Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: Major Voting Group Leaving Biden

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
May 3, 2024 1:19 pm

BREAKING: Major Voting Group Leaving Biden

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1062 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


May 3, 2024 1:19 pm

The 2024 presidential election is only six months away – polls show growing support for former President Trump over President Biden, particularly among Christians. Trump's New York trial is also shifting more voters to his side, and Trump's popularity among Hispanics is skyrocketing. The Sekulow team discusses the state of the election, the latest news in the Middle East, current ACLJ cases, the ongoing college campus protests, Alabama ensuring Biden is on the ballot – and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Today on Sekulow, shocking new polling data shows important voting groups breaking toward Donald Trump. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright folks, welcome to Sekulow. We're going to talk politics today, get into some recent polling as we get closer into the summer, the election months. Even Donald Trump, during these trials, taking the time he can to get out on the campaign trail. At least every Wednesday and even trying to do campaign events in New York City. After the trial, meeting with leaders, going by firehouses, trying to do some normal political events.

Then of course on the weekends as well and trying to raise money because the Democrats are raising a lot of money as well. And we're starting to see polls come out that are pretty interesting amongst different groups. And the first one we wanted to kind of look at, I think Logan, was Catholic voters. Now this is important because Catholic voters in the last election cycle favored President Biden. It was about, I think, 55% of Catholic support in the same one-on-one pairing this year. But he previously, in 2020, they preferred Biden 67 to 26. I mean it was almost 70-30 Catholic voters to President Biden. Who is Catholic?

I think that's true. And he's Catholic. And honestly, let's say even pre-Obama years, but even more recently, took some more historic Catholic positions.

But he has taken a lot of those back over the last four years as he's rolled out much more. I mean he was one of the ones who was sort of a pro-life Democrat for a good portion of his career. And now has gone to the far end of the extreme on that to satisfy the left base. Yeah, I'd say he did a lot of the social justice that's still part of the Catholic Church. Even the Evangelical Catholic Church, but with the pro-life view. I mean he was a pretty hardcore pro-life most of his civic career.

And then this breaks it down even more though. So early on, you know, the poll found that there was 55% of Catholic support now leading towards President Trump in a head-to-head match. But when you start looking at a one-on-one pairing, only 45% of Catholics support President Biden. But when you start looking at Hispanic Catholics, this is where the lead kind of starts to shift and narrow. Biden only leads among Hispanic Catholics 49-47%.

That is a tie. In 2020, Hispanic Catholics preferred Biden to Trump 67-26%. How can President Biden, and we know there's going to be more Hispanic voters in probably this cycle than there were four years ago. Just because there's going to be more people turning 18, 19, 20.

Yeah, as society moves forward, that's just going to be how it is. So if that number holds, that is very troubling for President Biden. And that's across the country. That's not like just, you know, oh, well, a lot of those voters are in California, which will go blue anyways, and Texas, which will go red anyways. These are how you not only win states, Logan, but you also, where you've got new workforces, you've got immigrant populations, places like the Rust Belt, where people who are coming to the country and are working those jobs no one else will, are not necessarily just on the border states. They're in purple states, hardworking states.

And so shifts like that, that went from basically tied, or Joe Biden with a 10-15 point lead, to Donald Trump with a almost 70% lead among those voters, when he's the one saying secure the border, when he's the one saying shut it down, and it's Joe Biden who thinks he's going to get those voters by saying we want to let everyone in. But these are American citizens that are Hispanic Catholic voters. These are not non-citizen Hispanic Catholics. No, we know we have a lot of viewers who are Hispanic. We know that that is a big portion of our audience the entire time.

We've even considered releasing Spanish exclusive programming, where this show gets translated. We're actually in constant talks about that, because we know that it's not just a one-sided issue here, especially those who are believers. We'd love to hear from you. If you're part of that community, we'd love to hear from you or not.

Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. What's your reaction to this polling? Also, a response from RFK in his polling, we'll get to that coming up too. Pretty interesting. And Protestants. Yeah, Protestants. Not evangelical Protestants, just Protestants.

Where are they? All right, Logan, I said Protestants, and this is not evangelical Protestants. So when we talked about the Catholic vote there, we talked about the Hispanic Catholic vote, so we're breaking that down, and how, again, in 2020, you had Biden preferred by Hispanic Catholics, 67 to 26, and now that's switched to, again, now basically tied, and it's moving more towards Trump. So, I mean, that is going to be a big pain for Joe Biden. When you look at Protestants, and by the way, these are not evangelical Protestants.

It's not broken down that way. Just anyone who identifies as a Protestant. Yeah, I mean, that's pretty generic, kind of like if you just identified as Catholic. Or a Christian.

Or an American Christian, yeah. 60% of Protestants expressed support for Trump, and about 38% said they lead towards Biden. So, again, when people say… We have an evangelical one also, which is, I mean, much more extreme, which is 81%, as you'd kind of expect. Well, what's interesting is that when you're looking at Protestants, you're talking about also like the mainline churches.

I don't know what the numbers were in the last election cycle, and they probably favored Trump a bit. But there was a lot of weird stuff going on. It was COVID. It was a bizarre time, to say the least.

Things were shut down. Voting was weird. Election integrity was bizarre, to say the least. When you look at this, that even 60% of Protestants, generic Protestants, that's mainline churches.

Right now would vote for President Trump. I mean, what's really going to change between now and election day that would have that 60%, you know, 30% of them switch over to Joe Biden? Yeah, how much, I guess you could say, the amount of stuff they've thrown at President Trump, what else could there possibly be? When I look at Protestants, and it's not the evangelical Protestants, I think these are voters who are pocketbook voters. These are voters who are, their number one issue might not be life. It might not be the social issues. It's the economy, probably.

Yeah, which is probably the majority of people. And so it's not going to be like, well, I don't like the fact that Trump's in court and all this kind of stuff. It's going to be, well, the inflation's not going down, the interest rates aren't going down like we thought.

They may try to pull a political move, and maybe they will very late, but right now they're not. And I think what is interesting is when you then look at the problems that we've pointed out from the Biden administration about what they've done to Catholics. And we just got a response back from the FBI in our FOIA that we filed against the FBI about its targeting, remember, of radical traditionalist Catholics. There's the FOIA that you see. The FBI has now responded to the court and said that it found 1,200 pages of documents that are responsive to the FOIA about targeting radical traditionalist Christians.

Logan, we thought it was one page in Richmond and one that was taken down off the board that didn't get anywhere. Then we found out it got to all the field offices. Then we found out that they actually had an agent inside a Catholic church. While they were denying a lot of this even happened. Denying, yes. Christopher Wray was denying it.

Then he was having to go back and... Well, maybe a little bit. Right. And then we find out that they actually had agents going in undercover to recruit other potential, I guess, spies for them inside the church to identify those who were traditional with their faith, so maybe attended Latin mass or regularly attended church, Catholic church. And again, if you're a Catholic and you, again, politically, you know that the FBI is doing this to you, you realize, you know, they think that you're the enemy.

And the Democrat Party and their law enforcement agencies think you are a problem in the country and you start thinking, you know what, if they think I'm the enemy, maybe I need to look at that other party. Yeah. And as much as so that there is 1,200 pages of documents, you know, full big documents about this. Can you imagine how bad that would read? Like, I mean, they'll redact as much as they can. We'll get as much as we can before the election out as possible, but you know they will try to redact a lot of it because it is going to be highly offensive to, I think, all religious people. You don't have to be a radical, traditionalist Catholic.

I just think you need to be a person of faith. Yeah. That's a Bible, you know, pretty much, of documents. It's a Bible-sized amount of documents, pages, about going after people of faith, you know, like they said, radical, traditional Catholics.

Yes. And I mean, when you think about that as a person of faith, don't just think about it as a Catholic. You think about what they might be doing to evangelicals. This was exposed because, you know, we had the whistleblowers who saw it on the board, and then we realized it wasn't just on the board and taken down with that one letter. They said, oh, we would never do this, and we took it down immediately. It made its way all across their field offices, and they were actually taking action on it. Who knows what they're doing inside your evangelical church? We've sent out the warning before.

I'll say it again. If people start showing up at your church, or somebody starts showing up at your church, some guy starts showing up at your church, asking weird questions about behaviors that are not normal at your church, like militants, and is anybody here kind of, you know, too wild, too gun-crazy, crumpy. People where? Think about it for a second, if you've heard our show, and remember that they sent them into Catholic churches. They're likely sending them in to evangelical churches.

We just haven't been able to find that yet. Yeah, absolutely. We got a lot of calls coming in, actually, related to that poll that came out, and we want to break that down. Let's first go to Oscar, who's calling in California Online One. Oscar, you're on the air.

Yeah, hi. I always hear you guys. I love your show, number one show, and yeah, I just wanted to say that we need Trump badly, because look at all these Democrats are doing. I mean, all the disgrace, the border, and these colleges and stuff. We need to get rid of Obama and Biden, and yeah, it's just so much bad going on. And the Hispanics, I want to say, let's go. Obama is for Trump.

We need a 9-1-1 emergency. Yeah, listen, I think, listen, when you say Obama, and it's true to so much extent, because so many of the people in this administration, they just moved up a step. Yeah, I'd say it's the more extreme Obama.

Yes, because these were the mid-level staff. Obama was at least trying to pretend to play to the whole country. He was a better politician, but obviously.

I mean, a lot of people are. But, and he had more control over his staff. Yeah. Obviously, you never felt like Obama wasn't running things, because he was young, and he was very involved. He was kind of like a Clinton style.

Yes. And a Trump style, very involved. Joe Biden, you feel like he's just getting talking points and reading them, and doesn't even know what's going to be on them until he gets them that day. Which is why he contradicts himself, and he'll say something that he is in favor of, and then of course his official position is the other way around. Now, do you want to go to that RFK poll? We'll briefly bring it up.

Yeah, RFK, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who obviously has been that sort of third-party independence running. And by the way, the two polls have come out in relation to that. A general election poll from Rasmussen that just hit a few minutes ago.

We'll cover that. But one that he put out yesterday, and it showed with a poll of over 26,000 for Zogby that were polled, and it obviously is not how it's going to roll. But it put, if Biden versus Trump, they said Trump wins by a comfortable margin. Trump versus Kennedy, Kennedy wins in a close race. And Kennedy versus Biden, if it was head-to-head, Kennedy wins in a landslide.

Now, you can say obviously that's... Why? That's easy. Yeah, well, because conservatives, Republicans are going to vote for Kennedy.

If you had no other option but Joe Biden or Kennedy, you'd just vote for Kennedy. Yeah. I don't know if enough people even showed up, I guess, because depending on how he campaigned. Yeah.

And I think he would probably win. I don't know about a landslide, because I'm not sure people would be that excited about it. Yeah. Well, here's the interesting one. The general election poll that just dropped has three, obviously, three people in this race, RFK, Biden, and Trump. Trump wins currently with the current polling 46%, Biden at 36%, and RFK Jr. at 9%, which is a pretty sizable amount.

That is a spoiler territory. Where do you think that 9% is coming from there? Right. That's the Joe Biden. Because if you take RFK Jr. out, most polls are showing it pretty close right now. Yeah, that's a... You don't get a lot of polls of Trump versus Biden with Trump with a 10-point lead if RFK is not in it. With RFK in it, and he's got, you know, Biden's now down 10 points, and RFK's got nine of them, I'm thinking they're all coming from Biden.

Yeah. Well, they don't want to vote for Trump. And that's because... It's fine, because they don't want to vote for Trump, but they can't look around what's happening in this world and saying, this is what we have to deal with, that's who we're going to vote for. So in some way, it's probably some reason that people voted for Biden in the first place, and we know the RFK is now qualified to be on 10 state ballots, including some big ones. Right.

Yeah, right. Some Midwestern states, and those are the states that are going to decide the election. I mean, I think he's strategically going to be on the states, if he can, those are the states that determine the outcome of the election. So he won't be in every state where he has a chance of actually winning probably the electoral ever.

Yeah. But, you know, he doesn't really need to be in those. Oh, he was very upfront and said, in the three-way race, I lose. By the way, he's not one of those people going out there saying, I'm going to win.

He goes, no, if it's in the three-way race, I'm going to lose. But, you know, could it cause a lot of dissent and a lot of interestingly? He's doing a big event here next week. It is, I am curious, and he's taking very interesting points of view. Like his new life statement is very interesting. Very different than his previous statement.

Very different. Well, I mean, listen, folks, the election is six months away, and it's vitally important that we defend election integrity and the Constitution. We know the left is going to stop at nothing to push a narrative for their preferred candidate that some kind of election, you know, it's stolen from them. And we know states and localities are making election changes that invite fraud. This is happening all over the country, legalizing ballot harvesting, banning voter ID, and forcing mail-in ballots. We already defeated the left's attempt to remove Trump from the ballot, remember that, and cancel your right to vote. We did that at the U.S. Supreme Court. Our legal team is already preparing for the fight ahead, and we're ready to go back to the Supreme Court if necessary to protect the integrity of this vital election. But we need to hear from you. Sign our petition right now for election integrity at ACLJ.org slash sign.

All right, welcome back to Secular. We are joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State, former CIA Director Mike Pompeo. As Secretary Pompeo, we are learning more and more about how Iran is really funding its terror, funding the attacks on Israel, funding its proxy attacks on Israel as well. But even, you know, being so bold now is actually firing weapons from Iran into Israel, and Israel, of course, firing back. And we're learning that they are exporting about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, mostly to China. And that the Trump administration had it as low as about half. It's 700,000 per day. So why can't the Biden administration enforce sanctions against Iran like the Trump administration, your administration, did?

Well, Jordan, it's great to be with you. Look, they, of course, can do it. They have made a choice not to.

They made a policy decision not to do that. They have literally, since the first day that they came into office, undone all of the pressure campaign that we had on the Iranians. And this wasn't out of spite. We did this to keep Americans safe, to keep Israelis safe, to keep the Middle East more stable. We had put enormous financial pressure on them.

You're right. They're selling more than a million barrels of oil per day, creating a growth for the Iranian economy that exceeded the growth of the American economy in 2023 and probably will again this year. We know, too, that they say from time to time, well, you can't really stop them from selling this oil. And if you did, prices would go up.

That's just, Jordan, that's just nonsense. We had them down to actually as little as about 350,000 barrels a day. And then we asked our Gulf Arab friends, we said, we need you to help, and we kept the price of crude oil, open market crude oil, lower than it was when we began our pressure campaign. So it is possible to protect the American economy and protect American national security. And the Biden administration has just chosen to play footsie with the Iranians, and you can see the result of that, the Middle East aflame. Yeah, I mean, this is how Iran gives Hezbollah $700 million every year. I mean, that's a great way to fund a paramilitary force. That's much more than just a random terror group. That is $700 million a year, lets you set a pretty official military, as they have in Lebanon, throughout politics and every level of society, including military. And, of course, it's a terror group right on Israel's border. But is the United States then allowing the funding of the Hezbollah terrorists by not enforcing the sanctions? I mean, would the $700 million be there for them if they just enforced the sanctions that were there? Let's just cut to the chase here.

Your question is the exact right one. Does it work? Did the sanctions that were put in place in the Trump administration actually work?

Let's not take my word for it. Let's take the President of Iran, President Rouhani, who said that in 2019, he said this cost the regime $200 billion. Do you want to think about that? $200 billion that the Trump administration enforcement actions caused the Iranian regime. That's money for the Houthis that are shooting missiles into ships in the Persian Gulf. It is the Hezbollah. It's what happened in Hamas. And it is, we should never forget, it is the backbone of them being able to build out the full range of their nuclear program, including the capacity to launch missiles to deliver those nuclear weapons.

This is deeply dangerous. And we know that what the Trump administration did work worked. And we know that the Biden administration has made a policy choice not to enforce those sanctions.

We need to get back to that. It takes hard work. Brian Hook, my team at the State Department, worked on this every day. We were every day stopping small things, big things, medium sized things from transiting and revenue from flowing into Iran. And we reduced their capacity to be that world's largest state sponsor of terror.

By $200 billion. That's a lot tougher to fund and get nearly a billion dollars to Hezbollah or to Hamas to launch attacks on Israel or to feel bold enough to fire your own attacks onto Israel. You wouldn't because you wouldn't have the money to even fund the weapons, to fire the weapons, or even pay the military forces and the Revolutionary Guard as well. But we know now Iran isn't just working with terror proxies. China is deeply involved in economically propping.

They've made that decision for now to economically prop up the terror regime. And you've got Israel kind of stuck in the middle and the U.S. kind of playing on both sides right now. I mean, is this leading towards like a Cold War scenario or is there a way to convince the Chinese to come back to the table and come back towards our way? At least say, you know, doing business with Iran is not going to be good for the Chinese Communist Party.

This is definitely a thing that the United States can have profound influence on. You can reduce the chance that the Iranians, the Russians, and the Chinese will work together. What you can't do is, you know, Secretary Blinken went and I think it sounds like according to the U.S. readout, he told the Chinese government, hey, stop, stop doing this. Stop helping the Russians in Ukraine or else. But, of course, what you and I both seen is there's no or else from this administration.

It is all carrot, no stick. And when you stop enforcing sanctions against Iran, when you reduce the capacity to hold accountable the bad actors in China who are underwriting this, you you make them embolden them to move freely about the cabin and create risk. This is what we're seeing today.

We need leadership on the global stage in America that doesn't threaten things it doesn't intend. But, man, when it makes a commitment, it says, hey, we've got this sanction. We're going to enforce it.

It actually does. And, you know, I'll hear I'll hear the Biden administration say, goodness, if we did that, it would upset the economy. Well, while we were doing these sanctions on Iran, the American economy was flourishing as well. We were doing great. And now we are not enforcing sanctions in Iran. The American economy is suffering. I think they've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

We have to get this back. If we don't, you will see further instability in the Middle East, continued conflict in Europe. And I'm afraid you increase the probability that will be actual conflict in Asia and the Pacific as well. I want to ask you, because this is so important to not just Israel and not just Gaza or Hamas, but to the entire world right now. And even in our own country, with the protests that we're seeing, what happens at the U.N., because Israel's given Hamas a one week moment to strike a deal to either release the remaining hostages, both those that are the bodies and those who are still living, or they are going to begin the incursion into Rafah, which has not happened yet.

And people believe it would be a pretty big escalation into casualties. Do you think Israel's cornered Hamas militarily to the point where they may consider that? Or are we about to see what is not just a major military action, but also a major diplomatic... I'm trying to think, it could be a major diplomatic breakdown by the Biden administration. I don't know how they'd handle it at the U.N. if Israel has to go the route of going into Rafah. Jordan, I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that Israel is going to have to continue to tighten pressure and continue to move on Rafah. That's partly because Hamas itself is cornered as well. My guess is that they don't want to hand over those hostages because they know, in fact, that will be the end of them, the leadership of Hamas.

And so they're willing to take this risk. I think, sadly, Jordan, we've encouraged that behavior. You encourage that behavior when you are constantly, publicly, from the most senior officials like Biden and Blinken down to mid-level people at the State Department, warning Israel not to act too aggressively. That is encouraging and emboldening Hamas and Iran. And so I think we've made it harder to negotiate this solution than it had to be.

Had we led properly and told Israel, do what you need to do, and we were unequivocal, we were clear about moral right and wrong, I think we might well have a chance to actually get the living hostages back and reduce the risk that there would be more innocent Gazans that would be killed as collateral damage in a conflict in Gaza. Secretary Pompeo, it's great to have you as part of the team at the ACLJ. And folks, your support of the ACLJ goes right to that.

That's why we have Secretary Pompeo on our team, both for the broadcast, but also to advise us behind the scenes on these issues. Go to ACLJ.org right now. You can support the work of the ACLJ financially at ACLJ.org. We can continue to build out our team and provide you this excellent information publicly and the work behind the scenes as well.

ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to talk more on immigration. We've got calls on that coming in. We can go ahead and start off with those because we have some interesting ACLJ news we want to talk about as well.

But let's go ahead and get through some of these calls. I know they've been holding for a while. And the reason we're talking about it is because polls are shifting, especially polls amongst Hispanic Catholics, who favored Joe Biden in the last election by about 70 percent. So it was like 70-30 Biden-Trump.

And now it's basically tied. And so that would, of course, hurt Joe Biden all across the country. So it's not just in blue states or states that, you know, border states.

That's all across the country. And obviously would be a huge shift in electorate when you go from 70-30 to tied. Especially in an electoral group that is growing in the United States where there will be more Hispanic Catholics voting in this election than there did in the last election because there will be more Hispanics who are of age who have become citizens who can vote. So that is a huge demographic shift happening as we speak.

And, you know, Democrats think you can't get that shift happening when you talk tough on immigration. But the calls are very different. Let's go ahead and take a call. Let's go to Carmen, who's calling in California.

On line two. Welcome, Carmen. Hey, Carmen. Hi, my name's Carmen.

I'm calling from California. I am a Mexican-American citizen. My concern is here that I want to know.

I have been seeing everything. I used to be a former Democratic years ago. I converted and I'm now supporting more Trump since somebody woke up my eyes several years ago. The thing is that we have a lot of like our Mexican backgrounds, like our families, our parents that aren't English speaking or that don't understand what's going on. How can we do my question is with all these events happening that are harming our country, right? What is the Republican Party doing differently to avoid what happened or what we believe happened in 2020? Because I have families that work in the polls recently and my two family members and they told me that it's chaos.

There's really no control. So my concern is what can we do so that we can win this time around? Well, I think, listen, you're in a tough state to win for President Trump, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily in a district that's not going to be very important that determines the outcome of the House of Representatives and your state government as well. So you want to get out the vote.

You don't want to say, well, just because it's going to be tough to win California, I shouldn't go vote. The other news is I know under the Bush years at the RNC, there was a huge investment into Spanish language, Republican advertising, but also staff that would go out. And the same director of that worked inside the RNC and the White House for President Trump.

So I'm assuming that they did still spin the resources. They might not have gotten the same kind of attention because of his perceived anti-Hispanic, you know, the words he used, the way he came. And you've got a lot of these leftist Hispanic groups that would keep these Republican Hispanics out.

Like LaRosa and those kind of groups. You had our friends, like I forget his name right now on the top of my head, but we had him a bunch of times on who started like the Lexit, like the Latino exit of voters to become more conservative leading who was there supporting conservative candidates all around the country. So we're seeing that. I think you're seeing that in your local communities, too, when you have these conversations.

It's not like I feel like that. It's it's not just like national advertising that if you if you mostly watch Hispanic television, you will start seeing closer to the elections. But if you're in states where it's close, if you're in California, you might not. But if you're in states where it's close, like Florida or any place where or even in a community that's got a big Hispanic vote. So you could be just in an area of a state with a large Hispanic vote. You'll start seeing the Republican ads for Trump in Spanish.

You're not going to see those yet. We've discussed that internally because there are places we can now broadcast this show in real time. They can actually replace your voice in Spanish. Right. And we know there is an audience there. So we've even been talking, especially when you're talking to the people who are their parents who may have been here for 20 years, but never quite grasped the full language. And their kids are at a different point.

They are a little bit confused about where to who to vote for because it's like whatever group gets to them first. We're going to keep taking calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684. More banning of the Bible. Yeah, we'll discuss that coming up. More Bible bans around the country ads. Yeah, exactly.

It's a theme everywhere. It's really a horrifying time for that kind of thing. This is number 23 on the list? Yeah, for sure.

All right, we'll be back in just a second here. Hey, Sport the Work of the ACLJ. You can sign our new petition defending election integrity at ACLJ.org slash sign.

Welcome back to Secchio. As we've talked about this week with Bible banning, you may think that was over the 90s, the early 2000s, maybe even the late 80s, but no. The ACLJ, it's kind of existed because of this that continues to happen.

Businesses, schools, hospitals now, and that's here. The ACLJ is representing an employee at a major hospital who was told that they could not have a Bible study during their break time. So this was, again, not during their time at work hours, but this is break time. And our client just said during a daily meeting with staff, they expressed interest in having a Bible study with co-workers on their own time during their lunch break, so not on the clock. And their client's boss, who was not even in the meeting and was out of the office on a paid time off, texted the client during the meeting and asked for a phone call. And during this call, our client was informed she had offended others in the meeting by bringing up the Bible study. So she gets yelled at by just bringing up the idea of having generically a Bible study if there was any interest, if there's interest in it. And then her boss also notified the client that Bible studies on the hospital's premises were prohibited and that she would get back to her client with the specifics. So then she went to HR. HR came back and said that she could have the Bible study on her own time outside of business hours. But then a few days later, the corporate attorneys, which is weird because you would think HR handled it correctly when they actually looked at the rules and said, wait, on their own time, they could have whatever they want. And they're not offending people by asking a question like that. And the corporate attorneys came back and stated that Bible studies between coworkers are prohibited anywhere on campus at any time. Meanwhile, other employees are free to carry on private conversations unrelated to business activities in the hospital's cafeteria, various break rooms around the campus.

They can have any kind of meetings they want so long as the Bible isn't being discussed and faith isn't being discussed. So the ACLJ is fine. This was contacted. ACLJ.org slash help.

That's all you've got to do. If you are in a situation like this, we fired off a demand letter explaining the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against the various censorship that has occurred here. And the Title VII clearly establishes it's illegal for an employer to discriminate against employees who are, you know, just because of their religion. But we are now waiting to see if the hospital will stop the discrimination. If not, what's the next step? The next step? Lawsuit.

Right. Take them to court. This is the great thing about the ACLJ. We start off the demand letter. We give them the info. We say, here's your one chance to not have to go again, not lose in court. Cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Hospital. And a lot of times that works, by the way. More and more because the ACLJ has been around for decades now. Yeah, you're able to say, here's the law, don't mess with us. They look at us and they go, uh-oh, okay, these guys are going to beat us in court easily on this. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal judge or a conservative judge. By the way, because of you guys who support, by the way.

Yeah. Because you're able to get some of the best of the best to be their lawyers and be representatives. They literally will look us up and go, oh, no. If they take us to court, again, it does not matter if they're in a liberal jurisdiction. When it's this broad attack on religion, you win.

It doesn't matter what judge. And so they've got their time to respond. If they don't immediately cease discriminating against our client's Christian faith, we will take that further legal action. And as Logan said, the reason why we can write that letter, and hopefully that handles it and they're able to get the Bible study going and we don't have to sue a hospital.

But if we do, we have the resources necessary to fight them as long as we have to. They can hire the biggest firm they want. If they think that's smart, go ahead because at the end of the day, we know we are confident we will win for this client. And the hospital hopefully will realize if they look at our website, go through those cases, that we are going to win for our client.

Look at the Supreme Court cases. We're going to win for that client. But we can do this and we can also pledge to be there for that client as long as it takes, Logan, because of the support we receive financially from our ACLJ donors. Yeah, absolutely.

We couldn't do it without people's support. And it does sound like a case that we would have had like in the 80s. You would not have known that this is still happening. But this is happening every day and I would say it's happening every day so much more in the last year than it maybe has since the 80s. You have a whole generation of people you think would have grown up with the existing law. Yes, exactly. It all goes back to the same source, which is you're so far left, you actually become the fascist that you are proclaiming against.

You become the one who is preaching against people's religious beliefs. How many hospitals have you been into that even have multi-faith prayer spaces, chapels? Most of them. You know why? Because we know why people are in hospitals, a place that no one wants to be and can cling to a few things. That's why when you walk around a lot of hospitals, what do you see on TV? Televangelists a lot of times.

Why? Because they need hope. Somehow they need hope.

And guess who needs that hope just as much? The staff, the nurses, the doctors. I've seen it firsthand as someone who has been there, who's been in the NICU and seeing these nurses who are clinging to the televangelists that are on television because they're dealing with the worst of the worst situations.

And it's happening still in this country. And that's why the ACLJ is here. We should call related to that. Let's go to Dee in California watching on YouTube.

Dee, you're on the air. Yes. This regarding banning Bibles and all I can relate to. I was just a young child when Madalyn Murray O'Hara, who is an atheist, was pushing to have prayer and Bible reading removed from the schools. Unfortunately, of course, my father as a minister encouraged people, please, we need to put a stop to her doing this. People, oh, it'll never happen. It'll never happen.

Well, lo and behold, what was it, 63, 64, she succeeded and replaced with law enforcement. Now, that being said, they're pushing again on this with Bibles and like this little girl, eight year old girl and that. So I'm just reaching out to say, Christians, we need to act and we need to act now and we need to pray about this.

It will happen if we don't. I think that you're exactly right, Dee, because the one thing is we don't have to rely on the government to give us the time to read the Bible or pray. Like in all these situations, at schools, at your workplace, you're always going to have break times, right?

And these break times on these schools and whether it's a public school, private business, the law is clear. You can have your Bible. You can have a time of prayer and you can ask others if they want to join. Now, you can't like force people to join, but you can ask others if they want to join. You wouldn't want that anyway.

Yeah, you wouldn't want that. And any other religious person can do that as well. You don't think they would accommodate a Muslim during Ramadan?

I guarantee you the hospital does. As they should. I agree. I mean, I agree. I just think that it's, they pick and choose which religions to accommodate and Christians for so long, we've still, you know, we're like kind of... We're the ones that will not go violent.

I feel like we're back at the bottom of the barrel again. Yeah, it's because we're the ones that won't turn violent against people. And that's, by the way, and that's a good thing.

I'm still clearing that up. That's a good thing. However, they know it's a much riskier political social move to go after other faiths. Right.

What, regardless of the other faiths, they know the Christians are the easy targets because Christians, I don't know, by the scriptures themselves are not people who are going to necessarily respond in a way that is going to cause violence or harm to them as people. However, we can take them to court. We can protect your rights in it. We have to do that. Let's take another call. Some of these are still related to... Immigration. Immigration topics. In the next segment, I want to take as many calls as we can.

So hopefully this inspires you. Call in if you want to be on the air. 1-800-684-3110. We'll talk about the Bible study bans.

We could talk about the polling that has come out amongst Hispanic voters. Let's continue that conversation. Bernard's calling in Pennsylvania on line one. Listen on Sirius XM, which I appreciate. You're on the air. Hi.

I just want to say I'm a 52-year-old Hispanic male. I'm a follower of Christ because everybody today calls themselves a Christian, which is used like a resume, part of a resume. From Biden to Taylor Swift are Christians, but they don't profess, they don't do anything that's Christ-like. The left fooled everybody back in 2020 by putting Joe Biden in the front, by convincing Catholics that everything was going to be great because he's a Christian. We know that God is going to balance the scales.

God is going to be the only one. We're heading in a direction where it's like a boulder, where no matter what's going to happen, we're going to get crushed. I don't say it to be negative or anything like that, but it's the fact that if anybody reads the Bible all the way through, they'll know that this is going to happen from persecuting Jews to Christians.

This is nothing new. The ticking away of our Bibles, the Bible studies, this is nothing new because just to keep that out of sight, out of mind, I think Abraham Lincoln said it's the best. The philosophy of one generation will be the government of the next.

This is what I think, Bernard, I think it's important. Yeah, we are just running out of time. America in the United States is the difference in the world. We could be the country now. The whole world can be going in that direction you said. You could talk about it in times you could go into the faith world of that and look at the whole world. If you look at a lot of the world, they've been in that direction against Christians for hundreds of thousands of years.

But the United States was founded to be someplace different for freedom, liberty, and faith. Not all that long ago. No, and I still think we can right the wrong. These are temporary wrongs. When we talk about something that happened in the 1970s, that's not like 2,000 years ago. We can right the wrongs. Roe vs. Wade got overturned. Now we take the battle to the states.

Same thing with the Bible, the attack on faith. You can right these wrongs in the United States of America. Because people generally understand that we are supposed to be that shining city on the hill that is different from the rest of the world. And we want to be that even if the rest of the world is going the other direction.

We want to be the place where you can be a Christian and you can be proud of your faith. Support our work at ACLJ.org. One more segment coming up, taking your calls.

Alright, welcome back to Sekulow. While many universities are starting to look like they are taking a more pro-Israel position, or even just not an anti-Israel position because of the attention on Congress, not all. And this is a new report out of the New York Times. Brown University, a liberal Ivy League institution, agreed this week to hold a board vote this fall, so they tried to kick it down the road a little, on whether its $6.6 billion endowment, so $6.6 billion endowment, should divest from any Israeli connected holdings.

And I want to bring in Harry Hutchison here. Harry, again, in the university world, in exchange, the pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus main lawn dismantled. So that's how they got the kids and the protesters to leave. They said, we'll take a vote on it. We'll do a deal with this later on. They didn't say they're going to definitely do it, but the fact, Harry, that they're having to take that vote, and now maybe they're hoping that'll be the fall, and this is going to be a different time period, and kids will be focused on the election and not on this issue, and maybe the stuff in Israel will be over.

You know, calm down. But I think there's a chance that these boards, either people start leaving these boards, like we've seen big donors just leave, or they start voting to divest, because if they don't, their campuses can't even run. And if they do vote to divest, it's like bowing down to the terrace.

Absolutely. And universities face additional pressure because Qatar, among other Middle Eastern countries, is a major donor to major universities in the United States. But getting back to the New York Times, the New York Times rightly notes that calls to divest from Israel put students and donors on a collision course. And in addition to Brown University, which you mentioned, there's a collision course ongoing at Columbia, UCLA, Northwestern, and the University of Michigan.

It's also important to note that this collision course may not be resolvable because the collision is grounded, arguably, in fictional analysis. So if you really look at the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which has been going on for probably more than 20 years, the BDS movement is really premised on an ahistorical understanding of Israel and Israel's boundaries. And Israel's boundaries basically reflect both history and also international agreements that include the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Proclamation, and also decisions taken by the principal Allied powers in 1920, and ultimately a decision taken by the United Nations to divide up the land of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

And then if you really think about history, the Jewish people have been in the Middle East for thousands upon thousands of years, but the Boycott, Divestment movement seeks to deny that history. It seems like Brown, again, they're trying to have it both ways. It'll let students make their case, and then the Brown Corporation, which is the university's governing body, will actually have a vote in October, but there's like five steps to get to that. So it's not that Brown has endorsed that they're going to actually support BDS, but you wonder between now and then how many people quit that board because they don't want to be part of this. It's bad because usually if you're on those boards, you're someone who is a big donor, may be still a CEO or somebody who's President of a large corporation or chairman of a huge company, and it may not be worth it for you to even be on that board anymore, even though it's a school that you really cared about that you were donating your time to. And so you end up leaving because you don't want to be part of that, and then the people who do stay are the leftists, and they end up voting to divest. We haven't seen this happen a lot because there's a lot of laws against this that protect against divestment and sanctions against Israel, but this is how they are dispersing.

They're saying that it's not only going to happen at Brown, but Northwestern, you mentioned the University of Minnesota, they're striking these deals right now so that the encampments disassemble without violence. I think that's correct, and I think there's also an important distinction to be made between private universities and public universities. Public universities are likely governed by state law and in some cases federal law, but private universities will arguably have the ability to engage in anti-Israel activity without necessarily facing direct repercussions. But I also would point out that there has been a movement, which really started during the Obama administration, to simply declare that Israel is an oppressor nation and the Palestinians are the victims. We should recall, for instance, that President Obama refused to veto a UN resolution in 2016 just before President Trump took office, and essentially that set in motion a lot of forces that are anti-Israel. That's number one, but number two, universities on campus have been preaching an ideological agenda which is grounded in an ahistorical understanding of Israel for decades. Yeah, I mean, listen, interestingly enough, though, those private universities, a lot of them do take federal funding, so I think there is a way where, if they're going to go this route, they would have to at least give up the hundreds of millions they may receive from the federal government to divest billions from Israel.

So it might not be financially so great even for those billion dollars institutions. Logan, let's go ahead and quickly take Daniel. Daniel, you've got just a few seconds running out of time, but it really does time up with what we're doing here at the ACLJ, so go ahead.

Hello, my name is Daniel. I'm coming from Riverside County, California, and I'm Latino-Hispanic. My feedback is this, Trump is winning over the Latino vote. Right here in Southern California, I'm a key voice and ambassador for Lexi California, which is a Latino actually Democrat party, and I'm a founding father for a California chapter of LUCA, which is Latinos United for Conservative Action. I've been doing a lot of grassroots action, a lot of voter outreach, and I want to say the Latino community is waking up a Democrat party is not Hispanic values, and the Hispanic values are conservative values, and that's all.

Thank you, ACLJ. Thank you, Daniel, and I absolutely agree with you. I mean, if you're going to look at what party, they never line up 100%, but if you're going to look at what party lines up more with the values of what we know in the Hispanic community, it's way more than a Republican party. It's just the Democrat party has sold that Republicans somehow don't like immigrants, and that is just not the truth. Most of us who make up in the Republican party come from families who are immigrants to the United States. I mean, it's not like we're all from the Mayflower, and that's how the Republican party is still portrayed, like it's all a bunch of Mayflower, but I mean, we're half the country at least, and a lot of immigrants, more and more coming to the party every year, but the election is only six months away, and what's important is that you defend election integrity, and those voters who are Hispanic in those communities don't feel like it's dangerous if they go and vote Republican because they'll somehow be exposed in their community, or that's going to hurt their job, or hurt their position, or their kids, or affect them somehow negatively. So we know that states and localities are making election changes that confuse people. They legalize ballot harvesting, they ban voter ID, they force mail-in ballots, they change the dates, change the times. We are fighting back, and we need you to sign our petition to defend election integrity at ACLJ.org slash sign. Join that petition today. We've launched a major nationwide effort that's been ongoing to support your right to vote.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-05-03 14:07:38 / 2024-05-03 14:28:20 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime