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.

Steven Spielberg says Disclosure Day might shake Christian faith

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, June 17, and there is a new movie out you may have heard, in, you know, Holly Weird, as it's probably aptly termed. And Steven, Spielberg was on CBS News promoting his new movie titled Disclosure Day, and that it might shake the faith of Christians worldwide. He asked, several questions and said that his film is built on, several of these questions. Is God our only God on this planet? Or is God a God for every system where there is civilization and intelligent life? And so the movie imagines what would happen if the government suddenly admitted that aliens are real. And Spielberg said that that truth would cause, quote, ontological shock and social dislocation. Ah, he asked the question, that, that that film was built around, and then said that Hollywood thinks this question would crack the church. But the church has been solid on doctrine, since before, Christ. I mean, we have always been solid, throughout the ages, but obviously with the Word of God. We've always been solid on, answering these questions, but they're fair ones to ask. It's just not true that, any of these questions will rock the Christian faith because we actually do have answers to them. And as I've written extensively, in the context of President Trump saying that he's going to declassify, you know, some of the ufo, material and all of that, we can ask and answer the question, well, does it change the truth of the gospel and our redemption, truth through the gospel, if there is extraterrestrial life, even, you know, sentient beings in some other place than Earth. And the answer to that, of course, is no. Because human beings, we know from Scripture, are the only beings made in the image of God, having inherent dignity and worth through that imago dei. And we are the ones who, ah, have that redemption narrative that Christ specifically came and died for. There are other sentient beings on this planet. I have two in my home right now, my little dogs, Copper and Todd. And yet they are not human. Right? And so even if alien life were to exist, by definition, it's not human. And if it were somehow human, then the gospel would apply to them. So it really is kind of a non story, but somehow Hollywood thinks, seems to think this question is new and it's not new. but a great review of this film came from our good friend Steve Dase over at the Blaze. So he joins me now. And Steve, Steve, I have no doubt that this movie, is really entertaining. It's probably very well done. I mean Steven Spielberg, is a renowned Hollywood, ah, director, producer, all of that. But these types of questions, I think are intentionally posed by Hollywood simply to rattle Christians. As if these questions are something that we don't have a theological answer for.

Steve Deace: Well, good morning, Jenna. And thankfully it's not well done and it's not riveting and it's not entertaining. that's disappointing Spielberg's ever done, which I'm thankful for. because if he had done this as well as he did Close Encounters 50 years ago, we might have had a dangerous cult on our hands. because this film is a, it's a direct attempt to deconstruct Christianity. It's not subtle. I'd say Marcion and Pelagius were more subtle than this film. and this film, you know a lot. You can read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and ah, I have still come away. and, and again, this is, this is even more shoehorned and direct than Dan Brown's work was at trying to undermine Christianity. there's, there's no metaphor here. There's no fictional world here. This is very much trying to put it in the real world. And you know, if Steven Spielberg wants to have ontological conversations, then let's have one. shouldn't a secular Jew, by his own admission, therefore is estranged from God and on the wrong side of eternity. shouldn't he wrestle more with his own personal relationship with God rather than the rest of the planets? Especially given his age, he's not buying green bananas right now. but you know, that's the other thing too. Everybody, everybody, you know, sinners. When we're sinners, Jenna, we have a tendency to always want to pose ontological questions that question everything other than our own sinfulness and need of repentance for it and redemption and forgiveness for it. Funny how that works, isn't it? But, this, this film, this film, you know, from the, from the beginning, right from the beginning, the love interest is a former nun, turned fornication partner. That's a common trope in films. You see that all the Time, a former nun. they're making a statement from the beginning. there's a moment where they're attempting, the government is attempting to circumvent her consciousness to get her to, reveal where her and her, whistleblower, Edward Snowden wannabe husband are hiding, or boyfriend are hiding. and so they use this alien technology, and that looks like a possession. They literally are possessing her. You know, the scene where the alien technology overcomes her consciousness looks very reminiscent. You know, I know a few things. I know a thing or two about possession films. was very reminiscent of how you see, possessions, described in exorcisms, possessions depicted, minus the head swiveling turns and throw up, heads depicted in many exorcisms, depicted in many films. And so what she does actually in this scene is she grabs her crucifix. She still has some of the relics of her former nunnery with her. She grabs her crucifix and she grasps it with both of her hands and prays with all her might. She prays and grasps the crucifix so hard she literally stigmatized herself. And yet the crucifix has no power over the alien technology. And so she eventually lets it go and is given over to the technology. These, these, these aren't even subtle metaphors. They're not even subtle. it's very clear. She, the. The former nun says she left the convent because she, quote, I lost my faith that God is divine. That's a direct quote from the film. I lost my belief that God is divine. That's a direct quote from the film. And that plays out throughout the course of the rest of the plot, because this is like Alien, you know, if ancient aliens tried to make a film, essentially the aliens are God, the aliens are sinless. The aliens are here to guide us on the next track of human evolution so we can join the, the greater occultic consciousness. They've handpicked one male, one female, you know, like Adam and Eve. And the male is given the, revelation of how a higher level of mathematics works. So the man is given logic. The woman is given super empathetic nurturing. You know, so it's sort of, sort of femininity. But this goes beyond that. They make it very clear that the feminine gift is by far the more remarkable, more powerful one. She's. The entire film essentially centers around Emily Blunt. She's basically a, divine feminine. And if you listen to a lot of, you know, particularly the current class of quote, unquote UFO whistleblowers. There was a popular interview that went around about a year ago with a guy who claimed that and testified before Congress about his experience as a contractor recovering a crash site of a ufo. And he encountered a being of super feminine love and empathy. I mean, these stories are, of course, whenever you get into the divine feminine, you're talking about the occult. this is a, this, this film directly goes at Christianity from stem to stern, beginning to end, Alpha and omega, you might say. The final line of the film is after the aliens reveal themselves and the, and the head alien comes in what can only be described as like a gestatorial chair, like a pope. And he comes in and he gives like a blessing, to Adam and Eve to share with the world.

This film is an attempt by Steven Spielberg to specifically deconstruct Christianity

Thankfully, he doesn't speak in Latin because that would just be too obvious. Right. And so they, they use their clicked language instead of. And when it's translated to the world. This is the final scene in the final line of the film. It's listen. You know, kind of like let those who have here, those with ears, let them hear kind of a thing. Right. Again, this film, the only religion, that has to wrestle with the implications of this is Christianity. No other religion. Even though it's made clear that when disclosure happened, the whole world is watching. They're, not wrestling with this in mosques, they're not wrestling with this in Sikh temples. you know, the Confucianists and Buddhists aren't wrestling with this. Only the Christians have to wrestle with what this means. Why is that? All potential answers to that question are bad. This is an attempt by Steven Spielberg to specifically deconstruct Christianity. Thankfully, it's not a very good one. I think you'll see the film suffer a severe dip in its second weekend, because the audience reviews aren't good and the word of mouth is getting around. but there's no question that this is a very evangelistic film.

Jenna Ellis: M. And isn't that so typical? And it's, it's very tired from m. Hollywood that their war is specifically against Christians and Christianity and our faith. Because as you mentioned, Steve, I mean, this isn't directly pointed at any other belief system. And if Hollywood and those who reject Christ, and who claimed to not believe in him, thought that any other religion mattered as much, they would be going after those religions as well. But it's so fascinating to me that the people who claim to not believe in God, not believe in eternity, heaven and hell, not believe in the truth of the gospel of Christ absolutely hate something that they claim they don't believe in. How can you hate something that you claim doesn't even exist? But we know that they know the truth that's written on their hearts and they're actively rejecting it. And thankfully, I'm glad to hear, because I haven't seen the film obviously, but I'm glad to hear that it's so poorly done that hopefully people won't be taken in by a really fascinating story like Dan Brown's. I thought the book was actually very fascinating. Even though it's clearly an attempt to undermine Christianity, it was still well written. And that's kind of the danger in some of these things is that, and that's why we need to have as Christians and solid not only ontological argument and but also an understanding of theology and what we believe. So that when we see things like this, whether they're done well or it's just a blatant attempt to undermine our faith, we can respond to that and we can first recognize it because I think that's really the danger is that a lot of Christians don't even recognize what's going on as clearly as you do.

Steve Deace: Very well said. I totally agree and I, and I. There is a downside I think actually to the fact that this film's not going to do better. In a strange way we are. This is how many attempts now the government's been doing. It's funny these UFO obsessives we see on cable TV news all the time. Steven, Greer, for example, who, when you see him for just two or three minutes in these clips, he'll make you think that he's just you know, wanting to prove if Star Trek is true. But you need to watch his long form documentaries. You know, that's, that's what I do. I'm the world view nerd, you know. So why we're friends. I'm doing recon, okay. Of the enemy, and this is, he's a prophet of their religion, right. He talks very openly that there are deliverers, that they are here to save us as a species. That's the thing in the film is that the film takes place during the backdrop of a looming Russian US nuclear war because apparently even Spielberg still thinks it's 1985. And so again this is the end of days and we can't save ourselves and they're going to save us. In a strange way though, all these attempts by government, it was I think 2017, 2018 with the NewSong York Times story was the first time that the Pentagon in the first Trump administration admitted, that uap, which is what they call them now, are a real thing. And so there have been these like miniature disclosures. And while these guys and Louis Elizondo and these guys always go on TV demanding full disclosure, there's been, there's been like eight disclosures. Okay. Like eight of them actually. Okay.

Steve Deace: And every time that we do one, well, that's not the real disclosure. All right. They're trying to like nail jello to the wall. You know, like this really secret knowledge that only a few have, that is being held back. So we're kind of reverting back to Gnosticism here. But what I, what I, what I am, what I am concerned about is I think the American people are not being moved by this for the wrong reasons. There's, there's two reasons why you would not seriously wrestle with your government telling you that there is non human intelligence at work in the atmosphere. We cannot explain. It's not ours, it doesn't belong to the enemy. otherwise, because we know if they had this tech, they'd be using it against us. We don't know its true origin. We can't track it. It's a global, ah, phenomenon. It tends to hover over military installations. it's also underwater at the exact same time. Right. 30, 40 years ago, like when I was a little kid and V was the number one miniseries in America. Right. if the Reagan White House had admitted this, people would have absolutely panicked. Part of the problem that I think we actually have is I think we're so godless and so full of comfort. more like the movie Wallnua E. That like nothing existential can bother us like at all. You see what I'm saying? Like, there's two reasons you'd resist this. One is because you do have the apologetics and ontological reasoning. apparently that's the word of the day. Thank you, Mr. Spielberg, for, for, why you believe what you believe. And we've got a critical mass of believers in a, in a rock rib society that is going to scoff at this. I think we both know that that's not the era we live in. Right, so then the other reason you'd reject this is you just can't be bothered with anything existential. You just don't care. And I think that's, that's the reason that a lot of this UFO stuff is not taken off despite numerous so called government disclosures. numerous Ops like this film, I mean, they keep coming up with, trying to come up with new ways to make us care. I think at this point, the only way that Normie America is going to care, the first NFL game, the Wednesday after Labor Day, the kickoff game of the season, after nine months of waiting, and I say this to him, a big football fan, but nine months of waiting for America's favorite pastime, the aliens are going to have to land a mothership right there on the field there right before kickoff or at halftime, spoil the game, that, you know, everybody can't wait nine months for. I think it's going to take something like that to get people to care. Because the reason why this isn't building a critical mass of interest in the public, despite incredible efforts now by both Hollywood and the government, is I think a lot of Americans are just so worked over that they don't really care to ponder anything existential. And that's not necessarily a good thing either.

Jenna Ellis: No, that's definitely not a good thing because we should be pondering the existential and we should be pondering, the purpose of life, what we believe about God. I mean, those are the questions that actually matter.

Steve Ellis: Americans have largely replaced faith and existential questions with politics

And this, you know, brings us to a. I mean, this could be a much longer conversation, obviously, but how myopically focused a lot of Americans have become. And I think it's because of the media's attention on politics. It's like we're so focused in the temporary, and we have largely replaced, faith and some of those questions with politics. And we think that, you know, the GOP or Trump or others will be, you know, the savior of society and all of those things. And we focus so much on politics and, you know, some focus obviously on civil government, being good stewards, all of those things. Civic engagement, that's great. But we can't forget that the purpose of civil government is to protect the rights that God gives us. Why? So that we can know him better, we can worship him as he created us to, and that the government doesn't restrict that, but actually protects the best environment to be able to do that. But when politics becomes a, a means and an end unto itself, then it drives us more toward the temporary. And we also see that in the over consumerism in culture, the lackadaisical nature of pleasure and contentment in the temporal, that the overabundance of America, produces. And so we do need to focus more on the existential and maybe in sort of a, in a completely opposite way than what Spielberg clearly meant by this film. Maybe it will cause some people to actually question the existential and through that actually come to a saving knowledge of the Lord, because they'll ask and then see that Christianity is the only ones that the only worldview that can actually answer those questions coherently.

Steve Deace: Beautifully said. And I think it gives you, sort of a notion. And I think Covid was kind of the proto version of this. It was the beta test. What we're describing is a people that are ready to be instantly worked over by a lie. Maybe some would call it a strong delusion. and that, with the snap of a finger and enough social media leveraging and the dual jamming of both every pop culture outlet and every government source that, okay, this must be the one. This isn't a fire drill. This isn't, you know, the thing we've been warned about. Jesus is not coming back. It's been 2,000 years. We're not getting invaded. All right? The economy is not collapsing. This must be the real one. and this is the one now to genuflect to and succumb to. And we saw a beta test of that during COVID Every major nation on Earth, with a couple of exceptions, without a shot fired, without a treaty signed, regardless of ideology, regardless of form of government, almost like a thanos snap within 24 hours, imposed all the same draconian restrictions on their people. And for the most part, except for a small pocket of us, the people acquiesced and then turned on you if you didn't join them in their acquiescing. That describes again, we're going to throw that word in one more time ontologically, that, we are in a very dangerous place as a people, frankly, we're right for the.

Jenna Ellis: Well, so well said, Steve, and I'm so glad and grateful that you have your political community commentary. But first and foremost, you, are focused on worldview, and you are, sniffing out the enemy's traps and bringing attention to these things. I'd encourage everyone to listen to Steve's more extensive review of this movie because, it's helpful if you have friends that are talking about it that then you can engage, even if you haven't seen the movie, you can engage in the correct theological arguments. And we always do need to have an answer for the hope that lies within us. So we need to know, know what the enemy is doing in the world to try to distract from the truth and to cause division. So, Steve, really appreciate it and we will be Right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Three San Francisco Giants pitchers wore Bible verses on Pride Night caps

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Major League Baseball has warned, Giants pitchers who wore Bible verses on their caps during Pride Night that they might get fined over that. So three Giants pitchers wore Bible verses on their pride night caps, which is just a ridiculous thing that MLB is leaning into Pride Month and forcing their players to represent something that contradicts, their faith. But three of the Giants pitchers wore Bible verses on their Pride Night baseball caps during Friday's game and MLB has since issued a warning to them. Attorney General James Uthmeyer here in my home state of Florida, posted in response to that. Do you practice religious discrimination in Florida at mlb? You'll be hearing from my office soon. Also, Senator Josh, Hawley asked what does MLB think it's doing penalizing players for their Christian faith? They owe us some answers right now. And he posted on X a, ah, letter from from his office in the United States Senate to Commissioner, Robert Manfred asking it's, and saying that he writes with grave concern over your reported decision to issue a formal warning to three Major League Baseball players for publicly expressing their Christian faith. And this follows a high profile undercover investigation that revealed at least one MLB team discriminated against a player based on his Catholic faith. You must answer for what appears to be a pattern of discrimination within Major League Baseball against players who professional their Christian faith. So a Democrat and just absolute crazy town, Senator Scott Wiener. And I can't believe that we're saying Senator Scott Weiner in, in that the same phrase. But anyways, he responded to that to Josh Hawley and said people have a right to whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs dehumanize other people. But they don't have a right to hijack their employer to promote those hateful beliefs at a job related event. MLB didn't penalize them for their faith. It penalized them for violating the rules of their employment. And he also went on to say that on San Francisco Giants Pride night, also the 10th anniversary of the Pulse nightclub massacre, several players deface their pride caps with with a biblical passage that has been hijacked by homophobes to take back the rainbow from the LGBTQ people. he clearly needs to read the Bible and the actual flow of history on that. But he he suggests that the players could have displayed this passage on any other night of the year, but chose it to do it only on Pride Night. Well, of course they did because it's actually the LGBTQ that are trying to hijack the rainbow from God himself, who used that, of course, in Genesis 6 as a covenant, to never flood the earth again. And we all know that story. if you're part of the AFR family and listening to that understanding where, the rainbow came from, from God himself, why it is displayed in the sky, and why intentionally, the LGBTQ community has taken that as a mockery of God and is displaying that as their flag and their symbol. And so, California Democrat State Senator Scott Weiner needs to have that lesson. But Oren McIntyre from the Blaze responded to that and said there is no such thing as a secular state. You may not have asked for a war on religion, but make no mistake, you're in one. You can fight now or watch the faith of your founders be suppressed by the country they founded. Really well said. And Oren joins me now. you know, this is just such a ridiculous controversy. for the MLB to force players to contradict their faith, as a condition of their employment definitely raises First Amendment concerns. But to suggest then, that these players who are writing a Bible verse on their cap to reclaim what has been since Genesis 6, and Scott Wiener, suggesting that somehow it's Christians that are hijacking the rainbow is just simply, I think, intentionally confusing the situation here. So how do you see it, Orin?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, I agree that this is ridiculous, and I think we need to take as aggressive a stance as possible on this stuff. It is beyond absurd that we are still in 2026, and we are still trying to battle for the basic idea that Christians should not have to forcibly celebrate homosexuality in public. I mean, this is absolutely insane. And the idea that at some point we're going to shame Major League Baseball or the LGBTQ community into abiding by neutral norms of toxic tolerance and understanding is just obviously not the case. These people are never going to let you leave you alone. They are never going to let you simply practice your faith. It's not about tolerating them. It's about celebrating them, worshiping them. That's what Pride Month is about. It is about replacing God with the idol of homosexuality. And they will, and repeatedly have shown that they will enforce this and penalize people. And the fact that MLB is heavily, heavily subsidized at every level of government means that there are basically infinite numbers of levers that the government could use to force them to stop this anti Christian discrimination. We are in the United States of America. The idea that a Christian should have to hide their Faith so they can blend in with a celebration of homosexuality is absolutely ridiculous. I'm glad to see our Attorney General take real action on this. I appreciate Holly's strongly worded letter, but I think we're well beyond this at this point. We don't need to beg the MLB to treat Christians as if they are equal. We have laws on the book and we have power. We can use it to stop this. There is no reason to put up with this.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that I think is the key here is that we're all tired of these strongly worded letters. And while they're great, and that's maybe the only thing that one individual senator can do, I'm really tired of Congress not actually, using their powers and and legislating and also, you know, using their power. The purses you mentioned, you know, subsidizing, taking away some of those subsidies if the MLB is going to force some of these ridiculous things. And it just seems like there's, there's really no interest beyond the media attention that, you know, Holly, of course, and Weiner are going to get from, you know, their respective commentary. But then we just kind of forget about it and go back to business as normal. Meanwhile, these Christian players are facing real fines and there. Or, or a choice that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, which shouldn't happen in America. Absolutely.

 Auron MacIntyre : I think one of the big problems is that Christians and conservatives in general, they don't want to step, into the role of the victim. And that's entirely reasonable. You don't need to live in the rule of the role of the victim. But in order to avoid being a victim, one of the things you have to do is fight back. And so when you see someone taking active measures to be a bigot towards a class of people you belong to, the response is not simply to say, oh, well, I guess they're just woke again. The answer is to extract serious costs for that behavior so that not do it again. We all understand this. When it comes to a child, if you just say, oh, Cindy, stop doing that over and over again, they're eventually just going to ignore you and do what they want. There has to be a, some consequence. They have to lose something so they recognize, oh, yes, I've been told why this is wrong, but I also understand that doing it is costly. So I won't do it again. These companies can be told, oh, well, you shouldn't be bigoted towards Christians. You have a First Amendment, okay, but if there is no penalty for Violating the First Amendment if they pay no cost. And in fact, not only do they not pay a cost, they continue to receive beneficial treatment from the government on purpose. They're only being rewarded for this behavior. Again, this is why I'm so glad to see not just our Attorney general, but others have spoken about taking legal action, which is exactly what needs to happen here. And Christians need to start getting serious about this stuff. You cannot simply move on to the next political fiasco and just write this one off as woke up. These are your brothers in Christ. Have a little bit of spine for once. Actually care about people who are taking a hit for their faith. It's not that you have to run in and, you know, get into a gunfight somewhere in Africa where many people are being killed. All you have to do is tell your local politicians, hey, we don't want these people around if they're going to not celebrate, you know, our Christianity and they're going to instead celebrate some horrible, you know, festival of homosexual vice. Like, it's very, very simple. And people have to care enough about this to apply pressure. The gay, the, gay lobby certainly does. They, absolutely. Their activists are 100% passionate and willing to apply pressure all the time, which is why the MLB desperately wants to please them because they are loudest. We have to be louder.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And I could not agree more that, we need to not just tolerate this and say, ah, ah, well, it's Pride month and you know, these woke companies are going to do that. So maybe, you know, we just don't go to the games during the month of June or, you know, some of those things. We need to be a lot more active.

What Christians can do to get more engaged on this issue

so what should Christians do then to take more action instead of just, you know, I mean, and I think that the, the boycotting, all of that is, is fine and that's part of, the pushback. But what tangibly can, can Christians do to get more engaged?

 Auron MacIntyre : Again, I think that legal pressure is critical here and the sports leads are particularly vulnerable. They get subsidies, yes. But they also get special, special, legal carve outs because they're technically running a monopoly. there are several ways in which Congress and very much local politicians who are, you know, obviously in San Francisco, you're probably, unfortunately not going to be able to get a lot of pressure on local politicians about this issue. But luckily the MLB operates everywhere across the United States and you can put pressure on local politicians whose cities are subsidizing the teams that reside there to say, hey, we need to make sure that we're not going to get events like this in our town. We need a change from the MLB if they want to maintain that kind of status inside our city or our state, wherever those you know, the municipality or the county or whoever's handing out those special carve outs. There can be pressure applied there. People just have to care more about their Christian faith than they do about any given you know, economic boom that, that a team might promise like they're, they're eventually going to roll this stuff back if they think it's seriously going to affect their bottom line and their ability to legally operate and receive those subsidies. So applying pressure to the politicians that are relevant to those subsidies and those carve outs is critical.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said and I hope that's true. and we have to take a break here or in McIntyre, but he's going to stick with us through the break and then cover another topic when we come back. But I, I hope that that's true, that some of these companies actually do care still about their bottom line and they're still in the business of, of generating revenue. it seems like some of these major corporations actually care more about their human rights campaign score than they do about their bottom line. But maybe that trend is reversing. We've seen, you know, some of those statistics that the, the public sentiment is turning. That's a very good thing that we're coming back to the laws of nature and of nature's God. And we need to take this moment to always take the moment to stand up for truth. So I really appreciate it. Orin McIntyre, we will be right back with more.

There is still a lot of disagreement among Republicans over the Iran deal

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there is still a lot of discussion and disagreement among Republicans, the MAGA base and conservatives over this Iran deal. We still don't know a ton of the specifics. Vice, President, President JD Vance has been going on a media tour including the View, which was actually hilarious. I mean he was just sitting there basically wasting his time arguing with morons. But the point of going on that show of course is not to convince Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar of anything, because they can't see past their own, you know, liberal worldview, but to reach their audience, who may possibly still be reachable with you know, with some conservative priorities. But, but Mark Levin, who has been, you know, staunch Trump supporter since he first won, you know, the original nomination in 2016 has been on social media attacking Trump for the deal. And and even Steve, Dase, who was just on, in the first segment, had a clip on his show, saying I love Israel, but I don't live there, I live here. And he's making the case that America is hurt, hurting too much to keep fighting wars across the globe. And you know, it is just a little bit, interesting to see how Israel is responding to this. And while I fully, agree that they are their own sovereign nation, they, they are not beholden to, our view in necessarily, when you are entering into an agreement, to be allies, that comes with a, certain concessions and compromises, which is why a lot of people are asking, you know, why do we have these permanent allies like Orin McIntyre who still continues with us through this segment. And so, Oren, I guess the question is, you know, where do you see this shaping up in terms of the overall America first versus America only kind of sentiment? And I think a lot of people are recognizing that, well, the United States has been and should be a great ally to Israel. It seems like Israel isn't as thankful in this particular deal and is sort of, reserving to themselves their absolute sovereignty instead of recognizing that the United States has helped them, through this. And we should be as Americans, we should be America first, not Israel first. And we need to fix that before anything else. Israel, we, we recognize, you know, their right to the land and they are an ally, but that comes with, and that should come with some concessions that

 Auron MacIntyre : Americans are unfortunately coming to understand that, despite the incredible amount of aid that the United States has provided to the state of Israel, ultimately there isn't a lot of deference tied to that. Now I totally understand Israel's position. They are obviously in far more threat, from Iran than we are here in the United States. And because of that, their calculus is very different. For us, Iran is a theoretical problem. Maybe if they develop a bomb, maybe if they finally get a missile together in 10, 15 years, that's something that they could really threaten us with, something we don't want to happen. But for Israel, this is somebody who could attack them tomorrow that is right in their area. As soon as they have a bomb, Israel would immediately be in range. And so you understand why their priorities are different. But I feel like today a lot of my job is just running around and reminding people of, George, Washington's farewell address. This is why he warned us that having favored allies, that having these Long term alliances would impact the sovereignty of your nation, and not just our nation, but the nation that we are allied with as well. You know, Washington warned us that if you have these allies, they will create division inside your nation. It will incur, you know, a lot of foreign influence, and it will dampen the sovereignty of your republic. And we can see that playing out right here. Donald Trump has obviously wanted to leave this conflict for several months now. And the main stumbling block is that Netanyahu has felt like he needed to get far more done in the region and could only do so under the umbrella of American power. And so he's been basically running to finish as many of these tasks as he can before he loses that. And that has jeopardized the peace process the entire way. Again, understandable for the interests of his country. But our interests diverge here. That doesn't mean we need to be enemies, but it does mean that we probably should not be teaming up for these kind of joint wars because it makes it very difficult for either country to ultimately obtain its objective. The United States was never in this war to completely destabilize the region with Iran and, Lebanon. That is Israel's goal. And so they want something fundamentally different from us. And they are willing to do things like give up the Strait of Hormuz for a time if they can secure that. That is just not on Trump's agenda. It does not help the United States.

Jenna Ellis: And.

 Auron MacIntyre : And so he wants to, you know, just get the objectives he wanted and leave. And when you have these two people who aren't equally yoked, you will have this outcome.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Mark Levin: President Trump says he doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons

And, and do you think, Oren, that the main impetus for Trump engaging with Iran initially, I, mean, he, he said this is because of, that he doesn't want the enrichment and for, Iran to be able to obtain nuclear weapons? I think that's true. And obviously the United States would have a vested interest in that in terms of our sovereignty, our priorities. But do you think that, that initially the, in the engagement with Iran was pro America at, at its core, or more pro Israel because we're an ally?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, I think there's obviously American interest in Iran not having a bomb. I think Trump has a legitimate point there. However, we did bomb Iran last year, and we're told that the nuclear program was obliterated. So the question how much could it have recovered in that year? And if it does recover in a year, well, then what good did the bombing actually do if it doesn't actually set them back at all. I think the main problem here is that ultimately Marco Ribio told us, you know, Israel decided that they were going to go in whether we were ready or not. And if we didn't go with them, our troops would be hitting retaliatory attacks. So it was just better for us all to go through together. I think that's about as clear of an indication as we can get that even if there was some US interest involved in ultimately stopping this regime from advancing towards a nuclear weapon, that ultimately was not on our timeline, it was not driven by our interest directly that Israel was dictating the timeline. And again, that's just desperately unhealthy. Maybe they felt they did have to go at that time, but that is a decision for them to make for their military, not a decision for them to make on our behalf. And so I think that from the beginning, even if there were some US interests ultimately at the bottom of this, conflict, it has been dictated, its terms have been dictated by Israel. And I do not think that is healthy for the United States.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, ultimately I think that in the balance and the weighted balance, America, especially our President, needs to be concerned about the best interests of Americans first. And I can see why those who are, are adamantly opposed to this ongoing allyship, are concerned that we are in some sense sacrificing a measure of our best interests in order to pursue, what our allies want and think best. Because it's just the nature of, of an ally that you do have some of those compromises. And and so, so I think that there are some valid critiques there. And in an ongoing, you know, and long term, ally agreement, there does come occasionally times where you prioritize your ally over and above, perhaps yourself. But where that line is drawn in terms of what the American President is obligated to do, I mean, there's Nothing in the US Constitution, especially in Article 2, that in any way suggests that we need to prioritize the needs of our allies above those of the United States. And so to Steve's point, Christians and conservatives can and should love Israel, want the best for Israel, maintain their right to the land, say, you know, we support you in that effort, obviously we support them, against the atrocities and the terror of the, October 7th attacks, all of those things. But it can't come at the cost of putting Israel ahead of the United States priorities when it comes to foreign policy, at least when it comes to, the government and the obligations of a president Now, I mean, it's specific. Christians, for example, if we want to use our money and our tithes and donations to go and promote, Israel in certain ways, we can do that in our own individual capacity.

 Auron MacIntyre : We.

Jenna Ellis: But our government has a specific constitutional responsibility to prioritize the needs and the goals in the best interests of our citizens first. And so when those things clash and don't overlap in the Venn diagram of goals and priorities, at what point should Trump just say, well, you know, I respect Israel's right to be a sovereign nation. We respect our allied interests, but this is where we diverge. Yeah.

 Auron MacIntyre : And if you care about Israel, you should recognize that this is bad for Israel. I mean, the reactions from the Israeli media and governments, over the United States trying to seal this deal have not been good. They have been rather insulting. I mean, Mark Levin is out there creating more antisemitism than Nick Fuentes could ever hope to. This is not a good way to behave, and it will sour people on this relationship far faster than people saying mean things on the Internet. At the very least, if the United States is out there helping you to do something that is critical to the survival of your nation, you should be grateful at every turn, not talking about how Donald Trump has betrayed you. So if you are someone who does care about Israel and does care about, what it looks like here, how it's supported here, how it's seen here, you need to start telling your friends that ultimately, you guys have to show gratitude and you have to dial back the entitlement, and you have to stop attacking people the minute that they're not willing to send more troops or more m money to Israel. Israel needs to be able to stand on its own. It does not need to be entirely dependent on its ability to guilt Americans into sending more troops or money to that country. That's what real sovereignty looks like. And to be fair to the people of Israel, that's what they deserve. They deserve sovereignty over their own country, not dependency on America. And Americans certainly deserve the same.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think that it's fair. just, I mean, over a year ago, I remember when Matt Walsh first posted and said, you know, I think that we should stop sending any money to any foreign nations until we figure out where it's being spent. And these were, you know, the days in the height of Doge, and everybody got on him for saying, oh, how dare you suggest that we shouldn't support Israel. But yet those are the very same people questioning why we're spending and sending so much money to Ukraine and just because there is a theological reason to support Israel and there are, there are valid theological arguments and then there are others that are more questionable and you know, in terms of what chosen and all of that means in terms of the soteriological argument, all, all of that. And we've discussed that at length, you and I, Oren, on this program. The, the fact remains it is okay to question what exactly America is doing for the Israeli government without suggesting that somehow, then we, we are not loving Israel in the biblical command and the theological, command because ultimately it is concerning when you see, some Jews here in America who are prioritizing Israel over their citizenship in this nation and I, and anybody from any other country, I mean we, we condemn for example, you know, Ilhan Omar and some of the squad for, for prioritizing and saying I'm here to represent Somalia, and, and saying well no, then, then get out of Congress. You need to be an American first. So it stands to logic that we should be consistent on that and say, well, there's not a specific carve out and a special carve out, just for Israel in that American citizenship first context.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, I think when people say, see someone like Ted Cruz, you know, get up and say, well I joined Congress to protect Israel, or they see Mike Huckabee saying the United States would not exist without Israel, they get concerned. You know, again, you can, you can protect this country, you can, you can ultimately you know, support the existence of this country. Even if you feel theologically that that is a mandate for you, that that's understandable on a personal level. But once you are in charge of the United States, you know, you're a senator, you, you're an ambassador, and you're supposed to represent this country's interest. We want you to put America first. You can still love the country, not saying that you have to hate it or you need to oppose it or anything like that, but when you are in those positions of power, people want to hear I am doing what is in America's interest. Not I think that America only exists because Israel exists, or I am only here to protect Israel interests in an American, political context. Like those are things that make people not like Israel think that there's something bad going on. And again, this is just not helpful for that nation. It is a, it is a toxic way to maintain a relationship. There should be good relations between America and Israel, but we should not be sacrificing the well being of Americans for Israel. And I think everyone is recognizing that at this point.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that's a great point as well. To distinguish between the private sector personal capacity versus those who choose to run for elected positions and have those constitutionally vested obligations to put the country first. I mean, it's, it's, like for example, when I was a spokesperson on behalf of Trump, that meant that I'm, I was not able then in that context to speak my own opinion. If there was, a disagreement, I could address it with him or whoever in the administration privately. But my job in enroll in that capacity was to represent his perspective and to communicate to the public and media, just like a press secretary, what his priorities, were, whether or not I personally agreed with them. And similarly, if you are in the role and have the responsibility as an elected official, then you are setting aside your personal views and you are representing Americans and what, ah, your constituents, their priorities first. And so there has to be that distinguishment. But we're already out of time. Orin McIntyre, thanks so much. You can always reach me and my team. Jennafr.net.

Jenna Ellis discusses the implications of Steven Spielberg's new film, "Disclosure Day," which raises questions about the existence of extraterrestrial life and its potential impact on Christian faith. Joined by Steve Deace, they delve into the film's narrative, its attempts to deconstruct Christianity, and the broader societal reactions to such themes. Jenna emphasizes the importance of a solid theological foundation in addressing these existential questions, reinforcing that the gospel remains unchanged regardless of the existence of alien life.