Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
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 Rad.
The Trump administration has drafted a proposal to pay some stay at home parents
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, September 8th. I hope everyone had a lovely Labor Day weekend, full of labor and also work for the Lord. So as the GOP gets ready for its record breaking midterm convention, we'll see how that goes, tomorrow night and Thursday. The Trump administration has also drafted a proposal that would pay some stay at home parents using funds from a federal program originally designed to help working families afford child care. This is coming from News Nation. The stay at home, ah, parent child care subsidy proposal originated within the White House. According to a White House official who spoke with NewsNation. Earlier reports had said the proposal came from Vice President J.D. vance's office. Probably because J.D. Vance went viral, with a clip talking about the proposal. And the NewSong York Times reported the plan would create what could become the first federal grant program to directly compensate parents who for staying home to raise their children. This is what Vance had to say. Cut one.
JD Vance: They're trying to tear down this country, tear down our young people, tear down our military, and what's left over with the ashes of what they've torn down is socialism. Well, we've got a different approach, my friends. We want to invest in you, we want to fight for you, and we want to fight for your children's future. We're going to defeat socialism by giving you a stake in the American dream. And that's how we're going to win the future. But I got to say that what we're doing isn't, it's not just a two year or even a four year process. Think about this. This country was plundered over a Generation. Our goal is to reverse a consensus that has screwed over communities like this one for decades.
Jenna Ellis: All right, but the plan has sparked some controversy, of course, on social media. And while it sounds good, isn't this really comparable to socialism? Because the extremely low income threshold to obtain these benefits is not going to go to incentivize stay at home moms like the Christian trad wife who's choosing to homeschool her four kids. $9,000 isn't going to make a woman quit her job to become a stay at home mom who wouldn't otherwise choose staying home anyway. It's going to go to US Citizen children of illegal alien moms. And anchor babies do qualify, unfortunately under this program. So now you have the administration incentivizing more U.S. citizen children of illegals. So perhaps the virtuous moms the administration is thinking of likely won't benefit from this program.
Bob Good says new federal entitlement will further diminish conservative turnout in midterms
let's welcome in Bob Good, who's a former Virginia congressman and has a really great podcast that breaks down all sorts of things, including these, new issues. And he posted that the new federal entitlement won't, win you the midterms. Democrats already own the Santa Claus nanny state government as provider lane, but it will further diminish conservative turnout as they tire of supporting the Republican version of, of the DC debt machine. So, Congressman Good, I think you're right on the money there, Janet.
Bob Good: Thank you for having me and thank you for being in the fight. As I've been watching this, I wish it was more controversial. I wish there were more conservative media covering it and more conservative voices like you speaking out against us. You have been one of the few lone voices once again challenging the narrative, challenging the, going against the grain, I should say. you know, I saw somebody post on social media. I want to give credit to someone, I don't even remember who it was. It wasn't someone I knew. But they said the Democrat Party has become the new Communist Party, the Republican Party has become the new Democrat Party, and conservatives are homeless politically. And there is no greater evidence than this, this new government program that's unconstitutional for the federal government to be, the benevolent entity. It's not unconstitutional for states if they want to do this sort of thing. That's up to the people in the states and their representatives. And people can move out of a state or vote in somebody differently if they don't like that. But for the federal government to be involved in charity, in taking care of us, in giving us money, no matter how worthy we might think the cause is or the recipient may be, and how foolish. I know you're seeing what I've been seeing over and over, oh, this isn't going to be new money.
Bob Good: This is going to be repurposed money. As if adding a new group of people, is not going to cost more money. How naive and how foolish. Or how gullible, or maybe even deceitful and dishonest, whichever one it is, are those who are saying that it's not going to cost more money.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. And, you know, it's really surprising to me, maybe it shouldn't be that just because something is coming from the Trump administration, suddenly conservatives are on board, as if it always a good idea where the true conservative perspective needs to be, well, wait, let's see if this proposal is actually up to the standards of conservative values, because not everything that comes from Republicans is necessarily good or conservative. And when people are saying, well, this isn't going to expand entitlements, this is just redirecting funds, I'm going, yeah, right, wink, wink, you know, hint, hint. I mean, when has the government ever tried to allow more people to stand in line for an already over, bloated program and never then gone in the next session to Congress and say, look, this is a great program, we need to expand the benefits and direct even more funding? I mean, do we learn nothing from Doge?
Bob Good: You're exactly right. It doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter if it's our guy or our party who does it is. We need to be focused on policy and principle and not just on party and personality. The Democrats are watching and learning from the precedents that are being set during these past, now almost two years and the remaining two years of the Trump administration. They're watching and learning from these precedents that are being set for their opportunity to enact their agenda and to do things based on the same, the same criteria that the Trump administration has been doing it. But the question is, is there any longer a conservative party in this country? It seems as if the Trump Vance administration and the Republican establishment is trying to carve out a socialist populist center, perhaps trying to appeal to Democrats who maybe aren't communists or don't embrace Marxism or don't embrace, you know, Sharia law or the extremism that's the Democrat socialist of America. And it seems like the Trump Vance wing of the party, which I guess is the party, wants to carve out a political center that appeals to the moderate Socialist populist center and just leave conservatives out to dry and leave conservatives with no home politically. And there's again, no greater example than this newest announcement of this new entitlement program adding a new group of beneficiaries to federal largesse.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And that new kind of, you know, populist center is exactly what listeners who are saying, well, wait a minute, you know, this is finally something for stay at home moms. Aren't we incentivizing the right values? That's what they need to focus on. Because this isn't about saying that stay at home parenting has no value. I mean, absolutely it does. I'm, I'm a beneficiary of that because my mom stayed home and homeschooled me. And it was the greatest, gift that my parents could have given me. So obviously we want to incentivize that, but basically paying. Having the government pay moms to stay home. And we're not talking about, you know, the middle class or the upper class. I mean, we're talking about the extremely low income. We're not, we're not going about this the right way. This is not the right vehicle, because you can't have the government say, okay, I'm going to now pay you to make a virtuous choice that we, historically, we've never seen that turn out well. I mean, the better alternative, of course, would be to reduce the tax burden on families so that they don't need dual income. the, the other issue, of course, is inflation in the economy and how much all of this costs. So go and do the thing that they promised to do in the very beginning in 2024, which was to look at, you know, completely changing the tax code to actually having doge function, to, providing other incentives that aren't these entitlements and handouts. And for people who are just saying, well, you know, how is this any different from just redirecting funds like they're doing with school choice? that. I think that that whole scenario is apples to oranges.
Bob Good: Yes. What we need is leadership. Like what has recently taken place in the last couple of years in Argentina with Javier Milei, who's massively cut spending, massively shrunk government, and the country is prospering like it hasn't in years because of what he's done, the courage and the principle that he's shown. Javier Milei in Argentina has done an incredible job. That's the kind of leadership that we need in this country. I hope that we don't have to get to the crisis that they got to before they were willing to elect someone who would do this. But, you know, whether you're talking about Trump accounts, whether you're talking about farm subsidies or stimulus or tariff checks that the president wants to send out, this, wealth redistribution, taking money from us to give it to us, to incentivize us to do the things that the government wants us to do, whether it's the Democrat government or the Republican government, it never works. It's not constitutional. It's the reason why we have $40 trillion in debt. It's the reason why we have inflation that's so stubborn. It's the reason why interest rates will not go down because the bondholders won't finance our debt anymore without a higher rate of return. It's the reason why we have the affordability crisis and we need to stop doing things like passing Elizabet Warren housing bill, when we have full Republican control of government and creating new entitlement programs and handing out more money like this program would do.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely.
Bob Kind says conservatives are missing distinction between school choice and entitlements
And I do want to go back to, you know, kind of this, this school choice analogy, because I'm seeing that crop up a lot online and people actually saying that if you're against this kind of entitlement, but you're for school choice, then somehow you are being hypocrite. But school choice advocates generally aren't arguing that parents should personally receive a teacher's salary because they educate their children at home. That would actually be the closer analogy. And hopefully no conservative is arguing that it's, the equivalent of the proposal would be closer to if you homeschool your child. Instead, we'll send you $7,000 to personally compensate you for the income you gave up by teaching your child. And that's a very, very different proposal because the dollars under school choice follow the child and you're basically getting a reimbursement of the tax dollars you're already spending. And so if this is really the same principle as school choice, should states start paying homeschooling parents the per pupil amount that would otherwise have gone to public schools, not simply letting them use an ESA for educational expenses, but actually paying the parent for the opportunity cost of staying home and teaching? I mean, that's, that's a completely different distinction that I think people are missing in this whole debate.
