The Mike Church Show World HQ
The Mike Church Show World HQ

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Would anyone lose their cookies over a filibuster to defend and protect the 14th Amendment?  What about the 13th Amendment?  Do you think anyone would lose their cookies, [mocking] “This is part of the Constitution now.  We have to do this.”  Of course, the 13th Amendment is outlawing slavery, thus it is a punishment for a crime.  Would anyone get their proverbial knickers or panties in a wad over a filibuster that would protect the 13th Amendment?  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  We have lots of news and lots of talk today about the filibuster and whether or not there’s going to be a filibuster of the latest attempt — this is also part of the opening segment that, forgive me if I’m repeating it.  I don’t know the exact moment when we got cut off, but when I was talking about the president’s gun grab tour that he is currently on like a triumphant rock star, I was mentioning that he’s out there haranguing members of the United States Senate who are saying that they are going to filibuster the bill, not let it come to the floor because they’re not going to allow an assault on the Second Amendment.  Some of us think that this is laudable, and if you are going to have a filibuster, defending one of the amendments to the Constitution would be a good thing to filibuster over.

Militias_Are_Good_For_You_Project76_FEATURE

For example, would any one of you out there that are incorporationistas, or know people that are incorporationistas, would anyone upbraid or criticize someone who was going to filibuster a bill that was going to undermine the 14th Amendment, most sacred, most hallowed, most do-all amendment — the 14th Amendment cures cancer.  It cures warts.  It makes homosexuals able to have sex-change operations or those that are confused have sex-change operations and have the rest of us pay for them.  This amendment is elastic, baby.  There is nothing the 14th Amendment can’t do.  It can probably even rescue Lance Armstrong from ignominy if applied properly.  Would anyone lose their cookies over a filibuster to defend and protect the 14th Amendment?  What about the 13th Amendment?  Do you think anyone would lose their cookies, [mocking] “This is part of the Constitution now.  We have to do this.”  Of course, the 13th Amendment is outlawing slavery, thus it is a punishment for a crime.  Would anyone get their proverbial knickers or panties in a wad over a filibuster that would protect the 13th Amendment?

article-v-pamphlet-adWhat about the 19th Amendment, the suffrage amendment?  What if somebody was putting a bill forth that said we’re convinced women have screwed everything up and it’s females voting that has gone hand in hand with the expansion of the welfare state and the nanny state?  Women, after all, or they used to be, the exclusive holders of the title nanny.  There aren’t very many men that are nannies out there, are there?  [mocking] “So we’ve decided we need better qualifications.  We need nanny control.  We need female control.”  Senator X has proposed a bill that will make it more difficult for women who may be disturbed, who may be, you know, having female problems.  Of course, I’m being facetious.  I know I’m being facetious.  Don’t call me or write me and ask me why I’m being ridiculous.

If we were going to circumscribe or regulate the kind of women we are going to allow to vote in an election and this was going to contravene the 19th Amendment, would any of the major media outlets or any of the major media pundits out there be throwing the hissy fit they’re throwing over Rand Paul and Mike Lee’s promise to filibuster any attempt to undermine the 2nd Amendment?  Why is the 19th Amendment holy and sacred but the 2nd Amendment is up for debate?  [mocking] Mike, you can’t say that.”  Yes, I can.  What about the amendment that lets some of you nitwits that are 18 years of age vote, probably not having attained the knowledge and wisdom of your elderly parents?  What if we went after the amendment that allows 18-year-olds to vote, the 26th Amendment?  You think that if Patrick Leahy or Dianne Feinstein was promising a filibuster to stop undermining, usurpation of, evisceration of the 26th Amendment that anyone would be pitching the hissy fit that they’re pitching over the defense of the 2nd Amendment?  Would they?  I doubt it.

There’s just something for you to chew on.  If you’re looking for a defense to throw at your citizens of libtardia friends, there’s one angle for you to take.  As a matter of fact, maybe we should start the 18-year-old and Female Control Act of 2013 as a gag, just to make the point.  You’re saying we’ve got to take guns out of the hands of nuts.  We’re saying we’ve got to take votes out of the hands of the incompetent.  Again, yes, I’m being facetious to make the point.  How many of you are with me?  We’re going to go after the 19th Amendment and the 26th Amendment.  We’re going to see if we can find a senator to carry our legislation forth.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Constitution of US COOL copy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Become a CRUSADER Today!

SUPPORT THE MIKE CHURCH SHOW
AND BECOME A PREMIUM MEMBER TODAY!
CHOOSE A MONTHLY SUPPORT LEVEL
$9.00 Basic Founders Pass
$16.67 PREMIUM Founding Brother
$49.99 PREMIUM Founding Father

GO PREMIUM FOR 30 DAYS FREE!

Click for 30 days FREE of the Mike Church Show

Signup for Mike’s Daily [r]epublican Newsletter

Subscribe: Red Pill Diary Podcast

>
Scroll Up