Sponsor Message and The Biblical Basis for Government and Individual Rights
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr 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.
Congressman Massie's Impeachment Articles Against Defense Secretary Hegseth and Constitutional Concerns
This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 16, and less than two months out from the midterms. Congressman Thomas Massie, who you all will remember, was primaried, by Republicans and so will be out after, the January, swearing in, after the, the midterms. he has now filed eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging unauthorized wars in Iran and Yemen, defiance of the War Powers Resolution, unlawful civilian and maritime strikes, retaliation against Senator Mark Kelly, and the unauthorized capture of Nicolas Maduro. So kind of some wide, sweeping allegations here. some of these claims raise some constitutional questions, but, a lot of them are very debatable, more as policy and legal questions rather than rising to, to the level of impeachment. But if there's one thing that we've learned from the impeachments, multiple impeachments of Donald Trump and also Secretary Mayorkas during the Biden administration that the Democrats just even refused to try, it's that impeachments have now become completely political rather than substantively constitutional. So I think that Massie's main motive here is political and he's trying to force the administration to, to end the prolonged Iran war. And if that is the objective impeachment here really, is that the instrument that you want to use?
Alternative Congressional Actions to Impeachment for Addressing Unauthorized Wars and Presidential Defiance
Because it's pretty blunt and it risks dividing Republicans and actually mobilizing the Democrats ahead of the midterms. And Massie should still want Republicans to win even though he's out. And I understand, you know, sour grapes and all of that. He should still want Republicans to win for the good of the country. So I Think the better options that Congress has is to force a clean vote on the Iran War Authorization or pass a binding withdrawal resolution that forces Trump, you know, to, to either, you know, veto or, or sign an Iran War Authorization, cut off funding for unauthorized hostilities or compel the administration to publicly defend its legal basis and endgame. And in a much better forum than potentially the Senate, but let's welcome in former Congressman Bob Good, who knows a lot more about, impeachment and the games of Congress than I do. Bob, what's your assessment here?
Bob Good: Good morning, Jenna. Great to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Former Congressman Bob Good Discusses Impeachment of Mayorkas and Constitutional Concerns with the Administration
Full disclosure, I did support impeachment of Mayorkas, Secretary Mayorkas and Joe Biden during my time in Washington because of what I believe to be the absolute violation of the Constitution and the dereliction of duty and the great harm done to the United States, specifically by the border invasion that they perpetrated upon the American people to allow some 15 million illegals to help, not just allow, but to help facilitate, support the invasion by some 15 million illegals and thousands and thousands, as you know, of the most dangerous criminal gotaways, the ones who paid the cartels even more money to evade apprehension or surrender at the border for Biden's generous, policies of allowing anyone to invade our country, to come into our country, no matter where they were from and what their backgrounds were, criminally. Terrorist ties, gang members, smugglers, and all the rest. So I did support the, impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. I didn't understand why all Republicans wouldn't support that, and I thought that was important for us to do so. But you make great points, with respect to what's going on right now with Secretary Hegseth, I agree with you that there are constitutional concerns, with this administration and some of the things that are being done. And I do believe the President should be making the case to Congress, for the war. The Constitution, by design, intentionally gives the Congress, the people's representatives, the responsibility for declaring war, for making that decision to send our troops into battle. And while the executive, the President, is the one who executes the war at the will of Congress. The Founders were wise that they knew that it was easy to get into war, difficult to get out of war. And that's why they gave that responsibility to the Congress, to the people's representatives, to the House in particular, to be the most dominant, powerful part of the federal government. And so I think there's great constitutional concerns, but I don't agree that impeachment Is the way to go or the best way to address it at this point?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I fully agree with you. And like you, I supported from the outside obviously, the impeachment against Mayorkas for all of the reasons that you describe. And obviously, cabinet positions can be impeached. And I think that one was primarily political in the Democrats response.
Political Nature of Impeachment and Congress's Role in War Authorization and Funding Debates
So to be clear, it was political in that sense that they refused even when that impeachment passed, the House, the. Under Chuck Schumer, you know, the Senate just declined completely to to even hear it, which was it itself very political and I thought very inappropriate, at the time. But you know, with this kind of instrument, being used against Secretary Hegseth, it seems that it would be constitutionally cleaner to have Congress actually exhaust all of their institutional powers. you mentioned, you know, the power to authorize war, regulate, the military, deny funding before treating removal of the. Of one of the cabinet secretaries as the kind of principal go to remedy at this point, especially with the long history that the executive has enjoyed, with. With almost making some of that. Those provisions, at least transactionally moot because of the precedent. And so it seems like Congress often prefers kind of these symbolic war powers resolutions because, you know, which Congress has now passed in this case because members can denounce an unauthorized conflict without actually accepting the responsibility for stopping it. So isn't.
Bob Good: Yes, it does.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, go ahead.
Bob Good: Well, you're right. It does seem that some members of Congress want to abdicate. Many members of Congress perhaps want to abdicate their responsibility and like to go ahead and defer to the executive branch and leave the political pressure, the political responsibility to the executive branch instead of exercising the constitutional responsibility that each member of Congress has. But to your point, I think that our energy and our efforts and our time is better spent with trying to persuade the administration to make the case to justify the actions that they're taking with respect to Iran.
Lack of Clarity on Justification for Continued Hostilities in Iran and End Game Strategy
You know, it is troubling that we didn't really get an accurate or a full explanation as to why the war was necessary. Six months after we said that, we totally eliminated, obliterated Iran's nuclear capability, but yet we needed to attack them again back in February, and the administration said it wasn't a war. But now here we are, what, some seven months later, from February to here we are in September, and the President has not really made the case, the American people has not really made the case to the Congress to justify the continued hostilities or what the actual endgame is, or the objective is, or what victory looks like or how we get out of this, quagmire, if you will. It seems like Iran is trying to outlast, the president politically. They're smart about the midterms.
Presidential Accountability for Administration Actions and the Politicization of Impeachment Charges
They know the political pressure that he's under and so forth. And for that said, also the constitutional concerns that some of us have with respect to the administration, with respect to some of the actions by the president. his cabinet members are typically, you know, executing his wishes, following his wishes, doing what he wants them to do, whether it's, you know, the drug boat strikes or the alleged drug boat strikes, the extrajudicial killings that are taking place in the Caribbean, whether it's the free speech concerns or the freedom of the press concerns, whether it's the kidnapping of Maduro and the setting up of sort of a puppet regime to take control of the oil there in Venezuela, you know, the members of the administration are executing the wishes of the president. The president is the one that's ultimately accountable. But to the point of some of the things that you've said, you're right. We have so politicized impeachment. You've already got Democrats saying they're going to impeach the president if they were to gain the majority in the House. so it is unfortunate that, you know, we're sort of willy nilly bringing impeachment charges Al Greene is doing right now, as we've seen in the House, even just this week.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's where I think the timing of this on Thomas Massie's part is really undercutting the Republican Party on his way out the door. And I find that incredibly distasteful. And, you know, I've been one of the first to defend Massie. I mean, I've known him personally for years to say he's. He's principled above party. I do respect that, obviously. but you also have to be tactical.
Thomas Massie's Impeachment Filing Undercuts Republican Party and Mobilizes Democrats Ahead of Midterms
And when he's basically giving them, the Democrats, you know, the, the ability to kind of mobilize and attach to something specific that could later be used if they win the midterms, to say, okay, well, you know, this is all laid out against Hegseth, but to your point, he was just following the directives of the chief executive, so let's go after impeachment of him. I mean, that even gives them not only something to campaign on for the next, you know, six weeks, but also to mobilize even more quickly than they might have otherwise. If they do regain control of the House or even, you know, both chambers. And so, So I just think tactically this is a really, Maybe low move for Massey, instead of just going on record on his way out the door saying, you know, for a lot of reasons, he opposes the Iran war. And I think that's a fair position to take. I mean, I've been saying for a while I think the initial, strikes were, you know, were likely justified based on the information the administration gave us. But then the longer this continues. Yeah. The harder it is to justify. But rising to the level of impeachment, especially right now in this political climate, it just. That makes me question the motive.
Bob Good: Yes. I think that Thomas Massie, and not very many others, but have provided principled constructive resistance when it's been warranted over the past nearly couple of years.
Critique of Thomas Massie's Motives and a Call for More Constructive Republican Resistance
But. And he is a friend. I've agreed with him on many things. We certainly don't agree on some things. And I do think, that he has hurt, his legacy, if you will, his reputation, if you will, because of what seems like the motivation for some of the actions that have been taken. And I think there would, To your point, there's more constructive, more productive ways to express principled resistance when you disagree with the president of your own party. And I wish there were more Republicans who would do that about things that you and I have talked about many times, whether it's constitutional concerns, whether it's the appropriate ranch, responsibility, of the federal, executive branch versus the legislative branch, and particularly things like spending, sending out $5,000, to every, adult American if you win the midterms. There's things like that where I think we'd be well served if we had more principled Republicans who are willing to resist the president when he's wrong. And Thomas Massie has been one of those. But I don't agree with his actions to bring impeachment charges against Secretary Higs has. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And hopefully, if there is a contingent of Republicans, because it wouldn't take that many to, to band with the Democrats to actually pass this. and so, hopefully, if there's that significant, enough of Republicans, they would, go to the president kind of in private, try to resolve this rather than, you know, kind of airing the political grievances in the form of impeachment, especially right before the midterms. But, you know, we'll have to wait and see, before we run out of time here with, former Congressman Bob Good.
Discussion on a Political Ad Comparing Adults to Kindergarteners and Criticizing the Democrat Party's Electorate View
I also want to get your take on, this clip that came out from an ad, from James Talarico in Texas. This just keeps getting weirder and weirder. He's talking about, kindergarteners and how, at the end of the day, aren't, adults all really just big kindergarteners? I mean this, this is just kind of ridiculous. But listen to this. It's cut to.
Bob Good: What if we ran our world like we run a kindergarten classroom? Because at the end of the day, aren't we all just really big kindergarteners?
Jenna Ellis: Like what? This is the infantilization of a civilization that is pushing more grown up adults to try to rely on the government, for their welfare and basically to parent them. I mean, that's what I got out of this.
Bob Good: Well, I would just point out, Jenna, that the Democrat Party is not so much that it has changed in the last couple of years, it's more that it's been revealed for what and who it really is. And Talarico and those like him are mainstream Democrats now within the Democrat Party. But I think this reveals, what he and they think of the electorate, that they need, that we need the government to take care of us. that we, that we need half days like we're in kindergarten, that we need mat time mats and nap time. I should say that we need, you know, kind of name badges and bus badges so we know what kind of a bus to get on at the end of the day or in the morning to find our ways where we need to go. so I think it reveals that the Democrat Party thinks that the government needs to take care of us, and they think that we're incompetent and, and we're incapable of making decisions for ourselves. And Talarico and the Democrats at large just continue to reveal who and what they are.
Concerns About the American Electorate's Short Attention Span and the Republican Party's Failure on Spending
And hopefully the American people will not go back to the suffering that they endured under, when Democrats had full control of government on the first two years of Joe Biden and had control of Senate and the House as well as the White House. And hopefully they won't make a bad decision after two years of Republican control and go backwards.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, hopefully. And you know, how many, people generally, I mean, besides, you know, the base that obviously we need turnout from, from Republicans and you know, from those that are paying attention, but you know, on the margins, how many people do you think are actually paying attention and really get this message of what, what socialism actually is, the policy that that would, would entail if enacted on you know, any sort of a, larger scale or even smaller scale within certain states and really understand what it means in terms of the difference in worldview between voting Republican versus Democrat.
Bob Good: It's honestly hard to have a lot of confidence in the American electorate. the short, limited, attention span, if you will, the short term memory, it seems, and the willingness to swing back and forth. You know, you've got about 30% of the electorate that really wants what the Democrat Party is about, and then you've got about 30% of the electorate that's kind of up for grabs, that kind of swings back and forth election to election, kind of those, moderate swing voters, those independents, you know, weak Democrats, weak Republicans, that it's kind of pocketbook, election or how they feel about safety and security. And President Trump has done such a job, good job with safety and security, that now folks seem to be totally focused on the economic issues, the affordability issues. And I think Republicans have failed us in that respect because they haven't been willing to cut spending and to shrink government. And they propose, at least in the White House and Trump administration, some socialist policies of their own that you and I have talked about before.
The Peril of Empowering Democrats and the Importance of a Biblical Worldview in Government
And I don't think we've done a great job of distinguishing ourselves to the degree that we could have. But everything that the Republicans have done well and President has done well over the past two years, Democrats wouldn't have done any of that. And wherever Republicans have fallen short, Democrats would have been even worse. So we go backwards and we go back to Democrat control at our peril. And the American people will suffer terribly if they empower Democrats or elect Democrats to any degree at all.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said. Well, we've got to take a break here. Congressman. Bob, Good. Really appreciate your insights. And it's so true that we have to pay attention to the difference between the worldview and Yeah, we're going to go ahead and go to break, to the difference in worldview, from the Democrats and the Republicans and what those two policy perspectives are and how that would actually translate into this view of reality. I mean, it's just, it's just insane that they're running, on the left as open socialists and that, they're nominating these candidates and that there's a potential that we could have, you know, these types of people actually in positions of power. So, we need to continue to pray for the, the American voters to continue to pray for this country and to select and prefer our leaders that will actually enact a biblical worldview of government. So really appreciate it. And, we will be right back with.
Listener Support Appeal and Al Mohler's Admission of Error on Hypothetical Christian Nationalism and Blasphemy Laws
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis.
Jenna Ellis: Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net give that's afr.net
Jenna Ellis: give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, you'll remember, just a few episodes ago, we were talking about Al Mohler and his push for blasphemy laws for religious tests and essentially, for Christian nationalism. Well now Mueller admits that, quote, I blew it on his, his hypothetical Christian nationalism. So this coming from Baptist Press, I think I blew it.
Al Mohler's Hypothetical Christian Nationalism Argument for Blasphemy Laws and Critics' Responses
Al Mueller responded, September 14th to critics of his envisioned blasphemy laws under a hypothetical Christian nationalism supposed in a book chapter he wrote. Mueller's comments in the 2026 books 5 Views on Christian nationalism, which proved very contentious, were based on the supposition of drafting a new constitution for a fractured nation in the year 2099. So Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued that the nation's constitution should acknowledge its foundation on Christianity encompassing the Trinity, that citizens should be required to acknowledge such a Christian foundation, and that blasphemy should be criminalized as, quote, a fundamental rejection or repudiation of the republic's foundation. So, really some, some interesting walking back here and I think, pretty timely. But let's welcome, Dr. Bill Roach, who is the dean of the Norm Geisler School of Apologetics at Veritas International University. And Dr. Roach, what do you make of this move now by Mueller?
Dr. Bill Roach: Jenna, again, thank you for having me on this morning. It's really been good to dive into this important topic because as we know it touches so many issues of church and state and issues as it relates to denominational politics and even constitutional law. So it's a very important conversation to have to answer your question about what we should think about this acknowledgment that's come about with Mueller. I welcome this kind of acknowledgment.
Dr. Bill Roach Welcomes Mohler's Acknowledgment and Discusses the Heresy of the Hypothetical in Theology
You know, Dr. Mohler has been an advocate for evangelical identity and evangelical consistency for many years now. And not only has he been arguing for that within the context of, of evangelicalism, he's been arguing that from the perspective of a Baptist. And one of the key things that we find here is, is that within this particular conversation we see that many of the historic litmus tests of what it means to be an American evangelical and a Baptist were brought to the forefront. So like you were saying, this whole thing was built off of this hypothetical conversation. And one of the things that we find is that they're trying to project this future scenario in which America's collapsed and we've broken off into small little nation states. And we have this little saying that we use sometimes in theology about, dealing with these situations. We call it the heresy of the hypothetical. Now I'm not imposing heresy on Mueller in any way, shape or form, but the issue is that hypotheticals are just hypotheticals and we're not dealing with real constraints. But when it comes to this particular issue, we have a history of real constraints that we have to work in. We can't deal with these hypotheticals that the editors of the five View book tried to put forth.
Critique of Christian Nationalism's Hypothetical Scenarios and the Danger of Blasphemy Laws
So it may sound like an interesting talking point for a book, but in fact, time and space, history, it's not going to work. And I think that's what we've seen here. So first and foremost, I'm thankful to see the retraction by Dr. Mohler. I think it's actually pointing in the direction of consistency according to his historic views. And I also see it as a warning for us to try to not deal with these hypothetical societies going on in the future.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's a really, interesting ah, moment in time here that because Mueller, especially in, you know, in his daily podcast, the briefing, really deals with issues of the day on a lot more concretely. But, you know, kind of this projection into the future and you know, dealing with a broken republic and having to reframe our Constitution, that's what, what the mainline Christian nationalists have been pushing for today. I mean, that's really what they're essentially trying to push, is that our Constitution is outdated. We need to redraft it and make the Christian overtures and this, theocracy a lot stronger in their vision of America. And so, you know, I see this almost as his attempt to infuse that into the narrative, not just as a hypothetical, but an actual push for today is, is he now walking that back because this, this position has been rejected or because maybe, do you think, you know, that maybe he's seeing that it's just not tenable?
Examining Mohler's Hypothetical Context and the Post-Liberal Christian Nationalist Movement
Dr. Bill Roach: So I think there's a few issues that are going on here. First of all, you know, he frames it in his article with world that this was within the context of a hypothetical scenario in the future. The issue is, is that he made the exact same acknowledgments in a real conversation and a real talk with natcon a number of years ago, just within the last two or three years. So which one is it? Is it just a hypothetical, or is it from a real conversation with individuals at natcon and m. Like you're saying, you know, this actually is the Christian nationalist position. They are what are known as post liberals. Now, by liberal, in that context, we're not talking about classical liberalism. We're not even talking about the order that brought about our Constitution. In this sense. in. In that sense, what we're talking about is actually they are post those things. They're not just progressive liberals. They're post the foundation that gave rise to the American order in that regard. They think we're beyond such things and that the Constitution no longer works, therefore, we need to have amendments unto it or just totally, you know, reject and replace it wholesale. So I'm really looking at this going, which one is it?
The Real-World Dangers of Blasphemy Laws and Religious Tests Advocated by Christian Nationalists
But the situation that I'm looking at here as it pertains to the conversation is that even though Dr. Mohler may not have wanted to go as far as some of the others, make no mistake, many of the other participants on that panel and in that book, sparring one individual with it, Miller, they all are arguing for this particular thing. They want blasphemy laws in the classic sense of the term. They want the state to, quote, suppress heresy according to the original Westminster Confession and not in keeping with the London Baptist Confession or the updated Westminster Confession, and so on and so forth. And the reason that this is such a big deal is, is that, you know, as individuals have pointed out over and over again, when we're doing theology and philosophy and politics and history, we're having a conversation with the past that affects the present and will have implications into the future. And I remember it was last summer. I'm originally from the state of Iowa, and I'm walking around in this town called Oskaloosa, Iowa, with a former pastor and current mentor of mine for a number of years. And we're actually on the campus of William Penn University, and there we're seeing just different things on the campus, talking about the real effects of fighting for religious liberty and the effects of not having religious liberty. And one of the key things that it highlighted there was the reality that this is not just a hypothetical situation when we have blasphemy laws and you make these religious tests the test of whether or not you're in right accord with the civil jurisdictions. There are real effects. There can be fines, there can be punishments. There can even be, you know, the loss of life in many respects. So these are not just hypotheticals. And even though Mueller retracted, and we appreciate that in every sense of the term, the other individuals and other Christian nationalists on this, they're not retracting. This is their position. This is what they want.
The Dangers of Christian Nationalism as a Solution to Secularism and Religious Pluralism
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's really an important point that I think, for all of the Christian listeners out there to understand why this push is so dangerous. And I see the attractiveness of it, in a sense, because obviously we as Christians are frustrated with the overt, continual push over the last hundred plus years of American history toward religious pluralism, towards secularism, toward excising God out of society and undermining, that true Christian foundation. But this is not the solution. And, and so there is a danger to say, to, to the conversation to say, well, oh, well, this makes more sense. And if we could just give the government more control over what, people believe and what they profess in these, these blasphemy laws and religious tests, you know, that might cure the problem. Well, no, it will just create a whole host of other problems that the founders, in their wisdom, wanted to avoid, especially, and particularly on the federal level. And, it might be worth, discussing as well, Dr. Roach, how the PCA and the SBC have responded to the Christian nationalist movement too. I mean, they've largely rejected it. And so it's been interesting, to see how, you know, Mueller has taken that stance, really, against more of the mainstream evangelical movement.
Southern Baptist Convention and PCA's Rejection of Christian Nationalism and Advocacy for Religious Liberty
Dr. Bill Roach: That's exactly correct. And you know, when a person studies the history, in particular of the Southern Baptist Convention, they did offer a proposal at their last convention this last year, arguing for religious liberty, specifically in favor of religious liberty. And they don't want blasphemy laws, they want religious freedom. And somebody might say, well, did they just do this? No, they have done it dozens of times since the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, you may find a stray Baptist here or there who doesn't believe in that. But the overwhelming majority position amongst Baptists as they gather together and they have this particular conversation is in favor of religious liberty. So that's what's so interesting about the conversation here with Dr. Mohler is that Dr. Mohler has been a strong advocate for confessionalism for years on end. And what we find is that when Dr. Richard Land put forth his claims that what Dr. Mohler was doing actually undercut religious liberty. We see confessionalism working and working well, because what we find is that the Baptist faith and message which both Richard Land and Mohler not only wrote, but subscribe unto, it provides a guardrail on this particular issue, as it does other issues.
Westminster Tradition, American Edition, and the PCA's Stance Against Christian Nationalism
Now, the other thing is that we bring up the pca. And one of the interesting things about the PCA is that they are within that Westminster tradition. You know, we cannot forget that the original Westminster Confession did have a magisterial church in mind, and it did have blasphemy laws in mind. But the American edition, which the PCA affirms, removed those things. They did not continue those things within the American context. And I think what it is is that as people reflect upon Scripture and the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, they move closer towards religious liberty as time progresses. But when it comes to the issue of Christian nationalism, the PCA not only has largely rejected it by having a massive study committee in which they've gone through the relevant literature, they've laid out what the position is and why they're rejecting it. They've even gone so far as to ban particular groups that are advocates of Christian nationalism. In particular, the group American Reformer, which is a group that was founded to promote Christian nationalism, was barred from coming to the General assembly just last year and even this, current year at the PCA's General Assembly. So they're not only responding to the views themselves, they're not even allowing people who push these types of ideas to participate because they just see it outside of the bounds of the confessionalism and the healthy church environment that they're trying to create within these denominations.
Distinguishing Biblical Worldview Government from Christian Nationalism and Its Appeal
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And, I mean. And, it's good that the leaders of, these historic denominations are seeing the distinction between a government where policy and its limitations are built on the truth of the biblical worldview, the limited authority that God provides, the civil government within its restraints. how the founders initially, intentioned and envisioned a constitutional republic, and that Christian nationalism is not the solution to some of the problems, that we face. And so why do you think that, the Christian nationalist movement overall has gained a. Otherwise a pretty strong foothold in some circles. I mean, even to the extent that, you know, well, M. Mueller was saying he was wrong on this particular point of blasphemy laws, and saying that theological and doctrinal judgments properly belong to the believing church, not the government, he hasn't really notably abandoned the rest of the argument. I mean, he, he still is a little more into the Christian nationalist camp than, than I think the rest of the denominations and the leadership of overall Protestantism.
Dr. Bill Roach: Yeah, I think you're right. I think the issue that we find is that, you know, you ask, why are people pushing this particular kind of issue?
Christian Nationalism as a Right-Wing Reaction and Collectivist Movement Addressing Victimhood
You know, we've talked about this in previous episodes, that Christian nationalism is not just the reaction to the left, it's not just the answer that individuals are providing to the progressive left. Rather, it's the right wing version of the left. And you ask why are so many people buying into this on the right in particular, young men on the right are pushing these particular things. Well, it's because just like the left, there's a victim mentality. There's this idea that society, has in many ways worked them over and, you know, they're a product of a bad system and woe is me. Well, individuals on the right are doing the exact same things. They're arguing for a collectivism on the right, they're arguing for a constitutional reframing on the right. They're arguing for, an answer to overcome their victimhood on the right, and so on and so forth. So it's really appealing to these individuals who feel like they've been kicked to the curb. Whether on the left or on the right, it's the exact same movement.
Dialectical Movement of Left and Right, and Mohler's Shifting Stance on Christian Nationalism
It's what we call a dialectical movement. But the left and the right pit against one another in order to bring about sort of this idealistic change that is a synthetic reality, but it's not grounded in reality in that regard. So when we look at this, I would really hope that Dr. Mohler would even come out of it altogether and actually go so far as to say, I am not a Christian nationalist. Even though he has moved away from some of those positions, I wish he would come out in straightforward, forwardly say those kinds of things. So I think when we look at this situation, it has a large appeal to those particular audiences. And, you know, I can only speculate. It seems like Mueller was going in that direction because it was gaining steam and now he's changing directions once it's the wind has moved in a different particular direction. you know, the Lord only knows I can't read his heart, but that seems as an outside perspective what's going on. But make no mistake, this particular issue, Christian nationalism, is readily appealing specifically to young men in society. So let me give you one example of this.
The Pervasive Influence of Christian Nationalism and the Need for Local Church Discipleship
Just a matter of weeks ago, Phil Johnson at Grace Community church, where Jon MacArthur was the pastor for A number of years, he preached a whole message against Christian nationalism. And some of the things that he talked about were figures like Joel Webbin, who's having a massive appeal right now to individuals. And who's he appealing to, that particular demographic of individuals? You think, well, are these figures that are just, you know, on the fringe of society?
Bob Good: No.
Dr. Bill Roach: Many of these figures are within our evangelical seminaries right now, and they're most likely even within your own particular churches. So it's not just an issue of policy. It's an issue of discipleship on the local scale with individuals who are really in your congregation. So it's not something that we can just dismiss. It's something that not only do international and national figures need to be talking about, it's a thing that your local pastor needs to be talking about with members in his own congregation.
Pastors' Responsibility to Assess and Warn Churches About the Dangers of Christian Nationalism
Jenna Ellis: Yes. So well said. And I think every pastor listening, needs to hear that, from Dr. Roach and say that, you know, with your elder boards, with your churches, you need to actually sit down, make a sober, accurate, accurate assessment of this insidious movement and warn the church and explain exactly what is going on. And there's some great resources, from Dr. Roach and, you know, from others that explain, why this is very dangerous, what the end goals are so that we can prepare Christians, as we try to do on this program as well, to say, here's what's really going on. Here are the dangers so that you can be informed and that you can actually see stand up for biblical truth against, some of these lies. So Dr. Roach, always really appreciate it. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that. And we will be right back with more.
Preborn Network's Mission to Save Babies Through Ultrasounds and Support for Young Moms
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, ah, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound and at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound, $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Supreme Court Closes Chapter on Trump's Election Reform Efforts Amidst Ongoing Election Integrity Debates
Dr. Bill Roach: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the Supreme Court, just yesterday closed the chapter on one of President Trump's boldest efforts to reshape November's election is coming from the AP in terms of the dramatic overhaul of the nation's mail in voting process on what some said was an impossibly short timeline. But this is just one of the numerous examples of the push for election integrity to make sure that ballots are only being delivered to actual registered voters who currently live at the addresses that ah, are on the rolls. I mean things that are just so common sense and it seems like sometimes the practicalities get in the way of of common sense. And so where are we actually at in terms of, you know, now? this is several, what, three elections later, midterms, then another presidential election, and then now another midterm after the 2020 election. Where are we at with election integrity? Well, let's welcome in Cleta Mitchell, who is with the Conservative Partnership Institute and one of the, foremost advocates for election integrity. So Cleta, what's your assessment currently?
Cleta Mitchell: Well, I want to begin, Jenna, by saying I woke up this morning with a very hoarse throat. So my apologies for my voice, but,
Jenna Ellis: I hope you feel better.
Cleta Mitchell: I see. I do too.
Assault on Election Integrity Efforts by Blue States and the Supreme Court's Decision on Timing
Thank you. look, I mean what we've seen is a complete assault on all efforts that President Trump has made to address issues and problems that we all know exist in our elections. And this assault has been waged by blue states and left wing leaders and Democrat operatives. And they've been aided and abetted first by tyrants in black robes and key, in key judicial districts. I mean, you tell me, why does the State of California file a lawsuit in Boston to challenge the President's executive order? Well, because they had already gone to that particular judge in Boston to challenge and to derail the President's executive order a year ago that would have addressed some of the issues in non citizen voting and with voting machines. What is so disappointing to me is that three of the President's appointees to the US Supreme Court, so we had sided with the Marxist trio of the women on the Supreme Court who are against everything that would, secure our elections. So we have, literally we have seven of nine Supreme Court justices, three appointed by President Trump, who all said, oh, there's just not enough time. They agreed with the plaintiffs. Oh, there's just not enough time.
Justice Alito's Dissent on Standing and Court Delays in Election Integrity Cases
Well, Justice Alito wrote a very compelling dissent in which he said, number one, these plaintiffs didn't have standing, which they didn't. And he cited to all the Supreme Court decisions, that said that. And the other thing that he made very clear is that it was the fault of the courts that this took so long. And even the Supreme Court of the United States, that's one of the things that the three women justices, the Marxist women justices have been doing, is they've been delaying and slow walking decisions that they don't agree with. So if they can't get their way, they're just holding up the decisions. And so it's really frustrating, particularly when what the President had ordered was that the United States Postal Service should utilize data that is available to it. As you pointed out, they know where, they know what the correct addresses are. They know that when they have 18 ballots to deliver to a single family residence, they know that nobody, that those people don't live there. They know that which addresses where people are registered to vote that are actually vacant, vacant houses, vacant lots, the post office knows all of that. And so this was an effort to I mean, all of that data that the Postal Service publishes all kinds of data about where people live and what kind of property it is.
Fighting for Election Safeguards and Protecting Elderly Residents from Ballot Fraud
So what we're left with is, you know, that we have to keep fighting. I mean, we're not, we can't stop fighting. We're just not going to have some of the safeguards that we had hoped to have for the midterms. But that means we have to get busy right now to have those safeguards in effect before 2028. But there is one thing that I want to talk to everybody about that churches can do, that people can do, and that is, to protect the elderly residents of nursing homes from ballot fraud. This has been a very aggressive effort for many, many years by Democrats and their left wing NGOs who go into these nursing homes and who basically just register people and then cast ballots in their names. And in July, Dr. Oz at the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued new guidance, repealed the old Biden guidance, where the Biden administration had said, you know, this is a great opportunity, let's just go in those nursing homes and register everybody and get their Votes harvest their ballots. So Dr. Oz issued CMS, issued new guidance saying that repealed the old guidance and saying that while we want to respect the voting rights of every residential of these residential facilities, we also have to protect them from unscrupulous political operatives. So we have created at the Election Integrity Network a campaign and a toolkit where people can adopt these facilities. And we have template letters, we have information about what people can do to try to protect and guard against the theft of ballots and votes from elderly people who are unsuspecting.
Disappointment with the Supreme Court's Fecklessness on Election Integrity Protections
So there are so many granular things that we have to do to fight the left and fight this effort to have corrupt elections. That's really what these people want. And I'm just so disappointed in the United States Supreme Court. This should have been an easy thing for them to do and we should be having the protections in place for this election. And we would have, but for the fecklessness, I think, of the United States Supreme Court and these seven justices.
Slow Progress on Election Integrity Safeguards and the Need for Action Before the Next Presidential Election
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said, Cleta. And, you know, this is great for the Election Integrity Network and for those who want this toolkit, you can go to election integrity network.org election integrity network.org and you can click on, that menu for campaigns and then it's the Protecting Vulnerable Voters and you can get that to toolkit. but you know, when, when we're talking about, you know, securing this then for, you know, the next election, before the presidential election, it seems like this slow walking has been relatively successful, from the Supreme Court, other, you know, federal, judicial officers, because, you know, again, here we are. I mean, this will be the third major U.S. election after 2020, when election integrity obviously was at its most prominent. And we still don't have some of these basic safeguards.
Making Headway in Election Integrity Through Volunteer Engagement and Model Election Laws Handbook
I mean, Congress hasn't passed the Save America act. And so it seems like, you know, we keep, saying we need to do this for the next election, the next election. But then it doesn't seem like there's, you know, really a ton of push. And, and so do you think that overall we've, we've accomplished, enough significantly that we're actually making headway in the last six years?
Cleta Mitchell: Well, I do think we're making headway. And one of the reasons is because we have many, many hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of volunteers around the country who now are engaged in watching what's going on with their elections. They are serving as observers. We have people who attend election, board meetings. the Election Integrity Network has published a lot of, resources Including a handbook that is Model Election Laws. The Model Election Laws Handbook. So we can tell people, here are the laws and tell legislators here's what the laws should say. If you want to have integrity in your elections, if you want to get rid of the corruption in the elections, here's how you do it. And that didn't exist six years ago. But what I do think is really important is that people do. There are things people can do.
Importance of Voting in Person and Reducing Mail-In Voting to Combat Ballot Fraud
Number one, if you live in a state where you still have polling places, and there are several states that have done everything they can to make vote by mail the only option. But if you have polling places, you should go vote in person. If you possibly can go vote in person the first day of early voting, that you can vote, go vote in person. The number since 2020 of people voting by mail has declined every election. We need to keep driving that number down because that is the petri dish, the voting by mail, the universal vote by mail is a petri dish for, the ballot fraud and the manipulation by the left and their Democrats, NGOs. And we need to stop giving them the ability to say, oh, everybody wants to vote by mail. Convenience is not the key word or concept when we're talking about our elections. We want honest, accurate, transparent elections. So people should vote by mail. You should do what you can do to protect vulnerable voters in your community.
Protecting Vulnerable Voters in Key Districts to Ensure Fair Election Outcomes
And here's why. This election, the outcome of the United States House of Representatives, who will control the House, and who will lose control of the House will come down to about 30 districts. Some of those districts will be won or lost by a few hundred votes. And if you add up the number of beds and the number of residents in these residential facilities in these districts by protecting and guarding against the ballot harvesting by these left wingers.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Thank you so much, Cleta. We've got to end it here, but, go again to election integrity network.org get involved, pray for this nation. And as always, you can reach me and my team. Jenna Frank.
Preborn's Mission to Rescue Babies and Support Young Moms in Crisis Situations
Jenna Ellis: PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Sponsor Message and The Biblical Basis for Government and Individual Rights
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr 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.
Congressman Massie's Impeachment Articles Against Defense Secretary Hegseth and Constitutional Concerns
This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 16, and less than two months out from the midterms. Congressman Thomas Massie, who you all will remember, was primaried, by Republicans and so will be out after, the January, swearing in, after the, the midterms. he has now filed eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging unauthorized wars in Iran and Yemen, defiance of the War Powers Resolution, unlawful civilian and maritime strikes, retaliation against Senator Mark Kelly, and the unauthorized capture of Nicolas Maduro. So kind of some wide, sweeping allegations here. some of these claims raise some constitutional questions, but, a lot of them are very debatable, more as policy and legal questions rather than rising to, to the level of impeachment. But if there's one thing that we've learned from the impeachments, multiple impeachments of Donald Trump and also Secretary Mayorkas during the Biden administration that the Democrats just even refused to try, it's that impeachments have now become completely political rather than substantively constitutional. So I think that Massie's main motive here is political and he's trying to force the administration to, to end the prolonged Iran war. And if that is the objective impeachment here really, is that the instrument that you want to use?
Alternative Congressional Actions to Impeachment for Addressing Unauthorized Wars and Presidential Defiance
Because it's pretty blunt and it risks dividing Republicans and actually mobilizing the Democrats ahead of the midterms. And Massie should still want Republicans to win even though he's out. And I understand, you know, sour grapes and all of that. He should still want Republicans to win for the good of the country. So I Think the better options that Congress has is to force a clean vote on the Iran War Authorization or pass a binding withdrawal resolution that forces Trump, you know, to, to either, you know, veto or, or sign an Iran War Authorization, cut off funding for unauthorized hostilities or compel the administration to publicly defend its legal basis and endgame. And in a much better forum than potentially the Senate, but let's welcome in former Congressman Bob Good, who knows a lot more about, impeachment and the games of Congress than I do. Bob, what's your assessment here?
Bob Good: Good morning, Jenna. Great to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Former Congressman Bob Good Discusses Impeachment of Mayorkas and Constitutional Concerns with the Administration
Full disclosure, I did support impeachment of Mayorkas, Secretary Mayorkas and Joe Biden during my time in Washington because of what I believe to be the absolute violation of the Constitution and the dereliction of duty and the great harm done to the United States, specifically by the border invasion that they perpetrated upon the American people to allow some 15 million illegals to help, not just allow, but to help facilitate, support the invasion by some 15 million illegals and thousands and thousands, as you know, of the most dangerous criminal gotaways, the ones who paid the cartels even more money to evade apprehension or surrender at the border for Biden's generous, policies of allowing anyone to invade our country, to come into our country, no matter where they were from and what their backgrounds were, criminally. Terrorist ties, gang members, smugglers, and all the rest. So I did support the, impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. I didn't understand why all Republicans wouldn't support that, and I thought that was important for us to do so. But you make great points, with respect to what's going on right now with Secretary Hegseth, I agree with you that there are constitutional concerns, with this administration and some of the things that are being done. And I do believe the President should be making the case to Congress, for the war. The Constitution, by design, intentionally gives the Congress, the people's representatives, the responsibility for declaring war, for making that decision to send our troops into battle. And while the executive, the President, is the one who executes the war at the will of Congress. The Founders were wise that they knew that it was easy to get into war, difficult to get out of war. And that's why they gave that responsibility to the Congress, to the people's representatives, to the House in particular, to be the most dominant, powerful part of the federal government. And so I think there's great constitutional concerns, but I don't agree that impeachment Is the way to go or the best way to address it at this point?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I fully agree with you. And like you, I supported from the outside obviously, the impeachment against Mayorkas for all of the reasons that you describe. And obviously, cabinet positions can be impeached. And I think that one was primarily political in the Democrats response.
Political Nature of Impeachment and Congress's Role in War Authorization and Funding Debates
So to be clear, it was political in that sense that they refused even when that impeachment passed, the House, the. Under Chuck Schumer, you know, the Senate just declined completely to to even hear it, which was it itself very political and I thought very inappropriate, at the time. But you know, with this kind of instrument, being used against Secretary Hegseth, it seems that it would be constitutionally cleaner to have Congress actually exhaust all of their institutional powers. you mentioned, you know, the power to authorize war, regulate, the military, deny funding before treating removal of the. Of one of the cabinet secretaries as the kind of principal go to remedy at this point, especially with the long history that the executive has enjoyed, with. With almost making some of that. Those provisions, at least transactionally moot because of the precedent. And so it seems like Congress often prefers kind of these symbolic war powers resolutions because, you know, which Congress has now passed in this case because members can denounce an unauthorized conflict without actually accepting the responsibility for stopping it. So isn't.
Bob Good: Yes, it does.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, go ahead.
Bob Good: Well, you're right. It does seem that some members of Congress want to abdicate. Many members of Congress perhaps want to abdicate their responsibility and like to go ahead and defer to the executive branch and leave the political pressure, the political responsibility to the executive branch instead of exercising the constitutional responsibility that each member of Congress has. But to your point, I think that our energy and our efforts and our time is better spent with trying to persuade the administration to make the case to justify the actions that they're taking with respect to Iran.
Lack of Clarity on Justification for Continued Hostilities in Iran and End Game Strategy
You know, it is troubling that we didn't really get an accurate or a full explanation as to why the war was necessary. Six months after we said that, we totally eliminated, obliterated Iran's nuclear capability, but yet we needed to attack them again back in February, and the administration said it wasn't a war. But now here we are, what, some seven months later, from February to here we are in September, and the President has not really made the case, the American people has not really made the case to the Congress to justify the continued hostilities or what the actual endgame is, or the objective is, or what victory looks like or how we get out of this, quagmire, if you will. It seems like Iran is trying to outlast, the president politically. They're smart about the midterms.
Presidential Accountability for Administration Actions and the Politicization of Impeachment Charges
They know the political pressure that he's under and so forth. And for that said, also the constitutional concerns that some of us have with respect to the administration, with respect to some of the actions by the president. his cabinet members are typically, you know, executing his wishes, following his wishes, doing what he wants them to do, whether it's, you know, the drug boat strikes or the alleged drug boat strikes, the extrajudicial killings that are taking place in the Caribbean, whether it's the free speech concerns or the freedom of the press concerns, whether it's the kidnapping of Maduro and the setting up of sort of a puppet regime to take control of the oil there in Venezuela, you know, the members of the administration are executing the wishes of the president. The president is the one that's ultimately accountable. But to the point of some of the things that you've said, you're right. We have so politicized impeachment. You've already got Democrats saying they're going to impeach the president if they were to gain the majority in the House. so it is unfortunate that, you know, we're sort of willy nilly bringing impeachment charges Al Greene is doing right now, as we've seen in the House, even just this week.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's where I think the timing of this on Thomas Massie's part is really undercutting the Republican Party on his way out the door. And I find that incredibly distasteful. And, you know, I've been one of the first to defend Massie. I mean, I've known him personally for years to say he's. He's principled above party. I do respect that, obviously. but you also have to be tactical.
Thomas Massie's Impeachment Filing Undercuts Republican Party and Mobilizes Democrats Ahead of Midterms
And when he's basically giving them, the Democrats, you know, the, the ability to kind of mobilize and attach to something specific that could later be used if they win the midterms, to say, okay, well, you know, this is all laid out against Hegseth, but to your point, he was just following the directives of the chief executive, so let's go after impeachment of him. I mean, that even gives them not only something to campaign on for the next, you know, six weeks, but also to mobilize even more quickly than they might have otherwise. If they do regain control of the House or even, you know, both chambers. And so, So I just think tactically this is a really, Maybe low move for Massey, instead of just going on record on his way out the door saying, you know, for a lot of reasons, he opposes the Iran war. And I think that's a fair position to take. I mean, I've been saying for a while I think the initial, strikes were, you know, were likely justified based on the information the administration gave us. But then the longer this continues. Yeah. The harder it is to justify. But rising to the level of impeachment, especially right now in this political climate, it just. That makes me question the motive.
Bob Good: Yes. I think that Thomas Massie, and not very many others, but have provided principled constructive resistance when it's been warranted over the past nearly couple of years.
Critique of Thomas Massie's Motives and a Call for More Constructive Republican Resistance
But. And he is a friend. I've agreed with him on many things. We certainly don't agree on some things. And I do think, that he has hurt, his legacy, if you will, his reputation, if you will, because of what seems like the motivation for some of the actions that have been taken. And I think there would, To your point, there's more constructive, more productive ways to express principled resistance when you disagree with the president of your own party. And I wish there were more Republicans who would do that about things that you and I have talked about many times, whether it's constitutional concerns, whether it's the appropriate ranch, responsibility, of the federal, executive branch versus the legislative branch, and particularly things like spending, sending out $5,000, to every, adult American if you win the midterms. There's things like that where I think we'd be well served if we had more principled Republicans who are willing to resist the president when he's wrong. And Thomas Massie has been one of those. But I don't agree with his actions to bring impeachment charges against Secretary Higs has. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And hopefully, if there is a contingent of Republicans, because it wouldn't take that many to, to band with the Democrats to actually pass this. and so, hopefully, if there's that significant, enough of Republicans, they would, go to the president kind of in private, try to resolve this rather than, you know, kind of airing the political grievances in the form of impeachment, especially right before the midterms. But, you know, we'll have to wait and see, before we run out of time here with, former Congressman Bob Good.
Discussion on a Political Ad Comparing Adults to Kindergarteners and Criticizing the Democrat Party's Electorate View
I also want to get your take on, this clip that came out from an ad, from James Talarico in Texas. This just keeps getting weirder and weirder. He's talking about, kindergarteners and how, at the end of the day, aren't, adults all really just big kindergarteners? I mean this, this is just kind of ridiculous. But listen to this. It's cut to.
Bob Good: What if we ran our world like we run a kindergarten classroom? Because at the end of the day, aren't we all just really big kindergarteners?
Jenna Ellis: Like what? This is the infantilization of a civilization that is pushing more grown up adults to try to rely on the government, for their welfare and basically to parent them. I mean, that's what I got out of this.
Bob Good: Well, I would just point out, Jenna, that the Democrat Party is not so much that it has changed in the last couple of years, it's more that it's been revealed for what and who it really is. And Talarico and those like him are mainstream Democrats now within the Democrat Party. But I think this reveals, what he and they think of the electorate, that they need, that we need the government to take care of us. that we, that we need half days like we're in kindergarten, that we need mat time mats and nap time. I should say that we need, you know, kind of name badges and bus badges so we know what kind of a bus to get on at the end of the day or in the morning to find our ways where we need to go. so I think it reveals that the Democrat Party thinks that the government needs to take care of us, and they think that we're incompetent and, and we're incapable of making decisions for ourselves. And Talarico and the Democrats at large just continue to reveal who and what they are.
Concerns About the American Electorate's Short Attention Span and the Republican Party's Failure on Spending
And hopefully the American people will not go back to the suffering that they endured under, when Democrats had full control of government on the first two years of Joe Biden and had control of Senate and the House as well as the White House. And hopefully they won't make a bad decision after two years of Republican control and go backwards.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, hopefully. And you know, how many, people generally, I mean, besides, you know, the base that obviously we need turnout from, from Republicans and you know, from those that are paying attention, but you know, on the margins, how many people do you think are actually paying attention and really get this message of what, what socialism actually is, the policy that that would, would entail if enacted on you know, any sort of a, larger scale or even smaller scale within certain states and really understand what it means in terms of the difference in worldview between voting Republican versus Democrat.
Bob Good: It's honestly hard to have a lot of confidence in the American electorate. the short, limited, attention span, if you will, the short term memory, it seems, and the willingness to swing back and forth. You know, you've got about 30% of the electorate that really wants what the Democrat Party is about, and then you've got about 30% of the electorate that's kind of up for grabs, that kind of swings back and forth election to election, kind of those, moderate swing voters, those independents, you know, weak Democrats, weak Republicans, that it's kind of pocketbook, election or how they feel about safety and security. And President Trump has done such a job, good job with safety and security, that now folks seem to be totally focused on the economic issues, the affordability issues. And I think Republicans have failed us in that respect because they haven't been willing to cut spending and to shrink government. And they propose, at least in the White House and Trump administration, some socialist policies of their own that you and I have talked about before.
The Peril of Empowering Democrats and the Importance of a Biblical Worldview in Government
And I don't think we've done a great job of distinguishing ourselves to the degree that we could have. But everything that the Republicans have done well and President has done well over the past two years, Democrats wouldn't have done any of that. And wherever Republicans have fallen short, Democrats would have been even worse. So we go backwards and we go back to Democrat control at our peril. And the American people will suffer terribly if they empower Democrats or elect Democrats to any degree at all.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said. Well, we've got to take a break here. Congressman. Bob, Good. Really appreciate your insights. And it's so true that we have to pay attention to the difference between the worldview and Yeah, we're going to go ahead and go to break, to the difference in worldview, from the Democrats and the Republicans and what those two policy perspectives are and how that would actually translate into this view of reality. I mean, it's just, it's just insane that they're running, on the left as open socialists and that, they're nominating these candidates and that there's a potential that we could have, you know, these types of people actually in positions of power. So, we need to continue to pray for the, the American voters to continue to pray for this country and to select and prefer our leaders that will actually enact a biblical worldview of government. So really appreciate it. And, we will be right back with.
Listener Support Appeal and Al Mohler's Admission of Error on Hypothetical Christian Nationalism and Blasphemy Laws
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis.
Jenna Ellis: Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net give that's afr.net
Jenna Ellis: give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, you'll remember, just a few episodes ago, we were talking about Al Mohler and his push for blasphemy laws for religious tests and essentially, for Christian nationalism. Well now Mueller admits that, quote, I blew it on his, his hypothetical Christian nationalism. So this coming from Baptist Press, I think I blew it.
Al Mohler's Hypothetical Christian Nationalism Argument for Blasphemy Laws and Critics' Responses
Al Mueller responded, September 14th to critics of his envisioned blasphemy laws under a hypothetical Christian nationalism supposed in a book chapter he wrote. Mueller's comments in the 2026 books 5 Views on Christian nationalism, which proved very contentious, were based on the supposition of drafting a new constitution for a fractured nation in the year 2099. So Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued that the nation's constitution should acknowledge its foundation on Christianity encompassing the Trinity, that citizens should be required to acknowledge such a Christian foundation, and that blasphemy should be criminalized as, quote, a fundamental rejection or repudiation of the republic's foundation. So, really some, some interesting walking back here and I think, pretty timely. But let's welcome, Dr. Bill Roach, who is the dean of the Norm Geisler School of Apologetics at Veritas International University. And Dr. Roach, what do you make of this move now by Mueller?
Dr. Bill Roach: Jenna, again, thank you for having me on this morning. It's really been good to dive into this important topic because as we know it touches so many issues of church and state and issues as it relates to denominational politics and even constitutional law. So it's a very important conversation to have to answer your question about what we should think about this acknowledgment that's come about with Mueller. I welcome this kind of acknowledgment.
Dr. Bill Roach Welcomes Mohler's Acknowledgment and Discusses the Heresy of the Hypothetical in Theology
You know, Dr. Mohler has been an advocate for evangelical identity and evangelical consistency for many years now. And not only has he been arguing for that within the context of, of evangelicalism, he's been arguing that from the perspective of a Baptist. And one of the key things that we find here is, is that within this particular conversation we see that many of the historic litmus tests of what it means to be an American evangelical and a Baptist were brought to the forefront. So like you were saying, this whole thing was built off of this hypothetical conversation. And one of the things that we find is that they're trying to project this future scenario in which America's collapsed and we've broken off into small little nation states. And we have this little saying that we use sometimes in theology about, dealing with these situations. We call it the heresy of the hypothetical. Now I'm not imposing heresy on Mueller in any way, shape or form, but the issue is that hypotheticals are just hypotheticals and we're not dealing with real constraints. But when it comes to this particular issue, we have a history of real constraints that we have to work in. We can't deal with these hypotheticals that the editors of the five View book tried to put forth.
Critique of Christian Nationalism's Hypothetical Scenarios and the Danger of Blasphemy Laws
So it may sound like an interesting talking point for a book, but in fact, time and space, history, it's not going to work. And I think that's what we've seen here. So first and foremost, I'm thankful to see the retraction by Dr. Mohler. I think it's actually pointing in the direction of consistency according to his historic views. And I also see it as a warning for us to try to not deal with these hypothetical societies going on in the future.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's a really, interesting ah, moment in time here that because Mueller, especially in, you know, in his daily podcast, the briefing, really deals with issues of the day on a lot more concretely. But, you know, kind of this projection into the future and you know, dealing with a broken republic and having to reframe our Constitution, that's what, what the mainline Christian nationalists have been pushing for today. I mean, that's really what they're essentially trying to push, is that our Constitution is outdated. We need to redraft it and make the Christian overtures and this, theocracy a lot stronger in their vision of America. And so, you know, I see this almost as his attempt to infuse that into the narrative, not just as a hypothetical, but an actual push for today is, is he now walking that back because this, this position has been rejected or because maybe, do you think, you know, that maybe he's seeing that it's just not tenable?
Examining Mohler's Hypothetical Context and the Post-Liberal Christian Nationalist Movement
Dr. Bill Roach: So I think there's a few issues that are going on here. First of all, you know, he frames it in his article with world that this was within the context of a hypothetical scenario in the future. The issue is, is that he made the exact same acknowledgments in a real conversation and a real talk with natcon a number of years ago, just within the last two or three years. So which one is it? Is it just a hypothetical, or is it from a real conversation with individuals at natcon and m. Like you're saying, you know, this actually is the Christian nationalist position. They are what are known as post liberals. Now, by liberal, in that context, we're not talking about classical liberalism. We're not even talking about the order that brought about our Constitution. In this sense. in. In that sense, what we're talking about is actually they are post those things. They're not just progressive liberals. They're post the foundation that gave rise to the American order in that regard. They think we're beyond such things and that the Constitution no longer works, therefore, we need to have amendments unto it or just totally, you know, reject and replace it wholesale. So I'm really looking at this going, which one is it?
The Real-World Dangers of Blasphemy Laws and Religious Tests Advocated by Christian Nationalists
But the situation that I'm looking at here as it pertains to the conversation is that even though Dr. Mohler may not have wanted to go as far as some of the others, make no mistake, many of the other participants on that panel and in that book, sparring one individual with it, Miller, they all are arguing for this particular thing. They want blasphemy laws in the classic sense of the term. They want the state to, quote, suppress heresy according to the original Westminster Confession and not in keeping with the London Baptist Confession or the updated Westminster Confession, and so on and so forth. And the reason that this is such a big deal is, is that, you know, as individuals have pointed out over and over again, when we're doing theology and philosophy and politics and history, we're having a conversation with the past that affects the present and will have implications into the future. And I remember it was last summer. I'm originally from the state of Iowa, and I'm walking around in this town called Oskaloosa, Iowa, with a former pastor and current mentor of mine for a number of years. And we're actually on the campus of William Penn University, and there we're seeing just different things on the campus, talking about the real effects of fighting for religious liberty and the effects of not having religious liberty. And one of the key things that it highlighted there was the reality that this is not just a hypothetical situation when we have blasphemy laws and you make these religious tests the test of whether or not you're in right accord with the civil jurisdictions. There are real effects. There can be fines, there can be punishments. There can even be, you know, the loss of life in many respects. So these are not just hypotheticals. And even though Mueller retracted, and we appreciate that in every sense of the term, the other individuals and other Christian nationalists on this, they're not retracting. This is their position. This is what they want.
The Dangers of Christian Nationalism as a Solution to Secularism and Religious Pluralism
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's really an important point that I think, for all of the Christian listeners out there to understand why this push is so dangerous. And I see the attractiveness of it, in a sense, because obviously we as Christians are frustrated with the overt, continual push over the last hundred plus years of American history toward religious pluralism, towards secularism, toward excising God out of society and undermining, that true Christian foundation. But this is not the solution. And, and so there is a danger to say, to, to the conversation to say, well, oh, well, this makes more sense. And if we could just give the government more control over what, people believe and what they profess in these, these blasphemy laws and religious tests, you know, that might cure the problem. Well, no, it will just create a whole host of other problems that the founders, in their wisdom, wanted to avoid, especially, and particularly on the federal level. And, it might be worth, discussing as well, Dr. Roach, how the PCA and the SBC have responded to the Christian nationalist movement too. I mean, they've largely rejected it. And so it's been interesting, to see how, you know, Mueller has taken that stance, really, against more of the mainstream evangelical movement.
Southern Baptist Convention and PCA's Rejection of Christian Nationalism and Advocacy for Religious Liberty
Dr. Bill Roach: That's exactly correct. And you know, when a person studies the history, in particular of the Southern Baptist Convention, they did offer a proposal at their last convention this last year, arguing for religious liberty, specifically in favor of religious liberty. And they don't want blasphemy laws, they want religious freedom. And somebody might say, well, did they just do this? No, they have done it dozens of times since the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, you may find a stray Baptist here or there who doesn't believe in that. But the overwhelming majority position amongst Baptists as they gather together and they have this particular conversation is in favor of religious liberty. So that's what's so interesting about the conversation here with Dr. Mohler is that Dr. Mohler has been a strong advocate for confessionalism for years on end. And what we find is that when Dr. Richard Land put forth his claims that what Dr. Mohler was doing actually undercut religious liberty. We see confessionalism working and working well, because what we find is that the Baptist faith and message which both Richard Land and Mohler not only wrote, but subscribe unto, it provides a guardrail on this particular issue, as it does other issues.
Westminster Tradition, American Edition, and the PCA's Stance Against Christian Nationalism
Now, the other thing is that we bring up the pca. And one of the interesting things about the PCA is that they are within that Westminster tradition. You know, we cannot forget that the original Westminster Confession did have a magisterial church in mind, and it did have blasphemy laws in mind. But the American edition, which the PCA affirms, removed those things. They did not continue those things within the American context. And I think what it is is that as people reflect upon Scripture and the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, they move closer towards religious liberty as time progresses. But when it comes to the issue of Christian nationalism, the PCA not only has largely rejected it by having a massive study committee in which they've gone through the relevant literature, they've laid out what the position is and why they're rejecting it. They've even gone so far as to ban particular groups that are advocates of Christian nationalism. In particular, the group American Reformer, which is a group that was founded to promote Christian nationalism, was barred from coming to the General assembly just last year and even this, current year at the PCA's General Assembly. So they're not only responding to the views themselves, they're not even allowing people who push these types of ideas to participate because they just see it outside of the bounds of the confessionalism and the healthy church environment that they're trying to create within these denominations.
Distinguishing Biblical Worldview Government from Christian Nationalism and Its Appeal
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And, I mean. And, it's good that the leaders of, these historic denominations are seeing the distinction between a government where policy and its limitations are built on the truth of the biblical worldview, the limited authority that God provides, the civil government within its restraints. how the founders initially, intentioned and envisioned a constitutional republic, and that Christian nationalism is not the solution to some of the problems, that we face. And so why do you think that, the Christian nationalist movement overall has gained a. Otherwise a pretty strong foothold in some circles. I mean, even to the extent that, you know, well, M. Mueller was saying he was wrong on this particular point of blasphemy laws, and saying that theological and doctrinal judgments properly belong to the believing church, not the government, he hasn't really notably abandoned the rest of the argument. I mean, he, he still is a little more into the Christian nationalist camp than, than I think the rest of the denominations and the leadership of overall Protestantism.
Dr. Bill Roach: Yeah, I think you're right. I think the issue that we find is that, you know, you ask, why are people pushing this particular kind of issue?
Christian Nationalism as a Right-Wing Reaction and Collectivist Movement Addressing Victimhood
You know, we've talked about this in previous episodes, that Christian nationalism is not just the reaction to the left, it's not just the answer that individuals are providing to the progressive left. Rather, it's the right wing version of the left. And you ask why are so many people buying into this on the right in particular, young men on the right are pushing these particular things. Well, it's because just like the left, there's a victim mentality. There's this idea that society, has in many ways worked them over and, you know, they're a product of a bad system and woe is me. Well, individuals on the right are doing the exact same things. They're arguing for a collectivism on the right, they're arguing for a constitutional reframing on the right. They're arguing for, an answer to overcome their victimhood on the right, and so on and so forth. So it's really appealing to these individuals who feel like they've been kicked to the curb. Whether on the left or on the right, it's the exact same movement.
Dialectical Movement of Left and Right, and Mohler's Shifting Stance on Christian Nationalism
It's what we call a dialectical movement. But the left and the right pit against one another in order to bring about sort of this idealistic change that is a synthetic reality, but it's not grounded in reality in that regard. So when we look at this, I would really hope that Dr. Mohler would even come out of it altogether and actually go so far as to say, I am not a Christian nationalist. Even though he has moved away from some of those positions, I wish he would come out in straightforward, forwardly say those kinds of things. So I think when we look at this situation, it has a large appeal to those particular audiences. And, you know, I can only speculate. It seems like Mueller was going in that direction because it was gaining steam and now he's changing directions once it's the wind has moved in a different particular direction. you know, the Lord only knows I can't read his heart, but that seems as an outside perspective what's going on. But make no mistake, this particular issue, Christian nationalism, is readily appealing specifically to young men in society. So let me give you one example of this.
The Pervasive Influence of Christian Nationalism and the Need for Local Church Discipleship
Just a matter of weeks ago, Phil Johnson at Grace Community church, where Jon MacArthur was the pastor for A number of years, he preached a whole message against Christian nationalism. And some of the things that he talked about were figures like Joel Webbin, who's having a massive appeal right now to individuals. And who's he appealing to, that particular demographic of individuals? You think, well, are these figures that are just, you know, on the fringe of society?
Bob Good: No.
Dr. Bill Roach: Many of these figures are within our evangelical seminaries right now, and they're most likely even within your own particular churches. So it's not just an issue of policy. It's an issue of discipleship on the local scale with individuals who are really in your congregation. So it's not something that we can just dismiss. It's something that not only do international and national figures need to be talking about, it's a thing that your local pastor needs to be talking about with members in his own congregation.
Pastors' Responsibility to Assess and Warn Churches About the Dangers of Christian Nationalism
Jenna Ellis: Yes. So well said. And I think every pastor listening, needs to hear that, from Dr. Roach and say that, you know, with your elder boards, with your churches, you need to actually sit down, make a sober, accurate, accurate assessment of this insidious movement and warn the church and explain exactly what is going on. And there's some great resources, from Dr. Roach and, you know, from others that explain, why this is very dangerous, what the end goals are so that we can prepare Christians, as we try to do on this program as well, to say, here's what's really going on. Here are the dangers so that you can be informed and that you can actually see stand up for biblical truth against, some of these lies. So Dr. Roach, always really appreciate it. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that. And we will be right back with more.
Preborn Network's Mission to Save Babies Through Ultrasounds and Support for Young Moms
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, ah, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound and at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound, $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Supreme Court Closes Chapter on Trump's Election Reform Efforts Amidst Ongoing Election Integrity Debates
Dr. Bill Roach: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the Supreme Court, just yesterday closed the chapter on one of President Trump's boldest efforts to reshape November's election is coming from the AP in terms of the dramatic overhaul of the nation's mail in voting process on what some said was an impossibly short timeline. But this is just one of the numerous examples of the push for election integrity to make sure that ballots are only being delivered to actual registered voters who currently live at the addresses that ah, are on the rolls. I mean things that are just so common sense and it seems like sometimes the practicalities get in the way of of common sense. And so where are we actually at in terms of, you know, now? this is several, what, three elections later, midterms, then another presidential election, and then now another midterm after the 2020 election. Where are we at with election integrity? Well, let's welcome in Cleta Mitchell, who is with the Conservative Partnership Institute and one of the, foremost advocates for election integrity. So Cleta, what's your assessment currently?
Cleta Mitchell: Well, I want to begin, Jenna, by saying I woke up this morning with a very hoarse throat. So my apologies for my voice, but,
Jenna Ellis: I hope you feel better.
Cleta Mitchell: I see. I do too.
Assault on Election Integrity Efforts by Blue States and the Supreme Court's Decision on Timing
Thank you. look, I mean what we've seen is a complete assault on all efforts that President Trump has made to address issues and problems that we all know exist in our elections. And this assault has been waged by blue states and left wing leaders and Democrat operatives. And they've been aided and abetted first by tyrants in black robes and key, in key judicial districts. I mean, you tell me, why does the State of California file a lawsuit in Boston to challenge the President's executive order? Well, because they had already gone to that particular judge in Boston to challenge and to derail the President's executive order a year ago that would have addressed some of the issues in non citizen voting and with voting machines. What is so disappointing to me is that three of the President's appointees to the US Supreme Court, so we had sided with the Marxist trio of the women on the Supreme Court who are against everything that would, secure our elections. So we have, literally we have seven of nine Supreme Court justices, three appointed by President Trump, who all said, oh, there's just not enough time. They agreed with the plaintiffs. Oh, there's just not enough time.
Justice Alito's Dissent on Standing and Court Delays in Election Integrity Cases
Well, Justice Alito wrote a very compelling dissent in which he said, number one, these plaintiffs didn't have standing, which they didn't. And he cited to all the Supreme Court decisions, that said that. And the other thing that he made very clear is that it was the fault of the courts that this took so long. And even the Supreme Court of the United States, that's one of the things that the three women justices, the Marxist women justices have been doing, is they've been delaying and slow walking decisions that they don't agree with. So if they can't get their way, they're just holding up the decisions. And so it's really frustrating, particularly when what the President had ordered was that the United States Postal Service should utilize data that is available to it. As you pointed out, they know where, they know what the correct addresses are. They know that when they have 18 ballots to deliver to a single family residence, they know that nobody, that those people don't live there. They know that which addresses where people are registered to vote that are actually vacant, vacant houses, vacant lots, the post office knows all of that. And so this was an effort to I mean, all of that data that the Postal Service publishes all kinds of data about where people live and what kind of property it is.
Fighting for Election Safeguards and Protecting Elderly Residents from Ballot Fraud
So what we're left with is, you know, that we have to keep fighting. I mean, we're not, we can't stop fighting. We're just not going to have some of the safeguards that we had hoped to have for the midterms. But that means we have to get busy right now to have those safeguards in effect before 2028. But there is one thing that I want to talk to everybody about that churches can do, that people can do, and that is, to protect the elderly residents of nursing homes from ballot fraud. This has been a very aggressive effort for many, many years by Democrats and their left wing NGOs who go into these nursing homes and who basically just register people and then cast ballots in their names. And in July, Dr. Oz at the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued new guidance, repealed the old Biden guidance, where the Biden administration had said, you know, this is a great opportunity, let's just go in those nursing homes and register everybody and get their Votes harvest their ballots. So Dr. Oz issued CMS, issued new guidance saying that repealed the old guidance and saying that while we want to respect the voting rights of every residential of these residential facilities, we also have to protect them from unscrupulous political operatives. So we have created at the Election Integrity Network a campaign and a toolkit where people can adopt these facilities. And we have template letters, we have information about what people can do to try to protect and guard against the theft of ballots and votes from elderly people who are unsuspecting.
Disappointment with the Supreme Court's Fecklessness on Election Integrity Protections
So there are so many granular things that we have to do to fight the left and fight this effort to have corrupt elections. That's really what these people want. And I'm just so disappointed in the United States Supreme Court. This should have been an easy thing for them to do and we should be having the protections in place for this election. And we would have, but for the fecklessness, I think, of the United States Supreme Court and these seven justices.
Slow Progress on Election Integrity Safeguards and the Need for Action Before the Next Presidential Election
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said, Cleta. And, you know, this is great for the Election Integrity Network and for those who want this toolkit, you can go to election integrity network.org election integrity network.org and you can click on, that menu for campaigns and then it's the Protecting Vulnerable Voters and you can get that to toolkit. but you know, when, when we're talking about, you know, securing this then for, you know, the next election, before the presidential election, it seems like this slow walking has been relatively successful, from the Supreme Court, other, you know, federal, judicial officers, because, you know, again, here we are. I mean, this will be the third major U.S. election after 2020, when election integrity obviously was at its most prominent. And we still don't have some of these basic safeguards.
Making Headway in Election Integrity Through Volunteer Engagement and Model Election Laws Handbook
I mean, Congress hasn't passed the Save America act. And so it seems like, you know, we keep, saying we need to do this for the next election, the next election. But then it doesn't seem like there's, you know, really a ton of push. And, and so do you think that overall we've, we've accomplished, enough significantly that we're actually making headway in the last six years?
Cleta Mitchell: Well, I do think we're making headway. And one of the reasons is because we have many, many hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of volunteers around the country who now are engaged in watching what's going on with their elections. They are serving as observers. We have people who attend election, board meetings. the Election Integrity Network has published a lot of, resources Including a handbook that is Model Election Laws. The Model Election Laws Handbook. So we can tell people, here are the laws and tell legislators here's what the laws should say. If you want to have integrity in your elections, if you want to get rid of the corruption in the elections, here's how you do it. And that didn't exist six years ago. But what I do think is really important is that people do. There are things people can do.
Importance of Voting in Person and Reducing Mail-In Voting to Combat Ballot Fraud
Number one, if you live in a state where you still have polling places, and there are several states that have done everything they can to make vote by mail the only option. But if you have polling places, you should go vote in person. If you possibly can go vote in person the first day of early voting, that you can vote, go vote in person. The number since 2020 of people voting by mail has declined every election. We need to keep driving that number down because that is the petri dish, the voting by mail, the universal vote by mail is a petri dish for, the ballot fraud and the manipulation by the left and their Democrats, NGOs. And we need to stop giving them the ability to say, oh, everybody wants to vote by mail. Convenience is not the key word or concept when we're talking about our elections. We want honest, accurate, transparent elections. So people should vote by mail. You should do what you can do to protect vulnerable voters in your community.
Protecting Vulnerable Voters in Key Districts to Ensure Fair Election Outcomes
And here's why. This election, the outcome of the United States House of Representatives, who will control the House, and who will lose control of the House will come down to about 30 districts. Some of those districts will be won or lost by a few hundred votes. And if you add up the number of beds and the number of residents in these residential facilities in these districts by protecting and guarding against the ballot harvesting by these left wingers.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Thank you so much, Cleta. We've got to end it here, but, go again to election integrity network.org get involved, pray for this nation. And as always, you can reach me and my team. Jenna Frank.
Preborn's Mission to Rescue Babies and Support Young Moms in Crisis Situations
Jenna Ellis: PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis discusses the critical issues surrounding impeachment and election integrity with former Congressman Bob Good. They delve into Congressman Thomas Maize's recent impeachment articles against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, analyzing the political implications and constitutional concerns. The conversation shifts to the ongoing battle for election integrity, highlighting the importance of safeguarding vulnerable voters, particularly in nursing homes. Cleta Mitchell joins the discussion to provide insights into the efforts being made to secure elections and protect against ballot fraud, emphasizing the need for proactive measures as the midterms approach.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
