Transcript

The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect biblical rights

 : 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.

President Trump authorized Operation Epic Fury to eliminate Iranian nuclear threat

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.

 : Our objective is to defend the American

 : people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.

Jenna Ellis: Well, that was President Trump on the Iran strikes. Good morning. It is Monday, March 2, and a lot happening over the weekend. On with the White House announcing yesterday, peace through strength. President Trump launches Operation Epic Fury to crush Iranian regime, end nuclear threat from the White House. In a bold and necessary exercise of American strength, President Donald J. Trump authorized Operation Epic Fury, a precise, overwhelming military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, destroy its ballistic missile arsenal, degrade its proxy terror networks, and cripple its naval forces. This operation, executed in partnership with regional allies, follows exhaustive diplomatic efforts and comes after 47 years of Iranian aggression, including attacks on US citizens, sponsorship of global terrorism, and brutal oppression of its own people. Trump has also vowed, to punish terrorists after. Now four US Service members have been killed in the Iranian operation. A fourth was announced just moments ago this morning. And so the reaction to this has been, of course, mixed with a lot of the left and some Democrat members of Congress suggesting that this is a war and President Trump doesn't have authorization absent, Congress's declaration, even though we have so much past precedent, including Democrats, who have conducted these types of airstrikes. And really, the calculation in Congress is a little bit more of, you know, just the show of, Democrat objection and being obstinate because that's all that they can do in the minority because Trump does have a veto proof majority, there. But the question really is how should we process this military operation? And it doesn't automatically mean war. We've seen that a targeted tactical military action like what Trump is describing here with Operation Epic Fury doesn't necessarily mean that it's war itself. So I think that there's a little bit of mischaracterization going on, whether or not you agree that this strike, was necessary, which I think it's interesting that none of us have all of the information of exactly, what the diplomatic efforts were where exactly Iran is in, some of their nuclear capabilities. And why now? Ah, President Trump decided that. But I, personally, I am, going to trust that our military, because I trust and supported Donald Trump for president, knows what he's doing and trust that this was necessary.

Bo French: I think this will be short lived operation

But let's welcome in Beau French, who is the chairman of the Tarrant county gop, who posted, a really great thread on X that you should read. His handle is at Bo French, Texas. But Bo, I'll just let you put it in your own words. how did you react to this, major military operation in Iran?

Bo French: Well, good morning, Jen, and thank you so much for having me on. You know, my, my first thought when I woke up was, you know, this was not unexpected. I mean, it's Trump has been, you know, building, our forces and our presence in the Middle east, you know, over the last few weeks. We know that negotiations have been ongoing for some time. And, you know, I mean, even in Trump's first term, you know, reversing the disastrous deal that, Obama had struck with Iran, you know, giving them something like 5 billion dol. And I mean, Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years. And I've watched this my entire life. I mean, I remember, well, when I was, I was a child at the time, but, you know, in 1979, there was not a lot to watch on TV. So, the evening news was important in our household. And I remember, you know, the daily counter of how many days our, Americans had been held hostage in Iran. And that went 444 days. So, you know, this is not something new. We have the bombing of the Marine barracks. We have the U.S. coal. We have, you know, countless, friends of mine who were in combat overseas, you know, were wounded, because of the IEDs, you know, manufactured and funded by Iran. And so this is something that has been going on for years. Iran has declared, you know, forever death to America. They call us the Great Satan. So, you know, people on our side of the aisle have, some have decried this because they're like, oh, it's, you know, Trump promised no more wars. And, you know, my recollection of the campaign is Trump promised no more forever wars. But, you know, in order to achieve peace, sometimes you have to punch a bully in the mouth. And I really view that as, you know, Trump's not starting a war, he's ending a war. And, you know, he's successfully taken out the entire military, leadership in Iran. And by the way, Trump does have A track record here. You know, you look back at, you know, previous administrations where they committed, you know, tons of ground forces and put, you know, soldiers on the ground at risk. This is a very different operation. This is a surgical operation, an airborne operation with, you know, drones and missile strikes and bombs. Very different than putting, you know, hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. And so I think that just based on Trump's track record of how he has dealt with conflict in the past, one, this will be short lived. two, and you know, God bless our troops. We already have had some casualties, but they were killed in Kuwait, not even in Iran. Right, because Iran launched missiles back towards our base in Kuwait. So sure, there may be some casualties, but it's not because they're on the ground in Iran. and we hope that there are none or no more, I should say. But, you know, this is the risk when, you know, even when our troops are training, there are accidents every now and then. So, you know, it is part of the, you know, the high risk of being in the military in the first place. But, you know, to conclude, really my thought is Trump has a track record. I see this as being a short operation, in and out in a very short period of time. And I think the Iranian people, I mean we've watched, you know, from the 2009 sort of, you know, Arab Spring type rising, to even recently, you know, the protests in the streets. The Iranian people are craving for the toppling of this regime. I think Trump is finally helping facilitate that for them. And this is good for American interests because it reduces the threat that Iran has posed towards American and American troops for 47 years.

Jenna Ellis: You know, and that's such an excellent point, Beau, French, that you know, Trump has never been, for the endless wars. He's never been for, you know, just a lot of military show of force for absolutely no reason. in fact, you know, in the first administration he was saying he's the only president that ah, hasn't been for endless wars and having new wars. but at some point you do need to strike, back really. I mean this isn't going on the offense when m. Clearly there have been, there has been an escalation and this has gone on for 47 years as, as people have mentioned. and this type of strategic, precise strike with a clear, laid out objective, from the White House, which I think, was really smart of them to put that out yesterday, really puts it more in context than just calling this, you know, a war. And seeing, how, how long this will go, I don't expect it to go on for, you know, months and months or years. Certainly not. and so can we expect, though, some escalation? and, and where, where do we sit politically in terms of how, you know, this may. I mean, we're only in March, but November is the midterms, and obviously the Democrats are going to want to make, hay out of this. But, you know, I think a lot of Republicans at least actually support this.

Bo French: Yeah, there's, there's no question. I mean, I think that I really wasn't, on top of the news all weekend. I was, I'm in the midst of my own campaign, so I've been barnstorming the state of Texas. But I will say, you know, from what little bit I've seen, it seems that the vast majority of Republicans are supporting the president in this, because, like I said, I think that we have a track record to point to. I mean, you know, he toppled the regime in Venezuela in just a matter of hours. Right. you know, the drone strike on Soleimani. I mean, there are, you know, clear, points in Trump's track record, even from his first term, that we can look at and know that, you know, he's not interested in committing a bunch of ground troops and having some protracted, you know, years long, trillion dollar war. again, I just have a lot of faith. I trust our president to do what he has said he was going to do and to, and to do, you know, along the lines of what he's already done. And so to me, that, that means that this could be over in just a matter of days. And, I think that, you know, if that is the case, and the Iranian people are successful in toppling the remnants of the regime, which, by the way, if you are, an Iranian leader right now, any political leader, any part of the regime, you've got to be scared to death to do anything. Because the intelligence was so incredible. On the main strike that killed, the ayatollah, there were 40 people in that room in daylight, not at night. Like a lot of our strikes have been in the past to all be there. and we waited until they were all together to take them out. They have to know that the intelligence is so good that we know where all of them are. So, you know, that everybody's, like, underground, hiding, scared to do anything. I think that, you know, that we are just seeing kind of the, you know, the last vestiges of, you know, the death rattle as they launch a few more missiles into their neighbors. but my prediction is this is over very, very quickly.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I would agree with that prediction.

For those on the right that are objecting to this, what's their argument

And so for those on the right that are objecting to this, what's their argument? And why are some on the right, thinking that somehow at, ah, this juncture and this stage, with all of the history, that they're not willing to trust President Trump's, quick and decisive actions?

Bo French: I think there's really two camps of people, who are, who are against this. The first is the people who are on the right but have always kind of been, you know, the tds, Trump derangement, type people, sort of the never Trumper, you know, people on the right, and there are a few of those and some outspoken ones also. And then the other camp is this sort of, you know, anti Israel group who, you know, think that anything that Israel wants is bad. well, sometimes, you know, Israel's, goals align with our goals and obviously, you know, they're an ally of ours. And when our goals align, we do things together. And so I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. but so I think that's really the sort of two main camps. and so like, you know, you have people like Thomas Massie or whatever, who occasionally does brilliant things and says brilliant things, but also, you know, just has this like, weird, I want to just block everything that ever happens, good or bad. And maybe it's sort of this like, libertarian streak. But, you know, my sense is, is that these people are going to look a little bit foolish, you know, in the coming days as this wraps up.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and I agree with you and I think, you know, I was thinking of Thomas Massie as well, and I actually asked him that question on X, because he wasn't specific as to why he objected to this. And is it just because there hasn't been a formal declaration of war, which, by the way, isn't necessary. and we'll get to that in the next segment. in terms of the legal and the constitutional element. But, you know, is there more to that or is he just being, is he just objecting for the sake of kind of being obstinate? I really like Thomas Massie. I think, he's most of the time focused on more conservative things. but it seems some stages you can be more obstinate and of course we can disagree with Thomas Massie or President Trump. that's the freedom that we have in this country. But, he seems to be more focused on the Epstein files, for example, like, saying that somehow, these strikes were just an attempt to dissuade the public eye from Epstein, which I just think that that's utterly ridiculous.

