Transcript

The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect biblical rights

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.

Raul Castro indicted in connection to 1996 downing of two planes

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, May 21, and the Cuban ex president Raul Castro was indicted yesterday on charges including murder, conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals. this coming from Fox News. He's been indicted in connection to his alleged role in the 1996 downing of two planes operated by the Miami based exile group Brothers 2 to the Rescue. So the indictment, which a Florida grand jury returned in April, was unsealed yesterday. Acting U.S. attorney General Todd Blanch said during an announcement in Miami on Wednesday that it charges Castro with conspiracy to kill US Nationals, destruction of aircraft and four separate counts of murder. So the indictment, stems from a February 1996 incident in which four Americans were flying in civilian, aircraft when Cuban military aircraft shot down their plan in international waters and killed them. The indictment alleges, according to Blanche. And so he said they were unarmed civilians and were flying humanitarian missions for the rescue and protections of people fleeing oppression across the Florida Straits. And Florida Attorney General James, Uthmeyer was also there and said Castro ordered his gangs of criminal thugs to shoot down the Americans on unarmed civilian brothers to rescue planes. It was a premeditated state, state sanctioned murder. And today's indictment is one step closer to justice.

Gerard Filitti: The indictment was unsealed on Cuba's Independence Day

So let's welcome in Gerard Filitti, who is senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And you know, this, this seems I was talking to my producer before the show, and I didn't realize and he informed me that apparently, May 20th is previously the Cuban Independence Day. So this is basically like indicting a US president on July 4th for some kind of perceived war crime. So do you think that this, is a good, indictment and actually is a justice.

Gerard Filitti: It looks like a solid indictment and it's justice a long time coming. And the unsealing of this indictment on Cuba's Independence Day really shows that the United States wants to showcase that the Cuban regime has been responsible, responsible for horrific atrocities and that its people are not truly free, because they're living under a system that has committed extrajudicial acts of murder. against, civilians, unarmed civilians in international, territory. So this was a very, very key date for unsealing this indictment. And when we saw Secretary of State Rubio reading and talking about it yesterday, it definitely was from the heart. As a Cuban American.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's a really good point. And there were a number of, friends of mine from Florida as well, that were, ah, posting similar things, saying, you know, this is finally, justice. And, you know, this has been a long time coming. And so, you know, we've been talking a lot, Gerard, about statutes of limitations for people like Anthony Fauci and others, who. Who we would also like to see accountability for. And so this goes all the way back to 1996. And so is there any sort of, issue there? But because this is murder, is that the reason that, this doesn't have, you know, perhaps a statute of limitations issue?

Gerard Filitti: That's precisely the reason. There's no statute of limitations on murder. Ah.

Gerard Filitti: And when you add the conspiracy to kill US Nationals based on that murder, you're not looking at a statute of limitations. The government will go after you for as long as it needs to in order to bring you to justice. and that also highlights that even though Raul Costco is now 94 years old and this incident happened in 1996, that this does not immunize him, from facing accountability for his crimes. that is how serious it is when you conspire to kill American nationals.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so, Castro was effectively acting as part of a sovereign government at the time, or at least that would probably be what the defense claims. And so does sovereign immunity apply here, or are there exceptions, for legal authority that the DOJ claims gives the US Jurisdiction here?

Gerard Filitti: There are exceptions. And one of the key things here to notice that this was not a, decision to shoot down aircraft over Cuba territory. This was an act over international waters. so you are already violating international law by doing that. Cuba was violating international law by doing that, so that you start to weaken the arguments for sovereign immunity when you have a dictatorial regime that premeditates the murder of civilians in international territory. So you can't avail yourself as head of state immunity when you are taking that kind of action.

Jenna Ellis: And how unusual is it for the United States to criminally indict a former foreign, head of state for actions that were taken while he's in office?

Gerard Filitti: Well, the station here is that even though Raul Casto was, president of Cuba at the time he was in 1996 when this incident happened that was charged in the indictment. He was the Minister of defense, so he was a government official, but not the sitting head of state, which does make a little bit of a difference, but not much. Ultimately. We've seen charges against Nicolas Maduro, we've seen the US pursue foreign nationals, even heads of state, in other countries when they have committed crimes against Americans. it's not a common occurrence of course, but it does show that the United States takes the murder of Americans seriously. And when it can bring these charges for murder, for international narco trafficking that costs American lives, the United States government eventually will pursue them. And we've seen that especially with the Trump administration, there's very much a parallel to the Maduro indictment not too long ago, that Trump is renewing emphasis on getting justice for Americans.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it seems like, you know, this has really been very delayed. Why didn't previous, at least Republican administrations pursue this?

Gerard Filitti: That's an excellent question. And I think we can, we can only really speculate as to why it took so long. It's interesting to note that one of the co defendants that listed in the indictment was accused of immigration fraud in Florida in connection with this. That he lied on his, on his documentations when he came here. He did not reveal that as a member of a foreign military he was responsible for killing Americans. so I think there is likely to be a connection between the prosecution of that person who immigrated or tried to immigrate to America and how the government got testimony about this conspiracy, about these shoot down orders. But we don't really know yet why this happened, other than it seems that the timing of that prosecution, is very coincidental but key.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, coincidental but key. I think that's that's an excellent way to phrase this. So critics of course are going to say that this is politically motivated and this is just to score points on the board for, you know, the Trump's, Trump's administration. But from a legal perspective, how do prosecutors distinguish, justice delayed from just selective prosecution?

Gerard Filitti: Well, the issue ultimately is whether there is merit to the underlying indictment, to the what's being charged. And we're not here talking about a, crime of dishonesty. We're not here talking about some, something that recollections may vary over what happened 30 years ago. We're talking about the premeditated cold blooded murder of American citizens. and that is something that every government, no matter who's in power, no matter whose administration it is Republican, Democrat or something in between. We have an interest in bringing to justice those who kill our citizens. So I think while you will of course see the argument that this is somehow political, that the President Trump might be using this as a negotiating, tool with Cuba or threat, as a threat of military action, ultimately this comes down to what the charges are. And the charges are not political. The charges are murdered.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's an important distinction. Absolutely. That, you know, this isn't something that is just purely symbolic. it doesn't smack of political retribution. I mean, this is just something that is very straightforward and something that should be prosecuted. murder should be prosecuted. And so, in practicality, in terms of actually pursuing this, could the U.S. realistically, extradite or arrest Castro like we saw with Maduro?

Gerard Filitti: I think we have less of a likelihood of seeing that. First, there's no extradition treaty with Cuba, so they will not relinquish him voluntarily. I very much doubt that he intends to fly to Miami to sit for trial. so the other option is seeing how we could get him before court. And that usually means some kind of, military or drug enforcement agency. They're very good at this, making an arrest, internationally. And the problem there though is that unlike with Maduro, we're talking about a 94 year old who is in much frailer condition. And while I think most people agree that the US Military could certainly go in and take him into custody, I think his age, might raise some humanitarian issues because the last thing we want are the optics of something bad happening during an attempted, capture. So at the end of the day, I think that we unfortunately have to wait longer for justice in this case, perhaps for a government change in Cuba to hand him over voluntarily. But until that happens, I don't think that we'll see a Maduro style capture here.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And could the United States, proceed with any sort of, you know, of trial or any, any other sort of, fact finding if they don't have him present? I mean, you know, is this something that just symbolically they want some kind of verdict here even if, ultimately they don't have, they don't have the process that would get him here before, you know, ultimately. I mean, as you mentioned, he's, he's very, very old.

Gerard Filitti: Well, we tend not to do show trials in the United States. I mean, I think there are cases where we have a, defendant but no more, no victim or no body. But we very rarely, I think we don't do the prosecutions of people who are not physically present and able to defend themselves. So ultimately, I think maybe you will have some kind of a, mock trial by the VICT victims of. By Cuban dissidents and victims of the regime. But those will be truly symbolic. I think, ultimately, unfortunately, we need to wait a little longer for, Castile to actually be in custody so he could be brought into a courtroom and face, justice.

Jenna Ellis: And I'm speaking with Gerard Felitti, who's the senior counsel of the Lawfare Project. And more broadly speaking, could this create diplomatic complications with Cuba? Or is this, something that even allied countries, will see as a valid exercise toward the interests of justice?

The United States is expanding its jurisdiction to bring foreign leaders to justice

Gerard Filitti: I think most nations, appreciate the fact that when you have your citizens being murdered, you have an obligation to act and try to bring their killers to justice. So I don't see this as causing, any sort of diplomatic, risk with America's allies or even our adversaries, to be blunt. But at the end of the day, it does come down to our relationship with Cuba is nonexistent. They are, and have been a threat to our national security for many years now. They are a dictatorial communist regime that has, destroyed the lives of its citizens, and they are involved with exporting that type of violence around the Caribbean, in Latin America, and into the United States. So ultimately, there will be no, love lost between the United States and Cuba. But until there is a regime change or whether it's voluntary or the government is toppled, I think that relationships will, with Cuba will remain fraught. And we've seen in the last few months President Trump maximizing pressure on the regime in order to bring about that change that's been sought after since the 1960s.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and also broadly speaking, do you think that the United States is expanding the idea that foreign leaders, you know, whether they're the sitting heads of state or they were acting in, a lesser official capacity, like, Castro was at the time of this offense, that they can personally face criminal liability in American courts for actions harming Americans. And we're expanding that precedent. But then the flip side of that is suggesting that then, our heads of state and leaders could face criminal liability in foreign courts.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think you're absolutely right about both the expansion of America's doctrine and use of it to bring to justice or try to bring to justice foreign leaders, whether they're heads of state or government officials who are responsible for, crimes against American Citizens, and you're absolutely right that the risk here is that American heads of state or officials will be threatened, around the world with arrest and prosecution. But the reality is that we've already seen the latter. We've already seen countries even going back into the early 2000s with President George W. Bush, attempts by foreign leaders, whether they were, not at the national level, but certainly threats of arrest and prosecution over the Iraq war, over other issues that they found, disagreements of the United States over. So ultimately the rest of the world will think of us what they will think of us. And there will always be attempts, whether it's in the International Criminal Court or national courts, to hold Americans responsible for policy choices that other countries don't like. But that should not deter us from seeking justice for victims, for American victims who are injured or killed around the world.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Well said. And so, you know, where. Where is the line then of legitimacy? I mean, does that just turn on the perception of the individual country? I mean, because if we go back to, the, the indictment of, Netanyahu that, of course, you know, America was. Was saying was ridiculous, and they had no jurisdiction, it doesn't matter. And all of those things, I mean, we've seen other indictments of foreign leaders that America has said are illegitimate or has said that, a foreign court doesn't have jurisdiction over, the premise for which they're bringing that indictment or that charge. So when we're talking about a world stage, I mean, this is obviously in an American court, and American process applies. But from a world perspective, who determines the lines of legitimacy and jurisdictional questions?

Gerard Filitti: The thing about international law is that leaving aside treaties between countries where you agree to certain things, international law is pretty much whatever you diplomatically want it to be. while there is a corpus, there's case law, there's precedence to look at. Ultimately, nations have to decide for themselves whether they agree with whatever the principle is that's being challenged or being brought forward. So if the United States looks at, charges against an ally or even against us that are sought internationally, and we don't agree that they have merit because those cases are politicized or those courts that are trying to bring them don't have competent, jurisdiction, then we will look at those as illegitimate cases. if, on the other hand, they are something that furthers our national interests or conforms with our understanding of due process, we are more likely to take a part in that. So ultimately, we look at this from a political and Diplomatic lens more than a legal one when it comes to our perception of international law and the validity of claims that are either brought against us or that we seek to prosecute internationally.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's so, fascinating as well.

There are checks on international treaties, meaning they need to be ratified by Senate

And when we're talking about, the power of treaty making, I mean that from a constitutional perspective, that's a huge concern, of course, not just in terms of it being kind of whatever we want diplomatically it to be, as you mentioned, but also that some, treaties and those ratifications hold the same force of law under our Constitution as the Constitution itself. And so, you know, that's been a huge question in international law, that, you know, we've been concerned as we, as, you know, kind of the legal philosophers and practicing lawyers, but, overall have been concerned that there aren't treaties, that the United States ratifies, like, for example, the UN Convention on Rights of the Child that would undermine parentage, because if we were to sign on to that treaty, then ostensibly the Supreme Court could borrow language, from that treaty and then impute that into opinions and decision making, in opinions from the Supreme Court. And so when it comes to, you know, kind of these international treaties, where's the line of. Well, this is. This is a treaty versus, we as the United States, and under our constitutional framework, have to abide by that pursuant, to the treaties clause of the Constitution.

Gerard Filitti: Well, there are two things here, and one is. The first one is an important one, is there are checks on international treaties, meaning that they need to be ratified by the Senate. So we have seen bad treaties like the one that the Treaty of Rome, the Statute of Rome that set up the International Criminal Court, the United States signed that, but it was never ratified by the Senate. It never went into effect because our senators looked at that and said it was a bad deal for us, America, and it exposed us to potential kangaroo courts around the world, even though we have a judiciary that's more than capable of handling legal complaints against the conduct, allegations of misconduct by service members. So that check by the Senate is a very important thing and ultimately in the courts as well. While there is, you know, the treaty clause, and we do consider this almost as to the same effect as American law, at the end of the day, the Constitution still controls. So if you have provisions of a treaty that violates the basic principles of our Constitution, then the Supreme Court is likely to look at that and say that that treaty was, like any law passed by Congress, not applicable in those circumstances. So we do have that double check both by the Senate and by the legal system that not all bad provisions will be enforced.

Felitti: There are constitutional limitations on treaties. So they can um, be denied

Jenna Ellis: All right. And we have to take a break here. But you know, so much that we could continue to talk about and I think it's all very fascinating and you're absolutely right on those those, those checks and balances as well that the, the treaties carry basically the same weight as federal statutes. So they can be denied and they can be overturned by the courts if they are seen as conflicting, fundamental constitutional guarantees. And there are constitutional limitations. So that is a good thing. and then also as you mentioned, and the Senate having to ratify those. So the President does have the authority to negotiate, draft and sign international agreements. But where the Senate doesn't formally ratify treaties, that's a separate issue. So a lot going on and you know, a lot that I think just legally is very fascinating here. So always good to have Jared, ah, Felitti on. You can follow him on X. And we will be right back with more.

President Trump says no escalation is expected with Cuba after Rocaster indictment

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

Jenna Ellis: Come m back. Well, we've been talking about the legal side of Rocaster being indicted. Let's talk about the political and the foreign policy. According to USA Today, Trump says that no escalation is expected with Cuba. President Trump says he doesn't anticipate further escalation between the United States and Cuba after the Justice Department, indicted the country's former president and five other Cuban nationals in connection with that 30 year old incident. The moves come. The move comes amid increased apprehension about potential US Military action in Cuba following Trump's repeated threats against, against the nation. USA Today says they include exclusively reported in April that the Pentagon had ramped up its planning for possible military action. And the indictment also follows the Trump administration in January sending troops into Venezuela to capture then President Nicolas Maduro after it had indicted that leader. And Trump has since turned to Cuba, executing a months long pressure campaign on its government, the island's elites, through an oil blockade and targeted sanctions in order to force a deal that could see economic conditions improve inside the country and political prisoners released. So for more on this, let's go to Scott Ulinger who is a former intelligence agent and where do you break all of this down?

Scott Uehlinger: Well I guess what we're seeing with, with Cuba is Trump is just slowly chipping away at that problem and it's, it's been quite effective. I mean you know the regime Is economically devast devastated because of Venezuela. and now the leadership is absolutely on the defensive with this latest indictment. And so, plus the fact that the U.S. navy has been down in the Caribbean now quite a lot with actually now I believe there's another carrier that's fairly close to Cuba. So I think it's a long time coming. People don't really realize how vicious actually Cuban intelligence was. Cuban intelligence was, is or was the most vicious of every intel service on the planet, like targeting Americans. very, very bad stuff. They had a very bad reputation, in the CIA where we knew what they were doing. and so this is, I think it's appropriate. It's just this. I remember very well, that shoot down 30 years ago and how just awful it was that they would just, Just do this and without a second thought. So this is a long time coming. And I think it's another way of keeping, of showing also to countries like ah, Russia and China, which basically are absolutely funding really the Cuban regime that you know, those days are over and the Dun Road doctrine is going to be enforced.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so is this, Do you see this from an intelligence perspective as actually a serious legal effort intended to likely lead to prosecution, or is this more of maybe an historical but also political declaration by the United States government, basically to say hey, these days are over?

Scott Uehlinger: I think it's a combination of both. I mean I don't think that they would have, you know, I'm not a lawyer like the last guest, but ah, I think that they wouldn't have brought these charges out just for political theater. I think that you know, they intend on going to court and perhaps grabbing him and putting him on trial because it's appropriate as is. You know, the people who apparently, apparently like with this, four others who were involved in the plot, who obeyed the orders of Castro to kill these people. And so, you know, it's justice. And so I'm happy to see it.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

From an intelligence perspective, do you believe the summit actually lowered tensions

And so where should Americans expect then an increase in potential tensions and maybe this axis that is continuing to form, or maybe it's been formed for a while, but maybe increasingly at least in modern intelligence. Because just this morning Reuters was reporting that Russia says it will support Cuba, amid the announcement of the indictment. So how significant are these alliances geopolitically?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I think that the Russians are basically announcing something like that and that's purely theater because in the end, they will do nothing about it. especially have to consider, Putin and Trump have been in fairly close consultation in the last couple of months. And I believe that there was, there were probably discussions related to Cuba at that time. And so, you know, Russia may make the noise that they are going to be standing by their, quote, ally, but, you know, Russians promises have been pretty bad as far as their allies are concerned. So I think that, and also the Xi visit, I believe that, Cuba may have been discussed as well with the Chinese presence in Panama and Chinese bankrolling of different terrorist, groups and drug smugglers and things like that in Central America. I think Trump has kind of cleared this with them in the sense that he's told them, okay, look, this is going to happen and you need, you know, you can make noise about it, but I expect you to do nothing about it. And so I think that's that we're looking at.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and some analysts, are arguing, and you know, articles I've seen mostly, of course from leftist outlets, but they're arguing that they believe the US Is now strategically overstretched because of all of the emphasis now on China and Russia and now Cuba and what's going on in the Middle east and all of these things. I mean, there's a lot of different, focuses and players on the board of Risk. And so do you see Trump as being over leveraged?

Scott Uehlinger: no, I don't think so. My, you know, remember, I was also, I also served in the Navy for 28 years. And so, my impression is that in fact that is not the case, that the United States is not overstretched. Okay.

Scott Uehlinger: We probably wouldn't want to continue at this pace for another six months. But Trump is being very forward leaning and looking to the future in the sense that he knows that ultimately if all of these places were to explode into crises, that United States would be overstretched. But in this case, we are the ones moving forward. And so we are determining kind of the time and place of action. And so right now we can handle that. And so he's basically concerned with, let's put the fires out before they spread so they're out of control and they're currently in control right now. So I think we could see, you know, the Cuban thing resolved within about three months one way or the other with some maybe kind of complicit, regime like in Venezuela or something like that. But he's getting ahead of the curve so that we will not be in a position where we're really overstretched, because that's what they depend. That's what these countries have always depended on. They've always depended on concerted action as a way of distracting us and we can't take action against all of them at the same time. So Trump is trying to, you know, he's second guessing that strategy and coming up with something new.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And reports indicated that he emphasized personal diplomacy with, with Xi and China. And so there were a couple of concrete breakthroughs. So from an intelligence perspective, do you believe that the summit actually lowered tensions and those flashpoints right now between the US And China, at least that's right.

Scott Uehlinger: I think he did. Trump always has a plan. And so I think that both visit, you know, consultations with Putin and the personal ones with Xi, this stuff was definitely mentioned. He's not going to leave it unmentioned when it comes to these countries because certainly, it was definitely on China's radar that they were basically blocked out of Panama and out of Venezuela. So yeah, he definitely was doing that. There's no question.

Jenna Ellis: And so from the perspective international diplomacy and all of this is one of obviously Trump's strengths. And I think Secretary of State Rubio is doing a fantastic job. But all of this does impact Americans and there's been a lot of, of consternation and also of course emphasis from the left on things like gas prices and the economy and you know, some other things that aren't going as well for the Trump administration. Heading into the midterms, of course he's had some significant wins, in ousting some of the Republicans that he, he opposed in the primaries, but that doesn't necessarily capture the overall electorate in the general. So where are we at with the impact on the domestic home front with all of the emphasis on foreign policy, because you know, people at the end of the day do vote with their wallet.

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I think that. Right.

Scott Uehlinger: And so, I think while he is definitely jawboning, that he's talking about a lot, how gas prices will be going down. And I'm sure that's the case, although the timeframe of course is not totally known. But at the same time there have been, obviously, you know, that there have been been a lot of discussions about rumors, etc. And they're slowly rolling out all of the voter fraud information. And so I think Trump basically keeping in mind the midterms, is doing his foreign policy thing, but he's also looking at opening up revelations about, you know, the widespread cheating that We've seen and it has been coming out and it's going to continue to come out. And that may be signaling some kind of national security action later on around the time of the midterms that, you know, basically proving, okay, you know, foreign powers were involved in stealing the elections as smartmatic voting machines, which had technology from Venezuela actually. And so I think it's all part of an integrated whole and he's going to roll this stuff out to continue to keep the Democrats on their heels as far as, you know, as far as the midterms go.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, it's fascinating to me to see how we live in such a perpetual election cyc here in America. And as soon as one election is over, we immediately start talking about the next one. I mean, even if it's the four years later of the next, presidential election or the midterms or whatever, we kind of live in this nonstop emphasis on the next election. Do you think that that actually hurts the long term strategy of American intelligence and our foreign policy to have to consistently be concerned about optics because of the next election?

Scott Uehlinger: I think that it does. It has been a factor. But I would also say that of course, and of course people like the Democrats want that to be a factor because they believe that it helps them. However, I think that Trump less than, basically is worried about that much less than the average American president because he knows that this is likely to be his last term. And so he is basically hell bent on making sure that all of these problems with US Foreign policy and domestic policy are reformed. And so he's going forward and he's hoping that his pace of reform will basically, overwhelm these short term problems such as like increased gas prices and stuff. So he has a plan and I think it's going to be successful. And you know, he's not deterred by the constant talk of elections.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's a great thing and we've got to leave it there. Scott Ewlinger, really appreciate your commentary and insights. And I do think that President Trump is far less concerned, ah, about what the media says about what the next election is than actually just pushing through his agenda. And that's why he's been so frustrated with Republicans in particular in Congress. And I think, you know, rightly so, even though I personally am of the opinion he could be going after other Republicans than the ones he's going after. But, you know, that's, we can debate that question all day. but overall he is Laser focused on foreign policy, on getting, his agenda accomplished. And no one can ever accuse Donald Trump of ever being a lame duck in any way, shape or form, which I know is coming after the midterms. That's what they're going to say about the last two years of his presidency. But to that, I just say, well, then you don't know Donald Trump. But we'll be right back. Back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

The Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God, not government

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And as we are celebrating America's 250 and, the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, which I think is the greatest civil complaint ever filed in the courtroom of history, in world history that birthed our nation and, was the first government expression of recognizing the truth that our rights come from God, our Creator, not our government. And so it's the sole legitimate purpose of government to preserve and protect those rights. And we as citizens don't turn over any of our rights to the government in exchange for protection. And one of the greatest things about this nation is that it is, through our consent that government has specific limited powers. they don't operate independently, and we don't have to turn over, any of our rights in exchange for that protection. The government, through our declaration and then our US Constitution, our highest law of the land, is obligated to protect us and also, to protect and not infringe upon our rights. This is why I like to say we don't have, have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. It doesn't derive from or come from the U.S. constitution. It's my right to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, that is God given. And the government is obligated to protect it by the First Amendment. So it really matters, our framework.

Eric Metaxas' new book about America is called Revolution

And there is a great new book by my very dear friend Eric Metaxas that is called Revolution the Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the World. And I just love that title. And Eric joins me now. So, good morning, my friend. And, you know, this is so exciting. I'm, I'm so excited to read this book. I love all of your other works, but one about America, and the greatest, nation in the history of the world. Well, that's just so exciting. So tell us about it.

Eric Metaxas: Well, first of all, it's so great to hear your voice, Jenna. you're a dear friend and you understand this stuff just in your preamble. What a joy to hear you explain this as you do. But Everybody in America needs to understand this. This is a glorious gift from God. It's something that 250 years ago, they understood. And if you look away, you forget, if you move on with your life, this stuff evaporates. And we have an obligation before God to remind ourselves, to teach our children, to teach ourselves. And in the course of writing this book, which you just mentioned, revolution, I was amazed. Amazed at how much I had forgotten, amazed at how much I'd never heard before, and amazed to think that without a nation of people understanding these basic ideas, and our stories and the heroes who lived and died to make this real, we can't be America. And so I feel in the 250th year, what I call the super centennial year, this is our obligation as Americans to learn our story, to relearn our story, to remember our story. And it's the story of stories. My book, it's as big as the Bonhoeffer book, the 600 page book. And just yesterday, you can hear it in my voice, I finished reading the audiobook, 600 pages, of this book. But it's a story of stories. It's like an epic with so many stories and characters. And I am in awe that we get to live in this country. And I really believe it's God's design that in this 250th year, we would all go back to the beginning and remember who we are, why this nation was brought into being by God. And if ever anybody needed to know whether this nation was God's idea, read my book. I tell you, it is not debatable. It is amazing to me. When I did the research on this book, again, you know, I am not a scholar like you. I've just read so many things over the years. But until I did the research for this book, it was never so clear to me. It is shockingly clear that this nation was God's idea for his purposes in history, not for us, for God's purposes in history. And I'm so excited that the book, is just about out. People can pre order it now. And in fact, I'll say this before I forget, if people pre order through my website, we will send you a PDF of the book immediately. In other words, even though the physical copy of the book won't come out till June 2, and it's a beautiful book with color photos, but if you want to read the book immediately, I say to people, please pre order it. We've never been able to do this before. For just go to my website ericentaxis.com and if you pre order it through the website, you will get the book sent to you as PDF, which is kind of a cool thing anyway, so you can read it wherever you are, you know, on your screen, but you'll get the physical copy of the book. So I had to get that in.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that is awesome. And I can't wait to read this and I'm going to go as soon as the show is over and do that and pre order it so I can start the PDF because, you know, you're so right, Eric, that we tend to lose the understanding and the awe of our story in its fullness and its richness if we only have the kind of highlights and the, the, the statements and the quotations and phrases that are most known, that are kind of just, picked and, and proof texted out of the fullness and the richness. I mean, this is exactly what, and there's biblical precedent for this, of understanding our history and where we came from. I mean, I was just talking, earlier in the week about, you know, the Israelites that would build monuments to the Lord so that they would remember what he has done for them. And at our 250, that's what this is, Jenna.

Eric Metaxas: Yeah, that comes up. I think of this every day, that this is God's will that we remind ourselves. And he knows that we forget. And he tells us on this date, do this and make a memorial and read this. The Lord tells us over and over and over again because he. He knows our natural tendency is to drift away and to forget. And he tells us over and over, you know, it's why we read the Scriptures, it's why we go to church. If we don't do that, it just drifts out of our head and we just, you know, our default, is not to know the right thing and do the right thing. We have to remind ourselves because we're fallen. And I do believe this 250th Ah, is this moment where I say to people, this is, is an assignment for you this summer. You know, even if you don't feel like it, this is an assignment. We have an obligation before God to know our story, because honestly, it is God's story. When I was doing the research, I was astonished over and over and over to see this is God's idea. The men who did this were godly Christians. They were not just sort of Christians, they were dramatically godly Christians who knew that what they were doing was the Lord's will. This was God's idea in history to create a people who would. Would look to him as the sovereign. Not to King George iii, not to any other, to the state, but would look directly to the Lord and be able to govern themselves. And you know this better than anybody. It's amazing. I was just reading just now, the speech, and I quoted in my book, Samuel Adams, the great man of the revolution, the man who brought about the revolution. Samuel Adams gives a speech the day before they signed the Declaration of independence. Actually, it's August 1st of 1776, the day before they all sign officially the document. And in that speech, he says, we have this day restored the sovereign capital. S.

Eric Metaxas: The Lord of hosts is the sovereign sovereign. We restored the sovereign. We look to him alone. That is America. And anybody who tells you he comes from the French Enlightenment or whatever, garbage. Absolutely not. That is a lie. It is inescapably untrue. And we need to know. All right, this is our history. It is absolutely unavoidable. And it's beautiful and it's. I really do believe the Lord has appointed this year for us so that, a holy remnant will know this story and will lead the nation back in every way to the Lord. That's really, I believe, God's plan. It's why he called me to write this book. I never planned to write a book on the American Revolution. but I now I feel like it was clearly God's will that I do this. And it was a huge labor, but I just praise God that I got to do it.

Jenna Ellis: Amen. And you are the perfect person for this, Eric, because you are such a brilliant writer.

Eric Frum: We need to return to America's founding principles

and you love America as well, and our history and the rich theology. And, you know, you and I for years have been talking about, you know, returning to America's founding principles. And I love what you just mentioned there, that God is the sovereign of this country. It's not we the people. I mean, we the people are the ones that are endowed by God with our rights. And we are the recipients of government's protection in the. In the legitimacy of the civil government. But we have to recognize it's not just a collective of a social contract where we the people can decide the measurable difference between right and wrong, good and evil. No, we are still under God's authority. And that's specifically what our founders recognized in that language of the Declaration of Independence that they appealed not to we the people and the. And the democracy collective. They appealed to the Supreme Judge of the Universe for the rectitude or the moral uprightness of their, of our intention, and that specifically now is to get

Eric Metaxas: that news to the, to the country that it's not we the people. The only way we can govern ourselves is because we allow ourselves to be governed by the Lord. That's the only way. The founders understood it, the men of the revolution understood this is what we're doing. We're going back to the Lord, back to the Sinai Covenant, where we look directly to our sovereign, who is God. That cannot be forced. It is voluntary. But if we don't do it, we can't govern ourselves. And if you want an example of that, you look at the French Revolution. So it really is a teaching moment. I just believe God has ordained it for this year, for this summer, that the whole nation would understand. This is our story. There's no way to get there from here except by turning to God. And again, that is our history. That's not Christian history. That's American history. It's real. It's true. You might not like it, but it's not avoidable.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and that's where we need to be telling, you know, these Democrats in Congress, well, you know, if you have all of these leftist, socialist, communist, Marxist ideas, well, that cannot be legislated in the United States because it's a violation of our U.S. constitution. Why? Because it's a violation of God's law and the law of nature and of nature's God. I mean, we have to reclaim that, I think, Eric, the laws of nature, and say, you know, this isn't just about what civil society prefers or what we decide. You know, we want to ordain and establish in 2026 for our highest law. We have to go back and look at what the truth of the discoverable reality around us, presents and what God has confined us to. And so if we truly understand this, how do you think that Christians would act differently in the Civil square in. If we really understood what you and I are talking about here?

Eric Metaxas: Well, I mean, that's the whole thing, is that freedom comes with a price. You cannot be free unless you are devoted to living your life to preserve that freedom, to teach that freedom. If you just do nothing, it goes away. And so you want to be a slave. Well, then you don't have to do anything except what you're told you want to be free. That's going to take some effort. And that's why, say, I, believe people have a duty to. I mean, look, I wrote a book so I can say to people, just read my book. I think it's the most clear, readable, fun exposition of this stuff. But if you got some other way to do, doesn't matter how you do it, but you better do it, because if you don't do it, if you don't put in the work. And again, what a joy to do. You know, it's like brushing your teeth. You get to keep your teeth. It's like, it's not work work. It's. It's for you that you're doing it. But the fact is, if you don't do it, you're going to lose it. And this is a time that we've got to do that. And I believe the church has to lead the way. And frankly, this is evangelism. When you do this, it leads people to God because they begin to see, like, oh, you know, I never understood that before. We can't have freedom without looking to God directly. That's what the founders were talking about. And all the lies, you know that, oh, it's French Enlightenment rationalism. Jefferson came up with this. These are lies. That is not true. This comes out of the Scripture. Jon Adams and Samuel Adams and many other figures who are in my book that maybe listeners right now wouldn't even know who they are, but who need to know who they are. These are the men who brought these ideas to the fore. It comes out of the Reformation, it comes out of Puritan theology that we've got to educate ourselves. We got to read the Bible for ourselves. And out of that comes this idea that our rights come from God. And we want to have a government that acknowledges that our rights don't come from the King, don't come from Parliament, don't come from Congress or the President, come from God. And as you said, the First Amendment, it doesn't give us our rights. It secures the rights that are already ours from the moment we come into existence. And it's so vital that Americans understand this. And that's why I say unapologetically, everybody, you've got an assignment. You need to know this information. And when you know it, you will be happy. You will be thrilled that you understand it, because it's the only way we can go forward. The people, of previous generations understood these things. We have been forgetting them. And especially the church has an obligation to understand that God in his mercy, allowed Christians to create a government that looks directly to him. That's what it is. That's what it was. And if it's anything but that, we are no longer free.

Jenna Ellis: Amen. Amen, Eric. And I'm so glad that you did this. And you know, I did the same thing when I was, in law school and was saying, okay, I want to be able to advocate for the Christian worldview in government, but you know, how do I address and answer these questions? I mean, I spent a couple of years, you know, researching and writing and then ultimately wrote, my first book about this. And you can't just take the easy way out and be, you know, maybe a very passionate patriot, but not actually understand and read all of these documents for yourself. And so I'm so glad that you wrote this book. It's Revolution, the book the Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the world.

Eric Mataxas: Be a well informed patriot so you can advocate for Christian worldview

Go to ericmataxas.com and get your copy today. Be a well informed patriot so you can advocate for the Christian worldview. And as always, you can reach me and my team Jenna@afr.net. thanks so much, Eric. Love you to pieces.