Breaking news, the ACLJ launches petition to stop Biden's IRS power grab. 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, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. We are launching a petition. It's up at ACLJ.org to stop and also just keep educating Americans about this power grab by the IRS. Think about, again, the $80 billion, $87 billion, 80,000 new IRS agents.
And they tell you they're not trying to go after the everyday American? You would need 80,000 new IRS agents to go after the top 1% and make sure they were paying their fair share of taxes and following the rules of the tax code. You would need 80,000 new people. Maybe no new people.
You could just focus in on that group. This is a complete IRS takeover of everyone's personal life. We talked about this, the phony idea of moving it from $600 to $10,000.
Folks, I mean, think about it. If you're living on Social Security right now, you're spending $10,000 in a year. It's aggregate. It's not one-time transaction.
Over a year. So it's not, when they say that they're going after the top 1%, this is about the highest earners, they're already watching the highest earners with big transactions. This is to go after the everyday citizen. And at the same time, they want to change the rules about going after and looking at you for political purposes or because of different beliefs you might have, which is exactly what we fought against a decade ago fighting the IRS. Yeah. And also at the same time, let's remember this, you've got $80 billion as in the proposal for the increased budgeting for the Internal Revenue Service, 80,000 new employees. And under HR 1, which the President said yesterday, right, Will, that there would be, he would be in favor of no filibuster.
Take a listen to this. But when it comes to voting rights, when it comes to voting rights, just so I'm clear though, you would entertain the notion of doing away with the filibuster on that one issue. Is that correct?
And maybe more. Yeah. Well, that's great. Except in that one issue tucked away, by the way, is the learner rule, which says the IRS cannot target groups based on their ideology. But under the HR 1, and it has nothing to do with voting rights here, the President, by saying, oh, I would be in favor of doing away with the filibuster. And then let's go ahead and let the IRS target citizens again, Andy, which now you've got this potential conflict between a law signed by the President and a court order that we won.
Well, we did win. The US district judge, Reggie Walton, entered an order consented to by the Internal Revenue Service in which they said they would stop this conduct of targeting organizations, which are conservative, faith-based, Christian, whatever it is, ideologically, they signed that order. The judge ordered them not to do that anymore.
They in fact apologized for it. Now they're trying legislatively to undo what before a co-equal branch of government they agreed no longer to do. I would argue that if they proceeded in the fashion that they're talking about, they're in contempt of Judge Walton's order. And I would pursue them for condemnations conduct in the federal district court in Washington. Folks, this is, again, it's something we're taking very seriously.
We always have it to ACLJ. And again, you can go to ACLJ.org now and you can take action on this. You've got to educate your friends and family about this.
We want to take your questions. If you've got questions about it, 1-800-684-3110, take your calls about this. There are a lot of legislative tricks they're using behind the scenes to get this to pass, including trying to misinform you, trying to make it sound like, well, you've got, I mean, $10,000 transaction.
I don't know how many Americans are being misinformed by that when they really think about it. It's not a one-time thing. And even if it was, think about over the year, there's probably one transaction that you've got to do. IRS the authority to review every American citizen's finances. Without getting any kind of court order.
No probable cause, no court order. We have to stop it. That is the goal of the American Center for Law and Justice. Legislatively, legally if we have to, because we've got the consent orders. But look, we've got to stop this. So that's why the fight on this is so intensive right now. And when we get back from the break, we're going to talk to Thand Bennett to see exactly where this is. But I want to be clear. We have to be prepared to really fight. I mean, really fight, folks. That's why we have a petition up at ACLJ.org.
If you've heard from, if you've dealt with the IRS on these kind of things, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. 800-684-3110 and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.
Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Secular. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Thanh Minh in Washington, D.C., because, Thanh, I think what people are trying to figure out throughout this whole process is where things actually stand. We hear about the meetings the President's doing. We see the town hall last night trying to sell this to the American people and put pressure on people like Senator Joe Manchin. But where does all this stand, both the reconciliation, the idea for this, the budgeting, and also then, of course, H.R.
1, the Voting Rights Act? Yeah, there's a lot of movement on both of them, Jordan, and people really need to pay attention to what's happening behind the scenes. There's a lot of bills that could get pushed forward, have votes on, but Jordan, as you well know, those are all shell bills. Those are bills to try to get the United States Senate on the issue, and then the negotiations that take place behind the scenes would actually take the place of those bills.
So just a quick update on both of them. The reconciliation bill, which is this giant 3.5, up to $3.5 trillion spending bill that the IRS snooping provision would be in there. Jordan, I actually think they're getting a little bit closer to getting that to the floor of the United States Senate for a debate. A lot of the news is covering just that top line spending dollar figure. Not enough people are focusing in on the substance of the bill, including this snooping provision.
The deadline, Jordan, that Speaker Pelosi had set for that was October 31st, but I'm here to tell you, that's about the fourth deadline she set, so it could go past that, but I do think they're getting closer to considering that. But quickly, we did see quite a bit of development on the voting rights bill. You played in the first segment of the broadcast the President saying he would be open to ending the filibuster for that legislation. Jordan, there was another test vote on that voting rights bill just this Wednesday. It was the third iteration of it, and again, the substance is being negotiated behind closed doors.
Here's the significant development, Jordan. Joe Manchin voted for cloture. He voted to move to that bill. So the Lois Lerner rule, that's front and center right now. Yeah, I mean, why don't we call it the IRS Empowerment Act? I mean, that's really what this is. I'm looking at the headline from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the $10,000 IRS target tax dragnet.
Treasury wants to snoop on bank accounts to trigger more audits. Now, the truth of the matter is, I want to be careful on this $10,000 number that they keep throwing around, because as Professor Hutchinson said yesterday, and I think it was bears repeating today, that is not what the number really is. It's a $10,000 aggregate. It used to be $600 was the proposal per transaction. And then we did a congressional hearing on how ridiculous that was. And then this one, they come and say, oh, $10,000.
But then they slip into word in the course of a year. So it goes from 600 to 800. Absolutely.
So the average American family spends approximately 1,000 to $1,200 a month on food, clothing, and shelter. And so this proposal by the Democrats in Washington would capture virtually every single American and subject them to snooping or better said, spying by the IRS. And then the IRS could then examine your transaction. So for instance, if you make a charitable deduction of $100 a month to an organization that the IRS disfavors, they could then challenge that and then demand repayment of taxes and penalize you. So at the end of the day, this would shrink the capacity of average working class people in the United States, for instance, to give donations to 501c3 organizations, to give donations to the HCLJ, to give donations to their church. So at the end of the day, everything you and I do would be scrutinized by bureaucrats who live in the bowels of Washington, DC.
And I don't think that is a good move. So I think all Americans need to be energized to oppose this outrageous intrusion by the Democrats in our own private lives. The Democrats want access to data with no probable cause, no warrant, no court order.
Basically, they say that every single thing that you do as an American citizen on a given day is subject to their approval. Let's go to the phones. PAM's calling to North Carolina on line five. Hey, Pam, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.
Thank you very much. I have a comment and a question. First of all, even though this bill is being created by the Democratic administration, this is not a political bill. This is affecting, as you have said, every American. And I have seen already that this has caused a panic environment where people have already started withdrawing their savings and whatnot from banks, credit unions, and investments. Yeah, and we're not calling on people to do that. Here's what we're calling on people to do.
You've got to stop it. I mean, this is an encroachment into, without, as Harry just said, without probable cause, without due process, with nothing. And Andy was an assistant U.S. attorney, was in charge of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta, where they had money laundering cases and things like that. And you had a probable cause and you had to get warrants. You didn't just tap into somebody's checking account to see what was up that day.
That's absolutely true, Jay. If we wanted to, if we had some kind of an idea that there was illicit activity going on in an account, such as drug laundering money, this is the particular focus. It was drug laundering money, cash that was going into an account, or money that was illicit funds from overseas organizations or overseas tax-sheltered entities. Then we would take that information, we would put it in the form of an affidavit, go before a United States magistrate, present the information in the form of a sworn statement, and ask for a search warrant to go into the account.
And the magistrate would either grant the search warrant or deny the search warrant. That's how you do it. That's what the Constitution says, that the people shall be secure in their person, and in their papers, and in their private transactions, and that any time that the government, which is not our friend, by the way, the people and the government are not synonymous, the Democrats notwithstanding, any time the government wants to start looking at your money and looking at how you spend your money, because that's what Senator Cornyn said, that's not only do they want to know where it comes from, now they want to know where you spend it, but the way you do that is you go to the judge and you let the judge decide whether the government has the right to get in your face or not. And of course, Jordan, if it's just ordinary spending in the course of people's lives, no judge would authorize that. So they know that.
Yeah, that's right. You could never get this in court, but if you could do this through law, and the idea is that, so dual track this, on the one hand, they're going to have access to everyone's bank account. What they'll try to sell to you is that, well, we're not going to count your Social Security when it comes in, but it goes out. You have to spend whatever resources you have, you have to pay the bills. So over a year, try to find people who aren't spending an aggregate of $10,000 in an entire year. But on top of that, if they pass the H.R.
1 bill, if that moves forward, not only can they get in everyone's bank accounts, but they can start auditing people because of their political views or their beliefs or the organizations that they belong to. We got a call about that too. Let's go to Warren in Idaho online too. Hey, Warren, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Hi, Warren. Hey, thanks for taking my call, guys.
Appreciate what you guys do. And that is my question and listening to it is, you know, upper middle class, lower upper class. What can they do to small businesses that tied to the church? And how can we stop them from being able to do that? Well, let me let me tell you, this is a great question, Warren.
I appreciate you calling it number one. You're entitled to a tie to your church. Your church is automatically exempt under Section 508 of the Internal Revenue Code period. So they have no right to come in and question your church.
Do they sometimes? Yeah, but we've handled those cases and we win. But what we don't want to do here is allow a precedent where they have unfettered access. That's what Andy was talking about.
It's unfettered access into your accounts. And that, Harry, is where the danger is. This is this kind of open-ended here's 80 billion dollars. Go hire 80,000 agents. Let's see what happens.
Absolutely. And the ACLJ has had experience with IRS intrusion. Basically, the IRS, notwithstanding the consent decree, the learner rule consent decree that was signed with the ACLJ, the IRS has gone back to its old tricks even without the passage of this law. And so imagine how the IRS would be empowered to scrutinize virtually every single transaction that it simply does not like. So it would look at the political focus of an organization. It would look at the religious focus of an organization.
Keep in mind, recently the IRS declared that Bible reading or an organization that supported Bible reading was indeed a Republican organization. This is nonsense and it's nonsense on steroids and I would encourage every listener to get engaged and to help stop the passage of this proposal. Jordan, I do want to continue to hear. We're going to be joined by Rick Rinnell, our senior advisor on national security, global affairs, those kind of things.
And we're going to get into a situation in Russia. But I do want to hear from people that have concerns about this at 800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. We'd like to hear from you.
What do you think about this situation with the IRS? Maybe you've had dealings with them. 1-800-684-3110.
Yeah, we'll be right back. And remember, we've got the petition up. It's at ACLJ.org.
If you go there right now, it'll say right on the right of the homepage, stop buying IRS from spying on your bank account. ACLJ.org. Sign that petition.
Share it with your friends and family. Over 200 members of Congress have spoken out. You can speak out as well and do something about this at ACLJ.org.
We'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular. Rick Renell, our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security is joining us now.
He's got a new piece up at ACLJ.org. The unholy alliance reemerges and expands as Russia reasserts its influence in the Middle East. Rick, we were talking about this earlier in the week that usually when people are trying to say Russia, Russia, Russia, you say, let's look towards China and these bigger threats. But now Russia really starting to meddle once again in the Middle East. They've left their NATO, their coordinating office to explain to people about that move too, because that was something I found unique right in the beginning of your piece.
Yeah, look, I think the Biden administration is making it really easy for the Russians to get big wins here. And by vacating leadership in the Middle East, suddenly now the Russians are jumping to fill it. And what recently happened, which is very troubling, is the Russians have an office in Brussels coordinating, being able to communicate with NATO members, and they've closed that office. There's been a back and forth scandal about spying and who's been spying on who in Brussels at NATO. And NATO has accused the Russians of placing some spies there and they kicked them out.
And Russia has retaliated by closing their office at NATO, which I think, you know, obviously means that there could be a way to have miscommunication, lack of information, and that could spell disaster. You know, Rick, you mentioned Brussels. So, you know, as you know, we've been to Brussels a lot, especially when it comes to the International Criminal Court. But people don't understand the damage that could come out of Brussels. I mean, especially as it relates, you know, to Europe, Middle East. But explain to people kind of the hub of what's going on there. Of course, with your work at the UN, you know this.
But explain to people what the significance is of what goes on there. Well, look, first of all, if you think of Europe as United States, and some people like to say it's the United States of America and the United States of Europe, and you have all of the different parts of Europe coming together, they come together in Brussels. And that could be known as the capital of Europe. Certainly the leadership is based there. And Brussels is a field, as you know, Jay, of every European country has its flavor in Brussels. It's a very interesting city because of that. But the power base of all of the different European nations is right there, and they fight out the EU policy. And so it can be very important to be there. I've traveled there to argue in front of European Commission to try to have NATO spend its time convincing the different members of Europe to pay its fair share.
Obviously the Germans were at the top of that list. So it's interesting. Both Rick has had obviously significant experience there. We've had significant experience.
Very rare, by the way, that you would find in one organization, people have had this kind of global experience at those institutions. I want to pivot to something for a moment here, Rick, and that is this IRS empowerment act, I call it, which is this idea that first it was going to be any transaction of $600 was going to be now subject to being reported by the banks to the IRS, which by the way, the banking industry was pitching a fit over too. They don't want to have anything to do with this. And then they said, well, we'll make it $10,000, but then it was $10,000 in the course of a year.
So it really just moved it up from 600 to 800. You were the director of national intelligence. I mean, you know about spotting. I'm not going to, we're not going to get into any of that or national intelligence, but this looks like getting the IRS into every American citizen's life with no probable cause, no court to protect, nothing. A lot of people in America make more than $10,000 a year. And if we're going to suddenly have the IRS having access to your spending habits, I think it's a disaster. It's very un-American if you think about it. We're supposed to be the country that values individual liberty and this is a direct assault on individual's liberty. And so I think that if you're listening to us right now, you need to speak out against this.
You need to call your representative. You need to do everything you can to highlight the fact that the big hands of the IRS coming into your bank account is unacceptable. Well, the difference between the Intel work and the IRS work is that the Intel work usually can't be used in court, but this is open-ended. I mean, this is why they're doing this, to go after individuals. And at the same time, you're looking at trying to green light an ideological check by 80,000 new IRS agents.
Rick, I mean, you were overseeing the entire intelligence community. A power move like that for an agency to add 80,000 new employees at one time, that's more than significant in Washington. That makes it probably the most powerful entity in Washington, DC. I'm glad you used the word power grab because that's exactly what it is. It is a power grab by an arm of the government that has a lot of, already has a lot of power.
Think about getting audited and how they go through every single receipt and they question everything and they question your motives. And that's not what we designed this country to be like. We have designed a system so that individuals have the power and the government works for us.
But this move is really flipping it around. It's the government coming after the people. You know, I made a statement, I want to play it again, and you've run big institutions of government, but this was from the hearing that we had before House Ways and Means Committee at the end of September.
And it's amazing how much attention this has gotten since then, which is great. But here's what I said. I have said in 2015, and I'm going to unfortunately have to repeat it again today, despite the fact that we have a consent decree entered into federal court dealing with the IRS's targeting of the conservative groups and the Tea Party groups and pro-life groups, that I believe the IRS is institutionally incapable of self-correcting.
And that's kind of the last question I wanted to ask you, Rick, and that is, you know, you got these agencies, you've run them. I mean, and, you know, people laugh about the deep state stuff, but we know it's true. I mean, we've dealt with them, Lord knows, I've dealt with it for the last five years. But these institutions, some of them just, they can't self-correct.
No. And let's be really blunt and honest about this. When you have institutions that are getting more power and more people to do forensic look at American, the way that that's going to fundamentally shake out is that conservatives are going to be targeted. We've seen that in DOJ, we've seen that at the FBI. We know that this is coming.
And so I think you've got to push back now and you've got to really sound the alarms that, you know, adding more power to the IRS is un-American. Rick, it's always great to have you. And I want to encourage people to check out your new piece up at ACLJ.org. The Unholy Alliance reemerges. It expands as Russia reasserts its influence in the Middle East.
I get a big part of this too, is that Russia is being allowed to assert this kind of influence in the Middle East. I have one quick thing here with Rick, just as we close out. Rick, you've been very good at this. The American people have to stay engaged on these issues. You've got to keep engagement here because like you said earlier in the piece that ran, if it's out of the news doesn't mean it's out of the way. And I think we've got to be clear on that.
We've got to stay engaged. Well, one way to do that is just to keep listening to ACLJ. I know that's a shameless plug, but we're covering these issues.
We're talking about them in detail. You're getting more analysis than just a quick little hit on TV. And that's what I think people need to do. Tune in, turn in, educate yourself, go online and read about these issues in detail. Thank you, Rick.
All right, folks, we come back. Second half hour coming up, ACLJ.org. You can find the new piece by Rick there. You can also sign the petition to stop this IRS power grab.
That's at ACLJ.org. We'll start taking more of your phone calls too when we come back. Your experience like with the IRS. Remember, the whole goal of this, like Rick said, is to create more audits. It's to go after more Americans, audit more Americans. It's not the top 1% who got tons of people advising them on their taxes. It's you.
That's who they're going after. It's middle-class America. Be right back. We're decades now. The ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.
ACLJ.org. I want you to think about this number. If you spend $27.40 a day, you'll spend $10,000 in a year. That means the IRS, under the new proposed legislation, the IRS would then have access to all of your spending in your entire bank account. As we keep reporting, they wouldn't have to go to court.
They don't have to ask for something special. You would hit the trigger. That would trigger their access to your account. So instead of how they're trying to sell this is, well, it's not the incoming money. So you can have as much incoming as you want.
It's the outgoing. But at $10,000, we're talking about $27 a day. That again, think about how much gas costs right now.
Think about just fast food, quick things, quick items you're not even thinking about. That adds up. They figured out a number that basically every American hits in aggregate. They will then have access to everyone's bank account. This is like D equals Republican.
Here's why. It's D equals Republican. That was what they put in that determination letter.
They're like, they're going to fool the American people. We're going to say $10,000 because as everybody knows, if you withdraw $10,000 of cash, you deposit $10,000 of cash, it results in a report to treasury. Except that law was passed in 1970 and that $10,000 today should actually be $70,000. But this isn't $10,000 folks.
It's like Jordan just said, it's $27.40 a day. If you spend that, basically you're subject to this, which is probably just about every American. And what we're doing is, as Rick Grenell just said in the last thing with the broadcast, we are letting the IRS into your personal bank account, Harry. That's the problem with this, with no probable cause. Absolutely. So at the end of the day, the elite globalists who've initiated this particular proposal, they want to micromanage every single expenditure that you and I make.
So for instance, if you live in Southern California where gas prices exceed $7 per gallon and you fill up gas, what that's at least 70 to $100. That means if you continue to do this weekend week out, you will trigger this $10,000 threshold. But that is precisely the point of this legislation. They want to examine every single transaction that you engage in and they want to have the right to determine whether or not those transactions are at the end of the day, tax deductible. And at the end of the day, they want the ability to audit virtually every single American in the United States.
And Andy, auditing, not like business expenditures, like just household costs of living with nothing, no constitutional protections whatsoever. That's why this has to stop. We cannot let this bill become law.
As the schoolhouse rock thing, this bill does not need to become law. That's right Jay. Senator Cornyn, I think said it very well when he said they not only want to know where your money comes from, they want to know where you spend it. And that's frightening. That's scary.
That's terrifying. Where my money goes and where that I get is my business. It's not the government's business to monitor how I spend my money. It's your business to monitor whether or not I report it and pay tax on it. But how I spend it is my business. It's not your business government. Get out of my bank account.
Get out of my life. Stop trying to micromanage and power grab the Democrats are trying to do just that. That's all this is. You think about 80,000 new IRS revenue agents scurrying around the country looking at our bank accounts with no probable cause whatsoever and a threshold that is ridiculously low. We got to hear from the American people. Yeah.
We, I think that this has to be very frontier because they're not going to, again, it's going to be something they try to constantly, uh, move you off. So they've, they went from the $600 number to the $10,000 number. And what if they came back and said, Oh, $15,000 in aggregate, these are still ridiculously, it's anything ridiculously low sums thresholds for them to have access to all of your bank account information without having to go to court. You're not under investigation just because you spent money just because you paid bills, donated to your church, supported the ACLJ. This list all goes together in aggregate. There's probably many of you listening right now who tied that much to your church or that with a monthly donation or weekly donation and when it's an aggregate, I bet it gets close to that. That would be enough.
But think about all of your spending combined. Be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American center for law and justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American center for law and justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work.
Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you were saying when you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. This is an interview. I want you to listen to the recording from Texas here. The way he explains, remember the IRS for, for all of us here, we file our tax return. They know what you're taking in and we know what you're spending. I mean, they kind of, they get that information already, but take a list of how he framed this. I think this important way to think about it.
Let's go to court. We all report our income to the IRS, but we're also guaranteed or should be guaranteed some privacy about our personal financial activities that now they want to know how you spend your money, not just how you earn your money. It's like what you said. You can, it's one thing to know your total income. Yes. It's another thing to say, what are you spending on?
Well, that's right. Because, and all in all, I'm supposed to be able to confirm this is the income reported and the deductions taken that are, they don't ask you, uh, Andy, whether you used your money for Sinoco gas or SO or whatever the companies are in a shell. I mean, no one asks, under this thing, they could start looking at that triggers the ability to have the reports. And by the way, the banking industry doesn't want to do this.
No they don't Jay. I have spoken to a re recently just spoke to an official of a community bank in south Georgia who said this would put an incredible burden and a gap between us and our customers. It makes our customers, our enemies, our customers are supposed to be, uh, coming to the bank because they have confidence in us and confidence in keeping our transactions confidential. This makes the banker and the depositor and enemy of one another. And the IRS comes out the victor because they figure out where I spend my money. The IRS has no business figuring out how I spend my money or who I give my money to and community banks and banks generally are going to be burdened with a horrible situation that let me tell you something, this is a frightening bill. This is a scary bill. This turns back the clock to George Orwell's novel 1984 where the government's got a little focus mirror in every room looking at you and making sure that you do what you're supposed to do for that day. This is a horrible recapturing of that scene in the Orwell novel that I know professor Hutcheson is fully familiar with and probably agrees with me on.
This is 1984 the novel back in reality. Folks, let's go to Julie, uh, online one. Hey Julie, welcome to secular. You're on the air. Hey Julie.
Hi Jordan and Jay. Um, this is power that will give the IRS is absolutely frightening. Um, the first thing I thought the very first thing when I heard the $600 amount a month ago was I sometimes when ACLJ has matching challenges, I can, you guys 600 cause it's going to be matched.
And the last year I just get a tiny amount. Um, and they can say they can look up every registered Republican. That's very easy to find out and just start going over Republicans and saying, who do they contribute to? Or if you have a farmer, like you said yesterday, they spend money on gas.
What if that farmer's a cattle farmer and they're against global warming? I mean, it's just so political control. Yeah, it is. And Julie, here's the thing that we check right before we put on radio. I raised this point and we now have an answer to this.
So this will give you some reassurance. And by the way, if you dealt with this issue or you're concerned about this as you call us at 800-684-3110, but Ben Sisney, whenever senior attorneys, I had him go back and look at the consent decree that we got against the IRS for exactly what you said, Julie, this kind of targeted review and paragraph 51, fortunately of the consent decree, professor Hutchinson ties in these acts of discrimination to the first amendment and political viewpoint discrimination. So in that sense, Congress can pass all the laws they want. They can't override under the supremacy clause, the constitution.
I think that is correct. And so let me offer my thanks to Ben Sisney for basically researching this particular issue. It's an important roadblock, but we should not underestimate the ability of the IRS to ignore the constitution. We should not underestimate the ability of the IRS to ignore the rule of law. So I think the American people need to engage in eternal vigilance when it comes to the IRS because the IRS is essentially prepared to engage in their own form of show trials, wherein you have to prove yourself innocent rather than the IRS has to prove you guilty. So I think at the end of the day, we still need to stay on top of this. We are. Yeah.
And then I want to go through it again for people because it is very complicated right now. People keep seeing President Biden trying to sell this. He's doing a town hall at CNN. I don't think that that many people are tuning in.
They're under a million the entire month. They haven't had a show peak that, but he's obviously trying to sell. He's trying to sell to Senator Manchin.
He's trying to sell to Senator Sinema out of Arizona. Where does all of this actually stand right now? What can Republican members of Congress do? Obviously, it seems like they're pretty united, especially when it comes to this IRS issue, when you have over 200 House members signed on.
That's basically everybody. Yeah, 202 members signed the letter that I'm holding in my hand right now, and they laid out a lot of the arguments, Jordan, that we've been talking about on air. And I think maybe the one that they're elevating the most that maybe we haven't talked about too much today is think about the impact on small businesses, Jordan.
I mean, yes, the thresholds as we talk about them right now apply to basically everyone, but you could raise those by ten times and they're still going to apply to virtually every small business in America as they pay employees, as they pay expenses and all the rest. So Republican members of Congress, Jordan, are speaking out. But again, I think it's important to stress this. I mean, I think the American people think of the way that Washington, D.C. should work, and I agree with him.
It should work this way. A bill should come up. It should be debated on the House floor, and you should see this debate happening in a transparent way.
That's not what's happening, Jordan. Both of these bills, the reconciliation bill and the election bill, the substance of those bills are being negotiated behind closed doors. President Biden is meeting with Senator Manchin. He's meeting with Senator Sanders.
They're trying to come up with a figure that they can agree to. And in the meantime, Jordan, what they've gotten Senator Manchin to do is agree to support cloture on the voting rights bill. That means that they can get all 50 Democrats on the bill and then whenever they reach an agreement on what the provisions can be, they would bring it to the Senate floor. So look, Senator Manchin can say anything he wants about opposing different versions of this. As long as he is voting for cloture to bring these measures to the Senate floor, Jordan, he is giving them the vote they need to move this forward.
I think it's got to be clear to everybody right there. Even allowing it to move forward, again, you're going to have these kind of pieces of legislation. This is not where CNN is focusing into their town hall and when they move it from 600 to 10,000, they try to distract people. We've got a letter from 200 members of Congress, Andy, that have opposed this.
These are Republicans obviously. But having said that, Democrats should be opposing this too because I think there's an undercurrent that I don't want to let go here. And I believe we're going to be able to stop this, folks. I want to give you hope.
We've got to stay engaged. But the undercurrent here is that the lack of a basis upon which these reviews can take place and the burden it places, you earlier said, on the banking community are breathtaking in scope. It is, Jay. And what bothers me as a former prosecutor is I knew when I went into the courtroom that I represented the government and I had the burden of proof that the person that I had accused or the grand jury accused was guilty of the crime. It was not his or her role to prove her innocence. With this, it's turned the other way around. The IRS has the right to come in and snoop into your account on a threshold that is ridiculously low and then basically audit you on suspicion that you have done something wrong and to begin to question your donations, for example, the money that you give and how you spend your wealth.
That is not an American concept. That is an unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of the individual. And not only should Republicans be appalled at this, which it looks like they are, but Democrats too, Republicans generally, should be appalled at this seizure into our rights and our liberties and how we spend our money.
We've got breaking news. The Supreme Court has allowed the Texas abortion law to stay in place, but they have in fact agreed to what appears to be, and I'm just looking at it now, expedited review. We'll get more into this in the next segment of the broadcast, but the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review a Texas abortion law, that's the heartbeat bill, refused to block the law while it considers its constitutionality. The court in the order said it would consider the following questions.
This is interesting. May the United States, this is, folks, we'll be on top of this one. May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, and other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB8 from being enforced? In other words, what the court wants to get into is, does the federal government have the ability to move what they did here? So this almost takes it out of the abortion context and it bronze it to the scope of federal government of power versus states. I will tell you right now, I'll announce it on air, we will be filing a brief in the Supreme Court on this.
You could rest assured and maybe we'll get members of Congress to weigh in on that with us. But folks, this is breaking news. We're going to stay live during the break to discuss this or actually, let's go to the break and then we'll get more information during the break.
That'll help us be prepared for the live segment. It is the shift for everybody. These were never allowed to stand through trial. These were always put on... Every life legislation involved abortion, they were put on hold until the case was heard on the merits. They were always issuing those injunctions and that was kind of what everyone expected. We've seen a huge shift just in that move by the court by allowing these to stay in place while they consider these other constitutional and legal issues.
We'll be right back. Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.
That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.
Become a member today. ACLJ.org. This isn't yet on the Supreme Court's website, but the few reporters that have been allowed in the court and are at the court are reporting this news.
So the law out of Texas, SB8, which is a six-week abortion ban, is the most restrictive in the country. And we know that the other case out of Mississippi, that's going to be argued on the merits December 1st. By November 1st, the court is looking at, it appears, a few different issues. One, can the government even bring this kind of action against a state, or against even, in this case, even a judge or an entity like that.
So that's one. There are reports that they will also, on the same day, hear the challenge the federal government's brought to the constitutionality of the law itself when it comes to abortion. But the reporting is also saying that this is on November 1st, so we're talking about a week.
And within a week, they're going to handle the, here, at least many different issues. Now the court order's just got posted to the website. Okay, so let's take a look. You keep talking, I'll take a look at the court order here.
So what's interesting, I mean, it's a very short order. Here it is. The petition for the writ of certiorari before the judgment is granted, so there's not been a judgment, but they're going to hear the case. The briefs of the party are limited to 13,000 words, so those are short, to be filed on Wednesday, October 27th. Reply briefs, if any, are limited to 6,000 words, are to be filed electronically before October 29th. Any amicus brief filed electronically on or before Wednesday, hang on here, something just came up, Wednesday, October 27th. We're going to have to really turn that. Booklet format briefs prepared in compliance with Rule 33-1 shall be submitted as soon as possible.
That's the printed version. The case is set for all argument November 1st. There are a couple of things that can happen here. Number one, it's going to move very quickly, so we got to make sure we can get on record on that. Obviously, it's limited in what you can say, but there's two issues that they're going to address. They're going to address whether the state government could be basically handled by the federal engagement in this case, and that is the Department of Justice entering the brief, and secondly, the constitutionality. But some are speculating that what this could mean is that the court could say, you know what, the Texas law doesn't go into effect because it empowered private citizens, but then they're saying, ah, but that'll give the court the open door then to take action on overturning Roe versus Wade. You know what?
It's all speculation. I have done, we have done expedited cases. I will tell you what this does mean, Jordan, you know that. This is going to move very, very quickly. One month later, one month later, Dobbs being argued at the Supreme Court on December 1st. Our case, our brief on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for the state of South Dakota, I think is due in 10 days. So you have the three biggest abortion cases either at the Supreme Court or the next highest court all within a month. It's huge.
Yeah, so the entire month. So politically also, this is going to have a huge impact because all these debates in Washington, D.C., they will try to refocus the issue. We've seen the refocused issue. Court packing, court adjustment, whatever you want to call it, term limits on judges and justice in the Supreme Court.
These are the issues that fuel all of that in Washington, D.C. So then it's going to be a month of the abortion battle in Washington, which is, again, they come up, we knew it was going to be big with the Dobbs case December 1st, but now it's going to be 30 days of a lot of focus on this issue. Jordan, I think it's going to be the most monumental six weeks for the cause of life in my lifetime. I mean, literally, I think that's what the case is going to be. And I mean, as Jay goes through the mechanics of this, there's going to be a lot of nuance and you might feel like you win a little here, you lose a little here.
But at the end of the day, Jordan, after both of these cases are decided, if states have the ability to regulate pre-viability under a Roe and Casey standard, pre-22 to 24 weeks gestation, Jordan, that would be a monumental win and state legislatures across the country could do what Texas and Mississippi have and take a look at their laws and see what they want to protect. Well, let me tell you what we're going to have to do here. I'm kind of giving the game plan on radio and TV here. We're going to need to file a brief and I don't know if we're going to have time to get members of Congress or not.
I don't know. We got to file this thing. It has to be filed by October 27th and it looks like limited in words too to 6,000 words. So it's going to be, you know, these are going to be short briefs. They're going to have to be concise, but we've got to get on record of this. I think what you said is right, Andy, and I'm going to Harry next. Andy, this is monumental. You got this, you got Dobbs, you have South Dakota. I mean, this is, this is, the Supreme Court is about to deal with the three most significant abortion cases in our lifetime.
That's true, Jay. This is, we are at a crossroads. We are basically at a crossroads as, as strict and as overwhelming as Roe v. Wade in 1973. That's where we are today.
No, I think that's right, Harry. Well, I think this is very, very important and it's very important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Texas has created a very innovative law in which there is no state defendant that can be named by proponents of abortion. So the court could, and this is pure speculation on my part, say that the pro-abortion groups, Planned Parenthood and the like, they will have to wait until a citizen of Texas actually seeks to enforce this law. Then there would indeed be a Texas defendant or the court could say this simply goes too far. But I think it's an interesting case study at the end of the day in federalism.
So again, I just want to repeat for everybody, if you're just joining us, you're just catching the broadcast, what's happened here. This order just came out from the Supreme Court on the Texas abortion law. That law, remember, was a private right of action. It was not the state enforcing the law, but it was actually individuals who could bring a private right of action in civil court against someone who violated this, basically the six week abortion ban in Texas. That law has been able to, to exist. So it hasn't been stopped by any courts along the way. And the Supreme Court, even by this move, by say, you know, a week from Monday, we're going to have an oral argument on this case. The briefing has got to be even before that. The key that I want you all to understand is that they're allowing these laws to stand while they're waiting through the merits of the case, the briefing of the case, the argument of the case, and ultimately their decision.
And so again, you cannot read into any of this, these moves. The emergency action to some might be concerning, but it's also, I mean, it's a huge, for them to move anything in a week is a big deal. I've had these, I've had these emergency stay cases before, and this is beyond an emergency stay. This is a substantive determination. Now, look, I, you know, the court's going to probably be, there's a whole lot of different ways they could go on this. I mean, constitutionally, but you got the setup of a, of a, of a six week period here that's going to be monumental. And I mean, I just sent out a thing to our team to, to get our, our, a group of lawyers together to get on this quickly, because you're going to have to file this on Wednesday. So we're gonna have to be on top of this very, very quickly, but we're going to file and we have to file. I mean, this is the kind of situation where this is what the ACLJ does.
And I think this federal government entering it the way they did was wrong. So there's a lot of constitutional issues here and I'll just a little bit of space to lay them out. I mean, so you're going to have to be, this is a brief that's going to have to be very, very precise as we move this forward, but rest assured your support of the ACLJ allows it to happen. We're going to be on it this weekend.
That's right. So follow ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org for updates on this, for updates on the battle against the IRS, the new pieces up, a new piece up by Mike Pompeo earlier this week, Rick Renell today.
So a lot of resources available. You can also sign the petition to stop the bind abuse of the IRS. We've also got an email out today on our work involving the life issue, which is one of our core issues at the American Center for Law and Justice. And now these battles are coming right in a row, one after another, after another, and both sides are going to utilize it.
The question is, again, the American people getting the attention and focus on the right issue. So go to ACLJ.org, stay with us as we unpack this information coming out of the Supreme Court on life. It's ACLJ.org and we'll talk to you on the broadcast next week. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-08-04 07:34:18 / 2023-08-04 07:57:46 / 23