Popular Posts

It's been an amazing week in America. We saw the dark side of the moon We rescued two American fighter pilots from Iran and we kicked the bejesus out of the IRCG Here's the president bragging about the rescue operation at this year's White House Easter Egg Roll And there's the mighty fine camerawork there see span I mean, I don't really blame you for focusing on her cuz you know Wow I saw her documentary Yeah, I'm thinking the cameraman has a little obsession there speaking of eggs at the end of the Biden administration eggs cost 80% More than they do now remember those days this year eggs are so cheap Democrats can resume throwing them at Tesla dealerships I came out and I expected we were going to be talking about farmers and we love our farmers We were going to talk about so many different products, but you know what they want to talk about sir. This is about eggs Eggs, isn't that the same buddy that led Joe Biden around the White House lawn a couple years ago? Because we have the egg farmers of the entire country here and they are Unbelievable and if you have the only country in the world that the president stands next to somebody in a bunny costume remember When I first got elected my first news conference with the fake news The first question, what are you gonna do about eggs, sir? Second day in office at a news conference and they were screaming at me. What am I gonna do about eggs? Then I said, well, it's like what's tell me a while. Happy Easter kids. What's wrong with eggs? The price was so high it was four times higher than it was a year before

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- For incredibly good reason, Trace. Look, as has already been said several times tonight, this is the most consequential leader that we've ever seen, not just in the United States of America, but I think worldwide, and I think that's why he faces as much opposition as he does. And with that, that's why he's loved the way that he is. And I think for someone like him, I like to imagine myself back on that campaign in 2016, the few times I got to either interact with him or see him come and talk to our team, it's almost like he was prepared back then, over 10 years ago, knowing this is exactly what was going to happen. Knowing he was not going to be another leader that went in and did absolutely nothing, and knowing that with those strong actions and with that courage, unfortunately, would come some really dark days, but also some incredibly bright ones as well.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

If you're up late with us on the West Coast, Donald Trump is on the verge of returning to the White House at this hour. What you are seeing is Donald Trump on the precipice of the greatest comeback in American political history. We've never seen anything like this. You see, he has risen from the ashes, yet again. The Fox News decision desk can now officially project that Donald Trump will become the 47th president of the United States. The golden age of America begins right now. From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world. During every single day of the Trump administration, I will very simply put America first. What do you hope to accomplish in the next three years? Look, we have the greatest nine months in the history of the presidency, so if I can keep that going, I'll be very happy.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I'm honored to be the first sitting president to visit one of the most storied places in the history of American auto making and it's a world famous General Motors proving ground thank you to the auto workers the technicians of mechanics and welders the engineers of General Motors today I'm proud to say that the auto industry is back and America is back and it's pulling Detroit and Michigan along with us you saved our domestic auto industry thank you with your help and patriots all across this magnificent land we will make America powerful again we will make America strong again and we will make America great again thank you Michigan thank you very much God bless you all thank you very much

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

What I'm thankful for, this Thanksgiving, I praise God every day that Donald Trump is our president. And we've gone from 30 percent inflation, 20 million illegals, unlimited refugees, violent crime in our cities, to security in our cities, no more illegals, no more refugees, and finally a country that puts American citizens first.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

to do to get this bill passed. Well, first of all, I just want to thank the president for his leadership on this. It's such an important piece of legislation to guarantee, as you've already said, that only American citizens vote in American elections and that you have voter ID. This is common sense. Nobody in America really outwardly opposes this. 80% of Americans support it. Democrats, a majority of Democrats support it. People of all walks of life, whether you're male, female, whether you're black, white, Hispanic, you support this piece of legislation. Only the United States Senate is presenting a barrier to getting this common sense bill passed. And so to answer your question, I think first, the House, we need to continue to pass it. Speaker Johnson and I had a conversation this week, and I believe we're working to include the Save Act, the Save America Act on the National Defense Authorization Act so we can send another vehicle to the Senate to see if they'll break loose and pass it. We've passed it, as you know, three times. We're looking for the Senate to do their job. But at the end of the day, it's up to willpower. The Senate has the ability to do it. And for Senate Republicans, you keep saying they don't have the votes. That's simply false. They've already had a test vote and they had 50 votes for it. And with J.D. Vance, that's 51. It's a matter of having the willpower to structure the Senate to have whether it's a talking filibuster or any other mechanism they want to carry forward to force the bill to the floor at a majority vote. They can choose to do it. They're just simply not.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

[MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

First, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have meant to grant citizenship at birth to the children of illegal aliens because there were no restrictions on immigration in 1868. Hello? Of course they weren't thinking about illegal aliens, because there were no restrictions on immigration in 1868. Uh-oh. So, there were no illegal aliens. Of course that changes over time. Second, the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, from which the Fourteenth Amendment was gleaned, states that "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." In other words, not citizens or persons of any other power, foreign power. And so, what they did is put that in the positive, the affirmative in the Fourteenth Amendment. You have to be within the jurisdiction of the United States, no other country. Clearly, this would exclude children of aliens, legal or illegal. Of course, we're talking about children of illegal aliens right now. There's no evidence at all that the Fourteenth Amendment's use of the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was intended to alter the meaning or the intent of the language in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Well, why did they change it? Because it goes through a different process. But they didn't change its intent or meaning. How do we know? Because they said so. Third, Senators Trumbull and Howard. Remember them, two of the principal authors of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment stated that, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means not owing allegiance to anybody else." Got that? Allegiance. How on earth is this an automatic grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? It's not, and it was never intended to be. Indeed, illegal aliens are by definition in the United States illegally. That is in direct violation of federal law. Does anybody actually believe, even if we play this game that the left is playing or some of the justices, does anybody actually believe that a foreigner can confer upon herself legal jurisdiction for the purpose of or even accidentally creating citizenship for a child born here? They're not even here legally. How do they confer a status on their child born in the United States? Is that what the Fourteenth Amendment says? Of course not. And you won't find it in any of the discussions, any of the debates, and you won't find it in any of the ratification discussions in any of the states. Which is why not a single justice pointed to it. There's nothing to point to. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice, he turns to the Solicitor General who gives him some examples of how this can't be true, and he says, "Those are quirky examples." Well, then I would say to the Chief Justice, "Can you give us one scintilla of evidence to support the proposition that birthright citizenship was intended under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than referring to esoteric English common law? I've done that. I know what it means." Or to Blackstone or to anything else. Just look at it. Just listen to what they said. Can you show me any evidence? Even quirky. But here we have an instance where people come into the country illegally, and somehow they can confer a constitutional right onto their children? Such an absurdity never entered the discussion, let alone the thinking of anyone involved in the amendment process. Nobody brought it up. I'm sure nobody even imagined it. The focus was on the newly freed slaves and their children, and addressing their ongoing plight in the old Confederacy. That's it. The Constitution is not granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in our country, which it appears to be specifically denying. It seems to be the opposite. Fourth, there's been reference to a case in 1898, a decision by the Supreme Court, in a case called the United States vs. Wong Kim Arc, and you heard this brought up during the hearing. It held that the Citizenship Clause grants birthright citizenship to a child born in the United States of illegal, of legal, legal resident aliens. Well, where does it say that? Nowhere. Nowhere. I think this decision was wrong, others do too, but let's pretend it's right. There's a lot of debate about it, but it's not relevant to the issue of children born of illegal aliens, because that wasn't what the case was about. Children of illegal aliens in the United States. The fact is, and it is indisputable, that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of creating a universal right of birthright citizenship. None stated, none imagined. There is not a scintilla of evidence, as I said, to the contrary. In fact, the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion. To be crystal clear, at no time did any Senator or Congressman in 1866 or 1868, whether involved in the legislative or amendment processes or not, declare for birthright citizenship as a universal rule. Nowhere. At no time was the idea of foreigners coming to the United States legally or illegally considered an automatic conference of citizenship on children born here. In the case of illegal immigrants, the argument is utterly absurd. Finally, to most of the Supreme Court justices, who did not comport themselves well, in my view, with either the facts or the Constitution. The issue is what the Constitution says, not what you want it to say. The 14th Amendment in particular, and the intent and meaning of those who wrote it and debated it, it has nothing to do with what lower court judges have opined, it has nothing to do with current practices, it has nothing to do with the administrative processes, it has nothing to do with the intent of illegal aliens or some process for determining it. That can all be worked out by the other branches of government, the elected branches. Nor does it have anything to do with your legacy and how it will be treated by the liberal media, left-wing law professors at Ivy League law schools, and immigration activists. It has nothing to do with your understandable concern, if not fear, of intimidation by protesters, which would undoubtedly be treated much differently, I might add, by this administration than the prior administration. You'd be protected. The issue is actually straightforward and simple, and you all know it. There's no such thing as birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens who are, by definition, in our country, illegally, period, and it should be left to Congress through legislation or amendment or to the president by executive order to make determinations on what to do about it, not guesswork during a hearing. Not nine Supreme Court justices, lawyers and robes, your job is to rule on the Constitution and nothing else. Should you rule the other way and actually constitutionalize that which is both unsaid and illegal, you will do irreversible damage to the Constitution, the rule of law, the legitimacy of your court, and most importantly, our republic. You will formally incentivize and promote law-breaking and illegal immigration. You will legalize it through the back door and the children who are born from it. I remind you, the phrase "birthright citizenship" appears nowhere in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the debates about either, nowhere is codified in any congressionally passed bill signed into law by any president. Nobody has ever voted for it. Except you, on the court. You get to decide now on a big issue. You should leave it to the people in our elected representatives or the amendment process with a legislative process, but you, if you rule on this and constitutionalize this, will be known as the most activist court in the history of the Supreme Court, and the damage is incalculable. Think about it. I'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Our team has looked at these systems, and there are a dozen ways to interdict the voting process in these issues, whether it's mail-in ballot manipulations, they can scan and allocate votes, blank votes, whether it was the 70,000 votes left in the back room, there's just lots of ways to interdict these systems. So with that, I'll answer any potential questions. Thank you. Next panel, please. Could I just ask... Yes, sir. Ask him to clarify one or two things. When we look at this Pennsylvania fixing the vote chart that they all have, could you explain at the very beginning what that line means, Biden injection? So at the very beginning of the chart, where there's a circle that says on election day, what that indicates is there is a spike in loaded votes, 337,000 plus or minus of some votes that were added in there in one big batch. So that was an anomaly in the reporting. Normally you would expect to see a smooth curve going up, not any big spikes. That's what Greg was talking about, the anomalies of loading and uploading those votes. So that big spike that occurs there is a prime indicator of fraudulent voting. And that's 604,000 votes in 90 minutes, is that right? Correct. This is 337,000 votes in that period of time. Yes. Let's look at this entire curve with all these spikes. Can you calculate how much of a vote that accounted for for Biden and how much for Trump? Close to 600,000. I think our figures were about 570,000, some odd thousand, that all those spikes represented over time. For Biden? Correct. And how much for Trump? I think it was a little over 3,200. How about that? Now just to go back to your original document, this one pager that they all have, mail in ballots counted without being observed. Those are the ballots we were talking about that were not observed in Allegheny County and in Philadelphia. Correct. Is that right? 682,770. Now, this is the part that is a mystery. World ballots sent out 1,823,148. But when you go to the count of the final count of the vote, there are 2,589,242 mail-in ballots. What happened? How do you account for the 700,000 mail-in ballots that appeared from nowhere? So our cyber team uses white hat hacking techniques. They gather a lot of publicly available information. And that information was from the Secretary of State's website. That website has been updated as late as 11/16 this morning with provisional mail-in ballots. So those numbers are still changing. They changed last night. So it's a continual target. This is 22 days after the election. That number, the 2.5 million number is no longer on the website. Just been taken off? It's not there anymore. Is there any explanation of why it's been taken off? There was no annotations. But has there been a change made in the 2,589,242 mail-in votes that have been counted in the total vote? Yeah, I'd have to check the Secretary of State's website. Could you also check and see? Is there any change in the 1,823,148 ballots that were sent out? The mail-out ballots number seems to be holding steady. And was there any other method of producing ballots other than sending them out? Not that we're aware of, unless there's previous witnesses of testimony that the potential for multiple ballot counts. So ballots could have been counted. And have you ever gotten a chance to examine any of these ballots? No. That would be part of the forensic process. One suggestion, whoever does the analysis is using paper and ink analysis of a micro-photo spectrometer. That would analyze the ink on those ballots to see if they were mass-produced. So in addition to the 682,770 ballots that were entered without a single inspection of any kind, there also appear to be something like 700,000 mail-in ballots that were never sent out, that were counted. noted discrepancies in the Secretary's report.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Hello America, I'm Mark Levin, and this is Life, Liberty, and Levin Saturday. Welcome to the program. You know, President Trump has done something no president dared to do in the last half century. He, with our ally Israel, and their great Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has destroyed the Iranian regime's military, the immediate nuclear threat, and most of the missile systems which were used to terrorize surrounding nations. If I told you that would have been accomplished in a few days, or even a few weeks, you wouldn't have believed me. And yet for some reason we act like this hasn't been a spectacular military success. That said, the knowledge on how to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs, along with assistance from countries like China, Russia, and North Korea, and the internal militia and security forces of Iran, seem to ensure that sometime in the future, Iran will be able to reconstruct these weapons systems, rebuild its military, and internally increase its mass murder of even the most peaceful voices of dissent. So what do you do after you defeat an enemy's military and take out the top tier of their leadership? What do you do? Because that's where we are. Well, let's first look at what we said we will not do. No ground troops. Why? Because there's virtually no political will in our country to send ground troops into Iran. And I would argue there's no need to send in our ground troops for reasons I'll explain in a moment. President Trump has not only led a historic military victory against Iran, but he has asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz. Thereby controlling Iran's ability to sell its oil and choke the Iranian economy in hopes of forcing the regime to make a deal or collapse. Those are two very distinct objectives. To make a deal or collapse. So the question is which is preferable? So let's dig into this further. If the goal is to take down the regime, two of three most important conditions have already been achieved. The destruction of virtually its entire military capacity and economic control over their economy. These are two historic successes on their own. If the goal is to get a deal, the issue is not only what kind of deal, but can the deal stick? That is, how do we know if the enemy will adhere to the terms of a deal, especially after President Trump leaves office? Well, let's look at the Iranian regime's record. Rather than recounting the scores of examples, evidence, if you will, that the regime has violated every deal it has ever signed with any international organization, any country, or any group of countries, there simply is no evidence that the regime has ever honored any deal. Even the Obama nuclear disastrous deal, which ensured that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 10 to 12 years of its signing, was violated by the Iranian regime, even though it would hand them nuclear weapons effectively. Why would the Iranian regime violate a deal that ensures it would have nuclear weapons in a decade or so? Because it felt no obligation to adhere to any deal, and it wanted to develop nuclear weapons to break out as fast as it could. So to be clear, even a deal in which the Iranian regime would in fact be able to secure nuclear weapons was violated by the Iranian regime repeatedly and in scores of ways. Monitoring, unannounced inspections, and the like were all eventually defied by the Iranian regime. So it's important to understand the ideological mindset of who and what we're dealing with. They're not of a Western mindset. The regime has learned from past experience with our country and with the current opposition in our country, from the Democrats, the media, and the radical isolationists, that all they need to do is wait us out. We have an election in November and they see that election as possible, if not likely, to change our government, at least one part of it. That is, with the election of Democrats in the House, for example, they know that that party stands for appeasement, radical pacifism, and isolationism. They've heard what they have to say, they have heard what their media have to say, and they also know that the Democrat Party will try to undermine President Trump, including his foreign policy, and especially in Iran, where the Democrats actually funded the regime and its war-making power under the Biden administration. Even more, they watch these debates over the War Powers Act, articles of impeachment against the Secretary of War, then declarations of impeachment against the President should the Democrats win the House, based in large part on what the Democrats falsely claim as constitutional and legal violations, and they claim that this is a war of choice, that it is a blunder, and that it is an illegal war. So the Iranians say, let's just hang in there. If the Democrats take the House, that's an American regime change, and if the Democrats take the presidency, wow, we're free to roll. Three years hence, if a Democrat is elected president, the Iranian regime figures it's no longer bound by the terms of any agreement, no matter how great the terms, because it simply will not be enforced, and we won't have the stomach to enforce it militarily, will we? You have a courageous president who's taking actions, who's ignoring the polls and doing what's right for the security of this nation in the world. Unfortunately, that's rare. The Iranian regime also knows there's a Marxist-Islamist alliance and presence in our country, and in fact, the Iranian regime is a Marxist-Islamist technological regime, and they and their allies helped fund it in our country and around the world, and it's very loud, and it's very violent, and it has the Democrat Party by the throat. And it, along with the neo-fascist isolationists, the neo-fascist isolationists will claim that Israel is behind any effort to enforce an agreement with Iran, and Israel is dragging us into another war. We hear it now, right? We cannot ignore the dark storm clouds of anti-Semitism that are now hanging over our country and have a strong foothold in the Democrat Party, the media, the academia, and this radical isolationism. Then there is the ideology of the Iranian regime, which, remember, is a worldwide Islamist revolution. That's its belief. Again, it is a Marxist-Islamist, worldwide revolutionary movement. As the Blair Institute has said, just like communism, a state was never the objective of the revolution. The organs of the Iranian state served the revolution, not the other way around, and the end goal of the revolution was never a state. It was the expansion of the revolution. The revolution does not exist to perfect the state. The state, or in this case the so-called Republic of Iran, is simply a means to support and perfect the revolution. Where the two conflict, the revolution is prioritized. This is something people in the West, in our country, simply don't seem to be able to get their heads around. They go on the failure of the administration of former US President Barack Obama and the new European External Action Service, the EEAS, to properly read Iran's intentions and their persistence in viewing Iranian political developments through the prism of Iran's relations with the West, severely constrained the Western negotiating position. This is key for any deal, any negotiation. To not understand that you're negotiating with a revolutionary Marxist-Islamist movement that seeks to destroy the West, at all costs, at any costs, even in their own disruption, is to completely misconstrue and misunderstand what you're negotiating with and what you're up against. This is not a nation-state negotiating with a nation-state. It is a nation-state, the United States of America, negotiating with a revolutionary audiology that seeks global dominance. And they go on to explain that these agreements with the Iranian regime do more to tie the hands of the West than the hands of the regime, which feels no obligation to adhere to any agreement with the West. And this has consequences, as an example. If we make a deal with Iran, does that mean Israel can't defend itself against Hezbollah? Are we going to have a situation where the Iranian regime survives, Hezbollah survives, and Hamas survives? Is this all being taken into consideration? Let's hope so. Okay, so you say, Mark, okay, well, what if there's no deal, or if a deal short of the unconditional surrender that we had mentioned earlier? And if you're not going to send the ground troops to destroy the regime, well, then what are you going to do? This is where I turned a more recent history in what I call the third leg of victory. In addition to the historic military and economic actions, there must be steps taken to destroy the regime internally. After all, the Iranian regime has an elaborate police state, an internal security force that is armed and well-trained and is critical to the revolution. In fact, the regime has been importing militia from Iraq and elsewhere to reinforce its internal security force. So what do we do about this? We can't defeat it from the skies. We can't defeat it from the seas. We can't defeat it alone by economically choking them off. Even though some people have suggested that. The way we have dealt with this in the past, during the Reagan administration and as part of the Reagan Doctrine, as I've explained here now, three or four weeks in a row, is to train and arm the people. And in Iran, you have millions and millions of people who are desperate to overthrow the regime, who are courageous, tens of thousands who have died. What other proof do they have to provide?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

There's so many people in the executive branch that support President Trump, but you have these secondary and tertiary level people that are trying to put up every kind of speed stick to try to weight out President Trump's term. And that's a real problem. And that's why I believe that our top tier leaders need to clean out everybody underneath them and start over again.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.