Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God, not government

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.

Jenna Ellis has been exonerated in the Lawfare case

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, June 23rd, and initially I wanted to share a brief update with listeners who have thankfully prayed for me and supported me throughout the difficult season of Lawfare that's been going on for quite a few years. So, a Fulton county judge has ordered early termination of, my probation under Georgia law. So, as a result, by state statute, I have been discharged and fully exonerated as a matter of law, and am not and have never been considered to have a criminal conviction or a record. So that is a praise to the Lord. And over the last several years, many of you have asked why I accepted this resolution in the first place, which, was always meant to have this resolution. I knew going in that I would be fully exonerated at the conclusion of. Of, probation upfront and without a conviction. And the reality of Lawfare, unfortunately, is that sometimes the choice is not between guilt and innocence of the actual charges. Sometimes it is a choice between spending years fighting a very expensive legal battle or finding a way to move forward in truth while trusting the Lord with the outcome. Because the process itself often is the punishment in Lawfare. And actually, Sidney Powell wrote an entire book on that called License to Lie, which I would encourage you to read. but one of the most difficult aspects of this experience was that I could not fully defend myself publicly or freely discuss the case until now. so that has been very difficult over the last few years. I also learned facts well after my legal representation had concluded regarding the conduct of others that I could not in good faith support, nor would I have had I known that at the time, which is what I told the, Fulton county judge. And so through it all, however, I remained committed to telling the truth and trusting that the truth ultimately belongs to the Lord. So there has also been considerable misunderstanding about that agreement with the prosecution. So, contrary to popular claims, I have never agreed to testify for or against anyone, including President Trump. In fact, that would be an illegal agreement. I agreed only that if I was ever called upon, I would testify truthfully regarding matters within my knowledge and prior to that agreement, I had consistently declined to testify. So throughout this process also, I, I had often reflected on the testimony of Chuck Colson. many of you know that he is, the founder of the Colson Fellowship and also Prison Fellowship. But before becoming, coming to Faith in Christ, Colson was also caught up in the Watergate scandal. And his story reminded me that our first obligation as Christians is not to simply protect ourselves at all costs, but to stand for truth and to trust God with the consequences. Colson later testified that God used one of his darkest chapters of his life to draw him to Christ and ultimately launch that ministry that has reached countless people through Prison Fellowship. And while every case, of course, is different, his example encouraged me at the time, and still does, to remember that God can redeem suffering, injustice and hardship for his purposes. And I truly believe that he has. so from the beginning, I have never admitted to lying, committing wrongdoing, criminal activity, or engaging in any offense involving moral turpitude. In fact, the agreement specifically reflected that reality. And what I told the court was, that as a lawyer, I could have exercised greater due diligence. And looking back, there are definitely things that I could have done differently. That's true of most lawyers at some point in their career, especially when you learn things after the fact that would have changed your conduct at the time. And most lawyers, however, are not subjected to the kind of political targeting and lawfare that has characterized, this case from the very beginning. But most importantly, I, want you to know that this experience has also deepened my faith, and I hoped I would get through this without tears. But, you know, tears are part of the acknowledgement that God is always faithful. And he has been so faithful throughout this whole process. And my hope has never been in courts, politics, public opinion, vindication from man. I'm not telling you this because I hope that you will somehow vindicate me in the public square. None of that actually matters because I know that I am right before the Lord and my hope is in Christ Jesus. So I'm very grateful for all of you in the AR4 family for your prayers and encouragement and your support of so many faithful friends, including Tim Wildmon Walker, Abe Hamilton, who stood with me during the season. I was hired at AFR shortly before this indictment, and it could have been very easy for them to say, you know, we didn't really anticipate we would have to walk through this with you. Maybe we don't want to have you on air. But they recognized my faith and that I'm willing to stand for truth. And they have stood with me and true throughout this, and I'm very grateful for that. I also believe that God absolutely is sovereign, God is faithful, and God is still using every part of this story for his glory. Because if I look back at my life, even ten years ago, and, when I was working for Dr. Dobson, whose show, ironically, comes on this station right before mine, when I was working for him as a policy director, if you had asked me at that time what my dream would be that I could do for the Lord, I would have said to have a radio ministry where I could teach the truth about government, theology and impact the most people for Christ. And while, it's been a very long and winding road to get here, and with a lot of experiences, both good and bad, that I would have never, anticipated to get there, God answered that prayer, and I'm doing today exactly what I prayed for, regardless of what anyone has come at me with. And so even having my license suspended, I wasn't disbarred, but suspended hasn't impacted anything that I'm able to do for the Lord. And that's the sovereignty and faithfulness of the Lord. So know that God is sovereign, he's faithful, and he will use every part of your story for his glory as well. So, by God's grace, I move forward and committed to the very same principles that have always guided me well before anyone knew my name, because we want his name known. Faithfulness, truth, and trust in him is ultimately what matters. But I'm very grateful that today I'm exonerated as a matter of law, and the truth has prevailed.

