From Republicans With Love, Why DeceptiCONS Want War With Russia

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – There was an agreement that was made in 1994 called the Budapest Memorandum.  It was signed by three countries; United States, United Kingdom, and Russian Federation.  What it did was it told the Ukrainians: Look, you’re a former Soviet republic.  You’ve got some nukes there.  Give the nukes up and we will grant to you certain concessions.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  A couple of brief points on the Ukraine monologue and discussion from last hour here before we move on.  There was an agreement that was made in 1994 called the Budapest Memorandum.  It was signed by three countries; United States, United Kingdom, and Russian Federation.  What it did was it told the Ukrainians: Look, you’re a former Soviet republic.  You’ve got some nukes there.  Give the nukes up and we will grant to you certain concessions.  Let me read to you the concessions.  Today is not the first day that I’ve had calls and emails on this.  [mocking] “You need to look up the treaty.  You don’t know what you’re talking about.  We have to protect the Ukrainians.”  No, we don’t!  We never agreed to protect Ukraine.  There were six agreements made in the Budapest Memorandum.  And we’re the ones that violated it!

One, respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within the existing borders.  We didn’t do that when we sent the CIA in to undo the legitimate elections they had in 2012.  Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.  I don’t know if we’ve armed anyone that’s actually bombed Ukraine.  Three, refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.  Broke that one, too.  Four, seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Ukraine should become victim of an act of aggression — note the United Nations part here — in which nuclear weapons are used.  There are no nukes!  Putin is not threatening to nuke Ukraine.  Five, refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.  Okay.  Don’t nuke them.  Six, consult with one another where questions arise regarding these commitments.  In other words, diplomacy.  None of this is happening.

You people want to call in, [mocking] “You need to read the treaty.”  Okay, I read the treaty.  Yes, yes, I know what happened.  Now what?  Some of you just cannot deal with and refuse to admit that in most instances, we are the aggressor.  We are the hyperbolic force.  We’re the ones that push and promote the bellicosity of the world.  Are there bad actors out there?  Yes, there are.  That doesn’t mean we have to join them.  I won’t mention any names, but I heard someone mocking people like me, [mocking] “This idea that we could just retreat to fortress America and withdraw our influence in the world.”  Our influence in the world is the destabilizing force.  The only other force that is as potent a destabilizing force on the planet, other than us, is the so-called religion of Islam.  That’s a different discussion.

Some people just won’t deal with it.  They refuse to deal with it, refuse to admit it, and at the same time they do admit it by insisting that our intervention is always welcomed and always warranted and always produces such peace and harmony.  If 50 years of intervention has produced peace and harmony, can you show it to me?  Where might we find the peace and harmony that our intervention is supposed to produce?  And it’s not always just with the Middle East and it’s not always just with Muslims.  Of course, we flippantly ignore the sage advice left to us by Washington, by Madison, by Monroe, by John Quincy Adams, etc., etc., because they didn’t have computers and they could not possibly have been as smart as us.

The second point that I’ll correct or will just deal with quickly here, someone was insisting to me, [mocking] “You don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the president not being able to propose legislation.  He can propose all the legislation he wants.  It’s in the Constitution, dummy.”  Then I had another one quoting me Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution as where we’ll find this power.  Well, I just happen to have a handy-dandy copy of the U.S. Constitution in front of me.  I shall read to you Article II, Section 4 for your own personal edification so you don’t make the same imbecilic mistake.  “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It’s right there.  Obama can submit budgets, tax increases, road work projects.  It’s all in there.  It’s under the Impeachment Clause.  Who knew?  Well, I’ll tell you where you can try and locate this alleged power.  Article II, Section 3, “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in the Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper . . .”

In other words, when the president turns in the State of the Union address, because he’s giving a state of the union, an inventory, a report, if he sees something that he doesn’t think is on the up and up or can be improved, in the State of the Union he can say: Hey, look on page 14 right there.  You see line 16?  Yeah, that’s a problem.  I think you guys ought to consider doing X there.  That’s what that means.  That doesn’t mean that in the middle of the summer or the middle of the winter or middle of any other time that Obama can just stroll into Congress and start submitting bills or make suggestions as to bills.  The fact that it is contained in the State of the Union report, again, reiterates that only the legislature can act upon these things; the president cannot.  It’s repeated over and over and over again.

Robert is in Texas, first up here today on the telephones.  Hello, Robert, how you doing?

Caller Robert:  I’m doing good, Mike.  How you doing?

Mike:  I am well.

Caller Robert:  Good to hear.  Back to the whole Russia thing, Obama still hasn’t figured out how we should deal with ISIS.  If he can’t come up with a plan in the last two years as to how he’s going to deal with ISIS, what makes these morons think that he can even think to sit down and try to deal with Putin on the battlefield?

Mike:  I’d ask the same question of anyone else that would deign to play commander in chief.  Why would you want to?  That’s a better question, isn’t it?

Caller Robert:  We have to.  How can you possibly think you can come out on top of this situation?

Mike:  You can’t come out —

Caller Robert:  You can’t even deal with a couple of guys cutting off heads.  How can you deal with the Russian empire?

Mike:  There’s another way to look at that.  You’re right, Robert.  Let’s analyze this for just a moment.  Since the agreement at Yalta, since Roosevelt and Stalin and the emperor sat on the deck of that ship and tried to make peace among warring nations, among the allied and axis powers that ended World War II, and agreements were entered into at the dawn of the nuclear proliferation age, so from on or around 1945 or so, circa 1945, there were somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, that were aimed at significant economic and civilian population targets in the United States.  Consequently, the United States had intercontinental ballistic missiles that were aimed at significant population centers and strategic targets in the United Soviet Socialist Republic, USSR.  The U.S. also funded and began a program whereby, just in case there was a ground invasion or a defense mechanism was put up that would deter the land-based launch of nuclear ordnance, a submarine program was started and was entered into where there were these trident submarines carrying nuclear capability.  The Russians did the same thing.

From on or around 1945 all the way up to the collapse with the secessions of the Soviet republics in 1991, and then the events that happened after that, for almost 50 years, there was what was called the threat of mutually assured destruction.  The destruction never occurred.  The Russians, the USSR, its government, the United States, and other partners or other allies, the Brits, the French, etc., never stopped talking to one another.  They were able to avoid war.  They called it the Cold War, but at least it wasn’t fought as a battlefield war.  For heaven’s sake, the 20^th century was bloody and deadly and lethal enough, wasn’t it?

So the idea that today this is somehow an impossibility, [mocking] “Putin’s got nukes.”  They had more nukes prior to Putin.  There was a larger threat, not a smaller one, yet diplomacy was what was counseled.  Who are our diplomats today?  We have Secretary of State John “Rambo” Kerry leading the charge.  We have the leftovers from Mrs. Clinton’s residency in the Secretary of State’s office, as bellicose and shockingly offensive as she was.  Who and where are these diplomats?  Either A, we can’t find them, or, B, we don’t desire them, or, C, maybe we have them and we just don’t let them do anything.  You ought to be alarmed by this.  Peace is always preferable to war, always.  In every instance, peace is preferable to war.  Unless a war becomes an existential, just war, peace should always be any peaceful, Christian nation’s policy.

End Mike Church Show Transcript