Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life

We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Jenna Ellis: Good morning.

Pentagon identifies fourth service member killed in Iran as US launches more strikes

It is Wednesday, July 22, and the United States is still engaged in this conflict in Iran. And so, the Pentagon has now identified a fourth service member killed in recent days as the US Carries out more strikes. This coming from CBS News. They've released the name of the third soldier who's believed to be killed in an Iranian strike on a base in Jordan. And that brings the total number of U.S. deaths since the start of this war to 18. And American forces have launched an 11th consecutive night of strikes on Iran after Iran said it targeted US Assets in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan and a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers the Iran war has cost about $37.5 billion. 1 Multiple sources familiar with the matter said the total cost could be far higher. So where exactly are we at in this and where potentially are we going? Since I haven't heard anything, lately about the so called memorandum, of understanding, I think that has been, sufficiently tabled, at least for now. So let's welcome in Scott Eulinger, who is a former intelligence agent.

Scott Perry: The attacks on Iran are more widespread than ever before

Scott, what's the latest, out of the Iran conflict?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I think, you know, the attacks obviously are very widespread and they are increasing in their comprehension. what's happening now is that the United States more than ever before is striking like, let's say the southern areas of, Iran, places such as, like Shiraz and missile bases in Shiraz and the like. the first, let's say five days especially of this new campaign have really hit every possible facility that's along the coastline, including, some bridges and tunnels. And that's important because what's been happening is, Iran is a very mountainous country. And so there are mountains in the northern part that go down and then go down, basically kind of along the coast on the west coast of, Iran. And basically a lot of cities now have become isolated from one another because of the destruction of strategic bridges and tunnels. And so that will make it easier, in the event that, And I think that we are doing things like covertly arming the Kurds and things like that. this will make it much more difficult for Iran to further manage any attacks against, its neighbors, and also, obviously prevent Iran from defending itself, but also it'll prevent Iran from perhaps responding to open rebellions in some of their cities. Now, like, for instance, quite a while ago now, more than two months ago, Mashad in Iran, was becoming a concern. The people were rising up, and the government was very concerned about their ability to respond. Now, I guess that kind of burned itself out. But now, with the way things have been now, the Iranian people will be in a more favorable position to rise up, because I think that that's sort of what the administration is looking at. because it's clear this regime cannot be negotiate with. it just simply cannot because, they are, you know, a terrorist death cult. And so I think that's, sort of where Trump is driving the end game.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And some, would say that Trump should have known that to begin with and not even tried to negotiate. And so perhaps had. Should have had a different strategy going in from the beginning. what's your view on how he's handled all of this? from kind of the getting to where we're at now? Because this has been a longer sustained conflict than, I think anybody really anticipated.

Scott Uehlinger: Right. that is true. but sometimes I'm willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt with regards to, intelligence and stuff. I think more than ever before, more than any other war in my lifetime, there is a lot going on behind the scenes because of the nature of the Iranian regime. It's not a normal adversary. It's a suicidal hostage taker with proxy. It has lifelines to, Russia and China, 90 million Iranians that are its ultimate shield, you know, that the regime can, threaten basically its own people. And so I think that, Trump isn't playing checkers or delivering an instant, result. He's, systematically neutralizing, certain pieces, sanctions. There's diplomacy there's military pressure, there's narrative warfare, there's internal fractures. there is so many different things. It really is like 5D chess in the case of dealing with Iran. And so I think a lot of this stuff is going on that we are unaware of. Like the Memorandum of, Understanding, I was scratching my head about that because you can't really trust the regime. But at the same time, the United States needed to replenish its munition stocks, et cetera. And of course, the whole time of the Memorandum of understanding, the, U.S. intelligence assets are working overtime gathering further information. Now, the Iranians, given their history, they think that, okay, once the memorandum came in, that's good for us because, now we can do what we want, because the Americans clearly don't have a stomach for this. So they certainly continue, back to normal everyday things. But at the same time, US Intelligence is gathering more information about what's left of their leadership structure, how they're communicating, what weapons facilities remain, and that's what's being hit now. I guess the problem is that, you know, like I said, the regime is so good at managing, like, managing its message because it's done that for 47 years, that we don't know the real state of Iran. Now. They could last another month, they could last longer than that, but they could last. They could collapse within a week. I mean, and there's no telling when that's going to happen. And I don't think, President Trump is really going to tip his hand that way. But you could see things develop very quickly because that's like the nature of the Middle East.

Has the US fundamentally changed its military strategy and its endgame goals

Jenna Ellis: And do you think then with. With all of this that's happening and seeing how, you know, Iran is not going to negotiate and, you know, where we're at, has. Has the US or maybe should it fundamentally change its military strategy and its overall, endgame goals, over the last several weeks?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I think, I think that they have now. I think that there is sort of like a passive, A passive regime change kind of strategy. In other words, Trump is not really saying that much anymore. I think it's because, he realizes that the leadership is in a desperate position. So, like, if he talks about regime change, that's going to make them dig in further. So he's not talking about that, but I think some of the things being done are allowing for that. Like I said, the hitting of infrastructure allows, like, the country to be, like, split up into a bunch of fragments, which makes it easier for, the Iranian army or whatever to rise and take power in some of those fragments. And then also, like I said, we don't know what's going on with Cove arming of groups like the Kurds or even just the regular Iranian people because you're just not going to hear about that until it's already happened. And so I think, and also I think that they're keeping their options open as far as the Trump administration is keeping its options open with things like landing troops on certain islands. Because of course he doesn't want, you know, he doesn't want to have boots on the ground. However, if, and I think this might be true, like psychologically if US troops took one of those islands, then that mentally would signal to the regime and the Iranian people, okay, the Americans are really serious about this. There are boots on the ground, however briefly. And then that could result in more massive uprisings. And so in other words, for the price of putting troops on the ground in one area for a few weeks in an area that you can defend because you've degraded Iranian weaponry so much, that could be like the thing that tilts it and then all of a sudden the regime is in real danger.

Jenna Ellis: And the political backdrop here is significant. I mean as the administration is still pursuing this, as we mentioned off the top, this conflict has reportedly cost about 37.5 billion and 18American service members, have been killed since it's, it began. And polling also indicates a broad public dissatisfaction with the US Involvement being prolonged. And so Republicans have traditionally campaigned as more or less a stronger party on national security. And so do you think this, that this war is reinforcing that advantage or threatening it perhaps because voters are increasingly seeing the conflict as so open ended and going well beyond the parameters of which they first. At least the base had this buy in and was initially supporting Trump.

Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, the public feeling about the war is interesting. I mean, I guess Trump just reported like record, not speaking about the war, but just overall he has like very high approval ratings for a president at this point into his term. the public dissatisfaction, like I said, Trump is trying to manage that. And that's where the 5D, chess comes in, where you know, he's certainly very aware of gas prices and things like that. But I think in the end he understands that. Well, certainly now he's taken, he's made the move and so he's got to kind of follow through, you know, Iran right now, if he did stop Iran's capability to threaten its neighbors is greatly, is reduced by like 90%. their ability to launch missiles, their missile stocks are reduced like 90% with, and with their infrastructure damage, they won't be able to rebuild quickly. So that's good. But I think, you know, he wants to drive it further because basically making it, like reforming the Middle east in a way that, you know, we can forget about Iran's terror for the last 47 years. I think that he intends on doing that, regardless of what some people say will happen with the elections. And I also think, I mean, maybe you can educate the voter a little bit. But, but also I think that, you know, a lot of people tend to think that, you know, wars are a choice between like, a good choice and a bad choice. But a lot of times in life, and I know this from the CIA, you know, a lot of times it's, you have a bad choice or worse choice. Trump decided he had to strike because it was a closing window because Iran was building its missile fleet up so greatly that it would be able to literally hit France, Germany, England, and very shortly, maybe in eight months from now, it would have been able to reach the US and so he decided, okay, this window is rapidly closing. I've got to do it now. And unlike other presidents, he's not willing to kick the can down the road because if perhaps he hadn't attacked, then we would have been looking at like an Iran that would have been able to hold the whole world hostage while it developed nuclear weapons and all of that. So despite the fact this is, this is messy, there's no question about it, it is messy, but I think it is preferable to the alternate future we would have had had he not decided to act in the first place.

Jenna Ellis: And I fully personally agree with that. I mean, I think that the initial, objective to keep Iran from having nuclear capabilities is obviously of interest to not just America, but to the entire world. And that was absolutely, of importance. And so it's more the ongoing nature of this to say, okay, what exactly is the goal now that we know that Iran isn't going to negotiate? And, some of these decisions along the way, because you're right, I mean, it's not always just a totally clear cut decision between choice A and choice B. There are, you know, a thousand, a million different things, that come into play. And so it will be interesting though to see how Democrats, from the political side shape this to the midterms because we really haven't seen a lot of messaging from them, that, that are saying that the midterms will function as sort of the referendum on the Iran war. They're talking more about affordability, domestic issues, and some of the things that Trump has kind of largely ignored. in just the last minute we have, you know, do you think that that, will change?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, yeah, I don't think. Yeah, the messaging, I think that you're right about that. And I don't know if their messaging will change. I mean, you know, but the Democrats are also, you know, basically putting a gun to their own head with all their talk of social, like that, which, or communism, which Americans recoil from. So that may actually, help Trump out. But like I said, he's, I think he's committed to doing to the long run. You know, basically, you know, when you, when you try to kill a snake and you've got to kill it, you've got to kill it because if you wound it, then it's going to be worse. And, although, like I said, Iran is greatly degraded and will no longer be able to threaten its neighbors like it did.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, Scott Ulinger, really appreciate it. We got to end it in here. You can follow him on X. We'll be right back with more.

Preborn Network offers free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies

It's been four years since the overturning of Roe versus Wade, but tragically, abortions have continued to rise. Today, the abortion pill accounts for more than 60% of all abortions. And last year alone, over 1.1 million babies lost their lives. That's why the work of PreBorn Network clinics is more urgent than ever. Every day, mothers facing unplanned pregnancies walk through preborn's doors, searching for hope. Instead of pressure and fear, they're met with love. Through a free ultrasound, mothers meet their baby for the very first time. It was like the beginning of my healing journey. They do an ultrasound. And that's, when everything changed. Because when I saw my baby and when I heard her heartbeat, that was it.

Jenna Ellis: Just m. $28 sponsors one ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. To donate, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or visit preborn.com forward slash afr. That's preborn.com afr welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Secretary Marco Rubio challenges the International Criminal Court, saying it threatens American sovereignty

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Zoran Mamdani has, released a video on X saying that and finally acknowledging that he doesn't have the authority to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu while he is in NewSong York, which was actually one of Mamdani's campaign platforms, suggesting that Netanyahu should be held responsible for these vague, quote, unquote war crimes. But he's finally acknowledging that, but then is calling on the federal government to arrest Netanyahu even though there hasn't been an indictment. There's nothing under American law, that would suggest in any way that, that Netanyahu should be held accountable to our criminal courts. And meanwhile, Secretary Marco Rubio is challenging the International Criminal Court and posted a, ah, video last week saying that the International Criminal Court seeks to become the unaccountable arbiter of a new global law empowered to prosecute and arrest our citizens at will and existentially threaten American sovereignty. We will teach the ICC the full meaning of American resolve. This is what Rubio had to say. Cut 3.

Marco Rubio: For 250 years, Americans have governed ourselves as a free and sovereign people. We choose our own leaders, we determine our own laws. And when we're accused of a crime, we stand for judgment before a jury of our own peers. This is the essential and indispensable feature of our form of government. It is the foundation of our shared way of life. But today, powerful people in faraway places want to take that away from us. They believe that they should be in charge of your laws, of your country, your life. And they don't care whether or not you agree. Halfway across the world, there's an institution that calls itself the International Criminal Court. Maybe you've heard of it, maybe you haven't. But chances are you don't know the names of its judges, of its prosecutors, or, its president. And you shouldn't have to. But as we speak, the ICC and its friends are waging a war against our country. Not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes, compacts, and the force of so called international law. When the ICC was born 24 years ago, they told us that it was merely a narrow backstop. A global court that would step in to prosecute only the gravest offenses. Things like genocide and war crimes. And only when a nation's courts were unable to prosecute them on their own. But the truth is, it was something far more radical and extreme. It was a global tribunal staffed by unelected globalist bureaucrats who claim their power is almost unlimited. The danger of this global court has only continued to grow. Today, it threatens every aspect of our political and legal system. Border Patrol agents removing violent criminals from our country. American marines risking their lives to defend our homeland. Prosecutors working to dismantle Terrorist plots to attack and kill Americans. If we stand idle, all of them would be at the mercy of foreign judges thousands of miles away, facing the constant risk of prosecution and even imprisonment for the so called crime of defending their own country. The American people never agreed to any of this and they never will read the words of our Declaration of Independence. We fought a revolution against a foreign power transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses. Independence is our birthright. We will never let foreign bureaucrats take that away from us. This administration will not sit by as the ICC and its allies seek to threaten our people. If they believe they can deprive us of our sovereignty, we will teach them the full meaning of American resolve.

Secretary Marco Rubio says the International Criminal Court threatens American sovereignty

Jenna Ellis: Let's welcome in Eugene Kontorovic, who is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom. And Eugene, really, powerful words from Secretary Marco Rubio.

Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, this is a really historic development. This is the first time the United States government has really made a determined effort to fight back against globalist international institutions that threaten American sovereignty. And it's, it's a visionary statement and hopefully we're going to see follow through. Because we have to understand is these institutions are created to be absolutely resistant to any kind of accountability. Right. They're like cockroaches. They're going to be around after everybody else. So it's really going to take some determined effort.

Jenna Ellis: And so why has the United States historically refused to become a party to the icc?

Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, that's an important point because it's been completely bipartisan. Republicans haven't liked it and Democrats haven't liked it. The reason is nobody trusts a foreign court with judges not picked by Americans to prosecute Americans for offenses who, which are often broadly defined. and a lot of people can have different opinions about who would want American troops to be prosecuted, by foreign officials. And in fact, we've already seen that the court has made a lot of very questionable determinations. and it's kind of like a global independent council. So America has the rule of law. You know, if American troops do commit war crimes, we investigate and we prosecute. And the only point of the ICC is to second guess the judgment of American judges.

Jenna Ellis: and so why, other than the globalists who obviously want to break down any sovereign nations and want this rise of globalism, why would any sovereign nation agree to be part of the icc?

Eugene Kontorovich: So most of the countries who have joined the ICC are countries that are very unlikely to ever have to deal with it, because they don't engage in militarized conflict. Right. That is to say, Europe is the biggest fan of the icc. Canada, and the biggest predictor of not joining the ICC is the likelihood to be engaged in wars. So America hasn't joined and Israel hasn't joined. The Arab countries haven't joined. India and Pakistan haven't joined. China hasn't joined. so anyway, if you think you're, you know, if you think you're going to be militarily active, then you risk exposure to the icc. The one exception is African countries who have joined and have, you know, had some case, had some of their leaders brought before the icc. That's because Europe essentially pays poorer countries to join the icc. Because this is one of the kind

Jenna Ellis: of central beliefs M and that makes a lot of sense that countries wouldn't want, these unelected global arbiters to enforce some kind of new global law and second guess, ah, our or their military action. And so the ICC though has pursued cases involving Israeli leaders and I mentioned off the top what Mamdani is asking for of the United States to essentially turn over Netanyahu to the icc. so Rubio is signaling that defending American sovereignty also means defending the sovereignty of allies like Israel.

Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, absolutely. The case involving Israel is perhaps the most bogus and absurd thing the ICC has ever done. For one, the ICC only has jurisdiction over countries that have joined Israel, never joined. So the ICC invented the state of Palestine, not a UN member, not recognized by the United States, pretends it's a country, and uses that to prosecute Israeli officials. And the crime for which these warrants were issued never occurred. Right. It's a crime. They accused Netanyahu of starving the people of Gaza. But now that the war has ended, we see there are in fact no starving people, let alone people starved on purpose by Israel, which of course did not control food distribution in Gaza. That was Hamas. So it's a made up country and a made up crime. but the idea is to use it as a vehicle, as a tool, as a talking point for demonizing Israel and giving, you know, food for fodder to people like Mamdani.

M. M. Strauss: New York Mayor's claims about ICC are ridiculous

I feel almost bad talking about the NewSong York Mayor's claims to try to arrest Netanyahu. M. Because they're so ridiculous, they're so far from happening. It's purely just attention seeking behavior by him and playing to his base. But we see he's more interested in prosecuting Jews, you know, on the other side of the world for things didn't that didn't happen than cracking down on the real crime in his own city. He doesn't have enough crime in his own city.

Jenna Ellis: Right. And yeah, well, it doesn't seem like he's making a lot of good decisions in the best interests of NewSong Yorkers, but clearly he's been trying to become more of a national politician instead of actually focusing on what unfortunately the people of NewSong York elected him, but did elect him to do. And this, this speaks though to a broader move, by the Democrats who've been pushing for decades for globalism. And there's always been this tension between the, the call to maintain sovereignty, in a variety of contexts including declining to be part of the, of the icc, but then the, the rise of globalism. And so how should conservatives understand the broader issues at stake here when we're talking, specifically about, you know, things like the icc, but even things like we've mentioned on this program before, you know, the International Convention on Rights of the Child and not undermining parental rights and giving over any of our national sovereignty, for arbitration of fundamental rights.

Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah. So the, one of the tenants of progressive ideology is that countries, religions, have all been nationalities, have all been part of the problem historically. And that we're moving towards a new world, a Jon Lennon imagined world with no countries and no borders. And Europe which is at the center of this, you know, they have decided to basically dismantle their countries, you know, in favor of the European Union. they have abandoned their religions. And we see that when people abandon religion, they're not judicious, they don't just believe in anything. They need something new to believe in. And this globalism, you know, is part of that religion. The ICC has only convicted in its 25 years six people and not very high ranking ones. So why the obsessionism, why are they so obsessed with the icc? The answer is, I call it the last established church of Europe. This is some kind of a messianic vision, that they have. And it results in international bureaucrats making decisions instead of national leaders. And those decisions are going to be almost inevitably things conservatives don't like.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And yeah, it never works in the favor of conservatism because as Marco Rubio mentioned and took us back to the Declaration of Independence that says governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. international courts can never satisfy that principle or that worldview. but who actually determines, who sits on the icc? I mean, who is actually behind this, this court.

Eugene Kontorovich: So it's kind of like the United Nations. That is to say it's not, not every country is a member, but 100 countries are members or a bit less maybe. And basically they all get together and they're you know, diplomats from 100 countries together pick the judges. So the connection from, you know, the democratic process of any one country to the judges is extremely attenuated and there's really no way to fire or remove them by individual countries. So they are essentially unaccountable. I don't think a single person in any of the member states can name a single ICC judge. so that's, that is not a recipe for accountability.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, not at all. I mean at least, with, with all of the backlash against our Supreme Court Justices, at least, most Americans, if they're paying attention, can at least name them and they know what's going on. but broadly speaking, if sovereignty is eroding or does erode incrementally through some of these international institutions, how would Americans first start to notice and what should conservatives, who, at least for most of our AFR family and our listening audience, they're very concerned about these issues and national sovereignty. So how would Americans notice and what should they be paying attention to?

Eugene Kontorovich: you're going to notice because these international institutions promote rules and policies which aren't binding themselves, but then get used by courts and domestic political actors to get bootstrapped into sounding like official, like. People hear a lot about the International Court of Justice, right? The International Court of Justice is investigating Israel for genocide. Well, the International Court of Justice does a lot of crazy things and they recently had a decision, saying that all countries have an obligation to do everything they can to prevent climate change and must take positive measures. So basically opening the door to full blown, government control and socialism, of everything. the, the way to avoid this is to start breaking up with these institutions. The institutions have had, you know, a kind of halo effect because they're supposed to be doing nice things and they're also very bureaucratic and non transparent. So it's hard to tell what they're actually doing. almost all international institutions, UN institutions at least, promote global climate change agendas, promote gender theory, and promote, particularly radical and harmful anti parent educational policies. the best thing America can do is break up with these organizations. We don't have to be members. We joined the UN in 1945 in a kind of fit of optimism. But there are Many of these organizations we can be quitting. President Trump really has, done more than any other president, including organizations like UNESCO and the World Health Organization. But there's a lot more to go. There's the, international, Organization on Migration, which promotes, migration across borders, and eroding, national borders. So there's a lot more to do. International Court of Justice. America, is subject to its jurisdiction under a variety of treaties, all of which we can get out of. And that's very important to do that.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And this is where the Trump administration, I think, specifically Marco, Rubio and some who are paying attention to these things, it's encouraging to see their perspectives and to see such strong condemnation of the ICC and saying that America will never join, and participate. but if the ICC claims the authority to prosecute Americans, or even, prosecute, for example, Netanyahu, in a country who, obviously Israel has never joined them despite, not. Not actually joining the court, what's the limiting principle? I mean, if sovereignty can be overridden there, where does that stop?

Eugene Kontorovich: right. So the ic, the ICC is actually a real threat to America. I want to make that very clear. Because while America has not joined the icc defenders and the jurisprudence, they say, look, America has conducted various operations in countries that have joined, which gives the ICC jurisdiction. In particular, icc, advocates are very excited about the prospect of trying Trump administration, officials, and maybe even President Trump in the ICC for the, attacks on drug boats in the Caribbean and even for the repatriation of, illegal immigrants to Latin America, which they describe as a crime against humanity. Now, how would that work if America is not a member? Well, they would wait until after President Trump leaves office and you have a President Gavin Newsom. And then when, you know, President Trump or Steven Miller are traveling abroad, they would potentially face arrest, and the danger is that Gavin Newsom would, in a sense, abet this by not using the power of America to stop it. In other words, the way the ICC provides hostile, domestic, the opposition essentially with a way of taking out their political opponents. And we've seen that happen already in other Democratic countries where a new government turns over its political opponents and predecessors to the icc. Now, the Democrats have gotten President Trump tried in state court, in federal court, in the Senate. They have nowhere else to go but the icc. And, it's hard to imagine that they would blush about doing that.

Jenna Ellis: That is a really scary proposition. And while so many, Americans are focused on potential forthcoming indictments if Democrats, get control of the House and, or the Senate after the midterms and focusing on that, we do need to be focused on the icc. And so just hypothetically, and last question for you is, we're almost up against the break. Eugene, really appreciate your time this morning. If, hypothetically that were to happen under a future Democrat president who, you know, would turn over, Trump or, members of his administration to the icc, does that become, in a sense, precedent that the ICC could use against America and say, well, since you have complied with our jurisdiction previously, even though you haven't, overtly joined the icc, you have recognized our jurisdictional authority over.

Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, just. I don't think any American president would hand over U.S. officials. What they would do is not stop them from being arrested in foreign countries. and I think until recently, it was clear that any American president, you know, would have to go to war essentially to free Americans arrested by the icc. But with the increasing polarization that all bets are off. but I think, you know, President Gavin Newsom would be quite calm and comfortable in understanding that this would be used against Trump, who has a more aggressive foreign policy and would not be used, against him because he's not going to be attacking drug boats in the Caribbean and he's not going to be deporting people, back to Central America.

Eugene Kontorowic discusses threat to national sovereignty over ICC

Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, we have to take a break here, but Eugene Kontorowic, really appreciate, your breakdown of the threat to national sovereignty of the International Criminal Court. I mean, these are issues that, again, thankfully, Secretary Marco Rubio, the Trump administration is paying attention to. And this is where there is a very clear moral distinction between international cooperation among sovereign nations, like saying that Israel is our ally, for example, versus allowing the supranational institutions to exercise coercive authority over us or over any other sovereign nation. nations are governed and created by the Lord, and we need to respect, national sovereignty and never allow globalism ever to thrive while America persists. We'll be right back with more. America's 250th birthday. It's a great excuse to have some extra cake and ice cream, but we can help your celebration go well beyond that. Show your patriotism with America 250 apparel that will become a memento of this special year. We also have special episodes on AFA Stream to help underscore that America is a Christian nation and help you find God in the Constitution. Find all of this and more in one place. Afa.net topics 250. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Daughters of the American Revolution leaders, uh, tilted a transgender vote

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the heritage organization Founded in 1890, Daughters of the American Revolution, suddenly find themselves debating the definition of what is a woman. And so let's welcome in Tyler o', Neill, who is managing editor at the Daily Signal and wrote a great piece called Uneven Playing Field. Daughters of the American Revolution leaders, tilted a transgender vote. A member says. So, Tyler, for those who haven't been following this story, what happened at the, DAR convention?

Tyler O'Neil: Yeah, thanks so much for having me, Jenna. So, yeah, this, this convention, I have to step a little ways back because the story really starts in about 2023 when news, first breaks that some of these DAR chapters had admitted men who claim to be women, you know, who identified as women, who sometimes change their birth certificates, but they're still men. And so what happened here is there were a couple of these chapters that admitted them, and then the national organization staged a vote where they said, oh, we can't have discrimination. And this was essentially smuggling into the whole organization the idea that separate chapters that disagreed on this issue could not restrict their membership to actual biological women. And so this was a really, really big move that they did a few years ago. Fast forward to this year. Now we have chapters across the country that are coming together and saying, no, we never got a chance to vote on this. We, the long standing understanding of biology and what it means to be a woman had essentially been ripped away from us. And so many of these chapters came together and said, look, we need to have a vote where we clarify our bylaws and state what was obvious at the time. And apparently it isn't obvious now that, woman means woman and that we can't just have this, ideology foisted upon us. And so they went from one chapter to another, got more than enough to, put there, more than enough to have a big vote on this to require. So the bylaws say that if you have enough chapters demanding a vote on an issue to change tremendous bylaws, they have to have a, separate meeting on it, and they have to take it up. And so the DAR said, well, instead of actually honoring our bylaws, we're just going to have a vote at our annual convention. And so even from the get go, you kind of, you know, your radar starts to go up. But the leader who is organizing this effort said, okay, well, let's, let's see how the vote goes. Let's do our best. And of course, when they get to the national convention, all the DAR members who are checking in, they're given in their packets, ah, a memo that essentially says that there is no legal, that they would not legally be allowed to, to add this, this whole move. And so, you know, even from the beginning you see this tilting against the resolution. And then after there's a vote on the resolution, they all decide, you know, the, the leadership of the DAR says wait, there's, there's questions about the vote. And so even though they thought that they were likely to win this resolution, suddenly they're losing it. And you know, this raises all sorts of issues and questions. And so from the beginning you had a system where it looked as though they were avoiding a fair vote, they were tilting the playing field ahead of time. And now they're trumpeting that the vote went against the women who wanted clearly to define woman a way that it would have been understood when the DAR was founded back in 1890.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And this just seems so ridiculous that an organization called the Daughters of the American Revolution isn't now defining who qualifies as a daughter. And that precedent. And so, I mean this organization historically has required documented biological lineage to prove dissent from revolutionary patriots. I mean they, they're very clear on that. One of my best friends in Colorado, she and her mom have been part of this organization. And and so this, this I think is a broader cultural topic that and you mentioned it. I think it's fascinating that this started a few years ago, kind of at the height of the trans movement. But how did we get here culturally in the sense that we can't even, you know, define that Daughters of the American Revolution literally are women who are, you know, biologically chromosomally women and not men.

Tyler O'Neil: Well, the greatest irony in all of this is that the Daughters of the American Revolution was started when the Sons of the American Revolution refused to allow women to join. And so when women created their own organization, now men have to find their way into it. I mean it's so perverse. But yeah, I mean you're asking exactly the right question. And that's a huge, question. Like if we were to go into exactly how the trans movement was able to try to redefine, biology across our entire, across our entire culture. I mean that would be, that would be a book length answer to that question. But I think the short answer is we had, you know, the takeover of our institutions by so many on the left and then they, they were pushing The LGB angle they were pushing, you know, same sex marriage. And then when they finally got it, and, you know, you see this, the beginning signs of this Obergefell. but after Obergefell, most of that whole movement decided, all right, the next thing that we're going to pursue is this transgender ideology. And it's. I mean, it is beyond the pale. What they've been able to do, where they've been able to redefine. I mean, I think the big thing that always sticks in my craw and should always be remembered is how the Biden administration decided that Easter Sunday was a fine time to celebrate what they called, the Transgender Day of Awareness, or, no, Transgender Day of Visibility. And essentially they claimed that it was just a, calendar mix up. And I could understand that to some degree, but also, like when it's Easter, when it's the high holy day of Christians across the country, and you're just saying that you should be celebrating transgenderism instead. That sends a huge message. Message. And, rightfully, I think, horrified so many who didn't understand just how rotten the left has gotten on this issue.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And thankfully, there appears, at least, culturally and societally, more of a. Of a pushback against the trans movement. And I think, hopefully the height of all of this, this nonsense is coming to an end and being reversed. But as it, with respect to, this specific organization, do you think, Tyler, that the debate is likely to remain internal or could this spill over into litigation or broader, perhaps legislative debates about sex based organizations?

Tyler O'Neil: Already know the answer to that. because. We already know the answer to that because what happened last week was you had laws, you know, legislation filed in Congress where Republican legislators are trying to amend the Daughters of the American Revolution's congressional charter. And what that would do is essentially say, I mean, it's like I said, it's beyond the pale that we even have to have this debate, because everyone and their mother, until literally yesterday. Well, not literally, but in the past 10 years, everyone and their mother would have said, look, women are women. And if a man claims to be a woman, that doesn't mean he can join a women's only organization. I mean, it's frankly absurd. But that's the world we're living in today. And so, you know, now we have Republicans in the House with this bill. so the issue is already moved outside of just the confines of the dar, I hope. I mean, we have even more DAR chapters signing on to this effort to clearly define women. Biologically in their bylaws. So I, really think, I don't know why, what the DAR leadership thinks they're going to achieve by continuing to fight against biology here because the backlash is growing both inside and outside the organization. And I don't think they're going to be able to get away with claiming to be neutral on this anymore.

Tyler Neill: I think the truth will out eventually on transgender issue

Tyler O'Neil: And you know, we all know Harmeet Dhillon over at the, Justice Department Civil Rights Division. She wrote a really great memo that had exactly the opposite conclusion as the memo that DAR gave out before their annual, convention. And so there is the idea that the trans movement just has the corner on the law here and there's nothing the DAR can do about it to define women under their bylaws. It's a crock. It's a farce. And, I think the truth will out eventually.

Jenna Ellis: And yeah, the truth hopefully will win out. And you know, this isn't just a disagreement over policy. This is about competing views of truth, human identity and objective reality. I mean, this is just one example of, you know, this broader conflict that has been, you know, bubbling up since, you know, even all the way back to Obergefell and beforehand of, you know, saying what really defines man, men and women, and the context of the family and overall, how we view policy in light of truth and, and how that, applies to all of the social issues. And you know, Tyler, my contention for a long time has been if we define the family in the context of the laws of nature, which are objective, obviously given from nature's God, that would solve, virtually all, you know, 99.9% of all of these social issues.

Tyler O'Neil: Yeah, no, I mean, I think the proper response to pretty much every social issue is a grounded, biblical. But also, I mean, beyond just biblical, we're talking the traditions of various different faiths across the world. But a proper understanding of the human person, of what it means to be. What it means to be human, you know, made in the image of God, male and female, having infinite worth from our creator. if we had a proper understanding of that, that would solve abortion, that would solve same sex marriage, that would solve the transgender debate. That would. I mean, it answers so much. And the wisdom is right there in the text of Scripture.

Jenna Ellis: Amen. Well, Tyler o' Neill really appreciate, appreciate it. You can read his piece in the Daily Signal and everything else, that he writes about. You can also follow him on X and as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr.net. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com forward/afr.

Jenna Ellis engages with former intelligence agent Scott Uehlinger to discuss the ongoing conflict in Iran and the implications of U.S. military strategy. They explore the recent escalation of strikes, the impact on Iranian infrastructure, and the potential for regime change. With insights into the complexities of international relations, this episode delves into the strategic moves being made and the broader political landscape surrounding the conflict.

(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life

(01:03) Pentagon identifies fourth service member killed in Iran as US launches more strikes

(02:18) Scott Perry: The attacks on Iran are more widespread than ever before

(07:40) Has the US fundamentally changed its military strategy and its endgame goals

(15:28) Preborn Network offers free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies

(16:39) Secretary Marco Rubio challenges the International Criminal Court, saying it threatens American sovereignty

(20:26) Secretary Marco Rubio says the International Criminal Court threatens American sovereignty

(24:45) M. M. Strauss: New York Mayor's claims about ICC are ridiculous

(35:27) Eugene Kontorowic discusses threat to national sovereignty over ICC

(37:05) Daughters of the American Revolution leaders, uh, tilted a transgender vote

(47:20) Tyler Neill: I think the truth will out eventually on transgender issue