Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution guarantees rights that come from God

 : 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: Ms. Good morning.

California GOP says there is an organized effort to infiltrate the party

Well it is Monday and gripers are not welcome. California GOP says this is just yet another sort of fracturing within the MAGA base of those who are more of the Nick Fuentes mentality, the anti Israel or the America only group versus the more traditional GOP and conservatives who understand that Israel has been a long term ally. And so the California GOP is, has had enough. And so they have issued a press release saying the ideology that is characterized as white nationalists, hostile to constitutional limited government conservatism, highly critical of MAGA and President Trump and opposing of the civil rights of women, gays interestingly and racial minorities. the core belief of this illiberal version of quote unquote America first is that America should be reorganized around an ethnically and and culturally identity based order modeled closely after Nazi Germany. And so the purpose of this memo to them is to ensure that the party leadership is aware that such an organized effort is underway and to direct local county leadership that heightened due diligence is required in the candidate recruitment and vetting process. And they said that there is an organized effort from these gropers which are defined of course as Nick Fuentes followers, to infiltrate the party and take it over from within. So of course this sparked numerous reactions and people you know, complaining about the First Amendment. But the GOP is a private organization that has the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to ah, freedom of association and absolutely has the power to do this. But is this actually a good idea? Well let's welcome in Todd Starnes who of course is a Newsmax host. you can follow him. Oddstar Concerns on X. prolific author and Todd, in my opinion this is a great idea, to vet candidates more thoroughly. I do think there is a concentrated effort among the anti Israel or this America only crowd to to start to infiltrate and ultimately take over the gop.

Todd Starnes: Well I think that this has been a challenge for quite some time and you know, the Republicans needing to understand exactly who they are, as much as certainly, the focus has been on, you know, the Nick Fuentes and the Tucker Carlson's, the Megyn Kelly's, at the same time I think we also have to remember that what happened during that ferocious battle for the party platform, back before the last election where a lot of the language on many culture issues was either removed or softened, it really did set the stage for I think, where we are now. So the Republican Party has basically become unmoored from its foundation, at least in modern American political history. And I think that's important for all of us to understand. and the reality is, I think a lot of folks, especially in the faith and family world, I don't know if they understand how they have actually been marginalized right now, inside the Beltway.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I think that this really goes to the core of kind of the post Trump identity of the gop. And I think we're seeing not just a groiper attempted takeover, but you know, the establishment is trying to claw its way back. There are a number of different factions that are trying to define or redefine or maybe take for themselves what MAGA means. And a lot of this is attempting to marginalize the evangelical influence. But even you know, some of these, who you were mentioning, Todd, about the M Party platform definitions, I mean you and I talked about this extensive, extensively, and got a lot of pushback for it. But you know, obviously we were right to talk about how, you know, the Republican Party was way too accepting of you know, the the Lincoln, Club members or the I'm forgetting, or the Log Cabin Republicans. The the Log Cabin Republicans, you know, who are the openly pushing for the, the gay rights and all of that crowd that are infiltrating the gop. And so you know, in a post Trump gop, we're going to have to have some sort of identity base that that the party is willing to stand up for. So you know, if we are operating under an assumption, and I think that this is going to be ah, Rubio and I think that Trump will end up endorsing him. do you see whether it's under Rubio though or anyone else, do you see the leadership of the GOP actually taking a definition and kind of having clarity, breaking through all of these different factions?

Todd Starnes: It's hard to say. I don't think, you know, I just don't know if the, you know, for lack of a better term, we'll just call them the lobbyist and the faith and family crowd. You know, all these religious ministries that operate inside the Beltway, I'm not sure that they are, that they will ever be as effective as they had been, because I think many of them just sort of gave up or just, or at least have been neutralized, by the populist that sort of swarmed the party. there's actually going to be a major debate, discussion, fight, over the future of the Republican Party. What does that party look like after Donald J. Trump leaves? Is Marco Rubio going to be able to lead a party that is mostly populist? You know, I would not discount J.D. vance, who I think represents the, you know, the more progressive side of the. Of the GOP. You know, it's interesting when you think about J.D. vance, who sort of popped up out of nowhere. I mean, wrote the bestselling novel, served very, very briefly in the U.S. senate, and then, boom, you're the Vice President of the United States. So we don't know a lot about him. We, certainly know a lot about Rubio, and I think Rubio has done a phenomenal job, and I think he would make a great president. Will Rubio stand up for religious liberty? Will he stand up for all of those issues that are important to, the Republicans? Yeah, I think so, especially when it comes to our support of Israel.

Todd Starnes: The evangelical movement needs to understand Israel issues

And Jenna, about that Israel thing. And this is something people just. You have to think about this because there's so much noise right now, even within the conservative media sphere, when it comes to all of this, you know. Oh, you know, are you, you know, are you being. Are you a paid shill for Israel? Well, the reality is the opinion of people like Mike Huckabee and myself and others, our opinion has never changed over the years, ever. when it comes to Israel, it's the. It's all of these other folks that have sort of, you know, morphed into the party through populism. They're the ones who are changing their opinions.

Jenna Ellis: Yes, and that's so well said. And, you know, there's a difference, of course, being between being paid to speak your opinions, like you and I are, right? Like, we're commentators versus being paid to speak a specific opinion and being, you know, a paid Israel shill, as a. As it were. It's. No, you know, people like you and I are principled. We're Christians. We have a biblical worldview. And so, the principles of the biblical worldview don't change. And they haven't changed. And we, we know as well as the founders, did that truth is objective, it's discoverable, and it doesn't change. And now how it is applied to policy, okay, we can talk through that and occasionally that will open up, some debates. But things like, you know, support for Israel, understanding that replacement theology is not what the Bible teaches, Israel is not marginalized, post cross, you know, all of these things, those things haven't changed. And yet, when some in the, you know, their new found five minutes of fame on this topic, when they get into some of the mainstream media categories because it's very easy to just post, on social media or have a podcast and get, you know, millions of listeners or have something go viral. It seems like sometimes that's a new topic, but it really isn't. I mean, these are things that have been debated and frankly settled among Christians and Christians who engage in politics, which should be all of us for a really long time. And so, you know, it's interesting to see how the dynamic is that, you know, when we're just steady in what we have always believed and based on the biblical founding, when, you know, kind of the culture ebbs and flows and shifts and you know, goes with every wind of doctrine, as the Bible says, then it's seems like, we're on, you know, more to the right or more to the left based on where the, the cultural barometer is at the moment. But we've always remained steady and I think that's something that the evangelical movement overall really needs, to understand and also, be very persistent in articulating that we're just very grounded.

Todd Starnes: Well, and I will say this as well, and yet just another putting everything into context here. You know, these, these podcasters, yes, they may have millions of followers, but is their influence really that great within the, within the, you know, the movement, if you will. And there's a. The NewSong York Post published a new survey, on Thursday from, JL partners, and they discovered that 83% of likely Republican voters strongly or somewhat support Operation Epic Fury. So even within that group, the anti Israel group, they say, oh, well, you know, Trump is fracturing the party. Well, no, not according to the polling data. I believe CNN had a very similar poll that showed, massive support. NBC News was 100% of people who identify as MAGA support President Trump and the decisions he's making. So it's also important to put things into context again. Twitter and Facebook are really not the real world. And sometimes it's easy to forget that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. Well, we've got to end here. Todd Starnes, really appreciate your commentary this morning and. Yeah, well, exactly. A great platform, for example, to debate and discuss issues. It's not leading on those issues. And we need to make sure that we put all of this in context and as Christians, keep the main thing, the main thing which is a, biblical truth, biblical values and understanding, the legitimacy of government that comes from God himself, and then how that flushes out into our legitimate, ah, civil society and our American society and those principles that don't change. We'll be right back.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee voted Thursday to favorably move Mullen's confirmation

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And while the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted on Thursday 8 to 7 to favorably move Senator Marquane Mullin's confirmation for DHS Secretary to replace Kristi Noem, out of committee and to the full Senate, there's been a lot of controversy over his exchange with Senator Rand Paul. And I want you to listen to this whole thing because I think that the most critical thing to focus on here is not about, you know, whether you agree or disagree with, what happened to Rand Paul with, with his attack, whether you think that this should have been taken, you know, offline and this controversy been settled privately. This is all about whether or not Mark Wayne Mullin has the integrity, the disposition and the character to lead a, an agency that is frankly, right now rife with controversy in the wake of Kristi Noem leaving. So with that kind of setup in mind, listen to this.

 : It's the standard practice of this committee for the chairman to ask nominees the following question. Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear or testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you're confirmed?

 : I do.

 : We'll now proceed to seven, minutes of questioning. The record should show, and I think will show, a lack of contrition. No apology and no regrets for your support. You completely understand the violence that was perpetrated on me. You're unrepentant. The only thing you quibble about is whether I met you somehow when you were in the House. I don't think we ever met when you were in the House. and this idea that the only thing you're upset about is not that you are for violence. What you're upset about is that I called you a liar because you said it to my face. It's really more about this machismo that you have

 : when in Oklahoma, the media Ask you about the refugee welfare programs, the programs you voted to continue funding. It was this whole idea that you were going to transfer because you were uncomfortable. Your anger, low impulse control causes you to then go after and, and decide that you're going to go after me as well. And so you say you completely understood, understood that I was assaulted from behind, had six rooms broken and part of my lung removed. And that was just fine. That's something that you, I guess, approve of as far as resolution of political problems. When I talked to you on the private, on privately on the phone, there was no apology. Apology. You just said, well, we can let our political difference, you know, go by. And you say, you said a few minutes ago, we can just set it aside. Well, political differences we can. But when you say that you agree with a felon, a Trump hating felon who attacked me, somehow you think I'm just going to set that aside. Oh, it's no big deal. You know, I lay in pain for two months, had six ribs broken, three of them separated, grinding upon bone on bone for months, had part of my lung removed. And you think that's great and to be extolled, I mean the, the sheer lack of any kind of self awareness that you're going to be leading thousands of men and women who will be, have the use of force. And there's been great questions in our country about how that will be used. And you think a, A, violent attack is just fine. So I guess my, my first question is, do you think that justifying that kind of violence sets a good example for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol?

 : Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't know the extent of your damage when the phone call was made. I made it to you and I tried to talk to you. you didn't engage at all. In fact, you said, get your paperwork in. It's got to be three days in between.

 : You offer no apology, sir, and you offer no apology today and no regrets. haven't heard the word apologize. Haven't heard the word regret. Haven't heard. I misspoke. And it was heated and I made a mistake. I haven't heard any of those words, sir.

 : Actually, it wasn't heated. And I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.

 : Good, good. So you're, you're jolly well fine. And you want the American public and the people up here to vote that may or may not vote for you to know that you supported the felonious, violent attack on me from behind.

 : I Did not say I supported it. I said understood it. There's a difference. By stalling you, by calling.

 : So that means you really didn't approve of it. Just completely understand it. What do you think most people would interpret completely understand to be support for or a condemnation of the violence?

 : Sir, as I said, we can. We can have our differences. It's not going to keep me from doing my job as Secretary of Homeland Security. I'm going to secure Kentucky and take care of Kentucky as. As if this much as I am.

 : If this. If this were a one off, it would be one thing if you just disliked me so much that you approved of violence against me. People could just write it off, or maybe they hate each other. but really, there's a pattern of this. Let's go ahead and roll the tape.

 : You know where to find me. Any place. Anytime, cowboy. Sir, this is a time. This is a place you want to run your mouth. We can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.

 : Okay, that's fine. Perfect.

 : You want to do it now?

 : I'd love to do it right now.

 : Let's stand your butt up then.

 : You stand your butt up. Oh, hold on.

 : Stop it.

 : Is that your solution?

 : Every polling.

 : No, no.

 : Sit down, sit down.

 : Look at you. You know you're a United States senator.

 : Actively. Okay, sit down, please.

 : All right, can I respond?

 : Hold it.

 : If he got up, too, would you have.

In the days after the fight, you justified the violence as historically justified

Would you have gone at it right there?

 : I would have probably jumped over the dias at that point. You have to be called out on. If not, this guy continues to get away with this stuff, and it's just, you know, it's silly, it's stupid, but every now and then you get punched in the face. Well, go back to the 1800s and 1700s. They used to have canines and duels,

 : and they used to have.

 : Yeah, right.

 : And there was a way that men used to settle their differences. I ignored him four times prior to that. And people say, yes, you're supposed to ignore it. Well, you know, I'm. I'm not a very good Christian. I try to be a good Christian. And I know people say you're supposed to turn the other cheek. I prefer the David method, but we

 : need to move from an almost.

 : By the way, I'm not afraid of biting. I will bite. Biting? yeah, I'm gonna fight. I'm gonna bite. I'll do anything. I mean, I'm not above it. And I don't care where I bite, by the way. It just is going to be a Bite.

 : In hindsight.

 : Any regrets? No, I. I really don't.

 : So, no regrets. In fact, even after your anger had cooled, you were still bragging that if he'd only been brave enough to stand up, you'd have jumped over the dais and taught him a lesson, because that's how men should settle their differences. Do you think fighting as a resolution for political differences a good example for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol?

 : As you can notice, over my shoulder here is my good friend Sean o'. Brien. both of us have had conversations. Both of us have shaken hands, and both of us agreed we could have done things different. Shawn is someone that has become a close friend. We talk all the time. I've been on his podcast. We've talked through this. That's how you handle your differences. Not like this chairman.

 : I'm glad you guys are friends now and that you've reconciled, but really, it doesn't get to the real point whether or not you think violence is the way we settle things. in the days after the fight, you said, and I quote, sometimes people just need to be punched in the face. Is that still your opinion? That political disputes can sometimes and often only be resolved by violence?

 : No, I, I don't. I don't always agree with that. I don't believe in political violence. I've made that very clear. but sometimes people do need. Theoretically speaking, that's. Sir, I get it. it's about character assassination for you. That's the way this game is played. I understand it. And you are making this about you, which is fine, but that doesn't keep me as safe.

 : Assassination. When you were the one lauding the assault, who do you think stirred, started the character assassination? I'm just repeating what you have done in character assassination. I'm repeating your support for the assault. So that's somehow something I started.

 : No, sir. What I'm saying is you're adding a lot to it.

 : Yeah.

 : In the days after the fight, you did many interviews in which you justified the violence as historically justified by precedents such as caning and dueling. Is it today your opinion that the caning of Charles Sumner was not only justified, but argues that still, for resolving our political differences with violence.

 : What I was simply pointing out is some of the rules that still apply to this body. for instance, dueling with two consenting adults is still there. I, was pointing out what is

 : still illegal for 170 years. There's no precedent for legal dueling. Even then, they fled the country do you realize that the man that beat Charles Sumner with a cane, he beat him till he was unconscious. You know why no senators intervened? Because his friend held a gun on the other senators, and he kept beating him and beating him until he crushed his skull. That's what you're insinuating is the President of the Senate, and that's what you live by. That is a very, very dangerous sentiment. After a half a dozen victory lap interviews where you pointed out that the union guy was just lucky that fear kept him from standing up, Dannah Bash asked you if you have any regrets about bringing violence to a Senate committee, and you replied that you have no regrets Today you've said you have no regrets about being happy, being completely, understanding why I was attacked from behind. You had no regrets about, you know, instigating a brawl in a Senate Committee hearing. Are those still your opinions, Mr. Chairman?

 : You're going to have your opinion, I'm going to have mine. As the Secretary of Homeland Security, I'm going to bring peace of mind and security to this country, and I'm going to stay laser focused on that.

 : Senator Peters.

Bob Good says Mark Wayne Mullen is unqualified to be DHS secretary

Jenna Ellis: All right, so with that, I agree with former Congressman Bob Good that Mark Wayne Mullin is unqualified to be DHS secretary. Bob Good characterizes him as a moderate rhino who recently voted against ending refugee welfare funding, and his boorish behavior is simply embarrassing. I agree with all of that and with some of the other comments on social media calling Mullin a low IQ thug, Rand Paul appeared to be the adult in the room. And again, you know, whether or not this is a personal beef or should have been settled privately before the hearing, the fact is that it wasn't. And for Mark Wayne Mullin to have, you know, this type of, favorable rhetoric for any kind of political violence, I think is just a setup for the DHS under his leadership to fail. Now, Senator Paul was the only one out of the, Senate Homeland Security Committee to vote no. But then crossing the aisle was Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat who voted yes and said that he just kept an open mind with his, his Senate colleague, Mark Wayne Mullin. So, he expressed just gratitude to President Trump for firing Kristi Noemi. Said he'd called for that back in January. So this is going to be very interesting to see if Mark Wayne Mullin ends up with, ah, enough votes or whether J.D. vance will have to come in as a tiebreaker. in light of what I think is a pretty disastrous record of his personal integrity, I'm not sure that this is really the best pick that Trump could have moved forward for dhs. So we'll see how it goes. But we'll be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis talks about controversy over American Girl doll collection

