Breaking news today on Seculo as the Biden administration signals the next public health emergency. 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 federal government and the bureaucrats behind it, you know they love the federal emergencies that they can declare because then the laws go out the window and it's whatever they say you have to do. The legal challenges are very different as well. And this time around, it is a federal public health emergency declaration on abortion. They want to declare through Javier Becerra at HHS an abortion public health emergency that would free up resources, that would mean your taxpayer dollars, to help people access abortions.
Now there's a huge problem with that already and it's just politics because there is the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment prevents federal dollars and taxpayer dollars from actually going to pay for abortions. Now Planned Parenthood has that set up where the accounting set up where they say the money that we get from the federal government we don't utilize for abortions. But the federal government coming right out and saying this is for abortions, they say somehow that they're going to make it easier to travel. So if you're in a state with a lot of abortion restrictions, they're going to make it easier. I don't know how under federal law, with the Hyde Amendment in place, you could possibly say you could pay for someone to go get an abortion. That's not paying for the abortion. I mean, that again, this is going to be something you have to stop in court.
And we think it's something that we could potentially stop before it's even started. I think you can get a preliminary injunction and here's the reason why. The Hyde Amendment, which has been around for now 30 years, specifically states that you cannot use federal funds for accessing abortion. That would include funds from the federal government given to the states to be used for travel for people to go to states that have abortion laws, so they call it destination abortion travel.
That would be a violation of the Hyde Amendment. So I think what you do, and I know we're looking at this already, is prepare to go to federal court. Because what you can do is get what's called an injunction, like a temporary restraining order, but here you'd want it to go more than 14 days.
TROs are only good for 14 days. A preliminary injunction could go on for months. Get a preliminary injunction, then get declaratory relief. What declaratory relief means, you get an injunction in place saying you can't use the federal funds to give to the states for this abortion activity. And then the declaratory judgment comes in and says we declare that what the federal government is proposing here or is doing is in fact unconstitutional or violates statutes. And here it would be a statutory violation.
So that's how we're going to handle it. But it's interesting that they're seeking an emergency because they will also, I guarantee you, they will start regulating even further the pro-life resource centers, of which we've got our team working with them from coast to coast right now. Because they're already being regulated or attempting to be regulated out of business.
Yeah, I think again, this is something you have to, this is where the Biden administration wants to go though. Declare an emergency to kill unborn children. Because it's not easy enough right now in the United States or in some states. And so they want to make it easier for abortion travel. We've seen some states do this. California's talked about doing this, but they're not bound by the Hyde Amendment the same way.
Their state funding would not be, and their state taxpayer dollars would not be bound by the same federal restrictions that are in place. So again, it shows they're doubling down on this issue because politically they think this was a winning issue in the midterms. And I think they were probably right because of the way that they cast it, which was not we're going to sit around people to pay for abortions. It was, you know, if you have a miscarriage you're going to have an investigation because are you responsible for the miscarriage somehow?
You know, there's a lot of bad misinformation, but they stick, they also embrace this idea that they're not trying to say it's not a life anymore. No, it's interesting also, the federal government's overreaching on the abortion issue. We're going to talk, coming up, an acquittal on a pro-life protesters case involving the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act in a jury trial.
And he was acquitted. So we want to talk about that. But this is where I talk, and they brought in their lead face Free Access to Clinic Entrance Act litigator to do it. And by the way, we're going to use the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act to protect pro-life resource centers, crisis pregnancy centers. And we've got a case being worked on right now.
So we'll get to all this. We'll take your calls as well. 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. What do you think about this attempt to create a health emergency on the abortion issue? That's what they're talking about doing. 1-800-684-3110. Hey folks, as I've said yesterday, and we'll say it again today, if you enjoyed this broadcast, support the work of the ACLJ.
That's how we keep it on the air. ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment.
Hey, welcome back to second. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. You know, in a high profile move, the Department of Justice decided after local prosecutors, the DA, to go after a pro-life sidewalk counselor. Remember, this was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This incident was that the sidewalk counselor got into a verbal dispute with a clinic employee.
There was no one being taken to the abortion clinic. So this clinic employee, and they call him Escorts, goes up to this pro-life sidewalk counselor. He's got his child with him, starts cursing at me using really horrendous language in front of the kid. There's like a little scuffle, small scuffle. So small that the local DA say, we're not taking this to court.
This is like a pushing and shoving thing with two adults. But who decides to take it to court under federal, you know, this is a federal law, a federal violation. Merrick Garland made a big deal about this. We're not going to accept this.
We're not going to allow this kind of behavior. But they had to go before a jury. And the jury knew it was a pushing and shoving and a guy's son getting cursed out. People put themselves in the shoes. They always say, do that.
If you put yourself in those shoes, your kid is getting cursed out, you might shove someone. Well, here's what happened. I mean, first of all, the Free Access to Clinic Entrance Act was designed to stop mass protests blockading access to abortion facilities. That's what it was designed to do. We litigated those. There was questions of whether it was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Then it went dormant for a long time.
I mean, I would say probably two decades. You barely heard about it. And then all of a sudden the Biden administration, you know, resurrects the statute and starts using it. So they hit multiple cases. You had Pennsylvania, you had Tennessee, other cases, I think, outside of D.C. And they brought in a free access to clinic entrances DOJ team to deal with this. That's how serious they took this in their fight to preserve abortion.
Yeah. And, you know, what Jordan pointed out and it's true is that the local government was involved in this case, which happened several years ago. It wasn't just recent. And so, you know, when this whole scuffle happened, the police were called. They didn't find any assault or battery charges. I think the escort actually filed a court case and that case got thrown out locally. And then the escort didn't even show up to prosecute.
Right. And so now after after a year, a year and a half has passed, then the federal government comes in and says, well, we're going to go after this guy and we're going to send our FBI agents all armed, you know, with their guns pulled to his house to arrest him. And thankfully, when the jury heard this case and actually the facts, they realized he did not commit any crime or violate the FACE Act. And so what we're doing also, we've got a series of cases representing crisis pregnancy centers, both on regulatory issues where they're trying to be regulated out of existence, but also where they've had damage by Jane's Revenge and groups affiliated with Jane's Revenge. We did have a meeting with the FBI.
Our lawyers were present in that meeting, participated. And now it looks like that particular pregnancy resource, and I don't want to go into great details of it right now, but I think we're going to be filing a suit utilizing the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act to go after these pro-abortion groups that are trying to destroy these facilities. Yeah, and I think this is key because, again, we have to, I think as a movement, determine now, we've overturned Roe vs. Wade, the battles now in the states, and when you take those battles into the states, you've got a big business fighting for survival in the abortion industry. They've got a lot of resources still available to them, billions of dollars a year.
We've got to fight back, and you have to fight back whether it's utilizing their own laws against them, whether it is saying, you know what, this time we are going to actually file a lawsuit. And we've seen a change in that amongst pro-life groups, and we're the attorneys, but these pregnancy centers, they're on the front line, literally. Because if the Biden administration declares this health emergency, right, even if it only lasts for a few weeks and it gets stopped in court, who do you think that they're going to target as the bad guys? The bad guys in this are the pregnancy centers. Yeah, exactly.
They will be violating some kind of public health, so they'll treat them as if they are the missing disinformation, which we already know they do, but under some kind of federal emergency, which who knows what they'll try to do under that. Right. Because every time they say, like for instance, and we were going to talk about this with Jim Jordan, the school board issue, and that issue, when the DOJ said, okay, we're going to cooperate with, you know, with Jim Jordan's committee on this. They didn't say to protect the rights of parents.
Do you know what they said? To protect the teachers. To protect the teachers and the teachers unions. Right. That's who they want to protect.
Not your constitutional rights. So what's interesting here is the Biden administration has made a conscientious decision to go after crisis pregnancy centers, to go after pro-life protesters. And it was a lot of pressure we put on them to get at least investigations on this activity that was going against what we're calling the pregnancy resource centers. And what's interesting in all of this is that the government had to come to this kind of kicking and screaming, although they had to acknowledge that most of the violence is against the pregnancy resource centers.
Yeah. That was what was so ridiculous is they had publicly acknowledged that it was the pregnancy resource centers that were getting the attacks and actually having these face act violations. And yet they were not going after any of the Jane's Revenge people that had attacked these pregnancy resource centers at all. And so now we're seeing that. We can also say Jane's Revenge operates in the shadows. Yes, they do try to operate in the shadows and they try to be this just generic group that kind of pops up everywhere. But you can find out who these people are. It was an actual individual that came and firebombed, you know, one of these pregnancy centers. So you can find out who these people are and we've seen that now they actually are doing that, that the DOJ has gone after some people in Florida.
And then as you said, we have a case also. So hopefully the tide will turn and hopefully they've gotten the message even with this case in Pennsylvania that they're not, that the juries aren't going to find these people guilty. But Jordan, if they declare a health emergency, which is what they're planning on doing, a health emergency on abortion, they're going to be, it's going to be nefarious. They're going to be up to no good.
I mean, whether it's going to be, however they're going to utilize it, it's not going to be good. No, I don't think it'll just be trying to divert resources. I think it'll be trying to go after pro-life speech. So anything that, because if you declare that this is an emergency and some kind of a top issue, I mean, treat it like COVID, right? Remember how they went after speech like that.
You were kicked off social media accounts. You were shut down just by, anytime you questioned the government, even just questioning, you were, you could be totally deplatformed. And we know, unfortunately, when it comes to the abortion issue, big business is behind Planned Parenthood. Look who funds Planned Parenthood. It's all of their non-profits. I mean, some of the biggest non-profits in the United States, biggest foundations in the United States fund Planned Parenthood.
They all have major corporate ties. So they would have no problem again if they could, under a federal rules, kicking you off, deplatforming you, saying you can't get ads, you can't get ad read, all those things for being pro-life. And so I see the bigger nefarious issue is not paying for someone's travel to get an abortion. It's going to be trying to shut down pro-life speech. I think it's fair to say that they will try to shut down pro-life messages.
I don't see that as a stretch at all. No, and in fact, the statement that they made is, we are constantly exploring additional actions we can take to protect and expand access to reproductive health care, including abortion care, and are prioritizing the actions that can give us the highest impact and most durable solutions. And that would absolutely be going after the pro-life pregnancy resource centers. So they're saying it, even though they're not coming out and saying it explicitly, they're saying it, and what they're trying to do, expanding and protecting, they will hit the pregnancy resource centers.
So it's multifaceted. So you're going to have the, we're going to go after the speech, so we're going to stop the speaker on the street because we're going to use the most intimidating tactic we can, the free access to clinic entrances act criminal provisions, which make it a felony. We're going to go to people's houses, we're going to go in there with SWAT teams, we're going to go in with those SWAT teams with our guns in front of your kids, and we're going to say, you know, you're under arrest for violating federal law and you're going to go to jail for 11 years.
That's one way to do it, okay? The second way to do it is take the people on the front lines, crisis pregnancy centers, pregnancy resource centers, and say to them, you're engaged in fraudulent and deceptive trade practices, we're going to now regulate you, and in California they try to regulate them out of existence. We won that at the Supreme Court in the United States, by the way. Then you're going to have the pro-life speaker, like Jordan said, whether it's the sidewalk counselor, whatever activity they're involved in, and that's going to become subject to, you know, additional legal action.
We've already seen it. We're going to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on that case. We just won one at the Sixth Circuit. So all of these cases are coming simultaneously, so it is an attack on life, and what we have to do is respond but also be aggressive, not wait to just be responsive here, and that's why we're about to take major action on a major case we're about to file.
You can't just wait and take it. You've got to initiate proceedings as well. Yeah, and I think you've seen this even defending this gentleman in Pennsylvania, hopefully the fact that the jury said absolutely not guilty, that sends a message to the DOJ and the Biden administration that their plan to attack pro-life people, pro-life centers is going to backfire on them. And you only accomplish that by taking action and standing up and defending them. All right, we're going to take your calls when we come back from the break at 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. If you like the work of the American Center for Law and Justice or you find this broadcast helpful to you, it stays on the air because of your support, and we want to encourage you to do that today at ACLJ.org. Donate to the work of the ACLJ, that includes the litigation, but also there's a lot of you watching this broadcast right now and hundreds of thousands of you listening to this broadcast right now. Support our work, which keeps this on the air on your station, on the social media platforms, wherever you're finding it. And I encourage you to do that by going to ACLJ.org. And also, follow us on social media as well.
You do that at Jordan Sekulow, at Jay Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at ACLJ. Great way to stay engaged with us on all of our media applications. We'll take your calls and comments when we come back from the break.
1-800-684-3110, talking about what's the most important issue to the American people right now. This is interesting. We'll get to that when we come back from the break.
Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Stanley in California on Line 1. Hey, Stanley.
Yes, thank you for taking my call. I wonder if this is not a good possibility for your organization to file a suit for malicious prosecution in case regarding Mr. Houck in Pennsylvania. It seems to me that it was an outrageous case, the way he was treated, and totally maliciously, and I wonder if you could handle that. Well, it's interesting that you say that because malicious prosecution cases are very difficult. The burden of proof that you'd have to establish in the civil case to get a jury verdict would be very difficult. And remember this, it was not like nothing happened there. So I would say if there was no altercation, it would be a stronger case for malicious prosecution, but there was an altercation. Now, Mr. Houck said he was protecting his son, and evidently the jury agreed, and that's why he was acquitted.
So I think the victory here is the acquittal. Now, like I said, we're taking the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and we're going to utilize it for pro-life resource centers that have been targeted by groups like Jane's Revenge, because in the description under face, it doesn't say abortion facilities, it says reproductive facilities. Right, reproductive healthcare, which crisis pregnancy centers, pregnancy resource centers do fall under that definition.
And of course, it's never been used for that before. It's always been used to protect abortion clinics, but these pregnancy resource centers are covered. And what happened after the Dobbs leak, all these centers being attacked, being firebombed, being vandalized, being threatened, those all fall under this act. And so there are prosecutions and ways to go after Jane's Revenge and the perpetrators of those acts. And Stan, so you know, we're doing that.
I mean, we're getting ready to, we're working on filing one right now as we speak. Jordan, an interesting issue, and that was Gallup, which is a very respected polling agency, said what's the most important problems facing the country today, and the answer was? Leadership. So it wasn't the economy, it wasn't number one, but it was basically that everything is being managed poorly. And so what's interesting is inflation was number one for most of the past year, but 21% of Americans said that, and it was 15% who said so last year, so it's gone up. So the fact is, people I think say, wait, is it really just inflation or is it just this is all being managed poorly, which is why we have inflation, why we have war in Europe, why we have all these issues is it starts with the leadership. It's not just one-offs.
So I think that it's probably all of those things combined. It's that we're still talking about where are we economically, and we don't really get a clear indication of are we coming out of this, are we back into this. They just announced today they're going to end the COVID emergency in May. That's a long time still.
Five months. And so they're going to come up with another emergency, which we talked about already, which was an abortion. So they don't really want to give up those emergency powers.
That's interesting. That also affects immigration. Yeah, I was going to say, they want to get rid of the COVID restrictions in May, which makes sense.
And then at the same time, they're saying they're not going to apply Title 42 on the border because the COVID pandemic is over. I mean, this is where the lack of trust. Let me give you another little lack of trust that's not getting as much attention as it normally would, although I suspect it will be in the next 24 hours. The FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, went into the office of the now President of the United States, then President-elect of the United States. Well, actually, he was President of the United States at the time. It was November of this year, this past year, and searched his office for classified documents. This has never been disclosed. It was about the same week that Merrick Gartland appointed the special counsel against Donald Trump. This is where the lack of government transparency, lack, and that's why we've got a FOIA request to the National Archives under expedited review right now. Yeah, so remember it was, we found out that it was a week before the midterm election, November 2nd, when Joe Biden's private attorneys notified the FBI that they had found these 10 documents at the Penn Biden Center. Now we know that about, maybe, they said mid-November, so I mean days after that, the FBI was in that office looking for more classified documents. So that the first time the FBI went to a Joe Biden property was not his home in Wilmington last month. It was, or this month, it was, they went way back in November and still decided to appoint a special counsel against Donald Trump. This is when Merrick Gartland leadership questions, you put a weak attorney general, it ends up backfiring on you, and it can backfire on Joe Biden. Because there he goes, knowing this information, he said let's do a special counsel on Trump, which means he knew he was going to have to appoint one eventually on Biden. Of course, of course. So my friends on the left, this is what you put in the Department of Justice, this is what you get.
But here's what's also fascinating about this. The, and this puts the, look, the White House spokesperson, Karine Jean-Pierre, I feel, listen, she's in a very tough spot. You can't, actually you cannot blame her, okay? That's not fair. You gotta blame the top.
There has been, you've had the FBI execute a search warrant on a former President's house, the FBI now in the house and office of the current President of the United States, and the FBI in the vice President's house, the former vice President's house, looking for documents. Now, think about this for a moment. Lack of leadership. But then you put in place a mechanism with the special counsel, and you know, getting that cat back in the, is not easy, and getting that toothpaste back in the tube doesn't happen.
The cat doesn't go back in the bag, and the toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube. I mean, this is, you know, they unleashed a whirlwind, to quote Chuck Schumer, and they're having to pay for it. And the White House is not even admitting, like you're saying, lack of leadership and transparency. You know, when the FBI went into Biden's house, that was the first time the American people thought the FBI had gone anywhere. But now we're just learning. Now, we're learning, oh no, the FBI actually went back in November at the Penn Biden Center. And so, again, lack of leadership, lack of transparency, the American people do not trust this administration.
And Jordan, remember this also, and this is important to remember. It was last, was it Friday, that it was acknowledged that if the lawyers representing President Biden did not agree to the search of his home, they were getting a search warrant. Yeah, they were going to do the raid.
Yes. I mean, and so, again, we now know that Joe Biden has been going back and forth on this. I mean, since the first week of November, he said the FBI going through, we talk about how unprecedented this is, that you have the FBI going through the homes of the former President, the current President, former, I guess, Mike Pence, that's happening fairly soon, if it hasn't happened already. So the former vice President, and then announcing from National Archives that we may go after Obama and Bush.
And Carter, all the way back. When you create this bureaucracy that is insane, these Jim Comey-type individuals who think they're the god, that think they're the actual leaders, not the elected officials of the United States, this is what you get. This is why we said the bureaucracy is out of control, that the deep state became forward-facing under Trump. They came out of the shadows, if you will, to reassert their authority. We've seen this throughout our history before, where the FBI has been out of control, and we've had these leaders that are way too powerful. They're unelected. That's where I get to the issues. These are not elected bureaucrats controlling our federal government.
But here's the thing I wanted to say. In the last segment, we were talking about the life issue, and I told you the ACLJ is filing a lawsuit on that one. And we won on the cases at the Supreme Court of the United States involving the attempts to regulate out these crisis pregnancy centers. On this one, we've already sent the FOIA requests into the National Archives and have received, are receiving expedited review. So there you go. Do we have to eventually go to court on that?
Maybe. But I'm just saying, on both of these issues, the ACLJ is there. Support the work of the ACLJ also if you enjoy this broadcast. ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. If you're listening to us on radio, Sirius XM. The website, if you're listening to us on Rumble or Facebook or YouTube, wherever you're watching this, support the work of the ACLJ to keep the broadcast on the air at ACLJ.org.
That's ACLJ.org. We'll be back with the second half hour in just a moment. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Seculo.
And now your host, Jordan Seculo. Breaking news on President Biden's, in the investigation by the FBI into his mishandling of classified documents as Vice President when he left office. Even going back to his time as Senator, which starts in the 1970s. And they've, we know that early November, about a week before the midterm elections, his private attorneys, and we were always confused, there's still not an answer there.
No. About why they were going, because they said it was boxing it up, but you don't send lawyers to go box up things that were already in a box. They knew something was up. It was after the stuff with Trump. Yeah, it's after the Mar-a-Lago raid, obviously, over documents. Which, by the way, they were also in conversations, just like the Biden team, with the FBI. But they decided to throw that out and get a warrant from a judge who had previously recused himself from another matter involving Donald Trump because I think his wife's involvement with Clinton's campaign. So, anyhow, we know that the FBI was there a few days later.
We did not know that until today. The FBI, people need to understand. So the FBI was at the pin by a sitter. Searching the office. Searching the office.
For documents. In November. About almost the exact same time that Merrick Gartland appoints a special counsel on Donald Trump. He knows that there's a document issue, same kind of issue, going on right that moment with the current President of the United States. He sends the FBI in, does not disclose any of this to the American people.
No one does. And we're finding out about it two months later. Colonel Westsmith has handled classified documents. Not like this, I might add. What's your reaction to this latest?
You know, this is very, very rich. Notice that whenever this happened at the Pinned Biden Center, there were no media there, unlike what happened with President Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. And two things really bothered me about this. One is that they held on to it till the midterm elections were over. But the second thing that continues to trouble me and many Americans is that the content, whatever was in all of these classified documents, that the White House and Merrick Gartland still refused to share what was in it with the Senate Intel Committee, where Democrats and Republicans are concerned that, you know, was there anything in it that impacts national security or methods and sources? And to this moment, the White House refuses to correspond or speak with the Senate about this. You know, they initially said, remember when the stuff at the House, they said, oh, it was just three topics, or the Biden Center, actually, the ones that they voluntarily found.
It was the United Kingdom, Iran, and Ukraine. Pretty sensitive topics. Since then, we've heard crickets. Nothing about what's actually in these documents. No.
Even topics. We didn't know until today that the FBI had even gone to the Pinbine Center, so did they find more documents there? That's a question we don't have an answer to, so we know that the original attorneys found tin. But then they decided two months later, that's a question, too, for the FBI, why so long to then go look at the home? Well, that's a good question.
Two months. And they haven't looked at the, as far as we know, they may have, but we don't know if they've looked at the Delaware home yet. The Beach House.
The Beach House. So they went to Wilmington, the main house, and they said they were going to other properties, too. So I'm sure he has storage. I mean, he's got to have storage facilities at this point.
But Merrick Gartland, attorney general, unleashed the FBI on the former President of the United States' home when he knew the same issue was not only pending, was happening in real time right before him. That's a lack of leadership. That is a lack of leadership. He has painted himself into his own corner. Unbelievably so.
Yeah. And truly, truly, there are uneven standards of justice and fairness under the law with the head of the DOJ. Well, I think this goes back to that poll. It's the leadership issues, like a crisis of leadership. It doesn't feel like Joe Biden's in control. His kid is under FBI investigation, who's not a kid, but, you know, you already start there. I still think this is where it all begins. And they just don't want to acknowledge that because they've tried to keep that out of, they've tried to keep Joe Biden separate from Hunter Biden very much.
It's been very hard to do that. It seems now, the only reason they would be in these documents. He's put his address, Hunter Biden put his address, that property. And he already had the FBI going through his stuff, so you have to, where's the crossover?
At some point there was crossover. Oh, 100 percent. And that's, I would imagine why he said his attorneys started looking through documents. It may not have been for classified documents. It may have been what's related to Hunter that we possibly have on Burisma and all that.
And some of that would have been classified, likely. Sure. Burisma, Ukraine, the oligarchs that there was the, the prosecutor he had fired, that the poor Shako government to the Linsky government. They didn't really trust Linsky early on because he was like this comedian who had, kind of more similar to Trump. Yep. No political background, played a President on TV.
In a comedy. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Cenk. Here we take your phone call to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Here we go to the phone. First Kevin in California, online one. Hey, Kevin. Hey, Kevin. Hey, thanks for taking my call. Sure.
You're absolutely right. The last comment you made. It does go back to Hunter Biden, I believe way back in the beginning. What do you have is the President of the United States and then vice President of the United States, alluding with Russia, China, and Ukraine, peddling influence, the nature of what they actually got. What was the prequel, the quid pro quo? What did they actually give the Russians?
What did they give them? And I believe that is what they found now with investigation with Biden back in November. Then to obfuscate it, now you have to do what they did back in the beginning. We know Hunter's done something. Let's make it look like Trump is colluding with the Russians. Now we know that we found something with Biden, President Biden. Let's make it look like we found something with Trump. I mean, find something.
His son served on the board of a Ukrainian oil company called Burisma. I know a little bit about this because we handled this in the impeachment. So here's what the problem that the Democrats have. Now, I don't think the Republicans will do this, but they have cheapened and lowered the bar so much on the issue of impeachment that this could become an impeachable issue.
I'm not saying it should, by the way, because I think what they've done here is they've cheapened the impeachment way outside of what the founders ever intended it to be. But it just goes to show you that this stuff is that out of control. Now, can I shift gears for a moment? Okay. A four-star general issues a memo saying, and Mike Pompeo has been talking about this on the broadcast a lot.
So it was Grinnell. Concerns about preparations for the next conflict, the next fight, he says, Wes, is China. This is a memo that is actually dated today or tomorrow and it's being released.
Yes. And in this memo from this four-star general, he is head of the Air Mobility Command for the United States Air Force. He has thousands of troops and thousands of airplanes under his command. He not only says, you know, we will go to war with China, he's very precise.
He says, we will go to China in the year 2025. Predicting a war in the timetable of a war, as someone has said, is a fool's errand. And I understand his sentiments, but a general's job is not to predict war. A general's job is to prepare for war. And the Department of Defense immediately distanced themselves from his memo, which was leaked out.
He sent it to all of his subordinate commanders and they say that is not DOD policy. But the real concern, and this is where the general sentiments and his concerns, I think, align with most Americans. And that is, you know, his job is not to predict war, but to prepare for it. And the United States is woefully unprepared for any kind of conflict with China. Has the conflict in Ukraine impact our preparedness?
Absolutely, it has. We live in a world where we have not only Russia's aggression in Ukraine, we have Russia's aggression in general. We have Iran's aggression towards Israel. We have the potential for China to invade Taiwan, our ally. And while all of this is going on, we are critically short on a lot of weapons platforms and ammunition because we have sent so much of it to Ukraine. Our inventory is lower than it's ever been. And in most cases with our arms and ammunition, the production in the United States has not picked up to replace these items. We should be right now, and I think this is, the general didn't say this, but it's part of his concern and it's implied there, right now we should be on a war footing as far as production goes. We should be preparing for a major conflict. And we are absolutely at this moment not doing that.
I want to read the first paragraph of this thing. This is going to come from a four-star general in charge of this command. He says, I hope I'm wrong. My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. Xi secured this third term and set his war council in October of 2022. Taiwan's Presidential elections are in 2024. The United States' President elections are also in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi's team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025. We spent 2022 setting the foundation for victory. We will spend 2023 in crisp operational motion. Building on that foundation, if you want to know what the operational motion I demand looks like, look at what the total force team Charleston did in January.
Then he says, commander's interests go faster, drive readiness, integration, and agility for ourselves. This is the first of eight monthly directives for me. You need to know I alone pen these orders. This reads very bizarre. Now I'm not a military person, but it does read very bizarre. Is that how these things are written? That is, his format for military memorandum is precise. I've used that same format many, many times. It's not the format, it's what he's saying. I mean, it sounds a lot like- Is he in a position to say this?
I'm not questioning anybody. Yeah, yeah. I don't think so. And that's why the Department of Defense distanced themselves from his statement.
Again, I go back to this. The bottom line is we're not prepared for war with China, and this general knows it. But you cannot- Well, then he's sending a warning sign, I appreciate that. Yeah, but you cannot go outside of the chain of command, especially when he's not one of the 11 combatant commanders. He is a four-star general.
You can't go out of that chain and precisely predict the year that a war is going to start. I respect this general, who I personally do not know. He's a graduate of Auburn, for you Auburn fans, ROTC.
But on the other hand, while I respect him, I think this is the kind of thing that he has been all he can be, as we say in the army, and this probably will be his last assignment. You know what's interesting? Mao Ning, who is the China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, this was a speech he gave yesterday.
Now, you need to listen to this. It must be pointed out that the US cannot ask for communication and cooperation while interfering in China's internal affairs and harming China's interests. The Taiwan question is at the very core of China's core interests, the US side should never attempt to cross this red line.
I mean, it's a warning sign from the Chinese. And this four-star general is not the only senior officer that has alluded to this. The chief of naval operations in his Senate confirmation hearings just last year said that war with China, the potential for it could come sooner than we think.
So he's not alone, but that precise prediction may come back to really bite him. In the meantime, China is spending billions and billions of dollars building up their military and our DOD budget is pretty staggering. Can I ask another question here? It's no disrespect, but if this is really the plan of action here for fleet forces, why is this public? Why do we have a copy of it?
I mean, seriously, why would I want that when the Chinese government is threatening us, if you cross the red line of Taiwan, you know, you're going to be in a conflict. And I've got a general saying, this is what we're going to do. I mean, no disrespect to the general, no disrespect for the Department of Defense, but why do I have a copy of this? It reminds me of, oh, these are classified documents, except you go on, you know, and then they're not. This is the kind of thing that should be classified if he's going to say it. And on the other hand, it's the kind of thing in my military experience, and I certainly was not a general officer, I retired as a colonel, but this is the kind of thing that my commanders would say to us in a meeting, in a skiff, and tell us- Different than sending this out to everybody under your command. You know, when you send a memo out, it's going to go public.
I don't get it. Well, I also think too, part of this buildup, because this is not, it's trying to go after Taiwan. It's not China bombing the United States. So it's whether or not we come to the defense of Taiwan, which we've said we would, but do we make good on that? And I think that's a two year conversation with the American people right there. You'd have to start prepping Americans now on why we go to full scale war with the Chinese. And he used the word, defeat China. Think about what that looks like, 1.3 billion people.
I mean, what does that even look like on paper? What does that mean? Does that mean a regime change? Does that mean defeating the communist party? We're not putting military troops on the battlefield in China. No, no.
Okay, can I ask another question here? Do we know that this is real? I'm serious. I know it's getting covered everywhere. We know this is real.
It's being reported as real by major news sources, not just fringe sources. Because let me tell you what subsection C says, okay? All commanders will acknowledge this order directly to me immediately. This sounds like... Then report all 2022 accomplishments preparing for the China fight and forecast major efforts in 2023 through the command change by close of business, February 28th, 2023. That is how memorandums sound in the military.
It's just that you don't normally predict a specific date for a war. So we've got a guy, a general, sending out memos on, here's our war with China. This is what you're gonna do.
And I've got a copy of it. Yeah. And he's out of line, I think. Okay. I mean, he's probably a great guy and he's served the country and we should appreciate that.
But something's askew. Let me just put it that way. When this kind of stuff is out there, because we don't want a conflict with China if we can avoid it. No. And even to respond to any kind of Chinese aggression, we are so dependent on China as far as goods go, no matter what they do.
Every medicine you're taking? Yeah. Our response to China is gonna be limited and that is our own vault.
Yeah. I mean, every car you drive, every phone you use, again, I think if you were gonna really... We're talking about the Taiwan issue. Start educating the public now on why we would be willing to go to a full scale conflict with China or defending Taiwan. I mean, it's not to play, but no one has been ready to go to Ukraine.
No, I mean... There's been a lot of pushback to the United States on that. We should talk about this in the next segment a little bit.
I think this is worth talking about. Because we got a general predicting a conflict in 18 months, what does that look like? It does look like what's happening in Ukraine. That's not how the Chinese would operate.
No, I don't think they would fight that way. Well, they got a lot more people. They're much bigger. Yeah. I mean, their invasion forces... And they have new tech... Their military is brand new. Big military, big navy, right?
Their equipment is new. Yeah. And they're much more sophisticated than a lot of ours that are from Vietnam.
Vietnam. I know. All right. We're gonna talk about all this. We're taking your calls. You're worried about China? Give us a call.
1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. Back with more in a moment. All right.
Welcome back to Secchio. So we talked about this document that has leaked. It's actually dated tomorrow. So that's interesting too, the February 1st document by a four-star general in the Air Force. This is the head of the Air Mobility Command, which is for all the transportation. So all the vehicles that you put in place if you were going to get involved in a conflict. And this general is saying, I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're going to actually fight in 2025 and we have to be prepared to defeat China. Which I mean is right around the corner when you're talking about depleted resources and the largest conflict that, I mean, if that's a real conflict, that would be the largest conflict the world's ever seen. So if there was an invasion of Taiwan, our security agreements with the Taiwan government is not that we will engage in a conflict, is that we will support. Well, yeah, under the 1979 Taiwan Act, I forgot the official title, but anyway, what we pledge to do in that is we will arm them and we will support them if they're ever invaded. What we have as far as whether or not we will have troops on the ground or be directly involved, we have this policy, this doctrine of strategic ambiguity. It is purposely vague, which is why President Biden has tripped up over it a few times since he's been President, because we purposely do not tell the world what our response will be other than we simply tell them, yes, we will respond. This is the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, but here's the question. Can you envision a situation where you would put US troops on the ground in China or in Taiwan?
Absolutely not. And again, our response to any Chinese aggression is limited because of our dependence on China. On the other hand, I will say this, and this is not to defend General Minahan, the Air Force general who wrote this memo apparently, but the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command, both of them were four-star admirals, both of them just a few months ago testified that a conflict with China could come sooner than we think. They did not say direct war. They simply said that basically what they testified to is that China could invade Taiwan sooner than we think.
And Taiwan's defense minister said just a few months ago that in his opinion, that the People's Liberation Army of China could invade Taiwan as early as 2025. I have no problem with generals preparing for that. That's their job. I get it. Right. I'm a little concerned that this memo is public, like a lot concerned, but let's go ahead and take a call. Yeah. William in Nevada on Line 1. Hey, William.
Thanks for taking my call. I was just wondering, maybe China and Russia are seeing this war as draining our military weapons supply, so the Ukrainian will have less weapons if we don't help them, but the Chinese and Russians are looking at this like, good, I hope the Americans use up all their weapons and stuff, and they'll be weaker and weaker, then we can attack. You know, it was interesting because Zelensky, I mean, it's the headline in Drudge yesterday all day, was that President Zelensky asked for the tanks, he's getting the tanks.
Then he said SOS. This is how they phrased it on the Drudge Report on the headline, SOS. Zelensky's saying he's got to have more munitions now, F-16s, or he's going to be defeated. Yeah, and whether or not Russia or China are purposely doing this to deplete our weapons, I don't think that's the case. They will take advantage of that, and meanwhile, President Xi, under his long- Yeah, they don't have to do it on purpose, it's just a fact.
Exactly. President Xi has already stated that the goal of China is to replace the United States as the world's only superpower by the year 2050. Think about this, Jay, in the last eight years, the Chinese defense budget, eight years ago, it was $114 billion, today it is $230 billion. While their Navy is not as sophisticated and as lethal as ours, they have, as far as the sheer number of ships, they have a larger Navy than we do.
And so, Xi has said that he prefers what he calls, and this is rich, a peaceful reunification with Taiwan, but went on to say in that same sentence that he would take Taiwan by military force if necessary. I mean, yeah, it's a giant claim. Let's go to Jon in Pennsylvania online, so hey, Jon.
Hey, Jon. Hey, great conversation. I think the incentive for the Communist Chinese party to take over Taiwan is to get their hand on the Taiwan semiconductor three nanometer ship production. They need it for their economy because they're lagging. They don't have the super small technology, but they also need it for their military.
And if they could take over the island, that could give them a foothold to deny the rest of the world for those ships and use those ships themselves. Many scholars in 2022, or 2022, recommended that we go in and we destroy the chip production from TSMC to take or to threaten to do that so that there's no incentive for China to take Taiwan over. They don't want to... No, we can't go into, I mean, I can't imagine a situation where we're going to knowingly go into another country's jurisdiction and destroy the semiconductor business of that country. I mean, those are mostly owned by us.
And the second part would be you better be able to create your own semiconductors first because nothing would work. Nothing. You couldn't repair anything, including our military jets.
So again, we're both stuck in a weird situation. That's why I don't know if beating a drug, again, buy all the weapons, I'm pro the military having way more resources than it needs. And we know that they've been kind of distracted with politics and not focused on, and then with Ukraine, it is draining resources and they don't stop asking. They finally get the tanks. And really, they said, we're sending the tanks so that the other countries send their tanks which can actually get there quicker. Ours will take like a year. So we're talking about this conflict going on another year. But then immediately it was, we need F-16s. And that doesn't really transfer quickly over because those are bombers.
And you gotta be trained. And I feel like Ukraine is like right on the edge where maybe they go into Russia too deep and then a whole other kind of conflict. Where are we? So far, it doesn't feel like Russia has taken really such drastic actions. Maybe our military's prevented it. Maybe cybersecurity's prevented it. We certainly have not seen the attacks on our infrastructure yet or it hasn't been successful whether they're trying. What is the situation in Ukraine right now?
You follow. Well, mate, right now, in the last six months, basically, the boundaries have changed very little at all. There is a big spring offensive. Our intel people tell us that Russia is planning for later in the spring. Ukraine is... Bringing a new general, I saw.
Right. And massing even more troops along the border. President Zelensky has indicated he is aware of that as well. Back to the China thing though, Jay, the thing about it is there's a time to believe what your enemies are saying. President Xi has stated, categorically, that if they do not reunite with Taiwan on their own volition, that they will invade. We need to take that Chinese threat seriously. But what do we do?
Wes, we've talked about this a zillion times. Okay, so they invade Taiwan. What do we do? I don't think we put troops on the ground, but here's the thing. What do we do?
That's what... Yeah. I know what we don't do. What do we do? Our reactions are limited. We put our Navy in play?
We can't. That would lead to World War III as well. Our reaction... If it's as significant as their Navy, the Chinese.
It is a large Navy. It's not as lethal as ours, but they are also a nuclear power. Do you wanna go into an open conflict with a nuclear power?
No, you don't. But in the meantime, two things are happening. We are still dependent on Chinese economically, and we're not doing anything about it. And they're dependent on world trade too.
Don't kid yourself. Yes, yes. There's a mutual deterrence here. But the truth is people say, well, can we start these companies here in the U.S.? I think that would actually take longer than any of these predictions, because we're like trying to figure out how to rebuild bridges and roads. Right.
No. We're not at that level. We just haven't invested that in our country. I think we should.
But that's a decade. Let me say this. Look at the conversations we've had today on this broadcast. And this is a great reason for you to support the work of the ACLJ.
We're not just talking about things. We're doing it. We're taking action.
But we're also giving you real analysis. Support this work, including this broadcast, by going to ACLJ.org. That is ACLJ.org. If you're listening to us right now or watching us right now, let me encourage you to do that. Support our work. It's tax-deductible. ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-01-31 14:17:43 / 2023-01-31 14:39:57 / 22