Transcript

The rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government

Jenna 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.

Fox News contributor praises President Trump's speech celebrating America's 250th anniversary

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, July 6th, and what a weekend celebrating America's 250th birthday. And what an incredible show, ah, President Donald Trump put on from Washington DC. We've always said he is the greatest showman and ah, what a blessing to have him in office for the 250th. I was reading some of the responses on social media saying, can you imagine how depressing this would have been if the leftist Democrat communists would have been in office in the White House during this celebration? you know, we probably would have had to limit our barbecues to five related people and wear masks in between sips and be depressed and a bunch of other things. But not from Trump. He had a late night July 4 address saying that no dream in history is bigger, saying our destiny is written by God. 250 years is still only the dawn of the golden age. He delivered a 37 minute speech for America's 250th birthday after a weather delay in the dark of night that was lit up by a Guinness World record setting fireworks display stretching from July 4th into July 5th at Washington DC's National Mall. This coming from Fox News. While thousands outlasted the rain and dodge nature's thunderstorm and light show, some Americans may have missed the President's historic remarks, but you can of course watch that on YouTube on X, a lot of different places, his 37 minute speech. And it's really worth listening to when he says, in this country we could achieve the wildest and most impossible dreams. No dream in history is bigger or more incredible than the one that started on July 4, 17, 1776. The war for independence was launched by minutemen, farmers, blacksmiths and tradesmen who took up their muskets against the mightiest army on earth, one of the most powerful and unbeatable army until they met us. So I love how patriotic President Trump is. And it was such a contrast from then the communist speech. And so, NewSong York, city Mayor Zoran Mamdani offered a Contrast, and a really depressing one, frankly, to Trump's vision for America. In a 250th anniversary address, of course, NBC News is lauding that and, suggesting that in a speech marking America's 250th anniversary, Mamdani rejected President Trump's view of the nation and especially of its immigrants. Without naming him directly. Mamdani criticized Trump's immigration policies from City hall while sitting behind a desk that once belonged to George Washington. And he was flanked by recently naturalized citizens rebuking the view held by, quote, unquote, the powerful, that America becomes less the more people it welcomes. So this is part of what Mamdani had to say. This is cut to.

Zohran Mamdani: We are told that America is exceptional because we are richer, stronger, more powerful than everyone else. The truth, my friends, is that America is exceptional because here, nothing is fixed into place. The frontier may be closed. We may have walked on the moon, but the work of fulfilling the values first enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, that work endures. And it belongs to us all. It belongs, too, to our newest Americans, those standing here with me today, all of whom were recently naturalized nearly a decade ago. I, too, felt what you feel. The joy of no longer being just a NewSong Yorker, but an American, too. You each hold a special power, the power to determine what America means. The powerful have always known their answer. America, in their view, is an arena of supremacy where only a select few are allowed freedom, where not all are created equal. America, if you ask them, becomes less the more people it welcomes. America, they will tell you, belongs only to those with the right accent or the right shade of skin. The rest of us, they insist, should be grateful for merely being allowed to visit. How small they are. How weak. How unoriginal. At every moment in our past, those who led through exclusion and isolation have tried to win power and enrich themselves by turning us against one another. Division is the oldest trick in politics and the cheapest. But time and again, including 250 years ago, those forces of division have been vanquished by the forces of progress.

Jenna: Alex McFarland offers a dystopian view of America

Jenna Ellis: All right, and he goes on to, you know, of course, spout the ideals of communism. But let's welcome in my special guest this morning, Alex McFarland, who is an author, Christian apologist, of course, the co host of Explorer Exploring the Word right here on American Family Radio Network. And, Alex, I mean, he's so vague in a lot of this, and, and it does offer this kind of dystopian view of America, but, the truth is that America is exceptional because here nothing is fixed into place. I don't even know what that means. And. And yet, this contrast that he's trying to offer to Trump, I think we're seeing a completely different worldview of how America is great according to Trump, because our rights come from God, our Creator, our values are fixed. there are indisputable principles. And then when we go to the leftists and the Communists that are taking over, the Democrat Party, then we're told that America is only here and valid if we cease to actually have any sort of parameters that define us as Americans.

Alex McFarland: Well, Jenna, good morning and happy, post 4th of July. It's great to be on with you. And, you know, I, would love to talk about Trump's speech because it was fantastic and seeing all those flags and the flag from the battles of Saratoga. so much we could talk about, Jenna.

Mamdani says division is the oldest trick in politics

But, by the way, greetings from, storm, Tornado, Abilene, Texas. I'm at KGNZ this morning, and they are one of the few businesses in downtown Abilene that have electricity, and they've graciously given me their studios this morning. So it's great to be with you. But, Hey, Mamdani's speech is just illustrative of how, the devil is in semantics. all right, think about this. Mamdani said, and I quote, division is the oldest trick in politics. And, yeah, as he plays the race card and the class envy card to try to divide people, I mean, he's doing the very same thing that he's criticizing Trump and conservatives of. Isn't that wild?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's just. I mean, and go ahead. Because, you know, this is the, the whole point of socialism is that they have to borrow from the blessings of capitalism in order to try to make, you know, try to make it work.

Alex McFarland: Well, socialism and communism and even atheism are parasites that have to have a host on which to feed. and having debated, I don't know, four dozen atheists at university campuses, they always borrow from the principles of Christian theism to try to argue against Christian theism.

Mamdani says conservatives think America is exceptional because we have more money

But I want to talk about for just a moment how Mamdani so graphically gets everything wrong, as Democrats virtually always do. he says that Trump thinks, and conservatives think America is exceptional because we have more money and power. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And American exceptionalism is basically rooted in several things. That our rights come from God, not government. we are a government based on belief in Objective morality, or what Jefferson would call self evident truth. And then, there's a God, on which all these things are predicated, on whom all these things are predicated. So we are exceptional. And I would say the prosperity and the growth and the influence and the permanence, those things are even downstream. Jenna, that's wonderful. America is prosperous. America has been stable. America has been the benevolent force in the world. America has given more liberty, prosperity. I mean, you know, 30 years ago I was a farm boy who finished grad school and I had $58 in the shirt on my back. And three decades later, I've been to Five Continents and got 21 books in print. To God be the glory. I mean, in America, if you're willing to work hard, say your prayers, and live right, God will lift you up. That's wonderful. But, the prosperity and stability are downstream of the presuppositions that there's objective morality and we need to live within it. There's personal accountability, and we all agree that we're going to live within the moral guardrails God has established. And our rights come from God, not government. The role of government is not to give us any rights or certainly not to manufacture artificial, special rights. but rights come from God, and the role of government is to guard those rights. And that's what makes America exceptional. And, I think about Dr. Larry Schweiker at University of Ohio at Dayton, and he wrote a fantastic book. You know, it bothers me when Christian universities use the, Zinn book, the Howard Zinn book on American history, which is a horrid thing. a Patriot's Guide to American History by Larry Schweikart is much better. And he says that the founders had to appeal to God for their, experiment in Republican constitutional government to make sense. So I realize for the drive by sound Bite media to make sense of this is kind of hard, but Mamdani plays on class envy and uninformed voters, really. And I would just plead with people to think about, how, you know, you can't get something from nothing. And it's like Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great till you run out of other people's money.

Alex Mamdani says nothing is fixed in the American Constitution

But, anyway, I want to throw it back to you, Jenna, but we have to also talk about what Mamdani said when he said nothing is fixed. Because, yes, some things are fixed and we dare not try to deconstruct them. But his speech, it was a case study in the devil is in the semantics, isn't it?

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And I love the worldview contrast that you bring, Alex, because that's exactly the distinction between what America was founded on, what we're celebrating during America's 250th. And by the way, I'm still celebrating this. I mean, July 4th itself may be, past now, but we should be celebrating the blessings of liberty every day and continuing to stand up with courage, for those values that are fixed. Because we know in the truthful biblical reality of the world and that that view, that recognizes that, that there are fixed principles and our founders referred to them as the laws of nature and of nature's God, that there are things that God in his sovereignty has ordained that we cannot change. And through our recognition of him as the author of all things and the divine lawgiver, then we can create a government that is legitimate and that is promoting, the good. And, and when you contrast that with what Mamdani is suggesting here, then it become little clear what he meant by, you know, nothing is fixed. That is the fluid nature of what the progressives view our Constitution as that, that you can redefine anything in man's own image and whatever values we happen to hold today that could change tomorrow. Because they want purposefully to have nothing fixed, to not have a, Have my truth versus your truth. And it's not even a relativistic worldview. It's a post truth, sort of, ah, apocalyptic kind of view that they, they really want to undermine everything that this country was founded upon. And he gives this dystopian view as if it's better to suggest that being an American, that by definition, his definition means that we don't recognize God, that we don't recognize fixed objective truth. And if we cease to recognize that truth in America, then our laws suddenly don't become predictable. They don't, they don't protect and preserve our rights that come from God. And that is incredibly dangerous.

Alex McFarland: You know, when Hillary Clinton would forever recite the mantra that the Constitution is a living document. The Constitution is a living document. Well, you know, I, suppose we could say yes, in the sense that it is relevant for all generations, but it is not a living document in the sense that we can make words mean anything we want them to mean. And the progressive left, and here's another division tactic that they like to use the, they like to say, you know, we are progressive. well, not all movement is positive movement. You know, I mean, if you have never had a broken bone, it's not Going to help you to experience what it's like to break a bone. You know, I mean, breaking a bone is a change, but it's not a positive one. And I love what Abe Hamilton III says. He says progressivism is really regressivism, and there are some, realities of the world that we cannot tamper with. you know, human, biology, divine morality and what, many have said. James Madison, Jon Adams, people past and present have observed. Patrick Henry, of course, he gave a great speech at Red House, Virginia, on, like, the, I believe it was the 20th anniversary of the Declaration. And he said that, you know, the genius of the American Revolution was that it united the principles of good civil government with the timeless, immutable principles of God's word. So the progressives want to tear down, the acknowledgement of moral objectivity. But what we have, I mean, we see it with open borders. We see it with the BLM riots. You know, we see it with the no Kings, you know, demonstrations. Whenever you suppress or abolish morality very, very quickly, you have anarchy. And, you know, this idea of, self government begins with us policing and governing ourselves. And Jenna, one of the things that just really concerns me as I speak with young people, I give God the glory. Jenna, we're in the middle of eight summer camps right now. We'll have approximately 2,000 teens in, eight different states in summer camp. First of all, they're spiritually hungry. They respond to the gospel. They respond to truth about America, where they're going to live their lives. But when we tell generations of young people, not constitutional liberty, but militant autonomy, I mean, that's the message generations of kids in government schooling have gotten. There are no rules. There are no boundaries. And this idea that I can do whatever I want, and anybody that tries to put any moral boundaries around me is a hater or phobic or racist or in it. I mean, that is just a message of lawlessness. And yet that's what generations of upcoming young Americans have been told. And Jenna, frankly, I think it's the grace of God. Whereas cohesive as we even are at this point.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so true. And that's really the concern. And, we only have about two minutes left, Alex. But, you know, that's. That has been the concern that the conservative, wing of America is articulating moving forward, that it's not just the Democrats that are, inviting, basically, and not, condemning the communist views and in their own party, but that so many people are actually voting for Those views, I mean even in my former home state of Colorado, a 29, year incumbent in Congress was ousted in the Democrat primary by, a socialist young person and who is, you know, viral on social media, kind of another Mamdani sort of figure. And these people are continuing to rise, within the Democrat Party. And so we have to teach these worldview values to our young people in order, to continue to create a more perfect union. So last 15 seconds, close us out.

Alex McFarland: Well, there is still an America to love, value and save. And Trump's speech was fantastic. Now let's all do our part for God and country.

Jenna Ellis: Amen. Well, Alex McFarland, thank you so much for the work that you're doing and that you are continuing to bring the truth and the biblical worldview, not only to young people, but across, across America through American Family Radio Network and other places. you can follow of course, Alec, Malik McFarland M. Across social media. And we need to continue to promote the truth of the gospel of Christ and the worldview of reality. We will be right back with more. Foreign. Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Charlie Kirk's alleged killer's preliminary hearing starts today in Utah

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Charlie Kirk's alleged killer, in his five day preliminary hearing starts today. The hearing will be live streamed and this will be the first time that members of Kirk's family are in the Utah courtroom with the defendant and his widow, Erica. Kirk, posted a statement just about an hour ago and it says this statement on behalf of Charlie Kirk's immediate family. His parents, Robert and Catherine, his wife Erica, and his sister Mary. Charlie was a beloved husband, son, brother, friend and father. Every court proceeding serves as a painful reminder of his death and the loss that has irrevocably impacted our lives and the lives of his children. We remain deeply grateful for the support, prayers and kindness we have received. This outpouring has sustained, sustained us during the darkest days of our lives. Out of respect for the judicial process, we will not be commenting further at this time. We ask for continued privacy as we navigate this process and immense grief. so they are expected to be in the courtroom as of course, his family members. And this will be a five day preliminary hearing. the defendant has not actually entered a plea yet and it's being reported that both the prosecution and the defense will put on evidence, during this preliminary hearing. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel at the Lawfare Project.

Gerard Lewis: A preliminary hearing is just that. It's a hearing to establish probable cause

And Gerard, to set us up though, let's start with talking about what a preliminary hearing means. the purpose of this, to establish probable cause and what evidence we can expect from the prosecution and the defense.

Gerard Filitti: A preliminary hearing is just that. It's a, it's a hearing at the beginning of a case which is brought not by a grand jury indictment but rather by a prosecutor's information. And it's held before a judge to determine whether there is enough probable cause to support the charges. It's a very low legal threshold. You are not proving, you're not looking to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You're just looking to prove that you have as a prosecutor that you have enough evidence, to move the case forward on the charges that you filed. So the regular rules of evidence don't completely apply. You get to hear a more relaxed evidentiary standard. You get to hear hearsay evidence for example, and you get to see things that might not otherwise be admissible at ah, trial but are nevertheless helpful for a judge in determining whether the case should move forward.

Jenna Ellis: And you know, this is this is fascinating in that context, particularly because the judge is allowing cameras. And so I'm going to be watching this. I'm sure that you will. And so many people who are very interested in the evidence that will be presented, especially in light of unfortunately what what some, including particularly Candace Owens, has been I think muddying the waters, intentionally. And all of the discussion that has gone on online about the, the guilt or innocence of the defendant in at least the court of public opinion. And so is part of this because of that relax for the defense and the prosecution, perhaps in a, in a different way than most trial settings and the purpose, generally of a preliminary hearing to at least get some evidence in the court of public opinion before jury selection begins in the actual trial.

Gerard Filitti: Well I think that what we will see is definitely this will be playing for for a potential jury in a grand jury proceeding. Those are sealed. The public doesn't have access, you know, only what is released in the indictment. You don't get to see a sort of a mini trial or get the opportunity to comment on it. so unfortunately we will be seeing Candace Owens and other people making all sorts of comments and statements coming out of this. I think that they will, they have already chosen their side or picked their arguments and will double down on that. But all of this will be playing to potential jurors. Everyone will have, who has access to the Internet will be able to see not just the proceedings themselves, but the commentary that other people put on and that really is the danger here. On the one side, we want the transparency, we want to see how this process works and what the evidence is. But on the other hand, the commentary, especially by people who have a, motivation not to be impartial, is dangerous for jury selections.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And at least, though, I mean, I would rather have the whole proceeding actually available rather than just hearing this secondhand, through reporters that may be in the courtroom, which is. Which is standard for other proceedings that are close to cameras, that we're just hearing kind of the recap from reporters and what they think are critical to report, but not necessarily the whole thing. Now obviously, people have lives, they have. They have jobs, they have other things that can't necessarily watch the entire proceedings. So there will be, you know, clipped portions and things that, that commentators believe are the most relevant.

What should people focus on during preliminary hearings in Charlie Kirk murder case

So for the people who are listening, who are very interested in justice for Charlie Kirk and his family, which should be, the. The paramount concern, because that's the whole point of the justice system, is justice for the victim and the victim's family, what should people be paying attention the most to and considering? Because I think honestly in the court of public opinion, at least right now, most people have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Gerard Filitti: I think people need to be looking for and watching for the boring things. Not the salacious details, not the, shocking revelations which may not even exist or the way they're framed. But people should be looking at the very boring. The forensics. Is their DNA consistent with Robinson that was found on the trigger of the rifle? What does the prosecutor say about the handwritten note under the keyboard that said, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. What's the digital evidence? What's the trail of evidence? What are these statements that, Robinson's roommate is going to give? These are the boring details that are really the key to building the prosecutor's case. Not the salacious detail that we may hear or, that the defense may choose to focus on to inflame passions.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, ah. And that's often, unfortunately, when you have such a sterile environment as a courtroom and how evidence comes in, and it often is a little bit boring and it often doesn't quite, paint the exact picture of what happened. there was some commentary on, CBS on. On a clip I was, viewing yesterday that had a, legal commentator who's, I think a law professor, who was talking about how many different Angles and videos there are of this murder, which is, incredibly unique. unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for the prosecutors or the defense, because of when this took place and how important are those potential videos going to be and the relevance of, you know, some of the different angles. When obviously the whole point, according to the. To the prosecutor is to prove, eventually at trial, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was Tyler Robinson who committed this crime. would all of those kind of come in? Or is it just the relevance to. To establishing, that the guilt of the defendant.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think at this preliminary stage, the prosecutor will want to put on enough of those videos, if any, to be. To be frank. And I'll get to that in a moment. in order to show more likely than not that this is what happened, how the incidents played out. Or the most important videos would be ones that would show Tyler Robinson walking to or from the scene or on the scene beforehand, or anything that includes him. Those are the videos that the prosecutor will want to focus on that establish the presence of the alleged killer, on scene at the relevant time. other videos are probably, I think you could call them more salacious and are not needed to establish that you may want, they may not need to play or show all those videos. Just enough to establish presence, to establish, opportunity to establish the timing. and for that you don't really need a thousand videos. You just need one or two really good ones. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And so, often the evidence at preliminary hearings are, mainly what the prosecutors put on. And the defense, through cross examination, is testing the strength of that, particularly, witnesses recollection, their presence on the witness stand and, the strength of their credibility. But with these reports that. That the defense is planning to put on evidence, what would be the primary purpose from the defense perspective rather than just limiting this to cross examination?

Gerard Filitti: Well, the perspective from the defense is if they can have. If they can, is to present anything that would tend to show that Robinson was, not there, that he was not the person who was doing the shooting, that he did not commit the sexual. I think the type of evidence that they will put on would be more forensic related. I think one of the things we've seen discussed amply in the media in the last few weeks are the forensics of the bullet and, the bullet fragments. So you may well see evidence, from the defense on that issue. I think you may see some questions about, the roommate and statements that were made. We know that the defense has been pushing for a live examination of Robinson's, roommate. But beyond that, I don't know that the defense has a, reason to put on anything else. Anything that would disprove motive, for example, would be more prejudicial now for the defendant himself because it would, it would not necessarily be something that would, defeat the probable cause and might actually be used by the prosecutors later to impeach Robinson.

Jenna Ellis: And you mentioned Jared Felitti earlier, that, you know, this is a little bit more of a relaxed standard. And so some evidence that may not come in at trial would, come in at a preliminary hearing. What, are some examples of that and that we might anticipate, would come in that would be interesting to people watching.

Gerard Filitti: Well, a lot of this that we can expect to see come in is what we call hearsay evidence. It's not. These are statements made out of court by a person that, you know, is not there testifying, essentially. So this is a much more relaxed evidentiary standard. When you are putting on evidence, you want the more direct evidence to want to be able to confront who said something and to be able to cross examine them on it. So here we may not see that. We may see writings that are just, authenticated based on an affidavit. We may not see people testifying live about a document. We may not see people testifying live about what they themselves said and instead testifying about what someone else told them or what they understood or what they knew. All of these things would be subject to much more scrutiny at trial. But for a preliminary hearing, because of the lighter standard, the prosecutor can put those, those types of evidence on more simply.

Jenna Ellis: And, and that makes sense. And that's going to be, also very interesting, moving forward.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in this case

And so prosecutors are also seeking the death penalty in this case. how much of what's going on this week is tied to that eventual, potential imposition of sentence under Utah law And the aggravating factors that the prosecution has to prove to make that a capital case?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think you will definitely see evidence of that, this week. The main aggravating factor that the prosecution is relying on is that in, carrying out this, alleged murder that, well, that Robinson, endangered other people besides Charlie Kirk. Ah.

Gerard Filitti: And that is the aggravating. The main aggravating factor that they are looking to demonstrate to prove in order to seek the death penalty. So you will see evidence about who was. And this is where we go back to the video evidence. You will see probably video evidence of the People who are around Kirk, people who are in the audience, people who are in the line of fire, maybe a ballistics expert to testify about trajectory and the likelihood of other people being, grievously injured. That's the sort of evidence that the prosecutor would need to establish that other people were at significant risk. And that's why the death penalty should apply.

Jenna Ellis: M And because there's been significant, media access and even significant litigation over cameras in the courtroom. And you know, we've talked about, how much coverage this has, has had, with commentators. And there's theories, there's alternative theories that are floating at least in the court of public opinion. Like that, There was some kind of explosive attached to his lapel mic. Ah, Charlie's lapel mic. And that was, the proximate cause of death. And that was actually the murder weapon. do you think that the prosecutor is taking some of those allegations or theories that are in the broader, court of public opinion and might take this opportunity to foreclose some of, of those theories, or is that really not on their contemplation and, and. And not what they're going to be focused on? I mean, because this is five days long and that's not necessarily a, really long time for preliminary hearings in a murder case. But how much attention do you think that the prosecution is giving to this hearing? Because, after this, I mean, we may go a significant amount of time before there's any, you know, real opportunity for, for more evidence and you, know this kind of hearing. So this may be their one opportunity to foreclose some of those hearings or those theories.

Gerard Filitti: Fortunately for the prosecutor, and unfortunately for the rest of us, I don't think that they'll be going down that road because quite simply, they don't need to, They want to keep their case. A good prosecutor will keep their case as simple and straightforward as possible, especially if the probable causes stage. Because they don't need to disprove alternate theories. They just need to show that there is enough evidence that the person that's being charged did it so, that the case would move forward for a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt. So usually you won't see prosecutors disproving or trying to disprove alternate theories. Now, you may have the defense try to grandstand with some version of that, but I think the judge will shut them down pretty quickly and give them the opportunity to argue those things at trial if there's enough evidence. Evidence and if there is a basis to. So that's the long way of saying that. I don't think we will see, anyone really delve into this. I think that commentators may pick up on forensic evidence or the lack thereof, or allegations about bullets for example, and whether they came from the gun to cease that, to make comments, perhaps not very well informed comments about other alternative ways that Charlie could have been killed. But I don't think that we're going to see that coming out of the prosecutor and I don't think the judge will allow the defense much leeway with that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, really great legal analysis and that preliminary hearing is starting this morning. So we'll have more commentary on the first day tomorrow after we see the first opening day. So Gerard Felitti, thank you so much for setting this up for us. And we need to, as an afr family, continue to pray for justice for the process, and for justice for Charlie Kirk and his family. So we will be right back with more.

President Trump calls FIFA chief to review red card against Team USA player

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the World cup is continuing, there is now a controversy, or controversy over the review of the red card against Team USA's, ah, player in the World cup and Trump calling the FIFA chief to review this. And I will premise this segment by saying I know virtually nothing about soccer or football as it's called. I've been to one FIFA game and that it was really fun actually. but you know, I had to actually kind of read a lot through to even know what the red card was and why everybody is all mad about it and what's going on. So, instead of my commentary, let's welcome in someone who actually knows what he's talking about on this issue, a faith sports and cultural commentator, my good friend Jon Root. So, for those of us who like love the World cup and how everyone is, who is here visiting is seeing that America is nothing like what the fake news media and propaganda in their countries are saying. And we're all, you know about that. but for those of us who really aren't paying attention to all the rules of the World cup, walk us through what exactly happened, why this is a controversy and President Trump getting involved, which in my opinion is just hilarious because it just shows he's advocating for Americans even in the World cup, you know, and not everywhere else. He's just so proud to be an American. But walk us through what this actually meant.

Jon Root: Hey Jenna. Yeah, I Mean, obviously, there's a lot on the line right now. We're definitely trying to make sure that it's no longer called football, it's called soccer. And we're really trying to do whatever we can here on the men's side, because our women's team has always been the one historically that's played well and found a lot of success. So, our U.S. men's team is doing things they haven't done since the 1930s. They won the first two World cup matches. they won their group, and they made it to the knockout stage against Bosnia. And in the second half of this match against Bosnia is one of the best players, on the United States men's national team. Baligun was actually in a little bit of a snafu with a Bosnian player as he was trying to get to the ball. And normally when you get a red card, because that's what ended up happening in this situation, which was already bogus to a lot of analysts and people that been following the sport for a long time, much more than most of us Americans were claiming that this wasn't a yellow card to start. It wasn't called a foul to start. and then it went to var Review. Var if anybody's been watching the World Cup. And from there it got upgraded to a red card. And if you get a red card, you are suspended the next match. And then looks like it's under the Article 27 of the Disciplinary code, that FIFA uses the precedent to not take away the red card, which is probably what they should have done, was admitting that that actually wasn't a red card, is they just delayed the suspension that comes with the red card for a year. And now this has turned into. Why is this now happening 24 hours before a match, against Belgium, which is obviously later this evening. and it's just turned into a big controversy, obviously, in a lot of ways, because Donald Trump is involved. And I can have and give you plenty of thoughts about that aspect.

Jenna Ellis: Oh, yeah. And so, I mean, how unusual is it then, not just for this red card decision to be, the penalty to be suspended, but that, the. The president of the country who has. He's not a coach. He's not, you know, anybody that you would think would have standing, you know, quote, unquote, to challenge this, that he would call the FIFA president to review this. And. And then many are crediting him, with getting this red card overturned. I mean, how unusual is that in World cup history?

Jon Root: Yeah, and that's Obviously, this is happening in the United States of America. So we want things to be fair and we want to make sure that our national team has every right to have a full squad. And again, most people were saying this should not have been a red card in the first place. Most people actually, if you're really following it, was saying the Bosnian player played through Baligun and he actually played through him from behind and placed himself in the path of Baligan's natural step. So we're already setting the standard of this red card was excessive to start, and now it looks like FIFA has set it right. I don't think FIFA's gone about this the right way again. They've done it way too late. They probably should have done this just the day after, the match against Bosnia, because Belgium has been preparing for days, to play the United States men's national team without Bolligan. And again, Bolligan has been our best player, this tournament. But when it comes to Trump, everything that I'm hearing, Trump did not pressure the FIFA president. It sounded like more like a 411 call where it's like, hey, can you explain to me why exactly this was a red card in the first place? and I mean, you're talking about people even on the left, in left wing sports media that are admitting, yeah, Trump wasn't actually trying to blackmail FIFA. He wasn't trying to pressure them in a way, but obviously he was standing up for an injustice and this injustice has been made right. But now it's football is hilarious to me, which should be called soccer to every single American. And again, that's what we have on the line here for the World cup is all these Europeans just absolutely up in arms about this decision. When you actually have a, player that's gotten away with much more, multiple players, I mean, there is, a Qatari player, Ronaldo actually had his red card, suspension rescinded. he had a couple games he was actually supposed to be unable to play, but FIFA rescinded those so he could play those because he got a red card in m a qualifying match. I mean, they're picking and choosing what to be mad at. And I think in a lot of ways, and for the most part, people are mostly upset because Donald Trump is involved somehow, some way, and that's it.

Jenna Ellis: So it's becoming more political outside of FIFA. But, you know, this kind of reminds me of some of the controversies, during the US Olympics, for example, and, you know, some of the, some of the figure skating controversies where, you know, it seemed like there were some biased judges and instead of some of these sports where it's just timed events and you know, if you're the first one across the finish line, the timing is what it is. And there are very few other intervening rules that could possibly change the outcome. But this seems like there are so many different rules that the application, if it's fair or not, really then determines, you know, overall the outcome. So you know, you mentioned VAR and some of those rules. Do you think that that has ultimately improved the game or controversies, you know, Donald Trump's intervention kind of aside, are controversies like this becoming too common?

Jon Root: That's the age old question is, is replay actually making these games better? In America we've seen replay implemented and especially to two of the biggest sports in the NBA and the NFL. In a lot of ways there's times where replay actually should make the call 100% correct. You can kind of assist with the human error we've now seen in baseball. There's ABS challenges so you can challenge balls and strikes and I think that's made the game better. And it's still ah, fairly efficient in the way they go about these replays. But even in this specific situation, VAR actually wasn't even used correctly. VAR was used providing still shots. It was providing slow mo. And those things should only be used when you know, essentially malice has been established that wasn't established with Balligan. And it sounds like they went about it, you know, kind of in reverse. You should be able to see things from a full speed perspective. And that's what we're seeing in sports is when we see things in slow mo while we're sitting on our couch, it's much easier to, you know, kind of understand was that ball tipped and that should be out of bounds and it should go this way or in a red card situation, we should be able to tell 100% and with 100% certainty that this was the correct call. But you heard way too many people actually in the moment say how was this not even a yellow to start? It got upgraded to a red. So I think bar helps in a lot of different ways, but it's really not perfect. And even places like ESPN and other sports, media outlets were noticing and made sure that they pointed out that VAR actually wasn't even used correctly when that was upgraded to a red card in that match against Bosnia.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, really interesting overall, for sports in general. And while VAR may not be perfect of course, President Trump's phone call was perfect. I'm sure he's, he's going to say that it was another perfect phone call. And, but when people look back on this, this World cup, you know, five or ten years from now, or even just after the conclusion, I think regardless of how far the US Advances, this will become one of the defining controversies or just, you know, perhaps interesting situations that may lead to some other, helpful revisions, at least in fundamental fairness. And so, interestingly, we'll see if they remember this as FIFA correcting an obvious injustice or maybe, the moment that a lot of fans begin questioning whether the rules apply equally to everyone. And, and you're right, Jon Root, that, you know, we can sit back from the comfort of our, you know, couches and home theaters and say, you know, I know the best call, but, you know, ultimately it belongs to those on the field. But, thanks so much for your commentary. I love that President Trump got involved and as always, reach me and my team. Jenna FR dot.