The Mike Church Show World HQ
The Mike Church Show World HQ

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Bloody civil wars are entered into by political choice.  That is not a legal question; that is a political question.  I don’t think, and I reject all of you that are so ginned up and believe a bloody civil war is right around the corner.  My God, think about it when you say that.  Why would you even wish that on the people? Check out today’s transcript for the rest…


Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  This is William in North Carolina.  William, you are on the Mike Church Show on Sirius XM.  How are you?

Caller William:  I’m fine.  Listen, I’m pretty sure you’re going to tell me how wrong I am real quick, but I just wanted to say what this gentleman said earlier when you told him he couldn’t kick California out.  I think you might have missed his point from this respect.  I just want to say what I think he was getting at a different way.  If you have ten states out of 50 that have the most population, and most of those people in those ten states think stupid liberalism, why can’t the 40 other states that think correctly, conservatively, kick the ten states out.  Since there’s more of us, we use our own tactics against them, just like they’re using against us.  Why isn’t that a good policy?  If the Constitution works one way, can’t it work the other way?

Mike:  I told him that the Constitution as a compact would say that you could say our agreement has ended and our relationship is hereby severed.

Caller William:  You think the 40 states could get together and say we have decided, using the majority principle of democracy and kick you guys out?

Mike:  William, please, sir, allow me to speak for just a solitary moment, sir.  If the Constitution is viewed correctly and properly as a compact, then a compact is an agreement between consenting parties.  If the states you want to kick out say they don’t want to leave, that they have no desire to be kicked out, you’ve got to have some sort of a divorce proceeding.  Then under what authority and under what legal framework are you then going to escort them or tell them they are hereby severed and removed from your union if it’s not of their choosing?  I didn’t say it couldn’t happen.  I just hadn’t thought about it like that to where you would kick someone out.

What Lincoln Killed flyer
Hear the story of the United States AFTER the Constitution like you’ve never heard it before

I would suspect the way you would do that is have an Article V convention.  In the convention, as it would be a runaway Con Con now, you would have a majority of states.  If states got votes — let’s say they voted like they did in the Federal Convention of 1787.  Every state got one vote.  They could vote among their own quorum.  They could have an individual vote if they had nine delegates.  A 5-4 vote would carry whatever question was being asked.  Let’s say then in the Federal Convention of 2013 there was a motion on the floor to kick New York, California, New Jersey, name your ten states you want out that practice “liberalism.”  If that motion carries a majority of the states, and if that then is the determination and finding of the convention, if you can then send that back to the other states to have it ratified, you run into the question: Do the states we’re trying to vote out, do they get to vote in the ratification process?  If they do and there’s ten of them, they only need to pick off three more and your effort to get rid of them is over.  You have to have 38 states to ratify an amendment.

The other alternative would be we’re not ratifying an amendment; we’re ratifying a new union.  We’re ratifying that those ten states are not invited into our new union.  As soon as three-quarters of our new states say the new union is in effect, then it is in effect in those states that ratified the same.  Anyone else that chooses to ratify can be admitted by a vote for ratification and then a vote in our new congress.  Then you would be able to kick the ten states out.  You’d have to have a convention.  Congress can’t do that.  I can see no way that Congress could do that.  A convention of states convened for that purpose could certainly do that.  Okay, William?

Caller William:  Yes.

Mike:  Does that answer your question?

Caller William:  No, it doesn’t, because it leaves one thing unsettled.  You have 50 percent of the national population completely unhappy with it and they’re not going to put up with it for too much longer.  You’re going to end up with a bloody civil war at some point.  We’re going to have to find a solution some other way, I think, or it’s going to be the end of it all.

Mike:  Bloody civil wars are entered into by political choice.  That is not a legal question; that is a political question.  I don’t think, and I reject all of you that are so ginned up and believe a bloody civil war is right around the corner.  My God, think about it when you say that.  Why would you even wish that on the people?  We’ve had 50/50 division for 230 years.  Do you people read?  Do you read?  Do you listen, sir?  The Constitution was barely ratified in the larger states that had to ratify it.  Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, they didn’t want to ratify.  As a matter of fact, had New York and Virginia had telegraph communication, it wouldn’t have been ratified.  The whole thing would have went up in smoke.  Was there a huge, lumbering, happy, felicitous majority that couldn’t wait to make new common cause under the Constitution at that time?  No.  There was a schism.  There was a split between federalists and republicans, or between nationalists and actual federalists.

Why people always want to turn to bloody civil war as an alternative, you solve nothing with wars other than killing people and destroying property.  Why is that even an option?  We are so militarized.  The longing for, it seems, for acts of violence to end this, number one, that is not a conservative point of view.  Number two, unless you are being threatened with violence and it is the only and final recourse that you have, that would not even be something you would be discussing, yet it keeps coming up.  [mocking] “I think there’s gonna be a bloody civil war” all because Obama got elected.  When Bush was sending your sons to die in fruitless wars of convenience under deceitful pretenses and practices, there was no agitation for this bloody civil war.  There were people screaming and hollering like Keith Olbermann and what have you.  I don’t know that Olbermann was screaming about bloody civil wars.  Maybe he was and I missed it.  This isn’t a new thing.  Government has been attacking and oppressive for a very long time, I’d say going all the way back to certainly the Jackson administration and beyond.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Enis Burcham

Sure glad to see you have left this dystopian tirade on here for so long. Seems as though the vulgarity is worthy of something, even if it is only for your feeble attempt to demoralize me and give further evidence of your superior elitist mentality.
Rigged elections, criminal representatives who give us no voice, despotic government, no leaders in any state willing to go it alone, lowest of the low morals and ethics, panderers of divisive politics, self serving national, state and local leaders, what reasonable path have you laid out for us minions to believe in and follow.


Welcome Enis, browse around for a while and there’s no telling WHAT you may find!

J. Lee Haley, MD

Must agree. Anyone advocating bloody civil war is in need of cranium analysis, intense historical lessons, or both.

That said, there’s usually a spark that ignites the abhorrent flame. Politicians disarming law abiding citizens while exempting their corrupt selves, seems one of the more likely formulas for ignition. Let us hope and pray not, for then we shall surely long for former days, when they had less control over us!

Also must agree with you and Pratt … they are going to register and label us first. Then, taking them away becomes much easier. Not pretty. Guess I’ll go have a Guinness and try not to think about it 😉


~~ Doc

PS: Hope you can get a gig in Austin … would be really cool. We would be there and not be square!

Enis Burcham

Mike – I listened to your show this morning, as I have for many years. Of all the so called conservative hosts you are most like me, except that I am a common man, you are an eliteist. You sir are out of touch with me and the millions of others like me that have been working our asses off to make something of ourselves and create security for our families. You and the others have sold us a bill of goods, giving us hope that there is a way back to liberty. We have listened faithfully, hanging on to every thread of hope we could find in your commentary, but now, me like the other millions like me have heard just about enough from you and the others. You speak of a path back to what our founders envisioned for this country but you are no longer relevant. You see, all of the millions like me have lost hope in ever getting back to a nation of laws, guided by our great inheritance, the Constitution. We see a govenement that is completely lawless, telling us they know better and that times have changed and we have to change with them. We see both sides of the isle representing themselves and their cronies, they no longer represent us, the people. We see our own president mocking us, telling us we have no voice, and that we will do what he says. We see our wealth being drained and given to “do nothings”, or corporate partners in the crimes being perpetrated on us by our so called representatives. We see a supreme court slanting left more and more, most times out of left field, figureatively speaking. We see ourselves being demonized and blamed for every issue any and all special interest groups can make up and sell through our communist government news media. We see lie after lie being told because we could not handle the truth. We see our own government positioning arms in strategic domestic locations, we can only make presumptions as to why, there is no truth to be found and no salvation for our compact of states in the present form. You need to get out more, hang out with commoners, not the so called academia that believes there is a peaceful way to get back to liberty. There is no avenue to present your case in a way that would create smaller compacts of states that would institute the rule of law via a Constitution, this will go nowhere, and the common man has already figured that out. Freedom and Liberty are in our DNA, we see it disolving into tyranny and we will not tolerate it any longer, we will fight and we will get our Constitution back.


Enis, so you and the “other minions” have the market cornered on hard work and toil and being a “commoner”? If that’s the case then I would like to reclaim the wasted years of my leisurely life and tens of thousands of dollars spent working at what you claim is a lost cause while claiming what I do isn’t work.

You’re dystopian tirade is of a vulgarity not worthy of further comment.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x