Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Manchin Caves: Senate to Move Forward With Federal Takeover of Elections

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
June 18, 2021 1:00 pm

Manchin Caves: Senate to Move Forward With Federal Takeover of Elections

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1048 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


June 18, 2021 1:00 pm

Senator Joe Manchin (WV) has caved. Senate Majority Leader Schumer is clear to move forward in the Federal takeover of elections. H.R. 1 (the For the People Act) strikes at the heart of American democracy and will only serve to magnify everything that went wrong in the 2020 election. Sen. Manchin has just proposed a new bill that encompasses the worst aspects of H.R. 1. Jay and the rest of the Sekulow team discuss the latest on this developing story in the Senate. We are also joined ACLJ Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In addition, we are unearthing potential new IRS targeting of conservatives. All this and more today on Sekulow .

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
Growing in Grace
Doug Agnew
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Grace To You
John MacArthur

This is Jay Sekulow breaking news.

Senator Manchin caves the Senate to move forward with federal takeover of elections. Live from Washington DC, Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. And now Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Well, I don't want to say we told you this was coming, but we told you this was coming, and that is the filibuster rule, which is key to the Senate.

H.R. 1 is being debated. The problem that the Democrats have is they don't have enough votes to get it through the filibuster. This would federalize, totally federalize, all of the state elections.

I mean, would give the control to the states and to the federal government in a way we never anticipated at our founding, including redistricting, which has always been a state activity. So ask yourself this question, what's going on here? Well, here's what's going on. Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Democrat, often said, you know, he caucuses with both parties. He said, I do not affirm, I do not want to remove the filibuster until the pressure got so great that he's already made a compromise bill to H.R.

1, but we'll go through the particulars that it really doesn't change much. And also, he's ready to compromise on the filibuster. Let me go right to Tham Bennett in Washington, D.C. Let's start with the filibuster. The filibuster is currently 60. You can't get something to the floor of the Senate without 60 votes. Manchin is saying, I'll drop that to 55.

Yeah, he's saying to drop it to 55. After just a matter of two weeks ago, Jay writing an op-ed saying that he was opposed to any change in the filibuster. By the way, Jay, that was the same op-ed in which he said this. He said, I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Now, Jay, he's proposing a version of voting legislation that lifts all of the provisions out of the For the People Act, drops them in a new bill, gives it a new name, and lo and behold, Joe Manchin is for it. So in that same op-ed when he said he was opposed to the filibuster, do you believe him?

Because I don't. No, not only do I not, and we're going to get into this in great detail in the next segment, but they are talking about changing the IRS tax exempt registration rules on how examinations take place. And by the way, the new regime is in town in Washington because we already have, from a friend of ours, I got it sent this morning from Kelly Shackelford from the Liberty Institute. We have a federal consent decree against the government on this targeting of conservative organizations. You're not going to believe this one. They haven't done it in four years, of course, because there was a consent decree. But now they're trying to, by legislation, Andy, undo the consent decree. Yes, they're trying by their treasury regulations to put in place saying that if you educate believers on national issues central to their belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental, including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, borders, immigration, U.S. and Israel. Quote, this disqualifies you from exemption under IRS Section 501c3. Wait until I read you their glossary of descriptive terms because it's unreal.

But also let me go to Wes Smith, who's legally trained also in addition to being a retired colonel in the United States Army. This is a federal takeover of the election process and also impacting nonprofits. Absolutely. And you look at H.R. 1, this taking over of elections and this IRS issue. You know, Jay, one of my most favorite books that you ever wrote, but it was a very alarming book, is a book called Undemocratic. I encourage people to read it again, because what we're looking at with H.R. 1 and this new issue with the IRS that could come back up is a bureaucracy, numerous bureaucracies at the federal level, unelected people, unelected officials who actually will impact and control the lives of every American on a deeply personal, private way.

I mean, I think I think you're right. I mean, it's an invasive approach to government. They're invading in areas where they said, by the way, very recently, we're not going to do that anymore. And then four years later and there's a new President.

Guess what happens? They're back in it. We'll talk a lot about that. We have a special that we did on that about the IRS and we'll talk about that.

Excuse me. We come back from the break as well. We'll take your calls. 800-684-3110. Mike Pompeo is going to join us in the third segment. He's got a piece up at ACLJ.org on the whole issue of H.R.

1, so we're going to want to talk about that. But again, we'll take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Let me say also a thank you to our ACLJ members. Your generosity these first five months of the year has been six months now. Incredible. I just want to say thank you. Your support at ACLJ.org makes all the difference. We couldn't do it without you.

And you've made it happen. ACLJ.org. We'll be back with more, including your calls.

1-800-684-3110 in just a moment. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. So Joe Manchin said a month ago how divisive HR 1 is, and it's the wrong time for divisive legislation. And that made sense because it really is divisive. It is a federal takeover of the election system by the federal government when that, by statute and by constitution, is granted to the states. So that's number one.

That's what he said. Now, he's a moderate, right? He's the moderate from West Virginia. He says he's now open to supporting a compromise bill, and we're going to go over that compromise bill in a moment. But what's also interesting about this, he said, you should not pass any type of bill, voter bill, in the most divisive time in our life unless you have some unity on this thing because you'll just divide the country further.

That sounds great. Except he also then says in the same sentence, and by the way, I'm going to take the, I'm in favor of reducing the filibuster rule from 60 to 55, which is, would be a historic change. I call it the slippery slope. Now, what is going on here?

And that is a 2022 election. So they're also targeting, guess what? Nonprofit groups. Why are they targeting nonprofit groups? Because we got a consent decree from the Internal Revenue Service after going to court when they targeted pro-life conservative Tea Party organizations.

We got a federal permanent injunction, consented to by the United States government after we were in court for years. There's a copy of it on the screen. That says they cannot do exactly what they are now doing, but, by the way, both in practice and they want to do by statute.

So let me show you something or tell you something. There is a group called Christians Engaged. They're in, I believe it's Texas. Anyways, my friend Kelly Shackelford, who's been on this program many times, runs the Liberty Institute, a great organization, sent this over to us to look at. They got a letter from the IRS denying their client's tax-exempt status, but the first thing they have is a legend.

And the legend has, I'm just going to give you some of them. C equals Texas. They don't want to say the names. D equals Republican. G, promise keepers. M, the word of God. So then they deny the tax-exempt status of the organization.

Let me read you why. You are likely, and this is what it says, you are like the organization described in American Campaign Academy, which, by the way, is a completely different case and nothing to do with this. For example, you educate believers on national issues that are central to their belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where there can be instrumental, including the areas of sanctity of life, definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, border and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations. The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the D party and candidates.

I'll go over that in a minute. This just qualifies you from exemption under 501c3, the D party. Now, most of us would think the D party, Andy, was the Democrats.

I mean, that's what I've always thought. Yeah, but in this letter that the head of tax-exempt actually wrote, not an agent, the D equals Republican. Now, do they think we're stupid? And I don't like using that word, but do they think we have no clue what they're doing here?

Now, let me read you something else. The IRS acknowledges that the First Amendment generally prohibits the government from discriminating against citizens on the basis of the viewpoints of their protected speech and their protected associational interests. The IRS admits that its treatments of the plaintiff during the tax-exempt determination process, including screening their names based on their names, policies, positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and delay, and demanding some of the information that was determined as unnecessary was wrong.

For such treatment, the IRS expresses sincere apology, but that's part of a consent order by a federal judge. Now, H.R. 1 ties right into it because it wants to get rid of the learner rule, lowest learner, the predecessor to the individual that signed this latest letter. Andy, I look at this and the way they phrased it and the utilization of that symbol, the symbols meaning, you know, D means Republican. I mean, that means, U means up, no, it means down. I mean, this is, but it's such slight of hand. I mean, it is. It's the slight of hand that isn't going to work because we can read and we can understand very clearly the English language as it was taught to us. When you say D equals Republican and then you slip in D and make it think that it's the Democratic Party, we're not idiots.

We can understand that. And I think we've got a consent order entered by Judge Walton in a case against the United States of America and the Internal Revenue Service that clearly protects us. And I hope that those who oppose this, because I understand an appeal is being taken by Kelly Shackelford's organization through the IRS.

There's an appeal process in the IRS code. They're going to take that and if they've got to go to corporate, they should just take out our consent decree. I'm going to talk to Kelly. Take out our consent decree and use it. I would use that. I mean, I know you've got to exhaust your administrative remedies, which means you've got to go through the IRS.

But then after that, I would simply file a lawsuit against them and I would cite this consent decree as exhibit number one and over with and point them to those pages and it's done. I'm going to go to Wes and Thanh on this part. And I look at this, Wes, it's so un-American. I mean, I think about your service in the military and your colleagues defending freedom, defending liberty, and then to see the government do this has to be discouraging to you.

Absolutely is discouraging. And it's such a violation. It discriminates against people of faith. You know, we are protected by the Constitution concerning the free exercise of religion as well as freedom of speech. And they are going about it in a very septu- you know, secret sort of way, surreptitious way to try and violate everyone's freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. And they're not doing it above board.

They're trying to basically sneak it in supposing that we're not looking. So here's what it says, Thanh. Manchin's revision would curtail or rewrite or eliminate many aspects of the existing bill.

But this is what he says. He calls for changes to a section of the bill that would create non-partisan commissions to redraw congressional maps. And Manchin instead proposed the use of computer models to prevent partisan gerrymandering, but there's called a legislative process in the states that determined this. It's a federal takeover of redistricting. Look, he may be slightly tweaked the mechanism by which it would be accomplished, but it still moves the authority from the states to the federal government. And Jay, on the point of the IRS targeting, I mean, look, when Lois Lerner tried this, she called it a be on the lookout list.

We, of course, defeated that targeting effort. Jay, one of the results from that, as you know, was a statutory change where the IRS had what is known as the Lois Lerner Rule. You cannot do this anymore. Jay, when I look at this letter that you just read and this legend at the top, what is this? This is a be on the lookout list. This is a legend, a list of terms that the IRS is looking for. So I would say that that's probably a violation of statutory law as well. But Jay, one of the provisions of S-1, H-R-1, what does it do? Repeals that Lois Lerner Rule. So all of this ties together. Yeah, they're trying to figure out, Andy, how do you repeal a consent order that's been issued by a judge? Separation of powers?

I mean, you can't. I mean, it's a consent order that was issued by a judge to end litigation, okay? The United States of America, the defendant of the IRS, agreed to it. We agreed to it on behalf of scores of plaintiffs.

Dozens. We agreed that we had. Linchpins of Liberty was the name, lead plaintiff in the case. We've done that. We relied on that.

We relied on the good faith of the government to do what they promised that they were going to do, and indeed what they were ordered by the court to do. But something else I noticed in the thing that you read, Jay, from this guy, Martin, who was the new Lois Lerner at the IRS. Did you notice when you read that thing that Bible is not capitalized? Yeah, I did notice that.

We have a small B, again, gigging us and just putting us little knives in here and there to reduce the impact and the importance of Christianity on our lives. Here's what's so obnoxious about this. This is what Joe Manchin said. A good voting bill basically protects the voters, protects the states, and states' rights. But his bill does exactly the opposite. The biggest thing that states' rights have is determining congressional districts, legislative districts. He's saying, no, we're going to turn it over to a computer and federalize it. And what about the legislative process in the states? Think about that one for a moment.

What would possess him to think he could do that? Oh, pressure, Wes, coming in from the Democrats, including the hard left. Yes, and he is caving into this pressure, and I am profoundly disappointed in Senator Manchin. What is the most sacred and important aspect of a representative of the Democratic Republic? It's the right of the people to vote and choose their own representatives.

Anything this significant needs to be overwhelmingly bipartisan. Plus, the federal government, that level of government, is echelons above individuals as far as representation goes, as opposed to a state. And yet many states, like my home state of Georgia, they even delegate voting down to the county as far as some policies go. So at the county level, as I go and vote for my representatives, that is very close to where I live. Those people live among me.

What they're proposing to do is taking something that normally is controlled by the state or by the individual community and moving all of it to a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., that we do not choose, that we do not elect. I'm going to take Stuart's call. We only have a minute here, but it's quick. Go ahead, Stuart, go.

Thanks for having me on. I had a quick question. I think you mentioned earlier that Manchin has proposed lowering the vote by 55. Yes, to 55. Do the Democrats have 55 votes to get this through? I don't think so yet, Fan, but my fear is 55 becomes 50. I mean, he'll say 55 and then he'll say, oh, they won't do it, so I'll go to 50.

I mean, I'm afraid of the slippery slope. You're 100 percent correct, Jay. Do they have 55 votes for this?

No, they don't. But if you lower it from 60 to 55, if that rationale is satisfactory to Joe Manchin, why wouldn't another five votes be okay? And, of course, if he's on board, if Kyrsten Sinema's on board and they have the vote of vice President, that's your 50 plus the tie-breaking vote right there, Jay. This is really serious. I'm going to be joined by Mike Pompeo, former secretary of state, coming up and go over some of this with him because he's written an article that's up on ACLJ.org.

You need to read it, and it goes into this, and we've got a lot more to cover. We've just begun. I can't believe the first two segments are gone already. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. If you've got a question for Mike Pompeo, we may even let you come on the air. How about that during Mike Pompeo's interview section? Of course, he's a senior counsel at the ACLJ.

We'll be back with more in just a moment. of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. For those of you that were just watching on our social media platforms or on TV or at ACLJ.org, we just played you a clip from our movie, and the movie that's targeting us, it's at ACLJfilms.com or on Amazon. We're going to play a segment of that a little bit later in the broadcast, because you'll hear from our clients on this. Joining us now is someone that needs no introduction. He's the senior counsel for the ACLJ's Global Affairs, also former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. Mike, thank you. You've got an article up at ACLJ.org, and it's entitled, HR1 is an assault on democracy in America.

We've just been talking about that. I mean, this is a radical rewrite of constitutional norms, especially in elections. This presents enormous risk to our central understanding about how America and American elections operate.

It's at the very core of what makes our nation so special. The left wants to federalize these in their entirety. They want you and I to take our money out of our pockets and transfer them to candidates who we disagree with strongly by subsidizing and matching monies and campaigns. They want to ban the use of IDs, just asking folks to identify who they are if they want to come out and validating that they're, in fact, entitled to vote and consistent with American law. These are basic precepts that states run elections and not the federal government. This is, in fact, not only a rewrite of our election process, but a rewrite of the understandings that have been at the bedrock of America for 240-plus years now. I got a—West Smith, Colonel Smith has a question for you, but it's because the way they entitle these acts, and of course we're concerned also with Joe Manchin's move on this, but Colonel Smith, go ahead for your question. Yeah, they call this, Secretary Pompeo, the For the People Act, which to me seems like a bit of a misnomer. Do you think that's an accurate description of what this bill actually is? Leading question, I might add. Yeah, the leading question, yes. Look, they're pretty clever in how they pick it, but I think Americans are pretty sharp.

I think they get the joke on that. This isn't about the people. This is about these elected officials who want to protect themselves, who want to keep themselves in power, who want to centralize power in Washington, D.C., so that that enormous bureaucracy that I tried to corral for four years, that bureaucracy has more authority, more capacity. This has nothing to do with taking care of the American people or anything that is noble and proper. This is about denying liberty and freedom to ordinary Americans by taking away their right to vote in the way that we all have come accustomed to over these past 200-plus years. So it's the For the Politicians Act, perhaps.

Maybe. I think that's what it sounds like. Yeah, I think that's a more fair description than For the People, and it's corrupt in the most venal sense of protecting themselves from having to listen to the American people and their constituents. At its core, I was a congressman for six years.

At its core, your responsibility is to listen, to learn, to take that on board, and then to try to deliver good outcomes for them. This provides a barrier to that and protects them from having to actually listen to the people they were elected to represent. One of the things you have in the article that's up at ACLJ.org is something that we're very concerned with, and that's the weaponizing of the IRS. We spent four years litigating the IRS. One got a consent decree that they can't do these targeting of conservative groups, pro-life groups, or Christian groups.

Consent decree issued, damages obtained by our clients in this litigation we did for four years. Yet, just within the last two weeks, Secretary Pompeo, the head of tax exempt, the person that takes over from Lois Lerner, sends a IRS denial of exemption. This is Steven Martin, director of tax exempt organizations ruling in agreements. And here's what he says in the actual letter. This is what he writes.

I said it earlier, but it's worth repeating. You educate believers on national issues that are central to their belief in the Bible as the inherent word of God. Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in the areas where they can be instrumental, including the areas of sanctity of life, biblical justice, freedom of speech, and defense, U.S. and Israel relations. The Bible's teachings are typically affiliated with the D party and candidates.

This disqualifies you from exemption under the Internal Revenue Code. The D party, which we normally would mean Democrats, is defined in the letter as Republican. That's amazing.

This is indeed Lois Lerner redo part two. By the way, the letter's amazing on its substance, suggesting that somehow there's only one party that understands the inerrancy of our biblical truths. I hope that's not the case. I'm afraid in too much of the progressive left that may well be the case today. Yeah, but I certainly wouldn't tag every Democrat with that.

That's for sure. They did. The IRS did. That's what they did. That's exactly what they did. That is really spiteful and evil and morally corrupt. On the important issue that the ACLJ was central to unpacking over the last period of time, stopping them from these targeting letters, the ACLJ is going to have to go out of hammer and tongs again.

We're going to need to get this right. They are headed back down this same path where conservative groups, Christian groups, those of us who believe that our founding principles are going to come under attack from this same internal revenue service that for eight years they chased us around. And they're trying to undo this through a – we have a consent decree by the federal government signed by a district court judge, executed by the parties as a settlement of litigation, and they are trying to go around that with this legislation, which is so unbelievable to me.

But that's the callous disregard for the law that they're engaged in. Now, Andy Conaway, you've got a question for Secretary Pompeo. I do, Mr. Secretary. The Assault on Democracy Act, HR 1, which is really what it is, strips the authority of the states to draw their own congressional districts. And I want to ask you, what does it do to the country when you start fundamentally changing the power structure between the state and federal governments, such as drawing congressional district lines, which is left to the legislatures, what does this bill do to that since it's existed since the founding of the republic? Yes, this is the federalization that I was speaking of. You will, Scott, enormous power in a handful of people inside of Washington, D.C., to determine how our districts are shaped. That talks about who's going to represent you. Instead of putting it at a local level, we will put it at the level in Washington, D.C. This is really bad for democracy, as our founders understood it.

You know, we've always had this problem of the courts having taken this power away from the state legislatures, where redistricting is clearly given to state elected officials. We all know them, our state representatives. Everybody knows their state senator. These are people we know. These are community leaders.

Those are the people we want deciding these important issues for our city, for our county, for our state, instead of somebody who lives in a place far away from us and who has Washington as their power base. You know, one of the interesting aspects of this is that I think it's a complete realignment of authority, basically going to the federal government here. And I'm wondering, as you look at this and then the agencies you ran, this kind of callousness of, you know, here you've got a court order, you know what the rules are, you know what the regulations are, and you just ignore it. And these bureaucrats just think they can get away with it. After all the scrutiny all of this is under, the Yiddish phrase would be chutzpah, that these people have the nerve they have to just flagrantly say, well, we'll change the line anyways, even though there's a federal consent decree in the other way.

Jay, it'd take us a while to unpack the challenge that the administrative state has risen to in terms of the risk that it presents to America as unelected, unaccountable, yet seeming to believe that they have enormous amount of power and that they can ignore not only executive decisions, the decision from their commander in chief, but to your point, a consent order signed up by an Article III court. It's pretty outrageous. They are pretty powerful. It's more than chutzpah.

It is any constitutional. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Mike Pompeo, of course, former Secretary of State and our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, thanks as always for your insights and your help on these efforts. I'm going to send you this IRS letter.

You've got to read the whole thing to believe it. It's unreal. Thanks again for being with us. We appreciate it, Mike. I'll tell you what, folks. Coming up, we've got a lot more.

I mean, I cannot believe the first 30 minutes is gone. We have got a lot more to unpack on all of this. I want Than to give us an analysis of what's actually at stake with HR 1 and where it's going. We're going to take your calls as well.

Some of you are already holding 1-800-684-3110. Don't forget to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. And let me also say, again, a huge thank you to those of you that are. We're just so encouraged by the amount of support that you are providing to the ACLJ.

Thank you so much. Also, if you want to stay connected with us, there's a great way to do that. All of our social media platforms go to ACLJ.org or on Twitter, of course, and Facebook. Follow us there.

We'll be back with more in a moment. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. So let me read you the headline from Associated Press, because I think this kind of sets it all up. Associated Press, Manchin pitches changes to the For the People Act, that's HR 1, and voting bill, and is reportedly now more open to reform of the filibuster rule. This is from the guy who said, do we have the bite where he said, I don't want to change the filibuster rule? I want to get that, that we'll have it, because it's important. Now, I'll tell you where the pressure is coming from.

You want to hear where the pressure is coming from? Listen to Joe Manchin, number 32. I think that basically Stacey Abrams, I've been talking to Stacey as you know, I've talked to everybody, and I've been working across the aisle with all the Republicans trying to get people to understand that that's the bedrock of our democracy.

An accessible, fair, and basically secure voting. That's it. And right now in a divided country, this is not about me, it's about our country. Okay, so what does that tell you? Who is he talking to? He's talking to Stacey Abrams, and Georgia and West are both Georgia roots. I mean, I have Georgia roots too. Stacey Abrams, listen, the only thing you say about her is she is smart, because she registered a lot of people and did not violate laws, and that anybody has been able to prove, and she's aggressive.

And what happened? Now she's got Joe Manchin's ear. What does that tell you, Andy? Well, it scares me, I got to tell you, because Stacey Abrams is left of left. And she's powerful. And she's very powerful in Georgia. As you said, she registered a lot of voters. She, through her efforts and through her campaigning, got Ossoff elected to the U.S. Senate, got, what's his name, Warnock, excuse me, the other senator elected to the United States Senate, beat an incumbent, David Perdue, filled a slot that was going to Kelly Loeffler. So she's a very powerful figure, but she's left, left, left of right, and we have to realize that. But if that's who he's talking to, then we're in deep trouble.

Wes? Well, and she's clever, and I don't mean that as a compliment. She is clever politically. She misrepresents facts. She misrepresents her own abilities. She misrepresented the Georgia voting law. She is clever, but not in a good way. Well, she said don't boycott Georgia while she was telling companies to boycott Georgia. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, so that kind of tells you. Fan, could you give in, we've got two minutes and 30 seconds before the break, can you give an overview to everybody that's listening and get them up to speed on what this bill is going to do?

Yeah, absolutely, Jay. I mean, at its core, this is a federal takeover of elections, and I know that just sounds like a soundbite, but when you go section by section through this bill, it takes all of the core tenets of an election, which traditionally have been state authorities, and it moves the decision-making authority for how to do those elections to the federal government. Jay, everything from early voting, which the federal government would mandate, they would mandate the number of days you have to have early voting, the hours at which your polling places have to be open. By the way, virtually every state does this anyway, but they do it in a way that works for their state.

It would move federal redistricting of congressional districts to the federal level. It would mandate how voter ID can be done. Jay, now that does not say that it would mandate that you have to use voter ID. It would say, we're going to tell you when and where and how you can do voter ID, and by the way, we're going to tell you what you have to allow as a substitute, whether it's signature verification, whatever it may be. It also mandates things like mail-in voting, Jay. Again, some states have done that successfully.

This would be the federal government saying every state has to do mail-in voting the way that we want them to do it. So Jay, it is a takeover from top to bottom, and one thing I would say about Joe Manchin here, the headline there that you read said that Joe Manchin is pitching changes to the legislation. Let me tell you what changes he pitched. He pitched a change in the bill number, a change from S1 to S2093, because I am holding the list of changes that he requested right here, Jay. You know what they are?

They are direct lifting of the provisions I just talked about from S1 and dropping them into that new bill that the Senate's going to try to vote on next Tuesday. So this is just a slight of hand. I mean, that's what Dan's really saying. This is really just a slight of hand.

Now, we've heard from, are you ready for this? I don't know what the exact number is. It's over 600,000.

Will, what do we have? What's the number? 623,248 signatures. 628,000 of you have contacted us saying, defend our election integrity. We're going to do that. We're taking action now, but we're also going to take action in Congress. We're going to fight hard against this bill. Your support is critical. Go to ACLJ.org and sign that petition. Have your voice heard.

That's how we beat this back. ACLJ.org. I encourage you to do that today. And again, thank you for your support of the ACLJ. Coming up, we're going to take your calls.

We're going to get into this. We're going to hear from some of our clients that have been targeted. ACLJ.org. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Joe Manchin in a piece that he wrote for the Washington Post said this, The filibuster is a critical tool to protecting that input in our democratic form of government. That's why I've said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt. There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. Weaken the filibuster. He's already said I will take it from 60 to 55 on its way down to 50, which means no filibuster. Ralph Warnock, the Democratic senator from Georgia, you want to see where this pressure is coming from on Joe Manchin? Said this, that he told reporters the proposal was a way in which we stay engaged on the issue.

He said he was less troubled by Manchin's support of the voter ID laws than these terrible partisan political maneuvers by Republican state lawmakers, including Georgia, where the GOP has control of the legislature. Of course, now they want to take it that the legislature would have no control over districting and redistricting. So a complete federal takeover is what you're talking about. Let's go ahead and take Don's calling on line two from Prague. Don, welcome the broadcaster on the air.

Thank you, gentlemen. Personally, I think the federal takeover wouldn't make it through the courts. And I do appreciate A.C.L.J. sounding the alarm and all the work they do in both regards to H.R.1, S.1, as well as the filibuster and such. I'm extremely disappointed, but not surprised that Joe Manchin has called. It came to pressure from the left, that's for sure. I mean, he's getting hard left pressure. Don, I'll let you finish it, but he's getting real pressure from the left of that party.

And he is caving. Go ahead. And I did just hear, I believe it was San say, that the air dropped or inserted supposedly his proposals into another Senate bill coming up next week. I guess it ties back in my initial question was, and by the way, since Secretary Pompeo had come and gone during my hold, I was wondering which one made him cringe more, Kamala Harris's performance overseas or Joe Biden's. But back to the main thing, but since it isn't budgetary, it could normally be pushed through via reconciliation. Wouldn't it still require 60 votes to clear cloture?

Well, I mean, this is the question, Thanh. You raise a great question, Don, and that is the procedural hurdles that would have to go into including the 60 vote filibuster situation. Yeah, it depends what mechanism they want to go through. They could use the budget reconciliation process to move some of it. Not all of this is going to be budgetary in nature, even under a very generous ruling from the Senate parliamentarian. So under current Senate rules and precedent, the caller is correct. It takes 60 votes to get this through, but that is unless Joe Manchin changes his mind. Jay, let me just give you a timeline here. On June 6th, June 6th, Joe Manchin wrote in his op-ed that, I believe partisan voting legislation will destroy the democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Jay, 12 days later, June 18th, he said this. People were assuming that I was against S1 because there was no Republicans supporting it. That's not the case at all. Jay, over the course of 12 days, he expects us to believe that we forgot what he wrote in a national op-ed that said, I will vote against the For the People Act.

12 days later, he says, I was never against it. You know, this is, of course, we know what's happening. What's happening is the pressure on him is immense, Andy. It's immense.

Well, it is. The pressure from his own party is something that he cannot overcome. He claims that he can reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. I don't know if that's true or not, but, you know, Joe Manchin is really, we have to admit it, he is the most powerful man in the United States Senate, isn't he, Jay? Yes, he is. I mean, he really is right now.

He controls what's going to happen and how the Senate is going to go, and this is very disappointing in him to change his mind over a period of time like that, based on pressure from people like who he admitted he was talking to, Stacey Abrams. Right. So, I mean, we need to think about that very deeply. I wonder, I'm going to take, let's go ahead and take Whitney's call from Texas. Go ahead, Whitney.

Thanks so much, Jay. Sure. There's a scenario that I feel like H.R. 1 opens us wide up to, and I'd be interested in getting your feedback as to whether this is accurate, but with the lack of voter ID and also other confirmations of identification, I feel like it opens us up to what I would describe as voter tourism. And we know what medical tourism is, right, when people go abroad for the benefits then. Why wouldn't, I mean, we know how much real estate the CCP owns. Why wouldn't they just, around election time, move some people into swing states? Well, they got to be citizens, but, you know, there was a concern about people moving into states, Whitney, I mean, and moving into jurisdictions.

The University of, I think it was the University of Georgia had faculty members telling students, if I'm not incorrect, Wes, that they should, even if they're from out of state, they should change their voting station to Georgia. Yeah, and apparently they did that, and not only that, under Manchin's proposal to sort of tweak this, if you can call it a tweak, is that on voter ID, he is also supposing you could use something like a utility bill. Which is not ID at all. That is not ID, and anyone can come from anywhere from any country and get a utility bill. You can print one up.

You can print one up. I mean, but, you know, so let's get down to the real brass tacks of reality here, which is, Van, what is going to happen? Well, Senator Schumer, Jay, has done what is called filing cloture on the motion to proceed.

I won't get into all the parliamentary terms. What that means is sometime on Tuesday, the full United States Senate is to come in, and they're going to take a vote on whether or not to get onto this bill and to debate the bill. Jay, ultimately, to invoke cloture, to end debate on the bill, you do need 60 votes. 60 votes as it stands.

You ask what will happen? I will tell you, right now, behind closed doors, there are two negotiations taking place. The main one is between Senator Schumer and Senator Manchin about what provisions will end up in this bill.

Right now, it's essentially the text of S-1, but they are negotiating over Joe Manchin's list right now, and they will continue to airdrop provisions into this bill before Tuesday to try to get Joe Manchin's vote. That's one negotiation. The other negotiation, Jay, is what do they need to do to get Joe Manchin to abandon the legislative filibuster and to try to get something through with 50 votes plus the vote of the vice President.

Those two negotiations are literally happening as we speak. Jay, that's why the petition that you referenced is so important. We are taking those names to members of the United States Senate, including Joe Manchin, by the way, and saying it's not just the ACLJ that wants you to oppose this. It's the people that put you into office, and Jay, in a state like West Virginia, that's a whole lot of Republicans. Politico says GOP crushes Manchin's hopes for election compromise.

Maybe not right now. And then The Atlantic, the strange elegance of Joe Manchin's voter ID deal. So here's what's happening. They're coalescing around this voter ID issue. They're coalescing around undoing the rule we won in federal court against the Internal Revenue Service, which again says you cannot target groups, but as I said in the first half hour, we have a letter where a group has been denied tax-exempt status because of the Bible.

This is dated May 18th, and it is literally they say that in here. For example, you educate believers on national issues that are central to their belief. In the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Then it's specifically you educate Christians on what the Bible says in the various areas, including the United States and of course Israel. They couldn't put that out.

They had to put that in. The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the D party and candidates. And the D party in this case equals anti-Democrat. No, Republicans.

No, Republicans. When I first read it and I saw D, I said, wait, something's wrong. And then our producer, Will Haines, pointed me to the legend, and D equals Republican. So again, it's a sleight of hand, and they think that they're going to fool us and joke us into believing that what they're doing meets the standards of the law.

Well, look, we've got a consent decree. Here it is. It says very clearly that you cannot discriminate.

Pages 9, 10, and 11. It's where the substance is. It acknowledges the fact that the First Amendment generally prohibits the government from discriminating against citizens on the basis of the viewpoints of their protected speech and their protected associational interests signed by an Article III judge. Well, they think they could just do away with that because they don't believe in separation of powers. Yeah, the Constitution, you know, forget it.

It's been shreds. All right, so here's the issue, folks, and that is taking action. And we want you to take action. So, Than, I want you to reiterate, it's important, exactly what we're going to do here. And then, of course, we will, you know, I'm going to get information to Kelly.

I'm going to make sure Kelly Shackelford has all of our information on that case. But let's talk about this legislation, which is bigger than an individual case, because it affects everybody. What is our best course of action here? How do we take action on this? Well, we've got to take action directly in the United States Senate. Let me tell you what our message will be, and let me tell you how people can help us with it. Our message to the United States Senate is that the 2020 pandemic-style election that we saw, that there was sort of a one-size-fits-all approach applied, that would be made permanent under this piece of legislation, Jay. And that's really a best-case scenario, because once the authority resides at the federal government, if you think things aren't going to get even more restricted, more mandates coming down the line, you know, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

2020 would be the high-water mark as far as elections being conducted. Now, what do we do about it? We are asking our ACLJ members to sign our petition, which, like you said, more than 600,000 people have already signed. We will take those names to the United States senators and show them their voters who do not want this legislation to move. Jay, we're on a tight timeline. Tuesday is going to be the first vote in the United States Senate. There will be parliamentary moves beyond that, but Tuesday is the first critical vote.

We're going to be communicating with U.S. Senate offices every day between now and then. I said it earlier, Wes, you served in the United States military. You defended our country and our country's integrity and constitution.

This has to make you very upset. It absolutely does. It disregards Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. It disregards the rights of the people.

It disregards the authority of the states and local communities. It's part of that inside-the-beltway mentality that says, we know best. And remember those words, one of the most fearful words, most scary words in the English language.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Yeah, isn't that the truth? Not? Because generally, look, well, you know, look, are we shocked that this is, that elections have consequences? Here we are. Here are the consequences. All right, we come back, we take your calls and comments.

Get them in on Facebook or Periscope or any other way you're watching. Or call us at 800-684-3110. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. So H.R. 1, which is going to completely revolutionize the way in which election laws are administered and federalized, no great shock there. But there's another thing that should not come as a shock to anyone, and that is Joe Manchin is compromising, even though he said he wasn't going to. No shock there, because that's exactly what has happened. Unfortunately, it's happening with your voting rights and our voting rights and our country's voting rights at stake, and then again, allowing the IRS to target individuals. It's all in that bill. I mean, it's all there, and we're seeing it already.

You saw it. This group was promoting the Bible as a learning tool for their educational project, and the IRS denied their exempt status and said, because those issues of the Bible, with a little b, of course, as Andy said, lines up with the D party. Except D didn't mean Democrat party this time, which I think that would be offensive to Democrats, too, by the way. But also, D here happened to equal Republican in their little glossary of abbreviations. Why did they just spell it out?

Because you play cute. But this is not the first go-round with this. We have been there before, and I want you to listen to this.

It's very important. We have clients that have experienced this firsthand. We went to court and won.

Here's the story. The IRS has finally released a list of political groups it has scrutinized. I received this letter with a bunch of questions. That we all knew immediately was not right. And at that point, I knew I was a target. Tea party groups say they're being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service, and they're enlisting the aid of the American Center for Law and Justice. They were trying to shut groups down that they disagreed with. I'll never forget what Jay said when he said, we've got your back, and we're going to be taking care of this.

And I felt like the weight of the world was off of my shoulders. Ms. Lerner, why would you say tea party cases were very dangerous? The IRS started targeting tea party groups more than three years ago. Never before has the federal government tried to muzzle everyday Americans solely because of their political view.

You don't expect this kind of intimidation. It was something that no one could believe our government was even capable of doing. They have way too much power and no accountability. They got caught. The federal government got caught. It is worth any battle to preserve our liberty.

We were fighting the United States of America at this point. It took three and a half years of litigation to get there. Our team did a fantastic job of litigating this, and the end result is not only an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing, but also a complete change of policies. My nine-year-old, when she grows up, she's going to say, hey, my dad did it. I can do it too. In the future, if any group feels like they're being targeted ever, they can go to federal court and bring our case, and that's not going to take five years.

That's going to take five minutes. They stood up for us. They fought for us. It wasn't just the knowledge base and the experience.

It was the belief. We only persevered because the ACLJ was there. Join us online at the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org. Your support of the ACLJ is the reason we were able to win that case in federal court after three years of litigation and got a tremendous consent decree against the federal government.

But I'm going to go to each one of our experts here and start with Van. That is now under threat by H.R. 1 and under threat by Joe Manchin's maneuver. Right in black and white, right in the text of the legislation, Jay. One of the most significant things in addition to the consent decree that you've been talking about that came out of those cases that we just played the video about was a statutory prohibition on the IRS using what's called Be on the Lookout List, targeting conservatives based on specific keywords that were conservative in nature.

Jay, I mean, you've been talking about this this whole show, but this new legend at the top of this letter that you're talking about, this is a Be on the Lookout List. Make no mistake about it, I don't know necessarily what the IRS is calling it, but this is the Be on the Lookout List that was prohibited in 2018 in a piece of legislation signed into law by President Trump. This is a violation of that, Jay. And this bill that we're talking about today, H.R.

1, S.1, the For the People Act, now with the new bill number S2093, that bill says that that statutory prohibition is repealed. Jay, that's what's at stake inside this piece of legislation. So I've got, let's take Kerry's call and then we're going to go get everybody's comments on this.

Kerry, go ahead. Okay, you've got to have to turn your phone off. I mean, turn your radio off and then we'll go back to you when our screener knows you're clear. But Andy, they are trying to undo through legislation what we have won in court, which raises a serious constitutional issue.

Well, it does. I'm a lawyer. That's what I do for a living. I have been a lawyer for 46 years.

I know what a consent degree means when it's signed by a United States district judge. And here's what Judge Walton said when we settled the case between the Internal Revenue Service and our clients, Lynch Pins for Liberty and others. The court hereby declares that any action or inaction taken by the IRS must be applied even-handedly and not based solely on a tax exempt applicants or entities name, political viewpoint or associations or perceived associations with a particular political movement position or viewpoint. And here's very important, the United States tax code cannot be applied to invoke disparate treatment solely on a taxpayer's name or any unlawful position, lawful position the taxpayer espouses, his associations or association with a political movement. To do so is, quote, unlawful.

Yeah. So now they said the Bible teaches this, it supports Israel, the Bible teaches biblical justice. The Bible teaches religious liberty or you teach religious liberty.

Bible with a little b, not capitalized. This is what you get for those reasons. And the D party, which happens to mean Republican here, ends up equaling tax exemption denied. So I'm going to go to Wes on this because, and I said this before, this is a, if you look at HR 1 and what they're trying to do because it incorporates the IRS changes too, this bill is massively dangerous.

Absolutely. What it is doing, that part of the bill is re weaponizing the IRS, but it's also, the whole bill is perverting voter integrity. It is not for the people.

It is against the people and against individual freedoms. I just stand on my concern here. Well, let's say Carrie's call if she's ready and then we'll get Dan to respond. Carrie, go ahead. Hi, thank you so much for taking my call.

I'm calling from Wyoming. I've been wondering since I heard about this bill first, you know, when it was called HR 1, why this was not being pushed back as being an amendment to the constitution? Well, I think, look, one of the challenges, if it passes, will be that this cannot be done legislatively, that that's unconstitutional, which means it would take a constitutional amendment to do that. But the question first is, Dan, does this pass? Well, I don't know yet, Jay. I mean, a lot of that depends on Senator Manchin. If he is willing to gut the legislative filibuster and if he is willing to go along with the For the People Act, which now we have to say that he is because his proposal is in fact that, Jay, it could pass. I think I agree with you. I would defer to you, of course, on the constitutional analysis.

That would be one of the challenges that would be made to it. But I can tell you why they're not taking that approach. It's because they don't have the votes for a constitutional amendment. The only thing they have the votes for is to try to amend it statutorily. Andy, this is an extra constitutional act.

Oh, it is. It's violative of the Constitution. I can read the Constitution.

Wes has pointed out the section and paragraph. You cannot take away the right from the states to determine elections and to federalize it. You don't want to do that, but you can't do it under the Constitution. That's been our law since the 18th century.

It needs to remain. Folks, your support of the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org allows all of this to happen. This broadcast, these experts, Mike Pompeo, who is on today as part of our team, the people that you don't see behind the camera, the film targeting us, available at ACLJfilms.com or Amazon for free. All of that happens because you support the work of the ACLJ.

Vans office in Washington, D.C., our government affairs office, our offices in Jerusalem, in Strasbourg, France, and around the globe. Support the work of the ACLJ. Continue to do so. ACLJ.org.

Have a good weekend. We'll talk to you Monday. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-11-02 15:29:59 / 2023-11-02 15:55:05 / 25

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime