The Great Debate Bias

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “He also let Mrs. Clinton comment on a question of the Constitution that no one saw as a Constitution question.  It’s the same question that many of you should have been asking about that fake that calls himself a conservative Ted Cruz, and about Cruz’s ineligibility because he’s not.  He’s a Canadian-born citizen.  He’s probably not even eligible to be a United States senator.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Donald Trump was called out last night by hack moderator, in-the-tank defender of the industrial-media complex Lester Holt.  What this has to do – Holdt inadvertently led Trump into a constitutional question.  He also let Mrs. Clinton comment on a question of the Constitution that no one saw as a Constitution question.  It’s the same question that many of you should have been asking about that fake that calls himself a conservative Ted Cruz, and about Cruz’s ineligibility because he’s not.  He’s a Canadian-born citizen.  He’s probably not even eligible to be a United States senator.  He’s certainly not eligible, according to the historical record and the facts and the understanding of what a NBC was at the time of ratification.  It doesn’t matter what happened after ratification.  Either you’re an originalist or you’re not.  I suspect that most of you are not originalists.  That’s fine.  Just stop calling yourself a constitutionalist.  [mocking] “Mitter Church.  I am a constitutionalist.  You and Mark Kreslins and Gutzman are not.”

Let’s go over #3 of the Constitution questions that were asked last night.  It was a setup; it was a trap, obviously.  Let’s mention the Obama birther controversy.  Conventional wisdom has: Well, a federal court heard the case and they threw it out, so obviously he is eligible.  Really?  So a federal court also heard the case between Mrs. Roe and Mrs. Wade and decided that one, too.  Do we go along with that one?  A federal court also heard the case of Obergefell v. California, or Virginia, I forget.  Is that one settled?  Did we go along with that one, too?  A federal court also heard the case of Loving v. Texas.  It heard all of those cases that led to God being banished from the public schools and now the god of our civil, sick, twisted, sex and unnatural actions religion is what has replaced it.  Is that settled law?  Is it?

We could play this game on and on and on.  My point is, there are all manner of things that have been horribly decided, errantly decided by federal courts that are wrong.  Not only are they constitutionally wrong, in most instances they’re morally wrong.  Again, if we’re going to restore the order, which we have to get right.  We’ve got it upside down now.  We have to begin by looking at things and finding ultimate causes, ultimate purposes and saying: To fix this you need to do X.

Let’s just go back to the question of the birther argument.  I’m only going to cover this for just a moment.  I’m not having a full-blown conversation about it.  We know that President Obama’s father was not an American citizen.  It’s questionable whether or not Obama’s father was ever naturalized.  We know his mother was.  Some people say: That’s it then.  He was born in Hawaii, or wherever he was born, it doesn’t matter.  Well, actually it does matter.  Therefore, because he was born to an American mother, same argument for Ted Cruz, he’s an American citizen.  You have to establish the paternal link.  NBC at the time of the Constitution writing and ratifying, paternity or where you were a citizen was directly related to what country your father, what king your father owed allegiance to.  It’s as simple as that.  If he owed allegiance to the king of France, then you are a French citizen.  The king of France could tax him, could send him into war.  Folks, this is common sense.  It isn’t hard to figure out.  It’s not so detailed that you have to have a Harvard law degree to understand this.  President Obama, therefore, obviously, if his father was not a naturalized citizen, then he could not have come from a naturalized citizen and he can’t be natural-born.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

I realize that eight years after the fact it doesn’t matter.  This is one of the reasons why – how many times did you hear Ted Cruz mention the fact, [mocking] “I want you to listen to me.  We already went through this with President Obama.  He is an American citizen just as I am a natural-born, and so is Marco, and so is every person that lives in this land.”  The settlement of the Obama case is used as the bellwether to measure this against.  There’s a problem with that.  The Obama case was never settled.  The judge that heard the case in the Philadelphia Appeals Court threw it out.  He didn’t make a ruling on it.  He just said: No, you don’t have a case.  I can’t remember the guy’s name who brought the case.  There was never a presentation of fact.  The constitutional question was never settled, and it should have been settled, and we should want to settle it.

This is my point.  Constitution 101.  There’s a reason why the NBC clause is in the Constitution.  It’s because the guys that met in Philadelphia in convention are a lot wiser and smarter than most of the imbeciles and hacks that we call the political class today.  That’s Constitution question #1.  When Trump said: Look, I got the birth certificate, so I helped to settle the question.  He could have said, or he might have been saying: Look, there was a constitutional question; I helped to settle it.  That’s Constitution argument #1.

Let’s go to Constitution argument #2.  What, pray tell, was the case that was made about the Stop-and-Frisk ordinance in New York City?  What was the case that was made?  You heard Mrs. Clinton saying, [mocking] “Actually, that was ruled unconstitutional.”  Trump interrupted and Lester Holt said: No, no, you’re wrong.  It was not.  The case was not pursued by the mayor, etc., etc.  Let’s go over this.  If my buddy Marty the cop is listening, who do you work for, Marty, you and the NYPD?  Who do you work for?  You work for the City of New York.  What is the City of New York?  It’s a sovereign entity.  It’s got its own government.  It’s got its own tax structure.  It’s got its own rules.  You guys enforce the laws.  What laws do you enforce?  Do you enforce federal edicts or do you enforce laws that are passed by the City of New York, and maybe in some instances by the State of New York?  I’d say it’s the latter and not the former.  This would make you then, what James Madison would call you, a municipality.

One of the things that a municipality can do and has the responsibility to do is provide government for those that live in the municipality.  Where do the people that were stopped and frisked, where do they live?  Where do they live?  It’s a simple question.  They lived in the municipality of New York.  Again, if we’re talking about the Constitution and whether or not that law, that stop-and-frisk law was constitutional or not, it’s obviously constitutional.  The question shouldn’t even be in front of a federal court.  A federal court has absolutely, in the classical and originalist thinking scheme of things, nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing, zero point zero to do with it.

Yet there we are watching and listening to this, and then listening to the pronouncement – at some point last night it was almost like watching the kangaroo court that the men of the Animal House, the Delta fraternity underwent.  [mocking] “You’ll speak when spoken to and not before.  You’ll get your chance, buster.”  You remember Dean Wormer screaming that?  It was almost like that.  This was one of the instances, [mocking] “I’m sorry, Mr. Trump, but your endorsement of this idiotic policy, stop-and-frisk, is unconstitutional” – this is what drives me nuts.  As if anyone on that stage actually cared about the Constitution anyway.  Does Mrs. Clinton care about the U.S. Constitution?  Does Lester Holt?  Do any of the hacks from CNN or any of the other media-industrial complex entities that were covering this care about it?  No.  It’s not a concern.  You know what it is?  Sometimes it’s an impediment.

Then there was the pronouncement that: Since this was unconstitutional and you’re an idiot for supporting it – when they say – when they were saying it was unconstitutional last night, what are they really saying?  What did Lester Holt interject?  More blacks and minorities were targeted as a result.  The fact is that maybe more blacks and minorities are the ones that are doing the shooting.  I want to go back to the constitutional angle last night.  The U.S. Constitution is silent on – it doesn’t’ say anything about whether or not New York City can stop and frisk citizens in its municipality.  Remember, they are subject – we’ve covered this dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times, usually when we’re talking about the Alien and Sedition Acts and the definition of an alien friend.

Did you notice last night that not one question came up about illegal immigrants?  Trump had to make his own question about immigration and about immigrants.  In the two instances thus far, the candidate is instinctively correct on the constitutionality, because he said he didn’t believe it was unconstitutional.  He’s correct.  He didn’t believe that President Obama was a natural-born citizen.  I think he’s largely correct.

The third instance where the Constitution was mentioned was the only discussion of actual presidential powers that ensued.  It was one of the first questions.  It was about trade and about the negotiation of trade deals.  The U.S. Constitution is actually clear on this.  The president will, with the advice and the consent of the Senate, will negotiate trade deals in a treaty that has to be sent to the Senate.  It has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority.  Then it becomes active and ruling over all of the states that are in the union.

[/private]

Folks, you have to know just a little bit about this to understand this.  This is actually a very powerful power, the power to make treaty.  You might have noted – Professor Gutzman and I have talked about this in the past.  You might have noted that President Obama has been overseas about a dozen times or so and has granted his approbation and his support for various climate change initiatives that fall just short of treaties.  They’re what are called executive agreements.  We have thousands upon thousands of these executive agreements that are on the books.  The executive agreements are the president exercising or making an agreement with the government of another country on a matter that they agree upon that doesn’t rise to the level of a treaty that would be binding on everyone.  The two countries agree for peace and amity and free trade and what have you that the agreement needs to be in place.

I’ll just give you an example.  If you want to fly to one of the Seychelles Islands, for example, did you know that there is an executive treaty in place that allows an American citizen to do that?  I actually had to look this up.  The Seychelles Islands, there is a treaty from 1973 or 1974 – it’s not a treaty; it’s an executive agreement.  It actually allows a citizen of the United States to fly and to actually be a green-carded or visa-allowed visitor to the Seychelles Islands.  Did you know that?  That’s an example of an executive agreement.

Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet?  You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST.   The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, The Suzanne Option with Suzanne Sherman, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.  Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!

Why does this matter?  Because the two instances in which the discussion actually turned towards a constitutional issue, one was on NAFTA, and one was on the TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership.  This has to be ratified by the Senate.  Who negotiates it?  The president.  Is Obama negotiating it?  Yes.  Will Obama make the proper trade deal for all of you people out there and the United States?  Doubtful.  Will Mrs. Clinton?  Not if the Clinton Global Initiative has anything to say about it.  It was the only expression of a direction constitutional power that actually had a real and needed discussion, yet it happened in the beginning of the debate.  Lester Holt then insisted: We must move on because we have to ask you, you called women racist and you called women pigs – actually, Mrs. Clinton took that and ran with it.

At the end of the day, after having watched this – some people are calling it a fiasco.  I say it’s not a fiasco.  What George Carlin says, this is the best we can do, folks.  These candidates were raised in American cities by American parents and went to American schools.  They work in American business, have American jobs, have American friends.  This is the best we can do, folks.  It was a civics lesson.  Like it or not, what was on display last night is as good as it gets.  That’s the cream of the proverbial crop.

End Mike Church Show Transcript