Transcript

Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution obligates government to protect God's rights

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

CIA whistleblower James Erdman says Anthony Fauci improperly influenced intel probe

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, May 14th and a lot going on with the CIA yesterday. So the CIA whistleblower James Erdman revealed in a, in testimony to the Senate that Anthony Foushee quote unquote influenced Covid origins intel probe as part of a lab leak cover up. This coming from the NewSong York Post. The CIA whistleblower appeared publicly for the first time Wednesday to testify to a Senate panel that Anthony Fauci improperly influenced intelligence analyses about the origins of the COVID 19 pandemic to downplay findings that it most likely resulted from a lab accident in China. So he's a special operations officer, who delivered his testimony about the wide ranging quote unquote cover up after being subpoenaed by the Senate Homeland Security Commission and against his own agencies wishes. So he testified saying that the then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who was of course Anthony Foushee, meddled in Covid origin analyses by providing a conflicting list of curated subject matter experts, public health officials and scientists to the US Intelligence community or the ic. And he also testified that Foushee's role in the COVID up was intentional. And so of course Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul who has been kind of on the fore of attempting to hold Foushee accountable, saying that the doj, should indict him. This, this Senate hearing comes one day after the statute of limitations has expired on at least most of what Foushee could be indicted with. Was also on ah, Fox News talking about this and this is what Rand Paul had to say on Foushee. And the CIA cut the left for

Rand Paul: years has said follow the science. But when the scientists who were following the science at the CIA concluded that it came from the lab, Anthony Fauci was brought in and overruled them. So this is really a revealing testimony that shows on the inside he was influencing the product. Not only was he influencing how the intelligence responded, he was also the influencing of scientific papers that he was helping to write in secret that he's putting forward. And then he would go to the Intelligence Committee and say, well, this paper here shows that it came from nature, but he commissioned the paper and no one was asking the most important question. Did he have a conflict of interest? Was there, going to be a problem for him personally if it came from a lab where he had approved the funding? So all along this was going to be damaged to his reputation and potentially damaging, that he was one responsible for this if it became known that he funded this research. So he avoided it at every step. But it wasn't just in congressional testimony with me. It was behind the scenes. He was going to the CIA and overruling their scientists.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden says Fauci should be held accountable

Jenna Ellis: Wow. So let's welcome in Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, who is a Houston medical doctor. And Mary, this is really explosive testimony and I think further emphasizes that Fauci should be held accountable. And it's really frustrating. The DOJ so far has done nothing.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: I agree. But it does give me a little bit of hope because as you said, the statute of limitations for his lies during his, congressional Testimony expired on May 11. But this gives a new reason to indict him. And I will say then the acting Attorney, General Pod Blanche did indict, three, you know, researchers, for lying and trying to cover up for their FOIA request. David, Moren, Peter, Daszak, and then one more person. so, you know, that gives me hope. I mean, at least the current AG seems to have an interest in the subject where I didn't get that sense from Pam Bondi.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Same. And I hope that, acting AG Todd Blanch will be a little, a little more direct and, and hopefully, pursue the interests of justice. And it seemed like, this kind of lackadaisical doj, which wasted about a year and a half of the, the Trump administration's time.

So what did we really learn that was new yesterday with the whistleblower?

So what did we really learn that was new yesterday with the whistleblower? Because I think we've known for a while that Anthony Foushee was, you know, was part of all of this and there were some cover ups. And you know, this wasn't really a surprise. And so was there anything particularly new that was revealed in the whistleblower's testimony?

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: Well, I didn't have the opportunity to watch the entire thing and I. So, I mean, and like you said, I think to those of us who've been following this intensely for six years, it was. There was nothing surprising about it. but it does get the story out there in the public in a Way that hasn't been out there before. From the very beginning, I never thought this was a natural infection. And, the science supports that. I mean, when you look at the breakdown of the virus, so there may have been some technical things that were new, but in my opinion, it was more just to get the story and put the pressure on the DOJ to actually do something.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense, because now people are talking about it more. And even though, you know, the news cycle and the 247 nature of, the news media and social media, m. Ah, divides people's attention in a lot of different ways. And so when you can have a hearing like this, that really focuses, the attention of the American people, then it's, it can be beneficial. And the hearing, of course, focused heavily on Dr. Anthony Fauci. And so from your perspective as a physician, how much did public health officials become too intertwined with politics and media messaging instead of just focusing on their actual job? During COVID

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: Right. A huge complaint of mine. We had bureaucrats dictating how Covid should be handled, how. How doctors should treat COVID patients for the safety of their bedrooms over zoom calls. And we've never seen anything like this. Right. and doctors like myself, I was seeing everything firsthand. They tried to just destroy us. Right.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: I was taken down, because of my views that didn't match these bureaucrats. And we actually, we sued the FDA for their overreach because they went after Ivermectin, and they told the public, you can't take Ivermectin, and they told doctors, you can't prescribe Ivermectin for Covid. And that's also. We've never seen anything like it. And so we were able to rein them in, and they had to take down the misinformation that they posted online. unfortunately, the stigma still is with Ivermectin is still almost impossible to get or a lot harder than it should be. And, I wish that the FDA would just educate the public on the safety of Ivermectin and make it over the counter, because it's far too hard to get at this point.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. And thankfully, back in February, Attorney General Ken Paxton, took legal action to support you and defend your constitutionally protected rights. that's a really a good thing. Take, taking legal action in your case against the Texas Medical Board, and, saying in this. In this press release back in February, I will not stand by as Dr. Boden has her constitutional rights trampled and ability to serve her patients impeded with an illegal reprimand? this is great. And this is exactly what attorneys general should do to, stand by, doctors who actually followed the true science and the medicine and didn't follow the political narrative and the propaganda, which, which was one striking allegation from the hearing that analysts and also, physicians felt pressure to conform to the preferred conclusions and, remedies and sort of groupthink. And so does medicine still have a broader problem with that kind of institutional group think rather than allowing physicians to simply serve the best interests of their patients?

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: unfortunately, yes, because it's become so centralized. I mean, most physicians are employees now, and so they really are. They have a third party whispering in their ear at all times. And I'm fortunate. I am very independent. I don't contract with insurance companies. I don't contract with the government. I don't contract with hospitals. And the only people I work for are my patients. But that is unusual these days. but that independence gave me the leeway to treat patients the way I thought they should be treated. And unfortunately, most doctors in America, I can't say that now there is a growing movement to correct that as people look at direct primary care. that's a growing movement where it's like affordable concierge care. So you pay a monthly fee and you get a doctor that's independent. but we need more of that, to counteract what's happened to the centralized medicine, which doesn't allow doctors to think or treat patients independently.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and so we're now, six years later, you know, from COVID and there are a lot of, questions, accountability measures, and things that still are frustrating. I think that the people who are paying attention, because it seems like we've sort of just moved on, and rather than, making sure that different, protocols are in place if something like this, ever were to happen again, or just the, the. The public trust in doctors and in the, the spokespersons for the government. I mean, there's so much less trust. And now in the midst of this potential, you know, hantavirus issue, there's so much that. That people are, questioning, and they're already. It's almost like they're already saying, oh, well, this is just a media hoax because they've been so conditioned by what happened with COVID that it seems like we really haven't learned anything. And the government, because of this refusal of accountability for People like Fauci, at least so far, they haven't really rebuilt trust with the American people.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: Exactly, exactly. We saw this, with this reaction to hantavirus that people at least on X, were just saying, absolutely not. We are not doing this again. We are not falling for this again. the CDC and the hhs, the comments they put on X, they just got completely ratioed because people, people are not. The trust has not been rebuilt and they will not rebuild that trust without some accountability, without. You know, 7 million children have gotten, an MRNA shot this year under the new administration. It's completely insane. I mean, there's absolutely no upside to these shots. And yet in 29 states recommend that all babies get three Covid shots by the time they're nine months old. And you know, I am still seeing patients on a regular basis in my office who have serious, life, altering medical problems that resulted from these Covid shots. And they're very difficult to treat, and they've been abandoned by the government. So it's very, it's still a big problem. I'm glad that there's, there's new, new news coming out, to sort of remind everybody what's, what's happened because it's the biggest public health crisis of our generation. It impacted every single American. And yet the current administration has completely swept it under the rug, which is

Jenna Ellis: so incredible to me that, you know, for something that we all went through, and we all went through literally worldwide, that our attention span is so short that you need something like a Senate hearing to sort of bring back people to go, oh yeah, we still need accountability on that. I mean, there are a few people like you and others that, that have been very focused on this and have been calling for accountability for a long time. I think, you know, a lot of conservatives have, but it hasn't been the focus of our whole attention. And so I hope that you're right, Dr. Boden, that this kind of Senate hearing, and focus will sort of renew the calls and the demand, the public demand for accountability. And so what, what do you think are kind of the next steps in this?

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden: You mean with the accountability. I mean, yes, the ball is in the DOJ's court. And yeah, I think they, I think the reaction to them indicting David Morenz over the FOIA cover up was very positive. And so I hope that is a sign that the public is hungry for accountability and they will move forward. There's one other case that the DOJ is, in charge of and it's a whistleblower case. Brooke Jackson was trying to sue Pfizer for fraud, and the DOJ is standing in her way.

Jenna Ellis: I'd love to see action on COVID accountability

They're trying to get the case dismissed. So would love to see some action on that front as well.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, I totally agree. I'd love to see action, accountability, and hopefully we are headed in that direction. but Dr. Mary Talley Boden, always appreciate your insights and you can follow her on X and, be praying for, all of that litigation that's still ongoing as well, with her standing up for truth in the midst of all of the COVID narrative. so many things going on. We'll be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Rep. Luna says CIA just took documents that ODNI had jurisdiction over

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there was a lot of confusion late last night on, what was reported initially as a CIA raid of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's office and allegedly seizing boxes of JFK and MK ULTRA files. And so this, began when Rep. Representative Anna Paulina Luna out of Florida went on News Nation with Katy Pavlik and, and alleged that the CIA had just marched into DNA, Gabbard's office and basically raided her office. And so then later, Rep. Luna clarified that they just took documents. The CIA just took documents that ODNI had jurisdiction over. And the CIA is, under and under the oversight of the odni. They haven't commented on those allegations. But Luna clarified that that didn't happen yesterday and it was not a quote, unquote raid, even though she used that language on air. However, it did take place and we are just being made aware of it based on reporting. And so, then Katy Pavlick updated her, story and said that she just spoke to an intelligence official who told me the following. The documents were not taken today and it was not a raid on DNI Gabbard's office. People from the CIA took documents related to the jfk assassination/mk ultra from the National Reconnaissance Office last year in the middle of the night during the government shutdown and have not returned or is withholding them from the office of the dni. Because the CIA is withholding these documents, they cannot be declassified and scanned for public release, which is what, you know, Trump had authorized and purportedly why those documents were in Gabbard's office to begin with. Pavlich goes on to then report that the. This source, who's the intelligence official, also told her, quote, the CIA doesn't Think they answer to anyone. And this source doubts that CIA Director Jon Radcliffe knew anything about it. You'll recall that Radcliffe was a former Congressman, very big Trump supporter. He was actually the DNI under, Trump's first term. And so, then in the second term was confirmed almost, immediately to being the Director of the CIA. He has not released any statements. I would love to hear from him.

Gerard Felitti: Rep. Luna may have assumed timeframe incorrectly

But let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, this seems to be, you know, a lot of confusion from Rep. Luna, who apparently, because she was just being notified that this happened, assumed the timeframe incorrectly. But still, if this happened in the way that this intelligence officer is at least reporting to Katy Pavlic, there are still a lot of questions here.

Gerard Filitti: Well, there are a lot of questions, but I think we need to wait for a few more facts to come out because the way that things are being described is not quite the way things work. And maybe things have changed in the 20 plus years that I've been outside of Washington. But the CIA officers don't walk into the office of the DNI and seize anything. That's just does not happen. It's the equivalent of, someone walking into their boss's office and just taking documents, and thinking that that's okay, it's just not. With security procedures that exist, that simply does not happen. Whether there was an exchange of documents, whether documents were transferred, in some context, that's very possible, but some kind of seizure is very unlikely. So we need to see what the facts are.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that, that type of question was, initially raised that the CIA isn't like the FBI, where they just, you know, they go on, on raids like what you, what we've seen in the news from the FBI, and particularly as you mentioned, the CIA wouldn't do this to the ODNI because, they report to that office. And so it would be like going into your boss's office. And so, so this is interesting, particularly in light of, Catherine Herridge, who of course is now an independent reporter. She's with cbs. She, posted yesterday as early as February, she says, I began receiving credible reporting that Tulsi Gabbard's investigative team was being tracked and communications collected because their work was revealing, quote, unquote uncomfortable facts. Today, James Erdman, that, whistleblower alleged to Congress the CIA illegally spied on the computer and phones belonging to the Directors Initiatives Group, along with their investigations and contact with whistleblowers. The CIA spokesperson, said, and this was very odd in my opinion, the CIA spokes said, quote, the committee acted in bad faith by subpoenaing an agency officer for testimony today without notifying the CIA, despite having already obtained closed door testimony with the individual previously. The witness testifying today is not appearing as a whistleblower in pursuit of the truth, but instead in response to a subpoena issued or by Chairman Paul Rand Paul. This proceeding amounts to nothing more than a then dishonest political theater masquerading as a congressional hearing. As the CIA has already assessed. COVID 19 most likely originated from a lab leak, and efforts to undermine that conclusion are disingenuous. So, you know, this is just raising a lot of questions about the CIA, I think.

Gerard Filitti: Well, and there's a lot to unpack there because if anyone who is employed by the CIA is subpoenaed by any court or any, congressional body, the first step they're required to do is notify internal counsel. They don't go to the hearings without having been briefed by counsel on what they can and can't say with counsel sitting there next to them. so if someone is appearing at a hearing or anywhere else without counsel, that already raises questions, about whether there is another agenda that's going on that that employee or person is executing. and to your point, I think, look, there are a lot of questions. What we heard last night was about NK Ultra was about the JFK files. These are juicy, things to talk about that ultimately they're so far in ancient history that the people who could be held accountable for things are long since dead. and the CIA has been accused of far worse things, in more recent times. So I think we really need to see what might be going on in terms of these phone connections, phone taps, or eavesdropping, and whether there is something more nefarious going on that the government apparatus is being used for. So I think that is a legitimate inquiry and those are the questions that we should be asking.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that's a great point. While there's obviously, public interest and fascination with what actually happened, of course there's, long been theories that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination. you know, people really want to know what's contained in those files. That's, really the primary reason that, that Trump said that they would be released to the public. And you know, this is years and years after the fact. that does distract from what's actually going on.

Do you think anything that the whistleblower alleged yesterday changes the posture

Right now and the top headline, which is why we covered it first this morning really was this hearing about COVID 19 about Anthony Foushee's involvement in a cover up and whether accountability will actually occur for those actors and and anyone also, in other government agencies as well. do you think that anything that the whistleblower alleged yesterday or anything that came up in that hearing changes the posture of the ability of the DOJ perhaps to go after Fauci for accountability, because the statute of limitations has expired on at least most of what he could be charged with. And so is this just sort of a political theater exercise or is this getting to perhaps a different avenue of accountability?

Gerard Filitti: A different avenue of accountability would look at an ongoing conspiracy, including a conspiracy to conceal, because that means the statute of limitations didn't run out. It's still. Things are still happening now that are criminally prosecutable. So that's the type of testimony that we're looking to see. whether there are communications or there's an ongoing, conspiracy, an ongoing plan essentially, to deceive or to cover up. A continued cover up is still a crime if it's happening in progress. So I think that's what we need to look for because that would give the Justice Department the best opportunity to pursue crimes since as you mentioned, the statute of limitations has run.

Jenna Ellis: Right. And so hopefully that's more in, in the vein of where Senator, ah, Paul and and others who are wanting accountability, for Fauci and others who were part of this, cover up. You know, according to all of the reports, hopefully that's the direction that they're going. Obviously they would still have to get, get over that hurdle of what would be his initial defense if indicted, which of course is Biden's pardon. But that may, in that context, I think that would force a court to have to rule on the merit of whether or not that pardon is valid, or it's. It's void because that defense then would would have to be ruled upon. And even though we don't have a lot of precedent on presidential pardons, it's sort of just been this kind of blanket, you know, blanket, power that the President has under Article 2. this. These are things that really we should get judicial precedent on.

Gerard Filitti: Well, we should. And while it's difficult to make the argument, I think that there is some argument to be made if there was fraud in inducing this pardon, because the President may not have intended to Pardon, something that was actively being concealed as a crime. And in all transparency, I don't remember whether this was a blanket pardon or it was more limited in its terms. So that's also something that needs to be looked at, whether there is an avenue, to pursue Fauci for something that's not explicitly mentioned in the pardon.

Jenna Ellis: M. That's a great point as well. And hopefully, Todd Blanch, the acting ag, is looking at all of those, particular avenues. And it seems like he, is a lot more interested in actually pursuing accountability for bad actors, which is exactly what the DOJ should do. it's not about, any sort of political process prosecution. It's not about lawfare, which is what Biden's DOJ certainly was after, with coming after Trump. Trump and, you know, his associates. Me, I was included in all that, plus, other conservatives. That's not what we want here. this is more about actual accountability for people who violated the law. And it's become so clear and apparent that they deserve accountability. And so, you know, when you have, this hearing yesterday, obviously this was the big news item yesterday, along with Trump going to China, I mean, that those two events are, going on simultaneously. But then you have Rep. Luna coming in, just, you know, running to the news and then saying that she's been briefed on this, which it turns out happened, at least according to this intelligence official last year. do you think that she really muddied the waters here in kind of a rush to just go out on television and have breaking news? versus actually having some legitimate questions of what happened last year?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that's a fair way of putting it. I think that when you. When you have. If you have evidence, if you have a story you want to tell, you also need to have the receipts. You need to have, you know, to identify people who can testify about it or talk about it. Not just a whistleblower statement or a statement about something that occurred last year. So I think she jumped the gun. And really that that's disappointing because it's distracting from very important hearings that are taking place right now. And also the bigger issue is, you know, the trade deals that Donald Trump is trying to make with China, and destroying America's economy.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And this is all distracting from what Trump, is hoping is going to be a good trip, to China. And so, how much attention then, you know, should we be focused on in terms of the split? I mean, unfortunately, the American public, you know, you Know, we hear things on the news. There's such an overwhelming saturation of the 24.7news cycle, the pings from social media, all of this. It almost seems like, there's so much distraction that we can't pay attention to what's really important. And so, how much should we be paying attention to what's going on right now in China?

Gerard Filitti: I think we should be paying a lot of attention because we have a, you know, we still have to make a trade deal. We still have, the question of tariffs. We still have the problem that China is trying to dominate the world economy, and force their goods on the United States. And as we, you know, as we discussed earlier this, this week, there's also the issue of Chinese foreign influence in the United States, where people, even a small town mayor in California is actually working for the Chinese Communist government. So we should be paying a lot of attention to what's going on in China, and whether Donald Trump, and I think he has been sending a clear message to China that we're not going to be, an open field for them like we were under the Biden administration, that we're not just going to roll over for them, in our domestic economy or in our foreign policy like we used to under the Democrats. So I think that's the key takeaway here is that we finally have a president who is going to our foreign adversaries. And let's be honest about what China is. It is an adversary, and laying down that this is about America first and we are taking care of our interests first and foremost.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And it'll be very interesting to see what, comes out of that.

Gerard Felitti: White House has propped up Marco Rubio

And you know, last question, like on topic but slightly off for you. Gerard Felitti. It's been fascinating to me to speak, see how much the White House, has propped up Secretary of State Marco Rubio, especially, you know, posting, him in the tracksuit. That was, that was really a knock on Maduro. And, and with President Trump, kind of, you know, making fun of J.D. vance, calling him. He looked like a little boy during the, White House Correspondents Dinner as, the Secret Service, you know, grabbed him from his chair during, that, attempted assassination. And you know, it was kind of a ding on him. And then, really propping up Rubio. To me, that was a little bit of a, kind of a soft launch of perhaps Rubio 2028. And I've been saying for a while, I think that Trump is going to recognize that J.D. vance just, you know, really doesn't, by comparison, just doesn't have the experience, the, overall probably popularity that someone like a Rubio would have to take up the mantle. And it seems like the White House is leaning in that direction.

Gerard Filitti: Well, Rubio has gravitas, he has experience, and he is well spoken. He understands the issues facing America, especially in terms of foreign policy and the economy. And I think that's why you see him always by President Trump's side, because Rubio has a very good way of explaining things clearly, and while he's fighting for Trump's policies. So really, I do agree with you. I think this is a soft launch for 2028. Rubio was a very strong candidate in the primaries, a few years ago, and he certainly has the qualifications and temperamen to be a good president. The one thing I haven't seen on social media yet, I have not yet seen the means of him as Emperor of China. But, I'm sure that those are coming soon.

Jenna Ellis: Well, maybe that's one that you can post that'll go viral. So I love all of the ones that, you know, Rubio now realizes, you know, he has to take up this job too, has to take up that job. So, that's, that's a great one. I'll look forward to seeing that from your ex, Gerard. But you can follow him on X as well as the Lawfare Project. I really appreciate it and, you know, so much confusion that happens. And, I'm glad at least that, Rep. Luna, attempted to clarify. But, you know, this was all really confusing for a lot of people who were looking at the news last night. And, we do need to be very careful to, always go with the facts, not just, you know, these representatives that, want to rush out and be on TV instead of actually doing their job. I do think that was a little, you know, inappropriate and, and, you know, she should probably apologize for that. But Gerard, really appreciate it. And we will be right back with more.

Two homosexual men have been arrested on child sex abuse charges

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the latest in the Millstone Report and the fight for protecting children against commodification. our good friend Katy Faust, who also hosts a show on the weekends here, called Them Before Us, and she's the founder of Them Before Us, posted, a breaking story this week that two individuals who are, of course, homosexual men have been arrested on child sex abuse charges per their ex bio. They have five sons and were, quote, unquote, married. In 2020, the last child at least was acquired at the hospital. She notes sexual predic predators can procure surrogate babies with no background checks, which just seems insane. Josh's charges, one of them, one of these men, first degree sexual exploitation of a minor, first degree statutory sexual offense, indecent liberties with a child. And Wayne, the other man's charges, two counts of first degree sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of second degree sexual exploitation of a minor. It is not yet known if their, boys that they procured were among the victims. And she said hashtag gay marriage did this. How exactly did gay marriage do this? By normalizing and promoting a family structure where children will always be missing at least one biological parent, statistically the safest adults in a child's life. By creating new pathways for unrelated adults, statistically more likely to abuse. To acquire children without background checks. By denouncing any distinctions between same sex and opposite sex families as discrimination. By framing child loss as a form of quote unquote love so that they can quote, unquote, make their family equality, for adults results in inequality and risk for kids. So Katy Faust joins us now, and this is yet the, the next example of exactly why Obergefell be overturned.

Katy Faust: Yep, that's right. I mean, you know, a lot of us predicted this, that if you were going to make husbands and wives optional in marriage, it would lead to mothers and fathers being optional for children. That not only results in heartbreak, because children long to be known and loved by the two people who made them. We make movies talking about children going on decades long searches to find their missing mother and father. There are implications for children's life. Family structure is not an optional arrangement for kids. When you have a home where a child is united by both their biological parents and a lifelong union, we know that those are the places where statistically they're going to experience the lowest rates of abuse and neglect. What are the kind of factors that increase the likelihood of abuse when there's an unrelated adult, especially an unrelated man, living in the home with a child? Sometimes that happens in heterosexual relationships. It happens in 100% of gay male relationships. So when we normalize a family structure where a mother and father were missing and where an unrelated adult was always going to be sharing living spaces with kids, it was predictable that you were going to get headlines like this.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and one of the things that really struck me about your post is when you put, make their family in quotation marks because the definition of family has gotten so perverted. Under this, homosexual quote, unquote, marriage kind of scheme, where family no longer is tied definitionally to biology, but family just means, you know, whatever, unrelated individuals, you want to live in the same household. And unfortunately, then, the children who are part of that not only have no option, but then they have no biological parents. And they were, in most of these instances, through IVF and surrogacy, were in fact, created just to be part of this grouping that really does not, biologically constitute a family. And when the Trump administration is, pushing for, you know, more government involvement and, and, and payments and subsidies for IVF and saying more children are better, we want to encourage families without actually defining that that has to be tied to biology, then, that creates and actually incentivizes these exact types of problems.

Katy Faust: Yeah, this is exactly right. people will say, well, you're a defender of the family. And I say, no, I'm not. I'm a defender of the child. And if you're a defender of the child, you are a defender of only one kind of family. It is the family where children don't have to lose their mother or father to be in it. But unfortunately, gay marriage normalizes, promotes, and incentivizes families where children are going to be cut out of the natural relationship with the two people who made them and then, foisted into homes where they are acquired by unrelated adults, often through reproductive technologies. We don't know exactly how these two men, who could not biologically produce a child, have five sons in their home. We don't know if there was previous heterosexual relationships. But the very last picture, of a child, you know, being born was them in a hospital holding him with very, very creepy, masks over their faces. I mean, the whole thing is like a horror show. When you look through. I looked through their Instagram, and it's like they were married on Halloween and they looked like some kind of like, you know, monsters, incorporated, like, Coupling. And they have an OnlyFans page. And, you know, they have creepy posts about asking anybody if they want to exchange pictures. And, like, what are you exchanging pictures of? I mean, it's just dystopian. It's so. It's so sickening and scary. And yet here they are in the hospital with a newborn that they couldn't produce themselves. Did they find somebody to choose, them to adopt a newborn? I think that's pretty unlikely. There's.

Katy Faust: There's quite a few wonderful, loving, heterosexual, stable, wealthy couples, that would like to adopt a newborn, so it's very likely that they got this through surrogacy, where anybody can access children for any reason at any time with no screening and no background checks, no vetting, no nothing. And you're right, there's a connection here between all of the promo that the Trump administration is doing for ivf because we think, oh, ivf, that's just about helping our sweet infertile heterosexual sister have a baby. No, once you're making a baby in a laboratory, it's just as easy to use somebody else's egg, somebody else's sperm, and there's no need to implant it into the mother's womb. You can implant it in anybody's womb. So whenever you hear, well, we want to promote ivf, well, we want to make ivf, more affordable. You are talking about state subsidizing, manufacturing motherless and fatherless children that may go home to places where there are two men who have a criminal record. Like we've, I'm sorry, but this is not no longer about family. This is fundamentally about child defense. And that mandates making certain decisions not just about family structure, but about things like fertility policy.

Jenna Ellis: absolutely. And you know, when, when a heterosexual couple conceives a child, naturally the government isn't involved. I mean, the government only, can and should become involved if they want to destroy that life. But that's already after conception and the natural process. Right? And that's the entirety of the pro life movement to say, yes, the government can and should intervene for, to protect the child in that instance. But when we're talking about, you know, the government regulating, the, the commodification of children, it's not about regulating the natural process, it's about regulating and preventing a perversion of the natural. Because a homosexual couple by definition cannot in any, in any natural way ever conceive a child. So they have to borrow from one man and one woman, ah, in terms of the creation of the child, and then potentially go to another surrogate, and, and get other people involved. But it always takes one and only one father, one and only one mother in order to create a child. And so when we're talking about government regulation, I think it's important as well to, to distinguish between what happens in a natural biological context to create a child versus the manufacturing arbitrarily of a child in the context of either a homosexual couple or throuple now and you know, all these other weird, groupings or also a single parent as well.

Katy Faust: You know, it's funny because A lot of people, including a lot of Republicans and conservatives, they were kind of okay with gay marriage because they're like, hey, this is libertarian. Let's just get government out of marriage. I mean, we still have some sheep that believe that what gay marriage did was actually one of the biggest power grabs of the state that we've ever seen. Especially in the world of family law. The natural parent child relationship, is a pre political right, something that the government does not create. It's something that the government recognizes. It's a privileged connection that the government tends to stay out of because it's so foundational and so fundamental. But what did they do with gay marriage? Well, to make sure that same sex couples are equal before the law, that they get the same constellation of benefits as heterosexual couples. Well, the law had to accomplish what biology prohibits. And that's making two adults of the same sex parents of a child. That meant the government no longer recognized parentage, it assigned parentage. Now the government decides who is and is not a parent. Now, whenever the government can decide that an unrelated man is the parent of a child, because they are overriding biology, because they are bypassing natural law, it is much easier for them to unassign biological parentage from you. Now, the government has an awful lot to say about who is and who is not a parent, all in the name of this civil right. And it is not something that only affects children who are made intentionally motherless and fatherless. It affects every parent child bond out there because now the government has a lot more power over your relationship with your own child. That's not libertarianism, not fascism.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said.

When the left transformed natural rights into civil rights, then it detached from natural law

And I'm, doing a deep dive conversation on exactly this, with our friend Seth Gruber, tomorrow on my podcast for afr. It's called On Demand. And I would really encourage every listener, listen to that. It comes out tomorrow morning on Friday. And we're talking as well about, you know, what you just said, Ah, Katy, about, how in the whole civil rights context, rather than natural rights, which our founders understood, flow from the laws of nature and of nature's God, when the left transformed natural rights into quote, unquote civil rights, then it became detached from natural law. And so then when you have a redefinition of marriage that doesn't flow definitionally from biology, then they, they said in Obergefell, okay, we can designate to same sex individuals to have this legal designation of marriage. Well, then the natural next step was them saying, well, now we want the constellation of rights that go along with marriage, which includes parentage, it includes family. So now they're suggesting, and they're arguing legally that they have a right to a family design that they have no natural right or ability to achieve. But the civil rights movement and view of, of constitutionally protected rights then would say, well, if you have a marriage, then yes, you have a right to parentage and family. And that is all based on a false premise of civil rights instead of natural rights.

Katy Faust: Yep.

Katy Faust: It's an inversion, it's an absolute inversion of the natural reality. I, you know, I went through this in a piece that just was published at the Federalists this morning in response to, a hit piece that the Seattle Times published on me in September. And so if you want to really look at the receipts in terms of how we see these changes implemented, and Washington State was one of the first ones to do it. So the Seattle Times had all the evidence that they needed right in their own backyard to legitimize this claim that you are overriding the natural reality using these forceful government mechanisms to impose a reality that destroys the natural parent child relationship. and it's not a recognition of a natural family. It is a state constructed family. It is not just the bonds that are created through heterosexual intercourse. It is state mandated strangers raising children. You know, they passed gay marriage somewhat on the grounds that marriage had nothing to do with children. After all, there's infertile couples that are married that can't have babies. And as soon as they got it, they turned around and said, now give us babies. And that's what we've seen the law reorient around their demand for other people's children. And that always requires children lose their mother or father in the process.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and what do you think it's going to take for the law and those in authority, like hopefully the legislature and then hopefully the US Supreme Court, to actually look at this and honestly say, okay, we didn't sufficiently recognize that the left, kind of hoodwinked us when they said, well, you know, who does it really harm? This is just about the two consenting adults. Well, it harms children. And we're seeing that in real time. We're seeing the effects of it. I mean, what is it going to take for this society to cut, to walk this back and to say, okay, we made a mistake, like, at least would it. It seems like we're doing with the trans movement and the genital mutilation of children. I mean that's, it seems like there's been a collective realization that that is a very bad idea. Where are we at in this fight?

Katy Faust: Why is it that we're walking the transgender, successes back? It's because we've got real life victims, because we have teen girls with double mastectomy scars. It's because we've got boys that are sweeping girls competitions in track and swimming and cycling. You know, it's because we actually are not talking about some kind of theoretical fallout. We're not just debating, whether men can become women. And is it chromosomal? No. We have got victims now. And I'll tell you what. Unfortunately, the victims of gay marriage are piling up. We are seeing more and more stories of children who are raised, you know, with unrelated households in the name of gay marriage, who are being victimized, who are being sexualized, who are being abused, you know, in some cases, horribly abused. We've got predators that are, acquiring children through these new Obergefell mandated parenthood pathways. And it is. That is what is going to do it. The victims are going to make it very clear that this was a bad law and that to create a pseudo new adult civil right, you have to violate the natural rights of kids. That's what our campaign is all about. You can go to greater than campaign.com and look more up about that.

Jenna Ellis: Amazing. And thank you so much, Katy Faust, for your work on this, for her organization, Them before us and that campaign. And as always, you can reach me and my team, jennafr.net.