Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Mike Johnson: GOP needs to wrestle with worldview clash after America 250 celebrations

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, July 7, and I think we are all still basking in the glow of America 250 and all of the celebrations over the weekend. And, you know, I hope that that lasts for a really long time. I love the focus and the emphasis on our founding on where we have come from as a great country. I mean, 250 years, relatively speaking, in a nation's history is not that long. But what America has accomplished and what we' come, from what we started from over 250 years is truly incredible. And there really is no nation like America because we were founded on the premise and the recognition of truth, that our rights come from God our Creator. And it is the sole legitimate purpose of government to preserve and protect those rights. And it's amazing to see what, what a nation can accomplish when we acknowledge God. And conversely, it's amazing how fast a nation can fall when we reject God and when we do not acknowledge truth and when we actively reject those premises. And we were talking yesterday about the differences between Donald Trump's speech, the vision for America under a true framework of freedom, and conversely, what Zoran Mandami, said from NewSong York, and his vision for America under this socialist communist, which are an outflow of a Marxist worldview that is a specific, rejection of truth, of God, of the rights of the people that come from God our Creator, and how those two different worldviews are right now are clashing in America in our two parties and our two political parties, the GOP and the Democrats. And the GOP really needs to wrestle with this because of course the Democrats are not going to, they are basically openly embracing this. They're suggesting all of their leaders are saying, hey, we're a big tent, you know, come on. And I think that is a very telling lesson that the GOP needs to learn that while we've been saying for a while on the right, oh yeah, it's a big tent, and you know, this is great, just come and vote for the gop. But it doesn't actually matter if you assimilate into our worldview. This is how then the Republican Party starts tacitly advocating less for things like pro life for a, traditional biblical marriage for the family and kind of letting some of those things slide because of how big the party gets. And then we get people who are running on a Republican platform that then don't actually represent the worldview of truth and of what the right should be standing for, which is a conservative worldview that's built upon a biblical worldview. but the Democrats are facing the same thing and even worse because of this socialist infiltration into their party. And Speaker Mike Johnson was asked, by Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday, this last Sunday, right after America250 about communism sweeping the country. And he addressed first his thoughts on America 250, but then I want you to listen to his full response about, how he believes the GOP needs to respond to this. This is Cut one.

House Speaker Mike Johnson says the president's speech on communism was well done

Joining us now, House Speaker Mike Johnson. Speaker, great to have you back with us.

Mike Johnson: Glad to be with you.

All right, your thoughts on 250 into this experiment.

Mike Johnson: It's amazing. We are celebrating the greatest nation the world has ever seen. And it was full of activities and events here in Capitol Hill this weekend. We were up till over after 2:00am two nights in a row and could have kept going. The president was excited to deliver that speech in spite of the elements last night. And he told me backstage before he went out there, mike, there's no way we could have postponed this. I said, you're right, sir. It was really well done.

Yeah, There were thousands of people who were willing to come back despite multiple evacuations to be there for all of the festivities last night. the president touched on something. He touched on this idea of the return of communism. And I know that you've talked about this, too. Democrats are having to grapple with who's calling the shots in their party, as these Democratic Socialist members are having great success. But Steve Bannon said some interesting things to Politico this week that not neither Republicans nor Democrats really fully grasp what they're dealing with here. he says this. If you're playing the old politics of tax cuts and wars everywhere and doing the bidding of Israel, his words. Let me be blunt. You're finished. I just keep telling people it's a flashing red light. And the Senate Majority Leader, Jon Thunes of the world and House Speaker Mike Johnson better understand that the old politics are gone. Your response?

Mike Johnson: Well, Steve needs to see what we've been Saying. I've been saying this for years and on the campaign trail for over a year and a half. And since Mamdani got elected in NewSong York, I've been out on the campaign trail. Country, wide across coast to coast, every swing district, the blue states, red states saying the same thing. There are many. Mamdani is popping up, running for Congress around the country. And you better, be very serious about this. This is a serious, serious threat to our whole system of government. These are Marxists. It's communism, socialism. Those are deviations of Marxism. Begins with the opposite premise of America, and it is a serious threat to us. These people want to say. They're saying it out loud. They want to abolish all borders. They want to abolish all prisons. They want to defund the police. They want to abolish the U.S. senate. They want to pack the Supreme Court. They want the government to take over control of all production. This is communism. And it has led to the murder of, of innocent people, tens of millions of them in the 20th century alone. We have to fight this. We're no longer just in an election cycle. We were saying it was common sense versus crazy. Now it's common sense versus communism. and everybody needs to wake up.

Well, you talk about all the things that they're for, and the Democrats are having to have this internal fight over how much of this they're going to allow. They keep saying that they have a big tent, but, do you think they internally understand what their party is facing?

Mike Johnson: I think quietly, the Democrat establishment on Capitol Hill understands that, but they're. They feel powerless to stop it. Because if they stand up and say this is wrong, the problem they have is the energy, the excitement, the money, the grassroots is on the side of the insurgent left. And this is a threat that we have never seen before, in the elected system of our government. Ronald Reagan used to warn about communism. He talked about it, that it was a distant threat across the world. And now the barbarians are inside the gate. So this, this election cycle is for all the marbles. Shannon, this is not, this is not your. Your father's Democrat Party. That party's long gone.

Ed Vitagliano: Republicans haven't really figured out how to respond

Wow.

Jenna Ellis: Well, let's welcome in Ed Vitagliano, who is our executive vice president of the American Family association and also a co host that, I joined frequently. One of the guys, on today's issue. So, Ed, thanks so much for joining me this morning. And do you think that Steve Bannon is right, that Republicans haven't really figured out how to respond. We know the Democrats haven't, and they're not gonna. But have Republicans not figured it out?

Ed Vitagliano: Yeah, I think. Ah, by the way, thanks. love being on with you, Jenna. I think there are a couple of things that, are in play here. So the quick answer is no. I don't think the Republicans have come to grips with. With this yet. part of the problem, I think, for both political parties. But increasingly, you touched on this in your opening comments. For conservatives and the Republican Party, for the last, you know, maybe 25, 26 years, the Republicans have moved from a. This is my opinion, a principled party that upholds conservative values, including things like fiscal responsibility. They've moved from being able to quickly identify and represent their principles and defending them to a party that is more interested in winning elections and being more willing to throw out those kind of defining principles. I think part of the reason for that was the unexpected success of Bill Clinton, in the 1990s. And I think that Republicans said, well, we're going to have to start promising people a lot of stuff if we want them to vote for us. The danger is, you know, kind of like the old expression, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. If we cannot, as. As a.

Ed Vitagliano: As a. As a conservative movement and the Republican Party, if its leaders cannot define what conservatism is and be able to express why it's best for America that we embrace those conservative principles, then we won't have ammunition for fighting movements like we are seeing rapidly developing inside the Democratic Party. and then I would say that the word second of all, the word communism has been used as a bogeyman for so long, rightly so, because for much of the, you know, 20th century, it was a threat to human existence on the planet. But sometimes these things, it's like tossing around the word Nazi. people get tired of hearing it. Like tossing around the word racist. People get tired of hearing it, and it doesn't carry as much weight. And I think for Republicans, they've been slow to understand that this is an actual threat internally in the United States from a communist movement. For so long, Communism was out there, was outside our borders, and now it is gaining some traction inside. And with young people being so dissatisfied, with our country having been taught for a couple of generations now that our country is built on faulty principles. It's racist, it's imperialist. this is a real threat. And I think Republicans have been slow to the party.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I could not agree with you more, Ed Vitagliano. Because Republicans for too long have not been the leaders, we've been the tacit followers. And those in D.C. have followed a lot of what the Democrat regime has been advocating for. In this sense that when the Democrats are talking about affordability and using that as a buzzword, for example, then the Republicans suddenly are talking about that instead of saying, well we've been the ones who are advocating for capitalism all along and explaining that framework and why that is the best framework for liberty and for prosperity and for private property and all of these values that are intrinsic in a biblical worldview that then outflows to conservatism. Because conservatives should be conservatives because we understand that the Bible is true. You can be a conservative without being a Christian, but, but then ultimately your worldview falls short. And I think this is the problem with Republicans is that their worldview is falling short. They are only advocating for what they see are the ends of freedom, but they're not really seeing what the means have been for the last 250 years.

Ed Vitagliano: Oh, that's absolutely, absolutely true. You know, I think Republicans, and maybe some of this, and talking about the Republican establishment, maybe some of this is because Republicans have been embarrassed about social conservatives. Okay.

Ed Vitagliano: We have argued for decades and decades and decades against abortion, for the sanctity of marriage, against the sexual revolution and especially its maybe most potent expression in the homosexual movement. And I think Republican establishment leaders, party leaders have been embarrassed. We're the we're the cranky uncle. And so and, and when you have like a Tea Party movement, they don't like upsetting the apple cart. They get embarrassed at people who are fervent in their defense of conservative principles and of you know, the, the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. And so I think they have been embarrassed about the Christian wing of the conservative movement. And as a result I think they've kind of held that at arm's length. And I wonder, you know, I don't know how many actual Christian leaders have been in charge of the party establishment for the last 40 years. But the problem as you've outlined here is that if you eject the Christian roots to our country, from our country and from the conservative movement and undergirding capitalism, how do you make a defense of capitalism if you do not talk about the human rights that come from God? If you don't talk about the fact that the ownership of private property is not only a God given right, but it is in part the means that God has given to humankind to make the world a better place. How do you explain your commitment? If you don't appeal to God and you don't appeal to our Christian roots, all you can do is say, well, hey, you know, you can get rich. How about that? Well, that's not going to be much of an answer for people who want to eat the rich.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And, and this is why secular, pluralism in our society as it applies to the outflow of our. Our world view on faith is so dangerous, because what we're doing essentially, instead of saying this is truth, and this is the only view that is compatible with truth and the reality to which God has presented us, we have now leveled the playing field to a secular humanist, worldview, which, which is another word essentially for, for pluralism, that any worldview is equally as valid, in, in theory, and we can argue it coming from an equitable standpoint. And rather than saying no, here is the objective standard that's outside of man. And our worldview, including our worldview of government, has to be compatible with that. And so anything, any view of the economy, any view of government, any view of civil society that falls short of that, we can automatically reject because it does not fall in line and comport with that standard. And so what we're doing, I think, as, as conservatives overall, and what the GOP is doing largely, is that they're just arguing on an equal playing field. They're saying, well, you know, if you like capitalism and you want to get rich, vote for us. But then the socialists are saying, but if you want everybody to be equal, and they're espousing their view, vote for us. And it's this equal playing field instead of, we reject the socialist view because it is inconsistent with the standard of truth and the standard that our society and our U.S. constitution, by virtue of the Declaration of Independence requires. And that's a very different view. And I think, Ed, that, you know, as you were talking, I think that the same kind of analogy to how the Republicans and the GOP have sort of failed to pass on their worldview to, like, the next generation of voters is kind of similar in what you see of some of these, you know, great pastors and church leaders who then their kids unfortunately, fall away sometimes and haven't been taught and passed down the principles of truth, even though maybe their fathers were great Christian leaders. And so similarly in politics, if we fail to pass on our understanding of civil government to the next generation, these young people are saying, Listen, the establishment of both parties, this unit party isn't working. So maybe I'm going to try to vote for a socialist. And they're only thinking this because they haven't been taught how to think through the political framework of, what is actually preserving the best form of government for not only my parents, but also for me and then my children and grandchildren. And I think we need to change that.

Ed Vitagliano: Yeah, absolutely. And we need to remember this is not just a failure of conservatives and Republican leaders to pass on, pass the torch on and to explain what we believe on the other side. There has been a willful and purposeful, attempt. Not just an attempt. They have succeeded over the last 50, 60, 70 years, especially over the last 25 to 30, of purposefully undermining the principles of our republic, and refusing to teach the truth. These are educators who have, for the most part, had a tight grip, a monopoly on educating our children. And they have not only refused to teach the truth, but they have inserted lies about our country or at least twisted the truth. And so you have this kind of double whammy in play. A, refusal or a negligence on the part of conservatives to teach the next generation. And you have people on the left intentionally trying to subvert those principles by either not teaching them or twisting the truth. And it is taking its toll. And, and like you said, these young people have no framework. You've seen the man on the street interviews with these young people. They, they, they don't have a clue as to what our founders believed.

Jenna Ellis: So, yeah, yeah, I mean, it's like, what my mom always says, and I think she's quoting someone else, but it's a great, phrase. If you send your children to Caesar, are you really surprised when they come out Romans?

Ed Vitagliano: Whoever is responsible for indoctrination is responsible

I mean, whoever is, is responsible. Yeah, right. Whoever is responsible for the education and, and the indoctrination or the training or the teaching, whatever word you want to use of our young people. That's the framework on which they will view reality. And so this is why the school system, we need to combat, as Christians, we need to see all of these different elements that the left has taken over, and we need to reclaim them for the truth and for a biblical worldview that God himself has ordained. Ed, Vitagliano, really appreciate it and looking forward to hearing you later on today's issues. Thanks so much. And we'll be right back with more.

First day of preliminary hearing in Charlie Kirkland murder case happened yesterday

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the first day of the preliminary hearing in The Charlie Kirkland murder case happened yesterday. And that will continue this week. And there were really no new major revelations, in terms of the court proceedings. But it did mark the most significant presentation of evidence to date in the case against the defendant Tyler Robinson, who is charged with aggravated murder. And the prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And so we heard from former Utah Valley University, officer Christopher Bagley. He testified that he witnessed the shooting while Charlie Kirk was speaking to the campus crowds on September 10th of last year. Soon after Bagley testified, he went to a nearby gravel rooftop where it appeared someone had been lying with a clear sight line to Kirk's location. And he said it looked like a sniper pad. There was also some video of various angles. We did learn that, that that the security cameras that belong to TP USA and some of those, that footage was turned over to police and to law enforcement and some of that video was not published openly on the live stream. But was part of that hearing and in one of the most significant moments in my opinion, that has kind of made the rounds on social media as well. And is that while the judge was reviewing this, and I don't think it was likely the first time that he saw this, you could see him just actively flinch and, and respond to having to witness yet again, the. The heinous footage of what actually happened and Charlie's death. it's just. It's so incredibly evil what's going on.

Gerard Felitti: The preliminary hearing is going well so far

So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel at ah, the Lawfare Project. For more. So Gerard, your take overall on the proceedings so far?

Gerard Filitti: My take is that so far the State is doing what it needs to do and putting on a case for why Tyler Robinson needs to be bound over for trial on these charges. We didn't really see any surprises. I think that the State is meeting its evidentiary burden, and it's doing what it needs to do in order to lay out the case. Which is enough at this point, I think, to justify the charges going forward.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I completely agree. And you know, of course the, the peanut gallery that's on social media and a lot of people who don't even really have a basic understanding of criminal proceedings. I mean people were calling this, you know, the mini trial or, you know, some were calling it a show trial or you know, completely misunderstanding or not recognizing the purpose of a preliminary hearing. There's a lot of commentary out there. That is just so misinformed or doesn't understand the filter of kind of what this, this hearing is for. And so one of the things that, seemed to be a big deal in the peanut gallery commentary was this fact that the judge was not willing to publish the evidence in the preliminary hearing. the videos, at least so far on the live stream to the general public. And the outcry was, hey, we're not getting to see the evidence. But this is just the preliminary hearing and the evidence that's admitted here may or may not ultimately be admissible in the actual trial. And so explain why that is and why I think the judge made the correct call here. Of course not taint the jury pool, but, but explain for, for those who may be misled by some of the commentary on social media.

Gerard Filitti: Oh, that's absolutely right. And something else worth adding as well when it comes to video is where you saw that the judge had problems with one of the so called compilation videos that the state put together, which, these are things that you need each video to be authenticated by the person who filmed it or who retrieved it. You need to lay the foundation for admitting things into evidence. And while this is a much lower threshold at a preliminary hearing, by the time you get the trial, we don't even know if all of the evidence will ultimately end up being admissible or admitted for that matter. So this is still very early days. And when you're talking about a very graphic video, I think the court made the correct call because this was shown to counsel, who needs to see it, and to the court, not to the spectators. I think that the judge correctly ruled that it was too salacious to show the horrific shot that took, that took Charlie Kirk's life. the audio was on, so the public was able to hear it. And in reality this is really just, a version of a tape that was circulating online that many people unfortunately saw anyway, but it was not meant, this proceeding is not meant to be a jury trial. So the judge wants to be careful not to taint the potential jury pool, which is vast. And because there's so much attention to this case, you want to be more limited in what you're releasing to the public because by the time you get to trial, that's when the objections really matter. That's when the foundation really matters. And what people are seeing today may not be the same as what is allowed is for a jury to see a trial.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and that makes so much more sense than this kind of floating theory and allegation that the judge is somehow, you know, bought off, or he's working with the prosecution and he's, he's suppressing the evidence from the public. I mean, these are just things that sound salacious on social media and maybe go, to these conspiracy theories, but really have no basis in. In a. If you really understand what the proceedings are for and why the judge is making this decision. Because, for example, if he published something that had not been previously, made public, and then ultimately that piece of evidence, for whatever reason, it couldn't be authenticated. It's, It, for whatever reason, does not meet the threshold for admission in the actual trial, then that could potentially be an appellate issue later, if Tyler Robinson is convicted, that the defense can say potentially, you know, some of the jurors said that they saw this video or they could have seen this video. And so he's foreclosing some potential appeals that on. On a basis that just makes it more clean instead of totally unnecessary. Because we need to remember that the judge here is worried about due process over the public's, Right. Potentially to. To hear, the court proceedings. I mean, he's making the rulings, of course, that yes, the public interest matters, but the public interest will never override due process for the defendant.

Gerard Filitti: That's right. And you also have to look at who. Who is really the audience of this evidence. When you have a grand jury for an indictment or initial proceeding, the evidence that the evidence goes to the grand jury, they're the ones who are meant to see it, not the general public, not, not anyone else. When you have a preliminary hearing like this, the evidence is really meant to convince the judge. It's not there to convince the general public. So we really are just spectators. and while we do have this presumption of open access to a public hearing and seeing what's going on in the courtroom, there are reasonable limits, especially because the justice system is meant to protect the interests of defendants in terms of process. and we don't want to taint the ability of someone to put on a fair defense just so that the public, who is not the primary recipient of evidence, should get to see it.

Jenna Ellis: Right. And so did you think as well, Jared Felitti, that the defense, did a fair job in terms of their cross examination kind of scoring any points? I mean, obviously the. Their contemplation here is not going to be the same as when it's in front of an actual jury. it's more in line for the defense here, their goal likely, because they know that that likely the, the prosecution will meet their burden of establishing, probable cause. It's more to test perhaps some of the weaknesses in the prosecutor's case so that they can build a better theory of the case and where they can poke holes in the prosecution's evidence, at trial. So this is basically a way for them to have sort of a free, shot at cross examination of, some of the evidence. And one of the things that, that I found interesting yesterday that the defense focused on was this, this whole, fact that students are allowed to carry firearms, at uvu. And so they made it kind of a big deal about this fact. And, and some of the commentary of course, online was like, okay, who cares? But in, in my view of that, they were probably trying to then negate kind of the video evidence that, that if Tyler Robinson had a gun on campus, he was in no different situation than any average student who's carrying anyway. So just the mere fact that he might have possessed a firearm on campus doesn't necessarily mean that he possessed the intent for the murder. And so I just thought that was an interesting piece that the defense was very much focused on. That may give us an insight into some of the holes that they're trying to poke for trial.

Gerard Filitti: Right. I think that for the defense, you know that the likely, the almost certain outcome is that Tyler Robinson is going to be held over for trial on these charges. So this is really a chance to do two things. One is to try to indirectly influence a potential jury pool. You want to put as much out their doubt now so that when a jury does sit there, might be confused by what they heard or think that there might be questions or open holes in the case, and so get a leg up on sort of on getting a jury that is more favorable. And the other one, as you say, is to poke holes in the prosecution's case, laying questions now that you could also use on cross examination later if there's any inconsistency, if there's any change to soak doubt even among professional law enforcement about what they saw or what they remembered or how they did things. So this really is a gift to the defense because it gives them the opportunity to develop useful cross examination and rebuttal material for trial and at the same time poke holes. Not that they'll be effective at getting Tyler released now, but poke holes for later. And the gun part is the very interesting one. I think that we also saw her testimony about, an empty holster that was found but then not logged. I think it's kind of previewing a defense strategy where they want to raise the question that, hey, no one has actually saw Tyler Robinson shoot Charlie Kirk as far as the prosecution is alleged. So maybe there's doubt as to who actually pulled the trigger. I think that's the foundation that the defense is laying right now.

Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah. And so then this will all just be circumstantial. And then there's obviously been, you know, some issues as well. We learned with one, of the officers who testified, his body camera. So while he was testifying about what he saw on the roof that didn't necessarily match exactly the photographs that were presented. And so, you know, the defense, of course, is to exploit all of those things. And so moving ahead, to today and the rest of the week, prosecutors have also said that they plan to present DNA evidence linking Robinson to the suspected murder weapon. Autopsy finding, witness statements and more video of Kirk's, actual killing. this coming from ABC7. In addition, they're expected to argue that the shooting endangered others at the campus event, which is an aggravating circumstance that could make, this punishable by death under Utah law. So they're expected to raise, the prosecution today to raise some of those, aggravating circumstances that would, would also bind over the death penalty as, as. As the consequence. And so how important is, that evidence to, moving forward with the death penalty against Tyler Robinson?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that evidence is very important because it's really the only basis that the state has for imposing it. It's that endangering others, in the act of killing, Charlie Kirk that gets you the death penalty. I think ironic and in my opinion, unfortunate, that the murder itself doesn't qualify for the death penalty, but it's that risk to others, that would.

The prosecution needs to show a reasonable likelihood someone was killed or injured

So it's key for the prosecution to show the, reasonable likelihood that someone could have been killed or injured, by Tyler Robinson other than Charlie Kirk in the shooting. Ah. And I think, generally speaking, that when you are shooting in a crowd or a nearer crowd, that burden is met by the state. So I'd be very surprised if, the state didn't have enough evidence to move this part forward. It really does remain to see how the defense questions how they try to post holes at it.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it's. It's going to be interesting to see how, this proceeds.

Gerard Felitti: Comments online against Erica Kirk are disgusting

And one last thing, Gerard, Felitti was. We Saw that, Erica Kirk, of course Charlie's widow, his parents, came to the proceedings. They'll be there all week. And it's just been absolutely horrible to see the comments online and the hatred and the vilification, against Erica Kirk. I think that is wrong. It is, it is demonic, when we're talking about, you know, some of the vilification from, people like, Candace Owens, who are just, you know, spouting all of this vitriol and, and even just the. The kind of salacious twisting like, Donald Trump Jr. Came as well and was there in support of, Erica and Charlie's parents. And of course then people were suggesting that, you know, oh, I didn't know that Erica and Don Jr. Knew each other that well. Well, Charlie was a very, very close friend of Don Jr. I mean, that's how Charlie got his start, was working for Don Jr. And so, of course he's going to be there to support, Erica. And I am just so tired of all of these, you know, ridiculous commentators that are just trying to push out these salacious comments that have no basis in fact just to get these kind of clicks and views and go viral instead of focusing on justice for Charlie. And so, you know, for everyone who's listening, we really need to pray and focus on justice for Charlie, pray for the court, for the eventual jury that's going to be selected, and, you know, pray for Erica and Charlie's parents. I mean, this is. They're having to relive all of this. They stepped outside of the courtroom at one point when, some of this video and the actual evidence of the killing itself, I can't imagine, being in the courtroom for that. If you were, even as a friend of Charlie's, but, much less one of his family members. And, the commentary online, Gerard, I just think is so unnecessary, it's disgusting.

Gerard Filitti: No one expects to be in a courtroom with a person who killed the love of your life, the father of your children, your partner. it's so disturbing that anyone would in any way demean what she's going through. And the trauma that she's suffering, and the deep emotions that this brings. She's really there to seek justice. She's there for justice. That's the purpose of this proceeding, is to bring the man who killed her husband to justice. And for anyone to be sitting there making comments that are in any way targeting Erica Crook is just disgusting. This is not what we do. We need to have Empathy for the victims. We need to have empathy for a life that was lost. We need to pray for the family, for the survivors. It's really shocking that in this day and age someone could be so insensitive and post the sorts of things that we've seen being posted about Erica Kirk.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Well, we have to take a break here, but Gerard, Felitti, really appreciate it. And we'll continue to, follow this story, of course, throughout the week and continue to pray, like I said, for for justice for Charlie. Because ultimately, while of course the defendant is, is entitled to due process and all of the protections that come with that. the, the point here is justice for Charlie when we're talking about, the moral implications. And, we just have to pray that there would be consistency by the judge and that ultimately the jury, would, would find, the correct response to the evidence, and ultimately that justice would be served for Charlie and his family. So thanks so much, Gerard. You can follow him on xerardfiletti. And we will be right back with more.

Planned Parenthood regained access to Medicaid funding over the weekend

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. So one of the unfortunate things, is, and beyond unfortunate, actually very evil things that happened over the 4th of July weekend is that, ah, Planned Parenthood's network of clinics regained access to hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid funding over the weekend. The fallout of Republicans failure to pass an extension of the one year defunding provision they approved last year. Remember that when they were saying, okay, well at least this is a year and we'll, then we'll have a year to kind of fully defund. Well, where did that go? Gop? I think that they kind of put that on the back and some of us, including on this program and others on afr, had been warning, saying that this was coming and, the Republicans failed to pass that extension. And so the Politico headline is conservatives rage over refunding of Planned Parenthood. Well, yeah, and I think rightly so, but then Politico is also upset because they say despite the restoration of Medicaid funding for health care services but not abortions, dozens of closed clinics are not likely to reopen.

Father Frank Pavone calls for complete defunding of Planned Parenthood ahead of midterm elections

Well, good. Let's welcome in Father Frank Pavone, who is founder of Priests for Life and one of the best advocates for the pro life movement. So where are we at with this and why didn't the GOP get it together to at least pass another year extension? I mean, that's kind of kicking the can down the road, but at least don't let the funding come back.

Frank Pavone : Well, yes, that's right. you know, Jenna, we are rightly, and urgently concerned and calling for the complete defunding of Planned Parenthood. And, I have been talking to members of Congress, and including the speaker and others, and they are. I mean, the clear indication I'm getting is this is something they want us to know. They're still working on this. We.

Frank Pavone : Let's. Let's take a broad perspective here. first of all, of course, the funding wouldn't have been restored. we wouldn't be talking about the restoring of the funding if we hadn't had the tremendous victory of stopping it over the past year. Remember, that was something we worked for for decades. And it's like many people in the movement said, just like they said, oh, we're never going to see Roe overturn. They thought defunding Planned Parenthood, you know, with this Medicare funding, Of course, there's many streams of funding, but the biggest one with the Medicaid, they, oh, this isn't going to happen, you know, but lo and behold, praise God, it happened. Now, if we had the original version, you know, oh, let's defund it for 10 years. Well, then, of course, in the 11th year, we'd be having the conversation we're having now. We'd be saying, nate, it's not enough to defund it for 10 years. We want to defund it permanently. And if we defunded it permanently, we would say, hey, it's not enough to defund it. We got to abolish abortion and Planned Parenthood, and we must. That is, what is the urgency that's burning in our souls.

Jenna Ellis: But, yeah, absolutely.

Frank Pavone : We are right now looking at the possibility of a third reconciliation bill. As you well know, and as I'm sure most of our listeners understand, this can only be done right now under reconciliation, simple majority in the Senate. And, we've already had two reconciliation bills. We're looking for the third one now, and that's the one where they want to put in this renewal of the, I like to call it the protection of our tax dollars from, going to child killing. so it's still on the table. I also talked, one member of Congress was saying to me, hey, listen, you know, the fact that the deadline passed, doesn't mean we got to give them the money the next day. You know, there might be ways of, you know, doing what the Democrats always do. Let's drag our Feet here in giving. Giving any money back. So I don't know exactly how that works, but, it's certainly something that's being discussed as well.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So, you know, what, what confidence do you have that this is a priority for Congress? And especially heading into the midterms, where, you know, the big question is whether Republicans will retain control of, of the House and maybe gain or possibly lose, in the Senate. And so we have only a few months until November, and this really needs to happen before then, at least to preserve, to preserve this just in case, obviously the worst happens and the Democrats take control of one or both chambers. So what confidence do you have that this is actually a priority for the gop?

Frank Pavone : Well, let me make a distinction. I have a lot of confidence that there is a sincere, priority in the minds of a whole. I would say the vast majority of our House members, want to see this happen as we do. Is there a political side to it? Well, I think they realize two things that, number one, there's always, you know, political cost, but it's one that they, you know, so many of them are willing to bear for standing up against the abortion giant, at the same time, there's a political cost for not doing it. I mean, it would be a great motivating factor for pro life voters if, as we get into the fall, we hear that, hey, reconciliation number three has passed and once again Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are defunded. They know that, too. I think the key is this. Again, by my direct contact with these people and many meetings that I've been in, I'm confident that there's a sincere desire to do this, but at the same time, what the priority is, and Jenna, you know this. I think our listeners understand this, but it's worth repeating. What the priority is for the members of Congress is not something we can't. We just sit back and say, well, oh, gee, what are your priorities? They work for us. What their priorities are are going to be what the people's priorities are. And that's why what we're saying at Priests for Life to our people, and I know that you and your, Your calls to action are saying this to all our listeners, is that, listen, when's the last time you put in a call to your member of Congress, both in the House and to your two senators, to say, I urge you, I demand as a voter that you, take my money away from the abortion industry? If you haven't made that call in A while. Please make it again. Make it as soon as you can. Let them. It's how much they continue to hear from us that's going to determine what their priorities are.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And so well said that, you know, in the midst of all of these different priorities that clamor for our attention and it seems like, you know, it's very difficult to be focused on so many things simultaneously. we need to be singularly focused on the issues that are at the core of what conservatives are advocating for. And one of those, obviously, is pro life. And it's a really good question of when is the last time that you have called your specific members, of Congress and your specific Senator or, you know, or even calling, you know, Leader Thune's office and Speaker Johnson, regardless of what state you're in and saying this needs to be a priority. I mean, when was the last time Speaker Johnson was asked by a member of the media, about this? I mean, Politico, yes, covered it and a few other outlets covered it. but I think that the, the mainstream media, and obviously the left really didn't want to draw attention to it so that Congress wouldn't act. And, this just went into effect, ironically and unfortunately on July 4th, as we were all celebrating America 250. And so how easy would it be for Congress to simply say, okay, we're going to, to defund this again for at least another year.

Frank Pavone : Yeah, exactly. At least another year. And we need, we need, our, ah, representatives to know that we want it for more than that too. We want it permanently. Look, we're talking about, rightly so, waste and fraud. Waste, of our taxpayer dollars. A lot of waste and fraud are being exposed. What's more wasteful than giving half a billion dollars a year and more to an industry that kills babies, harms women, lies to the people, commits all kinds of fraud and malpract, and essentially, and they can go ahead and try to sue us if they want for saying this planned paranoid is a criminal enterprise. It really is.

Frank Pavone : there have been congressional investigations into Planned Parenthood and, all kinds of things exposed in the ways that they. Multiple ways that they break the law. and just the, I mean, the number one thing is the horror of abortion itself. But along with that, I always say, Jenna, you've heard me say, you can't crack this vice virtuously. If your conscience is so dead and twisted that you can pull the arms and legs off of a living baby in the womb, you're not going to

Frank Pavone : care about insurance fraud, OSHA violations, medical malpractice. You're not going to care about any of those things because you don't even care about tearing the arms and legs off a baby. So this has got to stop. And, so we need to be bold and clear in what we're asking for. And we need to combine our commitment to principle and our boldness in calling for what is right based on God's word, also with a practical understanding of the limits of how lawmaking and politics work. And I find myself often needing to, you know, in the training seminars that we do, through Priests for Life, needing to help people understand, hey, this political process, this lawmaking process, it is slow, frustrating, and, very complex. And it's going up a hill backwards on a snowy day. You know, but it's, it's, it's, it's what we have. It's what we have. It's the best that there is.

Frank Pavone : We've got to constantly be improving it, but it's what we have. And I think that the deeper we get into the details of how these things work and the obstacles that even the best pro life lawmakers face, the better it's going to be for us. You know, we're going to be a little less frustrated.

Father Frank Pavone: Conservatives have to rage, but it's righteous anger

And, you know, that, that, that headline you quoted before, you know, conservatives rage. You know, we have to rage is a rage that comes from a righteous anger. And at the same time, we have to make sure our rage isn't based on, you know, unrealistic expectations or a lack of understanding of how the political and lawmaking process works. You know, it is possible to combine both, princesses, principle and pragmatism.

Jenna Ellis: Righteous anger. Thanks so much, Father Frank Pavone. You can reach me and my team JennaAFR.net.