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And if you haven't heard the latest controversy over the American Girl doll collection, this really speaks broadly about culture and nostalgia and how the modern era doesn't really want to learn anything from the past. And it's actually really sad. So for, all of the ladies out there who are, you know, 30s, 40s, we all remember growing up with the American Girl doll collection, these were beautiful, gorgeous dolls that had characters, that were based in an era of American history as nine year old girls had a set of stories that went along with each doll. There was of course the Revolutionary War era, ah, Felicity. There was the Civil War era of, ah, Addie. There was the World War II era of Molly, you know, and, and so forth. And as a, as a girl, growing up, I loved the American Girl doll collection and actually learned a lot about history as a young girl because of the stories that went along that followed these American girls. And so now Fast forward to 2026 and the historical dolls and their purpose to teach young girls history. The has fallen by the wayside because Mattel, unfortunately, in my opinion, acquired the company, back around 2000 or so and it basically became just another version of Barbie, frankly, that these dolls were just about accessories. They were about looking like us being in the modern era. And so now the historical dolls have gotten a 40th anniversary makeover. And the response thankfully has been a huge backlash. So even Vogue covered this and the title is on American Girl Dolls and the Limits of Modern Nostalgia.

Mattel unveiled its 40th anniversary American Girl dolls this week

So it starts out when earlier this week Mattel unveiled its 40th anniversary quote, unquote, modern era American Girl dolls. The response online was not muted. Kirsten Larson, the Swedish immigrant of 1854 Prairie lore, had traded her earnest braids for space buns. Felicity Merriman of 1774 Colonial Virginia was suddenly in jeans. Addie Walker, whose story begins in enslavement in 1864, was styled with gold hoops. And Samantha Parkington, the orphan navigating 1904 NewSong York in puff sleeves and hair ribbons appeared to be fashioned in Ralph Lauren kids. Plus the dolls themselves have been scaled down from their original 18 inch cloth bodied forms to 14.5 inch figures, their features subtly sharpened with glossier lips and darker lashes. So ozempic jokes proliferated. Loyalists were Aghast. I'm one of them, by the way. Why, many wondered, did something so sacred, so freighted with childhood memory, require a makeover in the first place? Well, Mattel, for its part, was admirably frank. So the company's global head of dolls told the NewSong York Times that while adult consumers remain invested in the historical characters, younger consumers gravitate toward contemporary collections. The new line, she explained, is, quote, meant to celebrate the original historical characters in different form. So translation. Nine year olds were not clamoring for more 1904. And why would they be? Yes, we're in kind of a boom time for nostalgia, but if you consider the dates and details, rarely does it travel beyond the late 20th or 21st century. So the message is quiet but consistent. This according to Vogue. The past is welcome so long as it doesn't go too far. So what does this say about our current culture and this fixation, as if we are the only era and generation worth learning anything about, and that we've basically cast aside the original purpose of something even as nostalgic as American Girls?

American Girl is giving its iconic dolls modern makeovers

Well, let's welcome in the resident expert of American Girls, my cousin Megan Papendick, because she and I, of course, had American Girl dolls, and we are the experts in this category because American girls were so central to us growing up. And Megan, I'm so glad that you joined me for this conversation because, this, of course went in our cousin's group chat of how just utterly tragic this is of this makeover. so what was your kind of first reaction to this?

