Too Little, Too Late: Rep. Omar Tries to “Clarify” Statement on US, Hamas, Israel, and Taliban

Today on Sekulow, is it too little too late as Ilhan Omar, the Congresswoman from Minnesota, tries to clarify a comment equating the United States and Israel militaries with the actions of the terrorist groups Hamas and the Taliban. We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow. 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We're going to be taking your calls on this, too, at 1-800-684-3110.

Rick Rinnell will be joining us to talk about it earlier in the week. Ilhan Omar, again, the Congresswoman from Minnesota who is known for making controversial statements, which would be one thing, again, if she was an activist leader but is an elected member of the United States Congress who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee. So, a role that is chosen by Democrat Party leadership. You know, you can get elected. That does not earn you a right to be on committees.

You can be taken off all committees, so you don't get to, you can put your preferences in. And I think time and time again, she has shown she's unfit to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives. And if she wasn't on the, if she was just one of the elected members of Congress, you know, one of 435 who didn't have that access to the classified information you received here on the Foreign Affairs Committee and the power that comes with being on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, you know, again, would not deserve as much attention. Because she might have a constituency that supports her views as radical as they may be, but she's not getting special access to help her criticize the United States.

But it's not just rhetoric at this point. When she put out the tweet and then with the video, and she's questioning the Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, about the International Criminal Court, which by the way, she never put her own tweet, so what she's saying is taken out of context wasn't in her tweet that she put along with the video. She said this, we must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We've seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the US, Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.

And then she says, I asked Secretary Blinken where people are supposed to go for justice. Again, you can take who said that, ignore the fact she's a Muslim, ignore the fact, any of her origins, that she's a woman, just read the words. The words are equating the United States military with the Taliban and Hamas, and the Israeli military with the Taliban and Hamas. And if you look also, even to be fair and honest, the US military versus the Israeli military, Israel is the size of a smaller state to a medium sized state in the United States.

Those are not even comparable, but to put them all, lump them together to say, well, and to try and get away with saying, I'm criticizing everyone. Of course, the dangers here is that she's not just making a politically damaging statement for Democrats. I will give them some credit for all uniting and leadership coming out and forcing basically her to clarify her remarks. But she used that, of course, as another political attack, and they don't remove it from the committee. And her group, that squad, whatever you want to call that, that far left caucus inside the Democrat party, they know. And if you actually read their press release, they know it's much more important that she's on that committee than just a member of Congress. So when they put out their press release condemning the House Democrat leadership, this is an infighting between the first thing mentioned is her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, not her membership in the Democrat caucus in the House of Representatives.

So they know they have an insider who gets inside information. And there is a goal here. It's like supporting the BDS movement. She's not just a kid on the street spouting off what you heard your college professor say. It's linked to an organized movement. She's also linking to the move, which, by the way, not all Democrats would necessarily oppose joining the International Criminal Court. They just know you can't get there with this kind of anti-Semitic, anti-American rhetoric.

We'll be right back. 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, 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. So this is something that's been happening since the beginning of the week and we wanted to see how this was developing because obviously the House of Representatives and the makeup right now, if you want to talk about this too, get in on the conversation at 1-800-684-3110. They have been down this road with her before. We're talking about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar back in the news again because of what she said. So again, most people, most of the time, it's not necessary to spend a lot of time on rhetoric, where they're coming from. But there are these realization moments when you realize, wait, they're not just members of the Democrat Party and you can say, okay, but they're an offshoot. They're this far left part of it and they're not really the mainstream.

But then you realize that the Democrat Party empowers them with these seats on powerful committees and time and time again comes out with condemnations of their statements and basically forced clarifications. And her clarification was, I just want basically the U.S. to be subject to ICC jurisdiction, which we've done a lot of work at the ICC. You don't want anyone to be subject to ICC jurisdiction, especially our U.S. military.

It is an institution that has not been able to get off the ground after decades of massive amounts of funding from the world. It has not been able, even in the countries that have signed on to the Rome Statute and have agreed to this jurisdiction, has not been successful. I think it was a much more, again, successful process if you want to look at international tribunals, that when you have cases of war crimes going back to World War II and beyond, it's better to set up temporary tribunals that are focused on that situation. The birth of the ICC came out of a lot of what was going on in Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslavia and these atrocities, and there was a special court set up to deal with those atrocities. And they said, why don't we do this for the whole world instead of taking the time to set it up to make sure you have the right people independently who can go in and hold people who actually should be being held accountable at the top.

And that was, it just has become a disaster ever since. But it's also a backdoor way to equate the United States military, again, as she did, with actions of the Taliban and Hamas and then trying to put Israel, lumping in Israel. And Israel is, by the way, is constantly under attack, constantly having to engage in conflict on a scale, again, with a population around 7 million.

This is very different than how our military operates as well. But I want to go to Thanh, but in Washington, because Thanh, the question on everyone's mind is how long does a Pelosi-type leadership and this House leadership, which was fairly quick to condemn this, but still obviously afraid of removing her from this committee assignment, which, by the way, Republicans have a long history of those who have made controversial statements, and it's not like an accident, it's not a one-off, it's kind of historically after a few statements, they basically, they take that action to correct themselves internally. And this is an opportunity, I think, for Democrats to show that they're not as far outside the mainstream of the country.

But do you think that they will actually take that step? Well, first of all, you're correct, Jordan. There is a long history on the Republican side of it. Some of them are recent examples and some of them date back many Congresses ago. By the way, both committee assignments and places of prominence inside the caucus, so I think there's definitely a double standard here.

Look, that's where I think I would start with this. If this were the first offense, so to speak, from Congresswoman Omar, I would tell you that probably there's going to be quite a bit of leeway, quite a bit of patience. But Jordan, this has become standard operating procedure for her.

I mean, look, at this point, I think it's safe to say that she is failing the most basic test that every member of Congress should have. And that should be that America should be the top priority. Clearly, America is not the top priority. And Jordan, I think the most important policy point is probably the one you just made. Even if she had been more articulate in these comments, clearly she thinks the U.S. should be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

That in and of itself is problematic enough. But here's what I would tell you, Jordan, just from kind of the inside baseball with Congress. Yes, it's true. Voters send members of Congress to Washington, D.C., and when you have a Congress that is this closely divided, neither party is likely to expel a member of Congress altogether. But Jordan, they haven't even taken the first step, the step that is readily available to them. This statement that you read from Democrat leadership, yeah, I mean, it's good, I guess, Jordan, but it rings very hollow to me when they are the ones with the mechanism in their hand, the lever in their hand to actually make her pay a price for this. They could take her off that seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee immediately. And Jordan, they could do one of two things. I mean, I think probably most appropriate, they could put her on no committees.

But you know what? At a bare minimum, she should be on committees that don't have jurisdiction, don't have oversight over this very issue. So if Nancy Pelosi is serious that she shouldn't be drawing these moral equivalencies, don't put her on the committee that provides oversight over that issue.

I mean, as you go back to 2019, the tweet, which we spent time on this broadcast, all about the Benjamins tweet, I mean, using just known anti-Semitism to fuel this, the Israel and dual loyalties she brought up this idea. And she was quickly condemned, but retains that seat. And then I go to that statement from the Progressive Caucus, which is part of the squad world. And the first thing they put out in her defense is, her voice is critical and necessary, both in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Democratic Caucus. Like you said, it's not so much the House Democratic Caucus, you look at raw politics of that, and that's one thing. And again, voters get to decide, they ran in this political party, okay.

But when you elect that official, they know too, this is the target, the House Foreign Affairs Committee seat. And they will try to make this their issue of race, religion, gender, she's already done that, her supporters have already done that. And I just say, read the words, doesn't matter whose gender that is, whose religion that is, it's anti-American, on top of her anti-Semitism in the past. And this idea again, she talks about, well, what about my freedom of speech? No one's saying she can't say this, but there are consequences for what you say.

And do in a country that has freedom of speech, and you can take actions because of what people say. It doesn't mean, again, she's not losing her seat in Congress, that's up to the voters. But it just seems to me, if they're worried about these kind of individuals, because you've got AOC coming to their defense and big fundraising, grassroots ability, and worry about primaries and situations like that, these responses, again, she's not really apologizing in these statements.

And this back and forth that she had with Anthony Blinken, she's cutting him off, it's very long, and we'll play some of it for people so they know, but she decided to put that tweet along with the video. She decided to use those words and to put it in that order, and specifically in the order of having the US, and then she puts in Hamas, then puts back Israel, then puts back Afghanistan, and then the Taliban separately, and then of course tying it to the ICC. But to me, that level of more sophistication in the long-term game, the long-term strategy, is moving the party, a Democrat party which has been more open to the idea of the International Criminal Court, her rhetoric pushing that back, which might be another reason that they jump on it so quickly. But if Nancy Pelosi today were to say, you know what, enough with this, we're not going to no longer empower her to have the ability to question secretaries of state from either party. She's not going to go, because she's abused that right to spread anti-Semitism, to spread racism, to spread violence and support for terrorist groups, that would be something to commend. And I think you're right then, it was like when they had to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism in the United States in 2019 because of her statement on All About the Benjamins.

The list goes on and on and on, but yet they continue to make these strategic statements. This was not an accidental statement, it was not just her words from a question, she put out the tweet that way. Here's the truth, Jordan, if this was a member of the Republican Party, or quite frankly, if this was a member, almost any other member of the Democrat Party, he or she would already be off the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman Omar Jordan, she is benefiting actually from a whole lot more leeway than another member of Congress would get, and it's because Speaker Pelosi and the other leadership want to have it both ways.

They don't want to alienate the so-called progressives, which I can't imagine, or I can't even believe we're talking about anti-Semitism and anti-American views being progressive, but I think that's just the reality of where we're at. If it were another member of Congress, they would have already lost the seat on the committee. And Jordan, you mentioned AOC's response, I just want to read a couple lines from her. She said, I'm pretty sick and tired of the constant vilification, intentional mischaracterization, and public targeting of Ilhan Omar coming from our caucus. They have no concept for the danger they put her in by skipping private conversations and leaping to fueling targeted news cycles around her. Jordan, they're putting Congressman Omar in danger? How about the danger that a U.S. service member is in by being subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC? How about the danger that a U.S. service member is in by telling the rest of the world that the United States is equivalent to the Taliban?

That is the danger that AOC and Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat caucus should be worried about, not so much the danger that Ilhan Omar is in over what, the words that she intentionally put out into the world. Yeah, I mean, this is the idea, again, we've been actively involved in this at the ICC. The U.S. doesn't go, we went and represented the U.S. position, and that's the case she's referencing.

The case she's referencing is a case that we worked on at the ICC that we've shown you before, as they were, this was right before COVID and right before the first impeachment trial. So, again, we're going to take your phone calls. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us next segment, again, to talk about this and Biden overseas. 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 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. We're back on secular record now our senior counsel joining us as well as your counsel for foreign affairs, national security. And Rick, I want to say we kind of let this develop, see how the Democrats were going to take action as well. But I want to start off with this line of questioning because this idea from Ilhan Omar, it's not just rhetoric. She tied it to a much longer game plan, which is the International Criminal Court. And I think to just take her words as extremist rhetoric, which it is and should be condemned, but then forget what the longer term play, which is not so necessarily out of line with some in the Democratic Party and many on the left, which is ultimately to have the US join the ICC. So we see the condemnation coming out from the entire House Democrat leadership, but she still sits, Rick, on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. No Republican would ever be still sitting on that committee making any statements that would be considered racist, sexist, homophobic.

The list goes on and on. And the Republican Party takes quick action not to take away from the voters. They get to choose who they want to send to Congress.

But that vote does not include getting to pick what committees they sit on. Yeah, and let's remember this is not her first time, right? She's had multiple chances now of really messing up here. We keep tripping over ourselves in the national media to give her yet another chance or another explanation. Remember in talking about 9-11, she said some people did something really minimizing 9-11. She's compared the United States to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban now. It's a growing problem in the way she views America. She clearly doesn't like America being a leader. She wants us to be one of many. And so, therefore, she jumps at the chance to highlight any problem as being a systematic problem. And that's where I really have the hardest time with her world view is that she doesn't think that America is exceptional. She doesn't think that we are the greatest. And look, it's fine for her to critique American policy, Israeli policy.

We are all for it. This is a free country and she gets to do that. But I think that it's really dangerous and that she should be called out consistently when she's trying to blame America first for the world's problems. She's lost her perspective. Yeah, I mean, I read the statement and part of the reason I've been reading the statement more than even playing the long-winded audio is that she put along with this statement and then her clarification is to take out. Because what she immediately went to is, it's because I'm a Muslim, it's because I'm a woman, this list is going on and on. And it's not. It's because of the words.

It could be uttered by anyone. But I think more so possibly that her life experience would inform her that these groups are not necessarily ones that you want to be living under control of or society. Certainly her parents made that decision.

That's why America exists is for actual people who need refuge to be able to seek that refuge. Their family did that. But the idea, she's sitting on those committees, she's getting briefings that other members of Congress aren't on our foreign policy and it's tied to a bigger policy fight. Usually, if they don't move to actually say, okay, you know, we're not going to let you be on this committee. And that's the strongest kind of action they can really take. They're empowering the rest of that group, but also this is kind of like the forest of far left thinking, Rick, from the edge of the academic world. And it's starting to play out now in reality in Congress. Well, let's talk about a little bit of the good news. She's been able to unite Republicans and Democrats, sadly, against her. And now we have Democrats condemning her actions.

It's taken way too long, let's be very honest about that. But it's also good news is that they're feeling empowered. They're feeling like they have to condemn her. They're, you know, obviously walking on thin ice and they're very careful in how they're condemning her. But make no mistake, Jordan, this is a very big deal when the leadership of the Democratic Party is calling out her words. And she, of course, did what every progressive does.

And I was glad to see that Nancy Pelosi and the leadership got a little taste of what they usually throw around. Immediately she says, oh, you're sexist or you're Islamophobic. And as you point out, it has nothing to do with her gender or her religion. It has everything to do with her equating morally the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah with the United States of America. Which really honestly angers me because somebody in her position should know. Maybe we've got to put it into a better perspective for her. Let's see what the Palestinian position is on climate change and gay rights and just, you know, those two progressive issues.

Let's let's match Palestinian authority with Israel or America. She will see a dramatic difference. And so I think that this is the beginning of a problem for her in Congress. The leadership has called her out. She's probably not going to have much power for a little while, at least. Yeah. I mean, I think that would be a good thing.

And it'd be a good thing for the country looking past the partisan politics, especially on these kind of committees that wield this influence. I want to go to, Rick, that you received President Biden's first foreign trip. We're not getting the press conferences. We're not getting a lot of questions back and forth. So, again, there's some speeches, a bit of criticism, you know, the Joint Chiefs saying that climate change is the number one issue. But past that and the fact that they won't let us do the questions, there was already talk just in the UK alone of the fact there's been no the ambassadors.

All these that they're just sitting empty. As a former ambassador to Germany, you know, he's making this first foreign trip. He wants to, you know, re-engage the world. They talk about these big issues as if we weren't engaged in the world. But they're not putting the ambassadors forward. Again, do you see any explanation for why? I mean, this doesn't seem to be in line with them.

Usually, you know, the more you can add on, the better and move it through Congress. But they're not even, I think in the UK, they weren't even floating names yet. Look, President Biden is visiting multiple countries and every place he's going, Switzerland, the UK, NATO, Belgium, we don't have an American representative. We don't even have an American nominated.

There's not even names out there. And now we've got the announcement that Chancellor Merkel is coming to the United States. Again, he's met with the South Korean President. We don't have a South Korean ambassador.

Germany coming. We don't have a German ambassador. We don't have a Japanese ambassador. And he's met with the Japanese.

Look, this is a real problem. In the Trump administration, we had David Friedman announced, confirmed, and in Jerusalem by May 15th. So for all of the criticism that the media in D.C. made of the Trump diplomacy team, the Trump team is doing way better than Joe Biden.

And yet Joe Biden is getting away with saying diplomacy is back, is what Secretary Blinken is saying. This is a very big problem. And of course, there's a double standard in Washington when focusing on it.

Yeah. Well, Rick, as always, thank you for your insight, because these are issues again, too, and that's why we take the time to get into them on the show, see how things develop and then have the discussion and give you the analysis. Because to look at, OK, these you could just say, well, why won't they have these ambassadors? But the problems that actually causes and the issues that actually causes we see play out in real time and these kind of mess of these foreign trips. You had the vice President's trip, total disaster. And then the President, you hope as American that these these are going to be successful, that they're going to be that they could project a good image of the United States at least abroad. Then we can have our domestic fights here. I mean, but that is not happening right now.

We're not seeing that. We take your calls and comments on and we come back at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. 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 Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. The country facing major issues, both domestically, again, just getting reopened, economic focus, getting America back on track, the inflation issues that are obvious so you could see whether it's at the cost of any basic kind of essential items. So that's happening domestically. Our southern border, the highest numbers in 20 years of people being encountered by our federal services on the border. And we're not even exactly sure how that gets defined with the reimplementation of policies like catch and release and the ending of policies like Remain in Mexico. I mean, that is just the people that they are able to stop for some period of time.

And what happens next is kind of up in the air. The second is this issue with them when you have Congresswoman Omar, and again, elected by her constituents. No one is taking that away from her. No one is taking away her right to freedom of speech. We also, and including her members of our own party, but every American also has a freedom of speech to call out what she says. And when you are a public official, you're going to draw more attention to that always.

I wanted to spend that first half hour and really focus in on the words. Because the way she delivers it is, again, exactly the trap she's trying to create. Which is you're doing this because I'm a woman and I'm a Muslim and I'm an immigrant and I'm part of this far left caucus that stopped beating up on Muslim women in the United States. Now, listen, if you compare the US military to the Taliban or Afghanistan, listen, people would be talking about this if she compared the Israeli military to the Taliban and Afghanistan. But she decided to include the United States of America. This is all of our homes, including her home. She is elected to represent her constituents. She can do that. That does not give her the right, though, to just sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. That's a choice Democrat leadership makes.

It's not a choice. We have an interesting call coming in. Cedric's been holding on.

So I want to take this and then go to Than. Cedric, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Hi, Jordan.

I'm calling today. I was actually going to ask a question about Ilhan Omar, but after hearing your segment with Rick Renell, I watched something where Biden was meeting with the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. And he had made a comment about how he talked to Boris Johnson as President like a year ago when Trump was in office. And we know that Biden has some sort of cognitive illness going on. Saying that to a U.S. or saying that to the prime minister of the UK and Boris Johnson is kind of younger and he's obviously aware and he's hearing what's going on. And then hearing Biden say that. And then you're also talking about how there's no U.S. ambassadors and Biden's meeting with all these people around the world.

That's very scary and dangerous. What do you have to say to that? I think take out cognitive.

Let's say he's the most cognitive person in the world. If you don't have those levels of people that you choose to represent the country, then also your ideas. I think that's how you get to the mess of the Kamala Harris trip. Again, it's layers of failure that start with staff, start with people briefing you. And with President Biden, we didn't see the traditional press conference yet. I say yet, maybe we will see again him open to the international media, but we haven't seen it yet. He's been hiding around the fact that the UK is the lead on the G7 right now. But this is again, he's not going to be called out by those leaders. They're going to get the U.S. too important. I think it's this. You've got an administration which is facing uphill battles on their major legislative initiatives.

And then they went abroad. And when you go abroad and your legislative agendas are failing, and then you've got the issues like an Ilhan Omar issue arises, you know, and there's condemnation coming from Nancy Pelosi, but is there going to be action? What will that cause or the protest movement here and there? I think that there's just a significant problem with the U.S. leadership abroad. Are we just willing to be to be part of the group instead of leading the group, taking the lead?

Well, you know, this issue is, you know, why is she in Congress elected by her constituents? No one's trying to take that away. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. This is what the defense is for Ilhan Omar. And it comes from a fellow Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, who wrote, freedom of speech doesn't exist for Muslim women in Congress. The benefit of the doubt doesn't exist for Muslim women in Congress. Now, this is not someone else's taking the words. This response and condemnation is because of what Ilhan Omar decided to put out on her own.

She decided to put the tweet out and then link the video. And the video goes further into detail about how she would like the U.S. to be treated like the Taliban at the international level. And our military be subject to the same treatment as the Taliban or Hamas or Afghan security forces. And throws in Israel as well.

They need to be thrown because where do people go to seek, you know, these, again, injustices are done. And of course, we have a huge military justice system with its own rules and its own laws, its own experts. And it is subject to different than just the normal constitutional rights we see in our court systems here in the United States. And the court martial process, the fact is that we do hold, when there's wrongdoing in the U.S. military, there are people held accountable. You can talk about it.

You can ask questions about it. It doesn't make you unpatriotic to ask questions about the system. It does, though, draw your patriotism into question and your fitness to serve on a specific committee in the House of Representatives. When you morally equate and then try to get out of that moral equation, but this is not the first time.

As Rick said, as everybody's been pointing out, this is the fourth and fifth time of this moral equivalency of the United States and our foreign policy with the actions of known Islamic terror groups. Which terrorize their own citizens, which don't respect any human rights, which would not, in most cases, would not allow her to seek office at all or have a vote on who gets to hold office or represent people. There is no freedom of speech. There is no freedom to organize. None of those freedoms exist.

It doesn't mean everything's perfect everywhere. And again, the danger then is that it becomes almost difficult to have the real tough discussions because when you have people making these broad statements, then it actually silences real discussions about our policy, Israeli policy, how to handle Afghanistan, what to do, the situation with Hamas. Because you are scaring away people from the discussion of also legitimate concerns, legitimate questions. But to me, if the House Democrats, if Nancy Pelosi won't take the action, she has the power to do it, she's got the support within her caucus likely to do it. To say, you know what, we're going to take the action we can. Enough is enough.

Then you can't run an ad with Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar. But I think words are no longer enough at this point. These words should have consequences then.

Yeah, let me take those one at a time, Jordan. First of all, the claim that she doesn't have First Amendment rights is pretty ironic given the fact that we're talking about her very words right now. So clearly she was able to speak freely. Clearly she's been able to speak freely dating back to 2019 when she started making statements like this. The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism. In fact, the whole idea is that there would be a robust public debate. And if you speak something that is out of step with the majority of the American people, you're going to be called on it. That's what's happening right now. But to your second point, Jordan, and this goes to the conversation that you had with Rick, I 100 percent agree with Rick that it's a good thing that Democrat leadership has put this statement out. They're trying to distance herself from these remarks. That is a good thing because that is not where you want any party inside the United States to be.

Here's the problem I have with it, Jordan. I know from firsthand experience how these committee selections are made. And leadership of both parties goes into a closed room and they decide what party message they want to put forward on each of the issues that each of the committee handles. And so if they are going to continue placing Congresswoman Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, they are intentionally and proactively saying her views on these issues are part of the message that we want to put forward on that.

Jordan, if that were not the case, it would be very simple. They would say, look, we don't necessarily agree with her on foreign affairs issues, but we really agree with her on, say, you know, judiciary issues. We'll put her on that committee so that we can amplify the part of her message that we agree with. Jordan, if they don't take that step, I honestly don't care what these words say. Even if these words are really good, they are still proactively saying we want her views on foreign affairs to be a part of our party message.

And Jordan, they should have to own that. Listen, there's Republican members of Congress who have made controversial remarks, some just even before they were in Congress, others when they were, and the Republican Party took action. You can't, again, it's not to throw them necessarily out or, and Stan talked about just raw politics, the numbers of that, but also the idea of if you take away this platform for her, she could still, she still has freedom of speech. You can still put this out, but she doesn't have the ability to go take, to try and constantly embarrass U.S. officials, whether it is Republican or Democrat, whether, you know, whether it's a former secretary of state Mike Papayo taking the question or secretary of state Tony Blinken. This, this idea is she has a broad, big picture anti-American agenda and just to try and loop us into actions by a newly formed military in Afghanistan or a long-term organization that has a long history of human rights abuses like the Taliban or Hamas, which again puts its own people constantly in danger. But I want you to hear the words. So let's start play, let's play some of it because again, I didn't want to focus there. That's what she wants you to do.

She wants you to focus on her and who she is saying it. To me, it doesn't matter that she's a Muslim saying this because, because I don't think most American Muslims would make this statement nor believe this statement. Many American Muslims came here because of the regimes seeking refuge. And that's great. There's a lot, almost all of us can trace back our histories to at some point, our families seeking refuge from a political problem, a government problem, a state failure or lead a government, you know, failure.

And, and we see it time and time again, this is the American experience, but here, let's start, let's get getting, let's play bite two. I know you oppose the court's investigation in both Palestine and in Afghanistan. I haven't seen any evidence in either cases that domestic courts can, both can and will prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I would emphasize that in Israel and Palestine, this includes crimes committed by both Israeli security forces and Hamas. In Afghanistan, it includes crimes committed by the Afghan national government and the Taliban. So in both of these cases, if domestic courts can't or won't pursue justice and we oppose the ICC, where do we think the victims of these supposed crimes can go for justice?

So, okay. When you talk about war crimes and crimes against humanity, again, the US has been as a leader of, of prosecuting those crimes, holding people accountable, supporting those institutions that do. What we don't support is kangaroo courts, which is what the ICC has become. Like I told you throughout their history, when they, when they did these tribunals, they were a lot more since they focused in. But to have a court running around the world, deciding that they're going to pick up this, this mid ranking military official and, and accuse them of the crime.

And I've seen it, uh, you know, then in that court system of the ICC, I've seen them when they're going after, um, uh, groups, uh, that operate in remote parts of Africa and they will bring in a 20 year old that somehow got picked up traveling in Europe or somewhere like that. And they're trying to hold them accountable for the leadership decisions of some massive, much bigger group. And then that, that that's somehow going to end the problem. It doesn't. Uh, so it's not kind of like a post problem court.

They're trying, you know, it just doesn't work. Uh, but second, second is that she is saying that the US is committing crimes against humanity and systematically throughout, uh, the world. That is a huge claim to make. Well, first of all, I would put the United States record of holding our own accountable when atrocities are committed, by the way, Jordan, I think they're dramatic.

They're so few and far between, but when they happen, we hold ours to account more better than any country in the world. And I would challenge Congressman Omar, uh, to dispute that fact. But you're, you're right on the second point, Jordan.

I actually think this might be the more important one. How in the world are we going to ask our young men and women in uniform to go into some of the most dangerous situations in the world? And then after the facts say, you know what? We're not going to take a look at what you did and judge them according to what happened. We're going to send you to an international tribunal and we're going to trust them to adjudicate the actions that you took when we actually to go into that situation. Jordan, the United States of America better not do that. And I'm confident we won't, but that's what she's asking us to do. We'll come back. We'll take your calls, your comments.

1-800-684-3110. Do you believe that Democrat leadership may be at the point to say, you know what? No more house foreign affairs committee assignment for you. No more questioning of secretaries of state for you because of your rhetoric, not because of who you are. 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. 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. Welcome back to Sekulow. You know, Bonnie on Facebook wrote in, why is anti-Semitism so tolerated by the left in Congress? I think that they are dealing with the reality of this political left-leaning ideology that's been indoctrinating American students for decades. Many of which ignored it in school.

It didn't have such a huge impact. But there are those now making their way to Congress who are taking that ideology. It's not empty. It's linked to policies that they support. And they are trying to gain wider support for these ideas.

Now oftentimes, they are making statements, and in Ilhan Omar's case, it's time and time and time again, that are anti-Semitic, that are now anti-American. I mean, you could go on. And she doesn't have a record. It's something you can go to and say, well, she really loves America, other than saying this. There's not a long record there.

It just seems very critical, always angry, always negative. And this is a country that provided her family, like so many of our families, refuge when they needed it. I don't criticize that either. I don't have to criticize family's decision to leave the failed state of Somalia. We know the situation there. Everybody's seen that.

There have been movies made about this. One of these first failed states gave safe harbor to terrorism, pirates, the list goes on. Still a very dangerous place, if not one of the most dangerous places to be in the entire world because of, again, Islamic radicalism.

So, I still, though, I take a lot of that away because this is a bigger picture. It's the ICC. It's putting U.S. service members under the jurisdiction of an international court. We were there right before the first impeachment trial.

And this is my dad. This is the counter to what Ilhan Omar, you heard the bite in the last segment, is trying to get to, which is that we should be treating our military, we should agree to let the world treat our military like you would treat a terrorist movement like Hamas and the aggressors who are put, Israel is responding in a defensive manner to the aggression. But take a listen to this. It's, again, this was 2019 at the International Criminal Court, and this is the response back. And it actually goes to what bipartisan legislation exists in the U.S. as well. The European Center for Law and Justice. You have 10 minutes.

Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honors, and may it please the chamber. As early as 2002, the United States Congress passed explicit legislation with wide bipartisan support, the American Service Members Protection Act, codifying into law that it will not participate. Under Section 7423B of the act, I will quote, no United States court and no agency or entity of state or local government, including any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in response to requests for cooperation submitted by the International Criminal Court pursuant to the Rome statute.

There is no room to speculate that this will suddenly change. This court's jurisdiction is based on the delegation of authority by state parties. However, there is no customary norm whereby states can delegate their criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals to a third party.

In fact, the customary norm is just the opposite. A state cannot delegate that jurisdiction to another state without the consent of the accused states of nationality. A state also cannot delegate its criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals to a tribunal whose jurisdiction has been rejected by the accused person's state of nationality. It is not in the interest of justice to ignore customary international norms. It is not in the interest of justice to override explicit agreements between sovereign states. And it is not in the interest of justice to waste the court's resources while ignoring the reality of principled non-cooperation.

So there it is. That is, in a nutshell, the non-partisan, clear-headed, just straight-line legal response to the Ilhan Omar questioning of Anthony Blinken, who again, I will give the credit, who said that does not support the joining of the IC. I think that's great, but we do know there are those within the Democrat Party who, honestly, she's doing more damage than harm to their policy ideas long-term. But this again, Thanh, this is an issue we've been fighting before Ilhan Omar, after Ilhan Omar, regardless of these statements that are being made, because the bigger picture issue is the US ultimately one day surrendering jurisdiction to the world. And that is what we have fought against so aggressively, even when our own country, because if you don't agree with the jurisdiction, you don't go as a country, but we wanted to make sure that position was made loud and clear to that international body.

I mean, it's not for nothing to get up in front of the international body that's invited you to participate and say, by the way, you're violating your own rules, norms, international law, etc., by trying to even consider the idea of going after US troops. But this has been a long-term battle for us, Thanh. It sure has, Jordan.

I was listening to that sound from your dad, and I have to admit I shivered just a little bit when he talked about the American Servicemembers Protection Act passing in 2002. Because, Jordan, I wonder what the vote would be like in the United States Congress right now if that vote were taken, but I'm confident that it would pass again. I think the statement from the Democrat leadership shows you that.

But look, there would be quite a number of dissenting votes, I think dramatically more than there were in 2002. This is an effort that we engaged back then because we saw this trend starting, and we took it all the way to the ICC. Jordan, I did want to make one comment as well on the comment you read from, I think it was Bonnie, who was asking why anti-Semitism is being tolerated in Congress. And I think the answer is definitely political expediency, which is disgusting. But look, I think we've got to be very clear about it now. This is not just tolerating these views, this is promoting it.

This is amplifying it. This is pulling it out of your ranks and putting it front and center on the committees where it will have the most prominence. So again, just to recap from DC, this is a good statement from House leadership, but it's a statement without action. It's a statement without teeth, and until she's removed from that committee, they're not just tolerating her views, they're amplifying them and they're promoting them.

And it looks like, so now Nancy Pelosi, this just came out, and Will, our producer, put this in the chat from Chad Pilgrim from Fox News on Capitol Hill. Said that one of his colleagues, they asked Pelosi if they're going to take further action against Ilhan Omar, and she said no, I don't think that. They accept her clarification. She has a point she wanted to make. She has a right to make that point. And then Pelosi goes on to say there was some unease about how it was interpreted. She made her clarification. Her clarification, though, is one of the major criticisms we're having, Thanh, which is that she's not just spewing empty, hateful rhetoric, which could cause people to take, you know, violent actions, and we've seen these attacks happening in the streets, and continue to kind of add fuel to the fire.

But just with our 45 seconds left, they are capitulating yet once again. So we know now on this Friday, Nancy Pelosi has decided we're going to keep Ilhan Omar in the position. They're afraid.

They're obviously, there may only be four or five members of this group, or maybe a dozen, but then they are afraid to take action. And Ilhan Omar, in her own words, wants the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction over U.S. service members, and she thinks that we've seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban all in one breath. Jordan, not my words. Those are her words.

I think it's fair to say, if Nancy Pelosi accepts that clarification, then the ads can be run with the whole Democrat Party leadership, because words don't mean anything here if you don't back it up with action you can take. We'll talk to you next week. 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.