Two Supreme Court justices will testify before Congress on security tomorrow morning

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

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, July 14, and shortly around 10am M, two of the Supreme Court justices are going to be testifying before Congress wanting an appropriation for more security. It's going to be very interesting to see where those hearings go. So we will have more about that tomorrow after of course, some of the clips will probably go viral, but we'll keep an eye on that.

On privacy versus public safety when it comes to AI, drones and data centers

but first this morning, the AI battle is here. And as, as regular listeners know, I'm totally fascinated by AI because this is a technology that not only is here to stay, but has a lot of benefits, I think for humanity, but a lot of very serious concerns. there's obviously the concern about replacement of human analysis and creativity and intelligence and we don't want to go down the rabbit hole of transhumanism. I mean there, there's a huge, huge risk factor. But overall, this is something that's here to say we need to understand it and we need to regulate it in a way that makes sense between the benefits that can happen for overall society using this technology, versus some privacy concerns. And so, my first guest, Patrick Hedger, who is the NetChoice director of policy, wrote a really fascinating article in Daily Wire's opinion, page, and it's titled the Battle over AI Dominance Starts with the States. And there was also, and I want to get into that with him, and there was also another piece in Wired, just this past week that was talking about an accidental security lapse, not an intentional disclosure, in which the San Francisco Police Department left a live drone feed publicly accessible on the Internet for months through a misconfigured sharing in their platform. And so security researchers discovered that anyone with the link could watch real time drone footage, including thermal imaging, gps, metadata and other officer information. And so the leaks, and and some of all of this regulation, it simply sets up the question of privacy versus public safety, which is not a new debate whatsoever. And we have a lot of Supreme Court precedent on this, but we don't really have regulation yet. On the privacy versus public safety when it comes to AI, new, technology like drones and also the building of data centers, which is a huge debate right now in my home state of Florida. And it was a huge focus at the gubernatorial debate and whether or not, these AI data centers should be built.

Patrick Hedger says pushback on data centers is based on misinformation

So let's welcome in Patrick Hedger. And I know that was kind of the broad 30,000 foot, overview of all of this, but, let's summarize, you know, your article first on why you believe the AI race won't be primarily won in Washington and this. It'll have to be won by the states and in terms of regulation.

Patrick Hedger: Yeah. So what we're seeing right now unfortunately, is a major pushback on the infrastructure that's necessary for America to have the success that it had in the Internet age, in the air age. America won the Internet race. the major companies in the world building the Internet and the global Internet itself is built by and designed by Americans in large part. And we want to see that for AI, because in the Internet era that's created trillions of dollars in wealth here in the United States. It's a major component of American soft power and even hard power. but the necessary infrastructure for that are data centers, going forward. And what we're seeing right now, unfortunately, is a pushback on data centers. A lot of that, you know, while I understand people have legitimate concerns, a lot of the information that they're getting is bad information. It's misinformation and a lot, in large part it's being created by our foreign adversaries to do precisely what I'm talking about, which is hold America back.

Jenna Ellis: And that's really fascinating because I know, as I mentioned, you know, the debate here in Florida, the primary reasons that a lot of voters here are objecting to it is because they don't want their tax, tax dollars, being used for this, having, you know, decreased access to water and you know, some of these things in the land that data centers, would have to use. However, to your point, if we're offshoring a lot of this, we've seen how some of that, security lapse can, can be a concern with other data. When you have, like what happened in 2020, just for example, it didn't deal with a foreign nation, but when you have an outsourcing of your data housing, like that social media platform, and I'm forgetting the name of it because it just went away, but how they housed their entire App platform in Amazon. And Amazon just immediately cut them off when they said, well, we don't want to deal with your conservative content, so we're going to tell you that you can't house it here anymore. And, and so they were basically gone in an instant. Could the same sort of thing happen if we have, data centers that are housed in perhaps countries of foreign adversaries?

