Biden Says He Will Respond to Chemical Weapons ‘In Kind’

Today on Sekulow, Biden asked about Russia using chemical weapons. He said the U.S. and NATO would respond in kind. We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow.

Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. To clarify on chemical weapons, if chemical weapons were used in Ukraine, would that trigger a military response from NATO? It would trigger a response in kind.

Whether or not you're asking whether NATO would cross, we'd make that decision at the time. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments.

Or call 1-800-684-3110. Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Alright, welcome to Sekulow. We just heard there a couple of times President Biden yesterday leaving people scratching their heads at a very serious time in the world with the Ukraine and Russia. And Russia beginning to shell more heavily the capital of Ukraine, Kiev. And you've got the Ukrainians asking for more and more assistance. We're going to have Senator Lankford on later in the broadcast today, in the next segment of the broadcast today. He is supportive now of getting those bigs to Ukraine and believes that now is the time to do that. So we're going to talk to him about that, amongst other things.

But this idea that, one, let's play it for everybody. This idea that we would respond. How would we respond to the use of chemical or biological weapons by Russia in Ukraine? To clarify on chemical weapons, if chemical weapons were used in Ukraine, would that trigger a military response from NATO?

It would trigger a response in kind, whether or not, you're asking whether NATO would cross, we'd make that decision at the time. Now, was he about to say whether NATO would cross that red line and use chemical weapons also? Or was he saying, I mean, because in kind means the exact same way.

So we're going to do the same way. He didn't say we would respond with significant force or that would change our calculations or something like that. He said in kind. In kind means if you use chemical weapons, we'll use chemical weapons. So clearly the President, using the wrong language, it left people scratching their heads for a while until the White House was able to clarify it. Well, it sure did because there's a prohibition against use of chemical weapons.

There's international treaties that the United States is a signatory on that prohibits the use of chemical weapons, rightly so, I think. And so obviously the President could not have meant in kind being in kind, which is what in kind means. If they respond with that, we're going to respond with that. That's obviously not what he intended, but I mean, I think that's not what he intended. Maybe they clarified it somewhat, sort of. Yeah, I mean, I would say the clarification was specifically that Jake Sales said we'll respond accordingly. That's what we should have said. But then he also went on to say this. So I'd say, again, it kind of confuses the issue for anybody who says, oh, you know, you're just using his misspeaking to beat up on the President.

Listen to this. When Sullivan said, quote, I will just say with respect to any use of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, biological, Russia would pay a severe price. So, again, I think the U.S. is not limiting the use potentially of, I don't think, chemical weapons. I think that was Biden speaking wrong, even talking about crossing some line into using chemical weapons. But when you say pay a severe price and you're talking about nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, nuclear is right up in there. And there's no prohibition against nuclear weapons when it comes – there's anti-nuclear proliferation treaties. But you can respond if there was a nuclear attack.

You can respond in kind is the phrase you would actually would be correct. The question is here, and this is what the troubling situation is. I mean, there's a report out right now that a Russian brigadier commander has been killed deliberately by his own troops after his unit suffered significant casualties in Ukraine. A Western official said the colonel was the commander of the 37th Motor Rifle Brigade, was run over by his soldiers. So, Russia is met with a total – and we'll have Colonel Westmith on later in the broadcast – they've been met with resistance.

They didn't anticipate. That's right, folks. So, again, we're going to be joined by Senator Lankford. He's on the Homeland Security Committee. We're going to be talking about the whole issue with the messaging at the White House.

We haven't even talked about yet the deterrence issue with whether or not sanctions are supposed to be deterrence or not. And, of course, Title 42, the immigration issue, and also whether those bigs should go to Ukraine. That's coming up next with Senator James Lankford. Support the work of the ACLJ. It's a critical month for us at the ACLJ the month of March. Double the impact your donation. Be part of our matching challenge at ACLJ.org.

Right back with Senator Lankford. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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 St. Hill. We're joined by a great friend of ours, our broadcaster, great friend of the American Center for Law and Justice, U.S. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma. Senator Lankford, there's a lot I want to get to, so I'm going to jump right into it. First, you are on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

You're the lead Republican on that subcommittee. And you've talked about Title 42 and the fact that this might—it's set to expire next month, and that even after we saw the highest numbers of border crossers in 20 years last year, we're about to enter what's called a warm season, where we start seeing these migrant crossings at a much bigger level. What do you think needs to be done with Title 42, which allowed the administration, started by the Trump administration, to expel migrants because of the pandemic and not have to go through a long process?

What should be done? Yeah, the most basic thing here is to be able to keep Title 42 in place. It's interesting that the administration is now looking to announce that the pandemic is over on the border, and they're going to allow everyone to cross the border to come into the country and then just to pursue a hearing, let's say five to six years from now. So they stay in the country for six years while they're waiting on their hearing. They're looking to allow all those folks to be able to come in by saying the pandemic's over on the border, but yet we're still wearing masks on planes. He's still firing members of the military if they don't get the vaccine.

So it's a nonsensical policy that they've actually got in place here. The most basic thing they can do is keep Title 42 in place. Even DHS, in their own information, has quietly stated that if they pull out Title 42 authority, they expect a million people within two months to cross our southern border. A million people within two months. To give you just a picture of that, that was 900,000 last summer that we saw in all the chaos.

They expect a million on top of those numbers of what we saw last year. You know, Senator, you said that one thing you could do, one thing Congress could do, is to bring a Congressional Review Act forward to overturn the certificate. Can you explain to people what that would be?

I can actually. So the Congressional Review Act is an older statute, but it allows Congress to be able to step in and act when the administration does something on the regulations we disagree with. We've won several of these. For instance, we just had a Congressional Review Act on mask mandates and transportation. We passed that in the House. Even quite a few Democrats even joined us in that one as well.

Send it over the House. It's still awaiting action over in the House, but it gives us the opportunity to be able to speak into something, send it to the President's desk, and to say we have strong disagreement with this regulation that we put in place. The biggest thing that we could do, though, is continue to be able to shine light on this as you're doing right now, because the more the administration hears how upset the American people are about this, the more we understand that they are planning the chaos at our southern border. It's not just, as they say, just as they can't understand why so many people are crossing. They're actually planning the chaos at our southern border that it hopefully acts as a deterrent to this administration for the light to be shown on it. Senator, one of the things that, of course, there's multiple problems at the border when it comes to these illegal crossings. Child sex trafficking is huge. The increased fentanyl coming into and illegal drugs coming into the United States are coming from the southern border. I don't understand for the life of me why the current administration is not recognizing the significance of these social ills that derive out of illegal border crossings. Not all of them, obviously, but a significant enough number that it's affecting every community in the United States.

You do. Every single school in the United States is seeing an influx of students that are coming in that don't have a legal connection to the country. Schools are stepping in to provide education.

It has a real effect there on the classroom environment and for teachers because you have individuals that don't speak the language. We also, this is not just individuals as the administration states, from people just from Central America. Last year, we had people from every country in the world illegally cross our border. Just in the last few months before the war even started between Ukraine and Russia, before that even started, just in the last couple of months, we've had 6,500 Russians that have illegally crossed the border that we picked up. These are not just individuals from Central America.

They're from all over the world. They're all paying a high price to the cartels in Mexico. As the Border Patrol will tell you, the border is secure.

It's secure on the south side. The individuals will pay between $5,000 and $30,000 to the cartels to be able to cross in these different locations. That means that's a $10 billion influx in cash to the cartels in Mexico based on how we're at this open border on our southern border. So we want to empower the people that are smuggling drugs into our country, that are doing human trafficking, that there's all kinds of child sex abuse and everything else happening on the south side of the border in these cartels. If you want to empower it, then you have an open border policy like what we have.

If you want to stop it, you actually enforce the laws of the country, and that actually takes money away from the cartels as well. Senator Layford, I want to get back to what's happened to Ukraine and Russia, because this is a point that I think has been discussed a lot in the media. There's been a back and forth and exchange, and people are concerned about how much can the U.S. get involved without going into direct war with Russia. We certainly hear that a lot from our administration, but Republicans and Democrats are kind of in different spots on this. But you put out a statement, you said, the U.S. has provided javelin, stingers, intel, food, water, and medical supplies to Ukraine already. It's within our powers to do good. We should do good.

The U.S. has access, and this is the key to the MiG-29s, the jet fighter aircraft. We should not withhold them from Ukraine. You're being joined by Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Ernst, Senator Crapo, Senator Kramer, Senator Scott, Wicker, and Senator Romney on this.

I know there's been a lot of discussion, but here's an opportunity. You're talking to an audience who has heard from the most part, from various—all aspects of media, actually, from the right and left and different members of Congress, that this would be an escalation that would get us involved in a World War III. And I want your response to that, because I do feel like people are watching this every day feeling like, I wish we could be doing something else, something more to help these people who are fighting back so valiantly. Yeah, we can do more, and I think this whole escalation conversation really is based on a Russian propaganda piece. Remember that Putin said, if you put sanctions on our country, that's an act of war. If you provide any kind of resources to the Ukrainians, that's an act of war. This is something that Putin just throws out over and over again. What he's trying to do is to frighten the rest of the world into helping the Ukrainians who want to just be able to protect their own country. These are folks that are trying to protect their own country from a foreign invasion of a ruthless thug that's come across the border. This is a reasonable thing for us to do.

And let me just tell you a couple of other things here. Since 2014, we've had American troops on the ground in Ukraine training the Ukrainian military how to be able to fight the Russians. We've provided them the resources. We've provided them the ability to be able to fight. It is not unreasonable to also provide them aircraft.

Again, I go back to this basic biblical principle. If it's within your power to do good, do good. And we have the ability to be able to help them protect their own nation by giving them access to these big fighters.

The Polish military has already said they would gladly donate these. And right now it's the United States that's standing in the way of them getting access to be able to protect their country. The President also said that sanctions are never meant to be a deterrence. Now, others in his administration have said sanctions are a deterrent. So the mixed messaging here to me is incredibly confusing to the world population we're dealing with, to our allies. And I think part of the problem we have there is if we believe that sanctions – if the President really believes that sanctions are not a deterrent, then what are we doing? Yeah, he's trying to punish people that are murdering their neighbors instead of trying to stop people that are murdering their neighbors.

There's a big difference there. Clearly sanctions are punishment, but clearly they're also a deterrent to be able to say we'll continue to be able to ratchet this up. It is the ability for the oligarchs that are in Russia that are severely hurt by this and for the Russian people to be able to speak out to their government and to be able to say stop this unjust war that's actually happening. We don't know why we're invading the country of Ukraine, and we're personally suffering because of his actions on this. So this undercuts Putin's authority. The Ukrainian people are fighting valiantly for their own nation, and it's one more piece that we can continue to be able to put out there.

So certainly it's punishment, but certainly it's a deterrent. And by the way, it's not the only mixed message. As you remember, just three weeks ago, the Secretary of State stood up and said, we're greenlighting the MiGs to be able to send from Poland to Ukraine. That was his term, we're greenlighting all of that. And then literally within 24 hours, the administration came back and said, no, now we're actually thinking about it.

And then he says, no, it's escalatory. So this mixed messaging doesn't help people that they're actually having artillery blow up their cities. Senator Lankford, as always, we appreciate your time, your expertise on all these issues, and again, a great friend of the American Center for Law and Justice, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma. Folks, joining us now, I mean, just think about the issues we just got through with the senator today, from the immigration border issue to Title 42 to Ukraine, Russia. And his, again, he is advocating for getting those MiGs there. That's been controversial. That's been a lot of discussion about should we believe the Russian.

He called it propaganda, that this is all propaganda for Russia, that if we do this, suddenly it's World War III. I think you're starting to see, when you put that list together of members of Congress on the Republican side, a lot more people say, we want to do more, we can do more, this is what we can do. I just want to say, this is a great part, it shows you about part of what the ACLJ can do every day, which is bring you a broadcast like this, not just with us, but with good friends of ours who are experts in all these different fields, whether they're U.S. senators, it was yesterday, Senator Blackburn, today Senator Lankford, on different issues.

I mean, it was on the Supreme Court nominee yesterday, today, back on our border, and the war in Ukraine and Russia. And again, just to educate you, to get you the information you need, but it's still a small part of what the ACLJ does every single day, and we're able to do all of this work because of your financial support of the American Center for Law and Justice. We have a matching challenge the month of March.

It's a critical month for us. We are running behind right now in our fundraising. We need your support. Double the impact your donation at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Alright, welcome back to Sech Hill. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

If you want to be part of the show today, it's 1-800-684-3110. What do you think about Senator Lankford calling on the U.S. to be part of that movement of MiG-29s into Ukraine? Because the whole issue there was that Poland was willing to utilize their jets.

They had the MiG-29s. They would need some backup support to replace those jets with F-16s from the U.S., and the U.S. would have to figure out how to deliver it, of course, into Ukraine. But we're starting to see calls and calls. I don't want to use the word escalation, but to provide more lethal support to the Ukrainians. So what are your thoughts on that, folks?

Do you think that leads us into World War III? That's what we're being told by a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. But also that is the Putin line, too. So you have to figure out. There's a balance here because everything Putin says is not propaganda, like he said he was going to invade Ukraine.

He did. That wasn't all just talking or threatening. So you do have to balance those situations. So I would ask you, our listeners, are you ready to say, yes, send those MiGs over because you don't trust that Vladimir Putin would really start World War III over that move? 1-800-684-3110 if you want to weigh in.

That's 1-800-684-3110. But if you are Putin in the Kremlin and you're trying to follow where the U.S. is, it's a little difficult because you get hit with these very tough sanctions, very tough sanctions. But then you're told that these sanctions, they're not really to stop you from doing anything.

Take a listen. Sir, deterrence didn't work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today?

Let's get something straight. You remember, if you covered me from the very beginning, I did not say that, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter.

You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions, the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain and the demonstration why I asked for this NATO meeting today is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we're doing, not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year.

That's what will stop him. So now we're saying that sanctions don't work, but that if we keep sanctions on and we do these other show of force, maybe it will work. The inconsistencies here are breathtaking because you've got his own administrative staff, senior administration officials saying the exact opposite.

We'll play some of those in a minute. Yeah, I mean, Saki, Sullivan, Blinken, Kirby and Harris, that's a good quadrinity or whatever it is, are all saying sanctions are deterrence and they work. Then the President says twice sanctions do not deter, sanctions never deter. And then he goes on in this word salad, which is all I can say that it is, in which he says we need to sustain what we're doing. Well, you're sanctioning, so you must be having some intention of deterring.

What are you doing if you're not the following month? He says the remainder of the year that will stop and what will stop him sanctions? No sanctions don't deter, but we have to keep on sanctions.

I can't understand that kind of reasoning. How many, evidently, either can Jen Psaki, Jake Sullivan or Secretary Blinken or for that matter, Admiral Kirby or Vice President Harris, listen to what they said. Yes, our intention is to have a deterrent effect. The President believes that sanctions are intended to deter. The purpose of the sanctions in the first instance is to try to deter Russia from going to war. We want them to have a deterrent effect, clearly, and he hasn't invaded yet.

The allied relationship is such that we have agreed that the deterrence effect of these sanctions is still a meaningful one. Okay, now I want to play again, just the beginning of that bite with Joe Biden. I'll say where to stop it. Let's take a listen to that again. Sir, deterrence didn't work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today?

Let's get something straight. You remember, if you covered me from the very beginning, I did not say that, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter.

Okay, so I got to tell you, where is this messaging going? No, I mean, the first time Joe Biden said that sanctions weren't to deter was only after Russia invaded. So he's used this line now twice, once after Russia had already invaded Ukraine, so he was trying to say, well, yeah, that was never the impact. But his administration, time and time again, I mean, you go through the officials. These are people who should be well informed. They should know what the President is thinking. They should know what the President's by. This is secretary of state. This is his vice President, his top spokesperson, his deputy national security advisor. I mean, the list goes on and on. And we're going to talk to Rick Yeah, and overseas incursions, Andy, where they're not giving a coherent, cohesive policy on what we're trying to do.

That's exactly right. The message to Putin is completely garbled. The President, the leader, the one who's supposed to be making the decisions, ultimately says sanctions never deter. His press secretary, his national security advisor, the secretary of state, the spokesman for the Pentagon, the vice President of the United States, heartbeat away from the presidency, say the opposite. If you were the enemy, if you were the opponent, you would say, who is running the show over there?

It's certainly not the Democratic Party through the President of the United States, as Jordan said. Terrible message to our allies. Well, our allies don't know where we're going. It's like, you know, we're leading the charge and we hope that NATO is behind us. But we don't. But when we were saying one thing to the enemy and we're saying something else to our own allies, we're all over the board. It's not the coherent, cohesive policy that the United States needs to have in any instance. You know, there's one of the things you had said during our meeting before, and that was there doesn't seem to be right now the Russians to have not gone into Kiev with this mass destruction that they've gone in and other cities.

And you said that was reminiscent of World War Two. Listen, if you're a historian as I am of World War Two and you read World War Two and Putin read World War Two and he understands it, he does not want to annihilate Kiev as he has done these other cities for the same reasons that Adolf Hitler said, I do not want to bomb Paris. I want to take it intact because that is the symbol of the Parisian, of the French resistance and of the French government.

I want it perfectly intact. And he actually went, Hitler actually went to Paris and viewed the city one time, never again. Went once, stood at the Trocadero, looked at Paris and said, I have been victorious. I have taken the city. And that's exactly what Vladimir, the prince of the Russians, Putin wants to do when he goes.

He wants to march into Kiev, an unscathed and untouched city. Read history, folks. You know, folks, okay, so here's what we got coming up in the second half hour of the broadcast. Rick Grenell is going to be joining us. We're going to get into these issues with him as well, get into some of the inflation issues, the gas price issues as well. So we're going to continue this discussion.

We want you to join us and be part of the show today. So this idea about sending jets in, what's your reaction to that? Would you support what Senator Lankford is now supporting and calling for publicly for the administration to give that green light? It was given a green light by President Biden. It was then pulled back by the Pentagon advisors, thinking that it would escalate the conflict too much.

Of course, that was a couple of weeks ago. So where we are now, now that we're more than a month into the conflict, 1-800-684-3110. Provide your thoughts on that and we will be right back. I also encourage you. We are behind our fundraising for the month of March. We need your financial support. We have a matching challenge right now so you can double the impact of your donation to the ACLJ if you donate online at ACLJ.org. Donate today.

Second half hour coming up. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

For the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Alright, welcome back to Sekulow. So at the second half hour, we're going to be joined by Rick Renaud. We're going to talk about the inflation but also this mixed messaging from the Biden administration on sanctions, on what happens next in Russia and Ukraine. What will NATO respond? So we'll get into all that with Rick in the next segment of the broadcast.

Jordan is live. I'm going to ask him too about what he thinks about Senator Lankford and now some more Republicans coming on board to send those jets over because I think there is concern still, rightfully so, that if you do that, it could cause escalation. The truth is, do you believe the Putin threats or not? Some are real.

Some are propaganda. He did invade Ukraine. So that was a real threat. But he suffered significant casualty and is willing to. And is willing to, yeah.

And remember, there are spokespeople out in English talking about nuclear weapons and the use of those, feeling that they are already justified in using those if they so choose. But I want to go to Troy's call in Nevada on Line 1. Hey Troy, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Hi guys, thanks for taking my call. The comment that I had about Joe Biden and his administration and things like that about the missed messaging is this. I think that the world, the rest of the world is watching also and they see the inconsistencies and the lack of strength from the leadership of the country of the United States. And I think the reason why this situation isn't worse than it is now is because our military still remains as one of the most powerful. If it weren't for that, I think the situation would be much, much worse.

Look, there's no doubt that we have the strongest military in the world. But I also think that when you're dealing with, there's a diplomatic angle to all this. And the diplomatic angle of all this has to have power. And when you don't show power, and you don't show power by the way, when you say sanctions don't deter and your vice President says sanctions do deter, if you don't show power, the Russians think they have a pretty broad bandwidth here to do things. That's the thing I'm concerned about in all this.

Well, that's exactly right. You have to be consistent in your diplomatic approach. If you're going to take a diplomatic approach, first of all, it's got to be backed by the power of death. And that means by the power to annihilate because that is in history, the diplomacy has always been used instead of the exercise of brute force.

But you always have to know that brute force is a possibility. Now you're sending a mixed message to your allies and you're sending a mixed message to your opponents. You're not consistent. You're weak. You're showing weakness in the world. Putin knows when there's weakness. He's taking advantage of it.

Yeah. So again, I think when you see this, when you see the mixed messaging, that's what I want to start with Rick in the next segment because he comes to that world of messaging, of especially international messaging at that level. You've got to be very clear. Remember that people are not English is not their first language in most of these times.

So when you're speaking through, you're speaking through interpreters. And so when you say that you're going to respond with chemical weapons in kind, it's a shocking statement. And if it takes two hours for the White House to clarify it, it was two hours where the world was scratching their head going.

What is he talking about? Is the US going to use chemical weapons? But he comes from the administration, the Obama years, where they drew a red line in the sand in Syria and said, if you use chemical weapons, that's it.

We're, you know, a new escalation. They use chemical weapons with the Russians. No new escalation until Donald Trump came into office and launched Tomahawk missiles into Syria while the Chinese President was at Mar-a-Lago with him.

Right. Which stopped it. Stopped them from doing the chemical weapons again. It also stopped Russia from engaging in any more conquest in their neighborhood of the world and prevented the Chinese from doing the same. The question now is, you know, you've got, we haven't had time to talk about in the last few days, but you've got the whole China-Taiwan thing that's just brewing out there as a potential problem. It's a problem. And it gives the Chinese the encouragement to do what I think that they see Putin doing. Why shouldn't they be encouraged to do the same thing when they see a weak and effective... Taiwan can't put up that kind of fight.

They have no ability to do that. All right, folks. Listen, it's a critical time for us at the ACLJ because these are big fundraising months and we don't do it often on the broadcast. But what we do, it's because it's important that we are behind this month. So if you can support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org, double the impact of your donation. It's a critical time.

We're in our final week here. So go to ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll be right back.

Hit all these issues with Rick Grenell and take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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, playing 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 Secula. We're joined by our Senior Advisor for Foreign Policy and National Security, Rick Rinnell. And Rick, there's a lot to talk about at home and abroad.

You've got a new piece up at ACLJ.org, so we'll start at home. And all these issues get interconnected too with what's happening overseas. But a new piece up at ACLJ.org, California has the highest gas prices in the nation, and the state is totally governed by the left. We have a ton of listeners and supporters in California who are listening to this broadcast and watching this broadcast right now, Rick.

Tell them what they will learn about in your piece, but also what can be done to alleviate some of the burden on these California drivers, I mean the drivers across the country as well. We're all paying more. Well, I'd say the first thing they're going to learn is that the entire state of California is controlled by the left and has gripped us into not supplying enough energy. We don't participate in the explosion of liquid natural gas that the United States is able to participate in.

We're not drilling. We've got a problem throughout California in that our beaches become filled with little oil pots because the reserves just off the beach are exploding and we're not tapping into them. This is Mother Nature trying to tell us that the oil needs to be pumped, and yet we don't do it because the radical environmentalists have taken over California. But what Gavin Newsom is now doing is he's going to bribe everybody with a $400 check to say, well, we're going to continue gripping the supply. We're going to continue having this problem. But in order to appease you because you're all screaming about the high price, we're going to send you a $400 check right while I'm running for reelection.

Now, shame on us for falling for all of this. I say take the money, deposit the check into your bank account, and keep screaming about more supply. You know, Rick, part of this is, and of course you had the President saying yesterday, prepare for food shortages.

I mean, we're in 2022. Prepare for food shortages. Agricultural products in the United States are extensive.

We have the ability to create and to grow and to manufacture. Prepare for food shortages? Look, as all of the listeners that are hearing our voices today know, if you live in California, we have been being told for years now, and again, the state is totally controlled by the left in Sacramento, supermajority of the left.

Republicans have no voice. We have been told for years, Jay, to take quick showers and to not water our grass because we have to conserve water even though we live on the ocean. We've been told to shut our appliances off between 5 and 9 p.m. This is what's happening in the state of California. We are being told to conserve less water, and yet we're not dealing with the supply issue, the very real supply issue of water. And the same with electricity. We could get more energy, we could get more food if we would fix the problems of the bad policies that Joe Biden is putting forward. I encourage people to check this piece out at ACLJ.org. California has the highest gas prices in the nation.

The state is totally governed by the left. And it's also a warning to other folks in different states. I mean, again, there's states that I'm starting to see that there's states and cities trying to give relief, but again, a lot of this is, like Rick said, for politics and can also lead to more inflation of gas prices, especially some of these federal plans that we have been talking about as well. I want to get into, Rick, the language being used on the White House, specifically on sanctions.

I want to play it for you. Here's President Biden saying sanctions. There's nothing about deterrence there.

Take a listen. Sir, deterrence didn't work. What makes you think Vladimir Putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today?

Let's get something straight. You remember, if you covered me from the very beginning, I did not say that, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter.

You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions, the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain, and the demonstration why I asked for this NATO meeting today is to be sure that after a month, we will sustain what we're doing, not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year.

That's what will stop him. But Rick, as we played for our audience, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States, the Deputy National Security Advisor of the United States, the spokesperson for the Pentagon, the spokesperson for the White House, all said that the purpose of the sanctions, or at least one of the purposes of the sanctions, just to be clear for everybody, was a deterrence and is deterrence. And yet the President again comes out and says, no, it's not, and sends this message to the world. You spent 10 years at the United Nations before you were an ambassador, before you were the acting DNI. You spent 10 years at the United Nations specifically focused on making sure our messaging was correct, when the U.S. spoke that it was clear. What kind of problems come from an unclear message when you're speaking to the world like the President was yesterday, being in Brussels at all these different summits? Well, first of all, I can't emphasize enough that only in Washington, D.C., in the press newsrooms, are people pretending like what Joe Biden said is okay.

The rest of us know that he's been contradicted by his own team. He's been contradicted by the facts that Donald Trump deterred Putin with his sanctions, the Russian pipeline sanctions. I keep saying this over and over, and I feel like nobody is listening to this, but Donald Trump had sanctions on the Russian pipeline.

We didn't see an invasion from Putin. Joe Biden dropped those sanctions. The Senate Democrats voted to drop those sanctions. And they said they were dropping the sanctions because they didn't want to somehow embolden Putin. They were flat wrong. Deterrence works.

We know that. And lastly, let me just say, shame on the media for allowing this guy, the President of the United States, to say things like, deterrence doesn't work. Why didn't this reporter push back and say, wait a minute, even your own team is saying deterrence works, and Donald Trump proved that deterrence works. But he doesn't get pushback, so he's going to continue pretending like people buy this.

The only people that buy this are the Washington, D.C. types and those in the newsrooms. Rick, there's also talk again, and including Republicans, saying, you know what, we need to get those MiGs over to Ukraine. You know, it's complicated, I know, because of the geopolitical aspect of it.

What's your thoughts? Look, I think we should be giving the Ukrainians the latest weaponry. Why can't they buy from us the latest hardware that we have? I don't understand why, you know, selling them the Javelins or somehow, you know, means that we're escalating if we give them a plane that works. The MiGs, you know, they're prone to maintenance problems and then we're going to have to fix them.

You know, I just think that give them the latest and the greatest and, you know, sell them what America has to offer. Let me ask you this. It's been a month that this horrible conflict's been going on. The death and destruction has been unbelievable.

When we talked about this about two weeks ago, Rick, I remember this. We were talking about the fact that there were 2.5 million people displaced. Now we're looking at over 10 million people displaced. What is the end here?

What's the exit ramp, if any, here? Well, first of all, I don't want to sound callous because it's terrible when you see this. Every heart breaks and you emotionally want to do something. But I think as public policy leaders, we have to remember that there's heartache and humanitarian crises all around the world. I was just tweeting today about four of the 12 UN peacekeeping operations. Each one of these four that I'm going to name are literally more than a billion dollars a year. That's South Sudan, Mali, the Congo, and Central African Republic. Four UN peacekeeping operations out of the 12 that we have.

America pays 25% of that. My point is, is there is death and destruction and humanitarian crisis all around the world. If our media descended into Africa on just one of these peacekeeping operations, where we're spending 250 million dollars a year of US taxpayer money, more than a billion dollars a year for each one of these. If the media focused on this crisis, we'd be calling for no-fly zones and all sorts of action. The question that public policy makers have to ask themselves is what is good for the United States because we cannot do everything. We have to do something, we can be a leader, but that doesn't automatically mean boots on the ground.

We can be a leader in other areas. Rick, as always, we appreciate so much your insight. Let me just tell you, folks, Rick is part of the ACLJ team. Again, I always want to underscore this because I know you see these folks in other media like we all do, but Rick is not just someone who comes on our show to give insight. He is part of the ACLJ team as a senior advisor to our team.

He's got the piece up. That's exclusive content at ACLJ.org. It's not running anywhere else. It's about the gas prices in California, this foreign policy expertise that we're able to utilize that we don't see on the broadcast every single day. But it's because of your financial support. Folks, it's because you donate to the ACLJ that we can bring on. Rick Rinnell is part of our team right after they leave the administration.

To have a former acting director of national intelligence and ambassador to Germany and spend 10 years at the UN in New York on this type of messaging that we're talking about. Support our work at ACLJ.org. We're running behind this month.

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

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later. Play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry. And what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. As we just had the discussion, we've had it with Senator Langford, we've had it with Rick Rinnell. This idea of, and I ask you the question, at 1-800-684-3110, do you still have time to join the broadcast now?

Because we're taking a lot of phone calls this final segment of the broadcast. Do you support the idea of sending potentially aircraft to Ukrainians, whether it's the MiG-29s that Senator Langford is talking about or something even more advanced that Rick Rinnell was talking about? And this idea, remember that the idea against this is that that would lead us into a direct potential conflict with Russia. Now, we wouldn't be flying these planes, so it would not be U.S. pilots versus Russian pilots, but it's one step below that. Because the Russians would know the only reason that was there is because of us.

And so, again, you get into that idea, does that lead to World War III or not? I want your thoughts on it, 1-800-684-3110. And let's go to the phones. Let's go to Robert in Virginia on Line 5. Hey, Robert. Yes, thank you, guys.

Rick is spot on. We should be sending Ukraine everything they can use that doesn't require years of training. Why do we think Russia is any different than Nazi Germany was in the late 1930s? Well, I mean, there's a different – it's a totally different kind of conflict. They have nuclear weapons.

Yeah, yeah. So that's a huge difference. A big difference because a nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent and a nuclear capability is a real capability. And the Nazis had a war machine, no question about it, but that's very different than 4,000 nuclear warheads. Having said that, I'm going to go to Colonel Wes Smith because we talked about this earlier today. You said you're modifying or really thinking through this because you were initially opposed to the MiGs.

Absolutely, yeah. I've come around in my thinking, much like some of the senators have, you know, just in the last few days. We are witnessing an unreal human disaster, war crimes being committed. They're in the face of every American through social media and through the news day in and day out. At some point, we have to do something.

And here's what has brought me about, Jay. To say that we will give them anti-aircraft missiles, Stinger missiles, javelins to attack tanks, even kamikaze drones, which we've given all those things to Ukraine, but we won't give them aircraft that their own pilots will fly is a distinction without a difference. We are already giving them weapons to try and defeat the Russian aggressors.

And so these MiGs, it's not really that much different. Plus, we've been here before in Afghanistan. We armed the Afghanistans to fight Russia in the 1980s. And Russia, you know, they are playing this card of a possible nuclear response and trying to bully us. Mutually assured destruction is still a real thing. And I don't think Russia would go there. And again, we're not talking about U.S. troops fighting Russians or boots on the ground. We're talking about arming the Ukrainians, which we're already doing. We had this report that came in right before we went on air that a Russian Brigadier Commander has been killed deliberately by his own troops after his unit suffered a lot of losses in Ukraine. A Western official said the Colonel Medvechik, who was the commander of the 37th Motor Rifle Brigade, was run over by his own soldiers.

What's going on with this? All the reports are morale in the Russian army is extremely low. Putin is keeping the facts from the Russian people in Russia about what's going on, about attacking civilians and about leveling cities and towns. He's keeping that from his own people. To those soldiers on the ground, they are not only witnessing these war crimes and the humanitarian disaster, they're being ordered to be complicit in it. And it is no surprise that some of them are shocked and they're saying, we will not be part of this. And apparently that's what happened with this commander. You know, Will Haines just put in our chat, and make sure I got this right, Will, that the callers we're getting, are they're a pro, they're against, and some just kind of in the middle on the fence on the whole situation with jets and MiGs.

Yeah, I mean, John in New York online, too. Hey, John, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air. Yes, sir, thank you for taking my call.

It's a pleasure, honor as well. I'm totally against sending MiGs or having anything to do with any ammunition. Let them buy it, is what I say. I believe that we could do a lot of humanitarian, as much as we can, donations and gifts like that, but to get involved militarily in this nation, I think is a disaster. I mean, there's a lot like Mr. Grinnell said, who I honor, he's a fabulous person, said that there's trouble around the world. I mean, look at Armenia, it got invaded, nobody did nothing. So I just want to say I don't think it's a good idea to get involved militarily. Yeah, I think it's an interesting distinguish you made, which is that if Ukraine was purchasing it, which is what Rick was saying, is like let them buy the best of the best. They've got the significant resource in their country, it's a country, and that's different than the U.S. just handing it over old equipment. Exactly.

Wes? Well, we can go back to what we did with England in World War II, the Lend Lease Program, where we give them what they need with the agreement that they will pay us back in kind or pay us back at a future date, that's a possibility too. Here's the thing about John's calling, and I appreciate John calling in, we are already arming them to say, well, we should not arm them, that train has left the station, we're arming them, it's a question now of how do we arm them.

We could do a lot more to defeat Russia in this war and to help Ukraine than we're doing now, and all of those things we could be doing would still not involve direct combat with Russian troops. Let's take another call. Yep, let's go to Warren in Idaho on Line 3. Hey, Warren.

Hi, guys, thanks for taking my call. And I'm all for arming them with the MiGs and stuff, and as far as escalation, we still don't even know the meetings that Putin had with President Xi in China, and are they trying to draw us into a different kind of conflict? Well, an asymmetrical conflict. I mean, it is interesting that there was this huge outreach between the leader of China and the leader of Russia, right before the Olympics, if you'll remember, and then there's been all these subsequent meetings, and China has stated that they are supporting Russia in this.

There have been, but you haven't seen them as far as we know, Colonel Smith, giving money, which they've asked for, and munitions. Yeah, China's in a tough spot right now because they see what's happening to the Russian economy, and China, part of their goal of being the world's only superpower depends on their finances and continuing to be a robust financial machine. They realize that we could also put sanctions there. I think they're hesitant.

I do not think it will stop them from at some point invading Taiwan, but I think at this point they're trying to play it both ways. They refuse to condemn Russia's activity, and yet, as far as we know, they're not supporting Russia with arms and weapons, although reports came out last week that Russia had actually requested help with arms because they are running out of ammunition and weapons. I mean, it's an unbelievably complex situation, but the good news here is we're at least able to give you real analysis, thoughtful analysis from Colonel Smith, from Rick Grenell, from Senator Lankford, from Mike Pompeo. Several of these folks are part of the team, as Jordan said, of the American Center for Law and Justice. Grenell and Pompeo, of course Colonel Smith, are part of our team here at the ACLJ. We are getting near the last days of the month for a matching challenge.

Next week's going to be it for the month of March for a matching challenge. We're a little bit behind. I'll tell you exactly what we're behind. I think as of this morning it was $100,000, and we're behind from last year.

We want to make that up. So if you would support the work of the ACLJ, we would really appreciate it, and your gift will be matched. Yeah, that's right. So at ACLJ.org right now, if you go online there, you'll see matching challenge. You click on that just so you understand what it means. I see some of these emails from politicians, some of our friends do. It'll be like six times match, eight times match.

No, ours is basic and clear. We have a group of donors that will match the donations that come through. So if you donate $50 today at ACLJ.org, that triggers the donors matching that $50. So there's no goofy math there. That means it's like $100.

That's it. So it's a way to double the impact of your donation. You go to ACLJ.org, and as you just heard, these are critical months for us. That's why we spend some time on our radio broadcast. We don't spend all day and night on our broadcast doing this, even during these months. But there's some days where we know we've got to push ACLJ.org, donate today. We'll talk to you next week. Have a gift today online at ACLJ.org.