Democrats Declare War on Conservative Media

Today on Sekulow, the Democrats in Congress declare war on conservative media, specifically conservative TV. We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Now we know there's been a declared war on individuals' ability to use platforms and we've even seen platforms that have been deplatformed like Parler and those kind of places, but now Democrats in Congress are taking aim at the major players on cable news, on the conservative side of cable news, but they're not targeting directly, they're not going to Fox News with their questions, they're not going to Newsmax, they're not going to OAN with their questions, they're going to the cable providers. So they sent letters, this is from Congresswoman Eshoo, she is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees cable and television and all those FCC kind of issues. And Congressman Jerry McNerney, both from California, both on the Commerce Committee, House Energy and Commerce Committee, they sent these letters to the CEOs of AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Charter, Dish, Cox, Altus, Alphabet, which is Google, and Hulu.

The final question, let me just start with their final question, they actually sent seven questions they want answered from these CEOs. The final question is this, are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN on your platform, both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why? So not just saying, are you going to carry them after the contract's over, which by the way, that would be a discussion between those networks and the provider, and of course the ratings, it's an economic decision for the most part. But are you even going to stop now?

Would you even cancel them now? And if not, why not? This has gone to all the major cases, they want to take off Fox News, they want to take off Newsmax, they want to take off OAN from the airwaves so that you cannot access them through your cable. And they're trying to pressure CEOs of cable companies to do the dirty work for them.

Not to make an economic decision, but to make a decision because of political pressure. This is extremely troubling to try and silence an entire viewpoint. And by the way, there's a lot of difference between Fox News and Newsmax, and Newsmax and OAN. I mean, it's a very broad spectrum there to try and include all those three together. But what you see they're trying to do is take out any conservative voices from your choice. It's just a choice you have on television.

Now, Than, I want to go right to you. Than had been in Washington, DC because, Than, these are long-term members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They have oversight. There's a flux at the FCC right now because there's an acting commissioner.

The Republican commissioners have said this is outrageous. That's great, but it's Joe Biden who could ultimately nominate the permanent member here. First of all, let me comment on just how significant these members are. Anna Eshoo Jordan, she's the most senior member of that committee now.

She's not the chairman, but she's got the most seniority inside the party. So she knows better than this, Jordan. Look, the government does not get to be the arbiter of what is fact and what is disinformation. And the government cannot be in the business of content decisions.

Those decisions are made by businesses at the direction of people, of consumers who make their own choices about what information to take in. But you're right, Jordan. I see this as the left trying to use an opportunity where the FCC is in a little bit of limbo. I think they're going to push the cable companies. Here's the other thing I think they're doing, Jordan. I think they're trying to push President Biden into pushing the FCC in a direction that would be more favorable to this.

Very dangerous stuff here, Jordan. What do you think about this attempt, folks, by congressional Democrats to pressure these companies to cancel Newsmax, to cancel Fox News, to cancel OAN? Where do you think they're going to go next? Fairness doctrine. Try and cancel us. OK, that's this is all about taking our viewpoints off the airwaves and they want to start with cable news. We're taking your calls 1-800-684-3110. They're not hiding it. They're saying, why are you even carrying it now?

And do you intend to do it after their contracts expire? 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. 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. I've got all the letters right here to the various cable company CEOs. So you know, when you're talking about AT&T you're also talking about DirecTV.

So all the letters are the same, but let me kind of read to you from one. This is how it starts. From these two members of Congress, including the most senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Democrats. This is to the AT&T and DirecTV CEO. Our country's public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories and lies. And we're concerned about the role AT&T plays in disseminating misinformation to millions of its subscribers. And we write you today to request additional information about what actions AT&T is taking to address these issues.

And then they get into calling out. Experts have noted right-wing media ecosystem is quote much more susceptible to disinformation lies and half-truths. Right-wing media outlets like Newsmax, One American News and Fox News all aired misinformation about the November 2020 election.

I guess opinions don't matter and lawsuits that were in process don't matter. I guess that was just misinformation. It's again, it's against the propaganda machine of the left.

These same networks have been key vectors of spreading misinformation related to the pandemic. Questioning Fauci, questioning the government is not spreading misinformation. It's what the news is supposed to do. The news is supposed to question everything.

Question everything the government tells you and inquire more. First it was no mask. Then it was one mask.

Then it was two masks. And we're still being told that even if you get vaccinated, you can't do this, this or that. And I think, you know, I think that again, when you, when you look at, why would you not ask questions about that? Why would you not want to inquire more?

And I'm not someone that's against mask. I'm just saying that the idea is that things keep changing. Why, why, why should we get more information about that? Do we really need to keep things shut down?

Why in states that places are most shut down like California, are the numbers still some of the worst when it comes to COVID? Should we figure out that instead of just blindly accepting anything from the government, whether it's Republican led or democratic led, it's not misinformation. It's not, again, it's not a plagued disinformation or conspiracy theories to question the government.

And especially when you're in the midst of a pandemic and the government's changing its position throughout strong positions that changed throughout the entire pandemic. So that's where it starts. But the questions, they have got specific questions. I want to go to Andy and then we're going to go through some of these, but Andy, they have gone to Andy Convo, senior attorney with the ACLJ. They have gone to all of these cable providers with seven questions.

The seventh being basically, why haven't you already canceled them? And will you once their contract is up, but they have these other questions. They want responses by March 8th, not very far away. This is not going to get a lot of coverage, obviously on CNN and MSNBC because they would love for these networks to be out of the way and not have to compete with. But this is again, when you go through the questions alone, the fact that they are trying to infringe on the business, which is what these are business and economic relationships of these cable providers and these television networks.

Uh, Jordan, this is an appalling and scary prospect. We've got two Congress people signed on to along with 25 Democrats who supported what they did, who are asking these providers and I read the AT&T letter, which as you indicated is just a one of many of the same sort of speed, uh, contents. But the thing that was terrifying and it ought to be terrifying to anybody who reads it is the questions that they were putting to these providers, these carriers and these services. You tell me what you're going to do about this. You tell me why you're going to keep this kind of speech on.

How long are you going to play this particular program? How long are you going to tolerate this kind of speech? Uh, this just sounds like the kind of propaganda control that has been throughout history, problematic and scary to read that letter from two Congress people to AT&T and then went to the other providers as well. Ought to scare you to death because it is open war on the conservative right. Some of the worst misinformation, and again, I'm not trying to take CNN off the air, but was having, they finally came around and they changed their policy, but they were allowing Chris Cuomo to interview his brother, governor Cuomo and joking about COVID talking about his leadership books while he's got a major scandal that we all knew was, was happening with the nursing homes. And finally it came to a head when they admitted that they were actually not giving the full reports, not telling the full story on the numbers of people who died in nursing homes because of COVID or how many COVID positive patients they were putting back into nursing homes. That's finally come to light, but I mean, isn't that misinformation for the people of New York? But CNN is not listed here. They're not on here. Their attacks on conservatives don't matter.

Their attacks, and I'm not talking about just what happened on January 6th, but that's where this letter tries to build off of. So it starts with, I'll read question one, then we'll take callers because there's seven questions here that they want the cable providers to answer. One, what moral or ethical principles, including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health, do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?

I want to take calls with this, but then that is so absurd with the garbage that you can find on cable. I mean, I'm not trying to protect these cable companies and say they're all great and wonderful, but it's a business. And the amount of extreme violence you can find on basic cable and on some of the subscription networks like HBO and others, I mean, it's extreme violence. They talk about violence here. They're talking about cable news, which again is it's a news broadcast.

It is not a television show with violent sex and drugs. Sure and Jordan, it's the American people. It's the consumer who need to have the authority or the power here to if programming content is not meeting needs or if it's falling short of some standard that the consumer can identify, they can walk away. Jordan, that has to drive these decision makings, decision making the idea that that power would be usurped by Washington DC. Jordan, that's a very frightening move because what you're talking about today, that that's bad enough. But once that power sits in Washington DC, then Washington DC has the ability to determine what you and I, what people all across this country, what information they receive.

And Jordan, I just wanted to point one other thing out as well. The acting chairman of the FCC, Jessica Rosenworcel, she's the acting chairman, a Jeep recently stepped down. There's a vacancy, but she's the acting chairman. Jordan, previously when leftist organizations have come under some fire for some of the examples that you put out, she said this, she said, I don't think that the government should be in the business of substituting its judgment for programming licensees. History won't be kind to silence. Well, Jordan, guess who's silent now. Guess who hasn't condemned this letter. The two Republican appointed commissioners have condemned it. The acting chairman, Jessica Rosenworcel, who said history won't be kind to silence when the tables returned. Jordan, she hasn't said a word. Not a word. Now the FCC commissioners that are Republican appointed on there have condemned the letter.

They called it a chilling transgression aimed at stifling political speech, calling on their FCC colleagues to join me in publicly denouncing this attempt to stifle political speech and independent news judgment, seeking to, quote, intimidate into silence those who would distribute on their platforms disfavored points of view, and particularly concerning because the House Energy and Commerce Committee oversees the Communications Act. I want to get to the phones, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Robin in Idaho online, too. Robin, welcome to JSECO Live. Hi.

How are you today? We're good. Good. I'm not real good, but this whole thing is very unsettling. We're fighting.

Yeah. Yes, we are fighting. And my question is, so all these things that the government's telling us we can and can't do and this and that and all this other crap, what is our recourse? I mean, if it's the Supreme Court and the courts won't listen to you. Well, honestly, this is highly regulated not by courts so much because this is more business and the airwaves that are provided. So it's highly regulated. And Andy, I mean, the FCC and these kind of broadcasting rights, and we've done it a lot with Christian Broadcasting and others throughout our work at the ACLJ, this is highly regulated by the federal government, Congress ultimately with these laws like the Communications Act.

That's right, Jordan. The Federal Communications Commission Act regulates the use of the airways. The airways are considered public, and therefore the fact that somebody wants to broadcast on those airways is regulated by the federal government. But that doesn't mean that speech is regulated by the federal government.

And it is appalling and scary to me when somebody from the government, two congresspersons, along with a bunch of Democrat colleagues are saying, you tell me what moral principles you apply or what principles of justice or ethics you apply in deciding who you're going to put on there. My response to that is this. What businesses is it of the governments? You stay out of that.

That's none of your business. Those are business decisions that are made by public carriers, and it's their right to contract with whomever they wish in order to broadcast programs. And it's interesting, isn't it, that they've targeted entities such as Fox and CNN, MSNBC.

They're okay. Their speech is protected and permissible. But if you don't agree with the speech, you stay away from that.

And I just think it's not any of the government's business to interfere in that area whatsoever. We've only gotten through question one and, of course, question seven, which is, why not cancel them right now, CEOs? And listen, I'm a little nervous because we know these companies and corporations have been bending to this kind of pressure pretty easily. And so, again, we have to be ready here to expose what Democrat partisan members of Congress want to do, which is take off cable news. It's conservative viewpoints. And then they're going to come after us again, too.

They already tried it once with radio. We'll be right back. 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, Planned 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. All right, welcome back to Secular. We are taking your phone call. So here's what we've got.

You've got these two Democrat members of Congress. They've sent this letter to 14 different cable providers. I think it's something, it's basically every cable provider. Even some of the ones that are kind of like Hulu, like the on-demand services alphabet through Google. When it's AT&T, that also involves DirecTV, Charter, which has got some different names, Comcast, which also goes under like Xfinity, depending on where you are. But here's their second question they are asking these CEOs and companies to answer by March 8th. Do you require through contracts or otherwise that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines?

If so, please provide a copy of the guidance. Then they have to abide by the law. And the law actually sets out what can be, now the news can show bad things that are happening. They usually warn people actually before, because if children are in the room, they usually do. If there's some kind of breaking news, there's been an accident or some horrific event. But they're allowed to report on those things that are newsworthy. If a played issue like we saw again last weekend, or if it's over the weekend, or if it's Tiger Woods and the car crash and the scenes from that.

And again, we pray for his speedy recovery, glad he survived that with serious injuries. But just as an example, they all went to that yesterday, like full-time, but they do have to abide by certain rules. There are things they can do during the day that they can't do at night, and they can do different things at night, and it can be a little bit more geared towards adults and not have to worry as much about children watching. And it's different if you're a broadcaster versus a cable outlet versus something like HBO that you've got to pay extra for. So I mean, there's all these rules already in place. So they know the guidelines for these networks already.

Congress set them. Right. And those guidelines have to apply across the board when it comes to graphic material or material not suitable for children. It has to apply across the board, not just to the cable network providers that are mentioned in this letter.

But here's the truth, Jordan. It's not that type of content that these congresswomen are going for. They might use that as the guide. They're actually going for viewpoint content that they disagree with. So it's not something that might be offensive to children. It's an idea or a perspective or a worldview that might not match with theirs. And Jordan, the federal government, by very definition of the way we set up our country, is not entitled to engage in that kind of viewpoint filtering. We're rooted in a system where, you know, ideas that I viscerally disagree with, ideas that you strongly disagree with, those are free to be put out in the public sphere and you have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. So this idea that these two members of Congress have now flipped that on their head and say that they believe that these providers should only put out viewpoints that they agree with, Jordan, that's what they're targeting. They're not trying to protect your children from graphic content.

They're trying to protect their children from ideas that they disagree with. The reason why like a Newsmax is on, along with the Fox News, along with the MSNBC, CNN in the middle, and then you got the OANs of the world too, is because there is a market for it. And some of those networks like Newsmax and OAN are not as widely available as a Fox News, depending on where you live and who your cable provider is.

Sometimes you have to add it on as a bonus different kind of package or it's not included in base packages or business packages. But we have a very interesting question coming in through Facebook and it's, I don't have cable, but are they targeting streaming apps? They are. Amazon, Apple and Hulu and Alphabet, which is Google, are all on, all received this letter. Netflix, I guess, did not, but they don't carry live television. So they don't carry cable news as others do. And by the way, like when you talk about a company like AT&T, they have DirecTV, they have Universe in that as well. So the App Store and Apple, which does have all of, of course, these different news outlets that are available to you streaming live, some which are not even on cable, that are not maybe under the FCC's regulatory reach. But but again, let's go to question number three.

Andy, this one is really interesting. How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, and this is again the letter to AT&T, but it went to all of them. For each of the four weeks preceding the November 3rd elections and the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel.

That is chilling. That tells you all you need to know, Jordan. That tells it all in a nutshell. I want the numbers. I want the lists. I want the numbers of people who tuned in to these conservative stations.

I want to know how many people watch them. I want to be able to gauge and to follow that and to pursue that and to see exactly how many people from the conservative side looked at those kinds of programs and followed those kinds of programs. That should scare us to death. Those are the kinds of Schindler's List that we read about in Nazi Germany.

Those are the kinds of things that we read about in Central Europe in the days preceding and following the outbreak of the Second World War. I don't want to be on any list and I don't want anyone to give any numbers that I may be a part of to any government agency. It's none of the government's business. The idea here, and the second question goes back to, the fourth question goes, what steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3rd elections and the January 6 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence? Where was that on any of these channels?

Incitement of violence? Because by the way, law enforcement would then be involved and they would be violating FCC rules. It wouldn't have to be that a cable company had to do anything. It would be that the government could actually step in if you were inciting violence on your network. By channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans.

Describe each step that you took and when it was taken. They should not respond to this. If they were gutsy, if they were the big corporate companies that they are, they would not even respond to these two members of Congress. But I get nervous because I know who's running these companies and the kind of pressure they're under for progressives.

The pressure is going to be immense, Jordan. I would say a couple of things. First of all, coverage of the post-election challenges would have been central to give people on both sides of that issue confidence that we are actually getting to the bottom line truth. So not covering it is what would have been the most dangerous. But look, in response to both of these questions, especially the one about how many subscribers do you have and are you going to turn over any information, Jordan, if there's a response, that response should be conclusively and emphatically.

That is none of your business. Andy is absolutely correct. And look, we've got experience in this. This is what the IRS did to Tea Party conservative groups. They gathered information about them and then they targeted them to silence them. So look, the pressure to respond, the pressure to acquiesce is going to be immense, but they must either ignore it and refuse to respond or they must decisively say, that information is none of your business and we won't provide it to you. I believe that they're holding hearings on this as well.

Let's check this out. Well, I think the subcommittees might be holding hearings on this. Already, let me go to the phones.

We'll go to the phones when we get back and I'll get Andy's thoughts on the next question that they've got, question number five. Do you understand they want to be monitoring Americans? They want to monitor where you're watching, what you're doing. By the way, most of these companies are happy to put out their ratings.

Sometimes it's daily, but per show. So I don't think it's like the way that they write it though is like, we want to know how many Americans could have been watching this before weeks leading up to the Presidential election. That maybe Republicans didn't want to hear Republicans being bashed by MSNBC.

They want another place to go or the kind of blondness of CNN during the day and they want to go another place to go, get information and make decisions for themselves because they are adult voters who can educate themselves and decide for themselves who they want to believe. This is what is an unbelievable attack and get worried because of who's leading these companies and what they've already done. 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. I'm talking about freedom.

I'm talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live and freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Here's the next question from Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman McNerney, both members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both from California, surprise, surprise, both Democrats. This went to all these different cable providers, all of them, AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, so the streamers as well, Apple, Comcast, Charter, Dish, Cox, Alphabet, Altus, Hulu. So if you get your TV through the different non-cable outlets, so like through the services like Roku or through the services like Hulu or through places like Alphabet, others, Amazon, this does not exempt those. And the next question is, have you taken any adverse actions against the channel? And here's their focus, including Fox News, Newsmax and OAN for using your platform to disseminate disinformation, disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3rd elections, the January 6th Capitol insurrection or COVID-19 misinformation.

If yes, please provide each action when it was taken and the parties involved. Now, I have no idea what, if any of these providers have done anything, I don't know what's in their individual contracts with these networks. But what you do know is that the reason that they're on is because there is a market for it and the networks have to be able to afford it. The cable provider has to have enough viewers of it. If you look at cable now and the amount of channels, the amount of choices, because they're having to compete with the streaming services that have like these unlimited channels and everything on demand, I mean, you've got something for everybody plus everybody else and everybody else. I mean, there's so many choices, but they are fixated, Andy, on taking, getting rid, canceling Fox News, Newsmax and OAN.

There's no doubt about that. I mean, that is so very obvious from the question because if you listen to read the question, it assumes the answer. Have you ever, have you taken action, adverse action against these providers or these entities that have provided misinformation? That basically says, I assume they have provided misinformation. We, the Congress people, assume that they have provided misinformation and we want to know what you have done, if anything, to come against them for the misinformation that they provided. This reminds me of the IRS scandal that we had just a few years ago in which they were targeting at the IRS conservative organizations, exempt organizations because of the content of what we were doing in the exempt organization business for conservatives and on behalf of conservatives. So now these Congress people are doing the very same thing. They're simply targeting the content based speech of traditionalists and conservatives and they're saying, we want to know to these providers like AT&T, what action have you taken to stop these terrible things that these people are saying? Well, I hope as Stan mentioned that these companies that receive these letters have the spine and the guts to say, I'm not answering any of these questions. I live in the United States and I don't have to answer this kind of stuff.

There's the first amendment and there's the free exercise of business and the right to contract and this is not anything that the Congress of the United States should be interfering in. I want to go to the phone. Suzanne in South Carolina on Line 6.

Suzanne, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for all that you do first and foremost, but I want to bring to mind, I found, I got a call last night from Truth That Transforms. It's a Dr. James Kennedy program that I watch on Sundays and I've noticed last two Sundays it's not being aired and come to find out they're not on the air right now and I don't know if they've been taken off the air for the simple reason that before the last year, towards the end of the year before elections and all, they were doing a program on George Soros and his relationships and connections in the United States and around the world. You know, the difference is this Suzanne, the network can decide its content. I don't want networks to be forced to do that. I'd be like fairness doctrine.

I don't want them to be forced to carry or not carry anything, but it's whether a cable company put pressure on that network to take it down. 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, playing 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. We've got a YouTube super chat coming in from Carolyn. Do they include YouTube? Well, YouTube is owned by Google and Alphabet is on the list that's owned by Google. So yes, I mean, this would include these streaming services. So YouTube has that ability also to get channels and news channels if you subscribe and use their services in a paid mission. So and in the letter, they specifically mentioned YouTube carrying Fox News, how YouTube TV. So if you're a YouTube TV subscriber, like you would be a subscriber to Amazon, like you'd be a subscriber to Hulu or some of the other streaming services instead of, so if you cut the cable cord, but you still want live TV and they carry that live TV, well, they mentioned it. So yes, YouTube directly targeted, uh, and it's specifically about Fox News, Newsmax and OAN. They want, again, this is, this scares me because it brings back the days of the fairness doctrine and it ends with, you know, it ends with, are you planning, the final question, are you planning to continue carry Fox News, Newsmax and OAN now and beyond any contract renewal date?

So are you going to cancel them now or at least cancel them when your contract's over? If so, why? Maybe because they're highly rated. Newsmax is growing by numbers.

It's good for business. People, obviously there's a demand for Newsmax. Fox News, one of the highest rated throughout history, throughout history of the last decade or more, uh, cable news broadcast. And just because you don't like the viewpoint and you're trying to put on them that they were somehow inciting violence, if they were, they would be in trouble for it, but they can report the news on the violence. They can have people come in and say, who were the people that were carrying out the violence? Were they actually directly related to Donald Trump?

Were they other people? I mean, that's what the impeachment was about. You were able to hear both sides.

President Trump was acquitted. I mean, they both carry that you obviously can have a debate and a discussion and people took different positions. It's America, but these two members of Congress, I guarantee you they're not doing this in a vacuum. And I want to go to, they had been on this before I go to the rest of the group and your phone calls and folks, we had a little Facebook glitch earlier, just technical. So share this with your friends and family.

If you're watching on Facebook, if you're watching on YouTube, uh, and uh, if you're watching on places like Periscope, share this now with your friends and family. Uh, but, but they had, these two members wouldn't be doing this in a vacuum if, uh, because it's so egregious. This is a declaration of war.

No question about it, Jordan. They're doing it right now because there's momentum behind this. There's momentum behind suppressing speech and certain ideas. And look, just briefly, my response to this question would be the same.

It would be none of your business now cease and desist and that would be the end of it. But Jordan, let me circle back to something that you mentioned just a second ago. This is, this is about blocking ideas from being presented to the American people. Not all ideas, just certain ideas, ideas that these two Congress women disagree with. And let me just be very clear with our listeners. We have a very long track record on this organization in this organization and on this broadcast of opposing ideas like the fairness doctrine. Jordan, we don't think that we have a right to get equal time if a listener has been presented with an idea we disagree with. We firmly believe that we've got to go out into that marketplace of ideas and compete and convince our listeners and and argue on merit and argue on the law and actually win people over. It's not the force of government that makes people listen to us. It's the ideas that we present and the intellectual backing that we have. This is exactly the opposite.

But Jordan, it does set up this juxtaposition. We believe that viewers and listeners and ultimately individuals should decide. But when this power gets centralized in Washington, D.C. increasingly and to one of the callers last point, it's not just on the left, although it's mostly on the left.

But when that power consolidates in Washington, D.C., then it's Washington, D.C. who decides and it's the listener who loses out. Let's go to Victoria in Florida on Line 1. Victoria, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Thank you so much, first of all, for all the work that you do. My question is, are any conservatives responding to these cable providers with regard to these ridiculous assertions? Well, I mean, this is kind of breaking. So we first wanted to get the news to you. And I think what we're doing at the ACLJ right now is we'll be formulating the best strategy to approach whether or not. And I'll tell you in the past that the ACLJ has been involved, worked with these big providers before in the past on various FCC-related issues. They've come to us for insight on constitutional issues, on the viewpoint of conservatives, and it's happened before. So I think we are right now behind the scenes, behind the broadcast, we're formulating the best approach, whether that's going to the FCC and those cable providers and saying how egregious this is and outlining why.

But I want to go right to Harry Hutchison for our director of policy. Because, Harry, this is that kind of moment where I would feel a lot better if I knew these companies weren't caving so quickly on this cancel culture. But they are caving quickly. And if they give, if they're giving like, I feel like what Congress is trying to do on the Democrat side is say, we're giving you the green light to cancel these contracts, even break the contracts if you want to, and we're going to give you the green light to do it and protection to do it.

Absolutely. So I think your intuition is absolutely correct. Corporations today increasingly have become nothing less than woke capitalists, and they're quite willing to engage in what might be called surveillance capitalism so long as it favors the political left.

And so I think if you look at a survey of Google or Apple employees, you will find roughly 90 to 95 percent of their political contributions go toward the Democrats. And that's why these two letters by these two Congress people are so scary. This is nothing less than an insidious and Orwellian effort by social justice warriors to impose draconian censorship and to abrogate the Constitution.

This move sets us up for nothing less than soft or hard totalitarianism as we move closer and closer to the Soviet era gulag. You know, Wes, there's a lot of stuff I don't like on TV, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who are watching our broadcasts right now. There's a lot of stuff they don't like. Maybe they see it on Facebook or they see it on YouTube, but we all use these channels differently and they're supposed to be open to all to some extent. There are some restrictions which are the ones that have been put in place about what you could do, what is, again, inappropriate for regular broadcast. But at the same time, it's up to us to make the choice, up to us to put the parental control. The parental controls are all there.

It's up to you to put them in place. No one's forcing anybody to watch the Newsmax or Fox News or cable news. In fact, if you look at the numbers, you look at the cable news race, yes, they compete with each other. When you look at actual television numbers, they're nowhere near. What about ABC, CBS, NBC?

There's no conservative competitor to any of those. And that's where the big numbers are. Oh, absolutely.

Yeah. Their, their letter, I found it very interesting as I read through it. And the thing I thought about right off was they can request this info.

The providers are really not required to produce it. Two leftist, elitist members of Congress on their own do not have subpoena power. They're making a statement. And as you indicated, and Harry did too, it's scary because of how so many large corporations are folding to this kind of bullying and threat. But the letter itself was bullying both in tone and in content.

And I found it interesting cause I make my living with words. They implied in this letter an authority they do not actually possess. They don't have that authority. And yet it also exhibits a woeful lack, not only of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech, but it's a woeful lack of knowledge or lack of caring about how the United States of America is different than, for example, the People's Republic of China, where they do control the media in this way. We are Americans.

This is not who we are. And yet this apparently is lost not only in these two Congress people from California, but it's lost on many, many people in our society. You look at all this going on with the cancel culture. This should be a warning and a red flag to all Americans of both parties who value freedom of speech and freedom of press. We already know that this committee is announcing more hearings with tech CEOs on misinformation, disinformation plaguing online platforms. That's on Thursday, March 25th, and that's Facebook, Google, and Twitter. So that's about social media.

But I mean, this is all kind of coming together. If we could shut you down on social media, if we could shut you down on cable, if we could shut down your voices, maybe bring back the fairness doctrine for radio. When Rush Limbaugh passed away, and in the articles, if you read, the reason Rush went from being a well-known local radio show host to a national host, why are there broadcasts like ours that are national and around the country, is because the fairness doctrine was ended. There would have been no Rush Limbaugh. There would be no secular radio broadcast, like the way you have it where it's in all these different states and cities, and they don't have to balance it with a show that's the opposing view on a Christian or conservative outlet that no one wants to listen to.

It's not to say that if there is a market there, there won't be the availability, but they've tried it. It hasn't really worked on radio. It's worked for MSNBC on cable news, but flip this around. I mean, this is not good for them either, because Congress is barely even in Democrat control, and they immediately jumped to try to censor us.

It's the worst. We come back. We're going to have action on this, but I want to make sure you all knew this was going on in the midst of all the different crises our country is facing, that this is what they try to do when you're not looking, when you're not paying attention. We'll be right back on Secular. 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. 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 frontlines 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. Some of your phone calls now, our whole team is here. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island online too. Hey, Jerry, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air.

Hello, team. You're all talking about one common thread, history, which is being taken out of our classrooms. Mr. O'Connell was talking about pre-1940.

Fann was talking about in 2008 to 2016, attacks. Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it on all. Does it look like we're on course to that? Well, I think, Jerry, that's why we're jumping on this so quickly. That's what, you know, people are causing.

What can we do about it? I wanted to get this right out to you when I saw it immediately, because I think that this is a play that when you're distracted by a pandemic, you've got these controversial nominees going through, which by the way, one of those nominees, that OMB nominee, that's been put on hold because of Senator Manchin saying I'm going to vote no. So the vote on her is delayed. But Javier Becerra, you know, that vote could come up on Friday.

So you've got a lot of those issues which are worthy of discussion. I mean, we've announced Secretary Pompeo joining the ACLJ this week on radio. We got into Javier Becerra yesterday on the broadcast.

We brought in Rick Grenell yesterday on the broadcast. But these kind of issues, what I saw, I said, we have got to cover this today because we've got to make, when we can jump on this early, it's not like the IRS situation where we had to find out about it secondhand. Now, the difference with the IRS situation is that who they targeted, who they went to to target were conservative groups who wanted to fight back. Here they're targeting these companies, which I think are susceptible to rolling over to their demands by just saying, oh, look, Congress doesn't want us to do this.

I don't want to get in trouble with Congress. So maybe we should renew their contracts, at least not renew them. Or maybe we should cancel them now.

So I think we've got to get active on this right now. But something did come up yesterday in the Becerra hearing. I want you to, because this is interesting, Senator Mitt Romney, who again has not been someone who has pushed these nominees real hard and has been, you know, it's kind of seen as an anti-Trump.

But remember, now we're getting into the Biden years, the Biden nominees. He still claims to be Republican and pro-life. And he is very put off by Javier Becerra as well for his views on partial birth abortion because he's a supporter of it.

Hard to even say that. So I want to kind of also get you up to speed on what happened yesterday, those hearings after we were on the air. Take a listen to the question and then the answer. The question comes from Mitt Romney, the answer by Javier Becerra, not even really answering it at all. There's a division in our country with regards to the issue of abortion, of course, as you know, and mainstream Republicans, mainstream Democrats disagree. But most people agree that partial birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.

Why? So Senator here, I understand that people have different, deeply held beliefs on this issue. And I respect that. I have worked, as I've mentioned, for decades, trying to protect the health of men and women, young and old.

And as Attorney General, my job has been to follow the law and make sure others are following the law. And I'm also sitting in front of a high risk OBGYN, who for several decades had the work of protecting the health of women and a future baby. And so I will tell you that when I come to these issues, I understand that we may not always agree on where to go. But I think we can find some common ground on these issues because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you're going to live a healthy life.

And I will tell you that I hope to be able to work with you and others to reach that common ground on so many different issues. Common ground on the quote future baby? Notice it's a new term for fetus. So fetus doesn't work anymore for them. So they'll call it a future baby. They're getting a little bit closer to acknowledging that actually it's a human life.

So they're saying it's a future baby, but he doesn't answer why he supports. He's talking about a high risk OBGYN. Remember, in those situations, the partial birth abortion bans, if there was a high risk pregnancy and the mother's life is at risk at all, and her life is at risk, the decision is then made by her and the doctor together. So those procedures wouldn't be banned.

It's why they exist at all in the first place. It's so that you can protect ultimately that the health and life of the mother if you get into a situation like that. It's why they even have the procedures. But what he was talking about, what Romney was talking about, is an elective partial birth abortion bans on just doing it late in your pregnancy because, ah, I'm seven months into my pregnancy and this could be a viable child if they were born right now, but I don't feel like having a baby anymore. So that's what he's talking about. He's not talking about the 1% situation where a woman's life's at risk, the mom, who's in the delivery room and they've got to make a quick decision. It's why that procedure exists. I would never wish that decision on anybody.

But see how he tries to twist the issue and call it a future baby? I did want to update you on that, but I do want to take your phone calls as well. Susan in Maryland online for you. You've been holding on. You're on the air. And thank you. Thank you so much.

I appreciate your time. I'm just wondering, are the GOP participating in getting rid of the conservative media media because none of them are deflecting and resisting this movement. And why isn't the GOP applying maximum pressure to McConnell for creating a one party system? Well, I think that, listen, I think that you've got the two Republican FCC commissioners have said this is a chilling transgression calls on the other two FCC colleagues who are the Democrat appointed to join me in denouncing this attempt to stifle political speech and independent news judgment. So the Republican members of the FCC fan are speaking. They're the only ones to speak out, but they have spoken out.

I don't, I think that this is just arising. It's two members of Congress. But again, I don't think that the most conservatives wanting what Fox News off the air, including the mainstream GOP. Yeah, I think the Republican commissioners on the FCC have been very swift and thorough in their response. I do agree with the caller that members of Congress need to be equally swift and equally forceful. And look, I think the pressure point here is on the Democrat commissioners of the FCC, because in the past, Jordan, when the tables have been turned, their comments have been correct that the government should not be involved in pulling licenses.

But Jordan, their silence on this one is deafening. So I definitely think those two commissioners need to come under additional pressure in Washington, D.C. And look, I don't think the day should expire without Republican senators, without Republican members echoing what the Republican commissioners of the FCC have said. You know, it's interesting. Janice, Washington State Online Three, you're on the air. Yes.

Thanks, everyone. What can the average person like myself do when we get our news, not through cable, but for example, I just go on my phone or I go on the Internet and I go to Newsmax's website. If I was, you know, being getting my news through a cable provider, I could call my provider and say, don't drop Newsmax.

But since I'm not getting it that way, what can the average person do? Well, here's what would happen, though, is the adverse effects on Newsmax would be huge. Because so you're saying, oh, I can rely on them because I can watch it live maybe through their app or through their Facebook page. And they've they've allowed you know, they're doing that through their growth period. And Fox News puts a lot of it live up on their Facebook pages in different places. But again, what if they're deplatformed completely from that?

That's the next step is to remove them completely. And we've seen it through parlor. We've seen it actually done where it is the companies, the carriers, like the Amazons listed here, the AT&T's, the Comcast and Xfinity's who say, you know what, political pressure from these Democrats, we don't really like them either. You know, we don't really like that viewpoint either.

Even if it's good business, maybe it's better business long term just to get rid of them. So I wouldn't just say because and by the way, if you're relying on streaming services, they were all got this letter too. They all got it too.

Streamers as well. We're gonna we're gonna get into this on our action item. But I had to break this for you today.

Because there's so much else going on. And I want to make sure you were aware of it on the broadcast. Check ACLJ.org and we'll have a lot more to say about this on tomorrow's broadcast. 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