Mike Donnelly: Finally, You have been exonerated

So, with that, as I sort of pull myself together here, let's welcome in my very good friend Mike Donnelly, who's also stood with me through this. And I didn't invite him on, to talk about this this morning. He actually was set, to come on, well before I received, the news of the discharge. But, Micah, you can respond to that as well, while we get set up for our next topic. So, good morning.

Mike Donnelly: Oh, well, Jenna, good morning. And I'm honored to be the first person to speak on this right after your discussion, of what happened. And I wanted to say that this is a, ah, wonderful outcome. It's been a long time in coming. what happened to you and to the 20 people in Georgia and to President Trump should never have happened. It should never have happened. It's a blight on the history of justice in our country. and, it's good to see that the Department of Justice and the administration are working to, seek justice for others as well. Not just in this area, but in others. You know, we've seen, people talking about Anthony Fauci and what happened in the pandemic and the CDC and what it did and the lies that were told to the American people across a number of different. Different areas. And you talk about truth. You talk about the truth and standing for truth. And. And since I've known you for a long time and walked with you through these events, I've always known you to stand for the truth. And what I've come to find out about the truth is the truth will always come out. It will always come out. The scripture says that there is nothing that will. Can be hidden. and, you know, we see that time and time again. People think they can hide things and they can't. and the truth is, powerful. God is truth. He is the definer of truth, the author of truth. And it's just a privilege to be able to call you friend and to participate in this journey of telling the truth to the world of the Constitution about politics with you. You've been a strong champion of that for so long. I'm so delighted to hear that you've been exonerated, that the truth is. Has finally come out about this. And, it's good to be with you always on your show and to talk to your audience. And I would just say this to everyone listening, this is m. I guess this has become my life verse. If you ask my kids, what Bible verse do they hear most often over the years, over the decades, it's probably Romans 8, 28, which is that all things happen for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose. And it goes on in 29. For those who before knew he predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And so everything that happens in the life of a believer is for their good. And ultimately, it's about shaping our character. And, God uses everything for that purpose. So congratulations to you, Dannah. Finally, you've been exonerated. You never did anything wrong. And I'm looking forward to continuing to see, good things happen through God's use of you on the airwaves.

Jenna Ellis: Well, thank you so much. And my dogs just agreed with you, so. That's, that's very true, and I agree with that. Yes, yes. And, and thank you for your support and friendship, through the years and you know, well before all of this. And you have consistently reminded me of that verse as well, through all of the, ups and downs that, you know, people don't even know about. And most people's downs are not quite as public of course, as mine were. But for everyone, you know, we suffer through things in life that maybe we don't know or maybe m. We never know in this lifetime, for God's purpose. But already, I mean, I can see things in the growth of my faith and also where the Lord has led me in ministry that have been very good things that have been, in spite of what others meant for evil, God used for good. And that is the redemption story of all Christians who give their lives to the Lord. Nothing that comes at us in this life can ever steer, us away from his purpose for us. And we see that reflected in the book of Job. We see that in so many different testimonies of the faithful that are also, reflected in Hebrews 11 and 12. they weren't people who, because they trusted in God, lived amazingly wealthy, fabulous lives. They were people that encountered great difficulties. But ultimately God called them faithful because they did, what he required them to do. And that's all that Christians can do. And so I'll continue and have continued, to wake up every morning doing what God has for me, which is to be on this program teaching, the truth of how, in God's sovereignty He has created the three spheres of government. The church, the family and the civil government. Talking about that and ultimately, hopefully drawing people, to the knowledge, the saving knowledge of Christ. And I'm so, grateful that I've had, you as well, Mike, in. In my life to to further give me, wisdom and knowledge of. Of the law and of constitutional issues, that we can talk about.

