Jenna emphasizes the importance of preserving our foundational values

We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor,

pre-born.

When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound

and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection.

And the majority of the time, she will choose life.

But she can't do it without our help.

Pre-born needs us, the pro-life community,

to come alongside her.

One ultrasound is just $28.

And to donate, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby,

or visit pre-born.com forward slash AFR.

Jonah Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

I love talking about the things of God

because of truth and the biblical worldview.

The US 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 Jonah Ellis in the morning.

Good morning.

It is Tuesday, March 17th.

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all who celebrate.

And if you're wearing green this morning,

well, I can't see you, you can't see me either.

So it doesn't really matter.

But it is a good morning anyways.

And we need to be praying for Susie Wiles,

President Trump's chief of staff.

Yesterday, the news broke that she has been diagnosed

with breast cancer.

She posted on X last week I was diagnosed with breast cancer

nearly one in eight women in the United States

will face this diagnosis every day.

These women continue to raise their families, go to work

and serve their communities with strength and determination.

I now join their ranks.

I'm grateful to have an outstanding team of doctors

who detected the cancer early and are guiding my care.

And I'm encouraged by a very good prognosis.

I'm also deeply thankful for the support and encouragement

of President Trump as I undergo treatment

and continue serving in my role as White House chief of staff.

President Trump also posted on true social that Susie Wiles

would undergo her treatment, a lot of which

would be while she's at the White House

to no plans, at least at this point,

to take any sort of step back.

So that is seem to be a lot of, especially the women,

the strong women that work for President Trump,

to continue through births of children,

through diagnosis, even of breast cancer,

to continue to serve.

So be praying for a full recovery for Susie Wiles

and for her family.

Also, a report yesterday that the US Senate

is preparing to vote on the Save America Act on Wednesday.

However, there will be no talking filibuster.

So the plan, apparently, is for a leader

soon to simply bring it to the floor

and likely that 60 vote majority that

is needed to advance the Save America Act

will not be reached.

And the filibuster will not be voted down.

And so this raises the question of what exactly

is the Senate doing and why even vote on it at all?

Well, let's welcome in Gerard Folletti,

who is Senior Counsel at the Law Fair Project.

And Gerard, I think overall with everything currently going

on in Iran, yesterday President Trump

had a couple of conflicting statements,

not really sure maybe in his own mind

exactly what the objectives in Iran are

and now with the Save America Act

likely to fail in the Senate.

It doesn't seem like the political optics are voting well

for this administration currently.

Well, I think we also have to remember

that we have a constant barrage of headlines

in these pre-media that has been very much targeting

and contrary to Trump since even before he took office

this term.

So a lot of what we're seeing, the top line,

the headlines of papers and online,

tend to be very critical without actually going

into the analysis.

But I think you are right.

I mean, there is going political pressure

on President Trump.

There is a growing debate within some of the Republican party

even on the advantages or disadvantages

of action in Iran.

And what you have a Save America Act,

which is so crucial to a voting security,

but we're not able to get that passed.

That sends the message that maybe we need to be focusing

more on these domestic issues

and really getting legislation that we need passed

while we still have to go to Congress.

Yeah, absolutely.

And so why isn't the Senate potentially

removing the filibuster and just passing this?

Because as it stands right now,

at least polymarket and some of these other predictions

are suggesting that Republicans are going to lose

the majority in at least one house in Congress.

And so it seems like over the next just a few months

that there's left until November.

And then of course, the turnaround in January,

it seems like it would be in the national best interest

for conservatives to just push through

as much of their priorities as they possibly can.

Well, I agree in general that it's important

to push through as much of the agenda as possible.

But on the flip side with the Senate,

we also have to remember that doing away

with the filibuster opens the door

to that same tool being used when the Republicans

don't have control of the Senate

and the Democrats running through measures

that they want that are anti-settical

to a conservative agenda.

And that's a legitimate concern.

I think that that is why the Senate for decades now

has resisted calls to do away with the filibuster.

They do see themselves as one of the guardians

of an older way of doing things

where you try to deliberate in each consensus

rather than shuffling down,

get things done without that more broader mandate.

But it really is dangerous for Republicans

is what we need to remember for conservative values

that if we do away with the filibuster as a short term,

anything that's now enacted in law

can easily be undone in two years and four years,

and it'll make it that much harder to oppose that.

And that's obviously been the objection

to removing the filibuster,

but I don't really have any particular confidence

that the Democrats won't just do the same thing

once they're in power.

And so the conservatives for a long time have said,

oh, we want to make sure that we abide by the rules.

We want to make sure that we keep all of these things

in place, but Democrats have proven over and over

and over again that they'll do whatever it takes

to ram their agenda through.

I mean, they'll perpetuate law fair

or completely ignore the rules of law process, all of this.

And so what's to stop them from just doing that anyway?

To your point, there's really nothing to stop them.

The only thing that's been stopping them until now

is that you had a different kind of Democrats

in the Senate, ensure you have people like Elizabeth Warren

or, let's not forget Bernie Sanders,

who are more on the extreme fringes of the left,

but they tend to be a minority,

even in the Democratic Party, in the Senate.

You have louder voices like that in the House.

The Senate has tended to be more institutionally conservative,

if not conservative than its values.

So that's what's prevented that from happening today.

But to your point, I think that as we're looking

at a younger generation of left-wing people

going into the Senate, that is likely to change.

If not in the next few years, then for the down the line.

So it is something to be mindful of.

Yeah, and it doesn't seem like many Democrats.

And increasingly, Republicans as well are really concerned

about process, procedure, history, and preserving institutions.

I mean, we've even seen so many US constitutional amendments

that have really undermined America's founding.

I think the 20th century, especially the latter part,

as well with Supreme Court decisions,

have you just served to move us further and further off track.

But with the Save America Act in particular,

assuming that conservatives don't want to remove the filibuster

for the reasons that you've argued

and articulated Jared Folletti,

what is to stop you a leader soon from trying

to at least make some other kind of deal

or to get close to 60 votes?

I mean, it seems like there hasn't, at least, publicly,

appeared to be any sort of real effort to convince

some of the maybe more moderate Democrats

to say, listen, this isn't an extreme piece of legislation.

This is actually something that really, at the end of the day,

should have been bipartisan.

You're absolutely right.

I mean, it needs to be more pressure on those moderate Democrats,

not just from a leader soon,

but also from their own constituents.

I mean, there need to be people asking them questions

why they are standing in the way of this crucial law

that that provides for election integrity,

and really is meant to preserve our democracy,

as we understand it, one person, one vote

with guarantees of people actually being who they claim

to be when they vote.

That pressure should be put to moderate Democrats

by their own constituents and by the media.

But at the end of the day, it's, you know,

if this were part of a larger issue that we're seeing,

is that this is something that will be charged.

Even if it is adopted into law,

we know that this will be challenged

on a legal basis, on a constitutional basis,

in pretty much every state that's controlled by Democrats,

as infringing on state rights.

So it's not as straightforward as just getting this past.

We have to look at the longer term picture of even this past,

this is something that will be subject to law fair.

Yeah, of course that will, because, you know,

Democrats can never let anything,

any other challenges go to waste.

And it seems like, you know, on that note,

it seems like the left always has lawsuits

immediately prepared.

They file over even the most frivolous thing,

and they just engage in kind of this obstructionist

filings as well as law fair and all of this.

And it seems like for Republicans, even and conservatives,

even the challenges that are legitimate

that should be mounted, sometimes there either isn't

an opportunity for that, you know, maybe it's just

a matter of financing, or, you know,

in some of these, these, you know,

kind of outfits that I've talked to over some various

things over the years, you know,

some of the response that I'll receive as well,

you know, that isn't really within, you know,

our wheelhouse of exactly, you know,

what our mission for our organization is.

And while I understand and respect that,

you know, it seems like we need to have more

opportunity as conservatives to immediately challenge,

you know, some of the things that Democrats push through,

especially if they do regain control after November.

Well, we absolutely do.

And we need to learn from what the Democrats have,

it's really the left that created this law fair machine.

They created it because they couldn't get laws passed

to change the way that we value things in society,

to push for societal change when they didn't have

control of Congress or the White House,

they perfected law fair as a means of changing the law

without actually changing the law.

And for the most part, the Republicans

or conservatives have been step or two behind

because we tend to look at the institution of the law.

It's often say, wait a second,

this is a frivolous lawsuit.

This is not something that should be brought.

This is something that should be resolved

by our elected representatives.

But Democrats have gone full tilt,

investing in law fair to a lot of success.

And we're seeing this coming full circle.

We're seeing Republicans now starting to be more aware

and engaged with law fair with taking action

to prevent liberal measures from taking effect.

But to your point, you're absolutely right.

We don't have enough people on the right

who are willing to go, whether it be aggressive

or as aggressive as they can be

to get some of these laws and measures

that progressive put forward undone.

Yeah, and it seems like at the end of the day,

it's a very similar problem among conservatives

that they don't want to necessarily do whatever it takes

to challenge some of these things in court

or even get the legislation passed to begin with

because we're perhaps too concerned about process.

And some of these things like removing the filibuster,

I mean, that's an antiquated,

self-appointed rule of the Senate.

It doesn't have a requirement or basis

in the constitutional structure.

It's something that can be modified.

It's just that conservatives tend

to be overall more respectors of the system

and the reason and rationale that rules and processes

are in place even if they can change.

And it seems like you're at a lot of times

that actually is working to our detriment

when the other side of the aisle doesn't play by the rules.

They don't care about history.

I mean, they're willing to tear down statues.

I mean, they don't care whatsoever about preserving

not only the truth about American history,

but the process, they are only concerned about winning period.

They're only concerned about power and their agenda.

And so it seems like maybe conservatives need

to come to a little bit better of a balance

because I've certainly haven't been advocating

that, okay, we just need to fight fire with fire

and wear a lot of maybe some of the more

neocon wing of conservatives are suggesting,

well, it doesn't even matter let's just get our priorities

through and then we'll deal with kind of the mess

at the end of the day.

And it has to be kind of this mutually assured destruction

that's the only path forward.

There has to be something maybe in the middle to say,

you know, okay, conservatives need to fight fire with fire

while also considering the long term with the law calls,

you know, the ex ante of what is the precedent value

and how would this shape not just this current

incident, but, you know, future things down the road.

Where do you think that balance is?

Well, I think that balance, we're not at that balance yet

because we are driven by narratives that are more

to the extreme on both parties.

Not that that's where the majority of people are

but that's what allow voices are.

And I think that where you will find balance

is things like voting where you do need a consensus

and you come to a consensus, people understand,

you know, with immigration that the way things are now

the system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

And when you have the rational voices come to

and you do have people who are supportive of change,

you do need to bring them together.

I think it's a leadership function at the end of a day.

And the Republican Party does certainly have people

who want to bring people together.

Donald comes himself with spoken to that repeatedly

for the last year, but we don't have people

on the left who are ready to do that.

They're driven by their more extreme voices

and until they have leadership

that's willing to sit down and talk

and understand that the American people are not driven

to extremes that they want reasonable progress

in legislation, we're not going to see those changes.

Yeah.

Well, you know, that's a good point.

And we need to just pray that somehow they save America

act and some of these other priorities are going to end up

being pushed through before November,

regardless of what happens.

And hopefully enough will shift in terms of the mindset

that there will be a strong enough turnout

that Republicans don't lose that majority.

But before I let you go, Adjuroud Fletti,

I also wanted to get your commentary on this story out

of Florida.

This is coming from only in Florida Instagram account,

but there's a report that two central Florida high school

students accused of plotting to kill another student

will remain in custody after a judge watched a video

of these two students and denied their bond

prosecutors argued the teens pose a danger

to the community pointing in part to a video

that appeared to show them laughing and joking

while being taken to jail.

In the video, a one teen allegedly said she wanted to do

or make up for her mug shot.

Well, the other described the situation

as a quote unquote bonding experience.

The investigators are saying the 15-year-old

recruited the 14-year-old to help target a student.

She was allegedly obsessed with.

Authorities said that the plan involved attacking

the victim in a school bathroom.

Some other really disgusting details

I won't even go into.

But this is a 14 and 15-year-old.

I mean, these are still kids.

Obviously, these are adult actions.

That's why some of them are ultimately

charged as adults, depending on the conduct.

But first of all, I agree that they should have been denied bond

in this situation.

But, Gerard, what does this suggest overall just

about our society where we have two high school students,

14 and 15, who can have this type of plot

and then when they're caught, this kind of just

completely callous reaction.

I mean, it's horrifying.

The first question that comes to my mind

is where are the parents?

We know what's being called in school.

We know the indoctrination of taking place in school

and we don't trust teachers and schools

to be the guardians of our children

as they used to in the old days.

But where are the parents?

Where are the values that these kids are being taught?

Are these kids even going to church, exposed to God,

exposed to values that human life is precious and sick?

It's obviously not.

And this is where we've gotten into this idea.

I think that we've seen this slowly happening

over the last 25 or 30 years.

We have the internet.

We have social media.

It's exposing kids to all sorts of mild behavior

and making it seem like it's normal.

And it's also made parenting more difficult

because parents are spending less time with their kids

in a lot of cases.

You are seeing kids, like some children, by the internet,

where these ideas are not condemned as abnormal,

but they're discussed openly.

So we go back to where are the parents?

Where are these kids learning their values from?

Why aren't the parents who were involved

in what these kids are learning and doing?

Because if the parents had been there teaching these values,

taking these kids to church,

you wouldn't be in this situation.

Yeah, absolutely.

And so well said.

I mean, and this is why parents basically

abdicating their role to state-funded institutions

and then these peer groups that obviously

are not healthy and a good environment for each other.

We continue to see more and more of the rise

of this type of complete and utter disrespect for life.

And it shows a mentality that the biblical values

that America was founded on and the Christian worldview

are in large part not being passed down

to the next generation.

And these are the consequences.

So anything we see that at least we had a judge here

who did the right thing, a denied bond

because we also have a justice system

that's moved away from these values.

We have cashless bond, we have a justice system

that's evolving for criminal activity

that no longer imposes consequences.

So if you're not converting values at home,

if you're not having consequences when you break the law,

it just causes a complete disruption in our society.

This is the way our society falls apart.

So we really have to go back to basics.

It's hard for parents, it's hard for all of us to sit

and talk and teach the next generation,

especially with all the pressure that we're under these days.

But that's really what the most important thing is,

remember the fundamental values that we share.

And remember our faith.

And I think that's what we need in this country right now,

a faith to the Bible, a revival of family value,

something that's conservative has been pushing for for years.

But we really see what happens when you don't have it.

We have complete societal decay.

We've got 14 year olds who want to kill people at school.

And that's not right.

We all know that, we just have to act on it.

So well said, well, we have to take a break here.

Adjard Faletti really appreciate your time this morning

and for the parents who are listening and thinking,

wow, well, I'm really glad my kids don't go to public institutions.

And yes, it's a good thing and you need to be making sure

that you are taking responsibility for the discipleship

of your own children.

But the influence is still there.

I mean, there are still kids in the neighborhood,

kids in the community that your children will interact with.

And you need to be monitoring exactly who they are interacting

with, what they're seeing on social media,

the rise of artificial intelligence.

I mean, so many other influences that we need

to make sure to protect our kids from and ensure

that we are raising up the next generation

in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

We will be right back with more here

on Jenna Ellis in the morning.

The AFR app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations.

You can't use it to change the oil in your vehicle

or get rid of carpet stains.

It won't walk the dog, won't pick up the dry cleaning

or take the kids to practice.

But while you're doing those things,

you can listen to your favorite AFR content

through the app on your phone, smart device, or Roku.

Just go to your app store or visit AFR.net.

Listen to AFR wherever you go with the AFR app.

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the morning

on American Family Radio.

Welcome back.

Well, a post by someone who goes by the anonymous title

of Insurrection Barbie on X, this really long post

is kind of gaining a lot of momentum for arguing

that what's happening inside of the conservative movement

is not just a policy debate.

For example, over Israel foreign policy America first,

it's a deliberate long-term ideological takeover.

And in part, this particular post, which actually several people

have brought up to me over the last week,

asked if I've read it, asked what I think about it,

but also even Senator Ted Cruz reposted it this week saying,

read every word of this, this is the best

and most comprehensive explanation of what we're fighting.

So this is really interesting and joining me now

for this discussion is Ryan Helfenbine,

who is the Vice President of Communications

and Public Engagement at Liberty University

and the founding executive director

of the Standing for Freedom Center.

So Ryan, let's kind of break this down

because when this account is arguing in this post,

and it's titled The Long Game and the Conservative Right,

how a network of political Catholic integralists,

Russian ideologues and media provocateurs

are systematically dismantling

the Evangelical Foundation of the American Right

when that's kind of the premise.

Let's unpack this a little bit, thank good morning.

Yeah, good morning Jenna, great to be on with you.

Yeah, I think a lot of people have noticed

a shift.

There has definitely been a shift

and then, and more noticeably,

if it wasn't noticeable to say in 2024,

it's certainly been noticeable ever since the death

of Charlie Kirk back on September 10, 2025,

where it's clear with names like Candice Owens,

Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Nick Fuente,

and many others that there are these ideas

that have been smuggled into the right

and have been propagated in the right,

but they are not traditionally any of our values

or beliefs that it doesn't make sense,

it doesn't correlate or comport with our history

where we have stood as Evangelicals,

how we have thought as Evangelicals.

Most obvious one, and this is something

that all of your listeners would immediately recognize

and understand is the case for Israel.

Rather, the case against Israel,

these anti-Semitic tropes that have kind of been brought in

and they have been voiced and re-voiced by Tucker,

by Nick, by Candice, by Megan Carol Prision,

which was the impetus behind the decision to,

you know, basically fire her from the Religious Liberty

Commission because of her inappropriate comments

and because of her grandstanding against the Jewish people.

Evangelicals in America have understood

well over a century and beyond that,

longer, by the way, than the founding of the modern state

of Israel, that Christians believe that there is a future

promise for the Jewish people to ultimately,

to return to Christ, but also to return to their land.

There has been, that is, anybody that reads the Bible

that does a plain reading of scripture,

reading in Revelation or reading in Jeremiah

and Isaiah, reading the prophecies would recognize

that there is a future promise of restoration

and this does not go back to 1948, it goes beyond that.

The Jewish people have been in that land

for over 4,000 plus years.

And so all of a sudden these new claims are coming in,

the question is where are they coming from

and this post points to that.

Yeah, and I think that that is a really good question

and that we've been asking for a while

because really until Ted Cruz's infamous interview

with Tucker Carlson last year that I think kind of sparked

this or launched this whole conversation,

more mainstream, there have always been kind of the segment

of those on the right who are the replacement theology,

some who claim that the church replaced Israel

and some of those, but it really didn't,

at least in the more mainstream impact foreign policy

and the overall perspective that America should still support

the nation of Israel based on biblical and theological principles.

But when that interview Ryan went more viral,

it almost seemed to bring out from the woodwork,

a lot of especially younger people

that are now saying, well, wait a minute,

America first means that we're only for America

and so that must be inconsistent with Israel.

And I think that they're like so many other policy propositions.

There's the narrative that a lot of people buy into

and then there are the people who are actually running things

for other purposes and other agendas kind of behind the scenes

and this is why I wrote The Peace and the Christian Post

last November that was titled The New Rights Revolt

is not really about Israel

and it's more about the consensus

that has always been among the Republican Party

and Evangelicals and kind of this seminal support for Israel

that if you can break that consensus,

you're really breaking up the right,

but especially Evangelicals influence

and that's why I see people like Carrie Prajean

who has been a Catholic supposedly for like five minutes

and thinks that she knows everything about Catholic theology

and I don't see her as being an honest broker here.

It's more that she's trying to undermine

every Evangelicals influence in politics and say,

well, you're wrong because the land has no meaning anymore

and just because you support Israel

so therefore we don't need to listen to you

and I think that's more the undercurrent here

of what a lot of people are pointing out

with this new movement.

Right, I wholeheartedly agree that what we're seeing,

so the red green alliance is something

that has been brought up numerous times.

This idea of socialism or communism pairing up

with Islam, the whole 1979 Iranian revolution

was fueled by that.

The Ayatollah was successful in being able

to bring these disparate groups together,

including these pro feminist groups.

These were communist agitators, college students

who wanted to see a revolution

because they wanted to topple down.

The patriarchy, they wanted to take down the Shah,

they wanted to take down capitalism

and they wanted to smuggle all this in.

Surprise, surprise, the moment you bring an imam in

and make them the supreme ruler,

the moment you sort of institutionalize Islam,

there's gonna be widespread persecution.

And so many of them went off to their devs,

went off to prison and it's been ruled by Shia Muslims

ever since.

What is interesting is when you look at

like the talking points of Tucker Carlson,

he's trying to smuggle in the idea

that we do not need to see Islam as a threat.

Muslims are not a threat.

Actually, Christians enjoy a lot of just great amenities

and citizenship rights and all of that

by living in Muslim countries,

nothing could be further from the truth.

But he's smuggling in these ideas

that Israel is really lesser of a hero and more of a foe

just like Winston Churchill,

the whole idea of Gerald Cooper coming on his program

two years ago to discuss and rewrite the history

of World War II.

He had him on twice, by the way.

Nick Puentes once just smuggled in the idea of socialism

that at the end of the day,

if we could just shut down the border

and get rid of sort of mass illegal immigration,

that would be the great compromise on the democratic side

but on the Republican side,

we just need to do away with capitalism.

We just need to do away with markets,

the market economy, private ownership of property.

We need to go into more of a collectivistic understanding.

And so Tucker on the one hand

Islam is not something to be afraid of.

In fact, Islam, how dare we hold Islamic people guilty

for the very beliefs of Sharia law and for the practices

like there's no such thing as blood guilt

is what Tucker said from the main stage of turning point,

just last December.

Puentes, on the other hand,

wants to smuggle in the identity of communism.

And so we have to be aware,

and I think many of us are, what's happening?

These are the main, in terms of folks on the right,

they have large podcasting platforms.

They have a lot of influence.

They don't have a ground game,

they don't have an organization,

they're not knocking doors.

These are not, they may not be communicating to your listeners,

but they're communicating to listeners online.

Many of them under the age of 30.

And so young men and young women are listening to them.

And many of them that are defined by a generation

that doesn't attend church,

hasn't read their Bible,

doesn't know what any of this is.

And their introduction to Christianity is,

well, I want to go to a place

that's really, really old, it's very ancient,

that has the forms, I want to take part in something

that is more permanent, more transcendent.

I want to go to a Catholic church.

And so many of them, and by the way, we're very clear,

I'm not bashing Catholics or Catholicism,

but I want to be clear, young men,

who are attracted to what they perceive

as a masculine version of Christianity,

not a Ted talking, smoke and mirror,

kind of evangelical box theater church,

I'm not bashing that either,

but they're wanting something as an alternative

and they're seeking that.

So they go to a Catholic church, a Catholic mass.

You know what, I've been preferred in Latin.

Well, I don't know why,

but you know, it's because I feel like this is ancient

and it's important and look at all the garb

and all the accoutrements of worship,

look at the solemnity,

look at the liturgy, it's like poetry and there's beauty.

Young people are attracted to those forms,

but what is lacking in all of that is substance.

And so they are able to be easily steered

by these voices online, including Carol,

including Candace and others,

because they have no real theological

or biblical firewall to protect them.

So they're being shaped by every wind of doctrine.

They're being steered by all of these myths,

including a suspicion of.

And so there is a rise of anti-semitic feeling

and there are young people who are highly suspicious of,

they believe in many of the conspiracy theories

because in the past few years, Jenna,

we all can recognize many of these things have come true.

And so they're being steered by this notion of,

there's always some man behind the curtain

pulling the lever.

This time, before it was Anthony Fauci,

this time it's Masad, this time it's Benjamin Netanyahu,

this time it's the Jewish conspiracy,

the Rothschild family, all of those things.

And so they're planting and sowing these seeds

of destruction in young people's minds.

It is very, very dangerous.

And I would just say, much of it is,

it's a historical, it's non-analytical.

The moment it is challenged, most of these guys,

when they speak, they go on a two or three hour podcast.

They're not debating anyone.

The moment they receive pushback,

their entire argument breaks down.

If you saw Carol Prision on the,

religious committee commission,

she tried to challenge Dan Patrick and Seth Dylan

and others in within moments.

As soon as Seth was able to speak,

her entire argument broke down.

She has no clue what she's talking about.

She has not studied any of this stuff,

but she is mainly motivated by a mood,

a feeling and even a hatred that is not based on scripture.

It's certainly not based on the Holy Spirit

or a love for Christ.

She really does hate Jewish people.

And so I think this interaction Barbie post

that has gone viral, I think there's a lot to it.

I really do.

And we have to be wary,

we're heading into voting this fall.

And there's going to be a lot of suppression

of that vote this fall by these voices online

that are trying to confuse the moral equation

that are trying to confuse what's really at stake

in this election.

Ryan, so well said.

We've got to take a break here,

but he's going to join me to continue the conversation

on the flip side of the break.

And yeah, this is a really important conversation.

And whether you agree with every jot and title in this post,

you should read it.

You should also read the article that I wrote

in the Christian post titled The New Rights Revolt

is not really about Israel

because often what appears to be the issue

isn't actually just the main issue.

It's a lot about what the undercurrent of what's driving

that issue and in this context,

trying to marginalize the evangelical influence

because historically we have been the voters

that have been around 30% or so of the electorate,

the voted heavily Republican,

been anchored in conservatism,

the biblical worldview and church networks.

That's what they're trying to marginalize.

So we're going to talk to Ryan Helfen

behind right after this.

Abortion moves fast.

And right now in our communities,

women are being pressured to make irreversible decisions

in moments of fear and panic.

They're told to act quickly or risk losing support.

Many feel that they have no other option,

but because of you, they do.

At pre-born network clinics,

a woman receives what the abortion industry will never offer,

compassion without pressure,

clarity about the life growing inside her,

real support to welcome her baby and the hope of the gospel.

She's given a free ultrasound and space to breathe.

And more than 80% of the time

when a mother sees her baby on a pre-born ultrasound,

she chooses life.

This March, pre-born is hoping to save 6,800 babies.

Yes, 6,800 babies.

But it will take 124 partners saying yes every single day.

So here's my ask.

Pause your busy day for just a moment

and become a yes right now.

Just $28 provides one ultrasound.

$140 helps five mothers.

Every dollar helps save babies and share hope.

To donate, dial pound 250 and say the key word baby.

That's pound 250 baby or visit pre-born.com forward slash AFR.

That's pre-born.com forward slash AFR.

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the morning

on American Family Radio.

Welcome back.

And I'm here with my special guest this morning, Ryan

Health and Vine, who's the Vice President of Communications

at Liberty University.

And we're talking about this whole problem

with the rise of the new right,

trying to marginalize and undermine evangelical influence

in politics and policy.

Mainly I think because about 30% approximately

of the electorate has been the evangelical Protestant base.

And it's been anchored in conservatism,

biblical world view, church networks,

and the goal as framed by this post at least

by Insurrection Barbie.

And then this has obviously been a conversation by many others.

But this goal has been to replace

that evangelical foundation with a different ideological framework.

And this is essentially trying to replace

an actual biblical world view of legitimacy in government,

understanding the different jurisdictional purposes

between the civil government, the church government,

and the family government.

With something that is more integralist,

that's why we were talking about Catholic integralism.

And also, ethno nationalist.

Kind of this idea, and you see this arise

among the Christian nationalists that suggest,

and another idea, Ryan that Tucker Carlson,

I think, has been trying to smuggle in,

is this idea that nations and borders and the land

and demographics and geography aren't what make a nation.

But it's just a shared race and heritage.

And this has kind of seeped into more

of the immigration conversations.

I think this has a lot to do with the rise of anti-Semitism.

But it's kind of just overall, this whole goal

is to replace the biblical world view

in the foundation of a American government

that is rooted, of course, in the biblical world view

that transcends, you know, any time and specific nation,

and put in a different ideological framework

that would fundamentally change the GOP

into a different party with different goals.

And this is really dangerous, Ryan.

And why, I think, with the Catholic integralist,

as well as the Christian nationalists,

these are ideologies of a civil government

that Christians absolutely need to push back against.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

I want to make a couple of quick, quick distinctions.

So when we talk about Catholic integralism,

what we're really kind of talking about

is a European-style model that predates,

it goes back before the Protestant Reformation.

So it's the idea that the church sits at the head of government,

that there is no separation of church and state.

And it's the idea that the Vatican rules,

that the Pope's decide, bishops, you know,

anointing kings, if you will.

And so it's kind of that crusader-type mentality

by the sword, but not by the spirit, the spirit of God.

And so, you know, this is where mass persecution was happening.

Inquisitions, this is where, you know,

the state had this authority,

that if you were not abiding by the doctrines

of the Catholic church, you would be persecuted,

even put to death.

The Protestant Reformation was so successful,

it birthed to two nations.

One was the British nation.

You look at the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

That was largely successful.

We had the English Bill of Rights after that.

Thank you very much,

because that made its way into the American Bill of Rights

and influenced our American Revolution,

because we said, hey, what happened in 1688,

that we were holding the same thing.

This government doesn't represent us.

The king is an outlaw king.

Obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.

That was John Knox.

America was built on the foundation of, you know,

government, yes, sits under God's authority,

but the church is not the head of the government.

So there is a separation of church and state,

but at the same time, that does not mean a secular government.

That does not mean that the government is emancipated

from ultimately owing its allegiance to God.

And so there is a Christian morality

and an informal founding that happened in 1788

when we put the Constitution together.

So their religious liberty was defined by Protestantism.

Catholicism did not produce or birth religious liberty.

That is so critically important that people understand that.

That this nation that was defined by a kind of Christian pluralism.

Yes, you had Catholics.

Yes, you had Jewish people, it's synagogues early on,

but you had Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists,

congregationalists, Quakers, Shakers, old lights,

new lights, all of those going into the formation of this country.

And so we might have worshiped different places

on Sunday morning, but we were one nation under God

and religious liberty won the day.

And so this kind of Francoism,

or this idea of a kind of Christian king,

we need to turn this into a monarchy once again.

We need to do away with the original project of America.

We need to re-institute some kind of Catholic integralism

because this Protestant experiment has run a muck.

Look, secularism is the great hijacker.

I think of the American experiment that came along

in the 1950s and 1960s.

And we need to get back to an understanding

of our original founding, which is one nation under God.

And so the whole thing about what's happening

in the conservative movement on the right,

these are not conservative actors.

I want to go ahead and say this.

Tucker Carlson, he might have been a conservative one,

he's not behaving like one right now.

Candace Owens is not behaving like a conservative.

Nick Fuentes is definitely not a conservative.

So they are attacking the 87%

that vote Republican, which are evangelicals.

And they're trying to break that apart.

If you look at Catholic voting, it's roughly 51, 52, 53%.

Catholics vote for Republicans,

but a lot of them vote for Democrats as well.

7 and 10 Jewish voters vote Democratic.

So they recognize they have to attack

the evangelical vote.

And so they're importing these ideas

to dissuade evangelicals in what has been historic voting

patterns, historic voting values.

And the philosophy that is dominated on the right,

they are trying to break that.

And Israel is a big part of it.

But I think one of the things too,

and I want to be really careful to mention this,

evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals,

they're asking questions that are good questions.

These are not bad questions.

Like a question that I get often from young people,

even at Liberty University.

Hey, is the modern state of Israel

is that the same as biblical Israel

in the Old Testament?

Or is that the same as the Israel

that has promised in Revelation?

And so I want to say this very quickly,

the simple answer, it's a twofold answer.

The simple answer is actually on its face, no.

The modern state, the secular state of Israel,

is not the same or synonymous with the biblical Israel.

But it is coterminous with the biblical Israel.

And that's a really important distinction to make.

And what do I mean by that?

If you look at the caness it,

it's a plurality of different representations,

different political parties.

You have secular, you have non-believing,

you have non-Jewish citizens in Israel,

you even have Arab Muslims

that make up 20% of the Israeli population.

So they're all represented in the government,

the modern state of Israel.

We would be foolish just to flatten that distinction.

But what we recognize is that in the Jewish diaspora

is the spreading of the Jewish population

around the world, a large part of that population,

the Jewish population lives in the United States.

And over 50% of that population worldwide

lives in the modern state of Israel.

The biblical Israel of promise is contained

within the modern state.

And that is so critically important

for evangelical thinkers to recognize and to understand.

You cannot separate or split the modern state

from the biblical Israel.

Promise because they are coterminous with one another.

It would be like solemn and dividing the baby in half.

And so that is something for us to understand.

Is that our argument when you talk to somebody

like a Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes,

why are you so supportive of Israel?

Well, I have a biblical reason.

I also have a moral and practical political reason.

The moral reason is for 4,000 years

this has been their land.

They are an ethnic people

and they're also a people of coveted,

a people of promise.

And they've always had claim on the land

and there has never been a time in history

in which the Jewish descendants of Abraham

have not lived on that land.

And this whole idea of renaming the land,

Palestine, which is a derivative of Philistia

or Philistine that comes after the Romans

tried to wipe out the Jewish people

through widespread persecution.

They tried to do it by also renaming the land of Judah

to Palestine.

And in 1948, that all got changed back again.

But for 4,000 years, Jewish people

have had claim on that land

and they've always lived on that land.

So there's a moral reason.

There's a practical political reason, Jenna,

which we all recognize and understand.

The greatest bulwark of Western civilization,

the defenders of the West, that is Western freedom,

that is human rights, that is market capitalism,

that's trade, that's modern society, civility,

has been the modern state of Israel.

They are a stabilizing force, not a destabilizing,

but a stabilizing force in the Middle East

that has defined diplomacy for 80 plus years now.

And that is a huge benefit to all Western nations

including the United States.

It is America's first policy to support them in that endeavor.

So well said.

And Ryan, this is a much longer conversation

that will continue to have.

And we should continue to have.

And for people who are just listening,

who are just kind of coming into this conversation,

the visible fights on the right, I think,

are really just surface level.

The real conflict is a deep strategic

and theological struggle over the identity

and belief system of conservatism itself.

We need to be talking about this more.

As always, you can reach me and my team,

Jenna at AFR.net.

Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion.

And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives.

Will you join preborn in loving

and supporting young moms in crisis?

Save a life today.

Go to preborn.com forward slash AFR.