Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God, not government
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.
The Department of Justice is suing Colorado and Denver over gun laws
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, May 12, and the Department of Justice is really, just getting going, I think, after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch took over. And finally the DOJ is acting on, some cases that I think they really should. Unfortunately, they didn't act on indicting Anthony Fauci. The deadline, actually expires today. So Rand Paul yesterday was telling the DOJ via X that, it needed to at least initiate, some kind of charges against Foushee. And in my opinion they should have and then deal with the question of the pardon after the fact. Obviously that is a complete defense. If the pardons, would have survived a legal challenge, but then at least they would have preserved the ability. If the pardons, ended up being, ineffective and they were not legally valid, they would have preserved the charges under the statute of limitations. But, we'll see where it all goes from here. But the DOJ is suing the state of Colorado, my former home state, over a law restricting the capacity of rifle cartridges. So this is just yet another attempt by what has become a really, unfortunately blue, progressive state, liberal, state, to restrict the, the exercise of free exercise of the Second Amendment and, the right to keep and bear arms. M. So this coming from Colorado Newsline. Supporters of the band decried the Trump administration's lawsuit as a dangerous threat to public safety. hilarious, actually. And so the Trump administration is suing Colorado over its law restricting large capacity magazines for rifles a day after it sued Denver over its assault weapons ban. So, two of those, lawsuits are now being initiated by the Department of Justice, so Colorado and then also, in Denver. And so the lawsuit filed by the U.S. department of justice last week says that the state's restrictions on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violate the Second Amendment rights of Coloradoans. So Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement, colorado's ban on certain magazines is political virtue signaling at the expense of Americans. Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Under my direction, the division Second Amendment Section will continue to defend law abiding Americans rights against unconstitutional restrictions on their right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens. And last week Dylan also wrote to Denver and Colorado officials saying the department would file more lawsuits if they did not voluntarily comply with with demands to cease enforcement of bans on semiautomatic rifles and large capacity magazines. And Denver city attorney, Mikko Brown responded calling the request, quote, baseless, irresponsible and a clear overreach of the federal government's power. yeah, apparently he's never read the Constitution. But both of these lawsuits that have been filed say enforcement of the state and city policies deprive citizens of their second amendment rights. And the lawsuits make identical requests of the court to prohibit Denver and the state of Colorado from enforcing their bans and order that they adopt new policies and procedures.
Taylor Rhodes says the Department of Justice is suing over Colorado gun restrictions
So let's welcome in Taylor Rhodes, who is the communications director for the national association of Gun Rights in a Colorado. And so Taylor, I'm really happy to see the Department of Justice step in here.
Taylor Rhodes: This is a complete 180 from even you know, 60 days ago, from what the Department of Justice was, is doing certainly a complete 180 of Trump's first term on guns at least. And it's a breath of fresh air the national association for Gun Rights. Actually our former attorney, a guy named Barry Arrington is now leading that second Amendment division, at doj. He's actually sued over this magazine, ban, once in state court and separate time in federal court. I think this is the third time he is now sued over it, now with the doj. And we're extremely excited for the work the DOJ is about to do in Colorado and presumably many states around the country to restore the freedoms of Second amendment rights for Americans. Not just in Colorado but around the, around the country.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. That's awesome. And I actually, I didn't know that Barry Arrington was over at the doj. That's fantastic. I've known him for years and he's an excellent attorney. So that's incredible. And these are really good moves by the doj, to ensure that states, blue states, like Colorado, hopefully they'll be, the DOJ will be suing in other states similarly. you know they had a win a while ago in NewSong York, but you know that was obviously not under Todd Blanch and this particular doj. But we've seen that the challenges at least over the Last decade, decade or so to some of these restrictions have been upheld, ultimately by the Supreme Court. And even though we haven't had, you know, a lot of Supreme Court cases, I think the last one that they really be, besides the NewSong York case that they really got into the Second Amendment was Heller back in what, 2005. So there hasn't been a lot of jurisprudence. But every time that this has been challenged, even on a lower court level, generally the Second Amendment has prevailed and these restrictions have been, they have been found unconstitutional. So I would expect that the DOJ will win here.
Taylor Rhodes: We're very hopeful. The 10th Circuit is one of those circuits that it can go either way. but we are hopeful that things go well for Colorado gun owners in this circumstance. I mean they need the relief. Colorado has gone hog wild, with passing gun control over the last, 13 years. and this magazine ban that has been on the books for 13 years has been the cornerstone of all of their gun control, that they have passed. And getting that off the books would be a major blow to the left.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, gun control advocates are basically people who just want to restrict lawful carry. they claim that these types of magazine restrictions are in order to save lives because during mass shootings, it forces shooters to reload more often. But that argument to me presumes that everyone who would carry this type of magazine would do that for some kind of nefarious purpose. And it's just a slippery slope to say, well then even just carrying any sort of weapon would enable a mass shooter, you know, or even any sort of magazine or something that's not, you know, reloadable, like an old revolutionary, ah, war musket or something, you know. So it seems like that type of argument, doesn't really hold a lot of water.
Taylor Rhodes: Well, it doesn't. And even more importantly, you know, now with the Bruin test, we have to find things that are in common use. we believe that there are literally, literally millions upon millions upon millions of these things that are in circulation, right now. We believe they're certainly in common use. they're not, out of the ordinary or dangerous. they're a tool used by millions of law abiding Americans for legal purposes. and hopefully the court agrees with that.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And this type of challenge, I mean, it's interesting to me to see how the restrictions on gun rights are obviously more prevalent in blue states than red states, but that There hasn't been some sort of, reciprocal type of legislation that Congress has implemented to basically establish a baseline and say, okay, states can be even less restrictive, for example, which is how they should act with fundamental constitutionally protected rights. But they can't be more restrictive. And so, this is something that I would love to see this Congress, I mean, among a myriad of many other pieces of legislation that they really need to act on. And it's been ah, frustrating I think to a lot of us that this Congress hasn't really done a lot. but is there any particular kind of legislation that the national association for Gun Rights is advocating for in this vein or within the Second Amendment context to make it even more clear to these blue states that this type of legislation would violate the Constitution?
Taylor Rhodes: Well, I think the number one piece that we're advocating for is a simple idea called national Constitutional carrying. Right now 29 states have Ah, a law on the books that is very simple. If you can legally possess a handgun, you can legally carry that handgun. National constitutional carry would level that playing field that not just folks in red states could enjoy that right, but those in blue states as well saying the Constitution is your carry permit, the way the founders intended. And that legislation is something that we're pushing alongside Thomas Massie in the House and Mike Lee in the Senate. And we're very hopeful that that piece of legislation, would, I mean think about this. I mean Gavin Newsom's head would explode. but think about all of the people in California, that would be, would be relieved of the chains of gun control, and not have to go through one of the most rigorous permitting systems in the country. it would be a fantastic piece of legislation.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Thomas Massie, and Mike Lee have been advocating for this for years. And it seems like in a Congress where the Republicans do control the House and the Senate, this would be at least passable in the House and then, you know, turning to the Senate, but it's really frustrating that this hasn't been done sooner.
If the DOJ wins this case in Colorado, other state gun laws could become vulnerable
But if, the, if the DOJ wins this case in Colorado, are there other state gun laws that suddenly become vulnerable? or is this magazine restriction? Magazine, ah, capacity restriction Only currently in Colorado.
Taylor Rhodes: No, there's states all over the country that have restrictions just like this. I mean you look at California, you look at Illinois, Washington, has it. You know, in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney passed a bill like this when he was the governor There, There are states like this all over the country, that need relief, just like Colorado does. I actually envision the DOJ does. if they can get a win off of this, they will go then file cases like that in all of these states. Additionally, I think that they likely, start playing a little bit of whack, a mole here. and you know, in Florida there's gun control. In Alabama there's gun control. I would not be surprised in states like, Florida and Alabama that they sue over, some of the gun control that's on the books, like Florida's red flag law or Alabama's, law that prohibits, people from carrying at a protest. I think that the DOJ is very likely to go after some of that stuff.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I would hope that, that here in Florida, our attorney general, even on the state level, who's a great conservative, would sue over some of those things as well. because I agree with you. I mean these. These, Some of these things that were passed specifically like Colorado in the aftermath of the Aurora theater shooting, I think was when this magazine, capacity, legislation restriction was implemented. And just like Florida, you know, that was after a shooting. And it was. And it was somewhat of a PR response of the legislature, which then has a ripple effect and ultimately, ends up infringing on citizens, rights. And so, the doj, though, in its civil Rights division under Hermeet Dhillon, now has a dedicated second Amendment section. That's fantastic. And that's a pretty major shift in philosophy for ah, doj.
Taylor Rhodes: It certainly is. You would not have seen that in Joe Biden's administration. Maybe you would have, but they would have gone out, doing the exact opposite.
Jenna Ellis: It would have been a dedicated gun control section. Yeah, absolutely correct. And so, you know, the Supreme Court has, really changed the legal landscape, for gun rights and protections. And ultimately this court, overall, at least in its majority, is more friendly, I think, to an originalist interpretation and a correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. so I'm more confident that the DOJ is confident because even if they, don't prevail at the lower courts, they end up, having confidence that the Supreme Court will go their way. but like you said, you know, the 10th Circuit is friendly. and this really boils down also to getting really good judges and also getting really good legislators. because even in states, a good state legislature could go back and and undermine their own prior bad legislation. And it wouldn't even need a legal contest, certainly.
Taylor Rhodes: So, yeah, elections are the, are the ultimate cure. Ah, to all of this. I pray that Colorado, will see the light, and change, change, change leadership. it seems unlikely right now, but, that is our hope.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Well, Taylor Rhodes, we've got to take a break here, but he's the communications director for the national association of Gun Rights, and you can follow him on X. And but yeah, as I said, this is why elections matter. because ultimately elections put our legislatures and our governors, and our federal legislatures, legislators in office. And also, we end up with, the, at least in states like Colorado that has an appointment system, through the governor and then a judicial retention system, through the voters, that ultimately matters to the courts system. And then of course, the president is the one that nominates, Supreme Court justices when there's a vacancy. So all of these things ultimately boil down to being responsible citizens. And if we want to make sure that our constitutionally protected rights are, continue to be protected, then we've got to vote wisely and vote conservatively. So we will be right back with more.
Jenna Ellis: President Trump heads to China this week amid Iran crisis
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, are we watching the emergence of a new global axis against the United States or is Trump just trying to prevent simultaneous crises with China and Iran? Well, if you look at the headlines, ah, Reuters says this stung by the Iran war, Trump heads to China in need of war wins. So that's of course their framing, but, CNBC says what's at stake for trade, ah, Taiwan and Iran in Trump's high risk summit with China's leader Xi. so President Trump is poised to meet face to face with the Chinese president this week for a much anticipated summit in Beijing. Trump will meet with President Xi Jinping amid record low voter popularity as gas prices spike due to the Iran war. Trump's trip will be, the week after Iran's foreign minister visited Beijing ahead of an expected meeting between Xi and Russia's, President Vladimir Putin, who also, according to the Independent, Europe has rejected Putin's pick for a peace mediator after the claim that the war is, quote, coming to an end. So Putin had suggested a former German chancellor, Gerard, Schroeder could help mediate peace talks. But many European leaders rejected the idea. And Putin told reporters on Saturday he believed the war was coming to an end and said he would be open to negotiating new security terms with Europe.
Scott Eulinger: President Trump is meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping
So let's welcome in Scott Eulinger, who's a former intelligence agent. And Scott, from an intelligence perspective, what is really happening between ah, Trump and Xi right now beyond just the public trade headlines?
Scott Uehlinger: Right. Well you know, China's always has a very interesting dynamic right now. They like, kind of like Iran, they like to put on a really bold face and all. But right now they've got some China's got some really, really huge problems. For one thing, the Trump foreign policy has been an attempt to basically contain China. That's what Venezuela was mostly about, ending Chinese influence in the Americ, taking, making sure that the Canal, Panama Canal is secure, et cetera. And so, and now with what's going on with Iran and the blockade, China has been largely cut off from cut rate oil which it had been depending on because already it has a weak economy. Xi is increasingly authoritarian. Foreign investment has absolutely dried up in the past five years and he's becoming basically more and more like Mao every single day. He's purging his military. you know, the threat to Taiwan has gone away for at least three or four years, at least, simply because there is no more military leadership. It's all been gutted. They're all dead, fell out a window or are in a penal camp. So Trump is holding a lot of the cards, meeting with Xi, although Xi may feel right now a false sense of confidence that somehow, because the Iran war has slowed down, that somehow China is going to come out of this ahead. But really time is not the friend of China the same as time is not the friend of Iran.
Jenna Ellis: And so is this summit then fundamentally actually about economics or is it more about Trump pressuring China with the leverage that it may actually have over Iran economically and politically?
Scott Uehlinger: Well, I think it's a combination of both. he has a lot of business, men including Elon Musk going over to China and he's interested in you know, he likes to use both you know, basically tariffs and stuff to kind of control China but at the same time is extending a hand in cooperation which which hopefully is There's a lot of realism in their Pragmatism. Pragmatism. Because China basically does not mean the US any good at all much, as we'd like to pretend otherwise. The But there is there. He also wants to ask I think, and see this is where, where, where Xi's may have an idea that oh well this is actually, this summit is good for China because he's Maybe asking for China's intervention to influence Iranian policy a bit. meanwhile, though, Chinese arms exports and, also, raw materials which supply their ballistic missiles are continuing to go to Iran. So hopefully that's another thing Trump will be asking him for a favor, but at the same time, hopefully, he'll also be hinting that such things should not be tolerated because basically China is helping Iran to fight against all of its Middle Eastern neighbors and the United States.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so how much leverage does China actually have over Iran? I mean, what, realistically, can President Trump ask Xi?
Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, that's a good, That's a good question. like I said, they've, with a lot of their weapons destroyed, perhaps they are somewhat, they may be somewhat, vulnerable to Chinese pressure because they're depending on, raw materials for their fuel, for their missile fuel, as well as, arms exports of weapons which actually have failed every single time that they've been used against the US Navy or anyone else. So basically, right now, China may be in a better position to influence Iran. But then, of course, the real question is how subject to influence is Iran? You know, their leadership has proven even more apocalyptic and kamikaze than even I had thought. And so I don't really think they're going to be listening to China a great deal. You know, but there's basically the intelligence picture. There's so much here we don't know. There's so much here I don't know how, how, how large is the schism or the chasm between, individual Iranians like the IRGC and the political leadership. How bad is that? And then, of course, then you have to deal with the dynamics of the Chinese effect on all of that. So there's a lot of unknowns here, for me, and I hope and I believe that, Trump has intelligence information which is giving him the insight to make these kinds of decisions.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and hopefully so. And so, you know, where are we at with the regime change in Iran? I mean, who is, who would China even be talking to to seek to influence Iran at this point?
Scott Uehlinger: Right. That's the big question. But I think from what I see, it's pretty obvious after these constant and relatively useless discussions, which basically Iran is acting as if it's winning the war. I mean, it is the most mirror, it's most bizarre situation where a country is. It's like Hitler negotiating with the Russians for a Russian surren. Like when they're one block from the Chancellery in Berlin. It Makes no sense. But that's the way this apocalyptic Shia, death cult is. And so I think that the only way really to do this is they have to eliminate the leadership. And I mean, everyone. They've got to kill enough of the leadership that there is finally someone that they can deal with. And I think that is the unpleasant truth. how would you do that? Well, one major thing you would do is you've got to restore the Internet. They have not had Internet for at least 60 days, I think maybe even just 90 days. The Iranian people, they have some Starlink. They've got to get them online because that's the way they organize and can mobilize against the regime. And of course, they also need to be armed. and that has started, although apparently, Trump even said it that, like, they gave some weapons to the Kurds to give to the Iranian people, and the Kurds kept them themselves, the weapons. So, like, so that effort has been dulled and they need to redouble that. They need to arm the people, they need to re. Establish communication. And then the last thing would be they need to continue what they started about a month ago. And that is hit the regime at, the power centers that terrorize the people, the police stations, the besieged headquarters, the checkpoints that exist in every city in Iran. That's what they need to do. And they need to do it hard because that is the only way you're really going to have regime change. And I see regime change as the only possibility to negotiate some kind of stability with Iran, because you cannot leave these guys in power. And that's another reason why the UAE and other countries have already joined the war, and now UAE is attacking positions in Iran because they realize that you can't have half measures. You can't damage or destroy 80% of this regime and expect the other 20% of the regime to get along nicely with its neighbors. It's a snake that has to be absolutely crushed. And that's why the Middle Eastern countries, they understand us, and that's why they're starting to contribute to the war.
Jenna Ellis: And that all makes perfect sense. And I've seen some articles and analysts, arguing that China and also Russia actually prefers that the US Is tied down in the Middle east conflicts because it distracts from Taiwan and then it also distracts from the Ukraine war. I mean, we certainly haven't seen, you know, as much rhetoric from the democrat side on, Ukraine and Russia. Is. Is that really credible?
Scott Uehlinger: Yes, that is absolutely. There's no question. That is absolutely A Chinese strategy. That's the whole reason that they support Iran, and that's the whole reason they were in the Panama Canal and involved in Venezuela and other places in South America. Because the last thing that China wants is the United States to be concentrated on them, and so they'll do anything to prevent that. And so that's another reason why all these things that are happening all over the world are not to China's benefit. Because it comes apparent that the Trump foreign policy is aimed at China, because we know that they are the primary, basically, threat to national security, and they don't want us to realize that.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So, so the old. The old, motto that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so, with that in mind, are we moving kind of toward a de facto China, Russia, Iran axis, even if it's not as formal of an alliance?
Scott Uehlinger: Oh, that.
Scott Ewlinger: President Trump is meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping
Absolutely. That.
Scott Uehlinger: That axis has existed for years. I have talked about it on radio dozens of times. That access axis is real. but what we're seeing now is, we're seeing it being absolutely degraded. Russia, is clearly, fading. They're having real problems. Putin's paranoia seems justified. China is also very, vulnerable right now. But at the same time, when these countries. And of course, we know what's going on with Iran, but the problem is these countries get increasingly desperate. Sometimes they pull moves which are not necessarily logical. And so there's the danger. So Xi is at the weakest point he probably has been in since he took power. But, but at the same time, so in some ways, therein lies the danger. And so the United States has got to be careful about that. And that's perhaps one reason why Trump is actually visiting Xi at this time.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And. And that makes a lot of sense. And so with all of this in perspective, I mean, I think Trump obviously knows, the players. He knows what's at stake. And so from a strategic perspective, what is Trump's actual doctrine right now? I mean, is it more deterrence, economic coercion? I mean, what can we expect, from this meeting with Xi as far as his goals going in?
Scott Uehlinger: Right. Well, his foreign policy. His goals are what Both of what you said. It's somewhat to basically, make Fortress America the entire Western Hemisphere, to have the United States not dependent on things like rare earth metals, etc. That the United States will be an oil exporter, that it will be, energy independent and resource independent, not dependent on China at all. The United States will control the gates for oil and such. And in doing so will basically have a lot of influence, whether they like it or not, on China's foreign, on China's moves. Because if the United States has locked up most of China's oil supply, then we can kind of control what they do or severely penalize them when they step out of line. So that's what this is, that's what this whole, his whole foreign policy is about. And he's doing it. And it's been succeeding magnificently. and now we've just got to overcome, get over the hump of the Iranian war, because once that's resolved, then China is really going to have, far fewer alternatives to misbehave and challenge the United States.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you've mentioned, previously, Scott Ewlinger, that Americans kind of tend to think in election cycles, China thinks way more long term, strategically, more in decades. And so, this type of pressure and the goals that President Trump is laying out, I mean even though maybe, any sort of, issue with Taiwan has been deferred two to four years, there's still realistically a lot of short term pressure that needs to be put on China to make sure that they're not just running out the clock of Trump's, administration. And so how does that ultimately factor into this?
Scott Uehlinger: Right, well, right. Everyone's basically depending on running out the clock on Trump. That's definitely Iran's strategy and China as well. But let's not give China as much credit as you just did. This, like sort of pro Chinese propaganda that they think in decades. Right now Xi is thinking in terms of year by year because the guy is purging his military like there's no tomorrow. So Communists are naturally, like, they may sink a little bit in a decade or so, but most of the time they're very reactive and they're very inefficient and incompetent. And so that's what you're seeing in China now, flailing around, threatening its neighbors, foreign investment drying up, lying about their population and their population growth, lying to themselves about everything, because that's what Communists do. And so, Trump is definitely out chinesing the Chinese in terms of planning his. It's clear that he and his staff are planning like a very large overarching strategy that is built to ensure U.S. domination, over China for the next 25 years.
Jenna Ellis: Well, that's really encouraging and, I'm glad that we don't have to give the Communists as much credit as perhaps I just did. So, Scott Ewlinger. That's why I always appreciate your insights and analysis of all this. I mean, so much going on. And it seems like, you know, Trump is very concerned about, what's happening globally, as he should be. And hopefully the base and, the electorate recognize that. And even if, you know, there's a few things that, that we're concerned about, like gas prices and so forth, we recognize the bigger picture. And some of those things can also be, corrected ahead of the midterms, just for people who, you know, vote understandably based more on their wallet than kind of an overall global strategy. But, really appreciate your insight. Scott Ulinger, you can follow him on X and you should. We will be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
California mayor charged with acting as an illegal foreign agent for China
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And a really crazy headline that dropped late yesterday. Eileen Wang, the mayor of Arcadia, California, has been charged with acting as an illegal victim foreign agent for China. The Justice Department announced on Monday. So it was, late yesterday, Wang agreed to plead guilty. The Justice Department said to this coming from ABC News, Starting in late 2020, Wang and, Young, a guy who goes by Mike, probably because nobody can pronounce that in America, son worked together to operate a website called U.S. news center that, quote, purported to be a news source for the local Chinese American community. The Justice Department said in a plea agreement that Wang and son, quote, received and executed directives from the People's Republic of China government officials to post pro PRC content on the website and sometimes sought approval from PRC government officials to circulate other pro PRC content. So in one instance in November 2021, Wang wanted to circulate an article about the Chinese and Russian ambassador asking for Americans to respect the People's Republic of China's, quote, unquote, democratic rights. So this is what the, the, Ministry of Foreign affairs wants to send, she said. And so in her plea agreement, she admitted to not notifying the attorney General that she was working for the prc, especially when she's in elected office in California. So, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Jon Eisenberg, said, quote, individuals elected to public office in the United States should act only for the people of the United States they represent. It is deeply concerning that someone who previously received and executed directives from the People's Republic of China government officials is now in a position of public trust at all, but particularly so because that relationship with the foreign government had never been disputed. Closed.
Gerard Felitti: This is more of a national security investigation
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an Attorney at the Lawfare Project. And, Gerard, this is kind of wild.
Gerard Filitti: It's wild, and it's stunning. We're talking about an elected official in the United States whose loyalty wasn't to her constituents. It was to the government of China. literally. The People's Republic of China bought a seat at the table in America's local government. And the question we have to ask is how many other seats they're currently occupying and how far these influence networks extend. This isn't new, but it really is shocking the extent to it of the power that some of these agents of China wield within the United States.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and there are so many, more questions that at least the, reporting so far hasn't covered. I mean, I would love to know, is she a dual citizen? you know, what. What exactly is the scope and the background, of her nationality? did the People's Republic of China, through, you know, any maybe, shell donor groups, contribute to her campaign and try to prop her up in order to have that influence? I mean, what all do we know at this point about this particular case?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what we do know, that she was born in China and that she moved to California at some point, in the early 2000s. We're not clear whether she's a dual national or fully naturalized or not. but nevertheless, she was able to be elected to the office of mayor in Arcadia. So that's. That's shocking in and of itself. But what we do know is that the government is. The US Government is looking at this more as an espionage case or as a national security case, not just a disclosure case. we're sometimes familiar with the 4th Agents Registration Act, FARA, which requires people who are agents of a foreign government to register. this is not that. This is something that's much more heinous. This is someone who is an active agent of the Chinese government, who is acting as an agent within the US Registration notwithstanding. So this is more of a national security investigation. that's the interesting thing. It'll be interesting to see if there is a network, if there were other people, if there are other people across the US who are implicated.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's a great point. I mean, it's not like if she had just been open about the fact that she was, working for the People's Republic of China, that. Okay, that would be fine. You know, that's not the only concern here is just that failure to disclose. It's the fact that she was in elected office. And, you know, our constitution Requires, that our president has to be a born citizen rather than naturalized, which makes sense so that we don't have someone who's in the highest office in the land that may have other loyalties to other foreign countries. I've said for a long time that that requirement and restriction, needs to be applied to every elected office. I mean if you, if you come here legally, you're naturalized, whether or not you ultimately end up becoming a citizen, allowed to vote, you know, all of those other questions, I don't think that anyone who was not a born citizen should be able to hold elected office, period.
Gerard Filitti: Well, the one thing that I would push back on that is I think that over the years we've seen a lot of people go back to Kissinger, Henry Kissinger. We've seen plenty of people who were born overseas who came to the US because they wanted to live the American life and wanted to protect our values and our democracy, who were amazing elected leaders and who did great things to protect and preserve our democracy and our values. I think that it's more of a values test than a nationality test because frequently we see people who come from communist countries, some dictatorships, who value what we have more than some of the people who were born here. When you look at protesters and college campuses, the ideology of Marxism, it's not always coming from abroad, it's coming from people within. So I think it's not so so much as saying where were you born? It's a matter of asking people what values they adhere to.
Jenna Ellis: And I agree with that in principle. Of course, you know, if we were doing a values based assessment, then no Democrat would ever be elected, ever in any, in any public office. But it's a lot harder to make a values based assessment. And while there are obvious examples of some people who were foreign born who do participate in an upright fashion in the American experiment and all of that, there are a lot of other examples of people who come here, not just for nefarious purposes, but they come here and their allegiance is dual. I mean look at Ilhan Omar. I mean, and you know, some, and some of these other members of Congress who say that, you know, they're truly representing Somalia, rather than the United States of America. And so, you know, from my perspective, and obviously you're welcome to disagree, but from my perspective, better to have a, a system where at least we prohibit the the bad actors, even if that ends up, you know, maybe we don't get the benefit of some of the, the good people who have. Who have come here because they could serve in other capacities, you know, appointees and so forth. But in terms of just actually straightforward elected officials, you know, that to me is. Is kind of a reasonable demarcation because how else can we really assess value other than the voters? And we've seen that, you know, unfortunately, campaigns can, be full of propaganda and the voters, you know, aren't really as. As ah, forthright as I think our founders probably expected.
Gerard Filitti: Right. And I think to your point, when you're looking at this very case in California with Mayor Wang, people who were voting for her were being influenced by her own news site, which was a product of the Chinese Communist government. So even for Americans who try to be well informed, it's not always easy because there is disinformation out there that's put out by adverse interests. So I think there is a, valid, case to be made that we do need to be more restrictive on who, we put into office. At the end of the day though, it speaks to the vetting problem that we have at all levels of government, even on courts, in the court system, in the judiciary, about actually knowing and getting to know, well, the people that we're voting for and we're appointing to these positions.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's such a great point. And you know, back, in the founding era, I, mean, people were known in their communities. It wasn't just, the product of a PR campaign and, you know, millions of dollars or, you know, billions when you're talking about, you know, the full Republican versus Democratic parties, it wasn't just about the campaign rhetoric. It was about actually knowing, those people and they were productive citizens outside of their service to government. And I really wish that we didn't have professional politicians, that we had people who serve, their government, you know, really part time and then go back to being productive members of their communities. But for too long, we have not only enriched politicians, we've made it very lucrative to be a politician instead of a statesman. But then, we've allowed people to not actually have any sort of requirement to be known in their communities before they run for office. And so there's a lot of things I think that we could, and should look at tweaking in the whole process. But it's really difficult in an era where everything is so based on, you know, mailers and commercials and online ads and all of this. to your point, Even people who try to stay informed, you know, sometimes don't really know what the candidate values or believes other than what their campaign is talking about.
Gerard Filitti: Absolutely right. And you know, one of my favorite paintings in Washington D.C. at the Capitalist Cincinnatus from the field. It's the idea from our founding fathers that you, you are called to government service because you want to do a public good, but that's not the purpose of your life. The purpose of your life is to go back to your farm, to go back to your family, to go back to your business. We've become accustomed to professional politicians, and they have an agenda that once they have power, they don't want to leave. They want to give power to themselves and their allies. So we should really be looking at those people who have the good values and are not in government as professional, but are in government to make a difference. And we're running out of those people. We've turned into a nation where we consume news that is corrupt. Ah. And we decide our values are not as important as what we see online. And we put people in office who are there to stay, not to do good for us.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it seems like our system as well really discourages the people who are out to make a difference from running. I mean, even if we go all the way back to the Kavanaugh confirmation era, I mean, I think he was so, spot on to say that, you know, things like that kind of, credibility and reputational obliteration campaign really discourages good people from seeking higher office because they don't want to go through that. They don't want to put their families through that. And so only people who maybe have a thicker skin and who are out for the, the pol, the professional politicians purpose is willing to go through all that because they expect it as sort of part of the job. And, and that's a really unfortunate part of politics as well that, you know, I don't know if there's really a solution to that.
Gerard Filitti: Right. I think what it comes down to is we need to be a lot more cognizant at the local level in local politics. And that's where all this starts. It starts in your town, from a town council, from your village. That's where the brightest people in town, you get to know who they are, you know their personality, you know their values. And then when they do run for office and whether it's state office or federal office or do seek an appointment to a government position, you know who they are because you've been involved with your community.
In recent years, we've been too distant from our local community
I think in recent years, in the last few decades, we've been too easily distant from our local community and all. You know, we think the online community is where we live. It's not. We need to go back to our traditional values, to our friends and family and neighbors and know them. And that's the pool of people that we want to be pushing into public office.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we need to go back to, instead of, you know, the television and federal news being sort of the epicenter of, of the home and of the community and everything online, that we go back to, geography and saying, okay, my community is actually local, living local. And when the church was the center of the community and people actually gathered in person, I mean there's so much that we've lost in the digital age, that really is ultimately detrimental.
Jenna Ellis: Hopefully this type of thing can be prevented in the future
But just in the last like two minutes, we have with you Jared Felitti, you know, going back to this story of of Eileen Wang, she's pled guilty. Do we know what the terms of the plea agreement are? And hopefully that, you know, this type of thing can be prevented in the future.
Gerard Filitti: I'm not sure that they agreed on an actual sentence for her that I know that she faces up to 10 years in prison. I would assume that because that's the maximum penalty under the under what she was charged with, that some deal will be cut where she's facing probably two or three years of prison, which is not insubstantial. But ultimately this does send a deterrent message to the Chinese, especially that the timing is especially important because President Trump is now, meeting with President Xi of China, that it sends the message that the United States is not asleep at the wheel under President Trump, that we are investigating foreign agents, and for espionage, and that we are dealing with these issues and prosecuting them.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Well, it's a good thing that the DOJ is acting and, and you know, like I've said repeatedly, since Todd Blanche became acting ag, I think the, the DOJ might just, along with redistricting, kind of single handedly win the midterms for Republicans just because the DOJ seems like they're finally, making some headway in some really important areas. So Jared Felitti, really appreciate it. You should follow him on X and also the Lawfare Project. and that is all the time that we have this morning for Jenna Ellis in the morning. I did get my X account back. So thanks so much to, the Florida AG who actually got involved and escalated that up to X support. appreciate that. So you can follow me as well. And as always, you can reach me and my team jennaafr. Net.
