20 votes

Breaking News: Tom Woods Accepts Invitation to Debate Mark Levin

It has been confirmed from a trustworthy source that Tom Woods has accepted an invitation to debate Mark Levin. The location will possibly be in Southern California at the Reagan Library and the topic will be the War Powers Act. However, many of the details are still premature at this point. As of the time of this post, Mark Levin has been contacted about this event and his response is pending.

This would be a really interesting debate! I'll try to add more information about this as I get it.




Comment viewing options

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

Marx Levin aka "The Great Con"

Mark Levin is no small government libertarian conservative. Mark Levin (aka “The Great Con”) is just another big government statist cloaking himself in pseudo constitutional clothing. Expose his misled Markist followers to the light of reason, Constitution and the benefits of a society based on the philosophy of liberty.

Mark Levin would never debate with anyone outside of his little call-in radio charade. If you have listened to him with anyone that calls him out, Levin simply resorts to interrupting, shouting over the caller, name-calling, threats to “slap them around” or some such, and simply hanging up. It is easy to expose the intellectual fallacies of the statists, so why resort to unintellectual childish antics. It matters not if he is correct on some issues, his childish antics are purely for ratings and entertainment value, but they do nothing to promote understanding the philosophy of liberty.

I would love to go one-on-one with Marx Levin on the Constitution or any issue; but despite his “tough” talk Mark Levin is a complete and total coward. Levin would never risk debating little old me, let alone an intellectual titan such as Thomas Woods. Levin will coward out of his bluff challenging Thomas Woods to a debate. A hypocritical coward as Mark Levin would never avail himself to an open debate where his fake antics and false “small government” positions would crumble, and expose him for the intellectual hypocritical fool that he is.

Perhaps Mark Levin resorts to the juvenile name-calling, shouting and hanging up as a Napoleonic complex means of compensating for having the physical stature of a bald dwarf combined with the voice of a whiny eight year old with a stuffed nose.

It is all a shame because Levin does have the potential for intellectual capacity. If Levin could become brave enough to apply intellect rather than resort to Jerry Springer show juvenile antics for ratings; and develop the courage to open his mind to seeking consistent and principled application of liberty and the role of government, Mark Levin has the capacity to be a great ally to liberty, or even a great leader. But alas, Mark Levin seems content choosing instead to remain a coward.

Mark-ist Levin Exposed:
Marxist Levin’s statism: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/04/21/mark-levins-statism/
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/03/28/mark-levins-constitu...
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/SouthernAvenger/archives/...
http://truthstings.com/mark-levin-neocon-exposed/
http://www.conspiracy.me/?p=60259
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2010/01/hypocrisy-of-m...

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

ACinMA's picture

"How I Sent Mark Levin Home Crying"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

How I Sent Mark Levin Home Crying
Posted by Thomas Woods on March 28, 2011 08:46 AM

So Mark Levin has responded to my challenge today. Did he find a Federalist who agrees with him that a president can launch a non-defensive war without consulting congress? I was a real sport — I let him look through the ratifying conventions of every single state, and I also let him cite public lectures or newspaper articles. Really anything at all. Did he find someone, anyone?

Of course not. Instead, he pretends I am too stupid to understand his position: “I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site. I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons. In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations. I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress.”

And I’m the one changing the subject? This is beyond belief.

Continue: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts

ℛ[ƎVO˩]ution
"When one gets in bed with government,
one must expect the diseases it spreads."
‎"It's not like I'm a powerful person. My ideas are."

Wow! There are going to be some fireworks here.

Go get him Tom.

Levin is a war-mongering Neo-Con of the highest order.

(He hates Ron Paul on top of it).

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

fyi

This forum topic was linked to in the New American :-)

Tom Woods Smacks Down Mark Levin on War Powers

...
Woods concluded with a challenge to Levin:

Here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article — whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.

It's likely that Levin will reply, though he'll be unable to quote any Founding Father who supported presidential war powers. There is none. Based upon the tenor of Levin's radio talk show, the response to Woods' challenge will be abuse rather than genuine argument.

Woods has reportedly said he's willing to debate Levin. But one has to wonder why Levin would ever accept a debate he can't win.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6871...

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Levin repeats the neo-conservative skewed view of the law

He is so full of himself; as was the Bush administration, he would probably deny the following:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Under those guidelines we the people are well within our rights to demand a new government as the corruption runs so deep that not one party member squeals on someone across the isle as both sides hold dirt on the other, and in most cases are and have been in bed together for years. They no longer represent the people, but rather themselves. They use our tax dollars to push their agenda and create ridiculous laws which they are not subject to, and all the while the masses remain quiet, it almost makes you wonder how violent it will get when the reality hits those that have no clue as to what is coming down the pike? Those that listen to the likes of Levin specifically.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

?

I'm sorry, what did Mark Levin do in the military again? Someone who supports military intervention so strongly must have a solid military record right?

Mark Levin's Response to Tom Woods

From Facebook:

Professor Thomas Woods cutting and pasting history for a dogma
by Mark Levin on Sunday, March 27, 2011 at 9:40am

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mark-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/

I'm embarrassed for Woods. He knows I know he's a propagandist on this issue. His misuse of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and other quotes here and there is politically expedient. There's nothing scholarly about it.

Of course it is wise politically and from a policy standpoint for a president to consult with Congress or even seek resolutions to support military actions. It also helps prevent Congress from cutting off funding down the road. In certain cases, particularly where military operations involve the very survival of the nation such as WWII, the president would be wise to seek a war declaration that informs the world of our nation's intention to destroy another society. In the few occasions Congress has declared war, most involved WWII. This is what the Framers intended. But it is not and never has been a constitutional requisite to making war. And Woods knows it.

History, facts, experience, and events prove the Left and Paulists wrong, like Woods, but they are true believers so it doesn't matter. Woods would fundamentally alter our constitutional construct respecting war, the executive, and legislative functions, fabricating additional power in Congress- even authorizing one House of Congress under the War Powers Act to ensure defeat on the battlefield if the battle is not completed in 90 days through a silent veto- while denuding the commander-in-chief power. Is that what they said at the Constitutional Convention? Is that supported anywhere in our history? Is that how Congress is to legislate under the Constitution? Utter nonsense.

What bothers Woods, et al, is that defunding military operations is not easy work politically or legislatively. It requires veto proof congressional action. So he insists on an easier way out. But there is none. I've discussed it at length on my show and here, and I've posted several scholarly links as well.

If Woods doesn't agree with the Framers, if he wants to change the Constitution, giving Congress additional powers to end military operations, giving Congress an operational role in military affairs, or requiring congressional approval before military operations commence, then he should make that case for a constitutional amendment and stop deceiving and demanding short cuts. But he wont. He has calculated that Congress, the states, and ultimately the public won't support such an effort. He's an activist who demands fidelity not to the Constitution but his ideology. The liberal activists do the same. Neither are originalists.

http://www.facebook.com/reqs.php#!/notes/mark-levin/professor-thomas-woods-cutting-and-pasting-history-for-a-dogma/10150115797525946

TinyURL of Facebook page:
http://tinyurl.com/4gvr4es

Preview of TinyURL of Facebook page:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gvr4es

I cannot see this happening

Cowards like Levin will not accept a public debate

“I have joined your revolution and I’m proud to be part of what you want to do.” - Ron Paul

Interview with a Werewolf

Levin prefers only venues that he can control, so I don't think this will likely happen, but perhaps this might lead to a sequel to Woods' brilliant, "Interview with a Zombie."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

Here's a post from Woods, titled, "How I Sent Mark Levin Home Crying"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

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

Accidental double post...

see reply to JSBach below...

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington

This is great!

As long as its at some forum, rather than on his show, this will be great! Levin needed to called out on his lies and smears, and who better than Tom Woods to wipe the floor with Mark.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

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

I don't think Levin

would risk getting publicly humiliated...but I would love to see it happen.

RP R3VOLution

Time wasting and speculative post...

Misleading title, but that is becoming common on DP.

Let's see:

Someone unnamed, asked Woods if he would debate Levin. Woods says he would, if Levin would... kind of a no-brainer idea?!

No one has any information really about Levin... except to say someone sent a request to Levin...

Anything left out here?

Meanwhile Gingrich, Palin, Huck, Beck, (possibly Napolitano) and the rest of the GOP warlords are planning to split the party with a third independent candidate in the general election, if Ron Paul seizes the imagination of the delegates, along with the nomination. It happened in 1912, 100 years ago, to usher in the Fed! It can and will happen 100 years later, if necessary to preserve the Fed again!

Is the grassroots ready for such an eventuality?

A strategy needs to be in place to blow the whistle on this possibility long before it takes place. It can be defeated before it happens!

'Distractions', is one of the methods Gingrich is using to keep the possibility alive!

Another is eliminating the Presidential primary in as many states as possible. This keeps a good candidate from exposure critical mass, prior to the general election, leaving only the delegates with enthusiasm... but the couch potato voters with very media pliable minds!

Money for Gingrich and the CFR will not be an issue!

Only brush fires for liberty set by the minority, can stop such evil! Those brush fires should be lit in every precinct across this country... somehow!

I fail to see how any portion of the title or the body...

of the post is misleading. It was breaking news at the time and Tom Woods did accept the invitation to debate Mark Levin. What's misleading about that? I further stated that many of the details were premature at the time. What's misleading about that? I also mentioned that Mark Levin had been contacted and that his response was pending. What's misleading about that?

The source is a person affiliated with a Southern California Tea Party group. I'm not into "outing" people online any more than I'm sure that JSBach is not your real name. I'm sure you can understand.

I don't understand your accusations about the post being a distraction and implicitly unimportant. There was 1 singular topic for the debate: The War Powers Act. How is that distracting and since when is the topic of how we go to war unimportant? If it's so distracting and such a waste of time for you, why do you go on a nattering rant that is twice as long as my original post and which covers topics totally unrelated to the original intent of the post?

Finally, if you feel so strongly about the items you mentioned and you charge that "a strategy needs to be in place," then why don't you give us some solutions instead of problems? Why don't you start your own thread on the topic(s) instead of hijacking another thread?

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington

Debate Invitation

The author's account is partially correct. I extended an invitation to both Mark and Tom, through their Facebook pages. I SUGGESTED it be held in a Southern California forum and "brainstormed" the idea about the Reagan Library. I did secure a large church theater (holds 1500) in San Diego were the debate to happen and a venue in Philadelphia (if that were more convenient for the participants). I would have attempted to secure the Reagan Library (I'm a member there)

Tom Woods accepted immediately and I was deleted from Mark Levin's Facebook page. That action led me to believe that Levin was declining.

I am affiliated with a Southern California tea party group and, while I would have loved to make it the "sponsor", the idea was completely spontaneous and "in the moment". Had Levin accepted, I would have pulled this off.

As an interesting side note, I have read, listen to, follow, and respect both gentlemen a lot. Levin treated Woods like a school boy and that annoyed me. In my opinion, Tom's most recent LRC blog post proves that Levin failed to cite any source which would support his position.

Brian Brady

Welcome, Brian. Great opening post!

I want to thank you, on behalf of myself and many others here at the DP, for effectively using your well-placed positioning and resourceful advantage, to help bring this much-needed debate closer to really happening than has ever been before.

Your actions here have served the cause of Liberty well; and for that I am likewise inspired to seek that I might so do, by whatsoever means Providence may sustain me within my sphere of influence.

I loved the understated ending when you wrote, "Tom Woods accepted immediately and I was deleted from Mark Levin's Facebook page. That action led me to believe that Levin was declining."

Levin will never acknowledge to his self-sequestered, generally neo-con audience that any of the venue options that you secured were ever offered. Only those who read it on his Facebook page before you were deleted, will ever know. Sad.

Professor Woods has once again taught us how to face down a bully and win, without the need to lash out recklessly.

Mark Levin's pathetic use of machine-gunning character slurs and demeaning terms at Woods, and anyone who might agree with him, while answering none of the substance that Woods raised, tells us all we need to know about this petty self-serving tyrant.

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

Levin Disappointed

Two books I enjoy are "Who Killed the Constitution?", by Woods and "Liberty & Tyranny", by Levin. I've learned more from Tom's Mises lecture podcasts, in the past two years, than I did in college and Levin's speech, at the Reagan Library, inspired me to really get active in the tea party movement.

I was initially bemused with this "blog war" because I thought both men were gentlemen and intellectually honest. I can say neither about Levin after this exchange. Levin would do well to (a) apologize for the ad hominem attacks and (b) stipulate that Tom's position is truly one of an "originalist" (c) perhaps claim that his is more pragmatic (with which I would disagree). I'm not holding my breath for that.

Thank you much for the nice words. I won't be s stranger here

Brian Brady

Drats!

I've been outed!

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington

External source???

just curious.

The source was a person affiliated with a Southern California

Tea Party group. There was a battle between Tom and Mark on Facebook over the weekend and it is still ongoing. You can find it all there on Tom's and Mark's FB pages. I'm not trying to hide anything, I just don't feel right in naming names online without the other person's consent and permission.

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington

Thank You...

...for having the good manners to not signify me but I don't require anonymity. It's nice to see a courteous blogger

Brian Brady

yeah. I hope it happens but I'm not holding my breath

for it.

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

Mark Levin

Pompous Neo-con A** of the variety of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

I HOPE SO!!!

Tom Woods would pwn Mark Levin.

Boy would I love to see that debate.

If Tom has accepted, does that mean Levin has actually offered up a debate?

omg

This might end in a fist fight lol

I think it will be pretty evenly matched if it does. :)

donvino

fist fight?

Tom is a libertarian and wont be a physical aggressor
Levin is a Neo Con and only wants others to agress on his behalf.

Levin is a fool. He is about as intellectually stimulating as a cheerleader. He keep spouting the same chant over and over again hoping some one will believe it.

Levin cant debate

He cant debate unless he has control of the Mic, and can sound off like a cat in a blender when ever he wants to.

Worst thing Levin ever did was respond to Tom Woods. His ratings will now sink because people will be embarrassed to listen to him.

What about this debate seems interesting exactly?

Tom Woods is an articulate, knowledgeable person and Mark Levin is a loudmouth moron. I don't think interesting is the word I would choose.

Mark Levin won't debate Tom

Mark Levin won't debate Tom Woods.