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 – Then the real fireworks began when Senator John “Rambo” Kerry made his way into the United States Senate chamber and began answering questions from people like Rand Paul. I have the pertinent parts of the Paul-Kerry dialogue from yesterday. If you haven’t heard it, it is illuminating inasmuch as Senator Paul is not buying any of the secretary of defense’s mighty protestations. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: The action began to increase, though, as the legislative day went on, when our entertaining heroes returned to Mordor on the Potomac River. When they found their way back to Mordor and television cameras, the action was on. We were getting some action. They had so much to give. Of course, the day began with John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi sashaying out of the White House. [mocking Boehner] “Let me just be clear, the United States of America has historically supported the regime change around the known universe, from here all the way to the ice world of Hoth and then back to LV-426. I just met with the president and I’m going to give the president my conditional support,” Speaker Boehner said something to that effect. Nancy Pelosi got up there, [mocking Pelosi] “This is a war. I know I used to be opposed to them, but it’s my president bombing people back into the stone ages now, so I think it’s funny,” or whatever it was that she said.
Then the real fireworks began when Senator John “Rambo” Kerry made his way into the United States Senate chamber and began answering questions from people like Rand Paul. I have the pertinent parts of the Paul-Kerry dialogue from yesterday. If you haven’t heard it, it is illuminating inasmuch as Senator Paul is not buying any of the secretary of defense’s mighty protestations that [mocking] “IF we don’t do this, it is crystal clear that the Israelis will be attacked.” What’s really intriguing about this, if you pay very close and rapt attention — I’m going to play it long form and let it roll. I might chime in or pause. Pay close attention. You’re going to hear Secretary of State Kerry contradict himself. He’s going to try to make the case that the Israelis are just a bunch of helpless damsels in distress in the middle of this simmering cauldron known as the Middle East, and if we don’t do something, their future is bleak indeed. They’ll be wiped from the face of the map. The Iranians are promising, blah, blah, blah. A minute and a half later, he will then go on to say, [mocking] “We know that the Israelis have repelled recently attacks from Hezbollah.”
By the way Secretary of State Kerry, an organization comprised of Muslim terrorists and wannabe dictators who are in search of a country to run, namely Hezbollah, is not an ally. If you want to run around talking about classical senses of words, an ally would be a sovereign state. Let me give you an example. An ally is the United Kingdom, who has already decided they want nothing to do with this madness that President Obama, Secretary Kerry and those reliable conservative buddies of ours who are always supposed to be on the right side of issues are about to get us embroiled in all this. We have it on good authority that many Republicans are going to side with the president. You’ll hear Speaker Boehner basically say, [mocking Boehner] “I support the president because it’s my duty to support the president.” No, it’s no one’s duty to do this. You’ll hear Secretary Kerry refer to the allies that are Hezbollah.
Just to put a nice, sharp razor point on this, we do not have allies in the United Kingdom that are from the Royal and Ancient Golf Club. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club is in the United Kingdom. We might consider the UK an ally, but we wouldn’t refer to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club — which is the oldest golf organization in the world and has tens of thousands of members — as our ally. We would instead refer to the sovereign state known as Great Britain or the United Kingdom as the ally. In the same manner, we would not rely or refer to Hezbollah as an ally. If Hezbollah were to seize control of a government somewhere, complete, rapt control and then form the country of Hezbollah, then they would be considered an ally.
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]
For those of you that think we have some moral obligation to protect Israel, think of it this way. The Likud Party in Israel is no more our ally than the opposition party. The State of Israel, that’s our “strongest ally in the region.” By the way, that’s not me speaking, that’s what you people say, many of you. You don’t say the Likud Party, you say the Israel. In other words, you say the sovereign state. For the secretary of state to be bandying about what amounts to some people who want to run a sovereign state but who currently do not and don’t have one named after them as an ally of another country I think is just ridiculous. The whole thing is ridiculous.
I’d like to play for you the Kerry-Paul debate as it happened in real time yesterday. It’s almost ten minutes long. As I said, I’ll jump in and make some points along the way.
[start audio file]
Secretary of State John Kerry: In Pyongyang, in Tehran, in Damascus, folks will stand up and celebrate. In a lot of other capitals in parts of the world, people will scratch their heads and sign a sort of condolence for the loss of America’s willingness to stand up and make itself felt where it makes a difference to the world. [Mike: Bomb brown people, in other words.] I think it would be an enormous setback to America’s capacity and to our vision in the world, and certainly to the role of leadership that we play.
[end audio file]
Mike: Capacity? What capacity are you talking about? This is the old argument here. Because you have missiles, if you don’t have them, then you don’t have the capacity to use them? Does it take more restraint to not use the missile than it takes to lob it into someone’s airspace? I’d say it takes a hell of a lot more restraint and that your capacity is one that is [mocking] “The Americans? They would never do that. They know there are women and children near where those bombs are going to go off. They would never allow that kind of an attack to happen. They wouldn’t destroy our property here inside [insert country here].” Wanna bet? In other words, because we have the capacity, then I guess we have to use it. Does any of this make any sense? Let’s go through the exercise quickly.
The framers of the Constitution, the generation called the founding fathers and generations after them, feared a standing army. Why did they fear a standing army? They feared a standing army because they feared that an executive, a madman, would constantly find excuses to lead them into war, and that the wars would not be for the protections of the people or would not be to secure people’s liberties and properties. The wars would be waged to benefit those that would benefit from making the armaments or conquering the territory so a new government can be formed so they can have a crack at their resources. This is why they were scared to death of giving Congress the power to raise the armies. Men in the ratifying conventions at the end of the 18th century kept saying: We have militias, dude. What do we need a standing army for? You know what’s going to happen if we have a standing army. Somebody is going to find an excuse to use it.
This is Exhibit A here. This is exactly why. When you hear some loudmouthed neocon or decepticon or liberal progressive internationalist interventionist droning on endlessly about [mocking] “We’re the only country in the world that has the military capability of doing it,” exactly. Bingo! Right there! Pow! Kablooey! That is exactly the point. That is spot on, on target why a standing army is to be feared, because men like that say: We have the capacity to do it. Great, so now I have to be taxed. I have to live with the fact of knowing that I was taxed and I didn’t do anything about it and I allowed you to build implements of death and destruction and then lob them at people across the freaking planet. No, I did not and I do not.
[mocking] “I don’t understand what your big hang-up is about the standing army.” This is my hang-up, and this ought to be your hang-up. [mocking] “But Mike, we have to make it safe for the world.” You know who we have to make it safe for? The people in California. We have to make it safe for the people in Idaho. We have to make it safe for the citizens of New Hampshire and Florida. No one is on our coasts. We are not being attacked. No one has any designs, no one is out of their minds dumb enough to attack the United States. There is not going to be an invasion. We are not going to be run over by a ground army. It just is not going to happen. We invent these instances in the rest of the world so we can ride in to the rescue.
This is all about corporatism. This is all about making sure that we have to use some of these armaments so they can continue to be built. If you lob 360 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria, guess what? Some numbnuts is going to go to Congress and say: We’ve depleted our stockpile. We’ve got to feed the monkey, man. Of course they’re going to want more. You never know when another Syria is going to come up, man. Hadn’t that occurred to you? (A little Big Lebowski there). That’s why the standing army was feared. That’s why Congress can only have an army that they can appropriate. It has to appropriate the funds every two years. I don’t even know if they do that anymore. I’m not even sure if that’s a formality any longer. Back to Rand Paul and John “Rambo” Kerry.
[start audio file]
Senator Rand Paul: I didn’t vote for him, and I still am opposed to him quite a few times, but I was proud that he did this. I was just about to stand on my feet and clap and give him a standing ovation and then I heard: But if I lose the vote, I’ll probably go ahead and do the bombing anyway. That does concern me. I want to be proud of the president, but every time I’m just about there then I get worried that really he doesn’t mean it, that he’s going to sort of obey the Constitution if he wins. So I heard Secretary Kerry say: If we win, sure. But if we lose, what? I mean, make me proud today, Secretary Kerry. Stand up for us and say you’re going to obey the Constitution, and if we vote you down, which is unlikely by the way, but if we do, you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn’t go forward with the war that your Congress votes against. Can you give me a better answer, Secretary Kerry?
Kerry: I can’t give you a different answer than the one I gave you. I don’t know what the president’s decision is, but I will tell you this, it ought to make you proud because he still has the constitutional authority and he would be in keeping with the Constitution. [Mike: No, he doesn’t.]
Paul: Well, I disagree with you there. I don’t believe he has the constitutional authority. I think Congress has this. Madison was very explicit. When he wrote The Federalist Papers, he wrote that history supposes or the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war, and, therefore, the Constitution vested that power in the Congress. It’s explicit and runs throughout all of Madison’s writings. This power is a congressional power and it is not an executive power. They didn’t say big war, small war; they didn’t say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground. They said, declare war. Ask the people on the ships launching the missiles whether they’re involved with war or not.
If we do not say that the Constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you’re making a joke of us. You’re making us into theater. And so we play constitutional theater for the president. If this is real, you will abide by the verdict of Congress. You’re probably going to win; just go ahead and say it’s real. And let’s have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose and you say: Oh, well, we have the authority anyway. We’re going to go ahead and go to war anyway.
A couple of items —
Kerry: Senator, I assure you there’s nothing meaningless, and there is everything real about what —
Paul: Only if you adhere to what we vote on. Only if our vote makes a difference. Only if our vote is binding is it meaningful.
Kerry: And I will leave to the man who was elected to be President of the United States the responsibility for telling you what his decision is, if and when that moment came. But the president intends to win this vote, and he’s not going to make prior announcements.
Paul: We’ve had a lot of discussion about whether or not we’re going to make the world safer with this. Somehow, we’re going to have less chemical weapons. But I think that’s an open question, and I think it’s conjecture at best. You can say: Oh, well, we think Assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. We may be able to degrade his capacity somewhat. He’s got a thousand tons. Are we going to wipe it out? Most reports I hear say we’re not even probably going to directly bomb chemical weapons because of what might happen to the surrounding population. So my guess is he still will have the ability.
Most people say Assad acted very illogically. Why would he release chemical weapons on his own people when it brought the anger and enmity of the entire world? So he’s already acting irrationally or illogically, and now we’re going to deter him and he’s going to act in a rational manner. I think it’s equally likely that he either does it again or he doesn’t do it. I don’t think you can say for certain which is better. I don’t know that we can say that by attacking them, he’s not going to launch another chemical attack.
Kerry: Well —
Paul: I’ve got a few of them and then I’ll stop.
[end audio file]
Mike: I have to ask the question right here: When did we learn that Assad definitively was the guy that ordered the launch of the chemical weapon that no one has identified yet. I was gone for four days. Maybe I missed the news headline. It didn’t beep on my phone. I got no alerts from ABC News. I got no revelations from my AP or Reuters reports. I didn’t see anything in last night’s Pile of Prep rundown. When was this conclusively determined? Oh, that’s right, the Obama administration has clandestine, classified information that they will not share with the world. Some people say that’s because they have a source inside the Syrian government that they’re trying to protect. Or it could just be that they’re lying. Continuing on:
[start audio file]
Paul: I’ve got a few of them and then I’ll stop. Will the region be more stable, or less stable? We all say we want stability in the Middle East, and stability in the Middle East is a national interest for our country. Will it be more stable, or less stable? I frankly think there are equal arguments on both sides of that. Will Israel be more likely to suffer an attack on them, a gas attack or otherwise, or less likely?
I think there’s a valid argument for saying they’ll be more likely to suffer an attack if we do this. Will Russia be more likely or less likely to supply more arms or get more heavily involved in this? I think there’s a valid argument that they may become more likely to be involved. [Mike: We already know the answer to that question because we know that there are Russian destroyers that are heading and will be somewhere in the vicinity of the American fleet any day now.] Iran, more likely or less likely to be involved with this? If Iran gets involved, more likely or less likely that Israel launches a reprisal attack on Iran?
There are all kinds of unknowns that I can’t tell you absolutely the answer and neither can you, but I think there’s a reasonable argument that the world may be less stable because of this and that it may not deter any chemical weapons attack.
So what I would ask is: How are we to know? How are we to go home — I haven’t had one person come up to me and say they’re for this war, not one person. We get calls by the thousands. Nobody’s calling in favor of this war. I didn’t meet one when I was home all month. I went to 40 cities. I didn’t have one person come up and say — do they all agree it’s a horrendous thing? Yes, we all agree that chemical attacks are a horrendous thing. But people are not excited about getting involved, and they also don’t think it’s going to work. And they’re skeptical of what will occur with this.
But I’d appreciate your response, and try to reassure the rest of us, one, that the vote is meaningful and valid, that you’d adhere to it, and also that you’re convinced that all of these different items will be better, not worse, by this attack.
Kerry: Well, Senator, I’d be very happy to do that. Will Israel be more likely to suffer an attack or will they be safer, will they be less safe? I can make it crystal clear to you that Israel will be less safe unless the United States takes this action.
[end audio file]
Mike: Time out. I’ve heard all the reasons why. [mocking] “Come on, Mike, this is the Crusades. We have to defend Israel. They’re our biggest ally in the region.” There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says we have to defend any other country unless there is some kind of a treaty that we have agreed that is binding on the 50 states because three-quarters of the senators ratified it. Yes, I know about the post-World War II treaty. There’s another treaty out there. It doesn’t say anything about unilateral, unquestionable defense shield around the sovereign country of Israel must be provided every fiscal year by the United States. Why is this our concern? You’re going to hear Kerry in a moment say, [mocking Kerry] “When Israel was attacked, they were able to respond. They know what Hezbollah is up to here.” Aren’t you defeating your own argument?
[start audio file]
Kerry: Iran and Hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of Assad. [Mike: Why don’t you just say that Iran and the Boys Club of Cairo are two big allies of Assad? Hezbollah is not an entity, not a sovereign entity, not a sovereign country, and it cannot be, in the sense he’s using the word, an ally.] And Iran and Hezbollah are the two single biggest enemies of Israel. So if Iran and Hezbollah are advantaged by the United States not curbing Assad’s use of chemical weapons, there is a much greater likelihood that at some point down the road Hezbollah, who has been one of the principal reasons for a change in the situation on the ground, will have access to these weapons of mass destruction.
[end audio file]
Mike: This man has just lost his mind.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
[/private]
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 […]
Post comments (0)