Transcript

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

 : Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

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

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, March 17th. Happy St. Patrick's Day to all who celebrate. And, if you're wearing green this morning, well, I can't see you. You can't see me either, so it doesn't really matter. But, it is a good morning anyways.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles diagnosed with breast cancer

And you know, we need to be praying for Susie Wiles, President Trump's Chief of staff. yesterday the news broke that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She posted on X last week I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Nearly one in eight women in the United States will face this diagnosis every day. These women continue to raise their families, go to work and serve their communities with strength and determination. I now join their ranks. I'm grateful to have an outstanding team of doctors who dedicate to detected the cancer early and are guiding my care. And I'm encouraged by a very good prognosis. I'm also deeply thankful for the support and encouragement of President Trump as I undergo treatment and continue serving in my role as White House Chief of Staff. President Trump also posted on Truth Social that, Susie Wiles would undergo, her treatment, a lot of which would be while she's at the White House. So no plans, at least at this point, to take any sort of step back. So that has seemed to be a lot of, especially the women, the strong women that work for President Trump, to continue through, ah, births of children, through diagnosis, even of breast cancer, to continue to serve. So be praying for a full recovery for Susie Wiles and for her family.

The Senate is reportedly preparing to vote on the Save America act on Wednesday

Also, a report yesterday that the US Senate is preparing to vote on the Save America act on Wednesday. However, there will be no talking filibuster. So the plan apparently is for Leader Thune to simply bring it to the floor and likely, that 60 vote majority that is needed, to advance the Save America act, will not be reached and the filibuster will not, be voted to, voted, down. And so this raises the question of, you know, what exactly is the Senate doing and why even vote on it at all? Well, let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, I think, you know, overall, with everything currently going on in Iran, yesterday President Trump had a couple of, you know, conflicting statements. Not really, sure, maybe in his own mind exactly what the objectives in Iran are. And now with the Save America act likely to fail in the Senate, it doesn't seem like the political optics are boding well for this administration currently.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think we also have to remember that we have a constant barrage of headlines in mainstream media that has been very much targeting and contrary to Trump since even before he took office this term. So a lot of what we're seeing, the top line headlines of papers and online, tend to be very critical without actually going into the analysis. But I think you are right. I mean there is, there is going political pressure on President Trump. There is a growing debate within some of the Republican Party even on the advantages and disadvantages of the of action in Iran. And when you have a Save America act, which is so crucial to a voting security, but we're not able to get that passed, that sends the message that maybe we need to be focusing more on these domestic issues and really getting legislation that we need passed while we still have control. Congress.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, so why isn't the Senate potentially, you know, removing the filibuster and just passing this? Because as it stands right now, at least, you know, polymarket and some of these other predictions are suggesting that Republicans are going to lose the majority in at least one House in Congress. And so it seems like over the next, you know, just few months that there's left until November. And then of course, the turnaround in January. It seems like it would be in the national best interest for conservatives to just push through as much of their priorities as they possibly can.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I agree in general that it's important to push through as much of the agenda as possible. But on, ah, the flip side with the Senate, we also have to remember that doing away with the filibuster opens the door to that same tool being used when the Republicans don't have control of the Senate and the Democrats ramming through measures that they want that are antithetical to a conservative agenda. And that's a legitimate concern. I think that that is why the Senate for decades now has resisted calls to do away with the filibuster. They do see themselves as more of the guardians of an older way of doing things where you try to deliberate and reach consensus rather than shove things down, get things done without that more broader mandate. but it really is dangerous for Republicans as well. We need to remember for conservative values that if we do away with the filibuster in the short term, anything that's now enacted in law can easily be undone in two years, four years. It'll make it that much harder to oppose that.

Jenna Ellis: And yeah, and that's obviously been, the objection to removing the filibuster. But, you know, I don't really have any particular confidence that the Democrats won't just do the same thing once they're in power. And so, you know, the conservatives for a long time have said, you know, oh, we want to make sure that we abide by the rules. We want to make sure that, you know, we keep all of these things in place. But Democrats have proven over and over and over again that they'll do whatever it takes to ram their agenda through. I mean, they'll perpetuate lawfare, completely ignore, the rules of law, process, all of this. And so what's to stop them from just doing that? Anyway,

Gerard Filitti: to your point, there's really nothing to stop them. The only thing that's been stopping them until now is that you had a different kind of Democrat in the Senate. In true, you have people like Elizabeth, Warren, or let's not forget Bernie Sanders, who are more on the extreme fringes of the left, but they tend to be a minority even in the Democratic Party. In the Senate you have louder voices like that. In the House, the Senate has tended to be more institutionally conservative, if not conservative in its values. So that's what's prevented that from happening to date. But to your point, I think that as we're looking at a younger generation of, left wing people going into the Senate, that is likely to change, if not in the next few years and further down the line. So it is something to be mindful of.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it doesn't seem like, many Democrats and increasingly Republicans as well, you know, really concerned about, process, procedure, history and, you know, preserving, institutions. I mean, we've even seen, you know, so many, US M Constitutional amendments that have really undermined America's founding and you know, I think the 20th century, especially in the latter part as well, with Supreme Court decisions, have you just served to kind of move us further and further off track. But, with the Save America act in particular, assuming that conservatives don't want to remove the filibuster for the reasons that you've Argued and articulated. Jared Felitti what is to stop Leader Thune from trying to at least make some other kind of deal or to get close to 60 votes? I mean it seems like there hasn't at least publicly appeared to be any sort of real effort to convince some of the maybe more moderate Democrats to say, you know, listen, this isn't an extreme piece of legislation. This is actually something that really at the end of the day should have been bipartisan.

Gerard Filitti: You're absolutely right. And there needs to be more pressure on those moderate Democrats, not just from dear Student, but also from their own constituents. I mean there need to be people asking them questions why they are standing in the way of this crucial law that Gary, that provides for election integrity and really is meant to preserve our democracy as we understand it in one vote with guarantees of people actually being who they claim to be when they vote. That pressure should be put to moderate Democrats by their own constituents and by the media. But at the end of the day, if this were part of a larger issue that we're seeing is that this is something that will be challenged even if it is adopted into law. We know that this will be challenged on a legal basis, on a constitutional basis in pretty much every state that's controlled by Democrats as infringing on state rights. So it's not as straightforward as just getting this passed. We have to look at the longer term picture of even if passed, this is something that will be subject to lawfare.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, of course it will because you know, Democrats can never let anything any other challenges go to waste. And it seems like, you know, on that note, juror, it seems like the left always has lawsuits immediately prepared. They file over even the most frivolous thing and they just engage in kind of this obstructionist filings as well as lawfare and all of this. And and it seems like for Republicans even, and conservatives, even the challenges that are legitimate, that should be mounted sometimes there either isn't an opportunity for that. You know, maybe it's just a matter of financing or you know, in some of these these you know, kind of outfits that I've talked to over some various things over the years, you know, some of the response that, that I'll receive as well, that isn't really within our wheelhouse of exactly what our mission for our organization is. and while I understand in respect to that, it seems like we need to have more opportunity as conservatives to immediately challenge some of the things that Democrats push through, especially if they do regain control after November, we absolutely do.

Gerard Filitti: And we need to learn from what the Democrats have. It's really the left that created this lawful machine. They created it because they couldn't get laws passed to change the way that we value things in society, to push for societal change. When they didn't have control of Congress or the White House, they perfected lawfare as a means of changing the law without actually changing the law. And for the most part, Republicans or conservatives have been, a step or two behind because we tend to look at the institution of the law itself and say, wait a second, this is a frivolous lawsuit. This is not something that should be brought. This is something that should be resolved by our elected representatives. But Democrats have gone full tilt in investing in lawfare to a lot of success. And we're seeing this coming full circle. We're seeing Republicans now starting to be more aware and engaged with lawfare, with taking action to prevent liberal measures from taking effect. But to your point, you're absolutely right. We don't have enough people on the right who are willing to go in there and be aggressive or as aggressive as they can be to get some of these laws and measures that progressives put forward undone. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And it seems so, it seems like at the end of the day it's, it's a very similar problem among conservatives that, you know, they don't want to necessarily do whatever it takes to challenge some of these things in court or even get the legislation passed to begin with because, we're perhaps too concerned about process. And you know, some of these things like, like removing the filibuster. I mean that's, that's an antiquated self appointed rule of the Senate. You know, it doesn't have a requirement or basis in the constitutional structure. It's something that can be modified. It's just that conservatives tend to be, overall more respecters of the system and the reason and rationale that rules and processes are in place even if they can change. And it seems like, Gerard, a lot of times that actually is working to our detriment when the other side of the aisle doesn't play by the rules. They don't care about history. I mean, they're willing to tear down statues. I mean, you know, they, they don't care whatsoever about preserving, not only the truth about American history, but the process. They are only concerning, concerned about winning, period. They're only concerned about power and their agenda. And so it seems like maybe conservatives need to come to a little bit better of a balance because I certainly haven't been advocating that.

You say conservatives need to fight fire with fire while considering long-term issues

Okay, we just need to fight fire with fire. And, you know, where a lot of, maybe some of the more, you know, neocon wing of conservatives are suggesting, well, it doesn't even matter. Let's just get our priorities through, and then we'll deal with kind of the mess at the end of the day. And it has to be kind of this mutually assured destruction. That's the only path forward. there has to be something maybe in the middle to say, you know, okay, conservatives need to fight fire with fire while also considering, you know, the long term, what, what the law calls, you know, the ex ante of what is the precedent value and how would this shape not just this current incident, but, you know, future things down the road? Where do you think that balance is?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that balance. We're not at that balance yet because we are driven by narratives that are more to the extreme on both parties. Not that that's where the majority of people are, but that's where the loud voices are. And I think that where you will find balance is things like voting, where you do need a consensus and you come to a consensus. People understand, even with immigration, that the way things are now, the system is broken and it needs to be fixed. And when you have the rational voices come through and you do have people who are supportive of change, you do need to bring them together. I think it's a leadership function at the end of the day. And the Republican Party does certainly have people who want to, to bring people together. Donald Trump himself has spoken to that repeatedly for the last year. But we don't have people on the left who are ready to do that. They're driven by their more extreme voices. And until they have leadership that's willing to sit down and talk and understand that the American people are not driven to extremes, that they want reasonable progress in legislation, we're not going to see those changes.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, you know, and that's a good point. And we need to just pray that somehow the Save America act and some of these other priorities, are going to end up being pushed through before November, regardless of what happens. And hopefully, enough will shift in terms of the mindset that there will be a strong enough turnout that, ah, Republicans don't lose that majority.

Two Florida high school students accused of plotting to kill another student denied bond

but before I let you go, Jared Felitti, I also wanted to get your commentary on this story out of Florida. this is coming from only in Florida Instagram account. But there's a report that two central Florida high school students, ah, accused of plotting to kill another student will remain in custody after a judge watched a video of these two students and denied their bond. Prosecutors argued the teens pose a danger to the community, pointing in part to a video that appeared to show them laughing and joking while being taken to jail. In the video, a, one teen allegedly said she wanted to do her makeup for her mugshot, while the other described the situation as a quote, unquote bonding experience. The investigators are saying the 15 year old recruited the 14 year old to help target a student she was allegedly obsessed with. Authorities, said the plan involved attacking the victim in a school bathroom. Some other really, you know, disgusting details I won't even go into. But, you know, this 14 and 15 years old, I mean these are still, you know, kids. Obviously, you know, this is, these are adult action. That's why some of them are are ultimately charged as adults, depending on the con, on the conduct. But first of all, you know, I agree that they should have been denied jail, or denied bond in this situation. But Gerard, you know, what does this suggest overall, just about our society where, you know, we have two high school students, 14 and 15 who can have this type of plot and then when they're caught, you know, this kind of just completely callous reaction, I mean, it's horrifying.

Gerard Filitti: The first question that comes to my mind is where are the parents? M. We know what's being taught in school. We know the indoctrination that's taking place in school. And we don't trust teachers and schools to be the guardians of our children as they used to in the old days. But where are the parents? Where are the values that these kids are being taught? Are these kids even going to church, exposed to God, exposed to values that human life is precious and sacred? Obviously not. And this is what we've gotten in society. I think that. But we've seen this slowly happening over the last 25 or 30 years. We have the Internet, we have social media. It's exposing kids to all sorts of vile behavior and making it seem like it's normal. And it's also made parenting more difficult because parents are spending less time with their kids. In a lot of cases you are seeing kids raised by computer, by the Internet, where these ideas are not condemned as abnormal, but they're discussed openly. So we go back to where are the parents? Where are these kids learning their values from? Why aren't the parents More involved in what these kids are learning and doing. Because if the parents had been there teaching these values, taking these kids to church, you wouldn't be in this situation.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And so well said. I mean, and this is why parents, basically abdicating their role to state funded institutions and then you know, these peer groups that obviously are not healthy and in a good environment for each other. You know, we continue to see more and more of the rise of this type of complete and utter disrespect for life. And it shows a mentality that, you know, the, the biblical values that America was founded on and the Christian worldview are in large part not being passed down to the next generation. And these are the consequences.

Gerard Filitti: And we see this, at least we had a judge here who did the right thing. A denied bond. Because we also have a justice system that's moved away from these values. We have cashless bond. We have a justice system that's a revolving door for criminal activity that no longer imposes consequences. So if you're not learning values at home, if you're not having consequences when you break the law, it just causes a complete disruption in our society. This is the way our society falls apart. So we really have to go back to basics. It's hard for parents, it's hard for all of us to sit and talk and teach the next generation, especially with all the pressure that we're under these days. But that's really what the most important thing is. Remember the fundamental values that we share. Remember our faith.

Gerard Filitti: And I think that's what we need in this country right now, a faith revival, A revival of family values. Something that conservatives have been pushing for, for years. But we're really seeing what happens when you don't have it. We have complete societal decay. We've got 14 year olds who want to kill people at school. And that's not, that's not, that's not right. We all know that we just have to act on it.

Jenna Ellis: So. Well said. Well, we have to take a break here. Gerard Felitti, really appreciate your time this morning and you know, for the parents who are listening and thinking, wow. Well you, you know, thank, it's, I'm really glad my kids don't go to public institutions. And you know, yes, it's, it's a good thing and you need to be making sure that you are taking responsibility for the discipleship of your own children. But you know, the influence is still there. I mean there are still kids in the neighborhood kids in the community that your children will interact with. And you need to be monitoring, exactly who they are, interacting with what they're seeing on social media, the rise of artificial intelligence, I mean, so many other influences, that we need to make sure to protect our kids from and ensure that we are raising up the next generation in the fear and admonition of the Lord. We will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Gerard Filitti: Foreign.

Ryan Helfenbein argues that conservative movement is undergoing ideological takeover

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, a post by someone who goes by the anonymous title of Insurrection Barbie on X. this really long post is kind of gaining a lot of momentum for arguing that what's happening inside of the conservative movement is not just a, a policy debate, for example, over Israel, foreign policy, America first. It's a deliberate long term ideological takeover. And in part, this particular post, which actually several people have brought up to me, over the last week, asked if I've read it, asked what I think about it, but also even Senator Ted Cruz reposted it this week saying, read every word of this. This is the best and most comprehensive explanation of what we're fighting. So, so this is really interesting. And joining me now, for this discussion is Rhyen Helfenbein, who is the Vice President of Communications and Public Engagement at Liberty University and the founding executive director of the Standing for Freedom Center. So, Rhyen, let's kind of break this down, because when this account is arguing in this post, and it's titled the Long Game in the Conservative Right, how a network of political Catholic integralists, ah, Russian ideologues and media provocateurs are systematically dismantling the evangelical foundation of the American right. when that's kind of the premise, let's unpack this a little bit. And good morning.

