BREAKING: Fetterman Makes Shocking Election Shift

On today's show, a top Democrat breaks with his party and calls for voter ID. Keeping you informed and engaged.

Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow.

Welcome to Sekulow. It's Logan Sekulow, Jordan Sekulow's in studio, Will Haynes, as always. And of course, later on, we'll be joined by Rick Grinnell. It is a packed show. I'm getting all my papers in front of me to make sure that it's all lined up because, look, it's a busy weekend.

A lot of you have not been paying attention to the news, or maybe the news that you've been watching hasn't been dominated by some of the stories we're going to talk about today. Actually, I like that. I had a couple people reach out and go, Are you going to talk about Super Bowl? Are you going to talk about Bad Money, K-Rock TP? No, not, probably not.

I'll be honest. It's probably not what we're going to do today. Because what is really great with us is we're actually able to present to you when we think something is very important, the news is happening, and a lot of times it doesn't dominate the ratings. And that's okay. That's what we get to do here on this show.

And today, you may have seen it, maybe it briefly popped up that hey, John Fetterman, once again, made some kind of statement. It's not been uncommon for John Fetterman to be siding more and more with conservatives over the last few years, but this one has to do with voter ID, a topic that has come up from time to time. Be wondering why it's in the news right now when John Fetterman said he maybe wouldn't be opposed to voter ID laws. But, Will, why don't you give us an update of why this has become a story right now, why he was even being asked it to begin with? That's right.

A lot of news has been discussed recently, especially with all of these bills moving forward with government funding, about whether or not the SAVE Act would be presented before the Senate, the Senate, rather. And that's the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. It is something that was passed by the House in mid-2025 and has been waiting and holding in the Senate whether or not they're going to move forward with it. There's a lot of discussion on whether the Senate majority leader, Senator Thune, will even make some adjustments to the filibuster rule into a talking filibuster as opposed to the legislative filibuster that we are so used to, where you have to get to the 60 votes to move anything forward in the Senate. A talking filibuster would be much more old school.

But this is something that has started to come up now. As these bills are moving forward with funding, because a lot of people are seeing this could be the time ahead of the midterms to roll out something like this. And this is something that has national voter ID. To register to vote, you have to have proof of citizenship. These are things that would safeguard American elections.

It's something that the ACLJ and ACLJ Action have done action on. There has been a campaign with ACLJ Action to support this. But now you're starting to hear at the same time that Chuck Schumer went out and called this Jim Crow 2.0. As they like to say, whenever there's any sort of voter restrictions, they go back to the race debate and say that this is just trying to disenfranchise minority groups. But you're seeing the senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, say this isn't a radical idea.

And there's also polling to back that up that we will get into. Yeah, I mean, look, we got a little bit of time here. Let's play in the Jordan. I want to get your feedback. Let's actually play it.

This is Maria on Fox Business. Talking to John Fetterman. What I don't understand, Senator, is why it is so difficult to get the SAVE Act into the portfolio and onto the floor. What's wrong with having an ID to vote? Chuck Schumer last week said if the SAVE Act even attempts to get to the Senate, it is dead on arrival.

Why? And me, as a Democrat, I do not believe that it's unreasonable to show ID just to vote. And I remind everybody that less than a year ago in Wisconsin, you know, they added that to the Constitution by a 63%. Know passing to put that in the Constitution that you have to show ID to vote. And they also elected a very, very liberal justice into their Supreme Court.

So it's not a radical idea for regular Americans to show your ID to vote. I mean, I think you hear from John Fetterman like that, and you also think of the American people. Most a lot of you have to show your ID. I've never voted in my life in the states that I've lived in and not had to shown some sort of proof of who I am.

So this doesn't feel Unnatural for people.

Now, of course, those arguments come up. We can break those down and how the ACLJ and ACLJ action has gotten involved. And of course, if you want to become an ACLJ champion, it's a great way to do it right now. We got big legal fights coming, of course, and of course, we're in court always. Become an ACLJ champion today.

That's a recurring donor. Go to aclj.org, donate now. When we get back, we'll hear from Jordan and the rest of the team. Welcome to Sekulow. A phone line joke before you at 1-800-684-3110.

I think I want to break down. We, even the first segment, you heard about. The news, of course, you have John Fetterman. That's part of sort of the fun part of the story, which is you have Democrats who are actually siding with this voter ID moment where people are calling for it because. It is not.

Controversial to most Americans. No, it's not at all. In fact, I want to first go through and tell you what counts as an ID because you may say, Oh, do I have to go and get some brand new ID? Likely you've got one of these forms already. And if you don't, you've got plenty of time to get them.

In many places, they will do this at no cost for people who meet certain economic standards.

So don't be afraid if you think, well, I don't have the money to do it. Likely your state still wants you to have an ID.

So you can use a real ID. That's again, that shows your citizenship. Usually that would be on a driver's license.

So updating a current driver's license, you can do that. A passport. If you have a current passport, that counts as a real ID. It counts for these elections. A military ID with proof of U.S.

birth, a government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birth, or other government-issued photo ID with a birth certificate, other proof of U.S. birth or naturalization documents. I mean, they are, this is very broad. This is the bill that should have bipartisan support.

And I'll tell you why in a second.

So, zoom out. It also requires mail-in applicants to prove citizenship in person when they go and request those mail-in ballots so that you don't have that issue of what we thought was happening in 2020, where there were just too many live ballots all over the place.

Now, you ask yourself then, well, is this just Republicans supporting this and the Democrats think this is going to hurt the vote?

Well, elected Democrats keep saying that, Logan, and Will. But when they actually poll Americans, 83%, not of conservatives, not of Republicans, 83% of U.S. adults support requiring some form of government-issued photo ID to vote. That includes. 71% of Democrats That is an overwhelming number of Democrats when their party is the party taking the line that this is Jim Crow 2.0.

That's how out of line they are with their rank and file.

Now, Republicans, of course, higher at 95%. Only 16% of Americans, adults, oppose it. And let me tell you, that's probably the group inside the Democrat Party that's running it right now. And the reason they oppose it is they will get less voters if you have to have ID. You know, it's very interesting.

They're fighting this so hard. Why would a group that wants free and fair elections, free and fair elections, be so opposed to making sure that the people voting are the person they say they are and they're voting in the right district?

Well, and Jordan, I think we should play this. This is from Senator Chuck Schumer on Morning Joe.

So we got to set the stage here, not like he went on Fox News and decided to fight this. This is the questioner on Morning Joe. Jonathan LeMire is asking Senator Schumer after the polls with the context of the polls.

Now, traditionally, on a policy issue like this, this isn't some human rights issue. This isn't some massive funding issue. This is something that. Typically, a party would look to their base. To gauge where the base is.

If it's a 50-50 issue, maybe the National Party makes a call what they think they want long term. But when it's something that is so lopsided within your own party, traditionally you don't have the leadership of the party then come back and push back in this way. Let's listen to bite four when Jim Chuck Schumer is asked by Jonathan LeMire directly about this. There's a new Pew Research poll that 95% of Republicans, but also 71% of Democrats, like this idea, so why do you not? It's Jim Crow 2.0.

And I called it Jim Crow 2.0, and the right wing went nuts all over the internet. That's because they know it's true. What they're trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting.

So, Jordan, the Senate minority leader there, is taking. The question about his own party and decides: you know, we're going to go with what we say whenever. There is a bill that would try to strengthen the security of elections. Go back to calling it Jim Crow. It's the same old tired talking points, but he doesn't even address what the question was: you know, what do you say?

When you see 71% of your party agrees with this idea, let me just say this. Of those 71% of Democrats, let me tell you, that's a lot of Hispanic voters. They have photo IDs, Hispanic Americans. They're working in jobs. They're working really hard.

This is, again, the same with African Americans.

So they, again, they've got IDs. They're working hard. This is about people who don't have legal citizenship in the United States, whether they're Hispanic or from another country, and getting them able to register to vote because they are domiciled here.

So they can have an address, they can register. And if they show up, if they don't catch it when you register, all they have to do is show up and give that name. They don't have to show an ID. And so they don't have to worry about not having a legal ID in the United States. Their green card could be expired, things like that.

So because of that, I think this is just their play to continue to get this smaller percent, but still meaningful of these 10% of voters that, again, should not be voting in our elections and likely will be voting for Democrats because they're the ones standing in the way of this. But it's also sort of old way of thinking. As we saw with President Trump in the last election, especially in South Florida and those areas, people that, you know, then they start painting with such a large swath of people saying, you know, everyone who is Hispanic. Is going to be voting one way or the other. We know that's just simply not the case anymore, that they're not as easily manipulated.

People are not manipulated into exclusively voting for whoever the political party decides is who you should be voting for. It was always a disturbing, you know, racially bit trend.

Now we are finally seeing a break from that a little bit.

So it's not always going to be, you know, quote unquote in their favor.

Well, and I think we should play this once again because same line of questioning. This is coming from Jonathan Carl on ABC This Week talking to Senator Schiff. This is bite one. He's basically asking the same question with those same polling numbers and listen to the response. But in one recent Pew poll, 83% of adults support requiring photo ID to vote.

71% of Democrats Favor requiring photo IDs. That's something that you can support. And if not, why, not? It's still going to be something, Jonathan. It's still going to be something that disenfranchises people that don't have the proper real ID, driver's license ID, that don't have the ID necessary to vote, even though they are citizens.

This is another way to simply try to suppress the vote. And the last thing I think we want to do is discourage more people, more citizens, from voting. And once again, this line of argument that it's just going to suppress the vote.

Okay, you know what? Democrats love spending money. Why not say, okay, we'll take this up, but we are going to fund a massive ID push. To help Americans get IDs if they don't have them. If they are so concerned that this is such an obstacle.

Maybe they find a way to come together. There's got to be another reason, Jordan, that they don't want... These safeguards in the election when so much of their party does. Because it would be just as easy for someone to say, you know, my concern here is that it may be too hard of a burden for people to get this. I think it's a silly argument to some degree, but say they put that out there, it's another obstacle.

Then find a solution. Say, okay, fine, we will do this because we want free and fair elections. But we want money added to this to help states register voters that are citizens. I think states would be happy to get these IDs out, not the driver's license, but the IDs out. It's easier than going to a DMV.

So if this becomes the law of the land and we uphold this, I think what we, and we see this with the SAVE Act, we see some states that do require it, by the way, some don't. But again, those states, I think, will happily. provide sitters So people can register and guess who's not going to come? People who aren't here legally, they're not gonna risk being thrown out.

So, what does that do? That keeps voters who should not be voting in our elections because they don't have citizenship here. They have to have citizenship to vote. They can't just have a green card. They can't just be lawful permanent residents.

They have to have citizenship. They're not going to show up, Logan, to a government facility, even a makeshift one, if they know that they can be caught right now and be deported very quickly. Yeah, and then there's plenty, like you said, of legal residents that are here that are not citizens. I mean, that's not voting as well. They're not voting.

We have some that work on the show that are here legally. It's good for them. But they're not citizens. I'm looking at you. No, I'm checking.

You don't need to go to those places. To you can obtain driver's license and things like that when you have permit. But if we set up something, it was just the ID card that we did for free, basically. Um so that no one can come back and make that argument again. And you put them in all different communities.

And you don't need very much information to show that you're here legally. You used to do that even for kids. You could get a non-driver's license for adults. Uh And then I think that solves every then how can they argue against it? If you offer it for free.

But clearly, it is something that has been a sticking point for years.

So, for some reason, that is something that they won't let go. That's their 16% kind of cushion that they can get out to vote in, again, closed states. They will start set, you know, they get them registered. They figure out names on the polls that aren't being used. And then they say, go and tell them you're this.

There's no voter ID check. And that's it. I mean, think about how often you do show your ID still in this country. I show my ID multiple times a week and multiple different things. None of them, by the way, as important as deciding who gets to become the leader of the land.

Yeah. You know, it's just the. I don't think it's uncommon here in America, but I'd love to hear from you. Phone lines are open at 1-800. We're the only country.

1-800-684-3110. Have your voice heard today. We get back also a big update in the world of the ACLJ. I'm excited to share with you again: 1-800-684-3110. And I'm going to encourage you to support our work at aclj.org.

But when we get back, we'll tell you exactly why. And what's been going on, even over the weekend? We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We do have a few lines still open at 1-800-684-30110.

And I will get to your calls here in just a minute because the work of the ACLJ continues well. And this is a big update that's coming out of, I mean, another one of those shocking moments, another one of those very sad. State of affairs where the arguments have to be made that are still on the side against protecting the unborn. Get more and more disturbing and more and more like. It feels like such living in a world of unrealistic beliefs here that you really.

You just have to hear yourself.

Okay, so this is coming from Planned Parenthood. That's right. So, as a little background for everyone, the ACLJ and many of our attorneys were deputized by the Attorney General of Missouri to assist in this case where Planned Parenthood was suing the state for some of the requirements within their and limitations and licensing issues that they had restricting the abortion industry. And that's what Planned Parenthood saw it as. And they were challenging some of these things, like, you know, just normal health and safety issues within a surgery room, things of that nature.

They were challenging these, these, what they saw as limitations on the access to abortion under a ballot initiative where the people of Missouri enshrined a right to abortion under the state.

So that's where this all comes from. Planned Parenthood gets the right to abortion in the state. The state through the people of Missouri, and then immediately starts going after common sense laws that govern and regulate the abortion industry. And Our attorneys, and I spoke with one of our attorneys at length on Friday, getting kind of a download of everything that happened in this two-week trial. It was a bench trial before a state judge.

But some of the most egregious things, as Planned Parenthood always says, they speak for women. They had zero witnesses that were women from the state of Missouri. To speak about how these laws were and these very normal things were harming them and their access to abortion. On the contrast, the state and our attorneys at the ACLJ assisting with that had many women who had been harmed. by unregulated abortion practices in the state of Missouri.

And they were actually speaking for women of Missouri. But some of the shocking things, because you know, we called this the trial of the century because we know now this was one of the first. Cases like this, where Planned Parenthood got to trial challenging these regulations of their industry post-Dobbs. And their experts that they had testify. One was pushing back at some of the issues with the concept of fetal pain.

By arguing. Just listen to this.

Okay, again. That's always been a point of discussion. And look, for those who are wanting to hear back about Fennerman and the election, and voter ID, we're going to get back to that. Don't worry, because I see some of those comments coming in. We will get there back there in just a moment.

But fetal pain is something that we've discussed many times before. It's very proven. You could see it happen in the womb. But they're claiming, well, maybe the most ridiculous stance.

So their doctor that they had testify. in court. was maintaining the position that fetal pain does not exist. Because A baby in utero cannot be conscious of the pain and cannot express it, cannot communicate the pain.

So, therefore, they took this line of questioning down the line and said, well, then. I would you say the same thing about maybe a one-year-old or an infant? That has been born, and they maintained the same position. The doctor was saying that a one-year-old, that it could go up to one to two years old, cannot be conscious of the pain. And cannot adequately communicate that pain.

Therefore, the concept of infant pain is therefore not a real thing. This is what Planned Parenthood claiming to speak on behalf of women of Missouri. And let's say also medical science. I mean, anyone who's had a child, a one-year-old or a two-year-old or a three-day-old who's received a shot. Knows they feel pain, have had a kid fall, knows they feel pain.

I mean, this is so, I can't even believe that I'm even making this excuse or having to make this argument. But this is the distortion of all of it. We always say that, but it's just true because when it comes down to these moments, it's taking what should be. What everyone knows. Every parent, every person who has ever dealt with a baby before knows how this works, and they treat you like you're an idiot.

Well, and once again, this same doctor also was questioned about viability. And here's where their logic was: is that. You can't know viability. Basically, ever. In that, if a baby dies post-birth.

Then it was not a viable pregnancy.

So, taking an end different, not ignoring all circumstances, but that if a child, an infant even dies in childbirth, that wasn't a viable pregnancy ever. It makes no sense. The logic arguments. What's even grosser, though, from these same doctors who testified, this is Dr. Stephen Ralston.

Look him up, because this is a doctor who believes that toddlers do not feel pain.

Now, anyone who has a toddler or has had a toddler, they feel pain. And they're actually very sensitive when they're learning to walk.

Sometimes they laugh when they fall over, sometimes they don't and cry. Why would they cry if they don't feel anything? Again, it's like a dumb argument that we're having to even I mean, they have pain receptors at that point. If you pinch them, they feel it. If they're hurting, they tell you.

But Jordan, they may not be able to articulate why or what hurts.

So if they get peek eye or chapped lips, are they not, you don't think that that is their body showing them that they feel pain? That's a way for their body to tell you because they can't speak yet. That's how the argument of viability falls apart when you're like, well, what is viability? Because viability would be like, okay, so if you just. What viability is to them that they can feed themselves to discuss?

Right, like a 10-year-old? I don't even know if it's that. I think it's someone who can drive a car and fully take care of themselves. Anything other than that they feel like can be disposed of. We have disgusting.

It is. And look, but the ACLJ, we're hard to action. We're going at it. That's who you're up against. And this is not before the judge.

There's post-trial briefing. This was a bench trial. Obviously, they challenge the statutes as different counts.

So. There's many different ways this could fall. But one, I think, pray for the wisdom of the judge in this: that the arguments of ACLJ attorneys and the Attorney General's Office of Missouri landed with that judge. Because, once again, when Planned Parenthood has the comfortableness behind a courtroom door, Knowing that this isn't televised, this is a state court, they can get in there and use these witnesses. These are witnesses I'm sure they take all around the country anytime they're fighting something like this.

They know that this isn't gonna make headline news. They're comfortable putting witnesses on the stand, making these arguments that are honestly in contrast with what they argue is their position on their website. If you take the slogans of Planned Parenthood, caring for women and believing them, they didn't put a single. A citizen of Missouri that would be harmed by these laws. As a matter of fact, it was only the state who could show how the practices of Planned Parenthood are detrimental to the health and wellness of women of that state.

It's just a gimmick. It's just a gimmick. Don't fall for that gimmick. We know you don't, but sadly, we know a lot of people do. And with that, we got one minute left in this first half hour.

We will be back for a full second half hour. If you don't get us in your local station or however you're watching, make sure you join us. We're streaming live on aclj.org, YouTube, Rumble, however, you get your podcast. We're there live at 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern Time.

If you're listening to this later, we may have already done it. Go back, listen to the second half hour because it's gonna be packed. Rick Rinnell's gonna be joining us. But look, this is the time to stand up, be a part. of the ACLJ right now.

And what I'm really asking you to do this week is to become an ACLJ champion. You know, there's thousands and thousands of you that give, and you know how important that is. If you give one-time gift, that's fantastic. There's a core group of you, only about 20,000. that give in a recurring monthly way.

And look, that can be $5, that can be $500, whatever you want it to be. Everyone who decides they want to become a monthly recurring donor, we label you ACLJ champions. People come up to me in the street and say I'm a champion. Know how happy that makes me, because you are one of the leaders in our fights to defend life, liberty, constitution, freedom, faith, all of the things that we hold important. We'll be right back.

Second half hour coming up in less than a minute. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow, second half hour coming at you live, 1-800-684-31 to be on the air.

I know a lot of you have been tuning in because last segment we pivoted a little bit. We talked about some of the work of the ACLJ, what's going on, we're a fight for life. But now we're going to head back and continue this discussion about voter ID. I know that is something that a lot of you are very curious about what the updates are. And we'll get to that, but let's go ahead and take a call.

We've got a couple ACLJ champions calling in right now, those are the ones that give on a recurring basis, and I always like to give them a bit of preferential treatment to be upfront.

Now, there's two of you. You're both in North Carolina and you both have M names.

So listen closely. One of you called in 10 minutes earlier.

So, Martin, you're up first in North Carolina. Go ahead.

Well, I'm first at something. Excuse me. I listened to y'all and you said a lot of what I was going to say anyway.

Okay, say it all.

Well, the fact of the matter is I was looking at something to try and verify how long this has been going on. It seems like the same old argument's gone on for at least 20 years. In which case, if people haven't found a way of identifying themselves to get an ID, I see something wrong. And it does point back to what is really going on in the objection. And I think we know what that is to having people show an ID.

And I'm always leery about people looking at stuff on Facebook and whatever. But I did find an interesting feed, so to speak, where they showed Schumer and then had a guy in New York go around. And I'm sure it was randomly picked, or I would assume they are, black people. And every one of them said they had an ID. They knew where the DMV was.

They knew how to change their uh uh name if they were married to a new day at the DMV and if they changed addresses and everything else.

So I I'm wanting to say how can we get the point across that this is ridiculous. Martin, it's like you said. to have uh uh uh idea. Then we just go with that premise. Martin, it's like you said, it's inherently racist the way that they present this.

which is essentially saying people of color are not capable of doing things like get an ID. Provide an ID. That is a hurdle that is just too far for certain communities. And it's so disgusting. that we have to even fight for this and say that this is a fight.

And you get labeled to be the racist for saying, no, everyone should have the same rules. This is not some form of reason that a certain group or community cannot vote, except for people. Who legally should not be able to vote. This has nothing to do With a certain community or people of color who do not, you know, obtain somehow the ability. To go get an ID, I have always had a really bad, guttural feeling about the way that people are spoken about, that minorities are spoken about, specifically coming from certain people on the political left where they're treated not only like second-class citizens, but they are treated like they are inherently stupid.

Or they are inherently incapable of normal acts. And this happens over and over again. And somehow You are right, Martin. We have to sort of preach this and say, no, it's inherently evil in some ways to say that a certain group of people one has to vote either way. And not only that, That they should not be held to a very normal standard because they're not able to do it.

I mean, that is so insane that in America, we actually are still having this conversation. Yeah, I just think this is all about voter fraud. This is all despite this because. They want that percent who they know are not legal citizens to be able to register, and then their name is there. And if it's not caught, and usually it's not because so many people register for when we get close to federal elections, midterms, especially Presidentials, and that you can then put thousands upon thousands of new voters on the voter rolls that take a very long time to ever purge if they ever are purged.

And so the people walk in there, their names on there. They don't have to worry about being deported. They don't have to worry about ICE showing up.

Now, again, If they try and go get an actual ID and they're here illegally, guess what, Logan? They've now been marked as someone.

So they want to keep illegal residents here in the United States, illegal aliens. Voting in our elections because they believe it's a net positive to Democrats. All right, we'll be right back. Rick Rinnell's going to be joining us. Be part of that team right now at aclj.org.

Again, Rick Rinnell up in the next segment. They'll be taking your calls in the final. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are joined now by Rick Grinnell.

And, Rick, this is something that's kind of been coming up as we've seen a lot of the American entertainment, whether it be the Super Bowl and then the Olympics, where our country is represented by wonderful athletes. You're starting to seem, as it always seems to be, that the media wants to drive politics into the middle of what should be. Fun sport, just watching our great athletes compete. And one thing that has come up over the weekend was this Olympian that was uncomfortable saying that he represented America. He represented his family and his friends.

But driving that wedge at a time where many other nations are appearing unified, many other nations don't even talk about their policies and politics as they compete. We want, we have free speech and we can voice these opinions, but I just wanted to get your take, even on the media. Trying to drive these narratives home with these athletes. And it almost seems unfair to the athletes not focusing on what they are there to do, which is showcase their athletic ability, but make them politicians by proxy as they compete in Italy. Look, I think that if this individual would have said something about politics and ICE policy and just left it at that, it would have been the typical lecture that we get from somebody when they have their moment.

And their free speech rights, of course, we protect. We would have chalked it up to, that's inappropriate to say at that time, but I think collectively we would have moved on. But that's not what happened. He actually said, I'm uncomfortable. Being part of the American team.

He said, I'm here for my friends and family. In essence, that means I'm not here for my country. I'm here for my friends and family because I'm uncomfortable with wearing this American flag. That is fundamentally a different point. That is not about ICE.

It's not about his left-wing ideology. It is about him not wanting to represent America because, in his mind, the American government isn't doing what he wants the American government to do from a policy perspective. This is the height of unbelievable selfishness. I think this kid, it's already been highlighted. He's very privileged from a very wealthy family.

He lives in Bend, Oregon, where he's surrounded by lefties. I think that he just was really naive to the fact that not everybody thinks like he does, and not everybody is as wealthy as his family, and not everybody has this idyllic bubble that they get to live in where everybody agrees with him. And so he gets on the stage, and I think he flubs up. He's got to regret it because he now looks incredibly anti-American and ungrateful. And I just think that reporters, of course, are always going to go for the controversy because we live in a world where they have to make money at media operations.

It's not about telling the truth anymore. It's about making money and keeping a job and getting clicks and views and attention.

So everything becomes tabloid. We know that to be true. And I think we could chalk it up and dismiss these reporters. But I think this kid stepped in it. Yeah, I mean, Rick, you bring that up.

It's one of the things, yesterday during the Super Bowl, I had actually quite a few people reach out. Who are, let's say, pop culture commentators, more on the conservative side, saying, Hey, I'd love to come on the show, talk about the halftime show. I'd love to come on and talk about it. And I said, you know, we. Thankfully.

On this show. That's not forced upon us to have to talk about things that are, let's just say, I mean, the conversation pieces, but they're inconsequential in the bigger sense of the world stage. You know, we're able to talk about Iran. We're able to talk about voter ID. We're able to talk about what's going on in the fight against persecution and all of these big global things because you are right.

There is a fight for clicks. And understand, every time you see something, and I've learned this more and more over the last few weeks, even in the business that we work in. The way monetization works is, of course, about not only eyeballs, it's eyeballs, it's shares, it's likes. Why do you think you all of a sudden see a bunch of AI articles that are clearly not true, but enough people fall for them and share them? Why?

Because there's monetization coming into the back end of that.

So understand, I want people to know that clearly: that sure, you may be watching the Olympics, enjoying it. We've had it on a good portion of the weekend. Just having on the background, it's been great. But The reason they're asking those kind of gotcha questions, and they do it to the President, they do it to politicians, they do it to everyone, they do it to all of us, is because that hope of those four seconds that can be taken and repeated four billion times. And, you know, you brought up Ben to Oregon, Will.

Fun fact: Ben to Oregon, the home of the last blockbuster video. Ah, absolutely. That's actually a better headline. I know, it's just a lot. I would prefer that headline.

Can I make one point on that? Yeah, on Blockbuster video? Go ahead.

No. I think what you just said is really smart because if you take it to the next degree of what you're really saying, and I think people need to understand this. Outlets, media outlets don't just make money when people go and agree with their articles. They make money when they outrage someone so that you share that terrible article with five people to say, Can you believe this? And then everybody clicks on it to be outraged as well.

Outrage pays, support pays. They just want you talking about them. And so they will come up with the craziest headlines so that you outrage someone to share it. And to make sure that they're telling their world how outraged they are. It's not just a supportive.

Moment. Yeah, it's engagement farming, but not just to get people to click over to your website. Right. Understand, you share something on, and look, this is true. Right now with like Facebook, let's say, which again, I'm a fan of, we're on it right now.

When you click that share button, There's at least a couple pennies that are now going into the account. of the person who created it. Uh And if that gets to 100,000 shares, all of a sudden you have real money coming in for these organizations.

So don't think, even if you start sharing things like Rick said, that are against what you believe, if you're saying, can you believe this? Those people don't care because. They're still getting paid. It's all transactional.

Well, and Logan, it even goes back to the point that you made when we were talking about Don Lemon and the outrageous actions that happen when he participated in criminal activity and has now been charged. There is the flip side of it, though, of relevancy. Many of these people, especially in the mainstream media, have become so irrelevant. To the American people. They don't represent their values.

They don't represent their patriotism. They are irrelevant in the mainstream. That that you have to figure out, okay. Do we even give it airtime? Do you even go after someone like Don Lemon and charge him with a violation of the FACE Act?

There's even, between Logan and I, disagreement on how far that should go because that's what they want.

Somebody said, make me the next Jimmy Kimball. I go, that's precisely what he actually wants. He wants to be arrested and put in handcuffs, Rick. This was a moment to become relevant again. Yeah, it's this whole culture of clickbait and outrage and making sure that you're talking about me is all because of money.

This is what people want. And I will also go so far as to say, NGOs like to do the same thing because they collect money and so do politicians. And so as consumers of news, we have to be smart about: are you getting taken Are you participating in someone else's scheme? And I think the only way to be able to understand this is to get multiple news sources to understand. You should be skeptical of the news.

You should be skeptical of what I say. You should be skeptical of what everybody says. And check it out and do your own research so that we can make sure that we're having transparency and greater truth. I'll just finish by saying, you know, we here at ACLJ, we don't just like to talk about these issues. It's not just about click stuff.

It's actually about action. And that's one of the things that I talk about a lot. Being a part of this team, we have serious lawyers. We have people in offices around the world to be able to take action, not just do some phony talking and clicking. And I wanted to make that distinction.

Yeah, Rick, I think you're right. I wish some people could see even some of my text threads with even our social media team. Obviously, we have an incredible team that does great work. And there are some times where things may get on the line. And I go, guys, you know what?

I know your job is to make sure we get engagement, that people are watching, that there's thousands of you watching right now, but there's a line that we're comfortable with. And that line, sometimes you have to make sure because your priorities can get out of whack. Thankfully, here at the ACLJ, we've got a great group, like you said, of attorneys. We've got a great group of social media teams. Everyone here is working for the same cause.

But with that, you always have to make sure your main goal is not just. Oh, that post did so well. It's, did we tell the truth? Were we honest? Did we reach out the right way?

Did we use the right image? All of those things are important, and that's why we have such an incredible team here. Thank you, Lorik, for bringing that up and for joining us. Look, when we get back, we have two lines open right now: 1-800-68-43110. And I got two champions also on hold.

We're going to get to both of you first. Mary and Elaine stay on hold. James, Danny, after that, will be you up and two lines open.

So we'll see what happens. Coming up in the next segment, last segment of our Monday, 1-800-68-43110. If you want independent media like what we provide, and you want obviously the action the ACLJ can provide as well in the courtroom. You gotta become a member of the ACLJ and what we call ACLJ Champions. You heard about the trial in Missouri against Planned Parenthood.

We got a lot going on, also, the United States Supreme Court. Preachers, street preachers, churches that need our help. It's not all about big, big issues.

Sometimes this is on the individual, local level. Of course, it's with no cost to them, the client. With that, I need you to help us. Become an ACLJ champion today. Right back with your calls and comments to wrap it up.

Welcome back to Sekulow. Some phone lines are open still at 1-800-684-30110. You got to take some calls.

Some of you better hold. Look, I don't like to leave champions on hold for that long, but unfortunately, Mary, I know you better hold for half an hour and I appreciate it. Mary in North Carolina, you're up. Hi.

Well, I'm Colin because I recently received my voter registration card. And for the first yes, and for the first time in my life, I read the fine print on the back. And it starts out saying that all registered voters will be allowed to vote with or without a photo ID card. But when you're voting in person, you will be asked to present a valid photo ID. Then it goes on to the last statement.

where it says, if you do not have a valid photo ID card on Election Day, you may still vote and have your vote counted by signing an affidavit of reasonable impediment as to why you have not presented a valid photo ID.

Now if I'm reading this correctly, Does it not open the door to more voter fraud?

Well, Mary, one, if something like the Save Act were to pass, this would kind of fix a lot of that. If someone were voting illegally and signed an affidavit that said, I am able to vote, that would be two crimes then, because illegal voting, but also a lot of times those affidavits are under penalty of perjury, et cetera.

Some states that require photo ID, you can file a provisional ballot. You can still vote that day, and that will go into a box of provisional ballots that you can then go show your ID, and then they can clear that through. It's not completely out of the norm that your state has this, but it is something that something like the SAVED Act is trying to kind of uniformly fix across the country. The goal of this is to have uniform federal voting laws so that everyone votes under the same set of laws when it comes to federal elections. Your state still has power when it comes to state, local, and municipal elections.

That's different. But when it comes to federal elections, they want to make it easy for the boards of elections across your state to know this is how we conduct federal elections in the United States of America. This is what the voter has to have. This is what they need to be registered by. This is what happens if there's a problem and they need to, we call it, quote, correct the ballot.

Here's the timeline on that correction. You need to notify them. You have to notify them within this many days. If they need to come back and correct it, then it's on them to actually go and correct it. It's on the voter themselves.

So again, it would be a lot easier. For campaigns on both sides, the left and the right, to know exactly what the rules of the game are to get elected in all 50 states when it comes to federal elections, so that you're not having to figure out 50 different sets of laws to get your federal candidate elected, especially in the statewide and nationwide elections. And I also, before we go to one more caller in the next just second here, I do want to bring up that not only has ACLJ and ACLJ action done work to support the SAVE Act and the things that go along with that, but we are actually filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in just a couple of days that relates to when ballots can be counted. If they are received after an election, is that still valid? That is in the case Watson versus the RNC.

And we will be representing members of Congress in that brief. They are signing on to that brief that will be filing in just a few days.

So the election integrity. Focus and practice here at the ACLJ is always working, even when maybe elections aren't on our mind. But I think with that, I wanted to bring that up before we go to the next one. We got a couple more champions I want to make sure we get to today. Let's go to first.

Let's go to Elaine, who's calling from New York online five. Elaine, go ahead. Hi, yes. It's about the voter ID. New York, unfortunately, I live in New York, and you don't even need to show any ID to vote.

The other thing is you have to show ID to get NyQuil at the drugstore.

So it's absolutely ludicrous. The other thing is, and this is my personal opinion, I don't think New York has had a fair election probably in 15 or 20 years, but that's my, and maybe the state is not as blue as you think. That's my statement. Elaine, I do think there are a lot of great New Yorkers, again, who support a lot of common sense laws and rules. And of course, you're right.

That's why I said, how often do you have to pull out your ID? More than you probably even are thinking that you're doing it.

Now, like, think about it this week. When you guys go to the drugstore and you go anywhere, think about how often you are actually asked for your ID. It's second nature for a lot of people to just have it ready. It's why you carry it. It's why it's available.

Like you said, you need NyQuil, you need any kind of medicine for the most part. I mean, it feels like in a lot of these drugstores now, like in New York, it's like, you know, if you need anything, you know, someone. Got to come and help you because they're worried about some of the crime aspect of it. But you are right, Elaine, that this is something that we always have felt is just you can feel it when they talk about it, that it's inherently wrong and it's nonsense. And I want to take at least one more call before we wrap up the show.

We'll do our best to get to more, but let's go to Olivia, who's calling Virginia, also an ACLJ champion, and again, an ACLJ champion. Is someone who supports the ACLJ on a monthly basis. It's like an automatic renewable membership. Really helps us out, creates an incredible baseline. Getting there's about 20,000 of you that do it.

I'd love to see that number grow. I'd love to see that number hit. Double, triple that. Because a lot of you give it a one-time donation a year, and I appreciate that. Know that that's the mass majority of people.

but some of you decide to give monthly. And Olivia is one of those in Virginia. Olivia, go ahead. Thank you so much for what you do. What I wanted to say, I've been in this country over thirty years.

I'm a US citizen coming from South America. Out of this outside of this country, the world laughs at the US. Having this fight, because no country will accept you to vote without showing your ID. You can't do anything without an ID.

So Democrats are people who believe or follow them. I don't know where they are living, but it doesn't have any it it's It's common sense to have an ID everywhere you go.

So they don't have a basis, a logical basis for what they are doing. It's just to commit fraud. In California, by law, you cannot present your ID. Olivia, I think even you told our screener, you know, you need an ID to work, to open a bank account. Most places you need an ID to get a library card because they have to, what, prove that you live.

In the place where the services are, as well as probably to stop if you were to not return books, know who to go to. High crimes. There you go, Logan. But I'm just saying, even stealing those books. Even 26.

Even that, to get a library card, you typically have to show some sort of ID to prove who you are and where you live. Yeah. Unfortunately, James, we're going to be out of time for you today. I know you waited a long time. Calling back tomorrow.

We'll do our best to get to you. With that, I wanted to take the last minute and a half, Jordan, because the work of the ACLJ and ACLJ action continues on in a very strong way. It does. I mean, we are all over the world, all over the country. I've been in Washington, D.C.

last week for three days. We were doing two different things. One on behalf of international religious freedom. We took the main stage, working there, taking a lead on that. We also had a breakout multi-day section that was led by Cece Howe, and I know Shahi Argill as well on kind of focusing in on the worst persecutors and the clients like ours in Pakistan who are behind bars facing the death penalty and how we're broadening that out to work in places like India and, of course, all over the Middle East.

And so that. Was key in Washington. We also then switched topics two days later and did a panel that I was able to host with a congresswoman on App Store Freedom and App Store Security.

So, securing it for our children, but also for the developers, so that they don't have to make two apps and then give away 30% of their profit to Apple or Google every time they make a successful app, every time you make a purchase on that app.

So, we're in a lot of issues. A lot of different things. With that, we're going to wrap up the show today. We appreciate you all calling in, we appreciate everyone who's commented. And I always like to say, let me know in the comments and do it right now.

You know what? If you're going to go support the work of the ACLJ, do that first. But if you decided you've already given everything, let me know where you've been watching from. Really helps out our team to know where we can even deploy resources.

So do that at aclj.org. We're doing the YouTube channel, do it on Rumble. We appreciate that. Again, support the work of the ACLJ. This is a big time for us.

I'm asking you today to become a champion. You heard from so many champions. One of the little perks is you get to go to the front of the line. A lot of you did today. It's pretty great.

That's at aclj.org. Uh