Loading summary
Transcript175 lines
- [00:04]
A
My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord.
- [00:47]
B
Use me.
- [00:48]
A
Buckle up, everybody.
- [00:49]
C
Here we go.
- [00:56]
A
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold investments@noblegold investments.com, that is noblegoldinvestments.com all right.
- [01:18]
B
Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. April 1st.
- [01:21]
D
April Fool's Day.
- [01:22]
B
April Fool's Day. Welcome, Blake. We're here and you know, it's a
- [01:26]
D
fitting day because we have to find out how many fools are on the United States Supreme Court.
- [01:30]
B
We're about to find out. Obviously, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over birthright citizenship, something we think is stupid and not at all what the 14th Amendment prescribes, especially children for illegals. It was written.
- [01:47]
D
Children of Chinese oligarchs.
- [01:49]
B
Yep. CCP infiltrators. The fact that we even have to have this argument and it seems like the Supreme Court justices are skeptical of the government's case is amazing to me. But we're gonna break it all down with Will Chamberlain from the Article 3 project. You can follow him on X. A great follow. Will, welcome back to the show.
- [02:11]
C
Good to be with you.
- [02:12]
B
You've been paying close attention this morning and I think it's safe to say Blake is already dooming over here. What do you make of it? I'm hearing mixed results. So I want to hear your take because you've been playing paying close attention.
- [02:25]
C
So, yeah, I think it may have been made sense to doom if you were just listening to the justice's questions of John Sauer. But I think. I think there's reason for optimism having listened to the justices questions of Cecilia Wang, who's the ACLU legal director and the person arguing for the respondents in this case, she's getting a series of very tough questions and not handling them particularly well, in my view. And I think the basic problem that the respondents have to deal with is that this important clause, not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has a kind of natural meaning that's pretty well understood at the time, that it doesn't include people with allegiance to a foreign power, or rather primary allegiance to the foreign power, in that it only includes people who are domiciled in the United States. And her basically the respondents way of dealing with this because they concede there are these exceptions, obviously the exception for American Indians, the exception for foreign diplomats, the exception for children of invaders. But she basically says that's just a closed set of exceptions. There's no further exceptions that could possibly be acceptable. You know, 150 years later. And the justices are pointing out it's like, well, but they didn't create a list of exceptions when they wrote the 14th amendment as written. They included this phrase as a general rule, meaning that if you know you're born here and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof of another country, then you're a citizen, then you're entitled to birthright citizenship. And she's just, she's, she's struggling, honestly. She doesn't have a good explanation for why that general rule is just only applies to these three closed exceptions and then doesn't have any analogies that can be drawn from it.
- [04:08]
B
Yeah. So Blake, your reaction to that?
- [04:10]
D
Because I guess it's just though I'm glad that there's more reasons for hope with these unfolding arguments with the opposition case. But I guess I have some friends who have actually who have been Supreme Court clerks in the past, and they're watching this and they're being among the most pessimistic. And I trust them a lot because they're the ones who actually know the justices. And they say what they're very worried about, for example, is they say that Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Gorsuch are, are asking questions that specifically point towards having constitutional problems with this. And they were saying from the start that they thought our best hope was that they might take a narrower approach where they would rule this is just statutory. Our laws actually require birthright citizenship because Congress has assumed this in our immigration laws and so on. And they just seem, they just feel like the way those swing justices are taking their questions is not good for us.
- [05:07]
C
Well, so I actually don't think, I think that your friends just have it wrong here is on that particular way of viewing things. And here's the reason. So there's the constitutional provision of the 14th Amendment that says not subject to the jurisdiction of. And there's a statute, I don't remember when it was passed, 1950s or something, that uses the exact same language to set immigration, the immigration rule. And the idea here is that there's a theoretical world where the Supreme Court could interpret the statute and say President Trump's executive order violates the statute, but then not the Constitution itself. But that is. It's a kind of bizarre way of approaching things because they use literally identical words. And so you generally, when a congressional statute mimics the exact language of a constitutional provision, you don't, you know, especially if you're trying to get, you know, get a new understanding of what that means, you're going to effectively be interpreting both. And the new statute isn't gonna be interpreted in light of what people thought when they passed it, but rather it's gonna be interpreted in light of just extending the original language and the meaning when the original constitutional provision was enacted.
- [06:13]
B
Yeah. So we have this Indian clause, right, or this argument around Indian citizenship. Right. Indians, for those in the audience who may not be aware, were not granted citizenship until the 1920s. There was actually an act of Congress that bestowed upon Indians citizenship. Explain for the audience why that is so critical in this argument, why it's become such a central focus of both sides.
- [06:41]
C
So a big part of Democrats, or essentially the respondents idea here, the people who are saying birthright citizenship should apply to anybody born here, is a very broad view of what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Basically, they're saying, well, you know, everybody is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you're born here because you are required to obey American law. And when we think about jurisdiction in terms of modern legal conceptions, like that's what jurisdiction means. Like the court. Courts have the right to bring you into court and, you know, hold you accountable if you commit crimes there. In therefore, in some sense, you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the idea is, if that's the way to understand the language of the 14th Amendment, that would mean that American Indians should have been granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment. And that wasn't the case.
- [07:27]
B
Right.
- [07:28]
C
There was. You know, everybody understood when they were enacting the 14th Amendment that it didn't cover the children of American Indians. Even if those children were born outside of Indian reservations, it just, it didn't cover them. So that means that parent. It's not just about where you're physically Born, it's about your parentage, too. And if that's true, then that obviously means that illegal. The children of illegal aliens could theoretically be denied citizenship.
- [07:51]
B
Yeah. So it was a question of allegiance. Who do you owe your allegiance to? Which is a huge, huge part of this entire debate. And some of it tends. It sounds like it's hinging on breaking with the common law interpretation, or the respondents are arguing that it's actually a continuation of common law. Can you explain that, Will? What's hinging on this interpretation?
- [08:15]
C
Right. So basically, respondents are trying to say that the American word being not subject to the jurisdiction tracks the sort of English law, because obviously America imported a law law from England, given that we were originally an English colony. And so they're trying to say, well, the, you know, we're. We imported our understanding of immigration law from England, and under English law, if you were born in the, you know, in the territory, you were ultimately a citizen. And there's a real question about how if that actually makes sense, because, you know, we actually created our own novel rule like under. Under that rule, American Indians would have been citizens. And so I think the basic way to understand the problem with that approach is that the framers of the 14th Amendment intentionally departed from English common law in order to frame a different rule for American circumstances. And so they're relying very heavily on a later Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, that talked a lot about importing the English common law in the context of that decision. But that case only applies and only binds the court as to the children of permanent legal residents.
- [09:22]
B
So you. Are you hearing anything from your sources at the Supreme Court, the clerks? Are you hearing, you know, anything at this point? Cuz Blake's, you know, he's hearing negative. It's. I'm not mad at you. I really want the truth.
- [09:35]
C
I don't have sources of the Supreme Court telling me anything, unfortunately. I'd love that.
- [09:38]
B
That'd be great.
- [09:39]
C
But I don't have them telling me anything.
- [09:41]
B
All right, so Wong Kim Ark. I actually disagree with Wong Kim, Arkansas, but I think this is one of those vestiges of having a racially bifurcated system of laws. Right. So they were trying to carve out, in my opinion, with Wong Kim Ark, citizenship for children of legal permanent residence. Okay. They were Chinese. The parents were Chinese. They were not allowed to be naturalized at the time. So obviously that later changed. I don't think that children of lawful permanent residents should be citizens. I'm that hardcore on this. But listen, we're not arguing that Right now before the Supreme Court, we're saying children of illegals, birthright citizenship for illegals. Okay, go ahead. I can see you have thoughts.
- [10:26]
C
Yeah, well, so I mean Wong Kim Ark is. And neither is John Sauer. Right. That's an important thing to understand. Like there was a whole interesting discussion of what was happening here because John Sauer in the United States position is that Wong Ki Mark is good law and that it just doesn't control the question of the children of illegal aliens or temporary residents. Because throughout Wong Kim Arc is a discussion that it's legal residents. It's people who are domiciled in the United States and lawfully present. So that's the idea there. And interestingly the way that Cecilia Wong opened her presentation was to say Wong Kamar controls the results of this case. Wonky Mark requires that you give citizenship to basically anybody born here outside of the closed exceptions. And that's the end of it. And Justice Kavanaugh actually pointed out in his questioning, it's like, so you're basically saying we really don't need to even do much here because under your theory the administration is wrong about what Wonkamart means and they're not calling it for it to be overturned. So the end, that's the decision you'd have us give. We could give a two page decision. And she said yes. And the reason that's always a bad sign for the person making that argument. Justice Thomas has pointed this out. Supreme Court doesn't take easy cases. That's not the. And if they do, they take them through what's called. They just like we'll do a grant, vacate and remand or they'll, they'll just issue a suis, not suispante. Sorry, but like a per curium opinion without hearing argument. When they hear argument in a case, when they go through all this effort, it's usually because they think the question is a little bit more challenging than the people suggest. It's. It requires some real difficulty. So I don't think the court agrees with, with the respondents interpretation of Won Kim Arc. And I think that's a big problem for them because if the court doesn't agree, then all of a sudden the question of what does the 14th Amendment mean? What is its original meaning is really quite central. Does it allow for either the executive or Congress to create new rules about the children of illegal aliens? And I mean it should. As a policy matter, it should. Obviously it is straight up insane. If you were crafting an immigration law from first principles, it would Be straight up insane to do so and include a rule that said the people who break your immigration law, their children get to be citizens.
- [12:40]
D
So let's assume they at least get away from total birthright citizenship. What do you think are. Obviously we would hope for a total victory, but are there maybe medium level decisions that would be an improvement over the status quo, but not what we're hoping for, that the Supreme Court might try to cut the baby on?
- [13:00]
C
I think that the best, the best case for like a split the baby type decision would be something where they say that the. There was an exception for temporary sojourners that was recognized at the time of the 14th Amendment, but that that exception doesn't cover illegal aliens. So the idea would be that they could make a ruling that says, Congress, you know, you're allowed to make a rule banning Chinese birth tourism or not recognizing the children of people, you know, of people who were born here on tourist visas and then who immediately left.
- [13:29]
E
Right.
- [13:30]
C
They might say that those people are temporary sojourners. Their children aren't American citizens, even if they were born in, like, an American hospital.
- [13:36]
B
Yeah, but what about like the Guatemalan that is, you know, hiding in the suburbs of Chicago and doesn't tend to go back to Guatemala, but he's not here legally.
- [13:45]
F
Right.
- [13:45]
C
And I think that, I mean, that's the right. The thing is, I don't think that would be the most principled way to resolve this at all, because I think the principal way to resolve this, especially given the way that immigration law treats illegal entrants who never present themselves as a port at a board, at a port of entry, as temporary visitors, like, they don't have a legal right to stay. They're treated in the same way that applicants for admission are. This is actually sort of an interesting, you know, cross application to the recent 5th Circuit decision which allowed for ICE to detain illegal aliens without bond if they never presented themselves at a port of entry. The idea is that because you never presented it yourself at a port of entry, you're in the exact same position as somebody who just showed up at the border and should be treated the exact same way. And so the logic, I think, kind of applies here as well. Like we, you know, even if you've been living here for 20 years as an illegal alien, the law will treat you as though you just showed up.
- [14:36]
B
Right.
- [14:37]
C
They don't. The law doesn't recognize.
- [14:39]
B
General Sauer actually touches on this point here we have a clip, SOP page
- [14:43]
G
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.
- [15:18]
B
Just like a quick aside, like General Sauer's voice is not helping him here. It's raspy and hard to listen to. But I mean, his point is well made.
- [15:28]
C
It was one of his best points of the day.
- [15:30]
B
Yeah.
- [15:31]
C
And because I think that was. I forget who asked the question. He was either Sotomayor or Jackson. But she brought up this, you know, terrible like statement made by one of these people. And the point Sauer made was like, if you actually read the statement, clearly, it, it just is incredible evidence for the idea that how the Senate and how Congress understood the 14th Amendment and understood this phrase subject of the jurisdiction thereof, was that it didn't cover temporary visitors. Which if, if true, that blows up the entire theory of the case of the aclu who says that the. There are only these narrow closed exceptions, Indian tribes, children of ambassadors, children of foreign invaders, and there's no other possible exception that that's all the subject to the jurisdiction thereof means, is that this small universe of closed and already specified exceptions. And clearly that's not what the framers of the 14th Amendment thought at all. Of course, you know, they had, they thought there was a general rule being promulgated, meaning that you had to have allegiance. That it wasn't just people who were just randomly showing up.
- [16:36]
B
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, Senator Howard, during the debates over the drafting of the 14th Amendment, said this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of citizen. It's so, I mean, lawyers will. Lawyers.
- [17:00]
C
Yeah.
- [17:01]
D
I just feel, I mean, I can't get over the feeling we might just be stuck with. They'll make like a soft hearted decision. Cause it's mean to.
- [17:08]
B
Yeah, they're gonna try and split the baby. I actually agree. I think that's what Robert's gonna try and do Will Chamberlain Article 3 project. Thank you, sir. Keep on this. We might have you back soon. Just to kind of break it all down again for us, Will. God bless you, man.
- [17:23]
C
All right, we'll talk to you soon. Bye.
- [17:27]
B
When you read food labels today, it's obvious we've over complicated nutrition chemical names you can't pronounce, ingredients that sound like they belong in a lab instead of a kitchen. Here's the simple truth. Plants have their own nutrition. They're called phytonutrients. And your body knows exactly what to do with them. That's what drew me to balance of nature. They take fruits and vegetables and put them through a special vacuum cold process to stabilize that phytonutrition. Nothing weird, nothing artificial. Their whole health system gives you fruits and veggies plus fiber and spice. 47 whole food ingredients. I take it every day because it's simple and it works with my routine. If you want to make nutrition simple again and fight the good fight, go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe and save Today join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing their lives for the better. Very excited about our Next guest. That's Dr. Matt Spalding. He is. The professors have long titles, so bear with me. Is the Kirby professor in Constitutional government at Hillsdale College and the dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College's Washington D.C. campus. Welcome to the show, Dr. Matt Spalding.
- [18:45]
E
Great. Great to be with you guys. Again, sorry about the long titles, but that's the way academic life is. I apologize.
- [18:51]
C
That's how we operate.
- [18:52]
B
You gotta have like the name of the school and then what the school actually is and where it's located, you know, and you guys have multiple titles. We're talking about birthright citizenship, though. So I don't know if you listen to the oral arguments. We kind of got granular in the first couple segments going through these. But let's go ahead and play a clip from the oral arguments because I think there are deeper historical truths that you could help unpack here. And so let's just go with SOT1. And this is going back to the Civil Rights act, which was passed right after the Civil War.
- [19:26]
H
SOT1, most of your brief is not about illegal aliens. Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an experience of an understanding of that there were going to be temporary inhabitants. And your whole theory of the case is built on that. Group, you must be saying that there is a principle that was there at the time of the 14th amendment.
- [19:53]
G
We agree there's a principle there at the 14th amendment. It is the jurisdiction means allegiance, the allegiance of a. And this very strongly reflected in 19th century sources. The allegiance of an alien president in another country is determined by domicile. And that goes back to the V's and the Pizarro. It goes through the katsa affair in 1853. It comes right up to Fong Yui Ting and Lao Al Bu that are decided shortly before Wong Kim Arc. So that's the principle. That principle clearly applies.
- [20:22]
B
So we're talking about. Yeah, so you're laughing. Yeah. What just happened there?
- [20:29]
E
So, a couple of key things. First of all, just. Just by way of context, right, this is the sentence clause of the 14th Amendment, which is passed after the Civil War to grant citizenship to former slaves, the freedmen and their children. That amendment grows out of the Civil Rights act of 1866. And the comparisons were absolutely key because the people who sponsored that Civil Rights act and the people who wrote the citizenship clause of the constitutional amendment, the fourth Amendment, are the same people. And indeed they're quoted and there are lots of quotes and they have lots to say. They don't necessarily clarify everything exactly the way we would want today, but they do clarify it quite a bit. So that's one thing. So they worked for the 1866 acts. That's a definitive legislative history that affects the civil rights, that affects the constitutional amendment. So that's one point. The second point which comes up, this question is people who are temporarily illegally, all these different things, categories that's important to keep in mind here because there are all sorts of different things, some of which apply, some which don't apply, that are being debated. But we want to see through that to the key question which is really found in the answer that comes back, which is the key language in the decision clause of the Fourth Amendment is jurisdiction. So just to remind us, that opening line of the 14th Amendment says that all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. There's no disagreement here about the first part and the last part. All persons born are naturalized in the United States. We kind of know what that means to be born and to be naturalized, to go through the naturalization process. But the key. The other thing here is there's this other clause. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that mean? Clearly, it's not There for no good reason, and suggests it's this and that. There are two requirements here. So jurisdiction is key. That's what they're debating. The 1866 Civil Rights act goes straight to that, because they talk about jurisdiction and they say what it means is that you have full and complete allegiance, political allegiance to this country and not someone else. So the debate is whether does jurisdiction mean, oh, I abide by the stop signs, meaning local, kind of just kind of jurisdiction of how to live here, or does it actually have substantive meaning? Because if it does have substantive meaning, which is what the executive order in this case is claiming, then the various steps along the way in the cases can be read that way. They do make minor distinctions here and there, but generally speaking, they hold up that argument and. And that's a consistent one. But what it does mean is that someone who's simply born here is not automatically a citizen. This jurisdiction question really does matter.
- [23:27]
B
You know, it's interesting, actually. If you look at the language, there's that comma between the first part of the clause or the first clause and the second clause. And half of me is inclined to believe that if there just wasn't a comma there, this would be so much cause I read it, and to your point, it's very, very clear. It says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subjects to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning that they work together, but they separate them. So they take. You could fit the first clause or the second clause and be a citizenship or be a citizen. But to your point, the historical precedent and what we. Where this language is derived from clears it up even better. I would say the language of the Civil Rights act is much stronger in some ways.
- [24:14]
E
That's right. And so the question then becomes, well, when they passed the amendment, were they intentionally broadening the language of the Civil Rights act to mean anything? Well, then if they wanted to do that, they should have just dropped the clause entirely and not kept it in there. And indeed, during the debate of the Civil Rights act, there are various times in which there are amendments made to clarify, well, except for this. Except for this. And the answer was they didn't pass those amendments. You can find no language in the debater of the 1866 Civil Rights act that says, everyone who's born here is a US Citizen. That was not the issue. It's impossible to make that claim. So the claim then is. Or the argument then is that, okay, how can we read this somehow to support birthright citizenship? The argument, my argument, which I think is the Argument behind the executive order and the argument that many have been making for some time now is that the idea of birthright citizenship, that we all assume that you come here, you're born here, you're automatically an American citizen, that is an aberration. That's not the legal history. That's not the constitutional history. That's also not the Supreme Court history. And it's just something that's kind of come into being, which means that unless Congress does something. One thing we should note here is the Section 5 of the Fourth Amendment says Congress can pass legislation, but they've not done so. And until they do so, in the meantime, because of the confusion, this is exactly the conditions in which a president would exist. Issue an executive order determining a policy. Until Congress acts, the policy of the United States is this. And that's exactly what he's doing. I think powerfully or clearly based on the existing history, tradition, support Supreme Court decisions and trying to find a way that gets around a lot of the confusion which is out there on this particular subject.
- [26:06]
D
I just. So I feel like one reason a lot of us have gotten hope on Supreme Court cases is we currently have a justice on the court who's like so off putting and so sort of dim that it drives a lot of the justices away. We saw that with Ketanji Brown Jackson's ruling yesterday in the conversion therapy case, where even Sotomayor and Kagan are bashing her and saying she doesn't understand the law. Well, we're getting some of that today. We're getting some very memorable Jacksonisms about the law. I want to play one of those. Let's play SOT 11.
- [26:38]
H
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? 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?
- [27:07]
D
Like, it's just. Again, birth certificate. What. What's that? I've. I've never heard of this. You. I feel like we have to hope that that sort of argument maybe can make the justices realize.
- [27:22]
B
Wait.
- [27:22]
D
The position we're on the brink of endorsing is insane. Like it is built on insane premises. Or am I just. Am I trying to find some hope spot here?
- [27:31]
E
Well, I don't know. Part of the Supreme Court is predicting where they're going to go with these things. It's almost virtually impossible nowadays to do so. But having said that, you're, you're onto something. And picking up a certain absurdity in that line of questioning. The distinction here, if I could use some older language, is a distinction between citizenship by soil or citizenship by blood. The old notion think back to the kings of England and feudalism and whatnot is if you were born on the king's soil, you're the king's subject. That's actually argument for birthright citizenship. The argument for republican government that is the United States is birth by blood which is say that in lacking all the documentation she might require for a full 18 year old person going to vote or something. The default is their parents which is a to whom are their parents subject? So if they're subjects to the King of England, they're not Americans, they're subjects to the King of England. If they're French citizens or citizens from another country to which they are loyal, their children are that citizenship as well. That's the distinction that I think draws out the absurdity of it.
- [28:50]
B
Folks, let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support here. Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the usa Built by people who believe in hard work, freedom and in America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans. This is coffee that actually stands for something and I drink it every day right here on the show from morning reaper and brutal awakening to 1776 dark roast and their two a medium roast. They've got something for everyone. They even have instant coffee. Real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess, just add water, stir and you're ready to roll. Go to blackout coffee.com Charlie and and use code Charlie for 20% off your first order. That's blackout coffee.com Charlie blackoutcoffee.com Charlie and for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscriptions, save money, get free shipping and earn free coffee through their rewards program. Just for drinking what you already love. Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never run out.
- [29:58]
A
That's blackout coffee.com Charlie. Check it out. Promo code Charlie.
- [30:05]
G
A person's domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home. There are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures. But they have in their minds made a permanent home here. Talk about the legal capacity, capacity to, you know, to. To create a domicile, excluding someone who may have the subjective intent which otherwise would be determinative as being excluded. On the humanitarian point, I would point out, as I said at the beginning, Justice Alito, that the United States rule of nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship is an outlier among modern nations. Every nation in Europe has a different rule, and the notion that they have a huge humanitarian crisis as a result of not having unrestricted birthright citizenship I don't think is a strong argument.
- [31:01]
B
So nations that have repealed Birthright citizenship since 1980, Dr. Matt Spalding, Australia got rid of it in 2007. New Zealand got rid of it in 2005. Ireland, 2005. France, 1993. India got rid of it in 1987. The UK 1983. Portugal, 1981.
- [31:20]
E
Right.
- [31:21]
B
Give us a history lesson of where this even came from, because it was really popular in the New world to try to import and attract new Europeans.
- [31:33]
E
They think even broader than that. I kind of made reference to it at the end of our last session. The old notion of how one became a citizen is you took on the citizenship. They didn't even use the word citizenship. You were a subject. You took on the subjectship, if you will, of your king. So if you're born on the king's soil, you're subject to the king. It's feudal. It's feudalism. America and the rise of republican governments changed that. Now we had two things going on in America. One is we needed population. So we were encouraging and we were very broad on our immigration policies because we wanted to grow the nation and have more citizens. Although even then, from the very beginning, we were careful on who we encouraged. And if you came here, you had to work hard and you had to learn to be an American. That was very important. But the other point, and that clip you just showed kind of starts getting to this question is what's been going on since then is around the world, feudalism has died out and kind of republican or democratic republics have been spreading more. So more and more countries have been getting rid of birthright citizenship. And yet here we are, the parent, if you will, of modern republican government and democratic republicanism. We're sticking with birthright citizenship. It's just exactly backwards. But the other point I want to make here is that this question of consent, the essence of the American principle is consent based on all men being created equal. The Declaration of Independence. But consent tells us something about how our immigration laws should Operate, which is say it has to be reciprocal. Someone has to want to come here. Okay, that's part of it. But you can't come here on your own and make yourself or your child an American citizen. What you need to do is get reciprocal in consent, which is that we consent to you becoming a citizen. And that's done how? Through our laws, which the executive is empowered to enforce. And with a lack of laws, he needs to figure out some sort of policy, hence his executive order. But there is a process. And the problem is that of all the places in the world, why are we somehow claiming a right, a fundamental right that the Supreme Court should be able to dictate on something that by all standards, all historical standards and increasing by more and more countries around the world is understood to be the lawful right of a sovereign country to control its own citizenship. It can have a broad policy, it can have a narrow policy, it can allow this, it can allow that. But it's the decision of those that are here who consent through law to welcome other people in and then have requirements. You have to pass a citizenship test, whatever it might be. We can grant special rights for those that are persecuted if we choose. This policy really is truly an aberration. As was said in that clip. This is not the norm at all when it comes to Republican government.
- [34:32]
D
It's just I feel like honestly, if we want to take the biggest thing, as we said, nations are repealing this. And I think we should remind people of what the stakes of this are, what we've seen happen because of this ridiculous interpretation of the law we have. I believe they actually mention it during the oral arguments. There are something like 800 companies in China offering birth tourism to the Chinese.
- [34:55]
B
We have this clip Sat 8 let's play that.
- [34:58]
D
Let's play SOT 8 Problem of Birth Tourism.
- [35:02]
G
Here's the fact about it that I think is striking. Media reported as early as 2015 that based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to to that nation. Their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they've made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of
- [35:32]
B
the provision there's over. So some estimates have it at 1.5 million Chinese residents that live in China are American citizens. In theory, they could vote in our
- [35:43]
D
elections, in our elections, but also move here immediately, get taxpayer funded college immediately Qualify for every program that we rig that you can scam. I bet there's guides on how to do that. Set up your own daycare while you go to college here.
- [35:55]
E
Think more broadly for a minute. People have a broader, narrow view of immigration policy. I tend to think it should be more narrow and more selective. Having said that, there can be a broad array of opinions. We're a free country. The question is who controls that policy? And in a government, a country based on the rule of law, we control that policy. That's what it means to be a free self governing people. The birth tourism problem coming especially from place like China, and I'm sure others come here for the same reason. Knowingly doing this is to establish citizenship, which gives them certain rights, claims they might be thinking about getting other benefits and whatnot. But I can tell you from the point of view of China, it's a strategic question. They foreign countries are trying to determine our policies. And the more they can have people who can claim to come and go as they choose, in and out of the country because they're citizens in the future redounds to their benefit. So it is a large strategic problem. But ultimately it's this larger moral constitutional question, who controls who is an American? Is that a right in and of itself for anybody in the world? Or is it a right and a privilege which we understand and control by our laws? I think that's what's at issue here.
- [37:13]
B
Dr. Matt Spalding of Hillsdale College. You're in D.C. so I'm sure it's all the chatter in the city today. And we pity you for having to live there. But we're grateful that you do so with a clear mind and common sense, which is a rare virtue in that part.
- [37:33]
E
It's not clear to me what the Supreme Court will do. They can always come up with different little twists and turns here and there's. But having said that, if they're to follow the history of the Civil Rights act, if they follow the history of their own decisions, Wong Kim Ark, this case, it's always mentioned he was a permanent citizen. The executive order makes room for precisely that condition.
- [37:53]
B
Permanent resident.
- [37:53]
E
If they follow a permanent resident. If they follow that, there is an argument here and there's an answer which I think can be found consistent with the Constitution and good policy.
- [38:01]
B
Hillsdale College, it's the best. Thank you, Dr. Spalding.
- [38:05]
E
Thank you. Great being with you guys again.
- [38:08]
B
If you're a parent, you don't need to be told that online safety is important. That's why TikTok has over 50 preset safety and privacy settings and beyond that, parents can set up Family Pairing to help shape their teens experience on the app. With Family Pairing, parents can get visibility into their teens followers and who they follow, help restrict content that's not right for them and set screen time limits. Parents can also set restricted times so they're not on TikTok when they shouldn't be because feeling good about the time your teen spends online shouldn't come with guesswork. In addition to the already built in safety and privacy protections, Family Pairing gives parents more tools to shape their teens online experience based on what's right for their family. Remember, when safety comes first, discovery and creativity can follow. Learn more by going to TikTok.com guardiansguide we have a special guest and that is Cale Conway. He is the GCU so Grand Canyon University Chapter Social Media Manager and chapter chaplain as well.
- [39:10]
I
Yes sir.
- [39:11]
B
So we had a whole conversation yesterday with Selena Zito from the Washington examiner, and she was talking about her own experience in like Pennsylvania. So she lives right near Pittsburgh and she says young people are just getting baptized by the droves. And she's seeing this revival that I think a lot of us had a question about after Charlie's assassination. When you saw that revival energy, was it going to keep going? And so we wanted to kind of bring it back down to the student level with you and have you in studio today to tell your story, what you're seeing. You're from Missouri originally outside of Kansas City, and now you live in Arizona. So you've got kind of multiple perspectives here. Tell us your story. And you're the chapter chaplain, which is pretty sweet. So just tell us your story.
- [39:56]
I
Yeah, so I was born and raised in a Christian household. I had two really awesome parents that just led by example are pretty good role models. And I got saved when I was about 10 years old. And you know, when you get saved that young, it's like I knew Jesus wanted like he was my savior, but I didn't know the full weight of that yet. And I would say the last couple years, year and a half of my life, there's just been a lot of life events majorly in my life that happened. I lost my dad in April of 2024. Just completely unexpected. And that's when I kind of just started diving deeper into my faith and just to really understand why I believe these things instead of sitting here and regurgitating this information that I was being fed or just even like what my parents had told me, like I wanted to sit there and be like, why do I believe these things? And actually be confident and be able to sit here and say, like, well, I. This is why I believe this. Or this is why I choose Jesus as my Lord and Savior. And it's just kind of been a walk. Walk with that deeper and deeper ever since then.
- [40:58]
B
It's amazing how trauma so often can lead us to deeper walks in our faith with Jesus. I mean, I certainly felt that after Charlie's assassination, maybe. Let's go there. So you transferred to GCU or in Missouri. Where were you when Charlie was killed?
- [41:16]
I
I was actually here in gcu. So this. Yeah, so I transferred to GCU the beginning of the academic year last year. So I started last fall here at GCU when this all happened.
- [41:28]
B
What was it like on campus from a spiritual perspective when that happened?
- [41:32]
I
So on campus, me personally, I feel like it was a very big shift. And I was also fortunate enough to be at the entire memorial there as well. And you could just. Being in that building as well, you could just feel that energy. Like there was just a revival or it's like. It's a feeling that it's hard to sit there and explain because it just feels really surreal at the same time.
- [41:55]
B
See it on camera right there.
- [41:56]
I
Yeah. But it's like. It was. It was just awesome. I mean, just being in that place right there, it's just the worship and just everything just going on. Like, you could really feel the presence of God just in the room. And I also feel like that carried out through campus as well. Like, that feeling was just there, and it was students and 100%, yes, I did. It was. It was just really undeniably there.
- [42:19]
B
Blake. I don't know.
- [42:20]
D
Well, and we always love to ask, how did it. How did it evolve over time? Because we've certainly seen evidence there's been a sustained spiritual revival in some places. Obviously, there was a tremendous surge in the days afterwards. We saw that outside of our own headquarters here. But maybe just lay out for us the response or what you saw from students. Charlie's legacy, a month later. And now we're six months later.
- [42:46]
I
I would say within, like, a month afterwards, like, there's a lot of, like, oh, I'm gonna step up. I'm gonna start believing these things. I'm gonna start speaking out more. And as much as I love. Would love that was continued at that extent. It definitely has died down a little bit, but I definitely don't think it's, like, below the threshold than that. It was like. It's Definitely exceeded there, and it stayed there. So that energy and that spiritual. Just that presence of God has 100% been there this entire time. And it's still. I would sit here and say it still is.
- [43:17]
D
Yeah. I don't think anyone would be surprised by that. I think a remark I made closer to it is, would the surge last for everyone? No, but there would be at least a few people, even if it was one person. But it's probably more than that, where that moment will completely transform their life going forwards. And each of those little moments does matter a tremendous amount, 100%.
- [43:40]
B
Well, I mean, you think of the parable of the Sower, right? You know, the parable of the Sower says that the seeds of faith are scattered and some land on good soil, some on rocky soil, you know, and that's just going to be the case. It's a spiritual reality, you know, So I. But I'm prayerful because I actually believe that revival starts with repentance. And I remember when Charlie was killed, you know, and I've told this story. I actually told it, I think, on the Alex Clark podcast, where it was. I felt this. I don't know if it was fear, but it was. It was something. I realized that everything that we had, we had built it was about to change dramatically, and I was resistant to it. And then I remember I was sitting in my hotel room and I just repented and I just said, lord, whatever you have for me, I say yes to. And I apologized for fighting that. Right. And I'm curious if you have a similar story with what after your dad passed away. And I'm sorry to hear that. And, you know, this sort of surrendering to God's will in your life.
- [44:49]
I
100%, I did. And I appreciate that. So thank you. It was really weird because at first, when it all happened, obviously, like, I was so confused and, like, well, why would you take my dad away? Especially I'm the oldest of four kids, so I have three younger siblings, and it was just like, I'm the oldest.
- [45:07]
E
I.
- [45:07]
I
At the time, I was 19. And like, how are you going to sit here and take a father away that had laid a great foundation and just instilled all these great principles and was such a good guy compared to a lot of people out in this world right now. Like, how are you going to just take him away unexpectedly from us? And it was really hard because I wrestled with that a lot. I was really confused, and I was really angry, and I honestly, like, I lashed out at God a lot. And it got to the point where it's like I instilled this one statement in my head. It was like, I, I'm not, I'm not here to understand your plan. I'm here to trust your plan. And as the more I kind of shifted my mindset into letting Jesus come in and help carry this burden rather than trying to take it on to my, like myself. Because if I could fix these things myself, I would have already fixed, I would have fixed everything already. And the reality is we can't fix it ourselves and we need a savior. So once I took Jesus in and helped him, like had him help me carry that burden of the loss, the anger, the grief, the sadness, all these emotions that are like super, super heavy. This feeling of just overcoming peace and joy that I had, it was just so over, so overbearing, but yet I didn't understand it. And it's hard to sit there and like almost say that as well because it's like, how do I sit here and feel so much peace and joy yet in one of the deepest, darkest times of my life?
- [46:28]
B
Well, the scriptures say that God will be close to the broken hearted. So there's that. I'm going to read the sower verse here. A farmer went out to sow his seed. This is Jesus talking as he was scattering the seed. Some fell along the path and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil where it produced a crop a hundred sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear. So much of life. Is the sower. The parable of the sower. It's interesting too, by the way, when I typed it into Google, it was the first parable that came up. Massively important parable might have been your
- [47:22]
D
computer spying on you.
- [47:23]
B
It could have been. It could have been. I want to tell you guys at GCU, Grand Canyon University, how many students go to GCU now?
- [47:32]
I
Honestly, I'm not.
- [47:33]
C
20,000?
- [47:34]
I
I was going to say probably about 30,000.
- [47:36]
B
It's huge now.
- [47:36]
I
It's pretty big now.
- [47:38]
B
So Riley Gaines is actually going to be doing a pick up the mic event at GCU on April 9th. I think we have the graphic if you guys want to throw that up. So that, that's pretty sweet. You Guys just locked that in.
- [47:49]
I
Yeah, we just got it finalized the other day, and now we're advertising like crazy.
- [47:53]
B
Oh, it's gonna be great. She's. She's really good at the live events too. We love Riley. She's doing a great job. So if you are in the student body, I guess, is it open to non students or is it only students? I think it's only students.
- [48:07]
I
I think it's only students. I could be wrong, but don't quote me on that.
- [48:11]
B
Riley Gaines at gcu. Let's talk about that. She's a lady. You're not. So what's the dynamic on campus between the ladies and the gentlemen? Are we. Because we had some students on, and they were basically saying there is some tension. The girls don't like the guys. The guys don't like the girls. They have different expectations of what a relationship is. Is that been your experience?
- [48:34]
I
I would say so, yes. I would say there is some tension and some friction there, but I also think that stems from a lot of different things. And I feel like this is a topic I could go on and on about, to be honest. But part. I think one of the main issues with it is, like, there's just not enough men being men, honestly. Like, we need to be more masculine. There's a lot. I would say there's a lot more females trying to step up and be that masculine figure rather than the men stepping up and really being the true leaders or being the real masculine figures in that. And we kind of just let it happen. Like, there's just not much control. It's almost like a. Oh, you kind of got it. Like, I'm gonna chill out. You can run the show if you like. I'm gonna just sit here and not do a whole bunch. And I think that stem. I think that just creates a lot more issues in itself.
- [49:20]
B
Well, it's the sin of Adam, actually. Passivity.
- [49:25]
C
Right.
- [49:25]
B
Where. Sin of omission, where we're not stepping up being leaders as God has intended men to be. So there's this interesting dynamic that's going on. I don't know if you've seen this, Blake, but Isabel Brown said that women should get married and have more babies. Sat 17.
- [49:40]
H
You're not encouraging your children to grow up and have the courage to get married and have kids, more kids than they can afford, before they think they're ready. It is high time to start. It is these choices like deleting our dating apps and quitting birth control pills and saying I do at the altar, that ultimately Trickle down into the political policies that we will see save our country.
- [50:01]
B
Well, the ladies at the View did not like this became a whole thing. Side 18.
- [50:06]
H
What?
- [50:07]
G
What is she?
- [50:08]
H
What the what? What? What? So my ultimate beef with this is that it wraps a woman's worth up in her ovaries. The fact that we keep putting this on women, that they're only worth in society, politics, policies, is if they produce a baby or have a husband is the stupidest, most old fashioned thing. We have come too far. Here is the call to responsibility for the men who help make these children right.
- [50:36]
C
I am.
- [50:36]
H
I don't know why it's always people lecturing women what they have to do. Bottom line, if you're not paying my bills, you don't get to tell me what I do with my uterus.
- [50:47]
B
I feel like Ana Navarro is the perfect living embodiment of exactly what he was talking about.
- [50:52]
D
I just think, like, it's so funny cause they can just do this bland stuff and then everyone claps like a seal.
- [51:00]
C
Yeah, okay.
- [51:01]
D
If you use your brain, why would this maybe matter? Well, if you don't have kids, your civilization ceases to exist, period. Maybe that's why. Maybe that's why there was some presumed value to doing this.
- [51:13]
B
Isabel was not saying your only value is in your ovaries. She was saying it's a good thing to point to, to aim to. So you should do it. Because it's a blessing, by the way. It is a blessing. Children are a blessing from the Lord. And they're hard, they're expensive, they take a lot of time. Totally worth it anyways. So you're seeing this energy on campus, am I right?
- [51:34]
I
I would say so, 100%. I think it stems from you see kind of this stuff online and it just kind of trickles down. And it's like you get a really very twisted worldview if no matter what side of the spectrum you are on, when it comes to certain beliefs or ideologies, whatever it may be, it trickles down. And it starts with society, in my opinion. And then also men just don't want to sit here and do anything about it. For the most part, at least in my generation. Like, I just see a lot of dudes get walked all over and they kind of just take it sometimes. And I'm like, guys, we need to step up and be real men. We need to start leading better, lead by example and do these things that real men do.
- [52:09]
B
I totally agree. I don't think men are the problem. I think they're the solution 100%, I think, if. Because here's a couple things. Two things. If you value children, if you create spaces in your society to have children, whether that's at restaurants or parks or games or whatever, that is a good thing. If you value children, you will have more children as a society. So point one, Men. If you value strong men, you will get more strong men. If you value passivity, if you tell them that they are toxically masculine and that they are the villains in this story, men are going to opt out. It's the sin of Adam. We get passive and we let the women run roughshod. That's not a healthy society either. I believe deeply, deeply, deeply that women want strong men to lead. They want them to be productive. They want them to have vision. They want them to be full of life, full of vision. And when women in this progressive feminist mindset try and put men in a corner, what are men gonna do? They're not gonna rise to the occasion. If you tell them they're the evil villain, you know, in the story, they're going to opt out. They're going to go play video games, they're going to get walked on. You're the chaplain of your, of your chapter here, which is a cool title. Not all of our chapters have. I think we should actually. What's your, what's your read on this? What's your message? What are you telling young men your age?
- [53:31]
I
Young men. I tell my age. Just like it's time for. Even though if you feel this way and like you kind of want to sit here, like, like you said and get back to the corner, whatever, like, it's. We are the solution anyways. Like, we still have to step up. Like, you still have to be able to, one, work on yourself and figure out these beliefs, figure out what you truly believe and what you stand for and have a real passion. And you need to have goals and you need to have purpose with your life. You need to be purposeful. Women want someone that is going to be very purposeful, someone that's going to go out there and go do something, someone that wants to actually get stuff done. And there's. I don't think I see a lot of that. And just being able to take action on just something as simple as it sounds, something like that can create a huge difference with a lot of that stuff.
- [54:15]
B
I totally agree. I think, I hate that men tend to opt out. I think it's a nihilism that's seeped in. But they've been told that they're the problem for over a generation now. And what do you think's gonna happen when you tell young men that they're terrible and not worth anything and they're the villains and toxic and all this stuff?
- [54:35]
D
Men can do incredible things, but you have to want them to do incredible things.
- [54:39]
B
That's exactly right. That's exactly right. There's another clip here that's kind of interesting about affordability. I'm not gonna play. It's too long, but it's like, you know, just says, I think it's really reckless. This is from the View to be suggesting that people should have children when you know this country's having an affordability crisis. Final note. Children will never be affordable. They'll never be convenient. You could still have them. Guess what? You'll find a way. You will make space in your life for children. It doesn't mean be reckless. It doesn't mean do it when you don't have a job or something like that. But guess what? You might have children, and then you lose your job. You got to find a way out. Orienting your life around the next generation is always, always a good thing. Kale, 10 seconds. You have a show.
- [55:25]
I
I actually have a platform where I talk about my personal testimony in a Christian worldview of things. And it's just Cale Conway. K A L E C O N W A Y. Facebook and Instagram.
- [55:35]
B
Check it out. Kale, you're a good man. We need more like you.
- [55:37]
I
Thank you. God bless you. Thank you.
- [55:42]
B
I just watched A Great Awakening, and I have to tell you, this isn't just another historical drama. It's a wake up call that you all need to pay attention to. We spend so much time talking about 1776 and constitutions and Congresses and declarations, but this film reminds you of something even deeper. Before the revolution, there was revelation. George Whitfield wasn't a politician. He was a preacher. And yet, watching this film, you see how his fearless proclamation of liberty in Christ shook the colonies to their core. It unified people who had nothing else uniting them. And that is power. What really struck me was the portrayal of Benjamin Franklin. He's this brilliant, rational mind, and yet he's drawn into genuine friendship with Whitfield. Not because he suddenly becomes someone else, but because he begins to see freedom isn't structural. It's spiritual. The film makes one thing clear. You cannot sustain political liberty without moral and spiritual awakening. In theaters April 3rd. Visit a greatawakening.com to learn more today. A greatawakening.com to learn More Today.
- [56:51]
D
Alrighty. Well, we talked about this back when they were introducing it, but we believe in really flogging this. This is a very important race. We're talking, of course, about the Virginia redistricting referendum to remind everyone, catch them up to speed. We've been Republicans in a few states have redrawn maps in Texas and Florida. We wanted them to redraw them in Indiana. And the Indiana Republicans said now we're good Republicans do, but Democrats have not sat still. So they redrew the maps in California. But the most aggressive one that we're seeing is an attempt to redraw the map in Virginia. So basically half their seats, all are little slivers coming out of Fairfax county, the blue part of the state. They believe that they can get them to a 10 to 1 Democrat advantage and in Virginia. And so we wanted to welcome back Senator Glenn Sturtevant. He is a Virginia Republican senator. He's been helping spearhead the battle against this referendum. Senator, are you there?
- [57:50]
F
I'm here, yeah. Thanks for having me back, guys.
- [57:52]
D
Welcome. So set the stakes for those of our. We have quite a few listeners in Virginia. Hopefully they voted. You guys are in early voting right now. So tell us, what's the state of the battle? Do we have a shot of winning this one?
- [58:03]
B
One?
- [58:04]
F
This is a David and Goliath battle. But what is, I think becoming clearer and clearer every day is that we actually do have a shot at winning this election day is April 21. But as you said, we've we're in the midst of early voting right now. Virginia has some of the longest early voting of any state in the country. We've got 45 days of early voting. So that's been ongoing now for two or three weeks. And we've got three weeks to go as of yesterday until the last day to vote. And what is really interesting is the folks who kind of look deeply at the data and the numbers, it would indicate that we are seeing much higher turnout in the heavy Republican areas and much lower turnout than normal in the heavy Democrat areas. So Virginia, we are not used to having elections in April. This is the first time this has ever happened. And so it is. Virginians are being bombarded on television and YouTube and online with ads from the other side. They've basically got unlimited money. I think They've received about $30 million so far from Hakeem Jeffries and George Soros and other left wing dark money groups. And then on our side, I think we've only been able to put together about $5 million and I saw today another 5 million maybe coming. But so far we have been outgunned on the money, outgunned on the ads. But it really has been a people powered grassroots movement of Virginians who have seen what the Democrats, now that they control the governor's mansion and both chambers of the General assembly, what they've been up to the last few months. The people are fed up and pushing back. Thankfully.
- [59:52]
D
It's so crazy that you can't get more funding for this because you think of the amount of money that'll be thrown into our elections. In a single Senate race. You might see over hundreds of millions of dollars spent at this point. You'll see many millions spent on a single House race. And this is effectively four or five House races in a single go through the method of this referendum. But to show how seriously Democrats are taking it, they've actually drawn a prominent Democrat out of retirement. None other than Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama has come out to campaign for this. We actually have a clip of him. Let's play 21 free and fair elections
- [60:29]
J
are the cornerstone of our democracy. But right now they are under threat. Over the past year, several Republican controlled states have taken the unprecedented step of redrawing their congressional maps in the middle of the decade. And they've done it for a simple to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms this fall in April. Virginians can respond to by making sure your voting power is not diminished by what Republicans are doing in other states, help us chart a better path forward. Virginia early voting begins on March 6th. Election Day is April 21st. Vote yes, Virginia.
- [61:06]
D
I think it's very revealing. They flashed a bunch of maps there. For those of you who are listening later. They showed Missouri, they showed Texas, but not Virginia. They did not show Virginia and what their map is. And I want to before I'll ask you, I should remind people what the text of this referendum is because it's truly one of the most egregious, appalling examples of distortion I've ever seen from an official election document. This is the wording on the ballot. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections or while ensuring Virginia's standard process resumes for all future redistricting. So just could we please restore fairness? You don't oppose fairness, do you? But remind our listeners exactly what districts they are planning to impose on the state here. What do they look like?
- [61:58]
F
Well, we have 11 congressional districts in Virginia currently under the current Maps. We have six Democrat members of Congress and five Republican members of Congress. And that lines up very, very well with how Virginia voted statewide in the 2024 presidential election. We have been rated as having a plus fair maps from a anti gerrymandering perspective. We actually five years ago voted to amend our constitution in Virginia to get rid of partisan gerrymandering and to create a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which is what created the maps that we are currently working with. And now Democrats are trying to jam through this amendment to the amendment. This is another constitutional amendment that they are now pushing to give them this, quote, unquote, temporary power to gerrymander again. And as you said, Blake, all of these districts essentially begin and end in Fairfax County. There is a.
- [63:02]
D
We have a map up right now. I don't know if you can see it, but we have it. And you can see you've got these little tendrils snaking all across the state. 1, 2, 3, 4 of them go through Fairfax county at least. And then, like two others snake up pretty close to it, but don't get there. It's one of the wildest things I've ever seen. And you can see it takes us from, you know, a few safe blue states, a few safe red seats, to just all of these blue leaning seats. It's one of the. It's utterly. It's an abomination to look upon.
- [63:34]
F
And for people who don't know Virginia, that. That big red area which the Democrats want to be, our sole congressional seat is southwest Virginia, which is very, very sparsely populated, and there are no Democrats down there. So that. That would be the lone Republican seat. It looks large, but it's a single congressional district.
- [63:54]
B
Yeah. I want to go back to this Obama clip, which, to underscore Blake's point, he shows he does not talk about Virginia and he doesn't acknowledge the fact that Virginia is six. Five Democrats get six seats. Republicans tend to get five in a state that Kamala won by plus six. Am I right? And you just had a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. And so now you've got Spamberger explain this kind of rope a dope, this. This move that Democrats are doing in Virginia where they present themselves as moderates and Spanberger looks like this sort of clean, moderate vision. And then when they do this, they sell you the moderation. And then they seem to go. I call it going full Virginia because it's like it deserves its own category. Now, are they moderates?
- [64:47]
F
No. And to hear you call it full Virginia hurts my Heart, man. But it's sad and it's what we are living through right now. And it is a preview for what the rest of the country is gonn get if Democrats are likely to continue nominating these folks who, again, like you said, appear on paper to be moderates but when they get in office, go full left wing. It was not. Spamberger wasn't a day in office before she got rid of all of Governor Youngkin's policies that allowed our law enforcement to cooperate with ICE to get illegal aliens out of Virginia. She undid that on day one. And they had been pushing ever since to to make Virginia a solid sanctuary state for illegal aliens. We just finished up our General assembly session about two weeks ago. They are moving very quickly on eliminating Virginians second Amendment rights, making it impossible to buy and own common everyday firearms and magazines. They had legislation to raise taxes on anything that moved. And they're also working to raise electric rates by putting Virginia back in this Northeast Consortium kind of Green New Deal thing that they called Reggie. So yeah, to your point, Spamberger has always presented herself as this, you know, suburban mom, moderate. We all knew from her time in Congress, despite the propaganda that she was a Nancy Pelosi Democrat and very liberal. They were able to, I think, pull a fast one on a lot of Virginians this past November. And we're now seeing the fruits of that. And I think that the bright spot, to the extent there is one, is that people are waking up very quickly. And I have not seen this sort of pushback and level of activism since the Tea party movement of 15 years ago.
- [66:55]
D
Well, Senator, thank you for coming on. Thank you for the fight. If you live in Virginia and you're listening to this and you haven't voted, go vote now. Turn off this episode. Go vote now. Get it done. You have a few more days that you can do it. Final day is on the 21st. This is worth five House seats by itself. We have to spare the whole country, sadly, from going a full Virginia. Thank you again, Senator.
- [67:16]
F
Thanks, guys.
- [67:19]
B
Hi folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom Payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars, and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi then. And remember, Yrefi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. So every so often, Blake, there is a moment captured on film that seems to distill the insanity of progressive ideology.
- [68:29]
D
And very often that clip comes from Canada.
- [68:32]
B
Yes, in this case. All right, so let me set the stage. The 2026 federal NDP leadership convention was called in Winnipeg in Canada.
- [68:41]
D
New Democrat Party. They're the party even left of Justin Trudeau's party, the Liberal Party. So super liberal.
- [68:48]
B
So they didn't go viral for their policies, you know, housing, their awful ideas about inflation or health care, how they can kill more people through euthanasia. They went viral for something called equity cards. Now, if you are a person that came to this convention, you were given a gender or gender identity card, which would be green. You were given a race or ethnicity card, if you're not white, that would be pink or purple. You had a card for indigenous status, LGBTQ status, or a disability status. Now, what these cards are intended to do was give you the ability to jump into lines. So if there's a queue that's formed, a line that's formed to ask a question and force a debate on a certain policy, you could jump the debate over the white people if you had one of these cards. It was designed to give diverse viewpoints more consideration and priority over white people's viewpoints, essentially. So what did that result in? I'll let you see. Play SOT 18.
- [69:57]
H
There's a point of privilege on microphone one. Then we'll go to microphone three. Go ahead, delegate. Yes, hello.
- [70:04]
B
I was standing here with my gender equity card before you called on the previous speaker.
- [70:09]
G
That's my point of privilege.
- [70:10]
B
And I would like to.
- [70:10]
H
I will. Yesterday, this card was used in an inappropriate matter. And while I understand in Ontario we know this is equity, even if that this was also used inappropriate in terms of gender. I want everyone to be mindful that these cards for individuals like myself who identify as a black woman have no value outside of this space.
- [70:36]
D
So, yeah, they're handing out equity cards that you're supposed to flex to get
- [70:40]
B
you to jump in line. You get privileged.
- [70:42]
D
We laugh at this, but this is. There's a deadly serious kernel here, which is we have struggles in America over dei, where we have, despite our constitution, systematic discrimination based on race or sex. But at least in America, our laws say it's not supposed to be that way. You're not supposed to discriminate. And that gives us reason for hope. It gives us ways to counterattack. And the vibe is mostly against it. Canada is not like that. Canada is the true, call it post liberal country Canada, actually, in their laws, they just explicitly say if you are a black person or if you are indigenous person, you should be punished less for the same crime. You can create a job opening in Canada for, you know, a university professor for anything, basically, and just say white men are not allowed to apply for this job. And it's not because it's an acting job where you need someone who looks a certain way. It's not because it's a sports job. It's specifically just a neutral job. White men need not apply. That is what Canada has become. And what you just saw there, heard there is cartoonish. But that is what the left wants. They want a. It is truly a. It's not even the future. It's not a decline. It's a regression back to the way the world was before the American Revolution. The American Revolution, one of its core bits was that all men are created equal. Actually, we're going to abolish all feudal status. They want to restore feudal status where who your parents are is more important than what you do, what you look like matters.
- [72:18]
B
That is a visual representation of a regression to a pre Declaration of Independence world where you have sectarianism and tribalism ruling the day. Because this was designed to operationalize equality or equity in real time. And what did you see happen that the Oppression Olympics played out for all to see, where this group said that they were more oppressed and had more privilege over this group. And then this group disagreed. And so instead of having a system that was equal for all, you had everybody trying to claim their privilege, speaking over each other, fighting each other, saying it was their turn to speak. It wasn't their turn to speak. It was actually cartoonish. But it is deadly serious if you
- [73:01]
D
want to get at what a backwards society is in a single sentence. You might put it this way, that it is more important to be something than to do something. It matters more what you are than what you've done. Because in America, the biggest reason we are such a profoundly transformational country for the entire world is that we flipped that on its head. We said, what you do matters, what you have accomplished matters, what your character is matters. And in Canada, they're returning to the old way, which just says matters what your skin is. It matters what group you're in, your privileges just derived from your group status. They're all inherited. They're all based on blood. And it's very bleak because you can make fun of it, but the end result of that is economic stagnation, poverty, hatred, misery, backwardness. You don't innovate anymore.
- [73:54]
B
Well, the group that, again to Blake's point, was already further left than Trudeau ultimately selected Avi Lewis as its new leader, a figure associated with a further left shift for the party. So when you get a bunch of people in a room kvetching and complaining about their oppression and how they should be privileged more because of their identity or their sexual orientation, you tend to have a party that will move further and further left until they fall off the cliff into utter stupidity and banality and cartoonish behavior. May the Lord spare such a result for the United States.
- [74:40]
D
For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.