Schumer Threatens to go Nuclear If He Doesn’t Get His Way

Today on Sekulow, Schumer threatens to go nuclear if he doesn't get his way in the Senate. 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. So Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, very divided U.S. Senate, 50-50 of the tie-breaking vote that can be cast by the Vice President. He's been on a letter writing campaign to his colleagues. He sent one before Christmas, a dear colleague letter to the Democrat Senators. And I just want to read a piece of it, the second page, it's only a two page letter.

I would ask you to consider this question. If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how could we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote. That's because state legislatures have their own rules about voting, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same. If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation. He is saying, let's get rid of the filibuster, not just for voting rights legislation, but for anything Democrats deem important, which you would think is most of their legislation if they were considering it.

So that would also include not just voting rights, but build back better, which would then not have to go through reconciliation, which means they can put as much pork in it for Joe Manchin as he likes. And for all the other Democrat senators to make sure they can get to 50, it puts it in a different situation. Now, US senators on both sides of the aisle are all over the place on the filibuster. It's been abolished for judicial nominees. It was first abolished by Democrats for all judicial nominees except for the Supreme Court. Republicans came in and said, you know what, if you're going to stop our nominees to the Supreme Court, we're abolishing it for the Supreme Court nominees. This would be the next move to get rid of it for legislation.

It's a big step. They will still say they have a legislative filibuster, which is the standing and taking up the time, but when you're at the beginning of a new year, that's not going to work for more than a few days. So this again, I think you have to watch Senator Manchin very closely, Senator Sinema very closely, who have said in the past they don't want changes to the filibuster. But there was a second letter by Chuck Schumer trying to tie this to January 6, trying to tie it to Martin Luther King Day, and the voting rights legislation has no text. So there is no text to that, but here's what I think everybody needs to be concerned with. They are so committed to getting Build Back Better in place, which includes, of course, all of those issues involving the Internal Revenue Service, the 80,000 new agents, the billions and billions and billions, $80 billion of revenue. So that would include also that provision about checking your balances or transactions over $600 or in the aggregate $10,000.

All of that would be in there, and there would be no stop. Now, look, there's nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be a filibuster. Filibuster is not a constitutional requirement. What the Constitution says is that the Senate sets their rules.

That's what the Constitution says. So, Andy, in one real sense here, there is no constitutional mandate for a filibuster. No, there is no constitutional mandate for a filibuster. It is an internal Senate operating procedure, but it's what distinguishes the Senate from the House. The House, everything goes by a simple majority. The idea is that the Senate is the premier legislative and deliberative body in the world, and that means that it takes its time and the legislation that may, by popular consent, be popping up in the House of Representatives, the breaks are put on that in the Senate, and it deliberates and it debates, and that's what distinguishes the Senate from the House, and that's why you need to keep it the way it is and has historically been. It's interesting because in his second letter, this was written just yesterday to his Senate colleagues, he says the Senate was designed to protect the political rights of the minority in the chamber through the promise of debate and opportunity to amend. If you give it to the legislative filibuster, the minority has no protections at all. It's whoever has the simple majority can pass whatever they want. So if the Senate wants to become just a mini version of the House, they can do that under their rules, but it takes away that whole guise that they're somehow different and above the normal political frame.

They're supposed to be, the tea boils over, but it doesn't spill because of the protection of the Senate. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.

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

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

1-800-684-3110. Because this is not just about voting rights legislation. It's anything that they would deem important legislation. They would hope that if the Senate is taking up legislation, it's all important, so they would be getting rid of the filibuster entirely. Now, that may work for Democrats for a year and a half, but what happens if what's predicted to happen politically, they lose the House, they lose the Senate, and then if they lose the White House, they've got no check. They could have, you know, again, enough to prevent getting a 60-vote threshold. There's no check anymore on any legislation that Republicans would want to do.

But, Harry, there's an important part here. When you have a piece of legislation on voting rights that has no text yet, I think that they're balancing, yes, this may be a mess for us later on other legislation, but if we can change the rules of the game in our favor and override all the work Republicans have done at the state level to win in state legislative districts to make that a priority so that when it's time to redistrict after a census, they're in control. They spent the resources to do that, they went to the voters to do that, they want to override that, and that to them is politically more important than what piece of legislation in the future Republicans might be able to pass. I think that's correct, and I think the Democrats are strongly committed to short-term thinking, and essentially they're saying, pass this law without any text so we can find out what is in it. Senator Schumer has announced that the fight for the ballot is as old as the Republic, and in some sense he is absolutely correct because it's basically been Democrats who have been fighting free and open voting historically. One needn't remember or forget what the Democrats did in the South after the Civil War. It's all about power, it's not really about the ballot, and so they see an opportunity to shove this legislation down the throat of the American people, and apparently they are willing to take advantage of this opportunity.

Why? Because they are focused on the short run, they don't care really about the long-term future of the country. A lot of this, Jordan also is focusing on this, and I think Senator McConnell, who is now the minority leader, used to be the majority leader. Elections have consequences. He argued that the bills are a bid by Democrats to secure an unfair advantage in elections of my late state right. So a lot of this is, excuse me, is prelude to what's coming up in the elections.

And I think we have to be cognizant of the fact that that's what this is, at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. It's how does this legislation impact the election? That's what they're shooting for here.

So it's billed back better with a lot of other things added to it when you start getting rid of the legislative filibuster. Now, can they do it? I'm going to say it again, they can do it. They have the votes. They can do it. There's nothing in the Constitution that mandates a legislative filibuster.

So they can do it. Yeah, so what's interesting is under current Senate rules, you need a three-fourths majority to change the rules. But you can, with a simple majority vote, change that rule. So with 51 votes. So you will have to have Manchin, Sinema, the Vice President, to do this. They have to have complete Democrat unity. But I want to play for you because the reporters, they went right to Manchin this morning. Because you've got Biden endorsing it now, you have Schumer endorsing it now. So they go to him and he does not take the clear stance that he did last year in saying, I oppose the change to the filibuster. This is a very couched, to me this is, I'd be willing to do it if they could sell me on the legislation.

Take a list of by 20. The 60-vote threshold, are you willing to change that? And you are involved in ongoing discussions, as you just mentioned with your colleagues. So there must be some openness. There's basically the need for us to protect democracy as we know it. And the Senate, as it has operated for 232 years, are extremely, extremely high bars that we must be very careful for, willing to cross those. So I'm talking, I'm not agreeing to any of this to the extent I want to talk and see all the options we have open.

And that's what we're looking at. He could easily say, I didn't really get rid of the filibuster, if they want to talk for hours on end and hours on end, they don't have to give up the floor. That's, again, the idea of the talking filibuster, which, so when he goes to history, he hasn't given them a full yes yet. But what I'm concerned about, first of all, voting rights legislation has no impact on his state.

It's a very, it's not a racially diverse state, West Virginia, so he's not concerned about what's in there for voting rights and how that impacts West Virginia. What he's going to be more interested in is, you put a giant spending bill like Build Back Better, you take out the need for reconciliation. Because important legislation doesn't require, can overcome a filibuster, and suddenly you just pile on the pork.

Because it doesn't have to go through a parliamentarian process where they say, oh, this is not budget related. And that's what he's all about. That's what he's been all about as a senator, is what he can bring back home.

And I think that puts people like Sinema in play. Because they can suddenly say, look what I did for West Virginia, look what I did for Arizona. Because you have to remember, they're still Democrats. They support giant government spending.

What they didn't like about the reconciliation bill was, there wasn't enough spending to take home to their state. Yeah, so let's go ahead and take Robert's call, I'm going to ask something to Andy. Hey Robert, calling from Maryland on Line 1, welcome to Secular, you're on the air.

Hey Robert. Yeah, hi Jordan and hi Jay, I wanted to ask the both of you, do you believe that Joe Manchin is one of the keys in terms of getting rid of the filibuster if they abolish it in the United States Senate? And is he going to agree to abolish the filibuster if there's legislation in that particular bill?

Right. If there's legislation in the Build Back Better bill that's going to make it very advantageous for the state of West Virginia, particularly if they can fill it up with pork rail spending. Well look, I think the last part of what you said Robert is the motivating factor on a lot of this, and it has been by the way since the founding of our republic, as Harry alluded to before, these are not new issues, this is as old as the House and the Senate.

So that's not any great, let's not be shocked with that revelation. I think that there are portions of Build Back Better that he is going to go for, and I think they may, I don't know if they're going to change the name, I know that they're looking at various aspects of it, they may pass it piecemeal, but if they can change the filibuster rule, which they can if they can get the votes, we don't know where Senator Sinema is. In fact, at that point, he could probably dictate what that bill's going to be.

Let's be realistic. Well that's absolutely true Jay, and again Senator Manchin is a weak read to rely upon because he tends to move his position very frequently from one to another. Recently he's been voting like a Republican, talking like a Republican, getting the praise of Republicans, which in my estimation may cause him now to go the other way, to run in the other direction and say, oh I'm not, I'm a Democrat. And again, the prospect of pork for West Virginia is a great, attractive, luring alternative, and that would, in my view, inspire him to vote in favor of abolishing the filibuster. So he is not a person that you can predict, he is not a person that you can rely upon, he is a person who, as I said, is a weak read to put all your eggs into that basket of Joe Manchin, and Sinema is even more weaker in that respect. What do you think they want, Jordan?

What is it that they're looking for? So I think Manchin doesn't really care about the voting, he's saying to save our democracy, so that's talking about the voting rights. When he starts with that he's saying, if we have to save our democracy, then we might have to change our rules. So I think he's okay with the voting rights change because it has very little impact on the state he represents. It's not a diverse state, there's not the racial issues, it's kind of a singular state. So he's not concerned about that. What he gets to is a non-reconciliation version of Build Back Better he can add another trillion dollars to with lots of spending for himself.

Now, I don't know if that works for Sinema. She's in a different state politically. But remember, this entire, the last two months of the Build Back Better push, she wasn't a no vote. At least she wasn't on the record. She wasn't coming out and taking a position.

It was just Manchin. So, again, she said in the past, she is opposed to abolishing the filibuster. Let me just educate everybody for a moment here. They will still have the talking filibuster. So, you know, senators like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, who have gone to the point of having catheters put in to try and talk through these. But when you're in the beginning of a legislative year, you're not going to run the clock out.

It's just not possible. So, they'll still say, oh yeah, the old filibuster the way we intended it to be. Again, it opens up a can of worms. Senators have been on both sides of the issue. But to me, they are looking for, they need some kind of victory. They have the House, they have the Senate, they have the White House, and they can't get anything through legislatively because they can't convince Joe Manchin. If you give him another few billion dollars to spend in West Virginia, I think he supports that legislation. I think this is where, you know, at the end of the day, this is the consequence of elections and who gets elected and who controls the House and the Senate.

This is what happens. This isn't a constitutional republic which we're in. Like I said, there's no constitutional mandate that there be a filibuster.

It's been like Andy said, it was the rule so that the House and Senate had a differential besides just how long they served. It was supposed to be the, you know, if there's a, if the tea is overflowing the cup, you had the saucer there to protect the volume of the tea. Well, that doesn't exist anymore because the volume is very high.

We'll be back with more. 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. 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. As we've said, U.S. senators have been all over the place when it comes to the filibuster, so you can find the hypocrisy for someone like Senator Schumer very easily. Just go back to the Senate vote on the Gorsuch nomination. Now, Republicans were in the majority, but they didn't have the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. So because Harry Reid and the Senate had already changed the rules for all other federal judicial nominees, the Republicans said, you know what, we're changing it. We're done playing this game. We're changing for the Supreme Court. You started it.

We're finishing it. But take a listen to what Chuck Schumer said then when he was begging the Senate not to change the rule by 14. It looks like Gorsuch will not reach the 60-vote margin. So instead of changing the rules, which is up to Mitch McConnell in the Republican majority, why doesn't President Trump, Democrats, and Republicans in the Senate sit down and try to come up with a mainstream nominee? Look, when a nominee doesn't get 60 votes, you shouldn't change the rules. You should change the nominee.

Here's the problem, and this is what the problem is with the whole issue. He's wrong constitutionally. Mitch McConnell, he said right that Mitch McConnell has the authority to do it. The Constitution, when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, says that the President shall nominate, and then it gives the Senate with advice and consent. So, you know, that's the constitutional process.

There's no requirement of 60. So I'm not saying that, look, I think people have been speaking on both sides of the aisle. People have come out for it and come out against it. That has been the, and that's part of the political debate. And look, in the way our Constitution's set up, the Senate does get to decide their own rules. The idea with the filibuster was to get things to settle down, to calm down, to not spill over. That was the kind of the visual that was created when this was done. But, Harry, there's no question that if there's 50 votes, they can change the rule.

I think that's correct. And I think the example that you just played of Schumer suggests that he is a person who is capable of speaking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. Basically, he is quite willing to change the filibuster when it favors him. But the filibuster is really designed to stabilize our republic. He doesn't seem to understand that, at least on one hand, or on the other hand, he fears being primaried by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I want to play, if we can juxtapose these two sound bites. This is President Biden just a couple of days ago. This was last week. About the filibuster.

Actually, let me take the flashback first. This was then Senator Joe Biden about changing the filibuster rule. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill. It's about compromise and moderation. That's why the Founders put unlimited debate in. When you have to, and I have never conducted a filibuster, but if I did, the purpose would be you have to deal with me as one senator.

It doesn't mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. Okay, President Biden, last week when it came back regarding Build Back Better not getting through because of the filibuster potential, take a listen. Are you prepared to support fundamental changes in the Senate rules to get this done? Yes. What does that mean? That means whatever it takes, change the Senate rules to accommodate major piece of legislation without requiring 60 votes. This is what happened.

They have no principles. Because he's screaming in 2005. Now maybe he doesn't remember what he was saying in 2005 or what it was even about.

But it was all about you got to deal with me. It's all about Joe Biden. Now that he's present dealing with the Senate, which everyone doesn't agree with what he wants to do, change the rules. Again, I think it opens up a totally different Senate for both sides. If Republicans are in the majority, they're going to be able to move everything through. They're not going to switch back.

Here's the thing. I mean, what Republicans have shown, if you try to pull this, we will go the next step. We will say, we'll do this on everything. So if they go, this is the Harry Reid step, he tried to do it for everything but Supreme Court. They're trying to say it's only important legislation. Who is defining that? Legislation that makes the way to the U.S. Senate should be pretty important at that point.

It's massive spending. What I think is this, if they want to become the House, become the House. The American people don't, I think they've lost a lot of respect for politicians in general. The sheen, they've pierced the veil, if you will. They're normal people.

Maybe not so normal some of the time. And the truth is that I don't think people would really care, but for the fact that they are trying to change the rules of voting before the next election because they're about to get slaughtered. They have 23 retirements in the House. Nancy Pelosi's gone. So they're doing anything possible to throw some kind of hiccup or change. And then, of course, you get back to the whole issue because they're trying to tie it to January 6th, where the people, it makes voting partisan. Not who you vote for partisan. That's a partisan decision. But the idea of voting partisan. Are the elections fair? They're saying the Republicans are doing voter suppression. But that is not what the courts have said about these laws.

They have not been massively overturned. Republicans invested in running state races. The problem is Democrats are not appealing at the local level.

So here's the thing, Andy, I bring up. We know that the basis of this is going to be election law issues. Because, as Jordan said, we have the 2022 election season, whether you like it or not, it has begun. So right now what you have is legislation, the call to build back better, call it whatever you want, to change the way elections are conducted and taking power from the states, which is what the Constitution delegates, to the federal government. Now, will you litigate that?

Sure. But, you know, that takes time. So we know what the power grab is here. It's not like this is an unknown. Well, you're right, Jay. This is a federal power grab via the mechanism of undoing and eliminating the filibuster in the Senate.

But at base. And when you ultimately look at it, what it is, is federalizing or an attempt to federalize the election process because they see the slaughter coming, they see the troops coming across the prairie, and they see the fact that they're going to lose the House and lose the Senate. This is the Democrats in the upcoming election.

So they say, I'll tell you what we'll do. We're going to call it voter integrity. We're going to call it voter against voter suppression. And we're going to take away what is constitutionally given to the states to regulate. And that's how elections are conducted.

So they do it the simple way. They say we do it by eliminating the filibuster. Yeah.

So realize this. The two most powerful members of the United States Senate right now are Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who have said previously that they opposed it. Now Manchin's kind of waffling on that.

And as Jordan pointed out, Kyrsten Sinema has been pretty silent the last month or two. So this is who's going to decide this. It's not going to be Chuck Schumer. It's going to be those two United States senators and whatever promises they get for their votes.

Yeah. And I think it's honestly probably maybe easier to get Manchin on this than Sinema because of the political makeup of the state. So where is she? I mean, she cannot just continue to remain silent.

But will she play the game? It's a legislative filibuster is one thing. A talking filibuster, that's still not really changing much. I mean, this again, what it's all about is a voting rights legislation that they're going to write in two weeks. I mean, they want to do this in 13 days, by the way. 13 days is the timeline.

So you have two weeks to keep the pressure up on the Manchins and Sinemas of the world before they rewrite the voting laws. 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 Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

Just a reset for you very quickly. Schumer has sent out two letters to his colleagues, one right before Christmas, one yesterday, pushing them to abolish the filibuster for, quote, important legislation. That would include a voting rights legislation, which is not S1, the Senate bill, but is not written. And they want to pass that in 13 days.

By September 17th, they want to abolish the filibuster and pass the legislation. He then sends a second letter tying it all to January 6th and the vote on this voting rights legislation, which there is no text for. No one can go and read this text, but they're trying to tie it to Martin Luther King Day.

So you see the optics of this January 6th, Martin Luther King Day. Then you have Manchin come out today and say, we have to defend our democracy is at stake. Well, that seems to me like a vote yes for abolishing the filibuster and a yes on a voting rights bill, which, again, has very little effect on his home state. But what this abolishing the filibuster does is open the door.

No more reconciliation for Build Back Better. You would just need a simple majority, which means you can put as much pork spending as you want in there. And the Democrats have no, you know, they have no policy opposition to that. Don't forget that Manchin is a big spending Democrat.

That's basically the one thing he still has left in common with the Democrat Party is he likes to spend federal dollars. Sinema, she's been silent for a couple of months. I don't think she can remain silent anymore because he's already signaling a shift to, in what I hear from Manchin, is he's signaling a shift to abolish the filibuster for this move. And where does she stand? She's in a different state politically. Arizona, she doesn't have the same kind of history as Manchin.

It's a state that you can go, you can lose as a Democrat. But I want to go to the phones. David in Pennsylvania online too.

Thanks for holding on. David, you're on the air. Hi, David.

Hi. I don't really understand the legislative filibuster for one. Secondly, it seems as though the Democrats can really do whatever they want. It seems to be that the system is broken.

Well, no. I mean, the system's not broken in this sense. I mean, the way the Constitution's set up, the Senate sets its own rules. So there's no constitution. I think here's the thing with the filibuster, it's important to understand, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a filibuster.

It just doesn't exist. So that's a rule created by the United States Senate. They have the authority to do that. So that's what they did.

Now, what does it do? Well, in the old days, you'd have to read the Washington, D.C. yellow pages, if anybody remembers what the yellow pages are. You'd read a phone book. I mean, they'd read stories. That was the problem. Today, that's not the case. The way it works is if it doesn't reach a 60-vote threshold, they poll the members, it just doesn't go forward. But, anyway, we do need to be clear that while, you know, you could argue about it, constitutionally, the Senate Democrats, if they can get their caucus together, could do this, like the Republicans did on judicial nominees.

That's absolutely correct, Jay. I mean, if they can get their caucus together. And the question is, what do you do with Sinema and what do you do with Manchin?

As I said earlier, Manchin is a thin reed to rely on, and Sinema has not said anything recently with respect to what her position is or is going to be, so I don't know. But the Senate does make its own rules, and it can abolish the filibuster if it wants to by the votes of a majority. That's simply done. Then it'll just be the House. No different.

No, I mean, the only difference would be it'll be 100. But they won't, you know, again, one senator, like Joe Biden used to say, who says, I want to stand up and be heard, no. That won't be the case anymore. And on the Democrat side, again, this is what always, you've got to make it, why is this different for Democrats than Republicans? They don't care about the total cost of these spending bills. That's part of their party, big spending from the federal level. So if you just keep adding to it, you can just get their votes, because you can say, we'll do this for you, we'll do this for you. That's not the way Republicans work, typically.

So while, again, I think there's two power moves here. One, change the voting rules. Two, for the midterms and the next Presidential election. But two, is pass a massive spending bill that will transform the federal government and the federal government's power, which includes doubling the size of the IRS, getting into your bank account, the Lois Lerner rule being abolished.

You know, the list goes on. 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. 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, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to SEC.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. We do want to shift to a new filing at the UN Human Rights Council by the ACLJ. It's a submission.

This is an interesting question. We're going to talk to Mike Pompeo about it in the next segment of the broadcast. The submission of the ACLJ on the question whether Israel's conduct in the so-called Palestinian territory breaches the prohibition under international law against apartheid.

So, interesting enough, I just point this out. The UN Human Rights Council spending their time accusing Israelis of being part of an apartheid regime, ignoring the genocide in China, ignoring a Russian invasion potential in Ukraine, ignoring what may happen in Taiwan, ignoring so many human rights abuses around the world to focus in on a country of 7 million people, which is their number one target. That's why under the Trump administration and Mike Pompeo, the U.S. left the Human Rights Council. Right.

So, Skip Ash is joining us as senior counsel. So, Skip, I'm going to ask, I think this is the question that you've got to ask. What in the world is the Human Rights Council thinking when they say, as the question that's going to be presented on the floor, whether Israel's conduct of its occupation of the Palestinian territory is in breach of the prohibition against apartheid and international law? And I say that because, look at the way they phrased the question, they've already phrased what they're going to decide.

That's always the problem with the Human Rights Council. Okay. Andy, I'll go to you because you and I have discussed this before, and obviously we know what this is. They phrased the question in such a way that it will be the end result. Yes, of course. You phrased the question in the way that you want the answer to come out. You phrased the question the way the International Criminal Court did in the case that you handled there.

You phrased it the way you want it to come out. So, you've already made a decision that Israel is an apartheid state, and now you're basically asking for documentation and evidence and proof and testimony and so forth to support the conclusion that you've already reached. But when you use that word, apartheid, you're saying that it is equivalent to what South Africa was. That is ridiculous. That is not the case. It is not an apartheid state.

Never is, never has been, and I don't think ever will be. It's the freest country in the region, in the Middle East. It has more civil liberties than any other country and than any of its neighbors in the Middle East. And it's a beacon of freedom in the Middle East.

In fact, other countries, Arab countries, are now trying to model some of their civil rights on Israel's model. But this question, Wes, begs the question, begs the answer. Yes, it really does. It's like saying, okay, you know, the person is guilty, now let's have a trial.

It's that kind of a thing. And I read the apartheid convention, the definition of apartheid, this morning. And if you look at that, it talks about it's an attempt to dominate and suppress a people based on their race or ethnicity.

And in actuality, you read through this, and it's exactly what they're attempting to do to Israel to dominate and suppress the state of Israel, the Jewish state. So, Skip, we have filed with the UN, even though this is, like Jordan Wood said, that they, you know, it's kind of a fait accompli where they come out on this. Our European Center for Law and Justice, which has non-governmental organizational real status with the UN, filed in this case a response. It's the submission of the ECLJ on that question.

What did we say? We said, in effect, that the definition of apartheid requires a racial distinction, and that Israel's differential treatment between the Arabs who live in Israel, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Arabs elsewhere is not based on race, but it's based on security aspects and on citizenship. In Israel, the Israeli Arabs, which the Palestinians consider to be part of the Palestinian community, they are treated exactly like Israelis. They can stand for office. They can be elected to the Knesset.

In fact, they are. Right now, the governing coalition includes an Arab party in the government of Israel. They can serve on the Supreme Court. They can do all of these things, and they are treated equally. The reason that the Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are treated differently is because they're not citizens of Israel.

Every state can differentiate between its citizens and non-citizens. Plus, just as you were mentioning earlier on the show, the fact that there have been rockets fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, people shooting, the law of armed conflict actually governs the relationship between Israel and the Arab Palestinians who live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Because a situation of uneasy war, uneasy peace exists there, Israel has the right to defend itself.

And the law of armed conflict gives the rules, and those rules allow for disallowing movement of certain people, of having checkpoints and so forth. And all of the issues that are being cited as proof of apartheid. Israel is treating the Arabs differently based on where they live because of citizenship issues and security issues, and that is the key fundamental here. It is not based on race. The Arabs in Israel and the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are identically the same racially.

Let me tell you something else, and we know this firsthand. If you were to ask most Christian Arabs that are living in the region, Andy, who would they rather see controlling the government? Hamas and Fatah or the Israelis? It's not even a close question.

I mean, it's not even... They're very honest about it. They know who the sovereign is, and they're glad that that's the sovereign. They don't want to be under Hamas.

I'm talking about the Christians. Jay, you're absolutely right, and those are the words from the mouth of the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem himself who said, I know who the sovereign is here, and that is Israel. I extended that statement by simply saying, what if there was a change and that sovereignty moved? He said it would be disastrous for the Christian communities.

It would be disastrous for the Orthodox Church and even the Latin Church in the Middle East, because that would mean that the consequences were the elimination of monasteries, the elimination of sacred places, the elimination of the freedom of religion that Israel so jealously and carefully protects today. The sovereign is Israel. The sovereign must and should remain Israel, not any terrorist organization like Hamas or its surrogates. What's interesting to me is while the UN Human Rights Council still likes to focus on Israel, its neighbors have begun to drop this as an issue. They are kind of sick and tired of the Palestinian Hamas as a terrorist group, Fatah, which is just corrupt, all these billionaire autocrats who don't help their people. And so we saw under, again, the Trump administration, these Abraham Accords, where in the past we thought there was no way you could make an agreement because they support this Palestinian sovereignty. They want to abolish the Jewish state.

Now you can fly from Jerusalem to Dubai. They're working with other countries, all around the Gulf. And those were the major financial backers of the Palestinian resistance, if you will. What's so troubling about the Biden administration is as they have backed away from their support of Israel and they've also backed away from the support of our Gulf Arab allies who have actually supported Israel and have new relationships with them, what is happening is our Gulf Arab allies are distrustful of the United States. They're trying to reach a compromise with Iran.

They're turning towards China. All of the gains that were made when the Trump administration really, really built some unity there between the Arabs and the Jews is really in the balance here because of the policies of this administration and the work of the United Nations. And also, it goes back to the Obama administration, we got to be honest here. It was John Kerry, and he always took this position that Israel could not be a democratic state and a Jewish state.

It had to be one or the other. And this is something he said in April of 2014. But John Kerry is still heavily involved in Iran, in other aspects of this. Take a listen. The Unitarian state lines up either being an apartheid state in second class citizens or it lines up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.

So this is where he says you got to have two states because if you don't have two states, this is what's going to happen. But Andy, it ignores the reality on the ground that other than the militants, okay, most Palestinians do not want to live under Hamas rule. They just don't. They absolutely do not. We have been there.

I have been there seven times. I have spoken with Palestinians. They are content with the existence of the Israeli state as the sovereign in the region and the ruling body. They can use the courts. They can use all the municipal facilities. They can run for office. They can be and are in the Knesset.

They can do all these things. That's not going to be the case if a terrorist organization were to take over control. No, and the Israeli Supreme Court will often side with them. So this is not apartheid.

That didn't happen in South Africa. The current conservative governing party in Israel, one of the coalition partners which gave them the authority to govern is the Arab party. First time in history that the Arab party has joined Jewish political parties. Not only did they join Jewish political parties, they joined far right Jewish political parties because even those groups are not opposed to equal human rights treatment for their Arab fellow citizens in their country. In fact, they welcome them to join the political coalition.

It's been a good step and it's a step away from the past. 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. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. We're talking about this issue at the U.N. involving Israel. Our former Secretary of State and Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo, is joining us now. Secretary Pompeo, so we know in March the U.N. Human Rights Council, their special rapporteur, is going to present a report. We can imagine already what this report will read like to the Human Rights Council on, quote, whether Israel's conduct of its occupation of the Palestinian territory is in breach of the prohibition against apartheid in international law. Knowing it's the U.N., it seems to me it's a foregone conclusion about what that rapporteur's findings will be, but for ignoring the human rights abuses by China, the potential invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and all these other issues around the world. They focus on a country of seven million. This is so tiresome and so deep and so morally inappropriate.

It's even hard to really think one's way through. Even the language, Jordan, of the conversation, right? We're going to evaluate whether their occupation, right?

That's assuming the conclusion. Israel is, in fact, not occupying this land. It is Israeli land.

It is the Jewish homeland. But if the rapporteur starts with the idea that we're just going to evaluate the occupation, well, the answer is pretty darn clear. We worked for a time with the Human Rights Council to try and get in a better place. We ultimately concluded this was a corrupt organization with characters like the Iranians and the Venezuelan city got it.

We wanted to be a part of it, so we left it. The Trump administration, now the Biden administration, has rejoined an institution, the U.N. Human Rights Council, that is going to declare that I'm one of America's best allies and a nation that the United States has always recognized to be noble and democratic and important to our security interests and our various faiths here in the United States. We know that's not true. It's factually incorrect, but sadly, the U.N. rapporteur is likely to issue a report saying that. The Human Rights Council will cheer and give huzzah to that report.

Yeah, of course. Mike, this is Jay. We sent in our submission because even though we know the conclusion is the cake's baked already, we know that's going to be the way it is because that's the way it always is with them, we decided that we're going to still get on record what we think both the legal position is under international law, but also what the right position is.

I want to say this. I have never seen, and I've been involved in this for many, many decades, 40 years, the amount of progress that was made in the Middle East by your administration when it came to the introduction and the recognition of the Abraham Accords, and the U.N. ignores as if that change of relationship hasn't happened. Oh, Jay, we started with the central premise that we were just going to accept things as they were. We weren't going to wish them away. We weren't going to wish that Hamas was going to become a civil organization. We weren't going to wish that Fatah was really a democratic government. We weren't going to wish that the Iranians weren't the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. We were going to go deliver peace against the backdrop of the Middle Eastern reality, where you have many Gulf states that have come to see that the Palestinians in either of the places, the Gaza Strip or where the Palestinian Fatah rules today aren't serious about making peace with Israel. We could see that these same Gulf states knew that Israel was rightfully the homeland of the Jewish people, and so we built on those central understandings to create the capacity for these nations to prosper and have peace, and the U.N. just sloughed that off because they have a leftist corrupt outlook on this. So they'll continue to vote resolutions against the Israelis. It's why we should still continue to fight. What the ACLJ has done there is noble and important to create a factual record about what Israel really does.

Jay, one last thought. I looked up apartheid this morning as I was getting ready to have a conversation with you all in Merriam-Webster, and it says, If persons are denied the capacity to exert their political rights by occupying office or holding certain jobs, it's just not true. That's the lay definition, fair enough.

But it's just not true, and I think the U.N. Human Rights Council is going to run roughshod over that for purely partisan political reasons. Colonel Westmith, who's with us, is our military analyst. You said the same thing. You looked it up, too.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, if anything, the Human Rights Council is committing apartheid, a form of it, against the state of Israel by the inquiry itself, an attempt to dominate and suppress. At the end of the day, though, it's up to, honestly, if the U.S. does anything about this.

It's a U.S. step in. But we've seen, Secretary Pompeo, and I think it's unfortunate, but it's a truth, that the more progressive the Democratic Party becomes, what comes with that on a foreign policy level is an extreme anti-Israel position, and a very pro-Palestinian, even pro-Hamas position, which we've seen start creeping into the Democrat Party. It does easily blend in, and you can see some parts of the Democrat Party have not only become pro-Hamas, they've become deeply anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, for sure. And we know the history of this place. We know since the United States was the first country to recognize Israel, we know this history. We know there can be people, frankly, on the far left and the far right, where anti-Semitism seeps in, and this is the real damage that the U.N. Human Rights Council does.

They use the cloak of that fancy name that sounds so noble to behave in a way that ultimately creates the risk of increased anti-Semitism across the world. This is dangerous. It's dangerous for American security. It's dangerous for Jews here in the United States and in Europe.

We need to defend this full-throatedly from the most senior levels of the United States government and all across, and the ACLJ is an important part of making that happen. Yesterday marked the two-year anniversary since the United States took out Soleimani, and I want to talk about the significance of that as the United States also yesterday went back to the negotiating table in Vienna. Your thoughts on all of this? Well, this is both political and national security and personal for me. You would have seen, too, when President Raisi and Ayatollah both have called for the assassination of me and President Trump.

We've never done precedent. Two senior former American officials, a nation-state with operatives around the world that has conducted assassination campaigns, threatening two former senior American officials. Look, we made the right decision.

We saved American lives by defending America and striking against General Soleimani. I would recommend it to the President. Again, I'm confident he would make the same decision for them on that same day, the two-year anniversary, or frankly at any time, to be negotiating with these thugs, these theocrats, to cut a deal with them, to give them more money. In the end of the day, this is what the Iranians want. They want the sanctions limit so they can become wealthy and engage in commerce again, to give them the resources and the money to build out their nuclear program, to build out their missile program, and to continue to conduct terror campaigns across the world.

It's really quite shocking. Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as always, Secretary, thank you for joining us, all that insight again. Because we like to remind people what's going on, not domestically, but a lot with foreign policy. Sometimes when we get overwhelmed with domestic issues like COVID right now and all these issues, back to school, people start forgetting what's going on internationally. And you start, you know, the Russian issue is back, no one's dealing with the Chinese issue, with the genocide, they're about to host Olympics and maybe COVID changes that. But this is, again, why we always want, we bring on these experts, like the former Secretary of State, who made the call and advised the President to take out the head of Iran's terror operations, knowing full well that that would impact them, not just as a nation, but personally. Because you've got Iran's leaders calling for the assassination of them, and that includes Secretary Pompeo. So these are decisions, very real decisions, that this current administration just runs rough, shut over. They say, oh, we want to make a deal with these guys.

This is one of the reasons what makes the ACLJ so unique, too. We've got Colonel Smith here, Jordan's expertise, got an LLM in international law. We had Andy on, who's got a PhD in history. We've got the former Secretary of State, the former Director of National Intelligence, so they're not just commentators. These are part of our, they're part of our team. I mean, they reviewed the submission that we made to the United Nations Human Rights Council. So all I'm saying is, your support, which was phenomenal in December, I need to say, but your support of our work at the ACLJ makes all of this possible. It makes this broadcast possible. Thank you for what we're saying.

Talk to you tomorrow. 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.