American Spectator
Mark Levin’s American Marxism: A Much-Needed Home Run

X
DSA National Leader David Jenkins Says the Quiet Part Out Loud: “Our Goal Is Communism”

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Podcast page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811.  877-381-3811. It’s hard to know where to begin. Some days I’m watching something that’s very important. More and more TV hosts, radio hosts, good podcasters. Are talking about this fusion of Marxism and Islamism and. How this is a a cancer on society. The president’s talking about the communists. And what’s interesting is we’ve been talking about this for a very long time. You and I. Now, this book I wrote, American Marxism, came out. I’m trying to remember I think it was during COVID, it came out 2021. It’s not that long ago, what, five years ago sold 1.3 million copies, which means many of you bought it and read it. And yet most of the people talking to us today on TV and radio and podcasts have not. They act like there was no warning ever given. Even talk about things that are straight out of the book. That everything the Democrats do is about power. Where have you heard that before? Power. They want power. My God, we spent months and months on that and an entire book on that fact. I think I called it on Power. And that book came out just a couple of years ago. Early last year or mid-last year. If you read American Marxism and on Power, you will know everything that’s going on. You will understand everything that’s going on. More so than the people who are talking to you about it today. Now, I’ve spent a lot of time on the Internet over the last. I guess it’s been six months. Mr. Producer, would you say that’s going to slow down? I don’t think there is as much benefit in in that. But I wanted to explore it. I don’t find that there’s a whole lot of. Profundity substance. There’s a lot of bickering, a lot of child’s play. There is some. Good information. There was some good people, but it’s the exception, not the rule. I’m not putting anybody down. I’m just explaining it. And so. You only have so much time in the day and I’m spending 20 hours a day on these things. Working harder than I ever have. And I want to. But it has to be time well-spent. It has to be time well spent. And I think my best time spent is right here on radio, my TV show. And in my books. But it troubles me immensely that individuals who are talking about current events are not that well schooled. And I don’t mean by teachers, I mean by themselves. They don’t spend a lot of time. Really digging in on the subject. It’s so now we’re talking about the red, green, Green, Red Alliance. I don’t like that because it confuses people. Why don’t we be blunt about it? The Marxist Islamist alliance. And they talk about the woke Reich. It’s the woke Ari IKEA. I coined that phrase. People say they did it. We know what we do here because it is a quasi, if not full blown neo fascist movement. It was gaining a foothold in the Republican Party. I took it on. You were with me every step of the way. About 14 months ago. That whole element now has been exposed. Now they want to create a third party or a opposition party to the conservative Republicans. And so their goal now is to defeat us and to elect radical Marxist Islamist Democrats. Because these alliances are about power. That’s what they’re about. And if they can’t find power in one place, they’ll look in another place. Now, I think it’s important that we actually dig into this. You know, a good friend of mine, Jeffrey Lord, has been a friend of mine a very long time from Pennsylvania as well. When American Marxism came out. He wrote about it. Almost a year ago to the day July eight, 2021 excuse me, 2021, not a year ago. Five years ago to the day. He says. As usual, Mark Levin pulls no punches. His very first chapter in his new book, American Marxism. It’s Here opens with a seriously precise description of the challenge America faces. Levin writes The counter-revolution to the American Revolution is in full force. It can no longer be dismissed or ignored for its devouring our society and culture swirling around our everyday lives and ubiquitous in our politics, schools, media and entertainment. Once a mostly unrelatable fringe and subterranean movement. It is here and it is everywhere. The counter revolution movement of which she speaks is Marxism. He says it’s Mark’s Communist Manifesto recall that famously divided the world into oppressor and oppressed. Levin astutely notes that the use of this formula in today’s America by the left, means that either you are part of the righteous revolution for liberation and transformation or you are not. This explains, but only in part the cowardice of corporatist, I wrote. Professional athletes, broadcasters, artists, actors, writers, journalists who in the face of such tumult. Buckle under the pressure, seek to avoid the mobs, notice through various forms of appeasement and capitulation. And in some cases participate in their own transfiguration and even disempowerment. Lord Wright’s no More prescient description could be made of an event that occurred before American Marxism was released. Its official published date is next week, and it goes into what happened in Atlanta, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines and all that. She says. This was a vivid example of Levin’s description of corporations buckling under the pressure to avoid the mobs Notice. Discussing the role of the mob, Mark zeroes in on Marxist anarchist ideology of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. In fact, while after Black Lives Matters popularity had surged in 2020, a 2015 video surfaced that revealed the BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, describing herself and her fellow BLM organizers as, quote, trained Marxists, unquote. Truth counts. Mass movements, Mark also notes, relies significantly on indoctrination and brainwashing, which is exactly the case with BLM and Antifa. And now we can add this so-called Democratic socialist movement. American Marxism in this entire chapter devoted to Hate America Inc. And in it, Mark explains the long history of those who have openly pushed the Marxist agenda in America’s colleges and universities. Levin writes that progressive intellectuals of the late 1800s were hostile toward capitalism and constitutional republican systems that established barriers against tyrannies of various kinds, including that which is born from the mob or centralized autocracy. And of course, that would become known as progressivism. On the eve of American Marxism publication publication. America had just passed the through the traditional July four holiday marks. Description of the results generated by Hate America Inc was on vivid display. The headline on July six, New York Post, was nothing if not confirmation a marked point. It read Red, White and woke. July 4th weekend became the liberal bash fest of America. The New York Post reported liberal politicians and commentators took special joy in celebrating July 4th by denouncing America. Statue of Liberty was not a symbol of freedom, but a symbol of hypocrisy. The flag was polarizing. The national anthem doesn’t speak for everyone or anyone. Among the remarks by these hate America Marxists was this jewel of a tweet from Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush of Missouri. She said. When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this. The freedom they’re referring to is for white people. This land is stolen land and black people still aren’t free. And then it goes on American Marxism. Also lasers in on critical race theory, correctly calling it what so many outraged parents. The land throughout the land have seen is that it’s taught to their school age children mark rights and short CRT is an insidious and racist Marxist ideology spreading throughout our culture and society. He cites George, a new research professor of public policy and political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He writes The two bestselling proponents of CRT, Robin D’Angelo and Abraham Kendi CRT begins with the presumption that race is the primary way to identify and analyze people and consequently posits a racial hierarchy that supposedly exists with whites on top. Blacks on bottom. Individual behavior is insignificant because everyone in America functions within the society as systemic racism, structural racism, institutional racism. Not only is this correct, writes Lord, but in fact the Angelo and Kendi and CRT itself are nothing more than recycled George Wallace isms. Wallace For those who came in late, was the 1960s era Democratic governor of Alabama, who proudly proclaimed he supported segregation today, tomorrow, and forever. In other words, Wallace, as was CRT, proponents believe that race is the primary way to Idanre. And it goes on. And the important part of American Marxism is I was laying out in this book. The revolution and the transformation that was taking place. Much of it right before our eyes, but much of it under the radar in our classrooms. I pointed out the Marxist books that were being used to teach history, that were being teach to use political science and how American Marxism. Was an Americanized form, a customized tailored form of Marxism applicable to the United States. Where they were using race, not just wealth. And anti-capitalism, but race and ethnicity. You can see it now, the so-called Palestinian cause. These are key to who they are and what they are. And that’s why there’s a marriage between the Islamists and the Marxists in the United States. And I watched our friend Will Cain just do an interview on Fox of the leader of the Democratic Socialists of America. And he was asked flat out. Are you a communist? He said, Look, they’re not right like like in Russia and so forth. And they said, you know, Soviet. You said, No, no, no, no, the Soviet Union’s dead and so forth and so on. But the follow up was. That was a head fake. He’s an American Marxists, an American communist. That again, they are customizing. And. Make and tailoring. The Marxist ideology for the American culture in the American society. This is what’s been going on for more than 20 years. But it really. He came to a height five years ago. And of course, is in full display right now. The reason why October 7th and the Slaughter of Jews on October seven, 2023. For many people seemed like, wow, automatically. And unbelievably, these revolutionary movements came to the fore. Is it because they were? You know, doing so. Out of nowhere. They were planned. There’s systemic. The Palestinian cause. On October 8th, even before the Israelis responded, they were talking about genocide in Gaza. They were ready to go. Funded again by foreign governments as well. Qatar, among others. Iran. Funded in our country by billions and billions flowing into our our schools. There’s a reason why Qatar’s the number one. Founder of terrorism and terror front groups and ideology in America. And communist China’s number two. Because they have the same objective. American marches. Now, what does that have to do with on power? Stick with me. We’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Now, I know a lot of the men I read. Maybe you want to listen to an audio version. I don’t even know if they’re available. I checked Amazon. These books are all heavily discounted because Amazon is about moving as many products as they can. I’m not pushing this to make money. It’s not about making money. I’m not going to make a lot of money off this. It’s about you being the spokesman, the activist, the person at the dinner table, the breakfast table at church or synagogue or wherever you are explaining things to people. Explaining things to people now. It’s a very short segment now, and I want to extend this, obviously, well beyond the bottom of the hour. But now the book on Power, which is the last book I wrote, which came out about this time last year. About 11 months ago, give or take. I want to get into this with you, too, because. Those of you who are really, really smart and been with me a long time, you understand each one of these books really is a chapter, A chapter, a chapter. A chapter in a series of books. These ten books. These ten books, starting with the Supreme Court book. Men in black all the way up their own power. I suspect most of this will be viewed as, Wow, this is good stuff when I’m dead and gone and that’s fine. But I’m worried about the here and now and what’s going on in our country. So stick with me. It’s all very important. We’ll be right back.

Segment 3
All right. What about this power issue? You know, when I write a book, as you know, I spend four or five or six months explaining it on TV, on radio. That person to a number of people because I think it’s very important. On power begins. Many have written about and debated the issue of power. Clearly, the ancients and modern philosophers, scholars and statesmen alike. Stick with me. This is important. Why? Because power determines your social arrangements, quality of life. And more to the point of this book, whether you are free or enslaved or some degree of either. In short, it determines your personal faith, the faith of your community, and the fate of a nation. Yep. There are infinite ways to view power, innumerable contexts and circumstances in which to apply it. There’s truly no simple, concise, all purpose definition for what is meant by power. Clearly, however, it’s more than a mere word. To spend time thinking, talking or writing about it is not a mere abstraction, a useless, amorphous, a more an elitist as so terrorism. Power is a term meant to describe some kind of force or energy that surrounds us all the time is both ubiquitous in your life and the life of an entire society and is consequential in every way. Power is a core reality characteristic of human existence. Yet without more to go on such as context and circumstance, it can be ambiguous and elusive in all human pursuits, including personal pursuits and life events. Power matters. At a macro level, power shapes economies, politics and governments. Moreover, there are many variations implied powers, necessary powers, assumed powers, granted powers to find powers, and on and on. For most people, these are unstated and often unnoticed or obscure kinds of power. But they exist and they matter. Indeed, power is inextricably linked to liberty, although it’s not to be confused with liberty itself. Power determines if there’s too much liberty like anarchy or too little like tyranny, depending on how power is exercised, who exercises in if it is bound by human rights. The American Revolution is an important and obvious example of power properly pursued and exercised, the point of which does promote individual and societal liberty, including by means of representative, limited, divided government that is ordered liberty. Conversely, autocrats of every stripe and in all ages have exploited liberty to empower themselves at the expense of the liberty of others. Fact one’s use of liberty this way to expand one’s own power, to diminish, if not denude the liberty of others is in a real sense a paradox. And it is a cancer that apparently metastasizes over time within democracies. Of course, there are democracies that have lasted several centuries, but in the end they have all succumbed to the steady increase in the centralization of power. Any decline in individual and societal liberty. Sadly, this appears to be the nature of things right now, too. To be clear then, even the most widely conceived nation states, mindful of man’s abuses of power and establish with the intent of curbing and restraining that power, seem to fail in the end, Garner, Athens, Rome and numerous lesser societies. Democracy struggle against the centralization of power almost from the moment they’re established. And keep in mind the first book, American Marxism, I go into incredible, comprehensive detail about what is happening in our culture and our society and our educational system in school boards to parenting in our our culture. And what is Marxism? What is it? It’s it’s obviously a defective form of a philosophy, an ideology. But it is tyranny dressed up as humane fairness. In a word, it’s emotional. When you listen to the Marxist speak, it’s all about emotion. You deserve this and you should get that. But let’s go on with power. Because they’re related in a big damn way. History is replete with examples of tyrants grabbing power in the name of liberty. Prime example exists in Marxist regimes for liberation through revolution, class warfare with the masses, the so-called oppressed. I started to revolt against the powerful few, the so-called oppressors and the promise of liberty through community and collectivism results in hellish, genocidal police states ruling over the people in their name, but without their consent and with an iron fist. Again, this is not only a phenomenon of tyrannies. As I noted in my first book, I mean liberty and tyranny, not my first book, but an early book, Liberty and tyranny in our own country. President Abraham Lincoln observed that slave owners and abolitionists all claim to stand for liberty. Like liberty. In the context of power. Democracy is another word that is used by the power hungry to deceive and disarm. You know, like the Democratic Socialists of America. Democracy. That’s right. Democracy is often alluded to by those who reject it as they reject universal individual liberty. And where democracies exist would destroy them. In his book, Politics in the English Language, George Orwell writes about the perversion of political words used in a consciously dishonest way. And quoting him, that is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows us here to think he means something quite different. It’s almost universally Felt, writes Orwell, that when we call a country democratic, we are praising in it. Consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it’s a democracy and fear that they they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to anyone meeting. Now me the word democracy, like the word liberty, is frequently used as a rhetorical weapon to deceive the true intentions and conceal the real nature of the abusers. Again, these behaviors and tactics are not exclusive to tyrants and autocrats and autocracies. It’s a real and growing threat in Western societies as they increasingly centralize power in the name of unlimited, egalitarian and so-called righteous causes. Environmental justice. Economic justice. Social Justice. Equity Reparations. Nationalized health care. The existential threat of climate change and so forth, which require and in fact demand the centralization of power to supposedly ameliorate the perceived, claimed, and in some cases, manufactured societal maladies, the final resolutions of which are not only impossible, but are not necessarily intended to be solvable. The agitations, demands and related propaganda are sledgehammers with which to pummel the limited and divided institutional barriers to centralize power in democratic governments. That’s exactly what’s going on right now. So when you read American Marxism, you will understand the forces behind that. Some of them are ethnic, some of them are race related, some of them are economic related, some of them are sex and gender related. Some of them are all of them. And the use and pursuit. Of power. Let us narrow the focus. I start with the observation, which I believe is historically indisputably a potentially controversial. Which you can infer from what I have already written, that over the millennia, mankind has generally suffered more from the abuse of power and the concomitant diminution of liberty than from its humane and righteous application. There important exceptions, of course, the individual’s everyday life in society generally. But narrowing the focus even further in the long history of mankind, and even in modern times, the most pervasive form of governance under which most human beings live and have lived is authoritarian. Today, one need look only at the membership of the United Nations to prove the point. Some 70% of the world’s population currently lives under brutal autocratic regimes. This raises an unpleasant question. Is this the natural state of mankind? At least in the communal sense. Even if individuals themselves wish for and seek liberty, I term this negative power. So I’m creating a new philosophical framework here. I term this negative power. And I discuss that more fully in a later chapter called Negative Power. That said, in a Democratic negative power, typically in a democracy, negative power typically takes the form of a steadily increasing centralization of authority that starts slowly, but eventually spreads more quickly to cover all corners of the nation, moving closer toward a quasi autocratic model. It occurs primarily in three general ways the imposition by the few, for example, the judiciary, the peaceful vote of the many where the people will. They vote for their own demise or the slow install is institutionalization of an acquiescence to, as Thomas Hobbes characterized it, a leviathan that is a dominating and domineering army of non-representative bureaucrats. Of course, there are degrees to which centralization develops and occurs. Some more aggressive arrangements than others. This is happening right now. It’s why I’m taking the time to go through this happening right in front of your eyes. Centralization in moderation, which is intended to secure liberty that does not exist or undergird existing liberty that is threatened or diminished by factionalism. Mob rule or anarchy is of a different character than powers secured for power sake or with a tyrannical mindset or purpose. And again, looking at our own history, in the early days of our Republic, the Articles of Confederation were abandoned because the national government lacked the power to do much. And it’s explained by the National Archives just a few years after the Revolutionary War. Madison, Hamilton and Washington feared their young country was on the brink of financial collapse. America’s First Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, gave the Confederate Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states, but it had no power to enforce them when they go on. That’s not the point right now. I just was explaining the point of. Negative power. Obviously human beings are imperfect. This is not much of a revelation. Yet it seems downplayed or ignored by too many in democracies who acquiesce to or even cheer for governmental centralization when wrapped in promises of a larger welfare state, ethnic, racial, economic empowerment, or godlike fixes to natural disasters and climate events. But the idea that the centralization of power, which necessarily concentrates authority in the hands of fewer imperfect individuals and whose base of knowledge is naturally narrow is a receipt for societal improvement, progress, stability and well-being is not only counterintuitive, but contrary to everyday human experience and mankind’s history. Indeed. What makes the individuals more perfect, less decision makers, more moral as people or more informed, wise or prudential than anyone else? Nothing. Autocrats are not known to possess such qualities or demonstrate them when exercising power. Most excel at acquiring power, but not much else. Indeed, those who achieve such a station exhibit a greater affinity for the darker side of human behavior, including corruption and dishonesty, immorality and hubris, anger, vainglory, ego, maniacal and so forth and so on. Although a rare good or perceived benefit may come from this wielding of power, such as the claim that the Italian fascist Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time. By the way, it’s a myth. It’s a it’s farcical, an awfully deadly delusion. Is this interesting to you, Mr. Wallace? Keep going. I will. Moreover, where is the evidence that concentrated power in the hands of administrative state, where the bureaucrats are consist of specially trained experts and societal organizers who know what is best for the people and know how best to achieve those ends, supposedly. Where is this ever existed? Anywhere? Certainly not in America. As will be discussed later. Contrarily, from Aristotle and Cicero to John Locke and Montesquieu and numerous others, philosophers and scholars have argued for the wisdom of diversified, dispersed, mixed power within governments. That is where power checks and balances power, which provides a greater likelihood of enlightened leadership and administration, greater respect and appreciation for the civil society and non-governmental parts of society, and more protection of individual sovereignty and free will. In essence, a positive power. A positive power structure attempts to contain and control the dark side of the human character and experience and emphasizes the capacity of free, civilized and just society. I’m just going to read a little bit more. But you can see I spent a lot of time digging into this issue, and there’s very few footnotes in this book or in notes, I guess they call them, because these are my own thoughts. Oh, excuse me. They’re my own thoughts. Think about this. I think we’d better take a break, actually. And then I want to get back to this because there’s just a few more paragraphs I’m going to read to you. And then we will sum up, because a lot of people are anxious right now, including me, worried about what’s happening to the country. You see the enemy within. You see the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. You’re very, very concerned about these elections. You see what’s happening to the Democrat Party. What are Republicans going to do? What if the Democrats take over? There’s a lot of tumult going on. It’s all intentional. We are, in fact, under attack by the enemy within. More the reason to understand what I’m trying to portray. We’ll be right back.

Segment 4
There’s a whole lot more. Stick with me. I want to I want to put a bow on this point about power as it relates to Marxism and then get into this Islamism aspect. I hope I’m not going too far too fast, but this is the way it works. We’ll be right back.

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis

John Yoo on Life Liberty and Levin: “The American Revolution, I think, is a conservative revolution, it doesn’t want to wipe out everything in favor of some kind of new socialist or communist world. It wants to restore our natural rights. What the founders thought they were seeing, and maybe they were a little conspiratorial-minded. What they thought they were seeing was the British Empire extending its tentacles of control onto the freedoms that they had enjoyed for decades and decades in a kind of benign neglect, and so they saw the British increasing taxes, stationing troops, creating a system of imports and exports that were crushing liberty here, or so they thought.”

Photo by Philip Yabut

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Podcast page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811.  877-381-3811. I’m not going to be as generous as my friend. Hugh Hewitt are some of my other friends who’ve been on TV and radio, some saying what a swell job the Supreme Court did and. Robert’s decision was absolutely brilliant. I spent a lot of time today going through them very, very carefully and not quickly. I will be on HANNITY tonight and I wanted to wait on that appearing here and there this afternoon so I could consume it all and break it all down. A lot of people say, well, now we go to the constitutional system, the amendment process. When’s the last time the Constitution has actually been amended? It’s been a long time. Hasn’t. Go ahead and Google ad Mr. Produce, or you’ll be surprised. When is the last time? Now. Well, go ahead and Google it. You’re about to find out. Not not recently, I’d tell you that. You see, ladies and gentlemen, in order to have a constitutional amendment, and then I’ll circle back. As you know, from listening to this program, there are two methods. Number one, the only methods ever actually been used. You need two thirds of both houses of Congress. To adopt language for an amendment. They both have to agree on it. Then it goes to the states with the legislatures, and the conventions thereof requires 38 states to approve. Three fourths of the states. Now, how many of you think that you’re even going to get anything close to two thirds of the House or Senate to change birthright citizenship? None of you assume because it’s never going to happen. Then we have convention of states, which is really a fantastic organization. I am strongly behind it. The problem is we don’t have 34 states that have signed on yet. I think we’ve 20 or 22, which is remarkable under the circumstances. Slow, but sure. But that process isn’t ready either. And then on top of that, look how everything is switched. The court just went ahead. And constitutionally, something that’s not in the Constitution has never been in the Constitution. And now it’s up to you and me to undo it. By getting a constitutional amendment passed. So you’re going to have a lot of. A lot of these senators, these Don Quixote types, who are basically fraudulent. I introduced an amendment to the Constitution to do this or that, and unfortunately, it’s not going to go anywhere. What we need to do is if there are vacancies on the court, put constitutionalists on the court. And that’s how Roe was reversed. That’s what’s going to have to happen. I’m not talking about packing the court. We don’t do that. I want to briefly go through some of the points that I made on line as I went through this. I try to put it in very plain English and very concisely on this birthright citizenship issue, but there’s something fundamentally shocking. Let’s start. Chief Justice Roberts begins his opinion, arguing that the states and the framers relied on English common law in writing the 14th Amendment. But that isn’t the whole story. They used it as a guide, but rejected it when they thought it conflicted with our constitutional system. Certainly is not a sound argument, to use it as a basis for the 14th Amendment of the Civil Rights Act that preceded it. They were addressing specifically the problem of some formerly Confederate states after the Civil War. To recognize freed black slaves and their children as citizens with a full and equal rights enjoyed by all other citizens. What am I talking about there? Early on in the opinion, as the foundational basis for his approach to the language in the 14th Amendment, and he returns to it later in his opinion as well. He emphasizes English common law from the 1600s. Now English common law. He argues incorrectly, When you are born in the sovereign territory of the king of the monarchy. You are automatically a citizen for most situations. Okay. A citizen Of what? A citizen to the sovereign. That is a citizen to the king. That was your sovereign. And so, of course, the king viewed Anybody born in my kingdom has allegiance to me. The King. Now, what’s the problem with that? That’s not what the founders of our country, the framers of the Constitution, said. Obviously, English common law from time to time, as I’ve wrote here. Had a had a guiding impact on what they might do, but they abandoned it often. And they certainly didn’t adopt this viewpoint. When constructing the 14th Amendment. In 1868 or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that preceded it. That’s not how they view things. And so the entirety of this opinion that Roberts puts out that the majority has signed on to is based on a false premise. And yet he needs to do this because what the hell else is he going to base it on, not explain. Let me go on now. He references, interestingly, Thomas Paine and some of the others. And I say I’m a huge fan of Thomas Paine, but his powers of persuasion during the Revolutionary War. Had little or nothing to do with the formulation of the 14th Amendment. Roberts creates a hodgepodge of references to make what is basically an argument looking for founding principles. He must. For the truth is, this case was so straightforward. And the facts in history so clear. The majority had to do what lawyers do when the facts and the history against them create contrivances. Now, this part of Robert’s opinion is especially absurd. The. Indomitable Dred Scott decision, the abominable Dred Scott decision. Had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration. It held that freed blacks and black slaves were not citizens, and Congress could not even ban slavery in federal territories. Thereby upending the Missouri compromise. This would lead in great part to the Civil War, which also had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration. And I write as I continue reading the Roberts opinion. That is the court’s decision. It does a grave injustice to the purpose of all constitutional, legal, political and ultimately military conflict aimed at dealing with. And then ending the enslavement of black people. Instead, it attempts to create more generalised policy and legal arguments that are simply deceiving. The terrible wrong was the enslavement of black people, not some immigration policy. That’s what was at issue. The only purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to use the power of the federal government to confer on all former black slaves and their progeny the same rights that applied to all other citizens. Because of continuing resistance in the former Confederate states. That’s why it was called a Civil Rights Act, not an immigration act. When President Andrew Johnson vetoed it, it was clear to the Republicans that they needed to enshrine it into the Constitution, that it was born the 14th Amendment. As Roberts continues moving through his decision, he again appeals to English common law as the basis for the 14th Amendment. But notice what’s missing. We’re all these stirring speeches by members of Congress and the state ratifying is supporting Roberts proposition. Keep something in mind. Listen, this is important. Two thirds of both houses of Congress must propose amendments to the states. In turn, three fourths must ratify amendments. That means despite all the debates and speeches that occurred around this amendment, Roberts and the proponents could not find support for their position. You get my point, Mr. Producer. If he is taking the position. The framers embraced English common law. That this is how they view jurisdiction. They want once born in the sovereign of the king. Then you are a citizen to the king. That that applied to our country. When it surely did not. Where are all the great talkers? All the great speech makers. Well, the great declarations from members of Congress, Senate and the House from legislators were some of the greatest orators existed. Where were they standing up and saying this was their position on birthright citizenship? There’s not one. There’s none. They don’t exist because the focus was the terrible problems that arose in the South after the Civil War, the rise of the Klan, the horrendous violence and the lynchings against blacks. The overall difficulty with reconstruction. Congress and the states were not thinking about birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. They weren’t glued to the ideas of English common law. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were about creating the constitutional protections for freed black slaves throughout the nation, not citizens of other countries who hadn’t even arrived on our shores legally or illegally. The extent to which Roberts and the majority have to rewrite our history to reach a decision is an ugly business. Now we come back to this where jurisdiction where Roberts makes the same argument as those who’ve always supported birthright citizenship make. That is, jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction for pregnant mothers in our country illegally and has their baby in our country. The baby is granted immediate citizenship, according to this argument, because it goes back to 1600s English common law where if you’re born in the land of the monarchy, then you are a servant, a citizen, an automatic citizen to the monarchy. I’ll think about this for a matter. It is a matter of logic. Does it make sense to you? Does it make sense to you? But a pregnant woman comes into our country and conferred jurisdiction on her baby simply on her own. Is that make any sense? Do you think that’s what the framers had in mind? More with the country from where the parent comes, continues to treat that baby as a citizen of their country. So that’s not exactly allegiance to our country. And how can the baby have an allegiance to anything? Because the baby doesn’t even know what’s going on. And why are these exceptions for babies born of diplomats and so forth? Does the 14th Amendment, if it’s interpreted as Robert insists, create exceptions of any kind? Now, we’re going to continue. I happen to think the Roberts opinion is absurd. Very. Result oriented, very activist. But he gets that fundamental issue wrong as I posted, what, an hour or two ago? That is. Excuse me. English Common law as a guide. Sure. But they didn’t abide by it like it’s the Bible and they reject aspects of it like this one. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Welcome back, America. Shall we continue? I think we shall. Now, this language is important jurisdiction. We go back to this word jurisdiction thereof. Listen to me. I’m walking you through it. Come back to the word jurisdiction where Roberts makes the same argument as those who’ve always supported birthright citizenship. Make. That is. Jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction. You’re here. That’s it. So if a pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country, the baby is granted immediate citizenship, according to this argument, for two reasons. Number one, under British common law, the subject’s born. In the Kings Kingdom. Our subjects. Well, that’s ridiculous. That’s not what the framers believe, But that’s that number two, it’s the plain language. It says jurisdiction. What else could it possibly mean? Now, as I said, Does that make sense to anybody? So a foreigner cannot unilaterally confer jurisdiction on herself. Illegally, I guess, by conferring their jurisdiction on her soon to be born baby by coming into the United States illegally. That defies simple logic. So is that what the framers of the 14th Amendment meant? Of course not. And they never said that. And meanwhile, the country from where the parent comes, continues to treat the baby as a citizen of their country. China does this now. The language states the following in the amendment all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Notice the authors did not leave it at all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Our citizens. They didn’t say that they had a language that would have been enough. So why did they add superfluous language? Superfluous language because the rest of the sentences key to what they intended, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So all persons born or naturalized to the United States. They didn’t say our citizens. They said subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It means subject to the political allegiance to our country and no other, a fundamental duty of loyalty to our country. Patriotism, part of this civil society and legal bond, societal ties in exchange for which you receive the legal rights and protections afforded all citizens. Somebody just walks into the country. None of that applies.

Segment 3
Pretty shocking. Pretty shocking. I think basically what Roberts has done is rewritten American history. That’s what he’s done. Let me go on. Now they point to this 1898 case, Supreme Court case, United States versus Wong Kim Ark. That case is totally irrelevant. Has nothing to do with babies of illegal aliens. And that case involved the birth of a baby from lawful permanent residents. Hello? Lawful permanent residents, not the baby of an illegal alien. But the language in that opinion was so broad and so over the top. Then Roberts used it, as do others in the birth rate legal world, by the way, to apply to babies born of illegal aliens. But that has no. No relevance. So you can see that Roberts and the court majority were looking for an outcome and dressing it up as a constitutional decision. And in doing so, they’ve taken judicial activism to new heights. The decision will have enormously detrimental cultural, societal, legal, economic and national security consequences. And now we are told that we, you and me, we must amend the Constitution if we wish to change what a rogue chief Justice and court majority did in abusing our Constitution, knowing full well that two thirds of members of Congress will never vote to send any amendment to the states that alters what half of Congress intentionally did to our country, and that there are not enough states. Even with a convention of states to ratify an amendment 38 states, when and if we get to the magic number of 34 states supporting a convention in time to stop the ongoing damage can. So you and I are supposed to have a discussion with each other on how to fix this? The way we fix it is more serious constitutional conservatives on the court, Roberts and Barrett. Severely undermined us. I know I have a friend out there online who tells us all the wonderful things Barrett has voted for and so forth and so on. That doesn’t fix this. It doesn’t change this. There are some decisions. Better have much more importance and others. This is a huge deal. This is a big, big deal to constitutionally something that’s not in the Constitution. The claim that it is to rewrite American history. As a Republican appointed chief justice. Is appalling. Appalling. We use British common law as a guide from time to time, but have never been wedded to it. Never. We’re a constitutional republic. That’s why we are. Now. Robertson as majority twisted the history of the 14th Amendment. And just institutionalize birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing this grave threat from within. Now, Clarence Thomas dissent is long and absolutely brilliant. And he gets into this issue of jurisdiction. He says, wait a minute. Let me tell you what jurisdiction means in America. And page after page after page. Excuse me, he points out, in American history. Jurisdiction means domicile. Where you domicile. Even today. I’m in this state. I’m in that state. Great. Where are you domiciled? We are domiciled. You get the vote where you domiciled, you pay your taxes where you domiciled. The law applies to you. Where are you domiciled? That’s how Americans view jurisdiction, he points out. Where are you domiciled? And he does more than that step by step history and constitutional law that brilliantly, methodically unravels every aspect of Roberts argument. Alito the same thing. Another brilliant dissent, a brutal takedown of Roberts and majority. And he hits too, at this constant refrain about British common law being the basis of our understanding of citizenship. No, it’s not. We’re not talking about allegiance to a king. Even Britain abandoned that. And yet that’s the entire basis for jurisdiction, pretty much. And in the Thomas decision, which is also cited, the dissent by Alito is quote after quote after quote of the of the authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as well as the. 18 68/14 Amendment to the Constitution. But everything I’ve just told you hasn’t been told to you by a single lawyer on television. By a single legal reporter on television. None. Because this is what I’ve done all my life. Take court decisions, especially these important court decisions, and break them down. And break them down. In 1866 they weren’t trying to preserve. English common law. They were dealing with a real problem. In 1868. 1866, they still had rebel states. They refuse to acknowledge or recognize. The legitimacy of black citizens. And the Klan was started. The lynchings were horrendous. The beatings, the rapes. Just disgusting. Horrendous. And they needed to deal with it. They weren’t thinking about immigration, for God’s sakes, let alone aliens. And illegal aliens and their children. If I’m wrong, prove it. Show me where. Show me anywhere. A constitutional amendment that’s not a little thing. Supermajority of the House and the Senate, Super duper majority of the state legislatures, they’re all debating. They’re all talking. They’re giving speeches. They’re newspaper reports. Show me, Show me. They can’t show us. So they rewrite American history. That’s what they did. They rewrite American history. Now, let me tell you something else that bothers me about all this. By trying to expand what took place in 1866 and 1868, by trying to expand. On that whole notion. That this was directed specifically. And getting square, getting it right, getting it straight with our fellow black human beings to make sure that their lives. Could be free and equal and participate in this country. We’re talking about illegal aliens now and the children of illegal aliens. That was one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment. In other words, where we’re dumbing down. We’re dumbing down the purpose of all these actions that took place. It had nothing to do with British common law. It did nothing to do with immigration. It had nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens. We were trying to get square with. Slaves. Former slaves and their children. The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. Officially the 14th Amendment. Equal rights due process. That freed. Black slaves and their progeny were to be treated as other Americans. And then the 15th Amendment, the right to vote, and nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens. And you read these comments online. Read these comments. Well, what did you expect? We have 150 years of this. What are we going to do? Reverse it right away? You know, it’s interesting about that comment. Justice Kavanaugh wrote something. In his decision. Which was very technical. He voted that the the executive order violated a federal statute. He didn’t really take a big position on the Constitution. So people are saying it was a54 decision. It was a63 decision. No, it was a63 decision because he voted down the executive order. For whatever the reason, it doesn’t matter. He voted it down. But not on constitutional grounds. But he said. Along the lines of the compromise that I was even thinking they might do. Which is. We’re not going to constitutionally ize birthright citizenship. It’s not in the 14th Amendment. I don’t care if they’ve been practicing it for 150 years or not. And by the way, that’s not correct. For 40 years after the 14th Amendment. My view, the president’s view. The view of other. Solid constitutional conservatives. Our view was the view that was upheld and followed for 40 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. So it wasn’t a 150 year. That said. Well, Congress could do. Is the following. The 14th Amendment does not say. That just because you’re born in America of illegal aliens, you’re a citizen. But Congress. But the 14th Amendment does not say Congress can’t grandfather in all those people. Who are already treated as if they were birthright citizens. So in other words, you have somebody here who’s 83 years old now again. They’ve been here since they were 14 years old. And so what he’s saying is Congress can still pass a statute and say, look, we’re cutting off birthright citizenship on this date. Anything forward? No. Good. Which is the point I made. I thought the Supreme Court might actually do that. But no. Bridge too far. Am I making sense? You understand my point, which is not. I want to repeat it. So there is a fix, quote unquote. If Congress wanted to do that kind of a fix, it doesn’t have to apply to everybody going back. God knows how long. But that said. But this court did was. You want to open the floodgates, Democrats, You want to break existing immigration law. Democrats, you want to fail to uphold the law, which, by the way, is a violation of the Constitution. Democrats. Well, you’re going to be rewarded. Your party’s going to be rewarded. The illegal aliens going to be rewarded. Everybody is going to be rewarded no matter who’s coming in. So if you have a terrorist, a female terrorist who comes into the United States and she comes into the United States, let’s say from Qatar, she has a baby in America. That baby is a citizen of Qatar and the United States of America. Then she takes them back to Qatar, raises the little bastard as a terrorist. Then that citizen can come back to the United States because he’s American citizen folks. This Hassan Piker. Was born in America, taken back to Turkey, radicalized, pro terror, brought back and you see what happens. Communist Chinese. Why do you think that? They’re pushing for hundreds of thousands of birth right babies in our country? They’ve set up a whole assembly line, massive system. Were these pregnant Chinese women coming here from communist China? They had their babies and they immediately take them and go home. They’re creating spies, saboteurs, people who will be loyal to China, not to the United States. This is what the framers of the 14th Amendment we’re talking about. They have China in mind, obviously, but there needs to be a political allegiance, a loyalty. Or, as Clarence Thomas puts it, some kind of domicile relationship with the country. You don’t just walk in and have a baby and you confer citizenship on that baby by giving them birth. That’s insanity. And the idea that in the middle of Reconstruction and all the hell it was taking place immediately after the Civil War. Now, that’s what these men were thinking. I was discussing Shame on John Roberts. It’s an appalling decision. It’s a rewrite of American history. We’re not subjects to a king. We are a constitutional republic. And no, the word jurisdiction does not mean. What he says it means and the basis for what he says it means. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
I will be on HANNITY tonight. It’s the only show I’m being on because it’s the only show I wanted to go on because I wanted to really digest all this. In. I’m not sure a pop up opinion on a decision that includes about 200 pages of comments and so forth and so on that that it can be done properly in that short bit of time. I see my buddy Hugh Hewitt. You know, Hugh’s a rhino, but he’s an old friend of mine, and I believe he’s an old friend of Robert’s. I could be wrong. He thinks this is a great day for constitutionalism. I am prepared to debate anybody on my program here. And what a great decision this is, because it’s an abomination. There’s not a damn thing great about it. Rewriting American history, basing it on the power of the king. Ignoring how we constitutionalists. But even more than that, the framers, including the framers of the 14th Amendment, thought and what they said. Is unacceptable to me and I am prepared to debate. I saw the vice president did an interview. I forget who with NOLs is the guy’s name, maybe Michael Knowles, but I could be wrong about that. Or he said it’s time to abandon Milton Friedman for Hamilton or something to that effect. I think what he meant was it’s time to abandon Jefferson and Madison for Hamilton. And Jefferson and Madison. We’re really the adversaries, too, Hamilton. Obviously, Milton Friedman was a free market Austrian school economist, among other things, a great, great man. But the original relative free marketeers were. Madison and Jefferson and their ilk. Hamilton is loved by the left. Do I owe you something? Is that what you’re trying to say? Okay. And get back into this a little bit later. That’s a debate I’d love to have loved to have. Because. HAMILTON you know, these are my areas of expertise where I have a lot of fun. Hamilton was more than. About centralized big government. He also rejected major aspects of the Constitution after it was adopted, even though he argued for it. I’ve got to get into that. I’m not done. I shall return.

Photo by Taylor Hill

Fox News
Supreme Court rules on mail-in ballots received after Election Day

SCOTUS Blog
Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power

NY Post
George Soros and son Alex have funneled staggering $103M into midterms so far, on track to shatter spending record

X
Our @reaganinstitute survey shows this headline is way off — @axios buried the headline that GOP support for Israel is remarkably durable & MAGA Republicans drive up the GOP numbers w/ 80% supporting Israel

Axios
The Republican Party is starting to turn on Israel

Reagan Foundation
Reagan Institute Summer Survey

Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Podcast page.

Photo by Kevin Dietsch