Liberty Nation Author Featured on Talk Back with Chuck Wilder

After writing about the Democrats’ true motives behind distorting the Constitution and their attacks against Attorney General William Barr, Liberty Nation’s Graham J. Noble had a chat with radio talk show host Chuck Wilder about the alleged Constitution confusion and the hypocrisy of the left.

Chuck Wilder: And right now, I want to go to first-time visitor Graham Noble. He is a political correspondent, satirist at LibertyNation.com. He was raised and inspired by his father, who was a World War II veteran. Graham learned early in life how to laugh and be a gentleman. After attending college, he decided to join the British Army, where he served for several years and saw combat on four continents. Now, in addition to being a news and political junkie, Graham loves laughter, drinking, and outdoors. Yeah, I'll go with all three of those. Combining all three gives him the most pleasure, and individual liberty is one of the few things he takes seriously. And by the way, the website: LibertyNation.com. Hey Graham, welcome. How are you, sir?

Graham Noble: Hi Chuck, good afternoon. Nice to speak to you.

CW: You know, very interesting here, because I ran across this article, and I thought, boy I gotta get this guy. And I'd seen a couple other articles that he wrote, but this one: “Dumbfounded Democrats Confused by the Constitution.” And I think, most of all, this broke out when the world famous little ex-bartender, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, started talking about the Constitution like she had actually read it or seen it, or something, I dunno.

GN: Yes, it is interesting Chuck, the way some of these people, particularly on the more extreme left, play fast and loose with the Constitution. And, though I wrote the article in a very, if you like, tongue-in-cheek manner, I think it speaks to the fact that these people either misrepresent or misquote the Constitution. Not really so much out of true ignorance, but because they have a very flippant attitude towards the Constitution themselves; they lack respect for it.

CW: You say in your article: "The Constitution of the United States is not hard. It's not molecular biology. It's not calculus, it's not quantum physics. It's not the plot-line of David Lynch's Lost Highway. Why, then, do Democrat politicians have such a hard time understanding it or remembering what's in it?" Now Alexandria, she thought – now, remember the first three articles of the Constitution describes the three branches of the government and their structures and their duties and their powers – and what was she doing? I know she couldn't just say the Legislative, Executive, Judicial. She came up with, who knows, the Bank of America branch, and the Chase Bank branch …

GN: I'm surprised Chuck, that she didn't come up with Twitter and Facebook as two of the branches of government.

CW: Absolutely, and you know her and her group also went looking for [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell. And they're looking, and he's not even working today. ”We can't even find his office. Where is he? Why is he not in there?” And they said: "You're in the wrong building Lady." Graham says, "It's hard to imagine that 'AOC' was even a good bartender, never mind a good representative. If she talked down to her patrons as she does to everyone else, the tips were probably not enough to pay her bills – which is obviously why she packed it in and ran for Congress." You have a pretty good way with words, sir.

GN: Thank you, Chuck, I appreciate that.

CW: But you say this is "... not her only constitutional gaffe," right?

GN: No, she was trying to be somewhat clever, recently, when she was actually at a photo shoot at Harvard University. And, I guess, they were chatting about various things, and the subject came around to running for president. And she tried to suggest that she actually could threaten to run for president because, she pointed out – as she saw it, or as she understood it – that the Constitution is gender-specific – if you like, sex-specific – when it comes to the age at which someone can run for president. She actually said that the Constitution says, "He cannot run for president unless he's 35." Now, what the Constitution actually says is: "Neither shall any person be eligible to that office [the office of president], who shall not have attained to the age of 35-years." So, she was either trying to be smart and not pulling it off very well, or she was simply ignorant of the actual wording of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify that the president must be a man.

CW: Gender. Right, it's not gender-identifiable, there. He, she, transgender, undisclosed, or whatever. And then I guess the thing that really jumps out at you – when you stop to think about it – and it’s funny too, sir. I have to confess that whenever I heard this and I'm going, "It doesn't say he or she and stuff like that." And “person” should cover it, right? But then she gets into the thing about … Eric Swalwell. Is he the one that really, all of a sudden, gets onto the “he” and the “she,” or what does he say here … man and women. But back to her. Whenever she's saying … oh here it is: "There's nothing in the Constitution that disqualifies a woman from becoming president," these are Graham's words, "which appears to have been Cortez's underlying point. Of course, she was not alive back when Hillary ran for president."

You see, listeners, if Cortez forgets that if she did become president, then you don't need an amendment to the Constitution … to change it. It’s a person, but you've got to be 35. Alright, your turn here, let's talk about this Eric Swalwell. I don't know about him. At one time I thought, "This guy makes no sense here and there," then, all of a sudden, bam, I don't know if he got hit in the head or what.

GN: Well, yeah, I think his main problem these days, Chuck, is that he's suffering from a very, very serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. When he first appeared on the scene, he appeared to be someone who might actually make some sense on the Democratic side, but he's completely gone off the rails now, especially now that he's running for President. He recently decided to, again, try to be clever with the Constitution, and he took to Twitter and pointed out the fact that woman – the word “woman” – appears exactly no times in the Constitution. Obviously, he was thinking he was being smart, until the Twitterverse kind of slapped him for that, and everybody pointed out to him that the word “man” is also not in the Constitution.

CW: I really go back to this thing here; I've got to tell you Graham – because they are so hung up on gender-identity, the Democrats. They're all the LGBTQ and all this, and apparently, it’s gotten to the point where … are they afraid to say “man” or “woman,” in fear of the fact that “maybe I'm gonna sound prejudiced,” or something? And then they try to pick on the fact, oh “man” is not mentioned – well neither is “woman.” “Oh, we should have jumped on that one first we could have had #woman.”

We got about a minute-and-a-half, then we'll take a break. That's not all folks. Along comes Pocahontas – Senator Elizabeth Warren – and she thinks … oh, I'm gonna let you do it; it's your story, Graham.

GN: Yeah, sure. It's an interesting thing. Basically, Elizabeth Warren said – and I believe she was at a campaign rally because, of course, she's running for President as well – she was at a campaign rally in, I believe, Mississippi – I think she was in Jackson, Mississippi – and, basically, she pointed out … and again, to her way of looking at the Constitution, she pointed out that the right to vote is not actually protected by the Constitution. Now, that's kind of an interesting point. You can get in the weeds of Constitutional lore if you like. That's lore, L-O-R-E, rather than L-A-W. You could get into the weeds there, but essentially, the point is that the right of U.S. citizens to vote, it may be not explicit in the Constitution but it is implicit. It is a given.

There are no words anywhere in the Constitution that say: "American citizens have the right to vote." However, there's no question that it is a protected right. In fact, there are two amendments to the Constitution: the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment. Both of those amendments expanded suffrage – expanded the right to vote. The fifteenth to blacks – that’s what it was designed for initially – and the nineteenth to women. Both of those amendments actually acknowledge that all U.S. citizens have the right to vote. Both of those amendments begin with the words, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by ..." So, there you go …

CW: We're gonna cut it right there, and we're gonna come back and wrap that one up. Graham J. Noble. Wow, glad to have him on, first time, and hope to have him many times. And the website is LibertyNation.com. Last name is spelled Noble, N-O-B-L-E, N-O-B-L-E, and it's LibertyNation.com. We'll be right back.

We are in with Graham J. Noble, Liberty Nation, and discussing his article “Dumbfounded Democrats Confused by Constitution.” And, as he said, especially with Elizabeth Warren. We gotta make a few amendments, there in the Constitution, so that the American citizen will be able to vote. And as you say, "The right of Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied …" duh-duh-duh-duh-duh. And then it pops up again "The right of the United States Citizens to vote ..." It is, therefore, pretty clear that the right of American citizens to vote is right there - twice. They don't want to do their homework. I guess that's not required to become a congressman, right Graham?

GN: Well, Chuck, my theory on this – because Elizabeth Warren isn't the only person on, let's say the more extreme left, who has called for there to be a new constitutional amendment which protects the right to vote – and I think, what their strategy here is to actually have a constitutional amendment that is worded in such a way so that everybody in the United States – physically in the United States – whether legally or illegally, has the right to vote. I think that's what they're getting at here.

CW: If you're reading this, you can vote. I guess that would work right?

GN: Essentially, yeah.

CW: I gotta tell the listeners that Graham wrote another article: “Hell Hath No Fury Like a Congress Scorned.” The first line here … let me see: "Barr feels the wrath of Dems on the Judiciary Committee because he refused to accept grilling by unelected counsel." Very interesting.

GN: Yes, Barr is the number one target, now, of course, in the wake of the release of the Mueller report. And I think there's a couple of things going on here: That the Democrats in Congress are going after Barr, partly, of course, because he's Trump's attorney general, but also because he himself – as I explained further down in this particular article – he has become a danger to the whole anti-Trump, Russia collusion/obstruction of justice narrative, because he has now said that he is going to turn the Department of Justice towards looking at the origins of the whole Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory – the collusion delusion – and getting to the bottom of whether or not the FBI's spying on the Trump campaign ... because that's what it was. We can talk semantics but they were spying on them. As Barr himself said, that's not necessarily a derogatory term. That's what they were doing, and he wants to know whether that was predicated, whether they had justification for carrying out this surveillance on Trump associates.

CW: The Steele dossier was supposed to give them a reason to do that and they don't even bring that up whenever they come out with a report. That happens all the time. The other thing that Graham says is: look at Eric Holder … he even had quotes saying: "Hey, I'm the wing-man of Obama and I'm gonna protect him." Well, they weren't raising heck about it then, but then it was a different party. Listen, all out of time sir. Go ahead with that last word you were gonna get at.

GN: No, I was simply gonna say that is just one of many, classic examples of hypocrisy on their part: That they completely ignore Eric Holder's pretty much public pledge of personal loyalty to the president, and then they go after Barr.

CW: Alright, hey, thank you very much, and we'll do this again. I appreciate it.

GN: Absolutely Chuck, you're welcome. Thank you.

CW: Alright … Graham J. Noble.

~

At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!