The political climate in America has changed. We can rebuild America
>> Ed Vitagliano: The political climate in America has changed. We've been given a reprieve, and we have to work together to take advantage of that momentum and effect even more cultural and spiritual change. We can rebuild America. The American Family association is working to do just that. And when you join, with your support, it helps maximize the impact. As our thanks, we'll give you a DVD of biblical financial advice from Rob west called Biblical Stewardship. Please visit afa.net and get started today. Welcome to Today's Issues. Join us for the next hour as we offer a Christian response to the issues of the day. Here's your host, Ed Vitagliano. And welcome to Today's Issues. Ed Vitagliano sitting in for Tim Wildmon. This week, it is Wednesday, May 28th. Joining me in studio, Fred Jackson. Good morning, Fred.
>> Fred Jackson: Hello, Ed.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And Chris Woodward. Good morning to you, sir.
>> Christopher Woodward: Good morning.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Good morning. Well, it's the middle of the week, the middle of the last week in May. We're about to head into June. Summer's gonna be right around the corner and we're gonna be soon talking about how we're halfway through the year and, man, things have been, just a freight train of events and things going on. And, Chris, you're going to start us off with, the first news item of the day.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yes.
CNN's Jake Tapper says Joe Biden scandal is worse than Watergate
Well, there, there has been a lot of coverage, this morning and understandably so continuing coverage, I should say, should say, of, Jake Tapper in this book that he wrote with a guy named Alex Thompson. Jake Tapper is from cnn. Alex Thompson is a journalist and, they co wrote a book, that they claim, reveals people conspired together to cover up Joe Biden's mental state, before, during and even after, the presidential campaign, from 2020 on through, 2024. and it's gotten to the point now where even Jake Tapper is claiming that the Biden scandal, he calls it, was worse than Watergate. I want to begin here and go through several clips here. Let's, let's hear it from Jake Tapper, from the beginning. Clip 1.
>> Ed Vitagliano: It is an entirely separate scandal. It is a scandal. Yes, it is, without question, and maybe even worse than Watergate in some ways.
>> Fred Jackson: Right?
>> Ed Vitagliano: because Richard Nixon was in control of his faculties when he wasn't drinking.
>> Christopher Woodward: Now, I want to stop here for a moment because Watergate happened long before I was born. You remember Watergate unfolding. You were not working in news, but.
>> Ed Vitagliano: You saw it happen. No, and I was still. I was probably in junior high school and you know, the junior high, high school, early high school years. But I did, I, I do remember being in a grocery store standing in line and over the intercom they were playing, Richard Nixon's resignation. It was just, you know, it was a stunning turn of events. So I find it interesting. Fred, I'll toss this to you unless you wanted.
>> Christopher Woodward: I was just going to say if there was indeed a cover up, and I'm just kind of removing myself to be the news guy here. If there was indeed a cover up, is it at least at the same level, if not worse than what?
>> Ed Vitagliano: Oh, there was a cover up there. There's no doubt that Richard Nixon, tried to cover up, the events of the, the break in at the Watergate Hotel. interestingly, he had tapes of every conversation inside the Oval Office. And in part that is what, you know, led to Nixon's downfall. I, I'm not sure, Fred, I'll toss it to you first. I'm not sure this is on the same level as Watergate. I understand Jake Tapper's point that Richard Nixon was in, had control of his faculties, but that was the President of the United States breaking the law m. And covering up. He did not instigate the break in as far as I remember, but he tried to cover that up. That was that was kind of a stunning revelation of what I'm guessing a lot of presidents did. Okay, he did kind of get caught. But this, I'm not sure that what surrounds the President, Joe Biden's mental decay is the same thing. Because it wasn't Biden necessarily covering up as the people around him. But it's ah, probably just splitting straws. This is, this is, I do agree with Jake Tapper. this is a scandal. It is because it was meant to influence an election. And the fact that Jake Tapper along with others in the mainstream media played along with this and participated in the COVID up, as well as apparently leadership in the Democratic Party and members of the Biden administration, they were all in on this. So it absolutely is a scandal.
>> Fred Jackson: Absolutely. Two points I want to make. Chris says he wasn't born when Watergate came around, but his long lost uncle, Bob Woodward. Oh yeah, he's reported on it.
>> Christopher Woodward: Joining us now is my uncle Carl.
>> Fred Jackson: No, that's Carl Bernstein.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yeah, I know, but you know, bad joke.
>> Fred Jackson: Okay, two points. It is laughable, at the very least that Jake Tapper would call this a scandal, if he really believes it's a scandal. Jake Tapper is the worst anchor CNN ever had because, Fox, ah, with some integrity, has been reporting on what Jake Tapper has said over the last year about Joe Biden, about, you know, denying, CNN and others denying what was visible to 99% of the American public.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: That Joe Biden wasn't playing with a full deck. You know, everybody knew that. So everything that Jake Tapper is saying now that he has a book out there, which I'm told is selling like hotcakes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: So he's making a whole pile of money.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: so for Jake Tapper now to say, you know, it's just horrible what the Democrats did. Just horrible what the circle around Joe Biden did. I'm sorry, I, I just can't take Jake Tapper seriously. You know, he's, it's just these people knew what was going on. They hid it because Jake Tapper and the rest are closet Democrats.
>> Ed Vitagliano: They had their hand, their finger on the scale.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And they were influencing, yes, trying to influence, and probably successfully influencing, maybe even way back as far as the 2020 election, but certainly trying to influence the 2024 election when their job is to be the watchdog of government.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Not the paid shills for a particular political party in power.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah.
>> Christopher Woodward: to go with this, Fox did a segment on this today, spent a lot of time on Jake Tapper's comments that we just played for you guys. and then they brought in a Democrat representative named Ro Khanna. Khanna represents a portion of Silicon Valley out in California and he says Dems should own up to, this situation here.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Clip 2 well, I do have regrets.
>> Speaker D: For backing him for a second term. That was a mistake. I've said that the Democrats should own up to that. we should have pushed back against a lot of what we were hearing, from the White House. I met him a few times. in those instances, he was fine. But the reality is he, he shouldn't have run. And I think the Democrats would be better just owning up and saying that was a mistake. The American people are fair, but we do have to take accountability.
>> Christopher Woodward: Now, Lawrence B. Jones, then pushed back on Representative, Khanna and I have that Exchange here.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Clip 3 yeah, but Congressman, I think it's more than a mistake. A mistake is when I forget to put my right signal or my left signal on. The book outlines that it was intentional.
>> Fred Jackson: And they, as long as he was breathing, the aides and members of Congress.
>> Ed Vitagliano: The Democrat establishment just wanted to keep him alive so they could get the agenda so is this a massive cover up?
>> Speaker D: Well, certainly not that I know of. I mean, I met him a few times of the year. he was perfectly fine. But I do think what the mistake was was that we should have pushed back more against the old guard and insisted on new voices. And now you're seeing that in the Democratic Party. You're seeing a lot of new voices there. You're seeing a demand for the old guard to step aside and, and you're seeing a focus on the economy of a, real vision of how we're going to raise wages, get new jobs.
Fred Kaplan: I have a theory about how this whole thing unfolded
>> Christopher Woodward: Now he's talked about how he met him a few times and he was fine. Ah. From what we gather from the book that Tapper and Alex Thompson wrote, there were people that were literally like, you know, these are the times that you can see Joe, he's at his best today. He's, he's all there, all the lights are on in the White House, all that kind of thing.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Christopher Woodward: So anybody that says, I met him and he seemed fine, I don't think we can just go with that.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, I mean, for someone like that, the congressman, there probably won't be any consequences because we weren't there when he, quote, unquote, met with President Biden on occasion. So it's entirely possible that Joe Biden was more lucid on certain days than on others. But Fred, it seems clear that the way this whole thing unfolded. We've talked about this on the program a lot because it's 2025. We go all the way back to 2020, that when it became apparent that, that the radical left represented by Bernie Sanders had a real shot at the nomination, that, what the Democratic Party establishment did was metaphorically or literally get everybody into the same room. And, I think Amy Klobuchar was, not doing bad, and everyone in and say, look, we need to get Joe Biden the nomination, got black leaders in because South Carolina was coming up in the primary season in 2020. We have to get Joe elected because we can't have Bernie Sanders, a self described socialist who run against Donald Trump, because Trump will win reelection and we all know about Trump derangement syndrome. And everybody agreed. And I think the deal that was cut with Bernie Sanders and the radical left is okay. If Joe Biden, if we do this and Joe Biden gets in, then we want our agenda, being represented by the Biden administration. And as it all turned out, whatever you think of the 2020 election, Biden did win the nomination. He got elected. And the left, between 2020 and 2024 came calling for their payoff.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And the, the only thing that mattered was getting that agenda, continuing the agenda under Biden and getting him a second term so the agenda could take root in this country. And the people who made deals in 2020 made a deal with the devil in covering up Joe Biden's, obvious impairment. listen, there are people who are questioning whether Jill Biden should have told her own husband, you don't need to run again. But she was all in as well.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah. I have a theory. Okay, so we'll go back to 2020. Barack Obama looked at the field like you. There was concern. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, these other people. Let's put Uncle Joe, and all kind of surround the wagons around Joe, get him in there. And Barack Obama thought, and then I'll put my people in close contact with Joe Biden once he gets in the White House, because I don't think it's. I don't think it's even speculation anymore. It was Barack Obama's people that ran the White House for Joe Biden. His very close individuals that were part of the Obama administration then became part and were running the show for Biden. That is why. That is why you had such a left wing agenda that manifested itself soon as Joe Biden got in there. I think that the whole game plan was being run. I think Barack Obama was the coach. He wasn't the president anymore, but he was the coach. Joe Biden happened to wear the captain's sweater.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: All right. And he was out there for the public, and he did what he was told. And even when his mental capacity began to deteriorate, they were okay with that because, you know, what did they call it? The electric pin or something like that?
>> Ed Vitagliano: Auto pin.
>> Fred Jackson: The auto pin. We'll just use the auto pin. And that's what went on. Somebody was talking the other day that in order for Biden to have some credibility, the White House created a kind of an oval office. background.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah, it was a. It was a fabricated.
>> Fred Jackson: Fabricated oval office. Yes. And it. And they said they had to make it big so that Joe Biden could read the print on the teleprompter.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: You know, it was. A lot of stuff is coming out right now. And then I believe, as part of my theory is that when Barack Obama in 2024 saw that Joe Biden, was a mental disaster, he then. Never forget that scene in Los Angeles. Joe Biden's in Los Angeles campaigning. You Remember Barack Obama coming up and grabbing him by the arm and leading him off stage. Within weeks after that, the knives came out. It was the whole June debate, the whole thing, and it was over. So I think Barack Obama, ran the show for the four years of Joe Biden. I think he was instrumental in getting Biden to step away from things. They thought they had a chance with Kamala Harris, putting her in there. They could play up the female candidate, the black candidate, all of that. They could play that up. but it didn't work because the American people caught on.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah. Because there were several missteps, on behalf of the Biden campaign, one of which was allowing him to debate. Yes, you could have. They could have covered Joe Biden, give, given political cover for Joe Biden refusing to debate Donald Trump. They could have appealed to the fact, look, he's a, he's a felon, he's a disgrace. We're not going to dignify this man with a debate. Now, that would have come with some political cost, but it would have been better than the disaster that befell Joe Biden in that debate. By the way, remember Barack Obama. This was reported, by CNN and the New York Times, that when Joe Biden was considering running, Barack Obama said, you don't have to do this, Joe. This is before the 2020 race. I think Barack Obama was a shrewd enough political mind that he understood that they had to get some of the younger people in leadership. And we all remember the, whatever, 17 candidates running in the primaries. I don't think anybody wanted Joe Biden to be president, but it became apparent that they could not outwardly express the direction of the Democratic Party by allowing Bernie Sanders to get the nomination in. Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: You know, it's interesting. We just played that clip of Ro Khanna talking about what? We have new voices.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yes, we do.
>> Fred Jackson: Well, yeah, those new voices are pretty scary.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yes.
>> Fred Jackson: If you're talking about aoc, you're talking about Crockett, you know, all of those individuals, do they really believe those voices are going to sell well to the American electorate? Well, I don't think so.
The Democratic Party is losing support in minority communities, Chris says
>> Ed Vitagliano: And the opposite. On the other side of the divide, you have old timers like James Carville.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Saying, no, they don't need to be the new voices. We need to come back towards the middle. So this kind of civil war within the Democratic Party really is just getting untracked.
>> Fred Jackson: Oh, yeah, we talked about Rahm Emanuel.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Fred Jackson: The Wall, Street Journal article the other day saying we, the party has to come. The party's image is toxic. Yes, I think that was the term he used.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And it's just something else in woke. I forget the other. Another W word.
>> Fred Jackson: But yeah, but he says we have to come back to the middle. So the Democratic Party has this great divide right now which shows no sign of healing whatsoever.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And Chris, to your point, as you played a couple of these clips, the Democratic Party is losing, losing support in minority communities like black community, the Hispanic community, because the Republican Party right now looks like it's the party of the economy.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And, and this is, this was always a strength for the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was always seen as the party of law and order, military strength, you know, projecting American influence around the globe. and the Democratic Party was seen as the party of the blue collar worker. And it is losing that image. And if they continue with an emphasis on these radical policies, that will continue even there'll be even more of a decline. Very support.
>> Christopher Woodward: Now, you're not the only one to say, that as a matter of fact, Kellyanne Conway was brought out on Fox this morning for a segment on all kinds of things, including this ongoing effort by the Democrats now to try to attract male voters. Democrats say we're losing males. We're going to do things to be more manly, we're going to appeal to males, we're going to sell the party on, to males. And Kellyanne Conway says that's laughable.
>> Speaker E: Clip 6 well, they tried this by putting Tim Waltz on the ticket. Ainsley. Remember, Tim Waltz is like the left wing's idea of a really cool Midwestern guy who knows how to fire a gun when she didn't. And he was a big disaster, as was the top of the ticket, Kamala Harris. it's really regrettable that the Democratic Party would have to spend $2, let alone $20 million to learn about national men. they're one half of our society. But look at the numbers. Ah, One half of young Latino men voted for Donald Trump. A third of young Black men, over 60% of young white men. The swings among men overall and all kinds of men blue collar, particularly as Donald Trump has recast the Republican Party as the party of the worker is undeniable.
>> Ed Vitagliano: I think what Trump has done is extraordinary. Okay, now, part of that I'm not sure is a principled position on the part of, Donald Trump. In terms of when, I say principled, I don't think he was purposefully, saying, what can I do to draw young men which is what the Democrats are doing, trying to figure out how to do that. I think his approach was, I want to get this economy going so that people can work and they can, men can take care of their families, they can have good paying jobs so that young people can buy homes, all that kind of thing. And that, as a businessman in the White House, is what is drawing, I think probably a lot of these young men, but also the transgender nonsense, I think doesn't fly with men who are normally protective of women and seeing other dudes, you know, spiking, you know, a volleyball into a girl's face and causing damage and they don't like that. And I think also the border where all these, not all of them were criminals coming across the border, of course, but a lot of them were gang members and people who had committed crimes in their own country. And a lot of young men look at that. And that protective nature kicks in at that time too. And they think, you know what, I've got to protect my family or, you know, my parents, whatever, and I cannot, I do not want that border being unsecured.
>> Fred Jackson: I think the Democratic Party thought, they thought they could get away with the radical leftist agenda because they had the media on their side.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: But here's what happened. A funny thing happened on the way, the mainstream of America started to understand where the mainstream media in this country was with its bias.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Fred Jackson: And so they got fed up so they stopped listening to the mainstream media which supported Joe Biden's. Well, it was an invasion, an orchestrated invasion on our southern border. It was really interesting this morning.
70% of Americans do not agree with biological boys playing in girls teams
And maybe we'll get to a little bit later in the program today, California's response to the latest threat from President Trump with regards to trans athletes, boys playing a girls sports. I think as AP Nork did a poll, 70% of Americans do not agree with biological boys playing in girls teams. Biological boys being allowed to go into change rooms.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: Girls change rooms. This is just still common sense with common sense Americans.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right?
>> Fred Jackson: But here's the problem for the Democratic. They can't move off of this. No, they cannot move off.
>> Ed Vitagliano: They can't reverse course.
>> Fred Jackson: No, they cannot. And so this is a huge problem. And even though the mainstream media may still be out there and they're protecting the Democratic Party on this front, when you got 70% of Americans not agreeing with the mainstream media or the Democratic Party, the question the Democratic Party is what are you going to do? Democratic Party, I think has made one very tragic air. You know, when companies are sitting down and developing policies and they like to hear a spectrum of views.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: You know, they're going to create a new widget, a company. they want to hear perspective, you know, a whole perspective of views on this. The Democratic Party shut the door on anybody with conservative ideas. No, we don't want to hear from you.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: We know what's best for the country. That kind of arrogant spirit caused them to lose this election. And unless things change, they're going nowhere in the midterms.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, and I'll tell you something else. We're coming up on a break, but we can, you know, possibly, talk about this later on in the program. It's, it's funny how public perceptions change. They don't always change like you think. Sometimes it takes time. So I'm thinking about the Bud Light fiasco with Dylan Mulvaney. Okay. Those kinds of things. And by the way, that was a male who dressed like a female, identifying as a female, becoming the spokesperson for Bud Light. The, the reaction to that among men, young men and just men was so visceral.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: But it fed into all the other stuff that was hanging around in people's minds, I think, about how unfair it is to have men and women's sports and so on and so forth. That, that kind of turned the ship gradually. Yes. But definitively turning the ship where people say this is wrong. And the party that make that thinks this is important. When inflation's going through the roof.
>> Ed Vitagliano: That's a stain that's going to be very hard to scrub away for the Democratic Party, especially, as you point out. Fred, they can't walk it back. Nope, they are all in. And that's why you see states like Maine and others saying, we don't care what the Trump administration says. We're sticking with men and women's sports. All right, we're going to take a short break. When we come back, Jenna Ellis will be joining us. We'll be talking about some, legal issues. You don't want to miss that. Hope you join us.
Preborn Network offers free ultrasounds to women seeking abortions
When a woman experiences an unplanned pregnancy, she often feels alone and afraid. So many times her first response is to seek out an abortion. But because of the generosity of listeners like you, that search may lead her to a PreBorn Network clinic. PreBorn offers God's love and compassion to hurting women and then provides a free ultrasound to introduce them to the life growing inside them. This combination brings the ultimate miracle of life to life and doubles a baby's chance at life, which is why preborn saw over 67,000 babies rescued last year alone. Meet Maddie. Maddie was in a tough situation as she wasn't sure who the father was. But after receiving counseling, prayer, and a free ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic, everything changed. Maddie discovered she had twins and found the strength she needed to choose life. Your tax deductible donation of $28 sponsors one ultrasound. How many babies can you save? Please donate your best gift today. Just dial 250 and say the keyword baby. That's £250, baby. Or go to preborn.com afr that's preborn.com afr this is today's issues. Email your comments to commentsfr.net Past broadcasts of today's Issues are available for listening and viewing in the [email protected] now back to more of Today's Issues. And, welcome back to Today's Issues at Battagliano. Sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week, I'm joined in studio by Fred Jackson and Chris Woodward. Of course, Steve Paisley Jordal will be joining us after the top of the hour break.
Jenna Ellis: So glad to be off the bench
But in the meantime, we bring off the Bench, as it were, Jenna Ellis, host of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, heard weekdays at 7am Central Time and host of the On Demand podcast [email protected] Jenna, welcome back to Today's Issues.
>> Jenna Ellis: Welcome. And to me.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Jenna Ellis: And hi. And I didn't realize I had been benched. So glad to be off the bench.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Like, well, you hadn't been benched, but you're not always on this show. The point I was making was kind of bringing you out of how about the bullpen?
>> Jenna Ellis: Let's say that, well, I was on vacation with my family for a while, so I deserve that a little bit. But, you know, it was a lot of fun.
>> Ed Vitagliano: I don't know why everyone always assumes that, it's a wisecrack for me. I don't know why. I just try to mind my own business and encourage everybody. And yet I get this frequently, maybe even from the people who know me best, by the way. And if we have time, I do want to come back around to something. you mentioned on your show this morning, I listen to your show. I try to listen to your show on the way into work every morning. because it's just, it's a great program and, and, excellent job. This morning. We're going to see if we can get a little bit of a, comment or two from you about the conversation you had with Michael Ferris. because he's, he is a treasure for the body of Christ.
National Public Radio files lawsuit against President Trump over proposed funding cuts
And, but first, and maybe the only issue we get to depending. But Fred, what do you got for, for Jenna?
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah, Jenna. National Public Radio, better known as npr, gets a lot of money, your money, my money, Ed's money, taxpayers, money to do their programming. One would not describe their programming as fair and balanced. they have just changed radically, over the years and they have joined the far left in their worldview and in their journalistic values. And so no surprise, President Donald Trump doesn't think taxpayers should have to fund that left wing bias. And so he is threatening to take their money away. And in response to that, National Public Radio and three, local stations, public radio stations filed a lawsuit yesterday against the President. Now, those who have been facing divisions, that have been facing cuts, in their funding, have argued the president doesn't have the right to do that because only Congress has the right to take our funds away. Because Congress, agreed to the funds. But I was taken by the argument that NPR is using. They're saying removal of our subsidies from the government is a violation of the First Amendment. And I thought, wait a minute. Yes, you have First Amendment rights, but Jenna, they don't have a right to say the taxpayer must fund my point of view.
>> Jenna Ellis: Right. Well, so a couple of things on, on this lawsuit. So Trump did sign a May 1, executive order for those who, want to look it up. It's, 14290. That's the number of the executive order and it seeks to eliminate the federal funding for n. I agree with you that I think the separation of powers argument is the stronger one and was actually talking to Steve Paisley Drew at all about that yesterday for our news program. Also had on another attorney who frequents my program this morning who agreed with that position. So I think, you know, there's kind of some consensus that the separation of powers is probably the best argument for NPR to say that, if Congress were to change or modify or defund, npr, that would have to come through, congressional legislation, not through the executive branch, this executive order. But as far as the First Amendment claim, they are, NPR is claiming a First Amendment retaliation. So not that they have a constitutional right to taxpayer funding. It's not like they have been, they have applied for, brand new and have been denied taxpayer funding. And they're saying somehow that they have a right to it. What they're arguing whether or not it prevails. But to clarify their argument they are saying that because they have been funded, and that is a current status that their taxpayer funded, the only reason that Trump issued the executive order to take it away is in retaliation for a, for them expressing constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. So it's really important to differentiate that. They're not saying that they have a right to it. They're saying that the executive order cutting funding was done in retaliation for disfavored content. And this is kind of a classic form of viewpoint point discrimination.
>> Fred Jackson: But still, Jenna, to argue that, Donald Trump has the wrong motive, he still has a right to say we don't, taxpayers of the country don't have a, don't have an obligation to fund npr maybe.
>> Jenna Ellis: And that's really an issue for Congress to decide. Right. And so if we think about this different way, what if a conservative, radio station was, was taking taxpayer funding, had congressional funding, and the Biden administration said, you know what, I don't really like that you're, speaking against me. You're talking about God, for example, you are against gay marriage, some, of those things. So I'm going to, to take away your taxpayer funding. We, we as conservatives would likely say, hey, you can't do that. we were expressing as a radio network and not us, you know, obviously AFA and afr, we're not funded by taxpayers. But if, if there were such an entity, then we would be saying, you know, you can't retaliate and remove our funding simply because you don't like that viewpoint. so the lawsuit hinges on retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, not just whether NPR has free speech rights kind of in the abstract. but I think really what we're doing is, and what we should be contemplating is, is whether or not in the First Amendment context, the First Amendment doesn't guarantee funding, but it does prohibit retaliation for protected speech. But that's the challenge that NPR is going to have to face. They will have to prove each and every element of First Amendment retaliation in addition to separation of powers.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Okay, so the history here, in the early 70s, and I think part of the late 60s, Congress created, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Okay, so that created not only National Public Radio, but also pbs, the Public Broadcasting Service for television. So when people, you know, watch Sesame street or whatever, that was all through that was on pbs funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I remember growing up and seeing, you know, watching, Sesame Street. I think I was in high school. no, I actually, actually, I will say this just as an Aside, I did watch Sesame street in high school because of those two old guys that were up in the balcony. I thought they were hilarious. but I remember when the show would go off this program, you know, a product of the funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So the history of this. NPR and PBS are supposedly independent, broadcasters created by Congress and funded by Congress. So my, my question is, do you. And apparently they were supposed to be, independent and unbiased in what they put on because they're supposed to serve the public good. So let me just ask you this question. Do you think that President Trump's decision to his desire to defund npr, do you think it, do you think it is retaliation?
>> Jenna Ellis: That's a great question. And I think President Trump himself has basically expressed that it is not in specific legal terms, but he's saying that he doesn't like what NPR is saying, so he thinks that their funding should be removed. And that's pretty classic retaliation. It's just whether or not that's prohibited by law, because some things, are retaliation. So for example, what Governor DeSantis did to the Reedy Creek district here in Florida, over Disney's view of the, of the quote, unquote, don't say gay bill. We all remember that controversy. And Disney argued unconstitutional First Amendment retaliation, they did not prevail on that case. But because the legislature took action for Reedy Creek, which was a government created entity that doesn't get that type of First Amendment protection because it's a government entity here, NPR is not a government entity. So they can assert First Amendment claims. And so whether or not Trump's rhetoric and the action actually rises to the level of First Amendment retaliation and taxpayer funding is, is considered retaliation, in that classic sense that it's a harm, legally, that remains to, to be determined. But I think that there is a really good case, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately for the precedent value of this, even though I think NPR is totally biased, I don't think that they should receive taxpayer funding. But is this the right precedent? I think that remains, to be seen. And so the key precedent here for, for people want to, to look up this case maybe is the board of commissioners versus umber. umbr. it's a 1996 supreme court precedent that held that even government contractors can assert First Amendment claims if the contracts are not renewed in retaliation for protected speech. So I think NPR has, has a good argument here, but the better argument is the separation of power. So a court may not even reach The First Amendment issue, if they decide that Trump as the executive, doesn't even have authority for this executive order.
Jen: NPR is not a government entity; Voice of America is
>> Fred Jackson: All right, Jen, Fred, again, NPR is not a government entity. am I correct in that? Yes, Voice of America is.
>> Jenna Ellis: Voice America is my, Is my understanding, yes.
>> Fred Jackson: Now, Trump doesn't like them either. and of course he's put, a new boss in there. but do they have some right to funding that NPR may not?
>> Jenna Ellis: if they. So. So Voice of America as a government entity. if they. Because and when we're assuming here, and I'm not exactly totally sure of their structure to have to look into this, but, they are specifically, my understanding, is an official international broadcaster of the United States government. So because it's part of the U.S. agency for Global Media, likely it cannot assert the same type of First Amendment challenge that NPR can if, ah, Trump were to remove their funding, but they may have the same claim to a separation of powers argument to say that if there is a statutory construction, that Congress is the one that is providing them funding, that the executive can't unilaterally take that away just because he doesn't like it. So it depends on how the agency was created. Is there executive oversight in terms of the funding? Is that legislative in nature? All of those questions are legal questions that I haven't looked into. But, for Voice of America, they may be dissimilarly situated to NPR for purposes of the First Amendment.
>> Ed Vitagliano: I personally think that, the president probably does not have. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just saying this is a layman, that the President probably does not have the authority to cut funding for npr. and part. But I understand it. I understand the impulse, because the Republicans in Congress who now control both houses, even though they're slim majorities, they have resisted really reining in npr, pbs, the National Endowment for the Arts, Planned Parenthood, all of these that get government funding. The Republicans, even when they're in power, just don't seem to want to touch these kinds of things. I think this is Congress's job to, to rein in or to cut off spending. And I certainly understand President Trump being frustrated with the, Republican Party's inability or unwillingness to do it. I'll give you the last word before we let you go.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. And conservatives need to be concerned about the presidential value of these types of overriding legislation, and congressional intent, even if we like the preferred outcome here. Because, you know, let's be honest, Conservatives aren't really fans of npr, by and large. That doesn't mean then, that we would champion something that goes outside the scope of executive authority just because it's Trump doing it. So I agree with you, on that, and I do think that NPR likely, will prevail unless Congress actually gets it together. And they could just very easily, like my guest said this morning, they could have just put $1 in the funding in this big, beautiful bill for NPR, and that would have solved the problem. And you don't even need to get the judiciary involved. So why is Congress making Trump do all the work? That should be the question.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
Jenna Ellis' program from this morning touches on some important issues
All right, our guest has been Jenna Ellis, host of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, heard weekdays at 7am Central Time, and host of the On Demand podcast. Founded, afr.net folks, I do want to encourage you to listen to Jenna's program from this morning because it touches on some of these issues, especially her interview with Michael Ferris, who I think is for national, religious broadcasters. Jenna is general counsel.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yes, yes. And we. And AFA was part of, that lawsuit that he discusses, and it's a great win for us as well.
>> Ed Vitagliano: He also discusses in there. And maybe we'll talk to you about this on another occasion, Jenna. He, he did a. Personally did a review. Well, look, I'm just gonna. How much time you got?
>> Jenna Ellis: I have a few more minutes.
>> Fred Jackson: Absolutely.
Michael Ferris says Democrats are suing President Trump in certain courts
>> Ed Vitagliano: Okay. All right. So, one of the things Michael Ferris discussed with you is the, the approach of the Democrats to everything President Trump is doing by judge shopping and then filing lawsuits. And we did cut some of this out, and I'll just get a quick comment from you, and then we'll let you go. but, Chris, go ahead and introduce the clip.
>> Fred Jackson: Or.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yes, this is attorney Mike Ferris saying Democrats are purposely suing President Trump in certain courts to get the rulings they want.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Clip 10 There were 287 cases that have been filed against the Trump administration. 89% of those have been filed in federal circuits where the majority of the judges were appointed by Democrat presidents. And within the districts within the circuits, 95% of the cases had been filed in districts where a majority of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. That's not following the rule of law. It's showing that this is political litigation. Okay, so, Jenna, your comments on this, because this does go to the. Now, the NPR thing with President Trump, he may wind up losing that. I don't know. but a lot of the things he's doing, I think are within his purview as the chief executive. And yet the Democratic, party and the left is waging political lawfare and they are picking courts that will most likely side with them, knowing that since the Supreme Court can only take 100 cases a year, you file almost 300, you're going to get wins. I mean, this is what they're doing, right?
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And this whole interview is really, worth listening to. And I'm glad that you raised this clip because, 287 cases as, as Mike Ferris, talked about, the Supreme Court only takes around 100 a year. And so this means that if they're, the Democrats are forum shopping, they're going to these leftist judges and they know that it's also an appellate circuits that will likely prevail and the Supreme Court doesn't overturn it, then they're going to have precedent that stays in place just because of the high volume of cases. And so this is classic lawfare is trying to rule by judicial fiat. It is not original intent at all of the rule of law. This is rule by the judicial oligarchy. And Mike Ferris point was that the left not only has a lot more strategy to try to just rule by sheer volume, but they have a lot more funding and the ACLU and all of these private law firms that are doing this pro bono to initiate this type of high volume of cases just within the first couple of months of the Trump administration. Conservatives have nothing comparatively, and we need to remedy that so that we aren't just always on the defensive trying to stop bad litigation, but we can actually do the same thing except for advancing the rule of law and cementing good precedent in these circuits and in these forums where we really need to have better precedent, even if the Supreme Court doesn't ultimately touch it.
Jenna Bell: I hope that I'm not benched after this
>> Ed Vitagliano: What's your, on, Demand podcast? This, this coming end, of this week. Will you get something planned or in process?
>> Jenna Ellis: It's going to be very exciting. I have my good friend Dinesh d' Souza on and he actually had a great, podcast yesterday on his show talking about Elon Musk kind of stepping away from the administration and saying, hey, I tried to get involved in politics and Congress isn't doing anything about Doge. They're not cutting spending, you know, a lot of the things that we've touched on. And so if Elon can't even do this, then where are we at as a conservative party? Why aren't the Republicans doing this? So, I sit down with Dinesh for about 25 minutes, and we hash this out, and I think his perspectives. And, we've gone kind of back to, you know, Barry Goldwater and Reagan and the conscience of a conservative that was, you know, back in the 1960s, all the way forward, to talking about where we're headed and why Republicans simply can't get this done.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Sounds like a great show. All right, Jenna, thank you so much for being on with us, for staying a few minutes extra. We appreciate it.
>> Jenna Ellis: Well, I hope that I'm not benched after this.
>> Ed Vitagliano: You're not benched.
>> Jenna Ellis: Thanks.
>> Ed Vitagliano: You are not benched. All right, thank you.
>> Jenna Ellis: Appreciate it, guys. All right, bye.
There's a lot of frustration among conservatives with Republican leadership over government
>> Ed Vitagliano: the very interesting, what she's going to be talking about with Dinesh, d' Souza, a lot of frustration out there. Elon Musk. Look, Elon Musk is a, I guess a genius, has, you know, the creative power to, you know, you know, create different. Completely different companies. he's not. He's not the kind of guy who wastes his time trying to get things done when it's clear nothing will get done. A lot of frustration. I think there's a lot of frustration amongst conservatives with Republican leadership and with the Republican Party because we have this shot to rein in, the federal government, and, boy, they just seem to be dragging their feet.
>> Fred Jackson: Well, we saw it in the first Trump administration when Republicans, had control of the House. Remember what happened when he went asking for money for the border?
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: He ran into trouble with his own party.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yep.
>> Fred Jackson: And now that the, you know, the big, beautiful bill is headed for the Senate, Senator, Scott of Florida publicly saying yesterday, I'm not going to support it. we have Josh Hawley, saying, we're not going to support it. And, you know, Scott saying, well, you know, the Republicans will work with it. maybe we'll tinker with it. But if we make anything major, we have to send it back to the House. And it's from. From a. Out here in the boonies, away from Washington. We look at this sort of thing and we say, you guys, what are you doing? You have control, and you've turned the guns inward Right. On yourselves. You did it before, and you're doing again. That's one thing the Democrats do well.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yes.
>> Fred Jackson: When they get in power.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: They coalesce.
>> Christopher Woodward: The party that is for the Second Amendment is the best party. It's shooting itself in the foot every time.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah.
>> Christopher Woodward: Every time they get in there, they find a way.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah. And for Elon Musk. You mentioned Elon Musk is. Is used to. To running a company. You know, he's. He's the big guy. And the order goes out and the orders are carried out. You know, the problem is Elon Musk ran into the realization of what Trump and others call the swamp. Yeah, the swamp is big and it's deep. It's just gotten worse and worse in its toxicity, its financial toxicity over the decades. And to try to move that within months to change things in there, because you see the way these employees. You may have a department that has 15,000 employees, 5,000 of them don't do anything.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: You know, they remember initially in Doge, they talked about all the people that were working from home, and we found out some of those people working from home had other jobs.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: That they were going to.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And these buildings were just about empty.
>> Fred Jackson: Just about empty. And we all found out about this, and we're scratching our head. How is this allowed to happen? But look where we are right now. We're several months into this, and I'm not sure much has changed.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, there's an old quote from. I want to say it's G.K. chesterton in the early 1900s. And he said he wasn't just saying, Democrats and Republicans. He said, the job of progressives is to make mistakes, and the job of conservatives is to make sure those mistakes don't get corrected. And I always thought that is a brilliant analysis of the inability of the Republican Party and conservatives to make important changes because their primary instinct is to preserve the status quo. But what if the status quo has been created by a bunch of far leftists? You've got to change things back. And they seem unwilling.
>> Christopher Woodward: Jenna made the comment, if Congress would get its act together. I have been in news not as long as you guys, but I have been in news for almost 25 years. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard or quoted somebody say, if Congress would get its act together, Jeff Bezos would be paying me to go to space. I mean, I, can't tell you how many times I've heard somebody say, it's true. Congress should get attacked together. She was 100% accurate. I totally agree with her. But unfortunately, we're going to be talking about if the Lord Terries.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Christopher Woodward: We're going to be talking, to somebody 5, 10, 15 years from now who's going to say, well, if Congress would get attacked together, I guarantee you.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, and to your point, which I think is great one, Fred, about the swamp in D.C. not all the creatures of the swamp are Democrats.
>> Fred Jackson: That's right.
>> Ed Vitagliano: There's a lot of Republican creatures of the swamp. And listen, I think there is growing discontent out there. People who are tired of people going to Washington supposedly, to serve the rest of us, and they come out as multimillionaires.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And that's frustrating. It's beyond our ability to comprehend how you think you're a public servant if you're making a bundle while you're up there and then when you leave, you make even more.
>> Christopher Woodward: Yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: I don't know where that frustration is heading. Maybe to members of Congress getting primaried coming up, who knows? But it is a very frustrating situation. And I'm guessing that's what drove Elon Musk out.
>> Fred Jackson: Yep.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Just tired of it. All right, we're going to take a five minute break for news and when we come back, more of, today's issues. Hope you join us. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
