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

 : 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 Mainland.

Oren McIntyre: Debate brewing over immigration policy ahead of 2026

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, March 5th. And as tensions are still escalating across the world and also across the country regarding, the airstrikes in Iran and what exactly this means Moving forward into 2026, a debate is brewing as well over the immigration policy that we have had and the immigration policy that we should have. And now for a long time, you know, conservatives, have kind of been of this mantra that legal immigration good and illegal immigration bad. But finally, I think we're kind of getting away from that simplistic of a narrative. And even, Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said yesterday on Fox News, if you don't align with the values of the United States and you don't respect our country, our culture, or our laws and our people, you are not welcome here. And this is a really strong statement from the Trump administration that hopefully, members of Congress, including, the new Sharia Law Caucus, that is considering, you know, who exactly are we importing and their values, their worldview, their culture, their, their processes, their view of family, of government, all of these things that don't just come by default, as human beings. these, these types of things need to be more thoroughly vetted. And not just vetted as in, okay, you know, maybe you're not going to be. Or we don't consider that you might be, a domestic terrorist or you might not be violent. And some of these people do end up, becoming violent, you know, years after they came here legally. And we've seen that, as recently as this week in Texas, this weekend, in a Texas, in Austin, you know, we need to more thoroughly consider whether people who are coming into this country actually understand what it means to be the west, what it means to have a civil society that is founded on Judeo Christian principles, what it means to have the nuclear family, what it means, to have religious freedom in this country, what it means to have the U.S. constitution. I mean, all of these things are being lost even by, some who have been, who are born here. I mean, when we're Seeing the great divide over politics right now, it's not just because of who we're importing, but it's also because of the worldview that we are importing. So let's welcome in Oren McIntyre, who is a host at the Blaze. And Orin, I think there does need to be a very serious conversation about our immigration law and not just closing loopholes, for illegal immigration, you know, for things like asylum, you know, legal immigration for things like asylum, or, you know, more thoroughly vetting, the mass deportations that President Trump promised. But I think we need to look more closely at even the world views that we are importing.

 Auron MacIntyre : Oh, I agree 100%. We've had this ridiculous notion in our country for a very long time now that paperwork is what makes someone American that's simply going through a process, getting some papers stamped, getting them filed somewhere. Now, all of a sudden, they're an American. And when they become an American, they'll just share all the values that Americans have. Once you're an American, you must just believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. You must believe that a moral and religious people are the foundation of the country, and that Christianity is the religion that should be informing that morality. But that's just not the case for the majority of the world, actually. American values are not innate. They're not something that they understand in their core because they're not part of their tradition. And when you import people who do not have that tradition and do not have that understanding, they don't magically become Americans because they filed paperwork or they touched our soil. What you need is an understanding that, there is a cultural continuity and a tradition, a heritage that reaches back and informs everything we believe in. The things we believe in are codified in the Constitution. And those things are critical and important, but they're a reflection of a longer tradition that we're tied to. And when you bring someone in from the Middle east who has centuries of Islamic belief, in their side, they've lived that way. Their entire family has lived that way. You know, there are a few people who can come in and change that, but ultimately, for most people, that is deeply rooted in who they are, and it's not going to change just because they crossed our border.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, we do have that audio from, Caroline Levitt. This is what she said on Fox News. Listen to this.

 : President Trump has done more to crack down on illegal immigration and, to strengthen our legal immigration system than any president in history. Several months ago, he announced a travel ban on 19 third world and failed state countries around the world. Secretary Noem announced tonight she's recommending that travel ban widens and covers more countries around the globe, special immigrant visas, which we know many Afghans have used to come into our country. There has been a complete suspension and pause on all of those. If you look at the entire visa process in general, we have greatly strengthened and heightened the vetting process and requirements for that under Secretary Rubio's leadership at the State Department. And he has used his authority, which is unprecedented, to actually revoke the visas of many individuals who, yes, came here legally but still pose a risk to our country and should have never been allowed in in the first place. And I would just remind people around the world that coming to the United States of America is a privilege. It is not a right. And if you abuse that privilege, and if you don't align with the values of the United States and you don't respect our country, our culture, our laws and our people, people, you are not welcome here. Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump.

Jenna Ellis: And I totally agree with that, Orin. And I think even, you know, to. To further your point, this type of worldview of American culture and of, the values that we hold dear and the constitutional principles of our founding, that's not just a byproduct of coming here, that somehow, tacitly, you know, we somehow get these values out of thin air. And that's also true for even the people who are citizens, who, you know, have, have. Are. Are. Are not, immigrants at all, but are Americans. this is a deeper problem even than immigration because the left, and Democrats as a whole are a segment of America that doesn't actually understand and hasn't assimilated to our values either. And I think we need to have a serious conversation about the divide in this country, where it's not just about importing the people that don't share our values, but importing the worldview that is, is not being passed on, to the next generation. And this is why, largely, we're seeing a lot of the problems that we are in government and in policy and in so many other, areas because we're not even teaching our own children, by and large, the American way of life. We're importing a worldview from other religions or, or godless worldviews. And we. Then we wonder why America is on this precipice of, you know, falling off the cliff when it's. It's so difficult to reason with someone that fundamentally doesn't share the same worldview.

 Auron MacIntyre : It's so true. You know, we misremember history. People will say, well, we assimilated the Germans and the Irish and the Italians, and so of course we could just assimilate anyone. But that's the wrong lesson to learn from that. We had to work really hard to assimilate all those groups, and they were largely European and Christian. I mean, we were to the point where we were still trying to break up German enclaves, well up into almost World War II. It took two World wars before we truly assimilated the German people to be fully American. And again, they were much closer to our tradition. They at least shared our faith. When we're talking about people who are coming from the Middle east, you know, believing in Sharia law, we're passing all these laws now. You know, Greg Abbott is talking about banning Sharia law in Texas. And I, agree with that. We should do that. But that misunderstands how the law works. You know, when you import people who believe in Sharia law, you're going to get Sharia law no matter how much you ban it. Because the law is, yes, a teacher, but it's also informed by the beliefs of the people who live in your country. So if you bring a bunch of people in who believe in that principle, even if you ban it, eventually it's going to come to power because that's how a representative republic works. When you change what the people believe in, then their representatives will also change what they believe in. And so it matters who you bring in here. We can't just keep bringing people in with radically different worldviews, whether it be, you know, secular humanism or radical Islam, and then expect us to maintain the different traditions that we've had here. The people matter. It's not just about the process.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know, the, the laws of any society reflect the values and the worldview of that society. From what we encourage, what we, what we promote and incentivize to also what we prohibit, what we criminalize and what we say, isn't okay. And we can see those differences between, constitutional law or supreme law of the land versus Sharia law and that whole legal system. And we're even seeing aspects of that contradiction, in so many of the blue states that have such ridiculous, laws that thankfully, at least the Supreme Court right now is, mostly conservative and they're willing to say, you know, no, parental rights still matter, for example, the Supreme Court case this week, commenting on California that, no, you can't just have teachers try to help, you know, gender transition minors and keep parents out of the process. I mean, that's something that is a law that fundamentally does not reflect an American worldview. And that's not just a problem with importing people. It's a problem with importing a different worldview than what America was founded on.

Elizabeth Hasselback made strong arguments for border control on The View this week

And there was no real greater display this week, I think, of this contrast than Elizabeth Hasselback, on the View, where the, the other women of the View just are screeching, you know, demons. I mean, they just, they are completely antithetical to a truthful biblical worldview. And Elizabeth Hasselbeck, basically shifted the over Overton window for what's acceptable to be said on the View. This is, you know, coming from a, a social media account. And she was on the, the panel as they were trashing Kristi Noem, and she was talking about ironclad arguments for the border that if you're in a context, Oren, where, you know, the other people at least fundamentally agree with your worldview, we just disagree on policy. This wouldn't be such a grenade that she's throwing to, you know, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and the rest. It would be a, yeah, we all agree on the principles of America, and. And then we can discuss how best to, implement policy that reflects that worldview. But right now we're at a point in the country where we don't agree on the fundamental values. I don't think we could get Congress right now to unanimously agree, even on the language of the Declaration of Independence. I mean, that's how far off, the rails we have gone. And so listen to what Elizabeth, ah, Hasselback has said. This is cut four.

 : I think all lives matter to God. and we're in uncommon times, so we need to have uncommon sense about things like this. Yes, there will be mistakes made. But I think if Kristi Nomer, up for promotion right now, and she put forward the statistics that zero illegals released into the US for 10 months straight have not crossed, okay, that nearly 3 million aliens have left the United States, that we have the lowest murder rate in 125 years, that fentanyl trafficking is down 56% at the border, and daily encounters have gone down 96%. Hang on one second. We need a strong border, especially now with our current global situation. And I believe that you may say you don't want border control and you're against ice. But I actually don't believe you. In your daily lives, how many people in the audience here had to go through security to get here? Raise your hand. Just be honest. Otherwise you go to jail, I guess, for legal trespassing. Right? This is an authorized audience. They had to go through security to get through the border, to get right here, to just hear us talk. We need strong borders more than ever. Right now. We are being infiltrated.

 : Can I give you a border?

 : When Renee Good and Alex Peretti were murdered, and death is not a mistake,

 : that is a murder, as were those killed by illegal immigrants.

Jenna Ellis: And then it just goes on. And of course, you know, immediately she's attacked by, like, all of the screeching, you know, ladies on the panel. But Orin, you know, to this point, she's just speaking facts, and nobody wants to hear that because the worldview of the rest of the panel is so anti American.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, I mean, she's, of course, making very logical arguments, but logic is not the problem here. I think most people, if you walk them through the basics of you lock your door, you have a gate around your house, maybe you live in a gated community, like, they understand this at school some level. But first, they just hate President Trump and the people that he represents. And so they're kind of de facto going to oppose this, even though for a very long time, you know, immigration was a problem for Democrats back. Back when Democrats used to pretend about labor and, you know, pretend like they cared about the working class. They understood that immigration was devastating to the working, man. And yet now they fully support it because Donald Trump, or they fully, oppose any immigration control because Donald Trump supports it. It's not that they don't get, at some level, the concept, but ultimately they don't care. They don't believe in things like assimilation. They don't believe in the idea that there needs to be a singular cultural idea in the United States. They want to watch the whole thing come apart. That's the point. They want the multiculturalism. They want a thousand little, you know, places where people are living different lives, living different ways. They think that somehow that's a benefit, even though that's literally been a nightmare all throughout history. You need something that holds the culture together, as we were speaking about previously, those traditions, those understandings, they don't just randomly arise the minute you cross in the United States. But for the View and much of their audience, that's not it. It's an emotive process. Somebody, you know, I hate my dad and Trump looks kind of like my dad, and he's telling me I can't have what I want. And that's why he's wrong.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and Oren, we've got to take a break here. so much more could be said on this topic. but, you know, the bottom line is that not only do we have to have more thorough vetting, we need to seriously consider who is actually beneficial to this country. But I'm going to also suggest that we need to assimilate even American citizens into this country, because people like these women on the View, they don't actually share fundamental American values because they are so anti America, anti God, anti everything that America stands for. They haven't actually assimilated either. And that doesn't mean, of course, you know, we'd say we deport them or, you know, any of those things, but the point is we need to be educating our children to understand what it actually means to be an American and that to say, centered on truth, the biblical worldview, and understanding the legitimate view of government, so that then when we get to these policy conversations, we can all actually agree on truth. We'll be right back.

California Governor Gavin Newsom says Trump knows Republicans will get crushed in midterms

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And California Governor Gavin Newsom said yesterday that President Trump knows Republicans will, quote, get crushed in this year's midterms, touting his state's approval of a redistricting proposal in November that handed more seats to Democrats. This coming from the Hill. and Newsom said, Trump is an historic president, historically unpopular. He's going to get crushed, shellacked in the midterms. He is. He's toast and he knows it. Why else did he call Texas Governor Greg Abbott, saying he's, quote, unquote, entitled to five seats in a mid decade redistricting. This was a conversation between Newsom and Jimmy Kimmel, of all people, because he knows that anybody else with, half a brain would, have laughed him out of that interview. but meanwhile, everyone is wondering on the right whether Trump will weigh in on the Texas runoff. Ah, for Senate between incumbent John Cornyn and challenger Ken Paxton. And, you know, it's funny. A Politico reported this morning, Capitol Agenda. Nervous GOP waits for Trump's Texas pick. one of the, Texas members, actually, of the legislature that I know very well won't name who it is, but texted me that and said no one inside of Texas is nervous with a laughing face emoji. Literally no one. because, at least according, to this rep. people want Paxton anyways. And, really, you know, that's not going to go well for Trump if he endorses Cornyn. I hope that that is actually the case. but, you know, midterms are really up in the air on a lot of fronts. I think it's going to be kind of a wild year. But let's welcome in, Matthew Peterson, who is the former chief editor at the Blaze and he else, he also is a Washington fellow at the Claremont Institute.

Matthew Bell: Gavin Newsom suggests that the mid decade census is biased

So, Matthew, overall, what's. What's your thought on, you know, Gavin Newsom suggesting. I mean, it's obviously just a cover that he's suggesting that, you know, the, the mid decade census is somehow just about getting more Republican seats, when it's actually about getting an accurate vote count and Republicans, I think, are actually owed more seats. but overall, your thoughts on this and the midterms in general?

Matthew Peterson: Well, thanks for having me on, Jenna. I mean, Newsom is so out of control. And you can see that regardless of Republican concerns about the midterms, you can see the Democrats talking with a lot of bravado because they know that their base is riled up. But the fundamental fact is they don't have leaders that excite the majority of the electorate. They still don't have a majority coalition coming out of last year's election. So they're in trouble. And they're in trouble in part because their scheme with the census has been called for the first time in a long time. People have been talking about how they've skewed the census results, they've manipulated the data, and they've done it in a way that's very favorable, no surprise to Democrats. And the fact that in Washington, we're finally putting an end to that game is upsetting to them. And, you know, that's too bad. That's going back to the principles of fairness that America is based on and making sure that we have secure and safe elections. So, you know, kudos to the Trump administration for that. There's got to be a lot more work done there. But, you know, Newsom is talking about this because they're afraid of the results.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And, you know, Democrats for a long time have just, tried to game the system in so many different ways, and they haven't been held accountable on it. And it seems like Donald Trump, with all of the other ways that, you know, I wish he actually would hold, some people accountable. And, you know, whether people want to call that retribution or Just going after justice. I, think there are some things that, you know, he should be doing, but I think, that this in particular is, is something that not only affects the entire nation, but is just requiring Democrats to play by the rules. And that's just something that they're not accustomed to and they haven't been doing for a really long time.

Matthew Peterson: No. And I mean, just, I think most people, it's hard to even wrap your mind around the fact that these blue states are, you know, welcoming in illegal immigrants so that they can count in the census. And it reminds one of slavery. It's like slave states, you know, wanting to count, all the slaves so that they have more power, so they can commit more acts of injustice. And that's, you know, that's really what it boils down to. So there's a lot of, other ways in which they skew the census, but they're concerned about that. They're screaming and shouting about it. But the fact remains that they don't have the kind of leadership they need. And outside of blue states where they've really engineered the system, these one party states, they're still in the same trouble they were before. Now, that doesn't mean that there's not going to be a backlash on their side. They're definitely ready to come out and vote and of course they're, you know, activated against Donald Trump. But the question remains, the midterms, is that going to be enough to put them over the top in the places where it matters?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and that really is the question. And, how do you analyze that?

Matthew Peterson: Well, I think a lot, a lot, a lot of this depends upon, I mean, the first fundamental fact about the midterms is the president is not directly on the ballot. Right. And President Trump, what he's historically done is brought historic numbers of voters to the polls. Republicans, who are disenchanted with Republicans. Ah, and others who weren't Republican but wanted to vote for Donald Trump. That is his superpower. So if he's not on the ballot, the first thing Republicans have to do is say, okay, well, how are we going to bring people to the polls? And here we come to Texas. You know, I moved from California to Texas five years ago. so I have, you know, time spent in both states. And Texas is a bellwether in that respect. Because the question is, you know, which direction does the Republican Party move? And what I would say, Jenna, is that if people are going to be motivated to come out and vote in the midterms and Trump's not on the ballot. You're going to have to find people who motivate them. And for the base on the right, that means candidates like Ken Paxton, who they see as someone who is against the system and is not an establishment Republican. And you know, that's why I, think, you know, you said, someone texted you about this. That's why in Texas, you know, you're just not going to get the excitement for John Cornyn because that base is not going to come out for him. They're sick of those kinds of Republicans. And so that's the situation you see Republicans in. Across all these states. The people who get the basic sided are the ones who are anti establishment Republicans. And So contrary to D.C. wisdom, which will be, oh, we have to run moderates to, you know, to win the middle. Well, that's not what happened in the last presidential election. And I think the same logic applies in the midterms.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree. And then, you know, I was just seeing as well, Kyle Rittenhouse posted, if Trump endorses Ken Paxton, I'm voting for Ken Paxton. If Trump endorses Cornyn, I'm voting for Ken Paxton. And I think, you know, with a lot of the comments and this already got, over 16,000 likes. and of course, you know, that's people outside of Texas, but, you know, this is really going to test whether Trump's endorsements really are holding. But you know, this also goes back to, I mean, we've been through a midterm cycle, Matthew, that, that Trump has been president. He's not on the ballot, obviously in 2018, he had a reelection forthcoming. That's obviously the difference in a second term midterm. But, ah, when elections were held in 2018, the Republicans lost the majority in the House and lost the trifecta. So, I mean, we do have, some precedent. But I think we're also in a very different situation, just in terms of the overall sentiment of what's going on in the world than we were in 2018. I mean, just from a post 2020 perspective, I mean, the world, it just has changed in so many ways since 2020.

Matthew Peterson: Yeah, I think you're right. And of course, you know, historically, it is definitely the case that when you get to the midterms, there's usually a correction. Often, you know, the other side comes out to vote from whoever's president. And so if the Democrats, president, Republicans, and vice versa, and you get a kind of correction where often, you know, in Congress the other party takes over. And that's just the nature of a divided America and a two party system. So you would expect to see some Democratic gains in the midterms. But I agree that we are in a different scenario because in a way there's almost three or four political parties. I mean, you know, when it comes to the Democrats, they're captured by a radical faction that just does not let go and they're not able to tame. And, then you have your kind of run of the mill Democrat who's, you know, against the wokeness, but still is anti Republican. and then on the right you have the. I think the base now is solidly. They're not voting. Jenna, this is a problem, I think with D.C. republicans. They're not voting for Republicans. You know, they're voting for something new. And you know, Trump is sometimes an imperfect catalyst for this. But Trump represents and has from the beginning a rejection of the old Republican Party. People are sick of those guys and that attitude and a lot of those policy positions.

Matthew Peterson: So, you know, that's what, what happened in the last election was really a new coalition that was majority coalition saying we reject the wokeness, we reject this craziness, we want to move in a different direction. And I think that Republicans misunderstand that at their own peril. for the base, for the people who are excited to come out and vote, they do not want people like John Cornyn who do not represent the Texas values.

How does the Democrat Party deal with somebody like James Talarico

And they understand that people like him, you know, speak out of both sides of their mouth and they pretend that they're with Trump or whatever, and then they go to D.C. and they vote in the uni party way. So people are definitely sick of that. you know, on the other hand, you do have Democrats very riled up that literally Hitler, right, is in office. And so how many of them are there? We'll find out.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I'm speaking with Matthew Peterson, who is a Washington fellow at the Claremont Institute, my special guest this morning. And I think it was a very interesting point that we really do have multiple parties, not just Republicans versus Democrats, because both sides within, the base of Democrats or the base of Republicans have, fractured splits. And that's, that's being shown a lot in this sort of America first versus America only on the right, and maybe characterized as, well by the fracture that's always been there of the old establishment versus maga. However, we can now define either of those terms. But then on the Democrat side you do have the really, really extreme leftists and Then you have people like Fetterman, who almost sounds like a conservative, or at least reason. but so how. How does the Democrat Party deal with somebody like a James Talarico who is now become, you know, a national standard bearer, for the future of the Democrat Party? I mean, the. The moderates or the people who, if there are any reasonable Democrats left besides John Fetterman, they have to be very nervous about a lot of the rhetoric that is coming out and that somebody like that, I hope, and I don't expect that he would actually win in Texas. and if he doesn't, is that a. A commentary on the fact that the left just can't push too far down the rabbit hole?

Matthew Peterson: I think it is. So in James Talrico, you have someone who is, you know, almost hatched in a lab for the old Democratic local way. And, it's really. It's really interesting because here is a guy who speaks in religious language, but, does not speak in a way any traditional Christian, takes the word of God in and is essentially, you know, woke as they come, and has now in the last 24 hours, you see Twitter exploding with people finding his old comments, and they're just wackadoodle. I mean, this is way out there stuff that is not going to appeal to most Texans. But see, he's hunched in a lab because he's a creature of the culture machine. I mean, this is a guy who's been groomed to run for office because he went to fancy schools and he's articulate. And they think that because he has white skin, that somehow he's more electable. That's what I can see. It's like he's some kind of Manchurian Candidate. He's very woke, but he's, you know, he's a very articulate white man. And, you know, we'll run him. This isn't authentic at all. This is not how people think. Regular people are smarter than this, and they'll figure it out. But they have put him on the talk show circuit. They built him up into this huge star, and I think he is a test of whether or not this inauthentic approach can work. And I don't think it can, Jenna. I really don't. and I think that they have to really go back to the drawing board, because what people are sick of is the inauthentic, like, fake candidate who presents one way and works through indirection to try to convince you of who they are. People are really tuned into that and I don't think it's going to work. I think that what you see now is a lot of people in D.C. saying, oh my gosh, you know, the Republicans do like, he's such a strong candidate. We don't know if he's a strong candidate at all. You know, I don't think he is in any way whatsoever. We'll find out. I mean, he's. People are saying he's Timo Beta Beto. I think that's right. I mean, Beto didn't work. Texas has reddened. And if you're going to convince people, you're going to need someone who is, is, is more authentic and says what they mean and mean what, means what they say.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's a, that's a great point that we can't forget about, Beto and how spectacularly he failed multiple times, which is really great actually. And hopefully Texas will be able to tell the difference. And you know, I posted on social media, yesterday as well, in the, in the wake of of Talariko's win, if anyone in Texas confuses Talarico for an actual Christian, we have way bigger problems than his quote, unquote brand. And you know, this is just the thing about him that really irks me is that he's, he's going out and spouting his ridiculous leftist rhetoric under the auspices of running as a Christian and somehow kind of a moderate. I really don't think that's going to resonate with the actual Christians in Texas at all.

Matthew Peterson: No, and this is, this is what I mean by inocentic. You hit the nail on the head is, is that here's someone who, just because they use Christian language and go to what must be an extremely woke church and talk about how trans people, can have abortions too, and that abortion is okay and actually in line with Christianity. This is not going to, you know, win over people. This will simply speak to whoever goes to, you know, the woke churches, which are not the majority of churches in a place like Texas. And it's not going to convince anyone else otherwise. They're just going to say, oh my gosh, this guy is someone who is really using, the Bible in ways that are horrific. So, you know, but that's the tactic. I mean, this is the level of thought that goes into both Republicans and Democrats who are in Washington or our establishment and have been around a while in red states and blue states and they don't have to think very hard about getting elected and that's the problem. That's just not going to work anymore. I think they're going to have to do better.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said.

Matthew Peterson: Republicans don't realize how dangerous Talarico will be

Well, we have to take a break here. Matthew, Peterson, thank you so much for stopping by. And you know, there was a commentator on X, not, sure if he's from Texas or not, but he said, I don't think Republicans realize how dangerous Talarico will be as a Democratic presidential candidate. Already jumping there. You know, didn't we see what happened, though, with Beto? Everybody said that about him, too. M and then goes on to say he, Talarico, is well spoken, white, and running as a quote, unquote Christian. His brand will be very tough for most Republican candidates to be. Well, I hope that he goes the way of Beto and people see right through that. we can't just look at how well someone speaks on social media or on the media. We actually have to investigate their policies, where they stand, and, whether or not they are an actual Christian. Because, you know, just like, what is a woman? We can answer that definitively. We can also ask and answer definitively that question, what is a Christian? We'll be right back.

Jenna Ellis: Mike Donnelly discusses worldview issues on American Family Radio

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And, you know, I was thinking this morning over my first, cup of coffee, yes, emphasizing first, that, you know, there are so many different aspects of this whole problem of the left versus the right that does boil down to a worldview issue. But, you know, when we have people in office like Donald Trump, or I was thinking about my friend Dan Bongino, who's now, you know, back in the private sector, and everybody kind of criticized him for not doing enough while he was in the FBI. And, I think that, personally, I think that's ridiculous. I think he did as much as he could. And therein lies the problem. Right? Because in our system of government we have a wonderful, cap on what any one individual may or may not do. Now, of course, a good president can accomplish more than for good than a bad president. And there is a lot of power and authority that comes with, especially a presidential office, a, governor's office or a congressional seat and so forth. But the point of our republic is to divide and separate power so that one person can't do everything. And that becomes actually a problem in a sense. And I think, you know, this is where our founders anticipated that more than not good men would be in these positions of authority. And when you have a proliferation of really bad actors, not just in elected offices, but even appointed on the US Supreme Court, for example, which is basically an oligarchy that we're under at this point. And then what we would call the deep state, which is all of these, hires that are not, political appointees, so they just continue administration to administration. We saw a lot of that being uncovered with, doge in terms of, you know, budget and all of these other things. It becomes, I think, a problem in scale when you have so many people out of the, you know, hundreds of thousands, that even just work in the federal government that by and large are not actually working for American principles and a conservative constitutional ethos. Right? And if we had even a, simple majority of people in all of these positions, including the governmental hires that were actually doing the work of, from a conservative worldview, which of course is grounded in truth, then we would see more aspects of government that was actually operating and functioning well, instead of basically just having to have, some of these political, positions that are appointed, like Bongino, the, the deputy FBI director just doing as much as he can to kind of stem this tide. So the question, you know, then becomes, all right, you know, it's a good thing that we have a Constitution that separates and limits power, but when we have a constitution now in 2026 that's been amended several times, that in not a good direction. you know, I'm thinking specifically of, the, the Reconstruction amendments, the 14th in particular, the 16th amendment with, you know, income tax and being able to, you know, that Congress can just spend money on anything. You know, we have all of these things that actually are antithetical to a worldview that our founders intentionally embedded initially. You know, where do we actually go from here? So let's welcome in Mike Donnelly, who is a constitutional law professor, an attorney, and, one of my favorite people to philosophize with. So, Mike, thanks so much for joining me for this conversation.

The Supreme Court will consider the question of birthright citizenship on April 1

And, you know, it kind of just, struck me anew this morning that, you know, we tend to think, man, you know, Trump isn't getting enough done, Bongino's not getting enough done. You know, the Kristi Noem isn't getting enough done. But the problem is what started out as a good thing, and I think it's become a problem mainly because we have not passed on the worldview of the founders sufficiently to our own citizens. And then we've imported, as we're talking about at the beginning of the show, we've Imported, individuals, and also a mindset, that is completely antithetical to our founding. And so, of course, we're in a disaster right now.

Mike Donnelly: Absolutely, Jenna. I mean, it's very well said. And when you talk about the 16th and 17th amendments, you're just like throwing red meat to the lion to a guy like me. Of course, I believe the 16th and 17th need to be repealed. And when you talk about importing people, you know, we're not just importing people. People are invading. you know, the Supreme Court's going to have an opportunity on April 1 to consider the question of birthright citizenship, which is something I've been doing some reading and writing about recently in preparation for that. And, you know, that's an important question. You know, who are we letting into our country? How are they getting in here? Should they be allowed to stay? And. And who is a citizen? You know, this question of citizenship, I think, is really important. and I don't think we've grappled with it. And you'd think after 250 years, we know what a citizen is. But the thing is, it's changed over time, you know, through federal law. And, of course, you mentioned the 14th amendment, which is. There's so much to say about the 14th Amendment. But on this question, you know, what does the 14th Amendment say about citizenship? It says persons who are born or naturalized in the United States. Right.

Mike Donnelly: That's where it stops, right? No, it doesn't stop there. It is. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that's the question the Supreme Court is going to be grappling with on April 1st when it takes up the Trump. The Barbara v. Trump case. People may remember, you know, President Trump issued an executive order back in January 20th. The sign a thon where he was at the Resolute desk hour after hour, signing executive order after executive order. And one of those was the birthright citizenship order. And it shouldn't be surprised to people. To people that he was going to do that, because in 2023, he criticized this whole idea of just giving people automatic universal birthright citizenship. He said, that's a reward for breaking the laws of the United States and obviously a magnet helping draw the flood of illegals across our borders. And so he issued that order. It was sued immediately by the aclu. That resulted in the case Trump Pitasa, that struck down universal injunctions by district courts. Then the ACLU said, well, we can do a class action lawsuit. And that's what they did. And so now we have Trump. Barbara, v. Trump Supreme Court, April 1st. a really momentous case, I think, about what it means to be a citizen of the United States. I mean, you talk about the founders of this country and the question of citizenship. You've got to talk about a couple things. You've got to talk about, what did they mean? But you also have to look at the 14th amendment, and you have to say, well, what did they mean? It's not just a question of, well, is there a contrast? And there's a little bit of contrast, but I think it was more of an evolution. And I think the framers of the 14th Amendment understood what the founders who wrote the declaration meant when it came to citizenship. And what they meant was not what, they fought against, which was the British Crown's view of citizenship. And it actually wasn't a view of citizenship. It was a view of subjectship. And that's what we fought the Revolutionary War to throw off. We threw off the idea of subject ship in favor of citizenship. And those are two very different fakes. Very different things.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, it is fascinating that in 2026, we're still grappling with this question of, you know, what is a citizen? I mean, apparently we're still grappling with the question what is a woman? But that definition hasn't changed over time. Right. That definition can't change. But, you know, what is a citizen?

Mike Donnelly: True.

Jenna Ellis: Can be further refined. And, and the fact that we've never really, pinpointed this, and we're grappling with this question in the midst of.

Jenna: We need a longer conversation on this one, Mike

Of, you know, Democrats who clearly have, used the importing of, immigrants for their own purposes. I mean, we look at the, you know, Somali fraud. We look at how, you know, they've tried to use the census. I mean, so many different examples of basically manipulating, the rules to their benefit. these questions are incredibly important. And, And I think that it's a little too simplistic, when we as conservatives just say, you know, well, the U.S. constitution overall. And then by that we also mean, you know, the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments, you know, is what we should defend. Because, I think what we. What we're missing, if we just say that broadly, is where we've gone wrong in even authorizing, you know, some of the things that have gotten us into this mess. And I'm with you. And we've talked about this, you know, quite a bit on this show and certainly offline as well, for years. how, you know, the 16th and 17th amendments should be repealed. And, there is a process for that, and we, we should be advocating for that. And so, you know, overall. And we're almost out of time. We need to have a longer conversation on this one, Mike. But, you know, overall, where. Where are we at in 2026 when we have a Supreme Court that is going to tell us potentially, you know, what is a citizen, and we will be subject to that definition instead of really genuinely being ruled by we the people.

Mike Donnelly: Well, that's really great, Janet, because the Declaration talks about this, right? And I want people to understand there's two views on this subject, and the American view is neither one of them. We do things our own way. We do things in an exceptional way. there's one rule which is the British rule, which says you're born into the kingdom and immediately and automatically and forever subject to the king. There's another rule which says, well, the status of your parents is what matters. And so it descends through the blood. Right? The founders rejected both of those. The founders said, no, we're setting up a government that is instituted among men, quote, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That means there has to be an element of consent involved. And they also said in the Constitution, we are getting rid of all titles of nobility, which is hereditary bloodlines. Right?

Mike Donnelly: We're getting rid of that. We reject both of these views because, we are going to be citizens, and it is by consent. And they understood very much that people had the right of expatriation, meaning that people can give their consent to be governed by anyone they want. It's a choice, but it's not just their choice. People don't get just to come here and say, yeah, I'm going to be an American citizen, and I get all the free stuff. No, no, no. It means you come here legally, with our consent, our knowledge or awareness, and you agree to give allegiance to the United States of America, to the sovereign. So it's a mutual, reciprocal relationship. And so there's two views. I think the American view is the one in the middle. we'll see what the Supreme Court says, But that is what it is. Now, 14th amendment is what they're going to be interpreting in light of the entire history and tradition of the country. And, we'll see what they say. I think it. I think it looks good for, for the president, but we'll see what the Supreme Court says. You know, you never can tell what Justice Roberts and Justice Spirit are going to do with these guys, but that's kind of where we're at. And the thing is, Congress does get to have a say here. Right. Because Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to enforce it. So, you know, the Supreme Court's going to say what it's going to say. Congress will have an opportunity to opine on that. In fact, Congress has actually tried to do this. And you talk about the Democrats.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and. And we're already out of time.

Mike Donnelly: Okay, good.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, we're already out of time. But, yeah. So, you know, this is so important. We'll continue this conversation. Reach me, my team, Jenna fr.net.

Jenna Ellis and Auron MacIntyre dives into the pressing issues surrounding immigration policy and the cultural implications of who we allow into the United States

Jenna welcomes Matthew Peterson to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship and the historical context of citizenship in America.