Mark Levin thinks Senate Republicans should be just like Democrats and confirm all Trump's lunatic nominees same as the Democrats confirmed Biden's instead of running their mouths all the time but doing nothing

 Here.

Levin argues the Senators owe their elections to Trump's coattails, and therefore their unqualified support.

Of fifteen Republicans elected to the US Senate in 2024, that might be true of eleven.

But in four cases it's not: Wicker in Mississippi, Curtis in Utah, Barrasso in Wyoming, and Ricketts in Nebraska were all more popular than Donald Trump, each garnering more votes than Trump did in their states.

Levin often talks about "constitutionalism" on his show, you know, like the separation of powers, where the Congress isn't simply the president's rubber stamp machine.

You might say Levin runs his mouth about it.

Some US Senators actually doing their jobs and voting not to confirm the worst of Trump's appointments is a good thing.

 

 

Meanwhile for the annals of dead American conservatism, meathead Mark Levin laughably eulogizes Ted Olson as the "late, great"

 

 Mostly because of Olson's role in Bush v Gore in 2000.

Levin never mentions that Olson himself, a thorough-going amoral libertarian who worshiped freedom above all other things, thought his greatest legacy was overturning California's same-sex marriage ban, glowingly covered by WaPo:

Mr. Olson said he considered his greatest legal legacy to be his role in invalidating California’s Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage that had passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote after the state’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.

He had come to the case in a most unlikely way, through Rob Reiner, the film director and liberal activist who was among those intent on reversing the recently approved proposition.

Reiner had a decidedly low opinion of Mr. Olson, stemming from what he regarded as Bush’s ill-gotten 2000 election win. But Mr. Olson told Reiner that he found Prop 8 “wrong, morally and legally,” and Reiner was convinced that the lawyer could appeal to conservatives.

“It is a conservative value to respect the relationship that people seek to have with one another, a stable, committed relationship that provides a backbone for our community, for our economy,” Mr. Olson later told the Los Angeles Times. “I think conservatives should value that.”

Mr. Olson endured taunts from former supporters on the hard right, some of whom unleashed homophobic vitriol. Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh denounced him on the radio. Others declined invitations to dine at his home near the Potomac River.

Mr. Olson also said he wasn’t trusted by gay rights advocates who feared that Americans were not ready for same-sex marriage and that challenging the ban in court might backfire and set back the cause for years. Some marriage-equality supporters said they feared that Mr. Olson took the case intending to throw it, a notion he dismissed. “I don’t take cases to lose,” he declared.

In part to allay those suspicions, Mr. Olson asked David Boies — an impeccably credentialed trial lawyer and a registered Democrat who had argued Gore’s case in 2000 — to take the marriage case with him. To the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Olson explained that the case was not a partisan matter but rather one about “human rights and human decency and constitutional law.”

Mr. Olson delivered the opening statement on Jan. 11, 2010, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

“In California,” he said, “convicted murderers and child molesters enjoyed the freedom to marry,” he said. “What Prop 8 does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal and disfavored. It says to gays and lesbians, ‘Your relationship is not the same.’ … It stigmatizes them. It classifies them as outcasts. It causes needless and unrelenting pain and isolation and humiliation.”

Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who heard the case without a jury, ultimately found Prop 8 violated the guarantee of equal protection under the law. Although the decision had an immediate effect only in California, it was a major rallying point nationally for gay rights proponents.

In 2013, the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, although it affirmed Walker’s decision, finding that opponents of same-sex marriage lacked standing to defend Prop 8 in court.

Still, the win was credited with paving the way for the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which extended marriage equality nationally. 

      

In the 2020 United States census, same-sex married couples accounted for 0.5% of all U.S. households and unmarried same-sex couples accounted for 0.4% of all U.S. households.

Republicans just watch while Trump gets shot in the middle of 5th Avenue

 

Mark Levin had Senator Mike Lee on the show on Friday, called him a national treasure

 You remember Mike Lee, libertarian open borders squish.

He's the guy who shepherded through the Trump crime reform bill, otherwise known as the get out of jail free card, which Trump signed in December 2018, about 18 months before the country blew up in a wave of rioting, looting, and violent crime.

He's also the guy who proposed Merrick Garland for FBI Director, who as Attorney General is responsible for investigating moms and pops going to school board meetings for terrorism, among other excesses at the behest of demented Uncle Joe.

I turn on the show for the first time in weeks and that's what I get. It's like never playing darts but hitting the bullseye every time I do.

Levin is nothing if not consistently wrong.

LOL, it would seem that Mark Levin is now contesting just who it is who is inspired by Rush Limbaugh around here

American Crisis II: Mark Levin issues 1776-style ‘call for action’ :

Limbaugh did signal that Levin’s role was to rally the conservative base, as he does on his shows and through his books. “He signed something for me, which I'm really a little bashful to talk about, I haven’t said it to anybody,” said Levin. “It says, ‘To my dear friend Mark, the spirit of the movement. God bless you, Rush.’”

Mark Levin is so pathetic: He can characterize what went on in America's streets last year as an insurrection when millions rioted . . .

. . . and yet he still insists on the principle of non-violence from the people to put it down. We should just sit there and take it, watch our cities, businesses and homes burn down while the government does NOTHING.

I don't expect normie conservatism EVER to advocate watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and their mobs.

This is because normie conservatism is really just Republicanism. Its roots do not go back further than Lincoln and his "project" for racial equality, which was in truth nothing but a demagogue's ploy to keep from losing a war. And because of this it has disarmed itself for every other political conflict except for the cause of racial equality. For THAT they will gladly destroy the country and see it destroyed, but otherwise won't lift a finger when BLM and Antifa come knocking.

This is why Republicanism failed to stop the income tax and women's suffrage, Social Security and the welfare state, abortion and gay marriage, and a whole host of other things large and small they said they were against over the years but on which they eventually caved, and then eventually championed. It's the reason "conservatism" has failed, because Republicans aren't conservatives. They are, according to their own lights, simply better versions of Democrats.

For this reason Republicanism can never be about the American Founding, protest to the contrary as it may, boast otherwise as it may. Lincoln destroyed the Founding and redefined the country, by force of arms!, and Republicans are stuck with it, and we with them, unless someone can recover the original spirit of liberty. And Democrats exist to never let them forget it, to make them live by their new principles which only tie their hands and guarantee their ongoing defeat.

Meanwhile, don't look for the Founding spirit from Noon to 3 let alone from 6 to 9. Instead look for more of the same game played by Rush Limbaugh, the "they're the real racists" game.

Race, race, race. Black unemployment was never lower than under Trump.  Hunter Biden said the n-word and the fag-word and gets away with it. Blah, blah, blah, as your kid can't find a decent job to start his own life.

 

If Mark Levin ever figures out that Abraham Lincoln was a progressive, there might be hope for America

The George Floyd hospital blood toxicology results entered in evidence yesterday are the biggest story of the summer, and Mark Levin isn't even interested tonight

Same old, same old Mark Levin, Mr. NeverTrump for most of 2016.

This dinosaur is so behind the curve on everything it's ridiculous, comic, entertainment!

You'll recognize the conservatism of Russell Kirk in James M. Patterson's description of the American founding, but you'll never learn about it from dimwits like Rush Limbaugh or dilettantes like Mark Levin

The Dogmatic Rivalry at the Heart of America:

'In the American context, “liberalism” was not the term used to define the political foundations of the Declaration of Independence or the American Constitution. These documents were understood to be the extension of an older British tradition, even if the British themselves had failed to keep it. American colonists had, by 1776, over one hundred and fifty years of experience of self-government in covenanted and compacted governments, and the language of individual consent to government and rights reserved by individuals against the government were there at the very moment the colonies were chartered.

'Hence, as Donald S. Lutz finds that it is not right to call the Founding “Lockean” because the colonial origins of the Founding preceded Locke by decades. Rather, the Founders found in Locke something that articulated what their forebears already knew and understood when hewing logs to build a cabin in 1611. Moreover, during the Founding, Locke received attention only in the lead up to American Independence but faded into the background as matters of constitutional design arose upon the revolution’s success. During that period, jurist William Blackstone and republican theorist Montesquieu dominated the discourse, with David Hume, Samuel von Pufendorf, and Edward Coke each receiving more attention than Locke from 1780 onward. All were dwarfed by references to the Bible, especially, as Lutz discovered, to the book of Deuteronomy. One would only be surprised by this if one believed that the Founders were liberals. Some were, of a kind, but they were primarily republicans. Their appeal to “liberal” principles was, as James W. Ceaser, has argued, primarily to insist that the “rights of Englishmen” to which Americans, being no longer Englishmen, could no longer appeal. Rather, what made the rights of Englishmen truly rights was how they were grounded in nature, accessible by reason, and endowed by God. In addition, Paul DeHart has shown how this effort involved a combination of classical, Christian, and modern sources with the diverse and extensive experience in statecraft.

'For these reasons, it is simply ahistorical to apply a prefabricated concept of liberalism onto the American Founding or attribute it to a rather complicated mix of ideas and influences expressed among the leaders at the time.'

Here's the 2020 herd immunity paraprosdokian I thought I would never hear but did

We have to infect the entire population with the coronavirus in order to save it from the COVID-19 disease.

A few voices are actually saying this right now, mostly on "conservative" talk radio. You know who I mean.

England was going to pursue this policy until they realized just how many people would have to die.

Consider what this would mean in the US.

Let's take the South Korean mortality rate, which right now is 1.7% after 6 weeks with no new cases reported today (the US is currently at 2.7% after 4 weeks). Say half the population gets exposed because we give up, go back to work and carry on: 165 million get exposed @ 1.7% means 2.8 million deaths.

Mark Levin was poo-poohing such a catastrophe on his show tonight, like it's not even a possibility, as he rattled off the deaths annually from our wars, heart disease, cancer, etc.

He's wrong. They're all wrong. America is a wide open sitting duck for this disease, which spreads like a cold but kills like the flu. We have the most cases in the world already, by far, 276,965. Flu doesn't spread the way coronavirus does. Not everyone gets the flu. 30 million flu cases is typical, with 30,000 deaths, that's it, in a completely free and open society. But everyone gets a cold. Everyone. And that's the problem. A high morbidity rate.

Fortunately 3/4 of those surveyed think stopping this coronavirus is job one, not saving the economy.

Yes, this will be catastrophic for the economy. It already is. But we've had economic catastrophe before and we know how to rebuild.

The important thing right now is for the government to rescue people, not companies, and buy us some time so that the people actually saving us in the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and succumb. Without Americans there will be no America.

Conserve that. 

Rod Dreher likes the French version of Southern Agrarianism, doesn't get it that whenever it raises its voice in America the Mark Levins of the world denounce it in the name of libertarianism and individualism

Which John Bolton is telling the truth about Trump and Ukraine, the August 2019 John Bolton or the January 2020 John Bolton?

Video.

"Warm and cordial calls" or "abuse of power"?

Rush Limbaugh's biggest lie yet: When Trump came down the elevator and gave that speech, I was all in

Just now.

Rush Limbaugh was Ted Cruz' best friend on radio in 2015 and 2016, just like Levin and Hannity.

These shape-shifting grifters flipped on the dime. They know a cash cow when they see it.

Rush Limbaugh, June 16, 2015:

And the Drive-By Media, by the way, they’re already scoffing, they’re already discounting it, already calling it a circus act and this kind of thing. And it was.... You know me, I’m not endorsing, haven’t endorsed. I’m nowhere near any of that. I’m not even jazzed yet, folks. I have to tell you that this is all so premature, and it’s all so early, that whatever polling numbers there are just do not interest me because where we are right now is nowhere near where we’re gonna end up. ... I just ask people to remember that when Trump gets going here today, because what if Trump goes third-party?

It's more complicated than Mark Levin says: Sean Davis points out Senate rules require articles of impeachment to be delivered by House managers to the Senate, and changing those rules is too heavy a lift

Nancy Pelosi is a wily devil. She already knows how to use the rules against the Senate.

Seems like quite a vulnerability in the balance of powers which she is exploiting to grab the power for the House over the Senate and the presidency.

Ask yourself who benefits from the 22nd Amendment? And the 16th?

We have the tyranny of the legislative, despite the founders' many warnings.

McConnell must go nuclear to fix this, but probably will not. The gravity of the situation certainly calls for it, but the political toxicity would be just horrific.

Mark Levin views Pelosi's obstruction of the Senate as constitutionally overcomeable by McConnell

Nancy Pelosi was apparently advised by leftwing Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe to delay sending the impeachment to the Senate. So she’s unilaterally sitting on the impeachment. This is another brazen unconstitutional act.

Posted on December 19, 2019

Here’s what Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans must do in response: The Senate has the sole power under the Constitution to adjudicate an impeachment. Therefore, Pelosi is attempting to obstruct the Senate’s power to act on its constitutional authority. McConnell should immediacy [sic] put an end to this and declare the impeachment null and void as the speaker has failed to complete the impeachment process by timely sending it to the Senate for adjudication. McConnell has no less authority to unilaterally make such a decision than Pelosi does to withhold the administrative notification of an impeachment to the Senate either indefinitely or with conditions. Her effort to cripple the presidency and blackmail the Senate must be defeated.

Source.

Spare us Mark Levin your comments on Ann Coulter, you were Never Trump for 7 months in 2016

Mark Levin endorsed Canadian citizen Ted Cruz in March 2016 as Trump was clinching the nomination, and openly sided with Never Trump in April out of spite.

Then Levin flipped again just before the election and became Trump's BFF.

Levin's a con-man just like Trump, just not as accomplished.

Meaningless conservatism: Mark Levin all-in for Charlie Kirk

Mark Levin points out one way to know the so-called whistleblower is just a political hack

There's only one whistleblower, someone who admits he or she did not hear the call or read the transcript.

Lots of people actually heard the call with Ukraine, but none of them has blown a whistle.

Most people see nothing wrong with Trump's phone call with Ukraine.

Memo to Erick Erickson: One of Justin Amash's so-called pro-life principles is that it's OK to abort up to 3-days from conception

Which has been public knowledge since at least March 2013, at the start of the third year of his tenure, but y'all too damn lazy to think about that, or too damn hypocritical to care. I vote both.

Why not up to 4 days?

Why not 4.2?

Why not 42, since 42 is the answer to everything?

How about through the first trimester?

The second?

How about after delivery on Virginia Governor Ralph Northam's desk?

It's laughable to insist Amash has principles when all they are is positions, but it's even funnier to say he's an originalist:

Whether you like Justin Amash or not, he is inarguably one of the more principled members of the Republican conference in the House of Representatives. Amash is willing to take unpopular stands in the name of principle. He is willing to defy his party because of those principles. Amash is one of the more easily predictable members of Congress in how he votes because of his principles. Amash believes in the rule of law, limited government, and an originalist interpretation of the constitution.

Originalism is such tosh. The original Constitution had no income tax, accepted slavery, provided a mechanism for the natural growth of representation, knew nothing of women's suffrage, had legislatures elect senators, and knew only sound money. Justin Amash is not known for any of these causes. He's known only for thwarting the causes of others, Republicans' mostly. All he cares about, maybe, is the Constitution as it is, not as it should be, and as real conservatives know, the current Constitution is a mess, otherwise luminaries like Mark Levin wouldn't be proposing a raft of amendments to fix it.

All this hubbub is about is Amash's Trump hatred.

Which is why NeverTrumper Erick Erickson has weighed in on Amash's side.

Not even Mark Levin, Mr. Constitution, can bring himself to tell the president to veto this damn bill

What the hell is political power for, photo ops?

Are you starting to see a pattern here folks?

None of these so-called conservatives have the fire in the belly.