4/2/26 - Birthright Citizenship: History, Law, and Controversy

Summary

---

Mark Levin Podcast Summary

Episode Title: Birthright Citizenship: History, Law, and Controversy
Date: April 3, 2026
Host: Mark Levin
Podcast Network: Cumulus Podcast Network

---

Overview

In this episode, Mark Levin addresses the heated debate around birthright citizenship in America, propelled by recent Supreme Court oral arguments. He meticulously unpacks the history, constitutional text, legislative intent, and contemporary controversy over whether children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants should be granted automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Drawing on legal history, political commentary, and direct audio from the Supreme Court proceedings, Levin argues that birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is a misreading of the Constitution, never intended by the 14th Amendment's framers. The episode features analysis, historical context, criticisms of current legal interpretations, and lively listener calls.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Historical Context of the 14th Amendment

• Civil War and Reconstruction Origins

  • The 14th Amendment (1868), part of the “post Civil War amendments,” was designed to ensure freed black slaves and their descendants would be recognized as U.S. citizens, receiving equal protection and due process (03:00-06:00).
  • “The idea of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, was on nobody's mind. It wasn't even in their imagination.” – Mark Levin [03:59]

• Civil Rights Act of 1866

  • Passed to address resistance in southern states to recognizing freed black slaves as citizens, it was overridden over President Andrew Johnson's veto (05:00-06:30).
  • Constitutional amendment followed to reinforce citizenship rights nationally and permanently.

2. Misinterpretation of ‘Birthright Citizenship’

• Terminology and Legislative Intent

  • “The phrase ‘birthright citizenship’ is nowhere in the Constitution. It's not part of any official statute.” – Mark Levin [02:40]
  • The intent was to confer citizenship on freed slaves and their progeny, not on children of foreign nationals, especially those in the country unlawfully.

• Jurisdiction Clause

  • Critical phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (14th Amendment). Levin stresses this meant political allegiance within U.S. authority—not mere physical presence (09:00-11:00).
  • “You can't claim you're here physically—jurisdiction—when you're here illegally. You can't confer jurisdiction on yourself by violating the law.” – Mark Levin [17:55]

3. Originalist and Textualist Legal Arguments

• Levin criticizes “activist” judges and legal commentators for expanding the 14th Amendment beyond its historical meaning (07:00-10:00).
• Notes the Supreme Court has previously made racially biased and flawed interpretations, e.g., Dred Scott (10:00-12:00), and warns against repeating such mistakes for political expediency.
• Judicial activists, according to Levin, twist history and language to promote policies never intended by the framers.

4. Modern Birth Tourism & National Interest

• Levin references current birth tourism from China, where “500 companies” are helping pregnant women travel to the U.S. to secure citizenship for their children (12:50, 28:46).
  • “That was never intended. That's absurd...We're only one of a couple of nations worldwide that does this.” [13:40]
• Addresses the potential national security risk: automatic citizenship could be exploited by foreign governments (13:00-14:00).

5. Political and Judicial Cowardice

• Levin contends that some Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, prioritize public perception and their legacy over fidelity to the Constitution (14:20-16:00).
  • “[They] don't want the bullhorns... they're worried about their legacy, their history, what law professors will say...” [14:35]
• Stresses the importance of judicial courage and objectivity.

6. Democratic Party Evolution and Policy Motives

• Audio clips from Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein in the 1990s show that even Democrats once strongly opposed birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (22:48-24:03).
• Levin alleges Democrats now support it for political gain—altering demographics and building their political base (22:50-26:00).

7. Supreme Court Oral Argument Breakdown

• Chief Justice Roberts’ Skepticism
  • Levin highlights the Court’s struggle with the “jurisdiction” phrase, critiquing Roberts for seeking “a way out” rather than a principled decision (25:38).
  • “Show me who held that interpretation back then, just once. If you find these examples quirky, the reason he gave those examples—they’re not quirky...” [25:38]
• Clarence Thomas’ Clarity
  • Justice Thomas and Solicitor General John Sauer emphasize debates were not about immigration but about Native Americans and freed slaves (32:20-34:13).
  • Levin commends Thomas: “Smarter than the average justice.” [34:32]

8. Critique of Contemporary Legal and Media Commentators

• Levin lambasts legal analyst Eli Honig (CNN) as “cocky” and factually wrong regarding constitutional text and history (46:49-51:21).
  • “He doesn’t know his you know what from his you know what...They may win this case...but that has nothing to do with the rightness or the wrongness.” [47:13]
• Rebuts claim that there are “157 years of tradition” supporting automatic birthright citizenship, arguing the initial government view matched Levin’s argument (47:51-49:00).

9. Administrative & Policy Questions from Justices

• Levin pushes back against justices’ concerns about administrative difficulties in determining citizenship intent and status at birth.
  • “They’re treating this as if it’s criminal law, and it’s not. It’s a determination of somebody here, legally or illegally, which is made every single day, thousands of times a day, by administrative law judges.” [45:00-45:31]

10. Critique of Specific Justices

• Levin is sharply critical of Ketanji Brown Jackson for alleged partisanship on the bench and describes her questioning as “bomb-throwing” rather than judicial (34:40-35:30; 38:31-39:55).
  • “She doesn’t even pretend to be an objective adjudicator of facts and law...” [34:55]
• Supports Justices Thomas and Alito as principled originalists.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Legislative Intent
  “Do you think for a minute they were thinking of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, let alone the children of illegal immigrants? Not for one second.” – Mark Levin [07:10]

• On Modern Application
  “This was not for modern day Chinese citizens who come into the United States and give birth and then their child is an American citizen and then they go back to China, which China is doing now...That was never intended. That’s absurd.” [13:14]

• On Judicial Cowardice
  “Now some of these justices are worried. They don't want the bullhorns. They don't want the drum beating... they're worried about their legacy.” [14:26]

• On Policy Consequences
  “If they now constitutionalize birthright citizenship, well, I don’t see how we recover from it. I really don’t.” [14:32]

• Criticism of Legal Commentators
  “He doesn’t know his you know what from his you know what... cocky about it, and he’s condescending about it.” [47:13]

---

Significant Timestamps

| Time | Segment/Event | |----------|----------------------------------------------------| | 02:14 | Levin introduces and frames the birthright debate | | 03:00 | History of 13th-15th Amendments | | 12:50 | Modern birth tourism from China | | 14:20 | Justices’ legacy concerns | | 22:48 | 1990s Democrat opposition (audio clips) | | 25:38 | Chief Justice Roberts’ oral argument | | 32:20 | Clarence Thomas on debates’ lack of immigration | | 38:31 | Critique on Ketanji Brown Jackson | | 46:49 | Eli Honig’s CNN commentary & Levin’s rebuttal |

---

Listener Calls & Extended Topics

• Listener Feedback (95:11–101:39)
  • Callers thank Levin for clarifying constitutional issues; express frustration at current policies and the burden on veterans compared to benefits for illegal immigrants’ children.
  • Levin reiterates: “Revolution by immigration... That’s exactly what it is.” [97:18]
• Broader Policy Connections
  • Levin ties the birthright citizenship debate to broader issues: Democratic party strategy, sanctuary states, economic decline in California/New York, pension crises, and fraud in state programs (76:28–94:59).

---

Conclusion

Mark Levin’s in-depth analysis underscores his position that “birthright citizenship” for children of illegal immigrants is neither historically grounded nor constitutionally mandated. He heavily documents the Reconstruction context, challenges the motives of both courts and political opponents, and warns of immense policy and societal consequences should the Supreme Court uphold the current broad interpretation. Throughout, Levin’s tone is direct, impassioned, occasionally caustic—reflective of his radio persona—and the episode stands as a rallying call to constitutional originalists and conservative listeners.

---

For a comprehensive, historically grounded, and opinionated critique of birthright citizenship and its implications—as well as a window into how current legal and political debates intersect—this episode is essential listening for those interested in constitutional law, immigration, and American political controversies.

Transcript

[Mark Levin]

Hey, folks, Mark Levin here. Before we dive into today's episode, I want to talk about my go to gold and silver company. Monetary gold is over 25 years helping Americans understand physical gold and silver with an education first, no pressure approach and support for IRA eligible options. Monetary Gold has a complimentary guide. It's free to help you understand precious metals. Call them right now, 877-now-Gold or visit marklovesgold.com and request the free guide. Make sure to ask for details. That's 877-now-Gold or visit Mark loves gold.com performance may vary. You should always consult your financial and tax consultant. Now let's get to the show.

[Producer/Caller]

He's here.

[Show Announcer]

He's here now broadcasting them from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building. We've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Len.

[Mark Levin]

Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 8773-8138-1187-7381-3813. 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 a 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. It 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 were 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 or their 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 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 the 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 armed 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 thereof. 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 as 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 are focused on Reconstruction. They are 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, to try and expand the definition or to try and latch onto something. So there's arguments about policy, there's arguments about, well, what we're going to denaturalize 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 the 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, honey, crazy. What are crackpots? What are the 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 pushed in to the justice system as it was ignored. I know damn well what I am 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 is wrong. We had slavery in this country for some time. It was wrong. Then you had the Dred Scott decision, then you had the Civil War, then you had the 13th, 14th, 15th 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. Constitutionalized 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 was not 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 who come into the United States and give birth and then their child is an American citizen, and 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 justify it. Seriously. And if they now constitutionalize 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. The hell's his name? This cocky, know nothing. Hold on, I'll get his name. Give me one second. Count the five. It doesn't even matter. What? Oh, Ellie Honig, legal analyst. He was a prosecutor. Oh, 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 textualists, then you have a mess. You basically have activist lawyers in black robes. We have a decision in the late 1800s involving Chinese individuals. You have very racist laws that were passed at that time. And you had a child born in the United States of a naturalized citizen, this 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, give birth. That means that even though they're being raised in China or being raised in Qatar or 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 Communist China, you want them to serve in our military, don't you? Mr. Producer, you have all the rights and benefits of a United States citizen. This is suicide. Now I'll have more to say when we return. I'll be right back. Gold just had its biggest year since 1979, up 67%. 53 new all time highs. Then blew past $5,500 in January. Right now, almost every major bank on Wall street, they're telling their clients this is the buy window before gold hits 6, 7, even $8,000. Meanwhile, silver is sitting on a structural supply deficit for the sixth straight year, meaning there's not enough silver for industrial use. Many central banks in China, Poland, Brazil, India are buying prices. Now's the time to diversify, ladies and gentlemen, with silver and gold. Call Monetary Gold today. Get your complimentary Gold and Silver Guide, the number one requested guide in America for more than 25 years, absolutely free. Call Monetary Gold at 877-now-Gold or go to marklovesgold.com that's 877-now-Gold or marklovesgold.com Performance may vary. Should always consult your financial and tax professional. Now think about something. Let's even pretend, and I mean pretend, that some of these justices, the ACLU lawyer and the rest of them are right. That jurisdiction means jurisdiction in the sense of physical jurisdiction, which of course is ridiculous. But physical jurisdiction, even then, does 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 across the border. Ah, jurisdiction. No, you're here illegally. You can't claim 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 recognize that she conferred jurisdiction on herself illegally. You see the insanity of this, every way you look at it, it's ridiculous. I'll be right back. Silver is now in its sixth consecutive year of structural supply deficit, meaning demand is outpacing supply of silver every single year. Solar energy alone is Projected to consume 160, 60 to 194 million ounces of silver this year. Because silver is irreplaceable in solar cell technology and the world is using more and more silver. There's no substitute, folks. Silver is currently trading at a great price. 71 to $80 per ounce after hitting $121 earlier this year. That's the zigzag I talk about. But the trajectory is up, meaning the industrial demand story hasn't even fully played out yet. Call Monetary Gold today. Get your complimentary Gold and Silver Guide, the number one requested guide in America for more than 25 years, absolutely free. Call Monetary Gold at 877-now-Gold or go to marklovesgold.com that's 877-now-Gold or mark loves gold.com performance may vary. Should always consult your financial tax professional

[Show Announcer]

conservative and proud of it. Call the Mark levin Show at 877-381-3811.

[Mark Levin]

So the Democrats violate the immigration laws left and right. We have 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 US 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. Let's 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? What cut is it? All right, well, let's go to cut 18, please, Mr. Reducer. Go ahead.

[Commentator]

If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? 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 a 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 at 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 Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award a thousand times over. I don't know why he didn't make this award. He should have.

[Mark Levin]

Okay, so that's 1973. And then of course, the Democrats realized, hey, we ought to get on this bandwagon. Why are we fighting this? We can turn these people into Democrats. We can turn these people into Democrats. And so they. They've never looked back. Dianne Feinstein also 1993, cut 19. Go.

[Pam Bondi]

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 of serving their sentence in California or being returned to their country of origin. I think that option ought to be removed.

[Mark Levin]

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, while 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. This from yesterday. We're going to go to cut 11, Mr. Producer. We have Solicitor General John Sauer, who's quite good, and then you'll see how ridiculous the Chief justice of the United States sounds and how he's looking for a way out. Cut 11, go.

[Producer/Caller]

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 an ambassador, 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.

[Mark Levin]

Let me help you out, Mr. Chief Justice. Forget about the examples. If you find them 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 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 have those children in the United States are 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 too. What about that, Mr. Chief Justice? It doesn't matter. This is where his head is. He wants to constitutionalize birthright citizenship. Go ahead, please.

[Producer/Caller]

Idiosyncratic examples.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador, for in public ships. Tribal Indians is an 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 there 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 indefeasible duty of allegiance to the king at any time. So there's a clear repudiation in the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act.

[Mark Levin]

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 staff at the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, before I got there to 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. And can you imagine what the New York Times would say? Can you imagine what 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? Cut 12, please go.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

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 in return to that nation.

[Producer/Caller]

Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

I think it's I quote with Justice

[Mark Levin]

Scott that's Robert it has no impact. Now that's crazy. Coney Barrett had said at another point, well, how are you going to prove in 10 in every single case you're going to have a due process hearing and so forth? Well, you understand that, of course, Justice Barrett, that 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 convention. 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.

[Show Announcer]

Mud Fluben Foreign.

[Mark Levin]

Season is approaching for millions of families, a time to reflect on resilience, renewal and the 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 888-58-5, IFCJ. That's 888-585-IFCJ or visit Levin for the fellowship.org that's L E V I N for the fellowship.org Folks, this is absolutely crucial. And your gift is tax deductible. All right, let's keep at it. Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas are the two greatest justices, and there's a reason for it. You 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.

[Show Announcer]

You're getting a lot of questions about immigration. And they harken back, of course, to the citizenship, which is defined in or set up and the 14th amendment. How much of the debates around the 14th amendment had anything to do with immigration?

[Mark Levin]

Nothing. Go ahead.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

I think that the principal focus of those debates has to do really not with immigrants, but with the Indian tribes. I mean, obviously the main goal, the one pervading purpose of this court said in the slaughterhouse cases was to establish

[Mark Levin]

the free slave a little. Let's slow down. I like this guy, but he's a little verbose. The answer is nothing. Nothing. Go ahead.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Concerned about the problem of something that they all accepted as a given, which is that the children of tribal Indians are not within the rule of birthright citizenship. So I think that's what they focus. And we draw an analogy to that, too, the issue of temporary sojourners. And then. But there are mentions of temporary sojourning multiple places in the congressional debates and all of those quotes go on for second place.

[Mark Levin]

The answer is immigration was not the focus. Go ahead.

[Show Announcer]

And there was Justice Sotomayor brought up Long King Arc. There was no question in that case that about domicile, was there?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

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 at page 693, it says domicile three times. And at page 705 at the end of the opinion says here's the single question we've decided. We've decided that Chinese immigrants with a permanent domicile.

[Mark Levin]

That's not as perfect point. That's not his point. His point is let's cut 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 Ketanji 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 she sits there and she doesn't even pretend to try and be an objective adjudicator of facts and law. She's in there just muscling away 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. Barret, no, hardcore constitutionalist. She, even though she'll remind you she taught constitutional law. I 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 were ideological, 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. That's why they put her on the bench, because 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. All right. We'll be right back. This segment of the podcast is exclusively sponsored by Pure Talk. Pure Talk offers great coverage and can save your family money on your Wireless bill every single month. Go to PureTalk.com to find the plan that's right for you. Thank you again for listening and thank you so much for this sponsorship. Your talk.

[Producer/Caller]

He's here.

[Show Announcer]

He's here now, broadcasting him from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building. We've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Len.

[Mark Levin]

We do need to address Ketanji Brown Jackson, most recent justice on the Supreme Court. Some of what she had to say. Cut 14. Mr. Producer, go to follow up on

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

what Justice Gorsuch was exploring with you with respect to domicile. Did I understand you to say that domicile is going to be eventually or is controlled by Congress? Who is domiciled? I'm struggling to figure out who is domiciled in your argument.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

The domiciliaries are people who are lawfully present and have an intent to remain permanently. So that's a kind of black letter, you know, understanding of domicile. Now, Congress can dictate that certain classes of people, legal entrance and so forth, cannot lawfully lack the legal capacity to form a legally binding document.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

But if that's so, then doesn't it make the domicile, for the purpose of the 14th amendment, turn then ultimately on Congress's will in a way that the framers did not intend? I mean, my understanding was the framers put this citizenship clause into the Constitution to prevent future Congresses from being able to affect citizenship in this way.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Sure. Very briefly. No, I don't think so. Because it is up to the alien whether or not they want to be domiciled here. Now, there may be.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

You said Congress can, can make determinations as to who counts as being domiciled.

[Mark Levin]

No, but his point is Congress can make determinations, but then within that context, a person makes the decision whether they're domiciled or not. My earlier point, of course, was forget about that. Look at the Constitution and jurisdiction thereof. Somebody cannot confer jurisdiction on themselves illegally by violating the law. Coming into the United States and having a child, you can't confer jurisdiction on yourself. What the Solicitor General is saying as to this domicile issue is with respect to immigration, Congress will pass whatever law passes. But within the context of that law, if you're domiciled in the United States and you're a citizen of the United States and you have a child, that child is a citizen of the United States. But it's not that somebody can determine what being domiciled in the United States means. Go ahead.

[Producer/Caller]

It's true.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

Then it ultimately would impact, in your theory whether or not this person can claim that they have citizenship for 14th amendment purposes based on Congress's determination. And I just thought that's what the 14th amendment was trying to get away from.

[Producer/Caller]

Yes, please.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Very briefly, I just point. Point you to the discussion in Professor Wurman's amicus brief where he talks about this is not a new problem. Going back even to the British common law. There's a situation of people who lack a safe conduct and are passing through the king's domains without permission. And he says the best reading of the common law is they are not under protection of the King and they're not covered by the rule of birthright citizenship.

[Mark Levin]

It's actually pretty simple to see how complicated they make it or she makes it. Let's go to cut 15. Go.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents, present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

I think that's directly addressed in the SSA guidance that cited.

[Mark Levin]

All right, let's slow down. I don't need to get into Social Security Administration. How do you determine it now? How do you determine it now? Everybody's born in the United States. They're citizens. I guess you would say automatically they're a citizen. Everyone is born in the United States. But we know that's not true. We know that's not true. People come to the United States. The quirky examples, according to the Chief justice of the United States, demonstrate that's not true. This is very bizarre to me. The whole discussion is very bizarre to me. First of all, you're the justice. You set out the parameters of what the Constitution provides or what the law provides, and then the administrative activity follows. So maybe it is a hospital, maybe it's a computer system, maybe it's God knows what. You got to make sure somebody paid into the Social Security system. How do you determine that? How do you determine if somebody paid their taxes? How do you determine that? How do you determine a thousand different things? Processes are set up? That's how you determine it. First and foremost, is the person an illegal alien. That's easy enough to determine in 99% of the cases. So if they're an illegal alien, that is the mother is an illegal alien, then the child is the child of an illegal alien. So it's not even just in the hospital room. And yet, what's interesting, if you go into a hospital room or emergency room or whatever, they want some form of identification. Why? Want some form of identification? To determine who you are. There's many ways this can be handled. But to expect, you know, a Supreme Court attorney, the Solicitor General, to go up there and say, well, it could be done this way, this way, or this way. Why is that necessary? The fact is it can be done and it will be figured out. So why is that an argument? Yeah, go ahead. Unless. Unless we're done with it.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Says is there's currently a system where, for example, security, Social Security numbers are generated based on the birth certificate. They say this can still be, for the vast majority, majority of incidents, completely transparent. You will still get a.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

They're not transparent. I'm just talking about the particulars. Because now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States. And I think Justice Barrett brought this up. So we bringing pregnant women in for depositions. What. What are we doing to figure this out?

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

No, as I pointed out earlier, the executive order turns on lawfulness of status. So if you, if you, if you give birth to a baby in the hospital right now, it gets the birth certificate in the system. There's a computer system.

[Justice Neil Gorsuch]

So there's no opportunity. There's apparently no opportunity then for the person to prove or to say that they actually intended to stay in the United States.

[Mark Levin]

See, this is where we're going to get bogged down. And this is how some of these justices are going to really try and turn this thing. Due process intent. There needs to be some kind of procedure. They're treating this as if it's criminal law, and it's not. It's a determination of somebody here, legally or illegally, which is made every single day, thousands of times a day, by administrative law judges. We call them immigration judges. But now we have justices arguing, well, how do we prove intent of their intent, whether they're going to stay or not? Well, if they're here illegally, it doesn't matter their intent, does it? Does it matter? No. Do you have a full due process hearing? No, you don't now. And so this is where this is headed. I can just tell. Then we have Ellie Hoenig over at cnn, who fancies himself the Solomon of lawyers, and here's his prediction. Cut 17. Go.

[Eli Honig]

Well, if Donald Trump wants to go attend oral argument at the Supreme Court, he has every right to do so. Godspeed. He's a member of the public. He's a party to this case. But let me tell you, he's not gonna like what he sees playing out because his administration lawyers are making arguments that are vast stretches of law. A raid against his legal position. Is the plain text of The Constitution, the 14th Amendment on birthright citizens.

[Mark Levin]

Listen to this clown. He doesn't know his you know what from his you know what? Just listen to him. And he's cocky about it, and he's condescending about it. They may win this case. In fact, I fear that they will. But that has nothing to do with the rightness or the wrongness of it. Safari said nothing substantively. Nothing that the. The attack on the. On the argument of the administration's lawyers is the Constitution itself, the plain text of the Constitution. Why? Because he's a moron. He's a former federal prosecutor. This isn't his bailiwick. Go ahead.

[Eli Honig]

Seven years of traditions and norms and congressional action and the decision.

[Mark Levin]

157 years of traditions and norms. 157 years of traditions and norms. So this guy's basically saying that when the 14th Amendment was adopted, this was the interpretation, because that's 157 years of traditions and norms. And yet, for 40 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, my view and the Solicitor General's view was the view, the official view of the United States government. And as Justice Thomas was pointing out, it had nothing to do with immigration issues and immigration rights. It had to do with formerly black slaves and their families, their children and their babies. And so this clown, Eli Honig, 157 years of tradition is wrong, flat out wrong. Now, why in that language, in the 14th Amendment, do they specifically exclude Indians? It's what they call them Indians. Why do they do that? Anybody know? Because back then, even now, you had what we consider to be Indian nations, Indian nations where the allegiance of the Indian was to the Indian nation, underscoring the point the Solicitor General is making. You can't have allegiance to more than one nation and be a citizen of the United states. Under the 14th Amendment, automatic citizenship does not confer. Look, even if you want dual citizenship today in America, wherever it is, you want to be a citizen of Ireland and a citizen of the United States, a citizen of Israel, citizen the United States, citizen of India, citizen of the United States. There's a process for that. It's not automatic, and it's not automatic you'll succeed in the process either. But here, if an illegal alien comes from China today and they have these 500 companies doing this, tens of thousands, and you're born here Automatically, that child is a citizen of the United States and communist China. And they're doing it purposely at the direction of the Communist party in China. So when they get older, they can insinuate themselves into our culture, into our schools, into our companies, into our military. That is why they are doing it. The government in China is doing this. And John Roberts said, well, that really has nothing to do with the Constitution, does it? I mean, really, come on now. Well, it has everything to do with the Constitution because you are changing the Constitution to accommodate this. So this so called legal analyst, Ellie Hoenig has no idea what the hell he's talking about. But let's go on. Go ahead.

[Eli Honig]

Lower court, federal judge to hear this exact case. Four federal district court judges, three federal circuits have all ruled against the Trump administration.

[Mark Levin]

Now this is interesting. All these judges have ruled against it, but he hasn't presented a single legal argument. Not one. Not one. So we're getting into how would this be administered? What about intent? Look at all these other courts, what they've done 157 years, which is not true. So if you're not listening to this show and you're listening to these boobs, this is, this is the best you're going to get. Go ahead.

[Eli Honig]

In fact, choose to attend. Caitlin. It will indeed be unprecedented. I think it's going to be hard to ignore the fact that he's in the room. I do not think it will have any influence on the judges. And I think when he leaves that courthouse tomorrow, if he does go, he's going to be in a bad mood.

[Mark Levin]

Okay, well, there's the legal analyst who said nothing legal, not a thing, not a word. If they constitutionalize this, it's bad enough that it's done on the fly. If they constitutionalize this, there will be no way to change it, ever, ever. Congress won't be able to change it unless we amend the constitution to the 14th amendment. That's not going to happen. You're not going to get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states. Not going to happen. And they know it. I'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with PureTalk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. PureTalk is a veteran led company, so helping veterans is their North Star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide. And PureTalk's creating American jobs with a US only workforce. Sure, it'd be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, Same network, same 5G coverage, is one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values. Your value. Helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you go to PureTalk.com lavim to switch to PureTalk. That's PureTalk.com Levin to switch to my wireless company, America's Wireless Company, PureTalk Foreign. I've decided, ladies and gentlemen, that a lot of the woke Reich Reich have turned into leftists. The arguments they make are pro Iran, anti American, anti Israel, but they're pro Iran. They are either outright pro Iran or they are texting with Iran. They are interviewing the President of Iran or they are talking about Islamists, which is preferable to Christianity and Judaism. They are like leftists. Now they may have been conservatives, they may have been people that you once admired and embraced, but not anymore. By the way, on Liberty's Voice yesterday I talked about Iran and so forth. And I just want you to hear a little bit of this. Now what I'm doing on every part of my video podcast now is I'm introducing American history, which I think is important. And actually let me go to cut to Mr. Producer and this is a very short clip, very short. I'm keeping them short for radio purposes. But the French Indian War, which is a strange name for that war when you really think about it, because it was Britain versus France and other of the powers at the time, including Spain. But the two biggest actors were Britain and France. And they had, they were going at it for like 50 years. And it was the French Indian War that I discuss at some length during Liberty's Voice that was the prelude to the beginning of the revolution in the United States. Excuse me, in America. There was no United States in America. So it's very important to understand what this French Indian War was all about. And yet I bet nobody knows handful of people I bet you were never taught it. And that's why I'm going through the earliest days. You know, we talk about the colonists like they're interlopers who just came here from Europe. The fact of the matter is this colonists, what we call colonists, people who settle in America. It really started in earnest in the mid 1500s. So some of the people who fought in the Revolutionary War. Their ancestors had been here a couple hundred years, so that's quite significant. But when we come back, I want to just play these one or two very short clips. We'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. PureTalk is a veteran led company, so helping veterans is their North Star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide. And Pure Talk's creating American jobs with a US only workforce. Sure to be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, Same network, same 5G coverage as one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values. Your values. Helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you go to PureTalk.com Lavin to switch to PureTalk. That's PureTalk.com L E V I N to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, PureTalk.

[Show Announcer]

They call him Mr. Right, Mr. Conservative and Mr. Constitution. But you can call him Mark at 877-381-3811.

[Mark Levin]

President Trump last night gave a brilliant speech on Iran and so forth. Cut three Mr. Producer go.

[Producer/Caller]

Yet if during this period of time no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest target of all the because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it and it would be gone and there's not a thing they could do about it. They have no antiaircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force. The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust. And we have it under intense satellite surveillance and control. If we see them make a move, even a move, for it will hit them with missiles very hard. Again, we have all the cards. They have none. It's very important that we keep this conflict in perspective.

[Mark Levin]

Cut four, go.

[Producer/Caller]

American involvement in World War I lasted one year, seven months and five days. World War II lasted for three years, eight months and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for three years, one month and two days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months and 29 days. Iraq went on for eight years, eight months and 28 days. We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant, against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days. And the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat. They were the bully of the Middle east, but they're the bully no longer. This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future. The whole world is watching. And they can't leave the power, strength and brilliance. They just can't believe what they're seeing. They leave it to your imagination, but they can't believe what they're seeing. The brilliance of the United States military. Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression and the specter of nuclear black belt. Because of the actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran's sinister threat to America and the world. And I'll tell you, the world is watching. And when we do, when it's all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before.

[Mark Levin]

Cut five, go.

[Producer/Caller]

And then, very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama's Iran nuclear deal. A disaster. Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash, green, green cash. Took it out of banks from Virginia, D.C. and Maryland. All the cash they had. He flew it by airplanes in an attempt to buy their respect and loyalty. But it didn't work. They laughed at our President and went on with their mission to have a nuclear bomb. His Iran deal would have led to a collapse, colossal arsenal of massive nuclear weapons for Iran. And they would have had them years ago and they would have used them. Would have been a different world. There would have been no Middle east and no Israel. Right now, in my opinion, the opinion of a lot of great experts, had I not terminated that terrible deal, I was so honored to do it. I was so proud to do it. It was so bad right from the beginning. Essentially, I did what no other people president was willing to do. They made mistakes and I am correcting them.

[Mark Levin]

I want to do one more clip just to get the full gist of this. Cut six, go.

[Producer/Caller]

The countries of the world that do receive oil through the hormone strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it. They Must grab it and cherish it. They can do it easily. We will be helpful. But they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on. So to those countries that can't get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, we had to do it ourselves. I have a suggestion. Number one, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Should be have done it before. Should have done it with us as we asked. Go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. So it should be easy. And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally. It'll just open up naturally. They're going to want to be able to sell oil because that's all, all they have to try and rebuild. It will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven't come down very much, frankly. They came down a little bit, but they've had some very good days over the last couple of days.

[Mark Levin]

I thought it was an excellent speech. But then, of course, comes under attack. Comes under attack. Abdul El Said. That's right, I said it. Abdul Al Said is a candidate in the Democrat primary for the Senate in Michigan. He's an Islamist. I played his phone conversation that was public yesterday or the day before yesterday for you, in which he was advising his staff. Let's not talk about Khomeini because a number of people in Dearborn, Michigan, AKA De Bornistan, are very upset that Khomeini was taken out. Now think about that. Think about that. I mean, a lot of the people Khomeini has slaughtered are Muslims. And so now you have Muslims who I call Islamists, jihadis, Islamists who support Khomeini, even though a lot of the people he slaughtered, a lot of those young people, are Muslims. And he's shooting ballistic missiles at Arab states, at Muslims. Just wanted to point that out. But here's Abdul El Said. He's an Islamist, a jihadi who wants to get the Democrat nomination to become a United States senator. Something CAIR has been pushing for very, very strongly. Cut nine. Go Bill Hemmer. Why did the comment come off that way with your staff, sir? Look, I'll tell you this.

[Eli Honig]

We're in the midst of a war. We don't need to be fighting. It's illegal, it's immoral. It's using our tax Dollars to raise our gas prices from a MAGA backed movement that told us that they would never get us into another foreign entanglement. And here we are. And I just want to remind you that most people in the city of Dearborn and Dearborn Heights are not Arab American. They are white and they're worried just like I am. They're saddened by the fact that their tax prices go up and they are watching.

[Mark Levin]

So in other words, the conversation and his comments about Khamenei as a mentioned at once, he's completely deflecting.

[Eli Honig]

Go ahead, go up with it all to fight a war that we shouldn't really be a part of.

[Callers]

Yeah, I appreciate the fact that you're against the war.

[Producer/Caller]

I understand that.

[Mark Levin]

But there are more people in Michigan that are going to side your fate politically who don't live in Dearborn, Michigan.

[Producer/Caller]

Would you accept that?

[Mark Levin]

And would you also accept the idea that some Arab Americans in Dearborn may see the downfall of this regime as a good thing? Right.

[Eli Honig]

You know, Bill, I'll tell you this. There are many people who see the downfall of the regime as a good thing. But the question of whether or not it was pursued legally, that's a different question.

[Mark Levin]

Whether or not it's. That's enough. And it's not the question that was asked him. And of course he's full of crap. It's pursued legally in every respect. But he's an Islamist, you understand? He's an Islamist. And the fact that Khomeini and his regime are slaughtering people left and right, including Muslims, doesn't bother him. He won't even address it. He won't condemn it. And because he said in that phone call that I played for you that that became public that it might upset a lot of the people in Dearborn, Michigan. And so he continues to deflect. He is a Talib, he is an Omar, he's a Bernie Sanders. He's a Marxist Islamist. He's a Mandami. That's what he is. And he wants to get in the Senate where he votes on all matters related to you and me. These are national matters that these people vote on. Right. That's who he is. That's what he is. I'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

Mark Lovin.

[Mark Levin]

You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. Pure Talk is a veteran led company, so helping veterans is their North Star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide. And Pure Talk's creating American jobs with a US Only workforce. Sure to be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, Same network, same 5G coverage as one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values. Your value. Helping support veterans every single day in creating American jobs. How about you go to PureTalk.com lavim to switch to PureTalk. That's PureTalk.com Levin to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. All right. Welcome back, America. Pam Bondi obviously is no longer Attorney General of the United States. I actually like Pam Bondi, actually think that's a very difficult job. People don't understand how that works over there. The Department of Justice, they don't understand how the FBI works. You can't just say, I'm going to prosecute this guy and charge this guy and I'm going to do this and I'm going to do that. That's not how it works. Whether we want it to work that way or not, there are legal processes you have to go through with grand juries. Now here's the problem. Where's the grand jury located? In and around the Department of Justice and the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. who sits on the grand juries? Democrats who hate the president, who hate the administration. Makes it tough. I'm just pointing something out to you that you'll never read online because there's too many munchkins and mental midgets who are putting out thoughts who have no idea what they're talking about. What else? The vast majority of prosecutors at the federal level are not ours. They're career. The U.S. attorney is a presidential appointee. But you can see federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is right outside Washington, D.C. federal judges in New Jersey, which is an entire district on its own and elsewhere have ruled that appointments made by the President on a temporary basis, if they go over a certain period of time, are unconstitutional. And they're appointing the prosecutors. That's a problem, a big problem. Now people dump on Pam Bondi. I didn't like when Comer subpoenaed her on the Epstein files. You know, one of the problems over at the Department of Justice, I remember it when I was there the equipment is antiquated. Some of it's 20 years old. When you have millions and millions and millions of documents, it gets very complicated and difficult to process them. These aren't excuses, these are facts. Look, I don't have any dog in this hunt. There's none. None. Zero. On top of that, of all the records they've already received. All the records they've already received so far we know that Bannon had his head so far up Epstein's ass was coming out of his right nostril and that he had videos. And he's still out there with his big mouth blabbing away. A man who confessed to committing a felony against you, Mr. And Mrs. America. Nobody says anything about him. The Democrats couldn't find anything when they ran the Justice Department under Biden. So you have these, these comedians who are now podcasters. Rogan von whatever that other jerks name is. Smith, another jerk. Or you have broadcasters who've done nothing but broadcast podcasts. The same thing. Or you have slobs like this guy Alex Jones, who does very well in court. You may have noticed all these weirdos. And then I love it when they attack my buddy Dan Bongino. You had a chance to do this and you had a chance to do that. And these are people who don't know crap. Last time I checked, Epstein was in prison, convicted at least in part for his heinous acts. I don't think anybody is defending that, are they? Who is? But we are looking for politicians and others. Well, some have been found. Ehud Barak in Israel. Who by the way, the anti Semites and the Israel haters. The Woke. Right, the Marxist Islamists. They love that guy because he's constantly trying to overthrow Netanyahu. Who else? What's that? Royal inbred. I can't even remember his name in England. Do you remember him, Mr. Medusa, whatever his name is. The brother of the king. Prince Andrew, I think his name is. Obviously he's got a big problem. So there's some people who are being revealed. You have some people in business. Oh, I'm resigning. I'm sorry. Embarrassed. You got this guy that used to be the head of Harvard Summer or whatever, his name. He's resigned. I'm embarrassed. I resign. So some of them are getting picked off. But the fact is Trump had no role, whether Joe Rogan likes it or not. Anyway, we'll see who's next. We'll see how well they do. I'll be right back. His Operation Epic Fury intensifies the world Braces for what's to come next. And people of faith pray for freedom and for God's people in the Holy Land to be protected. And in the Holy Land. Red alert sirens fill the air, sirens that give you only 15 seconds to reach the nearest bomb shelter. The situation is serious. The threat is real. And in times like this, freedom and faith aren't just abstract ideas. They are what we depend upon. And the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food, first aid, emergency essentials for security personnel, while helping ensure hospitals and emergency rooms and shelters are stocked with critical medical supplies. This aid is focused on Israel's most vulnerable, the sick, the elderly, children, families in great need. But the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews needs your most generous gift today to make this work possible. So please rush your gift, which is tax deductible, by calling right away. 888-585 IFCJ. That's 888-585 IFCJ or online at Levin fellowship.org that's L V I N for the fellowship.org he's here.

[Producer/Caller]

He's here.

[Show Announcer]

Now broadcasting them from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a non descript building. We've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Lee.

[Mark Levin]

877-381-3811. We'll take calls at the bottom of the hour. Well, I'm afraid New York City is dying and dying quickly. There are now 750,000 Islamists, among others, in New York. The mayor is so bad they just downgraded the credit rating of the city. He wants to put in a property tax increase that will affect far more than the wealthy, like the non wealthy, as I warned you he would. And then in the state we have Hochul, Hochul, who is a complete incompetent boob. And now she's going to cut a deal with the teachers union because she knows that they're the bread and butter of the Democrat parties, especially in blue states. And listen to this from the New York Post Hochul in talks to make fat pork union deal that could lower retirement age for teachers to 55 as part of a staggering $1.5 billion plan. And that's in the first year. So Hochul is weighing a possible deal with a top union to allow public workers from teachers to nurses hired after 2012 to retire at 55, part of a proposal that would cost taxpayers a whopping $1.5 billion. Now folks, some of you may Agree or disagree. Cops are one thing. Firefighters are another thing. You know, emergency workers, I mean, their lives are on the line, their necks are on the line. It's really physically a brutal, you know, profession, these various professions. And so we're first responders. But you have teachers retiring at 55. They could live another 30, 40 years. And you're going to be paying those pensions and those health care benefits. Somebody has to replace that teacher on top of it. That is absolutely unsustainable. Absolutely unsustainable. But she could care less. It's part of this proposal that would cost taxpayers in New York a whopping $1.5 billion. The retirement age for workers with the New York AFL CIO who were hired in the past 14 years is 62. She'd knock seven years off. So the potential fat pork PAC involves more than a billion dollars in sweetened pension moves for these employees. Hochul is dealing directly with the New York AFL CIO president Mario Celent on behalf of the state's heavyweight teachers, health care and other public sector unions whose members top 2.5 million. The unions are pushing a proposal that would include lowering the retirement age from 62 to 55 for employees hired since 2012, known as Tier 6. Those hired before 2024 can currently retire at 55. The lower retirement age portion of the plan would cost an additional 836 million. The lowering of employees paycheck contributions to the pension would run about 593 million. Oh, let me get this straight. You believe this, Mr. Producer? You can retire not at 62, at 55 and pay less into your pension. So you know who's paying into that pension? The taxpayers. The taxpayers. I guess this is what the Democrats mean by affordability. Not your affordability, Mr. And Mrs. America, but they want to make sure that their favorite constituents who vote down the line 99%, who donate 99% of their party and so forth, are taken care of with your money. That's why people are getting the hell out of New York State, hell out of New York City. The additional costs would be handed down to school districts and local governments. They would be left with 328 million in additional costs. She's a complete fraud. Taxpayer money, really? This should be criminal taxpayer money to ensure her reelection. She believes the split could set up yet another fiscal showdown between Hochul and New York City Mayor Mandami, who are already warring over new taxes on businesses and the rich, with the socialized mayor pushing for more levies on the state's wealthiest. So you can see California's idea of growth is to chase off all the wealthiest residents they have, which means their businesses too, all the employees, all the medical benefits, all the pensions and all of the taxes they pay. Moving to a Texas or a Tennessee or Florida, you name it. Groups representing cities, counties and towns wrote in a joint statement that the state should pick up the tab of any deal it strikes, including putting pressure on schools and local governments. Something like Hochul's budget director told reporters Wednesday was a non starter. So she wants to spread the poverty across state and local and county governments. But what the unions are saying is no, no, no, the state, you just handle it because they know that in Albany what goes on, really not a lot of attention is paid to it in the local towns and so forth. Washington wouldn't reveal where Hochul that's Blake Washington, Hochul's budget director. What a joke. He wouldn't reveal where Hochul stood in the closed door talks at this point, but noted the price tag was a concern. The unions cry that the pension boosts are necessary to boost recruitment and retention. I've heard that line for 30 years. But notice how ICE is treated by the Democrats. Notice how the TSA is treated by the Democrats. Notice how the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard are treated by the Democrats because they're not all in line Democrats. That's why. If you want to add a statement from the United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew to the bottom of the story, the United Federation of Teachers president said the undoing tier, the 6, is a top priority for his group, but his top priority is to lower the retirement age from 62 to 55. Let me ask you something, Mr. What the hell are you going to do? You're 55 years old. You're literally going to retire for the rest of your life. Well, you're going to be subsidized and bored, right? And you know what you're going to do? You're going to move. Let me tell you a little story. You know, my residence is in Florida and I was in a diner. I like to go to the different diners there and I like to sit at the counter and I hear people talk from time to time. I heard this guy, he was the most obnoxious guy at the counter. I said, well look, this guy's from the northeast somewhere. I grew up around this. He's an older guy and he says he's a liberal Democrat. He announces, doesn't like Trump, doesn't like DeSantis, but he's in Florida. I said why in Florida? No income tax. No income tax. So he moved from New York City. I said, well, what did you do? I was a teacher. I said, so let me get this straight. You got a great pension, you got health care, you moved to Florida. So the people in New York are still paying, still paying for you. And don't tell me you paid into your pension, therefore you have enough money. That's not how it works. The guy retired, I think, at 62, and he's like in his 80s. That's fine. Okay, that's the deal. I got it. But he moves to Florida, so he's no longer part of the tax base of New York that I have a problem with. I really do. And then he complains about the Republicans in Florida, where he's not paying any state income tax on his pension. So he gets a pension out of New York. He's not paying any income tax on it in Florida. And he's whining about DeSantis in Florida when he moved his fat ass from New York City to Florida. What do you think of that guy, Mr. Producer? Unbelievable. least if you're going to move to Florida, shouldn't you at least embrace the government there run by the Republicans? And DeSantis, you ran to Florida because you didn't want to pay taxes on the pension that was paid for in part by him and the taxpayer. That's why these blue states are going to collapse eventually. Eventually they have to, because this can't go on. You can't take from the tax base and leave the state to go to a state where you don't pay any income taxes. It just mathematically doesn't add up. And so what Hochul wants to do here and Mandami is chase out the wealthiest of the citizens who pay the highest amount of taxes, despite what the Marxists say. And they're going to take their businesses with them, which means all the jobs, all those taxes and everything that's down the line economically. People buy food in the town, you know, and shoes and clothing and haircuts and all that, and they're going to move it and they're going to leave. And so the tax pace deteriorates. This is not rocket scientists. This is basic economics. And so what happens, they keep cannibalizing the citizens who remain, who can't afford this. You in New York, you in California, you in Illinois, you. You know who you are, New Jersey and so forth. You love your state, you love your home, you love your neighborhood, but it's going to be unaffordable for the average person. While they talk about taxing the rich and taking from the. It falls on your shoulders. You're going to have to pay for all these benefits, all these pension, all these property tax increases, all these income tax increases. It's you. You're the only place they can get it from. And yet I feel like with so many Democrats, I'm talking to deaf ears. And here's the thing, it's unaffordable. While they go on about affordability. Affordability, price of gasoline. Have you looked at your property tax lately? Have you looked at it? It's one of the most expensive things you have your mortgage and the property tax and what are you getting for your property tax? Many people aren't getting a damn thing. They're attacking the cops, reducing the number of cops, reducing the number of firefighters and emt. What are you getting? Safe neighborhoods, clean neighborhoods. I'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

Much love in.

[Mark Levin]

You.

[Callers]

Didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday.

[Solicitor General John Sauer]

Here to win.

[Callers]

Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet. Like the just one tapping ridiculously fast

[Mark Levin]

acting sky high sales stacking champion of checkouts. That's the good stuff right there. So if your business is in it

[Callers]

to win it, win with Shopify.

[Mark Levin]

Start your free trial [e-mail] win. Then we move all the way over to the other part of the country. California. California, here I come. Now it's California, here I go. What about this guy? Newscombe Newscombe. Under Gavin Newscomb's watch, fraud saturates California. From the California Post editorial board, our buddy Joel Pollack now is, I believe in charge of that. He's fantastic. He worked at Breitbart for many decades. That's the best one can say about Newscomb and the rest of California's Democratic ruling class. Following revelations this week from a City Journal investigation, a great group. The results of the probe published in the California Post found colossal fraud in nearly every large program the state administers. The biggest fraud, of course, is the governor. The results of the probe. Colossal fraud. Every damn program, wrote the investigators. Quote, the best estimate suggests that on the Governor's watch since 2018, fraudsters, scammers and organized crime rings have stolen at least ready $180 billion from the taxpayers. Hayes. Some. That is staggering. Staggering. And they want more money in California. Oh yeah. And this guy wants to be President of the United States. Represents an abysmal performance by state government. A record that calls for change, accountability and a massive shift in culture. A record, I will add, that calls for criminal prosecutions. The striking aspect of the City Journal probe was less about the details, many of which were already publicly known. But the big picture. From unemployment benefits to subsidized health care for the poor to in home health care benefits, to welfare and homelessness programs to allegedly a member of the governor's own office, fraud against taxpayers has saturated California. Christopher Ruffo One of the offers of the investigation estimates, based on intel from federal officials that 25% of the state's 197 billion annual MEDI Cal that's health care for the poor budget was lost to fraud. Astounding. That's almost $50 billion in one year and just in one program alone. Astounding. Newsom Attorney General Banta and other state officials could no longer dismiss examples of fraud as small or isolated or dealt with are the product of partisan politics. They'll try it anyway. They'll try it anyway. On the contrary, fraud here is colossal. Rampant, Ongoing, well documented state programs have proven easy targets with little oversight, few guardrails and a vast supply of other people's money. The governor and legislatures knew or should have known that these lax controls would send a valentine to thieves and scammers. But they've done little to course correct. That's why it's good to see the federal government, including prosecutors and President Trump's task force to eliminate fraud led by the vice president, take on the case. No one should expect California's governor and legislatures to fix this, given their record as enablers. Some of them in fact, deliberately make it worse. In at least one case, a state legislator has sought to ease penalties for fraud in state welfare programs. Got that? City Journal of Publication of the Manhattan Institute reported in April 2025, State Senator Lola Smallwood Cuavas sponsored a bill that would raise the threshold for felony Welfare fraud from $950 to $25,000. Got that? To $25,000. The measure would also make it more difficult to charge perjury based on misstatements to the county welfare departments. In other words, they're legalizing fraud. Republican State Assemblyman Carl DiMaio has said that if the bill becomes law, it will effectively legalize welfare fraud in California. It is so sick, this one party rule, rule, one party rule. This is what it does in Virginia. This scam Burger, she is destroying the state in a period of months. They have a huge super majority now in the state assembly. They have a majority in the state Senate and She's gone to town, man. She's gone to town. It's now a sanctuary state. They're going to have one Republican district if she has her way. She's destroying the tax base. She's increasing a new tax level on quote unquote the wealthy. It's just a friggin disaster. The fraud in California enabled by an arrogant political class is epic. So should the reckoning. And it's being, it's being cut, copied by other Democrat states. I'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

This is Liberty's 911 hotline, the Mark Levin Show. Call him now at 877-381-3811.

[Mark Levin]

All right, the number's back. 877-381-3811, take a couple calls and we'll get on to some other things. Let us go to Gary Winslow, Arizona XM Satellite. Gary, Go, go, go, go.

[Callers]

Yes sir, good evening. I just want to thank you for the way you break things down, especially regarding the Constitution and the amendments so that even an imbecile, which the left is, should be able to understand, but they don't. I'm glad that you put it in the words that you do so that everybody can understand it. And it's so simplistic. I don't know why they have a problem with it all.

[Mark Levin]

That's why they want to make it complicated and pretend they actually have an argument. It's really ridiculous.

[Callers]

Exactly. In this birthright immigration thing is totally insane. I mean the way you explained it, it makes sense. I mean it was for something that happened, you know, about a couple hundred years ago.

[Mark Levin]

It happened about 160 years ago and it was a way to make right or to try to make right through the Constitution. This whole issue of slavery and to create the foundation where black people would be treated equally. They'd be treated as citizens, their children would, and their future families would as well. And all of a sudden now it's about illegal aliens coming from China or other parts of the world where they're playing the system to the tune of millions and millions of people. It's outrageous.

[Callers]

It doesn't make any sense at all.

[Mark Levin]

It makes sense if you want to overthrow the country. It makes sense if you want one party rule, Democrat rule, like you have in California, New York and some of these other states, then it makes sense because you want to change the citizenry, you want to change the electoral college, you want to change the House of Representatives and then you want to change the Supreme Court. This is revolution by immigration. I've Called it that for what, 20 years. That's exactly what it is.

[Callers]

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I spent over 22 years in the service and it just blessed me the way they destroyed their country.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah. And they, and they. It's not even. It's like they've already destroyed a big chunk of it and they're trying to destroy the rest of it. You know, it's not future tense happening right now, it's present tense.

[Callers]

But somehow we should be able to put our foot down and put a stop to this.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, you'd think so. You'd think so. But look at your state of Arizona. Should be a Republican state. You got all these Democrats moving in from California, among other things. And your governor, your lieutenant governor and your attorney general, all Democrats. No, I mean, your two senators are Democrats. Right, Right. Your governor's a Democrat, your attorney general's a Democrat. Now, sometimes you have lousy candidates. That's part of the problem. But that said, I mean, I would vote for a kumquat over any of these radical kook Democrats, to be honest with you. I'd vote for an orange juice. Can

[Callers]

probably get more logic out of it.

[Mark Levin]

That's probably right. Thank you for your service. Very good. Appreciate it. Let's go to Julie. I like that name. Santa Monica, California, on the Mark Levin app. How are you?

[Julie (Caller)]

I'm very well, Mark. How are you?

[Mark Levin]

Good, thank you.

[Julie (Caller)]

Okay, I'm calling about birthright, quote, citizenship. First of all, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. To quote that line from the movie, I have four points I wanted to make about it. First of all, subject to the jurisdiction. Who decides that they have jurisdiction? The illegal alien.

[Mark Levin]

Well, I just said that the illegal alien doesn't get to decide and self and create jurisdiction for him or herself by coming in illegally. That's preposterous. It's absolutely irrational. Next point before we run out of time.

[Julie (Caller)]

Exactly. Immigration law. What's the point of immigration laws if this citizenship law just. Why even pass immigration law? Because this is. Don't even bother. Just come in the country, have a baby and you'll become a citizen.

[Mark Levin]

Well, that's where we are right now. That's where we are.

[Julie (Caller)]

And then third, the United. If they're residents of the United States and the state wherein they reside, obviously, if they've just come over the border and plopped a baby, they don't reside anywhere. They just.

[Mark Levin]

That's correct.

[Julie (Caller)]

Step foot in our country. So there is no residency. And obviously people are yeah. What was the point of the Mexican American war or war against Islamists if all they have to do is send instead of sending soldiers and fighting a war, Christian people have babies and enough population.

[Mark Levin]

Well, your last point there, Julie, you can see it's already happened. People come in here, some legally, some illegally. They have children and so they call these anchor babies so the parents don't leave and can't leave because the child's not a citizen. And you see a lot of this going on in the country. You wake up and you go, how the hell did this happen in 10 years? We literally have outposts, segregated communities by choice, with imams basically running the communities with their own schools, with Sharia law as the law of the land. You know, they're going to turn this country into Britain and France. And look what happened to Britain and France in the last 15, 20 years. These are left wing governments that have created these scenarios that won't enforce the immigration law. And now we're about to see if John Roberts, who kind of blew off the issue of the impact on the nation, blew it off. Now we're going to see if the Roberts court constitutionalizes this and if it does, it will never be a legitimate court again. That's it.

[Julie (Caller)]

Yep. And as far as congressional representatives, they have to establish residency in their state or county before they.

[Mark Levin]

Oh, they're supposed to.

[Julie (Caller)]

Some of them don't see how come illegal aliens don't have to.

[Mark Levin]

Well, I don't see the connection in that regard. They have to have residency in those communities as a matter of constitutional law to represent those communities. So. But I think all your other arguments are good. And some of these guys don't like Swalwell, doesn't really have a residence in California, but he's running for governor in California. They're so sleazy. Shift the same thing. Most of them have homes in and around Washington, D.C. all right, Julie, great call and great, great points. I appreciate it very much. Let's see here. Hold on, hold on. I'm trying to get to as many calls as I can. Let us go to Rick, Wichita Falls, Texas on XM Satellite. How are you?

[Callers]

How you doing, Mark?

[Mark Levin]

Okay.

[Callers]

Anybody who ever read Men in Black knows exactly what you're talking about with the judges.

[Mark Levin]

Thank you. Thank you. My first book.

[Callers]

No. One of the best reads of my life. I just have to tell you though, you know, the whole thing with the anchor babies, it really, it infuriates me because my grandfather is 95 years old. He's a veteran of two wars. And yet the IRS is still hounding him for money.

[Mark Levin]

Oh my God.

[Callers]

But somehow people can come into this country, have a baby and by virtue of that they are open to every kind of benefit that you can imagine. Yet what does my grandpa get for what he did for his?

[Mark Levin]

That is terrible. Terrible. And look, and look, I just mentioned in California. Look at all the graph. Upwards of 25% of every dollar spent on every government program there is spent fraudulently. And nobody goes to prison. The governor's not held to account. It's a one party state. Go ahead.

[Callers]

I'm just saying my dad, my whole father's side of the family is from California. And every time I go out and visit them I'm like, I don't know how the heck you people live here, I really don't. And I have some really great cousins who are like, you know what? I'd give anything to move out of this state. And I understand, you know what I mean? But it just, it blows my mind that people can come into this country, have babies, get every kind of service in the world provided for them. But yet my grandfather, two wars, the oldest living veteran in the county of Wichita and yet the IRS is still hounding him.

[Mark Levin]

That's terrible.

[Callers]

It's like, how does this happen? You know what I mean?

[Mark Levin]

Yeah. All right, man, thank you for your call. That's very sad for sure. I'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

Mud loving.

[Mark Levin]

What a three hour program. I really enjoyed it. We're, we're not done. All right, let's see if we can sneak in a couple more here. Let's give it a shot. Let's go to Michael Commerce, Texas XM Satellite. How are you?

[Callers]

I'm pretty good, Mark. How about yourself?

[Mark Levin]

Good. Thank you, buddy.

[Callers]

You're welcome. It's great privilege to talk to you again. I've been listening to you for a long time. You're very knowledgeable. I was thinking like last night, out of the blue, I said, how does this guy have any time for his wife? I, I mean, you can't like slam the show together. I know you have to do your research, et cetera, et cetera.

[Mark Levin]

How do I do what? I couldn't hear you.

[Callers]

Your research and stuff like that. Put your show together, you know.

[Mark Levin]

Can I tell you the truth? I don't sleep very much.

[Pam Bondi]

Much.

[Mark Levin]

I just don't because things get under my skin. Things start to bother me. So like, I'll take a little break and I'll be at this till two in the morning or so and then, then I'll wake up at six in the morning, so I get about two, three hours sleep, four tops. Then I save some sleep for the weekend, but that's it.

[Callers]

You got that Saturday and Sunday show too.

[Mark Levin]

That's right.

[Callers]

Man, you're, man, you're a tough one.

[Mark Levin]

Well, I mean, called an old boomer, you know. Tell me. So I got a question for you, Michael. A lot of common sense. So when you go online, it's really a toxic kind of cesspool. And you got a lot of young people, you got a lot of foreigners, governments, you got a lot of bots and they go, oh, you're an old time boomer. Let me ask you something. If I'm an old time boomer, why do they keep attacking me, right? If I don't have any impact, why do they keep attacking me, right? You know, you want to know why? Because I got people like you in my audience. Red blooded Americans who have common sense, who love their country, who love our founding. That's who we are. And these fools will never understand it, will they?

[Callers]

No, sir. My, my, it's this been word meant for a long, long time before Madonna. Dual citizenship. I mean, we got good people that come over here and get their citizenship and they're proud to be Americans. They want to fit in with our Constitution, our way of life, you know. You know, they, they appreciate what they come here from countries you couldn't imagine living in. So when you wake up every morning, if you're American, thank God you're American.

[Mark Levin]

Amen. We're blessed to be born in this country. Blessed, yes, sir. And people are coming into this country and trying to destroy it over our dead body.

[Callers]

Yes, sir. In the Madani thing, I was, I think it was maybe Facebook. I don't think it was Newsmax. Anyway, this guy was saying, hey, I moved, I went to Florida. He's a businessman. He said, they're all packing up and moving to Florida and Texas. And I started thinking, wow, they elected him. I kind of see a pattern there. So.

[Mark Levin]

I see it too.

[Callers]

Yeah, exactly.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, I know what you're saying. And it's, and it's not good. These aren't just Democrats now. These are radical Marxists and Islamists and people who do not believe in the country. People who want to conquer us, people who want to change the entire nature of the country. My attitude is live and let live. But when people come into the country and their attitude is, you'll live how we tell you to live, that's where that's a red line for us. Great call, my man. We had a lot of great calls. I want to thank you all. We salute our armed forces, police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, our truckers, ice. Thank you very much. And we salute also our friends in the Ukraine and Israel, our Persian brothers and sisters, and you, the American people. People. Red blooded Yanks. Thank God for you. See you tomorrow.