Fox News

Trump briefed on downed F-15E fighter jet in Iran, search and rescue efforts underway

Mediaite

Trump Says Downed Fighter Jet Won’t Impact Negotiations With Iran: ‘It’s War’

NY Times

White House Seeks $1.5 Trillion for Defense in New Budget Request

Breitbart

GOP Rep. Stutzman: Can’t Leave 400 KG of Enriched Uranium in Iran if IRGC, Ayatollah in Power

Breitbart

Khanna: Trump ‘Should Be Impeached’ Over Iran, ‘Democrats Will Impeach Him Once We Take Back the House’

Breitbart

Zohran Mamdani Omits Jesus’s Name in Good Friday Message: ‘We Mark a Day of Sacrifice’

X

Watch a younger Chuck Schumer saying things he would be excommunicated from the Democrat Party if he said them today

Washington Examiner

The Gaza genocide lie has been debunked by an unlikely source

Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Podcast page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1

As you know, a. Down fighter jet. We have here and we just went up to date. There’s nothing new over the last few hours. Down the US fighter jet. There was a search for one of the crew members. One of the other crew members has already been found successfully rescued. It’s in a fairly desolate area. It happened at night. It is now about 1 a.m. in change. In Iran. The feeling is that they will find him. The U.S. intelligence and satellites and everything we have is looking for him. As are the Israelis. So there’s that. And if we have any new information, I’ll let you know. In our three, we’re going to have our friend Allen West on the program to talk to this. Talk to us about this. As you know, he’s a hardened combat veteran. And we will talk to him. He’s also a great guy. So there’s that. In an over media mediaite one of the most disreputable sites. And yet there is an interview there that they point out. Garrett Haake, very nice, reported NBC News Live blog this afternoon in a brief phone interview. President Trump refused to discuss the specifics of ongoing search and rescue efforts in Iran after an American jet was down. What did he expect? The idiot? What did you expect? But he expressed frustration about some of the coverage of what is plainly an intense and sensitive military operation. Asked if today’s events will affect any negotiations with Iran. The president said it would not. No, not at all. No, it’s war. We’re in a war, Garrett. The president really does have his head screwed on, right? You know, the really does. And you look at Iraq, all the planes that went down and so forth. That’s not to diminish this. It’s just to put some context into this. And context is important. Now everything is is on the move to try and find this member. And I feel they’re going to find him and hopefully alive and well. I think they’re going to find it before the Iranians. It’s not any populated area and so forth. And what I’ve been watching and hearing is what they basically will do is figure out a radius in which he’s likely to be and then protect that radius from the Iranians and others. With gunships, with the helicopters, with whatever is needed, with whatever is needed. The president also posted a true social as the search continued for the American pilot who ejected more than 15 hours ago. Keep the oil and he won Trump’s second truth post of the day. And he’s been pressuring countries that rely on the Strait of Hormuz for the majority of their oil to retake the strait from Iran, which has been blocking shipments with mines and missile strikes. And I don’t know why they don’t. Other than half a or so slashed their defense budgets, they don’t have much of a navy, I guess. I guess. And so that’s where we stand. And we are monitoring the wire services. And if something changes, you will be the first to know, as in any news breaking evening when I’m on the air, we monitor our news wires that are out there, several of them. If there’s any change, you will be the first to know. That’s the situation right now, and it will change eventually. That’s for sure. Now, let me get this also. Bear with me, folks. Bear with me. Bear with me. Are the phones working today? Rich? Okay, Well, we have that going for us. Let’s see here. Well, that’s weird. You know, we’re taking a lot of outside hits on our equipment. I’m taking it on my laptop. I’m taking it on everything else. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Makes me wonder. Anyway. Hold on one second. I seem to be one of the enemy number one. Enemies of the enemy. Okay. Here we are. Here we are. Okay. White House seats 1.5 trillion for defense in the new budget request we’re touching on Iran. I figured I’d mention this. Something I support. Strongly. Strongly. The request, which arrived as part of President Trump’s new budget, would amount to roughly a 40% increase from what the United States spent on the Pentagon this fiscal year. Now, what they don’t tell you is the percentage of the GDP. It would be about what Reagan spent. It would be about what Reagan spent to rebuild our military. So when they say, wow, look at that, it’s 40% increase. It may be 40, could be 33, could be 41. I don’t know. But that’s what’s going on. The administration cut the proposal with a call for 73 billions in cuts spread across many domestic agencies. Good. And then they put out ones that they hope will annoy people. Of course, the Democrats are defunding TSA. The president stepped in to fix that. But that doesn’t bother The New York Times too much. The idea some to a fiscal blueprint that could add trillions of dollars to the brimming federal debt. Now, do they ever mention now when they talk about Obamacare or massive new spending for some massive wave of illegal immigrants that they would care about the brimming federal debt? Of course not. So the number one responsibility of our government is to keep us safe and secure. States can’t do that. Cities can’t do that. We can’t do that as individuals. That is the number one responsibility of the federal government. Period. Number one. And so we rely on them to do it. And you can see we need shipbuilding. I mean, we’re so behind on ships, it’s not even funny. And we need people who are skilled in that. And we’re trying to do all that. And Trump’s trying to do all the right things associated with that. Very, very important. We need ship. We don’t even have much of a commercial shipbuilding industry anymore. That’s really shocking when you consider we have an Atlantic Ocean and a Pacific Ocean off each coast, right? And that some of these other countries, particularly China, have a massive navy and they’re building it up massively even more. So it’s a big deal. Mr. Trump, they say, urge Congress to approve most of his new defense money more than 1.1 trillion. To enact the remaining 350 billion using the same special legislative tactic that allowed Republicans to clinch their tax cuts in 2025. Such a move could also enable GOP leaders to boost funding for the president’s mass deportations, despite Democrats objections. So if you really want to know what the Democrats are thinking. You read The New York Times, you read Politico, you read Axios, you read all this crap. But I just wanted to point out, I think the president is doing the right thing. We need to do this. And we also need to cut other parts of the budget significantly. Significantly. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2

We have Marlin Stutzman, Republican of Indiana, on CNN today. Let’s listen to what he has to say. I believe we supported him once for the Senate, didn’t we? Or the House? Mr.. Is three years ago. Cut to go. All kinds of watchdogs say Iran’s got about 400 kilograms of enriched uranium nuclear material buried in Esfahan. It’s still there. It was there before the war began. It’s there now. And last night, the president said, I think the plan is to watch it by satellite. Do you think that that is satisfactory? Does that satisfy you if the United States ends this war and there’s still 400 kilograms of enriched nuclear material in Esfahan, is that a win? Not as long as this regime is still in power. I mean, we should never trust this regime. This has been going on for 40 years. And if the IRGC and the Ayatollah are still in power in Iran, it will always be a problem because these guys are they are true believers that if you don’t agree with them and their religious beliefs, that they are going to some either, you know, eliminate the person or they’re going to get a nuclear bomb in order to leverage the rest of the world. And so I think that this there has to be a regime change here. I am not afraid to say it because we know that this regime has been. Yes. And I say right now, I agree with this. This congressman, they got to go. They got to go. Go ahead. Seem change. Does that mean you don’t think there has been? Because the president said last night there was regime change? Well, and again, I mean, I wish these reporters would stop playing gotcha and get serious. Okay. The president said that you’re talking to a member of the House. Why does he want regime change? You don’t pursue it. What does he mean by regime change? You don’t pursue it. How would he pursue regime change? You don’t ask him. Instead, it is endless. Gotcha. Which is why CNN sucks. Why all the media suck? Go ahead. I do. And who he’s talking to and how he is negotiating with the people in Iran. So if he is comfortable with a new person that’s taking power, then that’s that is a new leadership in Iran. And I think that that’s what’s important. We can’t let the old guys stay in power. We have to let the Iranian people have their country back. It also creates an ally in the Middle East. It brings stability to the Middle East. You know, watching the Gulf states stepping up through this conflict is really remarkable. This wouldn’t have happened ten years ago. And to have Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Israel all working for the same goal here to take off the head of the snake is truly remarkable. And I think that that’s that’s what I mean when I say there’s got to be somebody new. It’s exactly right. No, I first brought up this issue publicly of the enriched uranium that is used for nuclear bombs, the 60% and 90% that it’s buried deep under the ground, that our bombers have siphoned it up and so forth and so on. But it’s still there. And I surmised that that’s why the president, in part, in addition to the Straits, is sending and talking about special ops and the 82nd Airborne and the special Ops in particular, they are trained to do this sort of thing, even though it’s complicated. And so they’ve been training for decades to do this sort of thing. Nobody again diminishes the. Complications involved. But then on the other hand, that’s one of the things the military practices to do, trained to do. I brought it up, pointed out what I thought was something important. And then we get Mark Levin says we should send troops into Iran to get the enriched nuclear material. Maybe we should. We’re not talking about sending a massive numbers of infantry. Maybe we should. I mean, they maybe they have to go into these places to destroy the uranium or extract it. And maybe we should. But I don’t know. But why would we take it off the table? And that’s what I know. Why would we take it off the table? And I should be worried to bring it up because of the word warmonger. They called Harry Truman a warmonger when he dropped two atomic bombs, they called. More than him. Theodore Roosevelt, a warmonger. They called Woodrow Wilson because of World War One a warmonger. They called FDR a warmonger. Truman, a warmonger. Johnson A warmonger. Nixon A warmonger. The Bushes were warmongers, they said. Reagan was a warmonger. And now Donald Trump, you see, is a warmonger. No rational distinctions are discernment between different situations. This is why I always talk about prudence over ideology. You’ve got to look at the facts. You got to look at the situation there unique in each case. And so everything is not Afghanistan. Everything is not Vietnam. Everything is not Iraq. Everything is not World War Two. Everything is not, you know, the civil War. Some things are different. A lot of things are different. This case is different. It’s not a forever war and it’s not going to be a forever war. President is not a warmonger. And I’m sick of these comedian podcasters and these broadcasters who’ve done nothing but then broadcasters who’ve done nothing and contributed nothing. Telling us like they’re leftists, like they’re part of the Marxist Islamist coalition. No, no, no. We can’t do this and we can’t do that. And we shouldn’t do this and we shouldn’t do that. It’s really quite preposterous. So we should take everything off the table. Everything. And just leave it to the Iranians to decide. Now, that is suicide. That is suicide. And we’ve got to do what’s right for us, for our children and our grandchildren. That’s what we need to do. This guy, Chris Van Hollen, is a liar. He’s a psycho. Absolute psycho. He’s in the media all the time pushing his pablum. The Democrats have no rational way to stop the Iranians. They’ve appeased them. They have funded them. They gave them a deal where they’d actually get nuclear weapons in 10 to 15 years. They’d have them right now. For the Iranians. It wasn’t fast enough, so they violated that deal. Then we have Biden that lifted sanctions. So they got 140, $180 billion. To help build up their their war machine. So they have no earthly idea on how to deal with this, any of it. Quite the opposite. And so everything Trump does. Every way Trump does it. Whenever Trump does it. Is not only a blunder, they say it’s an impeachable offense. And I’ve about had it up to here. I’m sick and tired of it. And we got this one reprobate. Ro Khanna on me now, yesterday talking about how they’re going to impeach the president as soon as they take the house. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3

