Clueless: The Jenna Ellis Tweetstorm Story

So when I first became a Christian, I was living in New York City as an adult, and one of the first things I did after I, you know, repented of my sins and trusted in the Lord, is I decided to read the Bible.

Now, I had tried this many times in my life, and I always struggled. A lot of the times where most people struggle, like, you know, through, like, numbers and, you know, Deuteronomy, stuff like that. But this time I just kept reading, you know what I mean?

I just kept reading no matter what, and I read the entire thing very quickly. And I used to have, like, an hour commute to work. At the time, I lived in Brooklyn, and I still worked in Midtown, so I had, like, an hour.

Whether I took the subway or a bus, it would take an hour to get to work every day, and then an hour back. So I had two hours a day, and I'd read at home sometimes, too, and all that kind of thing. And I remember I got through numbers, I got through Deuteronomy, pretty easily.

I remember, you know, really not being too confused until, or frustrated, until, you know, I started reading about the kings, right? And the kings. And so it was just, it was amazing to me, and I always wondered why was it that these kings, even the good ones, this is what frustrated me, because I knew there was bad kings, and of course there's a lot of bad kings, but then there are these good kings, and the Scripture would say that they did all these good things, and made all these reforms, but they still left the high places up.

They still did this, they still did that, and it was, like, it was amazing to me. I just wondered, you know, why were these kings, you know, they were good, and, you know, the Bible says they were good kings.

He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and then, but then it would be, like, nevertheless, so, like, they did do some bad things, too, and I always wondered, like, how they sold that to the people, because when you read it in the book, it's like, you know, the king does whatever he wants, and that's that, but that's not really how it works in real life, you know?

The king has to, you know, have, like, the king is in charge, of course, and they do have authority, of course, but they're still, they still have to consider politics. It's not just that they're just, like, the god of the land, and they can do anything that they want, and make the people feel any type of way that they want.

It's not like that. They've got to sell it to people. They've got to sell it to their advisors. They've got to sell it to the people, and so I always wondered, like, how did they sell that? You know, we're making all these reforms, you know, we're going to honor Christ, and then, but we're also going to leave these idolatrous places up.

How did they sell it? And I think that sometimes they, you know, they didn't care so much, and they just were like, yeah, whatever. I'm just, we're just going to do this, because this is what I want to do.

I think that's how it was sometimes. They're just totally shameless. They didn't know how to blush, but I really think, you know, obviously I don't have scripture to back this up, but I think that sometimes they sold this as sort of a, you know, a tip to the hat, you know what I mean?

Like, look, these idols don't have any power, and, you know, we obviously want to love our, you know, our pagan neighbors, and things like that, and so they kind of sold it almost like as a neutral, sort of a peacemaking type situation, you know?

It's like, yeah, you know, if we take this down, I mean, we don't want to be vandals, you know, like that kind of thing. I think that if you look at what's going on today with a lot of the classical liberal pushback on the Satan thing, but not just the Satan thing, I mean, I think this applies everywhere.

This applies to a lot of the anti-Christian nationalist pushback. I think you'll get a little bit of a modern example of how this worked back in the days of the king. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I'm not 100 sure on that.

Obviously we don't get all the detail there, but, you know, people are people, you know? There's nothing new under the sun. This is Jenna Ellis. She's a lawyer. She was one of Trump's lawyers, and this is her mugshot, you know?

She was recently charged with a variety of crimes. I believe they used the RICO statute, which is, you know, you might remember that from the Sopranos. It's a racketeering charge. They used that to sort of charge her and a bunch of other people with election interference and that kind of thing.

And then this is her, you know, later she's crying as she pleads guilty. So Jenna Ellis pled guilty to a felony charge, and it was, I think it was aiding and abetting false statements or something like that.

She copped a plea deal, you know what I mean? She pled guilty to certain things in exchange for some leniency against the charges. And here's the truth, in my opinion. She got railroaded, you know what I mean?

She was prosecuted in a very political way. She really didn't do anything wrong, even though she did plead guilty. I mean, that's what she did, so we just have to accept that. What she pled guilty to, it wasn't a real crime.

It wasn't a real crime. There are certain things that are illegal, but they're not real crimes, you know what I mean? Like, you didn't actually do something immoral. You didn't actually do something wrong.

It's a crime according to our regime, but it's really not anything, you know what I mean? It's not anything. And so, you know, I don't think she's actually a felon, you know what I mean? I mean, obviously she technically is, but this is what happened to her.

And it was a very, it was a shameful thing, you know what I mean? It wasn't something that, I mean, obviously pagans loved it and liberals loved it, you know, and they wanted her to be disbarred and all these kinds of things.

But, you know, she saved her skin by pleading guilty. Sometimes you got to do this. I mean, this is as simple as that. You know, you always see those movies where someone will refuse to plead guilty to lesser charges because they're just not willing to say they did something that they didn't do.

And that's totally fine, you know what I mean? I think that's totally fine. But I also think, you know, if you're really screwed like this, sometimes it makes sense to plead guilty to something to avoid, you know, the worst possible punishment.

And so that's what she did, in my opinion. I don't think she actually thinks that she was guilty, but she was just trying to save her own skin. Now you might have opinions on that, and I certainly do myself on what Jenna Ellis did.

That being said, that's not what this is about. Jenna Ellis is a felon, and she pled guilty to, you know, doing things that the regime called, you know, very serious crimes against democracy or whatever.

But, you know, since then, she's kind of, yeah, well, she's interesting. She's an interesting person, you know. I have no doubt that she's intelligent, but she's not very wise, that's for sure. And so she's one of these people that has decided that she's going to crusade for political polytheism.

She's going to crusade for the absolute human right to erect, you know, satanic symbolism in our state houses. You know, she's not going to do it, but she's going to fight to the death your ability and your right to do it yourself.

And she has, I don't know what her deal is. Maybe she's too tired or something. Maybe she hasn't taken all her vitamins lately. I don't know. But she's been engaging in a tweet storm of stupidity, completely brain-dead takes.

And she's trying to get into theology too in some of these tweets. And the facts are that Jenna has not the first clue what she's freaking talking about. Her tweets are completely brain-dead, at least in the last few days.

And I don't really follow Jenna Ellis very carefully. In fact, I don't think I ever have. And I'm sure she's got some very smart things to say about certain topics. But in the last week, she's just completely unbared her ignorance.

And so I want to talk about some of these tweets because, you know, a lot of people like these tweets and, you know, I've got things to say. So these are in no particular order. But again, she's talking about this Cassidy guy who knocked over and allegedly beheaded the Satan statue.

Some people are calling it an effigy in my comments. I don't know the difference between an effigy and a statue. So whatever it is, there you go. But that's what this is all about. And she's very upset that this guy did this.

He's a vandal. It reminds me of it reminds me of King David, you know, when he gets all indignant about about the guy killing the other guy's sheep. Meanwhile, he had just had had Uriah killed. And, you know, this is this is a woman who's a felon.

And she's saying, you know, it's a vandalism. It's abject vandalism. And it's unbelievable. It's just, you know, you would think that a little humility would be in order for someone that's, you know, been mugshotted and pleaded guilty to a felony.

But there is no humility here. And a lot of people are theorizing that that the regime got to her that this is kind of part of her deal. She needs to start, you know, speaking up at moments like this.

I don't know that that's the case. I really don't. I mean, it's possible. It's definitely possible. You know what I mean? And I go back and forth, to be honest. But I don't know that that's necessarily the case.

I think that Jenna Ellis really does think she's doing the right thing here. And so anyway, so in response to that, she says, should it be illegal to be Satanist in America? If so, we don't have genuine religious freedom in this country.

Our founders separated from England because that government was compelling its citizens to worship at a specific church in a specific manner. I believe in the God of the Bible and that Christianity is the only true religion and explanation for the reality that we are presented.

No government has the power to compel me to believe that or prohibit that belief or compel or prohibit belief otherwise. The First Amendment reminds government that it has no power by which to establish a religion or prohibit free exercise thereof.

And so that's what she says here. And it's just so preposterous, right? I mean, first of all, the First Amendment is specifically about Congress. Congress has no power with which to establish a religion.

She's not as clever as she thinks she is. She's actually pretty stupid in a lot of ways, because the First Amendment starts—the very first word in the First Amendment—Congress. It's talking to Congress.

Congress can't establish a religion. And you don't even have to just go by what it says. I mean, obviously you should go by what it says, but you don't even have to do that if you don't want to. You can actually just look at the situation as it existed when the Constitution was ratified.

The situation as it existed when the Constitution was ratified, many states had established religions. And when the Constitution was ratified, they weren't illegal. They weren't cancelled. The states wouldn't have ratified it if they were going to cancel their established churches.

And so, you know, this is the thing. Like, this is a good biblical hermeneutic. You know, the text can't mean what it never meant, right? The text cannot mean now what it never meant then. It's a very good biblical hermeneutic, and it actually works not even using the Bible.

Like, the Constitution cannot mean what it never meant. And it did not mean when it was ratified that there was no established churches in the states. It just meant that Congress couldn't establish a church in a state.

That's what it meant. It never meant the other side. But Jenna here is equivocating, and she's doing it in service of making sure that you think it's a fundamental human right to have a satanic image in the hall of the statehouse.

It's not. It's not. And so her question—I mean, her question is kind of a non-sequitur. Should it be illegal to be a satanist in America? That's a different question than should it be a right for people to put up satanic images in the statehouse.

These are two different questions. So she's not even asking the right freaking question. But to answer the question, should it be illegal to be a satanist in America, I don't know if all Christian nationalists agree on this.

I think there's two different options here. Because I think that most Christian nationalists would say public idolatry, public blasphemy, public satanism should be outlawed, of course. If you're going to have satanic statues at the statehouses, that should definitely not be allowed.

In fact, a lot of non-Christian nationalists would agree with that as well. But does that mean that it would be illegal? Like if somebody somehow finds out that you're a secret satanist and you keep it to yourself and you're kind of hiding in your closet, you know, hailing Satan, should you be rooted out and stuff like that?

I think Christian nationalists would disagree on that. And I can see—and I understand—and I can see arguments for both sides. And so while, you know, maybe the answer is yes, it should be illegal to be a satanist in America, does that mean that we have to have a secret police to root out the Satanists and stuff like that?

I don't think so. I think it just means that we need to publicly suppress Satanism in America. And that would actually apply to Islam, that would apply to Judaism, that would apply to Hinduism. If you want to be a Hindu in our lands, in a Christian nation—this is an ideal future, of course—if you want to be a Hindu in the ideal Christian nation future, you're going to have to keep that to yourself.

It's as simple as that. You're not going to—you don't get to be a congressman Hindu. You just don't. You know what I mean? You don't get to decide what the future of our country is if you're a Hindu. You just don't.

You can do that if you lived in a Hindu nation, but you're not going to do that in a Christian nation. I think that's—a lot of Christian nationalists would agree with that. Maybe not all, but a lot would.

All right, so let's continue here. It's so interesting, too, you know, like she tries to make this seem like the situation when we separated from England was somehow analogous to the situation with the Satan image, and it has no comparison whatsoever.

No comparison whatsoever. It's like England wanted them to do certain things according to the Christian religion that they, by conscience, could not do, and she's somehow trying to compare that to Satanism.

These things could not be more different, and I can—it's like people have no imagination. They can't imagine a world where the state, you know, kind of leaves your Christian church alone. You know, you can still be a Baptist in an ideal Christian nation, but you can't worship Satan.

Like, you don't think we have the ability to be a little bit nuanced? Like, that doesn't require a whole lot of nuance. It's like, okay, we don't agree on baptism. You know, we don't agree on church polity.

You can still operate in this country, even though you don't have the right church polity or the right view on baptism or whatever, but you can't worship Satan. You know, to me, that doesn't seem like an impossible thing to pick apart, but I guess to Jenna, she really doesn't understand the difference.

Here is one of the most recent ones, and I think this one is so funny because it reminds me a lot of Blake Callens. He used to do this a lot, too. At least this is what I think is going on here, because these are cryptic tweets, right?

These are cryptic tweets. Again, I don't know if she's all there. Maybe it's the holidays. Maybe the stress of the holidays is getting to her, and she can't really think clearly, but Jenna, try to calm down and try to think clearly.

Here's what she says. She says, for those that supported this little act of vandalism in Iowa, I think the outing of Christian nationalism on a broader scale was an unforeseen consequence they didn't anticipate, and they're panicking.

So in the week that Dusty Devers gets elected and in the week that we're all cheering and excited that that Satan image was knocked over, we're all panicking. We're all panicking, and when I first saw this, I could not stop.

I laughed for a good minute, and everyone that I knew was just like, what in the world is she talking about? And people are posting pictures of dancing hobbits and like, yep, here we are panicking. It was preposterous, but I think I figured it out.

I think I figured out what she means. She put up a number of polls where she said, if there was a statue of Allah in the state capital, do you think that should be torn down? And I couldn't understand that poll for a number of reasons.

It's like, obviously the answer is yes, but what even is a statue of Allah? She obviously doesn't have the first clue what she's talking about, obviously. There are no statues of Allah. Well, I can't say that.

I don't know that there are none, but that would be illegal according to Islamic law. So the Muslims would probably tear that one down. You know what I mean? We wouldn't have to do anything. They would tear it down.

If your enemy is going to do your work for you, just let him do it. You know what I mean? The Muslims would tear that down. But I couldn't quite understand. But this is what she thinks. This is what she's doing.

She thinks we're panicking because we were desperate to try to hide the fact that we do not think that Muslims and Hindus and Jews should have an influence on our nation's governance. Christian nationalists, we don't want anyone to know that.

That's a secret. That's a secret of Christian nationalism, that we think that the Christian nation should be run by Christians. That's a secret. And so through her clever lawyerings, she got us to admit this.

And that's evidence that we're panicking because we admitted something that we didn't want anyone to know. Which, by the way, we've never hidden, ever. We've been open about this from the beginning. And this reminded me of Blake Callens.

He used to do this too. He used to like to say that he got me to admit something. And the thing that he got me to admit was always something that I've been open and public about for like 10 years. And then he would take a victory lap and say, you know, how clever am I?

I got you to finally admit it. It's like, what planet do you live on? So that's what I think she's saying here. We're panicking because she got us to admit that what we want is a Christian nation run by Christians according to Christian principles.

That's the big reveal. You know what I mean? We're panicking. We didn't anticipate that. We didn't anticipate that. So I mean, again, this is just a brain dead tweet. Here's another one. She says, why did Paul not smash idols on Mars Hill?

Provocative question. This is a lot of people are asking this question. Why did Paul not smash idols on Mars Hill? Instead, he reasoned with the Athenians. Why didn't Daniel destroy the 90 foot gold statue and instead prayed?

The Bible has zero commands to the Christian to physically smash idols or else be in disobedience to the Lord. Now, that last part is actually not true. And we're going to get to another tweet where somebody points that out and she says something equally brain dead.

But this is an interesting question. And I think one of the things that I instantly thought of, and I said this in a recent video, is like, there's difference. Look, we got to compare and contrast, right?

Like we learned in elementary school, you got to compare and contrast and you compare the similarities, you know, there's some similarities to what she's saying here with Paul and Mars Hill and Daniel and the 90 foot gold statue.

But there are also, we can contrast the differences. There's also differences. And I think that, you know, when you're trying to do the wise thing, comparing and contrasting is necessary. You got to compare the similarities, contrast the differences, and then come up with some kind of a plan for how to behave.

And we've got lots of examples in scripture of statues coming down. We've got lots of examples because she doesn't really bring any of those up where the idols are destroyed. She only brings up the times when they weren't.

And so we got to compare and contrast. And we might reach different opinions, but this is the thing, like if you ask a question like this in the way that Jenna asked, you know, I know she thinks she's a very clever lawyer, but it's really incomplete.

This is not a correct kind of thing. You know, Jenna is probably very convincing in her opening statements, but I have a problem. I have an assumption that is when she's cross-examined that her real genius shows, if you know what I mean.

But I'm actually not going to answer this. I'm just going to read Cassidy's answer because his answer, the guy who actually knocked the statue down, is similar to how I would answer if I, in fact, how I thought to answer when I read this.

Here's what Cassidy says. He says, both of those examples took place in pagan lands where idol destruction may require more nuance to win souls for Christ. What I did was in Iowa, a historically Christian state which should never tolerate acceptance of the devil.

I don't know this Cassidy guy, but that was well said. That's exactly, there are some similarities here, but there are big differences as well. In fact, Iowa was, in their constitution, references the actual creator and not Satan.

You know what I mean? It wasn't established for Satan. And so for a Satan image to be in the state capitol is completely inappropriate and totally different than the Athenians' gods in Athens. Totally different than the big statue of Nebuchadnezzar or the 90-foot gold statue.

There's a lot of differences here too. And I think, again, you got to do cost-benefits analysis here too. I mean, I know that Cassidy knew he would be arrested and knew he would be prosecuted for what he did, but he probably has a cost-benefit analysis and says, you know what, the benefits of this, even if I do spend some time in jail, the benefits here outweigh the negatives.

And I might not spend time in jail. I mean, I could get pardoned. This could be a really good thing. And so there's differences here. You know what I mean? We can't, like Paul did not face the example of being in a Christian nation and a nation, you know, established for Christ and then finding himself in the situation where there's now a Satan image in there.

You know what I mean? A Satan image. So this is the thing, like you can't just, this is the thing, if you're going to support the don't do anything to this statue, it's a trap narrative, which I know some smart people are putting that forward, you can't be incomplete with your analysis here.

There are some comparisons to be made to what Paul encountered in Mars, Mars Hill, but there are also some differences. And I think you should be honest about those differences. Jenna Ellis is either incapable of being honest, which I don't know, or she's just not bright enough to understand that there's comparisons and contrastes.

There's a way to compare and contrast. These actually aren't as relevant as you might think. And so anyway, somebody responds to her and again, she says that there are no examples of us being commanded to tear down statues or whatever, and so somebody brought up some things in the Chronicles and the Kings about tearing down statues in high places and stuff like that, and Jenna, she puts on her theology hat on, you know, Jenna Ellis is putting on her public theology hat, and she comes up with this, I mean, high IQ, you know, this is high IQ stuff here.

How do you not see the difference between Old Testament Israel, a theocracy in America, a constitutional republic? America does not follow Levitical law, nor does God command it of us. As Americans, we follow the Constitution, and as Christians, God's moral law.

And again, there's comparisons, and then there's ways to contrast. So yes, we're different than Israel, right? We're not Old Testament Israel. That's something that people say all the time. That's a contrast where America is not Old Testament Israel, right?

That's true. That's true. But all of the Reformed, you know, confessions understand that when you're breaking, and she brings up the, do you know the difference between moral, civil, and ceremonial law?

Like, as if she just discovered this. It's like, yeah, yeah, we never heard of that, Jenna. I mean, thank you for, we'll sit at your feet and we'll learn about the difference between civil, ceremonial, and moral law.

But the point is, the Reformed confessions understand that the civil law is valuable for today. The civil law is valuable for today, and so we have to apply the general equity of the civil law today. That's what the Westminster Confession says, what the London Baptist Confession says, and so we're not Old Testament Israel.

There is a contrast there, and we need to think about what the contrasts are. But there's also comparisons, and there's also things that we can learn from Old Testament Israel about how to run a country and things like that.

And so, there would be nothing, this is the thing, like there's an unspoken assumption here, right? She's trying to give you this idea that there would be something in the Bible that would tell you that it's actually wrong to tear down these idols.

She doesn't say that because I think she's smart enough to know that there's nothing in there like that. There's nothing in the Bible that would make you think that there is some kind of a human civil right to put up Satan effigies or statues or images in your state houses.

But she wants to leave you with that impression somehow, but she can't say it because it's not there. And so, okay, well, maybe we don't have a command to tear down statues, and these commands that someone pointed out here don't apply because we're not Old Testament Israel, but that doesn't mean we can't tear down these statues.

So, what is the meaning of even saying this? That doesn't mean it's immoral to tear down these statues, but that's the impression she wants to leave you with. But she doesn't speak that impression. She doesn't speak it because it's too stupid to speak, and so she just wants to kind of leave you with that impression.

And the way this is done in this tweet, and actually a lot of people do this, a lot of people do this, is they try to divide the Christian. What Jenna is doing here, and a lot of pastors do this too, so I don't even, I'm not even mad at Jenna because she probably learned this from her pastor.

What Jenna's trying to do is trying to divide the mind of a Christian, where when you're at church and when you're at home and when you're in your family life and in your regular kind of personal life, you're a Christian and you follow God's moral law.

But as an American in the civil space, you know what I mean, in the civil realm, when you put your government hat on, you follow the Constitution. And these things are sometimes at odds. I mean, that's the other thing, that the impression that you leave here, that these are at odds, they're kind of pulling away from each other.

Like on the one hand, I follow Christ and his moral law. On the other hand, I follow the Constitution. And sometimes, like when there's a Satan effigy in the Statehouse, these are at odds. And that's just not the case.

That's just not the case. That wasn't the case when the Constitution was ratified, because, you know, again, there was no problem with the Establishment Clause, with all these state-established churches when the Constitution was ratified.

There was no problem with that. There was blasphemy laws, there were all these things. Jenna was one of those that was like, if America ceases to, if America has blasphemy laws, they cease to be America.

It's like, well, I mean, I don't know. I mean, it sounds pretty stupid to me, Jenna. I mean, because that would mean America was never America. Again, the Constitution cannot mean what it never meant.

That sounds stupid to say. I mean, it sounds so dumb to say that, that the Constitution can't mean what it never meant. But it's profound when you're dealing with brain-dead takes like this. Moronic, stupid takes like what Jenna Ellis is promoting here.

It's actually, this is actually the truth. As Americans, we follow God. Because God is the Lord of lords, the King of kings. And we can follow the Constitution while obeying Christ. So we don't have these two different hats.

You know, I've got one that I've got my American hat on. I got my Christian hat on. And you change them depending on the situation. No, you can follow God's moral law as a Christian, as a Christian, as an American in the civil space.

In fact, that's what Christian nationalists are demanding. We're demanding that governors, lawmakers, presidents obey Christ in their role as a civil governing authority. That's what we're asking. It's not too much to ask.

It's pretty basic. It's pretty basic. Serve the cause of Christ in your role as civil governing authority. Remember that you are a servant of the Most High. That's what we're looking for. That's what we're looking for.

America does not follow Levitical law, nor does God command it of us. Okay. Okay, fine. So we don't follow the Old Testament law for Israel. Okay, fine. But all of the confessions say that the general equity does apply today, and we should seek to apply it today.

So, I mean, that's the thing. Maybe Jenna Ellis doesn't believe the confessions. Okay, fine, fine. But the thing is, your position is not traditionally Christian, and it doesn't actually follow the Constitution.

