New Film: Spirit of '76 - Constitutional drama (MUST SEE) [Archive]

Bucjason

12-04-2009, 08:42 AM

I agree with a lot of Mike Church's views, but he is SO fucking irritating in his over-the-top style. He's even worse than Limbaugh.

Also, Church doesn't think the Constitution applies to the people in Guantanamo, and does not want to try them in US courts.

Ummm , it doesn't .

The constitution is not the Constitution of the Planet Earth , it is the Constitution of the United States of America. Which, by it's very definition, means it only applies to Americans.

The Declaration of Independence DOES apply to all people , but not the constitution....

If your logic is correct , that everyone is protected by our constitution , then ANY country in the world that violates something in that document, let's say Freedom of speech , we have the right to ATTACK. If they are entitled to it's protections , then they also have the responsibility to obey it's laws. That logic is , of course , complete bullshit.

We have NEVER in our history tried foriegn prisoners of war in a U.S. court of law and given them access to all our constitutional rights. It's a dumb ass suggestion to even want to do so.

Chieppa1

12-04-2009, 11:22 AM

Mike Church has someone listen to the Left network so he can rip it apart. Not to mention he loves to get liberals on the line. :)

erowe1

12-04-2009, 11:43 AM

Ummm , it doesn't .

The constitution is not the Constitution of the Planet Earth , it is the Constitution of the United States of America. Which, by it's very definition, means it only applies to Americans.

The Declaration of Independence DOES apply to all people , but not the constitution....

If your logic is correct , that everyone is protected by our constitution , then ANY country in the world that violates something in that document, let's say Freedom of speech , we have the right to ATTACK. If they are entitled to it's protections , then they also have the responsibility to obey it's laws. That logic is , of course , complete bullshit.

We have NEVER in our history tried foriegn prisoners of war in a U.S. court of law and given them access to all our constitutional rights. It's a dumb ass suggestion to even want to do so.

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights, what rights it mentions are mere recognitions of rights that are given to all by God. And the leaders of other countries don't take oaths to uphold the Constitution. But for those leaders here who do take oaths to uphold it, it limits their powers (to the extent that they keep their oaths). If they keep their oaths, then their powers are limited in two ways: First of all their powers are limited because they are enumerated, so that they can only exercise those powers which are explicitly delegated to them in the Constitution. Second of all, their powers are limited by explicit exclusion of their being allowed to do things contrary to peoples' God given rights. They are not just prohibited from doing those things to American citizens. They are prohibited from doing them at all.

Matt Collins

12-04-2009, 08:47 PM

Mike Church is my favorite talk show host.

A constitutional historian who is very entertaining at the same time.

He alone is worth the price of SiriusXm radio....
He is the only real reason I continue to subscribe to Sirius.

Bucjason

12-07-2009, 07:09 AM

The Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights, what rights it mentions are mere recognitions of rights that are given to all by God. And the leaders of other countries don't take oaths to uphold the Constitution. But for those leaders here who do take oaths to uphold it, it limits their powers (to the extent that they keep their oaths). If they keep their oaths, then their powers are limited in two ways: First of all their powers are limited because they are enumerated, so that they can only exercise those powers which are explicitly delegated to them in the Constitution. Second of all, their powers are limited by explicit exclusion of their being allowed to do things contrary to peoples' God given rights. They are not just prohibited from doing those things to American citizens. They are prohibited from doing them at all.

You are correct , it doesn't grant rights. It simply gives a list of things THIS government can't do to it's citizens.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"To ourselves" is the key phrase here. No where in the constitution does it mention garanteed rights to enemy combatants from a foriegn land , or war criminals. Nor is there any precident for it , dating all the way back to the War of 1812.

Seriously , to suggest our constitution applies to every human being on the planet, including people who don't acknowledge or live under it's laws, is just stupid and wrong .

Matt Collins

12-07-2009, 10:23 AM

The preamble has no legal effect, you realize that, right?

maqsur

12-07-2009, 01:06 PM

I agree with a lot of Mike Church's views, but he is SO fucking irritating in his over-the-top style. He's even worse than Limbaugh.

Also, Church doesn't think the Constitution applies to the people in Guantanamo, and does not want to try them in US courts.

Isn't this view on Gitmo similar to Rand Paul's? I read he doesn't think they should be brought here to the US, because they are not citizens and don't get the same protections.

Matt Collins

12-07-2009, 02:43 PM

I agree with a lot of Mike Church's views, but he is SO fucking irritating in his over-the-top style. He's even worse than Limbaugh.Well he tries to be entertaining. That's his job.

Also, Church doesn't think the Constitution applies to the people in Guantanamo, and does not want to try them in US courts.Not everyone is Ron Paul (unfortunately).

Bucjason

12-07-2009, 03:12 PM

The preamble has no legal effect, you realize that, right?

You do realize it does helps to put the intent of the rest of it in context , right??

Southron

12-07-2009, 04:03 PM

erowe1

12-07-2009, 07:02 PM

You are correct , it doesn't grant rights. It simply gives a list of things THIS government can't do to it's citizens.

It not only limits what the government can do to its subjects (we can do better than euphemisms like "its citizens"). But it limits what it can do period. It cannot do what is not enumerated. And it cannot do what is excluded, many of which exclusions (such as the 5th amendment) not only refer to citizens but to all people. It is not given free reign to do what it is prohibited from doing for either of those reasons just because the vicitims in any given instance are not citizens.

erowe1

12-07-2009, 07:07 PM

Seriously , to suggest our constitution applies to every human being on the planet, including people who don't acknowledge or live under it's laws, is just stupid and wrong .

Nobody has suggested that. The only people our Constitution applies to are people in the three branches of the federal government. They take vows to circumscribe the powers they exercise according to what it says they can and cannot do. It is not the case that the Constitution claims to give infinite power to them except where the Constitution specifically limits it. Rather, it claims they have zero power except where we delegate it to them in the Constitution. And we cannot delegate to it a power we do not have to begin with, such as going around the rest of the countries of the world arresting people we're afraid of. The power to punish accused people without due process is not a power the Constitution delegates to the federal government with respect to anyone anywhere in the world, and in fact it explicitly prohibits this.

Matt Collins

12-07-2009, 11:34 PM

You do realize it does helps to put the intent of the rest of it in context , right??It also says "We The People" which is a blatant lie. It was by the States.

Mini-Me

12-07-2009, 11:41 PM

You are correct , it doesn't grant rights. It simply gives a list of things THIS government can't do to it's citizens.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"To ourselves" is the key phrase here. No where in the constitution does it mention garanteed rights to enemy combatants from a foriegn land , or war criminals. Nor is there any precident for it , dating all the way back to the War of 1812.

Seriously , to suggest our constitution applies to every human being on the planet, including people who don't acknowledge or live under it's laws, is just stupid and wrong .

I think you're looking at this kind of backwards though: Nowhere in the Constitution are any extra powers over "enemy combatants" ever authorized, nor is any definition even given for that wishy-washy and extraordinarily subjective term. Remember, the notion of enumerated powers was intended to be so ultimately binding that many felt a Bill of Rights would be redundant at best and even harmful at worst, because it might lead to the notion that the government can do whatever it wants as long as it isn't strictly prohibited...a notion which many people in fact believe, and a position which you seem to be selectively adopting on this particular issue. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included to reaffirm the fact that despite the addition of "shalt nots," the government can STILL only legally do what's specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8. Holding anyone - foreign or not - indefinitely without trial is most certainly not an enumerated power. Heck, if nothing else, the government is not authorized to tax us for that purpose. ;)

V4Vendetta

12-08-2009, 05:02 AM

Southron

12-08-2009, 06:40 AM

Bucjason

12-08-2009, 07:34 AM

It's a good debate over who is entitled to consitutional protections( even though I am right, hehe), but let's not highjack the intent of this thread:

To promote a great documentary , and the fact that Mike Church kicks ass .

erowe1

12-08-2009, 08:06 AM

Southron

12-08-2009, 09:29 AM

Btw , Ron Paul will be on his show tomorrow sometime. He just announced it.

Matt Collins

12-08-2009, 11:08 AM

Mike Church is a patriot. I really like all 3 of his audio dramas. His show alone is worth the price of Sirius.

A few reasons to listen to Church:
He endorsed Ron Paul.
He called Lincoln a tyrant.
He supports secession and nullification.
He is against the war in Afghanistan.

Mike interviews some of the most intelligent and educated guests too! I feel better educated after listening to his show. It's almost like an acidic version of Freedom Watch.

Matt Collins

12-08-2009, 06:07 PM

Here is a review of Mike's film Spirit of 1776:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/13114/spirit-of-76-thoughtful-look-into-americas-founding-constitution-is-great-history-lesson/

Bucjason

12-09-2009, 10:30 AM

I haven't seen any debate here about who is entitled to any protections. Just about whether or not we have through the Constitution delegated to the federal government the power to infringe upon the rights of people who are not US citizens. Surely you don't think that simply not wronging a person is the same as giving them some kind of protection.

Our constitution has no jurisdiction over anyone except American citizens. PERIOD.

The rights of all Human beings are not recognized by that sheet of paper , only the rights of the Americans living under it.

We have NO legal obligation to provide habeaus corpus and trial by jury of peers to enemy combatants that are trying to destroy the very document that pronounces those rights. If this was the case , that all constitutional rights apply to all foriegners, then every soldier in every war in our history could be charged with MURDER, for violating the enemies right to live, unless they could prove they acted in self defense.

Enemy combatants have ALWAYS been tried by military tribunal in this country, dating back to the founding. Stop being a moron and use your head...

"General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution. Commissions were also used by General (and later President) Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled "Councils of War," were also used in the Mexican-American War.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for eight German prisoners accused of planning sabotage in the United States as part of Operation Pastorius. Roosevelt's decision was challenged, but upheld, in Ex parte Quirin. All eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to death. Six were executed by electric chair at the District of Columbia jail on August 8, 1942. Two who had given evidence against the others had their sentences reduced by Roosevelt to prison terms. In 1948, they were released and deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.

All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants."

Matthew Zak

12-09-2009, 11:32 AM

I never heard of Church until today. Can he be considered a significant person in the movement, or is he just an outsider like Glen Beck?

erowe1

12-09-2009, 11:39 AM

Our constitution has no jurisdiction over anyone except American citizens. PERIOD.

The rights of all Human beings are not recognized by that sheet of paper , only the rights of the Americans living under it.

We have NO legal obligation to provide habeaus corpus and trial by jury of peers to enemy combatants that are trying to destroy the very document that pronounces those rights. If this was the case , that all constitutional rights apply to all foriegners, then every soldier in every war in our history could be charged with MURDER, for violating the enemies right to live, unless they could prove they acted in self defense.

Enemy combatants have ALWAYS been tried by military tribunal in this country, dating back to the founding. Stop being a moron and use your head...

"General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution. Commissions were also used by General (and later President) Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled "Councils of War," were also used in the Mexican-American War.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for eight German prisoners accused of planning sabotage in the United States as part of Operation Pastorius. Roosevelt's decision was challenged, but upheld, in Ex parte Quirin. All eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to death. Six were executed by electric chair at the District of Columbia jail on August 8, 1942. Two who had given evidence against the others had their sentences reduced by Roosevelt to prison terms. In 1948, they were released and deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.

All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants."

The Constitution doesn't postitively grant any rights to anyone that they don't already have. It limits the powers of members of the federal government (provided they keep their oaths). It is not the case that our government has infinite power over the universe with the Constitution serving merely to grant US citizens exceptional rights to be free from that government's despotism, while government officials still have authority to do whateverthey want to anyone they want as long as they don't classify their victims as US citizens. Nor can it be said, based on any conceivable reading of it, that the Constitution delegates that kind of power to them.

The fact that presidents who did not want to keep their powers so limited claimed that they did have that infinite authority that was only limited in areas that they didn't want to exercise it proives nothing except the very unsurprising fact that they did not wish to keep their powers limited by their promises to uphold the Constitution.

Bucjason

12-09-2009, 12:32 PM

Which part of the constitution is it that you keep referring to that claims it applies to every person in the entire world??

Show to it me and I'll change my opinion.

If you want to argue that the constitution SHOULD protect everyone , that is debatable , but if you are trying to tell me that it already does , you are patently wrong. History alone bears that out. Our founders would have known thier intent better than any of us . All of them were still alive for George Washington's tribunals. Many of them were still alive for the tribunals during the War of 1812 . If your interpretation is correct, why did NONE of them speak out against it ?? They did NOT. The precidint was set by our founders themselves.

erowe1

12-09-2009, 12:47 PM

Which part of the constitution is it that you keep referring to that claims it applies to every person in the entire world??
.

None. I never made any such claim.

As I have said here repeatedly the group of people the Constitution applies to is a relatively small group. It is the people who occupy various positions in the federal government and as such take oaths to keep their powers limited only to those delegated to them in the Constitution.

The order of freedoms and limitations of freedom that the Cosntitution recognizes is one that recognizes that individuals have infinite rights to be free from all government burdens except where laws passed according to the Constitution explicitly limit their freedoms, whereas the government has zero rights over anyone anywhere except where powers are explicitly granted to it.

It is not the case that the Costitution grants to members of the federal government infinite rights to do whatever they want to whomever they want, except against American citizens, whom it graciously grants the right to be free from a few specific abuses that those members of government may want to commit against them, and which those members of the government may still go on committing against non-citizens whom the Constitution hasn't granted those special rights.

To say that the federal government has the right to detain suspects of crimes indefintiely without trials, unless those suspects are American citizens, is to grant to that government a power that the Constitution does not grant it. So, even if the Constitution did not explicity prohibit this, it would still be unconstitutional. Thus, it really doesn't matter if the word "person" in the 4th and 5th amendments really only means "citizen," since the rights that those amendments recognize are ours inherently, and would be ours even if the Bill of Rights were not in the Cosntitution at all. And the prohibition of the federal government exercising powers in contradition to those rights against anyone anywhere, citizen or not, would be just as much prohibited by the Constitution even if the Bill of Rights weren't in it at all.

Bucjason

12-09-2009, 01:03 PM

I just finished giving you the undeniable history of this country , including the actions of the founders themselves in this matter. Yet you still claim you are right.

So , you obviously know more about the intent of the constitution than the people who actually wrote it ?? Wow, that's impressive.

Even more impressive is the ignorance of anyone to think that , during times of war, enemy combatants should be "innocent until proven guilty ", and before a jury of thier peers ( paid for by, us, the taxpayer ) be proven beyond ANY reasonable doubt that it was actually THIER gun that fired a shot on the battlefield, etc. etc.

That , frankly , is just plain stupid.

Guitarzan

12-09-2009, 01:04 PM

I never heard of Church until today. Can he be considered a significant person in the movement, or is he just an outsider like Glen Beck?

I started listening to Church during the 07 primaries. He, like most conservatives, didn't like RP's foreign policy at first, but it unlike others, he looked into it and gradually came around. I wouldn't say that he's totally in line with it, but he does understand that war is the health of the state. He spoke many times about losing listeners when speaking about a non-interventionalist foreign policy, and stated that if that's the case, so be it and that he wouldn't compromise his principles. He also understands the damages of fiat currency and is with us in regards to the fed.

He spoke many times of RP stating that he was the true conservative in the race. And in the end he caucused for RP in Louisiana.

He's the real deal. He considers himself more of a paleoconservative than libertarian. He often has RP, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman on his show. He's very well-read in American history, understands the Philosophy of Liberty. I always learn something from his shows.

I also think he's hilarious fwiw....

Bottom line is that he's an ally, should be thought of as such, and could be a tremendous help to our cause.

erowe1

12-09-2009, 01:16 PM

I just finished giving you the undeniable history of this country , including the actions of the founders themselves in this matter.

You pointed to a few examples of presidents who behaved as though they had rights that the Constitution doesn't delegate to them. But this isn't a question about what various presidents did, but about what the Constitution says. The Constitution is there for all to read. Just because any given president exercised any given power doesn't mean that it's a power the Constitution claims that president had, unless we are to assume that all American presidents always limited their powers to what the Constitution said they had.

Southron

12-09-2009, 02:10 PM

I never heard of Church until today. Can he be considered a significant person in the movement, or is he just an outsider like Glen Beck?

Mike Church is not a neoconservative. He is MUCH closer to a libertarian than Beck imo.

While Beck flirts with libertarian ideas Church promotes them-including non-interventionist foreign policy. He deserves much more attention than he gets! He regularly has columnists from Lew Rockwell's site on his show. He had a great interview today with Dr. Paul.

Transcripts should be posted later on today at http://www.mikechurch.com/joomla/index.php

Matt Collins

12-09-2009, 06:52 PM

Mike just interviewed Ron today:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=222190

Matt Collins

12-10-2009, 11:46 AM

wow, thanks for posting this. I have a friend that kept telling me to check out mike church, but I kept forgetting. Mainly because i never herd of him before, and the same friend is a big fan of Glenn Beck.... so i pretty much dissmissed it.

But man, I guess I will have to check him out. Based on the preview i am going to order a copy of the DVD on payday. Also, how can a person listen to mike church? is he only on Sirius?
Yeah same here. A friend of mine kept telling me to listen to this guy, and when I was in the car with him he finally turned it on and forced me to listen and I liked it. Mike is a great host and is definitely one of us. He is on XM / Sirius or you can visit his website (which is a bit goofy ha ha ha) at http://www.MikeChurch.com

Matt Collins

12-13-2009, 11:53 AM

Yeah you will need Sirius. He only plays on xm on a rerun at night I believe.

He is on 9am-12 eastern on Sirius so you might consider a stiletto. I believe it would allow you to record his show if you don't have the morning hours available to listen.I've got a friend who records Mike every day and then puts it on an FTP server. When I am not in my car I simply grab it off the FTP server and listen on my computer when I can.

Matt Collins

12-14-2009, 01:56 PM

let's not highjack the intent of this thread:

To promote a great documentary , and the fact that Mike Church kicks ass .Anyone who has his own brand of cigars must be awesome! :D

Matt Collins

12-14-2009, 06:54 PM

Matt Collins

12-15-2009, 11:46 AM

Our constitution has no jurisdiction over anyone except American citizens. PERIOD.

The rights of all Human beings are not recognized by that sheet of paper , only the rights of the Americans living under it.
Well the DoI actually mentions that humans have inaleinable rights so there must be some sort of extension of that to every human, American citizen or not. In other words everyone is entitled to some sort of due process if they are to be tried by this government, unless of course we are in a declared state of war, right?

Southron

12-15-2009, 04:54 PM

I've got a friend who records Mike every day and then puts it on an FTP server. When I am not in my car I simply grab it off the FTP server and listen on my computer when I can.

That's pretty sweet. My job allows me to listen live all 3 hours. If I ever change jobs I'm gonna have to figure out something like that to do.

I believe I heard him say today they are revamping the website soon.

Bucjason

12-16-2009, 10:47 AM

Well the DoI actually mentions that humans have inaleinable rights so there must be some sort of extension of that to every human, American citizen or not. In other words everyone is entitled to some sort of due process if they are to be tried by this government, unless of course we are in a declared state of war, right?

The Declaration and the Constitution are two totally different documents. The DOI DOES apply to all people, and refers to every persons right to rebel against oppressive government if god-given rights are violated.

The Constitution simply administers a system of government and protections for THIS particular union of states , and the people living in them. Period.

In a time of war, no where does the Consitution grant it's protections to foriegn enemy combatants. The precident for how we treat foriegn POW's dates all the way back to George Washington and the revolutionary war. Look it up yourselves. I'm really tired of arguing about this.

Galileo Galilei

12-16-2009, 04:11 PM

The preamble has no legal effect, you realize that, right?

Not true. Any law in violation fo the preamble is unconstitional.

Galileo Galilei

12-16-2009, 04:15 PM

It also says "We The People" which is a blatant lie. It was by the States.

Wrong. The state legislatures did not ratify the Constitution. Elections were held outside of the framework of the state legislatures to elect representatives representing the People to ratifying conventions.

The Constutution defends individual liberty.

Galileo Galilei

12-16-2009, 04:31 PM

The Declaration and the Constitution are two totally different documents. The DOI DOES apply to all people, and refers to every persons right to rebel against oppressive government if god-given rights are violated.

The Constitution simply administers a system of government and protections for THIS particular union of states , and the people living in them. Period.

In a time of war, no where does the Consitution grant it's protections to foriegn enemy combatants. The precident for how we treat foriegn POW's dates all the way back to George Washington and the revolutionary war. Look it up yourselves. I'm really tired of arguing about this.

The U.S. officials have to follow the Constitution no matter where they are, even at Gitmo.

Bucjason

12-17-2009, 02:04 PM

The U.S. officials have to follow the Constitution no matter where they are, even at Gitmo.

Only if dealing with americans . The constitution has no jurisdiction over foriegners...they aren't required to obey it's laws, therefore they aren't entitled to it's protections.

You can not show me a single time in this nation's history when prisoner's of war were granted full constitutional rights, including when our founders were still in charge. Therefore you are wrong, PERIOD.

Seriously, what part of this don't you guys understand??

Danke

12-17-2009, 09:35 PM

Only if dealing with americans .

Where is "american" defined?

Bucjason

12-18-2009, 08:59 AM

Where is "american" defined?

We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not convincing enough for you ?? Go look at the precidint , and the logic of doing it differently:

"General Washington used a military tribunal to try and hang Major John Andre, the British spy and emissary to Benedict Arnold. FDR used military tribunals to try Nazi saboteurs put ashore from U-boats. Six Nazis were executed.

Some now argue that the Nazi saboteurs should have been tried in civilian court. But suppose instead of six, it had been 600 Nazis. Suppose Tojo had put ashore 1,000 “kamikaze tourists” in 1941 with orders to run amok, bombing and killing, to create panic in America as soon as Japan attacked. Would each and every Nazi and Japanese saboteur have been entitled to his own separate civilian trial?

Have those demanding civilian trials for foreign terrorists thought through the logic of their position? They are saying it is permissible to drop a 15,000 pound daisy-cutter bomb on Osama bin Laden and his extended family in Kandahar, but if he makes it to U.S. soil and blows up the Sears Tower, the families of his victims must pay for his defense and his trial can be carried on Court TV. "
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-military-tribunals-a-wartime-necessity-398

Ridiculous.

Danke

12-18-2009, 09:58 AM

So it is not defined or you can't find its definition.

erowe1

12-18-2009, 10:09 AM

The Judge and RP take the right stand on this (there are tons of examples but here are a couple):
YouTube - Judge Napolitano Analyzes the Supreme Court Gitmo Ruling! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWJT3Dwfqo)
YouTube - Ron Paul & Judge Napolitano - Guantanamo Bay & Credit Card Regulation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T90_N_VF3k4)

RP makes a great point at about 2 minutes into the second one. Our government went to Pakistan to arrest the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993 and tried them in our civilian courts and are imprisoned them in our federal prison system. Where were all the people saying then, "Hey! You shouldn't be recognizing their rights to habeas corpus! They're not citizens!"?

erowe1

12-18-2009, 10:10 AM

They are saying it is permissible to drop a 15,000 pound daisy-cutter bomb on Osama bin Laden and his extended family in Kandahar.

They are?

Matt Collins

12-18-2009, 12:22 PM

Not true. Any law in violation fo the preamble is unconstitional.
No... the Preamble has no legal effect, and is not law. Everything after it is law. The Preamble is just language there that says why they are passing the following law, but it's not the law itself.

Bucjason

12-18-2009, 02:12 PM

So it is not defined or you can't find its definition.

So , you can't read , or you just can't comprehend ?

Bucjason

12-18-2009, 02:17 PM

The Judge and RP take the right stand on this (there are tons of examples but here are a couple):

No actually Rand has it right.

You insist you are right ....well , tell it to George Washington and the Founders, who obviously felt differently, because after they WROTE the constitution they used tribunals to try British war criminals.

erowe1

12-18-2009, 02:20 PM

No actually Rand has it right.

You insist you are right ....well , tell it to George Washington and the Founders, who obviously felt differently, because after they WROTE the constitution they used tribunals to try British war criminals.

George Washington wrote the Cosntitution?

And even if he did, since when does anything Washington did as president have anything to do with what is and isn't constitutional? Are we supposed to say that anything Washington did is constitutional automatically just because Washington did it?

Bucjason

12-18-2009, 02:32 PM

Read it and weep:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major John Andre
British spy of American Revolution
1750 - 1780
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"John André, British soldier executed as a spy during the American Revolution, was born in London, May 2, 1750, of a Genevese father and Parisian mother. He was a younger friend of the poet Anna Seward and became engaged to her friend, the beautiful Honora Sneyd. When the engagement was terminated, without heartbreak on either side, André bought a commission in the army in January, 1771. He studied military engineering at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and traveled on the continent until 1774 when he joined his regiment in Quebec.

Taken prisoner in the surrender of Fort St. John's on November 3, 1775, André was interned in central Pennsylvania until exchanged at the end of 1776. He then went to New York, was promoted to captain and became aide to the notorious General Charles Grey. He Was active in the successful Philadelphia campaign, 1777, and during the winter occupation of the city promoted various entertainments and wrote light verse. After the British forces evacuated Philadelphia and returned to New York, André became aide to General Sir Henry Clinton, the new commander-in-chief.

In May 1779 the American general Benedict Arnold offered his services to the British in return for pay and equal rank. As André was in charge of intelligence and knew Mrs. Arnold, he carried on the secret correspondence. It was broken off in October because the British would not commit themselves on payments. André became deputy adjutant general with the rank of major. He sailed to Charleston, South Carolina, with General Clinton in December and took part in the siege of that city. Upon his return to New York in June 1780 he found a new note from Arnold stating that he expected to obtain the command of West Point.

André arranged to meet Arnold under the misuse of a flag of truce. They met up the Hudson river on the night of September 21 and agreed on the sum of £20,000 for the surrender of West Point, including the garrison and supplies. Half that amount was to be paid if Arnold should fail and join the British empty-handed. As the British sloop Vulture which brought André to the rendevous was fired upon and forced to drop downstream, André was compelled to pass the night within American lines. The next day he was persuaded to exchange his uniform for a civilian disguise and to set out overland for New york, carrying a pass provided by Arnold. Suspicious American militiamen stopped and searched him on the morning of September 23 and found papers about West Point in his boot. They held him while word was innocently sent to the fort, enabling Arnold to to escape down river to the British lines.

The stunning disclosure left André as scapegoat. Out of uniform and in disguise, he was clearly acting the role of a spy and could be executed immediately, but General Washington moved cautiously. He convened a board of officers which included Major General Marquis de Lafayette to examine the prisoner. The board concluded that André "ought to be considered a spy, and that, agreeable to the law and usuage of nations, it is their opinion he ought to suffer death." During the few days' delay, word was carried to Clinton that André could be saved if Arnold were given up. Clinton refused the tempting proposition. Washington's chief aide, Alexander Hamilton, who had met several times with André and was impressed with the charm and sincerity of the British officer, asked Washington to honor André's request and the propriety of the times and place the prisoner before a firing squad instead of hanging. But whether it was Washington's anger at Arnold or his recollections of Nathan Hale, he would not relent. André was hanged at Tappan, New York, on October 2, 1780. "

wow, interesting ....so where was this public outcry from the likes of Thomas Jefferson , James Madison , etc., declaring that Andre' was denied his constitutional rights ??

There was no outcry from these framers . WHY?? Because foriegn P.O.W.s don't apply to the constitution !! Your argument is based solely in emotion . Yes, it feels good to say you "believe in equal constitutional rights for EVERYONE". Well, you can feel it SHOULD be that way all you like, but the fact is, it is not, as our constitution currently stands , and it has NEVER been in the history of the country.

erowe1

12-18-2009, 02:38 PM

wow, interesting ....so where was this public outcry from the likes of Thomas Jefferson , James Madison , etc., declaring that Andre' was denied his constitutional rights ??

There was no outcry from these framers . WHY?? Because foriegn P.O.W.s don't apply to the constitution !!

Ahh, so now it wasn't Washington who wrote the Constitution like it supposedly was a minute ago, it was Madison and Hamilton. At least we're making some progress here.

But that still does not resolve the main point, which is that the meaning of the Constitution is not determined by what its framers did when they were in positions of power under its authority. Surely you don't mean to say that everything Hamilton supported during Washington's tenure as president was constitutional, do you?

Bucjason

12-18-2009, 02:48 PM

Of course Washington didn't write it by himself , but he WAS a delegate at the CON CON and he DID sign on to and vote for it. He also heard ALL the debates, so he would know better than ALL of us what original intent was.

...and you still can't answer the question. Why did Thomas Jefferson and Madison not object ?? They were there watching the 1st military tribunals happen before thier eyes. I'll tell you why , because they AGREED with it.

Bucjason

12-18-2009, 02:56 PM

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

- Rand Paul

erowe1

12-18-2009, 02:58 PM

Why did Thomas Jefferson and Madison not object ?? They were there watching the 1st military tribunals happen before thier eyes. I'll tell you why , because they AGREED with it.

So what if they agreed with it?

Once again, that has nothing at all to do with its rightness or wrongness or its constitutionality.

And I notice that you didn't mention Hamilton this time. I wonder why that is.

Incidentally, this whole anecdote really has nothing to do with the claim that you initially introduced it as supposedly supporting, which was that the Constitution only limits the powers the government can exercise against US citizens and that it is without limit in the things it can do to noncitizens. I have trouble seeing how you can leap to that conclusion even if it were granted that Washington's use of military tribunals for British soldiers were constitutional.

Matt Collins

12-20-2009, 03:16 PM

Wrong. The state legislatures did not ratify the Constitution. Elections were held outside of the framework of the state legislatures to elect representatives representing the People to ratifying conventions.The People never voted on the Constitution, their representatives did. The People didn't pass the PATRIOT ACT, members of Congress did. We are not a direct democracy with referendums and the Constitution was not put into place by the People, but instead by their representatives. It might seem like an insignificant point, but it is very important to keep in mind.

Matt Collins

12-20-2009, 10:37 PM

Mike Church NEEDS OUR HELP!!!

SiriusXM is running a special opinion poll. So of course we want you to vote for your favorite SiriusXM radio star, which of course is Constitutional talk show host Mike Church.

If you have a Sirius or XM subscription, please go to this website and vote for Mike (he will be listed with Andrew Wilkow) Select "Have dinner with Andrew Wilkow and Mike Church"

Vote for Mike! And a big thank you for each of you who vote. Get your friends to vote too!

[/URL]http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Contest&cid=1258752022325 (http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Contest&cid=1258752022325) < (http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Contest&cid=1258752022325)[URL="http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Contest&cid=1258752022325%3E"]http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Contest&cid=1258752022325> (http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Contest&cid=1258752022325%3E)

Copy and paste this link into your browser and lets beat everyone else!

Matt Collins

12-22-2009, 10:31 PM

This makes a great Christmas present!

Matt Collins

12-28-2009, 01:14 PM

The U.S. officials have to follow the Constitution no matter where they are, even at Gitmo.
Exactly. The federal government is bound by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it secures some rights from federal encroachment, but mostly it tells the federal government how it is to behave; and in reality it's a negative authority document greatly restricting the federal government. Now if we could only get people to pay attention to it.

Bucjason

12-29-2009, 07:45 AM

So what if they agreed with it?

Once again, that has nothing at all to do with its rightness or wrongness or its constitutionality.

.

Actually it has everything to do with it , because they WROTE IT , genius...

Who better to speak on it's constitutionality.

By the way, I actually agree that rights should apply to ALL . However , it is untruthful to say that the rights of ALL are protected by the United States COnstitution. It doesn't have the jurisdiction. It just doesn't , period.

Not to mention , the laws protecting average citizens against government encroachment are totally UNREALISTIC in a time of war. For example: can you imagine winning a major military battle , in which you totally take the enemy by suprise and capture 10,000 of it's solidiers.
Can you imagine bringing all 10,000 soldiers back to the states for a jury trial of "peers" , and trying to garantee it is speedy?? Can you imagine the enourmous cost to the tax payer, or the crippling red-tape the military would be burdened with( shipping active soldiers and officers back home to testify, etc. )?? Come on people...look beyond the emotion and use some common sense...

Matt Collins

12-29-2009, 09:16 PM

Only if dealing with americans . The constitution has no jurisdiction over foriegners...they aren't required to obey it's laws, therefore they aren't entitled to it's protections.

You can not show me a single time in this nation's history when prisoner's of war were granted full constitutional rights, including when our founders were still in charge. Therefore you are wrong, PERIOD.

Seriously, what part of this don't you guys understand??Except that the government does not consider those at GTMO to be "prisoners of war"

Matt Collins

01-04-2010, 12:52 PM

Apparently it's a best seller on Amazon.com

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=225200

Matt Collins

01-08-2010, 01:04 AM

Where is "american" defined?From my understanding it would be someone who is a citizen of the US as defined by Congress/14th Amendment.

erowe1

01-08-2010, 08:10 AM

Actually it has everything to do with it , because they WROTE IT , genius...

Who better to speak on it's constitutionality.

But the claim you have made is not just that those who wrote the Constitution knew what it meant, but that all they did was constitutional. Just being in a privileged position to know what it means doesn't ensure that someone would keep their oaths.

Your argument is like saying that any person who has entered into any contract that they participated in writing can never be accused of having broken the terms of that contract because they are in a better position to interpret that contract properly than their accusers are. Accepting this argument would effectively emasculate almost all contracts.

By the way, I actually agree that rights should apply to ALL . However , it is untruthful to say that the rights of ALL are protected by the United States COnstitution. It doesn't have the jurisdiction. It just doesn't , period.

In order for the Constitution to limit the authority of federal agents to abuse the rights of foreigners, it doesn't need to have jurisdiction over those foreigners, it only needs to have jurisdiction over those agents of the federal government whose powers would be thus limited. And that is precisely the jurisdiction that it does have.

It is not the case that the Constitution only limits agents of the federal government in regards to how they treat US citizens, while granting them infinite powers to do whatever they want to anyone they want for any reason they want, so long as their victims are not US citizens.

erowe1

01-08-2010, 08:16 AM

Can you imagine bringing all 10,000 soldiers back to the states for a jury trial of "peers" , and trying to garantee it is speedy?? Can you imagine the enourmous cost to the tax payer, or the crippling red-tape the military would be burdened with( shipping active soldiers and officers back home to testify, etc. )?? Come on people...look beyond the emotion and use some common sense...

People who enter the military consent to give up their rights. People minding their own business who get kidnapped from their homes because they were identified as terrorist sympathizers by a person who got paid a bounty for doing so without any proof of their having done anything wrong do not.

Bucjason

01-08-2010, 08:31 AM

erowe1

01-08-2010, 08:44 AM

When you join the muslim religion you also consent to giving up your rights. Your only right is to hide your face and serve allah..

http://thumb10.shutterstock.com.edgesuite.net/display_pic_with_logo/167776/167776,1201000392,8/stock-photo-burka-and-barbwire-8768407.jpg

They do not live or play by our rules . They reject the constitution. If you offered them the constitution they would read the 1st amendment and then set fire to the entire document.

Who is this "they"? Is it all Muslims? What has our government done to ensure that all the people it kidnaps are part of this "them"? Can a US citizen be a part of
"them"? And if so, does that mean that everything you've been saying so far about the federal government being unlimited in what it can do against non-US citizens also applies to US citizens if these US citizens are part of "them"?

It doesn't matter if "they" accept or care about the Constitution. "They" aren't the people whose powers are supposed to be limited by it. It's the federal agents who do accept the Constitution and who take oaths to uphold it whose powers are limited by it.

Bucjason

01-08-2010, 08:55 AM

Who is this "they"? Is it all Muslims? What has our government done to ensure that all the people it kidnaps are part of this "them"? Can a US citizen be a part of
"them"? And if so, does that mean that everything you've been saying so far about the federal government being unlimited in what it can do against non-US citizens also applies to US citizens if these US citizens are part of "them"?

It doesn't matter if "they" accept or care about the Constitution. "They" aren't the people whose powers are supposed to be limited by it. It's the federal agents who do accept the Constitution and who take oaths to uphold it whose powers are limited by it.

No, every american citizen is protected from it's government by the constitution, NO ONE ELSE IS.

You may not like it , you may think it is unfair , but it is true. Just ask the Native Americans ( Indians)...

erowe1

01-08-2010, 09:57 AM

No, every american citizen is protected from it's government by the constitution, NO ONE ELSE IS.

You may not like it , you may think it is unfair , but it is true. Just ask the Native Americans ( Indians)...

You keep mixing up the question of whether the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to abuse the rights of noncitizens with the question of whether the federal government ever has abused the rights of noncitizens.

There is no disputing the point that the federal government has abused the rights of many people, citizen and noncitizen alike from the days of Washington until now. But that doesn't make it constitutional.

In order for it to be constitutional for federal agents to go to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want to anyone they want who isn't a US citizen, the Constitution would have to say essentially, "We the people of the USA delegate to the federal government our right to do whatever we want for whatever reason we want to whomever we want, so long as that person is not a US citizen." Of course this would be a strange sentence, since this right is not one that the people of the USA have to begin with, so as to be able to delegate it to the federal government. But that is what would have to be true for such things to be constitutional.

Matt Collins

01-08-2010, 01:52 PM

RP makes a great point at about 2 minutes into the second one. Our government went to Pakistan to arrest the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993 and tried them in our civilian courts and are imprisoned them in our federal prison system. Where were all the people saying then, "Hey! You shouldn't be recognizing their rights to habeas corpus! They're not citizens!"?
It's also my understanding that the federal government has never lost a terrorist trial held in civilian federal courts. I don't believe the same is true for military tribunals.

erowe1

01-08-2010, 02:07 PM

And how about the Christmas bomber?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8448367.stm

Where are all the people protesting that he shouldn't get a trial because he's not a citizen?

Bucjason

01-08-2010, 05:03 PM

Erowe, this is somthing we've done as a country since the begining , and it's never really been challenged or questioned, so I am having a hard time being convinced that this protection of foriegners was ever implied somewhere. How did George Washington get away with tribunals , with all the founding fathers sitting there watching it all happen??

Can you point to some supreme court case that backs your opinion?? Can you point to some writings of the founders that supports it ?? If you can , maybe I will change my mind. If not, then we must agree to disagree....

Matt Collins

01-11-2010, 01:57 PM

Ahh, so now it wasn't Washington who wrote the Constitution like it supposedly was a minute ago, it was Madison and Hamilton. At least we're making some progress here.

But that still does not resolve the main point, which is that the meaning of the Constitution is not determined by what its framers did when they were in positions of power under its authority. Surely you don't mean to say that everything Hamilton supported during Washington's tenure as president was constitutional, do you?
Very good point. I think every President ignored/violated the Constitution in at least minor ways multiple times, and most Presidents did so in major ways. Even Jefferson didn't strictly adhere to it unfortunately :(

Matt Collins

01-12-2010, 08:47 AM

Not to mention , the laws protecting average citizens against government encroachment are totally UNREALISTIC in a time of war. For example: can you imagine winning a major military battle , in which you totally take the enemy by suprise and capture 10,000 of it's solidiers.
Can you imagine bringing all 10,000 soldiers back to the states for a jury trial of "peers" , and trying to garantee it is speedy?? Can you imagine the enourmous cost to the tax payer, or the crippling red-tape the military would be burdened with( shipping active soldiers and officers back home to testify, etc. )?? Come on people...look beyond the emotion and use some common sense...
They would be called prisoners of war though, not terrorists or enemy combatants.

Matt Collins

01-14-2010, 09:07 PM

No, every american citizen is protected from it's government by the constitution, NO ONE ELSE IS.Not exactly. The Constitution restricts the government's actions. It doesn't say who it doesn't apply too.

Matt Collins

01-15-2010, 08:29 AM

You keep mixing up the question of whether the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to abuse the rights of noncitizens with the question of whether the federal government ever has abused the rights of noncitizens.

There is no disputing the point that the federal government has abused the rights of many people, citizen and noncitizen alike from the days of Washington until now. But that doesn't make it constitutional.

In order for it to be constitutional for federal agents to go to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want to anyone they want who isn't a US citizen, the Constitution would have to say essentially, "We the people of the USA delegate to the federal government our right to do whatever we want for whatever reason we want to whomever we want, so long as that person is not a US citizen." Of course this would be a strange sentence, since this right is not one that the people of the USA have to begin with, so as to be able to delegate it to the federal government. But that is what would have to be true for such things to be constitutional.
Exactly.

The document is seen as a negative authority. It is designed to restrict the government, not to empower it.

Matt Collins

01-20-2010, 11:43 PM

And how about the Christmas bomber?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8448367.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8448367.stm)

Where are all the people protesting that he shouldn't get a trial because he's not a citizen?
Yeah exactly. In fact I am surprised they didn't torture the guy to try to get more intel out of him. But he was too high profile for that, he'd be on TV again and they couldn't have any broken limbs, bruises, etc.

Matt Collins

01-21-2010, 12:52 PM

Erowe, this is somthing we've done as a country since the begining , and it's never really been challenged or questioned, so I am having a hard time being convinced that this protection of foriegners was ever implied somewhere. How did George Washington get away with tribunals , with all the founding fathers sitting there watching it all happen??
Well I think they were trying military of foreign governments, right?

Matt Collins

02-15-2010, 06:32 PM

Mike Church defended Medina and slammed Beck last Friday. We need to support him!

mediahasyou

02-15-2010, 08:54 PM

The constitution was written and ratified from 1786 to 1788, not in 1776. ahahah

Matt Collins

02-16-2010, 10:07 AM

The constitution was written and ratified from 1786 to 1788, not in 1776. ahahahOf course it was, but it largely embodied the spirit of 1776 that existed during the road to independence.

Cowlesy

03-07-2010, 06:04 PM

I'm going to do a review of this movie, but if one wishes to understand the major disagreements from the founding fathers own words, you need to watch this movie.

I always look at talk-radio hosts as rodeo clowns (I tune in to be entertained), but Mike Church has produced a brilliant documentary of the convention that brought us the Constitution.

Stay tuned for a review, but this is well worth the purchase. It's refreshing that a documentary uses so many direct quotations with only minimal interpretation, leaving the watcher to draw his own conclusions (yes there is commentary and opinion in it, but it flows very well with the script of the documentary).

Man it would be great if we could get more people to tune in and listen to Church. It's entertaining and informative.

Matt Collins

03-07-2010, 06:33 PM

Man it would be great if we could get more people to tune in and listen to Church. He would either have to be widespread on terrestrial radio, or do a podcast. Pure speculation, but I think that would involve breaking his exclusivity agreement with Sirius which probably won't happen. :(

He's got great credibility by having a nationwide audience on satellite radio, except that his audience is very narrow and limited because of it. There arn't more than a few million subscribers, if even that, and it would be a good bet that most, other than truckers, are not interested in Mike's ideas. In other words I think those who are more urban, and thus more progressive, would be more likely to purchase satellite radio - not exactly Mike's niche market. The advantage is that he has mid morning/late-morning-drive time in the eastern half of the country which is a prime spot.

Convincing people to purchase a Sirius receiver and year long subscription just to listen to Mike is nearly impossible. I honestly hardly ever listen to him except when I am taking a cross country trip (a couple of times a month). I can't get it inside my place, and since I live and work in an urban area I have to move my satellite radio off my dash in order to deter theft - my last one was stolen out of my work parking lot, at a terrestrial radio station nonetheless ha ha ha. :p But my drive to work is under 15 minutes and I'm usually on the phone while in transit within town so it isn't worth it for me to have to restup my satellite radio each and every day and then remove it while my vehicle is parked in the parking lot at work... grrr.. :mad:

In short it's highly inconvenient to listen to Mike and that's his biggest challenge.

.

Cowlesy

03-07-2010, 06:40 PM

He would either have to be widespread on terrestrial radio, or do a podcast. Pure speculation, but I think that would involve breaking his exclusivity agreement with Sirius which probably won't happen. :(

He's got great credibility by having a nationwide audience on satellite radio, except that his audience is very narrow and limited because of it. There arn't more than a few million subscribers, if even that, and it would be a good bet that most, other than truckers, are not interested in Mike's ideas. In other words I think those who are more urban, and thus more progressive, would be more likely to purchase satellite radio - not exactly Mike's niche market. The advantage is that he has mid morning/late-morning-drive time in the eastern half of the country which is a prime spot.

Convincing people to purchase a Sirius receiver and year long subscription just to listen to Mike is nearly impossible. I honestly hardly ever listen to him except when I am taking a cross country trip (a couple of times a month). I can't get it inside my place, and since I live and work in an urban area I have to move my satellite radio off my dash in order to deter theft - my last one was stolen out of my work parking lot, at a terrestrial radio station nonetheless ha ha ha. :p But my drive to work is under 15 minutes and I'm usually on the phone while in transit within town so it isn't worth it for me to have to restup my satellite radio each and every day and then remove it while my vehicle is parked in the parking lot at work... grrr.. :mad:

In short it's highly inconvenient to listen to Mike and that's his biggest challenge.

.

Well I have no idea how radio-listener demographics operate, let alone satellite-radio, but it's easy to listen on my online-player for Sirius. I plan to keep the subscription when my 30-day free trial is over.

I don't know if anyone can actually sit, concentrate, and listen to the show for a full 3 hours, because 99% of the audience I imagine is working, other than retirees (of which how many listen to satellite radio, honestly?). I'm in to work about 8am and then in-out of meetings/calls all the way until 6pm or later, but in the morning when I'm at my desk working, I have it in the background, and I get lots of good laughs with the Louisiana-accent.

But all those radio shows who say they present a "Constitutional" viewpoint, have nothing on his show.

Matt Collins

03-07-2010, 06:49 PM

Well I have no idea how radio-listener demographics operate, let alone satellite-radio, but it's easy to listen on my online-player for Sirius. I plan to keep the subscription when my 30-day free trial is over. Subscription + Inernet listening is $3/month extra. I have a way to capture the audio anyway, so I don't need that.

But all those radio shows who say they present a "Constitutional" viewpoint, have nothing on his show.Damn straight! :D

.

Southron

03-07-2010, 08:22 PM

Well I have no idea how radio-listener demographics operate, let alone satellite-radio, but it's easy to listen on my online-player for Sirius. I plan to keep the subscription when my 30-day free trial is over.

I don't know if anyone can actually sit, concentrate, and listen to the show for a full 3 hours, because 99% of the audience I imagine is working, other than retirees (of which how many listen to satellite radio, honestly?). I'm in to work about 8am and then in-out of meetings/calls all the way until 6pm or later, but in the morning when I'm at my desk working, I have it in the background, and I get lots of good laughs with the Louisiana-accent.

But all those radio shows who say they present a "Constitutional" viewpoint, have nothing on his show.

I get to listen to 3 hours a day usually because I drive a truck right now. But often times I am too busy to stop if something of interest to the forums comes on his show.

I'd say a large percent of his audience is truck drivers but if I changed jobs I would try my hardest to find a way to record his show and play it at home.

I've also always been a talk radio listener and I really like the format. The only problem was as my views became more libertarian, I found it more difficult to listen to the regular "talk radio mafia".

When I found Mike I could hardly believe it. I heard him talking about Ron Paul one day positively and I was hooked after that. Even since then he has become more open with his strict Constitutionalist views.

Who needs crumbs from Beck when Mike Church gives the full course meal?