Sponsor Message And Introduction To Biblical Worldview And Government Obligations
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.
Department Of Justice Defends Trump's Ban On News Outlets From The White House
And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, September 24, and the Department of Justice is defending President Trump's ban of three news outlets from the White House. And the White House is saying that it is an access, that access is a privilege, not a right. And so the DOJ has urged a federal judge not to block President Trump's total ban of three news outlets from the White House. The doj, in a new court filing, said that Trump was motivated by concerns about national security in his decision Friday to summarily ban Ms. Now CNN and Politico. So the filing came ahead of a scheduled teleconference hearing in the U.S. district Court in Washington, D.C. where the judge will hear arguments by a lawyer for the outlets who have asked him to enjoin or basically stop Trump from continuing the ban. So let's welcome in Paul Teller, who is the president of Teller Strategies and a m. Former Trump admin official in the first term. And Paul, while, I agree that access is a privilege, not a right, and that media can obviously cover, President Trump and the administration and all of that and White House activities, without having immediate access to the president or the Oval Office in order to ask questions, this also seems like a really bad precedent.
Discussion On White House Press Access And Whether It Is A Privilege Or A Right
Paul Teller: Well, first of all, as always, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Great to be with you. And yeah, right. I think, maybe there's mixed, ah, things we can all say about this. Right. Like, one thing I keep thinking is, and again, I was privileged to be in the first Trump White House all four years, January to January, saw a lot, including through the angles of the press and stuff like that, part of Me always wondered why they were allowed in there at all, any of them. I don't even mean liberal, moderate. Just like, why does the press get a special White House access pass? They're just issue advocates. Right? They're actually not journalists. We know that. so like we know many friends, many of our friends, like in American Family Action and elsewhere who are issue advocates. They don't get a White House pass. They're allowed in. They could be what's called waived in M M, you know, on a case by case basis, but they don't have just a pass. They can just walk in. So why do folks who you know, supposedly cover the news, but again they're really just issue advocates, why are they getting a pass at all? So maybe that's one of the things we should look at for this most recent move, is that why is it just those three when there are other issue advocates that are still being led to walk around the White House freely with a pass, both for and against what the President is doing? This seems very inconsistent.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, that's a great point because if President Trump, and the admin simply just revoked all of the hard passes and said, you know, nobody has access, you can be waved in on basically a credentialed media event, per basis, then that wouldn't give, standing to really, to any of them probably. I mean, and I'm sure CNN and others would sue over it anyways, but that would at least not be a targeted ban and give them the ability to say, hey, it's just targeting outlets that he doesn't prefer our coverage. And that's First Amendment concerns and all of that. because, you know, we all remember, when Stephanie Grisham was the White House press secretary and never held a press conference.
Analyzing First Amendment Rights And The Lack Of Requirement For White House Press Access
And they couldn't, the media couldn't say, well, you know, they're not allowing us access to the briefing room and all that because they just chose not to hold press conferences. And the press secretary role is relatively new anyway in terms of the presidency and it doesn't, require. The White House isn't required to talk that much to, as you rightly say, activists.
Paul Teller: Yeah, no question. And. Right. See that's what I'm confused about too is why some in the media are saying this is restricting their First Amendment rights. Like M. You know, maybe Jenna, you and I have different copies of the Constitution that the media have. But at least in the copies, I think you and I have no mention in there of how the First Amendment right means you have to have an access pass to the executive branch mansion. I just don't understand where they're getting that. They have full and free access to cover anything they want from outside the gates of the White House. The same way that, like, you know, the media doesn't get a pass to, like, walk around Speaker Johnson's private office whenever they want. You know, I mean, it's just, for some reason, they're claiming they have this inherent right to have this access pass. And here's what's crazy, too. And you know this.
Unprecedented Media Access To The President And The Notion Of Needing Physical White House Access
As a member of the media, the media has unprecedented access to the President himself. Forget about the press secretary and the staff, the chief of staff, everybody else. Like, you know, I was in the. In, the hotel during the latest assassination attempt on President Trump here in the Washington Hilton, and let me tell you, the journalists were all running around on their, like, reaching the President. Some of them were on the phone with the President. I was watching them. Others were saying, I'm trying to reach the President. Like, they all have his direct cell phone number. You know, they have unbelievable access. The notion that they need to have their feet physically on, like, the pavement of the White House grounds to be able to cover him is just, It's just kind of crazy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I mean, I remember the controversy as well when, activists were kicked out of the Pentagon for, you know, similar reasons. And I was sitting there wondering, like, why do they even have offices anywhere that's, you know, in these federal buildings? Because, like you said, I mean, the First Amendment protects their right to criticize, publish whatever they want.
The First Amendment Protects Criticism Not Guaranteed Access And National Security Argument Analysis
It doesn't guarantee that they get a front seat, when in the room where everything is happening. And that is unprecedented in terms of. Of, this. This nation and the overarching scope of. Of history. I mean, journalists never used to be able to do that. And so, And of course, having, you know, the cel. The president, I mean, that didn't even happen, at least in my experience, in the first term. I mean, that mainly at least went through some staff, unless they were physically in front of the President asking those questions. But, but why frame this from the DOJ's perspective as a national security issue? I mean, why, you know, that to me, didn't quite make sense, that that was really their best argument.
Paul Teller: Totally agree. Yeah. And I think, to be honest, and if, you know, I don't know who's listening, but, you know, if there are folks in the White House listening, I think we should Back off of that log.
President's Authority To Decide Who Enters The White House Grounds As His Home
I mean, that just doesn't land. It doesn't work. Nobody believes that. And the beauty is they don't need to, you know, have that kind of excuse, because they have just the genuine excuse of the President gets to decide, you know, who comes onto the grounds of the White House. That's his House, his executive branch. He's the head of the executive branch. That's the home of the executive branch, the home of the President and the First Lady. They, it's just so basic. They get to decide, you know, just the way that, like, you know, members of Congress and presumably all the way up to Speaker Johnson get to decide, like, you know, who comes into their offices, you know, who gets access passes to the floor of the House of Representatives. No one would say anyone has unfettered access to the floor of the House or the Senate without the permission of the House and Senate leaders. Same thing here. Like, you don't get unfettered access to, you know, certain areas of the White House without the permission of the President. And it's kind of at his will. The notion that it's First Amendment, too. Like, people forget the First Amendment has a lot of stuff in it too.
Analyzing The First Amendment's Right To Petition Government And The Logic Of Press Access Passes
Right. In other words, you know, the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. That's a fancy phrase for lobbyists. Right. or citizen activists coming to complain. Does that mean any citizen, any lobbyist can also have a free access pass to the White House? You know, no one would assume that that would even be logical. Yet somehow, the other part of the First Amendment, you know, journalism, free press, they somehow have a right to a free pass to the White House. It's just not seeing, not seeing the logic. So the ideal would be consistency, though, not, don't just pick these three.
Discussing The Timing Of The Media Ban And Trump's Motivation To Troll The Media
Like, if you're going to have them, have them, but if you're not going to have, you know, some journalists, don't have any of them is what I would say.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree. And, you know, we've, we've all been hearing President Trump say, you know, fake news and, complain about the, the, activists that have not covered his administration, with glowing terms. And, you know, he obviously disagrees with that. why do you think at this moment, I mean, we're at looking less than two months out from the midterms. Why would Trump pick this fight right now? I mean, to me also, it seems like this isn't really an issue that any voters care about. I mean, we all care about, obviously that the activists, ah, on the left, we care that they don't spin the news and all of that, but that's kind of a tired issue at this point. I mean, I think we all. No, we have a selection and if we choose to turn on, you know, CNN or msnbc, like, we know what we're getting right at this point. So it seems to me that with all of the frustration that a lot of voters are voicing that, you know, the, the Trump administration, at least the first two years in, along with Congress, you know, really hasn't carried out as much of their promises as we expected. Why focus on this issue instead of maybe trying to get a few other things done to bolster the turnout and the excitement for Republicans?
Paul Teller: No, it's a good point. And frankly, yeah, you know, the President has an incredible bully pulpit. He has incredible, talents for shaping the news. Right. And for focusing attention, not only the nation's attention, but the media's attention on things. And you're right, I would argue. Yeah, agree with you. That he should use it for more positive things. But my gut is on this one. He just loves trolling the media. Right. Like, there's no one better at it and it's working. Right. In other words, like, he shines the, shiny object over here and they come running towards it. I mean, it really is fascinating to watch. In fact, it's hard. Those networks can't seem to cover anything else. Like, if you look at some of their reporting now, that's like a huge focus. So it's, you know, maybe he's doing it to take their focus off of some of the, criticism of some of the other items. I'm not quite sure, but, man, he is, he is definitely trolling them. Trolling them. I would just say go further. Let's be consistent.
Critique Of Trump Administration's Lack Of Retribution And Focus On Reducing Government Size
Let's get all the media out of there and be consistent with the rest of things.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, absolutely. And I agree. And Paul Teller, I don't know if you saw this piece, yesterday in Real Clear Politics, by Rich Barris and for listeners, by the way, tomorrow's podcast, on the podcast side, on Demand, I'm going to have Rich Barris on talking about this article, for a deeper dive, but I wanted to mention it this morning as well. because the headline is, you know, speaking of the, midterms and turning out Republicans and all of that, this was really fascinating commentary. and the headline is young voters did not elect Trump for this. And kind of, I mean, and there were a lot of poll quotes from this, but the one that I took, from it is, Barris argues they elected President Trump and Vice President Vance to burn it down. They did not get the retribution they were promised. And suddenly, Republicans are baffled because these voters had the audacity to expect what they were promised. And then he goes on to say, you know, the only people who've been targeted, punished, or gone to jail have been Trump supporters. And he was supposed to drain the swamp and became it. I think there's some truth to that. your reaction?
Paul Teller: Yeah, it's interesting. well, the first thing I would say to those critics is, like, whether left, right or center, we shouldn't want our government to be the retributionist. What if that's the correct word in chief? Right. In other words, that isn't the point of government at any level, of any ideology. Right. So they expected just pure retribution, like revenge against political enemies.
Debating Government Retribution Vs. Accountability And Reducing Federal Government Size
Well, that's not great. And frankly, we complained with President, Biden and Vice President Harris did that through their DOJ and, you know, other entities, you know, two wrongs don't make a right. So we shouldn't have expected that. But the one thing I would say is that, you know, more than any president in our lifetimes, he's actually living up to his promise to reduce the size and scope of government. Could we go, you know, faster and do more? No question. And I think everyone recognizes that. But like, you know, thousands of employees have been, fired from the federal government. Especially the Department of Education is, you know, down significantly. Finally. Right. How many decades have we been here? We're going to shut down the Department of Education only for Republicans to increase the funding for it. Well, here's the first president that has actually removed people, removed programs and authorities from the Department of Education. And that's just, you know, one example. Even some of the fraud stuff that you've probably seen some of the breaking news on as well, like just getting fraudsters out of these welfare programs, health care programs that the federal government, that is the taxpayer, is paying for. That's another way of draining the swamp, saving money and things like that. So, you know, again, maybe the retribution did come, but it probably shouldn't have come, but, you know, reducing sizes of a government that has started and, you know, more to do.
Jenna Ellis: And I'm really glad, Paul, that you say that about this whole retribution angle. I mean, frankly, you know, I mean, as someone who was targeted by the Biden administration, I didn't want retribution in the sense of like, okay, we're just going to do to them what they did to us. because you know, a lot of this was, was unconstitutional. You know, a lot of this was just targeting, Trump supporters and Trump himself. And the way to to combat that in a just society isn't to then just say, okay, well we're going to do the same thing to you. I.
Accountability For Actions During COVID-19 And The Need For Investigation And Accountability
But, so, so I appreciate you saying that because I've gotten a lot of pushback from, from very well meaning conservatives saying, yeah, but you know, we want it in revenge and all this. So I was concerned about that going into the second admin. But, but on the same hand, where it's not revenge, it's actually, targeting people who deserve to be, to be charged for crimes. like for example, people, you know, in, in the whole context of Cove I mean, I know, you know, Fauci has this pardon, but you know, there really hasn't been any sort of move, to potentially challenge that. but then there are a lot of other people. I mean, Dr. Birx doesn't have a pardon. there are a lot of other people that, you know, did a lot of things during COVID that I think would warrant some measure of investigation and accountability for that. I mean, we could go on, on, you know, a number of, of people. And I think that's more the angle that I would focus on and say, you know, why, when you know, Trump blamed you know, Covid and all of the mail in ballots and all of this, you know, in 2020 and sat out for four years, he finally gets back in office and then it's kind of like, well, you know, that's passe. And I think everybody was ready for accountability.
Distinguishing Revenge From Accountability And The Arctic Frost Scandal's Lack Of Media Attention
That just didn't come.
Paul Teller: No, that's a great point. And we should make that distinction between revenge and accountability. Right? No question. perfect example is, I don't know how much your listeners have followed this, but Arctic Frost, you know, that's the name for basically the Biden Department of Justice spying on members of Congress, and conservative activists, getting some of their emails, getting other, I think text communications, phone calls, and it was a big deal for like a week. It seems to have faded now. You know, if you talk to Senate Judiciary staff, they say, well, we're still looking into it. Well, you know, like it's not particularly credible anymore because it's been months and months and months since it's even been mentioned publicly. So if they are still looking into it, they're not doing a great job of communicating that to not only the public, but those of us, myself included, whose names, you know, showed up in some of these, you know, leaked emails and reports and other such things, that came out in this Arctic Frost, you know, data dump from many earlier this year or something. So, very frustrating. You're exactly right.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's also a great point because, and my cell phone record's included. I was also included in that. I mean, it was so wide that a lot of us from, the first four years of Trump were included. And I haven't heard anything about that. But can you imagine, if this was on the other side and this had been Arctic Frost was under Trump, this would be all we would hear about. I mean, the Russia collusion narrative was literally only headline for like a year and a half. I mean, it was just. And then the impeachment and all of that. And so it seems like Republicans have a more difficult time actually focusing the media on the things that Republicans want. Which I think kind of goes back to the original topic that it seems like for as much of conservative outlets, that we have on cable news, and some of these that are solidly Republican voices, that we could fairly categorize, like Fox News Newsmax, Oan, some of those that seem to be, Republican mouthpieces, we have a really hard time following, the stories that are actually better for conservatives instead of just almost following the lead of the CNNs and the MSNBCs. And I think that's a problem.
Paul Teller: That's a great, great, great point. Because you're exactly right to say if Arctic Frost were on the other side. Right. This was going after, let's say, the. The first Trump, you know, doj, you know, Jeff Sessions, you know, going way back, something like that. Yeah, they would have like, maybe a weekly press conference to demand answers and to update things and, you know, all kinds of stuff. And, said we just kind of let it go. And again, maybe there are people quietly still investigating, but, man, then tell us about it, right? Like, give us a weekly update, a monthly update, something, you know, but it's just total radio silence. So the impression is they've forgotten about it or they've abandoned it and we're not supposed to care. And those of us like you and me who are on those lists and things like that, oh, well, gosh, golly gee, these things happen. And it's just. Yeah. Shame. It's not Accountability. Right.
Impact Of Media Bans And Leftist Outrage On Midterm Elections And Voter Focus
It's not good for American, the American system of government. And it's a real shame.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. Well, real quick, we're running, up against the brake. But, Paul Teller, how much of this do you think actually will affect the midterms? I mean, you know, this type of the media ban, any of that. I mean, I don't think the media is going to go or the left is going to go harder against Trump than they already are. I mean, in my opinion, I don't think it'll affect it much at all.
Paul Teller: No, but it is funny. I agree. It won't affect much. And it's just funny though to see how folks on the left get totally spun up about certain things. These again, the media ban, from the White House grounds, you know, the Kennedy center name, the golden shiny statues in Washington, the reflecting pool. All these things have gotten so spun up and it's. I was just saying to a couple of, some liberal family members that I was talking to the other day, I said, guys, you just gotta find other things to focus on in life. There are more important things in life than the name of the Kennedy Center.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. well, well said, Paul Teller. Really appreciate it. You can follow him on X and we will be right back with more.
Listener Support And Focus On State-Level Conservative Wins Regarding Illegal Immigrants In Census
Hi, I'm 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 podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netforward/give. That's afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as much as conservatives can, you know, rightly point out that the federal government and Congress may not be, stacking up as many wins as we would prefer. The Redskins states are, and I think on the state level is where we should focus in terms of conservative wins. And, this one is coming out of Missouri, where Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has, posted a few days ago on X. Illegal immigrants should not be represented in Congress in a win for Missourians. The federal government has agreed that counting noncitizens in the census would compromise representation and has issued a proposed regulation that forbids including illegal immigrants in the 2030 Census and 2031 congressional apportionment. Our office has moved to dismiss our litigation in light of this development.
Win For Missouri As Trump Administration Proposes Rule Against Counting Illegal Immigrants In Census
We are glad the Trump administration is taking action and we will continue to fight to ensure citizens voices are never diluted in favor of illegal immigrants. So, the Attorney General joins us now and, this is a great win.
Catherine Hanaway: It is a great win. Jenna, thanks so much for having me on again. As you know, and we talked about several months ago, we had sued the Census Bureau to try and get them to not count illegal immigrants in the census. And now the fact that the Trump administration has affirmatively come forward and put out a new rule that says illegal immigrants won't be counted in the census is a big win for every red state that didn't become a sanctuary state and just open its borders to anyone who wanted to come there. And it will shift, where congressional seats are apportioned in this next, after this next census. It really is a big win and we're going to keep fighting for it. Of course, the Trump administration will get challenged both in court and in, the regulatory mechanism over this new rule. And we're going to stand right beside him and fight all the way.
Jenna Ellis: Great. And I mean, it's just such an obvious, basic premise that of course, undocumented and illegal non citizens, just flat out, regardless of their, their status, if they're not citizens, they shouldn't be counted in a census for apportionment in Congress because Congress represents, citizens. And this all makes sense. how confident are you that because this is a rule by the Trump administration, obviously in 2030, the Trump admin won't be there. We don't know, what next administration will be elected in 2028.
Legal Challenges And Constitutional Arguments Regarding Census Apportionment Of Non-Citizens
Could that next administration simply reverse the rule?
Catherine Hanaway: It could. And that's why I think that the court cases that are going to follow after this rule will be very important because the Trump administration, the first Trump administration tried to do something similar. Court battles ensued and then it kind of got dropped. the U.S. supreme Court weighed in. We don't think it's a definitive decision. we think that there are a lot of arguments to be made in favor of this rule. Ultimately, I think this does get decided at the U.S. supreme Court. hopefully it moves quick enough that that decision comes down before a new administration has the time to change the rule.
Jenna Ellis: Okay. Yeah, and we'll, we will be, hopeful for that. And you know, critics on the left have characterized this basically as an attempt to just give Republicans more congressional seats. But, what's, I mean, the argument against that obviously is saying, well, if there are more Republicans that get seats, well, too bad, this is the appropriate way to count for apportionment. But do you see that argument at all being effective at the Supreme Court, or any other potential challenges?
Catherine Hanaway: Yeah, I mean, what the left wants to argue is that the U.S. constitution says that we shall count any person.
The Constitutional Basis For Apportionment And The Intent Behind Counting Non-Citizens
And we're saying yes, but at the time of the drafting, there wasn't a flood of illegal immigrants, that the drafters of the Constitution did not mean any person who was in the country illegally. And in fact, from other cases at the time, we know that they didn't count anyone who was temporarily here for a job or on travel. It only was counting, permanent legal residents, either citizens or green card holders. And that's what we're still advocating for today. And it isn't just a matter of shifting seats to Republican states. It's a matter of encouraging states and cities to protect their sovereignty in the way that, that the whole country has to. But when Minneapolis and L. A are saying, hey, if you can make it across the border, you're very welcome here, obviously it's causing a great strain on the resources of the entire country. It doesn't just affect Minnesota and California.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that makes sense. and there also is a practical question because the Census Bureau historically hasn't asked respondents for their immigration status.
Determining Citizenship For Census And Apportionment And Federal Funding Implications
I mean, that was a big question as well and was litigated in the 2020 census. And so how can, even if this goes through this new rule, for the 2030 census, how can the federal government reliably determine who even belongs in the apportionment population without, the accuracy of the census itself?
Catherine Hanaway: Yeah. So, you know, there are number of means that we're seeing get utilized to verify that only citizens are voting. And I think we'll be able to use those same means that we've used to verify the voter rolls to make sure that people who are responding to the census, are legally in this country.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and this also is interesting at least, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of this was that the, the Commerce Department proposal does not exclude undocumented immigrants from being enumerated for every census purpose. It would only exclude them and other, foreign citizens who are not lawful permanent residents from the population used for congressional apportionment. But they might be counted for other, census purposes.
Catherine Hanaway: Yes. And, you know, that doesn't go quite as far as our lawsuit did. We thought it was also important that the, people who were here illegally not be counted in the census for the purpose of apportioning federal money. that's the other way the Census is used. How much does each state receive in federal highway dollars? Snap, funds, you know, pretty much every federal program.
Arguments Against Counting Non-Citizens For Apportionment And Protecting State Sovereignty
the rule from the Commerce Department doesn't go quite that far, but we still think the integrity of the ballot is so important that we're going to support their rule.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I totally agree with that, that that elections are the most important. the arguments, of course, then you know, from those who are opposing this rule is that then if we're counting people who you can still use roads, schools, public services, welfare and all of that, then why, why foreclose them only toward apportionment?
Catherine Hanaway: Well, because the U.S. constitution set us up as a republic where the people got to choose their representatives, but it was the people who were citizens of the United States who participated fully. I, mean, I almost think that that argument is a little bit like saying, I got a gift, but I want to be able to control like what the gift is, how much money is spent on me. Like I want to have decision making authority over the gift. Just because Americans are of a generous spirit and want to take care of everybody who happens to be living within our borders doesn't mean that we should give up the right to control our country.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And it's wild to me that this question of the census and apportionment is even at issue. I mean, on obviously, those on the left and who, you know, want to ultimately use this for more Democrat seats. I mean, I think that's their main, their main goal. If there were, if, if the, all of the undocumented immigrants ultimately gave Republicans more seats, then they would be agreeing with us on the apportionment.
The Role Of Federal Judiciary In Election Integrity And Protecting The Character Of The Country
Right. I mean, it's obviously. Yeah, I mean it's obviously just for their outcome that they prefer that they're arguing any of this. so where, where is the, the federal judiciary on this? Because we have, we have seen, you know, so much about rogue judges or even, you know, or even on the state level, but where all this is being challenged, we need to have federal judges as well, and judges as a whole that understand this and aren't looking at this through a partisan lens, but actually want to protect the integrity of our elections and apportionment.
Catherine Hanaway: Absolutely. And I think it's going to be a tough battle because as I said, after the first Trump administration, it got litigated to some degree. But you know, some of the states who were participating in it sort of backed off that defense. We're not going to go away, even if we get a new president, I'm going to be in this office hopefully for a long time. And it's my mission to make sure that we protect the integrity of the ballot for the long run. My kids are 28 and 24. They're just getting started in their lifetime. I want them to be inheriting the same kind of country that I inherited from my parents and grandparents. And if we don't win this fight, the character of this country is going to change.
Jenna Ellis: I love that.
State-Level Elections And Actions Matter For Election Integrity And Ballot Protection
And I love that this is why we have some really great attorneys general on the state level that will continue to push these issues. you are one of them. And this is why, you know, state elections matter as well. I think, you know, so, so much of us because so many, of the headlines are just national. But we do need to pay attention to the state level and to what states are doing because, the states can really accomplish what the federal government just doesn't seem all that interested in doing. And so on election integrity as a whole, you know, this is a huge issue. is there anything currently going on or coming up, from Missouri or maybe you're collaborating with other states, overall to protect our ballots.
Catherine Hanaway: Well, right now in Missouri, we are pretty deeply mired in our own fight over redistricting. for the third time in three weeks, our redistricting plan has gone up to the U.S. supreme Court. We had reached through yesterday at 1:00 clock Central Time.
Missouri Redistricting Battles And The Importance Of State-Level Advocacy For Constitutional Values
the 8th Circuit has ruled in favor of the maps passed in 2025. Unfortunately, the first two times we've gone up to the US Supreme Court, they've ordered us to go back to the 22 maps. So we've been pretty deeply entrenched in that fight. But as soon as it gets resolved, we're going to be looking for the next battle.
Jenna Ellis: Awesome. Well, we've got to take a break here, but Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, I so appreciate your fight, your standard for constitutional values for America, for our citizens. And you know, it's so great, to be able to speak with you and to see the fights that you are fighting, along with my home state, Florida's ag, James Uthmeyer. I mean there are some really great advocates that we have around the country. We need more of you, ah, to do this kind of ah, fight. And we, we really, really appreciate it. We'll be praying for you. And again, for voters listening. I mean this is why voting matters. This is why everyone that you elect, on the state level as well, matters. We need to all get out and vote and use our vote in the best possible way that we can and exercise that privilege come November. We'll be right back.
Sponsor Message: Preborn Network Clinics Offer Support And Free Ultrasounds To Pregnant Mothers
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 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 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 250 and say the keyword baby. That's 250 baby. Or [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Diesel Prices As An Affordability Issue And Potential Political Problems For Republicans
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And diesel prices are becoming another major affordability issue for Americans. And this one reaches far beyond what truckers are paying at the pump. When diesel prices surge, the cost of moving food, operating farms, running construction equipment, and transporting, virtually every consumer good goes up with them. And this creates potentially a political problem for Republicans heading toward the midterms, particularly after President Trump campaigned on lowering energy costs. this is yet another issue I think that, that Rich Barris is pointing out that Republicans, are concerned with and young voters, especially with the lack of follow through on campaign promises. But now there's been an, important update to this story after the reports. Ah, from Politico and others that the White House was considering a temporary ban on US Diesel exports to keep more fuel here at home bring down domestic prices. The administration is pushing back on the idea of a blanket export ban.
White House Considers Alternatives To Diesel Export Ban To Lower Domestic Prices
Instead, officials, are now looking at other ways to increase domestic diesel supplies without potentially driving up the prices of gasoline and jet fuel. So the political question is no longer simply should Trump ban diesel exports? It's much bigger than That I think, what can the administration actually do to bring prices down? And how much time does it have before voters start holding Washington responsible? Well, let's welcome in Richard Stern, who is the vice president of the Plymouth Institute for Freedom.
Discussing Diesel Prices As A Kitchen Table Issue And Solutions For Lowering Energy Costs
And Richard, you know, this is a, actually a kitchen table conversation even in my own family. I was out visiting, you know, Colorado this past weekend and my little brother, who's, you know, recently married and you know, is having a lot more costs and so forth, you know, starting his family. you know, he's one who's an ardent Trump supporter, but is very concerned about, you know, the prices.
Richard Stern: Absolutely. Well, thank you for having me on the talk about this. And you know, of course, you know, diesel gasoline more broadly, these are crucial kitchen table issues for all Americans. But, you know, I think it's encouraging that the administration is coming back off the idea of an export ban. You know, that sounds right. It feels like it can help. But the truth is, diesel, gasoline, more broadly, crude oil, all of these energy resources are priced on global markets. If we ban our exports, it just redirects for foreign fuels and foreign crude oil goes. And so the prices stay the same. And in fact, you would actually push more countries into buying Russian and Chinese diesel and other energy resources and fuel. So it'd be a disaster. Look, the solutions here are pretty simple. We need to cut red tape and regulation on our refiners and drillers. We need to open more federal land for extraction of energy resources. Supply is the answer if you want to bring prices down.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, so Energy Secretary Krish Wright has now said in response to the, Politico article, that the administration is now, instead of that, that flat diesel export ban, discussing ways to increase diesel, availability domestically.
Exploring Ways To Increase Domestic Diesel Availability Without Export Bans Or Price Controls
so how can they practically do that and can they do that quickly?
Richard Stern: Well, you know, the thing that I'm a little worried about is that they could try to use some presidential authorities, restrict who can buy diesel, or the try to, you know, impose restrictions on, you know, prices or where you can sell it if they did that, which again, isn't something that increases supply. It just picks winners and losers about who can access it. It really wouldn't actually bring down prices for anybody and it would. It would just create distortions in markets and probably honestly lead to less diesel on the market.
Historical Failures Of Price Controls And Export Bans On Energy Resources
You know, we actually had a blanket crude oil ban from, export ban from 1975 to 2015. We had price controls prior to that under Nixon on, on both diesel and gas and other parts of Fuel. And, you know, none of these work right. Because markets work around it. So I hope it Wright's talking about is cutting red tape, is leasing oil, you know, extraction lands. And as much as that wouldn't have, you know, an incredible immediate effect, it would come some of the speculation of prices. You would see some decline immediately. But, you know, if they tried doing these other routes like restricting who can buy it, you might actually get price increases instead.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so with the administration, you know, I mean, I would tend to believe the Politico article, at least to the extent that the administration was considering it.
Market Reactions And Potential Economic Consequences Of Government Intervention In Energy Markets
But now, you know, they have walked that back. Is this because they've concluded, what you have, and that this could backfire economically, or is it because of the resistance from the energy industry or just because this has been a headline?
Richard Stern: I think it's probably a little bit of all three. So, you know, keep this in mind as well. I think one of the things that's interesting about President Trump and his administration is they look to the stock market, the commodities futures markets. They try to look at the markets to see what they think the immediate response is going to be. And, you know, I think all the people that are really in the industry and look at markets suspect, and I do too, that if they started doing these, these harsh price controls or export bans or anything like that, the markets would actually freak out, that you'd actually have speculation, you know, speculative dollars come in trying to buy up diesel contracts because they'd expect prices to go up. And so the last thing the administration wants is to do something that they think will get prices down. And that actually triggers a market panic that means an immediate spike in prices. So whether they really agree with the underlying policy, I think they've been convinced that the market reaction would certainly be bad and counterproductive in the short run.
Attributing Current Energy Price Spikes To Wars And Domestic Energy Policy Decisions
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that makes sense. And so how much of the current price spike can fairly be attributed to, the wars, I mean, that ongoing still in Iran and Ukraine, and how much reflects the domestic energy policy, actual decision making?
Richard Stern: So I think essentially all of the spike is related to the war, to concerns about that and about Ukraine and Russia. It's also concerns to a little bit of a collapse in the industry in Russia, which is, you know, again, related to some of the problems they're having stemming from the war. At the same time, though, you know, there of course, is just, a naturally higher global price than there needs to be, including right here in America, because of the energy prices. We have, you know, a Lot of people don't remember it, but, but energy prices, crude oil for example. Right. Which is the, you know, the thing that gas and diesel come from, you know, has, has gone down by over half its price point in the last 20 years because of the fracking revolution. You know, the high prices we've got today would have been the norm, had we not had the fracking revolution, if frankly, Obama and Biden and people like this had just remained in office and prevented the fracking revolution. You know what we are considering, exceptionally high prices today just would have been the norm that the government would have let us have.
Voter Responsibility For High Prices And The Impact Of Government Policies On Affordability
So, you know, we can always bring prices down by getting rid of regulation, by allowing companies to get more oil out of the ground. And you know, that's just a price increase that we could have every day of the week that nobody knows because the government's kept us from having them.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, the President Trump campaigned heavily on bringing costs down. And so, you know, regardless of the, this particular debate, we are at the moment, you know, we're less than two months away from the midterms. And so, you know, where are we at with voters ultimately holding the party in power responsible when they see dramatically high prices? I mean, going back to the kitchen table conversation, you know, it seems like, the affordability issue is one that is driving voter, ah, turnout or potentially not.
Richard Stern: I think you're absolutely right about that.
Catherine Hanaway: And you know, the way that I
Richard Stern: think about it is I think in D.C. a lot of people tend to say, you know, voters only care about what the price is today and who's ever in office, they just blame.
Evaluating Administration Policies On Prices And The Public's Perception Of Their Effectiveness
I actually don't believe that. I think that the American public gives credit for whether you're trying or you're not trying.
Catherine Hanaway: And you know, the truth is, yes,
Richard Stern: there are some things that this administration's done that have actually brought prices down, that have increased incomes. The tax cuts and reform of the one big beautiful bill, the deregulation, some of it is energy deregulation. Those are all good. But you know, a lot of the other policies, the ones that are frankly pet projects of the president, you know, government interference in markets, the government taking equity stakes in companies, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars of tariff collections, all of these have raised prices dramatically. And so I think the voting public is viewing the current administration as not caring, frankly about high prices. And I think that while they're, you know, they're not giving enough credit for things like the tax cuts for deregulation, I think they're hitting the, you know, the nail on the head when they're blaming the tariffs and some of these other things for the high prices. So, you know, again, you know, a lot of us, including myself, have advocated against them, but I think voters can see right through these policies.
Democratic Strategy On Affordability And Republican Messaging On Tariffs And Taxes
Jenna Ellis: I hope so, because, you know, the Democrats are trying to effectively turn this into an affordability argument. And that's what's been, you know, in the news a lot lately, and, is kind of, you know, this kitchen table issue. So what messaging, in your view, does the White House and the administration need to have on this issue to not, you know, make it this, this more difficult concept and, you know, rather, you know, telling people, okay, you know, yeah, gas prices are high right now, but, you know, here's the plan, and basically, trust us anyway.
Richard Stern: Well, you know, first of all, I think the. The love affair that some people on the right are having with tariffs absolutely gets in the way of this.
Messaging On Freedom And Government Interference Versus Republican Focus On Tariffs
You know, let's be clear about it. Elected Democrats have never seen attacks that they didn't like, including tariffs, right up until it was Trump that was doing the tariffs. You know, elected Democrats for decades view your money as theirs, and they believe they're doing you a service by letting you keep the money you've worked hard to earn. And so that should be part of what Republicans are talking about. And, you know, if you've got Republicans trying to say, well, I, want your taxes low, but unless it's in the form of a tariff, it just muddies the water and it muddies the conversation. Look, you know, we're looking at elected Democrats that think that you shouldn't have any freedoms, that you shouldn't be able to do anything without their express permission, and that your money is theirs. That should be the messaging right there.
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Richard Stern, VP of the Plymouth Institute for Freedom. Really appreciate your commentary on this, and, it is a really big issue. Well, for the, last just few minutes of this program, I also wanted to address, one other issue that has been, in the news as well.
The Lindsey Clancy Case: Defense Attorney's Actions And Jurors' Arguments Beyond The Case
And this is, of course, the Lindsey Clancy trial. And this holdout juror. It's, really fascinating to see, you know, what the, the defense is now arguing. And Jonathan, Turley actually wrote a great piece, @JonathanTurley.org that is, titled From Holdout to Hunted. Kevan Reddington, the defense attorney for Clancy, seeks phone records and interview with holdout Clancy juror. And so, in his view, and I agree with him, A Reddington appears to be moving from Zealous advocacy to virtual stage stalking as he frames it in the Lindsay Clancy case. you know, this is such an unprofessional attack that, I mean, obviously, defense lawyers, part of their obligation is to zealously advocate in the best interests of their client. But when you go to, to targeting a juror simply because of his or her particular view of the case, I mean, this is why we have jury. So that, 12 people get in a room, they view the evidence, they consider the facts and the evidence in light of the law, and they render a decision, and mistrials happen. but what's fascinating to me here about this particular holdout juror and then the, at least three of the women who voted, to not hold Lindsey Clancy criminally responsible and would have voted, not guilty, they actually are the activists here. They have gone, at least in their interviews, well beyond the scope of what a juror's responsibility is, because they are advocating and, being activists for a much broader issue about healthcare, about postpartum, about women in general. And, you know, they're saying we view this, in their interviews, and I'm paraphrasing, but they're basically saying we view this as a bigger issue, and this could be, you know, a case that prompts a lot of, policy changes in health care and so forth. That's not their call. They're not legislators. They're not in elected office.
Holdout Juror's Stance Versus Activist Jurors And The Dangers Of Targeting Jurors
They're not lawmakers. They are jurors who are supposed to look at the facts and evidence of simply this case, apply the facts to the law, and render a decision. And this one holdout juror, as much as Reddington, is targeting him, nothing that I've heard any, speaking only through his attorney at this point, but nothing that I've heard has suggested that he's being an activist whatsoever. He's saying, I looked at the facts, I looked at the evidence, and I don't find that she, had this, you know, postpartum psychosis. I don't believe that beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has the ability, as a juror to make that determination and to. To look at the facts and render that decision. And so what I see all of this being not only is an attack on, fundamentally the province of the jury and the confession find issues that the jurors are supposed to determine, but also intimidation of future jurors, that if you're the one holdout and that you don't go along with what the defense would prefer or what the, you know, prevailing crazy, you know, women groups of leftists believe then you're going to be targeted. Your phone records, your, your mindset, you know, all of this is going to be looked into when simply, you know, this guy just showed up to do a public service because he got called to jury duty. So I hope that the court smacks him down on this.
Concerns About Precedent Set By Targeting Jurors And The Need For Court Intervention
I think that it is a terrible precedent for, Reddington to even pursue this. but we're gonna see, you know, what happens. And we need to be praying for the safety of this juror, amid all of the attacks. But, it's a really fascinating legal question that I hope the courts get right. So, as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna. AFR.net.
Sponsor Message: Preborn Network Continues To Rescue Babies And Support Young Moms
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 Introduction To Biblical Worldview And Government Obligations
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.
Department Of Justice Defends Trump's Ban On News Outlets From The White House
And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, September 24, and the Department of Justice is defending President Trump's ban of three news outlets from the White House. And the White House is saying that it is an access, that access is a privilege, not a right. And so the DOJ has urged a federal judge not to block President Trump's total ban of three news outlets from the White House. The doj, in a new court filing, said that Trump was motivated by concerns about national security in his decision Friday to summarily ban Ms. Now CNN and Politico. So the filing came ahead of a scheduled teleconference hearing in the U.S. district Court in Washington, D.C. where the judge will hear arguments by a lawyer for the outlets who have asked him to enjoin or basically stop Trump from continuing the ban. So let's welcome in Paul Teller, who is the president of Teller Strategies and a m. Former Trump admin official in the first term. And Paul, while, I agree that access is a privilege, not a right, and that media can obviously cover, President Trump and the administration and all of that and White House activities, without having immediate access to the president or the Oval Office in order to ask questions, this also seems like a really bad precedent.
Discussion On White House Press Access And Whether It Is A Privilege Or A Right
Paul Teller: Well, first of all, as always, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Great to be with you. And yeah, right. I think, maybe there's mixed, ah, things we can all say about this. Right. Like, one thing I keep thinking is, and again, I was privileged to be in the first Trump White House all four years, January to January, saw a lot, including through the angles of the press and stuff like that, part of Me always wondered why they were allowed in there at all, any of them. I don't even mean liberal, moderate. Just like, why does the press get a special White House access pass? They're just issue advocates. Right? They're actually not journalists. We know that. so like we know many friends, many of our friends, like in American Family Action and elsewhere who are issue advocates. They don't get a White House pass. They're allowed in. They could be what's called waived in M M, you know, on a case by case basis, but they don't have just a pass. They can just walk in. So why do folks who you know, supposedly cover the news, but again they're really just issue advocates, why are they getting a pass at all? So maybe that's one of the things we should look at for this most recent move, is that why is it just those three when there are other issue advocates that are still being led to walk around the White House freely with a pass, both for and against what the President is doing? This seems very inconsistent.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, that's a great point because if President Trump, and the admin simply just revoked all of the hard passes and said, you know, nobody has access, you can be waved in on basically a credentialed media event, per basis, then that wouldn't give, standing to really, to any of them probably. I mean, and I'm sure CNN and others would sue over it anyways, but that would at least not be a targeted ban and give them the ability to say, hey, it's just targeting outlets that he doesn't prefer our coverage. And that's First Amendment concerns and all of that. because, you know, we all remember, when Stephanie Grisham was the White House press secretary and never held a press conference.
Analyzing First Amendment Rights And The Lack Of Requirement For White House Press Access
And they couldn't, the media couldn't say, well, you know, they're not allowing us access to the briefing room and all that because they just chose not to hold press conferences. And the press secretary role is relatively new anyway in terms of the presidency and it doesn't, require. The White House isn't required to talk that much to, as you rightly say, activists.
Paul Teller: Yeah, no question. And. Right. See that's what I'm confused about too is why some in the media are saying this is restricting their First Amendment rights. Like M. You know, maybe Jenna, you and I have different copies of the Constitution that the media have. But at least in the copies, I think you and I have no mention in there of how the First Amendment right means you have to have an access pass to the executive branch mansion. I just don't understand where they're getting that. They have full and free access to cover anything they want from outside the gates of the White House. The same way that, like, you know, the media doesn't get a pass to, like, walk around Speaker Johnson's private office whenever they want. You know, I mean, it's just, for some reason, they're claiming they have this inherent right to have this access pass. And here's what's crazy, too. And you know this.
Unprecedented Media Access To The President And The Notion Of Needing Physical White House Access
As a member of the media, the media has unprecedented access to the President himself. Forget about the press secretary and the staff, the chief of staff, everybody else. Like, you know, I was in the. In, the hotel during the latest assassination attempt on President Trump here in the Washington Hilton, and let me tell you, the journalists were all running around on their, like, reaching the President. Some of them were on the phone with the President. I was watching them. Others were saying, I'm trying to reach the President. Like, they all have his direct cell phone number. You know, they have unbelievable access. The notion that they need to have their feet physically on, like, the pavement of the White House grounds to be able to cover him is just, It's just kind of crazy.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I mean, I remember the controversy as well when, activists were kicked out of the Pentagon for, you know, similar reasons. And I was sitting there wondering, like, why do they even have offices anywhere that's, you know, in these federal buildings? Because, like you said, I mean, the First Amendment protects their right to criticize, publish whatever they want.
The First Amendment Protects Criticism Not Guaranteed Access And National Security Argument Analysis
It doesn't guarantee that they get a front seat, when in the room where everything is happening. And that is unprecedented in terms of. Of, this. This nation and the overarching scope of. Of history. I mean, journalists never used to be able to do that. And so, And of course, having, you know, the cel. The president, I mean, that didn't even happen, at least in my experience, in the first term. I mean, that mainly at least went through some staff, unless they were physically in front of the President asking those questions. But, but why frame this from the DOJ's perspective as a national security issue? I mean, why, you know, that to me, didn't quite make sense, that that was really their best argument.
Paul Teller: Totally agree. Yeah. And I think, to be honest, and if, you know, I don't know who's listening, but, you know, if there are folks in the White House listening, I think we should Back off of that log.
President's Authority To Decide Who Enters The White House Grounds As His Home
I mean, that just doesn't land. It doesn't work. Nobody believes that. And the beauty is they don't need to, you know, have that kind of excuse, because they have just the genuine excuse of the President gets to decide, you know, who comes onto the grounds of the White House. That's his House, his executive branch. He's the head of the executive branch. That's the home of the executive branch, the home of the President and the First Lady. They, it's just so basic. They get to decide, you know, just the way that, like, you know, members of Congress and presumably all the way up to Speaker Johnson get to decide, like, you know, who comes into their offices, you know, who gets access passes to the floor of the House of Representatives. No one would say anyone has unfettered access to the floor of the House or the Senate without the permission of the House and Senate leaders. Same thing here. Like, you don't get unfettered access to, you know, certain areas of the White House without the permission of the President. And it's kind of at his will. The notion that it's First Amendment, too. Like, people forget the First Amendment has a lot of stuff in it too.
Analyzing The First Amendment's Right To Petition Government And The Logic Of Press Access Passes
Right. In other words, you know, the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. That's a fancy phrase for lobbyists. Right. or citizen activists coming to complain. Does that mean any citizen, any lobbyist can also have a free access pass to the White House? You know, no one would assume that that would even be logical. Yet somehow, the other part of the First Amendment, you know, journalism, free press, they somehow have a right to a free pass to the White House. It's just not seeing, not seeing the logic. So the ideal would be consistency, though, not, don't just pick these three.
Discussing The Timing Of The Media Ban And Trump's Motivation To Troll The Media
Like, if you're going to have them, have them, but if you're not going to have, you know, some journalists, don't have any of them is what I would say.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree. And, you know, we've, we've all been hearing President Trump say, you know, fake news and, complain about the, the, activists that have not covered his administration, with glowing terms. And, you know, he obviously disagrees with that. why do you think at this moment, I mean, we're at looking less than two months out from the midterms. Why would Trump pick this fight right now? I mean, to me also, it seems like this isn't really an issue that any voters care about. I mean, we all care about, obviously that the activists, ah, on the left, we care that they don't spin the news and all of that, but that's kind of a tired issue at this point. I mean, I think we all. No, we have a selection and if we choose to turn on, you know, CNN or msnbc, like, we know what we're getting right at this point. So it seems to me that with all of the frustration that a lot of voters are voicing that, you know, the, the Trump administration, at least the first two years in, along with Congress, you know, really hasn't carried out as much of their promises as we expected. Why focus on this issue instead of maybe trying to get a few other things done to bolster the turnout and the excitement for Republicans?
Paul Teller: No, it's a good point. And frankly, yeah, you know, the President has an incredible bully pulpit. He has incredible, talents for shaping the news. Right. And for focusing attention, not only the nation's attention, but the media's attention on things. And you're right, I would argue. Yeah, agree with you. That he should use it for more positive things. But my gut is on this one. He just loves trolling the media. Right. Like, there's no one better at it and it's working. Right. In other words, like, he shines the, shiny object over here and they come running towards it. I mean, it really is fascinating to watch. In fact, it's hard. Those networks can't seem to cover anything else. Like, if you look at some of their reporting now, that's like a huge focus. So it's, you know, maybe he's doing it to take their focus off of some of the, criticism of some of the other items. I'm not quite sure, but, man, he is, he is definitely trolling them. Trolling them. I would just say go further. Let's be consistent.
Critique Of Trump Administration's Lack Of Retribution And Focus On Reducing Government Size
Let's get all the media out of there and be consistent with the rest of things.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, absolutely. And I agree. And Paul Teller, I don't know if you saw this piece, yesterday in Real Clear Politics, by Rich Barris and for listeners, by the way, tomorrow's podcast, on the podcast side, on Demand, I'm going to have Rich Barris on talking about this article, for a deeper dive, but I wanted to mention it this morning as well. because the headline is, you know, speaking of the, midterms and turning out Republicans and all of that, this was really fascinating commentary. and the headline is young voters did not elect Trump for this. And kind of, I mean, and there were a lot of poll quotes from this, but the one that I took, from it is, Barris argues they elected President Trump and Vice President Vance to burn it down. They did not get the retribution they were promised. And suddenly, Republicans are baffled because these voters had the audacity to expect what they were promised. And then he goes on to say, you know, the only people who've been targeted, punished, or gone to jail have been Trump supporters. And he was supposed to drain the swamp and became it. I think there's some truth to that. your reaction?
Paul Teller: Yeah, it's interesting. well, the first thing I would say to those critics is, like, whether left, right or center, we shouldn't want our government to be the retributionist. What if that's the correct word in chief? Right. In other words, that isn't the point of government at any level, of any ideology. Right. So they expected just pure retribution, like revenge against political enemies.
Debating Government Retribution Vs. Accountability And Reducing Federal Government Size
Well, that's not great. And frankly, we complained with President, Biden and Vice President Harris did that through their DOJ and, you know, other entities, you know, two wrongs don't make a right. So we shouldn't have expected that. But the one thing I would say is that, you know, more than any president in our lifetimes, he's actually living up to his promise to reduce the size and scope of government. Could we go, you know, faster and do more? No question. And I think everyone recognizes that. But like, you know, thousands of employees have been, fired from the federal government. Especially the Department of Education is, you know, down significantly. Finally. Right. How many decades have we been here? We're going to shut down the Department of Education only for Republicans to increase the funding for it. Well, here's the first president that has actually removed people, removed programs and authorities from the Department of Education. And that's just, you know, one example. Even some of the fraud stuff that you've probably seen some of the breaking news on as well, like just getting fraudsters out of these welfare programs, health care programs that the federal government, that is the taxpayer, is paying for. That's another way of draining the swamp, saving money and things like that. So, you know, again, maybe the retribution did come, but it probably shouldn't have come, but, you know, reducing sizes of a government that has started and, you know, more to do.
Jenna Ellis: And I'm really glad, Paul, that you say that about this whole retribution angle. I mean, frankly, you know, I mean, as someone who was targeted by the Biden administration, I didn't want retribution in the sense of like, okay, we're just going to do to them what they did to us. because you know, a lot of this was, was unconstitutional. You know, a lot of this was just targeting, Trump supporters and Trump himself. And the way to to combat that in a just society isn't to then just say, okay, well we're going to do the same thing to you. I.
Accountability For Actions During COVID-19 And The Need For Investigation And Accountability
But, so, so I appreciate you saying that because I've gotten a lot of pushback from, from very well meaning conservatives saying, yeah, but you know, we want it in revenge and all this. So I was concerned about that going into the second admin. But, but on the same hand, where it's not revenge, it's actually, targeting people who deserve to be, to be charged for crimes. like for example, people, you know, in, in the whole context of Cove I mean, I know, you know, Fauci has this pardon, but you know, there really hasn't been any sort of move, to potentially challenge that. but then there are a lot of other people. I mean, Dr. Birx doesn't have a pardon. there are a lot of other people that, you know, did a lot of things during COVID that I think would warrant some measure of investigation and accountability for that. I mean, we could go on, on, you know, a number of, of people. And I think that's more the angle that I would focus on and say, you know, why, when you know, Trump blamed you know, Covid and all of the mail in ballots and all of this, you know, in 2020 and sat out for four years, he finally gets back in office and then it's kind of like, well, you know, that's passe. And I think everybody was ready for accountability.
Distinguishing Revenge From Accountability And The Arctic Frost Scandal's Lack Of Media Attention
That just didn't come.
Paul Teller: No, that's a great point. And we should make that distinction between revenge and accountability. Right? No question. perfect example is, I don't know how much your listeners have followed this, but Arctic Frost, you know, that's the name for basically the Biden Department of Justice spying on members of Congress, and conservative activists, getting some of their emails, getting other, I think text communications, phone calls, and it was a big deal for like a week. It seems to have faded now. You know, if you talk to Senate Judiciary staff, they say, well, we're still looking into it. Well, you know, like it's not particularly credible anymore because it's been months and months and months since it's even been mentioned publicly. So if they are still looking into it, they're not doing a great job of communicating that to not only the public, but those of us, myself included, whose names, you know, showed up in some of these, you know, leaked emails and reports and other such things, that came out in this Arctic Frost, you know, data dump from many earlier this year or something. So, very frustrating. You're exactly right.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's also a great point because, and my cell phone record's included. I was also included in that. I mean, it was so wide that a lot of us from, the first four years of Trump were included. And I haven't heard anything about that. But can you imagine, if this was on the other side and this had been Arctic Frost was under Trump, this would be all we would hear about. I mean, the Russia collusion narrative was literally only headline for like a year and a half. I mean, it was just. And then the impeachment and all of that. And so it seems like Republicans have a more difficult time actually focusing the media on the things that Republicans want. Which I think kind of goes back to the original topic that it seems like for as much of conservative outlets, that we have on cable news, and some of these that are solidly Republican voices, that we could fairly categorize, like Fox News Newsmax, Oan, some of those that seem to be, Republican mouthpieces, we have a really hard time following, the stories that are actually better for conservatives instead of just almost following the lead of the CNNs and the MSNBCs. And I think that's a problem.
Paul Teller: That's a great, great, great point. Because you're exactly right to say if Arctic Frost were on the other side. Right. This was going after, let's say, the. The first Trump, you know, doj, you know, Jeff Sessions, you know, going way back, something like that. Yeah, they would have like, maybe a weekly press conference to demand answers and to update things and, you know, all kinds of stuff. And, said we just kind of let it go. And again, maybe there are people quietly still investigating, but, man, then tell us about it, right? Like, give us a weekly update, a monthly update, something, you know, but it's just total radio silence. So the impression is they've forgotten about it or they've abandoned it and we're not supposed to care. And those of us like you and me who are on those lists and things like that, oh, well, gosh, golly gee, these things happen. And it's just. Yeah. Shame. It's not Accountability. Right.
Impact Of Media Bans And Leftist Outrage On Midterm Elections And Voter Focus
It's not good for American, the American system of government. And it's a real shame.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. Well, real quick, we're running, up against the brake. But, Paul Teller, how much of this do you think actually will affect the midterms? I mean, you know, this type of the media ban, any of that. I mean, I don't think the media is going to go or the left is going to go harder against Trump than they already are. I mean, in my opinion, I don't think it'll affect it much at all.
Paul Teller: No, but it is funny. I agree. It won't affect much. And it's just funny though to see how folks on the left get totally spun up about certain things. These again, the media ban, from the White House grounds, you know, the Kennedy center name, the golden shiny statues in Washington, the reflecting pool. All these things have gotten so spun up and it's. I was just saying to a couple of, some liberal family members that I was talking to the other day, I said, guys, you just gotta find other things to focus on in life. There are more important things in life than the name of the Kennedy Center.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. well, well said, Paul Teller. Really appreciate it. You can follow him on X and we will be right back with more.
Listener Support And Focus On State-Level Conservative Wins Regarding Illegal Immigrants In Census
Hi, I'm 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 podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netforward/give. That's afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as much as conservatives can, you know, rightly point out that the federal government and Congress may not be, stacking up as many wins as we would prefer. The Redskins states are, and I think on the state level is where we should focus in terms of conservative wins. And, this one is coming out of Missouri, where Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has, posted a few days ago on X. Illegal immigrants should not be represented in Congress in a win for Missourians. The federal government has agreed that counting noncitizens in the census would compromise representation and has issued a proposed regulation that forbids including illegal immigrants in the 2030 Census and 2031 congressional apportionment. Our office has moved to dismiss our litigation in light of this development.
Win For Missouri As Trump Administration Proposes Rule Against Counting Illegal Immigrants In Census
We are glad the Trump administration is taking action and we will continue to fight to ensure citizens voices are never diluted in favor of illegal immigrants. So, the Attorney General joins us now and, this is a great win.
Catherine Hanaway: It is a great win. Jenna, thanks so much for having me on again. As you know, and we talked about several months ago, we had sued the Census Bureau to try and get them to not count illegal immigrants in the census. And now the fact that the Trump administration has affirmatively come forward and put out a new rule that says illegal immigrants won't be counted in the census is a big win for every red state that didn't become a sanctuary state and just open its borders to anyone who wanted to come there. And it will shift, where congressional seats are apportioned in this next, after this next census. It really is a big win and we're going to keep fighting for it. Of course, the Trump administration will get challenged both in court and in, the regulatory mechanism over this new rule. And we're going to stand right beside him and fight all the way.
Jenna Ellis: Great. And I mean, it's just such an obvious, basic premise that of course, undocumented and illegal non citizens, just flat out, regardless of their, their status, if they're not citizens, they shouldn't be counted in a census for apportionment in Congress because Congress represents, citizens. And this all makes sense. how confident are you that because this is a rule by the Trump administration, obviously in 2030, the Trump admin won't be there. We don't know, what next administration will be elected in 2028.
Legal Challenges And Constitutional Arguments Regarding Census Apportionment Of Non-Citizens
Could that next administration simply reverse the rule?
Catherine Hanaway: It could. And that's why I think that the court cases that are going to follow after this rule will be very important because the Trump administration, the first Trump administration tried to do something similar. Court battles ensued and then it kind of got dropped. the U.S. supreme Court weighed in. We don't think it's a definitive decision. we think that there are a lot of arguments to be made in favor of this rule. Ultimately, I think this does get decided at the U.S. supreme Court. hopefully it moves quick enough that that decision comes down before a new administration has the time to change the rule.
Jenna Ellis: Okay. Yeah, and we'll, we will be, hopeful for that. And you know, critics on the left have characterized this basically as an attempt to just give Republicans more congressional seats. But, what's, I mean, the argument against that obviously is saying, well, if there are more Republicans that get seats, well, too bad, this is the appropriate way to count for apportionment. But do you see that argument at all being effective at the Supreme Court, or any other potential challenges?
Catherine Hanaway: Yeah, I mean, what the left wants to argue is that the U.S. constitution says that we shall count any person.
The Constitutional Basis For Apportionment And The Intent Behind Counting Non-Citizens
And we're saying yes, but at the time of the drafting, there wasn't a flood of illegal immigrants, that the drafters of the Constitution did not mean any person who was in the country illegally. And in fact, from other cases at the time, we know that they didn't count anyone who was temporarily here for a job or on travel. It only was counting, permanent legal residents, either citizens or green card holders. And that's what we're still advocating for today. And it isn't just a matter of shifting seats to Republican states. It's a matter of encouraging states and cities to protect their sovereignty in the way that, that the whole country has to. But when Minneapolis and L. A are saying, hey, if you can make it across the border, you're very welcome here, obviously it's causing a great strain on the resources of the entire country. It doesn't just affect Minnesota and California.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that makes sense. and there also is a practical question because the Census Bureau historically hasn't asked respondents for their immigration status.
Determining Citizenship For Census And Apportionment And Federal Funding Implications
I mean, that was a big question as well and was litigated in the 2020 census. And so how can, even if this goes through this new rule, for the 2030 census, how can the federal government reliably determine who even belongs in the apportionment population without, the accuracy of the census itself?
Catherine Hanaway: Yeah. So, you know, there are number of means that we're seeing get utilized to verify that only citizens are voting. And I think we'll be able to use those same means that we've used to verify the voter rolls to make sure that people who are responding to the census, are legally in this country.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and this also is interesting at least, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of this was that the, the Commerce Department proposal does not exclude undocumented immigrants from being enumerated for every census purpose. It would only exclude them and other, foreign citizens who are not lawful permanent residents from the population used for congressional apportionment. But they might be counted for other, census purposes.
Catherine Hanaway: Yes. And, you know, that doesn't go quite as far as our lawsuit did. We thought it was also important that the, people who were here illegally not be counted in the census for the purpose of apportioning federal money. that's the other way the Census is used. How much does each state receive in federal highway dollars? Snap, funds, you know, pretty much every federal program.
Arguments Against Counting Non-Citizens For Apportionment And Protecting State Sovereignty
the rule from the Commerce Department doesn't go quite that far, but we still think the integrity of the ballot is so important that we're going to support their rule.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I totally agree with that, that that elections are the most important. the arguments, of course, then you know, from those who are opposing this rule is that then if we're counting people who you can still use roads, schools, public services, welfare and all of that, then why, why foreclose them only toward apportionment?
Catherine Hanaway: Well, because the U.S. constitution set us up as a republic where the people got to choose their representatives, but it was the people who were citizens of the United States who participated fully. I, mean, I almost think that that argument is a little bit like saying, I got a gift, but I want to be able to control like what the gift is, how much money is spent on me. Like I want to have decision making authority over the gift. Just because Americans are of a generous spirit and want to take care of everybody who happens to be living within our borders doesn't mean that we should give up the right to control our country.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And it's wild to me that this question of the census and apportionment is even at issue. I mean, on obviously, those on the left and who, you know, want to ultimately use this for more Democrat seats. I mean, I think that's their main, their main goal. If there were, if, if the, all of the undocumented immigrants ultimately gave Republicans more seats, then they would be agreeing with us on the apportionment.
The Role Of Federal Judiciary In Election Integrity And Protecting The Character Of The Country
Right. I mean, it's obviously. Yeah, I mean it's obviously just for their outcome that they prefer that they're arguing any of this. so where, where is the, the federal judiciary on this? Because we have, we have seen, you know, so much about rogue judges or even, you know, or even on the state level, but where all this is being challenged, we need to have federal judges as well, and judges as a whole that understand this and aren't looking at this through a partisan lens, but actually want to protect the integrity of our elections and apportionment.
Catherine Hanaway: Absolutely. And I think it's going to be a tough battle because as I said, after the first Trump administration, it got litigated to some degree. But you know, some of the states who were participating in it sort of backed off that defense. We're not going to go away, even if we get a new president, I'm going to be in this office hopefully for a long time. And it's my mission to make sure that we protect the integrity of the ballot for the long run. My kids are 28 and 24. They're just getting started in their lifetime. I want them to be inheriting the same kind of country that I inherited from my parents and grandparents. And if we don't win this fight, the character of this country is going to change.
Jenna Ellis: I love that.
State-Level Elections And Actions Matter For Election Integrity And Ballot Protection
And I love that this is why we have some really great attorneys general on the state level that will continue to push these issues. you are one of them. And this is why, you know, state elections matter as well. I think, you know, so, so much of us because so many, of the headlines are just national. But we do need to pay attention to the state level and to what states are doing because, the states can really accomplish what the federal government just doesn't seem all that interested in doing. And so on election integrity as a whole, you know, this is a huge issue. is there anything currently going on or coming up, from Missouri or maybe you're collaborating with other states, overall to protect our ballots.
Catherine Hanaway: Well, right now in Missouri, we are pretty deeply mired in our own fight over redistricting. for the third time in three weeks, our redistricting plan has gone up to the U.S. supreme Court. We had reached through yesterday at 1:00 clock Central Time.
Missouri Redistricting Battles And The Importance Of State-Level Advocacy For Constitutional Values
the 8th Circuit has ruled in favor of the maps passed in 2025. Unfortunately, the first two times we've gone up to the US Supreme Court, they've ordered us to go back to the 22 maps. So we've been pretty deeply entrenched in that fight. But as soon as it gets resolved, we're going to be looking for the next battle.
Jenna Ellis: Awesome. Well, we've got to take a break here, but Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, I so appreciate your fight, your standard for constitutional values for America, for our citizens. And you know, it's so great, to be able to speak with you and to see the fights that you are fighting, along with my home state, Florida's ag, James Uthmeyer. I mean there are some really great advocates that we have around the country. We need more of you, ah, to do this kind of ah, fight. And we, we really, really appreciate it. We'll be praying for you. And again, for voters listening. I mean this is why voting matters. This is why everyone that you elect, on the state level as well, matters. We need to all get out and vote and use our vote in the best possible way that we can and exercise that privilege come November. We'll be right back.
Sponsor Message: Preborn Network Clinics Offer Support And Free Ultrasounds To Pregnant Mothers
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 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 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 250 and say the keyword baby. That's 250 baby. Or [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Diesel Prices As An Affordability Issue And Potential Political Problems For Republicans
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And diesel prices are becoming another major affordability issue for Americans. And this one reaches far beyond what truckers are paying at the pump. When diesel prices surge, the cost of moving food, operating farms, running construction equipment, and transporting, virtually every consumer good goes up with them. And this creates potentially a political problem for Republicans heading toward the midterms, particularly after President Trump campaigned on lowering energy costs. this is yet another issue I think that, that Rich Barris is pointing out that Republicans, are concerned with and young voters, especially with the lack of follow through on campaign promises. But now there's been an, important update to this story after the reports. Ah, from Politico and others that the White House was considering a temporary ban on US Diesel exports to keep more fuel here at home bring down domestic prices. The administration is pushing back on the idea of a blanket export ban.
White House Considers Alternatives To Diesel Export Ban To Lower Domestic Prices
Instead, officials, are now looking at other ways to increase domestic diesel supplies without potentially driving up the prices of gasoline and jet fuel. So the political question is no longer simply should Trump ban diesel exports? It's much bigger than That I think, what can the administration actually do to bring prices down? And how much time does it have before voters start holding Washington responsible? Well, let's welcome in Richard Stern, who is the vice president of the Plymouth Institute for Freedom.
Discussing Diesel Prices As A Kitchen Table Issue And Solutions For Lowering Energy Costs
And Richard, you know, this is a, actually a kitchen table conversation even in my own family. I was out visiting, you know, Colorado this past weekend and my little brother, who's, you know, recently married and you know, is having a lot more costs and so forth, you know, starting his family. you know, he's one who's an ardent Trump supporter, but is very concerned about, you know, the prices.
Richard Stern: Absolutely. Well, thank you for having me on the talk about this. And you know, of course, you know, diesel gasoline more broadly, these are crucial kitchen table issues for all Americans. But, you know, I think it's encouraging that the administration is coming back off the idea of an export ban. You know, that sounds right. It feels like it can help. But the truth is, diesel, gasoline, more broadly, crude oil, all of these energy resources are priced on global markets. If we ban our exports, it just redirects for foreign fuels and foreign crude oil goes. And so the prices stay the same. And in fact, you would actually push more countries into buying Russian and Chinese diesel and other energy resources and fuel. So it'd be a disaster. Look, the solutions here are pretty simple. We need to cut red tape and regulation on our refiners and drillers. We need to open more federal land for extraction of energy resources. Supply is the answer if you want to bring prices down.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, so Energy Secretary Krish Wright has now said in response to the, Politico article, that the administration is now, instead of that, that flat diesel export ban, discussing ways to increase diesel, availability domestically.
Exploring Ways To Increase Domestic Diesel Availability Without Export Bans Or Price Controls
so how can they practically do that and can they do that quickly?
Richard Stern: Well, you know, the thing that I'm a little worried about is that they could try to use some presidential authorities, restrict who can buy diesel, or the try to, you know, impose restrictions on, you know, prices or where you can sell it if they did that, which again, isn't something that increases supply. It just picks winners and losers about who can access it. It really wouldn't actually bring down prices for anybody and it would. It would just create distortions in markets and probably honestly lead to less diesel on the market.
Historical Failures Of Price Controls And Export Bans On Energy Resources
You know, we actually had a blanket crude oil ban from, export ban from 1975 to 2015. We had price controls prior to that under Nixon on, on both diesel and gas and other parts of Fuel. And, you know, none of these work right. Because markets work around it. So I hope it Wright's talking about is cutting red tape, is leasing oil, you know, extraction lands. And as much as that wouldn't have, you know, an incredible immediate effect, it would come some of the speculation of prices. You would see some decline immediately. But, you know, if they tried doing these other routes like restricting who can buy it, you might actually get price increases instead.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so with the administration, you know, I mean, I would tend to believe the Politico article, at least to the extent that the administration was considering it.
Market Reactions And Potential Economic Consequences Of Government Intervention In Energy Markets
But now, you know, they have walked that back. Is this because they've concluded, what you have, and that this could backfire economically, or is it because of the resistance from the energy industry or just because this has been a headline?
Richard Stern: I think it's probably a little bit of all three. So, you know, keep this in mind as well. I think one of the things that's interesting about President Trump and his administration is they look to the stock market, the commodities futures markets. They try to look at the markets to see what they think the immediate response is going to be. And, you know, I think all the people that are really in the industry and look at markets suspect, and I do too, that if they started doing these, these harsh price controls or export bans or anything like that, the markets would actually freak out, that you'd actually have speculation, you know, speculative dollars come in trying to buy up diesel contracts because they'd expect prices to go up. And so the last thing the administration wants is to do something that they think will get prices down. And that actually triggers a market panic that means an immediate spike in prices. So whether they really agree with the underlying policy, I think they've been convinced that the market reaction would certainly be bad and counterproductive in the short run.
Attributing Current Energy Price Spikes To Wars And Domestic Energy Policy Decisions
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that makes sense. And so how much of the current price spike can fairly be attributed to, the wars, I mean, that ongoing still in Iran and Ukraine, and how much reflects the domestic energy policy, actual decision making?
Richard Stern: So I think essentially all of the spike is related to the war, to concerns about that and about Ukraine and Russia. It's also concerns to a little bit of a collapse in the industry in Russia, which is, you know, again, related to some of the problems they're having stemming from the war. At the same time, though, you know, there of course, is just, a naturally higher global price than there needs to be, including right here in America, because of the energy prices. We have, you know, a Lot of people don't remember it, but, but energy prices, crude oil for example. Right. Which is the, you know, the thing that gas and diesel come from, you know, has, has gone down by over half its price point in the last 20 years because of the fracking revolution. You know, the high prices we've got today would have been the norm, had we not had the fracking revolution, if frankly, Obama and Biden and people like this had just remained in office and prevented the fracking revolution. You know what we are considering, exceptionally high prices today just would have been the norm that the government would have let us have.
Voter Responsibility For High Prices And The Impact Of Government Policies On Affordability
So, you know, we can always bring prices down by getting rid of regulation, by allowing companies to get more oil out of the ground. And you know, that's just a price increase that we could have every day of the week that nobody knows because the government's kept us from having them.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, the President Trump campaigned heavily on bringing costs down. And so, you know, regardless of the, this particular debate, we are at the moment, you know, we're less than two months away from the midterms. And so, you know, where are we at with voters ultimately holding the party in power responsible when they see dramatically high prices? I mean, going back to the kitchen table conversation, you know, it seems like, the affordability issue is one that is driving voter, ah, turnout or potentially not.
Richard Stern: I think you're absolutely right about that.
Catherine Hanaway: And you know, the way that I
Richard Stern: think about it is I think in D.C. a lot of people tend to say, you know, voters only care about what the price is today and who's ever in office, they just blame.
Evaluating Administration Policies On Prices And The Public's Perception Of Their Effectiveness
I actually don't believe that. I think that the American public gives credit for whether you're trying or you're not trying.
Catherine Hanaway: And you know, the truth is, yes,
Richard Stern: there are some things that this administration's done that have actually brought prices down, that have increased incomes. The tax cuts and reform of the one big beautiful bill, the deregulation, some of it is energy deregulation. Those are all good. But you know, a lot of the other policies, the ones that are frankly pet projects of the president, you know, government interference in markets, the government taking equity stakes in companies, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars of tariff collections, all of these have raised prices dramatically. And so I think the voting public is viewing the current administration as not caring, frankly about high prices. And I think that while they're, you know, they're not giving enough credit for things like the tax cuts for deregulation, I think they're hitting the, you know, the nail on the head when they're blaming the tariffs and some of these other things for the high prices. So, you know, again, you know, a lot of us, including myself, have advocated against them, but I think voters can see right through these policies.
Democratic Strategy On Affordability And Republican Messaging On Tariffs And Taxes
Jenna Ellis: I hope so, because, you know, the Democrats are trying to effectively turn this into an affordability argument. And that's what's been, you know, in the news a lot lately, and, is kind of, you know, this kitchen table issue. So what messaging, in your view, does the White House and the administration need to have on this issue to not, you know, make it this, this more difficult concept and, you know, rather, you know, telling people, okay, you know, yeah, gas prices are high right now, but, you know, here's the plan, and basically, trust us anyway.
Richard Stern: Well, you know, first of all, I think the. The love affair that some people on the right are having with tariffs absolutely gets in the way of this.
Messaging On Freedom And Government Interference Versus Republican Focus On Tariffs
You know, let's be clear about it. Elected Democrats have never seen attacks that they didn't like, including tariffs, right up until it was Trump that was doing the tariffs. You know, elected Democrats for decades view your money as theirs, and they believe they're doing you a service by letting you keep the money you've worked hard to earn. And so that should be part of what Republicans are talking about. And, you know, if you've got Republicans trying to say, well, I, want your taxes low, but unless it's in the form of a tariff, it just muddies the water and it muddies the conversation. Look, you know, we're looking at elected Democrats that think that you shouldn't have any freedoms, that you shouldn't be able to do anything without their express permission, and that your money is theirs. That should be the messaging right there.
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Richard Stern, VP of the Plymouth Institute for Freedom. Really appreciate your commentary on this, and, it is a really big issue. Well, for the, last just few minutes of this program, I also wanted to address, one other issue that has been, in the news as well.
The Lindsey Clancy Case: Defense Attorney's Actions And Jurors' Arguments Beyond The Case
And this is, of course, the Lindsey Clancy trial. And this holdout juror. It's, really fascinating to see, you know, what the, the defense is now arguing. And Jonathan, Turley actually wrote a great piece, @JonathanTurley.org that is, titled From Holdout to Hunted. Kevan Reddington, the defense attorney for Clancy, seeks phone records and interview with holdout Clancy juror. And so, in his view, and I agree with him, A Reddington appears to be moving from Zealous advocacy to virtual stage stalking as he frames it in the Lindsay Clancy case. you know, this is such an unprofessional attack that, I mean, obviously, defense lawyers, part of their obligation is to zealously advocate in the best interests of their client. But when you go to, to targeting a juror simply because of his or her particular view of the case, I mean, this is why we have jury. So that, 12 people get in a room, they view the evidence, they consider the facts and the evidence in light of the law, and they render a decision, and mistrials happen. but what's fascinating to me here about this particular holdout juror and then the, at least three of the women who voted, to not hold Lindsey Clancy criminally responsible and would have voted, not guilty, they actually are the activists here. They have gone, at least in their interviews, well beyond the scope of what a juror's responsibility is, because they are advocating and, being activists for a much broader issue about healthcare, about postpartum, about women in general. And, you know, they're saying we view this, in their interviews, and I'm paraphrasing, but they're basically saying we view this as a bigger issue, and this could be, you know, a case that prompts a lot of, policy changes in health care and so forth. That's not their call. They're not legislators. They're not in elected office.
Holdout Juror's Stance Versus Activist Jurors And The Dangers Of Targeting Jurors
They're not lawmakers. They are jurors who are supposed to look at the facts and evidence of simply this case, apply the facts to the law, and render a decision. And this one holdout juror, as much as Reddington, is targeting him, nothing that I've heard any, speaking only through his attorney at this point, but nothing that I've heard has suggested that he's being an activist whatsoever. He's saying, I looked at the facts, I looked at the evidence, and I don't find that she, had this, you know, postpartum psychosis. I don't believe that beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has the ability, as a juror to make that determination and to. To look at the facts and render that decision. And so what I see all of this being not only is an attack on, fundamentally the province of the jury and the confession find issues that the jurors are supposed to determine, but also intimidation of future jurors, that if you're the one holdout and that you don't go along with what the defense would prefer or what the, you know, prevailing crazy, you know, women groups of leftists believe then you're going to be targeted. Your phone records, your, your mindset, you know, all of this is going to be looked into when simply, you know, this guy just showed up to do a public service because he got called to jury duty. So I hope that the court smacks him down on this.
Concerns About Precedent Set By Targeting Jurors And The Need For Court Intervention
I think that it is a terrible precedent for, Reddington to even pursue this. but we're gonna see, you know, what happens. And we need to be praying for the safety of this juror, amid all of the attacks. But, it's a really fascinating legal question that I hope the courts get right. So, as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna. AFR.net.
Sponsor Message: Preborn Network Continues To Rescue Babies And Support Young Moms
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 implications of the Department of Justice defending President Trump's ban on select news outlets from the White House. Joined by Paul Teller, they delve into the First Amendment rights of the press, the dynamics of media access, and the broader implications for national security.
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:
