gesture. Thankfully. I think you're right, Alex, that this won't go anywhere. but the gesture itself isn't meaningless in terms of what you said, and you explained it, so brilliantly in terms of legitimacy of government. I mean, when. When people, come back at Christians and say, well, what is what, you know, somebody does, sexually in the privacy of their own home? I mean, how is that hurting you, really? Well, when the government puts a moral designation on conduct and has as permissible and, appropriate, and they say that this isn't something that's prohibited, that then inherently legitimizes that conduct. Because we all know that the civil government carries an air of legitimacy. And this is why we can go back and look at other forms of government and other, world powers. And we can say, okay, that may have been legal in their society and under their law, but it's certainly not lawful in terms of being moral and ethical and upright and righteous. And that's the difference between legal and lawful. Lawful means that it has to be in accordance with a higher moral. Moral authority. I mean, something can be legal, but certainly not lawful. And this is where, the. The inherent legitimacy of government then begins to blur. That when the legal designation extends and people then think, oh, okay, well, then it must be moral because it's permissible in this society. And we can think of, you know, some obvious examples like how certain societies treat women, how they treat, minors, how our society treats, unborn children, you know, things that are legal right now, but certainly not moral. And so to even suggest from a, you know, very high ranking Democrat senator that to, to put the pride flag on the level of the United States flag that is literally the symbol of a country that was built on a foundation of a Judeo Christian ethic and recognizes the law of nature and of nature's God and reality, and puts the pride flag that is literally the symbol of everything against the laws of nature and of nature's God is intentionally trying to excise God from America and say we are putting a false worldview on the same plane as the Christian worldview and suggesting that this symbolizes truth instead of the American flag. And we've got to take a break here. Alex McFarland, but, you're staying with us through, through the break and I really appreciate that, so we can talk more about this. And also I know that you are at, the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, today. So I want to hear more about that and you know, some of the important things that that organization is doing along with afa to continue to protect our right to talk about these things on air and to publicly, use our airwaves to say that we object to things like the pride flag and this has no place in a legitimate government. So, Alex McFarland, my special guest this morning. We'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the morning.

The odds of Jesus Christ returning this year have surpassed Kamala Harris's chances

Foreign,

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm still here with my guest, this morning, Special guest Alex McFarland, who is a host of, Exploring the Word right here on American Family Radio Network, author and apologist. And, during the break I was, so scrolling through social media, you know, which my algorithms obviously are targeting me here because this came from a, from Polymarket just in. The odds of Jesus Christ returning this year have surpassed Kamala Harris's chances of winning the next election. Alex, I just started laughing during the break, because, well, for one, Christians should always be ready because we know that that will in fact happen in a literal, occurrence in history. That when the day and the appointed time comes, then Christ, will return, but we don't know the day or the hour. And so, so, you know, so many people have obviously Speculated, and they try to project, you know, different things. Obviously, we can see the signs of the times, but all of that to say, Kamala Harris's chances are basically nil. And just the way that that was described, I just. I just had to laugh.

Alex McFarland: But that's pretty funny, right?

Jenna Heartland is attending the National Religious Broadcasters Convention this week

Jenna Ellis: but, speaking of the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, you, are there in Nashville. And, this is an important week that, a lot of Christian broadcasters, including us, at afa, you know, set aside, to not only engage with some of the other broadcasters that are there, but really to be part of, a coalition that recognizes that, in particular, religious broadcasting is very important to the overall public square and participation in the conversation for the purpose of advancing truth. So, what are you experiencing there at NRB this year? And just share with us a little bit of your perspective.

Alex McFarland: Wow. Well, you know, it's very encouraging, Jenna. And, we are in Nashville at, ah, NRB is National Religious Broadcasters. And, I've been coming for quite a number of years with the American Family Radio Network. And afr, by the way, is one of the, you know, major participants here. Afa, AFR has a really big booth. There's a convention floor, and all the ministries that you've ever heard of, I mean, like Samaritan's Purse, Compassion International, the Billy Graham ministry, those types of ministries are here. And it's really a gathering of Christian communicators from around the world. And it's very exciting, Jenna. I've seen it grow and grow and grow. I'm sure there's 5,500 to 6,000 people here. Last night we had a dinner and, Shannon Bream, from Fox News, who actually was in school with at Liberty University, but, she gave a speech last night, and, so many people, my goodness. Kevan Sorbo, the actor, and Kathi Ireland, the, you know, she's, a fashion designer. and we'll be interviewing her later today. Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, who's a great speaker. Erwin Lutzer, Eric Matack says he's not here this year, but he's usually here. But my point is, and I would ask people to pray. NRB is a growing movement. And Troy Miller, the president, gave an address yesterday. Jenna. And it was my great privilege a year ago, profound honor. I was put on the board of trustees of nrb, which, I'm deeply honored to serve in that role. But Troy Miller, the president, just gave a list of examples where the airwaves would be restricted. The bottom line is this. The Democrat led left wants to censor the broadcasting of the gospel. And whether it's keeping social, media free and open and not subject to viewpoint discrimination, or whether it's you know, like, if I'm an ordained minister, if I go on the radio and I say, look, according to the holy word of God, the Bible, God loves you, Christ died for you. But according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Well, NRB advocates that I don't go to jail for preaching that, that I can, I can, as a minister of the gospel, I can actually be on the radio, preach the whole counsel of God and not face, legal reprisal. So NRB is very important. but there's one other thing, and I would ask people to pray about this and this is going to sound a little strange. There is the car radio inclusion bill that NRB is fighting for for a couple of years. automakers have been pressured by, the tech overlords and the Democrats are on board with this, to not put radios in automobiles anymore. Now you say, what does this matter? Well, listen to this. I was on a zoom call with the Billy Graham ministry about a month ago. The most recent data shows that 93% of Americans of all ages listen to some radio during the week. AM radio, FM radio. And one of the reasons the left does not like cars to have radios is because AM&FM radio, in addition to music and news and local news, AM and FM radio have been, you know, the landscape of talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative, Heartland America. Now here's the thing. If there's just a tablet only in a car, then they have to sell you. You have to pay for subscriptions to, you know, whatever platforms. And there's strict control on what you can and will hear in your car. See, free speech, the free expression of ideas, the free exchange of uncensored information. AM&FM radio is a big part of that. So a big thing that we're praying for. And the nrb, lobbyist in Washington. We want, as we've had for a century, we want radios in cars. So the free, unfettered exchange of ideas, including the gospel, may continue.