Look, the Democrats are telling us repeatedly that if they win the House, they will impeach the president and conduct a reign of terror against all who work for him and all who have worked for him and do everything possible to cripple his presidency. Now, what are we going to do about that and how are we going to prepare to confront this? How are we going to prepare Mr. Produce or no down there? How are we going to prepare to confront this? I don’t expect on the spot immediate answers. But I do think we should roll over. We should not. Mr. Peters, I do think we should not roll over and play dead as they burn down the country either. I’m just correcting some of the things that I wrote for Mr. Producer there. Sorry about that, Rich, but it’s we should not. And so I’m going to start talking about this more and more. I’m going to start talking about this on Liberty’s voice to get into some specifics. And I may not be able to actually get into here on our video podcast. And we’ll certainly do it online as well. But we don’t have to roll over and play dead for these Democrats as they try and destroy the Trump presidency. He was elected president of United States for four years. Not until they win back, quote unquote, the House of Representatives histories on their side. No question doesn’t mean it will happen. But we need to prepare, be prepared in case it does happen as they’re running around making threats. Here’s an example. Roy. The con man Kahana. On me now, yesterday, this guy is getting increasingly radicalized. He represents part of Silicon Valley. He went to the same law school I did in Temple University in North Philadelphia. He contacted us when he first got elected. He wanted to come on. He was pretending to be a moderate, but he wasn’t a moderate. It’s a liar. And now, of course, he’s not on. Cut one go. The Democrats win the the House and possibly the Senate in November. There’s a better than even chance Donald Trump gets impeached again. Absolutely. He should be impeached now. I mean, he’s taken us into a disastrous war threatening war crimes in Iran in terms of knocking out people and plants and knocking out the. First of all, I don’t know if this guy’s first or second generation, but he’s a moron. He’s an ignoramus. Knocking out power plants, knocking out electricity. We’re not carpet bombing and just bombing everything and anything, which is what we’ve done in other wars. Quite frankly, we’re not using Agent Orange. We’re not burning down cities. We’re not dropping nuclear weapons, nuclear bombs. We’re not doing any of that stuff. Which we’ve done in the past. We’re trying to prevent that. We’re trying to prevent that. From the other side. So he says here he talks about disastrous wars, threatening war crimes, knocking out people’s plants and knocking out electricity. This guy is a thug. He’s a complete jackass. And they have plans already. He can’t keep his mouth shut, but he’s made it clear they’re going to try and impeach the president if they take over this over the House. And if they have a one vote majority, that’s what they’ll do. Because they’ve destroyed the whole notion of the impeachment clause in the House and in the Senate. Both. Notice Mallorca says, okay, they block that in the Senate. They didn’t even have a trial. They called it a summary judgment, which is not in the Constitution. They’ll do anything. They’ll do anything. I despise the Democrat Party of today. Despise it. And punks like this. Go ahead. And the Democrats will impeach him once we take back the House and should impeach him for all the things he’s done. And depending on the Senate, he may face conviction. If we get the 60, especially if the his numbers keep going down. If his numbers keep going down, you know, the polls. And that’s the basis for impeachment, of course, that in a thousand other things. High crimes and misdemeanors. Just because you disagree with the president on the issue of war. Just because you don’t have the votes to stop it. That is the power of the purse. Yes. Because you you scream violations of which there have been none of the Constitution or even the War Powers Act, which is unconstitutional. You don’t have a president for that. Was Lyndon Johnson impeached over that? No, not at all. Was Nixon? No. Was John Kennedy? No. Was Truman, A page for the two atomic bombs? No. And I can go on and on. This guy, Ro Kahana. I don’t know if he’s American citizen or not. I hear he is. Otherwise he couldn’t be a House member. But he doesn’t act like it. He acts like a mouthpiece for the enemy. He acts like a mouthpiece for the Islamists. He acts like a mouthpiece for Hamas. Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood care, Iran. That’s right. I said it. And maybe his sorry ass should be expelled from the House of Representatives. And of course, the enemy loves jokes like this. They use the comments of jerks like this. To spread their propaganda as he gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That’s right. Gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Then there’s Van Hollen in the Senate. Van Hollen in the Senate. What a what a post this guy is cut for go. They’re nowhere near any kind of ballistic missile that can reach the United States. So this was all. Yes. Let’s wait around until they are, huh? That’s a great idea. Let’s wait around till they’re very powerful that they have ballistic missiles that can reach the United States. How we know, I don’t know. They have one that could go 2000 miles and we didn’t know about that. But don’t worry. Then Holland says we got to wait, even though they tell us what they want to do with their ballistic missiles, even though they tell us they want to put nuclear warheads on their ballistic missiles. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland Democrat, says we should wait. Wait for what? Wait for what? What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for? And notice how cold blooded these bastards are. They don’t care. 50,000 Iranian people slaughtered in two or three days. That they’re young people. They couldn’t give a damn. They instead, they’re trashing Israel while they’re promoting policies that protect Iran. That’s the New Democrat Party America. Stands with Iran, stands against Israel, but more than anything else stands against the United States. We should wait. According to this genius Senator. And what if he’s wrong? What if he’s wrong? What if this bomb is wrong? Oh, well, we’ll do an after action report, but nobody will be around. Nobody. We’re surrounded by munchkins. We’re surrounded by by appeasers, by people who hate our country. They would rather hate our country and see it attacked than Donald Trump be a victor as commander in chief. Go ahead. By the president had states to try to justify his actions. While Americans are here hurting here at home. We’ve lost 13 of our service members, hundreds wounded. Oh, this is a guy that he opened his big, fat mouth when we lost 13 of our service members with Joe Biden surrounding in Afghanistan getting. Did he? I don’t remember it. Did he go on every damn TV show? Did he complaining about how Biden did that? Not a word. Not a word. Nothing. Now he’s the defender of the military, especially those we’ve lost. Did he say anything when Biden looked at his watch and got tired? When that plan came to Delaware. To Dover, Delaware. But the caskets? Nothing. He didn’t say anything. But if we’re going to talk about people dying, what has he done about the people who are killed in Baltimore? What is this piece of, youknowwhat done about the people who are killed in baltimore every single week? And what is he done about that? Not a damn thing. Nothing. But he says he’s worried about casualties. These are demagogues. They are the worst of the worst. They are the lowest of the low. We’ve reached a point in America. We’ve reached a point that we’ve never reached before with this party opposite the Democrat Party. They’re scum of the earth. We’re going to impeach the commander in chief. Well, they’re going to impeach him in the middle of a war. They would if they. Good. What are these people stand for? What have they done that’s good for the country? Name one thing. Bring in tens of millions of illegal aliens, many of whom are killers and rapists and pedophiles and God knows what else. Taking people’s jobs, taking up their apartment space. That’s a good idea. Trying to prevent eyes from deporting them. Is that a good idea? Shutting down our airports and TSA. Is that a good idea? To how good are these people? What are they doing to make the nation a better nation? What are they doing for the middle class? You, Mr. and Mrs. America? How have they improved your life? Before Trump came in? Member Trump’s certainly been in office 14 months. In his second term. They drove up prices everywhere. They spent money like drunken Marxists. They created huge inflation. That we’re still trying to recover from. They pushed out billions of dollars to leftwing front groups overseas, the left wing front groups. Passing away our money left and right. What did they do? And ever promise that they’re going to raise taxes on you like this? Smashburger the governor of Virginia, who’s destroying the Commonwealth of Virginia? One governor. Who lied her way into office, claiming to be a moderate because she worked at the CIA. Now it looks like she worked at the KGB. Taxes everywhere. 52 new taxes. On hard working Virginians. 11 congressional seats. The Supreme Court of Virginia in 2021 created the congressional map. Now they have a vote taking place right now with Obama running ads. Vote yes. Vote yes. So we have real integrity in our voting system, they claim. And if they get what they want, they’ll be ten Democrats and one Republican. See. They don’t care if the franchise is lost. If you’re Republican, it’s okay. They want felons to have it who are still in prison. Remember, Bernie Sanders was asked the question you would allow somebody who’s a mass murder is on death row to vote? Yes, I would. I definitely would. Well, you know, you’re not a mass murderer, but. Well, why? Why? Why? So in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, in Virginia. They’re letting felons vote. That Republicans will be disenfranchised. And that’s okay. Only certain people can’t be disenfranchised. Wait a minute. Shouldn’t there be equality across the board? No, of course not. They’re not going to change the Supreme Court and pack it like a Politburo. Even the Democrats. In the thirties when FDR tried that. They’re the ones who rose up and stopped them because they controlled Congress. Not today. They’re all in change. The Supreme Court changed the Electoral College, changed the congressional districts, changed the voting system all year. Add four more Democrats. Senators added D.C. and Puerto Rico. They got it all figured out. America, they’ve got it all figured out. And impeach anybody who’s a Republican is ever president. That’s it. Every Republican president has had to face something like this. But not like Trump. Kasich. Trump. It’s just overwhelming what they try to do. This is a war on you. I wrote the book The Democrat Party Hates America. Why would you say such a thing? Why would you write a book like that? It’s the longest book I’ve ever written. I could have written it twice as long. The Democrat Party hates America. How could you say that? Chapter and verse, baby. Right. From its very founding up to today. I’m not encouraging you to buy it. No, it’s an older book of mine, but. The Democrat Party hates America and it’s demonstrating every single time that it hates America. But of course, it wraps it in. We’re doing this for the people. We’re screwing up the airlines and the lines for security, for the people. Don’t you know we’re bringing in foreigners by the tens of millions, including would be terrorists and murderers and the rest For that people, we’re driving up costs. Oh, yes. With massive inflation to reward all of our Democrat left wing kook friends for the people. And then they have the you know, what’s the commonness? What about affordability? They ask affordability. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4

Good luck in. A meaningful season is approaching for millions of families, a time to reflect on resilience, renewal and a journey from hardship to hope. For those observing Passover or Easter, it’s a moment to gather, to remember where we come from, and to look forward to brighter days. But this year, many in Israel will mark the season under the strain of conflict. Air raid sirens, families racing for shelter, elderly men and women unsure where to turn. Daily life has become tense and unpredictable, and parents do their best to comfort their children through nights filled with uncertainty. That’s why the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground right now delivering food, emergency aid, supporting bomb shelter readiness and caring for vulnerable seniors, including Holocaust survivors. In a season centered on hope and renewal. Your support of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews can make a real difference for those facing fear and instability. To lend a hand, please call 888585 ifc j. That’s 888585 ifc j. Or visit Levine for the Fellowship talk. That’s 11 for the Fellowship Talk, folks. This is absolutely crucial. And your gift is tax deductible. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to sit here quietly. All these thugs, these thugs attempt to destroy our country. I’m not going to sit here quietly while these thugs attempt to destroy the Trump presidency and all that’s been gained. I’m not going to sit here quietly while the Democrat Party that has already been destroying our nation with open borders. The refusal to deport the importation of dangerous Islamists. The destruction of our currency. The attack on the private sector. The man damage to the world. The Talibs leaves of the world. No, no, no, no, no. We will rally here. We will have our national town hall meetings here. We will confront this. I told you I’m mission oriented. I have been every single second I’ve been behind this microphone. I am an activist. For our country. I’ve been since I’ve been a teenager. And I’ll be damned if it’s going to stop now and let the world great neo fascist, isolationist pukes, anti-American, anti-Christian anti-Semites try as they might to stop me. It’s not going to work. I’ve exposed every damn one of them for who they are and what they are. Every one of them. I will not be intimidated. I can’t be intimidated. I can be threatened. And I actively am being threatened. But that’s not going to work either, and I’m not going to get into it. That’s not going to work either. None of it’s going to work. None of it. We are here together we stand shoulder to shoulder. You, me, Mr. and Mrs. America. We’re not giving up this country. We’re not giving up our faith. We’re not giving up our values and beliefs to anybody. I don’t care how many elections they win. I’ve only just begun.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Mediaite

CNN Legal Analyst Predicts Shellacking for Trump in Citizenship Case: ‘He’s Gonna Be in a Bad Mood’

Jerusalem Post

Iran’s president urges Americans to reject ‘propaganda’ on Iran, calls US Israel’s proxy

(Photo by Kent Nishimura)

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Podcast page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1

Welcome. Obviously, we were celebrating Passover last night. Some celebrate two nights. I will celebrate half a night after the program. But that said, I wanted to talk about this birthright citizenship oral argument. I would say 90% of it was superfluous. 90% of it was a result looking for an argument, the result being to uphold it. To uphold what? It’s not in the Constitution. It’s not in the statute. But this is the problem when you have a lot of lawyers who are just. Spinning. Using semantics. And so forth. This is actually a very simple case. But they don’t want to rule the right way. I’m convinced. The word or the phrase birthright citizenship is nowhere in the Constitution. It’s not part of any official statute. It wasn’t part of the debate in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the predecessor to the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. The idea of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, was on nobody’s mind, wasn’t even in their imagination. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are called the post-Civil War amendments. And the purpose of those amendments are to ensure and work to ensure that the newly freed black slaves were treated like citizens for all purposes equal protection due process, that their children were treated as citizens. Because after all, many of them were here longer than their owners. The previous owners. Now, why did they make this constitutional amendment 14th or this part of the 14th Amendment? Why did they do that? Because two years earlier, in 1866, they had passed a Civil Rights Act of 1866 that basically did the same thing. A Civil Rights Act. That nationwide would recognize free black slaves now as citizens and their children. Or future children as citizens and every child thereafter. Now, why did they do that? Because there was resistance in some of the old Confederate states to treating even black freed black slaves and their children and their and their soon to be babies and children as citizens. So they passed a federal statute. Well, then why did they amend the Constitution? Because the president at that time was Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. From Tennessee, Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act that was passed by the Republicans. They overrode his veto. So it became the law, but they quickly realized they needed to enshrine it in the Constitution to ensure that every corner of the United States. Would recognize it. And they even strong arm some of the southern states. They weren’t all that interested in any of those amendments that they were either to adopt the amendments or what was the Union Army, but now the federal Army. Would remain in their states. And so three fourths of the states. Adopted the 13th, then the 14th and the 15th Amendments. Now the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment. I despise most of these legal commentators, including this clown on CNN. I despise them because they’re deceitful. So they write this amendment. We have to the extent they debated it, we have the debates on this amendment. I’ve gone through them with you at least five times over the last 20 some years. I’ve done it on Fox three or four times and I have posted yesterday I posted two of my videos from my discussion about this on Fox. Jurisdiction there. I know what it means. All the justices know what it means. Obviously, the solicitor general who did a great job, he knows what it means. The ACLU knows what it means. But they don’t want it to mean what it means. That is certain justices and certainly the ACLU. Now let’s step back and think just this common sense. You don’t have to be lawyers, let alone Supreme Court litigators. Let’s just step back. The Civil War ends 1865. You’ve got reconstruction going on. Their hands are full. You still have elements within the South in the Confederacy, and some in the North are resisting the end of the Civil War. And so they’re focused on reconstruction and they’re focused. On how the newly freed slaves and then their children are going to be treated. And they want to impose this on the entire country through the amendment process. Do you think for a minute that they were thinking of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, let alone the children of illegal immigrants? Not for one second did they think about that. Which is exactly why not a single justice on the other side, nor the ACLU advocate could present any such language. And so we have to make. Arguments if you’re on that side. Do try and expand the definition or to try and latch on to something. So there’s arguments about policy. There’s arguments about, well, why we’re going to de naturalize people. There’s arguments over administration. There’s argument over intent. There’s argument all over the map. That’s not the job of a justice. That can all be figured out by the executive branch and the legislative branches. That’s not the question. The question is, what does that constitution compel? It’s not an administrative question. It’s not a policy question. It’s not even an English common law question. With all due respect to the solicitor general. It is a black and white issue. It’s not complicated. But they’re worried. They’re nervous. My take and I hope I’m wrong, is that the majority just doesn’t want to do this. Because even up to this point. People like me were called crazy, even challenged this funny, crazy already crackpots. What? Extremists? No, I’m a constitutionalist. That’s what I’ve been all my life. The whole constitutional conservative movement was born right here behind this microphone. Behind this microphone. I was also part of the administration, the Reagan administration, the great attorney General Meese. And the whole push for originalism. That we put in to the justice system as it was ignored. I know damn well what I’m talking about. And so you probably were listening the back and forth, getting a little confused and so forth. I cut right to the chase. If something is wrong, it’s wrong. We had slaves in this country for some time. It was wrong. Then you had the Dred Scott decision and yet the Civil War. Then you had the 13 14/15 Amendments. Dred Scott decision was an abomination. It basically upheld slavery, to put it in a few words. The Civil War had to be fought to undo that decision, among other things. And then the legislature, our Congress. Wanted to enshrine first in the law, then in the Constitution. The outcome of the Civil War, that blacks were now free. They were to be treated as equals. They were to have due process. That they were full citizens of the United States, and that goes for their children and that goes for their future children. Period. This whole thing about jurisdiction thereof. Meant anybody. Particularly in this case, blacks, former slaves, their children, their future children who are in the United States under the authority of the United States, meaning the political authority of the United States that this amendment applied to. That they were citizens automatically. No debate. Constitutional ized after the Civil War. The Civil War was fought to keep the country united and to end slavery, not to open the borders to immigrants again. That wasn’t even in their thinking. So. For slaves, many of whom have been here for generations and their children. This was for you. This was for them. It was not for. Modern day Chinese citizens should come into the United States and give birth, and then their child is an American citizen. Then they go back to China, which China is doing now. They counted 500 companies that are doing this 100,000 a year. That’s suicide. That was never intended. That’s absurd. We’re only one of a couple of nations worldwide that does this. And you got to twist the 14th Amendment into something that it’s not in order to just justify it seriously. And if they now constitutional ise birthright citizenship? Well, I don’t see how we recover from it. I really don’t. Now, some of these justices are worried. They don’t want the bullhorns. They don’t want the drum beating. They don’t want the marching in front of their homes. They’re worried that they will be viewed as Dred Scott justices. They worry about their legacy, their history. They worry about what the law professors will say. What jerks like this guy on CNN. His name is cocky. No, nothing. Hold on. I’ll get his name. Give me one second. Count the five. And it doesn’t even matter without L.A.. Hoenig, legal analyst. He was a prosecutor. Well, he must know everything. He knows nothing. And so you’ve got lawyers being lawyers, judges being judges. And if they’re not originalists or textualist. And you have a mess. You basically have activist lawyers in in black robes. We have a decision in the late 1800s. Involving Chinese individuals. You have very racist laws. Laws that were passed at that time. And you had a a child born in the United States of a naturalized citizen. There’s a Chinese couple and one who was not. And without getting into the weeds, the court ruled that that. That that baby is an American citizen. We’re not talking about illegal aliens. We’re not even talking about illegal aliens. But even that decision, in my view, wasn’t. Wasn’t ruled accurately. But putting that aside. Illegal aliens. Come into the country. That means. That even though they’re being raised in China or being raised. In Qatar are being raised. Wherever they’re being raised, they can vote in the United States. And they can serve in our military if we draft them. So if you’re coming to China, you want them to serve in our military, don’t you, Mr. British? You have all the rights and benefits of any United States citizen. This is suicide. Now, I’ll have more to say when we return.

Segment 2

Now think about some. Let’s see. Even pretend I mean, pretend that some of these justices, the ACLU lawyer and the rest of them. All right. That jurisdiction means jurisdiction in the sense of physical jurisdiction. Which of course is ridiculous, but physical jurisdiction. Even then this any raise your hand. Does anybody believe. That back then, let alone today. That would mean if somebody comes into the country illegally and confers jurisdiction on themselves illegally. Cross the border to our jurisdiction. Now you’re here illegally. You can’t claim that I’m here physically. Jurisdiction. She has a child in a week and then that child is an American citizen under the 14th Amendment because she’s in the jurisdiction of the United States. So she’s conferring jurisdiction on herself by being here illegally. And then that baby is an American citizen because we recognized that she conferred jurisdiction on herself illegally. You see the insanity of this everywhere you look at it. It’s ridiculous. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3

So the Democrats violate the immigration laws left and right with a federal judge that says, well, you cannot deport the people who are here illegally, even though the Democrats under Biden violated their importation. You ever heard anything like this? Then the Democrats import tens of millions of illegal aliens in violation of federal immigration law. And we’re told if they have children, that those children are U.S. citizens. Now. It’s utterly suicidal and irrational. All of this. And it was never intended in the first place. Never. Not once. What I want to do here. See if we still have it here. Actually, Mr. Producer, let us go to Cut 21. Cut 21 where we have Harry Reid. No, no, that’s not it. Do we not have the Harry Reid? Well, what cut is it? All right, Well, let’s go to Cut 18, please. Mr. Reduce or go ahead. If making it easy to be an illegal alien is enough. How about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No, sir. No sane country would do that. Right. Guess again if you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee of full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in country county run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers? Just when the American people think nothing can be more absurd than the way we deal or rather don’t deal with illegal immigration. They discover that we have a political asylum system that would qualify us for the. For Senator Proxmire. Golden Fleece Award a thousand times over. I don’t know why he didn’t make this award. He should have. Okay, so that’s 1973. And then, of course, the Democrats realized, hey. Where to get on this bandwagon. Why are we fighting this? We can turn these people in. The Democrats. We can turn these people into Democrats. And so they they’ve never looked back. Dianne Feinstein, also 1993, cut 19, go. Should you have a system where people can come to this country, even if they’re well-to-do, get on Medicaid and give birth to a baby and then go back? The answer is no. And we know that Medicaid laws are being used and abused to do just this in the state of California. I’d like to see that stopped about 13% of the California prison population costing close to $300 million a year are illegal aliens. I’ve had judges in Los Angeles and Orange County tell me one half of their criminal dockets are illegal aliens. Presently, a convicted illegal alien has the option serving their sentence in California or being returned to their country of origin. I think that option ought to be removed. Democrats used to stand for enforcing immigration laws. Clearly not anymore. And as we’ve changed the demographics of the country, we’ve changed the demographics of Congress. So you actually have individuals in Congress now who feel they represent illegal aliens and in many cases, they have significant populations of illegal aliens in their district. And you might say, well, they’re not supposed to vote. Well, that may be true, but because of the census. These representatives want to make sure that the people in their district, whether it’s 30, 40, 50% illegal aliens, are treated as citizens and get all the benefits that citizens get. And by all means, we should not have a secure border so they can muscle up their districts. Now, this from yesterday. We’re going to go to Cut 11. Mr. Producer, we have Solicitor General John Sauer is quite good. And then you’ll see how ridiculous the chief. Justice of the United States sounds and how how he’s looking for a way out. Carl Levin, go. You obviously put a lot of weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky. You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group. Let me help you out, Mr. Chief Justice. Forget about the examples of you. Find the quirky, even though they’re relevant. Forget about the examples. Why don’t you just tell us? Who said in 1866, 1867. 1868. Anything about the children of illegal aliens becoming United States citizens? That’s your interpretation of the jurisdiction thereof. Well, show me who held that interpretation back then. Just once. Once. If you find these examples quirky, the reason he gave you those examples. They’re not quirky. You might say that they they only deal with a small number of people. That’s perfectly fine. But the reason they’re relevant is, well, why is there an exception? Why do we recognize that children of diplomats in the United States. When they had those children in the United States, not citizens, they would be automatically citizens. If somebody coming across the border is an illegal alien and they have a child and they’re automatically a citizen, you can’t deny them citizenship, right, no matter what a foreign country says. And so you literally have babies being born in the United States of illegal aliens who are citizens in two countries. In the United States. And then you go back to China and they treat them as citizens do. What about that, Mr. Chief Justice? It doesn’t matter. This is where his head is. He wants to consider constitutional his birthright citizenship. Go ahead, please. Idiosyncratic examples. There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador, foreign public ships, tribal, India’s enormous one that they were very focused on in the debates as well. But what I do is I invite the court to look at the intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And they are they didn’t say subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There it says, not subject to any foreign power. Now, if you go back to Blackstone, in Calvin’s case, they say it does not matter if you are subject to any foreign power. If you are born in the king’s domains, you have this infeasible duty of allegiance to the king at any time. So there’s a clear repudiation in the Civil Rights Act, a civil right, and you don’t even have to go back to Blackstone or anything of the sort. It’s just common understanding of the language and its application at the time. That’s all. And Roberts knows this when he used to Stafford the Justice Department during the Reagan administration before I got there, too, the prior attorney general, he used to write memos on this stuff. He was a bomb thrower. But now he’s the chief justice of the United States and he’s been an. Can you imagine what The New York Times would say? Can you imagine what she and CNN’s legal analyst would say? Can you imagine what all the professors would say and so forth? If the chief justice of the United States applied the Constitution the damn way it’s supposed to be applied. Cat 12, please go. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China, whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to to that nation. Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us. I think it’s I quote Justice Scalia said that that’s probably has no impact. Now, that’s crazy. Coney Barrett had said at another point. Well, how are you going to prove in ten and every single case you’re going have a due process hearing and so forth? Well, you understand that, of course, Justice Barrett. But that has no bearing on the constitutional issue at stake here, Right? And so Roberts wants to be able to say, well, you heard him. I don’t care if it means a billion people coming into this country that has no bearing on the Constitution. And then again, I take him back where he doesn’t want to go. You have nothing zero to support your position. You have absolutely nothing. You have no. Historical statement by any of the authors, any of the top debaters, whether it’s the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or this amendment, the 14th Amendment, you have nothing you can look at even. The state ratification come when you have nothing. You have zero. Nothing. We have everything. The reason that Act was passed in 1866, the reason they came up with the 14th Amendment. You have nothing. All right. We’re going to take a short break and I’m going to pick up where I left off on this birthright citizenship fiasco that I think is going to be rammed down our throats. We’ll be right back.

Segment 4

All right, let’s keep at it. Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas are the two greatest justices, and there’s a reason for it. They don’t play games. Here’s Clarence Thomas to Solicitor General John Sauer with John Roberts during the birthright citizenship case yesterday. Cut 13. Go. General, you’re getting a lot of questions about immigration. And they hearken back, of course, to citizenship, which is defined in or set out in the 14th Amendment. How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration? Nothing. Go ahead. I think that the principal focus of those debates has to do really not with immigrants, but with Indian tribes. I mean, obviously, the main goal, that one pervading purpose of this court set in the slaughterhouse cases was to establish citizenship for this guy. But he’s a little let’s slow down. I like this guy, but he’s a little verbose. The answer is nothing. Nothing. Go ahead. Concerned about the problem of something that they all accepted as a given, which is that the children, the tribal Indians, are not within the role of birthright citizenship. So I think that’s what they focus and we draw an analogy to that, to the issue of temporary soldiers. And then but there are mentions of temporary, so adjourning multiple places in the congressional debates. And all of those comments go one after a second place. The answer is immigration was not the focus. Go ahead. And and there was Justice Sotomayor brought up along King Ark. There was no question in that case that that about domicile was there? I disagree. The court says at the very beginning of its opinion, here are the accepted facts. These are lawfully domiciled here. When it states the question presented, it talks about domicile. When it recites the legal principle of page 693, it says domicile three times in a page seven or five. At the end of the opinion says, Here’s the single question we decided. We decided that Chinese immigrants with a permanent domicile place, that’s not as point. That’s not his point. His point is, let’s get right to the chase. This had nothing to do with immigration. It had to do with free freed black slaves and their children. That’s his point. The domicile issue gets back to immigration, and I understand why the solicitor general needs to make the fight on that because of what some of these justices and what the ACLU is trying to turn this into. But Clarence Thomas is saying, okay, got it. But. That wasn’t really the issue at the time, was it? Go ahead. All right. That’s all of it. So there’s Clarence Thomas. Smarter than the average justice. When we come back after the hour, because I can’t do it justice now. I’m going to play one or two of these kid TAJAI Brown Jackson clips. Because they’re very frustrating to me. This is somebody who really shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. There’s one of two things going on here. She’s not that bright. And I don’t really think that’s the case. But she is a bomb thrower. She shouldn’t be anywhere near a courtroom unless she’s an advocate. And so they she sits there and she doesn’t even pretend. To try and be an objective. Adjudicator of facts and law. She’s in there jazz muscle, in a way, trying to make arguments for the ACLU, trying to make arguments for the side she agrees with. She doesn’t even have enough sense to just save that for the written decision. I think this is why Kagan and even Sotomayor are getting annoyed with her. Sotomayor. I believe it was maybe Kagan in a footnote in a recent opinion, all but said as much. Barrett. No hard core constitutionalist. She even though she’ll remind you she taught constitutional law, had a constitutional law professor. I had dozens of them. That is law professors, a handful of constitutional law professors. So what? Some were good, some were bad, some were partisan, some weren’t, some radiological, some weren’t. So it doesn’t matter what they taught. But it does matter how you view your job as a judge or a justice. The fact of the matter is, Jackson views her job. As an advocate for the left or an advocate for the Democrats. That’s it. She doesn’t even make any bones about it. And so I want to get into that a little bit next hour because this is a big problem. And that’s exactly why Biden chose her and why. They put her on the bench. Could. She’s 100% reliable. Excuse me. And look, Kagan and Sotomayor, that threesome is very reliable, 99.9% of the time for the left and for the Democrats. But you still have to have a colorable argument. But she has none, Jackson. She just throws bombs. That’s what she does.

(Photo by Monica Morgan)

Let’s break down the truth about birthright citizenship—what the Constitution actually says, what it doesn’t, and how the 14th Amendment has been interpreted over time. I walk through the history, the legal arguments, and the upcoming Supreme Court battle that could redefine the issue.  

Mark Levin: “We need to get behind our military, because this is a noble cause, eliminating a regime that has killed and maimed thousands of Americans, a regime that seeks a nuclear weapon that it will use. It doesn’t believe in mutually assured destruction, it believes in the obliteration of a free people, that’s what it believes in.”

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Podcast page.

Photo by Mehmet Eser/Anadolu via Getty Images

This isn’t just about policy—it’s about how systems are shaped, how narratives are pushed, and how decisions impact election integrity, voter access, and public trust.

I walk through voter ID, mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, and why these issues are at the center of today’s political battles. Then I connect it to the broader picture—power, accountability, and who benefits from the current system.

This is about election integrity, voter ID laws, mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, U.S. politics, and the future of American elections.

Follow Liberty’s Voice with Mark Levin on YouTube and Rumble for more on politics, policy, and the issues shaping the country right now.

Watch the entire episode:

https://rumble.com/v77iccm-ep016-secure-the-border.html?mref=9yobh&mc=2cpbn

]]> https://www.marklevinshow.com/2026/04/01/the-future-of-american-elections/feed/ 0