This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind, and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every single day on your favorite podcast platform. For got kind of a cornucopia going today. We got birthright citizenship.
It's in the news because you know, President Trump as the executive order saying no, we're not doing that anymore. You know, if a child's born to folks here illegally, they're not automatically an American citizen. That's not the law, that's not the Constitution. And then you know, predictably, a court enjoined that today put it on hold, a court out of Seattle, and now the hope is it gets
to the US Supreme Court quickly. I'm just here to tell you, I would bet you my car and all the repair bills that go with it that the US Supreme Court would easily and quickly make it clear that the fourteenth Amendment does not say that if somebody's here illegally and the child's born here, that they're a US citizen. And then we in the first hour we deep dolve it and so I'm sure we'll touch on some of that again. Anyway, we're talking birthright citizenship if you want to jump in on that.
We're also talking about, Hey, what do you expect to find out?
Now?
What do you think really happened with the JFK, MLK RFK assassinations? Now that Trump has said he's going to release a lot of unclassified stuff talking about and playing the very compelling sound from the inaugural address President Trump saying that God saved him, and God saved him so he could make America great again.
So diving into.
That, and I've got one of the most fascinating, I think stories of the year coming up. And this is I won't say a breaking news story because it's not going to make anybody breathless. I just think it's fascinating and important Denver Post story that dropped today about a landlord suing a seven to eleven owner in Boulder for making the story a quote magnet for homeless people. And it's really interesting once you get into it. So hopefully if we don't get to it today, we'll get to tomorrow.
But I want to get to phones and text. Let's start with Brian and Arvada. You're on the dan Kaplis.
You'll welcome.
Hey, Brian, can you hear me?
I can hear you know.
Hey, Hey, it's not that hard. It'll be interesting if they do let it out, because I guess he's going to let it out the first term, so we'll see it happens. But to me, it's all very simple. It's the same reason they tried to kill Donald Trump. It's the industrial war complex. She didn't want to get it into another war, and there's a lot of money in war, so he's just easiness into it. He's going to expose.
It's another step in exposing the corruptness that we've been living with in our government for many and many years, more than any of us even know. That's what's genius about it.
Brian, appreciate the call, Thank you, my friend, and we'll see how much we learned from the classified info. When it comes to Trump, you know, when you stop and think about it, Trump is the single greatest threat in terms of humans on the face of the earth today. Trump is the single greatest threat to so many different forms of evil. So when it comes to you know,
who is actively trying to assassinate him? Now, and I mean, this is just public record that Iran is trying to but I believe there are probably more nation state actors than Iran trying to assassinate Trump and others who might have a motive if others were involved in either Butler.
Or the Florida attempt.
You've got so many different forms of evil that are probably trying to end Trump that it actually probably makes it harder to sort out, right, and then you always have the possibility that it's an individual actor.
That's always possible.
But but right now, Yeah, would any sane person have trusted the Biden administration to get to the bottom of that when it came to the two assassination attempts on Trump. No, I don't think any sane person would. So let's just hope under this administration we can get there. Want to get to some text as well. Eight five five four zero five eight two five five the number text d an five seven seven three nine.
Let's go to Oh, somebody unhappy with me? Where is that?
Dan?
I know this may be.
Nitpicking a bit, but the quote founders did not right slash ratify the fourteenth Amendment. This was passed in eighteen sixty eight. Roughly seventy years after what we would traditionally refer to as the time of our founders.
You and Ryan keep up the great work. Thank you, Texter.
But I did actually know that the Fourteenth Amendment came later in eighteen sixty eight. But no, the Fourteenth Amendment is referred to as the Second Foundings, So I and many others have traditionally referred to the people who passed, wrote, and passed the Fourteenth Amendment as founders. It's known as
the second Founding. Though I appreciate your point. Some might distinguish framers from founders that sort of thing, but it was, I think in reality and is known as the second Founding the fourteenth Amendment.
Thank you, though, thank you for your note. Dan.
What type of marksman was Oswald with the rightfully used in a moving target? Raises my suspicions, Bob, I just come back to as a practical matter, I'm just one guy, right, I haven't had the access to the stuff I knew to do the real forensicnic directly. But I just personally believe that Oswald did not act alone. And let's see if these files shed any light on that. I don't believe that James Rolray acted alone in the killing of doctor King. I don't believe that for one single second.
Certainly not, Sir Hans Sir Han with RFK. So let's hope we're heading into a new era of God trustworthiness. It has been a long time, Dan, some of these Fourteenth Amendment notes just get too long, and I understand it because there's a lot to talk about there.
Dan, I agree with you to some extent.
However, if the parents are here illegally, I believe the child should not receive citizenship until they reach the age of adulthood and then have the opportunity to reject it. I'm not sure where the Texter is coming from that because my position is really clear, and that is, the Constitution was never intended to provide that a child born to people here illegally automatically be an American citizen. I
understand that's the current interpretation. I just think it's a drastic misread and misunderstanding of the Constitution, which are current US Supreme Court will correct as soon as they get that case. So yeah with me and listen when it comes to the child, he may be referring to an earlier true said, Hey, what if the mom's here legally and the dad's here illegally.
And I said, that's an easy one. That the child is an.
American citizen because the child's born to an American citizen. So I think that also is an easy one. Now, I do want to add this note as we go to other calls and text, and that is, listen to child who happens to be born here to parents here illegally.
My heart breaks for that child. I mean, nothing I say now.
Is should be intended or interpreted rather as somehow viewing that child as lesser. You know, my heart breaks for the child. It's not the child's doing that the parents are here illegally. The parents may in fact be absolutely wonderful people. You've probably had the same experience. I mean, some of the greatest people I've ever met in my life came to this country illegally, and should they have. No,
everybody should follow the law. I agree. I'm just say in the truth, and I bet it's true for you as well. Some of the greatest people I've ever met came to this country I legally. That does not and obviously we all know some of the most awful people to ever set foot in the United States of America, came to this country illegally, just like some of the best people we know did.
But all I'm saying is none of that.
Should change the truths behind all of this, the true legal constitutional analysis that the founders, including the second Founding, never intended to incentivize illegal immigration. It was all about black people who'd been enslaved and the children of black
people who'd been enslaved. It is clear what their intent was, and nobody in the right mind ever would have sat there back in nineteen sixty a and says, oh, yeah, hey, let's come up with something that encourages people to come here illegally so that their children can be born on American soil and they can get this precious, this precious right known as Americans citizenship.
No, it's goofy to think that was their intent.
Not to disrespect anybody, but I truly think that's goofy eight five five four zero five eight two five five text d A N five seven seven three nine. And for the record, I'm not calling any person, any lawyer, any jurist who has interpreted it that way goofy. I'm just saying, when we step back and look at it logically, practically, historically. No,
that's not what was intended with the fourteenth Amendment. Oh my goodness, Ryan, we have so much red hot sound today and we need a chance to squeeze all of it in. So what I want to do is I want to come back from the break your fingers. I assume I rested and nimble. We can get through a bunch of sound.
Oh we're going to fire away baby.
Oh man, that is That is music to my ears. Because there's so much fun stuff happening right now. I want to give people a taste of kind of the broad breadth and depth of it.
A great time to be alive. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Lastly, sir, we have an executive order ordering the declassification of files relating to the assassinations the President John F.
Kennedy, Senator Robert F.
Kennedy, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. It's a big one, huh. A lot of people are waiting for this for along.
For years, for decades, and everything will be revealed.
Okay, give that you all right, k G. Such a role.
And as important as that is, and it is, it's it's not even the most important signed today. The most important was the pardons of the many different pro life activists who were persecuted by the Biden administration. Even a mother, a young African American mother, put in jail for a very long time for protesting at a clinic. And it just horrific stuff. And we talked about it in depth earlier.
And the fact that Trump is standing up to this evil, unequal application of the law by Biden and the hard left is is so critical, even beyond the individual cases of these pro life protectors. It just just defending equal application of the law and striking back against what Biden and the left have done. So great day for America and so happy for those individuals. All right, let's get back to the phone lines there in Fuego. We're talking
about so much different stuff. Now, I don't want to burn the whole segment setting it up, so let's go straight to Robert in Denver, Colorado.
You're on the Dan Kapla show.
Welcome, id I wanted to ask you about the right, So yes, I mean, I'm I'm not kids, But anyways, what about the permanent residence. I mean, oh, a good.
Question, good, good question, my friend, and your line's chopping up, so we'll have to put you on hold while I address that. And what a smart question from Robert in Denver, because the quick setup is that, yeah, we've we've been talking about since a court today in Seattle, the Federal Court has put on hold President Trump's executive order striking down birthright citizenship, saying that is not the law in America.
That's not what the constitution says.
You don't become an American citizen just because your parents here illegally give birth here.
So this will now get to the US Supreme Court.
And my point was the US Supreme Court, I think will quickly and easily find that it is an incorrect interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment to say that a child becomes an American citizen simply because their parents are is simply because they're born here, particularly when it's of parents who are here illegally. Now, great question from the caller, which is, hey, what if the parents have legal status here? And he talked about I think he referred to a
permanent resident. That would completely change the equation in my mind, because when you look at the fourteenth Amendment, and then you track just the different court cases and arguments over the years. Fourteenth Amendment, as you know, says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So it all comes down to what does what does and subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean?
And I think by far the best interpretation is that it means your exclusive loyalty is to the United States of America. So by definition, somebody here illegally, that would not be the case. If somebody's here permanently with some other type of legal status, I think that would be the case. So I think the US Supreme Court is not going to have any trouble with this. The challenge is going to be how quickly it can be brought to the court, and hopefully it's the current constitution of
the court. Let's go to Allen in Kenyon City, Colorado. Hopefully he's in Kenyon City and not in Kenyon City. You're on the dan KAPLA Show.
Welcome Allan, Hello, thanks for taking my call.
Sure thanks.
Got a story that came from my grandma when she was eight years old. Her family came here to the United States from Germany landed in New York. Yeah, and my grandmother told me this story when I would in my early twenties.
Yeah.
So, anyway, after because they have to, you know, take all the testing and everything to be kin citizens, it was a big celebration amongst the Tagline family. And from there after the celebration, they all got together and moved to Hayes, Kansas. My point is that automatically makes me a US citizen because they took the tests and that, you know it, it required them to become citizens.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, you know that. That's I think that's the way it should be. That's the way the cons Constitution states it. And yeah, you know, I totally agree with it, you know, with the Constitution because you know, well that's only fair.
Yeah. Neat story, my friend.
And what you're correctly referring to is the or naturalized language all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and naturalized means being made citizens pursuant to the applicable law.
And you've led us to a bigger point here.
And Andy McCarthy makes this this point great, which is, hey, congres can do whatever Congress wants to do on this front. They've been given that constitutional power. So Congress can come in and say, we've got the power to decide pass laws to say who's a citizen or not. So if Congress wanted to come in and say, Okay, anybody who's born here is a citizen, even if your parents are here,
you're legally, Congress has that power. But the point obviously is no Congress is going to say that right because it just wouldn't make any sense for this nation. And that's not disrespecting the child who's born here of parents who don't have legal status.
It's it's a practical matter. Hey, my friend, thank you for the call.
Really appreciate that we've got to hit this break, but thank you for calling from Candas City, Colorado.
Ran.
You've got to tell me this is actually a great story. Remind me sometime to tell my Hayes, Kansas story and the crime that was committed against me in Hayes, Kansas.
No reflection on that beautiful town.
Was that it for me and Hayes State University?
No? No, no, no.
It was at a truck stop and he's Kansas. I was hitchhiking back to Colorado. Oh yeah, great story. But we don't have time for now.
Thank you?
All right?
Do you want to get some more texts and more calls in?
But when we come back, quick setup because we only have a few seconds here, Well continue the birthright citizen citizenship, you know conversation because it is in the news today with that federal court action. But there's more I want
to get to. I want to get to this fascinating story out of Boulder where the building owner is suing the seven eleven because the seven eleven is actively and intentionally the allegation goes attracting homeless people to the seven to eleven, who are then becoming a problem in different ways. That's the allegation. I'll come back, I'll set it up. It's fascinating and who should win that case.
You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Boy, what a weak hun You remember a week like this?
And we've been talking about this since election day, right when the Trump effect kicked in and it was clear, as we expected, there would be an immediate concrete improvement in America and the world, not that we're gonna have puppies and rainbows and unicorns everywhere, but we've got a lot more of them flying around and things are moving much more in the right directions. So yeah, just what a great fun, amazing time to be alive. And more fights to come, sure here in Colorado and beyond. But
we have not seen this kind of rapid progress. I don't know if we've seen it ever in our lifetime. Eight five five vers five A two five five text d A N five seven seven three nine.
It'll be fun. Tomorrow.
We're going to have Heidi Ganal in the house. Hedi was back in DC for the inauguration, as Ryan was as well, and you're be getting her take on all of that and.
What is to come.
And the nice thing is that what is to come it's so concrete, right like if you just joined the show. We're having a deep dive today on birthright citizenship, the idea that somebody the Constitution would say somebody automatically becomes a US citizen just if they're born here, even if their parents happen to be legal. We've been analyzing that because now that Trump signed the executive order saying no way,
and a court in Seattle has enjoined that order. You know, we're hoping it gets to the US Supreme Court quickly, because I would bet you a ton the US Supreme Court says, no, the current interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment that if you're born here, you're a citizen no matter what, is not a correct interpretation.
I expect that will soon. I'll put that in quotes be the law of the land.
And of course President now he's going to release classified info from the assassination files jfkrfk MLK and just kind of kicking around what that's likely to bring. I do want to squeeze in a couple of texts if we can, Dan, how many celebrities and other elites have left the country who said they would if Trump was president again.
They've had two.
Plus months to pack that from Alexa Ryan, the only person I've ever known who actually lived up to that was my brother, who promised he would move his family out of the country of Trump one in sixteen and he did that.
Did that? Yeah, he did that.
Dan. Since you're a lawyer, can you explain when the J six prisoner slash hostages will be released in full and maybe also answer what seems to be taking so long?
Thank you in advance.
You know, it's it's interesting on that, and you know, my own take is that there should not be pardons. And as everyone knows, pardon means as it's as if it never happened. Commutation means they cut the sentence in the penalty. But my belief is there should not be full pardons for people who engaged in violence, particularly people who attack police officers.
But that is done.
It's interesting now you have some judges some of the courts involved are dismissing the charges, but dismissing them quote without prejudice, which means they could be refiled. Now that's a legal fiction. The law is clear the charges could not be refiled. President Trump has the power to simply pardon, but some of the courts are in fact pursuing thee without prejudice. In terms of other hang ups, Thanks Texter, But I'd want to know some of those individuals individuals specific cases, because.
I'm not familiar with those.
If there are some right now that haven't simply been released, I'm not familiar with the details. Dan, if they rented as a seven eleven, seven to eleven will win that case, should sue for not providing security? What the Texter is referring to is to me one of the most interesting stories in a long time, and there isn't time to do it full justice today, but I want to introduce you to it, so you have it in the back of your mind. We'll kick it around some more next week.
This is a well put together piece by Justin Winingerder. In the Denver Post, landlord complains that seven to eleven near cu is magnet for homeless people. In a legal dispute that is nearly identical to a case playing out in Lodo, a local landlord is accusing seven eleven of allowing one of its most prominent Boulder stores to become a homeless hangout, drug market, and crime scene, harming the landlord's leasing efforts. Urban Frontier at Denver firm owns the
former Flat Irons Theater near the University of Colorado. The building is now in ninety three hundred square foot retail space. It is also quote a magnet for homeless people, according to a lawsuit Urban filed against seven eleven's corporate office.
The landlord blames seven eleven's altruism.
And this is part of what I think makes this so interesting, and I want to kick around with you. Quoting the lawsuit, defendant incentivizes and allows homeless people to hungergate on and near the property by providing free or price reduced items, including food and water. Defendant provides homeless people with special information reducing the cost of goods, and has provided homeless people with free rubber gloves and disinfectant. Ok.
What do you think the gloves are for?
Ryan Defendant's employees have personal relationships with homeless people, It complains. As a result, transiencurinate and defecate on the buildings, sleep outside, trespass inside graffitia's walls.
Drink alcohol there, and do drugs.
According to Urban which says it has been twenty grand on security, the landlord accuses seven to eleven of siding with the homeless, and then it goes on to assert some legal claims.
So who should win that?
Well, in my view, what you just described, what you enable, you encourage, and you deserve what you enable. And if that's the case here, then I think anybody who would allow for this to happen, or encourage it to happen by enabling people to be there, should be held responsible for That's just my view on it. Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
Obviously, a business owner has the right to be altruistic and kind toward homeless people, et cetera. And I'm sure that's what it's born of up there, you know, having been a student up there, et cetera.
But you don't have a right.
It's the old thing right, the freedom to swing your your arm stops at the tip of my nose, and so you don't have the right then to create.
What the law would call a nuisance right.
That then, you know, interferes with others free access to public accommodations, lowers property values, et cetera. So, without knowing more and just accepting the allegations from the complaint, we haven't heard the other side, right, but I would love to hear the other side next week.
Hopefully we could get seven to eleven in on this.
If everything they described is true, I would expect the landlord's gonna prevail and probably not have to go all the way to a jury trial. There's probably going to be some sort of settlement where seven eleven just changes the way it approaches all this.
These are human beings, and I hate to use this analogy, but I think it fits, and it makes a point and that is you start feeding stray cats, they're gonna keep coming back, and they're.
Gonna know that that is a source of food and they.
Can come back and come back again. And no matter the altruistic motives. To your point, Dan, if you're creating a nuisance situation by designating this place kind of a haven or a magnet for such people come in and then engage in these behaviors of defecating and urinating and whatever else, then I think the person that is encouraging that behavior should be held responsible.
Yeah, you know, and obviously, Ryan, I know you're not comparing these human beings to cats, but I just.
Gave the disclaimer.
I tried my best, but then you went ahead and did it. But that's what is.
Wrong.
Is that wrong?
Is it an inaccurate comparison?
Yes? Oh yes it is. Yes, yes it is, my friend, How is it inaccurate?
Dan?
It is?
It is inaccurate because of the fact we're talking about human beings here, right, We're going to have a different legal standard apply.
And also, yeah, the legal standard I'm talking about that is just the actual standing point, the actual effect of what you're doing, right, And I.
Don't mean to get into the weeds with this.
But but the other reason why, I mean, I think there are a lot of reasons that the comparison doesn't apply. And I know you did not mean it in a harsh way, but but the other reasons it doesn't apply is because these are human beings. It's it's not just kind of an instinctive thing. Okay, the cat knows there's going to be milk over there. You know, There's there's
a lot of other reasoning that goes into it. But then there's a lot of other harm, unfortunately, that can be caused by by the human beings as they pursue this.
Because we're talking.
About and we're all broken to one degree another, right, but we're talking about badly broken human beings at a very bad point in their life, who are probably many of them drug, alcohol, other addicted, and so their behavior wants there is the behavior of many is just going
to be more destructive. And so I get the landlord's concern, assuming that the seven to eleven they're nobly motivated, there's got to be a way to carve this out, right, But listen, if a landlord is sitting there looking at everything it describes, it is in my view, a right to take action, and no matter how well intentioned the seven to eleven, they still have to pursue their mission work in a way that is fair to all of
the surrounding businesses. That's all I'm saying. But Ryan, let me do this, okay, because there is have you seen this texter who's really going after me?
This is fun?
Says he's a lawyer who could run circles around me in a courtroom and wants to bet his fancy cars. This is going to be a lot of fun because I'm going to give them a chance to do that. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful.
Pro life protesters who were prosecuted by the Biden administration for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Do you know how many I believe it's twenty three, sir.
Twenty three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this. They'll be great happy.
So they're all in prison.
Now, some some are out of custody.
It's ridiculous, what a great moment.
Today's so important what President Trump did on multiple levels. But keep in mind, some of these people think of about the threat to this nation that the Biden administration created when it decided to misuse DOJ to mount politically motivated prosecutions and then hypercharged, prosecuted, and sentenced the people such as this young African American mother in jail four years until being freed by Trump, who's in jail for protesting at one.
Of these abortion facilities.
And then the elderly woman convicted as well, and then I believe on home detention now.
But at the same time, and here's the point.
Even if you could look at any one of those prosecutions and say, oh, yeah, there's a law violation there, that the big question then becomes is the law being applied equally? And the answers are resounding, no, you have the politically favored They would never even think of charging for far worse offense as let alone pursuing sentencing and
putting in jail. And it's that kind of of unequal application of the law, abuse of the law law for politically motivated prosecutions that threatens the existence of this nation.
Let alone that what they're trying to.
Do here is persecute and prosecute and jail some of the greatest civil rights heroes of our time, because that the fight for innocent life is the civil rights movement of our lifetime on multiple levels, including but not limited, the fact that you know, five times more children of color are killed before birth than other children, and none of them should be killed.
But my point is, a.
Great blow was struck today for good over an evil practice. And did this evil practice of unequal application of the law. And by the way, does anybody really that Biden's DOJ could not have tracked down the people who burned that pro life pregnancy center up in northern Colorado the day after Roe was struck down. Really, really, you think that all the resources, all the great people in the DJ and there are many, Biden couldn't have tracked down the people.
And it's just I think, from what I can see from the outside, another example of that unequal application of the law, which is ending now with Trump and hopefully for many years to come. All right, let's try to squeeze in. Oh, I've got to deliver on this teas
and then I'll go to the phone lines. Yeah, so I get a text from this guy who says, Dan, I'm an ex DC lawyer, would run circles around you in a courtroom, would love to come out of retirement to battle against you in a courtroom about birthrights to those born here. Guaranteed win for me. Okay, tough guy, easy enough, You don't even have to come out of retirement. You don't even have to go into a courtroom. Just call the darn show. Call the darn show, tough guy
or Gale. Eight five five four zero five eight two five five. I'll slow down so you can hear it clearly and write it down. Eight five five four zero five eight two five five. Just call the show. We can have our own trial right here. And you know what, instead of six wonderful jurors in the box and a great judge on the bench, and maybe it can fit one hundred people in the courtroom, we can have the whole state. We can have the whole country here because
they can get us on the iHeart app. So come on, tough guy or Gail, let's let's have our own little trial right here. And then he or she writes back to say, Dan, okay, I'll bet you my McLaren seven twenties. The Supreme Court will side with me.
What do you drive?
So you know what I'm picturing, Ryan, I'm picturing a couple of those like little models you get from the gas station.
You know what, McLaren's seven twenties.
Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I'm picturing that right now.
And oh, by the way, plenty of.
DC lawyers have walked out of courtrooms very very disappointed in the outcome when we have shared that wonderful space. So yeah, please do please do my friend call the show and what do I drive?
You are welcome to what I drive. I will tell you that right now.
It's probably the best car I've ever driven when it works.
But but Ryan, I.
Think now, over the last three months it has spent more than half that time in the shop.
What the heck's wrong with that? So I what isn't wrong with it? You know?
I bought it used back during COVID because you couldn't find them new, and I saved a bunch of money on it.
But here's the key. Here's the key.
I got that four year warranty, you know, because Mercedes gives this on certain certified used cars. As you know, they'll give this full bumper to bumper warranty. I guarantee you they are regretting the day they ever gave that warranty. But and I'm kind of regretting the day I ever bought the car. But it is such a great car when it works right. It's one of these questions.
I told you, I know people I can help you.
Yeah, with Martino people, I'll let's talk about I'd say tomorrow, but Hedia is the show tomorrow, which is going to be awesome, So we'll figure that one out.
Thank you, Kelly next week, Brian, tremendous job, as always, my friend, and Kelly, you are human sunshine. You're brighten everybody's day every single day. Hey hiving ganal in tomorrow, thoroughly enjoy that. Thanks for your time today on The Dan Kapla Show.