This is Logan Sekulow.
Happening now, congressional hearing on social media censorship as RFK Jr. takes the stand. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. This is Logan Sekulow hosting today. Will Haynes, executive producer, is in the co-host chair today. We'll be taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110, breaking down a lot of what's going on in the world, including happening right now. As you're listening, there is a social media censorship hearing, if you will, happening at Congress. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been obviously one of the leading Democrats in a weird way for the Presidential nomination this year and a pretty controversial figure, has taken the stand today to talk about his own controversy and his own censorship that's occurred, as well as what happened to him over the past weekend, you may have heard on the Sekulow Brothers Podcast, where he again made some pretty controversial statements. Not a guy who has run from those controversies really ever. And maybe people are just kind of coming to light and seeing them as he's gotten more and more attention, as people look to other options than Joe Biden for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Do I think he has a chance of getting it?
I do not, but I do think he has a chance of clearly making a much bigger impact than a lot of people thought could happen. And we're going to take your calls on this and more again at 1-800-684-3110. I think we should start with a sound bite, maybe just directly from RFK Jr.
It's bite 24 if you get that ready. And let's take a listen. This just happened moments ago. I was censored not just by the Democratic administration, I was censored by the Trump administration. I was the first person censored, as the chairman pointed out, by the Biden administration two days after it came into office. It ordered a truthful, and by the way, they had to invent a new word called mal-information to censor people like me. There was no misinformation on my Instagram account. Everything I put on that account was cited in source. The peer reviewed publications or government databases, nobody has ever pointed to a single piece of misinformation that I publish. I was removed for something they called mal-information.
Mal-information is information that is true, but is inconvenient to the government. Yes, that is from RFK Jr. Whether you agree with him or not on some of these stances, that is the statement he has just made. Again, this hearing, well, maybe you can explain a little bit of why it's happening and what the Democrats tried to do to even belittle this hearing. Right, so this hearing comes out of the subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. So that's under the leadership of Jim Jordan on the House Judiciary Committee. There's this subcommittee that is select subcommittee on the weaponization of federal government.
And what they've been trying to do is get to the bottom of a lot of the bad actors that we've seen out of the federal government over the past few years. And what this hearing specifically is keying in on, the federal government's role in censoring Americans, the Missouri versus Biden case and Big Tech's collusion with the out of control government agencies to silence speech. Now that Missouri v. Biden case, that's the case that came out of Louisiana where the judge issued the ruling that said, hey, the government has got to stop colluding with Big Tech and basically saying, you got to censor this speech. Now, we know that that has received an administrative stay from the Court of Appeals out of the Fifth Circuit, which the ACLJ will be filing in in the coming weeks to try to advocate for the position of the lower court that says, hey, the government shouldn't be in the business of censoring and colluding with Big Tech to censor the voices of American people. And what we're going to see is Congress doing their oversight role, as you're seeing today, but also the work of the states that initially sued in this in the Missouri v. Biden case.
And then the work of groups like the ACLJ that will come alongside, file amicus briefs and fight for this position as the DOJ tries to argue in court. We need to keep doing this. We got to keep doing it.
Yeah, absolutely. And phone lines are open for you right now at 1-800-684-3110. I want to hear from you.
1-800-684-3110. Have your voice heard. Get on the air and talk about what you've experienced even with your own social media censorship.
I'd be very curious. We'll keep that conversation going. And we have other topics we'll hit later on as well. Again, we are in the middle of our matching challenge for the month of July. Any donation made to the ACLJ effectively doubled. Go to ACLJ.org to make that donation today. Welcome back to Secula.
We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Covering what's going on currently in this social media censorship hearing that's happening right now. And I think we should hear from everyone's favorite, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Let's just hear maybe some statement she had. This was directed at, again, RFK Jr. Which again, we're going to break that down a little bit more and talk about our thoughts on him in general.
As he's kind of risen to fame within conservatism as well and why we're not necessarily on the fence and our thoughts on him. So let's go play this bite from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Point of order pursuant to House Rule 11 Clause 2, which Mr. Kennedy is violative of. I move that we will move into an executive session because Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly made despicable anti-Semitic and anti-Asian comments as recently as last week. So what Debbie Wasserman Schultz was trying to do here was to move this hearing from the public hearing into an executive session which would be behind closed doors.
She's claiming it's because of a leaked conversation that came out over the last weekend with RFK Jr. at like a private dinner. Right. And in that, look, it's not great. I think we probably have the sound from it. We could probably find it. I think we had it on Sekulow Brothers.
We can probably get that too. Of what he had to say because I think it's okay to hear people's, their own words about it. I don't want to be the one who just spits out hyperbole here. But he made statements referring to COVID specifically and that COVID disproportionately did not target Chinese people and people of Ashkenazi Jewish backgrounds. We actually have the soundbite uncensored.
This is what we got. COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese. And we don't know whether it was deliberately targeted or not, but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential and the impact to that.
Yeah. So in that, he says, you know, we don't know if this is deliberately targeted, but it is something that had happened. I'm not a fan of bringing up this talking point. I think all it does is, you know, kind of be a little bit of racist dog whistling. I mean, regardless of what you want to say, at the end of the day, what's the point of talking about this? Maybe to say they're creating bioweapons to target certain people. But when you're talking about maybe one of the biggest groups that is being targeted right now in America and around the world, Ashkenazi Jewish people. And that's also very specific.
I wasn't a fan of it. That being said, he did say it was from these papers and that is what he has said he's claiming that is. But beyond that, they are using this moment. And I think this is what's more interesting. Regardless to do with RFK, they're using this moment to say that alone should take this behind closed doors.
Right. She was trying to shut down the entire hearing because of that statement. And that's not what the hearing was about.
It wasn't about that statement. It was about public postings on social media and when those things were censored. So before it even gets started, the Democrats tried to censor the hearing on government censorship.
They didn't want the public to see it because they think you can't be trusted to hear things that you may agree with or disagree with and use your brain and rationally think through what's being questioned when they have witnesses up there that may say things you agree or disagree with. But when that failed, when they weren't able to move it behind closed doors, she tried again. And this is her questioning of RFK Jr. when it gets to her turn because it goes through the opening statements and then the members of Congress get to ask questions. And this is where she directly tries to get him specifically removed. So first they try the hearing, then they try to censor him. And this is Byte 41 where she's asking him directly about some of those statements and also gives him a little bit of an opportunity to respond, but also is trying to get his invitation rescinded.
Byte 41. Mr. Chairman, we respectfully requested that you rescind Mr. Kennedy's invitation to appear here due to his repeated and very recent statements that spread dangerous anti-Semitic and anti-Asian conspiracy theories and attempted to move into executive session. Because House rules prohibit public testimony that degrades or defames people. His reckless rhetoric helped fuel anti-Semitic incidents, which for the record are at the highest level in the United States since 1970. They have nearly tripled in the last six years. Since you gave Mr. Kennedy a megaphone today, I want to give him a chance to correct his statements and prepare some of the harm that he's helped cause. Mr. Kennedy, you're well educated.
So yes or no, please. Are you aware that for centuries Jews have been scapegoated and blamed for causing illnesses like black plague and more recently COVID? I am.
Those are known as blood libel and they are one of the worst and most disturbing parts of human history. Good. I'm glad to know that, of course, that you acknowledge that. So he's even acknowledging that the things that they're trying to accuse him of are, he's like, yes, that is anti-Semitism, that is racist.
And not to get even into the next level of trying to figure out what he was trying to say or not try to say. But the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is coming at this from the angle that there is, and truthfully, there is terrible anti-Semitism in this country and around the world. We fight it here at the ACLJ on a daily basis. And unfortunately, a lot of times where you have to fight it is from her own party. Members of her own party this week and you have nine members of that party that wouldn't vote to support a resolution in support of Israel's 75th anniversary.
Why? Because they harbor some of the most anti-Semitic views, which do end up trickling down and you have a terrible situation where anti-Semitism grows. It's fostered in this country in a terrible way a lot of times because of the rhetoric that comes out of the Democrat Party.
So the irony juxtaposed of what happened this week, and she is trying to stop an entire hearing, get someone uninvited because she doesn't like statements. It's disingenuous and hypocritical. Yeah, because it really has nothing to do with these statements. I think those statements also are horrendous. I mean, I'm not a fan of what RFK Jr. had to say about that.
I think that, again, they're used, even if he's like, well, I'm just quoting papers. Yeah, but you're doing it for a specific reason. And if you're not, then we got a whole other conversation to have.
And I don't love that. Look, I don't think, I think we should talk more about what's happening with the censorship plan. We'll talk about that more. Even something coming up here in one of our next segments here, we're going to discuss about how, guess what?
Remember that lab, Wuhan? There's some changes happening right now. We're going to talk about that. Maybe stuff that you probably thought happened multiple years ago and should have happened years ago. We'll discuss that coming up again.
1-800-684-3110. But here's my thoughts on RFK. A lot of people have asked that in general. Like, look, you've seen his rise to fame. I think it's tough as a Christian conservative because you really look at a lot of his points of view and he's walked some of them back recently. So let's say on life, he was very much a proponent of, you know, no exception, like all the way to the end of a pregnancy. Now he said, well, I've seen a third trimester photos. I can't really get behind that. However, he also said, I'm not getting involved in the law on that.
I'm letting that still between a doctor and a patient. He's done, he said similar things on funding Planned Parenthood, those kinds of situations where he's actually said, yes, we have to keep funding. So those alone, if you're listening to this on Christian talk radio and likely you're a pro-life conservative, maybe enough to go this guy.
I mean, do I think he'd be better as a President than President Biden? Yeah, of course. But do I think that he's the right, like you should be getting rallied up behind him? I don't know. And that's up for you to make that decision.
Me personally, those are kind of hard things to get over. Let's go ahead and take some quick phone call. Let's go to Tina who's had some social media censorship in Washington. Tina, welcome.
Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to respond to your comment about how I had been censored. And I was censored from TikTok back during the 2020, you know, that election cycle. And I was just posting, I was just posting Bible verses because I was just sick and tired of the crap that was going on there. And I was just like, I'm just going to post Bible verses.
Puts the positivity out into the world. That's great. And it wasn't, and it was clear that I was a conservative because I had had some conversations with people, but I was just tired of the negative negativity that was going on. Yeah. And you said that you were, you got stuff censored or taken down?
I got totally, totally taken off and no, there was no explanation to why I just couldn't log in anymore. Yeah. That's crazy, Tina, but it's not unheard of. We've seen that. That's why some of these committees are important as they start to kind of put a rain on TikTok has been a big issue. We know that overall, just not just for a censorship point of view, but really for a national security point of view, but that's beyond that. That's why these hearings that were a little stuck on the RFK stuff. We need to talk about the importance of having these hearings.
Well, and that's exactly right. And as Tina brings up is that there are these issues and sometimes it's not just that the private companies are doing it, which is why there's this hearing. It's that the federal government was coercing or colluding or whatever word you want to use to show that there was a relationship where the federal government was actually going to the companies and saying, we don't agree with that speech. You need to take that speech down. That's dangerous speech because people can't hear it.
And if they do, they may think things that are against the way that the government wants to put forward narratives. And so that's why even here at the ACLJ, we're fighting back, not just by promoting what's going on in Congress, but we file briefs. We have a FOIA out on some of this collusion, but we're also going to be filing in that Missouri v. Biden case very soon in the next couple of really a week and a half. We'll be filing a brief at the court. All right, we'll be back in just a moment. Give us call 1-800-684-3110.
If you're on hold, we'll get to you. Also, if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, great time to do it. Why?
Because we're in the middle of our matching challenge. You know, you've heard me say it over and over for years and years. And then what I say is what's true, which is right now there's other great donors ready to unlock their gift. All you have to do is give.
So you give ten dollars effectively becomes twenty dollars to the organization. So on and so on and support the work, the legal work, the media side, everything that we do here, all through ACLJ, ACLJ.org. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow.
Welcome back to Sekulow. Logan Sekulow sitting here hosting today. Will Haynes, executive producer, sitting in the co-host chair today. We're having an interesting conversation about the social media censorship hearing that's happening right now in RFK Jr., who's on the stand.
Obviously, someone who has been a pretty big name here in the last few months, making his net way through the social media world, through the Rogan world and all of that. We were discussing his thoughts, but there's also more we want to cover from that hearing. We'll get to that in just a second. We also are going to discuss in this segment some some news out of Wuhan, China, that I think you're going to find pretty interesting what the U.S. is doing. Finally, finally doing that. Will, you want to start with that or you want to start with keep going on the censorship hearing?
Well, I did want to say one thing about RFK Jr. that you said at the end, and then I'll lead us into the story on the lab and Wuhan. But you did mention how he's making a lot of waves within the conservative world because he says things that are not completely outside the realm of reality that you hear a lot of times out of people that have the Democrat title next to their name. And I think what is interesting about it is that immediately when you start to hear some things that are rational, it's like maybe I can support this person. But in reality, maybe it's just that for once you're hearing someone not so in lockstep with what the ideology and the mantra of the party is.
You're being a real liberal. And so therefore, I think it's just shocking to see as a conservative because of what we've seen over the past decades come out of the party that it's a little refreshing when you can hear it. But it doesn't mean that as soon as you hear someone that is a traditional liberal or a Democrat in the old school sense, in the Kennedy sense, that it means you rush to embrace everything because there's still a lot of things that they agree with that you don't.
Yeah, absolutely. But I do think, yeah, it's sort of the Bill Maher situation, which was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, Bill Maher was the most hated person by the right. I mean, you could not, you know, I was a fan of his television show only because I really enjoyed hearing another point of view and whether that was his strong, strong feelings towards people of faith or if that was his strong, strong feelings towards anyone who would consider themselves a conservative or Republican. Now, as time has shifted for a lot of these people, whether it's Bill Maher, John Cleese or whoever it is who were the most traditional liberals, the free speech liberals, the old ACLU liberals, those guys have been kicked out of their own party.