Patrick Hedger: Well, you know, look at what's happened in the Iran war. Amazon data centers were targeted by the Iranians. Data centers in the uae. And so that tells you how important they are to an economy and to military, power even. you know, some of the systems that the Pentagon relies on, are AI systems and also data intensive systems that have to be processed at secure data centers here in the United States. And things like your banking records, your health records, we're going to wake up one day and say, well, gosh, how did all this outsourcing happen? And it's going to happen because what we're seeing right now, at the state and local level, and it's unfortunate because again, a lot of it is based on pure misinformation. And you brought up the concerns about electricity, water use and land use. And the studies so far are finding that when it comes to electricity prices, data centers are actually suppressing the increase in electricity prices. Electricity prices are going up because of other bad policies. Data centers are able to absorb a lot of those costs, water usage. The major data centers, the biggest ones, use, about the same amount of water as one to two golf courses, depending on where that golf course is located. there are a heck of a lot more golf courses in the United States than there are data centers.

Jenna Ellis: There always will be in Florida for sure.

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. Nobody's ever concerned about the water use of those. And I'm sorry, a golf course doesn't provide you with all of the conveniences of modern life from being able to order an Uber or a package or access your health records, regardless of what hospital you go to.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And part of your argument is that, China understands AI leadership depends on the computing infrastructure. And, you know, if we relate this to infrastructure that, that all of us who live in towns can. I mean, if you have, the people but you have no infrastructure, then it's really hard to, to go along the highways and it's really hard to get places. The same kind of thing, is happening with computing infrastructure. And so if China is heavily investing in this because they see that this is the future, but the United States is then behind. that puts us at a strategic and I think a national security disadvantage.

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, absolutely. I mean the power of AI and defense going forward has already been demonstrated. I mean the Ukrainians were able to take out a significant portion of Russia's nuclear bomber fleet using AI trained drones. That is a huge wake up call for how important technology, data processing, and artificial intelligence will be going forward. I think just within the last few days, the United States Navy used autonomous drones to take out an Iranian submarine. All of these things rely on having impressive levels of compute power, and having leading edge technology. and then there's just simply the economic factor of it. I mean it was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that you know, a couple of years ago said that the most important thing for defense going forward is a robust economy. and we're not going to have a robust economy. We're not going to have the kind of manufacturing you want to see come back to this country. If we're not building, if we're not able to build the necessary infrastructure behind that, that includes data centers, that includes new transmission lines, that includes new power generation. the AI race is allowing for a lot of capital to come off the sidelines to build these things. But unfortunately again, we're seeing pushback based on misinformation. That's really going to lead us to a pretty nasty place going forward if we're not careful.

Jenna Ellis: And I'm speaking with Patrick Hedger who is the Net Choice Director of Policy and his article in Daily Wire opinion is the battle over AI dominance starts with the states. And so there are some states, according to your article, that are actively recruiting AI investment and then others are considering moratoriums or heavy restrictions. And so why is it that the states, and should it be the states that are driving the competition rather than Washington? I mean, should Washington be doing the regulation or something else and then leaving the competition to the states or how do we break this down?

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, I mean, so there's the difference between the regulation of the AI systems themselves, which should ultimately be done at the federal level. Because if you're working within any sort of technology that's hosted in a cloud, you're, you're undoubtedly m moving across state lines in cyberspace. So that's some interstate commerce is something that the federal government should be doing. But the federal government has very little say in terms of local land use and zoning, which is where a lot of these fights over if we're going to be able to build the necessary infrastructure for the future are happening. so that's what I mean when I say that the states have kind of become the front lines for all of this. and there are states out there that are embracing the investment. I mean, we're seeing in Louisiana right now that Meta has made, several billions of dollars worth of investments in their largest data center in the world. And that's in, northeast Louisiana. And people are expanding their local businesses to be able to meet the needs, of that facility. So there are really beneficial, economic knock on effects from having that investment. So it's exciting to see that some states are choosing that, but you're going to have other states that are going to wake up and say, my goodness, how did all of these really great cutting edge jobs and all the, knock on economic growth that comes with it, how did that end up in Louisiana or Virginia or Ohio or Tennessee and not here in Michigan or not here in California or not here in Maine, Some of these states that have been pushing back, on the necessary infrastructure growth. So, we could find ourselves in a position of the haves and the have nots right here within the United States.

Jenna Ellis: And where do you think that the misinformation, or at least, you know, according to that, that perspective, where did that originate in that kind of, fear of the data centers versus the, the kind of, open embrace of AI because, I mean this technology is here to stay. But you know, I've seen some, some really strong advocates on both sides.

