ACLJ: We are drafting complaints against IRS agents, federal government

May 13, 2013

Writer

GLENN: Jay Sekulow has been a frequent guest on the program and he has been a guy who has stood and his organization, the ACLJ, stood for a long time on freedom issues and stood against government tyranny. He is one of the main guys taking this case on with the IRS. Jay, welcome to the program.

SEKULOW: Hey, it's good to be with you, Glenn. Little known in fact, I had my first job out of law school was as a trial lawyer for the office of chief counsel, the Internal Revenue Service, and the tax‑exempt group was under our jurisdiction. So ‑‑

GLENN: Holy cow. So you need it inside and out.

SEKULOW: ‑‑ (inaudible) what's going on here and it's more than troubling.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me, you have 27 cases, and I know that one of them is not the national 9/12 group because national, when they started to file income tax and wanted tax‑exempt status, they got hassled like crazy and they just said it's not worth it and so it's really hurt them on fundraising but they just did not want the hassle from the government. They knew they were being set up. So you have 27 cases now. Tell us exactly what happened and why it's so troubling.

SEKULOW: Well, we got 27 cases. We were contacted early last year when the second round of questionnaires came from the Internal Revenue Service to these groups that were either 9/12 groups or TEA Party groups or conservative organizations and they started asking for donor information, membership lists, communications between members and members of the House and Senate or local legislative bodies and assemblies. And that's when we realized this has taken on a whole new dimension. So we simply and aggressively wrote back to the IRS. We started representing the groups and said we're not giving you that information, you're not entitled to it. We gave them the list of cases why they are not entitled to it going back to the 1950s, the NAACP cases and ultimately they were ‑‑ the questions were very aggressive and we maintained a very aggressive response. 15 of the groups have been granted status exemption. But there are still 10 pending and like you just mentioned, again, we had two that said it's not worth the hassle.

GLENN: Not worth it.

SEKULOW: Of waiting two and a half years with these intrusive questions coming in from the government. So the reaction is understandable: People got frustrated. But this was a coordinated effort in this attempt to lay the defeat of, quote, low‑level employees. I used to work for that office of chief counsel of the IRS. I was a lawyer there. The fact is the tax‑exempt group is what's called a specialty group. They are specially trained Internal Revenue Service agents, specially trained in tax‑exempt orgs. These are not low‑level bureaucrats and now we know there were meetings as high up as the chief counsel's office which is the highest level office inside the IRS. So that's nonsense. And by the way, the chief counsel and the head of the IRS are both presidential appointments.

GLENN: So let me ‑‑

SEKULOW: So they can't say this is an independent agency.

GLENN: So let me ask you this. Read the Nixon impeachment clause here. This is I think the first charge.

STU: This is out of Article II, Section 1

GLENN: Article II.

STU: Just skipping through it a little bit, but he has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law and to cause in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

GLENN: Okay. That was against Nixon. Better, worse, or about the same?

SEKULOW: No, this is worse because this isn't only tax information and selective prosecution. This was then going after the people that supported these organizations by requesting the donor lists, something they are not even required to put in their tax return. In other words, the tax return itself, Glenn, for these nonprofits does not include a list of your donors because they're not entitled to it. Yet the IRS asked for that. That's more than Nixon did by a long stretch. And that's where the real difficulty is. We sent out a letter this afternoon or this morning to the IRS commissioner, the acting commissioner Steve Miller as well as the chief counsel demanding that the remainder of our clients be granted their exemption immediately. And I will tell you this: We are drafting complaints against the federal government and the agents involved right now. That's in process today.

PAT: Jay, the other thing this administration is trying to do is hide behind the fact that Douglas Shulman who was the commissioner of the IRS when this happened was a Bush appointee.

SEKULOW: Right.

PAT: Can they lay that at Bush's feet now or ‑‑ I mean ‑‑

SEKULOW: Of course not, and this is why. He was finishing up his point in term, I think he had six months left on it when he made that statement. They probably gave him incorrect information. Obviously they did. I don't think he was hiding the ball. I think he was based on the information he was told. What he was ‑‑ unfortunately what was actually happening was his people within the IRS themselves were engaged in this and the chief counsel is appointed by the president. So the chief counsel was an Obama appointee and the tax‑exempt head that previously worked with the FCC. So I mean, you can blame ‑‑ you can't blame this on Bush. These letters are coming out in 2012.

GLENN: Can they separate ‑‑

SEKULOW: They can't do it.

GLENN: Can he separate himself enough to say, "Oh, boy, they were just out of control"?

PAT: They are an out‑of‑control agency?

SEKULOW: Well, here's the problem. You know, you've got Jay Carney saying it's an independent agency which is factually not true and constitutionally not true. I mean, it's ‑‑ the IRS is the enforcement on the treasury. Treasury's an executive office function. So that's bogus. That's what they are going to try to do. The question will be whether the American people buy it. And I suspect even as you said, the mainstream media has picked this up and they are running with it. They realize that this is not just a tempest and a teapot. This teapot is boiling over.

GLENN: Okay. You said that you went back to the Fifties to see this kind of abuse. I have said since we were together as a people at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, I said this is a Civil Rights Movement, that we are going ‑‑ it will catch up to us, that we will begin to understand that the tactics used in the Fifties and in the late 1800s without the physical terror ‑‑

SEKULOW: Right.

GLENN: ‑‑ except for the stuff that happened with the labor unions, those same kind of tactics are being used and this is a Civil Rights Movement now. Would you say that's accurate?

SEKULOW: I think it is. And the government which, you know, unfortunately is going back to the same attempts they made to stifle these civil rights movement for African‑Americans, for black Americans in the United States led by Dr. King, they are using the same tactics. What did they ask the NAACP: Who is your members? Give us your mailing list. Who do you get money from? And the NAACP led by ‑‑ a legal charge led by Thurgood Marshall, who did a brilliant job of taking cases all the way to the Supreme Court establishing that government has no right to ask for that information. But it's like they don't learn. It did not work out very well for the government in the 1950s, especially these states that were trying to squash the Civil Rights Movement. And it's not going to work out very well for the administration in 2013 either.

GLENN: Okay. So Jay, what needs to happen and how can the average American help?

SEKULOW: Well, I think there's going to be two things that need to happen immediately. Number one, the groups that are pending need to get the recognition because as you've said, they are getting worn out. That needs to happen, period. So that we can get in play, and we're demanding that. Number two, the people that are ‑‑ that have done this need to be held accountable and that will take place in two forms: Congress will have extensive oversight hearings. These aren't just going to be photo opportunities. This is going to be the real deal and I expect many of them. And then as I said we're looking at right now federal court action against the individual agents that were involved in this and we'll see where that goes. So we're looking at that right now.

GLENN: Jay, I appreciate it. I don't know if this would fall with you, but we were targeted and nobody cared. We were targeted by the White House for smear campaigns and for boycotting of my business.

SEKULOW: Right.

GLENN: And it was Van Jones, it was Jim Wallis, it was the labor unions, and they were all the people that were in the White House at the time that it was going on. Is there any connection at all to things like that to this?

SEKULOW: Well, I don't ‑‑ you know, there's another aspect to this, Glenn, and that is it's not just conservative Christian groups that have been targeted here. There's Jewish conservative groups that also have been targeted. So it makes sense, and they were targeted because their position on Israel was counter to what the administration's has been. And I think you could tie what happened to you, what's happening now, what's happening to these conservative Jewish groups, it's all the same.

GLENN: It is.

SEKULOW: It is stifling dissent. And when you have the government trying to stifle dissent, that's really when ‑‑ it's bad enough when individuals do it, but it's a free country. Hey, I could disagree with you, you can disagree with me, but your government doesn't get to do that.

GLENN: Most people have ‑‑ they're worn out from this.

SEKULOW: Yeah.

GLENN: Mainly from this media, that media, they just don't care. And so the media will pick something up and then they will dismiss it and then they move on and then you never hear about it again and it just gets worse. Two questions: One, if this isn't corrected, how dangerous is the IRS and this administration?

SEKULOW: Unbelievably so because if they can ask these groups for this kind of information, I shudder to think what they can ask of individuals on audits as well. So I ‑‑

GLENN: Especially with healthcare.

SEKULOW: If this goes unchecked, you've sent the IRS into a version of the CIA into the American people. I mean, the intrusiveness of it would be unprecedented.

GLENN: And what do you expect to actually happen? Do you think this is ‑‑

SEKULOW: I think heads are going to roll, Glenn. I think that ‑‑

GLENN: Serious heads or little heads?

SEKULOW: People are going to be held accountable but the question is what the White House knew when they knew I, what the appointees, the political appointees knew. But the fact that the agents themselves thought they could do this and it was sign off on by group managers and probably chief counsel's office, that in itself raises a whole specter and I don't know if we know yet where those consequences will be.

GLENN: Jay, thank you so much.

SEKULOW: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: It's good to have you out there fighting.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

ACLJ: We are drafting complaints against IRS agents, federal government

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

One‑sided freedom

Censored belief

Faith on trial

The real test

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

But that’s not what we hear.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

Moral erosion

The buck stops with us