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

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.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.