insert_link CRUSADE channel The Constitution Hour Episode 13-Why Trump IS A Natural Born Citizen & Cruz Is Not-Why The Founders Chose republicanism Over Monarchy todayJuly 27, 2024 81
Latest Parrott Talk-Groomers Ruined Mother’s Day PREVIEW OF TODAY'S PARROT TALK. FOR THE FULL EPISODE SUBSCRIBE ON ITUNES. Social media was full of men pretending to be mothers. These groomers shared pictures of their families, and created posts that celebrated their motherhood. Mike Parrott has a few examples of how these […] todayMay 13, 2024 31
Wil Shrader Jr. on September 19, 2012 Is this guy the “cannabis-smoking friend” you occasionally mention on-air? I jest as this insults those who do. Log in to Reply
thesappster on August 9, 2012 While I agree an Article V convention would be the best way to completely eradicate this law once and for all, wouldn’t nullification be the quickest route? I admit I have only a rudimentary understanding of the nullification process, but if my understanding is correct, then the states should retain the right to nullify laws they find unconstitutional, regardless of what the supreme court decrees. Log in to Reply
Vint "from Bush" on July 27, 2012 Mike, I’ve tried to reach you a few free phone fridays driving to work but the call gets dropped while on hold(dont know if it’s my end or yours probably mine since it’s cell and i’m crossing the Causway” and then i’m at the office. My questions are if SCOTUS decision that the ACA is Constitutional because it’s a tax. 1. Is that what Congress voted on…..a tax? 2. If not should’nt Congress have to have a revote? Anxiously awaiting your reply………Vint P.S. See you at the next Founding Fathers meeting! Log in to Reply
TheKingDude on July 29, 2012 Congress could, in an ideal world, repeal the tax which would of course require a President to sign the repeal. Congress will not repeal the bill outright because Republicans value much of what is in it. Therefore the clearest option I see is a state led Article V convention to propose an amendment to wipe it out forever. Log in to Reply
D.R. Green on July 10, 2012 Let’s see…. Chief Justice Green Mile re-wrote the law calling it a “tax”, passed said law, signed it into law, then declared it constitutional. And this crack-head thinks that’s great? I’d say this decision is grounds for immediate impeachment! This is no different than a judge saying a murderer is not guilty by reason of insanity after a jury has found him guilty and NO insanity plea was registered. And why do we still have a judge on the court that thinks “boatloads of Federal money” are growing on trees at the White House? Can we PLEASE split this country up now? Good work, Mike! Log in to Reply
TheKingDude on July 10, 2012 Check out my latest post on dealing with Roberts channeling HL Mencken. https://mikechurch.com/news/for-the-john-roberts-haters-hl-mencken-on-provocative-mirth/ Log in to Reply
D.M. Zuniga on July 9, 2012 Americans who care about restoring the republic called ‘the United States of America’, which is defined and carefully stipulated in the U.S. Constitution — need to ENFORCE that supreme Law of the Land. Politics will not substitute for law enforcement, ever. With all three branches in high and multi-generational violation of the Supreme Law, the VERTICAL “checks and balances” of creators (We The People) over lawless creature, is the ONLY check-and-balance left to us. The powers granted to the creature are clearly enumerated in the law. The far more numerous powers in life are retained by us, for all of history. But we have never enforced the lawto arrest the felons. AmericaAgain! Trust intends to change that, for the rest of history. http://www.thisbloodlessliberty.com/2012/06/man-does-not-live-on-dread-alone.html Log in to Reply
D.M. Zuniga on July 9, 2012 In the second place, Congress has been on a lawless binge since Lincoln’s administration; a binge that went into overdrive with Tom ‘Woodrow’ Wilson, then into high gear with FDR, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama: http://www.thisbloodlessliberty.com/2012/03/hyperventilating-about-obama-solves.html That’s a HUGE number of illegal stretches of the “elastic clauses”. The Obamacare debacle started in the early 1940s; Ronald Reagan preached against it when he was governor of California…but did nothing as president. Log in to Reply
D.M. Zuniga on July 9, 2012 There is imply no historical evidence supporting the assertion that the SCOTUS, over time, will defend the Constitution as written — even if it pulls of a coup in the short term. As I explain in this monograph, regardless of Roberts’ motivations or intentions, this ruling can be used against the Progressives this November: http://www.thisbloodlessliberty.com/2012/06/john-roberts-you-sly-fox.html That is not to say that it will be enough; in the first place, as much damage was done with this ruling, as potential good. Log in to Reply
Jason Brown on July 6, 2012 I agree Mr. Church, and I would have to say that if this was a political move by John Roberts then he should be impeached for bringing dishonor to the bench and violating his oath to uphold the constitution. Further, I would point, if that was his goal, it is stupid in the name of conservatism. This would be tantamount to pulling your boat as close to theirs as you can and blowing it up in order to win! Worse part is, as Chief Justice, his boat is the Constitution! In my view, he has eradicated the last vestige of protection from the tyranny of government by granting, by fiat no less, the power of Congress to tax us based on our behavior. Keep fighting sir! Log in to Reply
Steve Rodgers on July 5, 2012 Ok, I’ve got my torch and pitch fork. Who has the tar and feathers. I’m sick and tired of well meaning, well educated IDIOTS playing games with my liberty. Let’s run em out of town. Log in to Reply
Tim on July 5, 2012 “Defending Roberts as a politician undermines the purpose of a judiciary whose purpose is limited to “the chains of the constitution” That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking as I read the original post. I mean, I think the post is a little crazy, but even if it’s true/accurate, the glaring problem for me is that this is exactly what the Supreme Court SHOULD NOT be doing…playing a political role, acting as political components. They should be deciding on constitutionality. THAT…ITS…ALL! I don’t care if it’s a conservative or not, this is not what the judges should be doing Log in to Reply
Larry Price on July 5, 2012 Mr. Church, I agree with you, the Supreme Court Justices should not play games and assume the Republicans will do the right thing. There job is to be undeterred, by media and political advantages, and simply rule the cases In front of them. They are to use the constitution as there foundation, not as a guide for inserting, twisting , insinuating and flat out making it say What ever he wants to say! Log in to Reply
Kathleen Dalessio on July 5, 2012 While every Neo-con I know has been praising Roberts decision & telling me to quiet down it’s a good thing…I too have been saying that the Republicans if elected also enjoy this overstep of the Executive & Congress but only if it’s them doing the overstepping…. we are screwed no matter who is elected… just a little less quickly if it’s Romney…Thanks Log in to Reply
insert_link Mike Church Presents The Red Pill Diaries Podcasts Listener Calls Crusade Channel “Rolex Quality” – The Mike Church Show todayFebruary 27, 2018 1655
The CRUSADE Channel & Mike Church Show Achieve Milestone of Episode 2,000! Celebrate “Y2K-D” With Us!
The Constitution Hour Episode 13-Why Trump IS A Natural Born Citizen & Cruz Is Not-Why The Founders Chose republicanism Over Monarchy