Posts Tagged ‘Mark Levin’

The Truth About Newt Gingrich and His Ethics “Fines”(Updated)

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Take Me Out to the Ballgame...On Tax-Payers' Dime

Governor Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie repeated the dishonest line about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich being chased out of office due to ethics violations, and that he had been forced to pay a fine, in his Meet The Press interview Sunday.  Let me state this unambiguously to any who may have been fooled by this line:  Chris Christie is lying.  Period.  The truth of the matter that Chris Christie won’t tell you is that David Bonior, once the Democrat Whip in the House, filed charge after charge as a matter of creating a nuisance.  The Democrats knew that Gingrich was not particularly wealthy compared to many members, and that they could bankrupt him in legal expenses.  This was their way of hounding him from the Speakership, but it was ultimately his own party that did him dirty out of fears they couldn’t explain this to voters. As Christie sits there gulping air and spewing garbage, you might want to consider his ethical lapses, flitting around as he does at tax-payers’ expense to attend his son’s ballgames.

I’m not going to suggest to you that Newt Gingrich is a perfect human being, or anything approaching it, but just as when I defended Governor Romney on the matter of capitalism and Bain Capital, I am going to tell you the truth.  The facts are clear: Bonior and the Democrats conducted a campaign of phony ethics claims against Gingrich in order to tie him up legislatively, undermine his moral authority as Speaker, and to drive him deeply into debt.  The ‘settlement’ reached was essentially aimed at putting it to bed so he could get on with his life.  This should sound particularly familiar to those of you who have followed the attacks on Sarah Palin near the end of her term as Governor.  Gingrich was almost a prototype for what was later done to Palin.

Chris Christie sits there pompously talking about this information as if there is more to the story he’s suppressing by way of doing you a favor, and there is more, but his concealing it wasn’t intended to do you any favors.  The fact is that the sole charge that wasn’t tossed by the ethics committee was investigated by the IRS and in 1999, they concluded there had been no wrong-doing on Gingrich’s part. Of course, that story got little or no play in most media outlets, and the humpty-dumpty donut-horker in New Jersey wouldn’t want to “regale” you with that.

Of course, there are a number of things ‘Krispy Kreme’ hasn’t told you, including what Palin revealed on Monday night’s Hannity show, where she mentioned an episode in which the New Jersey governor used a state helicopter to attend his son’s ballgame.  The point is that while this man goes on about Gingrich, but omits all the important facts, he’s out there doing things that I consider entirely unethical.  I suppose he simply forgot those things.  This line of attack by Romney’s New Jersey surrogate is dishonest, and they know it, but then again, they’re now desperate. Nobody should be surprised.

Mark Levin covered this story on his show Monday evening, and you should hear his take on it.  He gets it exactly right:

(Note: You can check out more of Levin’s show archives at MarkLevinShow.com)

Update: Byron York carried the same facts about Gingrich on Wednesday.

Advertisements

Daily Caller: What Inspires Mark Levin (and what doesn’t)

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

Mark Levin

Radio phenomenon and conservative freedom fighter Mark Levin sat down with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein for an interview. Levin’s radio audience is the largest in his time-slot, drawing nearly ten million people to his audience weekly.  Whatever his ratings, he’s one of only two hosts I try not to miss. Weinstein asked Levin about a number of subjects, including whether Levin would consider running for public office.  He was asked to explain the origins of the nickname “The Great One,” and he has a good sense of humor about it.  Levin also explained why he’s inspired to do what he does, and also what would not interest him. As usual, Levin shoots straight. Here’s the video:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1010344&w=425&h=350&fv=%26embedCode%3DBjbGlhMzrrpXBCnzT8nKP-gYLLKRFQG6]

I think Levin is one of the most sincere and passionate hosts on nationwide radio, and for those of you who aren’t regular listeners, you can check him out at his website, where he has extensive, free downloads of audio archives of his show.  He has a new book forthcoming this week, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, and I will do a review of the book here as soon as I’ve read it.

A Flawed Understanding of Capitalism

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Who's The Real Capitalist?

In listening to the argument between those who say Romney’s actions at Bain represent the so-called “excesses” of capitalism, and those who argue Romney had been nothing but a capitalist, and that there’s nothing wrong here, I find both sides of the dispute to be guilty of playing on bad definitions, poorly informed public sentiments, and worst of all, pure political hyperbole that may advance this candidate or that one for a short period of time, but will not accrue to the benefit on the right side of the aisle.  Rather than all this bomb-throwing, I’d prefer to sort this out, step by step, and weigh out the results as it is, rather than how any particular party wants it to be.  It’s time to untangle this so we can move on.

The parties representing the various points of view in this discussion to which I will confine my remarks are these:  Gingrich, Romney, and the media(left, right, and stooge.)  The first I will address is the view advanced by Newt Gingrich that Mitt Romney’s profits at Bain were excessive in light of closing down companies to do so.  First of all, let’s be honest enough to admit that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with profit from selling one’s labor, one’s property, or one’s investments.  This argument is so thoroughly flawed that as Limbaugh suggested Tuesday, it is more akin to the argument of Elizabeth Warren than a Republican seeking the nomination for President.  In justice, however, let us admit also that with 98% of all SuperPac advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire being used to assail Newt Gingrich, he was probably a little bit angry and lashing out.  I expect this wasn’t Gingrich’s strongest argument, and if  he had to do it again, I suspect he might change his approach.

In reviewing media defenses of Gingrich, I have read arguments that are roughly like this:  “Well, capitalism is all well and good, but you still have to temper it with morality.”  I want those purveyors of this opinion to pay closest attention to me, as I tell them that they’re shoveling manure.  Capitalism reflects a system of morality, and if you don’t share it, fine, but do not pretend that it means something else.  Do not take “capitalism” and twist the label to fit what is merely modified socialism.  There is nothing wrong with profits, whether large or small, nor any size in between, provided only this:  Those making profits do so by their own efforts and with their own wealth and property.  That’s the morality of capitalism.  It’s a morality I endorse entirely, and unreservedly.  Do not offer to me that capitalism must be “tempered” by something.  To temper a thing is to alter its fundamental structure.  In this case, “temper” is merely happy talk for “rigging the outcomes we prefer in spite of the market.”

You might claim “but to tear down a company in order to liquidate it and thereby turn a profit, when they didn’t build it is to be a vulture.”  True, but in capitalism as in nature, vultures perform a vital role, and while we may not regard the vulture with much sympathy, the truth is that he’s cleaning  up messes and putting to use that which would otherwise go to waste.  Then there are those who argue that if Bain hadn’t liquidated such companies as Smith Corona, they might still be in existence, and that their employees might still have jobs.  Let’s get something straight, right here, and right now:  There is no entitlement to a job.  There is no guarantee of work.  When a person accepts a job working for others, he is taking a risk that is subject to all the same vagaries of the market as those who invest in it.  This notion that capital must be the risk-taker, while labor must never shoulder the burdens of risk is absurd.  As long as a person works for others, that employee is accepting as one of the inherent risks of such an arrangement that the job could end for any reason, tomorrow. To make the petulantly childish argument that employment should be without risk is a tired attempt to subvert capitalism with collectivist ethics, and I will be no party to that.

On the other side of this ledger, we have Mitt Romney who argues that what Bain Capital did was perfectly legal, ethical, and within the description of capitalism.  When it comes to this “vulture” function others have derided, he’s correct, and even in his statement that he likes to be able to fire people, he is committing no breach.  The truth is that I like to be able to fire people, and if you’ve ever worked in an environment wherein getting rid of incompetent employees is institutionally difficult, you’d understand why.  Nothing saps the strength of any company more than the incompetent, the slackers, or those simply not up to the job for which they were hired.  With all of this in mind then, let us make clear where Romney falls off the tracks and plummets into the abyss, if this isn’t it.

Romney’s problems with capitalism are birthed less of his actions while at Bain than while in the Governor’s office in Massachusetts.  Romney-care, the completely socialist Massachusetts program that is the logical forerunner of Obamacare, is as anti-capitalist as it gets, complete with an insurance mandate.  This may be the shortest argument in this article, but it’s the most important:  Any health-care mandate, and any redistributionism is flatly anti-capitalistic.  Romney can parade around with his faulty excuses for this program on the basis of federalism, but it doesn’t wash.   This program forces people to buy insurance, and that is a tyrannical, anti-free market, anti-capitalist assault on the rights of individuals.

Another problem with Romney is that he implemented other socialistic programs while Governor, including “Welfare Wheels.”  It’s impossible for Romney to claim that Romney-care was a one-off or some sort of aberration in an otherwise capitalistic record.  More, he favored TARP, and this by itself is as anti-capitalistic as can be described, and I really don’t understand how the defenders of Romney on this issue can avoid addressing this, because it has been one of the staggering expenses absorbed by tax-payers, and if Romney’s support of TARP is any indication of how he will govern as President, he is a walking disaster for all Americans, and for capitalism in general.  There’s also some indication that while at Bain Capital, he was one of several beneficiaries of a bail-out when the parent company, Bain Company, sought and received forgiveness of some $10million in debt from the FDIC.

One of the things that demonstrates the point is a statement Romney made during a CBS interview on Wednesday, via TheHill:

“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business.”

Romney is now holding forth Obama’s GM bail-out as an example?  This isn’t the view of a capitalist, and I want you to understand that when Romney holds forth this view, he’s become a statist. The truth may be closer to this, and it’s what Mark Levin said in the first hour of his show last night:  Mitt Romney may be less a capitalist, and more of a corporatist.

Understanding this vital distinction is to enlighten the difference at stake in this nomination fight.  Capitalism is a distinctly classically liberal ideology inasmuch as it requires a strict observance of individual liberties, and almost complete sovereignty for actors within the free market.  Corporatism is illiberal, meaning it relies on coercion of individuals on behalf of corporate entities.  In that sense, it can be accurately stated that corporatism is a non-monarchical development of feudalism.  In corporatism, dynasties are favored, and the ruling class may not exercise direct power, but instead command economic decisions through their influence over the state.  In effect, it’s another manifestation of what you know as “crony capitalism,” a concept recently revived by Sarah Palin and other critics, who have accurately pointed out how thoroughly corrupting such a system can be.  What is critical to know about corporatism is that in order to operate, there must be a strong and thorough collusion with state authority and intervention into the market.  It often co-exists with socialism, and in fact, this has been the operative condition of the United States since approximately the time of Teddy Roosevelt.

Progressives of both parties are those who have sought to unite the worst features of corporatism with the worst actions of socialism.  This is the true nature of Mitt Romney, and of his general governing demeanor.  This is why I cannot support him, in point of fact, but it is also why such critics of Romney as Gingrich and Perry have a difficult time engaging in credible criticisms of him: In various ways, they too have been guilty of the same basic flaws, to degrees greater or lesser.  The media that is defending Romney is a part of the corporatist front, and it’s clear when you view Fox News that in the main, that is the nature of their advocacy.  Many have noted in the last several months that Fox News seems less and less conservative, while becoming increasingly friendly to establishment Republicans.  Bill O’Reilly is the perfect example, but the continuous presence of Karl Rove is another.  Rove is merely a political strategist and public relations master for the progressive, corporatist front.

The truth is that we must defeat not merely socialism, but also corporatism, and the problem is that while Gingrich runs around making arguments from the point of view of a socialist, he does so in grotesquely erroneous  identification of Romney’s worst actions as those of a capitalist.   Gingrich dare not assail Romney as a corporatist, of course, because Newt has had his dalliances with corporatism too.  Clearly, Perry and Santorum also avoid this, and for precisely the same reason.

So it is that at the moment, in the GOP you have a battle among progressive corporatists and a single libertarian, but no true capitalists.

Palin Notes Obama’s Disdain for Rule of Law

Friday, January 6th, 2012

Saying What Must Be Said

Sarah Palin has faced extensive government corruption before, and what confronts us now is a President who has decided to rule by fiat.  On Wednesday, Obama made several “recess appointments,” but there’s just one problem with that:  The Congress isn’t in recess.  There are those who dismiss this as a matter of “technicality,” but to do so is to dismiss all law, since it’s all just a “technicality.”  Presidents have often availed themselves of the procedure of making recess appointments, but one of the tactics available to Congress to stop that maneuver is to maintain a pro-forma session, meaning that in legal fact, the Congress is in session even if its not actively voting on legislation.  This is the situation at present, and the fact that Obama ignored this and made these appointments anyway simply brands the whole thing with the flagrant stamp of illegality.  Sarah Palin took note of this on Thursday, and wasted no time in commenting on this issue via Facebook and Twitter on Thursday:

Cordray (an attorney) must know we’re ruled by laws, not men. The President can’t make a recess appointment during a pro-forma session of Congress even if he”can’t wait.”

Palin posted this remark with a link to Rush Limbaugh’s site:

The Lawless Obama Regime – The Rush Limbaugh Show

and Mark Levin’s:

Mark Levin: ‘We Have a Constitutional Crisis’ | CNSnews.com

Meanwhile, the media continues to ignore the story, while talk radio is buzzing with the word “dictator.”  They’re correct. Obama had no business even trying this move, but as we know by now, Obama is not governed by the rule of law but only his Marxist reflexes.  Our country is being dragged to the brink of disaster by Barack Obama, and in this case, the answer should be that John Boehner must call the House into session and begin impeachment proceedings.  Obama apparently fancies himself a dictator, and as Palin points out, this is a matter of the most fundamental character of our Republic. As Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin both point out quite aptly, if Obama is permitted to get away with this, we have a dictator.

The Willingness to Walk Away

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

If You're Ever to Win...

This evening, I had been listening to one of my favorite talk-show hosts, Mark Levin, and I came away a little disappointed.  My disagreements with Levin are usually trivial, and I hold most of his arguments in high esteem, but this time, I am not merely unconvinced by his rationale, but utterly astonished by it.  His argument is essentially that he will support the Republican nominee, even if it’s the establishment’s guy, Mitt Romney.  Where I am concerned, there aren’t any candidates in this field who I can fully support, as I’ve recently detailed, but I don’t mean merely in the primary.  Some, I can’t support at all.  There are those who will point to Barack Obama’s ridiculous assaults on the constitution, the uniquely American culture, and the pocket-books of working men and women of every description as moral imperatives that demand we all go to the polling places in November and support whatever candidate the GOP musters.  I’ve heard it before, and I’ve heard it until I’m sick to death of hearing it.  I’ve heard it in every election in my adult life save only 1984.  I will hear it no more.  This is my challenge to the GOP:  Find an actual conservative or watch me take a powder in November.

I imagine most have you have purchased an automobile or two (or twenty) over the course of your lives,  and the first principle I always apply when shopping for a vehicle is to have a maximum number of dollars I will spend for a minimum number of features, warranties, and the like.  I try to always arrive at a dealer’s location with a check already cut if financing will be part of the deal.  I know in most instances that I will find better financing through my own credit union than most dealers will offer.  It also effectively places me in the position of being a cash customer  from the dealer’s perspective.  They aren’t so accustomed to that, because most people stumble in looking to trade because their current vehicle is probably on its last leg, and only come to deal when the current ride is looking a little long in the tooth.  Therefore, my second rule is simpler still:  Never go to a car dealer when I’m desperate for a deal.  The reason is simplicity itself.  If I’m not desperate, I will have no problem exercising that option most critical in negotiating any deal, whether for a car, a truck, a house, a business, or a presidential nominee:  You must be willing to walk away, and if your basic criteria are not met, you must exercise that option.

If you do not walk away, you will be a patsy, and once you give ground on something so basic to your previously established rules, in the future, you lose all credibility at the bargaining table. Your adversary will smell blood in the water, and will know you are desperate, so that he can (and will) shove anything he likes down your throat, and while you may complain or carry on about the unfairness of it all, in the end, you will relent and take the deal offered.  This I have learned the hard way by permitting myself to be that desperate party, and permitting myself to wind up in the situation in which I am no longer a credible negotiator, and therefore unable to leverage my position since it consisted entirely of bluff and was completely without teeth.  If you want to be a perpetual sucker, place yourself in such a position repeatedly, and whether in business or in politics, you will soon find yourself unable to negotiate even the slightest advantage.

If you doubt me, I would ask you to review the performance of John Boehner and Eric Cantor as the top Republicans in the House over the last twelve months.  They have accomplished precisely nothing worth remembering, and at every opportunity have cut and run when the President and Harry Reid boxed them in.  Nothing.  “Biggest reversal in history” and all the rest, but in the end? Not a damned thing.  From the moment the House Republicans cut a deal on the Debt Ceiling rather than insisting upon Cut, Cap & Balance, it has been all down hill, and it has all gone Obama’s way since he figured out how desperate Boehner and McConnell(Republican Leader in the Senate,) really were.  From that moment, Obama has run the table on these clowns, and in the end, it makes them look all the more foolish because they spouted, and postured, and harrumphed, but in the end, they were willing to cut a deal, any deal, to be able to walk away.  Thus died the first allegedly “Tea Party Congress.”  It died precisely because your leadership wasn’t really willing to walk away.

The same is true of individual voters in their relationship to the party’s establishment, whichever party we may be discussing.  At the moment, that party is the GOP, and it’s right that we consider it as individual voters, making a bargain with the party chieftains.  Roughly 70-75%(depending on the poll you choose) of the Republican Party wants no part of Mitt Romney.  They see in him much of what they see in Obama, but worse in many ways, also what they see in John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.  They’re right to be worried about a Mitt Romney presidency, that will be consumed with “making a deal” to the extent that it would make any deal, any place, any time, all in order to secure a deal of some sort.  Details matter not.  It is for this reason that for once, conservatives had ought to reject the voices of our friends who insist we “take the deal” (meaning: Romney.)   We must be prepared to sit out this election, at least on the presidential ballot, because we will not defeat him anyway with a guy who is in such a hurry to cut a deal, and even if he managed to win, would soon undercut us.  They’re already offering us assurances that we’ll be able to push or pull Romney to the right, but the fact is that I do not want a president who needs to be cajoled into conservative actions, because in accepting him to begin with, he will have learned something else: We’re not willing to walk away.

Armed with that knowledge, a President Romney will spend all of his time undercutting conservatives.  He’s a Keynesian, so he’ll increase taxes and/or use more massive government spending.  He will not reform entitlements, and if Obamacare is repealed, it will only be replaced by a program slightly less objectionable.  This is because Romney is a deal-maker, and he’s the guy for whom the deal is itself everything.  It’s about closing the deal, because he expects his commission, and while it may not be in cash, it will be in some false notion of prestige.

It is for this reason that I now inform the Republican Party to the knowing of the world that they either nominate a conservative, or wave at me on the sidelines, because that is where I will be.  A lifetime worth of hard lessons has taught me what I always suspected, but hadn’t the courage or patience to practice in my younger years, because they used my fear of uncertainty against me.  I don’t want the nation to collapse, and I don’t want the Marxist state they’re building, but I also know that a Mitt Romney presidency will only slow its advance, and maybe not by much.  I am no longer fearful of Obama’s predations, because I know that with another moderate Republican, those predations will continue.  I will not be driven to vote for a moral slacker because his opponent is a moral leper.

This evening I listened to a man I admire advance a notion that is ghastly to me.  He has already mentally prepared himself to accept and support a Romney candidacy, and he went on to discuss how he would demand that at least the Vice Presidential pick be a real conservative.  Why would Romney ever do that?  He might look for somebody who was somewhat more conservative, and brought something to the table, like Nikki Haley or similar, trying to energize you, but let’s be honest:  Vice Presidents don’t generally mean much.  To hear Mark Levin effectively suggest that we ought to at least get a conservative VP was saddening.  What it means is that he’s still more fearful of Obama than he is of losing the country, because in his mind, he’s merged the two, but the truth is that Obama is merely completing the job that was begun a long time ago, and has been carried on by successive presidents with damnably few exceptions, and Mitt Romney would do little of substance to change it.

You can listen to this clip from Levin’s show here:

There are those of you who will damn me for this position, but it is mine, and I’m standing by it.   I will not be herded into another vote for another moderate under any circumstance, because I know such a candidate will not likely win, and will surely not rescue the country if he somehow manages to defeat Obama.  To hear Levin saying that we “need a conservative in the second slot” is to admit he’s already conceding the first slot. What Romney and others in the Republican establishment will interpret this to mean is precisely what Barack Obama interprets Boehner’s endless concessions to mean: There’s an unwillingness to stand on principle for the sake of a politically expedient result, and one that is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination. They’ve placed themselves in the position whereby they’re now clearly desperately willing to “take the deal.”

You’re free to conclude what you will, but I would rather make it plain: If the Republican party nominates another moderate, I no longer fear Obama because I realize there are Republicans equally awful.   I am no longer convinced by the insipid argument that “any of these are better than Obama.”  I no longer believe that to be the case.  Some of them are every bit as bad, and to prove I believe that, and to stand by my principles, I am fully prepared to walk away. Might this lead to a second term for Obama?  Yes. Am I willing to confront that horrible reality?  Yes.  Rather than ask me if I’m willing to deal with that reality, you had better ask if you are.  You had better ask the Republican establishment that is busying itself with the chore of making Romney palatable to you.  You had better go ask your fellow conservatives, because while you can go along to get along if you like, I am prepared to walk away even if the Republican Party sends squads of establishment squawkers to damn me for it.  Watch me.  It’ll be my back side they see, as I disappear in the distance.  This year, no deals!

Landmark Legal on Point in Obamacare Fight

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

Conservative Legal Advocacy

There really are not many conservative legal activists committed to standing up for Americans on such a consistent basis, by arguing against unconstitutional legislation or fighting to shine disinfecting daylight on government actions, but Landmark Legal Foundation is one of those rare organizations. Despite its small size, Landmark is currently involved in at least four major issues of interest, including efforts to stop the implementation of Obamacare, challenging the Obama-Holder Department of Justice interference with states on the issue of illegal immigration, stopping the EPA from usurping congressional authority in regulating “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide, and defending the right of states like Wisconsin to limit collective bargaining for public sector employees and the unions that often drive the process to the detriment of tax-payers.

These are all obviously critical issues of significant importance to the American people, and if Landmark Legal seems familiar to you, it may because its president is none other than radio talk-show phenomenon Mark Levin.  More than being the conservative answer to groups like the ACLU, Landmark takes on cases from the standpoint of defeating the leftists’ agenda in the courts where all too often, the left has been so successful in foisting its agenda on the American people.

If you’re not familiar with Levin, his radio show is certainly one great place to hear him speak, and you will learn a great deal about these and countless other critical issues from his show.  Levin served eight years in the Reagan Administration, including his service as the Attorney General’s chief of staff, and Deputy Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, along with many other roles.  He’s the author of several New York Times best-selling books including Liberty and Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto, Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover’s Story of Joy and Anguish, and Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.  He also has a new book about to hit the shelves:  Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, which is due out within two weeks.  I have pre-ordered this latest book myself, since I own the other three, and they were each worth every penny.

Landmark Legal’s actions on Obamacare is perhaps the most critical to conservatives, because that legislation threatens to fundamentally reorder American society toward a European healthcare delivery model, or worse in some estimates, and in so doing will create a vast new entitlement program complete with the infamous mandate about which you have read.  You can read the complete Landmark Legal amicus curaie brief filed in the Obamacare case here.  One of the most important questions raised by the brief is whether the court will recognize any limits on federal power, when the commerce or the necessary and proper clauses are concerned.  This is a vital question, because if the federal government can compel you to purchase health insurance, there is no effective limit, and the constitution is utterly meaningless.

Other arguments against Obamacare include the question of the severability of the insurance mandate, ultimately suggesting that since the Congress made no provision in the law for separating any particular clause, the whole law must be affirmed or rejected as a single entity.

These are the sorts of cases we conservatives care most fervently to see taken up, and I make contributions to this noble enterprise that fights on behalf of our individual liberties, and in the name of responsible, ethical, limited government open to examination by citizens.  Reviewing the material they provide to the courts in this form leads me to believe that there are few legal advocacy organizations on our side of the philosophical and political divide that do anything like the work of Landmark Legal.  You can read more extensively about Landmark and the cases in which it is currently involved at its website. It’s one of the very few conservative legal advocacy groups in existence, and its performance on other issues demonstrates its effectiveness despite its small size.  In this time of expansive governmental aggression against individual liberties, we need all the advocates for limited government we can get, and Landmark is definitely among the best.

 

Mark Levin Tweets Disdain for Romney

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

The Great One!

In a post that give further evidence for the reason Mitt Romney can’t seem to break 25% in the primary fight, on Wednesday evening, Mark Levin “tweeted” a mouthful on the social networking site. New Yorker Magazine’s Jonathan Chait wrote something about Romney that caused Levin some heartburn, not because it is false, but because it is undeniably true.  Levin, annoyed by the underlying facts quickly posted on Facebook, and via Twitter:

@marklevinshow  Romney is really starting to piss me off. The lib site is, dare I say, right. http://fb.me/QB3Qryjy

The link is to an article that appears in the New Yorker’ Daily Intel section, detailing Romney’s flip-flop on the Iraq war, but more importantly, the author of the piece, Jonathan Chait, explains Romney’s reversal on the issue of Iraq in terms of political expedience aimed at gaining support from the conservative base of the Republican party.  Chait seems to approve, at least in terms of his disdain for conservatives, and he cheerfully reports that Romney takes some positions as a way to make peace with the base. Chait writes:

The thing I’ve always found endearing and (to some degree) comforting about Mitt Romney is that his flip-flops betray pure contempt for the Republican base. He treats them like angry children, and their pet issues as emotionally driven symbols of cultural division rather than as serious positions. Four years ago, conservatives were enraged that liberals would question Bush’s handling of foreign policy, so Romney was defending the decision to go to war and promising to “double Guantanamo.”

Yes, that’s right, this liberal writer likes Romney for his willingness to double-cross conservatives.  None in the base of the party should be the least bit upset by this, because it’s true, and because what Chait sees as evidence of a betrayal of the base is accurate, but unlike you, Chait’s gleeful about it.  He characterizes conservatives in the Republican party as angry, emotional children to be herded like so many cats.  Undoubtedly, this is a great reflection of how Romney does feel about conservatives, and it’s one more reason to discount him as a potential president.

Another interesting part of the article arrives parenthetically:

(It made zero sense as a policy position and could be understood only as an expression of culture-war solidarity.) Likewise, conservatives are now outraged over Obamacare, so Romney promises to repeal Obamacare.

It will surely warm Jonathan Chait’s heart to know that Romney has no intention of keeping the repeal promise either, as we’ve recently learned. Chait wasn’t attempting to expose Romney to the conservative base, but instead to caution his own readers because he intended them to understand why Romney is unpredictable and untrustworthy:

Nothing about Romney’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the right hint even slightly of genuine conversion. It is patronizing appeasement. Of course, none of this tells us the really crucial thing, which is what promises Romney would actually keep if elected. But at least it offers the modest comfort that Romney knows better.

This is the way conservatives and Tea Party folk are viewed by the establishment and Northeast liberal crowd in both parties, and Chait’s assessment is simply his view of Romney’s willingness to lie in order to fool conservatives.  Of course, in Chait’s view, that’s a virtue, but what this provides you is real insight into what they think about us, out here in “flyover country.”  Levin is right to be angry, not at Chait, but at Romney, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that Romney shares many views with the likes of Mr. Chait.

Note: In other developments, Romney continues to avoid and decline a debate with Gingrich, and he is still using surrogates to do his dirty work against the former Speaker of the House.  Romney excuses the attack ads launched by his Super PAC by saying effectively,  “it’s politics,” and shrugging it off as the nature of the beast, while pretending his official detachment from that organization prevents him from expressing any sentiments about the negative nature of the ads.  At the same time, he is sending out Chris Christie as his attack dog, and this too presents real questions about the sincerity of Romney: He’s willing to see the mud fly, but he likes to keep his own hands clean.  It’s small wonder Levin and others are growing tired of Romney’s tactics: He’s a coward, and nothing is worse where conservatives are concerned in this election cycle.  There’s something disgustingly ironic about a politician sending out others to do his dirty work who then suggests his opponents should get out of the kitchen if they can’t take the heat of dirty politics, while relaxing in the shade provided by Chris Christie.

Ahem.

Elana Kagan Must Recuse on Obamacare or Face Impeachment

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Would I Lie To You?

There are few things more disgusting than the manner in which Obamacare was pushed through Congress, with the whole “Deamed passed” business put forward by Pelosi.  The controversy in this case arises out of the fact that associate Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan had been US Solicitor General at the time of the case, as I’ve previously reported.  I have been skeptical about the claims by the Department of Justice that Kagan had been mostly “walled-off” from the Obamacare debate, because it was already known that she would be nominated by the President to the Supreme Court.  The truth is that Kagan, far from being “walled-off,” was in the loop all along, and that emails now reveal she was aware and copied information relating to Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation’s action on the case.  I remember that day well, because when Levin was announcing Landmark’s intended actions, I was contributing to that endeavor(via paypal.)  What really becomes the point of controversy in this case is that Kagan may even have perjured herself in testimony before the Senate, and whether she recuses herself from this case or not, if this is the case, she must be impeached.

(Click Play for some mood music:)

As CNSNews has reported in documents obtained from Judiciary Committee sources, Kagan may have indeed lied in responding to that letter. The most damning answers are those to question numbers eight(8) and nine(9):

8. Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Response:
No.
9. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Response:
No.

These answers to be contradicted by the emails now released, and this is a stunning development, and it makes perfect sense that these emails were dumped on Friday evening.  The truth is likely to be that Kagan knowingly lied to the committee, and thus makes herself eligible to impeachment.  In any event, she must now recuse herself, but I am have doubts as to whether she will do so.   She is a doctrinaire leftist, and for such folks, the law is merely an exercise in formality:  They are going to do as they damned-well please, and laws only matter so long as they aid the left, but never when it obstructs them.

This is the inconvenient truth of the current standing of Elana Kagan: It appears that she lied to members of the committee in her response, and it’s time to understand that she must recuse herself, and for lying to the committee, she ought to face impeachment.  I would urge you to read and understand the details of the CNSNews.com article, and then contact your elected officials accordingly.

Barack Obama: Natural Born Enemy

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

I don’t wish to get into the whole notion of so-called “birther” conspiracy theories about the legal eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States.  It’s no longer relevant, one way or the other, inasmuch as he is now in office, and will remain in office through the end of his term, or even a second one if re-elected.  I don’t have documentation in my hands to show anything other than that which he claims, but I really don’t care about that argument.  Instead, I contend that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because his philosophy, his ideals, and his policy directives have demonstrated with clarity his enmity to America.  That he is a natural born citizen may very well be true, but the reasoning behind the framers’ inclusion of this simple phrase still apply.  If ever there was an instance in which a person might be operating within the letter of the law, while well outside its “spirit,” it must be the presidency of Barack Obama.

Constitutional requirements for a President are simply these, set forth in Article II, section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The reason for the inclusion of the citizenship requirement was simple enough to understand:  It was intended to prevent the election of a President who would respect the laws, loyalties, sympathies, and traditions of a foreign polity that would lending that office to subversion or outright usurpation.  That was the basic motive for the inclusion of this specific qualification.  I am now here to state with unflinching resolve that whether Obama is eligible within the specific legal requirements makes no factual difference because within the spirit of these requirements, and the motives the founders expressed in setting them forth, Barack Obama has demonstrated a clear contempt for the laws and traditions of the United States and her people, and has further demonstrated loyalties to and sympathies with foreign ideas about law, and traditions outside the founding framework Americans have known and understood since these requirements were laid down.  People like to become exercised about the “seriousness of the charges.”   These are my allegations, and they couldn’t be more serious.  Unlike the others we’ve seen of late, for these charges, there is substantial evidence.

Barack Obama is not fulfilling his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.  Another important section of the constitution sets forth the President’s oath of office, and it is legally binding upon him.  The eighth clause of Article II, section 1 states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Has President Obama been faithfully executing his office?  Has he been preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution? I do not believe it is possible to conclude he is carrying into force his mandated role, but instead using the authorities of his office to undermine that which he is sworn to protect, as he issues executive orders instructing the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to avoid charging and prosecuting some classes of persons who have entered the United States illegally.  On its face, this demonstrates loyalties and sympathies to foreigners.

President Obama has instructed regulatory agents of the United States to ignore the rulings of federal judges, in contravention of all legal traditions.  The President of the United States is neither a dictator, nor a law unto himself.  When he ignores or instructs agents of his administration to ignore the rulings of duly appointed judges and courts, he imperils the rule of law upon which our system depends.  What else can be the meaning of ignoring the ruling of a court to cease and desist in enforcement of a ban on offshore drilling?

When the President of the United States offers that he will use every perversion of law, and every available circumvention of the legal process to advance his agenda outside the bounds of the constitution, daring the American people to oppose him, he is challenging the very basic-most order he is sworn to maintain as the critical foundation of our civil society.  In operating in this manner, he declares open warfare against the civil society we have maintained despite some rather unscrupulous characters over the long course of our history.  Obama abhors the civil society, and his every action drips with the venom of his contempt.

Barack Obama conspires with other foreign influences to disrupt and dispirit the American people, their economy, and the liberties that make the success of either possible.  George Soros is not an American, and his statements over time demonstrate his open enmity to the United States.  In meeting with Soros, taking his funding, and coordinating policies with Soros’ own “Open Society Institute,” Barack Obama is inviting and even soliciting subversion, while acting himself as a foreign usurper.

Let us not shield our eyes from the truth any longer:  Barack Obama is acting in contempt of his oath.  His oath was not to the United Nations.  It was not to the Muslim Brotherhood.  It was not to George Soros or ACORN or any of the other myriad groups he openly serves.  His oath was supposed to have been to uphold our constitution, but perhaps it was foreshadowing when Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t manage to get it right the first time around.

It is in consideration of the character of his execution of office that we discover that Obama is unfit, and by virtue of his aims, intentions, and policies, is morally ineligible to the office of President of the United States.  You are free to go on about his legal status and legal eligibility if you like, because for the moment, this is still a free country, but I do not expect that to gain much purchase at the polling places around the country next November.  The question isn’t whether he is eligible under law, but whether he had ever been eligible in spirit, or even within the spirit of the requirement as our founders had intended.  Whatever his citizenship, Barack Obama is not American inside.  It is his foreign polity and his alien sensibilities that make him ineligible to that office, but more, it is his practiced enmity to America that makes his continuance in office a moral absurdity. His loyalties to foreign concepts of governance make of him an heir to Nikita Khrushchev who promised “We will bury you.”  His every policy is bent toward that purpose.

That the media conceals this from you, and the wider audience of Americans is no surprise, because many of them are openly treasonous even in times of war.  That some among us permit themselves to be led astray about the intentions and designs of this man begins to speak to their moral character.  The evidence is manifest.  Barack Obama’s every action as president evinces a contempt for the US Constitution and the due processes of law, and civil society thereunder established.  We can ill afford to permit him another term, and we should begin to ask, before it is too late, that he be removed from office by Congress with all due dispatch.  We ought to demand it.

Not long after writing this, I ran into an audio clip from Mark Levin’s show on Wednesday.  It’s from his opening monologue.  In many ways, he expresses the same disgust with the current lawless administration:


You can listen to the remainder of this and other episodes of the Mark Levin Show HERE.

Shock Poll: Politico Less Trustworthy Than Vladimir Putin

Friday, November 4th, 2011

Even Vlad Can't Believe It!

Respondents to an on-line poll have (thus far) overwhelmingly said they find the political website Politico.com less trustworthy than Vladimir Putin.  Mark Levin is running his “Daily Temperature Poll” on this question, and as of this writing, more than 1619 respondents have voted in the poll, and by an overwhelming margin, respondents said they trusted Politico less.  This undoubtedly stems from Politico’s biased, ridiculous and very nearly fact-free coverage of  the Herman Cain story, and since they broke the story they ought to bear the burden when it turns out to be a fiasco.  I’ve been unable to contact any of the hacks reporters at Politico.com for comment. I tried.  No, I really did.

Here’s a screen-shot of the poll.  (You can go take the poll by clicking the image):

Click Image to Take Poll

You can be certain that this won’t sit well with Politico, but then again, who cares?  This is also a great example of the sort of polls and analysis to which you are generally treated by the mainstream media.  Poll methodology?  Well, no matter what, it’s got to be better than the vote taken by Occupy Oakland. It certainly has had more voters already.  Politico has published 90 Cain stories in just five(5) days.  It certainly hasn’t helped their credibility.  Go take the poll HERE

The one thing to be learned from this poll is that recidivist commies are more trustworthy than the unrepentant ones.

Pro-Romney Crowd Goes After Limbaugh, Others for “Flip-Flopping”

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

A Hobson's Choice?

I’m sick to death of the Establishment GOP and all the other Romney shills in the media pretending not to know what they’re doing as they level a disgusting mischaracterization at Limbaugh, Levin, and others on the charge of “Flip-Flopping.”  Worse, they’re aligning with liberals in the media to push Romney.  Consider Mediaite’s attack on Limbaugh.  Here’s the essence of their argument, and yes, they’re serious:  Since people chose Romney over McCain in order to try to stop McCain in 2008, therefore, these people are “Flip-Floppers” because they now say Romney is no conservative.  Excuse me while I call… “Baloney!”   I’ve seen it posted on several sites over the last few days, and frankly, it’s garbage.  As Levin described it Wednesday, he had a “Hobson’s choice” in the matter, and he chose accordingly.  Frankly, Levin is right:  The only choice was to oppose McCain, and that meant supporting Romney at the time, in his view.  That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement.  Nevertheless, this is the premise on which the criticism of Limbaugh, Levin, and others is based, and it’s intended to mislead readers in the out-of-context history they provide.

This is idiotic.  The story by Mediaite seems to insist that one cannot choose between the lesser of two evils, and later, when new choices of lesser evil are added, that one must stick with one’s original choice to the bitter end.  This also assumes that Rush had the full story on Romney in 2008.  It assumes that he was as familiar with Romney as he has since become.  One might argue that Rush was simply endorsing Romney because he liked McCain even less, but what of it?  I find this media tactic despicable, but what is still more disgusting is how many people fall for this obviously fraudulent attack on Limbaugh.  One wonders if such people aren’t inclined to see Limbaugh in a negative light from the outset.

Let’s be honest: Given the choice of McCain and Romney, yes, I’d be inclined to pick Romney.  Now, expand my choices by Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson, and yes, I’m going to re-think my previous choice.  To be perfectly honest, if tomorrow Sarah Palin decided to change  her mind and run, I’d be back back-peddling from any support I might have given any of the rest of these.  NO PROBLEM.  The simple fact is that if you have limited choices, you may choose the best that remains at the time, but not be overly happy about it.  That’s the truth of Limbaugh’s “endorsement” of Romney in 2008.

At the same time, it may also be true that you subsequently learn things about your previous choice that make you rethink your judgment of their qualifications.  In any other context, liberals and moderates would call this “the ability to learn and grow and become more pragmatic.”  In this case, however, it’s being used as an attempt to discredit Limbaugh and anybody else who ever said a nice thing about Romney, but now finds him lacking.  In 2008, I knew none of the details of Romneycare I now do.  I hadn’t even heard of the flap over his hiring a landscaping company that used illegal aliens.  I certainly hadn’t heard of the controversy over his “Welfare Wheels” program.  Had I known that, I wouldn’t have been any more inclined to support Romney in the timeframe immediately before Super Tuesday in 2008.  The truth is, there was a good deal about Romney that we didn’t know then.

To suggest that one can’t change one’s mind upon discovery of new evidence is lunacy.  I’m a voter, and I have a responsibility to take great pains in making my choices because the country and its future demand it of me.   This is also why I disagree slightly with Mark Levin about the choice conservatives faced at that time in 2008:  If anything, the choice between Romney and McCain had been a Morton’s Fork because both were equally bad.  The truth may be in what I consider a false dilemma.  We have one more option beyond all of these:  The assault against Limbaugh is only possible because Limbaugh fell for a false dilemma.  He decided at that point in 2008 to support somebody who was not a conservative, and while he may not have known better at the time, his generosity in his description of Romney in order to attempt the defeat of McCain is now being thrown in his face.

This is why you ought to be scrupulously deliberate in your choices this coming year. Don’t find yourself in the position of having to later say that somebody you now choose is not really conservative.  The only way to do that is to be sure that you choose an actual conservative, or if none are available, to withhold your vote and your reputation, and with it, conservatism’s.  The jury is still out as to whether any of these Republican candidates will pass muster.  For my part, I am still weighing.  I know Romney, Huntsman, and Paul are out of consideration for me.  Their records and positions demand that I must never support any of these.  I am having great difficulties with Mr. Perry, and lesser degrees of difficulty with the others.  What I won’t be told by some leftist or establishment hack in 2016 is that I had endorsed somebody as a conservative who later turned out not to be anything of the sort.

If Rush Limbaugh had a fault in all of this, it is merely that he was too generous in his praise in order to attempt to defeat McCain. You can bet I won’t be making that mistake, and I’ll bet Rush won’t be doing so again either.

Men in Media: What’s Wrong With You?

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Lacking What? Now, What Else?

I wish to apologize in advance for some of the graphic language in this post.  Unfortunately, this situation has left me few alternatives but to discuss the abrasive and disgusting tone of some in the media.  I do it as a necessity because I believe Americans should know the character of the people in whom they have placed their trust. Like Andrew Breitbart’s explanation in the movie The Undefeated, I’ve concluded that there is a real problem in our culture, and among many Republican men particularly, there is now a surrender of the values we once shared, and it is expressed in a general cowardice to be seen when conservative women come under sexist, vulgar attacks.  It’s not that conservative women in politics can’t defend themselves, but when allegedly conservative outlets begin to act like the worst leftist purveyors of filth, one begins to wonder about the character of people who claim merely to be reporting the news.  Frankly, it makes me sick, and it makes me angry.  What’s happening to we men that so many of us will say nothing about it? Now, I’m going to have my say, and I’m also going to show you the truth about some in the right-wing media.

I’m a middle-aged man.  I was raised to have a baseline respect for people in general, but particularly for my elders on the presumption of their wisdom, and for women on the basis of the assumption that they had already put up with more garbage from men than they ought to have been asked to endure.  It’s not to say that women aren’t equally capable of crass and vulgar behavior, as a quick tour of our culture will demonstrate, but I was raised with that nowadays primitive (and some say “sexist”) notion that my basic reflex as a man should not include treating women as another of the boys in a locker-room discussion.

Some feminists will insist that this is still a sexist view of women, and in one sense, I can see their point, but perhaps it is because the people I love most in this world are women, I tend to restrain my language in their presence lest I be considered a first-rate jerk.  What seems to have become the norm on both sides of the sexual fence is an increasingly crass tone to every disagreement, but that is not why I write this evening.  Instead, I want to talk to you men.  I realize that the younger you are, the more inclined you may be to talking to women like one of the fellows, but I’ve become tired of men using linguistic bombast that includes references to female genitalia when speaking to women.  You can call me a “fuddy-duddy,” or “old school,” or frankly anything else your courage permits, but in my world, you use that language in front of a woman at your own peril.

I realize some of you will complain that there exists no shortage of women who rush to verbally emasculate men with the immediate reference to their “penises.”  I’ve heard it, much too often frankly, and some of them should also be ashamed.  Having covered the excuse some men will use to justify their own vulgarity, let’s move on to what I observed Sunday evening that has caused me to boil over.  I was on Twitter, and Dan Riehl re-tweeted something another had tweeted and I could hardly believe my eyes:

@Nick_Rizzuto: Can someone please give me the 411 on why there are so many sandy vaginas over this @DailyCaller Tyson/Palin story?

I knew the name from somewhere, but I couldn’t quite place it.  I clicked into his profile, and was reminded:  Rizzuto works for GBTV and TheBlaze.  I was doubly incensed given the recent Brian Sack routine on GBTV, so I sent my own response, as did a number of others.

Let me explain something to you boys who think such language is cool, and yes I said “boys” because I fear some of you are barely beyond puberty, who think this is a really effective form of argumentation: You look like an ass when you do this, and for precisely the same reason the Carlson’s outfit looked like a bunch of asses the day before, and GBTV looked like a bunch of asses on Thursday:  Using this kind of language merely demonstrates that you view the opposite sex as nothing more than their genitalia, with the motive of dehumanizing them and dismissing them.  One might well expect a thug like Mike Tyson to use such language, because we already know what the ear-chomping, punch-drunk, has-been boxer thinks of women as demonstrated by his physical and verbal violence against them, but the reason you shouldn’t engage in this is because you aren’t (or should not be)that sort of sexist thug.  I can’t believe I’m having to point this out to the erudite Tucker Carlson, the pious Glenn Beck, or his staff member Nick Rizzuto, whose most recent tweets indicate he and his wife/girlfriend(no un-PC assumptions here) have recently had a baby.

Boys, this is garbage.  Carlson, in all honesty, after your publication ran with the post it did, and Beck, after GBTV’s ridiculous “joke” of Thursday, and yeah, you too Rizzuto, I don’t know what any of you could possibly believe you have to offer to a civil discussion about any subject after this.  You’re all embarrassments to manhood.  At least Rizzuto had the good sense (or at least a sense of CYA) to delete his post, and issue an apology via twitter.  That’s the sort of thing that got Carlson off the hook, somewhat, when he did a very similar thing back in March of this year.  Apologies are unlikely to help him now, however, as Greta Van Susteren is on his case after Dan Riehl pursued the story all day Saturday.  Mr. Beck has a special problem, and it’s one he’s yet to address:  Two of these three incidents involve people who work for him, and one took place on his new network.

I’m disgusted by this sort of conduct.  Carlson, your staff should know better too.  Beck, you ought to clear something up with your people.  I’m beginning to wonder about the sort of culture that pervades these institutions of allegedly conservative thought: Is it that you’ve now become the caricatures the left has drawn?  I simply don’t see any excuse for this.  Nobody is running stories about the unsubstantiated sexual improprieties of any of the other candidates.  Don’t pretend there are none.  Sure, they’re awful and tawdry and probably false, but that same characterization fits what’s been said to date about Sarah Palin. What we have here is a cowardly attack on Governor Palin, and it’s bad enough when the left does this, but it ought never to come from our side.

Worse, Carlson’s staff lets rip with a story about Mike Tyson’s commentary and his utterly foul and violent descriptions, and nobody at Carlson’s organization seems to think anybody has done anything wrong, except Dan Riehl for reporting on it on Saturday.  No, they were simply “doing their jobs” to report the news.  Ditto Beck’s own site The Blaze, which did a similar garbage pass-along story on Joe McGinniss’s salacious novel.  Then there was Sack on GBTV with his jokes over which even the studio audience groaned nervously.  Now Nick Rizzuto, from The Blaze and GBTV says this?

No way.  It’s not accidental, and it’s not merely “doing one’s job” to pass along stories as “News” the sole purpose of which is to further a smear, using people like Mike Tyson and Joe McGinniss as surrogates to deliver it.

Add to this Nick Rizzuto’s tweet, and what it looks like to me is a bunch of men who are using crude smears in order to dismiss another woman.  Why do this?  What could be their motives?  You tell me.

Monday morning, a colleague of Rizzuto’s, S.E. Cupp, also from GBTV, tweets:

@secupp: Pretty sure Tyson’s the pig here, not Tucker. RT @politico: Greta: Tucker’s a ‘pig’ for Palin story http://politi.co/pJAXSW
Now another Beck associate is piling on in this mess to defend Carlson?  I like S.E.Cupp, but I think she’s gotten this wrong.  Worse, I am beginning to wonder what flavor of Kool-Aid they’re drinking over at GBTV.  While all of this goes on, The Blaze runs a story about how Howard Kurtz is complained that his own network was ganging up on Perry during last week’s GOP debate. Well, at least I think I’ve figured out the flavor of the Kool-Aid.

Another conservative leaps into the fray questioning Carlson’s motives:

@marklevinshow: Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. Why were his vicious words about Sarah Palin considered newsworthy? I think… http://fb.me/11CP0a4pf

Yes, thankfully, there are still some real men.

Added below is the screen capture of the Tweets in question from Sunday evening(Start at bottom and read up):

Tweets from 9/18/2011

Wednesday’s Talk Radio Response

Thursday, September 8th, 2011

Bruce and Levin Confront the Lies

On Tuesday, at least two radio greats responded to the attacks on Sarah Palin by Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on Tuesday night’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor. If you missed either show, or the reason for these two patriotic hosts to get a bit exercised, you can see the video of the Fox broadcast here.

Each of the radio talkers expressed it in their own way, but both noticed the clear hypocrisy implicit in the attacks on Palin by Coulter.  It’s no secret that these two, featured prominently in The Undefeated, both think the world of Governor Sarah Palin.

Say what you want about either of them, but don’t expect them to shut up about the folks on the right who attack Palin any more than they’ll refrain from responding to the rabid left.

First, Tammy Bruce responds:

Then Wednesday evening, Mark Levin takes them on, too:

It seems as though I’m not alone in picking up on the hypocrisy of Coulter in all of this.  My own critics have complained I’m merely being a “crazed knee-jerk” Palin supporter, but if it leaves we Palinistas in the company of Tammy Bruce and Mark Levin, we won’t mind.