Transcript

: 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 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.

Florida teachers union speaker says student activism is required for anti ICE protests

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, February 16, and there's a lot going on in the realm of education. we have quite frequently, actually the Florida, Commissioner of Education, is, is here on this program. And Florida is doing so much, in terms of school choice and you and some other things. But one of the other things that, Florida is doing is not allowing the teachers unions to take over and do ridiculous things, like what they're trying to do. A teachers union speaker said that anti ICE protests are, quote, unquote, required. The Florida Education association press conference speaker endorses student political activism as rational and required. Listen to this.

 : Florida students are confronted with videos of ICE raids of families being torn apart and of Americans being murdered for using their constitutional rights. They respond, they organize, they speak out, and they do what American students have always done in moments of injustice. They stand together and demand safety for their peers, their families and themselves. And that response, while framed by some politicians as radical, is reasonable. It's rational. And in a moment like this, it is required to any students being told that they do not have the right to speak out or walk out on their campus. I want to be clear. This is the United States of America. You do not shed your First Amendment rights when you step foot through the schoolhouse.

Jenna Ellis: All right? And so, as Anastasia Kamutsis, who is the, Florida Education Commissioner, said on this, teachers unions are again using children as pawns to carry out their radical political agenda. Their actions could result in lasting consequences for a student's educational record, yet they're willing to put politics above what is best for students. I've been in communication with superintendents throughout the state who have confirmed that discipline is forthcoming for dozens of students. It's baffling how such a nefarious organization that commits fraud, files frivolous lawsuits and encourages chaos in schools still remains and exists. Well, that was, quote, posting Corrie DeAngelis, who is one of the foremost advocates for school choice across the country. He, is also the host of Education Frontlines and he joins me now. So Corrie, this seems to be not only just ridiculous, but so obvious that the teachers union is falsely comparing a student's particular right under the First Amendment and obviously, other law to attend a protest or to speak politically versus what is clearly activism and requiring students to participate. And even in just that short clip, it was obvious to me that this teachers union, they have a viewpoint and they are wanting to force students, Students to express that.

 Corey DeAngelis : That's exactly right. This is a textbook viewpoint discrimination in a sort because they're putting their thumb on the scale and saying, quote, that it's required to attend these anti ICE protests. Now the teachers union president, Andrew Spahr of the Florida Education association is immediately backpedaling on social media. He's replying to a bunch of people that have shared this video saying that wasn't an official union representative, that was just someone that spoke at our official press conference and they only had like five and they didn't say anything, to condemn these remarks. He said, oh, the union hasn't really taken a position on these student walkouts, but they had someone at their official rally or press conference say that this is required. and so it looks bad for the union. I think they're backfilling right now because there's a bill in Florida that's moving throughout both chambers. Senate Bill 1296, there's a House companion bill as well. But what it does is it adds democracy to the union process and it requires at least 50% of the members vote to recertify the union if you want to be certified. So that seems like a pretty basic provision in the bill. And then there's another piece of the bill, that gets rid of taxpayer funded, subsidies of union time where teachers are, you know, getting out of the classroom and going and campaigning for people and doing other union duties. So taxpayers shouldn't have to fund that political garbage anyway. But look, the Florida Education association is the state affiliate of the National Education association. And these anti ICE protests didn't start out of thin air. If you look back at their annual convention seven months ago in Portland, Oregon of all places, they passed a resolution which was new business item 63, which commits to help students, quote, organize against ICE raids and deportations and quote, Trump's policies. So this is all starting from the very top where the nea, the largest labor union in the country, started to plan this. Last summer you had their president, Becky Pringle, she was even in Los Angeles on the ground mobilizing the foot soldiers out there when they had their anti ICE riots going on at the time. And she was mobilizing the troops. So this is a student led movement. This is coming from the teachers unions. Of course the students want to get out of class and do any have any reason to do so? But the teachers unions didn't pass a resolution to support all forms of student protest. No, they passed a resolution to help students organize against ICE and Trump's policies. So they are picking winners and losers here. They are supporting the type of political speech that they agree with, but they certainly aren't supporting kids who support Trump.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, no, and you mentioned, Cory DeAngelis, that Becky Pringle, who's the president of the NEA or the National Education association, was speaking out and during an immigrant, well, what they called an immigration rights, but it was basically anti ICE protest, out outside the DOJ in Washington D.C. back last summer. And so, you know, this isn't something that is just isolated, to Florida or maybe you know, or Minnesota, a couple of of states. This is something that is more national in nature. And why, why isn't on the federal level something being done? Because I mean clearly these are people who, they get federal dollars and they also get state dollars. I mean, so these are government funded institutions and yet. And these are the same people that would tell churches if you're remotely political, if you even have an opinion on policy, much less politics, you know, you should have your tax exempt status being taken away from you. And you know, they're the first to tell Christians to shut up, but yet they're taking government dollars and they're going out to be activists.

 Corey DeAngelis : Yeah, we should totally abolish public sector unions. I mean FDR even had it right and he's no conservative, even pointing out that, look, they're basically using taxpayer resources to lobby against the taxpayer. And when they do something bad, customers can't vote with their feet like they can in the private sector. I mean, if Walmart shut down because of a workers stoppage, a strike, well, at least people could say, you know what, I'm going to go shop at Publix or Safeway or something else. And Walmart would feel the pain from that scenario and so would the workers because they risk losing their job in the private sector. But with the government sector, you saw the San Francisco just had some teacher strikes for a week and parents were caught in limbo because they're still forced to fund the government school system, especially in places like California where they have no recourse, they don't have any school choice. You're assigned to these schools, you're compelled to pay for them through the property tax system and so on and so forth. So I think a middle of the road kind of proposal is what they're trying to do in Florida to say at least 50% of the members need to vote to recertify. We're not going to have taxpayer funded subsidization of teachers going and working for campaigns for the union. So there's things that you can do at the flanks and at the federal level. The NEA is the only union in the country, Jenna, that has a federal charter. They have the backing of Congress. And a lot of people don't know this because they're the only one that has this special privilege. Randy Weingarten, union doesn't have this. Only Becky pringle is the NEA, the largest 3 million member teachers union which has a lot of political muscle right now. And they, they had this for over 100 years, since 1906. And there is a bill in Congress to get rid of it by Mark Harris out of North Carolina. And there's other sponsors as well, obviously, but it would pull their federal charter. There's another separate bill that would say, okay, if you want to keep your federal charter nea, you can go ahead and do that, but if we're going to allow you to do so, you got to stop engaging in political activity. And so that, I think that would be even an even more powerful move by Congress. The thing is, we have the 50 vote threshold, 60 vote threshold in the Senate to bust the filibuster. And you know, the Democrats who benefit from the NEA are going to have a tough time voting to weaken the NEA and to not allow them to engage in politics because they bet they benefit the Democrats from this political arrangement that where the unions give 98% of their political contributions to Democrats. It's a money laundering scheme, it should be illegal to begin with. But here you have it. This is the situation that we're in. And I just got to point out that Andrew Spar, the president of the Florida Education association, he did try to say, oh, you know, he's trying to have it both ways, say, oh, this isn't the voice of the union saying this. We're not taking a position. I asked him on social media, I said, well, if this wasn't, you know, if the union doesn't have a position on it, why did you vote? why did you guys invite an anti ICE speaker that said it was required to have these student walkouts to protest against ice? Why didn't you invite both sides? Where's the pro ICE speaker? And he said, well, we didn't invite a pro ICE speaker because, that wasn't the point of the press conference. It was about strengthening public schools and. Well, okay, well then why did you invite someone who said it was required to go protest against isis? That wasn't the point of the press conference. The fact of the matter is it's backfiring in their face. They don't want this bill to pass and they're trying to save face at the moment.

Corey DeAngelis says teachers unions are using public schools against conservatives

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and all of this is so ridiculous because, you know, Cory DeAngelis, that if the teachers unions were pro Republican or conservative policy, and they were saying that students had to and were compelled to participate in pro ice, even curriculum or just projects, you know, much less protests, that, you know, the Democrats would be all over this, calling even from the minority to stop funding and probably Republicans would go along with it because they're, they don't act like a majority. but this also proves, and shows even more deeply that the left has for years wanted intentionally to hijack, public state funded education. And these political activists are on purpose in these positions, that not only are they, are they doing the money laundering that you're talking about and you're facilitating a lot of the campaigns of the Democrats, but they're also using these worldviews and ideologies of the left, including Marxism, purposefully and intentionally to engage curriculum. I mean, so where, why isn't Congress seeing on multiple levels that all of this is inappropriate has nothing to do with actual education of children? I mean, last I checked, Republicans, you know, do have the majority. They could end the filibuster and I think should, to actually get some of this stuff done while they have the trifecta.

 Corey DeAngelis : Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, and look, the argument is, well, if they end the filibuster now, then the Democrats might end the filibuster in the future. Well, they can still in the filibuster in the future whether the Republicans do it or not. So I think you have a point there. But yeah, I Mean I think the larger point is, you're right that the teachers unions are basically using the school system to turn our own children against us. I mean conservatives, we've out populated liberals by having more kids in recent years and that's a good step in the right direction. But it's not enough to overtake the brainwashing that happens in these public schools which we should call indoctrination facilities in some, in some places where you have 50 million kids going to these institutions for 13 years of their lives for seven hours a day. And you can't win our culture back, unless until we strike at the root of the problem and free our kids from the clutches of the teachers unions once and for all. School choice is a part of that solution. I think teachers need to leave the union too. They need to opt out and join alternatives like the Teacher Freedom Alliance. You got to starve the beast, dismantle it from the inside basically. And if you're a conservative teacher, you would be crazy to continue giving your money to Democrat campaign coffers. That comes out of your paycheck when you can join alternatives for free, get the liability insurance for free because donors are covering it. And so the teachers are part of the fight too. The good ones obviously the bad ones are going to stay in, they're going to try to the unions only really exist to protect the lowest common denominator and to funnel money to far left causes. So school choice, teacher choice, this is the way forward. And parents, you know, if you can home school your kids, that's, that's a way to save our country as well. I know it's really difficult to do so, but if you can find the time and ability and resources to make that happen, you're going to benefit the most because you're saving your own children. But the country is going to benefit too because you won't have as much far left indoctrination controlling our country.

Jenna Ellis: M so well said. And it reminds me of the I think of CS Lewis who said children are not a distraction from more important work, they are the most important work. And parents who are listening or grandparents, you know, who are engaged, with their grandkids who are school age. I mean these are really important decisions because children are not given to the state for their upbringing and not just their basics of education, education but their worldview. They're given to parents to train up in the way they should go, as Proverbs says. So when they're older, they won't depart from it. And this is, a really serious matter. But Corrie, DeAngelis really appreciate it. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that. He posts a lot of really great things at DeAngelis. Corrie and we will be right back with more.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that mass migration threatens Western civilization

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the Munich Security Conference this past week, and his speech went viral for saying that US Allies shouldn't be shackled by government guilt. And he blasted a world without borders fantasy, warning that mass migration threatens Western civilization. So completely against the teachers unions, obviously. But, this is, this has become one of the biggest, contentions, especially heading into the midterms. But this is part of what Rubio had to say. Cut to.

 : And this is why we do not want our allies to be weak, because that makes us weaker. We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength. This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it.

Oren McIntyre: Rubio's speech defended Western civilization but also defended borders

Jenna Ellis: Welcome in Oren McIntyre, who is a host at the Blaze. So, Orin, you know, this seems pretty clear, and I think, on the world stage, Rubio is doing an excellent job of simply, defending borders, defending border security, but also defending overall Western civilization.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, obviously, this is a message that the Trump administration has tried to deliver to Europe for a while. J.D. vance famously gave his speech, speech encouraging Europe to take up its own defense, to strengthen its own military. but I think Rubio's speech this time really spoke to even a deeper level. It reinforced that idea that Europe needs to understand itself as an entity that can protect itself, that can have borders, that can have favorable trade policies, that has functional militaries. But it also tied the reason for that to Americans appreciation for European heritage. The fact that our way of life, our languages, our laws, our cultures and customs flow from that connection between the United States and the Old World. And that we want them to be strong because they are where we came from, but also because if they are strong, they make better allies. I think that really helped that speech to go from saying hard truths like J.D. vance's did, to elevating it to being something that a lot of people connected with and found to be very inspirational.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think, The. The positive framing of it was really helpful because it came across as, you know, sort of bolstering the The ideology that underpins all of this. Not just a criticism of, you, know, some of the nations that. That haven't, really done a great job in their own, mass infiltration of For example, you know, Muslims like we've seen across Europe or Or other groups that are really changing the overall composition. And so, So do you think that, As Rubio framed it, the concern is more of a security issue or a cultural issue, or did he kind of, I think blend both?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, you have to.

 : And that.

 Auron MacIntyre : That's the key. Right. That's what's so important. We've previously just made these technocratic arguments about why you should have, you know, borders and these different things, and they all make sense, but it's so important. Without that cultural element, we lose what we're actually defending, why we're actually running these nations. And that's really important because we're seeing this in Britain with the founding of the NewSong Party with Rupert Lowe. We're seeing this in Germany with AfD. There are so many European countries now who are hungry, desperately hungry, for leaders who are just talking about how to raise the GDP or how to maximize the length that health care will be provided to people. They're talking about them as a nation, as a people, as a people who have the right to care about who enters their country and how that shifts and changes things. And that was so critical to the entire speech because he didn't just say that about Europe. He also said it, of course, about America. That we people who are part of Western civilization have the right to decide who can come in, how we can build our countries. And also, I think, really importantly talked about the right for countries like America to defend its own economy and things that previously were not popular among the Republicans. These are not considered very neoconservative, friendly understandings of trade Policy that it's okay to prefer your nation. And this is something that the Europeans, of course, have done for a long time. He also talked about the Europeans putting, you know, their. Their, welfare programs over things like military defense and not taking part of that. So it was some tough love. But because it was blended in with that cult significance, that tie, I think that really did ultimately make it something that was a unifying speech.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. And to that point, Rubio characterized it as a continuity of culture and societal cohesion. And th. This makes sense when you look at the real distinctions and differences, that are very drastic between, what the west, what. What our founding principles are, what our values are, what our understanding of real, you know, comparatively with those who are not for the West. And, you know, and the contrast, is very significant. And so, you know, when he talks about things like this, you know, continuity of culture, societal cohesion, do you think that overall the. The audience understood this? I mean, I think for people like you and I, that, That. And hopefully most Christians who talk about Western civilization, we understand, you know, the Judeo Christian founding and how it ties into theological principles. You know, the greater, like, bigger picture. But for this audience was, it understood in. In the framework that he posed.

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, that's difficult to say. Of course. I think that many of them are wary of this because we built an elite class that really is tied to that technocratic, kind of neoliberal understanding of the world. And they're very. They're very shaky on the idea that we have nations and that we have peoples and we have cultures and identities. We're supposed to be post national. We're supposed to be global citizens. We're not supp. We tied these things anymore. But I think that was one of the most beautiful parts of the speech when Rubio started naming the different, groups and peoples who came from Europe to America and how they contributed. The Scots, Irish giving us the frontiersmen, and of course the UK giving us, you know, the. The Puritans and all of the culture that. That came and was cemented here. Even talked about Spain and how his own direct ancestors would have eventually been involved in different aspects of the American project. And really framing America as this pan European project, which it always has been, really builds that connection. When we talk about Western culture, you know, that. That really is what people mean when they say the west because of, course, like, geographically Australia isn't in the west, but it's Western because it's pan European. And that's what's what people really mean when they say that? So I think you know, having a clearer picture of what that meant and drawing the exact examples and how they've impacted America, I think that's something that speaks to a lot of people. It speaks to your Europeans and have them feel appreciated by Americans. And it also helps to define American identity for people. And I think that's what makes that speech. Hopefully.

 Auron MacIntyre : I don't know if that audience is ready for that yet, but I know many of the people of those, you know, the countries that those people represent, they're ready for it and we can see that reflected in their political life right now.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah.

Western civilization is defined by things like individual rights grounded in natural law

And it's so important to you to understand what we mean by the west and the Western civilization's core principles. I mean if, if we're saying that it's that Western civilization is defined by things like individual rights grounded in natural law, the rule of law, above rulers, constitutional limits on government, and equality before the law, actual genuine equality, not like what the left suggests in that kind of their hierarchy, market, economics, national sovereignty, going to borders. I mean this is immigration and border security is just one aspect that forms and characterize the west core principles. And the opposite isn't just one specific ethnic group or nationality or country. It would be systems that you were talking about, you know, characterized by the opposite of Western civilization's core principles. So you know, these kind of collective or tribal identities over individual rights, rule by decree or authoritarianism, theocracy, without maybe some aspects of pluralism, state controlled economies and borderless governance and detached from a national identity and this kind of globalism that has really been part of what the left has pushed for, for a long time. And so you know, so the threat of course isn't just you know, one specific nation or culture. We could maybe point to some specific nations or cultures and say their system and their worldview is opposite of the west. But really it's about preserving just the integrity of our systems. And obviously there are a lot of problems we can talk about and you have talked about it prolifically in some of your works or in McIntyre. But but really you know maintaining borders is all about ensuring that we don't import some of these anti west ideologies from anywhere else.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, absolutely. I think it's slowly becoming clear to people that while we are based, we have these strong, important transcendent principles that we're based on. We can't just assume that every Other culture is going to value them that the way that we do. And so this idea that you can just swap out the people and eventually they'll just adopt the culture because the ideas are right, we've run that experiment, and we know it's not true. And so now we are recognizing that these ideas come from somewhere. Even though we believe them to be universally true, they are most believed and cherished by certain peoples. And when we talk about all those principles you were talking about, you know, national sovereignty, borders, those come from the Peace of Westphalia in, you know, with the German states. You know, when we talk about individual, rights and trial by jury and the idea of restricted government, those come from English common law, that those traditions come from a place and a people, and they contribute to this overall patchwork that we think of as Western civilization. And without those deep roots, you can't bring people in who simply don't understand those things and expect them to adopt and, behave in that way. And that's really becoming very clear. So it's important for us to recognize that while we do know that these things are core principles that are absolutely critical, we are also defining ourselves by what we are not. We have to have, in order to have borders, in order to have distinctions, we must have particularities. We must have. We must be allowed to understand that there are some people who do not belong in that order and will not belong in that order. And that's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. But that is a prerogative that Western nations must have. And I think that's what Europe and the United States are both coming to understand when it comes to sovereignty, borders, immigration, all of these things.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And,

Conservatives have long argued that immigration policy must explicitly consider cultural assimilation

And so how would you define assimilation in 2026? Because, you know, for a long time we've suggested, as conservatives, that immigration policy must explicitly consider cultural assimilation, assimilation, you know, language proficiency, civic literacy, and especially shared values, among other things. but obviously that. That isn't happening to a large degree. I mean, saying. And the left has sort of, you know, hijacked that view by saying that, well, the American dream extends to who, whomever, for whatever purpose, you know, they want to. To frame whatever success looks like to them. And there's no real, American culture that they would point to, to require that type of assimilation. And so is this kind of an outdated concept maybe, that, you know, we should move away from the terminology of. Of saying for even those who we do allow legally to come here, that assimilation isn't so much the goal as proper Vetting and saying, you know, it's not about coming here and learning and, becoming proficient. It's about already being someone before you enter, that can be productive and already shares our values.

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, you know, assimilation is a complicated cultural process. We like things that are just really bold and on pieces of paper. We flip a switch and you weren't an American and now you are an American. But that's just never how joining a country has ever worked throughout history. And everybody from Aristotle to our founding fathers knew that being culturally, congruous, being relatively close to the culture you're trying to assimilate to, is going to help that process. So we need to understand that people who are one degree removed, you know, they're, they're from Christian nations, they're used to, you know, the European understanding and way of life. They're just going to be easier to assimilate by definition than other people. That doesn't mean that there aren't some people from, you know, tribes or peoples that are further away from American culture that couldn't eventually assimilate. But if we're looking just at the raw, you know, like you said, we have to pick candidates who are going to have that ability to assimilate easier. There are just going to be some things. I believe Islam to be completely incompatible with the American culture. I think Indian culture is largely, largely incompatible with American culture. We can say we would prefer that unless this is an exceptional person who has a large degree of ability to, to assimilate or to contribute, that we're just not going to take a large number of people like that in mass. And in mass is the real critical part. People don't assimilate unless they have to. When you're one person in a town who has a completely different way of life, you're going to assimilate to that way of life. When you and half your country show up in a town like we've seen in places like Springfield, then all of a sudden you don't have to assimilate anymore because you can live in your little ethnic area. You can only talk to those people. You can get jobs in that area. You can get married inside your tribe. You never have to learn, you never have to change. People forget that it took us a long time to do things like assimilate the Germans in the United States. We really didn't completely assimilate the German, German population in the United States until World War II. And so, those are countries that were much closer to our way of life. We think of them as basically just American at this point. But that was actually quite an effort. And we should recognize that level of cultural difficulty doesn't mean we could then assimilate anyone. That might just show that that's kind of near the limit of what we can assimilate. So we need to think very carefully about how congruous our cultures are, how much they work together, how easy it would be for someone to assimilate. And we need to limit very critically the number of people from any given place who are settling. So they're required to assimilate over time.

M and Oren McIntyre: Do you think Rubio's message resonates broadly

Jenna Ellis: M and Oren McIntyre, do you think that this M message, protecting borders to preserve the west and our culture, and the way that Rubio is characterizing this not just as policy, but as grounded in a specific worldview and ideology, is resonating with voters? beyond obviously the Christian conservatives and those of us that have been pushing worldview as the framework for government for a really long time. do you think that this is resonating more broadly with the Republican base?

 Auron MacIntyre : I think the Republican base understands a good amount of this instinctually. But I do think that there's a certain amount of leadership that is required here. I think that, you know, there's a large amount of education and leadership that has to be brought to the base so that they can maybe intellectualize or put some, some logical framework on a feeling they already have. Like I said, I think that if you look at the UK or Germany or the United States, it's very clear that the average voter really does want this, really does want to have this cohesive understanding of who they are as a people and the willingness to protect that. I think that that's something that pretty much everyone is yearning for at this point, but they don't always know how to say it. They don't always know how to give it life and put it forward in a way that's going to be compelling to others. And so I think that's why speeches like Rubio's are so important, because it gives voice to, and structure to a feeling and an argument, a belief that I think people were already primed to hold, but just needed someone to provide a framework for.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, really well said. Or in McIntyre.

Orin McIntyre: Values that are grounded in Judeo Christian framework

And we've got to take a break here, but, this could be a much longer conversation. It is a much longer conversation, but it's a really important one. I mean, and this goes into what I, think a lot of conservatives are very concerned with, which is overall saving the West. And what does that mean? It means the values that are grounded in the Judeo Christian framework, which is of course the truth of reality that recognizes God our creator, who created reality, is the divine authority, the divine lawgiver created those three institutions of government, the church government, the family government and the civil government. So putting civil government in its proper and legitimate context, which includes of course border security, ensuring that all of the freedom and virtue that God provides to we the people is protected and preserved for everyone in our country. So really appreciate it. Follow Orin McIntyre on X. We'll be right back with more.

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

Several San Francisco residents are suing to shut down its reparations fund

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And several San Francisco residents are banding together to shut down down its reparations fund. This is great. Where the ideology of the left and wokeness eventually turns, back in on itself. And it's fundamentally inconsistent. And we know that, but it's great to see this happening in real time. So according to the Pacific Legal foundation and Fox News, several San Francisco residents and Californians have filed a lawsuit challenging the city's ordinance that establishes a fund for black residents only. The lawsuit alleges that the ordinance is discriminating on the basis of race because it allows taxpayer money to be funneled into the fund. And one of the plaintiffs is arguing the measure is divisive and will destroy the city of San Francisco. So one of the attorneys, said this Acknowledging past injustice does not give the government license to spend public resources on programs that sort people by race and ancestry today. Well, let's welcome in Gerard Felitti. He's senior counsel with a lawfare project. And Gerard, this seems so obvious that if you are providing a fund that only prefers certain individuals or excludes others on the basis of race, then obviously, this, this should not, be allowed to continue in California under, under even the left zone theory. But yet they're perfectly okay with discriminating against, you know, non minority, specifically white people. but if this were a fund that established only for whites, you know, they'd be the first to claim discrimination. So, you know, where do you see this lawsuit going?

Gerard Filitti: Oh, I see this being, being. Look, I'm almost at a loss for words because what San Francisco did is invite legal action. This is unconstitutional, plain and simple. It violates equal protection. That, that's clear.

Gerard Filitti: Based on clear and recent Supreme Court guidance and rulings. So what San Francisco did here is essentially creating a race based government benefit, which is something that the Supreme Court has clearly said you are not allowed to do. Whenever you have any program or benefits that trigger, when you're doing it on the basis of race, it triggers what's called strict scrutiny, the highest level of review, which means that San Francisco needs to prove a compelling government interest, not just some historical injustice and a narrowly tailored program. And here what San Francisco is essentially doing is saying that it's going to redistribute money, taking money from people who were, who never owned slaves in a state that never had slavery, and. Giving it to people who are not.

Gerard Filitti: Now and were never slaves. This is the ridiculousness of this law.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it does seem just so patently clear that this violates the Constitution, and law for all of the reasons that you just put forth. And yet San Francisco's trying to do this anyway. do you think that the intent of this, that they, they just thought they'd get away with it or is this something where they want to have these arguments, more broadly in, in a court context and they can say, you know, well, we tried, or you know, what do you think is really the end game here?

Gerard Filitti: I think the end is to desensitize the American people to the, the notion that there should be money that's given by the government to people on the basis of whatever the government thinks it should do. In other wor, San Francisco knows that it's going to lose this case. It knows that this is Unconstitutional. But it's doing it anyway because it wants to promote this narrative based on race that white people are somehow responsible for all the ills of black people and should be paying for it. That's the type of divisiveness that's meant to get black people and other minorities to vote for the Democratic Party, to vote for progressive ideology, to vote for a system that punishes white people for their perceived success, and redistributes wealth. So this is just a matter of desensitizing the public to that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, I really like Jared. What? this attorney for the Pacific Legal foundation, his name is Andrew, Quin. Quino, I think, or Quino. What he said, about acknowledging past injustice doesn't give the government license to spend public resources on programs that sort or divide people by race and ancestry today. I mean, this is a direct, direct shot against what the left has been calling for for years in terms of reparations and sort of this, you know, you need to make right, past history for, you know, people who clearly, were not the, the victims and didn't suffer the harms of, you know, what, what has been in our past. Even if we acknowledge, the real historical version, not, you know, kind of the left's, mock up of that. And I think this going directly to the heart at what the left has suggested for a long time, is a good thing and maybe will spark a broader conversation that conservatives will be more willing to participate in. Because it seems like for a long time, there have been some segments on the right that haven't wanted to as strongly object to some of this because they're concerned about the allegations of, you know, racism or whatever that that for some reason they still care about. But could this, this spark more of a broader conversation about why?

Jenna Ellis: I mean, he's right. He's right that, that this acknowledging past injustice doesn't give the government license to to prefer one race over another.

Gerard Filitti: He absolutely is. And at the end of the day, acknowledging past injustice is a means of doing better now and in the future, of learning from the mistakes of the past so that we don't make the same mistakes in the future. But unfortunately what we're seeing is we are making those mistakes. But in the other direction, you're swinging the pendulum in the direction of you're still using race as a category in order to give some people more or different treatment than you give others. And that is no different than the past historical injustice. So hopefully the Right. Will wake up that this is an issue, that we need to stop using race as a pretext for government policy and start identifying all Americans as equal and entitled to the same legal benefits and protection under the law.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so, so well said. And it'll be interesting to see how this progresses, you know, through the system and at what point you know ultimately it stopped. And if the the first line of defense in California courts are going to you know, be as woke and leftist as, as generally they are. But you know, we can hope for some common sense maybe. and you know, so where, where do you see that going? At least in the initial stage?

Gerard Filitti: I have, I do have a little bit of hopes that the California judiciary understands that this is unconstitutional and that a fund for black residents based on ancestry or race alone is exactly what courts, including the Supreme Court have struck down. So I do have some hope that rational judges will, will take the helm of this and remedy this quickly. But if not, we will see this go up to the Supreme Court and we will see a we will see this law overturned.

Former Team USA figure skater Gabrielle Linehan killed in Missouri

Jenna Ellis: Well that's great. And in the last few minutes we have with you Gerard Felitti, I also wanted to get your commentary on this story that dropped yesterday. Just so terrible and tragic. this coming from Red Wave Press and also Fox and Friends weekend. there's, there's a clip on, on their post that they covered this. A former Team USA figure skater, a 28 year old Gabrielle Linehan was shot and killed in her car while waiting in a Starbucks drive thru in St. Louis Missouri on Tuesday by a career criminal with a long rap sheet. the NewSong York Post says that the individual was caught on surveillance video wearing a high visibility vest and helmet when he just walked up to the victim's car, ordered her to raise her hand before just shooting her. as a defenseless woman, you just doing nothing but sitting in a drive through line. and, and obviously you know this story is not getting a ton of attention on this the left, because the perpetrator was black and the the woman, the the young woman who is the victim is white. And you know this obviously then causes the, the left to ignore it where if you know the, the races had been different it would be making a lot bigger news on leftist media. But overall I think the bigger story here, and I'd love to get your take on this Gerard, is that this is somebody who should never have been let out on the streets and the story and the reports are that you know, he had this really long rap sheet, had been you know, just minimized by courts for a while. And some of these judges who just continue over and over and over again to let violent criminals back on the streets. I mean this is something that not only was probably predictable, that he was going to harm someone else again, but this was also utterly preventable.

Gerard Filitti: It probably was very much preventable. And this tragedy shows that what we already know, that these types of violent acts are disproportionately committed by chronic offenders, not by first time offenders, by people who have cycled through the system, which neither rehabilitates, treats and doesn't even incarcerate for sufficient periods of time. so we are left with people who have violent, past violent tendencies back on the streets, ready and willing and committing more crimes. The system is broken. It just does not work. We're seeing this across the country with these, with violent criminals who should be still behind bars or who should be more of the focus of law enforcement than they currently are.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I mean it's just, it's so frustrating to see how these the ideological left that is getting in positions of, on the bench and their worldview that is is allowing these violent criminals back on the streets, are having real world harm to victims with that are just totally senseless. I mean and we could go through example and example and example of even just over the last year of some of these just senseless and horrific crimes that it always goes back to a leftist judge. I mean it, it's, it's become almost like clockwork at this point. And yet it seems like Gerard, there's just no accountability for judges when they make these types of determinations and put these people back on the street that that they aren't being held accountable for some of those decisions.

Gerard Filitti: There's no accountability for judges. And this is, is part of the issue that progressives have created. They're creating this mentality that people take with them through law school, through their careers as judges, that you want to somehow rehabilitate people, that you want to put people back out on the streets, that even the most serious crimes are not just capable of being forgiven, but forgotten and letting people have another attempt at life without looking at the true nature of their crimes or what they've done. This also carries through the sentencing guidelines which are written by people who have the same ideology that you want to keep people locked up for as little amount of time. As possible because you, you, you, you see the value of redeeming them. Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works. And a lot of these people are not redeemable in society after spending just a few months or even days in jail. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And, you know, I mean, it's, it's overall a good thing to try to, you know, find the best in people and, you know, to try to give them help. But, you know, some people who've clearly proven, sometimes it only takes once. But, you know, some of these, a lot of these people, it's just multiple. Time after time after time, they're repeat offenders. At some point, the left needs to acknowledge that they simply don't want to be rehabilitated. And that, isn't going to change. And it doesn't matter, their skin color doesn't matter, their race. It just matters what their actions are. And it seems like, you know, when we're talking about racial discrimination and some of these things. Things, these, some of these judges on the bench, they tend to prefer some of these minorities and give them more of a pass because they don't want to look like maybe they're discriminating against them or they're just intentionally trying to undermine the system.

Gerard Filitti: And that's exactly the point. I think that there is the idea that in the back of our heads we have to wonder whether what we're doing is racist. This has already taken root and it's causing judges to second guess us, decisions that they otherwise would. Not that they're looking at race as a factor. They're looking at economic disadvantage as a factor when they shouldn't be. They should be focused on the conduct that's ultimately the criminal. It's not how they were raised. It's not what they were exposed to in schools or whether they went to school. It's about the act that was committed and that's colorblind, that's race neutral. That's not something that should be taken into account. It's too opposite. Often judges do take that into account and that results in bad sentences and more violence.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. I mean, it should matter what the conduct is, not the identity in any way, shape or form of the perpetrator. So Gerard Felitti. Really appreciate it. Follow him on X at Gerard Felitti. also the Lawfare Project. And as always, you can reach me and my team, [email protected]