the imaginative conservative logo

levin challenges church

Dearest Mark,

In the spirit of the day let us return, a priori, to the genesis of this text: Jeffrey Lords piece on Ron Paul at TAS. There is ample discussion of Lord’s inaccuracies, downright fallacies and distortions here. I will assume these don’t placate your fertile imagination of what terrible thoughts I must have withheld from Woods, Gutzman and the Sirius/XM audience so let us proceed to the rest of your accusations against my statements. Citizens, please read Mr. Levin’s response to my original post here.

Mr. Levin basically makes most of my points for me in this post but for argument’s sake I will address his “challenge”.

Oh wow, Mike Church knows about a few of the founders, the order in which the states ratified the Constitution, a few of the Supreme Court justices, particularly Marshall, who expanded judicial review.  Wow, aren’t we all impressed?  That’s, what, like 8th grade stuff?

It’s even worse than that Mr. Levin, I have actually read the ratification debates and related writings of the time from VA, PA and North Carolina, have you? It is noteworthy that you cite Marshall here, can you recall what the future jurist in McCulloch vs Maryland told the VA convention about this very issue? (judicial review e.g. Marbury vs Madison)

Church writes, barely, that I prefer what SCOTUS has done to the Constitution.  Is the man literate?

If I weren’t literate why would a “literate” person try and communicate using literate tools like Facebook, this is what makes one Great? Why not send a smoke signal and hope I could read it with my Southern roots secession skills?

I wrote an entire book on the subject, Men in Black, with this sub-title — ready Mike? — How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.  Oh my, so well informed.  Get it Mike?  I need no lectures from you, nor does anyone else, about the courts and what they have done to this country.

Yes, I updated my amazon preferences list, changed my political opinion from “classical liberal” to “neocon” and now “Men in Black” appears, magic! If you care so deeply about the subject then why spare justice Scalia whose opinions have done more damage to the rights of the citizens residing in their sovereign states to govern themselves and pass their own laws just as Federalists claimed they would have near universal right to? (Madison explains this in Federalist 44) Ever read the Gonzaels vs Raich case? Do you really believe that the Framers intended an unknown and yet to be constituted “tribunal” to decide whether a citizen of California could use pain medication prescribed by her physician under the laws of CA? Really?

And Mike, like your buddy the Southern Avenger, you say not one word about all the sleazy advisers and senior people around Paul, not one.  Why is that, Mike?  Why don’t you answer what was raised by Lord, by me, and by others?  Is this a reading comprehension problem, again?

If you had a satellite radio and desired to listen to it the morning of 24 August, tune to the “minor league” channel your show is on, Patriot 125, you may have HEARD me say that “most of Lord’s piece is historical revision and just flat out incorrect save for the part where Lord’s pointing out that Rothbard was no conservative and critical of Reagan.” What other “sleaze” are you referring to? Lew Rockwell? I have been hosted at Lew’s Mises Institute for a Scholar’s Conference (we missed you!) found he and his staff to be charming professionals and yes, very anti-state. So what? Does being a yes man for the trampling of civil liberties in the name of “national defense” make you a sleaze? I wager you that Ben Franklin, Patrick Henry and yes Jimmy Madison -remember him, he vigorously opposed the “Alien & Sedition Acts”, so vigorously that he helped Thomas Jefferson in the cause, writing what is known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which prompted the “revolution of 1798” in the VA Assembly, ended Adams Presidency and killed off the political future of the Federalists Party. Was Madison a sleaze? What of the man picked by Jefferson to present the Resolution in VA, John Taylor of Caroline. Author of the definitive book on the Constitution from the Founding era “________________” (I left that blank so you can dazzle your sizable audience with original understanding!) Finally, I OFTEN disagree, publicly with Mr. Rockwell and some of the things posted on his websites, but do not believe that makes him a sleaze, it makes him opinionated, which if one disagrees with certain talk-show hosts, makes them very dangerous and sleazy indeed.

And I guess you are debating yourself, much like a homeless person with your comments about state sovereignty.  No argument from me about state sovereignty, it’s just that I believe the Civil War settled the issue of secession and you do not.  Right Mike?  Does Paul agree with me or you?  You believe the states can and should secede, right Mike?  Is that not why you, Hunter, and the others hate Lincoln?  That’s the main reason, right Mike?  The wrong side won the Civil War, right?

Mr. Levin, The War of Northern Aggression settled nothing about secession. A military victory does not inviolate the God-Given right of free men to determine their own form of government, or does it Mr. Levin? I do believe that the greatest statement of secession and it’s natural right is still legal and binding….yes I do, Sir. It is contained in what began on 15 May, 1776 as the Resolution of the VA Assembly then when transmitted to the Continental Congress was known as “The Lee Resolution” to wit: Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. Sounds like a statement of secession from the mighty pen of the Great Uncle to Robert E. Lee, was Lee wrong? What about Thomas Jefferson, was he wrong too? Jefferson expounded upon this statement and 56 men signed their lives and fortunes to it: and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. Want more Jefferson on secession?How about we pick up his inaugural address and read from it?

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

What of the famous Lord Acton who wrote the “I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. …I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” I believe Lincoln was wrong, yes I do Sir, as for the side that “won”, is the death of 635,000 Americans worthy of Christian men claiming victory? I think not. (more on this in our AAA league radio debate later folks!!!)*more on this below

You write like you talk, as if you had a lot to drink.  Do you really like the Constitution, Mike?  I notice you don’t quote Madison or Wilson much.  Not that they were prefect, as they were not.  John Adams?  I actually think Mason, Sam Adams, among several others, made some strong arguments against ratification.  As did Yates and other Anti-Federalists.  But in the end, even Jefferson threw his support behind the Constitution (although he obviously wasn’t at the Convention), as did Franklin and most of the others.  Should we go down the entire list, Mike?  That way you can prove, what, that you know who did and did not sign the Constitution?

Actually 3 men walked out of Philadelphia on 17 September, 1787 and refused their signature, you, Sir, Rabbi to this student seem to believe I must know their names! Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph (then Governor of VA) and the “wisest man of his generation” George Mason. James Wilson, your current founder of choice, an emigrant from Scotland, educated at Edinburgh was a great man. Perhaps if you had listened to or watched either of my films “The Road to Independence”, “The Fame of Our Fathers” and “The Spirit of ‘76” you would know the high esteem I hold Mr. Wilson in as I chronicle that it was his lobbying of John Dickinson and the Pennsylvania delegation that prompted Dickinson to leave Independence Hall on the morning of 2 July, 1776 allowing PA to vote AYE on the Lee Resolution. I can say the same for James Madison but what’s the point, what are you asking of me to do, quote them? What does this have to do with Ron Paul taking his oath to defend the Constitution literally and abiding by it or my defense of same!? Please enlighten us as to the Founders cited here’s opinion of their works (Constitution and Declaration). A good start for your research on Madison is in those ratification debates listed above. More on this in Mr. levin and my thrill packed AA radio debates!)

The Bill of Rights was, of course, crucial to reaching ratification, and Madison and the Federalists had to agree to it (12 amendments at first), as they were facing defeat from the states without it, even facing early resistance in Massachusetts.  Right Mike?

*The VA Ratification Instrument actually carries a legal precedent still in effect today that if Amendments aren’t forthcoming or if any new grant of power or “consolidation” arises that VA can resume it’s former state of existence (free of membership in the union). Again, Mr. Levin I don’t see a question here, what I see is the Rabbi again trying to goad the pupil into filling in gaps in his own knowledge. In my movie, I actually cover the intrigue that caused letters from the Republican governor of New York-George Clinton-to the opponents of ratification, (herein derisively referred to as “anti-federalists” but more affectionately known in THEIR time as “Republicans”) had these letters not been either seized or sabotaged there is every reason to believe that VA would never had ratified, pending the action of the NY Legislature on Amendments. Again, what does this question prove about Ron Paul or in this missive, the Rabbi’s claim that I am some sort of Constitutional illiterate”?

But here’s the thing, Mike, I am told you block comments on your facebook page, unless you are added first as a friend.  You should change that, Mike.  But here’s the real challenge, as you and the other light-weights and fools keep calling people out to debate — I am directly challenging you to disassociate yourself from the sleazy, race-baiting, anti-Semitic attacks and tactics from Paul’s inner circle.  Can you do that Mike?  Or will you continue to pretend they’ve never been raised.  Are you part of that circle, Mike?  And I am asking you if you agree with the attacks on Lew Rockwell’s site over the years against Reagan, Scalia, Friedman, Buckley, and Limbaugh.  Are these questions too difficult for you, or are you a coward.

I have answered the charge of Mr. Rockwell’s association above and I decline to disassociate with the Founder of the Mises Institute. Do you recall this man of Jewish heritage who survived the Nazis along with Hayek and lived to write a lifetime of scholarship dedicated to preventing the holocaust from ever happening again (yes, he was an economics professor). Do you know who is the executor of the Mises estate? I do and no, Sir, I will not disassociate myself from him.I named a child after Ronald Reagan, Sir, and I do not claim to defend all of Reagan’s politics or policies, does that mean he is beyond reproach. I defend the MAN, the life lived, the great American Ronald Reagan and yes much of the Reagan Revolution. BTW the Reagan diaries contain Reagan’s own remorseful thoughts on the tragedy in Lebanon, is Reagan wrong to doubt Reagan? What are you asking, for jingoist devotion beforehand to a question on Reagan? I would not offer such a promise to Mr. Madison, Henry or Jefferson, would you?I haven’t read all the “attacks” posted on the figures cited above by “Paul’s inner circle” so instead of me responding to this ad hominem why don’t you quote a few during our thrill packed, enlightening A League radio debate and I will decide then and there.By the way Mr. Levin, I rarely delete comments on my FaceBook page and no, I do not accept commentary from unregistered members, that is my choice but the entire planet is free to comment on the “Mike Church Show Fan Page” which carries identical posts, so what’s your point? This in addition to the hundreds of e-mails and facebook comments I received today charging YOU of the very action you so piously claim to loathe here. How about a quid pro quo Mr. Levin, my Fan page is public and open for business, there are pro-Mark Levin comments on it now. How about it?

We are debating, you idiot, that’s what this back and forth is about.  But I won’t help you build your little radio audience by raising you up to the level of the big leagues.  Just try and focus and respond coherently to the points I’ve raised.  You’re getting boring fast, you moron.

My what a splendid vocabulary you bring to to the end of our wonderful lesson together! One would think that those casting about as scholars, authors and “Great Ones” would find it beneath them to stoop to name calling. You should read the great debate of two actual scholars, Harry Jaffa and M.E. Bradford (The Heresy of Equality) and perhaps use the gentleman like salutations they used instead of trolling late night Comedy Central for pejorative neologisms.In closing, I will trust the judgement of an enquiring world as to the “Big league” worthiness of my responses contained herein and trust their judgement will be fair and based on an actual reading of the proceedings. The offer to debate like gentlemen, on-air, in person, any time, any place remains, Kind Sir, as do I.

Your eternal admirer,

Mike Church

Books related to this topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. This is a revised transcript from The Mike Church Show.

Print Friendly

Published: Aug 24, 2011
Mike Church
Mike Church is a Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative. He is the host of The Mike Church Show on Sirius Satellite Radio. A radio talk show host, author, filmmaker, and singer/songwriter, he is best known for his fearless ability to skewer liberals and fake conservatives with searing, in‐depth analysis. He was named “The Most Radical Man On The Radio” by “The American Conservative.” He can be heard on Sirius XM Patriot Channel 166 & 14 from 6:00-9:00 a.m. (EST) Monday through Friday.
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
7 replies to this post
  1. Sorry to tell you Markbots this, but Levin won't debate Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman or Tom Woods, because he wouldn't be able to hang up on them when he lost. – That got me deleted from "Little Man" Levin's page in less than 4 minutes. He is weak and doesn;t have a chance in this argument. His neoconic skewed and twisted view of the founding document is a disaster almost the size of his ego.

  2. Sorry Dwayne…

    Mark won't debate Mike because it would elevate his status far beyond that which he currently enjoys(or rather, doesn't). Kinda like inviting David Duke on one's show for a debate. It gives undeserved attention to the individual, and is pointless, as logical reasoning wouldn't dissuade the individual's sycophantic followers from their unbridled devotion.

  3. Dear Anonymous & Dwayne,

    I appreciate your participation in the TIC community. For all future comments on this site please refrain from any name calling or David Duke references. Let's keep the arguments on a level of civility which is appropriate to gentlemen. Please note our requirements for comments posted above the comment box. Thank you.

  4. Mark won't debate Mike because it would raise Mike's reputation beyond what's "deserved"?

    It's Levin doing the name calling here. It's Levin insulting Church, his stature, his show, his "channel" (which ironically is the very same channel on Sirius that Levin's show airs), while seemingly uninterested in focusing on the content of Church's comments.

    It's Levin that insults Ron Paul by derisively calling him "Ru Paul".

    I'd say, if one hadn't listened to either of these two hosts…. one would think that Levin is the one without game and "undeserving" of his reputation.

  5. While I enjoy both Mr. Church & Mr. Levin's radio programs,I respect Mike more following this skirmish.
    To debate Mike on the subject of the founding documents would be folly.
    The petty name calling & put downs are something I would never have thought Mr. Levin would stoop to while in disagreement with a fellow conservative radio host.
    I found it to be very bush league.
    Mr. Church is more concerned with expressing his beliefs & principles than cow-towing to "high profile" conservative guests & their ideals.
    While I sometimes think he carries the Ron Paul torch, ad nauseum, I think that he does so because he believes that is the only meaningful route to true constitutional conservatism that presents itself as a solution at this time.
    It also seems that Mike has basically declared a cold war against the vast majority of conservative talk radio hosts these days, which I find to be a silly endeavor.
    I will continue to listen to both programs, but will listen to Mr. Levin in a different light after this.

  6. Frank S. If you didn’t think Mr. Levin would stoop to those lows then you must not listen to his radio show. He attacks anyone and everyone. If Lincoln or Reagan were alive today and said they support Ron Paul he would attack them.

    That is just the type of person Levin is. I have at times agreed with what Levin has said but those are few and far between. He doesn’t base his arguments on facts. He is more then willing to be okay with one person doing something but if someone he doesn’t like does the same thing he is all hate and anger.

Leave a Reply