On today's show, Obama-era Elon Omar investigation begins to haunt the Democrats. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments.
For call, one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow, October 30th. Here we are, of course, heading into what could be a very spooky weekend for a lot of people, as we are just a few days away from the midterm elections, and there is more happening in the world of Elon Omar and the investigation wide in scope. But in the same time, we've also learned that this is no new investigation.
In fact, it was happening during the Obama administration, and what did they do? Nothing. We're going to get into that and a lot more coming up, Jordan. In studio today, will of course in studio to give us a call at one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. We can break this down a little bit because, of course, we have been covering since really the raid of Elon Omar's home in Washington D.C.
We have been covering this in detail, and a lot of you have shown a lot of interest in what this could lead to. But we also know, again, that this has been something that has been an ongoing conversation for months and months, not months, years and years. Over the legitimacy of how whether she came into the country with her family, and I think you have to give her a little grace on that. She was a small child or something like that. Of what it could be, but then of course, what was the conspiracy theory of you like for the last decade?
You told it was a conspiracy theory, which was is she married or did was she married or tried to marry her brother? Which again, when you put into context, was not necessarily was she trying to marry her brother. It was more was she trying to get. A family member into the United States of America in a fraudulent way by marriage.
Now we have learned that those details have gone back. Where at least we know that the Obama era FBI DOJ was investigating this even then. That's going back nearly twenty years.
So when you look at this investigation, which the alleged fraud of this what they are calling, this is according to the New York Times, saying whether it was a sham marriage in two thousand nine to help the husband in this alleged marriage get a green card, it was investigated by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and was. U.S. Attorney was involved in this in Minnesota during the Obama administration in 2016.
So 10 years ago, this was investigated by the Obama administration. And what did they find? According to the New York Times, this is not Fox News or or just us coming up with this or some right wing outlet. It's the New York Times who's been actually doing journalism the last 72 hours. They say that that they actually found evidence that it was fraudulent in 2016.
This is according to current and former officials.
However, they decided the prosecutors decided to not. Charge a crime here because this felony, alleged felony, fell outside of a five-year statute of limitations. Jordan, so when you see President Obama saying that this is the Trump DOJ going after a political enemy, how dare he? It was his own Department of Justice that. Declined to prosecute, even though, according to sources, they found evidence of a crime.
What I'm reading here, when I read it closely, is this actually started at towards the end of President Obama's term in 2016, and so right outside what would have been a statute of limitations, or maybe still inside the statute limitations, it wasn't shut down until it was actually Joe Biden. Who shut it down in 2021?
So you had it restarted by the, or was kept going by the Trump administration.
So you had bot. Barack Obama did not shut this investigation down. Donald Trump won the election, continued an investigation. It was ultimately shut down by, again, by Joe Biden's Department of Justice, and now it's been reopened again. And again, this goes to an issue, like you said, Luke, where we were told we were the conspiracy theorists.
We were told we were the wrong. We were in the wrong. Don't talk about this. Don't talk about those issues. And in fact, now we know that we were actually.
Probably right. All right, phone lines are open for you at one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. That's one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten to have your voice heard on the air today. We also a special video presentation and a special guest joining us a little bit later. You're not going to miss that.
We are having all gifts doubled right now during Protect the Vote.
So be a part of it today. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are again open for you at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. A lot of you are just joining us right now, so I think we need to give kind of a just a re-update on what we're talking about here with the Elon Omar investigation as it continues to unfold. Again, just days away now from the midterm elections.
Most of us have voted. Will and I—I forced Will to go vote yesterday. I said, "Will, you're coming with me? Come on now, we're going to vote." Why you trying to make it seem like it wasn't my idea? I know we're not allowed to talk about like probably.
Are you allowed to talk about what happened at the polling place? I think that's okay, right? Yeah. We're not voting next to a man in full gold body paint, head to toe. But he was in a nice.
Oh, he's dressed in khakis. He had a name tag. Like he worked at a country club, right? But was also a human robot downtown, right? Where like you put and he does the coins and then the tip jar and they yeah.
Maybe maybe glitch right from school to like like like Halloween taking a maybe but I thought this guy decided to early vote at the end of early voting he couldn't have done this any other day when he wasn't painted gold yeah I decided to go yesterday too into mine was at a high school that hasn't been open in two years so that's not creepy feeling at all oh this Halloween took an hour yeah which one thing I say okay that's a lot of people voting the second thing was you're not supposed to be talking politics a lot of times in line yeah it did but the line was so far out that that didn't start. Hundred foot from the polling place. It was a lot of of angry school school teachers, and they were angry. Apparently, guess what? Other side of the aisle.
Who they're having fun and they shut down schools. We just were thinking about yeah, who we were canceling out while we were waiting in line there. I walked in, I was like, "Where's like you know what's I? I got there too close, like five o' five, like right on time with like you know people out the door, and at like six." This was the last day here in Tennessee, so it's done. It was done at seven, I think.
If you got in line, right? When I walked out around six, my people started coming in. I started realizing, okay, this is our shift. It started. Yeah, they had to get off work.
Yeah, before they get home. They're the boys, Jordan. Is what you're saying? They weren't the They weren't the gold people. Will and I had a guy in front of us with two.
Both of his big toes were broken. We kept kind of come up with scenarios of how you break both of your big none of the other toes. It's a wild time there. You have to rethink whether we've got this right. Whether the whether whether the idea of voting 250 year experiment has been a success or not is what you're saying.
We made it that far, but maybe we need to look at some things from now on. No, okay, phone lines are open. You see why on election day those candidates have people that like their staff goes to the polling place before to. Sure, that's a polling place. One candidate be at.
I understand. Hey, how was your experience voting? Have you voted already? Are you planning on voting on election day? Has anything changed?
What are you doing? I'd love to hear from you. One eight hundred.
Now I think it's probably if it's like most places, when early voting by the time early voting ends everywhere is different a little bit everywhere. It's about fifty percent of the vote now. Is it? Yeah, sometimes more. That's crazy.
So let us know what your plans were. Maybe you're still planning on to be that that same day election day voter. Let us know. One eight hundred six Eight four three one one zero. Let's go back to the Omar investigation, though, because this ties back into not only the investigations of the last few weeks, including the raid.
This goes back at this point a decade.
Well, and this is what's even more interesting when you add this to it is that NBC News reported last night that the investigation is no longer just focused on the legality of the marriage from two thousand nine.
So, the New York Times yesterday reported that the Obama administration was actually the administration that launched the investigation into this marriage, and what also I think we can draw the distinction: the investigation actually wasn't if it was her brother or not. That wasn't the the crime they were looking to uncover. It was whether or not they were using marriage as a reason to get a green card for an individual, which is illegal no matter if you're related to the person or not. That's why they. Do extensive interviews with spouses.
If you've married someone that isn't a U.S. citizen, U.S. immigration, naturalization, all of these Department of Homeland Security offices will hold these interviews to see if it is indeed a legitimate marriage. It's not just something that automatically is granted anymore because it is a system that is scammed a lot to get citizenship for people that aren't even going to remain married. They use it sometimes.
There's money. Money involved—that's fraud. Those are crimes. That's what the Obama administration was looking at, and they found there was evidence that yeah, it actually looked like this marriage was fraudulent, but they declined to prosecute because they said it was outside of five-year statute of limitations on that.
Now, remember when people are like, "Well, if it was an immigration crime, that individual did not get a green card. That was the husband at the time, and it wasn't her immigration status that was being investigated at that time." So the crime. Where, when you're like, how can you have a statute of limitations on immigration fraud? No one was able to get status through this alleged fraud, so that is why that statute of limitations was able to expire in a way. But NBC News is saying.
The previous investigation that issued to the issue of the marriage has now moved into something much larger in scope and no longer focused on the legality of that marriage, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
So, if if people thought maybe if you're President Obama and you're saying this is just a political persecution, you're just going after your political enemies because they've never done that. On the other side of the aisle, it appears that this is not something that was just done for the midterms, as they wanted to claim. There's a real investigation going on. It is growing, and I assume some of that is because of what they found when they got a judge to sign off on a search warrant and raided her home. Right, and this is again.
When you look at what President Obama has said about this, it doesn't match what his DOJ was doing about it, which was investigating it.
So they were on Ilhan Omar and her brother, and and this potential immigration crime, which could right in 2016. But if you talked about it, President Obama still thinks you're a bad person today for considering whether or not. That brother, the brother was in fact her brother, and not the husband. And the whole thing is is just, I know it's not trying to be confusing. All you have to know is, was she part of a fraud, attempted fraud on the U.S.
government, and if so, how should that impact her immigration status to the United States?
So her status, as well as her legal status as a member of Congress, is less to do with the salacious nature when you hear she married her brother. That's not. Really, that what the point is? Scams been going on. That's exactly what I said.
Sure, that's happening all the time, forever. We're talking about. Is was there crime committed here? Not a salacious side of the crime, the crime of just calling people criminals, war criminals, genocide. They need to go to the ICC.
I mean, she if she committed the most basic of immigration crimes, which is claiming a family member is a different kind of family member to try to get them in. Then how about shut your mouth on trying to say that everybody's a war criminal from Israel? And also, let's go back to what even President Obama said about this within just the last week or so. He wrote. A novel on X.
Like, see how long does it put this up on the screen? Look how long that is to defend Elon Omar. And here's a snippet from that. Think about that. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the President.
And it's not the first time this has happened under President Trump. The Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he. Considers his political enemies, from the Attorney General of New York to the former head of the FBI to the members of the Federal Reserve. That is from former President Obama.
Meanwhile, we're finding out that it was his FBI, it was his Department of Justice, it was his Department of Homeland Security, are the ones who investigated her back in 2016, while she was running for office. By the way, that is when she was first elected in November 2016 to the Minnesota State House.
So they were fine investigating someone who was running for office the summer of the year that she was elected first to a political office, and what did they find? Evidence. Allegedly, of a crime that they thought was just outside the statute of limitations. Yes.
So, his Department of Justice found that Ilan Omar likely committed a crime that they could not prosecute because of statute limitations.
Now, we'll have to hear the other theories if they get to that point. But a judge did issue the warrant to seize these materials as well as her her phone and other technology.
So, if they the judge issued that warrant, they had to deal with that issue, and so somehow this. Whether there was a state statute limitation or another attempt that restarted a clock, because she's tried again to to utilize some kind of way to get this relative, whoever whoever it is, whether brother, husband, whatever, because we don't know, but it seems like it's brother as of right now. In is that the judge? Granted the warrant, so it wasn't like one of these cases where the judge said, "No, you can't go back and look at this." So, from 2016 under President Obama, from under President Trump's first term, it was then shut down by Joe Biden, not by Obama. But by Joe Biden, and now it returns again, and I think that's why Democrats don't like talking about this right now, so close to an election.
She's very controversial to begin with. The fact is, if they know that she's a liar who's committed immigration fraud, it makes it even easier. Chips away at some of it. Chips away at her. She was really one of the leaders of this radical left Democrat socialist movement, and it hurts that movement.
Yeah. Hey, and that is why, like Jordan said, we are only four days away from election day, and the ACLU. J has launched our Protect the Vote campaign right now. We've taken legal action. We need your support.
Every gift right now though is doubled right now at aclj.org/vote. Our legal team is literally working around the clock to make sure we defend the integrity of this and every election. You can be a part of that team today. I'll give you a whole list of things that we are working on in the next segment, and we also have a special video presentation for you coming. But we're gonna take some calls at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten.
But all gifts are doubled right now to protect the vote. Join our Protect the Campaign, we need your support to keep us in this fight and keep the fight moving. Have your gift doubled today at aclj.org/vote. Two lines are still open for you. If you want to call in at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten, we got a comment, a call coming in saying, "Well, all of this, what's going to be done?" We'll get to that call when we get back.
Stay tuned. Welcome back to Secula. We got a couple lines still open for you. One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Talking about election integrity, and we're going to get to a special video presentation.
We should call Audible here a little bit.
Well, I think we should take this call. Let's go to Lido. Who's calling, or Lido? Lido, Lido, believe on line two in California. Go ahead.
Yeah, fellas, I've I've lost a lot of friends who are Democrat, especially after 2020, because I saw what the Democratic Party was about. Yeah. Fraud, lies, confusion—trying to confuse their own constituents to vote for somebody by the same name in Alaska, and they knew it was a ploy, and then lie about it. The lie after lie is what gets me. How do you guys explain to anyone who's a Democrat or anyone who's trying to figure out a Democrat why they still vote?
Democrat.
Well, I mean, there are so many. Thank you for calling. There are so many of these schemes and political things that happen. But when they are this blatant and they're this upfront, it's like, how do you defend it when you know the entire idea? It's the same.
Look, the same concept we have here, and we're saying, hey, look at the changes people want to make in the way a proposal is or a you know something you're going to vote on. Change the words just slightly to make it confusing. It's all about voter confusion, right? There's a lot of that. You see that with amendments all the time.
They're going to the state constitution. In your state, but on this one, you have Alaska has this bizarre voting system, which most states have not adopted. But they have they have these jungle primaries. We have all these candidates, and then they have the the top four that can move on. And you can have top four could all be some one party, but here and what you had here is somehow three Republicans move forward and only one Democrat.
So again, when you look at this list, because they got the other Democrat who move forward, they. Talk about this one as much. In the fourth place, she drops out. The fifth place guy was a Republican. He moves up into fourth.
So fourth place Republican, a guy running for Republican. Third place Republican, a second place the Democrat candidate Petola. First place the the current U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan. And then you look and you see that the third place.
On this vote is a Republican, supposedly, with the same name as the Republican senator, and that the Patola campaign staff, at least her staff, people associated with her. Went out and found him in Alaska to get him to run. And right now, the search is on to find him. And now they can't find him. Right?
Yeah, we've seen that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Alaska have issued more than 30 subpoenas in this case, as well as even local reporters are going to the what they call him, Decoy Dan, is the the popular nickname for him now. Decoy Dan's house, which by the way is a fishing village that takes either Seaplane or boat to get to. Like you can't just drive there. And local reporters for Alaska have tried to go to his house.
He's not there. They can't find him. His neighbors. I saw an amazing local reporting. They talked to his neighbors.
They're like, we've known him a long time. I can't imagine he would do that. I mean, right? Like, even there, like, wait, maybe he did.
So you're looking into this. We know that U.S. Attorney is looking into it because this even goes beyond the dirty tricks at this point. Into there could be campaign finance, there could be fraud, there could be things that could legitimately be criminal at this point. All right, I do want to get to our special video presentation our team put together.
Do we need to set up for this? No, this is actually showing how long we have been fighting, even in recent years, with victory. For for your right to vote to protect free and fair elections and other dirty tricks that people have tried to pull before. Yeah, let's take a look. Voting for any office is important.
This was the presidency of the United States of America. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, commonly known as CREW, has filed a lawsuit to bar former President Trump from appearing on Presidential ballots in Colorado. We've talked a lot about this Fourteenth Amendment issue and the attempt to take candidates off the ballot, even in the primary, taking the power away from state and local political parties. This is referring to section. Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is from the post-Civil War era, it says in part: "I'm going to read it here for our viewers.
No person shall hold any office, civil or military, who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the U.S. to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." They say that this doesn't even require an act of Congress; that any judge can simply announce. That he was supporting an insurrection, and that he is therefore disqualified, and voters will not get the choice of whether to vote for him or not. We were contacted by the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party.
So the Colorado Secretary of State tells the Colorado Republican Party, you cannot have that candidate on your ballot, and the ballot belongs to the party. We're honored right now to have our client, the chairman of the Colorado State Republican Committee, Dave Williams. If you're a voter in Alabama, if you're a voter in Florida, if you're a voter anywhere, you you have to recognize the the significance of this. This is a constitutional crisis in the making, and I'm glad to be working with you guys. This this will affect you no matter what.
It's happening in Colorado. The implications, the consequences are extremely high. I mean, this is a really big case. A handful of Other states were watching the outcome here to know if they would be able to bar President Trump from being a candidate on their ballots as well. We appeal it to the U.S.
Supreme Court. They take the case. The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week over whether former President Trump should be removed from Colorado's primary ballot. The first of what could be several legal challenges by Trump to confront the nine justices. It was a 9-0 decision.
What did the justices decide?
Well, the court has decided unanimously that the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong. That Donald Trump cannot be disqualified as a Presidential candidate.
So they've ruled for Trump unanimously in this case. That means that state efforts to disqualify him will end, and that if you're going to beat Donald Trump, it's going to have to be at the ballot box. The First Amendment actually protects political parties. This was also a massive victory for our client, the Colorado Republican Party. This was their ballot.
This was. Their candidate for presidency in their state, they had the right. To select who their candidates are, I think this is great for the country. The fact that all nine justices, regardless of who appointed them, came to the same conclusion, really speaks to how we, as a society, should not be interfering with the people's right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Worked long, they worked hard, and frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will.
Be spoken about a hundred years from now and two hundred years from now. Extremely important. Essentially, you cannot take somebody out of a race. Because an opponent would like to have it that way. The ACLU representing as a party the Colorado Republican State Committee won nine to zero.
The Trump campaign won nine to zero. You cannot have states using the Fourteenth Amendment Section Three to decide when they want to remove a candidate from either the primary or the general election. The goal is to get to five. In this case, we got to nine. This was a massive victory for us because it secured your right to vote, my right to vote.
And even though, again, I'm not a Colorado citizen, it didn't matter because what happened there was going to happen in other states. This victory protects our right to vote. People should be deciding these elections, not justices or judges in a courtroom. The ACLU will fight to protect the right to vote and the integrity of the election process wherever that battle needs to happen. All right, and again, protect the vote.
Double your impact right now today at aclj.org. Again, just showing you sort of the breadth and the scope of how long we've been at this. It's not nothing new for us to be doing election integrity. Just because all of a sudden it's a popular topic, it is something our team has been on for decades now. Of course, you just saw a brief look back at all of that.
We got a second half hour coming up. I want you to be a part of it. If you're listening, or if you're watching on YouTube, you're watching on Rumble, you're watching on aclj.org. Don't go anywhere. Nothing needs to change.
You're listening on terrestrial radio.
Some of your networks don't carry the full hour. They should, but they don't.
So, with that, you should join us over on aclj. dot org. Again, that's on aclj. dot org. Again, we have a special guest coming up in the second half of the show.
We're going to be taking a lot of your calls. We had a few lines open today at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. But if you consider supporting the work of the ACLJ, it's a great time to do it. We have a special campaign headed in towards the midterm election vote, just in a few days, four days away. Be a part of it.
As every gift is doubled, aclj. dot org. Back in less than a minute. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow, and now your host Logan Sekulow.
It is Logan Sekulow. Will Haynes in studio. Jordan Sekulow in studio. We're going to take your calls at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. Of course, with only four days left till the midterm elections, it is where all our eyes are right now.
As we see all of the races really start to heat up. In the final days, I'm sure you begin lots of emails, lots of text messages, a lot of my kids start making fun of them because they they hear them like on the car when it plays the text messages you receive. They'll hear messages from all these different candidates coming in, and all of a sudden, my kids are parading them. This is where we're getting at in society right now. I want to hear from you though.
Have you already voted? Are you going to vote? What's the plan here? One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. As the ACLU team mobilizes to protect these elections coming up, and as We talked about earlier in the week how through FOIA we were able to discover things out of Maryland.
We've talked about what we were able to discover in California already about how little they're doing to stop and track if people are voting illegally. We sent out today a brand new FOIA. This one is going to New Jersey, and it says our open records request to examine New Jersey Department of State Division of Elections records. Regarding registration of non-citizens to vote, we we saw the mioculpa that you know a previous governor allowed this to happen earlier this year, where 6,600 individuals were improperly registered as voters through their motor voter program, which were not eligible to be voters because they were not citizens of the U.S. And that we know hundreds of them voted after being registered to vote.
We we understand that they're saying, look, we fixed it. It was a computer glitch. We don't just always take people at their word for it when they come clean and say this happened because they're trying to make it go away.
So what do we do? We sent a letter today. Sent this FOIA asking for all records concerning discovery of the software error. Error. All records concerning the non citizens registered to vote as a result of it.
All voting records of any non citizens who actually voted to the extent permitted. And then all records concerning the solutions to the software problems.
So we're not letting that one go either, Jordan. This work continues; it's ongoing, and it doesn't stop here at the ACLU, even after elections are over. Of course not. In fact, we're we're continually doing this work because we've seen now in different places we want to expand on this work of looking into these different jurisdictions that have allowed non non citizen voters to read. Where they're only supposed to be able to vote for very limited in limited situations, and how are they actually putting these lists together?
Are these lists even accurate? Do they even know if the lists are accurate? We can say actually, actually, tell you right now is no, they don't. Based off what they've given us, they don't even know what's on their own list.
So that is a serious problem when it comes to election integrity and something we'd like to take further throughout the entire country in each jurisdiction that allows non-citizen voting. And again, these aren't illegal immigrants. These are people here legally, but they aren't citizens, so they usually wouldn't have a right to vote. But there's this wiggle room where they've been allowed these right to vote in local elections by sub jurisdictions in some states, and some have more, some have less. We want to go to every one of those and figure out how do you keep these voter rolls?
How do you keep these separate? How do you know that those folks aren't voting in elections for President of the United States, for Congress, for Senate, as we're seeing right now in a midterm election? And so far, what we're seeing is they don't. They have no idea who really is on these lists and who should be on the list and who shouldn't be on the list and who should be voting. All right, we get back here.
We also have a special guest coming up. Do you want to set this up? Yeah, Congressman Brad. Not he was actually a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of North Carolina before running for Congress last term.
So he's running again for a second term, and and his big focus has been in North Carolina is on security, on fighting crime and border security. And we've seen, you know, a huge increase. It doesn't even get talked about, but we've seen so much less news about the border because of how secure our border is. And then, how much more secure that makes our local communities? We'll talk to Congressman Nott about that.
Yeah, coming up in the next segment, so you're not going to want to miss that. And then, following him, you're going to be on the air. Phone lines are open for you at one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. Got about three lines, three more lines open right now. One eight hundred six eight four three one ten.
If you're on hold right now, stay on hold. I will get to you. Just give us a minute. We're going to get through this next segment, but this is a good time to go get on hold again at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Get in line again.
Support the work of the ACLJ during this Protect the Vote campaign right now. Where all donations are doubled at aclj. dot org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow.
Will Haynes here, joined in studio by Jordan Sekulow. And Jordan, we have a very special guest joining us right now. Congressman Brad Nad from North Carolina's 13th congressional district. I know it's a very busy time for any member of Congress. It's his first term, running for his second term right now.
And Congressman Nad, I just want to thank you for taking a few minutes of your day. I know all these minutes are precious right before people head to the vote, head to voter, the early vote. Is going on as well. Thanks for joining us. My pleasure.
Thank you for having me. You know, Congressman, something you ran on, which I think is very interesting, because we've seen a lot of progress on it in just a couple of years. Was your attorney, and you went, you were from the prosecutor's office. You're prosecuting crime. You said, "I want to run, and I want to do more to secure our communities, fight crime, border security." And we've seen the the the great impacts of fighting crime and securing our border in all of our communities across the country.
And I'm sure in your district. As well, in the 13th district in North Carolina, and that's how you lead to success and prosperity. That that's what leads to new people moving into town and new businesses being built. Sure, yeah, it's a great point, and you know this issue has not gone away, as you all well know. And under Joe Biden, it was the worst.
It was it was just a complete abandonment of the fundamental duty that we have as a proper country, which is to ensure our citizens' safety. And when you undo the border protections and let anybody from everywhere around the world come into our country, the effects are far-reaching and they are systemic. These are effects that are inflationary. You know, we we saw that there were healthcare expenses, housing expenses, transportation expenses. There were recruiting dollars that were put into the State Department to bring people into the country illegally.
You cannot quantify the harm that was bestowed onto this country, and you know the American people. They woke up in a mighty way, in large part because of how how awful the Biden administration handled the border, and it's been very. Interesting, since being in Congress, there has not been one pivot from the Democratic Party towards the border securing, towards deporting illegal immigrants. They have doubled down on their on their I would say open border radicalism, resisting the efforts of the White House, resisting the efforts of those of us in Congress trying to bring about a sensible immigration policy, and they haven't moved one bit. And you know, haven't helped.
If they ever seize power again, because that border will be thrown wide open again. And you know, this is a prosecutor. When we talk about border security, we're not just talking about the criminal aliens and some of those who are bad actors. We're talking about the drugs. We're talking about human trafficking.
We're talking about American lives being lost, cities and towns. We've seen the epidemics that happened. Small towns, big cities, all across the country. It doesn't matter if you're in North Carolina or California or close. To the border, or far from the border, we've all seen the effects of these cartels, and we've seen the effects of what happens when you actually shut down the border and give ICE the ability to do its job.
Sure.
Well, there's there's there's no distinction here between the border enforcement that the President has initiated and secured, with the dropping crime rates all over the country of every category: violent crime, property crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug crimes, all of that. But your point is very well taken and not appreciated. You know, there's two there's two points I want to shed light here in extension to yours. In 1990, there were fewer than 5,000 people in the United States who died from drug overdoses. Since the year 2000, we have almost two million Americans who have died from drug overdoses.
Those two million lives that have been lost are not lost if we have a secure border and we protect Americans from the harm that wants to. Come here, and then secondly, which is often neglected in terms of fleshing out this conversation, when we have an open border and we welcome in the third world, we welcome in the criminal cartel. It is the it is the poorest Americans that suffer the most and suffer the earliest. They feel it first and they feel it the deepest. It eradicates opportunity.
Whether we're talking about you know flooding public schools with folks who don't speak English, flooding neighborhoods with people who are here only to commit crime, taking up social services that are designed to protect Americans only that are now distributed to people from around the world. These are effects that are very real, and again, it begs the question: What is the Democrat Party's obligation here to the to the folks around the world at the expense of the American people? And they do not have an answer for that. They they remain committed to the open border despite the high cost that every American feels from it. And again, we're in for a long fight.
The Democratic Party is radical, and they're committed, and we need to be gearing up to fight it for the next election. The election after that, and then the next—I would say—decade plus, because it's going to be a real fight.
Well, in Congressman, to that point as well. One, the the border is one of the closest national security issues to home for every American, no matter where you live, even if you're miles and miles and miles away from a border. The crime that spills over is affecting every city in the United States. But I think also to that point, we talk about election security at a time where just a few. Days away from the midterm election, when when we saw a drop in in crime because of border crossings in many places, right around the time you were sworn into office, miraculously the the tactics changed.
But we still see that policy wanting to open borders, wanting to see chaotic systems within the United States. You see California fighting back against cleaning up their voter rolls. We at the ACLU have discussed Messy voter rolls across the country at a time like this, when we talk about election integrity, wanting people to feel confident in the institutions here in the United States, how much does this play in to the the whole issue of the open border that the Democrats push for for so long? Oh, it's it's it's integral to it. You cannot have a free and fair election in the United States if people from around the world control those elections.
And if you if you let enough illegal aliens into the United States and onto the voter rolls, Americans lose sovereignty. And that is the goal of some of of of my my colleagues in the Democratic Party. You know, there there are numerous sanctuary jurisdictions where they will deploy tax dollars to fight. Any effort to enforce immigration law, there are multiple sanctuary jurisdictions where they have specifically given illegal aliens the right to vote in local elections. Wherever it's been investigated around the country, we are finding that illegal aliens have voted in state and federal elections against the existing law.
And when you look at all of the effort that the Democratic Party has has put on the table to bring illegal aliens into the country to fund Their livelihood again, even at the expense of American citizens. Why wouldn't they give them the right to vote? Of course they do. They want the illegal aliens to vote because they view the illegal alien as a vehicle to power. And again, you cannot have a free and fair election when that's how you operate.
And so, again, whether you're independent, conservative, Democrat, middle of the road Democrat, or Republican, I urge you to keep an eye on this because if we cannot control who votes, then we lose our country. And wherever it has been investigated, from New Jersey to California to right here in North Carolina, they've indicted dozens of people right here in my own neighborhood who have voted illegally in federal elections this week, this very week, where Everest investigated. It's revealed that the voter rolls. Are filled with illegal immigrants, and so we must keep pressure. If you're an American citizen, your vote is sacred, and if we don't enforce immigration law, that that that that vote that value is compromised.
Congressman, not we we really thank you for taking the time. We know how busy it is when you are out on that campaign trail, and people are voting as they are North Carolina, and then of course on Tuesday as well. But speaking truth to power, it's so important that you you came from that prosecutorial world into the electoral world to. To make our communities more secure, and we need more folks like that who are, again, combating this idea that law enforcement is bad and should be attacked and ridiculed, and we should fight ICE and take down ICE instead of securing our borders, protecting our kids, our schools, and our communities from bad actors, illegal drugs. I mean, that that number you gave five thousand to two million people dying that should be enough right there for people to realize it.
Thank you, Congressman, for being with us, and good luck. Good luck on Tuesday. My pleasure. Thank you, guys, again. All right.
Thank you so much. We've got one segment left for you today, and I want you to be a part of. You've heard now from Congressman Not. You have heard from all of us, and now it's time to hear from you. Phone lines again are open.
If you've already on hold, stay on hold. I'm going to get to you.
Some of you've been on hold for close to a half an hour. I appreciate it. You won't have to hold that long if you want to be on because we only got one segment left. One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero to have your voice heard on the air today. Again, one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten if you want to call in as election day.
Is approaching. We only got two shows until election. One show, really, between now and actual election day. Just Monday show, and then here we are. You know, we've made it here, and then guess what?
Starts on Wednesday, the kickoff to the twenty twenty eight Presidential election. As we know, it depends on because some of these elections take a little while. It could take a little while, but we know by Wednesday we can actually talk about 2028 because I feel like Logan, some of these, if these polls are correct or wrong, there hasn't been anything weird in this political cycle yet.
So maybe that'll be polls come out showing things tied now, showing things ten points. I mean, I mean, you already had President Trump being asked, "Hey, you're going to endorse VP Vance?" and he said, "I'm not." He hasn't asked me.
So and you know, Rubio's pretty good too.
So he's even starting to. They're flirting with what that's going to look like. No, that has already been. There's been talk of this for for years already. A few weeks, it will be 100 on on.
Yeah, and it really does start Wednesday, Thursday. Yeah, if we get. A defined election result. Yeah, you'll know what you'll have in the house. The House and Senate.
Yeah. All right. We get back again. We want to hear from you. But it is the time.
Election day is just four days away. The ACLJ is involved in so many different election integrity cases right now, and you need help protect the vote. Every gift is doubled right now through the midterms.
So be a part of it today. Again, every gift doubled right now at aclj.org/vote. We're uncovering evidence, demanding records, preparing lawsuits. Election day is just a few days away. Be a part of it today.
Again, phone lines are starting to fill up. Be a part of it. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open. We're going to take a couple more calls.
Hey, I did want to take a little more serious message here at the beginning here, and you know, talking about many of the unsung heroes of the work that we do here at the ACLJ, the work that we've done here on this broadcast for the last thirty some odd years, and we have to take a moment here to really celebrate the life and the passing of Joe Davis, who is a good friend of this show, worked here in this off. Was also the COO of Salem Communications. Was a President in the radio division. Really, when you talk about the origin story of this show, it probably would not happen. You would definitely not be able to cite a lot of people of this happening without the legacy and without the support and the cheerleading he's given to gave to thirty years of this show, including all of the different evolutions of this show.
Whether it was hosted by my dad and my mom, whether it was hosted by dad and Gene Cabb, who was also So passed on whether it was all of us, whether it was Jordan or me or Will. Joe was always there as someone as a big supportive voice within Salem, and then also beyond Salem after he retired as just someone who supported and just a very good friend. And again, after a long fought battle with cancer, many years, sadly, has passed away. And again, I know you probably have never heard that name before, but I guarantee you, if you are listening on a Salem news outlet or you're listening on a Salem channel, that everyone in that studio certainly had and was again was a great friend and a incredible leader and mentor to a lot of us.
So I have to at least. At least. Reference that happened a couple days ago. Wanted his family to have time to be able to post and talk about this before we addressed it on air. But again, unless y'all want to go on, we'll start taking some calls here.
But I just wanted again a moment to to say a prayer for for his family, for Joe's family, his wife Carolyn and kids and grandkids. Was a great man.
So we will miss him tremendously here on the secular broadcast and in our lives here in Tennessee.
So with that. We he I'm sure what he'd want us to do though is to move on with the show and to keep it going here.
So I do want to take some calls. Get me to move everything into somber tone here. We got six minutes, and we got about six calls. We'll see if we can get as many as we can. Let's start off with Joseph.
Joseph from New York, calling in right now. You've been on hold for a while. Thanks, Joseph. Yes, Mr. Sekulow.
Maybe you can answer this question for me. If you have a socialist communist that happens to win. An election. How could we ever swear them in as United States citizens?
So, Joseph, this is actually interesting, right? Because there are members of the House that are talking about this right now. There is a few congressmen. One is from Tennessee. Another one that are looking into this of saying they could use a rule, a rule of the House, to try and block DSA members because they take an oath to the Constitution, of which their platform explicitly.
Explicitly says they want to get rid of.
Now, it's also been affirmed by the Supreme Court many times that the Constitution sets the requirements for office, and that is your age, residency. Party is not a requirement, and therefore they you do have to take the oath. You do have to take the oath, but it also doesn't say. You have to mean it. Yeah, right.
I mean, at this point, the Supreme Court would probably get involved very quickly if they tried to do this and not. Here is what I. Here is a yeah. What I honestly think will is don't try to go to the courts for this. Right.
Let's not elect more Democrat socialists to the U.S. House of Representatives. If, if you, I am not even talking about Democrats here. I am talking about those who have said the Democrat Party is not liberal enough for me. I am a socialist.
I want to get rid of, not amid the Constitution. Get rid of. This constitution, and they throw the word "democrat" in there to try and sound mainstream, to sound that they're not red communists. When in truth is, when they're pushed on it, they are, and and they are the growing. Popular wing of the party that I think youth and young people have have moved towards.
We'll see in this election very soon how successful they can be, or they kind of stuck in these small hamlets like of areas of New York and Minnesota and places like that.
Well, and also the the case that they are citing is 1969 Powell versus McCormack, where the Supreme Court ruled. The House cannot exclude an elected candidate from being sworn in if they otherwise meet constitutional requirements of age, residency, and citizenship. That is specifically because he refused to take the oath of office. Yeah, so even that, even the oath itself is not even a requirement under that Supreme Court ruling.
Now we have a different Supreme Court. Right. It could be worth challenging that, but I think what's better before election day don't don't sit on your hands and don't already act like we're losing. Interesting. And that we can't win these races.
In most of these races, if people understood how radical these candidates were, they would not vote for them. Most of them are running in areas where you've got a lot of immigrant populations who become U.S. citizens to get away from socialist governments. That's where they fled, and that's what I think is just so. It's it's so interesting to see that now second and third generations of those immigrants' families are starting to turn away from what they're.
Parents have taught them, and grandparents have taught them. It said, "You know what? Maybe that socialism that was so bad in South America, Latin America, or African con these communists when these communists came in and before the breakup of the Soviet Union, maybe we should give another shot." Yeah, exactly. All right, let's let's try Susan, who's calling. We also been a hold for a while in South Carolina.
Go ahead, Susan. Hey guys, I always get upset when I hear them saying Trump is going after his political enemies. I think he's doing exactly what we elected him to do, which is drain the swamp and prosecute America's enemies. Absolutely. I mean, I think.
Listen, it doesn't matter if what you have an R or D next to your name. If you've committed a crime, the U.S. government, or we believe the U.S. government believes you've committed a crime, they can investigate. And if they then have evidence you've committed a crime, they can go to a judge.
They can get warrants. They can ultimately bring charges against you. They can get grand juries to issue against you.
So the subpoenas, the issue—it goes on and on. There are so many checks. For those who are being investigated for a crime, especially those in politics and in the realm of Washington D.C., checks for almost favors not the prosecution but favors the defense in the United States of America. You know, you are innocent until proven guilty here in the United States. That this idea that you can't look into anyone because you have different political beliefs in them—that means what?
That that someone who is a Democrat can run a criminal organization. You know that, but you can't actually investigate that person because they're a Democrat. You're Republican. It's the craziest. That's a stupid get out of jail free card I've ever heard.
This is that's not that's not a system of law that's going to stand for for time for another 250 years. All right, I'm going to quickly take Brett, who's calling in Colorado. Hey, David, we're able to get to you today, but thanks for calling, Brett. Go ahead. Hey, thank you so much.
Hey, so I live in Colorado, and Colorado automatically registers people to vote for their when they get their driver's license. And my family of six, they take away our votes if they're voting illegally. How do I fix this as a citizen? That hotline. How do I expose it?
Yeah, I mean, David, Brett, we have an ACLJ hotline.
So it's aclj.org/election hotline, and we are going to be monitoring that on Tuesday. Monitoring it now.
So if you believe that you are witnessing or or are seeing. Election crime or activity, you need to contact us there. It's it's aclj. dot org slash election hotline. You can do that now.
You can do that on election day. And again, it's not the it's not don't don't just contact because I think it's happening, but if you really feel like you have seen people who are not, you know, are not registered to vote or should not be voting. And a lot of this is very. As we found out, these cities don't even have the information. But contact us.
We do this work. We do these cases, and we want to really expand the work into protecting election integrity, which we've been doing over the last, you know, 20 years. And Brett, that's exactly what we're doing when we're sending this FOIA to investigate in New Jersey today.
So those motor voter laws—that's some of the ones that we have to take a look at.
So thanks for bringing that to our attention. We can start working on that as well. All right, that's going to do it for today's. This week's show will be back on Monday, and of course, Election Day just four days away. Be a part of this campaign right now.
Protect the vote and have your gift doubled at aclj.org, and we will talk to you on Monday.