 Jenna's Cousin: I was. I was so annoyed. I was. So I'm still trying to figure out who this is for. I get that they're saying nine year olds aren't interested in the past because, of course, you have to be taught how to be interested in the past. but their parents, the 30 to 40 year olds who have nostalgia about American Girl aren't going to buy their kid Modern Felicity. They probably still have Felicity that they're planning on passing down. and I just don't understand if the parents aren't going to be buying them for their kids because the nostalgia has been stomped on and the kids don't know Original Felicity, so they're not going to care that Felicity is wearing a peasant shirt that has the same pattern as her beautiful dress. They're not going to catch all those references. So it's not really for them. It's not really for nine year olds either. I was already mad that American Girl was making so many modern dolls, because I just Was like, this isn't the point. And then when they did this and just kind of, oh, I don't know, ruined the original American girls by giving them modern makeovers, it seems really silly and I really just don't get who it's for. And the best part about American girls growing up, you kind of touched on this was one. They were treasured keepsakes. For me, it was like my gift. I got Kirsten Larson my gift that was like my leaving toddlerhood and becoming a little girl and getting this, you know, treasured, beautiful doll. And then these books that go along with it put history through the eyes of a nine year old with all the challenges, you know, it's like. And it really makes you think as a kid, oh man, there were kids in the Great Depression, there were kids in the American Revolution, and how would they respond? And I just loved it. Like the, for example, with Felicity stories, the loyalists versus the revolutionaries was framed. Like, how would a nine year old feel if her father was a revolutionary and her best, friend's father was a loyalist? And all of a sudden you realize you're on different teams. Like, that was huge as a kid to frame these big cultural issues through the eyes of a nine year old. And the fact that they are just so boldly saying never mind, while also paying homage to something that 9 year olds won't even care about because they didn't see the original and grow up with the original dolls like we did. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that's a great, framing of. The real problem is that nobody asked for this. Literally nobody. Because, you know, for those of us who had our treasured American Girl dolls, I mean, I know that, you know, your sister Eryn, who had Samantha, was so excited to pass that down to her daughter, you know, and there are so many, you know, of us who have these treasured dolls that can't wait to pass them on to our children and, and along with that, pass along the lessons in American history and not just the nostalgia as a family heirloom, but also the, the understanding and the learning that came with it. And you're so right, Megan, that respect and understanding of the past and interest in history has to be taught. And one of the things that made American Girls unique and really special is that it wasn't just for girls and the little girls and us playing on our own, which of course we did. And we had all the tea parties and the accessories and it was just a wonderful, magical time. But Our moms and our grandma were also involved in this. You know, I mean, my mom read me all of the stories before I could read them myself. And, you know, like our parents were also engaged in this and answering questions about the, you know, the history of it. And, oh, this is why this particular accessory reflects, the truth about that era. And, you know, when Felicity came out, you know, there was the trip to Colonial Williamsburg that, you know, that we all took, including our other, our cousin, our other cousin Kelly, you know, went to that tea party and saw Colonial Williamsburg that had history come alive. And so I feel like we are really missing the overall point of what American Girl was for. It wasn't just to have another cute doll to play with and create your own stories. It was about actually learning something and learning history through the eyes of, as you mentioned, a nine year old girl in that era, but learning something really valuable, which was a connection to American history. And that has been completely lost after Mattel took over American Girl and basically just tried to monetize it as, oh, these are the dolls that look like me. Well, you know, ultimately, whatever the doll looks like doesn't matter. What actually matters is the history and the story behind who the character is. And that's getting so lost in our modern culture that we don't care enough about history. And it seems like parents overall don't care enough about, passing on that treasured legacy of learning American history. So do you think maybe that's where the disconnect is, where, you know, we, our generation has the dolls that we want to pass on, but maybe a lot of parents now don't see the value of passing on that learning and that engaging with history.

 Jenna's Cousin: Absolutely. And that could speak to the broader cultural. Parents who are buying American Girl dolls now care that they're cute and don't really care about the past. And I think obviously you were homeschooled, I was homeschooled. That sacred tradition of, parents passing down the culture that they inherited to their children has been totally lost. And it's a biblical mandate to teach your kids and pass on your Christian heritage down to your children. But it's also just how culture is passed on in general. If you want to keep your culture, you train your kid in it, you tell them the stories, you know, Paul Revere becomes their hero, you know, all of these things. And I feel like in 2020 and in an increasingly woke society, it's all about, well, let's look at the bad things these guys did. Or, you know, the least interesting parts about them, that they were, you know, men of their particular culture and time, and not look at the most interesting things about them, about their, again, going back to the Revolutionary War, about their belief in liberty, even if they didn't fulfill that perfectly in their belief in their understanding of human nature, to craft our government in such a way. Those were the things that made them different. And we've just completely sidelined all of that. And it seems like our culture is so thin now that unless you are very intentional, parents just aren't passing down our inherited culture and our history to our children. And then kids with the absence of that inheritance just fill in the blanks themselves. And fill in the blanks with what things? Kids would fill it with whatever's interesting, whatever is flashy. They can't help that they're kids. And if they're given nothing, they'll just fill in the blanks with stuff that is ultimately vapid and shallow and won't last generations. And, this seems to be a lovely case study of the educational crisis that we're not educating children and parents don't seem to care to. I'm shocked how many parents, give up their right to invest in their own children in issues of history and culture and the great books and all of these things. And this seems to be just a practical example of how that, how companies follow that. And it's just so sad to me. The American Girl books tackled really difficult issues. I learned about the horrors of slavery

Todd Starnes: by reading the Addie book.

 Jenna's Cousin: The Addie books. I still think about some of the horrors. you know, if I'm reading about that time in history, like I still think about some of those scenes of, you know, Addie's father being sold and you know, and it instilled in me as a child like a visceral reaction to the evils of slavery because I saw it through someone who was my age and fact that people don't even want to pass down that to their kids or really don't care. Maybe they're just disconnected. They just don't. They just don't care. They're not thinking about it. but that's also sad. It's such a loss of intentionality. Mm,

Megan says American Girl dolls helped young girls tackle difficult historical issues

Jenna Ellis: And I'm speaking with Megan, my cousin, and this is the genius of homeschooling and why, you know, I love my family and extended family because, you know, we all went through, the, the biblical foundation of being mentored and discipled by our parents, which is an amazing gift and something that, you know, I know that you're passing down to your children, Megan, along I'm sure, with your American Girl, Kirsten. and you know, these are things that ultimately matter because, this was a way that we started learning about history and tackling a lot of, you know, as you said, you know, really difficult issues, but through an appropriate forum. That was historical fiction, that was age appropriate. And then of course, you know, you can get to the more complicated books later, but it gave you an introduction. And even Vogue shockingly kind of gets this because the article goes on to say, this is the quiet genius of the original American Girl dolls. They were not merely charming collectibles, they were portals. Samantha's tea length dresses were narrative entry points into child labor reform, murmurs of suffrage, coal furnaces and a city lit by gas lamps. The books were unflinching in ways that now feel almost radical. They assumed nine year olds could contend with grief, injustice and social and historical change. To play with these dolls was to understand that girlhood has looked radically different across centuries. And while, you know, that's a little bit tinge, wokier than, than I would express it, I feel like they get it right. They get that the American Girl dolls were meant to be a portal into the past and to bring the past alive in a way that we could understand as nine year old girls. And then with that entry point, then we could build on that as we got older and to have an understanding and actually a desire to learn more. And that I think was ultimately the genius because, you know, with, with obviously some exceptions, you know, girls aren't generally, interested in, you know, maps and wars and you know, the World War II documentaries that my brothers, you know, would watch all the time that I found as a kid, very boring. Right. You know, I wanted the stories, I wanted the characters to connect with. I loved the accessories, the clothes, you know, the things that little girls care about. But that actually taught me history in a way that was very accessible as a nine year old. And to lose that in our culture, I think, Megan, you're so spot on to say, you know, it's, it's the parents that aren't understanding perhaps that in order to understand history and, and culture and where we've come from and ultimately where we're going, that has to be taught. And that's what we're not teaching anymore, as a society is American culture, American history, our legacy, our Judeo Christian founding. And no wonder now Gen Z is so completely lost.

 Jenna's Cousin: Yes. And I think that was one of the geniuses of the American girl of the 80s and 90s is it showed that young kids can contend with real issues again. I mean, there were before this, there were memes all over the Internet about, you know, kind of joking about the American Girl books ruined me because Kirsten's best friend died coming over to America. And you know, Addie depicted the horrors of slavery and all of. And Felicity, there was a horse beating alcoholic that she had to rescue a horse from. I mean, there were these really tough things that we as adults go, wow, I read that as a nine year old, but we did and it was beneficial. And I. It seems like now 9 year olds are expected to know nothing, understand nothing. And then when we're 16, we tell them that history is horrible, America's terrible. And, and they don't have any foundation. They weren't given any foundation when they were little. So they have no framework for it. So they just say, oh, okay, I guess this is, I guess this is true. And I feel like the genius of American Girl was it proved that young kids could contend with real issues with real tragedy. I can't believe I'm saying this. I agree with Vogue. They were expecting kids to believe, you know, be able to understand grief and read stories about that. And the other genius of American Girl was it made it so accessible. Like you mentioned in your intro talking about, you know, now it's all about the clothes and the accessories. But that was always an integral part of that. And now it's just become a sin celebration of accessories that that's not attached to anything deeper. But it was. I mean, I remember going through that catalog and circling the things I wanted to send to Aunt Peggy and Baba and, you know, Baba making us clothes. I mean, we had quite the extra boost there because our grandmother was an excellent seamstress. But I had all the. I had her trunk and her little slate and her little chalk and everything was so detailed and beautiful and well done. And the accessories and clothes were not an unimportant part of it. But it was again, I agree with Vogue. I'm so embarrassed. it was a portal to something deeper instead of just accessories and clothes for accessories and clothes sake. And we got to handle it. I mean, we got to put on a pioneer dress. And if you had multiple dolls or if you had a cousin with multiple dolls, you got to feel the difference of what Kirsten might wear versus what Felicity might wear versus that, you know, kind of scratchy 1904 fabric that, Samantha wore versus the sweater that Molly wore. You know, you got to see all these different things. And even that was kind of an experiential. Obviously, I wasn't thinking about all of this at 9, but looking back as an adult and thinking about what the value of this was to me, you know, even that was an experience in of itself of how history changes and how it changes how people dress. The first thing I thought when I saw Kirsten in Space Buns in a miniskirt, I was like, Kirsten's mom would never let her wear that. She's a pioneer. The dresses need to be like, not. Obviously, I wear skirts to my knees now. But Kirsten wouldn't. Her dresses were long because that's what she would wear. So I just looked at Kirsten like, Kirsten would be horrified to be wearing that. That's. That's not her culture. That's not her. That's not the world she grew up in. And I don't know, it just. It just seems so. It just seems so useless. Like they. And this honestly speaks to our American culture. It's just ripped of meaning. It's just ripped of meaning.

 : It's.

 Jenna's Cousin: It for its sake. And the meaning behind it is, tossed by the wayside. And I think we've lost something really valuable in that.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. I mean, it's. It's taken. What was, you know, each of the accessories and the dresses and, you know, the physical things. It wasn't just things for the sake of things. Like you said, it wasn't just consumer consumerism. It was actually to transport you back to that time and teach you about that era. Why did they have these particular accessories? Why did they have these school books, this desk, this, you know, bed frame, this type of lunch? You know, all of these things that were mentioned in the books, they had a, They had a lesson behind them. And now this new modern era has taken all of this and completely flattened the culture out of it, and they've made it just mere consumerism. And that ultimately, Megan, I think, is the problem that, that I have and a lot of people have with this modern era reinvention is that it's taking something that once had meaning and just flattening out to, to mere consumerism and saying, well, you know, buy this doll because you think that she's cute. But it doesn't have, you know, any other deeper historical significance. It doesn't have a lesson behind it. And ultimately it doesn't have a culture and meaning behind it. So we've got a.

Megan: I hope Mattel thinks differently about these modern era dolls

We've got to end here. But I so appreciate, Megan, you coming on. And, you know, it just, it all evokes such wonderful memories of our childhoods. And I really hope that Mattel will think differently and that when they don't find a, a, real market, you know, for these modern era dolls. Because like you said, I mean, who really asked for this? I don't think anybody. Maybe they'll go back to the original purpose, which was actually to teach young girls about where they've come from and the America of the past, so that they can actually understand the America of the present. that's all the time that we have for today on Jenna Ellis in the Morning. As always, you can reach me and my team, JennaAFR.net.

00:00 - 23:00 | Jenna dives deep into the ideological shifts within the Republican Party, particularly the rising influence of anti-Israel sentiments. Joined by Todd Starnes, they discuss the implications of these changes on conservatism and the importance of a biblical worldview. 

24:00 - 47:00 | Jenna critiques the recent changes to the American Girl doll collection, lamenting the loss of historical significance in favor of modern consumerism.