That's the ironic part about this. It's like, they follow the Constitution as defined, like, in the 1950s, right? Like, that's the thing. It's like, they follow the new Constitution with its new definition and its new—the living, breathing document, you know, that Hillary Clinton talks about.

That's the Constitution. They actually don't follow the actual Constitution. Another brain-dead take. The Christian nationalist crowd is the new Black Lives Matter. Both cheer tearing down statues and destroying property they don't like in the name of their cause.

Both are wrong. I mean, honestly, this—oh, man. Oh, man. Brain-dead. This is brain-dead. I mean, do I even have to talk about the difference here? Do I even have to talk about the difference? It's just unbelievable.

It's like the Black Lives Matter people are, you know, they're doing their vandalism somewhat indiscriminately, and then they tear down certain statues. So there's some targeted nature to it. I mean, yeah, they burn down their own neighborhoods and, you know, burn down random stores and, you know, things like that.

But then—so there's a contrast there, Jenna. You know, again, compare and contrast. You know what I mean? You have a hard time with that. Compare and contrast. You need both of them. You need both of them to figure these things out and to categorize properly.

You know, I'm actually working with my son right now about comparisons and contrasts. What's the—you know, I went to public school. You know, what do you want from me? Yeah, there's some similarities.

Right, yeah, you know, they knocked over the statue. All right, that's the similarity. But there's a lot of differences, too. You know what I mean? If Cassidy's going out there and he's calling his followers to burn down random neighborhoods and random stores, okay, I mean, then maybe it's the same thing.

But it's not. It's not the same thing. So they—first of all, it's total anarchy with Black Lives Matter. But they do target some things. And what do they target? They target the founders. They target statues of the American founders that are in public spaces.

Cassidy, and people cheering him on, tore down a statue of Satan. Satan himself. A satanic image. And she's saying because we cheered when the satanic image fell, that's the same thing as Black Lives Matter.

When they cheered when they took down the statue of—I don't know, what was the most recent one they took down? Stonewall Jackson? Christopher Columbus? Yeah, I was upset when they tore down the—when they burned down their neighborhoods and then went over to the statue of Christopher Columbus and tore it down.

Yeah. And so I'm a hypocrite, though, because I was cheering when somebody knocked over the image of Satan in a state house and then turned himself in. I don't know, man. I mean, what more can you say?

What more can you say? These are—all of these tweets are just—they're just brain dead. Jenna Ellis' week on Twitter, her last week on Twitter has been unhinged, brain dead, emotional. And, you know, I don't really know what to blame it on.

Maybe she's just tired. Maybe it's the holiday season is getting to her. Maybe she had one too many eggnogs. You know what I mean? Like, she's stressed out. You know, she can't find that perfect gift for that special someone.

And she's stressed out about it. So she knocked back a few eggnogs. And then she got on Twitter and she sees the horror of people being happy that the satanic image in the state house in Iowa was torn down.

And, you know, she's got the weight on her shoulders of being persecuted by the state, which I don't make fun of. I mean, this is—she got a raw deal, man. I have sympathy for her. I really do. I have sympathy for Jenna Ellis.

It doesn't mean that she's got an excuse for doing what she's doing right now, but I've got sympathy for her. The weight of the regime fell on her and she was not strong enough to resist it. And I wouldn't expect her to.

I wouldn't expect her to because—well, I'll just say this. This is a perfect reason why women should not be on the front lines of these kinds of battles. Because it would be much better for someone, some man, to be in her position instead of her.

So that she didn't have to face this as a woman. It wouldn't mean that it was right to happen to the man, but at least they're built in a way where they can sort of accept it and take it. Now, not all men do, but they at least have the capabilities to.

And I feel bad for Jenna, I do. I've got a lot of sympathy for her. I mean, her takes are brain dead. But you've got to put them in context, man. You've got to put them in context. I have no hatred of Jenna Ellis.