The Lust For Power Subverts The Gospel
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Then there’s the stream of consciousness of nationalism that runs through this. Ms. Mullarkey is infected with the nationalist bias that so many others are infected with. They mean well and they intend well, but they regurgitate and they eat, sleep, and breathe ‘Muricah somehow as being the equivalent of the Kingdom of God. It’s not.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
It is worth noting that CCHD partly funded Barack Obama’s time as an Alinsky-style organizer on Chicago’s South Side . . .
Francis’ personal popularity is largely a function of public perception of him as a doctrinal liberal. But as Americans recognize in Francis an advance man for “world authority”—the concept of a mega-state cached in Vatican minds through recent pontificates—affection for the man will not stay hostility toward the workings of his church.
What has been called “the last respectable prejudice” is on track to gain enhanced respectability among Americans who blanch at what they see as a shakedown by the refugee resettlement industry. They are dismayed by a pope who would confuse “a nation under God” with a nation under the sway of his own bien pensant ambitions and those of clerical bureaucrats. Power lust, no matter the pious packaging, subverts the Gospel. It does not serve it.
Poised for a comeback, Blanshard’s specter of an alien presence takes on solidity with every act of Francis’ disregard for the ordained limits of papal authority.
Mike: “Maureen Mullarkey is an artist who writes on art and culture.” A couple things where I take issue with her, number one, if she’s going to write about the horror or the hideousness of Pope Francis going to meet with Rouhani of Iran and condemn him because he was smiling when he met him, what’s he supposed to do, go in there as the dower Christian, as the dower Catholic that hates everything that moves and gives rise to the urban legend? Here’s a question, Ms. Mullarkey: What was St. Francis Assisi supposed to do when he went and met with the pasha who was the general of the Mohammedans’ army to go try and convert him? If you want to take issue with him, maybe he didn’t try to convert Rouhani, I’m all with you. That’s why the meeting should have taken place. Don’t confuse that with he shouldn’t meet with the world’s tyrants. Who else can, for Heaven’s sake? I would take issue with that.
Then there’s the stream of consciousness of nationalism that runs through this. Ms. Mullarkey is infected with the nationalist bias that so many others are infected with. They mean well and they intend well, but they regurgitate and they eat, sleep, and breathe ‘Muricah somehow as being the equivalent of the Kingdom of God. It’s not. To even equate it, [mocking] “Well, this is a sovereign entity.” No, you don’t understand sovereignty, madam.
She’s got a point. Please don’t misunderstand. I like her writing. Someone has got to apply the truth and logic to these things, otherwise people will just regurgitate this and run back out and repeat what Mullarkey has written because she appears in The Federalist, and then let the fun begin.
Let’s go over a couple things. What have we learned about immigration here? Where does the authority lie to regulate immigration? This is the fundamental question that no one will touch and no one will even attempt to answer. If you listen to Trumpzilla and his promoters and supporters, it lies solely in the federal government, maybe even in the office of the presidency. If you listen to some other, [mocking] “Well, that relies on the Feds. Congress can administer this.” That’s where the power lies. Some liberals, progressives think it lies in the halls of the UN. Others, like the scene in Animal House, “Daniel Simpson Day has no grade point average. All course incomplete.” Some people haven’t thought it through.
[mocking] “So, Mr. Church, what are you going to tell us on your stupid little Crusade Channel and your Veritas Network? Huh, papist? What are you going to tell us? Where does it lie, in the Vatican?” No. Again, heeding the call of the gospel to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the infirmed and imprisoned does not mean you have to commit suicide in doing so or republicide in doing so. Don’t confuse the two. Secondly, sovereignty arises from the power to enact and the power and the will or the will and then the power to enforce. Those are the principal components of sovereignty. The power to unilaterally, without permission act, and then the power and the will to enforce.
Now, some of you are going to say, [mocking] “Congress has the power to enact and the will to enforce.” Actually, it is very dubious to say that Congress has the sole power to enforce the Constitution. [mocking] “Mike, who else?” This is why we have to have ratified intent. This came up during every ratifying convention. The question was asked: Are we going to have a bunch of federal marshals running around beating people over the head with constitutions and trying to enforce them? The answer was no; the states and the state courts will do the enforcing. The states are as bound to the oath of the Constitution as the Feds are. Congress really doesn’t have to do nor should it do the enforcing. Neither should the judicial branch or the rogue, out-of-control agencies that have been created by Congress under the Office of the Attorney General. These are all improper uses of federal power. The states are just as capable and the municipal authority is just as capable, nay, it’s the only place where you can actually exercise this authority.
The question would be then: Who has the municipal authority? You know the answer to this because you live under that municipal authority. Wherever it is where you live, in your county or city, that’s where the municipal authority is enacted upon you. The same municipal authority takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Now, after we withdraw our consent and we no longer have to be beholden to that oath, then you can do what your new Constitution or what your new agreement or what your new panel of judges says that you’re going to do.
Let’s go back and answer the question. Who ultimately has the power over who gets to immigrate and who does not? The power resides in the community where the immigrants are to be subjected to that authority. I can already hear, [mocking] “If you move in anywhere in America, then you’re subjected to the authority of Congress.” Again, we have an inversion of a federal order and a perversion of a subsidiarity power. The power resides in the municipal authority. It’s as simple as that.
Now, how do we know this? Can we get anyone that would back us up on this? Can we go back to the founding and find anything in the historical record that would back this up? Yeah. Including what is supposed to be the final word on whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible for the presidency, and that is the First Congress of the United States when they met in 1789 in New York. The question arose: It says here in the Constitution we’re supposed to make a uniform rule of naturalization. The debate raged for two days.
It wasn’t much of a debate because almost everyone was of the opinion that we really can’t make a binding rule on all the states that’s uniform for who they can immigrate and who they can’t. It was determined: We can make a uniform rule to be a naturalized citizen of the United States. This is where your privileges and immunities clause comes in. And, as was stated earlier, that the union of states, basically think of it as one giant free trade zone. You can travel amongst the different states. You can travel in between them. You can do all these things and you can do them because you have agreed that you can do those things. You agree that you can move about. You can relocate from one state to the next. Residency in the United States, therefore, is a privilege. It’s not a right; it’s a privilege. Of course, privileges and immunities have more to do with property ownership than anything else.
Now, here’s another question to answer when we discuss these things. Who has the authority to tax you? Who can tax you? Here’s a question: Where you live at in your county or your parish or your city, can they tax your real estate? Currently in every state in the union, except maybe Mississippi, can they tax your private property? Answer: Yes. Not only can they tax it, they can take it via eminent domain or the claim of eminent domain. Can they tax your income? The State of Louisiana taxes mine. How many of you people live in states where there are income taxes? How does your state have the authority to tax you? Because you’re a resident of that state, that’s how. It cannot tax non-residents. If it does, it has to tax them under a different authority. Folks, these things are not hard to understand.
Why would that matter? Well, the power to tax you is the same power that would be used to not tax you. It’s the same power that would be used then, that you extended to your state for certain very extreme measures under the subsidiarity concept. You need to build a road. All right, you can build that road. We need to have a capitol building. Yeah, you can have a capitol building. Do we need to have a department of this or that or the other? Maybe, maybe not, but if we do, we’re going to have to raise revenues for the government. These are all things, ladies and gentlemen, that were all done by and still are done by the individual states, by individual counties in the states, and by cities that are inside those counties. You look at the tier of subsidiarity and where your ultimate authority lies is in where the government is closest to you, where it acts upon you the closest.
That’s not my preference. That’s actually the preference that came out of what we know as republicanism. You can actually read this. You can read the letters of Thomas Jefferson after he left the presidency. He bemoaned the fact that republicanism was dying on the vine. Jefferson wrote over and over and over about: My preference is the agrarian lifestyle. My preference is that we have agrarians and that we have them in very small towns or republics no larger than the size of a town in New England.
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The 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 .23 cents per day. Thanks for 19 years of mike church.com! – Mike
Where should the power for the immigrant, to who gets to come in and not? By the way, I’m getting clobbered in the phone call derby again today. Back to where we started, which is with the ascendency and the phenomenon of Trumpzilla. What is Trumpzilla’s principal, one of the big issues that people said they were going to vote for Trump for? He was going to kick all the immigrants out. He was going to stop new ones from coming in, including Muslims, which should be done. He’s going to put a wall up to make sure that no one else can get in. Again, there’s no constitutional authority for a wall. We’ll leave that on the side, should the US have a policy of not importing any more immigrants.
Well, we should then move our conversation to who has the authority to do this to discussing what they should do with that authority. I’m going to skip mostly to the end of this, this essay written at The Federalist. It’s right next to Maureen Mullarkey’s – I think it’s probably a coincidence. This is a rehash of a book that was written back in 1973 called The Camp of the Saints.
When The Camp of the Saints first appeared in English in 1975, a review for The New York Times declared that “reading Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints is like being trapped at a cocktail party with a normal-looking fellow who suddenly starts a perfervid racist diatribe.”
Mike: Remember, you can’t be, ladies and gentlemen, opposed to immigration and not be a racist.
End Mike Church Show Transcript