Jenna Ellis: Amen to that. And you know, at every opportunity that we can to push for more liberty to voice, the truth and to not have these regulations and restrictions that would suppress the truth and would not provide those opportunities like AM radio. Ah, I mean that's so important. And we do need to continue to advocate for that. I was saying earlier this week, Alex, that, you know, this is one of the great things that I learned love about afr, and also about our listeners and supporters, because we don't have to rely on, you know, anyone else for our signal. We are basically uncancellable, as Tim Wildmon always says. Amen. Because we own our towers, we own the land that it's on. And even if some platforms on the podcast version of the show later, you know, decides to, to censor us, you know, well, we can fight those battles and we do, and we have. but in terms of just the actual broadcast and the live terrestrial radio, we are uncancelable. And that is a huge thing that other religious broadcasters, don't have that same freedom. And obviously, you know, we want to make sure that we are championing them as well because, it is in the multitude. I mean, the more voices that can speak truth, the better. and that's why I always love amplifying people who I think listeners should also, listen to and, and support. because the more people preaching the truth of Christ, the better. But we also need to make sure that, we aren't, censored by the government in kind of some different ways. You, maybe it's not that they're pulling the plug on our radio network, but it's that they could enforce some consequences, for viewpoint discrimination or censorship, for example. So all of these things are incredibly important. This is why the nrb, ah, as a coalition exists. my good friend and first, legal mentor Mike Ferris is now, their general counsel and is doing just such a great job in litigation and all of this. And you know, where do you think, Alex, that religious broadcasting is headed? not just in terms of, you know, kind of this, this whole question of First Amendment protections and, you know, some of this, but in terms of, fielding kind of the new landscape of multimedia, because I think it's important and one of the reasons I've started a TikTok channel, and people can go follow me there at real Jenna Ellis, like X, and Instagram reels. And some of these response videos are to kind of go where young people are and then try to draw them back into, the. To listening to our programs and getting more, Christian commentary.

Alex McFarland: Jenna, thanks for, thanks for talking about this.

Alex McFarland: The idea that AM&FM M radio would be canceled unthinkable

let me just say the idea that AM&FM M radio would be canceled, that sounds unthinkable. But really that is what many on the left want to do the left. They want to control what you're allowed to hear. And let me just give you some examples here. I know time is short, but there are over 41,000 zip codes in America. It's pretty amazing. Now in those zip codes there are over 15,000 local radio stations and there are about 5,600 if I. No, I'm sorry, 1100 local TV stations. And one of the wonderful things about America, there's local news. And many in the tech world, the big tech meta and YouTube, they want to really cancel m out local news because if they federalize or globalize the flow of information.

Alex McFarland: You know, you're not going to hear so many things. And of course part of broadcasting, and that's what we do with the American Family Radio Network is, you know, in addition to news and current events through the lens of truth, you know, we broadcast the gospel. But I mean I think about how what a loss it would be. the colorful local news, the local sports, local weather. And if AM and M FM radios are eliminated, I know many have them in their kitchen or in their home. But the nrb, one of the big things. And President Troy Miller, we talk about this. We're trying to keep AM FM radios in automobiles because yes, 93% of Americans of all ages in a given week listen to at least 7 to 20 minutes of car radio. And it's very much more than that. And so this is important because we, we are a nation predicated on, well, among other things, the free exchange of ideas, free speech and in a world without radio, that would be severely, severely restricted.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's incredible to think that you know, that kind of censorship might happen. But I think that we need to all remember the lessons that we learned from the COVID era and how quickly m. And arbitrarily, some of our freedoms really can just disappear overnight under the auspices purposes of legitimacy. And they're obviously not. But this is why eternal vigilance matters and you know, why protecting our freedoms is a, a constant. And we can't just always be in protective mode. We also have to ensure that we are moving forward and we're advancing liberty as well. and so we're already out of time, Alex McFarland.

Jenna afr. thanks American family radio listeners for their support

But I so appreciate that you are with us this morning and give my best to ah, to everyone at nrb, and I, I just so appreciate being able to talk about these things and just once again, to our American family radio listeners and especially those who choose to, donate to us. it keeps us on the air and it allows us to do, what is just a wonderful, form of ministry. And I love being part of this network. I love being part of afa. And your donations help, support us. And we couldn't do this and be un cancelable without you. So thank you so much for your support and also for your prayers. I always love reading emails from all of our listeners. And, you hear, from you every day. So as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna afr.net.

Jenna Ellis dives into a landmark social media trial unfolding in Los Angeles

Alex McFarland to explore the absurdity of Chuck Schumer's proposal to elevate the pride flag to the same status as the U.S. military flags.