Justice Thomas questions about Congress's authority to regulate firearms across state lines

And one of those things, that I wanted to talk about this morning, we talked a little bit yesterday, with Gerard Felitti about The, the 90 opinion from the Supreme Court about firearms and marijuana and that whole context that just because an individual chooses, to use marijuana, that doesn't mean automatically that their second Amendment right can be infringed upon or foreclosed. But Justice Thomas's questions about Congress's authority to regulate firearms across state lines has kind of fueled a new debate, because he said in his concurrence, I write separately to call attention to another issue as a matter of both original meaning and this court's precedent. this statute appears to exceed Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. And this is one of those clauses that you and I have talked a lot about that it has been so far exceeded what the founders intended. but might Thomas and I love the fact that he's calling attention to this. Might Thomas be inviting, some petitioners to actually, perhaps narrow this and confine it back to its original meaning?

Mike Donnelly: Well, you know, it's an interesting case. How do you get a 90 decision from the Supreme Court? Guns and drugs. You get the left and you get the right. And, you know, it is an interesting decision. It's not really a new debate. It's actually a very old debate. It goes back a long way. And for decades and decades, subsequent to fdr, nobody thought there was any limit to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, which, you know, Article one, Section eight, Clause three. Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states, with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes, is what that clause says. And, what is commerce? What does it mean to regulate commerce? These are, terms. This clause has been litigated. It may be one of the most litigated clauses in the entire Constitution, because Congress has used the Commerce Clause so much to exert so much power over the everyday lives of Americans. Power that I would argue and that we've talked about over the years. It doesn't have. Never had, but the court allowed it to get away with. And the Commerce Clause jurisprudence has developed over the years where, you know, Congress had very limited. What does it mean to regulate commerce? you know, commerce is buying and selling and moving goods in the. In the buying and selling. How does. What does that have to do with possessing a firearm? What does that have to do with growing, wheat for your family during World War II? You know, I'm, talking about a famous case, the, Wicker v. Filburn case, where Mr. Filburn, or Wickard, I can't remember which one was the wheat grower. Actually haven't thought this case in a while, but, the wheat grower in that case, he was growing wheat for himself. And the government said, no, you can't do that. Why, you can't grow wheat for your own family. there were price controls in place and limitations on who could buy and who could sell and what price. And the government said, well, look, if Mr. Farmer grows wheat for himself, that's going to increase the supply of wheat, which could affect the price of wheat. And so he would say, no, you can't grow wheat for yourself. And so this is the extent to which Congress has used its Commerce Clause power. In fact, if you look at the laws that Congress has passed, the fda, the faa, and I'm not saying that all these are wrong, by the way. I'm, just saying the extent to which commerce undergirds the federal government's power. The Controlled Substances act, which, is involved in this particular case, civil rights. The 1964 Civil Rights act is based on the Commerce Clause. So an understanding of commerce, what is commerce, the impact of commerce, is very important. And so what Justice Thomas has done here is he pointed to a very, very narrow issue, actually, talking about this section 922, which criminalizes gun possession, if a gun has traveled in interstate commerce. And in this case, they said, look, just because a person uses marijuana a few times a week in violation of the Controlled Substances act, does that mean that person is subject to 15 years in prison and tens of thousands of dollars in fines? is that legitimate? Is that what we want the federal government to do? Should the federal government be exercising police power and exercising criminal control over people for that? You know, in that way? That's kind of what Thomas is asking. And he's saying, you know, let's probe this power that Congress has taken, to control guns and possession of a thing, you know, because you say, well, if you possess guns, what else can you possess? You can possess. I'm looking at my desk here. Computers, iPhones, you know, anything. Does Congress get to regulate anything just because it travels in interstate commerce at some point in time? That's a question that Thomas is asking. It's a question we've asked over the decades. Time and time again, Supreme Court has said, yeah, if it's traveled in interstate commerce, then Congress has jurisdiction over it. and so I'm glad that Justice Thomas is bringing this up and that, we can talk about it. This is really important. Why? Because it ties back to something that you and I have talked about over the years, which is the power of the federal government is. It's too much. And this is just one of those areas where it has that power. And the Supreme Court needs to look at that and curtail that power. And it's doing so slowly. Not quick enough for me in any way, shape or form, but it is doing that slowly. And this is just one example of that. So thanks for asking that question.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, that was not nearly enough. Time, because I took a little bit too much time in the beginning. But a great synopsis and this is a reminder that, there are always more questions that we should be asking and asking, who has the power and what power do they actually have? Because just because something goes through, crosses state lines doesn't necessarily mean that the federal government should be involved. And broad assertions of, federal power really, were not what the founders intended. And I love that Justice Thomas is asking some of these constitutional and academic questions, that we should consistently be asking, not just accepting Congress or the judiciary, when they say that they have power. So, Mike Donnelly, really appreciate it. and thanks again for your kind words. We'll be right back with more. Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Keir Starmer announces he will resign amid mounting pressure from lawmakers

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Keir Starmer announces his resignation and said the United Kingdomnomics will get their sixth prime minister in seven years. This coming from CNN World. Starmer set to step down. he announced he will resign amid mounting pressure from his own lawmakers, paving the way for a seventh British prime minister in a decade. There are some potential, successors. We'll ask our next guest about that. but CNN goes on to say there's political upheaval. Starmer's announcement came just two years after his center left Labor Party swept into power with a landslide majority. And almost 10 years to the day since Britain voted to leave the European Union pl the country into a decade worth of political instability, which of course is, you know, CNN's POV. a lot of Europeans are very happy about Brexit. But, what's going on and who might follow Keir Starmer? Let's welcome in Raw Egg Nationalist. it's the moniker that Charles Cornish Dale goes by. You can of course follow him on X. And he is from the UK So, you know, this didn't really come as a surprise. Raw egg to many people. And you know, there have been calls for Starmer to step down, for, for quite a while now. But what exactly is going on in Britain?

Raw Egg Nationalist: it's good to be back with you, Jenna. Yeah, Things are, things are continuing to take a downward turn, I would say, in Britain. I mean like you say, it's been 10 years. And this will, the Keir Starmer successor will be the seventh prime minister Britain has had in the last decade since the Brexit vote on June 23, 2016. Today, 10 years to the day, in many respects I think it shows actually that Britain is becoming an ungovernable country. The contradictions, the social and economic and political contradictions are mounting and have mounted to such an extent that it's actually impossible for a Prime Minister, even a Prime Minister with a whacking majority. And it's worth remembering Keir Starmer has a huge majority in the House of Commons and yet he hasn't served a full term as Prime Minister and nobody has for the last ten plus years. So I mean this is, you know, if you can't govern for four years with a huge majority, hundreds of hundreds of MPs who can govern. and it's likely, I think, that Keir Starmer will be replaced by Andy Burnham, who won the Makerfield by election last week. the DMP in Makerfield stepped aside specifically so that Burnham could run so he could get back into the House of Commons as an MP and lead a leadership challenge against Keir Starmer. And what does that promise? Well, I think among other things it actually promises a lurch further to the left. Keir Starmer has been under a lot of pressure. He is unpopular. he's a weak man as well. A very weak man. It's obvious he's a weak man. Donald Trump sensed that of course. And he's been kind of relentless actually in, in ribbing Keir Starmer for his weakness. He said he's not Winston Churchill. When Starmer refused to allow the US to use the base in Diego Garcia to launch attacks against Iran. so Keir Starmer was constrained in many ways and that, that actually made it I think better for the country because he wasn't able to to, to, to sort of implement a much more radical agenda. But I think Andy Burnham may very well try to do that. He is a real left populist. He's been modeling himself actually in recent, weeks and months on Zoran Mamdami, that kind of man on the street, sort of ground level social media videos where he's among, among the people. You know, he's sort of a reflection of, of what the people want. so I think what we will actually see is we'll probably see a more radical left wing agenda if Andy Burnham gets in.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, the radical left wing agenda, I mean the UK has already been an example of a cautionary tale for the United States of what happens when you open your borders, you flood the country with immigrants. And we talked recently, you and I together, about the report that came out from the other member of Parliament, about all of the young women who have been involved in those heinous crimes and at the hands of just horrible perpetrators. And why there is an immigration problem. And so for the uk, moving to a more leftist agenda, why would they choose at this point, seeing all of this, why is the leadership still so committed to going further left instead of perhaps re. Stabilizing the country?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, that's a very, very good question. And I mean one of the big questions of the last 30 years of British politics actually is why the Conservative party, having 15 years or 14 years in power from 2010 to 2024, why did the Conserv party choose to go all in on mass immigration? mass immigration was never voted for by the British public. It was brought in as official government policy by Tony Blair in 1997. New Labour and then the Conservatives, who had promised, election after election, manifesto after manifesto to reduce immigration to sensible levels. Tens of thousands, that was the figure that they gave, decided to go all in on mass immigration. And we ended up with Boris Johnson letting in a million people a year. yeah, it's the great question of our time really. Why is the Uni Party, why are all major parties committed to these devastating, devastating policies that have clearly brought Western nations, not just Britain, France, you know, other Germany, other European nations, Canada, Australia, NewSong Zealand, even the U.S. you know, why are they so committed, the leadership of all of these nations to these disastrous policies? I mean, the thing about the leadership election, the leadership contest rather that we will see now is that it will be a purely parliamentary affair. This won't be a vote that goes to the British people. This will be a vote within the parliamentary Labour Party for the next leader. So it won't touch the ground, as it were. It will be among the Labour, parliamentary leadership and membership. So it doesn't actually in any way have to reflect the desires or wishes of the British people. So if they want to elect an even more radical left wing leader, they can do that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so, I mean this, this sounds a lot like when the DNC just simply, installed Kamala Harris as their nominee and didn't go to the voters and the people or even the voters within their own party, but just simply chose who they were going to choose. And we all saw thankfully how that turned out. you know, but going back to this whole notion of these, these parties that are so far left being committed to their worldview and this ideology that is clearly so damaging for their country. I mean the, the worldview that you have to be in to say that you value more the importing of of often, at least in the United States case, of illegal immigrants. But but any immigrants whatsoever that don't assimilate into your culture, that perpetuate violent crimes, that don't share your same religion, don't share your values and clearly are not overall good for your society. you have to wonder if these people are actually wanting the undermining and the downfall of their own society. And I think at least here in America, and even across Western civilization, that does seem to be the goal of the far left in both the UK and the United States and elsewhere to completely undermine freedom, and to undermine Western civilization as we know it.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah. I don't think you should underestimate how much leftists and even members of the broader elite actually hate their own nations. There's a commentator in the UK called Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher Hitchens, very famous Christopher Hitchens. And they were both Trotskyists in the 1960s. True believers. And Peter Hitchens is now a conservative. But he said back in the days when I was a Trotskyist in the 1960s when I was at ah, university, we all supported mass immigration. Not because we cared about diversity or anything like that, but actually just because we want. We hated our own nations and we wanted to destroy them. And it was an effective way to do it. I do think that there is absolutely, absolutely a hatred of America, of the West, Europe, Britain, that is motivating this to some extent. And I think it does, it does motivate the commitment to do it. And it's one explanation why these people won't give it up. They don't, they don't care about the catastrophic effects. In fact, the catastrophic effects are the point m. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And I think that labor and the far left and the Democrats here in America really do severely underestimate as much as you're absolutely right, we should not underestimate their commitment to the destruction of Western civilization. They are underestimating voter concerns, about immigration, national identity and even, you know, the economy, cost of living, all of these things. And so if Starmer won one of the largest parliamentary majorities in modern British history, which he did, if even that isn't enough to maintain public support for the last two years, what is that? And what should that tell the Labor Party about the state of democracy and voter Trust in institutions when they are responsible for choosing the next prime minister and maybe do that more carefully.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes.

British policies over 30 years have torn apart the fabric of Britain, author says

Yeah. I mean, it obviously tells them how out of touch they are with popular sentiment, but I think it also tells them, in many respects, actually how successful their policies over the last 30 years have been. I mean, they really have torn apart the fabric of Britain, and they've ushered in actually now an era of sectarian politics where you have people voting along religious lines. You now have independent Muslim mps in parliament who have been elected purely on the basis of a Muslim agenda, particularly with regard to Israel and Palestine. so, I mean, you know, they. They are getting what they wanted, essentially. You know, they. They wanted to change the fabric of Britain for good. They wanted to make Britain into a totally different nation. there was a famous, revelation from one of Tony Blair's advisors where he said, look, we initiated the policy of mass immigration because we wanted to rub the right's nose in diversity and make sure that a true Conservative government could never be elected again. And maybe they've done that. Maybe they've. Maybe they've ushered in an era of anarchy where actually effective political, leadership, Effective government is simply impossible.

Ragin: How soon do you think Parliament will choose next prime minister

Jenna Ellis: And, last question for you, Ragin. And I mean, this is such a big event. And so I appreciate you covering, this because, you know, here in the United States often we're so, unfortunately, America focused, that we don't take time to really understand what's going on in the rest of the world and especially, Western civilization. but how soon do you think that, Parliament will choose the next prime minister? I mean, what. What's kind of the timeline here?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, Keir Starmer himself has set out a timeline that he'll leave Parliament by September. I do wonder potentially whether he will try and drag out this sort of, leadership contest in a way that will make it harder for Andy Burnham. I don't think there's any love lost between the two of them. You know, Andy Burnham has effectively, effectively launched a coup against him. So I think that Keir Starmer may very well try to, sabotage his chances, leave him with a poison chalice, potentially by dragging it out to September. It could happen sooner than that. We could have a new. We could have a new leader, new prime minister next month. But I. I think Keir Starmer is probably going to drag it out as far as he can.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, we will be following this closely. We've got to take a break here, but really appreciate it again. Raw ignatimalist you can follow him on X and, read a lot of his writing on, these types of events and world news and politics and also, nutrition. And we, we often have him on the show to talk about a lot of those issues and important things to the Maha movement as well. So thanks so much, and we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Alan Greenspan, longtime head of the Federal Reserve, dies at 100

welcome back to Jenna Ellis

Jenna Ellis: in the Morning on American Family Radio. Welcome. Allen Greenspan, the economist and longtime head of the Federal Reserve, has died at age 100 yesterday. So, coming from NBC News, the powerful economic policymaker, died Monday from complications of Parkinson's disease, said his wife of 29 years, NBC News, correspondent Andrea Mitchell, reported. And so, you know, who really was, this name? And for younger listeners who may not know the history, who was Allen Greenspan and why was he so influential? Well, let's welcome in Kevan Freeman, who is the host of Pirate Money right here on American Family Radio Network. And, Kevan, you know all about Allen Greenspan and why, his legacy that endured, I believe spanned at least, you know, several administrations of, presidents was so impactful for the Fed.

Kevin Freeman: Hey, good to be with you, Jenna. Thanks for having me.

President Trump has repeatedly praised former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan

Allen Greenspan was. When I entered the stock market investing world back more than 40 years ago, he was with a little G. God. He was the, most important person wherever he carried his briefcase. People followed him to see how fat his briefcase was because it might give them some clue as to where the stock market was heading. He was the head of the Federal Reserve appointed by, President Reagan. He served, through President Reagan, George H.W. bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. he is the most significant central banker, in my lifetime. And he's a huge name.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And how unusual was that level of bipartisan confidence in a Fed chairman to serve under four presidents from both parties?

Kevin Freeman: Well, it's very unusual, but I think it is connected to one fact. He was appointed by President Reagan as, an Anne Rand disciple, somebody who believed in gold and hard money. And he was very public in saying that. And yet he presided over, some of the easiest money of the Fed, giving something called the Greenspan put. Every time the stock market had a comeuppance, he showed up with money and printed lots of money, which, you know, I admire historically his positions, and I admire his long tenure at the Fed. I think he's a brilliant man, lived to be 100 years old, was married to Andrea Mitchell, who was, you know, the top of the top of NBC News. but he got accepted both by the gold bugs, which I would put myself in that camp, but also, by the establishment press. And the way that he navigated through that was kind of amazing. But I do think that he violated his earlier economic principles. And even later, he was published as saying that he thought gold was the only real money, despite the fact that he was a huge, creator of fiat, money printing, lots of it for the Fed, trying to pump the economy.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it seems like there's a tension between being a free market advocate, which is worldview overall, but then serving as one of the most powerful, central bankers and economic planners in the world. So it seems like that in and of itself, might have been a bit of a contradiction.

Kevin Freeman: Oh, it's a complete contradiction. Here's a quote from him, published in a gold magazine. It says, I view gold as the primary global currency. It's the only currency, along with silver, that does not require a counterparty signature. And yet he sat atop the Federal Reserve, and every time money was needed, he ran the printing presses. he believed in free markets. And like I said, he was an Ayn Rand disciple. and yet at the same time, he hobnobbed with the very elite that would literally be putting forward ideas like modern monetary theory. So I admire him, I respect him. Ah, he lived to be 100. He did great things, but he violated his basic free market principles. And I think the world is worse for it. I think that it enabled us to go down this path. And he is. He's the one that made that possible.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so President Trump has repeatedly praised Allen Greenspan, who had already been out of the Fed for over a decade, once Trump took office. And, President Trump has praised Greenspan. Well, repeatedly criticizing Jerome Powell. So what did Greenspan do differently that made him so admired by politicians across, across both parties and that reputation, even through the, the 2008 financial crisis and other things?

Kevin Freeman: Well, what he did was he made money very easy and available. and Jerome Powell, I don't know, but he's made money very easy and available. But Greenspan did it in such a way that the whole market assumed he was smarter than everybody else, knew exactly what he was doing. and even when we had a financial crisis, he stepped up and addressed it with Jerome Powell. He never seemed that competent across the board. There was a lack of confidence. President Trump loves confidence. And I think President Trump also liked the fact that Greenspan supported every president that was in office, and dramatically so, and Powell seemed to push back. If you could have a combination of President Trump's reduced regulation, low tax prices, low tax rates and you know, strong free market principles with a very solid Federal Reserve that wasn't printing too much money, that wasn't trying to create something out of nothing, that combination would be ideal. We haven't seen that yet with Greenspan. We saw a number of presidents that were spending too much money and he accommodated them. What we really need is Trump's strong economic free market principles combined with a strong discipline at the Fed.

Jenna Ellis: And m. I'm speaking with Kevan Freeman, who's the host of Pirate Money here on American Family Radio Network. And you know, for listeners who hear about the Fed all the time, we talk about the economy but maybe don't fully understand it, what power does the Federal Reserve have with respect to that interaction that you're talking about with you know, Congress and the federal government spending so much money, and actually helping to regulate the economy, with the responsibilities that they actually have. And did we lose Kevan? Okay, and we're going to try to get Kevan Freeman back.

Kevin Freeman: Federal Reserve should play bigger role in overseeing its policy

but in terms of the Fed, you know, this is one of the things I, think that is really fascinating about this perspective on the economy. And one of the things that that I think is somewhat, especially you know, when you have a president that appears at least to have so much authority and issues executive orders like you know, Trump, Biden and Obama and you know, everybody, in modern American, history and the presidencies is that there are so many other positions that really do have an impact overall on our day to day life and how things are regulated. And yet in kind of our conception, it's almost like we make the President seem to have, you know, full authority over almost anything. And this is one of the questions that the Supreme Court is going to be answering any day now. In fact, I mean it could come out today, it'll come out before the end of their term, which is whether President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, can remain or whether that power is actually vested in the Congress to determine citizenship and how exactly those powers and those definitions constitutionally persist. And we have to be very careful. I think, as conservatives not wanting, even while Trump is in office. And overall, obviously, I think that he's been the. One of the greatest presidents in my lifetime for a lot of reasons I don't agree with him on Everything. but I certainly think that he has a, an, a view of America that is America first. That we don't try to vest too much authority into a president to just issue orders that later on in the precedent down the road may not be a good thing overall for America. And we have Kevan Freeman back. And, the question that I, that I had posed was, you know, the Fed is designed to be independent from politics. but, you know, how for people who maybe hear about the Fed, they're very concerned about the economy, but they don't maybe fully understand what the Fed is and actually what powers they do have. How do they. How does the Fed interact with, the responsibilities and the powers that are constitutionally delegated to the president and Congress?

Kevin Freeman: Well, Jenna, essentially what happens is the Fed allows the federal government to spend too much money. When the government spends too much, they have to borrow. Where do they borrow? They go to the Fed, and the Fed says, okay, every time, 100%, okay, we'll let you borrow as much as you need. And that has put us in this massive $40 trillion debt. It threatens the global economy. And it is, the reason that the Fed is a problem for us is because they've just allowed the printing of too much money on a continuing basis. They have, which creates inflation, which creates the everyday problems. Why you have to pay 50% more for eating out than you did 5, 6, 7, 8 years ago is because the Fed created too much money. The Congress spent too much money.

Jenna Ellis: And Congress should, I think, play a bigger role in overseeing, the Fed's policy. But Congress really doesn't want to, because they're some of the worst offenders in spending too much money.

Kevin Freeman: Money, right. Well, because they spend too much. If they oversee the Fed, they will bludgeon them until they create too much. there's a 60 minutes that's very famous with Jerome Powell where he said, where does the Fed get its money? Well, we create it. We create it digitally. We created it out of thin air. And have you created lots? Oh, yes. And is there any end to your ability to do that? And Jerome Powell says, no, there's no end to our ability to do that. And this isn't real money. If they can just create as much of it as they want when they want to satisfy the Congress overspending, which then decides that they're going to promote, by votes, essentially elect me, and I'll give you this benefit, and I'll give you this, that benefit. That is a pathway to economic destruction. And that is unfortunately what the Fed has been enabling and Greenspan was one of the early enablers to that.

Jenna Ellis: And you know, we talk consistently about all of these abuses of authority and really the bottom line principle is attempting to rein in the federal government that isn't going to restrain and rein in themselves. And this is why I've been a huge advocate, for over a decade of the Convention of States project, because it actually allows the states to rein in the federal government without having to go to Congress. It's just a, a way to amend the constitutional powers, without congressional approval, but just through the states and then going you know, directly to the states to ratify any amendments that might come out of that convention. It's not to rewrite the Constitution as a whole or a Constitutional convention, but, absent that resolution that the founders explicitly provided in Article 5, are there other ways to provide accountability for all of this overspending and actually reining in the Fed, to, to be m. More what it, what it actually should be on behalf of the American people, not just supporting all of this overspending?

Kevin Freeman: Well, absolutely. In fact, that's the, the topic of my book, Pirate Money. if people had a choice in the money they used, they didn't have to use the US dollar that's losing somewhere between 2 and 10% per year every single year in purchasing power. They could use gold and silver under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, under state authority, with a choice, people would vote with their dollars and they would move their money to gold and silver and they could spend it without tax consequences. And all of that. Giving people freedom gives them a choice. Giving that would also give more authority to the states, less to the federal government. And the federal government would say, hey, we can't just continue to force people to take our devalued dol. We can't force inflation on people. They have a choice. And that would rein in spending. Free markets are always the best answer. Give people options. That's what we see in California. People say, I have a choice. I don't have to live in California. I can move to Texas or Florida. And people move. And if we would give people the choice in their money as well, that would help rein in federal spending without excessive draconian measures. If the government spent too much, the value of the dollar would go down. People say I don't want to hold dollars anymore. I want to hold more gold and silver. And they would move their money. That's the answer, I believe. And that's what we've been promoting Pirate Money in the book and on our radio program.

Jenna Ellis: Excellent. And that makes sense because, the government needs competition, essentially, and that's the whole point of a free market. And this is why I moved from Colorado to Florida, because I had that option. So, Kevan Freeman, really appreciate it. Listen to his program, Pirate money, @afr.net that is all the time we have for this morning. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna, @afr.net.