AP Radicalizes 2023 Stylebook with Monstrous Language

Today on Sekulow, the AP radicalizes the 2023 stylebook with monstrous language. We'll talk about that and more today on Sekulow.

Hey, welcome to Sekulow. So, pro-life community not so excited about the AP's new stylebook. They update it regularly. So they've got a stylebook that they put out for all media outlets. And they use this around the world, especially when they're looking up terms to describe you.

How should we describe this specific? And so they went into abortion heavily this year with an abortion topical guide. So one example is instead of saying fetal heartbeat, don't say that.

Say cardiac activity. Don't say late-term abortion. Say abortion later in pregnancy. Don't say someone performs abortions. Say they provide abortions. And the only positive one really is don't call pro-life pregnancy centers anti-abortion centers. Instead, call them crisis pregnancy centers. But, I mean, they go on.

There's more here, too. They don't want to use pro-life anymore. They want to say anti-abortion and abortion rights. So this, again, it just shows you how to politicize language. And this will be utilized by all major media outlets around the entire globe, this AP stylebook.

So it has a huge influence. So the stylebook is to let other media outlets know how to phrase things. For instance, during the last administration, when we were so actively involved in Washington, they had how to pronounce secular.

It was in the stylebook. So now it's using words. And the abortion language, it's fascinating that they've gone to this because what it shows you is how the pro-abortion, which they would have you call abortion rights groups, because you can't say pro-abortion. How far they've influenced the culture when they've got the, basically, the stylebook of the Associated Press saying, hey, this is the way you need to go. Yeah, and what's amazing is, and like Jordan said, this is, you know, AP, and they claim that half of the world's population sees their journalism every single day. And so just with what AP puts out, half of the world's population sees this, but then we also know that other news outlets use the same stylebook.

What the AP puts out, they use. And, you know, they are, this is abortion distortion at its finest. They're trying to change the terminology so we are not talking about the life of a baby. I mean, it's ridiculous when you take out heartbeat and want to say cardiac activity, but they explain that and they talk about, well, it's just a flickering.

It's a flickering. Well, you know, when I had my ultrasound and I heard a heartbeat, that's what the doctor told me, not a flickering or cardiac activity of a baby. And so, again, it's abortion distortion at its finest. Here's what they say. The AP says, we're doing these words because, and this is what they say, the terms are overly broad and misleading given the disagreement over the details such as what constitutes a heartbeat at varying gestational ages. But as you said, when they go in for the ultrasound, they say, let's see the heartbeat. I mean, that's what they say.

But look what they say. Don't say fetal heartbeat, say cardiac activity. Don't say late-term abortion, say abortion later in pregnancy. Don't say performance abortions, say provides abortion. Don't say anti-abortion centers.

This is the only positive. Say crisis pregnancy centers. Of course, they go by pregnancy resource centers, but still, that one's okay. Then they say, instead of saying pro-life and pro-choice, you say anti-abortion and abortion rights. Cast the abortion group in the negative, the pro-abortion group in the positive. That's what they're doing.

You know, you've got to fight this on this level, too. It's not just the Supreme Court of the United States. It's not just the Court of Appeals. It's not just the local school board or the local city council.

You know what it is? The Associated Press. But this is how far they've come. So that's why your support of the ACLJ is so critical. We're talking about a major development of the Ninth Circuit Court case today. You know, half your local newspaper is likely AP stories. That's true for papers around the world. So when you look and you see where did this national story come from, oftentimes it's at least partly from the AP and then maybe some input from a local journalist. So start looking at it and you will see the influence that we're talking about.

That includes online journalism just as much. We are doing a matching challenge right now. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Double your impact.

Donate today. ACLJ.org. So as the AP style guide, again, tries to rewrite how the news will describe various terms involving abortion. So, you know, don't use late-term abortion.

Say an abortion later in pregnancy. Don't say heartbeat. Say cardiac activity. That's much like what Stacey Abrams was trying to run on, but she said there wasn't really a heartbeat. That's just, you know, some electrodes and stuff like that. She didn't even say that. She said the fetal sound of the heartbeat was actually, this is what Stacey Abrams said, that General Electric, which is where a lot of the ultrasounds come from, is controlled by men.

And they put that sound in the machine. That's actually what she said. But this whole rephrasing of the issue is a nod to Stacey Abrams. Yes, exactly. So, again, this is happening right now as we speak. I want you to start just keeping watch because I know that the news you read, you might not think you read a lot of AP news.

You do. Because there's so much of it in your local newspaper, even the national papers and international papers. If you look at the top, they will say that a portion of this came from AP. Or all of the story came from the AP, especially if you're looking at your local paper, it's about something national or international. So you will look and you will start to see the change in this language. I'd say maybe like a week from now or two weeks from now, if you see an article on abortion, take a pin out and kind of go through and circle all these changes that you now see from their style book, the way they want it written.

And, of course, that's how a lot of editors will then implement how they want the language written as well. Yeah. But the interesting development in all of this is this comes on the heels of a notice we got yesterday. And this is what's fascinating. We have a major case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That's in California. And it's a multiple appeal. There's multiple parties.

We represent Troy Newman. The case is captioned Planned Parenthood Federation of America versus Troy Newman. And it's on appeal from the U.S. District Court from the Northern District of California. It was a trial that took place a couple of years ago. But the appeal has been pending. And this goes to the Center for Medical Progress and the investigative journalism they engaged in, which undisclosed the sale of fetal body parts by Planned Parenthood, on and on it went.

I mean, it was very, very serious. What's interesting here is we filed a petition for rehearing en banc. And what that means is the panel, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled against our position. Before you go to the Supreme Court, you can ask the entire Ninth Circuit to hear the case.

Well, we did. And the other side, Planned Parenthood does not have to respond to a petition for rehearing en banc, except in this case, CeCe, the court said you have to respond Planned Parenthood. Yes, that's exactly right. So typically when you ask for a rehearing en banc, the other side does not have to respond. But the Ninth Circuit in this case has told Planned Parenthood that they have, I think it's still January 3rd, to respond to this petition. So, you know, we can take that as possibly a good indication. They're making Planned Parenthood argue their case. Yeah, they want to know, you know, they want to know Planned Parenthood's position. I mean, anytime, it's like when the Supreme Court, you don't have to file a brief in opposition to a certiorari petition, but sometimes the court will say, we want a brief.

We want it. So that tells you there's interest. Now, what's fascinating about this case, Jordan, is it's directly with Planned Parenthood. So this is a direct legal confrontation with Planned Parenthood. But if you take what you said about the Associated Press, how would they describe this?

Well, they would describe the parties, according to their thing, as the anti-abortion Troy Newman and Center for Medical Progress, and the abortion rights advocates, Planned Parenthood, Federation of America. Right. Totally changing the nature of the case, just by the descriptive. Right.

One makes it seem like this is somebody who's outside the norm, who is somehow this protagonist and is in a minority position, and the other making it sound like they're the good guys. Yeah. Really, that's what it sounds like.

Yeah. Or at least the reasonable side. But this whole idea that you would get, that the process in the fight over abortion now has gotten to where the Associated Press is issuing statements. But like I said, we've got a major case at the Ninth Circuit. You could call it whatever you want.

You could change the name of the parties, whatever you want. But the issue is still the same. We're fighting Planned Parenthood in federal courts in California. Yeah. And for their horrendous abortion practices, where they were literally selling baby parts, and the things that came out in this trial were just horrendous. Yeah, but our client's the one that's facing the RICO charges. They sold the fetal body parts. Our client's facing a RICO charge.

Absolutely. But that also tells you why the AP feels the necessity to change language around. Because when you talk about life, when you talk about chopping up a baby, when you talk about selling baby parts, that's hard to overcome for them.

So what do you do? You change the language around to make it much more palatable, to paint the pro-life side as the bad people and paint the pro-abortion side as the good. And that's what AP is doing. Yeah, I think that the end result of that, Jordan, doesn't change the nature of this debate. We know where the abortion debate's going. You know that at ACLJ Action, who's fully engaged in this. We know this on the court cases that we're involved in. And this one's at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. You know, the next stop in this case is the Supreme Court of the United States. Yeah, that's right.

After the en banc battle. And I think a lot of these cases, too, these were the pre-Dobbs cases that have been going on. Then there's going to be the whole set of post-Dobbs cases, which we're already seeing. And we've already sent some of those resolved, like our case out of South Dakota, that was resolved immediately after the Dobbs decision was announced officially.

So what we are seeing, though, is a whole new beginning. You know, if you care about the ACLJ and you support us because of our fight for life, and that's one of the top issues, of course, for us at the ACLJ, you have to understand that while overturning Roe vs. Wade was a generational victory, and it was, we're now in a new generational battle state by state, as we've talked about, to make sure that we don't have 50 smaller Roe vs. Wade's around the country that make it even easier and less restrictive to get an abortion procedure. And we know that the state legislative enactments that were rushed to the ballot for the midterm election did not work. Legislative moves have worked. So people's state legislators, they've been supportive of them passing laws, but that's different than passing constitutional amendments that make those permanent. A law can be changed, you know, by the will of the people and easily by the elected branch.

