Ep. 774 - To Whom Does The Constitution Apply - American Perspective with Rick Thomas

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
A rare and balanced view on politics in today's world,
based on facts born of rationality, common sense, and logic,
providing context on today's events. This is American Perspective with
Rick Thomas.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Hello everyone, and welcome to an American Perspective. I am
your host, Rick, you know yesterday and actually it kind
of covered a couple of days a conversation, well we'll
just call it more of a disagreement. I mean, I

(00:42):
could call it an argument, but whatever. A disagreement with
a individual on Facebook has inspired this tonight's topic. However,
I do have some backup stuff that I can go
through and in terms of some of the articles and stuff.

(01:02):
So if we get through this topic really really quickly,
which I'm hoping that we don't, because I'm hoping to
cover it completely, you know, as much as I can.
But there there's a lot of context and a lot
of historical significance to the idea of who the constitution,

(01:23):
the US Constitution is actually supposed to apply to. Who
actually gets covered. Now, if you talk to the leftists
of this country and pretty much many people since the
turn of the century, meaning the twentieth century, because they've
been taught this in class even though I believe it

(01:47):
is actually incorrect that the US Constitution applies to everyone
that is within our borders. And I think that's wrong
because historical, historically speaking, people who had the US Constitution

(02:11):
applied to them were only people who assigned themselves to
be Americans. And I'm going to show you and demonstrate
to you that there is a serious case to be
made that the United States Constitution does not apply to

(02:33):
just anyone who happens to be physically within our borders.
But before we get to that, of course, we got
to go through our pledge of allegiance. And so tonight's
pledge of allegiance is up by G. That's right, G

(02:54):
G G G's pledge is up for tonight. So if
you are of mind, please remove your hat, if you're
wearing one like me, place your hand over your heart,
and follow along with G as he recites the Pledge
of Allegiance.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
All right, And of course I thank you G for
that wonderful rendition of the pledge. If you would like
to hear your rendition of the pledge played here on
the program, all you need to do is record yourself
reciting or performing the pledge in your style. Take that
audio file, video file, whatever kind of file, and attach
it to an email, send it off to me. Send

(03:53):
it to fans fa NS at American Perspective dot online.
That's fans fa ns at American Perspective dot online, and
I will get you into the rotation. Also, don't forget
if you do it on your phone. Apparently you can
record yourself and then use the share option on your

(04:15):
phone and that'll do the same thing. It'll allow you
to type in an email address and send it off
to me at fans fa ns at American Perspective dot online,
and I will get you into the rotation. I've got
twenty right now. I'd love to see twenty one, twenty two,
twenty three, twenty four, et cetera, as uh quick as

(04:39):
humanly possible, all right tonight. Tonight's headline sponsor, of course,
is the Institute on the Constitution. Apropos that we're going
to be talking about this tonight. But the Institute on
the Constitution was established in two thousand and four as
a five oh one C three nonprofit with one singular mission,
and that is to restore the constitutional Republic through grassroots.

(05:00):
All courses and materials are developed using primary source documents
and taught from the American view of law and government
as defined in the Declaration of Independence in the following
three key points. One there is a God, two our
rights come from him, and three the purpose of civil
government is to secure and protect our God given rights.
The IOTC offers the opportunity to educate yourself on a

(05:24):
most precious founding document, the Constitution of the United States.
They also provide tools to educate your community and get
involved with local government. Start by taking their free US
Constitution course sing go from there. Use my affiliate link
IOTC dot American Perspective dot online to sign up, and

(05:47):
while you are there, take a moment to look through
their other course material and information. My affiliate link once
again is IOTC dot American Perspective dot online. To get
great content to learn about our historical founding and support
the show in the process. That's IOTC dot American Perspective

(06:09):
dot online. Or if you just want to purchase this
fabulous saddleback leather bound US Constitution. To support the show,
go to Constitution, dot American Perspective, dot online. Take a
look at this wonderful book. Kind of eight them an
inch of saddleback leather wrapped around pages, at of water
and tear resistant. No cheap binding, cheap glue binding here.

(06:33):
This is stitched all the way through the leather and
the pages contained within. It's got a one hundred year
warranty against materials and manufacturing defects such that if there
is a problem, you can send it back to the
manufacturer and they will either place it, replace it, repair,
or replace it for free. There we go. Finally got
that out. Three Chevy says each book proudly uses genuine

(06:56):
Roman numerals in actual numerical order, and mist of Text
says that the stitching is so good that Hawkeye Piers
used it in mash Okay. That's some fantastic stuff from
my whiskey warrior pe ones over on Rumble. It is
Buddy tested, Buddy approved, Billy tasted, Billy approved, and my

(07:18):
youngest Whisky Warrior has confirmed that the information contained within
will help you to study for your Civics badge in
Scouts as well as your Civics exam if you still
have it, or your naturalization test. You can do that too.
Grab one of these today, stick it in a stocking

(07:39):
for your loved ones, the ones that you really care about,
or maybe even the ones that you don't like. I
don't know either way, Go and get yours today by
going to Constitution dot American Perspective dot online and go
and check out the rest of the institute on the
Constitution's offerings. And I thank them for allowing me to

(07:59):
be a brand affiliate. All right, really quick, before we
get to on this day in American history, I am
drinking from a new bottle of something new, hopefully, hopefully
Bonnie approves of this, because it is a Kentucky single
or a Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey, very small batch. It's

(08:23):
called Jefferson's Reserve. And yeah, so there you go. That's
what I've got in the glass. And of course the
glass tonight is a great gift by the whiskey warrior
Pea Ones the glass where it says it takes stones
to drink with whiskey, and of course the bottom is
got the stones in it right there in the bottom.

(08:47):
Fantastic requisite first sip.

Speaker 3 (08:55):
M.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Yeah, I mean it's I'm gonna say it's probably in
the same realm or lines as like the four Roses
and the Buffalo Trace. I won't say they're similar in
taste because they're not, but it's definitely in that realm,
so I could probably drink it again. And at the
same time that I picked up this bottle today, I

(09:24):
also picked up four roses and picked up a new
bottle of four Roses and Buffalo Trace to replace the
ones that I'm about ready to finish. So anyway, it's
a little I'm gonna say it's a little expensive, the
Jefferson's Reserve. But you know, one of the things that Landman,
the television show land Man advertisers or has advertisements for

(09:50):
Jefferson's bourbon. And I took a look at the Jefferson's bourbon. Now,
it's not Kentucky, you know, it's not straight Kentucky bourbon.
It's just bourbon, which means it's made somewhere outside of Kentucky.
And this was sitting right next to it, so I
kinda fudged and grabbed this one instead. Anyway, it's actually

(10:14):
it's not that bad. But like I said, it is
a little expensive, so it's probably just going to be
a splurge for me anyway. All right, so let's get
on to the first the first segment for tonight, which
of course is on this day in American History, and

(10:43):
of course for on this day in American history, I
dawn the teacher glasses and we read from the American
Patriots Almanac, written by William J. Bennett and John Te
crib Chalk full of all kinds of interesting factoids. Look
at this, we're almost done, almost done with the book,
and then we have to start over for that. So

(11:07):
uh so anyway, Uh yeah, Bonnie, the double oak was
sitting there. I thought about it. I did. I seriously
thought about it, and uh yeah, I just I'll get
that next time, the double oak reserve double oak. They

(11:29):
did have it there though, which is cool. So h
but anyway, so yeah, and uh three Chevy Asques. Which
one's better? Four Roses or buffalo trace? You know what?
They're both. I'm gonna say so for me, the four Roses,
especially the single barrel that I get, that's of a

(11:50):
higher quality than just the plain buffalo trace. But the
in terms of the taste, the Buffalo trace doesn't have
quite the same spicy after flavor that say four Roses does. Now,
both of them are good, don't get me wrong. I
mean they were were kind of playing in the field

(12:11):
where I kind of like all three. But but yeah,
it's uh, it's definitely not there. I can't really say
one is better than the other. It's just depends on
personal preference in my opinion. But anyway, all right, Yeah,
and Redneck Riviera. Nana of JJS points out Redneck Riviera

(12:33):
is another one. I haven't tried the Grandma version yet,
which is supposed to be like the reserve version of
the red Neck Riviera. But that's another one. That's that's uh,
you know, I would say pretty good for it. So anyway,
all right, let's move on and talk about the National Guard.
Oh I got a comment or two on this one, anyway.

(12:57):
The National Guard is the oldest part of our nation's
armed forces, tracing its roots to the time when the
thirteen original English colonies required able body male citizens to
train and be ready to defend their communities. The Guard
observes December thirteenth as its birthday because on that day,
in sixteen thirty six, the Massachusetts Bay Colony organized scattered

(13:23):
militia companies from villages around Boston into three regiments. Now.
Articles one and two of the United States Constitution lay
down guidelines providing for the National Guard. Today's Guard is
made up of more than four hundred sixty thousand men
and women, businessmen, factory workers, teachers, doctors, police officers, etc.

(13:48):
Who volunteer on a part time basis. Each state and territory,
as well as the District of Columbia, has its own
national Guard. Army National Guard units are part of the U.
S Army. Air National Guard units are part of the
United States Air Force. Guard members have a unique dual mission.

(14:08):
Now listen to this part, folks. Guard members have a
unique dual mission that requires them to swear an oath
of allegiance to their state and to the federal government.
In times of peace, the governor of each state commands

(14:30):
its National Guard and can call it into action if needed.
Guard members stand ready to battle fires, help communities deal
with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other crises. The second
part of the National Guard's job is to defend America

(14:53):
and respond to national emergencies. Another reason why I'm emphasizing
all of this crap is because of the fact that
these leftist lunatic judges seem to think that Donald Trump
can't control the National Guard. Guess what, legally he can. Here.

(15:14):
The second part of the Guard's job is to defend
America and respond to national emergencies. Respond to national emergencies
anyway during times of war or national need, which includes
enforcing federal law when municipalities decide that they are not

(15:38):
going to enforce federal law, even though the Constitution is
the law of the land and the supremacy Clause states
that I'm digressing from the book here, folks, if you
haven't figured that out yet. But anyway, during times of
war or national need, the president can call up the

(15:59):
National Guard. Boah, he can national need Ooh, like not
having these cities and states in force federal law. That
would be a national need, especially when it comes to immigration,
which is one hundred percent in the federal government's responsibility. Wow,

(16:20):
you know, we need to have some federal court judges
actually read this crap. Anyway, In wartime, Guard members constitute
a large portion of the US fighting force. Guard personnel
pour much time and energy into training, units, take part
in efforts ranging from blood drives to the fight against terrorism.

(16:42):
The motto of these citizen soldiers is always ready, always there,
and that is tonight's on this day in American history.
Oh my gosh, I cannot believe that there are people
out there who don't understand and realize that, yes, the
National Guard can operate domestically. It's allowed, it's allowed under

(17:06):
the Insurrection Act. It's allowed in times of national need.
That's part of the reason why the National Guard is
different from the regular Army as an example, or the
regular Air Force as an example. All right, well, now

(17:27):
we're going to get into a subject where these idiots
are also uneducated, and let me explain to you why
and what I'm talking about. So here is a website
of a law company that basically asks the question, Oh okay,

(18:02):
so I'm being told I need to recognize and rightfully so,
so Miss T of Texas, let me back out of
this and let's just do this. Miss T of Texas,
one of my faithful Whiskey Warrior p Ones, was apparently
the first female entrant into the Texas National Guard unit

(18:27):
stationed in Segwin. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Seguin,
Texas in nineteen eighty five, the first female to enter
the Texas National Guard unit stationed in Seguin or Seguin,
Texas in nineteen eighty five. Congratulations to miss T for

(18:54):
that fantastic accomplishment and for that oh C G C sed,
I don't know, g E I N I don't anyway, Yeah,
sig siegin sigen anyway. You know, it's bad enough that
we up here in the Pacific Northwest of all kinds
of Native American names that people can't pronounce. We apparently

(19:18):
can't pronounce any place I'll see either anyway, all right,
folks like one siguine segeen I don't know from east
apparently from the Alamo, which is another thing that I
probably wouldn't know anyway. All right, So apparently ms T

(19:39):
kicks ass and take takes names. Poor g anyway, all right,
let's get back on track here. Let's go back here. So,
so here is a lag group that is dealing with
the immigration Okay, immigration law and this one was written

(19:59):
back in August twenty second of twenty nineteen. It's a
post that says, do non citizens have constitutional rights? And
this is the part that is this is the part
that is the misnomer, and even they claim it's a misnomer. Well,

(20:20):
they claim that my stance is a misnomer. So it
starts out here. There is a misconception that the US
Constitution applies only to US citizens. That's the end of
the statement. I don't know how you can say that
there is there is a misconception that the US Constitution

(20:41):
applies only to US citizens. Because here's the thing. Can
I take the US Constitution and go to Canada and
apply it to Canadian citizens? No? I can't. Can I
take it to Mexico and apply it to Mexican citizens,
No I can't. And in fact, there was a court
case that dealt with the Mexican citizen who was extradited

(21:07):
back to the United States by the DEA, and while
he was down in Mexico, his domicile in Mexico was
searched under the authority of the Mexican government by the
Department or sorry, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and he sued
saying that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and the

(21:32):
Supreme Court basically said, dude, you're a citizen of another
country that's a domicile in another country. The Fourth Amendment
doesn't apply. So I'm sorry this idea. Let's just throw
this out there right now. The US Constitution absolutely applies
to US citizens and only US citizens. But that's not

(21:56):
the only reason. That's not the only reason. Continue, they
continue in this post. They say, well, some passages and
phrases in our laws explicitly state only citizens are afforded
certain rights, such as the right to vote. Yeah, there's
a reason for that, and I will explain in a minute.

(22:23):
Then they continue and they say, when the terms resident
or person is used instead of citizen, the rights and
privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non citizens alike. Um, no,
not exactly, and I'll explain now. They call in the

(22:44):
fourteenth Amendment, which is where we're going to start here
in just a few minutes. But they call in the
protections under the fourteenth Amendment that ensure that no particular
group is discriminated against unlawfully. Really, really, we'll have to
take a look at that now. They do suggest, or
they do say, right here nowhere in the first ten
amendments of the Constitution is the word citizen. They are

(23:07):
often written the right of the people. Well, that's a
key clue. That's a key clue, the right of the people. See,
they're going off the idea that the people and the
intent of the right of the people means everybody. I

(23:30):
contend that it doesn't, and I will explain. Now. They
talk about the Bill of Rights protecting everybody, including undocumented immigrants,
to exercise free speech, religion, assembly, and to be free
from unlawful government interference. That's not exactly true. And I

(23:53):
believe that the actual I believe that the actual interpretation
prior to the twentieth century demonstrates that the US Constitution
was written for the people of the United States of America,
the citizens of the United States of America, period, full stop.

(24:19):
Do not pasco, do not collect two hundred dollars. Let
me explain because this is a big one, folks. I mean,
this is huge, because the idea of citizenship in and
of itself is a question with regards to what is

(24:41):
going on. So, of course I go back and I
take a look at the definitions of the words at
the time, definition of words at the time that it
was written. Now, the closest we can it is Webster's
Dictionary eighteen twenty eight. I have it right here is people.

(25:08):
The very first one. The first definition which comes up
is a body of persons who compose a community, town, city,
or nation. We say the people of a town, the
people of London or Paris, the English people. In this sense,
the word is not used in the plural, but it

(25:30):
comprehends all classes of inhabitants considered as a collective body
or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. Yeah,
and then when you read down a little farther you
come to definition number four right here. So the people

(25:56):
are persons of a particular class, meaning a part of
a nation or community, as country people. So this kind
of indicates that, all right, you could say that the
people pretty much classify everybody. Except there's only one problem.

(26:24):
Back then, slaves were not considered people. Slaves. A slave
was not considered to be a person. A slave was
considered to be property. So that throws this whole thing on,
this whole idea of oh, yeah, well, when they say
the people, they meant everybody. No, no, they didn't. And

(26:51):
in fact, you can even go to the preamble of
our wonderful Constitution. The preamble itself clarifies this. The preamble
starts with we the people and continues with the qualifier

(27:14):
of the United States. So how can you be a
person of the United States. That doesn't mean that you're
just standing inside its borders, because if that were the case,
then the slaves would automatically be considered people of the

(27:35):
United States. The Indians that were there would be considered
the people of the United States. That is where the
definition changes. See they're clarifying on this, We the people
of the United States, do ordain in as establish this

(28:01):
constitution for the United States of America. Now that clearly
states within the preamble that hey, we are basically establishing
this constitution specifically for this nation, and in order to
be a member of this nation, you must be a citizen. Now,

(28:28):
what's the definition of citizen as of back in the
eighteen twenty eight days, Well, that was right here. A
native or the native of a citizen. Sorry, I'm just

(28:51):
screwing all up. The native of a city or an
inhabitant who enjoys the freedoms and privileges of the city
in which he resides. The free man of a city,
as distinguished from a foreigner or one not entitled to

(29:12):
its franchises. So obviously, being a citizen is something different
than just being a part of a person for the people. Now,

(29:32):
when you put in the qualifier we the people meaning
everybody who is a part of who is owes an
allegiance to the United States, which we all recognize is
a political boundary, Okay, a political boundary. So in order

(29:58):
to be a citizen, that means you would here to
the politics the political boundary of the United States. See,
the Indians didn't do that. And this this kind of
goes to the whole to the fourteenth Amendment. And I'll
tie this in in just a minute. But you'll notice
too that there are some other things that are that

(30:18):
are last listed here. As a citizen, you have a townsman,
a man of trade, not a gentleman, an inhabitant, a
dweller of any city, town, or place in the general sense,
a native And this is the key, This is the
key one right here, in a general sense, a native

(30:38):
or permanent resident in a city or country, as the
citizens of London or Philadelphia, the citizens of the United States.
And then it goes on and it shows the next definition,
which is in the United States States, a person native

(31:02):
or naturalized who has the privilege of exercising the elective
franchise or the qualifications which enable him to vote for
rulers and to purchase and hold real estate. See, back then,
they didn't consider people who couldn't vote, who couldn't purchase

(31:29):
and hold real estate. Those were considered non citizens. Non
citizens were not necessarily made up of the people, because
in order for you to be a part of government
and interact with government, outside of a few cases, you
must be a citizen. So this these ideas that come

(31:56):
in that say that, hey, this, you know that state
constitution covers everybody that lived in the confines of the
borders of the United States. No, that is not true.
That is not true. And this actually even carried all
the way up to the fourteenth Amendment. Okay, the fourteenth

(32:18):
Amendment as written in section one and here let me
get back up here, all right, Section one, fourteenth Amendment.
Right here, there is a difference. There is a difference.
Section one. All persons born or naturalized in the United

(32:44):
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's a key phrase.
Not only to figure out whether or not there's birthright citizenship,
which I'll show you here in just a minute. That's
a bit of a fallacy that just being born in
the United States automatically makes you an American citizen. It

(33:07):
continues the fourteenth Amendment continues here and it says are
citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.
So that's the definition. Okay, Now here's where the separation
comes in. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens

(33:32):
of the United States of citizens of the United States. Now,
privileges or immunities, privileges, what do you think privileges would be? Hmm,

(33:53):
maybe that would be, like, I don't know, the first
ten amendments to the Constitution. Because privileges and immunities such
as you are immune from unlawful searches and caesars such
as you are immune from let's see, quartering soldiers in

(34:15):
your place of residence. Which again, keep in mind, a
citizen is the only one. Back in the day, a
citizen of the United States was the only one that
could actually own property, own real estate. So again, if
the citizen was the only one who could own real estate,
that means that the citizen was the only one who

(34:39):
was able to avoid having soldiers quartered during times of
peace without their permission under Amendment three, I could continue.
But here it puts a colon in the middle of

(35:00):
the sentence, which basically means that they are two separate
ideas yet joined together. And it says right here, nor
shall any State deprive any person, and again, any person.
So there's a difference between a citizen and a person.

(35:22):
Now the person means that they are a free individual.
They are a free man, any person of life, liberty,
or property. And considering this is the Fourteenth, they are
attempting to create the characterization or the classification of a person,

(35:45):
including the newly freed slaves. Okay, So in this particular case,
even all the way up to the fourteenth Amendment, which
was in eighteen sixty six, sixty seven, sixty eight, somewhere
in there, they basically are saying, Hey, no state can

(36:10):
enforce or make any law that shall abridge the privileges
and immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall
any state deprive any person, any individual, because that's what
a person is, not people, but person, any person of life, liberty,

(36:32):
or property without due process of law or deny to
any person, not people, but person in its jurisdiction, the
equal protection of the laws. Now in specific specificity with
the fourteenth Amendment. Okay, there was this thing, it's known

(36:58):
as debate that bait that occurred under the fourteenth Amendment
happened during the Yeah, anyway, it happened during one of
the congressional hearings. This is in the Senate. And as

(37:18):
you can see here, here is mister Howard, who is
the person presenting the presenting excuse me, the amendment, and
he says, the first amendment is to section one, because
that's section one I just read. He goes, the first

(37:39):
amendment is to section one, declaring all persons born in
the United States, and here's the key, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and
of the states wherein they reside. Now, he doesn't say,
he says he's not proposing to say anything on that

(38:01):
subject because the question of citizenship has been so fully
discussed within the Senate that it doesn't need any further
elucidation or discussion in his opinion, And he goes, basically,
he says this, and this is what he's saying, is
that the amendment that he's offered is simply declaratory of

(38:22):
what I regard as the law of the land already,
that every person born within the limits of the United
States and subject to their jurisdiction is, by virtue of
natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States.
Now he qualifies that on this next one, which is
where we get the idea of birthright citizenship just by

(38:45):
being born within the United States. Incorrectly, Okay, right here
it says this will not, of course include persons born
in the United States who are foreigners comma aliens, comma

(39:07):
who belonged to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited
to the government of the United States, but will include
every other class of person persons, not people persons. So

(39:28):
obviously they knew that there were foreigners that were here
within the borders of the United States, and they wanted
to ensure that the fourteenth Amendment did not apply to them. Well,
the fourteenth Amendment was an amendment to guess what the
United States Constitution. So the Constitution itself itself cannot apply

(39:54):
to everybody equally if it's picked and choosed which parts apply.
So yeah, so there you go, and this, by the way,
clears out the whole idea of birthright citizenship. Now this

(40:18):
congressional record, by the way, continues on they actually had
several discussions over things like the Chinese that were in California.
They had discussions about different classes of people and so
on and so forth, never once mentioning whether or not
they were citizens, because citizenship meant you had an allegiance,

(40:43):
a literal allegiance to the Constitution and the government of
the United States. Now remember this is a political allegiance.
This has nothing to do with anything else. It is
a political allegiance because the US government is a political
body anyway. So now I'm gonna point something out. So

(41:23):
if we look at the fourteenth Amendment and we say, well, okay,
it doesn't apply to everybody who happens to be here
in the United States, which it doesn't, So then what
other amendments could we possibly have Because in terms of
the Constitution of the United States, the word citizen shows up.

(41:45):
But again, the first ten Amendments, which we consider to
be the Bill of Rights, they are not always they're
not always applied equally. In fact, many of them say
the right of the people. In fact, the First Amends
doesn't even mention the people. It just says Congress shall
make no law. Okay, now let's talk about the Fourth Amendment.

(42:11):
The Fourth Amendment starts off with the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and features shall not be violated,
meaning it never can be and no warrants shall issue,

(42:34):
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized. So, in other words, the
right of the people. Again, keep in mind we the
people of the United States. The right of the people,

(42:56):
you could tag that with of the United States to
be secure in their persons, because again the Constitution is
specifically about we, the people of the United States. You
have to have in a political an allegiance to the
United States of America in order for this to work.
That means you need to be a citizen, a naturalized citizen,

(43:20):
or a citizen. Now, why do I bring up the
Fourth Amendment, plain and simple, because guess what immigration law
which this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, folks,
Which if it was so, if the United States Constitution

(43:40):
applied to everyone within our borders equally, then the minute
that somebody stepped onto the American soil, they would automatically
be afforded the rights, privileges, and protections under the United
States Constitution. Well guess what, that is not the case,
as you said, see right here, ICE dot govern. This

(44:02):
is supported by the way supported by the Immigration and
Nationalization Act. ICE does not need judicial warrants to make arrests. Ah,
why wait, wait what they they can't? Wait what they

(44:27):
can't they don't need judicial warrants to make arrests. Well,
wait a minute, that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Right, Nope.
Which if it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment,
then that would mean that these people have the rights
and privileges of the Fourth Amendment here on United States soil.

(44:50):
Yeah that nope, that isn't the case. That isn't the case.
And in fact, these searches can continue. A lot of
people are like, oh, they can't do it within the
you know, they have to be within the border. Well no,
that's actually been qualified. Now these searches can actually be

(45:12):
done and continued. Okay, long past the border and all
a ICE agent really needs to have or border patrol.
All they really need to have is just basically they

(45:32):
have to have a reasonable suspicion which is not rising
to the level of probable cause to where you would
need a warrant. Okay, they do not need warrants. Why
do you think all of the cop shows and everything else,
they say, we have a warrant for your arrest. Here's

(45:53):
the thing. If an American citizen gets taken into custody, okay,
and we all can be everybody can be taken into custody,
that's not a violation of your rights. But if you
go in and you don't answer questions, okay, you don't
answer questions, and they have nothing else on you, then

(46:15):
you can Basically all you have to do is essentially say,
am I being arrested? Am I being detained? If you're
not being detained, you, as an American citizen, can walk away.
An illegal alien can't. An alien under suspicion cannot just
walk away from that. They have to stay in custody

(46:37):
until things are resolved. Yeah. So hmm. Anyway, moving on
from this, let's take a look at our wonderful Second Amendment. Yes,
the Second Amendment, Uh, a lot of people want to

(47:00):
tear this thing down, but it's been help held by
Keller for an examples as a right of the people.
Oh my gosh, right here, right of the people to
keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. The right
of the people. Well, okay, So if the people, if

(47:22):
the definition of the people is everybody who stands on
us soil, then that means you could have an illegal
alien or a otherwise an immigrant on a certain type
of visa. There are certain types of visas everybody pretty much,
you wouldn't have to have any qualifiers, right, you wouldn't

(47:43):
have to have It means everybody the right of the
people to keep in bear arms. Everybody can acquire a
weapon here in the United States. Oh no, here, right here,
it shall be unlawful for any purpose or sorry, shall

(48:07):
be unlawful for any person. And this is this is
our firearms laws, our federal firearms laws. It shall be
unlawful for any person right here who, being an alien,
is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, or accept

(48:27):
as improvided in subsection in they list a bunch of
things who was admitted under a non immigrant visa of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. So in other words, if
you're not gonna be here, you're coming as under a
travel visa, or you're coming as you know, a non

(48:49):
immigrant visa, meaning you're only going to stay here for
a certain period of time and then go home. Guess what,
you can't buy a firearm. You're not even allowed to
have one. If you're illegal or unlawfully in the United States,
you're not allowed to have them. So if the Constitution
and the term right of the people was to apply
to every single person within the borders of the United States,

(49:14):
then they should be able to buy firearms. They can't
under federal law, so that would be a violation of
their constitutional right to keep in bare arms. Nope, So

(49:35):
here we are again, folks, the Constitution, and I just
gave three examples, three firm examples. See and here's another
one that actually would be let's just say this one
would be like a little uh logical. I think the

(49:58):
logical re and for having a separation or a definition
of persons people citizens is because they are different classes. Now,
the thing about it is is that you can't sit

(50:20):
here and tell me that when they say the right
of the people, which by the way, the people are
the people of the United States. You can just add
that to every single one of those the right of
the people of the United States, meaning the rights of
the citizens of the United States. Now, keep in mind

(50:40):
the courts have not necessarily been this clear cut on
all of this. But I want to basically tell you
that in the sense of the idea of having a
weapon in particular, and I'm just using the Fourth Amendment,
Second Amendment, you know, as as options, you cannot buy

(51:05):
a gun in particular under and I just showed you
under eighteen USC. Nine twenty two, section G five. So
even if you're like an overstay or a TPS violator
or something along those lines, yes, you can't own a firearm.
You're not supposed you cannot buy one. You can't own one.

(51:26):
So how is it that's a second amendment, Being that
it's the US Constitution, and the US Constitution applies to
everyone within our borders, how is it that they can't
own a firearm. Well, it's pretty simple. The Constitution does
not apply to everyone. It applies to citizens. Now here's

(51:51):
another point. Case in point. Again, as I pointed out earlier,
the original framers of the Constitution did not consider the
Indians as a part of the United States of America
because the Indians had an allegiance to their tribe, and

(52:15):
it was believed by the framers and founders that we
can't have the Indians be a part of the United
States Constitution because of the fact that they don't swear
in allegiance to the United States. This is the whole point, folks, see,

(52:39):
being a part of the United States, being a citizen
of the United States is much larger than just being
born here. It is much larger than just being born
within within the border. This is much larger than all

(52:59):
of this.

Speaker 1 (52:59):
And this is.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
Why I'm sitting here saying, hey, the Constitution. Oh here's
another part if the constitution. And I pointed this out
to this idiot on Facebook. If the Constitution were to
apply to everybody within the border, and why would we

(53:24):
have to have a naturalization process? Why would we have
to have a naturalization process to basically say hey, you're
a citizen. Why would we have to have that? Now
they would argue, well, only citizens can vote, And that

(53:44):
is true, only citizens can vote. But as of right now,
under the definition of the Constitution, pretty much everybody who
has American parents at least one is an American citizen.

(54:05):
So there really isn't much of a difference as what
it used to be back in the day. So to
sit here and say that, oh, no, no, no, no,
there's no difference. Today's definitions apply differently than last definitions. Well, yeah,
because we've grown a lot since then. We've taken care

(54:27):
of things like slavery, We've taken care of things like
endensured servitude and things of that nature. But realistically, realistically, okay,
there is a definition and there is a difference. The
idea that the framers put together in the Constitution is

(54:50):
we the people of the United States, and realistically they
did not want to bother carrying that frame throughout the
entire document. It was evident that it was covering the
people of the United States, meaning that you had to
be a citizen of the United States for it. Now

(55:20):
that being said, here is a section. Because I love
going to things like the Federalists to talk about this,
but here is a section with regards to that. This
is Madison writing, and he is talking about, in particular
the differences between the Articles of Confederation, which predated the

(55:44):
Constitution of the United States and was seen as a disaster.
And what they pointed out, what he pointed out here,
is that the article, the fourth article of the Confederation,
they stated that free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds,

(56:09):
fugitives from justice accepted. Now you can see already they're
basically saying, hey, poppers, vagabonds, fugitives from justice, those people
are not allowed to be a part of this. And
they say that shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens of several states and the people

(56:32):
of each state. Again, this is an affiliation situation. They're
defining free inhabitants, free citizens. The people of each state
shall in every other enjoy all the privileges of trade
and commerce, et cetera. And even he calls out, there's

(56:55):
a confusion of language here. He goes, why the term
free inhabitants, Why the term free citizens in another article
and people in another? What was meant by super adding
to all privileges and immunities of free citizens. He's like,
why are they saying all the privileges of trade and commerce?

(57:19):
None of this can be easily determined, he said, it
seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those
who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a state,
although not citizens of each state, are entitled. And he's
complaining about this because he's basically saying, Hey, if you're
an inhabitant of a state but not a citizen of

(57:41):
a state, you're entitled in every other state to all
the privileges that free citizens of the state, greater privileges
than they may be entitled in their own state. And
he goes, so, it may be in the power of
a particular state, or rather that every state is laid
under a necessity confer the rights of citizenship in other

(58:05):
states upon any whom it may admit to such rights
within itself. In other words, he's sitting here talking about
saying the importance of getting a immigration and naturalization law.
This is under Article one, section eight, that is common
across all of the states. So this is federal government

(58:29):
and the Congress that created immigration and naturalization laws. That's
one of their duties. Now, if the Constitution were to
apply to everyone regardless, and as he points out, every
free inhabitant of every single state, then why would there

(58:51):
be necessarily a necessity for creating a rule of naturalization
or creating the idea of citizens. What would be the
point here That would just end up being doublespeak if
the Constitution were to apply to every single solitary individual
who steps foot within the borders of the United States.

(59:16):
And see, this is part of the problem with our
leftist friends. It's not that they're ignorant, it's that they
know so much that isn't so. The founders did not
intend on this. And by the way, he actually continues
and talks in other federalist papers, they talk about the

(59:38):
Indians and making treaties and trades with the Indians because
they did not consider them to be a part of
the body politic known as the people of the United States.

(59:59):
See this is where the breakdown and the misunderstanding and
the Constitution and all of its its things that are
going on that happen here. See, this is the breakdown
of our understanding and where the left goes completely bonkers
and wild and off kilter for this. All right, I'm

(01:00:20):
gonna take a break real quick here, and I want
to talk to you about this absolutely fantastic elixir that
I drink every single morning. No, it's not what's in
my glass right now. I wish it were eh hm.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
No.

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
What I'm talking about is coffee. And if you still
haven't tried seventeen seventy five coffee, now is your shot.
The seventeen seventy five starter kit just dropped and there's
a limited number of units available. In each unit, you're
getting the Bow Dark Roast that hits hard, smooth medium roast,

(01:00:58):
and the Vitality Mushroom coffe for clean energy and laser
focus with no crash. All of these coffees are single origin,
small batch toksin free and mold free. Plus, you're also
getting a gold spoon clip because Freedom isn't scooped with plastic.

(01:01:19):
It's a frother. Sorry, it's a frother strong enough to
stir up your coffee and your mother in law's opinions
like you need help with that. You'll also be receiving
a black seventeen seventy five tumbler. All of this is
one hundred and seventy dollars worth of coffee and gear

(01:01:41):
yours for just ninety nine dollars. This is for the
ones that have been watching seventeen seventy five blow up
on Rumble and wondering if it's actually worth it. Well,
spoiler alert, it is. Go to one seven seventy five.
Those are numbers one seven seven five Coffee dot Com,

(01:02:02):
Forward Slash Studio stud Io, and grab your starter kit
before they're gone. That's seventeen seventy five Coffee dot Com
Forward Slash. That's your question marking on your keyboard. Studio Studio,
and grab your starter kit before they are out of here.
You need a bolt beans, clean fuel in a morning

(01:02:22):
routine that stands for something just like rumble does. Go
to seventeen seventy five Coffee dot Com, Forward Slash Studio
and get your starter kit today. All of what I've
been talking about has actually been an advocate and kind

(01:02:45):
of back and forth, to be honest with you, even
within the legal community, because there are still cases just
like with birthright, citizenship and things that are being misrepresented
by a lot of the a lot of the left
in particular, but they are bouncing back and forth. Well,
here is a fantastic rite up by Ben Crenshaw and

(01:03:12):
it goes the US Constitution and the American citizen. Now
this is in the American Reformer, and he talks about
citizenship and how important citizenship actually is, and he gives
a reference to Patrick Henry and he was he was

(01:03:39):
horrified that the Constitution granted national political power to the
people instead of the states. He was a little irritated
at that, and he was like, Hey, why are we
authorizing them to speak the language of we the people
instead of we the states. The states are characteristics in

(01:04:02):
the soul of the confederation. If a state be not
agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated
national government of the people of all the states. So yeah,
now keep in mind we the people in terms of

(01:04:25):
our own identity, has come into play to say, hey,
if you are we the people of the United States,
that means you're an American citizen. You are an American.
We've shortened that over time. We're an American, You're an American. No,
you're an American citizen. You are we the people. So yeah, anyway,

(01:04:54):
this is a great article. It kind of goes into
a little bit about the recent case of Mahmoud Khali
or Khalil, who was a pro Palestinian and pro Hamas
graduate studio activist at Columbia University. He was apprehended by
Ice on the orders of the State Department, and he

(01:05:17):
was representative of the group Columbia University Apartheid Divest that
presents itself as a continuation of the Vietnam anti war
movement seeking liberation from Palestine from Israeli apartheid. And it
was the same protest in the spring of twenty twenty

(01:05:38):
four which Hamilton Hall got broken into and was barricaded
by the student Now, while Khalil was involved in one protest,
he mainly served as a spokesperson because he feared that
his student visa might be revoked. Well again, if he's
here in the US Constitution guarantee and applies completely in

(01:06:02):
one hundred percent to him, then why in the hell
is he worried about leaving. Well, that would have to
deal with the fact that we have immigration laws, we
have naturalization laws. You break the law here, you're getting deported.
I mean, this is just this is just crazy. After

(01:06:22):
his arrest and detention, Khalil depicted himself as a political
prisoner of the Trump administration and the target of Trump's
executive Order against anti Semitism. US District Judge Jesse Furman
granted Khalil a writ of habeas corpus and ruled that

(01:06:44):
Khalil could not be deported until the court assessed and
ruled in his case. The government has judged Khalil to
be a foreign threat and wants to deport him on
the basis of the nineteen fifty two Immigration and Nationality Act,
which allows the deported of lawful residence. Oh wait a minute,
So under the rights of the Constitution, that basically means

(01:07:08):
that I can't I, as a citizen, can't be deported.
Then why is it that he's a lawful resident, which,
by the way, is another categorization that they use. He's
a lawful resident, yet he's under deportation. Yeah, so I

(01:07:29):
can't seem to understand where anybody would get the idea
that the United States Constitution applies to everybody equally. Now,
all of that being said, there actually is a dissertation
from Harvard Law, and it's specifically calling out the meaning
of the words the people in the Constitution. Now, I'm

(01:07:53):
not going to bore you with it necessarily, I highly
encourage you to download it and read it because it
brings to light a couple of inconsistencies in particularly where
place is like the Fourth Amendment, the fourteenth Amendment. The
first Amendment is applied to people who are not citizens

(01:08:15):
of the United States or lawful permanent residents if you
want to throw in the other category. But yet it
also calls out that there are things like the Second Amendment,
the right to vote, things of that nature that basically
are afforded only to citizens. So there seems to be

(01:08:39):
an and by the way, too, when the Supreme Court
has ruled in a couple of different cases throughout history,
on one case they basically said that, oh, yeah, you know,
the word the people depends upon the context of the
article that it's written in as to what the definition
actually means. And then in another case they basically said

(01:09:02):
that Scotus basically said, no, the term the people means
the same across the entire document, which I contend actually
is true because again going back to the preamble of
the United States Constitution, it says we the People of

(01:09:27):
the United States, meaning that everything that follows this is
in line with we the people of the United States.
If you are not a citizen of the United States,

(01:09:49):
if you are not showing some sort of allegiance to
the United States, the United States Constitution does not apply
to you. You can be here as a resident, you
can live here as a resident. Because back in the

(01:10:09):
day when this was written, there were people that lived
within the borders of the United States that were not
subject to their laws, nor were they given the rights
of those individuals. And if we look at this in
a purely strict interpretation and constitutionally break it down, that

(01:10:34):
is the only way that you should be interpreting this.
And even with the convoluted back and forth and oh,
some of these you know, like the right to free
speech applies to everyone who's here, Well, that's because we
as the people of the United States have afforded that

(01:11:00):
to others, because of the fact that we believe, we
believe in ourselves that that is a human right, the
right to speak freely, the right to practice your religion
without governmental interference. But yet when you start looking at

(01:11:23):
things that become a little more particular and specific, like
the right to keep in bear arms, which, by the way,
that right when you look at and this paper goes
into it, when you go back and look at the
right to keep in bear arms, that actually didn't include
every single person. That was taken from the idea of

(01:11:47):
having able bodied a person who was not a foreigner,
who was not having an elite agence to somebody else,
such as the British back in the day, that they
had a right to keep in bear arms. So this,

(01:12:09):
this takes it even further into the context. Even prior
to the Constitution of the United States, it was understood
that the whole point of the right to keep in
bare arms, which is the second Amendment to the Constitution,
that it was only afforded to people who actually had
skin in the game, meaning that ones that owed an

(01:12:32):
allegiance to the United States of America, meaning that you
had a political tie to the United States of America,
that you didn't have a political tie to other foreign influences.
And in fact, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist one, two, three,

(01:12:53):
and I think even four, maybe even five, they all
they all we're talking about foreign influence. Every single one
of those was talking about foreign influence. So there is
absolutely no way, no way, whatsoever, in any sense of
the word, that a reasonable and logical conclusion cannot be

(01:13:15):
brought to the idea that the United States Constitution as
it stands and is written today, as it stands, as
it is written today, does not cover or does not

(01:13:39):
cover everybody. It only covers people with an allegiance to
the United States, to the body politic, meaning the people
of the United States the body politic. Now there's one

(01:14:00):
more thing here that I got to show you. Oh yeah,
I already showed you this, Okay. So yeah, there is
no way, there is absolutely no way that the Constitution
itself is for anybody but an American citizen because and

(01:14:21):
again just keep in mind, as a general rule of thumb,
because of our principles and values, we do tend to
extend some of those constitutional rights and privileges to people
who are not here. But let's be honest, if you're
not an American citizen, you don't have.

Speaker 4 (01:14:42):
Necessarily the right to be quiet, the right to a
speedy trial, you don't necessarily have the right to be.

Speaker 2 (01:14:56):
Secure in your person, and so on and so forth.
I mean, folks, I don't know how else really to
explain it. And what's sad is that these idiots are
sitting here and they are like, you know, yeah, it
affords to everybody. Well, then why do we have why

(01:15:16):
do we have limits? Then, in particular on the Second Amendment,
why would we have a limit. Why would we have
to clarify whether you're being a citizen of the United
States or being just a person or the people of
the United States. Why would you even say we the
people of the United States giving some sort of a

(01:15:38):
classification that it's the people who are adhering to or
attached to or under the jurisdiction thereof the United States. Yeah,
because the Constitution was not initially designed to be covering

(01:16:04):
every single person within our border. See, all of our
founders knew that there were people here, there were people
that were coming to the country that were not going
to ever be Americans. And to sit here and say hey,
I'm an American just because I live here is not

(01:16:27):
That is not what the Constitution was intended for. But we,
being a magnanimous people who believe in the principles and
values of things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that there are certain inalienable rights that are given to
us by our creator, given to all men, meaning all people,

(01:16:52):
by our creator. But otherwise there's no legal ramification that
basically says that the United States Constitution applies to anybody
but American citizens. To sit here with this fallacy, with
this idea that yes, it applies to everybody, even undocumented

(01:17:17):
aliens meaning illegal aliens, which again I keep saying, Hey,
if they how how is it that if the US
Constitution applies here, why do they not have the liberty
to stay here? If the US Constitution were to apply

(01:17:41):
to everyone, regardless of status, then why is it that
we can deport them? Why wouldn't that be unconstitutional? It
actually is not unconstitutional because of the fact that, again
the US this constitution does not apply to every single

(01:18:03):
individual person within our borders. It doesn't. It doesn't and
that's the point. It does not cover anything but American
residents and citizens, does not cover foreigners, does not cover aliens,

(01:18:27):
does not cover ambassadors just because they happen to be
within our borders. Lefties, that isn't how this works. That
isn't how this has ever worked, and which, by the way,
immigration and naturalization law and the courts have pretty much

(01:18:47):
said that, hey, if you come here illegally and you've
crossed the border, guess what, you don't actually physically exist
in the United States, even though you may be standing
in the United States. If you're an illegal alien and
across the border illegally, you're technically still at the border,
which is why they can do all of these things

(01:19:08):
like search an individual without a warrant. They can search
an individual, they can detain an individual, they can arrest
an individual, all without warrants. But yet that is part
of our constitution. And again the reason being is because

(01:19:29):
they don't consider them to be here legally. If they
don't have a legal status, if there is no definition
of a legal status, then just by standing here within
our borders, they should automatically, according to the leftists, they
should automatically be given all of the protections of the
United States. Yet our legal system doesn't and hasn't because

(01:19:57):
it doesn't apply. It doesn't apply to people who are
not United States citizens or legal residents, which would be
classified as a citizen. By the way, So there you go.

(01:20:25):
All right, I've got about ten minutes left. Let me
just see what we have here, are oh, speaking of
law and illegal aliens, Well, Mam Danny, I might as
well just kind of finish up with this here. Mam
Danny apparently is suggesting that the New York Police Department

(01:20:46):
may arrest ice agents instead of illegal aliens. He was
apparently on some kind of a show where he was
essentially asked about this, and he's like, my focus is
for the NYPD to not be assisting Ice in their
immigration enforcement and to actually be following the policies of

(01:21:08):
sanctuary city law. And I do believe, however, for that
the law to have meaning, there has to be accountable
for accountability for all of us. Well, I am so glad,
I am so glad that you feel like you need accountability,
mister mam Danny, because I got a couple of laws

(01:21:30):
for you. Here. Here's law number Title eight US Code
thirteen twenty four, which, by the way, is right here.
Oh my gosh. This covers sanctuary idiots right here. So
uh A one A three knowing or in reckless disregard

(01:21:57):
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered,
or remains in the United States in violation of law,
conceals harbors or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal
harbor or shield from detection such alien in any place,
including any building, by any means or of transportation. Yeah,

(01:22:25):
they shall be punished as provided in the followings of paragraphs. Yeah.
So okay, So, ma'am Danny just violated the law because
he knowing knowing, He's like, hey, we're a sanctuary city.
We knowingly encourage these people to come in. Why are
our governors, Why are our governors and our mayors and stuff.

(01:22:51):
Why are we not enforcing this law and taking these
people down arresting them. Why are we not doing this?
I just I can't quite figure this out. Why is
it that they we're allowing them to basically get away
with this stuff. Oh and by the way, I also

(01:23:13):
want to pull out my favorite Title eighteen, Section one
one one one, which is impeding certain officers or employees.
Oh well, let's see, Uh, in general, anyone who forcibly assaults, intimidates, impedes,

(01:23:34):
interferes while engaged in or on account of the performance
of their official duties. So whoever, Okay, NYPD, go ahead
and try and block ice from doing their job. You're impeding, opposing, resisting, intimidating, interfering. Yeah, okay, yep,

(01:23:58):
there you go. So they're breaking the law right here.
Uh jeez, people, I just I get so frustrated with
these with these sanctuary city folks that sit here and think, oh, yeah,
we're not Well, here's the problem. They're not being there.

(01:24:21):
The law is not being enforced. That's the problem. So yeah,
uh anyway, by the way, too, just so you know,
the Democrats in Congress have released a whole bunch of

(01:24:44):
new photos of supposedly of Epstein in an attempt to
smear Trump. Except there's only one problem. Out of ninety
five thousand of these photos that got released, there were
only a few of Trump, and one in particular that
they keep running around. They're like, showing this this image

(01:25:06):
of Trump surrounded by these women, by a lot of
these women. Yeah, here it is right here. So there's
this image that was really the one that was released
today is the one below where they took the Democrats
went and put the redactions up and they're like, oh, yeah,

(01:25:27):
this is let's just show you this is exactly what
it is. We were redacting the photo. Well, guess what
that same photo was already released ten years ago. It
was of everybody who was an adult. It was of
everybody who was part of the I don't know Miss
USA pageant or whatever that Trump owned at one point,

(01:25:50):
and they were all adults. They were all over the
age of eighteen. Henny had the leftists sent this out
thinking oh, this is we're gonna find get him. Nope, nope.
And apparently as a part of that treasure trove, there
were pictures of other folks like oh, miss Universe, that's it,

(01:26:10):
thank you, thank you, miss t But there were pictures
of other folks like Bill Clinton, like Woody Allen, Richard
Brandsfinn Branson or whatever, the guy who owned Virgin Atlantic,
and and a bunch of others that were released. Not
a single one of these ninety five photos showed a

(01:26:35):
anything happening that was untoward nor criminal on the part
of Trump. And so it's like, once again, folks, yeah,
you guys are just you're freaking drawing straws here. You're
you're like trying to attack this guy and he's he's
not He's not doing anything here, He's not doing anything.

(01:27:01):
This is just this is stupid. You guys are stupid. Yes,
we know he had a relationship with him. Okay, big deal,
you know that's like really that's yeah, Okay, so he
knew the guy, big big deal. He helped he helped
get him in Florida. It's like, come on, folks, this

(01:27:24):
is part of the reason why Biden, why the Biden
administration didn't bother to do anything with it. This is
why the the DOJ, the Biden DOJ, didn't like all
of a sudden release a whole bunch of crap, because
they knew that nothing was wrong. He left us. You're
parking up the wrong effing tree again, trying to get Trump.

(01:27:48):
You can't. You're not gonna get him. Oh and real quick,
another another botched gotcha by the Democrats. So I told
you about Christy Nome and what was his name? I
can't think of the guy's name, but anyway, going back

(01:28:08):
and forth, Benny Thompson. That's it. So Christy Nolman and
Benny Thompson going back and forth. When in that same meeting,
that same congressional hearing, there was another representative from Massachusetts
by the name of Seth Magazine Er and Seth was
trying to catch Christy Nome in this, I don't know,

(01:28:32):
trying to get a gotcha out of it, where he said,
have you ever deported? Have you ever deported a veteran
meaning somebody who has served in the United States? And
she answered no, we have not. Well, he immediately got
somebody on the phone who was a man apparently who

(01:28:53):
had been deported. His name was June Park. He was
a United States combat veteran who was shot twice. You're
in the purple heart, you know, trying to make him
out to be some sort of a big hero, big
veteran hero. And what ended up happening though, is apparently

(01:29:17):
the guy struggled with PTSD. He got arrested in the
nineteen nineties some minor drug offenses, which of course immediately
made him deportable because he didn't bother to try and
get naturalized here in the United States. Well, magazine er
of course, is sitting there and he's like, oh, you

(01:29:38):
thank him for a service and doing all this other stuff. Well,
now we got a actual listing of the man's extensive
criminal history. Let's see, he's got convictions for assault, possessing,
manufacturing or selling a dangerous weapon, carrying a loaded firearm

(01:29:59):
in a public place, criminal possession of a controlled substance.
In twenty ten, an immigration judge issued this guy an
order of removal. Park's appeal to the Board of Immigration
Appeals that same month was dismissed by the board in
April of twenty eleven. Now notice twenty ten, twenty eleven.

(01:30:22):
Those were all prior to Donald Trump being in office,
and apparently since he had no legal basis to remain
in the US and to avoid a final order of removal,
Park was allowed to self deport back to Korea. They
weren't even in charge when this happened. Oh my god,

(01:30:45):
these leftists, they are just ugh, they're horrible. They don't
tell you all the facts. They don't tell you all
the truth. And that's because they don't want you to
know the truth. They don't want you to know the facts.
All right, folks, that is it for me for this evening.
Do me a favor. If you haven't already, head on
over to rumble dot com. Get yourself an account. It

(01:31:05):
is free, and once you are signed up and signed
in on Rumble, search out the American Perspective channel and
hit that green follow button to get notified every time
I go live. Also, too, don't forget on your way
out to hit those thumbs up or thumbs downs or
in the case three Chevy, the thumb sideways across all
of my platforms, whether it's x, YouTube, Facebook, and of

(01:31:28):
course the aforementioned Rumble. We will see you Monday night,
five pm Pacific eight pm Eastern time right here on
American perspective, have a great rest of your weekend, and
good night everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
The previous broadcast was produced in his own by Active
Eyemedia LLC. All rights reserved

Speaker 3 (01:32:04):
Points

All Episodes

Ep. 774 - To Whom Does The Constitution Apply

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal: Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Ep. 774 - To Whom Does The Constitution Apply