MARK LEVIN TRANSCRIPT: Just How Desperate is the New Obamacare Sales Pitch?

Via Hannity


JOINING ME NOW, THE AUTHOR OF, NUMBER ONE ON AMAZON FOR OVER A WEEK, "THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS," MARK LEVIN FROM HIS BUNKER.

SIR, HOW ARE YOU?

>> I'M GOOD, HOW ARE YOU, SEAN?

>> I GUESS NEXT THEY'LL BE SINGING SONGS TO CASTRO AFTER THIS, MARK.

>> YEAH, WHY NOT? I MEAN, WE'RE ADOPTING THE CASTRO AGENDA, AREN'T WE? OBAMA CARE IS A -- NOT ONLY IS IT A COMPLETE DISASTER, BUT I'M AFRAID, SEAN, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET RID OF IT.

BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.

AND INSTEAD OF TAKING ON OBAMA AND TAKING ON THE LEFT, THEY'RE TAKING ON THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS AND ATTACKING THEM, TELLING US TO WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY.

THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERING.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALEAST ATTACK THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING OR USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT FUNDS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT'S LEFT? ONCE THIS THING IS INSTITUTED, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPLODE.

I HEAR THIS, OH, THE LAW IS GOING TO IMPLODE.

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN IMPLODING LAW?

>> NO, NEVER.

>> YOU HAVE TO REPEAL A LAW.

YOU HAVE TO DEFUND A LAW.

LAWS DON'T IMPLODE.

>> FOR ME --

>> THEY SAY --

>> YEAH.

>> THIS IS A LINE IN THE SAND.

EVERY ONE OF THESE GUYS RAN ON REPEALING OBAMA CARE AND REPLACING, EVERY ONE OF THEM.

I KNOW THE HOUSE, THEY HAD ALL THESE, I GUESS SYMBOLIC VOTES TO REPEAL IT, BUT NEVER OF THEM HAD TEETH IN IT.

NOW IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY'RE NOT ANY BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN FIGHTING.

THEY DON'T REPRESENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

>> AND THEY WON'T EVEN FIGHT.

I MEAN, YOU GOT TO GIVE THIS TO THE LEFT.

THEY NEVER GIVE UP.

THEY FOUGHT FOR 100 YEARS FOR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.

THESE GUYS CAN'T EVEN FIGHT FOR TWO WEEKS.

ALL THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT SHUT DOWN, WE'LL GET BLAMED FOR IT.

SEE THIS LIST HERE -- SORRY, I LEFT MY THIRD GRADE WHITE BOARD AT HOME.

I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL AND I USED WHAT IS CALLED PAPER.

SEE THIS LIST HERE? THESE ARE ALL THE TIMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS, REPUBLICAN HOUSES AND SENATE, DEMOCRAT HOUSES AND SENATE.

THEY TALK ABOUT A POLITICAL CATASTROPHE IF WE SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE WE DID IN '95 AND '96 FOR THREE WEEKS.

SEAN, WE GAINED TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, LOST NINE IN THE HOUSE AFTER A BIG HOUSE WIN.

THESE WERE SOFT HOUSE SEATS.

WE KEPT A HUGE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, PICKED UP TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, MOVED TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET, GOT WORK FAIR IN THE WELFARE PROGRAM AND THE REPUBLICANS TODAY ARE CLAIMING THAT THAT'S THE POLITICAL DISASTER IF WE STAND STRONG.

>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER.

LET'S WALK THROUGH.

ALL RIGHT, SO, THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR AUGUST RECESS AND VACATION, AND LET'S SAY THEY FUND THE MILITARY, THEY FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, EVERY ASPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT, OUR DEBT, OUR OBLIGATIONS, THEY FUND IT ALL.

EXCEPT FOR OBAMA CARE.

THEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO THE SENATE.

THE MAJORITY, THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE.

LET'S WALK THROUGH THIS.

SO, THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY FUNDED BUT FOR OBAMA CARE.

THEN IT GOES THE SENATE.

SAY THEY DON'T PICK IT UP.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

>> WELL, THEY'RE AFRAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE, THE CONFIDENCE, THE KNOWLEDGE, OR THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHO IS ACTUALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

NOW, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HARDLY.

BUT DO YOU REALIZE EVERY WEEKEND, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? DO YOU REALIZE EVERY HOLIDAY, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? I LIKE THE WEEKENDS, I LIKE MY HOLIDAYS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN.

>> ME, TOO.

>> AND THESE ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, THEY NEVER GO HOME.

WHETHER IT'S THE EPA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS IN PLACE FOR SO-CALLED ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL.

SO, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

DO YOU EVER PLAY POKER AND SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND?

>> NEVER.

>> YOU SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND, THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND, SAYING, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

SO, WHAT DOES OBAMA SAY? THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH INCOMPETENT POLITICS.

>> IT'S COWARDLY.

>> WELL --

>> THERE WAS A REPORT BACK THAT YOU AND GOVERNOR PALIN TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A THIRD PARTY.

REAGAN ADDRESSED THIS.

YOU WORKED IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.

AND HE SAID, NO, WE NEED A REVITALIZED SECOND PARTY.

IF THIS ISN'T THE ISSUE TO REVITALIZE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THEN THEY ARE LETTING THIS OPPORTUNITY GO.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT CONSERVATIVES LIKE MYSELF AND LIKE YOURSELF, I'M DONE WITH THE REPUBLICANS, IF THEY DON'T FIGHT HERE.

I DON'T -- I WILL NOT SUPPORT, I WILL NOT ENDORSE, I WILL NOT -- ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP ON THIS ISSUE.

BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO THE COUNTRY, WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN IT.

DO YOU THINK THAT MOVEMENT WILL BE BIG?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

HERE'S THE THING.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T EVEN LIKE THIS LAW.

THE MORE THEY LEARN ABOUT IT, MORE OF IT THAT'S IMPLEMENTED AND OBAMA IS TRYING TO HIDE PARTS OF IT UNTIL AFTER THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

CAN YOU IMAGINE, THE REPUBLICANS ARE BEING HANDED AN ISSUE OF A GENERATION.

THE -- OBAMA IS DESTROYING HEALTH CARE.

HE'S DRIVING UP COSTS.

HE'S CREATING DISLOCATION.

THEY CAN LAY THAT ALL AT HIS FEET.

IT'S BEEN HANDED TO THEM.

AND THERE'S SUCH MUSH HEADS AND MARBLE MOUTH, THEY CAN'T ARTICULATE THE CASE AGAINST IT.

>> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF OBAMA CARE.

YOU ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.

BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS, YOUR BOOK HAS BEEN NUMBER ONE FOR OVER A WEEK ON AMAZON.

COM.

OBAMA'S MISSED NOW HALF THE DEADLINES FOR IMPLEMENTING OBAMA CARE.

NOW, THIS WAS NOT EVEN PASSED, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IN A LEGAL FASHION.

FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IF THAT'S THE LAW, AND THE DEADLINES ARE NOT MET, DOES THE PRESIDENT UNILATERALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY HE'S NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMPLOYER MANDATE OR THE OTHER AREAS THEY PUT IN DELAYS? >> IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW REPEATEDLY, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION REREPEATEDLY, INCLUDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

>> WHY?

>> WHY, WELL, LOOK AT JOHN BOEHNER AND MITCH McCONNELL.

THE SUPREME COURT REWROTE THE CONSTITUTION AND REWROTE THE LAW TO PUT IT IN PLACE.

THIS IS THE POINT.

IF WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LIBERTY REFORMATION OR REVITALIZATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION WITH A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS CREATED ITS OWN DESIGN WITH DEMOCRATS THAT KEEP DRAGGING US OVER THE CLIFF AND REPUBLICANS WHO KEEP STANDING THERE WATCHING, WE'RE NOT.

WHICH IS THE REASON I WROTE THE BOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CHALLENGES NOW THAT EXIST FOR INCUMBENT SENATORS LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND LAMAR ALEXANDER, THESE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES NOW STEPPING UP AND THEY'RE CHALLENGING THEM.

DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THESE GUYS MAY PAY A PRICE FOR NOT FIGHTING? >> I DON'T KNOW EVERY CANDIDATE IN EVERY CASE, BUT I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM.

WE NEED AS MANY CAPABLE, ARTICULATE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN GET THEM WELL FUNDED CANDIDATES, TO CHALLENGE THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS AS POSSIBLE.

LINDSEY GRAHAM IS A DISASTER.

I MEAN -- I CAN PICK ALMOST ANY ISSUE IN WHICH HE'S A DISASTER.

LAMAR ALEXANDER IS ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS GUY STANDS FOR.

>> LET ME PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT SAY, THOSE MODERATES, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN GET ELECTED.

REPUBLICANS NEED TO BE MORE MODERATE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

YOU HEAR IT SAID ON THIS NETWORK.

>> YOU MEAN --

>> WHAT?

>> RIGHT.

WE CAN ONLY ELECT MODERATES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY? I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE AT ALL.

WE CAN ELECT SOLID CONSERVATIVES FROM THOSE STATES AND IN THE PAST, WE HAVE.

WHAT HAPPENS IS, THESE GUYS, THEY GET TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IMMEDIATELY, BOOM.

RATHER THAN THEM REPRESENTING US IN WASHINGTON, THEY REPRESENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO US AND THEY TRY TO CONVINCE US TO GO ALONG.

I'VE HAD IT.

YOU'VE HAD IT.

MILLIONS OF US HAVE HAD IT.

>> GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.

MORE WITH THE GREAT ONE, MARK LEVIN.

HIS NEW BOOK IS IN BOOKSTORES EVERYWHERE.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

MARK LEVIN: Hillary Clinton is the Greatest Secretary of State Ever

Mark Levin:

Did you know Hillary's the greatest Secretary of State ever? Can anyone give me one reason?

• We now have a new Cold War.

• We're hollowing out our military while the Chinese are massively building up theirs.

• Damn near the entire Middle East is on fire.

• Communism is spreading throughout Central and South America.

• And our allies can't stand us.

But she's the "greatest Secretary of State ever".

Maybe for Russia, but not for us.

Oh, by the way, she was once the greatest Senator ever.

What's she do? I don't know. But she was the greatest.

So what happens if she's elected? What happens with Bill Clinton? Is he put in charge of the Internship Program at the White House?


Follow Mark Levin on Twitter at @MarkLevinShow.

It Would Seem That the Email Address of Sean Spicer, the so-called RNC "Communications Director", is a National Secret

There's a rumor circulating that the Republican Party has a Communications Director by the name of "Sean Spicer".

Sean Spicer, the communications director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), said conservative talk radio host Mark Levin should ask 2016 Republican presidential candidates questions in debates during the next election cycle... [he said,] "the people who are out there talking to grassroots" should be asking Republican presidential candidates questions in the debates...

"Mark Levin should ask the questions," Spicer declared...

...He urged listeners to follow him and send him feedback and ideas on twitter to him (@SeanSpicer) and Priebus (@Reince).
Spicer said he could not emphasize how even the simplest suggestion can be adopted and help make the RNC better and more receptive to the concerns that grassroots conservatives, bloggers, and activists have...

I had the idea of interviewing Mr. Spicer concerning his offer to Levin -- which the famed author, attorney and radio host has formally accepted -- but contacting the "Communications" director has proven more difficult than interviewing Jimmy Hoffa.

Tweeting @SeanSpicer hasn't worked thus far.

Nor has emailing every permutation of email address I can think of, including -- but not limited to:

• sean.spicer@rnc.org; sean@rnc.org; seans@rnc.org; spicer@rnc.org; ssspicer@rnc.org;

• sean.spicer@gop.com; sean@gop.com; seans@gop.com; spicer@gop.com; ssspicer@gop.com;

All of which were returned as undeliverable.

It would seem that the Republican Party's "Communications Director" is in the Witness Protection Program.

He's harder to get a hold of than Howard Hughes.

All of which seems appropriate for a GOP that is more out of touch with its conservative base than Michael Moore with his toes.


Update: Hallelujah! I have received an email and a tweet from Mr. Spicer himself. I will keep you apprised as to our communications.


Hat tip: Mark Levin.

LEVIN: If you oppose Voter ID then you oppose fair elections

I happened to be "debating" a liberal at the gym the other day and the topic of voter ID came up. This crackpot believes that requiring voter ID is somehow "suppressing the vote" (his words).

When I asked whether the TSA is suppressing airline passengers, or the liquor stores are suppressing whiskey sales, or states are suppressing driving, his response was the typical Leftist gibberish.

He brought his heels together, did a mock Seig Heil, and affected: "Let me zee yore paperz" -- with the obligatory Hitler accent.

Do they grow these coconuts at some kind of Alinsky farm?

Last night, Mark Levin addressed the issue of voter ID in his usual succinct and effective manner.

Why does the government issue photo IDs? It’s not the private sector issuing them, it’s not the [Ku Klux] Klan issuing them. The government is issuing voter ID so the government can know who you are. Now why does the government want to know who you are? Because they want to know who they are giving driver's licenses to; if a police officer stops you they want to know who you are. They want to know if you have insurance. They want to know your age if you want to buy booze. And I can go on and on. There wouldn’t be government-issued photos IDs but for the government.

So my question is [this]: Is the government – are all state governments racist because they are requiring you to have a photo ID, that is a photo with your pigmentation on it? I mean, this is so asinine what the Left is up to in this administration.

You know what it is? Let’s just be honest, they want to defend fraud. They want to defend fraud. You can’t get on an airplane without a government issued ID. You can’t buy booze without a government issued ID. You can’t lease an apartment without a government issued ID. You can’t do damn near anything without a government issued ID.

Except vote! Anyone can vote without a photo ID at the polls!

Have you ever tried to check into a hotel without a government ID? Have you ever tried to rent a car without a government ID? Don’t we hold voting, like, at the top? Haven’t we fought the civil rights movement for people to have the right to vote? Why is it ipso facto discriminatory against minorities for people to show an ID? If you have a specific case in which a state, a town, a county or somebody has discriminated against you because of your race, you can bring a federal lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act, still today and a state lawsuit under state voting rights acts, still today!

But voter integrity is something the Democrat party rejects. Because they want multiple voting. Because they want dead people voting.

Who uses it? The big cities use it, among others. When LBJ was running for president or first, for the Senate, it was rural areas that were using it.

So this isn’t some civil rights issue. This is to promote fraud.

It's just that simple: Why do governments issue IDs? Because they're racist?

Of course not.

Those who object to IDs for voting, as opposed to everything else that requires an ID, are aiding and abetting criminals. They are trying to destroy the integrity of the ballot box in America.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

NEW COMIC STRIP: The Press Conference

Based on real events!

Wouldn't you love to see a real press conference? One in which all questions were asked by, say, Mark Levin? And which had a "no filibuster" rule, preventing the president's usual Castro-like responses?

TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin on Cavuto -- Obama's Scandals are Real, It's His Rhetoric That's Phony

Mark Levin, appearing today on Your World With Neil Cavuto:


This President could give a damn about serious investigations regarding the scandals swirling around his administration. And then his lackeys go on TV, including Fox News Sunday, and tell us there's no evidence? Their people plead the Fifth. The Attorney General doesn't conduct investigations.

And what's necessary is for the Republicans in the House to get their act together.

We don't need five separate House committees investigating Benghazi. We need one Special Investigative Commitee -- with former U.S. assistant attorneys and other types of prosecutors, who are serious people and have the resources necessary full-time to pursue these matters -- and put the information out on the table.

Same with the Internal Revenue Service investigation. We've got committees tripping over one another, claiming jurisdiction. Once again, we need experts, we need to pursue these things with a Special Investigative Committee.

And then the pressure builds for a Special Prosecutor. Even though Holder won't want to appoint one, over time enough information will come out where it will become necessary.

The President of the United States -- it's been almost a year -- will still not tell the American people what he was doing for eight-and-a-half hours after our consulate was attacked in Benghazi...

The President uses his word phony [to describe his scandals]. It's actually a perfect word for him, because his speeches are phony, his promises are phony, his economy is phony, the whole damn thing is phony.

Let me tell you something... from my point of view, once more, the Speaker of the House, he's in charge of organizing these investigations... and he won't. They're flopping around, they're navel-gazing... because they don't think there's anything political in this. They're playing rope-a-dope, they're playing it safe, they want to push through the next election.

Boehner wants to remain Speaker, Cantor Majority Leader... the point is, the fact is, if they'd been running effective investigations, one committee -- a joint committee -- with some of the sharpest, toughest individuals we know investigating Benghazi, we'd be to the bottom of this already.

Same with the IRS scandal. The president should be served with an interrogatory. It's been done before...

What is everybody talking about? Weiner's weiner, for God's sakes... The Trayvon Martin case, that went on for a month.

Meanwhile, we have an Internal Revenue Service that was illegally attacking United States citizens because of their politics, because of their political viewpoints, because of their religion. I mean, for crying out loud, if that doesn't raise an uproar... we have four Americans dead and the President of the United States is running all over the country and refuses to tell the American people what the hell he was doing for eight-and-a-half hours. I think he was sleeping. But he won't say.

We have this NSA -- massive gathering of telephone numbers -- basically nationalizing the phone companies' records as if that's going to fight terrorism...

[On Christie's support of the NSA program and attacks on Rand Paul] ...Maybe this Chris Christie can get in front of these 9/11 families and tell us how this NSA program would have saved a single life or prevented a single terrorist attack. You know how these terrorists got into this country? The border wasn't secure and they overstayed their visas. What is Chris Christie's position on that?

Christie's weak on Amnesty. So I think it's a mistake for him to use 9/11 to attack who he believes will be his political opponents in a Republican primary...

We conservatives have been fighting against the Republican establishment for half a century, whether they take the form of Chris Christie, or Romney... or Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon.

This country needs to move in a new direction, economically, Constitutionally, when it comes to our Bill of Rights.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

READER POLL: What are some of Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments"?

Thoughts appreciated.



For background information, please see: TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin Introduces His New Book "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic".

HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin Introduces His New Book "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic"

Unlike the statists who defy, ignore and rewrite the Constitution for purpose of evasion -- as they push their big government rules and regulations -- I propose that we, the people, take a closer look at the Constitution itself for our preservation. The Constitution provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe. Or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society in Article V.

Article V sets forth the two processes for amending the Constitution, the second of which we're going to focus on. Article V says, in part:

Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Importantly, and I want to emphasize this, in neither case of amending the Constiiution does Article V provide for a Constitutional Convention. This is important, because you'll hear critics say, "We don't need a Constitutional Convention! We'll never get anyone better than the Framers!"

And they're right! This isn't a Constitutional Convention. This is a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

In other words, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution -- and has in 27 cases that have been ratified -- and the states can too, through the convention process. The first method, where two-thirds of Congress passes a proposed amendment and then forwards it to the state legislatures for possible ratification by three-fourths vote. And that has occurred 27 times.

The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, for a convention of proposing amendments -- not a Constitutional Convention, a convention for proposing amendments, which would thereafter require three-fourths of the states to ratify -- has been tried in the past without success. And today it sits dormant.

The fact is: Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to re-balance the Constitutional structure for the purposes of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too powerful as many delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention feared.

Which is exactly why they provided for two methods of amending the Constitution. On June 11, 1787 -- at the Constitutional Convention -- George Mason of Virginia, one of the most underrated of the Founding Fathers and one of the greatest men in American history, who had drafted Virginia's "Declaration of Rights", the precursor to the Declaration of Independence... he responded to some of the delegates who didn't see the necessity of having the states propose amendments. Which Mason strongly advocated for!

In [James] Madison's Notes from the Constitutional Convention, he writes about Mason's comments:

Colonel Mason urged the necessity of such a provision : "The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments, therefore, will be necessary ; and it will be better to provide for them in an easy, regular and constitutional way, than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the national legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their assent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendment."

And so there was some debate. And two days before the end of the Constitutional Convention -- on September 15th -- Mason was back at it. Mason, concerned that Congress would have the sole power to propose amendments, continued to insist on state authority to call for conventions. George Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments curtailing its own tyranny.

Back to Madison's Notes, citing Mason, "thought the plan of amending the Constitution 'exceptionable and dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.'"

Quote, unquote, Madison's Notes, September 15th, 1787.

Mr. Governeur Morris, Mr. Eldridge Jerry of Massachusetts moved as to amend the article as to require a convention on application of two-thirds of the states.

And there you have it.

Under both amendment procedures, the Constitution requires at least three-fourths of the states ratify the amendment -- either by their state legislatures or by the state conventions. So again, rather than Congress proposing amendments, what's suggested here is that the states can and should convene to do the same thing.

Now: I was originally very skeptical of amending the Constitution by the state convention process. I, like many of you, was concerned that it could turn into a runawy caucus, And, as an ardent defender of the Constitution who reveres the brilliance of the Framers, I presumed this would play disastrously into the hands of the Statists.

But today but I am a confident and enthusiastic advocate for the process. The text of Article V makes it abundantly clear that there is a serious check in place, whether the product of Congress or the state convention, A proposed amendment has no effect at all unless ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by the conventions in three-fourths thereof.

This, ladies and gentlemen, should extinguish concerns that the convention process could hijack the Constitution. It is impossible. And after more research and reflection, the issue crystallized further for me. If the Framers were alarmed that states calling for "a convention proposing for amendments to the Constitution" could undo the entire undertaking of the Constitutional Convention, then why did they craft, adopt and endorse the language?

And it was strongly endorsed in the Federalist Papers -- by Madison and Hamilton in Federalist 43 and Federalist 85.

And here's the beauty of the process: Congress' role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial. And it couldn't be otherwise, because the Framers and Ratifiers adopted the state convention process for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the Congressionally-initiated amendment process. That was the point.

Now you can see why the ruling class and their little mouthpieces are going to hate me: because this removes power from them.

It gives power to the state delegates and state senators, who you will have an effect on one day. And this is what my new book is about: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.


Click here to pre-order a copy.

MARK LEVIN SHOW PODCAST PROBLEMS? Here's an easy way to download the Great One's podcasts

If you're a Mark Levin Show fan like me, you may have noticed that the show's website redesign appears to have completely broken podcast downloads. Not to fear -- here's my fix:

1. Choose date of podcast to download:

2. Click on the link to play or right click and save to download:

Podcast link
You're welcome, America!

RED ALERT TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin Says a Powerful Republican (*cough* John Boehner *cough*) is Trying to Silence Him

Biff Spackle emails the following transcript of Mark Levin's opening monologue tonight. Levin didn't name Boehner specifically, but only the Speaker is responsible for committee assignments.

Well, it's come to my attention that there's a Republican Congressman out there who doesn't like what I've been saying.

It's come to my attention that there's a Republican Congressman out there, a fairly powerful one, who doesn't like what I've been saying about him.

And you know what this Republican congressman wants to do about it...?

He wants our major affiliate in his district to remove this show.

This Republican Congressman who's fairly powerful is sliming around in the background, in the shadows, trying to get my show removed from one of the major radio stations in his district.

You know what they call that? They call that "fascism".

If that Republican Congressman succeeds, I will expose him on national radio. And I will go to his office with a microphone and I will shove it in his face and we'll have a discussion. You know who you are and I know who you are.

Now you may treat freshman members this way, you may treat conservative, Tea Party congressmen this way, taking them off committees, drying up their fund-raising, but you're not going to treat me this way.

I'm not a part of the club. I don't report to you.

But I'll be damned if I let any hack politician, whatever party, conduct themselves in this way and they think it doesn't get back to me. Oh, it all gets back to me. All of it.

Got that, tough guy? I just want you to be aware of this.

Can you believe this, ladies and gentlemen? If these one of these jerks is that brazen with someone who isn't junior to them in the house, how do you think they treat conservatives who don't go along?

I'm telling you: we have a real mob problem on Capitol Hill. And many of these Republicans are as deceitful and power-hungry and pathetic as their Democrat counterparts. These are not "good government" people. Anyways, a fairly powerful Republican.

But I'm not going to put up with fascism on my watch. No way. And you see, Congressman: you may not be up on new technology, but you're never going to be able to silence me. Ever. In your district or anywhere else. Because there are ways around: whether it's satellite, or the Mark Levin app, or the iHeartRadio app, but that station isn't going to do a thing about it, Congressman. Nothing.

I'd hate to sue him, too. Tortious interference with my living -- if you're going around acting like Al Capone, not as tough as Capone, but sliming around in the shadows -- that's not protected by the debate clause in the Constitution, Congressman.

You're too stupid to know that, I'm just letting you know. It's you against me in civil court... just letting you know. Stop trying to put the shoulder on my people, trying to get my show stopped in your district.

You figure the Democrats and the Left get this low, but this is just remarkable. Absolutely remarkable. I hate to say it, but I'm not surprised. I'm really not.


Update: Levin posted that it's not Boehner, but I will leave this story's headline as it is. The Speaker of the House controls all committee assignments and if Eric Cantor or Whatever-his-name McCarthy are the perps, Boehner's still pulling the strings.

Here's a political warning, John-John: you violate the Hastert Rule on guns or immigration or any other damn piece of the Constitution, you're going to see a political backlash the likes of which you can't imagine


Visit the Mark Levin Show website for more information.

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.