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.
Department of War is substantially reducing the number of religions it officially recognizes
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Friday, June 12, and the interesting controversy that with so much other news we haven't gotten to this week, but there was an interesting controversy, mostly online earlier this week with the Department of War, relisting or basically taking out atheists, pagans and 175 others from a list of military faith. So the new list includes 31 recognized face, most of them Christian denominations. And so, the Department of War is substantially reducing the number of religions it officially recognizes, which of course begs the question, why is the government recognizing or not recognizing faiths for any specific purpose whatsoever? it's been a long, held, tradition in jurisprudence that courts don't inquire into the adequacy, sufficiency or or faith system in, in terms of their commentary on what constitutes a faith. There's a number of other tests that go into that. But, Senator Mike Lee took issue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the Mormons being left out of the list of Christian categorized churches. So, this raises a host of questions. And let's welcome in Pastor, Gino Geraci, who is the Pastor emeritus of Calvary Chapel South Denver, Salem radio host and and also director of Scripture says. And so, Gino, you know, let's kind of start there with with why the, this list even matters. And I would have thought that, Pete Hegseth, as the Secretary of the Department of War, would have understood that maybe they get rid of this list of quote unquote recognized faiths entirely.
Gino Geraci: Well, and, to that point, I think that the President has basically agreed and said, you know what? We're not going to do this list. And again, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Mike Lee in this sense that the designation is arbitrary. So I think Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Christians, all agree that they're not the same. And so again, we're talking about a military chaplain. And so a military chaplain, whether they are Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, they still have an obligation to minister to anyone and everyone. In other words, not all chaplains are responsible for all military by the way. And so the issue isn't whether or not every single faith representation has to have a faith represented chaplain. So to me the controversy is different. The controversy is, is the LDS Church a Christian church? And of course Mike Lee would say, hey, it's right there in our name, look at our name. It says Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But the real problem is that the Jesus of the Latter Day Saints is not the Jesus of historical biblical Christianity. Now again, even having said that though, that, that isn't for the, for the purpose of antagonizing, alienating or disrespecting LDS members. It's just simply a fact. And the LDS Church itself affirms this fact that we aren't orthodox historical Christians. It was Joseph Smith and his followers that began to lay out and outline how they are different. And so the controversy, the controversy is are Mormons Christians? Oddly enough, both Mormons and Christians agree that they're different. so if the controversy is what should the government do as it's addressing faith related members of the military? Can the military adequately and appropriately, provide a spiritual component if you will, or a mental health component or however you want to characterize it. So it is interesting to me, so I suspect that whatever the answer is, the government is not the answer to define what constitutes Islam, Christianity, Hinduism.
Jenna Ellis: Right. And, and the controversy of course is that in this list that was put out by the Department of War, there are a lot of different denominations that say Christian dash and then the specific denomination. So they list that out instead of just putting Christian as the whole. And interestingly, Judaism is not listed as Christian dash, nor should it be. Islam is not Hindu, is not Buddhism, Baha' I, agnostic and, and those members, and we as Christians would all agree that those are different, belief systems. but interestingly in this list, and we have to wonder who created this within the department because Jehovah's Witnesses are listed as a Christian dash. And that in that I don't think is accurate because they would agree and we as Bible believing Christians would agree that we are different in, in terms of the orthodox and ah, and the tenants of our faith. And so there are a few problems with this list but the controversy of whether Mormons are Christians, I think Mike Lee confuses this and maybe, I mean, I don't know, I haven't talked to him personally on the issue of his Mormonism other than, you know, some exchanges on Social media. But he clearly believes that Mormons should be listed as Christians, which the Mormon faith, as you, as you mentioned, Gino itself, would agree that they don't believe what traditional Bible believing Christians believe about the person of Jesus Christ or Christology.
Gino Geraci: Right. And what, and whether or not Mike Lee actually believes his own theology, I'm unaware of. But I do have a fairly robust understanding of what Mormons believe about themselves. And so Mormons believe, according to Mormon doctrine, that there are many gods. As a matter of fact, Mormonism has more gods than Hinduism because they believe in polytheism. there's a mother goddess, according to Mormonism, God used to be a man on another planet. That according to Mormon doctrine. So they believe in what's called the exaltation. So if we ask and we answer the question, well, again, in the Bible they're first called Christians in Antioch. And so if we go all the way back to the historical roots of what, what it means to be a Christian, at least from a biblical standpoint, is there was a group of believers in Antioch who identified as Jesus followers. Did those Jesus followers believe that there were many gods, that there was a mother goddess, that Jesus used to be, a pre incarnate spirit being who was born to a mother God and a father God? the answer is no. in Mormon theology, God used to be a man on another planet. And after you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a God. And that God resides near a star called Kolob, that according to the pearl of great price, the Trinity, according to Mormonism is three separate gods. And again, when a Mormon is asked, well, do you believe all of this stuff? They'll typically say, well, the God Elohim is the only God we have anything to do with. But according to their understanding of themselves, God is in the form of a man. God is increasing in knowledge. God the father has a body of flesh and bones, which is of course different from what Jesus says, that God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and the truth. They believe that God is married to his goddess wife and that they produce spirit children and that Jesus is the first born of these spirit children and that Lucifer is another spirit born child. And so in their theology, Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. And so clearly all of this is very, very different. So to me, the controversy isn't to settle, refute or deny what they believe. It's just to simply point out that in order for them to get the designation Christian, we have to change the meaning of the word Christian.
There has been a watering down of what it actually means to be Christian
And this goes to what, something that you talked about extensively. Ah, Jenna. And that is, what do we do when the origin and the source and the meaning of words begin to disintegrate? How is it possible for us to even have a conversation if we're living in a culture, in a society that can't even agree on what is the source of morality? What is the meaning of morality? What is the application of morality? Imagine we apply that again now to biblical thinking. The source, you know, what, what does it mean to be a Christian? who gets to decide? And then how is that manifested in the way in which we live our lives? So it's all very, very interesting to me. But yeah, it's fascinating.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and to your point, I think it's incredibly important that we keep the definition of what it means to be a Christian because we can extend that conversation into many other, types of belief systems or people who would call themselves a Christian but are not actually Christ followers. I was just having this conversation yesterday with with someone online who purports to be a pastor, purports to Christian, and is suggesting that, people can live in the homosexual lifestyle. Of course, this is being pride month and be Christ followers, which of course those are two mutually exclusive positions. You can't support a lifestyle that goes against being a Christ follower while claiming your Christ follower. It's the same thing as saying that you're a vegan while you're eating meat, routinely and regularly. You simply by claiming that you are a vegan, that should mean something. And if you in practice are doing the exact opposite, then you're either changing the definition of what it means to be vegan, or you're insincere about your, vegan status. And so similarly, Christian has become more of a cultural designation and more of a way of saying, I believe in a God or a higher power and I am a relatively good person. I mean unfortunately, culturally speaking, there has been a lot of watering down of what it actually means to be a Christian. And that has overflowed into a lot of, not only woke churches, but you know, a lot of these watered down, non biblically based churches that are suggesting that you can be a Christ follower without actually following Christ. And I think that's a, that's something that the, the true believers need to say. No, Christianity and the Christian faith is by definition meaningful. Here is the meaning. And it is mutually exclusive with any other contradictory belief systems.
Gino Geraci: Right. And if we if we, to, to your point, if in the contemporary culture, Christian means whatever you want it to mean, imagine if you say, are you a current follower of Jesus Christ, as the Bible talks about him in the NewSong Testament. So you know, this is a slippery slope where, where we go, hey, you mean we're going to have to constantly nuance our speech in order to make sure that we understand each other. And so we're on that slippery slope, Jenna. And that's why I advocate for clarity. Could you please tell me what you mean? so imagine Mike Lee says, I'm a Christian. See, it's right there in my name, Church of Jesus Christ. And you say, hey, wait a minute. The doctrine of covenant says the church of Jesus Christ is a restoration of an apostate church, an earlier church. So let me ask you a question. Do you think I'm a Christian?
Gino Geraci: And remember, in Mormon theology, you do not believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet. You can't be saved.
Jenna Ellis: Wow.
Gino Geraci: And so if Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we are all born as siblings in heaven, and if there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Now again, this is the nitty gritty of, you know, of the theology, but in my view, Mormonism has more in common with Islam than with historical biblical Christianity. Both of them have a prophet, both the angel Gabriel appears, both promote polytheism, or I should say, plural marriage. Both, have a mystical, edition of a book. Both are based on a works based righteousness. You go to heaven or you go to hell because you, adhere to the belief system. So worldwide there's over 13 million Mormons. And in the United States, the LDS Church is the fourth largest individual denomination with 5.5 million members. And so by the way, only 12% of all Mormons live in Utah. Jenna, Most Mormons still live in the United States, in North America. But so again, when we go back to the more charitable position, we say, hey, the government should not discriminate against people in the military who happen to be lds. But is that what's happening? Is that really the controversy? And I'm going to suggest to you, no. The controversy might be, an organizational issue where the government may or may not say, oh, well, hey, look, whatever it means to be whatever you are, the government doesn't get to decide that.
Jenna Ellis: Right. And hopefully, we would all agree, and Mike Lee, being a Republican, would at least agree with that. But you know, it's a few responses to what you just said. First it just, you know, yet again was, a reaction and a response of, you know, how many people are Mormons? That it is amazing to me if you actually think about the numbers of how many people worldwide are deceived into false religions, false views of God, extra biblical thinking. And they're very convinced in their position. And so it's truth isn't a matter of how many people believe in it. it's a matter of what it is in and of itself. And so we need to be praying for all of these people who are deceived. But then I have to wonder about Mike Lee. and, and this was why my response wasn't just talking to him and explaining why. I actually asked him the questions, why should Mormons be considered Christians? And he hasn't responded yet. But I would love to hear his response and say, how would you articulate that? Because it would either evidence that, he is in a sense being dishonest. Right. If he actually believes that, that Mormons, what Mormons believe, and then think that that fits into Christianity or is arguing that position, or perhaps he's not himself fully aware, like many people aren't what the religion that they believe in actually affirms. And the same could be said honestly for a lot of evangelical Christians. They're not actually aware what the Christian faith believes and they should be.
Gino Geraci: Yes, we're, we have a large proportion of cultural Christians ourselves, and so are there Mormons who are cultural Mormons. And so to your point, how important is it to Mike Lee and others to represent or misrepresent their belief system?
Jenna Ellis: Right, right. And that's ultimately the issue.
Gino Geraci: So that's the point. Why? When. When are we. So let's take the beam out of our own eye for a second. When are we most likely to misrepresent historical biblical Christianity to a watching world? When.
Gino Geraci: When we want to be accepted, when we want to be approved of. When we, when we don't want people to hurt us or, or persecute us or whatever. And so that's the challenge for us. It is, hey, am I willing to represent what the Bible says about Jesus or am I tempted to misrepresent Jesus in order to be affirmed? Is it possible that Mike Lee. And again, I don't want to impugn any ill will or, or inappropriate motives to Mike Lee, but to just say, hey, how interested are you in representing or misrepresenting your belief system to, to the watching world? Mm,
Gino Dracy: Many cultural Christians will go along to get along
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And that should be the question as well, for Christians, how serious are we, ah, being Christ followers rather than, especially during this month, that thankfully, you know, Governor DeSantis here in Florida, a few other governors have said, you know, this is, the Faith and Family Month, and we are, ah, recognizing that instead. But there are many cultural Christians that will go along to get along. They don't want to call out, the, the false belief systems, the, the false, views of Jesus. They don't want to call out sin, they don't want to call out these things because they don't want to create controversy. They don't want to be made fun of. I mean, a whole host of reasons why rather than simply saying, this is what the Bible requires for a righteous life, this is what it means to be a Christian, and if you have a problem with that, we'll take it up with God. This isn't my opinion. This is just what the Bible says. And I'm simply an advocate for that truth. And my life is a living testimony to me following in that truth, to the, to the best of my ability, through the work of the Holy Spirit. And what a great admonition. And thank you, Gino Dracy, for coming on and clarifying this. And I think this is also why it matters to not just grow in, our Christian walk, but grow in the knowledge of Christ so that we can differentiate between different belief systems and say this is what the Bible teaches because we know it. And then we can discern and rightly divide truth from error. So we have to take a break here. but again, Gina Jeracy, appreciate it. You can follow him on X and also, go to the, the website. Can you give us that for, for Scripture says, for, you know, all of these questions that are answered.
Gino Geraci: Yeah, for me you can go to gina jeracy.com or of course, as you know, I'm a, I'm on the board of directors of gotquestions.org we've got over 10,000 articles, including articles about Mormonism. If you're interested, you can go to gotquestions.org amazing.
Jenna Ellis: Well, thank you so much. We'll be right back. And I hope that, everyone takes advantage of those resources so that we can grow in the knowledge of what Christian actually means.
Police stepping up security in Northern Ireland after night of violence
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. While police are stepping up security in Northern Ireland after a night of violence, this has made headlines even across the pond here that cars and a bus were set on fire and families were driven from their homes after a stabbing, which is being reported as a beheading in Belfast, caused tensions to spill onto the streets. This is coming from the NewSong York Times. On Tuesday, firefighters and emergency responders has responders had escorted immigrant families from homes that had been set on fire in Belfast. And fears remained high of that repeat violence. And so this continues to be, an issue and a political question, because obviously there are those in the UK who are adamantly opposed to, this type of illegal immigration. And so let's welcome in raw egg nationalist, who is, that. That is his moniker and his, author nom de plume, Charles Cornish Dale, who is from the UK and comes and joins us from the UK and, and you know, this is, of course, you know, we fully condemn political violence. And this is an escalation of what I think is a lack of government response to critical issues.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, no, absolutely, Jenna, absolutely. I mean, it is unfortunate, isn't it, that people feel that the only way that they can make the native people of Britain and of Northern Ireland, which, is part of the United Kingdomnomics, feel that the only way that actually they can make their voices heard is by going out on the street and setting fire to things. I mean, one of the things that's interesting about the case of Northern Ireland in particular is that of course this is against the backdrop or the. Or in the context of decades and decades of sectarian violence, you know, like low level, ongoing warfare between Protestants and Catholics. So Ireland, Northern Ireland is an interesting case because you have got groups, Protestant and Catholic, who already have the m. The necessary resources to mobilize in quite an effective, spectacular way. And that's exactly what they've done. The, The. The you know, the rioting, the protests, it's been very, very well organized, and it has been organized along sectarian lines. So on Twitter, you know, there are a lot of people posting, the Irish. The flag of the Irish Republic in response to videos of, some of the, you know, some of the, of the mayhem and the disorder. But actually it's loyalists in Northern Ireland who are out there on the streets at the moment. It's people who consider themselves to be British and want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdomnomics. So it's not. It's not actually, It's not actually people who want Northern Ireland to be part of the Republic of Ireland, who want a unified Ireland, but it is taking place along sectarian lines, and it is falling into, I think, the. The kind of broader Pattern of sectarian organization. And, so it's very different from what we might otherwise describe as sort of spontaneous, rioting, less well directed with, with less clear goals. I mean, they've. The rioters have really set out quite deliberately to target, properties in particular that are being used to house migrants in their communities. They've systematically targeted properties, trying to drive out migrants, trying to punish landlords who have been housing, migrants. And, you know, we know from the UK that landlords are paid well above the market rate in order to house migrants by local councils and by the government. So they're seen really as profiteers on mass immigration, profiteers on, the sort of misery that's being inflicted on local communities. And it really was a shocking, shocking incident. Terrible. You know, we saw the footage, you may have seen the footage on Twitter, and on social media of the man having his head basically, you know, hacked off his shoulders. Or at least the man was. The migrant was trying to do that, sitting on top of him in the street, hacking at him with a knife. it's a shocking, shocking incident. And I think there's probably going to be some sustained unrest, for some time because, of course the government can't really. The government can't really do anything else other than try to suppress this. So we've seen talk of, oh, then, you know, social media. There needs to be a social media clampdown. We need to stop footage from circulating on social media like, you know, these, these horrible, horrible, images of this man being attacked that should never have been allowed to, circulate on Twitter. It's, you know, the authorities cannot address the root cause of the problem, which is mass immigration, social change, demographic change, reshaping communities like Belfast and towns and cities and increasingly even small villages across the United Kingdomnomics. So I think the government response ensures that actually this kind of unrest is
Jenna Ellis: going to continue, which is obviously the worst response. And how much of the public anger is directed at the immigrants themselves versus the landlords who are profiting and the politicians who are setting the immigration policy?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, I mean, I think. I think it's a mixture, of course. I mean, when, you know, when a, when a migrant, when a Sudanese, Somali migrant. We still haven't, I don't know actually which it is. I don't know whether it's been established whether the man was Somali or Sudanese, but he's Sub Saharan African. you know, when a migrant does something like that, of course people hold them personally responsible. I mean, it is it was that man's behavior. You know, he decided to do that. He decided that it was a good thing to take a knife to that man's head. but people also understand, of course, that this is a deliberate policy by their government. Over many years, many decades, it's a policy that has been rejected consistently at the ballot box in the uk. Successive Conservative governments or successive Conservative, iterations of the Conservative Party have promised to reduce immigration down to manageable levels in the tens of thousands net each year. Never happened. so people understand that this is a deliberate policy as well. It's not just that, you know, sort of bad, a few bad people are coming into the country. It's that actually the government is operating a system, a policy that allows not just one or two of these people, but actually tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions in a, year. And people do feel angry at the landlords too, because, you know, landlords don't have to turf out native British people from their properties, from their rental properties, and then rent them to the government to house migrants. They don't have to do that. And some people make a point of not doing that. Some people say, I'm not doing that, even when they're offered, you know, four times the market rate in order to do that. So I think there is a sense, yes, I mean, the feeling of, anger and responsibility is diffused. There are multiple parties involved, but the majority of it is definitely directed towards the government because they're the orchestrators of this terrible, terrible mess.
Jenna Ellis: And you know, to your point, I mean, I think that, that the, the stabbing and the sentiment, raises legitimate questions about immigration policy. But obviously attacking, immigrants is morally wrong. And this is not the way to go about addressing those legitimate questions. I mean, just like what we saw in the public response to, Luigi Mangione, who, who killed the CEO of a healthcare organization, whether or not, you know, he had legitimate questions and concerns and policy issues with the American health care system that doesn't ever justify going and intentionally taking, a human life. And so, you know, these types of escalations of political violence, I, think the lesson for politicians is that you shouldn't let it get that far when you're not being willing to actually address the concerns and the policy issues. And it, it becomes a matter of the people, sparking violence because they, they feel unheard, which is wrong. But it is also wrong that the politicians are basically just saying, we don't care how you feel about your country. We are going to have these kind of open border, policies anyway and basically, you know, tough deal with it. so where does this go? I mean if they're, if, if the politicians are basically turning a blind eye saying we don't care and then there is an escalation of political viol which needs to be quelled, what do you anticipate is the future?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, I mean there's quite a formidable apparatus of state repression and you know, police and up to and including the armed forces as well. You know, I mean the, the British armed forces have been deployed in large number to Northern Ireland for decades and decades. You know, I mean the troubles, lasted for decades and decades after Irish independence in 1922 if I remember correctly. So, you know, I mean there's, there's a, there's a long history of, you know, quite heavy handed policing, including the use of the military in Northern Ireland. Whether it will come to that, I don't know. Keir Starmer, and it's worth remembering. You know, this is Northern Ireland, this is part of the uk. Ultimately, the man in charge, although there is a devolved government in Northern Ireland, is Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party in Westminster, London.
Keir Starmer is constrained by public sentiment over mass immigration
So Keir Starmer is in a very, very difficult position. he's beset on all sides. We know he's a weak leader. He's largely hated by the British people. He's presiding over an incompetent government, an economic mess, a social mess. You know, the effects of mass immigration are being felt throughout the UK and people are very angry. It's looking like if there were an election reform would be the next government led by Nigel Farage. So there's very much a sense that Keir Starmer is on borrowed time. And I think he would hesitate to do something like perhaps deploy the army, in Northern Ireland to try and, and sort of crush any, any kind of, rebellion or rioting that's going on there. it's not beyond the realms of possibility, but I do think that he is constrained by public sentiment, by the precariousness of his position. But the thing is, so many people have been let into the UK over the last, certainly since 1997, but you know, since the beginning of the pandemic in particular, that's when it really accelerated the so called Boris wave of millions of migrants who were let in, from outside the eu, from outside the EU into the uk. so there's a guarantee, I think that there will be more unpleasant Migrant related incidents like this, beheading. You know, every single day in the uk, social media, in the newspapers, we hear news of yet another outrage. Another young girl raped by Afghans, you know, in a toilet somewhere or in, in a supermarket or in a car park, stuff like that. It's just a kind of an unending procession of, of horrors at the moment. And so in a place like Northern Ireland where people are well prepared for unrest, they're well prepared to express their discontent, to organize, to set fire, to stuff, to you know, throw stuff at the police and, and fight running battles with the police, I think we are going to see much more of this and I think, I think it's going to continue as long as there are migrants committing crimes like this and also as long as there is a feeling that the government is weak, that it can be pressured into making concessions, that the government occupies a weak position. So yeah, I wouldn't want to make a prediction because I think predictions make fools of us all. But it does look like, like we're in for a bumpy few weeks, months, maybe even years ahead.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, this is this is an unfortunate reality that I think mainstream conservatives need to look here in the United States need to look again to the UK as more of a cautionary tale if Republicans here are avoiding talking about immigration enforcement. And that's, you know, was the number one issue on the Trump agenda that seems like it's gotten less attention after some of the Democrats successfully had the media propaganda narrative around ICE enforcement. And so that's been let up just a little bit. but do you think that mainstream conservatives, both in the UK and here in the United States are making a mistake if they avoid talking about immigration enforcement?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Oh yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I mean look, let's not forget Donald Trump was re elected on the basis of an explicit promise that he would deport 20 million people. He said that during the election campaign. The largest mass deportation operation in American history. Those were his words. That is a central campaign pledge. and yeah, I mean a lot of people, a lot of people still want to see that happen. I mean, I think there's been a certain amount of, of, of squeamishness and, and sort of recoiling at the reality of what that means. And what that does mean is the kind of, the kind of scenes that we saw in, in Minnesota and in other sort of leftist strongholds where you actually do have to have a, ah, very, very hard, sort of action taking place because, you know, these are sanctuary cities. They're full of leftist, well organized, well funded leftist actions, activists. There's going to be confrontation, they're going to be, you know, there's potentially going to be bloodshed, even when you have leftist activists trying to run over members and attack members of immigration enforcement. So, you know, even if, even if public support has, has kind of ebbed away a little bit, I still think that a very, very significant, number of Americans, maybe a majority, still want to see Donald Trump live up to, to his pledge of actually, you know, really deporting all of the illegal aliens in American. How in America, however many there are. And yes, I mean, I think that conservative politicians in the UK and Europe should be paying close attention to what's happening with Donald Trump, to what it really means to make a promise of fundamental immigration reform, mass deportations, repatriations, whatever you want to call them, and then back off from it. I, mean, we'll have a better idea of what it might mean in the midterms. Although of course the waters are, muddied somewhat by the fact that we have this Iran war as well. And so it won't necessarily be clear. You know, is it because Donald Trump isn't deporting enough people? Is it because, you know, of this war with Iran and fuel costs? but yes, I mean, my, my advice would be certainly to British politicians. Look at, look at what's happening in Northern Ireland. Don't think that that will remain contained to Northern Ireland. People are very, very upset in the UK and two years ago, in the summer of 2024, not long after Keir Starmer came to power, then there were riots across the south of the UK because of the, and south and north of the UK because of the Southport stabbings. Axel Rudabakana, the son of a Rwandan migrant, goes into a dance class and starts stabbing little girls with a kitchen knife, killing three of them, seriously injuring around about, I think it was 10 others. You know, there was a, just a absolute wave of fury across the country and rioting and that that could happen again. So, people are very, very angry about what is happening. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And you know, what a cautionary tale. And so raw egg nationalists really appreciate you weighing, in on this topic. You're sticking with us through the break. We'll be right back with more.
Crumble's new dirty soda contains 186 grams of sugar
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm still here with my special guest this morning, Raw egg nationalist. And you can follow him on X. And he has a lot of information and prolific writer on all things nutrition as well. And so wanted, your, your comments on the latest in just the ridiculous, diabetic obesity driven culture that we are with, now Crumble, the the famous cookie brand has launched what they're calling dirty sodas. And this coming from Dr. Mark Hyman on X Crumble, needs to be stopped. Their new dirty soda contains 186 grams of sugar, the equivalent of eating 19 Krispy Kreme doughnuts. This is a metabolic disaster and should be illegal. Please do not drink this. this is just ridiculous. And the American Heart association recommends no more than 25 grams of added sugar per day for women, 36 grams for men. I mean this 186 grams of sugar, nobody would sit there, hopefully nobody and eat 19 Krispy Kreme doughnuts. But yet in this one drink, that's what you're consuming. That just seems like a huge liability risk as well for Crumble.
Raw Egg Nationalist: yes, yes it does actually. That is, that is an interesting point. The liability risk. I mean, you know, intuitively I, I look at stuff like that and I just think it's amazing that this is legal. I mean like Dr. Mark Hyman, I just think, you know, this is, is, this is just a disaster. And what's so disastrous about it of course is the ease with which a drink like that can be consumed. You know, like you said, it's hard to eat 19 Krispy Kreme doughnuts, but you can drink 19 Krispy Kreme doughnuts in the form of one of these new crumble drinks in 30 seconds, probably a minute, you know, and, and maybe because actually your body's satiety systems, the hormonal systems, the natural, biological systems that regulate hunger and satiety don't have time to kick in. Maybe you could drink two of them, or even three. It's, it, it is a, it is a disaster. And you know, I do think like you say, the liability thing, you know, we're starting to see, we're starting to see lawsuits against processed food manufacturers. and they, they haven't really been successful so far. But people are arguing, look, the processed food manufacturers, the companies, they know what they're doing with these products. They know how unhealthy they are, they know they're addictive, they know that they're linked, that consumption of them is linked to the entire gamut of chronic health diseases that are. That are destroying the health of America. They know what they're doing. They've weaponized food, and they are responsible for my chronic health because they've, you know, they've created these products. I can't stop eating them. They override my body's natural defenses. They override my, you know, sort of natural, motivations and, the kind of limits on eating, etc. So, you know, we're getting these lawsuits, and they haven't been successful yet, but I think one of them will. I think once one of them is. Is successful and establishes a precedent, then what we will have is we will have a flood of lawsuits like happened with, the cigarette manufacturers. You know, you get one successful lawsuit against the cigarette manufacturers, and then you get a slew, and then you get tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of payout. So, I mean, if one of these lawsuits is successful, then it may very well be the case that we never see another product like this, crumble abomination ever again. And I do, honestly, I mean, like, I'm for consumer choice. I think, in general, like, it's a good. It's a good thing to let people live their lives and make choices and make good choices and make mistakes for themselves. That's part of being a human being. It's part of being an adult. But, nevertheless, I do think the world and America certainly will be better off if products like this drop off the market because it's just too expensive to make them and then soak up all the liability costs when people start suing you.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. And the thing to me as well is, is how they're advertising this. Because if I hadn't read the controversy over this, I might not know if I. I mean, I don't frequent, crumbl Cookies because I know that they're even their cookies are. It's something like one cookie is the equivalent of eating four or 8:40 Oreos. You know, something like that. I mean, it's just a massive amount of calories and sugar and all of that in just one of their cookies. but I wonder what the marketing is behind this and if it's transparent to say, you know, listen, this is how much sugar, is actually in this product. And then letting people make their own decisions, especially for kids. I mean, I could see an instance where somebody buys this for, you know, a younger child or, you know, an older teenager. And when you consume that much sugar at once and your blood sugar spikes violently and, you know, triggers an insulin response. I mean, I could see something like this, being an issue. Just like the, The. The man who unfortunately died after, The. The highly, highly caffeinated, I think it was lemonade at, one of these, I think it might. It was Panera Bread or, you know, one of those, kind of fast food, sort of places and cafes and And it caused a stroke. And so, you know, then of course they took it off the market. But, probably it wasn't advertised as this is the amount of caffeine and this is, you know, the amount of sugar so that people can at least make informed choices and stay away from it. It requires us, of course, all healthy eating requires us to do our due diligence. And we should know that, you know, places like Crumble cater to the really, really highly sugared, products. But at the same time there should be an obligation for these companies, to have to advertise and market responsibly if there even is a way to market this responsibly, but at least transparently.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, no, I agree. And I mean, I think one of the big problems actually is trying to convey effectively to people what it actually means for there to be, you know, hundreds of grams of sugar in a product. And I, I do think that the. The analogy with the. With the, Krispy Kreme doughnuts is actually a quite good one. You know, if you, if you show people, if you actually, let's say, you know, you sell this crumble cookie drink and you have to tell them this is. The. One of these is the equivalent of 19 Krispy Kreme doughnuts. that's a way of making it immediately, obviously to someone, okay, this is not something I should be drinking a lot of. There will. Or even. Or even should be drinking at all, and certainly shouldn't be giving to my children. So, I do think, yes, that there should be a response. A responsibility should fall on the manufacturers of these products actually to inform consumers in a way that is genuine, that is genuinely tangible to them. They can understand immediately. It's not just a number. It's not just. There's 100, 100 grams of sugar in this. 150 grams. 200 grams. It's. This is 19 doughnuts. I think. I think that's a much better way of doing it.
Jenna: Big things do need to change in the food system
I mean, there has to be reform across the board. And that is one of the things that I like about Maha and about, RFK Jr. Is that he does have a holistic sense of what needs to be done to reform the food system, the way that food is produced, the way that food is sold, the way that people buy food. but yes, I mean, big things do need to change. And the sooner people actually understand what it means to eat really bad food and what it does to them, the better.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And to your point, there needs to be transparency and at least basic understanding on these packages. I mean, 186 grams of sugar, that's kind of a meaningless value to a lot of people. Just like serving size suggestions. And people think, oh, this one, you know, One container contains 300 calories, but it's actually no, like two chips in the entire bag that contains, you know, tons of them. So they're actually consuming like 3,000 calories. I mean, all of this in transparency and labeling, certainly makes sense. I hope Maha can address that even more. I mean, I'm not for over government regulation, but I, I am for transparency, of course, in marketing. And it is the government's job to make sure that these private companies are at least doing their job on that front. So. Raw egg. Really appreciate it. Have a great weekend, everyone. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, at afr.