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, well, you know, I think a lot of it is coming from the fact that people in places in this country are seeing mismanagement of their water resources. They are seeing, an increase in electricity prices. But those things don't have anything to do with the data center moving in. those things have to do with bad policies that have been put on the books. And we've seen studies to this effect that say that, you know, really what's happening with electricity prices are mandates, it's government control of the marketplace, deciding exactly where each electron comes from that goes onto the grid. And then there's also policies that are making it harder for us to upgrade our grid. I mean, forget AI and data centers for a second. You know, we have known for a very, very long time that America's electric grid is way too old and outdated. and it's not as efficient as it should be. We're losing a tremendous amount of the power that we generate purely because the lines are old. we can't afford that going forward. I mean there's a major push by you know, both parties to reshore manufacturing here in the United States. Well, if you want to have more manufacturing or you want to build more housing, both of those things use a heck of a lot more electricity than a data center ever has or ever will. so those investments have been, are necessary. Those investments have costs and that's really what's driving up electricity prices. You know, it's not this new demand that's coming online where there's lots of new demand from all sorts of sources, data centers included.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I did an interview several years ago. I mean this is probably, you know, four or five years ago now, talking about the risks of the grid and how easy it could be for some of our foreign adversaries to knock that out, at least temporarily. And it's kind of amazing. and that I think suggests the power of our military that they haven't yet, but that remains a risk.

Patrick Hedger: Privacy versus public safety is a huge constitutional concern

but let's turn in the last about five minutes I have with you, Patrick Hedger, to this whole privacy versus public safety element of this. Because while you know, AI is here to stay, I think there's a lot of beneficial uses and obviously all of ah, law enforcement is going to be using this. the other kind of main argument in, at least here in Florida is against these flock cameras and how they're being In my opinion, I agree that they're, they're being abused in the sense that that, that individuals no longer feel that they have any sort of privacy even walking outside of their door. And, and the sometimes misuse of these cameras can lead to. For one example, there was a man who was pulled over in, and I think it was in Florida where his license plate was returned to the police officers as a stolen vehicle when it really wasn't. And he basically had to go through a lot of rigmarole, to make sure that he wasn't actually arrested over that. And so I think there is a huge concern about and that could be any technology. I mean if the officers accidentally put it in wrong or there was a human error, that type of thing can happen. But in terms of privacy, I see privacy especially in the context of the fourth Amendment just being more and more and more and more degraded the higher and more precise these technologies get. And that's a huge constitutional concern.

Patrick Hedger: You know, certainly we need to have protections put in place. You know, when I talked earlier about the fact that you know, we're lacking in terms of a national framework for AI governance. This, is also something that Congress has fallen behind on, which is a national privacy framework. Prior to the advent of AI, we have, you know, been asking for Congress to set a national sort of privacy or data security standard, instead of having, you know, a bunch of different rules and regulations at the state level. That creates a confusing patchwork. So there's an area where Congress can do a lot of good by sort of establishing both a national AI framework as well as a national privacy framework. but certainly we have to be vigilant about, how government is using technology. and certainly, the Fourth Amendment needs to be technology agnostic. It largely has been, the Fourth Amendment protections. I'm certain the founders couldn't have anticipated email when they wrote the Fourth Amendment. But the Fourth Amendment still applies, right?

Jenna Ellis: And I mean, it's the same thing as the Second Amendment that we as advocates have always said that it matters, not what the technology, you know, continues in terms of firearms, but the fact that you have, this constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, whatever the technology happens to progress, to be,

Do you think the Fourth Amendment adequately protects Americans against persistent aerial surveillance

Do you think that the Fourth Amendment adequately protects Americans against this kind of persistence, persistent aerial surveillance? Or does this technology require the courts to rethink existing legal standards that just, you know, simply aren't adequate enough under the Fourth Amendment to cover this, and actually protect privacy?

Patrick Hedger: Well, I think the courts are heading in the right direction. What we just saw was a decision from the Supreme Court regarding geofence warrants. so what the law enforcement had been doing was going to Google and saying, we want to see everything that happened within this, this area. every, you know, every search that some, you know, was happen, within a geographic area, not by a specific person or company or something like that. and so the court said, no, sorry, that's a Fourth Amendment search. And so I think that that kind of is moving in the same direction that you're talking about where you can't just have, this, you know, persistent search of an area, with any type of technology. So I think the courts are heading in the right direction on that, but, you know, certainly need to keep the pressure up.

Patrick Hedger: Privacy is still a huge concern for younger generations

Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Patrick Hedger, we're going to have to take a break here and I really appreciate, this whole conversation because it seems like, a much larger debate and how, you know, we may be losing the ability to meaningfully protect privacy, especially if we as individuals are just turning it over to the government. We don't even have, kind of this reasonable expectation of privacy, which has been the gold standard, at least in jurisprudence, since, you know, Katz versus the United States and a bunch of, legal precedent, because especially, you know, the younger generation, I mean, they just turn on location services. They don't really care. They've kind of grown up in this technological era, but privacy is still a huge concern. But fascinating discussion around, the actual benefits of AI data centers. So, you know, it's. It's a conversation we'll continue to have. So really appreciate it, Patrick. We'll take. Be right back with more.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has selected Lindsey Graham's sister to fill vacancy

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has selected Lindsey Graham's sister, Darlene Graham Nordone to feature, fill the late senator seat through the remainder of his term. And, while this is not an unusual or novel, idea to put in a family member, this has happened in, in historical, precedent on both the Democrat and the Republican side to put in a family member to fill out the term. I personally, don't like the GOP constantly elevating family members, because elected office is a public trust, not a private family trust. And obviously, if she does not choose to run again, then, this particular term runs out in January of 2027. there are only about 40 more Senate working days, but those days are important. There's still business to be done. I have no doubt that, she will likely vote, as Graham would have and, for the Trump agenda. But wouldn't it have been smarter to at least put in someone who actually understood the business of the Senate, maybe has experience and can actually help, push things like the SAVE act to go through the Senate instead of just this kind of, sentimental placeholder? Well, at least, there is going to be another primary and special election to see who is actually going to take over after January 2027. And so, Mark lynch is one of those who is set, at least, according to the news, to revive his U.S. senate campaign after Senator Graham's death. And he joins me now. So, Mark, good morning. And what's the, state of play in South Carolina?

Mark Lynch: Good morning, Jenna. Thank you for having me on today. I really appreciate it.

Mark Lynch is running for U.S. senate from South Carolina

And I want to. I want to open up with a prayer right quick.

Jenna Ellis: Yes, go ahead.

Mark Lynch: Okay. And it's just a prayer. We're all told to pray by our Lord Jesus. Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.

Jenna Ellis: Amen. Amen. Thank you for that. It's always great to, return, even through the news of the day, to the primary focus, of course, which is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. So I appreciate that, Mark.

Mark Lynch: Yes. We come in Jesus name and the save act is Christ. It's not, you know, it. In prayer this morning with God and listening to Jesus speaking, it was impressed on me because we're a God fearing campaign. We come in the name of Jesus. That's the only thing that'll make America great again. We are one nation, supposedly under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We got to get back to that. And that's what I come to represent, to bring revival to America and the state of South Carolina for the South Carolinians. I represent. And it's all about God. First. God saved my life. He brought me out of, issues of addiction 42 years ago. We've ministered to thousands of people, leading them out of the lies of Satan into freedom in Christ. And it's. I'm, calling for all of America and South Carolina's pastors and churches and the people who we say we believe in Jesus to step up and come to this effort and join us and let's bring the real say back back to America. God, we gotta come back and bring him first again and surrender and pray for forgiveness of our sins. And, you know, we're murdering babies at 64 million so far. We're, we're, we're okay with LGBTQ agendas, we're supporting gay marriage where, you know, our system is completely broken because God's not at the center. It's time to get back to what will fix this country, and it'll only be God through his son, Jesus Christ.

Jenna Ellis: So I.

Mark Lynch: That's who we are, and that's what we're about.

Jenna Ellis: And, you know, I wish that more politicians would have that perspective and be as bold in proclaiming the truth of the gospel of Christ as you are, because that absolutely is the solution to America's issues. I mean, we can legislate all around everything as much as we can, but we can't legislate against sin and against the human heart and against the human condition. that's always been the problem in, in civil government is trying to restrain evil and there are good external restraints of course, but if it doesn't come from within and a regenerated heart. I mean the founders understood that self government can only occur with, with a righteous and moral people. And I think we have to your point Mark Lynch? We have strayed so far from that. And so how do you plan if you end up winning this U.S. senate, se that mindset and actually go to Washington and, and encourage the, the already the Christians there to actually have courage? Because it seems like so many of the Christians kind of put aside their faith and they do compromise politics, especially within the Republican Party. Right.

Mark Lynch: Well, I mean I'll be a leader and I'll pray that I'll stay surrendered to Christ daily and turn my will over every day and anytime I take it back during the day and have a staff with me that'll help keep me accountable and we'll keep bringing God up and choosing what, what in God's eyes is the right legislation and bring back the rejoining of God into our government. Because there's never been separation of church and state. That's a lot that's been taught that we believe in Satan's winning and churches are not getting involved. And a lot of churches don't want me to come speak to their congregation and because they don't want to get involved. You know, and it's time to get involved. We're losing our country. We're at a pivotal point. We're being taken over with godless types of forms of government, of socialism and communism and jihad and all this stuff that's happening, Sharia law. And we've got, we've got to, we've got to stop it.

Mark Lynch: And the only way that's going to stop it, we don't have to do all the work. We just have to surrender and let God do it for us and put him first again and use his compass as a way to guide how we legislate and how we pass laws. Because when our laws don't equal God's laws is the church's responsibility, ability and duty and obligation to resist at whatever level we have to. And we've been tolerating this too long

Jenna Ellis: and yeah, 100.

Mark Lynch: Yeah, we've got people in fear that won't legislate or stand up for something just like the SAVE Act. We can't pass because of fear. People are feckless cowards and they're not Doing their job, and they're not trusting. And so they're trying to ride the wind and ride the wave of whatever's the most popular place to be that people like. And that's what's taking our country down. So, I mean, that'll be my, my foundation of how to make decisions.

GOP needs to respond to rise of socialist communists in Democrat Party

Jenna Ellis: Well, and how do you think, the GOP needs to respond to this rise of the socialist communists that are communists that are clearly infecting the Democrat Party, but they have a worldview that isn't just utterly false, but it's utterly also anti American. And it seems like the GOP is, is speaking out against it, but they're not really, calling on their Democrat colleagues to say, you know, look, this is not something that you can embrace as an open tent and actually platform within your party. I mean, it seems like, there needs to be courage there as well.

Mark Lynch: Yes, well, I will definitely speak out against that. I mean, we can't, we can't compromise one second, one inch on any of that. You know, we can't have those people in Congress. We can't have people that weren't born in America in Congress and that had dual citizenship. And, it's just not, it's not going to happen. You know, it's time to stand up and start making changes and cancel, that and, fight it. And we fight with the Lord, with truth, and we stand up against it and know that we can't do it, but God's angels can. You know, his angels came and destroyed 187,000 of the enemy's army and, protected his people. He's just asking us to get back involved and keep him first again. And he'll do the work.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely.

Mark lynch says he's running in honor of Lindsay Graham

And so, last question for you, Mark lynch and I appreciate you joining this morning. how do you see your, campaign now as distinguished from, you know, the other Republicans that are going to jump in? There's been suggestions, you know, Nancy, Mace may enter. Ralph Norman has been long viewed as a conservative favorite. Mark Sanford, a few others. you know, what's, what's the most important to South Carolinians?

Mark Lynch: Well, what I'm speaking of, and you know, our campaign has, was started over two years ago when God put this on us and gave us a vision. And I, made the, the decision to run in his name, and we're still in it. So God's, opened a window. It's an unfortunate way to do it, but, you know, God's in Everything. So I don't, I don't know. But it, you know, the fact is, is Lindsay's gone. He isn't going to be able to serve. And we pray for him and his family and his sister Darlene and everything that's happening. It's a tragic death that happened. But, but God is, He's in all things. And I didn't want to do this, but when that all happened Sunday, we just plugged our campaign back in and we're on one mission, one focus, one seat. I'm not a career politician. I'm a successful businessman. I'm a deacon in our church. I'm a God fearing patriot. And that's the biggest difference between me and all these other candidates that have been in the house and they ran for governor and now they're going to run for U.S. senate. If that's not a career politician, I don't know what is. That's not me. I'm coming to help save America with God's help and allow him to do the work he can do. And I'm not in it for the long haul. I could retire. I'm 67 years old, but I still have good health and energy and God's calling me to do it. The people of South Carolina are standing with me and believing in me. All the calls started, coming in early Sunday morning, morning and all day and still coming in that haven't heard the news. We've gone ahead and answered the call again and we waited a day.

