Birthright Citizenship at SCOTUS Explained

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie kirk I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point you would say college chapter. Go start atturning point youould say high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 2: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 1: I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. 00:00:45 Speaker 3: Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 4: Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold I rays and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot Com. 00:01:17 Speaker 2: All right, welcome to The Charlie Kirk Show, April first, April fools Day, April fools Day. Welcome Blake here. We're here. 00:01:25 Speaker 5: You know it's a fitting day because we have we have to find out how many fools are on the United States Supreme Court. 00:01:30 Speaker 2: We're about to find out they Obviously, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over birthright citizenship, something we think is stupid and not at all what the Fourteenth Amendment prescribes, especially children for illegals. 00:01:46 Speaker 6: It was written children's like Chinese oligarchs. 00:01:48 Speaker 2: Yep, CCP infiltrators. The fact that we even have to have this argument, and it seems like the Supreme Court justices are skeptical of the government's case is amazing to me. But we're going to break it all down with Will Chamberlain from the Article three Project. You can follow him on x A great follow Will. Welcome back to the show. 00:02:10 Speaker 4: Good to be with you. 00:02:11 Speaker 2: You've been paying close attention this morning, and I think it's safe to say Blake is already dooming over here. What do you make of it? I'm hearing mixed results, so I want to hear your take because you've been playing paying close attention. 00:02:24 Speaker 3: So yeah, I think it may have been made sense to Doom if you were just listening to the justices questions of John Souer. But I think I think there's a reason for optimism. Having listened to the justices questions of Cecilia Wang, who's the ACLU Legal director and the person arguing for the respondents in this case, she's getting a series of very tough questions and not handling them particularly well in my view. And I think the basic problem that the respondents have to deal with is that this important clause not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has a kind of natural meaning that's pretty well understood at the time, that it doesn't include people with allegiance to a foreign power, or rather primary allegiance to the foreign power, and that it only includes people who are domiciled in the United States, and her basically the respondent's way of dealing with this because they can see there are these exceptions, obviously, the exception for American Indians, the exception for foreign diplomats, the exception for children of invaders, But she basically says that's just a closed set of exceptions. There's no further exceptions that could possibly be acceptable, you know, one hundred and fifty years later, and the justices are pointing out it's like, well, but they didn't create a list of exceptions when they wrote the Fourteenth Amendment. As written, they included this phrase as a general rule, meaning that if you know you're born here and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof of another country, then you're a citizen, then you're entitled the birthright citizenship. And she's struggling, honestly, she doesn't have a good explanation for why that general rule is just only applies to these three closed exceptions and then doesn't have any analogies that can be drawn from it. 00:04:07 Speaker 2: Yeah, so blake your reaction to that, because I guess it's. 00:04:11 Speaker 5: Just though I'm glad that there's more reasons for hope with these unfolding arguments with the opposition case. But I guess, you know, I have some friends who have actually who've been Supreme Court clerks in the past, and they're watching this and they're they're being among the most pessimistic, and I trust them a lot because they're no ones actually know the justices and they say what they're very worried about, for example, is that I say that Amy Cony Barrett and Justice Gorsiic are asking questions that specifically point towards having constitutional problems with this. 00:04:44 Speaker 6: And they were saying from the start that they thought our best. 00:04:47 Speaker 5: Hope was that they might take a narrower approach where they would rule this is just statutory. Our laws actually require birthright citizenship because Congress has assumed this, and our immigration laws and so on, and they just seem they just feel like the way those swing justices are taking their questions is not good for us. 00:05:07 Speaker 3: Well, so I actually don't think I think that your friends just have it wrong. Here is on that particular way of viewing things. And here's the reason. So there's there's the constitutional provision of the fourteenth Amendment that says not subject to the jurisdiction of it. And then there's a statute I don't remember it when it was pasted nineteen fifties or something that uses the exact same language to set immigration the immigration rule. And the idea here is that there's a theoretical world where the Supreme Court could interpret the statute and say President Trump's executive order violates the statute, but then not the constitution itself. But that is it's a kind of bizarre way of approaching things because they use literally identical words. And so you generally when a congressional statute mimics the exact language of a constitutional provision, you don't, you know, especially if you're trying to get you know, get a new understanding of what that means. You're going to be effectively interpreting both. And the new statute isn't going to be interpreted in light of what people thought when they passed it, but rather it's going to be interpreted a light of just extending the original language and the meaning when the original constitutional provision was enacted. 00:06:13 Speaker 2: Yeah, so we have this Indian clause, right, or this argument around Indian citizenship, right, they Indians. For those in the audience who may not be aware, we're not granted citizenship until the nineteen twenties, there was actually an Act of Congress that bestowed upon Indian's citizenship. Explain for the audience why that is so critical in this argument, why it's become such a central focus of both sides of it. 00:06:41 Speaker 3: So a big part of Democrats or essentially the respondence. Idea here, the people who are saying birthright citizenship should apply to anybody born here is a very broad view of what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Basically, they're saying, well, you know, everybody is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you're born here, because you are required to a bay American law. And when we think about jurisdiction in terms of modern legal conceptions, like that's what jurisdiction means, like the court courts have the right to bring you into court and you know, hold you accountable if you commit crimes. Therefore, in some sense you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the idea is, if that's the way to understand the language of the fourteenth Amendment, that would mean that American Indians should have been granted citizenship by the fourteenth Amendment. And that wasn't the case, right there was you know, everybody understood when they were enacting the fourteenth Amendment that it didn't cover the children of American Indians, even if those children were born outside of Indian reservations. It just it didn't cover them. So that means that parent it's not just about where you're physically born, it's about your parentage too, And if that's true, then that obviously means that illegal the children of illegal aliens could theoretically be denied citizenship. 00:07:50 Speaker 2: Yeah, so it was a question of allegiance who do you owe your allegiance to, which is a huge, huge part of this entire debate, and some of it tends it sounds like it's hinging on breaking with the common law interpretation or the respondents are arguing that it's actually a continuation of common law. Can you explain that? Will that what's hinging on this interpretation? 00:08:15 Speaker 3: Right? So, basically respondents are trying to say that the American version word being not subject to the jurisdiction tracks the sort of English law because obviously America imported a law of the law from England, given that we were a richly in English colony. And so they're trying to say, well, you know, we're we imported our understanding of immigration law from England, and under English law, if you were born in the you know, in the territory, you were ultimately a citizen. And there's a real question about how if that actually makes sense, because you know, we actually created our own novel rule. Like under under that rule, American Indians would have been citizens, right, And so I think the basic way to understand the problem with that approach is that the framers of the fourteen Amendment intentionally departed from English common law in order to frame a different rule for American circumstances. And so you know, they're they're relying very heavily on a later Supreme Court case Wan kim Ark that talked a lot about importing the English common law in that the context of that decision, but that that doesn't that case only applies and only binds the court as to the children of permanent legal residents. 00:09:22 Speaker 2: So you are you hearing anything from your sources at the Supreme Court the clerks? Are you hearing you know anything at this point? Because Blake's you know, he's hearing negative. It's I'm not mad at you. I really want the truth. 00:09:35 Speaker 3: I don't have sources of the Submarine Court telling me anything. Unfortunately, I love that Araft, but I don't have them telling me anything. 00:09:40 Speaker 2: All right, So Wan Kim RK, I actually disagree with Wan Kim RK, but I think this is one of those vestiges of having a racially bifurcated system of laws. Right, So they were trying to carve out, in my opinion, with Wan Kim RK citizenship for children of legal permanent residents. Okay, they were Chinese, the parents were Chinese. They were not allowed to be naturalized at the time, so obviously that later changed. I don't think that children of lawful permanent residents should be citizens. I'm that hardcore on this. But listen, we're not arguing that right now before the Supreme Court. We're saying children of illegals birthright citizenship for illegals. Okay, go ahead, I can see you have thoughts. 00:10:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, so I mean wank kim mark is and neither is John Souer, Right, That's an important thing to understand, Like there was a whole interesting discussion of what was happening here because John Souer in the United States's position is that won Kim mark is a good law and that it just doesn't control the question of the children of illegal aliens or temporary residence. Because throughout Wan Kim mark is a discussion that it's legal residents, it's people who are domiciled in the United States, and lawfully present. So that's the idea there. And you know, interestingly, like the way that Cecilia Wong opened her presentation was to say wan Kmart controls the result of this case. There's wankmark requires that you give citizenship to basically anybody born here outside of the closed exceptions, and that's the end of it. And Justice Cabana actually oponent out in his questioning. It's like, so you're, ok, you're basically saying we really don't need to even do much here because under your theory, you know, the administration is wrong about what Wankamart means and they're not calling it for it to be overturned. So the end, that's your that's the decision you'd have us give. We could give a two page decision, and she said yes. And the reason that's always a bad sign for the person making that argument. Justice Thomas has pointed this out. Supreme Court doesn't take easy cases. That's not that. And if they do, they take them through what's called they just like will do a grant, vacate and remand, or they'll they'll just issue a suspond not suisponte, sorry, but like a procureum opinion without hearing argument. When they hear argument in a case, when they go through all this effort, it's usually because they think the question is a little bit more challenging than the people suggest it's it requires some real difficulties. So I don't think the court agrees with the respond it's interpretation of Wuan kim ark And I think that's a big problem for them because if the court doesn't agree, then all of a sudden that the question of what does the fourteenth Amendment mean? What is its original meaning? Is really quite central, Like does it is it? Does it allow for either the executive or Congress to create new rules about the children of illegal aliens? 00:12:25 Speaker 4: And I mean it. 00:12:26 Speaker 3: Should as a policy matter, it should obviously, Like it is straight up insane to if you were crafting an immigration law from first principles, it would be straight up insane to do so and include a rule that said, the people who break your immigration law, their children get to be citizens. 00:12:40 Speaker 5: So let's assume they at least get away from total birthright citizenship. What do you think are obviously we would hope for a total victory, but are there maybe medium level decisions that would be an improvement over the status quo, but not what we're hoping for that the Supreme Court might try to cut the baby on. 00:13:00 Speaker 3: I think that the best the best case for like a split the baby type decision would be something where they say that there is an exception for temporary sojourners that was recognized at the time of the fourteenth Amendment, but that that exception doesn't cover illegal aliens. So the idea would be that they could make a ruling that says, Congress, you know, you're allowed to make a rule banning Chinese birth tourism or not recognizing the children of people, you know of people who were born here on tourist visas and then who immediately left. Right, they might say that those those people are temporary sojourners, their children are in American citizens, even if they were born in like an American hostel. 00:13:35 Speaker 2: But what about like the Guatemalan that is, you know, hiding in the suburbs of Chicago and doesn't tend to go back to Guatemala but is not here legally. 00:13:45 Speaker 3: Right, And I think that, I mean, that's the right. The thing is that I don't think that would be the most principal way to resolve this at all, because I think the principal way to resolve this, especially given the way that immigration law treats illegal entrants who never present themselves as a port at a board of at a port of entry as temporary visitors, like they don't have a legal right to stay. They're treated in the same way that applicants for admission are. This is actually sort of an interesting, you know, cross application to the recent Fiths Circuit decision which allowed for ICE to detain legal aliens without bond if they never presented themselves at a port of entry. The idea is that because you never presented it yourself at a port of entry, you're in the exact same position as somebody who just showed up at the border and should be treated the exact same way. And so the logic I think goes kind of applies here as well. Like we you know, even if you've been living here for twenty years as an the legal alien, the law will treat you as though you just showed. 00:14:35 Speaker 2: Up, right, They don't, well, a lot doesn't recognize. General Sauer actually touches on this point here. We have a clip sought. 00:14:42 Speaker 7: For page twenty eight ninety the Congressional Record from eighteen sixty six, Senator Cowan gives this virulently racist statement where he says that and what does he say right at the beginning of that that sort of offensive speech. 00:14:52 Speaker 8: He says, he says, we can't have. 00:14:53 Speaker 7: Children of gypsies, children of Chinese immigrants, we can't have them become citizens. And he says, quote, have they any more rights than this sojournery in the United States? So he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have children who become citizens. How powerful evidence there that everybody understood this to you know, not sweep in the temporary sojournery just. 00:15:18 Speaker 2: Like a quick aside, Like General Sower's voice is not helping him here. It's it's hard to listen to. But I mean his point is well made. 00:15:28 Speaker 3: It was one of his best points of the day. Yeah, And because I think that was I forget who asked the question. He was either said to my or Jackson, but she brought up this, you know, terrible like statement made by one of these people. And the point sour made was like if you actually read the statement clearly, it just is incredible evidence for the idea that how the Senate and how Congress understood the Fourteenth Amendment and understood this phrase subject of the jurisdiction thereof was that it didn't come cover temporary visitors, which, if true, that blows up the entire theory of the case of the ACLU, who says that there are only these narrow, closed exceptions Indian tribes, children of ambassadors, children of foreign invaders, and there's no other possible exception. That that's all the subjects of the jurisdiction thereof means is that this small universe of closed and already specified exceptions. And clearly that's not what the framers of the fourteenth Amendment thought at all an object you know, they thought there was a general rule being promulgated, meaning that you had to have allegiance that it wasn't just people who were just randomly showing up. 00:16:35 Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I mean Senator Howard, during the debates over the drafting of the fourteenth Amendment, said this will not, of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, or credited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of citizen. It's so, I mean, lawyers will lawyers. Yeah, I just feel like, I mean. 00:17:03 Speaker 5: I kick it over the feeling we might just be stuck with. They'll make like a soft hearted decision because it's mean to. 00:17:08 Speaker 2: Yeah, they're gonna try and split the baby. I actually I actually agree. I think that's what Robert's going to try and do well. Chamberlain Article three project. Thank you, sir, keep on this. We might have you back soon just to kind of break it all down again for us. Well, God bless me. Man. All right, we'll t When you read food labels today, it's obvious we've over complicated nutrition, chemical names. You can't pronounce ingredients that sound like they belong in a lab instead of a kitchen. Here's the simple truth. Plants have their own nutrition. They're called phyto nutrients, and your body knows exactly what to do with them. That's what drew me to bounds of nature. They take fruits and vegetables and put them through a special vacuum cold process to stabilize that phyto nutrition. Nothing weird, nothing artificial. Their whole health system gives you fruits and veggies plus fiber and spice forty seven whole food ingredients. I take it every day because it's simple and it works with my routine. If you want to make nutrition simple again and fight the good fight, go to Balance of nature dot com to subscribe and save today. Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing their lives for the better. Very excited about our next guest. That's doctor Matt Spalding. He is the professors have long titles, so bear with me. Is the Kirby Professor in Constitutional Government at Hillsdale College and the Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College's Washington, d C. Campus. Welcome to the show, doctor Matt Spalden. 00:18:44 Speaker 4: He great, Great to be with you guys. Again, Sorry about the long titles, but that's the way I. 00:18:48 Speaker 2: Can get life is you gotta have like the name of the school and then what the school actually is and where it's local, you know. And you guys have multiple titles talking about birthright citizenship though, so I don't know if you listened the oral arguments. We kind of got granular in the first couple segments going through these, but Let's go ahead and play a clip from the oral arguments, because I think there are deeper historical truths that you could help unpack here. And so let's just go with sought one. And this is going back to Civil Rights Act, which was passed right after the Civil War. 00:19:26 Speaker 9: Sought one, Most of your brief is not about illegal aliens. Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an experience of an understanding of that there were going to be temporary inhabitants, and your whole theory of the case is built on that group. You must be saying that there is a principle that was there at the time of the fourteenth Amendment. 00:19:53 Speaker 8: We agree there's a principle there at the fourteenth Amendment. 00:19:55 Speaker 7: It is the jurisdiction means allegiance, the allegiance of a very strongly reflected in. 00:20:01 Speaker 8: The nineteenth century sources. 00:20:02 Speaker 7: The allegiance of an alien president in another country is determined by domicile and that goes back to the VS and the Pizarro, It goes through the Katsa Fair in. 00:20:11 Speaker 8: Eighteen fifty three. 00:20:11 Speaker 7: It comes right up to Fong Yui Ting and Ao Bo that are decided shortly before Wong Kim mark. 00:20:19 Speaker 8: So that's the principle. That principle clearly applies. 00:20:22 Speaker 2: So we're talking about Yeah, so you're laughing. What's the laugh there? Yeah? What does happen there? 00:20:28 Speaker 4: So a couple of key things. 00:20:30 Speaker 10: First of all, just by way of context, right, this is the sentences clause of the fourteenth Amendment, which has passed after the Civil War to grant citizenship to former slaves, the freedmen, and their children. 00:20:44 Speaker 4: That amendment grows. 00:20:46 Speaker 10: Out of the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, and the comparisons but then were absolutely key because the people who sponsored that Civil Rights Act and the people who wrote the citizenship clause of the Constitutional Amendment the fourth Men are the same people. And indeed they're often they're quoted, and there are lots of quotes, and they have lots to say. They don't necessarily clarify everything exactly the way we would want today, but they do clarify it quite a bit. So that's one thing. So they work through the eighteen sixty six acts. That's a definitive legislative history that affects the civil rights, that affects the Constitutional Amendment. 00:21:22 Speaker 4: So that's one point. 00:21:24 Speaker 10: The second point which comes up this question is people who are temporarily illegally all these different categories. That's important to keep in mind here because there are all sorts of different things, some of which apply, from which don't apply, that are being debated. 00:21:38 Speaker 4: But we want to see through that. 00:21:39 Speaker 10: The key question, which is really found in the answer that comes back, which is the key language in the decision clause of the Fourth Moon is jurisdiction. So just to remind us that opening line of the Fourth Amendment says that all persons born and naturalized in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are students in the United States and of the state wherein they reside. There's no disagreement here about the first part. In the last part, all persons born and naturalized in the United States. We kind of know what that means to be born and to be naturalized, to go through the naturalization process. But the key the other thing here is there's this other clause and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that mean? Clearly, it's not there for no good reason and suggests that it's this and that there are two requirements here, So jurisdiction is key. That's what they're debating. The eighteen sixty six Civil Rights Act goes straight to that because they talk about jurisdiction and they say, what it means is that you have full and complete allegiance political allegiance to this country and not someone else. So the debate is whether does jurisdiction mean, oh, I abide by the stop signs meaning local just kind of jurisdiction of live here, or does it actually have subsident of meaning. Because if it does have subsistence meaning, which is what the executive or in this case is claiming, then the various steps along the way and the cases can be read that way. They do make minor distinctions here and there, but generally speaking they hold up that argument and that's a consistent one. But what it does mean is that someone who's simply born here is not automatically a citizen. This jurisdiction question really does matter, you know. 00:23:26 Speaker 2: It's interesting actually, if you look at the language, there's that comma between the first part of the clause or the first clause, and the second clause, and half of me is inclined to believe that if there just wasn't a comma there, this would be so much Because I read it, and to your point, it's very very clear. It says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subjects to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning that they work just together, just but they separate them so they take you could fit the first clause or the second clause and be a citizen and ship or be a citizen. But to your point, the historical precedent and what we where this language is derived from, clears it up even better. I would say the language of the Civil Rights Act is much stronger in some ways. 00:24:13 Speaker 4: That's right. 00:24:14 Speaker 10: And so the question then becomes, well, when they passed through the amendment where they intentionally broadening the language of the Civil Rights Act to mean anything, Well, then if they wanted to do that, they should just drop the clause entirely and not kept it in there. And indeed, during the debate of the Civil Rights Act, there are various times in which there are amendments made to clarify well except for this, except for this, and the answer was they didn't pass those amendments. You can find no language in the debate or the eighteen sixty six Civil Rights Act that says everyone who was born here is a US citizen. That wasn't That was not the issue. It's impossible to make that claim. So the claim then is are the argument then is that, Okay, how can we read this somehow to support birthrights citizenship the art. My argument, which I think is the argument behind the Executive order and the argument that many have been making for some time now, is that the idea of birthright citizenship that we all assume that you come here, you're born, you're automatically an American citizens That is an aberration. That's not the legal history, that's not the constitutional history. That's also not the Supreme Court history, and it's just something that's kind of come into being, which means that unless Congress does something. One thing we should note here is the Section five or the fourties minute says Congress can pass legislation, but they have not done so, and until they do so in the meantime because of the confusion. 00:25:37 Speaker 4: This is exactly the conditions in. 00:25:39 Speaker 10: Which a present would exist issue in Executive Order determining a policy until Congress acts the policy the United States is this, and that's exactly what he's doing, I think powerfully are clearly based on the existing history tradition, support Supreme Court decisions and trying to find a way that gets around a lot of the confusion which is out there on this particular subject. 00:26:06 Speaker 5: I just so, I feel like one reason a lot of us have gotten hope on Supreme Court cases is we currently have a justice on the Court who's like so off putting and so sort of dim that it drives a lot of the justices away. We saw that with Katanji Brown Jackson's ruling yesterday in the conversion therapy case, where even Sodamior and Kagan are bashing her and saying she doesn't understand the law. 00:26:28 Speaker 6: Well, we're getting some of that today. 00:26:30 Speaker 5: We're getting some very memorable jacksonisms about the law. I want to play one of those. Let's play SOT eleven. 00:26:38 Speaker 11: How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born people have to have documents present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States. Your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States, And I think Justice s Barrett brought this up. So we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions? What what are we doing to figure this out? 00:27:07 Speaker 5: Like it's just idea birth certificate? What what's that I've I've never heard of this. I feel like we have to hope that that sort of argument maybe can make the justices realize, wait, the position we're on the brink of endorsing is insane, like it is built on insane premises. 00:27:27 Speaker 6: Or am I just am I trying to find some hope spot here? 00:27:31 Speaker 10: Well, I don't know who part part of the Supreme Court is predicting where they're going to go with these things, and it's it's almost virtually impossible nowadays to do so. But having said that, you're you're onto something and picking up a certain absurdity in that line of question. The distinction here, if I could use because some older language is a distinction between uh kind of you know, citizens by soil or citizens by blood. The old notion think back when the Kings of England and feudalism and whatnot, is if you were born in the king's soil, you're the king's subject. That's actually ourning for birthright citizenship The argument for Republican government I eat the United States is birth by blood, which is say that, in lacking all the documentations she might require for a full eighteen year old person going to vote or something, the default is their parents, which is, say to whom are their parents subject? So if they're subjects to the King of England, they're not Americans. They're subjects to the King of England. If they're French citizensen or citizens from another country to which they are loyal, their children are that citizenship as well. That's the distinction that I think draws an absurdity of it. 00:28:50 Speaker 2: Folks. Let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support. Here Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA, built by people who believe in hard work, freedom and America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures. Just darn goodcoffee made by Americans for Americans. This is coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink it every day right here on the show. From Morning Reaper and Brutal Awakening to seventeen seventy six dark roast in their two a medium roast. They've got something for everyone. They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess, Just add water, stir and you're ready to roll. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie and use code Charlie for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie. Blackout Coffee dot com slash Charlie, and for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription. Save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through their rewards program just for drinking what you already love. Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never run out. 00:29:58 Speaker 1: That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie. 00:30:00 Speaker 6: Check it out promo code Charlie. 00:30:04 Speaker 12: The person's domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent hall. There are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures, but they have in their minds made a permanent home. Here talk about the legal capacity to create a domicile, excluding. 00:30:34 Speaker 7: Someone who may have the subjective intent, which otherwise would be determinative as being excluded on the humanitarian point. 00:30:41 Speaker 8: Ivery point out, as I said at the. 00:30:42 Speaker 7: Beginning Justice Alito, that the United States rule of nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship. 00:30:47 Speaker 8: Is an outlier among modern nations. 00:30:49 Speaker 7: Every nation in Europe has a different role in the notion that they have a huge humanitarian crisis as a result of not having unrestricted birthright citizenship. I don't think is a strong argument. 00:31:00 Speaker 2: So nations that have repealed birthright citizenship since nineteen eighty doctor Matt Spaulding. Australia got rid of it in two thousand and seven, New Zealand got rid of it in two thousand and five, Ireland two thousand and five, France nineteen ninety three, India got rid of it in nineteen eighty seven, the UK nineteen eighty three, Portugal nineteen eighty one. Right give us a history lesson of where this even came from, because it was really popular in the new world to try it, you know, you know, import well attract new new. 00:31:33 Speaker 10: Thing. Think even broader than that. I kind of made reference to it being in our last session. The old notion of how one became a citizen is you took on the citizenship. They didn't even use the word citizenship. You were a subject. You took on the subject ship, if you will, of your king. So if you're born on the king sail, you're a subject to the king. It's it's feudial, it's feudalism. America and the rise of republican governments changed that. Now we had things going on in America. One is, we needed population, so we were encouraging and we were very broad on our immigration policies because we're going to grow the nation and have more citizens. Although even then, from the very beginning, we were careful on who we encouraged, and if you came here, you had to work hard and you had to learn to be an American. 00:32:17 Speaker 4: That was very important. 00:32:19 Speaker 10: But the other point, and those that Clippy has showed kind of starts getting to this question, is what's been going on since then is around the world feudalism has died out and kind of republican or democratic republics have been spreading more so, more and more countries have been getting it a birthrights citizenship. 00:32:38 Speaker 4: And yet here we are the parent, if. 00:32:41 Speaker 10: You will, of modern republican government and democratic republicanism. We're trying. We're sticking with birthright citizens. It's just exactly backwards. But the other point I want to make here is that this question of consent, the essence of the of the American principle is consent based on all men being equal, the Declaration of Independence. 00:33:02 Speaker 4: But consent tells us something about. 00:33:05 Speaker 10: How our immigration laws should operate, which is say, it has to be reciprocal. Someone has to want to come here. Okay, that's part of it. But you can't come here on your own and make yourself or your child an American citizen. What you need to do is get reciprocal and consent, which is that we consent to becoming a citizen. And that's done how through our laws, which the executive is empowered to enforce, and with a lack of laws, he needs to figure out some sort of policy heinst his executive order. 00:33:37 Speaker 4: But there is a process. 00:33:39 Speaker 10: And the problem is that of all the places in the world, why are we somehow claiming a right, a fundamental right that the Supreme Court should be able to dictate on something that by all standards, all historical standards, and increasing them by more and more countries around the world. Is understood to be the lawful right of a sovereignty to control its own citizenship. It can have a broad policy, it can have a narrow policy. You can allow this, it can allow that. But it's the decision of those that are here who consent through the law to welcome other people in and then have requirements you have to get pass the citizenship test. 00:34:16 Speaker 4: What it might be. 00:34:17 Speaker 10: We can grant a special rights for those that are purscued if we choose this policy really is truly an aberration. As we said in that clip, this is not the norm at all when it comes to Republican government. 00:34:32 Speaker 5: It's just I feel like, honestly, if we want to take the biggest thing, as we said, nations are repealing this, and I think we should remind. 00:34:39 Speaker 6: People of what the stakes of this are. 00:34:42 Speaker 5: What we've seen happen because of this ridiculous interpretation of the law we have. I believe they actually mentioned it during the oral arguments. There are something like eight hundred companies in China offering birth tourism to the Chinese. 00:34:55 Speaker 2: We have this clip, Yes, sought eight. 00:34:56 Speaker 6: Let's play that. Let's play sought eight. 00:34:58 Speaker 8: Problem of birth tourism. 00:35:02 Speaker 7: Year's the facts about it that I think is striking. Media reported as early as twenty fifteen that, based on Chinese media reports, there are five hundred five hundred birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China, who's what business is to bring people here to give birth and return to to that nation. Their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the nineteenth century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. 00:35:33 Speaker 2: It's over so some estimates have it at a one point five million Chinese residents that live in China are American citizens. In theory, they could vote in our elections. 00:35:43 Speaker 5: In our elections, but also move here, immediately, get taxpayer funded college, immediately qualify for every program that we rig that you can scam. I bet there's guides on how to do that. Set up your own daycare while you go to college here. 00:35:54 Speaker 10: Think more broadly, for men, people have a broader narrow view of immigration. I tend to think it's to be more narrow and more selective. Having said that, there can be a broader ray opinions. We're a free country. The questions who controls that policy. And in a government a country based in the rule of law, we control that policy. That's what it means to be a free, self governing people. The birth tourism problem coming especially from place like China, and I'm sure others come here for the same reason. Knowingly doing this is to establish citizenship, which gives them certain rights claims. They might be thinking about getting other benefits and whatnot. But I can tell you from the point of view China, it's it's a strategic question. They I foreign countries are trying to determine our policies, and the more they can have people who can claim to come and go as they choose in and out of the country because they're citizens in the future renounce to their benefits. So it is a large strategic problem. But ultimately it's this larger moral constitutional question. Who can rolls who was an American? Is that a right in and of itself for anybody in the world, or is it a right and a privilege which we understand and control by our laws. 00:37:11 Speaker 4: I think that's what's an issue here. 00:37:12 Speaker 2: Doctor Matt Spalding of Hillsdale College, You're uh, You're in d C. So I'm sure, it's all the all the chatter uh in the in the in the city today, and we we we pity you for having to live there, but we're grateful that you do so with a clear mind and common sense, which is which is a rare virtue in that part. 00:37:32 Speaker 10: So it's it's, it's it's it's not clear to me what the Supreme Court will do. They can always come up with different little twists and turns here and there. But having said that, if they're to follow the history of the Civil Rights Act, if they follow the history of their own decisions wal kim ark this case, it's always mentioned he was a permanent citizen. The executive order makes room for precisely that condition, permanent resident, if they follow a perfect resident, if they follow that, there is an argument here, and there's an answer which I think can be found consistent with the comments and good policy. 00:38:01 Speaker 2: Hillsdale College. It's the best. Thank you, doctor Spalding. 00:38:04 Speaker 4: Thank you great being with you guys. 00:38:05 Speaker 2: Again, if you're a parent, you don't need to be told that online safety is important. That's why TikTok has over fifty pre set safety and privacy settings, and beyond that, parents can set up family Pairing to help shape their teens experience on the app. With family pairing, parents can get visibility into their teens followers and who they follow, help restrict content that's not right for them, and set screen time limits. Parents can also set restricted times so they're not on TikTok when they shouldn't be, because feeling good about the time your teen spends online shouldn't come with guess work. In addition to the already built in safety and privacy protections, family pairing gives parents more tools to shape their teens online experience based on what's right for their family. Remember when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow. Learn more by going to TikTok dot com slash Guardian's Guide. We have a special guest and that is Klee Conway. He is the GCU so Grand Canyon University Chapter social Media Manager and chapter chaplain as well. So we had a whole conversation yesterday with Selena Zito from the Washington Examiner, and she was talking about her own experience in like Pennsylvania. So she lives right near Pittsburgh, and she says, young people are just getting baptized by the droves and she's seeing this revival that I think a lot of us had a question about after Charlie's assassination. When you saw that revival, energy wasn't going to keep going, and so we wanted to kind of bring it back down to the student level with you and have you in studio today to tell your story what you're seeing. You're from Missouri, originally outside of Kansas City, and now you live in Arizona, so you've got kind of multiple perspectives here. Tell us your story, and you know you're the chapter chaplain, which is pretty sweet, So just tell us your story. 00:39:56 Speaker 6: Yeah. 00:39:56 Speaker 13: So I was born and raised in a Christian household. I had two really awesome parents that just led by example, are pretty good role models. And I got saved when I was about ten years old. And you know, when you get saved that young, it's like I knew Jesus wanted, like he was my savior, but I didn't know the full weight of that yet. And I would say the last couple of years, year and a half of my life, there's just been a lot of life events majorly in my life that happened. I lost my dad in April of twenty twenty four, just completely unexpected. And that's when I kind of just started diving deeper into my faith and just to really understand why I believe these things instead of sitting here and regurgitating this information that I was being fed or just even like what my parents had told me, Like, I wanted to sit there and be like, why do I believe these things and actually be confident and be able to sit here and say like, well, this is why I believe this, or this is why I choose Jesus my Lord and Savior. And it's just kind of been a walk walk with that deeper and deeper ever since then. 00:40:57 Speaker 2: So it's amazing how trauma so often can lead us to deeper walks in our faith with Jesus. I mean, I certainly felt that after Charlie's assassination, maybe let's go there. So you transferred to GCU or in Missouri? Where were you when Charlie was killed? 00:41:15 Speaker 13: I was actually here in GCU, so this, Yeah, So I transferred to GCU the beginning of the academic year last last year. 00:41:23 Speaker 14: So I started last fall here at GCU when this all happened. 00:41:27 Speaker 2: What was it like on campus from a spiritual perspective when that happened. 00:41:32 Speaker 13: So on campus. Me personally, I feel like it was a very big shift. And I was also fortunate enough to be at the entire memorial there as well, and you could just be in that building as well, you could just feel that energy like there was just a revival. Or it's like it's a feeling that it's hard to sit there and explain because it just feels really surreal at the same time sit it on camera right there, Yeah, but it's like it was just awesome. I mean just being in that place right there, It's just the worship and just everything just going on, Like you could really feel the presence of God just in the room. And I also feel like that carried out through campus as well, like that feeling was just there and it. 00:42:11 Speaker 2: Was just students. 00:42:14 Speaker 14: Yes, I did it was It was just really undeniably there. 00:42:19 Speaker 5: Blake, I don't know well, and we always love to ask how did it how did it evolve over time, because we've certainly seen evidence there's been a sustained spiritual revival in some places. Obviously there was a tremendous surge in the days afterwards. We saw that outside of our own UH headquarters here, but maybe just lay out for us the response or what you saw from students Charlie's legacy. A month later and now we're six months later, I would. 00:42:46 Speaker 13: Say within like a month afterwards, like there was a lot of like, Oh, I'm going to step up, I'm going to start believing these things. 00:42:52 Speaker 14: I'm going to start speaking out more. 00:42:54 Speaker 13: And as much as I love would love that was continued at that extent, it definitely has died down a little bit. But I definitely don't think it's like below the threshold than that. It was, like, it's definitely exceeded there and it's stayed there. So that energy and that spiritual just that presence of God has one hundred percent been there this entire time and it's still I wass sit here and say it still is. 00:43:17 Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't think anyone would be surprised by that. 00:43:19 Speaker 5: I think a remark I made closer to it is would the surge last for everyone? 00:43:25 Speaker 15: Know? 00:43:25 Speaker 5: But there would be at least a few people, even if it was one person, But it's probably more than that where that moment will completely transform their life going forwards, and each of those little moments does matter a tremendous amount. 00:43:39 Speaker 2: Well, I mean you think of the parable of the Sower, right, you know, it's the parable of the sower says that the seeds of faith are scattered, and some land on good soil, some on rocky soil, you know, and that's just going to be the case. It's a spiritual reality, you know. So I but I'm I'm careful because I actually believe that revival starts with repentance. And I remember when Charlie was killed, you know, and I've told this story. I actually told it, I think on the Alex Clark podcast where it was I felt this. I don't know if it was fear, but it was it was something. I realized that everything that we had, we had built, it was about to change dramatically, and I was resistant to it. And then I remember I was sitting in my hotel room and I just repented and I just said, Lord, whatever you have for me, I say yes to and and I apologized for fighting that right. And I'm curious if you have a similar story with what after your dad passed away? And I'm sorry to hear that. And you know, did you know this sort of surrendering to God's will in your life? 00:44:49 Speaker 13: Did And I appreciate that, so thank you. It was really weird because at first I when it all happened, obviously, like I was so confused and like, well, why would you take my dad away? Especially I'm the oldest of four kids, so I have three younger siblings, and it was just like I'm the oldest. I at the time, I was nineteen, and like, how are you going to sit here and take a father away that had laid a great foundation and just instilled all these great principles and was such a good guy compared to a lot of people out in this world right now? Like how are you going to just take him away unexpected unexpectedly from us? And it was really hard because I wrestled with that a lot. I was really confused, and I was really angry, and I honestly I lashed out at God a lot. And it got to the point where it was like I instilled this one statement in my head. It was like, I'm not sad, I'm not here to understand your plan. I'm here to trust your plan. And as more, I kind of shifted my mindset into letting Jesus come in and help carry this burden rather than trying to take it on to my like myself, because if I could fix these things myself, I would have already fixed I would have fixed everything already. And the reality is we can't fix it ourselves, and we need a savior. So once I took Jesus in and helped, like had him help me carry that burden of the loss, the anger, the grief, the sadness, all these emotions that are like super super heavy. This feeling of just overcoming peace and joy that I had it was just so overbearing. 00:46:16 Speaker 14: But yet I didn't understand it. 00:46:18 Speaker 13: And it's hard to sit there and like almost say that as well, because it's like, well, how do I sit here and feel so much peace and joy yet in one of the deepest, darkest times of my life. 00:46:28 Speaker 2: Well, the scriptures say that God will be close to the broken hearted, So there's that. I'm gonna read this sower verse. Here a farmer went out to sow his seed. This is Jesus talking as he was scattering the seed. Some fell along the path and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up. The plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still, other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop one hundred and sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them here. So much of life is the sewer, the parable of the sewer. It's interesting too, by the way, when I typed it into Google, it was the first parable that came up, massively important parable. 00:47:21 Speaker 6: It might have been your computer spying on you. 00:47:23 Speaker 2: I could have been. It could have been. I want to tell you guys at GCU Grand Canyon University, how many students go to GCU now, I. 00:47:32 Speaker 13: Honestly, I was gonna say probably like about thirty thousand. They're huge Now it's pretty big now. 00:47:38 Speaker 2: So Riley Gaines is actually going to be doing a pick up the Mic event at GCU on April ninth. I think we have the graphic if you guys want to throw that up. So that's pretty sweet. You guys just lock that in. 00:47:48 Speaker 13: Yeah, we just got it finalized the other day. Now we're advertising like crazy. 00:47:52 Speaker 2: Oh, it's gonna be great. She's she's really good at the live events too. We love Riley. She's doing a great job. So if you are in the student body, I guess is it open to non students or is it only students? I think it's only student. 00:48:06 Speaker 14: I think it's only students. I could be wrong, but don't put me on. 00:48:09 Speaker 2: That Riley Gaines at GCUS. Let's talk about that. She's a lady, you're not. So what's the dynamic on campus between the ladies and the gentlemen? Are we? Because we had some students on and they were basically saying, there is some tension. The girls don't like the guys, the guys don't like the girls. They have different expectations of what a relationship is. Has that been your experience, I would say so yes. 00:48:35 Speaker 13: I would say there is some tension and some friction there. But I also think that stems from a lot of different things. And I feel like this is a topic I could go on and on about, to be honest, but part I think one of the main issues with it is like there's just not enough men being men honestly, like we need to be more masculine. 00:48:55 Speaker 14: There's a lot. 00:48:55 Speaker 13: I would say there's a lot more females trying to step up and be that masculine figure other than the men stepping up and really being the true leaders or being the real masculine figures in that and we kind of just let it happen, like there's just not much control. It's almost like a oh, you kind of got it. Like I'm going to chill out. You can run the show if you like. I'm going to just sit here and not do a whole bunch. And I think that stim I think that just creates a lot more issues in itself. 00:49:20 Speaker 2: Well, it's the sin of adam actually actually you know passivity right where sin of omission, where we're not stepping up being leaders as God has intended men to be. So there's this interesting dynamic that's going on. I don't know if you've seen this Blake, but Isabelle Brown said that women should get married and have more babies stot seventeen. 00:49:40 Speaker 16: You're not encouraging your children to grow up and have the courage to get married and have kids, more kids than they can afford before they think they're ready. It is high time to start. It is these choices like deleting our dating apps and putting birth control pills and saying I do at the altar that ultimately trickle down into the political policies that we will see save our country. 00:50:00 Speaker 2: Well, the ladies of Debut did not like this. Became a whole thing, a team what my what is she? What the what? What? 00:50:09 Speaker 8: What? 00:50:10 Speaker 11: What? 00:50:10 Speaker 2: Well? 00:50:11 Speaker 17: So my ultimate beef with this is that it wraps a woman's worth up in her ovar East. The fact that we keep putting this on women that they're only worth in society, politics, policies is if they produce a baby or have a husband is the stupidest, most old fashioned thing. We have come too far. 00:50:29 Speaker 18: There is the call to responsibility for the men who make who helped make these children. 00:50:35 Speaker 4: I am. 00:50:35 Speaker 18: I don't know why it's always people lecturing women what they have to do online. If you're not paying my bills, you don't get to tell me what I do with my utilator. 00:50:47 Speaker 2: I feel like Anna Navarro is the perfect living embodiment of exactly what you're talking about. 00:50:52 Speaker 5: I just think it's it's so funny because they can just do this bland stuff and then everyone claps like a seal. I must say, yeah, okay, if you use your brain why would this maybe matter. Well, if you don't have kids, your civilization ceases to exist period. Maybe that's why, Maybe that's why there was something but presume value to doing that. 00:51:13 Speaker 2: Asabelle was not saying your only value is in your ovaries. She was saying, it's a good thing to point two to aim to, so you should do it because it's a blessing. By the way, it is a blessing. Children are a blessing from the Lord. And they're hard, they're expensive, they take a lot of time, totally worth it. Anyways, So you're seeing this energy on campus, am I right? I would say so. 00:51:34 Speaker 14: One. 00:51:35 Speaker 13: I think it stems from you see kind of this stuff online and it just kind of trickles down and it's like you get a really very twisted worldview no matter what side of the spectrum you are on when it comes to certain beliefs or ideologies, whatever it may be, it trickles down and it starts with society in my opinion, And then also men just don't want to sit here and do anything about it for the most part, at least in my generation. Like I just see a lot of dudes get over and they kind of just take it sometimes I'm like, guys, we need to step up and be real men. We need to start leading better, lead by example, and do these things that real men do. 00:52:09 Speaker 2: I totally agree. I don't think men are the problem. I think they're the solution. I think if it because here's a couple things. Two things. If you value children, if you create spaces in your society to have children, whether that's at restaurants or parks or games or whatever, that is a good thing. If you value children, you will have more children as a society. So point one, men, if you value strong men, you will get more strong men. If you value passivity, if you tell them that they are toxically masculine and that they are the villains in this story, men are going to opt out. It's the sin of Adam. We get passive and we let the women run rough shot. That's not a healthy society either. I believe deeply, deeply, deeply that women want strong men to lead. They want them to be productive, they want them to have vision, they want them to be full of life, full of vision. And when women in this this progressive feminist mindset put try and put men in a corner. What are men gonna do? They're not gonna rise to the occasion if you tell them they're the evil villain. You know, uh in the story, They're going to opt out, They're gonna go play video games, They're gonna get walked on. You're the chaplain of your of your chapter here, which is a cool title. Not all of our chapters have. I think we should. Actually, what's your what's your read on this? What's your message? What are you telling young men? Your age? 00:53:31 Speaker 14: Young men? 00:53:31 Speaker 13: I tell my age just like it's time for even though if you feel this way and like you kind of want to sit here, like like you said, and you get back to a corner whatever, like it's we are the solution anyways, Like we still have to step up, Like you still have to be able to one work on yourself and figure out these beliefs, figure out what you truly believe in, what you stand for, and have a real passion, and you need to have goals, and you need to have purpose with your life. 00:53:55 Speaker 14: You need to be purposeful. 00:53:57 Speaker 13: Women want someone that is gonna be very purposeful, someone that's going to go out there and go do something, someone that wants to actually get stuff done. And there's I don't think I see a lot of that, and just being able to take action on just something as simple as it sounds something like that can create a huge difference with a lot of that stuff. 00:54:15 Speaker 2: I totally agree. I think I hate that men tend to opt out. I think it's a it's a nihilism that's seeped in. But they've been told that they're the problem for over a generation now. And what do you think is going to happen when you tell young men that they're terrible and not worth anything and they're the villains and toxic and all this stuff. 00:54:35 Speaker 5: Men can do incredible things, but you have to want them to do incredible things. 00:54:39 Speaker 2: That's exactly right, That's exactly right. There's another clip here that's kind of interesting about affordability. I'm not gonna play it's too long, but it's like, you know, just says, I think it's really reckless. This is from the view to be suggesting that people should have children when you know there's this country's have an affordability crisis. Final note, children will never be affordable, they'll never be convenient. You could still have them. Guess what, You'll find a way your You will make space in your life for children. It doesn't mean be reckless. It doesn't mean do it when you don't have a job or something like that. But guess what, you might have children and then you lose your job. You gotta find a way out. Orienting your life around the next generation is always always a good thing. Kle ten seconds. You have a show. 00:55:24 Speaker 13: I actually have a platform where I talk about my personal testimony in a Christian worldview things and it's just Kale Conway kl E co. 00:55:32 Speaker 14: O, n W A Y, Facebook and Instagram. 00:55:34 Speaker 2: Check it out. Kale, You're a good man. We need more like you. 00:55:37 Speaker 4: Thank you. 00:55:37 Speaker 14: I appreciate it. 00:55:39 Speaker 2: Thank you. I just watched a Great Awakening and I have to tell you this isn't just another historical drama. It's a wake up call that you all need to pay attention to. We spend so much time talking about seventeen seventy six and constitutions and congresses and declarations, but this film reminds you of something even deeper. Before the Revolution, there was revelation George Whitfield wasn't a politician. He was a preacher. And yet watching this film, you see how his fearless proclamation of liberty in christ shook the colonies to their core. It unified people who had nothing else uniting him, and that is power. What really struck me was the portrayal of Benjamin Franklin. He's this brilliant rational mind, and yet he's drawn into genuine friendship with Whitfield, not because he suddenly becomes someone else, but because he begins to see freedom isn't structural, it's spiritual. The film makes one thing clear, you cannot sustain political liberty without moral and spiritual awakening. In theaters April third, visit a Great Awakening dot com to learn more today A Great Awakening dot Com to learn more today. 00:56:51 Speaker 5: Alrighty, well, we talked about this back when they were introducing it, but we believe in really flogging this. This is a very important race. We're talking, of course, about the Virginia reds stricting referendum. To remind everyone catch them up to speed. We've been Republicans in a few states have redrawn maps in Texas and Florida. 00:57:08 Speaker 6: We wanted them to redraw them in Indiana, and the Indiana. 00:57:11 Speaker 2: Republicans said, now, we do good Republicans do. 00:57:14 Speaker 5: But Democrats have not sat still, so they redrew the maps in California. But the most aggressive one that we're seeing is an attempt to redraw the map in Virginia. So basically half their seats, all our little slivers coming out of Fairfax County, the blue part of the state. They believe that they can get them to a ten to one Democrat advantage in Virginia. And so we wanted to welcome back Senator Glenn Sturtivant. He is a Virginia Republican Senator. He's been helping spearhead the battle against this referendum. Senator, are you there. 00:57:49 Speaker 15: I'm here, Yeah, thanks for having me back. 00:57:51 Speaker 5: Guys, welcome, So set the stakes for those of our We have quite a few listeners in Virginia. Hopefully they voted. You guys are in early voting right now. Tell us what's the state of the battle. Do we have a shot of winning this one? 00:58:04 Speaker 15: This is a David and Goliath battle. But what is I think becoming clearer and clearer every day is that we actually do have a shot at winning This election day is April twenty first. But as you said, we were in the midst of early voting right now. Virginia has some of the longest early voting of any state in the country. We've got forty five days of early voting, so that's been ongoing now for two or three weeks, and we've got three weeks to go as of yesterday until the last day to vote. And what is really interesting is the folks who kind of look deeply at the data and the numbers, it would indicate that we are seeing much higher turnout in the heavy Republican areas and much lower turnout than normal in the heavy Democrat areas. So Virginia, we are not used to having elections in April. This is the first time this has ever happened. So it is Virginians are being bombarded on television and YouTube and online with ads from the other side. They've basically got unlimited money. I think they've received about thirty million dollars so far from jakeem Jeffreys and George Soros and other left wing dark money groups. And then on our side, I think we've only been able to put together about five million dollars and I saw today another five million maybe coming in. But so far we have been outgunned on the money, outgunned. 00:59:33 Speaker 4: On the ads. 00:59:34 Speaker 15: But it really has been a people powered grassroots movement of Virginians who have seen what the Democrats, now that they control the Governor's mansion and both chambers of the General Assembly, what they've been up to the last few months. The people are fed up and pushing back, thankfully. 00:59:52 Speaker 5: It's so crazy that you can't get more funding for this because you think of the amount of money that'll be thrown into our elections. In a single Senate race, you might see over hundreds of millions of dollars spent. At this point, you'll see many millions spent on a single house race, and this is effectively four or five house races in a single go through. 01:00:10 Speaker 6: The method of this referendum. 01:00:12 Speaker 5: But to show how seriously Democrats are taking it, they've actually drawn a prominent Democrat out of retirement, none other than Barack Obama has Barack Hussein Obama has come out to campaign for this. 01:00:24 Speaker 6: We actually have a clip of him. Let's play twenty one. 01:00:27 Speaker 19: Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, but right now they are under threat. Over the past year, several Republican controlled states have taken the unprecedented step of redrawing their congressional maps. In the middle of the decade, and they've done it for a simple reason, to give themselves an unfair advantage in the mid terms this fall in April. Virginians can respond by making sure your voting power is not diminished by what Republicans are doing in other states. 01:00:56 Speaker 4: Help us chart a. 01:00:57 Speaker 19: Better path forward to do there well ly. Vote begins on March sixth. Election day is a twenty first. Oh yes, Virginia. 01:01:06 Speaker 6: I think it's very revealing. 01:01:07 Speaker 5: They flashed a bunch of maps there for those of you who are listening later. They showed Missouri, they showed Texas, but they did not show the Virginia and what their map is? 01:01:18 Speaker 16: Uh. 01:01:18 Speaker 5: And I want to before I'll ask you, I should remind people what the text of this referendum is, because it's truly one of the most egregious, appalling examples of distortion I've ever seen from an official election document. This is the wording on the ballot. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard process resumes for all future redistricting. So just could we please restore fairness? Don't you don't oppose fairness to you, but remind our listeners exactly what districts they are planning to impose on the state here. 01:01:57 Speaker 6: What do they look like? 01:01:58 Speaker 15: Oh, we have eleven Congression districts in Virginia currently under the current maps, we have six Democrat members of Congress and five Republican members of Congress. And that lines up very very well with how Virginia voted statewide in the twenty twenty four presidential election. We have been rated as having a plus fair maps from an anti jerrymandering perspective. We actually five years ago voted to amend our constitution in Virginia to get rid of partisan jerrymandering and to create a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which is what created the maps that we are currently working with. And now Democrats are trying to jam through this amendment to the amendment. This is another constitutional amendment that they are now pushing to give them this quote unquote temporary power to jerrymander again. And as you said, Blake, all of these districts essentially begin and end in Fairfax. 01:03:00 Speaker 14: There is a we. 01:03:02 Speaker 2: Have an right now. 01:03:04 Speaker 6: I don't know if you can see it, but we have it. You can see. 01:03:06 Speaker 5: You've got these little tendrils snaking all across the state. One, two, three, four of them go through Fairfax County at least, and then like two other snake up pretty close to it, but don't get there. 01:03:17 Speaker 6: It's one of the wildest things I've ever seen. And you can see. 01:03:21 Speaker 5: It takes us from you know, a few safe blue states, a few safe red seats, to just all of these blue leaning seats. 01:03:28 Speaker 6: It's one of the. 01:03:29 Speaker 5: Utterly it's an abomination to look upon. 01:03:33 Speaker 15: And for people who don't know Virginia that that big red area which the Democrats want to be our sole congressional seat is southwest Virginia, which is very very sparsely populated and there are no Democrats down there, so that if that would be the the loan Republican seat, it looks large, but it's you know, a single congressional district. 01:03:54 Speaker 2: Yeah. I want to go back to this Obama clip, which, to underscore Blake's point, he shows he does not talk about Virginia and he doesn't acknowledge the fact that Virginia is six' Five democrats get six, Seats republicans tend to get five in a state That kamala won by plus. Six. AM i, right you just had A republican, Governor Glenn, youngkin and so now you've now you've Got. Spamberger explain this this kind of, Ropodope this this move That democrats are doing In virginia where they present themselves as moderates and you, Know spanburger looks like this sort of clean moderate vision and then when they do, this they sell you the moderation and then they seem to GO i call it going Full virginia because it's like it deserves its own. Category now are they? Moderates? 01:04:46 Speaker 15: No and to hear you call it Full virginia hurts my, heart. Man but it's, sad and it's what we are living through right, now and it is a preview for what the rest of the country is going to get If democrats are likely to continue you nominating these folks, who, again like you, said appear on paper to be, moderates but when they get in office go full left. Wing it was. Not spamberger wasn't a day in office before she got rid of all Of Governor youenkin's policies that allowed our law enforcement to cooperate WITH ice to get illegal aliens out Of. Virginia she undid that on day, one and they had been pushing ever since to Make virginia a solid sanctuary state for illegal. Aliens we just finished up Our General assembly session about two weeks. Ago they are moving very quickly on Eliminating Virginian's Second amendment, rights making it impossible to buy and own common everyday firearms and. Magazines they had legislation to raise taxes on anything that, moved and they're they're also working to raise electric rates by Putting virginia back in This Northeast consortium kind of green new deal thing that they Called. Reggie so, yeah to your, Point spamberger has always presented herself as, this you, know suburban mom moderate we all knew from her time In, congress despite the propaganda that she was A Nancy Pelosi democrat and very. Liberal they were able, TO i, think pull a fast one on a lot Of virginians this Past, november and we're now seeing the fruits of. That AND i think that the bright, spot to the extent there is, one is that people are waking up very. Quickly AND i have not seen this sort of pushback and level of activism since The Tea party movement of fifteen years. 01:06:54 Speaker 5: Ago, Well, senator thank you for coming, On thank you for the. Fight if you live In virginia and you're listening to this and you haven't, voted go vote, now turn off this, episode go vote. 01:07:02 Speaker 6: Now get it. 01:07:03 Speaker 5: Done you have a few more days that you can do. It final day is on the twenty. First this is worth five house seats by. Itself we have to spare the whole country sadly from going a Full. 01:07:13 Speaker 6: Virginia thank you, Again. 01:07:15 Speaker 14: Senator thanks, Guy. 01:07:19 Speaker 2: Hi. Folks Andrew colvett, Here i'd like to tell you about my friends over at Why. Refi you've probably been hearing me talk about Why refi for some time. Now we are all in with these. Guys if you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan, debt take my advice and give them a. Call maybe you're behind on your, payments maybe you're even in. Default you don't have to live in this nightmare. Anymore Why refy will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to. Pay they tailor each loan. Individually they can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life. Back we go to campuses all Over america and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan. Debt many of THEM i don't even know how much they. Owe Y refi can. Help just go to wy refi dot. Com that's the letter why then refi dot. Com and remember y refi doesn't care what your credit score. Is just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your Friend andrews sent. You so every so, Often, blake there is a moment captured on film that seems to distill the insanity of progressive. Ideology and very often that clip comes From. Canada yes in this, case all, right so let me set the. Stage the twenty twenty six FEDERAL ndp Leadership convention was called In winnipeg In. Canada New Democrat. 01:08:41 Speaker 5: Party they're the party even left of you, know Justin trudeau's, party The Liberal, party so super. 01:08:47 Speaker 2: Liberal so they didn't go viral for their, policies you, know housing their awful ideal ideas about inflation or healthcare and how they can kill more people through. Euthanasia they viral for something called equity. Cards, now if you are a person that came to this. Convention you were given a gender or gender identity, card which would be. Green you were given it race or ethnicity card if you're not, white and that would be pink or. Purple you had a card For indigenous, STATUS lgbtq plus, status or a disability. Status, now what these cards are intended to do was give you the ability to jump into. Line so if there's a queue that's, formed a line that's formed to ask a question and force a debate on a certain, policy you could jump the debate over the white people if you had one of these. Cards it was designed to give diverse viewpoints more consideration and priority over white people's. Viewpoints, Essentially so what did that result? In i'll let you see PLACE sot. Eighteen there's a point of privilege on my persfone. 01:09:59 Speaker 14: One we'll go to microphone. 01:10:01 Speaker 8: Three go, ahead. 01:10:01 Speaker 2: Delegate, yes, HELLO i was standing here with my gender equity card before you called on the previous. 01:10:07 Speaker 8: Speaker that's my point of. PRIVILEGE i would like to. 01:10:10 Speaker 20: HER, i, well yesterday this card was used in an inappropriate. Matter and WHILE i understand In ontario we know this is, equity even if that this was also used inappropriate in terms of. GENDER i want everyone to be mindful that these cards for individuals like myself who identify as a black woman have no value outside of this. 01:10:34 Speaker 5: Space so they're handing out equity cards that you're supposed to flex to jump in. 01:10:41 Speaker 2: Line you cant. 01:10:41 Speaker 5: Privilege we laugh at, this but this is there's a deadly serious kernel, here which is we have struggles In america OVER, dei where we, have despite our, constitution systematic discrimination based on race or. Sex but at least In, america our laws say it's not supposed to be that. Way you're not supposed to, discriminate and that gives us reason for, hope it gives us ways to, counterattack and the vibe is mostly against. It canada is not like. That canada is the true call it post liberal. Country In canada, actually in their laws they just explicitly say if you are a black, person or if you are an indigenous, person you should be punished less for the same. Crime you can create a job opening In canada for you, know a university professor for, anything basically and just say white men are not allowed to apply for this. Job and it's not because it's an acting. Job where you need someone who looks a certain. Way it's not because it's a sports. Job it's specifically just a neutral. 01:11:42 Speaker 6: Job white men need not. Apply that is What canada has. 01:11:46 Speaker 5: Become and what you just saw there heard there is, cartoonish but that is what the left. Wants they want A it is truly a it's not even the. Future it's not a. Decline it's a regression back to the way the world was before The American. 01:12:02 Speaker 6: Revolution The American, revolution. 01:12:04 Speaker 5: One of its core bits was that all men are created. Equal, actually we're going to abolish all feudal. Status they want to restore feudal status where who your parents are is more important than what you, do that what you look. 01:12:17 Speaker 2: Like that is a visual representation of a regression to a predeclaration of independence world where you have sectarianism and tribalism ruling the. Day because this was designed to operationalize equality or equity in real. Time and what did you see? Happen the oppressive Oppression olympics played out for all to see where this group said that they were more oppressed and had more privilege over this, group and then this group, disagreed and so instead of having a system that was equal for. All you had everybody trying to claim their, privilege speaking over each, other fighting each, other saying that it was their turn to, speak it wasn't their turn to. Speak it was actually, cartoonish but it is this deadly. 01:13:00 Speaker 5: Serious if you want to get at what a backward society is in a single, sentence you might put it this, way that it is more important to be something than to do. 01:13:10 Speaker 6: Something it matters more what you are than what you've. 01:13:13 Speaker 5: Done because In, america the biggest reason we are such a profoundly transformational country for the entire world is that we flipped that on its. Head we, said what you do, matters what you have accomplished, Matters what your character is. Matters and In canada they're turning into the old, way which just says matters what your skin, is it matters what group you're. In your privileges just derived from your group. Status they're all, inherited they're all based on. Blood and it's very bleak because you can make fun of. It but the end result of that is economic, stagnation, poverty, hatred, misery. Backwardness you don't innovate. 01:13:52 Speaker 2: Anymore. Well the group that again To blake's point was already further left Than trudeau ultimately Selected Avi lewis as its new, leader a figure associated with a further left shift for the. Party so when you get a bunch of people in a room covetching and complaining about their oppression and how they should be privileged more because of their identity or their sexual, orientation you tend to have a party that will move further and further left until they fall off the cliff into utter stupidity and banality and cartoonish. Behavior may The lord spare such a result for The United. 01:14:35 Speaker 13: States for more on many of these stories and news you can, trust go To charliekirk dot. 01:14:43 Speaker 20: Com