13 votes

Neocon Mark Levin After Ron Paul Again and Wrong About War Powers

Mark Levin, queen of the neocons, had a schizophrenic segment on the war powers responsibility under the Constitution last night. I tend to check in with the oracle of liberty once in a while; lately I’ve paid attention because of our newfangled war—although it’s just a continuation of our fondness of killing in the Middle East. Boy has the sickness of our so-called prophets of liberty been diluted and poisoned with agitprop and disease. Mark, a neocon, who was a lickspittle of Bush, goes after Ron Paul and neocon foreign policy, only to embrace neocon policy. The pellucid water of liberty has certainly been poisoned!

I can never understand the myths that go into the mouth of the Zeus of liberty—you know, Mark Levin, the hero of what we call liberty today, per his “manifesto”—because his application tends toward vassalage, war, and prison. Mark’s slake for liberty is akin to Bonaparte’s thirst for Russia—utterly destructible. I mean this fervid champion of freedom is the one who thinks the president can lock anyone up, kill people in foreign countries, spy, drone, torture, and the like, without any wince of examination. So he cowers in a “bunker,” like a ruffian, only to gibe to all those who oppose tyranny as “statists.”

Mark, the pretentious and vainglorious puppet, tell us that:

“Ron Paul early on felt that the attack on 9-11 was provoked by us because of all our intervention in the Arab and Muslim World. That’s why I dismissed him. I’m not going to back somebody like that, ever! We didn’t provoke a damn thing. Hate America first—no I’m sorry I’m not into that. So you think my view is odd? Well that’s funny, because every single president of the United States has embraced this view—every damn one of em’, from Reagan to Obama."

Number one, who’s us?

Secondly, it was precisely because of our intervention in the Middle East over the years that have caused blowback, thirdly, Ron is for America First, rather than your dedication to Israel, and finally, your aptitude for trusting “every single president” is fact you are ignorant.

The neocon ideology is premised on puissance, artifice, and trickery. America hurts the most from these roguish and villainous vipers. The people of America must dismiss these vultures who prey on them, and embrace the Old Right, middle-American tradition of liberty, peace, and commerce.

Mark Levin’s show from March 25, 2011 is where he attempts to correct us vandals. His rant starts at the 16:00 mark. It then picks up at the 17:15 mark. At about 21:50 he makes his typical “RuPaul” remark. Then at 25:02 he starts again until about 29:22. BTW 25:02 is where he really hones in on Ron Paul.

For refutations on war powers see here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, and here.

Edit: I typed up a transcript of most of what he said. I did it in haste, so the punctuation and words may be off a bit.

"...the mosquitoes out there who think they understand the founding and the Constitution, and there out there telling us things that are not accurate. Some of the libertarians have the constitution dead wrong. And some of the neocons have policy dead wrong. We’ve been involved in many military engagements; we’ve had very few declarations of war. And I’m including military engagements that were involved in by people you consider Founders of this nation. It’s because they’ve never, ever, required as a requisite—to defending this country, or even certain military actions—of getting Congress’ approval."

"...During the Constitutional Convention there was some debate, although not a lot, over war powers—who would have what powers. So I want to repeat this for those out there who write stupid stuff and are a little dense because they’re advancing a dogma rather than an honest assessment of what our history is. You can see some of these morons on television too. The language was originally “Congress shall make war.” The framers rejected that. And instead replaced “make” with “declare.” The president of the United States, well, they made him the commander in chief. Now why do you think they did those two things? Out of basic logic. They knew it was a dangerous world—hell they’ve been in a revolution. And by the way, after the revolution and establishment of our government it wasn’t clear still that it would survive given all the threats that we faced. So there had to be a commander in chief who could act quickly to muster the forces to defend the nation. Not to muster the paper work to send to Congress—to get Congress to decide—if he should defend the nation. And keep in mind, Congress didn’t meet all the time, its members were all over the damn place, it took two or three days for some of them even to get to Washington. Communication was very poor; they were never going to give war-making power to Congress. As for declaring war, if you actually understand the original intent of the framers, and the environment they were living in, the declaration of war was a declaration to the world that we are in a state of war with “X, Y, Z,” country. More than anything else it was also a diplomatic statement of fact—Congress declaring war. But the founders didn’t want a Monarchy either; they didn’t want an all-powerful president who at all times can do whatever he wanted, even though we needed a commander in chief. And so the power of the purse, not just to domestic activities, but certainly foreign activities, including the United States Military at the time: the navy and the army. And as Hamilton pointed out, it’s the ultimate power—the power of the purse. So if Congress really believed that what the president was doing was not in the nation’s best interest, it could cut him off at the knees. In other words, Congress has a power, more powerful than the War Powers Act.—which in my view is absolutely unconstitutional—which is why the left-wing Congress pushed it through over Richard Nixon’s veto in 1973; priory to 1973, Congress had the power to do what Congress has always had the power to do: defund. And as I pointed out two or three days ago, they did exactly that to end the Vietnam war. So why people re debated the war powers act. “RuPaul” at 21:50

Mark goes on the Ron Paul attacked: saying “Ron Paul, early on felt that the attack on 9-11 was provoked by us, because of all our intervention in the Arab and Muslim World. That’s why I dismissed him. I’m not going to back somebody like that, ever. We didn’t provoke a damn thing. Hate American First—no I’m sorry I’m not into that. So you think my view in odd, well that’s funny, because every single president of the United States has embraced this view—every damn one of em’, from Reagan to Obama. Now when Obama was a senator he took a different view, we know he’s a hypocrite, but that’s besides the view. And many members of Congress embrace this view too..."

Edit: Just wanted to add the in-between from 21:50-25:02. Any errors or mistakes are mine of course.

At 21:40: "To my knowledge nobody has even introduced one, or if they have, it doesn’t have any chance of passing. Therefore, I conclude from that, that despite the fact that Kucinich and “RuPaul” are all over the place—speaking for the American people they claim—Congress must by its inaction, its unwillingness to submit bills to defund this action, support it."

"Most of the occasions in which war was declared by Congress was World War II, when FDR went to Congress on several occasions to get formal declarations of war. He didn’t get formal declarations of war because there was any question of whether or not he can respond to Pearl Harbor; or immediately after Pearl Harbor, Germany’s declaration of war against us. There was no question that as Commander-in-chief he had the power to defend this nation against an attack. He sought a declaration of war, not because he wasn’t going to defend this nation, but because he wanted to make it damn clear to the whole world that we were in a state of war with the Axis powers. And he did the same with Hungrary, and several others."

23:58 “Nor are we going to pretend, against the language of the Founders, and against what they said at the Constitutional Convention, that they were turning over war-making powers, which they specifically did not, to a bunch of members of Congress who can’t even keep secrets.”

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I would love to force Levin

I would love to force Levin to watch War By Deception, and see that Mossad was involved w 9/11. His head would explode.

The only good thing about Marx Levin ...

... is that he is so transparent in his bulls**t, and so clueless that he is, that he is laughable. He has become a caricature.

Madison debates

[FN24] "To make war"

Mr. PINKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in [FN25] Senate, so as to give no advantage to [FN25] large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.

Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in [FN26] great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" [FN27] better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.

Mr. GERRY never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.

Mr. ELSWORTH. there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.

Mr. MASON was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."

On the motion to insert declare-in place of make, it was agreed to. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no. [FN29] Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN31]

Mr. PINKNEY'S motion to strike out [FN32] whole clause, [FN33] disagd. to without call of States.

Mr. BUTLER moved to give the Legislature [FN32] power of peace, as they were to have that of war.


"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Exactly! Tom Woods posed a

Exactly! Tom Woods posed a question to Mark Levin, asking him to point to a debate, whether in the constitution convention, state conventions, newspapers, articles, ect., on anyone who thought the president could start an offensive war on his own. Mark didn't reply, conceding his loss. However, some clever person may say, "well, Mr. Butler from SC said he wanted to have the president start war." That person, trying to to sly, would be correct, however, it was defeated as you point out.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Very nice...

It's obvious you've put a lot of work and effort into producing this post. I appreciate this type of analysis and applaud your effort here.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

Objective analysis.

What irritates me more than anything in politics is the complete inability for people to be objective. I like Ron Paul and agree with him on many issues but I can disagree too. I don't get the need to blindly and mindlessly agree with every single thing he agrees with. the excepts listed here conveniently ignore points made by Levin about the numerous undeclared conflicts in our history. For example, Lincoln ordered southern ports blockaded without congressional consent at the beginning of the civil war. A ten second google search turns up this.

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[12] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999.
The United States' longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of peace.[citation needed]
The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These began with Europeans immigration to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and had concluded by 1918. The US Army still maintains a campaign streamer for Pine Ridge 1890-1891 despite opposition from certain Native American groups.[13]
The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation. The CSA was recognized as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA's status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so."

I mean seriously, there are things which are opinion, and people will disagree. But 1, Levin agrees that Libya is a bizarre action by Obama, but 2, his argument that Obama isn't acting unconstitutionally seems pretty accurate considering the facts of our history.


So your here for 35 minutes and the first thing you do is pop up a Mark Levin thread? Ummm... Then you point out things that you obviously have no idea about, like the numerous undeclared conflicts, ect. Read this. But your underlying premise is this: "well people in the past did do this, so it's ok now." Well, as a strict constructionist this holds no weight. If it was done wrong back then it's still wrong today. Wrong precedent doesn't equal constitutional 100 years later. Also you might want to read Presidential War Power by Louis Fisher.

As per your inquiry below that I don't know what a neocon is, you’re wrong. The neocons are the left that infiltrated the Old Right. They have made strident influence on the conservative movement, where the popular conservatives, on radio, TV, newspapers, ect., basically toe the line with the neocons.

Mark is not afraid to defend the welfare state, and you can see, esp. with his foreign policy that he has been influenced by the neocon permeation. If he's not an all-out neocon, what he is? He's not a traditional conservative. Nor would he be labeled part of the Old Right. He's a modern conservative, i.e., one that has been demonstrably influenced by the neocon movement. I call him a neocon because it would be an insult to other conservatives to call him something he def. is not.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

You should probably research what a 'neocon' is first.

The term neocon is the most overused and least understood term in politics. Let me help you. When all the anti-American and hippy lunatics emerged in the Democratic party in the late 60s and 70s, a large segment of the Democratic party became disillusioned and became Republicans. This included some fairly high profile converts. The new Republicans and some of the establishment Republicans were distrustful of each other so they wanted to distinguish themselves with the term 'neocon'. These people are basically hawkish on foreign policy issues and fairly liberal when it comes to social welfare programs.

While one could make an argument that Mark Levin is a hawk, he definitely isn't liberal when it comes to social welfare.

In short, you make yourself look fairly foolish when you incorrectly use the term neocon.

Why bother with Levin?

Why even bother repeating Levin's weirdness? He scrapes the bottom of the topic barrel when Rush and Sean are finished.

I had a dig at him in 2008 when he was trying to get us into World War III, clamouring for war on Russia to save liberty-loving Georgia.

After asking him why we should spill blood to maintain borders drawn by Stalin, he considered me a Russian agent and hung up.

They're all alike.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

"Hannitizer" works well on folks like Mark Levin too.

See this post:


Restore the Foundations - "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Levin's a propagandist gasbag

And his argument falls on its face in absurdity. So in Levinville, its the "power of the purse" that is the ultimate authority? - When according to Levin, a President has the ultimate power to start a war because he is "Commander in Chief", so how about the ole "Catch 22"?? Say a President that has no respect for the Constitution or Humanity like Bush becomes president and starts a pair of wars - Now the congress is stuck with the proposition to leave our troops defenseless, with no bullets or bombs, (there's the old cliche "Support the Troops") by not giving funding, or to fund a war they don't support - Which would be Political Suicide)! So, the Cowards of congress avoid an official declaration and by fiat hand it over to the Corrupt and unelected George Bush. These Corporatists, Neocon "Israel Firsters" YES LEVIN I SAID IT! are a disgrace to America and its People.

A Declaration of War; What it isn't...

I think you will find this a rather useful explanation between what a declaration of war is and what our "leaders" in Washington think of war- and the American fighting man- today. A.) War is only a word and B.) the American fighting man is as expendable as a pair of boots. Shame on them: http://etherzone.com/2007/msmith102407.shtml While I agree with no man 100 percent, that I am aware of, Dr. Paul seems a man of highest integrity with an actual interest in- and desire for- the united states Constitution.

Mark Levin

I'm 23 yrs. old. I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh and people like him thinking that I agreed with that philosophy but it never felt right. The last 5 yrs. I've awakened listening to Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Stossel and to extent Neal Boortz and Glenn Beck & etc. Now I think how can people think that way. When it comes to the Constitution it's about what does the Text of the Document says in the Original Meaning of what the words & law meant at the time. Original intent and living document are the same distortion of the document just different tactics. I am very careful now when I listen to these people.


Let's clink our glasses to being ex-NeoCons!

Amen to that, brother! We must've grown up on the same plantation. Let's clink our glasses to being ex-NeoCons! (Too bad we were part of a deadly, self-destructive machine, but at least we're all waking up from this Matrix bullcrap.)

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Do you notice Rush addressing

foreign policy much? When I am in the car I usually listen to talk radio. The day after something big over seas, it seems like Rush is on holidays and Mark Stein is on. Not scientific just hmmm.

So in his warped mind

Obama is more pro liberty and pro America than Dr. Paul... Wow!

Who escaped unscathed in the war that matters most?

Levin advocates for Ordered Liberty. Some people believe that the founding principles of our nation would dictate that at least a few of the people who cause(d) the financial crisis would rot in prison. Could we get under the same tent on this idea? None have seen a cell to my knowledge. Since we know war has a seat at the table regardless of party, lets get on the same team over something clearly more critical to out national security. There will always be war as long as men occupy the earth. Let's tackle something we have a chance at wrapping our arms around by getting on the same page about the things that matter most.



Levin makes me more sick than Hannity, Medved or Rush....

And I will tell you why.... Levin LOVES to talk like he is so educated and intellectual, when in fact, he cant stand having someone challange his arguments. Hannity loves any body with an R behind his name, so he is changing (along with the times) to start embracing Ron a bit more. Rush is the same way. Medved is a quintessential NeoCon, but I respect the HELL out of Medved for openly and intellectually taking opposing arguments. However, Levin will talk, talk and talk and if you EVER try to have a logical and philosophical argument that may challange his beliefs in the least, he will shut you up before you can make your point.

He also wont dare to debate someone like Tom Woods or even Ron Paul himself. Its very very easy to talk history and say someone is wrong when he (Levin in this case) is essentially talking to himself, but he would never dare have Ron Paul on who actually does understand history and challange Levin's supposed learned mind. What a joke. I love how Ron Paul LOVES to have real open debates with ANYBODY, but the biggest talking buttholes out there hate to be challanged with opposing views, because they are scared to be embarrased. Very sad though. It really ruined my mood. I was actually just starting to like Levin due to his embrace of Rand Paul.


Ron Paul 2012

Everyone knows that the

Everyone knows that the President has the Constitutional Power to defend this country from military attack. What the president doesn't have is the power to go over seas, or even across border lines and attack another country that is not immediately attacking us. That is why FDR asked congress for a declaration of war. FDR wanted to go overseas to attack them back.

Ewwww. PU.

I do not know how anyone can bear listening to that reprobate. I cannot even bring myself to read about him.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

These guys ...

are not dumb, they read history, and they understand the concept of hypocracy.

When it becomes advantageous to do a mia culpa because it is 100% certain that in doing so it will boost their ratings and thicken their pocket book, they will do exactly that.

It is our job, via WAHOR, to make them richer by admitting fault than to maintain the status quo.

Levin Backs the Larger Goal (Intentionally or Unintentionally)

By "assisting" the Muslim Brotherhood (and Al Kaeda), the UN "Coalition" is in the process of creating a "super enemy" in the Middle East.

That Islamic "super enemy" will (no doubt) target Israel, more boldly than ever.

These events will be used to rationalize a complete war in the Middle East/Gulf.

War creates debt, and is used to enforce "legal tender" on a global scale.

Motive is important

There's a difference between explaining cause & effect and justifying something. Ron Paul has never said the 9/11 attacks were justified. But the whole nonsense about "the hate us for our freedom" is naive and stupid.

And it's anti-intellectual. I suppose Mark Levin knows more than the former head of CIA's Bin Laden unit.

Very, very, good point.

Very, very, good point.

"The economy's not a class you can master in college. To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge."

I can't believe a few years

I can't believe a few years ago I liked this idiot

The Neocons Already Lost This Debate: Why Are They Cryin'?

Google 'Rudy's Reading Assignment'


If Ron Paul runs for president, he can dismiss the kind of comments that Levine made as, '...so 2007/2008...'

It is amazing that the Neocons maintain power in the Republican party as they have been so discredited.

Tom Woods Sets The Record Straight on War Powers Act VIDEO/BLOG

3-25-2011: Tom Woods on War Powers Act

First they ignore you then

First they ignore you then they attack you, then you start bi-winning.

Mark Levin: The not-so-great one

I can remember Rush often propping up his fellow neo-con shill by referring to Levin as, "the Great One", (capitals implied by his verbal emphasis and veneration).

That set off warning lights in my way of thinking, because that kind of respect of persons is never a healthy perspective on anyone's opinion, this side of heaven.

One could say Rush was tongue-in-cheek, but it seems Levine really believes that, "THE Great One", is who he is. He seems to expect everyone to either recognize that or suffer his disdain.

Thanks, Brutus, for all your work in transcribing and writing this revealing thread. It provides a great read into the mind-game neo-cons regularly play by making up the rules as they go and expecting no one will notice or care.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Anyone who

has not seen the film "Iraq For Sale" should see it as soon as possible. It is a clear explanation of why this country is at war. Look it up on facebook. This is all about profits for Cheney and friends combined with the criminals in Washington raping the American tax payers and bringing this counrty to its' knees. This film is the most eye-opening film I've seen since "Loose Change." Bring our troops home NOW! and stop lining the pockets of these Halibuton/KBR executives and corrupt paid for Washington politicians. Ron Paul or no one at all. GOP we don't need no stinkin' GOP. Hang all these murdering warmongering criminals including the ones with radio shows.

9/11 was an inside job .....time to get some answers..RP 2012

he's an idiot with no procedural understanding at all, nor does

he have the depth of understanding to realize why procedure is important if it blocks 'what he wants' this time.

Good for Neal for correcting his juvenile 'ru paul' nonsense. That is pretty much the level of debate Levin can handle.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul