Psaki: “Who Opposes” a Disinformation Board?

This is Jay Sekulow, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, who would oppose a Disinformation Governance Board?

Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. What I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. I really haven't dug into this exactly. I mean, we of course support this effort, but let me see if I can get more specifics. We know that there has been a range of disinfo out there about a range of topics.

I mean, including COVID, for example, and also elections and eligibility, but I will check and see if there's more specifics. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey everybody, welcome to the broadcast. I want you to think about this for a minute. The federal government, through the Department of Homeland Security, which has law enforcement, they have law enforcement capabilities, has put forward a governance board on disinformation designed, as Jen Psaki, the press secretary, just said, to stop misinformation and disinformation. And then I'm going to play you what she said when she was asked this question, because this I think raises, I think this could be the biggest threat against free speech in our lifetime.

Listen to this. What I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort. James Madison, the author and primary architect of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

He wanted robust free speech, as did the founding of our country, and as the Supreme Court has recognized. Someone's misinformation, and that is a vague term. I want you to think about this, folks. The Department of Homeland Security, they have agents. They are going to do what? If they think your information you're giving out is misinformation or disinformation, whatever that means, that they can then what?

Arrest you or they're going to stop it. Have you indicted for this misinformation or disinformation? Have agents visit you for this misinformation or disinformation? So who would object? James Madison to start.

The rest of the founders as well. The idea, and I tell you what, I think a majority of the Supreme Court, if they thought about it, can you imagine that we are now living in a period of time in our history where a governance board has been set up by, of all agencies, the Department of Homeland Security to silence voices that they believe to be, not a court, that they believe to be misinformation or disinformation. You know the way you handle speech, you disagree with more speech. But that apparently is not the view of the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Biden administration.

So let me say it again. The greatest potential threat to the freedom of speech is a misinformation disinformation governance board by the federal government through the Department of Homeland Security. To me, the potentially greatest threat to freedom of speech in the United States today is a government agency, DHS, Department of Homeland Security, having a governance board on misinformation and disinformation so that they can stop disinformation and misinformation. I'm not saying illegal speech. They're not saying speech that's likely to cause harm.

They're saying information you disagree with, that the government disagrees with, misinformation. The ramifications are serious. Jordan Sekulow is in our office in Washington.

Jordan, I know we'll talk about what you're doing up there in a moment, but this has become a huge issue as it should. Yeah, I'm glad that this carried over to today and there's more attention on this and Jen Psaki is getting asked about it because she says, you know, who would disagree with this? I think the majority of the American people, if they just sat back and took their partisan politics out of this, they understand that, again, in the United States, speech is speech is speech and it's our first guaranteed right is the freedom of speech. When they start encroaching on that right, it impacts every other right because your ability to defend your Second Amendment rights relies on your ability to have free speech to defend those rights. So all of our rights are intertwined in this one most important right of all that our Founding Fathers understood, the right to speak your mind on the issues, your right to speak. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

You can double the impact of your donation right now. ACLJ.org. He asked who would oppose a governance board on misinformation and disinformation in order to stop this misinformation. And as I said, James Madison, the author and architect of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I want to go to Washington.

Jordan is up there right now. We have a major event going on in Washington right now. And this is part of a new initiative that we've undertaken. Jordan, what's going on right now?

I know you just finished speaking. Yes, we have a number of diplomats and folks who work in embassies in Washington, D.C. from foreign countries at our office for what is the first of going to be a number. It's a program we're going to run continuously out of the ACLJ in Washington, D.C., which is a training program in how the U.S. government works.

The legislative branch, the judicial branch, the executive branch, the political process in the U.S., even some a little bit how the difference between the federal government and the state's role, how that can impact their countries, the appropriations process. Why I think this is important, I think we have photos we can put up on the screen. And we're doing these kind of about 20 at a time. And we're spending most of the day with these folks and sending them out, inviting them to our ACLJ, D.C. office and hearing from different people from inside the ACLJ and some of our friends from outside.

And I explain it this way. We're doing it for two reasons, obviously. One, we want to build relationships with people in different countries.

I'll read through the list of just who's here today. But second, we also, if you're going, these programs exist in Washington, D.C. And what we want to make sure is that these countries are hearing from people about their government who appreciate the U.S. government, who celebrate what our government is all about. So instead of going to some liberal organization and hearing how bad the United States is and how horrible these institutions are and all that, yes, we're honest about partisanship. It's not about politics in there, but it's about explaining the U.S.

But think about it, Dad. We are at that point now in our country just taking that role and saying, no, this is why we're unique and a good country and something you want to be like or try and emulate in your own country the way we have separation of powers and all of these different checks, the ability for a group like ours to take on the U.S. government, whether it's through a FOIA or whether it's all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. You know, that idea can be very foreign.

The fact that the President doesn't put forward legislation technically here in the United States, the lifetime appointments on the judiciary, but nowhere else in our government. So we're doing this for two reasons. One, we want to build great relationships with other countries so that if an issue arises, we know who we can go to, whether it's a U.N. issue, an international issue, a military national security issue. But second, these are folks who are chosen by their country to come to the most powerful country in the world and represent their country and work inside our system. And we want them to understand that we're proud of our system, that we, again, that we want to work them through the process because we know there's a large group out there in Washington telling them how bad our system is and that we actually want to turn into systems they use. So we're giving an alternative view. Even though it's the basics, it's an alternative view now.

And, Dad, I mean, that may be shocking to people, but that's the world we live in right now in the United States of America. I know it is. Give a list of who's there. I mean, you don't have to say the names of the people, obviously, but what countries do we have represented?

Sure. So just today, and we've got another one of these in two weeks, the E.U. has a representative there, Finland, Uganda, South Africa, Paraguay, Bangladesh, Rwanda, Haiti, Hungary, Argentina.

There's two from Hungary, El Salvador, Peru, Mozambique, South Sudan, someone else from Finland, the Democrat Republic of Congo, Australia's Defense Ashate, two from Switzerland, and from Jamaica as well. That's just today, and they only got about a week notice. So in a couple of weeks, we have a whole new group, and so we'll do these training programs for them. We're also going to be hosting a couple of receptions with folks like Mike Pompeo and Rick Grenell and you with their bosses, with the ambassadors and the deputy ambassadors to bring in. So there's a two-fold approach here utilizing our great offices in Washington, D.C. No, it's really exciting, folks. This is part of a new initiative that the American Center for Law and Justice has launched, again, as we work on a global basis. I want to go back now to the situation, Jordan, because you're in Washington. I know there's a lot of talk on this right now, and that is the situation with this Governance Review Board.

I'm saying it. I think it's potentially the greatest threat on free speech that we've seen in our lifetime. The idea that the Department of Homeland Security, a law enforcement agency, has been tasked with setting up a governance board on misinformation, on speech, to stop that speech is unbelievable. I even think about what we're doing today, whereas we're an organization explaining how the U.S. government works.

Are they going to come in and say, well, we don't like how you explained that, or we don't like the fact that you focused on this and not that, and what about all the problems and the systematic racism and you didn't get into all that? So, again, this idea, you can imagine how, as I said in the first part of the program, every other right kind of flows from that free speech right, because you've got to be able to defend your other rights, and that comes through speech. Some of that's political speech, so you want to elect people that will continue to defend your rights. That involves speech. Your religious views involve speech. Your opinion on hot-button topics, it involves speech. So it all turns back to this idea that you've got a freedom to speak your mind, and we have limits. But, Dad, as you know, our courts really struggle on putting any limits there, and so even when it's something really borderline, like almost criminal, they get concerned about putting too many limits.

Because we appreciate freedom of speech so much in our country that any law that might hamper that, the courts are very weary about. So what do we see here? Not a law, but something we were talking about with the group upstairs actually later on this afternoon is these agency powers that exist kind of outside the legislative system in that gray area where they may have deference, they may not, and they can have a lot of influence without having to go through the normal legal process. So I'm holding it in my hands right now. I don't know if you guys can zoom in on this camera, but this just came in from the FBI. It's addressed to me. This is the latest document dump from the FBI on Comey spies. So it just came to our office.

This is how it comes. It's on CD-ROM, and it's from the FBI to us here at the ACLJ. Another example, this, Ben Sisney walked it down to me after he was done talking to the group. They're having lunch right now, so he just walked this down so I could show it on radio. Yeah, no, this, folks, this tells you the nature and scope of what we're doing at the American Center for Law and Justice.

We're also taking your calls at 800-684-3110. This attack on speech, how do you feel about it? Look, it's a law enforcement agency, DHS, Department of Homeland Security. They're supposed to be securing our borders. Instead, you know what they're going to do? Stop by whatever it means. I'm still not clear. I mean, I guess they used their criminal process through the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security with a disinformation governance board. That's kind of like the Ministry of Information that you would have had in the old Soviet Union.

I mean, think about this for a moment. That's how dangerous this is. We got calls coming in at 800-684-3110. Let's take Daniel's calling from South Dakota. Daniel, welcome to the broadcast. You're on the air.

Yeah, thank you for taking my call. As you were speaking about the disinformation board, this came to my mind. I used to live in Paraguay years ago, and during the whole time I lived there, there was a military government governing the people there. And it's like we could not say anything bad about the government or otherwise we'll be in big trouble. And the U.S. government is leaning towards going into more of a totalitarianism, if I can speak.

Let me tell you something. You're right. I mean, this is to me, Jordan, I am still shocked that they have put this forward. And then when you see the person that they picked to run this and the statements that she's made, I mean, if Donald Trump did this, they'd be calling for an impeachment. But I think this is a real violation of free speech, folks. I think this could be the greatest threat to freedom of speech in our lifetime, and we're going to be taking action.

We are looking at every angle on this immediately. When she said to NPR that we've got to do something about awful but lawful speech, that's what set me off, because awful speech is still free speech. It's still protected speech. She acknowledged that, but they want to change that. So she acknowledged right now, awful, and by the way, you don't want to give up to the government the way to determine what's awful or not, because guess what? Democrat governments are going to think that, hey, saying bad things about us is pretty awful. And Republicans are going to say, saying things bad about us, that's awful. So we don't want the government deciding what's awful. If it's lawful speech, it's protected speech, and we've got to stop this new way that they're trying to create that outside of the process, a speech police in the United States. That is so troubling, and we have so many people come to our country because of our freedoms.

They wait in line to immigrate because we are the greatest country on earth, and we give all these rights. All right, folks, we are in the last radio day of our Matching Challenge campaign. It ends tomorrow, but we are exactly $84,000 behind where we were last year. We need your help.

It's a Matching Challenge campaign. Any amount you donate to the ACLJ, we get a matching gift for. That's ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Let me encourage you to make that gift today. Also, follow us, and I'm happy to say now, at Truth Social, at Jordan Sekulow, at Jay Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at ACLJ on Truth Social as well.

And of course, we're thrilled to be on Rumble as we have been for the last several months. Again, ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment. So they got, you know, a government disinformation board is now set up, and it attacks and affects your free speech rights.

What's the view? I'm going to take calls at 800-684-3110. What is your view, Jordan, right now in Washington?

I remember you just got up there yesterday about this issue. It is becoming the dominant story, certainly within conservative cycles, because it's the greatest challenge to free speech, I think, in our lifetime. A government board on disinformation and misinformation. Yeah, I mean, thankfully, we've got good members of Congress. They're not in the majority in either party, either House or Senate right now, but that are not going to let this go away. And so they're fighting back, and they're exposing this. The Democrats were trying to get ahead of this. They had it done through a Democrat congressman yesterday, you know, to get this information out so they'd get ahead of the story.

And then the person who's heading it up, she tweeted out the cats out of the bag. I mean, the fact that they are so loosey goosey when they're talking about such a basic fundamental right. I think it's the most important right we have, because I don't think you get the other rights. You don't get to the other rights without the right to speak. Because you've got to be able to defend your other rights, so you have to speak to do that.

And so for me, and I think for members of Congress, this is not going to be one that you just see for two days and it goes away. I think there's going to be, like we talked about yesterday, the FOIA work is one thing, but also whether or not this is such an affront to the free speech that it alone by existing squelches or has the potential to squelch free speech could mean that it's subject to legal intervention immediately. Yeah, well the Supreme Court has said that a policy, law, rule, regulation that quote chills free speech is subject to constitutional attack. And I can't think of anything that chills free speech more than a government agency that is law enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, having a misinformation governance board designed to stop misinformation that the government thinks is misinformation. That would mean, by the way, how many times have we had this now, three or four at least with Facebook, where they come in about four times, where they come in and say, oh, the information you gave is false or it's out of context. So it would be deemed misinformation or disinformation.

And then we challenge it, and then about a week later they come back and say, okay, you're right, it wasn't. Could you imagine now if that was being forced by a, forget Facebook, if that was being enforced by a government agency with law enforcement power? Let's go to William in Virginia on line two. William, go ahead. Yes. Why isn't the press, the members of the press screaming at the top of their lungs about this attack on free speech? To me, it seems like they would be the main one. Yeah, well, look, there are members of the press. I mean, my friend Sean Hannity yesterday spent most of his program on this. Fox has had this consistently covered. Well, why the liberal press isn't covering it. They love the idea when they're in power to be able to squelch Jordan the other side. Yeah, that's true.

I mean, this is the interesting interplay here. And what I want to point out to people is that it's got to be us who defends the speech rights for everybody. And one day maybe they'll thank us, maybe not, but that we defend the speech rights for everyone because right now they think that, oh, because they're in charge at the White House, they know they have a tough election cycle coming up.

Why? They used to be the ones who were supposedly supportive of all the protest movements and the idea of being the liberalism in there, but they're not. They're authoritarian dictators. They're the actual fascist. And they have their television programs to spew their fascist ideology to mock us. I'm fine with that mocking, by the way, and their ideology as long as you let me have mine and let me have my freedom. So it's an interesting interplay that it will be us, the conservatives, who are defending that awful but lawful speech. Well, I'll tell you what it is. They'll like this governance board as long as they're in power because, you know what, they know when the Republicans are back and conservatives are back, we would never enforce a governance review board on them.

They'll do it on us. All right, talking about speech. We were in federal court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit yesterday. The case involves the city of Ocala. Abby Sutherland, the senior counsel for the ACLJ, was litigating that case, made those arguments.

Abby, tell everybody first what the case was about. So the case involved the community prayer vigil. The police department partnered with the community, asked the community leaders for help. Tensions were very high following a crime spree. The police were trying to catch the suspects and the community was hesitant to come forward. So like happens almost every week in this country, the community gathered for a prayer vigil and the police department encouraged the community to be a part of it. And then we had some plaintiffs sue. And essentially the goal of their lawsuit is to prevent any further vigils from taking place. The challenge here, the attack here is on speech, which happens to be prayer.

That's number one. Number two, the district court ruling declared that the government officials can no longer encourage, this is what the court said, citizens to pray even amid a difficult time in their community. So you made the argument yesterday to the Eleventh Circuit. What was the court's reception? You know, the court really seemed to resonate with our argument that there's manufactured standing here, meaning the plaintiffs, unlike most cases, intentionally sought out this conduct, attended the vigil so that they could be offended so that they could then sue. And that seemed to really resonate with the court as far as a lack of standing, which is injury to bring the suit in the first place. As I was presenting argument, you could see some of the justices nodding their head and really dive in. Abby, what about on the establishment clause issue itself? Did it get to that? I know the arguments were short.

The briefs are long. The argument was short. We did. And as you know, you know, the Supreme Court recently broadened the history and tradition test, did away with the Lemon test with regards to most categories of establishment clause cases. And so this is a very important case. We'll have to wait and see what the Eleventh Circuit does. But our argument is that this is part of 200 years of tradition in history.

The establishment clause cannot abolish it and cannot ban it. And that seemed to really resonate with with the justices as well. All right. Very good.

We will get that opinions months away, folks. But again, the ACLJ in court. So while we're now looking at how we're going to thank you, Abby, we're going to challenge the situation with this speech governance review committee, the suppression committee, the censorship committee, I call it. We're also in court defending the constitutional right to prayer.

And the Supreme Court has said that prayer is protected speech. But boy, could you imagine these misinformation coming by the Department of Homeland Security? I mean, I want you to think about this, folks. We've got a whole half hour coming up. We're going to talk about this. We've got a lot more ahead.

Jordan, last 30 seconds or so here. You're going back in more meetings with representatives from dozens of countries in our offices right now. New part of the ACLJ's outreach globally.

Yeah, that's right. And it's again, those are the folks who are available today. We'll have a different group in a couple of weeks. And they'll, of course, tell their colleagues about it. There's a lot of interaction between the diplomatic staff here in Washington, D.C. But I think what we're able to do is now we're providing them a service. We're building relationships. But we're also teaching them about the United States government from a positive viewpoint.

And I mean, I know that that sounds almost ridiculous that you have to do, but our folks know it because the other side, it's CRT. It's how horrible the government is. It was built off systematic racism. The Constitution was written by old white guys and it really doesn't matter.

So they're getting a view that still says this is the best system of government in place in the world, and we're proud of it. All right. Thanks, Jordan. Jordan's going right back into those meetings, folks. We're going to take your calls at 800-684-3110 next half hour coming up.

We have a lot to talk about here, folks. This censorship review board, dangerous. Support the work of the ACLJ. We're $84,000 behind our goal for this month. Go to ACLJ.org.

Have your gift doubled, matched. You donate 40, we get 80. ACLJ.org. Do it today. ACLJ.org. Share this feed with your friends, no matter where you're seeing it. Back with more in a moment.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. I want to play what press secretary Jen Psaki said about this governance review board for, quote, misinformation and disinformation. Said that it's a press conference when she's having to defend this. Greatest threat to liberty I think I've seen in our lifetime.

Take a listen. What I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort.

You might. James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. I don't know. Thomas Jefferson. John Adams.

George Washington. They might oppose it. Could you imagine the founders debating, can we set up a government? Think about this.

In Philadelphia, sitting around a table in Independence Hall. Hey, what do you think? You think we should set up a government review board of speech the government doesn't like? We'll call it a disinformation governance committee. And we're going to use our law enforcement agencies to enforce it.

Of course not. But this administration thinks that's perfectly fine. Now, who's heading this up? Nina Jacobowitz. Here is what she, for those that are watching, you're going to see it. For those that are listening on radio, she does a spoof on going after speech she disagrees with.

Take a listen to this. Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It's when a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress or a mainstream outlet. So disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious. It's how you hide a little lie, little lie. It's how you hide a little lie, little lie. It's how you hide a little lie, little lie. When Rudy Giuliani shared that intel from Ukraine.

Or when TikTok influencers say COVID can cause pain. They're laundering disinformation when we really should take notes and not support their lies with our wallet, voice or vote. Okay, well here's what we've got. American Center for Law and Justice is up on your screen right now. This is a letter that we have sent out to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It's the Freedom of Information Act request of, this is against, obviously aimed at the secretary, for information regarding this disinformation governance board. They are going to fight us on this like you can't believe, folks.

I mean this is going to be a battle. But we're going to get the information. So rather than just talking about this problem, put it back up on the screen, folks. That, by the way, the woman you just heard is now the head of this governance committee, review board.

This is already out. The next thing that will be up when they say they're not going to respond is going to be the federal lawsuit. So when you support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice, folks, we take action. Let's go to Rena calling from California. We're taking your calls to 800-684-3110.

Rena? Yes, Jay. Thank you for being the voice of our founding fathers today because that's exactly what they would be saying. Look, this is obviously their pushback on Elon Musk and obviously China is in control of this country because they have Biden in their pocket. So we need to address exactly that fact, okay? There's been a coup d'etat. It needs to be overturned. And what can we do with you in regards to stopping this?

Because the bottom line is God still rules. Everybody should be praying. Okay, keep praying because that's our war machine. And you tell us in the meantime how we can help you in regards to stopping this.

Rena, I appreciate it. Well, I'll tell you, we started it. I mean, we're ACLJ. We take action. As soon as we found out about this, folks, within the same day, off it went to the Department of Homeland Security saying, what are you talking about here, folks?

You can't do this. You can't have a federal law enforcement agency enforcing speech codes on the American people. So we've sent out the Freedom of Information Act request. When they don't respond, we'll be in federal court. That's what we do. That's how you fight. But to do that, we need your support at the ACLJ, ACLJ.org.

Very simple, folks. Matching challenge. Last day on radio for this. J-Sec Hill Band concert tomorrow. You're not going to want to miss it. All the people that have played with us over the years, some of the most famous musicians around are going to be in on this one.

You're not going to want to miss it. But go to ACLJ.org. Support the work of the ACLJ. Like I said, we're off our goal about eighty four thousand dollars. We need to make that up today. ACLJ.org.

More when we come back from the break. Mark my words, 2022 goes down as the year that freedom of speech is assaulted in a way that we cannot imagine. And I believe, folks, that we are seeing one of the greatest threats to freedom of speech. I mean, the idea that Homeland Security has put forward a board of governance regarding misinformation that the government thinks is misinformation with a law enforcement agency. So talk about law enforcement agencies.

We're very happy to have with us on air. And let me tell you, he's also running for a very important position. As Arizona Attorney General Abraham Hama Day and Abe, you and I have talked about this. You are an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army. You have just returned from a 14 month long deployment to Saudi Arabia.

You've dealt with these issues. You've implemented enhanced security, vending responses to terrorism attacks. I mean, you know this area very well. The idea that the Department of Homeland Security is setting up a misinformation disinformation review board. How does that strike you? Well, it doesn't shock me under this Biden administration. If you're looking at the same, DHS also said that white supremacist is the greatest threat to domestic terrorism right now. So it doesn't surprise me, but it's obviously the greatest threat we're facing.

I mean, at this point, when I come back from my tour in Saudi Arabia, Jay, you know, when I was out there, I was trying to prevent another terrorist attack like the Pensacola 2019 incident from ever happening again. But now you have our own government labeling parents who speak out at school board meetings as potential domestic terrorists. So this is what's going on. This is what's so much more frightening and insidious is now that there's suddenly a ministry of truth and, you know, it's the odd timing of it all. But, you know, the disinformation and misinformation, we never want to call out the media and how complicit they were with the Hunter Biden suppression stories or even remember back when the covid initially came out, if you try to say that, you know, the covid actually leaked from the Wuhan lab. So this is what's so frightening.

Pretty much everybody agrees with this happened. But let me let me ask you this, Abe, because you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. I mean, the idea I mean, let's think about I'm trying to really stress this with our audience around the country. The idea that the Department of Homeland Security I mean, you worked on that Pensacola terrorism attack. You know how significant these acts are.

That's, you know, you're talking about criminal conduct there. But to have DHS take resources, number one, away from the border, we'll talk about that in a moment, and apply them to a governance board to stop misinformation. I asked the question and exactly how are they planning on doing this? How are they going to come in and stop misinformation?

Are they going to seek warrants? Well, they've already been effectively silencing us, Jay, and that's you know, it's no longer just big government we have to worry about. Obviously, it's always the case. But I mean, big tech is in collusion with the big government as well. I mean, look at the Canadian trucker situation. If you donated money to the Canadian truckers, you know, GoFundMe was about to send that money off to radical leftist organizations, and it was actually state AGs who prevented that from happening. So what's going on right now?

I'm trying to stress this enough. The last few years, we've been ambushed every single day. I mean, just every week, something new pops up, right? Disney, who would ever thought we were going to be, you know, at odds with Disney and Disney weighing into this. And now they have the government setting up a Ministry of the Truth, essentially trying to prevent disinformation, misinformation. We're seeing it, you know, all across the world right now, how much it's replying with Ukraine and Russia.

And you know, the media is complicit with it, but with, you know, we have to always be on guard. The big government right now is encroaching on our lives and Joe Biden in 14, 15 months, think about how much our country has changed. But I mean, the thing that you talked about, like the Disney thing where there's arguments on both sides that Disney has free speech rights and the government doesn't have to provide benefits. You can argue about that day and night, right? Those are legal arguments.

So right, policies, you fight those out in a regular court or at the ballot box. But when your government, through the Department of Homeland Security, a law enforcement agency, is setting up a Board of Governance to stop misinformation, I'm going to play this gensaki bite for you, Abe. I've already given my reaction to this, but let me play it. I want Abe to hear it. I want our audience to hear it again.

Take a listen. What I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort.

James Madison, I said number one, but your reaction to that statement? They're living in a different world, Jay. And you know, it doesn't surprise me, which is sad, because there's so much coming at us all at once. We're being ambushed because the radical left has infiltrated every single aspect of our lives. And yes, they're going after freedom of speech, which is so critical, because, you know, once they silence us, we see how powerful it is. When you have Twitter silencing Donald Trump, it allows, you know, the Ayatollah and allows terrorists like the Taliban on Twitter. So that's, you know, that's what's going on right now. I'm trying to wake up.

I mean, every great civilization has only lasted about 250 years, Jay. And the rate we're going in, I'm really worried and concerned about our country, especially when you have the highest levels of our government really taking a dystopian 1984 viewpoint of how they're going to treat our citizens. And maybe even worse, because the government has the authority through the Department of Homeland Security folks, I think we're looking at the greatest threat to free speech in our lifetime.

I think this is potentially huge. We had a lot of calls coming in. Abe, I'm going to want you to answer some of these. By the way, if you want more information about Abe and the campaign, Abe, where's the place to go?

Abe for AG.com, Abe for AG.com. Okay, let's go ahead. I'm going to take Bill's call from Pennsylvania. Go ahead, Bill. Hey, Jay. Hey, just a quick comment. I am deeply, deeply disturbed by this.

It really ruined my day. And I hope that liberals and Democrats that might be listening understand that this will fall on them, too. Totalitarians do not discriminate. Whoever talks down on them will certainly face their wrath. And with that, you know, you guys are one of the few that speak out for truth, for us, for America. I really want to encourage everybody listening. We need to make donations to your cause.

You're going to be a very busy group of people there. So I hope everyone will make some kind of a contribution. Thanks, Bill. Let me tell you what we've already done, Abe. We sent out a letter, yes, as soon as this happened, we sent out a letter, as you know, the Information Act request letter, getting the background of how this started, because when you make a legal challenge, it's always good to know what's the history, what was going on behind the scenes. But, you know, you're running for attorney general, interestingly. And I've represented a number of attorney generals in cases. The attorney general's roles here in the states could be very, very important. I mean, I think at this point where you're looking at so many, you know, before AG's roles, by the way, Jay, hasn't been as strong as they have been lately. I mean, I talked to a former Virginia attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli.

He gave me an interesting statistic. From 2009 to 2017, state AG's sued Obama administration, Republican AG's sued him about 80 times. When Donald Trump took office in his first year, Democratic AG's sued him about 90 times. And this is where, you know, Democrats play to win. Republicans have been playing nice.

So we got to go on offense. So, you know, I haven't seen the FOIA requests that you put on there. But, you know, I think when you get to the bottom of it, why they're implementing so many of these changes. I think, quite frankly, they think we're the enemy at this point. I mean, they're looking at where, you know, how many, you know, political hostage.

What they're trying to do is basically it's a witch hunt and they want to suppress us and silence us, not just with the tools of big government. But we have to remember big corporations and big tech can be as tyrannical as big government as well. And that's where, you know.

You're right. I am thrilled, by the way, that that that Elon Musk is making the move that he is on Twitter. I'm thrilled that True Social is now launched. We're on there at Jay Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at ACLJ, Abe, at what? On your?

Abraham Hamade. I'm on True Social. And it's been a fun platform to use. It's nice to go to a platform where, you know, not everything's hateful.

And but you know what? I think Twitter is fine to have both sides of the view, but they haven't been. They've skewed it now.

And I think that's changing. Let's go ahead and take another phone call. Barbara's calling from Pennsylvania. Barbara, go ahead. Hi.

Thank you for taking my call. My question is, I want to know whose idea this was. I do not believe that this came from President Biden, but I think that it would have come from the White House.

And I want to know whose idea and how did this get started? Well, the White House is responsible, though, Abe, because the White House, these agencies are in the executive branch of government. So where the President Biden initiated it himself, we'll find all that out with our lawsuit. They're throwing up this FOIA letter because they're not going to respond or they'll delay.

Excuse me. But the fact of the matter is, Abe, it came through an executive branch, DHS. That's the White House control. Exactly.

And remember, this isn't this isn't new, Jay. I mean, look at what Obama did with weaponizing the IRS, targeting conservative groups, right? I mean, this is exactly the radical left's right. And this is exactly the radical left's, you know, M.O.

So this isn't surprising right now. But Republicans have to be forceful. We can't be weak. And I think there's something that we got to appreciate about Donald Trump.

He knew how to fight back. I mean, we saw that with, you know, the atrocious Brett Kavanaugh hearings and all the lies in the slander there. And, you know, any other typical Republican, I'm sure, would have withdrawn his nomination. So this is where Republican AGs, Republican governors, I tell folks, never forget the states are the ones that created the federal government. And under the right state leadership will be the ones that save our country. But we have to have a backbone and start pushing back against, you know, the federal government right now. I mean, God bless anybody who wants to go to D.C. right now to be a senator or congressman.

But, you know, it's it's miserable. You go and hang out with Ilhan Omar and Pelosi. But you know, this day, you got to go where the battle is and battles there, too.

The battles are in the state. If you want to get information about Abe's running for it means a tremendous backgrounds. We've already said, folks, he's good friend to Rick Kornel's as well.

Abe, again, for people that want more information, you can go to Abe for AG Dotcom, Abe for AG Dotcom. Thanks for being with us. We really appreciate it. All right, folks, coming up, we're going to take your calls.

Eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Harry Hutchinson is going to join me. Let me tell you, great challenges to free speech. Great opportunity for the A.C.L.J.

to go in action when they did it with the IRS. We challenged and we won. We took it down.

We'll do it again. A.C.L.J. Dot org. Your gift is matched.

We are eighty four thousand dollars behind where we were last year. If you are able and only if you're able to support the work of the A.C.L.J., we encourage you to do it today. A.C.L.J. Dot org. That's A.C.L.J.

Dot org. We'll take the rest of your calls at eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. That's one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. We'll talk a little more in a moment. Hey, everybody, welcome back to the broadcast. Harry Hutchinson's joining us. We're taking your calls at eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten.

Harry, I'm going to play this the third time I played it today, but I'm playing it again. Jen Psaki's statement, because, folks, I'm telling you, greatest threat to free speech in our lifetime. That's what this is going to be. What I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort. James Madison, for one, I would think, and I could list others that might. Harry Hutchinson, I suspect might.

Harry? I think you're precisely correct. So if you look at the framing of the United States Constitution, it clearly prohibits the kind of activity that the Biden administration wishes to engage in. And so it raises a central question, who guards the so-called guardians? If the Ministry of Truth were properly constituted and it was really going after misinformation, if it was going after fabrication, if it was going after lies, it would have a full time job regulating whom? The Biden administration itself and Jen Psaki in particular. They are the font of many lies and fabrications. If you witness, for instance, what has gone on in Afghanistan, where Joe Biden stood before the American people and he said that we will leave no Americans behind, that was a fabrication. If you look at the record of Dr. Fauci with respect to the pandemic, he has been on three or four sides of the issue. That's misinformation that has misled the American people. So at the end of the day, what we need is a robust free press to guard us from the so-called guardians at the Homeland Security Department. I think Harry's absolutely right, folks. I mean, this is an incredible attack on freedom of speech. We're going right to the phones. Rebecca, New Hampshire, you're on the air.

Good afternoon. I was wondering, I understand that you filed a FOIA to get down to why they did it, but can we not just go ahead and file a lawsuit challenging them to even before they sit down on their first meeting? Yeah, so let me explain to you how it works, why we do the FOIA first.

We want to know whose idea this was, how it started, what was the genesis of it, because you can find all kinds of very helpful information. Because when you go to court, you got one shot. So we'll probably have to go to court over the FOIA litigation on this as well. And then as they start implementing regulations, that's when the challenge goes forward.

So you got to time everything right here and you've got to have the reason we're so successful is, Harry, we're so thorough before we do it. But we've already, listen, the letter is up. Put it on the screen. It is out. The FOIA letter went out yesterday. There it is. It is already in process. So it'll move quicker than you think, but you got to get the background information first.

I think that's precisely correct. So I think it is clear that on its face, the United States government has launched an unmitigated attack on the First Amendment rights of rank and file Americans who they see as deplorable human beings. But in order to have a sound legal foundation challenging this unconstitutional board, we need to engage in information finding.

We need to find out the foundations. We need to find out who was active in the involvement of this DHS board. Keep in mind that this board apparently has been active for at least two months and it has been hidden from the American people. Yeah.

Surprised she said when she announced it, oh, guess what, I come in and guess it's known now. Meanwhile, it's in the Department of Homeland Security, which should be getting everybody concerned. Absolutely. What we should at the end of the day conclude is that the Department of Homeland Security is a clear and present danger to the United States Constitution and to the American people. And we should not rest one single hour in trying to ferret out information concerning this misconduct by the United States government. Instead of trying to protect the border.

This is what they do. All right. We're going to go to Timothy. He's calling from Tennessee. Timothy Ford, go ahead. You're on the air. Yeah, Fran. So I won't get too much about the gushing on you guys.

You guys are great. But I am a security expert, have been for more than 20 years. And several of the individuals that I know have been contacted myself by CISA, which is a cybersecurity infrastructure and security agency, to join this new MDM team task force. As far as individuals who are going to be reporting to them on activities that we find. And this MDM board is the malformation and disinformation team. And so this much was formally the counterfeiting former influence task force that was formed back in 2018.

So now they've made it this. And back on, I think the 12th of April, they released infographics stating, here's what you look out for, and here's how you look out for what they tell you to look out for Tim. Oh, yeah.

The, uh, you'll love this part. You actually download this from their, from their site, but they actually have a list of things to look out for, uh, recognizing a risk, questioning the sources that they're coming from, checking to see if it's something that could potentially be, uh, cause harm or be, uh, something that is going to manipulate a person or change a social group's opinion. Oh, change a social group's opinion. So you advocate a pro-life position, and now you're changing some other pro-abortion position on you're trying to persuade, which is exactly by the way, what Harry, what the first amendment is designed to protect.

Absolutely. So what we have right now is that the DHS has unleashed an unaccountable group of government bureaucrats, and they have been charged essentially with attacking rank and file Americans. Meanwhile, it's important to note that many government players, uh, or politicians have been engaged in their own form of misinformation. So for instance, if you look at the Russia collusion story, that was misinformation, but the Biden administration, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrats, they loved such information.

Why? Because it harmed Donald Trump. Meanwhile, legitimate information, for instance, involving Hunter Biden's laptop, that was suppressed in order to favor one candidate over the other with respect to the 2020 election. So at the end of the day, no one should be fooled.

At the end of the day, this is an attempt to maintain power by deep state bureaucrats who'd offer nothing but disdain for the American people. I'm going to really try quickly, Kristi, you got 10 seconds. Go ahead. You're on the air.

Hi. Um, my question was, I questioned the strategy of the timing of this panel and is it really towards the election and controlling the information of the candidates? I'm going to stop you right there. Cause we're out of time. Good question. Yes. Good question.

They want to intimidate speech and folks. That's why support this last day for radio, for the matching challenge, aclj.org any amount you donate to the ACLJ, we're getting a matching gift for folks. We're trying to make up a gap of about $84,000. I'm giving you the exact amount. That's what we're trying to make up the gap for aclj.org your support, any amount you donate to us, it will be matched.

That means if you donate $10, we get another $10 from another donor. So we encourage you to do it aclj.org. So follow us on all the social media for what we're happy to announce. We're now on truth social at J secular at Jordan secular at Logan secular at ACLJ sign up for those there as well. We'll talk to you over the weekend folks, if anything develops, but if not Monday.