Biden’s New Press Sec: Pro-Israel Conference “Severely Racist”

Today on Sekulow, Biden's new press secretary calls a pro-Israel group, quote, severely racist. We'll get into that. We're also going to get into a state lawsuit against the disinformation board. You don't want to miss the broadcast today. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Well, we know who the new White House press secretary will be following, Jen Psaki, beginning on May 13th. Karine Jean-Pierre, she's been the deputy press secretary, so you've seen her sub before.

I'll make you some history there. She's the first black White House press secretary, first openly gay White House press secretary. But she defends the Islamic world and the pretty extreme in the Islamic world because in her past, when she worked for MoveOn.org, she went after a pro-Israel group in America that is very bipartisan. AIPAC, which is not, again, is not a hard right or a hard left group, extremely bipartisan. Joe Biden's spoken at it before. Many Democrats, Barack Obama's spoken at it before. But she called this group AIPAC, quote, severely racist and not progressive. So if you're not progressive, you're also a bad organization. She went on to say the organization has become known for trafficking in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while lifting up Islamophobic voices and attitudes.

I just always have this question, too. As a gay black woman, does she want to really live in the Islamic world? What is she talking about with Islamophobia? Shouldn't she be speaking out about the Islamic world and a lot of these dictatorships that would not recognize her and might even criminalize, and most do, criminalize her personal life?

So I say that to say that it's just because they have this obsession on the left with being anti-Israel, even when it's totally hypocritical. Yeah, so you've got a situation – these pics are fascinating to me, and I'll tell you why they're fascinating to me. You've got Nina Jankowicz on the truth board. You've got a new pic for the White House. This is the President's spokesperson who is well-known with this language.

I mean, this is not anything new. She's been very clear on this kind of anti-Israel approach. And as Jordan said, we're going to be joined by Jeff Ballumon from her office in Jerusalem in the next segment of the broadcast. But this is someone – this is an organization that is very much center. I mean, some would say center left.

I mean, so if that's considered extreme, could you imagine what they would consider the conservative Jewish organizations? I mean, this is what you're dealing with, and you're seeing the unraveling of the accomplishments in the Middle East, although some of those are going to stick because the countries know what's best. But you have to understand the statements. Do we have that one statement that she made? Well, let's go ahead and play it. Take a listen. I am everything that Donald Trump hates. I'm a black woman. I'm gay.

I am a mom. Both my parents were born in Haiti, and they came here for the American dream. Well, the American dream is not to call our ally Israel and organizations that support Israel, even ones that are center, as extremists. But this goes back to – I wanted to play that bite because whatever the previous administration was for, this administration is against.

That's right. I mean, and so if, again, even though Joe Biden in the past would go to a group like AIPAC and would not likely elevate someone who used that kind of rhetoric against a group he would consider friendly with, calling them severely racist, there's not much worse you could call a group in America that's severely racist. But you're elevating these kind of individuals. They are going to be setting the tone. So while there's terror attacks occurring in Israel, they've had more attacks than they've seen in the last couple of years, 19 people killed over the last few months with Islamic terror attacks. When you elevate these individuals to be your spokesperson, to be your press secretary for the White House, for the commander in chief, for the most powerful office in the world, when you put in place Nina Jacobins to run your disinformation board, and she's a purely partisan actor with no experience in combating criminal organizations like cartels or real Russian hacking, this sends a message to who you are. It also sends a message to your adversaries and your allies.

We'll be right back. All right, so here's Biden's new press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre. Remember, she's been the deputy, so you've seen her before.

She's been an analyst. She comes from the hard left world of MoveOn.org. She wrote this about AIPAC in 2019, encouraging Democrats to boycott the event.

They did not, by the way. People like Barack Obama attend this event. Joe Biden attend this event.

Republicans attend the event. That's how bipartisan it is. It's a group in America to support Israel that wants to make sure it's got support on both sides from major political parties. And sometimes it gets criticized by other pro-Israel groups for being too bipartisan and not strong enough. And yet for Karine Jean-Pierre, who is going to be the White House press secretary, this is her words, quote, severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric has proven just as alarming. The organization has become known for trafficking in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while lifting up Islamophobic voices and attitudes. And she called on Democrats to skip the AIPAC conference. So Jeff Balaban is senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice in our office in Jerusalem.

He is in Jerusalem right now. Jeff, you know, first of all, let's talk about AIPAC. This is not exactly a conservative Jewish organization.

