Episode 322 – Immigration, Travel Ban, RINOcare

todayApril 14, 2018 4

share close

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – If you’re coming here from Libya, you don’t have a First Amendment protection to immigrate.  Do you realize how preposterous this is?  You might as well say: We reserve the right to import new people into our state under the good and plenty clause of the Constitution.  Maxine Waters said it one time.  Go look it up.  She actually did, good and plenty clause.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript


A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban hours before it was to take effect, marking the second time courts have thwarted Trump’s efforts to freeze immigration by refugees and citizens of some predominately Muslim nations.

This time, the ruling came from a judge in Hawaii who rejected the government’s claims that the travel ban is about national security, not discrimination.

[end reading]

Mike:  The judge doesn’t have the authority.  It doesn’t matter what basis or what considerations put into his executive order.  He has the authority; the judge doesn’t.  This is romper room stuff here, folks.  Just shows you how embedded, how powerful the deep state, judiciary state, importation state, immigration state – by the by, I will freely confess and admit my embarrassment and shame that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is in on this.  There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake here, and that’s why this isn’t going into effect.  The USCCB has blood and dirt and heresy and stink and apostasy on its hands.  Shame on them.  You can go read about this on the Remnant newspaper site.  It’s all over there.  Search for USCCB.  Back to the story:


U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order constricted the flow of students and tourists to the state, and that Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.

[end reading]

Mike:  If you’re coming here from Libya, you don’t have a First Amendment protection to immigrate.  Do you realize how preposterous this is?  You might as well say: We reserve the right to import new people into our state under the good and plenty clause of the Constitution.  Maxine Waters said it one time.  Go look it up.  She actually did, good and plenty clause.


In Hawaii, Watson criticized what he called the “illogic” of the government’s arguments and cited “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” behind the travel ban. [Mike: So? If you’re in a holy war and the jihadis practice a certain religion and they promised to wreak havoc, kill, maim, bomb, whatever the jihad entails, if they find or come into contact with Christian or infidel citizens, then you take them literally. You ban the immigration and you’re done with it. What exactly is the question here? You see the – talk about illogic here. You see the illogic of the judge’s actions.] He also noted that while courts should not examine the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decision-makers, “the remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.”

[end reading]

Mike:  What the heck is an impermissible inquiry?  You’re a judge, for Heaven’s sake!  Let me cut to the chase.  Last night at the rally that I watched this morning from Tennessee, President Trump told the audience: I’ve got bad news.  We don’t like bad news.  Believe me, we’re going to turn this into good news.  It’s going to be good news.  He read what I just read to you.  He read the judge’s ruling and says he was just informed that his watered-down, compromised second draft of his executive order travel ban – look, I haven’t even read the travel ban, so I don’t even know if it’s effective or not.  It doesn’t matter whether I think it is or whether it has the proper nuts and bolts in it or not.  What matters is the actual chain of authority.  What matters here is the actual separation of powers that they all tell us we have in this vainglorious constitution system of ours but that we don’t seem to have anymore.

Two things happened at that rally that I saw last night that, quite frankly, ought to be alarming to the rest of you.  But that didn’t stop the crowd from going, “USA!  USA!  USA!”  Boy, I tell you, folks, this nationalism that Trump is ginning up among the people that go to these events with our militarism, we’re a hair’s breath away.  We’re a hair’s breath away from going 1930s Europe.  All the elements are here with the waning of Christianity; with the waning of morality; with the near nonexistence of just war and just war theory; with people writing justified and good books that are called We Kill Because We Can; with the CIA still doing what it’s doing after being outed for being illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, unethical, etc., etc.  We’re already doing most of it.  We haven’t started asking citizens traveling between states, getting on planes, kind of on planes but not to that level: Do you have some papers?  Do you wish to board the train from Mississippi to Lafayette, Louisiana?  Do you have the papers?  May I see the papers?  Then if you turn the wrong papers in, you wind up in a gulag.  If you turn the right papers in, you wind up in a gulag.  Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous times we live in.

Is there an opportunity here like Patrick Deneen and I discussed yesterday?  Yes, of course there is.  Is there anger here?  Boy howdy, folks, you better believe it.  When Trump announced to the crowd that the travel ban was not going to go into effect, that the judge had blocked the travel ban – again, this is opportunity number two now.  Instead of saying: I have been advised by my counsel that I have authority to proceed and I am therefore ordering my cabinet to enforce the first travel ban order.  We could even say the second.  We’re now acknowledging the judge’s ruling.  He does not have authority.  He called it right.  He said this was judicial overreach.  He got everything right other than the action.  The action is he has the authority.

That marks two times the president has been in the right; the Article III judiciary has been clearly, demonstrably in the wrong.  Trump even cited Alan Dershowitz.  Dershowitz agrees.  Dershowitz says if you got this case to court, you’d win.  So what did Trump say?  We’re going to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to.  Ladies and gentlemen, even if the Supreme Court says okay, he still lost.  He had to justify the already justifiable power that he had by pleading in front of another branch, begging for its mercy.  This is not a status quo change.  You know what this is?  Ladies and gentlemen, it’s becoming apparent to me, if you’re not watching this, watch it.  This is a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.  This joker is going to careen to the bottom of a sea of red ink ocean at a breakneck pace that no one is prepared for.  I tell you, this presidential authority here, and the way these things are shaping up, and some of the things that Trump is saying, these are not good signs.

Two opportunities about to be squandered.  One, start to get the order back.  If there’s any chance of fixing the federal monstrosity we call government, it has to include ending the Article III judiciary’s tyranny.  It writes law all the time.  It just makes it up out of whole cloth and then calls it law and forces 320 million people to live under it.  That’s not how a republican form of government works.  It’s the exact opposite.  We might as well have a monarchy.  Heck, we’d be better off with a monarchy.  That’s one.  If the Trump administration was going to do something about this, they’ve had two opportunities now.  Last night at a rally in Nashville, North Carolina, the president indicated he was not.  That’s a disappointment.  You can chant “USA!  USA!”  all you want.  You can talk about all the millions of jobs you’re going to create.  We are still swimming in red ink and nothing has been done to alter that.  I haven’t given up on the endeavor yet.

Here’s the second sign.  Same rally – I’m glad I watched it this morning now.  Same rally in Nashville, North Carolina, Trump started talking about Obamacare.  Now, I couldn’t tell if I was listening to President Trump or if I was listening to Obama for a moment.  He turned his attention to the fact that we can’t get – [mocking] “Look, it’s more complicated that we thought.  We can’t just repeal Obamacare.  Okay?  But we’re going to repeal it.”  You can just repeal Obamacare.  We’ve proved it on this show.  Senator Paul, Representative Meadows, and others talk about it.  They go in front of microphones every day.

I got an email from Rob Maness telling me that Americans and people that voted for Rob and other conservatives need to rally against RINOcare, what they’re calling it now.  This is a major disappointment here.  What did Trump say about this?  He clued the audience in: Look, the repeal will come later.  We’re going to replace it first.  In other words, we’re going to install Trump-Ryancare, and then we’re going to pick the little pieces of Obamacare out that we don’t like, but you’re still going to get a national, socialist, government healthcare program.  It’s just going to be run by people that Trump chooses instead of people that Obama chose.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (0)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x