Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Let’s just take a short stroll, shall we? If you think that your state is incapable or it is illegal for your state to deal with the problems of third-worlders invading, I’m going to prove to you again that that is not true. There has been no amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that’s what we would look for, that would change the state of condition that was prevalent or that was in effect and in force at the time that the State of California did the following to stop Chinese immigrants: California Anti-Chinese Legislation, 1852-1878. Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Let’s just take a short stroll, shall we? If you think that your state is incapable or it is illegal for your state to deal with the problems of third-worlders invading, I’m going to prove to you again that that is not true. There has been no amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that’s what we would look for, that would change the state of condition that was prevalent or that was in effect and in force at the time that the State of California did the following to stop Chinese immigration: California Anti-Chinese Legislation, 1852-1878. This is posted in today’s Pile of Prep. It’s prominently displayed. It’s even bolded. I checked the link. It’s good. If you don’t believe me, check it out. Research, do your own due diligence for yourself, and convince yourself that this is how they acted, because this is how they acted. Let’s start in 1852. The State of California Assembly imposed:
Foreign Miners’ License Tax required a $3 monthly license fee on miners ineligible for citizenship (i.e., Chinese).
1852: Commutation Tax required shipmasters to prepare a list of foreign passengers, and ship owners to post a $500 bond for each, which could be commuted by paying a tax of $5 to $50 per passenger. The law was an attempt to dissuade Chinese immigration.
Mike: Again, if you claim the power to tax, that means you’re a sovereign entity. If you claim the power to tax over someone, you are then asserting a civic power, a municipal power. It’s the same way your state taxes your income today. You profess to be a citizen, or, in this instance, an alien friend, and that state has and is claiming municipal authority over you. You lawyers call it, I believe, a civil authority. They’re using it now to say: Okay, come you enter this state, you will then abide under the laws of California. We don’t want you here, so we’re going to do this to try and dissuade you from entering. If the federales get to set every law under the sun and administer everything when it comes to the importation of alien friends, ho then could California have gotten away with this? At parts during this you’re going to see that some of these laws were ruled unconstitutional. That does not mean that the Supreme Court held them. They’re speaking of the California Constitution.
Again, could the State of Texas say: No, you cannot land in El Paso unless there is a hurricane that is chasing your behind up from Mexico to El Paso? Yes, you could, but you’ve been told only the Feds can do that. Bull stinking, steaming pile. If you want to stop this…you better purge that thought from your mind and get busy.
1855: Tax of $50 imposed on shipmasters or ship owners for each foreign passenger ineligible for citizenship (i.e., Chinese). The California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 1857. [Mike: Again, they’re adjudicating California laws here.]
1855: Foreign Miners’ License Tax increased to $6 per month, and set to increase $2 higher each subsequent year.
1858: Chinese individuals were forbidden from landing in California except during weather-related emergencies.
Mike: Again, could the State of Texas say: No, you cannot land in El Paso unless there is a hurricane that is chasing your behind up from Mexico to El Paso? Yes, you could, but you’ve been told only the Feds can do that. Bull stinking, steaming pile. I’m only going through this exercise because most of you do not believe. You are nonbelievers in this principle, and this is because you’ve been propagandized your entire adult lives, if not your entire lives, that almighty Uncle Sam controls and rules everything and that you’re just some kind — you know what you are? You’re a satellite office, that’s what you are. You’re the worker bees doing the bidding of Mordor on the Potomac. If you want to stop this and you want to change this and you want to alter this particular arc of history, you better purge that thought from your mind and get busy. Weather-related emergencies, folks. If they weren’t escaping a tsunami or a typhoon or whatever the case was, they couldn’t land in San Francisco. These are alien friends that were denied admission. Get it?
1862: Chinese Police Tax levied a $2.50 fee on all Chinese living in the state, with a few exceptions. (The term “police” referred to the legislative authority to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the state.) [Mike: Is any of this sinking in to anyone out there?]
1863: Chinese individuals were disallowed from testifying in criminal or civil cases. [Mike: These are all acts passed by the California Assembly.]
1863: Chinese children were [Mike: These are Chinese children that are alien friends, ineligible for citizenship. If we just replaced Chinese with Mexican, the same thing applies today.] excluded from public schools.
1867: Living areas were required to have at least 500 cubic feet of air for each resident (Chinese housing was the primary target of the law.)
1870: Steep fines up to $5000 were imposed on individuals who imported Chinese into the state without a “certificate of good character.” The California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional. [Mike: As it applies to the California Constitution.]
1876: Chinese laborers were barred from working on county irrigation projects.
1878: Chinese individuals were barred from owning real estate.
Mike: These were all acts of the California Assembly, 1852-1878 to deal with the problem of Chinese immigration, of immigration by Chinese peoples. Under what authority did California act in the 1850s, ‘60s, and ‘70s? They acted under the authority granted to them or reserved to them even after they had joined the federal union of states. Please, please understand this. The municipal authority, municipal and civil authority over alien friends was not in question. By the bye, this was after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Those who say, [mocking] “Yeah, well, under the 14th Amendment…,” no, actually no. The 14th Amendment was in effect. It was never ratified, we know that, but it was still in effect. So under what authority did they act? They acted under the reserved powers doctrine. You cannot have a constitution that purports to make a federal union of states unless you have the state entities, the parties to the compact, unless they have claim and then use their reserved powers. This is where the battle lines ought to be drawn.
Those that are waiting for a feckless and I would say an incapable federal response to this problem on the Texas-Mexico border, you’re waiting for a cavalry that is not going to come. They are not going to bail you out. They are not going to secure that border. I don’t care what it is that’s being said in the hallowed halls of Mordor on the Potomac River. It doesn’t matter what Governor Perry is saying that he has agreements with the president and all this. Even if the governor has done all that he can do, even if he’s declared a state of emergency and has asked for the federal presence, if it does not show up, if the federales do not discharge what is now their constitutional duty, then it falls back to the citizens and the State of Texas to do so. Ditto that for Arizona, ditto that for New Mexico, and ditto that for California.
We’ve just demonstrated that California has done exactly that in the past. Now, they won’t do it this time around, and we all know there are political reasons for that. We have a major problem here. And the problem has grown so large and is going to grow so large that libs like Jonathan Alter are writing at The Daily Beast, which is a left-wing online publication, under the headline, “The United States Needs Corporate ‘Loyalty Oaths.’” Why do we need corporate loyalty oaths? We need them because businesspeople, seeing what’s going on here, are fleeing. They’re fleeing to countries that are not going to be ransacked by a wave of, as Kevin Gutzman put it on the Twitter feed yesterday, “illiterate peasants” invading and occupying what was once sovereign American territories, states.
End Mike Church Show Transcript