ACLJ Files at SCOTUS to Combat “Cancel Culture”

Today on Sekulow, the ACLJ files at the Supreme Court to fight back against cancel culture, yes, at the U.S. Supreme Court. And our guest, Mike Pompeo. Our host, Jordan Sekulow. So, as you heard in the open, and we'll be joined again by our ACLJ Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo will be joining us live in the next segment of the broadcast, but we talked about cancel culture and this idea that cancel culture is now, and you heard it right in the open, at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And let me explain why. The current nominee to be HHS Secretary is, of course, the radical left Attorney General of the State of California, Xavier Becerra. In California, which also is similar to New York and Hawaii, it's the only three states that require nonprofit organizations. So, I'm not talking about political campaigns, but nonprofit organizations to disclose donors to the state. Now, that does not mean public disclosure. It's not supposed to mean public disclosure.

But when California began requiring this disclosure to the state, they had no confidentiality law in place. They actually used college students, part-time workers, so people on contract, to set up the filing system, and it was immediately, I don't even know if hacked is the right word, accessed, and people who donated to groups that were conservative started getting attacked, personally. So, what happens? You have the personal attack on individual donors and then the threat to the organization's survival itself. Yeah, so what you've got, this is again another example of the cancel culture.

Why do I say that? Well, if you can attack the donors of the organization, which we saw in the last Presidential cycle, there was a lot of that going on, you can then impact the organization. And that's precisely and exactly what the intent is, and that's why anonymous pamphleteering, as it used to be called, is as old as the Constitution itself.

Anonymous giving for the same reason. And while there's some exceptions when it comes to election laws, so that's what they're talking about, campaign committees, the idea that in a general nonprofit organization that you have to start disclosing the names of your donors, those people that right to associate with you is constitutionally protected, raises a serious, serious constitutional issue. Now, the Department of Justice in this case was previously on our side. We filed a brief, and in fact, I'm holding a copy of the brief right here for our television audience who's watching on Facebook or YouTube or ACLJ.org or Rumble, wherever you watch us, or TV.

They now have withdrawn that support. Now, I don't know if they filed another brief in opposition, but again, this gives ammunition to the cancel culture. It allows the cancel culture to reach the next level by saying, now we can target these individual donors. That's the idea of what's going on here, and we've got to fight back on this because it's not just protecting the donors, it's protecting the organization too. Yeah, exactly right.

I mean, this is, again, cancel culture. It's before the U.S. Supreme Court, so we filed briefing in this as well at the ACLJ because it is so important. What if a state is going to require these kind of disclosures? They're supposed to be private. They can't then have no system for confidentiality. They can't have systems that get hacked and do nothing about it. But understand, California didn't say, oh, we messed up. Sorry, we're going to create a better system. They are fighting back, and this is the nominee to be the HHS secretary.

It's the Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, who is fighting back. They're not saying, oh, sorry, we made a mistake by allowing people to access this data. They're saying, no, we don't have to have a confidentiality rule. We don't have to keep all this so private. We don't have to have this in secure servers like a tax return, even though that's what it's on. The disclosure is like a tax return, and that's not supposed to be public. So this idea that you are going to let donors be threatened to groups, I just want liberals out there to think about this.

Think about unpopular movements that started in California that became acceptable nationwide, whether you're talking about maybe a gay rights movement or now the trans movement. If those donors were all made public 20 and 30 years ago, they would have been harassed, unfortunately. There's people out there, bad actors, who don't want to just understand there's going to be speech they like and speech they don't like. We never would endorse the harassment of anybody for speech that they make and causes that they support. They have the right to do that. So I think it's a double-edged sword as well, and we need to protect donors and protect these organizations right to exist.

We're coming back live with Mike Pompeo. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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. And welcome back to Sekulow, the newest member of our team, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a major speech at CPAC and has been very outspoken about the future of conservatism, as he said, unleashed now that he is no longer the top diplomat for our country.

He is the senior counsel for ACLJ's global affairs. And Secretary Pompeo, it's great to have you on Sekulow. It's great to be with you. We're great to be with you today and great to be part of the team.

We're thrilled you're here. Let me read something from you that is now posted at our website at ACLJ.org. And it says, where liberals look to exert authority and censor our speech in all forms of communication, we must proudly champion free speech on all platforms. Where liberals seek to close down places of worship across America, we must resist such attempts to inhibit or prohibit free exercise of religion. In short, we must demonstrate a resolute commitment to our founding principles. Every day it seems the left is claiming another victim of cancer culture.

Yesterday it was Dr. Seuss. How dangerous is it that for our founding principles that are at stake here? And my question to you as you talk about founding principles, how dangerous is it to those very founding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association? Jay, this strikes at the very heart of who we are as Americans and our founding understanding of America and the central greatness of the United States depends upon having every voice be heard.

Jay, you and I aren't going to like some of the voices. We're going to disagree with them sharply. But at the end of the day, America must not allow this cancer culture to take place. We've watched the left for years claim that they were the ones for progressiveness and wide open spaces and free thought. It turns out now that they have power, they want to shut us down, they want to close us out, they want to cancel us.

It strikes at the very nature of our nation and it is a real threat. You know, I've argued many times at the Supreme Court on this issue and I've said, you know, the answer to speech you disagree with is not censorship. It's more speech. It's speech from the other side. And as you said, Mr. Secretary, there's going to be speech we don't like. There's going to be speech we disagree with.

But that's the price of freedom, living in a free society. Jordan? Well, you know, I think that one thing we wanted to talk about to you, too, was this idea that because you are no longer the secretary of state and you could let it rip at CPAC, the idea of how you see the conservative movement moving forward as a former congressman, former director of the CIA, former secretary of state, but also as a conservative leader, as one of those leaders moving forward while we're still, you know, fighting to take back the House, the Senate, and then ultimately the White House in 2024.

Jordan, I talked about this in my remarks at CPAC. It was a great audience. It was a great weekend for the conservative movement. It is alive. It is well. It's going to be successful.

The predictions of a death are grossly premature. It's built on the things we all know. It's built on religious freedom. It's built on the family. It's built on understanding that work matters and that we ought to create a nation where everybody who wants to work gets the opportunity to do that. They work in a job that they can be proud of.

It is noble and they can take care of their own families. The central understandings combined with a strong national defense built on a central understanding that we should always take care of America first. Those are the pillars of the conservative movement.

They have been for an awfully long time. And the people that showed up in Orlando this past weekend could see that, could feel that. They heard from leaders who are prepared to go move this cause forward. You know, we've heard last time you were on the broadcast was that we talked about this issue of trade and the issue with China. You addressed this at your CPAC speech as well.

And in your article that's posted, by the way, at ACLJ.org, it's entitled, Highlighting the victories we achieved for life and liberty and preparing to stand up to the challenges ahead. Part of that challenge is jobs and job creation, which under your administration was great. Under the Trump administration, which you served in such high ranking positions.

You said the hallmark in the article, you say the hallmark of our work here in America was that we were bold and fearless. And then you said, what I hear today, I hear Democrats pretend they care about jobs in America. But before the seats were warm in the Oval Office, they destroyed 10,000 jobs in a pipeline. And that was, of course, the Keystone Pipeline. So where does that leave us? And then the follow up question is going to be how do we get it back? So where does it leave us right now as you view it on the job situation and with China?

Jay, they go hand in hand. I am afraid that this administration is going to allow the Chinese Communist Party to do what it had done for an awfully long time. Was to come to the United States, steal our intellectual property. And along with it, millions and millions and millions of really good jobs paid really well all throughout the United States of America. It will leave us less prosperous.

It will mean our kids and grandkids don't have the lifestyles that we want them to have to be able to take care of their families. And I've watched, too, I've watched every single nominee from this administration talk about climate change. And we want safe drinking water. We want clean air just like anyone does and like indeed everyone does.

But you can't do that on the back of the American worker. You can't sign some crazy Paris climate accord that's going to benefit China and harm America and think for a moment you're doing the right thing for our country. So the Keystone Pipeline is just one simple example. The environmental stuff that this administration is going to shove down the throats of Americans over the coming years will be monstrous.

And more importantly, it will be really bad for ordinary working people all across the United States. And one of the other things, Mike, is that people we like to give hope. I mean, we we we point out the problems, but we like to point out solutions. So when you talk about jobs and job creation, governors can play a big role in that, too. And there are a lot of Republican governors.

So we can't just rely on Washington for job creation, especially right now. Governors across America, conservative governors across America start to see it. You saw what Governor Abbott did down in Texas this weekend.

He said, enough, we're going back to work. We're going to open this thing back up after that COVID-19 virus has now run its course. You will see governors, you will see people in county commissioners, you'll see small business people all across America continue to resist what this administration is doing. And we saw it for eight years under Barack Obama. I ran for Congress in 2010 because of exactly this. I was running a small operation in Kansas and I could see the devastation that the federal government was wreaking on small manufacturing companies like mine. We will prevail. We'll get people back to work. 2022 will turn out to be a very important year for the American people to speak about what matters most to them.

I want to get to domestic issues and domestic in the sense of immigration issues in a second. But we've now seen another strike. It looks like from in retaliation to the U.S. strike that you talked about that you hoped it wasn't just kind of like a strike into the desert. That retaliation for the strike on our U.S. troops that killed one of those contractors. Now another contractor has been killed by what appears to be a retaliatory strike.

Is there a tit for tat problem? You see Secretary Pompeo occurring now between the U.S. and Iran. And they like to say Iranian, you know, they're proxies, but we know it's directly run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This is almost certainly Iran. One of the things that we were very focused on was avoiding tit for tat, was going back and forth with some militiamen hanging out in the desert.

We wanted to pose real cost on the progenitor of the problem, the person creating the problem. That was the Iranian leadership. And so we made very clear that we weren't just going to come at these proxy forces, which imposed almost no cost on Iran.

If you do that, you just go back and forth. Americans, American contractors, American servicemen are at risk and imposes no cost on the Iranians. I hope this administration will figure out that if you take real action, the action we took to kill Qasem Soleimani as an example, the Iranians will respect that and it'll deter their continued activity. Secretary, I've got a follow up on the situation in Iran and I have the follow up because of my concern and it's a general concern that the Biden administration has said early on since the first day they were in office, maybe the first day they were in office, that they want to go back to the table on the JCPOA. And then about two weeks afterwards, they said, well, we do want to go back to the table, but let's be clear, they're not in compliance. We know they're not in compliance.

Now, I raised this issue and it's not abstract anymore. The Europeans have been in the JCPOA with the Iranians for a couple of like five years now. Everybody knows the Iranians are not in compliance, so they're violating the terms of the partners that they have in this agreement, that would be the Europeans. Why in the world do we think now that if we enter back in, they're going to do anything but continue to violate those very terms? There's literally no reason to believe they'll do anything but continue to violate the terms, Jay. It is crazy to think that you can go back into the JCPOA where it means a huge wealth transfer from the West, from the United States and Europe to Iran. It is the nuttiest idea that the administration has put forward so far in foreign policy.

I hope they can see that it's not the right answer. So far, their entreaties, when they reached out to the Iranians and said, we want to deal, the Iranians said, no, we're not going to deal. Give us more concessions, and they keep doing this. I suspect the Iranians will resist going back into the negotiation until they get the single thing that they want. Weakness begets weakness, Jay, and weakness demonstrated to the Iranians will beget a really bad deal for the American people and for our friends in Israel as well. And this is why our office in Jerusalem plays such a crucial role in the region because the Israelis are now, and because of the work of Secretary Pompeo and President Trump, the Israelis are now in very good relations with a lot of majority Muslim countries, especially in the Gulf region, but also in Jordan and in Egypt, Saudi Arabia even. And I will tell you this, the Iranian threat is a regional threat.

It's a global threat, but it's a regional threat. My view is that they're never going to get in compliance and that hopefully if we can keep pressure on and get the right hearings at the Senate, we can avoid that. With that, we appreciate it. Mr. Secretary, it's great to have you as part of the team.

Great to have you here. The article is up at ACLJ.org. It's entitled Highlighting the Victories We Achieved for Life and Liberty and Preparing to Stand Up to the Challenges Ahead.

And we'll be sending that out on all of our platforms. Again, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Senior Counsel for Global Affairs at the ACLJ. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for being here.

Thank you, George. All right, folks, one reason why we were able to put together this team at the ACLJ and to include former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is an ACLJ Senior Counsel. Senior Counsel to the ACLJ is because of your financial support of the American Center for Law and Justice. We have a matching challenge month right now where you can double the impact of your donation online at ACLJ.org. Donate today.

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, 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

Alright, welcome back to Secular. We are taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We can start getting into more of those now that we've been joined by Secretary Pompeo. And we are talking with him. We talked about in the first segment this cancel culture case at the U.S. Supreme Court. So we're going to get into that more in the second half hour now because it might be kind of surprising to hear how is that at the U.S. Supreme Court, but it's exactly what is at the U.S. Supreme Court, using the oldest of oldest tricks in the books to try and cancel out supporters of specific movements. Now we already know in our country, a disclosure if you donate more than $250 to a political candidate or a political campaign committee, that gets disclosed, ultimately. But that's one thing with FEC laws. But if you support the ACLJ or a C4 organization, it's not disclosed. And if the state, there are three states that require what's supposed to be disclosures to a certain amount of gifts, and it's only California, New York, and Hawaii, surprise, surprise, they require this. But it's not supposed to be public. So in California, they require this disclosure.

The bill to unsecure website, insecure website, and then people started getting harassed. And California is not saying they're going to do better. They're saying, well, we don't have to actually keep any of these donations private. So we're going to get to this in the second half hour of the broadcast to really get down into it because it involves Xavier Becerra, current California attorney general who's up for the nomination at HHS, which is right on the edge of the second nomination that could be defeated by the Biden nomination. The most radical left pro-abortion nominee that Joe Biden could have put forward.

Especially in that position. Yes. But we'll get into that in the second half hour.

Yes. But we were just talking with Secretary Pompeo. I want to update you because we went right to something that happened last night, it was reported. Another attack on a U.S. base, a U.S. civilian contractor is dead, suffered a cardiac event and likely related to the rockets that were fired onto this base right outside of Baghdad, northwest of Baghdad. Appears to be a Secretary Pompeo, certainly an Iranian linked group, you know, some kind of proxy group as they call it in the media because they don't want to ever directly link it to Iran. And what will the U.S. response be? And I talked with Secretary Pompeo that this tit-for-tat response is saying, you know what, you do this, we're going to respond so heavy, we're going to kill Soleimani. We're going to take out your top leader. We're not just going to fire bombs on your foot soldiers.

That's not what they're doing right now. No, we're in that dangerous tit-for-tat which gets you back into a long-scale conflict. Yeah, let me go to Colonel Wes Smith on this because I think this is something we've got to wrap our heads around. There's this talk, Wes, about, you know, the Biden administration initially said we want to get back into the table discussions with the Iranians on the JCPOA. This was the nuclear agreement, the so-called nuclear agreement. The fact is that, and the Europeans have acknowledged it, and the Biden administration has now acknowledged it, the Iranians are not in compliance with the agreement.

Now, we pulled out the United States, but there were a lot of European countries that are in it and they still were not in compliance. And then they do these missile launches. So what is the message they're trying to say and what should, not what are Biden responses, what should our responses be? Yeah, yeah, weakness actually invites more aggression. And the Biden policy thus far of trying to make nice and, you know, we're the good people, the guys with the white hats when it comes to Iran is backfiring. It's not only a flawed policy, Jay, it's a dangerous policy. And back to the JCPOA, this so-called Iran nuclear deal, it was weak to begin with. And even though it is weak to begin with, the Iranians are now violating that weak agreement.

So, you know, it's a little crazy and insane. They are testing Joe Biden. This is the second attack in a little over two weeks. And I thought it was interesting, this last attack, which was in Erbil, which is the northern part of Iraq where the Kurds are, that that's where the rocket attack came from to attack troops in that region of the country. What the Biden administration did was to fire rockets at a totally different militia across the border in Syria.

What are what Jordan is saying, just sort of a tit for tat. Let's fire a few missiles into the desert somewhere to show them we're serious. That does not show them that we are serious.

And again, that weakness invites further aggression. One other personal thing, Jay, and this is strictly personal because I spent 26 years in the army. My question is, why do we still have troops there? We invaded Iraq 18 years ago this month, March of 2003. My question is, why are my brothers and sisters in arms still there? And if they are there and being attacked, why are we not attacking vigorously?

Well, President Trump did a big drawdown, but they did not eliminate all of them. And you raised a real point. But there's another point in this, and this is the historical point. And the historical point is, and Benjamin Disraeli famously said that, and he was dealing with some of these countries and was dealing with the Russians. He said, let me tell you what they understand, power.

That's what they understand. There's no negotiating without power. Now, if you got power, you can negotiate. But Andy, the lack of power, or at least what we're projecting from this administration, the lack of power is very damaging because that region is notorious for taking advantage of that. We know that region, folks.

We've all spent a lot of time there. We've got an office in Jerusalem. Everybody in the studio today has done a lot of work in the Middle East and negotiated at very high levels. If you have any knowledge of history, if you have read any history book beginning before, on the history of the region in the Middle East, before the time of Christ, during the time of the Persians and the Greeks, during the time of the wars, you would know that there is only one way that the Middle Easterners understand negotiation.

And it is not sitting down at a table in some palace at Versailles working out a treaty and sitting down and negotiating like, you know, the Western civilization has led us to believe. It is the unquestioned exercise of force and power, tit-for-tat attacks, bombs in the desert. Then the Iranians turn around through their proxies and hit the air base northwest of Baghdad with ten rockets, causing an American death indirectly. And then we as Americans are going and saying to the Iranians, come back and talk to us again and let's sit down around the table like civilized Westerners.

That's the mentality that the Biden administration is using and try to sit and work this thing out is ridiculous. One thing we learned at Oxford, Jay, from a professor who is knowledgeable in the region was, there is only one way to deal with that Iranian, that mentality, that Middle Eastern, and that is kill them. If you have troops there, troops are trained to kill, you've got to exercise power in the most egregious and powerful way, not in this half measure of tit-for-tat, but be serious about your retaliatory capacity.

What they respect, you see, is not just us having power, it's the willingness to use that power. And they doubt this administration has the willingness to use it. I think they, I do think, Jordan, that's the biggest takeaway, is they doubt that the administration will use the power other than throwing a couple of missiles into the middle of a desert. Yeah, because they're not worried about, these guys don't care if their foot soldiers get killed, if a few civilians get killed, yeah, the Iranians. So that doesn't impact them, but they will respond with another response, with another small-scale rocket attack. What they do respond is, when you cut them off economically, cripple them economically, and cripple their nuclear program with viruses and you spy and you all that, and take out the head of their terror organization and moneymaker, the Revolutionary Guard, who has never been fully replaced in a significant way, Soleimani.

That's how you respond. It's not, these proportional, oh, well, we'll do this because they'll do this, and then, please, Iranians, come to the table to negotiate with us, and they're saying no because we're not going to do anything or change anything until you lift all sanctions. And what do you think eventually the Biden administration does here? What worries me is that they will lift all sanctions.

Because remember, this is the same guys who is now the national security advisor that was meeting with Ahmadinejad's government in 2012 for the nuclear deal. We'll be right back on Secular. That are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back. We're taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. So one issue we discussed earlier in the broadcast, and we discussed a little bit with Secretary Pompeo, this canceled culture that everyone's talking about, but it's actually at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's granted to hear a case out of California.

It's actually two different cases. What California did to nonprofit organizations, so we're not talking about political campaigns, to say you've got to disclose your donors to us. And when they built the system in California, by the way, only two other states require this. The IRS does not. The federal government does not require this of any kind of charitable organizations, C-3, C-4, et cetera. They don't require it at the federal level. New York, California, and Hawaii do. California has set up the system. They use kids to do it.

I'm kind of talking about college students. Contract workers. No security. No security. And, of course, the system, they call it hacked, and I think that's what technically you would say it was. Under the law, it was accessed not necessarily legally, but there was also no protections stopping anybody from getting to this website to find out this information.

You just had to go looking for it. Now, here, that was pointed out to California, and people started getting harassed because of the donations they made, surprise, surprise, in California to conservative groups. Did California say, oh, we messed up?

Yes, you have to disclose it to the state, but that's not supposed to be disclosed to the public. We messed up. We're going to build a better system.

No. They're fighting now in the Supreme Court to say, and they won at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we don't have to protect this information like a tax return would be, even though that's part of the tax return itself at the state level. So we have filed a major amicus brief that's for end of the court, and our briefs are read and our briefs have been quoted often by the Supreme Court in its opinions on this.

Let me read you two sections of what we're saying because I think it sets forth what we're talking about here. There's a standard in the law called exacting scrutiny, strict scrutiny, and we are saying that that is inadequate to protect against the chilling of First Amendment associational rights. You have the right under the First Amendment for freedom of association. That means you can collect together, including funding, as we do here at the ACLJ, and advocate positions. And you're not required to disclose it because it's even anonymous pamphleteering at the founding of our country.

They would use pseudonyms or they would just be anonymous, including the Federalist Papers, by the way, initially. So, I mean, you just have all of this in our history of nondisclosure because it would chill First Amendment rights, and then we said strict scrutiny review is necessary to forestall further chilling of First Amendment associational rights from the dramatic increase in retaliation against those with disfavored political views, and you could easily assert religious views. And, Andy, it is as old as our country's history.

It is, Jay, absolutely. The idea that you have to disclose the name of somebody who is a donor to a cause that in his heart or her heart, in their conscience they believe to be the case, is inviting them to become targets of attack. That's simply what it is. If I want to donate to a religious organization, if I want to donate to an ideological cause, if I want to donate to the ACLJ or any group like that, like we are, who espouses conservative causes, and I have to disclose my name as a donor, you're saying to me, put me on the chopping block. Look at me and attack me and target me, just as they did with the IRS when they were targeting the exact organizations, and this is absolutely ridiculous and horrible.

This would be individual targeting. Now, we don't have to do that at the ACLJ because the way we're structured, and also you'd have to hit this 2% requirement. But be that as it may, we filed in this because we know what this is going to do. This is going to stifle free speech and freedom of association.

And let me tell you what we need and how we need to respond to this. Our Supreme Court team, because at the American Center for Law and Justice we have a Supreme Court team, what does that mean? These are lawyers that primary focus of their practice is just the Supreme Court.

That's what they do. Your support of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org during this month of March, and our matching challenge campaign, allows us to have a Supreme Court team. It allows us to have a former Secretary of State as our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, a former Director of National Intelligence as our Senior Advisor on Foreign Policy and National Intelligence. Your support of the ACLJ makes it happen, and we're a matching challenge, which means any amount you donate, we get a matching gift where we encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. It's ACLJ.org. Stand with us as we fight for freedom. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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. Music Alright, welcome back to Secular. So all this, who does this all, it's kind of the linchpin in all of this, is Xavier Becerra, who just before we went on air was voted out of committee in a tie vote. So he didn't, you know, it was not like any Republicans, no Republicans on the committee supported his nomination.

But it now moves to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now this is the second Biden nominee. This one's gotten past the committee level after Tannen, who was polled.

New York Tannen's nomination got polled to be the Office of Management Budget Director. This is the second one that's facing serious opposition. We're publicly opposing Xavier Becerra at the American Surf Law. We beat him like four times at the Supreme Court.

Yes, but he's extremely radical. He's at the linchpin of this case involving disclosure. We're talking about cancel culture before the Supreme Court. Who are they suing? It's Xavier Becerra in the Attorney General of California. Who is terrible on the pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, trying to have them refer abortions and now he's going to be in charge of it.

Yeah, I mean take a listen. Jen Psaki gets asked specifically about the conscience rights of doctors and the rules. Now rules are key because rules are not laws. So that does not, rules can be changed by the executive leaders. So if he was to become the HHS secretary, understand rules are different than laws.

Take a listen. Will President Biden keep the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division at HHS, the office that was put in place under President Trump, will he keep it in place to receive conscience complaints from those doctors? You'll have to talk to a future Secretary Becerra once he is confirmed. That won't even be a question you can answer before he's confirmed.

Now this is another one. It's right on the line, confirmation. He's not going to keep it. He's not going to keep that office. He doesn't care about conscience protections. He doesn't care about the little sisters of the poor. He doesn't care about, you know, he sued the Trump administration over exempting the little sisters of the poor.

Right. This is what he did as a state, as a state leader, attorney general. Not only that, we're in the middle of a pandemic and he has no healthcare experience.

He hasn't worked at a pharmaceutical company, he's not a doctor, none at all. He's a radical leftist. And what we're seeing from the also other nominees at HHS who have proposed radical ideas we could get the entire shows about. So for his deputies, they are trying to make it, again, one of the most highly politicized government departments.

I mean, by putting in these radicals. So we've had 180,880 signatures to stop the nomination of Mr. Becerra. And I want to go right to Thanh Bennett, our Director of Governmental Affairs, and find out exactly where it is. Now, we know, Thanh, that it has cleared committee, right? So it's gotten out of the committee.

Where is it now in process? Well, first of all, on process, Jay, it cleared committee, but it cleared, as Jordan mentioned, by a tie vote. Fourteen Democrats voted to report him out of committee, all fourteen Republicans. By the way, including some very nominally pro-life Republicans voted to oppose him. And here's why, Jay, if you showed Javier Becerra's resume to just about any Democrat voter in the country, they would conclusively tell you that he is not qualified to lead the Department of Health and Human Services in a time of pandemic. He's got no medical experience. Why in the world would you pick that nominee?

But here's the answer, Jay. He was picked to be the Secretary of HHS for all of the reasons that you and Jordan are talking about, because he is sold out and dedicated to a radical view on abortion and life. So Democrats in Washington, D.C., are afraid to oppose him.

But here's where I would harken back to what Jordan talked about. The nomination of Neera Tanden to the Office of Management and Budget. She had to be withdrawn because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were not likely to support her, and she was not going to pick up a single Republican vote. Jay, we are on the cusp of that being the same situation for Javier Becerra.

His nomination, Jay, literally hangs by a single vote in the United States Senate. Harry, the policy—you're our director of policies—the policy that Becerra has put forward, whether it's compelling pro-life pregnancy centers, crisis pregnancy centers to put up the referrals for abortion, compelled speech, or compelling the disclosure of donors to private organizations, this is what we'd have to look forward to if he was the Secretary of HHS. You are absolutely correct. So it's very, very important to note that Becerra is really a social justice warrior. Such warriors believe that the nuclear family, for instance, is the font of human oppression. So ultimately, individuals like Becerra, members of the Black Lives Matter group, they are aiming their fire at the nuclear family. And one of the keys to sustaining the nuclear family is the birth of children. And so I think it is very, very clear beyond question that Becerra has aimed his fire at the pro-life movement.

That's number one. Then number two, Becerra has aimed his fire at any political organization that opposes the left. So the radicals have an agenda, and the agenda is grounded in one thing that Nietzsche pointed out. It's all about the pursuit of unlimited power, and the pursuit of unlimited power is incompatible with a constitutional democracy.

You know, I was going to ask this to Andy, but Jordan, I think you can respond to this too, but let me go to Andy quickly first. And that is, it's so anti-constitutional, the positions that Becerra has advocated. The disclosure of anonymous donations, which goes as old as our country. The idea that you would compel speech of a pro-life organization to refer to abortions. In other words, forced compulsion of speech with the Supreme Court time and time again.

And in these very cases, we had two of them at the Supreme Court, struck down. But this is the postures he's bringing to, as Than said, he'd be bringing to HHS. Now this is a person, first of all, and we have to say, as Than may have mentioned, take his resume and show it to anybody and ask, should he be the head of Health and Human Services? He's not a doctor, he's not a physician. We're in a time of serious crisis and pandemic.

People are out of work, people are waiting to get shots. And here's a person, you're going to make him head of the Health and Human Services Department of the United States government. That's number one. Secondly, he has opposed, for example, and lied about it, the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Little Sisters of the Poor and what they did in trying to oppose their activities. And when Senator Sasse tried to question him about that, and we have that soundbite, he gave just a bunch of bureaucratic double-talk. Look, this is the most dangerous nominee that President Biden has put forth in a position of extreme power in the federal government, head of an agency that is crucial. Yeah, I mean, here, this is what Andy was talking about with Bid Sasse, play for people, because it was just absurd that this was the state leading the charge against the Trump administration trying to fix the issues the Little Sisters of the Poor were dealing with for years on the Obamacare, trying to apply to nuns on requiring them to have abortifacients and contraception to a group of nuns.

Bite 30. Why do we know Xavier Becerra? Why is he being nominated for this? It's because he's waged culture wars. That is who he is.

That's what he's done. He is a nasty track record of targeting the First Amendment. And he, in the confirmation hearings last week, I tried to ask the guy five different times what the Little Sisters of the Poor did wrong. And I said, so your suits against the federal government were only targeting the Little Sisters of the Poor's religious exemption.

Why did you do this? And he literally answered the question five times with nothing but bureaucratic runaround stuff. And that's the same thing we're getting from Jen Psaki. You're not going to find out now what he thinks.

That's weird. I mean, there's an existing agency that was set up within the agency by the Trump administration. He's a Democrat nominee. It's fair game to ask him.

Are you going to keep that conscience center that was set up by the Trump administration or not? And she won't even say ask him. She won't say ask him.

She says you can ask him after he's confirmed. Let me tell you this. I'm holding in my head, this is just a sample of briefs that we have filed against Xavier Becerra at the Supreme Court of the United States. And there's a new one that I'm not holding up right now, which is, because I'm reading from it, and that's this one.

The Cancel Culture Brief. So this tells you what we're dealing with. But, Than, as we get ready to close this segment out. By the way, next segment we'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. But as we close this segment out, Whit, how do you think it plays out?

I mean, I know it's very close. Yeah, well, he's been reported out of committee on that tie vote. He's going to be voted on the floor of the Senate very soon, Jay.

I think probably middle of next week. That's why Jordan's preparing to send a letter to every Senate office opposing his nomination. And look, I mean, he might be a natural fit for some other job where a career politician is the qualifications you need. But he just doesn't have the public health experience. And I thought the sound that you played from the Senator was very telling here. Jay, this is why he was picked. Because they want him to be a culture war. Here's what I'm asking, Than.

I understand all that. But I think for our audience to know, it's going to be a really close vote in the United States Senate. How do you think it goes, or is it too early to tell? It's razor close, Jay. He's going to get somewhere between 48 and 52 votes to be confirmed. And he needs 50 plus a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President. Are there any Republicans likely to vote for him? You do have to pay attention to Murkowski and Collins. I do not think, Jay, that they are going to support his nomination. But we have not heard conclusively, so I do not want to write him off. And what about Sinema?

I'm not trying to cross-examine you here, but what about Sinema and Manchin? You've nailed the four, Jay. Those are the four we don't know.

I expect the other 96 will be 48 to 48. Those four votes, Jay, they'll determine whether or not he's the next secretary. Folks, this is a good reason Jordan's going to tell you how to do it to support the work of the ACLJ. You see every issue we've discussed, we're actually doing something about it.

Yeah, and you have to be bold. So we sue them, but you also have to say, like, when he comes out and say, No, we don't want him to get this job. And you put your name on it. You tell those senators, We, as a group, as an organization, are saying, Do not give him this job.

Don't allow him to have this position. And we immediately take that action at the ACLJ. You double the impact of your donation this month. We have a matching challenge at ACLJ.org. Donate today, double the impact, ACLJ.org. When we come back, we take your phone calls.

Call us now, 1-800-684-3110 to be on the broadcast. 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. If you want to be on the broadcast, you can call in right now at 1-800-684-3110. We do have a call from Italy. Gina calling in. There's going to be people listening because of Facebook, because of YouTube. All of you who are not just listening on terrestrial radio, which is most of our audience on Sirius XM, but the people you have through Facebook and YouTube, through ACLJ.org, you're able to reach the whole world. Gina, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Thank you. Thank you for taking my call.

I am a former Californian, American, living overseas here in Italy, Genoa, where conservative values are appreciated. My question is specific to the U.S. action against Syria and those missile strikes. I find it very strange. It's also on topic with the analysis you've given on Jen Psaki. She formerly had worked in a capacity at the Pentagon as an advisor. And so the American people were only told of these missile strikes 10 days following. I learned about it on French 24-7 English news here in Europe. I was very well aware of it. The question I have, do you think that the missile strikes on Syria was an actual Biden move to show he's tough on Russia, based on Russia's support of Syria?

No, because the response was so tepid. Actually, I think with the Israelis quote I used earlier, Gina, was involving Russia. And he said the only thing they will understand is force, and that is not force. I mean, that's not power.

These little, you know, markers in the sand, which is literally what they are. If you saw the video of what they shot at, I mean, it was ridiculous. However, having said that, look, this is the policy. We've got to combat the policy. We've got to be able to speak out against the policy. And we have to be very, very cautious. And this administration so far, I've been a little bit, feeling a little bit better, frankly, that they pulled back from this running into the JCPOA. Only because Iran did.

Yes. Only because Iran. And, well, they want to run back into wars. I mean, it's interesting that we've shifted in a country, completely shifted political parties, where it's Washington that runs the Democrat Party still.

The Republican Party has been taken over by the outsiders we talked about so much with Rick Renell. Those outsiders are not like, they're not anti if there's a military action that needs to be taken to take it. So take out a Suleimani, 100 Tomahawk missiles, that's what shows the Russians. That's power. That's force.

We actually told the Russians before they came, by the way, we're about to fire 100 Tomahawk missiles at you. So get your guys out of the way. That shows power. That's power and force. With the Chinese President sitting next to you. Right.

It was done with Xi sitting next to you at the table when Donald Trump did that. What doesn't show the force is, so remember, the Democrats are still controlled by Washington, which makes a lot of money off war. Those contractors, all of our aircraft companies, I mean, listen, they do great jobs with civilian work. I'm not trying to, but they make a lot of money when they need to build more missiles. And when they need to build more armor. And they need to build more ships. And it's not to say you don't want to rebuild your military, which we did. Right. But then you can also use all those assets and then you've got to do it again.

It's Washington versus the rest of us. And Harry, it's using the assets, I think, and I want your view of this. What is your view of the utilization of our assets when it comes to dealing with, for instance, Iran or Syria? Well, I think we should use our military assets sparingly, but forcefully. And what the Democrats are doing is precisely the opposite. They are focused on creating long-term conflict, which employs large numbers of Washington consultants, as Jordan correctly points out. And these moves are strongly supported by establishment individuals. And there's a bipartisan establishment, for instance, that includes Liz Cheney, who seems to push for global establishment supported wars that are endless.

That never end. So we are still in Afghanistan. We are still in Iraq. And so the question becomes, when will we stop shedding American blood in order to make profits for defense contractors and consultants? And Mike Pompeo said this in his speech at CPAC we were talking about earlier today.

Take a listen by three. We, too, spent a lot of time. We defended America in the Middle East and we defended Israel in the Middle East, too. We were told a number of things. This was what establishment foreign policy was. It says we were told that you can't sanction the Ayatollah in Iran and you can't stop sending pallets of gas to the leadership. There'll be a war. Well, we did and there wasn't a war.

And that's because a new approach with a new policy actually worked. And that's why you had the Golan Heights were recognized as part of Israel's sovereignty and you and I have been there. Jerusalem was recognized as the capital. Of course, we've been there.

And of course, it's the capital. That show and then the other countries because there was a common enemy with Iran engaged with Israel. Yes, it was the show of force, the show of determination, the show of persistence by President Trump and the previous administration that made these things come.

Look, you've got to read history, folks. You do not deal with people in the Middle East tepidly. You deal with them only through the use of power and force and show them that you're serious about what your policy is.

And you've got to do that by being positive with them. Tit for tat missile attacks and playing around like that does not do it. They have to be confronted with the power that the United States of America wields in our coalitions and so forth. And that is not what President Biden is doing, in my opinion.

It's a tit for tat, fearful attack. We don't want to upset them. We don't want the Iranians to get angry with us and walk away from the from the conference table on this nuclear enrichment program. Why not?

Who cares? They're not going to send them pallets of cash, as Secretary Pompeo said. And then if you don't do that, there's going to be a war. There's not going to be a war.

There wasn't a war. We've got to be positive in our approach and forceful. Let's go to Tom in California.

This is on the COVID relief bill, also very important, so I want to get this in. Hey, Tom, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Thank you so much for taking my call. I really appreciate you guys.

You guys are terrific, absolutely terrific. I have a question on COVID relief bill. Do you think it will pass?

Because even though that the $15 an hour minimum wage is very bad, there is an element in there that I know you know about. And that's this pension relief and rescue part of this bill. There's a million and a half pension, like myself, with pension plans, employer pension plans, and they're ready to go belly up. Well, let's go right, because we're running out of time here. I want to get you an answer. Go right to Pam Bennett on what is the latest on this. Yeah, Tom, we're going to know a lot of that answer both today and tomorrow. The Senate's going to move to vote on this bill. As you know, that $15 minimum wage was pulled out because it can't be included in budget reconciliation. There will be a vote, Jay, to reinsert that language, and if it's reinserted, I actually think there's a chance the bill could be in trouble. But, Tom, my best guess is that some of those extraneous measures are going to come out, and the Senate will approve a package with the pension reform, with the direct payment checks, and then they're going to have to send it back to the House. That's the price you pay for playing some of these political games.

We're going to have to wait and see, but by tomorrow, we'll know a lot more. Whatever, if the Senate does something that is more bipartisan, actually, because it has to be, you know, the U.S. Senate right now, it's not going to include the minimum wage increase. There are calls by people like Bernie Sanders to fire the parliamentarian, bring in Kamala Harris to overrule it, and just say, as President of the Senate, I can overrule them, and to throw out this. So, I mean, this could get, again, we're not getting relief to the American people. It's a serious problem. Our team has been on it, the good and the bad of these packages.

And it's way too much bad in there right now, and it's going to go back to the House again, even once it gets through this two days in the Senate, if it, in fact, passes, and what does it pass. We'll keep you updated. Support the work of the ACLJ, double the impact your donation, our matching challenge.

Begin in the month of March. Donate today, ACLJ.org. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Call a gift today online at ACLJ.org.