You Cannot START A War If It NEVER Ended

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Rand Paul Is NOT Starting A Civil War With DeceptiCON War Hawks ‘Cause Their War With HIM Never Ended

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “The reason I’m going to dabble in this story here is because I don’t think that the current evidence supports the statement here.  Does he differ from the rest of the decepticon war hawks?  Yes, he does.  The difference is not trivial.  I don’t view Senator Paul in the same light and having the same outlook and view on foreign policy and our never-ending, unjust wars as his father, Ron Paul, did.”  Check out today’s transcript AND Clip of The Day for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW!

NOT YET A MEMBER AND NEED MORE CONVINCING? BROWSE THE CLIP OF THE DAY PREVIEW ARCHIVES HERE

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

Mike:  “Rand Paul is about to kick off a Republican civil war on foreign policy”:

[reading]

Unlike the rest of the likely GOP field, Paul is a die-hard true believer in scaling down America’s involvement in conflicts around the world.

[end reading]

Mike:  I’d like to know where the evidence of this is.  The reason I’m going to dabble in this story here is because I don’t think that the current evidence supports the statement here.  Does he differ from the rest of the decepticon war hawks?  Yes, he does.  The difference is not trivial.  I don’t view Senator Paul in the same light and having the same outlook and view on foreign policy and our never-ending, unjust wars as his father, Ron Paul, did.  Apparently Mr. Beauchamp disagrees.

[reading]

. . . Paul is a die-hard true believer in scaling down America’s involvement in conflicts around the world. That pits him against the mainstream, hawks in the Republican party whose ideas are sure to dominate the campaign. By running for president, Paul hopes to inject his ideas into the debate and shift priorities his party’s held for decades.

[end reading]

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

Mike:  That’s not even entirely true.  If you go back and listen to the debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, you’ll find that it was Bush that was arguing against Clinton’s internationalism.  It was Bush that was arguing against Clinton’s nation building.  President Bush, before 9/11, supposedly was not an interventionist.  He certainly became one quickly, and unfortunately we are still possessed of that today.

[reading]

Paul’s presence alone is a threat to people in the party establishment. The party’s most hawkish voices, fearing exactly this, are mobilizing in force to stop Paul — lobbying internally and even potentially running candidates whose sole purpose would be challenging Paul on foreign policy.

The coming campaign, then, is a major test of where the Republican Party view of foreign policy is heading.

[end reading]

Mike:  Mr. Beauchamp, there is no foreign policy view from the Republican Party.  The Republican Party has a war policy.  It does not have a foreign policy.  It has no desire to have a foreign policy.  Its war policy is its foreign policy.

[reading]

Make no mistake — Rand Paul is a true believer in a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Paul is pretty open about what he believes on foreign policy. It’s a simple pitch: no more foreign wars and less government involvement in our lives in the name of security. It also happens to be 180 degrees from what most other Republicans think.

[end reading]

Mike:  This piece is just so riddled with errors.  It’s hard to know where to begin.  Do you find that I keep repeating that every day now?  It’s because it becomes more apparent.  First of all, speaking for me now, citizen Church, Captain Non-Interventionist, I would not rule out, I wouldn’t make the statement that there’s never going to be, or as Beauchamp puts it no more foreign wars.  I can’t make that statement.  I wouldn’t make that statement.  Of course it’s possible.  It may at some time become existential; it may be necessary, which may surprise some of you.  Yes, there are instances in epochs in history, in our upcoming history – a just war may have to be fought.

My major disagreement with most of you, and most of you still [mocking] “I disagree with your foreign policy.”  That’s because you’re not characterizing it properly.  Number one, and the principal part of this is, interventions cause unintended consequences.  Because violence is used, the unintended consequences are violent.  That’s number one.  You shouldn’t do it.  If, though, you determine, we determine that war, declared war is an option, then if you’re going to send soldiers, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc., if you’re going to send them into a theater of battle wearing American flags on their left deltoid muscles, then it ought to be done in a manner in which says to the enemy and to the rest of the watching world that it is the people, not just the government, the people of the several states of the United States that have identified you as an enemy; have a clear goal to wage a war campaign, take over territory, overthrow a government, stop an invasion into North Dakota or whatever the case may be; and then how we get to peace.  This needs to be done by vast, overwhelming majorities.  The citizenry must agree to bear the burden of it immediately, not put it on a charge card.  Whatever sacrifices must be made, whatever force must be raised that is equal to the task.  I would never say that that is not possible, advisable, can’t happen, etc., etc.  That’s the process.  That way 50 states organized under the style of one American union are now in the face of another sovereign entity and have an objective and a war to fight, a peace to conclude, and then an end.

What is so difficult to understand about that still remains a mystery to me.  The last time this was attempted, by the bye, would have been in 1941.  War is an option.  I don’t think Senator Paul has ever said it.  Ron Paul has never said it.  I certainly have never said it.

I just tried to clear it up again for about the 115,000^th time.  No one is saying that you disarm and never mobilize to defend yourself or to engage in a just war conflict ever again.  That’s just ridiculous.  That’s pretty much what the decepticons are going to try to say Senator Paul stands for.  You’d have to compare and contrast that with what he’s actually said.  The two are irreconcilable. [/private]

[reading]

Paul supports nuclear negotiations with Iran.

[end reading]

This site is supported by your Founders Pass memberships and purchases in the Founders Tradin’ Post, can Mike count on your support today? Shop the Tradin’ Post and become a Founders Pass member.

Mike:  What’s wrong with negotiating with Iran, Mr. Beauchamp?  There are 80 million souls that live in Iran.  There is a significant Christian population that lives in Iran.  Not everyone in Iran thinks the way certain ayatollah madmen do.  Iran is three times the size of Iraq.  How’d that one work out for you?  Folks, this is just another opinion piece here that just undermines – the title may as well be “Our Best Option Is Probably To Bomb Iran, Rand Paul Notwithstanding.”  That’s what this article is all about.  I read it under the false pretense that there’s going to be a civil war on foreign policy.  It would be wonderful to have an actual debate about foreign affairs and about foreign policy, about having a State Department that acts as an emissary of a peaceful, peace-loving, liberty-minded people, not an agitated, knee-jerk-reacted mob that at the drop of a pen is ready to grant their sanction to invade or drop armament on any sovereign entity in the known universe.  There are two very, very different points of view there.  I wanted to throw that one.

Senator Paul has said: I think we were right to go into Afghanistan.  I voted for the sanctions on Iran.  The other day during his speech: We will defend ourselves from those who hate humanity.  I would disagree with that because I don’t think the Muslims hate humanity.  They hate the infidel.  There may be Muslims that hate other Muslims too that are in the jihad with them.  I don’t know, I never hung out with them.  It’s not fair to say they hate humanity.  What they hate, again, is the infidel, which is a vast majority of humanity but not all of humanity.  It’s one of the blanket statements that doesn’t compute.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio