Olive Branch Petition

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Folks, what you read here is basically the beginning of the system of American government that would be set forth in the Articles of Confederation and then in the Constitution.  You can hear, in between the lines here, there is a sense of justice, a sense of right and wrong, and a system of tradition, right and wrong coming from tradition.  This is what it is that they’re claiming.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

[reading]

Why then are we accused of forgetting our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have resisted in those cases, in which the right to resist is stipulated as expressly on our part, as the right to govern is, in other cases, stipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our resistance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government. It is alleged, that “we have proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion.” In what does this rebellion consist. It is thus described—“Arraying ourselves in hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering, and levying war against the King.” We know of no laws binding upon us, but such as have been transmitted to us by our ancestors, and such as have been consented to by ourselves, or our representatives elected for that purpose. What laws, stampt with these characters, have we withstood? We have indeed defended them; and we will risque every thing, do every thing, and suffer every thing in their defence. To support our laws, and our liberties established by our laws, we have prepared, ordered, and levied war: But is this traitorously, or against the King? We view him as the Constitution represents him. That tells us he can do no wrong. The cruel and illegal attacks, which we oppose, have no foundation in the royal authority. We will not, on our part, lose the distinction between the King and his Ministers: happy would it have been for some former Princes, had it been always preserved on that part of the Crown.

Besides all this, we observe, on this part of the proclamation, that “rebellion” is a term undefined and unknown in the law; it might have been expected that a proclamation, which by the British constitution has no other operation than merely that of enforcing what is already law, would have had a known legal basis to have rested upon.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

A correspondence between the inhabitants of Great Britain and their brethren in America, produced, in better times, much satisfaction to individuals, and much advantage to the public. By what criterion shall one, who is unwilling to break off this correspondence, and is, at the same time, anxious not to expose himself to the dreadful consequences threatened in this proclamation—by what criterion shall he regulate his conduct? He is admonished not to carry on correspondence with the persons now in rebellion in the colonies. How shall he ascertain who are in rebellion, and who are not? He consults the law to learn the nature of the supposed crime: the law is silent upon the subject. This, in a country where it has been often said, and formerly with justice, that the government is by law, and not by men, might render him perfectly easy. But proclamations have been sometimes dangerous engines in the hands of those in power; Information is commanded to be given to one of the Secretaries of State, of all persons “who shall be found carrying on correspondence with the persons in rebellion, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, or abettors, of such dangerous designs.” Let us suppose, for a moment, that some persons in the colonies are in rebellion, and that those who carry on correspondence with them, might learn by some rule, which Britons are bound to know, how to discriminate them; Does it follow that all correspondence with them deserves to be punished? It might have been intended to apprize them of their danger, and to reclaim them from their crimes. By what law does a correspondence with a criminal transfer or communicate his guilt? We know that those who aid and adhere to the King’s enemies, and those who correspond with them in order to enable them to carry their designs into effect, are criminal in the eye of the law. But the law goes no farther. Can proclamations, according to the principles of reason and justice, and the constitution, go farther than the law?

But perhaps the principles of reason and justice, and the constitution will not prevail: Experience suggests to us the doubt: If they should not, we must resort to arguments drawn from a very different source. We, therefore, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, and by authority, according to the purest maxims of representation, derived from them, declare, that whatever punishment shall be inflicted upon any persons in the power of our enemies for favouring, aiding, or abetting the cause of American liberty, shall be retaliated in the same kind, and the same degree upon those in our power, who have favoured, aided, or abetted, or shall favour, aid, or abet the system of ministerial oppression. The essential difference between our cause, and that of our enemies, might justify a severer punishment: The law of retaliation will unquestionably warrant one equally severe.

We mean not, however, by this declaration, to occasion or to multiply punishments; Our sole view is to prevent them. In this unhappy and unnatural controversy, in which Britons fight against Britons, and the descendants of Britons, let the calamities immediately incident to a civil war suffice. We hope additions will not from wantonness by made to them on one side: We shall regret the necessity, if laid under the necessity, of making them on the other.

Extract from the Minutes,

Charles Thomson, Sec.

Second Continental Congress – December 6, 1775

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, this is what is known as the Olive Branch Petition.  It’s basically saying: Dude, you have no case.  There is no law for you to come over here and start hacking us to pieces.  There’s no law for you to send an army.  There’s no law for you to put down a rebellion, because you don’t even have rebellion defined.  What they’re saying is the exact same thing I told you.  They’re acknowledging that there is a legitimate power that the crown can exercise, that there is a legitimate constitution to which they must obey, that there is legitimate authority that they are subordinate to, but they reject the rest.  They say the rest is arbitrary and capricious and no, we’re not going to comply.  You can’t say because I sent a letter to John Smith, and it happens one of your spies say that he’s in rebellion, that that makes me in rebellion, too.  You don’t know what’s in the letter.

Folks, what you read here is basically the beginning of the system of American government that would be set forth in the Articles of Confederation and then in the Constitution.  You can hear, in between the lines here, there is a sense of justice, a sense of right and wrong, and a system of tradition, right and wrong coming from tradition.  This is what it is that they’re claiming.  It’s amazing to me that they actually acknowledge – this is what pissed off John Adams so much – that they actually acknowledge – and this was John Dickinson’s doing.  Dickinson was actually acknowledging the authority of the king.  Jefferson and Mason and Adams and the true blue were saying: We don’t even acknowledge that.  That’s where it got dangerous, folks.

Over the last hour we have given a crash course on legitimate ways to proceed and illegitimate ways to proceed.  While we abstain and withdraw our consent using every single loophole available to us that the legitimate authority has carved out, and then removing ourselves from any participation whatever in the illegitimate exercise of authority – folks, this is why – the damage that is being done by you that continue your occupation and your vocation in an illegitimate function of the federal government, you are doing such grave damage it can’t be measured.  You’re doing it by the millions.  [mocking] “Mitter Church, we can’t possibly give our jobs up.  Please!”  You’re either going to give it up because you volunteered to give it up, or you’re going to give it up because the whole house of cards crumbles. When that revolution comes, you’re not going to want to be on the wrong side of that equation.

Just to review, there is legitimate authority; there is illegitimate authority.  When we recognize the legitimate authority, we do ourselves a great favor, we do our children a great favor, because there is authority.  What did Christ tell Pilate?  You don’t have any authority, pal, other than what has been given to you by my Father from above.  That’s the ultimate authority.  Pilate did have authority on earth, he did.  There is a legitimate expression and extension of government authority.  It is legitimate.  Christ told us the ultimate, eternal, transcendent and the teaching of Christ, which is law, by the way, and should be law, that that is not compromised.  This is so simple even a GEICO caveman could figure this out.

[/private]

Are they exercising authority that’s illegitimate?  Dudes and dudettes, you don’t even have to think about this one.  You know that they are.  It didn’t get brought up in the debate last night so we’ll bring it up here every day.  They were arguing about the best way to take ISIS out in the Mideast.  Trump actually brought a point up that I told you yesterday in that video that I watched of a press conference.  Vladimir Putin actually gave a press conference.  Putin said pretty much what Trump said.  He said: We still are mystified as to why they told us to go ahead and build more offensive nuclear weapons.  This is part of an agreement and they told us we’re not going to enforce that part of the agreement; build whatever you want.  We’re going to go do this.  So they did it.  They did it.  President Putin said: What am I supposed to do?  I’ve got 300-some-odd-million people that I’m supposed to protect, too.  I built the weapons.  I don’t ever intend to use them, but yeah, we built the weapons as a deterrent against other kinds of weapons being used against us.

Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet?  You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST.   The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, The Suzanne Option with Suzanne Sherman, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.  Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!

Folks, we are on the precipice of world war unlike anything the world has ever seen.  Man has gotten really good at killing men.  The thing that ought to strike the greatest fear in your heart, Mrs. Clinton demonstrated last night in this exchange between her and Chris Wallace and Donald Trump – Donald Trump said: It’s not okay to pull a baby out of his mother’s womb hours before – completely gestated – hours before it is to be born, and to only let its head come out and then to kill it.  That’s partial-birth abortion.  Hillary is with and down – not only does she advocate and promote and then fund with your money and my money to expand the diabolical murder of the soon-to-be-born, she will do it all the way up until the moment of birth, which is why I play that clip for you from The View all the time.  She was on Meet the Press and said it, or This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and then she repeated it on The View.

If you don’t understand this, someone that can do that to an innocent child, what can they do to a grown man?  What possible calculation in her mind goes into a just war?  We know that there isn’t one.  Egypt, Arab Spring, Libya, Iraq, targeted drone strikes, the WikiLeaks leak, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”  Yeah, just take the London Tower out.  We better be prepared.  We better be prepared.  I am curiously encouraged and quite happy today, actually, by what candidate Trump refused to do last night, to say: No, I will not sign off on your version of how this election is to go.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio