Don Brown: June typically means Supreme Court season of controversial cases
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. It is Wednesday, June 10th. And not only is this, family and Faith Month across the country, rather than Pride Month, even though there are still the few vestiges of attempting, to lean in to Pride Month, more on that, later on in the show. But, June typically means for the United States that we're getting into the territory in the Supreme Court season of some of the more controversial cases and perhaps some of the more, politically impactful cases, and some of the outstanding, cases that the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on this cycle, are tying together a central question of who gets to govern America, the president, Congress, the states, federal agencies, or federal judges. And I think it's a really important question, that we need to ask and answer and perhaps not leave to federal judges. Well, let's welcome in Don Brown, who is a former prosecutor and former JAG officer. And, Don, this is a really fascinating question that you have raised and how all of these cases tie together. So how is the Supreme Court going to, ultimately answer this, potentially in a, series of forthcoming opinions?
Don Brown: That's a very, very good question. Jenna, one case that, is going up to the Supreme Court, that may be reached is an important case governing who controls the United States military. That's the Talbot case, in which a third a US District Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia, by a 2 to 1 vote, struck down the President's order banning transgender recruitment or upheld an injunction partially against it. and I know that the Secretary of War is appealing that directly to the Supreme Court. And there's a separation of powers question in all these cases. You know, whether the courts have power over the military. They don't, in my opinion. There's another case called Trump v. Slaughter where the President tried to, you know, fire the FTC commissioner. And that's going to reach the court. You know, who has the authority to do that? Article two gives the executive that authority. So it's, there are a lot of separation of powers questions that are going to be brought. And I've made the argument for some time now of course that the judicial branch is limited. If you go back and read Federalist 78 when the Constitution was first passed in Philadelphia in 1787 it had to be ratified. The states were afraid of overreaching federal judges. And in the Federalist papers at federal 78, excuse me, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciaries to be the weakest power, the weakest branch by far of all the government, the branches and shall have no power to issue injunctions over either the executive or the Congress. And we've come a long way and some of these cases are going to touch on those. The Slaughter case will certainly touch on the President's authority as executive over the, over the executive branch where they can fire these commissioners, these heads of these agencies. I certainly believe that he can. That should be the right outcome. And if the Talbot case reaches, I think this is a case that touches on national security. I've raised the question what's going to happen if USS Ronald Reagan sails out of San Diego at the President's order for some crisis in the Middle east and some Democrat judge issues an injunction to stop it? What's the President going to do? So these are some very, very important questions that are going to be looked at. Not to mention the birthright citizens case that's coming up that's going to determine with the President's interpretation of you got to be born, you can't be an American citizen if you're not born. If you're born elite. The illegal parents that plus the women in sports case coming up. So it's going to be a, it's going to be an active session for the next few weeks with some significant decisions for sure.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I love how you framed that. And also anyone who quotes the Federalist Papers on my show I'm an automatic fan of. And so you know you raised this really important question of judicial review and the power and the capacity of the Supreme Court to have the jurisdiction and the authority and the ability to hear these cases and render an opinion at all. And of course the Supreme Court was supposed to be limited and I've argued for some time that the one thing that perhaps the founders didn't anticipate because they argued as Hamilton did that the, the Supreme Court and the judicial branch is so limited and so it's the weakest branch and therefore we don't have to be worried about an out of control judiciary, is that they didn't have a check and Balance sufficient to vacate, certain rogue judges or overreaching opinions, in a timely and consistent manner. And so when a federal judge, for example, in your hypothetical issues, an injunction, against the USS Ronald Reagan, you know, what is the president supposed to do if that is ultimately an unconstitutional action by the federal judge? We can't just simply ignore the judicial branch. I mean that would, that would turn into chaos. But we also can't bow to rogue judges or, ah, extrajudicial authority when even if they're acting under the auspices of, jurisdictional authority. So how would you solve that problem that I think is implicit in our current framework, in a perfect scenario?
Don Brown: Well, we have to understand first off, there is a clear delineation of separation of powers is one of the most fundamental concepts to our constitutional republic. And stop and think about it. You know, you've been before federal judges, I've been before federal judges. By the way, I was a fan of yours, you're a fan of mine, so thank you. But we've both been before federal judges. Think if Donald Trump comes in, some judge like Frank Whitney, a friend of mine, is the, you know, one of the senior federal judges here in Charlotte, if he were to overrule an objection, just in here, say objection is overruled. Think of Donald Trump or Chuck Schumer or any Republican senator. Lindsey Graham came in and overruled Judge Whitney's decision on hearsay. That is a clear separation of power from the executive branch or from the legislative branch. And so when you look at Article 3, you've got to go back to the basics. The judicial power of the United States. This shall be vested in one Supreme Court, which is the only branch of government that's judicial and such. And here's the key. And such. Inferior courts, plural. You hear that? Inferior courts. As Congress. Congress may from time to time ordained and established. So these courts are inferior courts. The courts of appeal in D.C. or of the 13 circuits are inferior to the Supreme Court. And the 667, 77 district courts are superior to the courts of appeals. And the Supreme Court is inferior, according to Madison, to the other two branches. So what you're seeing. And ah, we were. And the Supreme Court kind of cut down on this last year, just a little bit, hopefully, you know, with the cap decision. But what you're seeing is the cost of decision. Excuse me. What you're seeing is six, one of 677 judges trying to issue orders and opinions to override the executive. When you look at Article 3, this course is supposed to be interpreting federal law, but. But they don't really have. They're a separate branch from the. From Congress and from the. And from the, And from the legislature, from the president. And so they have. From the very first case, Marbury vs Madison, on judicial review, there's been kind of what we call the military mission creep, where they have taken more and more and more and more and more authority, but they're not the ultimate answer on every, dispute. So, for example, with the transgender, recruitment policy. All right, so President Trump banned that, both in his first term and now in this term as well. Secretary Headset has signed the order, and executive orders have gone through, and recruitment of, transgenders in the military has stopped. And it should be because there's a dysphoria. It's a gender dysphoria. So when I was in the military, that would be considered to be, you know, something that's a psychological disorder. They drum you out for it.
Checks on the executive within the military are to be made by Congress
You gotta have good order and discipline. Well, it's none of the court's business if there is somebody said, what if the president issued an executive order to prohibit, you know, somebody based upon a race? Well, that's a different question, because that is an immutable characteristic. But still, the United States military, for example, the authority and regulation and power over is divested between two branches. The Congress, which has the authority to raise an army and navy and to set regulations, and the president, whose commander in chief. Not the courts. So checks on the executive within the military are to be made by the Congress, not by the courts. That's what the Constitution sets forth. And over time, they have crept more and more and more. In you go back, there was a famous case during the, Civil War called, the Merriment, actually. And so in that case, what happened is the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, issued a writ of habeas corpus to President Lincoln to take this Confederate sympathizer, Jon Merriman, out of Fort McHenry, where he's being held, and bring him before the court. So you had Jon Taney, the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, ordering President Lincoln to remove a Confederate sympathizer from a military prison and bring before the court, you know, what Lincoln did. Lincoln ignored the order because Lincoln understood federal 78. It was an unenforceable order to begin with. And these judges are out of control. And, I'm hoping that the Supreme Court is going to slap some of this stuff back. They'll, come Back again. But this decision out of D.C. in this Taliban case I'm telling you about, the D.C. circuit is 2 to 1. And the two, the two justices trying to strike down the presidential, order in the military are Democrats. One was supported by Obama, one by Clinton. So you're seeing politicized decisions, which is not what the founders ever meant for this to be. They would roll over their graves if they'd known how far these judges have taken upon themselves to be little presidents and little members of the Congress themselves and try to make law. So it's got to come to an end. And I hope that this summer we're going to get some curtailing of this ridiculous, out of control train wreck we have.
Jenna Ellis: So well said, and I hope so too. And it's ironic that the restraint of the judicial branch is requiring the Supreme Court to restrain its own branch. But the, a lot of this would be cured if and some of these questions responded to constitutionally if Congress would step up and actually do their job. I mean it seems to me that as the balance of all of these powers are tilting in a runaway judiciary and the Congress then is continuing to do less and less and less, less and actually less oversight, less, on the issue for example of birthright citizenship or nationwide injunction. I mean they could legislate and actually come up with a uniform rule on this and not require the Supreme Court to weigh in at all. But Congress, it seems like, is way more interested in their petty political fights and going on media hits, you know, rather than actually doing their job of actually establishing common law and rules within their purview. And that's, to me the most frustrating element of this is that President Trump, through executive orders, so forth, is trying to push these issues. But the President should have more limited capacity in terms of that type of rulemaking. And Congress, even Republicans just don't seem that interested in actually governing.
Don Brown: Well Joe, you make a very good point. A lot of people don't understand. Congress has authority over every inferior court in the United States. It doesn't have authority over the Supreme Court, which is a separate branch formed by the separation of powers. Back to Article 3, the the judicial power of the United States is invested in one Supreme Court in such inferior courts as Congress. Hear that word? Congress may from time to time establish and ordain. Every inferior federal court in the United States has been created by Congress. Congress could, if it wanted to, if the D.C. courts out of control, unconstitutionally from one ruling after the Other could ban that court, could take it out. It creates inferior courts, it can end inferior courts. Congress has the political power to rein in these out of control judges. But you're right, they kind of like for a large part sort of fold their arms and go to fundraisers and would rather, you know, rather just delegate their responsibility elsewhere just like they did when they created all these executive agencies during the administrations of LBJ and Franklin Roosevelt. Before that, they just gave rulemaking authority to executive agencies and basically abdicated their own responsibility. The Congress is the one of the three branches that's primarily failed the Republic because it has abdicated this responsibility and it needs to rein these courts back in and it needs to get back to the business of making laws itself and taking away the authority of a lot of these agencies to essentially make federal law.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. And we've got to take a break here. Don Brown, but so well said and I think you've actually answered my question that, you know, the court, U.S. constitution does provide, if we just read it, does provide a pathway to rein in federal judges that doesn't require actually just appointing good judges to reign in themselves. the answer is Congress and it's our legislature and the lawmaking authority that is vested just in the Congress. And again, as, as I've been ranting about since, you know, since Trump's second inauguration, that the Republican led Congress actually needs to do its job on a variety of fronts. If we're just so excited about the one big beautiful bill and that's all they're doing. But then they're out there ranting about, you know, these rogue judges, but they're not actually proffering any legislation that's under their constitutional authority. Then they probably don't even know. These members of Congress probably don't even know. But Don Brown, thanks so much. And we'll be talking about this frequently. We'll be right back with more foreign, Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Carmelo Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in Texas track meet murder
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Carmelo Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in the Texas track meet murder of Austin Metcalfe. You'll remember this from last year, the fatal stabbing and the murder of the 17 year old Austin Metcalfe. So jurors, took two and a half hours to reach that sentence. Carmelo, Anthony was facing five to 99 years or life in prison. And so of course the focus unfortunately, in Texas and nationally has been on race because, those who are in favor of Carmelo Anthony think that 35 years is far too long. And there is sentiment across social media from some, obviously leftists who are, who are suggesting that this is just, because he is a young black man and completely ignoring the fact that he committed a murder and it doesn't actually matter, what, what race he is, what skin color he is or the skin color of his victim. what matters ultimately is the act itself and, the, I believe the rapper. I don't follow rap culture at all, but, Cardi B posted wow. Just freaking wow. Disgusting. This is not justice. This is trying to make an example. Well, if you're making an example of a murderer that you're actually putting him in prison, that's actually called justice. But I responded to that and said, when you care more about the race of the murderer than the actual life of the victim, you may be the systemic problem in society. And, Sheldon Daniels, who, I believe is still running for Congress in Texas for, for, Jasmine Crockett's seat, who of course will be out because she didn't win the Senate race, says this, and. And he's a young black man. He says, I practice law in Collin County, Texas. Carmelo Anthony will be convicted and sentenced to life in prison, which he should have been. And I think that was a fair prediction. all of us were surprised that it was only 35 years. But he says Carmelo Anthony will be convicted as he should. He murdered that boy because he was raised to hate white people and view himself as a victim in every situation. It's a culture thing. And I think there's something to be said about the focus and the emphasis on the skin color of these two young men rather than the motivation of hatred and the actual act itself, and the crime, which was the stabbing and the murder.
Gerard Felitti: Carmelo Anthony should have gotten 35 years
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior, counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, I was surprised that, that Carmelo Anthony got only 35 years. I think it should have been life in prison at minimum. I mean, even I would have been in favor of the death penalty in this case. and so what are your thoughts, overall?
Gerard Filitti: My thoughts overall are this. Justice is being served. 35 years is not an, insignificant amount of time for incarceration. I agree with you. It should have been life in prison. I don't know about the death penalty in this case. I don't know about the level of premeditation or animus that came into it that would warrant that necessarily. But certainly this is a straightforward case of murder. And that is what Carmelo Anthony was convicted of. And if you leave race out of it, we wouldn't even be talking about it this case because it's another unfortunate incident of someone who wrongly takes the life of another and meets the consequences for it. But we are talking about it because race has become such an issue in the criminal justice system that it's hard for us to see justice being done when we're overtaken by considerations of race in every case.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it really is so unfortunate that there are advocates on the left and a whole host of people who were protesting, you know, outside of the courthouse and and saying in interviews and I couldn't even find a clip that didn't have vulgar language in it. So we're not playing any of those this morning. But a lot of the responses that I saw on social media, just from the people who were present, suggesting like one, one woman who of course is black, is saying, well what am I going to tell my boys, I have five boys. What am I going to tell them, you know, about about this and what advice there's. I can't say, say anything to them anymore. And Matt Walsh responded to that clip on social media and said, maybe tell them don't go and murder people. I mean this is just mind blowingly simple that it doesn't actually matter your race, it doesn't matter any of your immutable characteristics. I mean this wouldn't matter if it was a white man who killed a black man. I mean if that had happened, this would be an entirely different situation, of course. And the left would be screaming for the death penalty. And, and you know, they'd be if, if this were reversed and that person only got 35 years, then they would be saying this is not justice. And so what it comes down to is a blatant display of racism. And it seems like for all of the advances we've made in this so called civil rights arena, we're, we're still using instances like this to focus on race as a society instead of focusing on, focusing on actual justice for victims regardless of color.
Gerard Filitti: Oh absolutely. And to your point, what you tell your kids should have nothing to do with race. You tell your kids the same thing. You don't take a knife to school when you don't go and sit in someone else's area. If you do and you're asked to leave, you leave. You don't become confrontational. It's never acceptable to pull a knife and stab someone in the heart that's morally wrong and legally wrong. It's not that challenging to say that regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of any other protective characteristics, from a civil rights perspective, behavior, how we behave, how we raise our kids should be the same. So this highlights the problem. When we're making it about race and not about conduct, when we're making it about color of skin and not how people act, we are taking away responsibility, we're taking away personal responsibility and turning into a nation without laws.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and ultimately this goes back to a very Marxist worldview of the oppressor and the oppressed and this kind of systemic view from the left that the white man is always in every instance the oppressor and the black man is always the oppressed and it can never be, ah, the reverse. Even though clearly the aggressor in this situation was Carmelo Anthony and there was no self defense claim. And that was something that that I saw in a number of the responses as well, saying well you know, he got shoved and so this was just him defending himself from the white man. And that in no, in no situation in the criminal justice world is a justifiable response, criminally speaking, a justifiable response to a shove that you stab someone in the heart and murder them. I mean that's just not a, a, a legally viable response that is provocation and aggression. But it, the sentiment on the left is that it's always morally justified for a black person to stand up to a white person, even going so far as to taking their life, which I think displays not only that Marxist worldview, but an utter disregard for human life.
Gerard Filitti: Well, Marxist worldviews have an utter disregard for human life built in. Look at the atrocities committed by, in the name of Marxist Marxism in the Soviet Union, in China, everywhere in the world that has had communist governments. So there's no sympathy for human life there. But you're absolutely right. And this Marxism is being indoctrinated in schools, it's being indoctrinated in K to 12 on college campuses. When we're looking at protests on college campuses that have called for revolution and that call for resistance by any means. That's the Marxist ideology that we're talking about. And resistance by any means doesn't just mean terrorist attacks Gaza, it means stab someone in the United States. It means that you view yourself as the oppressed, then you are entitled and you glorify yourself for your actions. And that's a worldview that is completely at odds with democracy, democratic Values and law and order.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and completely fundamentally against the laws of nature and of nature's God and the biblical worldview that says that every human being has inherent dignity and is made in the image of God and has a right to life. And we see this not just in these sort of racist and overtly, you know, race centric moments of, of those clashes, but also in the gender wars of. We, you know, we're seeing a lot of the the side of the Christian nationalists who are calling to bring back the patriarchy, have basically a subhuman view of women. and we're seeing, you know, the, the in the race was a subhuman view of certain races by other certain races. You know, we see this kind of across the board in many different ways when we start to categorize ourselves of oppressor versus oppressed. I mean that, that was the problem of course with ah, Luigi Mangione who, who is suggesting that somehow you know, the CEO of a, of a major health care organization is somehow not worthy of the right to life, because of his status there and the imbalance of, of the health care situation in America. I mean. So you know, we see this across the board on many different levels of this implicit Marxist worldview and it really needs to stop. And I don't see any real advancement in society on this as much as I would have hoped and expected with the proliferation of at least the Trump administration's view on law and order. I mean this is, this is something that law and order needs to be established. I mean liberty and justice, obviously justice is blind. And that means, you know, you don't look at the immutable characteristics of the perpetrator or the victim. You look at the act, you look at, you know, motivation goes to proof. But it seems like we've lost this basic understanding in society of simply enacting law and order and that we are all human beings across the board and actually viewing each other as, as being fellow humans in this journey and that while we may have different roles, we may have different immutable characteristics, different aptitudes, we all have a right to life. And we're seeing this even in the influencer case of aborting a Down syndrome baby simply because their child might have had a disability. I mean that's a classic view of discrimination, based simply on someone else's immutable characteristic.
Gerard Filitti: I think we have made progress with the Trump administration on bringing back law and order. But I think it's also important to realize that the progressive left, the Marxist left, has been infiltrating the system for decades. And that's why we are where we are, because the problem is systemic. It's not just isolated to a small group of people who share this belief. It's being taught. It's being. We see it online, we see it permeating the media. So this is something that has grown to the point that our morals have been fundamentally shaken and for some people, altered, by what we've seen as progressivism in this country, what is really Marxist ideology, to the point that law and order does mean what it used to. So yes, we can impose consequences. We can have verdicts like we did for Carmelo Anthony and impose consequences, but ultimately we have to change the system. And you look for guidance, of all places. And perhaps ironically to the Supreme Court, you know, the Roberts Court has consistently said that you don't remedy discrimination with more discrimination, that we should be in effect, a colorblind society that's working for the good of all. But these are things we're not listening to. We're too politicized and looking at the, the progressive role and how we've been indoctrinated by that. So we're missing out on the fundamentals of respect for our fellow man, of the morals and values that were taught in the Bible, that we should be learning from our families. And if we want to really fight back, we can't just. It's not just about law and order. It's going back and seeing what's going on in the classroom, what's going on online, and re. Injecting our values where we've just ignored this space for so long.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah.
Gerard Felitti: Carmelo Anthony case shocks left
So well said. And you know, I was talking to a neighbor of mine who used to, be a teacher in, in kindergarten, you know, through middle school, up in the Northeast, and you know, was talking about how even in kindergarten, some of these kids who come from, families that clearly are not teaching them, you know, the correct values. you know, she said that, that, throughout her tenure as, as a kindergarten teacher had chairs thrown at her. one. One kid came at her with scissors and I mean, you know, all kinds of things. And the response from the principal and the school was, well, just sit them down, talk to them, give them a lollipop, and they can come back in to the school. And they, you know, they, they would damage property and even other students property. And there was no discipline that was imposed clearly at home or in the classroom. And I think that that's a, that's, that's a dereliction of responsibility. But it's also showing that these, these kids have this perception that, they can get away with whatever they want and consequences won't be imposed. So then when consequences are imposed, with a case like this with, Carmelo Anthony, then it shocks the left. And they think that 35 years, like Cardi b saying, well, he's just being made an example of. No, this is, as you rightly said, this is justice for what he actually did. And it seems like there's somehow no connection there in the minds of the left because they view this as always justified. If there is this type of hatred for the quote, unquote, oppressed oppressor, well,
Gerard Filitti: it's viewed as justified and it's viewed as something normal. And that's why it comes as a shock that there are consequences to actions. Because a lot of people go up understanding, because society has made this acceptable, that if you yell loudly enough, if you demand your rights loudly enough, if you assert a minority loudly enough, you can get away with anything you don't have. The rules don't apply to you because you are special. and that's, in effect, the remedy. Society has to look the other way for what you do because you consider yourself to be oppressed. But that's not the way society actually works. That's not the way the law works. So we have these nasty surprises when you're committing a criminal act, when you're killing someone and you find out that there are actual consequences for that. You're not being patted on the back and saying, congratulations for standing up for yourself. You're being told that everything you've thought, everything you've done, everything you've learned has been wrong, that there are laws, there are values, and you can't just say that you are an oppressed person and get away with anything that you want.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And what a stark reminder, of reality. And thankfully, at least the jury did the right thing in imposing justice for Austin Metcalfe's family, and for his life. And, hopefully as we continue to talk about these things, we can, through the church and through the family, reorient ourselves to justice and law and order instead of all of this race baiting. Gerard Felitti. Thanks. We'll be right back.
Hello Fresh facing backlash for controversial Pride Month post featuring sexually suggestive content
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the overall sentiment and, overall public perception and affirmation of, homosexual activity and quote, unquote Gay marriage is actually going down in the United States, which is a very good thing. Hopefully there are still some companies that are really leaning into this. And this is just an incredibly disgusting example of a company that I have actually never ordered from, but I will now never plan to. this is HelloFresh. And, and they drew backlash over a very suggestive Pride Month message. This is coming from Fox News. Hello Fresh is facing online backlash after a Pride Month social media post featuring a grotesque sexual joke grew drew criticism from users who accused the meal kit company of promoting explicit content under the guise of corporate activism. And while I absolutely will not repeat any of that content because it was so vile, I was embarrassed to read it, quite frankly. This is something that all of our listeners should be aware of that this kind of explicit messaging that was basically offer the company offering high fiber content meals so that the, the people who participate in quote unquote Pride Month celebration could prep for their homosexual activity. I mean was essentially what this is saying. Now there are a lot of Christians and conservatives who are saying that they will not support this company. And instead of some of these other food kit delivery companies using this as an opportunity to maybe draw in some of the conservatives who are abandoning HelloFresh now as of yesterday, Blue Apron, also leaned into this by posting an equally explicit and disgusting joke that was geared toward lesbians.
Walker Wildman: Major companies are advertising based on homosexual behavior
So to discuss all of this, let's welcome in Walker Wildmon, who of course is our vice president here at AFA and the host of at the Core. Ah, here on American Family Radio Network. And Walker, this is something I wish that we didn't even have to discuss here, but it seems like these corporations are not getting the memo that by and large this is something that is such a small demographic of Americans that would even find this remotely amusing. Lean into this. I mean any rational person, even if they're not a Christian or conservative, any normal rational person would find this so offensive and disgusting. They would say, you know what? I think I'll take my business elsewhere.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, you're right Jenna. And this is a very obscene and explicit topic to have to talk about. But the reality is this is a major company, that a multi billion dollar company that are multimillion at a minimum, that ships food products all around the country and the world. So this is, this is a big story and this really shows the depravity that knows no end. and this is what my grandfather and others decades ago began warning about, and that is that sin has no limits. And what was pitched to the public, pre2015 is, you know, to two adults that quote, unquote, love each other. this has turned into Romans 1 level public behavior. And this is this, this is the type of conversation, and, and, and light heart. This is the type of conversations that used to happen behind closed doors because people were embarrassed to talk about it. But now you have major companies that are advertising based on this very, very degenerate behavior. But this, this is this. Honestly, the one good thing here, Jenna, is that this opens the door for us to talk about the reality of, of going outside of God's design for human sexuality. And when you do that, it's very unnatural. It's very unnatural. It's very blatant. Even, Even, you know, unbelievers look at this and go, yeah, that's not right. That's not, not how we were created or designed. That's not how things are supposed to work. but hellofresh really went to the low of lows. I really never seen anything like this. And this is why I believe the public support that it is for homosexuality and transgenderism and this entire sexual deviancy movement, this is why I think the support is dropping year after year, is because the public, both Christians and non Christians, are looking at this and going, this is disgusting. Is this really where we want our culture to end up? And when you read Romans 1 and then you look at America today, there's not a whole lot of differences.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it's so true. I mean, we were sold in, in 2015, this message, which Christians and true conservatives obviously didn't buy into, but the public, I think writ large at the height of the embrace of, the, the gay marriage movement suggested, well, you know, love is love, and this will just be in the privacy of their own homes. And this. Who is this going to harm? And don't worry about society. And it was, it was very, whitewashed. I mean, it was, it was painted over as something that would just be almost innocent to society. And we're seeing that depravity and the unnatural can never be innocent. We've always known that. But to see something like this, that isn't even just a celebration of pride. I mean, you know, the NFL and all of the Nike and all of these others that are changing their logos to the rainbow, I mean, that's in your face enough. But this type of explicit content in the form of advertising that comes up on people's instagrams as they're scrolling through. I mean, that's just a whole other level of embrace. Sheer depravity.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, and this is. I do want to just keep reminding our audience of the fundamentals here so we don't forget it. Because to your point, we get caught up in what's pitched to us in the media and what's advertised in the public. but the reality of this, of homosexuality, the reality is that at a fundamental level, humankind, created in the image of God. We are created, at a basic level, to multiply based on God's created order. And part of, obviously the key formula of multiplying is human sexuality and our biological makeup and how God created woman for man and man for woman. And that's why, sex within the confines of marriage is within God's design. So that's a very core part of our human nature and of our biology. And what, what the left is doing and what the people who reject God's design are doing is they're perverting that, that core part of human sexuality and the marital union, and they're exploiting it and turning into something perverse. And so that's what, at the end of the day, that's what homosexuality is about. And it's. It's about engaging in very degenerate sexual behavior. And I know people don't want to talk about it. It makes them uncomfortable. You definitely don't want to have this conversation with your kids around. But this is the essence of the homosexual agenda. And that is not just rejecting God's design, but embracing Satan's design for sexual perversion. And so when you look at it that way, and when you're able to talk with adults about this in plain terms, it's very unpopular actually, even amongst unbelievers, what homosexuals, actually engage in. It's very, very unappealing to human nature and is really capitalizing on the worst of worst, Romans 1 type behavior. So these are the types of conversations that are uncomfortable that nobody wants to have. But this also reminds us what this is all about. And that is very degenerate and obscene sexual, conduct that should not be accepted in society, in the church or elsewhere and through. And it's also the consequence of normalizing, homosexuality and making it to where people go, well, if they want to do that, that's up to them, but I'm not going to do that. Well, we don't really view that about any other sin, do we? You know, if they want to lie, they can lie, but I'm not going to lie. Or if they want to murder, they can murder, but I'm not going to murder. we don't have this lackadaisical view about many other sins, that affect people and their lives and their eternal salvation. And so we really shouldn't have a lackadaisical view of homosexuality either.
Jenna Ellis: Oh, so well said. And and it's so true that we have to bring this back to God's design and the natural because you know, any sort of homosexual behavior is always in any context degenerate and unnatural. But we also need to include even the heterosexual, sex outside of marriage that is also degenerate and unnatural, at least in the sense of, outside of God's design. Now you know, one man and one woman, that is God's design. But God's design is explicitly within the context of marriage. And so the, the homosexual community, loves to tell the heterosexuals, well you know, you're just advocating for your type of preferred, sexual ethic over ours. And we're not at all, I mean the, the rules that God has in place and the actual, the actual approved m. Morally human sexuality still confines even the heterosexual to a view of morality that is natural and that is God's design. And so we include ourselves in that and Christians do as well. And I think part of the reason this conversation is so uncomfortable even among some Christians is because adultery and and an over, you know, the no fault divorce and all of these other types of sexual sin have become so common even in the church that it becomes almost hypocritical for some Christians who don't hold themselves to God's view to say, well we condemn the homosexual. When you know, here we have even pastors, you know, who are out committing all kinds of other types of sexual sin. And so we need to, as Christians bring this back to the true human sexuality sexual ethic which is following God's design for one man, one woman in the covenant of marriage.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, you're exactly right. And look, divorce, divorce wreaks all kind of havoc in our country. I mean we've got over 50% divorce rate, amongst most groups in our country. And that wreaks habit in and of itself. And so all sin has consequences. Some sin just has different consequences than others. and this degenerate homosexual activity has its own consequences, whether you're talking about sexually transmitted diseases or all kinds of other trauma associated with it. And sex outside of marriage, although it may be between one man and one woman, has its consequences as well. And so the sexual union as God designed it was as you mentioned, the standard is a man and a woman, in a sacred marital union for life. And it's exclusive to that couple. And that's how God designed it.
Christian conservatives have been fighting no fault divorce for decades
That's God's perfect design. And there's no plan B, there's no alternative. That's it. And so as a society, this is why so many people and churches and organizations fought against this Obergfell and this same sex quote unquote marriage. And normalizing it is because we knew it would just be yet another blow, to God's design for marriage and for man and woman. And so look, I think most people, at least in our movement, whether it be Christians or conservatives, have been pretty consistent in that we've been fighting no fault divorce for decades, going back to the 60s and the 70s and the start of the sexual revolution. And so, but our culture to your point, is inconsistent on this standard. And so we've got to draw back to God's design. And that's why you can't leave scripture on this topic and start creating your own standards like the Republican Party does sometimes where, you know, some, some sin is okay or some sexual deviancy is okay and then others is not. Look, we've got to be consistent on scripture being the standard because if you don't, then you get this mash up of inconsistencies and it just, it ranks of hypocrisy. And as Christians and as a church, we have to be consistent in our standard across the board.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And to be clear for listeners, I'm not arguing that divorce, period, is unbiblical. I believe that there are certain contexts that the Bible does provide for, that. But it's when at least one spouse is living in sin without repentance and there and has abandoned the covenant or so badly damaged it through possibly adultery, you know, a few other things, that the covenant has been broken. And when God hated divorce, obviously he hates sin and that and one spouse is. When we're talking about no fault divorce, that's something entirely different. Our culture has so undermined the sanctity of marriage that two people can just say, you know, we fell out of love or we're going different paths and we see that all the time that you know, our, our career choices are different or we just don't care anymore. That's not a biblical basis. And so the church though needs to step in and not have judges, the arbiters of, of any sort of marital dispute. But the church needs to evaluate, what's going on and actually reclaim jurisdiction over marriage, reclaim jurisdiction over a church, discipline the family. And if Christians would start to actually live biblically, overall, I think that we could have a much stronger impact on society.
Walker: Boycotting over moral issues is within the confines of Christianity
but Walker, coming back to HelloFresh and Blue Apron, how would you encourage then our listeners, to respond to these companies?
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, companies like this have no right to have our business and shouldn't have our business. And you know, we've launched boycotts over the decades and had very successful ones. and the thing I say to people that hesitate to boycott is the reality is that we all boycott in some degree. I give this example all the time. If you go to this burger joint and they get your order wrong three times in a row, then you're going to reconsider going there. And that's just based on the food quality and their ability to get your order right. And so if you're willing to do that over a restaurant that doesn't fix your burger right, then shouldn't you do that over moral issues? And so boycotting is definitely within the confines of Christianity, definitely within the confines of our economic society where we can pick and choose where we shop. And so I wouldn't be shopping at HelloFresh. Never have and never will. but one other thing I wanted to say, Jenna, just to wrap this up as far as the difference with this, homosexual agenda and other public policy issues and sin issues is what makes this unique, at least in this context historically, is the fact that you have multimillion dollar lobbying organizations that are advocating for homosexuality and transgender, such as the human rights campaign, etc. So this has an entire multi million dollar public policy push, unlike any other type movement.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Thanks Walker, so much. Appreciate it.
Don Brown: June typically means Supreme Court season of controversial cases
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. It is Wednesday, June 10th. And not only is this, family and Faith Month across the country, rather than Pride Month, even though there are still the few vestiges of attempting, to lean in to Pride Month, more on that, later on in the show. But, June typically means for the United States that we're getting into the territory in the Supreme Court season of some of the more controversial cases and perhaps some of the more, politically impactful cases, and some of the outstanding, cases that the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on this cycle, are tying together a central question of who gets to govern America, the president, Congress, the states, federal agencies, or federal judges. And I think it's a really important question, that we need to ask and answer and perhaps not leave to federal judges. Well, let's welcome in Don Brown, who is a former prosecutor and former JAG officer. And, Don, this is a really fascinating question that you have raised and how all of these cases tie together. So how is the Supreme Court going to, ultimately answer this, potentially in a, series of forthcoming opinions?
Don Brown: That's a very, very good question. Jenna, one case that, is going up to the Supreme Court, that may be reached is an important case governing who controls the United States military. That's the Talbot case, in which a third a US District Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia, by a 2 to 1 vote, struck down the President's order banning transgender recruitment or upheld an injunction partially against it. and I know that the Secretary of War is appealing that directly to the Supreme Court. And there's a separation of powers question in all these cases. You know, whether the courts have power over the military. They don't, in my opinion. There's another case called Trump v. Slaughter where the President tried to, you know, fire the FTC commissioner. And that's going to reach the court. You know, who has the authority to do that? Article two gives the executive that authority. So it's, there are a lot of separation of powers questions that are going to be brought. And I've made the argument for some time now of course that the judicial branch is limited. If you go back and read Federalist 78 when the Constitution was first passed in Philadelphia in 1787 it had to be ratified. The states were afraid of overreaching federal judges. And in the Federalist papers at federal 78, excuse me, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciaries to be the weakest power, the weakest branch by far of all the government, the branches and shall have no power to issue injunctions over either the executive or the Congress. And we've come a long way and some of these cases are going to touch on those. The Slaughter case will certainly touch on the President's authority as executive over the, over the executive branch where they can fire these commissioners, these heads of these agencies. I certainly believe that he can. That should be the right outcome. And if the Talbot case reaches, I think this is a case that touches on national security. I've raised the question what's going to happen if USS Ronald Reagan sails out of San Diego at the President's order for some crisis in the Middle east and some Democrat judge issues an injunction to stop it? What's the President going to do? So these are some very, very important questions that are going to be looked at. Not to mention the birthright citizens case that's coming up that's going to determine with the President's interpretation of you got to be born, you can't be an American citizen if you're not born. If you're born elite. The illegal parents that plus the women in sports case coming up. So it's going to be a, it's going to be an active session for the next few weeks with some significant decisions for sure.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I love how you framed that. And also anyone who quotes the Federalist Papers on my show I'm an automatic fan of. And so you know you raised this really important question of judicial review and the power and the capacity of the Supreme Court to have the jurisdiction and the authority and the ability to hear these cases and render an opinion at all. And of course the Supreme Court was supposed to be limited and I've argued for some time that the one thing that perhaps the founders didn't anticipate because they argued as Hamilton did that the, the Supreme Court and the judicial branch is so limited and so it's the weakest branch and therefore we don't have to be worried about an out of control judiciary, is that they didn't have a check and Balance sufficient to vacate, certain rogue judges or overreaching opinions, in a timely and consistent manner. And so when a federal judge, for example, in your hypothetical issues, an injunction, against the USS Ronald Reagan, you know, what is the president supposed to do if that is ultimately an unconstitutional action by the federal judge? We can't just simply ignore the judicial branch. I mean that would, that would turn into chaos. But we also can't bow to rogue judges or, ah, extrajudicial authority when even if they're acting under the auspices of, jurisdictional authority. So how would you solve that problem that I think is implicit in our current framework, in a perfect scenario?
Don Brown: Well, we have to understand first off, there is a clear delineation of separation of powers is one of the most fundamental concepts to our constitutional republic. And stop and think about it. You know, you've been before federal judges, I've been before federal judges. By the way, I was a fan of yours, you're a fan of mine, so thank you. But we've both been before federal judges. Think if Donald Trump comes in, some judge like Frank Whitney, a friend of mine, is the, you know, one of the senior federal judges here in Charlotte, if he were to overrule an objection, just in here, say objection is overruled. Think of Donald Trump or Chuck Schumer or any Republican senator. Lindsey Graham came in and overruled Judge Whitney's decision on hearsay. That is a clear separation of power from the executive branch or from the legislative branch. And so when you look at Article 3, you've got to go back to the basics. The judicial power of the United States. This shall be vested in one Supreme Court, which is the only branch of government that's judicial and such. And here's the key. And such. Inferior courts, plural. You hear that? Inferior courts. As Congress. Congress may from time to time ordained and established. So these courts are inferior courts. The courts of appeal in D.C. or of the 13 circuits are inferior to the Supreme Court. And the 667, 77 district courts are superior to the courts of appeals. And the Supreme Court is inferior, according to Madison, to the other two branches. So what you're seeing. And ah, we were. And the Supreme Court kind of cut down on this last year, just a little bit, hopefully, you know, with the cap decision. But what you're seeing is the cost of decision. Excuse me. What you're seeing is six, one of 677 judges trying to issue orders and opinions to override the executive. When you look at Article 3, this course is supposed to be interpreting federal law, but. But they don't really have. They're a separate branch from the. From Congress and from the. And from the, And from the legislature, from the president. And so they have. From the very first case, Marbury vs Madison, on judicial review, there's been kind of what we call the military mission creep, where they have taken more and more and more and more and more authority, but they're not the ultimate answer on every, dispute. So, for example, with the transgender, recruitment policy. All right, so President Trump banned that, both in his first term and now in this term as well. Secretary Headset has signed the order, and executive orders have gone through, and recruitment of, transgenders in the military has stopped. And it should be because there's a dysphoria. It's a gender dysphoria. So when I was in the military, that would be considered to be, you know, something that's a psychological disorder. They drum you out for it.
Checks on the executive within the military are to be made by Congress
You gotta have good order and discipline. Well, it's none of the court's business if there is somebody said, what if the president issued an executive order to prohibit, you know, somebody based upon a race? Well, that's a different question, because that is an immutable characteristic. But still, the United States military, for example, the authority and regulation and power over is divested between two branches. The Congress, which has the authority to raise an army and navy and to set regulations, and the president, whose commander in chief. Not the courts. So checks on the executive within the military are to be made by the Congress, not by the courts. That's what the Constitution sets forth. And over time, they have crept more and more and more. In you go back, there was a famous case during the, Civil War called, the Merriment, actually. And so in that case, what happened is the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, issued a writ of habeas corpus to President Lincoln to take this Confederate sympathizer, Jon Merriman, out of Fort McHenry, where he's being held, and bring him before the court. So you had Jon Taney, the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, ordering President Lincoln to remove a Confederate sympathizer from a military prison and bring before the court, you know, what Lincoln did. Lincoln ignored the order because Lincoln understood federal 78. It was an unenforceable order to begin with. And these judges are out of control. And, I'm hoping that the Supreme Court is going to slap some of this stuff back. They'll, come Back again. But this decision out of D.C. in this Taliban case I'm telling you about, the D.C. circuit is 2 to 1. And the two, the two justices trying to strike down the presidential, order in the military are Democrats. One was supported by Obama, one by Clinton. So you're seeing politicized decisions, which is not what the founders ever meant for this to be. They would roll over their graves if they'd known how far these judges have taken upon themselves to be little presidents and little members of the Congress themselves and try to make law. So it's got to come to an end. And I hope that this summer we're going to get some curtailing of this ridiculous, out of control train wreck we have.
Jenna Ellis: So well said, and I hope so too. And it's ironic that the restraint of the judicial branch is requiring the Supreme Court to restrain its own branch. But the, a lot of this would be cured if and some of these questions responded to constitutionally if Congress would step up and actually do their job. I mean it seems to me that as the balance of all of these powers are tilting in a runaway judiciary and the Congress then is continuing to do less and less and less, less and actually less oversight, less, on the issue for example of birthright citizenship or nationwide injunction. I mean they could legislate and actually come up with a uniform rule on this and not require the Supreme Court to weigh in at all. But Congress, it seems like, is way more interested in their petty political fights and going on media hits, you know, rather than actually doing their job of actually establishing common law and rules within their purview. And that's, to me the most frustrating element of this is that President Trump, through executive orders, so forth, is trying to push these issues. But the President should have more limited capacity in terms of that type of rulemaking. And Congress, even Republicans just don't seem that interested in actually governing.
Don Brown: Well Joe, you make a very good point. A lot of people don't understand. Congress has authority over every inferior court in the United States. It doesn't have authority over the Supreme Court, which is a separate branch formed by the separation of powers. Back to Article 3, the the judicial power of the United States is invested in one Supreme Court in such inferior courts as Congress. Hear that word? Congress may from time to time establish and ordain. Every inferior federal court in the United States has been created by Congress. Congress could, if it wanted to, if the D.C. courts out of control, unconstitutionally from one ruling after the Other could ban that court, could take it out. It creates inferior courts, it can end inferior courts. Congress has the political power to rein in these out of control judges. But you're right, they kind of like for a large part sort of fold their arms and go to fundraisers and would rather, you know, rather just delegate their responsibility elsewhere just like they did when they created all these executive agencies during the administrations of LBJ and Franklin Roosevelt. Before that, they just gave rulemaking authority to executive agencies and basically abdicated their own responsibility. The Congress is the one of the three branches that's primarily failed the Republic because it has abdicated this responsibility and it needs to rein these courts back in and it needs to get back to the business of making laws itself and taking away the authority of a lot of these agencies to essentially make federal law.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. And we've got to take a break here. Don Brown, but so well said and I think you've actually answered my question that, you know, the court, U.S. constitution does provide, if we just read it, does provide a pathway to rein in federal judges that doesn't require actually just appointing good judges to reign in themselves. the answer is Congress and it's our legislature and the lawmaking authority that is vested just in the Congress. And again, as, as I've been ranting about since, you know, since Trump's second inauguration, that the Republican led Congress actually needs to do its job on a variety of fronts. If we're just so excited about the one big beautiful bill and that's all they're doing. But then they're out there ranting about, you know, these rogue judges, but they're not actually proffering any legislation that's under their constitutional authority. Then they probably don't even know. These members of Congress probably don't even know. But Don Brown, thanks so much. And we'll be talking about this frequently. We'll be right back with more foreign, Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Carmelo Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in Texas track meet murder
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Carmelo Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in the Texas track meet murder of Austin Metcalfe. You'll remember this from last year, the fatal stabbing and the murder of the 17 year old Austin Metcalfe. So jurors, took two and a half hours to reach that sentence. Carmelo, Anthony was facing five to 99 years or life in prison. And so of course the focus unfortunately, in Texas and nationally has been on race because, those who are in favor of Carmelo Anthony think that 35 years is far too long. And there is sentiment across social media from some, obviously leftists who are, who are suggesting that this is just, because he is a young black man and completely ignoring the fact that he committed a murder and it doesn't actually matter, what, what race he is, what skin color he is or the skin color of his victim. what matters ultimately is the act itself and, the, I believe the rapper. I don't follow rap culture at all, but, Cardi B posted wow. Just freaking wow. Disgusting. This is not justice. This is trying to make an example. Well, if you're making an example of a murderer that you're actually putting him in prison, that's actually called justice. But I responded to that and said, when you care more about the race of the murderer than the actual life of the victim, you may be the systemic problem in society. And, Sheldon Daniels, who, I believe is still running for Congress in Texas for, for, Jasmine Crockett's seat, who of course will be out because she didn't win the Senate race, says this, and. And he's a young black man. He says, I practice law in Collin County, Texas. Carmelo Anthony will be convicted and sentenced to life in prison, which he should have been. And I think that was a fair prediction. all of us were surprised that it was only 35 years. But he says Carmelo Anthony will be convicted as he should. He murdered that boy because he was raised to hate white people and view himself as a victim in every situation. It's a culture thing. And I think there's something to be said about the focus and the emphasis on the skin color of these two young men rather than the motivation of hatred and the actual act itself, and the crime, which was the stabbing and the murder.
Gerard Felitti: Carmelo Anthony should have gotten 35 years
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior, counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, I was surprised that, that Carmelo Anthony got only 35 years. I think it should have been life in prison at minimum. I mean, even I would have been in favor of the death penalty in this case. and so what are your thoughts, overall?
Gerard Filitti: My thoughts overall are this. Justice is being served. 35 years is not an, insignificant amount of time for incarceration. I agree with you. It should have been life in prison. I don't know about the death penalty in this case. I don't know about the level of premeditation or animus that came into it that would warrant that necessarily. But certainly this is a straightforward case of murder. And that is what Carmelo Anthony was convicted of. And if you leave race out of it, we wouldn't even be talking about it this case because it's another unfortunate incident of someone who wrongly takes the life of another and meets the consequences for it. But we are talking about it because race has become such an issue in the criminal justice system that it's hard for us to see justice being done when we're overtaken by considerations of race in every case.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it really is so unfortunate that there are advocates on the left and a whole host of people who were protesting, you know, outside of the courthouse and and saying in interviews and I couldn't even find a clip that didn't have vulgar language in it. So we're not playing any of those this morning. But a lot of the responses that I saw on social media, just from the people who were present, suggesting like one, one woman who of course is black, is saying, well what am I going to tell my boys, I have five boys. What am I going to tell them, you know, about about this and what advice there's. I can't say, say anything to them anymore. And Matt Walsh responded to that clip on social media and said, maybe tell them don't go and murder people. I mean this is just mind blowingly simple that it doesn't actually matter your race, it doesn't matter any of your immutable characteristics. I mean this wouldn't matter if it was a white man who killed a black man. I mean if that had happened, this would be an entirely different situation, of course. And the left would be screaming for the death penalty. And, and you know, they'd be if, if this were reversed and that person only got 35 years, then they would be saying this is not justice. And so what it comes down to is a blatant display of racism. And it seems like for all of the advances we've made in this so called civil rights arena, we're, we're still using instances like this to focus on race as a society instead of focusing on, focusing on actual justice for victims regardless of color.
Gerard Filitti: Oh absolutely. And to your point, what you tell your kids should have nothing to do with race. You tell your kids the same thing. You don't take a knife to school when you don't go and sit in someone else's area. If you do and you're asked to leave, you leave. You don't become confrontational. It's never acceptable to pull a knife and stab someone in the heart that's morally wrong and legally wrong. It's not that challenging to say that regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of any other protective characteristics, from a civil rights perspective, behavior, how we behave, how we raise our kids should be the same. So this highlights the problem. When we're making it about race and not about conduct, when we're making it about color of skin and not how people act, we are taking away responsibility, we're taking away personal responsibility and turning into a nation without laws.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and ultimately this goes back to a very Marxist worldview of the oppressor and the oppressed and this kind of systemic view from the left that the white man is always in every instance the oppressor and the black man is always the oppressed and it can never be, ah, the reverse. Even though clearly the aggressor in this situation was Carmelo Anthony and there was no self defense claim. And that was something that that I saw in a number of the responses as well, saying well you know, he got shoved and so this was just him defending himself from the white man. And that in no, in no situation in the criminal justice world is a justifiable response, criminally speaking, a justifiable response to a shove that you stab someone in the heart and murder them. I mean that's just not a, a, a legally viable response that is provocation and aggression. But it, the sentiment on the left is that it's always morally justified for a black person to stand up to a white person, even going so far as to taking their life, which I think displays not only that Marxist worldview, but an utter disregard for human life.
Gerard Filitti: Well, Marxist worldviews have an utter disregard for human life built in. Look at the atrocities committed by, in the name of Marxist Marxism in the Soviet Union, in China, everywhere in the world that has had communist governments. So there's no sympathy for human life there. But you're absolutely right. And this Marxism is being indoctrinated in schools, it's being indoctrinated in K to 12 on college campuses. When we're looking at protests on college campuses that have called for revolution and that call for resistance by any means. That's the Marxist ideology that we're talking about. And resistance by any means doesn't just mean terrorist attacks Gaza, it means stab someone in the United States. It means that you view yourself as the oppressed, then you are entitled and you glorify yourself for your actions. And that's a worldview that is completely at odds with democracy, democratic Values and law and order.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and completely fundamentally against the laws of nature and of nature's God and the biblical worldview that says that every human being has inherent dignity and is made in the image of God and has a right to life. And we see this not just in these sort of racist and overtly, you know, race centric moments of, of those clashes, but also in the gender wars of. We, you know, we're seeing a lot of the the side of the Christian nationalists who are calling to bring back the patriarchy, have basically a subhuman view of women. and we're seeing, you know, the, the in the race was a subhuman view of certain races by other certain races. You know, we see this kind of across the board in many different ways when we start to categorize ourselves of oppressor versus oppressed. I mean that, that was the problem of course with ah, Luigi Mangione who, who is suggesting that somehow you know, the CEO of a, of a major health care organization is somehow not worthy of the right to life, because of his status there and the imbalance of, of the health care situation in America. I mean. So you know, we see this across the board on many different levels of this implicit Marxist worldview and it really needs to stop. And I don't see any real advancement in society on this as much as I would have hoped and expected with the proliferation of at least the Trump administration's view on law and order. I mean this is, this is something that law and order needs to be established. I mean liberty and justice, obviously justice is blind. And that means, you know, you don't look at the immutable characteristics of the perpetrator or the victim. You look at the act, you look at, you know, motivation goes to proof. But it seems like we've lost this basic understanding in society of simply enacting law and order and that we are all human beings across the board and actually viewing each other as, as being fellow humans in this journey and that while we may have different roles, we may have different immutable characteristics, different aptitudes, we all have a right to life. And we're seeing this even in the influencer case of aborting a Down syndrome baby simply because their child might have had a disability. I mean that's a classic view of discrimination, based simply on someone else's immutable characteristic.
Gerard Filitti: I think we have made progress with the Trump administration on bringing back law and order. But I think it's also important to realize that the progressive left, the Marxist left, has been infiltrating the system for decades. And that's why we are where we are, because the problem is systemic. It's not just isolated to a small group of people who share this belief. It's being taught. It's being. We see it online, we see it permeating the media. So this is something that has grown to the point that our morals have been fundamentally shaken and for some people, altered, by what we've seen as progressivism in this country, what is really Marxist ideology, to the point that law and order does mean what it used to. So yes, we can impose consequences. We can have verdicts like we did for Carmelo Anthony and impose consequences, but ultimately we have to change the system. And you look for guidance, of all places. And perhaps ironically to the Supreme Court, you know, the Roberts Court has consistently said that you don't remedy discrimination with more discrimination, that we should be in effect, a colorblind society that's working for the good of all. But these are things we're not listening to. We're too politicized and looking at the, the progressive role and how we've been indoctrinated by that. So we're missing out on the fundamentals of respect for our fellow man, of the morals and values that were taught in the Bible, that we should be learning from our families. And if we want to really fight back, we can't just. It's not just about law and order. It's going back and seeing what's going on in the classroom, what's going on online, and re. Injecting our values where we've just ignored this space for so long.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah.
Gerard Felitti: Carmelo Anthony case shocks left
So well said. And you know, I was talking to a neighbor of mine who used to, be a teacher in, in kindergarten, you know, through middle school, up in the Northeast, and you know, was talking about how even in kindergarten, some of these kids who come from, families that clearly are not teaching them, you know, the correct values. you know, she said that, that, throughout her tenure as, as a kindergarten teacher had chairs thrown at her. one. One kid came at her with scissors and I mean, you know, all kinds of things. And the response from the principal and the school was, well, just sit them down, talk to them, give them a lollipop, and they can come back in to the school. And they, you know, they, they would damage property and even other students property. And there was no discipline that was imposed clearly at home or in the classroom. And I think that that's a, that's, that's a dereliction of responsibility. But it's also showing that these, these kids have this perception that, they can get away with whatever they want and consequences won't be imposed. So then when consequences are imposed, with a case like this with, Carmelo Anthony, then it shocks the left. And they think that 35 years, like Cardi b saying, well, he's just being made an example of. No, this is, as you rightly said, this is justice for what he actually did. And it seems like there's somehow no connection there in the minds of the left because they view this as always justified. If there is this type of hatred for the quote, unquote, oppressed oppressor, well,
Gerard Filitti: it's viewed as justified and it's viewed as something normal. And that's why it comes as a shock that there are consequences to actions. Because a lot of people go up understanding, because society has made this acceptable, that if you yell loudly enough, if you demand your rights loudly enough, if you assert a minority loudly enough, you can get away with anything you don't have. The rules don't apply to you because you are special. and that's, in effect, the remedy. Society has to look the other way for what you do because you consider yourself to be oppressed. But that's not the way society actually works. That's not the way the law works. So we have these nasty surprises when you're committing a criminal act, when you're killing someone and you find out that there are actual consequences for that. You're not being patted on the back and saying, congratulations for standing up for yourself. You're being told that everything you've thought, everything you've done, everything you've learned has been wrong, that there are laws, there are values, and you can't just say that you are an oppressed person and get away with anything that you want.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And what a stark reminder, of reality. And thankfully, at least the jury did the right thing in imposing justice for Austin Metcalfe's family, and for his life. And, hopefully as we continue to talk about these things, we can, through the church and through the family, reorient ourselves to justice and law and order instead of all of this race baiting. Gerard Felitti. Thanks. We'll be right back.
Hello Fresh facing backlash for controversial Pride Month post featuring sexually suggestive content
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the overall sentiment and, overall public perception and affirmation of, homosexual activity and quote, unquote Gay marriage is actually going down in the United States, which is a very good thing. Hopefully there are still some companies that are really leaning into this. And this is just an incredibly disgusting example of a company that I have actually never ordered from, but I will now never plan to. this is HelloFresh. And, and they drew backlash over a very suggestive Pride Month message. This is coming from Fox News. Hello Fresh is facing online backlash after a Pride Month social media post featuring a grotesque sexual joke grew drew criticism from users who accused the meal kit company of promoting explicit content under the guise of corporate activism. And while I absolutely will not repeat any of that content because it was so vile, I was embarrassed to read it, quite frankly. This is something that all of our listeners should be aware of that this kind of explicit messaging that was basically offer the company offering high fiber content meals so that the, the people who participate in quote unquote Pride Month celebration could prep for their homosexual activity. I mean was essentially what this is saying. Now there are a lot of Christians and conservatives who are saying that they will not support this company. And instead of some of these other food kit delivery companies using this as an opportunity to maybe draw in some of the conservatives who are abandoning HelloFresh now as of yesterday, Blue Apron, also leaned into this by posting an equally explicit and disgusting joke that was geared toward lesbians.
Walker Wildman: Major companies are advertising based on homosexual behavior
So to discuss all of this, let's welcome in Walker Wildmon, who of course is our vice president here at AFA and the host of at the Core. Ah, here on American Family Radio Network. And Walker, this is something I wish that we didn't even have to discuss here, but it seems like these corporations are not getting the memo that by and large this is something that is such a small demographic of Americans that would even find this remotely amusing. Lean into this. I mean any rational person, even if they're not a Christian or conservative, any normal rational person would find this so offensive and disgusting. They would say, you know what? I think I'll take my business elsewhere.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, you're right Jenna. And this is a very obscene and explicit topic to have to talk about. But the reality is this is a major company, that a multi billion dollar company that are multimillion at a minimum, that ships food products all around the country and the world. So this is, this is a big story and this really shows the depravity that knows no end. and this is what my grandfather and others decades ago began warning about, and that is that sin has no limits. And what was pitched to the public, pre2015 is, you know, to two adults that quote, unquote, love each other. this has turned into Romans 1 level public behavior. And this is this, this is the type of conversation, and, and, and light heart. This is the type of conversations that used to happen behind closed doors because people were embarrassed to talk about it. But now you have major companies that are advertising based on this very, very degenerate behavior. But this, this is this. Honestly, the one good thing here, Jenna, is that this opens the door for us to talk about the reality of, of going outside of God's design for human sexuality. And when you do that, it's very unnatural. It's very unnatural. It's very blatant. Even, Even, you know, unbelievers look at this and go, yeah, that's not right. That's not, not how we were created or designed. That's not how things are supposed to work. but hellofresh really went to the low of lows. I really never seen anything like this. And this is why I believe the public support that it is for homosexuality and transgenderism and this entire sexual deviancy movement, this is why I think the support is dropping year after year, is because the public, both Christians and non Christians, are looking at this and going, this is disgusting. Is this really where we want our culture to end up? And when you read Romans 1 and then you look at America today, there's not a whole lot of differences.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it's so true. I mean, we were sold in, in 2015, this message, which Christians and true conservatives obviously didn't buy into, but the public, I think writ large at the height of the embrace of, the, the gay marriage movement suggested, well, you know, love is love, and this will just be in the privacy of their own homes. And this. Who is this going to harm? And don't worry about society. And it was, it was very, whitewashed. I mean, it was, it was painted over as something that would just be almost innocent to society. And we're seeing that depravity and the unnatural can never be innocent. We've always known that. But to see something like this, that isn't even just a celebration of pride. I mean, you know, the NFL and all of the Nike and all of these others that are changing their logos to the rainbow, I mean, that's in your face enough. But this type of explicit content in the form of advertising that comes up on people's instagrams as they're scrolling through. I mean, that's just a whole other level of embrace. Sheer depravity.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, and this is. I do want to just keep reminding our audience of the fundamentals here so we don't forget it. Because to your point, we get caught up in what's pitched to us in the media and what's advertised in the public. but the reality of this, of homosexuality, the reality is that at a fundamental level, humankind, created in the image of God. We are created, at a basic level, to multiply based on God's created order. And part of, obviously the key formula of multiplying is human sexuality and our biological makeup and how God created woman for man and man for woman. And that's why, sex within the confines of marriage is within God's design. So that's a very core part of our human nature and of our biology. And what, what the left is doing and what the people who reject God's design are doing is they're perverting that, that core part of human sexuality and the marital union, and they're exploiting it and turning into something perverse. And so that's what, at the end of the day, that's what homosexuality is about. And it's. It's about engaging in very degenerate sexual behavior. And I know people don't want to talk about it. It makes them uncomfortable. You definitely don't want to have this conversation with your kids around. But this is the essence of the homosexual agenda. And that is not just rejecting God's design, but embracing Satan's design for sexual perversion. And so when you look at it that way, and when you're able to talk with adults about this in plain terms, it's very unpopular actually, even amongst unbelievers, what homosexuals, actually engage in. It's very, very unappealing to human nature and is really capitalizing on the worst of worst, Romans 1 type behavior. So these are the types of conversations that are uncomfortable that nobody wants to have. But this also reminds us what this is all about. And that is very degenerate and obscene sexual, conduct that should not be accepted in society, in the church or elsewhere and through. And it's also the consequence of normalizing, homosexuality and making it to where people go, well, if they want to do that, that's up to them, but I'm not going to do that. Well, we don't really view that about any other sin, do we? You know, if they want to lie, they can lie, but I'm not going to lie. Or if they want to murder, they can murder, but I'm not going to murder. we don't have this lackadaisical view about many other sins, that affect people and their lives and their eternal salvation. And so we really shouldn't have a lackadaisical view of homosexuality either.
Jenna Ellis: Oh, so well said. And and it's so true that we have to bring this back to God's design and the natural because you know, any sort of homosexual behavior is always in any context degenerate and unnatural. But we also need to include even the heterosexual, sex outside of marriage that is also degenerate and unnatural, at least in the sense of, outside of God's design. Now you know, one man and one woman, that is God's design. But God's design is explicitly within the context of marriage. And so the, the homosexual community, loves to tell the heterosexuals, well you know, you're just advocating for your type of preferred, sexual ethic over ours. And we're not at all, I mean the, the rules that God has in place and the actual, the actual approved m. Morally human sexuality still confines even the heterosexual to a view of morality that is natural and that is God's design. And so we include ourselves in that and Christians do as well. And I think part of the reason this conversation is so uncomfortable even among some Christians is because adultery and and an over, you know, the no fault divorce and all of these other types of sexual sin have become so common even in the church that it becomes almost hypocritical for some Christians who don't hold themselves to God's view to say, well we condemn the homosexual. When you know, here we have even pastors, you know, who are out committing all kinds of other types of sexual sin. And so we need to, as Christians bring this back to the true human sexuality sexual ethic which is following God's design for one man, one woman in the covenant of marriage.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, you're exactly right. And look, divorce, divorce wreaks all kind of havoc in our country. I mean we've got over 50% divorce rate, amongst most groups in our country. And that wreaks habit in and of itself. And so all sin has consequences. Some sin just has different consequences than others. and this degenerate homosexual activity has its own consequences, whether you're talking about sexually transmitted diseases or all kinds of other trauma associated with it. And sex outside of marriage, although it may be between one man and one woman, has its consequences as well. And so the sexual union as God designed it was as you mentioned, the standard is a man and a woman, in a sacred marital union for life. And it's exclusive to that couple. And that's how God designed it.
Christian conservatives have been fighting no fault divorce for decades
That's God's perfect design. And there's no plan B, there's no alternative. That's it. And so as a society, this is why so many people and churches and organizations fought against this Obergfell and this same sex quote unquote marriage. And normalizing it is because we knew it would just be yet another blow, to God's design for marriage and for man and woman. And so look, I think most people, at least in our movement, whether it be Christians or conservatives, have been pretty consistent in that we've been fighting no fault divorce for decades, going back to the 60s and the 70s and the start of the sexual revolution. And so, but our culture to your point, is inconsistent on this standard. And so we've got to draw back to God's design. And that's why you can't leave scripture on this topic and start creating your own standards like the Republican Party does sometimes where, you know, some, some sin is okay or some sexual deviancy is okay and then others is not. Look, we've got to be consistent on scripture being the standard because if you don't, then you get this mash up of inconsistencies and it just, it ranks of hypocrisy. And as Christians and as a church, we have to be consistent in our standard across the board.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And to be clear for listeners, I'm not arguing that divorce, period, is unbiblical. I believe that there are certain contexts that the Bible does provide for, that. But it's when at least one spouse is living in sin without repentance and there and has abandoned the covenant or so badly damaged it through possibly adultery, you know, a few other things, that the covenant has been broken. And when God hated divorce, obviously he hates sin and that and one spouse is. When we're talking about no fault divorce, that's something entirely different. Our culture has so undermined the sanctity of marriage that two people can just say, you know, we fell out of love or we're going different paths and we see that all the time that you know, our, our career choices are different or we just don't care anymore. That's not a biblical basis. And so the church though needs to step in and not have judges, the arbiters of, of any sort of marital dispute. But the church needs to evaluate, what's going on and actually reclaim jurisdiction over marriage, reclaim jurisdiction over a church, discipline the family. And if Christians would start to actually live biblically, overall, I think that we could have a much stronger impact on society.
Walker: Boycotting over moral issues is within the confines of Christianity
but Walker, coming back to HelloFresh and Blue Apron, how would you encourage then our listeners, to respond to these companies?
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, companies like this have no right to have our business and shouldn't have our business. And you know, we've launched boycotts over the decades and had very successful ones. and the thing I say to people that hesitate to boycott is the reality is that we all boycott in some degree. I give this example all the time. If you go to this burger joint and they get your order wrong three times in a row, then you're going to reconsider going there. And that's just based on the food quality and their ability to get your order right. And so if you're willing to do that over a restaurant that doesn't fix your burger right, then shouldn't you do that over moral issues? And so boycotting is definitely within the confines of Christianity, definitely within the confines of our economic society where we can pick and choose where we shop. And so I wouldn't be shopping at HelloFresh. Never have and never will. but one other thing I wanted to say, Jenna, just to wrap this up as far as the difference with this, homosexual agenda and other public policy issues and sin issues is what makes this unique, at least in this context historically, is the fact that you have multimillion dollar lobbying organizations that are advocating for homosexuality and transgender, such as the human rights campaign, etc. So this has an entire multi million dollar public policy push, unlike any other type movement.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Thanks Walker, so much. Appreciate it.
We delve into pressing constitutional questions as Jenna speaks with former prosecutor Don Brown. They explore the implications of recent Supreme Court cases, including the controversial Talbot case regarding military recruitment policies and the separation of powers. The discussion highlights the judicial branch's authority and its impact on executive decisions, alongside the broader context of governance in America.
(00:00) Don Brown: June typically means Supreme Court season of controversial cases
(09:14) Checks on the executive within the military are to be made by Congress
(15:44) Carmelo Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in Texas track meet murder
(18:26) Gerard Felitti: Carmelo Anthony should have gotten 35 years
(28:49) Gerard Felitti: Carmelo Anthony case shocks left
(31:57) Hello Fresh facing backlash for controversial Pride Month post featuring sexually suggestive content
(33:58) Walker Wildman: Major companies are advertising based on homosexual behavior
(43:47) Christian conservatives have been fighting no fault divorce for decades
(46:26) Walker: Boycotting over moral issues is within the confines of Christianity
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