Bo French: Well, I mean, first of all, where were all of these people during the four years of the Biden administration when the government had all of these files? I don't remember all of these calls to release those files. So, you know, it just seems, It just seems that this is, because it's Donald Trump who's president, they want to, you know, focus on that. Which, look, I mean, everybody. Everybody I know, once those files, once everything released, once all that aired publicly, the people who did bad things, you know, we want them arrested. I mean, that's. I think that's a common sense position. But to use that, you know, constantly beat that drum when there are many other issues, you know, facing America far more critical, I think. you know, the demographic change in America, the cultural change in America, you know, the replacement that seems to be happening with, you know, bringing in third Worlders. And so, you know, my. My sense is, there are people that don't want to actually confront the real issues and just, you know, hang on to these certain things, to use them as cudgels for whatever their agenda is, is. You know. But Thomas Massie, like I said, I know Thomas. I've been around him. He's. Like I said, he is brilliant on many issues and, you know, more on the fiscal sort of conservative side, which I think is the right place to be. But oftentimes, some people like him, you know, kind of bleed over into this while, you know, we have to

Jenna Ellis: obstruct everything that happened, and we got to end it there. Beau French really appreciate it. Could not agree more. We'll be right back to talk more about Iran.

Gerard Felitti: Many in media have rushed to characterize Iran strikes

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we've been talking about the ongoing airstrikes in Iran, the potential escalation. there has been an announcement that a fourth US Service member has been killed, amid these strikes. And the responses. but what. Where does all of this stand in terms of whether or not this actually constitutes a war war, or is this just a strategic military operation? Ah, so many in the media have rushed to characterize this is now the Iran war. And I'm seeing even a lot of, hosts on conservative podcasts and so forth this morning, and over the weekend, using the leftist framing of saying, you know, that this is an Iran war. I don't think that it actually qualifies, at least yet. And this is why Congress, doesn't have to have that declaration of war. and so let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who's the senior counsel for the Lawfare Project. Talk more about this. Gerard, you know, I don't think that President Trump needed congressional, authority to conduct these airstrikes, certainly, not with, the precedent that we've had in recent US History, but because this is a short, strategic, military operation for a specific, articulated purpose. but, where. Where should we focus on, how to break this down?

Gerard Filitti: I think we start by exactly what you said, what the obligations are when we start an armed conflict or a war. War isn't defined by statute. War is. It's basically whatever the President and Congress say it is. The Congress has the power to declare war, but we have not had a declared war, since World War II. Everything else has been called an armed conflict, whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, operations in Syria and Afghanistan. So we have to first qualify. What this is the President can use has the legal Authority under Article 2 as Commander in Chief, and this has been borne out by practice from administrations on both sides of the aisle to engage armed conflict in order to protect the interests of the United States. And that is the justification that Donald Trump is using, here in Iran.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, And so, you know, well, well, the Congress, is suggesting, and Democrats are going to try to, you know, force this vote. And even, I think, you know, unfortun, unfortunately, some Republicans may cross over the aisle on this, like Thomas Massie we were talking about in the last segment, for example, to, you know, to vote on this resolution, how. My understanding is that it would be a resolution basically saying that, you know, Trump didn't have authorization for this and would need authorization not to somehow back him up by saying, okay, we're going to go ahead and have this declaration, from Congress. And, really, I don't think that, one, I don't think that this will, will pass. but second, I don't think that it's necessary, in this context. And, you know, it may be that the entire military operation is, is concluded even before, you know, the vote could even go through both houses.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that. Well, first, let's take a step back and see, take it a little bit out of the realm of law and back into politics. I think it's important to point out that presidents on both sides, sides have used their power under Article 2 to engage in armed conflict. And Congress, whoever was in charge of Congress, objected because they see themselves as the arbiters of declaring war under Article 1. So there's that inherent tension between Congress and the executive, no matter who's in control. When President Obama, was engaging in hostilities in Libya and in Syria, Congress then said, no, you shouldn't be doing this. You need to exercise, your power under the War Powers Resolution and we need to approve it. So this is not just about Donald Trump. This is an issue of Congress and the executive and who has the power. But I think to your point, you're right. First of all, if there is a resolution that's passed by Congress to stop President Trump from engaging in Iran, President Trump can veto it, and then Congress would need two thirds of a vote in order to override that veto, which is not likely to happen. So that would be a very symbolic gesture more than anything.

Jenna Ellis: Right. And that's where probably, the Democrats and the objectors are going, is they just want to make media headlines and be on the record as objecting. but for all practical purposes, this is kind of a non starter. And yet, you know, here we're taking time, obviously, because this is an issue that has been ongoing over the weekend. And I, think our listeners need to be very clear on, you know, whether or not you support the war, or the strikes, rather. See, I'm even, I'm even in the, in the. Everybody's calling it a war, the strikes, for whatever political reason. The reality is this is the consequences of election, elections. I mean, we elected Donald Trump and he's choosing to use his Article 2 power under the US Constitution to conduct these strikes. And, and that's the consequence of having this president where if we had, I mean, thank the Lord we don't have a Kamala Harris, this would be a very different world right now, and a very different, thought process and foreign policy from her administration. And so, you know, when we look at this, in the context of the Constitution, a lot of people are also bringing, up the War powers Resolution from 1973. This was the law that was enacted after Vietnam to limit the president's ability to use force without congressional approval. And it just requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces. And, you know, does this really change or does it add a layer of protection, to President Trump's argument that this, of course, was within his Article 2 authority.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that this. Look, I think that the War Powers Resolution does apply. You will hear arguments that it may not, that Donald Trump doesn't have to notify Congress, but the way the resolution is written, it uses the word hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is likely and whether or not what we call Iran. Iran is a war, it certainly is a hostility, it's armed combat. so I think that the requirements of the War Powers Resolution are triggered. Now. President Trump has notified Congress, he notified a Gang of eight with one exception, was not available before hostilities began. and what happens next is in theory, Trump has to withdraw forces unless Congress authorizes them within 60 days plus a 30 day grace period. because Congress recognizes that withdrawals take time. But I think what we will see are two things. One is this will not last 60 days. Donald Trump has said that he expects this to be four or five weeks. Ah, so we can expect to have a wind down and conclusion long before authorization would be required. I also think that Congress will probably get attacked together and not withhold authorization, especially as we're hearing that even European countries are starting to come more on board with this, with the attacks in Iran.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so I think it's going to be pretty clear, in the forthcoming days, if it's not, hopefully to our audience at least already, that you know, any sort of objection from Congress is you know, is really just for the media purposes. And so looking at the strikes themselves, I mean this also raises a broader question, and the broader political question about immigration. And there's been a lot of talk on the right, especially about not importing anyone from Islamic countries. And we just saw over the weekend as well a shooting in Austin, Texas where a man from ah, Senegal who carried out that mass shooting. and this coming from Andy Ngo, who's a reporter, killing at least three and injuring 14 others, was active on social media ranting about Islamophobes and Zionists. He entered the US on a tourist visa and was later naturalized as a citizen under the Obama administration. that coming from Andy's reporting and and so as you know, some of this escalates, at least in the political realm. how important is it, Gerard, that the current Congress, really look at how much they can and I think should revise a lot of the loopholes that have allowed too many people not only to come in through illegal immigration, which the Trump administration has really focused on, but I think the broader question is, even for legal immigration, why are we importing our demise?

Gerard Filitti: At the end of the day, what happened is we loosened our qualifications, the way we screen people, what we want from people coming into this country. And this really started back in the 1990s with Bill Clinton. Before that, when we still had a Cold War, when we had the Soviet Union, people who wanted to immigrate to the US or come here on a tourist visa, they had to go through very rigorous screenings. You wouldn't even get a visa if you couldn't prove that you had financial wherewithal to take care of yourself in an emergency, or had health insurance or had some guarantor in the United States. And today we've gotten to a point where we allow people who hold views, openly hold views that America is evil, that America needs to be destroyed, that Islamism is what needs to be governing the planet. We allow people who share those views openly to come in and become citizens. We have lost our standards. And it's crucial for Congress to act because as we've seen from the courts, President Trump can't do it alone. He's done a lot by executive order, but there are limits to that. So we really do need Congress to come in, step in and revamp the immigration system because it's broken. We're allowing terrorists into this country, we're allowing our democracy to be destroyed by people who don't share our values. And this is ultimately Congress's job to step in and fix the loopholes in the laws.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is one of the things that I really wish a, ah, Congress would be focused on before the midterms and push through a solid immigration reform package. And they could do it.

Gerard Kaplan: Congress should act to strengthen border security against terrorism

I mean, regardless of the, the very slim majority, and regardless of the Democrats objecting, regardless of the filibuster and the Senate, I mean, if this Republican Congress really wanted to do that and had the political will, they could. And this is the moment that I think that they should, because as we're talking as well, Gerard, about the potential for, ah, escalation of retaliation. I mean, this isn't just, you know, strikes, against Israel like we've seen in the last 48 hours. this isn't just, you know, the, the, strikes against us, bases and, you know, other embassies and so forth that we are accustomed to in terms of retaliation. But there's also talk about, you know, some of these, terrorist cells that are in the United States already, and a lot of these People, have come in through, the immigration system, whether legally or illegally. they are here. And that's a problem that really does deserve attention, and especially as we're contemplating, moving forward with, with the American objectives and preserving the west and, you know, this entire conversation about Western values, when you. In the context of, the. The Minnesota Somali fraud, I mean, you know, all of these things not just related specifically to Iran, this becomes an incredibly important question. And so, you know, will Congress have the political will? I don't see that happening, but I'm gonna push for it anyway.

Gerard Filitti: I agree with you. This is something that all of us have to push for. All of our. All of your listeners have to push for as well, with their representatives. You're absolutely right about. Not to scare people. But, yes, we know that terrorists are here. We've caught some connected to the IRGC and to Hezbollah crossing the border, and that's ones we caught. How many we did not ca. We know that there have been even assassination attempts on US Soil directed by Iran, even against President Trump. And it's not just Iran. China operates secret police stations in the United States. Communist China is operating on our soil. And all of this is because we do not have attention on the immigration system before President Trump came to office. Congress absolutely needs to act. They need to support laws that strengthen our borders, that strengthen our security, so that we continue surviving as a democracy by not allowing terrorists and those who destroy us into our country.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and this goes well beyond, even just the immigration question, which I think is the tip of the spear and where we need to focus, but in terms of protecting our way of life and the American way of life.

Report suggests FBI secretly recorded phone call between Susie Wiles and attorney

switching topics a little bit here, Gerard, but I want your commentary on this as well. one of the stories that actually should be bigger in the news right now, is not only about the, testimony from the Clintons, during Epstein, and somebody commented on social media, which I thought was brilliant, that said, you know, anytime the Clintons, testify, you know, history shows that, you know, we go out and bomb somebody and, you know, hey, that's, Whether that's, That's a coincidence. you know, I don't know. But, But then also there was a report over the weekend that, in 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. And the report suggests. And this is from Reuters, and the attorney has now pushed back on this. So, you know, we'll See, where the truth lies. But at least according to the report, Wiles attorney was, allegedly aware the call was being recorded and consented to it. But Susie Wiles was not. And you know this, and of course her lawyers coming out and saying, no, no, no, because, you know, I deserve to be disbarred. Which is true. but in the midst of all of this that we saw, not just from m, the very beginning and, the Russia collusion hoax and the probe and even before that, the whole spygate situation that started in 2015, now we're learning that the left and the Democrats didn't stop, spying on Trump, undermining him. And I've even found out, that my own phone records, when I was an attorney for President Trump, while he was the sitting President of the United States, that my phone records, were being given over to, the Democrats, and that this was something that, the Democrats were looking into. And it's just, it's utterly horrendous to think about how they are abusing and misusing, authority to try to essentially spy on their political opposition.

Gerard Filitti: And worse than that, and I say this as an attorney, nothing, nothing is more sacrosanct in the practice of law than that attorney client privilege. And you have to be able to rely on counsel to talk to your lawyer freely and openly and get advice. And look at the lawfare that the Democrats have waged. They go after not just Donald Trump or people who are accused of doing things, they go after their lawyers too. They're trying to send a message that no matter what you do, we will get you. We will abuse every tool that we have in order to compromise you and, and leave you in debt, paying legal bills and not even being able to trust your lawyers because no one wants to represent you, because we might prosecute them too. This is the lawfare that the Democrats have been waging, since Donald Trump, and it's gotten exponentially worse. We really do have to be concerned about what happens if Democrats take the White House in three years. I think we will see an escalation unlike any we've seen before. Ah, unless we find a way to fix that structure, unless we reform these government agencies so that they can no longer be abused by those in power to spy on us and to intimidate us.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, someone who, is very familiar with, with lawfare, and, you know, it was incredible to me, how the, how Biden's DOJ was willing to go after you Know, even the lawyers, representing President Trump. And, you know, just the entire situation, is. Was completely unprecedented to see that then, that even continued into now, this next administration. I mean, in 2023, that would have been when Trump was, a private citizen, but a declared candidate for the office of president. And, you know, someone who wasn't in the government at that time, you know, Susie Wiles, who was just on his campaign. and so, you know, this is something that there needs to absolutely be accountability for. but I don't see. I mean, you know, just like the immigration situation, I don't see accountability ever happening. It's just we keep hearing report after report after report of all of this, you know, spying and lawfare and all of these things, that. That have happened to President Trump and his associates. And yet it doesn't seem like there's ever any sort of accountability. Why not? I mean, it almost seems also like Trump is just sort of moving along and, and isn't really focused on the people who not only targeted him, but, I mean, he survived two assassination attempts. I mean, it seems like he should be a little more focused on this.

Gerard Filitti: Well, look, I think. Not to be too cynical, but I think that part of the issue is that everyone, once they're empowered, tries to use some of the tools available to them to settle debts, to settle scores, to, gain the system. And that's not a critique on anyone necessarily, but that is just the reality of how government is often abused and why we need those checks and those balances. I think Trump is also focused on restoring the economy, making America great again. Now we have this conflict with Iran, that Iran has killed over a thousand Americans and injured thousands more in conflicts throughout the years. So there are a lot bigger priorities that President Trump has had so far. But I do think that there is. There are things that are being done, whether it started with Doge and cutting people in departments. We know that Kash Patel is firing people at the FBI who have been involved in, in some of this bad activity. And that should be a deterrence to others that should be sending a message that these government agencies are cleaning house. But ultimately, we do need more safeguards. Maybe there should be a law that's passed that shifts fees when the government goes after someone or abuses, its power. People are entitled to compensation. Sometimes that's the measure that gets people to stop behaving badly. There's no short or simple answer to this, but I think you're absolutely right that more needs to be done. And President Trump should be the one to do it, because this will only intensify after he's out of office.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, you know, for the people who are currently in, his administration, who likely, would be targeted if Democrats regain control, I mean, Trump won't have another election, or, you know, ability after he's out of office to issue pardons, for example, or, you know, to, to reclaim some of that ground. So it's, it's really concerning. And to your point, you know, yes, Trump has a lot of other things to focus on, and there were a lot of people, even on the right, concerned that you, maybe his second administration would be characterized just by retribution and retaliation, which it hasn't been. But at the same time, he doesn't personally have to go and do everything. I mean, I wish that there was a task force or, you know, some. Some other, body of the doj. I mean, where is Pam Bondi on this? You know, to, to look at some of this and then to perhaps suggest to Congress if they were doing their job, to say that, that targeting political opponents for the purpose, and the obvious purpose of simply, making their lives miserable, draining their resources, ruining their reputation, all the things that go into lawfare, should not be legal. And, you know, where those lines are drawn is an argument for, that type of legislation. But that argument needs to happen and it needs to happen publicly. And I don't even really see anyone on Trump's team focused on this. It's, It's. Again, it's kind of like they've just moved on and they're not thinking about how Democrats are already saying, Gerard, that if they get back into power, they're going to come after Trump just because they hate him.

Gerard Filitti: Oh, of course they are. They, they already have their list. They're making a list and checking it twice of who they're going to prosecute, and who they're going to go after. And I think you're absolutely right that Congress needs to take this more seriously, and so does Pam Bondi. You know, we had a congressional committee looking at lawfare. Maybe it's time to revive that, and call Pam Bondi and have her testify what she's doing, to clean house at the DOJ and to make sure that we have the tools that we need to prevent this from happening in the future. It's not an easy task, but Congress has to step up and we can't ignore the fact that time is running out and this requires immediate attention, because lawfare isn't going away, it's only intensifying. We're seeing that, we're seeing the plans and machinations already in place by the left. And do we really want to be a country where we're spending so much time defending ourselves in court instead of pursuing the job that our elected officials are there to do?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And you know, as you rightly said, Gerard, this, is only intensifying and it's just going to, I think, get worse, when Trump is out of office. I mean, unless another Republican, ah, follows him and we have maybe a little bit of breathing room, between, you know, the era of Trump and then, you know, whoever comes after, if that person and administration is perhaps, you know, characterized by something a little different than maga. But, you know, even if that happens, the left is going to want to pursue their political opposition, at all costs. And if they are not held accountable, then they're just getting away with it. And, they are, they're just going to continue to escalate that when there's no accountability. I mean, it's the same thing as, you know, as Iran. I mean, if there's no accountability and there aren't any airstrikes, metaphorically of course, against, the left to say, no, there are consequences for your actions and you've got to stop, then they'll just go ahead and continue and they're just biting their time until they're back in power. And this is why, again, elections have consequences. So, this is something where we need to be focused on all of the issues, not just what the media, headlines of the day are. Jared Felitti, always really appreciate your commentary. You can follow him on X. And we'll be right back with more.

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

Florida Senate is voting soon on Senate Bill 1296 to reform teachers unions

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, in some of the wars going on on the home front, there are still conservatives that are, going after education and trying to protect education in a good way. And here in the free state of Florida, the Senate is voting soon on Senate Bill 1296, which is common sense and constitutional. According to a recent op ed in Florida politics that describes for decades a few left wing teachers unions have advanced a radical agenda out of step with the views of most educators. And, and union bosses routinely fight to keep schools closed, block public disclosure of class syllabi, encourage student protests during instructional time, and promote ideology in the classroom. This is basically political activism. And so in this context, SB 1296 is a clear and reasonable Reform that makes sense for Florida's public sector unions, especially teachers unions. It's modeled after a similar legislation in, Iowa and Wisconsin. And the legislation simply updates the process for certifying unions each year, ensuring that they remain accountable to members they claim to represent. Well, of course the left is panicking, because they want to keep control of publicly funded institutions. And so CBS article says teachers unions are targeted in a new bill. The clear goal of the Freedom foundation and Governor Ron DeSantis is to wipe out the teachers unions. And I'm thinking, okay, more, more power to them. But let's welcome in Florida's commissioner of Education Anastasios Kamoutsis. and you know, I think this is a great bill because obviously teachers unions need to be reformed.

Anastasios Kamoutsas: Well, thank you, Jenna. Yeah. We are seeing union leadership prioritize ideological activism over improving classroom instruction and student outcomes again and again. The Florida Education association recently invited speaker who's a well known statewide activist that has repeatedly encouraged students to protest over the years, to attend their press conference. And the speaker urged students to protest during the school day, even calling the action required. Union representatives stood behind the speaker nodding in agreement. And this raises serious concerns about the organization's priorities and judgment as walkouts during schools cause students to miss critical learning time and face unnecessary safety risks. Just recently in West Palm Beach, a student was struck by a vehicle and hospitalized during a school walkout held during regular class hours. In Lee county, thousands of students were disciplined because they walked out to protest school with more than 150 students being suspended, something that will follow them forever. And students well being and academic success should never take a backseat to political agendas. This is not the only time the union has put their own activism above students and teachers. We have continuously seen unions blocking the pay raises that teachers across our state rightfully deserve. They've also wasted their members dues to fight baseless lawsuits including an attempt to keep schools closed during COVID And let's not forget the bad actors that they fight for the very few, educators who engage in misconduct that they try to put back into the classroom. In Miami Dade, for example, back in 2024, there was a teacher who was reported to have improperly restrained a year old ese nonverbal student by strapping the child to a chair and tying the student's hands together with the child's sweater for the duration of the school day. The restraints were not removed for restroom breaks or lunch. The union fought to put that individual back in the classroom. In Brevard County There was a teacher who beat his two children with a belt, resulting in injury. A later DCF report found that the teacher who beat their children, his children, also beat his wife at home on a regular basis. And though the teacher was removed from the home, the union fought to keep them in the classroom. The Florida Education association should be focused on advancing student learning, not encouraging students to leave the classrooms to protest law enforcement activity or engage in any ideological activism. But instead, the union has chosen to prioritize, the political agenda over academic achievement. And it undermines the core mission of our schools, which is to provide students with a high quality education in a safe environment.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and all of this is just so common sense, you know, I mean this, it just is so obvious what school, ah, time and instruction should be used for, what it shouldn't, how these teachers unions are, political activism elements. And, yet where does the Florida legislature stand with this? I mean, do you expect this bill to pass? Yes.

Anastasios Kamoutsas: So today the bill is in front of the Senate and the Fiscal Policy Committee. And I do want to talk about that bill.

Bill would require unions to secure support from a majority of all eligible employees

Let's talk about the current lay of the land. the law right now says that unions do not have, who do not have 60% membership, must face elections to recertify their bargaining authority, and they receive recertification with the majority of those who vote in the election. Let me remind you, unions receive exclusive workplace representation even when only a small fraction of employees support them. We see it at the university level. For example, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University has, out of 202 graduate students, that it represents the union. Only three showed up to vote at the recertification vote, and those three voted in favor of the union. That was sufficient to represent the 202. Similarly, at University of South Florida, they represent over 2,100 professors. Only 42 people showed up to vote. 41 said, yes, keep the union. One said no. That was sufficient to keep the union at the university level. But Even at the K12 level, in Santa Rosa county, you had 364 teachers show up and vote of a union that represents over 2,000 teachers. So that's less than 18%. And in Gadsden county, it was even worse with less than 15%. So this bill would require unions to secure support from a majority of all eligible employees, not just the majority of those activists who show up to vote. If a union seeks to represent workers, it should demonstrate the support of a clear majority. And with these bills in place, that will be the standard for Florida. This legislation will Also ensure that teacher salary increases that have been championed by Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature are, provided to teachers in a timely manner and are not held up by unions who are seeking to add to their membership or hold it hostage, as a negotiation tactic. so I appreciate representative Persons Maleka in the House and Senator Martin in the Senate for championing this legislation to provide accountability and transparency to the unions. Look, the bottom line is this, unions must represent the workers and be held accountable to that. And this bill will do just that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that's an important point. You raise Stasi about how this would, shift the election to not just be about the activists who actually show up, but about the members that it represents. And what, you know, what CBS Miami is complaining about is is saying that imagine if this were applied to all elections, a candidate wouldn't just have to get a majority of the people who vote, they would have to get a majority of everyone registered to vote. And they're, they're trying I think to compare kind of apples and oranges here because you know, obviously this isn't just about participation in terms of the activism of the unions. This is about ensuring that membership is fairly represented, which I don't think you can compare necessarily to an electorate in a, in a broader election sense.

Anastasios Kamoutsas: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think you're talking apples and oranges here. I think when you talk about how is the union even started, it's because you're getting folks that are seeking a majority buy in to decide that this entity is going to have exclusive authority to represent the whole And so I think what we're looking at here is wanting to maintain that majority so that the folks who are you know, being represented by this union, it's actually reflecting their values. What I've heard from teachers from across the state is the same thing that I shared in a recent op ed. The union has lost its weight. They are more focused on ideological advancements than they are representing the teachers that they purport to represent. They should be focused on wages and benefits and what truly adds value to the profession as opposed to, you know, suing the Department of Education over keeping schools closed, suing the Department of Education over preventing students from having access to syllabi 45 days, before registering for class, suing districts like in Lee county who were trying to get their top performing teachers into the lowest performing schools and giving them pay increases to do that. But the union sued because they wanted to collectively bargain those salary increases first. That's not what they're there for. They're there to advance education and the teachers that they represent.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. Well, if you're in Florida, contact, your, members in the legislature, particularly in the Senate today, and, give them your thoughts on this. And, hopefully this will ultimately pass. We'll get some reform, and then see this reflected across the country as Florida continues to lead the way. So thank you so much, Commissioner, for, your work on this. And that's all the time that we have for today. The hour goes by fast when there are so many headlines, but we will be back tomorrow. And as always, you can reach me and my team, jenna.fr.net.