The Charlie Kirk Show - Birthright Citizenship at SCOTUS Explained

00:00:03.000 My name is Charlie Kirk.

00:00:05.000 I run the largest pro American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.

00:00:11.000 My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.

00:00:14.000 If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.

00:00:19.000 But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful.

00:00:24.000 College is a scam, everybody.

00:00:26.000 You got to stop sending your kids to college.

00:00:28.000 You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.

00:00:31.000 Go start a Turning Point USA College chapter.

00:00:33.000 Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter.

00:00:35.000 Go find out how your church can get involved.

00:00:37.000 Sign up and become an activist.

00:00:39.000 I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.

00:00:41.000 Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same.

00:00:45.000 Here I am.

00:00:46.000 Lord, use me.

00:00:48.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:00:49.000 Here we go.

00:00:56.000 Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.

00:01:06.000 Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at NobleGoldInvestments.com.

00:01:12.000 That is NobleGoldInvestments.com.

00:01:17.000 All right.

00:01:17.000 Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

00:01:19.000 April 1st.

00:01:20.000 April Fool's Day.

00:01:22.000 April Fool's Day.

00:01:24.000 We're here in between.

00:01:24.000 Welcome, Blake.

00:01:25.000 And, you know, it's a fitting day because we have to find out how many fools are on the United States Supreme Court. 0.98

00:01:30.000 Yeah, we're about to find out. 1.00

00:01:32.000 Obviously, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over birthright citizenship, something we think is stupid. 0.99

00:01:39.000 And not at all. 0.99

00:01:40.000 All what the 14th Amendment prescribes, especially children for illegals. 0.98

00:01:46.000 It was written children of Chinese oligarchs.

00:01:48.000 Yep.

00:01:49.000 CCP infiltrators.

00:01:52.000 The fact that we even have to have this argument, and it seems like the Supreme Court justices are skeptical of the government's case, is amazing to me.

00:02:02.000 But we're going to break it all down with Will Chamberlain from the Article 3 Project.

00:02:07.000 You can follow him on X, a great follow.

00:02:09.000 Will, welcome back to the show.

00:02:10.000 Good to be with you.

00:02:11.000 You've been paying close attention this morning, and I think it's safe to say Blake is already dooming over here.

00:02:18.000 What do you make of it?

00:02:19.000 I'm hearing mixed results, so I want to hear your take because you've been paying close attention.

00:02:24.000 So, yeah, I think it may have been made sense to doom if you were just listening to the Justice's questions of John Sauer, but I think there's reason for optimism having listened to the Justice's questions of Cecilia Wang, who's the ACLU legal director and the person arguing for the respondents in this case.

00:02:41.000 She's getting a series of very tough.

00:02:43.000 Questions and not handling them particularly well, in my view.

00:02:47.000 And I think the basic problem that the respondents have to deal with is that this important clause, not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has a kind of natural meaning that's pretty well understood at the time that it doesn't include people with allegiance to a foreign power, or rather, primary allegiance to the foreign power, and that it only includes people who are domiciled in the United States.

00:03:10.000 And her basically, the respondents' way of dealing with this, because they can see there are these exceptions, obviously.

00:03:17.000 The exception for American Indians, the exception for foreign diplomats, the exception for children of invaders. 0.88

00:03:25.000 But she basically says that's just a closed set of exceptions.

00:03:27.000 There's no further exceptions that could possibly be acceptable 150 years later.

00:03:33.000 And the justices are pointing out it's like, well, but they didn't create a list of exceptions when they wrote the 14th Amendment as written.

00:03:41.000 They included this phrase as a general rule, meaning that if you're born here and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Of another country, then you're a citizen, then you're entitled to birthright citizenship.

00:03:54.000 And she's just, she's struggling, honestly.

00:03:56.000 She doesn't have a good explanation for why.

00:03:59.000 That general rule is just only applies to these three closed exceptions and then doesn't have any analogies that can be drawn from it.

00:04:07.000 Yeah.

00:04:08.000 So, Blake, your reaction to that?

00:04:09.000 Because I guess it's just though I'm glad that there's more reasons for hope with these unfolding arguments with the opposition case.

00:04:19.000 But I guess I have some friends who have been Supreme Court clerks in the past and they're watching this and they're being among the most pessimistic.

00:04:29.000 And I trust them a lot because they're the ones who.

00:04:31.000 Actually, know the justices.

00:04:33.000 And they say what they're very worried about, for example, is that they say that Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Gorsuch are asking questions that specifically point towards having constitutional problems with this.

00:04:44.000 And they were saying from the start that they thought our best hope was that they might take a narrower approach where they would rule this is just statutory.

00:04:52.000 Our laws actually require birthright citizenship because Congress has assumed this in our immigration laws and so on.

00:04:58.000 And they just seem, they just feel like the way.

00:05:02.000 Those swing justices are taking their questions is not good for us.

00:05:07.000 Well, so I actually don't think, I think that your friends just have it wrong here, is on that particular way of viewing things.

00:05:14.000 And here's the reason.

00:05:16.000 So there's the constitutional provision of the 14th Amendment that says not subject to the jurisdiction of, and then there's a statute, I don't remember when it was passed, 1950s or something, that uses the exact same language to set the immigration rule.

00:05:29.000 And the idea here is that there's a theoretical world where.

00:05:32.000 The Supreme Court could interpret the statute and say President Trump's executive order violates the statute, but then not the Constitution itself.

00:05:41.000 But that is, it's a kind of bizarre way of approaching things because they use literally identical words.

00:05:46.000 And so you generally, when a congressional statute mimics the exact language of a constitutional provision, you don't, you know, especially if you're trying to get, you know, get a new understanding of what that means, you're going to effectively be interpreting both.

00:06:01.000 And the new statute isn't going to be interpreted in light of what people thought when they passed it, but rather.

00:06:05.000 It's going to be interpreted in light of just extending the original language and the meaning when the original constitutional provision was enacted.

00:06:13.000 Yeah.

00:06:13.000 So we have this Indian clause, right?

00:06:17.000 Or this argument around Indian citizenship, right?

00:06:22.000 Indians, for those in the audience who may not be aware, were not granted citizenship until the 1920s.

00:06:28.000 There was actually an act of Congress that bestowed upon Indians citizenship.

00:06:33.000 Explain for the audience why that is so critical in this argument, why it's become such a central focus.

00:06:40.000 Of both sides.

00:06:41.000 So, a big part of Democrats, or essentially the respondents' idea here, the people who are saying birthright citizenship should apply to anybody born here, is a very broad view of what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

00:06:55.000 Basically, they're saying, well, you know, everybody is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you're born here because you are required to obey American law.

00:07:03.000 And when we think about jurisdiction in terms of modern legal conceptions, like that's what jurisdiction means.

00:07:08.000 Like the courts have the right to bring you into court.

00:07:11.000 And hold you accountable if you commit crimes.

00:07:14.000 Therefore, in some sense, you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

00:07:16.000 But the idea is if that's the way to understand the language of the 14th Amendment, that would mean that American Indians should have been granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment.

00:07:25.000 And that wasn't the case, right?

00:07:28.000 Everybody understood when they were enacting the 14th Amendment that it didn't cover the children of American Indians, even if those children were born outside of Indian reservations.

00:07:36.000 It just didn't cover them.

00:07:38.000 So that means that it's not just about where you're physically born, it's about your parentage too.

00:07:43.000 And if that's true, Then that obviously means that the children of illegal aliens could theoretically be denied citizenship. 0.74

00:07:50.000 Yeah, so it was a question of allegiance.

00:07:52.000 Who do you owe your allegiance to?

00:07:55.000 Which is a huge, huge part of this entire.

00:07:59.000 Debate.

00:08:00.000 And some of it sounds like it's hinging on breaking with the common law interpretation, or the respondents are arguing that it's actually a continuation of common law.

00:08:11.000 Can you explain that, Will?

00:08:13.000 What's hinging on this interpretation?

00:08:15.000 So basically, respondents are trying to say that the American version word being not subject to the jurisdiction tracks the sort of English law, because obviously, America imported a lot of the law from England, given that we were originally an English colony.

00:08:15.000 Right.

00:08:29.000 And so they're trying to say, well, we imported our understanding of immigration law from England, and under English law, if you were born in the territory, you were ultimately a citizen.

00:08:40.000 And there's a real question about if that actually makes sense, because we actually created our own novel rule.

00:08:46.000 Like under that rule, American Indians would have been citizens, right? 1.00

00:08:50.000 And so I think the basic way to understand the problem with that approach is that the framers of the 14th Amendment intentionally departed from English common law in order to frame a different rule for American circumstances.

00:09:03.000 And so, you know, they're relying very heavily on a later Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, that talked a lot about importing the English common law in the context of that decision.

00:09:14.000 But that case only applies and only binds the court as to the children of permanent legal residents.

00:09:22.000 So, are you hearing anything from your sources at the Supreme Court, the clerks?

00:09:27.000 Are you hearing, you know, anything at this point?

00:09:30.000 Because Blake's, you know, he's hearing negative.

00:09:33.000 I really want the truth.

00:09:33.000 I'm not mad at you.

00:09:35.000 I don't have sources of the Supreme Court telling me anything, unfortunately.

00:09:37.000 I'd love that.

00:09:38.000 That'd be great.

00:09:39.000 But I don't have them telling me anything.

00:09:40.000 All right.

00:09:41.000 So, Wong Kimark. 0.83

00:09:45.000 I actually disagree with Wong Kimark, but I think this is one of those vestiges of having a racially bifurcated system of laws, right?

00:09:54.000 So, they were trying to carve out, in my opinion, with Wong Kimark, citizenship for children of legal permanent residents. 0.83

00:10:02.000 Okay.

00:10:03.000 They were Chinese.

00:10:04.000 The parents were Chinese.

00:10:05.000 They were not allowed to be naturalized.

00:10:07.000 At the time.

00:10:07.000 So obviously that later changed.

00:10:10.000 I don't think that children of lawful permanent residents should be citizens. 1.00

00:10:15.000 I'm that hardcore on this.

00:10:16.000 But listen, we're not arguing that right now before the Supreme Court.

00:10:20.000 We're saying children of illegals, birthright citizenship for illegals.

00:10:23.000 Okay, go ahead.

00:10:24.000 I can see you have thoughts.

00:10:25.000 Yeah, well, so I mean, Juan K. Mark is, and neither is John Sauer, right?

00:10:30.000 That's an important thing to understand.

00:10:32.000 Like there was a whole interesting discussion of what was happening here because.

00:10:37.000 John Sauer in the United States' position is that Wonkimark is good law and that it just doesn't control the question of the children of illegal aliens or temporary residents, because throughout Wonkimark is a discussion that it's legal residents, it's people who are domiciled in the United States and lawfully present.

00:10:55.000 So that's the idea there.

00:10:58.000 And interestingly, the way that Cecilia Wong opened her presentation was to say Wonkimark controls the result of this case.

00:11:06.000 Wonkimark requires that you give citizenship to basically anybody born here outside of the closed exceptions.

00:11:12.000 And that's the end of it.

00:11:14.000 And Justice Kavanaugh actually pointed out in his questioning it's like, so you're basically saying we really don't need to even do much here because, under your theory, the administration is wrong about what Juan Camart means and they're not calling it for it to be overturned.

00:11:27.000 So, the end.

00:11:28.000 That's the decision you'd have us give.

00:11:30.000 We could give a two page decision.

00:11:31.000 And she said yes.

00:11:32.000 And the reason that's always a bad sign for the person making that argument, Justice Thomas has pointed this out.

00:11:38.000 Supreme Court doesn't take easy cases. 0.99

00:11:40.000 That's not the case.

00:11:40.000 And if they do, they take them through what's called, they just Like, we'll do a grant vacate and remand, or they'll just issue a suicide, not suicide, sorry, but like a percurium opinion without hearing argument.

00:11:51.000 When they hear argument in a case, when they go through all this effort, it's usually because they think the question is a little bit more challenging than the people suggest.

00:11:59.000 It requires some real difficulty.

00:12:01.000 So, I don't think the court agrees with the respondents' interpretation of Won Kim Arc.

00:12:07.000 And I think that's a big problem for them because if the court doesn't agree, then all of a sudden the question of what does the 14th Amendment mean, what is its original meaning, is really quite central.

00:12:18.000 Like, does it allow for either the executive or Congress to create new rules about the children of illegal aliens?

00:12:26.000 And it should, as a policy matter, it should, obviously.

00:12:28.000 Like, it is straight up insane.

00:12:30.000 To, if you were crafting an immigration law from first principles, it would be straight up insane to do so and include a rule that said the people who break your immigration law, their children get to be citizens.

00:12:40.000 So let's assume they at least get away from total birthright citizenship.

00:12:45.000 What do you think are, obviously, we would hope for a total victory, but are there maybe medium level decisions that would be an improvement over the status quo, but not what we're hoping for that the Supreme Court might try to cut the baby on?

00:13:00.000 I think that the best case.

00:13:03.000 For, like, a split the baby type decision would be something where they say that there was an exception for temporary sojourners that was recognized at the time of the 14th Amendment, but that that exception doesn't cover illegal aliens.

00:13:15.000 So, the idea would be that they could make a ruling that says, you know, you're allowed to make a rule banning Chinese birth tourism or not recognizing the children of people who were born here on tourist visas and then who immediately left, right?

00:13:29.000 They might say that those people are temporary sojourners, their children aren't American citizens, even if they were born.

00:13:34.000 In, like, an American hospital.

00:13:35.000 Yeah, but what about, like, the Guatemalan that is, you know, hiding in the suburbs of Chicago and doesn't tend to go back to Guatemala, but he's not here legally?

00:13:45.000 And I think that, I mean, that's the right.

00:13:45.000 Right.

00:13:47.000 The thing is, I don't think that would be the most principled way to resolve this at all, because I think the principled way to resolve this, especially given the way that immigration law treats illegal entrants who never present themselves at a port of entry as temporary visitors, like, they don't have a legal right to stay.

00:14:03.000 They're treated in the same way that applicants for admission are.

00:14:06.000 This is actually sort of an interesting.

00:14:08.000 You know, cross application to the recent Fifth Circuit decision, which allowed for ICE to detain legal aliens without bond if they never presented themselves at a port of entry.

00:14:16.000 The idea is that because you never presented yourself at a port of entry, you're in the exact same position as somebody who just showed up at the border and should be treated the exact same way.

00:14:27.000 And so the logic, I think, goes kind of applies here as well.

00:14:30.000 Like, we, you know, even if you've been living here for 20 years as an illegal alien, the law will treat you as though you just showed up.

00:14:36.000 They don't do this.

00:14:36.000 Right.

00:14:37.000 The law doesn't recognize.

00:14:38.000 General Sauer actually touches on this point here.

00:14:41.000 We have a clip, SOT 4.

00:14:42.000 Page 2890 of the Congressional Record from 1866, Senator Cowan gives this virulently racist statement where he says that.

00:14:49.000 And what does he say right at the beginning of that sort of offensive speech?

00:14:52.000 He says, We can't have children of gypsies, children of Chinese immigrants, we can't have them become citizens. 1.00

00:14:57.000 And he says, Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States?

00:15:01.000 So he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have children who become citizens. 0.66

00:15:10.000 So there's powerful evidence there that everybody understood this.

00:15:14.000 To you know, not sweep in the temporary sojourner, just like a quick aside General Sauer's voice is not helping him here, it's it's it's raspy and hard to listen to.

00:15:25.000 But I mean, his point is well made, it was one of his best points of the day, yeah.

00:15:30.000 Um, and because I think that was, I forget who asked the question, it was either Sotomayor or Jackson, but she brought up this you know, terrible like statement made by one of these people.

00:15:39.000 The point Sauer made was like, if you actually read the statement clearly.

00:15:45.000 It just is incredible evidence for the idea that how the Senate and how Congress understood the 14th Amendment and understood this phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof was that it didn't cover temporary visitors, which, if true, That blows up the entire theory of the case of the ACLU, who says that there are only these narrow closed exceptions Indian tribes, children of ambassadors, children of foreign invaders, and there's no other possible exception.

00:16:15.000 That's all the subject of the jurisdiction thereof means is that it's this small universe of closed and already specified exceptions.

00:16:23.000 And clearly, that's not what the framers of the 14th Amendment thought at all.

00:16:26.000 Of course.

00:16:28.000 They thought there was a general rule being promulgated, meaning that you had to have allegiance.

00:16:33.000 That it wasn't just people who were just randomly showing up.

00:16:35.000 Yeah, absolutely.

00:16:36.000 I mean, Senator Howard, during the debates over the drafting of the 14th Amendment, said this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of citizen.

00:16:55.000 It's so, I mean, lawyers will.

00:16:59.000 Lawyers.

00:17:00.000 Yeah.

00:17:01.000 I just feel, I mean, I can't get over the feeling we might just be stuck with.

00:17:05.000 They'll make like a soft hearted decision because it's mean to.

00:17:08.000 Yeah, they're going to try and split the baby. 1.00

00:17:10.000 I actually agree.

00:17:11.000 I think that's what Robert's going to try and do.

00:17:13.000 Will Chamberlain, Article 3 Project.

00:17:15.000 Thank you, sir.

00:17:18.000 Keep on this.

00:17:19.000 We might have you back soon just to kind of break it all down again for us.

00:17:22.000 Well, God bless you, man.

00:17:22.000 All right.

00:17:23.000 We'll talk to you soon.

00:17:24.000 Bye.

00:17:26.000 When you read food labels today, it's obvious we've overcomplicated nutrition.

00:17:31.000 Chemical names you can't pronounce, ingredients that sound like they belong in a lab instead of a kitchen.

00:17:37.000 Here's the simple.

00:17:38.000 Truth.

00:17:39.000 Plants have their own nutrition.

00:17:41.000 They're called phytonutrients, and your body knows exactly what to do with them.

00:17:44.000 That's what drew me to Bounds of Nature.

00:17:47.000 They take fruits and vegetables and put them through a special vacuum cold process to stabilize that phytonutrition.

00:17:54.000 Nothing weird, nothing artificial.

00:17:56.000 Their whole health system gives you fruits and veggies plus fiber and spice, 47 whole food ingredients.

00:18:02.000 I take it every day because it's simple and it works with my routine.

00:18:07.000 If you want to make nutrition simple again and fight the good fight, Go to balansofnature.com to subscribe and save today.

00:18:14.000 Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing their lives for the better.

00:18:23.000 Very excited about our next guest.

00:18:24.000 That's Dr. Matt Spaulding.

00:18:26.000 He is the Professors have long titles, so bear with me.

00:18:29.000 He is the Kirby Professor in Constitutional Government at Hillsdale College and the Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College's Washington, D.C. campus.

00:18:42.000 Welcome to the show, Dr. Matt Spaulding.

00:18:45.000 Great to be with you guys again.

00:18:46.000 Sorry about the long titles, but that's the way Activate Life is.

00:18:49.000 I apologize.

00:18:50.000 That's how we operate.

00:18:52.000 You got to have the name of the school and then what the school actually is and where it's located.

00:18:57.000 And you guys have multiple titles.

00:18:59.000 We're talking about birthright citizenship, though.

00:19:02.000 So I don't know if you listen to the oral arguments.

00:19:04.000 We kind of got granular in the first couple segments going through these.

00:19:09.000 But let's go ahead and play a clip from the oral arguments because I think there are deeper historical truths that you could help unpack here.

00:19:17.000 And.

00:19:18.000 So let's just go with SOT 1.

00:19:21.000 And this is going back to the Civil Rights Act, which was passed right after the Civil War.

00:19:25.000 SOT 1.

00:19:26.000 Most of your brief is not about illegal aliens.

00:19:30.000 Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country, where there was quite clearly an experience of, an understanding of, that there were going to be temporary inhabitants.

00:19:44.000 And your whole theory of the case is built on that group.

00:19:47.000 You must be saying, That there is a principle that was there at the time of the 14th Amendment.

00:19:53.000 We agree there's a principle there at the 14th Amendment.

00:19:55.000 It is the jurisdiction, means allegiance, the allegiance of a And this is very strongly reflected in 19th century sources the allegiance of an alien president in another country is determined by domicile.

00:20:07.000 And that goes back to the Venus and the Pizarro.

00:20:09.000 It goes through the Katza affair in 1853.

00:20:12.000 It comes right up to Fong Yui Ting and Lao Al Bu that are decided shortly before Wong Kim Ark.

00:20:19.000 So that's the principle.

00:20:20.000 That principle clearly applies.

00:20:22.000 So we're talking about, yeah, so you're laughing.

00:20:27.000 What just happened there?

00:20:29.000 So a couple of key things.

00:20:30.000 First of all, just By way of context, right, this is the Citizens Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is passed after the Civil War to grant citizenship to former slaves, the freedmen, and their children.

00:20:44.000 That amendment grows out of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

00:20:51.000 And the comparisons between them were absolutely key because the people who sponsored that Civil Rights Act and the people who wrote the Citizenship Clause of the Constitutional Amendment, the 14th Amendment, are the same people.

00:21:03.000 And indeed, they're quoted.

00:21:05.000 And there are lots of quotes, and they have lots to say.

00:21:08.000 They don't necessarily clarify everything exactly the way we would want today, but they do clarify it quite a bit.

00:21:12.000 So that's one thing.

00:21:13.000 So they worked through the 1866 Act.

00:21:16.000 That's a definitive legislative history that affects the Constitutional Amendment.

00:21:22.000 So that's one point.

00:21:24.000 The second point, which comes up this question, is people who are temporarily, illegally, all these different categories.

00:21:31.000 That's important to keep in mind here, because there are all sorts of different things, some of which apply, some of which don't apply.

00:21:37.000 That are being debated, but we want to see through that to the key question, which is really found in the answer that comes back, which is the key language in the Citizen Clause of the Fourth Amendment is jurisdiction.

00:21:51.000 So, just to remind us, that opening line of the Fourth Amendment says that all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

00:22:08.000 There's no disagreement here about the first part and the last part.

00:22:11.000 All persons born and naturalized in the United States.

00:22:13.000 We kind of know what that means to be born and to be naturalized, to go through the naturalization process.

00:22:18.000 But the key, the other thing here is there's this other clause and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

00:22:23.000 What does that mean?

00:22:24.000 Clearly, it's not there for no good reason and suggests that it's this and that.

00:22:29.000 There are two requirements here.

00:22:30.000 So, jurisdiction is key.

00:22:32.000 That's what they're debating.

00:22:34.000 The 1866 Civil Rights Act goes straight to that because they talk about jurisdiction and they say what it means is that.

00:22:42.000 you have full and complete allegiance, political allegiance to this country and not someone else.

00:22:49.000 So the debate is whether does jurisdiction mean, oh, I abide by the stop signs, meaning local kind of just kind of jurisdiction of how you live here, or does it actually have substantive meaning?

00:22:59.000 Because if it does have substantive meaning, which is what the executive order in this case is claiming, then the various steps along the way in the cases can be read that way.

00:23:11.000 They do make minor distinctions here and there, but generally speaking, they hold up that argument, and that's a consistent one.

00:23:17.000 But what it does mean is that someone who's simply born here is not automatically a citizen.

00:23:24.000 This jurisdiction question really does matter.

00:23:26.000 You know, it's interesting, actually, if you look at the language, there's that comma between the first part of the clause, or the first clause and the second clause.

00:23:34.000 And half of me is inclined to believe that if there just wasn't a comma there, this would be so much.

00:23:40.000 Because I read it, and to your point, it's very, very.

00:23:44.000 Clear.

00:23:45.000 It says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subjects to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning that they work together, but they separate them.

00:23:56.000 So they take, you could fit the first clause or the second clause.

00:23:59.000 Be a citizenship or be a citizen.

00:24:01.000 But to your point, the historical precedent and what we, where this language is derived from, clears it up even better, I would say.

00:24:09.000 The language of the Civil Rights Act is much stronger in some ways.

00:24:13.000 That's right.

00:24:14.000 And so the question then becomes well, when they passed the amendment, were they intentionally broadening the language of the Civil Rights Act to mean anything?

00:24:22.000 Well, then if they wanted to do that, they should have just dropped the clause entirely and not kept it in there.

00:24:28.000 And indeed, during the debate of the Civil Rights Act, there are various times in which there are amendments made to clarify, well, Except for this, except for this.

00:24:35.000 And the answer was they didn't pass those amendments.

00:24:39.000 You can find no language in the debate over the 1866 Civil Rights Act that says everyone who's born here is a U.S. citizen.

00:24:46.000 That wasn't the issue.

00:24:49.000 It's impossible to make that claim.

00:24:51.000 So the claim then is, or the argument then is that, okay, how can we read this somehow to support birthright citizenship?

00:24:59.000 The argument, my argument, which I think is the argument behind the executive order and the argument that many have been making for some time now, is that.

00:25:06.000 The idea of birthright citizenship that we all assume that you come here, you're born here, you're automatically an American citizen that is an aberration. 0.63

00:25:14.000 That's not the legal history.

00:25:15.000 That's not the constitutional history.

00:25:17.000 That's also not the Supreme Court history.

00:25:21.000 And it's just something that's kind of come into being, which means that unless Congress does something, one thing we should note here is the Section 5 of the Fourth Amendment says Congress can pass legislation, but they have not done so.

00:25:34.000 And until they do so, in the meantime, because of the confusion, This is exactly the conditions in which a president would exist, issue an executive order determining a policy.

00:25:45.000 Until Congress acts, the policy of the United States is this.

00:25:48.000 And that's exactly what he's doing, I think, powerfully or clearly, based on the existing history, tradition, support of Supreme Court decisions, and trying to find a way that gets around a lot of the confusion, which is out there on this particular subject.

00:26:05.000 I just, so I feel like one reason a lot of us have gotten hope on.

00:26:10.000 Supreme Court cases is we currently have a justice on the court who's like so off putting and so sort of dim that it drives a lot of the justices away.

00:26:19.000 We saw that with Katanji Brown Jackson's ruling yesterday in the conversion therapy case where even Sotomayor and Kagan are bashing her and saying she doesn't understand the law.

00:26:28.000 Well, we're getting some of that today.

00:26:30.000 We're getting some very memorable Jacksonisms about the law.

00:26:33.000 I want to play one of those.

00:26:35.000 Let's play SOT 11.

00:26:38.000 How does this work?

00:26:39.000 Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to Have documents, present documents?

00:26:47.000 Is this happening in the delivery room?

00:26:49.000 How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States?

00:26:55.000 Your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States.

00:26:59.000 And I think Justice Barrett brought this up.

00:27:01.000 So we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions. 1.00

00:27:04.000 What are we doing to figure this out?

00:27:07.000 Like, it's just, oh, this idea, this birth certificate, what's that?

00:27:13.000 I've never heard of this.

00:27:15.000 I feel like we have to hope that.

00:27:17.000 That sort of argument maybe can make the justices realize wait, the position we're on the brink of endorsing is insane, like it is built on insane premises.

00:27:27.000 Or am I just trying to find some hope spot here?

00:27:30.000 No, no, no, well, yeah, I don't know.

00:27:33.000 Part of the Supreme Court is predicting where they're going to go with these things, and it's almost virtually impossible nowadays to do so.

00:27:39.000 But having said that, you're on to something and picking up a certain absurdity in that line of questioning.

00:27:45.000 Uh, the distinction here, if I could use, um, uh, kind of some older language, is a distinction between.

00:27:52.000 Kind of citizenship by soil or citizenship by blood.

00:27:56.000 The old notion, think back to the kings of England and feudalism and whatnot, is if you were born in the king's Soil, you're the king's subject.

00:28:03.000 That's actually arguing for birthright citizenship.

00:28:07.000 The argument for Republican government, i.e., the United States, is birth by blood, which is to say that in lacking all the documentation she might require for a full 18 year old person going to vote or something, the default is their parents, which is to say, to whom are their parents subject?

00:28:30.000 So if they're subjects to the king of England, They're not Americans. 0.58

00:28:34.000 They're subjects to the King of England.

00:28:37.000 If they're French citizens or citizens from another country to which they are loyal, their children are that citizenship as well.

00:28:44.000 That's the distinction that I think draws out the absurdity of it.

00:28:50.000 Folks, let me tell you something straight up.

00:28:52.000 I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support here.

00:28:58.000 Blackout Coffee checks every single box.

00:29:01.000 This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA built by people who believe in hard work, freedom, And America. 0.65

00:29:08.000 No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans.

00:29:15.000 This is coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink it every day right here on the show.

00:29:20.000 From Morning Reaper and Brutal Awakening to 1776 Dark Roast and their 2A Medium Roast, they've got something for everyone.

00:29:27.000 They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess.

00:29:32.000 Just add water, stir, and you're ready to roll.

00:29:34.000 Go to blackoutcoffee.comslash Charlie and use code Charlie.

00:29:39.000 For 20% off your first order.

00:29:40.000 That's blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie.

00:29:43.000 Blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie.

00:29:46.000 And for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription.

00:29:49.000 Save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through their rewards program just for drinking what you already love.

00:29:55.000 Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule, and you never run out.

00:29:58.000 That's blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie.

00:30:00.000 Check it out: promo code Charlie.

00:30:04.000 A person's domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home.

00:30:12.000 There are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures, but they have, in their minds, made a permanent home here.

00:30:29.000 Talk about the legal capacity to create a domicile, excluding someone who may have the subjective intent, which otherwise would be determinative, as being excluded.

00:30:39.000 On the humanitarian point, I would point out, as I said at the beginning, Justice Alito, that the United States rule of nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship.

00:30:47.000 Is an outlier among modern nations.

00:30:49.000 Every nation in Europe has a different rule.

00:30:52.000 And the notion that they have a huge humanitarian crisis as a result of not having unrestricted birthright citizenship, I don't think is a strong argument.

00:31:00.000 So, nations that have repealed birthright citizenship since 1980, Dr. Matt Spaulding, Australia got rid of it in 2007, New Zealand got rid of it in 2005, Ireland 2005, France 1993, India got rid of it in 1987, the UK 1983, Portugal 1981.

00:31:20.000 Right.

00:31:21.000 Give us a history lesson of where this even came from because it was really popular in the new world to try to, you know, import and attract new Europeans.

00:31:33.000 Think even broader than that.

00:31:35.000 I kind of made reference to it at the end of our last session.

00:31:38.000 The old notion of how one became a citizen is you took on the citizenship.

00:31:43.000 They didn't even use the word citizenship.

00:31:44.000 You were a subject.

00:31:45.000 You took on the subject ship, if you will, of your king.

00:31:49.000 So if you're born on the king's soil, you're a subject to the king.

00:31:53.000 It's feudalism.

00:31:55.000 America and the rise of Republican governments changed that.

00:31:59.000 Now, we had two things going on in America.

00:32:01.000 One is we needed populations.

00:32:03.000 So we were encouraging and we were very broad on our immigration policies because we wanted to grow the nation and have more citizens.

00:32:09.000 Although, even then, from the very beginning, we were careful on who we encouraged.

00:32:13.000 And if you came here, you had to work hard and you had to learn to be an American.

00:32:17.000 That was very important.

00:32:18.000 But the other point, and that clip you just showed kind of starts getting to this question what's been going on since then is around the world, feudalism has died out and kind of Republican or Democratic republics.

00:32:33.000 Have been spreading more.

00:32:34.000 So, more and more countries have been getting rid of birthright citizenship.

00:32:37.000 And yet, here we are, the parent, if you will, of modern Republican government and Democratic republicanism.

00:32:46.000 We're sticking with birthright citizenship. 0.95

00:32:48.000 It's just exactly backwards.

00:32:50.000 But the other point I want to make here is that this question of consent, the essence of the American principle is consent based on all men being created equal, the Declaration of Independence.

00:33:02.000 But consent tells us something about how our immigration laws should operate.

00:33:07.000 Which is to say it has to be reciprocal.

00:33:11.000 Someone has to want to come here, okay, that's part of it, but you can't come here on your own and make yourself or your child an American citizen.

00:33:21.000 What you need to do is get reciprocal consent, which is that we consent to you becoming a citizen.

00:33:27.000 And that's done how?

00:33:28.000 Through our laws, which the executive is empowered to enforce.

00:33:33.000 And with a lack of laws, he needs to figure out some sort of policy, hence his executive order.

00:33:37.000 But there is a process.

00:33:39.000 And the problem is that of all the places in the world, why are we somehow claiming a right, a fundamental right that the Supreme Court should be able to dictate on something that, by all standards, all historical standards, and increasingly by more and more countries around the world, is understood to be a lawful right of a sovereign country to control its own citizenship?

00:34:03.000 It can have a broad policy, it can have a narrow policy, it can allow this, it can allow that, but it's the decision of those that are here who consent through law to welcome other people in.

00:34:12.000 And then have requirements.

00:34:13.000 You have to pass a citizenship test, whatever it might be.

00:34:17.000 We can grant special rights for those that are persecuted if we choose.

00:34:22.000 This policy really is truly an aberration, as was said in that clip.

00:34:27.000 This is not the norm at all when it comes to Republican government.

00:34:32.000 It's just.

00:34:34.000 I feel like, honestly, if we want to take the biggest thing, as we said, nations are repealing this.

00:34:38.000 And I think we should remind people of what the stakes of this are.

00:34:43.000 We've seen happen because of this ridiculous interpretation of the law.

00:34:47.000 We have, I believe they actually mention it during the oral arguments, there are something like 800 companies in China offering birth tourism to the Chinese.

00:34:55.000 We have this clip.

00:34:56.000 SOT 8.

00:34:57.000 Let's play SOT 8.

00:34:57.000 Let's play that.

00:34:58.000 Problem of birth tourism.

00:35:02.000 Here's a fact about it that I think is striking.

00:35:04.000 Media reported as early as 2015 that based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose What business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation?

00:35:20.000 Their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment.

00:35:28.000 I think that shows that they've made a mess.

00:35:31.000 Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision.

00:35:33.000 There's over, so some estimates have it at 1.5 million Chinese residents that live in China are American citizens.

00:35:41.000 In theory, they could vote in our elections.

00:35:42.000 Vote in our elections, but also move here, immediately get taxpayer funded.

00:35:47.000 Uh, college immediately qualify for every program that we rig that you can scam.

00:35:50.000 I bet there's guides on how to do that.

00:35:52.000 Set up your own daycare while you go to college.

00:35:55.000 Think more broadly for a minute.

00:35:56.000 Uh, people that have a broader, narrow view of immigration policy, I Tend to think it should be more narrow and more selective.

00:36:05.000 Having said that, there can be a broad array of opinions.

00:36:07.000 We're a free country.

00:36:08.000 The question is who controls that policy?

00:36:11.000 And in a government, a country based on the rule of law, we control that policy.

00:36:16.000 That's what it means to be a free, self governing people.

00:36:20.000 The birth tourism problem, coming especially from a place like China, and I'm sure others come here for the same reason, knowingly doing this is to establish citizenship, which gives them certain rights claims.

00:36:33.000 They might be thinking about getting other benefits and whatnot.

00:36:36.000 But I can tell you from the point of view of China, it's a strategic question.

00:36:41.000 They, i.e., foreign countries, are trying to determine our policies.

00:36:45.000 And the more they can have people who can claim to come and go as they choose in and out of the country because they're citizens in the future, it redounds to their benefits.

00:36:54.000 So it is a large strategic problem.

00:36:56.000 But ultimately, it's this larger moral constitutional question who controls who is an American?

00:37:02.000 Is that a right in and of itself for anybody in the world?

00:37:04.000 Or is it a right and a privilege which we understand and control by our laws?

00:37:11.000 I think that's what's an issue here.

00:37:12.000 Dr. Matt Spaulding of Hillsdale College, you're in D.C., so I'm sure it's all the chatter in the city today.

00:37:22.000 And we pity you for having to live there, but we're grateful that you do so with a clear mind and common sense, which is a rare virtue in that part of the country.

00:37:33.000 It's not clear to me what the Supreme Court will do.

00:37:35.000 They can always come up with different little twists and turns here and there.

00:37:38.000 But having said that, if they're to follow the history of the Civil Rights Act, if they follow the history of their own decisions, Wong Kem Ark, this case that's always mentioned, he was a permanent citizen.

00:37:49.000 The executive order makes room for precisely that condition.

00:37:52.000 Permanent resident.

00:37:55.000 If they follow that, there is an argument here and there's an answer, which I think can be found consistent with the Constitution and good policy.

00:38:01.000 Hillsdale College, it's the best.

00:38:03.000 Thank you, Dr. Spaulding.

00:38:04.000 Thank you.

00:38:05.000 Great to be with you guys again.

00:38:08.000 If you're a parent, you don't need to be told that online safety is important.

00:38:11.000 That's why TikTok has over 50 preset safety and privacy settings.

00:38:16.000 And beyond that, parents can set up family pairing to help shape their teens' experience on the app.

00:38:21.000 With family pairing, parents can get visibility into their teens' followers and who they follow, help restrict content that's not right for them, and set screen time limits.

00:38:30.000 Parents can also set restricted times so they're not on TikTok when they shouldn't be.

00:38:35.000 Because feeling good about the time your teen spends online shouldn't come with guesswork.

00:38:39.000 In addition to the already built in safety and privacy protections, family pairing gives parents more tools.

00:38:45.000 To shape their teens' online experience based on what's right for their family.

00:38:49.000 Remember, when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow.

00:38:53.000 Learn more by going to TikTok.comslash Guardians Guide.

00:39:00.000 We have a special guest, and that is Kale Conway.

00:39:03.000 He is the GCU, so Grand Canyon University Chapter Social Media Manager and Chapter Chaplain as well.

00:39:10.000 Yes, sir.

00:39:10.000 So we had a whole conversation yesterday with Selena Zito from the Washington Examiner, and she was talking about her own experience in.

00:39:17.000 Like Pennsylvania.

00:39:18.000 So she lives right near Pittsburgh.

00:39:20.000 And she says, Young people are just getting baptized by the droves. 0.62

00:39:23.000 And she's seeing this revival that I think a lot of us had a question about after Charlie's assassination.

00:39:29.000 When you saw that revival energy, was it going to keep going?

00:39:32.000 And so we wanted to kind of bring it back down to the student level with you and have you in studio today to tell your story, what you're seeing.

00:39:39.000 You're from Missouri originally, outside of Kansas City.

00:39:43.000 And now you live in Arizona.

00:39:45.000 So you've got kind of multiple perspectives here.

00:39:48.000 Tell us your story.

00:39:50.000 And, you know, you're the chapter chaplain, which is pretty sweet.

00:39:54.000 So just tell us your story.

00:39:56.000 Yeah.

00:39:56.000 So I was born and raised in a Christian household.

00:39:59.000 I had two really awesome parents that just, Led by example are pretty good role models.

00:40:04.000 And I got saved when I was about 10 years old.

00:40:07.000 And, you know, when you get saved that young, it's like I knew Jesus wanted, like he was my savior, but I didn't know the full weight of that yet.

00:40:15.000 And I would say the last couple of years, year and a half of my life, there's just been a lot of life events majorly in my life that happened.

00:40:24.000 I lost my dad in April of 2024, just completely unexpected.

00:40:28.000 And that's when I kind of just started diving deeper into my faith.

00:40:32.000 And Just to really understand why I believe these things instead of sitting here and regurgitating this information that I was being fed, or just even like what my parents had told me.

00:40:42.000 Like, I wanted to sit there and be like, why do I believe these things?

00:40:45.000 And actually be confident and be able to sit here and say, like, well, this is why I believe this, or this is why I choose Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

00:40:52.000 And it's just kind of been a walk with that deeper and deeper ever since then.

00:40:57.000 So it's amazing how trauma so often can lead us to deeper walks in our faith with Jesus.

00:41:04.000 I mean, I certainly felt that after Charlie's assassination.

00:41:08.000 Maybe let's go there.

00:41:09.000 So, you transferred to GCU or in Missouri.

00:41:13.000 Where were you when Charlie was killed?

00:41:15.000 I was actually here in GCU.

00:41:17.000 So, this, yeah, so I transferred to GCU the beginning of the academic year last year.

00:41:23.000 So, I started last fall here at GCU when this all happened.

00:41:27.000 What was it like on campus from a spiritual perspective when that happened?

00:41:32.000 So, on campus, me personally, I feel like it was a very big shift.

00:41:38.000 And I was also fortunate enough to be at the entire memorial there as well.

00:41:42.000 And you could just be in that building as well.

00:41:44.000 You could just feel that energy.

00:41:46.000 Like there was just a revival, or it's like it's a feeling that it's hard to sit there and explain because it just feels really surreal at the same time.

00:41:54.000 See it on camera right there.

00:41:56.000 Yeah, but it's like it was just awesome.

00:41:58.000 I mean, just being in that place right there, it's just the worship and just everything just going on.

00:42:03.000 Like you could really feel the presence of God just in the room.

00:42:06.000 And I also feel like that carried out through campus as well.

00:42:09.000 That feeling was just there and it just felt unmelodible.

00:42:12.000 You saw that from the students.

00:42:13.000 100%.

00:42:14.000 Yes, I did.

00:42:15.000 It was just really undeniably there.

00:42:19.000 Blake, I don't know.

00:42:20.000 Well, and we always love to ask how did it evolve over time?

00:42:23.000 Because we've certainly seen evidence there's been a sustained spiritual revival in some places.

00:42:28.000 Obviously, there was a tremendous surge in the days afterwards.

00:42:31.000 We saw that outside of our own headquarters here.

00:42:34.000 But maybe just lay out for us the response or what you saw from students, Charlie's legacy.

00:42:43.000 A month later, and now we're six months later?

00:42:45.000 I would say within like a month afterwards, like there's a lot of like, oh, I'm going to step up.

00:42:51.000 I'm going to start believing these things.

00:42:52.000 I'm going to start speaking out more.

00:42:54.000 And as much as I would love that was continued at that extent, it definitely has died down a little bit.

00:43:01.000 But I definitely don't think it's like below the threshold that it was.

00:43:06.000 Like it's definitely exceeded there and it's stayed there.

00:43:08.000 So that energy and that spiritual, just that presence of God has 100% been there.

00:43:14.000 This entire time.

00:43:15.000 And it's still, I would sit here and say it still is.

00:43:17.000 Yeah, I don't think anyone would be surprised by that.

00:43:19.000 I think a remark I made closer to it is would the surge last for everyone?

00:43:25.000 No, but there would be at least a few people, even if it was one person, but it's probably more than that, where that moment will completely transform their life going forwards.

00:43:35.000 And each of those little moments does matter a tremendous amount.

00:43:39.000 Well, I mean, you think of the parable of the sower, right?

00:43:39.000 100%.

00:43:44.000 You know, it's the parable of the sower says that.

00:43:47.000 The seeds of faith are scattered, and some land on good soil, some on rocky soil, you know, and that's just going to be the case.

00:43:55.000 It's a spiritual reality, you know.

00:43:58.000 So, I, but I'm, I'm prayerful because I actually, Believe that revival starts with repentance.

00:44:04.000 And I remember when Charlie was killed, you know, and I've told this story, I actually told it, I think, on the Alex Clark podcast, where it was, I felt this, I don't know if it was fear, but it was something.

00:44:19.000 I realized that everything that we had built was about to change dramatically, and I was resistant to it.

00:44:25.000 And then I remember I was sitting in my hotel room and I just repented and I just said, Lord, whatever you have for me, I say yes to.

00:44:34.000 And I apologized for.

00:44:36.000 Fighting that, right?

00:44:37.000 And I'm curious if you have a similar story with what after your dad passed away.

00:44:43.000 And I'm sorry to hear that.

00:44:45.000 And, you know, did you know this sort of surrendering to God's will in your life?

00:44:49.000 100% I did.

00:44:50.000 And I appreciate that.

00:44:51.000 So thank you.

00:44:52.000 It was really weird because at first, when it all happened, obviously, like I was so confused and like, well, why would you take my dad away?

00:44:59.000 Especially, I'm the oldest of four kids.

00:45:02.000 So I have three younger siblings.

00:45:04.000 And it was just like, I'm the oldest.

00:45:06.000 I, at the time, I was 19.

00:45:08.000 And like, how are you going to sit here and take.

00:45:10.000 A father away that had laid a great foundation and just instilled all these great principles and was such a good guy compared to a lot of people out in this world right now.

00:45:18.000 Like, how are you going to just take him away unexpectedly from us?

00:45:22.000 And it was really hard because I wrestled with that a lot.

00:45:25.000 I was really confused and I was really angry.

00:45:27.000 And I honestly, like, I lashed out at God a lot.

00:45:30.000 And it got to the point where it was like, I instilled this one statement in my head.

00:45:34.000 It was like, I'm not here to understand your plan, but I'm here to trust your plan.

00:45:40.000 And as the more I kind of shifted my mindset into, Letting Jesus come in and help carry this burden rather than trying to take it on to my like myself because if I could fix these things myself, I would have already fixed all I would have fixed everything already.

00:45:54.000 And the reality is, we can't fix it ourselves and we need a savior.

00:45:57.000 So, once I took Jesus in and helped like had him help me carry that burden of the loss, the anger, the grief, the sadness, all these emotions that are like super, super heavy, this feeling of just overcoming peace and joy that I had was just so overbearing.

00:46:16.000 But yet, I didn't understand it.

00:46:18.000 And it's hard to sit there and almost say that as well, because it's like, well, how do I sit here and feel so much peace and joy yet in one of the deepest, darkest times of my life?

00:46:28.000 Well, the scriptures say that God will be close to the brokenhearted.

00:46:32.000 So there's that.

00:46:33.000 I'm going to read the sower verse here.

00:46:35.000 A farmer went out to sow his seed.

00:46:37.000 This is Jesus talking.

00:46:38.000 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.

00:46:43.000 Some fell on rocky places where it did not have much soil.

00:46:46.000 It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow.

00:46:49.000 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched and they withered because they had no root.

00:46:53.000 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.

00:46:58.000 Still, other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop, 160, or 30 times what was sown.

00:47:04.000 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

00:47:09.000 So much of life is the sower, the parable of the sower.

00:47:14.000 It's interesting, too, by the way, when I typed it into Google, it was the first parable that came up massively.

00:47:20.000 Important parable.

00:47:21.000 Might have been your computer spying on you.

00:47:23.000 I could have been.

00:47:24.000 It could have been.

00:47:25.000 I want to tell you guys at GCU, Grand Canyon University, how many students go to GCU now?

00:47:32.000 Honestly, I'm not sure.

00:47:33.000 I was going to say probably about 30,000.

00:47:35.000 It's huge now.

00:47:36.000 It's pretty big now.

00:47:38.000 So Riley Gaines is actually going to be doing a pick up the mic event at GCU on April 9th.

00:47:44.000 I think we have the graphic if you guys want to throw that up.

00:47:46.000 So that's pretty sweet.

00:47:47.000 You guys just locked that in?

00:47:48.000 Yeah, we just got it finalized the other day and now we're advertising like crazy.

00:47:52.000 Oh, it's going to be great.

00:47:54.000 She's really good at the live events, too.

00:47:56.000 We love Riley.

00:47:57.000 She's doing a great job.

00:47:58.000 So if you are in the.

00:48:01.000 Student body, I guess, is it open to non students or is it only students?

00:48:05.000 I think it's only students.

00:48:06.000 I think it's only students.

00:48:07.000 I could be wrong, but don't quote me on that.

00:48:10.000 Riley Gaines at GCU.

00:48:12.000 Let's talk about that.

00:48:13.000 You're not.

00:48:13.000 She's a lady.

00:48:15.000 So, what's the dynamic on campus between the ladies and the gentlemen?

00:48:21.000 Are we because we had some students on and they were basically saying there is some tension.

00:48:26.000 The girls don't like the guys, the guys don't like the girls.

00:48:29.000 They have different expectations of what a relationship is.

00:48:32.000 Has that been your experience?

00:48:33.000 I would say so, yes.

00:48:35.000 I would say there is some tension and some friction there.

00:48:38.000 But I also think that stems from a lot of different things.

00:48:41.000 And I feel like this is a topic I could go on and on about, to be honest.

00:48:45.000 But I think one of the main issues with it is like there's just not enough men being men, honestly.

00:48:51.000 Like we need to be more masculine.

00:48:54.000 There's a lot, I would say, there's a lot more females trying to step up and be that masculine figure rather than the men stepping up and really being the true leaders or. 1.00

00:49:04.000 Being the real masculine figures in that.

00:49:05.000 And we kind of just let it happen.

00:49:08.000 Like, there's just not much control.

00:49:09.000 It's almost like, oh, you kind of got it.

00:49:11.000 Like, I'm going to chill out.

00:49:12.000 You can run the show if you like.

00:49:14.000 I'm going to just sit here and not do a whole bunch.

00:49:16.000 And I think that just creates a lot more issues in itself.

00:49:20.000 Well, it's the sin of Adam, actually.

00:49:22.000 Actually, you know, passivity, right?

00:49:25.000 Where sin of omission, where we're not stepping up, being leaders as God has intended men to be.

00:49:31.000 So there's this interesting dynamic that's going on.

00:49:33.000 I don't know if you've seen this, Blake, but Isabelle Brown.

00:49:36.000 Said that women should get married and have more babies. 1.00

00:49:38.000 SOT 17.

00:49:40.000 If you're not encouraging your children to grow up and have the courage to get married and have kids, more kids than they can afford before they think they're ready, it is high time to start.

00:49:50.000 It is these choices, like deleting our dating apps and quitting birth control pills and saying I do at the altar, that ultimately trickle down into the political policies that we will see save our country.

00:50:00.000 Well, the ladies at the View did not like this, became a whole thing. 0.99

00:50:04.000 SOT 18.

00:50:05.000 What?

00:50:06.000 What is she?

00:50:07.000 What the?

00:50:09.000 What?

00:50:10.000 Well, also.

00:50:11.000 So, my ultimate beef with this is that it wraps a woman's worth up in her ovaries. 1.00

00:50:16.000 The fact that we keep putting this on women that their only worth in society, politics, policies is if they produce a baby or have a husband is the stupidest, most old fashioned thing. 0.99

00:50:28.000 We have come too far. 0.99

00:50:29.000 There is the call to responsibility for the men who help make these children, right?

00:50:35.000 I am.

00:50:36.000 I don't know why it's always people lecturing women. 0.99

00:50:40.000 What they have to do.

00:50:42.000 Bottom line, if you're not paying my bills, you don't get to tell me what I do with my uterus.

00:50:47.000 I feel like Anna Navarro is the perfect living embodiment of exactly what he's talking about.

00:50:52.000 I just think, like, it's so funny because they can just do this bland stuff and then everyone claps like a seal.

00:50:57.000 Yeah.

00:50:59.000 Okay, if you use your brain, why would this maybe matter?

00:51:03.000 Well, if you don't have kids, your civilization ceases to exist.

00:51:08.000 Period.

00:51:10.000 Maybe that's why there was some presumed value to doing that.

00:51:13.000 Isabelle was.

00:51:14.000 Not saying your only value is in your ovaries.

00:51:16.000 She was saying it's a good thing to point to, to aim to.

00:51:20.000 So you should do it because it's a blessing.

00:51:22.000 By the way, it is a blessing.

00:51:24.000 Children are a blessing from the Lord and they're hard, they're expensive, they take a lot of time.

00:51:29.000 Totally worth it.

00:51:30.000 Anyways, so you're seeing this energy on campus.

00:51:33.000 Am I right?

00:51:33.000 I would say so, 100%.

00:51:35.000 I think it stems from you see kind of this stuff online and it just kind of trickles down and it's like you get a really very twisted worldview.

00:51:44.000 No matter what side of the spectrum you are, On when it comes to certain beliefs or ideologies, whatever it may be, it trickles down and it starts with society, in my opinion.

00:51:52.000 And then also, men just don't want to sit here and do anything about it for the most part, at least in my generation.

00:51:58.000 Like, I just see a lot of dudes get walked all over and they kind of just.

00:52:01.000 Take it sometimes.

00:52:02.000 I'm like, guys, we need to step up and be real men.

00:52:04.000 We need to start leading better, lead by example, and do these things that real men do.

00:52:09.000 I totally agree.

00:52:10.000 I don't think men are the problem.

00:52:11.000 I think they're the solution.

00:52:13.000 100%.

00:52:13.000 I think if, because here's a couple things two things.

00:52:17.000 If you value children, if you create spaces in your society to have children, whether that's at restaurants or parks or games or whatever, that is a good thing.

00:52:27.000 If you value children, you will have more children as a society.

00:52:30.000 So, point one Men, if you value strong men, you will get more strong men.

00:52:36.000 If you value passivity, if you tell them that they are toxically masculine and that they are the villains in this story, men are going to opt out.

00:52:44.000 It's the sin of Adam. 0.66

00:52:45.000 We get passive and we let the women run roughshod. 1.00

00:52:49.000 That's not a healthy society either.

00:52:51.000 I believe deeply, deeply, deeply that women want strong men to lead.

00:52:55.000 They want them to be productive.

00:52:56.000 They want them to have vision.

00:52:57.000 They want them to be full of life, full of vision.

00:53:01.000 And when women in this progressive feminist mindset try and put men in a corner, What are men going to do? 1.00

00:53:08.000 They're not going to rise to the occasion if you tell them they're the evil villain in the story.

00:53:14.000 They're going to opt out.

00:53:15.000 They're going to go play video games.

00:53:17.000 They're going to get walked on.

00:53:19.000 You're the chaplain of your chapter here, which is a cool title.

00:53:22.000 Not all of our chapters have.

00:53:24.000 I think we should, actually.

00:53:26.000 What's your read on this?

00:53:28.000 What are you telling young men your age?

00:53:28.000 What's your message?

00:53:31.000 Young men, I tell my age, just like, it's time for, even though if you feel this way and you kind of want to sit here, like you said, and get back to the core or whatever, like, It's we are the solution, anyways.

00:53:42.000 Like, we still have to step up.

00:53:43.000 Like, you still have to be able to one work on yourself and figure out these beliefs, figure out what you truly believe and what you stand for, and have a real passion.

00:53:52.000 You need to have goals and you need to have purpose with your life.

00:53:55.000 You need to be purposeful.

00:53:57.000 Women want someone that is going to be very purposeful, someone that's going to go out there and go do something, someone that wants to actually get stuff done. 1.00

00:54:04.000 And there's, I don't think I see a lot of that.

00:54:06.000 And just being able to take action on just something as simple as it sounds, something like that can create a huge difference.

00:54:13.000 With a lot of that stuff, I totally agree.

00:54:16.000 I think I hate that men tend to opt out.

00:54:20.000 I think it's a nihilism that's seeped in, but they've been told that they're the problem for over a generation now.

00:54:27.000 And what do you think is going to happen when you tell young men that they're terrible and not worth anything and they're the villains and toxic and all this stuff?

00:54:35.000 Men can do incredible things, but you have to want them to do incredible things.

00:54:39.000 That's exactly right.

00:54:40.000 That's exactly right.

00:54:42.000 There's another clip here that's kind of interesting.

00:54:45.000 About affordability.

00:54:46.000 I'm not going to play it, it's too long, but it's like, you know, she says, I think it's really reckless.

00:54:51.000 This is from The View to be suggesting that people should have children when you know this country's having an affordability crisis.

00:54:58.000 Final note children will never be affordable, they'll never be convenient.

00:55:03.000 You could still have them.

00:55:04.000 Guess what?

00:55:05.000 You'll find a way.

00:55:06.000 You will make space in your life for children.

00:55:09.000 It doesn't mean be reckless, it doesn't mean do it when you don't have a job or something like that.

00:55:12.000 But guess what?

00:55:13.000 You might have children and then you lose your job.

00:55:14.000 You got to find a way out.

00:55:16.000 Orienting your life around the next generation is always, always a good thing. 1.00

00:55:21.000 Kale, 10 seconds.

00:55:23.000 You have a show.

00:55:24.000 I actually have a platform where I talk about my personal testimony in a Christian worldview of things, and it's just Kale Conway.

00:55:31.000 K A L E C O N W A Y. Facebook and Instagram.

00:55:34.000 Check it out.

00:55:35.000 Kale, you're a good man.

00:55:36.000 We need more like you.

00:55:37.000 I appreciate you, man.

00:55:37.000 Thank you.

00:55:38.000 Thank you for coming in.

00:55:38.000 God bless you.

00:55:39.000 Thank you.

00:55:41.000 I just watched A Great Awakening, and I have to tell you, this isn't just another historical drama.

00:55:47.000 It's a wake up call that you all need to pay attention to.

00:55:51.000 We spend so much time talking about 1776 and constitutions and congresses and declarations, but this film reminds you of something even deeper.

00:56:00.000 Before the revolution, There was revelation.

00:56:02.000 George Whitefield wasn't a politician, he was a preacher.

00:56:05.000 And yet, watching this film, you see how his fearless proclamation of liberty in Christ shook the colonies to their core.

00:56:13.000 It unified people who had nothing else uniting them.

00:56:16.000 And that is power.

00:56:17.000 What really struck me was the portrayal of Benjamin Franklin.

00:56:21.000 He's this brilliant, rational mind, and yet he's drawn into genuine friendship with Whitefield, not because he suddenly becomes someone else, but because he begins to see freedom isn't structural, it's spiritual.

00:56:34.000 The film makes one thing clear.

00:56:35.000 You cannot sustain political liberty without moral and spiritual awakening.

00:56:39.000 In theaters, April 3rd, visit a greatawakening.com to learn more today.

00:56:45.000 A greatawakening.com to learn more today.

00:56:51.000 All righty.

00:56:52.000 Well, we talked about this back when they were introducing it, but we believe in really flogging this.

00:56:56.000 This is a very important race.

00:56:57.000 We're talking, of course, about the Virginia redistricting referendum to remind everyone, catch them up to speed.

00:57:03.000 We've been, Republicans in a few states have redrawn maps in Texas and Florida.

00:57:08.000 We wanted them to redraw them in Indiana, and the Indiana Republicans said, nah, we're going to do what the Republicans do.

00:57:15.000 But Democrats have not sat still, so they redrew the maps in California.

00:57:19.000 But the most aggressive one that we're seeing is an attempt to redraw the map in Virginia.

00:57:25.000 So basically, half their seats are little slivers coming out of Fairfax County, the blue part of the state.

00:57:32.000 They believe that they can get them to a 10 to 1 Democrat advantage in Virginia.

00:57:37.000 And so we wanted to welcome back Senator Glenn Sturdivant.

00:57:41.000 He is a Virginia Republican senator.

00:57:43.000 He's been helping spearhead the battle against this referendum.

00:57:48.000 Senator, are you there?

00:57:49.000 I'm here.

00:57:50.000 Thanks for having me back, guys.

00:57:50.000 Yeah.

00:57:51.000 Welcome.

00:57:52.000 So, set the stakes for those of our listeners in Virginia.

00:57:56.000 Hopefully, they voted.

00:57:57.000 You guys are in early voting right now.

00:57:59.000 So, tell us what's the state of the battle?

00:58:02.000 Do we have a shot of winning this one?

00:58:04.000 This is a David and Goliath battle.

00:58:07.000 But what is, I think, becoming clearer and clearer every day is that we actually do have a shot at winning this.

00:58:13.000 Election day is April 21st.

00:58:15.000 But as you said, we've We're in the midst of early voting right now.

00:58:19.000 Virginia has some of the longest early voting of any state in the country.

00:58:23.000 We've got 45 days of early voting.

00:58:25.000 So that's been ongoing now for two or three weeks.

00:58:27.000 And we've got three weeks to go as of yesterday until the last day to vote.

00:58:33.000 And what is really interesting is the folks who kind of look deeply at the data and the numbers, it would indicate that we are seeing much higher turnout in the heavy Republican areas and much lower turnout than normal.

00:58:49.000 In the heavy Democrat areas.

00:58:51.000 So, Virginia, we are not used to having elections in April.

00:58:55.000 This is the first time this has ever happened.

00:58:59.000 And so, Virginians are being bombarded on television and YouTube and online with ads from the other side.

00:59:09.000 They've basically got unlimited money.

00:59:11.000 I think they've received about $30 million so far from Hakeem Jeffries and George Soros and other left wing dark money groups.

00:59:21.000 And then on our side, I think we've only been able to put together about $5 million.

00:59:26.000 And I saw today another $5 million maybe coming in.

00:59:30.000 But so far, we have been outgunned on the money, outgunned on the ads.

00:59:34.000 But it really has been a people powered grassroots movement of Virginians who have seen what the Democrats, now that they control the governor's mansion and both chambers of the General Assembly, what they've been up to the last few months, the people are fed up and pushing back, thankfully.

00:59:52.000 It's so crazy that you can't get more funding for this because you think of the amount of money that'll be thrown into our elections in a single Senate race, you might see over hundreds of millions of dollars spent at the Point.

01:00:02.000 You'll see many millions spent on a single House race.

01:00:05.000 And this is effectively four or five House races in a single go through the method of this referendum.

01:00:12.000 But to show how seriously Democrats are taking it, they've actually drawn a prominent Democrat out of retirement.

01:00:18.000 None other than Barack Obama has come out to campaign for this.

01:00:24.000 We actually have a clip of him.

01:00:25.000 Let's play 21. 0.50

01:00:27.000 Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy.

01:00:30.000 But right now, they are under threat.

01:00:33.000 Over the past year, several Republican controlled states have taken the unprecedented step of redrawing their congressional maps in the middle of the decade.

01:00:42.000 And they've done it for a simple reason to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms this fall.

01:00:49.000 In April, Virginians can respond by making sure your voting power is not diminished by what Republicans are doing in other states.

01:00:56.000 Help us chart a better path forward, Virginia.

01:00:59.000 Early voting begins on March 6th.

01:01:01.000 Election day is April 21st.

01:01:04.000 Vote yes, Virginia. 0.88

01:01:06.000 I think it's very revealing.

01:01:07.000 They flashed a bunch of maps there.

01:01:09.000 For those of you who are listening later, they showed Missouri, they showed Texas.

01:01:13.000 But not Virginia.

01:01:14.000 But they did not show Virginia and what their map is.

01:01:18.000 And I want to, before I'll ask you, I should remind people what the text of this referendum is, because it's truly one of the most egregious, appalling examples of distortion I've ever seen from an official election document.

01:01:31.000 This is the wording on the ballot.

01:01:33.000 Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily.

01:01:38.000 Adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia's standard process resumes for all future redistricting.

01:01:47.000 So, just could we please restore fairness?

01:01:50.000 You don't oppose fairness, do you?

01:01:51.000 But remind our listeners exactly what districts they are planning to impose on the state here.

01:01:57.000 What do they look like?

01:01:58.000 Well, we have 11 congressional districts in Virginia.

01:02:01.000 Currently, under the current maps, we have six Democrat members of Congress and five Republican members of Congress.

01:02:08.000 And that lines up very, very well with how Virginia voted.

01:02:13.000 Statewide in the 2024 presidential election, we have been rated as having A plus fair maps from an anti gerrymandering perspective.

01:02:24.000 We actually, five years ago, voted to amend our constitution in Virginia to get rid of partisan gerrymandering and to create a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which is what created the maps that we are currently working with.

01:02:39.000 And now Democrats are trying to jam through this amendment to the amendment.

01:02:44.000 This is another constitutional amendment that they are now pushing to give them this quote unquote temporary power to gerrymander again.

01:02:53.000 And as you said, Blake, all of these districts essentially begin and end in Fairfax County.

01:03:00.000 There is a.

01:03:02.000 We have the map up right now.

01:03:04.000 I don't know if you can see it, but we have it.

01:03:05.000 You can see you've got these little tendrils snaking all across the state.

01:03:09.000 One, two, three, four of them go through Fairfax County at least, and then like two others snake up pretty close to it, but don't get there.

01:03:17.000 It's.

01:03:18.000 One of the wildest things I've ever seen.

01:03:20.000 And you can see it takes us from, you know, a few safe blue states, a few safe red seats to just all of these blue leaning seats.

01:03:28.000 It's one of the, it's utterly, it's an abomination to look upon.

01:03:33.000 And for people who don't know Virginia, that big red area, which the Democrats want to be our sole congressional seat, is Southwest Virginia, which is very, very sparsely populated.

01:03:44.000 And there are no Democrats down there.

01:03:46.000 So that would be the, The lone Republican seat.

01:03:50.000 It looks large, but it's a single congressional district.

01:03:54.000 Yeah, I want to go back to this Obama clip, which to underscore Blake's point, he shows he does not talk about Virginia.

01:04:02.000 And he doesn't acknowledge the fact that Virginia is 6'5.

01:04:05.000 Democrats get six seats.

01:04:07.000 Republicans tend to get five.

01:04:09.000 In a state that Kamala won by plus six, am I right?

01:04:12.000 And you just had a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin.

01:04:17.000 And so now you've got Spamberger.

01:04:21.000 Explain this kind of ropeadope, this move that Democrats are doing in Virginia where they present themselves as moderates and Spamberger looks like.

01:04:33.000 This sort of clean, moderate vision.

01:04:36.000 And then when they do this, they sell you the moderation and then they seem to go.

01:04:40.000 I call it going full Virginia because it's like it deserves its own category now.

01:04:45.000 Are they moderates?

01:04:46.000 No.

01:04:47.000 And to hear you call it full Virginia hurts my heart, man.

01:04:49.000 But it's sad and it's what we are living through right now.

01:04:53.000 And it is a preview for what the rest of the country is going to get if Democrats are likely to continue nominating these folks who, again, like you said, appear on paper to be moderates.

01:05:05.000 But when they get in office, go full left wing.

01:05:08.000 It was not, Spamberger wasn't a day in office before she got rid of all of Governor Youngkin's policies that allowed our law enforcement to cooperate with ICE to get illegal aliens out of Virginia. 0.96

01:05:25.000 She undid that on day one, and they had been pushing ever since to make Virginia a solid sanctuary state for illegal aliens.

01:05:35.000 We just finished up our General Assembly session about two weeks ago.

01:05:40.000 They are moving very quickly on eliminating Virginians' Second Amendment rights, making it impossible to buy and own common everyday firearms and magazines.

01:05:55.000 They had legislation to raise taxes on anything that moved.

01:06:01.000 And they're also working to raise electric rates by putting Virginia back in this Northeast Consortium.

01:06:11.000 Uh, kind of green new deal thing that they uh they called Reggie.

01:06:15.000 So, um, yeah, to your point, Spamberger has always presented herself as this uh you know suburban mom moderate.

01:06:26.000 We all knew from her time in Congress, despite the propaganda, that she was a Nancy Pelosi Democrat and very liberal.

01:06:32.000 Uh, they were able to, I think, pull a fast one on a lot of Virginians this past November, uh, and we're now seeing the fruits of that.

01:06:40.000 And I think that.

01:06:42.000 The bright spot to the extent there is one is that people are waking up very quickly.

01:06:46.000 And I have not seen this sort of pushback and level of activism since the Tea Party movement of 15 years ago.

01:06:55.000 Well, Senator, thank you for coming on.

01:06:56.000 Thank you for the fight.

01:06:57.000 If you live in Virginia and you're listening to this and you haven't voted, go vote now.

01:07:01.000 Turn off this episode.

01:07:02.000 Go vote now.

01:07:03.000 Get it done.

01:07:04.000 You have a few more days that you can do it.

01:07:06.000 Final day is on the 21st.

01:07:08.000 This is worth five House seats by itself.

01:07:10.000 We have to spare the whole country, sadly, from going a full Virginia.

01:07:14.000 Thank you again, Senator.

01:07:16.000 Thanks, guys.

01:07:19.000 Hi, folks.

01:07:20.000 Andrew Colvett here.

01:07:21.000 I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Refi.

01:07:24.000 You've probably been hearing me talk about Y Refi for some time now.

01:07:27.000 We are all in with these guys.

01:07:30.000 If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.

01:07:36.000 Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default.

01:07:39.000 You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.

01:07:42.000 Y Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.

01:07:46.000 They tailor Each loan individually, they can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back.

01:07:53.000 We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.

01:07:59.000 Many of them don't even know how much they owe.

01:08:01.000 Why Refi can help.

01:08:03.000 Just go to yrefi.com.

01:08:05.000 That's the letter y then refi.com.

01:08:08.000 And remember, whyrefi doesn't care what your credit score is.

01:08:11.000 Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

01:08:18.000 So every so often, Blake, there is a moment captured on film that seems to distill the insanity of progressive ideology.

01:08:28.000 And very often, that clip comes from Canada.

01:08:31.000 Yes, in this case.

01:08:32.000 All right, so let me set the stage.

01:08:35.000 The.

01:08:36.000 The 2026 federal NDP leadership convention was called in Winnipeg in Canada.

01:08:41.000 New Democrat Party, they're the party even left of Justin Trudeau's party, the Liberal Party, so super liberal.

01:08:48.000 So they didn't go viral for their policies, housing, their awful ideas about inflation or health care, how they can kill more people through euthanasia.

01:08:59.000 They went viral for something called equity cards.

01:09:03.000 Now, if you are a person that came to this convention, you were given a gender or gender equity card.

01:09:09.000 Identity card, which would be green.

01:09:11.000 You were given a race or ethnicity card if you're not white, and that would be pink or purple.

01:09:16.000 You had a card for indigenous status, LGBTQ status, or a disability status.

01:09:23.000 Now, what these cards are intended to do was give you the ability to jump into lines.

01:09:31.000 So, if there's a queue that's formed, a line that's formed to ask a question and force a debate on a certain policy, you could jump the debate over the white people.

01:09:41.000 If you had one of these cards, it was designed to give diverse viewpoints more consideration and priority over white people's viewpoints, essentially.

01:09:51.000 So, what did that result in?

01:09:55.000 I'll let you see.

01:09:56.000 Play SOT 18.

01:09:57.000 There's a point of privilege on microphone one, then we'll go to microphone three.

01:10:01.000 Go ahead, delegate.

01:10:02.000 Yes, hello.

01:10:04.000 I was standing here with my gender equity card before you called on the previous speaker.

01:10:08.000 That's my point of privilege, so I would like to respond.

01:10:11.000 Yesterday, this card.

01:10:13.000 Was used in an inappropriate matter.

01:10:15.000 And while I understand in Ontario we know this is equity, even if that, this was also used inappropriately in terms of gender.

01:10:24.000 I want everyone to be mindful that these cards for individuals like myself who identify as a black woman have no value outside of this space.

01:10:35.000 So, yeah, they're handing out equity cards that you're supposed to flex to like it's an issue to jump in line, you get privilege.

01:10:42.000 We laugh at this, but.

01:10:44.000 There's a deadly serious kernel here, which is we have struggles in America over DEI, where we have, despite our constitution, systematic discrimination based on race or sex.

01:10:56.000 But at least in America, our laws say it's not supposed to be that way.

01:10:59.000 You're not supposed to discriminate.

01:11:01.000 And that gives us reason for hope, it gives us ways to counterattack.

01:11:04.000 And the vibe is mostly against it.

01:11:07.000 Canada is not like that.

01:11:08.000 Canada is the true, call it post liberal country.

01:11:13.000 In Canada, Actually, in their laws, they just explicitly say if you are a black person or if you are an indigenous person, you should be punished less for the same crime.

01:11:25.000 You can create a job opening in Canada for a university professor, for anything basically, and just say white men are not allowed to apply for this job. 0.50

01:11:34.000 And it's not because it's an acting job where you need someone who looks a certain way, it's not because it's a sports job, it's specifically just a neutral job, white men need not apply. 0.52

01:11:44.000 That is what Canada has become.

01:11:47.000 What you just saw there, heard there, is cartoonish, but that is what the left wants.

01:11:53.000 They want a, it is truly a, it's not even the future, it's not a decline, it's a regression back to the way the world was.

01:12:01.000 Before the American Revolution, the American Revolution, one of its core bits was that all men are created equal.

01:12:07.000 Actually, we're going to abolish all feudal status.

01:12:10.000 They want to restore feudal status, where who your parents are is more important than what you do.

01:12:17.000 What you look like matters.

01:12:17.000 That is a visual representation of a regression to a pre declaration of independence world, where you have sectarianism and tribalism ruling the day, because this was designed to operationalize.

01:12:32.000 Equality or equity in real time.

01:12:35.000 And what did you see happen?

01:12:37.000 The oppression Olympics played out for all to see, where this group said that they were more oppressed and had more privilege over this group, and then this group disagreed.

01:12:46.000 And so instead of having a system that was equal for all, you had everybody trying to claim their privilege, speaking over each other, fighting each other, saying it was their turn to speak, it wasn't their turn to speak.

01:12:57.000 It was actually cartoonish, but it is deadly serious.

01:13:01.000 If you want to get At what a backward society is in a single sentence, you might put it this way that it is more important to be something than to do something. 0.99

01:13:11.000 It matters more what you are than what you've done.

01:13:14.000 Because in America, the biggest reason we are such a profoundly transformational country for the entire world is that we flipped that on its head.

01:13:23.000 We said, what you do matters, what you have accomplished matters, what your character is matters.

01:13:28.000 And in Canada, they're returning to the old way, which just says, It matters what your skin is.

01:13:33.000 It matters what group you're in.

01:13:36.000 Your privileges just derive from your group status.

01:13:39.000 They're all inherited, they're all based on blood.

01:13:42.000 And it's very bleak because you can make fun of it.

01:13:44.000 But the end result of that is economic stagnation, poverty, hatred, misery, backwardness.

01:13:52.000 You don't innovate anymore.

01:13:53.000 Well, the group that, again, to Blake's point, was already further left than Trudeau, ultimately selected Avi Lewis as its new leader.

01:14:04.000 A figure associated with a further left shift for the party. 0.99

01:14:08.000 So, when you get a bunch of people in a room kvetching and complaining about their oppression and how they should be privileged more because of their identity or their sexual orientation, you tend to have a party that will move further and further left until they fall off the cliff into utter stupidity and banality and cartoonish behavior. 0.98

01:14:30.000 May the Lord spare such a result for the United States. 0.97

01:14:40.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.

The Charlie Kirk Show - April 01, 2026

Birthright Citizenship at SCOTUS Explained

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript