Mandeville, LA - Exclusive Transcript - I’ve often heard and talked about how 1913 is the pivot year. The progressives, the triumphs they were able to enjoy in 1913 with the creation of The Fed & the income tax set the stage for all the corruption and tyranny we currently experience today. Check out today's transcript for the rest...
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: I want to share a couple things with you before we run out of time here on Free Phone Friday. Brian Domitrovic at Imaginative Conservative has an interesting post about Phil Mickelson and 1913, which is kind of where I got my title for today’s Pile of Prep. He writes:
Don’t quite recall what happened in 1913? The Philadelphia Athletics’ World Series win. How about this, as I wrote in my book Econoclasts:
For all one hears about, say 1914, 1929, 1945, 1968, 1989, and 2001, 1913 may well be the most important year in modern American—if not modern world—history. In 1913, the last three major reforms of the Progressive era were enacted: the direct election of senators; the federal income tax…; and the Federal Reserve System of central banking. Today, the direct election of senators is a footnote in history. The income tax and the Federal Reserve, however, have rather shaped life as we have known it in the century since 1913.
Mike: Then he goes on to tell the tale about what has devolved since then. I’ve often heard and talked about how 1913 is the pivot year. The progressives, the triumphs they were able to enjoy in 1913 set the stage for all the corruption and tyranny we currently experience today. If you don’t create the Federal Reserve, and if you don’t create the income tax, you have no possible way, other than direct tyranny and confiscation of property, in order to fund this un-magisterial general leviathan monster that we call a government today. It’s impossible. There’s no way you could ever fund that thing through duties and imposts or excise taxes. 1913 was a very important year.
My friend Ilana Mercer writes at World Net Daily today “Republicans Find Religion On…Evolution.” This is an interesting piece. I posted it in today’s Pile of Prep.
On the heels of Barack Obama’s Las Vegan run-on ramble on the necessity of immigration “reform,” this week, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., announced that he too had “evolved” overnight on the issue. “I’m … open-minded enough to say that it is an issue that we do need to evolve on,” the senator vaporized.
Paul is a Johnny-come-lately to his party’s devolution on immigration. The country was still surveying the debris left by the “D-Bomb” (where “D” stands for demographics, dropped on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012 – when, one-by-one, key Republicans began to defect, pledging their commitment to an “overhaul of the immigration system”; to “reform”; to “a comprehensive solution”; to “fixing a broken system” – all well-recognized euphemisms for amnesty.
A tipping point in the demographic shift in the U.S. population had returned Barack Obama to power for a second term. A moratorium on mass immigration, buttressed by strong secessionist and states’ rights movements, might just help delay another such bomb from detonating. But the Republicans were having none of it.
Mike: Boy, is that true. That is spot on. You hear this over and over and over again about these demographics. We hear it here on this show all the time. If the GOP doesn’t come around to demographic trends, if they don’t start acting like they care about Latinos, if they don’t start catering to and recognizing there are these demographic shifts out there, they’re all doomed. My position on that has always been: what you’re telling me then is that people think differently about human liberty and republican forms of government based on their race, based on their creed. In other words, if you’re an African-American, Latino-American, if you’re a gay American or whatever the case may be, your view of how [r]epublican government ought to work and how it’s supposed to work for you is different from people who are not of your color, your gender, or your sexual orientation. That, to me, seems a bit preposterous. If that’s the case, how long then before we have -- if you cater to this demographic, just imagine the demographics you can create in the future.
Ladies and gentlemen, life has but a few very important and very well-established rules to it that any successful civilization has to obey to avoid becoming tyrannical, to avoid becoming despotic, to avoid becoming menacing. We seem to just be of the opinion that none of that matters. It just doesn’t matter. As long as we satisfy each demographic with what kind of government they wish to have and which benefits they want -- it’s almost like, if you just come here and announce what your demographic is, we have a menu of services here that we will provide to you. They never tell anyone that all these services are provided by scabbing off the productive labor of the few so the rest can enjoy the benefits. No one ever says any of that. It is advertised as if there’s some kind of menu you choose from.
We don’t have any ideals. We certainly don’t have a beaux ideal of what any of this ought to look like. We don’t have any clue as to what an ordered, polite, peaceful, free, embracive of certain liberties society would look like. What we have is it’s shiny and shimmering in the distance, on a hill. If we could just get to the top of that hill. You know what they keep doing, they keep building new hills. You get to the top of one hill and go: Yay, we’re here! Look, they just built another hill. Man, I don’t want to have to climb that one. There is no end to this. Because there is no end to it, there is no end to the destruction, and it is destructive, the attack upon anything and everything that has any tradition behind it whatsoever.
This is a trend that I think was started back in the French Revolution. It took it 100 years to get here, which would be about right, maybe about 110. Of course, as 1913 is our touchstone date here, look at how events have transpired since then. For all of you [r]epublicans out there that aspire to what I now believe to be just a ridiculous statement “What we want is constitutional government,” you’re never going to get it. It’s just not going to happen because of the demographics. You have people that don’t believe in constitutional government. Are you going to make them believe in it?
To me, this is another one of these instances where we should be able to, as big boys and big girls, sit down and decide there’s a certain segment of the population of North America that believes this is the proper form of government. Let them have it. There is another very well-defined segment of the population that this is a proper form of government. Let them have it. There’s another segment that believes that is a proper form of government. Let them have it. This idea that we have to deny and it has to be our way or the highway, quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I do not care any longer about the liberal or the other person out there under whatever label they operate that says they don’t think constitutional government is good or we’re not going back to the 1800s, not going back to 1912 or anything of that matter. Fine, I don’t care. If you want to live like that, then you do that. I am happy to allow you. You are not, however, free to conscript me and mine in your endeavor.
This should be, to me, talking about birthday wishes, this should be the great desideratum of the people of North America these days, a peaceful agreement that not everyone wants to live under the same form, same style of government. I am perfectly content to concede that I am in a very small minority. I know I am. That does not mean that my minority is any less entitled to our view and to our form of government than you the tyrannical majority believes are entitled to yours. I doubt I am ever going to see that in my lifetime, yet at 51 years young, I can hope can’t I?
End Mike Church Show Transcript