Bob Good: Yes, a conservative view of the school choice and the education issue is that, first of all, the federal government should be out of the education business. The federal government ought not to be taking our tax dollars and Sending them back to the states to provide for education. That's not an appropriate role of the federal government. I was forward during my time in Washington on the education, committee for eliminating the Department of Education and eliminating federal government being involved in education. Secondly, a conservative view of school choice is that parents should get a good tax breaks for not having government schools educate their children. It's not about sending cash to parents. It's about not forcing parents to pay taxes for education they don't take advantage of and for them to, for the, for dollars to follow the child and not to not be spent based on the government determining for you your education decision. So conservative view of school choices is not the federal government's role, number one. And number two, parents should not have to pay with their tax dollars for education with the government that they don't even utilize anyway, the state or the federal level.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so, so well said. And you know, and you mentioned of course that this isn't. These types of entitlements aren't going to help the GOP win the midterms. And it's that's so true because I think that the actual conservatives are very frustrated with the administration right now for coming up with these types of proposals instead of actually turning toward fiscal policy, getting you know, a lot of these other things done that they should. And you know, if these proposals were out there and, and suggested while getting a lot of fiscal conservative policy actually through and we were having more of a solid conversation on this. Okay. You know, maybe, and we could refine it a little bit. But this push to this kind of populist center is what's really I think scary about what the conservatives are doing. And we're going to go a little bit longer here with this break if we can hold it. Thanks. and so Congressman, Bob. Good. I mean, how do you think that this is actually playing to voters? Because I don't see that the GOP is really winning anyone here.
Bob Good: Well, again, you can't out Santa. Santa Claus. The Democrat Party is Santa Claus. We're not going to win that fight. I do think it's noteworthy, Jenna, that you're in my news feeds that I get in the morning. I don't want to name them because they're good conservative sources, but they're not covering this. And as I was flipping through the so called conservative media on television stations this morning, I wasn't seeing this being covered. I'm seeing it in the Social media world as conservatives are fight, a few conservatives are fighting back like yourself, but mostly from the conservative influencers and the conservative pundits or so called conservatives, I should say. They're defending this, they're spinning this and they're calling this a great thing. So you're seeing a battle going on in social media, but I'm not seeing major so called conservative media covering this and I'm not seeing politicians elected, Republican officials speaking out on this, by the way. So perhaps, perhaps we can hope that maybe the Trump administration is floating the latest stupid socialist idea they come up with and then perhaps they'll back away from it or they'll deny inaccurate reporting on it or what have you, and maybe they won't go through with this. Kind of like the stimulus checks they haven't sent out yet that the President's been talking about for a year. but the, unfortunately most of the coverage of it or the voices on it have been that are supposed to be conservative have been positive on this and trying to do political and mental gymnastics to try to justify or rationalize why they're supporting another social welfare program.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is why it's so important, to listen to voices like this program because we will talk about things honestly and not, just be supportive of the administration because it's Republican or, you know, because, because, you know, we're some kind of GOP mouthpiece like a lot of the conservative media or on the flip side go against it just because it's Trump. Right. I mean, that's what you have to have with true conservatism. And even in flipping through the headlines of this, even the News Nation piece that I was reading, a little bit of it, you know, even down further into their, into their coverage, they just say, you know, critics warn of increased competition for limited childcare funding. Okay. And then talking about what supporters say, well, that's not really the debate. And so it's so important to actually think through issues like this and not just look at the headlines and then look at what, you know, maybe the GOP or some, you know, Trump acolyte is saying, you want to make sure that you're getting the analysis from a true conservative perspective. Because that's how we are supposed to think. Not just because we're conservatives, but because we have a biblical worldview of all things and all subject matter. And we have, and fiscal responsibility comes from the fact that God, protects private property and says that the government's limited in terms of what it can just take from us and redistribute to other people. So we always have to go along with the principles of the biblical worldview. And, you know, this also isn't. And I want to make this clear, this isn't just saying, you know, well, we're going to criticize Trump because, you know, he hasn't gotten other things done. I mean, this policy stands on its own. However, we can also ask the question, Bob good. About, you know, where is the administration in getting other things done? I mean, I know the executive branch is limited, obviously, so has to rely on Congress, which has been very frustrating, that they won't remove the filibuster in the Senate. They won't push things through. But, I mean, here Trump is out there, you know, re naming lakes and, okay, you know, fine, that's. That's maybe funny, but it's not really advancing anything that's meaningful to people who are going to go to the ballot on November. And ask, what has the GOP done for me lately?
Bob Good: Well, Trump's. We have to acknowledge Trump has done a lot of great things. He's done such a great job securing the border. It's not even talked about anymore. He's gotten rid of some 300,000 federal workers. He's largely dismantled the Department of Education. He hasn't eliminated it, but he's just, you know, scaled it back and taken responsibility away from it. he's cut regulations massively. He extended the Trump tax cuts in the big Bill. and, you know, he's attacked lgbt, the radical LGBT agenda. He's attacked DEI and government and education and so forth. So done a lot of great things. However, he and the Republicans have massively failed on the number one crisis, what should be the number one priority, and that is cutting spending, reducing the debt, addressing the fiscal crisis. They have massively failed on that, and they've made it worse. You know, we're at $40 trillion in debt, and again, the American people are suffering from the inflation, the interest rates, and the affordability crisis as a result. You can deny it all you want to in, the Trump White House, but it's true, and the American people feel it. And unfortunately, if Republicans don't do a complete 180 and begin to address it between now and November, I think they're going to suffer it for it in the midterms. so that's where they have massively failed, is the spending and the affordability crisis. And you don't even hear Republicans talking about spending cutting Spending, shrinking government, not in a realistic way, not in a serious way in Washington because of the Trump administration.
Jenna Ellis: Congressman Bob Good is a true conservative
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, we got to take a break here, but, Congressman Bob Good, thank you so much, for your commentary on all of this and also, for being a true conservative. And I know that that has always, been something you have stood for. You have sacrificed a lot to maintain that position. And so, likewise, I appreciate your voice as well for being, one of the few in, in the wilderness that is social media. But even, further, you know, in in D.C. and in politics in general, to keep the, and hold the line of conservatism and make sure that we are objectively reviewing all of these things, things, so that we can ensure that when it's our party in power that we can say, you know, here's what you're doing, good and bad. And we can also, talk about these things honestly and understand where we need to hold the line. So you can follow, Bob Good on X, listen to his, program, his podcast as well, and we will be right back with more. 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. 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.
Missouri's congressional map fight is now at the U.S. supreme court
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Missouri's congressional map fight is now at the U.S. supreme Court. And this is about much more than whether Republicans prefer one map and Democrats prefer another. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to stay a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that would force the state to abandon the congressional districts it used in the August primary and switch maps before the November general election. The state is making two major constitutional arguments. First, that the Missouri Supreme Court improperly interferes interfered with the legislature's authority over congressional elections under the federal elections clause. And second, that changing congressional districts after voters have already selected their nominees in the primary effectively disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of voters because some voters would now be voting in November on candidates they never had an opportunity to nominate. And there is also an extraordinary practical problem overseas and military ballots have to go out September 19th. Missouri says that changing the map requires reassigning hundreds of thousands of voters, redesigning and testing ballots, and then printing them, a process Election officials would estimate take at least 28 days when they now only have 15.
Jenna Purcell: Attorney General Hanaway celebrates one year in office
So joining me now is Attorney, ah, General Hanaway, who is also, by the way, celebrating, one year in office. And so happy anniversary to you, AG Hanaway. And we're very grateful that you are in office in Missouri. And so, explain to us exactly how this is even a question. It seems like this obviously needs to be settled before the primary and so this should have been essentially mooted out.
Catherine Hanaway: Well, good morning, Jenna. Thanks for the, well wishes on my one year in office. It's really flown by. A lot of that year has been spent on these redistricting cases. about a year ago in special session, the Missouri General assembly adopted a new redistricting map and we spent the rest of that year litigating it. We have now been up to the Missouri Supreme Court five different times. The first four times we won. And so the primary elections were held with those new maps passed by the legislature, signed by the governor. And then just last Thursday, in just a complete surprise, the Missouri Supreme Court said, we're going to have a referendum on the maps. It's going to a vote of the people. And until such time as it does, we're reverting back to the old maps. So there's a lot of procedural history here. But the bottom line is we used maps drawn in 2025 for the primary, and now the court has ordered in the general election that we revert back to very different maps that were drawn in 2022. It will make a difference of control of one seat in the US House of Representatives. Therefore, it's a federal election. That's why we've gone to the Supreme Court. It would be ridiculous at this point to tell all those primary voters, hey, sorry, your votes really don't count. We're going to have a completely different general election for these members of Congress.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, that just seems wild on face that that could even possibly be allowed. And right now while this application is pending and they're, you know, we're not sure of the outcome either way. I mean, how do candidates even campaign currently when you have that one seat in the balance?
Catherine Hanaway: It is really difficult because it doesn't just affect that one seat. For that one seat, which is MO CD5, it went from being very urban district to being a district that much better represents Missouri. And in fact, the Missouri Supreme Court has said the new map is more compact than the old map and that it was perfectly constitutional to do redistricting mid decade. So all the substantive arguments, the Missouri Supreme Court agreed with us. That's why it was such a surprise. But it has caused a problem for candidates. that Kansas City's the western part of our state. On the eastern part of the state. The St. Louis Area District is very different. The suburban district next to it is very different. And those, candidates spent millions just to win their primaries. And now they have to speak to a whole different set of voters. And the poor county clerks. I mean, the nightmare that this is creating for the 114 clerks in Missouri. They had the new maps already up and going. Today is the statutory deadline in Missouri for any changes to the ballot. And then we're coming up on September 19th quickly, which is the day that ballots have to be sent out under federal law, to military personnel. And the clerks don't know which map to use. It's a big deal to switch back and forth. They don't know whether they should send their ballots to the printers. Like, it's caused a lot of chaos. And our filing at the US Supreme Court is not the only case. Congressman Ander and, candidate Rick Bratton, who's now a state senator, have sued now the state, and we're a defendant in that suit. But of course they're suing because they believe their voters were disenfranchised. The people who nominated them aren't going to get to vote on them in the general election. So it's a quagmire.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And this just, this seems like it's going to complicate, things. Regardless of how the, these U.S. supreme Court holds. Is there any precedent anywhere in the country for conducting a congressional primary under one map and then conducting the general election under another?
Catherine Hanaway: What an absolutely great question, Jenna. And the answer is no. Never before in the history of our country has there been a primary election with one map and a general election with another map. In fact, there's a U.S. supreme Court precedent called Purcell, which specifically says the courts don't interfere close to an election day and especially don't change maps. And their definition of close to election day is a much longer time period than we're talking about. In fact, they ordered that in a Texas case 10 months ago that, 10 months ago was too close to the start of the elections process to start to change maps. And so we think we have very good arguments before the court. It is, such an unprecedented and in some ways unbelievable set of facts that, we hope that the court will move very quickly. And they have over the week. I Mean, we filed on, On Friday actually. Yeah, very late Friday night at about 11 o' clock Eastern Time. The brief from the respondents was due, yesterday that we went ahead and filed our response brief last night. So we could anticipate a decision from the court as soon as today as to whether they will issue a stay and then later hear this case.
Jenna Ellis: Well, hopefully, we'll get that outcome, sooner rather than later. And I would anticipate that the Supreme Court would understand that this is, a, an issue that they have to move on right away. So we'll be looking for that decision. And you know, there seems to be a really extraordinary constitution, constitutional asymmetry here because as you're describing it, federal courts are repeatedly told to exercise restraint as an election approaches because changing the rules risks voter confusion and disenfranchisement. But here a state court has ordered, arguably the most consequential election change imaginable, literally changing the districts themselves after the primary. And so shouldn't the same constitutional concerns apply with even greater force if we're talking about voter disenfranchisement?
Catherine Hanaway: absolutely they should. And Missouri has a corollary to that Purcell principle in a case called Hadley, where even here in Missouri, under the state constitution, there's a principle that you should not interfere with elections at this late date. And I think that some of the Supreme Court, Missouri Supreme Court's decision was based on anger that they had towards the Secretary of State. There was an initiative petition so that, you know, Democrats had gone out and gathered signatures to put this map on the ballot. And the Secretary of State argued, and we certainly supported this argument, we think he's right that there isn't the ability for an initiative petition on congressional maps, that the Missouri Constitution limits the ability to draw congressional maps to the legislature. And the Secretary of State used every possible. I'm sorry. He appropriately applied the statutes which set the deadlines in. To the letter. Like he followed the law. Absolutely to the letter. And the court was mad about what the law said because the law said he had to determine whether those signatures were sufficient and legal by the day of the primary. And he followed every step along the way. And on the day of the primary he rejected those signatures for legal insufficiency because it, because of our Constitution. And so I think they were very upset with him that he had used all the time that was necessary, but they should be upset with the legislature that they set the deadline so late. So this seems kind of like personal to them.
Katherine Hanaway says voters deserve certainty, consistency in elections
And that is no reason to take it out on the voters.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And so Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, thank you so much for joining us. Because voters deserve certainty, consistency, and a process where the rules don't change halfway through the game. I mean, this just seems so obvious. And hopefully the Supreme Court agrees. again, thank you so much. And we will be right back with more.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, ah, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound in at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington calls on President Trump to pardon accused killer
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, this just in from Bill Melusion over at Fox News. Lindsey Clancy. Defense attorney Kevan Reddington calls on President Trump to go grant her a pardon while on Good Morning America this morning. utterly ridiculous. And, thankfully, at least President Trump has come out very, you know, staunchly opposed to, you know, any, any sort of, not guilty verdict and, recognizing rightfully the heinousness of her conduct in killing her three children. we're continuing to follow that story as, we see, you know, what potential appeals might be filed to the mistrial and, how the prosecution moves forward in, that new trial. And the fallout, of course, on society as we continue, to oddly debate whether someone should be held criminally responsible for killing their own children. I mean, that's an obvious yes, but, you know, our society is so far off the rails we're actually having this conversation.
Amazon cargo plane crashed at Miami International Airport on Sunday; two pilots survive
But, meanwhile, we are getting an extraordinary new view this morning of the deadly Amazon cargo plane crash at Miami International Airport over the weekend. some of you may have seen that footage. It shows one of the pilots escaping from the burning plane after it barreled off the Runway on Sunday. So, the two pilots survived, but five people on the ground were killed and five others injured after the jet overran, the Runway, tore through the airport equipment and fencing, and struck vehicles outside the airport perimeter, according to reports. And federal investigators say the plane traveled roughly 1300ft beyond the paved, surface. And now the black boxes are in Washington as investigators try to answer the core question. How did a routine cargo flight end in this kind of catastrophe? Well, let's, welcome in Jim Nels, who is an economist and also supply chain manager. And, Jim, you know, this, this initial, video, it's just really surprising that pilots could overrun the, the Runway that much.
Miami International Airport does not have a Runway arresting system
And so let's start with the video that we're seeing. What jumps out at you about the aircraft's landing and the aftermath.
Jim Nelles: It looks like they just, I mean, good morning. It's really good to be with you again, Jenna. it looks like they just overshot the Runway. They landed too far down the Runway's path and ran out of Runway to stop. And Miami International Airport does not have a Runway arresting system that would stop a plane from leaving the Runway and going into public areas, which is what happened. And that's why, unfortunately, those, those five people died. None of them were on the plane. They were all on the ground in cars. And, so, you know, like you said, they have the black boxes now. The NTSB will take a look at that. The Secretary of Transportation will probably weigh in as well. But I think it was just, they're going to come back, and it's most likely going to be pilot error, and they landed too far down the Runway because, like you said, it was a routine flight. So, you know, maybe it's like when you are driving the car, you're mostly paying attention, but maybe not paying full attention. We don't know at this point. But, those black boxes should give us all the information that we need. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And, you know, it seems like, a lot of these incidents continue to happen. I mean, more than I remember, at least in recent history. I mean, do you think that this is more. That we're seeing, you know, some pilot error in greater, quantities lately, or is this just that we have more access to these kinds of on the ground videos and social media and, you know, we're now just aware of a
Jim Nelles: lot more incidents I think it's the latter. we're seeing more and more now. You have to fill up a 24 hour news cycle. Everyone has a, camera on their phone and the ability to take video. So we have all these videos and it makes for really good news. Right. The video of the pilot jumping out of the burning plane is very compelling and it's on every news channel right now and on all the major networks are showing it on the morning shows. So, you know, the other part though is we do have more planes in the air, right? We have much, many more cargo flights than we used to have before. We have many more people, being able to fly. And just by the sheer numbers you're going to have, statistically even if you have the same percentage of accidents, you're going to see more accidents on tv because like we talked about, everyone has access to these things now.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, and you know, we're seeing even you know, more video of things, that maybe wouldn't necessarily make the news, like arguments board aircrafts or you know, more turbulence or things that, that were common occurrences. You just didn't see the videos go viral. But one of the other videos that did go viral was from September 3rd. An unruly passenger was zip, ah, tied and duct taped to his seat during an American Airlines flight following a violent and apparently slur fueled outburst. This is coming from Fox 10 in Phoenix. The midair meltdown forced an emergency diversion to Baltimore where the passenger was arrested. And this photo like almost looks like AI, where this guy is literally duct tape like from head all the way down, you know, to his lap. and, and I don't even know like where they got duct tape. If that's something that the flight attendants have for possible, you know, restraint emergencies like this. But you know, things like that have gone viral as well.
Jim Nelles: Exactly. And we're seeing more of that. And again, to your point, everyone can film this now. So when it would happen in the past, think about this. It would be maybe a 10 second blurb at the end of a news, at the end of a newscast. Right. And another news, you know, so and so diverted a plane because of an unruly passenger plan, landed safely, passenger was arrested, everyone else went home. Now that you have the videos and you have the pictures, it becomes a life of its own. And these things do happen. I mean you're seeing a lot more of these things happening today. I don't know about you, but I fly about four times a week. None of these planes are on time anymore. So people spend more time sitting in the bars at the airports and, you know, you have one or two extra drinks and then something happens and you are crammed into this tin can and, people become unruly. I see it all the time on these flights. luckily I've never been on a flight where we've had to duct tape anybody. But, you do more and more people acting unruly as we're on these, on these crowded flights that are most often, several hours delayed.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. You know, what do you think Jim knows that says about our culture though, as well? Because, you know, I think that while the, everything that we've been talking about is accurate, that we're seeing more of the viral videos because everybody has their camera out. I mean, there's almost no sense of privacy anywhere remotely, ah, public anymore. You know, is this more about people that we're seeing a higher rate of, of just people who don't want to conform to basic, you know, social rules and respect. Like, public transportation on airplanes. I mean, we've seen a lot of this on, you know, some of the, you know, just frankly, lower income, ah, public transportation. We see these kinds of fights and other things on, you know, maybe the metro in inner cities or buses or things. But, you know, I mean, airline travel isn't, cheap and it's pretty expensive. But so do you think that this is more about, you know, accessibility by a greater population at large, or is some of this perhaps also playing to the camera?
Jim Nelles: I'm not so sure if it's playing to the camera, but if you look at how people fly today, right? People fly in their pajamas, right? And, you know, they don't, they don't get dressed to get on an airplane anymore. They literally roll out of bed in their pajamas, put on a pair of Uggs, and go to the airport. And so don't, Don't.
Jenna Ellis: Don't come for my Uggs. don't come for my Uggs. but I'm, but, but, you know, but, but I do draw the line. I was on a flight one time where somebody literally was wearing this, this guy looked like maybe a college student, but even then was wearing Homer Simpson like giant plush slippers. And you know, walking out, like, could barely fit down the aisle because these things were so big. I just thought that's what you want to wear through the airport. But, you know, I mean, so, so come for those. But, you know, don't come for my Uggs.
Jim Nelles: I won't touch your Uggs, Jenna. I promise you. But the point I'm trying to make is that if people don't take pride in themselves, they're much more likely to, to act out. And you know, look back at Spirit Airlines. I mean there were webpages just dedicated to the people of Spirit Airlines of how they would dress on that, on that airline before they went out of business. On the fights that would happen. You see the fights that would happen in the lines for Spirit Airlines. people have just lost all sense of accountability for their own actions and they feel that the slightest dis, you know, to, to use a little bit of slang is, is justification for, for acting out, for striking someone, for yelling at someone, for using slurs. And you know, I kind of wish we'd just get back to some sort of decorum as a society again. But you know, like you were talking in the introduction with, with the, the case in Massachusetts. Right.
We've stopped caring as a society about how people perceive us
I mean, I'm surprised that they didn't call that, not murder, but just a late term abortion for her three children. Right. It's.
Jim Nelles: We've stopped caring as a society about how people perceive us. And I think that's going to lead to more and more situations like we've seen on the air, on the airlines and quite frankly in society.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we do, absolutely. And we do need accountability for this.
Wheel of Fortune announcer Jim Thornton suspended over alleged chat room incident
because, you know, yet another story about an incident in an airline that happened this week. Wheel of Fortune announcer Jim Thornton was suspended and then ultimately ah, let go, because of a, investigation into very disturbing allegations from an in flight incident where apparently he was on looking ah, at a, in a chat room. you know, that was, that was illegal actually. That contained, you know, child material. and I won't get into the details, on, on air, but the passenger sitting next to him saw that, apparently alerted flight attendants and then law enforcement was waiting for him as he deplaned. And I'm just thinking, you know, what kind of person would sit there on an airplane and think that, you know, the passenger sitting next to them won't stand, see this or that. That is first of all, you know, appropriate to do anywhere. Obviously it's not, it's, it's criminal. But also to do that on, on an airplane and public, you know, transportation. I mean, it's like we have this view in society that there are no consequences to any conduct because, social media and the Internet has so normalized, so many of, you know, these deviant and evil, frankly, behaviors and, you know, somebody who is, you know, in the mainstream like this, and who, you know, isn't just some kind of, you know, random person on m. On the airlines. I mean, to have somebody like this, and this kind of headline, it's still, I think, a little bit shocking. But, you know, here we are as a society.
Jim Nelles: Yeah. No, I mean, I don't like to be on the phone when I'm on an airplane, so I don't want people hearing my business. So I can't imagine being as sick and depraved as someone who would have to look at stuff like that in public. It's. It's.
Jim Nelles: It's incredibly shocking to me because, again, there is no privacy on those. On those airplanes. If you're sitting, you know, on the back of the bus, you're three across, and everyone can see what you're doing. And, you know, that's why I still don't understand why people will get on airplanes and have speakerphone conversations. Right.
Jim Nelles: You know, I pray to God that they never allow you to use the police. The phone in flight and start having conversations, because I think then I might end up being the guy that stuck. Taped to the chair.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, Yeah. I mean, it's. It's, an interesting phenomenon anymore. And you see this more and more, not just on airplanes, but anywhere in public where more people think that they are entitled to do whatever they prefer without any sort of, accommodation or understanding of everybody else around them in the shared space. I mean, I was at an event, just last week with a friend of mine, and it was, it was Governor DeSantis Leadership Forum. You know, so we're sitting in a room with a lot of people, and the woman literally just in front of me, you know, stands up when he walks in and turns around to take the selfies, and it's like, okay, fine, you know, do a couple of those. But literally, like, almost the entire time until I finally said something to her, and I said, ma', m. Am, you know, there are people behind you, that want to see this as well. And. And it was like, so, you know, her face, like, registered shock. Like, oh, I'm. I'm not even perceiving that there might be some other people in this room that also want to see. So maybe I shouldn't stand up and, you know, get my content for my social media. But that's so many people right there. There are so many people that the world revolves around them. this is why we have all these conversations about people being Frustrated that parents don't, discipline children in restaurants. This is why, you know, we have all of these conversations about, you know, where, people bring pets and think that, you know, it's okay to just, bring them, you know, wherever, anywhere, because, you know, this is my fur, baby, and you can't say anything about it, right? And, you know, we. We live in this society now where it seems like everyone thinks the world revolves around them, the rules don't apply, and they have absolutely no common sense or common courtesy to anyone else around them. And it. It then, of course, sparks some of these, fights that you're seeing online because that inevitably will create more clashes when one person's preference and another person's preference inevitably collide. And everyone thinks the world revolves around that. I mean, what happened to common courtesy?
Jim Nelles: No, you're absolutely right. And those people are all wrong because, you know, as we know, the world revolves around me, not around anybody else. So, you know, they've got to stop that. But in all seriousness, you see that, right? Everyone believes the world revolves around them. I was in an airport lounge in Salt Lake City last week, and there are these two gentlemen there, and I use that term very loosely, and they were talking at volume 25. And the conversation they're having wasn't a polite conversation, right? I mean, there were more f bombs dropped in that conversation than. Than at a Teamsters union meeting. And, you know, even the people working in the lounge, they kept rolling their eyes. I'm like, guys, you work here, you can ask them to leave, right? You don't have to tolerate this. Nor should we, as the other paying customers in this lounge, have to tolerate this. But people just have no self awareness anymore. It's. It's insane. And I think it has to do with this, the phone culture and the TikTok culture. Everyone believes, believes that they're, the future TikTok star or the future star of this, and the world does revolve around them. And there's. There is no appreciation for the self or no appreciation for other people in your orbit at this point.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so. So well said, Jim Nels. And, yeah, I mean, it's. And, you know, some establishments are pushing back and saying, you know, our restaurant isn't the stage for your content. And I love it because too often, you know, these influencers just think that the world's a stage for their content, their preferences, and their vulgarity. You know, frankly, like all of this language that you continue to hear in society. We need to go back to a well ordered moral and upright society. So as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net 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.
Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
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 Rad.
The Trump administration has drafted a proposal to pay some stay at home parents
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, September 8th. I hope everyone had a lovely Labor Day weekend, full of labor and also work for the Lord. So as the GOP gets ready for its record breaking midterm convention, we'll see how that goes, tomorrow night and Thursday. The Trump administration has also drafted a proposal that would pay some stay at home parents using funds from a federal program originally designed to help working families afford child care. This is coming from News Nation. The stay at home, ah, parent child care subsidy proposal originated within the White House. According to a White House official who spoke with NewsNation. Earlier reports had said the proposal came from Vice President J.D. vance's office. Probably because J.D. Vance went viral, with a clip talking about the proposal. And the NewSong York Times reported the plan would create what could become the first federal grant program to directly compensate parents who for staying home to raise their children. This is what Vance had to say. Cut one.
JD Vance: They're trying to tear down this country, tear down our young people, tear down our military, and what's left over with the ashes of what they've torn down is socialism. Well, we've got a different approach, my friends. We want to invest in you, we want to fight for you, and we want to fight for your children's future. We're going to defeat socialism by giving you a stake in the American dream. And that's how we're going to win the future. But I got to say that what we're doing isn't, it's not just a two year or even a four year process. Think about this. This country was plundered over a Generation. Our goal is to reverse a consensus that has screwed over communities like this one for decades.
Jenna Ellis: All right, but the plan has sparked some controversy, of course, on social media. And while it sounds good, isn't this really comparable to socialism? Because the extremely low income threshold to obtain these benefits is not going to go to incentivize stay at home moms like the Christian trad wife who's choosing to homeschool her four kids. $9,000 isn't going to make a woman quit her job to become a stay at home mom who wouldn't otherwise choose staying home anyway. It's going to go to US Citizen children of illegal alien moms. And anchor babies do qualify, unfortunately under this program. So now you have the administration incentivizing more U.S. citizen children of illegals. So perhaps the virtuous moms the administration is thinking of likely won't benefit from this program.
Bob Good says new federal entitlement will further diminish conservative turnout in midterms
let's welcome in Bob Good, who's a former Virginia congressman and has a really great podcast that breaks down all sorts of things, including these, new issues. And he posted that the new federal entitlement won't, win you the midterms. Democrats already own the Santa Claus nanny state government as provider lane, but it will further diminish conservative turnout as they tire of supporting the Republican version of, of the DC debt machine. So, Congressman Good, I think you're right on the money there, Janet.
Bob Good: Thank you for having me and thank you for being in the fight. As I've been watching this, I wish it was more controversial. I wish there were more conservative media covering it and more conservative voices like you speaking out against us. You have been one of the few lone voices once again challenging the narrative, challenging the, going against the grain, I should say. you know, I saw somebody post on social media. I want to give credit to someone, I don't even remember who it was. It wasn't someone I knew. But they said the Democrat Party has become the new Communist Party, the Republican Party has become the new Democrat Party, and conservatives are homeless politically. And there is no greater evidence than this, this new government program that's unconstitutional for the federal government to be, the benevolent entity. It's not unconstitutional for states if they want to do this sort of thing. That's up to the people in the states and their representatives. And people can move out of a state or vote in somebody differently if they don't like that. But for the federal government to be involved in charity, in taking care of us, in giving us money, no matter how worthy we might think the cause is or the recipient may be, and how foolish. I know you're seeing what I've been seeing over and over, oh, this isn't going to be new money.
Bob Good: This is going to be repurposed money. As if adding a new group of people, is not going to cost more money. How naive and how foolish. Or how gullible, or maybe even deceitful and dishonest, whichever one it is, are those who are saying that it's not going to cost more money.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. And, you know, it's really surprising to me, maybe it shouldn't be that just because something is coming from the Trump administration, suddenly conservatives are on board, as if it always a good idea where the true conservative perspective needs to be, well, wait, let's see if this proposal is actually up to the standards of conservative values, because not everything that comes from Republicans is necessarily good or conservative. And when people are saying, well, this isn't going to expand entitlements, this is just redirecting funds, I'm going, yeah, right, wink, wink, you know, hint, hint. I mean, when has the government ever tried to allow more people to stand in line for an already over, bloated program and never then gone in the next session to Congress and say, look, this is a great program, we need to expand the benefits and direct even more funding? I mean, do we learn nothing from Doge?
Bob Good: You're exactly right. It doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter if it's our guy or our party who does it is. We need to be focused on policy and principle and not just on party and personality. The Democrats are watching and learning from the precedents that are being set during these past, now almost two years and the remaining two years of the Trump administration. They're watching and learning from these precedents that are being set for their opportunity to enact their agenda and to do things based on the same, the same criteria that the Trump administration has been doing it. But the question is, is there any longer a conservative party in this country? It seems as if the Trump Vance administration and the Republican establishment is trying to carve out a socialist populist center, perhaps trying to appeal to Democrats who maybe aren't communists or don't embrace Marxism or don't embrace, you know, Sharia law or the extremism that's the Democrat socialist of America. And it seems like the Trump Vance wing of the party, which I guess is the party, wants to carve out a political center that appeals to the moderate Socialist populist center and just leave conservatives out to dry and leave conservatives with no home politically. And there's again, no greater example than this newest announcement of this new entitlement program adding a new group of beneficiaries to federal largesse.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And that new kind of, you know, populist center is exactly what listeners who are saying, well, wait a minute, you know, this is finally something for stay at home moms. Aren't we incentivizing the right values? That's what they need to focus on. Because this isn't about saying that stay at home parenting has no value. I mean, absolutely it does. I'm, I'm a beneficiary of that because my mom stayed home and homeschooled me. And it was the greatest, gift that my parents could have given me. So obviously we want to incentivize that, but basically paying. Having the government pay moms to stay home. And we're not talking about, you know, the middle class or the upper class. I mean, we're talking about the extremely low income. We're not, we're not going about this the right way. This is not the right vehicle, because you can't have the government say, okay, I'm going to now pay you to make a virtuous choice that we, historically, we've never seen that turn out well. I mean, the better alternative, of course, would be to reduce the tax burden on families so that they don't need dual income. the, the other issue, of course, is inflation in the economy and how much all of this costs. So go and do the thing that they promised to do in the very beginning in 2024, which was to look at, you know, completely changing the tax code to actually having doge function, to, providing other incentives that aren't these entitlements and handouts. And for people who are just saying, well, you know, how is this any different from just redirecting funds like they're doing with school choice? that. I think that that whole scenario is apples to oranges.
Bob Good: Yes. What we need is leadership. Like what has recently taken place in the last couple of years in Argentina with Javier Milei, who's massively cut spending, massively shrunk government, and the country is prospering like it hasn't in years because of what he's done, the courage and the principle that he's shown. Javier Milei in Argentina has done an incredible job. That's the kind of leadership that we need in this country. I hope that we don't have to get to the crisis that they got to before they were willing to elect someone who would do this. But, you know, whether you're talking about Trump accounts, whether you're talking about farm subsidies or stimulus or tariff checks that the president wants to send out, this, wealth redistribution, taking money from us to give it to us, to incentivize us to do the things that the government wants us to do, whether it's the Democrat government or the Republican government, it never works. It's not constitutional. It's the reason why we have $40 trillion in debt. It's the reason why we have inflation that's so stubborn. It's the reason why interest rates will not go down because the bondholders won't finance our debt anymore without a higher rate of return. It's the reason why we have the affordability crisis and we need to stop doing things like passing Elizabet Warren housing bill, when we have full Republican control of government and creating new entitlement programs and handing out more money like this program would do.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely.
Bob Kind says conservatives are missing distinction between school choice and entitlements
And I do want to go back to, you know, kind of this, this school choice analogy, because I'm seeing that crop up a lot online and people actually saying that if you're against this kind of entitlement, but you're for school choice, then somehow you are being hypocrite. But school choice advocates generally aren't arguing that parents should personally receive a teacher's salary because they educate their children at home. That would actually be the closer analogy. And hopefully no conservative is arguing that it's, the equivalent of the proposal would be closer to if you homeschool your child. Instead, we'll send you $7,000 to personally compensate you for the income you gave up by teaching your child. And that's a very, very different proposal because the dollars under school choice follow the child and you're basically getting a reimbursement of the tax dollars you're already spending. And so if this is really the same principle as school choice, should states start paying homeschooling parents the per pupil amount that would otherwise have gone to public schools, not simply letting them use an ESA for educational expenses, but actually paying the parent for the opportunity cost of staying home and teaching? I mean, that's, that's a completely different distinction that I think people are missing in this whole debate.
