Today on Seculo, a Department of Justice bombshell. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Seculo. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments.
Or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Seculo. The Department of Justice not holding back at a 65th anniversary event. The Department of Justice and Assistant Attorney General, Vanita Gupta, said that because of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision overturning Roe, quote, dealt a devastating blow to women throughout the country, that there's an increased urgency of the DOJ's work, including enforcement of the FACE Act to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services. You know, here's the interesting thing. So the Fox News headline I find absolutely fascinating. It says, DOJ officials admit targeting pro-lifers in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. So if you read the actual text of what she said, she said, earlier this year, in Dobbs vs. Jackson's Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow, as you said, to women throughout the country. This is what she said. Taking away the constitutional right to abortion and increasing the urgency of our work, including the enforcement of the FACE Act, to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive rights.
Now here's what's interesting. Taking away a constitutional right to abortion. Well, that's incorrect, because what the Supreme Court said was there was no constitutional right to abortion.
So you should be accurate what you're saying. There were four prosecutions of cases involving the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act in the last four years. Until now, there's 20, or more than 20 this year. So the government has decided that they're going to target pro-life speech. Listen, we had lawyers at the ACLJ up outside of Pittsburgh on a crisis pregnancy center that had been targeted by Jane's Revenge for arson. And if I remember correctly, the FBI is investigating that one.
So we're starting to see a little bit of movement on those. But there's been, and Christopher Wray said, 70% of the actions on violence on the abortion issue have been committed by people that say they're pro-abortion. And yet not one of those people have been arrested. And we've seen 21 people be arrested out of the 30% that they say is targeted at abortion clinics and pro-abortion organizations. So 70% of the violence targeted at pro-life, and like pro-life pregnancy centers, and yet not a single, not one arrest in those cases. That to me shows, again, when you have a speech like this in the Department of Justice, it is not equal justice under the law. This is not equal treatment under the law.
No, I mean, it's clear that this administration is bent on the idea that they are going to do whatever they can to push the abortion agenda forward, even to the point of dusting off from the shelf, so to speak, to the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act. And like I said, we challenged it earlier in the 90s, and then it kind of stopped being used. And they would go get trespass actions and things like this, but now this is back.
Why is it back? It's back because the administration lost at the Supreme Court of the United States. Let's just be honest, they lost at the Supreme Court of the United States.
The court said there was no constitutional right to abortion. So this idea was kind of a legal fiction in the first place. But I just want to make this point. I mean, at the ACLJ, we are fighting for life every single day. So when that clinic up in, outside of Pittsburgh, was being contacted by the FBI to find out what Jane Revenge did to them, two of our lawyers, Ed White, Frank Manion, went there to meet with the FBI and our client. Why?
Because we want to make sure that these investigations go forward. That doesn't happen without your support. So I want to encourage you, if you haven't done so, Jordan's going to let you know how to do it.
Go to ACLJ. Folks, this is where we are. I always say that when we get to the 15th, we're a day away, it's the most important two weeks of the ACLJ's life for the year.
We are two weeks and two days away from that, or a day away from that. Your support makes a huge difference. Jordan's going to let you know how to do it. But folks, if you can donate, we appreciate it, ACLJ.org.
Absolutely. We have a matching challenge right now at ACLJ.org where you can double the impact of your donation. That's an ACLJ.org. And what that means, if you donate $25 at ACLJ.org, we have a donor that will match that $25. So it's effectively a $50 donation to the ACLJ.
We know times are tougher right now and people are questioning inflation, the up and down economy. So if you've got to cut back on your amount, this is a way to make it up because you've got a donor ready to match that donation. So if you've got to cut back to $15, make that $15 contribution online to ACLJ.org because you're going to be triggering another $15.
And that's like $30 for us at the ACLJ. Donate today. All right, welcome back to SECIO. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. What do you think of this double standard at our nation's top law enforcement, the DOJ, and they're celebrating the 65th anniversary of the Department of Justice, which shouldn't be a good thing except for at their celebration, they're saying, you know what, we're going to target one kind of a group. We're not going to target the group that's responsible for 70% of the attacks in the post-war world, which is on pro-life pregnancy centers and affiliated groups.
We're going to focus in on the pro-lifers and those who are either they are peaceful protesters or they are pamphleteers outside abortion clinics. And of course, we've got two of those cases right now at the ACLJ we're working on, and they want really strong enforcement of what they call the FACE Act, something that back in 2021 was only used four times. They've already used over 20 times this year. How many arrests have they been made? How many announcements have they made about pro-abortion activists who have fire-bombed pro-life pregnancy centers being arrested and charged? Zero. There have been no giant press conferences with the FBI in their jackets and in their suits and ties with the DOJ, going on stage with their logos behind them, saying we've arrested these four or five individuals.
Zero of those events. Yeah, so Andy Akon was senior counsel for the ACLJ, former US attorney. The headline in Fox News, Andy, said targeting, that the Department of Justice was targeting pro-lifers. Is that a fair statement? I think it's a very fair statement. I think it's an accurate statement because that's exactly what the Department of Justice, through Ms. Gupta, said yesterday was going to happen. The Supreme Court of the United States says there is no federal constitutional right to abortion. There isn't.
We don't see that in there. Justice Alito wrote a brilliant opinion. The Supreme Court has spoken, so the Justice Department, under the Biden administration, says, oh, we can get around that. We'll just hold abortions in VA medical centers. Or, in the current situation, we'll just target pro-life pregnancy centers who are giving advice to mothers who want to keep their children.
And we'll invoke this FACE Act, and we'll just prosecute and target, and that's the word, target. We'll look and zoom in on those people who are pro-life. So this is just a way of getting around what the Supreme Court has said and ignoring the fact that you've got to treat similarly situated people similarly. And that is, regardless of what your ideas are, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, you need to be treated in the same way. That's not what the Justice Department is doing. They're targeting those of us who are pro-life. It's interesting, Cece, to me is that, you know, they make, like Jordan said, they took the atmosphere of the Department of Justice, if you will, the pageantry of the Department of Justice to make this, you know, grand announcement about, you know, we're going to use the FACE Act to go after these pro-lifers. Meanwhile, crisis pregnancy centers, pro-life resource centers are being firebombed. And very little action. I mean, there's been some, which I do want to thank those FBI agents that are helping, but some is not near the correct number here.
Right. Abortion distortion is live and well in the Biden administration. Obviously, they are pro-abortion and they're not ashamed to say it. They're not ashamed to promote it.
They're not ashamed to even try and violate some rules. Like Andy said, even with the Veterans Affairs, you know, they are doing abortions and that is against the current law as it stands on the books. They are not to do abortions. But this Biden administration is going after pro-lifers and they're promoting abortion every chance they get. When you have 26 pro-lifers being charged with the violation of the FACE Act, and let me just say, a lot of these violations go back two, three years. And when these people were arrested, it was 20, 30 FBI agents, you know, coming in with guns, ablaze and basically against these, like Jordan said, peaceful protesters that some of the local agencies, the police and, and the district attorneys did not ever charge these people with any violations.
But now here comes the Biden administration, the DOJ coming and charging 26 people already this year with FACE Act violations. So I want to give you that, you know, when we're talking about the 30%, 70%, 70% of the action has been against pro-life individuals, let me let, I want you to hear from Chris Raismouth. This is from the FBI director.
Take a listen. And you might be interested to know that since the Dobbs Act decision, probably in the neighborhood of 70% of our abortion related violence cases or threats cases are cases of violence or threats against pro-life. So where the victims are pro-life organizations. And we're going after that through our joint terrorism task forces, through our criminal authorities, FACE Act and things like that.
We have about 20 field offices involved in this. And so we take it very seriously. I want to say that actually him saying that is a good thing because we were getting nothing before. And now, because I think of what's going on in the world, we're starting to get some action. Yeah. It'd be nice to see some arrests being made.
Correct. And they know who the, we found out from Frank Manion, our senior counsel today on a phone call, that they had, it's not like they can't figure out who Jane revenge people are. No, at least in the one location they were at, they've already identified people that people were making public threats.
Yeah, including arson. So I think that what we need to see is Chris Ray pushed through his bureaucracy, who is very much vehemently opposed to bringing charges against pro-abortion activists. They don't want to do that. I mean, the DOJ certainly doesn't want to do that. That's his boss. So he's got to push through the bureaucracy.
If the numbers are true, he's got 20 field offices on this, that 70% of the violence post-Roe that's abortion related is targeted at pro-life activists and pro-life activists and pro-life institutions, as he said, to organizations that we need to see arrests being made of those pro-abortion activists to send a signal that you cannot burn down a pro-life pregnancy center. You cannot go and spray paint and whatever, you know, James revenge all over. You can't attack the property. You can't destroy windows. You can't throw fire bombs through.
Can't use Molotov cocktails. And if you do, you're going to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And I think if you had a few of those prosecutions, you bring a lot of this to an end.
Yeah. So, Andy, I was going to ask you that you've done these investigations prosecution, what should be the next step? They've identified 70% is aimed at the pro-life groups. What is the next step though? Well, the next step is to go around and find out, as Jordan alluded to, who these people are.
And that's not so difficult to do. I believe the FBI knows the FBI has all the capabilities of finding out who James revenge people are. There are mechanisms now that can identify exactly the perpetrators. You arrest those perpetrators. You take them before the grand jury. You indict them for the crimes they have committed, whether they're federal or state crimes. In this case, federal crimes would be applicable and you prosecute them and you see that they go to jail so that the message can be sent that we are not going to tolerate violence against pro-life groups. That's what you do.
You take action. You don't sit around and have endless investigations. There's one clinic that they haven't had an arrest in five months. Why is that the case? I believe it's not because they don't want to, or they can't. It's rather that they can't do it.
It's because they simply don't want to do it. That's not on the agenda of the Biden Justice Department. But, you know, it's on the agenda of the American Center for Law and Justice, CC. We are concerned about it and we've taken action. I'm going to let you know in the next segment exactly on some of the cases we've done.
But the fact of the matter is, this is a core issue for the ACLJ. It has been since we've started and we're not resting on our successes in the past. We are looking forward to defend the right to at least even have a pro-life position in the public square.
Absolutely. And that goes with, you know, we have represented pregnancy resource centers or crisis pregnancy centers for decades and we continue to do so. Just like you said, um, in this situation, in situations where not only the Biden administration is going after, um, pro-life speech and crisis pregnancy centers, we see states doing that.
We see states enacting these deceptive practices law, targeting these clinics as fake clinics, the pregnancy resource centers. And, you know, we step in and represent and protect the rights of these clinics to have pro-life speech, to provide the pro-life services that they provide. And we will continue to do that. We will not back down. We won't stop.
Again, the Dobbs decision got it right. There is no constitutional right to abortion, but that did not stop the battle to protect life. And we are fighting constantly on a daily basis all across the United States and actually even the world. We stand up for life across the world.
We really do. And your support of the ACLJ becomes critical in our fight for life. And we've got cases from the Supreme Court of the United States to local city councils in Colorado.
We have cases at the international courts, including the European Court of Human Rights to a district court in Texas. All of that because of your support of the ACLJ. We can stay on top of what's going on in the Department of Justice because of your support of the ACLJ. All of this happens because of your generosity to our work at the American Center for Law and Justice.
That's right. You go to ACLJ.org, right on the top of the homepage, you'll see our matching challenge. And there, I don't want to over explain it for those of you who've been, you know, long time listeners to the broadcast, but it's important because it's a critical time of year for us in December, this final month of the year, as we plan for our future. What we're able to do come January, what resources we're able to have available. So what you want to do is go to ACLJ.org. You go to the homepage, you'll see matching challenge.
You click on that. You contribute what you can right now. I know people are in different financial positions because of the inflation and the stock market uncertainty, but again, many of you, I think, are still trying to make your charitable donations to groups you care about. We hope ACLJ is one of those groups you do care about the work that we do.
So you go there, make the contribution that you can. Maybe that's $50 instead of $100 this month. But if you make that $50 contribution at ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org, a donor is standing by ready to match it. So effectively you have donated $100 to the ACLJ because you triggered that $50 match. Now all you're charged is the $50.
That's all you're charged, but we encourage you to take advantage of the matching challenge. Donate today, ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Seculo. And folks, we encourage you, again, to support the work of the ACLJ and ACLJ.org. We have been talking about these pregnancy centers that have come under attack and how the Department of Justice is promoting the idea that they are coming after pro-life activists. Now you're seeing scenes of what's happened to pro-life pregnancy centers, which Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, said is 70% of the violence related to the post-dobs decision. So against either pro-abortion or pro-life, 70% has been about against pro-life centers. And you're seeing the level of violence there, whether it is vandalism, whether it is arson, fire-bobbed equipment being destroyed, and of course, potentially then putting life in jeopardy when that kind of violence is used. Zero arrest when it comes to the 70% of the crimes in the post-dobs era that are targeted at the pro-life community.
At least 21 arrests made of protesters outside of abortion clinics. Yeah, so that means the disparate treatment here, Andy, is dramatic. But let me explain to everybody why. I want you to hear this and I want you and Ceci to comment. This is from the Vice President of the United States. So Christopher Wray could say, yeah, we've got 20 field offices involved.
But here's what the Vice President of the United States said. As it relates to the work of attorneys general, Dobbs also intentionally shifted the fight for reproductive rights to the states. So as the chief legal officer of your state, you, because I've been watching you, are bravely defending reproductive freedom. You are taking on rightly the crisis pregnancy centers. You are taking on rightly the crisis pregnancy centers.
First to Ceci. Your reaction to that? It's it's horrific. The fact that a female Vice President could say that about these pregnancy centers that only have intentions of helping women who are in difficult situations. If anybody knows what a pregnancy resource center does, you can have nothing but just respect for them.
They are on the front lines. They are offering options. We know that most women have abortions. But she's asking the state AGs to go after them.
Shut them down. And she's doing that because she knows how effective they are. When most women who have abortions say the reason I had that was because I didn't feel like I had any other option. The crisis pregnancy centers, the pregnancy resource centers, they give those options. And when women have those options and when they see their baby in an ultrasound, they make the they make the decision to keep their baby. Why are pregnancy resource centers the targets? Because they're on the front lines and they're very effective. They're effective. But Andy, you've got the Vice President of the United States telling state AGs, I'm watching you. Go after the pregnancy resource centers.
Go after the crisis pregnancy centers. Yeah, I hear her say that. That's an intimidating statement. I'm watching you. I'm looking at you.
You're under my microscope. And then she turns around and says effectively, doesn't use the word, but she says you're doing the right thing by targeting the pro-life centers. That's really what she meant to say. Why don't you come out and say it? Because the Fox News statement of targeting was absolutely correct, Jay. That's exactly what they're doing and what they're being encouraged to do is to target pro-life pregnancy resource centers, the ones that we have been defending and fighting for. And that is the position of the Biden administration. This is not an equal protection. We're not treating the same people similarly situated in the same way. We're singling out life centers as opposed to murder centers. And we're saying, go after them AGs, go after them, let them perform abortions in VA hospitals and don't affect any arrests. I'm watching you. I'm going to make sure that you do the right thing and toe the line. That's what Kamala Harris was saying.
But I do need to say this. We sent lawyers to Colorado because at a hearing, they were only going to allow one side of the debate to be heard. The pro-abortion side and Olivia Summers, one of our lawyers went out there and successfully got the, through the city council proceedings through their chamber.
We were able to argue and successfully argue that both sides of the argument need to be heard. This is actually the hearing going on itself. And I think those are some of our witnesses, well, the pro-life witnesses testifying. We weren't even involved in the, it wasn't the ordinance itself we were involved in.
We were involved in, Jordan, just getting the hearing to have the witnesses presented. All we wanted was, initially these pro-life speakers were invited. They were invited by the council, the committee. They were disinvited the night before. All we were there to do was make sure that the pro-life speakers who were invited and the disinvited were re-invited and given the opportunity to put their position forward so that they were treated as we were talking about equally. So they had the opportunity to speak to the committee about their concerns about the issue that was before the committee.
It was all about speech and making sure that you weren't going to allow abortion distortion to carry out the day where all of a sudden, the night before the meeting, you say, you know what? Let's not hear from the pro-lifers. Let's get rid of them. We don't want to hear from them. They'll cause a ruckus. They bring protesters with them and all that.
I don't want this to be a circus is the word she said. So we'll just hear from the pro-abortion side. No, the ACLJ prevented that from happening. Yeah.
So we got a very interesting comment that came in on our, this one I think came in through YouTube. Don't women go to the crisis pregnancy centers by their own choice? And that was their decision to go there.
Right. So making the comment that pro-choice is the mantra of the abortion side, but the only choice they want you to make is abortion. And the only choice they want you even to be allowed to make is abortion. So they don't want you to be able to choose to go to a crisis pregnancy center, a pregnancy resource center, and actually find out the truth of what your decision is going to be, that there's a life inside of you, that that life is precious and worth protecting, and that there are options and people that will support you through this decision. And they don't, the only choice that the pro-choice people want is a choice for abortion.
And they're doing everything in their power to make sure that that's the only choice women hear or have. And we are doing everything we can and continue to do to stand for life. And that's whether it's at the Supreme Court of the United States, like I said, or a City Council meeting in Pueblo, Colorado, or the European Court of Human Rights, or a US District Court in Texas. We're here to fight back. Our legislative teams do that. Our ACLJ action does that as well. We mobilize. We've represented attorney generals, state attorney generals.
We've represented governors. We're going to continue to do that. Your support for all this is absolutely critical. We can't do it without you.
And as Jordan said, the mechanism is very simple. Whatever amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift for from somebody else. So I mean, we had a large gift came in the other day, it was a $1,000 gift while we were on radio. That became $2,000. A $50 becomes $100, $10 becomes $20.
I mean, the math is really straightforward. And I think you just gave it a great example of, we talk a lot of the smaller side of the donations, the $20, the $30, the $40, but for those who do donate $1,000 during the match, that's effectively double due. So if you're thinking about making a larger contribution, maybe a $500 contribution to us, that would effectively be $1,000. So it's a great time to think about supporting the work of the ACLJ and pulling the trigger to actually donate.
And again, because you will trigger that matching challenge. And it is so important for us, for the work that we do at the ACLJ.org. It's important for us today. It's important for us for us two weeks from now when we're considering, okay, what are all the resources that we have coming into 2023? Where can we add more additional teams and handle more issues and provide more services to you, our supporters? That's what we're looking at every single day at the ACLJ.
And we're basing that off the finances that are available to us. So donate today at ACLJ.org. Be part of our matching challenge. We'll be right back. Second half hour coming up with Mike Pompeo.
Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Seculo. And now your host, Jordan Seculo. Hey, welcome back to Seculo. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. Coming up in the next segment, we have former Secretary of State, our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo joining us to talk about the Title 42 protections that appear to be the Biden administration letting those go. DOJ may try to fight to keep some of those. There is this discussion about whether or not they could halt all asylum claims for a period of time. I think that raises some other legal issues we have to get into. Can they unilaterally, as the executive branch, do that? Now those aren't Article III courts, but would Congress have to play a role there?
So that's something unique we'd have to look at. So they are acknowledging that to an extent that there is a crisis. They don't want to call it that. But we saw people like Gavin Newsom come down and say, he went to the border and he said, we better not get rid of Title 42. Because you're seeing hard left, well-known Democrat politicians who are making the trip to the southern border and say, this is out of control. We better not take this power away from our border patrol agents. Well, it's interesting. I'm looking actually, Jordan, right now. This is why we're on the air.
I'm looking at the Supreme Court page to see what activity has been on this and also to check on one of our cases. Here's the fact. Everyone now knows that this is a disaster. And you got Gavin Newsom saying it's a disaster. You got letters coming from members of Congress saying this is a disaster. The border's a mess. The number of people coming in illegally that can't be traced was, I think it was at 65,000 that came in that we couldn't find.
They've just gone in a month. I mean, do that in a year and you're at 900,000, 800,000. And then of course they had 230,000 encounters. So this is not good for the country because it's dangerous. It's not good for the migrants either because it's a system that's totally out of control. But the Biden administration is having a reasoning, but politically they don't want to stop and say they're going to do this because it affects part of their base. Yes. And so it's going to be an interesting battle between Democrats actually, between the, I would usually say between Gavin Newsom realm, the world of Gavin Newsom and some of these other more liberal politicians who just oppose any kind of restrictions at all on migrants.
But he's a border state governor. And at the end of the day, he said, we got to have Title 42. I just got notification. I went to the Supreme Court website on our case, which involves, it's a huge religion case where a prayer vigil took place and people that were offended that it went on sued and their basis of suing was were offended. And I just went and we filed our final brief on Monday to the Supreme Court, our final at this stage, at the certiorari stage, asking the court to hear it.
I just got, I mean, it just happened this morning. Today, the case has been distributed for conference before the Supreme Court on January 6th, 2023, which is the next conference date, which means we could know as early as that day or a couple of days later that it's either granted or not. We could also learn that they've requested more information.
We don't know, but we're going to find out really soon. This is a huge case involved. I said this yesterday. It is true. It's the largest religious liberty case, I think, in the last 40 or 50 years, because we talked about the nativity scenes in the town squares and all of these activities. The fact of the matter is people are filing federal lawsuits because they don't like what they see, which is called, in America, the price of freedom.
You're going to hear and see things you don't agree with, but that's the price of freedom and liberty. But the case has been distributed for the conference on January 6th, which means if we got a grant, that would mean it would be argued this term. So this could be very big news.
We'll know January probably by the 8th or 9th, shortly thereafter. But this is a big development. Your support of the ACLJ also allows us to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. We got a matching challenge going on. It's at ACLJ.org. Let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org and support our work. And again, folks, that's just happening while we're on the air right now. So that's why you want to stick with our broadcast, with the live broadcast. That's what the cool thing is about coming to you live each day, is that you never know what news we're going to be able to report, even about the ACLJ, kind of insider news that you wouldn't see anywhere else. Now we come back, more information that you're not going to see anywhere else, because we've got our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, on this Title 42 mess, on the border mess, on the national security risk that poses.
So you don't want to, again, miss that. Tune in. Give us a phone call if you want to be on air, 1-800-684-3110, and go to ACLJ.org and support our work. Welcome back to Seculo. We're joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Title 42, the protection for the border, is set to expire a week from today. So Secretary Pompeo, I want to get your take on this sound from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, when he was asked about what the administration was doing to prepare for the end of Title 42 at the White House this week. It's only, again, a week away.
Here it is. Title 42 is expiring. Do you see a national security, are there national security concerns over the Title 42 expiration? So the team has been working very hard to ensure that we are taking steps to be able to manage the expiration of Title 42 and to put in place a process that will be orderly and humane. And we believe that in doing so, we can protect our national security concerns. That is a process that others can speak to better than I can. But from my perspective, the issues related to ensuring an orderly, humane migration process at the border are being persistently and constantly addressed through the interagency process.
And we are working through what the procedures will be in place at the moment of expiration on the 21st. So there's their statement, but Secretary Pompeo, I mean, they're bracing for 14,000 migrants crossing the border a day. Jordan, I'm not buying what National Security Advisor Sullivan said. There's no preparation for an orderly, humanitarian entrance of 14,000 people a day. I think about going to college basketball games at Wichita State, 10,000 people in that arena every game.
That's like a full arena every single 24 hours. They haven't done the work because they don't want to do the work. The hard work is doing what we did, putting remain in place back in Mexico, making clear to the Mexican government that you can't put these people, you can't escort them with police cars up the street in buses. That's just unacceptable to the United States of America. We're going to protect our sovereignty and we're going to protect our national security. And I've seen no evidence that the Biden administration is intent on doing it. I think what you're really seeing is, I mean, it feels more like all the oxygen free than a serious effort to defend America's sovereignty. You know, Mike, I want to ask you this and to reflect a little bit about what you all did during your time in office, but we know, and you've got the subject to FOIA litigation that we're dealing with right now, Freedom of Information Act litigation, that the Biden administration canceled Operation Talon, which was the human trafficking program, which was so effective to find out what was going on. What were those effective measures that you did when you were in office that did impact in a positive way, the border crisis, the border situation?
There were several. The first thing one needs to do is what I'll call the perception. We see all these folks, we see these long lines at the border, we see these pictures. These are people who have come to believe that they're going to be permitted to travel across the border and then be released inside the country. That is their perception.
When that happens, they call their friends, their cousins, the people that they know, and they say, this is the right time to come. And you see the magnet, the pole of the United States of America. We turned that off by making clear that that wasn't going to be the case. We came to call it Remain New Mexico. We, secondarily, we did the hard work. We enabled and empowered the CBP and the DHS officials more broadly to do the intelligence collection work to prevent fentanyl from coming across, to make sure that human trafficking was something that we took with a level of seriousness that justifies it. We were serious about creating humanitarian conditions that made sense to protect our southern border. These folks have literally turned open the gates and you see the results. You see people from all across South America, indeed all across the world, walking to our southern border. There is no evidence that they are serious about stopping this. And the things that we did for four years that slowed this migration across our border, including building the wall, those things have been abandoned instead. The policy is, uh, boy, I hope these folks will come here and provide affordable labor for America.
That's tragically dangerous for our country. You know, Secretary Pompeo, we're starting to see some new names pop up in calling for increased border security. One of those, Gavin Newsom, of course, a border governor himself, but a far left liberal governor. He's sounding the alarm. He visited the border about the end of Title 42.
He joined a couple of days. We've, we've heard often in this, uh, Joe Manchin and Henry Cuellar who have sent a letter to the administration, uh, for Democrat senators, sent a letter to secretary of mayor Orkus demanding answers on the post 42 plan. Do you think there's going to be enough of a shift that enough Democrats in the house and the Senate, maybe some of these governors too, are going to stand up and say, I mean, we've only got a week here and say, you have got to have a plan in place. We cannot deal with double the amount of people, uh, crossing the border every day. I think, I think governor Newsom's statement is pure theater. If he were remotely serious about protecting the people of his state, about doing the hard work to make sure the people of Southern California are protected from this onslaught of illegal migration, that's impacting all of their lives, right? It's, uh, it's increasing crime. It's increasing fentanyl.
It's increasing all kinds of risks for the people of California. Were he remotely serious about this, he would have said something like this a long time ago. I think he was putting that out so that you can say, well, I tried to do something. Those of us who are serious about this, know the hard work. It's not about sending letters and asking questions. It's about actually executing a border policy that does what the federal government is required to do by law and the by administration.
It's just, I don't see any evidence that a week from today when title 42 expires, that they're actually going to do that. And so what you will see is the, the several thousand coming across per day, traveling here illegally will multiply two, three, four times every day. There are reports that the administration is considering an asylum ban for a period of months to try to alleviate the situation.
Does that help? Talking about bands, remember when we, I remember working with you and your team, when we had the, we said, there's some countries here that we think we need to stop this until we figure out what's going on. And they were screaming that we were engaged in, you know, acts of discrimination.
And now the Biden administration, we're going to put in an asylum ban, not a peep on the other side, but will that help in a situation like this? Yeah. I can remember this.
I was accused of being the Islamophobia racist. Exactly. Right down memory lane. There you go. Yeah. I hadn't, I'd put that away.
Thanks for bringing it back up. If you put an asylum ban in place and actually enforce it, you could imagine that you will turn off the magnet, but they've had, they've had almost two years now to demonstrate how they really think about migration. It is, it is truly a leftist progressive view that we should allow everyone. We should have essentially opened borders that been in effect millions. I think the number now is four and a half, almost 5 million people that have come across the border in the first two years of this administration. Think about that there's 330 American million Americans, 5 million folks have come across the border in just two years.
We've never seen this and the ramifications for our society, for our country are enormous. We appreciate it. Mike Pompeo core senior council for global affairs, semi secretary of state. Thanks for being with us, Mike. We appreciate it.
All right. We're going to take your calls. 800-684-3110. Let's take Robert's call from Florida line two. It's a great question. Hey Robert. Hello. Yeah. My question.
Thanks for taking my call. My question is, is when you put in a FOIA request to get information from an agency, how can you be kind of sure that when they get that request, they don't just start shredding those documents that they don't want you to get a look at? Well, you know what they'll also do is they'll just say that there is nothing responsive because we don't know what the government has until you file the request.
It's a great question. We don't know what they have until we see the documents. And then sometimes they normally come back with, it's not, we don't have anything responsive to what you're asking for in the situation you're referencing. That's why we have to seek enforcement in court because they're not going to lie to the judge. I've done those proceedings. I've been there for those proceedings. They're not lying, you know, they may lie to us, but when they're in the federal court, they're not lying.
Yeah. And I think destroying documents is very extreme because then you could end up with, they can end up with criminal charges. One thing for them to not want to give you the information. It's another thing for these government bureaucrats to say, I'd be willing to go to jail and risk my career over this information. But, but I think, you know, I appreciate the call. And I think, listen, the FOIA work, dad, it's hard work.
It is, it is, it is. You were in an uphill battle with tens of thousands of pages of material when they start responding and you're looking at a federal government and the federal government's on the other side and you are looking through a needle in a haystack, but you know what? Every single, I can't think of one of these cases we've had where we've hadn't had a great result, ultimately finding something that's unreal. And like I said yesterday, sometimes it's just finding out who the email was from, who the email was to. Again, going back to the Twitter example, we've been at success on that.
Why? Because we found out James Baker was the FBI general counsel, got info from James Comey, sent to him and Angie McCabe. And then what happened? A guy named Jim shows up at Twitter as the deputy general counsel. It happened to be James Baker.
He was on both ends of the transaction. Yeah. Will reminded me, our producer, that one time a government agency said they didn't have anything responsive. And then another government agency gave us a document which showed that the other agency did have something. Was the FBI and DOJ. Yeah.
Yeah. And so we had to sue... I don't know which one said they did. I can't remember that, but it was like the FBI, I'm using an example, said, no, we have nothing responsive. And DOJ said, well, here's the document.
But the FBI just said it doesn't exist. That's why folks, we go to court. That's why our government accountability project is so important. We've talked about the life issue today.
We're talking about government accountability. That's where you come in. This broadcast, an hour a day, five days a week, TV, radio, social media platform, shorts that we produce, all of this. We're in a matching challenge campaign starting tomorrow. Let me tell you something, folks.
The last two weeks, that basically determines our year, how we move forward in 2023. That's where you come in. If you're unable to donate, I'd appreciate you doing it at aclj.org. Any amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift for. So I want to encourage you to go to aclj.org, support our work.
That makes a huge difference. That allows us to budget, hire the lawyers, get more productions, get you more news and information. Gets us to have our lawyers around the world and expand our outreach, which is what we want to do. aclj.org. Just go right to the website. It says donate now. Any amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift for.
That's aclj.org. We're going to be back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Seculo. So we have Senator Rubio and Congressman Gallagher have both released legislation, which would ban TikTok in the United States.
Now, for a lot of our listeners, they may say, eh, it doesn't matter to me. I don't use it, but let me tell you who does, your kids and grandkids who use it exclusively. It is owned by the Chinese. There was a deal made back when it was about to be shut down by the Trump administration to open up a US subsidiary. What we've now learned is that still that US subsidiary has to have a back end available to China where the Chinese government can at any time they want access any information, including going right to your TikTok, tracking you, seeing what you like, don't like, putting information in for you. In China, this is used as a propaganda tool by the state. Here, it's more entertainment based, but there's also been some politics at play. And so the big question is, one, will the US government ban TikTok? And two, should Americans almost enforce their own ban by just deleting it?
Yeah, I think that's probably right. There's bipartisan support actually for this. And that should be a wake up call to a lot of people. For me, I was on TikTok and I feel like it's important in our world that we deal with media that you're always on top of whatever trend is happening. So make sure you're on it. What you do learn very quickly is you start getting fed content that even if something shocks you for half a second, all of a sudden you're getting that being served to you immediately. And it can be pretty graphic. It is what it is. Like you said, it's definitely skews younger.
The main difference, and it was sort of the wake up call to me in all of this. Obviously, people like Rick are now saying, delete it off your phone, deactivate your account, which I did. After honestly thought, and I enjoy a lot of the entertainment aspect that comes from it. I've found a lot of great entertainers through TikTok. But when it came down to the fact that in TikTok or in China, TikTok is for children, it's limited, a very limited amount of hours you can spend on it.
I think it's like maybe less than an hour, hour and a half, something like that. And the content that they serve to their own people is all education based. It's medical, it's experiments that you can do, science experiments.
It's almost a school system in the version of art, engineering, mathematics, that kind of thing. Now, the version that we get in America is the exact opposite and it's all entertainment based. Now, here's the big concern. I think it's going to be true for all of them. Do I think we may have lost a good portion of voters because they were highly targeted during the midterms during the midterms using TikTok?
Yeah. So I think that there's a huge, huge amount of voters. There's the one thing Republicans failed is they are horrible at impacting and working with influencers.
Terrible at it. Explain what an influencer is. A social media influencer, someone who actually is on there talking to younger people as a large following, I'm sorry, larger following than all of your Fox News hosts combined to a lot of these people. So if you don't activate those people, and guess who did activate them? The Democrats. Guess who was hanging around the White House and they're being made fun of. The influencers.
They were being made fun of by the conservatives and not that their content wasn't worthy of being made fun of, but it worked. And that is the big concern. Sure, I think that this platform probably as much as they either need to do one of two things. Either it needs to be banned or the American subsidiary needs to have an aggressive amount of rules put upon them and it needs to be shown. Look, they did it to Parler.
They've done it to Rumble. They've done it to YouTube. They've done it to Truth Social. There are regulations in terms of these social media platforms that the app providers have. Okay, Apple, time to step up and say, it's time we actually throttle this a bit. So, cause I do think it's a valid platform if your privacy can be protected.
I was going to ask you that. Is there a way for the United States to create its own TikTok so that we could, so that kids would still have the same, you know, you could still have the same ability to become an influencer, which is a, which is a part of the economy now. And people could get their news that way, entertainment that way. I mean, the other platforms have started to roll out similar features. I mean, obviously Instagram has reels. We know it trends older.
It does. Facebook trends much older. Instagram trends sort of our demographic. And then TikTok is the next level down, which is your teenagers, your high school and probably early college at this point. And you really need those people.
You do need to figure out, so yeah, is there, there's ways, sure. There's always ways that I feel like it was some of the Snapchat group moved to Snapchat was there. I feel like the people who originally on, I remember Twitter owned the, the six second videos you could do on Vine.
That was sort of one of the beginnings of that. A lot of that rolled into what became TikTok. The difference is in this one, it's not run by Elon Musk. It's not even run by Mark Zuckerberg. It's not run by an American based company. It is, I don't think we can ask anyone who owns TikTok. And I don't know if anyone in our control room, anyone would know the name of the person, at least we know the name of the person who runs Facebook.
You know, the name of the person that now owns Twitter. And we did before as well. You knew who was controlling, knowing that there are, uh, political action is a member of the CCP, right? And there's deep political actions happening inside of it.
So yeah, I think it's important right now. I don't, I, I'm never the person saying delete this from your file. But I did it. I deactivated my account. I, one, I didn't find need in it personally. I think it does skew probably for me personally too young. Uh, but I did find good, good content.
There are people creating great content. Uh, it's unfortunate. This is what it comes to, but I like that there's bipartisan support. Cause at least it's, it doesn't just look like a Trump talking point, which it did for a while. I think right now it's being viewed as a national security. Yeah, it's really is. It's an easy way, especially if you're a high profile person, uh, so politician and you have this on your phone for the Chinese government to get into your phone.
I mean, that's pretty, I mean, think about that very easy. And then they have all your basically giving them full access to your phone when you, when you go through even the terms of agreements that you're signing on to because that's how they target. How do you think your, these apps know what kind of music you like and what kind of clothes you might buy and what kind of what team you like. Some of that's based off what you like. True, but not all of it.
Well, here's what it's based off. What else is on your phone? What else you're searching for?
You're talking, who you're talking to on the phone. Are you searching for right now? I'm looking at a truck. So I get tons of truck. I mean, truck sales. If tomorrow I was looking for a jet ski, I'd be again, just use examples of jet ski company. I bet a lot of just by saying that out loud, we're going to get it. Well, I was going to ask you this. How long will it take for you to get the jet ski at?
So the band's getting ready to do the year-end concert, right? So I wanted to learn, there's a tune that we do by the British rock band in the 1970s called Bad Fingers from Apple, you know, it was an Apple band, first Apple rock band. And you know what happened? All of a sudden I got served every conceivable thing you could come up with. Documentaries.
Because you searched for it. Yes, exactly. About the band Bad Finger. All I wanted to was hear how the drummer played the tune. Or you listen to it on Spotify and Spotify shared that data. And then that is all sort of one web of things. I'm trying to see how long it takes to get my jet ski at.
I mean, I'd probably know. Well, again, breaking news in the sense that the Supreme Court has in fact distributed our case for conference on January 6th of 2023. That's good news that we got it in for this term. It's going to have the repercussions on that case are dramatic for religious liberty and religious freedom. I think if the court grants for you, I think it'd be the biggest religious liberty case probably in the last 40 years. It would impact... Oh, all those cases involving the atheist organizations, all those cases involving the nativity scene. It makes me sick. It makes me disgusted to see the 10 commandments.
All of those would be changed. It's dramatic, folks. Your support makes all this happen, whether it's the information we just gave you about a social media app or whether it's the Supreme Court of the United States. So we're in a matching challenge and it is serious right now, folks. We're done in the last two weeks and a day for the ACLJ.
Your support makes a gigantic difference. We encourage you to go to ACLJ.org and any amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift for. So you go to ACLJ.org, you donate $50, we get another person donating $50, it becomes 100. So the ramifications are very serious for the ACLJ and that's how we do our budgeting for 2023. So I want to encourage you to go to ACLJ.org right now, support the work of the ACLJ, which includes this broadcast and all the information we have available on our social media apps, on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and of course our friends at Rumble who always put our program front and center. But again, it's ACLJ.org for the matching challenge campaign. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2022-12-18 08:52:27 / 2022-12-18 09:13:50 / 21