Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
Jack Posobic
This is an iHeart podcast, Guaranteed Human. This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare. A commentator, international social media sensation and
- [00:22]
Unidentified Navy Intelligence Veteran
former Navy intelligence veteran, this is Human
- [00:24]
Jack Posobic
Events with your host, Jack Posobic. Christ, is President Trump literally physically headed to the Supreme Court where oral arguments will be held over his push to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants and temporary visitors to the US you're going to go to the Supreme
- [00:41]
Legal Historian or Analyst
Court tomorrow, I do believe, and just
- [00:43]
Jack Posobic
sit there and listen because I have listened to this argument for so long. How does the citizenship clause respond specifically to Dred Scott?
- [00:52]
Legal Historian or Analyst
Dred Scott, you know, impose one of the worst injustices in the history of this court and it led to the outbreak of the Civil War. It's very clear in this court, in all of its early cases interpreting the 14th amendment said, you know, the one pervading purpose, the main object of the citizenship clause is to overrule Dred Scott and establish the citizenship of the freed slaves. If you look at the debates in the Congressional record and discussion surrounding the adoption of the citizenship clause, what you see is a very clear understanding that the newly freed slaves and their children
- [01:23]
Jack Posobic
and have a. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily. We're here live Real America's Voice showdown at the Supreme Court today, April 1, 2026 on the question birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Mike Davis of the Article 3 project joins us now. Mike, how are you?
- [01:45]
Mike Davis
I'm doing well, Jack. Thank you for having me.
- [01:49]
Jack Posobic
So, Mike, let us know from the start, what did you think of the arguments? How do you think the court's going to come down on this? I'm seeing a lot of mixed opin opinion out there.
- [01:57]
Mike Davis
I think President Trump's Solicitor General, John Sauer, did a phenomenal job today of making the compelling legal arguments. If the Supreme Court justices follow the 14th Amendments, if they follow the plain text in the original public meeting, this is a very easy polit. This is a very easy legal case. What I'm worried about, Jack, is politics seeps into these cases. And I just hope that the Supreme Court justices showed up with their ropes today instead of their capes, instead of I hope they follow the law. The law is very clear. The 14th Amendment, the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was enacted to overturn the Dred Scott decision, the post Civil War Supreme Court decision that said that the freed slaves are not American citizens. And so we enacted the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery, the 14th amendment to provide due process and equal protection to the Freed slaves and the 15th amendment to provide voting rights to the freed male slaves. That was extended to black women with the 19th Amendment. But as part of the 14th Amendments, we overturned the Dred Scott decision with the birthright citizenship clause, and it gave birthright citizenship to the freed slaves. Now, the language talks about all persons born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And that part is key. You have to be both born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction. American Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And so Congress had to pass birthright citizenship for American Indians by statute. So you have to ask this dispositive question of these justices, those who auditioned as textualists and originalists to get their jobs. If American Indians are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United states under the 14th Amendment, how the hell would illegal aliens be subject to the jurisdiction? And the answer is they clearly are not. Again, this is a very easy legal case.
- [04:19]
Jack Posobic
Well, that's exactly right. And everyone understands the history of this and the purpose of the Indian Naturalization act, which came later about 40, you know, 40, 50 years later, I believe in the 1924, that. That gave the citizenship to the American Indians. And obviously there were a series of wars that were fought with the American Indian, Custer's Last Stand. All of these things took place in the intervening years. So the idea that this would apply to all of these extraneous groups, like some kind of giant umbrella, which is what the ACLU is trying to argue, it just doesn't hold any water whatsoever with the actual historical record, does it?
- [05:00]
Mike Davis
No. And this is. This is crucial, Jack, our most crucial sovereign power as we the people, the sovereign citizens of America, is controlling our border and controlling our populace, deciding who gets to come, who gets to go, and who gets the benefit of citizenship. And we never agreed to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, not at our founding, not after the Civil war with the 14th amendment, and not any subsequent Congress since then. Now you see a Fox News poll that shows that birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is widely popular, has 67% support among Americans. Okay, well, if that's the case, the Supreme Court should be more modest here and decide the 14th amendment, like the Supreme Court decided for American Indians, which it doesn't apply to illegal aliens. And let Congress decide, let we the people decide through our elected members of Congress, we whether we want to grant birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, just like we did for American Indians. Let's just. Let's just hope and pray that these six Republican appointed Supreme Court justices, those who claim they're textualist and originalist have the modesty to do that. Let's just hope that they wear robes instead of capes.
- [06:26]
Jack Posobic
There's no question about it. And it's something where you look at maga, you look at everything that we've done, you looked at everything we've come up for. This has always been about these questions. Mike, can you hang on for one more segment? There's a couple more pieces I want to hit, or maybe I'll hold you over for a little bit.
- [06:41]
Mike Davis
Yep, you got it.
- [06:43]
Jack Posobic
All right. We're holding him over. We're holding over Mike Davis. The elusive Mike Davis here. Human Events Daily. End in our wave, and our golden age has just begun. This is Human Events with Jack Posoba. Now it's time for everyone to understand what America first truly means. Welcome to the second American Revolution. Jack back live here. Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice. Ron with Mike Davis, Article 3 Project. We're talking about the Supreme Court showdown on birthright citizenship. And Mike, I gotta say, man, you mentioned there was this poll that came out about the children of illegal aliens, and it's like 60% supports. I just don't buy that. I just don't buy. How do you have a country where Donald Trump, who runs on the policy of mass deportations, and he says it over and over and over, wins the popular vote, wins seven out of seven of the swing states, and now people are trying to tell us that, oh, illegal, you know, children, birthright citizenship for illegal alien children is. Is popular. Who did you poll illegal aliens? Like, just. I don't buy that. I don't buy that for a second. I don't think that's true. I think these things are wildly unpopular. I think illegal immigration is wildly unpopular in the United States. I think that birth tourism is wildly unpopular in the United States, not to mention a gross violation of our sovereignty, as you say, it's a gross violation of our country. It's a violation of the sovereign powers of the executive here. The United, the President, United States. These, all of these things are violations of our country, violations of the rights of our people, and the violations of the rights, obviously, of our duly elected president, United States. But, but, Mike, that being said, these are complex, thorny issues. The justices in some of these cases involving immigration, we know they had to say, at the least, they've gotten a little wobbly. Do you think this is an uphill battle for the administration with not just this court, but with the courts in general?
- [08:56]
Mike Davis
I worry this is a 7 to 2 case. And I worry that the only two justices who will actually have the courage to follow the law here are Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito. I worry that the Chief justice and the three Trump justices will join the three leftists who will always vote against President Trump. But again, the law is so crystal clear here that we the people, the sovereign citizens of America, get to decide who comes, who goes, get to decide who our fellow citizens are. And we didn't give that away. We certainly did not give that away after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment, the birthright citizenship clause was to correct an egregious wrong with the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that held that the freed slaves are not citizens. We fix that with the 14th amendments. There have been, there is a Supreme Court case that has extended that to lawful and permanent residents of the United States, the Chinese exclusion case. But there is no way in hell that the proponents of the 14th Amendment or the public at the time, ever agreed to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, to give birthright citizenship to 1.5 Chinese birth tourists who are coming to America, giving birth in America, going back to China where they never step foot in America again. They're American citizens, And then in 18 years, they get a vote, they get a mail in their vote from Beijing. There's no way in hell we agree to that. And if the Supreme Court actually holds that the 14th Amendment gives birthright citizenship to Chinese birth tourist, the Supreme Court is going to torch its legitimacy with the American people.
- [10:49]
Jack Posobic
I think that's exactly right. And I think the legitimacy is going to absolutely come in question. And look, if that's the case, if that is the case, and they come out saying that we need a Supreme Court or, excuse me, a constitutional amendment to overturn birthright citizenship and to hammer this out, and you know, you could even just call it a revision of the 14th Amendment, then by all means, by all means, we can push it. The President can push it. This would be a popular effort. This would absolutely get passed. I think it would definitely get passed. It's something, by the way, that could even become an entirely new way to change the midterm elections this year. If we put that on the ballot and we say we are fighting for the citizens of the United States of America and, and to end this scourge once and for all, a constitutional amendment. And by the way, not just on birthright citizenship, on all immigration laws. Mike Davis, I know you got to run. Where can people follow you, brother?
- [11:48]
Mike Davis
Thank you, Jack. Article3project.org Article number three Project DAWK.
- [11:54]
Jack Posobic
All right, Mike Davis, give him a follow. Folks. You know this guy is going to give it to you straight when he tells you that this is an uphill battle and warns that that could we, we could be facing a 7 to 2 decision upholding birthright citizenship. Folks, I gotta tell you, America is entering its 250th year and the direction of this country is being decided right now in our culture and our economy and who we choose to support matters more than ever. Most wireless companies don't care who you are or what you believe. They just want your money. Patriot Mobile is different. For more than 12 years they have stood with Americans who just who believe that freedom is worth defending for funding the conservative Christian movement when others stayed silent. And here's the deal. You don't have to give up quality or service when you switch to Patriot Mobile. They deliver premium priority access on all three major US networks So you'll get the same or better coverage than you have today. Think switching is a hassle? It isn't. Keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade. Their 100%. US based support team can activate you in minutes. Are you still paying off a device? Patriot Mobile even offers you a contract buyout. This is a defining year. We have to work together to save our country. Go to patriot mobile.com poso or call 972-PATRIOT for a free month of service. That's patriot mobile.com posto or 972 Patriot. Make the switch today. All right folks, we are continuing our coverage of this situation. The showdown at the Supreme Court. And by the way, let me just, let me just pull this out for a second. Let me just walk people through this. Like let's, let's say, you know, in the scenario, in the scenario where we get a 72 decision against or even a 5, whatever it is, whatever it is, if birthright citizens upheld. Imagine this. Imagine the political ramifications of making the 2026 midterm election and the 2028 election all about a constitutional amendment on birthright citizenship and on immigration in general. An illegal alien amendment. It's time for an illegal alien amendment to the US Constitution where we go through all of these things, we go through chapter and verse, all of the issues that are being caused in our nation right now. So John Roberts, and you saw that, that line that he said earlier where he said, oh, it's a, you know, you know, it's a new world, but it's an old constitution. That's the point right the 14th amendment was decided in the wake of the Civil War and as such was decided in the world of the 1860s. It is a world that is fundamentally different in so many ways. Immediate flights, immediate travel that's able birthright citizenship, which was unthinkable in those times, is available now. So what is the proper remedy? An amendment to the United States Constitution. I right here on Human Events Daily and proposing a constitutional amendment on illegal immigration. Joshua Lysak, author, a New York multiple New York Times bestselling author, joins us now. Also the co author of UN Humans joins us. Joshua, you've been listening to this case. You've been listening to the debate. What do you think? What, what do you think, by the way, right there of my scheme of saying, you know what, let's put this up to the American people, let's push for a constitutional amendment on illegal immigration. Do you think that would be popular? Do you think that would reframe the midterm elections and the next series of elections and really our politics in this country writ large?
- [15:38]
Joshua Lysak
Yes, I think so. One of the refrains of my and many other Trump supporters positions has been with a simple rhyme, stay on track. They all go back. All economic malaise and other socio political disruptions we have for our current generations, they all go back to immigration. It's simple matter of supply and demand. And what infuriates most of the American patriots I'm talking to is the sorts of advocates for unfettered immigration like Cecilia Wang, who is advocating for birthright citizenship today at the United States Supreme Court. She herself was born to immigrants in Oregon. She is ethnically Han Chinese. Her parents are from Taiwan. She was born in Oregon. Now she gets to be a U.S. citizen. She's been saying to all the protesters and supporters of hers outside the Supreme Court, you are all American. She's saying, you're all American citizens. So what's happening and what has happened for decades now is what it means to be American. The adjective no longer equates to what it means to be an American as a citizen. And the great crisis of our age and of our culture going forwards and if we don't win, we don't have a country. The great crisis is to recouple citizenship and heritage, American identity. And that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but that is the reality that we face. Otherwise. If anyone can be in America, then everyone is an American. We have 8 billion potential Americans in the world. How does that make it?
- [17:15]
Jack Posobic
Well, I love, I love that. Yeah, I was just gonna say so. So so this transforms everyone. And obviously we've had this conversation before, but this, this is the rhetoric and this is the ideology in the worldview that everyone outside the, outside the country, outside the compounds of the United States is a sort of pre American. They're just waiting to become an American. They're the, as soon as they cross the magical threshold of America's borders, America on magic dirt transforms them into America. You heard Katanji Brown Jackson saying this as well, that, well, even if the parents don't have allegiance to the United States, then wouldn't, wouldn't the child potentially have allegiance to the United States? I mean, someone's not even born yet, by the way. I love the fact that I'm just going to say it. Kind of interesting how all of a sudden when it's an immigrant's baby and, or an illegal alien's baby, when they are pregnant women, then suddenly they are children. But in the context of abortion, you never ever hear them argue this.
- [18:15]
Joshua Lysak
Because they're not white. Jack.
- [18:19]
Jack Posobic
Exactly. No, exactly. Joshua, we are coming up on a little break here. I want to hold you over because there's so much to dig into here. And you're right that these are fundamentally questions of identity. What does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to have allegiance? And you better believe that in the 1860s, right after a massive war was fought between the northern and southern states, the questions of allegiance were first and foremost and primary on Americans minds. Right back, Jack. POS Daily. Hey, you know, they talk about influences. These are influences and they're friends of mine. Jack. Where's Jack? He's got a Great job.
- [19:18]
Legal Historian or Analyst
Page 2890 of the Congressional Record from 1866. Senator Cowan gives this virulently racist statement where he says that. And what does he say right at the beginning of that, that sort of offensive speech? He says, he says we can't have children of gypsies, children of Chinese immigrants. We can't have them become citizens. And he says, quote, have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States. So he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have children who become citizens. So there's powerful evidence there that everybody understood this to, you know, not sweep in the temporary sojourner.
- [19:55]
Jack Posobic
All right, Jack, we're back live here, Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice Realm with Joshua Lyseck. And Joshua, you know, you heard the Solicitor General there, Solicitor General Sauer there. And what I want people to do, and I think this is important, is that we're, we have an issue of frames here. And you saw Ketanji Brown Jackson doing this over and over saying, oh, well, if I go to Japan and I steal a wallet, I'm subject to the jurisdiction of the Japanese laws. It was just ridiculous statements. Or, you know, even Robert saying, oh, well, it's a new world, but it's an old constitution. Is it? Just, just let's, let's, let's, let's actually understand that. Because the frame of the framers of this law, because we do have to look at the frame, we're having an argument about frame. This isn't actually a, an argument about words, it's an argument about frame. Because if you adopt them frame of today, then of course you apply all of the, the situations of today, the exclusions of today. But if you adopt the frame, we're just trying to understand the intent we're just trying to understand the intent behind the 14th amendment. What was America in 1866? And there's this question of the American Indians. Well, guess what? We didn't even have a full United States in 1866. There was a series of wars that were fought between America, the American army and American Indians during this time. So their status as citizens. Right. Didn't duly come up until the 1920s. Why? Because it was a different world. You had, the Russian Empire was still on the American continent. The Spanish Empire was in Cuba. The British Empire was, you know, sort of lurking about and, you know, was, was up in Canada. Still, the Spanish American War wouldn't come for another 30 years. So the idea that we could just again apply every single little standard of the current situation to something like immigration, which by its very nature is something that a nation can dial up and dial down at any time, is something that we need to take into consideration. And again, I'm just talking about the definitional, the definitional concepts behind these words like jurisdiction, these words like allegiance, what all of these things meant to the framers at the time. So there was a situation where Justice Gorsuch asked a question about, well, would this apply to, you know, American Indians? It's like, well, at the time, American Indians were in, in territories. They weren't even in states. So, you know, again, people have to put themselves back into the world of this. This is, I mean, you had the Wild west still going on in 1866. This was a fundamentally different country than we are now. And those were the words that they were using. So, Joshua, this is what I want to try to split apart. I know, you're so good at this. There is a difference between us saying that legal standards are eternal, but also to understand the frame of the words that does actually change. Doesn't.
- [23:09]
Joshua Lysak
Does. Yes, and this is where original intent becomes key. But also this opposing position, which is a sort of living document business. You know, it seems like the birthright citizenship advocates are advocating for the most, let's say, merciful and inclusive possible interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Whereas when they go to the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Second Amendment, how many infringing laws, federally, state and local are there upon firearm ownership? Oh, absolutely. And then the conservative, the reasonable Republican, the normal average American person says to themselves, well, why the double standards? That's not right. The double standards are the point. Consider the motive of those who advocate for birthright citizenship. The context of this is to be an American citizen is to be granted immense privileges, such as the privileges of welfare and other federally available, let's say, services and experiences that are available to citizens. Well, if you look at contribution, net taxpayer contribution from various groups, those who are native born, those who are naturalized, and then various legal and illegal immigrants from different countries, you see an interesting sort of a picture emerge from the bar graphs and charts here where the heritage American keys into the system. Whereas the newcomer, the illegal immigrant, in many cases and from many different countries, many different ethnic groups are net takers. They're here for the gimmes and stimmies. That's why they want the birthright citizenship. It's free money.
- [24:55]
Jack Posobic
That's exactly right. And Joshua, and I'm just going to say this by the way, because I think it's very obvious, but you know, when you have the ACLU lawyer and she's coming up out there saying, oh, you're all Americans, you're all Americans too, she knows what she's doing. She knows exactly what she's doing. She knows what the implications are of what she's pushing. She knows what she is advocating for a mass restructuring of the United States. She knows the implications of her arguments, and she does want all noncitizens to be automatically granted citizenship in the most, the most open and the most expansive way possible because she understands what it would do to the United States in terms of destabilizing our system of laws, our system of government in furtherance of what you just said, of allowing these masses of millions of people to come to the United States and automatically be granted citizenship and gimmes under our Laws.
- [25:57]
Joshua Lysak
Yes, it's often said that oh the great replacement is just a conspiracy theory. And then for years you have had let's say Democratic aligned influencers, politicians, even their allies and proxies amongst the NGO community. They will say things like in one breath, obviously that's a conspiracy theory amongst racists followed by and it's good that it's happening thing and we're spending billions of taxpayer dollars to make sure it happens even more. Ultimately the vision is to make the United States a permanent one party state in much the same way that that California has had unrestricted warfare engage against it by the Chinese Communist Party. That same objective is meant for the United States of America.
- [26:45]
Jack Posobic
Precisely. Right Jack? So big Joshua Lysack right back. Where's Jack? Where's Jack? Where is he? Jack, I want to see you. Great job, Jack. Thank you. What a job you do. You know we have an incredible thing. We're always talking about the fake news and the bad. But we have guys and these are the guys who've been getting bullishers. All right, Jack Sobook here. We are back Human events Daily. Real America's voice. Folks, let me be blunt. Before the crashes of 1999 and 2008, rare market signal appeared. Most people ignored it. The smart money didn't. Gold and stocks are rising at the same time and that is not normal. Stocks are supposed to rise when confidence is strong. Gold rises when confidence starts to break. They move in opposite directions until something underneath the system is off. Well, right now they're both breaking records again. That has only happened twice before. Major market repricing events. Does that mean it crashes tomorrow? No, but it does mean that risk may be dangerously mispriced. Gold doesn't surge because it's popular. It moves. When currency confidence weakens, debt explodes and central banks prepare quietly behind the scenes. Here's what should get your attention. Banks are buying gold at record levels right now. They're not guessing. Gold doesn't depend on earnings. It doesn't depend on credit markets. It doesn't depend on political promises. Stocks. Do you have savings or retirement account? You don't get a do over. This is about protection, not speculation. So give them a call. 844-577-POSO or visit protectwithposo.com that's 844-577- P O. Excuse me, 844-577-776 or protect with POSO. That's P Oso.com learn how a gold IRA can help shield what you've worked decades to build. Call 844-577-776. And folks want to remind everyone that Real America's Voice is of course going to be covering the Artemis 2 launch tonight in just about four hours time, 6:24pm Eastern standard. This is going to be just an incredible mission and hats off to the brave American astronauts that are going to be on this mission. Another programming note, Turning Point USA will be streamed live tomorrow night, a huge event at George Washington University featuring Erica Kirk, the CEO of Turning Point usa, Caroline Levitt, the press secretary of the White House and yours truly, Jack Posobic. And I will endeavor to hold my head straight as opposed to the corkscrew way that they have it on the, on the shot here. But yes, we'll be all be there tomorrow at George Washington University. So make sure you tune in to Real America's Voice. Where are we gonna be covering that live tomorrow night? And then of course, tonight, The President speaks. 9:00pm I broke last night on a Fox hit that I'm hearing talk of a grand deal that the President United States may be presenting tonight to the American people. Talk about the success of our military and political objectives in Iran. And then a grand deal. And connecting the dots all the way back to why this was started, this military operation and bringing us to today in alignment with our regional partners, the Arab nations working of course with Pakistan and now China with their five point policies. We're going to get into all of that. And Real America's Voice of course, will be covering that live as well. Joshua Lysk, we were talking about this, the destabilization, right. The ACLU understands the destabilization to the United States. And this is not the ACLU of the past which supported everyone's free speech rights. No, they were. This is the ACLU of today, which is simply another vehicle of the massive far left. And this is this, of course, was our thesis in Unhumans that they understand the destabilization effect of their policies. Mondami understands that what he's doing is gonna destroy New York. Karen Bass understands that what she's doing is going to destroy the Los Angeles community, the Los Angeles city. The destruction is the point, isn't it?
- [31:25]
Joshua Lysak
Yes, that's correct. What we consistently see from those conversations and those crises and also from today with birthright citizenship, I noticed that when we make an argument, let's say, against birthright citizenship. And I think a fellow named Ealtheo Wold did a good example of this. He said it's a simple constitutional question. Does the 14th Amendment require that America Accept children born to illegal foreigners as citizens. The answer is quite obviously no. If the right of American citizenship belongs to the world, then America is no longer a sovereign country. That's the point. The various arguments we make against birthright citizenship turned inside out become their arguments for it. When we say no, that takes from American taxpayers who've been, whose families have been here for centuries. Yes, that's the point. But that grants effectively more rights to non taxpayers, non net taxpayers at the expense of the. Yes, that's the point. But that grants a greater advantage to the Democratic candidates and areas and the census and representation. And yes, that's the point. So our arguments against it are their arguments for it. All left wing vitriol in the form of activism like the aclu, which is effectively a proxy for the most progressive let's, so called interests of the Democratic Party party. Our arguments, or rather their arguments in favor of hurting us are our arguments against being hurt. It's completely different, or rather, shall we say at odds viewpoints. And I think the more this goes on, it becomes very clear that those of us on the right who have a level playing field, let's keep everything fair, rules based mentality or at a disadvantage because they're not playing the same game at us, they're not following the rules, they will get whatever they want. It's like, oh, you didn't decide what I, what I wanted. Well, I'm going to, you know, destroy you. And that's, that's, that's, that's the point. And it's like, what are you gonna do about that? You don't, you don't have a country if that's, if that's the case.
- [33:38]
Jack Posobic
So we'll see if that is, that is the point. And I want to play. We've got a clip here that's actually showing exactly what you're talking about. And I think it aligns the point that. Guys, let's play SOT9 not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth. And he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power? And there you go right there. So you've got Justice Alito talking about, wait a minute, what about the children of foreigners that are subject to foreign military service? What about the children of, oh, I don't know, spies to the United States of America? Would they be automatically granted citizenship and of course, the ACLU replied, yes, yes, they do. Even if they owe the reason they say that jurisdiction, they owe their allegiance. Go ahead, go ahead.
- [34:53]
Joshua Lysak
Oh, yeah, well, of course they're going to say that because if you, if you understand that this is America, it's Team America versus Team Anti America, everyone's motives begin to make sense. And you can now with accuracy, predict what's going to happen next, who's going to say what. You know, there's lots of word persuasion happening and word thinking and did the founders mean this and then the Indians this and foreign dignitaries and diplomats that. But ultimately it comes down to, is the United States a sovereign country? Is it an economic zone for sending people to get their gimmes and stimmies from your own ethnicity, race or tribe at the expense of the heritage American taxpayer, who is a net positive taxpayer? And the various groups that are having advocates on their behalf, like the aclu, for example, coming in, they're net takers. They're not givers, largely speaking, but they're takers from the system. It's simply benefiting one group at the expense of, of the other. And that other is the United States. So magic dirt hypothesis, it sounds like that really is what is being decided here. Do you become American? Obviously, that's ridiculous. You don't immediately adopt the culture, the norms, the values of a place. But our position is that the United States of America is not an economic zone. It's our home.
- [36:22]
Jack Posobic
And this is exactly what Alito has done. He's exposed them, he's actually exposed them with this argument by saying that you would allow potentially foreign, military or military eligible citizens, military eligible children to gain automatic American citizenship. This is a farce. This is a joke. This is ridiculous. And obviously something that we should all take note of, specifically when we're talking about foreign allegiance. We should not be glib about these things. And again, of course, you know, you'll hear the same thing from the far left when they, when they, you know, say they're, oh, we have to be so worried about foreign disinformation running our elections. And it's sort of the old, the old joke that, you know, we have to pass voter ID so that Putin can't steal the elections again. Well, maybe we have to strike down birthright tourism so Putin can't steal American citizenship. Joshua, I know you gotta run. Tell us, tell us where to go and follow you and everything you're working on.
- [37:22]
Joshua Lysak
Sure thing. Yes, I've got quite a few books coming out this year. I turned in literally Number four, manuscript of number five so far this year. I'm me and my various antics are over at Joshua Lysik on X. Last thing that I want to point out is I believe the ultimate goal of birthright citizenship promoters is to have a third world president as president of the United States via birthright citizenship.
- [37:44]
Jack Posobic
Wow.
- [37:45]
Joshua Lysak
His parents were illegal aliens.
- [37:48]
Jack Posobic
Wow. No, it's exactly right. Joshua Lysak, take that to the bank. I completely agree with that prediction and I would put money on it. Jack Posobic. Right back. Human Events Daily. Call this the Jack Posobic Appreciation Hour. I can say confidently, I believe, I think Josh Shapiro would be the vice presidential nominee if it wasn't for Jack Bosobic. And that is I think.
- [38:18]
Unidentified Navy Intelligence Veteran
And I was thinking, you know, I'm, I'm. I U.S. citizen and visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on. Even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it? And if. If so, doesn't that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of quote unquote allegiance just by virtue of being in the United States?
- [39:21]
Jack Posobic
Oh. Oh my gosh. No. I get. She triggers my sinuses. She just, she triggers my. And like the pollen count is high this year, but she's triggering my sign like I just, I can't, I can't. It's the stupidity. It is the sheer stupidity of an auto pen justice. And that's what she is. Don't. Do not forget that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was put there chosen and that the commission was signed by a person who lacked mental faculties. Remember, Go back and read what came out of the her report. Go back and read everything came out about Joe Biden, that he had no idea what was going on. He didn't know what day of the week it was. Don't sit there and tell me that Joe Biden understood what he was signing in terms of the pardons and what he was signing in terms of her Supreme Court nomination, selection and commission. All right, I don't think I'm just going to say it. I don't think that she was appropriately chosen. I don't think that she was appropriately submitted and I don't believe that she was appropriately commissioned by Joe Biden. She was commissioned by an auto pen. And that is not correct. And this is what happens when you have an auto pen justice. You get someone who's up there. She's saying, she is saying that if you go somewhere on vacation that you now have allegiance to that place. Temporary allegiance. Temporary allegiance. Temporarily. It is a concept that is so incredibly and profoundly stupid that if you allow yourself to entertain it for even a moment, it will cause you physical, mental and cerebral and psychic pain on a spiritual, a spiritual level. And it's something that, that, like when I consider it, to even consider it for a brief period of time, it's. You just have to understand. She doesn't get what she's talking about. She doesn't understand what these words mean. She doesn't understand the concepts. She only understands what her side wants. She only understands what the quote, unquote, good people on the left because they're not, you know, the way she looks at is right. We're not on the left or on the right. There are the good people and the bad people. There are the progressive people and the repressive people. And the repressive people are the people who want to take us back. That's why Joy Reid calls out, says that all the time. They want to take us back, whatever that means. And to progress means to move forward and the arc of history bends towards justice, again, whatever that means. So in her mind, right, we always need to be opening things up, quote, unquote, opening things up. So citizenship always needs to be open. Government programs always need to be open. Justices can do whatever they want. Remember, keep in mind, this is Cassandra Brown Jackson, who last year was making an argument that was so ridiculous that every single justice signed on to. And this was in the universal injunction ruling, the opinion they all signed on to an opinion that had a clause in it talking about how poorly informed she was on what exactly the justices do and that she just simply didn't understand the question, didn't understand the debate. And the debate was on whether or not there should be limits on judicial power. Obviously there are and there always have been for America's entire 250 year history. Of course they have, but she just acts like, she acts like they haven't. She acts like that's not a thing. Or at least she did in the, the injunction ruling. And that was Trump Vacasa. So again, this is, this is what you get. This is what you get when you let an auto pen have. You. Have you sit there and pop your. You know, pop yourself up on the Supreme Court and continue. These are lifetime appointments, by the way. So that being said, I don't know, perhaps. Perhaps she'll resign. Perhaps she'll resign for some reason. You know, these. These are the problems. These are the problems that arise with so much of this. These are the problems that we get into. And it's like. It's like getting your wallet stolen. I want to go back to what I was saying before. So people. Look, I get that in D.C. right now, and, you know, people are texting me, and people are kind of going around and there's these questions. You know, the Supreme Court feels skeptical, feels like this might not be a W. But you know what? It is a W, in a sense that it is a W for the country, that we're finally having this conversation at all, that we're finally in a place as a country where we are deciding as a people, as a nation, as a heritage, do we want to control who is in this country or not? I argue that we do, and I argue that we should. And I would argue that these are. I mean, think about what we're talking about, right? These are nine people, nine judges, unelected, sitting on a Supreme Court, who get to make this decision. Should they be allowed to make this decision unilaterally? I don't think so. And I don't think the American people think so either. And so if this mechanism of a Supreme Court case doesn't get us the relief that we need from illegal immigration, from illegal aliens invading our land and robbing us of our sustenance, and in many cases, robbing us of our people, robbing us of the good of their lives as well as the remit, as well as the treasure that we have built, the economic good, then guess what? I'm all for it. An illegal immigration constitutional amendment. So in the illegal immigration amendment, we are going to have provisions on all of these things, Every single piece of it. We're going to have provisions on all of it. We are going to go through everything, everything that needs to be hashed out, and we'll go get. We'll go get the guys at the Claremont Institute to put this all together. We'll have them figure it out. They'll be able to hash it down. We'll get the. We'll get the dudes from Borderhawk to talk about some of the direct issues, and we will figure this out. Because guess what? You know, they're right. You know, John Roberts when he says, oh well, it's an old Constitution and say, you know what, though, the 14th Amendment was not part of the original Constitution. As a matter of fact, John, Obamacare is not a tax. John. No, I still haven't forgiven you for that. And you probably never will because these people don't actually care about the law. They care about looking good in the newspapers. They care about looking good in the, in the, the intellectual, intellectual, you know, IntelligenceSIA of Washington, D.C. and look, I'll even say it, folks. I'll even say it. I agree with Mark Levin on this. I agree with Mark Levin, who's someone, I listened to his radio show for years, by the way, and he's 100% right when it comes to the hubris of the supreme court. Mark Levin, 100% correct when it came to the Supreme Court. I know that he and I have been at odds lately over certain things and he certainly had some words there. But you know what? I completely agree with him on that. And I think that we as a country do need to get to a point where whether it's by constitutional amendment or by executive action, we need to understand that we have three branches of government and they are meant to be separate and co equal. You cannot have one branch that completely usurps the power of another. You can't have the Supreme Court coming in and making these decisions over who is allowed in and out of this country at any given time and doing so in contradiction. Doing so to impeach and to overturn the will of the people of this country and the will of the people of the United States of America was electing Donald J. Trump to conduct mass deportations of the people who are not supposed to be in this country. And if that, if that requires an illegal immigration amendment, then I say let's do it. And I say I'm for it. And I say the American people will be for it. And we will make the midterms of all about illegal immigration. Immigration. And we will do so. We will do so in contravention of the United States Supreme Court and anyone else who dares to stand against us. Thoughts and prayers to the crew of the Artemis. They're taking off soon. Ladies and gentlemen, as always, you have my permission. Later, Sam.