Bob Good: Yes, a conservative view of the school choice and the education issue is that, first of all, the federal government should be out of the education business. The federal government ought not to be taking our tax dollars and Sending them back to the states to provide for education. That's not an appropriate role of the federal government. I was forward during my time in Washington on the education, committee for eliminating the Department of Education and eliminating federal government being involved in education. Secondly, a conservative view of school choice is that parents should get a good tax breaks for not having government schools educate their children. It's not about sending cash to parents. It's about not forcing parents to pay taxes for education they don't take advantage of and for them to, for the, for dollars to follow the child and not to not be spent based on the government determining for you your education decision. So conservative view of school choices is not the federal government's role, number one. And number two, parents should not have to pay with their tax dollars for education with the government that they don't even utilize anyway, the state or the federal level.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so, so well said. And you know, and you mentioned of course that this isn't. These types of entitlements aren't going to help the GOP win the midterms. And it's that's so true because I think that the actual conservatives are very frustrated with the administration right now for coming up with these types of proposals instead of actually turning toward fiscal policy, getting you know, a lot of these other things done that they should. And you know, if these proposals were out there and, and suggested while getting a lot of fiscal conservative policy actually through and we were having more of a solid conversation on this. Okay. You know, maybe, and we could refine it a little bit. But this push to this kind of populist center is what's really I think scary about what the conservatives are doing. And we're going to go a little bit longer here with this break if we can hold it. Thanks. and so Congressman, Bob. Good. I mean, how do you think that this is actually playing to voters? Because I don't see that the GOP is really winning anyone here.
Bob Good: Well, again, you can't out Santa. Santa Claus. The Democrat Party is Santa Claus. We're not going to win that fight. I do think it's noteworthy, Jenna, that you're in my news feeds that I get in the morning. I don't want to name them because they're good conservative sources, but they're not covering this. And as I was flipping through the so called conservative media on television stations this morning, I wasn't seeing this being covered. I'm seeing it in the Social media world as conservatives are fight, a few conservatives are fighting back like yourself, but mostly from the conservative influencers and the conservative pundits or so called conservatives, I should say. They're defending this, they're spinning this and they're calling this a great thing. So you're seeing a battle going on in social media, but I'm not seeing major so called conservative media covering this and I'm not seeing politicians elected, Republican officials speaking out on this, by the way. So perhaps, perhaps we can hope that maybe the Trump administration is floating the latest stupid socialist idea they come up with and then perhaps they'll back away from it or they'll deny inaccurate reporting on it or what have you, and maybe they won't go through with this. Kind of like the stimulus checks they haven't sent out yet that the President's been talking about for a year. but the, unfortunately most of the coverage of it or the voices on it have been that are supposed to be conservative have been positive on this and trying to do political and mental gymnastics to try to justify or rationalize why they're supporting another social welfare program.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is why it's so important, to listen to voices like this program because we will talk about things honestly and not, just be supportive of the administration because it's Republican or, you know, because, because, you know, we're some kind of GOP mouthpiece like a lot of the conservative media or on the flip side go against it just because it's Trump. Right. I mean, that's what you have to have with true conservatism. And even in flipping through the headlines of this, even the News Nation piece that I was reading, a little bit of it, you know, even down further into their, into their coverage, they just say, you know, critics warn of increased competition for limited childcare funding. Okay. And then talking about what supporters say, well, that's not really the debate. And so it's so important to actually think through issues like this and not just look at the headlines and then look at what, you know, maybe the GOP or some, you know, Trump acolyte is saying, you want to make sure that you're getting the analysis from a true conservative perspective. Because that's how we are supposed to think. Not just because we're conservatives, but because we have a biblical worldview of all things and all subject matter. And we have, and fiscal responsibility comes from the fact that God, protects private property and says that the government's limited in terms of what it can just take from us and redistribute to other people. So we always have to go along with the principles of the biblical worldview. And, you know, this also isn't. And I want to make this clear, this isn't just saying, you know, well, we're going to criticize Trump because, you know, he hasn't gotten other things done. I mean, this policy stands on its own. However, we can also ask the question, Bob good. About, you know, where is the administration in getting other things done? I mean, I know the executive branch is limited, obviously, so has to rely on Congress, which has been very frustrating, that they won't remove the filibuster in the Senate. They won't push things through. But, I mean, here Trump is out there, you know, re naming lakes and, okay, you know, fine, that's. That's maybe funny, but it's not really advancing anything that's meaningful to people who are going to go to the ballot on November. And ask, what has the GOP done for me lately?
Bob Good: Well, Trump's. We have to acknowledge Trump has done a lot of great things. He's done such a great job securing the border. It's not even talked about anymore. He's gotten rid of some 300,000 federal workers. He's largely dismantled the Department of Education. He hasn't eliminated it, but he's just, you know, scaled it back and taken responsibility away from it. he's cut regulations massively. He extended the Trump tax cuts in the big Bill. and, you know, he's attacked lgbt, the radical LGBT agenda. He's attacked DEI and government and education and so forth. So done a lot of great things. However, he and the Republicans have massively failed on the number one crisis, what should be the number one priority, and that is cutting spending, reducing the debt, addressing the fiscal crisis. They have massively failed on that, and they've made it worse. You know, we're at $40 trillion in debt, and again, the American people are suffering from the inflation, the interest rates, and the affordability crisis as a result. You can deny it all you want to in, the Trump White House, but it's true, and the American people feel it. And unfortunately, if Republicans don't do a complete 180 and begin to address it between now and November, I think they're going to suffer it for it in the midterms. so that's where they have massively failed, is the spending and the affordability crisis. And you don't even hear Republicans talking about spending cutting Spending, shrinking government, not in a realistic way, not in a serious way in Washington because of the Trump administration.
Jenna Ellis: Congressman Bob Good is a true conservative
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, we got to take a break here, but, Congressman Bob Good, thank you so much, for your commentary on all of this and also, for being a true conservative. And I know that that has always, been something you have stood for. You have sacrificed a lot to maintain that position. And so, likewise, I appreciate your voice as well for being, one of the few in, in the wilderness that is social media. But even, further, you know, in in D.C. and in politics in general, to keep the, and hold the line of conservatism and make sure that we are objectively reviewing all of these things, things, so that we can ensure that when it's our party in power that we can say, you know, here's what you're doing, good and bad. And we can also, talk about these things honestly and understand where we need to hold the line. So you can follow, Bob Good on X, listen to his, program, his podcast as well, and we will be right back with more. 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. 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.
Missouri's congressional map fight is now at the U.S. supreme court
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Missouri's congressional map fight is now at the U.S. supreme Court. And this is about much more than whether Republicans prefer one map and Democrats prefer another. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to stay a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that would force the state to abandon the congressional districts it used in the August primary and switch maps before the November general election. The state is making two major constitutional arguments. First, that the Missouri Supreme Court improperly interferes interfered with the legislature's authority over congressional elections under the federal elections clause. And second, that changing congressional districts after voters have already selected their nominees in the primary effectively disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of voters because some voters would now be voting in November on candidates they never had an opportunity to nominate. And there is also an extraordinary practical problem overseas and military ballots have to go out September 19th. Missouri says that changing the map requires reassigning hundreds of thousands of voters, redesigning and testing ballots, and then printing them, a process Election officials would estimate take at least 28 days when they now only have 15.
Jenna Purcell: Attorney General Hanaway celebrates one year in office
So joining me now is Attorney, ah, General Hanaway, who is also, by the way, celebrating, one year in office. And so happy anniversary to you, AG Hanaway. And we're very grateful that you are in office in Missouri. And so, explain to us exactly how this is even a question. It seems like this obviously needs to be settled before the primary and so this should have been essentially mooted out.
Catherine Hanaway: Well, good morning, Jenna. Thanks for the, well wishes on my one year in office. It's really flown by. A lot of that year has been spent on these redistricting cases. about a year ago in special session, the Missouri General assembly adopted a new redistricting map and we spent the rest of that year litigating it. We have now been up to the Missouri Supreme Court five different times. The first four times we won. And so the primary elections were held with those new maps passed by the legislature, signed by the governor. And then just last Thursday, in just a complete surprise, the Missouri Supreme Court said, we're going to have a referendum on the maps. It's going to a vote of the people. And until such time as it does, we're reverting back to the old maps. So there's a lot of procedural history here. But the bottom line is we used maps drawn in 2025 for the primary, and now the court has ordered in the general election that we revert back to very different maps that were drawn in 2022. It will make a difference of control of one seat in the US House of Representatives. Therefore, it's a federal election. That's why we've gone to the Supreme Court. It would be ridiculous at this point to tell all those primary voters, hey, sorry, your votes really don't count. We're going to have a completely different general election for these members of Congress.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, that just seems wild on face that that could even possibly be allowed. And right now while this application is pending and they're, you know, we're not sure of the outcome either way. I mean, how do candidates even campaign currently when you have that one seat in the balance?
Catherine Hanaway: It is really difficult because it doesn't just affect that one seat. For that one seat, which is MO CD5, it went from being very urban district to being a district that much better represents Missouri. And in fact, the Missouri Supreme Court has said the new map is more compact than the old map and that it was perfectly constitutional to do redistricting mid decade. So all the substantive arguments, the Missouri Supreme Court agreed with us. That's why it was such a surprise. But it has caused a problem for candidates. that Kansas City's the western part of our state. On the eastern part of the state. The St. Louis Area District is very different. The suburban district next to it is very different. And those, candidates spent millions just to win their primaries. And now they have to speak to a whole different set of voters. And the poor county clerks. I mean, the nightmare that this is creating for the 114 clerks in Missouri. They had the new maps already up and going. Today is the statutory deadline in Missouri for any changes to the ballot. And then we're coming up on September 19th quickly, which is the day that ballots have to be sent out under federal law, to military personnel. And the clerks don't know which map to use. It's a big deal to switch back and forth. They don't know whether they should send their ballots to the printers. Like, it's caused a lot of chaos. And our filing at the US Supreme Court is not the only case. Congressman Ander and, candidate Rick Bratton, who's now a state senator, have sued now the state, and we're a defendant in that suit. But of course they're suing because they believe their voters were disenfranchised. The people who nominated them aren't going to get to vote on them in the general election. So it's a quagmire.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And this just, this seems like it's going to complicate, things. Regardless of how the, these U.S. supreme Court holds. Is there any precedent anywhere in the country for conducting a congressional primary under one map and then conducting the general election under another?
Catherine Hanaway: What an absolutely great question, Jenna. And the answer is no. Never before in the history of our country has there been a primary election with one map and a general election with another map. In fact, there's a U.S. supreme Court precedent called Purcell, which specifically says the courts don't interfere close to an election day and especially don't change maps. And their definition of close to election day is a much longer time period than we're talking about. In fact, they ordered that in a Texas case 10 months ago that, 10 months ago was too close to the start of the elections process to start to change maps. And so we think we have very good arguments before the court. It is, such an unprecedented and in some ways unbelievable set of facts that, we hope that the court will move very quickly. And they have over the week. I Mean, we filed on, On Friday actually. Yeah, very late Friday night at about 11 o' clock Eastern Time. The brief from the respondents was due, yesterday that we went ahead and filed our response brief last night. So we could anticipate a decision from the court as soon as today as to whether they will issue a stay and then later hear this case.
Jenna Ellis: Well, hopefully, we'll get that outcome, sooner rather than later. And I would anticipate that the Supreme Court would understand that this is, a, an issue that they have to move on right away. So we'll be looking for that decision. And you know, there seems to be a really extraordinary constitution, constitutional asymmetry here because as you're describing it, federal courts are repeatedly told to exercise restraint as an election approaches because changing the rules risks voter confusion and disenfranchisement. But here a state court has ordered, arguably the most consequential election change imaginable, literally changing the districts themselves after the primary. And so shouldn't the same constitutional concerns apply with even greater force if we're talking about voter disenfranchisement?
Catherine Hanaway: absolutely they should. And Missouri has a corollary to that Purcell principle in a case called Hadley, where even here in Missouri, under the state constitution, there's a principle that you should not interfere with elections at this late date. And I think that some of the Supreme Court, Missouri Supreme Court's decision was based on anger that they had towards the Secretary of State. There was an initiative petition so that, you know, Democrats had gone out and gathered signatures to put this map on the ballot. And the Secretary of State argued, and we certainly supported this argument, we think he's right that there isn't the ability for an initiative petition on congressional maps, that the Missouri Constitution limits the ability to draw congressional maps to the legislature. And the Secretary of State used every possible. I'm sorry. He appropriately applied the statutes which set the deadlines in. To the letter. Like he followed the law. Absolutely to the letter. And the court was mad about what the law said because the law said he had to determine whether those signatures were sufficient and legal by the day of the primary. And he followed every step along the way. And on the day of the primary he rejected those signatures for legal insufficiency because it, because of our Constitution. And so I think they were very upset with him that he had used all the time that was necessary, but they should be upset with the legislature that they set the deadline so late. So this seems kind of like personal to them.
Katherine Hanaway says voters deserve certainty, consistency in elections
And that is no reason to take it out on the voters.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And so Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, thank you so much for joining us. Because voters deserve certainty, consistency, and a process where the rules don't change halfway through the game. I mean, this just seems so obvious. And hopefully the Supreme Court agrees. again, thank you so much. And we will be right back with more.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At, ah, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound in at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington calls on President Trump to pardon accused killer
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, this just in from Bill Melusion over at Fox News. Lindsey Clancy. Defense attorney Kevan Reddington calls on President Trump to go grant her a pardon while on Good Morning America this morning. utterly ridiculous. And, thankfully, at least President Trump has come out very, you know, staunchly opposed to, you know, any, any sort of, not guilty verdict and, recognizing rightfully the heinousness of her conduct in killing her three children. we're continuing to follow that story as, we see, you know, what potential appeals might be filed to the mistrial and, how the prosecution moves forward in, that new trial. And the fallout, of course, on society as we continue, to oddly debate whether someone should be held criminally responsible for killing their own children. I mean, that's an obvious yes, but, you know, our society is so far off the rails we're actually having this conversation.
Amazon cargo plane crashed at Miami International Airport on Sunday; two pilots survive
But, meanwhile, we are getting an extraordinary new view this morning of the deadly Amazon cargo plane crash at Miami International Airport over the weekend. some of you may have seen that footage. It shows one of the pilots escaping from the burning plane after it barreled off the Runway on Sunday. So, the two pilots survived, but five people on the ground were killed and five others injured after the jet overran, the Runway, tore through the airport equipment and fencing, and struck vehicles outside the airport perimeter, according to reports. And federal investigators say the plane traveled roughly 1300ft beyond the paved, surface. And now the black boxes are in Washington as investigators try to answer the core question. How did a routine cargo flight end in this kind of catastrophe? Well, let's, welcome in Jim Nels, who is an economist and also supply chain manager. And, Jim, you know, this, this initial, video, it's just really surprising that pilots could overrun the, the Runway that much.
Miami International Airport does not have a Runway arresting system
And so let's start with the video that we're seeing. What jumps out at you about the aircraft's landing and the aftermath.
Jim Nelles: It looks like they just, I mean, good morning. It's really good to be with you again, Jenna. it looks like they just overshot the Runway. They landed too far down the Runway's path and ran out of Runway to stop. And Miami International Airport does not have a Runway arresting system that would stop a plane from leaving the Runway and going into public areas, which is what happened. And that's why, unfortunately, those, those five people died. None of them were on the plane. They were all on the ground in cars. And, so, you know, like you said, they have the black boxes now. The NTSB will take a look at that. The Secretary of Transportation will probably weigh in as well. But I think it was just, they're going to come back, and it's most likely going to be pilot error, and they landed too far down the Runway because, like you said, it was a routine flight. So, you know, maybe it's like when you are driving the car, you're mostly paying attention, but maybe not paying full attention. We don't know at this point. But, those black boxes should give us all the information that we need. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And, you know, it seems like, a lot of these incidents continue to happen. I mean, more than I remember, at least in recent history. I mean, do you think that this is more. That we're seeing, you know, some pilot error in greater, quantities lately, or is this just that we have more access to these kinds of on the ground videos and social media and, you know, we're now just aware of a
Jim Nelles: lot more incidents I think it's the latter. we're seeing more and more now. You have to fill up a 24 hour news cycle. Everyone has a, camera on their phone and the ability to take video. So we have all these videos and it makes for really good news. Right. The video of the pilot jumping out of the burning plane is very compelling and it's on every news channel right now and on all the major networks are showing it on the morning shows. So, you know, the other part though is we do have more planes in the air, right? We have much, many more cargo flights than we used to have before. We have many more people, being able to fly. And just by the sheer numbers you're going to have, statistically even if you have the same percentage of accidents, you're going to see more accidents on tv because like we talked about, everyone has access to these things now.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, and you know, we're seeing even you know, more video of things, that maybe wouldn't necessarily make the news, like arguments board aircrafts or you know, more turbulence or things that, that were common occurrences. You just didn't see the videos go viral. But one of the other videos that did go viral was from September 3rd. An unruly passenger was zip, ah, tied and duct taped to his seat during an American Airlines flight following a violent and apparently slur fueled outburst. This is coming from Fox 10 in Phoenix. The midair meltdown forced an emergency diversion to Baltimore where the passenger was arrested. And this photo like almost looks like AI, where this guy is literally duct tape like from head all the way down, you know, to his lap. and, and I don't even know like where they got duct tape. If that's something that the flight attendants have for possible, you know, restraint emergencies like this. But you know, things like that have gone viral as well.
Jim Nelles: Exactly. And we're seeing more of that. And again, to your point, everyone can film this now. So when it would happen in the past, think about this. It would be maybe a 10 second blurb at the end of a news, at the end of a newscast. Right. And another news, you know, so and so diverted a plane because of an unruly passenger plan, landed safely, passenger was arrested, everyone else went home. Now that you have the videos and you have the pictures, it becomes a life of its own. And these things do happen. I mean you're seeing a lot more of these things happening today. I don't know about you, but I fly about four times a week. None of these planes are on time anymore. So people spend more time sitting in the bars at the airports and, you know, you have one or two extra drinks and then something happens and you are crammed into this tin can and, people become unruly. I see it all the time on these flights. luckily I've never been on a flight where we've had to duct tape anybody. But, you do more and more people acting unruly as we're on these, on these crowded flights that are most often, several hours delayed.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. You know, what do you think Jim knows that says about our culture though, as well? Because, you know, I think that while the, everything that we've been talking about is accurate, that we're seeing more of the viral videos because everybody has their camera out. I mean, there's almost no sense of privacy anywhere remotely, ah, public anymore. You know, is this more about people that we're seeing a higher rate of, of just people who don't want to conform to basic, you know, social rules and respect. Like, public transportation on airplanes. I mean, we've seen a lot of this on, you know, some of the, you know, just frankly, lower income, ah, public transportation. We see these kinds of fights and other things on, you know, maybe the metro in inner cities or buses or things. But, you know, I mean, airline travel isn't, cheap and it's pretty expensive. But so do you think that this is more about, you know, accessibility by a greater population at large, or is some of this perhaps also playing to the camera?
Jim Nelles: I'm not so sure if it's playing to the camera, but if you look at how people fly today, right? People fly in their pajamas, right? And, you know, they don't, they don't get dressed to get on an airplane anymore. They literally roll out of bed in their pajamas, put on a pair of Uggs, and go to the airport. And so don't, Don't.
Jenna Ellis: Don't come for my Uggs. don't come for my Uggs. but I'm, but, but, you know, but, but I do draw the line. I was on a flight one time where somebody literally was wearing this, this guy looked like maybe a college student, but even then was wearing Homer Simpson like giant plush slippers. And you know, walking out, like, could barely fit down the aisle because these things were so big. I just thought that's what you want to wear through the airport. But, you know, I mean, so, so come for those. But, you know, don't come for my Uggs.
Jim Nelles: I won't touch your Uggs, Jenna. I promise you. But the point I'm trying to make is that if people don't take pride in themselves, they're much more likely to, to act out. And you know, look back at Spirit Airlines. I mean there were webpages just dedicated to the people of Spirit Airlines of how they would dress on that, on that airline before they went out of business. On the fights that would happen. You see the fights that would happen in the lines for Spirit Airlines. people have just lost all sense of accountability for their own actions and they feel that the slightest dis, you know, to, to use a little bit of slang is, is justification for, for acting out, for striking someone, for yelling at someone, for using slurs. And you know, I kind of wish we'd just get back to some sort of decorum as a society again. But you know, like you were talking in the introduction with, with the, the case in Massachusetts. Right.
We've stopped caring as a society about how people perceive us
I mean, I'm surprised that they didn't call that, not murder, but just a late term abortion for her three children. Right. It's.
Jim Nelles: We've stopped caring as a society about how people perceive us. And I think that's going to lead to more and more situations like we've seen on the air, on the airlines and quite frankly in society.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we do, absolutely. And we do need accountability for this.
Wheel of Fortune announcer Jim Thornton suspended over alleged chat room incident
because, you know, yet another story about an incident in an airline that happened this week. Wheel of Fortune announcer Jim Thornton was suspended and then ultimately ah, let go, because of a, investigation into very disturbing allegations from an in flight incident where apparently he was on looking ah, at a, in a chat room. you know, that was, that was illegal actually. That contained, you know, child material. and I won't get into the details, on, on air, but the passenger sitting next to him saw that, apparently alerted flight attendants and then law enforcement was waiting for him as he deplaned. And I'm just thinking, you know, what kind of person would sit there on an airplane and think that, you know, the passenger sitting next to them won't stand, see this or that. That is first of all, you know, appropriate to do anywhere. Obviously it's not, it's, it's criminal. But also to do that on, on an airplane and public, you know, transportation. I mean, it's like we have this view in society that there are no consequences to any conduct because, social media and the Internet has so normalized, so many of, you know, these deviant and evil, frankly, behaviors and, you know, somebody who is, you know, in the mainstream like this, and who, you know, isn't just some kind of, you know, random person on m. On the airlines. I mean, to have somebody like this, and this kind of headline, it's still, I think, a little bit shocking. But, you know, here we are as a society.
Jim Nelles: Yeah. No, I mean, I don't like to be on the phone when I'm on an airplane, so I don't want people hearing my business. So I can't imagine being as sick and depraved as someone who would have to look at stuff like that in public. It's. It's.
Jim Nelles: It's incredibly shocking to me because, again, there is no privacy on those. On those airplanes. If you're sitting, you know, on the back of the bus, you're three across, and everyone can see what you're doing. And, you know, that's why I still don't understand why people will get on airplanes and have speakerphone conversations. Right.
Jim Nelles: You know, I pray to God that they never allow you to use the police. The phone in flight and start having conversations, because I think then I might end up being the guy that stuck. Taped to the chair.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, Yeah. I mean, it's. It's, an interesting phenomenon anymore. And you see this more and more, not just on airplanes, but anywhere in public where more people think that they are entitled to do whatever they prefer without any sort of, accommodation or understanding of everybody else around them in the shared space. I mean, I was at an event, just last week with a friend of mine, and it was, it was Governor DeSantis Leadership Forum. You know, so we're sitting in a room with a lot of people, and the woman literally just in front of me, you know, stands up when he walks in and turns around to take the selfies, and it's like, okay, fine, you know, do a couple of those. But literally, like, almost the entire time until I finally said something to her, and I said, ma', m. Am, you know, there are people behind you, that want to see this as well. And. And it was like, so, you know, her face, like, registered shock. Like, oh, I'm. I'm not even perceiving that there might be some other people in this room that also want to see. So maybe I shouldn't stand up and, you know, get my content for my social media. But that's so many people right there. There are so many people that the world revolves around them. this is why we have all these conversations about people being Frustrated that parents don't, discipline children in restaurants. This is why, you know, we have all of these conversations about, you know, where, people bring pets and think that, you know, it's okay to just, bring them, you know, wherever, anywhere, because, you know, this is my fur, baby, and you can't say anything about it, right? And, you know, we. We live in this society now where it seems like everyone thinks the world revolves around them, the rules don't apply, and they have absolutely no common sense or common courtesy to anyone else around them. And it. It then, of course, sparks some of these, fights that you're seeing online because that inevitably will create more clashes when one person's preference and another person's preference inevitably collide. And everyone thinks the world revolves around that. I mean, what happened to common courtesy?
Jim Nelles: No, you're absolutely right. And those people are all wrong because, you know, as we know, the world revolves around me, not around anybody else. So, you know, they've got to stop that. But in all seriousness, you see that, right? Everyone believes the world revolves around them. I was in an airport lounge in Salt Lake City last week, and there are these two gentlemen there, and I use that term very loosely, and they were talking at volume 25. And the conversation they're having wasn't a polite conversation, right? I mean, there were more f bombs dropped in that conversation than. Than at a Teamsters union meeting. And, you know, even the people working in the lounge, they kept rolling their eyes. I'm like, guys, you work here, you can ask them to leave, right? You don't have to tolerate this. Nor should we, as the other paying customers in this lounge, have to tolerate this. But people just have no self awareness anymore. It's. It's insane. And I think it has to do with this, the phone culture and the TikTok culture. Everyone believes, believes that they're, the future TikTok star or the future star of this, and the world does revolve around them. And there's. There is no appreciation for the self or no appreciation for other people in your orbit at this point.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so. So well said, Jim Nels. And, yeah, I mean, it's. And, you know, some establishments are pushing back and saying, you know, our restaurant isn't the stage for your content. And I love it because too often, you know, these influencers just think that the world's a stage for their content, their preferences, and their vulgarity. You know, frankly, like all of this language that you continue to hear in society. We need to go back to a well ordered moral and upright society. So as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net 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 discusses the implications of a new federal child care subsidy proposal and its potential impact on conservative values in America. Joined by former Congressman Bob Good, they analyze the political landscape surrounding this initiative and its comparison to socialism. The conversation delves into the importance of maintaining conservative principles while navigating the complexities of government entitlements.
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:
