PREVIEW: Biden’s Mandate Goes Before SCOTUS Tomorrow

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the ACLJ targets universities anti-Semitism in first lawsuit of 2022.

Welcome to Sekulow. So our first lawsuit of 2022. It's filed on behalf of Dr. Melissa Landa. She will be joining us live in the broadcast in the next segment along with Mark Goldfeder from the ACLJ Senior Council. She was a professor at the University of Maryland for 10 years until she was fired in 2018. Fired because of her pro-Israel views. Fired because of her anti-BDS, the anti-boycott, divestment, and sanction views. Against the advice of the university's councils on faculty and their ombudsman. Her faculty advisor, so the director of her department, after they said, work this out, three days later terminates her. Goes through the EEOC process.

EEOC says you've got a right to sue. ACLJ, we've tried to settle this. It's the University of Maryland. This is a giant university system, obviously.

This is main campus, University of Maryland. And they would not, they backed away from any attempts to try and settle this matter before having to go into court. The lawsuit has been filed in the district of Maryland, so the district court, last night by the ACLJ.

It's our first lawsuit of 2022. Yeah, so what's interesting about this case is we're representing a college professor here who expressed anti-BDS, boycott, divest, and sanction statements, as Jordan said. She's Jewish.

She expressed pro-Israel sentiment, but never was anti any of these other groups. And you think, well, you know, academic freedom is supposed to exist on college campuses. It's supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, what the court has said so many times. And now you have the University of Maryland, and Professor Hutchinson, I'm going to use your professor title for this, who's written extensively on the BDS movement.

And is an, of course, was a law professor as well. And when you look at this and you say to yourself, why, after the EEOC said settle the case, I mean, that's what they told the University of Maryland, settle this, go to conciliation and settle this matter. Instead, they fire her, they double down on it. And you ask yourself, why would they do that? Well, I think the answer is quite clear. They have submitted their brain, their neurological cavities to the left and a globalist consensus that basically asserts that Israel, the most liberal democracy in the Middle East, is the font of apartheid actions against the Arabs. And it's clear beyond question that any university professor who has a brain would prefer to live in Israel as opposed to most of the Middle East, because most of the Middle East is a hugely intolerant place to live. So what we have are American universities siding with intolerance.

Why? Because it's politically correct at the end of the day. At the end of the day, it's important for the American people to know these individuals don't have any principles. Andy, we know that this has been a problem, not just at the University of Maryland. It's been a problem at schools where there's a high Jewish student population without naming particular universities that we're looking at right now. This is a real problem. It is a real problem.

It's a serious problem. And it goes just beyond a problem of Judaism and Zionism. This is an anti-religious global elitist attitude that disavows any attempt to ally oneself with a spiritual or religious faith or a belief in a being superior to the current existing human life. In other words, we don't want any religion. We don't want anybody who believes in faith. We don't want anybody who believes in the existence of supreme beings.

And we certainly don't want Christians and Jews. So when we come back from the break, you don't want to miss this. Share this. By the way, if you're watching on Facebook and Periscope, because it's very unique to have the client on, another senior attorney with the ACLJ, Mark Goldfeder, but also the professor is going to be joining us live. Dr. Melissa Landa will be joining us. So share this with your friends and family when we talk about this.

It's real and you're going to see it. 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, 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 Sekulow and this is our first lawsuit by the ACLJ in 2022 filed last night in the district court in Maryland, federal district court. We are representing Dr. Melissa Landa, who was a professor at the University of Maryland for 10 years until she was dismissed in 2018 because of her pro-Israel views and her Jewish faith. Dr. Landa is joining us now as well as Mark Goldfeder, a senior counsel with the ACLJ. So Dr. Landa, welcome to the broadcast and we're honored to represent you, but I think it's important for our audience around the country and frankly around the world that listen to this broadcast to understand what exactly happened at the University of Maryland where you were a professor for 10 years.

That's right. Well, I formed an alumni organization at my alma mater, Oberlin College, when I discovered that there was a virulent anti-Semitic professor there named Joy Correga, and I began to appear in the press representing this alumni group. And essentially we were calling for her dismissal. And once that began to happen, I began to experience a hostile work environment at the University of Maryland. My superiors began to pull away from me, my associate chair with whom I was supposed to be delivering a paper at a conference canceled and said he would not deliver the paper with me. When I went to Israel for Passover, I was reprimanded and told that I was out of bounds from university policy and I needed to come back. And I understand on that particular thing, Dr. Landa, that on the trip to Israel, you actually had authorization from the university to go. Yes, I had authorization and I was covering my classes. I was following university protocol. I was not in any way out of bounds. I mean, could you imagine for a moment, I don't want to interrupt you, could you imagine for a moment if it was a Muslim professor going to one of the holy sites within Islam with the class approval, the university's approval, and you're still covering your classes? They would have done nothing, okay?

I just want to make that point because of the double standard here, but continue. So you covered your classes, you come back, what happens? Right, I came back early. My Passover was ruined. I spent the first few days in Israel not spending time with family, sitting on Skype teaching my classes. And on the first night of Passover, I received this hostile email from my superior telling me that I was basically at risk of losing my job.

I came back almost immediately. Did he actually say, Dr. Landa, did the supervisor say something to the effect, I did not realize Passover was that long because it's a week-long holiday? No, no, she did not say that. She said this is quite out of bounds of university policy, and I can't remember the exact words, but there was a threat. I mean, the thing is, you had approval to go, right? I absolutely had approval to go.

I absolutely had approval to go. I was in a state of shock. I couldn't quite believe it, and she did not respond to my attempts to reach her. And things just went from bad to worse, and the next thing that happened was I tried to establish a partnership with the Levinsky College of Education in Tel Aviv to do some research, and I was immediately removed from the course that I needed in order to fulfill that research. This was a course that I had been teaching for 10 years that I had helped to create. And days after I informed them of this partnership that I was trying to create, I was removed from the course. So there was a sequence of events that happened. I would take one action that related to my Jewish identity and my Zionist identity, and I was then punished.

And this went on for over a year. Okay, so Mark, we've got a clear case here of retaliation for being anti-BDS and also fighting against anti-Semitism, so let's talk about the legal process that ensued here. Sure, and just to give a little context, Dr. Landa is very modest, but she was an award-winning professor, extremely popular, had no problems until she started expressing her Jewish faith more openly. And essentially when that happened and her supervisor started to withdraw from her, Dr. Landa experienced this as the religious discrimination that it was, and she eventually reported the religious discrimination to the college diversity officer.

When she came back from that Passover trip, Jay, this is what you're referring to, that's when she met with the supervisor in person, and the supervisor admitted that she had granted Dr. Landa permission for the trip and said she never should have and she had never realized that Passover is so long. And in that same meeting, the supervisors also accused Dr. Landa of somehow using her with her religion. And so that's when it really, really crossed the line, and that's when Dr. Landa filed her first religious discrimination complaint to the college diversity officer. Okay, and the college diversity officer, eventually the ombudsman said, get this resolved, correct, Mark? Yeah, after three complaints, the university ombudsman said to the supervisor, listen, you have to have some kind of a compromise role for her in order to let her continue here, and she's done good work. And in direct contradiction to that suggestion by the ombudsman, Dr. Landa was fired. Alright, so to put this all in context then, we filed a federal lawsuit. I wish I could tell you that this is a unique situation, it never happens.

And we'll hear more from Dr. Landa in a moment, but Harry, this is happening a lot. Absolutely. So I think one of the things to keep in mind is that this exclusionary history, as practiced by the University of Maryland, goes back at least 100 years. And so we have politically correct individuals who deny the Jewish right to Israel, and basically to practice their own faith. We live in a world wherein university officials have mastered the art of speaking out of both sides of their mouths simultaneously. On one hand, they proclaim their devotion to diversity and inclusion, but on the other hand, they support the exclusion of certain views, particularly pro-Israel views, which are deemed offensive.

On one hand, they proclaim allegiance to freedom of speech, and on the other hand, they deem certain speech offensive because it allegedly advances apartheid, or because it's religious. So what we live in is a globe that is unbalanced, particularly with respect to the nation-state of Israel. So Dr. Landa, you're trying to work through this, and you've obviously been there 10 years. Mark said, and I have no doubt you're an award-winning professor. You're facing this kind of discrimination. Were you surprised at the response of the University of Maryland during all of this? Yeah, I felt like I was living through a slow death of my career. I felt that wherever I turned, I was having doors slammed in my face. I felt that I was being targeted. I felt that I was being treated for who I was, not for what I had done. I felt that I was being judged not for my work performance, but for my identity as a Jewish Zionist, and I felt that there was nothing that I could do.

I felt completely helpless because no matter who I turned to as I climbed up the ladder of authority, I was either ignored, I was dismissed, or I was reprimanded. Well, Mark, so let's quickly go through the complaint here. What have we alleged, and what are we looking for? All right, we're having trouble. Mark, go ahead. We have a little bit of a delay, but go ahead. Sure.

We filed under Title VII for claims of discrimination. I think we just lost Mark. All right, so here's what we've done. We're having trouble getting Mark. Let's see if we can get him back. Do we have him, Ray?

Do we have him? We're checking with that. Andy, we filed a federal lawsuit here seeking both injunctive damages and basically reinstatement.

Right. We want a reinstatement for the professor who I understand is now teaching at an elementary school, which I think is a disgrace. Here is a university professor reduced to teaching in an elementary school.

Not that that's a bad thing. I don't mean to say that elementary teaching is bad. My wife was an elementary teacher, but I'm saying that she should be back in her rightful position in the university. We're seeking exemplary, that is, punitive damages, damages to punish the university for this conduct and associated costs, including the fees and so forth that were necessary to bring the lawsuit. So, in other words, punish the university for this anti-Jewish conduct, this anti-Israeli conduct, this anti-Zionist conduct, punish them for that and give her back the position that she had as a university professor. You know, and what's interesting here is that, remember, this all began because the professor, Dr. Landa, who was joining us on the air, a client, decided to speak out because of her alma mater. It wasn't something at the University of Maryland, it was because her alma mater, which is known for being an extreme left university now, Oberlin, but also hosting these professors who are anti-Semites.

Again, not just anti-Israel, but anti-Semites. So she speaks out, uses her free speech rights, not about the University of Maryland, but about another university, and it begins this avalanche against her, where, as Andy said, her career is, as she watched it, was being killed in front of her. We're fighting to do something about that. And we've got even, I mean, the federal government on the side, really. Yeah, EEOC came out and said this case should be resolved and it should be resolved with an accommodation, and they wouldn't do it, and that's why we're in federal court. We're going to talk more about this. This is happening on other university campuses with the ACLJ front and center first lawsuit of 2022 filed on January 4th.

Back with more in a moment. 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. Welcome back to Secular. So we're talking about our first lawsuit of 2022. We're going to get into some foreign policy with Iran. Rick Rinnell, our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security, is going to be joining us in the second half hour of the broadcast. But I want to continue on this, Deb, because this is, again, it is something we have seen that is systemic throughout the university system.

This is not a one-off. It's great to have the Dr. Landes, the professor we represent of the world, who are willing to speak out. They didn't just silence their views. They stood up for their views. They suffered the consequences for that, but they are fighting back. But they really represent probably thousands of professors who feel like if they took the same position, which they would like to do, they would face the same treatment.

Well, look, when I gave a speech at the United Nations in the General Assembly room on the issue of the BDS movement was sponsored by Israel and the United States, we went and did that. And I had it there, professors that were discriminated against because they were anti-BDS and saying that this is discrimination. But, again, it was in the marketplace of ideas, the idea that you can have divergent views. But that's not what exists on the university campuses anymore.

You know, with all the talk about liberalism, they are the least liberal because they don't want diversity of views and opinions. Instead, they want to silence here a professor by firing her because of her position on Israel and her position against the boycott, sanction, and divest movement. Now, she had the right to make those statements. They did not have the right to terminate her for this. But it goes against all of this talk about academic freedom, Harry. It doesn't exist.

I think that is correct. So universities increasingly believe that the road to freedom is paved with exclusion. And so if you look at Middlebury College, if you look at the University of Pennsylvania, if you look at the University of Chicago, you will find exclusion at the front of the window or the door of these universities, particularly when it comes to a Jewish law professor or other individual speaking out in favor of Israel and against BDS. So for instance, at the University of Pennsylvania, Professor Amy Wax, a Jewish law professor, spoke on racial inequality. That provoked an outpouring of vituperation and the privileging of dissenting groups to abuse the professor, while her fellow faculty members responded by labeling her speech essentially as a form of a swastika or a burning cross.

So this is going on today. And now Professor Amy Wax, she can no longer teach. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. This is where, Andy, this is getting, it is absurd. And the double standard here, and we know this is happening in universities, folks, we're dealing with this, literally from coast to coast.

Yes, it is. And not only just in the United States, but nationwide, Jay, I don't want to give any specific examples, but I experienced this sort of situation with respect to Israel at a noted international university overseas. If you are a Muslim, if you are teaching Islamic law or Islamic history, it's one thing, you're praised, you're welcomed, the red carpet is laid out for you, but if you talk about Israel, if you talk about the Palestinian situation and how Israel is being attacked by the, but if you talk about Israel, if you talk about the Palestinian situation and how Israel is being attacked by the Palestinians, how the Hamas and the groups against Israel are ganging up on this one liberal nation state in the Middle East, then you're anathema. You're kicked out. You're not interested in knowing anything about that or hearing anything about that.

But if you're talking about an Islamic culture or Islamic situation, the doors are wide open to welcome you. And I've experienced this at first hand at an international university that I would be the last one that I would have ever thought had done this. So this is endemic, as Professor Hutcheson has said. It's something that is global in its proportions and it's an abomination and it's got to be called out and Professor Landau's case is one in which we intend to do that. Yeah, well, we've taken Dr. Landau's case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. So we are seeking action in court, Jordan. That's what's important for everybody to understand. Took it through the administrative process, didn't get the result we wanted, didn't get, well, we actually got the result from the EEOC.

I should be very clear here. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came out and said, you have a right to sue here. You've had discrimination and it should be mediated. They wanted it mediated and the University of Maryland told the EEOC, no.

Here's one of the issues here, too, which talks about fighting these battles. The termination was in 2018. She has tried, now for the last three years, now we're entering into the fourth year, to deal with this without having to go to court with the University of Maryland.

But they refused, as you said, they refused. So for years, as an assistant, she had to find other employment using her Ph.D. and doctoral degrees outside of the university system. And you can imagine that while you have this ongoing with the University of Maryland, and we know this is systemic at other universities, it's not going to be easy to find employment if you're this professor at other major universities right now because you're known as pro-Israel.

Someone who, as she said, identifies as Zionist, someone who actively spoke up about her alma maters, really not just being anti-Israel but hosting anti-Semitic professors on their campus. That's really how she began this process. But she's terminated in 2018.

It's 2022. The time for good faith is done. And that's why we filed in federal court. Yeah, and the problem is these cases, as you know, take a long time, and we're just… The EEOC takes… Yeah, I mean, the EEOC takes years to get through. Then you've got to go to federal court, and it's not going to be over with quickly. But we have to fight these cases, folks, or else we're letting one side carry all of the sound, all of the issue.

We can't do that. I think you're precisely correct. And so I would argue in favor of a two-pronged attack, first, we should litigate all of these cases. But secondly, we should engage the public to make sure that the governing bodies, particularly at public universities, are responsive to the American people and their values. It's important to note that universities increasingly have become grounded in a presumption that we should reject Western values tied to Greece, tied to Jerusalem. And we have converted exclusion in the name of tolerance into a religion.

And so if you look, for instance, at the writings of Professor Herbert Marcuse, who comes from the Frankfurt School in Germany, he suggested that we should not allow so-called repressive tolerance to advance. And what we have done in our society, particularly in universities, is we have successfully, unfortunately, labeled Israel as a country that advances repression, and that then legitimates discrimination against pro-Israel professors. That's exactly why your support of the ACLJ is so critical, because it lets us represent Dr. Landa in federal court.

And we couldn't do it without you, so I want to thank you. For those of you that have been supporting the work of the ACLJ, don't forget to continue to do that at ACLJ.org. But this is, as Jordan said, first lawsuit of 2022 comes four days after the new year.

That's right. And your ACLJ, again, working through the new year, as you know, we're going to be talking about it tomorrow on the broadcast, previewing the case at the Supreme Court on Friday with the vaccine mandate. We're working through the new year because that was due on Monday. The reply brief is filed, you can see it at ACLJ.org. The oral argument is on Friday at the Supreme Court.

We'll spend time on tomorrow's broadcast breaking that down and previewing that for you as well. When we come back, Rick Renell will be joining us, getting into some foreign policy, also involving Israel and Iran, right back on second. 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. We've been talking about anti-Semitism in the United States on college campuses, but it's obviously an issue that we deal with worldwide. We talked about yesterday with Secretary Pompeo how the UN Human Rights Council is moving forward with a report on whether Israel is an apartheid state. And we've already filed a reply there through our European Center for Law and Justice to the UN Human Rights Council defending Israel. But now you have on Twitter, which, by the way, while Republican members of Congress, while former President of the United States, gets banned for life permanently from Twitter, the Iranian foreign minister responded to an interview by Israel's foreign minister, Lapid, Yair Lapid. He was asked if his country had the ability to strike the uranium enrichment facilities or weapons sites in Iran.

Now, I think that most people know that question, already know the answer to it. Israel has a very sophisticated military. Again, it's a small country with a sophisticated military because it had to defend itself so many times with actual wars, actual invasions of their country, starting with the founding in 1948, 1967, 1973, and, of course, always dealing with conflicts with groups like Hezbollah, these proxy groups, Hamas, and others. We saw the Lebanon War, Operation Cast Lead, the list goes on and on.

You know about the Iron Dome. So he responded and said, Israel has capabilities, some of which the world and even some experts can't even imagine. Now, then again, because Israel has committed itself, they've been very honest about this, to never allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And if that means more than just kind of strategically utilizing intelligence services to go in and basically disrupt the Iranian systems, which we've seen before, Stuxnet and all these different ways that the uranium and the centrifuges, they blew up. But if it ever came to a point where it took military action, they're saying, yes, we could. Not that we're going to go bomb Iran or we want to go bomb Iran. Well, how does Iran's foreign minister? He tweets this. Quote, we will forcefully and rationally defend the rights, interests, and progress of the Iranian people.

But then this is the kicker. Zionism has no place in the future of the world, aka Israel has no place in the world's future. So calling for the destruction of an entire state of people. Yes, and Twitter allows that, by the way.

That's fine to go on Twitter. You could say that and nobody says anything. What's so interesting about this is Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. So Hamas, Hezbollah, they're proxies for Iran. And the idea that you would publicly state what the Iranians do, while the United States is negotiating with these people right now, that Zionism has no place in the future of the world, shows you the level of hostility. But we are seeing it in academic institutions. We just talked about that here in the United States and globally. We're seeing it in foreign policy. But yet, Colonel Smith, I think about the fact that the United States is sitting down with the Iranians right now.

Absolutely. It's hard to imagine what those conversations, although they're doing it in separate facilities with intermediaries going between them, but it's hard to imagine what the conversation is like. We do know from Iran's own statements and from the European leaders that are monitoring this, they are demanding that all sanctions be lifted, not just the sanctions regarding their nuclear research and development, but all sanctions, including they have sanctions against them for their ballistic missile program as well as their terrorism activities. They want all sanctions to be lifted. They have indicated they will walk away from the table unless those sanctions are lifted. But here's the thing, Jay, most experts believe there is a real possibility right now that Iran is not months, but weeks away from a breakout to have their first nuclear weapon. There is a reason Iran is dragging their feet and playing hardball, because they think they have the win in this situation.

And that is frightening for Israel, for the United States, and for the world. We come back from the break. You don't want to miss this.

Share the broadcast with your friends and family. Rick Grenell, Senior Advisor for Foreign Policy and National Security, will be joining us to discuss this. And why are, on social media, the Ayatollahs, the Iranian Mullahs, these terrorist radicals, give it a pass? They can call for the destruction of an entire people group.

That's no problem. But if a member of Congress questions MRNA and anything like that, then so what? They get banned forever? Or if a former President of the United States is banned forever because of sharing their views?

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 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. Welcome back to SECIO. You know, we've had the two-year anniversary since the US and the Trump administration decided to take out the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who was conducting operations against US troops, targeting US troops through their terror forces, their Quds forces throughout Syria. As we were battling ISIS, they were also targeting US troops to kill.

He was taken out. Iranians have, again, you know, they start talking. They start a lot of propaganda around this, a lot of threats. They call for the killing, the assassination of President Trump and Secretary Pompeo. But they've also gone further because on Friday, as we said, there was an interview on Israel with their foreign minister, and he asked if they had the ability to strike Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, which some are buried deep in the mountains, and he said yes.

And the world knows some of our capabilities, and we have some capabilities the world doesn't even know about. Didn't say we're going to go do this tomorrow. Didn't say we want to go start a war with Iran. Israel certainly doesn't want that. But then on Monday, Iran's foreign minister, utilizing Twitter, hits back, says, well, we'll forcefully and rationally defend the rights, interest, and progress of the Iranian people.

Okay, whatever. But then, of course, Zionism has no place in the future of the world. Twitter doesn't take that down. Twitter doesn't ban him for life. Twitter has no problem there.

Rick Rinnell is joining us now, our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security and former acting director of national intelligence. Rick, I mean, this, again, it shows the double standard of the social media world, but also the rhetoric that is okay as long as it's anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or even anti-American, like calling for the assassination of a U.S. President and a former secretary of state. Look, it's shocking that they are allowed to be on Twitter. They are a human rights denier.

They deny women basic rights every single day. The idea that they are allowed to spew this hate on a platform like Twitter and Twitter doesn't even notice is an outrage. You layer on top of that the fact that Twitter is really jumpy towards conservatives and aggressive about silencing conservatives.

I think we've got a real problem here. But on the larger issue of Iran, you know, what the Israeli foreign minister did, Jordan, was give a credible threat of military action. This is something that the Biden administration hasn't been able to do. In fact, we're getting press reports that when they showed up in Vienna for the initial talks, the Americans through Rob Malley, who has been a disaster negotiator since the days of Bill Clinton, giving away everything to the Iranians, this very weak negotiator, he showed up and presented the Iranians such a package that the word from the media in D.C. is that even Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser at the White House, has been outraged. They're not on the same page here in the Biden administration. You've got the weak negotiators starting to make the normal people within the Biden administration angry. You know, Rick, I'm looking at these statements coming out, and it's shocking to me that this negotiation, even if it's going through intermediaries, as Colonel Smith pointed out, you've got, you know, if Trump and Pompeo are not tried in a court for the criminal act of assassinating General Soleimani, Muslims will take out martyrs' revenge.

I mean, I want people to understand what they're saying here. We are negotiating with these people, the United States, they are calling for a trial of the former secretary of state and the former President of the United States for the act of assassinating the head of the Revolutionary Guard who killed American soldiers. And then the threat is Muslims will take our martyrs' revenge. And, of course, everyone's acting like in the body politic, like, well, that's just them speaking. The outrage here should be palpable. People should understand this and feel the outrage. But I get concerned that we're numb to this in the United States. That's a really good point. We are numb to this because currently this Biden administration is negotiating with terrorists.

You cannot get around that. That is the fact. They're negotiating with the Iranian regime. They just had a massive failure in Afghanistan. You don't think that the Iranians saw that weakness? When Rob Malley shows up, who has consistently been weak, and the Iranians love him, when he shows up with a very generous offer that makes Jake Sullivan cringe, you know that we're in trouble. But to your point, Jay, we are negotiating, the United States is negotiating with terrorists right now, and this is a low point.

Wes? You know, Rick, one of the things I think about, too, is that the Iranians are obviously dragging their feet and playing hardball in Vienna. I ask you a couple of questions. Do you think, first of all, that they really are on the verge of having their first nuclear weapon? And they know this, that the Iranian enrichment level is far beyond the 60% that we know about. So they're counting on that. I wonder what your thoughts are about that.

And then also, when you look at the world in which we live, it's a dangerous world, a brand new year. You've got Russia possibly invading Ukraine. You've got China possibly taking Taiwan by force. And now the Iranians are about to have a nuclear weapon.

Do you see the possibility for strategic cooperation between those three enemies of the United States? So I have to be very careful in how I answer this question because I know that the current DNI is watching my words very carefully. I know this through outreach that has been done. And I need to be very careful in saying what I know about negotiations.

But let me just drop back a little bit and be general. And the fact of the matter is that the Iranians are not telling the truth. Anyone who reads U.S. intelligence, any of the Five Eyes country that is watching the intelligence, knows that the Iranian regime is lying. We've caught them publicly.

There have been press reports, and I can quote press reports, about them lying about heavy water, about the number of centrifuges. Unfortunately, people like John Kerry and Rob Malley keep forgiving the Iranians. And therefore, there is no other explanation than they believe that the Iranians are telling them the truth and just made accounting mistakes or numbers mistakes, which is beyond ridiculous.

Go ahead, Rick. I was just going to finish by saying I believe that what we have right now are people that want to bring the Iranian regime, the current mass murdering terrorist regime, into the international fold and begin to have a normal relationship with them because they believe that if we engage with them, that they will go down the path of being a more responsible nation. And China has proven when we let them into the WTO, that's not true. You know, Rick, you say they take them at their word, they make mistakes, but why not then take them at their word when they say if the former President, former secretary of state aren't criminally prosecuted by the world, the ICC, then we're calling on Muslims to rise up and kill them. Then why not take them at their word for that? Because the State Department is filled with people who just believe that engagement is the only way. They have a very hard time holding people to account.

There are no consequences for behavior. There's only forgiveness. There's too much mercy and not enough justice, if you want to put it into biblical terms. And I believe that that's a real problem. If you want to have effective diplomacy, you need diplomacy with muscle that creates standards. I'm looking at some headlines, Rick. Politico, Iran nuclear talks resume, but time is running out to strike a deal. Foreign policy, the Biden team knows it's Iran. Policy is failing. But Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism, especially in that region. And we know that.

And we've got just about a minute and a half here. But the fact is, to be negotiating with them right now sends such a horrible signal to our allies. Look, we're the Biden administration is currently negotiating with the Taliban. They are supporting Lebanese government that is in coalition with Hezbollah. We are forcing the Israelis to sit down with a government that hasn't had an election since 2005 and whose coalition partner is Hamas. And now what we have is an administration who's negotiating with the Iranian regime at the same table and pretending like they're part of the international community. This is an outrage.

We need to have standards. I'll tell you this. I really appreciate you taking time, Rick, and appreciate you being part of our team. And I also appreciated your hesitancy on what you were saying.

Totally understandable. And folks, I think it underscores the fact of how fortunate we are at the ACLJ to have someone like Rick Grenell as part of the team here. But this, we're dealing with the Iranian threat in the university case, which is, or the anti-Semitism threat in the university case. We're representing a professor who was fired after 10 years because of pro-Zionism statements. We've got the situation in, of course, we've responded to with the UN.

So all of this is happening because of your support of the ACLJ folks. And we just want to thank you. Thank you, Rick.

As always, it's great to have Rick on when we come back. We'll get to this more, but also a little preview too of the show tomorrow. Big case of the Supreme Court on Friday. We represent the Heritage Foundation and a lot to talk about there as well for the potential outcomes of that case. But again, as you can support our work at ACLJ.org, we will have a blog up too on this professor that we represent. That'll be up later today so you can see, again, what we have filed in federal court. First lawsuit of 2022 by the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Final segment coming up. Thank you. 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. 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. So a major case at the U.S. Supreme Court. We represent the Heritage Foundation, the ACLJ. This was, again, work that had gone on throughout, over the New Year holiday.

And you knew before, even Christmas, the month of December. This is the Heritage Foundation filing a lawsuit against the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for private employers. It requires us testing.

It's very complicated. It puts employers in a very bizarre position with their employees. On top of that, and I think we want to point out as well, to comply with this is becoming nearly impossible in the United States of America. Even since we filed the initial lawsuit, because we feel like there's separation of powers and issues that are constitutional issues that violates the Constitution, the federal government, and oh sure, not the right place. When our initial filing, and I've talked about this before, but I feel like I know the NFIB and some of the states will be making the oral argument on Friday before the court. The testing requirement, as President Biden said, you can't get the test.

Google where you can find, you can't even buy these tests in the country. And then I'm not sure that the Omicron variant is showing up on the test. So here's the problem.

You're right, Jordan. The case has changed dramatically since we filed it. I mean, this is what's so difficult. As you know, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am pro-vaccine, but I don't like the government coming in like this, putting a mandate in place that you cannot comply with. And when I say can't comply with, we're trying to figure out internally here at the ACLJ to be in compliance.

You draft an email that you're going to send to your employees, and then you're saying, does this actually work? And now the testing issue is really significant. The number of cases are through the roof, and unfortunately, the number of fatalities are starting to rise just because the sheer number of cases are going up. But OSHA initially said they did not have the authority and capability to do this. And you know what the truth is?

OSHA was right, Andy. They don't. No, they don't. And the President of the United States himself said on December 27th, there is no federal solution. This is something that belongs to the states.

And in our reply brief, Jay, on behalf of the Heritage Foundation, we opened our reply brief with that statement and just shoved it down Joe Biden's throat. There is no federal solution. Look, in a time of crisis, you look to your Constitution nonetheless. Regardless of everything that may be going on, we're a constitutional republic, and we look to our Constitution to guide us through all sorts of crises. Our Constitution says we are in a federal system. This is not something that the United States central government has a role to play. It's the states. It is not provided for in the separation of powers. It is a matter that is left to the conduct of the states to handle, and that is one of the principal arguments that we are making.

Because, Harry, here's why. This is the perfect example of where the states could tailor the situation to their specifics, which is what needs to be happening. Because the state governors know what, for instance, Governor Noem was on, who we represented in another case, she was on last night on television and said they do have adequate testing capabilities in South Dakota. But in a lot of other states, that's not the case, so the states could tailor those kind of remedies. I think that's precisely correct, and again, I compliment Andy Cahnemu on his brilliant legal analysis, and it's too bad that the Biden administration hasn't hired him to interpret the Constitution. But we have federalism for a reason. Conditions vary throughout the United States, and we also have infection rates that vary throughout the United States.

So it makes sense to devolve the power to the states and enable them and empower them to do something about this situation. Instead, the Biden administration, which has engaged in an absolutely fantastic series of bumbles from Afghanistan to Omicron, it continues to bumble its way through, even though Joe Biden said they would not, A, shut the country down, but B, they would shut the virus down. The key issue here is does the federal government have the power to tell a virus, stop, and I think the answer is absolutely no, that government doesn't have that power. We have people traveling throughout the world, and the virus is mutating, and so I think Joe Biden should be a little more modest.

It's very dangerous, and this virus is what's called a smart virus, and I don't like getting into the medical. I'm not, but the hospitalization rates are starting to really climb. January is going to be a very bad month for the country, and we know that. But employers are going to do the right thing. Of course, we put in the filtration system here. And the employees are sick, they stay home. This is what I don't understand about this mandate.

We've already seen time and time again, we saw the airlines, they had to cancel 4,000 flights a day, and that's still an issue with travel in the United States because they were doing the right thing. They were COVID testing. By the way, these were a lot of companies that had their own internal mandates for pilots and their staff, and they're still testing positive. So we also know that even boosted, fully vaccinated Americans are getting this, they're testing positive for this kind of virus.

And so this mandate, which again, it doesn't work because you can't even adequately get the test when the President of the United States has to say, just Google where you can go get an email. Or you've got to wait in line 10 hours. So we saw kids waiting outside of LaGuardia in freezing temperatures with their parents trying to get tested so they could get on a flight.

I saw that last night too. I mean, here's the other problem with all of this, and unfortunately this is evading the vaccine system. Your impact of the virus will be much reduced, this is what all the science is showing, much reduced if you're vaccinated. Having said that, OSHA is workplace. That's the problem here.

They're not in their jurisdiction. Well, and Harry's right about the Biden administration bungling this whole response, and the CDC is not helping. The CDC came out yesterday and said that if you've been exposed, quarantine for five days, unless you test positive and then you quarantine for 10 days, but no one can get a test. Well, this is the great disaster that has happened here. And could you imagine, Warp Speed got the vaccine to the American people and to the world. That was under the previous administration with great success. But now we can't get tests. Does that not tell you the problem? Yeah, I mean the problem is with the Biden administration.

They put the focus, first of all, every time the President speaks, it's confusing. So when he spoke this week, it confuses Americans, because on one hand he's saying it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated. On the other hand, he's saying that if you're fully vaccinated, boosted, you will test positive, you can get this new variant of Omicron. And that's where the problem becomes for this employer mandate.

Those tests are not even available. We were talking to our outside counsel here for ACLJ, and they were saying, having to go through and trying to order these in bulk number from some of these employees. Yeah, maybe as an employer you can order them, which you're not supposed to do at the minute. But all this is just the employee is supposed to have easy access. You know, the Biden administration is saying your health insurance is going to reimburse you for it. That won't matter if you can't get it, if you can't easily get them.

And I'm not talking about waking up on one day of the week where the pharmacy tells you, rush in and this is the one day we're going to get shipments. That's not how this will work. That doesn't work. The problem, of course, is the Supreme Court of the United States did not issue an administrative stay. And they could have done that. So we're going to find out Friday.

We'll hear what the argument is. The court could issue an administrative stay that afternoon. That would be a good sign that let the states regulate this, not the federal government. But if they don't, that's also not a good sign. And parts of this go into effect Monday.

Parts of it really went into effect this past Monday, but they delayed it till the 10th. So here we are. I mean, this is just this is the nature of what it is. Like I said, I'm very pro the science and the vaccine, and I've been vaccinated and boosted. But I'm also being really careful right now. Why? Because this thing's getting around people that are boosted. So you be careful.

Went into the grocery store yesterday and wore a mask. It's called smart. The mandate isn't so smart. Go to ACLJanitor. You can see all of our briefing on this as we prepare for the oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court. 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.