Transcript

 : Um, Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

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

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, April 30th. We are finally at the end of April. Can you believe it? It seemed like this month has been really long, at least to me. But, uh, good news this morning. The Supreme Court rules against Democrats trying to unmask crisis pregnancy center donors. This coming from Daily Caller. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of religious pregnancy centers Wednesday and decided that courts can rule against subpoenas targeting donors even if those subpoenas are not enforced. And I have to say, when it's unanimous and you actually get Justice Jackson to agree with the correct side, this is how bad the Democrats targeting, um, pregnancy centers really were when this is unanimous and there wasn't that one loan, you know, DEI hire crazy dissent. So this is how bad, uh, NewSong Jersey was in targeting this. So former, uh, Democrat NewSong Jersey Attorney General Matthew Plotkin issued a subpoena against First Choice Women's Resources Centers Incorporated, a nonprofit organization that has offered resources to pregnant women in the state since 1985. In 2022, and, uh, most of our listeners will remember this story, Plotkin issued a consumer alert accusing the, uh, the pregnancy center, among other organizations, of trying to prevent women from receiving, quote, unquote, reproductive health care. But by providing false or misleading abortion information. First Choice, of course, believes that life begins at conception and does not provide abortions or refer clients to other groups for abortions. And so Plotkin allegedly served a subpoena to the crisis, uh, pregnancy center, demanding that it produce 28 different types of documents, including the personal information of donors who contributed by any means other than the, through one specific webpage, adding that failure to comply could result in penalties, including contempt of court. So this was basically just bullying. And thankfully, uh, the Supreme Court has struck this down. But, you know, it's really frustrating that, um, for the NewSong Jersey attorney general, other than losing this case, um, there really isn't consequences for using the state resources to unlawfully come after these crisis pregnancy centers. And that's why the Democrats just keep perpetuating lawfare, because they'll throw anything against the wall. And see what sticks. And if we didn't have the, the majority and thankfully, um, the, the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in this case, they might have gotten away with it. And so let's welcome in Father Frank Pavone, who's founder of Priests for Life. And Frank, this is uh, overall a really good decision.

 : It's an excellent decision.

Frank Pavone : And you know, Jenna, we were confident about it, uh, from the beginning, uh, and of course especially after the oral arguments. But I mean just looking at it on its face, I mean it's clear violation of the rights to uh, assembly and free association, uh, First Amendment rights. But this, uh, our listeners need to understand is part of a pattern, a long pattern. The pregnancy centers have been under direct attack by the abortion industry for decades of legal attack. We see in the US Senate, for example, uh, uh, Senator, um, uh, Pocahontas

Jenna Ellis: Elizabeth Warren,

Frank Pavone : she introduced legislation numerous times, you know, oh, let's designate these as faith clinics, you know, because they're not practicing medicine. Meanwhile, most of the pregnancy centers now are medical clinics. They're actual medical clinics with, with doctors, you know, staffing them, et cetera, et cetera. But you know, the other side doesn't care because. And the motive for their attacks, whether legally or as we saw after Dobbs, especially physically, um, is, um, that every time a pregnancy center saves a life, the abortion industry loses business, they lose money. And that's how we have to understand this. Aside from their demonic worldview that somehow killing babies is something good. Um, and these Democrat governors are terrible. I mean, we see what's happening in NewSong Jersey with the Democrat administration, but look at Pennsylvania too. Josh Shapiro, when he came in, he ended a decades long arrangement, beautiful arrangement, by which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was letting public monies help moms find alternatives to abortion. And this was very caring, compassionate, uh, approach. The Republicans put furthermore into their, you know, what the Democrats complain about as abortion bans. You know, like in Florida and Texas, for example, when you look at the strict abortion laws there, these law, these, these laws contain, and the Democrats never talk about this, substantial funding for pregnancy centers. So let's put this in perspective. If people think that the Democrats are just, well, they're pro choice because they believe in choice and women's health care and they just want people to have options and think again. Learn from what went on in NewSong Jersey, from what went on in Pennsylvania, from what Elizabeth, people like Elizabeth Warren are doing. Learn that they are outright attacking the efforts of Americans to provide alternatives to women who maybe don't really want Abortion, but feel they have no other choice. How is that acceptable? And how does that. I mean, the American people don't go along with that. Plenty of people that are pro choice, they'll say, oh, I'm very much in favor of the pregnanc center is helping women have a choice. So, uh, yeah, overall, very good decision.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, if this had been allowed to stand, I mean, it would have had a chilling effect on the freedom of association. And, uh, these donors who didn't want to be unmasked, because then, you know that they'll be targeted by leftist groups. They might even be put on, you know, a hate watch list or, you know, some other kind of, uh, targeting just to discourage them from donating. And this is where the left, um, always is trying purposefully to demonetize conservatives. And that was really, ah, I think the emphasis in this case. And this is why, uh, the Supreme Court opinion was really good. Because, you know, we want to make sure that, um, not only do people have the constitutionally protected right to freedom of association, but that they're not targeted for exercising, um, their political or religious beliefs and especially not for just donating to a pregnancy center. Yeah, exactly.

Frank Pavone : And, uh, you know, there's a pregnancy center conference coming up just next week. I'll be speaking at it. Uh, it's called the nifla, the national. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Um, and I was just at the Heartbeat Conference a few weeks ago. Thousands of people that run these pregnancy centers across the country and around the world actually coming, and, boy, there's gonna be some celebrating next week. And, you know, NIFLA won a big case at the Supreme Court a handful of years ago, uh, about another kind of attack on the centers, which, again, the Supreme Court backed the pregnancy centers where they were being asked to. They were being required by certain states to actually advertise for abortion. Here you have a center established specifically to lead people away from abortion. And these states were saying, oh, but you have to post a notice as to where they can get an abortion. I mean, that's like Alcoholics Anonymous being required to tell people where the nearest liquor store is. It's so ridiculous. But the other side doesn't care. They are on. They are on a rampage. And they are obsessed with abortion. The Democrat party is obsessed with abortion. And voters need to ask themselves, do I really want to be part of a party that takes that approach?

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And Congressman Brandon Gill has been one of the best advocates in Congress, uh, for pro life. And during a recent hearing um, speaking of the Democrats being absolutely obsessed with abortion, they're obsessed with it, but they won't actually admit to what the procedures actually are because they know that there is no abortion procedure that is not utterly horrific. And I'm not going to play the clip just because, um, Congressman Gill goes into specific detail and listeners can, can go and find that clip on his X page. I reposted it. It's, it's all over. Um, um, but I don't want to play it just because it goes into detail about how gruesome these procedures are. But the question that was so smart was that he was asking an abortion advocate what her favorite method of abortion is, and she refused to respond. Now, if you ask any doctor, if you ask any surgeon, what's your preferred method of, you know, say, um, you know, stitches or say, you know, a, um, this type of surgery or what's, you know, what's your favorite way to deal with, um, you know, this type of heart defect or what? I mean, I know a few doctors and they love talking about their procedures. They'll explain to you in detail why this method might be preferred in this instance versus that one. Like, they're so technical and detailed, and yet it's so revealing that this abortion advocate refused to talk about the different methods of abortion. And then Brandon Gill goes into. And he says, okay, well, how about this one? And he describes it in detail. Is that your favorite? And she just says, I rest on my former answer. My former answer. And he goes through all of these because they are so utterly heinous. And it just shows that Democrats want the outcomes of abortion. But even they know, because they're still human beings made in the image of God. They have, even though they are suppressing the truth in their wickedness, they still know that these procedures are that evil and disgusting.

Frank Pavone : Yeah, they definitely know. You know, Brandon, uh, Gill has been a friend. I endorsed him when he first, uh, first, uh, decided to run, and he's been a rising star. Uh, and what he, the approach he took is exactly what I've been advocating for decades. Look, the Democrats never describe what they defend. And if all of us simply use that challenge to them, I say, hey, listen, I'm not even going to argue with you if abortion is right or wrong, if it should be legal or illegal. Let's start with this. Tell me what an abortion. Or you could ask them, have you ever seen one? And we have a special website, Jenna, We've talked about it before. LookAtAbortion.org, lookAtAbortion.org and listen, you know people, you don't have to, you know, if people want to say, oh, I don't want you quoting the Bible to me, I don't want you giving me pro life literature, biased information, fine, go to the abortionists, go to the medical textbooks. Now, like you said, the propagandists, they'll never describe the procedure or even admit what it is, but the abortionists themselves have to. As a matter of fact, at the Supreme Court, there have been cases about preferred methods of abortion. When you go back to the whole partial birth abortion debate, you know, one of the arguments they made against banning a particular type of procedure is that, oh, well, sometimes this procedure is more safe than other types. So they'll talk about the procedures in the medical textbooks. So we're not making this up. Brandon Gill isn't making it up. But they won't describe what they defend. And you know, I'm often quoted as saying, you know, America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion. Now, let me, if I might contrast this with, uh, the approach to the death penalty. If you look at, I'm thinking of two episodes, one from the series the West Wing and the other one from Grey's Anatomy. So one is a, you know, political program, the other one is a, is a, is a medical program. And in both of those series, at one point, there are episodes about the death penalty. Okay. You know what they do in those, in those episodes, they describe and even show in detail how someone is executed by the death penalty. I mean, they describe the medications, they show them being strapped on the table. So you show the drugs going in, uh, within the injection site. They describe it in detail. And in the West Wing episode, the president even ends up going to confession to his priest because he didn't intervene to stop the execution. So left wing narrative. Right. Um, meanwhile, of course, both show, both episodes, Both, uh, series have episodes where the abortion issue comes up. Never is there once a description. Even though on Grey's Anatomy, you see, you see heart and lung and kidney transplants, you see the blood, you see the cutting, you see it. Except you never see one of the most common surgeries in America, which is abortion. I mean, this is so transparent. This is so obvious. And it's such a powerful strategy for our, uh, listeners to use this challenge. People, again, who defend abortion, describe what you defend. Have you ever seen one? Until you see one, don't think you even have an informed opinion about it.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. And you know, you've been on this program for Years. And you have been an advocate, um, even as long as I've known you, for that exact position, which is asking the advocates of abortion to actually describe what they're advocating for. Because you're right. In. In Hollywood, in entertainment, in the testimony before Congress, they use all of these euphemisms. They, you know, you just see, um, on. On things like Grey's Anatomy, uh, you just see the woman asking for the procedure. Maybe you see her, you know, taking a pill, but you never actually see the outcome. You don't see the procedure itself, when that's literally the. The point of the show. Grey's Anatomy is to show. Show complex surgeries, to show all of, uh, the medicine. But that's the one procedure that they won't show. Why? Because it is so gruesome. And because the definition of abortion is a medical intervention specifically designed to cause the death of a child. And in every other instance of surgery and medicine, they're always trying to save lives, not take them. And when you ask these questions, it just reveals the truth. Yeah.

Frank Pavone : And you remember Jenna, a few years ago, there was a young woman on, uh, social media. She post. She said, I'm gonna. I'm gonna film my abortion to show people it's really no big deal. Well, I challenged her. I said, you know, you didn't film your abortion. I'm not quite. I'm not. I'm. I'll take you at your word that,

Frank Pavone : you know, during the video, you were having an abortion. But she filmed her face. She didn't film the abortion, but she said, oh, look, I'm having the abortion now, and all. Big propaganda thing. But I said, look, you really want to film your abortion, Let that camera show the instrument that's going inside you and the little body with a beating heart that it's tearing apart. Then you're showing your abortion.

Jenna Ellis: So well said. Well, we have to take a break here, but, you know, let's, uh, take a lesson from, uh, Frank Pavone and also Congressman Gill, and not just allow the left to keep using these euphemisms, but ask them, what is an abortion? Just like that. Ah, very famous question from Matt Walsh. What is a woman? Well, you have to define the thing that you're talking about. You can't just use these euphemisms or these, uh, these word plays or these fake definitions. And, um. And you'll see that the abortion advocates do not want to talk about that because they know that anyone who actually understands what an abortion is would never, ever advocate for it as especially I mean, period. But especially they would not advocate for it as, quote, unquote, health care. We'll be right back with more.

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, another big, uh, Supreme Court decision yesterday. The Supreme Court rules on Voting Rights act striking down Louisiana map. This coming from the Hill. The Supreme Court declared Louisiana's addition of a second majority black congressional district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander on Wednesday. A 6, 3 decision along ideological lines that, uh, weakens a central provision of the Voting Rights Act. And of course, that's the spin, uh, from the Hill, that it weakens a central provision. This is actually a very good decision. And unlike the Crisis Pregnancy center decision that was unanimous, this was six, three. And of course, uh, you can guess probably who the three, uh, dissenting liberal justices are. Um, Louisiana's legal saga thrust the state into the center of conservatives push to curtail Section 2 of the Voting law, which, um, according to the Hill, and this is the Democrats view, has long enabled advocacy groups to force new majority minority districts. So it's a good thing that, uh, the Supreme Court is striking this down and that the, um, the districts can't be racially gerrymandered. So let's welcome in Mike Donnelly. He is an attorney, and you can follow him on X at. Donnelly speaks for all of his snarky, uh, commentary that I obviously prefer. So, uh, Mike, good morning. And, um, you know, I loved that, uh, Hakeem Jeffries posted yesterday. You know, wow, we're, um, we no longer have, uh, dei, we no longer have racial gerrymandering. We no longer have affirmative action. And what's going on along this list. And I'm going, great, we're finally getting back to the golden age of America.

Mike Donnelly: Well, what we're getting back to Jenna. And good morning to you and everyone listening. It's great to be with you, of course. And this is a very important and appropriate and correct decision. Uh, of course, you know, anything that Justice Alito writes, you can bet most of the time is going to be 100%. Right on. Spot on. And he was in this one, too. It's an excellent decision. Uh, look, the Constitution is colorblind. Our country should be colorblind. Do we have racial, um, issues from the past? You better believe it. We can't hide from that. We shouldn't hide from it. Which is why we shouldn't tear down statues and try to erase our history. We need to remember it so we don't repeat it. Uh, but we fixed it and uh, we've been fixing it for a long time. And the 14th and 15th amendments do not allow government to sort Americans by race. And the court, an earlier court, a different court, and under different conditions, let's just be real, right, under different conditions, um, allowed this Voting Rights act, which was passed, you know, under the authority of the Constitution, 15th Amendment, um, allowing Congress to deal with this issue of race in the context of voting. The 15th amendment says this. It says, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And that's what the Voting Rights act was intended to do, is to prevent states and the Southern states mostly from, you know, not allowing blacks to have a voice. Right. And so we've come a long way from the 1960s. And what justice Alito did in this case, instead of striking it down, which I agree it shouldn't have been struck down, he said, look, this is a very straightforward statutory interpretation case, and what we're going to do is correctly interpret the Voting Rights act in section 2 and not assume that everything the Southern states do is motivated by racism. Okay? Which is what the court had essentially done in the 70s and 80s. And Alita says, look, now plaintiffs can come and challenge maps, but what they have to do is they have to prove that it was intentionally done to disenfranchise people on the basis of race. And so what this case stands for is what Students for, uh, Fair Admissions stood for. Okay? We are not going to allow the government to use race as a basis for anything other than very strict, very narrow things. And there are only two of those. You can talk about them if you want. But what Justice Roberts said in Student for Fair Admissions was eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. You don't do it in university admissions, and we're not going to do it in the voting booth either. That's what this case is about.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Which, uh, which makes a lot of sense. And yet the Democrats are trying to confuse and conflate this issue, uh, especially in light of the current legitimate redistricting that's going, uh, on in Florida and also Texas. And then of course you have, uh, the response to that from the Democrats in Virginia that recently got struck down because, um, that, that suggested that Virginia is a 10 to 1 Democrat voting electorate state, which is, um, just absurd. And so where is the line? And how should people understand the difference between illegal racial gerrymandering and legitimate Redistricting that actually considers the electorate and the population.

Mike Donnelly: That's a great question. And that's what's going on. Right. And look, gerrymandering is, you know, they use that word and it's, oh, this is terrible. And of course, the Democrats say it's terrible when the Republicans do it, but they love it when they do it right. And they've been doing it for decades. That's why California is the way it is. That's why, you know, Massachusetts has no Republican representatives. That's why Maryland is, you know, 8 to 1. Illinois, you know, just go down the list. Uh, you know, the Democrats have been doing this for decades and the Republicans haven't. It's not unconstitutional. It's not wrong for the party in power in the state legislature to draft maps, maps that may give them a partisan advantage. The Supreme Court has said this is a non justiciable issue. It's political. The Constitution gives it to the states. Doesn't give the authority, the federal government, any authority to go in and police that. But what the Constitution does do is prohibit racial. The state doing anything based on race. And there's a presumption in there which I find offensive. And, you know, the court calls it odious when you use race, um, as a governmental factor to draw these kinds of lines. Um, you know, that assumes that all blacks or all Hispanics vote the same way. And that's really offensive because there are lots of black conservatives, there are lots of Hispanic conservatives who are Republicans, who want to have their votes counted. And when you force, uh, racial, um, factors onto that, you're disenfranchising those voters. And so what this court case does is it says, look, we understand that this used to be done because of racism back in maybe 50s, 60s or whatever. And that's not what's happening now. But if you can prove that it is happening, you can still challenge maps. So this doesn't say that people can't challenge maps based on racism. What it simply says is you've got to just give evidence of that. And it can't be just partisan because partisan gerrymandering is not wrong. So the court says.

Jenna Ellis: Mm. And which is interesting because critics are saying that it allows partisan gerrymandering, but supporters say it prevents racial sorting. And what you're saying is that it does both because partisan gerrymandering is okay, and racial sorting isn't. So that. That makes a lot of sense.

Mike Donnelly: Yeah, if we don't like partisan. Yeah, if we don't like partisan gerrymandering, Then we need to, you know, look, that's majority rule, okay? We, uh, are a majority rule country. We have a constitution that protects rights to a lot of them. Okay? But we are still the majority rule country. And the states have the authority to decide how they're going to do math. Some of them do it, uh, some of them have independent commissions, some of them have dealt with this issue of partisan versus nonpartisan. And that's something that the state can do. But this is about the federal government intervening and using the federal constitution to override state action. Let's not forget that that's what the Voting Rights act is all about. And it's been used in a variety of ways by the Democrats to impose, you know, Democrat, um, you know, majority minority districts, assuming that all blacks vote the same way. And that's just, that's fundamentally inconsistent with the way the Constitution works. It's odious.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that, that actually gets me to the next question, which is, you know, this is a good decision, but it is federal government intervention. And so how much should the unelected federal judges be involved in second guessing state legislatures on district maps? And I mean, I would guess the answer to that is very little. Unless it's something that is so obviously unconstitutional that the court would need to step in.

Mike Donnelly: That's exactly right. That's what this case does is it reestablishes that balance between the federal government and the states in the context of voting and the 15th Amendment, saying that you can't, um, discriminate on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude in voting. You, um, know what the Democrats are saying? Obama says that this effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act. That's what he said yesterday. Um, Kamala Harris said this is designed to give an upper hand to Donald Trump's Republican Party. That's all you need to know. This is about politics. The Dems are mad because the country's changing and it's more conservative. We, we know that the, the split in Congress shouldn't be this close because more people are leaning Republican than Democrat. And they're mad because this is going to realize that.

Jenna Ellis: Mhm. And, and that's what's happening politically. Yeah. And that's exactly what's happening in Florida and Texas. Is that the maps you, because there have been so many people that have moved to red states, uh, especially since 2020. I mean, Florida now has, um, over a million more registered than we did in 2020, which was even before I moved here. I mean, I'm one of them, right, who, who moved because of DeSantis leadership from a blue state. Right. And so, of course, the maps, um, should be redrawn. It should, uh, accurately and appropriately reflect, um, the electorate. But even kind of putting the districting aside, uh, if we are considering the fact that there are that many more Republicans, um, unless you try to specifically carve out a district that is only covering where Democrats reside, which is what the Democrats try to do overall, shouldn't it be that, um, the population of states like Florida and Texas now yield just more Republican seats in Congress by virtue of the voting electorate? Or are we assuming that registration also equals turnout?

Mike Donnelly: I mean, that's fair. Uh, it should, it should reflect more Republican, um, House seats, um, because that's what is happening. And so it's appropriate for redistricting to happen. Let's. I, uh, just want to point out something about this case. If you look at the district in Louisiana that was challenged, it looks like a snake. It cuts through four cities. It goes 250 miles. Okay. And it's like a snake snaking through the whole state of Louisiana just to capture black neighborhoods. Assuming that all black people want to vote the same way. I mean, people in Shreveport versus people in, you know, Baton Rouge, you know, they may or may not vote the same way, but it's wrong to assume that just because they're black, they're going to vote the same way. And you've got to force them all into a one congressional district. That's what's wrong with this. And that's why what the court did is correct.

Jenna Ellis: Hm. And so that also raises a really interesting question, though. Why don't we go to districts just being basically grids? I mean, why even allow for partisan gerrymandering? I get the point of, you know, those in power and, um, you know, being able to be a majority led country, all of those things. But if then the districting goes kind of back and forth, depending on who's in power in the state legislature, why not just draw a grid and whoever happens to live in the district, lives in the district and, you know, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Mike Donnelly: I mean, that certainly would be one. One way the state legislatures could do it. But, you know,

Jenna Ellis: And I think we might have lost Mike Donnelly. We'll try to get him. Oh, uh, and he's back. Sorry, we lost you on that one. If you could repeat your answer. Apologies. You cut out for a minute and I think he might be gone again. We'll try to get a better connection to Mike Donnelly. We're almost at the end of the segment anyway, but let's try to get him back, um, just to finish, you know, that question. And it's really, you know, to me this falls along the, um, the rationale constitutionally, of state authority. And if we actually look at how much power is given to the states instead of the federal government, um, the state legislatures should be so much more, uh, powerful and so much more, um, attention paid to them than, you know, all of the news that's on the federal government and how we're looking to Congress to solve all the problems. Well, constitutionally, it should be the state legislatures that are in control of their own states. And yes, that has national implications. But as we've learned from, you know, even federal elections, states constitutionally have, uh, the ability and the power to run their elections as they see fit. Congress can only set the time, place and manner for federal elections. And I'm told we have Mike Donnelly back. So, um, if you could repeat your answer in terms of, you know, why not just have like, the grid and um, and say, okay, you know, we're just fixing the map. It's going to stay the same way unless, you know, we literally change state lines. Um, and then, then nobody would be arguing over these things other than, you know, maybe trying to convince people to move to different districts. I mean, I'm sure Democrats would come up with some other potential solution to try to, uh, game the system. But, you know, why haven't we thought about some kind of, uh, solution like that?

Mike Donnelly: Well, Jen, I think you were giving the answer, uh, while I was getting back on online. Is this federalism? This is the kind of government we have. We have a majority rule country where state legislatures are empowered to make those decisions. And some have made decisions to have independent commissions to draw maps, and some have decided to retain that power themselves. If we, the people in the states, want to make changes, we can do that through our elected representatives. And you know, we've talked about this many times. You know, we don't need the federal government, big daddy, you know, telling us all what to do. And this was just another situation where the courts, which have even less, um, credibility and appropriate authority in telling the states what to do, telling states how to draw their state and congressional representative maps. And that was wrong, in my opinion. So, you know, if states want to do things with grids, they can do it. Um, if they don't, they don't. That simple.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And this is where I, uh, hope that the uh, redistricting in Florida goes through and, you know, also Texas. But then, you know, in that same vein of federalism, we now have the state Supreme Court that has struck down the redistricting in Virginia, but that went through a citizens, um, ballot initiative or, uh, proposal, which, you know, is a little bit different way, and it circumvents, uh, the legislature. But what's your view, at least in, in terms of the conversation of federalism? Because a lot of people after that, uh, went through, were suggesting, well, if the courts intervene at this point, it'll look like it's, you know, overturning the will of the people. And that whole argument,

Mike Donnelly: you know. Well, on Virginia now, did the Virginia Supreme Court overturn it or did they? I didn't.

Jenna Ellis: They refused to certify it currently. So that's where it's at right now. So it's not fully decided. Yeah.

Mike Donnelly: Right. Okay. Okay. I just want to be clear, because my understanding was that the lower court in Virginia had put a hold on certifying the results, and the Virginia Supreme Court agreed to keep that hold in place as they're considering it. Um, so I think, you know, when you've got the state supreme courts interpreting their own constitution, that's appropriate. And I've been following this because I live right next door to Virginia in West Virginia, and I work in the District of Columbia. So this is a hot issue. And, um, you know, what the people who proposed and went through the initiative process did is they broke the rules. There are a couple of very obvious instances in which they didn't follow the constitutional process to, um, put the ballot initiative on the election for the election. And this Virginia Supreme Court is being asked to enforce those rules after the fact. They declined to stop the ballot initiative from going forward, uh, for a variety of reasons. And I think that was fine. I think they could have stopped it. But they said, well, we're just going to let it go through because in the end it gets voted down. It's a moot point now that it was barely passed by, you know, a couple thousands of votes. They're now going to take it up and make a decision. And it seems pretty obvious to me that the people who put. Tried to put that ballot initiative through broke the rules, and the Virginia Supreme Court's going to have to make a decision on that. It seems like it ought to strike it down.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that that makes a lot more sense. And I think that there's, you know, a difference where. Well, again, you know, the Democrats are trying to conflate this by saying, you know, well, if you agree with federalism and you agree with, you know, the will of the people, then, you know, you can't be for Florida and Texas while you're against Virginia. But, um, you know, those are two very different situations and you have to look at the particulars. I mean, it's just like I was watching on, um, a clip from, I think it was MSNBC of um, the uh, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, you know, responding, uh, to the indictment of James Comey. And you know, Major Garrett, the journalist, is trying to catch him and say, well, you know, what about this? This looks exactly the same. Are you going to go after these people? And, And Blanche had such the perfect answer where he said, you know, this is all part of an investigation. Just because two things on face may look similar to you, that doesn't mean that they're legally situated in the posture exactly the same so that the outcome is the same. And I think that what's missing here oftentimes, uh, Mike Donnelly, is a lack of a nuance and a lack of like, in depth, uh, conversation about the law, about federalism, about districting, all of these things. And so, um, so the bottom line, and we've got to take a break here, but the bottom line for listeners is don't get caught up in how the mainstream media, and especially the Democrats like to conflate these issues. You have to look at them independently, what law actually is applicable, what's being argued, uh, what's being challenged. And, um, and not just say, well, you know, if I'm for Florida and Texas, then, you know, isn't it hypocritical of me to be against Virginia? Well, no. And, um, this is why I love having the more long format conversations on radio because we can get into those details. So thanks so much, Mike Donnelly again. Follow him on X Onnelly Speaks. And we will be right back with,

Frank Pavone : Uh, uh, welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of the redistricting in Florida, uh, that has now gone through the House, it's making its way through, uh, the Senate. And it seems like, uh, that will be a signature accomplishment of uh, the legislature under the, the helm really of Governor DeSantis. But a couple of other major issues, uh, did not get attention in Florida's legislature and are key points, um, as well in the debate over policy, which it seems like, uh, Byron Donalds doesn't want to touch. But, um, at least several other candidates are talking about policy in the gubernatorial election. And so, uh, James Fishback is one of those candidates. He's also the CEO of Azoria and joins me now. So, um, you know, overall, there's been a lot of talk among Florida voters about, um, property tax relief, um, the AI data centers, which, um, inexplicably, you know, Byron Donald seems totally fine with. Um, I'm guessing probably because, you know, some of his donors are a big, um, you know, AI and ah, tech, uh, uh, company advocates and it would benefit them personally. Um, but really there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion about policy and what the, uh, actual impact would be to Florida. So that's a big concern, um, among a few other things, uh, including medical freedom, which the state legislature refused to consider. So, uh, where are we at in this governor's race? Because I think a lot of people are finally waking up to the fact that, um, it doesn't seem like, uh, Byron Donalds, who we've invited on this program to answer, you know, some of these questions. Um, he doesn't really have a plan. It just seems like he's, he's campaigning on vibes and taking credit for things that Governor DeSantis, uh, has already done.

Scott Uehlinger: Well, good morning, Jenna. I think you laid it out well there. And to, to your point, where are we? Where are we in Florida? We are at a fork in the road. You know, I was one of the first people to say this, that I would not be running for governor. If Ron DeSantis could run for a third term. I would happily vote for him as I had in 2018 and 2022. He has met the moment every single step of the way. I think he's the greatest governor in Florida history. But alas, there are term limits in Florida. And so the next governor has to, one, preserve the winds of Ron DeSantis and two, make headway in areas that DeSantis perhaps wasn't able to do in these short eight years. Property tax reform is one of them. Affordability, cracking down on insurance premium increase, whether it's auto or homeowners. And to your point, Byron Donald has been missing in action once again. He was, of course, in Pensacola this last week. We've all seen the video now where he is at a fundraiser at a home that on Zillow is worth $7 million. And the home fundraiser, uh, host looks to everyone and says, everyone here in this room, I hope your investors in his company, Byron's company. Because if you're investors, your shareholders, if you're shareholders, you get to spend time with the CEO and if you help steer the direction that this grace state is on. And so this is the kind of disgusting pay to play politics that enraged us about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton for years, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden for years. And I'm sad to say it is engulfing our own party. And Jenna, what I respect about you is that you are willing to call out the excesses and abuses of our party when it is strayed. And that's what we have to do.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and I think you're absolutely right that, you know, Florida, uh, like many states in this country, and I think America as a whole is at a crossroads. And really, you know, this, this election is one that the, the eyes of the nation are on because of Governor DeSantis wins, uh, because Florida has been, um, the free state of Florida and, and the model for the last eight years. And if, uh, this state is turned over to, um, to a Republican in name only, or even worse, potentially a Democrat, I mean, I can't even believe that we're at that point that it's even possible that a Democrat would succeed a Governor DeSantis. That will mean that Florida is no longer the, the, uh, the beacon of, uh, the example for the rest of the country. And that would be really sad. I mean, I moved here because of DeSantis's leadership. I want to continue in that tradition. But it also seems like the legislature is more focused on kind of these petty personal disputes, uh, and don't want to give DeSantis, um, too many wins instead of actually focused on what the voters want. And when you have a super majority of Republicans in the legislature, that's just really offensive to me.

Frank Pavone : It is.

Scott Uehlinger: And a super majority of Republicans means absolutely nothing if those Republicans, to your point, have taken millions of dollars.

Jenna Ellis: Oh, and it looks we're having so many, so many issues with the phone today. I don't know if it's that, uh, you know, something on our end or if uh, you know, people just don't want to talk this morning. But I can't imagine that knowing, uh, James Fishback and also Mike Donnelly, both of whom love to pontificate. But we'll kind of, we'll uh, try to get Fish back, um, back so that we can finish out this, uh, last segment. But you know, um, from, from my perspective as a Floridian and kind of getting involved more in local politics here, you know, seeing some of those state level kind of petty, uh, disuse, it really mirrors the federal government where you're wondering, you Know, why don't, why don't members of Congress do anything? Well, it's the same thing here in Florida. Why aren't they doing anything? Because often when you get these people who are more concerned about pres. Their own power than they are about actually doing the business of governing, then you have a problem and you have an inconsistency. Because if, uh, if people who we elect are going into office just because they want that power, they want um, the benefits that come along with it, and they also are more concerned about preserving that power than they are about actually doing their job, then you have a disconnected, uh, non statesman. And that's how we arrive at career politicians. And I have long been an advocate, especially in primaries where, you know, if we are conservatives, we can choose the best candidate then to represent us. And it's not just about, you know, the endorsements. It really is not just about who Trump endorses. Um, you can take that, of course, you know how you prefer and maybe factor that into the equation. But um, the track record of Trump is not great in terms of actually choosing the best conservative. It's more um, in his vein, who is the most loyal to the MAGA agenda, whatever that happens to be today. Um, but it's more about, for the voters and especially as conservatives, we need to be concerned with choosing the best candidate that accurately reflects the policy and understands that in depth and also has a track record. And you know, here in Florida, I mean that's why I've, I've openly said in my personal capacity, um, I support Paul Renner because he is the former speaker of the House. He understands, um, how to work with the legislature, has a track record of conservative policy where if you look at the candidate like Byron Donald, I mean, what has he done in Congress? Well, you can look at that record and we need to look more at the record, at the personal, ah, history, the personal record, um, whether they claim and actually follow, um, to being Christians. I mean that actually is a really big consideration, uh, for voting. And we need to be engaged at every step of the way. The fact that there is so much of a lower turnout historically in primaries than there is in the general election, a problem. And we need to know, I mean here in Florida, Our primary is August 18th. For everyone listening who's in Florida, get out and vote, uh, figure out for whatever state you're listening in, uh, figure out when your primaries are. If there are special elections. Special elections often, uh, don't have as much turnout because people aren't even really aware that they're going on. And that's a problem. You shouldn't have to wait to listen, you know, to, um, your local media or if you get a flyer in the mail, to be aware of what's going on in your state. This is being a responsible, informed citizen, um, or knowing, for example, if there's a runoff, um, knowing if there are ballot initiatives. And this doesn't mean that everyone is engaged in politics 24 7. Um, I know that that's impossible, and I know that there are so many other priorities that people have. Uh, and that's fine, but just make sure. And the point is, make sure that you are engaged enough that you can be responsible for your, uh, for your duty. That God has given us such a great gift in this nation to be able to participate in our elections, to select and prefer our leaders. There are so many people in other countries that really wish that they had a voice and that they can select and prefer their leaders. That's why all of these redistricting cases, these things like the SAVE act, um, the litigation over the census, all of this matters because it goes to the basic concept of representation and the fact that this is a country of the people, by the people, for the people, and that we, the people actually get to select our leaders in a free and fair process. Now, can the process be manipulated somewhat by those in power, as Mike Donnelly said in the last segment? Yes. And, um, and to an extent, that's part of the process and why majorities matter, but that's within the contours and the bounds of not only the federal constitution, but also state law. And we need to be aware of all of that. We need to be engaged in that process, and we need to know how to best utilize our vote and our voice, not just also for candidates and the individuals in office, but also for the issues. Uh, ballot issues are huge initiatives. I mean, here in the state of Florida, I was so thankful that Governor DeSantis, um, was, uh, such a vocal advocate against, uh, legislating and, uh, the ballot initiatives against recreational abortion and also recreational marijuana. Those two issues failed in Florida because of his leadership. And those were two huge issues that I think a lot of people, until DeSantis got involved, weren't even aware of. So we need to be responsible citizens. Um, we'll have to have James Fish back on another time. Not sure what happened to his connection there, but, uh, appreciate him coming on. As always, you can follow him on X. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna F r dot net.