Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | RSS
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio and Transcript – I don’t think that anyone in any other state has a blithering thing to say about any sort of a business unless it is the business that is owned by the king of the regime that is currently at war with us. Then we have an issue. Until such time, I don’t care what New York does. I don’t have to live there. It’s the people of New York’s territory and property; it’s not mine. In other words, I’m a federalist to the end. As far as Boston and Chicago are concerned, if you don’t want delicious Chick-Fil-A wraps and sandwiches and waffle fries, then go ahead, dummy. Ban them.
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
AG: It would be disingenuous for people to say Chick-Fil-A should be allowed to open in Boston or Chicago if they’re able to find the property, but at the same time say the Islamic center that was proposed down by the World Trade Center should not be allowed to open if they were to find the necessary property.
Mike: This goes back to this whole perversion of our national identity and our national government. That ought to be a decision that is left to the people of New York City and a decision that is left to the people of Boston and Chicago respectively. Because I don’t like it in Louisiana, tough boobies for me. I don’t live there. Conversely, we’ll open whatever the heck kind of business that we want to in the French Quarter or on St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans, provided we approve of it.
I don’t think that anyone in any other state has a blithering thing to say about any sort of a business unless it is the business that is owned by the king of the regime that is currently at war with us. Then we have an issue. Until such time, I don’t care what New York does. [mocking] “Mike, you should care about that.” I don’t have to live there. It’s the people of New York’s territory and property; it’s not mine. In other words, I’m a federalist to the end. As far as Boston and Chicago are concerned, if you don’t want delicious Chick-Fil-A wraps and sandwiches and waffle fries, then go ahead, dummy. Ban them. If you don’t want the jobs that are going to be created there by the construction of the place, fine. That’s your prerogative. Little Bobby Brown “That’s my prerogative.” That’s what I have to say about that. Did I answer your question?
AG: Yeah. I haven’t heard Mayor Bloomberg make any comments regarding Chick-Fil-A, but if it were to be we want to open a Chick-Fil-A in New York City and if people were to come out against that or in favor of it at the same time, you’d have to have the same rules and regulations for the Islamic center in New York City.
Mike: No, I don’t concur. I don’t think that the federal government, classically construed and cognizant and operating on its federalist foundations has a damn thing to say about either, again, unless there’s a declaration of war.
AG: But if the City of New York had —
Mike: That’s their business.
AG: You have to enforce the rules across the board, regardless of what they are. So if you said we’re going to allow Chick-Fil-A to open its business regardless of whether or not we agree with the founder’s political views, at the same time, you then could not prevent the Islamic center for opening because you disagree with their views, on the city or state level.
Mike: Unless there was legislation where the people of a particular city said we don’t want that kind of an establishment in our city. I believe that’s their right to choose that. The First Amendment, again, until you incorporate it for use against the states, which is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and defeats and defies federalism and the intent of the federal Constitution to start with, if there is a codicil in the New York State Constitution that guarantees religious freedom for all, you could argue it under those grounds. It doesn’t say what kind of religion; it says religion. You would defer to that. I know we have Article I, Section 7 to the Louisiana Constitution is where we get our bill of rights from. If Boston and Chicago want to make these huge cases out of Chick-Fil-A, and at the same time they want to keep droning on about unemployment, discrimination and all that, then you’ve made your choice, now you live with it. What’s question two?
AG: Number two, a couple of the articles I read regarding this said that the issue should be one of if Chick-Fil-A actually chooses not to hire people according to their race, gender, sexuality, creed, what have you, then you can have an issue with Chick-Fil-A.
Mike: I don’t believe that the general government has a role in employment. If the City of Chicago says we’ve got laws here and you can’t discriminate based on “insert here,” then so be it. To me, that is the taking of private property. Let me hit you back. On both of these instances, I’m a Grussian. I’m for letting the market work it out. If you find out that “insert name here” is not hiring because of “insert race, gender, creed, sexuality, hairstyle, whatever,” you can say screw them, I’m not doing business with them. That’s free choice. That’s what a free society is, to me. Maybe I have liberty and libertarianism backwards.
AG: No, that makes sense. I guess would you have to repeal the Civil Rights Act, though, to allow that to be the case.
Mike: No, now you’re really getting me out there now.
AG: I’m with you in terms of letting the market decide. I just wonder because you have a law on the books, if you’d have to repeal that first and then you’d allow —
Mike: Yeah, because you have what is known now as precedence, don’t we? Now we have the National Labor Relations Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Civil Rights Department and all this stuff. There are many that believe and have written, among them Judge Robert Bork to some level, that have written about the unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think that if the states wanted to reclaim their power and make that a state issue and not one of this jingoistic “USA! USA!” that it’s this way in all 50 states, then you would then, I guess the proper way to do it would be either to repeal that, and good luck with that in 2012, or to have a convention of states saying by this act we’re going to repeal all of the general government’s interfering and meddling agencies in matters of employment and commerce. The Commerce Clause only grants them the power to see to it that commerce is made regular. That’s the end of the story. That’s their power and that’s all their power. That’s the only power they have. I believe that I may have won Double Jeopardy.
AG: I think yeah. We’ll give you the points.
Mike: How much did I wager? Close. So close.
End Mike Church Show Transcript