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.

>> Jenna Ellis: Good morning.

The Pentagon on Friday began releasing never before seen files relating to UFOs

It is Wednesday, May 13, and the Pentagon has rolled out these releases, declassifying UFO or unidentified flying object files, including videos and photos held by the government for decades. So this coming from NBC. The files have been a source of intrigue and fascination for generations of skeptical Americans wondering if we are alone in the universe. So, so the Pentagon on Friday began releasing never before seen files relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, previously and more infamously known as UFOs, that the government has been holding on to for decades. And the release came nearly a month after President Trump gave a sneak preview of the possible contents, telling a conservative gathering that some very interesting documents would be released by the Department of War very, very soon. And so, the release, according to the of war, says the release of declassified documents demonstrates the Trump administration's earnest commitment to unprecedented transparency. So what does this mean though for Christians? And so I've covered this topic. If you haven't listened to the program or read, the op ed that I wrote on this when this initially, was was announced by President Trump, that regardless of what we find in the universe, whether there is a, life or there is, even sentient life, you know, somewhere, besides the planet Earth, which is highly unlikely just given that we are such a, we are a planet that is so fine tuned in order to sustain life. But even if we find, you know, an amoeba or life on Mars first, isn't it very interesting that if we found just one little tiny droplet in the universe that that scientists would suddenly say, look, there's life. But a fully developed child in the womb. Well, you know what, that's, that's questionable. That's not really life, you know, that's just, you know, that's just a fetus. That's just, you know, something else. And so the cognitive dissonance is really incredible here. And I think we can take a moment to to appreciate that and actually use that in our pro life arguments. But overall, the theological point is that regardless of what is in the Universe, God has already told us the purpose and the story and the redemption arc for humanity. And no matter what else we find out there, they will, they or it or whatever will not be human beings that are subject to the same history and the same redemption and the same sin and need for a savior as the human race. And so all of the world, including the universe, has been cursed under sin. We know that. And the redemption story is for humanity specifically. But let's welcome in my fellow theologian and one at one of the only, theologians I think, who actually uses his political show to talk about theology regularly, which is why I so appreciate him, our good friend Steve Dace.

Let's talk about your thoughts on aliens and what this means for Christians

So, let's, let's talk about your thoughts on aliens and what this means and actually doesn't mean for Christians and our view of salvation.

>> Steve Deace: Well, I think we should approach this, Jenna, from two fronts. first science and then religion, because I think they are both converging here. So if you look, let's start with science and let's do a little math. the closest galaxy to ours is 1600-000000-00000, miles away. 160, I'm sorry, 1670-000000-00001,000,000,000,mile away. in terms of the amount of time it would take to even travel there by the speed of light, would essentially eclipse the entirety of known human history. The, the closest, heavenly body that as far as we know. Scientists like to use the phrase as far as we know a lot of. Well then also claiming though that even though they're not really certain of many of their own certainties, that they are certain that they should dictate to us, our moral code and how we should govern ourselves as a species. But I digress. As far as we know, the closest heavenly body capable of sustaining any form of complex life, even a single celled organism, is Proxima centauri B, an exoplanet that is about 12 trillion, miles away from the Earth. The problem with Proxima Centauri B is that it is orbiting a red dwarf sun and so it is constantly getting bombarded by solar flares and heavy radiation. In other words, it is very possible that small E evolution may have occurred in order to create some form of non complex life. But the problem is, its own ecosystem keeps blasting and irradiating it with radiation. So there's no photosynthesis, there's no carbon dioxide oxygen exchange, and it just can never sustain itself. Then the closest solar system that we know of, as far as we know, again, they like to say that term a lot. With a yellow sun that has the right mixture. As you were pointing out a few minutes ago, how tightly wound we have to be for this formula to work. The closest solar system with a yellow sun is 16 ah, trillion, miles away. We have found no evidence in any of the bodies orbiting it of any complex life at all. And even if we had the speed of light, even if we had warp speed, like Star Trek, It'd take about 20 years to get there. When you run all this through the math, even including the vastness of the universe. And so I did this with my super grok AI we went through, I wanted to include theory of relativity, Kepler principle, all the various things that we currently, that science currently views as its theories of paradoxes, time travel, interdimensional travel, warp speed was accountable if we could create Einstein, Rosencrantz bridges, otherwise known as black holes. Okay. the, the odds that complex life would be traveling to the earth and would be largely undetectable by humanity. And people are going to say, well you know, they, they would have technology that, that we don't understand. And of course they would because we can't get to them. They'd have to come to us. But the problem is you then, you're then. Because I factored this into my equation as well, they have to perform perfectly, Jenna. And they never crash. No one ever miss pilots this many miles away. We're already, they're already coming here from beyond 16 trillion miles. They're already coming here from beyond that. At a minimum. At a minimum, they're coming beyond 16 trillion miles. And so that equipment never fails, it never crashes, it never malfunctions. Any of the pilots never make a mistake, right? The odds of that happening, you want to know what they are? The m. Exact same odds that anyone within the sound of our voices is going to die by a vending machine this year. That's the odds.

>> Jenna Ellis: Wow.

>> Steve Deace: Okay. The odds are going to die by vending machine. All right, so you need an extraordinary amount more faith to believe in this then is required to believe that, there was a man, named Jesus who died on a cross and God supernaturally intervened in the human history to raise him from the dead. The odds of that are way lower being true than the odds of this being true.

There's a podcast series on UFOs by a Presbyterian minister called Colin Samuel

Which brings us to the religion question. and I would urge your audience, there's a great, I'm going to say 10 part podcast series and people are going to freak out. But man, it's well produced, it's well done. it's by a Presbyterian minister named, Colin Alred Samuel. And it was done a couple of years ago. and his background, very similar to mine, grew up non, Christian, very interested in the occult, very interested in, you know, alternative history and UFOs and things of that nature. I was the exact same way. and then went back after he became a believer and a minister and went back and examined some of the things he used to believe and their true origins. And I mean, this guy walks through, I mean, for example, one of the leading engineers that launched the NASA program was a literal Aleister Crowley, occultist. And there's a reason why when you listen to people like Steven Greer and a lot of these folks that frequent all these shows and channels, even on the Fox News and newsmaxes of the world, right? This guy Hector Elizondo is on these channels all the time. And I watch all their documentaries because I see this as a rival religion. I see this as every bit the religious competitor to our faith that Islam currently is. and Peter Elizondo will say his latest documentary, the so called whistleblower will instantly dismiss. I couldn't even says in his latest documentary, I couldn't believe. There were these religious fanatics of the Pentagon who thought these were demons just immediately and then, and then completely dismissed it, but then goes out the rest of the way. And Steven Greer does this as well. And so what they do is they, is they hook you on scientific curiosity and the idea that, hey, you know, there is something ingrained in us. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is something ingrained in us from the time that our ancestors in antiquity looked up into the, into the outer rim of our atmosphere and thought, you know, this is so majestic. And they worshiped those planets, okay, before they could explore them. There's something ingrained in us that we want to see. How did God do this? what is God? Where is God? What's beyond us that's ingrained in us? But what ends up happening when they hook you on this, right? And they hook you. And I grew and I still am a sci fi guy, you know, I don't necessarily watch much of what Star wars produces nowadays, but I mean, I mean, yeah, I loved all this stuff growing up and to pass this on to my kids, but you know, it's also called science fiction. Anyway, the thing that they hook you on is the fantastical. And then when you're, when you're hooked in. This is now when we get to the metaphysical right and a bunch. You see this guy, Ross Coltheart who used to be the, basically the host of 60 Minutes Australia. He's, this is all he covers now and all he does and, and, and he takes groups of people out to this retreat in Southern California and they literally go out there and they quote, summon non human intelligence. What, what, what, what kind of language is the term summoning often associated with? They will things, they will occultism. They will. Greer and others will talk about ah, attaining a higher form of consciousness. That, that, that. And if you don't have this higher form of consciousness you can't summon these things. And this is Gnosticism. Well if you don't have this secret knowledge, if you don't know the mantra, if you don't, if you don't know the formula, if you haven't, if you don't know the spell, and this knowledge is only for a select few and then if you're lucky enough they might pass it on to you. this is absolute Gnostic occultism without question. And I would really urge your audience to go listen to Colin Alred Samuel's cultish 10 part series on the history of this entire thing and its origins to the occult. Almost every major UFO figure will eventually dabble in the occult. All right? They will eventually go from who are these beings from another world? To I require another form of consciousness in order to in order to access them.

Steve Martin interviewed Congressman Tim Burchett about unexplained UFO phenomena

And one last thing I'll say before I turn it back over to you is Congressman Tim Burchett, who's a great congressman by the way, from Tennessee. He's kind of been he's been the Republican leader on the committee on this for the last few years and has spoken all over the country and was in the disclosure video that Joe Rogan. There's a reason why everybody that loves this the most by the way, all of his psychedelics and everything else and higher consciousness, not a coincidence, okay? And so I brought him on my show before last Christmas and I, and this, I gentleman tell you this is the weirdest interview I've done this June schedule. June 6th to be my 20th anniversary in this business. This is the weirdest interview I've ever done in it. This is like a scene out of the X Files in this interview. If you go back, I think it was December 15th or somewhere around there. If folks want to go in our archives in this interview there is somebody sitting behind Congressman Burchett, the Whole time that goes. Unidentified. I've never seen anything like that. I've interviewed presidents, people who want to be presidents countless times. I've never had someone sitting in the background interview. it's very. It was very weird. M. When I began to ask him about biologics, and I'll explain that term here in a second, all of a sudden our feed went dead. And it took us. He was inside the set, the Congressional building, the Canon Congressional building. It took us another eight to ten minutes to finally connect with him. And the reason why I wanted to ask about biologics, because I keep saying, when this topic comes up, show us the pilots. There is clearly unexplained phenomena. There is clearly technology being used that as far as we know as laymen and regular Americans, no country on earth has displayed that it has the capability of, the kind of technology that if the Chinese had it, if the North Koreans had it, if the Russians had it, if the Iranians had it, the dollar wouldn't be the default currency in the world anymore. Right?

>> Steve Deace: and there is documented phenomena, cases of it, often hovering around stations around the world that, include weapons of mass destruction. So I don't deny that at all. I don't even see how it's possible we could deny that this phenomena exists. The question is, what is it and what are its origins? And this is why I always ask, show me the pilots. Why do we have all these compelling images of the craft but never the pilots? How is this possible? And so I asked Congressman Burchett when we finally got him back on, I said, hey, you have seen even the stuff that's top secret people like us have not been able to see. Have you seen any compelling evidence of biologics, meaning who the pilots are, the actual biological material that is in charge of this phenomenon? And he flat out told me and noticed that they never show us any biologics and notice that they make claims about it, but they never have anything. And so I always say this to our audience, just tell people, come back to us when you show us the pilots. Otherwise, it's very likely, if not a metaphysical certitude, that this is a spiritual dimension and a form of occultic deception. Hm.

>> Jenna Ellis: That it's, it's. It is fascinating and, you know, to kind of, distill that everything that you just said, Steve, that's so incredibly important, is that for Christians, we need to remember, well, there is a good and a healthy and an innate sense of discovery and a desire to understand our world. And our universe and even ourselves, who we are as human beings made in the image of God. We need to remember, we have to stay grounded in scripture, grounded in truth, so that we do not become more fascinated with the discovery of whatever else is in the universe than we are fascination with the Romans one worshiping the

>> Steve Deace: Creator, the creation, and not the Creator. 100%.

>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so we have to remember that, you know, it is okay to wonder about these things. I mean, a lot of people say, because it's so weird and eerie and scary and, you know, and it may be, demonic in a lot of ways. And I think that, that actually that spiritual side is the explanation for some of this phenomenon. That Christians should always stay away from it. And obviously we need to stay away from anything occult. We need to recognize, what is, what is spiritual and evil versus what is spiritual and truthful and good and holy and righteous. but in, in our sense of discovery and understanding, we can still look through these files, we can still ask all of these questions, and we should. But to stay grounded in truth and to not allow the fascination with what else is in the universe to override what God himself has already told us about humanity, about the redemption, truth of our world, and also what happens at the end of all things in revelation. I mean, I love talking about God as an author. And an author of a book doesn't give you the beginning, give you the whole story, and then just not conclude the book. And so God in the closed canon has given us the full story, and we can rely on that. We can, believe that with confidence, which is hope. It's a patient expectation in the truth of what God has provided. And then within that context, we don't need to actually worry about what, whatever this, you know, the UFO files contain or not, or whatever we may see or not doesn't change the truth about the redemption, truth of the gospel of Christ. And I think that's what is missing so much in these conversations about UFOs, is bringing it back to reality and also discussing the spiritual. Because it's fascinating, Steve. because my dad works in, in aerospace and, you know, and works in, you know, satellites and all kinds of things. And at one of the, the jobs that he had, there was a title of another scientist that was called Director of Exploration of the Universe. And I thought, isn't that hilarious? Like, that sounds like a Disney fantasy land title or something. But it's like, you know, these people who, who are brilliant scientists, but their goal is to figure out what God has already told us rather than saying let's go and discover so that we can understand more about the creation and the creator. And that's often what's missing here.

>> Steve Deace: Yeah, there's. I should, I'd be remiss if I didn't also plug my, my good buddy Billy Halliwell's latest feature over at CBN on the supernatural. And it gets into angels and demons. And there's a fantastic segment, from Hugh Ross, the Christian Scientist, who talks about when he was brought over with a group of scientists in the latter stages of the Soviet Union to do a scientific inquiry exchange. For the first time there was literally a department of Soviet science that was openly exploring the occult, looking for, I mean essentially it's when our ancestors called alchemy looking for alchemic. Metaphysical, means supernatural, paranormal means to create weapons systems to eclipse, what the west and the United States had. And it's. Right. And he talks about the experience of talking to this group, ah, how openly hostile they were to him immediately because they knew that he was a Christian. I mean that documentary is out right now and I would be remiss if I didn't plug it because that also plays right into this conversation as well.

>> Jenna Ellis: Amazing.

Steve Dace: Scientists need to stay grounded in truth about God

Well, we've got to take a break here, Steve Dace, but I so appreciate your focus and emphasis on the truth of what we know about God. The study of, of God is literally theology. And to stay grounded in truth and to recognize a lot of the goals of a lot of these scientists, that, that are nefarious, frankly. or maybe not even they're not intending it to be. But we have to ensure that our knowledge and our discovery of this remains focused on truth. And there are some great resources out there as well. there's another great book and documentary called the Privileged Planet. If you want to focus on how fine tuned our universe is to sustain sustained life and how there is no way statistically that this could have just happened by chance. that is such an incredible resource as well. But follow Steve, at the Blaze and on X. And we will be right back with more.

President Trump wants to suspend federal gas tax ahead of midterm elections

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

>> Jenna Ellis: Come back. Well, this hour, Trump has arrived in Beijing for talks with China's Xi on the Iran war trip trade and US Arms sales to Taiwan. So this coming from the ap. US President Donald Trump arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for his hotly anticipated talks with the Chinese president on the Iran war trade and US Arms Sales to Taiwan. The meat of the summit won't happen until tomorrow Thursday, when leaders hold a, bilateral talks and a formal banquet. But the Chinese offered Trump a pump filled welcome. I'm sure he appreciated and loved literally rolling out the red carpet for him after Air Force One landed in, in the Chinese capital. Meanwhile, the, the voters are focused, even more on domestic issues and what a US Gas tax suspension could mean for drivers and the prices they see at the pump. This ahead of the midterms and coming from the ap, as steep fuel prices strain household budgets during the war with Iran, President Trump wants to suspend his government's tax on gasoline. It's a move Trump can't do on his own. And the President has yet to specify how long he'd like, such a pause to last. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already been pushing for a federal gas tax suspension with some legislation in Congress now proposing a halt through October 1st. So let's welcome in Congressman Marlon Stutzman from the great state of Indiana. And you know, amid the, the Chinese talks and the focus of course on foreign policy, when we're, when Congress is looking at the gas tax, tax suspension, do you think that's a good idea?

>> Marlin Stutzman: Well, good morning Jenna. Great to be with you. You know, I'm always supportive of tax cuts. I think in this case though, what's important is, is the gas tax tax funds, the user tax. And those funds go towards roads, bridges, infrastructure. And so I would want to make sure that we offset that with other cuts. And there's, we had a great conversation last night in the Freedom Caucus when, we met about all of the fraud, the waste and the abuse of the federal government programs in Minnesota, California, and it's just becoming more and more exposed. And so, you know, it would be easy to stop that sort of, wasteful spending and apply it towards roads and, and bridges and replace that and you know, and still lower the gas tax, while President Trump, you know, wraps up the negotiations and the war with Iran. so I think that if it's anything that gives relief to American taxpayers, it's good, but it's really the responsibility of Congress, to be sure that we don't, also, you know, that we still have to fund making sure the roads are repaved and the bridges are strong and making this a priority. And this is what goes back to having balanced budgets in Indiana. Our governor, Governor Braun, he actually did suspend the gas tax, but we had a Balanced budget. And so that makes that job, a lot easier to do, when you have a balanced budget. But in Washington, of course, we have deficits and debt. And so I think this is an opportunity for us to make out, what are the priorities for the American people. And right now, relief at the pump would be a big help.

>> Daniel Cochrane: Yeah.

>> Jenna Ellis: And maybe, you know, Congress won't fund things like Arab Sesame street and, you know, other priorities that Doge evidence. Yeah. That really aren't, things that Congress should be funding anyway. So, is there a debate and discussion on both sides of the aisle agreeing on, where this tax cut could actually come from?

>> Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, I mean, a lot of it would be, focusing on that, the abuse of those programs. You know, just like Medicaid reimbursements to California. It's $160 billion a year, and that number. $160 billion. It's more than the entire state government's budget in Florida, which. Florida is a big state. And so that's where, I was talking to Congressman Tim Burchett this morning about the Doge Caucus. That was one of the best things that we had as a tool that was information to us on the Budget Committee and in Congress, where we could actually see where funds were going so that way we can address it. That's been part of the problem, Jenna, in Congress, is that the executive branch, and this is bad under the Obama administration especially, and under the Biden administration, you can't get answers of where are the funds actually going? We've appropriated it, we've authorized it, but the executive branch is the one that actually disperses the funds. And, what I believe has happened is that, just like up in Minnesota with the Somalian community, that's what they're used to. in, Somalia, they're used to the government being the distributor of funds. They're the revenue generators. And so to them, this is just normal. Well, in America, that's not how we do it. And it's fraud and it's abuse of taxpayer, dollars. So that's where we're going to focus a lot on, you know, as Congress moves so slowly. And again, I don't know if we can get it past the filibuster, in the Senate, because Democrats don't want to give President Trump a win on anything. I, think it's going to be a real challenge because Democrats will oppose

>> Jenna Ellis: it, which really would give Republicans an opportunity to message that ahead of the midterms, because so many people are focused on gas prices. And even here in Florida, I mean, I've seen it go up, and, you know, not insignificantly. And so, if that's something that Democrats are halting just because they don't want to give Trump a win ahead of the midterms, that really needs to be called out. And when you look at, the federal gas tax is roughly, at least, you know, according, to, to some reports I've seen, here online, is about 18.4 cents per gallon. And so economists estimate consumers would see about 13 cents of savings at the pump because, some suppliers could absorb some of that difference. And then the economists are asking, okay, does that really matter? Well, yeah, I mean, if it went down 13 cents, people would notice that. I mean, I, you know, I notice when it's, you know, even down and, or you get your, you know, 10 cents a gallon off because you're a, subscriber or whatever, that actually really does matter. And so are Republicans prepared to tell Democrats, you know, hey, if you hold this up, we're going to make sure that the American people know that it's you and hold you accountable for that?

>> Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think that's what President Trump does so well. You know, he has the ear to the ground. And what the American people are needing, I mean, you know, whether it's the housing situation and stopping the, institutional investors from buying houses away from single family homes, that was something that a lot of people don't talk about. And all of a sudden President Trump does and everybody's like, yeah, that makes sense. and then, of course, suspending the gas tax. Now Democrats, of course, you know, how hypocritical when gas prices were still higher under Joe Biden without any conflict in the Middle east, because of their energy policy in the Greene NewSong, deal scam that were driving prices up. They, of course, President Biden, of course, blocked the Keystone pipeline, one of his first executive orders when he became president. So they drove, gas prices up. Now Chuck Schumer is blaming President Trump for high gas prices. Well, that's what they wanted when they were in charge. And that wasn't even over, you know, keeping America safe. So the hypocrisy is so rank right now from the Democrat side. But Republicans, we as Republicans need to look out for the American consumer, look out for the American family and say, look, if we can suspend the gas tax, take money back from these states that are abusing welfare programs, put that towards roads and bridges, we could do this easily and, give some relief until the conflict is over in, the Middle East.

>> Steve Deace: Yeah.

>> Jenna Ellis: And that makes a lot of sense to me, and I hope that Congress actually gets it together, puts politics aside, and actually does, what's in the best interest of the American people. And moving, to a different story that I want your comments on as well, Representative, Marlon Stutzman, my special guest this morning.

Charlie Kirk was in attendance at the White House Correspondents Dinner and heard gunshots

You, were in attendance at the White House Correspondents Dinner and heard the gunshots. what was your experience there and now seeing, the aftermath of all of this? I mean, the. The shooter, of course, has, you know, pled not guilty, and the process is. Is unfolding. But, what are. What was your experience and your overall thoughts on this?

>> Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, Dannah, that was a. It was a scary night. you know, I've been in danger before, and, I've had death threats and things like that, like a lot of other members of Congress, have had. But, you know, we were actually just sitting down for the White House Correspondence Center. And I remember, you know, after everything happened that night, thinking back through how security was just. It was lax. I mean, I know if you go to an event at the White House to see the president or the president's, even just on the grounds, I, mean, you have to have your ID out. You have to check it against the registry.

>> Steve Deace: If you.

>> Marlin Stutzman: If your name is mischief spelled, they pull you to the side and they run verification to be sure you're the right person. We just had this little invitation card, like, three by five, that we just flashed at different perimeters going into the Hilton Hotel. And the other thing is, Jenna, is that this is a hotel. It's a huge hotel. It's got a thousand rooms, this huge ballroom, and there were people everywhere. And so, the fact that this shooter got in and got in as far as he did is there's a lot of questions around that. And even going back and looking at the video, you know, it looks like maybe he shot one of the Secret Service agents as he's coming through the magnetometers, but one of the dogs was actually sniffing him out, and looks like the dog was actually onto him until he was pulled away by the handler, of the dog. So I think there's just a lot of questions around all of it. I mean, he stumbled and fell. How the man is alive today, I don't know, because he was on a suicide mission from all appearances. But I was sitting towards the back, just sat down after the color guard left the national anthem was, sung, and immediately when we heard the shots, knew immediately it was gunshots. It was just pop, pop, pop, pop. And we all hit the deck. the ladies there at our table, I've got everybody under the table, didn't know which way the bullets were flying, so stayed down. And then I started looking around with some others, just to be sure that no one was coming into the room. And then, of course, all of the Secret Service and security started. You know, they were automatically in place. but, you know, the security out by the entrances, I think there's questions. The guys that, you know, stood in front of President Trump and was willing to give his life, in that moment, you know, they didn't. It was impressive. and ironically, that man who was standing there wasn't getting a paycheck because Democrats didn't want to fund dhs, but he was still doing his job. And so I give a lot of kudos to our, our law enforcement and Secret Service that somebody should, be held, at least be asked questions why the security was lax going in. I heard some of the ladies even say that their purses weren't even looked inside. and here you have the President of the United States, so many cabinet members. but one thing I'll just quickly say, I think in especially with the liberal media and the, you know, the fake news that we often talk about, they were all in that room and there was a moment of vulnerability. And I hope they all remember, you know what, that words are powerful and that words do move people. And it seems lately that the bullets have been flying from the left. I mean, after they shot our friend Charlie Kirk because of the words that were used against him. Everybody needs to realize on the left that their words have a, lot of power and it is moving people to do stupid things like this and it needs to stop.

>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So. So well said. Well, we have to take a break here, but I'm so grateful that, everyone was okay with that, especially, of course, President Trump. And, you know, these kinds of things absolutely do need to stop. There are so many questions about a lack security. Just like there are a lot of questions around what happened in Utah. Utah, with a security, that obviously was lax with Charlie Kirk. And, to hold not only, these actors accountable, but, of course, you know, the people who are, talking about this, who are saying overtly, that they wish harm on the president or conservatives or, you know, anyone else, I mean, that should not be tolerated in our society. And Freedom of speech, should, should not extend that far to making those kinds of threats. We'll see what happens with James Comey, who's actually been indicted because of of his post that of course, had that rhetoric. So, Congressman, Marlon Stutzman, appreciate it. Follow him on X and all platforms. We'll be right back with more.

Florida Attorney General has launched a formal investigation into Open AI

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

>> Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there is renewed focus on the, the moral concerns surrounding Open AI and Chat GPT specifically. And Florida Attorney General, James Usmeier has said open AI needs to be held accountable. When your quote, unquote, intelligence technology is designed to advise someone on how to use weapons and carry out a school shooting, there is a very big problem. this comes in the wake of, of the revelations that a mass shooter talked to Chat GPT and apparently and allegedly it told him to target children. So last April, when a shooter opened fire at Florida State University, just weeks before graduation, he killed two people, a student and her professor. But a new lawsuit alleges that that killer didn't act alone, as chat logs were found between him and an unlikely partner, ChatGPT. So according to the lawsuit, it details extensive conversations in which ChatGPT suggested what guns to use, where to go on campus, and what time would put the most people at risk. And according to the complaint, chatgpt allegedly told the shooter that the actions would much, would be much more likely to gain national attention, quote, unquote. If children are involved, even two to three victims can draw more attention. And so the Florida Attorney General, has launched a formal investigation into Open AI, saying I should advance mankind and not destroy it. So let's welcome in Daniel Cochran, who is a senior fellow for Family First Technologies at the Institute of Family Studies. And you know, while there are so many benefits to ChatGPT, to OpenAI, obviously, it is what the user wants it to be. But how much responsibility should be on the designers of the technology itself to ensure that it doesn't. these types of platforms don't actively help facilitate or encourage or, give better recommendations, to people who are using it for nefarious reasons.

>> Daniel Cochrane: Well, it's great to be here Jenna. And I think it's important to recognize once again with these big tech companies, this isn't the first time this has happened. so just months before this, tragedy, ChatGPT was involved in another incident in Canada. In fact, in British, Columbia, it helped, another mass shooter plan. What has Been considered, I believe, the second worst mass shooting in Canadian history. Killed, or injured, I believe, up to 27 individuals. And in that case, the transgender students, the transgender shooter use chat in a very similar manner as the shooter at the FSU incident to plan out the. To plan out the event, to target, the student union. So the. Or the town square.

>> Daniel Cochrane: The GPT actually told the shooter that, at a particular time, I believe it was like 11:30, that was when, the. The. It would be optimal to plan the attack in order to. To.

>> Daniel Cochrane: To maximize casualties. So the company at that time knew that this, their chatbot was being used for this specific purpose. In fact, there, There was such a, There was such concern within the ranks of OpenAI that the employees leaked, their internal deliberations to the Wallbuilders Street Journal, which published some of those messages. You can go read them. I'd encourage you to. They're quite harrowing. And the company actually is talking about, should we. Should we tell the Canadian Mounties, of this, you know, of, of the. Of the possibility that the shooter, or this individual at the time, he hadn't committed the act yet? should we.

>> Daniel Cochrane: Should we. Should we tell the Mounties that this individual is actually talking about committing a crime using our chat bot? And they, they went through and they decided not to because it didn't meet whatever threshold they believed it should have met for them to be able to report that to law enforcement. So it underscores that the company understands A, that this technology is being used specifically to plan crimes, specifically shootings. And B, that even though their, Their, their internal systems are flagging these for them, they're often choosing to overlook them. And you can argue as to. Well, why. Why is that? I think in some cases the company wants to avoid. They're always looking to avoid, you know, a priority, PR challenges. But I think the reality, of course, is that for these companies, when, when these terrible events happen, and especially when. When we know that they knew about it in advance and didn't do anything, then it creates far more questions and far more problems for them. When you look at that track record. Yeah.

>> Daniel Cochrane: When you look at that track record, it becomes clear like the company knew and they failed to act.

>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that absolutely should, create more legal liability and responsibility. because, I mean, on two different fronts. One, if Chat GPT can respond in some instances of even just political questions and say, sorry, I can't help with that. I mean, I've had that return response in a political Context when saying I don't want to take sides, right then something, then obviously the programming can be there and it should be there and lawmakers should require that and, and those guardrails. But then when ChatGPT has, and these these analysts actually see and are flagged with these conversations, there should be a much, much lower threshold for required reporting. And so where, where's the line in terms of privacy for the user, which is important. but Obviously this is OpenAI as well and reasonable regulation.

>> Daniel Cochrane: Yeah, I think it's a really good question and I think what's important to note is that right under the status quo, everything you put into chat GPT is fed back to OpenAI servers. They have access to everything you've said. And there's really, there's really not in the consumer context there's really, we have, we have no ah, federal privacy framework. So the only laws that limit what they can do with that information are on the state side. And really states have enact most of the data privacy regulations at the state level were, were not enacted with, with AI in mind. So the reality is that these companies and their eyes are constantly monitoring these conversations and they're using every bit of information you give them, you know, for context, for advertising, but also to improve their model. So I would argue that the liabilities, if the company, if the company runs on that model, if they're, if their AIs run on that model of mass data collection, then there's a failure to warn because they have all the information they need to be able to deduce. If like, if you're having a conversation with an AI, like BT on how to make a bomb, they already have safeguards in place to a flag either you know, prevent the AI from responding or to flag the conversation, to, to their staff. And so if they're, if they're already collecting all this data on us, then they also have to, they also have to accept the responsibility. Again, I don't like that they are doing that. I think we probably need laws to prevent them from doing that. But, but until we get to a future where we have that kind of privacy guarantee where like where our data as an example is localized on our devices, it's not going back to like a, you know, one company, then I think they have to have the responsibility. You want to be the big player, you want to be the big tech monopoly. Okay, well if you're going to do that then you know, with much power comes, comes much responsibility. In this case and so they obviously knew what was, what was happening, their staff knew what was happening. And they failed to act. And this is, this is twice in just a handful of months. So I think that's really, really telling as to their culpability here.

>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Daniel Cochrane: America needs to lead on proper AI regulation

And so with this lawsuit then that's been filed, how do you anticipate the defenses to go for chat GPT and this potential outcome? Because, with everything that you're describing, Daniel Cochrane, it seems like there is an obvious failure to warn.

>> Daniel Cochrane: Oh, absolutely. Again, I think the fact that this similar tragedy occurred in Canada, I mean, literally, you know, just weeks, you know, m. A couple of months before this, and they said the same thing. They internally knew what was going on, the staff came clean. And you know, Jim Altman, the usual, we're so sorry, we should have done this differently. You know, we should have, you know,

>> Daniel Cochrane: we immediately raised our safeguards and that's what he said. And then this happens.

>> Daniel Cochrane: Right. And so, so I think, I think what we're seeing is, you know, over and over again, what, what is, what, what is, what is the pattern that the tech companies follow, right? They, they, their, their, their technologies cause terrible, terrible harms. Then they apologize. M. And then pretty much the same thing keeps happening. And now they've, they think that they could just do that forever. But what, what we've seen recently, and especially in other lawsuits in California and in NewSong Mexico that have, addressed some of the more addictive features of social media as an example, these companies are starting, they're starting to be held accountable in courts. And as that happens more and more, especially with these AI companies, I suspect that's going, that's going to incentivize them to change, change their ways. But I think, I mean ultimately, I think Congress and the states need to, need to act legislatively, but in the meantime, the courthouse doors are open to these victims and their families. And I think that is so important for accountability and justice here.

>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And hopefully some of these verdicts, may incentivize, AI to, to remodel, you know, some of their, their practices just based on that rather than, even legislation. But you know, from, from the federal level, it is important, and I agree with Vice President J.D. vance that, you know, America needs to be on the, on the leadership of this and out in front in terms of proper AI regulation. And so how does the, the Bill of Rights or sort of, you know, what the Trump administration has characterized as the AI Bill of Rights factor into all of this in terms of potentially some privacy, but then obviously balanced with public safety and public interest in ensuring that some of these things are reported. because I would want to know that, I mean just as, as an American citizen, if somebody's using chat GBT for a nefarious purpose like this, there should be mandatory reporting laws and I would want chat GPT to have access to those conversations for that purpose. So there's, there's a balancing interest. Of course.

>> Daniel Cochrane: No, of course. And I, so I think, I think the Trump administration has, they, you know, their framework makes clear and the President has said over and over again, we know we have to win the race with China, but part of winning the iris with China is protecting children, conservatives, creators and communities. And so the four C's, if you will. And I think I want to underscore that because they oftentimes conservatives, you know, I'm a free market conservative too, and I think free markets are great, but free markets assume that we have certain, like we have certain conditions, we have rule of law, we have, you know, we have institutions that, that, that inculcate morals. Right. We have companies that, that are acting ethically. And unfortunately we, as we can see from this incident, we don't have that. And we don't have that from the most powerful companies in the world. And so what we have to now do is we have to create legislative safeguards to ensure that that technology is being used and being governed in ways that uplift American values and the American people rather than create, rather than continuing to rend our social fabric. And we've already seen that with kind of if, you will AI 1.0, which was the social media, the social media companies and how all the damage that's done to our republic. So I think we ought to learn from that and we ought to go into this saying, oh look, we're not going to regulate like you're Europe. That's a terrible idea. But you know, the, you know, the brilliance of America's founders is our federalist system where we have 50 different laboratories of democracy that can experiment with different ways of striking the balance. And I think you see red states like Texas, you see Florida, you see Utah, they're taking bold action in this space. You know, Governor DeSantis, proposed a bill of rights would be a great step in that direction. So I think we need to empower our laboratories of democracy to continue to take action here.

>> Jenna Ellis: Totally agree. And I think we need that on the state level. Daniel Cochran, really appreciate it. We're already out of time. You can reach me and my team, Jenna, at AFR Net.