Today on Sekulow, we have breaking news as Iran demands a meeting. after intense strikes over the weekend. Mm-hmm. 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. Welcome to Sekulow Will Haynes in Studio today as we look at what took place over the weekend. This is where, after this agreement, this memorandum of understanding had been agreed to by both the United States and Iran, leading to the 60-day period of further negotiations, trying to get to a final deal, Iran seemed to be in breach of this MOU.
Surprise, surprise. The Iranians not holding up their end of the deal. But it all began with a drone attack on a shipping, a container ship in the Strait of Hormuz. This was a Singapore-flagged ship that had a drone, a one-way drone, that went, flew alongside it, turned around and hit the boat.
So it wasn't as though it were an accident. This led to an escalation of strikes that were traded between the United States and Iran over the weekend. I want to hear from you. Do you think that this is what we should expect from Iran? Do you, I mean, I know many of you think that they cannot be trusted.
But as we see, even now, what seemed to be a simple portion of the memorandum of understanding, they were not able to hold up their end of the deal.
Now, the United States was able to then go after multiple targets. They were able to take out some of these capabilities that Iran had been able to shift assets from around other parts of the country to kind of build up this air defense and air attack sector of that Strait of Hormuz area. The United States was able to go after them. This also led to President Trump on the 27th, so just two days ago. Saying United States aircraft just struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites for violating the ceasefire agreement again.
It is very possible they will never learn. There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable. And will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.
Now That is what a lot of us have been kind of hoping for: that the Islamic Republic of Iran would no longer exist. that we could get to that point. What do you think? Do you think the President is trying to exhaust all options before getting to that? Trying to show that he can be reasonable, also kind of showing that his playbook is completely different than everyone else's in Washington.
Left or right? That he will take a different path. He started strong. He showed the United States is not afraid to attack. Then he went to the diplomatic side and said: we are not afraid to negotiate.
Now Is he about to show that he's not afraid to finish the job? What we also know is that the Iranians have requested an emergency meeting. Between negotiators. Tomorrow in Doha Qatar.
So the President also acknowledged that it will take place tomorrow, and this is at the request of Iran. Obviously, after they violated the ceasefire, and then they saw that we would hit back. This is what we are left with. Another meeting. More talks tomorrow.
What do you think? Call me at 1-800-684-3110. Is it time to just finish the job? Have we shown that the Iranians Will not be able to fall in line and to follow an agreement. This was a very simple part of it, folks.
This was just let the ships go through the Strait of Hormuz. This wasn't even the very complicated nuclear material issue that they will be getting to in these talks. Call me 1-800-684-3110. We're going to talk about this. We're also going to talk about some Supreme Court opinions that came out today.
Some you may be happy with, some you may not be. But I'll also tell you why that shows that the Supreme Court as it is. is working. And you don't need the leftists to get in there and pack the court as they want to do. But we are also approaching quickly July when we will be celebrating our 250th birthday of this United States of America.
And we can use your support here at the ACLJ. Go ahead to aclj.org and support the work that we do, whether it be this broadcast, the important legal work. All of the things that we provide free of charge. to everyone who wants to partake, aclj.org. Welcome back to Sekulow.
We're talking about what has taken place over the weekend where. The Iranians decided to strike a shipping vessel that was going through the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, there was some discussion where the Iranians were like, ah, they didn't quite go the path that we agreed to.
However, it was the agreed upon path that is set forth by the United Nations, the maritime organization that kind of oversees that commercial shipping traffic as it goes through places like the Strait of Hormuz.
So, Iranians, once again, showing that they're not fully trustworthy, even on the easy part. of the Memorandum of Understanding. I think that it's important to point this out that as we go along. They are showing what a lot of us were concerned would be the case, right? Is that you have that?
I think I said I was skeptically optimistic, was the way I talked about the memorandum of understanding. I'm a skeptic that Iran can ever hold up their end of the deal. But I'm optimistic in the sense that President Trump is doing something that is completely outside the box. And many times that's what it takes to get to a kind of a groundbreaking deal like this.
Something like the Abraham Accords, we never thought that that could really be a possibility. The fact that many of those Gulf states and North African states, they would have this sort of a diplomatic relationship renewed with the state of Israel. And that was accomplished.
Now, a lot of that was built on the shared desire for economic prosperity and the concern of the strong Iran.
Now, as we look at how successful those have been and really even throughout this war, how many of the Gulf states that aren't a part of the Abraham Accords have kind of operated within that framework. And we may see something coming with more nations joining the Abraham Accords in the future. But you also have to think that while there is optimism about doing something different that both politicians and diplomats and career Washington folk have not ever done before, Whether they're liberal or conservative or centrist or whatever. No matter what their foreign policy is, they hadn't tried something like what the President has done. That is where the optimism came from with all of this, but the skepticism remains.
It's not about the ability of the negotiators, you know, Witkoff and Kushner, being able to. Craft and negotiate well. It's not even a criticism of the administration of trying this approach. it is fully that we know how Iran operates. And even with these new people, you can have some optimism that something different can come from this.
But you also have to remember If they are still uh beholden to the theology that creates the Iranian Uh Islamic Republic Then they are going to be very difficult. to ever get to fall in line. The hope is that many of these people, the three and four levels down the ladder. That are now in charge, maybe they aren't so beholden to the theology. that the Ayatollah, And the Supreme Leader have perpetrated on the people that had crafted the Islamic Republic.
this this apocalyptic genocidal dictatorship. Is it something that is different?
Now these people are very much invested in the regime and the way it operates, the IRGC having a stranglehold on not just the theology of the country, not just the military of the country, but also the economy.
So, yeah, if they're in that apparatus, they're still going to be operating very similarly. But could things change? Maybe one of those Prongs, the theology angle. If that isn't as strong, could it give leverage? to do something unthinkable, something remarkable.
That's what we are watching. But as of right now, they keep showing themselves to be the Iran of old. the very same Iran that you can't negotiate with. I want to play this from the Ambassador to the UN. This is Mike Waltz.
He had this to say on Fox News Sunday over the weekend. And let's go ahead and queue this up, folks. This is bite three from the United States Ambassador to the UN. The President's patience isn't going to last forever. Discussions are ongoing, particularly at a technical level of how to get inspectors in, the downblending, and the other pieces that are focused on ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon.
But they need to understand their leverage is diminishing by the day. Iran has a choice to make. It's going to be a responsible nation, or it can continue down this path to absolute ruin. And once again, there he says their leverage is diminishing day by day. Are they going to be a responsible nation or are they going to continue down this path to absolute ruin?
It appears they're headed towards absolute ruin. And I think there are many of us that have been watching this unfold that have given the benefit of the doubt to the administration, not to the Iranians by any means, that maybe something novel could happen. Maybe something new could happen. But when you start to look at what the President even was saying just two days ago. That They uh it is very possible they will never learn.
That is what we have been kind of saying for months now. There may come a point. When we are no longer able to be reasonable and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.
And I think at the end of the day, that is what many of us have hoped for for the people of Iran, for the Persian people, that the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.
Now, you'll see people say, oh, that's genocidal talk. That's saying that they'll no longer exist. There has been such buy-in from, especially those on the political left, that. will to some degree Support. The concept of that leadership remaining in place.
An annihilation of the Islamic Republic does not mean an annihilation of the people. Of Iran. It means getting rid of the horrible leadership that has countless American lives on its hands. As well as people in the region, even their own people. The fact that we talk about them slaughtering 30 to 50,000 of their own people earlier this year.
Is now almost an afterthought, and you have to think of how many of their own people. have been slaughtered over the entire reign of this horror. horrible, evil regime. That 30 to 50,000 is a minuscule number compared to how many people have been falsely imprisoned, tortured. Killed.
for their beliefs for not wanting to fall in line. with their genocidal death cult that leads that country? It should be a shocking number and wake up the entire world. The fact that Now it's almost flippantly said 30,000 of their own people were killed just protesting. The intensity of which they control the economy and use the money for terror instead of their own people.
as well as All of the brutality that is perpetrated on their own people because of their morality, police. There are strict codes within Iran. It should be a wake-up call for the entire world. This should be the cause celeb for every liberal activist on every college campus in the country. When you see how quickly they jump to free Palestine, why is it not free Iran?
Because if you're talking about real authoritarian dictatorships that are perpetrating horrors on their people, it is the Iranian regime. And I also think the irony of free Palestine that's lost, and we're going to talk some about this with Jeff Balabon later in the broadcast, but the irony that is lost on the left. When they say things like free Palestine. And they try to say this isn't uh anti-Semitic. It is the state of Israel that Left Gaza.
To its own devices, per se. They are the ones that left. Gaza, the security agreements that they had there, and said, you know what? Govern yourselves. Govern yourselves, Gaza.
We will no longer be in here. We're going to let you hold elections. The Palestinian Authority thought, well, I mean, we're the ones who've been doing all the work here. We're going to clearly win the elections. No, they elected Hamas.
Freeing Gaza would mean now Take away control of Hamas. That is the the great irony of their failed slogans of free Palestine is that a real freedom would be what Israel was trying to do, to free them from the oppression of Hamas, the proxy of Iran. But no, they don't get that. They they think that Israel is the great oppressor. And once again, You see how this plays out.
But this is something we're going to keep having to deal with, even as you talk about these talks. Can Iran be trusted?
Well, really, when you look anywhere, no, they can't. They continue to push for Hezbollah. They continue to push for Hamas leadership because that is their control of the region. And they have American leftists bought in. When they say free Palestine, they mean strengthen Hamas.
It is part of the reason why the Iranian regime gets a blind eye turned by the American leftists on the college campuses here. We're going to talk about that and a lot more coming up.
Next segment, we're going to talk about some of these Supreme Court opinions that came out today. Give me a call at 1-800-684-3110. If you want to hear about that, you want to talk about that, you want to talk about Iran. We've got a lot more coming up. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow.
Welcome back to Sekulow. If you want to talk to me on air, give me a call: 1-800-684-3110. We'll be having Jeff Balabon from ACLJ Jerusalem joining us live from Israel later in the broadcast. If you want to talk about Iran, you want to talk about some of these Supreme Court cases, give me a call, 1-800-684-3110. This is some interesting cases that came out today.
And these opinions are from the Supreme Court. And there's kind of a mixed bag.
Some are ones that we are glad with the outcome.
Some of them are not so happy with necessarily. It isn't what we were arguing for. But I think overall, it's moments like these when you do have a mixed bag of, like, oh, I wanted that opinion to go that way. I don't agree with that ruling per se. Or it's not what we argued per se.
That it shows that all of the noise around the Supreme Court is just that. And the left wanting to reform the Supreme Court or to pack the court or issue term limits on the Supreme Court, it is only because they want the court to rule 100% their way. It's not because they don't think it's fair, it's because it's not giving them everything they want.
So just remember that. When you hear a Supreme Court decision, Or opinion that comes down, and it's not everything that you thought it should be, or you were hoping for. It doesn't necessarily fit with what your political ideology was hoping for. That is proof that the Supreme Court is working, not that it is broken.
So, keep that in mind. You're never going to get 100% opinions in your. Because the Supreme Court is independent. It isn't controlled by a political party or by the executive branch.
So, that is a good thing. It is a good thing in general when we see opinions that we may not necessarily agree with because it shows you that they are independent and they are working. It is not something we need to pack. It is not something we need to completely change the makeup of. And I think that is very key.
Now, one of these cases that came out, and I think this is an important one. A lot of these aren't the type of cases that are going to make a ton of headlines. You're going to see some today. Tomorrow, there's supposed to be another opinion day. I have a feeling we are going to see the birthright citizenship case be handed down tomorrow, the opinion in that.
It is probably the final day of the term based off of how many opinions are remaining. But that's going to get a lot of headlines, no matter what.
Some of these, not as big, even though they are at the end of the term, but they do have real ramifications for things that we fight for here at the ACLJ. And one of those is Trump versus Slaughter. This is a case where President Trump was trying to fire or remove from the Federal Trade Commission one of the members of that. It's supposed to be an independent body. But uh When you start to get into this, this is how many people on the left have wanted these bureaucracies and these quasi-independent agencies to work.
They wanted it to be outside of the power of the President, trying to limit the President's power in many more ways. The opinion for this was delivered by the Chief Justice, John Roberts. And Justice Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. Amy Coney Barrett, they all agreed. Justice Thomas joined in all except for one part, 3B.
And Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.
So this is six to three. you have a dissent from Sotomayor in which Kagan and Jackson join. Six to three. And this held that the President does have the authority to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission. And this is something that the ACLJ filed in.
We have been very consistent for years about. Fighting for the unitary executive, saying that the President himself is the executive branch, and everything that flows down from that works for him. And I think these words brought by the Chief Justice, once again, something that we filed in, are very important to read at the end of his opinion. And it says this, our Constitution creates three branches. but only one President.
That President is not all-powerful. Not by any means. But he He is not impotent either. He and he alone is vested with the executive power of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1.
to discharge the duties of his trust. The President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Thirty writings of George Washington at 334, although It is up to The Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work. Neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those. with whom he cannot work.
Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to. removal by him. Then and only then, can they remain accountable to the President? and the President to the people. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Supreme Court is saying the President has a lot of leeway. to fire people. Because of that, that he is the only member constitutionally of the executive branch. He is the one President. And that in order to work With people.
He cannot be saddled by Congress or the courts with those with whom he cannot work. If you come into the job and you are the President of the United States and you are stuck with people who are actively trying to work against you, They don't hold more power than the President. It is key from this. That is an important. piece of Supreme Court jurisprudence that we are seeing here.
It affirms what we argue here at the American Center for Law and Justice and have for a very long time. You think back to when he fired James Comey, and it was that same argument. This is very clear on the power to fire that the President has. That is what the left wants. They want a bureaucracy so strong.
That it doesn't matter who the President is. that this executive branch keeps functioning no matter who gets elected and they keep their policies and agenda keeps rolling forward because the President has no power to do anything.
Now, there was a converse case here that kind of had a little bit of us surprised that they didn't go in lockstep together. But once again, it shows you that the Supreme Court. is independent. And that was the case involving the Federal Reserve, the governor of the Federal Reserve, who was removed by the President. The Supreme Court held.
that there's not enough yet that the a governor can be removed if there is is malfeasance and issues like that. But that has not been proven yet. And what they showed is that the way that the Board of Governors was established by Congress. It does hamstring the President to some degree. That he cannot just fire a Federal Reserve Board governor.
for any reason. And I think that's very distinct. They didn't let ideology or their belief about the executive branch, which is very clear here from the Chief Justice. That The President is the executive branch. It also shows that there is nuance in the way that things are created by Congress.
So I think that there's a couple others I want to get to later as well. But right there. These two cases about executive power and whom the President can and cannot fire. is nuanced. And that is the way much of our law is nuanced.
So, if you look at this and you hear from people that they're upset with the Supreme Court. That also is showing you that the Supreme Court is working. It's not going to 100% prop up your ideology. We'll be back with more on Sekulow. And if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, go to aclj.org and donate today.
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're talking about this meeting that will be taking place with Iran in Doha Qatar tomorrow, as well as some of these Supreme Court opinions. If you want to talk to me on air, go ahead and call me at 1-800-684-3110.
If you're watching on YouTube or Rumble, go ahead and like the broadcast, give it a like, subscribe to the channel if you're not, if you're new here. This is a broadcast we do Monday through Friday. At noon Eastern Time live. You'll catch this as well as clips and other things throughout the day. Go ahead and subscribe to the channel, helps us out a lot.
It's a free way to engage, as well as if you're in the chat, go ahead and let me know where you're watching from today on this wonderfully hot Monday that we're having here in Tennessee. We've got extreme heat warnings all week, folks.
So we're going to be inside a lot here, unfortunately, even though the weather is beautiful other than the heat. Let's go ahead and go to David online one, calling from Georgia. David, you're on Sekulow. A few seconds. Thank you.
I think President Trump made a horrible error in entering into a war with Iran. And I've lived through attempted regime change. I've lost friends. who were involved in attempting regime change. I think the United States should get out as quickly as possible.
The President's MOU is a disaster. it's going to leave Iran stronger than it was. You referred to the Iranian people as Persians. That's one of the issues is you have a Persian majority, but you've got all these other ethnic groups in there, and we don't have a great reputation of. helping these people out when they try to internally rebel.
The President Trump said way back earlier in the year, you know, there's been an uprising, I want to support it. And then we didn't do anything. Yeah. David, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't.
Necessarily, I know that it was a mistake to strike Iran. And I don't think that this will leave Iran stronger than they were. Those are the two points I disagree with. One, taking out the Ayatollah himself is a big deal. And I think that that showed, even to maybe some of the true believers, that he's not invincible as they've kind of put him in this invincible way for so long.
He was taken out on day one. I think that's a good thing for the world. Uh uh I support that. Taking out the Ayatollah. I also don't think that Iran is stronger just from the sheer fact of everything that we have hit.
The decimation of their navy. Yeah, they have their small boats. They can be annoyances, but they are not able to project power in the way that they had been.
So, those are the two points of contention that you and I have. But I appreciate you calling in as well, being respectful in voicing that, because there are parts of this that I do agree with. One, He said the MOU is a disaster. I think that's yet to be seen. And even what the purpose of the MOU is, a memorandum of understanding, is obviously the stated goal is to get to a final deal.
And President Trump is very different in his style. You mentioned regime change of old. I agree. Um The United States has a really bad track record of that. If you go to Vietnam, Korean War, even when there may have been outcomes that are separate, like North and South Korea, the war was not necessarily successful in defeating the communists' incursion in those parts of the world.
As well, as you look at the war on terror and places that we have tried regime change, you look at Central America. It's not always worked out in the U.S.'s favor. This has been a different style. I I do agree that Once again, we were hoping that the President would help the people of Iran. Back when he said, We're here to help you.
And that obviously has not been the game plan of this war. One other thing is you you mentioned the Persian people. Yes, I I was referring to the majority of the country and and the historic greatness that the Persian people have when they are free people. They are very smart. Very intelligent when it comes to inventions and bringing things to the world, technologies, they could be a part of a new Middle East in a different way if.
That is allowed to thrive and not the genocidal death cult that has been in charge for so long. That's what I was referring to with the Persian people. But yes, I agree, there are a lot of minority groups in Iran as well that need representation and need to be free. We'll be back with more on Secular with Jeff Balabon from Jerusalem. You don't want to miss it.
We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We'll be joined momentarily by Jeff Balabon.
Sometimes when you're connecting halfway across the world. Takes a little minute. Got to get things worked out technically. But if you want to talk to me in this segment or coming up, go ahead and call me at 1-800-684-3110. We'll be talking about this Iran issue.
We're talking about some of the other things that have popped up over the weekend, including the Supreme Court decisions that were handed down today. Not as many headline grabbers as you'd expect. There actually was one other that we had filed in that we were not necessarily pleased with the opinion of the court, but once again, it shows the independence of the court. And that was one where the Mississippi has a law about counting absentee ballots after election day if they're received, but postmarked by that day. We were arguing election day means election day.
That is also what Justice Alito had put forward in his dissent. But the opinion of the court was not that. And it relied on the Constitution's election clause that empowers state legislatures to prescribe the time. Place and manner of holding elections, time, place, and manner clause. Um That's a difficult one as a conservative because it does have nuance, right?
There's one thing where we want the integrity of the elections. When you talk about election day, But also understanding the delegation of power to states that are in the Constitution and not just being a federal government that gives no power to the states. There's a lot of conservative issues there. As well.
So I think that is one that we argued for Election Day in. But once again, you get an opinion of the court that's not 100% in what you're arguing. And while we may believe that our argument at the ACLJ is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, There is room for disagreement even among ideological conservatives. And people that have a conservative judicial philosophy. We'll get into that more tomorrow.
Jordan will be joining me in the studio. We can talk about kind of those nuanced issues I think are important to bring up. But right now, we're joined by Jeff Balabon on the phone from Jerusalem. Jeff, you just got done with a conference with the Jerusalem News Syndicate International Policy Summit. Once again, the work of the ACLJ Jerusalem we can showcase here.
Tell us a little bit about what happened there and what you were doing as a representative of ACLJ Jerusalem. Sure, happy to do it. It was actually an excellent conference. You know, it was there was a lot of tension in the room because of the memorandum of understanding and people in Israel. feel uncomfortable about what's happening there, but every message delivered by everybody from the Prime Minister to the minister from the diaspora to the you know to Mike Huckabee, but but I'm clear about Mike Huckabee, our ambassador, I'm saying every Israeli official made it clear we have never had a better friend than the State of Israel than Donald Trump, and we are two different countries.
Our interests are very aligned, but they're not always precise. Plus, President Trump has his own political issues. And so by no means should there be anything other than tremendous gratitude for America and Donald Trump, and which really so that was the message across the board. It was a very interesting there was a lot of Christian participation. from all over the world, but especially from America.
And I'll tell you the message that I like the best from that. As a pastor, it was someone I know for many years. And his message was, you know, you're in Israel and you're trying to impress the world with your innovation and your startup nation and your military prowess, but really the world is waiting for you just to be Jewish. And that's a message which a lot of people in Israel don't get that because they feel like They've been abused for being Jewish for so many centuries. Finally, let's try and show the world that we're something else.
And the message is no, just be Jews, and people will either love you or hate you for it, but the good people will love you. Anyway, but it was everything from that kind of messaging to very serious practical policy issues. I was there discussing some of our work in defending or representing students and employees in Title VII cases, Title VI cases. And as well, they're just a bunch of roundtables. It was a week long, and it was a big collection of a lot of people involved.
And I have to say, I feel very successful in terms of the message that we want to deliver on behalf of ACLJ. I think we're heard very much by everyone in attendance who was there, whether it was the Americans or the Israelis or any else from all over the world. Jeff, one of the things, and I think this plays right into that conference as we talk about the issues surrounding the Memorandum of Understanding, the infighting in America between people that are trying to claim the term conservative or Republican. We know that it's a fairly lost cause on the left when it comes to support of Israel. And they're showing their true colors of anti-Semitism almost daily.
But we're even having the American media, and I think you're in the Jerusalem news syndicate, so kind of contrasting the American media and Media out of Israel in this. There's this headline yesterday in Axios that says: the Republican Party is starting to turn on Israel. And their their proof of this President Trump, who is a, we know, has a forceful leadership style. The conversations he's had with Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now, he's admitted: yeah, I talk like that. They're trying to say that that is him turning on Israel when reality it's two kind of strongmen type leaders that are going to butt heads, as well as things like. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson, whom both have said we are not Republicans anymore. Because of things like this.
So their proof is non-Republicans. And in a strong leader that has harsh words for everyone. Um, I don't know how that can be interpreted other than just through spend that the Republican Party is turning on Israel when it's very thinly sourced of just people that say we're not this anymore, and the President of the United States is just being strong in his conversations.
Well Yeah, you know, look, the Republican Party is a very big concept. There are people who run as Republicans that the RNC has no control over. And so people can be Republicans. And I think, look, we at ACLJ have been very aware of this problem. Democrats did between 2008 and 2018 when they started radicalizing on the left.
They're sort of normalizing anti-Israelism, which was really just. shortly was obvious was anti-Semitism. And unfortunately, even though you would say that for the first number of years, 80% of Democrats, I may not agree with a lot of their policies or liberals. You know, they were still fine and normal and wanted to be friendly with Israel. Even Joe Biden.
when he was running the last time, he insisted on saying that he was a Zionist. Do I think he's a Zionist? No. Do I think he's pro Israel? No.
Do I think he thought he had to say that to win a general election? Yes. And so but I am concerned, as we all have been, about elements on the right Also trying to move. And again, there's a famous horseshoe theory of politics, which I think is a circle that things connect. At the extremes.
And so you're seeing the same rhetoric, which is not about hating Israel. It's about hating Judeo-Christian society. On both sides, these people who claim to be Republicans, well, maybe they're registered, maybe they're leaving the party, but when they invey against Israel, they also inveigh against Christianity, as the founding fathers underserted, as they modeled America to be, a Judeo-Christian society.
So is it a problem? It's a problem. We cannot. We can't sit idly by while the country is overwhelmed by the extremes, left or right, because their message is the exact opposite of everything we fight for as a law firm in the Constitution, which is based on that rights are inalienable, they come from God, and the Constitution frames that by limiting that, I mean, that's a declaration, but the Constitution frames it by limiting government power. And so we have to focus on those issues because every one of these people who claim to be Republicans or that Axios is claiming to be Republicans, they're also against the Constitution and the Declaration.
So I'm not sure exactly why they should qualify.
Well, and I think that goes even further is to show that what we're saying is that we are fighting against within the conservative political philosophy or constitutional philosophy or worldview. It shows also, I think, in and of itself that those people are disassociating themselves with the Republican Party, which has historically been the conservative home base. I think that's a good thing. Even in their articles, they're saying Republicans are turning against Israel. I think it's showing that those of us that are true conservatives and that believe in the Constitution, Judeo-Christian heritage and values, as well as that friendship with Israel and where that comes from and why it's important to support them, and also to root out and push firmly back against the racist tropes that you see rising up.
I think it shows that we are doing the opposite of what the left has done, where they have embraced those people and they have elevated them and they say, hey, there's no room in our party for the John Fettermans anymore. It shows that we're saying. No, maybe you should change your name. Maybe you shouldn't have this association anymore. with the Republican Party.
I think it's not a fight that's over, and Lord knows it's going to continue for generations. But I think it's a little bit of proof that when we push back, these people will be like, oh, we're not welcome here anymore. The Thomas Masseys don't win re-election. The. the people that you don't want to be associated with.
You don't have to be associated with anymore. I think that's a good sign, but the fight's not over. Jeff, thank you so much for joining us today from Jerusalem. I know you're hard at work there, and we'll talk with you soon. But, folks, if you want to talk with me, Call me 1-800-684-3110.
I'll be taking your phone calls in the next segment or leave a comment in the chat and I'll try to get through those as well. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow, final segment of the broadcast. We're going to take your phone calls on many issues today.
So give me a call, 1-800-684-3110. If you want to talk about the Supreme Court rulings that have been handed down today, if you want to talk about the Iran issue in this meeting that's supposed to take place in Qatar tomorrow. I'm here for it. 1-800-684-3110. I'm going to go to Renee calling from Texas.
This is a little bit off topic, but Renee, I'll try to answer this question to the best of my ability, especially with the issue not being decided before the court yet. But go ahead, you're on Sekulow. The citizenship. Ship Birthright Act that's being challenged. I don't understand how it can be contested with the Fourteenth Amendment.
And I try to look at each individual topic and research it. Plus, I want to see what you think about how it pertains to Native Americans and freed blacks And just lastly, I want to say I support the DOJ, so when I lose a case or I don't go my way, I go ahead. It's like complaining about a ref. It does no good. Thank you.
Thank you, Rene.
So, specifically, what Renee is asking about is the birthright citizenship case that, by all analysis, is probably being handed down tomorrow. And where this goes is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This is. How the United States will Take this and go with it because the President, through executive order, was looking at redefining the way that citizenship and birthright citizenship is looked at under the lens of the 14th Amendment. And now, we don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule on this.
It is a very contentious issue on, I would say, every angle of the ideological spectrum. It's not like there is a unified take on this, but. I didn't argue the case for the government. I'm not an attorney, but here's where I will. Kind of breakdown what their argument is.
And it hinges on a clause within Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It says, All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
So, Renee, what they are contending at the Supreme Court is that clause and the subject. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The government's argument in why this is different than I would say, even you brought up Native American issues or even the entire purpose of this, which was a lot of, it was after the Civil War, this 14th Amendment went in. It was granting citizenship to those that were, many that were freed slaves, that they were now granted citizenship. They were made whole in the eyes of the government after the atrocities that had happened to them.
Uh what What the argument of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof is that the government is saying. If the parents arrived here illegally. both of them Then They were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to the oversight, and they were not subject to the United States government. They weren't supposed to be here. Uh Therefore.
They are not granted, their children that are born here are not granted citizenship.
Now the converse argument of that is that That doesn't mean if you arrive here illegally, you cannot, you're still subject to the laws of the country if you're here. It doesn't mean that you can just break the laws, and because you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you cannot be prosecuted for that. I don't know how the Supreme Court will come down on this. I know that there are going to be a lot of happy people and a lot of upset people when this comes down. But what I can say is that it's a lot more nuanced argument than just it doesn't apply to people that we don't want it to.
It is that clause right there, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And so I'm not even going to assume where I think the Supreme Court would come down. They will always surprise you if you think you know, but we will find out tomorrow. And Jordan will be with me. We will discuss that if that is handed down tomorrow.
What that means. And once again, I think it hinges on that phrase. And I think they're. There are a lot of people that would argue, even from the conservative side. That the subject to the jurisdiction thereof would still apply to people that are born here if they are born to people that came here illegally.
So we'll find out, though, what the Supreme Court thinks tomorrow. Thank you for calling. I know that was a little bit longer explanation, but it's not just a simple cut and dry issue. That's why it's at the Supreme Court in many ways: when there are. questions surrounding this.
That's where a lot of times it ends up. Let's go to D on line one from California. D, you're on Sekulow. Yes, I have a comment. My comment is this, I think, regarding President Trump.
Kicking as long as he has with this Iran situation. He's doing the right thing. He's given the benefit of a doubt, but. Make the right choice. Secondly, my question is this.
Is there an update regarding this young man who was arrested in Pakistan as a teenager accused of blasphemy? Is it a happy ending? Were you guys able to reunite him with his family?
So I will address that first. We have multiple cases of minors that are imprisoned on death row for blasphemy. I believe you're talking about Shahzad Masih, who has been one of our longest cases that comes. He was arrested as a minor and has grown up for a very long time. It's been.
I think 15 years that he's been on death row. We are still fighting. I will have C.C. Heil join me this week, D, to give a more thorough update. But the state, when it's at the high court in Pakistan, a lot of times the prosecution will play some games with the court to get it delayed so that we can't get final justice for our client and get him out.
As of right now, they're still in prison in Pakistan.
So we are still fighting. We do think that we will be triumphant, but we are also, I just got an update from Matt Clark, who is one of our senior attorneys here, that the Ayu brothers, very similar situation. They have a Supreme Court hearing tomorrow.
So, multiple cases involving blasphemy that we're having to fight in the high court in Pakistan. It's a practice at the ACLJ. We have an office there. It's not something you hear about every day, but it is ongoing and it is life or death.
So, when you support the ACLJ, You're also fighting for individuals that are wrongfully put on death row. For what they are saying is blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. It's outrageous. It's a human rights violation. Most of the time, even if there were blasphemy involved, it is not something that people should be put on death row as a minor or an adult anywhere in the world.
But they're not even actually blaspheming the prophet in these cases. A lot of times, it is how the Islamic majority will use that to persecute the Christian minority. They'll make up something. They don't like this kid. They don't like this family.
What will they do? They'll say they blasphemed the prophet. They get a mob to go after the family. And the police step in and say we're arresting you on blasphemy charges mainly just to stop the mob from taking you out.
Sometimes. It's horrific, but that's what we do. And when you support the ACLJ, you support that very, very important work. D, I also want to get, sorry, Brad and Elaine, not going to be able to get to you today. Call me back tomorrow.
You should have called back a little bit earlier. Those lines were open. No one called. But also to Dee's comment about President Trump taking as long as he is. The Islamic Republic has been installed in Iran.
For decades. A few months of giving them maybe the opportunity to negotiate it. This isn't taking long. This isn't a forever war. We're only a few months into this.
Remember the war on terror lasted for over 20 years.
So, yeah, I'm kind of with D2, although I want the Islamic Republic to fall. I'll give him some time. We'll be back tomorrow. Mm.
