Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God, not government
: Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: 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.
Jeremy Carle withdraws his nomination for Assistant Secretary of State
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, March 12, and, you know, we have been long frustrated as conservatives with this particular GOP Senate not, really having the majority to pass Trump's priorities. There are a lot of reasons, for that. And it seems like Majority Leader John Thune is just not prioritizing, the Save America act, among other things, but also when it comes to presidential appointments. M. It was really disappointing to me, quite frankly, to read this from our friend Jeremy Carle, who is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, former research fellow at the Hoover Institute, and he, was under consideration as Assistant Secretary of State for, International Organization affairs, and he posted this yesterday. This will be a bit more formal than usual, but I wanted to announce that I'm withdrawing my nomination for consideration as Assistant Secretary of State on. I'm tremendously grateful to President Trump for nominating me and then, upon expiration of my original nomination, renominating me for this role. And I am also grateful to Secretary Rubio and his team for their continued support throughout this long and time consuming process. The fact they chose to nominate me and were so supportive of my candidacy was many indications that this is an administration that was not satisfied to simply do business as usual, nor simply pick nominees from the same stable of business as usual possibilities. Unfortunately, for senior positions such as this one, the support of the President and Secretary of State is very important, but not sufficient. We also needed the unanimous support of every GOP Senator on the Committee on Foreign Relations, given the unanimous opposition of Senate Democrats to my candidacy. And unfortunately, at this time, unanimous support was not forthcoming. And he goes on to, kind of describe, you know, under a constitutional system, this is advice and consent, of course, for, for positions such as this one. And appointments is necessary. That's part of the process. But I think it reveals something deeper about the state of the GOP right now, that not only is opposing President Trump's agenda, but they're actively supporting the deep state and these business as usual candidates, rather than giving President Trump, who won the election by a landslide, giving him, the appointments that he is choosing, unless there's some, you know, really good reason to oppose. This always comes down to partisan politicking. And the gop, as the party of the sitting president, really has no good reason to oppose, the majority, the vast majority of President Trump's nominees, but particularly Jeremy Carl, who's been a friend to this show and we've had on, many times previously. So let's welcome him in this morning. Again, an author and fellow at the Claremont Institute. And Jeremy, this is, like I said, very disappointing, but, what does this say to you about the broader state of this GOP Senate when it comes to lacking support for President Trump?
Jeremy Carl: Jenna, thanks so much for having me on. I mean, I think it's obviously disappointing. it's not entirely surprising, sadly. I was always very clear eyed going into this process about some of the challenges that were going to be there, despite having the support of the White House and, very senior members of the State Department. I think it's just, Look, I mean, I'm not going to bash all senators with the same, sort of, you know, kind of broad brush. I think we've got some really good folks. But the bottom line is, we need everybody and right now we don't have everybody. And you're seeing that problem with passing things like the Save America act, and you're also seeing that with things like my nomination.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So why don't we have everybody? I mean, I know that there are, you know, the GOP is kind of a wide swath. we're not, you know, together and lockstep the way that the Democrats are. I mean, that's very clear. And it's fine, you know, overall to have differing opinions and all of that, but when it comes to things that are really basic and obvious, like the Save America Act, I mean, that's something that, that seems like opposition to that and not having all of the votes is out of step with the GOP as an entire party.
Jeremy Carl: Yeah, I think, it's frustrating. It's disappointing. I mean, I think it's just sort of a matter of record that Senator Thune is certainly not one of the more conservative or Trump supporting members of the caucus. And he's obviously the leader. he was not, the leader in my particular case. The committee I needed to get through was Senator Risch, from Idaho. but, you know, we've just got, we've got some very significant issues and I think we've got a lot of Senators, unfortunately, who are not really at heart particularly aligned with the President or even more importantly, with the President's agenda. And they have a lot of good ways in the Senate to kind of stymie that.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And so, you know, this isn't, unique, unfortunately, to your nomination. Are you aware of other candidates like yourself and other, nominees that have been stymied in this same way?
Jeremy Carl: Well, there are. There was another Assistant Secretary of State nominee who I know came under similar things. And then of course, there's a lot of people, that you don't even get to this point because their ways that they have, making sure that in fact, in my particular case, I, think the Senate. And look, I mean, I have said some things, that were controversial, at least to Democrats light, given that, you know, if they are the people kind of driving the agenda and we're not pushing back on that, very publicly. So I was a very target rich environment for them. But that didn't mean that, you know, there wasn't ample opportunity to, offer a spirited defense of me. I would say, you know, the kind of way this often works is they just don't even put you before the Senate. And that's kind of what happened the first time. I sort of. My nomination languished for six months without being taken up by the committee. And then the President came back and immediately renominated me when my nomination expired. And that was sort of a symbol, a signal to the Senate from the White House that, hey, we really want this guy. We're not just going to let you ignore him and pretend that, you're doing your job. and so at least at that point, they kind of gave, in said uncle and put me up, before the committee. But the sort of typical, institutional support that I think would have been needed to get me through, I don't think the blocking and tackling, frankly, was done there.
Jenna Ellis: You know, and when you mention things that are controversial, past statements, I mean, these are things that are basic positions of any genuine conservative. I mean, you know, certainly, you know, there are. There are things that, obviously opinions, you know, that people like you and I have taken that are. That are controversial, in a sense. But at the same time, I mean, what is that signal that, in order for the GOP to be willing to put forward and support a candidate, they have to basically not offer any, any worldview or any perspective on who they are? I mean, it's almost like in the Supreme Court nominations that everybody pays attention to because they're the Supreme Court. They rarely pay attention to some of these other nominees for other positions going through the Senate, in those confirmation hearings and all that. It's almost like it's way better to have been so vanilla and have signaled nothing, done nothing controversial, basically been a robot for your entire career previously. Otherwise, you're too controversial, you're too firebrand to get through the Senate. And President Trump, really doesn't operate that way. But it seems like the GOP is doing that kind of business as usual tack instead of championing people that maybe are a little controversial, but are controversial in a good way, that are putting forward conservative values. I mean, look at James Tallarico. The Democrats are supporting him and he's really controversial, like in a bad way.
Jeremy Carl: That's exactly right. And I mean, I think it's the discouraging thing. I think I wrote at one point something to the effect of, people like me who have taken very public positions, you know, we're sort of designed by, to kind of be rejected by the immune system of Washington D.C. as a sort of foreign body because, we're out there taking conservative positions. And I think, you know, the other thing, of course, if for people who listened to the hearing, since they just had the Democrats teeing off on me, you would have heard things. They were like, well, you know, who is this guy? You know. And of course my positions, were totally misrepresented, by the Democrats in many cases, saying the exact opposite of positions that I've taken to make me look, as alarming as possible. And look, the reality is I spent a decade as the right hand man of Ronald Reagan, Secretary of State, the late George Shultz, I worked at some of the, very distinguished think tanks, et cetera. I mean, I'm not a crazy person. I'm not actually, some sort of ideological extremist. And if I were, I wouldn't have been in the roles that I've been in. But of course, if the Democrats are simply able to offer that type of narrative, and we're not pushing back, and in my case we had, I think, unfortunately, one such Senator John Curtis, who was the only senator, on record against me, from our side, who is the former Democratic Party chair of Utah, county in, Utah, so that's kind of what I'm up against. I mean primaries do matter and I can't speculate Particularly I didn't have a chance, unfortunately to talk to Senator Curtis before the hearing. But I think it was pretty clear that his mind was fairly made up, when he walked in the door, and he was going to sort of buy the Democrat narrative. And that was unfortunately pretty disappointing.
Jenna Ellis: That is really disappointing to buy the Democrat narrative instead of trust, the president and also give you an opportunity to simply respond, to potential concerns. I mean, you know, this kind of attack of not even calling up your nomination, seems to be how they just try to wait out the clock. And So, you know, moving forward, what would be, what do you think should be the lesson for the White House here to try to maybe change this sort of business as usual attack that the Senate is taking?
Jeremy Carl: Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's, unfortunately.
I do think there was some blocking and tackling, obviously
I wish I could say that, wow, there's a quick, you know, where we could just snap our fingers and make things better. I do think that there is some blocking and tackling things. And again, I want to be careful and responsible here. I don't want to speculate as to where exactly, the you know, communication might not have been ideal. But I think the bottom line is, there was. I think there needed to be. The senators, on our side needed to be a little bit more prepared to offer the very reasonable defenses of me and my record, that they could have offered, before the Senate. And we, had put me up, unfortunately, and were clearly, for whatever reason, we were not prepared to do that. And so I think in that sort of situation, obviously, you should be in a position where you either don't put the candidate up or you prepare that defense. So I think just a little bit more blocking and tackling, obviously. But then I think beyond that, we have an issue in primaries. I mean, we've just. We've got a number of these senators. And I'm not even going to say it's most. I don't think it's most. But you don't, you don't need, that many to block the president and the president's agenda. and on a committee you just need one to say no and nobody's going anywhere. assuming unanimous, Democratic opposition, which any good, conservative candidate is frequently going to have.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, and you know, when we're dealing with, you know, such a slim majority, it's not like, you know, you can, you can lose multiple senators and you can say, okay, you know, this 15% you can lose, and it's fine. I mean, we're working with, you know, such the bare minimum that's needed, you know, that matters.
Jeremy Karl: This is really scary heading into the midterms
And so, in just the last minute or so, we have with you Jeremy Karl, heading into the midterms. you know, this is. This is really scary. And I'm not sure it looks like, the GOP is going to increase the numbers in the Senate at all.
Jeremy Carl: Yeah, I mean, it's, it's concerning. I mean, I think midterms are always tough. but one of the ways that you make midterms better is that you fight for your agenda and you fight for, your nominees. And I think we're seeing with the Save America act right now that we are not, successfully, other than kind of doing theater, perhaps, fighting for that agenda. And in my case, I was a person who was supported by a lot of very influential people in our conservative base. and frankly, you know, we didn't get a lot of fight, for me, from various quarters where we could have gotten it. And that is inevitably discouraging to a lot of people who matter. So, you know, I just hope we can do a better job with that sort of thing in the future. I'm very supportive of the president and his agenda and his team. And, you know, I'm sort of moving onward and upward. I still have a lot of, personal opportunities that are great, but I think we've got to move forward in a better way.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. Because, you know, the country now is, ah, not benefiting from you being in this position. And while, you know, I know that this isn't going to hamper you in your career path at all, it is sad that, you know, the United States and the Trump administration won't benefit from your appointment. So, Jeremy, ah, Carl, really appreciate it. Thanks so much for coming on and describing this. And, you know, we've got to do better, folks. I mean, this is where, the gop, we need to be very selective in primaries and then, you know, just fight hard for the right people is really the bottom line. So we'll be right back with more.
Representative Andy Ogles from Tennessee has stirred controversy on X
: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of, you know, some interesting members of Congress, Representative Andy Ogles from Tennessee has, gotten into a lot of controversy on X that I think we need to talk about from a biblical and also, constitutionally accurate perspective. because these, these posts on X are meant to be bombastic. They're meant to be Firebrand and to not really thread the needle having any sort of nuance. I mean, that's kind of what X is. I mean everybody is just kind of lobbing bombs everywhere. you know, so it's, it's one of those things that I think it's intentionally trying to generate more of a conversation. But you know, some of what he's posted has said things like this. Muslims don't belong in American society, Pluralism is a lie, Multiculturalism is nowhere in the Constitution. One nation, one culture. he said things like, paperwork doesn't make you an American citizen, and if you can't assimilate, then you need to be deported. You know, so some of these things, of course, then, even members of the GOP are calling for, the tip for him to be condemned, censure, you know, whatever. And there are a lot of people even on the right who are suggesting that this is Islamophobic, this is anti Muslim, you know, et cetera, et cetera. but we need to talk about this and, and maybe what he's actually driving at from a non bombastic perspective and talk about the fact that the founders didn't actually create a religiously neutral America. The First Amendment actually only limited Congress initially. It says Congress shall make no law. Right? States were free to support Christianity and some did even into the 1800s. And so the idea that the government must be religiously neutral came later through the 14th Amendment incorporation and the Supreme Court's decisions. And so the founders originally wanted to avoid national interdenominational fights, but not erase Christianity from public life. Suggestions that pluralism was part of a secular democracy and America didn't start as a secular pluralist state. that came later, unfortunately, through the 20th century and largely through the Supreme Court's, erasure of what the First Amendment and the founding overall was intended for.
Father Frank Pavone: America wasn't founded as a secular, godless society
So let's welcome in, Father Frank Pavone, who's founder of the Priests for Life. And Frank, I'm really glad that you're joining me for this conversation because, you know, while I think that Andy Ogles is, is being far too flip, on purpose, I mean, this is X, right? I think that what he's actually driving at is a deeper point, that America wasn't founded as a secular, godless, post truth society. And it's okay for us to point that out and to say that there have been moments along our, constitutional path, whether it's Supreme Court, poor or wrong interpretation, or even amendments that have been crafted that haven't actually been, good for America. And that, in my opinion, should be repealed. And we can fight for a Christian nation in the sense and context that the founders established it, without. Without kind of some of these statements that are really easy targets for the left to just say, well, you know, you don't get what, being in American memes.
Frank Pavone : Well, yes, Jenna, it's great to hear you talk about these things. And, you know, this is a debate that really can be resolved with a few key distinctions, without trying to, you know, settle the whole argument by sound bites. And of course, that's one of the. The drawbacks of. Of social media, which, overall is a tremendous tool for us to be using. But. But it's. The distinction simply is this, that there is an American culture. There is a, there are basic bedrock foundations and boundaries to what it means to be an American. and then in that sense, there are certain cultures, and worldviews that are completely incompatible with the America that we have inherited from our founders. For example, the very notion that all are created equal, that they should be treated equal, due process, presumption of innocence. yes, there's freedom of religion, but we don't allow religions that would, you know, sacrifice babies on the altar or sacrifice any human lives on the altar as part of their worship. We would say, wait a minute, we're going to draw the line there. So America establishes certain bedrock principles and boundaries, but within those, and upon that foundation allows for an awful lot of diversity. And those two things are quite compatible. We want there to be multiple cultures, multiple religions, a lot of freedom, different philosophies, the freedom of speech, et cetera. We don't want, cultures coming into America that are going to overturn, those basic principles of respect for life, for justice, for truth, and for freedom itself. When it comes to Islam in particular, we know that so many of its tenets are simply incompatible with Western civilization. That case has been made very strongly, especially, in recent years. And we have to recognize that as Americans. The other thing we have to recognize, which you already brought out and which has been emphasized by the way, by this Religious Liberty Commission that the president established and which has been meeting every month, is another meeting coming up on Monday. In fact, I'll be there for that in D.C. is that the founders were not at all neutral, about religion. they allowed. They created a nation where people could embrace whatever religious faith they want. But at the same time, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged historically, this is a Christian nation. But the founders said, look, we have duties toward God. In fact, if you start talking about religious freedom, the reason for religious freedom is precisely that the human individual has duties to the creator and therefore the government can't stop that person from fulfilling those duties because they come from a higher authority. So it's the very existence of God and the acknowledgement of God that are the very basis for religious freedom. Our founders were not like, oh, let's put, you know, faith and atheism on the same plane, on the same level. They're not. In fact, they said without religion and morality, this government would not succeed. I think those are some of the key distinctions for this, you know, debate that has, that has arisen.
Frank Pavone: Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and American values
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you, you absolutely anticipated my next question, Frank Pavone, which is that, you know, when you're talking about how Islam is fundamentally incompatible with some of those basic tenets of, Christianity and just basic truth and, and the, the truth of the reality to which we're presented and as our founders recognized, the law of nature and of nature's God and how truth is discoverable, and it's objective. And you know, they say that very clearly in the declaration, people in this country who are practicing a religion that is so fundamentally at odds and incompatible with not, just our values as Americans, but even our law and our policy, things like the respect for life, and even, you know, when you have people like, you know, who are these progressive post truth atheists? I mean we're not just talking about Muslims. We are right now in the context of, you know, the war with Iran, you know, so many, ways that we've seen how, you know, Sharia law is trying to kind of crop up and pervade, you know, some US Cities, so that's kind of been the focus right now. But, equally damaging to the American experiment, are people who are the extreme progressive leftists that live in a post truth, society and who are suggesting that there is no God and that the separation of church and state means that we have to abide by a secular worldview in government and excise God and religion entirely from our law and policy. And that's fundamentally incompatible as well with America. And so the question then becomes, you know, while we can and should, and part of the First Amendment's freedom and liberty is to debate these issues without fear of, you know, government punishment, when it actually comes down to law and policy, those ideas really shouldn't be given any Foothold, much less, any sort of, validation in Supreme Court opinions. But we've seen that over the last, you know, 60 plus years where an outrageous Supreme Court has, taken these ideas and run with it and made a pluralistic society almost a creation of jurisprudence and an invention out of thin air that doesn't actually respect America's founding. And so the question, of course becomes, how do we get back on track and fight for these types of, truth, fight for these areas of truth without being necessarily as frankly crude as someone like, Andy Ogles?
Frank Pavone : Well, I think we get back on track and I think we are getting back on track because eventually if you try to build a pluralistic society, now let's take those three words, a pluralistic society. People focus on pluralistic, but it's still a society. You're talking in the singular. So there have to be things that hold the singular together. If it's one society, there have to be certain things that everyone accepts. And the inherent self destructiveness of a pluralism that denies God, truth and morality is that you lose the basis for that unity. Some people will say, you know, oh, well, you know, let's just, you know, let's allow all these different worldviews. And if I don't want to believe in truth, you know, I have my truth, you have yours, and all this nonsense, you know, as if we all write our own commandments. But then they'll also say, well, let's just live together in peace, you know, let's just, you know, get along. Let everybody have their own viewpoint. But in reality that breaks down because if you're, denying the very existence of truth, well, then you can't have dialogue anymore. There's no basis for conversation because there's no truth out there that the two of you can, who are discussing things, can, can, can latch onto. there's no basis anymore for unity if you deny God. Because if there's no God, why should there be any morality? And why shouldn't it just be, hey, listen, if I want your possessions, I can take them. Who's going to say anything about it? Why?
Frank Pavone : Oh, but it's against the law. Well, why should there be any law if there's no God behind it? You know, it all breaks down. It doesn't work in practice. And I say, as I said at the outset, you know, we're starting to get to the, the way we get out of this is when you hit the brick wall, I call it. I've spoken, with you before on this program about this, the dead end rule. If I go down a dead end road and I ignore the signs that say it's a dead end, I will soon learn by personal experience that it's a dead end. And so what we end up finding out is that when things blow up in our faces or society becomes so unstable, and then we start asking, with all the violence, you know, how did we get here? That's when people begin to exercise the kind of introspection and, you know, deep reflection and hopefully prayerful reflection. yeah, how did I get here? Why are there so many shootings, you know, in the street? Well, maybe it's because we took down the Ten Commandments from the classroom that said something simple like, thou shalt not kill, or, you know, thou shalt not steal. You know, why are so. People get so. They hyperventilate about, oh, you're putting the Bible or the Commandments back into schools. You mean to say that you don't want neighborhoods where people don't steal and don't kill? Those are the things that the commandments in the Bible are saying. What is so outrageous, oppressive, and controversial about that? We all want that, and yet we don't want to admit the sources from which that comes. That's, I think, how we need to look at this.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and everyone wants the benefits of a Christian society without the accountability of one. I mean, that's what it really boils down to. And, you know, when we're talking about religious pluralism, I mean, you know, defining that or drilling down a little further, you know, this goes beyond tolerance. and, you know, this is about a philosophical approach that often involves the belief that various religions are different yet valid responses to the same ultimate reality. And this is where I think we need to draw the distinction between what the First Amendment in its, original form and context understood, that we're not punishing someone for having a different idea or asking genuine questions, but the government is not going to legitimize or validate as truth something that is false or come from a different perspective of reality than fundamentally understanding that truth is derived from the law of nature and of nature's God. And so, you know, a great example of this, Frank Pavone, is Charlie Kirk, right? Where he went and engaged people of all kinds of different worldviews. And he engaged them respectfully and, you know, didn't punish them, didn't laugh at them, didn't humiliate them, bully them, you know, anything like that, and engaged in a respectful dialogue, but never gave validation to any aspect of a worldview. And that was fundamentally incompatible with the truth of Christianity. And that's where our government, frankly, needs to draw that same line and to say, you know, we can appreciate dialogue, we can appreciate, you know, these, these spirited debates in our policy, but we're not going to legitimize and act as if, the secular humanist playing field is the reality of our policy playground. It is not, to suggest that we don't approach policy from a fundamentally Christian, truthful worldview. And I think that this is where pluralism, it has been offered as some kind of, ah, antidote to the, to the diversity that we see among religions. Just say, well, everybody's opinion is equally valid. You know, your truth is your truth, my truth is my truth. And we've seen now, you know, 60 plus years later, how that is so incompatible with a cohesive, unified, as you call it, a society. Because a society that is so fractured and so different and coming from so many different approaches can't possibly follow the same law.
Frank Pavone : It can't be a society. It can't. There's no basis for unity anymore. You know, another way of saying what you're saying is that pluralism is not absolute. the founders acknowledge certain truths in the Declaration particularly, and in the Constitution, there are certain truths that there is a God. He's a God of providence, he's a God of justice, he's a God of truth. He's the source of rights. These are all truths that are asserted by our founders. So obviously they're setting up a system here that says, look, here are the things we all accept now, within that framework, the government is not going to be, going to have a truth board. In fact, you know, as you well know, we've seen in recent years, you know, under the Biden administration, for example, the, attempts, to set up, you know, these boards, commissions of truth, you know, as if the government is going to be the arbiter of what's true and false. And fortunately, you know, under President Trump, we've, you know, we've abandoned that. We've gotten away from that, you know, and this is why you get away, this is why you get away from censorship too. Because the response to falsehood being spewed by whoever is spewing it, whether it's in the media, academia, or in a conversation in someone's backyard, is not to censor the speech, but to fill the speech with more speech that defends the truth. So the government is not going to be the arbiter of what's true in various people's opinions. But it has to be the arbiter of those truths which are required for society to hold together in the first place. and, you know, when I speak about moral relativism, I tell a funny story of, you know, how this breaks down in practice. You know, the guy is sitting with, sitting among a small group and saying, well, you know, what do you think about, you know, what's right and what's wrong? And that woman sitting across from him is saying, well, you know, my morality is mine and, and yours is yours. You know, you just have to do whatever you think your morality is. So then he reaches over and takes her purse and she says, what are you doing? Because, well, I'm taking your purse. You can't do that. I says, well, that's your morality. Mine is that I can have it, you know, and it breaks down right away in reality if you try to actually live out this relativism. So the government obviously is founded on certain principles that cannot be, cannot, be denied. And ultimately, again, as we've been saying, the founders recognize that the safeguard of all that is in fact the Christian truth. And there's no question this is a Christian nation. And it doesn't mean every citizen has to be a Christian. It means we have to abide by certain fundamental truths.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. Amen.
Father Frank Pavone: There are certain essential truths that we agree on
And so, well said. I mean, this is, I just want to underscore what you said earlier, Frank Pavone, which is that there are certain essential truths of reality that we all have to agree on as basic assumptions coming into the argument. I mean, it's the same thing, that they, they teach us in law school. You know, with contract law, if you are going to have a meeting of the minds and actually engage in the formation of a contract, then you have to understand certain terms in the same way. They have to have the same meaning, the same definitions. And what we're experiencing right now in American society is a different set of moral definitions and really a different set meaning to reality that there is no meeting of the minds. And so when you have something like in Congress, July 4, 1776, this unanimous declaration of the 13 United States of America saying we hold these truths to be self evident, they were saying, here are the basic assumptions by which our society is formed and that we are approaching a legitimate civil government. These are the things on which we all agree. And then within that context and that framework, then we can debate. And they did vigorously, the, the, ultimately the ratification of the Constitution in its, original sense and how power should be separated, all of those things. But they didn't disagree or debate on the truth, the self evident truth of reality as it's presented and the laws of nature and the supreme authority of God himself. And that's what we need to get back to as a society. And we've got to take a break here. But, this, this needs to longer discussion, of course, as it always has to be. but, Father Frank Pavone, I so appreciate this because, you know, when we're talking about something like multiculturalism, pluralism, or you know, do Muslims belong in American society and how Islam is so incompatible with the Constitution, what we're really talking about is the basic assumptions by which we approach the whole idea of legitimacy in government. And if we aren't aligned and don't have a universal, view and a unanimous declaration that truth is, we can't even begin to have these debates. And that's what we're seeing in our society and especially in our Congress right now. So, Frank Pavone, always love and appreciate you so much. We'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Bob Good: Republicans should use midterm elections as motivation to advance conservative policies
: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And you know, we've been talking about the, fundamental difficulties of dealing with, the gop, particularly in Washington. and you know, some of this talk about religious pluralism and this diversity of views over reality and that filtering of course into, what constitutes a legitimate government, what constitutes the best policy. all of these perspectives, of course, are derived from, the worldview that you hold. And seeing that there is such a diversity among the GOP members, that's actually not a good thing when it comes to advancing conservative policy. And so, what does this portend for the midterms? Well, let's welcome in Bob Good, who's a former Virginia congressman and no stranger to, the difficulties of diversity of opinion, in Washington. And so, Bob Good, really great to to speak with you this morning. And you know, this, this forecast I think is, is grim for the GOP if they don't pass the SAVE act and kind of get it together to at least have some, some unanimity on some of the basics.
Bob Good: Great to be with you, Jenna. Thanks for having me. Yes, the Republicans, could be in strong position at the midterms if they would use this, this year in the midterm election as inspiration and Motivation, incentive to go big and bold and courageous and conservative and to do the things that they ran on, to fight for the things they say they stand for, and to deliver for the American people versus to be careful and timid and benign and vanilla in fear of the midterms. You know, the Democrats, when they had full control of government, you know, in the same situation four years ago, they went bold and aggressive to enact the radical agenda out of fear they might lose the midterms. but their policies are wrong and harmful for the country, of course, where Republican stated policies anyway are right and helpful for the country. And I think the American people will reward them. Right now they're running on raising the debt limit last year by $5 trillion. They're going to run on $40 trillion in continuing Biden's Covid budget, $2 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. But it would be a big win for the American people to try to address issues with our election, to your point, with the SAVE act, to ensure voter id, to ensure that only American citizens can vote in our elections. and they ought to be willing to obviously fight with everything they've got to accomplish that, as well as, in my view, passing a second reconciliation bill that they can pass with just 50 votes, but this time using it to shrink government, to cut spending, to put us on a path to fiscal stability.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it just seems like this is so obvious and we've been talking about this, this week and you know, in the context of what, the voting issues might be in November and, you know, how do you think that as we're entering day 12 of the middle east conflict, this, is going to play out in, in terms of, where the voting base is going to be looking at. I mean, obviously the economy is always the biggest priority, and if things are going well, then, and, you know, generally that portends better for Republicans. But historically, of course, incumbent presidents, generally don't, do great in midterms. But I think, you know, we're in such a different moment that maybe, that historical line won't apply. But I don't really see, the GOP Congress at least. I mean, I see Trump pushing for that, but I don't see the gop, Congress really trying hard enough to incentivize and motivate people, to vote for them in the midterms.
Bob Good: Well, it is a problem with Congress having essentially a constituency of one that Johnson and Thune have surrendered, to the president where they wait for the President to tell him what they think and what their agenda is. And so Congress isn't playing its role, in my view. When you take the economic side of it, before we come back to Iran for a moment, the economic side of it, the debt is literally double what it was when President Trump was first sworn in nine years ago. In 2017, at that point, the debt was 20 trillion. Now it's about 40 trillion on its way to $40 trillion, nearly 39 trillion. And so the consequence of the spending and the debt with the higher interest rates, the inflation and so forth, are felt on a whole other level than they were when President Trump was in office the first time. So it's slower to have the impact of his positive policies right now. And the interest rates are struggled because of the higher debt and because the bondholders demanding a greater return. The housing crisis is caused by a shortage because of illegals in the country getting housing subsidies, that are reducing supply. So there's all kinds of fact factors that weren't a factor to the degree they are in 2017 that are making it take longer. So we need to acknowledge that there's still issues, acknowledge the President's policies are heading us in the right direction, but don't pretend that there is not an affordability or inflationary crisis or an interest rate crisis and so forth. When it comes to Iran. I think most of Americans supported what we did last summer, trying to eliminate the threat to us by Operation midnight hammer, the 12 Day War, if you will, with the United States and Israel, the President said totally obliterating the nuclear threat. but if we focus on eliminating the threat and our safety and security, I think that's an 80, 90% issue for most Americans. What's been a struggle has been the President kind of all over the place on what is the mission, what is the end game. Hey, the war is over, but hey, it's just begun. Hey, we're just getting started. No, it's perfectly, it's almost completed. And is it regime change or not regime change? Is it reducing the threat or is it miga make Iran great again? Hey, we're going to pick the leader, but yet we've killed all the leaders. so that uncertainty, I think, is a problem. I think it'll be a problem if we're stuck in this quagmire. Come, you know, seven, eight months from now when you get to the election season, I think we need to focus on again, protecting the United States, eliminating the threat, not allowing Iran to have A nuclear capability. But regime change is a whole different animal. And how do you sustain that without American troops having a sustained presence, investment of our resources and so forth? And what would be set up over in Iran that be worth our time, effort, resources, risk to sustain? I'm not sure that the foundation is there to have anything that would be worth our long term support in that respect.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you know, really, wise comments and especially on the House and Senate leaders, basically just waiting for Trump's agenda and sort of abdicating their own responsibility. I mean, they are separate branch of government and this is a disservice ultimately to the American people when they don't take that seriously. And obviously, you know, we want a speaker and a majority leader that work with President Trump, but we don't want, those leaders to work for President Trump. And I've said that for a long time in why I love the DeSantis model in Florida where he works with President Trump, but definitely doesn't wait for President Trump to tell him what to do before he just actually does his role as governor anyway. And that's going to be the difficulty in finding a good replacement here. but that's, that's where I think that President Trump is misstepping as well. being in Kentucky, yesterday doing this rally attacking Representative Thomas Massie, who is one, you know, who votes like it's Heritage Action says, you know, 92% of the time conservative and with Trump's agenda, but just because he's vocally different on a few things, that makes him, you know, an enemy of Trump world. And I think it's such a misplaced view to say, you know, you all have to fall in line and, you know, be under the big foot of, you know, the shoe of Trump, rather than respecting the fact that it's a different branch and almost giving them the political freedom, and at least the, the media freedom to say, you know, go and pursue, your job and do that well while working with me and my agenda. And would that maybe give some of, especially the GOP members of the Senate a little bit more wiggle room politically to actually then vote for some of the things that the American people want?
Frank Pavone : Well, you're right.
Bob Good: When you get your certificate, as a winner of an election for a congressional race, you swear an oath to the Constitution and you're there to represent your constituents. You're there to do what you said you would do, to do what you believe is right, to fight for what you believe is best for the country. And best for your constituents. And but Speaker Johnson in particular is operating out of fear of being out of step with the President. So he waits for the President to get his marching orders where the Constitution is such that the House in particular and the Congress, more broadly is supposed to be the dominant branch and the President is supposed to execute the laws and the legislation and the policies that are passed by Congress, not to wait for the President to tell him what to do. And so it's really disappointing to see the President in Kentucky with all that's going on, all the priorities that he should have. He's focused on Kentucky. He doesn't even know who Ed Gowrayne is. He's lying about him on his qualifications and his merits and he's lying about Thomas Massie just because Thomas Massie only votes for the President Something like 92% of the time, but opposes foreign wars or opposes, getting involved in foreign intervention and opposes, you know, he supports releasing full release of the Epstein files and he opposes borrowing and spending money that we don't have. But loyalty with the President is too often a one way street. It's not a two way street. He demands total allegiance, total obedience, total surrender, total compliance. And he's trying to make an example once again over a principled, courageous, conservative member of Congress, to set an example to him, to say, hey, don't get out of line, don't get out of step. Wait for me to tell you what you stand for, wait for me to tell you what you think. I set the agenda. He's even the President even said, all I want is to say back in this Congress, I don't want anything else for the rest of this Congress except just the SAVE Act. And unfortunately I suspect that Johnson and Boone will try to comply with that request instead of trying to do what they believe to be best for the country in terms of what's needed. Lots of things Congress needs to do if, they're doing the right thing. Obviously the first thing, do no harm. And most of what they do is bad. But that shouldn't be the case with full control of government by Republicans.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and nobody knows the truth of what you're saying more strongly than you, Bob, good. Because you were a target of, President Trump's ire, for merely disagreeing with him on a couple of issues and particularly your support of Governor DeSantis, in the Republican primary. And it's a primary where, you know, we're allowed to have opinions on who the best candidate is. And I think it's an utter shame, that he went after your primary and that you're no longer in Congress because you were one of the best members, you know, the chair of the Freedom Caucus, and you know, that actually cripples the overall agenda to go after members for personal reasons and for personal vendettas. Instead of looking at this as a separate, but co. Equal branch of government that's vested with a totally different constitutional obligation and working hand in hand, instead of saying, you know, you just need to be under my thumb. So I think that's a huge misstep. but, you know, over, under.
Jenna: Bob, on whether SAVE act will make it through Congress
In just the last 30 seconds we have here, on whether you think the SAVE act will actually make it through
Bob Good: this Congress, I would say it's less likely than likely, because John Thune doesn't seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to get it through the Senate. I'm hopeful, but, I'm not terribly optimistic. I would say it's, it's less than 50% chance.
Jenna Ellis: Well, we need to be praying for those odds. And, Bob, good. Really appreciate it, appreciate your candor, as always, because, you know, the truth of these matters really needs to be called out. We need to be praying, for President Trump, praying for all of our leaders to do the right thing. Don't make this a, about personal politics. Make it about ultimately what's right and actually executing your office on behalf of we, the people who are supposed to represent. So as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr dot net.
Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God, not government
: Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: 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.
Jeremy Carle withdraws his nomination for Assistant Secretary of State
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, March 12, and, you know, we have been long frustrated as conservatives with this particular GOP Senate not, really having the majority to pass Trump's priorities. There are a lot of reasons, for that. And it seems like Majority Leader John Thune is just not prioritizing, the Save America act, among other things, but also when it comes to presidential appointments. M. It was really disappointing to me, quite frankly, to read this from our friend Jeremy Carle, who is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, former research fellow at the Hoover Institute, and he, was under consideration as Assistant Secretary of State for, International Organization affairs, and he posted this yesterday. This will be a bit more formal than usual, but I wanted to announce that I'm withdrawing my nomination for consideration as Assistant Secretary of State on. I'm tremendously grateful to President Trump for nominating me and then, upon expiration of my original nomination, renominating me for this role. And I am also grateful to Secretary Rubio and his team for their continued support throughout this long and time consuming process. The fact they chose to nominate me and were so supportive of my candidacy was many indications that this is an administration that was not satisfied to simply do business as usual, nor simply pick nominees from the same stable of business as usual possibilities. Unfortunately, for senior positions such as this one, the support of the President and Secretary of State is very important, but not sufficient. We also needed the unanimous support of every GOP Senator on the Committee on Foreign Relations, given the unanimous opposition of Senate Democrats to my candidacy. And unfortunately, at this time, unanimous support was not forthcoming. And he goes on to, kind of describe, you know, under a constitutional system, this is advice and consent, of course, for, for positions such as this one. And appointments is necessary. That's part of the process. But I think it reveals something deeper about the state of the GOP right now, that not only is opposing President Trump's agenda, but they're actively supporting the deep state and these business as usual candidates, rather than giving President Trump, who won the election by a landslide, giving him, the appointments that he is choosing, unless there's some, you know, really good reason to oppose. This always comes down to partisan politicking. And the gop, as the party of the sitting president, really has no good reason to oppose, the majority, the vast majority of President Trump's nominees, but particularly Jeremy Carl, who's been a friend to this show and we've had on, many times previously. So let's welcome him in this morning. Again, an author and fellow at the Claremont Institute. And Jeremy, this is, like I said, very disappointing, but, what does this say to you about the broader state of this GOP Senate when it comes to lacking support for President Trump?
Jeremy Carl: Jenna, thanks so much for having me on. I mean, I think it's obviously disappointing. it's not entirely surprising, sadly. I was always very clear eyed going into this process about some of the challenges that were going to be there, despite having the support of the White House and, very senior members of the State Department. I think it's just, Look, I mean, I'm not going to bash all senators with the same, sort of, you know, kind of broad brush. I think we've got some really good folks. But the bottom line is, we need everybody and right now we don't have everybody. And you're seeing that problem with passing things like the Save America act, and you're also seeing that with things like my nomination.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So why don't we have everybody? I mean, I know that there are, you know, the GOP is kind of a wide swath. we're not, you know, together and lockstep the way that the Democrats are. I mean, that's very clear. And it's fine, you know, overall to have differing opinions and all of that, but when it comes to things that are really basic and obvious, like the Save America Act, I mean, that's something that, that seems like opposition to that and not having all of the votes is out of step with the GOP as an entire party.
Jeremy Carl: Yeah, I think, it's frustrating. It's disappointing. I mean, I think it's just sort of a matter of record that Senator Thune is certainly not one of the more conservative or Trump supporting members of the caucus. And he's obviously the leader. he was not, the leader in my particular case. The committee I needed to get through was Senator Risch, from Idaho. but, you know, we've just got, we've got some very significant issues and I think we've got a lot of Senators, unfortunately, who are not really at heart particularly aligned with the President or even more importantly, with the President's agenda. And they have a lot of good ways in the Senate to kind of stymie that.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And so, you know, this isn't, unique, unfortunately, to your nomination. Are you aware of other candidates like yourself and other, nominees that have been stymied in this same way?
Jeremy Carl: Well, there are. There was another Assistant Secretary of State nominee who I know came under similar things. And then of course, there's a lot of people, that you don't even get to this point because their ways that they have, making sure that in fact, in my particular case, I, think the Senate. And look, I mean, I have said some things, that were controversial, at least to Democrats light, given that, you know, if they are the people kind of driving the agenda and we're not pushing back on that, very publicly. So I was a very target rich environment for them. But that didn't mean that, you know, there wasn't ample opportunity to, offer a spirited defense of me. I would say, you know, the kind of way this often works is they just don't even put you before the Senate. And that's kind of what happened the first time. I sort of. My nomination languished for six months without being taken up by the committee. And then the President came back and immediately renominated me when my nomination expired. And that was sort of a symbol, a signal to the Senate from the White House that, hey, we really want this guy. We're not just going to let you ignore him and pretend that, you're doing your job. and so at least at that point, they kind of gave, in said uncle and put me up, before the committee. But the sort of typical, institutional support that I think would have been needed to get me through, I don't think the blocking and tackling, frankly, was done there.
Jenna Ellis: You know, and when you mention things that are controversial, past statements, I mean, these are things that are basic positions of any genuine conservative. I mean, you know, certainly, you know, there are. There are things that, obviously opinions, you know, that people like you and I have taken that are. That are controversial, in a sense. But at the same time, I mean, what is that signal that, in order for the GOP to be willing to put forward and support a candidate, they have to basically not offer any, any worldview or any perspective on who they are? I mean, it's almost like in the Supreme Court nominations that everybody pays attention to because they're the Supreme Court. They rarely pay attention to some of these other nominees for other positions going through the Senate, in those confirmation hearings and all that. It's almost like it's way better to have been so vanilla and have signaled nothing, done nothing controversial, basically been a robot for your entire career previously. Otherwise, you're too controversial, you're too firebrand to get through the Senate. And President Trump, really doesn't operate that way. But it seems like the GOP is doing that kind of business as usual tack instead of championing people that maybe are a little controversial, but are controversial in a good way, that are putting forward conservative values. I mean, look at James Tallarico. The Democrats are supporting him and he's really controversial, like in a bad way.
Jeremy Carl: That's exactly right. And I mean, I think it's the discouraging thing. I think I wrote at one point something to the effect of, people like me who have taken very public positions, you know, we're sort of designed by, to kind of be rejected by the immune system of Washington D.C. as a sort of foreign body because, we're out there taking conservative positions. And I think, you know, the other thing, of course, if for people who listened to the hearing, since they just had the Democrats teeing off on me, you would have heard things. They were like, well, you know, who is this guy? You know. And of course my positions, were totally misrepresented, by the Democrats in many cases, saying the exact opposite of positions that I've taken to make me look, as alarming as possible. And look, the reality is I spent a decade as the right hand man of Ronald Reagan, Secretary of State, the late George Shultz, I worked at some of the, very distinguished think tanks, et cetera. I mean, I'm not a crazy person. I'm not actually, some sort of ideological extremist. And if I were, I wouldn't have been in the roles that I've been in. But of course, if the Democrats are simply able to offer that type of narrative, and we're not pushing back, and in my case we had, I think, unfortunately, one such Senator John Curtis, who was the only senator, on record against me, from our side, who is the former Democratic Party chair of Utah, county in, Utah, so that's kind of what I'm up against. I mean primaries do matter and I can't speculate Particularly I didn't have a chance, unfortunately to talk to Senator Curtis before the hearing. But I think it was pretty clear that his mind was fairly made up, when he walked in the door, and he was going to sort of buy the Democrat narrative. And that was unfortunately pretty disappointing.
Jenna Ellis: That is really disappointing to buy the Democrat narrative instead of trust, the president and also give you an opportunity to simply respond, to potential concerns. I mean, you know, this kind of attack of not even calling up your nomination, seems to be how they just try to wait out the clock. And So, you know, moving forward, what would be, what do you think should be the lesson for the White House here to try to maybe change this sort of business as usual attack that the Senate is taking?
Jeremy Carl: Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's, unfortunately.
I do think there was some blocking and tackling, obviously
I wish I could say that, wow, there's a quick, you know, where we could just snap our fingers and make things better. I do think that there is some blocking and tackling things. And again, I want to be careful and responsible here. I don't want to speculate as to where exactly, the you know, communication might not have been ideal. But I think the bottom line is, there was. I think there needed to be. The senators, on our side needed to be a little bit more prepared to offer the very reasonable defenses of me and my record, that they could have offered, before the Senate. And we, had put me up, unfortunately, and were clearly, for whatever reason, we were not prepared to do that. And so I think in that sort of situation, obviously, you should be in a position where you either don't put the candidate up or you prepare that defense. So I think just a little bit more blocking and tackling, obviously. But then I think beyond that, we have an issue in primaries. I mean, we've just. We've got a number of these senators. And I'm not even going to say it's most. I don't think it's most. But you don't, you don't need, that many to block the president and the president's agenda. and on a committee you just need one to say no and nobody's going anywhere. assuming unanimous, Democratic opposition, which any good, conservative candidate is frequently going to have.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, and you know, when we're dealing with, you know, such a slim majority, it's not like, you know, you can, you can lose multiple senators and you can say, okay, you know, this 15% you can lose, and it's fine. I mean, we're working with, you know, such the bare minimum that's needed, you know, that matters.
Jeremy Karl: This is really scary heading into the midterms
And so, in just the last minute or so, we have with you Jeremy Karl, heading into the midterms. you know, this is. This is really scary. And I'm not sure it looks like, the GOP is going to increase the numbers in the Senate at all.
Jeremy Carl: Yeah, I mean, it's, it's concerning. I mean, I think midterms are always tough. but one of the ways that you make midterms better is that you fight for your agenda and you fight for, your nominees. And I think we're seeing with the Save America act right now that we are not, successfully, other than kind of doing theater, perhaps, fighting for that agenda. And in my case, I was a person who was supported by a lot of very influential people in our conservative base. and frankly, you know, we didn't get a lot of fight, for me, from various quarters where we could have gotten it. And that is inevitably discouraging to a lot of people who matter. So, you know, I just hope we can do a better job with that sort of thing in the future. I'm very supportive of the president and his agenda and his team. And, you know, I'm sort of moving onward and upward. I still have a lot of, personal opportunities that are great, but I think we've got to move forward in a better way.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. Because, you know, the country now is, ah, not benefiting from you being in this position. And while, you know, I know that this isn't going to hamper you in your career path at all, it is sad that, you know, the United States and the Trump administration won't benefit from your appointment. So, Jeremy, ah, Carl, really appreciate it. Thanks so much for coming on and describing this. And, you know, we've got to do better, folks. I mean, this is where, the gop, we need to be very selective in primaries and then, you know, just fight hard for the right people is really the bottom line. So we'll be right back with more.
Representative Andy Ogles from Tennessee has stirred controversy on X
: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of, you know, some interesting members of Congress, Representative Andy Ogles from Tennessee has, gotten into a lot of controversy on X that I think we need to talk about from a biblical and also, constitutionally accurate perspective. because these, these posts on X are meant to be bombastic. They're meant to be Firebrand and to not really thread the needle having any sort of nuance. I mean, that's kind of what X is. I mean everybody is just kind of lobbing bombs everywhere. you know, so it's, it's one of those things that I think it's intentionally trying to generate more of a conversation. But you know, some of what he's posted has said things like this. Muslims don't belong in American society, Pluralism is a lie, Multiculturalism is nowhere in the Constitution. One nation, one culture. he said things like, paperwork doesn't make you an American citizen, and if you can't assimilate, then you need to be deported. You know, so some of these things, of course, then, even members of the GOP are calling for, the tip for him to be condemned, censure, you know, whatever. And there are a lot of people even on the right who are suggesting that this is Islamophobic, this is anti Muslim, you know, et cetera, et cetera. but we need to talk about this and, and maybe what he's actually driving at from a non bombastic perspective and talk about the fact that the founders didn't actually create a religiously neutral America. The First Amendment actually only limited Congress initially. It says Congress shall make no law. Right? States were free to support Christianity and some did even into the 1800s. And so the idea that the government must be religiously neutral came later through the 14th Amendment incorporation and the Supreme Court's decisions. And so the founders originally wanted to avoid national interdenominational fights, but not erase Christianity from public life. Suggestions that pluralism was part of a secular democracy and America didn't start as a secular pluralist state. that came later, unfortunately, through the 20th century and largely through the Supreme Court's, erasure of what the First Amendment and the founding overall was intended for.
Father Frank Pavone: America wasn't founded as a secular, godless society
So let's welcome in, Father Frank Pavone, who's founder of the Priests for Life. And Frank, I'm really glad that you're joining me for this conversation because, you know, while I think that Andy Ogles is, is being far too flip, on purpose, I mean, this is X, right? I think that what he's actually driving at is a deeper point, that America wasn't founded as a secular, godless, post truth society. And it's okay for us to point that out and to say that there have been moments along our, constitutional path, whether it's Supreme Court, poor or wrong interpretation, or even amendments that have been crafted that haven't actually been, good for America. And that, in my opinion, should be repealed. And we can fight for a Christian nation in the sense and context that the founders established it, without. Without kind of some of these statements that are really easy targets for the left to just say, well, you know, you don't get what, being in American memes.
Frank Pavone : Well, yes, Jenna, it's great to hear you talk about these things. And, you know, this is a debate that really can be resolved with a few key distinctions, without trying to, you know, settle the whole argument by sound bites. And of course, that's one of the. The drawbacks of. Of social media, which, overall is a tremendous tool for us to be using. But. But it's. The distinction simply is this, that there is an American culture. There is a, there are basic bedrock foundations and boundaries to what it means to be an American. and then in that sense, there are certain cultures, and worldviews that are completely incompatible with the America that we have inherited from our founders. For example, the very notion that all are created equal, that they should be treated equal, due process, presumption of innocence. yes, there's freedom of religion, but we don't allow religions that would, you know, sacrifice babies on the altar or sacrifice any human lives on the altar as part of their worship. We would say, wait a minute, we're going to draw the line there. So America establishes certain bedrock principles and boundaries, but within those, and upon that foundation allows for an awful lot of diversity. And those two things are quite compatible. We want there to be multiple cultures, multiple religions, a lot of freedom, different philosophies, the freedom of speech, et cetera. We don't want, cultures coming into America that are going to overturn, those basic principles of respect for life, for justice, for truth, and for freedom itself. When it comes to Islam in particular, we know that so many of its tenets are simply incompatible with Western civilization. That case has been made very strongly, especially, in recent years. And we have to recognize that as Americans. The other thing we have to recognize, which you already brought out and which has been emphasized by the way, by this Religious Liberty Commission that the president established and which has been meeting every month, is another meeting coming up on Monday. In fact, I'll be there for that in D.C. is that the founders were not at all neutral, about religion. they allowed. They created a nation where people could embrace whatever religious faith they want. But at the same time, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged historically, this is a Christian nation. But the founders said, look, we have duties toward God. In fact, if you start talking about religious freedom, the reason for religious freedom is precisely that the human individual has duties to the creator and therefore the government can't stop that person from fulfilling those duties because they come from a higher authority. So it's the very existence of God and the acknowledgement of God that are the very basis for religious freedom. Our founders were not like, oh, let's put, you know, faith and atheism on the same plane, on the same level. They're not. In fact, they said without religion and morality, this government would not succeed. I think those are some of the key distinctions for this, you know, debate that has, that has arisen.
Frank Pavone: Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and American values
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you, you absolutely anticipated my next question, Frank Pavone, which is that, you know, when you're talking about how Islam is fundamentally incompatible with some of those basic tenets of, Christianity and just basic truth and, and the, the truth of the reality to which we're presented and as our founders recognized, the law of nature and of nature's God and how truth is discoverable, and it's objective. And you know, they say that very clearly in the declaration, people in this country who are practicing a religion that is so fundamentally at odds and incompatible with not, just our values as Americans, but even our law and our policy, things like the respect for life, and even, you know, when you have people like, you know, who are these progressive post truth atheists? I mean we're not just talking about Muslims. We are right now in the context of, you know, the war with Iran, you know, so many, ways that we've seen how, you know, Sharia law is trying to kind of crop up and pervade, you know, some US Cities, so that's kind of been the focus right now. But, equally damaging to the American experiment, are people who are the extreme progressive leftists that live in a post truth, society and who are suggesting that there is no God and that the separation of church and state means that we have to abide by a secular worldview in government and excise God and religion entirely from our law and policy. And that's fundamentally incompatible as well with America. And so the question then becomes, you know, while we can and should, and part of the First Amendment's freedom and liberty is to debate these issues without fear of, you know, government punishment, when it actually comes down to law and policy, those ideas really shouldn't be given any Foothold, much less, any sort of, validation in Supreme Court opinions. But we've seen that over the last, you know, 60 plus years where an outrageous Supreme Court has, taken these ideas and run with it and made a pluralistic society almost a creation of jurisprudence and an invention out of thin air that doesn't actually respect America's founding. And so the question, of course becomes, how do we get back on track and fight for these types of, truth, fight for these areas of truth without being necessarily as frankly crude as someone like, Andy Ogles?
Frank Pavone : Well, I think we get back on track and I think we are getting back on track because eventually if you try to build a pluralistic society, now let's take those three words, a pluralistic society. People focus on pluralistic, but it's still a society. You're talking in the singular. So there have to be things that hold the singular together. If it's one society, there have to be certain things that everyone accepts. And the inherent self destructiveness of a pluralism that denies God, truth and morality is that you lose the basis for that unity. Some people will say, you know, oh, well, you know, let's just, you know, let's allow all these different worldviews. And if I don't want to believe in truth, you know, I have my truth, you have yours, and all this nonsense, you know, as if we all write our own commandments. But then they'll also say, well, let's just live together in peace, you know, let's just, you know, get along. Let everybody have their own viewpoint. But in reality that breaks down because if you're, denying the very existence of truth, well, then you can't have dialogue anymore. There's no basis for conversation because there's no truth out there that the two of you can, who are discussing things, can, can, can latch onto. there's no basis anymore for unity if you deny God. Because if there's no God, why should there be any morality? And why shouldn't it just be, hey, listen, if I want your possessions, I can take them. Who's going to say anything about it? Why?
Frank Pavone : Oh, but it's against the law. Well, why should there be any law if there's no God behind it? You know, it all breaks down. It doesn't work in practice. And I say, as I said at the outset, you know, we're starting to get to the, the way we get out of this is when you hit the brick wall, I call it. I've spoken, with you before on this program about this, the dead end rule. If I go down a dead end road and I ignore the signs that say it's a dead end, I will soon learn by personal experience that it's a dead end. And so what we end up finding out is that when things blow up in our faces or society becomes so unstable, and then we start asking, with all the violence, you know, how did we get here? That's when people begin to exercise the kind of introspection and, you know, deep reflection and hopefully prayerful reflection. yeah, how did I get here? Why are there so many shootings, you know, in the street? Well, maybe it's because we took down the Ten Commandments from the classroom that said something simple like, thou shalt not kill, or, you know, thou shalt not steal. You know, why are so. People get so. They hyperventilate about, oh, you're putting the Bible or the Commandments back into schools. You mean to say that you don't want neighborhoods where people don't steal and don't kill? Those are the things that the commandments in the Bible are saying. What is so outrageous, oppressive, and controversial about that? We all want that, and yet we don't want to admit the sources from which that comes. That's, I think, how we need to look at this.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and everyone wants the benefits of a Christian society without the accountability of one. I mean, that's what it really boils down to. And, you know, when we're talking about religious pluralism, I mean, you know, defining that or drilling down a little further, you know, this goes beyond tolerance. and, you know, this is about a philosophical approach that often involves the belief that various religions are different yet valid responses to the same ultimate reality. And this is where I think we need to draw the distinction between what the First Amendment in its, original form and context understood, that we're not punishing someone for having a different idea or asking genuine questions, but the government is not going to legitimize or validate as truth something that is false or come from a different perspective of reality than fundamentally understanding that truth is derived from the law of nature and of nature's God. And so, you know, a great example of this, Frank Pavone, is Charlie Kirk, right? Where he went and engaged people of all kinds of different worldviews. And he engaged them respectfully and, you know, didn't punish them, didn't laugh at them, didn't humiliate them, bully them, you know, anything like that, and engaged in a respectful dialogue, but never gave validation to any aspect of a worldview. And that was fundamentally incompatible with the truth of Christianity. And that's where our government, frankly, needs to draw that same line and to say, you know, we can appreciate dialogue, we can appreciate, you know, these, these spirited debates in our policy, but we're not going to legitimize and act as if, the secular humanist playing field is the reality of our policy playground. It is not, to suggest that we don't approach policy from a fundamentally Christian, truthful worldview. And I think that this is where pluralism, it has been offered as some kind of, ah, antidote to the, to the diversity that we see among religions. Just say, well, everybody's opinion is equally valid. You know, your truth is your truth, my truth is my truth. And we've seen now, you know, 60 plus years later, how that is so incompatible with a cohesive, unified, as you call it, a society. Because a society that is so fractured and so different and coming from so many different approaches can't possibly follow the same law.
Frank Pavone : It can't be a society. It can't. There's no basis for unity anymore. You know, another way of saying what you're saying is that pluralism is not absolute. the founders acknowledge certain truths in the Declaration particularly, and in the Constitution, there are certain truths that there is a God. He's a God of providence, he's a God of justice, he's a God of truth. He's the source of rights. These are all truths that are asserted by our founders. So obviously they're setting up a system here that says, look, here are the things we all accept now, within that framework, the government is not going to be, going to have a truth board. In fact, you know, as you well know, we've seen in recent years, you know, under the Biden administration, for example, the, attempts, to set up, you know, these boards, commissions of truth, you know, as if the government is going to be the arbiter of what's true and false. And fortunately, you know, under President Trump, we've, you know, we've abandoned that. We've gotten away from that, you know, and this is why you get away, this is why you get away from censorship too. Because the response to falsehood being spewed by whoever is spewing it, whether it's in the media, academia, or in a conversation in someone's backyard, is not to censor the speech, but to fill the speech with more speech that defends the truth. So the government is not going to be the arbiter of what's true in various people's opinions. But it has to be the arbiter of those truths which are required for society to hold together in the first place. and, you know, when I speak about moral relativism, I tell a funny story of, you know, how this breaks down in practice. You know, the guy is sitting with, sitting among a small group and saying, well, you know, what do you think about, you know, what's right and what's wrong? And that woman sitting across from him is saying, well, you know, my morality is mine and, and yours is yours. You know, you just have to do whatever you think your morality is. So then he reaches over and takes her purse and she says, what are you doing? Because, well, I'm taking your purse. You can't do that. I says, well, that's your morality. Mine is that I can have it, you know, and it breaks down right away in reality if you try to actually live out this relativism. So the government obviously is founded on certain principles that cannot be, cannot, be denied. And ultimately, again, as we've been saying, the founders recognize that the safeguard of all that is in fact the Christian truth. And there's no question this is a Christian nation. And it doesn't mean every citizen has to be a Christian. It means we have to abide by certain fundamental truths.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. Amen.
Father Frank Pavone: There are certain essential truths that we agree on
And so, well said. I mean, this is, I just want to underscore what you said earlier, Frank Pavone, which is that there are certain essential truths of reality that we all have to agree on as basic assumptions coming into the argument. I mean, it's the same thing, that they, they teach us in law school. You know, with contract law, if you are going to have a meeting of the minds and actually engage in the formation of a contract, then you have to understand certain terms in the same way. They have to have the same meaning, the same definitions. And what we're experiencing right now in American society is a different set of moral definitions and really a different set meaning to reality that there is no meeting of the minds. And so when you have something like in Congress, July 4, 1776, this unanimous declaration of the 13 United States of America saying we hold these truths to be self evident, they were saying, here are the basic assumptions by which our society is formed and that we are approaching a legitimate civil government. These are the things on which we all agree. And then within that context and that framework, then we can debate. And they did vigorously, the, the, ultimately the ratification of the Constitution in its, original sense and how power should be separated, all of those things. But they didn't disagree or debate on the truth, the self evident truth of reality as it's presented and the laws of nature and the supreme authority of God himself. And that's what we need to get back to as a society. And we've got to take a break here. But, this, this needs to longer discussion, of course, as it always has to be. but, Father Frank Pavone, I so appreciate this because, you know, when we're talking about something like multiculturalism, pluralism, or you know, do Muslims belong in American society and how Islam is so incompatible with the Constitution, what we're really talking about is the basic assumptions by which we approach the whole idea of legitimacy in government. And if we aren't aligned and don't have a universal, view and a unanimous declaration that truth is, we can't even begin to have these debates. And that's what we're seeing in our society and especially in our Congress right now. So, Frank Pavone, always love and appreciate you so much. We'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Bob Good: Republicans should use midterm elections as motivation to advance conservative policies
: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And you know, we've been talking about the, fundamental difficulties of dealing with, the gop, particularly in Washington. and you know, some of this talk about religious pluralism and this diversity of views over reality and that filtering of course into, what constitutes a legitimate government, what constitutes the best policy. all of these perspectives, of course, are derived from, the worldview that you hold. And seeing that there is such a diversity among the GOP members, that's actually not a good thing when it comes to advancing conservative policy. And so, what does this portend for the midterms? Well, let's welcome in Bob Good, who's a former Virginia congressman and no stranger to, the difficulties of diversity of opinion, in Washington. And so, Bob Good, really great to to speak with you this morning. And you know, this, this forecast I think is, is grim for the GOP if they don't pass the SAVE act and kind of get it together to at least have some, some unanimity on some of the basics.
Bob Good: Great to be with you, Jenna. Thanks for having me. Yes, the Republicans, could be in strong position at the midterms if they would use this, this year in the midterm election as inspiration and Motivation, incentive to go big and bold and courageous and conservative and to do the things that they ran on, to fight for the things they say they stand for, and to deliver for the American people versus to be careful and timid and benign and vanilla in fear of the midterms. You know, the Democrats, when they had full control of government, you know, in the same situation four years ago, they went bold and aggressive to enact the radical agenda out of fear they might lose the midterms. but their policies are wrong and harmful for the country, of course, where Republican stated policies anyway are right and helpful for the country. And I think the American people will reward them. Right now they're running on raising the debt limit last year by $5 trillion. They're going to run on $40 trillion in continuing Biden's Covid budget, $2 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. But it would be a big win for the American people to try to address issues with our election, to your point, with the SAVE act, to ensure voter id, to ensure that only American citizens can vote in our elections. and they ought to be willing to obviously fight with everything they've got to accomplish that, as well as, in my view, passing a second reconciliation bill that they can pass with just 50 votes, but this time using it to shrink government, to cut spending, to put us on a path to fiscal stability.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it just seems like this is so obvious and we've been talking about this, this week and you know, in the context of what, the voting issues might be in November and, you know, how do you think that as we're entering day 12 of the middle east conflict, this, is going to play out in, in terms of, where the voting base is going to be looking at. I mean, obviously the economy is always the biggest priority, and if things are going well, then, and, you know, generally that portends better for Republicans. But historically, of course, incumbent presidents, generally don't, do great in midterms. But I think, you know, we're in such a different moment that maybe, that historical line won't apply. But I don't really see, the GOP Congress at least. I mean, I see Trump pushing for that, but I don't see the gop, Congress really trying hard enough to incentivize and motivate people, to vote for them in the midterms.
Bob Good: Well, it is a problem with Congress having essentially a constituency of one that Johnson and Thune have surrendered, to the president where they wait for the President to tell him what they think and what their agenda is. And so Congress isn't playing its role, in my view. When you take the economic side of it, before we come back to Iran for a moment, the economic side of it, the debt is literally double what it was when President Trump was first sworn in nine years ago. In 2017, at that point, the debt was 20 trillion. Now it's about 40 trillion on its way to $40 trillion, nearly 39 trillion. And so the consequence of the spending and the debt with the higher interest rates, the inflation and so forth, are felt on a whole other level than they were when President Trump was in office the first time. So it's slower to have the impact of his positive policies right now. And the interest rates are struggled because of the higher debt and because the bondholders demanding a greater return. The housing crisis is caused by a shortage because of illegals in the country getting housing subsidies, that are reducing supply. So there's all kinds of fact factors that weren't a factor to the degree they are in 2017 that are making it take longer. So we need to acknowledge that there's still issues, acknowledge the President's policies are heading us in the right direction, but don't pretend that there is not an affordability or inflationary crisis or an interest rate crisis and so forth. When it comes to Iran. I think most of Americans supported what we did last summer, trying to eliminate the threat to us by Operation midnight hammer, the 12 Day War, if you will, with the United States and Israel, the President said totally obliterating the nuclear threat. but if we focus on eliminating the threat and our safety and security, I think that's an 80, 90% issue for most Americans. What's been a struggle has been the President kind of all over the place on what is the mission, what is the end game. Hey, the war is over, but hey, it's just begun. Hey, we're just getting started. No, it's perfectly, it's almost completed. And is it regime change or not regime change? Is it reducing the threat or is it miga make Iran great again? Hey, we're going to pick the leader, but yet we've killed all the leaders. so that uncertainty, I think, is a problem. I think it'll be a problem if we're stuck in this quagmire. Come, you know, seven, eight months from now when you get to the election season, I think we need to focus on again, protecting the United States, eliminating the threat, not allowing Iran to have A nuclear capability. But regime change is a whole different animal. And how do you sustain that without American troops having a sustained presence, investment of our resources and so forth? And what would be set up over in Iran that be worth our time, effort, resources, risk to sustain? I'm not sure that the foundation is there to have anything that would be worth our long term support in that respect.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you know, really, wise comments and especially on the House and Senate leaders, basically just waiting for Trump's agenda and sort of abdicating their own responsibility. I mean, they are separate branch of government and this is a disservice ultimately to the American people when they don't take that seriously. And obviously, you know, we want a speaker and a majority leader that work with President Trump, but we don't want, those leaders to work for President Trump. And I've said that for a long time in why I love the DeSantis model in Florida where he works with President Trump, but definitely doesn't wait for President Trump to tell him what to do before he just actually does his role as governor anyway. And that's going to be the difficulty in finding a good replacement here. but that's, that's where I think that President Trump is misstepping as well. being in Kentucky, yesterday doing this rally attacking Representative Thomas Massie, who is one, you know, who votes like it's Heritage Action says, you know, 92% of the time conservative and with Trump's agenda, but just because he's vocally different on a few things, that makes him, you know, an enemy of Trump world. And I think it's such a misplaced view to say, you know, you all have to fall in line and, you know, be under the big foot of, you know, the shoe of Trump, rather than respecting the fact that it's a different branch and almost giving them the political freedom, and at least the, the media freedom to say, you know, go and pursue, your job and do that well while working with me and my agenda. And would that maybe give some of, especially the GOP members of the Senate a little bit more wiggle room politically to actually then vote for some of the things that the American people want?
Frank Pavone : Well, you're right.
Bob Good: When you get your certificate, as a winner of an election for a congressional race, you swear an oath to the Constitution and you're there to represent your constituents. You're there to do what you said you would do, to do what you believe is right, to fight for what you believe is best for the country. And best for your constituents. And but Speaker Johnson in particular is operating out of fear of being out of step with the President. So he waits for the President to get his marching orders where the Constitution is such that the House in particular and the Congress, more broadly is supposed to be the dominant branch and the President is supposed to execute the laws and the legislation and the policies that are passed by Congress, not to wait for the President to tell him what to do. And so it's really disappointing to see the President in Kentucky with all that's going on, all the priorities that he should have. He's focused on Kentucky. He doesn't even know who Ed Gowrayne is. He's lying about him on his qualifications and his merits and he's lying about Thomas Massie just because Thomas Massie only votes for the President Something like 92% of the time, but opposes foreign wars or opposes, getting involved in foreign intervention and opposes, you know, he supports releasing full release of the Epstein files and he opposes borrowing and spending money that we don't have. But loyalty with the President is too often a one way street. It's not a two way street. He demands total allegiance, total obedience, total surrender, total compliance. And he's trying to make an example once again over a principled, courageous, conservative member of Congress, to set an example to him, to say, hey, don't get out of line, don't get out of step. Wait for me to tell you what you stand for, wait for me to tell you what you think. I set the agenda. He's even the President even said, all I want is to say back in this Congress, I don't want anything else for the rest of this Congress except just the SAVE Act. And unfortunately I suspect that Johnson and Boone will try to comply with that request instead of trying to do what they believe to be best for the country in terms of what's needed. Lots of things Congress needs to do if, they're doing the right thing. Obviously the first thing, do no harm. And most of what they do is bad. But that shouldn't be the case with full control of government by Republicans.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and nobody knows the truth of what you're saying more strongly than you, Bob, good. Because you were a target of, President Trump's ire, for merely disagreeing with him on a couple of issues and particularly your support of Governor DeSantis, in the Republican primary. And it's a primary where, you know, we're allowed to have opinions on who the best candidate is. And I think it's an utter shame, that he went after your primary and that you're no longer in Congress because you were one of the best members, you know, the chair of the Freedom Caucus, and you know, that actually cripples the overall agenda to go after members for personal reasons and for personal vendettas. Instead of looking at this as a separate, but co. Equal branch of government that's vested with a totally different constitutional obligation and working hand in hand, instead of saying, you know, you just need to be under my thumb. So I think that's a huge misstep. but, you know, over, under.
Jenna: Bob, on whether SAVE act will make it through Congress
In just the last 30 seconds we have here, on whether you think the SAVE act will actually make it through
Bob Good: this Congress, I would say it's less likely than likely, because John Thune doesn't seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to get it through the Senate. I'm hopeful, but, I'm not terribly optimistic. I would say it's, it's less than 50% chance.
Jenna Ellis: Well, we need to be praying for those odds. And, Bob, good. Really appreciate it, appreciate your candor, as always, because, you know, the truth of these matters really needs to be called out. We need to be praying, for President Trump, praying for all of our leaders to do the right thing. Don't make this a, about personal politics. Make it about ultimately what's right and actually executing your office on behalf of we, the people who are supposed to represent. So as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr dot net.
0:00 - 15:00 - Jeremy Carl, Fellow at The Claremont Institute discusses his withdrawal from consideration in Trump Administration
15:00 - 35:00 - Father Frank Pavone of Priests For Life joins to discuss Multiculturalism and the Constitution
35:00 - 49:00 - Bob Good, Former VA Congressman
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:
