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