Because of listeners like you, Preborn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies
Jenna Ellis: Because of listeners like you, PreBorn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies. Your $28 to sponsor one ultrasound doubled a baby's chance at life. Your tax deductible gift saves lives. Please join us in this mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr Jana Ellis in the morning on, American Family Radio. 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.
President Trump signed a massive funding bill to end the partial government shutdown on Tuesday
Good morning. It is Wednesday, February 4, and President Trump has signed a massive funding bill to end the partial government shutdown on Tuesday, bringing it into the standoff after four days with a fight over immigration on the horizon. This is coming from CBS News. The House voted earlier in the day yesterday to approve the package by a vote of 217 to 214. With 21 Republicans and 21 Democrats crossing the aisle. getting the bill across the finish line presented some challenges earlier in the day for Speaker Mike Johnson, who ultimately convinced a handful of GOP holdouts to advance the measure for a final vote. So the legislation includes five full year spending bills and a two week extension of, funding for DHS or the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats are now demanding reforms to how immigration enforcement agencies like ICE conduct their operations, an issue that will become the focus of negotiations on Capitol Hill and I think also will become one of the focuses, for, for the beginning, of the 2026 midterm cycle. We're already, starting to talk about that. I mean, people have been talking about that even since earlier last year. But now getting kind of into the thrust of the election year, where do things stand? Well, let's welcome in my very good friend Dinesh d', Souza, who is an author and of course the host of the Dinesh d' Souza Show.
Dinesh D'Souza: Government spending has gone out of control
And, Dinesh, you know, what do you think, first of all, about this spending package? Because I saw a lot of conservatives yesterday. We like, of course, funding, ice, dhs, all of that, like getting the government, back open. But this seems to fly in the face or conflict really with, ah, Doge and some of these other promises that we heard from the Trump administration when he was inaugurated last year.
Dinesh D'Souza: Yes, I think that, these spending packages always create a strange kind of double feeling, on the one hand a certain relief that the government is open and important priorities are funded. On the other hand, I think this rather sickening feeling that the country is moving toward a sort of precipice, because even a rich country cannot afford to outspend, its means again and again and again. And unfortunately I think there is not enough appetite even among the Republicans, to make any kind of significant shifts in spending that bring the spending under control. Ah, government spending went out of line under Covid. It was presented as a kind of a one time emergency. But amazingly, or maybe not so amazingly, we have stayed in those kind of larger brackets. So the government takes in a lot of revenue and it should be able to live within its means. But there's a powerful incentive in a democratic society for congressmen and senators, to keep spending money, as an indirect way to keep themselves in power. And there seems to be no solution to that problem on either side of the aisle.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's the problem, isn't it really is that Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative. And we're not actually seeing that reality, and that fight in Washington. It's more a fight not, not about how much Congress spends, but on what priorities spend it on. And so gone are the days, even just as recently as last year, talking about the, the corruption, the excess spending, maybe curbing some of that waste. And really Doge seems to be like it was just a, an optics driven narrative that didn't have any practical consequences for any of the spending in Washington. I mean even as is back in, back in the 1980s, I mean this is when Barry Goldwater and others were talking about how how reckless the spending was and how Republicans aren't acting like Republicans. And now, you know, fast forward, 40 plus years later and we're still in that same boat, in fact worse. And that's one thing that we can't really ever accuse Donald Trump of is being fiscally conservative.
Dinesh D'Souza: Yes, there are two separate problems on the spending side. One of them is that government is scandalously inefficient and wasteful. And that's because it's not because the people in government are bad people per se. It's because they have no incentive to meet any kind of bottom line. The government, unlike a business, can just keep spending. and quite honestly, if they haven't spent their budget, they want to go ahead and spend their budget. Otherwise they fear their budget the next year may be reduced. So There is a lot of inefficiency, and I think that's what Doge was aimed at. The other problem is not inefficiency, but entitlements. And essentially what's happened is that the priorities of the government have gone completely, completely out of whack. the original idea of these entitlements was a safety net, was to provide people with temporary funding while you find another job. Was aimed at, providing support, often quite minimal support, for, you know, widows and orphans who couldn't look out for themselves. But all of this has run amok. It's run completely out of control. And you have huge swaths of the population that now live off the taxpayer. People collect disability benefits who are not disabled. you've got people who keep clamoring for more benefits. People are shocked if their benefits are reduced. They act as if it's a scandal. you might have seen videos on social media where a guy with five kids who doesn't work basically goes, this is shocking. I'm now being asked to find a job. And the guy, you know, honestly seems to believe that the American people owe him a living. So all of this suggests that the psychology of the American people themselves has, in a sense, outstripped reality. And the politician then just, you know, is feeding that. Is. Is.
Dinesh D'Souza: Is trying to appease it, because in the end, the people themselves are in control. So it's a very worrisome trend.
Jenna Ellis: It is. And, and this trend, especially in the context of the. The Democrats pushing affordability and highlighting, you know, some of the challenges in the economy, and this being, one of the. The number one voting issues, that both sides actually are looking at, even among, the gen Zers on the right, suggesting that even if they get a job they can't afford, basic American, the m. The basic American experience and the way of life, you know, House and a family and. And some of those things. And so how do you think all of this, is starting to come together for the midterms, Dinesh? Because, the way that I see that. And there's a lot of different factors, of course, that play into this, and. And even more than we'll have time to talk about this morning, the way that I say it's not really going very good for Republicans right now.
Dinesh D'Souza: I agree. I, think if the midterms were now, it would probably be very bad, and Republicans would most certainly lose the House. I'm not sure if they'd lose the Senate, but losing the House is bad enough. Because, that would create a kind of armed front within the government for Democrats to tie up the Trump administration in many ways. Not in all ways, but many ways for the next couple, of years. however, we're not there yet. And the question is whether this year the Trump tax plan which goes into effect is going to have any measurable impact. the long term problems that we've been talking about have no real effect on the midterms. People in the midterms are not going to decide whether the national debt is too high. They're going to be looking at very sort of local factors like what are the cost of things, what are the opportunities for jobs that they see around them? Are gas prices reasonable? I think the Trump administration has a chance to straight. We need to demonstrate. Right. In other words, if we say that Republican policies are better, we need to be able to show that there is a measurable improvement in people's lives, even in the short term. So I think this is really the big open question. Will we see these improvements over the next several months? And if we do, that will probably turn the tide. And if we don't, then unfortunately we're looking at gridlock.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's the unfortunate reality.
Dinesh McCarthy: Texas continues to be Texas. Um, the people who are saving Texas from moving purple
And speaking, of that, that balance, there was a Democrat, that flipped a state Senate seat in Texas earlier this week. McCarthy. And you're from Texas, Dinesh. And McCarthy, commented that the victorious Texas Democrat, quote, looked like a Republican. I kind of find that hilarious because sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference these days. And that's not a good thing. It's not because Democrats are suddenly, you know, looking fiscally responsible and becoming pro life and advancing all these conservative measures. It's because often, Republicans look a lot more like Democrats. So, to what, what's going on in Texas?
Dinesh D'Souza: Well, Texas continues to be Texas. And, I was quite concerned that the state was turning purple, but I don't think that's actually happening. the people who are saving Texas from moving to being a purple state are the Hispanics in the south of the state. they were at one time 70% plus democrat. and now it's more like 50.
Dinesh D'Souza: Not only that, Republicans are actually winning races down in the Rio Grande Valley. So the state as a whole is not going to, ah, go to the Democrats anytime soon, maybe not even in the foreseeable future, unless the Democrats can flip the Hispanics right back into their camp, which I don't think is going to happen. This being said, there are a number of Texas districts that are very red, that have very weak need as we say, kind of rhino type of Republicans. and the question is why? Why would a, ah, sort of bright red district elect a kind of weak Republican? And the answer often is that there's a race between a conservative activist who's full of fire and, and brimstone but doesn't have any connections or any money. And then a kind of Republican businessman jumps into the race. And this guy is not particularly ideological but he puts $3 million into the race or he's more, he has much better connections and is able to raise the money. And so the guy with the bigger money Kit ends up winning. and that's true in a number of places in Texas. So there needs to be, the Republican Party needs to figure out how to be able to get more conservative representatives for its more conservative districts.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And we're seeing this across so many states. I m mean even here in my home state of Florida we're experiencing kind of the same thing. in the governor's race where you have you know the Republican, you know barely in name only that you know, is Byron Donalds who has the Trump endorsement. He has a lot of money. And then you have you know, James Fishback who's kind of that, that candidate. Right. Who is the, the one who is the firebrand on social media but has you know, no money, nothing really behind him. there are questions of whether he can even qualify under Florida law. And then you have you know, the actual conservative that that is, that is running that really should be getting more attention in my opinion. That's former speaker of the House Paul Renner. I think he has the best shot and would make the best but you have this kind of replicated Dinesh across a lot of statewide races in red states and across red districts. And then you also have that on the federal level as well. Why can't Republicans pick better candidates in primaries?
Dinesh D'Souza: Well the party seems to be seems to have an inner split that is not handled as well as the Democrats do. The Democrats also have a split but they seem to manage to elect. I mean in the Democratic Party you'll have a moderate looking candidate that can win an election. Someone like Abigail Spanberger in Virginia will run sort of to the center but then will vote exactly like the left wing Democrats. So the Democrats get unity because even their so called moderates end up drifting left and voting left. So that the Democrats have a single set of priorities. Hakeem Jeffries can pretty much count on his side of the aisle to do exactly what he says. On the Republican side, there is a genuine rift. The so called moderates dislike, what they see as the extremists, the extremists dislike the moderates, both threaten to push the other group out of the party. and when moderates win, they don't move to the right, they vote moderate. and so as a result, you've got a, I think, a failure of leadership on the Republican side. It's almost like we have generals who can't keep their soldiers in line. And that is, that's a bit of a structural problem. It has complicated roots. It has to do with things like the way in which Republicans fund campaigns at the local level, at the state and local level. so I don't know if it's going to be fixed anytime soon.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, unfortunately, I think you are probably right on that.
Dinesh d' Souza: Midterms are about prosperity and safety
So, last, question, Dinesh d' Souza and I really appreciate your time this morning. love your show. People should listen to your show, on, you know, Spotify, YouTube, everywhere that they can access that, if you are advising the Republican Party, you know, just as a whole, and obviously, you know, it's a little different in the states, but, the national rnc, coming up for the midterms, what do you think is the biggest piece of advice they need to hear right now?
Dinesh D'Souza: Well, I think that the midterms are going to be decided, on the issue of, well, on the fundamental issues of prosperity and safety. So if it were me, I would have a clear cut campaign that's focused on that, focused on the pocketbook, focused on, opportunity, and also focused on safety, both at the, both in the sense of crime, in the sense of immigration, but also in the sense of national security. So, you know, think about why we have government in the first place. We have government, by and large, to protect us from foreign and domestic thugs. It's really important for our government to show that it can and will do that. So the, focus of the immigration enforcement, but also of crime fighting policies needs to be, hey, listen, you know, we're making your ordinary life safer. and I think that'll be a message together with the economic message that will resonate with people.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, I think that's true. And we got to take a break here, but, Dinesh d', Souza, really appreciate it and I hope that you, the Republicans do get their messaging together, but they also put some wins on the board. I think that this whole issue with, ICE and dhs, really the narrative control, needs to come back into the Trump administration. And I've seen so much on Instagram, now on TikTok, where, the young people are only hearing, about the, the, the leftist view on ICE and dhs and of course from the Grammys. They're not hearing about the good things and why we need border security, all of those things. And so, there really does need to be more out there that is putting forward a truthful perspective. that obviously then is a conservative one. But Dinesh d', Souza, you can follow him at Dinesh D. D' Souza on X. He's an author and filmmaker. His latest film is the Dragon's Prophecy. You can also listen to his podcast and we will be right back with more.
Preborn Network helps women choose life through a free ultrasound
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread and easy to believe. But truth, truth is costly. And nowhere is the cost greater than for mothers in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, silence and lies surround her. But when she walks into a PreBorn Network clinic, she's met with compassion, support, support, and the truth about the growing life inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free ultrasound, and it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat, it literally doubles the chance she will choose life. PreBorn Network clinics are on the front lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life and sharing the truth. Friend, this is not the time to be silent. It is the time for courage, for truth and for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby. To help her choose truth and choose life.
Jenna Ellis: Please donate today.
Jenna Ellis: Call £250 and say baby. That's £250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in.
Jenna Ellis: The Morning on American Family Radio.
Jeanine Pirro made controversial comments about taking guns in Washington D.C
Welcome back. Well, there is controversy over the second amendment and stemming from, ah, Jeanine Pirro, who is, now a U.S. U.S. attorney in D.C. for her comments on taking guns in Washington D.C. made during a Fox News interview on February 2nd. Listen to this. Cut one.
Jeanine Pirro: And you bring a gun into the district. You marked my words. You're going to jail. I don't care if you have a license in another district and I don't care if you're a law abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this district, count on going to jail and hope you get the gun back, and that makes all the difference. Yeah, it's amazing how, accountability works. You know, when people think that if they actually get arrested, they might have to do time and they might be taken off the street, it sort of puts a little different message into people's heads.
Jenna Ellis: And that second voice was Martha Macallum, who's interviewing Pirro. But, Piro made these remarks for context while discussing efforts to reduce crime in D.C. by removing illegal firearms from the streets. However, this sparked controversy because Washington D.C. does have some of the strictest gun laws in the US and does not recognize concealed carry permits from other states. And, so even some members of Congress took to social media, including, Florida's member Greg Stube, who said, you know, hey, you want my gun? Come and take it. even the NRA made a statement, as well as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who stated the Second Amendment and those protected rights don't disappear while visiting D.C. so let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who senior counsel at the Lawfare Project.
Jared Alexander: Jeanine Pirro's comments raise Second Amendment controversy
And Gerard, this, to me ultimately seemed like a really unnecessary, controversy from one of Trump's appointees and maybe just should have been phrased a little bit better.
Gerard Filitti: I think you're absolutely right about that. In this case, it's not what you say, but rather how you say it. And coming on the heels of what we've seen some elected officials saying, even Trump himself, about what's going on in Minnesota and the case there, whether concealed weapons or any weapons should be brought to protest, I think the issue is more how the message was delivered rather than the message itself. Legally, Piro is correct. In DC you need a DC license to concealed carry. If you have a concealed carry permit from any other state, it's not recognized. So, yes, you will be going to jail if you bring a gun and concealed carry it in D.C. without a D.C. license. That's true, but the way she said it made it look like she's trampling on Second Amendment rights.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, for somebody like Jeanine Pirro, who, who I've known personally for years, I think she's fantastic. she's been a commentator on Fox News for a lot longer than, she's been an attorney now, an appointee in D.C. you would think that, you know, she would have phrased this better, but, you know, sometimes things like that happen and maybe some Clarification would be good. But this does ultimately, Gerard, I think, raise, the, the controversy that has been going on in D.C. for years that people like Congressman Thomas Massie and others have argued for, for reciprocity and universal concealed carry, which Second Amendment advocates, I think should continue to push for. There's really no reason why, for law abiding citizens who want to exercise their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, that that should change, depending on what state you happen to be carrying it.
Gerard Filitti: Entirely correct. Your gun rights should not change. This is a core constitutional issue. And your right to bear arms should not be affected by what state you're in or what jurisdiction you're in. This is a constitutional issue. So you do have bills like the, I think it's HR38 is the current version of concealed carry reciprocity. Every Congress in yours has had some measure like this on the books, but never gotten to a vote or two to pass the bill. But it's crucial, I think, to have that standardized national reciprocity. Look at it this way. When you have a commercial truck driving license, that's a national standard. Each state issues the license, but it's standardized. Why not have that with something so crucial as ah, the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Jenna Ellis: Right. And so it seems odd to me, Jared, that no one, at least that I'm aware of, you know, that nobody has seen, sued over this and tried to go along the lines of a judicial remedy route instead of ah, just a legislative version. you know, because obviously guns is a really big issue and a hot topic in Congress. And if we can't get it through the legislature, it seems like someone who wants to carry and crosses jurisdictional lines would say, listen, you know, this is now an unconstitutional infringement on my second Amendment protected rights. has that been tried or, is that just not something that has been tried thus far?
Gerard Filitti: It's been tried. It just that it's never made it up to the Supreme Court. I think the issue is that while you have exceptionally good cases like Bruin in 2022, or even like the District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District's handgun ban, you still have the Supreme Court, even as recently as last year, well now 2024, saying that there can be reasonable restrictions on firearms. So while you have that tension between the rights to bear arms and the Supreme Court recognizing that there are some restrictions, or there can be some restrictions which can be in place at a state level, the whole issue of suing for relief is not going to work. This is why you do need the legislation. You do need Congress to step in.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, this is, It's really Sad that in 2026, you know, we're still debating some of these questions and about, fundamental constitutionally protected rights. And you know, as, as longtime listeners have heard me, say before, this is why I think that Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84 was very precision when he talked about, how. And he actually argued against a Bill of Rights as being unnecessary in the Constitution because if we didn't give the federal government the power to infringe upon certain rights or to restrict them, in certain ways, if you look at Article 1, Section 8, those are the only subject matter that Congress, can legislate on. Then why do we need to say, and you know, you can't infringe or restrict, Congress shall make no law, for example, on certain of these issues. And he's absolutely right. However, in 2026 and throughout our jurisprudential history in the Supreme Court, I'm actually really grateful we do have the Bill of Rights so that we can say expressly, this is textually enumerated Congress, you can't and judiciary, you need to protect, these enumerated rights. Otherwise, I think that we wouldn't even be having this same conversation about issues like second amendment rights, First Amendment rights. they probably would have been so much further restricted but for the Bill of Rights.
Gerard Filitti: our founding fathers had the wisdom to understand that when you are a legislature, you find a way to impose a law that is somehow connected to your core powers. Take, for example, the commerce clause. That's a basis for so many laws that have been passed by Congress that are so far afield from regulating commerce that you wonder how those are possible in the first place. But nevertheless, they've been upheld by courts. This is why those ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are so crucial. You need to have that because our founding fathers realized that when you do have a government, it will seek at the federal level to impose more and more laws. But you need to make sure that there's a carve out the basic set of principles that will apply in perpetuity and will guarantee people their freedoms.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, and I Wish now in 2026 we would have, even a few more and have even more clear restrictions on the legislature, so that they wouldn't legislate on issues that are clearly beyond their scope. things like domestic relations and family issues. you know, things that they're, they're trying to impose daily, that are just so far outside the scope of their legitimate limited powers. you know, this is why the federal government has just completely increased in way too much power.
Federal judge enjoined ending temporary protected status for Haitians
But one of the other, the other issues from the judiciary that I wanted to get your comments on. Jared Felitti, my special guest this morning is that there is a federal judge now, who enjoined ending TPS or Temporary Protected Status for Haitians. And Hans von Sparovsky, who is ah, a good friend and he's a senior legal fellow at Americans, Advancing Freedom formerly at the Heritage foundation, wrote on social media, this judge must not be able to read 8 USC 1254 A says there's no judicial review of a decision by the government to grant or terminate temporary protected status. No judicial review means no judicial review. And this judge is clearly violating federal law. So what's going on here?
Gerard Filitti: Well, we're back to what happened with, with the ninth Circuit when, when, when Christy Noem ended protective status back in. Let me take a step back and put it another way. The issue here is that the government, the federal government, that the executive branch does have the legal right to end or create protective status and the executive did. So the arguments against the ability to cancel temporary Protected Status or Haitians really comes down to whether you followed procedure, whether there was some notice in the Federal Register, whether you went through a formal rulemaking process or whether you just did it ad hoc. And ah, even if it's done ad hoc, you still have a basis for national security, emergency situations, things that are justifiable. So this really comes down to being a process issue, which is why the Supreme Court had previously allowed the DHS to go down this road with ending TPS without lifting court injunctions. I think we'll have the same outcome here. I think the Supreme Court will eventually get involved, and say that this, stay this hold is not proper and allow the administration to go ahead with vacating that status and enabling deportations.
Jenna Ellis: And you know, this just raises yet again something that we've talked about I think ad nauseam here, Gerard, together is that you know, when there's no accountability for these rogue judges and for these decisions that just so clearly violate federal law or the U.S. constitution, then it doesn't give any incentive for judges to actually follow the law. And it's a really, it's a tough, it's a tough kind of two sided coin because on one Hand, you don't want to punish every judge who eventually gets overturned by a higher court. I mean, that's just totally impractical. But you also have to recognize that a lot of these judges are intentionally violating the law and they're just going, with their own political bias instead of faithfully applying the law to the facts. So where's the balance?
Gerard Filitti: Well, that's exactly the problem, because once you have one judge who does this and they're reprimanded by the circuit of circuit court or by the U.S. supreme Court, you would expect that common sense would prevail and no other judge would do it. But then judges are sometimes motivated by their political leanings or their ideology, and they decide to do again what a higher court has already said they can't do. So that really becomes political, and that really becomes a question of how do you censure these judges? Do you call them, up before Congress? Do you institute impeachment proceedings against a federal judge who repeatedly goes against what is clear jurisprudence, what the Supreme Court has clearly said? And I think that we are getting to that point where there is such a frustration building that we are likely to see an impeachment or some other disciplinary measure that's taken at some point in the near future, maybe as a test case to see if it does send a message to the judiciary that it's not appropriate for them to keep doing what they're doing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and this also, Gerard, it goes into a larger issue as well that we saw on, the Grammys this Sunday. And there was this clip of Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was sitting in the front, who was clapping and and, and you know, making some other statements about, the whole Ice out movement at the Grammys. That was clearly political bias. And I mean, and I said on my social media, I think it's become very clear that she's not even trying to be impartial. She should not be signaling, her political bias on issues that may very well come before her at the U.S. supreme Court. And yet, the Republicans don't seem to be in the House, don't seem to be in any hurry to hold her accountable. And she's sitting on the highest court in the land.
Gerard Filitti: Call me old fashioned, but I want my Supreme Court Justices to be known for their jurisprudence, not for getting a shout out at the Grammys. I don't expect the Supreme Court Justice. I thought it was a joke when it was announced that she was nominated for A Grammy. but seeing that it was not a joke, it's laughable nonetheless that this is where we are in society, that we have a sitting Supreme Court justice who is going to these ceremonies and acting in a way that makes it look like she has a preconceived notion on certain issues that she will inevitably rule on. And, that just makes it very awkward and raises all sorts of issues of impropriety. It's not what we want from our Supreme Court Justices. We want them to be outside of the fray. We want them to be above the fray. We don't want them to be involved in these causes because then we question their impartiality, we question their legal wisdom, and that starts to devolve our trust in the legal system.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, you know, I got some responses in the comments to, you know, me suggesting and basically calling on the House to, impeach Justice Jackson over some of these improprieties. And they're saying, well, you know, Justices Alito and Thomas go and speak at conservative conferences all the time. And okay, true, but it's not the same when you have a Supreme Court justice coming to talk to like, the Federalist Society and they're giving, you know, comments on just what it's like to be a judge in general. And, you know, they're making, you know, some of these statements that are couched very carefully, not actually political comments. and I think there's a distinction there that clearly Jackson has gone far beyond the line where conservative Justices are, are well within the ethical boundaries that we would expect from the Supreme Court to make other types of appearances, like the Federalist Society and others.
Gerard Filitti: A Supreme Court justice talking to a group of people about the Constitution and their interpretation of it, I think is much more relevant and, understandable and appealable to people to see how the Supreme Court works, how the justice system works, how the legal system works, and even insight into how a Justice analyzes cases that's relevant, that's not prejudicial. But when you have someone engaging in social causes or social activism or activities that blur the line and it's not really jurisprudence, they're just showing their cultural affinity, if you will, towards, ah, something going on in society that is a completely different ballgame. We're talking about someone who is showing their predilections, not in a legal sense, but in an emotional sense where they stand on issues. And that's not what you want or expect to see from a Supreme Court Justice.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely.
Gerard Felitti urges House to hold federal judges accountable
Well, Gerard Felitti, we Gotta take a break here. we could continue, and I'm sure we will continue as, you continue to be on this show to talk about accountability for, the, for not only the justices, but all of, the federal judges on the bench. I wish that the House would use its constitutional authority and power to hold these judges accountable because if they were actually concerned about, rightful impeachments, not just, you know, these political, kinds of maneuvers like we saw twice against President Trump, but actual accountability, maybe, just maybe they would think twice about this. And we really need, to have some kind of accountability for the judiciary. But this is why I am a huge advocate. Governor DeSantis is as well. You know, so many great conservatives. For the Convention of States project, you can go to cosproject.com or convention of states.com so that we can curb a rogue federal judiciary with a constitutional, amendment. We'll be right back with more.
: The AFR app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations. You can't use it to change the oil in your vehicle or get rid of carpet stains. It won't walk the dog, won't pick up the dry cleaning or take the kids to practice. But while you're doing those things, you can listen to your favorite AFR content through the app on your phone, smart device or Roku. Just go to your app store or visit afr.net listen to AFR wherever you go with the AFR app.
Jenna Ellis: Some Democrats claim that the Bible is pro choice
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in.
Jenna Ellis: The Morning on American Family Radio. Welcome back. And as we talked about in the first segment with Dinesh, there are a lot of Democrats that are sounding vaguely like Republicans. And this is why discernment, especially from a biblical worldview, really, really matters. Because when you hear some of these candidates who, even as Democrats, are professing to be Christians or they're quoting the Bible, you really need to know what the Bible actually says. Have discernment be able to rightly divide truth from error doctrinally so that you are not taken captive by these, false interpretations. And one of the most, viral clips going, around social media right now is from Texas Democrat, a U.S. senate candidate, James Talarico, who is claiming the most absurd, ridiculous thing that the Bible is pro choice. Listen to this.
Frank Pavone : But I say all this in terms of, in context of abortion, because before God, comes over Mary, and, and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary's consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke, I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says, if it is God's will, let it be done, Let it be, let it happen. So to me that is, ah, an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that, that, that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom. And, and to me that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus. And so that's why I, that's how I come down on that side of the issue.
Jenna Ellis: This is such bad exegesis on so many levels. so God's announcement to Mary was not a question, it was a statement. And I was talking to one of, my pastors at my church about this and he said, the same thing. You know, God's announcement to Mary wasn't a question, it was a statement. She accepted God's will humbly as a servant. And you also can't apply this situation to any other woman in history. But also, this was before she became pregnant. This wasn't, you know, well, you have to have consent after the fact. And therefore, you know, if Mary wanted to have an abortion, that would have been perfectly fine with God. I mean, this is just such, such terrible theology.
Frank Pavone says pro abortion advocates are twisting biblical passages to justify abortion
but let's welcome in Frank Pavone, who is the founder of Priests for Life, one of the best advocates for pro life. And Frank, I was just, shaking my head at this because to twist and manipulate scripture, historical fact and the truth of God, in order to advance this suggestion that the Bible is.
Jenna Ellis: Pro abortion is just, it's utterly demonic.
Jenna Ellis: And do we have Frank Pavone here? how are you?
Frank Pavone : I, you know, it's amazing that, what happened to the days when the pro abortion advocates were saying, oh, the word abortion is not in the Bible. You know, sometimes they try that line of approach when we do make the biblical arguments for pro life. but here in this case, like you said, you have a really bad exegesis because the passage he's talking about shows just the opposite. Mary said fiat. God announced his intention to bring about a child. Now just on, in the general level, okay, a woman is getting pregnant, but obviously it's a unique situation. The son of God is becoming human. But the point is that she says fiat. Let it be done to me according to your word, your plan, your choice. Pro choice is just the opposite. Let it be done according to my choice. Now, Mary does make clear her initial intention. Hey, how could this be? I don't have any relations with a man. And apparently she wasn't intending to, but she bows to God's will. That's the whole pro life argument, not the pro abortion argument. not only that, but even if you see it as Mary being, asked, permission, what that argues for is that's an argument against rape. That's not an argument for abortion. Should people freely consent to being pregnant?
Jenna Ellis: Of course.
Frank Pavone : But there's a big difference between the freedom to bring a child into the world and the freedom to throw a child out of the world. when a woman is pregnant, the child's already in the world. So the choice is, are you going to, are you going to kill that child?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And that, that's such a great point.
Jenna Ellis: That, the pro life, community makes all the time, is that if you have, if you've made the decision to, have sexual relations, then you've already consented to the natural consequence, which may be that you become pregnant. And so the choice has already been made. You don't have an ethical, or moral decision at that point to then, to then try to remove the consequences of your prior choice. And so, you know, this argument is, is just so terrible on, in so many ways. And yet this Democrat in Texas is sitting here with a straight face, claiming that the Bible is pro choice in the sense that God tacitly or even, fully allows for the decision of an abortion. I mean, it's just horrific.
Frank Pavone : Well, it's horrific and it's wrong on many levels. You know, there's an entire organization called the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. A lot of these Democrats are aligned with it. Religious Coalition for reproductive choice. Rcrc.org shows how, even the devil can quote scripture, as we know from the temptations of Jesus in the Gospels. This is an organization that has Bible studies for choice, rituals of blessing couples as they go to get their abortion and justifies, tries to justify in a thousand different ways how the word of God actually justifies the killing of babies. And my question for these people, I mean, you could go through each and every passage that they try to interpret this way and show how wrong it is. But my fundamental question is, if you actually professed a religion and had a sacred book like we do, that you say justifies baby killing, why in the world would you want to believe that book at all? I mean, why in the world would you want to be part of that religion that's the more fundamental question. It's like, okay, we know that all truth, all our life has to be guided by the Scriptures. No decision, no belief that we have should ever contradict the word of God as we see it in the Scriptures. Having asserted that, do we go to the Bible and look up chapter and verse to know that it's wrong to shoot some, innocent people on the street? Do we have to look for chapter and verse to realize that you don't fly airplanes into buildings on 9, 11? I mean there's certain things that the human mind, heart and instinct, even though, yes, it is corrupted and darkened by sin, and we do need the word of God even to remind us of basic things, but nevertheless we have an ability to know in and of ourselves that it's wrong to kill a baby. And that's where these people, these Democrats, not only this Democrat, the whole Democrat party, has fulfilled the prophecy of Paul when he writes to Timothy that in the last days there will, people will be lacking in natural affection. The Greek word astorgos, is a sign of the end times that people will lack the natural affection. As the prophet M. Isaiah says in chapter 58, do not turn your back on your own flesh. This is what a mother does. Isaiah also says God is speaking and says, can a mother forget her child? He's like, if God himself is thinking the most extreme, unthinkable example of being hard of heart, that's the fundamental problem. And it's out of that hardness of heart that these people are then impelled to twist the scriptures.
Jenna Ellis: So well said. And Copper is saying amen from the background. My little dog this morning. But you know, it's so true that, you know, we have to, we have to rightly divide truth from error. And this is such a fundamental, thought exercise from a foundational perspective that if, if somebody like James Talarico actually believes, and not just for political purposes and to advance, you know, his own, his own Senate prospects, if he actually believes that God is okay with man choosing casually whether to end life or to keep it and basically playing God, then how could you possibly believe that God himself is loving or values every human being? I mean there are so many implications.
Jenna Ellis: That then go to what the Democrats.
Jenna Ellis: profess because if they move the line on abortion and the unborn child.
Jenna Ellis: inherent value, then of course they're going to be for physician assisted suicide.
Jenna Ellis: Of course they're going to be like.
Jenna Ellis: You know, all these nurses across the country that are saying we're not going to have life Saving care.
Jenna Ellis: If you identify as a Republican because.
Jenna Ellis: Once you move the needle that some.
Jenna Ellis: Lives are not inherently more or not.
Jenna Ellis: As inherently valuable as others, then you're.
Jenna Ellis: Automatically opening the door to subjective interpretation.
Frank Pavone : Well exactly. And what you're getting at is that you know, there are multiple biblical themes that, that, that crush that the pro abortion mentality, the dominion of God, the blessing of fertility as opposed to the curse of barrenness, the very meaning of love that it is to sacrifice yourself for the good of the other person rather than sacrificing the other person for the good of yourself. The victory of life. Jesus Christ has abolished death. How can the choice of death be okay, we can go on and on and on. Every page of scripture is about life because it's the word of life. And let me leave our audience with a resource. ScriptureandAbortion.com contains some teachings I have about you know, the different key biblical themes that suffuse the Bible from beginning to end, and that argue for the pro life position. Scriptureandabortion.com and then there's another related website, the Bibleandabortion.com where Jenna I have a daily teaching a different scripture passage each day showing how it supports our pro life convictions and prohibits abortion. the Bibleandabortion.com ah, anyone interested in this topic and being able to answer these radical, ridiculous Bible twisting God hating Democrats use those resources and they'll be very blessed.
Jenna Ellis: That's amazing. And this is why we need resources like this. We need M ministries, like yours, Priests for Life, Father Frank Pavone and also like AFA and AFA Action, we need these ministries that will provide these resources to help Christians think through these issues. Because you know being pro life is not just about saying well we hope that we can help mothers m choose life. Well of course we need to do that in a society that unfortunately still allows abortions. But we need to make abortion not just illegal but unthinkable. But yes, we also do need to make it illegal because it is unthinkable, it is immoral. And for this type of a U.S. senate candidate actually perverting the Bible this much is so disqualifying. I hope that Texas sees through this and sees that this is not the type of person that you want in Congress with the authority and the power to make laws. So Frank Pavone, thanks so much for your commentary. You can follow him on X and as always you can reach me and my team Jenna FM. Follow me also on TikTok now at realjenna Ellis as well as X and.
Preborn's mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead families to Christ
Jenna Ellis: Instagram for more videos responding to these types of false claims.
Jenna Ellis: PreBorn's whole mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead their families to Christ. Last year PreBorn's network of clinics saw 8,900 mothers come to Christ. Please join us in this life saving mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr.