Jenna Ellis: Mark lynch, really appreciate it so much. Thank you. And we will be right back with more. We need to pray for the people of South Carolina and for this special election.

A Brazilian family is being sentenced to prison for homeschooling their children

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the rights of homeschoolers are being threatened in Brazil and so the national association of Home Education, in Brazil or a ned argues that a Brazilian family has become the first known case in Brazil of parents being sentenced to prison solely for homeschooling their children and calling it a human rights violation. So the case involves the Denardi family who were sentenced to 50 days in a semi open prison regime, meaning they would be required to report to jail or like overnights, weekends, despite their, despite remaining in the community during portions of the day. The criminal case followed earlier fines ordering them to enroll their daughters in school. The parents presented extensive evidence, more than 3,000 pages, that their daughters were receiving a structured education at home. And yet, the, according to the document, the judge's opinion, Referenced concerns that the children did not receive instruction related to gender issues, and their arts education emphasized classical music and sacred art rather than popular Brazilian music genres, such as funk and something else I can't even pronounce. So, obviously, utterly ridiculous. But, let's welcome in Kevan Boden, who is the director of legal and, HSLDA International, who is involved in this case. And, Kevan, I agree this is totally a human rights and parental rights violation. So, where does this case stand?

Kevin Boden: Jenna, first of all, thanks for having me. It's an honor to be on the show here. Yeah, the case stands right now, and I'm in pretty good touch with their lawyer for the family, down in Sao Paulo. Basically, they're appealing this decision. They do have some optimism that the case will not stand on appeal. but as it stands right now, the family is waiting idly by, working through their counsel to appeal this pretty ideological ruling, by the lower court judge.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And so this is, the first time that this has happened in Brazil. I mean, is there a reason that this particular judge, even went against the prosecutor's recommendation? Apparently, the prosecutor actually sought acquittal.

Kevin Boden: Yeah, you know, as you know, it's very unusual for the prosecutor to request acquittal from the judge and the judge to go against that. you know, the reality is, in Brazil, it's been a pretty challenging situation for quite some time. I mean, we had word, you know, even from early in 2025, of frozen, bank accounts and police parking their vehicles outside of the homes of home, educating children. What's unique about this is the step this particular judge did, which was to sentence the couple to prison. So in the past, I mean, it's pretty unthinkable for us in the US but in the past, there have been, again, frozen bank accounts, there have been removal of children, There have been orders for them to go to school. There have been daily fines. But this was a very, very unusual and frankly, ridiculous step by a judge to actually sentence them criminally to jail time. And so, I don't know that we have much other rationale other than the judge's apparent ideological disposition and, you know, caring more about Brazilian funk music, which I'm sure is fine. but ensuring, you know, saying that because you're not teaching that as much as you should, instead of teaching things like classical music, you know, therefore you're unfit and you have to go to jail. It's just.

Jenna Ellis: It's truly remarkable and totally bizarre. I mean, and so Brazil is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that parents have the pre political right to choose the kind of education their children receive. And so this sentence seems to directly conflict with that principle. I mean what Brazilian law or statute did did the prosecutor even bring this case under initially that gave this judge this kind of authority?

Kevin Boden: Well, the general category of the crime and Brazil has a bit of a different judicial context. They've got kind of the administrative realm and the criminal realm and it's a bit different than how we operate in the US but at the end of the day the charge that was brought was what we would call intellectual neglect or intellectual abandonment, basically abandoning the intellect development of a child, of a child's natural development. So that's the crime that was brought. And again some of these are administrative in nature, leading to fines and things of that nature. This was unique in the criminal component of it. But you know, not only is this a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you mentioned, and that pre political fundamental natural right that we appreciate, but the Supreme Court of Brazil has ordered, almost ten years ago now, I think eight years ago, that homeschooling is lawful pursuant to their constitution. It needs only regulation by the federal government, by the federal legislature in order to do it. So such a stark interesting case in light of not just those international treaties, but also Brazil's own constitution says that this is permitted. and so the charge of intellectually abandoning your child, particularly in the face of the overwhelming evidence, as you mentioned, thousands of pages, the girl testified, the social worker indicated that it was incredibly organized. The parents were as some of the most committed parents they've ever seen to their children's well being and education. And yet we have this very, very stark ruling. So in violation of international law, Brazilian law, the public prosecutor's opinion, it's truly remarkable and that's what makes it one of its kind. Because despite all of the pressure that has been on families in Brazil, and the estimate from Anned that you mentioned earlier is that about 15% of all homeschool families are on some level of pressure, whether that be a, local administrator or CPS type worker, all the way up to the judicial prosecution, so a pretty high percentage of families that choose this method of education are in some form of, trouble with the government if you will.

Jenna Ellis: And that's really fascinating, that there's that high of a percentage of families, families that choose homeschooling that are still subject to government oversight. When you mentioned that the Supreme Court of Brazil has even said, you know, this is a lawful choice, and. And method of education. And so where. Where is this ultimately going in terms of parental rights within the context of, Brazil? Because it seems like parents shouldn't be subject to that kind of scrutiny, especially for something like intellectual abandonment. I mean, that just seems so intentionally vague.

Kevin Boden: Yeah, it is. And so the, you know, in talking with the lawyer there and the president of ened, you know, there's. They're viewing this as a bit of a. As having a silver lining, if you will. You know, one thing that this has done is because it has shocked even the national discourse in Brazil. It has shocked even people who may not be what you call homeschool advocates. There has been renewed interest in legislation that has not. That has basically been stalled for three to four years now. It had passed, one chamber and was awaiting passage in the Senate, when they had their election years ago and Bolsonaro was not reelected. And, obviously the political climate changed. So what this did is it renewed that conversation amongst people. there was some interest probably about a week ago, I want to say, the very end of June, to fast track some legislation in the Senate to pass the bill in the Senate that the House had passed four years ago so that it would be regulated under national law and therefore consistent with the Supreme Court decision from Brazil. So that's. So there is some hope that this will renew the debate. it will allow. It will place a spotlight to say, hey, the status quo is unacceptable. Regardless of how you think about home education or parental rights, there's a human element that society in Brazil is looking at and saying, this is just wrong. It's just wrong to take two loving parents who are doing, for all evidence that we can see, who are doing exceptionally well by their child, to sentence them criminally to prison because you don't like home education or you disagree with what they're doing, you know, really strikes the fabric of a human dignity perspective. And I think that is kind of what's causing the uproar in Brazil and quite frankly, internationally when they hear about this case.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, as it should. And so, to the extent that Brazil has, religious liberty protections, I mean, how does that interplay here and requiring exposure to ideas that. I mean, I don't know if funk music conflicts with their religious values, but certainly, coming from a specific viewpoint, in terms of the home education of the child, I mean, can requiring exposure to ideas that conflict with a family's religious convictions, burden their free exercise or however the. I mean, does Brazil have a framework for that?

Kevin Boden: Well, they do have some constitutional frameworks. I mean, you know, in terms of the general, you know, rights that we enjoy in the US this free exercise of religion, you know, these constitutional rights that have been enshrined in our Supreme Court jurisprudence for, ah, over a century now. I mean, all the way really back to the founding of our country. you know, those same levels of protections, don't exist in Brazil. I mean, they're just not present there. And you also have a culture, that by and large thinks differently and you have a judiciary that has ruled differently. And it's not just Brazil. When you look at countries across the world with respect to parental rights and home education, the framework that America sits in is very unique. And when you contrast that with the framework that you look at internationally to include even how often constitutions are changed, I mean, the constitution of Brazil has been, you know, does change, as it does in many countries. And so they can't point to this sense of, I have this underlying Bill of Rights and pre. Political fundamental rights that the constitution protects and guard against, that guards against, that we do here. And so it puts them in a stickier position. Even, for example, if you look at Jenna, the idea that it's constitutional, but you can't exercise that constitutional right until the federal government regulates it. I mean, can you imagine somebody saying that in the U.S. it's like, well, yeah, you have the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, but you can't do that until the federal government passes a law that puts the proper guardrails around it. I mean, m. Even that frame of mind from our perspective is almost hard to even wrap our heads around. And yet that's the state of the law in Brazil with respect to home education.

Brazilian judge's ruling on home education could have implications beyond just school

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And it just goes to show how we here in the United States, often, I think, take our liberties for granted and how much, freedom and liberty our constitution does protect by recognizing that our rights come from God our Creator, and not our government. And that our government is limited in its powers to regulate and it doesn't provide our rights. And so it can't simply abridge them at whim, which it seems like, Brazil and. And this judge is clearly doing in this case. And so how, how, how much does the international consensus here matter legally to, to the people who are, you know, outside of Brazil kind of looking in and saying this is a violation of human rights? Because, you know, here in the United States Obviously, you know, a lot of times we say, well, our courts matter, to us, and it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. we're a sovereign nation. what does it matter in terms of Brazil's perspective?

Kevin Boden: Yeah, it's a it. You know, they are like many other countries, you know, they are much more bound, by international law. You mentioned those univet Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on, you know, Civil and Political Rights and others. You know, they hold a lot more sway. And you know, unfortunately, some of these rights with home education have been looked at at things like the European Court of Human Rights, you know, there is the American Convention on Human Rights, you know, as well, that would play in here. But at the end of the day, those have what I would call an outsized impact on the interpretation and the rights and regulations that exist within the Brazilian kind of constitutional or regulatory or statutory framework. And so, yes, they're there, but unfortunately there have been international courts, for example, that have upheld Germany's ban on home education as being within their acceptable margin of error. So you have these words written in text, right? Parents have the prior right to direct the education of their children. They have a right to ensure that their children receive, education that's in conformity with their religious and moral convictions. And yet you have a group of judges interpreting what that means and how that interplays with state law. And you have countries like Brazil that rely heavily on those interpretations and those opinions from the United nations and from these international bodies. So they are not free, as we might call ourselves free, to disregard what the UN may tell us or what the UN may want to do, or how they want us to interpret it. They feel much more constrained and bound by those international treaties and governing bodies than we do here in the US which obviously puts them in a much different position, in terms of their, what I think, what I would call their level of liberty and freedom than we enjoy here in this country.

Jenna Ellis: which again is a huge reason that the United States hasn't ever given up our measure of sovereignty. And it's a very good thing here. But it may actually be better for the people of Brazil, Brazil to have, that kind of oversight and at least be able to appeal to that kind of more international standard than what just this judge is doing. But if this conviction stands, does it have implications beyond homeschooling for the broader principle of family autonomy and actually limiting government?

Kevin Boden: Well, I mean, if the ruling would stand obviously on appeal, we'd have to see what that ruling actually is. You know, some of those rulings can be, you know, they can deal with a ruling on a very narrow issue. So we'll just have to see what stands at the appellate level. What it has had already is a significant chilling effect on the homeschool community. I mean, it takes some level of courage to step out when it's unknown. And it takes another level of courage for a family to step out or to continue doing it knowing that there has been a family in the country that has been sentenced to, has been sentenced to prison. So I think it's unknown what type of impact it may have more holistically on the culture. But I can tell you from talking with Anned and folks in the country that it has already had a significant, chilling effect. And this is why the work that I do is so. I feel so blessed to do it because, three years ago, I traveled to Brazil for the first time, and I talked to homeschool families or spoke at a convention in Brasilia, and I talked with a gentleman who, basically said, we look to the US As a lighthouse for the freedoms that we can achieve here. And so, I have a personal desire not just to protect our freedoms for us, but to protect them so that other countries can look at us and say, hey, there is a lighthouse in the world for liberty. Amen.

Jenna Ellis: Mark lynch, thanks so much. Continue to pray for them, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Jenna Ellis discusses the pressing issue of AI regulation with Patrick Hedger, the Director of Policy at NetChoice. They explore the implications of artificial intelligence on privacy and public safety, and the critical role states play in the AI race. The conversation also touches on the recent security lapses involving drone technology and the need for robust data center infrastructure in the U.S. Later the discussion moved to a Brazilian homeschool family being sent to prison