Far from it. AIPAC, I think certainly by many standards, has been said to lean over very, very far, as Jordan said, to be bipartisan to the degree that often it will push hard against two aggressive moves that are pro-Israel somehow that will get in the way of Democrat support. AIPAC has long been very, very friendly with Democrats. She claims that AIPAC is partisan. It's an absurdity. AIPAC is at best a centrist organization.

I would say it's leaning less. So then, and I know Jordan, you have a question, but then, Jeff, the question is here. So she knows this too. So why would you make the statement about AIPAC? Now she's the press secretary, right? Why would you make the statement that they are severely, AIPAC is severely racist, which is not true? If she views AIPAC as severely racist, I shudder to think what she thinks of the, you know, the conservative groups.

Well, that's right. You know, they have moved in what they call the Overton window, the window of like what's reasonable discussion, so hard left that it's completely unrecognizable. By the way, I haven't seen a lot of noise about this, but you know, within a month or two of that Tishiro Glandering Israel, her organization, they made their first political endorsement in the election. Do you know who they were?

Yes. Ilan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, right? People who are known, but are deeply anti-Semitic, not just anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement. That to her organization made their first political endorsement. This, Jay, this is a deep, deep symptom of a deep, deep problem that people thought, oh, well, the party, the Democrats have too many, you know, freaks on the left. Using that word, but maybe too extreme, but it's okay. Joe Biden's a moderate. Well, it looks like there are people in key parts of his administration that are pushing forth extremists.

That's right. I mean, listen, I think Jeff just laid it out for you. This is like very similar to having Ilan Omar as your White House press secretary. If these are in fact her views, which she's written about this being her views, this anti-Israel calling, as we've said, a very bipartisan pro-Israel group, extremely racist, trafficking in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric.

I mean, severely racist. It is the similar kind of terms that you hear from Ilan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. And it's that bizarre liberal activism, Jeff, which to me, it makes no sense. She is being touted.

And that's wonderful for the news, the first black person to be the White House press secretary, but also the first LGBT person to be a White House press secretary. And yet she's leveling these attacks on Israel, a country which would welcome her, unlike these countries where she's calling, you know, that we're being Islamophobic about, which would criminalize her lifestyle. Far from being Islamophobic, anti-Muslim, the fact is that we've seen, especially in recent years, not just Arab speakers at AIPAC, but AIPAC itself going out of its way to applaud those Arab and Muslim nations that have been making peace with Israel. That's their agenda, right?

Peace for Israel, normalization for Israel, and that means actually partnerships and friendships, warm ones now, thanks to the Trump administration and the Abraham Accords with numerous Islamic countries. It's literally, there's zero basis for this. This is slanderous and libelous. And therefore, I think it falls under the category of what's happened, you know, over the centuries, which is libeling all things Jewish. So my friend, our friend, former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who I was on the phone with just two days ago, blasted her in a Twitter saying the mainstream media forgot to mention that she hates Israel. So with all the accolades she's getting at this historic pick for White House spokesperson, the fact that she is spewing anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric, that gets a pass in the media.

Jeff? Well, you know, that's like, as Jordan pointed out, it's wonderful news that there are people breaking feelings based on identity issues. You can't tell me there aren't Black and gay press people who don't hate Israel.

That's the issue here. That's like Ilhan Omar saying she can't be criticized because she's a Black Muslim woman. Nobody's being criticized for their identity except the people that they themselves are criticizing. Israel's being criticized, but make no mistake, because it is the Jewish state, and that's the issue they seem to have with it.

They treat it differently than every other nation. They basically claim that support for the Jewish state is anti-progressive, and they want progressivism. And to one step further, Jeff, because of the Abraham Accords where you've got these predominantly Muslim countries in the Gulf states who are these kingdoms, and Emirates are working together now with Israel in business deals they're doing. The Saudis are investing in Israel as we speak right now. It's as if these anti-Israel activists live in the past, and they want to, again, return to that past, but ignore the progress that's been made. The fact that these countries are doing business together now, and in a way I think it's like they want to cause trouble. They would like to see an end to the Abraham Accords because it doesn't fit their political narrative.

Absolutely, Jordan. In fact, the progressive leftists have attacked those very countries for normalizing with Israel, for making peace. She talks about she wants diplomacy, and that's why she's against AIPAC. Literally, she's fighting the efforts, diplomatic efforts, that are bringing truly historic peace for the first time since Israel's creation. Decades of war, and now Muslim Arab countries are flocking to make warm, friendly peace with Israel, and they hate it. Who do they like? They like Iran. They want this, quote, Iran deal, which we understand is a glide path to a nuclear Iran.

It's very clear, right? Therefore, they're fighting anybody else. They're fighting the Saudis, the UAE, the Bahrainis. Everyone is trying to make peace.

Real peace in the Middle East is their enemy. You've got stories that she could really be talking about, about how women are being treated around the world, including in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has re-announced that women must cover their faces in public or face retribution. They're stopping the education for the women, it looks like.

You get fired for your job. That's just the beginning for the Taliban. So instead of focusing on those issues of where there are problems in the Islamic world, no, it's labeling a group like AIPAC, which means if she thinks that they are severely racist and trafficking in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric, I wonder what terminology she would come up with for us at the American Center for Law and Justice.

I can't even imagine. But I mean, like Jordan just said, Jeff, I mean, Afghanistan now, the Taliban have announced that the girls' high schools were shut down last month. And you don't, you know, and of course, the United States leaves Afghanistan in a disaster zone. But at the end of the day, Jeff, you're in Jerusalem right now. What's the tenor there politically as things are kind of moving back and forth?

The government seems to be in a tough situation. Yes, I was going to say, you know, I was going to relate to the fact that, you know, I just came here as posting for ACLJ here in Jerusalem. And one of the things that I noticed when I'm here and today I was just thinking about it, I was between meetings and walking through the street, is you're here and forget about the way you're portrayed in the Western media. You're here and what you feel, honestly, and of course, there are these terrible terrorist attacks from time to time. But mostly, this is the one place, the one place around the world, except for maybe America, where you see people, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, all living completely comfortably, all sitting together in the ice cream shop, all cooked. And you don't see it in other countries in the region.

You just don't. And they're pushing against this one country, which is so open and so warm and so welcoming and so multicultural. It's incredible. In terms of the political situation, as you asked, yeah, look, this has always been an interesting government here, this new government. It's not so new anymore.

There are people who didn't give it, didn't expect glass because it seemed that you had two extreme sides, but you know what? It's the last thing and it seems to be accomplishing a great deal. And questions keep on popping up, but we'll see where it goes. All right, Jeff, the Balbon Senior Counsel for the ACLJ in our office in Jerusalem, that office fully operational and obviously a lot going on there.

And this was just an interesting note today. And I think what you got to understand, too, folks, is this is the kind of people Joe Biden is putting into his top circle. So when he tries to play up that moderate card, he is no moderate. He is being run by the radical of the radical left, the anti-Israel left.

I mean, these are the leftists that, again, see you as an Israel supporter as extremely racist. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Secula. We told you we are preparing for the latest battle for life. After that leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court and all of the news, the protesting over the weekend, the protesting at Justice Houses, even some of the protesting getting violent, a Molotov cocktail thrown into a Wisconsin pro-life group's building saying, if abortions aren't safe, then you aren't either, was spray painted across that building. But we're also prepared for a political move in the Senate because it's already passed the House of Representatives.

So it's clear we passed there again. The Senate attempting to, before this opinion even comes out, that could overturn Roe v. Wade, to codify. That means to put into law as legislation the right to abortion and the rights under Roe v. Wade, which we know Joe Biden has pledged he would sign into law.

There's two questions, of course. There's the political question. Do they have the votes? Yes, but they don't have the votes to overcome the legislative filibuster.

At least we don't think so. So would they? No, they don't have the 60 votes yet.

So the question is, do they have enough votes to get rid of the legislative filibuster? So there's political questions there. But we also told you we were going to look at the legal issue as well.

We've gotten this before even on air today. On Friday, we got this to all the Senate staff because they're going to be dealing with this immediately. Getting it to the House staff as well. Our legal analysis of whether or not Congress actually has the authority to put Roe v. Wade or abortion, let's say Roe v. Wade is gone, to put abortion as a legal right protected federally. As a statute.

As a statute. And we've got a legal analysis up at ACLJ.org. Very important analysis here because what we found might be surprising to a lot of those on the pro-abortion side.

So the move is going to be, if the opinion sticks, and all indications, at least from the leaker, is that it's going to. There is this move to federalize a statutory right to abortion. In other words, basically a codification of Roe v. Wade. Now, we have immediately dispatched both our government affairs teams and our lawyers to look at this issue to determine if in fact Roe was declared unconstitutional.

And even if before then, the House and Senate try to pass legislation codifying Roe. And we believe, and we're set for a legal challenge if they attempt to do this. And Andy, you feel like after reviewing the legal memorandums that our lawyers have put together, we're in good standing to do that.

We are. We are in good standing and we're in good shape legally to challenge any laws that Congress may attempt to pass to codify. That is, make into written law Roe v. Wade in Casey v. Pennsylvania. Andy, everybody's asking if the Supreme Court declares Roe not to be a constitutional right, then shouldn't that end it? It goes back to the states. But this is an attempt to federalize that.

That's right. They want to make a federal – they want to make a federal law where there is no federal constitutional provision allowing it. The Constitution – if this opinion turns out to be the – leaked opinion turns out to in fact be the opinion of the court, and I've begun reading this and analyzing it. There is no federal constitutional right to abortion. It is murder. And murder is punishable by states.

I've prosecuted a lot of murder cases. Congress cannot punish felonies, generally speaking. That is part of the police power of the states. And I am convinced that if this turns out to be the opinion of the Supreme Court in point of fact, that nothing that the Congress can do can change what the Constitution says. And that is exactly what our analysis shows. So – but, Jordan, there's no question that the House, I mean Senate, right now are evaluating this. This vote could come up, folks, Wednesday. They're going to vote on it. Now, the question is going to be is they can't get through the legislative filibuster, so we know that their initial vote will fail because you've got a filibuster. So first they'll take that vote.

We'll get a sense of how many – there's a couple of competing pieces. There's one that's not quite as extreme. That comes from Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, two Republicans.

And there's one that's more extreme that comes from the Democrats. I don't know if there'll be a vote on both, but they will take a vote. We will get a sense of how many votes do they have.

Is it 51? Is it 52 to codify Roe versus Wade? Then they're going to lose the filibuster.

They're going to lose bringing cloture to this. So we know they don't have 60 votes. So the question will then be how soon are they willing to act and are they willing to act to take a vote on ending the legislative filibuster, which would turn the U.S. Senate into just the House of Representatives with less members?

So we are deploying all of our resources literally right now, both legislatively, our government affairs office in Washington, as well as our legal teams. Now the Congress will try to utilize three constitutional provisions. This is what they cite in the legislation. The Necessary and Proper Clause, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause. And Andy, our view is neither and none of those, all three of those fail to support that kind of legislation.

That's right. You can look at the Necessary and Proper and the Constitutional Clause. All those have always been used in the past to justify federal legislation in areas where you wouldn't think that it would otherwise exist. But the fact remains that if the Supreme Court overrules Roe and Casey, there would be no constitutional right for Congress to enforce under the Constitution. And state laws that declare abortion to be illegal in all or most circumstances, if those come out, expect they will, would be fully consistent with the federal Constitution. Once that is the case, then I don't care what Congress passes, they cannot usurp the power of the states and that remains in the hands of the people.

But let me give you the caveat. The caveat is if they pass this, Biden will sign it. President Biden will sign it. And then Andy, we're going to have to prepare, working with states and other entities, to challenge this in federal court. We're going to be in federal court challenging it because the President of the United States has said he's going to sign the bills that are going to be passed. If they're passed by the Senate and the House and become law, we're going to be fighting in the states. We fought in the federal courts against Casey, against Roe. Now we're turning, we'll be turning our attention to the states and fighting in the federal courts in each of the states.

And that's why, I mean, we will fight that battle if we have to fight that battle. We've got the legal analysis already ready, but it would be so much better to beat this legislatively and here's why. Because if Roe vs. Wade is overturned by the court decision to the Supreme Court and that's ultimately released, what we rather have is the battle in the states. Go to the voters directly, go to the American people directly, state by state, to talk about what laws they want in their state, what restrictions they want in their state, what they're comfortable with.

So it's a state by state approach. If, instead of continuing to fight the abortion battle in federal court, which has been going on since 1973, so in a sense they would be prolonging the battle in a friendlier space, which is the federal court system, then it would be going into states where it's really going to be political decisions up to about what kind of restrictions they want to put in place. Yes, there'll be some lawsuits, but those are going to, those would fail pretty miserably under the current draft opinion. And they'd be a much different kind of battle legislatively. That's the battle we want to have for hearts and minds.

What we don't want to have is the battle stuck in Washington, D.C. politics. And Andy, we only have a minute here, but we have to be, we are working hard legislatively to beat this, but we are already prepping the litigation. Oh yes, the litigation is prepped. We've done a memorandum, we've disseminated it to the Senate, we're looking at this legally, we're looking at it and preparing for the fights that are going to ensue in each of the states that are going to be prohibiting, for instance, abortion or curtailing it. That's going to come, Jay, but we have our lawyers ready to combat the lies that are going to be put out by Planned Parenthood, by these other people that there is a constitutional right. They are still lying to you, folks. We've got a big 48 hour, let me tell you something. It's murder. 48 hours ahead, folks, is going to be big.

I'm just saying that. We've got a lot more of this broadcast ahead. ACLJ.org, back with more in a moment. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls too as well at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. What do you think about the new White House press secretary chosen by President Biden, Karim Jean-Pierre, who has called pro-Israel groups, even very mainstream bipartisan groups that Barack Obama spoke at, Joe Biden spoke at, called them severely racist and trafficking and anti-Muslim and anti-Muslim groups. Now if she would say this about a group like AIPAC, I just want you to imagine what terminology she would come up with, what adjectives and adverbs she would use to describe your views on Israel. The fact that Joe Biden plays a moderate but is putting around him basically Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar as like hand-picked people, the most radical of the radical left, to represent his White House every day as White House press secretary.

I want to take your calls on that, 1-800-684-3110. There's a lot being made about her breaking barriers, the color barrier, her sexuality, that she is a lesbian and that that is the first time you have a White House press secretary that's a lesbian and black. But she's again demonizing pro-Israel groups and then talking about Islamophobia in the Islamic world, she would not be recognized.

In fact, her lifestyle would be criminalized. But they still, these are liberal activists and at their core they focus in, they don't care about the actual rationale, they focus in on their hatred of Israel. So we've got her in place, we're going to talk to Rick Rinnell in the next segment of the broadcast, we've got Nina Jacobowitz in place as the disinformation czar at the Department of Homeland Security, all who are just committed, partisan actors. And that's what concerns me the most is, especially with DHS, is putting people in law enforcement positions who are committed partisans. Yeah, and don't forget, we have filed a Freedom of Information Act request against DHS to find out about this implementation of this Board of Governors for Misinformation and Disinformation. By the way, Louisiana and Missouri have filed a federal lawsuit on that. We're looking at that very carefully. We may be filing in that case, we're reviewing it now. It just was filed late Friday. We're looking at that and we may file in that case as well.

We already have the Freedom of Information Act request out to the various Department of Homeland Security agencies to find out how this started. And frankly, the more they say about this committee, the worse it is. I mean, they do not caveat it by limiting who it applies to. So you still have this, you know, anything could be misinformation or disinformation, they make the decision.

That's right. And their only previous examples of their work in this world, before they had this disinformation board, would have nothing to do with who they've put in place here. Nina Jacobowitz wouldn't be qualified for the job. They talk about working against cartel disinformation. They talk about working against Russian hacks on our nation's infrastructure. She's about, you know, spreading the Russia hoax and political talking points, not about actually combating actual criminal activity. Remember, she's the one who wants to go after awful but lawful speech.

So what does she want to go after? Lawful speech. So even though it's lawful, if Nina Jacobowitz deems it awful, this disinformation board is going to go to social media platforms and try and, again, have them put in content moderators for exactly the terms and words and phrases and ideas that they want silenced.

Yeah, I'll tell you something, folks. When you look at this lawsuit, they're claiming a violation of the First Amendment, number two, excess of statutory authority, then a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act by HHS and DHS. So we're looking at it, too, at the ACLJ, obviously, focusing also on the vote that could take place as early as Wednesday, on codifying Roe. This comes in light of a leak of the Supreme Court decision. Very active time at the American Center for Law and Justice. We're glad that we can bring you this broadcast each and every day on all of these different platforms and radio stations, satellite radio. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110.

A lot of things moving. You got a report today from our office in Jerusalem. We're looking at legislation on codifying Roe as early as Wednesday in the House and Senate. We're fighting that. We're fighting the Information Board. Support the work of the ACLJ. Welcome back to Sekulow. We take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Rick Rinnells, our Senior Advisor for Foreign Policy and National Security. And we've seen this attack on speech by the Biden administration. We saw the announcement of the Disinformation Governance Board led by Nina Jankowicz, who, again, is someone who has only a partisan history. And so they're saying they're going to bring her in to combat cartel disinformation and actual Russian cyber attacks on our nation's infrastructure, like real security items, except she has no expertise in that. She's a disinformation political expert.

That's how they call her. But now states are starting to speak out and take action. We've already filed a FOIA.

We did it within two days of this announcement to get more information about the creation of this Disinformation Governance Board. DHS has been playing catch up, putting out two-pagers on what it does do and what it doesn't do. But we've now seen a lawsuit by two states, Missouri and Louisiana, against President Biden and top administration officials for colluding with the social media companies, the content platforms, to censor and suppress free speech.

I want to go to Rick Rinnell on this right away, Rick, because, Rick, we've all experienced this. I'm glad these states are starting to stick up for their citizens, because all of us in the conservative world have experienced this kind of de-throttling or censorship by the major social media platforms. Let's be clear that there is this system now where big tech and Washington, D.C. press newsrooms and the Democrats all have a narrative. And disinformation means dissenting information, dissenting from the official Washington, D.C. line.

It's very dangerous. This is what third world countries do is when they don't like the information, when it's dissenting, when it's different than what they want, then they label it, you know, bad information or a threat to democracy. It's really a threat to their power. And so what we need to do is push back on this disinformation. Dissenting information is really what it is. And thank God we have ACLJ, who is Johnny on the spot, immediately filing these FOIA requests. And for people to understand is that if you don't have a legal challenge immediately, like a FOIA request, then you don't get anything done. You can talk about these issues in the media. We can complain publicly. We can complain on social media.

But unless you really take them legally on, you just don't get stuff done. And so I'm really thankful that ACLJ is so quick to push back and hopefully people recognize that we need support for that. Rick, the shocking aspect of this, at least to me, has been, I mean, could you imagine the circumstance where under your administration, President Trump, when you were DNI and you all were to have a meeting and maybe call your lawyers in and we'd come in and say, we're going to set up a truth board. We're going to set up a department, a governing board, to determine what is truthful and what is information or misinformation or disinformation.

And we're going to set this board up and they will decide this. The left would be going ballistic, which we would expect, and they should. But they do it. And the Biden administration does it here. And the media barely, barely the mainstream media points it out. I will say Jake Tapper, Jake Tapper from CNN. And I was glad to see this raise some serious questions with this.

But from what I've seen, he's been it. But this is a grave attack on free speech. Look, we've had kind of 25, 40 years of politics where most people in the country get to sit back and watch and they get to be observers and they watch as the partisans in Washington fight and the media kind of are the referee. Gone is that day. And I hope that people that are listening understand that you've got to get off your couch. You can't just watch anymore.

You every single day have to ask yourself, what are you doing to help save this country? And this attack on disinformation to support the ruling party is really a line that's been crossed. And so for anyone listening to our voice, we have a new system. And that new system is all of official Washington controlling the message. And shame on us if we think that we're going to wait for legacy media to control this narrative. They're not going to do it. We have to have entities like ACLJ.

You know, it's interesting, but I'll address this to both of you, to Jordan and to Rick. So the Missouri attorney general and Louisiana attorney generals filed suit against President Biden, top administrative officials for alleging and they're alleging it, colluding with social media giants to censor and suppress free speech. And the two attorney generals filed the suit against these individuals. And they are alleging that groups like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube are censoring suppressing free speech, including truthful information. Topics like election integrity is now almost banned on these platforms and other topics under the guise of misinformation. And we know there's been election integrity issues, but they want to ban them. Unlike the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was banned from social media, which is no longer banned from social media. The lab leak theory, which was banned from social media, which is now no longer banned from social media, as if we have to wait, Rick, for the mainstream media and the administration to say when it's okay to speak about an issue. I saw you were at the Kentucky Derby. You're with President Trump at the Kentucky Derby. If you had you post a photo, if you had posted a video of President Trump speaking and just just a quick video and then posted that to social media, there are social media companies that may have taken that down.

Whatever. Look, I'm concerned that this Ministry of Truth group through Department of Homeland Security places will immediately put individuals who post something that they consider dissenting information. They are immediately going to put them on a list that maybe they can't fly. Maybe they're on the no fly list, which is done through the FAA. Maybe their ATM card is going to be frozen and they can't use it until you take down the information that they call disinformation, dissenting information.

I think it's incredibly dangerous. The knee jerk reaction that Jordan is talking about from the media is to shut us down. And thank God the knee jerk reaction from ACLJ is to file suit and to get to the bottom of it. So Rick, the one thing that, well, not the one thing, but a major thing that's of interest to me here and a concern to me is that of all the agencies they picked to do this, they picked the Department of Homeland Security, which is, you know, and I know, and Jordan knows, is a law enforcement agency. It's to protect the homeland. And they give, they have set up this, it's called a board of governance, and they're going to be working with these tech companies. So exactly what you said, I mean, I mean, you ran, you were the director of national intelligence. The idea that this would be set up, what people need to understand, it's going to go into these other government agencies. Just like when the IRS was trying to target conservatives, they went to the FEC and the DOJ. Department of Homeland Security is going to do the same thing you can count on it.

Rick? There's no question about it. And let me be very clear. There are members of the Trump administration who were told when they tried to open up bank accounts that their process, their application needed to be reviewed. That happened in the United States of America. Remember, after January 6, the entirety of corporate media said we were pausing on giving money to Republicans.

That was their initial reaction. We're going to pause on any donations to Republicans after January 6. This is a crisis of epic proportion. And what we need to understand is that we can no longer expect Washington, D.C., the media, the lobbyists, the newsrooms, even some Republicans to defend us. We have to take people to court.

Again, thank God for the ACLJ. Well, I see it this way, too. When they put the pressure on these content providers and other social media companies, but also Internet companies, as Rick is talking about, you can see how the consequences can become severe very quickly. So first it starts off with maybe silencing you on the platform. Then you can't use their payment processing.

Then you can't use your Apple card to process or make a payment for. Or you've taken out some other platform because of your speech online and the idea, again, that they will pick and choose where to put the pressure, when and what to put the pressure on the social media companies. And, Rick, these companies, they're regulated by the federal government.

They haven't been so they have a bad track record on their own. If they've got the government telling them to do it, that's like it gives them cover to do even more censorship. You know, right after the election, when so many conservatives were canceled, there was this huge movement and I saw it from billionaires and others to say, we need to have our own payment processing companies. We need to have our own cloud. We need to move away.

All of that stopped when the pressure was off. And I'm here to say we need to have our own entities that will not cancel us. And we need to have organizations that immediately fight back with legal means.

And that is the only solution. We can't trust these people in Washington. Shame on us for trusting them. I am really grateful that we have radio stations like we have that cover us, that want to cover this information.

I'm thrilled that we have now the true social media, which we're on, rumble for our video so that we know we're not getting censored. Rick, we appreciate it. Folks, this tells you.

And what Rick just said is right. The bigger battle ahead of you, having a place to go, a cloud system that won't be shut down because of your political views, a financial system that won't be shutting you out because of your political views. Remember, President Biden called it the most extreme of political movement in American history was that if you supported President Trump or continue to support the idea of America first, you're the most extreme. If you're pro-Israel, you're extremely racist. That's the new White House press secretary.

Welcome back to Secula. You know, the student admissions program into college admissions is wild enough, as we could say right now, and difficult enough for a lot of students to even get through the process. But there are groups being targeted by institutions of higher learning by race to say, you know, we have too many of these kind of students, too many Asian students at our school, so we're going to start making that a factor against their application. And so we've actually filed, it's at the Supreme Court, the oral arguments will be in the fall, but we have filed an amicus brief in this case before the court protecting that, again, it should be based on the student's race.

It should be based on what qualifications the school is looking for, whether it's academically and other issues as well, to get a good, diverse student population. Yeah, so the case is called, in the Supreme Court, it's case number 20-1199, students for fair admission versus President and fellows of Harvard College and students for fair admission versus the University of North Carolina. Professor Harry Hutchison, our senior policy director, is with us and senior counselor for the ACLJ. He's on this brief as well. Harry, let's talk about the history.

What's going on here? Because this is now actually targeting, it seems like, Asian American students or Asian students generally. I think that's precisely correct. And so if you look at the history, you find that Thomas Jefferson favored a natural aristocracy based on virtue. We now live in an era that favors what might be called technocratic merit that has fueled the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to wealthy elites in American history. Now elite schools seem unwilling to share their wealth with Asian American students in particular, and they have instituted so-called preferential programs which actually discriminate against Asian students in an attempt to unjustly deny them prestige like other elite students. It's important to keep in mind that Asian American students on average in high school, they study two and a half times as much per week as other American students. That hands them a terrific advantage in the competition for seats in elite universities and schools.

And so if you look, for instance, at Thomas Jefferson High School in Loudon, I'm sorry, in Northern Virginia, that is one of the most elite, if not the most elite high schools in America. And from 2001 to 2022, there has been an enormous transformation in that school that has seen a huge influx of Asian students. And so now there's a pushback. There's a pushback at Harvard. There's a pushback at— So are these schools discriminating against—to put it in the vernacular here—are these schools discriminating against Asian students?

Absolutely. And so what they are doing is that they are trying to broaden out, if you will, the criteria on paper for admission. So for instance, at Harvard, they have suggested that Asian students perhaps lack empathy. And that is one of the ways of denying them entry into Harvard, for instance.

It is very much like what Harvard and other elite schools did— Let me ask you about this. To Jewish students. To Jewish students from about 1900 to the 1940s before the institution of standardized tests.

So what happened there? So essentially, schools like Princeton and Harvard, they put a quota or a limit on the number of Jewish students admitted. It's important to note, as Thomas Sowell points out, doing the research, that when Jewish students first immigrated to the United States, in the late latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, their standardized test scores, when they were available, were not necessarily all that high.

But over a span of 30 or 40 years, they did sensationally well in high schools throughout America. But Harvard and Princeton said, well, we can only take a few. So it's pure and simple racism that represents a reversal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It represents a reversal of all the anti-discrimination legislation in the United States. I don't want people to get confused with affirmative action cases, either, because this is the reverse of affirmative action. You're taking a minority group of Asian students and saying, we're going to limit them. We're going to try to figure out how we can bring more for this minority group. But, oh, because they're academically successful, they're going to take too many spots based off our other criteria. And I think this is the issue with, right, today it could be the Asian American group. Tomorrow it could be Hispanic students. We've seen tremendous growth in the Hispanic community with education there. And I could see a move there similar to the Jewish students who, maybe after a couple of generations, their parents putting a lot of emphasis on school and education. So this idea that we allow these elite institutions to do this, it is wrong here. And that is why the ACLJ decided to actually get involved in this case.

I think you're precisely correct. And many of these elite schools engaged in what might be called a sleight of hand, deception in order to try to get away with these discriminatory rules. If you look, for instance, at the research of Dr. Roland Fryer, who is perhaps the brightest economist in America. He's an African American. He teaches at Harvard. He has found that hard work pays off. And so he has taken disadvantaged kids, African American kids, in New York City, and he has emphasized hard work.

Guess what? They outperform white students in New York City. So essentially he is following what might be called an Asian model. You work really, really hard. So Asian students, on average, they study 13 hours per week.

Average American kids in high school and elementary school study, on average, five hours per week. So which group would you expect to excel? And I think most Americans would say this is unfairness on steroids by these elite institutions who continue to discriminate against Asian American students. And I'm very happy to sign on to this brief. And I'm happy that the ACLJ has filed an amicus in this case. Here's what we said in our summary of our argument. We said there's only one race of people, the human race, institutional efforts to pigeonhole groups of people into racial boxes, what Chief Justice Roberts called a sorted business, which is correct, incoherently.

And the hallmark is incoherent and it's a hallmark of racism. And we take our legal arguments from there. So folks, look what we have covered today. Problems in Washington as it relates to Israel, our Jerusalem office is working on that. Attempt to codify Roe vs. Wade before the decision even comes out because now they're worried that actually Roe is going to be overturned. Our government affairs office and our legal team, we have a legal team, our litigation team already working on that.

We are looking at the disinformation, we've filed a FOIA on the disinformation committee, this board of governance. And at the same time, we're reviewing the state of Missouri and state of Louisiana's lawsuit to see if we might engage on that. And then today at the Supreme Court of the United States, we have filed a brief in this discrimination case on admission. And at the same time, we are working legislatively to try to defeat this attempt to have a vote as early as Wednesday on codification of Roe vs. Wade.

It's Monday. And that's what we're working on. I encourage you to stay up to speed on everything. It's all up at ACLJ.org. You can find all the information there, including the broadcast, and support our work at ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.