Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God, not government

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God, our Creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up, each of you, and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Israel and Iran agree to halt strikes, but warn of forceful responses

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, June 9, and the war in Iran continues. But this coming from USA Today. Israel and Iran said they would halt strikes on each other for now, but warned of forceful responses to any future aggression, ending, at least temporarily, an exchange of missile attacks that put a, fragile ceasefire and diplomatic efforts in peril. Iran's armed forces issued a statement Monday announcing it would cease attacks, but said continued Israeli military operations, including in Lebanon, would be met with, quote, far more severe and crushing measures. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel will not respond to any attacks from Iran or its proxies with might, adding that the war, quote, has not yet ended. The announcements come after President Donald Trump on Monday demanded that both sides stop shooting. In a subsequent post on social media, Trump said the countries wanted a ceasefire and negotiations toward a peace agreement want were proceeding, quote, subject to ignorance or stupidity getting in its way. but really, do Israel, and Iran actually want a ceasefire? And the NewSong York Post, posted two days ago, their headline was trump insists Israel's Netanyahu, quote, won't have any choice in accepting Iran peace deal. After fresh, strikes. Trump saying, I call the shots. So is the US Coercing our ally and Israel can't defend itself subject to the United States? Well, let's talk about it.

Orin McIntyre: Israel and the United States both have interests in Iran

Let's welcome in Orin McIntyre, who's a host at the Blaze. And Orin, you know, well, I think it's obviously fair that because the US Is involved in, Iran and obviously Israel is our ally, for Trump to facilitate this, kind of make, his demands. But at the same time, Israel is its own sovereign nation. And, it seems to be a little bit presumptuous, for Trump to just insist that he calls the shots. What are your thoughts?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, this is always the danger of alliances. I agree that Israel is its own sovereign nation and should have the ability to decide when and where, it conducts war, and especially in its own defense. That said, when you tie yourself to another nation, you also tie yourself to their priorities. And this is as true For Israel, as it is for the United States. Israel and the United States both have a vested interest in a, Iran that does not have a nuclear weapon. That's pretty obvious. The difference is that once you get past that superficial and significant agreement that Iran should not have this weapon, you have very, very different understandings of what should happen next. The United States is looking for a stable Middle east that allows for trade, allows for the free flow of oil, that allows the economy to get back, especially the global economy. Israel, perhaps rightly sees itself in an existential crisis. We can talk about the dangers of Iran with a bomb, but for Israel, Iran is right there. It's not a question of could they get a bomb to Israel. They absolutely can. They probably couldn't get one to the United States. And so for Israel, this is a conflict that needs to end with probably a completely destabilized Iran. They have been very clear from the beginning that their goal is regime change. They want to completely obliterate the Iranian regime and ensure that it never has the ability to do any damage to them again. And so this is a classic scenario where you have two people who had the first priority together, but after that have very different priorities. And so this is why Donald Trump is trying to restrain them, because ultimately Israel sees a very different end. And this is why Bibi Netanyahu keeps, frankly, defying Trump and doing what he wants. And this is, again, always the danger. You have two sovereign countries, but they have different goals. And so when they try to exercise their sovereignty while kind of tied together, they pull in different directions and fall down.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

David Frum: It's interesting question about alliances around Iran conflict

And, you know, it is an interesting question about alliances. And, you know, you've been, very outspoken on this topic and, invoking, you know, Washington's farewell address, talking about, you know, the dangers of permanent alliances and so forth. when you're, when our side, and, and the United States has an ally in these negotiations, but then the purposes aren't fully aligned, which often happens, in, in alliances that there are overlapping goals, but then there are some differences in kind of the great, big Venn diagram. And so how much here do you think that, for at least the Iran conflict right now in particular, do you think is overlapping goals with the United States and Israel versus, crossways purposes now? Because I see Donald Trump wanting to end this, fairly soon. I think he has every reason to, especially with the midterms coming up, especially because the sentiment of, of the base questioning why we're still, engaged in this conflict. I Mean, obviously, I think most people support, the de escalation and saying, okay, Iran shouldn't possess nuclear capabilities, we're all for that. But this kind of ongoing sort of long term conflict, doesn't really seem to make sense unless the United States has a vested interest in Israel's goals. And I think that's where potentially the concern is and where Trump may not share the same goals as Netanyahu.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, again, you know, nobody needs to see anything nefarious in this. They simply need to see the basic self interest of each country. The United States, yes, we want to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon of mass destruction. But beyond that, we want an operable Middle east and we need to get home because we have far more important domestic concerns, including the midterms. Donald Trump, you know, no matter what he says, campaigns are not going to war. And he has, and this has created significant problems for him, you know, with parts of his base. But more importantly, we're seeing gas prices be impacted. We're noticing a lack of domestic victories when it comes to certain priorities. And he understands it's time to get home. The mission is achieved. The Iran is not going to be producing a nuke anytime soon. And let's get back to the domestic stuff. Bibi Netanyahu has actually exactly the opposite political, set of priorities. In addition to needing to destabilize Iran more permanently in order to make his country safer, he is also facing some pretty big political domestic strife and really needs to basically stay at war in order to keep from having to have that addressed. So you have two presidents with two very different domestic political concerns, pushing them towards different outcomes along with the actual priorities of their nation, their safety, their economies. And so again, this is why Washington warned us against these type of alliances. Even when it seems like you do have similar goals, ultimately you are always at the mercy to some level of the other party. And as Machiavelli said, you know, you may start a war when you like, but you cannot end it when you please. And that's when it's just you. You know, wars are always difficult to end once you, they're easy to start and hard to end. Even as a sole actor, a sovereign actor, when you have another person who gets to make those decisions, it becomes extremely difficult.

 Israel provides US Intelligence, but how much value does it have

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, we've talked quite a bit, Oren, we, the, the overall collective conservatives about, you know, America first versus America only, and our, foreign policy as it relates to Israel and our obligation as, you know, some would say how how far does that extend to Israel? And it's. The conversation has mostly centered on the United States priorities and looking at our responsibility or not, ah, toward Israel. And we haven't really discussed, though, the, the flip side of that relationship, which is what obligation, if any, does Israel see to the United States and to actually following with our priorities and our sovereign interests, rather than just looking out for their own nation. Because in, in some ways, even though obviously Israel has been an ally, I think that obviously Netanyahu and Trump have a very good, relationship. So much is focused on what the United States is doing for Israel. is there a reciprocal view of Israel wanting to protect the interests of the United States?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, I think that often is not talked about enough. whenever I do bring this up, because I do have these conversations regularly, the answer I usually get is that Israel provides US Intelligence. It has an undeniably great intelligence agency, and it brings that to the table. And I'm sure that has some level of value, but the question has to be, how much value does it have? Once again, Machiavelli warns you about winning a war under someone else's arms. He says, once you are reliant on another nation for some critical aspect of your defense, you're losing part of your sovereignty. You're tying yourself to that person's military operation, their priorities and everything else. Even if Israel does provide good intelligence, and I have no reason to doubt that they do, that is something that we as a sovereign nation should be able to do in our own capacity. You know, if we send a good amount of money to Israel every year, if we spend that money on increasing our intelligence capacity, we could probably remove, that, you know, that, that need, that dependency on Israel in the first place. So, you know, ultimately, you know, Israel is a small country, it's wealthy, it's well armed, mainly because of us, It's a competent country, can do a lot of things, but ultimately there aren't a lot of things Israel can do that we can't. You know, this is a country that just simply does not have the manpower or the resources to provide us some significant thing. Except, you know, it is positioned in the Middle east, though we do have other allies there. So it's not like we wouldn't have a military base or something in the area if it wasn't for Israel. But the main thing I get from people is they have intelligence and that's what we get from them, which again is fine. But I think ultimately is not a great answer for why we're in a relationship that seems so dependent on us providing quite a bit for Israel in this exchange.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think that that's ultimately the question, and that's been the question for a while is how much should the United States, And how, be loyal to an ally. And obviously, The things that you point out are true of the responsibilities and the nature of relationships that like allyships between countries and that comes with certain obligations. And that's okay. I mean, in my opinion. I mean, obviously on. On the world stage, you. The United States can potentially operate, you know, kind of totally independently as. As a world power. However, having allies is generally a very good thing. And I think there are, As we've discussed at length previously, there are theological reasons to. For the United States to at least support Israel, and their right to the land and defending themselves in a. In a. To a certain extent. It doesn't mean, of course, that the United States has to go along with anything that the current modern, government of Israel would would like to either defend or provoke. however, there is a certain segment of the American, Jewish population, including Mark Levin, Josh Hammer, I mean, some, you know, very prominent conservative voices that That while I understand their emotional attachment, it seems like there's a divide in loyalty between the United States versus this very sentimental, understandable emotional attachment to Israel. And it's almost like they. They want to advocate that Israel should be able to do whatever it wants. The United States has to defend and protect that, to the nth degree. And if. And if the United States puts any restrictions on Israel at all, has any sort of, you know, treating them as a. As an ally versus the United States basically acting as. As a protectorate, then somehow the United States isn't doing our job. I wouldn't go that far. I don't think that the theological argument extends that far. But I think that that is part of the problem with this whole, Israel versus, the, you know, America only sort of debate is that a lot of people who are very loyal as they should be as United States citizens are seeing that there's almost a divided loyalty, from some of the Jewish Americans who may ultimately prioritize Israel's needs even over our own country. And that's kind of where I would draw the line.

 Auron MacIntyre : You know, the author Samuel Huntington in Clash of Civilizations, had this term he called Diaspora politics. Where if you have a large population from different areas, they might be completely, you know, loyal to the country that they are in. But they might have, you know, a large fondness, an understandable fondness and attachment to their previous homeland or, a homeland where, you know, many people have, their heritage have come from. And he said that, you know, again, these people, thinking of themselves entirely as very patriotic Americans, will often find themselves lobbying for the United States to take action on behalf of that homeland because they, have that understandable tie and they have the ability to have that influence. And, you know, he talks in that book about the Armenians and how much impact the Armenians have had, surprisingly, on the American political system and including military interventions and, you know, getting money sent to Armenia, these kind of things, because that's an organized bloc that can kind of talk to the United States government about those concerns and express them in ways that make them relevant to the US and so I think you're just seeing something very similar with some in the American Jewish community. You understand, especially given the history of the Jewish people and everything that happened in World War II, why they are extremely concerned about the ability of a place like Israel to continue to exist. But that said, we have to understand that that concern cannot become the central guiding principle of the United States. Every evaluation as to whether we should interact with Israel, whether we should be allies, whether we should be tying ourselves together, the question should always be, does this benefit America? Not do we have some abstract duty to someone else's homeland due to a historical event? And I think that's really the biggest issue, and that's what makes people stand up and take notice, because they say, wait, it doesn't seem like you're arguing for America's interest anymore. You know, when you were arguing for, hey, we need to go get the nukes out of Iran, I could tell myself that was what was going on. But when you're on Twitter lecturing, basically, Donald Trump for not being sufficiently loyal to Israel, now, when he's trying to extract us from a war because it's no longer good for the United States, now I wonder what your priorities are. And so, again, I understand where that motivation comes from. It's entirely natural and understandable. But we need to be able to separate that from the interests of the United States and from, you know, the decision making of the Trump administration and the Republican Party in general.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and we've got to take a break here, Orin McIntyre. But I agree overall with that, that premise and perspective that the United States, can and should support Israel's right to the land. they obviously, they are a sovereign nation and can make their own decisions. And the allyship, though, M it should not be a divided loyalty, and I don't think that it needs to between the United States actually being America first, as we should. I mean, President Trump has a constitutional oath and obligation, to serve our nation. And where that may be in conflict with, with Israel's priorities isn't necessarily, undermining any sort of, theological premise and argument that we should be in support of Israel's right to the land. That, that covenant and supporting that covenant doesn't mean that then we have to just go along with whatever Israel's priorities are with respect to any other nation. So I think that there's a balance there. Really well said. Follow Oren McIntyre on X. We'll be right back with more foreign

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

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a proposal to regulate AI

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Congress has released a draft bill that seeks to regulate artificial intelligence. And so a bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a proposal to regulate AI that would override some state laws. So this coming from Axios and why it matters. the draft release is a major step in what will be a difficult path forward, they say, for a bipartisan AI bill that can pass the House and the Senate. The White House has been skeptical of any approach that imposes strict requirements on companies. And so the draft comes days after President Trump signed an executive order on AI safety and cybersecurity. So co sponsors, include Representative Scott Franklin from Florida, Eryn Hauken from, Indiana, Scott Peters, a Democrat from California. So this is bipartisan in nature, but should it concern us that, this proposal would override some state laws, or is it a good thing to have uniform regulation? Well, let's welcome in Patrick Hedger, who is the NetChoice director of policy. So what is, this framework and this draft actually attempting, to regulate AI and what would this impose that overrides current, state's law?

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, that's a great question. And there's a lot of confusion out there about what, is best for AI innovation and innovation broadly. And the best thing is really to make sure that bureaucrats are not inserting themselves into the innovation and design process and that where regulation is applied, it's applied m sort of in the post design and innovation process. So targeting specific known harms versus trying to speculate and predict the future, and then, inserting bureaucrats and new rules and regulations into how this product or service itself is created. And that's really important when it comes to something like AI, because AI is going to be a major information channel going forward and you don't want the government putting their thumbs on the scale of what is and what is not factual information.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and we've seen that certainly in popular search engines and you know, the return search, like most famously, how Google was putting towards this top, you know, favorable articles about Hillary Clinton versus suppressing things about Trump in the 2016 election. And you know, we've seen some of that, that use by tech companies, to, to skew the bias of the return. That just looks like an information search. And so how, how should the federal government in particular, and we'll get to the state governments in a second, but how should the federal government thread that needle of drawing the balance between regulating AI sufficiently to ensure that there isn't that information bias versus overregulation so that it's difficult for users, and ultimately even the AI tech companies, to actually put out a product that is helpful.

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, so the federal government and even state governments already have a lot of tools available. you know, if you commit fraud with AI, for example, that's still illegal. Right. There's no, there's no AIR exemption to existing laws and regulations. And we certainly know we have plenty of existing laws and regulations about everything under the sun. And so there's no AI exemption to those things. So creating institutional knowledge at regulatory agencies, about AI systems and how AI could potentially be used in ways that run afoul of existing regulations is probably the best path to go right now versus trying to create a brand new AI bureaucracy that oversees this technology. Because this technology is going to be in everything. And so any new potential AI regulatory body that has the ability to stop, innovation in its tracks has a tremendous amount of power to then leverage how a system works and how large chunks of the economy will work. you really just don't want to concentrate that much power in any government, whether it's the federal government or state government. so that's why it's so important to have this type of preemption of putting bureaucrats really in the design labs themselves. You know, you wouldn't want to stick a bureaucrat, you know, in the drug development process. We've done that to a certain extent and it's slowed medical, innovation. We don't want to see that in AI.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this raises a really fascinating point, Patrick Hedger, that, you know, that AI is almost being treated as something so unique that it needs Its own set of regulations almost from m. The foundation up versus application of existing law to new technology. And so how much of that do you think is accurate? That we need more of brand new regulation versus application of existing law? Because when we when we have new technological developments and innovation, we don't necessarily need to create an entirely new body of regulatory structure in order to deal with it. Do you think that's necessary for AI? And you know, if so, why. And if not, why not?

Patrick Hedger: You know something that Congressman Albernolte who is the Republican author of this federal bill that would preempt the state said is that it's going to be a lot easier to teach existing regulators in the health care, energy, labor and other spaces about AI versus teaching an AI regulator all about energy, all about healthcare, all about labor, all about education. so I think it's again, you know, it's important to understand that distinction, and realize that AI is sort of a, it's a stepping stone in existing and it will be utilized in different ways in different sectors. so trying to house all of that under one roof of a universal AI regulator, whether that's again at the federal or state level, is really going to miss the mark. we already see a process right now at health care regulatory agencies like the FDA where they are reviewing and approving AI products. So why would you shift that responsibility to a brand new agency? That would just create a sort of a bureaucratic nightmare and you would have turf wars starting to happen between regulatory agencies over who gets to oversee what and then the American people are left without the benefits of the innovation.

Patrick Hedger: I think the draft bill largely gets it right

Jenna Ellis: All right, we are back. Sorry we're having some technical difficulties like we did last week. We're working on a solution to that. But Patrick, sorry about that. So we were talking about the the AI regulation and and, and you had mentioned not inserting bureaucrats into everything, which I fully agree with. I mean conservatives, the, the traditional standard is not so libertarian that we don't want some regulation that overall is good to ah, protect the common good and also a well ordered society. So I mean the conservative position is as generally for some regulation where necessary, but certainly not government intrusion into private companies, into business, into civil liberties, you know, things like that. So we had mentioned before the difference between this particular bill versus the state's regulation with AI and I do think that there needs to be at least a national standard in terms of just a fundamental bright line. It doesn't have to go overboard and could leave some elements to the states to regulate, but at least having kind of a baseline of the states, are obligated to at least go this far. And if they want to regulate in addition, you know, that's up to them. But where do you see the federal government needing to go in terms of regulation versus that, that restraint that bureaucrats often don't like to exhibit?

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, you know, I think an easy way to kind of think about this dynamic would be forget AI for a second, think about any other type of technology. How about a hammer for example? Now what a lot of states are trying to do is tell hammer companies or AI companies, design me a hammer that can still nail nails but can't be used as a weapon. That doesn't really make any sense. You essentially defeat the purpose of the underlying technology itself. Whereas you should, you should be focusing on criminalizing misuse of the technology itself and making sure to regulate that, instead of trying to ah, build too much, precaution into the system itself. All technology can be disused in incredibly unpredictable ways. And I think that's where you kind of need to start drawing the boundaries. and the federal government should allow states to apply generally applicable rules and regulations, existing consumer protection statutes, for example, existing anti fraud statutes, and dedicate law enforcement resources to going after misuse of the technology. but again, trying to insert yourself into the design process and try to predict the future, is a bit of a fool's errand because we're never going to be able to predict all of the ways that a technology may be misused.

Jenna Ellis: Right. so overall, do you think that this draft bill largely gets this right and because it has bipartisan support, is likely to move through the House and then possibly the Senate? I mean, I would anticipate it'll be tweaked somewhere along the line. But for a first draft, do you think overall, this largely gets it right or does it need a lot of redrafting?

Patrick Hedger: I wouldn't say it needs a lot of redrafting. There are some elements that need to be worked on because they could evolve into a licensing regime for AI, which again kind of gets at that, that problem of creating a bureaucratic bottleneck where you have governments, you know, saying this AI system, we like this one, we don't, you need to change it to our liking, you need to change the outputs and things like that. That's the system that we don't want, so the third party audit requirements in this bill could evolve into that. I think that needs to be worked on. But directionally, saying that we're going to prevent states from making 50 different and oftentimes conflicting demands of what an AI system can and cannot do, is the right approach.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that makes sense. I mean because these companies are going to have to you know, operate in in a you know, larger ecosystem and they're going to have to operate in 50 different states ostensibly. And so having different regulation would probably be difficult. We've got to take a break here Patrick Hedger, but really appreciate it and you know I think that you're drawing the correct bright line to say that there should be some regulation but not over regulation and so certainly not bureaucratic involvement in the creation or the development but just protecting society from harm which should be the underlying purpose of regulation anyway. So it's going to be really fascinating to see what the White House thinks of this draft bill and where we go with artificial intelligence. I just think this is a fascinating topic all the way around because this is a technology that we're going to have to with, deal, deal with one way or the other and we need to get it right. So we will be right back with more.

The murder of Henry Nowak has sparked national outrage over police response

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And if you haven't heard heard yet of the Henry Nowak case, this is just a terrible, not just tragedy but I think an intentional dereliction of duty and responsibility of law enforcement to protect and serve. And so this is coming from the BBC. What happened and why has this caused national outrage? the murder of 18 year old student Henry Nowak has drawn national attention and questions over how police treated him in his final moments. Of course he was in the UK so Noak was fatally stabbed in Southampton in December by Vikram Digua who falsely claimed he had been racially abused and acted in self defense. Digwa was jailed for life on Monday with a minimum term of 21 years. But the release of the police body cam footage showed Noak being handcuffed as he laid dying and has led to intense stories scrutiny of police response with the case also sparking fresh debates around knife laws, race policing and public trust. So the the main issue is that the police apparently rather than attending to the stab wounds of this young 18 year old student, put him in handcuffs and literally let him just lay there to die, just because of the Racial allegations, actually from his attacker. So this is just a horrific situation.

Charles Cornish Dale: This case raises questions about law enforcement priorities

Let's welcome in Raw Egg Nationalist who is Charles Cornish Dale and who is coming of course from the UK and what is the sentiment there? And I mean this has obviously been a case that. And in an incident that has sparked outrage even here in the United States. And I think revisiting where the law enforcement priorities should be in situations like this.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, no, it's a shocking case and what it really has done is brought to the fore the sense that a lot of British people have had white British people, the native British population, that actually there is such a

Jenna Ellis: thing and we're having a really bad connection. again sorry for the tech issues here. Normally Raw Egg is joins us via a Internet web based application to get him from the uk that wasn't working this morning. So we're trying to connect with him by phone. So my producers tell me we're going to try to get him back because I know you want to hear you know, all of his commentary on this. So while we try to get him back, you know this is something that just shows I think when when police and law enforcement have the top priority to first determine motivation, first determine the racial implications and their focus is so much on all of these social issues that are frankly completely tangential to the actual life saving measures that should have taken place then it's obvious that we are prioritizing some of you know, the Marxist level, racial disputes rather than actually looking toward life saving care. I mean even if it were true, in my opinion, even if it were true that there was some kind of you know, racial allegation or you know, some kind of interaction between Noak and and his attacker that is far secondary and can be litigated later. whether or not the response or the overt act of the, the fatal stabbing, which may not have been fatal by the way if they'd actually, that police had actually attended to him and didn't just let him sit there dying that if the if that had been attended to the, the litigation aspect of it could have then later determined exactly what happened. But the question that I have is why the mindset of it seems like overall, broadly in the UK and increasingly in a lot of the blue states in the United States have the mentality in the mindset that the highest harm is somehow these quote unquote hate crimes or the hate motivations, because motive ultimately in a criminal law context should simply go to proof. If you are trying to prove in the, in the context of a criminal courtroom, that the alleged, the, the defendant, the alleged perpetrator, actually did the overt act and victimized someone else, whether it's stabbing, shooting, you know, whatever, what have you. If you are trying to prove that in court, then the motivation behind it becomes very relevant and that can go to proof. But the motivation itself is not the actual harm. Right? I mean we have to look at this beyond what the left is trying to tell society overall, not just in the UK but also in the United States about hate crime. They would suggest that the race based elements and the motivation behind it, whether it is you know, an attack on a white person, on a minority, a straight person, for, you know, ah, harm against a gay person, you know, any of these structures and hierarchies, a man versus a woman, you know, all of these things that they see on this totem pole of, of descriptors and identities, however they draw that hierarchy, that itself is the worst harm and that's completely false. The actual worst harm is the act itself of whether it's, you know, the stabbing, the shooting, however that individual is victimized. But what the left has done is flipped that on its head. And I think that's why this case in particular has drawn such worldwide attention. Because it's literally evidencing this point that law enforcement immediately here reacted and they reacted assuming that the highest harm was this alleged race based motivation and that harm, rather than actually the harm of being stabbed. Right. And so the, the scrutiny here needs to be on the perception of how we process harm and how we have turned motivation and proof in a criminal context into the into a higher harm. And that hate crimes, quote unquote, are actually more harmful to society and individuals than literal stabbings. Right. And that's just patently absurd. And so I'm told that we have Charles back. So I was just talking about you know, how the, the left has completely turned on its head what the worst harm is here. It's not the supposed or alleged race based elements here. It is the actual harm of what ended up being a fatal stabbing. I mean the harm is the actual victimization here of Henry Nowak, not any sort of alleged, race based allegation.

Raw Egg Nationalist: No, no, I think you're totally right.

The police themselves are terrified of being accused of being racist

And I think that there's also another interesting dynamic at work here, which is the police themselves. The police themselves are terrified of being accused of being racist. and I mean, this dates back decades. So there was a. There was an inquiry in the UK called the McPherson Inquiry, that, looked into police failings in the case of a black man who was murdered called Steven Lawrence in the 1990s. And that inquiry found that the Metropolitan Police, that's the police in London, were institutionally racist. That. That's a phrase that has echoed through the decades. Institutionally racist. It means that the police themselves, beyond the intentions of individual police officers, whether they choose to treat people, in a different way because they're white or black or whatever, the actual institution itself is racist. And so police officers are very, very afraid of being accused of racism. And so what happens, you have a Sikh, he phones up and he says, I've been racially abused. So they turn up, they see a white boy on the floor. there's a Sikh who is missing his turban and says he's been racially abused. And so that sort of framing, instantly, it's, yes, this is a racist crime.

The police response may very well have been what killed Henry Novak

And the other thing that I think actually is worth mentioning is the fact that actually the police response may very well have been what killed Henry Novak. So if you've seen that very shocking body cam footage, you'll see that they grab. And Henry Nowak is lying on his face down, and they grab him unceremoniously by the leg and drag him away from a wall, and then they handcuff him. And that movement, the pressure that was exerted on him, may very well have sped his bleeding, increased his bleeding, and killed him. and the police force really does have. The officers who attended the incident really do have, questions to answer about whether or not the things that they did actually made it a certainty that Henry Nowak would die. There is definitely, I think, a chance that he could have lived if, instead of handcuffing him, they had attended to his obvious apparent injuries. It's a terrible, terrible case, Jenna. And it really crystallizes, I think, decades and decades of public sentiment that actually the government and the institutions of government, the police, the civil service, the media, are against the native British people. and look, as well, what we've seen today, I don't know if you've been checking Twitter, a man in Northern Ireland, a white Irish man, was all but beheaded in the street by either a Somali or a Sudanese migrant. So these kind of. What we're really dealing with, I think, is the effects of mass immigration, decades of mass immigration, and the way that it has changed the political system the way that it has changed society, in a way that actually disfavors what remains for now the majority of the population.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, which that I had not heard that story yet in Ireland and that is just horrific. And you're absolutely right that you know this just revealed the decades and decades of the, the systemic problems with the mass migration. And there was also, it was reported in the Henry Noak case that internal UK police documentation said that police should handle the situation differently depending on ethnicity. And you know, so this is even written into the law enforcement code. And yet the left is still claiming overall, I mean the left here in America, but also in the UK that there's you know, systemic racism and they're still pushing all of these points to ensure that you know, this type of race, based hierarchy and the lack of, of just not even preference but just basic humanity toward toward the actual ethnic citizens, is really shocking. And these cases continue to raise the question of how long Western civilization can tolerate, these other cultures that come in and absolutely aren't assimilating, they don't share our values and they completely disrespect, you know, any sort of common decency in terms of a moral society.

Raw Egg raises interesting point about police policies and about institutional anti racism

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, well I think, I think that's, that's an interesting point that you raise about the police policies and about institutional anti racism. So you know the, the summer of Floyd, George Floyd's death didn't just have massive knock on effects in the us it had huge knock on effects in the UK as well. I mean current Prime Minister Keir Starmer famously took the knee. But there was a lot of hand wringing and soul searching by institutions and government in the UK and that included police forces, Hampshire Police and that's the police force that is responsible for Southampton, the city where Henry Nowak was murdered. Came up with an anti racism action plan in 2020 as a result of you know, George Floyd's murder or death rather. And they committed themselves to eliminating any kind of last traces of racism in the way that they, you know, handled incidents and events. And that involved codifying the fact that they would treat people differently on the basis of race. So I mean this is written into the way that the police ah, operate now across the uk. but yes, the broader question is how much longer people are going to tolerate this. And I think that there, I mean I think I've said this before on your show Jenna. The UK really is a tinderbox at the moment. it's been a tinderbox since the Southport stabbings two years ago, when the son of a Rwandan immigrant, or Rwandan immigrants, rather, Axel Rudipakana, walked into a dance studio and stabbed something like 10 young girls with a big kitchen knife, killing three of them. You know, there was widespread unrest in 2024. The government came down extremely hard on the protesters because they were so worried about what could happen, because they were worried about the protests spreading the anger. And, we're still in that same place right now. But it does come feel like, you know, just one more atrocity, and, the whole thing could go up in flames. It really does feel like that over here at the moment.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think, the public sentiment is right to be outraged. I mean, especially because if the races were reversed, there would be, you know, national riots. The left would be talking about this ad nauseam. We'd see this, you know, in headlines across the world. But the left doesn't want to discuss it now, because this, this incident and these types of cases are utterly destroying their narrative. So. Raw Egg, really appreciate you joining. apologies again to our listeners for the tech difficulties. We are working on it, I promise. But thank you so much for, continuing to listen. And we will be back tomorrow morning right here on Jenna Ellis in the morning. In the meantime, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, afr.net.

Jenna Ellis discusses the complex dynamics of U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel and Iran with guest Auron MacIntyre. They analyze the implications of President Trump's demands for a ceasefire and the differing priorities of Israel and the United States in the ongoing conflict. The conversation delves into the challenges of alliances, the motivations behind military actions, and the responsibilities of sovereign nations. Additionally, Jenna and Patrick Hedger touch on the recent bipartisan draft bill aimed at regulating artificial intelligence and its potential impact on innovation. Finally jenna discusses the Henry Nowak case with Raw Egg Nationalist