LEVIN ABSOLUTELY TORCHES BOB SCHIEFFER: A Very Sick Old Man

Doesn't CBS require employees to retire by age 115?

After CBS reporter Bob Schieffer compared taking on the gun lobby to ending segregation or America defeating the Nazis in World War II and passing civil rights legislation despite a segregationist South, conservative radio host Mark Levin bashed the journalist as a “phony” who is a “propagandist” acting as a “cheerleader” for the Obama administration...

"You should hear the media today. It’s pathetic. If we were talking about the First Amendment as I’ve said repeatedly, they’d be going nuts about a dictator. But because we’re talking about the Second Amendment, they cheer him on. Where’s this jerk from CBS, this Bob Schieffer, this dinosaur?

...This is one of these pretend journalists I talk about, a Potemkin journalist, a phony.

This guy needs to see a doctor in my humble opinion, Mr. Producer. This guy needs to be checked.

...Defeating the Nazis a more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby? You know what, Bob Schieffer, you’re a very sick old man. You really are. Your liberalism often now spews out, spews forth like somebody who’s heaving. You pretend you’re a newsman. You’ve been around for at least a century. How pathetic you are.

...I want to explain something to this phony journalist, to this pretend dinosaur here. We can’t stop murder in federal prisons you idiot. We can’t in state prisons, in county jails, in city jails where people are behind bars, where the government controls their every movement, when they take a crap, when they take a shower, when they eat their meals, when they exercise. Everything is controlled, and we can’t control murder and rape and assaults in our prison system. And suddenly, it’s not the country he remembers if we can’t prevent these things in the future.

The facts don’t matter to Bob Schieffer. Bob Schieffer’s a cheerleader. He’s a clapping seal. Somebody give him a ball so he can balance it on his nose."

Yes, setting the Constitution afire is just like combating the Nazis. That is, if you're a liberal kook disguised as a "journalist".

NOW THIS IS SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER: Mark Levin shreds Obama Presser and "Pretend Media"

Earlier today, attorney Mark Levin appeared on FOX News Channel's America Live with Megyn Kelly and offered a blunt assessment of President Obama's press conference.

I'm not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there's a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what?

The Constitution wasn't up for election, it's not up for a referendum or a plebiscite. He has to comply with it, too.

He was sent back to Washington, but he's got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president.

When he gets up there and starts saying, if Congress doesn't do this, I'm going to do this unilaterally, it violates separation of power a lot of the times. And this is a man pushing the edge of the envelope as far as i'm concerned, whether it's the appointment clause, whether it's his unilateral action on immigration, whether it's trashing the commerce clause and the tax clauses under Obamacare.

Now they're talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They've issued regulations on First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the Fourteenth Amendment.

What the hell is this? He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he's arrogant as hell and I'm furious about this and I'm going to tell you why.

We are a magnificent country. We don't need to be turned upside down. We don't need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He's bankrupting this country.

He said we've had a discussion about the debt. When did we have a discussion about the debt? We've had a debate about taxes. The man's never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him.

Kelly also asked Levin about the gun debate and the debt ceiling discussion; what are "the big lies" that he so frequently speaks of and how is the media intertwined with the president's fabrications?

There are a lot of big lies with this president. First of all, I call [the mainstream media] the "pretend media". I mean, what do they do? When they talk about the 14th Amendment and the debt ceiling, do they say, "Mr. President, that's not the point of it, and that's never been done before, could you explain that being the constitutional genius that you are?"

No.

Can we actually talk about the debt?

No. It's all Bush's fault.

And let's talk about guns. There's not a single idea being leaked out of this White House that would have prevented this horrific mass murder.

They're dusting off all their wants and demands like they always do. We have a Second Amendment. The Second Amendment matters. It's not up for grabs. It's not up to Biden, and Obama, and the goofball governor from Maryland and all the rest of them. And yet, you would think the Constitution is just some other statute that these guys can play with.

This is why I'm furious. Because once we lose the Constitution -- and we're losing it, big -- what's left? How do we keep these people in check?

Let me just say for the record that Mark Levin is a national treasure. Download his free podcast every night and get a free, college-level course in American history as an added bonus.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN: Another "can't lose" moderate... loses

Jeffrey Lord pens another must-read that is certain to be ignored by the Beltway class and, yet, contains within it certain incontrovertible truths.

Number one: another "can't lose" RINO moderate... fails. Do the terms McCain, Dole, Bush 41 and Ford ring a bell?

Number two: where were first principles in this campaign?

One cannot plunge the country into astronomical debt without there being a financial come-to-Jesus reckoning. One cannot tempt aggression with weakness. One cannot tax one's way to prosperity. One cannot build a behemoth federal government and expect the country to prosper. One cannot, as Mark Levin puts it, not understand the "interconnection of liberty, free markets, religion, tradition and authority" -- and not pay a price for that lack of understanding.

Were these conservative principles true in 1980? Yes. They were also true in 1780 and 1880 and they will be true in 2080. They are to the world of politics and government what Newton's law of gravity is to the physical world. And to the extent that they are ignored, one is -- politically speaking -- jumping off the Empire State Building without a parachute.

Has the country changed since 1980? I would hope so. Change in human life is unstoppable. But as Reagan himself -- a staunch advocate of change -- smartly said: "History comes and goes, but principles endure…"

Barack Obama will come and go. The next Apple iGizmo will appear -- and eventually disappear to be a relic. Katy Perry and Lena Dunham will grow old. America will not even be in this moment of 2012 for very much longer. Life will go on. Time will move on. And yes, some absolutely inevitable and foreseeable crisis will confront the new romance with American socialism and send Americans running back to their roots.

Lord insists we need more "New Reagans" -- people of all backgrounds, all races, all religions -- who are well-versed in conservatism.

And where did Marco Rubio, now hailed by the Republican establishment as a 2016 favorite, come from? Not from the RINO establishment. It backed Charlie "Tan-in-a-Can" Crist and fought Rubio tooth and nail. It was the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservative movement that gave birth to Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, etc.

There are flawed candidates, to be sure, among those backed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. RINOs point to Sharon Angle and Richard Mourdock, for example, forgetting that no one wins 100 percent of their slate. Until the afternoon of election day, when the unions started busing in voters from places unknown, Angle was in fact leading Harry Reid handily.

And one inappropriate and/or misconstrued remark by Mourdock (and a crackpot third-party candidate) helped cook his campaign.

It's not the conservatives who need to go away. It's the RINO establishment that should make themselves scarce. Once again, a mushy centrist -- who supposedly would appeal to wide swaths of the electorate -- lost in a race that should have been a slamdunk.

And in this existential showdown between liberty and tyranny, Mitt Romney could not even attract the same number of voters as... John McCain. Constitutional conservatives, Tea Party conservatives, and fiscal conservatives don't need to retreat. The RINO country club set needs to cede control to the true heart of the party. And if they refuse to cede power, we will defeat them as we have time and time again.

Mark Levin: Everyone should watch Obama's 2007 videotape: it is "an evil speech full of lies, hate, and racism"

Writing on his social media sites, attorney Mark Levin calls Barack Obama's 2007 speech "evil":

Simply put: this is an evil speech full of lies, hate, and racism.

I have never seen a president lower himself to this point. Pure demagoguery. Rather than dismiss or downplay this speech, as the big media and some foolish Republicans would have us do, everyone should watch it.

Obama is not fit, by temperament, psychology, or motive, to be leading this great nation.

We have it within our power, this November, to change course with our votes.

The city of New Orleans was not treated in some kind of discriminatory fashion. New York City and Miami are extremely diverse cities, just like New Orleans.

The federal government spent roughly $115 billion cleaning up New Orleans and surrounding areas. Does that sound like it got shortchanged?

This kind of divisive, demagogic behavior is reprehensible.

It's like we have President Sharpton in office.

America deserves better. America deserves a commander-in-chief, not a divider-in-chief.

My Top 10 Mark Levin Transcripts

Each one of these posts -- if I may say so -- is a must-read.

• Why Liberalism is the Philosophy of the Stupid
Mark Levin describes the liberals' dichotomy: do as I say, not as I do.

• The Time Is Now
A classic rant, transcribed for your reading pleasure, that offers the quintessential description of the free market.

• Neurosurgeon Briefed by HHS Reveals Obamacare's Death Panels
A neurosurgeon who returned from a briefing in DC describes precisely how Obamacare's new rules for treatment will work (or not work) for seniors.

• A Society Has To Be Insane...
What does government do well? And why should government be entrusted with powers outside that explicitly enumerated in the Constitution?

• Former Marine Strike Planner on Obama's Azerbaijan Leak: "Start viewing this administration as an existential threat to Israel"
This administration is not going to do anything to stop the Iranian terror state from acquiring nuclear weapons. In fact, they are actively working against America's closest allies to prevent a strike against Iran. They are, under Obama's orders, leaking highly classified information to America's enemies through the media.

• The Reason I Detest the Left
An epic rant by the Great One on the immorality of the Left's claims over your labor and your life.

• Your health care bill is a fraud, Mr. President, and you, sir, are a liar
After the disgusting machinations that saw Obamacare passed into law, Levin eviscerated the lies and cronyism required to force it down the American people's throats. This is the transcript.

• I've Finally Found the Statist's Utopia
Where on Earth can the Statist's endgame be found? Levin provides a definitive answer.

• What kind of political party is it that employs a strategy built upon such truly sick lies?
The outrageous statements by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi -- as Levin describes -- are the products of a philosophical sickness.

• Caller Describes How Nancy Pelosi and her Husband Abuse Their Power to Stiff Small Business
An administrator for a plumbing company describes how Nancy Pelosi and her husband -- who are worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars -- use their power in Washington to avoid paying bills.

• Bonus: Mark Levin's Top 50 Nicknames for Democrats and Vintage Media Types
A must-read.

Transcript: Mark Levin obliterates Obama's rape of Medicare to "spread the wealth" to those who never paid into the system

Mark Levin visited the Neal Cavuto today and completely shredded the laughable notion that the Ryan Budget harms anyone on Medicare.

Cavuto: What do you think of this pretty much unanimous form of Democratic rebuke?

Levin: Is that your form of waterboarding, by the way? That I have to listen to those people?

Cavuto: It's amazing. You'd think the guy was Lucifer!

Levin: First of all, this election is about saving the country. And I'm going to tell you something: Medicare's Trustee, appointed by Obama, said -- six months ago -- that Medicare is broke in 12 years. So, in 11-and-a-half years, there's nothing left.

What does Obama do about it? Nothing.

So Obama's policy is: let Medicare go back in just 11-and-a-half years. And it's actually worse, Neal. That does not include -- because I went back and read the report -- the $700 billion he stole from Medicare to spread the wealth under Obamacare.

Seniors who paid into Medicare need to understand: Obama went into the Medicare Trust Fund, took out $700 billion in the biggest raid in American history, to spread the wealth and fund Obamacare. This is spreading the wealth to people who haven't paid into anything.

That's number one: 11-and-a-half years [Medicare collapses].

Number two: what does Ryan propose? He says, 'Look, I'm reading Obama's Trustee's report! We've got to save Medicare! Here's my proposal: everybody 55 and older, you're unaffected, so you don't need to listen to this debate any longer...

Now, what are we going to do about people in the 20s, 30s, 40s and early 50s? Ask Obama: he has no answer. That is, if you can get a question in. He hasn't answered a question in seven weeks.

What does Ryan say? ...It saves hundreds of billions over several generations [using vouchers like the popular Medicare Advantage. As for Democrats who criticize this approach] ... I say, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to pay for this Rube Goldberg contraption called Obamacare is a complete disaster that will compromise seniors' health care...

...The American people are living this nightmare. So, Obama can put hundreds of millions of dollars of ads, his union buddies can do the same thing. But they know what's going on with unemployment.

The fact of the matter is they can do all their little one-liners and all the rest. I think the American people are smart enough, at least I hope enough of them are, to say no to this.

David "Red Diaper Baby" Axelrod hardest hit.

The Complete Epilogue: Ameritopia

The epilogue of Ameritopia, Mark Levin's latest bestseller -- a brief synopsis of its key themes -- is available in PDF format... and now plain HTML, for easier reading.

My premise, in the first sentence of the first chapter of this book, is this: “Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology.”

Plato’s Republic, More’s Utopia, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Marx’s workers’ paradise are utopias that are anti-individual and anti-individualism. For the utopians, modern and olden, the individual is one-dimensional—selfish. On his own, he has little moral value. Contrarily, authoritarianism is defended as altruistic and masterminds as socially conscious. Thus endless interventions in the individual’s life and manipulation of his conditions are justified as not only necessary and desirable but noble governmental pursuits. This false dialectic is at the heart of the problem we face today.

In truth, man is naturally independent and self-reliant, which are attributes that contribute to his own well-being and survival, and the well-being and survival of a civil society. He is also a social being who is charitable and compassionate. History abounds with examples, as do the daily lives of individuals. To condemn individualism as the utopians do is to condemn the very foundation of the civil society and the American founding and endorse, wittingly or unwittingly, oppression. Karl Popper saw it as an attack on Western civilization. “The emancipation of the individual was indeed the great spiritual revolution which had led to the breakdown of tribalism and to the rise of democracy.” Moreover, Judaism and Christianity, among other religions, teach the altruism of the individual.

Of course, this is not to defend anarchy. Quite the opposite. It is to endorse the magnificence of the American founding. The American founding was an exceptional exercise in collective human virtue and wisdom—a culmination of thousands of years of experience, knowledge, reason, and faith. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable societal proclamation of human rights, brilliant in its insight, clarity, and conciseness. The Constitution of the United States is an extraordinary matrix of governmental limits, checks, balances, and divisions, intended to secure for posterity the individual’s sovereignty as proclaimed in the Declaration.

This is the grand heritage to which every American citizen is born. It has been characterized as “the American Dream,” “the American experiment,” and “American exceptionalism.” The country has been called “the Land of Opportunity,” “the Land of Milk and Honey,” and “a Shining City on a Hill.” It seems unimaginable that a people so endowed by Providence, and the beneficiaries of such unparalleled human excellence, would choose or tolerate a course that ensures their own decline and enslavement, for a government unleashed on the civil society is a government that destroys the nature of man.

On September 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Delegate James Wilson, on behalf of his ailing colleague from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, read aloud Franklin’s speech to the convention in favor of adopting the Constitution. Among other things, Franklin said that the Constitution “is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become corrupt as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. . . .”

Have we “become corrupt”? Are we in need of “despotic government”? It appears that some modern-day “leading lights” think so, as they press their fanatical utopianism. For example, Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time magazine, considers the Constitution a utopian expedient. He wrote, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. . . . The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.” It is beyond dispute that the Framers sought to limit the scope of federal power and that the Constitution does so. Moreover, constitutional change was not left to the masterminds but deliberately made difficult to ensure the broad participation and consent of the body politic.

Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, explained that the Constitution is an amazing document, as long as it is mostly ignored, particularly the limits it imposes on the federal government. He wrote, “This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans, and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.” Of course, without the promise of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution would not have been ratified, since the states insisted on retaining most of their sovereignty. Furthermore, the Framers clearly did not embrace the utopian change demanded by its modern adherents.

Lest we ignore history, the no-less-eminent American revolutionary and founder Thomas Jefferson explained, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times and three-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, is even more forthright in his dismissal of constitutional republicanism and advocacy for utopian tyranny. Complaining of the slowness of American society in adopting sweeping utopian policies, he wrote, “There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Of course, China remains a police state, where civil liberties are nonexistent, despite its experiment with government-managed pseudo-capitalism. Friedman’s declaration underscores not only the necessary intolerance utopians have for constitutionalism, but their infatuation with totalitarianism.

It is neither prudential nor virtuous to downplay or dismiss the obvious—that America has already transformed into Ameritopia. The centralization and consolidation of power in a political class that insulates its agenda in entrenched experts and administrators, whose authority is also self-perpetuating, is apparent all around us and growing more formidable. The issue is whether the ongoing transformation can be restrained and then reversed, or whether it will continue with increasing zeal, passing from a soft tyranny to something more oppressive. Hayek observed that “priding itself on having built its world as if it had designed it, and blaming itself for not having designed it better, humankind is now to set out to do just that. The aim . . . is no less than to effect a complete redesigning of our traditional morals, law, and language, and on this basis to stamp out the older order and supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom, and justice.” But the outcome of this adventurism, if not effectively stunted, is not in doubt.

In the end, can mankind stave off the powerful and dark forces of utopian tyranny? While John Locke was surely right about man’s nature and the civil society, he was also right about that which threatens them. Locke, Montesquieu, many of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment, and the Founders, among others, knew that the history of organized government is mostly a history of a relative few and perfidious men co-opting, coercing, and eventually repressing the many through the centralization and consolidation of authority.

Ironically and tragically, it seems that liberty and the constitution established to preserve it are not only essential to the individual’s well-being and happiness, but also an opportunity for the devious to exploit them and connive against them. Man has yet to devise a lasting institutional answer to this puzzle. The best that can be said is that all that really stands between the individual and tyranny is a resolute and sober people. It is the people, after all, around whom the civil society has grown and governmental institutions have been established. At last, the people are responsible for upholding the civil society and republican government, to which their fate is moored.

The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism, and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is it accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?

No society is guaranteed perpetual existence. But I have to believe that the American people are not ready for servitude, for if this is our destiny, and the destiny of our children, I cannot conceive that any people, now or in the future, will successfully resist it for long. I have to believe that this generation of Americans will not condemn future generations to centuries of misery and darkness.

The Tea Party movement is a hopeful sign. Its members come from all walks of life and every corner of the country. These citizens have the spirit and enthusiasm of the Founding Fathers, proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the Declaration, and insist on the federal government’s compliance with the Constitution’s limits. This explains the utopian fury against them. They are astutely aware of the peril of the moment. But there are also the Pollyannas and blissfully indifferent citizens who must be roused and enlisted lest the civil society continue to unravel and eventually dissolve, and the despotism long feared take firm hold.

Upon taking the oath of office on January 20, 1981, in his first inaugural address President Ronald Reagan told the American people:

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.

So, my fellow countrymen, which do we choose—Ameritopia or America?

Buy a copy and pass it on. Drop some knowledge on your family, friends and colleagues. These are perilous times. And November is coming.

Mark Levin Nukes Obama's Energy Lies [Transcript]

The living national treasure known as Mark Levin shredded President Obama's fundraising energy policy speech in Miami yesterday, delivering an epic smackdown.

This man has never given a speech, never given a presidential statement without lacing it with politics and his own ego...

"[Obama:] Only in politics do people root for bad news... you can bet that, since it's an election year, they're already dusting off their three-point plan for two dollar gas. And I'll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for president. We hear the same thing every year. We've heard the same thing for 30 years. Well, the American people aren't stupid. They know that's not a plan. "

Mr. President, you may not know this. You may not understand this, because you've never actually taken the time to understand how this works.

But, yes, you have to drill to get oil, to get natural gas. You have to drill. You see, Mr. President, when that fleet of cars drives up to the local gas stations... and they fuel those cars, at our expense of course, the fuel isn't actually in those pumps to begin with, Mr. President.

You have to drill to get that stuff.

That's right! You have to get drill to get gasoline for your car! So a policy that says 'drill', number one, 'drill' number two, and 'drill' number three, is actually the only way to get gasoline, isn't it? Is there some other way to get gasoline, other than drilling?

Is there some other way to get home heating oil, other than drilling?

...So the president, on the one side of his considerable mouth mocks the Republicans for trying to drill, and on the other side of his mouth, mocks drilling! So, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't drill, we don't get oil!

If we don't drill, we don't get gas! Somebody's got to drill!

And there was Hillary Rotten Clinton, her Thighness, yesterday all excited about a deal with the Mexican government to drill in the Gulf in areas that are said to be shared... I could've sworn I heard Hillary Clinton talk about drilling! And we give millions, if not billions, to the Brazilians to do what? To drill!

And what are they doing in the Middle East? These massive ships that the oil companies have to have, that bring fuel back. Where do they get that? Oh, they drill? Yes, they drill!

So he mocks drilling and doesn't realize he sounds like idiot!

No, here's where we're going to get it: from the sun! Really? Solar. And wind! Now he's been president for three years, had complete control of the government for two years, and what did we get from this wind and solar? We got crony capitalism; campaign bundlers who made a fortune and then broke the companies; companies that can't work and don't work because a top-down, government mastermind like Obama can't -- just because he has the law and our money behind him -- do whatever he wants to do, against the laws of nature and physics, until we are able to develop it over the course of time. Until it's profitable, until it makes sense.

We call that whole process, "capitalism."

Related: Deconstructing Barack Obama's Blatant Energy Lies

Liberal Genius: Mark Levin's Ameritopia Is a #1 Bestseller Because Koch Brothers Are Buying Up Books In Bulk

Some progressive kook named "Ramona" (if that is her real name) has a novel theory regarding the rise of Mark Levin's Ameritopia to the top of all of the bestseller lists (The New York Times hardest hit). The Koch Brothers are buying up conservative books like Ameritopia to drive incredible sales volume.

Mark R. Levin, a Right Wing radio personality and "the #1 bestselling author of Liberty and Tyranny and regular Fox News contributor" is on January's cover [of the Books-a-Million catalog]. (Last month it was Glenn Beck). Levin has a new book out called, "Ameritopia, The Unmaking of America". Before I saw that cover, I confess I had never heard of Mark R. Levin. (Go ahead and strip me of my Rotten Persons Investigator badge--I know now that his new book, "Ameritopia" is at the top, the very tip-top, of this week's New York Times non-fiction bestseller list! )

So I took a look at the new book by this guy who--my god! NYT Best Seller!--I really should have heard of by now. I turned page after page and, okay, as a new Mark R. Levin reader who is also a liberal, I'm as biased as biased can be. But even I am shocked at how badly this book stinks!

...So here's what I'm thinking: What's to stop [Books-a-Million] from manipulating the market? (They also own a book distribution company.) What's to stop Threshold? What's to stop any of the Right Wing top guns--the Koch Brothers, say-- the people with all the money? What's to stop them from buying up tens or even hundreds of thousands of these books and sitting on them? ... And what's to stop 800+ stooges from churning out magnificent reviews for a book that nobody in their right mind would actually read through to the end?

I truly hope this isn't what passes for informed commentary on the Left.

Eh, Junior: Levin has roughly 10 million listeners for his radio show not because the Koch brothers paid them to listen, but because he explains -- in great detail -- the philosophical, moral, legal and ethical underpinnings of this country.

In other words, conservatism is winning in the marketplace of ideas. And, furthermore, the book's not for dummies. i.e., not for you.

Levin outlines the lessons of Smith, Locke, Montesquieu and others who influenced this nation's founders; the rationale for the form of government they created; and the thousands of years of human experience they leveraged to try to prevent the rise of a corrupt, massive, authoritarian central government. i.e., the Democrat Party.

So tune in to Levin on your local station, schmuck, and try learning something for a change.

Because your philosophy -- the philosophy of Utopianism -- has failed every time it's been tried in human history. Which is, as Levin has also explains, why liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.

Mark Levin's Ameritopia -- the Complete Epilogue in Plain Text Format

Ameritopia, Mark Levin's latest bestseller, had sold 50,000 copies in two days time as of last night. The book's epilogue -- a brief synopsis of its key themes -- is available in PDF format (hat tip: Dan Riehl). I converted it into text format (actually HTML) because I detest the delays and clunkiness associated with PDFs.

My premise, in the first sentence of the first chapter of this book, is this: “Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology.”

Plato’s Republic, More’s Utopia, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Marx’s workers’ paradise are utopias that are anti-individual and anti-individualism. For the utopians, modern and olden, the individual is one-dimensional—selfish. On his own, he has little moral value. Contrarily, authoritarianism is defended as altruistic and masterminds as socially conscious. Thus endless interventions in the individual’s life and manipulation of his conditions are justified as not only necessary and desirable but noble governmental pursuits. This false dialectic is at the heart of the problem we face today.

In truth, man is naturally independent and self-reliant, which are attributes that contribute to his own well-being and survival, and the well-being and survival of a civil society. He is also a social being who is charitable and compassionate. History abounds with examples, as do the daily lives of individuals. To condemn individualism as the utopians do is to condemn the very foundation of the civil society and the American founding and endorse, wittingly or unwittingly, oppression. Karl Popper saw it as an attack on Western civilization. “The emancipation of the individual was indeed the great spiritual revolution which had led to the breakdown of tribalism and to the rise of democracy.” Moreover, Judaism and Christianity, among other religions, teach the altruism of the individual.

Of course, this is not to defend anarchy. Quite the opposite. It is to endorse the magnificence of the American founding. The American founding was an exceptional exercise in collective human virtue and wisdom—a culmination of thousands of years of experience, knowledge, reason, and faith. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable societal proclamation of human rights, brilliant in its insight, clarity, and conciseness. The Constitution of the United States is an extraordinary matrix of governmental limits, checks, balances, and divisions, intended to secure for posterity the individual’s sovereignty as proclaimed in the Declaration.

This is the grand heritage to which every American citizen is born. It has been characterized as “the American Dream,” “the American experiment,” and “American exceptionalism.” The country has been called “the Land of Opportunity,” “the Land of Milk and Honey,” and “a Shining City on a Hill.” It seems unimaginable that a people so endowed by Providence, and the beneficiaries of such unparalleled human excellence, would choose or tolerate a course that ensures their own decline and enslavement, for a government unleashed on the civil society is a government that destroys the nature of man.

On September 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Delegate James Wilson, on behalf of his ailing colleague from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, read aloud Franklin’s speech to the convention in favor of adopting the Constitution. Among other things, Franklin said that the Constitution “is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become corrupt as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. . . .”

Have we “become corrupt”? Are we in need of “despotic government”? It appears that some modern-day “leading lights” think so, as they press their fanatical utopianism. For example, Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time magazine, considers the Constitution a utopian expedient. He wrote, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. . . . The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.” It is beyond dispute that the Framers sought to limit the scope of federal power and that the Constitution does so. Moreover, constitutional change was not left to the masterminds but deliberately made difficult to ensure the broad participation and consent of the body politic.

Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, explained that the Constitution is an amazing document, as long as it is mostly ignored, particularly the limits it imposes on the federal government. He wrote, “This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans, and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.” Of course, without the promise of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution would not have been ratified, since the states insisted on retaining most of their sovereignty. Furthermore, the Framers clearly did not embrace the utopian change demanded by its modern adherents.

Lest we ignore history, the no-less-eminent American revolutionary and founder Thomas Jefferson explained, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times and three-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, is even more forthright in his dismissal of constitutional republicanism and advocacy for utopian tyranny. Complaining of the slowness of American society in adopting sweeping utopian policies, he wrote, “There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Of course, China remains a police state, where civil liberties are nonexistent, despite its experiment with government-managed pseudo-capitalism. Friedman’s declaration underscores not only the necessary intolerance utopians have for constitutionalism, but their infatuation with totalitarianism.

It is neither prudential nor virtuous to downplay or dismiss the obvious—that America has already transformed into Ameritopia. The centralization and consolidation of power in a political class that insulates its agenda in entrenched experts and administrators, whose authority is also self-perpetuating, is apparent all around us and growing more formidable. The issue is whether the ongoing transformation can be restrained and then reversed, or whether it will continue with increasing zeal, passing from a soft tyranny to something more oppressive. Hayek observed that “priding itself on having built its world as if it had designed it, and blaming itself for not having designed it better, humankind is now to set out to do just that. The aim . . . is no less than to effect a complete redesigning of our traditional morals, law, and language, and on this basis to stamp out the older order and supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom, and justice.” But the outcome of this adventurism, if not effectively stunted, is not in doubt.

In the end, can mankind stave off the powerful and dark forces of utopian tyranny? While John Locke was surely right about man’s nature and the civil society, he was also right about that which threatens them. Locke, Montesquieu, many of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment, and the Founders, among others, knew that the history of organized government is mostly a history of a relative few and perfidious men co-opting, coercing, and eventually repressing the many through the centralization and consolidation of authority.

Ironically and tragically, it seems that liberty and the constitution established to preserve it are not only essential to the individual’s well-being and happiness, but also an opportunity for the devious to exploit them and connive against them. Man has yet to devise a lasting institutional answer to this puzzle. The best that can be said is that all that really stands between the individual and tyranny is a resolute and sober people. It is the people, after all, around whom the civil society has grown and governmental institutions have been established. At last, the people are responsible for upholding the civil society and republican government, to which their fate is moored.

The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism, and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is it accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?

No society is guaranteed perpetual existence. But I have to believe that the American people are not ready for servitude, for if this is our destiny, and the destiny of our children, I cannot conceive that any people, now or in the future, will successfully resist it for long. I have to believe that this generation of Americans will not condemn future generations to centuries of misery and darkness.

The Tea Party movement is a hopeful sign. Its members come from all walks of life and every corner of the country. These citizens have the spirit and enthusiasm of the Founding Fathers, proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the Declaration, and insist on the federal government’s compliance with the Constitution’s limits. This explains the utopian fury against them. They are astutely aware of the peril of the moment. But there are also the Pollyannas and blissfully indifferent citizens who must be roused and enlisted lest the civil society continue to unravel and eventually dissolve, and the despotism long feared take firm hold.

Upon taking the oath of office on January 20, 1981, in his first inaugural address President Ronald Reagan told the American people:

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.

So, my fellow countrymen, which do we choose—Ameritopia or America?

Buy a copy and pass it on. Drop some knowledge on your family, friends and colleagues. These are perilous times. And November is coming.

Mark Levin's new book Ameritopia is out tomorrow. To mark the occasion, I reprise his epic rant, "Why liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid"

In honor of the release of Mark Levin's new book Ameritopia (click here to order), the following is Levin's legendary rant entitled "Why Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid":

The reason I say that liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid is because we can look at what's going around in the country today. If, in your own lives, you were pursuing policies that were destroying your own home ownership, that were destroying your own job, that were creating a massive, impossible debt for your family and your children in particular, you'd stop it. You wouldn't keep doing it!

And yet for the liberal, if it's imposed on you -- and they feel that they can be immune from it -- they're for it.

They wouldn't do to themselves and their own family what they're doing to you, and your family, and the whole nation!

Take Barack Obama. Does Barack Obama conduct himself in his own, personal affairs, in his family's affairs, as recklessly as he conducts the affairs of the nation? No. Would he run up the kind of relative personal debt that he's running up for the nation? No way.

Would he do anything that would endanger his position as president? Of course not -- he thinks his agenda will return him to office. He's taking care of his constituent groups...

So they do to us -- and they do to our society -- what they would never do to their own families. They do not live in their own lives as they seek to have the rest of us live. Or as they seek to have our society conduct itself.

An extensive interview of Levin by CNS News -- regarding the genesis and thought process behind the book -- is quite revealing and well worth reading.

Photo: a Young Mark Levin

Via The Right Scoop:

As an aside, Levin's new book -- the followup to the bestselling Liberty and Tyranny -- promises to be a doozy.

My guess is that The New York Times will repeat its cowardly performance -- refusing to review the book no matter how many million of copies it sells. Because conservatism's logic, its principles, its philosophical foundations and its historical bases are no more assailable by progressives than Everest can be scaled by a gerbil.

Here's My Guess: the Title and Subject of Mark Levin's Next Book

Best-selling author Mark Levin is a Constitutional renaissance man. Not only is he the author of several New York Times bestsellers, but he's also the fastest-growing radio talk show host in America. Oh, and on the side he runs Landmark Legal Foundation, a law firm that takes up significant Constitutional issues.

His most recent book -- Liberty and Tryanny -- arrived in 2009 to massive acclaim (it has since sold over 1.2 million copies). Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator called it "The Book That Changed America"; it was a common sight at Tea Party rallies during the fight against President Obama's brand of socialized medicine.

Since that time, Levin's hinted on his show about his work on a new book. Reportedly completed in July, its title and subject are embargoed until the week before its release. That said, I've gathered enough information from his circuitous references to offer an educated guess.

Title: From Democracy to Despotism

Subtitle: The Left's Fatal Assault on Individual Liberty

Description: As our society frays thanks to the machinations of Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, we would be well-served to review history. The strategies and tactics of the modern Left are not new; we have seen these machinations before and we must recognize them today.

From Russia's bloody 1917 revolution, to Mao's "People's Army"; from the Palestinian elections of Hamas to Mugabe's Zimbabwe; the world has seen populist and democratic movements many times before.

Most importantly, the Statists of the Left use the democratic process itself to destroy government and the civil society. Most recently, Saul Alinsky (the father of modern community organizing) and Columbia Professors Cloward and Piven have articulated strategies that undermine the American republic from within.

The bulwark standing in their way is the United States Constitution. As the Left's termites eat away at our legal foundation, it's incumbent upon patriotic Americans to learn from history's lessons and politically obliterate the infestation of those who mean to unravel our society.

Whether or not my prediction is accurate, I can say with confidence this about Levin's next book. It will be great.

Sarah Palin's Statement: No, I Won't Run for President

It's a shame:

October 5, 2011

Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation's governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the "fundamental transformation" of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I've always said, one doesn't need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let's unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

- Sarah Palin

In the former Alaska governor's exclusive interview with Mark Levin, Palin cited -- among other reasons -- the Left's vicious attacks on her family.

The Reason I Detest the Left [Mark Levin]

Mark Levin:

Obama and the Democrats are trying to turn us against each other. They are trying to create hate. And at some point they're going to unleash mayhem. I truly believe this. They're playing with political fire; playing with societal fire. They're also creating the conditions of societal anxiety. People are worried about their own security, the stability of their lives, whether it's jobs, housing, transportation.



This is what happens when you devolve from liberty into tyranny. And what's clear to me now is that, based upon what the liberals are saying, what they've said over the last week, whether it's on the cable shows or in the liberal press, they're setting up the Tea Party, Fox News and talk radio for that which they are fomenting.



We have the Tea Party being called terrorists by a Congressman and the Vice President... other language being spewed about the Tea Party, so they really want to create hatred, negative images, strawmen. But the Tea Party is nothing more than the American people. That's what the Tea Party is.



Look at what happened in Wisconsin. The citizens of Wisconsin, in the various state elections, they beat back the forces of big government and their allies. We're not the minority!



We are the majority. But these people have been given things, taken from you and given to them, such that they believe they have a greater right to your private property -- your income, your labor -- than you do!



And they're not going to allow you to escape from this enslavement, from their perspective. I want you to think about this:



When Obama talks about "...this group deserves this...", he is saying that the government has the power to take your labor from you -- your work, your income, from you and your family -- that you have legitimately earned. And they take that from you for whatever reason he says... food-stamps, unemployment, medical care, highway construction, more federal bureaucracts... they have the right to take your labor, which is finite.



You only live so long. What you earn, taken from you and your family, and given to someone else for some other cause. And if you say no, they are arguing that the person they want to give it to -- who has not earned it -- and the cause they want to support... is a greater priority than you!



If you start looking at things this way, this is your labor, your work. You get up in the morning, put in a long day, go home in the evening -- maybe you have two jobs -- Obama is saying that your labor belongs to the government to give to somebody else! The government tells you what you get to keep!



Say your tax rate is 30%. That means 30% of the time you spend working for the government. You're not working for your family or yourself. And if Obama and the Democrats tax you the way that they want to, some states like New York and California, when you add in all of the various taxes, a typical person will be working over 60% of the time for the government!



So if you put in a 10-hour day, six hours of your day is going to the government to benefit someone else -- so they can buy their votes. So they can create these hostilities against you -- the taxpayers! Who make this system work!



We deserve thank you letters! Do we get thank you letters from the government? From any welfare recipient? From anyone? No! We're hated! "Oh, the Tea Party--we hate them!"



Why? Because we want to spend a smaller percentage of our lives working for somebody else -- as opposed to working for our own family? You know, there was a time in this country when that was considered the right thing! Self-sufficiency, independence, family.



How many cases are there where families are really on the edge? Where if they didn't have to pay those high taxes, they'd have a little bit more money to buy higher quality food, a better car, a better education, maybe a vacation... everybody talks about Obama having a right to take a vacation... well, does everybody else who actually works for a living have a right to take a vacation?



Maybe if you could keep a little bit more of your money, you could take a vacation? It is stunning what we accept in this nation. It happens gradually, but it happens. We have a new tax in place: 3.8%. So if you sell your house and you still have equity -- if you're lucky enough to have muscled throug this market, a market which blew up thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act, another government policy -- you've made a little profit, maybe you want to live off it, pass it on to your children, well, that's going to be taxed at 3.8% now.



Why? Obamacare! Obama said, "I'm not raising taxes on the middle class." Well, we're talking about the middle class! Your presciption drugs, they're very expensive, right? They're taxed! Medical devices, wheelchairs, whatever... taxed! More taxes, new taxes!



Now here's the grift: they're going to spend as much as they want. They're going to keep borrowing money, spending money. Taxes can't keep up with their spending, they never can and they never will! So it's almost gratuitous... the government wants to control a certain percentage of your life, your working life. You have got to look at taxes that way. A 30% tax rate is 30% of your work effort!



When you add in your property taxes, local income taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, gas taxes, and when you add in the federal income taxes, you have no idea what percentage of your life, your labor, you are delivering to bureaucrats in government! And, of course, they never have enough! They always want more! I'm not talking about millionaires and billionaires! I'm talking about you! I'm talking about you.



The reason I detest the Left so much, and believe me I detest the Left, is because they believe they have a moral claim on you! Literally, you! They believe they have a moral claim on your physical and intellectual labor! They have a moral claim -- they believe, they insist -- on a part of your work day!



And when they say you have to pay your "fair share", they're saying you have to work longer and harder for the government. There is no fair share! They don't have a claim on your life! They don't have a claim on your intellectual and physical labor!



No! They have to operate within the Constitution. We fund them within the Constitution, under our rule of law, no more and no less. Anything more is illegitimate. It's a liberty issue, ladies and gentlemen. Your liberty! Don't allow the way you think to be controlled and dictated by the Left, their language and their propaganda.



When they say "tax increases" or they use regulations to control you, to increase your expenses or limit your lifestyle, that is you that they are taking from. Your life. Your liberty.

Hat tips: Transcribed by Biff Spackle from the Mark Levin Show, 8/11/2011.

How's this for a deal: contribute $193K to your pension over your entire career, receive $130K pension salary for life. Welcome to Illinois!

When it comes to Illinois teachers' pensions, does the term ludicrous ring a bell?

...how can a 54 year-old Music teacher retire on a pension of $130,000 after working only 33 years and contributing only $193,000? Since he retired in 2009 he has already received more than he contributed ($225,000). That does not seem reasonable to the 95% of IL workers who are not in the state pension system. The cash value of his pension is 8 times what Social Security would be for the same salary and years worked. Why does any public employee deserve more than 8 times Social Security?

In fact, when you see the union hacks protesting, please consider the following:

Pensions four to seven times Social Security are not “modest”.

Here are the stats for the “average” retired teacher:
1. Average TRS [Teachers' Retirement System] pension – $46,000.
2. Average age at retirement – 58.
3. Average years worked – 25.
4. Average salary final year $61,000.

Mark Levin has a funny and uncannily accurate catch-phrase: "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid."

And every day we seem to gather more confirming evidence.

Mark Levin puzzled by Ann Coulter's bizarre endorsement of Chris Christie, who supports gun control, amnesty, Obamacare and climate legislation

Cub Reporter Biff Spackle was kind enough to transcribe the following soliloquy by radio host Mark Levin last Monday night.

I want to politely address my dear friend -- and she is my dear friend -- Ann Coulter. We've had some email exchanges.

What is your great love of Chris Christie based on? The man supports gun control. The man appoints a radical Islamist to a judgeship. The man is for amnesty [for illegal aliens]. The man is, to some extent, part of the "green" movement. He campaigned for Michael Castle.

And it's interesting. [Mitt] Romney is being attacked, correctly by the way, for RomneyCare. Yet here we have Obamacare, we have 28 states challenging it: 26 states in one suit; Virginia in another suit; Oklahoma in another suit -- and New Jersey's sitting on the sidelines.

Why? I cannot believe it's the cost. Because I have offered, as have others, to do it for free. Just sign your name on a brief. That's free. And yet Christie sits on the sidelines.

So he either supports [Obamacare] or I don't know what. Maybe while Romney's explaining RomneyCare, Christie can explain his [tacit support of] Obamacare.

But the idea that if we don't back Christie, who's already said he's not qualified enough to be president, that Romney is the winner and that we were warned about McCain, is a little rewrite of history. Nobody was more against McCain than I. Then at the very end I said we had to vote for him to stop Obama. But I fought him every step of the way. Ask McCain's people. They hate me. Feeling's mutual!

Anyway, it's a little bizarre to me. The way I see Chris Christie is he's Christine Todd Whitman as a male. I do like his fiscal positions. I do like the way he deals with the public sector teachers' unions. That's all to the good.

But when you're the president of the United States, you've got a whole lot of issues that affect a whole lot of people.

And it's not good enough to be good on one out of 20. So this [obsession with Christie] I don't get.

I agree completely. Christie has a number of troubling positions -- some even outright bizarre -- that seriously limit his acceptability as a GOP nominee. At least until he explains himself thoroughly on these issues.

Coulter isn't usually off-key on these sorts of things: but she couldn't be more wrong with her premature statements regarding Christie. Nominating another mushy centrist -- and I count the governor of New Jersey as one, based upon his track record -- will guarantee Barack Obama a victory in the general. And that we cannot accept if this Republic is to survive.


Image adapted from: Politico.

Oh. No. He. Didn't. Chris Matthews blames the Tucson shootings on... the strident tone of Mark Levin's voice

Not that you needed more proof that Chris Matthews has lost all command of his faculties, but tonight's diatribe should confirm what we all knew. The Tingle-Master -- which is the term he prefers, I hear -- assailed constitutional attorney and radio host Mark Levin this evening in what must be an all-time record for IQ mismatch. I liken it to a toy poodle attempting to mount Marmaduke.

Chris Matthews, joined by two liberal talk radio hosts on Tuesday's Hardball, essentially blamed...Mark Levin for creating the climate of hate that led to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords as the envious MSNBC host proclaimed: "People like Mark Levin...every time you listen to them are furious, furious at the left with anger that's just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial, they're just in some rage, every night, with ugly talk....They must have an audience. I looked at the numbers today. They have big audiences! And I guess that's the question. Why and is it ever going to stop if it keeps working?"

E. Steven Collins, another Philly area talker, sided with Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who attacked Rush Limbaugh, as he hailed: "The sheriff is Tucson was absolutely right...It does impact people who may have a mental problem or may not" and added that there was a "direct relationship" with Sarah Palin putting crosshairs on her Web site over Giffords' district and the loss of a life of "that little girl who went down to meet the congressperson."

Levin is a man who is passionate about what he believes. Since he was a teenager he has revered the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the rule of law, all of which combine to protect the civil society and the precious country that liberals take for granted.

Levin served for eight years in the Reagan administration including stints in the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior. Today, in addition to his talk show host duties, he provides pro bono legal services as president of Landmark Legal Foundation.

Furthermore, Levin is a man who explicitly decries violence and brooks no such talk on his show.

He is a man who, on a nightly basis, discusses history, philosophy, logic and reason. Listen to one of his shows and there is a good chance you will hear him recite accounts of the first Tea Party of 1773, Paul Revere's ride, or the historic passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Levin often opines on the Framers' intent for the Constitution's Commerce clause, based upon his extensive readings of the Federalist Papers. He has described the founders' reliance upon Montesquieu's separation of powers, John Locke's concepts of natural, God-granted rights, the power of the free market as expressed through Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', and de Tocqueville's immortal Democracy in America.

Therefore Chris Matthews has discarded -- or worse, never bothered to listen to -- the content of Levin's commentary and instead assails the tone of his voice.

Yes, you heard me: MSNBC's Chris Matthews is attacking the tone of Mark Levin's voice.

Which describes, in a sentence, the depths to which the modern Left has descended.

For it is they who market divisive and destructive rhetoric. It is they that advocate lawless behavior. And it is they who reject the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Which is why they grabbed this opportunity by the throat: to suppress the free speech of those with whom they disagree.

'Can somebody give me one compromise that Obama has offered?'

The liberal punditry is up in arms, pillorying the Democrats for proposed accommodations to the incoming class of Republicans. Obama himself is under fire, as he is reportedly ready to compromise and negotiate. Well, last night Mark Levin addressed this fallacy in stark terms (transcript courtesy Biff Spackle).

We just had a massive election landslide, where the American people said, "We don't want any of this." Does it sound to you like the Democrats got the message? Does it sound to you like Obama got the message?

I was sitting here today making a list of all the compromises that Obama has made. He wants to compromise, he wants to negotiate. I'm sitting here and thinking: well, there is nothing on my list. I can't think of one!

Can somebody give me one compromise that Obama has offered? Just one? Exactly what is it?

Is he prepared to compromise on Obamacare? No! They're moving forward.

Is he prepared to compromise on the regulation of CO2 by the EPA? No! They're plowing ahead.

We're told he's going to rule by fiat, using Executive Orders and regulations to get around the new Congress and the voters.

So where's his compromise? What are we to negotiate with? See, he's an ideologue. He's not your garden-variety political hack. He's an ideologue. Which means he's not going to compromise on big issues. And that's the reality of having a guy like this in office.

If I were in charge of the Republican Party, I would put it bluntly. To paraphrase Harry Truman on August 6, 1945:

Thirty days ago an American juggernaut dropped a bomb on Democrats in Congress and destroyed their usefulness to the Marxist Left. That bomb had the power to swing 63 House seats and 680 state legislative seats and left in its wake what the National Journal called "devastation".

The Democrats began this war in 2007 when they promised to run the "most ethical Congress ever" with "no new deficit spending." Instead they permitted and encouraged rampant criminality and an all-time record of $5 trillion in new deficit spending.

But the end of their reign of fiscal terror is near. The electorate dropped the political equivalent of an atomic bomb on the Democrats last month. The force which gave birth to this country -- an insatiable desire for freedom -- has been loosed against those who brought fiscal ruin to the nation.

The greatest marvel is not the size of the Democrats' defeat, nor its cost, but the achievement of the people -- a true, grass-roots effort to repudiate Marxism and Statism -- into a workable plan. People of all races, religions, economic backgrounds and interests worked to advance freedom in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if another such combination could have been assembled anywhere in the world. What has been done is among the greatest achievements of a people fighting incipient tyranny in history. It was done under pressure and without failure.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every destructive endeavor the Democrat Statists have created. We shall destroy their agencies, their bureaucracies, their unconstitutional czars, their ideologues who have burrowed into regulatory bodies unknown to most Americans. Let there be no mistake: we shall completely destroy the Democrats' political power.

It was to spare the Democrats from utter destruction that the ultimatum was yesterday issued. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum, raising taxes on small business owners, entrepreneurs and hard-working couples around the country.

If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of political ruin, the likes of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this 2010 offensive will follow subsequent forces in such number that and power as they have not yet seen and with the political skills of which they are already well aware.

The power of the people will continue to grow as more citizens educate themselves regarding the unholy alliance of Democrats and the fourth branch of government -- the public sector unions. Both align themselves against the citizen, against the taxpayer, and threaten the destruction of our country, our currency and our way of life.

We pledge to politically eradicate the Marxist left that inhabits the body of the Democrat Party like some sort of horror film zombie.

And in 2012, 2014, 2016 and in every subsequent election, we will return this great Republic to the Constitutional basis that our Framers intended. Our contract with America is this: it is the Constitution.

No political quarter asked, and none given.

This is a war for the country's future. We can have a failed Marxist welfare state of the sort melting down in Europe. Or we can begin to right the ship by returning to the principles of Constitutional government, the wisdom of which becomes more and more obvious by the day.