On today's show, Clancy Jurr admits that the holdout vote was due to a shocking reason. I'm certain. you'll connect with. 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 is a genuinely packed show, a packed house today. Jordan Sekulow here, Will Haynes in studio. We've got Rick Rinnell joining us a little bit later and. Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCusky will be joining us.
So we have a packed show. And today, we're kicking things off with a bit different of a topic. You know, usually this is not something we'd weigh into, but of course, the world has been keeping an eye on the Lindsay Lancey case and everything that's happened. And we, of course, know that it went to a mistrial, essentially, where one holdout. Was saying, I can't acquit this person or at least give them something because of reasons of insanity.
And they couldn't get over one simple fact. They couldn't get over.
Something that I think a lot of people who'll be listening to this will agree with. You know, we talk about the sanctity of life, and we talk about when life not only begins, but when life ends, and how we treat that. And I think that this is showing sort of the growing epidemic that maybe go beyond the legal side and go to just the well-being of the American mind right now when you hear something so casually thrown away like this. This is from one of the other jurors.
Now, they're making the rounds. They're making the press rounds talking about this because, as they said, only one person. Only one of them decided that they were going to hold out and said they just couldn't get over this simple fact.
So, again, this is a juror. On NBC News. Talking about this and wait until the end when you hear this, what they think is an egregious reason that this person could not vote to acquit. Every one of us In the hours of a frustration, he would get up and walk the room because you just couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go over to the cart with the exhibits.
He, I think, got up to the cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat. Um he would not He would not interact with us and and try to understand. We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day in the end, well why don't we have the judge come in and read it again? And we were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And, you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable thought. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. He had the hardest time.
getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. That is where we live today in the current society. And I think we need to talk about this. We need to talk about this, Will, and how it plays into just the idea of life and how life is treated even in the court system. Once again, this is a tragic thing when you think about all the context here, but The way that so cavalierly this juror said that The one person couldn't get over.
The fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children, it's shocking to hear, it shocks your conscience. But I think it goes to what we've been talking about, especially in a state like Massachusetts, where this is taking place. Even the fight of the state against pro-life pregnancy resource centers, the clapping at the late-term abortion bill that was signed into law by the governor, that the culture of protecting the sanctity of life is eroding much faster than we've ever seen. Yeah, it doesn't only happen in the courtroom, it doesn't only happen in the law, it's happening just in our own mental psyche as we move forward. There's also a lot going on today.
The GOP Midterm Convention, something that I don't think I've ever said before, is starting today. We'll talk about that at a bit more coming right up. Again, we have a packed show because Jordan is here. Will's here. JB McCusky's joining us.
Rick Cornell's joining us. It is just going to be jammed, but I still want to hear from you. That is at 1-800-684-3110. If you want a way to get involved also right now, We got a petition up. If you hear something like this, you feel like our society has become desensitized to what's going on in the fight for life, go to aclj.org slash sign, sign that petition today, and be a part of the team.
We'll be right back with your calls, comments, and everything else. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lights are open for you at 1-800-684-30110. Mixing things up a little bit. We're talking about the Nancy, or the Clancy case currently that is, you know, we ruled a mistrial, and now details are coming out because the jurors are speaking.
And the one quote that we none of us here could get over as we continue our fight for life, not only again in court, but also just for. In people's mental well-being, when we're talking about life and we're talking about protecting life and not just life in the womb. but children's lives. And they said, you know, this one juror who was the holdout, could not get over the fact The quote is, he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. And would not vote to acquit her reasons of of mental wellness.
It's a sad place we're at. But it's also showing a bit of the times here, Jordan. It's something we can break down a little bit more. Yeah, I mean, the fact that they said he couldn't get over. The fact that she viciously killed her children.
I mean, right there, I think for most people, that's where you'd be hung up and where you really had to. Feel in court that this argument of this psychosis and the postpartum depression that would have had to be extreme to not justify this, but to excuse this in a court of law that you wouldn't be, what the usual sense would be is life in prison in this state without a chance for parole. And instead of, and then maybe the distinction being potentially some kind of psychiatric holding, but then you don't guarantee how long people are going to be there if it's all situationally based.
So if it's all based on the fact that it was pregnancies and she's not going to have pregnancies again, then how long does she really need to be held in a psychiatric facility if that's what caused it?
So that's a very complicated part for the jury to get to, but it seems like most of the jury was there. They were ready to do it. And there was a lot of cultural pressure around this to do that.
Now, I'm not saying it's bad because I think it's good to have these mental health discussions publicly. I don't know if this was the best case to start it on because of exactly. Exactly what that juror said. It's just so vicious what she did to have a mental health discussion around that. Maybe it's a wake-up call to get ahead of these issues, but that doesn't solve this case and it doesn't bring justice for these three children.
Yeah, one juror said they were going to vote guilty. The whole time and then the last second decided, well, we don't know if she's going to be able to get the help she needs.
So, we're going to vote, you know, not guilty.
So, they proved, and she looked there was never a moment they're saying that she did not do that guy. No, the defense never claimed she didn't do it. That would have, I know there's a lot of people on the internet that like to claim that, but they did not do that. The defense never went down that path. What they went down the path is that she's not criminally responsible.
for her actions. And as you brought up, Jordan, that's a different discussion because, you know, not guilty by reason of insanity. That's not a new concept. That's not like they invented something novel here. You could be in prison for a very long time for that.
Almost, you can be imprisoned for life for that or in psychiatric facilities for life because of that.
Now, this one brings up, as you said, Will, this other twist. And the twist is this is directly related to postpartum issues, so post-birth issues.
So if you're not pregnant, how are you going to continue to hold that person for what they did if they are not pregnant? And then can you actually have them agree to not become pregnant? I mean, that becomes a whole other ethical issue. Whole other issues. Sterilization and these kind of questions.
I mean, that would have to be the second discussion, I think, for people to feel even comfortable. But as you see, this one juror is being demonized. for feeling like I think a lot of people who were afraid to probably say it. But but a lot of us felt it, that it's really hard to get past The fact that she did this heinous act, and that's where you had to get past that to get to the not guilty for reason of insanity.
Well, and once again, and here's a bite from a different juror that was talking about what they were trying to figure out and why it's so relevant to this discussion. All of these things that why is this matter? For those of you watching, because it's one individual, it's horrific, but it's in Massachusetts, it's a state crime. This isn't gonna make national precedent for law. But when you start to hear, How cavalier it becomes about what she did and what isn't in dispute from the prosecution nor the defense at this point.
What was presented to this jury. Is that she did these acts.
So much so that the juror that was very upset that someone wouldn't acquit by reason of insanity or not be criminally liable by reason of insanity was. She used the term viciously killed. It wasn't.
Someone categorizing the way she was talking about those were her words And it has become culturally okay. For this is an extreme example. But when we talk about the abortion industry and the lobby that has pushed boundaries when it comes to what is the norm, I remember a article in the Journal of Medical Ethics that made a lot of waves in 2012.
So 14 years ago, that was called afterbirth abortion Why should the baby live? And it got passed around a lot. Obviously, it's very heady, philosophical. Basically, these two doctors. We're arguing bioethicists that It Because a child can't realize their own needs and wants after birth, that afterbirth abortion should also be permitted.
Now, everyone rejected that. It made a lot of waves in the pro-life sphere of how egregious this was, but it was pretty much rejected. Right. Because that's an absurd concept. But what we're starting to see here, whether it be Governor Northam for Virginia, that said in that late-term abortion discussion of, you know, we'll make the baby comfortable, then decide what to do with it.
Or you think of the. The bill that was applauded. We're not that far away from what this article says when you're having the jurors deciding the fate of a mother who used exercise bans to end the life of her children. I don't want to. present this as some other way, but I think you'd be shocked at what goes on.
Uh in terms of child care. Post-birth childcare when there are these situations. There are things that happen to hospitals. I don't think that are on the up and up totally with this. And I think we have to be very careful with this.
I think maybe this will be an eye-opening moment, like Will said, where you can actually have these conversations because these are conversations that are really happening inside of the medical field. These are our conversations that are happening inside of now our own brains to discuss where we think life should and shouldn't be protected. But let's even hear again from another juror. This is byte 7. Trying to figure out if she murdered the children.
She did. And she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out: did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved your children so much, and everything proved she loved her children from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children.
So she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing. To me, that it was proof. It was the proof.
Now, Jordan, I think this actually brings up a very interesting legal argument here as well. Because, again, it's like, where does these kind of excuses, if you'd say, Land you in terms of mental fitness and where you are in terms of when it comes to murder. And now, at this point, triple murder. Does that play into this? And what does it look like?
When clearly she had a good defense.
So they're called affirmative defenses.
So you are affirming. That's what they are saying about you is true. You did the act. But you were not guilty because of this defense. And this defense was one that, as Will said, has been around for a long time.
It's insanity. And that you were not, that it wasn't you doing it. It was you were taken over by biological, chemical, depression, postpartum issues. And we saw the age range there of, I think it was, you said, eighth month old. Eighth month was the youngest.
So that would be the closest with the postpartum. That's again. I think that it's worthy of having that discussion. They talk about it all the time, especially in your first child. For sure.
But when you have these extreme cases, I think people do want some option where they feel like there's going to be punishment here. And that punishment could come with intense counseling, but not just letting these people out into the streets in a few months. It can be both. There's another danger here as well. Where you see the ban her from having children.
Can you, I mean, I don't think you can even do that under the US law.
So could this, she could be pregnant again, have a pregnancy that had no problems, then have a second pregnancy, no problems, have a third pregnancy, have issues. And I mean, this is, so even though it doesn't set a precedent nationwide, it does set an idea nationwide for jurors.
So, if you end up as a juror in a similar case like this, you're going to remember this case. I mean, they picked clearly whoever was deciding who's picking the jurors for the defense. I mean, they almost got it. Here's also the concern, though, right? Is that if you equate.
What Lindsay Clancy did With the term postpartum depression.
Now, they were using more postpartum psychosis, was the term used here. But everyone that's talking about in the news and the people that are carrying signs are saying postpartum depression. If you equate with what Lindsey Clancy did with postpartum depression, that's going to discourage people from getting help that they may need. Because postpartum depression does not mean you are a murderer. They're taking a pretty widespread use term that can define a lot of.
Normal kind of depression behavior that does not include taking anyone's life. Yeah, hey, phone lines are open for you, but when we get back, that's at 1-800-684-3110. Attorney General West Virginia, JB McCusky, is joining us also, somewhat talking about protecting kids in different ways. We'll discuss that, as well as some other news coming from him. You're not going to want to miss this.
It's really interesting. Again, we're going to shift topics here. Give us a call, though, if you want to chat about this. 1-800-684-3110. Again, Protect the Sanctity of Life.
Go to ACLJ.org/sign. Sign the petition today. Absolutely free way to get involved with what we're doing here. And of course, get yourself connected with the ACLJ at acljagain.org/slash sign. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Sekulow. Jordan's in studio, Will's in studio. We've got a packed show this entire hour, and we're joined by our first guest of the day, ACLJ alumni, of course, the current. Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B. McCuskie.
Now, in this moment, Jordan, there's a couple different things happening right now, and I think we wanted to address them all in the air. Yeah, two victories that West Virginia was leading the charge, but it affects the entire country. One affects all of us when it comes to how we power our homes and our cars, vehicles, transportation, and office buildings, about everything else in the country. And then, one, of course, about protecting our children. And the first I wanted to go to, which is the latest, which was out of New York.
JB, the Attorney General of West Virginia, you guys led the charge here because New York had announced this climate change super fund that would have cost just West Virginia possibly $75 billion in fines to companies based in West Virginia because they provided the gas, the coal that powers the infrastructure in New York State. Yeah, so $75 billion was actually for the entire country.
So if you're somebody that lives in Texas or you're somebody that lives in Louisiana or you're somebody who lives in North Dakota, you're somebody that lives in Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, they were coming after your job. And what New York said was, is our liberal bloated budget, we can't balance it. And so what our plan here is, is to create a fake cause of action, pass it through the legislature, and fine our oil, coal, and gas companies $75 billion for damages that they were unable to get past, even a motion to dismiss. At the district court level, even in New York. And so they passed it as a law.
And what this law would have done is retroactively fined all of these energy producers for legal work that they did to produce the energy that drives America every single day. And the scary part about this is it wasn't just New York. Vermont had a similar statute or has a similar statute. Maryland has one proposed. Illinois has one proposed.
California has one proposed. Massachusetts has one proposed. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, you name the crazy liberal state, they all had climate super funds, along with most of our liberal blue cities. And so, what this would have done is it would have spiraled completely out of control, and that $75 billion would have turned into. Hundreds and hundreds, if not trillions, of dollars of fines for the people that drive the American economy.
And particularly here in West Virginia, what is so absurd about what they were trying to do is, you know, the idea that they were passing these laws in skyscrapers that were built with the steel that we made for them, right? We mined the coal, we built the steel, and we built their buildings. And they're literally and figuratively looking down upon us, saying, you know what? Your lives, your occupations, and the American economy aren't worth our insane climate agenda, as well as our socialist policies that we're going to fund with these fines that we're going to levy upon you.
So we took the fight to New York. We had 24 of our fellow Republican attorney generals behind us. But we took the fight to New York and we won a decisive victory in front of an Obama-appointed judge in Syracuse, New York, saying that this law violates the Commerce Clause. This is fully preempted by the Clean Air Act. This is fully preempted by federal law.
And I'm just so proud of our team of lawyers who once again walked into the state where they claim to have the best lawyers in the country, and we kick their butts. And anybody else who tries to pass one of these laws, we're going to kick their butt too, because that's how important it is to me and it's how important it is to the American economy. And that's what I was going to ask you next. You talked about some of these other states that have these on the horizon or are starting to implement them as well. Are we going to see similar lawsuits there?
Because this was a district court. Are we going to see New York appealing this, trying to fight back on this super fund? And what are the Attorney Generals and your office prepared to do? Yeah, so we were actually backed up on this case by the U.S. Chamber as well as the American Petroleum Institute, both really incredible warriors with us in this fight.
But yes, we fully anticipate that General James will appeal this ruling to the Second Circuit. We fully anticipate kicking their rear ends again in the Second Circuit, which we believe will render any of these statutes within that circuit unconstitutional as well. But what we know is that the left doesn't let the fact that the facts get in the way of their arguments. And so we fully anticipate that California and all these other states will just say, well, that wasn't in our circuit.
So we have the playbook, we have the lawyers, and we have the expertise to defeat anybody who tries to impose these irrational energy policies on the people of West Virginia and all of the energy producing states in this country.
Well, in JB1, I mean, that entire region was, and the country really was built on the backs of West Virginians who. Do, I mean, people are afraid to say things like this, but fossil fuels and coal, it's a moral good. In history, it has built the society and the infrastructure and given the life expectancy and all of the breakthroughs technologically that we've been able to achieve in this country and be the greatest country on earth is because of the fossil fuels and the industry that comes out of West Virginia. But I think it's also important that when people have a different agenda in a different state and they try to go and violate the Constitution, it's up to state attorneys general like yourself, who will stand up for the Constitution that will protect the entire country, not just your own state. Yeah, and you know, there's a couple things here, right?
So the American dream and American exceptionalism was built with energy. And energy is the lifeblood that pumps our economy. And you cannot make the argument as a humanist that fossil fuels are bad. It is actually subhuman to be a greeno-leftist moron because millions and millions and millions of people would die if we adopted what their policies are. And if you believe that human life has value, you should and you must believe that fossil fuels are the only way to create the kind of life and future for people all around the world so that they can not just live, but that they can thrive and so that they can build their economies.
Why is it fair that America is the only place in the whole world that has air conditioning, right? I believe that people in sub-Saharan Africa and people all over Europe deserve to have all of the exceptionality and the incredible life that Americans have too. And that all comes from fossil fuels. You know, JB, we've got just a couple minutes, but I want to hit this too, which is protecting children. We've talked about this show last week.
I know you're traveling and this is, again, another major settlement you were part of as an attorney general, 52 attorney generals from states and territories. $18 billion in settlement money. But even more important were the new procedures that are going to be put in place by Meta when it affects teenagers. And this is on both Facebook and Instagram. And Meta's call for TikTok and YouTube to do the same.
And they will actually even make their restrictions more intense and provide more money to states if TikTok and YouTube do that. I have a feeling that there could be some court challenges coming straight to TikTok and YouTube as well. I have a feeling that those things might be coming as well, Jordan. And again, this is an incredible settlement. And what we're doing for kids, and importantly, for their parents, is we're giving parents an equal playing field here.
Parents want to be able to control their kids' social media use, but they don't know how because their kids know how to use it better than they do. And it's not just teenagers. I have an 11-year-old and a nine-year-old, just like you guys do. And my kids use these platforms. And so it is great that Meta has done this.
The next step here is to make sure that we have a seamless set of rules throughout all of the social media platforms so that kids are being protected on all of them. And once again, Jordan, and we've talked about this, this is another perfect example of how, particularly the Republican attorney generals, have stepped into a void that has been left by Congress. Congress should have acted on this a decade ago. And they are incapable of finding five or 10 friends to get to 60 votes to even do the things that protect our country's most vulnerable people. And so the attorney generals have decided we're tired.
To this, and we are going to use the courts to create the kind of life-saving change that our families and children need. I couldn't be more proud of all of our Republican attorney generals. And if you live in a state that has one, thank your attorney general. If you live in a state that doesn't have one, find your Republican candidate and support them as much as you can. Thank you, JB, as always.
And thank you for the work that you're doing. And we're doing a lot of this work with the state of West Virginia as well. We'll be right back. Second half hour coming up. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever.
This is Sekulow. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow. Second half hour of Sekulow coming at you right now. This is Lokan Sekulow, Jordan Sekulow in studio, Will Haynes in studio. You just heard from the Attorney General of West Virginia, J.B.
McCuskie, talking about protecting children in social media. But we're also talking about the idea of protecting children in reality. And what happened with that Clancy case is something we discussed a little bit earlier, where you had a couple jurors, really one holdout from acquittal, saying, you know, I just can't get over the fact that she brutally murdered her children. And it made us all kind of take a step back and have to think about what this all means. and what it means for the law and what it means for our idea of life and the protection of life.
Something to think about for sure. Bill in Wyoming is calling on line one. I wanted to go ahead and take Bill because we're going to be moving into another conversation in the next segment talking about, yes, the GOP midterm conventions, something you may or may not be familiar with that they're even happening. But, Bill, go ahead. Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
I'm sure that there are a lot of people who feel the way I do about this. But the way things are going, I'm beginning to wonder, and get your opinion on this, do you think that this might wind up being developed into another reenactment or bringing back a revival of the Roe v. Wade law? Because it sounds like this might go into a slippery slope in doing that. I mean, Bill, I think that we brought that up because I'm not sure about it connecting directly to something like a Roe v.
Wade law.
Now, here's the deal. I think that you're going to have a fight to federalize abortion protection for the rest of our lives. It's going to be back and forth. And look, we never thought that we would get to the point. I'm going to be honest, I hoped, I prayed that we get to the point where it was not federally legal, where it was something the states could decide.
But, you know, if you would have told me 10 years ago, I would not have been hopeful that that would have ever actually happened. But you had a President that pushed it forward pretty aggressively. The same time, you're going to have the similar fight. And that's even what we're talking about right now: when you start talking about the way we treat life will end up how we govern life.
Well, and I think to your point, Bill, the window of when it's acceptable to end the life of a child is getting narrower and narrower. because you see at the same time the state of Massachusetts applauding at late term abortion proposals and laws being signed into law by the governor and people in white coats clapping all around her. At the same time, in the same state, You have a juror who is livid. With someone who wanted to hold a mother responsible for ending the life of her eight-month-old, three-year-old, and five-year-old, and live it even so easily, effortlessly, using the phrase, he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
So that window culturally. of when it is acceptable or you are not responsible. For the ending of life of children is getting narrower and narrower and narrower, and so I think it may not be the government, it may not be a Roe versus Wade, but. I brought up that article that the afterbirth abortion was seen as absurd and mocked by people on the left because it was a fringe idea in a medical journal that conservatives were sharing to say, look, this is what they want. to now A lot of people Being only focused on The culpability of the mother here and not focusing on the three children who had their lives snatched away from them.
And I think that's a dangerous place to be. I think that people can also be compassionate for people that struggle with mental health issues and not think we need to acquit just based off of. Uh uh a psychosis issue that is being argued in court if they are ending the life of children. That's right. We get back, though.
We are going to be joined by Rick Rinnell, and we want to hear your phone calls as well. 1-800-684-3110, want to take some calls today. Of course, we fight for the sanctity of life here each and every day, and you can be a part of that as well. Be part of our family here at ACLJ. Go to aclj.org/slash sign.
It's a great way to get involved, not asking for money, just asking for you to sign a petition to get involved. I thank everyone for supporting us during the month of August, but now during September, there's plenty of ways you can get involved. And of course if you want to support, you can. We always appreciate that. Again, that's at aclj.org/slash signed.
We also are going to move this and talk about. Not only the midterm elections coming up, but the midterm convention. Which is kicking off that you may not even be aware. That is happening. Let's chat about that when we get back.
Welcome back to Secula. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110 in the next segment. Take as many calls as I can. We've got a few lines open. It's a great time to do it, 1-800.
684-3110. We're also talking about the kickoff of something you may not even be familiar that is happening, and that is the GOP Midterm Convention, something that is fairly new on the scene. That's right. Actually, first time, and this is taking place in Dallas. It's a two-day convention.
Now, obviously, the candidates don't need the delegates to nominate them like you see in the Presidential election.
So it's not quite the same style or format. But what you will see is you'll see President Trump, you'll see J.D. Vance, you'll see headlining speakers, as well as candidates that are going, that are on the ballot in November. Rick, it's a novel approach. It's something that hasn't been done before.
Kind of just top line. What do you think about this concept of a midterm convention? Look, I love it. I think this is exactly what Donald Trump does best. He comes out of the box with new ideas.
And what he has decided to do is to really take the messaging that he has and all the accomplishments that the Trump administration has done and to really push them and to really figure out what's working, what's not. I think that what you're going to hear from President Trump and from J.D. Vance and from all the others is a very consistent message that says, Look, we've accomplished a lot. There's still more to do, but common sense has reigned. We've been able to close the border.
We've been able to really turn around all of the problems that Joe Biden left us with. And there's still more to do, and we're still working on those, and we'll continue to work on those.
Well, and I think to that point as well, normally in a midterm, It is a scattershot of the issues that are being talked about, right? Because individual candidates and individual races that are making their case to their voters. And a lot of times they don't get that much attention. And when you're looking at something that is a razor-thin margin in a lot of these areas, it's a very competitive midterm. Historically, the headwinds are against the party that still has control at that time.
This is something novel. It is making it, instead of hyper-local issues that sometimes these turn into, into a more thematic type election that you see in a Presidential year. It's unknown how this plays out, right? Because it's brand new. But I think when you are starting to see things that we talk about, the rise of the DSA, the rise of candidates that align themselves with that, the pushback on many of the things that conservatives are trying to build on, it could be just the thing to energize people in a razor-thin margin.
Now, is it going to get the TV numbers that a Presidential year does? No, I don't think it's ever expected to. But it is built for the people that could be on the fence that don't know what the midterm's about and are just hearing the noise that goes along with it along the way. Yeah, look, I was hoping to be there, but I'm feeling a little bit under the weather, so I'm trying to rest up. But I think a lot of people are going.
I think there's a lot of activists who want to know exactly what the messages are. They realize that President Trump has done such a great job. The candidates on the other side are completely socialist, communist, and proud of it, embracing some of these crazy ideas. When you look at the races, whether it's in Michigan or Florida or some other races, I have to say that there's just such a great energy on our side because the reality is, is they are picking some very radical left-leaning folks. And communist socialist apologists, and that's not going to go over.
So, when the Democrats move to common sense candidates, we can have a common sense discussion about issues, and I think the American people benefit. But when they nominate these far-left radicals, I think people realize that you got to stay with the Republicans. You think it's important, Rick, for people who are maybe watching this show to say, hey, it's worth tuning into the coverage, not just what's going on with the President speaking or the vice President speaking. Obviously, we're only two years now out from a Presidential election.
So, we're going to start seeing some new faces, some new voices, not just in the Presidential run-up, but in other situations. And usually, when you tune into one of these conventions, especially the big, every four-year Presidential conventions, it is to see who those rising stars are. But in some ways, I think people need to tune in to, like you said, see who is going to be there to eventually counterbalance what is happening right now on the left, which is you may disappear. Agree with everything they're saying, but there's no doubt that they're making their presence very known. Look, President Trump is a genius at these live events.
And what he realizes is that, you know, the media is far left. The media is always going to attack us. And so, why not have these live events where we get to talk about our own messaging and we get to push forward the idea that we've been successful and here's why, and lay out all of the reasons that we've been successful. The media is going to have to take it now. They're going to comment immediately and try to undermine it, but at least the message will be getting out that we have been successful in a variety of areas.
And so, I actually really like the idea of having these live events. It's less It allows the media fewer opportunities. To define us when we define ourselves.
Well, it's also no coincidence that it's being held in Dallas. This is at a time where perennially, the race for the Senate seats in Dallas, in Texas, rather, they keep saying, oh, it's close. It's going to be finally the year that they take Texas back. I think there's a little bit more nerves around Texas just because there was a primary fight.
So some of the spending has already been used within that.
However, as you said, trying to frame the things, not just letting the media do it. James Tallarico is a candidate who has said things like. you know Capitalism is an oppressive system. It's the same time they're trying to sell him as the moderate choice for suburban Texas voters. This could give an opportunity for people to actually see and hear what the two competing visions are, as opposed to what the media is trying to push.
There's no question that Republicans are now in a position where the more people find out, about our candidates and our positions, the better we're going to be. because we don't want the Democrats to define us. They are radicals. We are common sense. Everybody knows that we've closed the border.
They are arguing to keep the border open.
So all of those issues are in our favor. The more we can get in front of people with our common sense candidates, the absolute better we're going to be. And again, this is a two-day event.
So it's today and tomorrow. Obviously, it's going to be a highly watched moment. And if people know about it, I think that's what we got to first got to educate people to understand that this is even happening. I'm sure people that follow this show have an idea it's happening, but I didn't really even realize it was happening to this scale.
Well, one, I think it is to some degree smart that it's the week after Labor Day because it is a time when the news cycle is a little bit slower. And so, but there is an interesting thing. There's a competing event tonight, the NFL kickoff. But at a time when there's a slow media cycle, What are Journalist, what are TV news gonna do? They're gonna go pull from this convention.
to run throughout the day.
So it's a made-for-TV event that can be repurposed. It's doing a lot of the journalist jobs for them, as well as tonight, J.D. Vance is speaking, the vice President, and tomorrow President Trump is speaking.
So it will be newsworthy and headline worthy. It's not just a bunch of congressional candidates that you're not going to have an opportunity to vote for because they're halfway across the country. It is truly made to be a national style event. All right.
Well, thank you, Rick, for joining us. We appreciate it. And, of course, we'll keep an eye on it for everyone who is not being able to watch it. Maybe you are choosing to watch the Seahawks play. Maybe you decided that you don't want to tune in.
You said the Seahawks and not Seahawks Patriots, or you chose Seahawks over Patriots.
Well, they're the. Raining. Yeah, that's fair. Then the Seahawks win the Super Bowl. Yes, okay.
I mean, that's I feel like that's okay. That's fair. But I mean, the Patriots are playing with the family. I did see the Seahawks live like a week ago. I'll sorry, two weeks ago.
They played here against the Tennessee Titans. That's right. The Titans what? But it wasn't pre-season. But you know what?
There's a reason for that. As a Tennessee Titan. That's not so true when it was preseason performance. That's what people say, but not me. Not when you have a household full of Tennessee Titans fans.
You take any win that you can get. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-30-110. Will you be tuning in tonight? But also, when you hear about what Jordan was talking about, the protection of kids in terms of even social media usage, and now you have an organization like Facebook Meta, you know, Instagram and Facebook actually calling for the protection of children. This is something that is pretty unprecedented.
We know that at a time that some of these organizations have actually made it increasingly harder. To police what your children are doing on these platforms and made it to be where a lot of parents are just deciding they're not going to use these platforms, but maybe you have. These tech Billionaires and geniuses going, well, we all have kids. We got to protect our kids too. What do you feel about that right now?
Where do you set the line as a parent? 1-800-684-3110. I would love to hear from you on this topic because it's something we've been working on. Yes, we've been working, as JB said, on the federal level on laws about age verification. And that is something, again, the Senate has, and the Congress has not been able to get through.
So while that is still an effort we work on and we still support, we know we're hitting election time. Seeing these companies do this because of pressure from states, if Meta can do it, so can TikTok and YouTube, TikTok and YouTube. It's sharing these funds and we can protect our children better. Yeah, no reason not to. At this point, 1-800-684-3110, get your voice heard on the air today.
We'll be back for the last segment. Want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. Phone lines are open for you. We're going to take some calls.
I've seen you hold for a while. We're going to talk a little bit back about the Lindsey Clancy situation with the jurors. We also have some discussion about those other topics we had. Brother Brilliant. Yeah, I was just checking my portfolio over here because I got a bunch of that laptop coin from Hunter Biden's Hunter Biden's meme coin.
Yeah, man. I mean, I bought it at $250 and it's now down to $166. We need to clarify a dollar. $166.66. Didn't actually buy any little jokes there.
I like you had to clarify that it was a joke. Just in case people thought that you were like, oh man, you lost it all. I'm remarkably calm if I had bought at $250 and am now depending on. Depending on how much you bought, yeah. I mean, if it was one, I still think I'd be pretty upset.
I'd be upset, but it'd be like kind of a joke. But if you bought, you know, a couple dozen, I'd feel for you. All right, let's take some calls. Let's go to Lisa in North Carolina. You've been holding for a while, Lisa.
Lisa, watch on YouTube, by the way. It's a great place to watch. You know, YouTube has actually, you know, we've talked about this, been a little bit more open to having these conversations.
So go to YouTube. You can be a part of the chat. Also, it's a great way to kind of connect with like-minded people.
Sometimes not so like-minded people, but it's a fun time. Lisa, though, in North Carolina, you're on the air. Yeah. Um I just want to say to it's it just doesn't make any sense to let someone off on insanity because, um, And I mean, if they do, they still need to pay for what they've done. And what if you would go into a psychosis again or whatever you call it, and then go snatch someone else's kids and do the same thing?
Lisa, we were just talking about this during the break, which is If you can claim that every time murder happens, that it's a reason of insanity can be acquitted. Most people in their right mind Aren't murdering. You know, that's not like, and I feel like that's almost every murder. We're not talking about self-defense, you know, manslaughter or something like this. Killing.
Killing or something happening in a car accident. You're talking about. Murder like this. Gruesome. Horrible murder.
Likely. You are not doing that in your right mind. Right. And so even the whole, you know, not criminally liable by reason of insanity starts to break down for a lot of people just because of the rational thought behind it. But even there, Lisa, yes, the statement from even the defense and everything is that if she were acquitted, she will likely face civil confinement where the judge is getting her into a mental facility, someplace that will, she's not free to go.
But the opposite of that is that then I'm sure her defense will be continually arguing, petitioning the court to release her because they said this was a one-time thing. That was even the defense is that She never had psychosis, had psychosis, committed the act, and then has not had it since.
So, therefore, the defense is going to be arguing continually until the judge decides that, okay, yeah, you satisfied this requirement, that you should let her go because this is no longer an issue, an ongoing issue. You shouldn't be confining my client for something that's not going to happen. Yeah, but you can see because, again, there are people that have psychotic issues that aren't related to one necessary event.
So, it's not related to just childbirth. And so, those kind of individuals, it's much, much easier to keep longer-term in facilities if you were to find them not guilty because of their insanity, but because of that and their psychological breakdown is so extreme that it's not something that can be cured. And it's not, you know, you can't pinpoint it to one thing. But the problem then becomes exactly what Will says: is that when it's a one-time thing, and you say it was all related to pressure. Pregnancy, it didn't happen with two other pregnancies, but did happen with a third.
Why could you then continue to civilly confine someone that you said did this because of that if they are not. putting themselves in that situation again, which then opens the door to Is she not allowed to get pregnant? Or if she got pregnant, does she have to be arrested? I think it would also be very different if they were saying that she didn't do it. You know, if this was a defense saying that she's not guilty of this and here's why, and there's a conspiracy and there's these things, but that's not what they're claiming.
No, no, not at all. And that's also the reasonable doubt issue that even this juror brought up. It's not OJ. It's talking about the reasonable doubt is not reasonable doubt if she did it. It's reasonable doubt if she's criminally liable.
When you start to blur those lines, it makes it, one, a lot more confusing for even a jury to understand. But let's play. I mean, we got other calls. We'll get to it. We've played it.
But it's just even that fact alone. Reasonable doubt isn't whether or not she committed the act. That's not in dispute by the defense. The reasonable doubt is whether or not you should hold her responsible. For the killing of her three children.
And that's a much harder thing to wrap your head on.
So I'll get a couple more calls in. Let's go to Marcia in Texas. Go ahead, Marcia. Martha, I just learned recently that there are 10 states. of the fifty states now who are taking the lives of the unborn.
up unt right after uh they're born and I didn't know that. Yeah, there was and I could go ahead, Marsha. Or Martha. Yeah, and I just think it's horrible. We got Roe v.
Wade passed, and now the states, which have the right to do this, I'm sorry, I'm getting my echo. And Martha, here's also the problem. You talk about these states, it's things that we've been fighting at the ACLJ. They've also started incorporating this language paranatal. which isn't just up until birth.
That period covers afterbirth as well. And so there's not a lot of logical leaps that you have to take here to get to seeing where states are saying, hey, you can't even investigate if a child is discovered to no longer be alive in that perinatal period because it could have repercussions on the abortion industry.
So yeah, it's not too much of a stretch to see how devalued life has become that the focus of this trial even wasn't on the children who lost their lives because that is where even the laws of this country are going, where it covers a period after birth and you can't even investigate it if there is a child that's discovered that is no longer alive. Yeah, and as you mentioned, Massachusetts obviously had the public circumstances around it. You had obviously the celebrations that was disgusting, but yeah, they weren't the first or the only to do it. They were just the ones that seemed to kind of put it out there as a media moment. Massachusetts always seems to do this.
I'll just take one more call. Irene, New Jersey, go ahead. Hi. Um I feel that she She's totally responsible regardless of why. All of us have a choice.
Okay, and there's consequences to everything we do, whether it's good or bad. These children are dead. She needs to be accountable for that.
Okay, the blame game is getting old.
Okay, people always do the blame game for what why they did this and they did that and it started in the Garden of Eden. He's blamed the Satan. Adam blamed God for giving him the woman who did this. The blame game has been Going on forever, and it's getting old. This woman killed not one child, she killed three.
regardless of the reasons. There sh you should be accountable for what you do.
Well, of course, Irene, we agree with you in this situation here, but it is sort of a sad day where that's even a discussion point. Again, like I said, if her defense was saying she didn't do it, and I see some people in the chat thinking that. That's not what her defense to say. Her defense is saying, yeah, she did it. But You know, here's why.
And how do we judge that in terms of the morality of life in general? It doesn't have to just be about. how we're dealing with this in the courtroom. It's also how we are dealing with it in society. That's going to do it for today's show.
Thank you all for joining us. It was PAC. Thanks to JB. Thanks to Rick Grinnell. Thanks to Will and Jordan.
I'm gonna thank myself. Why not? And with that, I wanna thank you for supporting the work of the ACLJ during that big moment in August. But today is a great day to get involved in a different way. Sign that petition, help protect life.
We've won some very big fights, but we need you standing behind us. Go to the ACLJ website at aclj.org. You can scan the QR code because we're committed to saving the lives of the unborn and babies in general, creating a culture of life throughout their life. Join us, sign the petition at aclj.org/slash sign.
