Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator

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.

United States and Israel at odds over direction of ongoing Iran conflict

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, June 22nd. I hope everyone had a wonderful Father's Day yesterday and could maybe put aside the news for at least the weekend. But, here we are Monday morning. And the United States and Israel are currently very much at odds over the direction of the ongoing, conflict in Iran, particularly regarding the negotiations with Iran and Israeli military operations in Lebanon. some of the key areas of disagreement are the peace negotiations versus military escalation. The US has pursued a temporary ceasefires and diplomatic engagements with Iran, of course, with that Memorandum of Understanding that Trump signed last week in Versailles. Conversely, Israeli leaders are pushing for a decisive military defeat of Iranian proxies and have continued strikes in southern Lebanon. This coming from npr. And then also Israel has expressed strong reservations regarding the new Memorandum of Understanding between the US And Iran, fearing that it fails to address ballistic missile threats and proxy funding. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also facing upcoming parliamentary elections and Trump has very notably not endorsed him, at least yet in that election. And Netanyahu is under domestic pressure to maintain aggressive security measures while the US Is prioritizing regional stability. So, how is this ultimately going to pan out with obviously the United States, needing Israel as an ally for the negotiations so that they can keep this together. But Israel really needs the United States, ah, probably even more to help, at least overall, with this ongoing conflict.

Hogan Gidley gives his perspective on the Iran deal

So let's welcome in, Hogan Gidley, who is the AFPI Vice Chair for the center for Election Integrity and Senior Advisor for Communications. And he was also formerly in Trump's White House in the Press Secretary's office in the first administration, so is of course no stranger to, all of the things Trump related. So, Hogan, it seems like, you know, we take one step forward, and two steps back. And so what's your kind of 30,000 foot perspective on, what's going on in Iran and Trump's perspective with this Memorandum of Understanding?

Hogan Gidley: Hey, Jenna, thanks so much, for having me on this morning. so much to unpack here. look, foreign policy is difficult. It's difficult because in essence, what you have, not just multiple egos, but you also have, you know, multiple opinions. You have multiple, sets, of facts from different countries that may not be at odds with, with, may or may not be at odds with, with what you're trying to accomplish. you have partners where they're not the best of partners.

Hogan Gidley: you know, historically, sometimes they are the best of partners. Historically. Sometimes the leaders are despots and dictators, sometimes they're heads of democracies. It's so nuanced and so difficult. Donald Trump did an outstanding job in the first administration bringing about, which no one thought possible in this term. He solved several conflicts around the world, eight or nine at the last count. We still have Russia and Ukraine on the docket. Also the Iran conflict as well. They've been waging war against us for 47 years. So every single presidential candidate, every single president, you know, have all said, iran can't get a nuclear weapon. Iran can't get a nuclear weapon. Over my dead body. Hillary Clinton said it as a candidate. All these people always say this, but no one really does anything to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. So Donald Trump comes in and says, I'm going to recognize reality here. I'm going to treat the world as it is, not how I want it to be. And we need to make some moves here to protect America and her assets around the globe. And he's done that. So getting them to the table is a big deal. That being said, what I noticed about this, again, 30,000 foot. I don't have any intimate knowledge of this. I'm just looking at Donald Trump and his posture. Also, people in the administration who I know and I do talk to, but this isn't from their mouths. This is just my seeing this. I do feel as though there are a lot of hedged bets here. Donald Trump had a lot of if thens. You know, you're a Christian, you talk about the Bible a lot. How often does God outline in the Bible? If you do this, then you will get this. If you don't do this, then you will get this. I am not trying to compare Donald Trump to God. so let me be clear. What I am saying though is there's a lot of parallels here with the if thens. Donald Trump has said multiple times, if Iran behaves, then they do get certain things. It's like apparently with a child. Donald Trump is not going to let Iran get away with literal murder. so we'll have to see what happens? I do believe it's a long winded answer to say, I really don't know what's going to happen other than this Memorandum of understanding. You may love it and you may hate it. The fact is it's not a deal yet, it's a memorandum of understanding. A lot of things have to fall into place, a lot of promises have to be kept in order for this to actually become some type of deal. So I just tell you that if you love it or if you hate it, to take heart one way or the other, to know that it's not the final product. Not even close.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that's a really wise point. And also that this is so nuanced because if you listen to the mainstream media on any side or you read articles, they're either completely critical, of Trump, or they're saying basically that the deal is already done and, they don't parse it out step by step and take kind of a wait and see moment. Because everybody has to have an immediate opinion on everything going on. And that became really apparent last week when we, didn't even have the text of the Memorandum of understanding, and people had tons of opinions on it already and they hadn't even read it. I mean, it's like Congress, they hadn't read the bill, but they have an opinion on it. And what you're talking about with all these, if then token is so true, because that's just simply consequences. And it's about time that the United States imposes consequences on Iran. we basically sat around for 47 years, to an extent, just letting this happen. And, you know, so my question is, what, what else do people actually expect Donald Trump to do? Because in the realm of nuance, there's not going to be this perfect solution. And so what more do people actually genuinely expect Trump to do with this situation when obviously we can't, as a national security issue, allow Trump, or allow Iran rather, to, obtain nuclear capabilities? That's obvious. So, I mean, he's in the middle of a very difficult negotiation. What more do they expect?

Hogan Gidley: Exactly. And I think it's, it's the, it's the culture we have in America that is. I want satisfaction now. I want it right now. now, granted, this has been going on for a long time, as you just mentioned and I talked about at the outset, 47 years, but it doesn't, you know, it took longer to get here. You're not going to fix it overnight. There are going to be a lot of Things, as I mentioned, different leaders over in Iran who have all been killed. Now, there are others at the top of the heap, and they have their own opinions, they have their own ideologies. They may differ from previous mullahs, they may differ from previous leaders over there. So, ah, again, a lot to factor in here. I don't know what they want from Donald Trump, as we kind of joke about, but it's true. I mean, if he had a cure for cancer, they'd be mad because he had a cure for cancer. I mean, it was, it was someone who said, don't get the vaccine. I mean, this is a whole Democrat party who said, we can talk about vaccines later. But this is the first example that came to mind. Don't get the COVID vaccine. It was developed under Donald Trump. That's crazy. Then Joe Biden gets in there after he and Kamala Harris both took the vaccine that Donald Trump's administration got. And then they said, if you don't get the vaccine, you lose your job. Wait, what? It's so anti Trump at the outset, regardless of what he does, instead of letting him try and negotiate something that brings people to the table, that brings peace in a region that hadn't seen it in many generations. I just don't understand the anger, hatred and vitriol toward him for just trying to solve a problem. But that's just the way they are.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so.

JD Vance: I don't think Iran has the fortitude to stay

So looking forward to this week, then. And Vice President J.D. vance, you know, of course, is, is. Is at the helm of this, which I find interesting that Marco Rubio, as the Secretary of State, has kind of taken m more of a backseat. I would have expected him to be a little more front and center on this. I, know that they're likely coordinating, and, you know, obviously he's involved, but what do you expect from JD Vance and also Jared Kushner, who's involved, who, you know, obviously was very involved in the first administration with the Abrahamic Accords. so you know him very well in his, operations.

Hogan Gidley: Sure.

Jenna Ellis: What are the next steps in terms of the negotiations with some of these if. Then consequences? Because Trump is basically saying, you know, if Iran, if you don't do this, you're going to see a lot more bombing.

Hogan Gidley: Yeah, I think. I think the next steps will be, I guess seeing whether or not the entities make good on their side of the bargain and right out of the gate. I don't think there are many people would believe, Iran is going to live up to their side of the bargain America has to this point, as soon as the thing was signed, which was clearly written, they could not then attack, Israel. they had to stop all of their operation, military operations, etc. And they immediately sent drones into Israel. Israel responded by bombing a, ah, facility that Hezbollah, Hezbollah came out and said, kill his members of Hezbollah. So immediately they, they didn't, they didn't live up to their side. That being said, as Donald Trump joked about, but it's kind of true, he said, you know, if there's a little firing, if there's a few bombs, that's kind of normal for that. That is a cease fire in their estimation because they're just so used to death and destruction. This is what Donald Trump's trying to change, a, mentality that, that has to be the case because remember this isn't like Russia in the 80s where mutual mutual assured destruction was a deterrent because Russians didn't want to die, Americans didn't want to die. These people in Iran, they, they, they think dying is part of the victory. They think that death, their death, the death of their family is a good thing, that they'll go to heaven and they'll get their virgins and the whole thing. So it's hard to negotiate, you know, military might against that mentality. Now I will say the only thing they do understand over there is strength is power. So if Donald Trump were to say, all right, you guys haven't lived up to this, now we're taking Carg island, now we're going to wreck your economy even further. Now we're going to bomb, some of those dual use targets like electric grids and bridges that I think changes the calculus. But these are, again, these are all kind of guesses. I just, I don't think Iran has the fortitude to stay, stay the course here. I think sooner or later the, you know, radicals are going to radical, you know what I mean? I think sooner or later they're going to do something that makes it just untenable for America to stay involved in this agreement.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we only have about a minute left. But Hogan Gidley, you know, to your point, Iran's chief negotiator responded on X that quote, we don't count on American threats. So they're kind of putting forward this bravado talk because you're right, they only respond to power, but they can only go so far. So is some kind of temporary ceasefire just allowing them to rebuild and come back stronger because I've heard that opinion from several guests here, and, you know, seeing that as well. Is that a concern?

Hogan Gidley: of course it is. Because when you pause, you know, military operations into Iran, what do they do with that time? As has long been the case, they don't use their money to build their people up or to build infrastructure, or they use it for military means. They use it to build bombs and to pay for death and destruction all over the world. So, yeah, of course, that is a thought process. But understand what our government has said, too. You know, we're watching, guys. We've got satellites. We know what you're doing, we know what you're not doing. We have intelligence on the ground as well. We have partners with Israel and other countries that tell us what's going on. Don't make a dumb move here because he can turn on the spigot, Ken. Donald Trump as quickly as he can turn it off.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so. So well said. Well, Hogan Gidley, really appreciate your perspectives. You can follow him on X and also, AFPI as well, and the great work that they're doing over there for the center for Election Integrity. And, we need to continue to talk about this. And coming up, I want to shift gears into the relationship between the United States and Israel now that they're a little bit at odds with the Iran deal. So we'll talk about that coming right up.

Jenna Ellis: Atlantic Council article highlights rift between Trump and Netanyahu over Iran

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, we're still talking about the ongoing, conflict and negotiations with Iran, the United States States, and also Israel. And there's a very interesting piece in the Atlantic Council by Daniel Shapiro, who, previously served as a US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle, East and U.S. ambassador to Israel. So his perspective is interesting. And he wrote a piece, that's titled From a Gap to a Diverging US And Israeli Interests in the War with Iran. Bottom line up front. The Iran conflict is coming from. The article has exposed several major fissures between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over war aims. The two leaders are moving apart over the Strait of Hormuz, the elements of a deal with Iran, and Hezbollah's threat from Lebanon. These disagreements do not preclude the two leaders from working together to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but they do narrow the speed space to make common cause on other issues. So, how do we parse out where. Because if this is just the US And Iran, obviously just those two coming to the negotiating table, that's a different contemplation for President Trump. But then when you have Israel that's coming in and potentially disrupting some of the deals, how does the United States, ultimately look at Israel? And is Israel helping or hurting the overall effort?

Former Virginia Congressman Bob Good says Israel should be Israel first in Iran negotiations

So let's welcome in former Virginia Congressman Bob Good. And you know, this does seem like a very strained relationship at the moment. where do you see perhaps that common cause?

Bob Good: Well, in addition to whatever concerns or opinions we may have on the larger mou, the larger negotiations with a country whom we said must unconditionally surrender. It's interesting that we're negotiating with country for which we demanded unconditional surrender. Now we're calling the president's, calling the so called leaders of Iran. They're nice people, they're not radicalized, they're rational. Suddenly when they seem like the same kind of people to me and they're seeming defiant, saying they're going to continue to enrich uranium and so forth. But the MOU seems to indicate that Israel is required to absorb Hezbollah's attacks, that Hezbollah is able to continue to attack Israel. And Israel is not supposed. Our leaders should be as President Trump is and as President Trump has helped to change the Republican Party and change the country. Our leaders should be America first. I don't really buy into the America only because we live in a world that's complicated and nuanced and allies and friends are important. You know, for example, we're saying, hey, they're going to get 300 billion if they keep the deal, they keep the agreement, which we know Iran will not. But let's just say hypothetically they keep the agreement to get $300 billion for reconstruction. And we're saying, hey, other nations are going to pay for that. I'm not sure why other nations would pay for that that weren't part of the deal or weren't part of the war per se. but Israel itself should be Israel first. Netanyahu, I think is an outstanding leader. Israel should be Israel first. Of course they're an ally, they're a friend of ours, they're a strategic partner in my view. You and I have talked about that many times. But it's interesting that the MOU seems again to indicate, obviously not seen the text of it, but the MoU seems to indicate that Hezbollah is able to attack Israel and Israel is not supposed to respond. And then the president of course went so far as to say, in recent days that Israel has been fighting, Hezbollah too long. When Israel is responding to the terrorist attacks from Hezbollah. and the President has said, hey, Syria should fight Hezbollah instead and Syria can do a better. Which there's no way Syria is going to fight Hezbollah number one and number two, Hezbollah, excuse me, Syria could not do a better job than Israel against Hezbollah. so it's just an interesting dynamic. And Israel was not part of the MoU, not part of the agreement. and so how could Israel be required, to comply, with when it involves apparently Hezbollah's ability to continue to launch missiles and to attack Israel and to commit terrorism against Israel still funded by Iran? MOU doesn't talk about is Iran's proxies or terrorist proxies or funding of terrorism generally. and so, but, and it seems as if they've got, they've got Hezbollah provoking Israel, attacking Israel, and then to use that as leverage to, you know, to close the strait again or to not abide by the deal or to perhaps try to bind Israel's hands and allow them to be victimized by their enemy, Hezbollah.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's, it is a really, complicated situation for Israel, who, you're right, they, they should be Israel first, just like, and I fully agree with you that our United States President should be America first, not America only, but ah, act in the best interest of our own national security, our own citizens, and take into account of course our allies in the overall foreign, policy in the world stage, but ultimately act in the best interests, of America. And so do you think that it was intentional or perhaps a mistake that Israel wasn't necessarily invited to be part of the negotiation? I mean it was through the United States, perhaps as a little bit of a proxy, but that the MOU and whatever agreement may be reached out of that formally that Israel isn't actually bound by that.

Bob Good: Well, I mentioned that Israel, I believe is a strategic partner of ours. I think they're a very important ally. I think they're one of the few true friends that we have in the world. And you could argue certainly that they're our friend because it's in their interest to be our friend. But I think we share values and ideals and principles. Principles, foundational, fundamental principles, if you will. They're the only true democracy in the Middle East. and you know, Benjamin Netanyahu is accountable to his people. He could be removed from power. He may be removed from power. He's certainly not a dictator, you know, like we like, or a supreme leader like we find other places around the Middle east. And so forth. So, but, so if we want Israel to abide by, comply with willingly, you know, then it would seem that it might make some sense to involve them in the negotiations. And I certainly don't know. And we don't know, you know, how much conversation was happening between our administration and Israel as they were working out this mou. but it's interesting that if they were precluded, they were excluded from being part of it, but then to demand that they comply with and they m. They would have an interest in complying with, being supportive of of course, an agreement that the US Would have in the Middle East. However. But if Hezbollah is continuing to attack Israel, then Israel has a responsibility and it's necessary obviously for them to respond to those attacks. but it seems to be Iran's obviously interest and demand and at least understanding perhaps that Israel can't respond. That's part of the agreement as Balak continue attack Israel, but Israel cannot respond to those attacks. And that's obviously problematic for Israel.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Israel seems to be acting out of more immediate security necessity in response, not necessarily just sending a broader message, to the US or Iran or its proxies. And so if the US Continues to move forward with an agreement that Israel openly opposes as strongly as Netanyahu has, come out and said, that at least in the current situation, what does that do to our long term coordination, with our ally and between our two countries?

Bob Good: Well, it remains to be seen and President Trump has been, to his credit, has been an outstanding friend to Israel on the whole from his first term to his second term, his leadership with the Abrahamic Accords, his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, and his stance with Israel, he's been tremendous and certainly compared to most presidents in that respect. However, there is, as you and I have talked about, before and you've recognized, there is this growing opposition to Israel on the world stage and within even, even. And within the Republican Party. but, and so I do think, so I am concerned about that relationship. I think it's again an important partner, important ally, to us on many levels for many reasons. and I think because Israel's enemies are our enemies and because Israel has shown a demonstrated willingness to fight those enemies there for their own interest and to protect themselves, of course, and their sharing of intelligence with us and their partnership with us in that respect. And, and so we together with them, I thought what we did in Operation Hammer last summer was critically important, was critically effective. I think that's on balance where we should have been if we needed to go back in again back in February, the 1st of March, when we started this war. It should have been go in, attack and decimate them, set them back, get out, threaten them. If they, if they continue nuclear pursuit, if they continue to fund proxies and terrorism and so forth, then we'll come back. But the sustained presence there with goals that may not be achievable, I think is what got us the difficulty that we're finding with trying to make a deal with a country for whom there is no ability to make a deal. With Iran, you either choose between a fake deal or a bad deal.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I think that's very well said.

M. John Sutter: Does Israel have it m more correct on Iran deal

my previous guest, Hogan, Gidley, was also of the opinion, you know, Iran is not going to follow through, not going to be trustworthy. I mean there are other reasons obviously that the administration is pursuing the short term deal. And so do you think from just the overall nuanced and strategic perspective, does Israel have it m more correct that this overall deal then is ultimately a bad idea, and that regardless of whatever the interests of the United States are in pursuing it, because we don't expect Iran to follow through, that it's more of a fool's errand?

Bob Good: Well, I do think there's a principle that whoever wants the deal most usually gets the short end of the deal or gets the worst, loses in the deal, if you will. And I saw, I'll give credit where it's due, but it's a national review. I saw them quoting a Nixon, State Department Official back in 1972 talking about North Vietnam and it said we bombed them into accepting our concessions, to accepting our concessions. And it feels a little bit like that we're going to, you know, that, you know, we're going to end the blockade. We're going to let them sell their oil or they're going to unfreeze their assets. We're going to sanctions, are going to potentially have access to $300 billion reconstruction, don't restrict their ability to produce or have missiles. We even said, President Trump even said, hey, Saudi Arabia's got missiles. How do we keep Iran from having missiles? Well, we're not at war with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not committed to destruction of us, as the great Satan that Iran is. you know, and so it's concerning on who more wanted the deal and who was more determined to get a deal no matter what does. And then for the President to Defend the deal by talking about the stock market right out of the gate. Hey, look at the stock market. That's why the deal's so great. That's probably not the primary reason to make a deal, the primary justification for the deal. and so that is concerning, I

Jenna Ellis: would say M. And you know, turning to a more theological stance, you know, as a Christian and I know that, you know, our AFR audience, largely, you know, of course is looking at this as well because Israel is involved and the not just looking at it through the America only lens, but looking at Israel as the United States is obligated to support, Israel. I think that there is some confusion at least, within maybe the wider swath of Christianity to say, you know, that theologically speaking, obviously we agree that Israel has a right to the land. we agree on certain fundamental theological principles. But that doesn't mean that the United States is obligated to side with Israel on every military, or foreign policy action simply because of that. And so where would you draw those distinctions here where the US may concede more to Israel's preferences because they are in a self defense mode and they, you know, they have been for a very, very, very long time. but also recognizing that principle that we talked about earlier that the US also has to be America first and do what is in the best interest of the United States as we're discussing the broader agreement.

Bob Good: Gosh, what a great question. What a complicated and difficult question. So I'll put my sort of theological biblical hat on for a moment. I do believe in the biblical principle of God's promise to bless Israel, to sustain Israel, that Israel would return to the Promised land, that Israel did that in 1948. I believe that was providential. I want to the United States to be a friend to Israel. I do believe in that principle. I do have trouble with folks who use extra biblical sources to somehow conclude that the Israel today is not Israel. The Bible. Where do you find that biblically? I don't, I don't see that anywhere. The United States does not have a biblical covenant with the Lord that I can find in Scripture. I think our covenant or our, our future is what we make of it in terms of our obedience to biblical principle to God's moral principles. And you know, we were founded on that basis. We're strayed so far from. But I want us to be a friend to Israel for a lot of reasons, for strategic reasons, recognizing them as the only true democracy in the Middle east and recognize them as a partner that they've been to us from intelligence, from the military standpoint. but I also believe in it from a biblical theological standpoint. And I'm very troubled by the people who blame Israel for everything, who find Israel's the boogeyman behind every door. And everything that goes wrong in the world, it goes wrong in the country, it goes wrong in the Middle east would have been at Israel's at fault. And people on the right, people in the conservatives side, and they're so intense and so driven by this, and it's become almost their only issue. And they get so angry at anyone who defends Israel, supports Israel, because they see Israel as an enemy somehow to the United States. And I don't see that. And while Israel, again, should and does operate in their best strategic interest, that's what they're supposed to. Just like we're supposed to do that. that doesn't mean that they are the source of. Because they're doing that. There's these allegations they're controlling President Trump or they're controlling the United States, I think are ridicul and I think they're dangerous and I think they're harmful. so, ah, again, I want us to be, I want us to follow God's laws and God's principles and the way that we live our lives and the way that we, you know, the foundation on which our government exists, that's the way we were founded as a country. Almost everything that goes is wrong with our society and our culture and our country is a failure to follow God's design for morality, marriage and the family. And, those are, those are important principles. But also, you know, I read in my Bible over and over and over again the promises to Israel, the future of Israel, God's chosen people, the promised land, where Israel is today. And so Israel has had good leaders and bad leaders throughout its biblical history and throughout its history since it's been reconstituted as a Nation formally in 1948. and again, I think Benjamin Netanyahu is a great leader. Some people don't think so. I do think so. I think he's been a great friend of the United States, a great ally to us, perhaps again, primarily in their own interest. I understand and respect that as well. but just because people may agree or disagree with policies or strategies or leadership of Israel, I don't know how they come up with the Israel of today. It's not the Israel of the Bible. the government is imperfect, of course. It's found that it's comprised of imperfect people elected by imperfect people, chosen by imperfect people, just like ours is. but I think Israel, being a friend to Israel is very important to the United States. I think it's a very important future of the United States.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, incredibly well said. And I agree with you. And I think if you look at church history as well, when Israel, was, scattered, which was of course prophesied in Scripture, the. The prophecy continued that they would regather. And that happened. But during, of course, the time of the scattering, then, you know, theologians and Christians had to look and say, okay, well, what do we do then with the promises to Israel? And instead of looking ahead at the prophecy and say, okay, ultimately they'll be regathered. That may not happen in my lifetime. And it didn't happen for some. they should have trusted that prophecy. And when that ultimately, ah, did come true and Israel became a nation again, in the 1940s, then we can now say, okay, Israel has been regathered. And obviously, that covenant continues. And, you know, it is such a nuanced issue because Christians, of course, must be supportive of, God's covenants and his promises, where they occur and to whom they occur. And, we also can stand for the principle of citizenship in our own nation. And so how, those two things ultimately work together is where that nuance, arises.

Bob Good: I don't think President Trump is coming at Israel from biblical worldview

And so perhaps another complicated question and the last one for you this morning. Bob, good. And I so appreciate your perspective. that is also theological. How much of this do you think that Trump himself actually understands? Because he has been an ardent supporter of Israel. He does have, Jared Kushner, who, you know, obviously his son in law, who I think gets a lot of this, who's not a Christian, but he's Jewish at least, and, you know, is very, much an ardent supporter of Israel. how much of this do you think goes into Trump's foreign policy contemplation? Because he is very obviously America first, but not America only when it comes to Israel.

Bob Good: Well, President Trump has obviously many strengths, many qualities from a leadership standpoint. and again, he's been, the best friend to Israel, perhaps in Israel, as Israel was reconstitution in 1948. and again, you could argue he's been the best friend Israel has had. I don't think President Trump. I think it's obvious. It's obvious to me at least, that President Trump doesn't have a biblical understanding or a biblical worldview. Generally, I think President Trump operates based on instinct and gut and he shoots from the hip, if you will. And he gets frustrated with anyone born or domestic within the Congress, within his administration, in media or a foreign leader, anyone who doesn't always agree with him all the time on everything. He gets very angry and then flashes out and responds accordingly. And Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel is included in that. he likes some better than others, of course, and friendlier to some than others. But I don't think President Trump is coming from a biblical worldview or an understanding of scripture. I think that's clear. I think that, he knows, that a lot of his base, certainly in evangelical base and much of the conservative base is greatly supportive of Israel. And so I think he's recognized that politically, that was and has been advantageous to him politically in 2016 and 2020 and even 2024. but I don't think he's coming at it from the true biblical understanding or a theological or scriptural understanding.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and we have to take a break here. There's so much more I could talk to you about and ask you. I mean this is, could be a long form podcast and we'll obviously continue to talk about this as the conflict and the negotiations continue. I do agree with you. I don't think that Trump is coming at this from a necessarily, biblical worldview. The same that, that hopefully we would as theologians. I hope that there are advisors around him and I'm sure that at least Ambassador Mike Huckabee is advising from a biblical worldview that's encouraging. hopefully there are others, including Secretary of State Mark Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. hopefully they are also advising from that perspective. But, you know, we need to always look at, the goings on in the world, where the United States is positioned not just from an ethical and moral framework, which of course is a biblical worldview, but also our relationship with Israel. So Bob Good, really appreciate it. You can follow him on X also to listen to his great podcast and we'll be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Supreme Court rules against broad ban on gun ownership by marijuana users

Welcome back.

Jenna Ellis: Well, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday last week against a broad federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users in the latest line of firearm cases. From a core to that, according to, to the ap, has expanded gun rights, honestly, as they should, pursuant to the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution, the justices decided unanimously in favor of a Texas man who argued that a law barring guns from anyone who regularly uses illegal drugs and is not otherwise criminally charged violates the Second Amendment. So Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion that the opinion narrowly limits the government, the government's power to take guns away from drug users who are not considered dangerous. The Texas man who was not charged with any other crimes or accused of using a weapon under the influence, then said he's thankful that he finally has closure, his lawyer said. And so this the law was originally meant to kept to keep guns away from, quote, unquote dangerous people. But the millions of people who now use marijuana can't all be characterized that way. Gorsuch wrote. And so while, recreational use is still illegal under federal law and in some states, about half the states also allow for it and a cannabis use, of course, for medical purposes as well as a recreational use. So, this continues the, the conflict between marijuana, users and gun rights. But let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel for the Lawfare Project. And ultimately. Ah, Gerard, while I am 100% opposed to, marijuana use, I don't think that we need to be expanding, rights and certainly not recreational use. I think that the medical use, has been far too expanded. It's far too easy. And obviously the medicinal benefits don't include thc, which is the part of the marijuana plant that gets you high. And if we took away the THC and you still have the CBD medicinal benefits, people wouldn't be interested in it. but overall I think that the court got it right that just because you have, marijuana use, especially when you do have a medical license, you can't automatically then lose your right to keep and bear arms. What's your view overall on this case?

Gerard Filitti: I agree with you. I think that there are two different issues here. One is the general trend that we've had towards loosening of laws about marijuana and other controlled substances, where we seem to be making, making it easier to consume them instead of harder, as we should be. but leaving that aside, the actual decision I think was very correct and in keeping with the Supreme Court's analysis of the Second Amendment, which is a historical tradition framework. So what the Supreme Court did was it really narrowed the statute, it narrowed the law, it didn't strike it down entirely. So there is still room for prosecuting people who are intoxicated while they're possessing a gun or while they're high while possessing a gun. Blood fluently speaking, that's still something that can happen. But otherwise disarming an entire class automatically by the statute, the court found that problematic and unconstitutional.

Jenna Ellis: Yes, and it should be that way. I mean even again, you know I'm 100% opposed to marijuana use, but that is a separate issue. It has always been a core tenet of government power to restrain any sort of liberty, which necessarily includes the right to keep and bear arms, that they, that they have to go through due process and that there has to be a reason such as using a firearm while under the influence or you know, some other type of criminal or civil action that then one of the collateral consequences is restriction, of gun rights and so forth. And we can argue, you know, whether those things are necessary and proper. But but ultimately there at least has to be some sort of due process, not just this blanket ah, provision that, that for a long time, some of these medical marijuana users have said, okay, I'm now caught between exercising basically two rights that the civil government allows in these states that allow for marijuana use, especially medically. They're saying, okay, I can go out and get a medical license, but that requires me to surrender my firearms or if I want to keep my firearms, that requires me to not exercise another legal activity in these states that that the government allows. And so as much as I hate marijuana, if you put that in another context, like saying for example, any people who exercise their right, you know, to go to you know, to a movie theater for example and and if you know that's legal in all of the states and you go there, well then that necessarily requires you to surrender your firearm. Well that wouldn't be okay. And so in this context, again, as much as I fully disagree with legalizing marijuana in any context, that should not require those individuals, just as a blanket condition to give up certain rights. Just as much as it shouldn't require them to give up any other rights like free exercise of religion, and their faith. It shouldn't require them to give up any of their rights to to freedom of speech or any of those other protections of the U.S. constitution.

Gerard Filitti: You hit on it. Exactly. I think that this smacks m of a due process problem. When you are taking away someone's right without a pre deprivation process, without some individualized dangerousness finding, which is what we have historically done when restricting gun ownership. You need to have that finding that a person is a danger, that there is that individual dangerousness you don't just take someone's property or take someone's rights without that due process. So I think that hits the nail on the head. And remove marijuana and substitute instead of prescription sleep aid, which can also have side effects that are pretty significant and leave people potentially dangerous. You're not eliminating drug ownership, gun ownership for them, are you?

Gerard Filitti: It's the same concern. So while marijuana is not something we want to be encouraging people to use, the law needs to be applied in a way that, that maintains people's due process rights and constitutional freedoms.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely.

Three liberal justices voted unanimously to legalize marijuana; conservative justices disagreed

And so, did it, did it strike you as interesting that this was a unanimous decision? I mean, I would. I'm not surprised that the three liberal justices are for, you know, the marijuana users. And probably coming from that vein, but it was interesting to me that they seem to prioritize, the issue of marijuana rather than the gun rights, which historically they have generally, been opposed to expanding gun rights. And so this kind of put at odds, two different priorities. And I think that the conservative justices and maybe even the m, middle sort of moderate justices, got it right. But it was interesting to me that the liberals basically prioritized, the marijuana users over historically their opposition to expansion of gun rights.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that the more liberal justices looked at this in two ways. One is that they looked at this very narrowly. They saw that the historical tradition test, the Bruin Rahini, test that we have in previous precedents was being applied properly, that the government's analogy to a habitual drunkard from the times of the Founding Fathers, failed the Tufts, and that's why it was consistent with previous ruling. So it was more narrow for the liberal justices. But at the same time they're also sending a message that they're looking at results based outcomes rather than looking to strike down entire laws, which is consistent with what happened here. The law itself is still on the books. It's just that it needs to be applied more specifically to people who are charged. And you also have an interesting concurrence in Justice Thomas who thinks that the whole law might be unconstitutional as exceeding the commerce clause. So that leaves open the possibility that future courts will expand on that aspect of it.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it is really fascinating and you know, as we as we continue as a country to deal with the issue of the rise of not just medical marijuana, but recreational use, and I really, really hope that my home state of Florida does not, legalize it for recreational use, because, you know, my former home state of Colorado was one of the first to do that. And, you know, even through the Denver airport, you know, when I go back to visit, you can just smell it everywhere. There's a dispensary on every corner. And it's just, it's just disgusting, frankly. And it's not something that the government should be encouraging. but this also seemed to be an interesting contradiction as well for the Trump administration, because as the ap, reports that the decision is a loss, for President Trump's administration, which had defended, this 1968 law despite, arguing against other gun restrictions. The Trump administration has also, you know, reduced the scheduling of marijuana in terms of the criminal offense. And overall, President Trump really hasn't, been opposed to further legalization of marijuana. So is this a contradiction, maybe for both sides?

Gerard Filitti: I think it is. Especially when you look at all the different groups that were read in support of the plaintiff here, that the person whose rights were upheld by the court, you had everyone from the NRA to the ACLU on the same side, which itself is, a very unusual alignment. And so I think it sends the message that administration's priorities are a little bit inconsistent. On the one hand, you are pushing for tougher laws. On the other hand, you are pushing potentially or you're open to more legalization. And that creates a conflict that needs to be thought out and resolved before you come up with new regulations and new executive orders. Especially when we're talking about intoxicants that don't have a clear standard. When you're intoxicated with alcohol, at least, you know, drunk driving, you have a standard. There is something to base an assessment on. When someone is intoxicated with recreational drugs, that's much harder. So legalizing them and at the same time, trying to preserve other legal rights is definitely a challenge.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, formerly when I was a prosecutor, I mean, it was very difficult, even in the minds of the jury to have that standard for, being under the influence of marijuana, versus that standard that's, you know, kind of in everyone's mind of, of being under the influence of alcohol. What Indisha looks like, you know, some of those other indicators. So it is a lot more difficult. And really quickly, we're almost out of time. Do you think that this ultimately should be a federal question, because it is still illegal versus the states just being able to decide for themselves how to deal with marijuana?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the federal question really should be, about drug uses. I think we do need those national uniform standards. When it comes to controlled, substances, I think that's a valid exercise of federal power. when it comes to gun control in states, I think that is the state's issue, as we've seen repeatedly. so that's where you also have a little bit of a contradiction, but I think that's where things stand.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, it's going to be interesting to see, but, you know, this was a 9. 0 decision, and I think they, the Supreme Court got this one right, and we're going to have, more Supreme Court decisions in the coming days and weeks. So looking forward to, having Gerard on for all of those. And you can follow him, of course, on X. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, at AFR Net.

Jenna Ellis discusses the complex relationship between the United States, Israel, and Iran amidst ongoing negotiations and military tensions. Joined by Hogan Gidley, they explore the nuances of foreign policy, the challenges of diplomacy, and the implications of the recent Memorandum of Understanding with Iran. They also delve into the evolving dynamics of U.S.-Israel relations and the impact of political pressures on both sides.