And now they're somewhere in the middle and you can't believe you're watching and going, these guys are being much more embraced. I mean, so much so that when CNN started running the after show of Real Time with Bill Maher, their catchphrase or whatever you want to call it, their slogan, their logline was get out of your comfort zone, saying Bill Maher is going to say stuff you don't agree with. I'm saying this about Bill Maher. Same with RFK, very similar in the sense of he has always been out there as a guy who's been a proponent of free speech. He has had a lot of controversial medical opinions for years and years and years, whether you agree with him or not, I don't frankly care, but they are things that he's been out there as sort of a very, very big on a lot of the recycling and cleaning and all of the green stuff that comes in. I think a lot of that, then look, I think a lot of conservatives are leaving on the table because I think a lot of us would love a clean earth and a lot of us would love our water to be clean and as he cleaned up the Hudson River and all the things that he was involved in. And conservation movement started out of conservatives. I think there is a middle ground there that I think a lot of conservatives go, yeah, yeah, we're not about just dumping all of our plastic on the streets anymore.
We've moved on a little from that. But as you said, with his points of view, if you listen to his interview with Joe Rogan, there are some red flags there. There's some red flags there for free speech too. I know he's saying he's a free speech advocate, but he also is calling because of some medical consequences, he says, of things like a Wi-Fi and cell phone service. And not to say that he doesn't have his sources, but when you start talking about, we need to start eliminating Wi-Fi or slowing down Wi-Fi or slowing down cell phone service and those kinds of things because of what it's doing to our brains. Well, he may have some medical background to say that that's true.
He doesn't have medical background, but MediCrel evidence to say it's true. He's citing papers and research. That reeks to me of censorship and of control. And who is going to be doing it?
It would be the federal government of which you're giving them another power to regulate. So you've got to be careful. You can't just take a logical statement from someone and run with it all the way to the end. Better than Biden, of course. But who isn't? I mean, at this point.
I mean, it's just sadly the truth. Let's go ahead and take this phone call. Williams calling in Washington on line three, and then we're going to move on and talk about some of this other news. William, you're on the air.
I love and support you guys both through prayer and financially. And my question is, can you explain more about the special counsel for the weaponization of the government? Is that because the government's been weaponized and they're looking into why and how and to weaponize it or what? I just don't quite understand. Sure, William. And we're happy to explain that more. First, I want to stop you and say thank you. Thank you, number one, for your prayers. Support's great.
Prayers number one. And I really mean that I we can feel it and we appreciate it. So know that that we appreciate this. And thank you for obviously your financial support. We really appreciate that as well.
Especially we're in these important months where it's effectively doubled through our matching challenges. We appreciate it. But before I wanted to answer your question, I want to say thank you. And if you're listening right now and you are one of our supporters and whether you're a supporter financially or like William said, just someone prayer warrior for us.
I just want to say thank you and that we really do feel it and we really do appreciate it. But well, let's talk a little about this weaponization of the DOJ and what's happening. Right. So this is specifically it's a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. So Chairman Jim Jordan is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which oversees the all the judicial business. It's the oversight arm of all the whether it be the DOJ or judges or anything that would contain oversight. This is the House branch of that. There's also a Senate branch as well. But this committee is the Judiciary Committee of the House and then it has a select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. This was created when the new Congress came in and a lot of the debates about who was going to be the speaker of the House and Kevin McCarthy ended up prevailing.
A lot of the discussions were some of these. There's a select committee on China and their aggressiveness that is under another jurisdiction. But this committee was created out of those negotiations when Kevin McCarthy eventually became the speaker. And Chairman Jordan also leads this subcommittee. Now, there are Republicans and Democrats like all committees. And so the Democrats do have the opportunity to voice their opposition. I don't believe that the ranking member who is actually the delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, she doesn't have Congresswoman status in some of the other angles of that because they're a territory. But she is the ranking member. So she is the most powerful Democrat on the committee. And we saw a lot of her in this committee hearing today going after RFK Jr. But yes, to answer William's question, it was created because the conservative concern that the DOJ, the IRS, the HHS, the EPA, all of the bureaucratic state has become weaponized through the rulemaking process, through how they selectively enforce policies, and really just how out of control the government has become in going after speech, conservative views, and all of the things that really flowed out of when we saw the hyped up government bureaucracies coming out of COVID. And so this committee is there to examine, to find ways that maybe they can cut funding or reform the branches of government. That's what Congress is doing.
And they are specifically looking at it through that lens that the government has become weaponized. Hey, we are headed, hopefully that answered your question there, William. We are headed into the second half hour if you don't get us on your local terrestrial station.
Some of you don't. Get us right now on social media. We're on ACLJ.org or on Rumble.
Those are the top two choices I tell you to go to. We're on YouTube as well. We're on Facebook as well.
Because the difference between us and a lot of people in our space, if there's an available platform other than TikTok, because obvious reasons, we are there because I want to make sure our message gets heard. Not buying a paywall, not an echo chamber, everywhere. We can't do that without the support of ACLJ members. So go to ACLJ.org. Make your donation today as we are in the middle, headed towards the end of our matching challenge. So be a part of it right now.
ACLJ.org. Second half hour coming up. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Second half hour of the broadcast coming up right now. If you want to be on the air, call us at 1-800-684-3110.
Got some calls already lined up. We'll take those coming up in the next segments. We are talking about a few different topics. Some of them are kind of interconnected as we have a situation where right now there is a hearing happening in Congress about social media censorship and RFK. While the Democrats are trying to get that moved off of public, into the private, they are using RFK Jr.'s very controversial statements he made over the weekend about not just the origins of COVID, but the intent.
And maybe some of the results in terms of who it targeted, who it didn't target. Again, statements I don't really care for, to be completely honest. Even if they are taken out of context or whatever it is. They are not great.
They are not good. But they are using that as a moment. At the same time, Will, something we should talk about because we ran out of time in the last half hour to talk about a little bit here is there have been some situations that comes to funding for maybe some of the origins of what happened with COVID.
That's right. So the Health and Human Services Department, so HHS, has notified the Wuhan Institute of Virology that there is a full suspension of funding to the lab and they are seeking to cut it off permanently. And this goes based off of some safety issues that they have seen arise there, some security issues, as well as stonewalling on the investigation of the origins of COVID. Now, if you had been calling for the funding to get cut off to the Wuhan Institute of Virology because you were concerned maybe there was the origin of COVID, there is a chance that you could get censored on social media just months ago, maybe a year ago. When the lab leak theory was seen as out of the mainstream, it was called a conspiracy theory.
It had to have been from the wet market in Wuhan. It couldn't have been a lab leak. And the fact that now you're seeing funding, they're seeking to permanently stop funding the lab, of which thankfully that's a good thing.
I feel like it should have happened a long time ago. And I don't believe that funds had been going since mid the pandemic anyways. But this is now the HHS under Biden administration is kind of admitting that, yeah, maybe we don't need to be funding this when the people on the left and the National Institute of Health had been fully behind squashing any conversation of this being anything other than something we should be funding. It's just very revealing and also concerning under what at one point was considered misinformation or mal-information or conspiracy theory could now be the prevailing theory about where the origins came from and maybe we shouldn't be funding them anymore. Yeah, I think you should look at some of what RFK is saying and some of those statements that they said they censored him for.
Again, as Will said, kind of ties into some of the statements people made about the origins getting kicked off. And now we're all of a sudden deciding three years later something that I think a lot of us probably thought we already had done, which is stopped the funding of the COVID lab, the Wuhan lab in Wuhan, China. Did you think we were still doing that?
I didn't. Frankly, it's kind of disturbing. It's another thing that's disturbing out of the United States of America, sadly, right now. We're going to take some more calls. 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. I'd love to hear from you. We'll also discuss a little bit more about what's going on in the whistleblower situation, the hearings from that. And then we're probably going to keep talking. Let's just keep this conversation going. We've got a couple calls.
Let's get some more calls and keep it going. Because here at the ACLJ, this broadcast, we have a bit of a dual responsibility. We have a responsibility to both educate you and inform you about what's going on in the world. I know for a lot of you, you use this as sort of your news source.
We're certainly an opinion-based broadcast at that point. I know you're tuned to us for a reason. So I know we've got to give you that. We also have to share, because at its core, the point of this broadcast is to share about the incredible work that's happening at the ACLJ. I put this show as one of the things that we do that's incredible work, by the way. Whether that is at the highest levels of the Supreme Court, whether it's us getting involved at the White House, getting us involved in Washington, D.C., or whether that's taking over your media airwaves, taking over television and film, it is all important.
It's all about the cause, which is advocating what we're all here for, which is obviously for liberty, for justice, and for God and for Christ. And we make sure the people you know about that, you can get behind at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We're going to go ahead and start this by taking some of your phone calls. Let's go ahead and go to Mark, who's calling in Pennsylvania on Line 1, watching on Rumble, which we appreciate.
Thousands do every day. And I always want to give a shout-out to our friends at Rumble, because they've been great to us. So, Mark, welcome to the broadcast. Oh, thanks. Well, thanks for everything you guys are doing. A quick question I had was, you know, everybody talking and really wanting to hurry up and put JFK Jr. there, or RFK Jr. there in a racist context, but does anybody know what these papers he's talking about? Do they exist, or are they really real?
Yeah, Mark, thanks for your call. And I did to take a look at this, because it was something that I was kind of concerned when he made this sort of statement. Sure, are there papers that say that there are, I think it was also people from Finland, or Finnish descent also, maybe were less susceptible to COVID? It's not the fact that there may be some truth to it. And here's someone who, I have an Ashkenazi Jewish background personally, and they have family members who passed away from COVID. It maybe rings a little bit harsher for me.
It's a little bit harder for me to listen to him saying I avoided them. I also know most of people I know, including most of my family in the Jewish community, got COVID at some point. So I don't really know if it's just an overwhelming data. I also think that it can skew based on where you are in the world and where you are economically.
There are a lot of things that can play into that. But let's say, Mark, that it's true. Let's say that somehow that it avoided a lot of people who are of Jewish descent or of Chinese descent, or he didn't say Finnish or Finland or whatever you want to put it, descent. He didn't say that then. He said that when he clarified later on.
While there may be truth to bioweapons that can be targeted, and I would likely assume that sadly there are things that are happening that way across the world. What's the benefit here? What's the reason that he decided to randomly say that in a dinner? And that is my concern because what that does to me is really spark more conspiracy theories that somehow the Jewish people who are already having antisemitic and racist actions and violence towards them on a daily basis.
And trust me, if you've seen my social media feed, they're coming for me too. Even if some people, you know, I'm half Jewish, it's enough. So what's the point of saying that? What's the point of saying this? To me, it's a dog whistle.
It really is. It's a dog whistle to say specifically, it makes you go, oh, it's almost the theories of Jewish people control everything and control the universe. It almost leads you to a place if you are one of those people to go, they had something to do with it. That's my problem with it, Mark. It's not to do with even the fact of, you could probably look at data and see a lot of different things. I'm not even discounting that. I don't really know.
I could tell you it wasn't true in my family, but maybe I'm ignorant to that. But what I don't like, and I don't like it from Republicans either. I don't like it from Republicans or from Democrats.
I don't like this positioning of race that is used in a way or ethnicity or background that is used so casually that it does spark some form of conspiracy theories against certain groups of people. And I'm sorry, but that's certainly what he was doing there. Do I say that disqualifies him from being a part of the social media committee? I don't. Do I think that that means his voice should not be heard? I don't. Does it make me not necessarily want to vote for him? Maybe. But does it make me discount everything he has to say?
No. I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying I dislike the guy. I dislike a lot of his views. I dislike a lot of his views, not even about this. A lot of his views that, trust me, would not align with 99% of our listeners. So, if you're looking at him as an option, I don't know if I'm there yet. I'm not there yet.
I don't think he can get me there. But that being said, the problem isn't that there's a paper that suggests that what he's saying is true. That's accurate. The problem is what's the reason for bringing it up? And I think that that is not a reason with good intent. Well, and I think, to your point as well, the old adage that the way you combat speech you don't like is not with less speech, it's with more speech. And so, what Democrats and the left have taken is when they hear something they don't like, they cannot hear it.
People should not be able to hear it. But when you are in the right and you know that you can combat bad ideas with correct ideas, with wholesome ideas, with rational ideas, that's how you combat it. You don't say, let's deplatform, let's shut down.
Now, there are extremes. There are issues of inciting criminality or telling people to do criminal acts that can be taken down or policed in a different way. But that's not what we're talking about here. And when you even talk about the conversation, even asking like, was it out of context, I think kind of misses the point because to what you're saying is you don't have to agree with his speech. You can actually push back strongly against his speech, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz was doing. But also, what you're not seeing on the left is them being consistent. They're not being consistent about which speech they don't like.
They don't like his speech because he's in double digits against the sitting President who they all support. And you're also seeing issues where people in their own party is making horribly anti-Semitic statements, which are completely adding fuel to the fire of the problem, which is very real. That is something we fight here at the ACLJ. We fight anti-Semitism when they try to move legislation that will force BDS, boycott, divest and sanction against Israel. When the Biden administration just a week and a half ago decided that, hey, you know what, if products are coming out of Judea and Samaria, we're going to boycott that. The U.S. government is not going to allow people products to be purchased and to be labeled as made in Israel if they come out of areas that they see are disputed territories.
It doesn't matter who's making it in those areas. If it's coming out of there, we're going to boycott that. We just won. There's a big victory out of a case where Texas was trying to block contracts with firms that were believing in BDS, that were promoting BDS. There was a big victory in court and the ACLJ filed in that just about a week and a half ago where the court said, of course, Texas can say we're not going to do contracts with firms that are specifically targeting the state of Israel. So there is movement and there is positive movement that the ACLJ is working on that we are consistently doing to fight that kind of speech, that kind of rhetoric. But the opportunity here that the Democrats are trying to seize on isn't one to really fight anti-Semitism.
That's what they want you to believe. But in reality, what they're trying to do is silence any speech because that's not what his appearance before the hearing was about. They're trying to silence any speech that they see that could be detrimental to them maintaining power in Congress and the presidency and beyond. And I think that's what should make everyone nervous here today.
Yeah, I think you're right. It really has nothing to do with the actual speech. It's trying to hide a lot of things from the American people. And that's just sadly the truth.
And that's what comes out of, largely comes out of the Democrat Party. Now, no politician, I think, is clean. No politician and no human is.
Okay, we know this. No one is perfect. Everyone has their flaws. Everyone has done things that are not great on paper. So I don't like finding saviors anywhere in terms of a human being. So when it comes to whether it's RFK or Donald Trump or if you're still a Joe Biden supporter, President Biden supporter after everything, whatever, I guess. But if you find your savior in that, then I think somewhat you need to look at what you're doing. You find someone that you agree with most on the issues, hopefully, and that's who you end up voting for. And sadly, it's simple as that. And that you think is maybe a decent human being. That would be nice. But sadly, I don't know if that's always the case or even the option. But we're going to take some more phone calls coming up in the next segment.
It's the last segment of the broadcast. I'd like to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. Have you followed some of this big tech censorship?
Have you had any of these problems happening as well to you? And we'll take calls on whatever, on other ACLJ topics. Just give me a call. Let's have some conversation.
Let's have some fun. We've got a couple of people on hold right now. We'll definitely get to you. Again, at 1-800-684-3110.
I'll save you a slower. 1-800-684-3110. When it comes to your political leanings right now, I'm curious your thoughts on RFK Jr. How do you feel about him? Not just as a potential spoiler to the Democrats, I'm curious if this guy could ever really get you on board. And if you are on board, I'd love to know why, especially if you're one of our listeners and consider themselves a Christian conservative.
Or maybe you hate him. Either way, give me a call. 1-800-684-3110. I want to spend this last minute before we go to the final segment to again tell you about the amazing work of the ACLJ. Just go to ACLJ.org. I'm not asking you even to donate in this little pitch here. I'm asking you to go there and look at the incredible content that is available for free that comes out of our incredible team. Whether that is the lawyers you hear on this broadcast, whether that's the experts you hear on this broadcast, whether it's people you don't know at all, whether it's the amazing videos we do, the films we make, all of the incredible content, and of course the work that we're doing on Capitol Hill. Whether that's through our petitions, whether that's our legal help that we provide to you for absolutely no cost. I don't know if you know this, a lot of people don't maybe know this, ACLJ is a law firm. And if it's within our scope, a lot of religious freedom and issues like that, not personal injury, that kind of thing, all you got to do is go to ACLJ.org slash help. Fill out a simple form. That doesn't go to some call center. That goes straight to someone who gets assigned to one of our lawyers who will then reach out to you and tell you what we can do to help. So do that at ACLJ.org. Tell your friends, make sure they know about it and support the work.
And it doesn't mean you have to financially support. You can support it just by visiting and sharing this content. We'll be right back. The last segment of the day, we're going to try to get some phone calls here. We'll let you know when they're ready to go.
Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. Will, there's a little bit of news going on. Yeah, this is interesting. So Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Grassley, so Chuck Grassley is in the Senate, so he's ranking member of the oversight committee there. And Chairman Comer is the chairman in the House, have released that 1023 form from the FBI that is about the bribery scheme.
Now, what Chairman Grassley or Ranking Member Grassley rather has been trying to get at with this, and this is that alleged bribery that there was $5 million or $10 million that involved President Biden himself. And putting out the form is really interesting to me because now we can read what the allegations are. We just got it.
Moments ago dropped. But just looking at it, it's about three pages of text. It goes through this allegation. And what we've been clear to caution here is that this is kind of at the beginning of an investigation. This is a tip. This is not necessarily corroborated.
We don't know where this goes from here. But when you layer it in with the issues that came up yesterday at the hearing with the IRS whistleblowers, we do know that Ziegler, the agent from the new, that was Whistleblower X until yesterday, he was unveiled as this new whistleblower that we didn't know his identity before. But he specifically talked about payments with Burisma. And that's what this allegation kind of relates to. And what Ranking Member Grassley has been really concerned about in his oversight role isn't as much, you know, is this true? Did Joe Biden accept the bribe? Because that's not really his role. He wants to know, is the Department of Justice, is the IRS, are these agencies doing their job?
Or was there a two-tiered system of justice? And that, I think, is what most people are concerned about here is that we know, based off of work that's been done by attorneys here, that you cannot prosecute a sitting President. You can't indict a sitting President. So Joe Biden isn't going to be indicted on a bribery scheme that's alleged in a FD 1023. That will not happen. It cannot happen. He also will not be removed from office by impeachment because that has to go to trial in the Senate. So even if the House decided to go there, we know that the Democrats in the Senate would not vote him out of office. But what it does do is it brings a lot of questions as you head into an election cycle about the corruption of the Biden family, about the corruption of the federal government.
Whether they are doing their job, whether they are investigating the things that they are supposed to be investigating fairly, or if they are doing things at the bidding or that would be better for a specific political party or people that are in power. And so it brings up a lot more now that this is in the open. The public can read it. This is an allegation. It's not proven.
It's not necessarily substantiated. But we know that the IRS agent Ziegler was very concerned about the fact that many of the crimes as he saw them as an investigative agent were not prosecuted as felonies, that the statute of limitations was allowed to run out. There was a lot of issues with this investigation.
He's very concerned about it. And clearly, Comer and Grassley are very concerned about it as well. I think that hopefully we're seeing good people within these agencies. When we talked about the line agents for years and it seemed more and more like that was a mirage that there weren't good people. But you're seeing someone who comes forward as like, I am not the stereotype.
I am a Democrat. I am not in the mold of who you think would be someone they can smear. They're coming forward and saying, listen, I just wanted to do my job properly. I wanted to investigate crimes.
I wanted my work product to then be taken by the Department of Justice and appropriately handled. And so maybe we're starting to see a glimmer of hope that it's had gotten so bad in the swamp that the people that are whistleblowers that are willing to come forward, put their life, their career, all these their families reputation, everything on the line to be like this United States of America. We need to ensure that our Constitution is upheld. We are a nation of laws. These laws need to be upheld. And if that can break through, then you start to maybe see people that are rational people that aren't so bought into the ideology of the left that you can start to chart a new way forward where this is a nation of laws, a constitutional republic. And the things that we fight for every day here will break through and continue to grow and flourish.
Yeah, I think that's right. When you have situations like that, but then you also going to have very interesting political campaign here because you're now going to have to the probably the leaders, probably who will get the nominations. President Trump, President Biden, who are going to go head to head, both involved in a lot of legal issues, a lot of disputes happening. As you said, less can happen to Joe Biden because there are protections being the President. But it's pretty interesting to go about it pretty open and clear. It's not just it's not just again, two guys with no problems with everything. I mean, we saw, again, what will likely be the third arrest of President Trump within a few months.
We saw that happen in the letter come through, if you will, just a couple of days ago. So this is not going to be a pleasant year, sadly, when it comes to how the world of politics is going to work. It's not what I hoped for, frankly. I hoped we'd have a robust debates, a lot of great candidates, and it'd be a really interesting time. Instead, it looks like there is a presumed leader in both. And it's going to be I mean, if I had to bet a million dollars right now, it would probably end up being I would bet on a Trump versus Biden rematch unless something catastrophic was to happen legally or medically. Like, that's kind of it.
And I don't want to be that guy. I was one pump and excited to see the debates. And I still will watch them because I think there's a lot of great people on that stage. And I'm curious of what they're going to have to say, because if they're not this time, maybe they'll be the leaders of the party coming up for Republicans and Democrats. I'm open to hearing everyone speak. That's what we're talking about. The R.F.K. thing today.
It wasn't just about that. Let's quickly take a quick phone call from Lynette in New York. I know she won't hold for a little bit, so I'll make sure we get to you before we wrap this show up. Thank you. Yes, I am.
Thank you so much for taking my call. And I just wanted to say that I am a biblical conservative, evangelical Christian who is a black woman. I disagree with most of the things that our junior would say, but I praise God for his main point, which is that people have to be able to do their own research and also have confidence in their own conclusions and not just be railroaded into.
Oh, what you think is is actually malinformation because it disagrees with the party line. Yeah, I think he had something to say about that. I'm only cutting you off the neck because we're running out of time. Let's take a listen by 37 if we could real quick.
We need to be able to talk. And the First Amendment was not written for easy speech. It was written for the speech that nobody likes you for. Bit of a statement there from RFK Jr. Again, like I said before, I don't think that this guy should be kicked off or censored or anything like that, even if I disagree with him. And Lynette, I understand your point of view. I think people should be smart, should read, should listen to people, get points of view, make your own decisions. Got no problem with that. I'm also not for the baiting racists who are going to take up your cause in a negative way. This is just my opinion. Support the work of the ACLJ.
Go to ACLJ.org. I appreciate it. I know everyone here does, who works on this staff, who works on this incredible crew.
All the lawyers, all the media experts, everyone you've ever heard on this broadcast, we can't do it without you right now. So the last segment I said, go look at all of our stuff. And while I encourage you to do that this time, I'm going to tell you to support the work of the ACLJ by making a donation because it is really toward the end of the middle of our matching challenge. And with that, you make a donation. It's effectively doubled by another donor who is ready to unlock their donations.
So 10 becomes 20, 20 becomes 40, so on and so on. Thank you again for all your support and your prayers at ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-07-20 14:36:02 / 2023-07-20 14:57:00 / 21