Ryan Helfenbein: Yeah. Hey, good morning, Jenna. Great to be on with you. Yeah, I think a lot of people have noticed a shift. There has definitely been a shift. And then, and more noticeably if it wasn't noticeable, say in 2024, it's certainly been noticeable ever since the death of Charlie KIRK Back on September 10, 2025, where, it's clear, with names like Candace Owens, Tucker Carlsen, Megyn Kelly, Nick Fuentes and many others, that there are these ideas that have been smuggled into the right and have been propagated in the right, but they are not traditionally any of our values or beliefs. It doesn't make sense, it doesn't correlate or comport with our history, where we have stood as evangelicals, how we have thought as evangelicals. Most obvious one, and this is something that all of your listeners would immediately recognize and understand is the case for Israel, rather the case against Israel. These anti Semitic tropes that have kind of, been brought in, and they have been voiced and revoiced by Tucker, by Nick, by Candace, by Meghan, Carol Prejean, which was the impetus behind the decision to you know, basically fire her from the Religious Liberty Commission, because of her inappropriate comments and because of her, her grandstanding against the Jewish people. Evangelicals in America have understood for well over a century and beyond that, longer, by the way, than the founding of the modern state of Israel, that Christians believe that there is a future promise for the Jewish people to ultimately to return to Christ, but also to return to their land. There has been, that has been anybody that reads the Bible, that does a plain reading of scripture, reading in Revelation or reading in Jeremiah or in Isaiah, reading the prophecies, would recognize that there is a future promise of restoration. And this does not go back to 1948. It goes beyond that. The Jewish people have been in that land for over 4,000 plus years. And so all of a sudden these new claims are coming in. The question is, where are they coming from? And this post points to that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and I think that that is a really good question and that, you know, we've been asking, for a while because, you know, really until Ted, Cruz's infamous interview with Tucker Carlsen last year that I think kind of sparked this or launched this whole, conversation more mainstream. You know, there have always been, you know, kind of the segment of those, you know, who on the right, who are the replacement theology. you know, some who claim that, you know, the church replaced Israel and some of those, but it really didn't, at least in the more mainstream impact foreign policy and the overall perspective that America should still support the nation of Israel, based on, you know, biblical and theological principles. But, you know, when that interview Rhyen went more viral, it almost seemed to bring out, from, you know, maybe, out from the woodwork, you know, a lot of especially younger people that are now saying, well, wait a minute, you know, America first means that we're only for America. And so that must be inconsistent with Israel. And I think that, they're, you know, like so many other policy propositions, there's the narrative that a lot of people buy into. And then there are the People who are actually running things for other purposes and other agendas kind of, you know, behind the scenes. And you know, this is why I wrote, the piece in the Christian Post last November, that was titled the NewSong Rights Revolt is not really about Israel. And it's more about the consensus that has always been among, you know, the Republican Party and evangelicals and you know, kind of this seminal support for Israel that if you can break that consensus, you're really breaking up the right, but especially evangelicals influence. And that's where I see people like Kari Prajan, who, you know, has been a Catholic supposedly for you know like five minutes and thinks that she knows everything about Catholic theology. And I don't see her as being an honest broker here. It's more that she's trying to undermine every evangelical's influence in politics and say, well, you're wrong because the land has no meaning anymore and just because you support Israel, so therefore we don't need to listen to you. And I think that's more the undercurrent here of what a lot of people are pointing out with this new movement.

Ryan Helfenbein: Right. I wholeheartedly agree that what we're seeing, so the Red Greene alliance is something that has been brought up numerous times. this idea of socialism or communism, pairing up with Islam, the whole 1979 Iranian Revolution was fueled by that. The Ayatollah was successful in being able to bring these disparate groups together, including these pro feminist groups. So these were communist agitators, college students who wanted to see a revolution because they wanted to topple down the patriarchy, they wanted to take down the Shah, they wanted to take down capitalism and they wanted to smuggle all this in. Surprise, surprise. The moment you bring an imam in and make them the supreme ruler, the moment you sort of institutionalize Islamic, there's going to be widespread persecution. And so many of them, went off to their deaths, went off to prison, and it's been ruled by Shia Muslims ever since. What is interesting is when you look at like the talking points of Tucker Carlsen, he's trying to smuggle in the idea that we do not need to see Islam as a threat. Muslims are not a threat. actually Christians enjoy a lot of just great amenities and citizenship rights and all of that by living in Muslim countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. But he's smuggling in these ideas that Israel is really lesser of a hero and more of a foe. Just like Winston Churchill, you know, the whole Idea of Daryl Cooper coming on his program two years ago to discuss, and rewrite the history of World War II. He had him on twice, by the way. Nick Fuentes wants to smuggle in the idea of socialism that at the end of the day, if we could just shut down the border and get rid of sort of mass illegal immigration, that would be the great compromise on the Democratic side. But on the Republican side, we just need to do away with capitalism. We just need to do away with markets, the market economy, private ownership of property. We need to go into more of a collectivistic understanding. And so, Tucker, on the one hand, Islam is not something to be afraid of. In fact, you know, Islam, I mean, how dare we, you know, hold, you know, Islamic people guilty for the very beliefs, you know, of Sharia law and for the practices like we. There's no such thing as blood guilt, is what Tucker, has said from the main stage of Turning Point, you know, just, last December. Fuentes, on the other hand, wants to smuggle in the identity of communism. And so we have to be aware, and I think many of us are. What's happening. these are the main, in terms of folks on the right, they have large podcasting platforms, they have a lot of influence. They don't have a ground game. They don't have an organization. They're not knocking doors. These are not. They may not be communicating to your listeners, but they're communicating to listeners online, many of them under the age of 30. And so young men and young women are listening to them. And, many of them that are defined by a generation that doesn't attend church, hasn't read their Bible, doesn't know what any of this is. And their introduction to Christianity is, well, I want to go to a place that's really, really old, it's very ancient, that has the forms.

Jenna Helfen: Young people are seeking something transcendent in Christianity

I want to take part in something that is more permanent, more transcendent. I want to go to a Catholic Church. And so many of them. And by the way, I'm very clear, I'm not bashing Catholics or Catholicism, But I want to be clear young men who are attracted to what they perceive as a masculine version of Christianity, not a TED talking, smoke and mirror kind of evangelical box theater church. not bashing that either, but they're wanting something as an alternative, and they're seeking that. So they go to a Catholic church, a Catholic mass. You know what?

Ryan Helfenbein: I even prefer it in Latin. I don't know why, but, you know, it's because I feel like, this is ancient and it's important. And look at all the garb and all the accoutrements of worship. Look at the solemnity, look at the liturgy. It's like poetry and there's beauty. Young people are attracted to those forms, but what is lacking in all of that is substance. And so they are able, to be easily steered by these voices online, including Carol, including, Candace, and others, because they have no real theological or biblical firewall to protect them. So they are being shaped by every wind of doctrine. They're being, they're being steered by all of these myths, including a suspicion of. And so there is a, there's a rise of anti Semitic, anti Semitic, feeling. And, and there are young people who are highly suspicious of. They, they believe in many of the conspiracy theories because in the past few years, Jenna, we all can recognize many of these things have come true. and so they're being steered by this notion of there's always some man behind the curtain pulling the lever. This time, before it was Anthony Fauci. This time it's Mossad. This time it's Benjamin Netanyahu. This time it's the Jewish conspiracy, the Rothschild family, all of those things. And so they're planting and sowing these seeds of destruction in young people's minds. And it is very, very dangerous. and, you know, I would just say much of it is, it's ahistorical, it's non analytical. The moment it is challenged, most of these guys, when they speak, they go on a two or three hour podcast. They're not debating anyone. The moment they receive pushback, their entire argument breaks down. If you saw Carol Prejean on the, you know, the Religious Liberty Commission, she tried to challenge D. Patrick and Seth Dillon and others. And within moments, as soon as Seth was able to speak, her entire argument broke down. She has no clue what she's talking about. She has not studied any of this stuff, but she is m. She is mainly motivated by a mood, a feeling, and even a hatred that is not, is not based on scripture. It's certainly not based on the Holy Spirit or a love for Christ. she really does hate Jewish people. And so I think this Insurrection Barbie post that has been gone. It has gone viral. I think there's a lot to it. I really do. And we have to be wary. You know, we're heading into voting, you know, this fall. And, there's going to be a lot of suppression of that vote this fall by these voices online that are trying to confuse, the moral equation that are trying to confuse what's really at stake in this election.

Jenna Ellis: M. Rhyen, so well said. We've got to take a break here, but he's going to join me to continue the conversation on the flip side of the break. And yeah, this is a really important conversation. And whether you agree with every jot and tittle in this, this post, you should read it. You should also read the article, that I wrote in the Christian Post titled the NewSong Rights Revolt is not really about Israel. because often, you know, what appears to be the issue isn't actually just the main issue. It's a lot about what the undercurrent of what's driving, that issue. And in, in this context, trying to marginalize the evangelical influence because historically we have been, the voters that have been, you know, around, 30% or so of the electorate, have voted heavily Republican, been anchored in conservatism, the biblical worldview and church networks. That's what they're trying to marginalize. So, we're going to talk to Rhyen Helfenbein right after this.

Ryan Helfenbein says New Right is trying to undermine evangelical influence

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm here with my special guest this morning, Rhyen Helfenbein, who's the vice President of Communications at Liberty University. And we're talking about, you know, this whole problem with the rise of the NewSong Right, trying to marginalize and undermine, evangelical influence in politics and policy. mainly, I think, because, about 30% approximately of the electorate, has been the Evangelical Protestant base. And it's been anchored in conservatism, biblical worldview, church networks, and, the goal as framed by this post, at least, by Insurrection Barbie. And then, you know, this has obviously been a conversation by, you know, many others. But this goal has been to replace that evangelical foundation with a different ideological framework. And this is essentially trying to replace an actual biblical worldview of legitimacy in government, understanding, the different jurisdictional purposes between the civil government, the church government and the family government with something that is more, integralist. That's why we were talking about Catholic integralism and also, ethno nationalist, you know, kind of this idea. And you see this, arise among the Christian nationalists that suggest, And another idea, Rhyen, that Tucker Carlsen, I think, has been trying to smuggle in is this idea that, nations and borders and the land and demographics and geography aren't what make a nation, but it's just a shared, race and heritage. And this has kind of seeped into, more of the immigration conversations. I think this has, a lot to do with the rise of antisemitism. But, you know, it's kind of just, overall, this whole goal is to replace the biblical worldview and the foundation of American, government that is rooted, of course, in the biblical worldview that transcends, you know, any time and specific nation, and put in a different ideological framework that would fundamentally change the GOP into a different party with different goals. And this is really dangerous, Rhyen. And why I, think with the Catholic integralists as well as the Christian nationalists, these are ideologies of a civil government that Christians absolutely need to push back against.

Ryan Helfenbein: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I want to make a couple of quick distinctions. So when we talk about Catholic integralism, what we're really kind of talking about is a European style model that predates it goes back before the Protestant Reformation. And so it's the idea that the church sits at the head of government, that there is no separation of church and state. And it's the idea that the Vatican rules, that the popes decide bishops, you know, anointing kings, if you will. and so, you know, it's kind of that crusader type mentality. By the sword, but not by the spirit, the Spirit of God. And so, you know, this is where mass persecution was happening, the Inquisitions. This is where the state had this authority, that if you were not abiding by the doctrines of the Catholic Church, you would be persecuted, even put to death. the Protestant Reformation was so successful, it birthed two nations. one was the British nation. you look at the glorious revolution of 1688, that was largely successful. We had the English Bill of Rights after that, thank you very much. Because that, that made its way into the American Bill of Rights and influenced, our American Revolution. Because we said, hey, what happened in 1688? We're holding the same thing. This government doesn't represent us. the king is an outlaw king. obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God. That was John Knox. America was built on the foundation of government. Yes, sits under God's authority, but the church is not the head of the government. so there is a separation of church and state. But, at the same time, that does not mean a secular government. That does not mean, that the government is emancipated from ultimately owing its allegiance to God. And, so there is a Christian morality and an informal founding, that happened, in 1788, when we put the Constitution together. So religious liberty was defined by Protestantism. Catholicism did not produce or birth religious liberty. That is so critically important that people understand that, that this nation, that was defined by a kind of Christian pluralism. Yes, you had Catholics. Yes, you had, Jewish people, synagogues early on, but you had Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Shakers, old lights, new lights, all of those going into, you know, the formation of this country. And so we might have worshiped at different places on Sunday morning, but we were one nation under God, and religious liberty won the day. And so this kind of Francoism or, you know, this idea of, you know, a kind of Christian king, you know, we need to turn this into a monarchy once again. We need to do away with the original project of America. We need to reinstitute some kind of Catholic integralism because, you know, this Protestant experiment has run amok. Look, secularism is the great hijacker, I think, of the American experiment, that came along in the 1950s and 1960s. And we need to get back to an understanding of our original founding, which is one nation under God. And so the whole thing about what's happening in the conservative movement on the right, these are not conservative actors. I want to go ahead and say this. Tucker Carlsen, he might have been a conservative once. He's not behaving like one right now. Candace Owens is not behaving like a conservative. Nick Fuentes is definitely not a conservative. So they are attacking the 87% that vote Republican, which are evangelicals, and they're trying to break that apart. If you look at Catholic voting, it's roughly 51, 52, 53%. Catholics vote for Republicans, but, a lot of them vote for Democrats as well. Seven in ten Jewish voters vote Democratic. So, so they recognize they have to attack the evangelical vote. And so they're importing these ideas to dissuade evangelicals in what has been historic voting patterns, historic voting values, and the philosophy that is dominated on the right. They are trying to break that. And Israel is a big part of it. But I think one of the things, too, and I want to be really careful to mention this, evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals, are asking questions that are good questions. These are not bad questions.

Jenna Frum: The modern state of Israel is not synonymous with biblical Israel

Like a question that I get often from young people, even at Liberty University, hey, is, you know, the modern state of Israel, is that the same as biblical Israel in the Old Testament? Or is that the same as the Israel that is promised in Revelation? And so I want to say this very quickly. The simple answer, it's a twofold answer. The simple answer is actually, on its face, no. The modern state, the secular state of Israel, is not the same or synonymous with the biblical Israel, but it is coterminous with the biblical Israel. And that's a really important distinction to make. And what do I mean by that? If you look at the Knesset, it's a plurality of, different representations, different political parties. You have secular, you have non believing, you have non Jewish citizens in Israel. You even have Arab Muslims that make up 20% of the Israeli population. So they're all represented in the government. The modern state of Israel, we would be foolish, just flatten that distinction. But what we recognize is that in the Jewish Diaspora is the spreading of the Jewish population around the world. A large part of that population, the Jewish population, lives in the United States, and over 50% of that population worldwide lives in the modern state of Israel. The biblical Israel of promise is contained within the modern state. And that is so critically important for evangelical thinkers to recognize and to understand. You cannot separate or split the modern state from the biblical Israel promise because they are coterminous with one another. It would be like Solomon dividing the baby in half. And so that is something for us to understand. Is that our argument? When you talk to somebody like a Tucker Carlsen or Nick Fuentes, why are you so supportive of Israel? Well, I have a biblical reason. I also have a moral and practical political reason. The moral reason is for 4,000 years, this has been their land. They are an ethnic people, and they're also a people of covenant, a people of promise, and they've always had claim on the land. And there has never been a time in history in which the Jewish descendants of Abraham have not lived on that land. And, this whole idea of renaming the land Palestine, which is a derivative of Philistia or Philistine, that comes after the Romans tried to wipe out the Jewish people through widespread persecution. They tried to do it by also renaming the land of Judah to Palestine. And in 1948, that all got changed back again. But for 4,000 years, Jewish people have had claim on that land, and they've always lived on that land. So there's a moral reason, there's a practical political reason, Jenna, which we all recognize and understand. The greatest bulwark of Western civilization, the defenders of the west, that is Western freedom, that is human rights, that is market capitalism, that's trade, that's modern society. Civility, has been the modern state of Israel. They are a stabilizing force, not a destabilizing, but a stabilizing force in the Middle east that has defined diplomacy for 80 plus years now. And that is a huge benefit to all Western nations, including the United States. It is America first policy to support them in that endeavor.

Jenna Ellis: So. Well said. And you know, Rhyen, this is a much longer conversation, that we'll continue to have, and we should continue to have. And for people who are just, listening, who are just kind of coming into this conversation, you know, the visible fights on the right, I think are really just surface level. The real conflict is a deep strategic and theological struggle over the identity and, and belief system of conservatism itself. We need to be talking about this more. As always, you can reach me and my team, jenna.afr.net.