So it's an interesting dichotomy. While voters will continue to elect pro-life legislators in these states who then enact very strict pro-life laws, when they are given the chance to enact the same type language but at the constitutional level, they have said no. Now what we put most of this to is not that they're pro-abortion, is that the education is just not there yet. So what Planned Parenthood is trying to do right now as we speak is rush through as many of these as possible, because there's limits then on how many years it can take until you can, in all these states, bring back up another constitutional amendment. So in some states it's five years. So if you win one, you can't challenge that one for five years.

If you lose one, you can't bring it up again for five years. So Planned Parenthood is trying to quickly get in there while people are confused on the issue, spend millions of dollars in every single state, try to save their business for at least a few more years. So what's interesting is we said this thing, this was a nod to Stacey Abrams, the Georgia gubernatorial candidate for the Democrats. This is what she said about fetal heartbeats. You ready for this? This is where AP gets this stuff.

There is no such thing as a heartbeat in six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body away from them. I mean this is what she, she advocates this and then the Associated Press gives her a nod. And it is ridiculous. Again, it's just changing language and even the fact that she says, you know, a man has control over a woman's body. That's ridiculous.

As a mother who's had two children, I don't have that kind of feeling at all. So she's not obviously speaking to me and her language doesn't affect me. I see right through that. But again, they're trying to change the narrative. That's what they're all trying to do. There's no such thing as a heartbeat.

It's a flicker. Let's call it cardiac activity. Let's change that language. And that's what they're all about is it's the narrative. And that goes really to the same thing with the ballot initiatives that Jordan was talking about. Language matters and changing the language. And a lot of those ballot initiatives are confusing the way that they word those ballot initiatives.

You don't know if a yes votes really a yes, you know, a four or no votes yes or no. So, you know, AP is on, I mean, they understand that if they change the narrative, if they change the language, possibly they could change people's opinions. Coming up, we're going to be discussing what's happening on the Title 42 on the border. This is a big issue and there's been some major developments on this that we want to get to right away.

It's just breaking right now. So we're going to get that to you when we come back from the break. Later in the broadcast, Rick and Elle's going to be joining us.

We'll talk about the border issue among other things. But this is also, you know, we are one day away from the middle of the month. And I told you those last two weeks of the month are critical.

The last two weeks of the month of December pretty much determine our budget for the next year. Your support of the ACLJ right now is critical. Jordan's going to let you know how to do this, but let me encourage you here. We're in a matching challenge and Jordan's going to explain what that means, but this is when your support for our work really makes a difference. We've got a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on life. We just had the victory in Colorado where the organizations were allowed to actually present pro-life witnesses. We've got our case at the Supreme Court of the United States on religious liberty was circulated to the justices yesterday.

I mean, I'm not even scratching the surface here. We had a major victory on another case I can't announce to the beginning of the year. But I'm just telling you, we're busy and we're having success. Your support makes a huge difference. Yeah, so you go to ACLJ.org. Right there you'll see matching challenge right on the homepage. You donate there at ACLJ.org. And if you donate, we know it's a tough economic time, so let's say you're going to cut your donation back and you can donate $25 right now. If you donate that $25, we have a donor who will match that gift. They will match that $25.

So it's effectively $50 for the ACLJ. You can still make a huge influence right now by making a donation. Welcome back to Secular. So Secretary Mayorkas, if you want to talk to us about this, give us a call. Secretary Mayorkas has made a statement on planning for the end of Title 42, which comes to a close at midnight on December 20th, next Tuesday. That will no longer be in effect. They said until then they'll continue to expel single adults and families encountered under that authority. But after that, they go through some other authorities they have, nothing nearly as broad or sweeping.

I'm trying to figure out how that even helps them. They're talking about Title 8 authorities which provide for meaningful consequences. That's the procedure that's been in place when you had 50 encounters. Yeah, barring individuals who were moved.

Not 260,000. Yeah, so this is saying people who had been barred from entering the country are removed from re-entry for five years. So that's like they've tried to come in. Those provisions don't solve the problem. But it's what's interesting in his statement, and this is coming from the Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security's secretary. He says, despite our efforts, our outdated immigration system is under strain. Well, and your policies certainly haven't helped it. Then he says that is true at the federal level, and then he blames the states as well as for the states. And then he says local NGOs and community partners are also struggling under this strain with the outdated system. Then he says, and then the blame cast is now to Congress. In absence of congressional action to reform immigration and asylum laws, a significant increase in migrant encounters will strain our system even further.

Then ask yourself, while you're telling, you know, you've got cities saying you better get ready to mask up again. And that's why that Title 42 was put in because of the pandemic. That was the justification for it. You're saying all of this is going to happen. You're going to say that there's going to be a significant increase in migrant encounters to strain the system even further. And your plan is, get rid of the one mechanism you have that actually is somewhat effective. I mean, I think the whole thing's out of control right now. I think New York City put in a request for a billion dollars in federal assistance because of 30,000.

We know that's a small part of the amount of people coming in on a daily basis. But it's straining the systems in the country. They don't have the places to put them. They have nowhere to put them. It's now freezing cold outside. So you've got to start thinking about using hotels, using outdoor heated campsites. I mean, it gets very complicated.

Disease starts spreading rapidly again. I got to say something else. They say there was no congressional solution. They had the House and the Senate.

Yeah. You had the House and the Senate and the White House. You still do. For two years.

Yeah, you still do. Right now they could pass something. But they didn't.

They didn't even get near the floor. So this tells you what the politics is, but the consequences of this are going to be really serious. Right. And when it lifts, we know that it's going to go up by tens of thousands. They cannot process what they're getting now, which is about 6,000.

And it's going to go up exponentially. And so we know they're not going to beat. Talk about bussing them to other states or just releasing them. We've seen those reports where people cannot process. The CBP cannot process all the people coming across the border. So they're just releasing them because they don't have the manpower or the ability to process. You also see the setup that's coming from the media here.

Anderson Cooper made this statement. Take a listen to this. I mean, it's extraordinary how collapsed our immigration system is, and there's no resolution in sight here. Okay. No resolution in sight.

How collapsed it is. Your team's been in power for 24 months and have done nothing. Zero. In fact, the one thing that is sort of working, and it's not really working to be fair, but it at least gives you some hope, is Title 42. You remove that, it's going to be—Title 8 works when you've got 50 encounters. I mean, it does not work where you can't even process the number of people. It just doesn't. No.

No, I mean, that's the thing. So this is, again, the idea that there was no time to fix this, that there was no time to take action. They were unwilling to compromise on illegal immigrants already in America. And because of that, they were not able to get legislation through.

They're also unable to work with our partners. So they won't work with Mexico on remain in Mexico because, oh, gosh, that was a Trump policy. They won't finish building the wall because, oh, gosh, that was something Donald Trump was doing. They won't work on the Northern Triangle countries and try to, again, incentivize them to make sure their borders are secure. No, because that was a Trump policy. We've heard Mike Pompeo say that to us a number of times. It has nothing to do with whether the policy was effective or not, whether it was good for human rights, better for the migrants, better for us.

It was if Donald Trump had it in his administration, they must oppose it. You know, the other aspect of this is, and this is, again, in Mayorkas' statement, Cece, it says, a real solution can only come from legislation that brings long overdue and much-needed reform to a fundamentally broken system. Okay, everybody agrees it's a fundamentally broken system, and everybody believes that there could be legislation.

But you know what? When you have the House and the Senate and the White House, you could have gotten that legislation through and you didn't. And now what's going to happen is forget just people in regular encounters at the border that are trying to get here illegally. But it's going to be the cartels seeing the weakness of the situation.

And you think we've got an epidemic with sex trafficking and fentanyl right now? Just wait until December 21st when Title 42 is lifted. This is absurd what they're doing, actually. Yeah, and I think they even mentioned, like, okay, watch out for the misinformation that the cartels and the smugglers are going to be pushing, that, oh, gosh, when Title 42 is lifted, we're going to flood the border.

And they're like, oh, no, no, we're still going to be watching it. But everybody knows on both sides, they all know that when Title 42 is lifted, there is going to be a flood of people coming across the border. There's a flood already.

It'll be more like a monsoon. Go ahead. Yeah, let's go to the phone. Susan in Florida on Line 1. Hey, Susan. Hi.

Hi, how you doing? Yes, I have two comments. Number one, why isn't Joe Biden being held legally responsible by both parties? And number two, who is financing these people from all over the world across the oceans to get to the Central America and come through our southern border?

Well, on the second one, there is groups that do this. Some of it's George Soros' funding, some of it's others, but these are well-funded and well-organized with long-term plans on how it impacts elections 20 years and 30 years from now by getting folks into the United States. Why isn't Joe Biden being held legally responsible? He's the President of the United States. He gets to determine policy. The House and Senate pass legislation. He cannot be sued for a policy disagreement.

And that's actually the way the law should be. But the fact is we're about to have a crisis of huge – well, we have it already, but it's just going to go exponentially higher in the next, honestly, four – what is it, six days? Yeah, six days. Ten days, whatever.

No, six days. It's going to be a mess, folks. You're going to remove the one mechanism you have to deal with mass migration while you've got a caravan of over 1,000 people heading to the United States. I mean, just think about that. Yeah, I know.

To me, I mean, the imagery is intense that we're seeing all over the media. We know it's not getting better. We're entering a time of year where viruses are spreading more rapidly because of the cold. It's tougher to house the migrants because it doesn't matter where you are in the country.

It's likely much cooler outside, much harsher conditions. So, again, when New York City is saying they need a billion dollars for 30,000 people, talk about these small towns in Texas. What do they need? Their schools are overrun. Their hospitals are overrun.

Their communities are overrun. And that's talking about the people who are decent. What about the bad actors who are getting through, the drug cartel actors, the fentanyl, the human smuggling? I mean, we're talking about the human scale of the people who they're putting up in hotels who are probably, you know, they broke the law, but somewhat decent people. We're ignoring all the criminal elements that utilize this chaos to say, I mean, you know what they're going to do that night?

Of course. The night that Title 42 is gone, flood the market. And when I say flood the market, they flood the market with their drugs. They flood the market with illegal activity like human trafficking, sex trafficking of minors. And this is all happening inside the United States of America.

And that's what's so disgusting and disturbing about it. Inside the USA. Support the work of the ACLJ. Be part of our matching challenge.

ACLJ.org. Donate today. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. Hi there, Jack. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We're taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We'll go right to those calls in a minute talking about the border. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us in the next segment of the broadcast, talking about some national security issues as well. Big report.

This is just the tip of the iceberg because, you know, Jim Jordan has not yet taken over these investigative committees. There's already a House of Republicans putting out from the House Intel Committee who put out a preliminary report saying that they believe there's indications that COVID-19 was tied to China's biological weapons program. And that it spilled over into the general human population because of an incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This was actually a chemical weapon.

When many people have looked at it, doctors, scientists, and looked at the way it interacts and continues to morph, that's what they've said. It looks like it was something created intentionally to kill, to take out not just your respiratory system, but to kill all these different parts of it. We don't even know the long-term effects of this yet.

No, but we do know the tragedy that's created for families, including our own. Yeah. I mean, this is— That it was created to kill. Yeah, it's a bioweapon is what the allegation is. Yeah, it's what the allegation is. So when the Republicans are in control of the House, you're going to have hearings on this.

This is going to be for real, folks. And we're going to hopefully—now, China's not letting anybody get data because you can imagine. But what you've got to find out is were we funding this? Right.

Directly or indirectly? So we're going to be talking about that with Rick Grenell when we come up in the next segment. But in the interim, Mayorkas, our Homeland Security Secretary, has actually said many times the border is secure. We've got issues at the border, but it's secure.

This is what he said now. The border is secure. The border—we are working to make the border more secure. That has been a historic challenge. Okay.

What world is he in? The border is not secure. The border has never been secure. No. Now, did he say—I thought there was some language where he said he never said it was secure. Okay. So we have that.

We're working on that right now. So there's language where he just—so you've got it right there. He said the border is secure. We've got problems, but the border is secure. Now he said yesterday, or maybe this morning, the border isn't secure.

And we're going to play that in a moment. The truth is that under the Trump administration, they were making gains, but they didn't claim that it was done. No.

It was just making gains. They were starting to use creative ideas to help to secure the border and some of the more extreme parts of the border. But they didn't get to finish their job.

No. And Democrats did everything possible to try and prevent them from securing the border. They mocked the program. Remember, they mocked Remain in Mexico? Like, that whatever happened that it did, they mocked the wall that it was actually working, but they won't finish that because, oh, that's a Trump program. So, again, we were making gains. That was a long time ago now.

No, it wasn't. Now it's been an open border that has been—that is not secure for, you know, two plus years. No, and it's getting worse. You want to take Warren's call quickly? Is that call ready? Not yet.

No, it's not ready. So we're not going to take that call yet. But he's got family in Tucson. These are the border areas. They are preparing themselves for an onslaught, and you're removing the one mechanism you had that at least kept the onslaught down to an onslaught rather than, like, an invasion. And you're about to have a thousand people in the caravan come up, and as they're coming in, you are removing your mechanism to deal with it. Think about that politically.

He's so bent on getting the left happy that the administration is putting the entire country at risk. At 1201 on Wednesday night, Wednesday early morning, Title 42 is gone, and they can no longer use it to expel people. So, like you said, when the thousand people show up, they're not using Title 42 anymore. You don't think they're going to all be timing this? You don't think the cartels are watching this?

You don't think the bad actors are watching this? The ones who have been waiting until Title 42 is done? There's a whole group that has— So, Secretary Mayorkas said yesterday when he was at the border that, quote, he has never said the border is secure. And I just played for you, we just played for you that he said the border is secure. And hopefully we'll find that sound, but that tells you what's going on here.

Total no reality. And, of course, the President of the United States was in Arizona, doesn't go down to the border. Support the work of the ACLJ and our Matching Challenge Campaign, ACLJ.org. Rick Grinnell coming up. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We've been talking about the end of Title 42 and the national security problems this poses. And we see the mayor of New York asking for a billion dollars because of 30,000 illegal migrants that that city has taken in. Well, we talked about the idea that this is now that every state and every city is a border city of the United States, depending on the amount of migrants that have been dumped off in your city. And with really sometimes nowhere to go, no resources, it's getting colder across the country.

As it gets colder across the country, the resources cost more to keep these people in somewhat humane conditions. If you can even call it that. So let me go to the phone first. Rick Grinnell's joining us, too. Let me go to Ward in Idaho, who's been holding on. Hey, Ward, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Hey, thanks, guys, for taking my call. And, yeah, I have family that lives, and I grew up south of Tucson, and they still live down there, and they get inundated so bad with the illegals or, you know, the migrants coming up. But now with lifting of 42 and what Abbas was saying, maybe going back to terrorism, how much does that open up the border crossings to those type of terrorists besides just the cartels?

I mean, we're seeing deaths in everything. Warren, you raised a really good point, and joining us is our senior advisor on these issues, and that is Rick Grinnell, who was on the former President's cabinet and the director of national intelligence. Rick, Warren raises a good point.

The administration's lifting Title 42 on next Wednesday. The implications on this are gigantic. There's a group of over 1,000 coming to the border right now.

Warren asked the question, what does this do? Well, look, I think the reality is that if you're an immigrant, I don't care where you're from, it's no longer just Mexico, but an immigrant anywhere in the world. You've heard loud and clearly that the Biden administration is not only going to let you come into the United States through the southern border, but you're going to be able to fly to a whole bunch of different cities, immediately get a whole bunch of NGO-given cell phones and housing vouchers. This is a crisis because we have millions of people who are waiting in line to do the right thing legally to come into this country. And we have hundreds of millions of people that want to come into this country. And if you don't have rules, then you don't have a country.

And I also want to just finish by saying this to every single listener. We should never feel guilty about having a closed border because the United States of America and its taxpayers are the most generous people in the world when it comes to immigration. Roughly a million people a year get to become legal citizens of this country, unlike any other country in the world. No other country allows a million people a year to become citizens.

We just have to have rules because we have hundreds of millions of people that want to come in. Jordan? You know, Rick, I want to switch to the COVID story because we just briefly mentioned it today on the broadcast so far. And I think it's really just a preview of what's to come with the House Republican majority and people like Jim Jordan. So the House Intelligence Committee, Republicans in that committee, have alleged in a new report that there are indications that COVID-19 could be tied to China's biological weapons research program and spilled over to the general human population during an incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that they are going to focus in on this investigation, which so far you've had a couple of these investigations go. Neither have led that far to that specific of a conclusion. How important is it, though, do you think that they're already starting with the – I guess their starting point is, was this a biological weapon that spilled over to the wrong lab? Look, I think that there has been a hesitancy by the media and by the UN and by the United States government to really figure out what exactly happened. We know that the intelligence community believes that it was in the lab and whether it was a mistake or on purpose.

We've never really gotten to the bottom of it. And there needs to be an investigation and the reason why is because we need to make sure it never happens again. I don't believe Dr. Fauci has been honest with us because it was his agency that approved the money. So you can't go to the guy who approved the money to say was the money spent wisely or what did you actually fund. That's got to be an outside independent third party.

And we've never had a demonstration from the US government that they're willing to be transparent and independent. And so I think it's important for Congress to do this. I've spoken to Senator Rand Paul about this. He is extremely focused on it. He wants to get to the bottom of it. He just wants to know the truth and he hasn't been able to find it yet. And so I think that we will see great things from Rand Paul. I just spoke to him two weeks ago about this subject and he is not stopping.

He is laser focused on getting to the truth. And we've talked to the Senator too. I mean he's very concerned about this as we all are because like you said, Ricky, the thing you want to prevent is this ever happening.

I lost my brother to COVID. So I mean, I don't want to see this again. The countless ramifications of all this are unreal. I want to go back to the border though because as I'm monitoring things while we're on the air live. Let me read you the headline, Rick. Flood Warning, El Paso Migrant Surge Breaking Point, Border Agents Lash Out, and Homeland Security.

This is how serious this situation is, Rick. Look, we had all the way through the midterm election near silence from Democrats because they didn't want to upset the election. But since then, since the election, we've had a couple of Democrats who have stood up to say this policy is a disaster. Now, I'm not going to go crazy with complimenting Democrats who waited until after the election to say something.

However, I do believe that the tipping point is right here in front of us. You've got Kyrsten Sinema who has abandoned the Democratic Party largely over a lack of enforcement on the Arizona border. You've now got congressmen in Texas, Democrats who are standing up and saying, I've been begging the Biden administration to do something. I don't understand why politics trumps national security because it's clear that the Biden team doesn't want to admit that the border is a disaster and porous. And we've got all these people coming over because they don't want to admit that their policy isn't working because they don't want to lose elections. So now what we have is national security being threatened because of politics.

Let me play for our audience. This is Senator James Lankford, a friend of ours who's been on this broadcast many times. We were just with him in Washington a couple of weeks ago. He said this to us when we had our discussion with him, but this is what he's now said publicly.

Take a listen. I have asked Department of Homeland Security when the pandemic ends, how are you going to handle the flood at the border when Title 42 goes away? And they've said, we've got a plan, we've got a plan, we've got a plan. They don't have a plan.

As of now, next week on Wednesday, Title 42 will go away. I had a briefing with my team to be able to talk with Homeland Security today to be able to talk about what is their plan for when Title 42 ends next week. And they basically said, we don't have a plan. We've got a thousand people in a caravan coming to the southern border right now. We've got, as the caller said previously, Rick, we've got, you know, Mahmoud Abbas threatening terrorism again. We know they tried to get him in through our porous borders.

So this is, when you were the DNI, I mean, obviously I'm not asking for information that was classified, but when you were the DNI, you were dealing with this every day. Yeah, there's no question that this is a national security issue that we know through intelligence gathering that this is not just a Mexican problem. This is not just Mexicans trying to come over into the United States. The word is out around the world.

You can be in Kazakhstan, you can be in an Arab country, you can be from Africa, and you know now that you can fly in to Mexico City, make your way up and come into the United States, a completely porous border. This is not political. This is a national security crisis that Joe Biden is totally ignoring. And what we have to do is we have to hold people accountable, Jay. We're in court on that right now, Rick, by the way, just so you remember, we're in court on that right now, but you're right, we do have to hold them accountable. And Secretary Mayorkas needs to be the first one to go. He clearly is in over his head, he doesn't know what he's doing, but there's a whole bunch of political people in the cabinet that are protecting him. I mean, where are the other political people who care about America and America's national security? Why aren't they speaking up? You know, this is an issue. And I will say this too, the reason why Governor Newsom and Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi haven't spoken up about this, all Californians, is because we have a wall in California.

It works. You'll notice that this is all about Arizona and Texas. They don't have the wall. We were able to get the wall in California because we had powerful politicians who made sure that we had a wall in California. There's a full wall on the border with Mexico.

Rick, Jim George just tweeted, Title 42 ends on December 20th. After that, expect nearly 14,000 illegal aliens to enter our border each day. That would equate to over 400,000 illegal aliens in a single month that's larger than the population of New Orleans. Which is exactly why the American Center for Law and Justice is in federal court against the Department of Homeland Security to get to the bottom of all this lack of planning. And that's where you come in. You want transparency in government?

You want to know what's going on? ACLJ.org. We're in a matching challenge campaign. Any amount you donate to the ACLJ, we get a matching gift for. Rick, we appreciate you being with us.

This is always part of our team. And you have people like Rick Grenell as part of our team, a former cabinet member, because of your support of the ACLJ. Go to ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment. Folks, welcome back to Sekulow. We know that the number one issue facing Americans, and really all the issues that we talked about today, especially when we talk about the border, the migrant surge, the illegal immigrants, it all affects the economy. It puts strains on the economy.

It puts strains on budgets, schools, cities, towns. Think about what Jim Jordan- I mean, I kind of had to rush through that. But Jim Jordan just tweeted.

I want to go through it again. When Title 42 ends on December 20th, that is next Tuesday, so really 1201 a.m. on Wednesday, it's done. After that, they expect nearly 14,000 illegal aliens to enter our border each day. That means over 400,000 illegal aliens in a single month, that's larger than the population of a major U.S. city like New Orleans. Places like New York are already saying, we can't handle anymore, and they're talking about 30,000. We're talking about 400,000 in a month. That's not just a drug crisis, that's not just a humanitarian crisis, that is an economic crisis at a time when we're still trying to figure out inflation, we're still trying to figure out energy, and everyone's heading towards the final week of Christmas buying, and the Christmas season trying to figure out, can we afford that toy for our kid, and can we afford this present?

And it'll be very interesting to see post-Christmas, I know there was a lot of early spending online, but what happened these final couple weeks? Yeah, so I've got Professor Harry Hutchison in here, our Director of Policy, and Harry, I want to go to you on this. The fact that we have this migration crisis, we've got 1,000 people in the caravan coming to the border, is taxing out the local economies of the communities, but it's also taxing out the, putting unbelievable financial strain on the states. And how does that then impact the citizens of those states? Well, negatively, and it's important to keep in mind that many of these states, many of these localities lack the capacity to deal with this problem, which was deliberately caused by the Biden administration. So I would encourage listeners to compare U.S. border policy on the southern border with U.S. border policy on the northern border.

If you look at the northern border with Canada, it's relatively secure. If you look at the southern border, we are being overrun, and this will have knock-on effects with respect to the job market. This will have knock-on effects with respect to education. Education budgets in many of these communities are blowing up because they have more and more illegals to deal with each and every day, and the Biden administration, in my opinion, absolutely loves it. It is trying to overwhelm American citizens, particularly who live along the border.

But keep in mind, individuals who migrate to the United States, illegally, they are not simply staying in border communities. They're going to New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., you name it. And this is going to blow up local budgets, and it's a crisis that is, A, foreseeable, and B, it reflects deliberate policy initiatives by the Biden administration and the facts on the ground. They demand the impeachment of DHS Secretary Mayorkas.

So here's the question, Harry, though. You've got New York's mayors asking for a billion dollars, and he probably needs it. I mean, they probably need it, and they're getting 30,000. They're talking about the migration, the size of New Orleans hitting the United States. So the economic impact – go ahead. In a month.

In a month. I mean, I can't imagine economically how the country's going to handle this. Well – Basically, I'm talking about financially.

I think you are absolutely right, but it reflects an ideological view of many of the cultural elites who inhabit the Biden administration. So you see more and more of those individuals saying, no human is illegal. So what are they doing?

They're basically putting up signs on social media throughout the world saying, please migrate to the United States illegally. And so it is a huge, huge problem, and that is the reason, or at least one of the reasons, why the Federal Reserve is playing catch-up. It's a result of inflammatory government policy. And keep in mind, the federal government, the Democrats, are prepared to pass an omnibus spending bill that is at $1.7 trillion. That's inflationary. So we should expect the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates.

And so if you look at the United States, if you look at Great Britain, if you look at Canada, if you look throughout the world, interest rates are likely to continue to rise. And I just checked the stock market before I came down. The stock market is now down over 800 points. That's almost 3 percent today. After it falling yesterday as well.

Why? Because I think the market is beginning to face the fact that interest rates are continuing to rise. This will shrink housing starts. It will reduce construction jobs. It will have an impact on used car prices. If you look at retail sales in the United States in November, they have fallen by approximately six-tenths of 1 percent already.

I just pulled up my – and everybody has these apps that shows you where the market is right now. Look at the – everything. I mean, I don't see a – there's not a piece of green on this as we're live today.

Maybe it'll change by the time tonight airs. But I'm telling you, folks, as Harry said, this is serious stuff. And whether it's the stock market itself, whether it's the interest rates, whether it's the taxing of the border and the fiscal concerns that's going to cause, all of this impacts everybody. And that's why the ACLJ is engaged with ACLJ Action on the legislative front, on the legal front, on the policy front. We're engaged in all of those. And we can only do that because of your support for the American Center for Law and Justice.

And we want to encourage you to do just that. Yeah, man, I think as we go into this new year, the new year goal is to right this ship for our country as best we can for all of us, dealing with the realities that we've got a divided government. But that we need to right this ship so that we can get back to even, you know, really thinking about the other bigger policy issues. Think about the Ukraine issue.

Think about Russia that really gets totally off the map, media-wise. And we're still spending billions of dollars there. We have got to right this ship and do everything possible to right this ship. And members of Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time and do a lot. We can do that too with the ACLJ. We do it.

We've proven that to you. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org if you can financially. If you're in a position to do it and you're making your year-end gift or thinking about making those year-end contributions, what an excellent time to do it when you're making one for the ACLJ.

Because we have this very easy to understand, and I say that because of all those crazy political matches that we were all getting during the campaign season. Matching challenge. It's very clear. We have a donor who's agreed to match your donation if you make it in the month of December. So if you donate $100 right now at ACLJ.org, we have a donor who will match that with an additional $100 donation to the ACLJ. Now to get their $100 match, you have to make that initial contribution. You initiate.

You trigger the match. And again, $50 becomes $100. $20 becomes $40. $10 becomes $20. So even at a time when I know people are facing economic decisions, whatever you can't donate, you are doubling the impact of by donating this month in December. Donate online at ACLJ.org, support their work at the ACLJ, and we will talk to you tomorrow.