Now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app, O'Connor and company. WMAL. It's 5.07 and it's April Fool's Day. We are not going to participate in any pranks for the next four hours. There's no goofy radio tricks and gimmicks on April Fool's Day. Hate that kind of thing. You're on the wrong show if that's what you want. You know what? I know that's not what you want. So I am not concerned about repelling our audience, Patrice and Wuka. Good morning Larry. Wait, is me being on on a Wednesday? Is that not April Fool's? That might shock everyone, yes. If you said happy frayay right now, that would be an April Fool's right. But we don't do that. We don't do that sort of thing. We're here about serious business, Larry. Well, we're not always that serious, but the whole purpose of April Fool's is to lie to people and deliver misinformation and we don't do that. To give them a heart attack unnecessarily, I mean. Coming up at 6.35, Cal Thomas will be our guest. 7.05, Hans von Spikowsky to preview today's Supreme Court hearing on Birthright Citizenship. 7.35, astronaut Clay Anderson on tonight's big launch of Artemis II in at 8.35, Reagan Rees, daily caller White House correspondent. That's Patrice. I'm Larry. Do you let your kids do April Fool's? Do you like say, okay, you get one. You can do one on it. Because that is kind of fun when the kids can play a prank, even though you can see it coming a mile away and they play a little prank on one another. I don't even think they really know about April Fool's Day. Maybe the 13-year-old does, but the younger two, they're more busy having fun, playing, you know, no school this week. So that's really what they care about. I don't know. I mean, I think it's okay for kids. They're not even informed. But then they're going to go on the Internet, Larry, and look for some pranks like, you know, dumping flower, you know, setting flower on the top of the door, you know, and the next person who walks through gets dunked with flower, you know, something like that. I just, that's a mess involved. Have you been watching 1960s sitcoms? Is that an I Love Lucy episode, right? Well, hopefully nobody in professional life will deal with it today. Hopefully we won't. It is kind of weird that today's the day they're doing the Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship. What if they release it and then it's like, I am April Fool's, we're not done yet. Yeah, we were really going to have this argument. We're kidding. Why, you guys fell for that? Why? No, I think it'll be real. Meanwhile, and I appreciate you chiming in with us today, Patrice, because as everyone knows, this is not Patrice's normal day on the air, neither is Monday, Tuesday. You've had more freedom this week because of a spring break and your schedules freed up a bit. And of course, we're all sort of scrambling and trying to fill the shoes of Chile Gunlock, which are impossible to do. And you were you are actually on the road down down in off the coast for some beach time this spring break. But you're still in Virginia. What's it like downstate compared to up here in the DC region politically? Oh, Larry, it's beautiful. I smell the freedom in the air and the salty air water down here. I'm in the the North Fork, Virginia Beach area. And I we were greeted as we were coming into Virginia Beach with a massive red sign. And I thought, oh, it must be a Trump sign. No, it was a sign that said vote no on the referendum. Massive sign. And then April 7th. And it was a homemade sign. It was not a preprinted sign. It was a big red sign with some black letters. You could tell somebody hand painted it sitting in the front yard on a main road, too. It was one of those. I forget what what route it was, but I was about to get excited. There's like finally we've got some money coming in on this a no on April 11 referendum campaign. And then you tell me it's a handmade side. So even the yard signs, even the yard signs are on their own. That tells me that's enthusiasm, Larry. That's true. That's true. You know, for you to take it. And I saw an older gentleman. He was sitting on his porch and I said, that's my guy. That is my man right there. I told my husband, this is this is this is my this is our. These are my people. These are our people here. And my husband has definitely migrated closer and closer to our side, which is very nice. But yes, I've been seeing those signs in this area. I mean, kind of not surprisingly because of Norfolk and the Naval base, but you never know. And so it was really impressive to see that greeting everybody as they're driving through thick traffic. Well, I'll tell you know, anybody who drives Virginia recognizes that especially during a political campaign where there's this, you know, 15 to 20 mile radius in northern Virginia where it's all blue and you see all signs for Democrats. And then as soon as you break through that, it's red, red, red, red, red. I'll never forget. I the weekend. It wasn't the weekend before the election. It was two weekends before the election in 2016. So like like Halloween weekend, I'd say, or the weekend before I did. We got a weekend getaway. It was myself and Meredith and Chris plant and his best gal. Yeah. And we did the four of us did a weekend down in Rappahannock County, which is about an hour and 20 minutes out of DC. And and then we went hiking and Shenandoah Valley together. We did we did a whole whole weekend together down there before it was maybe 10 days before the election. And I was stunned how Trump signs were everywhere. It was all Hillary, Hillary, Hillary as you're driving through, you know, Fairfax County or Prince William County. And then boom, it's nothing but Trump everywhere. And it really is the tale of two states. And I raised this only to point out that Democrats know that they know the demographics, they know the computer models, and that's why they're doing this. That's why they're redrawing the lines because they don't want those counties south and west. Exactly. And east for that matter of Washington, DC, southeast of Washington, DC, to have autonomy and to have representation. They are ripping their voices away from the House of Representatives. So they want every single one of those counties and those regions to terminate in Fairfax County and in Arlington. And it's it's insane. It is absolute disenfranchisement and it rips their representation away from them. And again, I reiterate, where is the organization and money on the No campaign, the No on April 11th on this referendum, because we're getting outspent. Not everybody can make a homemade sign like your man down there. Well, exactly. I mean, I'll be turning on the local news after our show to catch up, see what's going on in this area. And I can imagine the ads that are going to be running. We're going to see the familiar Obama ad lying to us again. Virginia, this is really important. Let's have fair elections. It's about fair elections. It's about fair elections. There needs to be a good counter to that. I think I said sorry. I think I said April 7th, April 21st, sorry on the date, but he had it right on his side. And I said April 11th. I'm sorry. You're right. You still have time. We're a little foggy at 514. But April Fool. April Fool. April Fool. We met April 21st. April Fool. There you go. We'll credit that. But the most important thing is vote no. And it was very clear. So I'll be keeping my eyes out as I'm out and about in the different parts of this area, which is very beautiful right now. And I'm hopeful that people recognize just how important this is, that they are taking matters into their own hands. And hopefully that will lure some more money into this area for this race. Because Larry yesterday, sorry, not race, but ballot initiative, you said really to our guests yesterday, you know, you you underscore the importance, the the stakes of this when it comes to the rest of the Trump agenda, when it comes to the Republican governance in Washington, and I think that's what we're going to see. Realistically, there's obviously you only have about two years in any presidency. The first two years is when you get stuff done. Second two years, it's much harder and even harder if you have massive losses during a midterm election, which historically tends to happen. And so why hand over additional seats to the Democrats unnecessarily, right? So that you really have laid out the stakes and why this is so important. And I hope folks are listening, paying attention, get that ballot in, go in and vote wherever, however. But this is really, really, really critical to at least enshrine the Trump agenda and make it harder for people for the next president if he's not a Republican or she's not a Republican to undo what was done through executive order. Yeah. And I just saw an announcement that Donald Trump is going to be speaking in an event in Arizona for Turning Point USA. And that's fabulous. And that's wonderful. And that's all for the midterms. I think you should use a tenth of that budget Turning Point USA and spend some money in Virginia. Just a tenth of that budget for that big event you're going to do in Arizona. Because honestly, you're all focused on the midterms in November. I hate to be a broken record here. If you youngsters even know what a broken record means. But let me just tell you that the midterms, every single single thing you do for the midterms will not matter if on April 22nd you wake up and they will have won on this cherrymandering. It's over. Give the gavel to Hakeem Jeffries and get ready for your impeachment hearings for the next two years. It's that simple. And why I see that and you don't, I will never understand. 515. Hey there. I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. Joe, you know what's been great about being a saver? For money to bank. And that money over the past couple of years has made a pretty good yield. Pre-pandemic, money was making zero. Now it's actually making something, but that's starting to go down, down, down. I love how we can play the fact that inflation has been really high. As a positive. But if you're a saver, you know what that means? Cha-ching. Silver lining, Joe. Silver lining. Afford anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. Patrice, we are getting some early voting numbers on the referendum. Right now, congressional district one is close to where you are right now. Of course, if it gets redrawn, you know, where you are in CD one will just be an afterthought. The real power will be in Alexandria. Oh goodness. That's Rob Whitman's congressional district. It leads the way. Massive, massive. Early voting numbers, 77,000, 580. Now, of course, that is a red district. Republican district. It's a Hampton Roads military district. And they want to make sure they protect a guy who has been there for so long. And that's seniority. He's got incredible clout. And even if he ends up in the minority, if he's there, he'll be able to fight for the interests and especially the military interests in Hampton Roads. So they've got a huge amount of turnout. All five of the Republican districts right now lead in turnout. So those districts who will be losing their representation are leading the way. That said, as you know, there are a lot of votes up north in northern Virginia right outside of DC. Congressional District 8 right now is leading the way with Democrats. They've got a huge number as well. Speaker Mike Johnson is coming into Virginia. He recognizes how important this is. He out of his own personal political action committee. And it's a sizable one. It's spent a lot of money. Not as sizable as the presidents, though. Again, I, well, I'll get to that in a minute. So Saturday, April 11th, Speaker Johnson will be doing a fundraising event as well as a organizing event. This is in, oh, it doesn't say, oh, these fundraiser events are things where you RSVP and then you find out where it's going to be. That's typical actually. So sorry, I don't know where it is, but he'll be coming into Virginia to do that. Oh, it says it's in the Great Falls region, around Great Falls in northern Virginia. I know that the White House is full of very smart people and I know the president is a very smart man and I know the political operation there is very smart. They've got to know that if this thing goes, if you, if you automatically without even trying hand five seats over to Democrats in November, that's, I mean, I don't care how hard you're going to fight in any of the other swing districts, it's over. So that's already the majority gavel and then they start impeachment. This will either nullify unde, you think you've got stagnation right now and you can't get anything done. Try putting one of the chambers of the legislative branch in the power in the hands of the Democrats and then you know what leader Thune is going to do. Well, I can work with my good friend, Hakeem Jeffries, will, will negotiate and work out some compromise. That's what the American people want us to do. And so really Chuck Schumer will be the de facto leader because he'll threaten a filibuster on everything. Schumer will stand up there and say, no, we won't let anything through the Senate unless you, you know, work with Hakeem Jeffries in the House. So now legislatively you're screwed. But then investigation wise, you're screwed. Every single thing that you do the entire last two years of the Trump presidency. And by the way, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, get ready to get investigated. Get ready, get ready to have to be in front of a committee hearing instead of campaigning to be president in 2028. This is existential. And for some reason we're not seeing any of the Trump super PAC money in Virginia fixing this thing, but even trying at least try you guys. You can have one Donald Trump fundraiser and you'll make up all the money that you spend in Virginia. Now's the time. All right, I'm going to stop. I go on and on and on about this. I'm glad Speaker Johnson realizes this. It's wonderful. I mean, we need to see more of it. Let me just go over to some reporting that I'm seeing at NBC News Washington. Robust early voting turnout for Virginia redistricting referendum. They don't provide any numbers here, but they do talk to some different leaders and not surprisingly they go to the Democratic leadership Virginia Democrats. Let's see here. They've got a quote from the Fairfax County Democratic Party here Deborah Lenick. She's saying there's the momentum on her side. Here's something interesting. She's saying we're covering the polls. We're knocking out doors. What we're seeing is a lot of Democrats in Republican districts coming out in support of this. Yes, campaign. Boy, I wish this news story actually got a quote from maybe some Republican leadership in Virginia. This is absolutely totally skewed, but that is something to watch out for Democratic turnout and traditionally red counties to try to dilute some of that. Red vote. And so, you know, I think it's incumbent Republicans in Virginia, you know, this is an opportunity to at least say, hey, you no longer have a Republican governor, but let's at least make sure we continue to have Republican representation in Washington. And if they're if Democrats are beginning to think that they're going to get turnout in Republican districts, that's Republican counties. That is concerning. And so there's got to be a red wave and a red pushback to this. Virginia needs to stop calling themselves a purple state if this is how they're going to fight in an election like this. Because to be a purple state, you actually have to have a chance for Republicans to win. And it appears to me based on the 10, 15 years that I've been reporting on campaigns in Virginia, it looks like the one chance you have when you're a Republican is you nominate a guy who is a self-made man, multi-public. And multi-billionaire who can spend his own unlimited amount of money and have him run against an odious, unpopular guy who's running for an unprecedented second term, who then, you know, stupidly says that parents shouldn't have a say in their kids' education at school coming off of a pandemic. And then, by the way, you only win by a couple of points. Yeah. So I'm sorry. In these circumstances, you get to have a Republican win statewide. Maybe you're not so purple anymore. It's 523. Now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app, O'Connor and Company. WMAL. 536. Good morning, O'Connor and Company. On this first day of April, no pranks. Coming up at 635, Cal Thomas is the type of guy who would do April Fool's jokes, isn't he? You think so? I think Cal has such a good sense of humor. I don't think that's necessarily a hallmark of a good sense of humor that you do jokes that an eight-year-old would appreciate. That's true. Maybe. So five Hans Manus Fakowski on Birthright Citizenship, 735 astronaut Clay Anderson on RMS2, and an 835 Reagan Reese, Daily Color White House, correspondent Larry O'Connor with Patrice Unwuka. Patrice, let's get to that birthright citizenship thing. So now I'm confused. Whenever any conservative talks about birthright citizenship and how the 14th Amendment actually was not designed or written to cover such things, and the one Supreme Court case that was heard about this had to do with a legal resident of the country who was facing deportation back to China, and by the way, that was at the end of the 19th century, if I remember right, and it didn't really specifically say anything about birthright citizenship or that term at all. Every time a conservative raises these issues and raises the history and the legality and whether there's been any sort of specific definitive ruling on this, I'm told I'm shouted down by the left. I'm shouted down by the media. I'm shouted down by everybody saying that's settled law. It's settled law. You know, just like they said about Roe v. Wade. But I'll tell you this Roe v. Wade, for all intents and purposes, was a lot more settled than birthright citizenship because at least we had a decision in Roe v. Wade that articulated that demonic decision about being able to kill babies before they were born. Not so much with birthright citizenship and the fact that it is actually having an argument before the Supreme Court today tells you that number one, they've all been lying to you and they say this is settled law and it's the law of the land. And how dare you even suggest such a thing. And number two, the fact that they're hearing it tells me that there's a real possibility that this finally will actually be reigned in, that this insane policy that no other country on earth embraces, that all you have to do is be born here and you get the full rights of any citizen of this country. Not to mention the fact that that ends up being the anchor baby phenomenon, which by the way, just so everybody knows, we could reign in the policy of anchor babies in Wednesday. No, you can't bring eight people in this generation and that generation just because you were born here or you're a new citizen. That is kind of separate but certainly related. But birthright citizenship in and of itself will be heard today in the Supreme Court. And it's a really interesting question Larry because what it hinges on or what started this was an executive order from the Trump administration that really wanted to clarify who would gain citizenship. It just can't be that you step off a plane and you're nine, ten months pregnant and you deliver and that child becomes a full U.S. citizen with all rights and all benefits of citizenship. And we've seen this play out from a practical standpoint where you have households of noncitizens and sometimes nonillegal citizens, not illegal immigrants with a child who was born in this country. And so if the child qualifies, let's say, for welfare benefits, for SNAP or for, you know, some other TANF benefits, healthcare, by virtue of the fact that that child is living in a household with other adults who may be here illegally, they get access to those benefits because the child is illegal, it has citizenship being born here. And so, you know, I mean, I think it's a very good question that the Supreme Court should be tackling. You know, there are lots of ways that people game the system, the immigration system. And unfortunately this is one of those ways. And so we'll see what happens here. But, you know, I mean, I think what the Supreme Court has to tackle here is the 14th Amendment. And as we heard yesterday, this was enacted not to deal with immigration from people who are coming to this country seeking better opportunities, because obviously America is a country of immigrants. No, this was actually about slaves, slaves who were freed after the Civil War. And ensuring that they were no longer treated as, what, three-fifths of a person, but they were treated as full citizens of the United States of America. That's two very different situations. And ironically, when groups like the NAACP and a lot of Black pundits and leaders, and I'll put those in quotation marks, but Black leaders talk about the histories of slaves in this country, they always want to ensure that Black Americans and their descendants have full rights and are treated as full citizens of this country, because they came to this country under very different circumstances than those of us. And I will say I'm a Black immigrant. As an immigrant who came to this country legally, my parents went through the process and spent the time and money to do so. But my circumstances are very different. And so, you know, birthright citizenship really cuts at that difference. And you want to ensure that anyone who comes to this country does go through the legal channels and doesn't kind of bypass the system. Well, and being born here is not a legal channel and doesn't bypass the system. The fact that the 14th Amendment, it's very clear the 14th Amendment was written to ensure citizenship for every enslaved American. They were passed together, 13th and 14th together, 13th about slavery. And then you had to do this, okay, well, we brought these people over here, they were born here, they've lived here. What do we do with them now? Because they aren't citizens, they were slaves, they didn't have any rights. And so then Congress and their wisdom at the time, they were passing the 13th and 14th Amendment and said, oh, and by the way, all the people who are here are citizens. Thank you very much. Walk away. Then you wait, you know, 30 years, 40 years later, that's then used to keep a Chinese national who was facing deportation here in the country. But that person was a legal resident, not an illegal immigrant. And suddenly you end up with tourists coming here to have babies and suddenly they're children or citizens. And it hasn't been challenged and hasn't been argued in the Supreme Court for over 100 years, 125 years, until today. And everyone's like, oh, it's settled law. Yeah, Dred Scott was settled law. Jim Crow was settled law. Very good point. If it's Roe v. Wade was settled law, stop with that. So the arguments will be heard today. Now, one interesting wrinkle about this is a certain special someone who will be in attendance for the first time in American history. A sitting president who has a vested interest in this argument. It's his executive order that's up for discussion. He will be attending. He mentioned it yesterday. And people's hair is on fire. We will share that discussion coming up in a moment. It's 543. Do you hear that more frequently, please? Yes, every show from now on. Stacking Vegamins. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. And the Supreme Court tomorrow is going to hear arguments about your executive order trying to get rid of birthright citizenship. And I'm going. You're going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow? I do believe it. And you sit there and listen. Because I have listened to this argument for so long. This is not about Chinese billionaires or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves. And if you take a look slaves, we're talking about slaves from the Civil War. And if you take a look at when it was filed, all of this legislation, all of this, everything having to do with birthright citizenship. It was at the end of the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves. It didn't have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I've ever seen. It's been so badly handled by legal people over the years. If you look at the original birthright citizenship papers, they all happened right after the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves. And hopefully it's going to say because our country is being scammed. We're getting all of these people. They're selling the rights to them. People are making a living, a big living, getting hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars from bringing people in and saying congratulations. Your whole family is going to be a citizen of the United States of America. It's exactly what it is. It's like winning the lottery and make no mistake, foreign nationals see that. In fact, we know that there's a whole industry set up out of China. In China, they actually have a tourist industry for people who are pregnant for women to come here in America, have a baby, the babies. And trust me, the communist government allows that to happen because those babies who are Chinese nationals who end up with U.S. citizenship, well, you know, that's kind of a military and espionage asset for the Chinese. Absolutely. The president went on to discuss certain members of the Supreme Court that he is suspicious of for this argument. It wasn't for billionaires bringing people in or family in. It was for the children of slaves. And what you really have to do, and I don't think the lawyers talk about it as much, look at when the Civil War ended and look at the date of when this was enacted. Okay. Is this going to be the first time going into the Supreme Court? No, I went once before. The opening of the Supreme Court and the last administration. And which justices will you be listening for most closely? I love a few of them. I don't like some others. And you know, you say what you want. But you have the ones that were appointed by Barack Hussein Obama and Biden. I don't care how good your cases. You can have the greatest case ever. They're going to rule against you. They always do. And it's not supposed to be that way. Now the Republicans tend to be very different. They want to show how honorable they are so a man can appoint them and they can rule against them. It's so proud of it. We're so proud we ruled against Trump. We're so proud. We're up above it. There are those that say that's wonderful and there are those that say they're so stupid. But the Democrats never fail at one thing. When Barack Hussein Obama or when Biden appoints somebody, they go along that line. You can have the greatest case in history. And almost, I guess I have to say almost, maybe I don't have to say it. But almost without fail, those people, four of them, sometimes five of them, but four of them, will vote against you. You don't have a chance. In fact, yesterday there was an 8 to 1 ruling that showed exactly that when Biden's appointee kind of touched about Jackson inexplicably ruled against the 8 to 1 majority. That said, what do you think, Petrie? His president will be attending today first time. And he said, yeah, I've been there before. He was there for the opening of the Supreme Court, but not for oral arguments on a case. That will be history making. It's going to be nerve-wracking for those who are or in front of the Supreme Court justices, the lawyers who are arguing. The litigators, the petitioners, yeah. The petitioners, thank you. And then it's going to be bananas outside of the Supreme Court. And usually when there is a massive case either being heard or being delivered, decision delivered, you have groups and signs and people yelling and screaming and lined up. Imagine now President Trump going, jaunting up Constitution Avenue there, and it is going to be insane in front of the Supreme Court tomorrow. And with all the kids already there for spring break, oh my gosh, I would avoid that whole area today. It's going to be pretty sunny. Here's what I'm confused about. The last time that there was a huge crowd on the mauler in front of the Supreme Court was this Saturday for the No Kings rally. Explain this to me, Patrice. If Donald Trump is an authoritarian king, why does he even need a Supreme Court? Why does he have to go to these arguments at all? It's so confusing. I'm not sure how many of them make sense. Yeah, it'll be something. And we'll see. And everyone's, we've got people saying, oh, this is intimidation. This is a violation of the separation of powers. Harmy Dillon points out that there are a row of black chairs. There are red chairs in the Supreme Court chamber, apparently, for the media. There's another row adjacent to that are black chairs that are therefore invited guests and dignitaries. And there is a chair that is reserved for the president. Really? That doesn't mean that it's ever been used during oral arguments, but it is being used right now. It's not a separation of powers. If anything, you know, listen, obviously, I think Thomas Alito and Kavanaugh, probably Gorsuch are already in line with them. You really need Roberts and Barrett. And if anything, knowing them, knowing the personalities that have been sort of revealed through interviews and books and what have you, they might actually be annoyed at the presence of the president, because if they do end up ruling in the president's favor, it'll be interpreted as, you know, well, they did what Trump wanted. He was there. He was staring them down. And part of me wants him not to be a part of this. So whatever the decision is and how it comes down, it's free of politics. But that's kind of naive. No decision, sadly, in that chamber seems to be free of politics. That 8-1 decision, by the way, was stunning, important, and we will give you details on that coming up in a bit. It's 5-53. Oh, and Hans von Spikowski will join us at 7-0-5 to talk about the legal aspects of this case today. We have 35 daily colors rigged in Reese about the politics of it. It's coming up. It's 5-53. Next roll with Vernon Davis. I'm your host Vernon Davis. Okay, y'all, thank you. Thank you. That's enough. Today we have Dietrich Weiss. Through my example on the field, off the field, during game day in practice, that was one way that I led, because then it led to success. Next roll isn't about what's next. It's about why they do it. My man, Bobby Bones. Like, I've had a lot of stuff happen, bad and good. And so I don't have any fear of mixing it up. That's powerful, man. Next roll with Vernon Davis. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.
