Jay and Jordan Sekulow sit down with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn to talk about just how serious the threat from China actually is and why the Biden administration continues to turn the other way.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| This is an iHeart podcast. | |
| Hey, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. | |
| This is Jordan Seculo. | |
| I'm the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice. | |
| I co-host that Seculo broadcast each day of the week. | |
| That's at noon Eastern time. | |
| You can find out again about us at aclj.org. | |
| And we're thankful to Sean and his team for letting us host the program today. | |
| We are joined by a great friend of ours. | |
| You know, we're Tennesseans. | |
| So we know Senator Marcia Blackbird very well, but we know all of you across the country know her well because she doesn't do just great work for those of us who live in Tennessee as one of our U.S. senators. | |
| She does great work for the whole country. | |
| She really does. | |
| And Senator, thanks for being with us. | |
| This is Jay. | |
| And I wanted to start. | |
| You have been on this from day one, and this is this bizarre relationship and control factor that the Chinese Communist Party has with this administration. | |
| I mean, to me, I could go through the list from the cultural centers to the Confucius centers to what's going on to the buying the farmland. | |
| And this is something you have been very concerned about. | |
| You've said that President Biden has let Communist China act without consequence. | |
| I think the American people need to know how serious this threat is from China. | |
| I think this is a very serious threat from China. | |
| And as long as Joe Biden and his administration continue to let the CCP take off on this course, then they're going to do it. | |
| They feel like this is a weak president. | |
| He is compromised. | |
| He is somewhat beholden to them. | |
| And they are trying to push forward with their global dominance. | |
| They want to be globally dominant by 2050. | |
| They are pushing. | |
| You know, we called them down about the Confucius Institutes. | |
| Now we find out that they have these surveillance centers or police stations on U.S. soil. | |
| We look at what they're doing in Cuba and how they're pushing into the Western Hemisphere, which would give them a priority position if there were to be their attack on Taiwan and they in turn want to get into our signals, our communication, things of that nature. | |
| So we should be taking this aggression by China very seriously. | |
| And the fact that you've got Janet Yellen and John Kerry going over there and the two of them have on their separate agendas climate change when you are looking at this threat, the bullying of China, | |
| the human rights abuses, what they are doing to the Uyghurs and to the Mongolians, the Tibetans, the Hong Kong freedom fighters, how they're bullying Taiwan and the Philippines and the South Pacific Islands. | |
| This is something that this administration should be holding China to account just as you had President Trump holding China to account and saying, don't go there, don't do this. | |
| If you do, there will be hell to pay. | |
| You know, Senator Blackbird, something else that's very concerning are these reports that keep coming out about Cuba agreeing to host basically a Chinese spy base 100 miles off our coast. | |
| It's a repeat. | |
| Again, it seems like a disaster situation and another diplomatic failure or failure of U.S. leadership where Cuba feels emboldened to say, you know what, we need the money. | |
| We're still isolated. | |
| So we're going to take the money from the Chinese Communist Party. | |
| And they'll then have a base right on our coast. | |
| Well, that is precisely it. | |
| And, you know, there are reports that there has been China participation in Cuba for some time. | |
| Everyone knows that they have been kind of snooping around wanting to do business with China, but Cuba is broke. | |
| And just as you were saying, Jordan, they need the money. | |
| They need the investment. | |
| They're trying to push forward with building a telecommunications infrastructure. | |
| They cannot get it. | |
| And so what do they do? | |
| They're turning to the Chinese and the Chinese Communist Party and saying, all right, we will give you access to our ports. | |
| We will give you the ability to put a naval base here. | |
| We will give you the ability to push forward with your surveillance and your training center. | |
| Keep that one in mind. | |
| A training center for the Chinese Communist Party within 100 miles of U.S. shores. | |
| You know, Senator, one of the other aspects of the whole situation with China that has bothered me from the outset, I go back to that spy balloon. | |
| This administration let the Chinese Communist Party fly a device over our military bases, over the heartland of America, right from the West Coast to the East Coast, over sensitive military operations, and then shot it down when it passed Myrtle Beach or Hilton. | |
| I can't remember which it was. | |
| And you talk about no consequences. | |
| Let's talk about that for a moment. | |
| Letting a spy device fly throughout the United States and then doing nothing until they got the information and sent it all the way back to China. | |
| Well, here's the thing. | |
| The White House, after a citizen reporter spotted this thing up in the air and says, hey, what is this doing out here? | |
| And then it goes viral. | |
| Then finally they have to admit that it's there. | |
| Now, the other thing was you had them say, well, we'll shoot it down when it gets to the Atlantic. | |
| Well, how did they know it was going to go to the Atlantic? | |
| This is something that was remote controlled. | |
| How did they know it wasn't going to go back up into Canada or out into the Pacific? | |
| So were they in on what did they know? | |
| Why did they allow this? | |
| Was there any type of agreement? | |
| And I've got to tell you, I just, you cannot trust what they tell you. | |
| They are going to try to hide, to really frustrate the American people with getting to what true information is. | |
| There is a lot of hypocrisy here. | |
| They don't want to tell you the whole story about much of anything, whether it's spy balloons or whether it's Hunter Biden or cocaine in the White House or any of the other deals and the involvement of the Biden family and the decisions that this administration has made. | |
| There's a lot of laughing and a lot of joking about serious stuff like national security. | |
| If you can get that powder in, what other powder can you get in? | |
| Why is that not being detected? | |
| The issues that the Secret Service has had, we've known over the last few years with some of these security problems that have happened. | |
| And you hope that they're getting reconciled, but then maybe not. | |
| I do want to switch just quickly to the, because you're on the Judiciary Committee and you've got colleagues on the left. | |
| They're not happy about the judicial decisions of last week. | |
| I mean, maybe this is the whole entire last year since the Dobbs ruling and now with the affirmative action ruling, with the ruling on religious liberty, with the ruling on the student loan program. | |
| And because they disagree with some of these justices' judicial philosophy, they want them either, we're hearing impeachment or court packing. | |
| Those are the two options. | |
| And again, it all goes to the fact that they just have a disagreement on the judicial philosophy of these duly nominated and confirmed U.S. Supreme Court justices. | |
| Well, indeed, they do have a disagreement. | |
| And, of course, my goal as I review these justices, I want to, or judicial appointments and judges, I want to know what is their judicial experience. | |
| Are they a constitutionalist? | |
| Are they going to abide by the rule of law and uphold the rule of law? | |
| Well, the Democrats appear to be pushing for activist judges to go to the court, people that are going to rule their way on decisions that they want. | |
| That is not the job of the court. | |
| You fight out these positions, political positions on issues, left or right. | |
| You do that in the legislative branch. | |
| But you do not want the judicial branch making rulings from the bench. | |
| That is not their job. | |
| That is not what they're supposed to do. | |
| They are supposed to interpret the law based on the Constitution and then be, you know, checks and balances, equal justice for all. | |
| But, you know, I wish our friends on the left would move back to treasuring and wanting and pushing for that equal justice under the law. | |
| Equal justice under the law, if it happens to be agreeing with their version of what justice is, which brings me to a point, and that is this. | |
| We talked about this earlier in the broadcast. | |
| The Biden administration suffered a big loss this week when a U.S. District Court judge said that they're putting their thumbs on the scale of free speech by going to the social media companies and saying, hey, you probably shouldn't report this or don't let this one get much coverage and, you know, squelch this, throttle this back. | |
| And the judge said, nope, viewpoint-based discrimination. | |
| I did most of the viewpoint discrimination cases at the Supreme Court over the last 30 years were mostly cases I argued. | |
| And or if it wasn't one that I argued, it was based on a case that I had presented. | |
| And it seems to me, Senator, that the Biden administration, they've now canceled their meetings with these social media companies this week and next week because of this ruling. | |
| But the idea that the government's telling private companies to not put information out because the government doesn't agree with it is the very definition of viewpoint discrimination and censorship. | |
| What do you see Congress being able to do about this? | |
| One of the things that we need to realize is that, yes, indeed, you have Judge Dodie there in Louisiana who came forward and said, White House, you cannot do this. | |
| Now, a couple of things that we're going to be able to do. | |
| Number one is looking at big tech and their Section 230 protection. | |
| And as you know, our Kids Online Safety Act and holding them to account, that is kind of step number one. | |
| And the first of the steps to deal with reigning in big tech, that is something that is going to be important to do. | |
| The second thing that we're going to have to do is just be very careful as we look at this in the future and make certain that the left isn't going to get their way, that they're not going to return to this playbook that they've had of intimidating the social media companies and then tipping them off with saying, you've got this, it's going to be coming at you. | |
| Watch out. | |
| This might be disinformation. | |
| And we know that these are things that they have done in the past. | |
| But thank goodness, we have constitutionalists who are on the bench at our district, appellate, and Supreme Court levels that are saying, no, this is a free speech issue. | |
| This is an issue where you are putting your hands on that scale and you are tipping it. | |
| Because we know that this White House was pushing to directly censor these components, things that conservatives were putting up, things that the left was trying to push back against. | |
| And it is time for there to be equal protection, equal access, equal justice. | |
| You know, we're fighting with them, of course. | |
| They're going to take it on appeal, the Department of Justice, and we're going to be at the American Center for Law and Justice. | |
| We're going to be filing a brief on that and staying fully engaged. | |
| Senator Blackburn, thanks for being with us. | |
| We appreciate it. | |
| We've got a lot more coming up on the broadcast. | |
| Again, if you want information about what Jordan and I do, go to aclj.org or follow us on social media at Jordan Seculo at JSeculo at ACLJ. | |
| You can become involved and become part of the team at the ACLJ. | |
| We're in a matching challenge, which means any amount you donate, we get a matching gift and it's tax deductible. | |
| ACLJ.org. | |
| Back with more in a moment. | |
| Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. | |
| This is Jordan Seculo. | |
| We've got a lot coming up in the second half of the broadcast. | |
| You know, we've just talked to Senator Marsha Blackburn about the reaction to some of these Supreme Court cases. | |
| Really, I mean, it's been since the Dobbs case and since they tried their assassination attempts on Supreme Court justices, you know, block away from their house, people with guns. | |
| They were having to have security surround their homes around Washington, D.C. | |
| Yeah, many of them still have not had to been able to drop those security practices. | |
| And then last week, of course, Thursday and Friday, major decisions out of the court yet again, a year later, that have got the left calling for impeachment of justices because they don't agree with their judicial philosophy. | |
| They've got the left calling for court packing, which Congress, under the Constitution, can't add justices and remove justices from the Supreme Court. | |
| So they do have the power to do it, but it's this idea of why are they doing it? | |
| Would they be doing it for the right reasons? | |
| But one thing we did want to do, and we're going to do this coming up in the next segment of the broadcast, is talk through the actual cases that upset them so much. | |
| So I have been litigating cases at the Supreme Court since the 1980s. | |
| I've litigated them for four decades, almost really five decades now, at the U.S. Supreme Court, cases on First Amendment, religious freedom, free speech, election issues, representing presidents and executive power, fighting with Congress over subpoenas. | |
| I mean, I've done a lot of different cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| But Jordan, as you were saying this, it's very true. | |
| Since the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe versus Wade, there has been a market change on how politically Congress and others are now reacting to the Supreme Court. | |
| You know, it used to be that justices on the right or left may disagree in their court opinions, but for instance, the closest two justices on the Supreme Court when they were alive was, of course, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg. | |
| Ideologically separate, but very close personal friends. | |
| So were their families. | |
| That has significantly changed. | |
| And now, and we're going to get into this in the next segment of the broadcast. | |
| We're going to talk to Roger Severino about the import of these major decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court. | |
| They have changed the landscape of the Constitution in a positive way, restoring it to an originalist intent. | |
| Issues of speech, life. | |
| I mean, there's a whole host of them. | |
| We're going to get into all those. | |
| This is why you fight in court. | |
| And that's why the ACLJ, our organization, does what we do. | |
| ACLJ.org to find out about the American Center for Law and Justice. | |
| And you can join, make a donation, any amount. | |
| It's tax deductible. | |
| We get a matching gift at aclj.org. | |
| Back with more. | |
| Continuing the mission of saving America as we return to the Sean Hannity Show. | |
| You know, we were talking with Senator Marsha Blackburn about a number of Supreme Court cases and how the left has been responding. | |
| But we didn't do yet is break down what those cases were. | |
| And listen, they got a lot of attention, but it was also going into a holiday weekend. | |
| And we know it's kind of an extended holiday weekend with July 4th on a Tuesday and back on a Wednesday and then some people had off Monday. | |
| So again, kind of figuring out what all happened, I think is important. | |
| So we've talked about the left's response to these cases, but you also need to know what these cases did or didn't do. | |
| And I think it's very important we walked through there were four. | |
| Now, the left has kind of been on this push against the Supreme Court since the Dobbs decision leaked over Turning Roe versus Wade. | |
| So it's been for more than a year that they've been in a war with the Supreme Court. | |
| They're trying to make it much more of a political issue, which the right, actually conservatives, were able to do much more effectively to their base, which I think is why we have a court that's in the place it is right now is because we fought as part of our mainstream politics to say the Supreme Court is important to us. | |
| We know elections have consequences. | |
| We're going to put up justices that share our judicial insight and share our views. | |
| So we're joined now by Roger Severino. | |
| He's the vice president of domestic policy at Heritage Foundation. | |
| He was formerly the director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, leading a team of over 250 staff, enforcing our nation's civil rights, conscience, and religious freedom laws at HHS under the Trump administration. | |
| Yeah, Roger is also a well-known conservative and constitutional lawyer. | |
| Roger, you know, this is, by the way, for those joining us, this is the Sean Hannity broadcast, Jay and Jordan Seculo here. | |
| Roger, let's talk about there's been such a shift in this emphasis now on the left since Dobbs. | |
| And then, of course, you had the decisions this term, which just cemented it, of the hostility aimed at the Supreme Court right now. | |
| I've been litigating there for 40 years. | |
| I've never seen the level of hostility that I do see now. | |
| It is a concerted effort because the left had the Supreme Court in its pocket for the longest time. | |
| It couldn't win at the ballot box. | |
| It couldn't get their agenda pushed through the Democratic process. | |
| So they politicized the courts. | |
| I mean, it goes back to the Warren era in the 60s. | |
| And then it slowly changed. | |
| The conservative legal movement came about. | |
| The Federal Society came up, the work that ACLJ did, other groups, and you're a part of that. | |
| And we started to change the tide. | |
| And the left doesn't like that they lost the court. | |
| The court has returned to a constitutionalist, originalist majority, and we're getting the fruits of that now. | |
| So you see President Biden, after these decisions, say this is not a normal court. | |
| Well, in one sense, he's right, because for the last 50 years, it was very liberal. | |
| And now the new normal is going back to the Constitution. | |
| So it is actually quite extraordinary that we now have a constitutionalist court, and the left is not giving up their power quietly. | |
| So you have Children White House making all these ludicrous claims about conspiracies and dark money. | |
| And then you have outside groups going after the travel logs of every Supreme Court justice that's conservative while ignoring the travel abroad of, say, Justice Stephen Breyer, who takes all these foreign trips that he never pays for. | |
| But the left is really training their fire because they're losing and the Constitution is winning. | |
| Yeah, I think this is, you know, you're 100%. | |
| I totally agree because you look at the cases, and I do think there's a marked area of time. | |
| If you're going to look at this on a time spectrum, pre-Dobbs, post-Dobbs, very different. | |
| And then this term, and we should talk about this, the Supreme Court cases this term really cemented the conservative judicial philosophy coming out of this court. | |
| And it was a 6-3 court on a lot of these issues, some of them even more than that on some of the cases. | |
| When you look at this term, what case, Roger, do you think of the big ones that came out was the most significant? | |
| I mean, they were all significant, obviously, but as far as showing this change of judicial philosophy in the Roberts court now. | |
| It has to be the Harvard UNC case. | |
| This was a culmination of the conservative movement restoring the vision of the Constitution and, frankly, the Declaration of Independence that we're all created equal and the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King that we're judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. | |
| Those were the principles at stake. | |
| The Biden administration resisted it. | |
| Harvard University and UNC resisted it. | |
| They wanted to have check-the-box racial balancing going on forever, which is really, it's just critical race theory, but with a new veneer, it's saying that we will always have a creditor and debtor race, and therefore you need government agencies and you need private universities to do this tinkering and racial balancing. | |
| The losers were, of course, Asian Americans. | |
| Those were the minorities who were being capped at around 20%. | |
| The Supreme Court said this is improper use of race. | |
| The only way you could ever take race into account, really, is if it's part of a personal life story that is somehow relevant to a person's character and merit. | |
| If you overcome obstacles, that is something you could include, but check-the-box race. | |
| It doesn't matter if you're rich, if you have every door open to you. | |
| If you are African-American or Hispanic, you get a boost. | |
| Those days are over. | |
| The checkbox is dead and buried. | |
| My late colleague and friend, Will Konstavoy, was the main architect of these cases with his firm, and I know you worked on them as well and others. | |
| And Will passed away unfortunately before this decision came out. | |
| He was a colleague of mine when we were representing President Trump and some of the constitutional challenges at the Supreme Court. | |
| But I agree. | |
| I think that case cemented the concept of what a conservative judicial philosophy is supposed to mean. | |
| But I also think, Roger, that is the case that motivated the left here probably the most. | |
| I mean, you had the case involving the creative web designer. | |
| That got a little attention, not a whole lot, because I think people could say you could go either way on those cases, but I think they got it right. | |
| But the admissions case, I think, had the biggest impact, I think, since Dobbs. | |
| Yeah, and this has been a huge change in terms of the court's jurisprudence. | |
| There was a question if Chief Justice Roberts was going to stick with it, and he did. | |
| He did. | |
| And he's generally been good on racial preferences cases. | |
| He hasn't been the best on election and race. | |
| So there was a bit of an open question whether he would deliver on the constitutionalist principles, and he did on this case. | |
| Now, you should read Justice Thomas' concurrence, which is just amazing. | |
| A man who grew up in the segregated South saying that the racial balancing hurts minorities. | |
| The mismatch is a terrible thing. | |
| And the stigma of it, saying that some races will need a perpetual boost because they can't compete. | |
| They can't catch up on their own. | |
| And you need this artificial boost forever. | |
| And that was rejected. | |
| And that's going to be better for everybody. | |
| But again, as I mentioned, particularly for Asian Americans. | |
| So the left says that they're for diversity, but they're clearly not for intellectual diversity. | |
| And what they mean by diversity is this very rigid skin color quota, which is just counter to American principles that minorities themselves oppose in large numbers. | |
| You know, what's interesting here, Jordan, is when the left starts talking about court packing, they're not kidding. | |
| They believe that it's that important so that if they've got to force change, not through the electoral process where the president nominates and with the advice and consent, consent of the Senate appoints justices to the Supreme Court. | |
| No, they do believe that poor court packing is a legitimate vehicle. | |
| Court packing, meaning you just add more justices to the allotment statutorily. | |
| You have power to outweigh the conservative majority in this case. | |
| And then I do think the other case, well, I do think there were a couple big religious liberty wins, but I think the other one they're going to try to use, which is typical of the left, is not so much the student loan. | |
| It wasn't so much, again, the philosophy that got them to the decision. | |
| But what they're going to do is say, see, this evil Supreme Court took $20,000 away from you that President Biden was trying to give. | |
| They'll use that point. | |
| Whether or not the judicial philosophy of how they got there matters, but I do think it shows you the left's judicial philosophy, which is outcome-based. | |
| Yeah, it is outcome. | |
| They come up with something, they make something constitutional based off if they like the outcome or not, not based off the process. | |
| Yeah, I mean, when you follow the law, sometimes you get a result that may not be the best, that you don't think is the best policy decision. | |
| But, Roger, when we're dealing with the law and we're dealing with the Constitution and presidential authority, that case, I think, got it exactly right. | |
| Also, the president didn't have the authority, which, by the way, Nancy Pelosi acknowledged he didn't have. | |
| He acknowledged he didn't have it earlier on. | |
| So now he's blaming the Republicans. | |
| But how about the significance of the student debt case? | |
| It involved the major questions doctrine. | |
| And that is something that is exceedingly important because it says that Congress is the one that has the power to make these major economic and political decisions, not federal agencies, and certainly not the president on his own. | |
| This is reigning in an out-of-control president who apparently he learned for Obama the pen and a phone tactic that you really don't need the law. | |
| He's got his own pen for executive orders. | |
| He has his own phone. | |
| He could order by a wave of a hand that $430 billion, million dollar billion dollars of student loan funds, excuse me, million, million can be wiped away simply by his own say-so, right? | |
| And I'm sorry, he does not have that sort of power. | |
| It requires congressional action, the major questions doctrine. | |
| He knew he didn't have that power. | |
| Roger, he knew he didn't have that power. | |
| He said it. | |
| Pelosi said it. | |
| They all said it. | |
| They played politics with this. | |
| That's what happened here. | |
| They wanted, since they were okay with this outcome because they could then take it to voters and say, this is the evil Supreme Court trying to take away your money. | |
| Roger Severino, thanks for being with us again. | |
| Roger does great work over at the Heritage Foundation. | |
| We've got a lot of good friends there. | |
| Roger, thanks for being with us today on the Sean Hannity show. | |
| Thank you very much. | |
| Very good. | |
| Yeah, I mean, I think, too, the idea, it's interesting to me because Roger, by the way, but he oversaw the Civil Rights Division at HHS, which is very different under the Biden administration than it is under a Trump administration, you know, weaponized against the pro-life community right now when they were trying to reel in a lot of that. | |
| And also religious liberty. | |
| It's interesting to me that those two religious liberty cases did not get quite the attention that they used. | |
| I think the left, they messed that up significantly with Justice Barrett when she was Judge Barrett. | |
| And since then, I think they are afraid of getting involved in too many religious discussions because they remember the dogma lives deep within you. | |
| Justice, that was Senator Feinstein. | |
| And so talking about her Catholic faith, and that was basically. | |
| They said it's race politics. | |
| And they took away your economic relief. | |
| The fact is that Congress can't pass your economic relief. | |
| So that's why you're not getting the student loan forgiveness is because Congress won't compromise. | |
| Okay, so what's interesting about that, you said that about the religious liberty case. | |
| Used to be when a religious liberty case came out, it was the big news. | |
| I think you're right. | |
| I think you just hit on something there, Jordan. | |
| And that is, since the attack on Justice Barrett's faith, I think the left is even nervous about bringing it up. | |
| So the case comes out for the creative designer. | |
| Nothing happens. | |
| The other religious liberty case comes out. | |
| Everybody's expecting there's going to be this big tumult that was on and was 9-0. | |
| I think everybody realized, yeah, some of those cases are not even controversial at the Supreme Court anymore with a very divided court. | |
| They are afraid to address it. | |
| I think, look, they overplayed their hand politically. | |
| But folks, here's the thing you need to understand. | |
| They will attempt to pack the court if they had control of the House of Representatives. | |
| It's not, it's not we're not making up an issue. | |
| They have the authority to do it. | |
| Well, they do have the votes to do it. | |
| Constitutionally, they do. | |
| They have to do it statutorily, but they have the authority to do it. | |
| So that's why we have an Office of Government Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice that fights for you every single day on Capitol Hill and fights on issues like judicial packing and packing the Supreme Court. | |
| Very important. | |
| Jordan heads up all of that work as executive director of the ACLJ, but you've done a special effort on really building our team in Washington. | |
| Yeah, that's right. | |
| We have an entire team in Washington, D.C. that's a government affairs team that works side by side with our attorneys on all the legislation and all of the matters going before, whether it's the investigations of the House Judiciary Committee, whether it is tax issues, policy issues, issues involving life. | |
| We make sure our government affairs team is in line with our legal team so we know what we need to prepare for. | |
| But also, when we get victories, when we win these FOIAs and we start getting the information, one of the key things to do is to share it with members of Congress who right now we have a House of Representatives, so we've got leadership positions, committee chairs who can take that information, ask questions to the administration, get more answers. | |
| So we're able to work hand in hand, and that's important work of the ACLJ is the government affairs team that works side by side with our legal team, our media team, to get these issues out so that, again, members of Congress know what's going on. | |
| We also update them about what is going on in the courts. | |
| We're going to do that later in the broadcast today about some of the unique ACLJ cases we're working on right now. | |
| Yeah, so American Center for Law and Justice, go to aclj.org to get information about the ACLJ. | |
| You can join as well. | |
| You donate any amount, donate any amount, you become a member of the ACLJ, and we get a matching gift at aclj.org. | |
| More of the Sean Hannity program. | |
| We come back. | |
| Hey, everybody, Jay Seculo, Jordan Seculo, in for our friend Sean Hannity. | |
| Welcome back to the broadcast. | |
| We're going to be talking about an issue that is in every city throughout the United States. | |
| Part of it comes in through our border, which is porous. | |
| Some of it's just in your community, and that is this issue of human sex trafficking. | |
| And I want to, we're going to really get down on this. | |
| This is something the ACLJ worked on for a decade, getting laws passed in all 50 states to stand up against this plague on our culture and our country and get the emphasis before it was after these young girls. | |
| They were turning them into the criminal defendants rather than the individuals that were selling them into sex trafficking. | |
| And we changed that whole paradigm through legislation that was passed in just about all, I think, all 50 states now. | |
| We worked with an organization and drafted the law so that the victim would not be the one prosecuted. | |
| We're going to get into that. | |
| But I also want you to get information about what we do. | |
| Jordan and I host a broadcast every day at noon called Seculo, and it's on stations all over the country. | |
| Just go to aclj.org. | |
| We have a listing of the stations. | |
| Of course, you can also watch it on Rumble, Facebook, YouTube, wherever you get your social media. | |
| It's on our websites as well at aclj.org. | |
| But you can also join the American Center for Law and Justice, which allows us to fight around the country. | |
| And Jordan's going to tell you how to do that. | |
| We encourage you to do it at aclj.org. | |
| Yeah, that's right. | |
| So go to aclj.org. | |
| And right now we have a matching challenge, which is pretty cool. | |
| So I know you may get these if you're involved in politics. | |
| You see these times like six times match, eight times match. | |
| Ours is very simple. | |
| It's 100% match of your donation. | |
| So if you donate right now at aclj.org, $25 to our work. | |
| It's not just a show. | |
| We've got teams of lawyers, government affairs teams, offices all over the world. | |
| If you donate $25 at aclj.org right now, we have donors that are going to match that $25. | |
| So it's like a $50 donation to the ACLJ. | |
| So we encourage you to donate today and learn more about us at aclj.org. |