Popular Posts

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.

Welcome back America. It's always a pleasure to have America's wise man on the program Victor Davis Hanson It's a good friend Hoover Institution senior fellow has got a great podcast as well Thanks for coming Victor. So let me ask you this question Thank you. If you can put your self in the shoes of the Iranian regime How do you think they're looking at this right now? Well, we don't know because this is a very unusual war. We have no ground troops no embedded reporters We don't know the extent of damage, but it seems to me that they have been economically devastated 90% of their military is inert, but they have enough Missiles they think and the Gulf states are so vulnerable they think that and the Straits of Hormuz are so frat that that traffic is a fragile entity that they can cause havoc and then delay the process maybe hope for a global recession and drag it out until the midterms They also are playing a very strange game. They're giving signals that the people talking to us the quote-unquote elected leaders That they are at odds with the Revolutionary Guard and we don't know because we've eliminated so many people if that's true but you get the sneaking suspicion that they are the good cops and The Revolutionary Guard and the theocrats that every once in a while try to take out a carrier or hit the Kuwaitis or somebody they're the bad cops, but they actually work in unison and Then the negotiators say to us well, we can't control these people. We're sorry We don't know what they're doing in the Gulf laying mines and everything But don't don't ruin the negotiations and then that gives each of them credibility I guess against their competition for power, but at some point we have to to stop it and There's a lot of ways to stop it Mark because militarily it's not a problem It's a political problem and it involves the world economy and the midterms and everything but we could I think that the president can find a way to kind of square that circle if he he tells him informally there's going to be a deadline to this nonsense and You're not you're going to regret it and we're going to do enough damage to your economy and your military that It's going to take you a quarter century to recover and we're going to leave a residual force That's going to keep that straight open along with the Allies And then I think he can say that to them because we can't continue to do this because they interpret survival with victory I know that sounds Orwellian, but they do Every day that they're still there. They say see we took on the superpower of Civilizational history and we're still here and they couldn't stop us and they give no context that all of our restraint is itself imposed on us It's humanitarian. It's political, but it's not military and We don't have to use you know great weapons. We can defeat them from the air as we were doing But we've lost about almost two months time in these negotiations And they they interpret that as and they look at magnanimity on our part as weakness to be exploited Mark Not as magnanimity or kindness to be reciprocated That's just the way they do and you can't believe anything they say because they don't believe it's a lie They think it's a strategic advantage not to tell the truth, so it's difficult to negotiate with them Let me ask you this question Victor In some ways every war is different. We understand that But in World War two we required victory We required that the Japanese surrender we acquired victory wanted it over once and for all it was the same thing with Germany Italy was destroyed and so forth and so on Obviously tremendous amounts of damage to the civilian population to industry To communities just a massive throughout Europe and so forth and so on in this case there's a lot of pressure and a lot of people I hear saying that we can't have a Victory per se we've got to figure out how to contain them. We've got to come up with an agreement. That's enforceable and So from your perspective as a historian, I'm curious what you think It's possible in the short term. I'm sure but it is a possible in the midterm and the long term to contain them We have to take a break as soon as we come back. That's my question to you. We'll be right back Welcome back America Victor Davis Hanson. So does a victory against Iran look different than victory say Against Germany, Japan, Italy and so forth. Yeah, it does a little bit because in the post-war era We're in the era of nuclear weapons so there's always a restraint that you can't escalate with enough damage to humiliate the enemy and Ensure that he'll never never again make war against you and change the government as we did to a certain extent in Korea But certainly in World War two and then we're a therapeutic culture So, you know in an age of global communications you miss a target and there's a CNN reporter right there saying you're a war criminal Or you're you with the International Criminal Court might indict you if you miss it artillery strike target So there's all sorts of self-imposed restraints, but that said human nature doesn't change mark And you you you turn military victory into strategic resolution By making it impossible for the enemy to continue the war you can do that by changing the government You can do that by destroying their economy and making them but it's all it's more periodic rather than final in the sense Everything is periodic. You never really ever defeat some you try to win them over to our cause I think that's what the president is doing He's he's saying that we're going to hurt their economy to a certain extent that they won't be able to make war even if we don't have to be there with this full force and we're going to try to destroy their military capability for 10 years and then we're going to set in motion enough chaos That they won't be able to fund Hezbollah Hamas the Houthis are rebuild this Maybe a half a trillion dollar loss of 50 years in their military industrial nuclear complex We're going to make that very difficult Politically for them so if they start using all of their new money if the blockade ever and they start investing in the the same old same old the people are going to rise up and you know, it's not a Crazy thought the Berlin Wall fell and it was two years before the Soviet Union collapse in weeks But often months for the rest of the Warsaw Pact to collapse so I think the president thinks he's setting in motion the humiliation of this regime and making them have a lose-lose choice to either rebuild and use when it's over rebuild and Then a or if they do they're going to alienate the people even further. So there's ways to get around these self-imposed restraints Yeah, my only problem with some of that is never when they don't have a nuclear weapon So we don't have to fear that from them. Thanks to what the president has done and number two They're already pushing the Hezbollah to continue doing what Hezbollah is doing and number three The Houthis have been completely untouched and number four communist China and other bad actors out there I suspect they're gonna want to help Iran especially when President Trump leaves and if they see a weak Democrat as president Perhaps like an Obama or Biden. I think they're gonna make their run for for the finish line or to do more in terms of very negative activity to us and to the Middle East and plus their ideology is They think from Allah your last word Yeah, well, that's a problem And we've had four general four administrations and they invaded the Russians invaded Ukraine and three of them are their neighbors and they'll say sure With Bush Obama and Biden but not during Trump So if he can reestablish deterrence at least for two years I think he can quiet the Chinese are not in a good position vis-a-vis where they were two years ago Russia is not they've lost their toll or their clients and Venezuela and Syria and now Iran China's hurting we're ascendant, but we just have to manage that a little better I think and Wrap this up if we wrap this up then the further problems will won't escalate and we saw that with the bombing last June And we saw it with Venezuela. We saw it with Panama that creates momentum, but if we get stalled in negotiations and The the people come out of the woodwork and try to take advantage but not a strong a strong show in Iran That will be really determined beautifully said my friend Victor Davis Hanson. Thank you, and I can speak for the country God bless you and stay well stay well. Thank you mark much appreciated and goodbye

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

You know, it's interesting, this is obviously my first time seeing the interview with the audience and before the president even said what he said, I thought the exact same thing where he said this only happens to people who are consequential. This is funny, that was my first thought because it's so true. You look at every American president who has had either, unfortunately, a successful assassination attempt or unsuccessful ones, Lincoln, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Donald J. Trump. In the weirdest way, it's a very good company to be in, but I really am impressed with the way that the president carries on every day, the resoluteness that he brings to the job, and it affirms for me how important his presidency is and why I want our Republican establishment to get on board and realize who we have at the helm and keep it going. We have a special guy. We've got to do good things for him. You know what's interesting about it, Katie, is that, you know, when you talk to the president about this, he, you know, he initially will say something with it, and then he kind of moves off the topic very quickly. You look at the Secret Service roaming around the Trump National Golf Club, and they are, I mean, they are on high alert and constantly moving. Yeah, they caught this guy two days ahead of President Trump arriving here, and that's better than they had at West Palm Beach with the first attempt, attempted assassination trace. So they're on high alert. They're doing exactly what they need to do. President Trump moved on so quickly after the White House Correspondents Dinner. He was at the podium. He was in the Oval Office. He was making jokes. He moved on because he knows that the country is more important than what he feels is a threat to him.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Yeah, in the Senate he has done very well. This is a reality check for you. That is, Donald Trump is still the son on which the planets of the GOP revolve around. You could see it quite well here. Look at this. Trump endorsed these one Senate primaries. If the person that he endorsed is not an elected incumbent like Darlene Graham was, you know, since 2022, or 2022 is about 95% of the time, has that weakened it all this cycle? No, it is not. It has actually gotten stronger. Look at this. 100% of the time if Trump endorsed a non-elected incumbent like Darlene Graham, they in fact won the Republican primary for United States Senate, Trump's name is still the one that GOP voters buy when it comes to Senate endorsements. He went there. He spent money. He made a difference. And according to some measurements here, it may have turned it around for her. Yeah, I would say that this is probably the endorsement of Darlene Graham and getting her across the finish line. The Republican party is probably the strongest sign of Donald Trump's name being gold in Republican primaries to date. It is by far his most impressive performance because just take a look here. It is according to the cash to prediction market. Chance to win the South Carolina special GOP Senate primary. Before the Trump endorsement, it was just 14%. Just 14%. The reason why Darlene Graham won that primary, won that nomination is because of one name and one name only, Donald John Trump. This was his most impressive endorsement to date in terms of getting someone actually nominated because she basically stood no chance. Once that endorsement came in, her chances rocketed well north of 50% and last night she won that nomination. And it's largely because Republican primary voters are hugely supportive of the president. You know, sometimes we have these polls and you know, they're favorable polls or approval polls and they're in the moment. But I just love this one. Okay. The president Republicans most admire. It's Donald Trump. This is a historic comparison. A majority of Republicans say 53% say he's the Republican president they most admire. Ronald Reagan, who traditionally has won that much, Donald Trump nearly triples up on this. Reagan at just 18%. And then Abraham Lincoln, who by most historic accounts is the greatest president of all time. But Republicans say that the president that they most admire by what is this, this is six, seven times as many Donald John Trump at 53%, easily crushing Abe Lincoln at 8%. And the Elon poll showed that he was the greatest president as well.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Welcome to this savage nation. Today's brief, abbreviated discussion will be about the arguments that I just listened to before the Supreme Court about birthright citizenship. I was somewhat incensed by listening to the arguments because all I heard was legalese being bandied back and forth, and quite noticeable to me was that the person bringing the arguments in favor of flooding America with illegal aliens to change the demographics forever was a Chinese American who looks to me like the classic ACLU attorney, very smart, very evil, and very devious. The ACLU is the head of the snake, they have been forever, and there they were again trying to turn America into a cesspool. We all know that these arguments should not be conducted in the abstract of a courtroom. This is really not about law, this is about public opinion. Now I could start arguing about the Constitution itself, and I'll get into a stone, I'll run into a stone wall with who would you say? Well we can't modify the Constitution because it's written in stone, and if we do they'll take away our first and second amendment, which is what they would do. So that's the problem. I mean the Constitution was written before air travel, needless to say, before television, before the internet, before radio, and you could say how relevant are some of these arguments when people are coming here by airplane in the ninth month of their pregnancy to just drop one on the, drop a baby here becomes an instant citizen and then they bring the entire family in from China or in the, or some other hellhole on the planet. You don't have to go too far to see that English is not spoken here anymore, and that there's almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they're not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors. The Irish integrated, the Italians integrated, the Polish integrated, the Lithuanians, the Romanians, the Russians, they all integrated and became Americans in the melting pot. The idea of the melting pot is long over. It is now just the cash-in pot. We've gone from the melting pot to the chamber pot, as I said many years ago. You don't have to go any further than any city in America to see what this has brought upon this country. So to listen to these very wise smart lawyers arguing in the abstract as to whether birthright citizenship should apply to anyone born here no matter who their parents are or where their parents came from is ludicrous to me, which is why I put up a poll on my social channels where I said birthright citizenship should be subjected to a national vote, not put in the hands of lawyers, let the citizens decide. Well of course I knew how it would go because I know what the people think. It's 80/20, yes. Of course we should have a national referendum on this as though, see in California we have propositions, as rigged as they are, that people get a chance to vote on certain propositions. And when we vote against what the governor wants or what the vermin who run the state want, they find a cockamamie ACLU lawyer to overturn our vote anyway, which is where revolutions arise, how revolutions arrive, arise because no longer can we take any more of this s***. I don't like getting vulgar but I can't take it anymore. The country has been stolen from us by these f***ing lawyers. Shakespeare had it right. I didn't like listening to all of their fine arguments without talking about the realities in place and how this has become a bankrupt welfare nation. Bankrupt welfare nation. There is article after article about the abuse of the welfare system in the state of California, a great one today in the California Post. You actually would not believe the extent of the fraud in this state. And a good portion of it is being conducted by immigrant front groups, all protected by ACLU. They've done more damage to this nation than all the mafia families put together, in my unhumble opinion. Gangsters with laptops, more dangerous than gangsters with guns for what they've done to this nation. They've robbed us blind, treated us like second-class citizens, let the turd whirl triumph, stepped on our flag, etc. So again birthright citizenship is the question. I can't take much more. Well I woke up and I saw what was going on and I said I'm really glad that I could watch this. First they made an issue of Trump showing up like it was illegal for the president the United States to witness this when it turns out. They said oh he's there to bully them. Actually they said as we studied this there was actually a chair put in there by the founding fathers in the Supreme Court for a president to sit in. So Trump is an activist president. That was no good either. That was no good either. Whatever he does is no good. Earlier when I saw this going on and listened to the snake from the ACLU, Ms. Wang, Attorney Wang, she speaks so eloquently. Supreme Court arguments are just legal on our shores to then bring in the entire family. How about some common sense in a bankrupt nation? ACLU Attorney Wang is pushing to destroy our national identity, turn us into a colony of China, but it's not limited to China. It's also India. They're also abusing it. I used to be a great supporter of Indians in India until I opened my eyes up of what's going on here. White men need not apply to jobs in the state of California. Never mind. Never mind in high tech. Your chances are nil. You have to be from India or China because almost all the internal mechanisms are set up to run by Indians and Chinese. I know it for a fact. I know it for a fact. You don't have to argue with it. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't argue with me. And I asked the question on a poll. Should birthright citizenship be subjected to a national vote? Not put in the hands of lawyers. Should the citizens decide? Admittedly, it's a small sample. Admittedly, it's a biased sample. Okay, but watching the Supreme Court arguments in the future of our nation, can we? This very famous case was Andrew Jackson, who after the Supreme Court ruled about the, I think it was the Cherokee removal, he disagreed with what the Supreme Court said. And he said now that the court has decided let them enforce, meaning he said go screw yourselves. I hold all the power with the military. That's what he said to the Supreme Court then. So if this comes out the way I see it coming, which is sure let him come here and drop a baby in the ninth month on the doorstep and turn him into an innocent citizen and then bring in all the ancestors from India and from China. Sure, bring them all in. If that's what happens, which is I see what's gonna happen. I think we need a Jackson as president. And I don't mean Kendi Jackson. I mean we need someone to stand up to these lawyers. They've destroyed our nation. Unbelievable what's going on in my nation and my state, the corrupt state of California, where fraud is so rampant that even Democrats are screaming about it. I don't see anyone giving a cogent argument in favor of illegal immigrants dropping babies on the shore. Of course you're gonna get the racists who say it was okay with his European Americans. There's only a few hardcore conservative Americans on there. And the reason they do it is quite simple is because the legal profession is a closed circuit. They all work in their own world and they don't want to be excluded from the events that the legal people have with each other. It's the lawyers of the ACLU who have destroyed this nation. They're always on the side of the criminal, not the cop, the criminal, not the victim, the illegal alien, not the legal citizen. The ACLU is a gangster criminal organization. I for years told you how this could be done and I still don't know why Trump hasn't done it. He's gone after other national enemies. For God's sake, he's at war with Iran right now. I would say that the ACLU has done more damage to this nation than Iran has ever done directly to this nation. The ACLU has done more damage to our borders, language, and culture than Iran has done. The ACLU and their cockamamie lawyers have done more damage to America than the mullahs in Iran have done to this nation. Why can't they be taken down under the RICO statutes? I've studied it. Racketeering, influence, corrupt organization. That's the ACLU by definition where three or more people conspire to bring this nation down and turn us into an unrecognizable cesspool reminiscent of the worst third world dictatorships. Break the ACLU on the RICO statutes, President Trump please. I don't think it's gonna happen. They're all afraid of them. I don't know what it is. I don't understand that. Well that's one man's opinion on the issue of birthright citizenship. President Trump, one last appeal to you today. Please bust the ACLU on the RICO statutes before there's nothing left of this nation to save.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.