Transcript

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.

Jenna Ellis' X account was hacked on Friday night

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, May 11, and I'm so glad to be back with all of you. And I appreciated so much, the emails and messages on Instagram, and everything wishing me a great vacation but also saying that, you were also looking forward to me being back. I've loved, loved hosting, this show and having this hour with our AFR family and even the haters who join all the time, you're so welcome to. Because this is probably the only place that you get to hear the, the truth daily. So welcome. And, you know, I really missed it because, when we don't have an outlet to talk about the things of truth, more broadly, then, you know, I really do miss it. And I was, on vacation with my family and extended family last week. And it's always really great, though to just get away and not have to pay so much attention to all the news and goings on. And, in that context as well, my X account was actually hacked on, I think it was Friday night. So I have not had access to it since then. It's actually been really liberating. I haven't felt the need to post anything because I can't. but we're working on restoring access to that. But if you were one that saw, some weird post about aliens or something before, whoever it was took, actually took it down because I was able to at least change the password. so it's basically both sides are locked out right now while X, figures it out that was not me. And anything else that may, be posted until we let you know that it was fully restored. Don't believe that it's me. but meanwhile, there's something actually really important that I have to get off of my chest before we come back, in the mornings here. Then you can also follow at Jenna Ellis am, which is our show account, and we always post, things there as well. And so we at least have access to that X account.

Happy Mother's Day to all of the wonderful mothers out there

but happy Mother's Day to all of the wonderful, moms. Out there. I was so grateful and glad to spend Mother's Day morning at least yesterday with my mom and also my sister in law who's a mother to four kids, which is great. And then my little brother's fiance, they're getting married in August. We're so excited, ah, for them. And she will hopefully be a mother in the near future. They're looking forward to having kids. So it's really exciting. And so for all of the mothers, out there and everything that you do, it's so important to have mothers in our lives. And it is only Mother's Day, not Birthing Persons Day, not anyone who happens to identify as some kind of mother or anyone, anyone else. I mean this is a day that we historically have honored what it means to be a mother. And there are distinct roles, in the Bible that that matter and that are actually gender based. We see that in the three spheres of government that God has ordained, there's the church government, the family government and the civil government. And God has ordained gender specific roles in two of those institutions, the church government and also the family government. And so men cannot be mothers. And as much as the left wants would try to tell you that that role and that honor is reserved only for women. And and it's actually a wonderful thing. And so it's not that it is gender based discrimination to say that, you know, women can't be husbands and fathers or men can't be wives and mothers. It's how God has ordained that for the good of the family, and ultimately the good, not just of marriage between one man and one woman, but also good for the children that are raised in an environment that is hopefully best situated to then bring children into a knowledge of truth and ultimately a right restored and redeemed relationship with the Lord. so happy Mother's Day to all of the mothers.

A controversial golden statue honoring President Trump was dedicated in Miami this week

And the one headline that I did see on vacation that that we have to cover because I actually think this is a very important headline, even more than just perhaps the sort of either eye roll or. Well, okay, and, and moving on is this statue that was dedicated at Trump's, ah, Doral Resort, ah in Miami, which I've been to multiple times, particularly when, when I worked for him. And the Trump statue apparently is called Don Colossus and received a lot of controversy because of course, because it's a 22 foot golden statue to Trump and there were a bunch of evangelical pastors that were at the dedication, the quick and easy criticism was, this is a golden calf situation. And we all remember, the story in Exodus 32, that historical event where Israel literally fashioned a golden calf and attributed divine deliverance to it. That was direct idolatry. And so the children of Israel replaced worship of the Lord with a created object. I don't think that people are literally bowing down and worshiping this statue as a God. and I don't think that that is an accurate criticism. But if you have to, as a pastor and as a Christian, say, to be clear, this isn't a golden calf, then you might want to step back and consider the optics and also consider, are you actually doing something that is, that is appropriate and biblical, or is this genuinely obscene in a. In a biblical context? So I do think that Christians should still ask deeper biblical questions about monuments, images, pride, and also, who is getting glorified in this situation? Because the point of this statue with Trump, you know, raising his fist in the air, and you can obviously go online if you haven't seen, you know, pictures of this golden statue and the. The imagery and the glorification, even though the pastors were saying that this is a monument to what the Lord has done and he's protected Trump, and all of this, the image itself and who is getting glorified in this statue, and also even in most of the remarks, was directed at Trump, rather than honoring the leadership, but actually glorifying God. So scripture repeatedly warns about elevating human rulers beyond their proper place. And the Bible doesn't just warn against outright pagan worship like the golden calf situation, which is not what Trump supporters generally are doing. I mean, there may be a few, but that's not generally what MAGA is doing. Most people see this statue as political symbolism and not a deity. So I think we do need to avoid the kind of cheap comparisons that flatten the biblical meaning. This isn't, you know, the golden calf situation, but there are a few places in scripture that directly warn against this kind of thing and still can provide some insight into why we may want to consider that this actually is not something that is, necessarily a good thing for Christians to be a part of. Now, you know, some people have said, well, what's the difference between this golden statue honoring Trump versus, you know, the Lincoln Memorial honoring Lincoln? Well, memorial is a little different, right? Because that came well after Lincoln. It wasn't, it wasn't leaders during his presidency saying, look at this great statue that we have donated to we've built in your honor. this is something for us to remember as Americans after the fact and after Lincoln's contributions, what his contributions were. So it's honoring his legacy, not trying to honor the individual and gain access and influence while that person is not only still alive, but still president. So I think there is a distinction there. But the point here, and I think the main point that a lot of people are missing in this whole controversy and comparing it, I think, wrongly, to the Golden Calf, is that governments and rulers throughout history build monuments to themselves because power craves permanence. And so the danger isn't always formal worship. Sometimes the danger is cultivating devotion, awe, ah. And unquestioning loyalty, which is actually what Trump wants around human authority. And so, Remember, in Daniel 3, King Nebuchadnezzar builds a massive golden image. And the issue wasn't merely artistic expression. It was that it represented political power demanding reverence. And so Christians must always remember that no politician is a messiah. No politician is worthy of any sort of devotion or reverence as an individual. No nation is eternal. No nation is worthy of worship. The nations are ordained by God himself. we see in Romans that he establishes the boundaries of the nations, and no earthly ruler deserves ultimate allegiance. That allegiance belongs only to the Lord Jesus Christ. And we also see in 1st Samuel 15, that King Saul also built a monument to himself. And so after victory in battle, and kind of the same sort of symbolism of the raised fist, Saul sets up a monument to himself. And Samuel, the prophet, later confronts King Saul because Saul's heart had become prideful and disobedient. I mean, this is someone who was the Israelite king and knew the Lord. Right? But he had become prideful and disobedient. And so Saul, in this moment, was glorifying Saul. And scripture consistently condemns leaders who turn victories into monuments to themselves. And so I think we need to ask and answer the question, is this truly a monument to the Lord for what he has done in protecting President Trump from three assassination attempts and protecting this nation from M a Kamala Harris administration, from protecting this nation from, you know, a lot of the evil that, frankly, we may deserve in this type of godless culture that we're in right now? Or is this really a monument to Trump's own pride and those Christians being there, dedicating this to Trump, having him, you know, call in and seeing this and this monument to Trump himself? And I think, if we are honest, there's not one person that looks at this and says, wow, that's glorifying the Lord. Every person looks at that and says, wow, that's glorifying Trump. That's what scripture consistently condemns. It's not that anyone is worshiping the statue, the image itself, or that, anyone is suggesting that this is a graven image of an idol or of a God figure. It's that it is glorifying a human being and a politician instead of glorifying what the Lord himself has done and glorifying the Lord. So Christians, of course, can support, political leaders. We can support, and we should invest in policy victories. We can honor the courage that President Trump has displayed. We can honor his, leadership. But again, scripture repeatedly warns against elevating human beings into symbols of salvation or deliverance or that or an honor that is actually meant for the Lord. That is what it means. By using the Lord's name in vain is suggesting somehow that Trump is borrowing any of the Lord's, honor and worship and acknowledgement of what the Lord has done and attributing that instead to Trump. And so, by contrast, instead, and looking at what Nebuchadnezzar did, looking at what King Saul did and how Scripture condemns that and God condemns that, look at what the Israelites did. For, example in Joshua 4, where biblical memorials pointed to God and not men. So in Joshua 4, it talks about stones of remembrance. Israel did build memorials, but why not to remember how strong and brave and courageous they were, not to make, these images to their leaders. there wasn't a statue, you know, of Moses set up in the Promised Land. You know, when the Israelites were finally able to cross in and say, oh, our leader didn't get to come in with us, but he led us here. Let's, put up an image to Moses or to Joshua. No, Israel built memorials to remember what the Lord had done. It was to testify to future generations about God's faithfulness. And so when anyone would come and ask, what is this stone or what is this alter altar for? Then that was part of their history that they passed down. And they would say, let me tell you what the Lord has done to deliver us. Let me tell you what the Lord has done for Israel. And it was all focusing on the Lord. So these were altars of remembrance, also called the Ebenezer Stone. Thus far, the Lord has helped us. And so the critical distinction here is that biblical memorials are God centered. They're covenant centered. They're acts of remembrance and humility to the Lord. They are not monuments to personal greatness celebrations of human power, or branding exercises for rulers. And so in scripture, monuments were meant to decrease men and magnify God. And. And I will tell you in my life in, a few different times that I know that the Lord has delivered me, or he has, thus far, the Lord, has brought you. And, you know, we all have a few, very critical moments that every day, you know, God works in our lives. But there are some moments where you say, I want to remember this moment of what the Lord has done for me. You can do the same thing and get a stone of remembrance. I have a few of those. You can, you know, put them in your house, in your backyard, you know, wherever. And then when people ask you about it, you can tell them that story, similarly and say, this is what the Lord has done for me.

Jenna Ellis: Christians need to recognize that God is in control

And the whole point is to say God is the one in control. He is the one worthy of honor and praise. And we need to, as Christians, recognize that in every aspect of our civil government, our family government, our individual lives, in our church family lives, the glory and honor belongs to the Lord, not man. So we'll take a break here, and we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning. And again, it's so great to be back with you. And I'm so grateful to my dear friend Alex McFarland for filling in all last week so that I could take some time with my family. Because as much as work is good and, work is a good thing and ministry is a great thing, and I love being here, it's also, really great to be able to spend so much time with family. So thanks again to Alex and we'll be right back.

17American passengers aboard cruise ship carrying suspected hantavirus outbreak

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, you've probably heard that 17American pastors passengers were aboard a cruise ship that, is now carrying apparently a hantavirus outbreak and will quarantine in Nebraska. So a team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will meet the passengers in the Canary Islands before they are sent to Nebraska for quarantine. An agency official said. This is coming from NBC News. And so those 17American passengers were aboard the cruise ship during a hantavirus outbreak, which is apparently, only a, something that you can contract if you are in close proximity to rat feces. And, according to the ap, the cause of this outbreak was that a Dutch couple went bird watching during one of, the shore excursions and went to a landfill where they would have had a contact with this, the rat feces. And so now the concern of course is is this Covid in repeat, there are a lot of social media, doctors and commentators, suggesting that no, you know, no one has to be worried about this is much, much, much more difficult for the hantavirus to be spread from person to person unless you have prolonged close contact. And apparently according to other articles, that I've read, There are about 50 cases of hantavirus in the United States per year. And there's not a widespread pandemic or outbreak because of that. This was just notable because of the cruise ship and because there were so many people that ended up being infected. And the 17, of course we don't have any reports right now that there are actually any active symptoms or infections. It's just a good idea if you were in proximity to someone who has this to to isolate, to take precautions, and so forth.

Raw Egg Nationalist says 17 Americans evacuated from ship due to hantavirus

So, so let's welcome in for more on this Raw Egg Nationalist. Charles Cornishdale goes by Raw Egg Nationalist is his moniker, who is a ah, journalist and a reporter on all things health and food science and raw egg. This just seemed I think to create some some you know, maybe PTSD flashbacks for all of us to you know, the bat caves and the COVID origins. And a lot of people are actually questioning if this is just a story story or if this is something that is genuinely being correctly reported and kind of where we go from here. So what, what are your thoughts as you read these reports?

Raw Egg Nationalist: it's good to be back with you, Jenna. So, yeah, I mean I, I totally understand why people are suspicious of health authorities, why people for example are suspicious of the World Health Organization. I saw just today on Twitter actually while I was just looking for updates about this story that the World Health organization's tweet from 2020 saying COVID 19 is not airborne. It is not, just you know, it is not spread by airborne transmission is still up. So you know, I mean they're still disseminating misinformation, about COVID 19 even now, six years later. So I'm m not surprised that people are maybe jumping to conclusions. I mean we shouldn't be in any doubt. Hantavirus is not nice. It's something like a 40%, between 30 and 50% mortality rate if you get it. I mean it kills a significant proportion of the people who actually get it. by comparison, you know, COVID 19 was less than 1%. so M. In many respects actually hantavirus is, at least in terms of mortality. It's the kind of virus we were told COVID 19 was. the big difference though, the main difference is transmissibility. And most cases of hantavirus actually are strains of hantavirus that don't spread from human to human. It's people coming into close contact with rat feces, with rat urine, and then contracting the virus that way. Now it looks like the initial case was probably transmitted in that manner by some, some keen bird watchers who went to a rubbish tip, a trash heap in Argentina to look at birds because trash heaps are good places to look for birds because there's lots of food there. but it is, it has spread person to person. And the Andes virus, that's the strain of hantavirus that they caught, which is present in Argentina, does spread from person to person. So we have to be careful, very, very careful about this. And you know, people were evacuated from the ship in asymptomatic, condition and they've since developed symptoms, including one American actually. So 17Americans were evacuated, they're going to Nebraska and one of them has developed mild symptoms. So these people do need to be quarantined until the health authorities can be absolutely sure that they don't still have antivirus, and that they're just asymptomatic because you can still spread it. So it's, it's a developing situation and it's obviously complicated by the fact that actually you've got people going to all different countries. It's not like all of the people on the boat are you know, Americans, so they can all be taken to Nebraska and treated in exactly the same manner. No, you've got people going back to France, to Spain, to the Netherlands, to Britain. And so you will inevitably have different approaches to the virus which could potentially, you know, if one country decides not to take it particularly seriously, then you, you know, you could have more cases. But I, but I don't think it's really necessarily time, for alarm right now. I just think it's time to be alert and to pay attention and for the health authorities to take it seriously. I don't think that this is another pandemic.

Jenna Ellis: Mm

Three people have now died because of contracting an antivirus aboard a ship

Well, so, so some follow ups then on that. I mean, why, if this was known that there were at least, you know, three people and and three people have now died because of contracting the antivirus, that was aboard this ship. And if this was known before, they. The other people were able to be released, why not just quarantine everybody right there rather than allowing them to come back to their countries, of course? Origin?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, that's. That's a good question. I mean, I'm not entirely up on quarantine procedures at sea. I don't know whether there are particular quarantine procedures that apply, you know, for outbreaks of diseases at sea, whether. It depends, you know, whether you're in international waters or in the waters of some particular nation. But, yeah, I mean, that. That would seem. The, That would seem to be the most sensible thing. And a lot of people I've been talking to have said, you know, why aren't these people just being kept on the boat? You know, I mean, a BO Is a natural quarantine center, really. You know, you can anchor, offshore. You can send supplies out to the boat. You can airlift supplies or take them by boat. it's comfortable. You've got electricity, you've got heating. You know, there's no. There's no reason, actually, for these people to be evacuated off the boat unless they're in serious condition. Now, it may be the case that actually keeping people on the boat might facilitate the spread of the disease, and you would want to keep the. Them, you know, to prevent that from happening. But, yes, it's. It. It does beg certain questions, actually. And I do. I do wonder whether, you know, national governments will be revisiting protocols for situations like this, and perhaps they should.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, it seems like, we should have learned even more from, the COVID pandemic and what protocols should and shouldn't have been in place. I mean, obviously, we talk more about the propaganda around that. We talk about more about, you know, the lockdowns, the. The impacts on freedom. Some of you know, those things that, were. Were things that we say, okay, the government went too far. But when you're talking about a health concern like this, there are protocols that are necessary and that are a good idea. And so it seems like maybe there wasn't enough learned, from. From COVID But you mentioned that the one American that had mild symptoms, apparently, you know, still is still doing okay, even though this, virus, if you. If you end up, having it transmitted to you, has a higher. Much higher mortality rate than Covid. but it sounds like then it is possible just to have a mild case rather than a case that would be as severe, to be really concerned about mortality. And so, from that, the side, I guess, of the, of the public fear, I mean that's always what happens, in the midst of these stories is that people are concerned. Okay. You know, am I going to, be in contact with someone who may have, you know, these types of symptoms, if it gets more widespread, Are you aware of any of those types of, data on this particular virus, that you could have a more mild case like Covid, versus a more severe case?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean, as I say, not everybody dies. It does have a severe mortality rate between 30 and 50%, maybe 40%. but yes, I mean it, it's a respiratory infection. The first symptoms are usually like a flu, a bad flu. So I mean it's, it's possible, yes, you don't die, but you have, you have something bordering on a flu where you have respiratory symptoms, difficulty breathing, it's unpleasant, you're laid up for maybe a few days or a week and then you're. And then you're back to normal. So I mean, not, not everybody is going to go totally through the wringer if they get this. No.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's, that's helpful. And you know, and unlike what we saw with the the COVID vaccine and you know, some of those protocols that the government preferred to suggest that things and other medical interventions like Ivermectin, that actually later proved to be, were not the protocols that they even allowed, which to me was just absolute malpractice to suggest that only one protocol was acceptable. And the government was actually denying, ah, doctors ability to determine what was in the best interest of their own patients, based on the research and their own practice. And so here, there have been some questions at least online of okay, are we going to, start seeing, you know, the government saying, well, we have a vaccine for this and so everybody go out and get this just in case it becomes, you know, more widespread and all of that. what are the protocols, for to contain something like this? Because as I mentioned, I mean, it was interesting to me that the AP reported that there are about 50 cases of this in the United States. But maybe that's not the Andy strain. Maybe that's just hantavirus, period. That's not as transmissible. Transmissible from person to person?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes. So I think most cases that you get in the US Are of the. Of the variant of the hantavirus that isn't transmissible from person to person. It's just you get it from the rat feces and then you don't pass it on. but yes, there has been talk of vaccines for the hantavirus. Talk I think that one is, is currently in, in development. It will be interesting to see, see as you say, whether or not we follow this same pattern, as this, this really quite fatal pattern that we followed during the pandemic where you know, all forms of therapeutic treatment were basically rubbish, ridiculed, and subject to censure on social media and in public. And we were told that the only way that we could protect ourselves was to be vaccinated during the middle of a pandemic, which is something that's never been done before for I mean I've seen talk online that things like ivermectin could potentially work on hantavirus simply on the basis of the mechanism by which ivermectin works. So ivermectin And I think hydroxychloroquine 2 works by inhibiting viral replication and hantavirus as the name suggests, is a virus. So it may very well be the case that actually therapeutics like ivermectin, do actually work against hantavirus. I don't know if there's much research on this, but I think the mechanism is plausible. So it will be interesting to see if this develops. What kind of messaging we get from public health authorities. I mean I'm sure that we will probably get a lot of messaging from the drug companies and especially from, you know, the manufacturers of vaccines. But whether that will be supported by governments or not, I don't know. Certainly, you know, there's been a huge change in the way that health regulators work in the US As a result of Trump coming back into Power and RFK Jr. You know, who is a big, big skeptic, about vaccines and in particular, you know, a big critic of the, of the COVID 19 response. So hopefully what we'll see is we will see an investigation into therapeutics, non vaccine interventions and treatments. and we'll also we won't see this kind of totalitarian clampdown on misinform on social media and all that kind of stuff. It remains to be seen though, because I mean, broadly speaking, I don't think that the world has learned many good lessons from the COVID 19 pandemic.

No, I don't think people should freak out about raw egg contamination

Unfortunately.

Jenna Ellis: Unfortunately. But hopefully this is not going to reach that level. And I think right now, this is something that we're monitoring, but not overly concerned, that this is going to be nearly as widespread as something like Covid.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, No, I don't think people should freak out. Not at all.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, that's good. so we'll continue to monitor this, but really appreciate your insights. It's always, it's always scary because I think, you know, these are things that, a lot of people don't understand and don't know a lot about. And so we are just relying on media reports and interpretation by, you know, doctors on media who have all different kinds of opinions, just like, you know, legal experts and analysis. I mean, you have all different kinds of opinions depending if you're talking to, you know, someone who's more conservative, more liberal. so it really does depend. But the best thing we can do, of course, is pray, for the safety of everyone. And also that this would be contained, with the people who are in isolation. They wouldn't have symptoms. And this can just be closed as, you know, one really freak anomaly. So we'll be praying for that. But raw egg nationalists really appreciate it. You can follow him on X. We will be right back with more.

Virginia's state Supreme Court struck down Democratic redistricting measure on Friday

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, all eyes are on Virginia as on Sunday a, Virginia Democrat said that all options are on the table for Democrats in the Old Dominion state as they respond to a ruling from the state Supreme Court that struck down their redistricting measure. So this is coming from the Hill. The decision immediately eliminates four House seats that were expected to flip to the Democrats in the midterm elections, while leaving Republicans the possibility of netting actually between six and seven seats they would have otherwise lost, according to two analysts at the Cook Political Report. And so Hans von ah Spakowski, who you can follow on X, posted this. This, decision reaffirms faith the legal system that the Virginia Supreme Court enforced requirements to amend the Virginia Constitution, tossing out redistricting amendment the Democrat legislators passed in a blatant stark violation of those constitutional requirements. Three dissenters showed politics are more important to them than the law. So Hans, who is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, joins me now. And you know, the controversy, at least according to the leftists here, is that this redistricting push was only to respond to Republicans redistricting in states like Florida and Texas. But that wasn't just an overt blatant political push. That was actually to draw the ah and redraw the district lines according to the actual electorate where Democrats in Virginia are, this is just a blatant, unconstitutional violation. And the Virginia Supreme Court I think got it right.

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well that's correct. And you know, I keep hearing Democrats saying, oh well, they've only been doing this, in reaction to the Republicans started it. General, you and I both know that's not true. It's just simply that Republicans finally decided to adopt the same tactics that Democrats have been applying in blue states for years. I mean all you got to do is look at places like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois to see how they politically gerrymandered those states to either make sure that Republicans had no congressional seats or just a minimal handful. the Republicans hadn't really done that before. And so they're just kind of catching up with what Democrats have already done for years.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and so, you know, this is a blatant, propaganda attempt for the Democrats to justify their power grab. And so at least this wasn't lost, on the majority of the Virginia Supreme Court. where, where can Democrats potentially go from here? Or do you think that this has basically now been settled?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, it's basically over. Well now what happened on Friday? Remember this decision came out on Friday from the Virginia State Supreme Court. within a couple of hours the Virginia Attorney General's office, which is a Democrat ag, they filed a two page motion with the Virginia State Supreme Court asking them to suspend or stay the judgment, because they say the Virginia tends to file an appeal with the U.S. supreme Court. by the way, they, they were in such a hurry they spelled the word Virginia wrong in the two page motion they filed. first of all, I don't think the Virginia State Supreme Court is going to stay or suspend their judgment. And while I don't usually predict supreme, what the Supreme Court will do, I can pretty much guarantee it's a 100% certainty the US Supreme Court won't take this case because as you well know, the US Supreme Court defers to state supreme courts. When those state supreme courts are interpreting their own state constitutions. The only way the, the U.S. supreme Court would ever override something like that is if whatever that state constitutional provision blatantly violates the U.S. constitution. And that's not the case here. I mean all they did was uphold the procedural rules that are set out in the Virginia Constitution that say if you want to amend the Constitution, here's how you have to do it.

Jenna Ellis: Right. And that seems, to be very non political, just acting as court should, which is just refereeing and saying okay, you have to play by the rules. You can't get around it just because you think that this is so important. And so, why didn't the Virginia Supreme Court step in sooner? Because there were a number of legal, ah, analysts who were actually predicting that this, the Virginia Supreme Court wouldn't get involved after the fact because it would look like they were trying to overturn the will of the people and, and so forth. And thankfully the Virginia Supreme Court didn't get political. They just said, no, we're going to look at the rules, we're going to referee this. But why didn't they get involved, ahead of time when clearly the rules were being, breached and so it wouldn't even have gone to the voters?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, there's two reasons for that. Virginia asked, ah, them to wait. And there's more than 100 years of precedents saying that the Supreme Court should wait. And the reason for that is very simple the way to think about this. And again, if you're a lawyer, you know this is true. if the legislature passes a bill, you don't sue, even if you think that bill is unconstitutional until the governor signs the bill into law, because it doesn't become effective until the governor signs it into law, and particularly because the governor might veto that bill, in which case, you know, there's no reason for a lawsuit. Precedents, in Virginia say that referenda are exactly the same way. if voters reject it, it's exactly like the governor having vetoed a bill. So there's no need for a lawsuit. it doesn't become ripe to file a lawsuit until people have actually approved the referendum. The same way it wouldn't become ripe until the governor signs a bill into law. That's why they waited until after the election.

Jenna Ellis: And that makes a lot of sense. And so, looking at the other states redistricting, the Democrats have also, vowed to sue Florida, and the legislature, Governor Ron DeSantis, for, the redistricting here in Florida. And so, unlike Virginia, this followed process and they won't have the same argument that Republicans did in Virginia. So what's the likelihood of success there?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, it's interesting, as of last week, they had already filed three different lawsuits in Florida. all of them were filed in state court, not federal court. And that's because of the Supreme Court's decision, in the Louisiana vs Calais case, which liberals are also complaining about. The. All three of those lawsuits cited a Florida state constitutional provision that was actually passed through referendum that supposedly limits partisan gerrymandering in the state, although there are some other provisions in it that the governor and other legislators believe, violate actually the US Constitution. So we're just going to have to wait and see what happens in those three lawsuits. Notice they filed three lawsuits, all the different parties. So look, you know, these leftist orders, they all talk to each other. Why would they file three different lawsuits? Because they're hoping, at least they get lucky, that at least one of those judges out of the three courts will issue an injunction. That's why they have filed multiple lawsuits all claiming exactly the same thing.

Jenna Ellis: Well. And yeah, I mean Democrats just love to throw anything against the wall and see what sticks and go and forum select and you know, do all these things. And it's really frustrating and I've talked about this, you, know at length with several guests on this program, that it's frustrating that the Democrats seem to have a lot more resources than Republicans do in terms of initiating this type of frankly, lawfare. But but these types of challenges and So why is it that Republicans, I mean it seems like the electorate and the base, wants to see these types of things, successful in court and they don't want to see you know, legislation like this in Florida and this redistricting, ultimately failed just because of, you know, some partisan judge. And so why isn't there more emphasis in Republican circles on ensuring that there's enough of the donor funds that facilitate these types of lawsuits?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Because there's simply less donor funds. you know, Scott Walter, who's the head of the Capital Research center in Washington, has done some great studies where what they have found is that the political left in this country has a m. Much larger, I mean we're talking about much, much larger access to donor money from big foundations. If you look at all of the big supposedly nonpartisan nonprofits like the Ford Foundation, I mean they're not really nonpartisan, they only favor the left. But they have been pouring huge amounts of money into the election area, doing all kinds of things like supporting litigation, that, that tries to stop voter ID laws and proof of citizenship. They just have a lot more money because the foundations, almost all of them support the left.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And that should be a wake up call to Republicans to you know, maybe put more funds into these organizations that are willing to do this kind of work. you know, like, you know, like your organization Advancing American Freedom.

Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, do you think redistricting favors Republicans

And you know, there are an America first legal, and, you know, some of these others that are actually willing, to fight these types of fights. And so overall, Hans, you know, looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, as all of this shakes out, do you think that redistricting is going to favor Republicans and maybe the one thing that saves the majority, in Congress?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Yes, I actually think the Republicans are going to come out ahead now. As you know, Florida, they've. They've, redone their plans. Tennessee, last Thursday, they signed into law new plans. Alabama is working on it. Even with those new plans, will they be in place in time for the election, given all the litigation left's going to file against them? Maybe not. But I think overall that Republicans are, going to come out slightly ahead in this fight.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And isn't it incredible that it's not based on the Republicans actually, you know, getting a lot of things done and moving forward? The Trump agenda in Congress, over the last years, I think they've wasted so much time, but ultimately it'll be based on, you know, just the, the electorate and what we saw, you know, in 2024 with that landslide and the Trump mandate, I mean, there's so much more that Congress should have done.

Looking ahead to the midterms, what other election law battles are likely to shape

But looking ahead to the midterms, what other election law battles do you think are most likely to shape the political landscape and that we should be focused on?

Hans Von Spakovsky: Well, the biggest thing that I, I think may affect things besides issues, like the economy and stuff, is that, you know, you've had a handful of states finally moving to put in place proof of citizenship requirements, so that you've got to basically show you're a U.S. citizen when you register, to vote. also, the Justice Department has really stepped up finally, after years of doing nothing about it, prosecuting, finding and prosecuting, aliens who have registered and are voting in our elections. I'm hoping that the news about those prosecutions actually has a deterrent effect and causes other aliens who are registered to get themselves taken off the voter rolls. I think those are two kind of significant issues for the upcoming election.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, those, those are incredibly significant. And, you know, do you think that the overall, attention of the base on election integrity, which was obviously, you know, the number one issue in 2020 and after, has that waned slightly, or do you think that there's still at least enough attention on these issues that, you know, that, that we're actually, people are paying attention and we're actually

Hans Von Spakovsky: moving the needle No, I think people are paying attention. You know, after the 2020 election, as you well know, there was. There was a lot of attention to many different kinds of problems, like bad voter rolls. What's really been driving things over the past couple of months, certainly for this year, has been the problem of aliens easily registering and voting across the country. And I think that has kept up the interest of the electorate in this issue, and it certainly has kept up the interest of state legislators who've been moving to try to get reforms put in place.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Wow. Well, you know, hopefully Republican state, especially legislators, not just, the Congress, will look at, these issues will take this seriously and make even more headway. I mean, I can't even believe it's been six years since 2020. And, there's. There's been, you know, some movement, thankfully. and redistricting is very helpful. And Republicans, are doing a good job, I think, in Florida and Texas on that. but there's still a lot of work to be done. And as Hans well knows, you know, he's been. You've been in this battle far longer than I have and for years. And we really appreciate your work. So thanks so much. And you can follow him at H. Von, Spakowski on X. And you should also follow Advancing American Freedom as well. And that's all the time that we have this morning for Jenna Ellis in the morning. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr dot net.