play_arrow
The CRUSADE Radio Network CRUSADE Radio Network
play_arrow
The Mike Church Show-Radio Would Have Thwarted The Trump Assassination Attempt The KingDude
play_arrow
Audio Post Format TheKingDude
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Those of you that so desperately want women to go over there and fight wars, why don’t you prize and value your women, your daughters and your mothers? I don’t understand the infatuation. There are those that say, “We’re supposed to be libertarians and you’re a fake libertarian. If someone wants to do it, then in this country they have the right to do it.” No, if someone is blind, they don’t have the right to enlist in the Army and shoot the wrong way and in friendly fire kill someone. The point of wars is to vanquish the enemy and do it as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible. You would obviously want your strongest and your most agile and skilled with that strength enlisted in that duty. That is the male; that is not the female. Check out today’s transcript for more…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Caller: I was calling about that clown that you had on before. I am a student of history, as are you. What people seem to fail to recognize is if you look at every military that’s ever fielded women in a combat infantry role have been a communist nation: the Soviet Union, the North Vietnamese Army, the Viet Cong. It is a communist ideal; it is not a republican ideal. That’s what I wanted to say. You don’t see any republican society fielding women in a combat role. Yeah, you’ll have them as nurses and stuff like that, but never as a combat infantry role.
Mike: One of the best books you’ll ever find on this subject, pick up a copy of M.E. Bradford’s book A Better Guide Than Reason. All you have to do is read the first chapter of A Better Guide Than Reason — and of course a better guide than reason is tradition — and you’ll get the biography of the Roman citizen soldier. AG, we talked earlier about the Society of the Cincinnati. You, of course, know who Cincinnatus was, right, Andrew?
AG: No.
Mike: He was a Roman general. George Washington was called, in his time, “our American Cincinnatus.” The Roman soldier would throw his plow down in the field — this is where the adage beating plow shares into swords — would throw his plow down in the field that he was tilling, to provide subsistence for his wife and children. He might melt the steel down into a sword or some armor and he would go off, if Rome called — this is the ancient Rome, not empire Rome — and he would go and defend Rome from whoever it was, the Athenians or the Persians, whoever the attacking army was. When that invasion force had been put down and Rome had been secured again, he would delist and go home. He’d take that sword and melt it down and turn it back into a plow and he’d go back to plowing again. They never called upon those men to permanently serve until it became empire. They never called on women to serve. They only called on men. There was a Roman ideal that men ought to be out there doing that, because men were the strongest, men were the protectors of the family. Women were prized and valued.
Those of you that so desperately want women to go over there and fight wars, why don’t you prize and value your women, your daughters and your mothers? I don’t understand the infatuation. There are those that say, [mocking] “We’re supposed to be libertarians and you’re a fake libertarian. If someone wants to do it, then in this country they have the right to do it.” No, if someone is blind, they don’t have the right to enlist in the Army and shoot the wrong way and in friendly fire kill someone. If someone is deaf and can’t hear commands, they don’t have the right to go into the Army and rely on signals. The point of wars is to vanquish the enemy and do it as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible. You would obviously want your strongest and your most agile and skilled with that strength enlisted in that duty. That is the male; that is not the female. If you disagree with that, I don’t know what to say to you other than screw the rest of the traditions, too.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – "Abortion, and even contraception, even in the prevention of pregnancy, is verboten in church teaching. This goes all the way back prior – this is taken directly from the gospels, directly from the Old Testament, and then passed on traditionally." Check out today’s transcript […]
Bob Olson on January 28, 2013
There is a GIANT issue that has been ignored in the media and in these combat discussions: prenancy. As an Air Force doctor (historically) we as the “Providers” of healthcare saw MANY MANY times that women that got assignments that they did not want would get pregnant to avoid those assignments. It happened often. Will the government FORCE those women in combat to take birth control, thereby ending said woman’s right to choose? That would be classic Libtard irony! If not, how does one powerful Empire deal with this problem? In smaller Special Ops teams, this would be of an even greater impact as those small teams rely on the TEAM not one member. Suddenly, if your combat forces are carrying little combat forces with them, it greatly impacts the mission. Unfortunately for the Libs and their mantra, this is not possible for military men but is all-too-often the case with the ladies of the military. Just opening up the can of worms…no pun intended!
Jim Battarbee on October 8, 2012
I wonder why we don’t have women in professional football teams? In a bar, if someone provokes a fight with me, should I push my wife forward?
Reality dictates that men are the bigger, stronger sex! We don’t have a lunar gravity problem, and our lack of personal cleaning supplys will not make us ill. There may be individual examples of women that will keep up with most men, but those individuals don’t change the facts. For the safety of the fighting “men”, keep the “weaker sex” far behind the lines.
Billy on September 24, 2012
THere are great women serving in the military today – I have fought along side many. Our Forward Support Companies regularly engage the enemy during combat re-supply patrols. That being said, there is a big difference between an Infantry, or Combat Arms role, than that of a Combat support role. In the Infantry, we close with to destroy the enemy – I am not saying that some women could not do the job, but we will not always be fighting in our current operating environment and evolved doctrine. There may be a time when we return to our roots, and the Infantry no longer returns to COPS and FOBS after only a few days of operations. Women, while valuable in their specific roles need not be subjected to the harsh realities of combat. I have served in the Infantry for over 20 years and continue to serve today. I would not subject my daughter to its riggors or stress of the Infantry, or any other combat arms role…
David Goodnow on September 11, 2012
The only soldier I wanted with me in Iraq was a chick named Delgado. She was going to make it home.
Everyone else was busy trying not to think about where they were. To make it home, you have to think about where you are. Always.
We men tend to not think about why we don’t want women to fight. It’s because men _want_ fighting to be honorable, we want to be able to respect our enemies. Women don’t.
In World War II, the British learned that a man could only make a few flights as a bomber before getting combat stress, but no woman on any of their bomber crews ever did. A few years ago, a documentary interviewed the surviving British female bombers. NOT ONE OF THEM HAS EVER REGRETTED IT.
jimb282 on September 15, 2012
As a son of a RAF bomber from WW2, I KNOW your statement here is false! My father was one of the last to survive after there wasn’t enough men or planes in his 3rd squadron. He was sent to Canada on the hopes that some of what he had would “rub off” on those he was now helping to become airmen.
Last time I checked, the brain was above the neck! Anyone that believes they know how a gender will respond, knows nothing of free will, volition or how to think. My free will gives me a diffrent answer to this man, perhaps a women may have another idea?
Those that speak in terms like “We men tend…” may come up with a right answer, the way a broken clock is right twice a day.
David B on September 10, 2012
If you really want to know about women in combat, as the Isralies……… I heard they lost entire platoons trying to either play “hero” in front of the women, or trying to rescue wounded ones.
Lea Casares on November 6, 2012
Or ask the wives of the men who died to save my helplessness…..
I hate this subject, but yet i’m always drawn to share my view, which has caused many arguments, other female Marines call me a trader (one of the few names I can repeat) when I voice my view on women in combat.
Honestly, I can’t trust a man to treat me as equal as another man, lack of trust in a platoon costs lives. If I was a man they would’ve let me burn.
Michael Todd on September 8, 2012
“There are those that say…”
Seriously, Mr Church? Not only is this straight out of Obama’s playbook but the mis-caricaturization of libertarianism that follows has me half thinking that you are simply trolling for comments, If so bravo! you got me. I have to believe that you are wise enough to know the difference between “wants to = gets to” and “wants to = gets to give it a shot”.
As to having only the best on the front lines, If our military was the proper size, that needed to defend our shores from foreign aggression, you would be correct (99.9999% of the time at least) that these would be men, but when we are spread around the globe and in a voluntary force, we are going to have women who make the cut. Their will always be a Peppermint Patty who would be a better warrior than a Linus. The question is must we dip so deep into the roster that those decisions need be made?
Michael Todd on September 8, 2012
correction – penultimate sentence “Their” should be “There” and the second “be” should be “make”
TheKingDude on September 9, 2012
I fail to understand your hangup over the obvious “there are those who say”, when there ARE “those” and they do “say” what I stated and they say more and sometimes get very indignant that the holy church of Libertarianism has been challenged. Read my Twitter feed for over a dozen “libertarian” hissy fits over this subject on Friday and even more when I brought it up 2 weeks ago. This is why the libertarian movement will not gain a foothold on the reigns of power anytime soon because it is infatuated-strike that-OBSESSED with the defense or reclamation of “rights”. That abstract term that works to serve the agenda of the “libertarian” and the “dictator” in opposing efforts. The defense and study of Tradition in the conservative tradition is the only non-offensive check against Leviathan’s march. So yes, Michael, “Seriously”.
Michael Todd on September 10, 2012
Over a dozen tweets, Mike? Gee I guess your straw-man has some meat on his bones after all. Silly me basing my understanding of libertarianism on the writings and lectures of great libertarian minds both past and present, my apologies. Here you are receiving more tweets than I can count without taking my shoes off and I have the unmitigated nerve to question your version of libertarian principles!? I only wish now that I could delete my original post, although on second thought I guess it will serve as a reminder for me to check with twitter before correcting an erroneous stereotype of libertarians ever again.
TheKingDude on September 10, 2012
Do you always play word games Michael? Where do you see “[my] version of Libertarian principles”? Care to throw a quote into the historical record? You arrived at this site as my guest and start by hurling insults e.g. “[I am] trolling for comments” when it was you who commented first and in a not so polite manner, Sir. I believe my response was appropriate and for the record, what “libertarian minds’ do you find me dismissive of (search this site for Mises, Hayek, Rotbard, Bastiat and Roepke to name a few). The thread you reference is a transcript of a radio program, it is/was not a contrived “blog post” but a heated moment in one 3 hour radio broadcast. Did anyone say you were not free to comment here? If you want your original post deleted say the word and I will move small mole hills to accommodate you. Oh and for those watching this thread, witness the “Libertarian hissy fit” I wrote of in my first response.
Michael Todd on September 11, 2012
Quote for the historical record – There are those that say, [mocking] “We’re supposed to be libertarians and you’re a fake libertarian. If someone wants to do it, then in this country they have the right to do it.” – end historical record quote.
I thought it was clear in my original post that this was the sentiment with which i took issue. Possibly not so clear was my belief that you are wise enough to see this for the misleading oversimplification, if not outright distortion of libertarian core principles that it is. I believed this because I am aware of your familiarity with those libertarian thinkers you mention above. It was you in your first response that seemed to imply that a handful of twitterers somehow defined the libertarian movement, thus my admittedly snarky yet none the less brilliant response.
As to insulting you by wondering if your posting of this particular moment of transcribed heated radio program was a comment trolling endeavor or not, I simply do not get. Is not your goal to get views and comments on these posts? What is insulting about suggesting you may intentionally chose those parts of your show which are controversial or confrontational as a way to achieve the biggest page hits?
” Libertarian hissy fit”? well, maybe. I may be a little thin-skinned when it comes to hearing over and over stereotypical, and generally wrong representations of libertarianism. One gets tired of being painted as a pagan, anarchist, and/or debauchee. As the Non-interventionist must tire of forever hearing how they are anti-American isolationist or military-hating pacifist.
As for historical record keeping, I did check and cannot find any tweets calling you a fake libertarian, or for that matter any tweets regarding you and libertarianism, save one from you about Dr. Paul and ballot access. Is there a specific search term one should use to view these tweets? Or is there a special code which allows one to know which tweets at @thekingdude are from libertarian tweeterers?
TheKingDude on September 11, 2012
During that discussion there were several Twitter followers weighing in on “the liberty movement” and my inconsistency/betrayal of such. Those tweets are now too far back to retrieve but I do recall one gentleman in particular who made women in combat an issue of liberty.
HaHa, yes there is a special code, and even a special, “Free-Mason handshake” that keeps the world’s saviors for liberty at bay!