Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Parents Labeled as Terrorists: Biden Admin to Blame

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
January 12, 2022 12:00 pm

Parents Labeled as Terrorists: Biden Admin to Blame

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1082 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


January 12, 2022 12:00 pm

You may hear the calls today from members of Congress for Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to resign. A FOIA request uncovered a baffling email exchange in which concerned parents are compared to "domestic terrorists." Jordan and the rest of the Sekulow team give the latest information on this ongoing story. This and more today on Sekulow .

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk

Breaking news today on Sekulow. Parents labeled as terrorists.

The Biden administration to blame. 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 you may hear the calls today by members of Congress for the Secretary of Education, Secretary Cardona, to resign following a letter that was obtained by FOIA. This is a new letter obtained by FOIA, which means that there's some blackouts on who got the email, but somehow this was obtained through the FOIA process, which means someone on the email exchange was a government employee, had a government email account. And in the email, which was dated October 5th, this is after the letter from the National School Board Association asking the Biden administration and the DOJ to use the Patriot Act to treat parents as domestic terrorists because they were showing up at school board meetings and engaging. And sometimes they used heated rhetoric. They were upset.

They were angry. And again, I want to be clear on this broadcast. If people were making real threats and they were causing actual criminal conduct, that should have been handled. There should be no question about that.

Of course, that's wrong. It should be handled. But the issue is why the Department of Justice sought to then federalize law enforcement to figure out, which is exactly what they did in the Tea Party cases, if we could bring federal charges against any of these parents under statutes like the Patriot Act, treating them like domestic terrorists, which also triggers surveillance of those parents potentially. So there was this whole back and forth about who was responsible. Was it the National School Board Association or did the Biden administration ask them for it?

Well, now an email has been obtained. And it's between two board members of the National School Board Association, one who's upset about it. And in the email exchange, this board member, Maraldo, expresses concern about the letter saying, I'm very concerned about the process by which the statement was made and the tone that essentially allowed the White House to direct the AG to consider members of our community, the parents, quote, domestic terrorists. And it went on, then their response, the secretary treasurer of the National School Board Association said, we were writing the letter to provide information to the White House from a request by the Biden Education Secretary Cordona. Now, his response from the Department of Education, very technical on the words, while the secretary did not solicit a letter.

That's, by the way, not what the National School Board Association said. They said they were asked for information. They put it into a letter. They were asked to respond, but they put it into a letter. So he said he didn't solicit a letter from the National School Board Association. They do engage regularly with those associations. So, I mean, you see there trying to say, I didn't ask for this specific letter, which means he didn't necessarily say, put the Patriot Act in there and these other provisions.

But maybe he did. But it's certainly, at least from the school board's perspective, this association, the National Association, that they went and they did this at the behest of the Biden administration. And Andy, to treat parents like domestic terrorists, to trigger laws like the Patriot Act, to use against parents, which we saw in the follow up memo, the first letter was in September, the follow up memos from the DOJ first week of October saying to do just that. Let's see if we can prosecute them that way. That is an absolutely abhorrent thought and an abhorrent thing to do, Jordan, to because a parent speaks in a rhetorical fashion or becomes involved in a heated debate with respect to how their children are treated and how their children are handled in educational systems, to convert them into domestic terrorists and to employ the resources of the Department of Justice and the Patriot Act to make parents domestic terrorists is an abhorrent thing to do, to criminalize the conduct of parents.

I can't believe that we have stooped to that low in our country. I want you, if you're watching the broadcast, to share it with your friends and family. We come back. We're going to walk through the timeline for you. We've also got an update on a pro-life case. Ed White will be joining us in the third segment of the broadcast to update us on that case. It's just got scheduled oral argument, the Ninth Circuit. Rick Rinnell joining us in the second half hour of the broadcast to discuss this voting rights push and also what's happening in Ukraine. So you don't want to miss it.

Share it with your friends and family. We'll 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 Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Secular.

We are taking your phone calls as well on this. What do you think the Biden administration now looks like they are responsible directly for prodding this letter from the National School Board Association, which they tried to kind of rewrite and apologize for, to encourage the Biden administration to start using laws like the Patriot Act, to go after parents who were upset at school board meetings and express that anger because of the shutdowns, because there's been CRT issues, there were the COVID issues, trying to get back to school, and all the virtual learning discussions. So there's curriculum issues, there's all the COVID issues.

Combine those two. And they say now in an email exchange that's been unearthed via FOIA, which means someone from the government was on that email, that the Biden administration and the Secretary of Education, Cordona, specifically asked for this letter and asked them to write a report. Now the Department of Education said he didn't solicit a letter from the National School Board Association. What that means though is that they say they talk to them all the time.

So he could have easily said, you know, let us know. Didn't have to say write a specific letter, this is what you need to put in it. This is like typical, it reminds me of the Obama years. It's very careful how they try to write that they weren't responsible, even though in the second sentence of their response they say that they do have these communications with these groups all the time. So one, I'd ask you, how do you feel about the Biden administration trying to utilize these federal laws on terrorism to go after parents who actually take the time to be involved in their children's school board meetings? Which by the way, we've told for many years the ACLJ we've preached how important those school boards are. We've appeared before school boards multiple times and we continue to do so at the ACLJ because of the importance they are to the communities at the most local level. So parents start showing up, some of them are angry and now, you know, they all want to retreat, let's use the Patriot Act and then the Department of Justice came and said, well, yeah, let's try to figure out how we can use our federal laws to potentially prosecute these parents. I'll read from you the letter and I'll go to our team on this and take your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

I don't believe there's any excuse. Again, if there was criminal wrongdoing, it should be handled. You don't need the Department of Justice, you don't need the Patriot Act to do that. If there were threats against local school board members, if there were real issues, use law enforcement. But this is about politicizing the issue and scaring you from showing up and make your voice heard. It's about silencing the speech, the legal speech, free speech. So this letter from the National School Board Association was sent to President Biden on September 29th and in it, it says the school board association requested, quote, such review examine appropriate enforceable actions against these crimes and acts of violence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Here's the key part, the Patriot Act in regards to domestic terrorism. It goes on, conspiracy against rights statute and an executive order.

Then there's a letter from October 4th from the AG to the Department of Justice. He asked the Criminal Division, Counterterrorism Division gets involved to announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct towards school personnel and then list how can we, can we do this under the federal, do we have the authority, can we bring a challenge, can we can we go after these parents as a domestic terrorist. But now we have the link to all of that and the link is that the National School Board Association, when their members were, their board members started saying, why did we send this letter calling parents domestic terrorist?

What was, what was this? And the response back is, and this came through FOIA. And if it came through FOIA, I want to go to Thad Bennett on this because Thad, if it came through that FOIA process, which our Washington, DC office runs a lot of, and it would only work if there's a federal, a government official on that email and that exchange, which said, we were asked to provide this by the Secretary of Education. Yeah, there had to be a federal official that is subject to the recommendation of FOIA for it to be discoverable through FOIA.

So we know there certainly was, but Jordan, I would just say a couple of things. First of all, this is such an example of the circular reasoning process that happens so frequently in Washington, DC. I mean, no, we, we know this at least originated at the Department of Education now at the Secretary level. Jordan, it's almost unbelievable that it didn't originate at the White House. The White House very likely told the Department of Education, the Secretary, to request this letter from the NSBA. Then, of course, they sent the letter back to the White House so the White House would have justification for taking some action. And by the way, Jordan, we don't have this link yet, but I will almost guarantee you later on in the month when the NSBA retracted this letter, guess where I bet that request came from? I'm almost sure that came from the White House too, because the letter was starting to cause them political problems. It's just a circular reasoning that goes round and round and round.

And Jordan, I would say one more thing. The threat of terror in the world remains very, very real. What in the world is this administration doing diverting resources from combating that terror and taking the people that are responsible for being on the alert of terrorism and aiming them at the parents of our school children?

Jordan, it's a travesty for those parents. It's also a travesty because it makes us less safe as a nation. You know, we've seen this politicized DOJ do this time and time again, Harry. I remember during the Tea Party case, the Tea Party cases, so this goes back to the Obama years, but the Biden years too, when Lois Lerner went to the FBI, went to DOJ and the DOJ came back and basically said the same thing. Is there a federal nexus to bring charges against these groups?

Are there potential federal violations that can be investigated or charged? And then see, this came from the parents letter, but it's exactly the same. What's the motivation behind the criminal activity?

Is there a way we can federally prosecute one of these parents or at least threaten the prosecution so that parents stop showing up to actually voice their concerns? I think you're absolutely correct. And it's important to keep history in mind. The individuals who politicized the Department of Justice, who politicized the IRS during the Obama administration, they are still located in the bowels of the deep state. So the Biden administration increasingly is terrorized by the sound of a windblown leaf.

And Attorney General Garland, he flees from reality, though no one pursues him. So it makes sense that after the Secretary of Education organized a scheme to allow the federal government to label parents domestic terrorists that the DOJ would leap into action. And they have done so. And it's also important to keep in mind that those parents should remain fired up because they are targets of the US government and increasingly the US government is characterized by one thing and one thing only. That is a surveillance state. Right. They apologize for it, but they haven't stopped this policy.

There's no indication that they've backed off this and said, we are wrong. This is a local level. This should be done by the, you know, if there's actual problems, let local law enforcement handle it. What's the problem there? And I want you to listen because the Secretary of Education was on CBS this morning.

Take a listen by 12. So the question to you, I think, is, did you solicit anything from that school board association? And should the DOJ and FBI have gotten involved in this at all? You know, we didn't ask for that letter. We didn't. I think the real focus should be how we authentically engage parents.

And I think moving forward, we have to have a better strategy across the country to listen to parents and to make sure that they're engaged in the process. But no, specifically with that letter, we had no, we didn't request that or there was no involvement in that. Here's what you get. I mean, it's all about, it's the letter. They keep going to the specifics of, did you solicit a letter versus a report? And of course, that the saying that you didn't solicit a letter doesn't mean you didn't solicit a report or ask them to just call or to reach out to the White House first so that they could take some action. You don't have to necessarily say the word letter. That's what he keeps saying. But Andy, to me, when you have the school board member, when you have the National School Board Association members, both going back and forth, obviously with a government official there, it's right now for action because he's tried to come out and say, no, they weren't, they weren't specifically asking for that specific letter.

Well, his case playing word games, Jordan, he's playing the usual Washington, DC word games. I didn't solicit the letter. I didn't solicit the report.

I didn't ask for it. The reality is that you did. The reality is that what you did is you asked these parents to put their neck in the noose and to make them what ultimately Merrick Garland has said that they are and whether he denies it or not, domestic terrorists. This should terrify members of the public who have children in public schools.

You go to a public school board meeting, you raise your voice a little bit, you become angry, you shout, you make your point, just like we've done in the history of this nation with pamphleteering and so forth. And suddenly, because you are interested in the welfare of your child and in how your child is educated, you become a domestic terrorist and you're looking square within the, uh, uh, the, the, uh, gun of the Federal Bureau of Investigation looking at you on a federal level. What do you think that's going to do? It's going to chill you and scare you into keeping your mouth shut, which is what the Biden administration wants.

This is an unprincipled and unparalleled power grab again by the central government into our daily lives, Jordan. We're going to take your calls on this at 1-800-684-3110. In the next segment, we're also going to get an update.

We'll get to this, continue on this. We're going to get an update from Ed White, a senior counsel with the ACLJ. Ninth Circuit has just scheduled oral arguments in a pro-life case. We're working on another one of those cases where they try to find the pro-life activist out of existence. So we're going to talk about that challenge that we are fighting on behalf of one of those pro-life activists when we come back on Secular.

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. 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.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to get back to this Department of Education issue and this labeling of parents as terrorists. We've seen this, unfortunately, before from the Biden team. This is, of course, in the Obama years when he was vice President trying to label conservative activist groups as somehow federal criminals and trying to use the DOJ to go after Tea Party groups organized at the local level.

So it's a similar pattern of abuse. It's why we fight against the increase of the IRS size. It's not just because people don't like the IRS. It's because we've seen the wrongdoing by the IRS, the targeting by the IRS, the fact that they still want to get the rule changed so that they can go and target again based off political beliefs.

And it's kind of similar situation again here, too. We are representing a pro-life activist who was part of that, again, Center for Medical Progress. You remember the videos that were released showing Planned Parenthood and the solicitation and sale of fetal body parts and this big fine against the group with the videos, and they're trying to go after one of the board members, and we are appealing that. And Ed White's joining Staff Senior Counsel with the ACLJ. Ed, the Ninth Circuit has just scheduled oral arguments. You're going to be making that oral argument, but I want you just to tell people about the case.

Sure. This case started in 2013 when the Center for Medical Progress began an undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Through the videos that they acquired, you have Planned Parenthood people negotiating the sale of fetal body parts, admitting that they could modify their abortion procedure to get better specimens, and then the famous comment from one of the Planned Parenthood people saying she wanted a Lamborghini, and that was her goal in the sale. A lawsuit was filed by Planned Parenthood as soon as these videos were released.

These videos made a splash across the country, if not the world. The House and the Senate conducted an investigation, made criminal referrals about what was going on with the sale of the fetal body parts. The states of Louisiana, Texas, a couple other states disqualified Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program. One of these fetal procurement companies in Los Angeles admitted to the transfer of fetal body parts and to a close to $8 million fine. The case proceeded.

We had a two-month trial in 2019 in San Francisco. During the trial, a lot of the testimony that I just discussed came out, but the federal trial judge instructed the jury not to consider what Planned Parenthood had done, but only consider what the defendants did with regard to the undercover investigation. After that trial, the jury ruled against the defendants, including our client, issued damages of $2 million, and then the trial judge later issued an order for $13 million in attorney's fees and costs, so a total of roughly $15 million. We took an appeal. That case has been pending now for a couple of years. Things take a while in the law, and the Ninth Circuit just issued an order the other day saying that oral argument will be held in April, and that will give us an opportunity to advance our arguments, but mainly to answer any questions from the three-judge panel.

If we do not prevail there, our other options would be to ask for the what's called en banc or full court of the Ninth Circuit to consider our cases, and then, of course, to go to the United States Supreme Court. As you pointed out, Ed, they end up with an $8 million fine for what they're doing, but they're able to go into court and say, don't worry about their illegal activity. Here's these bad guys who got the videos that uncovered this activity, which led to all of these investigations and potentially led to policy changes even at Planned Parenthood because of the fines they had to pay and the investigations that went on to say, don't look at that.

Don't consider that. Don't consider that they're performing abortions so that they can preserve these fetal body parts to then sell to this market. Let's punish the pro-life activists here and $15 million fines.

So that is the key to our challenge of this. Again, it's in federal court that this violates the constitutional rights of our client? Yes, that is one of the claims also that the abortion industry is trying to use the RICO law, that's law designed originally to fight organized crime against pro-lifers. But from your previous segment about the Biden administration going after parents and then the IRS going after the Tea Party, this also is in the same vein of trying to silence the pro-life movement. So if you can get in a favorable jurisdiction, San Francisco, an extreme damage award, attorney fee award, you, Planned Parenthood, could stop other investigations happening against you because people do not want to have to pay $15 million.

That's where the ACLJ comes in. And thanks to the donations of our members, we're able to go into court and fight tooth and nail against the largest law firms in San Francisco. We're going on six years now and a two-month trial.

It's because we're able to do this that we're able to hopefully prevail at the end so other pro-lifers will have the courage to go forth and expose the evils of abortion. And I appreciate the update. We're going to stay on this. There's a new post up at ACLJ.org on the case.

So the oral argument will be this spring, but I appreciate this update. All ties together today. And that was the plan.

It was just this all ties together. This idea, silence parents, scare them away. We're going to call you terrorists. See what we did to those pro-life activists. They're going to be fined out of being able to ever have resources again. So ruin their financial life. Don't get associated with the pro-life activists. Don't use that pro-life speech. Don't get on the board of one of those groups. And the same thing with the Tea Party. How do we make sure they don't get off, you know, they don't get IRS approval before the midterm elections and so we need to go after them.

And using the federal laws, laws to go after organized crime the same way they go after, again, pro-life protesters. I want to take one of the phone calls coming in. Ron in South Carolina on Line 3. Hey Ron, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Yeah, thanks for taking my calls. Yeah, literally you have just about taken the words out of my mouth because the way that the Biden administration has enacted the Department of Justice to go after the parents who are only exercising their freedom of speech. The same thing happened, I believe, as it was brought out with either the Clinton or Obama administration where the RICO Act was used against pro-lifers who were demonstrating to save the life of unborn babies. I'll go back to Andy on this because, Andy, it's one of our cases the U.S. Supreme Court, the Schenck case. And this was, I think, the Clinton years, and there was some fall over into other administrations, but started under the Clinton years of trying to utilize RICO to go after pro-life activists.

Yeah, Jordan, that's exactly right. And those were the the bad years for anti-abortion protesters, pro-life advocates, because what the federal government did, and again, a Democratic power grab, a power reach, was to take the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was designed to go after organized crime, mafia-type conduct, that kind of conduct, and to twist and contort that law, and to criminalize people and call them RICO violators, who simply expressed their views on freedom of right to life and things of that nature, which were never intended to be federal criminal acts under the Racketeering Statute. Folks, we fight on all these fronts, as you know.

We've been talking about this issue with parents. I will continue to fight on that as we continue to uncover the information about how involved the Biden administration was, the fight for the rights of these Tea Party groups to organize, we fought for the rights of the pro-life organizations. As you heard, we're still fighting for pro-life activists to be able to engage without the fear that you go into, again, San Francisco court and you get fined out of existence. That's the idea, how to fine you out of existence, which I think those videos, for a lot of the reason, were awaiting that Supreme Court case out of Mississippi.

We'll be right back, second half hour coming up. 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. Coming up in this second half hour of the broadcast, Rick Rinnell is going to be joining this next segment, where we talk about the voting rights push by the Democrats, how partisan this has gotten, how they've started labeling opponents of the federalizing of our elections as just outright racist.

I mean, that's what President Biden went to Atlanta and did. But we're going to talk about that with Rick Rinnell in the next segment of the broadcast, also get an update on what's happening with Ukraine and Russia, because these tensions continue there, and how that affects the United States. But I did want to make sure we keep you updated on the vaccine mandate case out of the US Supreme Court. Now, it's not with certainty, I can't say that we're getting an opinion tomorrow, but as SCOTUS blog reported is on the Supreme Court's calendar, there is at least one opinion from the Supreme Court that will be released tomorrow. I think that it's potentially going to be that case. The reason I would say it, and it could be next week, it could be later, but is because, again, it would still fall in that timeline.

We're in that good faith section of the implementation for businesses part right now, but we're not yet into the part where the financial, major financial penalties, that's not until February. So it would still be timely. And again, I'll put it up on the screen if we want to. So again, the Supreme Court released one or more opinions tomorrow, so this Thursday. So we're going to be following that very closely.

As you know, we represent the Heritage Foundation. I'm sure people wanted to kind of know where that stood, because a lot of people thought there might be action by the Supreme Court more quickly, at least on a stay. That did not happen. But again, we're going to watch that very closely. We will know that before we are on air tomorrow, whether that is the opinion that the Supreme Court has conferred. At least there's an opinion coming out and maybe more tomorrow. So we'll watch that. It doesn't mean a guarantee, but we're going to watch it very carefully. Second, we're on this Department of Justice issue with the parents, and now it's not just linking back to the Biden administration.

It looks like it started with the Biden administration to the point where US Senator Rick Scott from Florida is calling for the Education Secretary to resign, because the National School Board Association, in an uncovered email between their board members and some government official, because that's how it came out through FOIA, said that they were asked to provide this letter to the Biden administration by the Secretary. Now, his quick, his very formal response back is, we didn't ask for that letter. That does not mean we didn't say, contact the White House first, start there, let them know your concerns. You didn't have to say, put it into letter, put it into this. I mean, you didn't have to say, put in the Patriot Act. But they could have said that, too. I mean, that's a part of their denial, doesn't cover that part, because they also say, well, we talk to these groups all the time. So again, we're going to follow that up. We've walked you through that timeline. I want to go to David's call in Pennsylvania.

He's been holding on online, too. Hey, David, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

All right, thank you. My question is two-part. First part is, well, I guess there's only one part, actually. Who holds people accountable to the court cases that are, you win in your favor? For example, you've mentioned previously I think in some form or fashion, how the Lerner verdict that the IRS has turned right around did again.

And as far as the domestic terrorist issue, who in the government is going to... Yeah, so let me jump in, Dave. So on the Lerner issue, they haven't been able to do it again yet because of our court order. They want a change in federal law.

And that was in Build Back Better. To change the federal law, to remove the Lerner rule, which says you cannot, as the IRS says, let's build out a list of conservative groups and target those because they're conservative, or pro-life groups because they're pro-life. So that's what's happening there. It's not that the IRS is able to do that now. We caught them once doing that again, another legal group friend of ours, and they were found to be in the wrong. So they were held to account. What they were doing was wrong and illegal, but they want the law changed. Now, on this front, there's no indication the Department of Justice has backed away from this. While everybody's trying to say, oh, that's not the language and we're not trying to really use them as domestic terrorists, they haven't said, no, this is really a local policing matter if there's an individual case of a parent taking it too far, where they need to be followed up by law enforcement or making threats.

There's no place for that. But again, what they didn't like was vibrant speech, which can include angry speech. That doesn't mean you're a domestic terrorist. So we're going to stay on top of this and see how involved the Biden administration was. 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, please, please, please, if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you were saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, 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. All right, Rick, I was going to join us a little tech issue there, but we'll get that all fixed out. I want to get back to another issue where again, we see this rhetoric, this divisive, I mean, so, you know, you're going to call parents who want to show up at the school board meeting.

Thank God they're showing up, by the way. I thank those parents because we've been preaching it for years at the ACLJ, probably since our founding. I remember when I was a kid and I would sometimes go with my dad and he'd fly in and he would actually go before a school board meeting because of something they were doing that was wrong, violating the constitutional rights of students a lot of times because of students' personal religious beliefs and these issues that would arise. And he'd have to fight back with the school board. Never would imagine because he fought back with the school board that he could get labeled some kind of terrorist because he might be angry sometimes.

Everybody knows he's a pretty aggressive guy, especially when he's defending, you know, a client. He's going before any kind of government body to do so. But that's exactly what we saw here with the, now it looks like the Biden administration encouraged the National School Board Association to write that letter asking the Biden administration and the DOJ to start invoking laws like the Patriot Act against parents. And so we've got one of those issues. Now, we have a new issue and we've been talking about, which is this attempt to federalize elections and these voting rights legislation, which by the way has no text still. So when they talk about this, I want you to understand, Joe Biden's telling you to choose him or you're a racist and some of the worst racist he goes through in names throughout history and bad actors. But yet what are you supposed to support? Well, just take my word for it because there is no actual legislative text to review.

What is the response to? It's response to Republicans taking back state legislatures, focusing in on that, investing in that. And then when the census came around, you get to look at redistricting. Of course you do that because sometimes you gain congressional seats. Sometimes you lose congressional seats. That's federal.

So you get instructed then by it to what to do, and you've got to redistrict. And they all started looking after the last election cycle. What they said is, we don't want this to happen again, where people don't trust the elections.

Win or lose, their candidate, win or loses, we at least want them to feel like the elections were secure, safe, and no need to complain about them. So they went in and they started fixing the laws state to state, differently in each state because they're all different. They have different sized populations, different concerns.

They don't like the Democrats. So I want you to listen to President Biden first, then we're going to go to Rick Renell right away, our senior advisor for national security and foreign policy. Rick speaks to all of these issues as well.

This is how he's tried to catch it. He goes to Atlanta, Georgia, my hometown, and makes this speech. How do you want to be remembered at consequential moments in history? They present a choice. Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis? This is the moment to decide, to defend our elections, to defend our democracy.

Let me go to Rick Renell. Rick, this again, to pardon, to make this issue not just partisan, which it already was, there's no legislative text, so I can't even review it to point out, and I know the problems that would be there with this federal takeover, but it's not even specific yet. And then second, to tell the American people that those of us who don't support this federal takeover are equivalent to Bull Connor, Alabama, or George Wallace, that were these lifelong racists. It's pathetic.

It's a total distraction. It's the lowest point that Joe Biden has had in his presidency. He is desperate to change the issue. He wants to change the subject because his presidency is literally floundering.

You look at every single issue, immigration, the price of gas, the border, Afghanistan, Russia, China, every single issue he is completely failing on. And he's now a puppet of these progressives who just want to say, if you don't want to federalize elections to make sure that people get to vote without an ID, without an identification, if you don't support that, then somehow you're a racist. Look, I am a minority. I am gay.

I am somebody who is extremely conservative. And I talk to a whole bunch of minorities every single day in my life. I don't know a single person who feels like an ID is some sort of racist move or an ID is something that's going to prohibit them from voting. Minorities are not stupid people. They have IDs.

I think that the conservatives and the Republicans got to get much more aggressive about this. If you're not for an ID, that means you're trying to cheat. IDs are pretty basic. You have to have them to get Sudafed at Walmart.

You have to have them to get on a plane. And so why are we even allowing Joe Biden and some Democrats to pretend like we're racist if we want to require identifications to vote and not send out ballots into the mail to people that don't know they're coming and didn't request the ballot and may not be there to get it? I mean, we all got these, any of us that have moved in the last, since the last census multiple times, which I have, got at least one, I think I got two live ballots of places I didn't live anymore. And this was done under the response of COVID. And now there were also some states that had real ID requirements coming in that waived those because of COVID. So I think they showed that some of those were, some of these were questionable moves like the massive mail out of ballots. But because it was tough to go get a new ID because DMVs, they did the right thing, right? I mean, they didn't need the federal government coming in and telling them what to do on the ID part. They said, we can't implement it yet. We're going to have to wait to the next election cycle.

But Wes, you've got a new piece up at ACLJ.org. It's called a government takeover of your right to vote, what you need to know. Yeah. I mean, I listened to the President's speech yesterday and it was grandiose nonsense. It was insulting.

I'm a native of Georgia. I've read Georgia's law on elections. Apparently the President has not read it. But here's the thing that disturbed me so much about what he's saying. You know, he did all these drastic comparisons to John Lewis, Bull Connor, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis. You cannot just disagree with Joe Biden on principle or on the merits of legislation. If you do, you are evil.

Fauci, Dr. Fauci said he was science. Apparently President Biden thinks he is truth and honor. And if you disagree with him, you are both dishonest and dishonorable. This kind of exaggeration and hyperbole is both disingenuous and it's not helpful. If you dislike proposed legislation that forces states to mail ballots to everyone and you have to count them seven days after the election, even if they have no postmark, somehow you're like Jefferson Davis. You're a racist and you're evil.

I mean, I don't, he should fire the speech writer who wrote the speech for him. But what really disturbs me, Rick, is I think the President actually believes this. Look, I can't imagine that someone actually believes this.

You have to be a mental patient and not with it to believe that somehow this is racist. I honestly don't know a single person who doesn't have an ID. And I would even move to say if someone can't afford an ID, then maybe the state or the local government can give them one for free. All of these laws have that, Rick. I mean, all these laws have that provision that if for some reason, you know, if you don't drive, if you don't this, you just go, you can get a state ID for free.

But let's also talk about what this really means too. If you have ever lived in an apartment complex or know anyone who lived in an apartment complex, you know that the transitory nature of that building means that on election day, if you send ballots to people who are on the voter list who don't know those ballots are coming, there's going to be a plethora of ballots in the mailroom and going to homes where people once lived and no longer lived. It's a recipe for disaster to send ballots in the mail to people who don't know they're coming. And so I don't think it's too much to say, look, we can have extended voting, we can even do mail-in voting, but you have to request the ballot and tell us where you live so that we don't recklessly put ballots out there for people to mishandle. It's almost like the Democrats want the elections to be sloppy and no voter ID because they want to cheat. And this is my problem is that the Republicans have got to get much more aggressive about saying, you're trying to cheat.

Yeah, Rick, I appreciate you being on. I say finally, T.R., we got about 30 seconds here, but it's also, it's the idea that this kind of sloppy election, which then if they lose, and we saw this Georgia in Georgia at the state level in the last gubernatorial race, if they lose, they'll claim it was a fraudulent, illegal election. Well, for sure, that's what we've seen with Stacey Abrams. Remember, she's never said that she lost the last election, right? She thinks she's running for re-election this time. Yeah, I mean, this is very real, folks.

It's happening in real time. But the idea that demonization, as we talked about with Rick, we see it with students, parents are terrorists. You are racist if you don't support a law with no text. So, I mean, we can't even analyze what he's talking about, but I think he's comparing all of you who listen who might be opposed to this to George Wallace, you know, to the head of the Confederacy.

See, the symbolism they're using is very extreme and divisive to our country, and it's not good for free and fair elections, and the trust in our elections. 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 voices, including the 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. And one of those parts that President Biden, you know, they like to blame on the Supreme Court also. So they also will use the voting issue like the life issue to justify their attempts to potentially court pack if they had enough votes. They don't have the votes to do that right now, but if they did, and you'll hear that around these kind of cases, like if the Mississippi case goes in our favor in the way of life and protecting life, they'll start talking about, you know, packing the court. They did this with the voting rights too when they said that these states in the South who had gone through this pre-clearance after redistricting, after the new census has come out, and most of those states are states that gain in population in the Sunbelt kind of region, but especially the Southeast, and they continue to. And so they redistrict after census because they might have new congressional seats. And again, some states lose seats. They've got to go back through and redistrict.

And guess who gets to do that? Well, it's the state legislature. And so it's up to the political parties to say that they want to invest in those state races, state house districts, state delegate district by district to do so. But Than, when you get to this point where you want to use the FBI and Department of Justice to go after parents, you've tried to use the IRS to go after conservative groups, and now you're going to say that people who support more voter integrity so that we don't have a repeat of the last election cycle, so that also we don't have a repeat of Stacey Abrams saying that that election was wrong.

Everybody should know what the rules of the game are in their state, and it should be state-specific because states are so different. But the idea, Than, in Washington now, the other side of the aisle on this issue are equivalent to racists. How do they think that they're going to be able to function as a government? Well, it's pretty ironic too, Jordan, that that argument was made in the state of Georgia based on the Georgia law that by any objective standard, Jordan, increased access to voting, whether you're talking about hours or access to ballot or registration requirements, increased access to voting. Now, did it tighten security over voting?

Yes, it did. That means that the Democrat party that is opposing this, including President Biden, by the way, that's actually what they're objecting to, Jordan. They're objecting to the increased security of voting, not to a restriction on access to voting, because the Georgia law absolutely does not do that. Jordan, I would add one other point to your description of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which is that redistricting piece.

They're also using that, Jordan, as cover for the other bills that they want to get through. The For the People Act, which most people know as H.R. 1 or S. 1, or now the Freedom to Vote Act, which Wes described, those are the ones that have their biggest wish list items in them, Jordan.

But let me just say this. All of them are really the same thing. It's a federalizing of elections. And why do they want to federalize it? Because, Jordan, it's much, much easier to control the outcome of an election if you can federalize it. If the control remains close to the people, guess what you're going to get?

You're going to get more of the people elected who the people actually voted for. I want people to listen. This is the Secretary of Education, the Biden administration, Secretary Cardona. So he says, ah, you know, I didn't ask for that specific letter. Well, you know, that's legal. We all know that. We've talked about that. But then he got asked a follow up question by CBS, which is, regardless of that answer, do you support the DOJ and FBI being involved?

His response is telling enough right there by 13. Do you agree with the DOJ and FBI involvement? I believe, you know, any threats toward any elected officials is unacceptable. And whatever steps need to be taken to make sure that that doesn't happen should be because I know, especially across the country, our board members oftentimes are oftentimes are volunteers that want to help their community and they should be protected. Andy, they're state and local officials. If there's a problem with their safety, which there are times in the past, I mean, we see that time with state government officials and local government officials. That's why we have police at the local level to take care of them. He is not backing away from the DOJ and the FBI trying to go after parents this way. And the idea that if you raise your voice at the meeting, you'll be labeled a terrorist trying to silence free speech.

That's right, Jordan, you're absolutely correct. Look, if there is a disturbance at a school board meeting and it gets raucous and there's problems like that, board members raising their voices or parents raising their voices or something happens and a chair is thrown, the place you go to is your local police department. That is the police power of the state.

You go to the local police department to restore order. You don't label the parent who, because he or she is interested in his child's educational opportunities and rights, you don't label them a racketeer. You don't label them a domestic terrorist. You don't sic the FBI on them.

You don't put counterintelligence agents on them. This is nothing but a federal power grab. And anytime you see a federal power grab, whether it's in the school board targeting a member of the public, a parent, or whether you see it in trying to centralize elections, anytime you see that, you're going to see a Democrat behind it. And Harry, you know, we saw Garland, I'm not going to play the bite right this second, but when Attorney General Garland was before the House and having to answer questions about this, he said, no one from the White House spoke to me, but the White House perfectly appropriately concerned about violence. This idea, again, I go back to the voting issue, I go to this issue, it's just demonizing to the furthest extent possible any of your political opponents.

I think that is correct. And this movement is actually led by the bureaucrats and the administrative staff who work at the DOJ, who work at the Department of Education. Basically, those individuals are committed to the centralization of power into the hands of unelected individuals. And they basically believe that people who live in flyover country in Fairfax, Virginia, Loudon, Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia should not have the right to decide who is in, who is prosecuted by local prosecutors. They don't trust those individuals basically to enforce an ideology.

And this is a progressive playbook that has been in play at least since the 1930s, probably going back to the 1920s, when President Woodrow Wilson re-instituted segregation in the civil service. So at the end of the day, it's about the centralization of power, and every single American should oppose that centralization effort vigorously. I mean, Wes, I look at it and people will say, activists may say, well, this won't stop me. Those are activists. And that's what we're talking to a lot of activists right now on our broadcast. But then there's the next group of people who kind of woken up to these issues. That's who they're going after. It's not the committed activist who is willing to fight back.

It is the average parent, mom or dad, who has not been engaged before. They don't like the engagement. They want to silence it. It's just like the Tea Party groups. They didn't like that that was new and a threat to their power. This is a threat to their power too. So let's silence them.

And it works. We know it does work if they get away with it. The government can be very, very intimidating. And the bureaucrats and the federal government, they do not like the people to have a voice. They do not trust state and local governments. They do want centralized government control.

It's disrespectful. And, you know, it's designed to intimidate and to be a power grab. That's what it is. Folks, I want to remind you too, we know that there's at least a Supreme Court opinion coming tomorrow. We don't know if it's the vaccine mandate case.

It could be though. That will happen before we're on air. So if it is, we'll have full update for you ready to go and analysis there. We represent the Heritage Foundation in that case.

And again, we will have time to review at least some of it if that is that opinion. And it says at least one is coming tomorrow in the court. I want you to go to ACLJ.org. Check out Wes's new piece and White's piece up about the Ninth Circuit case, the pro-life case there. So go there. A lot of information about all the work we're doing at ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow. Thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-28 17:03:04 / 2023-06-28 17:25:47 / 23

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime