Mark Levine’s Video Resume
December 31st, 2009
If you have a comment on a particular show, please leave your comment beneath that particular show. The most recent show is listed right below “THE SCOOP.” (Too many comments here relate to particular shows, and if you want others to see the comment, they are unlikely to do so on this page.)
Filed under TV | 
February 26th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
…looking for the show viewed today on a local public channel - in Berkeley, Ca., with interviewer talking to a right-wing person about Venezuela - a lie-packed presentation…
Interviewer said the contact is radioinsidescoop.com.
t/u
Norma
February 26th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I suspect this is the show you’re referring to.
http://radioinsidescoop.com/?p=3574
March 10th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Dear Mr.Levine, This evening on The O’Reilly Factor, you said that Japanese were interned in the U.S. during WW2, but not Germans. Although more people of Japanese ancestry were interned or relocated, it’s a little known fact that many German-Americans and German residents were also interned and relocated by the U.S. govt. The latest figure I have seen is 11,507.
In addition, 4,058 people of German ancestry were brought to the U.S. from Latin America to be interned in this country also.
It is widely thought that the Japanese were interned because of their race; but if that is the case, why were Germans and also, some Italians, interned, since they were white? Admittedly, a great number of the Japanese were U.S. citizens, but many of the Germans were, also. There were cases of espionage committed by both Japanese and Germans in this country and Hawaii Terr. during that time.
There’s quite a lot of material on this issue on the Web. A particularly good site is German American Internee Coalition, http://www.gaic.info.
I’d appreciate it if you would discuss this issue on your radio program, to try to dispel the false impression that so many Americans have.
Thank you.
April 8th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
If you don’t care about the poor rich people and how much they are paying in taxes, why don’t you donate all your money to the IRS? If it’s not that important you wouldn’t miss it. Hypocrite and egg sucking LIBERAL!
April 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Agree with Tim J. Don’t you remember why Social Security was begun in the fist place. It is not income tax. It was intended to supplement retirement. Each person is assigned a SS number to act as an account that is being paid in to and to be repaid at a later date. Not paid in and used for whatever the says is the current emergency to pull the money out for.
April 12th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I’m thinking “where is Joe McCarthy now that we need him?”
April 12th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
and the house of un-american activities
April 16th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
At the very least get your grammar correct. One can “associate” or “dissociate” but never “dis-associate”. No word like that in the English language!
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I would like to make a bet you said you were willing to wager no VAT tax and I;m willing to wager there will be! let me know I’ll just add it to my childrens debt like the Liberals have……
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Hey Mark. Just saw you on Fox. Awesome Liberal voice dude. I watch Fox sometimes out of curiosity on what the “other” side is doing, and I am so often sickened by the complete lack of Liberal voices. Fair and balanced? Yeah right. And whenever they DO have a Liberal guest on, they tend to have weak voices . That is why it was SO refreshing to hear you today on Megyn Kelly’s show argue with a STRONG confident Liberal voice on why Obama and the Dems would NOT do a VAT(value added tax). I am so sick of Fox spreading these lies and false accusations without ANY opposition. Hearing you counter their claims forcefully was so great. It prompted me to google you and find your website. You’ve got a new fan. Peace….and keep challenging the lies. Liberal and proud. Love it.
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Kristina,
Go to my entry on this issue (entitled “Republicans Love the VAT”). There is instructions on how you can officially make a bet with me on the issue. If the amount is too high ($500/$100), we can make it ($50/$10).
April 27th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Would someone please let Mark know how very, very much I dislike him? Thank you.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
you had stated on fox news today that “my shred of evidence is that civil rights hero John Lewis says it’s so” Well here I am saying John Lewis is a liar. Plain and simple, I was there with my two small children, both days all day and no one ever yelled or chanted any racial slur. The reason no video evidence is out is because it did not happen. You call hearsay proof because it helps you push your political agenda and that is why the Democrats are losing more and more of those of us on the independent side. Shame on you.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Its sad to me that every single time we mention the ‘problem’ of immigration anyone who says its a ‘problem’ we are called racists,the clan,etc.You need to understand that this attitude actually promots violence in that it drives good people to do bad things.It MAKES racism.I am white and grew up in the getto so know well what I’m talking about.Some of my very best friends are not the same color as me but we never talk about it,but we do talk about the drag on our economy that the illegals are causing.Go figure..and remember that those who don’t learn by history are doomed to repeat it…
April 27th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Wow, Amanda, I had no idea you were ominipresent. You obviously heard every single conversation and tracked John Lewis’s movements and heard every single word said to him. That’s how you know he’s a liar. Interesting.
My question for you is how you manage to keep a 100% surveillance on John Lewis and three other Members of Congress without getting in trouble with the Capitol Police.
Did you plant a bug?
April 27th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Perhaps you are not capable of speaking and hearing at the same time, but some of us are. Have you ever been to Capitol Hill? I don’t have to be sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s lap to hear what she is saying. Chanting from La Raza was heard blocks away. As I said, unlike you, I was there. There was no CHANTING of a racist or violent nature. It would have been picked up by the copius numbers of cameras rolling. There has been footage, released by Breitbart proving his claims false. I am not accusing him of lying- he has been caught in his lie! It should be of greater concern is why a former war hero would cheapen himself by lying and playing the race card. Must mean that is more important for black Liberals to be black than to be an American, but I digress.
April 27th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I used to work on Capitol Hill. I’m an ex-Congressional attorney. I’ve met Nancy Pelosi several times and have tremendous respect and affection for her, one of the greatest Speakers in American history.
I never claimed there was chanting.
And no one has ever proved Congressman Lewis false. In fact, a police officer offered to arrest the person who spit at one of the Congressman but the Member of Congress declined to press charges.
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. But I’ve come to expect that from most FOX viewers.
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 am
Inside Scoop is a Great Show.
The 6/3/09 show with Sara Robinson after the death of George Tiller was a show that should be mandatory listening to anyone who cares about the abortion issue and right -wing terrorism,
May 17th, 2010 at 6:06 am
As a Jewish American from the former Soviet Union, I can really see why you get hate mail. Stalin had a name for people like you, “Useful Idiots” Now paste it on your wall and read it. Remember, that idiots like you assisted helping Stalin rise to power and responsible partially in the slaughter of millions of jews who did nothing. In concentration camps, there were jews that sold other jews just to stay a live. You remind me of those type of jews. Now, go hang yourself.
May 17th, 2010 at 10:37 am
So Obama is Stalin now? And you call Mark an idiot? Are you on drugs? I can’t believe I’m asking a mentally ill person this, but on what possible grounds do you compare Obama to Stalin? Do you really honestly believe that Obama is out to commit genocide? Where do you come up with these wild ideas? Is it Glenn Beck’s Kool-Aid? Or someone elses?
May 17th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Now, here is a proud liberal coming to speak. I love proud liberals. In fact, I love them so much that I want to give you a qoute that I found the other day. Let me share it with you:
“Liberals are like abused children. They may not have been physically abused, but they’ve been mentally abused. And now that many of them they have power, they are abusing the rest of us”
I think this sums it up. If you read history you will see how Stalin started out and Hitler and Lenin and Mao. See if you find any similarities. I am sure you do not have to digg to much to find one or two. And no, I am not a Glenn follower and I do not drink Kool-Aid. Actually, if we had Kool-Aid in the Soviet Union where I was growing up then maybe, I would of loved to try it. But, we had better things to do as to find food, toilet paper and avoid the KGB. That was all in a good days work. And being that our medical system was free we were very eager to go to see doctors. We had a saying when you go to see a doctors, be careful that he does not cut of something extra. LOL.
May 18th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
So, whats is wrong. Is there no liberal that wants to have a conversation or all you commie idiots are kissing Obama’s ass. So, keep praying to your pharaoh enjoy the camps. They are coming soon. See you in hell
May 18th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Conversation? You called Obama Stalin? You compared Mark to someone responsible for genocide. You want a conversation? Do you know how to have a civilized conversation?
It sounds like you who was abused in the Soviet Union. So abused that you’re mentally ill. You’re unstable.Seek medical attention before you kill someone. Please don’t get a gun. If you do, please remember what happened to Timothy McVeigh. He’s no hero. He like you chased random demons. And then he killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children.
You really do need to seek therapy before you harm someone or yourself.
May 18th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Now, this is funny. A liberal is counseling me on being mentally ill. LOL. Do you think Stalin started off killing people or Hitler or Lenin or Mao? Let me ask you a question. What do you call a liberal who owns 6 donkeys? Yes, you are right a pimp.
May 18th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
This says it all:
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on,this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping
for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.
May 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
So, any feed back from the above. Does anyone agree or disagree. I think the above post sums things up fairly nicely.
May 18th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
I will add one more thing, that arguing with Liberals are pointless. Just insult them none stop. Being politically correct does not work with them. Being rational does not work with them. Being polite does not work with them. Insult them and ridicule them where ever they might be. Use the same tactics of saul alinsky and if you do not know who he is look him up.
May 18th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
You are free adults who do not need to be told where to go, what to eat, where to work, how to be healthy, where to pray,etc. It is not the governments responsibility to take care of you. It is yours. Take your life back, I beg you. Otherwise, you would live a life like we did in Soviet Union. I would love to save you the horror of that life. But, it is up to you. Take back your country. America to us immigrants is like haven. When I flew in from Soviet Union, I kissed the ground of this great country. You are fortunate to live in this country. You are fortunate to never experience hunger or prisons. You are fortunate to be anything you wish to be. It is all up to you. Some might think I am standing on some soap box and ignore this message from an immigrant who only wishes for all men and women to remain as free as they can.
May 18th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
God bless you all even the Liberals.
May 19th, 2010 at 1:25 am
I know many liberals but I’ve never met a single one in my entire life that:
> would outlaw all guns
> would ban all meat products
> would “legislate respect” for gay people (Equal rights-yes but respect can’t be legislated)
> would “shut down” conservative talk radio, and
> would “silence” “any mention of God and religion”
Can you name a single liberal who believes in even four of these five you say apply to all?
No you can’t.
Now will you wake up and realize that you live in a complete utter false reality based on your own strange delusions?
I doubt it.
The delusional never realize what everyone around them already knows.
Still, the fact that you can’t name a single liberal in all of humanity of any fame or power that believes in even four of the five above principles you claim apply to all liberals would give a thinking person pause.
I suppose that’s why it won’t give you any pause.
You’re right though that arguments between us are useless. Arguing with you is about as effective as arguing with a dining room table, except the dining room table doesn’t make stupid arguments. I do argue with intelligent conservatives. That’s why I won’t argue with you any more.
May 19th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Except to say one more thing: I also love my country.
And I would never want to live in the former Soviet Union, which, in addition to its gulags, also apparently caused delusion in at least one person who lived there.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:14 am
Hee, I will name you someone. Obama, nancy pelosi. The fairness doctrine comes to mind.
Nearly as loathsome as government trying to dictate what we can’t say is government trying to dictate what we have to say.
Some of you, apparently, are too stupid to be free. Worse, your obtuse opinions are reinforced three hours daily by unsanctioned, fanatical talk-radio troglodytes.
This, I’m afraid, is a sin against fairness. Now, if only you had some more information. Because God knows, you’re being deprived of media choices now. So it’s time for re-education, or so sayeth Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
The Fairness Doctrine, repealed in the 1980s, would require broadcasters to air both sides of every “controversial” issue (every issue, as you all know, has only two sides) on radio and television stations.
Ostensibly, the Fairness Doctrine would create ideological parity, but in reality it’s a blunt tool to hammer political opponents — namely, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who dominate the medium of radio.
When asked this week if she supported revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Pelosi answered, reportedly without hesitation: “Yes.” In 2007, according to the conservative American Spectator magazine, a Pelosi adviser had said, “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans, and we have had to find a way to limit it.”
Finding a way to “limit” free speech for partisan advantage is a tactic Richard Nixon would have admired (though he typically had the decency to do such things clandestinely) but not a tactic we expect from a lawmaker who claimed she was bringing a new day to Washington.
Unless, of course, by “new” she meant a new day for the Sedition Act.
The Fairness Doctrine may have been useful when only a handful of stations parceled out information to every American. But now that news delivery has atomized rather than consolidated, the Fairness Doctrine is, in effect, a form of censorship.
Setting aside the tremendous growth of satellite radio, Americans have 14,000 radio stations to choose from nationally. For nearly 90 percent of households, cable or satellite TV is a reality. Those households have 500 stations available to them.
There is no way to accurately quantify the number of political websites out there. But, clearly, the left has been far more effective in utilizing the Internet for political purposes. No one has yet concocted a “fairness” scheme to level that playing field. (In fact congressional Democrats have yet to take up the truly vital issue of “net neutrality.”)
In practice, the Fairness Doctrine, far from generating ideological diversity, has the potential to discourage radio stations from airing any contentious topics or political views.
Imagine the ensuing pressure and financial obligation that stations would be saddled with trying to match every opinion with an opposing one.
Imagine, also, how this righteous evenhandedness would be meted out. Complaints would fly in, lawyers would step up (you know, for the sake of fairness only), and bureaucrats would decide what opinions merit opposition.
For every conservative host on a station, I suppose, there would be a liberal one to match. Each host, though, would have to be vetted for ideological purity, lest any convergence of opinion go unchallenged.
As far as practical politics go, Pelosi may not realize how offensive the Fairness Doctrine is to millions of Americans. Barack Obama has said he would not support it. (Though someone should ask him if he would veto a bill.)
Perhaps Obama understands that government abuse is historically a bipartisan pastime. Setting this precedent now may mean the tables will be turned soon enough.
As for me, I’d rather live in a free country than a fair one. Even if that world includes talk show hosts and an ineffective Madam Speaker with an ugly totalitarian impulse.
The Left’s View of Freedom of Speech
Those who support such legislation as that referred to above, believe only in politically correct speech that is designed and dictated by them. They continually carry out these dictatorial policies to the extent to which the law allows them. Their primary legal arm is the organization with the misnomer, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The left has forced its views upon private employers in the country to the full extent that it has been able to get the state and federal legislative bodies to go along with them. This has been at great expense to the private sector and to the public. They always work under the deceitful cloak of “civil rights” bills. Whenever you favor one group with special rights, you take rights from another group. This should not be the business of the government.
We have classic examples of their oppressive attitudes in this regard in our colleges, universities, and public schools. We need to consider some examples. References will not be given for every factual statement and opinion, but much of the material is covered more specifically in other articles and books made available on this website. Also much is easily available on the web with a Google search.
Our places of “higher learning” have a large number of courses promoting feminism, women’s studies, homosexuality, and various kinds of sexual deviation. Many would shock decent people who have no previous familiarity with them. But no opposition is allowed, and teachers have lost their jobs because they speak out against such things, and students have been kicked out of school.
The largest union of educators, the National Education Association (NEA) openly embraces the homosexual movement, and the acceptance of homosexuality. They even have a Gay and Lesbian Caucus (GLC). They teach young people that opposition to such deviant behavior is wrong and “homophobic.”
Much of what is taught in our schools and institutions of higher learning is pure filth. But there is one thing that they will not allow, and that is the teaching of traditional Judeo-Christian principles. Feminist and homosexual groups are welcomed on campus, but many Christian groups have had to go to court to be allowed the equal right of having their groups. They are the only ones who are not welcome.
The theory of evolution is falsely taught to students as established truth, and any criticism of Darwinian evolutionary theories is unfairly limited. Although some, if not all, of the greatest minds in the history of our world have recognized intelligent design in nature, such things may not be taught in a science class. And they still call this highly politicized approach “science”!
The general media is right in line with academia in all of these things. They promote “hate crime” laws, and all of the leftist agendas. They not only want to dictate what we can say, but even what we can think. In Canada, and some other countries now, the homosexual agenda has progressed to where people cannot even publicly, and particularly over the airways, speak out against homosexuality. This includes reading passages from the Bible!
The left continually fights for pornography in the media, under the false guise of “freedom of speech”, but they fight anything religious in the public or governmental square, even the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. They fight against school children saying the pledge of allegiance, even though those who object are not required to say the pledge. They even want to eliminate In God We Trust from our coins.
The ACLU hatchet men for the left testify before state and national legislative committees in support of all of these things, such as allowing pornography, the homosexual agenda, and hate crime laws. They continually bring lawsuits against religious expression, and they have tried to destroy the Boy Scouts of America because they express a belief in God and bar homosexuals as leaders. Even after the right of the Scouts to choose their own leaders was established in the Supreme Court (with the ACLU attorneys on the other side), they insidiously try to destroy the organization. They try to have them barred from the use of any schools or public property, which they have historically been allowed to use. This is even though the Boy Scouts of America removed 1,800 Scoutmasters suspected of molesting boy scouts between 1971 and 1991 (As We Sodomize America, p. 521). Many of these homosexual pedophiles were successfully prosecuted, as they were for the same kinds of activity in the Catholic Church.
There is an organization in this country of homosexual pedophiles that goes by the name, North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Such an organization would not have been allowed in this country at an earlier time, prior to our great decline in morality. The ACLU teams with them to try to get the age of consent lowered so that it will be easier for them to prey on young boys. All of the homosexual groups are continually working for this, and they even have an “Age of Consent” website. The ACLU also works with them and represents them in child pornography cases. All kinds of pornography, including child pornography, is of great interest to these people, and the ACLU. This alone tells us volumes about their true character. One of our present Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a former ACLU member, and perhaps still is. She has expressed similar views, including those about lowering the age of consent, and when cases come before the Court, she can be depended upon to hew to the ACLU line.
Fifty years ago our laws on obscenity were quite different, and there were reasonable requirements for decency on the airways. But with the liberal onslaught against traditional morality, such laws have gone by the wayside, with the help of the United States Supreme Court siding with the liberal element. Now, it is difficult to even regulate child pornography. In a case that will be discussed below, the Supreme Court struck down a regulation against “virtual” child pornography on the airways. This is all done under the completely fallacious reasoning that such things are protected free speech.
Not only are such liberals opposed to real freedom of speech, but they want to revise everything so that they can force their particular views on all of us, and their success so far has been truly amazing.
They want to revise our dictionaries to comply with their views of political correctness. This has already been done to some extent, and I expect it to continue.
They want to revise our Bible to make it comply more with feminist views, and to change the many condemnations of homosexuality. Many want revisions to make Jesus appear as a mere prophet and not the Son of God. Guess what? It is being done!
They want to revise history and our textbooks in school to reflect their leftist views. Sure enough, it is being done! These people have no respect whatsoever for our Founders, or our Constitution.
They continually try to change our Constitution from the views of our Founders, and those who ratified our Constitution, to their own leftist views. Here again their efforts have been amazingly successful � particularly in the United States Supreme Court. This has been a very disturbing thing to many legal scholars, and it prompted me to write the book, A Way to Save Our Constitution From Judges, which is not yet published. However, an article on this, Saving Our Constitution From Judges, is available on this website.
These liberals want to destroy everything about this country that has made it a great country.
They also want to eliminate all opposition to their views. They not only want to force us to speak in what that dictate as a “politically correct” manner, but they want to force us to think that way, too.
For further reading on this, I recommend the following articles:
The ACLU and Community Interests, by Ted Rueter. http://www.drpolitics.com/articles/aclu.htm.
No Boy Scouts, by Deroy Murdock.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
Death, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, by Bill O’Reilly.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly040405.asp
Why the “Fairness Doctrine” is Unconstitutional
The true purpose of the doctrine, alone, makes it unconstitutional. It is to limit religious and political speech, and to dictate that the kind of speech the left wants will be presented, and that is directly contrary to the primary purposes of the First Amendment. This would be the direct effect of the legislation. There is nothing the left hates like conservative talk radio, and the Christian broadcasting stations. Both are antithetical to the political views of the left and to the promotion of their immoral ideologies. Having almost all of both the media and academia spouting their doctrines is not enough for the left. They want a complete monopoly. Their views cannot withstand objective analysis, and they know it. That is also one of the reasons that they have not been successful in their efforts to establish liberal talk radio, although the liberals have the same opportunities as the conservatives.
The following are some excerpts from Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair, by Adam Thierer, and published by The Heritage Foundation in 1993, when this legislation first raised its ugly head again:
…It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law. ***
The fairness doctrine’s constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster’s First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule’s constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate” (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC’s action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm)
The article gives a good explanation of why the doctrine did not work in the first place and what is wrong with such ideas now.
The following is from a very comprehensive legal article on the subject by a knowledgeable attorney with broadcasting experience, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, by Adrian Cronauer:
*** The political philosophy underlying the Fairness Doctrine not only provides a rationale for the exercise of governmental content regulation in over-the-air broadcasting, but also lays the groundwork for the expansion of governmental power into other electronic media, including cable, satellite, direct distribution systems, and future technologies. ***
In 1984, the Supreme Court invited an action which would give it a chance to reverse Red Lion. In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, the Court said if the Commission were to show the “fairness doctrine [has] `the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing’ speech,” the Court would be forced to reconsider the doctrine’s constitutional basis.(note 59) However, no test case appeared. ***
By contrasting the fifty years with the Fairness Doctrine in effect with the seven years since the FCC abandoned it, one must conclude that the Fairness Doctrine did not, in fact, increase the likelihood of public exposure to varying viewpoints. Rather, the Fairness Doctrine had exactly the opposite effect and, if reinstated, will not only act as an impediment to the public’s right to know but will actually accelerate its negative effect on that right.(note 75) ***
Conclusion
Allowing the “invisible hand” of market forces to operate in the marketplace of ideas accommodates all viewpoints with enough proponents to warrant attention, and achieves the goals of the First Amendment without intrusive governmental intervention. As predicted by the FCC’s 1985 Fairness Doctrine Report, the dynamics of the information-services marketplace assures the public more than sufficient exposure to controversial issues of public importance.(note 115) ***
( http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no1/cronauer.html )
As explained in the Cronauer article, the original fairness doctrine was enacted in the infancy of radio broadcasting, when not only the available stations were few, but the frequencies on which they could broadcast were few. Everything from the ship to ship radio and the radio stations were interfering with each other. The conditions at that time were why the Supreme Court upheld the FCC regulation in the Red Lion Broadcasting case in 1969. Conditions are altogether different now. The frequencies are almost unlimited, interference is easily controlled; and the number of broadcasters and stations have tremendously increased, because of the greatly increased technology.
A few of the important United States Supreme Court cases on this subject will considered in relation to the “Fairness Doctrine” and what is now considered as a part of protected speech.
As noted above, the Supreme Court, in RED LION BROADCASTING CO. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) affirmed the Constitutionality of the doctrine as then used by the FCC. Below are a few of the statements from Justice White who wrote the opinion for the Court:
*** The two cases before us now, which were decided separately below, challenge the constitutional and statutory bases of the doctrine and component rules. ***
… On November 27, 1964, WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a “Christian Crusade” series. A book by Fred J. Cook entitled “Goldwater - Extremist on the Right” was discussed by Hargis, who said that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; that Cook had then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; that he had defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency; and that he had now written a “book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater.” 2 When Cook heard of the broadcast he [395 U.S. 367, 372] concluded that he had been personally attacked and demanded free reply time, which the station refused. ***
The fairness doctrine finds specific recognition in statutory form, is in part modeled on explicit statutory provisions relating to political candidates, and is approvingly reflected in legislative history.
In 1959 the Congress amended the statutory requirement of 315 that equal time be accorded each political candidate to except certain appearances on news programs, but added that this constituted no exception “from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.” ***
The broadcasters challenge the fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules on conventional First Amendment grounds, alleging that the rules abridge their freedom of speech and press. Their contention is that the First Amendment protects their desire to use their allotted frequencies continuously to broadcast whatever they choose, and to exclude whomever they choose from ever using that frequency. No man may be prevented from saying or publishing what he thinks, or from refusing in his speech or other utterances to give equal weight to the views of his opponents. This right, they say, applies equally to broadcasters.
Although broadcasting is clearly a medium affected by a First Amendment interest, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 166 (1948), differences in the characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them. ***
It was this fact, and the chaos which ensued from permitting anyone to use any frequency at whatever power level he wished, which made necessary the enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, 16 as the Court has noted at length before. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 210 -214 (1943). It was this reality which at the very least necessitated first the division of the radio spectrum into portions reserved respectively for public broadcasting and for other important radio uses such as amateur operation, aircraft, police, defense, and navigation; and then the subdivision of each portion, and assignment of specific frequencies to individual users or groups of users. Beyond this, however, because the frequencies reserved for public broadcasting were limited in number, it was essential for the Government to tell some applicants that they could not broadcast at all because there was room for only a few. ***
This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with “the right [395 U.S. 367, 390] of free speech by means of radio communication.” Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. ***
… And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications. [Emphasis supplied] ***
… But we do hold that the Congress and the Commission do not violate the First Amendment when they require a radio or television station to give reply time to answer personal attacks and political editorials ***
In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government’s role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and [395 U.S. 367, 401] ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. 28 The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ***
Unfortunately, although the Court in the Red Lion Broadcasting case recognized the application of The First Amendment to broadcasting over the airways, it did no analysis as to the intention of our Founders behind the amendment, except to recognize that political speech was a factor.
The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. v. TORNILLO, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) is more applicable to cases in the broadcasting fields today, because of the enormously increased broadcasting media we have today; although that case was applicable to a newspaper. After the appellant newspaper had refused to print appellee’s replies to editorials critical of appellee’s candidacy for state office, appellee brought suit in Florida Circuit Court based on Florida’s “right of reply” statute that grants a political candidate a right to equal space to answer criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper, and making it a misdemeanor for the newspaper to fail to comply. The United States Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press. Chief Justice Burger wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court. There were two concurring opinions, one by Brennan in which Rehnquist joined, and one by White. The following are excerpts from the primary opinion:
*** In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), the Court spoke of “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” ***
… If it is governmental coercion, this at once brings about a confrontation with the express provisions of the First Amendment … . ***
… An attitude strongly adverse to any attempt to extend a right of access to newspapers was echoed by other Members of this Court in their separate opinions in that case. [Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 117 (1973)] ***
… The clear implication has been that any such a compulsion to publish that which “`reason’ tells them should not be published” is unconstitutional. *** [Emphasis added]
Faced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore, under the operation of the Florida statute, political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced. *** [Emphasis added]
… It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. *** [Emphasis added]
From the concurring opinion of Brennan, joined by Rehnquist:
I join the Court’s opinion which, as I understand it, addresses only “right of reply” statutes and implies no view upon the constitutionality of “retraction” statutes affording plaintiffs able to prove defamatory falsehoods a statutory action to require publication of a retraction. [418 U.S. 241, 259] …
Justice White, concurring:
… According to our accepted jurisprudence, the First Amendment erects a virtually insurmountable barrier between government and the print media so far as government tampering, in advance of publication, with news and editorial content is concerned. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). …
In FCC v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, 468 U.S. 364 (1984), pertained to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (Act) establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a nonprofit corporation, to disburse federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations in support of station operations and educational programming. Section 399 of the Act forbids any noncommercial educational station that receives a grant from the CPB to “engage in editorializing.” The Supreme Court held that Section 399 was unconstitutional.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL; and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 402. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE J., joined, post, p. 402. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 408.
From the majority opinion:
*** First, the restriction imposed by 399 is specifically directed at a form of speech - namely, the expression of editorial opinion - that lies at the heart of First Amendment protection. ***
… Preserving the free expression of editorial opinion, therefore, is part and parcel of “a profound national commitment . . . that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” [Emphasis added] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). ***
… [Section] 399 accomplishes only one thing - the suppression of editorial speech by station management. ***
As to the “Fairness Doctrine” the Court stated in Footnote 12:
As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine “[has] the net effect or reducing rather than enhancing” speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. [Emphasis added] 395 U.S., at 393 .
The primary basis for the dissent of Rehnquist, Burger and White was simply:
Here, in my view, Congress has rationally concluded that the bulk of taxpayers whose moneys provide the funds for grants by the CPB would prefer not to see the management of public stations engage in editorializing or the endorsing or opposing of political candidates. Because Congress’ decision to enact 399 is a rational exercise of its spending powers and strictly neutral, I would hold that nothing in the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional.
Justice Stevens:
*** In my judgment the interest in keeping the Federal Government out of the propaganda arena is of overriding importance. That interest is of special importance in the field of electronic communication, not only because that medium is so powerful and persuasive, but also because it is the one form of communication that is licensed by the Federal Government. ***
Members of Congress, not members of the Judiciary, live in the world of politics. When they conclude that there is a real danger of political considerations influencing the dispensing of this money and that this provision is necessary to insulate grantees from political pressures in addition to the other safeguards, that judgment is entitled to our respect. ***
Here, it is true that taxpayers might find it offensive if their tax moneys were being used to subsidize the expression of editorial [468 U.S. 364, 419] opinion with which they disagree, but it is the fact of the subsidy - not just the expression of the opinion - that legitimates this justification. Furthermore, and of greater importance, the principal justification for this prohibition is the overriding interest in forestalling the creation of propaganda organs for the Government.
In this particular case, I tend to agree with the dissent to the extent that if the Government is creating the organization and furnishing part of the money, it should be left to Congress as to whether or not it shall be used for partisan political purpose. But the importance of the case to this paper is that the application of the First Amendment to broadcasting is clearly recognized. It is contrary to the First Amendment to dictate the content of it, instead of leaving that to the discretion of the speaker or publisher.
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the U. S. Supreme Court stretched the Freedom of Speech concept to an extent legal scholars could not have imagined fifty years ago. This case was on the federal child pornography act. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expanded the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C. §2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). The Court held that Sections 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) were unconstitutional, and this kind of child pornography is protected as “free speech” under the First Amendment.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined as to Part II. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined except for the paragraph discussing legislative history.
The dissent noted that legislative record, which makes plain that the [CPPA] was intended to target only a narrow class of images–visual depictions which are virtually indistinguishable to unsuspecting viewers from unretouched photographs of actual children engaging in identical sexual conduct.
We see from these cases the extent to which the ideas of freedom of the press and freedom of speech under the First Amendment have been extended.
Conclusion
I believe that it is now clear that in this day and time enactment of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would be patently unconstitutional for the following three reasons:
1. The act violates the plain wording of the First Amendment, which provides that: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press … .”
2. The act would force broadcasters to spend a substantial amount of their own time, for which they are paying, to present views contrary to their own, and contrary to their principles. It is completely contrary to preserving the “free expression of editorial opinion.”
3. It would not only have the “net effect or reducing rather than enhancing speech,” it would actually kill a lot of speech and a lot of programs, because many with principles would simply refuse to present things that were directly contrary to their political and religious principles. (This is of course exactly what the Left wants.)
It would be a terrible travesty of justice that even forms of child pornography are afforded protection on our airways as “free speech,” and freedom of political and religious speech is not protected, when these latter two kinds of speech are exactly what our Founders wanted primarily to protect.
Now go fuck yourself.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:16 am
Barack Obama has a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech. And one thing Americans can expect from an Obama administration, and a Democratic-controlled Congress, is a legislative attempt to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which will limit free speech and diminish the conservative influence on talk radio.
A new ATI-News/Zogby International poll released on Oct. 26 made it clear that those who intend to vote for Obama support re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine.
The poll asked likely voters, “Some members of Congress have discussed reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting. The Fairness Doctrine requires radio stations to provide equal air time for opposing viewpoints.”
“If reinstated, regulators determine if both sides of an issue are equally presented. There is concern among some broadcasters that this equal presentation could lead to dropping some popular conservative talk shows in an effort to avoid airing less popular liberal talk shows. Knowing this, do you support or oppose reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?”
Those likely to vote for Obama support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine by a margin of 49 percent to 36 percent, and Democrats support it 47 to 38 percent. Independents marginally support the fairness doctrine 42 percent to 40 percent, though this is within the poll’s margin of error. (The remaining respondents all replied “not sure.”)
Those polled were then asked, “Some say the Fairness Doctrine could result in popular radio shows, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to be taken off the air in some markets. Knowing this, do you support or oppose reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?”
When informed that the Fairness Doctrine might take Limbaugh and Hannity off the air, the percentage of Democrat likely voters who support the Fairness Doctrine rose to 53 percent. The percentage of Obama supporters supporting the Doctrine rose four points to 53 percent. However, the percentage of Independents opposed to the Fairness Doctrine rose to 49 percent.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:27 am
Liberal Believe About Guns:
The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children.
LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.
Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.
I am sure you can do more research. Now for a serious note.
Do you know that the best part of a liberal is the cum that slid down their mothers crack and landed on the mattress.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:30 am
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…
May 19th, 2010 at 4:32 am
I wonder how it is the “People” might alter or abolish their government without the tools necessary to do so.
Liberals will tell you the 2nd Amendment, the one that says, “…The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, doesn’t guarantee “individuals” the Right to bear arms because the preamble to the 2nd Amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”
If that’s what the Founders meant, why didn’t they just say, “The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless…”
They didn’t say it because they didn’t mean it. The Founders said and wrote exactly what they meant in the Declaration of Independence and throughout the U.S. Constitution, a nasty annoyance to liberalism’s promulgation.
Liberalism is changing America for the worse. Social programs, starting with the New Deal then Great Society have burdened Americans to depend on government instead of Church, God and community. The result of these programs is more people dependent upon government instead of less. Liberalism also ventures to create more intrusive and punitive tax policy on those who are most productive, discouraging the self-starters and entrepreneurs that our country depends on for new technology and innovation.
Separation of Church and State is a perversion of the 1st Amendment to take religious influence out of all government business when it was designed only to keep government influence out of religion.
Liberalism has destroyed our school system. Even though we spend billions on education, most Americans don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to tell fact from fiction and they take media reports and stories for face value embracing lies and policies which are devastating our nation.
The American Founders recognized the most important role for government was to ensure the freedom, creativity and industry of American individualism, and they recognized that this individualism, this freedom to pursue happiness, was in fact a decree from God, not man. All of this spites the philosophies of contemporary liberalism.
Independence, individualism, responsibility, and aversion to government aid and meddling are all encouraged when a people believes it can take care of its needs better than government can. When people tend to their own security, they are further empowered to believe and to act in a manner free from government intrusion.
Firearm ownership magnifies and encourages all these admirable qualities of man. Firearm ownership also threatens the liberal philosophies which demand a dependent, despondent and surrendered people; explanation for the creative and far-fetched calisthenics endorsed by opponents of the 2nd Amendment.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:35 am
In addition to attacking the First Amendment, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court also argued against the Second Amendment.
“I’m not sympathetic,” to the Second Amendment, said Kagan.
In 1987 as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, Elena Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol, according to Bloomberg.
The man argued “the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”
Kagan believes the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.
Kagan told lawmakers last year when she was the nominee for solicitor general that she accepted the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court. “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms,” she said.
Kagan, however, added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.
In answers to written questions by Patrick Leahy submitted in February of 2009, Kagan said: “Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation.”
May 19th, 2010 at 4:36 am
Kagan’s previous stated opinions on the Constitution include her belief that the First Amendment should be modified by the government in order to prevent societal harm.
In addition to papers written in the 1990s on this subject, Solicitor General Kagan argued in favor of prohibiting political speech by corporations. Supreme Chief Justice John Roberts directly criticized Kagan’s argument that the government has the authority to ban political pamphlets.
“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.
“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Justice Kennedy said the law had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”
In addition to opposing the First and Second Amendments, Kagan has argued against the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
According to the New York Times, Kagan said “that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”
Kagan’s “elastic interpretation” of the Fourth Amendment echoed remarks made by Eric Holder during his confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General.
In 2009, Obama outlined his policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:39 am
Proud Liberal you really need to get out much. Its important.
Now, something else I would like to tell the ProudLiberal and I really do mean this from the bottom of my heart. Here it goes:
You are the load your mother should have swallowed.
Now, go to Cuba and stay there.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:44 am
A third instance of Elena Kagan opposing Americans’ Second Amendment right to own a gun became public Thursday, ensuring gun rights will be a major issue in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. It also confirms that President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will “reinterpret” the Second Amendment until that amendment means nothing at all.
This year, no case on the Supreme Court docket is more important than McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court is deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only a right you have against the federal government, or instead if the Second Amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago’s law banning guns—even in your own home—is constitutional.
When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, then-Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, and then requested and received time to argue the federal government’s position on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2, current Solicitor General Kagan argued… Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn’t even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases—and the McDonald case is tremendously important).
If someone asserts that the solicitor general shouldn’t file a brief because it’s a state issue as to whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (which is the issue in McDonald) the record speaks to the contrary. The last time the Supreme Court “incorporated” a right from the Bill of Rights to the states, in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland, the solicitor general filed a brief, and then (just like Heller in 2008) was given time in oral argument time to express the government’s views in front of the Court.
Why wouldn’t Kagan file a brief expressing the view of over 75% of Americans that the Second Amendment is an individual right, one that every American citizen has against both the the federal government and state/local government?
Aside from her shocking decision not to file a brief in McDonald, we’ve learned that Elena Kagan was part of the Clinton White House’s gun-control efforts, where a Clinton staffer said, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”
Then on Thursday it became public that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional (the same law that the Court eventually struck down in Heller) when Kagan was clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan’s analysis to Marshall was that she was “not sympathetic” toward the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow D.C. to completely ban all guns.
Three anti-gun decisions. And her nomination isn’t even a week old.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama supports the Chicago gun ban, a position he publicly repeated as recently as June 26, 2008 (the day the Heller decision was released). President Obama believes that there’s nothing unconstitutional about your city—or even your whole state—completely banning you from having any firearms for hunting or self-defense, even in your own home.
As we discuss in our new bestselling book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will repeatedly rule that whatever gun-control laws come before it are okay. No matter how severe the anti-gun measure is, the Court will say, “No constitutional problems with this law.”
President Obama—the most anti-gun president is American history—has nominated for our highest court a close personal friend of his. And now we see that Obama has every reason to believe that his close personal friend shares his radical view on the Second Amendment, one that will work against the constitutional rights of 90 million American gun owners.
All this, as the National Rifle Association goes to Charlotte, North Carolina this weekend for the NRA Annual Meeting. You don’t have to wonder what we’ll be talking about in Charlotte.
Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings this summer could get very interesting. America’s gun owners have a way of making their voices heard.
May 19th, 2010 at 4:51 am
Some more interesting audio clips you might want to listen to:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/cass-sunstein/2010/05/18/audio-obama-czar-wants-mandate-internet-balance?page=2
May 19th, 2010 at 4:57 am
Are There Limits to Free Speech and Other Constitutional Principles? Ask CNN
Hard to know what to make of this piece by Eliott C. McLaughlin — except, of course, that it pretty much sums up the state of journalistic thinking in the MSM these days, which includes a reflexive disdain for constitutional principles it disagrees with while trying to be “fair and balanced.”
Experts: Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing
Here’s how it begins:
Letting disgruntled citizens vent is important to national security, experts say, but some messages emanating from angry Americans in recent weeks have pressed the boundaries of free speech.
Important to national security? Free speech is important for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that, since John Milton’s Areopagitica essay, it has been the basis of all the liberties of modern democracy. And what, exactly, are the “boundaries of free speech” in a society whose Constitution states, in the First Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
Politicians have reported slurs as well as threatening letters and phone calls. Congressmen have reported vandalism to their offices. One said he was spit on. Another said his brother’s gas line was cut after a Tea Party member posted his address online.
Tea Party leaders denounce the threats and deny involvement, pointing to fringe elements — not Tea Party members, per se, but groups with degrees of overlapping ideologies.
But the angry rhetoric is not isolated to fringe groups. Both mainstream liberal and conservative camps have joined the chorus, and while some of the language sounds threatening, most of it is protected.
You’d think an organization such as CNN — which is trying desperately to reposition itself as a middle-ground alternative to the open partisanship, whether real or perceived, of Fox News and MSNBC — might think twice before trotting out the usual tiresome and, in the “spitting” case, debunked leftist talking points.
It continues:
As the Tea Party held its April 15 tax day protest against government spending, related groups were planning an April 19 protest at Fort Hunt National Park near Alexandria, Virginia. The purpose of the latter, the groups say, is to “restore the Constitution,” and the location was chosen because it is the nearest point to Washington where firearms can be carried openly.
Here, CNN raises the fearsome specter of an armed rabble, a latter-day Whisky Rebellion, just across the Potomac from the nation’s capital, when in fact it’s a group of citizens exercising their Second Amendment constitutional rights in complete accord with the laws of the state of Virginia. You can certainly take issue with the protest’s high-stakes symbolism — and any outbreak of violence would be disastrous — but not with its legality. Maybe CNN should get out more, and take a look at some other states that permit open carrying of firearms — you know, redneck, racist places inhabited by wingnuts and troglodytes, such as…
Vermont.
After backing away from the now-discredited Frank Rich talking point that the Tea Partiers are a powderkeg just awaiting a match, McLaughlin quotes a First Amendment scholar:
“When you drive dissent underground, it’s bound to bubble up somewhere, usually with violence,” said Robert Richards, a founding director for Penn State University’s Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment.
The 1950s brought us McCarthyism, the 1960s brought civil rights, and the 1970s delivered the Vietnam War — all issues that stoked anger and protest in the United States. During those same eras, Richards said, the Supreme Court was tackling a slew of cases that defended the rights of people and the press to criticize the government.
Today, after decades of relatively unfettered free speech, you still see anger and demonstrations, but the violent element is not nearly as constant.
“There’s less reason to erupt in some type of violence because you can get your message out there in other ways, other more appropriate ways,” Richards said.
Left unremarked is where the violence came from back in those halcyon days of civil-rights and Vietnam-era protest:
Dr. Jerrold Post, a George Washington University political psychology professor who spent 21 years with the CIA, said that in nations where free speech is snuffed, such as Yemen and Pakistan, domestic terrorism is more prevalent.
“Free speech relieves the pressure of discontent in some ways,” said Post, who founded the CIA’s Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior.
So… free speech is a good thing, right? Not so fast –
Post said he is concerned, however, about messages coming from the conservative base. Last month, GOP chief Michael Steele called for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be put on “the firing line,” and House Minority Leader John Boehner said that a congressman “might be a dead man” because of his health care vote.
“I find some of this rhetoric recently — ‘reload’ — quite scary,” Post said of a Twitter post by Sarah Palin directing followers to her Facebook page, which had crosshairs on the districts of 20 congressmen who voted for the controversial health care bill. “Some people are going to hear that as, ‘Take up your arms.””
Of course, that’s only when Republicans do it. When Democrats do it… not so much.
McLaughlin’s pieces rambles on at endless length, backing and forthing in an old-school sort of way, trying to be “balanced” while winking every now and then to let the reader know we’re all on the side of the angels here. To his credit, he makes the point that there is a difference between abstract speech and actual violence, and that there’s a tricky legal line of demarcation between them at times, as exemplified by the Hal Turner case.
Still, the last words are given to Dr. Post, who does his best to channel Frank Rich:
Post speculated that today’s anger stems from a feeling of “groundlessness.” The face of politics is changing, whether it’s a black president, female secretary of state or gay, Jewish liberal as one of the most visible figures in Congress. Priorities are changing, too, as gay marriage, immigration, health care and drug legalization are among the most heated debates of late…
America has blamed Reds, Islamists, illegal immigrants and the “axis of evil.” The left has blamed the right. The right has blamed the left. Today, the Tea Party’s “them” is a perceived “soft center in Washington who doesn’t understand,” Post said, and it helps to have “an external target to blame.”
“It makes sense of the senseless in his life,” Post said. “There is a deep-seated need in human psychology for enemies. We define ourselves by what they are not. We end where they begin.”
May 19th, 2010 at 5:00 am
I do not know why you brought up Gay People. I never even mentioned anything about Gay people. I tell you want Liberals, just leave everyone alone and do what the constitution mandated the government to do. Read the works of George Washington as a start. Get out of people lives and stay out.
May 19th, 2010 at 5:09 am
If you were following news, you will see that there are liberal health nuts out to legislate how people should eat. Since liberals passed governmental health insurance, liberals need to make sure that people eat health. For instance, liberals are legislating what kids can it in the school cafeterias. Liberals want to legislate toys that come with McDonald happy meals, etc.
May 19th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
So, ProudLiberal, I am just wondering what is so wonderful about your philosophy. I do not call myself ProdutConservative, ProudLibertarian or ProudRussian, etc. So, you must really think your philosophy is great. So, please enlighten us all what is so wonderful about your Liberal Philosophy. Also, please explain to me. Because Russians are a little dense. So, you are probably against big business, because you think they are corrupt but you are for big government. Could you please explain your rational. We Russian never understand that difference.
May 19th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Do you ever listen or just talk, talk, talk?
Neither Obama nor Pelosi believe in any of these five principles you claim all liberals believe in.
> would outlaw all guns
> would ban all meat products
> would “legislate respect” for gay people (Equal rights-yes but respect can’t be legislated)
> would “shut down” conservative talk radio, and
> would “silence” “any mention of God and religion”
So you talk for hours on end. But, as I’ve said before, you’re completely delusional. You can’t find evidence anywhere that either of them believes in one of these things, much less all five.
Seek help.
And if you want to hear my political philosophy, listen to Mark more. He and I agree on most things.
May 19th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
You still have not answered my question, what is so great about your Liberal Philosophy. I really want to know and please show me where your philosophy actually worked. Please enlighten me.
May 19th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Why can’t you answer my question in your own words. I can say the same thing. If you want to know partially what I believe listen to Mark Levine at marklevineshow.com He is also Jewish by the way.
May 19th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I tell you what the question that I asked you must be fairly complex for you to answer being that you are a liberal sheep. So, being that you are a agriculturalist I gather, you might be able to answer the following questions for me. We Russian Jews are truly curious what the answers to the following questions are:
1. How to Muslims have safe sex?
2. What do you call a Muslim who owns 6 goats?
3. What do you call a Muslim who owns a Camel and a Goat?
May 19th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
My fault, I should meant to say multicultural. I am sorry about that. I do not want to confuse you anymore than you are right now.
May 19th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Proud Liberal,
You should listen to this. It might be educational for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nPM6zjl0YU
May 19th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
This might also be interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagcuS0LC6Y&NR=1
May 19th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
This might be an interest to you as well. Being that Liberals have an open mind as they claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot7cenGWTsg
May 20th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Hey, Proud Liberal how is this not the beginning of the soviet union:
Soros-funded group urges media run by government
Marxist-led study has close ties to Obama White House officials
NEW YORK – A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization calling itself Free Press has published a study advocating the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S.
May 20th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
This idiot probably your patriotic leader of the Marxist movement says this recently:
BRENNAN: I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage — and in all my travels, the city I’ve come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together.
He was speaking at New York University and addressed Jerusalem by Islamic name. Now, to a shit head like you Mr. Levin and to you girl friend Proud Liberal, this is probably not much to be concerned about and you being a open minded douche bag, will just bat your eyes and say what is the issue. Right.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Here is some more interesting information that will make you laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Pajamasmedia#p/u/5/lWHgUE9AD4s
May 21st, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Just watched Marks interview on Megan kelly.Well here we go again another ignorant supporter of illegal immigrants.It is illegal to be in the US without proper authority.Why are you so stupid to what the law says.You should be ashamed to call yourself an American,if that is what you are.
May 21st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
John Adams, you missed my point entirely. Of course, the Federal Government has power to regulate illegal immigrants. But, under the US Constitution, Arizona does not have this power.
May 21st, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Then if federal government wanted to regulate illigals then why have not done so already. Why do you not go to the White House and Protest you Man Child Obama. Besides, did you read the Arizona Law or are you just talking out of your ass like always. Besides, today is Shabbat, do you still remember what that means.
May 21st, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Good for you John Adams. Give Mark and his groupies hell.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Can any Liberal please explain to me this logic:
- Big Corporation = Evil
- Big Government = Good
Can anyone please explain this to me being that I am a stupid Russian who was not born here and lived through the Communist era where government was huge controlling everything. Please lets see a good explanation.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
So, you mean there is not a single liberal here that can give me an answer to my question. I did not go to Harvard. I am not that smart. I did put myself through college and served my country in US Air Force during the cold war. So, please enlighten me on how things should work from a liberals point of view.
May 22nd, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Could not find any other option to send you a comment regarding your discussion on the O’Reilly Factor about Tom Hanks. You noted that only Japanese were interned during WW II. Actually Germans and Italians were also held in internment camps.
A total of 11,507 people of German ancestry were interned during the war, accounting for 36% of the total internments under the Justice Department’s Enemy Alien Control Program. Such internments began with the detention of 1,260 Germans shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Of the 254 persons evicted from coastal areas, the majority were German.
May 24th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Here is more interesting news to my liberal friends. DR. Doom speaks out. How is the Trillion Dollar bailouts working out for anyone. How about the Green Jobs?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7756684/Nouriel-Roubini-said-said-the-bubble-would-burst-and-it-did.-So-what-next.html
May 27th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I just watched you on America Live with Megyn Kelly. You were saying that the Az law is unconstitutional because it is not uniform and then said illegal immigrants would be illegal in AZ but not CA or NM etc. This is absurd because it is illegal to be in the country illegally, regardless of what state your in. Other states are just not doing anything about it like Arizona is.
Illegal immigrants are still in the US illegal if regardless of if they are in AZ, CA, NM or MA. Arizona is simply saying that if you are in the United States illegaly, and found in Arizona (after a stop with reasonable suspicion), then Arizona will take appropriate action.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Good one William. Further, I never understand this illegal immigration thing. If you come in to the country illegally you know what you were doing and if you are caught go home. What if we implement Mexican immigration law in United States. That will be great want it
I came here legally. Imagine how it makes other people feel who are in line to come to this country legally. Is that fair. you think?
May 27th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Levine is so far left, the clock runs backward for him, and he’s never been able to sink a screw.
Today, on Megyn Kelly’s show, he spouted off about the AZ legislation, SB 1070. He blathered-on about the unConstitutionality of the law…which is absurd…but during his rant, he mentioned California as though that state is any different from AZ in it’s legislation against illegal immigration. Here’s the deal: CA has existing legislation very similar to that of AZ. Read it and weep, Levine!
California’s Hidden but Already Existing Immigration Law 834b P.C.
___________________________________834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited
May 27th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Mark is about as dumb as they come when it comes sacureing our country,i watch you on fox news and i can’t believe how one sided you are on illegals,you should have something happen to you from one of them,or move to the border and then see how you feel about illegals,yhey need to be stopped at the border at all cost,and because of dumd asses like you,who must just hate America,are apart of the illegal alien problems,and Arizona is doing the right thing to protect their citizens and you should support that decision they made for their state!
May 30th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
It looks like Mark, you are making friends everywhere. LOL
You probably enjoy all the controversy. That is how you parasites make money. Right?
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:02 am
This should be an education video to all government loving liberals:
http://www.paulieciara.com/?p=49
Earl Nightingale’s “The Strangest Secret In The World.”
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Mark, I saw on Fox this morning. You got your ass kicked. It seems to me that you are about ready to switch to the dark side and go right.
June 5th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Mr . Levine.
Your arguments about the military revealing the standards for use of Predators etc., is naïve as it is ignorant. You probably never served in the military and if you did you probably never served in a combat unit and surely you never prepared a battlefield counter intelligence estimate or plan.
Revealing the rules used for the employment of predator, Global Hawk and any means of warfare strikes is akin to telling the bad guys to: “get ready here we come” or make them aware of the circumstances under witch we would use Predators so they can take specific preventive and evasive actions. I say let them guess and strike terror in their hearts that at any second they may be sent to hell from a hellfire missile and no 52 virgins or whatever the no. is these days.
The fact that operators from continental US can strike a target they can see and which has been identified as hostile by the right sources is no different than firing artillery 25 miles away or a M1 Abrahams tank killing a target by direct fire 5 mikes away. For that matter a Tomahawk missile fire from the States. In this regard< Laura Ingram showed she knows more about fighting with modern means than you do. Please learn a little about the real rules of war not what the liberals at the UN are concocting to disadvantage the US. The want to know the rules as one of them may be next. Next they would want the strikes outlawed because thy are inhumane. Well welcome to war Mr Levine. I guess you’d rather incinerate them with a nuclear bomb. By the way most of our battlefield systems have computer screens
and real time view of enemy targets. so all our soldiers operating these positions would develop play station syndromes right. What a bunch of crap. And were pray tell do you think the olay station war games came from’ the are and aggrandizement of what happens with the “real games”
I do not understand your line of thinking. Yes mistakes can be made in any battle near or far. You may know about the carpet bombing that took place during the break out from Normandy during WWII. One misplaced strike by dozens of bombers killed hundreds of US troops. The same thing occurred at Ya Grang. Yes It was painful. Yes mistakes can be made and will be made. we are not fanatics and our soldiers are not fanatics. they are well trained and most disciplined and their most fearful thought is that they might make a mistake and kill innocent civilians. The UN folks do not understand how our troops, the best trained and disciplined soldiers since the Spartans. fight wars . Yes war is not a perfect art. But we learn and go on.
If you have not guessed by now I am a 30 year veteran, combat Infantry Officer. Yes a Grunt with one tour in Korea, two in Vietnam and one on the Check border at the height of the Cold War and in the dead of winter of 1994.
Mr levine you should choose another subject to bloviate about on National TV and one you understand a little better or at least know something about. Sorry If I am being a bit harsh on you as you are probably a bright young man if quite a quite misguided on this subject. I believe you probably may even know better but just take you position to get an network TV. I would hope not.
June 6th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Mark,
You just got a thrashing from Dominic. I saw you on Fox as well and by the way you spoke is was obvious you never served in the military. You were probably one of those smart and spoiled kids who got everything that he wanted. Right?
June 18th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I don’t care how many people think your the greatest, but the majority of Americans think you’re a moron.
June 20th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
How much money do you need to start having a baby?
June 24th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
For the life of me I cannot understand why Fox News/Fox Business continues to have you on as a guest. I have never see a discussion where you even remotely have a “clue.” I don’t know anything about you or your background but I would venture a guess that you were/are a spoiled, rotten brat who never served in the military or served this country in any meaningful way. You’re like literally hundreds and thousands of off-the-wall liberals who demand freedoms but simply don’t understand that there has always been a high cost for these freedoms. I spent 4 years in the military in the early stages of the Vietnam war. I have seen and know the cost of freedom. Your view of freedom is that it gives you the right to speak out against anything that goes against your liberal views. I just saw you debating a gentlement on Megan Kelly’s show regarding the Secretary of Labor’s paid political statement which said that documented or non-documented (illegal) workers who don’t think they are being paid fairly should contact her office. This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard yet you even found a way to “agressively” attack the other gentlemen who was an individual with some common sense and obviously frustrated by your idioticy. I just noticed the comment above from Mark Salopek on June 18th who ended with “you’re a moron.” Have you considered a change in occupation–maybe flipping burgers at McDonald’s, or mopping floors. You are indeed an embarrassment to those of us who are true patriots and served our country in difficult times. Get a life!
June 29th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Mark,
You need to get your history straight on the Founding Fathers and slavery. Maybe this link can help you out…but it will involve some reading
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
July 5th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
you just make stuff up? OMG you are such an unintellectual neo-lib re-writing history completely. Wilson left the world on the brink, WWII saved the economy, carter? OMG look at the numbers you idiot. Reagan saved the USA from that Jew hating putz. Clinton diddled a 20 yr. old with a cigar in the Lincoln bedroom while the fake dot com economy exploded and left Bush with a recession. A recession, 9/11, Katrina & 4 other hurricanes handled by people not on the nanny state you suckle, two wars and he still created millions of jobs until you Demoncats took over in 2006 with the banking queen barney & dodd running fannie & freddie that destroyed our economy - MENTAL NEO-LIB EVIL. and now trillions later of a slush fund for unions and ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE” have been wasted and you gay little dwarf want more spending. as your hero sean penn said “may you and your family die slowly & screaming from recatle cancer”…you are a useful idiot with a second grade mind, poisoned by neo-liberalism, hateful of the USA and the constitution….go to hell, we take back congress on 11/2/10 and the country in 2012, maybe sooner if we impeach this man-child incompetent idiot…FU
July 5th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
THEY SAY EVERYTIME YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH YOU EXPOSE YOUR BRAIN…OR LACK THERE OF.
YOU ARE A FREAKING JOKE! IT STUPID MEN LIKE YOU THAT MAKES WOMEN LIKE ME WANT TO TURN INTO LESBIANS. EEEYOU
July 5th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
bold letters, wow. i would have guessed you already were one….neo-libs like you will destroy the USA but we are waking up fast and the election on 11/2 will be an epic tsunami of conservativism, patriotism, and total rejection of neo-liberalism that has poisoned the USA for 50 years now….liberalism has been a complete & total failure; from moral and values decay to turning generations of families into govt dependant fools (and voters), bankrupt blue cities and states like CA, New Orleans, Chicago, Philly, NJ, NY where minority teen preg/unemployment/gangs/divorce/violence have risen without check except a govt. check….shame on liberals for destroying families, hope, spririt and future. everything this fake man-child pres and his goon squad from chicago have touched has turned to stone….one term if not impeached…
July 10th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Mark,
YOU’RE A LIBERAL IDIOT!!!!
July 16th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Mark,
I see you & your comments on various Fox programming. I must say you are quite a character. Many times you will not even listen to complete logical sense in a good debate.
I would sure like to see what the head count is on folks that tune in just to hear you. It is no wonder that almost all liberal tv/radio programs are failures-they are driven by hate. I have found that many true liberals vote by hate…not with good thought out reasoning for their decision.
I will tell you this, you are spunky and you stick up for yourself & your views so there may be hope for you after all…just kidding. I do respect you for standing up for what you believe in
I, like soo many others feel that Mr.Obama’s effective run as president is about over and that it will be a long,long time before this country of ours will ever have a liberal president again….and yes, I have voted democratic before, but not again. This Obama has no business being a president-he is NOT fit for the job. He ran as a moderate then lied to all of us. He will replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president of my generation.
This hateful environment we are all now living in America is scary stuff. I truly believe we are in for perhaps another civil war/revolution or something like this. I have never seen our country this unstable & moody as I have now.
We are in need of PURE LEADERSHIP in our politicians. Know of ANY?
In summation,maybe it is time to release the Kraken.
July 18th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Hey Mark - I listen religiously - rational liberals who understand political realities, are willing to advocate but not be sanctimonious are hard to find.
August 1st, 2010 at 11:54 am
Accusing someone of socialism or communism seems to function as an ad Hitlerum argument in too much of today’s discussion of politics, just as accusations of being un-American. The accusation itself is un-American in its intolerance of differing opinions, bigotry and blind, unquestioned, ignorant and arrogant “patriotism”. (And that from people who never step their foot outside of the USA, or have very little comprehension of how other countries - Sweden, the Netherlands - Denmark etc, work and prosper).
Let’s face it. Levine is the closest the US comes to having a public intellectual, who wins debates with his interlocutors hands down with the strenght of argument rather than shouting, reasoning rather than name calling. What is so hypocritical about being affluent or successful and yet realising not all of us have been born with equal access to opportunities that make one successful.
Wake up America and get the message! And if you disagree, please learn to listen and argue and evaluate arguments. Kudos for Mark for being of Fox so much: a voice of reason, subtle intellect and balanced rhetoric when it is most needed. Keep up the good work!
August 5th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Hi i see Mark Levine on Fox News and he has got to be the most nasty ill manored self centered person i have ever seen on there.
he basicaly has nothing good to say about anyone except Obama.
i guess he worships Obama as his GOD.
i think Fox news needs to boot him off there channel.
i also think he needs to go back to what ever country he is from as he cannot be a true american with any christian values.’
maby he.s a muslum and that would explain his attitude.
August 5th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Mark is an excellent example that a good education does not necessarily make an intellegent person. This guy is a moron. How the hell he has any credibility is beyond the pale. And to those who agree with him, get your head out of your xxxxx and do some thinking for yourself. Oh, I forgot. You are the same people who want the government to take care of them. To that I say, work or go hungry. No jobs where you live? MOVE. 99 weeks of unemployment? Thats nuts! I am however enjoying watching conservatives taking back the country. I can’t wait for November.
August 6th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Joe your right on as im tired of all the bull that Obama and his piss poor Democrates buddys are dishing out its time for a real change lets Impeach him .
after all he has never acually proven to anyone that he was board in the USA plus he is using someone elses SSN.
what kinda person is he.
he also claims to be a true christian but yet he supports Gay rights which Homosexialatiy is a abomation in the bible.
just look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah God destroyed them because they were performing Homosexial acts.
i bet Mark Levine supports gays also as he seems like that sort of guy.
August 6th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Dave, do you like lobster, crabs, mussels or clams?
August 17th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
You need to get your own show right away. Some on the right believe that liberals are to emotional. But after reading the comments ITT, the so-called conservatives are the one whining. They can’t defend there points, attack the man. Keep up the faith!!!
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Hi Mark,
This link maybe of interest to you.
http://www.wisdomorwar.com
August 26th, 2010 at 1:50 am
There are many that can point their finger in the direction they have been told to, and mumble and grumble. I am sure most of those posting here cannot stand Speaker Pelosi and Sen Leader Reid.
Most of you are unaware of who would take their places as Speaker and Senate leader.
I know you won’t take the time to measure Pelosi and Reid aganst the republican replacements.
Not that you cared about Tom Delay’s corruption and Newt’s poor ethics that caused him to step down.
If republicans were to regain control of the House and Senate. here is your republican Senate Leader and House of Representative leader. In their most toughest, strongest principaled stance and most stable republicans you will see.
Is this what you think will help America?
There is NO crying in Congress!
House of Representatives Republican Minority Leader John Boehner cries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSF4O8BYq4s
Real men don’t cry—!
Senate Republican Minority Leader sobs over losing his lov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaQQxJsuDJg&feature=player_embedded
(a tad long but worth the watch)
Bonus clip, to get you to point your finger and scream and whine..
Sean Hannity and a entire news network “Telling you” their version of the truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IalNDTTtk2U&feature=player_embedded
August 26th, 2010 at 7:03 am
This page is becoming a catch-all for all comments on me. If you want to respond to something I said a specific show, please leave your comment on that show. Just find the show and click “comment.” Thanks!
August 26th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Well, here’s a comment about someone else entirely- the 40th President of the United States, Insane Anglo Warlord- and a nasty bit of stagecraft he engineered to make “the Reagan Revolution” come to pass: consider March 30, 1981
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1984112346990112235#
and how it mirrors October 14, 1912
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/research/speech%20kill%20moose.htm
I revere Theodore Roosevelt, the others on Mount Rushmore, and a few more including Thomas Paine… but I don’t worship them.
Folk worship Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), and every “pearl of wisdom” which dropped from his yaw, such as “Trust, but verify.” Never mind if it’s a complete and thoroughgoing non-sequitur. “Reagan said it!”
September 8th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I’VE WATCHED THE VERY UGLY IN PERSONA AND FACE MARK LEVINE - THE CHESHIRE CAT IN A MALE BODY. NO WONDER HE’S FOR CHICAGOBAMA, THEY BOTH TALK IN CIRCLES.