This broadcaster has 606 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
June 21, 2022 2:24 pm
BREAKING: Big Supreme Court Win.
The US Supreme Court. Now is the opinion just him about a moment of your ruling on school chores and religious freedom directly applied to school in the state of Maine want to hear from you Sharon, call those funds from going to religious schools actually violates the Constitution, meaning those matters can be used at private schools that have a religious court to them. Now your secular culture of your questions or comments about the 100 C4 31 two a lot of work on school choice at the mixer for Lord Justice or one of the big barriers to school choice. It's been in the states for decades has been this issue of if we have a school choice program that allows parents to decide to send their kids whether the voucher tax credit to a private school candidate could also go to a private religious school, going so far to say can go to private religious school, but what about the religious class and issues like that will Supreme Court is really clarified. Now for the second or third time over series of cases this would originate out of Maine and again this is Carson versus Macon 623 out of the US Supreme Court. The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and it says very clearly, if you're going to have programs that allow parents to choose to said that you use these chart the money to send their children to a private school you cannot exclude religious schools from that rental choice so huge way because it opens the door just in Maine but again clarifies from the Supreme Court is the second time. Just a few years.
Supreme Court is again clarified that when you do these programs you can't exclude religious schools. What's interesting about this is Maine had a situation where they did not have secondary schools. A lot of the rural communities which was a large part of Maine. So what they did was a art gave an option of tuition assistance but they said the school had to be nonsectarian and as you said one success of this when court said that violates what's interesting here is the free exercise clause on the speech case it was an establishment clause case was the right free exercise of religion and the court said as we've explained in other opinions interest in separating church and state more fiercely than the federal Constitution cannot qualify as compelling in the face of an infringement of free exercise for this case elevated the free exercise clause of the Constitution. That's good. It's also said that you cannot target religious institutions for exclusion from otherwise available programs. It noted that the state need not subsidize private education and nothing requires a state to provide for subsidies for private school, but once the state decides to do so.
It cannot disqualify some private school solely because they are religious that we been arguing that by long time case. I have luck versus debut equipment against is that case is now been severely narrowed almost mirror not narrowed out of existence.
Basically overturning in the way that they were now interpreting it. So what you got is a big win for parents in this been a big issue for us and parental choice in education that this is getting it out make sure that when states are crafting school choice laws they they have great that's solid Supreme Court precedent about making sure that they can include the full plate appeal of of of schools and again remember none of this is states saying were to send money to Christian schools. We decide to do that, the parent makes the initial choice that's very important here. That's what it's about the free exercise clause, a violation of the phrase that this is about the parental choice node forces states have school choice programs we certainly support them with the ACLJ in Maine. It was a necessity because there were just not enough schools and some these rural areas that were close by, and yet they still were trying to exclude parents from being able to make the choice to send their kids to religious schools that maybe the school it was the closest school to them that the least amount of travel time made the most sense in Supreme Court 63 said no that the liberal justices that not happy about this. We packed the break here some of their absurd statements, but they just don't love the fact that the free exercise clause in the First Amendment is meeting something again at the US Supreme Court.
Take your phone calls you have is 164 31 Secco so give it a big victory possible states of religious liberty victory so will say it's a it's really a victory for school choice, because ultimately it's about parents deciding where they want to send their kids because we know that these programs have are popping up all over the country summit had that some states had of her longtime other states are just starting to tinker with it with how to set them up what they're always looking to is not having a constitutional crisis by setting up the school choice programs for the Supreme Court has again clarified for the second time in two years, first out of I was sought out of Montana now made that if you set up the school choice programs you cannot exclude religious schools from the schools that parents can choose from right.
Remember it's not just say were to fund religious schools is saying the parents to get the voucher to get the tax credit from the government for that, for whatever reason, the state has decide to set up a school choice program that you cannot exclude religious schools or violates the U.S. Constitution and specifically the free exercise of religion which we have seen over time.
For many decades meant very little to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, they would overlook that part of the Constitution can go to other provisions of the Constitution, but for the last days, three, four years without this new life we breathe into that, to the point where was the liberal justices are taking notice injustice, optimize dissent, she said she wrote in 2017 and 2017. I want to understand what she's talking about here. While the serious issues retail within the country and that this report deals with is a playground case, a play Playground reimbursement program to make playground safer. The state of Missouri so what is, of course, was a church playground. She wrote in 2017. I fear that the court was leading us to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment. Today, the court leads us to a place where separation of church and state comes a constitutional violation site you see the anger there. I like to put in the context of her anger started because it what the church playground to be at the same level as a public school playground safety, what would you think the kid playing on the playground or who falls on the playground cares about the doctrine. At that point of their age of where they fell or easy. Their parents were really my idea of where it's safe but that's where it starts with that. That's how insane they are on the on these issues and in their either commitment to the idea of separation of church and state over actual constitutional protections like the free exercise of religion.
So the court said we have repeatedly held that a state violates the free exercise clause when exclude religious observers from otherwise available public benefit. That does not sound like a difficult concept to grasp. But yet the Supreme Court are we. I'm litigating this issue for decades.
I think I got it right now and were getting the right framework when you cannot penalize the religious school simply because they have a sectarian base. I think your precisely correct and I think the progressives on the United States Supreme Court are precisely wrong. They failed to understand that this particular decision issued by the United States Supreme Court arguably advances religious freedom why because the money follows the neutral or independent choice of the parent. It is this program at least, as amended by the United States Supreme Court does not advance religion, but the progressives failed to understand that. So if you look at Justice Breyer's dissent. He argues that this particular decision advances religious strife. He is completely wrong. He's got it backwards.
It advances the concept of neutrality as opposed to religious strife and I think at the end of the day the American people will agree with it. Their version of neutrality. Though the dissent is inconsistent with the left side of the court. Their view neutrality is exclude religious adjustments that may help you neutralize will treat everybody the same neutral. They believe neutral, as you disqualify the religious advocate. This way the government is neutral as to religion, but here's what the Chief Justice is been used issued by John Robert, signed by all five of the conservative justices while a state may not subsidize private education which can compel a state that subsidize private education.
Once a state decides to do so it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious. In other words, free exercise clause does not allow a burden to be placed on the religious participant simply because they are religious.
That's important point out yet again, this is just it's it's up to the parents here is a hair was talking about this is that the states they were in favor religious schools or are you the ideas to really like this way, why is it okay for the non-sick. The nonsectarian private schools to get the money in the Senate. This is not about this is an idea is it the left doesn't like school choice in anything that could be a barrier to school choice programs they support. This was a bear. This idea that if we open this up as a good recent constitutional fights with take all the way to the US Supreme Court because in some areas. The only choice that people can have is is potentially religious schools or they might shoot want to choose religious schools, and so we just won't have a school choice program.
The Supreme Court is make it clear and clear hopefully don't have to have another constitutional crisis whether it striking down the blade amendments with fairness which they have been doing this for a couple of years which which were anti-Catholic amendments put out an 1800s that started and now we start to see really the opening of school choice a while what the left wants to make it out to the end of this is favoring religion. This is what this is doing is hurting teachers unions exactly right in the major teachers use grief because people say you know that the choice to choose that at best and probably not the public schools, but that what if they have a choice of some other schools, including private schools, it might not be religious at all. The court also said by conditioning the availability of benefits in that in a manner that the state main Constitution does like the program, finances, and Trinity which is a previous case effectively. This penalizes the free exercise of religion.
So another Terry if you exclude the religious institution simply because a sectarian meets all of the other accreditation requirements.
The Northeast Association of colleges and schools yes check that box has the significant curriculum that they needed check that block. But the fact that they were religiously affiliated meant an automatic disqualification. In my view is here and I know you've written about this. I have two is that kind of targeted discrimination is exactly what the free exercise clause was designed to prevent. You are precisely correct J.
Many progressives claim to support the nondiscrimination principle, but in reality they opposed the nondiscrimination principle when it comes to either religious schools, religious institutions or religious instant individuals. So I think at the end of the day.
If you look at this particular decision by the United States Supreme Court upholds the principle of non-discrimination which means that religious institutions, religious parents. They are treated the same as other individuals and groups and I think at the end of the day.
That is what neutrality means but keep in mind that the progressives on the United States Supreme Court. They are not neutral.
They oppose any form of religion within the public square.
They assume that Christianity on one hand is a majority religion but then they rightly point out that there are 100 different religions in the United States. So in reality there is no majority religion in the United States and some neutrality commands that we treat every single person equally within the meaning of the free exercise clause of the Constitution when you point out the disappearance choice issue, which is totally correct.
Your for the court said as noted in a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations.
The independent choices the independent choices that would be the parents of private benefit recipients does not offend the establishment clause, and the court goes on to say that they had in previous cases held that interest in separating church and state.
More fiercely than the federal Constitution and not qualify as compelling in the basement breaking the free exercise clause of this idea that what they could argue the state constitution gives more church state separation.
Thus, you could exclude religious groups. The Supreme Court finally, by the way been arguing this for 40 years finally closes at hole and said no no no estate Constitution cannot be used. We had this in New York with a number case I litigated this report.
Estate Constitution cannot be used to override the free exercise clause, which again sounds basic supremacy clause, but it took this opinion for the court to get there. That said, this is discrimination against religion. The main program is very clear by the US regard to Kelly's call very quickly in Arizona online. One hey Kelly, my reading of the Constitution separation of church and I thought the Constitution and the government shall not let religion a person.
So whenever they keep saying separation of church and I do not read that in a competition and I feel entered after the Constitution is the separation of church and state. The idea though judicially is certainly in our last and there's eclectic, there's a good way of looking at it and abetted over over the top way of looking at a bad way of looking at advert too many decades it's been the Bad Way, Supreme Court is use that to just keep religion and treated totally separate from everyone else and now it's true to say in order to establish the church of the United States. If you have a program like this you can exclude religious people, religious schools write back to secular great victory in the US supreme choice for religious liberty, and I give you a question like you to continue calling one 864 30 which it was very clear from the Supreme Court in their decision today and the opinions are written are the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. We've uncovered this a letter I sent June 17 from Democrat members of Congress in both the Senate Mark order in the house as well pretty well though Democrats on this letter to the CEO of Google. We read this to you because if they can get the FBI or DOJ to do it. They want the companies to do it themselves and force their ideology right this out to the sea of Google right today regarding disturbing new reports that Google has been directing users to search for abortion services toward antiabortion quote fake clinics, also known as crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers without any disclaimer indicating these businesses do not provide abortions and seek to steer women away certain health decisions in the wake of the leak Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe versus Wade defied these reports especially concerning would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter goes on directing women towards quote fake clinics. The traffic in and out of this. Their favorite word miss information and don't provide comprehensive health services is dangerous to women's health and undermines the integrity of Google's search results. That is a couple things a player. Google is a private company, companies, and these organizations pay to be listed higher up in a search result you can pay Google when you do your ad program to save someone searches for this. I would be in a listed here or they search for this from the state or from the city put me here that's just that's just capitalism at play that and and freedom, but they are different. Put this pressure on Google. Let me tell you, I don't feel good about where Google is on this address the problems of Google. You gotta make sure that they don't do what they are to be by nature wanting to do which is to stifle these crisis pregnancy and let me make it clear pro-life crisis pregnancy centers for women are under attack. We been litigating this for three decades. We litigated multiple times at the Supreme Court. CC has been involved in these for over two decades. We are fighting this aggressively, but this move and again on what you said Jordan, using the word miss information about Christ Springs center generously and on the state level.
Some states are trying to do the very same thing closing down misinformation not Satan not referring for an abortion that they'll say that you have to put up on your they tried this yet to put up in your clinic where you can go get an abortion compelled speech, one that the sprinkling I states, but now you got the Senate and the house trying to basically pressure Google and unfortunately Jordan says he knows what Google will do to go after these clinics once again.
So with multiple avenues of attack you and proud abortionists always try to denigrate CPC's every chance they get. That's why they try to calm fake clinics and and I always think they say that okay you want to talk about a fake clinic. Let's talk about planned parenthood are not planning any parent head at Planned Parenthood if you want to talk about that clinics these are clinics that help women to provide resources for them throughout their pregnancy free of charge. They do good work and are at the forefront of this battle, saving babies lives and that is why Pro abortionists are after them on every level. You have Jane's revenge that is targeting them physically, but with an violence and vandalism in everything, but then you also have now Congress going after them trying to not stop anybody from now until crisis Springs and you have them under attack with using firebombings, vandalism desecration, but actually blowing up the insides of these clinics and wears the Department of Justice in this matter.
Carlos over and keep today talking about war crimes, which sounds high and mighty, but we had a few problems in United States should be paying attention to detail but nothing other partner justice on this zero. Now we can tell… It all and again use at over 60 attacks. Five firebombings in the group that is responsible for this is putting out statements. Jane's revenge like Cece said, and there say that it the attacks will only increase in their intensity and will be worse and so if you're predicting what is worse than firebombing at night. What's firebombings during the day when people actually there it's it's potentially harming people or even taking a life. The violent level so we again Eagles one thing when you spray painting. It's another step with its arson behavior firebombing at his fish and we are continuing to make those threats.
This is just the beginning of the end there's telling us crisis producers shut down rewarding you or else and this is why think the letter from the rivers of Congress is encouraging this kind of behavior because they call it these pro-life crazy sinners centers of misinformation. I can somehow bad for abortion fake clinics there fake their misinformation and so what group they want their asking Google to do is of course a if Google will not take action to prevent antiabortion fake clinics from appearing in search results. So if you can't be a pro-life pregnancy sitter that exist in a Google search results. Please if you won't do that leads to the second favorite misinformation will Google add user-friendly disclaimers about the script quickly listening to everything. What steps will Google take to limit the appearance of antiabortion fake clinics were so-called crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results Google ads and on Google maps. When users search for abortion clinic abortion pill or similar terms like abortion, I guess so they want those they want the pro-life side censored out by the private owner of Google. That's what they're asking for. Absolutely. And once again it's because these crisis pregnancy centers on the front lines and they post a huge threat that bottom line.
They save babies lives so people are going Planned Parenthood to get the abortions actually give them information. It's not misinformation when you Planned Parenthood you get no information they don't want you to have the information about the baby on inside of you and said they these you got Christ Springs sinners. You get the information and they don't want that this is all part of the very orchestrated attack on the pro-life movement and it also emanates from the disclosure of the Supreme Court decision. The draft opinion in Dobbs and now what you seeing happen and I believe this is part of an orchestrated plan. The harassment of the justices at their home which America was done nothing about the desecration and firebombing of crisis pregnancy center clinics which the Justice Department McGartland done nothing about and now the House and Senate putting pressure upon Google to stop these crisis pregnancy centers from even appearing in Google maps.
We think about that for a moment that this is an orchestrated attempt absolutely will after that Dobbs opinion was linked people saw the date the proportions saw the writing on the wall. Ralphie Wade was a bad decision.
There is no constitutional right to abortion that again does not mean that Riddle leaves it are sent back to the states, but there is no constitutional right to abortion and and the left and the Pro abortionists are freaking out and they're attacking every way that they can they justices CPC's and any manner that they can shut this down.
They will if they're knocking to get the right decision and out of the Supreme Court there and take it directly to the states and to the crisis price.
Pregnancy centers that are saving these babies consider tried to use big tax to censor her life. Speech to to shut down the ability for pro-life crazy sinners to advertise which a lot of times you're paying admitted almost all the situations display princesses are spending resources they have fundraisers so that they can be in those advertising spots. Everyone realizes that through Google that that the things that come up there if something actually Sarah adds right off the top. The people pay for than others again of a software people are clicking what people again are paying for the searches. But see, they think if they can't silence the speech legally as the government they want these content platforms like Google to silence the speech or the we can allow that to happen, the United States of America with the standup speech that includes Pro life speech even in the face of the threat of violence or torture ACLJ and ACLJ.org. Back for decades. ACLJ is been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena.
The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work become a member today ACLJ keeping you informed and now is Jordan secular security approval to 164, 31 to accomplish party hit what is the case at the Supreme Court yet again the second time in two years in a series really since 2017, of significantly state funds available to schools are that Scooby school choice program or voucher program.
However, the state sets it up. You cannot exclude religious schools. That is a violation of the U.S. Constitution that was clear in the opinion today.
The course is the case is Carson versus making a 63 decision and it says there is nothing neutral about this is that a mains program.
The state pays tuition for certain students in private schools. So long as the schools are not religious, that is discrimination against religion.
So the idea that all schools are okay except for religious schools has fallen again at the US Supreme Court. The second issue diagnosis attacked by members of Congress, Democrats on pro-life pregnancy centers sending a letter to Google CEO asking that CL and Google to start implementing a shutdown basis silencing of those abilities for those pro-lifers assist advertising Google search Google search engines and also to put disclaimers and they of course. While there is violence against these pregnancy centers occurring across the country. They use terms that are very nasty about them. Calling fake abortion clinics a misinformation that you said of course the key word there difficult to begin about other school choice case live in Washington state online to Halo call.
Thank you. Happy that the correct agent regarding both typed out to include paper-based education and am wondering if parent will be able to get back that they recently paid for their related ethical that literacy is illegally behind his interest is a good question selling main. The court now held that the parents should have been today apply for reimbursement. I think I think there's an argument that can be made that they were wrongfully denied a benefit depending on the statue limitations. I probably can't know what remember what this does not do this doesn't compel state to provide for private funding for enough personal funding for private education. It still doesn't require school choice, but it's as if you have school choice. You can't target the religious program for exclusion wanted to do is make it easier for states everyone these cases and eventually going to be another one that might be different challenge of this was been so clear. But it so that states that want to influence culture strips have a clear roadmap in Waseca to be a federal violation, especially youth their state laws to their state laws that might save the permit and have now been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They can move forward in implementing a full on school choice program that doesn't exclude any schools it doesn't exclude private schools of whatever their sectarian a nonsectarian one of their religious beliefs may be this is again this is been going on this report. Really relook at this is 2017.
A very similar case in 2020 out of Montana and now his son made it and made it was really a situation were made had no choice. They did not have enough public schools in rural areas to service their their constituents so they could not abide by what they have to actually get a provide their their citizens taxpayers by law. So they wanted to have the school choice program but they wanted to exclude religious schools so they included private school since they picked up that even the public school. Your choice of the.
The charter school you choice is everything included private schools and less the religious. That's what the Supreme Court said no that violate the free exercise of religion is unconstitutional. I think this matters very settled. The left is is everybody but should be a green light then for your states if you don't have school choice programs to create those who gotta work with your legislators to get those in place, but now the be no prohibition for religious faith-based institutions.secondary schools elementary schools and gardens from participating in these programs and that is a great decision and a great outcome and it limited in case we had luck versus baby significantly which is causing a problem space value 20 years ago, but they really limited the scope of that. So that's all very good.
The ACLJ as well penetrate ACLJ.org available to talk Wednesday on the broadcast rented a lab report from ACLJ Jerusalem the Israeli government has fallen in the Knesset, they were able to put Nicholas together with me still be another election in Israel could be a different prime minister reverted Jeff Bell about my office in ACLJ Jerusalem, the soreness in the neck. Some of the broadcast is that you write back the challenges facing Americans or substantial time and are now more freedom in certain constitutional rights are under attack is more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades. ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you for your thoughts.
Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ some international news. We know you care about and again to get some the details there in Israel coalition government has fallen inside the Israeli Knesset, so there is was that we likely there's going to be another election in Israel for the election in three years, which would determine the makeup of the Knesset and that then determines the makeup of who was ultimately prime minister who can put together coalition. We have ACLJ Jerusalem, our office in Jerusalem or join now pricier counsel who runs at office.
Jeff Balaban from Jerusalem and Jeff just right away. A reaction this was a coalition that was from the beginning, people are even surprised it lasted a year because it went from the for the first time had an Arab party as a member and had some leftist parties of members so very right wing parties as members, and a fairly young prime minister, but it is now fallen. Yes, it has fallen, and in fact she described was a very strange coalition people did not believe would last that long because it wasn't just edited Arab parties in it and right wing parties and people Israel has a number of parties as both Jews and Arabs in the party that are well integrated in this case were talking about parties actually have supporting Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood and to have right-wing figures like the filling minute jointly parties are so extreme.
People really didn't think it would last of the workshop and what seems now is that the governing coalition that pushed for the selection because they know that is collapsing and it seemed to try to push to have this done quickly so that the €10 doesn't have a chance to pull together a new governing coalition. So because becoming understand this is not Israel's system of government is not likely not. It's not a constitutional republic. So it's coalition governments, which is very similar to UK system and those could fall apart, which Andy, that's exactly what happened but it's not a constitutional republic know it's not a constitutional republic and this is not for example like to party Republicans in the United States.
It is more like the British system, but even more so because you've got multiple multiple parties beyond just stories and can then labor and Scottish national is you've got as Jeff pointed out multiple parties minute and put together a coalition of the leaderless aid ideologically diverse parties and it seems that their eyelid alluded geological diverse nose and diversity was being united by their dislike of Netanyahu yes so that's what kept them together with that's not a basis upon which to keep the government together was the major Jeff what it meant your butt over there Odyssey Leonard office in Jerusalem. What was the major issue. I know there were security issues. I noted with economic issues that cause this coalition to fall apart. Really, what year effort came together the combination. First of all is against the backdrop that we have in America also have a general malaise financial malaise economics aren't as good as a little coronas back and that's causing some issues that never helps the governing party major issue seems to be that it is in fact it has been for many years. Now a referendum on beating the Tanya and the right wing which some members of which is achieving under Beatty stronghold thought maybe they could branch out on their own, but with the gun.
It seems many believers actually unite the right ideologically center-right did not like this alternative were very comfortable because of some of the parties that were involved in so again it's really the governing coalition. It's trying to push this as quickly as possible because they said that at this point Beatty can now pull together coalition of Israeli Zionist parties that are uncomfortable with what's been going on here for the past year. What is is is what people predict and I know you can deliver the outcome of how elections might come out effort to govern. But is this what Israelis expect to happen is that our audits are there very familiar with former Prime Minister Netanyahu. They expect that this will usher in his return. Most people I speak to I would say are hopeful. They were not happy with what's been happening until now, even though as everyone is saying they were surprised it lasted this long will notice I think is more security talk and security isn't always negative is also the Abraham according Beatty care integrator for the Abraham Cordes ending continue to bring great benefit to this country and will even see how this plays into prison violence trip to Saudi Arabia that will be interesting as well, but I think that people know that despite internal political mechanisms that Andy was talking about and the personalities that tend to drive coalition politics. There is a view of Israel as a Jewish state that has been somewhat if not abandoned, and damaged by the last year and and they would like to see that maybe reforms as a result, the question is, did their time deceiving on the time to assemble a coalition among these fascist parties and see when this Vanessa comes up with you tomorrow. Jeff, you said that it's probably for five coalition members.
You peel off that would form a majority for Likud to take the lead in the form a government. What is that timeframe where you have to do that and second part of that question is, has there been any indication that there is movement in that regard.
So unless something happened in the last few minutes and you may have. It was still up in the air whether this could happen as soon as tomorrow and that's what the current governing coalition is going to quote the election usually opposition trust would topple the government.
Here is the current government coalition, knowing that Stacy is probably on the way out in the to give it a little more time can pull it together. Coalition is calling for Devon as quickly as possible and maybe as soon as tomorrow as quickly as possible to deny needed actions to ask you the fact that former Prime Minister Netanyahu was and is now under charges being prosecuted for whatever allegations that stem from his tenure in office.
Do you think that that lessons his likelihood of being able to cobble something together before the elections or do you think that that just doesn't have an effect at all say it's the opposite.
I would say that what most people are satisfied that it would be sent along that there's no there there to those charges and the factors that could be helping him now that people feel like this is political, and he did not get a fair shake and they don't like what was done to him. So even people who might have a problem a year ago with you now. You would think to me as if he had not Israeli but bigger make Israelis or to make the decision. But when you have an administration which is opening up the try to reopen that the Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem and taking the steps again taking more anti-Israel position at international institutions that you might want to bring them back a stronger leader… So this kind of it was seen as a kid with a fragile fragile coalition but some of the world knows the world deals with including major world leaders because I think we sought to Jeff. There was a misstep very early on by the current prime minister to get not judging there and about him, but trying to be a broker between Russia and Ukraine is a country of 7 million attempting really out front and that and it is even that damaging some of Israel's credibility early on. I think that probably Israelis want to move past that.
I think that's actually a point that he gets exactly right. In other words, there will be made, no doubt by by bedside and others who would be in coalition with that in the lesson parties you don't want to see it return to the kind of fractious existence between the Israeli government under Beatty Netanyahu antidemocratic what America knows is a lot of tension more than tension between Barack Obama as President and even is in euros per minister. In fact, Pres. Obama's reviewing the latest BD very directly in the sense that you will see that again we need America here in Israel. Well the other sense is you said Jordan it's more the overwhelming sense of the street hearing and also people in the know that Israelis would on here that they want a leader with a true leader who put Israel's interest first around the world. They know the CD feel the warm, warm, and productive pieces happening in the Arab world with Israel. They want to see more of that.
That really rested. Beatty not with anyone else. Jeff if there is a actually BB cannot pull this coalition together in this interim.
When would the election be as requested by the systems, located closer multiple votes and so it may take three or four months. So there's an election and then you visit. I would have to form a government so is right now is everything David so much and is right now how quickly the current owner is able to push forward this if they can actually happen immediately. There hoping that the night is an outside chance that hoping the other night Beatty the chance to put together coalition but the truth is I haven't heard anyone able to think of a scenario is any coalition it's not babies, so it's almost like two conflicting things very hard to imagine pulling together right away but there is a sense that the right-wing parties and the centrist parties are united, they don't like with a catalyst year and so listen Beatty's best best with his back against the wall and people who are in the Beatty care seem optimistic and people were of the Zionist camp tend to feel that they will send the right Which is most of the country. Center-right if you will get there hopeful that Beatty would put out the Benjamin is been a strong leader for Israel for a long long time between multiple comebacks. We work with them and then in our defense of Israel at the international criminal court.
We also saw the Golan Heights declaration that I the privilege of being with Mr. Netanyahu when that was signed by Pres. from South some great drums are gently appreciative, brought forth in Jerusalem is late at night.
They're not interoffice but I was earlier in the day. "CAC LJ has an office operating in Jerusalem support the work ACLJ.org back to seventh investigation is that everyone is facing on a daily basis. Here we talked about a lot on this broadcast but present by on the beach having to respond to a reporter's question directly about the oil prices about inflation about their commitment to the green new deal because this administration is.
It sits on the one hand, said they wrote the nasty grams to the oil companies you're not refining enough oil, while the same time. They say they are committed to ending the fossil fuel industry. So why would that that industry spent more resources to bailout the by the administration and and also why would that be a good decision for their shareholders. An economic good economic decision.
Here's present. By this is, yesterday, on the beach take Alyssa because we say this is done intentionally to punish you.
Maybe it's got another control, but it was done intensely.
They wanted the prices to go up they wanted this to happen. This was intentional policies that have just gone out of control to close the present by I'm working with put together the same time my dear mother seven for thousands of who have before we have a chance here to make a fundamental here's what so disheartening about this in my view is number one. I grew Jordan. Jordan said this earlier in broadcast weeks ago that this energy crisis was to be utilized to make this pivot. Now the problem is most people can afford the 60 or $70,000 for electric car. One to his nonelectric power stations enough of them to keep people actually on the road. That's number two number three there screaming at the gas companies to produce more mother telling him at the same time reporting you had a business in 2 to 5 years. So these inconsistent messages of recent gas around the corner from here is $5.99 a gallon so the mix messaging here Harry is incredible but they at least disclose that there can use this crisis to make a pivotal turn. I think that is precisely correct. So what the Biden administration is trying to do is to drive fossil fuel prices up higher and higher.
They keep talking about. For instance, electric cars, they talk about wind power. They talk about solar power. All of those things are unreliable, even electric powered cars are driven by what largely fossil fuels. So 70% of the electricity in the United States is generated by fossil fuels, and so I think at the end of the day the Biden administration is doing nothing to boost international supplies of oil complete fertilizer and other crucial, commodities depleted by all sorts of events in the world. He's doing nothing to increase the supply of goods and services from China, which has engaged in an economically damaging coded 19 containment policy. So at the end of the day. Biden sees this as a moment of transformation and the transformation will cost the American people more and more dollars and it will threaten. Ultimately, the employment of many Americans going forward one of the things I said to watch out for them. What's going on in Ukraine and Russia.
In that conflict is an edit in a day and of course Joe Biden blames the gas prices proves increase but there's a little music came out over the weekend is not getting a lot of attention, but I think is potentially very very very dangerous, and that is Russia has made threats against Lithuania a NATO member because of actions. Lithuania has taken Col. West Smith is with us.
This is all ties into the energy issue. What exactly has happened on this and what what did Lithuania allegedly do that because his reaction to what little Lithuania has done is they have blocked all rail shipments that go through Lithuania going to Kaliningrad.
Kaliningrad is a territory claimed by Russia that has no border with Russia is is on the Baltic Sea. And so it's important to Russia. They actually have nuclear control deck to Leningrad as I can tell by rest. Russia yet and as a matter fact their Baltic fleet where their big naval fleet in their headquarters is in Kaliningrad. They have nuclear capable missiles into Leningrad so they have depended for all these years on rail service, getting supplies in and out what Lithuania has done is they have gone along with EU sectors.
They didn't do this on their own. The EU sanctions certain materials from being brought out of Russia exported from there. It includes coal metals construction material Advanced Technology and so that's what Lithuania has done rail service with passengers include still goes every day from Russia to Kaliningrad, so it's not a total blockade and Lithuania has a way to have the legal right to do that yes I checked and so they actually do their part of the European Union and under that charter whenever they pass legislation every country supposed to abide by that they have no formal agreement on the rail service from Russia to Leningrad, so they're simply going along with EU sanctions of it.
Let me just as the third day, the next question so that the legal right to do it Lithuania. There, NATO member, how dangerous of the move was his pretty brave because as you and I both know great dangerous yes it could be Emmy in the past. As you enough talk in the 20th century.
Acts like this created wars right you take this combined with Russia not letting any grain exports out of Ukraine. Those two issues are strategically less important than what happened at the start of World War I.
This is the problem.
Join with all of this is that you got the situation with the actual buying saying what you know. Yeah, we got this oil prices gas prices going through the roof.
People better get used to electric cars carry rightly says were not really ready for that you got the battle with Putin and and Zielinski in Russia and Ukraine in the Lithuania do something they have a right to do say no not working aboard abide by the UN. They EU sanctions but the cost of that in previous decades could've literally started World War III. Yeah, I think, again, this is something not getting enough attention because this is where it's it's costing the US a lot of money to buy the ministrations blaming everything on this, but what everyone would be most concerned about is that what would trigger a potential more US action Western European action, including the weathertight troops are pilots are aircraft all that ended that the fact that there does not seem to be a resolution in sight at all about what's going on Ukraine and it did with the idea that Ukrainians were pushing back strongly gets Russia that is true, and that is continues to be true, but Russia has succeeded in many ways it just as they don't succeed in the ways we usually defined in the West because of the loss of of life they've had lots of troops that's is how they fight and so they they will take a tremendous amount of losses but they are still waiting, technically on the battlefield and right. You mention the situation with the lack of the ability to get grain out of Ukraine and other materials. This can have a devastating economic impact for the rest of the world, absolutely.
So we are already experiencing grain and food shortages throughout the world and it's important to reemphasize of Jordan's point.
Russia is actually winning this war even though it's coming at a very very high-priced so as we drive up fossil fuel prices.
Guess what we are fueling Russian success in Ukraine and they sanctions that we have imposed on Russia. There, backfiring the cost of sanctions are being paid for by the American people by 30 seconds. Is Russia winning the war they are wearing Ukraine down and yes slowly they are winning the war. The jury still out, anything could happen, but they are wearing Ukraine down folks, you know, the analysis we give illness broadcasts as well as the ability for us to engage in these issues is because he hears the AC okay until you've heard from our experts around the studio here, you heard from our head of our office in Jerusalem. This happens because of your support of the ACLJ.
Let me encourage you to do that it ACLJ.org also set up a new 501(c) fourfold ACLJ action but ACLJ action.for $25 one time your member