April 6th, 2026

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here, our number 877-381-3811.  877-381-3811. Welcome to the program. So I did the Sunday show. I hope you all were able to watch it on Fox, Life, Liberty and Levin. And the opening was a little different than people expected. It was on birthright citizenship, which I had not had an opportunity to discuss again on Fox, even though I had two or three times earlier in my career there. Because that decision will be coming down. And when it comes down, it’s going to be a big deal. And there was nothing else I could say about the. Fantastic effort and successful effort by the administration, by our military. To retrieve the second pillar. We’ll get into that later. But rather than just repeating all the news that was known and a lot wasn’t known by then, just certain amounts of information gotten out, I just thought I should go ahead and proceed. And so I decided in preparing that monologue last night, I wanted this to be in as plain of English as possible. So even a Supreme Court justice could understand. Even a leftist could understand. Even the media can understand the absolute hoax that is birthright citizenship. And I’ve done it with you folks, and I’ve done it with the Levin Liberty’s Voice Video podcast, and I’ve done it before on Fox. But I decided really, really make a granular textual. Make it as. Understandable as possible. And I did that for 20 minutes. And I went through carefully, slowly, with the highlights of the 1866 civil rights decision. Who were the authors of that act, I should say. Who were the authors of that act? Why was it passed in the first place and gave the history surrounding it and the and the environment surrounding the the passing of that act? And then it had been vetoed by the then President Johnson, a Democrat who became president as vice president when Lincoln was assassinated. And why was that important at the time? And so then we discussed. The authors of the 14th Amendment and why did they decide to have a 14th Amendment? And the history surrounding that and what the people involved in it had to say. And then I went to the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. I went to the language of the 14th Amendment. And they tell us what it meant. And I explained, as I have with you, that you don’t have to go to Blackstone, You don’t have to go to English common law. You don’t have to go anywhere except what’s right in front of you. That’s what constitutional conservatism is all about. That’s what originalism is all about. It’s why we’re not right wingers were not left wingers were not wingers at all. That is the press that is modern day academia trying to pigeonhole you and me as something that we’re not and push us over into the corner. And they pretend to be the center of the action where the center of the action, we’re the core of what the people who founded this country believe we are, you and me. And so we walked through it. And the president watched it. He thought it was fabulous. He posted on it. And he was encouraging everybody to watch it, including Supreme Court justices. And the media was furious. They were furious. And so we have headlines like, let’s see, Media eight. I’ve told you about this site before, with the exception of one or two people, really is a sloppy site. Trump tells SCOTUS to Study Mark Levin Show on Moneymaking Birthright Hoax. Then picked up by they’re sort of inbred these leftist sites. Panic Trump 79, rages at Supreme Court in 1 a.m. in meltdown. Newsweek Donald Trump says Supreme Court Should Base Decision on Fox News host. In the headlines raw all like this. Just dismissive. Because the media are partisan, they’re activists, they’re left wing, They hate the Constitution. They hate the president. They hate you, Mr.. Mrs. America. They say better things about Hamas and Hamas supporters in this country, in Iran and Iran, supporters in this country than they do about you. Then they do about you. So part of the problem we have, obviously, is there are people who aren’t really focused in on these things. And so they read headlines and they read some of these reports on what’s taking place because the press are supposed to be a source of information, of news, but they’re not. They’re not. Donald Trump says Supreme Court Should Base Decision on Fox News Host Newsweek. Donald Trump was not talking about the Fox News host he was talking about with the fox news host had to say there’s not a thing in that newsweek article. That contradicts counters, challenges, Anything that I said, nothing. In Media eight. They lied and they distorted and they deceived. They said it’s been the long standing position of the Supreme Court that birthright citizenship applies. We’re talking about illegal alien children. The Supreme Court has never even ruled on that, ever. There’s no federal statute on that ever talking about birthright citizenship. And so here you have a so-called reporter. It was a complete liar. But rather than take on what I argued and what I stated, the substance of it were some counter arguments. They had none. It reminded me of most of the justices during the hearing last week. If they had a single example. Just one. One. Then any of the authors of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the precursor, which really the motivator behind the 14th Amendment, or if they had a single statement by anybody. Who was involved in the 14th Amendment. Promoting the idea of universal citizenship to anybody born into the United States, including illegal aliens. Let’s see it. Let’s hear it. There’s nothing zero. There was no such thing as illegal aliens back then because they didn’t have immigration laws of much, much to speak of. So they didn’t counter the solicitor general of the United States when he was arguing, although he went off on the summaries, I wouldn’t have. But nonetheless, I’m just staying focused. They went off to things like if it’s the intent of the illegal alien who comes into the country or any alien that comes into the country, that the United States should be their domicile, therefore allegiance to the United States. How do we know their intent? We have to go through all this due process stuff. And I thought to myself, What does that have to do with anything? When you were ruling on the tariff issue, you weren’t concerned about how complicated it would be to return funds to individuals and how that would work out. Not one of them said a damn thing about it. Stay focused on the Constitution and the law and your damn job. What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship? Not a damn thing. Zero. Zero. And they knew exactly what was meant. By the jurisdiction thereof. Based on the earlier writings two years before and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, they knew exactly what they were talking about. And yet they pretend they don’t. You want to know why? Because they’re cowards. Other than Alito, who was clear, Other than Thomas who is clear, Gorsuch seemed wobbly. Kavanaugh seemed wobbly. I don’t know where this is going to wind up, but I will tell you this If they constitutional is something that doesn’t exist in the Constitution. That means Congress can’t do anything other than pass an amendment to the Constitution. You see how the Congress is divided. That’ll never happen. Convention of states were always off from having a convention of states. Then what the Supreme Court will do is what no Congress has ever done. And what’s that? Voted to make birthright citizenship the law. In fact, by the Supreme Court upholding it. If they do, if they should, then it is enshrined in the Constitution. There’s absolutely no basis for that. None. Now, the consequences if they do that are monumental. Catastrophic. Inescapable. That means every child born in the United States. Are they aliens or illegal aliens? With minor, minor exceptions that are irrelevant here. Will be an American citizen. Now, you can imagine, especially in a Democrat administration, how they’ll open the borders and how many people will come into the country and have children. Now, for the communist Chinese, it’ll be a heyday. Because they’ve already sent tens of thousands of pregnant women, Chinese citizens, into the United States, giving birth to babies who become U.S. citizens, then leaving the United States with their babies, bringing them back to China, and then they’ll become adults. Then they’ll send them back to the United States. Will the government there and they’ll have all the rights of American citizens. They’ll be able to work on Silicon Valley. They’ll be able to work on top secret plans. They’ll be able to work in the military. They’ll be able to run for governmental positions. And who are they going to represent? And when presented with something akin to that, the chief justice, the United States, said that’s not what we’re deciding on today. So I went through all that and more. And the best news we could do is Donald Trump says Supreme Court should base the decision on fox news host. That’s the best they could do. That’s the best they could do. Media Hype Trump Tells SCOTUS to Study Mark Levin Show on Moneymaking Birthright Hoax Like 14 different topics in the one run on sentence here for the title. And the rest were no different. Then the rest were no different. So rather than have any legitimate pushback, I’m not talking about sloganeering and lying and deceiving. I’m talking about tell me who said birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment? Tell me. Nobody. Tell me what they meant by the jurisdiction thereof. I told them. I told them are two of the authors, two of the authors of the amendment said. There’s no no response. Zero. Zero. Then they point to an 1898 decision, the same Supreme Court that in 1896 issued the Plessy versus Ferguson. Separate but equal as equal. That upheld segregation right up to Brown versus Board of Education in the 1950s. That court that court ruled essentially. That a father who was a naturalized citizen of the United States with a Chinese ancestry and a mother who was not, that their baby was a citizen. It was decided wrongly that decision violated 40 years of practice, 40 years from 1868. From 1868 on. 30 years of practice, I should say, to 1898. But it still didn’t involve an illegal alien child. The Supreme Court never ruled on that. So if this court. Constitutional is birthright citizenship for an illegal alien. Child will do something that no Congress has done. No prior Supreme Court has done. That the framers of the amendment didn’t promote, that The framers of the act that preceded the amendment didn’t promote a term that is not in federal law. It’s not codified anywhere, a term that’s not found in the Constitution anyway. They can’t find a soul. They can’t find a. A syllable. That supports what they want to do. And the media treats it. Treat it the way it does. And I hope the court did listen. I hope the court does listen. I hope the court does the right thing. I just don’t think there’s anything that had the guts to do it. Because what we’re really talking about is politics and policy, not the Constitution and not the rule of law. That’s what we’re talking about. They will try and camouflage it. Camouflage it with the Constitution. I’ll tell you one English common law. And this. They’ll go on and on and on. But I am telling you the truth. Cutting away at all the statistics. If I’ve read the Constitution once, I’ve read it a thousand times. And I don’t mean just read through it speed reading. I mean studying it. Going over it, looking at the background of the different clauses and who was involved in what. And that includes the amendments to the Constitution, especially the post-Civil War amendments and the Bill of Rights before that. But that’s the best. The press kinda. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Don’t forget Liberty’s voice. We get a brand new program up there today and think you’re going to like it. You can go to excuse me, can go to Rumble or YouTube. It’s absolutely free. And you can know that it’s absolutely unaltered or hindered by foreign influences, by billionaires, by all the rest of it. I just do it myself on my own dime. That’s Rumble. You can go there and follow us on YouTube. You can go there subscribing and it’s free. They just have different names for the same thing, but you just type in Liberty’s voice because that’s the name of the program. And we’re going to get into some very interesting subjects, as you’ll see. Same with tomorrow. Tomorrow I’m going to delve into something called the Articles of Confederation. What well, is that all about? What are they? People talk about them and they dismiss them. It’s about your history. And I think you’ll have fun. I’ve been digging into that a little bit, and I’ll present that to you tomorrow. Don’t forget Liberty’s Voice, bookmark it. Check it out. YouTube. You can subscribe, Rumble, you follow. But either way, it’s free. Liberty’s Voice. We’ll be right back.

Segment 3
I want more and more folks on the Internet who come to talk radio because. I’d like more and more people on radio to come to Liberty’s voice when I do that podcast, because we find that there’s only about a 7% overlap in audiences. It’s a totally different world online that’s very toxic. Quite frankly, this format is not toxic. We have rules and we have requirements and we have bosses and everything else. The Internet has none of that. And so you get, as you can imagine, evil people, saboteurs, foreign enemy types, bots just goes on and on and on. So you must see your way through that. You do the best you can. And I’m I’m all for it. That is trying it and fighting it. But there’s really very little overlap. So I want to encourage you folks to check out Liberty’s Voice. You don’t have to live on the Internet like these other people do. Internet nerds. And you can do it through YouTube and Rumble Liberty’s voice. And I’m encouraging people there to come and listen to the program on radio here. And I just posted there. Did you know the American Revolution actually began well before 1776 and was, in fact, decades in the making. Did you know that we lost more battles than we won? Did you know only about 40 to 45% of the colonists supported the war? I can only imagine what the Forever War crowd today would would have said and how they would have trashed George Washington in the Patriots there in roaming the earth back then. Fair point, Mr. Wilson. They would have been undermining the war effort every step of the way, if not, in fact, joining the British as loyalist to the to the crown. I have no doubt about this. Here. This is from today’s Liberty Voice. If you choose to listen to the video podcast, cut one. Go. To become an American citizen, there’s an entire process. Among other things, you have to show allegiance to the country, have to study some of the history. You have to pass a test. You have to put your hand on a Bible, your right hand in the air, and swear allegiance to the United States. So an illegal alien comes into the United States, bypasses that whole process. They’re here illegally, meaning they violated federal immigration laws. How does that mother then confer jurisdiction on her baby if she doesn’t have jurisdiction herself and by jurisdiction? Well, I’ll take it either way. Physical jurisdiction in the United States, which is what the others argue, which is nonsense or allegiance to the United States. She’s here illegally. Her physical jurisdiction is illegal. She hasn’t gone through any of the processes to determine allegiance. And yet the child is considered a citizen. It’s all bogus as a logical matter and as a constitutional matter. We have a lot of fun doing this, as I have a lot of fun doing this. This. Cut to one more clip. Go. The communist Chinese government has set up over 500 corporations for the purpose of getting people into the United States illegally, having children, those children becoming citizens, and then quickly leaving the United States to go back to China. Now, why would China be doing that? And isn’t that a very important issue since we’re talking now about tens of thousands? I saw one estimate, over 100,000 such babies. Why are they doing that? Because when those children become adults, they are free to come to the United States. Why? Because they’re citizens. And what else are they free to do? Join the military. Join the government. Join any Silicon Valley company. Join any federal contractor that provides funding or support to our military. Why do you think the communist Chinese government is setting up over 500 companies to have what would be Chinese citizens born in the United States now? These children are also citizens of China, but they’re now formally citizens of the United States. What do you think the founders would say about that? I think they’d be repulsed. Absolutely repulsed. The president gave quite a long press conference today and was absolutely brilliant from beginning to end. Brilliant. Brilliant. And they you know, the reporters asked, when do you think this will end? He says, I don’t know. Of course, he doesn’t know exactly when it’s going to end. You don’t know in any war, let alone battle. And he also has pointed out that, look, the Iranians cannot be trusted. We’re doing our best. And so at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies makes a very strong case that there’s not one, you know, strongmen leader right now. It’s like a politburo of five who are making the decisions. Here’s the president today. Cut three. Go. They’re very good. You know, that’s why for 47 years they’ve been in other presidents and they haven’t done the job. And people are living in hell. You live in that country. They’re living in hell. No, I think that 47 years of this stuff is long enough. They’re at the weakest point they’ve ever been. They have no Navy. They have no Air force. They have no anti-aircraft weaponry. They have no radar. They have no communication. Mm hmm. Cut for a go. Why would they want you to blow up their infrastructure to cut off their power? Wouldn’t that be punishing Iranians for the actions of the regime? They would be willing just. They would be. Well, and this suffering. They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom. The Iranians have. And we’ve had numerous intercepts. Please keep bombing bombs that are dropping near their homes. Please keep bombing. Do it. And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding. And when we leave and we’re not hitting those areas, they’re saying, please come back, come back, come back. These are the people. I don’t know what they do. Well, I can tell you, if they want freedom, they have lived in a world that you know nothing about. It’s a violent, horrible world where if you protest, you are shot. You remember the great woman protest where they had 400,000, 500,000 women and they were all twos and they were going to protest. And everybody said, oh, the regime is going to come to an end. And then all of a sudden, boom, boom, the five or six different areas, a woman would go down right between the eyes and snipers and five snipers. That’s all it took. And those four or 500,000 women said, Oh my God, what’s a oh, look over there. And what’s that? A woman shot right between the eyes. And after five or six of them go down, then you start hearing the purr through the vast number of people, and then they share all of that. Who would do that? And they’re incredible people. But they’ve lived so horribly. They’ve lived so horribly. You know, Iran was a great country. If you go back 25 years ago or so, the Persian people, they’re incredible smart, brilliant, actually. And I know so many I know coming from New York originally, I know so many people from Iran. They’re incredible people, incredible energy and and very, very brilliant people. And but when you’re standing in a group and protesting and you have a woman in the case, it all remember the great woman march, everybody was like, oh, this is the end of the country. And then snipers selectively picked every single one was shot right between the eyes from a long distance. They were on top of buildings. Nobody even knew where they were, where they coming from. This wasn’t like a machine gun, which is also very bad. They’ve done that, too. They did that recently. This was snipers sitting on the top of buildings aiming and hitting women. And when they see people go down and all of a sudden there’s a riot in the reverse direction and they never came out again. And a lot of the news doesn’t talk about that. They talk about, oh, women’s rights, you want to see women’s rights, You’re not going to see it there. It’s amazing when I see some of the stupid people like AOC plus three or that group, they talk about, oh, freedom for Iran. They don’t tell you the real facts. Women and men. Gays. How about gays for Iran? They kill the gays. They throw them off buildings. So I wonder what what’s going on? I can only say this. They want us to keep bombing even if it jeopardizes because their life is in much greater danger. They want freedom for Iran, but it’s very hard for them to protest. I actually tell them I said, don’t go out. I fully understand. Nobody in this room would go out. I don’t think, because frankly, it’s not a question of bravery. We’re all brave, frightened, brave. I’m brave. We’re brave, but we’re also intelligent. If you have people shooting at you, expert shots with the best rifles you can get and hitting you right between the eyes every single time. And you’re looking here and you’re saying. And you’re looking here. You’re out of there. I don’t care who. Mm hmm. He’s so down to earth, and he gets it so completely. He truly does. Cut five. Go. They don’t have guns. You know, we sent some guns, but the group that we’re supposed to have, which I said would happen to my place, is out front, that the Easter celebration now and the Easter egg hunt, they’re preparing. The kids are there and he’s responding to reporters. Go ahead. Back. We sent guns to guns. They were supposed to go to the people so they could fight back against these thugs. You know that. But the people that they sent them to kept him because they said, What a beautiful gun. I think I’ll keep it. So I’m very upset with this group of people and they going to pay a big price for that. But the Iranian people will fight back as soon as they know they’re not going to be shot and as soon as they can get weapons. This whole thing about weapons actually started with me on Saturday with General Keane and others. But the monologue on Saturday was about we need to arm the Iranian people. We need to arm them. They can’t just rise up with bare hands. And they’re not going to be able to just march like Mahatma Gandhi and so forth. It’s not going to work. And enough with them being slaughtered the way they’re being slaughtered. It’s so horrendous, so outrageous, so disgusting. So let’s arm them. And so that’s how this issue came about. I think at least publicly, and I’m going to continue to press the case publicly. That these people should be armed and we’ve done it before. We did it in the Reagan doctrine, the Trump Doctrine of the Reagan doctrine of the best foreign policy, you know, doctrines we’ve ever had. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Well, now, Mr. President, what about your supporters? They’re not really supporting you and what you’re doing, you know. Now we know that to be a lie. But cut six, go and everyone saying, Oh, is Trump losing MAGA? No, I’m not losing at MAGA loves what I’m doing. And CNN did a poll of MAGA voters, a big poll, very important poll. Perry and he went on he said, this is amazing, 100% support. He said, I’ve never had a 100% poll and anything before. And his do you support Trump MAGA people, which is, by the way, mostly Republican. And if you look, I would say MAGA makes up a majority. Like about 95% of the Republican Party. All right. So they went out, they did a poll at CNN, came back 100% support. So they support what we’re doing, but they would like to see it end and come back. But remember, wars last years, we’re in there for 34 days and we’ve obliterated a very powerful country in 34 days. Yeah. If it were up to me, I’d like to keep the oil. I just don’t think the people of the United States would really understand. So now he says, What about ending this for? What do you have in mind? Pretty stupid question, actually. Let’s skip the cut eight, Mr. Producer, go. We have regime change. But we didn’t do this for regime change. We did it for the fact. And my my view is very simple. I said somebody said, oh, he doesn’t have a plan. I have the best plan of all, but I’m not going to tell you what my plan is. You know, they want me to say, here’s my plan. We’re going to attack at 947 in the morning and then we’re going to do this and then we’re going to that. We don’t do that. They say, I have a plan. These people know what the plan is. Everybody here knows what the plan is. But it’s very unfair to say who we are because I don’t mind being insulted. I’ve been insulted for many years by the by the fake news. But you can’t it’s so bad for the people that are so poor. You just are too great. And John Ratcliffe, three unbelievable people, they have a plan. Every every single thing has been thought out by all of us. But I can’t reveal the plan to the media. And in addition to a plan he’s pointed out, I can’t be certain how this is going to end. So their plans and plans, their backup plans, and that’s just normal. That’s just normal. New York Times reporter to the president. You’re violating the Geneva Convention if you hit, you know, these water locations, you hit the bridges and some of the morons in the the woke right neo fascist, isolationist types, they regurgitate their crap. They don’t know a damn thing. They’ve gone to very poor law schools. Maybe they haven’t gone to law schools at all. I don’t know. But they’re stupid. That much I do know. And of course, they’re rooting for the enemy. They pretend they’re not. They pretend they care about the soldiers. They they pretend they care about, you know, affordability and the price of gasoline. No, they don’t. They don’t at all. They’re really about sabotaging the commander in chief in the military, but they don’t want to say. Let’s go to cut ten. Go. Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions. And then I look at this, ladies and gentlemen, and they don’t violate the Geneva Convention if they have a legitimate military objective. Okay. Now, obviously, hitting bridges has a legitimate military objective. I believe we’ve done that in every war we’ve ever been in. To prevent the movement of the enemy. Same with hitting energy plants and other types of places and so forth. But it is amazing how our media think the woke right neofascist. How they think. How the Marxist Islamists think. How Democrats in Congress think. Which is we should play by Marcus at Queensbury rules. And the other side can wear brass knuckles. And then they wonder why we have any. Any. Casualties in these wars. If we fought them the way they wanted, we’d have literal forever wars we could never win with massive casualties. It’s really disgusting. I can’t believe the first hour is over already, baby. We’ve got two biggies left. I hope you’ll be with us. We’ll be right back.